[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 13, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28586-28596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09625]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MB Docket No. 20-74, GN Docket No. 16-142; FCC 20-43; FRS 16707]


Rules Governing the Use of Distributed Transmission System 
Technologies, Authorizing Permissive Use of the ``Next Generation'' 
Broadcast Television Standard

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether to 
modify the Commission's rules governing the use of distributed 
transmission system (DTS) technologies by broadcast television 
stations. Specifically, the Commission seek comment on amending section 
73.626 of its rules to permit, within certain limits, DTS signals to 
spill over beyond a station's authorized service area by more than the 
``minimal amount'' currently allowed; how DTS signals extending beyond 
their current service areas should be treated for interference purposes 
if such spillover is allowed; potential impacts to other spectrum 
users, such as TV translators and LPTV stations, including whether 
there are alternatives to the proposed rule changes that could 
accomplish the intended objectives; whether to modify the DTS rules as 
they relate to Class A and LPTV licensees; and whether and to what 
extent the proposed changes are also appropriate for stations 
broadcasting in ATSC 1.0.

DATES: Comments Due: June 12, 2020. Replies Due: July 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 20-74 
and GN Docket No. 16-142, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ty Bream, Industry Analysis Division,

[[Page 28587]]

Media Bureau, [email protected], (202) 418-0644.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in MB Docket No. 20-74 and GN Docket No. 
16-142, FCC 20-43, adopted on March 31, 2020 and released on April 1, 
2020. The full text of this document is available for public inspection 
online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-43A1.pdf. 
Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, 
and/or Adobe Acrobat. Alternative formats are available for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, 
etc.) and reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign 
language interpreters, CART, etc.) may be requested by sending an email 
to [email protected] or calling the FCC's Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment on 
changes to the Commission's rules governing the use of a distributed 
transmission system (DTS), or single frequency network (SFN), by a 
broadcast television station. Consistent with the joint petition for 
rulemaking (Petition) submitted by America's Public Television Stations 
(APTS) and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) 
(collectively, Petitioners), by this NPRM we seek input regarding 
technical changes to the DTS rules that could enable the broadcast 
television industry to expand DTS use as it deploys the next generation 
broadcast television standard (ATSC 3.0). The Commission's current 
rules regarding DTS use were first adopted more than a decade ago in 
advance of the digital television (DTV) transition, which was completed 
for full-power television stations in 2009. Petitioners contend that, 
while certain characteristics associated with ATSC 3.0 make the use of 
DTS more efficient and more economical in conjunction with that 
standard, the Commission's current rules inhibit expanded DTS 
deployments, particularly near the edge of a station's coverage area. 
Accordingly, Petitioners ask that we amend our rules to permit, within 
certain limits, DTS signals to spill over beyond a station's authorized 
service area by more than the ``minimal amount'' currently allowed by 
our rules. We seek comment below on whether and, if so, how to modify 
our DTS rules to ensure that broadcasters planning to deploy ATSC 3.0 
are able to use DTS effectively while at the same time minimizing 
potential impacts on other spectrum users. To that end, we seek comment 
on amending our rules consistent with the changes proposed in the 
Petition. As Petitioners note, the Commission has recognized numerous 
potential benefits of DTS technology, including the ability to serve 
hard-to-reach viewers, improved indoor and mobile reception, and the 
more efficient use of TV spectrum.
    2. With this NPRM, we seek to facilitate the use of new and 
innovative technologies by broadcasters. In particular, as the 
Commission has recognized, the voluntary transition to ATSC 3.0 could 
enable broadcasters to offer enhanced over-the-air programming, 
wireless broadcasts and emergency alerts, and advanced data services 
supported by broadband connectivity. ATSC 3.0 proponents have claimed 
that this transmission standard has the potential to revolutionize the 
viewing experience for consumers by providing them more immersive 
content through new, IP-based consumer applications. DTS technology 
used in conjunction with ATSC 3.0 technology thereby has the potential 
to promote enhanced service offerings to broadcast television viewers, 
public safety organizations, and consumers of next generation services. 
Accordingly, with this proceeding, we seek to address technical issues 
that may impede the adoption of DTS technology.

Background.

    3. Traditionally, a broadcast television station transmits its 
signal from a single elevated transmission site central to the service 
area, resulting in a stronger signal available near the transmitter and 
a weaker signal as the distance from the transmitter increases. Non-
uniform terrain or morphological features can also weaken signals, 
regardless of distance from the transmitter. One way for a station to 
augment its signal strength is to provide fill-in service using one or 
more separately licensed secondary transmission sites that operate on a 
different radiofrequency (RF) channel than the main facility, i.e., a 
television translator. By contrast, a distributed transmission system 
employs two or more transmission sites located around a station's 
service area, each using the same RF channel and synchronized to manage 
self-interference. DTS therefore offers an alternative to traditional 
full-power television transmission and the use of secondary translators 
on additional frequencies.
    4. More than a decade ago, the Commission first recognized the 
potential uses and benefits of DTS technologies when the transition 
from analog to digital broadcasting brought with it the ability to 
transmit multiple television signals on the same channel without 
causing harmful interference, thus making DTS feasible for television 
for the first time. In November 2008, the Commission adopted a Report 
and Order establishing rules for the use of DTS in the DTV service. In 
the 2008 DTS Order, the Commission noted that DTS could allow stations 
to reach more viewers in their coverage areas, distributes more uniform 
and higher-level signals near the edges of stations' coverage areas, 
improves indoor reception and reception on mobile devices, offers an 
alternative to stations limited by tower height and placement 
restrictions, increases spectrum efficiency by allowing networks to use 
the same channel for all operations, enhances the ability of 
broadcasters to compete with multichannel video programming 
distributors, and allows broadcasters to continue to reach viewers that 
lost service as a result of the digital transition.
    5. Specifically, in the 2008 DTS Order, the Commission adopted 
rules permitting a full-power DTV station to transmit using multiple 
lower power transmitter sites operating on the same frequency. In 
crafting these rules, the Commission defined a DTS station's maximum 
authorized service area to be an area ``comparable to that which the 
DTV station could be authorized to serve with a single transmitter.'' 
This was referred to as the ``Comparable Area Approach.'' To define the 
boundaries of this comparable service area (i.e., a DTS station's 
maximum service area), the Commission established a ``Table of 
Distances,'' which it derived from the hypothetical maximum service 
area that a DTV station would be allowed to apply for under the 
Commission's rules. The maximum service area defined by the Table of 
Distances is centered around the station's reference facility. Among 
other things, the Commission's rules require that each DTS transmitter 
must be located within either the reference station's Table of 
Distances area or its authorized service area. In addition, each DTS 
transmitter's coverage (i.e., its noise-limited service contour (NLSC)) 
must be contained within either the station's Table of Distances area 
or its authorized service area, except where such extension of coverage 
beyond the station's authorized service area is of a ``minimal amount'' 
and necessary to ensure that

