[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80354-80363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32037]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[ET Docket No. 10-152; FCC 10-194]


Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 and 
Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document the Commission, adopts a point-to-point 
predictive model for determining the ability of individual locations to 
receive an over-the-air digital television broadcast signal at the 
intensity level needed for service through the use of an antenna as 
required by the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 
(STELA). The STELA reauthorizes the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and 
Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA) by extending the statutory 
copyright license for satellite carriage of distant broadcast signals, 
as well as provisions in the Communications Act, and by amending 
certain provisions in the Communications Act and the Copyright Act.

DATES: Effective January 21, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Stillwell, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, (202) 418-2925, e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80c1ece1eeaed3f4e9ececf7e5ececc0e6e3e3aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="43022f222d6d10372a2f2f34262f2f032520206d242c35">[email protected]</span></a>, TTY 
(202) 418-2989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, ET Docket No. 10-152, FCC 10-194, adopted November 22, 2010 
and released November 23, 2010. The full text of this document is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also may be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and 
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#096f6a6a3c393d496f6a6a276e667f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="12747171272226527471713c757d64">[email protected]</span></a> or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

Summary of Report and Order

    1. The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 
(STELA) reauthorizes the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and 
Reauthorization Act of

[[Page 80355]]

2004 (SHVERA) by extending the statutory copyright license for 
satellite carriage of distant broadcast signals, as well as provisions 
in the Communications Act, and amending certain provisions in the 
Communications Act and the Copyright Act. To implement the new 
statutory regime, the STELA, inter alia, requires the Commission to 
``develop and prescribe by rule a point-to-point predictive model for 
reliably and presumptively determining the ability of individual 
locations, through the use of an antenna, to receive signals in 
accordance with the signal intensity standard in Sec.  73.622(e)(1) of 
[its rules], or a successor regulation, including to account for the 
continuing operation of translator stations and low power television 
stations.'' In this action, the Commission has adopted a point-to-point 
predictive model for determining the ability of individual locations to 
receive an over-the-air digital television broadcast signal at the 
intensity level needed for service through the use of an antenna as 
required by the STELA. The new digital ILLR model will be used as a 
means for reliably and presumptively determining whether individual 
households are eligible to receive the signals of distant network-
affiliated digital television stations, including TV translator and low 
power television stations, from their satellite carrier. The predictive 
model the Commission adopts, which is based on the current model for 
predicting the intensity of analog television signals at individual 
locations, will allow such determinations to be made in a timely and 
cost effective manner for all parties involved, including network TV 
stations, satellite carriers and satellite subscribers. The Commission 
is also providing a plan for the model's continued refinement by use of 
additional data as it may become available. Under that plan, 
refinements based on additional data may be proposed by referencing the 
docket of this proceeding, which will be held open indefinitely for 
this purpose. Consistent with this intention to refine the model as new 
information becomes available, the Commission has also initiated a 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published elsewhere in this 
issue, in this proceeding to request comment on possible modifications 
to the methodology in the digital ILLR model to improve its predictive 
accuracy as suggested by one of the parties responding to the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 75 FR 46885, August 4, 2010, in this 
proceeding.
    2. As directed by Congress in the STELA, the Commission is adopting 
a new digital ILLR model for predicting the ability of individual 
locations to receive, through use of an antenna, an over-the-air 
digital television broadcast signal in accordance with the intensity 
standards specified in Sec.  73.622(e)(1) of our rules. This new model 
will be established in the Commission's rules as the point-to-point 
model for presumptively determining the ability of individual locations 
to receive with an antenna the digital signals of full service 
television stations, low power television stations (including digital 
Class A stations) and TV translator stations. Consistent with the 
specifications in the STELA, the Commission is basing this new model on 
the SHVIA ILLR model that it adopted in CS Docket No. 98-201, Report 
and Order, 64 FR 7113, February 12, 1999, as revised previously, for 
use in predicting the signal strengths of analog television signals. 
The new digital ILLR model incorporates parameters and features 
appropriate for prediction of the signal strengths of digital 
television signals. The Commission also adopts a procedure for 
continued refinement of this model through use of additional data and 
information as it may become available. As part of that effort, the 
Commission requested comment on possible revisions to the digital ILLR 
model in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published elsewhere 
in this issue, adopted November 22, 2010 in this proceeding.
    3. In developing the new model, the Commission considered, in 
addition to the modifications necessary to enable the model to predict 
digital television signal strengths, three ways in which the STELA 
revises the definition of ``unserved household'': (1) The definition 
now references an ``antenna'' without specifying the kind of antenna or 
where it is located; (2) the definition specifically recognizes both a 
``primary stream'' and a ``multicast stream'' affiliated with a 
network; and (3) the definition now limits network stations whose 
signals are to be considered to those network affiliates in the same 
DMA as the subscriber. The new STELA digital ILLR model and its 
specifications are described in OET's new ``OET Bulletin No. 73'' in 
Appendix A of the Report and Order.

A. The ILLR Model for Digital Television Signals

    4. The Commission is adopting the methodology and parameters for 
describing the basic radiofrequency environment of the SHVIA ILLR model 
as proposed in the NPRM for the digital ILLR model. As indicated by the 
Broadcasters and CDE, the methodology in the ILLR model as modified 
over time has been time-tested and proven successful. The Commission 
expects that the new digital ILLR model will provide the same reliable 
and accurate predictions of signal availability as the analog SHVIA 
ILLR model. Like its predecessor, the new model incorporates features 
to account for the radio propagation environment through which 
television signals pass and the receiving systems used by consumers. 
These features are described in the ``planning factors'' that describe 
a set of assumptions for digital and analog television reception 
systems. Since digital and analog television signals are transmitted in 
the same frequency bands, the planning factors affecting basic 
propagation of signals using the two different modulation methods and 
the background noise level are the same. The Commission is not 
modifying in the digital ILLR model any of the parameters of the SHVIA 
ILLR model that describe basic propagation and the background noise 
levels. The planning factors that are different for digital and analog 
signals include antenna location (outdoor vs. indoor) and performance, 
time and location variability, and land use and land cover. The 
Commission's decisions on each of these features in the digital ILLR 
model are discussed. The Commission also observes that the planning 
factor differences for antenna location and performance and for time 
and location variability are incorporated into the threshold signal 
level for reception for digital television service, which the STELA 
directs to be set at the noise-limited levels specified in Sec.  
73.622(e)(1).
    5. The Commission is not including adjustments to account for 
interference and multipath in the digital ILLR model. As the Commission 
observed in its 2005 Report to Congress, a receiver's ability to 
provide service in the presence of interfering signals is not relevant 
to the field strength needed to provide service. While the presence of 
other signals on the same or adjacent channels does have the potential 
for disrupting service, the effects of other signals are a separate 
matter from the basic functioning of a receiver in an interference-free 
environment that forms the basis for the Commission's field strength 
standards. With regard to multipath, in the 2005 Report to Congress, 
the Commission finds that while the sensitivity of television receivers 
may degrade to a small degree when they process multipath signals, the 
difficult multipath conditions under which

