Rules Governing the Use of Distributed Transmission System Technologies, Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, 21217-21227 [2021-05333]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 76 (Thursday, April 22, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21217-21227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05333]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

[MB Docket No. 20-74 and GN Docket No. 16-142; FCC 21-21; FR ID 17416]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
modifies its rules governing the use of distributed transmission system 
(DTS) technologies by broadcast television stations by permitting, 
within certain limits, DTS signals to spill over beyond a station's 
authorized service area by more than the ``minimal amount'' currently 
allowed. By affording broadcasters greater flexibility in the placement 
of DTS transmitters, the rule changes allow broadcasters to enhance 
their signal capabilities and fill coverage gaps, improve indoor and 
mobile reception, and increase spectrum efficiency by reducing the need 
for television translator stations operating on separate channels.

DATES: Effective May 24, 2021, except for amendatory instructions 3, 4, 
and 6, which are delayed. The Commission will publish a document in the 
Federal Register announcing the effective date those amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ty Bream, Industry Analysis Division, 
Media Bureau, [email protected], (202) 418-0644.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order (Order) in MB Docket No. 20-74 and GN Docket No. 16-142, FCC 
21-21, that was adopted January 13, 2021 and released January 19, 2021. 
The full text of this document is available for public inspection 
online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-21A1.pdf. 
Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, 
and/or Adobe Acrobat. Alternative formats are available for people with 
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, 
etc.) and reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign 
language interpreters, CART, etc.) may be requested by sending an email 
to [email protected] or calling the FCC's Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

    1. Introduction: In this Report and Order (Order) we adopt a 
technical modification to the Commission's rules governing the use of a 
distributed transmission system (DTS), or single frequency network 
(SFN), by a broadcast television station. Consistent with our goal of 
addressing technical issues that may impede the adoption of DTS 
technology, we conclude that by modestly easing limitations on DTS 
transmitters and providing additional clarity in our rules, we can help 
unlock the potential of DTS at this crucial time when many stations are 
considering migrating to the next generation broadcast television 
standard (ATSC 3.0). As the record in this proceeding demonstrates, 
affording broadcasters greater flexibility in the placement of DTS 
transmitters can allow them to enhance signal capabilities and fill 
coverage gaps, improve indoor and mobile reception, and increase 
spectrum efficiency by reducing the need for television translator 
stations operating on separate channels.
    2. Specifically, we update the current restriction that prohibits 
DTS signals from spilling over beyond a station's authorized service 
area by more than a ``minimal amount.'' See 47 CFR 73.626(f)(2). As 
described below, we replace the existing, and imprecise, ``minimal 
amount'' standard with a clearer, service-based approach that allows 
broadcasters greater flexibility in locating DTS transmitters, so long 
as, for UHF stations, the 41 dBu F(50,50) contour for each DTS 
transmitter does not exceed the reference station's 41 dBu F(50,50) 
contour. A 41 dBu F(50,50) contour refers to a boundary at which a 
signal is predicted to exceed 41 dBu at 50% of locations 50% of the 
time. We provide corresponding dBu values for F(50,50) limiting 
contours for Low and High VHF stations of 28 dBu for Low VHF and 36 dBu 
for High VHF. Consistent with our current approach, DTS transmissions 
will not be entitled to interference protection beyond the station's 
authorized service area. Our decision to replace the current, 
subjective spillover standard with a bright-line rule that both expands 
and clarifies the permissible range of spillover will not only promote 
DTS use by facilitating more efficient and more

[[Page 21218]]

economical siting of DTS transmitters, but it also will establish a 
clearly defined limit that will promote regulatory certainty.
    3. We find that the approach we adopt in this document improves 
upon the proposed rule set forth in the underlying notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM). See 85 FR 28586 (May 13, 2020). In that NPRM, we 
sought comment on a proposed modification submitted in a joint petition 
for rulemaking (Petition) by America's Public Television Stations 
(APTS) and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) 
(collectively, Petitioners). As explained below, our adopted approach 
will allow broadcasters to improve coverage in their service areas, 
without causing more spillover than necessary to promote DTS 
deployment. In addition, we remove the requirement that Class A, LPTV, 
and television translator stations must apply for DTS facilities on an 
experimental basis, and we add a contour-based limit on DTS spillover 
by such stations that is similar to what we adopt in this document for 
full power stations, but modified slightly to account for technical 
differences between low power and full power services. Specifically, 
because low power stations do not have antenna height limits, we cannot 
easily replicate a Table of Distances, which is calculated using a 
station's hypothetically maximized antenna height, for low power 
stations. Instead, similar to full power stations, we subject Class A, 
LPTV, and television translator stations using DTS to the limitation 
that: (1) Each DTS transmitter must be located within the station's 
authorized F(50,90) contour, and (2) the F(50,50) contour for each DTS 
transmitter must be fully contained within the station's F(50,50) 
contour (as opposed to an authorized service area drawn according to a 
Table of Distances).
    4. Background: Traditionally, a broadcast television station 
transmits its signal from a single elevated transmission site central 
to the service area, resulting in a stronger signal available near the 
transmitter and a weaker signal as the distance from the transmitter 
increases. Non-uniform terrain or morphological features also can 
weaken signals, regardless of distance from the transmitter. One way 
for a station to augment its signal strength is to provide fill-in 
service using one or more separately licensed secondary transmission 
sites that operate on a different radiofrequency (RF) channel than the 
main facility, i.e., a television translator. By contrast, a DTS 
network employs two or more transmission sites located within a 
station's service area, each using the same RF channel and synchronized 
to manage self-interference. Because it operates on only one frequency, 
DTS offers an alternative to traditional full power television 
transmission, which may use secondary translators that operate on 
additional frequencies.
    5. Current DTS Rules. The Commission first recognized the potential 
uses and benefits of DTS technologies more than a decade ago when the 
transition from analog to digital television (DTV) brought with it the 
ability to transmit multiple television signals on the same channel 
without causing harmful interference, thus making DTS feasible for 
television for the first time. In 2008, the Commission stated that DTS 
could allow stations to reach more viewers in their coverage areas, to 
distribute more uniform and higher-level signals near the edges of 
their coverage areas, to improve indoor reception and reception on 
mobile devices, to overcome tower height and placement restrictions, to 
increase their spectrum efficiency by using the same channel for all 
operations, to enhance their ability to compete with multichannel video 
programming distributors, and to reach viewers that lost service as a 
result of the digital transition. In anticipation of these benefits, 
the Commission adopted rules permitting full power DTV stations to 
transmit using multiple, lower power DTS transmitter sites operating on 
the same frequency.
    6. In crafting these rules, the Commission defined a DTS station's 
maximum authorized service area to be an area comparable to that which 
the DTV station could be authorized to serve with a single transmitter. 
To determine the boundaries of a DTS station's maximum service area 
under this ``Comparable Area Approach,'' the Commission established a 
``Table of Distances,'' which it derived from the hypothetical maximum 
service area that a DTV station would be allowed to apply for under the 
Commission's rules (i.e., using the maximum antenna height and power 
permitted for the station's single-transmitter site). The maximum 
service area defined by the Table of Distances is centered around the 
station's reference facility. Among other things, the Commission's 
rules require that each DTS transmitter must be located within either 
the reference station's Table of Distances area or the reference 
station's authorized service area. In addition, each DTS transmitter's 
noise-limited service contour (NLSC) must be contained within either 
the reference station's Table of Distances area or the reference 
station's authorized service area, except where an extension of 
coverage beyond the station's authorized service area is of a ``minimal 
amount'' and necessary to ensure that the combined coverage from all of 
its DTS transmitters covers all of the station's authorized service 
area. In adopting this ``Comparable Area Approach,'' the Commission 
rejected proposals for an ``Expanded Area Approach,'' which would have 
permitted DTS stations to expand coverage beyond their single-
transmitter service areas (e.g., to cover a larger area, up to an 
entire DMA). One of the Commission's concerns was that permitting 
broadcasters to reach viewers beyond their authorized service areas 
could undermine the Commission's localism goals by distracting them 
from the primary responsibility of providing programming responsive to 
the needs and interests of their community of license.
    7. In authorizing DTS operations, the Commission afforded primary 
regulatory status to DTS transmitters of a full power station within 
the area the full power station is authorized to serve. The current 
rules therefore protect such DTS transmitters, within their authorized 
service areas, from interference from secondary licensees, such as low 
power television (LPTV) and television translator stations, and from 
unlicensed operations in television white spaces. The Commission also 
approved the use of DTS on an experimental basis by a single-license 
digital Class A, LPTV, and television translator station to provide 
service within its authorized service area, i.e., operating a reference 
facility and one or more transmitters using a single Class A or LPTV 
license in the manner permitted for full power television stations.
    8. Next Gen TV (ATSC 3.0). In November 2017, the Commission 
authorized broadcast television stations to use the ATSC 3.0 
transmission standard on a voluntary, market-driven basis while they 
continued to deliver current-generation DTV broadcast service to their 
viewers using the ATSC 1.0 standard. The Commission concluded that the 
existing rules authorizing DTS stations generally were adequate to 
authorize the operation of an ATSC 3.0 SFN and that the record did not 
support changes to the authorized service areas for DTS stations at 
that time. The Commission further stated that it would monitor the 
deployment of ATSC 3.0 in the marketplace and consider changes to the 
DTS rules in the future, if appropriate. The Commission also noted that 
a

