[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 112 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36639-36641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14536]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[ET Docket No. 00-11; FCC 00-185]


Establishment of an Improved Model for Predicting the Broadcast 
Television Field Strength Received at Individual Locations

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document prescribes an improved point-to-point predictive 
model for determining the ability of individual locations to receive an 
over-the-air television broadcast signal of a specific intensity 
through the use of a conventional, outdoor rooftop receiving antenna. 
This document also provides for the model's continued refinement by the 
use of additional data as they become available. In the absence of on-
site measurements of signal intensity, the model will be used to 
establish whether individual households are eligible to receive certain 
satellite home viewing services. The Commission is complying with new 
statutory requirements set forth in the Satellite Home Viewer 
Improvement Act of 1999.

DATES: Effective June 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Eckert (202-418-2433), Office 
of Engineering and Technology.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's First 
Report and Order in ET Docket No. 00-11, FCC 00-185, adopted May 22, 
2000, and released May 26, 2000. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257) 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, and may also be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 
1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Summary of the First Report and Order

    1. In this First Report and Order (Report and Order), the 
Commission prescribes an improved point-to-point predictive model for 
determining the ability of individual locations to receive an over-the-
air television broadcast signal of a specific intensity through the use 
of a conventional, outdoor rooftop receiving antenna. The Report and 
Order also provides for the model's continued refinement by the use of 
additional data as they become available. Under the provisions of the 
1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA), a household that cannot receive 
the over-the-air signal of a local network affiliate is eligible to 
receive the distant network signal through satellite carriers. In the 
absence of on-site measurements of signal intensity, the predictive 
model will provide a reliable and presumptive means for determining 
whether the over-the-air signal of a network affiliated television 
station can be received at an individual location.
    2. A Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice) issued on January 20, 
2000, 65 FR 4923 (February 2, 2000) addressed the SHVIA statutory 
requirement for prescribing the Individual Location Longley-Rice model, 
a version of Longley-Rice 1.2.2. At issue is how the basic Longley-Rice 
radio propagation prediction model should be refined so that it will 
accurately take land cover variations into account as required by the 
SHVIA. The Notice proposed a specific computational procedure based on 
a certain database of land cover variations published by the United 
States Geological Survey. According to this procedure, individual 
locations are to be identified as lying in one of 10 land use and land 
cover (LULC) categories ranging from open land to urban environments. 
The computational procedure then finds a clutter loss value (a 
reduction in available signal intensity) associated with this 
environmental class for the TV channel of interest, and subtracts that 
clutter loss from the signal intensity predicted by the Longley-Rice 
model. The Notice proposed a specific set of clutter loss values based 
on the results published in a recent engineering journal by Thomas N. 
Rubinstein.
    3. There are three major issues to be resolved in this matter. 
These are first, whether it would improve the accuracy of the ILLR 
model to assign clutter loss values as a function of the LULC category 
of the receiving location, as proposed in the Notice. Second, whether 
there are specific clutter loss values that would have the desired 
effect of improving prediction accuracy. Third, the provisions to be 
made for the introduction of further improvements in prediction 
accuracy as additional data become available. The Report and Order also 
addresses certain matters of technical detail raised by the comments 
having to do with error flags and the surface refractivity parameter of 
the ILLR model. In a separate but related matter, an independent and 
neutral entity is designated that will in turn designate who shall 
conduct the objective test of received signal intensity for 
verification purposes in case a satellite provider and network station 
cannot agree on a person to conduct such a test.
    4. Clutter Loss Assignment by LULC Category. The proposal to assign 
clutter loss values according to LULC category was supported by the 
major providers of direct-to-home satellite services, DIRECTV, Inc. 
(DIRECTV) and EchoStar Satellite Corporation (EchoStar). These 
organizations stated that the LULC database is a source of credible and 
verifiable information regarding vegetation, water and other features 
on the land surface, and that it is widely relied upon by the 
scientific and technical communities for a variety of applications. 
Engineering firms generally agreed that this approach has merit, at 
least until a more up-to-date source of land use and land clutter 
information with finer resolution, such as Landsat, becomes available. 
Commenters representing terrestrial broadcasting interests, however, 
argued