[[Page 28588]]

the combined coverage from all of its DTS transmitters covers all of 
the station's authorized service area. The Commission affords primary 
regulatory status to DTS transmitters within the areas they are 
authorized to serve. Finally, the rules allow licensees of multiple 
digital Class A, low power television (LPTV), and/or television 
translator stations to operate through interconnected single frequency 
DTS networks, i.e., to operate a network of stations co-channel using 
their multiple licenses.
    6. In November 2017, the Commission adopted a Report and Order 
authorizing broadcast television stations to use the ATSC 3.0 
transmission standard on a voluntary, market-driven basis while they 
continue to deliver current-generation DTV broadcast service to their 
viewers using the ATSC 1.0 standard (Next Gen TV Order). In the Next 
Gen TV Order, the Commission concluded that the existing rules 
authorizing DTS stations generally were adequate to authorize the 
operation of an ATSC 3.0 SFN and that the record did not support 
changes to the authorized service areas for DTS stations at that time. 
The Commission further stated that it would monitor the deployment of 
ATSC 3.0 in the marketplace and consider changes to the DTS rules in 
the future, if appropriate. The Commission also noted that a station 
interested in pursuing a change to its DTS service area may file for a 
waiver of the DTS rules pursuant to the Commission's general waiver 
standard.
    7. On October 3, 2019, Petitioners filed a joint petition for 
rulemaking seeking to amend section 73.626 of the Commission's rules 
relating to DTS. Petitioners assert that broadcasters planning ATSC 3.0 
deployments are interested in exploring the advanced capabilities of 
ATSC 3.0 to facilitate the use of DTS. The Petition asks the Commission 
to ``amend its methodology for determining DTS service limits while 
preserving the current interference requirements.'' Petitioners contend 
that the DTS rules, which currently allow DTS signals to spill over by 
only a ``minimal amount'' beyond a station's authorized service area, 
``limit broadcasters' ability to deploy additional [DTS] transmitters 
near the edge of a station's coverage area, hampering the deployment of 
[DTS] networks.'' Petitioners do not seek to place DTS transmitters 
beyond a station's authorized service area. Rather, Petitioners ask the 
Commission to change the DTS rules to permit stations more flexibility 
in the placement of their DTS transmitters, particularly near the edge 
of a station's coverage area. Specifically, Petitioners propose that 
the placement of DTS transmitters would be limited by what Petitioners 
refer to as the DTS transmitter's ``interference contour,'' which could 
not exceed that of the reference facility. Petitioners assert that 
their requested rule changes would allow them to ``unlock'' the 
``numerous'' benefits of DTS operations beyond what the current DTS 
rules enable, such as further improving service throughout a station's 
coverage area, improving mobile reception, and allowing more efficient 
use of broadcast spectrum by reducing the need for television 
translators using separate channels.
    8. On October 11, 2019, the Media Bureau issued a public notice 
seeking comment on the Petition and setting comment and reply comment 
deadlines of November 12, 2019 and November 27, 2019, respectively 
(Public Notice). Thirteen parties filed comments in response to the 
Public Notice. Seven parties filed reply comments, including 
Petitioners.
    9. The majority of commenters support the Petition, although some 
with reservations. For example, ARK Multicasting (ARK) and the LPTV 
Spectrum Rights Coalition (LPTV Coalition) state that they support the 
Petition provided that LPTV stations and TV translators are protected 
from displacement. National Public Radio (NPR) urges the Commission to 
address the risk of interference posed by DTV Channel 6 (DTV6) stations 
in spectrum adjacent to reserved band noncommercial educational (NCE) 
FM stations. Two commenters--The National Translator Association (NTA) 
and Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft), the latter a supporter of white 
space device operations--oppose the Petition. NTA states that the 
Petition is ``premature'' and that the issues put forth by the Petition 
should be considered in three to five years ``once the penetration of 
home reception and broadcast station transmissions are both far enough 
along for the affected [parties] to understand many of the strengths 
and weaknesses in this ambitious upgrade and replacement program.'' 
Microsoft asserts that the ``rule changes proposed in the [P]etition . 
. . appear to go well beyond what is needed to fill coverage gaps 
within broadcasters' service areas'' and that Petitioners have not made 
a persuasive showing that the flexibility in the existing rules as to 
de minimis spillover is insufficient. Microsoft further states that any 
rule changes should be closely tailored to the need to fill coverage 
gaps, and not extend service beyond a station's service contour.
    10. In their reply, Petitioners state that their proposals would 
not expand the area within which a DTS transmitter can be located, 
would not enlarge the area within which a DTV station is protected from 
interference, and would not permit a DTV station to increase its 
antenna height or effective radiated power beyond what is currently 
allowed. Petitioners also assert that their proposals are tailored to 
minimize impact on LPTV and television translator stations and that 
adopting their proposed rule changes would ``provide the enhanced 
spectrum efficiency Microsoft seeks.'' Together with their reply, 
Petitioners filed a brief technical study analyzing the impact of their 
proposed rule changes on LPTV stations (Petitioners' Study). While 
Petitioners do not seek interference protection for any spillover 
stemming from their proposed rule changes, they acknowledge, based on 
the submitted Petitioners' Study, that impacts to LPTV or translator 
stations from such spillover are ``unavoidable.'' Nonetheless, 
Petitioners contend that the Commission should not consider elevating 
the rights of secondary services as part of this proceeding. Although 
Petitioners' Study does not address white space devices, Petitioners 
respond to Microsoft's concerns with assurances that they do not 
propose that DTS transmitters could be located outside a station's 
service area, that broadcasters could enlarge the area within which a 
DTV station is protected from interference, or that DTS transmitters 
could cause interference to other broadcast stations above currently 
permitted levels.

