Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 72763 

Polymer CAS No. 

Styrene, copolymers with acrylic acid and/or methacrylic acid, with none and/or one or more of the following monomers: Acrylamidopropyl methyl sulfonic acid, methallyl sulfonic acid, 3-sulfopropyl acrylate, 3-sulfopropyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl acrylate, hydroxyethyl methacrylate, and/or hydroxyethyl acrylate; 

and its sodium, potassium, ammonium, monoethanolamine, and triethanolamine salts None 

Styrene, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, butyl acrylate copolymer 30795–23–4 

Styrene-2-ethylhexyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate-2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid graft copolymer None 

Styrene-maleic anhydride copolymer None 

Styrene-maleic anhydride copolymer, ester derivative None 

Tetradecyl acrylate-acrylic acid copolymer None 

Tetraethoxysilane, polymer with hexamethyldisiloxane 104133–09–7 

a-[p-(1,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl)phenyl] poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene); the 

poly(oxypropylene) content averages 25 moles, the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 40 moles None 

a-[2,4,6-Tris[1-(phenyl)ethyl]phenyl]-omega-hydroxy poly(oxyethylene) poly(oxypropylene) copolymer, the 

poly(oxypropylene) content averages 2-8 moles, the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 16-30 moles None 

Urea-formaldehyde copolymer 9011–05–6 

Vinyl acetate-allyl acetate-monomethyl maleate copolymer None 

Vinyl acetate-ethylene copolymer 24937–78–8 

Vinyl acetate polymer with none and/or one or more of the following monomers: Ethylene, propylene, N-methyl acrylamide, acrylamide, monoethyl maleate, diethyl maleate, monooctyl maleate, dioctyl maleate, maleic anhydride, maleic acid, octyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, methyl acrylate, acrylic acid, octyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, methyl methacrylate, methacrylic acid, carboxyethyl acrylate, and diallyl phthalate; and 

their corresponding sodium, potassium, ammonium, isopropylamine, triethylamine, monoethanolamine and/or triethanolamine salts None 

Vinyl acetate-vinyl alcohol-alkyl lactone copolymer None 

Vinyl alcohol-disodium itaconate copolymer None 

Vinyl alcohol-vinyl acetate copolymer, benzaldehyde-o-sodium sulfonate condensate None 

Vinyl alcohol-vinyl acetate-monomethyl maleate, sodium salt-maleic acid, disodium salt-gamma-butyrolactone acetic 

acid, sodium salt copolymer None 

Vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymers None 

Vinyl pyrrolidone-acrylic acid copolymer 28062–44–4 

Vinyl pyrrolidone-dimethylaminoethylmethacrylate copolymer 30581–59–0 

Vinyl pyrrolidone-styrene copolymer 25086–29–7 

[FR Doc. 05–23667 Filed 12–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 05–312; FCC 05–192] 

Digital Television Distributed 

Transmission System Technologies; 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission proposes rules that will 

permit television broadcast licensees to 

use a distributed transmission system 

(‘‘DTS’’) in lieu of a single-transmitter to 

operate their television broadcast 

stations. The proposed rules will apply 

with respect to existing authorized 

facilities and to use of DTS after 

establishment of the new DTV Table of 

Allotments, which may afford stations 

the opportunity to apply to maximize 

their service areas after the end of our 

current freeze on the filing of most 

applications. 

DATES: Comments for this proceeding 

are due on or before February 6, 2006; 

reply comments are due on or before 

March 7, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 05–312, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

72764 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Evan Baranoff, 

Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov of the Media 

Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–

2120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 05–

192, adopted on November 3, 2005, and 

released on November 4, 2005. The full 

text of this document is available for 

public inspection and copying during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., CY–A257, Washington DC, 

20554. These documents will also be 

available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ 

or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text 

may be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

This NPRM has been analyzed with 

respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) and contains modified 

information collection requirements. 

These modified requirements of FCC 

Forms 301 and 302–DTV will be 

published in a separate Federal Register 

notice. 

Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

I. Introduction 

1. In the Second DTV Periodic Report 

and Order, we approved in principle the 

use of distributed transmission system 

(DTS) technologies but deferred to a 

separate proceeding the development of 

rules for DTS operation and the 

examination of several policy issues 

related to its use. (See Second Periodic 

Review of the Commission’s Rules and 

Policies Affecting the Conversion to 

Digital Television, 69 FR 59500, October 

4, 2004, (Second DTV Periodic Report 

and Order)). With this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we now 

examine the issues related to the use of 

DTS and propose rules for future DTS 

operation. The rules we propose will 

apply with respect to existing 

authorized facilities and to use of DTS 

after establishment of the new DTV 

Table of Allotments, which may afford 

stations the opportunity to apply to 

maximize their service areas after our 

current freeze on the filing of most 

applications. In addition, we issue a 

Clarification Order, which is published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register, to clarify the interim rules 

established in the Second DTV Periodic 

Report and Order, which will continue 

to be available for stations that wish to 

apply to use DTS technology during the 

pendency of this rulemaking 

proceeding. 

II. Background 

2. In the Second DTV Periodic NPRM 

in MB Docket No. 03–15, we sought 

comment on whether we should permit 

DTV stations to use DTS technologies. 

(See Second Periodic Review of the 

Commission’s Rules and Policies 

Affecting the Conversion to Digital 

Television, MB Docket No. 03–15, 68 FR 

7737, February 18, 2003, (Second DTV 

Periodic NPRM).). A DTV distributed 

transmission system would employ 

multiple synchronized transmitters 

spread around a station’s service area. 

Each transmitter would broadcast the 

station’s DTV signal on the same 

channel, relying on the performance of 

‘‘adaptive equalizer’’ circuitry in DTV 

receivers to cancel or combine the 

multiple signals plus any reflected 

signals to produce a single signal. Such 

distributed transmitters could be 

considered to be similar to analog TV 

booster stations, a secondary, low power 

service used to fill in unserved areas in 

the parent station’s coverage area, but 

DTV technology has the ability to enable 

this type of operation in a much more 

efficient manner. For analog TV 

boosters, in contrast to DTV DTS 

operation, significant self-interference 

will occur unless there is substantial 

terrain blocking the arrival of multiple 

signals into the same area (for example, 

interference will occur if one signal 

arrives from the primary analog station 

directly and a second signal arrives from 

a booster station). 

3. We received 18 comments in the 

Second DTV Periodic Report and Order 

relating to the use of DTS, with the 

parties generally supporting use of this 

technology. We agreed with the 

generally supportive comments that 

DTS technology offers potential benefits 

to the public and noted the encouraging, 

though limited, reports of the 

technology tested thus far. Accordingly, 

in the Second DTV Periodic Report and 

Order we approved in principle the use 

of DTS technology, set forth interim 

guidelines, and committed to undertake 

a rulemaking proceeding to adopt rules 

for DTS operations. We now initiate that 

rulemaking to propose rules for future 

DTS operation, seek further comment on 

DTS operations and clarify certain 

aspects of the interim rules established 

in the Second DTV Periodic Report and 

Order. 

III. Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking 

4. In this NPRM, we consider the 

comments received in the Second DTV 

Periodic proceeding and propose rules 

for future DTS operation. Specifically, 

we propose to permit DTV station 

licensees and permittees to use DTS 

technologies where feasible in place of 

a single transmitter to provide service as 

authorized. Requests for DTS operation 

and any associated issues may be 

addressed under our interim policy 

until this rulemaking is completed and 

we have implemented the necessary 

revisions to our processing software. 

Requests for DTS operation that would 

involve an extension of authorized 

coverage will not be accepted until the 

freeze is lifted. For purposes of this 

discussion, we anticipate that most 

stations would focus on DTS operations 

that would be employed after we lift our 

current freeze on the filing of most 

applications, which was imposed until 

we complete the new DTV Table of 

Allotments. The Second DTV Periodic 

Report and Order imposed this freeze to 

limit expansion of coverage that would 

interfere with maintaining a stable 

database throughout the channel 

election and allotment process. 

A. Comments Received in the Second 

DTV Periodic Review 

5. The rules and policies we propose 

in this NPRM are premised, in part, on 

the comments submitted in response to 

the Second DTV Periodic NPRM. 

Although not affording an adequate 

basis on which to adopt final rules, the 

record in the Second DTV Periodic 

proceeding suggests many potential 

benefits of DTS, such as uniform signal 

levels throughout a licensee’s service 

area, the ability to operate at reduced 

power to achieve the same coverage, a 

reduced likelihood of causing 

interference to neighboring licensees, an 

ability to overcome terrain limitations, 

and more reliable indoor reception. 

