[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9617-9621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-4978]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 74

[FCC 02-40]


Implementation of LPTV Digital Data Services Pilot Project

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document implements the provisions of LPTV Pilot Project 
Digital Data Services Act, which requires the Commission to implement 
regulations establishing a pilot project. This document also clarifies 
and revises issues raised in a Petition for Response to Reconsideration 
of the Implementation Order filed by U.S. Interactive, L.L.C., d/b/a 
AccelerNet.

DATES: Effective February 14, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon Godfrey, Policy and Rules 
Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2120; or Keith Larson, Mass 
Media Bureau, (202) 418-2600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
on Reconsideration (``Order'') in FCC 02-40, adopted February 12, 2002 
and released February 14, 2002. The complete text of this Order 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, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room 
CY-B-402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893, facsimile 
(202) 863-2898, or via email [email protected].

Synopsis of Order

I. Introduction

    1. In April, 2001 we released an Order implementing the provisions 
of the LPTV Pilot Project Digital Data Services Act (DDSA), (Order, In 
the Matter of Implementation of LPTV Digital Data Services Pilot 
Project, FCC 01-137, 66 FR 29040 (May 29, 2001)). The DDSA requires the 
Commission to issue regulations establishing a pilot project pursuant 
to which specified Low Power Television (LPTV) licensees or permittees 
can provide digital data services to demonstrate the feasibility of 
using LPTV stations to provide high-speed wireless digital data 
service, including Internet access, to unserved areas (Public Law 106-
554, 114 Stat. 4577, December 21, 2000, Consolidated Appropriations--FY 
2001, section 143, amending section 336 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 336, to add new subsection (h). 47 U.S.C. 
336(h)(7)). As defined by the DDSA, digital data service includes: (1) 
Digitally-based interactive broadcast service; and (2) wireless 
Internet access (47 U.S.C. 336(h)(7)). The DDSA identifies twelve 
specific LPTV stations that are eligible to participate in the pilot 
project, and directs the Commission to select a station and repeaters 
to provide service to specified areas in Alaska. In this Order, we 
address issues raised in a petition for reconsideration of the Order 
filed by U.S. Interactive, L.L.C., d/b/a AccelerNet, and revise 
provisions of that Order in some respects. AccelerNet is an LPTV 
licensee providing one-way digital data service in Houston, Texas, from 
station KHLM-LP, and operating stations that are eligible to 
participate in DDSA pilot projects. Its investors own or have rights to 
acquire six of the other eight stations eligible for the pilot 
projects.

II. Discussion

A. Term of Pilot Project
    2. In the Order, we noted that the DDSA does not specify how long 
the pilot project should last. Since the DDSA specified that our last 
report to Congress evaluating the utility of the pilot project is due 
on June 30, 2002, we clarified that we will issue experimental letter 
authorizations for the pilot project that will expire on June 30, 2002, 
unless the term is extended prior to that date. We delegated authority 
to the Mass Media Bureau to extend the term of the authorizations for 
individual participants or for participants as a group, and to do so by 
Public Notice, in the event that it is determined that the

[[Page 9618]]

