Satellite Delivery of Network Signals to Unserved Households for Purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[CS Docket No. 98-201; FCC 99-278]

Satellite Delivery of Network Signals to Unserved Households for

Purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document revises the rule applicable to the antenna and

equipment testing procedure of the collection of field strength data to

determine television broadcast signal intensity at individual

locations. The action was taken in response to petitions filed by

DIRECTV and EchoStar in connection with the Satellite Home Viewer Act.

This action is intended to allow for flexibility in testing and reduced

cost to the public.

DATES: Effective December 30, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Heimbach at (202) 418-7200 or via

Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Order

on Reconsideration, FCC 99-278, CS Docket No. 98-201, adopted October

5, 1999 and released October 7, 1999. The full text of this Notice is

available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in

the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or

may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International

Transcription Service (``ITS''), (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20036, or may be reviewed via internet at www.fcc.gov/

csb. For copies in alternative formats, such as Braille, audio cassette

or large print, please contact Sheila Ray at ITS.

Paperwork Reduction Act: The requirements adopted in this Order on

Reconsideration have been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (the ``1995 Act'') and found to impose no new or

modified information collection requirements on the public.

Synopsis of Report and Order

Introductory Background

1. In this proceeding, we address an issue involving petitions

filed by two satellite carriers, DIRECTV and EchoStar, for

reconsideration of the Commission's February 1, 1999 Report and Order

concerning the 1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act (``SHVA'') (47 CFR 73).

That Order addressed an issue involving the television broadcast

industry, the direct-to-home satellite industry, and consumers who

subscribe to satellite services for their broadcast network television

programming.

2. Broadly stated, the issue is whether and where home satellite

carriers may retransmit television broadcast network signals under the

SHVA. Federal copyright law, which the SHVA is a part of, contains a

copyright compulsory license authorizing the carriage of certain

network broadcast signals by home satellite carriers. (17 U.S.C.

119(a)(2)(A) The compulsory license is limited, however, because it

does not permit satellite carriers to retransmit a particular network's

signal to a subscriber unless the subscriber is ``unserved'' by the

local affiliate of the network. (17 U.S.C. 119(a)(2)(B)) ``Unserved''

is defined in the SHVA as a household that cannot receive an adequate

television signal (defined as a signal of ``Grade B'' intensity) using

a conventional outdoor rooftop antenna. The Grade B values (which

represent the required field strength in dB above one micro-volt per

meter) are defined for each over-the-air television channel in the

Commission's rules. (47 CFR 683) There are also Grade A and ``city

grade'' field strength values, which represent stronger signals.

[In dBu's]

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

City

Grade B Grade A grade

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

Channels 2-6................................. 47 68 74

Channels 7-13................................ 56 71 77

Channels 14-69............................... 64 74 80

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

Several judicial proceedings involving the SHVA have resulted in

findings that some satellite carriers have violated that statute and

have highlighted the significant disputes between broadcast networks

and satellite carriers over which consumers are eligible to receive

satellite-delivered network programming.

3. The SHVA Report and Order sought to help the consumers caught in

these disputes by refining two tools to more accurately determine

whether a household is truly unserved. The first tool is an on-site (or

at-home) signal measurement test to determine the strength of a

television signal at a consumer's household. The second tool is a

computer-generated prediction model that might obviate the need for

large numbers of on-site tests and that could be used by consumers when

first signing up for satellite service (at the

[[Page 73430]]

``point of sale''). This Individual Location Longley-Rice (``ILLR'')

model is a variation of the core Longley-Rice model that the Commission

has long used to determine signal propagation. The ILLR is specifically

designed to predict the strength of a television signal at an

individual location, such as a consumer's home, by considering what

happens to the signal as it travels from the transmitter to the home.

The model accounts for the effects that signal interference and terrain

have on signal strength. We concluded that other factors, specifically

vegetation and buildings, can also affect the strength of television

signals received at a home. However, the rulemaking record did not

contain information sufficient for us to identify, endorse, or develop

a way to apply these land use and land cover (``LULC'') factors in an

application that would be ``accepted by the technical and scientific

community.'' We noted that LULC data are available from the United

States Geological Survey (``USGS'') and asked interested parties to

develop an application for incorporating that data into the ILLR.