[[Page 21219]]

station interested in pursuing a change to its DTS service area may 
file for a waiver of the DTS rules pursuant to the Commission's general 
waiver standard.
    9. Petition for Rulemaking. Petitioners contend that the ability of 
ATSC 3.0 broadcasters to use DTS is limited by the restriction that DTS 
signals may spill over by only a ``minimal amount'' beyond a station's 
authorized service area. In their Petition, filed October 3, 2019, they 
ask the Commission to amend Sec.  73.626 of the Commission's rules to 
permit television stations more flexibility in the placement of their 
DTS transmitters, particularly near the edges of a station's coverage 
area. Petitioners do not seek the placement of DTS transmitters beyond 
a station's authorized service area. Rather, they propose that what 
they refer to as the DTS transmitter's ``interference contour,'' which 
would not be permitted to exceed that of the reference facility, would 
determine how close a DTS transmitter could be placed to the edge of a 
station's authorized service area. On October 11, 2019, the Media 
Bureau issued a public notice seeking comment on the Petition.
    10. NPRM. The Commission's subsequent NPRM, released April 1, 2020, 
and published May 13, 2020, sought public comment on the proposed rule 
changes advocated by Petitioners and on the various arguments that 
commenters raised in response to the Public Notice. The NPRM sought 
comment on whether any change to the DTS rules is necessary or 
appropriate at this time, or whether relaxing the current spillover 
restriction would be premature given the lack of DTS deployment to 
date. The Commission asked whether it should permit more than a 
``minimal amount'' of DTS spillover beyond a station's authorized 
service area, how to treat DTS signals beyond a station's current 
service areas if such spillover is allowed, and whether any rule 
changes adopted in this proceeding for full power stations should be 
applied also to Class A and/or LPTV stations. The NPRM also sought 
comment on the potential impact of the proposed rule changes on the 
Commission's policy goal of promoting localism and its other policy 
reasons for limiting DTS spillover. In addition, the Commission asked 
how other spectrum users, including LPTV and translator stations, 
wireless microphones, and white space devices, could be affected by 
such rule changes and whether there are steps it could and should take 
to mitigate such impacts.
    11. Discussion: DTS Spillover Contour. We update our DTS rules to 
give television station licensees additional flexibility and greater 
certainty in the placement of DTS transmitters by increasing the amount 
by which DTS transmissions are permitted to spill over beyond a 
station's authorized service contour. Although its permitted area for 
DTS spillover will increase, a station's area of interference 
protection will not expand under our rule change. Specifically, such 
spillover will be subject to a bright-line limitation that, for UHF 
stations, the 41 dBu F(50,50) contour for each DTS transmitter must 
remain fully within the 41 dBu F(50,50) contour for the overall 
reference facility (for Low VHF and High VHF stations, the 
corresponding dBu values will be 28 dBu and 36 dBu, respectively). 
Under our revised rule, the 28 dBu F(50,50) contour of each DTS 
transmitter for a Low VHF station must remain fully within the 28 dBu 
F(50,50) contour for the overall reference facility, and the 36 dBu 
F(50,50) contour of each DTS transmitter for a High VHF station must 
remain fully within the 36 dBu F(50,50) contour for the overall 
reference facility. In addition, for each band in the Table of 
Distances, we calculate a smaller interfering field strength that, when 
it is combined with the assumed reference interfering signal using the 
root-sum-square (RSS) methodology, would not increase the interference 
potential of the DTS network as compared to the interference predicted 
by a single-transmitter station located at the reference point.
    12. We conclude that allowing full power television stations this 
greater flexibility in locating DTS transmitters and affording greater 
clarity as to the amount of spillover permitted will promote regulatory 
certainty and serve the public interest. In particular, relaxing and 
clarifying the amount of DTS spillover permitted at the fringe of a 
full power station's authorized service contour will improve the 
station's ability to provide a stronger and more uniform signal to 
viewers located at the edges of its service area and in places where 
terrain hampers coverage. We believe that the Commission's current 
imprecise spillover restriction could inhibit DTS deployment. We expect 
that the approach we adopt will provide substantial flexibility and 
certainty to licensees, which were principal objectives of the NPRM 
proposal, without causing more risk of disruption to other spectrum 
users than necessary to achieve these goals.
    13. As discussed below, the initial proposal in the NPRM failed to 
account for the additive effect of multiple DTS transmissions and thus 
underestimated the potential interference impact of the proposal. The 
bright-line approach we adopt remedies that technical omission and 
provides broadcasters ample leeway to improve coverage and locate 
transmitters, with less interference risk to other spectrum users. 
Further, we expect that the additional flexibility the new rule offers 
will make the use of DTS more practical as part of ATSC 3.0 deployments 
and thereby facilitate the realization of many anticipated consumer 
benefits that are possible with ATSC 3.0, such as improved audio and 
video quality, mobile viewing capabilities, geo-targeting of emergency 
alerts, and advanced data services supported by broadband connectivity. 
Indeed, easing the DTS spillover restriction will help both ATSC 1.0 
and ATSC 3.0 broadcasters deliver improved services, including 
ancillary and supplementary services like Broadcast internet, to more 
of their viewers.
    14. Timely Action Required. Although the Commission's current rules 
permit both ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 broadcasters to deploy DTS, to date 
few broadcast stations have opted to employ this technology, despite 
the potential benefits to such operations. In petitioning for a rule 
change, Petitioners contend that revising the permitted DTS spillover 
allowance at this stage of ATSC 3.0 deployment would be an effective 
means of encouraging DTS use because DTS can be used more efficiently 
and economically with the ATSC 3.0 standard than is possible with ATSC 
1.0. We are persuaded that the time is right to take action, and that a 
revised rule will promote DTS use and foster the accrual of the long-
recognized benefits of such operation. First, the DTS rules apply 
equally to ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 broadcasters, and so ATSC 1.0 
broadcasters also will benefit from our revised approach. Our current 
DTS rules apply to both ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 and we see no reason not 
to maintain that parity. Accordingly, we apply our rule changes, and 
their associated benefits, to both ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0. Second, the 
deployment of ATSC 3.0 infrastructure is well under way and immediate 
action will encourage ATSC 3.0 broadcasters still in their planning 
stages to consider using DTS as a means to serve their hard-to-reach 
viewers or to enhance service in their coverage areas.
    15. Update of Rule. The rule change proposed in the NPRM would have 
substantially expanded the amount of DTS spillover permitted outside 
the boundaries of a station's authorized service area. Specifically, 
the proposed change would have permitted spillover to the extent 
necessary either to ``achieve a practical design'' or, as

[[Page 21220]]

articulated in the current rule, to ensure that combined coverage from 
all of the DTS transmitters covers all of the applicant's authorized 
service area. Instead of the current rule's ``minimal amount'' 
limitation, the extent of spillover permitted would have been subject 
to the limitation that (for UHF stations) the DTS transmitter's 36 dBu 
F(50, 10) ``interference'' contour not exceed the reference facility's 
36 dBu F(50, 10) contour.
    16. We find that the technical analysis Petitioners submitted in 
support of the initial proposal substantially underestimates the 
interference potential of DTS networks. In short, the interference 
protection under the proposal is designed around a single transmitter 
and does not account for the additive effects of signals from multiple 
DTS transmitter sites. These additive effects would create interference 
risk from a UHF station beyond its 36 dBu F(50, 10) contour. Given this 
situation, we find that the proposal cannot be adopted without changes. 
Specifically, Petitioners' proposal purports to be calibrated in such a 
way as to maintain the nominal desired-to-undesired ratio necessary to 
avoid interference to Class A and LPTV stations. If, however, we do not 
account for the additive effects of signals from multiple DTS 
transmitter sites, this premise is no longer valid, and the potential 
for interference at a given distance would be greater than what is 
suggested by Petitioners. Therefore, we adopt a modified approach that 
achieves the principal objectives articulated in the record--which 
include providing broadcasters with additional flexibility to serve 
hard-to-reach viewers and bringing the benefits of DTS and ATSC 3.0 to 
additional consumers--while resulting in less spillover than the 
initial proposal. Thus, as compared to the NPRM proposal, the rule 
change we adopt in this document poses less of an interference risk to 
licensed and unlicensed operations in areas beyond a full power 
station's authorized service contour.
    17. We conclude that more time is not needed to assess the impact 
of the rules adopted in this Order. There is a robust record on the 
issues of whether and how increased DTS flexibility, including 
Petitioners' proposal, would risk disruption to other spectrum users 
and whether Petitioners' ``necessary to achieve a practical design'' 
standard is impractical. Our decision here responds to the concerns 
expressed in the record by adopting an alternative approach that 
achieves the goal advanced in the NPRM of providing flexibility in DTS 
deployments and is consistent with the original purposes of our DTS 
rules, while at the same time offering broadcasters more clarity and 
certainty than the ``necessary to achieve a practical design'' standard 
and also reducing the risk of disruption to other spectrum users.
    18. Our revised rule replaces the ``minimal amount'' test in Sec.  
73.626(f)(2) with an approach that utilizes a contour based on the 
service field threshold. To the extent there are existing DTS networks 
operating with Commission approval under the ``minimal amount'' 
standard today that would not be entirely compliant with our modified 
spillover limits, such DTS networks may continue to operate pursuant to 
their current authorization. However, pending applications will be 
granted only if they comply with our revised rule.
    19. Specifically, we will permit television stations additional 
flexibility to deploy DTS transmitters so long as the transmitters 
continue to be sited within the station's authorized service contour 
and, for UHF stations, the 41 dBu F(50,50) contour for each individual 
DTS transmitter is fully contained within the reference station's 41 
dBu F(50,50) contour. A 41 dBu F(50,50) contour refers to a boundary at 
which a signal is predicted to exceed 41 dBu at 50% of locations 50% of 
the time. Under the current rule, DTS transmitter service contours are 
not permitted to exceed the 41 dBu F(50,90) contour of the reference 
facility except by a minimal amount to enable coverage within the 
authorized service area. Because, by definition, a 41 dBu F(50,90) 
contour requires the predicted signal strength to be exceeded 90% of 
the time, it encompasses an area where a stronger signal could be 
expected to be received, i.e., an area smaller than that encompassed by 
a 41 dBu F(50,50) contour. Additionally, the distance from the 41 dBu 
F(50,90) contour to the 41 dBu F(50,50) contour is directly related to 
the radius of the F(50,90) contour, such that a lower power/lower 
antenna transmitter will have a smaller difference between the two. 
That effect makes it clear that a DTS node at a certain ERP and HAAT 
may be located at the edge of a station's authorized service area. By 
replacing the current 41 dBu F(50,90) limiting contour with a 41 dBu 
F(50,50) limiting contour, we give broadcasters a certain room for 
spillover from DTS transmitters and thereby enable the placement of 
transmitters in locations that were not practical previously, 
particularly locations closer to the edge of a station's authorized 
service area. We also provide dBu values for limiting contours for Low 
and High VHF stations.
    20. Consistent with the Table of Distances used in our current 
rule, our revised Table of Distances includes separate, corresponding 
dBu values for Low VHF and High VHF stations, which are 28 dBu and 36 
dBu, respectively. These changes will afford stations greater ability 
to site DTS transmitters near the edges of their authorized service 
contours and will provide a clear, bright-line standard for determining 
the permissible level of spillover beyond an authorized service 
contour. Siting DTS transmitters near the edges of their service areas 
will allow stations to reach more viewers in areas they are authorized 
to serve and to distribute more uniform and higher-level signals 
throughout those areas, the latter of which is prerequisite to the 
provision of certain advanced services under ATSC 3.0. With increased 
flexibility in the siting of DTS transmitters, we also anticipate that, 
in many instances, stations using DTS will be able to cover a 
comparable area with fewer DTS transmitters than would be necessary 
under the current rule, thereby making DTS deployments more practical 
and cost effective.
    21. We also clarify that the largest station alternative, an 
alternative to the Table of Distances by which stations may seek to use 
DTS to match the geographic coverage of the largest station in their 
market, remains unchanged and available to stations looking to employ 
DTS as part of an ATSC 3.0 deployment. Our action in this document does 
not alter the ability of stations to make use of this alternative. We 
further clarify that, in determining the geographic area to be matched, 
DTS spillover is not counted in calculating the coverage of the largest 
station in a market.
    22. The F(50,50) curves are one of two sets of curves within part 
73 of our rules--the other being the F(50,10) curves. See 47 CFR 
73.699. In turn, the F(50,90) curve values are derived from a 
calculation comparing the values from the F(50,50) and F(50,10) charts. 
Historically, the F(50,50) curves were used for predicting service area 
for analog television stations. Currently, the F(50,10) curves are used 
for predicting interfering signals, and the F(50,90) curves are used to 
represent digital television service areas within which most people can 
expect to view a signal nearly all of the time. While the F(50,50) 
curves are not presently used in the context of digital television 
service, we find that it is useful and appropriate to employ them in 
this instance in determining the limits on spillover by

