[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7737-7747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-3812]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73, 74, 76 and 90

RIN 4214

[MB Docket No. 03-15; FCC 03-8]


Second Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies 
Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document commences the Commission's second periodic 
review of the progress of the conversion to digital television. The 
document revisits several issues addressed in the first periodic review 
and solicits comment on a number of additional issues that the 
Commission believes essential to resolve to ensure continued progress 
on the transition.

DATES: Comments are due on or before April 14, 2003; reply comments are 
due on or before May 14, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC, 20554. 
See supplementary information for filing information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Matthews, Policy Division, Media 
Bureau at (202) 418-2154, or Peter Corea, Policy Division, Media Bureau 
at (202) 418-7931.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Media Bureau's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``NPRM'') MB Docket No. 03-15; FCC 03-
8, adopted January 15, 2003, and released January 27, 2003. The 
complete text of this NPRM 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

[[Page 7738]]

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]. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419 
comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings (63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998). This 
document is available in alternative formats (computer diskette, large 
print, audio record, and Braille). Persons with disabilities who need 
documents in these formats may contact Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 
(voice), (202) 418-7365 (TTY), or via email at [email protected]. Parties 
may submit their comments using the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (``ECFS'') or by filing paper copies. Comments may be 
filed as an electronic file via the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission 
must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the 
caption of this proceeding commenters must transmit one electronic copy 
of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the 
caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should 
include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an 
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To obtain filing instructions 
for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], 
and should include the following words in the body of the message: 
``get form .'' A sample form and 
directions will be sent in reply. Additional information on ECFS is 
available at http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.
    Filings may also 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). 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, commenters must submit two additional copies for each 
additional docket or rulemaking number. The Commission's contractor, 
Histrionics, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 
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 mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed 
to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Channel Election

    1. In the DTV Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order (``6th MO&O''), 
(63 FR 15774, April 1, 1998), we determined that, after the transition, 
DTV service would be limited to a ``core spectrum'' consisting of 
current television channels 2 through 51 (54-698 MHz). Although some 
stations received transition channels out of the core, and a few have 
both their NTSC and DTV channels outside the core, we believe that 
there will be sufficient spectrum to accommodate all DTV stations 
within the core by the end of the transition. Having stations with two 
in-core channels decide which one of the channels would be most 
suitable for use in digital broadcasting will assist us in determining 
what channels will be available for stations with two out-of-core 
channels and in clearing the out-of-core spectrum.
    2. In the First DTV Periodic Review Memorandum Opinion and Order, 
(``1st MO&O''), (66 FR 65122, December 18, 2001), we temporarily 
deferred channel election deadlines until this next periodic review. 
Accordingly, we now request comment on the new channel election 
deadline. We propose that commercial and noncommercial broadcast 
licensees with two in-core assigned channels make their final channel 
election by May 1, 2005. This date provides three years for commercial 
broadcasters and two years for noncommercial broadcasters after the 
applicable digital construction deadline to make the channel election. 
A May 1, 2005, channel election deadline also provides licensees that 
will have to move into the core time to plan for their move before 
December 31, 2006. We seek comment on this proposal.
    3. As an alternative, we seek comment on whether establishing the 
same deadline(s) for channel election as for replication and 
maximization protection, would be more effective in speeding the 
transition. As our proposed replication and maximization protection 
deadlines are later than May 1, 2005, aligning the channel election 
deadline with these deadlines would give broadcasters more time to 
increase to full power before they determine which channel is 
preferable for digital broadcasting. We seek comment on whether we 
should align the channel election deadline(s) with the replication and 
maximization protection deadlines we establish herein and, if so, what 
the deadline(s) should be.
    4. As we stated in the First DTV Periodic Review Report and Order 
(``1st R&O''), (MM 00-39, 66 FR 09973, February 13, 2001), in all 
cases, including stations with both channels in-core, we reserve the 
right to select the final channel of operation in order to minimize 
interference and maximize the efficiency of broadcast allotments in the 
public interest. We intend to review the channel elected to ensure that 
its use furthers these goals.

DTV/Analog In-Core Channel Swaps

    5. Some stations with two in-core channels have already determined 
that they prefer to use their current analog NTSC channel for DTV 
operations and want to commence digital operations on the new channel 
before the end of the transition. Currently a station with in-core DTV 
and NTSC channels can swap those channels only through a dual 
rulemaking proceeding to change both the DTV and NTSC Tables of 
Allotments. As the DTV transition proceeds, it is possible that many 
stations will want to explore this swap option. Accordingly, we seek 
comment on whether we should allow such channel swaps through an 
application process.

Replication and Maximization for In-Core Channels

    6. In the 1st MO&O we stated that we would establish in this second 
DTV periodic review a date by which broadcasters must either replicate 
their NTSC service areas or lose DTV service protection to the 
unreplicated areas, and by which broadcasters with authorizations for 
maximized digital facilities must either provide service to the 
associated coverage area or lose DTV service protection to the 
uncovered portions of those areas. We stated that these replication and 
maximization protection deadlines may be earlier than, but will in no 
event be later than,

[[Page 7739]]