term of the pilot project should be extended.
    3. In its petition, AccelerNet asserts that the Commission should 
grant conditional pilot project licenses for the term of the underlying 
LPTV station license, including any renewals, subject only to early 
termination of the pilot project license if irremediable interference 
occurs, rather than experimental licenses. AccelerNet asserts that the 
statute implicitly requires the Commission to allow operation of the 
pilot projects on an indefinite basis, subject to termination only if 
interference occurs which cannot otherwise be remedied. According to 
AccelerNet, inclusion of a sunset provision in the Order would cause 
the demise of the project. It contends that investors are reluctant to 
finance pilot projects; that equipment manufacturers will not be 
willing to develop necessary equipment needed by the project; that 
several years will be needed to implement and demonstrate the utility 
of the project; and, finally, that the pilot project is intended to 
ultimately provide a needed service that should not be sunsetted if it 
works. To support its assertion, it first argues that Congress would 
not have provided for annual fees if the pilot projects were intended 
to be of limited duration. It observes that a provision in the statute 
at section 336(h)(6) for annual fees to be paid by stations 
participating in the pilot projects is similar to the provision for 
annual fees to be paid by digital television stations offering 
ancillary or supplementary services at section 336(e). Second, 
AccelerNet argues, although Congress expressly provided for termination 
under certain conditions, those conditions did not include a time limit 
(citing sections 336(h)(3)(C) (Commission to adopt regulations 
providing for termination or limitation of any pilot project station or 
remote transmitter if interference occurs to other users of the core 
television spectrum) and 336(h)(5)(A) (Commission may limit provision 
of digital data service from pilot project stations if interference is 
caused)). It contends that a sunset provision was considered and 
specifically rejected during drafting negotiations. (Asserting a sunset 
provision was specifically rejected when section 336(h) and the DDSA 
were legislated). Finally, AccelerNet argues, the statutory dates 
specified for the Commission to issue reports concerning the efficacy 
of the pilot projects are unrelated to any supposed term of the pilot 
projects. (The Commission was required to report back to Congress on 
June 30, 2001 and June 30, 2002. See section 336(h).) Rather, it 
claims, the reporting requirements exist to enable Congress to 
determine whether to expand the provision of digital data services to 
all or some additional portion of LPTV stations.
    4. On reconsideration, we have decided to revise our provisions 
regarding the terms of the pilot project. Rather than issue 
experimental letter authorizations, the procedure we described in the 
Order, we will allow the LPTV stations that are eligible for the pilot 
project to participate in the pilot project for the term of their LPTV 
licenses, including renewals of those licenses, subject to early 
termination if irremediable interference occurs, pursuant to the 
statute.
    5. Pursuant to Sec. 74.731(g) of our rules, LPTV stations may 
operate as TV translator stations, or to originate programming and 
commercial matter, either through the retransmission of a TV broadcast 
signal or via original programming (47 CFR 74.731(g); see also 47 CFR 
74.701(f)). To allow the pilot project stations to participate in the 
project, we will grant them a waiver of this rule (47 CFR 1.3, ``Any 
provision of the rules may be waived by the Commission on its own 
motion or on petition if good cause therefor is shown''). The waiver 
will be renewable with the renewal of the underlying LPTV license. All 
