Rule2023-09843
Establishing Rules for Digital Low Power Television and Television Translator Stations
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 12, 2023
Effective
June 12, 2023
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) adopts several rule updates to otherwise outdated rules for low power television and TV translator stations following the July 13, 2021, transition from analog to digital operations. These changes are designed to ensure the Commission's rules clearly reflect its requirements, and are understandable to all stakeholders.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 92 (Friday, May 12, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30654-30671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09843]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 74
[MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261; FCC 23-25; FR ID 138531]
Establishing Rules for Digital Low Power Television and
Television Translator Stations
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) adopts several rule updates to otherwise outdated
rules for low power television and TV translator stations following the
July 13, 2021, transition from analog to digital operations. These
changes are designed to ensure the Commission's rules clearly reflect
its requirements, and are understandable to all stakeholders.
DATES: Effective June 12, 2023, except for the amendments in
instruction 3 (Sec. 74.703), instruction 7 (Sec. 74.734), instruction
8 (Sec. 74.735), instruction 11 (Sec. 74.751), instruction 13 (Sec.
74.763), and instruction 15 (Sec. 74.784) which are delayed
indefinitely. The Commission will publish a separate document in the
Federal Register announcing the effective date of these amendments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Harrison, Media Bureau, at (202)
418-1665 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#43062e2a2f3a6d0b2231312a302c2d032520206d242c35"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c287afabaebbec8aa3b0b0abb1adac82a4a1a1eca5adb4">[email protected]</span></a>. For additional information
concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) information collection
requirements contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams at 202-
418-2918, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#551634213d2c7b023c39393c343826153336367b323a23"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e6a587928e9fc8b18f8a8a8f878b95a6808585c8818990">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Report and Order, in MB Docket Nos. 03-185, 22-261; FCC 23-25, adopted
on April 17, 2023, and released on April 17, 2023. The full text of
this document is available for download at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-amendments-lptv-and-tv-translator-rules">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-amendments-lptv-and-tv-translator-rules</a>. To request
materials in accessible formats (braille, large print, computer
diskettes, or audio recordings), please send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d99f9a9aece9ed99bfbabaf7beb6af"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9adcd9d9afaaaedafcf9f9b4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a>
or call the Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(VOICE), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This document contains 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 and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the
information collection requirements contained in this document in a
separate Federal Register Notice, as required by the PRA. These 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
Rules Applicable to LPTV/Translator Digital Operations
When the Commission initially adopted rules for digital LPTV/
translators in 2004, it did not apply all of the part 74 rules to
digital LPTV/translators. Instead, it adopted eleven rules specifically
for digital LPTV/translator stations, and also identified in Sec.
74.789 which of the part 74 rules applicable to analog LPTV/translator
operations would also apply to digital LPTV/translator operations. NPRM
at para. 10, citing 47 CFR 74.786 through 74.796; Amendment of Parts 73
and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low
Power Television, Television Translator, and Television Booster
Stations and to Amend Rules for Digital Class A Television Stations, MB
Docket No. 03-185, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19331 (2004) (2004
Order) (subsequent history omitted). Now that the LPTV/translator
digital transition is completed, we tentatively concluded in the NPRM
that it is necessary and appropriate to eliminate the analog version of
our rules, and update all of the part 74 rules as necessary for digital
operations. NPRM at para. 10. We tentatively concluded that the
transition to digital operation did not provide any basis to relieve
LPTV/translator stations of these obligations and that their continued
applicability is in the public interest. Id. No commenters opposed our
proposal and ATBA offered support. See Comments of the Advanced
Television Broadcasting Alliance, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261
(filed Oct. 24, 2022) (ATBA Comments) at 2. We therefore now adopt the
proposals.
Specifically, we adopt the following unopposed proposals, for the
reasons discussed in the NPRM. First, we conclude that a revised Sec.
74.702(b) (Channel assignments), which describes LPTV/translator
stations' secondary status with respect to a primary station's proposal
to change the Table of TV Allotments, should apply to digital LPTV/
translator stations, consistent with existing practice. In addition,
Sec. 74.702(a) and Sec. 74.786 (Digital channel assignments) reflect
the same information pertaining to channel assignments. We therefore
retain the requirements in Sec. 74.702(a) and delete Sec. 74.786.
Similarly, we also delete Sec. Sec. 74.789 (Broadcast regulations
applicable to low power television and television translator stations)
and 74.787(a)(5)(viii) (Licensing). For the reasons discussed in the
NPRM, we conclude that there is no need to have rules specifying which
part 74 rules apply to digital LPTV/translators, as, with the
elimination of the analog rules, all rules in part 74 will apply to
digital. We also adopt and apply to digital LPTV/translator stations a
new Sec. 74.737 regarding antenna location, which tracks and replaces
a corresponding rule that has previously applied to analog LPTV/
translator stations, and a new Sec. 74.762 regarding frequency
measurements. We adopt new station identification requirements in 47
CFR 74.783 that apply to digital operations, as discussed infra.
[[Page 30655]]
We also adopt two proposals, with some modification, that did
receive comment. In the NPRM, we proposed that Sec. 74.750
(Transmission system facilities), regarding the certification of
equipment, should continue to apply to digital LPTV/translator
stations. Section 74.750(c)(5), which we proposed to move to new Sec.
74.795(b)(6) in the NPRM at paragraph 10, requires that an LPTV/
translator station's transmission equipment be capable of automatically
placing the station in a ``non-radiating condition'' if the station's
input channel is lost, either due to the absence of a transmitting
signal or failure of the receiving portion of the facilities used for
rebroadcasting the signal of another station. Canyon TV/Cannaliato
suggests this rule is no longer relevant after the digital transition,
because the transmitter would not be transmitting white noise if it
were to lose its input channel. Comments of Canyon TV, MB Docket No.
03-185 (filed Aug. 17, 2022) (Canyon TV/Cannaliato Comments) at 1.
Canyon TV/Cannaliato states that it is the licensee of one translator
in the State of Montana. Canyon TV/Cannaliato Comments at 1. Canyon TV/
Cannaliato asserts that the requirement exists ``to prevent the
transmission of out of band and spurious energy'' and offers that a
better rule might be to require licensees to ensure a translator which
loses its input channel ``does not radiate any spurious or out of band
energy that is less than 60db [sic] below the amplitude of the pilot
carrier.'' Id. We disagree. We do not believe it is in the public
interest for a station to transmit null packets in the event it loses
its input channel and can no longer provide over-the-air programming to
viewers. This practice would occupy spectrum that may be used by other
entities to provide service to the public and may cause interference to
other stations, even if the station that has lost its input channel is
otherwise operating in accordance with the rules. See 47 CFR 74.763(c)
(Time of operation) (``Failure of a low power TV or TV translator
station to operate for a period of 30 days or more, except for causes
beyond the control of the licensee, shall be deemed evidence of
discontinuation of operation and the license of the station may be
cancelled at the discretion of the FCC.''). See also ATBA Comments at 2
(supporting a number of the Commission's proposed changes, including
``[m]odifying Section 74.750 regarding the certification of equipment
to reflect the completion of the LPTV/translator analog to digital
transition''). We also note that transmitting null packets would not
constitute ``broadcasting'' as that term is defined in the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and that LPTV/translator
stations that fail to broadcast a signal meant to be received by the
general public must notify the Commission that they are silent, and are
subject to automatic cancellation under section 312(g) of the
Communications Act if they are silent for more than a consecutive 12-
month period. See 47 U.S.C. 153(7) (BROADCASTING.--``The term
`broadcasting' means the dissemination of radio communications intended
to be received by the public, directly or by the intermediary of relay
stations.''). See also 47 CFR 74.701(a) and (j) (Definitions). See 47
CFR 73.1740(a)(4) (Minimum operating schedule) and 74.763(b) (Time of
operation). 47 U.S.C 312(g); see also ETC Communications, Inc., Letter,
25 FCC Rcd 10686, 10688 (MB 2010) (transmitting an equipment test
pattern was insufficient to establish a break in a station's silence
for the purpose of section 312(g)), citing A-O Broadcasting
Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 603 (2008). We
therefore adopt our proposed changes to Sec. 74.750 (Transmission
system facilities), including retaining certain aspects of technical
requirements contained in Sec. 74.750(c) (subsections (c)(5) and
(c)(8)) and move them to digital rule Sec. 74.795(b)(6) through(b)(7).
We also adopt new Sec. 74.762 regarding frequency measurements, as
proposed in the NPRM, with some modification. Canyon TV/Cannaliato
objects to this proposal, which would require LPTV/translator stations
to measure the frequency of their output channel as often as necessary
to ensure operation consistent with the Advanced Television Systems
Committee (ATSC) standard in Sec. 73.682 of the rules. Consistent with
the prior analog rule, these measurements would be required to be made
during specified intervals not exceeding 14 months. In the event a
station was found to be operating in a manner inconsistent with the
standard, it would be required to promptly suspend operation and not
resume operation until the transmitter is restored to its assigned
frequency. Canyon TV/Cannaliato claims that this process would require
removing modulation, which cannot be done with most transmission
equipment currently in use, and that replacing such equipment would be
costly and untimely with ATSC 3.0 on the horizon. See Canyon TV/
Cannaliato Comments at 1, which state that ``replacing these
processors/exciters would be a financial burden at $3,000+ for each
translator station, but also an untimely one with ATSC 3.0 on the
horizon.'' Canyon TV/Cannaliato instead suggests that we employ a
similar requirement to what is imposed on full power television
stations in Sec. 73.1540 (Carrier frequency measurements). Id. at 1-2.
We would note that in September 2022, after Canyon TV/Cannaliato filed
its comments, the Commission proposed to strike such language from 47
CFR 73.1540 because this technical engineering term related to analog
television operation and is now obsolete. See Part 73 NPRM at n.12. By
contrast, ATBA supports our proposed frequency measurement requirement.
ATBA Comments at 2. No other comments were received regarding this
proposal. We disagree with the premise of Canyon TV/Cannaliato's
argument. We believe that LPTV/translator stations can meet the
proposed frequency measurement requirement without replacing existing
equipment. Stations can comply with the rule by reviewing the station's
signal on a spectrum analyzer and determining that the pilot carrier
(for ATSC 1.0) and the overall signal (for ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0)
appear correctly and are properly contained within their assigned
spectrum, consistent with the standard in use and our rules. This
approach would not be burdensome, even on an annual basis, and would
ensure the station is operating in a manner consistent with the
standard. We believe the rule as proposed is able to preemptively
correct potential equipment issues and does not impose the cost of
additional equipment on stations. However, for the sake of clarity, we
identify the specific portions of Sec. 73.682 that contain the
information needed to conduct frequency measurements, rather than
citing to the entire broadcast standard (Sec. 73.682 as a whole),
which includes audio and video transmission standards irrelevant to
frequency measurements, as well as the PSIP standard, which does not
apply to LPTV/translators. Therefore, the rule we adopt today in Sec.
74.762 replaces a reference to Sec. 73.682 with references to Sec.
73.682(d), A/53 Part 2 (for ATSC 1.0), and Sec. 73.682(f)(2) (for ATSC
3.0).
LPTV/Translator Protection of Land Mobile Radio Service
We adopt the proposals set forth in the NPRM relating to LPTV/
translator protection of the Land Mobile Radio Service (LMRS). Sections
74.709(a) and (b) (Land mobile station protection) of the Commission's
rules require LPTV/translator stations to protect certain channels for
use by the LMRS in thirteen U.S. cities listed in the rule,
[[Page 30656]]
which specifies a 130 kilometer radius from the coordinates for these
cities as a threshold for determining interference. 47 CFR 74.709 (Land
mobile station protection). The 130 kilometer radius around each set of
coordinates was 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.''