the latest of either the end of 2006 or the date by which 85% of the 
television households in a licensee's market are capable of receiving 
the signals of digital broadcast stations. We now seek comment on 
establishing new dates for maintaining interference protection for the 
unserved portions of both the replication and maximization service 
areas of DTV stations on channels 2-51.
    7. For DTV channels within the core spectrum, we propose to set new 
replication and maximization protection dates close to the end of the 
transition: for the top-four network affiliates (i.e., ABC, CBS, Fox 
and NBC) in markets 1-100--July 1, 2005; and for all other commercial 
DTV licensees as well as noncommercial DTV licensees--July 1, 2006.
    8. We seek comment generally on the appropriateness of these dates. 
We also invite commenters to propose alternative approaches for 
establishing interference protection deadlines, such as giving stations 
a certain amount of time (e.g., 24 months) after the station commences 
digital service or after adoption of the Report and Order (``R&O'') in 
this proceeding, whichever is later, to fully replicate or maximize, or 
establishing a replication/maximization deadline for each market based 
on when that market reaches a specified digital service penetration 
level.
    9. If a station fails to construct and operate facilities that 
fully replicate its NTSC service area or provide signal coverage over 
an authorized maximized service area by the interference protection 
deadline(s) we will establish in this proceeding, we seek comment on 
how the Commission should dispose of any construction permits or 
applications for replication or maximization facilities at that time. 
Should applications for facilities in excess of those in actual 
operation by the station be dismissed? How should the Commission treat 
authorizations for facilities not being fully used by the station? For 
example, a station has a construction permit for facilities that would 
serve a larger area than facilities it is operating pursuant to Special 
Temporary Authority. Should such a construction permit be modified to 
specify the facilities in actual operation? In addition, we invite 
comment on how the Commission should treat the spectrum use opportunity 
that would be created after the interference protection deadline(s). 
Who should be permitted to file an application for this spectrum? 
Should any applications for this spectrum be subject to competing 
applications? Our inclination is to restrict any station that has 
failed to fully replicate or construct its authorized maximization 
facilities by the applicable deadline from filing an application to 
expand coverage for a certain period of time in order to allow other 
existing or new stations, including Class A eligible LPTV stations on 
out-of-core channels, to apply to use this spectrum. If we were to 
adopt this approach, how long should the restriction on the filing of 
expansion applications by stations that did not fully replicate or 
maximize by the deadline last? Any decision we reach in this proceeding 
regarding future licensing of this spectrum will be consistent with 47 
U.S.C. 309(j).
    10. Finally, we seek comment on whether we should adopt an 
intermediate signal coverage requirement beyond a broadcaster's current 
obligation to cover its community of license and in addition to the 
ultimate ``use-or-lose'' deadline for full replication or maximization. 
In the 1st MO&O, the Commission predicted that the ``requirement that 
broadcasters serve their community of license will ensure that, for 
most stations, the majority of their analog service populations will 
receive initial digital service.'' We seek comment on whether this 
predictive judgment has been borne out in practice. For instance, we 
seek comment on whether some of the larger cities in which stations can 
operate under low-power STAs have large suburban populations that may 
not be served by a signal that only covers a station's community of 
license. If there are significant numbers of consumers not being served 
by stations operating under low-power STAs, we seek comment on what 
actions, if any, the Commission should take. Should the Commission 
establish a deadline by which time stations must provide DTV service 
within the entire area of their analog ``city-grade'' coverage contour 
or their Grade A coverage? Yet another alternative would be to require 
broadcast stations to deploy transmission equipment that is capable of 
being upgraded to serve broader coverage areas (e.g., their analog 
Grade ``B'' coverage), but permit the stations themselves to determine 
when any intermediate power increases occur prior to the full 
replication ``use-or-lose'' date. In general, our goal is to ensure 
that the maximum number of consumers is able to receive digital 
television as quickly as possible while providing broadcasters a 
realistic timetable for increasing to full power.

Band-Clearing Arrangements

    11. In the 1st MO&O, we temporarily deferred the deadline for loss 
of interference protection for unserved areas for broadcasters involved 
in a band-clearing arrangement that are left with a DTV single-channel 
allotment. We stated that we will continue to protect throughout the 
course of the transition the analog TV service area of stations that do 
not have a paired DTV channel, either because they were not assigned a 
paired DTV channel or because they elect voluntarily to relinquish 
their paired DTV channel and convert to single channel analog operation 
as part of the 700 MHz band clearing, as long as the stations continue 
to operate in an analog mode.
    12. We stated that our intention was to provide broadcasters 
involved in band-clearing with the same treatment as other broadcasters 
in terms of our DTV replication policy. We also said that, in our next 
periodic review, we would establish a new replication protection 
deadline for these broadcasters within the same timeframe as that 
established for replication and maximization for other broadcasters. We 
hereby seek comment on the timeframe needed and appropriate for 
broadcasters involved in band-clearing proposals to replicate their 
service area once commencing digital operation.

Interference Protection of Analog and Digital Television Service in TV 
Channels 51-69

    13. We seek comment on whether we should adopt the same or 
different replication and maximization interference protection 
deadlines for stations operating on TV channels 52-69 (698-806 MHz, 
also referred to as the ``700 MHz band'') as for stations operating on 
core channels. In order to reclaim and relicense channels 52-69 in 
accordance with statutory mandate, the Commission is relocating 
television operations in this spectrum to the core spectrum (TV 
channels 2-51), and has reallocated the 698-806 MHz band to other 
services. During the transition to digital broadcasting, incumbent 
broadcasters are permitted to continue to operate in the 698-806 MHz 
band. Licensees of new public safety, commercial wireless, and other 
services are permitted to operate in the band prior to the end of the 
transition, provided they do not interfere with incumbent analog and 
digital broadcasters.
1. Definition of ``Actual'' Broadcast Parameters Under Sections 
90.545(c)(1)(ii) and 27.60(b)(1)(iii)
    14. A number of the interference protection issues raised herein 
with respect to the 698-806 MHz band relate to the interpretation of 
the alternative protection criteria for wireless operators

[[Page 7740]]