[[Page 80356]]

degradation of as much as 2 dB could occur are not expected to be the 
norm. Moreover, the incidence of multipath varies significantly over 
very short distances and the level of multipath and its character is 
generally not a predictable factor. Further, the Commission sees no 
indication in the STELA that Congress intended that it add interference 
or multipath consideration to the signal strength standard. The 
Commission also observes that at locations where interference or 
multipath are present, consumers can often take steps such as 
repositioning or re-orienting their antenna to resolve the impact and 
achieve reception. Accordingly, the Commission finds no basis or need 
for including adjustments to the digital ILLR model for interference or 
multipath.
    6. The Commission is not adopting the revisions to the estimating 
methodology proposed by Mr. Shumate as it has not had an opportunity to 
fully explore the changes he suggests. Therefore, the Commission is not 
addressing his proposals for improving the ILLR methodology in the 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking herein. Nonetheless, the 
Commission believes there may be merit in the improvements he describes 
for the methodology for predicting digital television signal strengths 
at individual locations and perhaps more generally, and that they 
warrant further investigation as possible modifications to the digital 
ILLR model. The Commission will explore these improvements through a 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that is included in the instant 
action. It also is not acting on Adaptrum's suggestion that we allow 
optional use of the digital ILLR model for prediction of signal 
strengths for purposes of identifying unused spectrum in the TV bands 
where unlicensed devices could operate as it is beyond the scope of 
this proceeding.
    7. Antenna Location and Performance. In the NPRM, the Commission 
proposed to use the current standard for an outdoor antenna as 
specified in the DTV planning factors in OET Bulletin No. 69 for 
predicting digital television signal strengths at individual locations, 
citing the information and conclusions regarding outdoor and indoor 
antennas in the 2005 Report to Congress. As set forth in the OET 
Bulletin No. 73, the prediction model would use an antenna at 6 meters 
(20 feet) for one-story structures and 9 meters (30 feet) for 
structures taller than one story. Consistent with Congress' 
modification of the specification of the receiving antenna to simply 
say an ``antenna,'' and its concern that using the outdoor antenna 
model may result in instances where a consumer who either cannot use an 
outdoor antenna or cannot receive service using an outdoor antenna and 
is not able to receive a station's service with an indoor antenna will 
be found ineligible for satellite delivery of a distant network signal, 
the Commission again requested comments, suggestions and new 
information that would provide a solution for satellite television 
subscribers in such circumstances. In this regard, it indicated that it 
was particularly interested in new ideas and information that have been 
developed in the time since the 2005 Report to Congress.
    8. The Commission concludes that the current standard for an 
outdoor antenna as specified in the digital television planning factors 
in OET Bulletin No. 69 and on which the digital television signal 
strength standards in Sec.  73.622(e)(1) are based, at the alternative 
heights proposed in the NPRM, should be used as the basis for 
predicting digital television signal strengths at individual locations 
in the digital ILLR model. As discussed in the NPRM, Congress's use of 
the term ``antenna'' in the STELA grants the Commission greater 
flexibility to take into account different types of antennas than was 
previously available, without requiring the Commission to incorporate 
any particular type of antenna into the model. The Commission is not 
persuaded by the Broadcasters' arguments that the omission of the word 
``outdoor'' from the antenna description in the STELA has no 
significance and that the Commission is required to assume use of an 
outdoor antenna in predicting digital television signal strengths. 
While they are correct that the STELA directs the Commission to rely on 
the ILLR model recommended with respect to digital signals in the 2005 
Report to Congress, which assumes use of an outdoor antenna, the 
Commission believes that STELA's use of the term ``rely'' provides us 
latitude in the manner in which the ILLR model is implemented. Their 
argument that the Commission must specify an outdoor antenna because 
the minimum signal strengths specified by the STELA are premised on use 
of an outdoor antenna (through the digital television planning 
factors), is similarly not persuasive in that, as DIRECTV/DISH observe, 
other specifications of parameters that include an indoor antenna are 
possible while still adhering to those signal strengths as the 
standard.
    9. The Commission also is not persuaded by DIRECTV/DISH's arguments 
that Congress' deletion of the qualifiers specifying a ``conventional, 
stationary, outdoor rooftop receiving antenna'' from the definition of 
an ``unserved household'' from the STELA means that a household is now 
unserved if it cannot receive a signal of sufficient strength by means 
of a simple indoor antenna. Again, it believes that this change simply 
affords the Commission latitude to consider all types of antennas in 
implementing the digital ILLR model. Even assuming that DIRECTV/DISH 
are correct that more consumers are now using indoor antennas, their 
argument that Congress was responding to greater use of indoor antennas 
by consumers misses the fact that consumers are only using indoor 
antennas where such antennas provide service. As observed in the 2005 
Report to Congress, the Commission has always assumed that households 
will use the type of antenna that they need to achieve service; if an 
indoor antenna is insufficient for a particular household, it generally 
will rely on a rooftop antenna. Nothing in the STELA reflects a 
Congressional intent for the Commission to abandon that assumption. 
Thus, the Commission disagrees that households that are not able to 
receive service with an indoor antenna should be considered unserved 
simply because they do not use an outdoor antenna. The Commission has 
considered the full range of antenna options in developing the digital 
TV ILLR prediction model.
    10. Turning to the specification of antennas in the prediction 
model, the Commission finds that an approach that specifies an outdoor 
antenna at 6 meters above ground for one-story structures and 9 meters 
above ground for taller structures (household roof-top levels) with 
gain as specified in the digital television planning factors is most 
consistent with the directives for the digital TV signal strength 
prediction model set forth in the STELA. The Commission reached this 
conclusion for the following reasons. First, given that the STELA 
specifies use of the digital television signal strength standard in 
Sec.  73.622(e)(1) of the rules as the threshold metric against which 
predictions are to be compared to make determinations of ``served'' and 
``unserved,'' it is important and necessary that the signal strengths 
predicted by the model can be meaningfully compared to that standard. 
To provide for such comparisons, the signals whose strengths are 
predicted by the model must have the same qualities as the signal 
specified in the standard. This can occur only if the assumptions 
underlying the signal strength needed for reception as described by the

