Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 112 / Friday, June 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 36639

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 00–43,

adopted May 17, 2000, and released

May 26, 2000. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the Commission’s

Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy

contractors, International Transcription

Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800,

facsimile (202) 857–3805.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Florida, is amended

by adding Ebro, Channel 236A.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–14608 Filed 6–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[ET Docket No. 00–11; FCC 00–185]

Establishment of an Improved Model

for Predicting the Broadcast Television

Field Strength Received at Individual

Locations

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document prescribes an

improved point-to-point predictive

model for determining the ability of

individual locations to receive an overthe-air television broadcast signal of a

specific intensity through the use of a

conventional, outdoor rooftop receiving

antenna. This document also provides

for the model’s continued refinement by

the use of additional data as they

become available. In the absence of onsite measurements of signal intensity,

the model will be used to establish

whether individual households are

eligible to receive certain satellite home

viewing services. The Commission is

complying with new statutory

requirements set forth in the Satellite

Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999.

DATES: Effective June 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Eckert (202–418–2433), Office of

Engineering and Technology.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s First

Report and Order in ET Docket No. 00–

11, FCC 00–185, adopted May 22, 2000,

and released May 26, 2000. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room CY–A257) 445

12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, and

may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Summary of the First Report and Order

1. In this First Report and Order

(Report and Order), the Commission

prescribes an improved point-to-point

predictive model for determining the

ability of individual locations to receive

an over-the-air television broadcast

signal of a specific intensity through the

use of a conventional, outdoor rooftop

receiving antenna. The Report and

Order also provides for the model’s

continued refinement by the use of

additional data as they become

available. Under the provisions of the

1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act

(SHVA), a household that cannot

receive the over-the-air signal of a local

network affiliate is eligible to receive

the distant network signal through

satellite carriers. In the absence of onsite measurements of signal intensity,

the predictive model will provide a

reliable and presumptive means for

determining whether the over-the-air

signal of a network affiliated television

station can be received at an individual

location.

2. A Notice of Proposed Rule Making

(Notice) issued on January 20, 2000, 65

FR 4923 (February 2, 2000) addressed

the SHVIA statutory requirement for

prescribing the Individual Location

Longley-Rice model, a version of

Longley-Rice 1.2.2. At issue is how the

basic Longley-Rice radio propagation

prediction model should be refined so

that it will accurately take land cover

variations into account as required by

the SHVIA. The Notice proposed a

specific computational procedure based

on a certain database of land cover

variations published by the United

States Geological Survey. According to

this procedure, individual locations are

to be identified as lying in one of 10

land use and land cover (LULC)

categories ranging from open land to

urban environments. The computational

procedure then finds a clutter loss value

(a reduction in available signal

intensity) associated with this

environmental class for the TV channel

of interest, and subtracts that clutter loss

from the signal intensity predicted by

the Longley-Rice model. The Notice

proposed a specific set of clutter loss

values based on the results published in

a recent engineering journal by Thomas

N. Rubinstein.

3. There are three major issues to be

resolved in this matter. These are first,

whether it would improve the accuracy

of the ILLR model to assign clutter loss

values as a function of the LULC

category of the receiving location, as

proposed in the Notice. Second,

whether there are specific clutter loss

values that would have the desired

effect of improving prediction accuracy.

Third, the provisions to be made for the

introduction of further improvements in

prediction accuracy as additional data

become available. The Report and Order

also addresses certain matters of

technical detail raised by the comments

having to do with error flags and the

surface refractivity parameter of the

ILLR model. In a separate but related

matter, an independent and neutral

entity is designated that will in turn

designate who shall conduct the

objective test of received signal intensity

for verification purposes in case a

satellite provider and network station

cannot agree on a person to conduct

such a test.

4. Clutter Loss Assignment by LULC

Category. The proposal to assign clutter

loss values according to LULC category

was supported by the major providers of

direct-to-home satellite services,

DIRECTV, Inc. (DIRECTV) and EchoStar

Satellite Corporation (EchoStar). These

organizations stated that the LULC

database is a source of credible and

verifiable information regarding

vegetation, water and other features on

the land surface, and that it is widely

relied upon by the scientific and

technical communities for a variety of

applications. Engineering firms

generally agreed that this approach has

merit, at least until a more up-to-date

source of land use and land clutter

information with finer resolution, such

as Landsat, becomes available.

Commenters representing terrestrial

broadcasting interests, however, argued

36640 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 112 / Friday, June 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

that increased prediction accuracy will

not be obtained by the approach

proposed in the Notice because there are

serious deficiencies with the LULC

database for purposes of modifying the

ILLR model. Based on analysis of these

comments, the Commission finds that

the assignment of clutter loss values

based on LULC categories would

enhance the accuracy of predictions

made with the ILLR model. Therefore,

although they are not ideal, the LULC

categories proposed in the Notice are

adopted as an integral part of the ILLR.