set forth in Sec. Sec.  90.545(c) and 27.60(b) of the rules, and 
whether those provisions require protection of broadcast authorizations 
and allotments. In particular, do these provisions require protection 
of broadcast authorizations and allotments when the station's operating 
parameters are less than the parameters described in an existing 
authorization or allotment?
    15. Sections 90.545(c) and 27.60(b) describe alternative methods 
for a wireless applicant or licensee in the 700 MHz band to move its 
stations closer to an analog TV or DTV antenna while still complying 
with the interference protection requirements in the rules. Pursuant to 
one of these alternatives, the applicant or licensee may submit an 
engineering study that considers the ``actual,'' rather than 
``hypothetical,'' parameters of the analog TV or DTV station and that 
demonstrates that intervening terrain or other factors permit the land 
mobile stations and these facilities to be more closely spaced. In the 
Order adopting this alternative, we stated that applicants should be 
allowed to submit engineering studies showing how they propose to meet 
the appropriate desired/undesired (``D/U'') signal strength ratio at 
the existing TV station's ``authorized or applied for'' Grade B service 
contour or equivalent contour for DTV stations instead of the 
hypothetical Grade B contour.
    16. We tentatively conclude that Sec. Sec.  90.545(c)(1)(ii) and 
27.60(b)(1)(iii) should be amended to make clear that the interference 
protection specified in those provisions should be afforded to 
authorized and/or applied for NTSC and DTV facilities, including the 
facilities specified on the broadcast station's license or construction 
permit or both when a station has both a license and a construction 
permit. We invite comment on this approach. If we do not protect all 
authorized and/or applied for facilities, what facilities should be 
protected?
2. Replication
    17. We invite comment on the extent to which facilities defined in 
the DTV Table of Allotments on channels 52-69 should be protected by 
wireless operators and other services in those bands. In other words, 
in addition to protecting authorized and/or applied for facilities, 
should we interpret the requirement that wireless operators and other 
services protect the ``actual'' parameters of existing TV stations to 
require protection of full replication facilities, regardless of 
whether the DTV station is currently operating, or has filed an 
application to operate, pursuant to those facilities? If so, how long 
should this interference protection last?
    18. We tentatively conclude that DTV full replication facilities 
should be protected as ``actual.'' We seek comment on this view and on 
whether we should establish the same interference protection deadline 
for replication facilities for stations on channels 52-69 as we will 
establish in this proceeding for stations on in-core channels.
3. Maximization
    19. We invite comment on whether we should establish an earlier 
deadline for loss of interference protection to the unserved areas 
described in existing maximization authorizations on channels 52-69 
than the deadline we establish for maximization facilities on in-core 
channels. We also invite comment on whether we should establish the 
same maximization interference protection deadline for the entire 700 
MHz band, or treat the upper and lower bands differently. If we were to 
establish a different deadline for all or part of channels 52-69, what 
should that deadline be?
4. Future Modification Applications
    20. In June 2002, the Media Bureau adopted a freeze on the filing 
of analog TV and DTV ``maximization'' applications in channels 52-59. 
The Bureau announced that it would not accept for filing television 
modification applications that would increase a station's analog or DTV 
service area in channels 52-59 in one or more directions beyond the 
combined area resulting from the station's parameters as defined in the 
following: (1) The DTV Table of Allotments; (2) Commission 
authorizations (license and/or construction permit); and (3) 
applications on file with the Commission prior to release of the Public 
Notice. The Bureau will consider, on a case-by-case basis, requests for 
waiver of the freeze on new maximization applications in channels 52-59 
where the application would permit co-location of transmitter sites or 
is otherwise necessary to maintain quality service to the public. The 
freeze was adopted to assist participants in Auction No. 44, consisting 
of spectrum licenses in the Lower 700 MHz Band, to determine the areas 
potentially available in the band for the provision of service by 
auction winners before the channels are cleared of broadcast stations. 
That auction was scheduled to begin June 19, 2002, but was postponed in 
compliance with the Auction Reform Act of 2002.
    21. The Media Bureau recently adopted a similar freeze on the 
filing of analog TV and DTV ``maximization'' applications in channels 
60-69. As with the freeze on maximization in channels 52-59, the Bureau 
will consider requests for waiver of the freeze on channels 60-69 on a 
case-by-case basis for stations that propose an increase or shift in 
coverage under certain circumstances, including to permit co-location 
at a common antenna site or to resolve certain technical difficulties. 
We intend to protect applications for waiver under these maximization 
filing freezes in the same manner that we protect other pending 
applications. Absent a waiver, future applications for maximization of 
facilities on channels 52-69 now are foreclosed.
5. Applications for New Analog TV or DTV Facilities
    22. With respect to the Lower 700 MHz Band, digital service in the 
band could be proposed after the auction by a station with an existing 
DTV allotment on a channel outside the 52-58 band seeking to move to a 
channel inside this band or by a DTV station inside this band seeking 
to move to another channel inside the band. We invite comment on 
whether and how we should protect such proposed digital service on 
channels 52-58. We also seek comment on whether 47 CFR 73.622 should be 
amended to require that a broadcaster proposing a channel change that 
would cause harmful interference to a new entrant on channels 52-59 
demonstrate that no other suitable channels are available on 2-58 that 
would avoid such interference.
6. Channel 51
    23. Finally, we seek comment on the interference protection that 
should be afforded by wireless entities and other new service providers 
to future analog TV and DTV facilities on channel 51 that are 
authorized or requested after the auction of the spectrum comprising 
channel 52.

Pending DTV Construction Permit Applications

    24. A number of television licensees have not yet been granted an 
initial construction permit (CP) for a DTV facility. Almost all of 
these licensees have filed an application for a digital CP, but grant 
of these applications has been delayed for a variety of reasons 
including delays in international coordination with Canada and Mexico 
and unresolved interference issues. While the Commission has 
successfully resolved a number of obstacles to grant of outstanding 
digital CP applications, and the number of licensees without an initial 
digital CP has been significantly reduced, approximately 140 commercial

[[Page 7741]]

and noncommercial television licensees still have not yet been granted 
an initial DTV CP. To date, these applicants have not been required to 
construct DTV facilities pending action on their outstanding DTV 
applications.
    25. To ensure that all licensees that have been awarded digital 
spectrum begin to provide digital service, we propose to require that 
all such television licensees that have filed an application for a 
digital CP with the Commission that has not yet been granted must 
commence digital service pursuant to special temporary authority 
(``STA'') within one year from adoption of the R&O in this proceeding. 
Within this time frame, these applicants would be required to request 
an STA from the Commission and to construct at least the minimum 
initial facilities required to serve their community of license, as 
specified in the policy outlined in the 1st MO&O. We request comment on 
this proposal. We also request comment on whether the channel election 
and interference protection deadlines adopted in this proceeding should 
apply to these licensees and, if not, what other deadlines would be 
appropriate.

Noncommercial Educational Television Stations

    26. Noncommercial television broadcasters are scheduled to complete 
construction of their digital stations and commence digital service by 
May 1, 2003. We invite comment on whether noncommercial broadcasters 
that are not already airing a digital signal anticipate they will meet 
the May 1, 2003 construction deadline. For any station that does not 
anticipate meeting the deadline, what obstacles are preventing 
completion of construction? We also invite comment generally on what 
steps, if any, the Commission should take to assist noncommercial 
stations in the transition to DTV. For example, should the financial 
hardship standard for grant of an extension of time to construct a 
digital television station be applied differently to noncommercial 
licensees?
7. Simulcasting
    27. In the DTV 5th R&O, we adopted rules requiring DTV licensees to 
simulcast 50% of the video programming of their analog channel on their 
DTV channel by April 1, 2003. This requirement increases to a 75% 
simulcast requirement in April 2004, and a 100% requirement in April 
2005. We seek comment on whether we should retain, revise or remove the 
simulcast requirement, how to define simulcasting, and whether the 
existing dates are appropriate. What extent of program duplication 
should be required to fulfill simulcasting obligations? Does the 
ultimate requirement of 100% simulcasting other than at the very end of 
the transition create disincentives for broadcasters to innovate? If 
broadcasters have a market-based incentive to simulcast and currently 
are simulcasting 100% of their analog programming on their digital 
channel, is a regulatory requirement to simulcast necessary? Is the 
simulcasting requirement causing broadcasters to forego creative uses 
of digital technology? Would something less than a 100% simulcast 
requirement be sufficient to protect analog viewers while allowing for 
innovation on the DTV channels? If maintaining some simulcast 
obligation is appropriate, we seek comment on whether we should revise 
the current dates for the phase-in of simulcast requirements.
    28. We propose a definition of simulcasting in the DTV context as 
follows: Within a 24-hour period, the broadcast on a digital channel of 
the same programming broadcast on the analog channel, excluding 
commercials and promotions and allowing for enhanced features and 
services.
    We request comment on this proposed definition. We also seek 
comment on how simulcast requirements and the definition of 
``simulcasting'' relate to the substantial duplication decisions in the 
must carry portions of the Act.