other LPTV rules will be applicable to these stations, except as waived 
herein or upon request by pilot project participants, or as specified 
in the Order. (We will waive the following rules as inapplicable to the 
services provided under this pilot project: 47 CFR 74.731(g) 
(permissible service), 74.732(g) (booster eligibility), 74.736(a) 
(emissions), 74.750(a) (FCC transmitter certification), 74.751(a) 
(modification of transmission systems), 74.761 (frequency tolerance), 
and 74.763(c) (time of operation)).
    6. As stated, this is a pilot project. Pilot project stations will 
operate pursuant to their LPTV licenses instead of experimental letter 
authorizations. To obtain a waiver of Sec. 74.731(g), pilot project-
eligible stations should follow the application procedures specified in 
paragraph 8 of the Order. Rather than filing an application for 
experimental authority, a DDSA-eligible applicant should file an 
informal letter application requesting the addition of digital data 
service pilot project facilities to its existing LPTV authorization and 
including the information requested in that paragraph. We will also 
require them to undertake the testing described in paragraph 10, and to 
include the information requested in that paragraph in their 
applications so that we may assess the interference potential of this 
service. No application filing fee is required to add or modify pilot 
project digital facilities. We will issue a waiver by letter adding 
pilot project facilities to the LPTV authorization for the term of the 
LPTV license, renewable with that license, after following the public 
notice procedures specified in paragraph 18 of the Order. Paragraph 19 
of the Implementation Order, regarding facilities changes, will 
continue to apply. Applications to change channel or transmitter site 
location(s) must be filed in the normal manner on FCC Form 346, seeking 
a modified construction permit for the underlying analog facilities of 
the licensed LPTV station or a modification of such facilities in an 
existing analog LPTV station construction permit. The application for 
modification of analog facilities is feeable. Following grant of the 
change in such authorized LPTV facilities, an associated informal 
application to modify the pilot project portion of the authorization 
will be considered in accordance with the above procedures. This two 
step process is necessary because, where interference protection to 
digital data services is required, the protected area is that defined 
by the analog LPTV service contour (47 CFR 74.707(a)), based on the 
authorized analog LPTV facilities, an associated informal application 
to modify the pilot project portion of the authorization will be 
considered). All other requirements of the Order apply unless changed 
herein.
    7. Additionally, and as AccelerNet observes, the DDSA specifies 
that a station may provide digital data service unless provision of the 
service causes interference in violation of the Commission's existing 
rules to full-service analog or digital television stations, Class A 
television stations, or television translator stations. In keeping with 
these provisions in the DDSA, we will not renew any waiver to operate 
pursuant to the pilot project if the station requesting renewal causes 
irremedial interference to other stations.
    8. We find that it is in the public interest to grant these waivers 
generally based on the intent of Congress in the DDSA that it is in the 
public interest to establish this pilot project. In the Order, we 
stated that we would extend the term of the pilot projects, by Public 
Notice and on delegated authority, upon a determination that the term 
of the pilot project should be extended. We intended to use this 
process so that the original term of the pilot projects could be 
extended with minimal difficulty, and did not intend that the term 
would