Discussion

    11. We seek comment below on changing our DTS rules consistent with 
the proposals set forth in the Petition. Specifically, we seek comment 
on whether any change to our DTS rules is necessary or appropriate at 
this time, and if so, whether to adopt the proposals or whether there 
are alternatives we should consider. In doing so, we seek comment on 
whether to permit more than a ``minimal amount'' of DTS spillover 
beyond a station's authorized service area, how we should treat DTS 
signals beyond their current service areas if such spillover is 
allowed, and, finally, the use of DTS by Class A and LPTV licensees. We 
also seek comment on whether and to what extent the following or other 
changes are appropriate for ATSC 3.0, ATSC 1.0, or both.
    12. We seek comment on whether to change our rules to replace the 
current

[[Page 28589]]

standard, which limits spillover beyond a reference station's 
authorized service area to a ``minimal amount,'' with a less 
restrictive standard.
    13. In particular, we seek comment on Petitioners' claim that such 
a rule change is needed now as the industry embarks on ATSC 3.0 
deployment. Petitioners maintain that DTS is now both technically and 
economically feasible with ATSC 3.0 in ways that it has never been with 
ATSC 1.0. They contend, however, that the current rules inhibit 
efficient and economical deployment of additional transmitters near the 
edges of a station's coverage area. We seek comment on Petitioners' 
claims. We also seek comment on the opposing argument that it is 
premature to change the DTS rules now and that the Commission should 
allow the ATSC 3.0 marketplace to develop further before considering 
changes. What impact, if any, will deferring DTS rule changes have on 
the development of the ATSC 3.0 marketplace? If the rules should be 
changed, we seek comment on the appropriate time to take such action.
    14. In addition to limiting spillover, our rules currently require 
that each DTS transmitter be located within either a station's Table of 
Distances area or its authorized service area. Petitioners and 
commenters addressing the issue of transmitter location agree that we 
should maintain this requirement. We tentatively conclude not to modify 
this requirement but welcome comment on this issue.
    15. Petitioners argue that the current DTS rules undercut a key 
benefit of DTS--facilitating service to hard-to-reach viewers. We seek 
comment on whether, and if so how, revising our rules consistent with 
the proposals in the Petition would benefit viewers. How many more 
viewers likely would be reached if we changed our rules? Are there 
additional services that could be provided to broadcast television 
viewers and other consumers in local markets? Would there be offsetting 
adverse effects for viewers, and if so, how should we balance those 
trade-offs with potential benefits to viewers? How, if at all, would 
facilitating the deployment of DTS impact the viability of non-
broadcast service offerings, such as advanced data services? What would 
be the costs and benefits to the local market generally?
    16. If we were to revise our rules consistent with the proposals in 
the Petition, DTS spillover would be permitted outside the boundaries 
of a station's service area to the extent additional coverage is 
necessary either to ``achieve a practical design'' or, as articulated 
in the current rule, to ensure that ``combined coverage from all of the 
DTS transmitters covers all of the applicant's authorized service 
area.'' In place of the current rule's ``minimal amount'' limitation, 
the extent of spillover permitted would be subject instead to the 
limitation that (for UHF stations) the DTS transmitter's 36 dBu F(50, 
10) ``interference'' contour not exceed the reference facility's 36 dBu 
F(50, 10) contour. Petitioners claim that using this value would reduce 
interference with co-channel Class A and LPTV operations, yet, at the 
same time, they acknowledge that there may be instances where 
disruption to LPTV stations would be ``unavoidable.'' We seek comment 
on the most likely impact of this approach. Additionally, consistent 
with the proposals in the Petition, we tentatively conclude that the 
area within which a station may locate a DTS transmitter would not 
expand as a result of this rule change, nor would the station's 
authorized antenna height or authorized effective radiated power 
increase beyond what is currently allowed for the station. We seek 
comment on these tentative conclusions.
    17. In addition, we seek comment on whether to eliminate the 
current standard that limits spillover to a ``minimal amount'' 
necessary to ensure full coverage of the applicant's service area, and 
to replace it with a standard based on whether spillover is ``necessary 
to achieve a practical design.'' Petitioners contend that the 
Commission's policy of allowing only a ``de minimis extension of a 
station's coverage area on a case-by-case basis'' is insufficient to 
facilitate deployment of DTS transmitters near the edges of a station's 
coverage area. We seek comment on claims that the current minimal 
spillover allowance and the ability to seek a waiver are inadequate to 
fulfill the promise of DTS and facilitate deployment. Is ``necessary to 
achieve a practical design'' an appropriate standard? What would be its 
effect? If we adopt it, how should we define ``necessary'' for purposes 
of applying this standard? Moreover, how would the Commission 
appropriately determine what constitutes a ``practical design,'' and 
how difficult would it be to administer such a standard? Are there 
specific factors (e.g., related to logistical issues, speed of 
deployment, or cost) that we should consider in determining whether a 
proposed DTS deployment is, in fact, ``necessary to achieve a practical 
design?'' Should we require applicants seeking to satisfy this standard 
to demonstrate that alternatives would be prohibitively costly and/or 
substantially less beneficial than the applicant's purportedly 
``necessary'' design? Are there other standards that we should 
consider? For instance, should we replace the ``minimal amount'' 
standard with a more specific quantitative standard, and if so, what 
should that standard be?
    18. We also seek comment on whether to adopt a 36 dBu F(50, 10) 
``interference'' contour as the limiting contour for permissible 
spillover. Is this proposal reasonable and appropriate? Are Petitioners 
accurate in asserting that adoption of this contour would reduce 
interference with co-channel Class A and LPTV operations? For instance, 
should the Petitioners' proposal be modified in view of the fact that 
the DTV co-channel interference desired-to-undesired ratio varies 
between 15 and 23 dB, depending on the signal strength of the desired 
station? Is there another contour that could or should be used instead? 
Should we consider changing the ``minimal amount'' standard without 
also adopting the proposed interference contour (or with some different 
limiting contour)? To what extent could we expect other services, 
including Class A and LPTV stations, to be operating in the spillover 
area permitted if we revise our rules consistent with the proposals in 
the Petition?
    19. In addition, we seek comment on issues related to 
implementation of any changes to the DTS rules. For example, are there 
changes to the Commission's DTS licensing process that should be 
considered so as to facilitate the deployment of DTS sites shared by 
multiple licensees? What would be the implications of any such changes, 
for instance, in terms of the need to make changes to Commission forms 
or licensing systems? Are there any other issues that could arise given 
substantive differences between or among multiple licensees? In 
addition, should we impose power restrictions on DTS transmitters to 
ensure they are used only to fill coverage gaps? If so, should we 
establish a blanket power restriction, or should we tailor power 
restrictions to the specific circumstances of each case? What should 
those power restrictions be, if any? Should we require applicants to 
certify that their objective is to fill coverage gaps and not to extend 
service? Should the Commission consider the potential for either self-
interference or coverage improvements realized from enhanced signals 
due to operation of co-channel DTS transmitters within stations' NLSCs? 
Are there any other technical complexities or effects on any of our 
other rules that we should