Effect on Prime Time Broadcasting Requirements

    29. If we decide to eliminate or change the simulcasting 
requirements, we must adjust the digital broadcast schedule 
requirements that are currently pegged to the simulcast requirements. 
We propose that, if we eliminate or reduce the simulcasting 
requirements in Sec.  73.624(f), we amend Sec.  73.624(b)(1) to require 
DTV stations subject to the May 1, 2002, or May 1, 2003, construction 
deadlines to air, by April 1, 2003, a digital signal for an amount of 
time equivalent to 50% of the amount of time they provide an analog 
signal. The digital signal must be aired during prime time hours. This 
minimum digital operation requirement would increase to 75% on April 1, 
2004 (requiring airing of a digital signal for an amount of time 
equivalent to at least 75% of the amount of time the station airs an 
analog signal), and to 100% on April 1, 2005. We seek comment on this 
proposal and invite alternatives as well.

Section 309(j)(14)

    30. Section 309(j)(14)(A) of the Communications Act requires the 
Commission to reclaim the 6 MHz each broadcaster uses for transmission 
of analog television service by December 31, 2006. Congress recognized, 
however, that not all stations will convert to DTV at the same time. 
Thus, ``to ensure that a significant number of consumers in any given 
market are not left without broadcast television service as of January 
1, 2007,'' Congress required the Commission in section 309(j)(14)(B) to 
grant extensions to any station in any television market if one or more 
of three conditions exist. We review the language of section 309(j)(14) 
and invite comment on how we should interpret certain portions of that 
statutory provision. We also seek comment on establishing rules and 
filing deadlines governing how and when extension requests will be 
made.

Filing of Extension Requests

    31. Section 309(j)(14)(B) provides that the Commission shall extend 
the date by which stations must cease analog service for qualifying 
stations that request an extension. We intend to develop a form to be 
used by stations to request an extension under this provision. We 
invite comment on when stations seeking an extension should be required 
to file their extension request. We invite comment on the period of 
time for which extensions should be granted. We also invite comment on 
whether the Commission may grant a blanket extension under section 
309(j)(14)(B) to all stations in a market or nationally if the 
Commission finds that the criteria for return of analog spectrum have 
not been met. What findings would the Commission need to make in order 
to grant a blanket extension?

Definition of Television Market

    32. Under section 309(j)(14)(B), the Commission must consider 
whether any one of the three conditions for an extension exist in the 
requesting station's ``television market.'' For purposes of applying 
section 309(j)(14)(B), we invite comment on how we should define 
``television market.'' One option would be to define ``television 
market'' as the designated market area or DMA, as defined by Nielsen 
Media Research, in which the television station requesting the 
extension is located. Another option would be to define ``television 
market'' as the requesting station's Grade B contour.
    33. Use of DMAs to define the applicable market may be more 
consistent with the language of section 309(j)(14), which requires the 
Commission to grant an extension to ``any station that requests such an 
extension in any television market.'' This language seems to 
contemplate that

[[Page 7742]]

each market will contain more than one television station, as is 
generally true of DMAs. The Grade B contour of any station requesting 
an extension, in contrast, is generally unique for each station, and 
therefore contains only one station. A Grade B test may also be more 
difficult to administer as market data, including information about 
digital-to-analog converter technology and the number of television 
households with digital television reception capability, would have to 
be compiled for the area within each requesting station's Grade B 
contour, rather than DMA-wide.
    34. Use of DMAs to define the applicable market for purposes of 
section 309(j)(14)(B) would ensure that transition progress throughout 
the DMA is considered in determining whether the criteria for extension 
have been met. As parts of the United States, particularly in rural 
areas, do not lie within the Grade B contour of any full-power 
television station, a Grade B test would not consider transition 
progress in these areas before cessation of analog service.
    35. If we define the applicable market by reference to a station's 
Grade B contour, we invite comment on whether we should refer to the 
station's analog Grade B or the equivalent digital contour. In 
addition, does the market of a station requesting an extension under 
section 309(j)(14) include only the requesting station's Grade B 
contour, or also the Grade B contour of any TV translator 
retransmitting the requesting station's signal?
    36. The Grade B contour of many stations reaches more than one DMA. 
Under a DMA-only market test, a station could be denied an extension of 
its analog license without consideration of the status of the 
transition in a neighboring DMA where the station may have a 
significant number of viewers. To address this situation, another 
option would be to adopt a modified DMA market test that considers 
viewers in adjacent DMAs in situations where stations have a 
significant number of viewers in those DMAs. For example, where a 
station requesting a transition extension has a significant number of 
viewers in a DMA other than its designated DMA (``home DMA''), we could 
require that both DMAs meet the statutory criteria for the transition 
in section 309(j)(14)(B). We request comment on this approach.
    37. How we define the ``market'' is important in applying each of 
the conditions for an extension under section 309(j)(14)(B). We request 
comment on the impact of a DMA, modified DMA, or Grade B market 
definition on the availability of extensions under each of these 
conditions.