[[Page 9619]]

automatically expire after June 30, 2002. Nonetheless, we recognize 
that the limited term specified in the Order could pose problems with 
establishing the project, as AccelerNet described, because investors 
may be unwilling to invest without greater certainty, particularly in 
the current challenging economic climate, and that it may take longer 
to develop the equipment than originally contemplated. It is also 
conceivable, as AccelerNet contends, that equipment manufacturers might 
be less willing to develop the equipment needed by the project without 
the certainty of a longer initial term. Moreover, as AccelerNet argues, 
it is possible that implementing and proving the practicality of the 
project could require a period of years. Accordingly, to assure that 
our procedures do not undermine the establishment of the pilot project, 
we will instead base the license terms of the pilot project stations on 
the terms of the underlying LPTV licenses and grant the necessary rule 
waivers, subject to the interference prohibitions in the statute and as 
delineated in the Order. (We wish to make clear that this is a pilot 
project, and the decisions made herein are not intended to prejudge any 
future decisions on digital operation on LPTV stations generally).
    9. We recognize that Congress wanted to give the pilot project a 
fair opportunity to succeed. The DDSA does not contain a sunset date; 
it is, therefore, legally permissible to make the term of the pilot 
project coincident with the term of the LPTV license, subject to early 
termination in the event of irremediable interference. (Although 
Congress specified particular subjects for which it wanted the 
Commission to issue rules in section 336(h)(3), that section does not 
direct the Commission to issue a sunset rule for the pilot projects. 
Likewise, no time limitation is specified in sections 336(h)(1), which 
allows pilot project stations to ask the Commission to provide digital 
data service or in section 336(h)(5)(b), which allows a licensee to 
move a station to another location for the purpose of the pilot 
projects). Our goal is to implement the statute while assuring that no 
objectionable interference occurs. Granting renewable waivers is not 
overly burdensome to participants in the pilot project, and it serves 
the purpose of ensuring that others are protected from interference.
    10. To assure that the project does not cause interference, we will 
not only assess issues of interference that may arise in connection 
with the filing of the renewal application, but in addition the 
interference resolution provisions of paragraph 11 of the Order will 
apply. Paragraph 11 requires stations participating in the pilot 
project to comply with Sec. 74.703 of the Commission's rules regarding 
interference. It also specifies additional procedures that 
participating stations must follow in order to resolve interference 
problems in accordance with requirements set forth in the DDSA). We 
clarify that we have authority to take any measures, including 
terminating digital data service waivers and therefore requiring the 
discontinuance of the participation of any station in the project in 
the event of irremediable interference. LPTV stations are secondary and 
must provide interference protection as described in paragraph 8 of the 
Order. The waivers will be conditioned accordingly.
B. Application of Experimental Rules
    11. In the Order, we stated our belief that requirements similar to 
those contained in Secs. 5.93(a) and (b) of the rules should apply to 
the pilot program. (No other provisions of part 5 of the Commission's 
rules were applied). Thus, we required that all transmitting and/or 
receiving equipment used in the pilot program be owned by, leased to, 
or otherwise under the control of the LPTV licensee (47 CFR 5.93(a)). 
We said that response station equipment may not be owned by subscribers 
to the experimental data service to insure that the LPTV licensee has 
control of the equipment if and when the pilot program terminates. In 
addition, we required the LPTV licensee to inform anyone participating 
in the experiment, including but not limited to subscribers or 
consumers, that the service or device is provided pursuant to a pilot 
program and is temporary (47 CFR 5.93(b)).
    12. AccelerNet argues that the requirement that all transmitting 
and receiving equipment be owned by the licensee is unwarranted and not 
required or contemplated by the DDSA. It also objects to the 
requirement that the LPTV licensee shall inform anyone participating in 
the project that the service is temporary. These requirements were 
necessary under our rules governing experimental licensees. Because we 
are, on reconsideration, treating this endeavor not as an experimental 
project with an initial term of only 2 years, but as a unique pilot 
project that is a part of the underlying LPTV license and is for the 
term of that license, Secs. 5.93(a) and (b) are no longer applicable 
because there is no longer the concern that the project will be 
terminated after only 2 years. We do not intend to unnecessarily 
restrict the ability of the pilot projects to gain market acceptance, 
make it difficult for the licensees to gauge subscriber acceptance of 
the service, or be unduly burdensome considering the other risks 
assumed by licensees in a pilot project. We will require pilot project 
licensees and permittees to advise recipients of digital data service 
that they are participating in a pilot project, which could be 
terminated in the event of irremedial interference to protected 
broadcast and other services. AccelerNet has stated that it has no 
objection to this requirement.
C. RF Safety Rules
    13. In the Order, we said that we will require pilot project 
licensees and permittees employing two-way technology to attach labels 
to every response station transceiver (fixed or portable) in a 
conspicuous fashion visible in all directions and readable at distances 
beyond the minimum separation distances between the radiating equipment 
and the user. For fixed response stations, we also concluded that their 
effective radiated power (ERP) should be as low as is consistent with 
satisfactory communication with a base station, and in no case should 
the ERP (digital average power) exceed 10 watts. For portable response 
stations, we similarly concluded that their ERP should be as low as is 
consistent with satisfactory communication with a base station, and in 
no case should the ERP (digital average power) exceed 3 watts.
    14. Labeling. AccelerNet argues that the requirement that RF 
station transceivers be marked to indicate potential radio frequency 
hazards should not apply where the transmit power of the transceiver is 
so low as to present no safety hazard at any distance. It contends that 
requiring marking in those circumstances is overregulatory, and could 
unnecessarily raise concerns among potential subscribers, causing the 
pilot project to fail from lack of consumer acceptance. Arguing that 
its portable devices are not expected to exceed one watt in power, it 
contends that the Commission's current rules sufficiently protect the 
public (citing 47 CFR 2.10093 [``Radiofrequency radiation exposure 
evaluation; portable devices.'']). It argues that the Order should be 
revised to provide that portable devices shall comply with the 
provisions of Sec. 2.1093 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 2.1093), 
including the radiation exposure limitations set forth in 
Sec. 2.1093(d)(2).
    15. We agree with the petitioner that RF safety rules for digital 
data service devices should be consistent with existing rules for 
similar devices.