[[Page 28590]]

consider? What other implementation issues, if any, should we address?
    20. We also seek comment on the implications of changing our DTS 
rules in light of the original purposes and justifications for those 
rules. As noted above, revising our rules consistent with the proposals 
in the Petition would permit DTS signals to reach beyond what the 
Commission authorized in the 2008 DTS Order. In that proceeding, the 
Commission determined that a DTS station's maximum authorized service 
area should be comparable to that which the DTV station could be 
authorized to serve with a single transmitter (the Comparable Area 
Approach). It prohibited DTS stations from operating on either a 
primary or secondary basis beyond that limit. In particular, the 
Commission rejected requests to adopt an Expanded Area Approach 
allowing DTS stations to reach an area wider than achievable with a 
traditional single-transmitter station and specifically to the 
boundaries of their DMAs. The Commission was also concerned that an 
Expanded Area Approach ``would subvert [its] current licensing rules by 
allowing a station to obtain the rights to serve a new community where 
a new station, including a low-power station, might otherwise be 
licensed'' and would be inconsistent with the statutory requirement to 
assign new licenses through a competitive bidding process, as 
appropriate. In addition, the Commission concluded that ``[a]n Expanded 
Area Approach is not necessary to implement DTS service or obtain its 
core benefits.''
    21. We seek comment on the continuing relevance of these or other 
conclusions that led the Commission to adopt a Comparable Area Approach 
in the 2008 DTS Order and to retain that approach--at least 
tentatively--in the Next Gen TV Order. Do such conclusions remain 
current and sound? For example, would the proposal enable broadcasters 
to serve additional areas without going through a competitive bidding 
process? Would that result be an appropriate exercise of our spectrum 
management authority under the Communications Act? Would revising our 
rules consistent with the proposals in the Petition effectively amount 
to adopting the previously rejected Expanded Area Approach? Are the 
reasons for rejecting the Expanded Area Approach still valid given 
marketplace developments over the past 12 years?
    22. We also seek comment on the potential impact of the proposed 
rule changes on the Commission's policy goal of promoting localism. 
Nexstar asserts that the proposed rule changes would promote localism 
by enabling more viewers within a service area to access the local news 
and informational programming of an ATSC 3.0 broadcaster. Further, 
several other broadcaster commenters contend that maximizing 
broadcasters' ability to utilize DTS would promote localism because the 
geo-targeted programming capabilities of ATSC 3.0 will allow 
broadcasters to tailor programming, including news, weather, and 
emergency alerts, to specific communities. We seek comment on these 
issues.
    23. How should we evaluate these claims in light of the fact that 
the Commission previously rejected an Expanded Area Approach, in part 
because it felt that permitting broadcasters to reach viewers beyond 
their authorized service areas could distract them from the primary 
responsibility of providing programming responsive to the needs and 
interests of their community of license? At that time, the Commission 
cautioned that ``DTS must not be used to undermine localism and that a 
DTS service area should not shift a station's primary focus from its 
community of license.'' The Commission also expressed concern that 
allowing DTS signals to spill over beyond a station's existing service 
area and into new communities would foreclose opportunities for the 
licensing of new LPTV stations to serve those communities. In advancing 
their proposal, however, Petitioners assert that the proposed rule 
changes would not harm localism because their recommended interference 
contour would prevent DTS stations from encroaching on the service of 
stations in adjacent markets.
    24. We seek comment on whether, on balance, revising our rules 
consistent with the proposals in the Petition would hinder or promote 
our localism goal and the delivery of programming responsive to the 
needs and interests of local communities. What is the relevance in 
today's marketplace of the Commission's prior conclusions regarding the 
impact of an Expanded Area Approach on localism? Is there any evidence 
that these concerns have or would come to pass as a result of DTS use? 
To what extent have LPTV stations entered areas that DTS stations might 
otherwise have served? What would be the effect on localism if the 
proposed rule changes precluded future LPTV service in spillover areas?
    25. To inform our analysis of proposed rule changes, we seek 
comment on the deployment of DTS, both now and in the future. As noted 
above, the Next Gen TV Order made clear that, in addition to ATSC 1.0 
broadcasters, ATSC 3.0 broadcasters also are currently permitted to 
deploy SFNs under the Commission's existing DTS rules. We seek comment 
on the current and reasonably foreseeable future state of DTS 
deployment using either ATSC 1.0 or ATSC 3.0. At present, there are 
fewer than two dozen active DTS stations. To what extent are current 
DTS deployments providing benefits, including those envisioned in the 
2008 DTS Order? What factors, if any, are inhibiting additional DTS 
deployments or restricting the realization of such benefits today? Are 
there types of locations or circumstances where DTS has proven, or is 
expected to prove, particularly valuable? Are there characteristics of 
ATSC 3.0 that are particularly conducive to DTS use, and, if so, what 
are they? How does the potential for co-channel interference within a 
station's DTS service area differ between a deployment using ATSC 1.0 
and a deployment using ATSC 3.0, and what are the potential benefits in 
improved coverage realized by each technology due to the enhancement of 
signal strength within an NLSC? Are there specific types of 
deployments, network configurations, or uses that ATSC 3.0 enables that 
are infeasible or impractical under ATSC 1.0? In particular, we seek 
comment from broadcasters intending or considering whether to deploy 
DTS networks. What challenges do they face?
    26. To what extent would broadcasters decline to deploy DTS 
transmitters if the rule is not changed? To what extent could 
directional antennas or other solutions obviate or reduce the need for 
a rule change? In other words, can DTS transmitters employ a 
directional antenna to reach viewers at the edge of a station's 
coverage area without spilling beyond that area? If so, are there 
additional costs associated with the deployment of a directional 
antenna that make it a less attractive option? Are there terrain-
specific factors that render the use of directional antennas 
impractical in some situations? We invite commenters to provide 
specific real-world examples of circumstances where use of DTS signals 
would be impractical under the current rules but would be viable if the 
rules were changed. How common are such situations?
    27. We also ask commenters to quantify, to the extent possible, not 
just the need for rule changes but also the benefits and costs of 
adopting rule changes, including rule changes that are consistent with 
the proposals in the Petition. What are the costs associated with 
deploying, operating, and