Network Digital Television Broadcast Test

    38. Under the first ground for an extension under section 
309(j)(14)(B), the Commission must grant an extension if one or more of 
the stations in the market that are licensed to or affiliated with one 
of the four largest national television networks is not ``broadcasting 
a digital television service signal, and the Commission finds that each 
such station has exercised due diligence and satisfies the conditions 
for an extension of the Commission's applicable construction deadlines 
for digital television service in that market.'' We invite comment on 
how we should interpret this provision. We read the language of section 
309(j)(14)(B)(i) to require that all stations in a market licensed to 
or affiliated with a top-four network must be broadcasting in digital 
before analog service is required to cease in the market, even if a 
top-four network has more than one affiliate in the market. We request 
comment on this view. Should we consider a station that is broadcasting 
a digital signal pursuant to a DTV STA, and providing service in 
compliance with the Commission's minimum initial digital television 
construction requirements, to be ``broadcasting a digital television 
service signal'' for purposes of this provision? We propose that a 
station not meeting such minimum initial DTV operating requirements 
would not be considered to be ``broadcasting a digital television 
signal'' within the meaning of this provision. Thus, extensions would 
be available under section 309(j)(14)(B)(i) in any market where a top 
four network affiliate is not providing digital service in accordance 
with at least the Commission's minimum requirements for coverage of the 
community of license and hours of operation. We request comment on this 
proposal.
    39. Alternatively, we could require that a station be providing 
service to the entire area encompassed within the station's DTV 
allotment in order to be considered ``broadcasting a digital television 
service signal'' in the market under section 309(j)(14)(B)(i). To 
ensure that stations not postpone replication to delay return of analog 
spectrum, we propose that if we require service to the full replication 
area under section 309(j)(14)(B)(i), we would not consider lack of 
replication to constitute lack of service after the replication 
protection deadline adopted in this proceeding.

Converter Technology Test

    40. Under the second ground for an extension under section 
309(j)(14)(B), the Commission must grant an extension to a requesting 
station if the Commission finds that digital-to-analog converter 
technology is not ``generally available'' in the market. For purposes 
of section 309(j)(14)(B)(ii), we propose to define as a ``digital-to-
analog converter'' units that are capable of converting a digital 
television broadcast signal to a signal that can be displayed on an 
analog television set. We invite comment on this definition. Should we 
consider as a ``digital-to-analog converter'' a unit that is not 
capable of displaying in analog format signals originally broadcast in 
all digital formats? We also request comment on how we should interpret 
the phrase ``generally available'' under section 309(j)(14)(B)(ii). For 
example, should we require only that digital-to-analog converter boxes 
be available for sale at retail outlets in the market or for sale or 
lease from cable operators or satellite providers? How widespread must 
the availability be to be considered ``generally available?'

15 Percent Test

    41. Section 309(j)(14)(B)(iii) provides for a third ground for 
extension for markets that do not qualify under section 
309(j)(14)(B)(i) or (ii). Section 309(j)(14)(B)(iii) sets forth a two-
part test. The first prong of the test, described in section 
309(j)(14)(B)(iii)(I), is met where 15 percent or more of the 
television households in the market do not subscribe to an MVPD (as 
defined in 47 U.S.C. 602) that ``carries one of the digital television 
service programming channels of each of the television stations 
broadcasting such a channel in such a market.''
    42. Read literally, section 309(j)(14)(B)(iii)(I) appears to 
require that an MVPD, such as a cable system, must be carrying all of 
the television stations broadcasting a digital channel as a first step 
to satisfy this prong of the test. Read thus, if one or two digital 
television stations in a market are not carried by a cable or satellite 
provider (e.g, because the station is not carried voluntarily and is 
not eligible for mandatory carriage), then the criterion is not met. In 
almost all DMAs, there are stations that are not entitled to must-carry 
on cable systems in the DMA and that are not carried by the systems 
voluntarily. Did Congress intend that this prong would be very rarely 
satisfied in a market?
    43. We invite comment on whether there is a more flexible 
interpretation of

[[Page 7743]]

the language in the statute. How should this language influence our 
definition of ``market?'' Can we conclude that only television 
broadcast stations that provide a good quality digital signal to the 
MVPD headend or local receive facility are contemplated by this 
language? If we interpret section 309(j)(14)(B)(iii)(I) as requiring 
carriage of only those digital stations in the market entitled to must-
carry, the availability of extensions under this provision will be more 
limited, and the market is likely to transition to digital more 
quickly. On the other hand, if we interpret section 
309(j)(14)(B)(iii)(I) as requiring that all stations broadcasting 
digital signals be carried regardless of the station's must-carry 
rights and signal delivery capability, this prong may be satisfied less 
often. Moreover, a station could refuse to grant retransmission 
consent, and prevent carriage, which would in turn prevent the MVPD 
from counting towards the market transition. As a result, the analog 
licenses would be extended in every market in which the 15% criteria is 
not met by households possessing over-the-air digital or down-
conversion equipment. Is this the result that Congress intended or that 
is compelled by the language in the statute?
    44. We also invite comment on whether, under section 
309(j)(14)(B)(iii), MVPDs must carry only primary, full power 
television stations in the market, or also Class A LPTV stations or 
other secondary non-Class A LPTV stations and TV translators. If 
section 309(j)(14)(B)(iii) is read to require carriage of all of these 
facilities in the market, and ``market'' is defined as DMA, then this 
prong of the transition criteria will be satisfied less often. If the 
market is defined as the station's Grade B contour or service area, 
then it may be more likely that cable systems within the station's 
Grade B area would carry that station (e.g., the signal quality issue 
is less likely to arise). How does this result influence our decision 
on the proper definition of market?''
    45. Under the second part of the 15% test, an extension should be 
granted if 15 percent or more of the television households in the 
market do not have either ``(a) at least one television receiver 
capable of receiving the digital television service signals of the 
television stations licensed in such market; or (b) at least one 
television receiver of analog television service signals equipped with 
digital-to-analog converter technology capable of receiving the digital 
television service signals of the television stations licensed in such 
market.''
    46. We invite comment on how we should interpret the phrase 
``capable of receiving the digital television service signals of the 
television stations licensed in such market.'' Does this phrase require 
that a household be capable of over-the-air reception of all television 
stations licensed in the market in order not to be counted toward the 
15 percent threshold for an extension? Under this interpretation, any 
household outside the service contour of any digital station in the 
market would be counted toward the 15 percent threshold under these 
provisions (recognizing that such households could be excluded from 
counting toward the 15 percent under section 309(j)(14)(B)(iii)(I) if 
they are MVPD subscribers as defined in that provision). What if a 
household receives a parent station's signal rebroadcast in analog 
format via TV translator (e.g., the parent station originally broadcast 
the signal in digital format and the signal was downconverted to analog 
format by a TV translator)? We note that Sec.  74.701 of the 
Commission's rules requires that TV translators retransmit the signals 
of the parent station ``without significantly altering any 
characteristic of the original signal other than its frequency and 
amplitude.'' Should our rules permit TV translators to downconvert to 
analog format a signal originally broadcast by the parent station in 
digital format? As a separate issue, we propose to define television 
receivers ``capable of receiving'' DTV signals under section 
309(j)(14)(B)(iii)(II)(a) as television sets equipped with either 
integrated or separate (e.g., set-top box) DTV tuners, and request 
comment on this definition.
    47. For purposes of calculating households in the market to 
determine whether the 15 percent test is met under both prongs of 
section 309(j)(14)(iii), we propose to interpret that provision as 
requiring grant of an extension where 15 percent or more of the 
television households in the market neither subscribe to an MVPD that 
carries local DTV signals (section 309(j)(14)(B)(iii)(I)), nor have 
equipment capable of displaying signals originated in DTV (section 
309(j)(14)(B)(iii)(II)). In other words, for a household to be counted 
in the 15 percent, that household must both be a non-subscriber (``non-
subscriber'' may include subscribers to MVPDs that carry the required 
DTV stations but who lack equipment to view such signals in either 
analog or digital format) and lack the capability to receive DTV 
signals over-the-air, either through a set with an integrated DTV 
tuner, via a DTV set-top box, or via a digital-to-analog downconverter. 
We believe that this interpretation best reflects the intent of 
Congress that ``a significant number of consumers in any given market 
are not left without broadcast television service'' as we transition 
from analog to digital. Accordingly, we propose to grant extensions 
under section 309(j)(14)(B)(iii) only where the requisite number of 
television households (15 percent or more) in the market are not 
capable of receiving digital signals either over the air or via an 
MVPD. We request comment on this view.