Merrill Weiss Group (MWG), the 

principal proponent of DTS, cited DTS’

potential for improving spectrum 

efficiency by enabling increased levels 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 72765 

of service while maintaining or reducing 

the levels of interference. MWG has 

patent interests in the technology 

contained in the Transmitter 

Synchronization Standard recently 

approved by the ATSC. MWG has 

committed to the ATSC to license its 

technology under reasonable terms and 

conditions without unfair 

discrimination to all parties that 

demonstrate financial resources to meet 

their obligations. MWG also indicated 

that urban area service can be improved 

by DTS transmitting antennas being 

closer to receivers so that higher signal 

levels are made available from multiple 

directions, which can enable reception 

with set-top antennas instead of roofmounted antennas. MWG claimed that 

DTS will often use shorter towers that 

may avoid zoning problems and that 

they can be located to overcome 

obstacles of rough terrain in some 

markets and urban canyons in others. 

Finally, MWG suggested that DTS 

transmitters can help make a staged 

rollout of maximized service possible. 

In joint comments, the Association for 

Maximum Service Television (MSTV) 

and the National Association of 

Broadcasters (NAB) supported quick 

Commission action to allow DTS. 

6. Others specifically supported 

MWG, including Axcera, a manufacturer 

of transmitters and related equipment, 

WPSX/Penn State Public Broadcasting 

(WPSX/Penn State), which has an 

experimental authorization to test 

distributed transmission technology, 

and Tribune Broadcasting Company 

(Tribune) and Golden Orange 

Broadcasting (Golden Orange), TV 

licensees that face specific situations 

where they may want to use DTS 

technology. Others, such as 

transmission equipment manufacturer 

Harris Corporation (Harris) and Siete 

Grande Television, Inc. (Siete Grande), 

which operates four analog channel 7 

transmitters covering different parts of 

Puerto Rico, also supported allowing 

DTS. Ronald Brey (Brey), a TV 

consumer, and Thomas C. Smith 

(Smith), a TV broadcast technician, each 

expressed concern that not enough is 

known about the performance of DTS 

technology and that increased 

interference could be caused. 

7. As noted in the Second DTV 

Periodic Report and Order, the record 

did not provide information on the 

practical operation of DTS technology. 

Consequently, we seek additional 

comment here on the use of DTS 

technologies, as well as on the asserted 

benefits of this technology. Specifically, 

we seek comment on how DTS 

operation will serve the public interest 

and on how such operation will 

advance the DTV transition. We also 

seek comment on the impact of allowing 

the use of DTS technologies. How will 

DTS work with all DTV receivers, 

including small or inexpensive digital 

televisions and the digital-to-analog 

converters many viewers will have for 

their analog-only televisions? Will 

consumers, cable headends and satellite 

local receive facilities need additional 

equipment to ensure reliable and high 

quality reception as compared with the 

equipment associated with reception of 

a single transmitter station’s signal? Will 

DTS operation impact the service 

provided by traditional singletransmitter stations? What, if any, is the 

burden on local communities in 

permitting DTS operation? Will DTS 

operation require the erection of 

multiple telecommunications towers 

rather than collocation on existing 

towers? How will the timing of the 

build-out of digital service be affected 

by DTS? How will DTS affect the costs 

experienced by licensees? How will 

DTS technology impact small business 

broadcasters? 

B. Regulatory Status 

8. In the Second DTV Periodic NPRM, 

we asked whether DTS facilities should 

have primary or secondary regulatory 

status. We propose to afford primary 

regulatory status to the multiple 

transmitters used in DTS within the 

areas that such DTS transmitters are 

authorized to serve. The record in MB 

Docket 03–15 supports the grant of 

primary status to DTS transmitters used 

to serve a DTV station’s authorized 

service area. MWG, among others, urges 

that primary status should be afforded 

to achieve at least the same maximized 

coverage that a DTV station would be 

able to achieve from a single transmitter 

and that DTS stations should not be 

required to protect secondary low power 

TV and TV translator stations within 

whatever allowable coverage area the 

Commission establishes. 

9. Based on the comments received 

thus far, we believe DTS would 

facilitate the digital transition, and we 

agree with commenters that primary 

status within a licensee’s service area is 

essential to obtain the benefits of 

spectrum efficiency offered by DTS 

techniques. The anticipated benefits 

include reaching populations that 

would not otherwise be served by 

conventional means. A station would be 

able to design its arrangement of DTS 

transmitters so that it reaches populated 

areas that have been obstructed by 

terrain or buildings from prior direct 

reception of its signal. It could also 

provide a potentially viable alternative 

to stations whose single-tower proposals 

may have been stymied by tower height 

and placement limits associated with 

aeronautical safety or local zoning 

concerns. DTS techniques are expected 

to enable increased levels of service 

while at the same time maintaining or 

reducing the levels of interference. DTS 

offers an opportunity to licensees to 

provide better service within their 

coverage area, while minimizing the 

preclusive impact on existing and future 

surrounding stations. 

10. Primary status for DTS 

transmitters is needed to protect this 

increased service. Without primary 

status, stations would be encouraged to 

use the less efficient conventional 

means (i.e., increased power) to expand 

their service or would not enhance their 

service at all. If we require a station to 

give up primary status to any significant 

portion of its potential service 

population in order to implement DTS, 

we believe that few, if any stations 

would opt for this technology. In 

granting primary status, we propose to 

license such DTS transmitters under 47 

CFR part 73 of the rules. We seek 

comment on the anticipated benefits of 

DTS and our tentative conclusion to 

provide primary status within a 

licensee’s service area, as described 

below. We intend to use application 

filing and processing procedures similar 

to the current procedures. We seek 

comment on these rules and procedures. 

C. Location and Service Area 

11. Licensees that opt to use DTS in 

lieu of the traditional single transmitter 

should be allowed to apply for facilities 

to serve an area generally comparable to 

the area they could cover with a single 

transmitter. We believe we should 

balance the primary coverage rights 

between stations choosing to employ 

DTS and those choosing not to do so. In 

general, we do not believe that stations 

employing DTS technology should be 

afforded dramatically expanded primary 

coverage rights. Such special treatment 

is not necessary to implement DTS 

service. Accordingly, we propose to 

limit the area that a station can serve 

from its DTS operation to the equivalent 

of the area it could serve using a singletransmitter. 

12. MWG offered two alternative 

approaches to this issue in its comments 

in MB Docket 03–15. One approach 

would allow DTS transmitters and the 

service they provide to be located 

anywhere within the designated market 

area (DMA) in which the station is 

located. This ‘‘DMA approach’’ would 

allow broadcasters to expand their DTS 

service to cover their DMA limited only 

by the requirement that they do not 

cause unacceptable interference to 

72766 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

another licensee. The other approach 

offered by MWG would allow DTS 

transmitters to be located within a 

station’s ‘‘theoretically maximized DTV 

service contour.’’ MWG describes the 

‘‘theoretically maximized DTV service 

contour’’ as being based at the station’s 

DTV allotment reference coordinates, 

with the coverage contour extended to 

correspond to the coverage that would 

be achieved if the station were 

authorized at the maximum effective 

radiated power and antenna height 

specified in the Commission rules. In 

addition, MWG suggests that a station 

with an authorization at a transmitter 

location different from the DTV 

allotment reference coordinates should 

be allowed to locate its DTS transmitters 

within the combination of the 

authorized coverage contour and the 

‘‘theoretically maximized DTV service 

contour.’’ This ‘‘maximized DTV 

contour’’ approach would also allow a 

DTS transmitter to extend service. In 

MWG’s proposal, if a station is allowed 

a DTS transmitter site that is 60 miles 

from its reference site, the service from 

that DTS transmitter could extend to a 

distance 50 percent farther, (90 miles for 

this example) from the allotment 

reference point. (See 47 CFR 

73.215(b)(2)(i): ‘‘For vacant allotments, 

contours are based on the presumed use, 

at the allotment’s reference point, of the 

maximum ERP that could be authorized 

for the station class of the allotment, 

and antenna HAAT in the directions of 

concern that would result from a nondirectional antenna mounted at a 

standard eight-radial antenna HAAT 

equal to the reference HAAT for the 

station class of the allotment.’’). In 

support of both of its proffered 

alternatives that would permit greater 

primary coverage, MWG contends that 

station service contours are less 

important in DTV than in analog TV, 

being used only to define the area where 

interference analysis is conducted. 

MWG claims that using any currently 

specified contour would be entirely too 

limiting in the placement and service of 

DTS transmitters, noting that 

maximization of service is a DTV 

objective. MWG argues that, at the very 

least, DTV facilities should be able to be 

maximized to the same extent whether 

a single transmitter or DTS is used. 

13. Other commenters in MB Docket 

03–15 support various aspects of MWG 

suggested approaches. Tribune agrees 

with the alternative suggested by MWG 

that primary DTS transmitters should be 

allowed within a theoretically 

maximized DTV service contour. For 

restrictions on both DTS transmitter 

location and coverage, Golden Orange 

supports MWG’s ‘‘DMA contour’’

approach where the DMA extends 

beyond a station’s predicted Grade B 

service area. 