[[Page 80357]]

standard are the same as the assumptions underlying the signal 
predicted by the model and their relationship is well defined, so that 
the two represent the same conditions of reception. The Sec.  
73.622(e)(1) digital television signal strength standard is derived 
from the assumptions in the digital television planning factors as 
described in OET Bulletin No. 69 and those assumptions include an 
outdoor antenna as described above. This signal strength standard is 
important under the Commission's rules because it serves to define the 
service boundary or ``service contour'' of a digital television station 
and the threshold at which a station's service is considered to be 
available in areas within that service contour. Congress specified this 
same signal strength standard for defining ``served'' and ``unserved'' 
locations for purposes of determining households' eligibility for 
satellite delivery of distant network signals in the STELA. For these 
reasons, the Commission agrees with the Broadcasters that it is 
appropriate to incorporate into the digital ILLR model the assumptions 
in the planning factors in OET Bulletin No. 69, including the specified 
outdoor antenna, to obtain predictions of signal strength for 
comparison to the standard specified in the STELA.
    11. The Commission also rejects DIRECTV/DISH's proposed adjustments 
to the signal strength standard to account for differences in the 
expected signal level and in the gain of indoor and outdoor antennas. 
It finds that application of these adjustments would significantly 
alter the digital television service description as defined in the 
Sec.  73.622(e)(1) signal strength standard by reducing the likelihood 
that a given location would be predicted to receive service. Under the 
plan they propose, between 36.7 dB and 46.7 dB (depending on whether 
the location is in an urban area), or more, would be subtracted from 
the prediction calculated by the ILLR model for locations that do not 
have an outdoor antenna. They do not offer any additional modifications 
to the model or its assumptions to compensate for this proposed change 
in the signal strength standard; nor are we aware of any modifications 
that would provide such compensation. In application, DIRECTV/DISH's 
proposal would raise the signal strength needed for reception of UHF 
signals from 41 dB[mu]V/m to between 77.7 db[mu]V/m and 87.7 dB[mu]V/m 
for households without outdoor antennas. Such a change could, as the 
broadcasters observe, drastically increase the number of households 
eligible for satellite delivery of distant network signals by allowing 
viewers to claim use of an indoor antenna when such viewers generally 
could in fact receive service using an outdoor antenna. Notwithstanding 
the difficulties in developing a model that would provide accurate and 
reliable indoor predictions, the Commission is concerned that many 
satellite subscribers who could use an outdoor antenna would have an 
incentive to take the ``easy path'' and simply report that they cannot 
use an outdoor antenna and thereby be evaluated under the indoor 
antenna standard, when in fact they could readily receive a station's 
service with outdoor antenna. For example, subscribers located within a 
station's service area but at distances from its transmitter where 
indoor reception is not possible could simply assert that they cannot 
use an outdoor antenna and thus be eligible to receive a distant 
network signal. This would remove large numbers of viewers from local 
stations potential audience. In view of Congress' selection of the 
Sec.  73.622(e)(2) signal strength standard as the threshold for 
distant signal eligibility in the STELA, the Commission does not 
believe that Congress envisioned or contemplated such an increase in 
the numbers of satellite subscribers eligible for delivery of distant 
network signals.
    12. In addition, as the Commission discussed in the 2005 Report to 
Congress and the NPRM, there are significant difficulties in achieving 
accurate and reliable estimates of digital television signal strengths 
in indoor environments, which make it very difficult if not impossible 
to obtain accurate and reliable predictions of digital television 
signal strengths indoors. The Commission is concerned that 
simplification of indoor antenna reception to a single set of 
circumstances as suggested by DIRECTV/DISH and Mr. Kurby would ignore 
the significant differences that exist in indoor reception scenarios, 
particularly with respect to attenuation of signals due to the 
materials with which a building is constructed, which vary 
substantially in the degree to which they absorb or reflect signals, 
and the antenna's location within the structure, which affects the 
number and pathways of structural features (walls or ground in the case 
of basements) that signals must penetrate to reach the antenna. In this 
regard, the Commission also observes that in the DTV transition, it 
advised consumers of the wide variability in the performance of 
antennas generally and indoor antennas in particular in materials 
provided to the public for the DTV transition. For example, the 
Commission noted that consumers having problems with indoor antennas 
needed to check the performance information for the antenna, move the 
antenna for best reception, place it near a window, as high as 
possible, away from electronic equipment and change the direction the 
antenna is facing. Further, the Commission advised that a roof-top 
antenna may be needed.
    13. These differences in indoor reception scenarios are very 
difficult to account for properly in a model's input values and can 
also be challenging for a user of a model to assess so as to specify 
appropriate input values for any particular location. These factors 
together greatly reduce the reliability and accuracy of any indoor 
signal strength predictions that might be provided by a model. While 
the Commission understands that there are also variations in signal 
strength across outdoor receive locations due to terrain and the 
presence of man-made terrain features, including aspects of the 
structure on which an antenna is mounted, that variability is generally 
much less than the variability of signal strengths indoors which are 
affected by building materials and location within the building as well 
as the same terrain and man-made features that affect signals received 
outdoors. The Commission also expects that there would be an incentive 
for households in areas where service is not available with an indoor 
antenna to simply submit that they have an indoor antenna in order to 
be eligible for distant signal delivery when in fact they could receive 
that signal with an outdoor antenna under the standard specified in the 
STELA. This type of behavior would, to the extent it occurred, 
undermine broadcasters' coverage and complicate our administration of 
an indoor antenna standard. The Commission also is not persuaded that 
any of the options for modifying their proposed adjustments that 
DIRECTV/DISH have submitted in recent ex parte presentations would 
remedy the problems discussed. None of those suggestions would provide 
reliable and accurate estimates of indoor signal strengths; nor do they 
offer modifications that would compensate for the change their plan 
would make to digital signal strength standard set forth in the STELA. 
Accordingly, the Commission will use the current standard for an 
outdoor antenna as specified in the digital television planning factors 
in OET Bulletin No. 69 in the digital ILLR model.
    14. Notwithstanding this decision, the Commission remains aware and