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) (2008
OET/OMD Order). Because it provides greater accuracy and the older NAD
27 is outdated, we proposed in the NPRM to amend the rule to use NAD 83
for purposes of specifying these coordinates. NPRM at para. 12; 2008
OET/OMD Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3796, para. 61, n.101. We further
tentatively concluded that updating the coordinates in the rule 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 Sec. 90.303(b) (Availability of frequencies) of the rules,
which define the service that Sec. 74.709 protects. Id. Section
90.303(b) defines the specific center points used to permit land mobile
operations, which represent the specific locations that Sec. 74.709(a)
is designed to protect. See 47 CFR 90.303(a) (stating that
``coordinates are referenced to the North American Datum 1983
(NAD83)'') and (b) (listing coordinates of geographic centers and TV
channels of thirteen urbanized areas). As such, conforming the values
in Sec. 74.709(a) to those of Sec. 90.303(b) would help to ensure
that land mobile operations are appropriately considered and protected
from LPTV/translator operations. There is no equivalent to Sec.
74.709(b) in the Part 90 rules, so we therefore proposed to convert
these values to NAD 83 by conforming them to the as-filed coordinates
for the associated television station if the associated station still
exists at the same location, or if it does not, converting them
directly to NAD 83.
Commenters generally agree with our proposal to replace the NAD 27
coordinates with the more current NAD 83, but some commenters express
specific concerns. See, e.g., ATBA Comments at 2 (``First, the FCC
proposes to replace the use of the near century old NAD 27 geodetic
datum with the more current NAD 83 to determine land mobile
protections. ATBA agrees that the use of NAD 83 will improve accuracy
and consistency with the Commission's other databases.'') (internal
references omitted). The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
points out, and the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) agrees, that a
few of the coordinates we proposed are different from those derived if
the existing coordinates are converted to NAD 83 via the North American
Datum Conversion program (NADCON). See Comments of the National
Association of Broadcasters, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed
Oct. 24, 2022) (NAB Comments) at 2-3; Reply Comments of the Society of
Broadcast Engineers, Inc., MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Nov.
7, 2022) (SBE Reply) at 3-4. As NAB notes, NADCON was superseded by the
NGS Coordinate Conversion and Transformation Tool (NCAT). NAB Comments
at 2. We note that the coordinates we proposed are the ones found in
Part 90 of the Commission's rules, and differ by 25 meters at most
(approximately 82 feet). Given that the values in this table are
designed to protect the Part 90 service, we believe the most consistent
approach is to make the values in Sec. 74.709 match those found in
Part 90. Staff discovered after the NPRM was issued that the proposed
Miami longitude seconds value contained a typographical error, which is
being corrected in this Report and Order.
NAB also encourages us to add a note to Sec. 74.709(a) for
Cleveland, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan that is consistent with the notes
found in Part 90 indicating that these channels are not available for
land mobile use and thus do not require protection. NAB Comments at 4.
See 47 CFR 90.303(b), nn. 2 and 3. See also SBE Reply at 6. We also
note that there are full power and Class A television stations assigned
to some of these channels already, making them unusable for land mobile
operations at the present time. In addition, NAB urges the Commission
to consider using this docket to ``remove land mobile assignments that
have remained unused for more than 50 years,'' citing Cleveland, Ohio
and Detroit, Michigan. NAB Comments at 4. We note that a pending
petition for rulemaking submitted by the Land Mobile Communications
Council (LMCC) also addresses this issue. In that petition, LMCC
proposed removing the Cleveland, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan rows
entirely 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 (rel. Jan. 12, 2022);
Petition for Rulemaking of Land Mobile Communications Council, RM-11915
(filed June 24, 2021). Due to the pendency of that petition, we decline
at this time to add a note to Sec. 74.709(a). We do not believe that
this will create confusion for licensees, as the note in Part 90
already indicates that the Cleveland, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan
channels are not available and thus those areas do not require
protection.
NAB also requests that this update to the coordinates not result in
stations having to relocate. NAB Comments at 4. We note that the
coordinates in the rule are used only to determine whether an LPTV/
translator application's interfering contour is outside of the relevant
LMRS protected zone for the potentially affected channel and community
for purposes of granting an application. We are not aware of any actual
instance in which a station would have to relocate and we believe it is
unlikely that these minor corrections will result in any stations
suddenly finding themselves no longer compliant with Sec. 74.709. But
in response to NAB's concern, we clarify that absent any actual
interference, we do not anticipate requiring an LPTV/translator station
to make changes solely due to these coordinate updates. See 47 CFR
74.703(e) (Interference) provides that ``[LPTV/translator] stations are
being authorized on a secondary basis to existing land mobile uses and
must correct whatever interference they cause to land mobile stations
or cease operation.'' LPTV/translator stations are required to protect
land mobile operations even if they otherwise comply with the rules.
LPTV Pilot Project Digital Data Services Act
We decline to adopt the NPRM proposal to delete the rule
implementing the LPTV Pilot Project
[[Page 30657]]
Digital Data Services Act (DDSA). NPRM at para. 14. See LPTV Digital
Data Services Act (Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 4577, Dec. 21, 2000
(DDSA), codified at 47 U.S.C. 336(h)); 47 CFR 74.785 (Low power TV
digital data service pilot project). The DDSA mandated that the
Commission issue regulations establishing a pilot project pursuant to
which twelve specified LPTV stations could provide digital data
services to demonstrate the feasibility of using LPTV stations to
provide high-speed wireless digital data service, including internet
access, to unserved areas. When the Commission implemented the DDSA in
2001, the Commission had not yet authorized Class A or LPTV/translator
stations to operate digital facilities. The DDSA was implemented by the
Commission in Implementation of LPTV Digital Data Services Pilot
Project, Order, 16 FCC Rcd 9734 (2001); Order on Reconsideration, 17
FCC Rcd 2988 (2002); 47 CFR 74.785. In 2004, the Commission authorized
all LPTV/translator stations to operate in digital. See 2004 Order.
Currently, all LPTV stations must operate in digital and may offer
ancillary and supplementary services, including the services contained
in the pilot project of the DDSA. See 47 CFR 74.790(i) and (m)
(Permissible service of TV translator and LPTV stations); 73.624(c) and
(e) (Digital television broadcast stations). The Commission's ancillary
and supplementary rules provide that broadcasters may offer services
that ``include, but are not limited to computer software distribution,
data transmissions, teletext, interactive materials, aural messages,
paging services, audio signals, subscription video, and any other
services that do not derogate DTV broadcast stations' obligations under
paragraph (b) of this section.'' 47 CFR 73.624(c). One difference
between the Commission's ancillary and supplementary rules and the DDSA
is that the rules require that ancillary and supplementary services may
not derogate the station's required signal to viewers, while the DDSA
does not. We stated in the NPRM that none of the stations identified in
the statute are currently providing service pursuant to an experimental
authorization issued under the DDSA, and that some of the stations have
been cancelled. NPRM at para. 14. At the time the statute was enacted,
the LPTV stations to which it applied were KHLM-LP, Houston, Texas;
WTAM-LP, Tampa, Florida; WWRJ-LP, Jacksonville, Florida; WVBG-LP,
Albany, New York; KHHI-LP, Honolulu, Hawaii; KPHE-LP (K19DD), Phoenix,
Arizona; K34FI and K65GZ, Bozeman, Montana; WXOB-LP, Richmond,
Virginia; WIIW-LP, Nashville, Tennessee; WSPY-LP (now WLPD-CD), Plano,
Illinois; W24AJ (now WPVN-CD), Aurora, Illinois; and ``[a] station and
repeaters . . . [to provide] service to communities in the Kenai
Peninsula Borough and Matanuska Susitna Borough.'' According to LMS,
three of these stations (K34FI, K44GE (formerly K65GZ), and WXOB-LP)
have been cancelled. In addition, two of the stations (WLPD-CD and
WPVN-CD) are now Class A television stations, and the DDSA only applies
to LPTV stations. As a result, in the NPRM, we tentatively concluded
that this rule served no useful purpose. NPRM at para. 14.
Three comments were submitted in response to this proposal in the
NPRM, all urging the retention of the DDSA rule. These commenters
question the Commission's authority to modify the Congressional
directive, and seek to preserve the program. Comments of U.S.
Television LLC, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Oct. 24, 2022)
(U.S. Television LLC Comments) at 1-2; Comments of Wireless Access,
LLC, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Oct. 24, 2022) (Wireless
Access Comments) at 1, 4; Reply Comments of the LPTV Broadcasters
Association, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Nov. 3, 2022)
(LPTV Broadcasters Association Reply) at 3. Based on the interests set
forth by these commenters, we conclude that retaining the DDSA digital
pilot program rule may serve a useful purpose, and therefore, we
decline to adopt the proposal in the NPRM and will retain the DDSA
digital pilot program rule.
Station Identification
After evaluation of the record, we are persuaded to adopt our LPTV
station identification proposals, but we decline to adopt our proposed
changes to identification requirements for TV translator stations at
this time. In the NPRM, we examined Sec. 74.783(a) (Station
identification), which requires analog LPTV/translator stations to
provide station identification. NPRM at para. 15. See 47 CFR 74.783(a)
through (c) (Station identification). When the Commission adopted its
rules for digital LPTV/translator operations in 2004, it declined to
adopt a separate rule for digital stations, choosing instead to allow
such LPTV/translator stations the flexibility to identify themselves in
different manners, including following the analog station
identification provisions in Sec. 74.783(a). See 2004 Order, 19 FCC
Rcd at 19337-38, paras. 15-18 (noting that Commission was unable to
award second channels to LPTV/translator or Class A stations to
facilitate their digital transitions due to the lack of sufficient
spectrum. To prevent the disruption of service to viewers, the
Commission determined that the low power television digital transition
should be completed at some fixed time after the deadline for full
power television stations, which would allow viewers to transition to
digital service without loss of their existing service). See id. at
19394, para. 192 (declining to establish identification requirements
for digital LPTV and TV translator stations). While the Commission
declined to adopt such a requirement, it explained that it believed
that digital TV translator and LPTV stations could be practically
identified by other means. The Commission encouraged ``operators of
digital LPTV and TV translator stations to experiment with possible
means for identifying their stations'' and ``plan[ned] to revisit this
issue in a future periodic review proceeding.'' See id. at 19395, para.
194. Thus, we disagree with the National Television Association's (NTA)
assertion that ``18 years ago the Commission decided that digital
translators would not be subject to a station identification
requirement.'' Comments of the National Television Association, MB
Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Oct. 24, 2022) (NTA Comments) at
1. These provisions allow identification via (1) transmitting the call
sign in International Morse Code at least once every hour, or (2)
arranging for the primary station whose signal is being rebroadcast to
identify the translator station by transmitting an easily readable
visual presentation or a clearly understandable aural presentation of
the translator station's call letters and location. 47 CFR 74.783(a)(1)
and (2) (Station identification). We tentatively concluded in the NPRM
that given the completion of the LPTV/translator digital transition, we
should require digital LPTV/translator stations to comply with the
station identification provisions set forth in Sec. 74.783, as revised
to reflect digital operations. NPRM at para. 15; 47 CFR 74.783(a)(1)
and (2). We also proposed in the NPRM to include the option for LPTV/
translator stations to use the Program and System Information Protocol
(PSIP) to transmit the station's call sign as the ``short channel
name'' on at least one stream of programming that the LPTV/translator
station transmits. PSIP transmits a television station's virtual
channel (see infra), and can also transmit electronic program guides
with titles and descriptions to be decoded
[[Page 30658]]
and displayed by a viewer's digital receiver. ATSC A/65C defines the
standard protocol--referred to as PSIP--for the transmission of data
tables compatible with digital multiplex bit streams via terrestrial
broadcasts. NPRM at para. 16. The ``short channel name'' is a seven
character field in the Terrestrial Virtual Channel Table that stations
use to comply with the digital transmission standard set forth in ATSC
A/65C as incorporated in Sec. 73.682(d) of our rules. See 47 CFR
73.682(d). For example, a station would enter in the short channel name
field the station's call sign, e.g., ``K20DA-D.''