[[Page 21221]]

DTS transmitters beyond a station's authorized service contour. The 
F(50,50) curves, in combination with the signal level thresholds in 47 
CFR 73.622(e), can be considered as representative of an area in which 
most of the people could view a DTV signal a substantial amount of the 
time. Accordingly, we find that it makes sense to limit spillover 
service to this area, an area that likely already experiences some 
level of reception from the existing non-DTS facility and thus may 
already have viewership of the station. Regarding the protection of any 
improved signal and potential interference caused as result of this 
permitted spillover, we emphasize that neither the definition of the 
DTS protected area in 47 CFR 73.626(e), nor the interference analysis 
for DTS facilities (pursuant to 47 CFR 73.626(f)(5), 47 CFR 
73.623(c)(3), and OET Bulletin No. 69) will change.
    23. We therefore update the Table of Distances in 47 CFR 73.626(c) 
with an additional set of reference distances calculated using the 41 
dBu F(50,50) contours. In addition, we delegate to the Media Bureau the 
authority to update the relevant FCC forms for full power stations, 
including Schedules A and B of FCC Form 2100, to conform with the rule 
changes we adopt.
    24. For purposes of compliance, the Commission uses the RSS method 
of calculating interference from multiple DTS transmitters, rather than 
adding up the aggregate interference from each individual DTS 
transmitter, commonly referred to as a ``direct summation'' approach. 
This means that the combined field strength level at a given location 
is equal to the square root of the sum of the squared field strengths 
from each transmitter in the DTS network at that location. We believe 
RSS continues to be an appropriate method to aggregate interference 
because we need some method that accounts for the multiple sources of 
interference, including to ATSC 1.0 ``victim'' receivers, which 
perceive the signals as multiple sources of white noise.
    25. These reference distances will establish the limit of 
permissible spillover, and Sec.  73.626(f)(2) will be modified to state 
that the 41 dBu F(50,50) service contour for each individual DTS 
transmitter must be contained fully within that reference distance. In 
addition, for each band in the Table of Distances, we calculate a 
smaller interfering field strength that, when its RSS is combined with 
the assumed reference interfering signal, does not increase the 
interference potential of the DTS network as compared to the 
interference predicted by a single-transmitter station located at the 
reference point. To illustrate, in the UHF band with a reference 
interference of 36 dBu, an additional signal of 26.6 dBu would RSS 
combine to an equivalent of 36.47 dBu, which rounds back down to 36 
dBu. Accordingly, the approach we adopt in this document requires that 
the 26.6 dBu F(50,10) contour of each DTS node for a UHF station be 
contained completely within the reference 36 dBu F(50,10) distance. We 
also provide corresponding values for Low VHF and High VHF stations. In 
addition, the F(50,10) node-interfering contour of any DTS transmitter, 
aside from one located at the reference point, may not extend beyond 
the F(50,10) reference-interfering contour of its reference facility, 
and the F(50,10) reference-interfering contour of a facility at the 
reference point may not extend beyond the F(50,10) reference-
interfering contour of its reference facility.
    26. Benefits of Modified Approach. The modified approach we adopt 
has several policy advantages over Petitioners' submission. First, our 
approach is based on service contours instead of interference contours, 
which typically are used in spacing broadcast radio stations and no 
longer are used in television. Therefore, we find that our service-
based approach--focusing on the provision of service to those viewers a 
station is already authorized to serve--is more consistent with the 
intent underlying 47 CFR 73.626(f)(2) that spillover allowances meet 
the requirement in 47 CFR 73.626(f)(1) to cover the entire reference 
service area. Second, as mentioned previously, it achieves our goal of 
improving stations' ability to fill coverage gaps and to deliver a 
strong and uniform signal throughout their authorized service areas, 
thereby supporting the provision of advanced services under ATSC 3.0. 
Third, the risk of disruption to other existing and future spectrum 
users is lower than it would have been under the NPRM proposal. In 
particular, our approach allows nearly the same signal levels for DTS 
nodes located within the core of a station's authorized service area as 
the NPRM proposal, but it reduces the allowable signals for nodes 
located at the extreme edge of the service area, and hence the 
potential spillover resulting from such nodes. This reduced 
interference risk is accomplished while also offering a substantial 
increase in flexibility and certainty for broadcasters to implement DTS 
networks.
    27. In addition, our approach has practical benefits. First, unlike 
the initial proposal, the modified approach we adopt accounts for the 
additive effects of multiple DTS transmitters and so produces more 
accurate, realistic results. Second, our new rule will produce the 
clarity and certainty in the engineering review process that some 
commenters suggest is lacking under the ``minimal amount'' standard of 
the current rule. It focuses on measurable, repeatable results that 
licensees and their consulting engineers can use to determine 
compliance in advance of application to the Commission. By replacing 
the ``minimal amount'' exception with a bright-line rule, our revised 
rule provides more regulatory certainty regarding the boundary of a 
station's spillover area. The requirement that all DTS transmissions 
stay within a defined contour will enable better planning not only 
among broadcasters implementing DTS, but also among all other licensed 
and unlicensed spectrum users operating in or interested in operating 
in spillover areas. Third, our approach does not include the nebulous 
standard contemplated in connection with the initial proposal, which 
would have allowed spillover where necessary to achieve a practical 
design. Our approach avoids the possibility that such a provision would 
require Commission staff to make burdensome and subjective assessments 
about the design practicability of a station's DTS network, which could 
be impossible without access to sensitive cost and financial 
information. Rather, our approach is based on an objective standard 
that will promote consistency and efficiency. Moreover, it is no more 
complex from an engineering standpoint than the initial proposal 
advocated by Petitioners, and thus it imposes no higher burden on 
licensees to perform the required analysis than initially anticipated. 
We direct the Media Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology 
to update TVStudy, the Commission's software program used to evaluate 
television applications, in order to support the engineering analysis 
required under our revised approach.
    28. Localism. Furthermore, we find that the rule we adopt is 
consistent with the service-based approach previously adopted by the 
Commission, which the Commission found was adequate to preserve and 
protect localism. As noted above, the Commission determined that a DTS 
station's maximum authorized service area should be comparable to that 
which the DTV station could be authorized to serve with a single 
transmitter (the Comparable Area Approach). A principal reason the 
Commission chose that approach was to

[[Page 21222]]

preserve and protect localism, on the theory that permitting 
broadcasters to reach viewers beyond their authorized service areas 
could distract them from the primary responsibility of providing 
programming responsive to the needs and interests of their community of 
license. We find that our adopted approach also will preserve and 
protect localism. We believe that it strikes an appropriate balance 
that enables a station to improve service at the edges of its service 
area, without allowing it to expand coverage to the point where it 
might shift attention away from its community of license. Nevertheless, 
we can revisit this issue in the future if evidence suggests that our 
revised DTS rules are not protecting localism adequately.
    29. In addition, we find that our modified proposal, which limits 
spillover, addresses any concern that the NPRM proposal would have 
allowed broadcasters to send their signals well beyond their licensed 
areas, thereby serving additional communities without competing in a 
Commission auction for that right. Our approach does not raise serious 
concerns about whether broadcasters using DTS should bid for the modest 
spillover spectrum our approach would permit them to occupy--without 
interference protection--outside their authorized service areas.
    30. Impact on Other Spectrum Users. While we adopt the approach set 
forth above to provide additional flexibility and certainty to 
broadcasters deploying DTS networks, we anticipate that our approach 
has the added benefit of reducing potential disruption to other 
spectrum users as compared to Petitioners' proposal. In the NPRM, the 
Commission sought comment on the potential impact of the initial 
proposal on Class A stations, LPTV stations, television translators, 
licensed and unlicensed wireless microphone users, NPR FM stations, and 
white space devices. Petitioners concede that, under the initial 
proposal, spillover signals likely would cause disruption to other 
spectrum users. Although initially claiming that interference to LPTV 
stations would occur in only a handful of cases, Petitioners 
subsequently estimated that 330, or 13.8%, of the 2,392 existing LPTV 
stations likely would receive interference above a 2% threshold and 
that 5.3% to 11% of the 3,135 existing translators likely would be 
affected under their proposal. Other estimates, however, deviated 
substantially from Petitioners' results. The wide variability in these 
predictions reveals the difficulty in establishing a reliable basis for 
an interference study consistent with Petitioners' proposal. This 
difficulty reinforces our decision to take a more measured course of 
action at this time, one that will provide additional flexibility and 
certainty in the placement of DTS transmitters without posing the same 
risk of interference to LPTV stations that would have resulted under 
the initial proposal.
    31. Moreover, although the collective impact of our revised rule on 
other spectrum users depends significantly on the number of stations 
that deploy DTS transmitters, the number, location, and relative power 
of those transmitters, and a host of other issues, the rule we adopt 
permits less spillover than the initial proposal. We are confident 
therefore that the interference impact will be far less than it would 
have been with the initial proposal, and we expect that our revised 
rule, given the contour it applies, is a reasonable approach that will 
not have a significant impact on authorized secondary licensees or 
unduly limit entry of new secondary licensees. Likewise, we do not 
anticipate a significant impact on the availability of spectrum for 
white space operations or other unlicensed uses, such as wireless 
microphones.
    32. We decline to use this proceeding to take up the issue of, or 
to alter, the current regulatory status (i.e., interference rights and 
obligations) of DTS stations or of any other existing or future users 
of broadcast spectrum. Notably, the NPRM did not propose to afford 
interference protection to DTS signals in the spillover area, and we 
see no reason to grant any. The approach we adopt in this document is 
consistent with the intent of our DTS rules that any spillover should 
be incidental to, and in service of, improving coverage within a 
station's authorized service area, rather than intended to extend 
service to communities outside that area. We therefore decline to 
provide interference protection to DTS signals in areas beyond the 
authorized service area. Thus, our interference protections, and the 
existing relative status of primary, secondary, and unlicensed users in 
the television spectrum, remain unchanged. DTS signals will continue to 
receive no interference protection in spillover areas; nor are stations 
obligated to protect secondary and unlicensed users from interference 
in the spillover area. Accordingly, the rule change we adopt does not 
modify or enlarge the area within which a DTV station is protected from 
interference. In addition, we do not believe that the fact that the 
Television White Spaces (TVWS) database already protects DTS 
transmissions that spill over beyond a station's authorized service 
area requires us to make an affirmative statement that DTS receivers 
are not protected from harmful interference beyond the DTV station/DTS 
reference point's service area defined by its 41 dBu F(50,90) contour. 
However, we direct the Media Bureau and the Office of Engineering and 
Technology to work with relevant stakeholders to ensure that DTS 
operations and the TVWS database, respectively, are being implemented 
consistent with all applicable FCC rules and decisions.
    33. In addition, we decline to provide additional protection to 
noncommercial and educational (NCE) FM stations by requiring full 
service emission mask filters in the construction and operation of DTS 
facilities for DTV Channel 6 stations, like those required for DTV 
channels 14 and 17. To the extent there is a concern about the 
potential for interference between NCE FM stations and newly permitted 
spillover outside a DTV Channel 6 station's authorized service area, 
the rule we adopt allows for less spillover than the initial proposal, 
which should reduce the chances of such interference events occurring.
    34. Other Issues. We conclude that no rule changes other than the 
ones specified herein are currently necessary to implement our revised 
approach. For example, we note that the rule we adopt does not, in and 
of itself, do anything to change a station's carriage rights. Following 
our rule change, stations will continue to enjoy all the rights they 
have, or could pursue, today by increasing coverage through the use of 
a single-transmitter facility. Because full power stations have market-
wide carriage rights, their expansion of coverage within their DMAs 
should not raise market modification issues. Moreover, there are 
several, nonexclusive statutory factors the Commission considers in 
deciding whether to grant or deny such market modification requests, of 
which the scope of a station's signal is but one.
    35. Beyond the primary issue of revising the spillover rule to 
facilitate the siting of DTS transmitters, the NPRM also sought comment 
on issues related to the implementation of revised DTS rules. For 
example, the Commission asked whether it should revise its licensing 
process for DTS sites shared by multiple licensees, change any of its 
forms or licensing systems, impose additional power restrictions on DTS 
transmitters, include a certification requirement on DTS applications, 
or adjust its technical requirements. Given that we are making only 
modest, targeted modifications to the DTS rules

[[Page 21223]]