[[Page 80358]]

concerned that using the outdoor reception model may result in 
instances where a consumer who either cannot use an outdoor antenna or 
cannot receive service using an outdoor antenna and is not able to 
receive a station's service with an indoor antenna will be found 
ineligible for satellite delivery of a distant network signal. This 
concern is mitigated by new local-into-local offerings by satellite 
carriers, which the Commission believes will significantly reduce the 
number of instances where satellite subscribers would need to consider 
requesting delivery of distant network signals. Dish Network now 
provides local network stations (local-into-local service) in all 210 
DMAs. In addition, DIRECTV now provides local-into-local service in all 
but 60 relatively small markets. The Commission recognizes that 
DIRECTV/DISH will still have to qualify some distant signals even after 
they provide local-into-local service in all 210 DMAs. However, the 
locations that they will not reach with local-into-local service are 
likely to be in areas with relatively small populations that are at the 
edge of some DMAs that are served by satellite service ``spot beams'' 
that provide localized service to the major portion of a DMA, including 
its center of population. Those populations are served by their 
carrier's larger regional coverage signals that do not have the local 
signals carried on the spot beams. Moreover, the areas not reached by 
the spot beams will generally be in less densely populated areas where 
there are generally fewer residences that are not able to use an 
outdoor antenna. In concluding that the outdoor antenna standard 
remains appropriate, the Commission has also considered that most 
subscribers who will request distant signals from their satellite 
carriers are likely to be in rural areas where use of outdoor antennas 
is more common and practical than in urban areas. Dish now serves all 
210 DMAs and only a small number of Dish subscribers are beyond the 
spot beams serving those DMAs and therefore potentially eligible for 
distant signals. Although DIRECTV does not offer local stations in 60 
DMAs, these are small market areas and mostly in rural areas where 
outdoor antennas are likely to be more prevalent.
    15. The Commission also observes that under section 339(a)(2)(E) of 
the Communications Act, satellite TV subscribers who are denied 
delivery of a distant network signal based on the signal strength 
predictive model or a measurement may request a waiver, through the 
subscriber's satellite carrier, from the station that asserts that such 
retransmission is prohibited. While the Commission does not know the 
extent to which stations have granted such waivers, the waiver process 
is available. It hopes that stations receiving such waiver requests 
will consider whether the subscriber is in an urban area or residing in 
a multiple dwelling unit, and therefore confined to reliance on an 
indoor antenna, and that the stations will act accordingly to grant the 
waiver request on a case-by-case basis in such circumstances. Finally, 
the Commission will remain open to consideration of new ideas, 
approaches and methods for identifying households that cannot use or 
receive service with an outdoor antenna that are predicted to be served 
by our digital ILLR predictive model. The Commission is holding this 
proceeding open for continued refinement of the digital TV ILLR Model, 
so parties may submit proposals for such new ideas, approaches and 
methods.
    16. Time and Location Variability Factors. The field strength of 
radio signals, including television signals, at a given distance from a 
transmitter vary by location and with time due to factors affecting 
their propagation. The time and location (situational) variability 
factors are commonly represented using the notation ``F(L,T),'' where a 
signal of a specified strength level will be available at L percent of 
locations T percent of the time. The variations over time are also 
known as ``fading.'' In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to use 50% as 
the location variability factor and 90% as the time variability factor 
in the digital ILLR model, in accordance with the DTV planning factors. 
The SHVIA ILLR model applicable to analog stations uses 50% as the 
location variability and 50% as the time variability factor.
    17. The Commission continues to believe that the F(50,90) 
specifications for time and location variability set forth in the 
digital television planning factors are the appropriate values for 
those factors in the digital ILLR model. While the Commission 
understands DIRECTV/DISH's position that viewers desire service to be 
available nearly all the time and that digital television service does 
not degrade gradually, the fact is that the propagation paths of 
terrestrial broadcast television signals are much different than those 
of sky-based satellite signals and this affects the practically 
achievable degree of broadcast signal availability. As observed in the 
NPRM, terrestrial signals follow paths that are close to the surface 
and are attenuated by the natural and man-made surface features they 
encounter along those paths. The attenuation caused by those features 
results in propagation conditions whereby signal strength varies 
statistically by location and time. The power and/or antenna height 
needed to improve broadcast television signal availability increase in 
a non-linear manner such that it is unrealistic to require such 
availability to approach 100%. These propagation conditions are much 
different than those faced by satellite signals, which travel over 
paths that are generally affected only by weather and other atmospheric 
conditions.
    18. The F(50,90) values for digital television service availability 
were established based on an industry-Government consensus that relied 
on the traditional TV service model that worked well for analog TV 
service and that, as argued by the broadcasters, is also appropriate 
for digital TV service. Changing the time variability factor value to 
99% reliability as requested by the satellite providers would greatly 
shrink the predicted local DTV service areas and would not reflect the 
capability of the vast majority of viewers to receive signals. 
Moreover, as pointed out by the Broadcasters and in MSW's Engineering 
Statement, the assumed 10% reduction in signal availability over time 
occurs at the outermost limit of a station's service area and is not 
the typical statistical figure for reliable reception across a 
station's entire service area. As the distance to a station's 
transmitter decreases, time availability of the signal above the noise-
limited threshold value also increases. The Commission also observes 
that households at the edge of a station's service area can often 
improve their reception (and thereby reduce or eliminate periods when 
the station's signal is not available) by mounting their antennas 
higher, using higher gain antennas, or using low-noise pre-amplifiers 
at their antennas. In addition, it is more likely that a station's 
signal strength at a household that is located near the edge of its 
service area will be predicted to be below the threshold needed for 
reception and therefore eligible for delivery of a distant signal by 
its satellite provider. Accordingly, the Commission finds no basis for 
modifying the time variability factor for broadcast television signals 
for purposes of determining a household's eligibility for delivery of 
distant network signals and therefore will specify the time and 
availability factors in the digital ILLR model as F(50,90).
    19. Land Use and Land Cover Factors. The land use and land cover 
(LULC) data provides information on building