[[Page 28591]]

maintaining a DTS transmitter or network of transmitters? How 
significantly do these costs differ when adding one or more 
transmitters to an existing structure versus constructing a new 
facility? On average, how many transmitters could we expect each 
station to deploy if we modify our rules as suggested herein? Would the 
changes proposed herein reduce the cost of deployment of DTS and, if 
so, how and to what degree? For example, would fewer DTS transmitters 
be required? What other quantifiable benefits would flow from changing 
our rules? What are the potential impacts of more numerous DTS 
deployments? Would it require the construction of new towers, or would 
stations be able to use existing towers or other structures? What would 
be the costs stemming from proposed rule changes, particularly to other 
licensees that may be affected or displaced by the changes? We ask 
that, in responding, commenters quantify the specific costs entailed 
with deployment and any specific savings that would flow from the 
proposed technical changes.
    28. In addition to costs and benefits associated with deployment, 
are there costs or benefits we should consider related to spectrum 
efficiency? For example, several commenters point to the more efficient 
use of spectrum that can be achieved by using DTS transmitters instead 
of translators, given that DTS transmitters broadcast on the same 
channel as the main transmitter. Microsoft contends that the Commission 
should encourage broadcasters to relinquish their dedicated translator 
channels and transition their translator facilities to DTS, thereby 
freeing up spectrum for other uses. We seek comment on Microsoft's 
suggestion. If rule changes would increase opportunities to create DTS 
networks, how much more spectrum is likely to become available as a 
result of no longer needing translators to rebroadcast the primary 
station's signal? How likely is that recovered spectrum to be used and 
for what purposes? Spectrum efficiency is also enhanced when 
broadcasters use portions of their spectrum not dedicated to over-the-
air programming to provide non-broadcast services, such as advanced 
data services. Would the use of DTS networks increase the likelihood 
that broadcasters would offer such services? And, if so, are there 
costs and benefits that we should consider?
    29. If we modify our DTS rules to change our restriction that 
currently limits DTS spillover to a ``minimal amount,'' the next 
fundamental issue we ask commenters to address is the level of 
interference protection that should be afforded to, and expected from, 
DTS station signals in the spillover area. Notably, Petitioners do not 
seek interference protection for DTS signals in the spillover area, and 
we tentatively conclude that if we were to modify our rules consistent 
with the Petition, we would not enlarge the area within which a DTV 
station is protected from interference. Petitioners acknowledge, 
however, that such spillover signals could cause disruption to 
secondary services in some instances. We seek comment below regarding 
how other spectrum users, including LPTV and translator stations, 
wireless microphones, and white spaces devices, could be affected by 
such rule changes and whether there are steps we could and should take 
to mitigate such impacts.
    30. As an initial matter, we seek comment on what regulatory 
status, if any, should be granted to DTS signals beyond the reference 
station's service area. In the 2008 DTS Order, the Commission rejected 
requests to confer either primary or secondary status to DTS 
transmissions that spilled over a station's authorized service area. As 
discussed above, the Commission's rationales included treating single-
transmitter and DTS stations consistently, protecting localism, and 
preserving opportunities for new low-power stations. The Commission 
also noted that DTS broadcasters can achieve the same benefits as a 
secondary service by using digital on-channel translator/LPTV stations 
under Part 74 of the Commission's rules. We seek comment on these prior 
conclusions. Do they remain sound? How, if at all, should we take 
account of changes in the intervening 12 years when considering these 
conclusions? What would be the effects if a DTS transmitter's spillover 
signal were given secondary status versus being afforded no protection 
at all? How would such decisions affect new or existing spectrum users, 
including those discussed below?
    31. In particular, we seek comment on the effects of any rule 
changes on Class A, LPTV, and translator stations. Several commenters 
urge the Commission to ensure that Class A stations, LPTV stations, TV 
translators, and the holders of construction permits for such 
facilities would not be affected or displaced by any rule changes. 
Petitioners contend that their proposed interference contour of 36 dBu 
F(50, 10) would ensure that DTS stations would not interfere with co-
channel Class A and LPTV operations. They also claim that their 
suggested limit would prevent DTS stations from encroaching on the 
service of stations in adjacent markets. Despite Petitioners' 
assurances, a number of commenters, while supportive of DTS generally, 
express concern about potential interference to their operations. In 
responding to commenters' concerns, Petitioners acknowledge that 
``there may be instances where disruption is unavoidable,'' namely to 
LPTV stations. Petitioners further contend that nothing in their 
proposal would change the interference protection rights of LPTV and TV 
translator stations--which are afforded protection only with respect to 
secondary and unlicensed users--and that the Commission should not 
consider elevating those rights as part of this proceeding. We seek 
comment on this view. How accurate is Petitioners' claim that the 
proposed interference contour would not cause interference issues for 
existing co-channel Class A and LPTV stations? Moreover, we seek 
comment on ARK's concern regarding interference to LPTV stations 
operating on adjacent channels, rather than on co-channels. How often 
is this type of interference likely to occur?
    32. Further, we seek comment on Petitioners' interference study, 
which calculated that, under the parameters used in the study, 3.73 to 
5.05% of co-channel LPTV stations and 2.23 to 2.84% of adjacent-channel 
LPTV stations would experience interference above a ``2% threshold'' as 
determined by performing an ``OET-69 interference study.'' Does 
Petitioners' Study analyze the full range of interference concerns that 
LPTV stations would face? Are the assumptions it relies on reasonable? 
Are its conclusions valid? Are there areas that warrant additional 
study?
    33. We note that in 2018 Congress acted to reimburse licensees of 
LPTV stations and TV translators for expenses incurred as a result of 
displacements precipitated by the broadcast incentive auction. To the 
extent that changing the DTS rules would risk causing another round of 
displacement for these licensees, or otherwise nullify the time, money, 
and effort spent to relocate LPTV and translator operations following 
the incentive auction repack, we seek comment on whether such action 
would be consistent with congressional intent regarding LPTV and 
translator services. Should the number or percentage of displaced LPTV 
licensees impact our consideration of this issue? In addition, ARK 
asserts that allowing full-power licensees to extend their existing 
contours in a manner that impinges on LPTV stations would contravene 
Congress' intent in the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 
2012 not to alter LPTV rights. Given, however, that Petitioners are not 
proposing that