As discussed in detail below, in light of the record on these
proposals, we decline to adopt identification requirements for TV
translator stations at this time in light of concerns of commenters,
but we may consider extending station identification requirements to TV
translator stations in a future proceeding. We do find sufficient
support to require digital LPTV stations to comply with the station
identification provisions set forth in Sec. 74.783 applicable to
analog operations, updated to reflect digital operations. We also adopt
our proposal to include an option for LPTV stations to use the PSIP to
transmit the station's call sign as the ``short channel name'' on at
least one stream of programming that the LPTV station transmits.
Identification Requirements for TV Translator Stations. A number of
commenters objected to our proposed station identification requirements
for TV translator stations. These commenters express concerns about
cost and consumer confusion. NTA Comments at 1 and 3. In support, NTA
cites translator use in Alaska and asserts that ``Alaska Public
Television operates about 125 heterodyne translators in very small and
remote communities. Under the Commission's PSIP identification
alternative, unless identified by DTV primary stations, these
translators would have to be replaced at great cost.'' Id. at 4. NTA
also indicates that not all TV translator stations are identifying at
this time, and if we were to adopt a rule, many of those translators
would not have the means to do so. One translator owner and operator of
a Montana translator station estimates that if not identified by their
DTV primary station, the cost of updating equipment to enable
translators to insert data into the PSIP of the received data would
cost between $4,000 and $10,000 for each translator. Id. at 5 and
Exhibit 1, Statement of Charles J. Cannaliato. NAB Comments at 5. See
also SBE Reply at 2 (``SBE supports NAB's recommendation that [the
ability of translating stations to make changes in their PSIP] be
limited to those LPTV stations that actually do originate programming
to avoid causing confusion among viewers.''). NAB recommends instead
that the use of PSIP for station identification purposes be limited to
LPTV stations that originate programming and do not operate as
translators. Id.
In light of the commenter concerns about the technical challenges
inherent in our proposal for TV translators and the unintended costs
that could be imposed by the proposed modification of the rule, we
decline to adopt the proposed identification requirements for TV
translator stations at this time. Consistent with the Commission's
decision in 2004 to allow TV translator stations the flexibility to
identify themselves in different manners, we encourage TV translator
stations that are not currently providing station identification to
explore options for providing identification. See 2004 Order, 19 FCC
Rcd at 19395, para. 194. In this regard, instead of the proposed
mandatory requirement, we adopt a rule that includes one voluntary
option for TV translator stations to identify their signal,
specifically, arranging with the originating station to provide
identification in a visual manner. See revised Sec. 74.783(b). We note
that FM translator stations, despite not being able to use visual
identification, are still required to identify. One option for
identifying is to arrange for the primary station to identify the
translator three times per day. See 47 CFR 74.1283(c)(1) (Station
identification).
Identification Requirements for LPTV Stations. After evaluation of
the record, we are persuaded to require LPTV stations to comply with
our analog LPTV station identification rules now that the LPTV/
translator digital transition is complete and analog operations have
terminated. Accordingly, we adopt the proposal in the NPRM that digital
LPTV stations continue to comply with the station identification
provisions set forth in Sec. 74.783, updated to reflect digital
operations. NPRM at para. 15. We received support for this proposal,
and received no opposition to the proposal with respect to LPTV
stations that originate programming. ATBA Comments at 2 (ATBA
``supports the Commission's proposals to update its station
identification rules to reflect digital operations.'') (internal
references omitted); Comments of One Ministries, Inc., MB Docket Nos.
03-185 and 22-261 (filed Sept. 26, 2022) (OMI Comments) (``OMI agrees
that it is helpful to have the using [sic] the option for LPTV/
translator stations to use the Program and System Information Protocol
(PSIP) to transmit the station's call sign as the `short channel name'
on at least one stream of programming that the LPTV/translator station
transmits.''). We do not believe the transition to digital operation
provides any basis to relieve LPTV stations that originate programming
of their obligation to provide station identification, and we therefore
adopt our proposal to require such stations to follow the station
identification provisions set forth in Sec. 74.783. Consistent with
our decision above, LPTV stations that do not originate programming
will be considered to be under the same rules for station
identification as translators. See supra.
We also adopt our proposal in the NPRM to revise Sec. 74.783(a)(1)
to provide an alternative identification method for LPTV stations to
replace the outdated option to insert the call sign via Morse Code.
NPRM at para. 16. 47 CFR 74.783(a)(1) (Station identification).
Specifically, we proposed to allow the option to use PSIP to transmit
the station's call sign as the ``short channel name'' on at least one
stream of programming that the LPTV station transmits. NPRM at para. 16
and n.48. Commenters supported this update. OMI agrees that it is
helpful for LPTV stations to use the PSIP to transmit the station's
call sign as the ``short channel name'' on at least one stream of
programming that the LPTV station transmits. OMI Comments. ATBA also
supports the proposal, saying it ``believes the proposed alternate
methods for stations to identify their broadcasts will streamline the
station identification process . . .'' ATBA Comments at 2. We agree,
and we amend the rules accordingly to include the option for LPTV
stations to use PSIP to transmit the station's call sign as the ``short
channel name'' on at least one stream of programming that the LPTV
station transmits. In addition, because we have decided herein to apply
these requirements to LPTV stations but not to TV translator stations,
we reorganize Sec. 74.783 to make it more clearly understandable by
delineating the subsections that separately apply to LPTV stations
(Sec. 74.783(a)), TV translators (Sec. 74.783(b)), and to both (Sec.
74.783(c)). See infra. In its comments, it appears that ATBA is
suggesting that the alternative method apply to full power and Class A
television stations. See ATBA Comments at 2-3 (stating the alternate
method should apply to ``all stations and streams''). To the extent
that ATBA's proposal relates to stations
[[Page 30659]]
in categories beyond LPTV stations, the proposal is outside the scope
of this part 74 LPTV/translator rules proceeding, and thus we decline
to adopt it for other categories of stations.
While not opposing this change, one commenter expressed concern
that, because some Commission-assigned LPTV/translator call signs are
in the format of two numbers followed by three letters, this proposal
would require eight characters, but the ``short channel name'' field in
PSIP only allows seven characters. See revised Sec. 74.791(d) (Call
signs), as discussed. See Canyon TV/Cannaliato Comments at 1. This
commenter proposed dropping the ``-D'' from the end of call signs which
have such a designation, as this is a remnant of when it was necessary
to distinguish between analog and digital operations. Id. While the ``-
D'' may be superfluous with the transition of all LPTV/translator
stations to digital, we do not believe it is necessary to prescribe a
mandatory change of the call signs of a significant number of stations.
Instead, we clarify here that any station with an eight character call
sign that seeks to identify by this method may opt to drop the ``-D''
when placing it in the ``short channel name'' field. We have revised
Sec. 74.783 to include this clarification. See revised Sec.
74.783(a)(2).
TSID Requirements. We adopt the proposal in the NPRM regarding
LPTV/translator stations' use of transport stream ID (TSID) with some
modifications. To identify a station using the PSIP ``short channel
name,'' a station must request and be assigned a TSID. See NPRM at
para. 17. In the NPRM, we proposed to require that an LPTV/translator
station that has requested and been assigned a TSID must broadcast with
the station's assigned TSID during its hours of operation. Id. We also
proposed to require translator stations that had not been assigned a
TSID to pass through the TSID of their respective originating station.
See NPRM at para. 17 and Appendix B (proposed Sec. 74.783(d)(1)). See
revised Sec. 74.783(c). The proposed requirement to broadcast with the
assigned TSID would be in addition to, and not in place of, one of the
other identification requirements. See NPRM at para. 17. We also
proposed to apply the same requirement to a station's bit stream ID
(BSID), which is the equivalent value used in ATSC 3.0. See NPRM at
para. 17 and proposed Sec. 74.783(d)(2).
While the proposal did receive support (see OMI Comments), several
commenters object to this proposal, concerned that it would require
translators to insert a TSID or BSID. See, e.g., Canyon TV/Cannaliato
Comments at 1. Canyon TV/Cannaliato asserts that the proposal to use
TSIDs would ``impose a significant financial burden to community
translators because the majority (perhaps more than 80%) of translator
stations do not have the capability of inserting a TSID into the data
stream.'' Id. For example, NAB asserts that the use of a BSID is
contrary to the applicable ATSC standard, and urges the Commission not
to allow translator stations to use a BSID for identification, arguing
that it would create industry and viewer confusion. NAB Comments at 5-
6. SBE also joins NAB in ``advocating against the use of BSID for
translator stations operating in ATSC 3.0.'' SBE Reply at 3. The NPRM's
proposal was directed only at scenarios where stations have assigned
TSIDs because they are either originating programming or otherwise
modifying the streams of originating stations. For example, a single TV
translator station may rebroadcast the respective primary streams of
several different originating television stations, each of which have
their own TSIDs. A TV translator, however, can only pass through one
TSID, and currently our rules do not address which TSID a TV translator
station would use. Under our adopted rule, under these circumstances, a
TV translator station providing PSIP would be required to ask to be
assigned its own unique TSID and broadcast it. Our intent is to prevent
a station that is modifying one or more originating station(s)
stream(s) from failing to transmit a TSID, and preventing a station
that is originating programming while providing PSIP data from failing
to transmit its assigned TSID even though the PSIP equipment would
allow it to do so. Our aim is to eliminate cases where stations that
are originating programming and are assigned TSIDs do not properly
transmit that TSID, or where stations are otherwise passing through
signals from one or more originating stations but either fail to
provide a TSID or provide an incorrect one. Contrary to commenter
concerns, we do not expect a translator that is not otherwise altering
the signal of a single originating station to insert a unique TSID or
BSID different from that of the originating station. We therefore adopt
our proposal, with clarifying changes to require stations assigned a
TSID to transmit that TSID. See revised Sec. 74.783(c)(1) (stating
that all low power TV stations originating programming shall transmit
their assigned odd-numbered TSID, if one has been assigned. All TV
translator stations, and low power TV stations not originating
programming, shall pass through the assigned TSID of the originating
station, unless the station is modifying the signal of one or more
originating stations in such a way that it is not clear which
originating station's TSID should be used. In that case, the station
shall transmit its assigned odd-numbered TSID if one has been
assigned). We conclude that the TSID requirement is in addition to, and
not in place of, one of the other identification requirements. We also
adopt the same requirement with respect to a station's BSID, which has
the same function as the TSID, but in the ATSC 3.0 context.
LPTV Virtual Channels. We adopt the proposal in the NPRM to codify
the Media Bureau's practice of requiring LPTV stations to transmit with
a virtual channel that avoids conflicts with any full power or Class A
station's virtual channel in cases where a contour overlap would arise,
or with virtual channels chosen by other LPTV stations. NPRM at para.
18. During the DTV transition, most full power television stations
transmitted two over-the-air signals using two different radio
frequency (RF) channels--an analog (NTSC) channel and a paired digital
channel capable of transmitting multiple streams of programming. ATSC,
an international, non-profit member organization, developed the PSIP
standard setting forth rules and priorities for determining a digital
television station's ``virtual'' channel number, the channel number
viewers see on their television receiver when they view a digital
television station over-the-air. See Request for Declaratory Ruling by
Meredith Corporation and ``Alternative PSIP Proposal'' by PMCM TV, LLC
for WJLP (formerly KVNV(TV)), Middletown Township, New Jersey, 32 FCC
Rcd 7229, 7230, para. 3 and passim (2017), petitions for review denied,
PMCM TV, LLC v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 731 Fed. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir.
