Establishing Rules for Full Power Television and Class A Television Stations

Federal RegisterFeb 1, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0, 27, 73, and 74

[MB Docket No. 22-227, FCC 23-72; FR ID 173529]

Establishing Rules for Full Power Television and Class A Television Stations

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) adopts several rule updates for full power and Class A television stations that no longer have any practical effect given the completion of the transition from analog to digital-only operations and the post incentive auction transition to a smaller television band with fewer channels. The Commission also adopts a restructuring of its full power television rules, which largely consist of the technical licensing, operating, and interference rules for full power television.

DATES:

Effective March 4, 2024, except for the amendments in instruction 15 (§ 73.619), instruction 21 (§ 73.625); instruction 52 (§ 73.1250); instruction 53 (§ 73.1350); instruction 56 (§ 73.1560); instruction 59 (§ 73.1615); instruction 60 (§ 73.1620); instruction 61 (§ 73.1635); instruction 62 (§ 73.1675); instruction 63 (§ 73.1690); instruction 64 (§ 73.1740); instruction 65 (§ 73.1750); instruction 66 (§ 73.2080); instruction 75 (§ 73.3540); instruction 78 (§ 73.3544); instruction 79 (§ 73.3549); instruction 80 (§ 73.3550); instruction 86 (§ 73.3598); instruction 103 (§ 73.5006); instruction 116 (§ 73.6024); and instruction 117 (§ 73.6025), which are delayed indefinitely. The Media Bureau will publish a separate document in the

Federal Register

announcing the effective date of these amendments. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 11, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Emily Harrison, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-1665 or

Emily.Harrison@fcc.gov.

For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams at 202-418-2918, or

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's

Report and Order,

in MB Docket No. 22-227; FCC 23-72, adopted on September 18, 2023, and released on September 19, 2023. The full text of this document is available for download at

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-updates-rules-television-and-class-television-stations.

To request materials in accessible formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or audio recordings), please send an email to

FCC504@fcc.gov

or call the Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

This document may contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13,

see

44 U.S.C. 3507. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other federal agencies to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document in a separate

Federal Register

Notice, as required by the PRA. All such new or modified information collections will become effective after the Commission publishes a document in the

Federal Register

announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.

In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,

see

44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Congressional Review Act

The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Synopsis

Incorporation by Reference

The Commission's adopted rules are limited to the incorporation by reference of standards that are associated with full power and Class A television services. Incorporation by reference is the process that Federal agencies use when referring to materials published elsewhere to give those materials the same force and effect of law in the Code of Federal Regulations as if the materials' text had actually been published in the

Federal Register

. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and Office of the Federal Register, IBR Handbook (June 2023),

available at https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/write/ibr.

By using incorporation by reference, the Commission gives effect to technical instructions, testing methodologies, and other process documents that are developed and owned by standards development organizations. Referencing these documents in the Commission's rules substantially reduces the volume of material that would otherwise be published in the

Federal Register

and the Code of Federal Regulations. It also permits the Commission to more efficiently implement future standards updates. Once the Commission completes any necessary notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings and applies agency expertise to ensure that any standards adopted are sound and appropriate, the Commission need only update the references to the standards in its rules.

The following standards have previously been approved for the locations in which they appear in the amendatory text: ATSC A/52; ATSC A/53; Parts 1-4 and 6: 2007; ATSC A/53 Part 5: 2010; ATSC A/65C; and OET Bulletin No. 69.

Deletion of Obsolete Rules and Language Recognizing the Full Power and Class A Digital Transition

As stated in the

NPRM,

full power television stations were required to terminate all analog operations no later than June 12, 2009, and Class A stations by September 1, 2015. Accordingly, the

NPRM

proposed to amend our rules to reflect those transitions. With the exception of two of our proposals discussed at the end of this section, the comments we received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, and therefore, for the reasons discussed in the

NPRM,

and described below, we adopt those proposals as detailed below.

We eliminate entire rules, and portions of rules, that provide for analog-to-analog and analog-to-digital interference protection requirements and other analog operating requirements from subpart E (Television Broadcast Stations), subpart H (Rules Applicable to All Broadcast Stations), subpart I (Procedures for Competitive Bidding and for Applications for Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Stations on Non-Reserved Channels), and subpart J (Class A Television Broadcast Stations). The rules we amend are related to analog operations (

i.e.,

rules that reference “NTSC” or “analog”).

See

47 CFR 73.622(d)(1) (Digital television table of allotments) (removing text of this rule that refers to analog stations); 73.623(d) and (h) (removing analog technical

references); 73.624(b) and (c)(3) (Digital television broadcast stations) (removing text of this rule that refers to analog stations); 73.683(d) (Field strength contours and presumptive determination of field strength at individual locations) (removing text of this rule that refers to analog stations); and 73.686(d) (Field strength measurements) (removing text of this rule that refers to analog stations). In addition, regarding 47 CFR 73.5000(a) (Services subject to competitive bidding), we delete the word “analog” where it appears in the rule because there is no need to differentiate between analog and digital television services. We eliminate references to Grade A, Grade B, city grade contours, or F(50,50) curves.

See

47 CFR 73.683(a) through (b) (Field strength contours and presumptive determination of field strength at individual locations); 73.6000 (Definitions); and 73.6010(b) (Class A TV station protected contour). The one exception is 47 CFR 73.626(f)(2)(i) (DTV distributed transmission systems), which states that the F(50,50) service contour of a DTS transmitter shall not extend beyond that of its reference facility, which will be retained. We separately add text in 47 CFR 73.683(a) (Field strength contours and presumptive determination of field strength at individual locations) to provide guidance for those reviewing the cross-reference to this section found in 47 CFR 90.307(b) (Protection criteria). Or, we replace references to Grade A, Grade B, city grade contours, or F(50,50) curves with the corresponding digital contours defined in §§ 73.625(a), 73.622(e), 73.6010, and/or 74.792.

See

47 CFR 73.1675(a)(1)(iii) (Auxiliary antennas) (deleting analog contour and replacing with digital noise limited contour); and 73.5007(b)(2)(iii) and (b)(3)(iv) (Designated entity provisions).

We also amend or eliminate rules that reference peak power, visual or aural carriers, or carrier frequencies because these are technical engineering terms related to analog television operations.

See

47 CFR 73.653 (Operation of TV aural and visual transmitters); 73.664(a) through(c) (Determining operating power); 73.665 (Use of TV aural baseband subcarriers); 73.667 (TV subsidiary communications services); 73.669 (TV stereophonic aural and multiplex subcarrier operation); 73.681 (Definitions) (we delete the following definitions relating to analog operations: “Aural center frequency;” “Aural transmitter;” “Baseband;” “Frequency departure;” “Frequency deviation;” “Frequency swing;” “Main channel;” “Multiplex Transmission (Aural);” “Peak power;” “Visual transmitter power”); 73.682(c) (TV transmission standards); 73.687(a), (b), (c) introductory text, (c)(1), and (e)(2) (Transmission system requirements); 73.688(a) (Indicating instruments); 73.691 (Visual modulation monitoring); 73.699 (TV engineering charts), Figure 12 (Figure 12 is referenced only by 73.687(b), which we delete); 73.1350(f)(3) (Transmission system operation); 73.1540(a) (Carrier frequency measurements); 73.1545(c), (e), and Note to (e) (Carrier frequency departure tolerances); 73.1560(c)(1) through (2) (Operating power and mode tolerances); 73.1570 (updating section heading) and (b)(3) (Modulation levels: AM, FM, TV and Class A TV aural); 73.1635(a)(5) (Special temporary authorizations (STA)); and 73.6024(c) (Transmission standards and system requirements). We amend or eliminate such rules as digital TV signals do not have specific visual or aural carriers.

See generally

47 CFR 73.682(d) (Digital broadcast television transmission standard);

See also

47 CFR 73.3555, Note 2(j). We also update certain rules to reflect the subsequent passage of legislation and the later Commission revision of the relevant policy.

See

47 CFR 73.4055 (Cigarette advertising) (updated to reflect that in 1986, Congress extended the ban to include advertisements for smokeless tobacco products.

See

15 U.S.C. 4402(c)).

Deletion of Obsolete Language Due to Passage of Time and Changes in Commission Policy

The

NPRM

proposed to delete language that has become obsolete due to the passage of time or changes in Commission policy. The comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, and we received no specific objection to these proposals. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the

NPRM,

and described below, we adopt the proposals as detailed below.

We amend or delete a number of rules that apply exclusively to the Class A television service, which was authorized by the passage of the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 (CBPA). Given that nearly twenty-five years have elapsed since passage of the CBPA and deadlines related to its implementation have elapsed, and all operating TV stations are now digital, we delete a number of rule sections that are now obsolete.

NPRM

at paras. 16 and 18 (proposing to remove 47 CFR 73.613 (Note to 73.613(a)) (Protection of Class A TV Stations) and portions of 47 CFR 73.6018 (Digital Class A TV protection of DTV stations). We also delete references to digital and DTV. We also delete the last sentence of 47 CFR 73.623(c)(5) (DTV applications and changes to DTV allotments). We believe this deletion is further supported by the fact that this change was also reflected in the

Federal Register

publication, 86 FR 66193 (Nov. 22, 2021), which states “Section 73.623 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and

by removing and reserving paragraphs (c)

and (g).” (emphasis added). 86 FR 66193, 66209 (Nov. 22, 2021). While references to the section were deleted, the subsection remains in the rules. Additionally, consistent with the

NPRM,

we amend the section heading of 47 CFR 73.6022 (Negotiated interference and relocation agreements)) and delete 47 CFR 73.6022(b) as a pre-DTV transition rule because Class A stations are no longer subject to displacement by full-power station modification applications and channel substitutions. Additionally, since a number of rules relating to the post-incentive auction transition have deadlines that have passed, we delete these as obsolete. See the final sentence of 47 CFR 73.6019 (Digital Class A TV station protection of low power TV, TV translator, digital low power TV and digital TV translator stations), citing § 73.3700(b)(1).

We amend § 73.1020(a) to delete dates in the past and include the applicable dates for future license renewal cycles. Given the timing of the release of this

Report and Order

and the pendency of the current television license renewal cycle, we update the dates in § 73.1020 with all future license renewal deadlines. We amend the dates in § 73.1020(a) from the default time of expiration for initial and renewal broadcast licenses by state to the license expiration dates for the next renewal cycle. In addition, we remove as obsolete language from § 73.1020(b) that refers to the cutoff date for the filing of applications mutually exclusive with renewal applications that are filed on or before May 1, 1995, as no such applications are on file.

See

47 CFR 73.1020(b) (Station license period).

See also Reading Broadcasting, Inc., for Renewal of License of Station WTVE(TV), Channel 51 Reading, Pennsylvania and Adams Communications Corporation, for Construction Permit for a New Television Station to Operate on Channel 51, Reading, Pennsylvania,

MM Docket No. 99-153, 17 FCC Rcd 14001, 14002, para. 1 (2002) (In this decision, the Commission explained that it was “dispos[ing] of the last remaining `comparative renewal' proceeding, in which an incumbent licensee faces a comparative challenge from a construction permit applicant for the same facilities. Congress, by Act of February 8, 1996, Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, codified as 47 CFR 309(k)(4), prohibited the comparative consideration of renewal applicants filed after May 1, 1995.”).

Similarly, we remove as obsolete due to the passage of time § 73.3598(b)(3), which provides that the period of construction for an original construction permit will toll for certain reasons of international coordination during the DTV transition, which is now complete. We delete language in new § 73.682(d)(1) specifying that digital standards incorporated by reference into the Commission's rules became effective October 11, 2011, as the specific start date has long since passed. We also delete references to DTV and digital. We also remove as obsolete the portion of § 73.3572(a)(3) providing a window that expired October 1, 2000 for certain minor change applications. We also delete provisions that reference the comparative hearing process, which no longer exists.

See

47 CFR 73.1620 (Program tests) (g)(1) through (3) (Reports required); 73.3519(a) (Repetitious applications) (the last sentence of subsection (a) that applicants whose applications have been denied in a comparative hearing may apply immediately for another available facility); and 73.4082 (Comparative broadcast hearings—specialized programming formats). We delete § 73.3523, the first sentence of § 73.3516(e), and the second sentence of § 73.3516(e)(1), which deal with obsolete procedures regarding mutually exclusive proceedings for renewal applications filed prior to May 1, 1995. We also delete the first clause of 47 CFR 73.3525(a) (Agreements for removing application conflicts), which cross-references § 73.3523. In addition, we delete the second sentence of § 73.3533(b), which discusses an obsolete procedure for filing construction permit extension

applications. Specifically, that rule refers to § 73.3534, which specified three factors that could justify an extension of a construction permit. The referenced section, however, was deleted in 2004.

We also delete obsolete language in § 73.664(c)(3)(iii) concerning the certification of equipment. In its comments, CDE states that it does not agree with our proposal to delete obsolete language in § 73.664, but does not provide a reason why it disagrees and thus, there is no basis for us to depart from the proposal in the

NPRM.

Accordingly, for the reasons described in the

NPRM,

we adopt our proposal to delete the language as obsolete. As explained in the

NPRM,

the FCC no longer “type accepts” equipment, having overhauled the process to allow private parties to verify such equipment meets FCC requirements, and the results of such verifications do not need to be submitted to the FCC.

See

47 CFR 73.664(c)(3)(iii) (Determining operating power). As explained in the

NPRM

at n.89, currently, there are two procedures used for RF device equipment authorization: SDoC and Certification.

See

47 CFR 2.906 (Supplier's Declaration of Conformity) and 2.907 (Certification);

see also Office of Engineering & Technology (OET), Equipment Authorization, https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/laboratory-division/general/equipment-authorization

(last visited Aug. 1, 2023). On July 14, 2017, the Commission amended its radiofrequency equipment authorization rules.

Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 2, 15, and 18 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment,

ET Docket No. 15-170, First Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 8746 (2017). The adopted rules phased out the Verification and Declaration of Conformity equipment authorization procedures and replaced them with a new equipment authorization procedure, the SDoC. Federal Communications Commission, Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment, 82 FR 50820 (Nov. 2, 2017). A device authorized under previously accepted procedures remains authorized and may be marketed or used if it continues to meet the requirements attendant to that authorization. To the extent CDE is seeking reconsideration of the Commission's 2017 decision, that request is untimely under 47 U.S.C. 405(a). As reflected in the

NPRM,

our proposal did not seek to change the rule substantively, only to update FCC rules to accurately reflect the current operating environment. Arguments for substantive changes to the rules that were not the subject of notice and comment in the

NPRM

are beyond the scope of this proceeding. We modify text throughout § 73.664 in order to remove references to analog operations such as references to the visual transmitter and to peak power. We retain the remainder of § 73.664 that continues to provide important information for measuring transmitter operating power even in the post-transition context. We remove similar references to the visual transmitter in § 73.688, but retain other portions of this rule.

We delete §§ 27.60 (TV/DTV interference protection criteria) and 27.1310 (Protection of Broadcast Television Service in the 600 MHz band from wireless operations), which concern the protection of TV stations on certain channels by wireless services.

See

47 CFR 27.60 (TV/DTV interference protection criteria) and 27.1310 (Protection of Broadcast Television Service in the 600 MHz band from wireless operations). As explained in the

NPRM,

all of these protections are for channels above channel 37, and thus are no longer relevant because the completion of the digital TV transition and the incentive auction and repacking process reassigned channels in that range for wireless use.

Reorganization of Subpart E—Television Broadcast Stations

The

NPRM

proposed to reorganize subpart E of our part 73 rules. We received no objection to many of these changes and the comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the

NPRM,

and described below, we adopt the proposals as detailed below.

As described in the

NPRM,

full power television began to transition to digital with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and ended on June 12, 2009, when full power television stations commenced digital-only operations. Many of these rules adopted during the digital transition were temporary and meant to be effective only during the DTV transition. Others, however, had more long term application to digital-only operations. Because the more long term rules were adopted at the same time as temporary rules, the

NPRM

noted that the long term rules are currently not organized in a straight forward or user-friendly manner. In addition, there are instances where the rules are duplicative.

To make the organization of the rules more practical and the rules easier to find, we largely reorganize subpart E as proposed in the

NPRM,

while also adopting some minor clarifications and amendments to some of the rules. First, we create a new § 73.611 (Emission levels and mask filters) which relocates, verbatim, the language from § 73.622(h)(1) and (2), which is currently part of the Table of TV Allotments section. This change will improve the organization of the rules because this technical rule has little direct relationship to the Table of TV Allotments.

We next remove the analog power limits from § 73.614(b) (Power and antenna height requirements) and replace them with the digital power limits currently found in § 73.622(f)(5) through (8) (Digital television table of allotments), and clarify in § 73.614(b) that all applications for new full power television stations, applications for changes in authorized full power television stations, and petitions for changes to the Table of TV Allotments must comply with these requirements.

See

47 CFR 73.614(b) (Power and antenna height requirements). This would make § 73.622(f)(4) redundant, as § 73.622(f)(8) also contains a 1000 kW limit for UHF stations, and, as proposed, we delete § 73.622(f)(4). We also delete § 73.614(b)(7) (Power and antenna height requirements) as duplicative of § 73.625(c)(1) (DTV coverage of principal community and antenna system).

See

47 CFR 73.614(b)(7) and 73.625(c)(1). Consistent with the proposal in the

NPRM,

we retain for digital operations a requirement that existed for analog operations that applications will not be accepted for filing if they specify less than a minimum ERP of 100 watts because the Media Bureau staff already applies this minimum level in routine processing and we do not believe it is in the public interest for full power television stations to operate with what is essentially a low power facility. For stations requesting DTS operation pursuant to § 73.626 (DTV distributed transmission systems), we clarify that the 100 watt minimum ERP requirement applies to at least one site in the DTS.

See

47 CFR 73.614(a) (Minimum requirements).

We also amend the rules to collect provisions on related matters that are currently spread over various rules and group them together. First, we create a new § 73.617 (Interference protection of other services) which collects provisions from §§ 73.623(e) (Protection of land mobile operations on channels 14-20), 73.687(e)(3) through (4), 73.623(f), and 73.685(d). We also adopt our proposal to substitute “blanket area” with “blanketing,” which reflects

the updated term now used by stakeholders. Most of these rules are used for both licensing and allotments and we believe they will be easier to identify and use if gathered into one section rather than scattered among various rules. We also include a new paragraph 73.617(e) to codify a long standing Commission practice to place a condition on all television broadcast station authorizations that result in a change in coverage area, including all authorizations for new stations, which requires TV broadcasters to identify and notify hospital and other health care facilities within the station's coverage area to avoid interference to medical telemetry devices. This condition reflects our current practice, which had been agreed to between the Commission and the Food and Drug Administration in 1998, and we believe codifying this practice in our rules will ensure that all licensees are aware of this requirement to avoid interference to medical telemetry devices.

See Joint Statement of the Federal Communications Commission and the Food and Drug Administration Regarding Avoidance of Interference Between Digital Television and Medical Telemetry Devices

(Mar. 25, 1998),

https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/News_Releases/1998/nret8003.html.

We create a new § 73.618 (Antenna location and principal community coverage), which relocates, verbatim, the language from 73.625(a) (DTV coverage of principal community and antenna system). We also centralize multiple existing rules into one rule that includes instructions on how to determine the protected facilities of a television allotment (

see

47 CFR 73.616(c)), the noise-limited contour level of a television station (

see

47 CFR 73.622(e), as amended), how the noise-limited contour is determined (

see

47 CFR 73.625(b), as amended), and the purposes for which field strength contours are used (

see

47 CFR 73.683(c)). We include these existing requirements in a new § 73.619 (Contour and service areas), and update the section heading of § 73.683 to “Presumptive determination of field strength at individual locations,” in order to remove reference to portions of the rule that are relocated to the new § 73.619. Similarly, we create a new § 73.620 (Interference calculation and protection of TV broadcast services) that includes the requirements currently spread throughout multiple rules in § 73.623(c) and §§ 73.616(d) and (e) (merged into a new § 73.620(a) through (d)). Additionally, we move the rule from § 73.616(g) to a new § 73.620(f).

We modify §§ 73.622 (Digital television table of allotments) and 73.623 (DTV applications and changes to DTV allotments) to separate out rules specific to the Table of TV Allotments and application processing procedures. In § 73.622(a), we modify the language to clarify the rule sections specific to petitions to modify the Table of TV Allotments. Due to this change, § 73.616(a) (Post-transition DTV station interference protection) becomes largely duplicative of this revised § 73.622(a) and we thus delete § 73.616(a). We also remove (a)(1) and (a)(2) as redundant with the content of § 73.603 (Numerical designation of television channels). We redesignate the language in § 73.622(d)(2) as § 73.622(d), clarify the rule text to indicate this subsection applies to all allotments, and clarify that the “reference coordinates” for each allotment are those of the authorized facility (or for new allotments, the coordinates given in the order amending the Table of TV Allotments). Section 73.616(b) is duplicative of this revised § 73.622(d) and we thus delete § 73.616(b). We also make editorial changes for clarity in § 73.622(d).We relocate the text from § 73.623(d), relating to the minimum distance separations for new TV allotments, to a new § 73.622(k). We also reformatted the table previously found in § 73.623(d)(2) into new §§ 73.622(k)(2)(i) through (iv). In § 73.623(a), we modify the language to clarify the rule sections specific to application processing and remove discussion of modifications to the Table of TV Allotments. We relocate the text from § 73.622(c), regarding the availability of channels for application, into § 73.623(b). Finally, we update cross-references found in § 73.623(h) and update the section heading to “TV application processing priorities” in order to clarify its purpose.

We reorganize § 73.624(b) (Digital television broadcast stations) for clarity by splitting some of the text in subpart (b) into a new subpart (b)(1) (requiring stations broadcasting in ATSC 1.0 to transmit an over the air signal at no direct charge to viewers). We relocate § 73.685(h) (Transmitter location and antenna system), pertaining to AM stations, to become new § 73.625(c)(4)(iii) (DTV coverage of principal community and antenna system). We also relocate § 73.682(a)(14) (TV transmission standards), regarding the use of elliptically- and circularly-polarized antennas, to become a new § 73.625(d) (TV coverage of principal community and antenna system).

See

new § 73.625(d) (TV antenna system). While the rest of § 73.682(a) related specifically to analog station operations, we believe this specific subpart of (a)(14) applies to all stations and, as noted in the

NPRM,

its content is consistent with the functions in LMS applicable to applications.

While the current rule structure has become disjointed over the years, and is only exacerbated by the deletion of obsolete portions of the rules, the

NPRM

acknowledged that the structure is also familiar to many users, including licensees and counsel, and, therefore, users of our rules may have concerns about a reorganization to our rules that have been in the same location or under the same section number for many years. While the

NPRM

proposed to mitigate that concern by including cross-references to the new location of a rule in the rule location where it was previously found, due to publishing conventions of NARA's Office of the Federal Register, we instead adopt “Table 1: Cross-references” as reflected below, and included herein as Appendix D, to cross-reference to the old and new location of rules. We find that providing cross-references in this manner will make it easier for users to become accustomed to the new structure.

Table 1—Cross-References

Instead of

referencing . . .

Reference . . .

§ 73.614(b)(7)

§ 73.625(c)(1).

§ 73.616(a)

§ 73.622(a).

§ 73.616(b)

§ 73.622(d).

§ 73.616(c)

§ 73.619(d).

§ 73.616(d)

§ 73.620(c).

§ 73.616(d)(2)

§ 73.620(a).

§ 73.616(e)

§ 73.620(d).

§ 73.616(g)

§ 73.620(f).

§ 73.622(b)

§ 73.622(j).

§ 73.622(c)

§ 73.623(b).

§ 73.622(e)

§ 73.619(c).

§ 73.622(f)(5)

§ 73.614(b)(6).

§ 73.622(f)(6)

§ 73.614(b)(1).

§ 73.622(f)(7)

§ 73.614(b)(2).

§ 73.622(f)(8)

§ 73.614(b)(3).

§ 73.622(h)

§ 73.611.

§ 73.622(i)

§ 73.622(j).

§ 73.623(c)(1)

§ 73.618(a).

§ 73.623(c)(2)

§ 73.620.

§ 73.623(c)(3)

§ 73.620(b).

§ 73.623(c)(4)

§ 73.620(a).

§ 73.623(c)(5)

§ 73.620(d).

§ 73.623(d)

§ 73.622(k).

§ 73.623(e)

§ 73.617(a).

§ 73.623(f)

§ 73.617(c).

§ 73.623(g)

§ 73.620(e).

§ 73.625(a)

§ 73.618.

§ 73.625(b)

§ 73.619(b).

§ 73.683(c)

§ 73.619(a).

§ 73.685(b)

§ 73.618(b).

§ 73.685(d)

§ 73.617(d).

§ 73.685(f)

§ 73.625(c).

§ 73.687(e)

§ 73.617(b).

Although we did not receive comment on our proposal to relocate § 73.616(d)(1) to new § 73.620(b), upon further consideration, we decline to make this change. On reflection, we do not believe that the reorganization of this section is necessary and could result in possible confusion for regulatees in the short term. Therefore, we will maintain the existing placement in our rules and we do not adopt the location change proposed in the

NPRM.

Although we did receive comment objecting to a modification proposed in the

NPRM

to § 73.622, for the reasons set forth below, we decline to modify the proposal and adopt the rule as proposed in the

NPRM.

The portions of the rule in §§ 73.622(f)(5) through (8) focused on power and antenna height requirements are sometimes referred to in Table of TV Allotment proceedings, but they are also frequently considered in processing applications, and so the

NPRM

proposed to include these provisions in a separate subsection to make them easier to reference regardless of whether an allotment or an application is being considered. The

NPRM

also proposed to clarify in the newly placed § 73.614(b)(6), that the largest station in the market provision only allows a station to exceed the maximum height for a given channel and zone, and not the maximum power for that channel and zone. The

NPRM

suggested this addition to the rule is consistent with a clarification adopted by the Commission in 2001.

Maranatha Broadcasting Company, Inc. (Maranatha), the licensee of WDPN-TV, channel 2, Wilmington, Delaware objects to our proposed codification of the Commission's 2001 clarification that a station may not exceed the ERP power level assigned in the station's zone and asserts that the Commission should retain the “largest station” rule or “make clear that any change that [the Commission] is making to its rules do[es] [sic] not preclude power increases above zone maximums by low-VHF stations necessary to overcome the shortcomings of their digital signals and impulse noise inference.” Maranatha acknowledges that the Commission's 2001 decision clarifies that low-VHF stations in Zone I, like WDPN-TV, are limited to an ERP of 10 kW under the rules. The Commission has recognized, however, that significant over-the-air reception problems may exist within the service area of VHF stations, due to the propagation characteristics of digital VHF signals and the deleterious effects of manmade noise on the reception of these signals.

See Innovation in the Broadcast Television Bands: Allocations, Channel Sharing and Improvements to VHF,

ET Docket No. 10-235, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 16498, 16511, para. 42 (2010). Thus, since the end of the DTV transition in June 2009, Commission staff has waived the power limits in §§ 73.622(f)(5) or (6) of the rules a number of times to increase the power levels of stations operating on low VHF channels above the 10 kW limit set forth in the rules. Indeed, WDPN-TV, on RF channel 2 in Zone I, currently operates with an ERP of 34 kW, pursuant to a waiver of § 73.622(f)(6). We do not believe that codifying the 2001 clarification limits our ability to grant such waivers upon an appropriate showing, as we have for WDPN-TV, and thus we believe it is unnecessary to depart from the

NPRM's

proposal to revise § 73.622 as Maranatha requests, and we adopt the

NPRM's

proposal.

The

NPRM

proposed to move § 73.625(b)(2) to new § 73.619(b)(2), which describes the equation for determining the “depression angle between the transmitting antenna center of radiation and the radio horizon” as A = 0.0277 square root of H. This calculation is used for contour projection. In that description, there is no mathematical operator (a multiplication sign) between the coefficient (0.0277) and the variable (√H). NAB responded in its comments that it believes that the equation, if written out, should correctly be A = 0.0277 times the square root of H, or preferably expressed in standard mathematical form as:

A = 0.0277 × √H

We agree with this clarification because it will make the formula clearer, and amend the adopted § 73.619(b)(2) accordingly. We find good cause to make this revision without notice and comment.

See

5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) (providing that notice and comment are not required “when the agency for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are . . . unnecessary . . .”). This revision is a non-substantive change and merely more accurately sets forth the equation in § 73.619(b)(2) of the rules to make the formula clearer.

Protection of Land Mobile Radio Service

We adopt the proposals set forth in the

NPRM

relating to full power television protection of LMRS with some clarifications. The

NPRM

inadvertently stated that § 73.623(e) applied to Class A stations, but this was incorrect. Class A stations are required to protect LMRS operations using the criteria found in § 73.6020. Section 73.623(e) of the rules requires full power television stations to protect certain channels for use by LMRS in thirteen U.S. cities. The set of coordinates for the city centers were calculated based on the 1927 North American Datum (NAD 27). As a result of improvements in technology and measuring capabilities, NAD 27 has been superseded by the 1983 North American Datum (NAD 83). The Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology and Office of the Managing Director have previously explained that “[g]eodetic datum is a set of constants specifying the coordinate system used for calculating the coordinates of points on the Earth. NAD 83 was developed based on satellite and remote-sensing measurement techniques, and provides greater accuracy than the older NAD 27.”

See Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 25, 73, 74, 90, and 97 of the Commission's Rules to Make Non-Substantive Editorial Revisions to the Table of Frequency Allocations and to Various Service Rules,

Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3775, 3796, para. 61, n.101 (OET/OMD 2008). Because it provides greater accuracy and the older NAD 27 is outdated, the Commission previously amended Commission rules to use NAD 83 for purposes of specifying these coordinates.

The

NPRM

tentatively concluded that updating the coordinates in § 73.623(e) to NAD 83 would serve the public interest by conforming the values with the coordinate system used in the Commission's LMS database and with those found in § 90.303(b) of the rules, which define the service that § 73.623(e) protects. As such, the

NPRM

tentatively concluded that conforming the values in these rules helps to ensure that land mobile operations are more appropriately considered and protected from full power operations. The Enterprise Wireless Alliance (EWA) agrees that §§ 73.623(e) and 90.303(b) should be synced to avoid future issues as to whether protections afforded land mobile operations are in compliance with FCC requirements.

NAB prefers a different result than matching §§ 73.623(e) and 90.303(b). NAB states that the National Geodetic Survey had developed an algorithm known as the North American Datum Conversion program (NADCON) to convert from NAD 27 to NAD 83 coordinates, which has been superseded by the NGS Coordinate Conversion and Transformation Tool (NCAT) and is now the “authoritative source for coordinate conversions.” NAB argues that we have ignored the use of NCAT in favor of

simply matching a part 90 rule, which NAB alleges “can result in errors that may conflict with FAA tower locations, distances from international borders, county boundaries, and other critical determinations.” NAB also requests that any updates to the coordinates not result in stations having to relocate.

NAB's approach is not consistent with existing Commission rules or the Commission's prior actions. In the

2023 Part 74 Report and Order,

the Commission amended § 74.709, which defines the same land mobile station protection requirement for LPTV/translator stations, to conform with the longitude in § 90.303(b). In that proceeding, NAB and another commenter agreed that a few of the proposed coordinates were different from those derived if the existing coordinates were converted to NAD 83 via the update to NADCON. The

NPRM

noted, and NAB acknowledges in its comments in this proceeding, that the coordinates we proposed found in part 90 of the Commission's rules differed by 25 meters at most (approximately 82 feet). Given that the values in the table are designed to protect the part 90 service, the most consistent approach was to make the values in § 74.709 match those in § 90.303. NAB provides no explanation and we are aware of no reason to believe that this issue is different for full power and Class A stations than it is for LPTV/translator stations. We do not believe that conforming the rules to part 90 will result in errors as NAB suggests. Therefore, we believe the same approach adopted in the

2023 Part 74 Report and Order

and proposed in the

NPRM

is appropriate with respect to full power and Class A television stations and we adopt the proposal in the

NPRM.

Given the small differences involved, we believe it is unlikely that these minor corrections would result in any stations suddenly finding themselves no longer compliant with land mobile protection requirements. But in response to NAB's concern, we clarify that we will not require existing full power television stations to make changes due to these coordinate updates.

NAB also urges the Commission to delete from proposed § 73.617(a) the requirement that full power and Class A television stations protect the channels assigned to Cleveland, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan, as well as to delete references to those cities from § 90.303(b), where a footnote already states that those channels “are not available [ ] until further order from the Commission.” In the

2023 Part 74 Report and Order,

the Commission noted that a pending petition for rulemaking submitted by the Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) also proposes removing the Cleveland and Detroit rows from the relevant rule section in part 90.

See Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reference Information Center, Petition for Rulemakings Filed, Land Mobile Communications Counsel (LMCC), Petition for Rulemaking in the Matter of Subpart L of Part 90 of FCC Rules: Updated Method to Determine Potential Interference Between Land Mobile Stations and Digital Television Stations Operating in the 470-512 MHz Band (“T-Band”),

Public Notice, Report No. 3186 (CGB Jan. 12, 2022); Petition for Rulemaking of Land Mobile Communications Council, RM-11915 (filed June 24, 2021). Due to the pendency of that petition, the Commission declined to add a note to § 74.709(a), and stated its belief that the decision would not create confusion as the note in part 90 already indicated that the Cleveland and Detroit channels are not available and thus, those areas do not require protection. Consistent with that finding, we decline to add a note to § 73.617(a) or to make additional deletions in this section of the full power television rules for the same reasons. NAB also asks that we “reiterate the policy expressed in Docket 87-465. Namely, `[t]he TV station will not be responsible for bringing a poor quality land mobile station up to the industry's normal performance level or for protecting a facility attempting service well beyond a normal distance' ” and that “. . . [i]t is not the policy of the Commission to always provide interference protection to the worst . . . performing receivers.” (internal footnotes omitted). NAB Comments at 5-6, citing

Resolution of Interference between UHF Channels 14 and 69 and Adjacent-channel Land Mobile Operations,

MM Docket 87-465, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5148, 5153-4 at para. 29 (1991). NAB also cites to Land Mobile Communications Council, “Request for Relief from Interference from Digital Television Stations,” (Aug. 28, 2020),

available at: https://wirelesscouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/LMCC-Ltr-Re-DTV-Interference-082820.pdf.

NAB Comments at 5. We see no reason to do so. The Commission's policy is still accepted and in use.

See, e.g., Amendment of Section 73.622(i), Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations (Tulsa, Oklahoma),

MB Docket No. 21-9, Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 13620 (Vid. Div. 2021). In response to NAB's request that we reiterate the policy expressed in Docket 87-465, we find that this is outside the scope of our proceeding, but we note that the minor adjustments to the coordinates we are making here do not change any existing Commission policy.

Having received no specific objections, and because the comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, consistent with our proposal in the

NPRM,

we also amend § 73.1620(a)(1) (Program tests) to remind full power and Class A television stations on channel 14 of the requirement found in § 73.687(e)(4)(iii) that they request Program Test Authority (PTA) prior to commencing operation of new or modified facilities. We also include a new sentence codifying the practice of requiring LPTV and TV translator stations on channel 14 to request PTA prior to beginning operation with new or modified facilities. We believe that adding rule text reflecting this practice consistently across all television services will better reflect the purpose of the requirement to protect existing land mobile operations.

Coverage Area—Determining Coverage

The

NPRM

proposed amendments relating to the calculation of HAAT and determination of coverage. The

NPRM

noted that § 73.625(b) of the Commission's rules describes how coverage and HAAT are to be calculated or determined. The Commission proposed to make changes to certain procedures contained in § 73.625(b), which we believe are obsolete, unnecessary, and are otherwise superseded by the software based tools that the FCC and industry use to prepare and process applications. We received some specific comments suggesting modifications of the proposals in the

NPRM.

As discussed below, we are not persuaded by those comments, and, because the other comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, we thus adopt the proposals as stated in the

NPRM,

with a clarification offered in light of NAB's comments.

We remove the second sentence of paragraph (b)(2), which indicates that when the relative field strength at a depression angle is 90% or greater, the 100% value should be used. This wording would create a discontinuity in the contour, and is inconsistent with how application processing software functions. Having received no objections to this proposal, we adopt it.

As noted in the

NPRM,

§ 73.625(b)(5) specifies a number of paper maps which should be used to prepare the profile graphs described in paragraph (b)(4), and to determine the location and

height above sea level of the antenna height. Multiple references to various sources of paper maps contained in the rule are outdated methods to make these types of calculations. We therefore remove those references to outmoded paper maps and replace them with a reference to the National Elevation Dataset and other similar bald earth terrain datasets which are used by modern automated software currently used by the Commission and industry. In paragraph (b)(6), we clarify that we generally expect these calculations to be done via computer, versus the preference for paper calculations that was specified previously, and then indicate that to the extent a submission to the Commission uses sources different from those officially reflected in our rules, those sources should be clearly identified in the submission.

As discussed below, commenters expressed concern about certain proposals in the

NPRM

to eliminate the requirement to produce and submit profile graphs and to streamline the section in order to bring it into line with modern software-based tools used to determine contours and HAAT today. Upon consideration of those comments, we adopt the proposals in the

NPRM,

including our proposal to eliminate the requirement to produce and submit profile graphs, with certain clarifications as described below.

As explained in the

NPRM,

the fifth and sixth sentences in paragraph (b)(4) of § 73.625 discuss the creation and submission of a radial in the direction of the community of license.

See

47 CFR 73.684(d) (1963) (Section 73.625(b)(4) was largely adapted from § 73.684(d), and § 73.684(d) itself had been condensed since the 1963 version of the rule. The 1963 version more clearly details the purpose and execution of the rule than the current text.). The rule does not require the use of a radial in the direction of the community of license in any other calculations, so with the elimination of the requirement to produce and submit profile graphs of radials, a rule that requires the calculation of this radial becomes unnecessary. Moreover, the software-based tools the Commission and industry use to process and prepare applications do not produce this radial. As such, the

NPRM

proposed to delete the language. Paragraph (b)(4) also contains similar detail in the seventh and eighth sentences explaining how and when to produce and submit a profile graph for radials over water or foreign territory. Again, with the elimination of the requirement to produce and submit profile graphs of radials, the

NPRM

stated that the Commission believes this calculation for radials over water or foreign territory is unnecessary. The rule itself does not require the radials to be used in any other calculations and automated software used by the Commission and industry does not do this. As such, the

NPRM

proposed to delete this language. We also adopt our proposal to delete the companion language in § 73.681 in the definition of “antenna height above average terrain.” Paragraph (b)(4) also describes how to plot the radials on a graph and provides a range of options for the number of points of elevation to use in each radial. The

NPRM

proposed to conform the requirement to reference the

TVStudy

software currently used for preparing and processing applications, and specify the use of 10 points per kilometer in all circumstances consistent with present practice found in the

TVStudy

software used by the Commission and licensees to process and prepare applications.

See

Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology,

TVStudy Interference Analysis Software, https://www.fcc.gov/oet/tvstudy

(last visited Aug. 1, 2023) (the “FCC Contours” screen in the “Parameters” tab of TVStudy provides a default value of 10 points per kilometer using the default Interference Check template).

CDE indicates in its comments that it disagrees with this proposal to the extent it would eliminate those parts of § 73.625 that discuss the creation and submission of a radial in the direction of the community of license and explains how and when to produce and submit a profile graph for radials over water or foreign territory. But CDE does not provide an explanation for its position except to say that “Not Agreed Reason—certain terrain situations require greater detail and study.” As a result, CDE did not provide any explanation of how the change would undermine detail available in the prior version of the rule. Therefore, CDE's comment provides no basis upon which we would amend the proposal included in the

NPRM,

and we therefore adopt it. Furthermore, to the extent that there are terrain differences in the direction of a station's community license, water, or foreign territory, the software based tools that the Commission and industry use to prepare and process applications account for and visualize those differences and so we give no weight to CDE's objection. We note that to the extent additional detail may be needed, per CDE Supplemental Comments 2, nothing prevents a station from providing that additional detail when submitting applications to the Media Bureau, but it is not needed in many cases and we do not believe it is practical for the rules to continue to require all stations to provide documentation that the vast majority do not need to provide.

NAB expresses concern that deleting parts of § 73.625(b)(4) describing the HAAT calculation, as well as the related words “less than 8 directions may be used” in § 73.681, could require some stations to make changes in their current licensed facilities. NAB suggests the proposed change could alter HAAT and power calculations for many existing stations. As examples, NAB cites three instances where application of the proposed rule could potentially require stations to reduce power for transmitting sites involving fewer than eight radials or using radials other than the “eight cardinal radials,” and suggests there could be other instances in which this situation arises. NAB does not request that the referenced words be kept in the rule, but instead seeks assurance that stations presently operating or proposed to operate from sites having an average terrain value determined by means other than the proposed uniform eight-radial method can continue to use the present average terrain elevation and, by extension, determine their HAAT and ERP values using the historic values.

We note that all full power and Class A television stations have been operating with digital authorizations issued using the then-most recent version of the Commission's application processing software, and that the software-based tools the Commission and industry use to process and prepare applications do not produce these modified radials. Therefore, we do not foresee, nor do we intend, that the rule change would require a station to reduce power. In response to NAB's concern, however, we clarify we do not expect full power television stations will need to make changes solely due to this amendment to § 73.625(b)(4), and we will allow stations to continue to use a historic HAAT calculation for a given location if one was previously used to comply with the rules regarding power limits. We adopt the rule change as proposed in the

NPRM.

The

NPRM

also proposed to delete unnecessary references in the rule. There are several sentences in paragraph (b)(4) which describe how profile graphs should be formatted for submission to the FCC. Because we eliminate the requirement to submit profile graphs, we also proposed to delete the formatting requirements. The rule also provides multiple options on how to obtain elevation points. The software

currently used by the Commission and industry, however, simply averages the points as provided in the first option. The

NPRM

proposed to delete the text on options to obtain elevation points and clarify the use of the average of points elsewhere in the paragraph. Finally, the

NPRM

proposed to add a sentence clarifying that actual calculated values are used to determine the HAAT, and to eliminate the final two sentences of paragraph (b)(4) which are no longer used with the conversion from analog to digital. Specifically, this language is no longer necessary due to the change from the requirements of providing a city grade strength signal of 74-80 dBu, depending on channel, to a principal community strength signal of 35-48 dBu depending on channel. With the conversion from analog to digital, the use of the city grade contour to determine community coverage was replaced with the use of the minimum service level contour, which tends to be significantly larger, making the issue of an inability to reach the community of license that this rule was designed to capture significantly less likely. Although CDE stated it disagreed, noting that “certain terrain situations and obstacles require greater detail and study,” it did not provide any explanation of that position of how the change would undermine detail available in the prior version of the rule. Without such rationale, we find no basis to reject the proposed changes and thus we adopt the proposals.

Antenna Patterns

With some clarifying changes, we adopt all but one of the proposals set forth in the

NPRM

relating to antenna patterns. The

NPRM

proposed to clarify, in § 73.625(c)(3)(ii) of the rules, that the horizontal power is to be higher than or equal to the vertical power in all directions, and require documentation that the antenna meets this requirement. The Commission stated in the

NPRM

that this clarification is consistent with the requirements contained in § 73.682(a)(14). No commenter objects to this proposal, but NAB does offer an observation. Specifically, NAB notes that over the years, the meaning of the phrase “horizontal plane pattern” in proposed § 73.625(c)(3)(ii) and (v) no longer means the same as the “azimuth plane pattern,” which is the pattern supplied by antenna manufacturers. Therefore, NAB suggests that it would be more accurate to refer simply to the “azimuth plane pattern” of the antenna in an application. NAB also notes that the horizontal plane pattern of the antenna may be required for certain calculations, such as those relating to bilateral agreements between the United States and Mexico, and when required, has no objection to providing both the azimuth plane and horizontal plane patterns. We agree with NAB and adopt the proposed changes to the rule with the adjustments NAB suggests, including the addition of text to the adopted rule clarifying that Media Bureau staff can ask a station for additional documentation for the purpose of coordination with Mexico or Canada should it be requested. We note that one goal here is to ensure that undistorted and complete antenna patterns are available for review. For example, when a station with mechanical beam tilt files a distorted horizontal plane pattern in LMS to reflect what the antenna looks like in terms of interference to other stations, it can be difficult or impossible to determine the undistorted azimuth pattern absent additional documentation. A station with mechanical beam tilt should instead submit in LMS an undistorted azimuth and elevation pattern and provide the amount and azimuth of the mechanical tilt, or may submit a matrix pattern, but such stations are not required to do so.

The

NPRM

also proposed to update § 73.625(c)(3)(ii) to reflect that the LMS filing system permits two methods of specifying mechanically beam tilted facilities. While we received no opposition to this proposal, on further reflection, we note that this type of specific reference to our filing system procedure is not typically contained in our rules, but rather is contained in the instructions of the application form, and thus we decline to adopt it.

In the

NPRM,

the Commission noted that § 73.625(c)(3)(v) is outdated, as it requires that horizontal plane patterns be plotted “to the largest scale possible on unglazed letter-size polar coordinate paper.” The

NPRM

proposed instead to require licensees to submit patterns in the form of a .pdf attachment to an application filed in LMS, and clarified that similar plots are required for elevation or matrix patterns submitted in the LMS form.

See

revised § 73.625(c)(3)(vi) and new § 73.625(c)(3)(vii). The

NPRM

stated that this approach provides flexibility to applicants and conforms to modern practices.

CDE indicates in its comments that it disagrees with this proposal, but merely states “Not Agreed For ATSC 3.0 SFN.” Because CDE did not provide any further explanation of the basis or perceived negative impact of the proposal, CDE provides no basis upon which we would amend the proposal included in the

NPRM.

Moreover, we believe the software driven approach provides more detailed information than the plane patterns manually plotted on paper and CDE's comment offered nothing to refute our conclusion based on several years of experience processing applications filed in LMS.

NAB states that with respect to the matrix antenna patterns described in proposed § 73.625(c)(3)(viii), for which a single azimuth and elevation pattern is not sufficient to specify the overall radiation characteristics of the antenna, it believes that a spreadsheet tabulation of relative field values is far more useful than .pdf attachments. NAB further states that because of the varying nature of a matrix antenna pattern, hundreds of .pdf representations may be needed to accurately convey the complete pattern. NAB therefore suggests that the Commission require only one or two representative azimuth and elevation patterns be supplied in a .pdf attachment and if additional visualizations are needed, the tabular spreadsheet data can be used in spreadsheet software to produce them. We agree with NAB's approach and revise the rule accordingly.

Subscription TV (STV) Rules

The

NPRM

proposed to eliminate certain obsolete STV rules. The comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, and we received no specific objection to these proposals. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the

NPRM,

and described below, we adopt the proposals. As stated in the

NPRM,

§§ 73.641 through 73.644, 73.4247, 73.6026, and 74.732(e) contain the rules that allowed analog full power, Class A, and LPTV stations to offer a subscription television service “for a fee or charge.” With the elimination of analog service, there are no full power television stations operating pursuant to the STV rules and LMS does not permit the filing of applications or requests to operate in an STV mode. Sections 73.642(b) (Subscription TV service) and 74.732(e) (Eligibility and licensing requirements) require that stations notify the Commission when they commence STV operations, and that full power and Class A stations notify the Commission when they discontinue STV operations or change their encoding equipment. The Bureau has not received any such filings in at least the past 25 years. Accordingly, these STV rules and references to them in parts 73 and 74 are obsolete and we eliminate them.

See

47 CFR 73.641 (Subscription TV definitions); 73.642 (Subscription TV service); 73.643 (Subscription TV operating

requirements); 73.644 (Subscription TV transmission systems); 73.4247 (STV: Competing applications); 73.1201(d) (Station identification for subscription television stations); 74.701(f) (Low power TV station); 73.682(b) (Subscription TV technical systems); 73.6026 (deleting cross-references to 73.642 through 73.644) (Broadcast regulations applicable to Class A television stations); and 74.732(e) (Eligibility and licensing requirements).

Special Criteria for Converting Vacant Commercial Channels to Reserved Status

The

NPRM

proposed to amend § 73.622(a) to remove a reference to a needs-based test. The comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, and we received no specific objection to this proposal. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the

NPRM,

and described below, we adopt the proposal. As stated in the

NPRM,

in 2000, the Commission adopted a needs-based test in § 73.622(a) for future rulemakings allowing noncommercial educational (NCE) entities to request that “non-reserved channels not already in the Table of Allotments be added and reserved for NCE use.” Since the Commission adopted this needs based test in 2000, the Media Bureau has never been asked to apply it to television stations. Further, the television band has been reallocated and repacked from channels 2-69 to channels 2-36, significantly decreasing the number of available channels. Therefore, § 73.622(a) is amended to remove this language as we believe that it does not serve a practical purpose in the current environment. We do not intend, however, to eliminate the ability of an NCE entity to reserve one of the few vacant television channels currently in the Table of TV Allotments. We note that an NCE entity may still file a rulemaking petition to request that the Commission reserve the channel for noncommercial educational use, without being required to rely on the special process enumerated in § 73.622(a).

Other Technical and Miscellaneous Updates

Special Service Authorization.

The

NPRM

proposed to remove § 73.3543 as obsolete. The comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, and we received no specific objection to this proposal. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the

NPRM,

and described below, we delete the rule. Section 73.3543 (Application for renewal or modification of special service authorization) provides that no new special service authorizations may be issued after 1958, however, renewals or modifications will be considered in certain circumstances. We are unaware of any such authorizations today, and thus we conclude the rule is obsolete and delete it.

Broadcast Data Bases.

The

NPRM

proposed to revise the Commission's rules to update references to historical and current databases and other reference material. The comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, and we received no specific objection to this proposal. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the

NPRM,

and described below, we adopt the proposals. Section 0.434 (Data bases and lists of authorized broadcast stations and pending broadcast applications) refers to Broadcast Application Processing System (BAPS), which is a legacy database system that has not been in use at the Commission for many years. The Media Bureau currently uses LMS for application processing, which replaced the prior CDBS system, which itself replaced BAPS around the year 2000. Thus, the reference to BAPS is obsolete and we delete it. We additionally remove the word “periodically” since an updated LMS download is provided daily, remove the link to “

ftp.fcc.gov

” since LMS data is not provided there, and update the reference to “mass media services” to instead specify “Media Bureau.” We also delete the sentences stating that copies of lists of stations and applications are available for inspection at the Commission's Reference Information Center because this information is now made available electronically via LMS. We note that the

NPRM

proposed removing references to paper copies, viewing paper copies on microfiche, and that the paper copies of lists can be purchased from the FCC's duplicating contractor in the

NPRM

at para. 46. However, we note, since release of the

NPRM,

the Commission revised 47 CFR 0.434 to remove these references.

See Establishment of the Space Bureau and the Office of International Affairs and Reorganization of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau and the Office of the Managing Director,

MD Docket No. 23-12, FCC 23-1 (Jan. 9, 2023). Therefore, we do not adopt these changes in this

Report and Order.

Distributed Transmission System Rule Clarification.

The

NPRM

proposed to clarify the language in our distributed transmission system (DTS) rule. The comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, and we received no specific objection to these proposals. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the

NPRM,

we adopt the proposals. Since adoption of the revised § 73.626 in January 2021, questions have arisen about how the rules are to be applied. For example, the rule text makes several references to the term “reference facility” without defining that term, and inaccurately conflates the reference point with the coordinates of the facility which produces the authorized service area. To make the intent and application of the rule less ambiguous, we modify language in §§ 73.626(b) and (f)(2), as proposed in the

NPRM.

We define the term “authorized facility” (The revised § 73.626(b) states that “For purposes of compliance with this section, a station's `authorized service area' is defined as the area within its predicted noise-limited service contour determined using the facilities authorized for the station in a license or construction permit for non-DTS, single-transmitter-location operation (its `authorized facility').”) and then replace all uses of the term “reference facility” with the term “authorized facility” in the appropriate locations.

See

revised §§ 73.626(f)(2)(i) through (iii). We further replace the term “reference point” with “site of its authorized facility” in places where the term “reference point” is improperly used.

See

revised §§ 73.626(f)(2)(ii) through (iii). Finally, we clarify when specifically the Table of Distances values should be applied.

See

revised §§ 73.626(f)(2)(i) through (ii). We believe this clarifying language will better reflect the method described in the

2021 DTS Order

and used in processing such applications. We remove language from § 73.626(f)(2) which is improperly specific to the station's authorized service area, and which incorrectly implied that the Table of Distances circle is not applicable here.

Transport Stream ID.

The

NPRM

proposed to require that all full-power and Class A TV stations broadcast with their assigned transport stream ID (TSID) or bit stream ID (BSID) in the ATSC 3.0 context. The comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, and we received no specific objection to these proposals. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the

NPRM,

we adopt them. As noted in the

NPRM,

all full-power and Class A TV stations are assigned a unique TSID, which is required to be transmitted in order to provide the Program and System Information Protocol (PSIP) data required by § 73.682(d) (Broadcast television

transmission standard). Consistent with that rule, we clarify that all such stations must broadcast with their assigned TSID during their hours of operation.

See

revised § 73.1201 (Station identification). In its

Second Periodic Review,

the Commission stated that “broadcasters are required to transmit the TSIDs assigned for their stations in their digital transmission.” We believe that it is in the public interest to move this requirement into a separate rule for ease of reference. Similarly, we adopt the same requirement with respect to a station's BSID, which is the ATSC 3.0 equivalent to TSID, in order to promote consistency.

Class A US-Mexico Border Zone.

The

NPRM

proposed to amend § 73.6024(d) to require Class A stations within 275 kilometers of the US-Mexico border to specify a full-service emission mask in any modification application. The comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, and we received no specific objection to this proposal. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the

NPRM,

we adopt it. As explained in the

NPRM,

full power television stations are required to use full service masks to attenuate the power level of emissions outside their authorized channel of operation in specified amounts expressed in decibels (dB). Section 74.794, which allows LPTV and TV translators to specify use of a simple, stringent, or full service mask, also applies to Class A television stations. The Commission's rules require coordination of applications in border regions with the neighboring countries' appropriate regulatory officials. Under the

Exchange of Coordination Letters with IFT Regarding DTV Transition and Reconfiguration of 600 MHz Spectrum,

signed between the FCC and Mexico's Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (IFT) in July 2015, the use of Tables 1 and 6 were approved for television station realignment. Class A stations approved by Mexico in Table 6 are grouped with full-service stations. There is no allowance for use of a simple or stringent emission mask for any operation within these Tables; however, § 73.6024(d) applies to coordination of stations in proximity of the US border with Mexico. It is the Media Bureau staff's experience that IFT routinely requests that applications submitted for coordination of Class A stations specify a full-service emission mask, and if such applications do not initially specify the full-service emission mask, IFT asks for it to be included in an amendment. This two-step process increases the processing burdens on the FCC, IFT, and stations, and results in delays in granting applications. Therefore, the

NPRM

proposed to amend Section 73.6024(d) to require Class A stations within 275 kilometers of the US-Mexico border to specify a full-service emission mask in any modification application, and we adopt that proposal here.

Class A Antenna System.

The

NPRM

proposed to replace the separate Class A antenna pattern documentation requirements with a reference to the analogous full-power version of the rule for consistency. The comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, and we received no specific objection to this proposal. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the

NPRM,

we adopt it. We delete language in § 73.6025(a) nearly identical to that in § 73.625(c)(3). These rule sections provide similar requirements regarding how applicants should describe and document antenna patterns submitted in their applications. Some sections are identical (specifically, § 73.625(c)(3)(iii) is identical to § 73.6025(a)(3), § 73.625(c)(3)(iv) is identical to § 73.6025(a)(4), and § 73.625(c)(3)(vi) is identical to § 73.6025(a)(5)), but in others, there are a few minor differences. We conclude that the very minor distinctions between the language in the two sections are insignificant and that no purpose is served by having two essentially duplicative rules in part 73. Class A licensees are required to comply with all part 73 regulations except for those that cannot apply for technical or other reasons.

Class A Report and Order,

15 FCC Rcd at 6365, para. 23. Section 73.625(c)(3), which requires applicants to submit documentation regarding the antenna they are proposing to install, is clearly a rule with which they can comply. We will cross-reference § 73.625(c)(3) in § 73.6025(a), eliminating the duplication but making clear that the requirements in § 73.625(c)(3) continue to apply to Class A television stations. We also modified §§ 73.625(c)(3)(ii) and 73.625(c)(3)(v). We also added new §§ 73.625(c)(3)(vii) and (viii) to account for stations submitting elevation or matrix patterns.

Minimum Video Program Requirements.

The

NPRM

proposed to update a Class A television rule in order to conform the rule with an update made elsewhere in the

NPRM.

The comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, and we received no specific objection to this proposal. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the

NPRM,

we adopt it. As noted above, we delete much of § 73.624(b). Section 73.6026 (Broadcast regulations applicable to Class A television stations) lists § 73.624 as a rule applicable to Class A stations and includes a note stating that “Section 73.624(b) will apply only to the extent that such stations must also transmit at least one over-the-air video program signal at no direct charge to viewers of the digital Class A station.” We remove that text in § 73.6026 because it duplicates language also included in 73.624(b). We also clarify that this change mandates the use of a minimum 480i video resolution by Class A stations. This requirement is consistent with full-power and LPTV/translator stations (as adopted in the

2023 Part 74 Report and Order

), and we believe it is reasonable to also apply it consistently to Class A stations for regulatory parity between the television services.

Transmitting Antenna Site.

The

NPRM

proposed to replace the term “transmitter site” in our rules with “transmitting antenna site.” The comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, and we received no specific objection to this proposal. Therefore for the reasons stated in the

NPRM,

we adopt it. Section 73.619(a)(1) (we moved this rule from § 73.683(c)(1)) refers to the estimation of a station's coverage area based on a “particular transmitter site.” We note that our application forms do not request information about the location of a station transmitter but about the location of its antenna instead. We modify the language in the rule to refer to a “particular transmitting antenna site.” This is consistent with language that has been used in other parts of the rules, and with a proposal the Commission adopted in the

2023 Part 74 Report and Order.

Corrections to Inadvertent Oversights from Prior Rulemakings.

The

NPRM

proposed to make various corrections to the rules as a result of inadvertent oversights from prior rulemakings. The comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, and we received no specific objection to this proposal. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the

NPRM,

we adopt it. Because the requirements of the previous § 73.616(e) (which we relocated to § 73.620(d)) pertaining to interference protection with respect to Class A stations were difficult to decipher, we remove paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) entirely and streamline the remaining paragraph from § 73.616(e) in the new § 73.620(d). In doing so, we replace the description of the OET Bulletin No. 69 in paragraph (1) with a cross-reference to paragraphs (a) and (b) of the new § 73.620, which specifies the same method.

As described in the

NPRM,

the Commission previously deleted § 73.623(g) as obsolete because it addressed the digital transition. Deletion of the section, however, inadvertently eliminated from the rules the allowance for negotiated agreements on interference among applicants and licensees. The

NPRM

proposed to restore the allowance that was previously contained in § 73.623(g), modify the language to delete language referring to stations operating on channels allotted in § 73.622(b), the initial DTV Table, and place it in a new § 73.620(e). This would clarify in our rules that stations may continue to negotiate agreements on interference consistent with past and present practice. The comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, and we received no specific objection to this proposal. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the

NPRM,

we adopt it.

In the

2022 Part 74 Order,

the Commission revised or removed certain paragraphs of § 74.787 to reflect the LPTV and translator transition from analog to digital operations, removed duplicate sections that were contained in both the analog and digital portions of part 74, and provided accurate information about current Commission forms. The

NPRM

proposed to further amend the text of the rule by clarifying in the now first sentence of paragraph (a)(5)(v) that the pre-auction digital service area is the noise-limited contour of the full power station that was protected in the incentive auction repacking process and remove reference to a 2015 public notice. Because we no longer allow applications for new applications for digital-to-digital replacement television translators (DTDRTs), the

NPRM

noted that the Commission believed the reference to the public notice data is no longer necessary and the inclusion of the additional explanation of the pre-auction digital service area for stations that already hold DTDRTs provides a clearer definition. The comments received were generally supportive of the effort to update our rules, and we received no specific objection to this proposal. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the

NPRM,

we adopt it.

Additional Proposals Raised by Commenters

We decline to adopt several proposals raised by commenters that are outside the scope of this proceeding. We received several proposals that seek to make material changes to our rules, or changes outside the scope of this proceeding.

See

OMI Comments (asserting that the Commission should “consider the most likely azimuth that viewers will have their TV antennas aimed at when considering interference caused to a station,” and that the Commission accordingly should update its

TVStudy

software program, which is used by licensees to prepare applications and Commission staff to process applications); GBS Comments at 1-2 (asking the Commission to codify OET's clarification in

OET Clarifies Emission Mask Measurements for DTV Transmitters,

Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 8874 (OET 2005), which clarifies the emission mask measurement rules and provides guidance regarding compliance with the DTV full service and low power masks to be demonstrated by either of two methods, in proposed § 73.611 in this proceeding or a more recent version of an industry-accepted measurement standard); NAB Comments at 9 (requesting that the Commission revise proposed § 73.625(d) to update a reference to the IEEE Standard Definition for circular polarization to the current IEEE Standard 145, “IEEE Standard Definitions of Terms for Antennas” (1993)); CDE Supplemental Comments 2 at 35-36 and Appendices A-C (apparently objecting to the use of the Commission's

TVStudy

software and suggesting that the Commission solicit input to develop a new offering). In declining to take action, we note that the

NPRM's

scope was limited to amendments to the Commission's rules primarily related to full power and Class A television service to reflect the current operating environment, including the end of the transition from analog to digital operations.

Cost Benefit Analysis

After evaluating the record received in response to the

NPRM's

request for comment on the benefits and costs associated with adopting the proposals set forth in the

NPRM,

we conclude that to the extent that the revised rules impose any costs on Commission licensees and regulatees, such costs will be minimal and are outweighed by the benefits to the public of the revised rules. We received no comments on the costs imposed on Commission licensees and regulatees as a result of our proposals.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Analysis

The

NPRM

also sought comment on how the proposals set forth in the

NPRM

can advance equity in the provision of broadcast services for all people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability. The

NPRM

also sought comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. We received no comments on these topics and no objection to adoption of the proposed rules based on these concerns. We acknowledge the importance of these aims, and we believe that the revised rules reflect an effort to simplify, streamline, and modernize existing rules and procedures that will enable full power and Class A television stations to more easily comply with licensing requirements through familiar and low cost measures and we do not believe they will have negative implications related to diversity, equity, inclusion, or accessibility.

Procedural Matters

Paperwork Reduction Analysis.

The

Report and Order

may contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). All such new or modified requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under § 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other federal agencies will be invited to comment on any new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. The Commission will publish a separate document in the

Federal Register

at a later date seeking these comments. In addition, we note that, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,

see

44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. We have described impacts that might affect small businesses in the FRFA.

Congressional Review Act.

The Commission will send a copy of this

Report and Order

to Congress and the Government Accountability office, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, we have prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of rule and/or policy changes contained in this

Report and Order

on small entities.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(

NPRM

) released in September 2022. The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) sought written public comment on the proposals in the

NPRM,

including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

The

Report and Order

reflects the Commission's efforts to update its rules for full power and Class A television stations to reflect the current operating environment following the transition from analog to digital-only operations and the post-incentive auction transition to a smaller television band with fewer channels. The

Report and Order

largely adopts the rules proposed in the

NPRM,

with certain limited exceptions or modifications, in order to delete, update, or otherwise revise Commission rules for full power and Class A stations that no longer have any practical effect. As part of this comprehensive update, we also restructure a portion of our rules primarily consisting of the technical licensing, operating, and interference rules for full power television. Our actions in the

Report and Order

further the Commission's continued efforts to ensure that our rules clearly and accurately reflect existing requirements and are understandable by licensees and the public.

More specifically, we adopt revisions to the Commission's rules in light of the fact that all television services have ceased analog operations. We delete outdated rules that are no longer valid given changes in Commission-adopted policy, such as the elimination of the comparative hearing process to award and renew broadcast licenses, and we reorganize a portion of the part 73 rules to make the rules easier to find and more practical for users. Other non-substantive, technical revisions we make in the

Report and Order

include updating previously-adopted station license periods, deleting obsolete rules governing the post-incentive auction transition period, and correcting or updating

inter alia,

section headings, spelling, contact information, and rule cross-references, or language inadvertently omitted from a rule. We also update our rules to reference the current designation for form numbers (

e.g.,

FCC Form 2100) and to require electronic filing in the Commission's Licensing and Management System (LMS). Additionally, we consider requests and comments on subjects not included in the

NPRM

proposals, the costs and benefits of the rules adopted, and the potential of the rule changes to promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. The rules we adopt, and actions we take in the

Report and Order

to simplify, streamline, and modernize existing rules and procedures should reduce compliance costs, and make compliance with our licensing requirements easier for full power and Class A television stations.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.

Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration

Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments.

The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

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

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 rules adopted herein. 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 (SBA). 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.

The rules adopted in the

Report and Order

will directly affect small television broadcast stations. Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.

Television Broadcasting.

This industry is comprised of “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 small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts as small. 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 744 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of that number, 657 firms had revenue of less than $25,000,000. Based on this data we estimate that the majority of television broadcasters are small entities under the SBA small business size standard.

As of June 30, 2023, there were 1,375 licensed commercial television stations. Of this total, 1,256 stations (or 91.3%) had revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2022, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on July 17, 2023, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission estimates as of June 30, 2023, there were 383 licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations, 381 Class A TV stations, 1,902 LPTV stations and 3,123 TV translator stations. The Commission, however, does not compile and otherwise does not have access to financial information for these television broadcast stations that would permit it to determine how many of these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard. Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of these television station licensees, we presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

In this section, we identify the reporting, recordkeeping, and/or other compliance requirements adopted in the

Report and Order.

Modified reporting requirements were adopted by the Commission replacing manual filing processes with electronic filing requirements. Television stations will

now be required to make certain required notifications electronically through filings procedures using LMS as opposed to the previous manual filing process by letter. Similarly, regarding § 73.625(b)(5) which specifies a number of paper maps which should be used to prepare the profile graphs and to determine the location and height above sea level of the antenna height, the Commission clarifies that it expects small and other entities to make the required calculations by computer rather than manual paper calculations using paper maps. Accordingly, the multiple references to various sources of paper maps to make these types of calculations contained in the rules have been replaced with a reference to the National Elevation Dataset and other similar bald earth terrain datasets which are used by modern automated software currently used by the Commission and industry.

The removal of outdated manual processes, forms, and filing requirements in favor of using automated software, and implementation of electronic filing requirements for small and other entities will result in a modified paperwork obligation. Cost and benefit information on these and other proposals were requested by the Commission in the

NPRM,

however commenters did not provide any information on the cost impacts of our proposals. Therefore, while the Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance for small entities, and is not in a position to determine whether small entities will have to hire professionals to comply with our decisions in the

Report and Order,

since it is widely accepted that automated processes are generally more efficient and less burdensome than manual processes, the Commission anticipates that our actions will lessen the administrative burden on small entities.

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

The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”

The actions taken by the Commission in the

Report and Order

simplifying and streamlining our rules, and implementing automated and electronic filing requirements, should make it easier for small and other entities to comply with our rules. We consider the rules we adopted to be the least costly, and minimally burdensome for small and other entities impacted by the rules. In the absence of evidence to the contrary in the record, the Commission does not expect the adopted requirements to have a significant economic impact on small entities. Below we discuss actions we take in the

Report and Order

to minimize any significant economic impact on small entities and alternatives that were considered.

We adopted rule updates and reorganizations proposed in the

NPRM

to codify the Commission staff's current practices or to better reflect technological advancements in the industry. The Commission anticipates that these changes generally will lessen the economic burdens on small entities due to increased administrative efficiency. For example, as we discussed above in Section E, references to outdated paper maps and manual calculations relating to § 73.625(b)(5) have been replaced by computer calculations, and current automated software used by the Commission and industry. Moreover, for § 73.625(b)(4), which describes how to plot certain radials on a graph and provides a range of options for the number of points of elevation to use in each radial, we conform the rule to reference the

TVStudy

software currently used for preparing and processing applications, and specify the use of 10 points per kilometer in all circumstances consistent with present practice found in the TVStudy software used by the Commission and licensees to process and prepare applications. These rule changes will enable small and other television stations to more easily comply with licensing requirements through familiar and low cost measures.

Moreover, the Commission took steps to decrease processing burdens and application approval delays for small and other entities by adopting the proposed amendment to § 73.6024(d) to require Class A stations within 275 kilometers of the US-Mexico border to specify a full-service emission mask in any modification application. Pursuant to the Commission's rules requiring coordination of applications in border regions with the neighboring countries' appropriate regulatory officials, in coordination with Mexico's Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (IFT) it has been the Media Bureau staff's experience that a two-step process takes place where the IFT routinely requests that applications submitted for coordination of Class A stations specify a full-service emission mask, and if such applications do not initially specify the full-service emission mask, IFT asks for it to be included in an amendment. The amendment we adopted in the

Report and Order

to § 73.6024(d) will result in the inclusion of a full-service emission mask specification with an application modification when initially submitted eliminating the need for small and other entities to have to subsequently amend their application.

Further, we provided small and other applicants flexibility by amending § 73.625(c)(3)(v) to require licensees to submit patterns in the form of a .pdf attachment to an application filed in LMS, and clarifying that similar plots are required for elevation or matrix patterns submitted in the LMS form. Our actions are consistent with modern practices and removes the administrative burden for small and other entities of an outdated manual requirement that horizontal plane patterns be plotted “to the largest scale possible on unglazed letter-size polar coordinate paper.” We considered CDE's comments disagreeing with this proposal in the

NPRM,

however, CDE did not explain its objection or provide any evidence to support an alternative decision, and merely stated “Not Agreed For ATSC 3.0 SFN.”

Some commenters raised alternative positions which we considered in the

Report and Order.

Regarding the matrix antenna patterns described in proposed § 73.625(c)(3)(viii), NAB suggested that the Commission require only one or two representative azimuth and elevation patterns be supplied in a PDF attachment, and if additional visualizations are needed, the tabular spreadsheet data can be used in spreadsheet software to produce them. The Commission agreed with NAB's suggestion and adopted a revised rule consistent with this suggestion.

We considered the comments of CDE which disagreed with our proposal to delete obsolete language in § 73.664(c)(3)(iii) concerning the certification of equipment. However, since CDE did not provide a reason for its disagreement, there was no evidence in the record, nor a valid reason for the Commission to depart from the proposal in the

NPRM.

As we stated in the

NPRM,

the Commission no longer “type accepts” equipment, having overhauled the process to allow private parties to verify such equipment meets the Commission's requirements, and the results of such verifications do not need to be submitted to the Commission.

Accordingly, we deleted the obsolete language in § 73.664(c)(3)(iii).

The Commission also considered the objection Maranatha Broadcasting Company, Inc. (Maranatha), the licensee of WDPN-TV, to our proposed codification of the Commission's 2001 clarification that a station may not exceed the effective radiated power level assigned in the station's zone in § 73.622. Maranatha proposed that the Commission retain the “largest station” rule or “make clear that any change that [the Commission] is making to its rules do not preclude power increases above zone maximums by low-VHF stations necessary to overcome the shortcomings of their digital signals and impulse noise inference.” Due to the propagation characteristics of digital VHF signals and the deleterious effects of manmade noise on the reception of these signals, the Commission is aware that significant over-the-air reception problems may exist within the service area of VHF stations. Since the end of the DTV transition in June 2009, Commission staff has waived the power limits in §§ 73.622(f)(5) or (6) of the rules a number of times to increase the power levels of stations operating on low VHF channels above the 10 kW limit set forth in the rules. We declined Maranatha's request and adopted the provisions of § 73.622 as proposed in the

NPRM

because we do not believe that codifying the 2001 clarification limits our ability to continue to grant such waivers, as we have for Marantha. We noted in the

Report and Order

that Marantha's station WDPN-TV, on RF channel 2 in Zone I, currently operates with an ERP of 34 kW, pursuant to such a waiver of § 73.622(f)(6).

Commenters also raised proposals that we declined to adopt because the comments proposed to make material changes to our rules, or changes outside the scope of this proceeding. The scope of

NPRM

was limited to amendments to the Commission's rules primarily related to full power and Class A television service to reflect the current operating environment, and particularly, the end of the transition from analog to digital operations.

Report to Congress

The Commission will send a copy of the

Report and Order,

including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the

Report and Order,

including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. The

Report and Order

and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the

Federal Register

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 0

Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies).

47 CFR Part 27

Communications common carriers.

47 CFR Part 73

Full power TV, Class A TV, Incorporation by reference.

47 CFR Part 74

Low power TV, TV translator stations.

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene Dortch,

Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Final Regulations

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0, 27, 73, and 74 to read as follows:

PART 0—COMMISSION ORGANIZATION

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

Authority:

47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, and 409, unless otherwise noted.

2. Revise § 0.434 to read as follows:

§ 0.434

Data bases and lists of authorized broadcast stations and pending broadcast applications.