[[Page 80359]]

structures and other man-made terrestrial features and on land cover 
features such as forests and open land that can affect radio 
propagation. Inclusion of this data in the prediction methodology of 
the SHVIA ILLR TV computer model significantly enhanced the accuracy 
and reliability of its signal strength predictions. The method for 
considering these land cover factors is to assign certain signal loss 
values, in addition to those already factored in the model for terrain 
variation, as a function of the LULC category of the reception point. 
More specifically, the field strength predicted by the basic Longley-
Rice model is reduced by the clutter loss value associated with the 
respective LULC category. Reception point environments at individual 
locations are classified in terms of the codes used in the LULC 
database of the United States Geological Survey (USGS). In the NPRM, 
the Commission proposed to apply the LULC categories and clutter loss 
values for describing land use and land cover features in the digital 
TV ILLR model in the same manner as currently incorporated into the 
SHVIA ILLR model. These values were specified in the SHVIA First Report 
and Order.
    20. The Commission concludes that the LULC categories and clutter 
loss values for describing land use and land cover features in the 
digital TV ILLR model should be applied in the digital ILLR in the same 
manner as currently applied in the SHVIA ILLR model. While the 
Commission understands the seeming inconsistency of using no LULC 
corrections for VHF signals, it has found previously that the clutter 
loss values used in the current SHVIA ILLR model, including zero values 
for VHF signals, strike the correct balance. Analysis of the data on 
the model's performance shows that using the values used in the SHVIA 
ILLR model produce approximately an equal number of over-predictions as 
under-predictions. Thus, the Commission has found a range of clutter 
values, including zero, that correspond to different land cover types 
are valid. It sees no merit in DIRECTV/DISH's argument that the studies 
used by the Commission in determining that the LULC adjustment for VHF 
signals should be zero were conducted in some of the flattest states in 
the country. Rather, the Commission finds that the 5 markets examined 
have varied terrain characteristics that are sufficient to represent 
the terrain in television markets across the nation. Also, at this 
time, the Commission is not aware of any LULC database that would 
provide more refined or granular information on land use and land 
clutter than that provided by the USGS LULC database. In this regard, 
DIRECTV/DISH's suggestion to use Google Earth is not practical as that 
service provides does not provide data on terrain and surface clutter 
variation. The Commission also will not alter the LULC correction 
factors to add additional attenuation to account for lower antenna 
heights as the model will continue to use the same 30 foot (9 meters) 
and 20 foot (6 meters) antenna heights used in the SHVIA ILLR model. 
The Commission also finds that it would not be practical to introduce 
clutter height and density factors into the clutter calculations of the 
ILLR software at this time as suggested by Mr. Shumate. Also, there is 
no height and density information available for the current LULC data. 
Accordingly, the Commission will apply the land use and land cover 
categories and USGS cluttler loss values for describing land use and 
land cover features in the digital TV ILLR model in the same manner as 
these elements are currently incorporated into the SHVIA ILLR model.
    21. Multicast program streams. In the NPRM, the Commission stated 
that it believes that the proposed digital signal strength prediction 
model would account for multicast as well as primary streams that are 
transmitted by a station and affiliated with one or more networks. 
Therefore, it proposed to provide no special adjustment in the model to 
predict the availability of network signals that are transmitted on 
multicast streams, rather than on a station's primary program stream. 
In their comments, the Broadcasters agree with the Commission's 
position in the NPRM that all multicast streams can be treated equally 
for purposes of both prediction and measurement of signal strength. 
They note that all of the streams arrive on the same signal and at the 
same strength and that the different programming on multicast channels 
simply consists of different packets within a station's transport 
stream.
    22. The Commission finds that there is no need for adjusting 
predictions from the digital ILLR model to reflect the added reference 
to network affiliated multicast streams in the STELA. The prediction of 
signal strength for a digital television broadcast signal applies 
regardless of the content, including the presence of multicast program 
streams. If a household is predicted to receive a station, then all of 
that station's program streams would be received equally. Accordingly, 
the Commission will not provide any special adjustment or procedure in 
the model for network signals carried on multicast program streams.

B. Other Issues

    23. Previous findings of eligibility. In the NPRM, the Commission 
proposed to uphold any previous findings of eligibility for delivery of 
distant signals based on the predictive model in the event that it were 
to update that model and a prediction from the updated model were to 
indicate that a previously unserved location could receive service from 
a local network station. In its comments, CDE observes that because of 
changes many television stations are still making to their digital 
operations, the potential situation arises for those stations that a 
lack-of-service determination under STELA may be rendered moot at a 
later date by an upgrade in their television facilities and improved 
off-the-air service. It asks that the Commission clarify how the 
predictive model is to be administered for those viewers who opted at 
one juncture to choose satellite service due to lack of off-the-air 
service but later are predicted to receive off-the-air service as a 
result of an upgrade to a stations facilities.
    24. The Commission continues to believe that it is appropriate to 
``grandfather'' the eligibility of households in cases where a location 
was predicted to be unserved by a local network station using an 
adopted version of the digital ILLR model and the household at that 
location is receiving a signal of that network from a distant station 
by its satellite provider. This provision will avoid disruption of the 
existing services to which households have been accustomed to receiving 
if the Commission updates the digital ILLR model or a station modifies 
its transmission facilities. This grandfathering will apply only in 
cases where the household already is receiving a distant signal from 
its satellite provider prior to a change in the digital ILLR prediction 
model or in the coverage of the local station.
    25. Analog Low Power TV and TV Translator Stations. Although all 
full-service television stations converted fully to digital operation 
on June 12, 2009, TV translator and low power/Class A TV stations were 
not required to make that conversion and many of those stations 
continue to broadcast in analog format. In the NPRM the Commission, 
recognizing the provisions of Section 205 of the STELA and that many TV 
translators and low power TV stations continue to transmit analog 
signals, tentatively concluded that it would continue to apply the 
existing analog SHVIA ILLR model specified in