The addition of these LULC categories

will provide the ILLR with an

approximate means for accounting for

the reception environment of individual

locations, as those environments are

affected by vegetation and building

structures as well as the specific terrain

elevation features already accounted for

by the basic Longley-Rice model. The

effect of each reception environment on

signal reception is dependent on the

clutter loss value assigned to each of the

LULC categories.

5. Clutter Loss Values. Commenters

expressed strongly opposing views on

the specific clutter loss values to use for

improving ILLR predictions. While

DIRECTV and EchoStar recommended

specific values for clutter loss, namely

those proposed in the Notice, parties

representing the interests of the network

affiliates believe that the predictions of

the ILLR model in its present form

already include the effects of clutter so

that no prescription of additional losses

is appropriate. Middle ground was

found in the comments of engineering

firms. These generally favored

assignment of clutter loss values to be

determined by further study of existing

measurement data or data acquired by

further measurement programs. The

Commission believes that the values

assigned as clutter losses should be

determined by statistical study of actual

measurements in the specific LULC

environments to which they are to be

applied. The results of a study of this

type were reported in the comments of

the National Association of Broadcasters

and the Association for Maximum

Service Television, Inc. (NAB/AMSTV).

The NAB/AMSTV study compared

predictions of all the various proposed

models with measured data to

determine the relative accuracy of the

models. The prediction at each of

approximately 1000 locations was

classified as correct, an underprediction, or an over-prediction. A

model was deemed to have made an

under-prediction if it predicted that a

location could not receive a signal of at

least Grade B strength, when the

location in fact did receive a Grade B

signal; it was charged with an overprediction if it predicted that a location

could receive a signal of at least Grade

B when the household in fact was

measured not to receive a Grade B

signal.

6. For VHF channels, the comparisons

indicate that a prescription of additional

losses would make the ILLR model less

accurate because it already produces

more under-predictions than overpredictions (a condition that favors the

interests of satellite service providers).

For both VHF and UHF, the ILLR model

without clutter corrections proves

superior to other models by making the

correct prediction more often. For UHF,

however, even though more correct than

the competing models, the ILLR model

tends to over-predict the field intensity

substantially more often than it underpredicts. This is a condition that could

be restored to approximate balance by

assigning clutter losses. Based on the

available measured data of television

signals, the Commission reduced the

clutter loss values from those proposed

in the Notice in order to make the ILLR

model more accurate. The clutter loss

values for VHF channels are set to zero

because the measurement data indicate

that larger values produce fewer correct

predictions. Thus the ILLR model is not

changed for VHF. For UHF channels,

small clutter loss values are set in order

to obtain a better balance between

under-predictions and over-predictions.

Specifically, the clutter loss values are

reduced to one-third of those proposed

in the Notice because the Commission’s

assessment of the data indicates that

this will produce a better balance

between under-predictions and overpredictions without adversely affecting

the overall percentage of correct

predictions.

7. Error Flags. In the Notice it was

proposed to presume lack of service in

the rare instances where the output of

the Longley-Rice computational

procedure includes an error flag along

with the predicted field strength to

indicate a possible error in the

prediction. No argument can be made

for the accuracy of either convention,

since the error flag simply indicates

uncertainty in the predicted value of

field strength due to the fact that the

parameters presented to the ILLR are

somewhat outside their proper limits.

The Commission believes that the best

approach is to ignore the error flag and

simply accept the predicted value for

comparison with the signal intensity

standard. Thus, in uncertain cases the

improved ILLR model will prefer

neither under-prediction nor overprediction errors.

8. Surface Refractivity. Commenters

stated that it could improve the

accuracy of the ILLR model to use the

actual surface refractivity in the

geographical region between the

transmitter and individual reception

point in place of the fixed median value

proposed in the Notice. However,

commenters did not propose a precise

algorithm or particular database for

determining the refractivity value to be

used for individual radio paths. While

it would be desirable to include surface

refractivity in the ILLR model as a

geographic variable, the Commission

believes that the effects on the precise

signal strength predictions made by the

ILLR model would be too small to make

a difference, as a practical matter, in the

determination of served/unserved status

of individual locations. Therefore, due

to the lack a precise procedure and

database for this proposed ILLR

refinement, the fixed median value of

surface refractivity is retained in the

ILLR model as proposed in the Notice.

9. Provisions for Further

Improvements in Prediction Accuracy.

The comments indicate that

improvements in the accuracy of the

ILLR model beyond those specifically

proposed may be possible either by

obtaining additional measurement data

or through further analysis of existing

data. In the Report and Order the

Commission declared that it will initiate

a further rule making, i.e., a standard

notice-and-comment procedure, to

improve the accuracy of the ILLR model

upon the filing of a petition for such

rule making that is supported by high

quality engineering studies containing

conclusions based on reliable and

publicly available measurement data.