2018). Under Annex B.1.1 to ATSC 65/C, which sets forth the mandatory
requirements for assigning the virtual channel number components of
full power and Class A stations' virtual channels, most of those
stations' virtual channel numbers begin with their analog channel
numbers. A TV translator station is required to pass through the
virtual channel number of its primary station unless it conflicts with
a broadcaster operating in the service area of the translator, in which
the translator must change its virtual channel number to a non-
conflicting number. Annex B.1.10. As discussed below, Annex B does not
apply to LPTV stations. We stated in the NPRM that
[[Page 30660]]
LPTV licensees are not required to comply with the virtual channel
assignment methodology found in ATSC A/65C Annex B, as full power and
Class A stations are, and we were not proposing to require them to do
so. NPRM at para. 18.
ATBA agrees with our proposal, but asks us to provide ``greater
flexibility'' to select a virtual channel. ATBA Comments at 3. In the
absence of any further information of what this request entails, we
decline to make further modifications. But we note that LPTV stations
are already permitted to select any valid virtual channel within
channels 2-69 that does not create a conflict.
SBE proposes that we require LPTV stations to enter their virtual
channels in LMS. SBE Reply at 2-3. NAB, in its reply, also notes that
virtual channel assignments and changes in virtual channel assignments
should be included in the Commission's database to ``avoid potential
conflicts and viewer confusion.'' See Reply Comments of the National
Association of Broadcasters, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed
Nov. 7, 2022) (NAB Reply) at 3. We note that we already allow stations
to informally request that the staff enter their virtual channels into
LMS on a voluntary basis, and encourage LPTV stations to do so. LPTV
stations may ask the staff to indicate their virtual channel in LMS by
sending a request to the Video Division in the Media Bureau. Such
requests should include the station's facility ID, virtual channel, and
a map showing the station's contour and the contours of surrounding
stations using the indicated virtual channel to demonstrate the lack of
overlap with other full power, Class A, and LPTV/translator stations.
In the event that overlap with other full power, Class A, or LPTV/
translator stations is observed, the staff will notify the station
making the request that it must choose an alternative virtual channel.
Because virtual channel assignments do not require Commission approval,
we do not believe it is necessary to make this voluntary procedure
mandatory, and we decline to explicitly require it.
SBE also requests that the Commission affirm that full power and
Class A virtual channels have primary rights over those of LPTV/
translator stations. SBE Reply at 2-3. We believe that our proposed
language makes this clear, in that LPTV/translator stations are
required to utilize a virtual channel which does not create an overlap
with a station that is required to follow ATSC A/65C, Annex B, which
includes full power and Class A stations. See revised Sec. 74.790(n).
See also ATSC A/65C, Annex B.1.8, which indicates that the virtual
channel number used by a broadcaster should ``be different from those
used by any other broadcaster with an overlapping DTV service area.''
Should the contour of a full-power and Class A station come into
conflict with that of an LPTV, since the LPTV station has secondary
status, it is required to change its virtual channel. For example, the
Commission recently announced winning bidders in the Commission's
auction of construction permits for full power television stations
(Auction 112), and awarded a total of eighteen construction permits.
Auction of Construction Permits for Full Power Television Stations
Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 112, AU Docket No. 21-
449, Public Notice, DA 22-659 (OEA/MB 2022). These new full power
stations will determine their virtual channels using ATSC A/65C, Annex
B, as required by Sec. 74.682(d) of the Commission's rules. If that
virtual channel number overlaps with that of an LPTV station, the LPTV
station will be required to change its virtual channel. As a result, we
do not believe it is necessary to amend the proposed language to affirm
SBE's assertion.
In light of the comments, we find that it is in the public interest
to codify the Bureau's practice of requiring LPTV stations to transmit
with a virtual channel that avoids conflicts with any full power or
Class A station's virtual channel in cases where a contour overlap
would arise, or with virtual channels previously chosen by other LPTV
stations. 2004 Order, 19 FCC at 19413, para. 243, n.505. See revised
Sec. 74.790(n). Absent this rule change, LPTV stations could
potentially create contour overlap with full power and Class A
stations, leading to virtual channel conflicts. We reiterate that LPTV
licensees are not required to comply with the virtual channel
assignment methodology found in ATSC A/65C, Annex B, as full power and
Class A stations are required to do. 2004 Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 19413,
para. 243 (noting that the Commission will not at the time require
digital LPTV stations to comply with the ATSC A/65B standard). See also
ATSC A/65C, Annex B (2006) (ATSC A/65C, Annex B); 47 CFR 73.682(d) (TV
transmission standards) (The Commission later incorporated the 2006
version of Annex B into the Commission's rules by reference for full
power and Class A stations).
LPTV/Translator Call Sign Assignment Protocol. In this Report and
Order, we adopt our tentative conclusion from the NPRM that we should
add a new Sec. 74.791(d) (Call signs) to reflect the staff's current
call sign assignment protocol for LPTV/translator stations. NPRM at
para. 19 and Appendix B. Section 74.783(d) (Station identification)
provides that an LPTV/translator station call sign will be made up of
the letters K or W, the station's channel number, and ``two additional
letters.'' See 47 CFR 74.783(d) (Station identification). For certain
channel numbers, however, all two letter combinations have been
exhausted for several years, and consistent with the Commission's
policy that all stations have a unique call sign, stations have been
assigned a three letter call sign beginning with ``AAA,'' continuing
sequentially through the alphabet for the third letter. This three
letter protocol is built into the Commission's LMS system. ATBA
supports this proposal, and no entity opposed it. ATBA Comments at 3.
Considering the necessity of modifying the two letter protocol due to
the exhaustion of such combinations, and the fact that any change would
affect the staff's ability to continue timely processing applications,
we adopt the proposal and amend Sec. 74.791 to add paragraph (d).
Technical Modifications
Processing Priority. We adopt the processing priority proposal put
forth in the NPRM. Section 74.708(b) (Class A TV and digital Class A TV
station protection) requires LPTV/translator stations to protect
previously filed Class A applications, and Sec. 74.710(a) (Digital low
power TV and TV translator station protection) requires LPTV/translator
stations to protect previously filed LPTV/translator applications. 47
CFR 74.708(b) (Class A TV and digital Class A TV station protection)
and 74.710(a) (Digital low power TV and TV translator station
protection). These subsections reference the Bureau's practice that if
two applications are filed on different days and otherwise have equal
processing priority, the filing earlier in time will receive priority.
In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that these requirements should be
maintained in the rules, but moved into the Commission's digital rules
in Sec. 74.787(c) (Licensing). NPRM at para. 20. No commenters opposed
this proposal. We therefore adopt the proposal, maintain the rules, and
move them into the Commission's digital rules in Sec. 74.787(c). 47
CFR 74.787(c).
Vertical Polarization Considerations. We adopt our proposal in the
NPRM to remove references to antennas with solely vertical polarization
in certain part 74 rules. Sections 74.735(c) (Power limitations) and
74.750(f) (Transmission system facilities) of the rules reference
[[Page 30661]]
vertically polarized transmitting antennas. 47 CFR 74.735(c) (Power
limitations) and 74.750(f) (Transmission system facilities). We noted
in the NPRM that despite the reference, the Commission's LMS filing
system does not and has not allowed stations to specify a vertically
polarized antenna. Further, we noted that television viewers' home
receive antennas are generally horizontally, not vertically, polarized.
In the NPRM, we therefore proposed to modify the language in Sec.
74.735(c) and in revised Sec. 74.750(f) to remove the reference to
antennas with solely vertical polarization. NPRM at para. 21. We also
proposed to clarify, consistent with the similar rule applicable to
full power stations, that the horizontally polarized power is to be
higher than or equal to the vertically polarized power in all
directions, and require documentation that antennas meet this
requirement. See 47 CFR 73.682(a)(14) (TV transmission standards) (``It
shall be standard to employ horizontal polarization.''). See also 47
CFR 73.316(a) (FM antenna systems). NPRM at para. 21 and n.57.
OMI and NTA believe we should retain the reference to antennas with
solely vertical polarization and OMI requests that we modify LMS to
allow them. OMI's comments do not argue in favor of antennas with
solely vertical polarization so much as they make a case for the use of
a vertical polarization component. OMI Comments. We note that a
vertical polarization component is already permitted via elliptically-
and circularly-polarized antennas, and that these types of antennas
would not be implicated by the rule change proposed. 47 CFR 74.735(c).
While there may be future applications where a vertically polarized
component is helpful, use of antennas with solely vertical polarization
would require television viewers to change their home receive antennas
from horizontal to vertical polarization, which we do not believe
viewers should be required to do. Thus, we do not believe that
permitting the use of antennas with solely vertical polarization makes
sense. We therefore decline to retain this reference for unknown future
applications, but will address such applications when and if they
materialize.
As NAB notes, station assignments and analysis parameters assume
the use of horizontal polarization, U.S. bilateral agreements with
Canada and Mexico do not permit solely vertical polarization, and NAB
suggests that ``[a] loss of standardization in this regard will
adversely affect the entire broadcast television industry.'' NAB Reply
at 4. We agree with NAB's concerns, and we therefore adopt the proposal
in the NPRM and modify the language in Sec. 74.735(c) and in revised
Sec. 74.750(f) to remove the reference to antennas with solely
vertical polarization. NTA cites a single case of a TV translator
station in Mink Creek, Idaho (Mink Creek) which takes advantage of a
polarity shift caused by reflecting the signal of a vertically-
polarized station off a mountain in order to achieve horizontal
polarity at the receive antennas in the community targeted by the
station. NTA Comments at 11-12. While we acknowledge this example, we
do not believe it is evidence of a commonly-used method or cause for
the Commission to contemplate use of vertical-only operations in its
licensing or record keeping. We are not aware of any other examples of
scenarios like Mink Creek. Given the burdens associated with changing
equipment, we direct the Media Bureau to consider requests for waiver
of the rule. Mink Creek and any other existing similar situations where
stations are currently operating with vertical-only polarization should
promptly, upon the effective date of these rules, submit a waiver
request to the Video Division, Media Bureau.
With respect to our proposal to require that vertical power not
exceed horizontal power, commenters agree that the our proposal might
be overly prescriptive in that an antenna could be designed to comply
with the rule, but after installation be found to have a slightly
higher vertical than horizontal power. In that scenario the rule as
proposed could require the antenna to be removed and replaced. See,
e.g., NAB Comments at 6; Letter from Robert Weller, Vice-President,
National Association of Broadcasters, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
FCC (Nov. 18, 2022) (NAB Ex Parte) (requesting that some clarification
may be needed to ensure that proposed rule changes do not adversely
affect the operation of existing stations or impose new requirements);
Reply Comments of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, MB
Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Nov. 7, 2022) (H&E Reply) at 1. We
agree with commenters and note that this outcome was not the intent of
the proposal. Thus, we clarify that the amended rule requires that an
antenna should be designed such that the horizontal power is intended
to be higher than or equal to the vertical power in all directions.
This new requirement is consistent with stations being primarily
horizontal, with a possible vertical component intended to be less than
or equal to the horizontal component. See revised Sec. 74.735(c). NAB
and SBE also suggest that our wording in the proposed revised Sec.
74.735(c)(2)--to require submission of documentation that the antenna
is designed such that the horizontal power is intended to be higher
than or equal to the vertical power in all directions--may have been
unclear. NAB Comments at 9; SBE Reply at 6. NAB put forth a suggested
revision to provide additional clarity. NAB Comments at 9 (suggesting
that the modified text should read instead: ``Relative field azimuth
plane pattern (patterns for both horizontal and vertical polarization
should be included if elliptical or circular polarization is used) of
the proposed antenna. A value of 1.0 should be used for the maximum
radiation in the horizontal polarization.''). We agree that NAB's
formulation contains a clearer statement of the intent of our original
proposal. We therefore adopt the proposal in the NPRM using the
modified, clearer language proposed by NAB.