4. DIRECTV and EchoStar separately petitioned the Commission to

reconsider parts of the Order regarding the eligibility of satellite

subscribers to receive broadcast network signals through home satellite

dishes. The National Association of Broadcasters (``NAB''), Entravision

Holdings, and affiliates of ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox (the ``Affiliates'')

opposed the petitions. The National Rural Telecommunications

Cooperative (``NRTC'') expressed its support for the petitions.

5. The Communications Act and our own rules govern our response to

the petitions. (47 CFR 1.429) Reconsideration of a Commission decision

is warranted only if the petitioner cites a material error of fact or

law or presents additional facts and circumstances which raise

substantial or material questions of fact that were not considered and

that otherwise warrant Commission review of its prior action. The

Commission will not reconsider arguments that have already been

considered. For the reasons stated herein, the Order on Reconsideration

affirms the decisions in the SHVA Report and Order and denies DIRECTV's

Petition. The Order denies in part and grants in part EchoStar's

Petition.

The Petitions for Reconsideration

DIRECTV's Petition

6. DIRECTV's Petition asks the Commission to allow satellite

carriers to include the effects of land use and land cover in the ILLR

prediction model now. The Petition contends that there are ``a variety

of scientifically accepted means'' of including USGS data into the

model using commercially available mapping software and emphasizes that

DIRECTV itself is developing software. However, DIRECTV did not

identify these means in any detail. In an accompanying statement,

DIRECTV's expert states that the military targets cruise missiles using

``a comparison of data available through the Global Positioning System

(`GPS') and USGS LULC data,'' but does not specifically identify the

procedure used by the military, nor does it identify any other

procedure or software application. DIRECTV's Reply offers some

information on the specific LULC application it supports, but still

does not offer the application itself. According to DIRECTV, their

engineering consultants are actively in the process of developing an

LULC loss algorithm implementation that can be ``readily achieved using

the USGS database.''

7. Broadcasting interests, led by the NAB and the Affiliates,

opposed the Petition and argued that DIRECTV is trying unilaterally to

create and use an LULC application in direct contravention of the

Commission's Order. ABC, CBS, and Fox affiliates go one step further by

stating that overlaying LULC data in the ILLR would amount to ``double-

counting'' the effects of trees and buildings. They contend that the

core Longley-Rice programming language (on which the ILLR is based)

already incorporates some LULC data into its calculations. The

Affiliates also questioned using the USGS database, asserting that it

covers too much land per grid area (200 meters) to be accurate for the

purposes here involved. Both the NAB and the Affiliates emphasized that

DIRECTV has not offered a specific software package for applying LULC

data to the predictive model. When it does, the NAB asserts that it

would support an expedited review by the Commission. On the other hand,

the NRTC supported DIRECTV's Petition and asked the Commission for

``practical rules and recommendations * * * to use in determining a

household's eligibility to receive distant network signals by

satellite.''

8. The Commission believes that consumers will benefit when the

effects of trees and buildings on a television signal are included in

the ILLR prediction model. We stated in the SHVA Report and Order:

While we expect the model to include land use and land cover, we

are not aware of a standard means of including such information in

the ILLR that has been accepted by the technical and scientific

community. When an appropriate application has been developed and

accepted, this information will be included in the ILLR.

The Commission specifically invited interested parties to develop

such an application. Before such an application can be used, however,

it is necessary that some consensus be developed as to the specifics of

the technique involved so that the process is generally understood, the

results can be replicated by all who would use the process, and any

disputes as to accuracy of the technique can be addressed. Neither

DIRECTV, nor any other party, may unilaterally incorporate LULC data

into the Commission's ILLR until an application has been publicly

reviewed. The Commission again encourages any interested party to

develop an application and offer it for comment. Because DIRECTV has

not fully offered the details of its application, such review is not

possible here. The Order on Reconsideration therefore denies DIRECTV's

Petition for Reconsideration.

