80354 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

State and location Community 

No. 

Effective date authorization/cancellation of 

sale of flood insurance in community 

Current effective 

map date 

Date certain 

Federal assistance no longer 

available in 

SFHAs 

Wells, City of, Cherokee County ........... 480741 February 4, 1991, Emerg; June 1, 1991, 

Reg; January 6, 2011, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Yorktown, City of, DeWitt County .......... 480197 January 16, 1974, Emerg; March 1, 1987, 

Reg; January 6, 2011, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Region VII 

Iowa: 

Anita, City of, Cass County ................... 190048 April 11, 1975, Emerg; June 17, 1986, Reg; 

January 6, 2011, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Atlantic, City of, Cass County ............... 190049 July 8, 1975, Emerg; August 5, 1986, Reg; 

January 6, 2011, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Cass County, Unincorporated Areas ..... 190852 August 25, 1975, Emerg; September 1, 

1986, Reg; January 6, 2011, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Lewis, City of, Cass County .................. 190347 October 26, 1976, Emerg; August 26, 1977, 

Reg; January 6, 2011, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Marne, City of, Cass County ................. 190348 September 11, 2008, Emerg; January 6, 

2011, Reg; January 6, 2011, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Massena, City of, Cass County ............. 190349 January 15, 2008, Emerg; January 6, 2011, 

Reg; January 6, 2011, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Missouri: 

Calhoun, City of, Henry County ............ 290622 November 7, 1975, Emerg; August 19, 

1985, Reg; January 6, 2011, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Cedar County, Unincorporated Areas ... 290791 N/A, Emerg; April 11, 2006, Reg; January 

6, 2011, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Clinton, City of, Henry County ............... 290155 June 25, 1975, Emerg; July 4, 1988, Reg; 

January 6, 2011, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Henry County, Unincorporated Areas ... 290804 January 29, 2007, Emerg; January 6, 2011, 

Reg; January 6, 2011, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Stockton, City of, Cedar County ............ 290667 N/A, Emerg; September 25, 2003, Reg; 

January 6, 2011, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Windsor, City of, Henry County ............. 290156 March 30, 1976, Emerg; September 18, 

1985, Reg; January 6, 2011, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Region IX 

California: Gridley, City of, Butte County 060019 N/A, Emerg; April 25, 1997, Reg; January 

6, 2011, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

*do = Ditto. 

Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension. 

Dated: December 7, 2010. 

Sandra K. Knight, 

Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administrator, Mitigation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32106 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

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: Alan.Stillwell@fcc.gov, 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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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-topoint 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 § 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 

§ 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
80356 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 

§ 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 dBμV/m to 

between 77.7 dbμV/m and 87.7 dBμV/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 § 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
80358 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 localinto-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 industryGovernment 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 LongleyRice 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 underpredictions. 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 fullservice 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
80360 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 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). 

3See 5 U.S.C. 604. 

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. 

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

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 80361 

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. 

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). 

13U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the 

United States: 2006, Section 8, page 272, Table 415. 

14We 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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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 SBArecognized 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
80362 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

15See 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. 

17See 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/. 

18We 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. 

19See 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). 

21See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 515120. 

22See Broadcast Station Totals, supra note 239. 

23The 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. 

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. 

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. 

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 § 73.622(e)(1). 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 80363 

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

25See para.16 of the Report and Order, FCC 10– 

194. 

26See para.17 of the Report and Order, FCC 10– 

194. 

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

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities.24

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

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. 

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 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends Part 73 to read as 

follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

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

and 339. 

■ 2. Section 73.683 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES