Cable Television Technical and Operational Requirements

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to update technical and operational rules related to cable television systems and other multichannel video programming distributors that operate coaxial cable systems. The Commission seeks comments on rules that would update its minimum signal quality standards and signal leakage detection and monitoring for digital transmission. Additionally, the Commission proposes numerous corrections and updates to its to its cable television technical rules.

DATES:

Comments are due on or before December 10, 2012; reply comments are due on or before January 7, 2013. Written PRA comments on the proposed information collection requirements contained herein must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before December 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 12-217 by any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via email to Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202-395-5167. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For additional information on this proceeding, contact Jeffrey Neumann, Jeffrey.Neumann@fcc.gov, of the Engineering Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-7000. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 12-217, adopted and released on August 3, 2012. The full text is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

This document contains proposed information collection requirements. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the following information collection(s). Public and agency comments are due December 10, 2012.

Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

To view or obtain a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to this OMB/GSA Web page: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, and (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR as shown in the Supplementary Information section below (or its title if there is no OMB control number) and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0289.

Title: Section 76.601 Performance Tests, Section 76.1704 Proof of Performance Test Data, Section 76.1705 Performance Tests (Channels Delivered), 76.1717 Compliance with Technical Standards

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; State, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,150 respondents; 7,705 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 to 70 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; Semi-annually and Triennial reporting requirements; Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 624(e).

Total Annual Burden: 178,697 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking approval for this revised proposed information collection from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). On August 3, 2012, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Cable Television Technical and Operational Requirements, MB Docket No. 12-217; FCC 12-86. This rulemaking proposes to revise the information collection requirements that support the Commission's cable television proof-of-performance rules that would be codified at 47 CFR 76.601, as required by the 1992 Cable Act at 47 U.S.C. 624(e). Currently, the Commission's rules are designed for analog transmission; the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes creation of equivalent, digital rules. In recent years, operators transitioning away from analog cable technology have no longer been able to perform proof-of-performance testing on those systems or portions of systems. By creating equivalent, digital rules, the NPRM proposes to once again require the majority of the cable industry to meet standards.

The proposed information collection requirements for this collection are as follows:

47 CFR 76.601(b) requires the operator of each cable television system shall conduct complete performance tests of that system at least twice each calendar year (at intervals not to exceed seven months), unless otherwise noted below. The performance tests shall be directed at determining the extent to which the system complies with all the technical standards set forth in § 76.605 and shall be as follows:

(1) For cable television systems with 1,000 or more subscribers but with 12,500 or fewer subscribers, proof-of-performance tests conducted pursuant to this section shall include measurements taken at six (6) widely separated points. However, within each cable system, one additional test point shall be added for every additional 12,500 subscribers or fraction thereof (e.g., 7 test points if 12,501 to 25,000 subscribers; 8 test points if 25,001 to 37,500 subscribers, etc.). In addition, for technically integrated portions of cable systems that are not mechanically continuous (e.g., employing microwave connections), at least one test point will be required for each portion of the cable system served by a technically integrated hub. The proof-of-performance test points chosen shall be balanced to represent all geographic areas served by the cable system and should include at least one test point in each local franchise area. At least one-third of the test points shall be representative of subscriber terminals most distant from the system input and from each microwave receiver (if microwave transmissions are employed), in terms of cable length. The measurements may be taken at convenient monitoring points in the cable network: provided, that data shall be included to relate the measured performance of the system as would be viewed from a nearby subscriber terminal. An identification of the instruments, including the makes, model numbers, and the most recent date of calibration, a description of the procedures utilized, and a statement of the qualifications of the person performing the tests shall also be included.

(2) Proof-of-performance tests to determine the extent to which a cable television system complies with the standards set forth in § 76.605(b)(3), (4), and (5) shall be made on each of the National Television System Committee (NTSC), or the analog television broadcast standard, or similar video channels of that system. Unless otherwise noted, proof-of-performance tests for all other standards in § 76.605 (b) shall be made on a minimum of five (5) channels for systems operating a total activated channel capacity of less than 550 MHz, and ten (10) channels for systems operating a total activated channel capacity of 550 MHz or greater. The channels selected for testing must be representative of all the channels within the cable television system.

(i) The operator of each cable television system shall conduct semi-annual proof-of-performance tests of that system, to determine the extent to which the system complies with the technical standards set forth in § 76.605(b)(4) as follows. The visual signal level on each channel shall be measured and recorded, along with the date and time of the measurement, once every six hours (at intervals of not less than five hours or no more than seven hours after the previous measurement), to include the warmest and the coldest times, during a 24-hour period in January or February and in July or August.

(ii) The operator of each cable television system shall conduct triennial proof-of-performance tests of its system to determine the extent to which the system complies with the technical standards set forth in § 76.605(b)(11).

(3) Proof-of-performance tests to determine the extent to which a cable television system complies with the standards set forth in § 76.605(c)(1) shall be made on each of the Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM), or the digital cable transmission standard, or similar video channels of that system. Unless otherwise as noted, proof-of-performance tests for all other standards in § 76.605(c) shall be made on a minimum of five (5) channels for systems operating a total activated channel capacity of less than 550 MHz, and ten (10) channels for systems operating a total activated channel capacity of 550 MHz or greater. The channels selected for testing must be representative of all the channels within the cable television system.

(4) For cable televisions systems which operate both NTSC or similar and QAM of similar channels, proof-of-performance tests to determine the extent to which the cable televisions system complies with § 76.605(b)(1), (2), (6)-(11) and 76.605(c)(1) shall be apportioned relative to the proportion of channels allocated to each transmission type, except that at no time shall less than two channels of a particular type be tested.

47 CFR 76.605(e) requires that cable television systems distributing signals by methods other than 6 MHz NTSC or similar analog channels or 6 MHz QAM or similar channels on conventional coaxial or hybrid fiber-coaxial cable systems and which, because of their basic design, cannot comply with one or more of the technical standards set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, may be permitted to operate upon Commission approval on a case-by-case basis. To obtain Commission approval, the operator must submit to the Commission its own proof-of-performance plan for ensuring subscribers receive good quality signals.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0331.

Title: Aeronautical Frequency Notification, FCC Form 321.

Form Number: FCC Form 321.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,100 respondents; 1,100 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.67 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Recordkeeping requirement; One time reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 302 and 303.

Total Annual Burden: 737 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $66,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking approval for this revised proposed information collection from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). On August 3, 2012, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Cable Television Technical and Operational Requirements, MB Docket No. 12-217; FCC 12-86. This rulemaking proposes to revise the information collection requirements that support the Commission's signal leakage rules that would be codified at 47 CFR 76.1804, as required by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as codified at 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 303, 308, 309, and 621. With this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Federal Communications Commission is proposing to extend the notification requirements to operators of digital systems at lower thresholds than those required under existing, analog rules. Currently, operators are required to file FCC Form 321 to notify the Commission when they operate at a power above a particular threshold. This threshold was designed to protect over-the-air users of the spectrum from interference from analog cable systems. The NPRM proposes to adopt a lower threshold for digital systems in order to provide over-the-air users of the spectrum with an equivalent level of protection.

The NPRM proposes to create a digital equivalency for the Commission's analog rules. As a result, these rules are designed to capture the same respondents previously covered by the Commission's analog rules, but who have transitioned, or are transitioning, to digital operation. Further, this digital equivalency is designed to take an equivalent amount of time to fulfill. As a result, absent external factors, the hourly estimated burden will not change as a result of this NPRM (there will not be an increase or decrease to the hourly burden). However, widespread industry consolidation has resulted in fewer, though larger, respondents, resulting in a decrease in the total number of estimated responses.

The NPRM does not propose that the information to be submitted on the form be changed. The proposed information collection requirements for this collection are as follows: Section 76.1804 states a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) shall notify the Commission before transmitting any carrier of other signal component with an average power level across a 30 kHz bandwidth in any 2.5 millisecond time period equal to or greater than 10⁻⁵ watts at any point in the cable distribution system on any new frequency or frequencies in the aeronautical radio frequency bands (108-137 MHz, 225-400 MHz). The notification shall be made on FCC Form 321 . Such notification shall include:

(a) Legal name and local address of the MVPD;

(b) The names and FCC identifiers (e.g., CA0001) of the system communities affected, for a cable system, and the name and FCC identifier (e.g., CAB901), for other MVPDs;

(c) The names and telephone numbers of local system officials who are responsible for compliance with §§ 76.610 through 76.616 and § 76.1803;

(d) Carrier frequency, tolerance, and type of modulation of all carriers in the aeronautical bands at any location in the cable distribution system and the maximum of those average powers measured over a 2.5 kHz bandwidth as described in the introductory paragraph to this rule section;

(e) The geographical coordinates (in NAD83) of a point near the center of the system, together with the distance (in kilometers) from the designated point to the most remote point of the plant, existing or planned, that defines a circle enclosing the entire plant;

(f) Certification that the monitoring procedure used is in compliance with § 76.614 or description of the routine monitoring procedure to be used; and

(g) For MVPDs subject to § 76.611, the cumulative signal leakage index derived under § 76.611(a)(1) or the results of airspace measurements derived under § 76.611(a)(2), including a description of the method by which compliance with the basic signal leakage criteria is achieved and the method of calibrating the measurement equipment.

(h) Aeronautical Frequency Notifications, FCC Form 321, shall be personally signed either electronically or manually by the operator; by one of the partners, if the operator is a partnership; by an officer, if the operator is a corporation; by a member who is an officer, if the operator is an unincorporated association; or by any duly authorized employee of the operator.

(i) Aeronautical Frequency Notifications, FCC Form 321, may be signed by the operator's attorney in case of the operator's physical disability or of his absence from the United States. The attorney shall in that event separately set forth the reasons why the FCC Form 321 was not signed by the operator. In addition, if any matter is stated on the basis of the attorney's belief only (rather than the attorney's knowledge), the attorney shall separately set forth the reasons for believing that such statements are true.

(j) The FCC Registration Number (FRN).

OMB Control Number: 3060-0332.

Title: Section 76.614, Cable Television System Regular Monitoring, and Section 76.1706, Signal Leakage Logs and Repair Records.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,000 respondents; 5,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.0167-0.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 302 and 303.

Total Annual Burden: 3,502 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking approval for this revised proposed information collection from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). On August 3, 2012, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Cable Television Technical and Operational Requirements, MB Docket No. 12-217; FCC 12-86. This rulemaking proposes to revise information collection 3060-0332 which supports the Commission's signal leakage monitoring, logging and repair rules that are codified at 47 CFR 76.614 and 76.1706, as required by the obligation to manage the radio frequency spectrum, as codified at 47 U.S.C. 302 and 303. Currently, § 76.614 requires cable operators to monitor for leaks which exceed a particular threshold. This threshold was designed to protect over-the-air users of the spectrum from interference from analog cable systems. The NPRM proposes to adopt a lower threshold for digital systems in order to provide over-the-air users of the spectrum with an equivalent level of protection.

The NPRM proposes to create a digital equivalency for the Commission's analog rules. As a result, these rules are designed to capture the same respondents previously covered by the Commission's analog rules, but who have transitioned, or are transitioning, to digital operation. Further, this digital equivalency is designed to take an equivalent amount of time to fulfill. As a result, absent external factors, the hourly estimated burden will not change as a result of this NPRM (there will not be an increase or decrease to the hourly burden). However, widespread industry consolidation has resulted in fewer, though larger, respondents, resulting in a decrease in the total number of estimated responses.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0433.

Title: Basic Signal Leakage Performance Report, FCC Form 320.

Form Number: FCC Form 320.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,550 respondents; 5,550 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 20 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Recordkeeping requirement; Annual reporting requirement.

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 302 and 303.

Total Annual Burden: 111,000 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking approval for this revised proposed information collection from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). On August 3, 2012, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 12-217; FCC 12-86. This rulemaking proposes to revise information collection 3060-0433 which supports the Commission's cumulative signal leakage calculation and reporting rules that would be codified at 47 CFR 76.611 and 76.1803, as required by the obligation to manage the radio frequency spectrum, as codified at 47 U.S.C. 302 and 303. With this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Federal Communications Commission is proposing that operators of digital cable systems calculate and report leakage at different thresholds than those required of analog systems. Currently, § 76.611 requires operators of coaxial-cable television systems to tabulate leaks above a certain threshold, and prohibits them from operating if the accumulated leaks exceed a particular number. These thresholds were designed to protect over-the-air users of the spectrum from interference from analog cable systems. The NPRM proposes to adopt a lower thresholds for digital systems in order to provide over-the-air users of the spectrum with an equivalent level of protection.

The NPRM does not propose that the form submitted pursuant to Section 76.1803 be changed. The NPRM proposes to create a digital equivalency for the Commission's analog rules. As a result, these rules are designed to capture the same respondents previously covered by the Commission's analog rules, but who have transitioned, or are transitioning, to digital operation. Further, this digital equivalency is designed to take an equivalent amount of time to fulfill. As a result, absent external factors, the hourly estimated burden will not change as a result of this NPRM (there will not be an increase or decrease to the hourly burden). However, widespread industry consolidation has resulted in fewer, though larger, respondents, resulting in a decrease in the total number of estimated responses.

Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

1. With this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), we propose to update our cable television technical rules to facilitate the cable industry's widespread transition from analog to digital transmission systems. Specifically, we seek comment on our proposals to modernize and modify the Commission's proof-of-performance rules and basic signal leakage performance criteria. In addition, we propose modifications throughout Part 76 to remove outdated language, correct citations, and make other minor or non-substantive updates. This NPRM promotes the goals of Executive Order 13579 and the Commission's plan adopted thereto, whereby the Commission analyzes rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome and determines whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed. As set forth below, we seek to adopt clear and effective rules that reflect technological advancements in the cable television industry, and apply them to cable operators in a way that is minimally burdensome.

II. Background

2. The cable television industry is rapidly transitioning to digital service. The vast majority of cable system operators offer digital service, and several cable system operators have already migrated to “all-digital” service. Today, more than 80 percent of cable customers subscribe to some level of digital service, and that percentage is expected to increase to 84 percent by the end of this year. Cable television operators' transition to more efficient digital technology has freed up their limited bandwidth so they can offer new and improved products and services, such as high-definition (“HD”) video programming, high-speed Internet access, and digital voice services. For this reason, we expect most cable operators will eventually transition to all-digital systems. Accordingly, in this NPRM, we propose revisions and updates to our technical standards that would apply to the operation of “all-digital” and “hybrid” cable systems.

3. We specifically examine several of our technical rules ranging from those that ensure cable customers receive a good quality signal to those that protect spectrum users from interference by cable systems. This examination is necessary because our cable television technical rules were largely established when analog technology was predominant and digital technology was rare. As a result, our current rules treat the use of digital technology as an exception rather than the rule. For example, our current proof-of-performance (or signal quality) rules permit cable operators that use “non-conventional” technologies (i.e., non-analog) to file individual waivers in which the Commission might substitute alternative technical standards to ensure a good quality signal. The Commission has received several such petitions based on cable operators transitioning to all-digital operation. Instead of addressing these issues on a case-by-case basis, however, we believe that it is necessary to establish clear and generally applicable technical rules governing the signal quality of digital channels. In the cumulative signal leakage context, our existing rules require multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) operating coaxial cable systems to protect certain aeronautical frequencies from interference by analog signals, but provide no guidance about how to provide aeronautical protection from their digital signals. Additionally, we address numerous technical rules that have become outdated as a result of external factors. By addressing the gaps in our rules arising from these industry changes, we intend to provide operators with greater certainty regarding the standards that must be met in order to establish a good quality signal. In addition, updating our rules will help protect aeronautical distress and safety frequencies from interference and, at the same time, allow operators to utilize their spectrum more efficiently.

4. Proof-of-Performance. The Commission has maintained technical standards since 1972 to govern the signal quality cable television systems deliver to consumers. Our rules focus on the electrical characteristics of analog television signals and set thresholds for numerous aspects of the signals when measured at subscribers' terminals to ensure that subscribers receive good quality cable signals. These standards, plus the requirement that operators test their systems and maintain the results of these tests in their public files, are collectively called “proof-of-performance” rules. The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 added section 624(e) of the Communications Act to establish a statutory mandate for cable TV signal quality standards. The statute requires the Commission to “update such standards periodically to reflect improvements in technology.” Since 1992, the Commission has adopted slight modifications to these rules, but the underlying assumption of the rules, analog transmission technology, remains unchanged.

5. When the Commission adopted the current technical standards in 1992, it declined to extend the standards to the then-nascent practice of delivering cable television using digital signals. The Commission explained that technical standards for “digital transmission techniques * * * may be vastly different than those for analog NTSC signals,” but that it “retain[s] authority * * * to address this issue at a later time should the adoption of technical standards * * * appear necessary or desirable.” Since the analog rules were adopted in 1992, an increasing number of cable television systems have adopted digital delivery technologies. The majority of digital signals today are being delivered digitally via quadrature amplitude modulation (“QAM”) over hybrid fiber-coax (“HFC”) cable plant. Non-QAM digital cable systems have also emerged, though in far smaller numbers than QAM/HFC systems, and primarily utilize Internet Protocol (“IP”) delivery over either fiber-optic cable or DSL-based transmission over twisted-pair copper wires. Most recently, QAM-based operators have begun trials of DOCSIS-based IP delivery of cable service over HFC cable plant. Therefore, in this NPRM, we propose to establish proof-of performance rules that specifically address these advances in digital technology.

6. Cable Signal Leakage—Protection of Aeronautical Channels. In addition to the minimum technical standards for signal quality, the Commission maintains a comprehensive testing, reporting, and repair regime to address the issue of interference caused by unintentional emissions from MVPDs. Established in 1984 after the Commission convened an advisory committee on the issue, the signal leakage rules require MVPDs that operate coaxial cable plants (specifically, what are commonly referred to as “cable systems” as well as additional “non-cable” systems) and use the designated aeronautical communications bands at 108 to 137 MHz and 225 to 400 MHz to notify the Commission prior to doing so and to begin a regimen of routine monitoring to identify and correct any instances of signal leakage. These rules were established prior to the current widespread deployment of digital cable technology by cable and non-cable operators, and must be updated to provide adequate protection to aeronautical frequencies. Specifically, with regard to the “offset” requirement for analog signals, the Commission must account for the inability of digital signals to be “offset” relative to aeronautical channels and the implications this has on the interference potential of the signals. In this NPRM, we propose adjustments to our various signal leakage thresholds and modify our procedures for systems utilizing digital transmission to provide adequate protection of the aeronautical channels.

III. Discussion

7. Below, we seek comment on proposed modifications to our cable television technical rules to specifically address the provision of digital cable service. The Commission especially seeks comment on the costs and benefits of the rule changes proposed below, along with data supporting the assessments. The Commission further welcomes comment on any other technical rules that may have become unworkable or ineffective as a result of the transition to digital, the diversification of transmission technologies now employed by the cable industry, or other developments in technology.

A. Proof of Performance

8. Our proof-of-performance rules require a cable operator to provide a good quality signal to its customers and enable the Commission to evaluate compliance with this requirement. These rules include the following: Section 76.601 (testing requirement), § 76.605 (technical standards), § 76.609 (methods and requirements for performing the tests), §§ 76.1704 and 76.1705 (recordkeeping requirements), and § 76.1713 (process for resolving complaints regarding signal quality). In keeping with our statutory mandate to update our proof-of-performance rules to reflect improvements in technology, we seek comment on updating these rules as they apply to QAM digital systems and non-QAM digital systems. In addition, we consider testing and recordkeeping issues, such as how many points in a system must be tested, how many channels on a system must be tested, and certain ancillary issues.

9. In this NPRM, we specifically address the issue of how to establish digital proof of performance standards that are similar in function to the analog proof of performance standards we adopted in the 1992 Order. At the time of the 1992 Order, analog cable transmission was predominant and possessed uniform characteristics, which made adoption of technical standards relatively straightforward. As mentioned above, today, QAM transmission is the dominant form of digital cable transmission. Unlike analog cable transmission, however, QAM is not uniform and may appear in a variety of configurations such as 64 QAM, 256 QAM, and potentially 1024 QAM, each requiring different performance standards. Further, non-QAM digital systems using such technologies as VDSL, ADSL2+, or transmitting via fiber-optic cables, now make up an increasing percentage of digital systems. We are also confronted with the potential decoupling of the concept of signals of “good technical quality” (i.e., a highly reliable signal) from the concept of signals of “good visual quality.” In analog transmission, operators would replicate the exact electrical signal provided by the programming provider and the primary factor impacting signal quality was the quality of the electrical transmission (i.e., a highly reliable signal provides good visual quality). In contrast, with digital transmission, operators will often re-compress the signal to relieve capacity constraints or support different devices. If the operator is too aggressive in this re-compression, or if the signal processing equipment in the head-end introduces errors, a viewer may perceive a poor quality of video even though the transmission is perfect. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether we should consider qualitative measures to assess consumer perceptions of video quality. We seek specific comment on the pros and cons of adopting subjective consumer perception measures as opposed to or in addition to adopting objective measurements for assessing signal quality. Overall, we seek to develop the optimal approach to ensure that digital cable subscribers receive good quality signals, while imposing a minimal regulatory burden on cable operators, and we seek comment on the costs and benefits associated with our proposals.

1. Standards for QAM-Based Digital Cable Systems

10. We propose to adopt the standard established by the Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers, the SCTE 40 Digital Cable Network Interface Standard, as the signal quality standard for QAM-based digital cable systems and, in addition, propose to require testing and documentation that demonstrates compliance with the metrics associated with this standard. We tentatively conclude that the relatively straightforward SCTE 40 standard provides the best source of the digital proof-of-performance metrics. This standard is currently incorporated into our rules supporting unidirectional digital cable televisions and products, and is thus already followed by a significant portion of QAM digital cable operators. In the unidirectional CableCARD proceeding, the Commission, consumer electronics industry, and cable industry determined that standardizing certain attributes of the network would be necessary for such products to be successful. The Commission noted that such digital standards were already supported by some systems, with widespread adoption forthcoming, and that such standards encapsulated the common performance metrics well. As a result, selection of SCTE 40 2003 was unopposed by any party. For these same reasons, we believe that selecting an existing industry-developed standard and well-focused set of measurements for digital cable places little to no additional burden on cable operators yet will ensure that consumers receive good signal quality. The SCTE has subsequently updated the SCTE 40 standard and it has received the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) approval. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that we should incorporate the current version of that standard, SCTE 40 2011, into our rules as minimum signal quality standards for QAM digital cable service. We seek comment on our proposal and tentative conclusions. We also seek comment on any alternative standards that could be used to ensure a good quality digital signal.

11. We continue to believe that testing and documentation is essential to ensuring compliance and permitting effective enforcement of our proof-of-performance rules. Therefore, in addition to adopting SCTE 40 2011 as the standard for digital proof-of-performance, we propose to require QAM-based cable operators to document the successful completion of proof-of performance testing to demonstrate compliance. SCTE 40 2011 contains tables with entries detailing the metrics for compliance. We tentatively conclude that operators should perform a test for each of the entries located on those tables dealing with the delivery of cable video signals, but not those dealing with upstream or downstream data performance. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Additionally, similar to the analog context, while operators are required to comply with the standard on every applicable channel, we only propose to require operators to test all channels and document their compliance with the standard's parameters that pertain to the relationships between channels, and to test and document a subset of channels for compliance with the standard's parameters that pertain to individual channel characteristics. Thus, we propose to require the Adjacent Channel Levels (SCTE 40 2011, Table 6) and Nominal Power Levels (SCTE 40 2011, Table 5) to be tested across every QAM channel on the system. Similarly, we propose that the channel-specific standards for normal video channels contained in the Forward Application Transport table (SCTE 40 2011, Table 4) be tested only on a subset of channels. We provide more specifics on the number of channels to be sampled, as well as other aspects of testing and recordkeeping, below. We seek comment from cable operators that have implemented periodic testing procedures based on the SCTE 40 standard regarding their experiences with implementing this metric and what procedures they have put into place to measure and ensure compliance with this standard.

12. We seek comment on whether to supplement, or otherwise modify, the SCTE 40 2011 standard for purposes of establishing our digital signal quality standard. In particular, we seek comment on whether we should adopt elements of the SCTE's recent Fourth Edition of its Measurement Recommended Practices for Cable Systems (SCTE Recommended Practice). The SCTE Recommended Practice provides a comprehensive and extensive set of best practices covering nearly every potential aspect of cable operation for both analog and digital cable operators. More specifically, the SCTE Recommended Practice provides guidance to cable system operators about how to comply with the SCTE 40 standard. We recognize that, given the scope of the SCTE Recommended Practice, it may be more than is necessary to ensure digital cable consumers receive good quality signals. Nevertheless, we seek comment on whether any particular parts of the SCTE Recommended Practice would be effective as an enhancement to the SCTE 40 2011. In addition, we seek comment on whether other metrics, such as the measurement of visual signal quality or the MPEG stream would be appropriate as an enhancement to the SCTE 40 2011.

2. Non-QAM Cable Systems and Qualitative Signal Quality

13. As noted above, ready sources of widely-followed industry standards exist on which we can base our rules for digital cable transmission via QAM on hybrid fiber-coax systems. In contrast, non-QAM systems such as the fiber optic, hybrid fiber/twisted pair, and the VDSL and ADSL2+ systems do not possess uniform characteristics. Accordingly, unlike for QAM systems, the SCTE 40 standard is not relevant to non-QAM systems, nor do we have available equivalent industry standards or guidance for each particular new technology. Therefore, we seek comment on how to establish proof of performance standards for non-QAM systems that are functionally comparable to the proof of performance standards proposed above for QAM systems. Similarly, we seek comment on the testing and documentation that should be required to demonstrate compliance with performance standards for non-QAM systems. If we are not able to adopt a uniform proof-of-performance standard for non-QAM systems, we propose, as discussed below, to establish a case-by-case approach for evaluating non-QAM system signal quality.

14. We seek comment on whether there are appropriate industry standards against which to determine signal quality in non-QAM systems. In the absence of any industry-developed standards, is it possible to formulate a uniform signal quality standard, or set of standards, that could apply to the various types of non-QAM systems? In the absence of a uniform standard for measuring the electrical signal characteristics for non-QAM systems, we seek comment on alternative means to objectively measure and evaluate whether a non-QAM digital cable system is providing a “good quality signal.” We also ask commenters to address whether objective methods exist to establish if “good quality signals” are reaching cable subscribers of non-QAM systems, either as a complement to, or in place of, regulating carrier signal quality, including: (1) An analysis of errors in the transmission of the compressed video stream, (2) a means by which to measure perceived visual signal quality, (3) a combination of the two, or (4) some alternative method. For example, we ask commenters to consider whether a standard regarding transmission errors would be useful in addressing audio-related problems, such as a lack of synchronization of the audio and video signal, or closed captioning related problems, such as poor or missing caption data. In this regard, we note that the vast majority of cable systems encode video using MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 AVC. We seek comment on the potential of establishing standards based on the transmission of the compressed video stream and whether the technical qualities of the decoded signal, such as bit errors in the MPEG stream, are a possible substitute for or supplement to regulating carrier signal quality. With regard to perceived visual signal quality, we note the problem of “pixelization” or “tearing” of a video image that may occur as a result of bandwidth constraints or other non-transmission related network conditions. We seek comment on the suitability of testing visual signal quality, the availability of objective criteria, the availability of equipment, and the desirability of using metrics regarding perceived visual signal quality. Are there any entities currently analyzing and developing standards for visual signal quality? If so, please describe in detail. Finally, we seek comment on whether instead of, or in addition to, adopting objective technical requirements, there are other approaches we should consider to establish standards concerning non-QAM cable operators' signal quality.