in this document, we decline to make general changes to our 
implementation of the DTS rules. We further find we can evaluate better 
the need for any changes after we see what kinds of networks 
broadcasters deploy in light of our action and whether and how our 
processes could be improved to support that deployment. Thus, as we 
gain experience with this new rule, we will adjust our processes as 
necessary.
    36. Finally, we do not require broadcasters switching to and using 
DTS to take any specific action with respect to their television 
translators. One of the benefits of DTS is the more efficient use of 
spectrum that can be achieved by using DTS transmitters instead of 
television translators because DTS transmitters broadcast on the same 
channel as the main transmitter. We will not require a full power 
broadcaster adding DTS facilities to relinquish its translator channel, 
if it has one, to an LPTV station affected by DTS interference and to 
reimburse the LPTV station for the costs of moving to the relinquished 
channel or another channel. We find such a requirement would be heavy-
handed and unwarranted at this time, particularly given the uncertainty 
regarding the extent to which broadcasters will make use of DTS as a 
replacement for television translators.
    37. Use of DTS by Low Power Stations: In addition to affording full 
power television stations greater flexibility and certainty in siting 
DTS transmitters, we also ease the way for Class A, LPTV, and 
television translator stations (low power stations) to pursue DTS 
operations. We eliminate the requirement that these stations must apply 
for DTS facilities on an experimental basis prior to operation. Rather, 
in order to allow low power stations to pursue DTS operations in a 
manner similar to full power stations, we adopt a rule with a contour-
based limit defining acceptable DTS spillover, taking into account the 
technical differences between full power and low power services. 
Specifically, as discussed below, we will permit low power stations to 
employ DTS facilities so long as such facilities meet the following 
conditions: First, DTS transmitters must be located within the 
authorized F(50,90) contour for the station, and second, the F(50,50) 
contour of each DTS must be contained within the station's F(50,50) 
contour based on currently authorized technical parameters (as opposed 
to an authorized service area drawn according to a Table of Distances). 
In so doing, we give low power stations the same flexibility of a 
streamlined licensing process as we give full power stations.
    38. We note that the rules already allow licensees of multiple 
digital Class A, LPTV, and/or television translator stations to operate 
on a non-experimental basis through interconnected single frequency DTS 
networks, i.e., to operate a network of stations co-channel using their 
multiple licenses. In 2008, the Commission approved the use of DTS 
technologies on an experimental basis by a single low power station to 
provide service within its authorized service area, finding that there 
was not an adequate record at that time to resolve the technical issues 
for LPTV stations as they differ from full power television stations. 
The Commission further concluded at that time that there was 
insufficient interest in DTS among individual low power stations; that 
LPTV stations serve smaller geographic areas than full power stations, 
making the likelihood of needing DTS to provide service relatively low; 
and that Class A and LPTV stations, which were not subject to the 2009 
DTV transition, did not have the same urgent need for DTS to provide 
post-transition service. The Commission indicated that it would revisit 
its decision if circumstances changed.
    39. On balance and based on the record before us, we find that 
changes in the marketplace following the DTV transition, including the 
evolution of the ATSC 3.0 transmission standard, have made the use of 
DTS more attractive for low power stations today, despite their smaller 
service areas. There is now sufficient indication of a demonstrated 
interest in DTS among Class A and LPTV stations and evidence that the 
ability to provide DTS service would improve their service. We find 
that deployment of DTS by low power stations offers potential benefits 
to consumers, including by facilitating the deployment of ATSC 3.0 
services. In light of these changed circumstances, we eliminate the 
requirement that low power stations must apply for DTS facilities on an 
experimental basis and allow these stations to employ DTS facilities 
provided that such facilities comply with the contour-based limit 
defining acceptable DTS spillover we adopt herein.
    40. In crafting an approach for low power stations, we note that 
there are some important differences between full power and low power 
stations that we must take into account. Most notably, the LPTV 
services do not rely currently on the Table of Distances, either with 
respect to service area distance or interference contour distance. In 
part, this is because low power stations do not have antenna height 
limitations, making it difficult to readily establish a Table of 
Distances for them. In addition, the concept of the largest station in 
the market, which affords full power stations an additional metric by 
which they can establish authorized service, does not apply to low 
power stations. Accordingly, the Table of Distances and the largest 
station in the market constructs discussed above for full power DTS 
operations do not apply to these stations. Rather, we require that the 
DTS facilities of low power stations be contained within the station's 
authorized F(50,90) and F(50,50) contours as follows. First, DTS 
transmitters must be located within the authorized F(50,90) contour for 
the station. Second, the F(50,50) contour of each DTS must be contained 
within the station's F(50,50) contour. As discussed above, the F(50,50) 
curve can be considered as representative of an area in which most of 
the people could view a DTV signal a substantial amount of the time. 
Accordingly, we find that it makes sense to limit spillover service to 
this area, an area that likely already experiences some level of 
reception from the existing non-DTS facility and thus may already have 
viewership of the station. In this way, we define the permissible 
spillover for the low power service and afford LPTV stations greater 
flexibility to more easily deploy DTS facilities.
    41. We note that shifting from authorizing LPTV DTS facilities on a 
case-by-case, experimental basis to licensing under a codified rule 
applicable to all low power stations will require a modification of a 
number of processes, including FCC forms, the Licensing and Management 
System (LMS), and engineering review applicable to low power stations. 
Accordingly, we direct the Media Bureau and the Office of Engineering 
and Technology to take the practical steps necessary to implement the 
rule change we adopt in this document, including the modification of 
applicable forms (including Schedules C, D, E, and F of FCC Form 2100) 
and the revision of TVStudy. In the interim, we will continue to 
process DTS requests for LPTV and Class A stations on a case-by-case 
basis, filed as a request for Special Temporary Authority (STA), using 
the guidelines we establish in this document. We decline to consider an 
approval process for DTS transmitters for LPTVs that would require 
either no application or a blanket application for lower power LPTV DTS 
transmitters.
    42. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended

[[Page 21224]]

(RFA), see 5 U.S.C. 604, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) relating to this Order.
    43. Paperwork Reduction Analysis. This document contains 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 section 3507(d) 
of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be 
invited to comment on the new or modified information collection 
requirements contained in this proceeding. 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), we previously sought specific 
comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.
    44. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of our 
rule changes easing limitations on the placement of DTS transmitters by 
full power and low power television stations and find that these 
changes do not impose new burdens on businesses with fewer than 25 
employees.
    45. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will submit this draft 
Report & Order to the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for concurrence 
that this rule is ``non-major'' under the Congressional Review Act, 5 
U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Order to Congress 
and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).
    46. Additional Information. For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Ty Bream, Media Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, 
at [email protected] or (202) 418-0644.
    47. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: As required by the RFA, 
as amended, see 5 U.S.C. 603, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the NPRM in this proceeding. The 
Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, 
including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received no comments on 
the IRFA. This present FRFA conforms to the RFA. See 5 U.S.C. 604.
    48. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order. This Order 
adopts a technical modification to the Commission's rules governing the 
use of a distributed transmission system (DTS), or single frequency 
network (SFN), by a broadcast television station. Specifically, the 
Order replaces the current restriction that prohibits DTS signals from 
spilling over beyond a station's authorized service area by more than a 
``minimal amount,'' see 47 CFR 73.626(f)(2), with a clearer, service-
based approach that allows broadcasters greater flexibility in locating 
DTS transmitters, so long as, for UHF stations, the 41 dBu F(50,50) 
contour for each DTS transmitter does not exceed the reference 
station's 41 dBu F(50,50) contour. A 41 dBu F(50,50) contour refers to 
a boundary at which a signal is predicted to exceed 41 dBu at 50% of 
locations 50% of the time. We provide corresponding dBu values for 
F(50,50) limiting contours for Low and High VHF stations in the revised 
Table of Distances. Those values are 28 dBu for Low VHF and 36 dBu for 
High VHF. Consistent with the current approach, DTS transmissions will 
not be entitled to interference protection beyond a station's 
authorized service area. The decision to replace the current, 
subjective spillover standard with a bright-line rule that both expands 
and clarifies the permissible range of spillover will not only promote 
DTS use by facilitating more efficient and more economical siting of 
DTS transmitters, but it also will establish a clearly defined limit 
that will promote regulatory certainty. Consistent with the goal of 
addressing technical issues that may impede the adoption of DTS 
technology, the Order concludes that modestly easing limitations on DTS 
transmitters and providing additional clarity in our rules can help 
unlock the potential of DTS at this crucial time when many stations are 
considering migrating to the next generation broadcast television 
standard (ATSC 3.0). As the record in this proceeding demonstrates, 
affording broadcasters greater flexibility in the placement of DTS 
transmitters can allow them to enhance signal capabilities and fill 
coverage gaps, improve indoor and mobile reception, and increase 
spectrum efficiency by reducing the need for television translator 
stations operating on separate channels.
    49. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in 
Response to the IRFA. There were no comments to the IRFA filed.
    50. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act 
of 2010, which amended the RFA, 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. 5 
U.S.C. 604(a)(3). The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in 
response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
    51. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Rules 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 proposed rules, if adopted. 5 
U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' 
as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 
601(6). In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning 
as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. 5 
U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of ``small 
business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). 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.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 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. 5 U.S.C. 632. Application of the statutory 
criteria of dominance in its field of operation and independence are 
sometimes difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television. 
Accordingly, the Commission's statistical account of television 
stations may be over-inclusive.
    52. Television Broadcasting. The rule changes adopted would apply 
to television broadcast licensees and potential licensees of television 
stations using DTS. This Economic Census category ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with 
sound.'' 13 CFR 121.201 (2012), NAICS Code 515120. These establishments 
operate television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming 
and transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also 
produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast 
television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public 
on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own 
studio, from an affiliated network, or