14. Other commenters propose a less 

expansive approach. Harris 

recommends that DTS transmitters be 

located within their station’s DTV 

service contour and not extend service 

outside that contour. Axcera suggests 

that DTS transmitters be allowed to 

serve beyond a station’s authorized 

coverage area as long as the station does 

not increase the interference contour 

from a real or theoretical single 

transmitter system that would otherwise 

be permitted. Siete Grande suggests 

limits like the analog operation it is 

authorized in Puerto Rico where each 

transmitter’s proposed Grade B service 

contour is contained within the licensed 

main station predicted Grade B coverage 

contour. 

15. We are troubled by the 

implications of allowing significantly 

greater coverage for DTS than the 

coverage that can be achieved by a 

traditional single-transmitter station. We 

do not believe it is appropriate to 

expand significantly the coverage rights 

of some stations by allowing DTS 

operation anywhere within a station’s 

DMA. Many DMAs cover extensive 

areas and the DMA approach could 

allow some stations to provide service 

into communities 100 or more miles 

away from their current station location. 

Such service could be inconsistent with 

our traditional focus on localism. If 

stations were allowed to extend their 

service areas through DTS operations, 

those extended services could conflict 

with exclusive territories based on 

contractual arrangements. Such 

expansion, particularly throughout a 

geographically large DMA, would 

subvert our current licensing rules by 

allowing a station to obtain the rights to 

serve a new community where a new 

station might otherwise be licensed. 

(See 47 CFR 73.623(h).) Disallowing 

such expansion is consistent with the 

statutory requirement to award new 

licenses through competitive bidding 

(auctions), as appropriate. (See 47 

U.S.C. 309(j).) Such expansions may 

also reduce the availability of channels 

for new stations and thereby similarly 

reduce opportunities for new stations in 

a manner inconsistent with our TV 

channel allotment and licensing 

policies. We thus tentatively reject 

MWG’s DMA approach. 

16. Similarly, we do not believe it is 

appropriate to allow stations with DTS 

operations to extend coverage by an 

additional 50 percent beyond the 

distance that a station would be allowed 

to cover if it operated from a single 

transmitter. Instead of either MWG 

approach, we believe the service areas 

of DTS and single-transmitter licensees 

should be treated as comparably as 

feasible. Consistent with this principle, 

we propose a ‘‘table of distances’’ below 

that we believe is comparable to a 

theoretically maximized DTV service 

contour. To the extent that MWG’s 

suggested approaches seek an expansion 

of service areas beyond what would be 

permitted under our rules, we 

tentatively reject them. We seek 

comment on these tentative 

conclusions. 

17. Accordingly, we propose to permit 

stations to utilize DTS to provide 

service over the same area that they are 

authorized to serve with a single 

transmitter. To that end, and to afford 

stations an opportunity to provide 

service using DTS over an area 

comparable to the area they would be 

authorized to serve using a single 

transmitter, we propose to require DTS 

coverage to be confined within a circle 

from a station’s reference coordinates 

based on the DTV service field strengths 

specified in 47 CFR 73.622(e) of our 

rules and the maximum power and 

antenna height restrictions specified in 

47 CFR 73.622(f). Also, zones are 

defined in 47 CFR 73.609. Zone 1 is 

generally the more heavily populated 

states in the northeast U.S. (extending 

west to the Mississippi River and south 

to include Norfolk and Richmond, VA, 

while excluding northern sections of 

Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, 

Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine). 

This approach is based on a set of 

distances from stations’ reference points 

that reflect DTV stations’ potential 

maximized facilities, generally allowing 

stations using DTS to achieve the 

coverage that would be achieved if the 

station were authorized at the maximum 

effective radiated power and antenna 

height specified in the Commission’s 

rules. (See 47 CFR 73.622). We believe 

using this limited set of distances 

instead of individual calculation of the 

theoretically maximized DTV service 

contours as suggested by MWG will 

simplify determinations of allowable 

DTS coverage areas and will offer equal 

treatment of similarly situated stations. 

The approaches for DTS that we are 

considering and offering for comment 

are intended for use with respect to 

currently authorized facilities that 

licensees have certified in the channel 

election process and for future facilities 

changes that may be authorized after the 

freeze is lifted and new applications are 

filed. No station is automatically 

entitled to use the areas described by 

the parameters set forth in this chart to 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 72767 

provide DTS. Rather, DTS stations, like 

single-transmitter stations, can apply to 

use these areas to request authorization 

to maximize after the freeze is lifted. 

The circles described by the chart are 

the maximum DTS stations can apply 

for, and are derived from the maximum 

height and power that a singletransmitter station is and would be able 

to apply for. 

18. We propose the following table of 

distances. As explained below, the 

distances represent circles within which 

all DTS station coverage contours must 

be contained. In the vast majority of 

cases, the appropriate circle will equal 

or exceed a station’s currently 

authorized coverage contour, including 

the contour within which the station 

certified it will provide service at the 

end of the transition. The rule proposed 

will provide for those exceptional 

situations in which this is not the case. 

Channel Zone (see 47 

CFR 73.609) 

F(50,90) field 

strength ERP at HAAT Distance 

2–6 ....................................................................................... 1 ..................... 28 dBu .............. 10 kW at 305 m ......... 108 km. (67 mi.). 

2–6 ....................................................................................... 2 and 3 ........... 28 dBu .............. 10 kW at 610 m ......... 128 km. (80 mi.). 

7–13 ..................................................................................... 1 ..................... 36 dBu .............. 30 kW at 305 m ......... 101 km. (63 mi.). 

7–13 ..................................................................................... 2 and 3 ........... 36 dBu .............. 30 kW at 610 m ......... 123 km. (77 mi.). 

14–69 ................................................................................... 1, 2 and 3 ....... 41 dBu .............. 1000 kW at 365 m ..... 103 km. (64 mi.). 

We propose to use a reference point 

for each DTV station that is based on its 

certification in the post-transition DTV 

channel election process that was 

detailed in the Second DTV Periodic 

Report and Order. We seek comment on 

whether a different reference point 

should be used, for example based on a 

station’s initial DTV allotment or the 

allotment established in its individual 

DTV channel change rule making. We 

note that some stations may desire a 

different reference point and request 

comment on what process could be used 

to change reference points without 

circumventing the limits created by the 

proposed distance table. We seek 

comment on these proposals and 

conclusions. 

19. In parts of the country where the 

terrain is uniform, the proposed ‘‘table 

of distances’’ illustrates the area that a 

station could serve if it operated a 

single-transmitter at maximum power 

and height allowed by our current rules. 

Reliance on this table can facilitate 

licensees’ use of DTS by eliminating the 

need for a two-step process: First 

calculating the antenna height necessary 

to match the maximum allowed average 

antenna height and power for a single 

transmitter and then calculating the 

distances to the service contour in every 

direction based on the antenna height 

above the terrain in that direction. 

Because most stations are not in areas 

where variations in the terrain result in 

significant variations in the coverage 

dependent on which direction from the 

transmitter is being considered, the 

table shows the distance most stations 

could serve if they operated a singletransmitter at maximum power and 

height allowed by our current rules. 

20. We also propose to use the table 

of distances in areas in which irregular 

terrain is an issue. In such locations, 

single-transmitter stations’ maximum 

service areas are distorted from a 

circular coverage contour to varying 

degrees. Coverage contours of stations 

using non-directional transmitting 

antennas will be circular except where 

the surrounding terrain has a different 

average height in different directions. 

For example, if the average terrain to the 

North is 500 feet above mean sea level 

and the average terrain to the South is 

1000 feet above mean sea level, the 

coverage contour will extend further to 

the north than it does to the south. 

Where coverage does not reach as far 

due to terrain in one direction, a station 

would have a correspondingly larger 

coverage distance in other directions. In 

these cases, stations’ single-transmitters 

may be authorized to serve people 

outside of the circular coverage contour 

because the average terrain calculation 

has allowed the station to be authorized 

for a larger coverage contour in one 

direction (one that would not have been 

reached if there was no terrain issue). In 

these circumstances, stations would be 

authorized to provide DTV service 

within their authorized coverage area. 

We seek comment on this. 

21. We seek comment on the 

usefulness of this Table and the validity 

of the underlying assumptions. We also 

seek comment on the effect of such 

assumptions on the scope and range of 

the service area and populations to be 

served by stations that use DTS. Would 

this inadvertently result in significantly 

expanded areas of service beyond what 

our current maximization rules 

contemplate? Or would the result be 

more effective service over the typical 

potential area? We seek comment on 

alternative ways to determine the 

service areas appropriate for DTS 

operation, as well as alternate methods 

to determine or limit incidental 

expansion of service areas. 