Fact Finding Under Section 309(j)(14)(B)

    48. We request comment on the extent to which the Commission is 
required to conduct consumer surveys or otherwise obtain information to 
determine whether an extension is required under section 309(j)(14)(B). 
In addition, we invite comment on the nature of any survey that must be 
performed, the type of questions that should be included, and the 
percent of the television households in the market that must be 
included in the sample. Is it necessary to survey each market 
separately, or would a more wide-spread survey suffice to establish 
that a market meets one or more of the criteria for grant of an 
extension request? If the first survey conducted demonstrates that an 
extension is warranted, when should a new survey be performed to see if 
there has been further transition progress in the market?

DTV Labeling Requirements and Consumer Awareness

    49. As part of our commitment to continue monitoring the 
marketplace, we seek further comment on whether manufacturers are 
producing or plan to produce digital television receivers that can 
receive digital format transmissions via cable or satellite but that 
cannot receive digital broadcast signals over the air. We also seek 
information on the number of ``pure monitors'' (without any tuner) 
intended for use in display of signals from video service providers 
that are currently produced or planned for production. Do equipment 
manufacturers plan to label such equipment to describe the reception 
limitations or need for additional receiving equipment? What is the 
potential for consumer confusion in connection with these devices? 
Should we require labeling on pure monitors that can be used to display 
video services, which neither receive off-air signals, nor are designed 
to be ``digital cable ready,'' to advise consumers that the monitor 
cannot function to receive programming unless it is attached to an

[[Page 7744]]

off-air tuner, or cable, or satellite receiver? Should we require 
labeling on digital television receivers that are not ``digital cable 
ready'' to indicate that the set ``will not receive cable or satellite 
programming without the use of a converter''? We seek comment on these 
and other labeling options, as well as the need for and costs of such 
required disclosures.
    50. In addition, we seek comment on whether the Commission should 
require a disclosure label on analog-only sets to inform consumers that 
a converter or external DTV tuner will be needed to ensure reception of 
television broadcast signals after stations in the consumer's market 
complete conversion to digital-only broadcasting.

Distributed Transmission Technologies

    51. In the 1st R&O, we addressed comments requesting that the 
Commission adopt rules for on-channel DTV boosters, including an 
allowance for a distributed transmission system, but deferred 
consideration of distributed transmission techniques until we could 
address the issue in a more comprehensive manner. Commenters have 
defined distributed transmission as being similar to a cellular 
telephone system in that a service area is divided into a number of 
cells, each served by its own transmitter. DTV boosters retransmit the 
primary DTV station's programming on the same channel.
    52. Primary vs. secondary status. We have received comments 
suggesting that the Commission should grant primary status to the 
multiple transmitters in distributed transmission systems and license 
them under part 73 of the rules, as opposed to treating them similarly 
to LPTV, translator, and booster stations. We seek comment on the 
implications of granting primary status to DTV boosters in distributed 
transmission systems, and on whether we should license some categories 
of such stations with primary status.
    53. Location and service area. Currently, all analog TV boosters 
must be located and must have a service area contained within the Grade 
B contour of the associated full service station. Should an equivalent 
requirement be established for DTV boosters used as part of a 
distributed transmission system?
    54. Power, antenna height and emission mask. If multiple DTV 
booster stations can be used to replace, or significantly augment, a 
single central transmitter in a distributed transmission system, what 
maximum or minimum limitations, if any, should be placed on the power 
and/or antenna height used at each DTV booster?
    55. Interference protection. What standards are needed to protect 
distributed transmission systems from interference and how should those 
standards be calculated and applied?
    56. Technical standards. What standards would be appropriate for 
boosters in distributed transmission systems with respect to specific 
technical requirements, such as frequency tolerance, type certification 
of transmitters, control circuitry and performance measurements?
    57. We seek comment generally on whether the Commission should 
permit the deployment of distributed transmission systems. We ask 
commenters to specifically address the relevant rules and policies that 
would have to be put in place to permit distributed transmission 
systems, and any new or amended forms, policies and/or procedures that 
would be needed with respect to the Commission's current system for 
filing, processing and granting television station licenses.