Antenna Pattern Plots. We adopt our proposal in the NPRM to update
our requirements for submitting antenna pattern plots in applications,
with minor adjustments. Section 74.735(c)(4) (Power limitations)
currently requires that horizontal plane patterns be plotted ``to the
largest scale possible on unglazed letter-size polar coordinate
paper.'' 47 CFR 74.735(c)(4). The NPRM suggested that this requirement
is outdated and not consistent with current licensee and Commission
staff practices. We proposed in the NPRM to require licensees to submit
patterns in the form of a .pdf attachment to an application filed in
LMS, and clarify that similar plots are required for elevation (Sec.
74.735(c)(6)) or matrix patterns (Sec. 74.735(c)(7)) submitted in the
LMS form. NPRM at para. 22. See revised Sec. Sec. 74.735(c)(6) and
74.735(c)(7). No commenter disagreed with our assessment, but NAB
points out, and SBE agrees, that the terminology we used in the
proposed text for the revised rule could be modified to more accurately
reflect our intent. NAB Comments at 9; SBE Reply at 6. NAB urges that
the proposed Sec. 74.735(c)(4) should read: ``All azimuth plane
patterns be plotted in a PDF attachment to the application in a size
sufficient to be easily viewed.'' Id. We agree that NAB's formulation
contains a clearer statement of the intent of our original proposal and
therefore adopt it. We note that one goal of this proposal is to ensure
that undistorted and complete antenna patterns are available for
review. For example, when a station with mechanical beam tilt files a
[[Page 30662]]
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. NAB also proposes that matrix patterns should be submitted as
spreadsheets rather than PDFs. We agree that this approach would
provide flexibility to applicants and conform to modern practices and
include that option in the revised rule. Having received no comments on
the NPRM's proposal to clarify that similar plots are required for
elevation or matrix patterns submitted in the LMS form, we adopt that
proposal, as well.
Modification of Transmission Systems. We adopt our proposal in the
NPRM to amend Sec. 74.751 (Modification of transmission systems) with
a modification proposed by commenters. Section 74.751(b)(4)(i) states:
``(b) [f]ormal application (FCC Form 2100, Schedule C) is required for
any of the following changes: (4) [a]ny horizontal change of the
location of the antenna structure which would (i) be in excess of 152.4
meters (500 feet).'' 47 CFR 74.751(b)(4)(i) (Modification of
transmission systems). Therefore, the section on its face appears to
permit a licensee to relocate its antenna structure less than 500 feet
(152.4 meters) without requesting authorization. See id. We note that
this rule, as written, only addresses relocations of the entire
``antenna structure,'' which is a tower or building. We note that,
scenarios where an antenna structure moves less than 500 feet are
highly unlikely to occur in the real world. Additionally, we note a
change of location at distances under 500 feet without submission of an
application, is not consistent with standard licensing practices.
In the NPRM, we noted that the Commission staff's standard
processing practice is to require a licensee to file a minor
modification application whenever a station seeks to relocate its
antenna. NPRM at para. 23. We explained in the NPRM that because the
most precise antenna location provides the most accurate results when
using OET Bulletin No. 69 (OET-69 Bulletin), the staff has consistently
required a minor modification application for all antenna relocations,
and the industry has routinely submitted such minor modification
applications. Id. We therefore proposed in the NPRM to revise the
language of the rule to codify current staff practice and the
application filing requirements of LMS, related to the movement of the
station antenna specifically, and modify Sec. 74.751(b)(4) to require
LPTV/translator licensees and permittees to file an application in LMS
on FCC Form 2100, Schedule C, requesting authorization for all antenna
relocations. Id.
In filed comments, ATBA requests that we ``preserve [the
Commission's] existing rule that permits a licensee to relocate
facilities less than 500 feet (152.4 meters) without requesting prior
authorization and to incorporate this rule into its processing
practices.'' ATBA Comments at 3. The rule, however, appears to apply
only to relocation of the entire antenna structure and not generally to
other relocations of antennas. See supra. NTA asserts that changes in
location of less than 500 feet should not make a material difference to
the result of the OET-69 Bulletin analyses, and additionally cites to
the fact that a 1.0 kilometer cell size is the default in such analyses
for LPTV/translator stations, noting that means each cell is
``approximately 3,900 feet'' on a side. NTA Comments at 19. The OET-69
Bulletin is referenced in Sec. 74.793 of the Commission's rules and
provides guidance on the use of Longley-Rice methodology for evaluating
TV service coverage and interference in accordance with the
Commission's rules. NTA Comments at 19. We calculate that 1.0 kilometer
is approximately 3,280 feet, not 3,900 feet. NTA further states that
``[r]ather [than] having to file a minor change to move your antenna 20
feet, or adjust a small error in coordinates, LPTV and translator
owners should be able to continue to use an informal procedure, such as
letter notifications, just like their full service counterparts.'' NTA
Comments at 20. Neither LPTV/TV translator nor full power stations are
permitted to follow such a procedure; for example, full power stations
are required to formally file such changes in LMS on Form 2100,
Schedule B. We find that there is good cause to amend the rule to
require the filing of a minor modification application for moves of
less than 500 feet and that such moves can make a material difference
to the result of the OET-69 Bulletin. Specifically, we note that
stations have the option of selecting both a smaller cell size than the
1.0 kilometer default in the OET-69 Bulletin (0.5 kilometers) and an
option to select a smaller path profile spacing increment, as small as
0.05 kilometers or 164 feet, when the path loss calculations are
conducted. A station which has used a smaller path profile spacing
increment than the default 1.0 kilometer value can thus change the
terrain paths used in the calculation of interference with a relatively
small change of coordinates. Additionally, in particularly rough
terrain, 500 feet can be, for instance, the difference between the peak
of a mountain and a point significantly down the slope of that
mountain. Because LPTV/translator stations are more likely than full
power stations to operate from very short antenna heights and also
because they do so in mountainous areas where significant changes in
terrain height can occur over short distances, these differences can be
meaningful. While the fact that the Commission uses the radiation
center above mean sea level to determine antenna height for
interference calculations should limit the impact of some cases, we
remain concerned that such moves could cause changes to interference
calculations, particularly when smaller path profile spacing increments
are used as described above, since it could cause changes in the impact
of terrain shielding near the transmitter site. We therefore disagree
with ATBA and NTA, and conclude that it serves the public interest for
such changes to be evaluated via an application for a construction
permit.
NAB argues that ``LPTV and TV Translator stations should not be
held to a higher standard than full power stations, which are generally
allowed to change geographic coordinates by three seconds of latitude
and/or longitude as a matter of right'' and compares our proposal to
the requirements applicable to full power stations contained in Sec.
73.1690 (Modification of transmission systems). NAB Comments at 7
(internal references omitted). We agree with NAB that it is reasonable
to conform the LPTV/translator rule to more closely match this full
power rule. Section 73.1690(b)(2) and the associated Sec.
73.1690(c)(11) apply only to coordinate corrections and not to
relocations. Section 73.1690(c)(11) explicitly requires that a station
may correct its coordinates in a streamlined manner ``provided there is
no physical change in location and no other licensed parameters are
changed.'' 47 CFR 73.1690(c)(11) (Modification of transmission
systems). We therefore amend Sec. 74.751 to permit LPTV/translator
stations as well to correct station coordinates in the absence of any
such physical change in location or other licensed parameters, where
the change is not more than three seconds
[[Page 30663]]
latitude and/or three seconds longitude. See revised Sec. 74.751(b)(4)
and (c). See infra. Limiting streamlined processing only to coordinate
corrections improves the accuracy of the coordinates of the facility
already in operation, and thus such a correction cannot cause a change
in real world interference, even if the predictions change slightly,
and therefore we believe this change serves the public interest. As
minor modifications do not require a filing fee, and because the staff
practice is to process such modifications as rapidly as possible, we do
not believe the two-step process is a significant burden. However, to
mitigate the concern expressed by NAB related to cost, we direct the
Media Bureau to waive any LMS-imposed filing fee associated with the
LPTV/translator station's FCC Form 2100 filing, consistent with the
current practice for full power stations. See NAB Comments at 8.
We also adopt the proposal in the NPRM to delete two subsections of
Sec. 74.751 as irrelevant and unnecessary. NPRM at para. 24. Section
74.751(b)(6) permits relocation of a station's transmitter without
authorization in only certain instances. As we stated in the NPRM,
because the antenna location, rather than the transmitter location, is
the relevant consideration in determining interference, service, and
loss, we proposed to delete Sec. 74.751(b)(6) entirely regarding the
transmitter's location, as it is not relevant in this analysis. The
NPRM also proposed to delete Sec. 74.751(c), which requires LPTV/
translator licensees to notify the Commission in writing of any other
equipment changes they make that are not specifically referenced in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of the section. We noted that we do not believe
this information is relevant to the Commission's application decision-
making processes, and that staff does not routinely receive such
notifications. We received no comments opposing these proposed changes,
and so we adopt the proposal in the NPRM, and delete the subsections.
Minimum Service Standards. We adopt our proposal in the NPRM to
update the video quality standard. Section 74.790(g)(3) (Permissible
service of TV translator and LPTV stations) provides that ``LPTV
station[s] must transmit at least one over-the-air video program signal
at no direct charge to viewers at least comparable in resolution to
that of its associated analog (NTSC) LPTV station or, in the case of an
on-channel digital conversion, that of its former analog LPTV
station.'' 47 CFR 74.790(g)(3); see also 2004 Order, 19 FCC Rcd at
19348-9, para. 51. We proposed in the NPRM to update the quality
standard set forth in the rule to reflect that 480i video resolution is
``comparable in resolution to analog television programming,''
consistent with the update the Commission made to its full power
station rules in Sec. 73.624(b). See NPRM at para. 25; see also
Promoting Broadcast internet Innovation through ATSC 3.0, MB Docket No.
20-145, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 14492, 14507, para. 30 (2020). We
received no comments opposing this proposal. We conclude that this
quality standard is an appropriate standard for LPTV stations and
therefore adopt it. Furthermore, we adopt the proposal in the NPRM that
the desired-to-undesired (D/U) ratios for ATSC 3.0 into TV and vice
versa for predicting interference to stations are assumed to be similar
and need not be differentiated in the rules beyond TV service. See NPRM
at para. 25.
LMS Filing Procedures. We adopt our proposal in the NPRM to update
certain rules to require electronic filing. Certain rules specify the
filing of a letter or similar submission for relief with the
Commission. We proposed in the NPRM to update such rules to instead
require submission in LMS, the Commission's broadcast licensing and
management database. NPRM at para. 26. We also proposed to require
email submission of certain specified information in the event LPTV/TV
translator stations rebroadcast the programs of other TV broadcast
stations. See NPRM, Appendix B at proposed Sec. 74.784(b). Doing so is
consistent with current licensee and Commission staff practices not
just for LPTV/translators, but also full power and Class A licensees
and permittees. We received no comments opposing these proposed
updates. Therefore, we amend our rules to require LPTV/translator
licensees and permittees to file written reports, submissions, letters,
notifications, or other required filings in LMS. 47 CFR 74.703(h)
(Interference); 74.734(a)(4) (Attended and unattended operation); and
74.763(b) (Time of operation). We also note that we amend Sec.
74.784(b) (Rebroadcasts) as proposed to require email submission. We
believe that this amendment is in the public interest because it will
streamline application submission, processing, and record keeping, and
provide a centralized location for public inspection of all licensing-
related matters.