22. Finally, as we noted in the Interim 

Rules adopted in the Second DTV 

Periodic Report and Order, we are 

concerned that DTS operators not use 

DTS technology to favor some 

populations within their service area 

over others, a practice sometimes 

referred to as ‘‘cherry-picking.’’ We 

propose to maintain the protections 

against cherry-picking that we adopted 

in the Interim Rules and continue to 

require that licensees using DTS 

technology provide, at a minimum, 

essentially the same level of service they 

would using their single-transmitter 

facilities. We recognize that some 

difference in coverage between 

conventional and DTS operations may 

be unavoidable, but we intend to keep 

this concern and public service 

obligation in mind when we review 

applications to use DTS technology. We 

seek comment on how best to account 

for these differences while maintaining 

that DTS systems comply with the 

requirement to serve essentially the 

same population as conventional 

systems. At a minimum, we propose 

that we would deny any application to 

construct DTS facilities that would 

result in loss of service to the 

population currently served within the 

licensee’s service contour. We note that, 

under our interim policy, we now 

consider this issue on a case-by-case 

basis to determine if the DTS operator 

would serve ‘‘essentially all of its 

replication coverage area,’’ which would 

include all viewers within the station’s 

replicated service area who are 

predicted to be served by the station’s 

current analog transmitter. We expect 

that these viewers would be predicted to 

receive the minimally necessary signal 

strength (based on the FCC curves 

F(50,90) propagation model) from at 

least one DTS transmitter. We seek 

comment on this approach, but also ask 

whether a more objective standard can 

be used to prevent cherry-picking while 

allowing for differences in technologies. 

72768 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

D. Power, Antenna Height and Emission 

Mask 

23. We received several comments in 

MB Docket 03–15 concerning power, 

antenna height and other operational 

standards of DTS transmitters. MWG 

suggested that for these parameters, the 

existing rules for DTV stations can be 

applied to distributed transmitters with 

little or no modification. MWG 

described distributed transmitters as 

being inherently limited by the need to 

meet interference requirements with 

respect to neighboring stations. Thus, 

MWG concluded there was no reason to 

impose different limits on the maximum 

power and antenna height for each 

distributed transmitter than the limits 

specified in 47 CFR 73.622(f)(5) for 

single transmitter DTV stations. MWG 

also stated that the relative powers of 

distributed transmitters in a network 

must be carefully chosen to optimize the 

service the network provides and 

should not be unnecessarily 

constrained. MWG also argued there is 

no reason to impose different emission 

mask requirements on distributed 

transmitters than those imposed on 

single DTV transmitters. Siete Grande 

suggested that each distributed 

transmitter should meet the 

requirements that apply to single main 

transmitters, including maximum 

operating power and compliance with 

radio frequency exposure guidelines 

and other environmental rules. WPXS/ 

Penn State supports the positions and 

proposed rules submitted by MWG. 

24. For each distributed transmitter in 

a DTS system, we propose to apply the 

existing Part 73 DTV effective radiated 

power, antenna height and emission 

mask rules applicable to singletransmitter DTV stations. Specifically, 

we believe there will be no adverse 

impact on other stations if we require 

that each transmitter in a DTS system 

conform to the maximum power and 

emission mask requirements applicable 

to single-transmitter DTV stations. This 

approach should offer DTS stations 

flexibility in designing their system to 

maximize DTV service while limiting 

their potential interference in light of 

the service area limitations and 

interference protection requirements 

proposed in this NPRM. 

E. Licensing Issues 

25. We propose that DTS transmitters 

will not be separately licensed, but will 

be part of a linked group that will be 

covered by one construction permit and 

license. Unless otherwise indicated, we 

propose to apply the current 

requirements and processes for DTV 

stations, or, where appropriate, analog 

TV stations. For example, the normal CP 

expiration dates will apply. (See 47 CFR 

73.624(d) and 73.3598.) We seek 

comment on this approach and on how 

to provide licensees and permittees with 

flexibility to serve viewers as quickly as 

possible but without the risk of 

commencing service in one area while 

delaying service to another area 

containing fewer or less affluent viewers 

(i.e., cherry-picking). Under our 

proposal, licensees will request 

authority to construct DTS facilities by 

filing a single application that includes 

either a main transmitter and one or 

more additional transmitters that will 

collectively use the DTS technology, or 

two or more smaller DTS transmitters. 

For example: 47 CFR 73.1690(b) 

requires a construction permit be 

granted before a new tower structure is 

built for broadcast purposes, or a 

station’s geographic coordinates are 

changed or effective radiated power is 

increased; 47 CFR 73.3533 requires that 

a Form 301 be used by commercial 

broadcast stations seeking a 

construction permit and Form 340 be 

used by noncommercial educational 

broadcast stations; 47 CFR 73.3572 

describes the processing of TV broadcast 

station applications; and 47 CFR 

73.3598 specifies the period of 

construction (but 47 CFR 73.624(d) 

specifies DTV build-out dates). A 

licensee may add to its DTS network of 

transmitters using a minor change 

application for a construction permit to 

change a licensed DTV facility, or for a 

modified construction permit to change 

a DTV facility authorized by a 

construction permit. Such applications 

will be processed in accordance with 

our processing rules and guidelines. 

However, at least one of a licensee’s 

DTS transmitters must provide coverage 

of the station’s community of license in 

accordance with 47 CFR 73.625 of our 

rules. We request specific comment on 

whether service in the principal 

community can be relied upon if it is 

provided from multiple transmitters 

(where the interaction between the 

signals from the different transmitters 

may make reception difficult or 

impossible in some part of the 

overlapping coverage areas). We seek 

comment on our proposals. We also 

seek comment on whether additional or 

different restrictions would be 

appropriate for DTS transmitters. 

F. Interference Protection 

26. We received several comments in 

MB Docket No. 03–15 concerning the 

standards needed to protect DTS 

operations from interference and the 

standards needed to protect other 

stations from interference from DTS 

transmitters. MWG suggested that 

distributed transmitters should be 

subject to the same interference 

calculations as for single-transmitter 

stations, except that, first, the service 

provided by a DTS operation would 

include each location predicted to be 

served by at least one of the DTS 

transmitters, and second, the 

interference effect on each protected 

station should be the accumulated effect 

of all of the distributed transmitters in 

the network. MWG contends that this 

approach is necessary to avoid double 

counting of the interference caused or 

received. MWG argued that the singletransmitter standards for de minimis 

interference should apply to the overall 

service and interference. MWG noted 

that allotment of adjacent channels in 

the same area can preclude DTS use, 

especially in the case of analog TV 

stations within four channels above or 

below the intended DTS channel. MWG 

asserted that the Commission’s 

interference analysis software can be 

extended to account for DTS stations 

without requiring a major overhaul of 

the program. MWG said the distributed 

transmitters would have to be linked in 

the Commission database so the 

software could consider the service and 

interference effects of all the 

transmitters of a DTS station as a single 

composite service area or interference 

source. Finally, MWG suggested that for 

purposes of analyzing interference from 

its neighbors, internal interference 

between DTS transmitters in a single 

system should be ignored. 

27. We seek comment on these issues. 

In particular, we seek comment on 

whether to calculate interference based 

on each DTS transmitter individually, as 

proposed by MWG, or based more 

conservatively on the combined signals 

of all the DTS transmitters. In either 

case, the cumulative population 

predicted to lose service due to 

interference from all DTS transmitters 

would be used to determine compliance 

with the same de minimis interference 

standard as used for single-transmitter 

stations. We do not believe that there is 

a significant difference between the two 

approaches, but seek comment on this 

point. 

28. We seek comment concerning 

ongoing experimental operations that 

might help us develop a more 

appropriate mechanism for considering 

the interference caused or received by a 

DTS operation. We note that the timing 

of introducing regular DTS service will 

depend on completing this rule making 

and making necessary modifications to 

our application processing software. As 

we approach the end of the transition, 

the key interference considerations will 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 72769 

become DTV to DTV, which relieves 

concerns expressed by MWG that 

potential interference to adjacent 

channel NTSC stations may make DTS 

unusable in some areas. 

G. Technical Standards 

29. We received several comments in 

MB Docket 03–15 concerning the 

technical standards to be used for the 

synchronization of multiple DTV 

transmitters. At the time of those 

comments, the Advanced Television 

Systems Committee (ATSC) was 

developing a new standard for such 

synchronization. (See ATSC A/110A, 

Synchronization Standard for 

Distributed Transmission (July 19, 

2005). ATSC standards are available at 

www.atsc.org/standards.html). 

According to an ATSC press release, 

‘‘The new standard defines the 

mechanisms for synchronization of 

transmitters emitting 8–VSB signals in 

accordance with the ATSC DTV 

Standard (A/53C). It also provides for 

adjustment of transmitter timing and 

other characteristics through additional 

information carried within the specified 

packet structure.’’ ATSC indicated that 

transmissions pursuant to the then 

candidate standard comply fully with 

the ATSC A/53 standard that the 

Commission has mandated for DTV 

stations, so use of the then candidate 

standard would not require Commission 

action. MWG also stated that the 

technical standard for distributed 

transmitters should be the same as for 

single transmitters and that it was 

unnecessary to add additional technical 

requirements unrelated to providing 

interference protection to neighboring 

stations. MWG suggested that the 

internal workings of DTS should follow 

the standard that was then in the ATSC 

approval process, and would not require 

Commission rules. MWG further 

indicated that the Commission should 

limit its restrictions on DTS operation 

so that necessary adjustments can be 

made without the need for amending 

Commission rules or modifying station 

authorizations. 