[[Page 21225]]

from external sources. The SBA has created the following small business 
size standard for such businesses: Those having $41.5 million or less 
in annual receipts. The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in 
this category operated in that year. Of this number, 656 had annual 
receipts of less than $25 million. See U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. 
EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series--Establishment and Firm Size: 
Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012 (Jan. 8, 2016), 
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table. Based on this 
data we therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television 
broadcasters are small entities under the applicable SBA size standard.
    53. Additionally, the Commission has estimated the number of 
licensed commercial television stations to be 1,368. See Press Release, 
FCC, Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30, 2020 (MB Oct. 2, 
2020) (Broadcast Station Totals), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-367270A1.pdf. Of this total, 1,174 stations (or 85.8%) 
had revenues of $41.5 million or less, according to Commission staff 
review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database 
(BIA) based on 2019 revenue data, and therefore these licensees qualify 
as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission 
estimates the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) 
television stations to be 390. The Commission does not compile and does 
not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that 
would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as 
small entities.
    54. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern 
qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition, business (control) 
affiliations must be included. ``[Business concerns] are affiliates of 
each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the 
other or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control 
both.'' 13 CFR 21.103(a)(1). Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates 
the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, 
because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or 
aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, another 
element of the definition of ``small business'' requires that an entity 
not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time 
to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a 
specific television broadcast station is dominant in its field of 
operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules 
may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition 
of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-
inclusive.
    55. Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations. The rule changes 
adopted would apply to and/or impact licensees and potential licensees 
of Class A stations, LPTV stations, and TV translator stations, as well 
as to potential licensees in these television services. The same SBA 
definition that applies to television broadcast licensees would apply 
to these stations. As noted above, the SBA defines such businesses as a 
small business if they have $41.5 million or less in annual receipts. 
13 CFR 121.201 (2012), NAICS Code 515120.
    56. There are 386 Class A stations. Given the nature of these 
services, the Commission presumes that all of these stations qualify as 
small entities under the applicable SBA size standard. In addition, 
there are 1,860 LPTV stations and 3,543 TV translator stations. Given 
the nature of these services as secondary and in some cases purely a 
``fill-in'' service, we will presume that all of these entities qualify 
as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard. We 
note, however, that under the SBA's definition, revenue of affiliates 
that are not LPTV stations should be aggregated with the LPTV station 
revenues in determining whether a concern is small. Our estimate may 
thus overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figure on 
which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from non-LPTV 
affiliated companies. We do not have data on revenues of TV translator 
or TV booster stations, but virtually all of these entities are also 
likely to have revenues of less than $41.5 million and thus may be 
categorized as small, except to the extent that revenues of affiliated 
non-translator or booster entities should be considered.
    57. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements. In this section, we identify the reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements imposed by the Order 
and consider whether small entities are affected disproportionately by 
any such requirements. As discussed above, this Order relaxes the 
current restriction that prohibits DTS signals from spilling over 
beyond a station's authorized service area by more than a ``minimal 
amount.'' Specifically, the Order adopts a service-based approach that 
allows broadcasters to extend their DTS transmissions out to their 41 
dBu F(50,50) contour. This rule change replaces the imprecise ``minimal 
amount'' standard with a clearly defined limit that will promote 
regulatory certainty. In so doing, we note that the use of DTS is at 
the discretion of the broadcast licensee. Thus, the Order does not 
impose any new mandatory reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance 
requirements for small entities, unless such entities, i.e., licensees, 
choose to use DTS. The Order therefore will not impose additional 
obligations or expenditure of resources on small businesses. However, 
we note that the adoption of the proposed rules may require 
modification of current requirements and processes for entities that 
choose to use DTS, such as modification of FCC forms, including, but 
not limited to, Schedules A and B of FCC Form 2100. The Order delegates 
to the Media Bureau the authority to update FCC forms to conform with 
the adopted rule changes.
    58. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an 
agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small 
entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; 
and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 
for small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
    59. The premise of the rules is to facilitate DTS deployment by TV 
broadcasters, large and small alike, and thereby benefit their viewers. 
Among other benefits, easing limitations on DTS transmitters will help 
unlock the potential of DTS to extend service throughout a station's 
coverage area, to improve indoor and mobile reception, and to increase 
spectrum efficiency by reducing the need for television translators 
using separate channels.
    60. In this proceeding, the Commission has three chief alternatives 
available for the DTS rule for full power stations--retaining the rule 
in its existing form, modifying the rule as proposed in the Petition 
(proposed approach), or modifying the rule in a manner that avoids the 
technical omission in the Petition's proposed rule (bright-line rule). 
The Commission finds that the public interest and technical and 
marketplace realities support

[[Page 21226]]

relaxing the DTS rule by enacting the bright-line rule. A further 
internal analysis of the NPRM proposal revealed that it does not 
account for the additive effect of DTS transmissions and thus 
underestimates its potential interference impact. The bright-line 
approach set forth below remedies that technical omission and provides 
broadcasters ample leeway to improve coverage, with less interference 
risk to other spectrum users. Further, the additional DTS flexibility 
it offers will facilitate the deployment of ATSC 3.0 and its many 
anticipated consumer benefits, such as enhanced over-the-air 
programming, mobile viewing capabilities, geo-targeting of emergency 
alerts, and advanced data services supported by broadband connectivity.
    61. For low power stations, the Commission has two chief 
alternatives--retaining the requirement that these stations must apply 
for DTS facilities on an experimental basis prior to operation or 
eliminating the requirement. In order to allow low power stations to 
pursue DTS operations in a manner similar to full power stations, the 
Order eliminates the requirement and adopts a rule with a contour-based 
limit defining acceptable DTS spillover, taking into account the 
technical differences between full power and low power services. 
Specifically, the Order will permit low power stations to employ DTS 
facilities so long as such facilities meet the following conditions: 
First, DTS transmitters and their resulting contours must be located 
within the authorized F(50,90) contour for the station, and second, the 
F(50,50) contour of each DTS must be contained within the F(50,50) 
contour for the station's authorized service area (as opposed to an 
authorized service area drawn according to a Table of Distances).
    62. Report to Congress. The Commission will send a copy of this 
Order, including this FRFA, in a report to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In 
addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including the 
FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.
    63. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule. None.
    64. Ordering Clauses: Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to 
the authority found in sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 
316, 319, 324, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 324 
and 336, this Order is adopted.
    65. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in 
sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 324, and 336 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 
301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 324 and 336, the Commission's 
rules are amended, effective May 24, 2021, except for those rules and 
requirements involving Paperwork Reduction Act burdens, which shall 
become effective on the effective date announced in the Federal 
Register document announcing OMB approval.
    66. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.
    67. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Section 801(a)(1)(A) of 
the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission 
shall send a copy of the Order to Congress and to the Government 
Accountability Office.
    68. It is further ordered that, should no petitions for 
reconsideration or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, MB 
Docket No. 20-74 shall be terminated and its docket closed.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

    Radio, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

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

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

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

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


0
2. Effective May 24, 2021, amend Sec.  73.626 by revising paragraphs 
(c) introductory text and (f)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  73.626  DTV Distributed Transmission Systems.