[[Page 9620]]

However, similar devices that are used as subscriber transceivers and 
marketed to the public have been subject to labeling requirements to 
alert consumers to the presence of RF energy and to ensure that safe 
distances from transmitting antennas are maintained (47 CFR 1.1307(b)). 
Such devices have generally been classified as ``mobile'' devices under 
our rules, not as ``portable'' devices. For purposes of determining how 
to evaluate RF devices for compliance with the Commission's RF safety 
rules, non-fixed devices have been classified as either ``mobile'' or 
``portable,'' based on the separation distance between radiating 
structures and users (this is defined in 47 CFR 2.1091 and 2.1093 and 
is discussed in the FCC's OET Bulletin 65, (1997)). A classification of 
``mobile'' means that compliance with the Commission's RF safety rules 
can be accomplished by providing users with information on safe 
distances to maintain from transmitting antennas in order to meet field 
intensity limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE).
    16. The petitioner proposes to have digital data service devices be 
subject to the provisions of Sec. 2.1093, the section of our rules 
which specifies requirements for devices classified as ``portable'' in 
terms of compliance with the Commission's limits for localized Specific 
Absorption Rate (SAR). For a device to be classified as ``portable'' it 
is assumed that it is possible for the separation distance between the 
radiating structure of the device and a user to be less than 20 cm 
during transmit operation. Compliance with the SAR limit (the general 
population limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram in this case) is typically 
determined by means of laboratory testing (see Supplement C (2001) to 
the FCC's OET Bulletin 65 (1997) for details). We agree that the 
response stations used in connection with the pilot project can be 
classified as ``portable'' devices and subject to the provisions of 
Sec. 2.1093, as long as the appropriate SAR data are obtained and made 
available to the Commission demonstrating compliance with the SAR 
limit. A determination of ``worst case'' exposure would be indicated by 
evaluating SAR with a zero separation distance. If compliance with the 
SAR limit is demonstrated in this condition, using maximum operating 
power, then labeling would not be required, since no separation 
distance would be required for compliance. On the other hand, if a 
certain separation distance (less than 20 cm) is required for 
compliance with the SAR limit, then the applicant will have to 
demonstrate that a user cannot be exposed closer than that distance.
    17. Accordingly, we will require portable response stations used in 
connection with the pilot project to comply with the RF exposure limits 
and related provisions of Sec. 2.1093 of our rules, relevant to devices 
subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to 
equipment authorization or use. Although we have not required that 
these devices be subject to equipment authorization, applicants must 
submit to the Commission evidence of compliance with the SAR limits 
specified in Sec. 2.1093, including information on how any required 
separation distances, as discussed above, will be maintained. Based on 
our previous experience in analyzing SAR from portable devices, we will 
not require SAR testing and will categorically exclude from routine RF 
evaluation devices that do not radiate a power level in excess of 50 
milliwatts.
D. Technical Operation
    18. In the Order, we anticipate the possibility that several types 
of transmission facilities may be involved in each pilot project 
station. First, we expect that most, if not all, of these projects will 
involve digital transmissions from a main base station at the 
authorized site of the underlying LPTV station. Unless the evaluation 
of its digital modulation method requires otherwise, we would assume 
that operation of such a facility will not represent a significantly 
increased interference threat compared to the authorized LPTV station 
if the antenna height is not increased and the digital average power 
does not exceed 10 percent of the authorized analog LPTV power (10 dB 
less power). We noted that in DTV service, this level of digital power 
is adequate to provide coverage of the same area. We said that the 
Commission's staff will not evaluate at the application stage the 
interference potential of a main digital base station conforming to 
this restriction.
    19. In the Order, we said that the second type of transmission 
facility might consist of one or more additional base stations 
(boosters) located at sites away from the authorized LPTV transmitter 
site. We decided to treat such stations as we treat analog TV booster 
stations except that each booster may originate its own data messages. 
As such, we noted our expectation that such facilities would be limited 
to a site location, power and antenna height combination that would not 
extend the coverage area of the main base station in any direction. We 
stated that we would require an exhibit demonstrating that booster 
coverage is contained within main base station coverage, based on the 
digital field strength predicted from the main base station at the 
protected contour of the underlying analog LPTV authorization. Further, 
we stated that we would assume at the application stage that such an 
operation will not cause additional interference unless an interference 
situation is demonstrated in an informal objection to the application. 
We said that, absent such an objection, the Commission's staff will not 
evaluate at the application stage the interference potential of an 
additional digital base station conforming to this restriction.
    20. Digital Power Issue. AccelerNet asks the Commission to allow 
UHF LPTV pilot project stations to transmit with up to 15kW average 
digital power if existing interference protection criteria are met. 
AccelerNet argues that the provision in the Order could be read to 
limit average digital power to 10 percent of the authorized analog 
power of the underlying LPTV station. It states that discussion with 
staff indicates that this was not intended, and asks that the 
Commission clarify that this is the case. It adds that a 10 percent 
limit would be an unjustified restriction on provision of its service, 
because, under the rules, UHF LPTV stations are limited to 15 kW 
average digital power if existing interference protection criteria are 
met (47 CFR 74.735(b)(2)). It asks that the Order be clarified to allow 
operation up to 15 kW average digital power if existing interference 
protection criteria are met.
    21. Boosters. AccelerNet urges the Commission to allow booster 
stations to operate at any point within the existing authorized 
coverage contours of the main base station, provided that no 
interference to protected stations would be created. It asks that some 
degree of flexibility be provided for the location of booster stations 
to allow LPTV stations to cover natural market areas associated with 
their communities of license, but which may be outside their existing 
coverage contours. It suggests that booster stations be allowed to 
operate at any point within the existing authorized coverage contours 
of the main base station, provided that no interference to protected 
stations would be created, and provided that the pilot project stations 
would not be entitled to interference protection outside their existing 
authorized service contours of the underlying analog LPTV 
authorization.
    22. On reconsideration of both these issues, we reach the same 
conclusion, of which there are two parts. First we deal with the 
interference protection that must be afforded to the LPTV stations