15. To the extent that any type of uniform objective measurement is not possible to encompass the variety of existing or future non-QAM system platforms, we propose to establish a case-by-case approach whereby the non-QAM digital cable systems would demonstrate that they are providing a “good quality signal” to their customers by submitting a plan for Commission approval. As proposed for QAM systems, the non-QAM system proof-of-performance plan must include a testing and documentation component. This case-by-case approach would replace the existing case-by-case approach for cable systems using “non-conventional” techniques. We propose to require each non-QAM digital cable system to submit its own proof-of-performance plan for ensuring subscribers receive good quality signals. We envision these plans would contain a set of parameters, whether electrical signal characteristics, MPEG stream characteristics or other metrics to demonstrate signal quality. We seek comment on whether there are minimum components that each performance plan should contain. We seek to establish objective criteria that the Commission would be able to readily evaluate and that the public could comment upon. For example, should each plan contain an explanation of the technical parameters of the equipment employed, nominal error rates, or other common criteria? Are there objective criteria that are common across all non-QAM systems and that can be used to evaluate proof-of-performance submissions? We would expect that each non-QAM system will have their own internal signal quality guidelines and may wish to use these guidelines as the basis for their proof-of-performance plan. We seek comment on how the Commission should evaluate the adequacy of performance plan submissions. Should we require operators to send a copy of their plan to local franchise authorities (LFAs) with jurisdiction over the system and to provide a mechanism for LFAs to comment on such plans?

3. Testing and Recordkeeping

16. In addition to proposing to adopt a new standard for QAM-based digital cable systems and seeking comment on how to determine signal quality on non-QAM systems, we also propose some minor updates to our current proof of performance testing and recordkeeping rules. Some of these proposed changes would only affect digital systems and others would also apply to analog systems.

a. Number of Channels Tested

17. We propose to simplify the formula by which both analog and QAM digital operators determine how many channels must be tested to ensure compliance with the proof-of-performance rules regarding channel-specific characteristics. Currently, a formula exists for very small systems (systems with less than 300 MHz of activated spectrum) that requires a minimum of four channels and then adds channels as various additional blocks of spectrum are activated. We continue to believe that testing every channel is unnecessary, except for those limited tests regarding adjacent channel power limits and nominal power levels, and that testing the channel-specific characteristics is particularly burdensome for small systems with more limited resources. Therefore, we propose to revise the testing formula to reflect a more simplified approach: a cable system with a total activated channel capacity up to 550 MHz will be required to test 5 channels, and any system with a total activated channel capacity of 550 MHz or greater must test 10 channels. We believe that this proposal simplifies compliance for all operators and will continue to ensure that a sufficient representative sample of channels is tested to accurately reflect the experience consumers receive. We seek comment on this proposal.

18. Although cable operators are increasingly transitioning to all-digital systems, most cable systems still deliver both analog and digital channels. Therefore, where only a sampling of channels is called for, we propose to require operators to test each transmission format in proportion to its presence on the system. We propose that systems that deliver both analog and digital channels would be required to divide their proof-of-performance obligation between analog and digital channels proportionally with the percentage of the system that is allocated, by MHz, to each type of transmission, except that in no circumstances would fewer than two channels of a particular type be tested. We seek comment on this proposal. We believe that there are no hybrid systems operating partially analog and partially non-QAM, or partially QAM and partially non-QAM. We seek comment on whether any such systems exist and, if so, how we should address this situation.

19. Currently, our analog proof-of-performance rules only apply to each NTSC or similar downstream cable television channel. As we discuss above, we propose to require proof-of-performance testing on all QAM channels (or a subset, as appropriate), and seek comment on addressing non-QAM digital video channels. These comments should also address switched-digital channels to the extent they deliver video programming that is comparable to traditional, pre-scheduled video programming on linear channels. Traditionally, the Commission has excluded channels used for other purposes, such as video-on-demand and cable modem service. However, in some cases multiple services (e.g., both linear video and video-on-demand) may be combined in a single QAM channel. We seek comment on which QAM channels are appropriate to include in the testing requirements.

b. Number of Test Points

20. Our current rules specify testing requirements for all cable television systems, regardless of whether they are analog or digital. Specifically, two times per year, a cable operator must measure the technical characteristics contained in § 76.605 at specific points throughout its system. The ultimate number of specific test points within a system is determined by the number of subscribers to the system. Technological advancements, however, have resulted in less clear distinctions among physical components that make up a system or separate one system from another. This has resulted in the potential for subscribers to be allocable to more than one system. Additionally, the industry is increasingly moving toward consolidating headends to form regional clusters. For example, Verizon's fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) offering, FiOS, has largely done away with the notion of local headends, utilizing region-wide facilities instead.

21. We believe that the physical boundaries of a system—that is, the separation of one system from another—are not generally relevant to the purpose of proof-of-performance testing. Rather, the rules are subscriber focused, and so long as good quality signals are being delivered to subscribers, their specific origin need not be precisely defined. We propose, however, to modify the rules for the number of test points. While the Commission has preempted local franchising authorities from establishing their own standards, local franchise authorities (LFAs) retain control over their public rights of way and have a much closer relationship with their cable operators and cable customers than does the Commission. Therefore, we propose to require that at least one test point, representative of the type of service (taking into account system architecture, channel delivery, and other technical characteristics) received by customers within that local franchise area, be located within each LFA's jurisdiction. We seek comment on the appropriate course of action if the number of LFAs exceeds the number of test points required by the existing formula. For example, should additional test points be added to the operator's obligations to equal the total number of LFAs served by that system? We seek to ensure that as system consolidation and technological innovation lead to ever larger system footprints, that our rules maintain the necessary geographic diversity and, at the same time, ensure that subscribers across an operator's system footprint receive good quality signals.