[[Page 80360]]

OET Bulletin No. 72 for predicting signal strengths in distant network 
eligibility cases involving TV translator and low-power/Class A 
television stations that use the analog TV standard to broadcast their 
own programming or to retransmit the content of local digital network 
stations. In their comments, the Broadcasters support the Commission's 
proposal to continue to use the analog SHVIA ILLR model for LPTV, Class 
A, and translator stations that are still broadcasting using the analog 
transmission standard. They state that, to the extent such stations 
continue broadcasting in analog, it makes sense to continue to use the 
Commission's existing tools for predicting analog signal reception, 
including OET Bulletin 72. They state that those tools have worked well 
for years and there is no reason not to continue to employ them with 
this category of stations.
    26. Consistent with Section 205 of the STELA, the Commission will 
continue to apply the methods in OET Bulletin No. 72 for predicting the 
signal strengths of TV translator and low power/Class A stations that 
operate using the analog TV standard. It sees no reason or basis for 
changing from the use of the SHVIA ILLR model for obtaining predictions 
of signal strength for determining eligibility for satellite delivery 
of distant network signals for those stations.
    27. Procedure for Continued Refinement of the Digital TV ILLR 
Model. The STELA requires that the Commission establish procedures for 
continued refinement in the application of the digital TV ILLR model 
through use of additional data as it becomes available. In the NPRM, 
the Commission proposed to comply with this requirement by establishing 
a procedure under which it would consider possible changes to OET 
Bulletin No. 73 (which describes the model and is referenced in the 
rules) to implement improvements to the model. The commenting parties 
did not address our proposals for the procedures for continued 
refinement of the application of the digital TV ILLR model.
    28. The Commission continues to believe the most efficient, 
effective, fair, transparent and timely approach for revising the 
digital TV ILLR model if new information becomes available is to hold 
open the docket in this proceeding and then conduct further rule making 
as proposed in the NPRM. This plan is consistent with the Commission's 
past action concerning the SHVIA model. Given that the digital ILLR 
model is being incorporated into its rules, the Commission believes 
that this plan also is consistent with the requirements of section 553 
of the Administrative Procedures Act. Parties with new data, analysis 
or other information relating to improving the predictive model will be 
able to submit requests to modify the model in the instant docket. The 
Commission has instructed OET to evaluate such requests and, as 
appropriate, prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for consideration 
by the Commission. The Commission also could initiate rulemaking action 
on its own motion.
    29. Stations to Consider for Distant Signals. Under the SHVIA and 
the SHVERA, the predicted signal strengths of all the stations 
affiliated with the same network were considered, regardless of those 
stations' DMAs. That is, if a satellite subscriber desired to receive 
the distant signal of the ``XYZ'' network, then the predicted results 
from any stations affiliated with the XYZ network would be analyzed for 
that subscriber's location. If one or more of those affiliated stations 
were predicted to deliver a signal of the requisite intensity, the 
subscriber would be predicted ``served'' by that network and not 
eligible for a distant signal from that network unless each of the 
stations predicted to serve the subscriber granted a waiver. Section 
102 of the STELA changes this regime by specifying that only ``local'' 
stations are to be considered, i.e., stations that are located in the 
same DMA as the satellite subscriber. In the NPRM, the Commission 
proposed to address this statutory modification by changing the way the 
digital ILLR model's results are to be used, rather than through a 
change in the digital TV ILLR model itself that would limit the signals 
examined to those located in the same DMA as the subscriber. That is, 
instead of having the computer software for the model limit 
consideration of network stations to any such stations in the 
subscriber's DMA that the model predicts to be available, the 
Commission proposed to amend its rules to specify that satellite 
carriers are required to consider only the signals of network stations 
located in the subscriber's DMA in determining whether a subscriber is 
eligible for delivery of distant network signals. The commenting 
parties did not address this issue.
    30. The Commission is adopting its proposal to address the 
statutory change to limit the network stations to be considered in 
satellite signal delivery eligibility cases to those stations that are 
located in the same DMA as the satellite subscriber by amending its 
rules to specify that eligibility determinations are to consider only 
the signals of network stations located in the subscriber's DMA. The 
Commission notes that this statutory change will also reduce the burden 
associated with distant network signal eligibility waiver requests by 
reducing the number of stations from which a waiver would need to be 
requested. In addition, this change will reduce the burden of on-site 
measurement of signal strengths where such tests are performed for the 
purpose of determining a satellite subscriber's eligibility to receive 
distant signals.

Procedural Matters

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    31. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA) \1\ an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to this 
proceeding.\2\ The Commission sought written public comment on the 
proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission 
received no comments on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (``FRFA'') conforms to the RFA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has 
been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 (``SBREFA''), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 
847 (1996). The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of the Contract With 
America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA).
    \2\ Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and 
Reauthorization Act of 2004, 20 FCC Rcd 2983, Appendix C (2005) 
(NPRM).
    \3\ See 5 U.S.C. 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A. Need for and Objectives of the Report and Order. In this Report 
and Order, we are adopting a point-to-point predictive model for 
determining the ability of individual locations to receive an over-the-
air digital television broadcast signal at the intensity level needed 
for service through the use of an antenna as required by the STELA.\4\ 
The new digital ILLR model will be used as a means for reliably and 
presumptively determining whether individual households are eligible to 
receive the signals of distant network-affiliated digital television 
stations, including TV translator and low power television stations, 
from their satellite carrier. The