[[Page 9621]]

participating in this pilot project. Second, we deal with the 
interference protection that pilot project stations must afford to all 
other stations that are entitled to protection.
    23. Interference protection of a pilot project station will be 
limited to the analog TV protected contour of the underlying LPTV 
station. That underlying LPTV station authorization may be modified in 
accordance with the LPTV rules and procedures. When and if the LPTV 
rules are amended to allow digital LPTV authorizations, the underlying 
analog LPTV station may be converted to a digital LPTV authorization in 
accordance with those rules. Pilot project authorizations for digital 
power in excess of 10 percent of the underlying analog LPTV station 
power will not entitle the station to any additional interference 
protection. Similarly, booster station authorizations that may allow 
the pilot project station to provide service in areas beyond the 
underlying LPTV protected contour will not entitle the pilot project 
station to additional interference protection.
    24. As requested, we clarify that a pilot project station is not 
limited to an effective radiated power that is 10 percent or less than 
that of the analog power of the associated LPTV station. A pilot 
project station will be assumed at the application stage to provide the 
required interference protection to other stations if it conforms to 
the 10 percent of the LPTV analog power criterion and any booster 
stations do not extend the analog LPTV authorized protected contour. 
Requests for greater pilot project power, up to the 15 kilowatt 
effective radiated power limit for UHF digital LPTV stations, or for 
boosters located within the analog LPTV protected contour extending the 
pilot project service beyond the analog protected contour, must include 
a showing that no interference is predicted to any other service that 
is entitled to protection. (The digital effective radiated power limit 
in the LPTV rules for VHF station is 300 watts (47 CFR 74.735(b)(1)). 
Pilot project booster stations may be located anywhere within the 
protected contour of the underlying analog LPTV authorization based on 
a showing of noninterference to protected stations. On this basis we 
will not prohibit a booster from extending service beyond the protected 
contour.

III. Administrative Matters

    25. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Order on Reconsideration 
may contain either proposed or modified information collections. As 
part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite 
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the 
information collections contained in this Order, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996. Public and agency comments are due May 
3, 2002. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection 
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions 
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have 
practical utility; (b) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information collected; and (c) ways to minimize the 
burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including 
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology. In addition to filing comments with the 
Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections 
contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room C-1804, 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected] and to 
Jeanette Thornton, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].
    26. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. No regulatory 
flexibility analysis is required because the rules adopted in the Order 
and this Order on Reconsideration were adopted without notice and 
comment rule making.
    27. Congressional Review Act. These rules, promulgated without 
notice and comment rule making, are not subject to the provisions of 
the Congressional Review Act.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    28. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 
7, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 
2(a), 4(i), 7 and 336, part 74 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 
74, is amended as set forth.
    29. The rule amendments set forth shall be effective February 14, 
2002.
    30. The petition for reconsideration filed by U.S. Interactive, 
L.L.C., is granted to the extent discussed herein, and otherwise is 
denied.
    31. This proceeding is terminated.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 74

    Television.

    Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.

Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 74 as follows:

PART 74--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER 
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION SERVICES

Subpart G--Low Power TV, TV Translator, and TV Booster Stations is 
amended to read as follows:

    1. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, 336(f), 336(h) and 554.


    2. Section 74.785 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 74.785  Low power TV digital data service pilot project.

    Low power TV stations authorized pursuant to the LPTV Digital Data 
Services Act (Public Law 106-554, 114 Stat. 4577, December 1, 2000) to 
participate in a digital data service pilot project shall be subject to 
the provisions of the Commission Order implementing that Act. FCC 01-
137, adopted April 19, 2001, as modified by the Commission Order on 
Reconsideration, FCC 02-40, adopted February 12, 2002.

[FR Doc. 02-4978 Filed 3-1-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P