c. Recordkeeping

22. We propose to adopt recordkeeping obligations on digital cable operators identical to those placed on analog cable operators. Section 76.1704(a) of our rules provides that proof-of-performance test results shall be maintained on file at the operator's local business office for at least five years and shall be made available for inspection by the Commission or the local franchising authority, upon request. In addition, § 76.1700(a) of our rules, broadly referred to as the public file obligations of a cable operator, provides that the operator of a cable system shall either provide this information to the public upon request or maintain a public inspection file containing this information, depending on the size of the system. While we believe that the current rule has been effective, we seek comment on what, if any, changes should be made to our recordkeeping rules. For example, we seek comment on whether the rules should be modified to make these records more available or to alter the length of time records are retained.

d. Other Issues

23. We seek input regarding the extent to which a cable system's compliance with our technical standards depends on third parties. Are there factors outside of a cable system's control that could result in a degradation of signal quality? For example, to what extent does the signal quality received by cable subscribers depend on the reliability of networks controlled by third parties or on the programmer's original encoding of the material? Can a cable system contract with third parties to ensure compliance with our technical standards? What impact, if any, should a cable system's reliance on third parties have on our technical standards?

24. We also seek comment on what role, if any, set-top boxes should play in the Commission's efforts to ensure consumers receive good quality signals. There appears to be some industry confusion regarding the proper role of set-top boxes in meeting a cable operator's proof-of-performance obligations. In all-digital systems where most or all televisions require a set-top box, is it desirable to establish a testing regime which utilizes the output at the operator's leased set-top boxes as the testing point to determine whether a good quality signal is being delivered to subscribers? If so, do standards exist for the connections consumer now generally use to connect digital cable set-top boxes to televisions, such as HDMI and component video cables? Further, how could we ensure that subscribers owning non-operator-supplied set-top boxes or CableCARD-equipped televisions receive “good quality signals?”

25. Finally, we also propose to rationalize the numbering scheme in our rules to accommodate our proposed rule changes. Specifically, we propose to relocate the analog proof of performance rules in a new § 76.605(b) and create § 76.605(c) for digital rules. Section 76.605(a) will contain guidance for interpreting the rest of the section, and § 76.605(d) will contain an updated general signal leakage provision previously located in § 76.605(a)(12) that will apply both to analog and digital systems. We also propose to renumber § 76.601, to consolidate the analog instructions under § 76.601(b)(2) and the digital instructions under § 76.601(b)(3). We believe that these changes will make the rules easier to read and follow. Additionally, we propose to update the signal-to-noise requirements of a new § 76.605(b)(7), formerly § 76.605(a)(7), to reflect the completion of the transition to digital television broadcasting by amending any reference to Grade B Contour with a reference to the Noise-Limited Service Contour as the applicable, regulatory equivalent for digital broadcasting. Finally, we propose to renumber the current § 76.605(b) to § 76.605(e), to be modified as detailed below. We seek comment on these proposals.

B. Cumulative Signal Leakage

26. MVPDs that operate coaxial cable plants (“coaxial cable systems”) use frequencies allocated for myriad over-the-air services within their system. Under ideal circumstances, those signals are confined within the cable system and do not cause interference with the over-the-air users of those frequencies. However, under certain circumstances, a coaxial cable plant can “leak” and interfere with over-the-air users of spectrum. The Commission began looking at the issue of coaxial cable signal leakage in the 1970's, and in 1977 released a First Report and Order to address concerns that coaxial cable plants could leak electromagnetic radiation that could interfere with critical navigational and emergency frequencies. Specifically, the Commission was concerned with interference to the aeronautical radio frequency bands, located at 108 to 137 MHz and 225 to 400 MHz, and that interference from leaks dispersed throughout the cable plant would constructively combine to appear as a single, much larger leak to receivers passing overhead. At the time, demonstrated incidents of interference were rare. The order noted, however, that “the major reason for formulating the rules * * * is not to solve an existing problem of crisis proportions. Rather * * * [it is] because we expect that the near future is likely to bring more cable televisions systems, more extensive use of mid-band frequencies” and as a consequence, greater potential for interference. While the First Report and Order established the basic framework for signal leakage that continues to be used today, the Commission at the time recognized the need for further analysis and commissioned a federal advisory committee for this purpose.

27. In the wake of the Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Cable Signal Leakage, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order in 1984. The Second Report and Order implemented the advisory committee's recommendations and established the comprehensive signal testing regime currently in use. Importantly, the Second Report and Order affirmed the Commission's previous decision regarding the cumulative nature of leaks from cable systems and their potential for interference when aggregated by receivers in aircraft passing overhead. It also noted that reported cases of interference increased between the adoption of the First Report and Order in 1977 and the Second Report and Order in 1984, lending credence to the First Report and Order's prediction that additional interference would appear as cable deployment continued.

28. The rules established in 1984 by the Second Report and Order remained largely unchanged in the ensuing 25 years. However, in 2004, the Commission extended protection to an emergency band near 406 MHz, and set limits for interference from both analog and digital cable systems. The signal leakage rules are contained in §§ 76.610 to 76.620 (the technical rules), §§ 76.1706, 76.1803, 76.1804 (recordkeeping and reporting rules), and in § 76.605(a)(12) (a general signal leakage performance rule) of the Commission's rules. MVPDs that operate coaxial cable systems are responsible for ensuring that system design, installation and operation comply with the rules and for compliance testing four times per year. Once each year, operators of coaxial cable systems must calculate their cumulative signal leakage and report their results to the Commission. As set forth below, we seek comment on the adequacy of these rules, our proposed modifications for digital cable operations, and the costs and benefits associated with them.

1. Adapting Regulations for Digital Cable

a. Aeronautical Frequency Notifications

29. The first component of the Commission's signal leakage regime is the Aeronautical Frequency Notification (“AFN”). Prior to commencing operation in the aeronautical radio frequency bands above an average power level equal to or greater than 10⁻⁴ watts across a 25 kHz bandwidth in any 160 microsecond time period, MVPDs are required to notify the Commission and provide a “point and radius” description of their system, allowing the Commission to generally locate the geographic area from which interference might aggregate. This power threshold and measurement window were developed for analog systems, and an equivalent for digital systems must be selected.