[[Page 28592]]

we take any action in this proceeding pursuant to that Act, we 
tentatively conclude that this specific statutory provision does not 
preclude us from adopting the proposal.
    34. In addition, NTA warns that allowing new DTS facilities to 
overlap the contours of existing LPTV and TV translators could harm 
viewers who rely on such existing stations to provide over-the-air 
television. NTA proposes a 41 dBuV/m protected contour for ATSC 3.0 
translators and LPTV stations. It claims that a 41 dBuV/m contour would 
promote spectrum efficiency and would enable more consumers in sparsely 
populated areas to receive the benefits of ATSC 3.0 through LPTV and 
translator service. MWG posits that Class A stations, LPTV stations, 
and TV translators stand to benefit from the proposed rule changes as 
more spectrum would become available for other services to the extent 
translators shift operations to DTS. MWG further contends that the 
ability of full-power stations to increase their signal strength in 
peripheral areas using DTS would allow other services in those areas 
also to operate at higher power levels (while still maintaining a 
sufficient desired-to-undesired ratio) without causing impermissible 
interference to the full-power stations. We seek comment on NTA's 
proposal and MWG's claims.
    35. Moreover, we seek comment on whether there is a way to 
accomplish our objectives without jeopardizing other services. For 
instance, could we protect existing LPTV and translator stations by 
treating spillover from DTS signals as secondary facilities with 
respect to interference caused to such LPTV and translator services? We 
envision that, under such an approach, if interference complaints were 
received from affected LPTV or translator viewers within the spillover 
area, the onus would be on the DTS facility to resolve the problem, for 
example, by means of a directional antenna and/or power reduction. By 
contrast, with regard to alleged interference inside the authorized 
service area, the DTS facility would be treated as primary and would be 
under no obligation to resolve interference complaints from LPTV or 
translator viewers. Would this approach minimize potential disruption 
to existing LPTV and translator stations, and if so, to what extent? In 
addition, if we treated spillover from DTS signals as secondary 
facilities, to what extent would we be limiting opportunities for new 
LPTV and translator stations to be licensed in spillover areas? How 
should we think about the Commission's concern expressed in the 2008 
DTS Order that an Expanded Area Approach would limit opportunities for 
new licensees, including LPTV stations, in spillover areas? Is this 
concern still as relevant today as it was in 2008?
    36. In addition, NPR urges the Commission to address the 
interference risk that DTV Channel 6 stations pose generally to NCE FM 
stations in the adjacent band. Specifically, NPR asks the Commission to 
require broadcasters to use more stringent filters in the construction 
and operation of DTS facilities for DTV Channel 6 stations and to 
impose specific filtering requirements like the Commission established 
for DTV channels 14 and 17. It appears that at least some of NPR's 
concerns may relate to the use of DTV Channel 6, generally, rather than 
the use of DTS, in particular. We seek comment on NPR's concerns, 
including whether such concerns are sufficiently specific to DTS use 
that we should consider them in the context of this proceeding.
    37. We also seek comment on the potential effects of revising our 
rules consistent with the proposals in the Petition, or any alternative 
approaches, on licensed and unlicensed wireless microphone operations 
in the TV spectrum. If we treated spillover from DTS signals as 
secondary facilities with respect to the interference caused to other 
services, as noted above, to what extent could we limit the potential 
for harmful interference to licensed wireless microphones? Should we 
additionally consider potential impacts that DTS transmissions will 
have on unlicensed wireless microphones?
    38. In addition, we seek comment on the potential effects that 
revising our rules consistent with the proposals in the Petition, or 
any alternative approaches, would have on white space device users. In 
February 2020, the Commission launched a proceeding to provide 
additional opportunities for unlicensed white space devices operating 
in the broadcast television bands to deliver wireless broadband 
services in rural areas and applications associated with the Internet 
of Things. We have recognized that spurring the growth of the white 
space device ecosystem can help bring affordable broadband service to 
rural and underserved communities that can help close the digital 
divide. The Commission remains committed to these goals and, in 
pursuing its proposed measures in this proceeding, it is not our intent 
to undo the agency's progress in improving broadband coverage that will 
benefit American consumers in rural and underserved areas. Microsoft, a 
supporter of white space device operations, asserts that Petitioners' 
proposed rule changes ``go well beyond'' what full-power television 
stations need to do in order to fill coverage gaps in their service 
areas and that television stations using DTS should not be granted 
interference protection outside their defined service areas. Should we 
consider, as Microsoft suggests, the potential impact that DTS 
transmissions will have on white space devices providing services to 
rural communities via TV spectrum, such as high-speed broadband? We 
seek comment on MWG's contrary position that there would be little risk 
to white space devices given MWG's view that DTS build-out is likely to 
be uneconomical in the areas where white spaces are used to serve rural 
consumers. What effect, if any, would the Commission's proposed 
measures to promote the use of white spaces have on DTS use, and vice 
versa?
    39. Finally, we seek comment on the use of DTS by Class A and LPTV 
licensees. In the 2008 DTS Order, the Commission approved the use of 
DTS technologies on an experimental basis by a single digital Class A, 
LPTV, or TV translator station to provide service within its authorized 
service area, finding that there was not an adequate record at that 
time to resolve the technical issues for LPTV, as they differ from 
full-power television stations. Furthermore, the Commission concluded 
that it did not have ``sufficient indication of widespread interest in 
DTS among individual low power stations;'' that LPTV stations serve 
smaller geographic areas than full-power stations, making the 
likelihood of needing DTS to provide service relatively low; and that 
Class A and LPTV stations, which were not subject to the 2009 DTV 
transition, did not have the same urgent need for DTS to provide post-
transition service. The Commission indicated that it would revisit its 
decision if there were a ``demonstrated interest in or need for DTS as 
an alternative for individual low power stations on a permanent 
basis.''
    40. Have things changed in the past 12 years that make the use of 
DTS more attractive for Class A or LPTV stations today? For instance, 
have changes in the marketplace including, but not limited to, the DTV 
transition, technological innovations such as ATSC 3.0, and the 
spectrum repack, affected the Commission's prior conclusions regarding 
DTS use by Class A and LPTV stations in any way? Is there additional 
information we should consider that might lead us to different 
conclusions now?
    41. In this proceeding, some commenters recommend allowing the DTS 
rules that apply to full-power

[[Page 28593]]