30. We note that ATSC has approved 

standard A/110A, titled 

‘‘Synchronization Standard for 

Distributed Transmission.’’ As 

consistently suggested by comments, at 

this early stage in the introduction of 

this technology, we do not believe it is 

necessary or appropriate to propose to 

mandate compliance with this, or any 

other, synchronization standard. 

Operation that is consistent with the 

current standard or other future 

appropriate technologies will likely 

minimize the internal interference that 

a station effectively would be causing to 

itself. However ATSC standard A/110A, 

§ 1.2 of the Commission’s rules advised 

that ‘‘* * *, while Distributed 

Transmission holds the potential to 

greatly improve the coverage and 

service areas of DTV transmission, it 

also holds the potential to cause 

interference within the network that 

some receivers, particularly early 

designs, may not be able to handle. 

Consequently, Distributed Transmission 

Networks must be carefully designed to 

minimize the burden placed on the 

adaptive equalizers in such legacy 

receivers while maximizing the 

improvement in signals delivered to the 

public. The impact on any specific 

receiver will depend upon the receiver’s 

location, the use of directional antennas, 

and other factors related to the design of 

the receiver.’’ At the same time, the 

interference effect on other stations 

would not be affected by the 

synchronization or lack of 

synchronization of the DTS transmitters 

in accordance with the standard. It is 

clearly in the DTS station’s self-interest 

to minimize its internal interference. We 

encourage stations that are using DTS 

technology to provide us with data on 

the performance of the technology and 

the extent to which internal interference 

is minimized. 

31. We note that stations must comply 

with the ATSC standards for digital 

television. We do not intend to require 

compliance with a particular 

synchronization standard, provided that 

the synchronization technology used is 

effective and otherwise consistent with 

our rules (47 CFR 73.682(d); ATSC A/ 

53B, Standard: Digital Television 

Standard, Revision B with Amendments 

1 and 2 (May 19, 2003)). We propose to 

avoid requiring licensees to use a 

particular synchronization approach 

that would necessarily require use of a 

patented technology. We note that MWG 

has patent interests in the technology 

contained in the Synchronization 

Standard for Distributed Transmission 

document that has been approved by the 

ATSC. What is the likely effect of such 

patents on potential users of DTS 

technology? Would such patent interests 

adversely affect licensees’ use of the 

proposed DTS service? Does the 

Commission need to take steps to ensure 

that licenses to MWG’s technology and 

any other patented technology that 

might be developed to implement DTS 

are offered on a reasonable and 

nondiscriminatory basis? Are there 

other means of using DTS that would 

not necessitate obtaining a license for 

patented technology or equipment? 

H. Class A, Low Power, Translator and 

Booster Television Stations 

32. In the proceeding that established 

the Class A television service, the 

Commission required certain proposals 

for new or modified DTV service to 

protect Class A and digital Class A TV 

service (e.g., application proposals for 

DTV service maximization filed after 

May 1, 2000) (Establishment of a Class 

A Television Service, 65 FR 29985–01, 

paragraph 72 (May 10, 2000), on recon, 

66 FR 21681, May 1, 2001 and 47 CFR 

73.623(c)(5)). Full-service licensees 

wishing to use DTS technology must 

protect Class A stations to the same 

extent as stations using a single 

transmitter. 

33. We propose to permit Class A TV 

licensees to use DTS technologies to 

operate a single frequency network of a 

group of commonly owned digital Class 

A stations that carry common locally 

produced programming within the 

market area served by the station group. 

The market area for locally produced 

programming of a digital Class A station 

is the area within the station’s predicted 

DTV noise-limited contour, as defined 

in § 73.622(e) of the Commission’s rules, 

based on the station’s authorized 

facilities (Amendment of Parts 73 and 

74 of the Commission’s Rules to 

Establish Rules for Digital Low Power 

Television, Television Translator, and 

Television Booster Stations and to 

Amend Rules for Digital Class A 

Television Stations, 69 FR 69325, 

November 29, 2004 (Digital LPTV 

Report and Order)). With respect to a 

group of commonly owned stations, 

digital Class A stations whose predicted 

noise-limited contours are physically 

contiguous to each other comprise the 

market area for locally produced 

programming (47 CFR 73.6000(2)). In 

conventional arrangements of 

commonly owned stations, the 

individual stations generally operate on 

different TV channels in order to avoid 

interference to reception. Use of a 

common channel in a Class A station 

group using DTS technology would 

promote spectrum efficiency and might 

also provide an alternative for licensees 

whose stations face channel 

displacement. Under this proposal, in 

most respects, the operation of the Class 

A stations in such DTS networks would 

be the same as their operation as standalone digital stations (e.g., protected 

service area and permitted effective 

radiated power). As a significant 

difference, these stations would be 

interconnected and operate on a 

common TV channel. Thus, these 

stations would be authorized with the 

same ‘‘primary’’ regulatory status 

72770 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

accorded stand-alone digital Class A 

stations. We seek comment on this 

proposal. 

34. More generally, we seek comment 

on whether to permit a Class A or LPTV 

licensee or permittee to use DTS 

technology to operate single frequency 

networks within the protected contour 

of its authorized station. We note that 

the service area of a Class A or LPTV 

station is typically much smaller than 

that of a DTV broadcast station and, 

thus, Class A and low power licensees 

may have less need for distributed 

stations. Yet, there may be situations in 

which licensees could benefit from use 

of DTS technology (e.g., the ability to 

overcome terrain limitations or for 

purposes of interference avoidance). 

35. To the extent, if any, that we were 

to permit use of DTS technology in the 

Class A and LPTV services, we seek 

comment on appropriate rules to govern 

the authorization and operation of such 

service. How should we determine 

permissible transmitter locations in 

such DTS systems and protected service 

areas? For example, we envision that the 

protected area of a DTS network of a 

group of commonly owned Class A 

stations would be the combined area of 

the protected signal contours of the 

stations comprising the group. Should 

we apply the power and emission limits 

that now govern digital LPTV and Class 

A stations? We would be inclined to use 

the general approach for interference 

analysis that we would adopt for DTS in 

the DTV service (i.e., interference 

predictions based on individual 

transmitters or aggregation of the 

transmitters in the system), using the 

desired-to-undesired (‘‘D/U’’) signal 

strength ratios and other prediction 

criteria applicable to digital Class A and 

LPTV stations (e.g., 47 CFR 73.6010, 

73.6016, 73.6017, 73.6018, 73.6019 and 

73.6022). 

36. We also seek comment on the 

impact of our DTS proposals on the 

need for low power digital booster 

stations. Will DTS transmitters, as MWG 

suggests, reduce the need for such 

stations, or is there a purpose for both 

types of stations (e.g., due to differences 

in the costs and technical complexity of 

digital boosters and DTS stations)? In 

the digital LPTV proceeding, we 

declined to establish a digital TV 

booster station class. We concurred with 

commenters that ‘‘we should resolve 

issues regarding distributed 

transmission systems before further 

considering whether to authorize onchannel digital boosters.’’ (See Digital 

LPTV Report and Order, 69 FR 69325, 

November 29, 2004). In so doing, we 

noted our expectation that such stations 

would be primarily used by full-service 

broadcasters to serve terrain-shadowed 

portions of their service areas, in the 

manner of analog boosters. To what 

extent does our allowance in the digital 

LPTV proceeding for on-channel digital 

TV translators reduce the need for 

digital boosters? The regulation of onchannel digital translator stations differs 

in several respects from that of analog 

booster stations. Unlike on-channel 

digital translators, analog boosters are 

licensed only to TV broadcast licensees 

and permittees, must be located inside 

the station’s protected contour (analog 

Grade B contour), and the predicted 

service contour of the booster may not 

extend beyond that of the signal being 

retransmitted. Applications for analog 

booster stations may be filed at any 

time; applications for on-channel digital 

TV translators must be filed under the 

procedures for new digital stations in 

the LPTV service. 

37. In addition, MWG suggests that 

DTS technology can effectively replace 

networks of translators using the 

primary station channel and a single 

additional channel as part of the 

translator license. An example of such 

a two-channel scenario would start with 

a station transmitting from a main tower 

site on its original channel, providing 

adequate reception to a distance of 

about 30 miles. Communities at the edge 

of that service range would receive a 

stronger, more reliable signal from 

transmitters located near those 

communities using the additional 

channel that would not have an 

interference interaction with the 

original channel. Communities 40 miles 

from the main tower site might be at the 

edge of service from the transmitters 

using the additional channel, but could 

be served by more transmitters using the 

original channel with less chance of 

interference. In such cases, MWG urges 

that the operation on the additional 

(relay) channel should also be treated as 

primary. We do not believe that use of 

the ‘‘single additional channel,’’ as 

suggested by MWG, is an essential 

component of DTS service, and we 

reject the suggestion that it be afforded 

primary status as inconsistent with our 

desire to avoid favoring DTS stations 

over non-DTS stations, but we note that 

for either category of DTV station, we 

would permit use of an ‘‘additional 

channel’’ for a DTV translator with 

secondary regulatory status. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

38. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA) the Commission has prepared this 

present Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible 

significant economic impact on small 

entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public 

comments are requested on this IRFA. 

Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments provided 

in Section V.D. of the NPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

B. Need for and Objectives of the 

Proposed Rules 

39. The NPRM proposes rules that 

will permit television broadcast 

licensees to use a distributed 

transmission system (DTS) in lieu of a 

single-transmitter to operate their 

television broadcast stations. The 

proposed rules will apply with respect 

to existing authorized facilities and to 

use of DTS after establishment of the 

new DTV Table of Allotments, which 

may afford stations the opportunity to 

apply to maximize their service areas 

after the end of our current freeze on the 

filing of most applications. (A DTV 

distributed transmission system would 

employ multiple synchronized 

transmitters spread around a station’s 

service area. Each transmitter would 

broadcast the station’s DTV signal on 

the same channel, relying on the 

performance of ‘‘adaptive equalizer’’

circuitry in DTV receivers to cancel or 

combine the multiple signals plus any 

reflected signals to produce a single 

signal.) 

C. Legal Basis 

40. The authority for the action 

proposed in this rulemaking is 

contained in sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 

5(c)(1), 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 

316, 319, 324, 336, and 337 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 

151, 154(i) and (j), 155(c)(1), 157, 301, 

302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 324, 

336, and 337. 

D. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

a. Entities Directly Affected By 

Proposed Rules. 41. The RFA directs the 

Commission to provide a description of 

and, where feasible, an estimate of the 

number of small entities that will be 

affected by the proposed rules, if 

adopted. The RFA generally defines the 

term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 72771 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’

small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

government jurisdiction.’’ In addition, 

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same 

meaning as the term ‘‘small business 

concern’’ under the Small Business Act. 

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 

SBA. 

42. The proposed rules contained in 

this NPRM will permit television 

broadcast licensees to use a distributed 

transmission system (DTS) in lieu of a 

single-transmitter to operate their 

television broadcast stations. We believe 

television broadcast licensees will be 

directly affected by the proposed rules, 

if adopted. We do not believe any other 

types of entities will be directly affected 

by the proposed rules, but request 

comment on this tentative conclusion. 

Therefore, in this IRFA, we invite 

comment on the impact of the proposed 

rules on small television broadcast 

stations. A description of such small 

entities, as well as an estimate of the 

number of such small entities, is 

provided below. 

43. Television Broadcasting. The 

proposed rules and policies could apply 

to television broadcast licensees, and 

potential licensees of television service. 

The SBA defines a television broadcast 

station as a small business if such 

station has no more than $12 million in 

annual receipts. Business concerns 

included in this industry are those 

‘‘primarily engaged in broadcasting 

images together with sound.’’ (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.) According to 

Commission staff review of the BIA 

Publications, Inc. Master Access 

Television Analyzer Database (BIA) on 

October 18, 2005, about 873 of the 1,307 

commercial television stations (or about 

67 percent) have revenues of $12 

million or less and thus qualify as small 

entities under the SBA definition. We 

note, however, that, in assessing 

whether a business concern qualifies as 

small under the above definition, 

business (control) affiliations 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. 

44. 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 estimate 

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. 

45. Class A TV, LPTV, and TV 

translator stations. The proposed rules 

and policies could also apply to 

licensees of Class A TV stations, low 

power television (LPTV) stations, and 

TV translator stations, as well as to 

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 $12 million in annual 

receipts. 

46. Currently, there are approximately 

598 licensed Class A stations, 2,098 

licensed LPTV stations, 4,491 licensed 

TV translators and 11 TV booster 

stations. 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 $12 

million and thus may be categorized as 

small, except to the extent that revenues 

of affiliated non-translator or booster 

entities should be considered. 

b. Entities Believed To Be Not Directly 

Affected By Proposed Rules. 47. Because 

the rules proposed in this NPRM pertain 

only to the technology employed in 

broadcasting, we do not believe the 

rules will directly affect program 

distribution and, therefore, we do not 

believe that our proposed rules will 

directly affect cable operators or 

multichannel video programming 

distributors (MVPDs), such as Direct 

Broadcast Satellite (DBS) providers, 

private cable operators (PCOs), also 

known as satellite master antenna 

television (SMATV) systems, home 

satellite dish (HSD) services, multipoint 

distribution services (MDS)/ 

multichannel multipoint distribution 

service (MMDS), Instructional 

Television Fixed Service (ITFS), local 

multipoint distribution service (LMDS) 

and open video systems (OVS). 

Nevertheless, we seek comment on this 

tentative conclusion and, although such 

comment is not required by the RFA, we 

invite comment from any small cable 

operators or small MVPDs who believe 

they might be directly affected by our 

proposed rules contained in the Notice. 

48. Cable and Other Program 

Distribution. Cable system operators fall 

within the SBA-recognized definition of 

Cable and Other Program Distribution, 

which includes all such companies 

generating $12.5 million or less in 

revenue annually. According to the 

Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 

a total of 1,311 firms that operated for 

the entire year in the category of Cable 

and Other Program Distribution. Of this 

total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of 

under $10 million and an additional 52 

firms had receipts of $10 million or 

more, but less than $25 million. (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 1997. Economics and 

Statistics Administration, Bureau of 

Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1997 Economic Census, Subject Series—

Establishment and Firm Size, 

Information Sector 51, Table 4 at 50 

(2000). The amount of $10 million was 

used to estimate the number of small 

business firms because the relevant 

Census categories stopped at $9,999,999 

and began at $10,000,000. No category 

for $12.5 million existed. Thus, the 

number is as accurate as it is possible 

to calculate with the available 

information.) In addition, limited 

preliminary census data for 2002 

indicates that the total number of Cable 

and Other Program Distribution entities 

increased approximately 46 percent 

between 1997 and 2002. (See U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, 

Industry Series: ‘‘Information,’’ Table 2, 

Comparative Statistics for the United 

States (1997 NAICS Basis): 2002 and 

72772 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

1997, NAICS code 513220 (issued Nov. 

2004). The preliminary data indicate 

that the number of total 

‘‘establishments’’ increased from 4,185 

to 6,118. In this context, the number of 

establishments is a less helpful 

indicator of small business prevalence 

than is the number of ‘‘firms,’’ because 

the latter number takes into account the 

concept of common ownership or 

control. The more helpful 2002 census 

data on firms, including employment 

and receipts numbers, will be issued in 

late 2005.) The Commission estimates 

that the majority of providers in this 

category of Cable and Other Program 

Distribution are small businesses. 

49. Cable System Operators (Rate 

Regulation Standard). The Commission 

has developed, with SBA’s approval, its 

own definition of a small cable system 

operator for the purposes of rate 

regulation. Under the Commission’s 

rules, a ‘‘small cable company’’ is one 

serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers 

nationwide. (See 47 CFR 76.901(e). The 

Commission developed this definition 

based on its determinations that a small 

cable system operator is one with 

annual revenues of $100 million or less. 

For ‘‘regulatory simplicity,’’ the 

Commission established the company 

size standard in terms of subscribers, 

rather than dollars; in the cable context, 

$100 million in annual regulated 

revenues equates to approximately 

400,000 subscribers.) We last estimated 

that there were 1,439 cable operators 

that qualified as small cable companies 

at the end of 1995. Since then, some of 

those companies may have grown to 

serve more than 400,000 subscribers, 

and others may have been involved in 

transactions that caused them to be 

combined with other cable operators. 

Consequently, we estimate that there are 

fewer than 1,439 small entity cable 

system operators that may be affected by 

the proposals contained in this NPRM. 

50. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, also contains 

a size standard for a ‘‘small cable 

operator,’’ which is ‘‘a cable operator 

that, directly or through an affiliate, 

serves in the aggregate fewer than one 

percent of all subscribers in the United 

States and is not affiliated with any 

entity or entities whose gross annual 

revenues in the aggregate exceed 

$250,000,000.’’ The Commission has 

determined that there are 67.7 million 

subscribers in the United States. 

Therefore, an operator serving fewer 

than 677,000 subscribers shall be 

deemed a small operator, if its annual 

revenues, when combined with the total 

annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do 

not exceed $250 million in the 

aggregate. Based on available data, we 

estimate that the number of cable 

operators serving 677,000 subscribers or 

less totals approximately 1,450. The 

Commission neither requests nor 

collects information on whether cable 

system operators are affiliated with 

entities whose gross annual revenues 

exceed $250 million, and therefore is 

unable at this time to estimate more 

accurately the number of cable system 

operators that would qualify as small 

cable operators under the size standard 

contained in the Communications Act. 