Additional Questions and Proposals Raised by Commenters
We decline to adopt several proposals raised by commenters. In
doing so, we note that the NPRM's scope was limited to amendments to
the part 74 rules to reflect the current operating environment,
including the termination of analog operations in the LPTV/translator
service. Specifically, the NPRM proposed to adopt rules previously
applicable to analog operations for digital operations, update
geographic coordinates to the current NAD standard, modify station
identification requirements, require LPTV stations to transmit with a
virtual channel that avoids conflicts with other stations, update the
process for filing applications with the Commission, and make other
technical modifications. See NPRM at para. 9. We received several
proposals that seek to make material changes to our rules, or changes
outside of part 74. Comments of Scripps Broadcasting Holdings LLC, MB
Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Oct. 24, 2022) (Scripps Comments)
at 1, 4 (proposing to adopt a ``90-day shot clock'' for resolving
channel substitution petitions for rulemaking in part 73); ATBA
Comments at 4-6 (proposing that the freeze on major modifications of
LPTV stations be lifted and requesting that the Commission ``provide
greater certainty for LPTV operators planning to invest in new and
innovative digital technologies.''); Comments of Mountain Broadcasting
Corporation, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Oct. 24, 2022)
(Mountain Broadcasting Comments) at 2; see also Reply Comments of
Mountain Broadcasting Corporation, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261
(filed Nov. 7, 2022) (Mountain Broadcasting Reply) at 5-6 (proposing
that the Commission apply Annex B of the ATSC A/65C to both full power
and LPTV stations and allow any virtual channel designation that does
not result in a contour overlap; and require LPTV stations to file
items similar to those maintained by full power stations in a public
file). We therefore decline to adopt these proposals as outside the
scope of this proceeding.
Aside from the proposals that were outside the scope of this
proceeding, CDE asked whether the wording in Sec. 74.701(c)
(Definitions) adopted in the Part 74 Order (``analog to digital
replacement translator (DRT)'') is correct given that the analog sunset
date was July 13, 2021 at 11:59 p.m. Comments of Cohen, Dippell and
Everist, P.C., MB Docket No 22-261 (filed Oct. 24, 2022) (CDE Comments)
at 2; see also 47 CFR 74.701(c) (Definitions). We take this opportunity
to clarify that the wording is correct. In this instance, we do require
reference to the word ``analog'' despite completion
[[Page 30664]]
of the digital transition. In 2009, the Commission adopted a new,
replacement digital translator service to permit full power television
stations to continue to provide service to viewers within their
existing analog coverage areas where the viewers would otherwise lose
service after the station transitioned to digital. Amendment of Parts
73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules for Replacement
Digital Low Power Television Translator Stations, MB Docket No. 08-253,
Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 5931 (2009). While the definition of the
DRT service includes the word ``analog'' because it is replacing
service to the analog coverage area, the replacement translator service
is digital.
Finally, the LPTV Broadcasters Association proposes replacing the
term ``low power television'' in the Commission's rules with ``local
power television.'' Comments of the LPTV Broadcasters Association, MB
Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Oct. 24, 2022) (LPTV Broadcasters
Association Comments) at 1-3. While we recognize the local service that
LPTV can provide, we decline to adopt this change. As discussed above,
the purpose of this proceeding is to eliminate confusion within our
rules. Because several of our rules stem from statutory requirements,
and because Congress has used the term ``low power television,'' we
believe that changing this term would result in inconsistencies between
the statute and the rules and would create, not eliminate, confusion
within our rules. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 336(h) (Provision of Digital
Data Service by Low-Power Television Stations); Low Power Protection
Act (Pub. L. No. 117-344, S. 3405 (Jan. 5, 2023) (defining ``low power
TV station'' with respect to Sec. 74.701 of the Commission's rules);
Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999, Public Law No. 106-113,
113 Stat. Appendix 1 at pp. 1501A-594-1501A-598 (1999), codified at 47
U.S.C. 336(f).
Cost Benefit and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion 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. NPRM at para. 27 (seeking
comment on the benefits and costs associated with adopting the proposed
changes). A few commenters explicitly addressed the costs and benefits
of the proposed rules or provided specific data and analysis supporting
claimed costs and benefits in response to the NPRM. For example, Canyon
TV/Cannaliato asserts that our proposal to use TSIDs would impose a
significant financial burden to community translators. See Canyon TV/
Cannaliato Comments at 1. NTA in its comments cites an estimate by one
translator owner and operator of Montana translator stations of the
cost to update equipment to enable translators to insert data into the
PSIP of the received data for each translator. See NTA Comments at 5.
Canyon TV/Cannaliato also noted with respect to our frequency measure
requirement proposal that replacing certain equipment in order to
comply would be a financial burden for translator stations. See Canyon
TV/Cannaliato Comments at 1. As described supra, the revisions to the
rules codify the staff's current practices or better reflect
technological advancements in the industry and take into consideration
potential financial burdens on LPTV/translators. We did not adopt the
TSID- and PSIP-related rules that could have led to increased costs,
and we clarified in the Report and Order that we do not believe the
frequency measurement requirement will lead to increased cost. The
revised rules reflect an effort to simplify, streamline, and modernize
existing rules and procedures that will enable LPTV/translator stations
to more easily comply with licensing requirements through familiar and
low cost measures. Thus, we expect any costs imposed by the updated
rules will be minimal and outweighed by the public benefits of clarity
and modernization.
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. NPRM at
para. 28. 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 LPTV/translator 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 contains either
new or modified information collection requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public Law 104-13. It will be
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under
Sec. 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other federal
agencies are invited to comment on the 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 Analysis. 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.'' See 5 U.S.C. 603 and 605(b). 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.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated into the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) released in
July 2022. 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). See
Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Establish
Rules for Digital Low Power Television and Television Translator
Stations, Update of Parts 74 of the Commission's Rules
[[Page 30665]]
Related to Low Power Television and Television Translator Stations,
Order and Sixth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 22-58 (rel. July 13,
2022) (NPRM); Erratum, FCC 22-58 (rel. Sept. 9, 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. See 5 U.S.C. 604.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
The Report and Order reflects the Commission's effort to update its
rules following the termination of analog operations in the low power
television (LPTV) and TV translator services (collectively LPTV/
translator). The Commission adopts certain rules previously applicable
to analog operations for digital operations and considers requests and
comments received on subjects not included in the NPRM proposals,
including analysis of the cost and benefits of the proposed rules.
In the Report and Order, the Commission retains the rule requiring
LPTV stations that avail themselves of the provisions set forth in the
LPTV Pilot Project Digital Data Services Act (DDSA) digital data
service pilot project to comply with the Commission's rule implementing
the DDSA. The Report and Order amends the Commission's rules for LPTV/
translator alphanumeric call signs to account for exhaustion of all two
letter call sign combinations for some channel numbers, and consistent
with the Commission's policy that all stations have a unique call sign,
the Report and Order codifies the current practice of assigning a call
sign ending in three letters beginning with ``AAA'' and continuing
sequentially through the alphabet (``AAB'', ``AAC'', etc.) in such
cases. The Report and Order also requires digital LPTV stations to
comply with the station identification provisions in Sec. 74.783
applicable to analog operations, updated to reflect digital operations.
Additionally, the Commission adopts its proposal to include an option
for LPTV stations to use the Program and System Information Protocol
(PSIP) to transmit the station's call sign as the ``short channel
name'' on at least one stream of programming that the LPTV station
transmits, and mandates the broadcast of the station's assigned TSID
(or BSID, which is the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) 3.0
functional equivalent), assuming one is assigned.
The Report and Order adopts a modified version of the Commission's
proposal to require a minor modification application on FCC Form 2100,
Schedule C for all station relocations, including those under 500 feet,
but allows for coordinate corrections of under 3 seconds latitude and/
or longitude without paying a filing fee. The Report and Order also
codifies the staff's practice of requiring LPTV stations to transmit
with a virtual channel that avoids conflicts with any full power or
Class A station's virtual channel in cases where a contour overlap
would arise, or with virtual channels chosen by other LPTV stations.
Further, the Report and Order updates various filing requirements that
currently specify submission by letter or other means to the FCC to
instead require submission in the Commission's Licensing and Management
System (LMS), or otherwise through electronic submission, and clarifies
what documentation is required when applications are submitted with
various kinds of directional patterns. In addition, the Report and
Order removes references in the rules to the use of antennas with
solely vertical polarization, and requires that the design of broadcast
antennas is such that horizontal power is intended to be higher than or
equal to the vertical power in all directions.
The Report and Order also adopts updates to the coordinates found
throughout Sec. 74.709 from NAD 27 to NAD 83 and otherwise conforms
the values in Sec. 74.709(a) with those found in Sec. 90.303. These
coordinates are used only to determine where the Commission will or
will not grant applications. Section 74.703(e) still requires the
resolution of actual interference, so the adjustments to Sec.
74.709(a) will not change the required amount of interference
protection between LPTV/translator stations and land mobile operations.
Finally, the Report and Order adopts updates to the quality standard
set forth in Sec. 74.790(g)(3) to reflect that 480i video resolution
is ``comparable in resolution to analog television programming,''
consistent with the update the Commission made to its full power
station rules.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the IRFA
There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the rules
and policies proposed 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. Id. 604(a)(3).
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. Id. 604(a)(4). The RFA generally
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' Id. 601(6). In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act (SBA). Id. 601(3) (incorporating by
reference the definition of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C.
632(a)(1)). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a
small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with the
Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after
opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of
such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and
publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' Id. 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 rules adopted herein 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.'' See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, ``515120
Television Broadcasting,'' <a href="https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515120&year=2017&details=515120">https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515120&year=2017&details=515120</a>. These establishments operate
television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and
transmission of
[[Page 30666]]
programs to the public. Id. 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. See 13 CFR 121.201,
NAICS Code 515120 (as of Oct. 1, 2022 NAICS Code 516120). 2017 U.S.
Census Bureau data indicate that 744 firms in this industry operated
for the entire year. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of
the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, or
Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM,
NAICS Code 515120, <a href="https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=515120&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePreview=false">https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=515120&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePreview=false</a>. Of that number, 657 firms had revenue of less than $25,000,000. Id.
The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise
estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. We
also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms
receipts and revenues are used interchangeably, see <a href="https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices">https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices</a>. Based on this
data, we estimate that the majority of television broadcasters are
small entities under the SBA small business size standard.
As of December 31, 2022, there were 1,375 licensed commercial
television stations. Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2022,
Public Notice, DA 23-21 (rel. Jan. 11, 2023) (December 2022 Broadcast
Station Totals PN), <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/broadcast-station-totals-december-31-2022">https://www.fcc.gov/document/broadcast-station-totals-december-31-2022</a>. Of this total, 1,282 stations (or 93.2%) had
revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2021, according to Commission
staff review of the BIAKelsey Media Access Pro Online Television
Database (MAPro) on January 13, 2023, and therefore these licensees
qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the
Commission estimates as of December 31, 2022, there were 383 licensed
noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations, 383 Class A TV
stations, 1,912 LPTV stations and 3,122 TV translator stations. BIA
Advisory Services, BIAKelsey Media Access Pro Online Television
Database, <a href="http://www.biakelsey.com/data-platforms/media-access-pro">http://www.biakelsey.com/data-platforms/media-access-pro</a>
(last visited on Jan. 13, 2023). Broadcast Station Totals PN. 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
other compliance requirements adopted in the Report and Order and
consider whether small entities are affected disproportionately by any
such requirements. While the Commission is not in a position to
determine whether small entities will have to hire professionals to
comply with our decisions and cannot quantify the cost of compliance
for small entities, the approaches we have taken to implement the
requirements have minimal or de minimis cost implications for impacted
entities.
The Commission concludes it will modify Sec. 74.751(b)(4) to
require LPTV/translator licensees and permittees to file a minor
modification application requesting authorization for all station
relocations, including those moving the antenna or the antenna
structure less than 500 feet (152.4 meters), but will permit stations
seeking to correct coordinates by less than 3 seconds of latitude and/
or longitude to do so without paying a filing fee. See revised Sec.
74.751(b)(4) and (c) (Modification of transmission systems). The rule
as currently written exempts relocations of the station's antenna
structure by less than 500 feet from the application process. These
requirements will result in a modified paperwork obligation for small
entities and other licensees. The Report and Order adopts a new Sec.
74.762 regarding frequency measurements, which would require small and
other LPTV/translator stations to measure the frequency of their output
channel as often as necessary, but not exceeding 14 months, to ensure
operation consistent with the ATSC standard in Sec. 73.682 of the
rules. The Commission also adopts LPTV station identification proposals
to comply with Sec. 74.783, updated to reflect digital operations,
including the option to transmit the station's ``short channel name''
on at least one stream of programming. Further, the Report and Order
amends our rules to require LPTV/translator licensees and permittees to
file written reports, submissions, letters, notifications, or other
required filings in LMS, or otherwise by electronic submission, thereby
streamlining application submission, processing, and record keeping for
small and other entities. The Commission will seek approval and the
corresponding burdens, such as those require to comply with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), to account for this modified
reporting requirement. Public Law 104-13.
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.'' 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(6).
The actions taken by the Commission in the Report and Order were
considered to be the least costly and minimally burdensome for small
and other entities impacted by the rules. As such, 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 Order
to minimize any significant economic impact on small entities and some
alternatives that were considered.
The Report and Order adopts a number of proposals that would codify
the staff's current practices or better reflect technological
advancements in the industry that may benefit small entities. For
example, the Report and Order codifies the staff's practice of
requiring LPTV stations that voluntarily transmit with a virtual
channel to choose one that avoids conflicts with any full-power or
Class A station's virtual channel in cases where a contour overlap
would arise, or with virtual channels chosen by other LPTV stations. We
considered alternatives by the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE)
that would require small and other LPTV licensees to enter these
channels in LMS, but decline this option because LPTV virtual channel
assignments do not need Commission approval. Moreover, the Report and
Order removes references in the rules to the use of antennas with
solely vertical
[[Page 30667]]
polarization, and requires that the horizontal power is intended to be
higher than or equal to the vertical power in all directions,
consistent with the requirements for full-power stations. We considered
proposals from the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and SBE
that we modify the wording of the proposed rules, and adopted the
clearer language proposed by NAB. These revisions simplify, streamline,
and modernize existing rules and procedures that will enable small and
other LPTV/translator stations to more easily comply with licensing
requirements through familiar and low cost measures. We also adopted a
rule for LPTV stations allowing the option of identifying by using PSIP
to transmit the station's call sign as the ``short channel name'' on at
least one stream of programming that the LPTV station transmits. NPRM
at para. 16 and n.48. The rule we adopted is simpler and less expensive
than other methods of identification for stations that are already
using PSIP.
The Report and Order also updates the coordinates in Sec. 74.709
from NAD 27 to NAD 83 in order to conform the values with those found
in Part 90 of the Commission's rules. These coordinates are used only
to determine whether the Commission will or will not grant
applications. Section 74.703(e) still requires the resolution of actual
interference, and so the Commission would not need to balance the
interference protection afforded to land mobile operation with the
updated, streamlined benefits for small entities as a result of this
revision. While NAB encourages us to add a note to Part 90 regarding
land mobile assignments, we decline to do so due to a pending petition
for rulemaking on that subject. Further, the Report and Order updates
various filing requirements that currently specify submission by letter
or other means to the FCC to instead require submission in LMS or
electronically. The Commission anticipates that this option will lessen
the physical burden on small entities.
A few commenters explicitly addressed the costs and benefits of the
proposed rules or provided specific data and analysis supporting
claimed costs and benefits in response to the NPRM. Specifically,
Canyon TV/Cannaliato noted the financial burden TSIDs would impose to
community translators, and that replacing equipment to comply with the
rules would be a financial burden for translator stations. NTA cited
similar cost concerns in its comments. In assessing the impact on small
entities, we took into consideration potential financial burdens on
small and other LPTV/translators, and in adopting the TSID- and PSIP-
related rules we had proposed, we clarified that we did not intend to
impose a requirement that could have led to increased cost.
Additionally, Canyon TV/Cannaliato raised the possibility of additional
costs due to our proposed requirement to regularly conduct frequency
measurements. However, in adopting this proposed rule, we believe small
and other LPTV/translator stations can comply without replacing
existing equipment. Specifically, stations can comply with the rule by
reviewing the station's signal on a spectrum analyzer and determining
that the pilot carrier (for ATSC 1.0) and the overall signal (for ATSC
1.0 and ATSC 3.0) appear correctly and are properly contained within
their assigned spectrum, consistent with the standard in use and our
rules. We also clarified in the Report and Order that we do not believe
the frequency measurement requirement will lead to increased cost, and
identified specific portions of Sec. 73.682 that contain the
information needed to conduct frequency measurements, easing the burden
on small and other entities in comparison to citing the entire
broadcast standard.
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. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 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. 5 U.S.C. 604(b).
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained in
Sec. Sec. 1, 4, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 336, and 403
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301,
303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 336, 403, this Report and Order is
adopted.
It is further ordered that the Commission's rules are hereby
amended as set forth in the appendix and such amendments shall be
effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, except for
Sec. Sec. 74.703, 74.734, 74.735, 74.751, 74.763, and 74.784, which
contain new or modified information collection requirements and will be
submitted for approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act and shall become effective after the Commission
publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing such approval and
the relevant effective date.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of the Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
It is further ordered, that pursuant to Sec. 801(a)(1)(A) of the
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission shall
send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and to the Government
Accountability Office.
List of Subjects in 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 part 74 as follows:
PART 74--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 325, 336 and
554.
0
2. Section 74.702 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 74.702 Channel assignments.
* * * * *
(b) Changes in the Table of TV Allotments (Sec. 73.622(j) of this
chapter), authorizations to construct new full power television
stations or to authorizations to change facilities of existing such
stations, may be made without regard to existing or proposed low power
TV or TV translator stations. Where such a change results in a low
power TV or TV translator station causing actual interference to
reception of the full power television station, the licensee or
permittee of the low power TV or TV translator station shall eliminate
the interference or file an application for a change in channel
assignment pursuant to Sec. 73.3572 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
3. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec. 74.703 by revising paragraph (h)
to read as follows:
Sec. 74.703 Interference.
* * * * *
[[Page 30668]]
(h) In each instance where suspension of operation is required, the
licensee shall submit a full report to the FCC after operation is
resumed containing details of the nature of the interference, the
source of the interfering signals, and the remedial steps taken to
eliminate the interference. This report shall be filed via a Resumption
of Operations notice in the FCC's Licensing and Management System
(LMS).
* * * * *
Sec. 74.708 [Removed and Reserved]
0
4. Remove and reserve Sec. 74.708.
0
5. Amend Sec. 74.709 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a) revising table 1; and
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2), revising table 2.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 74.709 Land mobile station protection.
(a) * * *
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coordinates
City Channels -------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston, MA............................................. 14, 16 42[deg]21'24.4'' 071[deg]03'23.2''
Chicago, IL............................................ 14, 15 41[deg]52'28.1'' 087[deg]38'22.2''
Cleveland, OH.......................................... 14, 15 41[deg]29'51.2'' 081[deg]49'49.5''
Dallas, TX............................................. 16 32[deg]47'09.5'' 096[deg]47'38.0''
Detroit, MI............................................ 15, 16 42[deg]19'48.1'' 083[deg]02'56.7''
Houston, TX............................................ 17 29[deg]45'26.8'' 095[deg]21'37.8''
Los Angeles, CA........................................ 14, 16, 20 34[deg]03'15.0'' 118[deg]14'31.3''
Miami, FL.............................................. 14 25[deg]46'38.4'' 080[deg]11'31.2''
New York, NY........................................... 14, 15, 16 40[deg]45'06.4'' 073[deg]59'37.5''
Philadelphia, PA....................................... 19, 20 39[deg]56'58.4'' 075[deg]09'19.6''
Pittsburgh, PA......................................... 14, 18 40[deg]26'19.2'' 079[deg]59'59.2''
San Francisco, CA...................................... 16, 17 37[deg]46'38.7'' 122[deg]24'43.9''
Washington, DC......................................... 17, 18 38[deg]53'51.4'' 077[deg]00'31.9''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
Table 2 to Paragraph (b)(2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coordinates
City Channel -------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego, CA.......................................... 15 32[deg]41'52.7'' 116[deg]56'06.3''
Waterbury, CT.......................................... 20 41[deg]31'02.3'' 073[deg]00'58.4''
Washington, DC......................................... 14 38[deg]57'17.4'' 077[deg]00'15.9''
Washington, DC......................................... 20 38[deg]57'49.9'' 077[deg]06'17.2''
Champaign, IL.......................................... 15 40[deg]04'10.0'' 087[deg]54'46.0''
Jacksonville, IL....................................... 14 39[deg]45'52.1'' 090[deg]30'29.5''
Ft. Wayne, IN.......................................... 15 41[deg]05'35.2'' 085[deg]10'41.9''
South Bend, IN......................................... 16 41[deg]36'20.0'' 086[deg]12'46.0''
Salisbury, MD.......................................... 16 38[deg]24'15.4'' 075[deg]34'43.7''
Mt. Pleasant, MI....................................... 14 43[deg]34'24.1'' 084[deg]46'21.0''
Hanover, NH............................................ 15 43[deg]42'30.2'' 072[deg]09'14.3''
Canton, OH............................................. 17 40[deg]51'04.2'' 081[deg]16'36.4''
Cleveland, OH.......................................... 19 41[deg]21'19.2'' 081[deg]44'23.5''
Oxford, OH............................................. 14 39[deg]30'26.2'' 084[deg]44'08.8''
Zanesville, OH......................................... 18 39[deg]55'42.0'' 081[deg]59'07.0''
Elmira-Corning, NY..................................... 18 42[deg]06'22.0'' 076[deg]52'16.0''
Harrisburg, PA......................................... 21 40[deg]20'43.1'' 076[deg]52'08.3''
Johnstown, PA.......................................... 19 40[deg]19'47.3'' 078[deg]53'44.1''
Lancaster, PA.......................................... 15 40[deg]15'45.0'' 076[deg]27'50.0''
Philadelphia, PA....................................... 17 40[deg]02'30.9'' 075[deg]14'21.9''
Pittsburgh, PA......................................... 16 40[deg]26'46.2'' 079[deg]57'50.2''
Scranton, PA........................................... 16 41[deg]10'58.3'' 075[deg]52'19.7''
Parkersburg, WV........................................ 15 39[deg]20'59.8'' 081[deg]33'55.4''
Madison, WI............................................ 15 43[deg]03'03.0'' 089[deg]29'13.0''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Sec. 74.710 [Removed and Reserved]
0
6. Remove and reserve Sec. 74.710.
0
7. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec. 74.734 by revising the first
sentence of paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 74.734 Attended and unattended operation.
(a) * * *
(4) A notification must be filed with the FCC via a Change of
Control Point Notice in LMS providing the name, address, and telephone
number of a person or persons who may be called to secure suspension of
operation of the transmitter promptly should such action be deemed
necessary by the FCC. * * *
* * * * *
0
8. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec. 74.735 by revising the first and
second sentences of paragraph (c) introductory text, the first and
second sentences of paragraph (c)(2) and paragraph (c)(4),
[[Page 30669]]
and adding paragraphs (c)(6) and (7) to read as follows:
Sec. 74.735 Power limitations.
* * * * *
(c) The limits in paragraph (b) of this section apply to the
effective radiated power in the horizontally polarized plane. For
either omnidirectional or directional antennas, where the ERP values of
the vertically and horizontally polarized components are not of equal
strength, the ERP limits shall apply to the horizontal polarization,
and the vertical ERP shall not intentionally exceed the horizontal ERP
in any direction. * * *
* * * * *
(2) Relative field azimuth plane pattern (patterns for both
horizontal and vertical polarization should be included if elliptical
or circular polarization is used) of the proposed directional antenna.