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

                                                                Table 1 to Paragraph (c)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Distance from reference point     Reference                            Node
                                                       Service field  --------------------------------   interference    Distance from     interfering
             Channel                     Zone          strength (dBu)                                   field strength  reference point   field strength
                                                                        F(50,90) (km)   F(50,50) (km)       (dBu)        F(50,10) (km)    F(50,10) (dBu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-6.............................  1.................               28             108             132               28              183             18.8
2-6.............................  2 and 3...........               28             128             158               28              209             18.8
7-13............................  1.................               36             101             121               33              182             23.8
7-13............................  2 and 3...........               36             123             149               33              208             23.8
14-36...........................  1, 2, and 3.......               41             103             142               36              246             26.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) Each DTS transmitter's coverage is contained within either the 
DTV station's Table of Distances area (pursuant to paragraph (c) of 
this section) or its authorized service area, except where such 
extension of coverage beyond the station's authorized service area 
meets the following criteria:
    (i) In no event shall the F(50,50) service contour of any DTS 
transmitter extend beyond that of its reference facility; and
    (ii) In no event shall the F(50,10) node-interfering contour of any 
DTS transmitter, aside from one located at the reference point, extend 
beyond the

[[Page 21227]]

F(50,10) reference-interfering contour of its reference facility; and
    (iii) In no event shall the F(50,10) reference-interfering contour 
of a facility at the reference point extend beyond the F(50,10) 
reference-interfering contour of its reference facility;
* * * * *

0
3. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec.  73.6010 by adding paragraph (e) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  73.6010  Class A TV station protected contour.

* * * * *
    (e) A digital Class A DTS station will be protected from 
interference within its Class A DTS protected area as defined by Sec.  
73.6023(d).

0
4. Delayed indefinitely, revise Sec.  73.6023 to read as follows:


Sec.  73.6023  Distributed transmission systems.

    (a) Station licensees may operate a commonly owned group of digital 
Class A stations with contiguous predicted DTV noise-limited contours 
(pursuant to Sec.  73.622(e)) on a common television channel in a 
distributed transmission system.
    (b) A Class A DTV station may be authorized to operate multiple 
synchronized transmitters on its assigned channel to provide service 
consistent with the requirements of this section. Such operation is 
called a distributed transmission system (DTS). Except as expressly 
provided in this section, Class A stations operating a DTS facility 
must comply with all rules in this part applicable to Digital Class A 
single-transmitter stations.
    (c) For purposes of compliance with this section, a digital Class A 
station's ``authorized facility'' is the facility authorized for the 
station in a license or construction permit for non-DTS, single-
transmitter-location operation. A digital Class A station's 
``authorized service area'' is defined as the area within its protected 
contour (described by Sec.  73.6010(c)) as determined using the 
authorized facility.
    (d) The protected area for each DTS transmitter is determined based 
on the F(50,90) field strength given in Sec.  73.6010(c), calculated in 
accordance with Sec.  73.625(b). The combined protected area of a Class 
A DTS station is the logical union of the protected areas of all DTS 
transmitters, that falls within the station's authorized service area 
as defined in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (e) The DTS limiting area for each DTS transmitter is determined 
using the field strength from Sec.  73.6010(c) and the F(50,50) curves.
    (f) An application proposing use of DTS will not be accepted for 
filing unless it meets all of the following conditions:
    (1) The combined protected area covers all of the applicant's 
authorized service area;
    (2) Each DTS transmitter's Class A DTS limiting contour falls 
within the authorized facility's Class A DTS limiting contour;
    (3) Each DTS transmitter's protected area is contiguous with at 
least one other DTS transmitter's protected area;
    (4) The ``combined field strength'' of all DTS transmitters in a 
network does not cause interference to another station in excess of the 
criteria specified in Sec. Sec.  73.6017, 73.6018, 73.6019, and 
73.6020. The combined field strength at a given location is determined 
by a ``root-sum-square'' calculation, in which the combined field 
strength is equal to the square root of the sum of the squared field 
strengths from each transmitter in the DTS network at that location; 
and
    (5) Each DTS transmitter must be located within the station's 
authorized service area.
    (g) All transmitters operating under a single Class A DTS license 
must follow the same digital broadcast television transmission 
standard.

PART 74--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER 
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES

0
5. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 336 and 
554.


0
6. Delayed indefinitely, add Sec.  74.720 to subpart G to read as 
follows:


Sec.  74.720  Digital low power TV distributed transmission systems.

    (a) A digital low power TV or TV translator (LPTV) station may be 
authorized to operate multiple synchronized transmitters on its 
assigned channel to provide service consistent with the requirements of 
this section. Such operation is called a distributed transmission 
system (DTS). Except as expressly provided in this section, LPTV 
stations operating a DTS facility must comply with all rules in this 
part applicable to LPTV single-transmitter stations.
    (b) For purposes of compliance with this section, a digital LPTV 
station's ``authorized facility'' is the facility authorized for the 
station in a license or construction permit for non-DTS, single-
transmitter-location operation. A digital LPTV station's ``authorized 
service area'' is defined as the area within its protected contour 
(described by Sec.  74.792) as determined using the authorized 
facility.
    (c) The protected area for each DTS transmitter is determined based 
on the F(50,90) field strength given in Sec.  74.792), calculated in 
accordance with Sec.  73.625(b) of this chapter. The combined protected 
area of an LPTV DTS station is the logical union of the protected areas 
of all DTS transmitters, that falls within the station's authorized 
service area as defined in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (d) The DTS limiting area for each DTS transmitter is determined 
using the field strength from Sec.  74.792 and the F(50,50) curves.
    (e) An application proposing use of DTS will not be accepted for 
filing unless it meets all of the following conditions:
    (1) The combined protected area covers all of the applicant's 
authorized service area;
    (2) Each DTS transmitter's LPTV DTS limiting contour falls within 
the authorized facility's LPTV DTS limiting contour;
    (3) Each DTS transmitter's protected area is contiguous with at 
least one other DTS transmitter's protected area;
    (4) The ``combined field strength'' of all DTS transmitters in a 
network does not cause interference to another station in excess of the 
criteria specified in Sec.  74.793. The combined field strength at a 
given location is determined by a ``root-sum-square'' calculation, in 
which the combined field strength is equal to the square root of the 
sum of the squared field strengths from each transmitter in the DTS 
network at that location; and
    (5) Each DTS transmitter must be located within the station's 
authorized service area.
    (f) All transmitters operating under a single LPTV DTS license must 
follow the same digital broadcast television transmission standard.

[FR Doc. 2021-05333 Filed 4-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P