51. 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 Cable and 

Other Program Distribution. This 

definition provides that a small entity is 

one with $12.5 million or less in annual 

receipts. Currently, only four operators 

hold licenses to provide DBS service, 

which requires a great investment of 

capital for operation. All four currently 

offer subscription services. Two of these 

four DBS operators, DirecTV and 

EchoStar Communications Corporation 

(EchoStar), report annual revenues that 

are in excess of the threshold for a small 

business. A third operator, Rainbow 

DBS, is a subsidiary of Cablevision’s 

Rainbow Network, which also reports 

annual revenues in excess of $12.5 

million, and thus does not qualify as a 

small business. DirecTV is the largest 

DBS operator and the second largest 

MVPD, serving an estimated 13.04 

million subscribers nationwide. 

EchoStar, which provides service under 

the brand name Dish Network, is the 

second largest DBS operator and the 

fourth largest MVPD, serving an 

estimated 10.12 million subscribers 

nationwide. Rainbow DBS, which 

provides service under the brand name 

VOOM, reported an estimated 25,000 

subscribers. The fourth DBS operator, 

Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. 

(Dominion), offers religious (Christian) 

programming and does not report its 

annual receipts. Dominion, which 

provides service under the brand name 

Sky Angel, does not publicly disclose its 

subscribership numbers on an 

annualized basis. The Commission does 

not know of any source which provides 

this information and, thus, we have no 

way of confirming whether Dominion 

qualifies as a small business. Because 

DBS service requires significant capital, 

we believe 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, we acknowledge the 

possibility that there are entrants in this 

field that may not yet have generated 

$12.5 million in annual receipts, and 

therefore may be categorized as a small 

business, if independently owned and 

operated. 

52. Private Cable Operators (PCOs) 

also known as Satellite Master Antenna 

Television (SMATV) Systems. PCOs, 

also known as SMATV systems or 

private communication operators, are 

video distribution facilities that use 

closed transmission paths without using 

any public right-of-way. PCOs acquire 

video programming and distribute it via 

terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban 

multiple dwelling units such as 

apartments and condominiums, and 

commercial multiple tenant units such 

as hotels and office buildings. The SBA 

definition of small entities for Cable and 

Other Program Distribution Services 

includes PCOs and, thus, small entities 

are defined as all such companies 

generating $12.5 million or less in 

annual receipts. Currently, there are 

approximately 135 members in the 

Independent Multi-Family 

Communications Council (IMCC), the 

trade association that represents PCOs. 

Individual PCOs often serve 

approximately 3,000–4,000 subscribers, 

but the larger operations serve as many 

as 15,000–55,000 subscribers. In total, 

PCOs currently serve approximately 1.1 

million subscribers. Because these 

operators are not rate regulated, they are 

not required to file financial data with 

the Commission. Furthermore, we are 

not aware of any privately published 

financial information regarding these 

operators. Based on the estimated 

number of operators and the estimated 

number of units served by the largest 

ten PCOs, we believe that a substantial 

number of PCO qualify as small entities. 

53. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) 

Service. Because HSD provides 

subscription services, HSD falls within 

the SBA-recognized definition of Cable 

and Other Program Distribution, which 

includes all such companies generating 

$12.5 million or less in revenue 

annually. HSD or the large dish segment 

of the satellite industry is the original 

satellite-to-home service offered to 

consumers, and involves the home 

reception of signals transmitted by 

satellites operating generally in the Cband frequency. Unlike DBS, which 

uses small dishes, HSD antennas are 

between four and eight feet in diameter 

and can receive a wide range of 

unscrambled (free) programming and 

scrambled programming purchased from 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 72773 

program packagers that are licensed to 

facilitate subscribers’ receipt of video 

programming. There are approximately 

30 satellites operating in the C-band, 

which carry over 500 channels of 

programming combined; approximately 

350 channels are available free of charge 

and 150 are scrambled and require a 

subscription. HSD is difficult to 

quantify in terms of annual revenue. 

HSD owners have access to program 

channels placed on C-band satellites by 

programmers for receipt and 

distribution by MVPDs. Commission 

data shows that, between June 2003 and 

June 2004, HSD subscribership fell from 

502,191 subscribers to 335,766 

subscribers, a decline of more than 33 

percent. The Commission has no 

information regarding the annual 

revenue of the four C-Band distributors. 

54. Wireless Cable Systems. Wireless 

cable systems use the Multipoint 

Distribution Service (MDS) and 

Instructional Television Fixed Service 

(ITFS) frequencies in the 2 GHz band to 

transmit video programming and 

provide broadband services to 

subscribers. Local Multipoint 

Distribution Service (LMDS) is a fixed 

broadband point-to-multipoint 

microwave service that provides for 

two-way video telecommunications. As 

previously noted, the SBA definition of 

small entities for Cable and Other 

Program Distribution, which includes 

such companies generating $12.5 

million in annual receipts, appears 

applicable to MDS, ITFS and LMDS. In 

addition, the Commission has defined 

small MDS and LMDS entities in the 

context of Commission license auctions. 

55. In the 1996 MDS auction, the 

Commission defined a small business as 

an entity that had annual average gross 

revenues of less than $40 million in the 

previous three calendar years. This 

definition of a small entity in the 

context of MDS auctions has been 

approved by the SBA. In the MDS 

auction, 67 bidders won 493 licenses. Of 

the 67 auction winners, 61 claimed 

status as a small business. At this time, 

the Commission estimates that of the 61 

small business MDS auction winners, 48 

remain small business licensees. In 

addition to the 48 small businesses that 

hold BTA authorizations, there are 

approximately 392 incumbent MDS 

licensees that have gross revenues that 

are not more than $40 million and are 

thus considered small entities. MDS 

licensees and wireless cable operators 

that did not participate in the MDS 

auction must rely on the SBA definition 

of small entities for Cable and Other 

Program Distribution. Information 

available to us indicates that there are 

approximately 850 of these licensees 

and operators that do not generate 

revenue in excess of $12.5 million 

annually. Therefore, we estimate that 

there are approximately 850 small MDS 

providers as defined by the SBA and the 

Commission’s auction rules. 

56. While SBA approval for a 

Commission-defined small business size 

standard applicable to ITFS is pending, 

educational institutions are included in 

this analysis as small entities. There are 

currently 2,032 ITFS licensees, and all 

but 100 of these licenses are held by 

educational institutions. Thus, the 

Commission estimates that at least 1,932 

ITFS licensees are small businesses. 

57. In the 1998 and 1999 LMDS 

auctions, the Commission defined a 

small business as an entity that had 

annual average gross revenues of less 

than $40 million in the previous three 

calendar years. The Commission has 

held two LMDS auctions: Auction 17 

and Auction 23. Auction No. 17, the 

first LMDS auction, began on February 

18, 1998, and closed on March 25, 1998. 

(104 bidders won 864 licenses.) Auction 

No. 23, the LMDS re-auction, began on 

April 27, 1999, and closed on May 12, 

1999. (40 bidders won 161 licenses.) 

Moreover, the Commission added an 

additional classification for a ‘‘very 

small business,’’ which was defined as 

an entity that had annual average gross 

revenues of less than $15 million in the 

previous three calendar years. These 

definitions of ‘‘small business’’ and 

‘‘very small business’’ in the context of 

the LMDS auctions have been approved 

by the SBA. In the first LMDS auction, 

104 bidders won 864 licenses. Of the 

104 auction winners, 93 claimed status 

as small or very small businesses. In the 

LMDS re-auction, 40 bidders won 161 

licenses. Based on this information, we 

believe that the number of small LMDS 

licenses will include the 93 winning 

bidders in the first auction and the 40 

winning bidders in the re-auction, for a 

total of 133 small entity LMDS 

providers as defined by the SBA and the 

Commission’s auction rules. 

58. Open Video Systems (OVS). The 

OVS framework provides opportunities 

for the distribution of video 

programming other than through cable 

systems. Because OVS operators provide 

subscription services, OVS falls within 

the SBA-recognized definition of Cable 

and Other Program Distribution 

Services, which provides that a small 

entity is one with $ 12.5 million or less 

in annual receipts. The Commission has 

certified 25 OVS operators with some 

now providing service. Broadband 

service providers (BSPs) are currently 

the only significant holders of OVS 

certifications or local OVS franchises, 

even though OVS is one of four 

statutorily-recognized options for local 

exchange carriers (LECs) to offer video 

programming services. As of June 2003, 

BSPs served approximately 1.4 million 

subscribers, representing 1.49 percent of 

all MVPD households. Among BSPs, 

however, those operating under the OVS 

framework are in the minority, with 

approximately eight percent operating 

with an OVS certification. Serving 

approximately 460,000 of these 

subscribers, Affiliates of Residential 

Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) is 

currently the largest BSP and 11th 

largest MVPD. (WideOpenWest is the 

second largest BSP and 15th largest 

MVPD, with cable systems serving about 

288,000 subscribers as of September 

2003. The third largest BSP is Knology, 

which currently serves approximately 

174,957 subscribers as of June 2004.) 

RCN received approval to operate OVS 

systems in New York City, Boston, 

Washington, DC, and other areas. The 

Commission does not have financial 

information regarding the entities 

authorized to provide OVS, some of 

which may not yet be operational. We 

thus believe that at least some of the 

OVS operators may qualify as small 

entities. 

E. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

59. The NPRM proposes rules that 

will permit television broadcast 

licensees to use DTS in lieu of a singletransmitter to operate their television 

broadcast stations. Use of DTS is at the 

option of the broadcast licensee. The 

NPRM would not impose any 

mandatory reporting, recordkeeping and 

other compliance requirements, unless 

the licensee chooses to use DTS. The 

proposed rule changes that we believe 

will directly affect reporting, 

recordkeeping and other compliance 

requirements are described below. 

60. The NPRM proposes that DTS 

transmitters will not be separately 

licensed, but will be part of a linked 

group that will be covered by one 

construction permit and license. Unless 

otherwise indicated, the NPRM 

proposes to apply the current 

requirements and processes for DTV 

stations, or, where appropriate, analog 

TV stations. The Commission intends to 

use application filing and processing 

procedures similar to the current 

procedures for DTV licensing. Under the 

proposal, licensees will request 

authority to construct DTS facilities by 

filing a single application that includes 

either a main transmitter and one or 

more additional transmitters that will 

collectively use the DTS technology, or 

two or more smaller DTS transmitters. A 

72774 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

licensee may add to its DTS network of 

transmitters using a minor change 

application for a construction permit to 

change a licensed DTV facility, or for a 

modified construction permit to change 

a DTV facility authorized by a 

construction permit. Such applications 

will be processed in accordance with 

the Commission’s current processing 

rules and guidelines. However, at least 

one of a licensee’s DTS transmitters 

must provide coverage of the station’s 

community of license in accordance 

with § 73.625 of our rules. 

F. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant 

Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

61. 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 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

62. The use of DTS is not mandatory. 

Only television broadcast licensees who 

chose to use DTS will be impacted by 

the proposed rules. Therefore, with 

respect to the issue of the impact of the 

proposed rules on smaller entities, we 

believe small business broadcasters will 

benefit from the opportunities offered 

by DTS. The record in the Second DTV 

Periodic proceeding suggests many 

potential benefits of DTS to smaller as 

well as larger entities, such as uniform 

signal levels throughout a licensee’s 

service area, the ability to operate at 

reduced power to achieve the same 

coverage, a reduced likelihood of 

causing interference to neighboring 

licensees, an ability to overcome terrain 

limitations, and more reliable indoor 

reception. Nevertheless, in the Notice, 

comment is sought concerning the 

impact of DTS technology on small 

business broadcasters. 

G. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the 

Commission’s Proposals 

63. None. 

H. Report to Congress 

64. The Commission will send a copy 

of the NPRM, including this IRFA, in a 

report to be sent to Congress pursuant 

to the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In 

addition, the Commission will send a 

copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. A copy 

of the Notice and IRFA (or summaries 

thereof) will also be published in the 

Federal Register. 

I. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

65. This NPRM has been analyzed 

with respect to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and 

contains modified information 

collection requirements. These modified 

requirements of FCC Forms 301 and 

302-DTV will be published in a separate 

Federal Register notice. 

66. Further Information. For 

additional information concerning the 

PRA proposed information collection 

requirements contained in this NPRM, 

contact Cathy Williams at 202–418–

2918, or via the Internet to 

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

J. Ex Parte Rules 

67. Permit-But-Disclose. This 

proceeding will be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding subject to the 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ requirements 

under § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s 

rules. Ex parte presentations are 

permissible if disclosed in accordance 

with Commission rules, except during 

the Sunshine Agenda period when 

presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are 

generally prohibited. Persons making 

oral ex parte presentations are reminded 

that a memorandum summarizing a 

presentation must contain a summary of 

the substance of the presentation and 

not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one- or twosentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. Additional rules pertaining to 

oral and written presentations are set 

forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s 

rules. 

K. Filing Requirements 

68. Comments and Replies. Pursuant 

to 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, interested parties 

may file comments and reply comments 

on or before the dates indicated on the 

first page of this document. Comments 

may be filed using: (1) The 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal 

Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) 

by filing paper copies. 

69. Electronic Filers: Comments may 

be filed electronically using the Internet 

by accessing the ECFS: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Filers should 

follow the instructions provided on the 

website for submitting comments. For 

ECFS filers, if multiple docket or 

rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

70. Paper Filers: Parties who choose 

to file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. Filings 

can be sent by hand or messenger 

delivery, by commercial overnight 

courier, or by first-class or overnight 

U.S. Postal Service mail (although we 

continue to experience delays in 

receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail should be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

71. Availability of Documents. 

Comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte submissions will be available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY–

A257, Washington, DC 20554. These 

documents will also be available via 

ECFS. Documents will be available 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 72775 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, 

and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

72. Accessibility Information. To 

request information in accessible 

formats (computer diskettes, large print, 

audio recording, and Braille), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). This document can 

also be downloaded in Word and 

Portable Document Format (PDF) at: 

http://www.fcc.gov. 

73. Additional Information. For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Evan Baranoff, 

Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov, or Eloise Gore, 

Eloise.Gore@fcc.gov, of the Media 

Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–

2120. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

74. Accordingly, It Is Ordered that 

pursuant to sections 4(i) and (j), 7, 301, 

302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 324, 

336, and 337 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and 

(j), 157, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 

316, 319, 324, 336, and 337 that Notice 

is herby given of the proposals and 

tentative conclusions described in this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

75. It is further ordered that the 

Reference Information Center, 

Consumer Information Bureau, shall 

send a copy of this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Digital television, Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rule Changes 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 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 73.626 is added to subpart 

E to read as follows: 

§ 73.626 DTV Distributed Transmission 

Systems. 

(a) A DTV station may be authorized 

to operate multiple transmitters to 

provide service consistent with the 

requirements of this section and other 

rules applicable to DTV stations. A 

station must comply with the following 

DTV rules, except when such 

compliance is inconsistent with an 

explicit requirement in this section: 

(1) § 73.622 Digital television table of 

allotments. 

(2) § 73.623 DTV applications and 

changes to DTV allotments. 

(3) § 73.624 Digital television 

broadcast stations. 

(4) § 73.625 DTV coverage of principal 

community and antenna system. 

(5) Paragraph (d) of § 73.682 TV 

transmission standards. 

(b) An application proposing use of a 

distributed transmission system (DTS) 

will not be accepted for filing if it 

proposes coverage by any of the 

proposed transmitters of areas farther 

from the station’s DTS reference point 

than the distance in the following table 

for the station’s proposed channel and 

zone, except where coverage of such 

areas by the applicant’s conventional 

(non-DTS) DTV facility already is 

authorized. 

Channel Zone F(50,90) field 

strength Distance 

2–6 ...................................................................................................................... 1 .......................... 28 dBu ................ 108 km. (67 mi.). 

2–6 ...................................................................................................................... 2 and 3 ............... 28 dBu ................ 128 km. (80 mi.). 

7–13 .................................................................................................................... 1 .......................... 36 dBu ................ 101 km. (63 mi.). 

7–13 .................................................................................................................... 2 and 3 ............... 36 dBu ................ 123 km. (77 mi.). 

14–69 .................................................................................................................. 1, 2 and 3 ........... 41 dBu ................ 103 km. (64 mi.). 

(1) DTV station zones are defined in 

§ 73.609 of this subpart. 

(2) The coverage for each DTS 

transmitter is determined based on the 

F(50,90) field strength given in the table, 

calculated in accordance with 

§ 73.625(b) of this subpart. 

(3) Each station’s DTS reference point 

is the location of the facility it specified 

in its certification in the DTV channel 

election process, pursuant to the 

procedures established in the Second 

DTV Periodic Report and Order, 69 FR 

59500, October 4, 2004. These reference 

points were published in Public Notice, 

DA 04–3922. For stations initially 

authorized subsequent to that 

certification process, the reference point 

is the location established in its 

individual rule making to add the DTV 

channel allotment, or the location 

specified in its initial construction 

permit for a new DTV station, if it was 

not established in an individual rule 

making to add the DTV channel 

allotment. 

(c) An application proposing use of 

DTS will not be accepted for filing if the 

combined coverage from all of the 

transmitters fails to provide predicted 

service to all population predicted to 

receive service from the authorized 

conventional (non-DTS) DTV facility of 

the station. 

(d) An application proposing use of 

DTS will not be accepted for filing if the 

coverage from at least one proposed 

transmitter does not provide principal 

community coverage as required in 

§ 73.625(a) of this subpart. 

(e) An application proposing use of 

DTS will not be accepted for filing if the 

proposed transmitters would cause 

interference to another station in excess 

of the criteria specified in § 73.623(c), 

(e), (f) and (g) of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 73.6023 is added to subpart 

J to read as follows: 

§ 73.6023 Distributed transmission 

systems. 

Station licensees may operate a 

commonly owned group of digital Class 

A stations with contiguous predicted 

DTV noise-limited contours (see 

§ 73.622(e) of this part) on a common 

television channel in a distributed 

transmission system. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–23658 Filed 12–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P