A value of 1.0 should be used for the maximum radiation in the
horizontal polarization. * * *
* * * * *
(4) All azimuth plane patterns must be plotted in a PDF attachment
to the application in a size sufficient to be easily viewed.
* * * * *
(6) If an elevation pattern is submitted in the application form,
similar tabulations and PDF attachments shall be provided for the
elevation pattern.
(7) If a matrix pattern is submitted in the application form,
similar tabulations shall be provided as necessary in the form of a
spreadsheet to accurately represent the pattern.
0
9. Revise Sec. 74.737 to read as follows:
Sec. 74.737 Antenna location.
(a) An applicant for a new low power TV or TV translator station or
for a change in the facilities of an authorized station shall endeavor
to select a site that will provide a line-of-sight transmission path to
the entire area intended to be served and at which there is available a
suitable signal from the primary station, if any, that will be
retransmitted.
(b) The transmitting antenna should be placed above growing
vegetation and trees lying in the direction of the area intended to be
served, to minimize the possibility of signal absorption by foliage.
(c) A site within 8 kilometers of the area intended to be served is
to be preferred if the conditions in paragraph (a) of this section can
be met.
(d) Consideration should be given to the accessibility of the site
at all seasons of the year and to the availability of facilities for
the maintenance and operation of the transmitting equipment.
(e) The transmitting antenna should be located as near as is
practical to the transmitter to avoid the use of long transmission
lines and the associated power losses.
(f) Consideration should be given to the existence of strong radio
frequency fields from other transmitters at the site of the
transmitting equipment and the possibility that such fields may result
in the retransmissions of signals originating on frequencies other than
that of the primary station being rebroadcast.
0
10. Revise Sec. 74.750 to read as follows:
Sec. 74.750 Transmission system facilities.
(a) A low power TV or TV translator station shall operate with a
transmitter that is either certificated for licensing under the
provisions of this subpart or type notified for use under part 73 of
this chapter.
(b) External preamplifiers also may be used provided that they do
not cause improper operation of the transmitting equipment, and use of
such preamplifiers is not necessary to meet the provisions of Sec.
74.795(b).
(c) through (d) [Reserved]
(e) The following procedures shall apply:
(1) Any manufacturer of apparatus intended for use at low power TV
or TV translator stations may request certification by following the
procedures set forth in part 2, subpart J, of this chapter.
(2) Low power TV and TV translator transmitting apparatus that has
been certificated by the FCC will normally be authorized without
additional measurements from the applicant or licensee.
(3) Applications for certification of modulators to be used with
existing certificated TV translator apparatus must include the
specifications electrical and mechanical interconnecting requirements
for the apparatus with which it is designed to be used.
(4) Other rules concerning certification, including information
regarding withdrawal of type acceptance, modification of certificated
equipment, and limitations on the findings upon which certification is
based, are set forth in part 2, subpart J, of this chapter.
(f) The transmitting antenna system may be designed to produce
horizontal, elliptical, or circular polarization.
(g) Low power TV or TV translator stations installing new
certificated transmitting apparatus incorporating modulating equipment
need not make equipment performance measurements and shall so indicate
on the station license application. Stations adding new or replacing
modulating equipment in existing low power TV or TV translator station
transmitting apparatus must have a qualified person examine the
transmitting system after installation. A report of the methods,
measurements, and results must be kept in the station records. However,
stations installing modulating equipment solely for the limited local
origination of signals permitted by Sec. 74.790 need not comply with
the requirements of this paragraph (g).
0
11. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec. 74.751 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(4);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(6); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (c).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 74.751 Modification of transmission systems.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Any horizontal change of the location of the antenna.
* * * * *
(c) Notwithstanding the requirements in paragraph (b) of this
section, a station may file in LMS a correction of geographic
coordinates where the change is 3 seconds or fewer in latitude and/or 3
seconds or fewer in longitude, provided there is no physical change in
location and no other licensed parameters are changed. An exhibit
should be attached to the application(s) specifying that it is a
coordinate correction.
0
12. Revise Sec. 74.762 to read as follows:
Sec. 74.762 Frequency measurements.
(a) The licensee of a low power TV station or a TV translator
station must measure the frequency of its output channel as often as
necessary to ensure operation consistent with the Advanced Television
Systems Committee (ATSC) standard (see Sec. 73.682 of this chapter;
for ATSC 1.0, Sec. 73.682(d), ATSC A/53 Part 2, and for ATSC 3.0,
Sec. 73.682(f)(2)), and at least once each calendar year at intervals
not exceeding 14 months.
(b) In the event that a low power TV or TV translator station is
found to be operating inconsistent with the standard in paragraph (a)
of this section, the licensee promptly shall suspend operation of the
transmitter and shall not resume operation until the transmitter has
been restored to its assigned frequency.
0
13. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec. 74.763 by revising paragraph (b)
to read as follows:
[[Page 30670]]
Sec. 74.763 Time of operation.
* * * * *
(b) In the event that causes beyond the control of the low power TV
or TV translator station licensee make it impossible to continue
operating, the licensee may discontinue operation for a period of not
more than 30 days without further authority from the FCC. Notification
must be sent to the FCC via a Suspension of Operations Notice filing in
LMS, not later than the 10th day of discontinued operation. During such
period, the licensee shall continue to adhere to the requirements in
the station license pertaining to the lighting of antenna structures.
In the event normal operation is restored prior to the expiration of
the 30 day period, the FCC shall be notified via a Resumption of
Operations Notice filing in LMS of the date normal operations resumed.
If causes beyond the control of the licensee make it impossible to
comply within the allowed period, a request for Special Temporary
Authority (see Sec. 73.1635 of this chapter) shall be made to the FCC
no later than the 30th day for such additional time as may be deemed
necessary via LMS.
* * * * *
0
14. Revise Sec. 74.783 to read as follows:
Sec. 74.783 Station identification.
(a) Each low power TV station as defined by Sec. 74.701(f) must
transmit its station identification using one of the following methods:
(1) When originating programming, as defined by Sec. 74.701(h), a
low power TV station may use the station identification procedures
given in Sec. 73.1201 of this chapter on its primary stream. Other
streams may use the method in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The
identification procedures given in the remainder of this paragraph are
to be used at any time the station is not originating programming; or
(2) By transmitting the call sign in the short channel name field
of the Program and System and Information Protocol (PSIP) (or its ATSC
3.0 equivalent) for at least one stream on the station. If the station
is assigned an alphanumeric call sign consistent with Sec. 74.791(d)
and its call sign has more than 7 characters, it may drop the ``-D''
from the end of the call sign when identifying with this method; or
(3) By arranging for the primary station, whose signal is being
rebroadcast, to identify the low power TV station by transmitting an
easily readable visual presentation or a clearly understandable aural
presentation of the low power TV station's call letters and location.
Two such identifications shall be made between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 3
p.m. and 5 p.m. each broadcast day at approximately one hour intervals
during each time period. Television stations which do not begin their
broadcast day before 9 a.m. shall make these identifications in the
hours closest to these time periods at the specified intervals.
(b) Licensees of television translator stations may arrange for
identification via the method in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
Licensees of television translators who make such arrangements for
station identification to be made by the television station whose
signals are being rebroadcast by the translator, must secure agreement
with this television station licensee to keep in its file, and
available to FCC personnel, the translator's call letters and location,
giving the name, address, and telephone number of the licensee or his
service representative to be contacted in the event of malfunction of
the translator. It shall be the responsibility of the translator
licensee to furnish current information to the television station
licensee for this purpose.
(c) Transport Stream ID (TSID) values are identification numbers
assigned to stations by the FCC and stored in the Commission's online
database. Two sequential values are assigned to each station.
(1) All low power TV stations originating programming shall
transmit their assigned odd-numbered TSID, if one has been assigned.
All TV translator stations, and low power TV stations not originating
programming, shall pass through the assigned TSID of the originating
station, unless the translator or low power TV station is modifying the
signal of one or more originating stations in such a way that it is not
clear which originating station's TSID should be used. In that case,
the station shall transmit its assigned odd-numbered TSID if one has
been assigned.
(2) In ATSC 3.0, a similar value is used called a Bit Stream ID
(BSID). LPTV stations operating in ATSC 3.0 mode shall utilize their
assigned even-numbered TSID as their BSID, and LPTV/translator stations
shall transmit the BSID as otherwise required of the TSID in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section.
0
15. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec. 74.784 by revising paragraph (b)
to read as follows:
Sec. 74.784 Rebroadcasts.
* * * * *
(b) The licensee of a low power TV or TV translator station shall
not rebroadcast the programs of any other TV broadcast station or other
station authorized under the provisions of this subpart without
obtaining prior consent of the station whose signals or programs are
proposed to be retransmitted. The FCC shall be notified of the call
letters of each station rebroadcast, and the licensee of the low power
TV or TV broadcast translator station shall certify it has obtained
written consent from the licensee of the station whose programs are
being retransmitted. This notification shall be provided by email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#194d4f4b7c7b6b76787d7a786a6d597f7a7a377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c6929094a3a4b4a9a7a2a5a7b5b286a0a5a5e8a1a9b0">[email protected]</span></a>, the Video Division's email box.
* * * * *
Sec. 74.786 [Removed and Reserved]
0
16. Remove and reserve Sec. 74.786.
0
17. Section 74.787 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(5)(viii) and
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 74.787 Licensing.
* * * * *
(c) Licensing. An application to construct a new low power TV or TV
translator station or change the facilities of an existing station will
not be accepted if it fails to protect an authorized Class A, low power
TV, or TV translator station or an application for such a station filed
prior to the date the low power TV or TV translator application is
filed.
Sec. 74.789 [Removed and Reserved]
0
18. Remove and reserve Sec. 74.789.
0
19. Section 74.790 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(3) and adding
paragraph (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 74.790 Permissible service of TV translator and LPTV stations.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) Whenever operating, an LPTV station must transmit at least one
over-the-air video program signal at no direct charge to viewers at a
resolution of at least 480i (vertical resolution of 480 lines,
interlaced).
* * * * *
(n) An LPTV station shall transmit at least the minimum Program
System and Information Protocol (PSIP) information necessary for
receivers to display the station's programming. The station is not
required to utilize any specific virtual channel number but must avoid
creating a contour overlap with any full power TV or Class A TV
station's virtual channel, or creating a contour overlap with another
LPTV station using the same virtual channel.
0
20. Section 74.791 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 74.791 Call signs.
* * * * *
[[Page 30671]]
(d) Call sign protocol. The use of the initial letter generally
will follow the pattern used in the broadcast service, i.e., stations
west of the Mississippi River will be assigned an initial letter K and
those east, the letter W. The two letter combinations following the
channel number will be assigned in order, and requests for the
assignment of the particular combinations of letters will not be
considered. The channel number designator for Channels 2 through 9 will
be incorporated in the call sign as a 2-digit number, i.e., 02, 03,
etc., so as to avoid similarities with call signs assigned to amateur
radio stations. In the event that the two letter combination following
the channel numbers reaches ZZ, the next subsequent call sign shall
have three letters, beginning with AAA.
0
21. Section 74.795 is amended by:
0
a. Removing ``and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(4);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (b)(5) and adding ``;''
in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(6) and (7).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 74.795 Low power TV and TV translator transmission system
facilities.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) The apparatus must be equipped with automatic controls that
will place it in a non-radiating condition when no signal is being
received on the input channel, either due to absence of a transmitted
signal or failure of the receiving portion of the facilities used for
rebroadcasting the signal of another station. The automatic control may
include a time delay feature to prevent interruptions caused by fading
or other momentary failures of the incoming signal; and
(7) Wiring, shielding, and construction shall be in accordance with
accepted principles of good engineering practice.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-09843 Filed 5-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 12, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.