[[Page 80361]]

predictive model we are adopting, which is based on the current model 
for predicting the intensity of analog television signals at individual 
locations, will allow such determinations to be made in a timely and 
cost effective manner for all parties involved, including network TV 
stations, satellite carriers and satellite subscribers. We are also 
providing a plan for the model's continued refinement by use of 
additional data as it may become available. Under that plan, 
refinements based on additional data may be proposed by referencing the 
docket of this proceeding, which will be held open indefinitely for 
this purpose. Consistent with this intention to refine the model as new 
information becomes available, we are also initiating a Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking herein to request comment on possible 
modifications to the methodology in the digital Individual Location 
Longley-Rice (ILLR) model to improve its predictive accuracy as 
suggested by one of the parties responding to the NPRM in this 
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In its implementation provisions, the STELA also requires 
that the Commission issue an order completing its rulemaking to 
establish a procedure for on-site measurement of digital television 
signals in ET Docket No. 06-94. 47 U.S.C. 339(c)(3)(B). In the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Further Notice of 
Rulemaking (FNPRM) preceding the instant Report and Order, the 
Commission requested additional comment in the ET Docket No. 06-94 
signal measurement proceeding. We are today, in a separate action in 
that docket, issuing a Report and Order to establish the required 
procedure for on-site measurement of digital television signals. See 
Report and Order in ET Docket No. 06-94, FCC 10-195, adopted 
November 22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in 
Response to the IRFA: There were no comments filed that specifically 
addressed the rules and policies propose in the IRFA.
    C. Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Rules will apply: The RFA directs agencies to provide a 
description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small 
entities that will be affected by the rules adopted herein.\5\ The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' \6\ In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act.\7\ A small business concern is one which: 
(1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its 
field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3), 604(a)(3).
    \6\ Id., 601(6).
    \7\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition 
of ``small business concern'' in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 
632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a 
small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with 
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and 
after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more 
definitions of such terms which are appropriate to the activities of 
the agency and publishes such definitions(s) in the Federal 
Register.''
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 29.6 million small 
businesses, according to the SBA.\9\ A ``small organization'' is 
generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned 
and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' \10\ Nationwide, as of 
2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations.\11\ The 
term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as 
``governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, 
or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' 
\12\ Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local 
governmental jurisdictions in the United States.\13\ We estimate that, 
of this total, 84,377 entities were ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.'' \14\ Thus, we estimate that most governmental 
jurisdictions are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\  See SBA, Office of Advocacy, ``Frequently Asked 
Questions,'' http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqindex.cfm?areaID=24 (revised 
Sept. 2009).
    \10\ 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
    \11\ Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk 
Reference (2002).
    \12\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
    \13\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United 
States: 2006, Section 8, page 272, Table 415.
    \14\ We assume that the villages, school districts, and special 
districts are small, and total 48,558. See U.S. Census Bureau, 
Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, section 8, page 
273, Table 417. For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total 
number of county, municipal, and township governments nationwide was 
38,967, of which 35,819 were small. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cable Television Distribution Services. The ``Cable and Other 
Program Distribution'' census category includes cable systems 
operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast 
satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master 
antenna systems, and subscription television services. Since 2007, 
these services have been defined within the broad economic census 
category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined 
as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged 
in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for this category, which is: All such firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable services 
the Commission must, however, use current census data that are based on 
the previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its 
associated size standard; that size standard was: All such firms having 
$13.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau 
data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this previous 
category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms 
had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of 
$10 million or more but less than $25 million. Thus, the majority of 
these firms can be considered small.
    Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a 
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and 
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna 
at the subscriber's location. Because DBS provides subscription 
services, DBS falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. However, as discussed above, the 
Commission relies on the previous size standard, Cable and Other 
Subscription Programming, which provides that a small entity is one 
with $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. Currently, only two 
operators--DirecTV and EchoStar Communications Corporation (EchoStar)--
hold licenses to provide DBS service, which requires a great investment 
of capital for operation. Both currently offer subscription services 
and report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a 
small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, the 
Commission believes it is unlikely that a small entity as defined by 
the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS licensee. 
Nevertheless, given the absence of specific data on this point, the 
Commission acknowledges the possibility that there are entrants in this 
field that may not yet have generated $13.5 million in annual receipts, 
and therefore may be categorized as a small business, if independently 
owned and operated.
    Television Broadcasting. The rules and policies apply to television 
broadcast licensees and potential licensees of television service. The 
SBA defines a television broadcast station as

[[Page 80362]]