television stations to apply also to Class A and LPTV stations. 
Columbus Broadcasting requests that Class A television stations be 
permitted to use DTS in the same manner as full-power television 
stations. ARK, a strategic partner of LPTV licensees in the deployment 
of ATSC 3.0, similarly requests that the Commission harmonize the DTS 
rules for full-power television and LPTV stations, asserting that ``the 
use of very low power DTS transmitters will play a very significant 
role in the addition of utility value and performance for ATSC 3.0 
networks'' and that, depending on the local topography, foliage and 
buildings, it intends to deploy DTS transmitters that are optimized for 
specific local conditions. We seek comment on the Columbus Broadcasting 
and ARK proposals or any other proposals to expand permitted uses of 
DTS technologies by Class A and/or LPTV stations. What would be the 
impact of these proposals, if adopted? Moreover, we seek comment on 
whether any rule changes we adopt in this proceeding for full-power 
stations should also be applied to Class A and/or LPTV stations.
    42. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission 
has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) relating 
to this NPRM.
    43. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document may result in new or 
revised information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995. If the Commission adopts any new or revised 
information collection requirement, the Commission will publish a 
notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the 
requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. In addition, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the 
Commission seeks specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees.''
    44. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this NPRM 
initiates shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in 
accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex 
parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a 
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days 
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the 
Commission's pre-meeting Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral 
ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) List all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying 
the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments 
can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents 
shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed 
to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with 
Sec.  1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by 
Sec.  1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for which the Commission has 
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.
    45. Filing Requirements--Comments and Replies. Pursuant to sections 
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, 
interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before 
the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be 
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). 
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 
24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
    Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
    [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.
    [ssquf] Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (Mar. 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    [ssquf] During the time the Commission's building is closed to the 
general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers 
need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
    46. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    47. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex 
parte submissions will be available for public inspection during 
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will 
be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe 
Acrobat.
    48. Additional Information. For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Ty Bream, [email protected], of the Industry 
Analysis Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-0644.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    49. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic 
impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission requests written 
public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified

[[Page 28594]]

as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for 
comments specified in the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the 
NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objective of, the Proposed Rules

    50. The NPRM seeks comment on changes to the Commission's rules 
governing the use of a distributed transmission system (DTS), or single 
frequency network (SFN), by a broadcast television station in light of 
continuing developments in ATSC 3.0, the new ``Next Gen'' broadcast 
television transmission standard, the potential benefits of DTS, and 
the Commission's interest in encouraging use of DTS. Traditionally, a 
broadcast television station transmits its signal from a single 
elevated transmission site central to the service area, resulting in a 
stronger signal available near the transmitter and a weaker signal as 
the distance from the transmitter increases. Non-uniform terrain or 
morphological features can also weaken signals, regardless of distance 
from the transmitter. One way for a station to augment its signal 
strength is to provide fill-in service using one or more separately 
licensed secondary transmission sites that operate on a different 
radiofrequency (RF) channel than the main facility, i.e., a television 
translator. By contrast, a distributed transmission system employs two 
or more transmission sites located around a station's service area, 
each using the same RF channel and synchronized to manage self-
interference. DTS therefore offers an alternative to traditional full-
power television transmission and the use of secondary translators on 
additional frequencies.
    51. The NPRM seeks comment on changing the Commission's DTS rules 
consistent with the proposals set forth in the October 3, 2019 joint 
petition for rulemaking. The Petition asks the Commission to change the 
DTS rules to permit stations more flexibility in the placement of their 
DTS transmitters, particularly near the edge of a station's coverage 
area. Specifically, Petitioners propose that the placement of DTS 
transmitters would be limited by what Petitioners refer to as the DTS 
transmitter's ``interference contour,'' which could not exceed that of 
the station's reference facility. Petitioners assert that their 
requested rule changes would allow them to unlock the benefits of DTS 
operations beyond what the current DTS rules enable, such as further 
improving service throughout a station's coverage area, improving 
mobile reception, and allowing more efficient use of broadcast spectrum 
by reducing the need for television translators using separate 
channels.
    52. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether any change 
to its DTS rules is necessary or appropriate at this time, and if so, 
whether to adopt the rule changes proposed in the NPRM or whether there 
are alternatives it should consider, how to treat DTS signals beyond 
their current service areas if such spillover is allowed, and, finally, 
the use of DTS by Class A and LPTV licensees. The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether and to what extent the following or other changes 
are appropriate for ATSC 3.0, ATSC 1.0, or both. In doing so, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether to amend the current DTS spillover 
allowance in Section 73.626 of the Commission's rules from a ``minimal 
amount'' beyond a station's authorized service area to the amount of 
DTS spillover ``necessary to achieve a practical design.''

B. Legal Basis

    53. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4, 7, 
301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 324, and 336 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, 
302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 324, and 336.

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

    54. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, we 
provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of 
the number of such small entities, where feasible.
    55. Rule changes, if adopted, could apply to television broadcast 
licensees and potential licensees of television stations. This Economic 
Census category ``comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
broadcasting images together with sound.'' These establishments operate 
television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and 
transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also 
produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast 
television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public 
on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own 
studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA 
has created the following small business size standard for such 
businesses: those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. The 
2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category operated 
in that year. Of this number, 656 had annual receipts of less than $25 
million. Based on this data we therefore estimate that the majority of 
commercial television broadcasters are small entities under the 
applicable SBA size standard.
    56. Additionally, the Commission has estimated the number of 
licensed commercial television stations to be 1,374. Of this total, 
1,263 stations (or 91.9%) had revenues of $41.5 million or less in 
2018, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media 
Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on June 5, 2019, and therefore 
these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In 
addition, the Commission estimates the number of licensed noncommercial 
educational (NCE) television stations to be 388. The Commission does 
not compile and does not have access to information on the revenue of 
NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations 
would qualify as small entities.
    57. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern 
qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition, business (control) 
affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely 
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our 
action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not 
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, 
another element of the definition of ``small business'' requires that 
an 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 broadcast station is dominant in its 
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to 
which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the 
definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly 
over-inclusive.

[[Page 28595]]