Changes to the ILLR model based on

such additional data may be proposed

by referencing the present Docket,

which will be held open for this

purpose.

10. Designation of Neutral and

Independent Entity for Signal Tests

Purposes. The SHVIA relies on the ILLR

model to determine presumptively

whether a subscriber is served or

unserved for purposes of eligibility to

receive satellite retransmission of

distant network signals. The SHVIA

further provides that subscribers who

are denied retransmission of distant

signals may request that the satellite

carrier seek a waiver of the denial from

the network station that is asserting that

retransmission is prohibited. If the

network station rejects the waiver

request, the subscriber may request an

on-site test. To address those

circumstances in which the satellite

provider and network station cannot

agree on a person to conduct the test,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 112 / Friday, June 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 36641

1The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., has been

amended by the Contract With America

Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104–121,

110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the

CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

2 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

3 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

4 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the

definition of ‘‘small business concern’’ in 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 term which are appropriarte to the activities

of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in

the Federal Register.’’

5Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. S 632.

the SHVIA requires that the

Commission designate by rule an

independent and neutral entity that

shall in turn designate the person to

conduct the test. The American Radio

Relay League (ARRL) is particularly

appropriate in this role since it has no

commercial connection with delivery of

television services, its field offices cover

the United States, and its members are

actively engaged in activities related to

the measurement of radio field

intensity. Accordingly, the Report and

Order provides that the ARRL shall

serve as the independent and neutral

entity that shall designate the person to

conduct the test.

11. Final Regulatory Flexibility

Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility

Act (RFA) 1 requires that a regulatory

flexibility analysis be prepared for

rulemaking proceedings, unless the

agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.’’ 2

The RFA generally defines ‘‘small

entity’’ as having the same meaning as

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental

jurisdiction.’’ 3 In addition, the term

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act.4 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).5

12. In this Report and Order, the

Commission prescribes a prediction

technique for determining the ability of

individual households to receive

television signals broadcast over-the air

by local stations. The prediction

technique applies exclusively to the

sources of data for certain engineering

calculations and to the manner in which

these calculations are made. Television

station licensees, Direct Broadcast

Satellite (DBS) operators, and other

Direct to Home (DTH) Satellite operators

may use the technique to establish the

eligibility or non-eligibility of

individual households for satellite

delivery of distant television

programming. These determinations

will usually be made at the point of sale

of satellite receiving equipment for

homes and will tend to increase the

number of eligible customers. As noted

in paragraph 3 of the Report and Order,

the statute requires that we increase the

accuracy of the prediction model based

on technical data regarding terrain and

land cover variations. Thus, the

prescribed prediction technique is of a

purely electrical engineering, scientific

nature, and the Commission’s aim is to

improve its scientific accuracy.

Moreover, the changes prescribed in the

technique are small and will have only

a minor effect on the proportion of

households that are eligible to receive

distant network signals. The number of

viewers served by network affiliate

stations will not be significantly

reduced, and hence the economic effect

on network affiliates and satellite

carriers will not be significant.

Therefore, the Commission certifies that

the requirements of this First Report and

Order will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The

Commission will send a copy of the

First Report and Order including a copy

of this final certification, in a report to

Congress pursuant to the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In

addition, the First Report and Order and

this certification will be sent to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C.

605(b).

13. Pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) of

the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), and

154(j); Section 1008 of the Intellectual

Property and Communications Omnibus

Reform Act of 1999, Public Law 106–

113, 113 Stat. 1501, Appendix I; and

Section 119(d)(10)(a) of the Copyright

Act, 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(a), the rule

changes set forth shall be effective June

26, 2000.

14. That the Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

the First Report and Order, including

the Final Regulatory Flexibility

Certification, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Rule Changes

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, part 73 of title 47 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended 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, and

336.

2. In § 73.683, the section heading is

revised and paragraphs (d) and (e) are

added 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. Guidance

for use of the ILLR model for these

purposes is provided in OET Bulletin

No. 72. This document is available

through the Internet on the FCC Home

Page at http://www.fcc.gov.

(e) In the case of measurements to

determine the eligibility of individual

households to receive satellite

retransmission of distant network

signals under the copyright law

provisions of 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10), if a

satellite carrier and the network station

or stations asserting that the

retransmission of a signal of a distant

network station is prohibited are unable

to agree on a person to conduct the test,

the American Radio Relay League, Inc.,

225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111–

1494, shall designate the person or

organization to conduct measurements

based on the technical qualifications

and independence of proposed testers.

The satellite carrier and network station

shall propose testers and provide their

qualifications in writing to the

American Radio Relay League (ARRL).

Individuals may also volunteer

themselves as testers by submitting their

qualifications to the ARRL. The ARRL

can be reached by telephone at 860–

594–0200, or email at hq@arrl.org.

[FR Doc. 00–14536 Filed 6–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U