[[Page 36640]]

that increased prediction accuracy will not be obtained by the approach 
proposed in the Notice because there are serious deficiencies with the 
LULC database for purposes of modifying the ILLR model. Based on 
analysis of these comments, the Commission finds that the assignment of 
clutter loss values based on LULC categories would enhance the accuracy 
of predictions made with the ILLR model. Therefore, although they are 
not ideal, the LULC categories proposed in the Notice are adopted as an 
integral part of the ILLR. The addition of these LULC categories will 
provide the ILLR with an approximate means for accounting for the 
reception environment of individual locations, as those environments 
are affected by vegetation and building structures as well as the 
specific terrain elevation features already accounted for by the basic 
Longley-Rice model. The effect of each reception environment on signal 
reception is dependent on the clutter loss value assigned to each of 
the LULC categories.
    5. Clutter Loss Values. Commenters expressed strongly opposing 
views on the specific clutter loss values to use for improving ILLR 
predictions. While DIRECTV and EchoStar recommended specific values for 
clutter loss, namely those proposed in the Notice, parties representing 
the interests of the network affiliates believe that the predictions of 
the ILLR model in its present form already include the effects of 
clutter so that no prescription of additional losses is appropriate. 
Middle ground was found in the comments of engineering firms. These 
generally favored assignment of clutter loss values to be determined by 
further study of existing measurement data or data acquired by further 
measurement programs. The Commission believes that the values assigned 
as clutter losses should be determined by statistical study of actual 
measurements in the specific LULC environments to which they are to be 
applied. The results of a study of this type were reported in the 
comments of the National Association of Broadcasters and the 
Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (NAB/AMSTV). The NAB/
AMSTV study compared predictions of all the various proposed models 
with measured data to determine the relative accuracy of the models. 
The prediction at each of approximately 1000 locations was classified 
as correct, an under-prediction, or an over-prediction. A model was 
deemed to have made an under-prediction if it predicted that a location 
could not receive a signal of at least Grade B strength, when the 
location in fact did receive a Grade B signal; it was charged with an 
over-prediction if it predicted that a location could receive a signal 
of at least Grade B when the household in fact was measured not to 
receive a Grade B signal.
    6. For VHF channels, the comparisons indicate that a prescription 
of additional losses would make the ILLR model less accurate because it 
already produces more under-predictions than over-predictions (a 
condition that favors the interests of satellite service providers). 
For both VHF and UHF, the ILLR model without clutter corrections proves 
superior to other models by making the correct prediction more often. 
For UHF, however, even though more correct than the competing models, 
the ILLR model tends to over-predict the field intensity substantially 
more often than it under-predicts. This is a condition that could be 
restored to approximate balance by assigning clutter losses. Based on 
the available measured data of television signals, the Commission 
reduced the clutter loss values from those proposed in the Notice in 
order to make the ILLR model more accurate. The clutter loss values for 
VHF channels are set to zero because the measurement data indicate that 
larger values produce fewer correct predictions. Thus the ILLR model is 
not changed for VHF. For UHF channels, small clutter loss values are 
set in order to obtain a better balance between under-predictions and 
over-predictions. Specifically, the clutter loss values are reduced to 
one-third of those proposed in the Notice because the Commission's 
assessment of the data indicates that this will produce a better 
balance between under-predictions and over-predictions without 
adversely affecting the overall percentage of correct predictions.
    7. Error Flags. In the Notice it was proposed to presume lack of 
service in the rare instances where the output of the Longley-Rice 
computational procedure includes an error flag along with the predicted 
field strength to indicate a possible error in the prediction. No 
argument can be made for the accuracy of either convention, since the 
error flag simply indicates uncertainty in the predicted value of field 
strength due to the fact that the parameters presented to the ILLR are 
somewhat outside their proper limits. The Commission believes that the 
best approach is to ignore the error flag and simply accept the 
predicted value for comparison with the signal intensity standard. 
Thus, in uncertain cases the improved ILLR model will prefer neither 
under-prediction nor over-prediction errors.
    8. Surface Refractivity. Commenters stated that it could improve 
the accuracy of the ILLR model to use the actual surface refractivity 
in the geographical region between the transmitter and individual 
reception point in place of the fixed median value proposed in the 
Notice. However, commenters did not propose a precise algorithm or 
particular database for determining the refractivity value to be used 
for individual radio paths. While it would be desirable to include 
surface refractivity in the ILLR model as a geographic variable, the 
Commission believes that the effects on the precise signal strength 
predictions made by the ILLR model would be too small to make a 
difference, as a practical matter, in the determination of served/
unserved status of individual locations. Therefore, due to the lack a 
precise procedure and database for this proposed ILLR refinement, the 
fixed median value of surface refractivity is retained in the ILLR 
model as proposed in the Notice.
    9. Provisions for Further Improvements in Prediction Accuracy. The 
comments indicate that improvements in the accuracy of the ILLR model 
beyond those specifically proposed may be possible either by obtaining 
additional measurement data or through further analysis of existing 
data. In the Report and Order the Commission declared that it will 
initiate a further rule making, i.e., a standard notice-and-comment 
procedure, to improve the accuracy of the ILLR model upon the filing of 
a petition for such rule making that is supported by high quality 
engineering studies containing conclusions based on reliable and 
publicly available measurement data. Changes to the ILLR model based on 
such additional data may be proposed by referencing the present Docket, 
which will be held open for this purpose.
    10. Designation of Neutral and Independent Entity for Signal Tests 
Purposes. The SHVIA relies on the ILLR model to determine presumptively 
whether a subscriber is served or unserved for purposes of eligibility 
to receive satellite retransmission of distant network signals. The 
SHVIA further provides that subscribers who are denied retransmission 
of distant signals may request that the satellite carrier seek a waiver 
of the denial from the network station that is asserting that 
retransmission is prohibited. If the network station rejects the waiver 
request, the subscriber may request an on-site test. To address those 
circumstances in which the satellite provider and network station 
cannot agree on a person to conduct the test,