a small business if such station has no more than $14 million in annual 
receipts.\15\ Business concerns included in this industry are those 
``primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.'' \16\ 
The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial 
television stations to be 1,392.\17\ According to Commission staff 
review of the BIA/Kelsey, MAPro Television Database (BIA) as of April 
7, 2010, about 1,015 of an estimated 1,380 commercial television 
stations \18\ (or about 74 percent) have revenues of $14 million or 
less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The 
Commission has estimated the number of licensed non-commercial 
educational (NCE) television stations to be 390.\19\ We note, however, 
that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under 
the above definition, business (control) affiliations \20\ must be 
included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of 
small entities that might be affected by our action, because the 
revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate 
revenues from affiliated companies. The Commission does not compile and 
otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE 
stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would 
qualify as small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 515120.
    \16\ Id. This category description continues, ``These 
establishments operate television broadcasting studios and 
facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the 
public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual 
programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in 
turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined 
schedule. Programming may originate in their own studios, from an 
affiliated network, or from external sources.'' Separate census 
categories pertain to businesses primarily engaged in producing 
programming. See Motion Picture and Video Production, NAICS code 
512110; Motion Picture and Video Distribution, NAICS Code 512120; 
Teleproduction and Other Post-Production Services, NAICS Code 
512191; and Other Motion Picture and Video Industries, NAICS Code 
512199.
    \17\ See News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of December 
31, 2009,'' 2010 WL 676084 (F.C.C.)(dated Feb. 26, 2010) (Broadcast 
Station Totals); also available at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/.
    \18\ We recognize that this total differs slightly from that 
contained in Broadcast Station Totals, supra note 446; however, we 
are using BIA's estimate for purposes of this revenue comparison.
    \19\ See Broadcast Station Totals, supra note 239.
    \20\ ``[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one 
concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third 
party or parties controls or has the power to control both.'' 13 CFR 
121.103(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business'' is 
that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are 
unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would 
establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its 
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimates of small businesses to 
which rules may apply do not exclude any television station from the 
definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore over-
inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional element of the 
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be 
independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times 
to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our 
estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive 
to this extent.
    Class A TV, LPTV, and TV translator stations. The rules and 
policies adopted in this Report and Order include licensees of Class A 
TV stations, low power television (LPTV) stations, and TV translator 
stations, as well as potential licensees in these television services. 
The same SBA definition that applies to television broadcast licensees 
would apply to these stations. The SBA defines a television broadcast 
station as a small business if such station has no more than $14 
million in annual receipts.\21\ Currently, there are approximately 537 
licensed Class A stations, 2,386 licensed LPTV stations, and 4,359 
licensed TV translators.\22\ Given the nature of these services, we 
will presume that all of these licensees qualify as small entities 
under the SBA definition. We note, however, that under the SBA's 
definition, revenue of affiliates that are not LPTV stations should be 
aggregated with the LPTV station revenues in determining whether a 
concern is small. Our estimate may thus overstate the number of small 
entities since the revenue figure on which it is based does not include 
or aggregate revenues from non-LPTV affiliated companies. We do not 
have data on revenues of TV translator or TV booster stations, but 
virtually all of these entities are also likely to have revenues of 
less than $14 million and thus may be categorized as small, except to 
the extent that revenues of affiliated non-translator or booster 
entities should be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 515120.
    \22\ See Broadcast Station Totals, supra note 239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirement for Small Entities. We are adopting the 
methodology and parameters for describing the basic radiofrequency 
environment of the SHVIA ILLR model as proposed in the NPRM for the 
digital ILLR model. As indicated by the Broadcasters and CDE, the 
methodology in the ILLR model as modified over time has been time-
tested and proven successful. We expect that the new digital ILLR model 
will provide the same reliable and accurate predictions of signal 
availability as the analog SHVIA ILLR model. Like its predecessor, the 
new model incorporates features to account for the radio propagation 
environment through which television signals pass and the receiving 
systems used by consumers. These features are described in the 
``planning factors'' that describe a set of assumptions for digital and 
analog television reception systems.\23\ Since digital and analog 
television signals are transmitted in the same frequency bands, the 
planning factors affecting basic propagation of signals using the two 
different modulation methods and the background noise level are the 
same. We therefore have not modified in the digital ILLR model any of 
the parameters of the SHVIA ILLR model that describe basic propagation 
and the background noise levels. The planning factors that are 
different for digital and analog signals include antenna location 
(outdoor vs. indoor) and performance, time and location variability, 
and land use and land cover. We also observe that the planning factor 
differences for antenna location and performance and for time and 
location variability are incorporated into the threshold signal level 
for reception for digital television service, which the STELA directs 
to be set at the noise-limited levels specified in Sec.  73.622(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The planning factors for analog television assume a height 
of 30 feet, which is slightly different from the height of 10 meters 
(33 feet) used in the digital planning factors. The planning factors 
for analog TV are provided in Robert A. O'Conner, ``Understanding 
Television's Grade A and Grade B Service Contours,'' IEEE 
Transactions on Broadcasting, Vol. BC-14, No. 4, December 1968 
(O'Connor) at page 142; the planning factors of digital TV are set 
forth in OET Bulletin No. 69 at Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an 
agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from

[[Page 80363]]

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not adopting the revisions to the estimating methodology 
proposed by Mr. Shumate as we have not had an opportunity to fully 
explore the changes he suggests.\25\ Nonetheless, we believe there may 
be merit in the improvements he describes for the methodology for 
predicting digital television signal strengths at individual locations 
and perhaps more generally, and that they warrant our further 
investigation as possible modifications to the digital ILLR model. We 
are therefore addressing his proposals for improving the ILLR 
methodology in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking herein. We 
also are not acting on Adaptrum's suggestion that we allow optional use 
of the digital ILLR model for prediction of signal strengths for 
purposes of identifying unused spectrum in the TV bands where 
unlicensed devices could operate as it is beyond the scope of this 
proceeding.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See para.16 of the Report and Order, FCC 10-194.
    \26\ See para.17 of the Report and Order, FCC 10-194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the 
Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to 
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.\27\ In addition, the 
Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this 
FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis: This document does not 
contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, 
it does not contain any new or modified ``information collection burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to 
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Ordering Clauses

    34. Pursuant to sections 1, 4, 301, and 339(c)(3) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 
339(c)(3), and section 119(d)(10)(a) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 
119(d)(10)(a), this report and order is hereby adopted.
    35. Part 73 of the Commission's rules is amended as specified in 
Appendix A and such rule amendment shall be effective January 21, 2011.
    36. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this report and 
order, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, and 
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Communications equipment, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission amends Part 73 to read as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.


0
2. Section 73.683 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  73.683  Field strength contours and presumptive determination of 
field strength at individual locations.

* * * * *
    (d) For purposes of determining the eligibility of individual 
households for satellite retransmission of distant network signals 
under the copyright law provisions of 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(A), field 
strength shall be determined by the Individual Location Longley-Rice 
(ILLR) propagation prediction model. Such eligibility determinations 
shall consider only the signals of network stations located in the 
subscriber's Designated Market Area. Guidance for use of the ILLR model 
in predicting the field strength of analog television signals for such 
determinations is provided in OET Bulletin No. 72 (stations operating 
with analog signals include some Class A stations licensed under part 
73 of this chapter and some licensed low power TV and TV translator 
stations that operate under part 74 of this chapter). Guidance for use 
of the ILLR model in predicting the field strength of digital 
television signals for such determinations is provided in OET Bulletin 
No. 73 (stations operating with digital signals include all full 
service stations and some Class A stations that operate under part 73 
of this chapter and some low power TV and TV translator stations that 
operate under Part 74 of this chapter). OET Bulletin No. 72 and OET 
Bulletin No. 73 are available at the FCC's Headquarters Building, 445 
12th St., SW., Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, Washington, 
DC, or at the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Web 
site: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/.
    (e) If a location was predicted to be unserved by a local network 
station using a version of the ILLR model specified in OET Bulletin No. 
72 or OET Bulletin No. 73, as appropriate, and the satellite subscriber 
at that location is receiving a distant signal affiliated with the same 
network from its satellite provider, the satellite subscriber shall 
remain eligible for receiving the distant signal from its satellite 
provider if that location is subsequently predicted to be served by the 
local station due to either a change in the ILLR model or a change in 
the station's operations that change its coverage.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2010-32037 Filed 12-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>