    58. Rule changes, if adopted, could also apply to licensees of 
Class A stations, LPTV stations, and TV translator stations, as well as 
to potential licensees in these television services. The same SBA 
definition that applies to television broadcast licensees would apply 
to these stations. As noted above, the SBA defines such businesses as a 
small business if they have $41.5 million or less in annual receipts.
    59. There are 387 Class A stations. Given the nature of these 
services, the Commission presumes that all of these stations qualify as 
small entities under the applicable SBA size standard. In addition, 
there are 1,892 LPTV stations and 3,621 TV translator stations. Given 
the nature of these services as secondary and in some cases purely a 
``fill-in'' service, we will presume that all of these entities qualify 
as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard. We 
note, however, that under the SBA's definition, revenue of affiliates 
that are not LPTV stations should be aggregated with the LPTV station 
revenues in determining whether a concern is small. Our estimate may 
thus overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figure on 
which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from non-LPTV 
affiliated companies. We do not have data on revenues of TV translator 
or TV booster stations, but virtually all of these entities are also 
likely to have revenues of less than $41.5 million and thus may be 
categorized as small, except to the extent that revenues of affiliated 
non-translator or booster entities should be considered.
    60. Given the potential impact of Petitioners' proposal and other 
proposals on other spectrum users, radio broadcasting stations, in 
particular noncommercial educational FM stations, may be affected by 
rule changes.
    61. The U.S. Economic Census radio broadcasting category 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural 
programs by radio to the public.'' Programming may originate in the 
establishment's own studio, from an affiliated network, or from 
external sources. The SBA has created the following small business size 
standard for this category: those having $38.5 million or less in 
annual receipts. Census data for 2012 show that 2,849 firms in this 
category operated in that year. Of this number, 2,806 firms had annual 
receipts of less than $25 million, and 43 firms had annual receipts of 
$25 million or more. Because the Census has no additional 
classifications that could serve as a basis for determining the number 
of stations whose receipts exceeded $38.5 million in that year, we 
conclude that the majority of radio broadcast stations were small 
entities under the applicable SBA size standard.
    62. Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the 
number of licensed AM radio stations to be 4,593 and the number of 
commercial FM radio stations to be 6,772, along with 8,182 FM 
translator and booster stations. As of [September 2019, 4,294 a.m. 
stations and 6,739 FM stations had revenues of $41.5 million or less, 
according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media 
Access Pro Television Database (BIA). In addition, the Commission has 
estimated the number of noncommercial educational (NCE) FM radio 
stations to be 4,135. NCE stations are non-profit and therefore 
considered to be small entities. Therefore, we estimate that the 
majority of radio broadcast stations are small entities.
    63. The same SBA definition that applies to radio stations applies 
to low power FM stations. As noted, the SBA has created the following 
small business size standard for this category: those having $41.5 
million or less in annual receipts. While the U.S. Census provides no 
specific data for these stations, the Commission has estimated the 
number of licensed low power FM stations to be 2,169. Given the fact 
that low power FM stations may only be licensed to not-for-profit 
organizations or institutions that must be based in their community and 
are typically small, volunteer-run groups, we will presume that these 
licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
    64. We note again, however, that in assessing whether a business 
concern qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition, business 
(control) affiliations must be included. Because we do not include or 
aggregate revenues from affiliated companies in determining whether an 
entity meets the applicable revenue threshold, our estimate of the 
number of small radio broadcast stations affected is likely overstated. 
In addition, as noted above, one element of the definition of ``small 
business'' is that an 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 radio broadcast station is dominant 
in its field of operation. Accordingly, our estimate of small radio 
stations potentially affected by the rule revisions discussed in the 
NPRM includes those that could be dominant in their field of operation. 
For this reason, such estimate likely is over-inclusive.
    65. Rule changes, if adopted, could also impact radio and 
television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment 
manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged 
in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless 
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a small business size 
standard for this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 shows that 841 establishments operated in this 
industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with 
fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated with between 
1,000 and 2,499 employees, and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or 
more employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of 
manufacturers in this industry are small.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    66. This NPRM seeks comment on changes to the Commission's rules 
governing the use of a DTS by a broadcast television station in light 
of continuing developments in ATSC 3.0, the new ``Next Gen'' broadcast 
television transmission standard, the potential benefits of DTS, and 
the Commission's interest in encouraging use of DTS. The use of DTS is 
at the discretion of the broadcast licensee. The NPRM does not impose 
any new mandatory reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements 
for small entities, unless such entities, i.e., licensees, choose to 
use DTS. The NPRM thus will not impose additional obligations or 
expenditure of resources on small businesses. However, we note that the 
adoption of the proposed rules may require modification of current 
requirements and processes for entities that choose to use DTS, such as 
modification of FCC forms, including but not limited to, FCC Forms 301 
and 340.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    67. 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

[[Page 28596]]

requirements or timetables that take into account the resources 
available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or 
simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule 
for such 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.''
    68. Specifically, in addition to issues raised by commenters, the 
NPRM seeks comment on alternatives to the proposed rule changes, i.e., 
the ``necessary to achieve a practical design'' standard, including, 
but not limited to, (1) making no changes to the DTS rules at this time 
or (2) changing the ``minimal amount'' standard without also adopting 
the proposed interference contour. In addition, the Commission 
considers the alternatives of (1) protecting existing LPTV and 
translator stations (including those that are small entities) by 
treating newly authorized spillover from DTS transmitters as secondary 
facilities (i.e., in contrast to the primary regulatory status afforded 
to DTS transmitters within the areas they are authorized to serve) with 
respect to interference potentially caused to such LPTV and translator 
services or (2) affording no protection to newly authorized spillover 
from DTS transmitters. The Commission's evaluation of the comments 
filed on these topics as well as on other questions in the NPRM will 
shape the final conclusions it reaches and the actions it ultimately 
takes in this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact 
that may occur on small entities.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    69. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Television; Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 
336, and 339.

0
2. Amend Sec.  73.626 by revising paragraphs (c), (f)(2) and (5) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  73.626  DTV DISTRIBUTED TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS.

* * * * *
    (c) Table of Distances. The following Table of Distances describes 
(by channel and zone) a station's maximum service area that can be 
obtained in applying for a DTS authorization and the maximum 
interference area that can be created by its facilities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Service Area                       Interference Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       F(50,90) field      Distance from     F(50,10) field     Distance from
       Channel              Zone       strength (dBU)     reference point    strength (dBU)    reference point
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-6..................               1              28  108 km (67 mi)......              28  184 km (114 mi).
2-6..................         2 and 3              28  128 km (80 mi)......              28  209 km (130 mi).
7-13.................               1              36  101 km (63 mi)......              33  182 km (113 mi).
7-13.................         2 and 3              36  123 km (77 mi)......              33  208 km (129 mi).
14-51................     1, 2, and 3              41  103 km (64 mi)......              36  245 km (153 mi).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) Each DTS transmitter's coverage is contained within either the 
DTV station's Table of Distances area (pursuant to paragraph (c) of 
this section) or its authorized service area, except where such 
extension of coverage beyond the station's authorized service area is 
necessary to achieve a practical design or to meet the requirements of 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section. In no event shall the F(50,10) 
interference contour of any DTS transmitter extend beyond that of its 
reference facility (described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section). The 
interference contour field strength is given in the Table of Distances 
(in paragraph (c) of this section) and is calculated using Figure 9a, 
10a, or 10c of Sec.  73.699 (F(50,10) charts);
* * * * *
    (5) The ``combined field strength'' of all the DTS transmitters in 
a network does not cause interference to another station in excess of 
the criteria specified in Sec.  73.616, where the combined field 
strength level is determined by a ``root-sum-square'' calculation, in 
which the combined field strength level at a given location is equal to 
the square root of the sum of the squared field strengths from each 
transmitter in the DTS network at that location as corrected for the 
receiving antenna directivity in the direction of each transmitter.

[FR Doc. 2020-09625 Filed 5-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P