EchoStar's Petition

9. EchoStar, in its Petition, first argued that the Commission

could have and should have adopted a new definition of Grade B

intensity specifically for SHVA purposes. The Petition, however, does

not propose a new definition or standard. Second, EchoStar argued that

the Commission should consider the effects of ``ghosting'' in a

television picture, caused by signal ``multipathing,'' when determining

who is unserved. Third, EchoStar took issue with several elements of

the Commission's new on-site testing methodology, including (a) whether

measurements should be taken at a house's roof or at the television

set, (b) the orientation of the testing antenna, (c) the type of

testing antenna that should be used, and (d) the number and location of

the tests. Finally, EchoStar asked the Commission to raise the

confidence factor in the predictive model from 50% to 90%, arguing that

the latter is more consumer-friendly and, therefore, consistent with

the SHVA's purposes.

10. The Order concludes that the record provided an inadequate

basis for changing the Grade B signal intensity values either generally

or for purposes of the SHVA specifically, and therefore, declined to

change the definition of Grade B signal intensity. EchoStar disagreed

with these conclusions, but

[[Page 73431]]

presented no new arguments or facts that warrant revisiting this issue.

The Commission stands by the conclusions in the SHVA Report and Order

and denies EchoStar's petition on this issue.

11. EchoStar contends that the Order did not specifically take

account of the effects of multipathing and asks the Commission to do so

now. Multipathing is the reflection of a single television signal off

of buildings or other objects. It causes several transmissions of the

same signal to arrive at a television at slightly different times,

leading to ``ghosting'' on the screen (one fainter ``ghost'' picture

superimposed on the main picture). Importantly, multipathing can affect

picture quality on a consumer's television set even when a Grade B

signal exists at the consumer's rooftop. EchoStar asked the Commission

to institute proceedings to account for the effects of multipathing.

The NRTC supported EchoStar's position, arguing that ``consumers want

and deserve the best quality television picture available, and if

ghosting or other environmental factors degrade picture quality * * *

the Commission should recognize and incorporate these factors in the

predictive model and testing methodology.'' The NAB and the Affiliates

rejected the satellite carriers' position, noting that the SHVA speaks

of Grade B intensity, an objective standard for determining who is

unserved, rather than a subjective picture quality standard that would

be very difficult to enforce and implement. Therefore, the broadcasters

claimed that the Commission ``unquestionably lacks authority to alter

the SHVA eligibility standard to deal with ghosting.'' EchoStar replied

that ghosting is not so subjective that it is impossible to determine:

``Ghosting either exists or it does not, it is objectively

ascertainable.''

12. The Order addressed multipathing in several places and, as with

the Grade B definition issue, EchoStar has not offered any additional

facts or new arguments that warrant a change in our conclusions. We

recognize that ghosting is a problem that affects television pictures

but note, as we did in the Order, that there is no simple solution. For

example, raising the Grade B values to give a consumer a stronger

television signal could actually exacerbate the problem of

multipathing. As the signal strength increases, ``noise'' or ``snow''

in a television picture may be reduced, but the chance of ghosting

increases. Moreover, the multipath ``interference'' created by the same

signal is very difficult to measure objectively.

13. While the Commission welcomes concrete solutions to the

ghosting problem, any solution must be objective and verifiable.

EchoStar has not offered any new facts or arguments that describe how

to predict or measure multipathing or even permit it to be taken into

account under the current language in the SHVA. The Order on

Reconsideration therefore denies Echostar's petition on this issue.

14. EchoStar believes the Commission's on-site measurement test is

too complicated and costs too much (estimates are $99 to $119 per on-

site test for four networks). In its comments to the petition, the NRTC

agreed. EchoStar also suggested that the SHVA does not require signal

measurements at a house's rooftop and that any such conclusion is

merely ``a legal fallacy, propagated by the broadcasters.'' Instead,

EchoStar argued that signal strength should be measured at the

television set. Alternatively, EchoStar suggested changing several

requirements mandated for the outdoor, on-site tests: (1) Eliminate the

requirement that the testing antenna be oriented separately for each

station being measured; (2) require fewer testing locations and

measurements (for each station, replace 1 test at 5 locations with 3

tests at 1 location); (3) allow parties to choose the type of testing

antenna, either a half-wave dipole (as the SHVA Report and Order

required) or gain antenna; (4) clarify that the half-wave dipole

required for testing in the Order can be of fixed length. The NAB

rejected EchoStar's suggestions, except that it does admit that a

properly calibrated gain antenna could be used to conduct signal

intensity measurements. In a ``Revised Engineering Statement,''

however, the NAB added that a simple gain antenna is not sufficient and

recommends that the Commission specify and endorse particular brands

and models of antenna. Specifically, NAB's engineering expert, Jules

Cohen, recommended that ``antennas with a relatively large number of

elements are more likely to have a more consistent input impedance than

the simpler types.'' He further notes that the Channel Master Model

3016 is such an antenna and added that similar antennas would be

suitable ``if channel-by-channel gain figures are provided and

certified by the manufacturer together with the antenna's input

impedance characteristics.'' The Affiliates stated that EchoStar's

suggestions, as a group, would reduce accuracy with very little cost

savings and asserted that the Commission gave full and detailed

attention to the creation of the new measurement methodology. In its

Reply, EchoStar countered that any additional inaccuracies created by a

less complex test would fall equally on broadcasters and satellite

carriers.

15. When the Commission created the on-site test in the SHVA Report

and Order, it was faced with balancing the cost of the test with the

accuracy and objectivity that would result. In the end, the Order

thoroughly considered and discussed many different issues. The Order on

Reconsideration reiterates the Commission's intent that the test should

be relatively inexpensive, simple enough so that an average antenna

installer can conduct it, and objective enough so that the test results

will not constantly fall in doubt. EchoStar offered neither new

evidence nor new arguments with respect to orientation of the test

antenna and the number of test measurements. EchoStar provided new

information in its request that the rules permit testers to use either

a half-wave dipole or an antenna with gain to conduct the tests. In the

rulemaking, broadcasters also supported the use of a gain antenna,

albeit with the recent qualification that the test antenna should have

multiple elements to ensure proper calibration. Because a gain antenna

is able to accurately measure the intensity of a television signal and

because it will provide additional flexibility for technicians who

conduct tests, we amend the testing rule to allow the use of either a

gain antenna with several elements or the half-wave dipole that we

originally endorsed. In response to the concerns raised by the NAB, the

revised rule maintains an impedance match at the antenna at all

frequencies. We believe this approach is preferable to endorsing a

particular brand or model or requiring use of an expensive test

antenna. In addition, we will amend the rule to allow use of signal

level test instruments with a bandwidth of 200 kHz through one

megahertz (1,000 kHz), rather than requiring a bandwidth of at least

450 kHz. (47 CFR 73.686(d)(2)(i)) We believe that this amendment will

reduce the cost of the tests by permitting technicians to use test

equipment they have on hand and not require them to purchase new

equipment.

16. EchoStar asked the Commission to revisit the confidence factor

used in the ILLR prediction methodology, an issue that the SHVA Report

and Order addressed more exhaustively than any other in the proceeding.

EchoStar contended that the Commission's decision to set the ILLR's

confidence factor at 50% ``penalizes the consumer and errs in favor of

some policy of `belt-and-suspenders'' over-protection for the

broadcaster's local franchise.'' Instead, the satellite carrier

asserted that the

[[Page 73432]]

Commission should set the confidence factor at 90% because consumers'

rights to a good television picture, not broadcasters' copyrights, must

be ``the cornerstone of a predictive model.'' To prevent alleged

``overprediction'' of unserved households, EchoStar proposes a ``cap''

that would cut off eligibility for distant network satellite service if

a household cannot be predicted (with 90% confidence) to receive 70.75

dBu or less. EchoStar essentially suggested a floor and ceiling for

determining whether a household is unserved--the household should

receive (a) at least a signal of 47 dBu with 90% confidence, and (b)

less than a signal of 70.75 dBu with 90% confidence.

17. The Order on Reconsideration declines EchoStar's request to

revisit the confidence factor issue. The SHVA Report and Order

thoroughly considered and addressed the issues surrounding the

confidence factor and EchoStar has offered no new arguments or facts

that warrant a change in our conclusions. Its suggestion that we adopt

a floor-and-ceiling approach to determining unserved households is

legally untenable. EchoStar's suggested ceiling of 70.75 dBu would

change the SHVA's definition of unserved household, which is defined

only as a household that does not receive a signal of at least Grade B

intensity, not as a household that also receives less than a signal of

some other level. (17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10))

18. In any action brought under the SHVA, the burden of proof lies

with the satellite carriers to demonstrate that a particular household

is unserved. (17 U.S.C. 119(d)(5)(D)) To be useful in carrying this

burden, any prediction system must demonstrate with a sufficient degree

of confidence to be acceptable in a judicial proceeding which

households are unserved. Conversely, it is not sufficient to

demonstrate with confidence which households are served. Because of the

statistical factors underlying the prediction system, which have not

changed since the SHVA Report and Order, there is a considerable

difference between demonstrating with confidence which households are

served and which are unserved. EchoStar's suggestions did not advance

the goal of more accurately identifying unserved households and its

Petition with respect to the confidence factor must be denied.

Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Background

19. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), (5 U.S.C.

603) an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') was

incorporated into the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding.

(CS Docket No. 98-201, FCC 98-302, 63 FR 67439 (December 7, 1998)) The

Commission sought written public comment on the expected impact of the

proposed policies and rules on small entities in the Notice, including

comments on the IRFA. The Commission included a Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (``FRFA'') into the SHVA Report and Order. While

no petitioners seeking reconsideration of the Order raised issues

directly related to the FRFA, the Commission is amending the rules in a

manner that may affect small entities, although only in a minor way.

Accordingly, this Supplemental Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(``Supplemental FRFA'') addresses those amendments and conforms to the

RFA.

Need for and Objective of the Rules

20. In both the SHVA Report and Order and this Order on

Reconsideration, the Commission has addressed methods for determining

whether a household is ``unserved'' by network television stations for

purposes of the 1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act. (17 U.S.C. 119) Our

goal was to provide relatively simple and inexpensive prediction and

testing methodologies to determine the intensity of a television signal

at a consumer's household. The changes to the on-site test outlined in

the current Order on Reconsideration clarify and simplify the rule and

its implementation and, therefore, serve our objectives.

Legal Basis

21. This Order on Reconsideration is authorized under Sections 1,

4(i), 4(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.

151, 154(i), and 154(j) and Section 119(d)(10)(a) of the Copyright Act,

17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(a).

Summary of Significant Issues Regarding FRFA Raised in Petitions for

Reconsideration

22. No parties address the FRFA in their petitions for

reconsideration, or any subsequent filings. The Commission has,

however, addressed, on it's own motion, steps taken to further minimize

the effect of these requirements on small entities.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the

Rules Will Apply

23. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and,

where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will

be affected by the proposed action. (5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3)) The RFA

defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the

terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small business

concern'' under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. (5 U.S.C.

604(a)(3)) Under the Small Business Act, a small business concern is

one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) Is not dominant

in its field of operation; and (3) Satisfies any additional criteria

established by the SBA. (15 U.S.C. 632) The action taken in this Order

will affect television broadcasting licensees and DTH satellite

operators.

24. The rule developed in the SHVA Report and Order and

reconsidered in this Order on Reconsideration will apply to television

broadcasting licensees, and potential licensees of television service.

The SBA defines a television broadcasting station that has no more than

$10.5 million in annual receipts as a small business. (13 CFR 121.201,

Standard Industrial Code (``SIC'') 4833 (1996)) Television broadcasting

stations consist of establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting

visual programs by television to the public, except cable and other pay

television services. Included in this industry are commercial,

religious, educational, and other television stations. Also included

are establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and

that produce taped television program materials. Separate

establishments primarily engaged in producing taped television program

materials are classified under another SIC number. There were 1,509

television broadcasting stations operating in the nation in 1992. That

number has remained fairly constant as indicated by the approximately

1,579 operating full power television broadcasting stations in the

nation as of May 31, 1998. In addition, as of October 31, 1997, there

were 1,880 low power television broadcasting (``LPTV'') broadcasting

stations that may also be affected by our proposed rule changes. For

1992 the number of television broadcasting stations that produced less

than $10.0 million in revenue was 1,155 establishments. The amount of

$10 million was used to estimate the number of small business

establishments because the relevant Census categories stopped at

$9,999,999 and began at $10,000,000. No category for $10.5 million

existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is possible to calculate

with the available information.

25. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities

[[Page 73433]]

applicable to geostationary or non-geostationary orbit fixed-satellite

or DBS service applicants or licensees. Therefore, the applicable

definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules

applicable to Communications Services, Not Elsewhere Classified. This

definition provides that a small entity is one with $11.0 million or

less in annual receipts. (13 CFR 121.201, SIC Code 4899) The number of

employees working for a ``small entity'' must be 750 or fewer.

According to Census Bureau data, there are 848 firms that fall under

the category of Communications Services, Not Elsewhere Classified that

could potentially fall into the DTH category. Of those, approximately

775 reported annual receipts of $11 million or less and qualify as

small entities. The action in the SHVA Report and Order and

reconsidered in this Order on Reconsideration applies to entities

providing DTH service, including licensees of DBS services and

distributors of satellite programming. There are four licensees of DBS

services under Part 100 of the Commission's rules. (47 CFR 100 et seq.)

Three of those licensees are currently operational, and each of those

licensees has annual revenues in excess of the threshold for a small

business.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

26. The Commission did not prescribe reporting requirements in the

original Order and do not do so in this Order on Reconsideration. As

noted in the Order, parties who choose to conduct individual household

measurements are required to memorialize their test observations and

results.

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact On Small Entities

and Significant Alternatives Considered

27. In formulating the testing rule in the Order, the Commission

sought to minimize the effect on small entities while ensuring accurate

determinations of signal intensity at individual locations such as

households. These efforts are consistent with the Congress' goal of

ensuring that ``unserved'' consumers are able to receive network

broadcast signals through a home satellite dish. The actions the

Commission is taking on reconsideration further refine the rule so as

to advance this goal and further minimize unnecessary burdens on small

entities.

28. Specifically, the Order only allows the use of one type of

testing antenna. Here, on reconsideration, the Commission has increased

test-takers' flexibility by allowing the use of a second type of

antenna. Additionally, the Commission has amended it's rule to allow

use of signal level test instruments with a bandwidth of 200 kHz

through one megahertz (1,000 kHz), rather than requiring a bandwidth of

at least 450 kHz, because the Commission wishes to reduce the cost of

the test by permitting technicians to use test equipment they have on

hand and not require them to purchase new equipment.

Report to Congress

29. The Commission will send a copy of the Order on

Reconsideration, including this Supplemental FRFA, in a report to be

sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996. (5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A)) In addition, the

Commission will send a copy of the Order on Reconsideration, including

Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration. A copy of the Order on Reconsideration and

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

Federal Register. (5 U.S.C. 604(b))

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

30. This Order on Reconsideration has been analyzed with respect to

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and has been found to contain no

new or modified information collection requirements on the public.

Ordering Clauses

31. Pursuant to Section 405(a) of the Communications Act of 1934,

47 U.S.C. 405(a), and Section 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR

1.429, DIRECTV's Petition for Reconsideration is denied.