DTV Public Interest Obligations

    58. Both Congress and the Commission have recognized that digital 
television broadcasters have an obligation to serve the public 
interest. Congress established the statutory framework for the 
transition to digital television in the 1996 Act, making it clear that 
public interest obligations would continue for broadcasters in the new 
digital world. In section 336 of the Act, Congress stated that 
``[n]othing in this section shall be construed as relieving a 
television broadcasting station from its obligation to serve the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity.'' The Commission also reaffirmed 
that ``digital broadcasters remain public trustees with a 
responsibility to serve the public interest,'' and stated that 
``existing public interest requirements continue to apply to all 
broadcast licensees.'' Under our current rules, commercial television 
broadcast station licensees must provide coverage of issues facing 
their communities, and place lists of programming used in providing 
significant treatment of those issues (issues/programs lists) in the 
station's public inspection files on a quarterly basis. Licensees must 
also maintain in their station's public inspection files records that 
substantiate certification of compliance with the commercial limits on 
children's programming and quarterly Children's Television Programming 
Reports (FCC Form 398) reflecting the licensee's efforts to serve the 
educational and informational needs of children.
    59. It is thus clear that DTV broadcasters must air programming 
responsive to their communities of license, comply with the statutory 
requirements concerning political advertising and candidate access, and 
provide children's educational and informational programming, among 
other things. What remains unresolved is how these obligations will 
apply in the digital environment, and whether they should be applied 
differently or otherwise adapted to reflect the enhancements available 
in digital broadcasting.
    60. The Commission issued a formal Notice of Inquiry (``NOI''), (MM 
99-360, 65 FR 4211, January 26, 2000), on DTV public interest 
obligations in December 1999, followed by two NPRMs in September, 2000 
(65 FR 66951, November 8, 2000, 65 FR 62683, October 19,2000). In the 
NOI, the Commission sought comment on several issues related to how 
broadcasters might best serve the public interest during and after the 
transition from analog to digital television. Among the areas of 
inquiry in the NOI were questions regarding how broadcasters might make 
information about how they serve the public interest more accessible to 
the public.
    61. The DTV Public Interest Form NPRM proposed that the Commission 
adopt rules regarding the disclosure of broadcasters' activities in the 
public interest, essentially putting the contents of the public file on 
the Internet to make it more accessible to viewers. In light of the 
concerns about disclosure expressed in the record of the NOI, the NPRM 
proposed to replace the issues/programs list with a standardized form 
and to enhance the public's ability to access information on a 
station's public interest obligations by requiring broadcasters to make 
their public inspection files available on the Internet.
    62. The Children's DTV Public Interest NPRM (65 FR 66951, November 
8, 2000), proposed clarifying broadcaster obligations under the 
Children's Television Act and related Commission guidelines in a 
digital television environment. This NPRM focused primarily on two 
areas: the obligation of television broadcast licensees to provide 
educational and informational programming for children, and the 
requirement that television broadcast licensees limit the amount of 
advertising in children's programs. It sought comment on how the 
current three-hour children's core educational programming processing 
guideline should be applied in light of the many possible ways 
broadcasters

[[Page 7745]]

may choose to use their DTV spectrum; whether the current preemption 
rules for core educational programming should be revised or adapted for 
the digital environment; and whether steps should be taken to ensure 
that programs designed for children or families do not contain age-
inappropriate product promotions that are unsuitable for children to 
watch.
    63. To date, the Commission has not issued any decisions in the DTV 
Public Interest Form NPRM, the Children's DTV Public Interest NPRM, or 
the NOI. Given the significant time that has passed since the comment 
periods in these proceedings were closed, we invite additional comment 
in those dockets in order to reflect more recent developments. We are 
particularly interested in those issues relating to the application of 
public interest obligations to broadcasters that choose to multicast 
(e.g., the application of our children's television rules or the 
statutory political broadcasting rules in a multicast environment). We 
are also interested in whether our approach to multicast public 
interest obligations should vary with the scope of whatever final 
digital must-carry obligation the Commission adopts. Our goal is to 
bring these proceedings concerning the public interest obligations of 
broadcasters in the digital environment to conclusion promptly in order 
to provide certainty to broadcasters and the public as the digital 
television transition continues.

Other Issues

1. ATSC Standards
    64. We hereby seek comment on whether our rules should be further 
changed to reflect any revisions to the ATSC DTV standard A/53B since 
the August 7, 2001, version.
2. PSIP
    65. We seek comment on both whether to require use of PSIP and 
which aspects of PSIP should be adopted into our rules. If we decide 
not to require use of PSIP, it is, nevertheless, important to decide if 
some or all of the PSIP information set forth in ATSC A/65A must be 
used by those who voluntarily use PSIP. Likewise, are there certain 
aspects of the PSIP standard that should not be used or required?
3. Closed Captioning
    66. We seek comment on whether there are additional actions the 
Commission should take to ensure the accessibility and functioning of 
closed captioning service for digital television.
4. V-Chip
    67. We seek comment on whether the Commission needs to do more to 
ensure that v-chip functionality is available in the digital world. We 
seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt the provisions of 
the ATSC A/65A standard that requires all digital television 
broadcasters to place v-chip rating information in the PSIP.
5. TV Translators
    68. We request comment on how the proper PSIP information is to be 
provided on TV translator rebroadcasts and who will be responsible for 
ensuring that that information is so provided. We also request comment 
regarding the costs of providing PSIP information on TV translators as 
well as any other concerns that translator operators might have in 
implementing PSIP on their DTV operations.
6. DTV Station Identification
    69. In general, we propose to require digital television stations 
to follow the same rules for station identification as analog 
television stations. Recognizing that channel number identification is 
not currently required for all television stations by our rules, we ask 
whether channel identification should be required for DTV stations? If 
station identification announcements include channel numbers, we 
request comment on whether our rules should specify which channel 
number stations should use: the major (analog) channel number, minor 
(digital) channel number, or over-the-air channel number. Stations 
considering multicasting have raised concerns about separate 
identification of their separate digital programming streams for 
purposes of obtaining audience ratings. While we are not inclined to 
assign separate call signs for additional program streams for stations 
that choose to multicast, we propose to permit such stations to include 
additional information in their station announcements identifying each 
program stream.
7. Satellite Stations
    70. Because satellite stations, by definition, operate in small or 
sparsely populated areas which have insufficient economic bases to 
support full-service operations, we seek comment on whether the public 
interest would be served by allowing such stations to turn in their 
digital authorization and ``flash-cut'' to DTV transmission at the end 
of the transition period. We request comment on the advantages and 
disadvantages of granting this special designated status to satellite 
stations, specifically whether it will hinder the overall transition to 
digital television and harm viewers by delaying their access to digital 
signals, or whether disallowing such status will overly burden 
satellite stations financially.
    71. We also invite comment on whether allowing satellite stations 
to ``flash-cut'' to digital would present legal impediments to 
satisfying section 309(j)(14).