[[Page 36641]]

the SHVIA requires that the Commission designate by rule an independent 
and neutral entity that shall in turn designate the person to conduct 
the test. The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) is particularly 
appropriate in this role since it has no commercial connection with 
delivery of television services, its field offices cover the United 
States, and its members are actively engaged in activities related to 
the measurement of radio field intensity. Accordingly, the Report and 
Order provides that the ARRL shall serve as the independent and neutral 
entity that shall designate the person to conduct the test.
    11. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA) \1\ requires that a regulatory flexibility 
analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency 
certifies that ``the rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.'' \2\ The RFA generally 
defines ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' \3\ In addition, the term ``small business'' has the 
same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small 
Business Act.\4\ A small business concern is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
Small Business Administration (SBA).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq., has been amended by 
the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-
121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
    \2\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    \3\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \4\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition 
of ``small business concern'' in Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 
Sec. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of 
a small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with 
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and 
after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more 
definitions of such term which are appropriarte to the activities of 
the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal 
Register.''
    \5\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. S 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. In this Report and Order, the Commission prescribes a 
prediction technique for determining the ability of individual 
households to receive television signals broadcast over-the air by 
local stations. The prediction technique applies exclusively to the 
sources of data for certain engineering calculations and to the manner 
in which these calculations are made. Television station licensees, 
Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) operators, and other Direct to Home 
(DTH) Satellite operators may use the technique to establish the 
eligibility or non-eligibility of individual households for satellite 
delivery of distant television programming. These determinations will 
usually be made at the point of sale of satellite receiving equipment 
for homes and will tend to increase the number of eligible customers. 
As noted in paragraph 3 of the Report and Order, the statute requires 
that we increase the accuracy of the prediction model based on 
technical data regarding terrain and land cover variations. Thus, the 
prescribed prediction technique is of a purely electrical engineering, 
scientific nature, and the Commission's aim is to improve its 
scientific accuracy. Moreover, the changes prescribed in the technique 
are small and will have only a minor effect on the proportion of 
households that are eligible to receive distant network signals. The 
number of viewers served by network affiliate stations will not be 
significantly reduced, and hence the economic effect on network 
affiliates and satellite carriers will not be significant. Therefore, 
the Commission certifies that the requirements of this First Report and 
Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the First 
Report and Order including a copy of this final certification, in a 
report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In 
addition, the First Report and Order and this certification will be 
sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    13. Pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), and 154(j); Section 1008 of 
the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 
1999, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, Appendix I; and Section 
119(d)(10)(a) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(a), the rule 
changes set forth shall be effective June 26, 2000.
    14. That the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of the First Report and Order, 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, part 73 of title 47 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

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

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


    2. In Sec. 73.683, the section heading is revised and paragraphs 
(d) and (e) are added to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (d) For purposes of determining the eligibility of individual 
households for satellite retransmission of distant network signals 
under the copyright law provisions of 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(A), field 
strength shall be determined by the Individual Location Longley-Rice 
(ILLR) propagation prediction model. Guidance for use of the ILLR model 
for these purposes is provided in OET Bulletin No. 72. This document is 
available through the Internet on the FCC Home Page at http://www.fcc.gov.
    (e) In the case of measurements to determine the eligibility of 
individual households to receive satellite retransmission of distant 
network signals under the copyright law provisions of 17 U.S.C. 
119(d)(10), if a satellite carrier and the network station or stations 
asserting that the retransmission of a signal of a distant network 
station is prohibited are unable to agree on a person to conduct the 
test, the American Radio Relay League, Inc., 225 Main Street, 
Newington, CT 06111-1494, shall designate the person or organization to 
conduct measurements based on the technical qualifications and 
independence of proposed testers. The satellite carrier and network 
station shall propose testers and provide their qualifications in 
writing to the American Radio Relay League (ARRL). Individuals may also 
volunteer themselves as testers by submitting their qualifications to 
the ARRL. The ARRL can be reached by telephone at 860-594-0200, or 
email at [email protected].

[FR Doc. 00-14536 Filed 6-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U