The FCC makes available its data bases, Consolidated Database System (CDBS) and Licensing and Management System (LMS), containing information about authorized broadcast stations, pending applications for such stations, and rulemaking proceedings involving amendments to the TV and FM Table of Allotments. CDBS and LMS contain frequencies, station locations, and other particulars. CDBS and LMS may be viewed at the Commission's website at

www.fcc.gov

under Media Bureau.

PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE

3. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452, unless otherwise noted.

§ 27.60

[Removed]

4. Remove § 27.60.

§ 27.1310

[Removed]

5. Remove § 27.1310.

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

6. 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, 339.

7. Section 73.611 is added to read as follows:

§ 73.611

Emission levels and mask filter.

(a) The power level of emissions on frequencies outside the authorized channel of operation must be attenuated no less than the following amounts below the average transmitted power within the authorized channel. In the first 500 kHz from the channel edge the emissions must be attenuated no less than 47 dB. More than 6 MHz from the channel edge, emissions must be attenuated no less than 110 dB. At any frequency between 0.5 and 6 MHz from the channel edge, emissions must be attenuated no less than the value determined by the following formula:

Formula 1 to Paragraph (a)

Attenuation in dB = −11.5(Δf + 3.6);

Where:

Δf = frequency difference in MHz from the edge of the channel.

(b) This attenuation is based on a measurement bandwidth of 500 kHz. Other measurement bandwidths may be used as long as appropriate correction factors are applied. Measurements need not be made any closer to the band edge than one half of the resolution bandwidth of the measuring instrument. Emissions include sidebands, spurious emissions and radio frequency harmonics. Attenuation is to be measured at the output terminals of the transmitter (including any filters that may be employed). In the event of interference caused to any service, greater attenuation may be required.

8. Section 73.612 is revised to read as follows:

§ 73.612

Protection from interference.

(a) Permittees and licensees of TV broadcast stations are not protected from any interference which may be caused by the grant of a new station or of authority to modify the facilities of an existing station in accordance with the provisions of subpart E of this part. The nature and extent of the protection from interference accorded to TV broadcast stations is limited solely to the protection which results from the interference protection requirements set forth in subpart E of this part.

(b) [Reserved]

§ 73.613

[Removed and Reserved]

9. Remove and reserve § 73.613.

10. Amend § 73.614 by:

a. Revising paragraph (a), the introductory text of (b), paragraphs (b)(1) through (3);

b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(4) and (5);

c. Revising paragraph (b)(6); and

d. Removing paragraph (b)(7).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 73.614

Power and antenna height requirements.

(a)

Minimum requirements.

Applications will not be accepted for filing if they specify less than 100 watts horizontally polarized effective radiated power (ERP) in any horizontal direction. No minimum antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) is specified. For stations requesting DTS operation pursuant to § 73.626, this requirement applies to at least one site in the DTS.

(b)

Maximum power.

Applications for new full power television stations, for changes in authorized full power television stations, and petitions for changes to the Table of TV Allotments, will not be accepted for filing if they specify a power which exceeds the maximum permitted boundaries specified in the following formulas:

(1) A TV station that operates on a channel 2-6 allotment will be allowed a maximum ERP of 10 kW if its antenna HAAT is at or below 305 meters and it is located in Zone I or a maximum ERP of 45 kW if its antenna HAAT is at or below 305 meters and it is located in Zone II or Zone III.

(i) At higher HAAT levels, such TV stations will be allowed to operate with lower maximum ERP levels in accordance with the following table and formulas (the allowable maximum ERP for intermediate values of HAAT is determined using linear interpolation based on the units employed in the table):

Table 1 to Paragraph

(b)(1)(i)

—Maximum Allowable ERP and Antenna Height for TV Stations in Zones II or III on Channels 2-6

Antenna HAAT

(meters)

ERP

(kW)

610

580

550

520

490

460

425

395

365

335

305

(ii) For TV stations located in Zone I that operate on channels 2-6 with an HAAT that exceeds 305 meters, the allowable maximum ERP expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is determined using the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:

ERP

max

= 92.57−33.24 * log

(HAAT)

(iii) For TV stations located in Zone II or III that operate on channels 2-6 with an HAAT that exceeds 610 meters, the allowable maximum ERP expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is determined using the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:

ERP

max

= 57.57−17.08 * log

(HAAT)

(2) A TV station that operates on a channel 7-13 allotment will be allowed a maximum ERP of 30 kW if its antenna HAAT is at or below 305 meters and it is located in Zone I or a maximum ERP of 160 kW if its antenna HAAT is at or below 305 meters and it is located in Zone II or Zone III.

Table 2 to Paragraph

(b)(2)(i)

—Maximum Allowable ERP and Antenna Height for TV Stations in Zones II or III on Channels 7-13

Antenna HAAT

(meters)

ERP

(kW)

610

580

550

520

490

460

425

395

365

110

335

132

305

160

(ii) For TV stations located in Zone I that operate on channels 7-13 with an HAAT that exceeds 305 meters, the allowable maximum ERP expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is determined using the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:

ERP

max

= 97.35−33.24 * log

(HAAT)

(iii) For TV stations located in Zone II or III that operate on channels 7-13 with an HAAT that exceeds 610 meters, the allowable maximum ERP expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is determined using the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:

ERP

max

= 62.34−17.08 * log

(HAAT)

(3) A TV station that operates on a channel 14-36 allotment will be allowed a maximum ERP of 1000 kW if its antenna HAAT is at or below 365 meters.

(i) At higher HAAT levels, such TV stations will be allowed to operates with lower maximum ERP levels in accordance with the following table and formulas (the allowable maximum ERP for intermediate values of HAAT is determined using linear interpolation based on the units employed in the table):

Table 3 to Paragraph

(b)(3)(i)

—Maximum Allowable ERP and Antenna Height for TV Stations on Channels 14-36, All Zones

Antenna HAAT

(meters)

ERP

(kW)

610

316

580

350

550

400

520

460

490

540

460

630

425

750

395

900

365

1000

(ii) For TV stations located in Zone I, II or III that operate on channels 14-36 with an HAAT that exceeds 610 meters, the allowable maximum ERP expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is determined using the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:

ERP

max

= 72.57−17.08 * log

(HAAT)

Where:

ERP

max

= Maximum Effective Radiated Power measured in decibels above 1 kW (dBk).

HAAT = Height Above Average Terrain measured in meters.

(4) and (5) [Reserved]

(6) The effective radiated power in any horizontal or vertical direction may not exceed the maximum values permitted by this section, except that licensees and permittees may request an increase in either ERP in some azimuthal direction or antenna HAAT, or both, up to the maximum permissible limits on TV power set forth in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as appropriate, up to that needed to provide the same geographic coverage area as the largest station within their market. Such requests must be accompanied by a technical showing that the increase complies with the technical criteria in § 73.620, and thereby will not result in new interference exceeding the

de minimis

standard set forth in that section, or statements agreeing to the change from

any co-channel or adjacent channel stations that might be affected by potential new interference, in accordance with § 73.620(e). For the purposes of this paragraph:

(i) The maximum ERP value shall not exceed the maximum permitted at any height within the relevant zone consistent with the values permitted in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section. The associated maximum height for that given ERP may be exceeded.

(ii) Stations in the same Nielsen DMA are considered to be in the same market.

(iii) “Geographic coverage area” is defined as the number of square kilometers found within a station's F(50,90) contour as calculated in § 73.619. A station taking advantage of this provision need not specify coverage that is congruent with or encompassed by the largest station in the market.

§ 73.615

[Removed]

11. Remove § 73.615.

12. Section 73.616 is amended by:

a. Revising the section heading;

b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a), (b), and (c);

c. Revising the introductory text to paragraph (d) and paragraph (d)(1); and

d. Removing and reserving paragraphs (d)(2), (e) and (g) to read as follows:

§ 73.616

References to TV station interference protection methodology.

(d)

Calculation of interference

(1) For evaluating compliance with the requirements of this paragraph, interference to populations served is to be predicted based on the most recent official decennial U.S. Census population data as identified by the Media Bureau in a Public Notice issued not less than 60 days prior to use of the data for a specific year in application processing and otherwise according to the procedure set forth in OET Bulletin No. 69: “Longley-Rice Methodology for Evaluating TV Coverage and Interference” (February 6, 2004) (incorporated by reference, see § 73.8000), including population served within service areas determined in accordance with § 73.619, consideration of whether F(50,10) undesired signals will exceed the following desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratios, assumed use of a directional receiving antenna, and use of the terrain dependent Longley-Rice point-to-point propagation model. Applicants may request the use of a cell size other than the default of 2.0 km per side, but only requests for cell sizes of 1.0 km per side or 0.5 km per side will be considered. The threshold levels at which interference is considered to occur are:

13. Add § 73.617 to read as follows:

§ 73.617

Interference protection of other services.

(a)

Protection of land mobile operations on channels 14-20.

The Commission will not accept petitions to amend the Table of TV Allotments, applications for new TV stations, or applications to change the channel or location of authorized TV stations that would use channels 14-20 where the distance between the TV reference coordinates as defined in § 73.622(d), would be located less than 250 km from the city center of a co-channel land mobile operation or 176 km from the city center of an adjacent channel land mobile operation. Such filings that do not meet the minimum TV-to-land mobile spacing standards will, however, be considered where all affected land mobile licensees consent to the requested action. Land mobile operations are authorized on these channels in the following markets:

Table 1 to Paragraph (

)—Land Mobile Operations To Be Protected

City

Channels

Latitude

Longitude

Boston, MA

14, 16

42°21′24.4″

71°03′23.2″

Chicago, IL

14, 15

41°52′28.1″

87°38′22.2″

Cleveland, OH

14, 15

41°29′51.2″

81°49′49.5″

Dallas, TX

32°47′09.5″

96°47′38.0″

Detroit, MI

15, 16

42°19′48.1″

83°02′56.7″

Houston, TX

29°45′26.8″

95°21′37.8″

Los Angeles, CA

14, 16, 20

34°03′15.0″

118°14′31.3″

Miami, FL

25°46′38.4″

80°11′31.2″

New York, NY

14, 15, 16

40°45′06.4″

73°59′37.5″

Philadelphia, PA

19, 20

39°56′58.4″

75°09′19.6″

Pittsburgh, PA

14, 18

40°26′19.2″

79°59′59.2″

San Francisco, CA

16, 17

37°46′38.7″

122°24′43.9″

Washington, DC

17, 18

38°53′51.4″

77°00′31.9″

Note 1 to paragraph (a).

The Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, waived the rules to allow channel 15 to be

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.