Procedural Matters

    72. Ex Parte Rules. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and 
comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, 
except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are 
disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 1.1202, 
1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
    73. Comment Information. Pursuant to Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file 
comments on or before April 14, 2003, and reply comments on or before 
May 14, 2003. Comments filed addressing issues in the DTV Public 
Interest Form NPRM, Children's DTV Public Interest NPRM, and NOI 
proceedings should also be filed by these dates and should reference 
the docket numbers in those proceedings, not the docket number of this 
DTV periodic review proceeding. Commenters wishing to address both 
public interest issues and other issues raised in the DTV periodic 
review should put their public interest comments in a separate document 
to be filed in the appropriate public interest docket(s) and file their 
comments on other issues raised in the periodic review in the docket 
number of this proceeding (MB 03-15; RM 9832).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    74. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This NPRM may contain 
proposed information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 
we invite OMB, the general public, and other federal agencies to take 
this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in 
this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Public 
and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on the 
NPRM. 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

[[Page 7746]]

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 Kim Johnson, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 
NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to 
Kim A. [email protected].
    75. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As required by the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities of the proposals addressed in 
this NPRM. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These 
comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for 
comments on the NPRM, and they should have a separate and distinct 
heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    76. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (``RFA''), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') of the possible significant economic 
impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this 
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 on 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. In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules

    77. As described in the NPRM, the proposed rules are required to 
ensure a smooth transition of the nation's television system to digital 
television.

Legal Basis

    78. The authority for the action proposed in this rulemaking is 
contained in sections 4(i) and (j), 303, 307, 309 and 336 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and (j), 303, 
307, 309 and 336.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Proposed Rules Will Apply

    79. 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. The RFA generally defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental entity.'' 
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 Small Business Administration 
(``SBA'').
    80. In this context, the application of the statutory definition to 
television stations is of concern. An element of the definition of 
``small business'' is that the entity not be dominant in its field of 
operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the 
criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is 
dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimates that 
follow 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 therefore might be over-inclusive.
    81. An additional element of the definition of ``small business'' 
is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. It is 
difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media 
entities and our estimates of small businesses might therefore be over 
inclusive.

Television Broadcasting

    82. The proposed rules and policies could apply to television 
broadcasting licensees, and potential licensees of television service. 
There were 1,509 television stations operating in the nation in 1992. 
The majority of firms can be considered small.

Cable and Other Program Distribution

    83. This category includes, among others, cable operators, direct 
broadcast satellite (``DBS'') services, home satellite dish (``HSD'') 
services, multipoint distribution services (``MDS''), multichannel 
multipoint distribution service (``MMDS''), Instructional Television 
Fixed Service (``ITFS''), local multipoint distribution service 
(``LMDS''), satellite master antenna television (``SMATV'') systems, 
and open video systems (``OVS''). According to Census Bureau data, 
there are 1,311 total cable and other pay television service firms that 
operate throughout the year of which 1,180 have less than $10 million 
in revenue. We address each service individually to provide a more 
precise estimate of small entities.
    Cable Operators. We estimate that there are fewer than 1,439 small 
entity cable system operators that may be affected by the decisions and 
rules proposed in this NPRM.

Direct Broadcast Satellite (``DBS'') Service

    84. There are four licensees of DBS services under part 100 of the 
Commission's Rules. We will assume all four licensees are small, for 
the purpose of this analysis.

Home Satellite Dish (``HSD'') Service

    85. HSD users include: (1) Viewers who subscribe to a packaged 
programming service, which affords them access to most of the same 
programming provided to subscribers of other MVPDs; (2) viewers who 
receive only non-subscription programming; and (3) viewers who receive 
satellite programming services illegally without subscribing. Because 
scrambled packages of programming are most specifically intended for 
retail consumers, these are the services most relevant to this 
discussion. Most of providers of these services are considered small.

Multipoint Distribution Service (``MDS''), Multichannel Multipoint 
Distribution Service (``MMDS'') Instructional Television Fixed Service 
(``ITFS'') and Local Multipoint Distribution Service (``LMDS'')

    86. MMDS systems, often referred to as ``wireless cable,'' transmit 
video programming to subscribers using the microwave frequencies of the 
MDS and ITFS. LMDS is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint microwave 
service that provides for two-way video telecommunications.
    87. We find that there are approximately 850 small MDS providers.
    88. We tentatively conclude that at least 1,932 ITFS licensees are 
small businesses.
    89. We conclude that there are a total of 133 small entity LMDS 
providers.

Satellite Master Antenna Television (``SMATV'') Systems

    90. Industry sources estimate that approximately 5,200 SMATV 
operators were providing service as of December 1995. Most providers of 
these services are considered small.

[[Page 7747]]

Open Video Systems (``OVS'')

    91. The Commission has certified 25 OVS operators with some now 
providing service. We conclude that at least some of the OVS operators 
qualify as small entities.

Electronics Equipment Manufacturers

    92. Rules adopted in this proceeding could apply to manufacturers 
of DTV receiving equipment and other types of consumer electronics 
equipment. We conclude that there are no more than 542 small 
manufacturers of audio and visual electronics equipment and no more 
than 1,150 small manufacturers of radio and television broadcasting and 
wireless communications equipment for consumer/household use.

Computer Manufacturers

    93. We conclude that there are approximately 544 small computer 
manufacturers.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    94. At this time, we do not expect that the proposed rules would 
impose any significant additional recordkeeping or recordkeeping 
requirements. While the requirements proposed in the NPRM could have an 
impact on consumer electronics manufacturers and broadcasters, such 
impact would be similarly costly for both large and small entities. We 
seek comment on whether others perceive a need for more extensive 
recordkeeping and, if so, whether the burden would fall on large and 
small entities differently.

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered

    95. 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.
    96. The deadlines we proposed for replication and maximization for 
in-core channels would give the largest commercial stations in the 
largest markets on in-core channels three years to acquire necessary 
financing, develop business plans, and expand their digital service 
areas. Taking into consideration smaller-market commercial stations, 
smaller commercial stations in larger markets, and noncommercial DTV 
licensees, which may face greater obstacles in moving towards full 
replication or service maximization, we proposed alternative 
replication and maximization deadlines allowing close to the maximum 
time under the current statutory transition period to complete their 
replication and maximization facilities. We welcome comment on 
modifications of the proposals if such modifications might assist small 
entities and especially if such are based on evidence of potential 
differential impact.

Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Commission's Proposals

    97. None.

Ordering Clause

    98. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i) and (j), 
303, 307, 309 and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 154(i) and (j), 303, 307, 309 and 336, this NPRM is adopted.
    99. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this NPRM, including 
the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 73, 74, 76, and 90

    Administrative practice and procedure, Cable television, 
Television.

    Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-3812 Filed 2-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P