32. Pursuant to Section 405(a) of the Communications Act of 1934,

47 U.S.C. 405(a), and Section 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR

1.429, EchoStar's Petition for Reconsideration is granted in part and

denied in part.

33. The NAB Motion for Leave to File Corrected Engineering

Statement is granted.

34. Under authority of Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), and 154(j), part 73 of

Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as indicated in

the Appendix.

35. The Commission's Office of Media Affairs, Reference Operations

Division, shall send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration, including

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with

paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 96-354, 94

Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (1981).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Communications equipment, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

Rule Changes

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal

Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

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

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

Subpart E--Television Broadcast Stations

2. Section 73.686(d) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 73.686 Field strength measurements.

* * * * *

(d) Collection of field strength data to determine television

signal intensity at an individual location--cluster measurements.

(1) Preparation for measurements--(i) Testing antenna. The test

antenna shall be either a standard half-wave dipole tuned to the visual

carrier frequency of the channel being measured or a gain antenna,

provided its antenna factor for the channel(s) under test has been

determined. Use the antenna factor supplied by the antenna manufacturer

as determined on an antenna range.

(ii) Testing locations. At the location, choose a minimum of five

locations as close as possible to the specific site where the site's

receiving antenna is located. If there is no receiving antenna at the

site, choose the minimum of five locations as close as possible to a

reasonable and likely spot for the antenna. The locations shall be at

least three meters apart, enough so that the testing is practical. If

possible, the first testing point should be chosen as the center point

of a square whose corners are the four other locations. Calculate the

median of the five measurements (in units of dBu) and report it as the

measurement result.

(iii) Multiple signals. If more than one signal is being measured

(i.e., signals from different transmitters), use the same locations to

measure each signal.

[[Page 73434]]

(2) Measurement procedure. Measurements shall be made in accordance

with good engineering practice and in accordance with this section of

the Rules. At each measuring location, the following procedure shall be

employed:

(i) Testing equipment. Measure the field strength of the visual

carrier with a calibrated instrument with an i.f. bandwidth of at least

200 kHz, but no greater than one megahertz (1,000 kHz). Perform an on-

site calibration of the instrument in accordance with the

manufacturer's specifications. The instrument must accurately indicate

the peak amplitude of the synchronizing signal. Take all measurements

with a horizontally polarized antenna. Use a shielded transmission line

between the testing antenna and the field strength meter. Match the

antenna impedance to the transmission line at all frequencies measured,

and, if using an unbalanced line, employ a suitable balun. Take account

of the transmission line loss for each frequency being measured.

(ii) Weather. Do not take measurements in inclement weather or when

major weather fronts are moving through the measurement area.

(iii) Antenna elevation. When field strength is being measured for

a one-story building, elevate the testing antenna to 6.1 meters (20

feet) above the ground. In situations where the field strength is being

measured for a building taller than one-story, elevate the testing

antenna 9.1 meters (30 feet) above the ground.

(iv) Antenna orientation. Orient the testing antenna in the

direction which maximizes the value of field strength for the signal

being measured. If more than one station's signal is being measured,

orient the testing antenna separately for each station.

(3) Written record shall be made and shall include at least the

following:

(i) A list of calibrated equipment used in the field strength

survey, which for each instrument, specifies the manufacturer, type,

serial number and rated accuracy, and the date of the most recent

calibration by the manufacturer or by a laboratory. Include complete

details of any instrument not of standard manufacture.

(ii) A detailed description of the calibration of the measuring

equipment, including field strength meters, measuring antenna, and

connecting cable.

(iii) For each spot at the measuring site, all factors which may

affect the recorded field, such as topography, height and types of

vegetation, buildings, obstacles, weather, and other local features.

(iv) A description of where the cluster measurements were made.

(v) Time and date of the measurements and signature of the person

making the measurements.

(vi) For each channel being measured, a list of the measured value

of field strength (in units of dBu and after adjustment for line loss

and antenna factor) of the five readings made during the cluster

measurement process, with the median value highlighted.

[FR Doc. 99-33765 Filed 12-29-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-U