30. We propose to use the same power threshold and measurement window to trigger the notification requirement for AFN as the power threshold and measurement window that triggers the prohibition around the 406 MHz emergency frequencies. Near the emergency distress frequencies, systems are prohibited from operating above a particular peak power level (10⁻⁵ watts over a 30 kHz bandwidth in any 2.5 millisecond time period). In the 406 MHz Order, the Commission determined that the power threshold should remain unchanged when considering interference from digital, rather than analog, coaxial cable systems, but that the measurement window needed to be adapted. Based on the relatively even distribution of power throughout the channel for digital signals, and the bandwidth of the devices receiving the interference, the Commission determined that for digital systems, a 10⁻⁵ watt average power level should be calculated across a 30 kHz bandwidth for a time period of 2.5 milliseconds. Given the similar channelization of aeronautical receivers (25 kHz for aeronautical receivers versus 24 kHz for satellite), for the AFN requirement, we tentatively conclude that the same power threshold and measurement window are appropriate.

31. Today, the vast majority of coaxial cable systems maintain an AFN on file with the Commission. The change proposed above will only affect those systems that are operating a digital channel or channels in the aeronautical band between the existing analog threshold (10⁻⁴ watts peak power over a 25 kHz bandwidth in any 160 microsecond time period) and our proposed digital threshold (10⁻⁵ watts average power over a 30 kHz bandwidth in any 2.5 millisecond time period). Under our rule proposed above, operators of those systems that were not previously required to notify the Commission will need to amend or file an AFN. We note, however, that some systems have transitioned to digital operation in these bands and “withdrawn” their AFN as a result. We believe that these systems should file a new AFN so that the Commission (for aeronautical users) and the Cospas-Sarsat (for international satellite search and rescue) can identify both potential sources of interference. Conversely, most modern coaxial cable systems operate on frequencies inclusive of the aeronautical bands, and thus only have the burden of notifying the Commission when the size of their system changes. Therefore, for the majority of systems, there is little, if any, additional regulatory burden as a result of this proposal as they should already have an AFN on file with the Commission covering the complete aeronautical bands and their complete service footprint. For those systems operating digital channels in the aeronautical bands below the old analog threshold but above our proposed digital threshold of 10⁻⁵ watts average power across a 30 kHz bandwidth in any 2.5 millisecond period, we believe that the one-time burden of notification to the Commission and infrequent updating is necessary to ensure public safety and presents only a minor burden on coaxial cable operators. We seek comment on this proposal.

b. Channel Frequency Offsets

32. We propose not to apply the channel frequency offset requirement to digital signals as digital signals simply cannot be offset in the way analog frequencies can. Channel frequency offsets have always played a critical role in minimizing the interference potential from analog coaxial cable systems to both aircraft communication and aircraft navigation services, such as the Instrument Landing System (ILS) and VHF Omnidirectional Range service (VOR). The power levels of an analog television channel are not uniform across the bandwidth; rather, power is significantly higher at the center frequencies of each of the subcarriers contained within the channel. The Commission's rules prohibit the subcarriers from lining up directly with the ILS, VOR, or communications carriers to diminish the possibility that a leak will cause harmful interference to these safety services. As a result, the Second Report and Order established a channel frequency offset of 12.5 kHz, with a tolerance of ± 5 kHz. This requirement is not meaningful with respect to digital signals, however, as digital signals do not have the discrete carriers necessary to effectuate an offset. Instead, digital signals operate at a nearly constant average power throughout the 6 MHz channel. Therefore, we propose to maintain the channel frequency offset requirement only with respect to analog signals but eliminate the requirement for digital signals. We note, however, that removing the offset requirements for digital signals does not exempt operators from compliance with the channelization and identification requirements of § 76.605. We seek comment on this proposal.

c. Analog to Digital Interference Equivalency

33. The Commission must address the implication of not having the interference protection afforded by the channel frequency offset requirement for digital channels. For analog signals, channel frequency offsets function to lower the strength of an undesired signal and our rules factored this offset into the signal leakage limit calculation. Digital signals, however, distribute their power evenly throughout the 6 MHz channel. While the result of this even distribution is a signal which cannot be offset like an analog signal, it does provide an average power level well below the peak power of the visual carrier of an analog signal. Further, because we limit our analysis of interference potential to the receiver bandwidth of an aircraft receiver, which should be no larger than 25 kHz, these two offsetting effects can be quantified. In their comments for the Second Report and Order, the FAA stated that absent frequency offsets, the cumulative signal leakage threshold would need to be decreased by 25 dB. This analysis, of course, was based on 1980s receiver technology. Accordingly, we seek comment on improvements in receiver components and hardware that have resulted in improved receiver sensitivity, selectivity, and other performance characteristics and might alter this calculation. However, we tentatively conclude that we do not need to consider improvements in receiver selectivity, as we are considering, by definition, undesired signals on-channel with desired signals. Comparing the average power level of a digital cable signal to the peak power level of an analog signal, the digital signal creates substantially less interference. Specifically, the peak power of the analog visual carrier is narrowly constrained, delivering essentially all of its power directly into the 25 kHz receiver front-end. A digital signal operating at a particular average power over 6 MHz delivers only a small subset of its power into any particular 25 kHz bandwidth. This results in a digital signal operating at a particular average power level across a 6 MHz channel delivering 23.8 dB less power into a receiver having a 25 kHz bandwidth than an analog television signal operating at the same peak power. While the lack of frequency offsets increases the potential for signal interference to aviation receivers by 25 dB, the use of digital modulation decreases signal the level of potential interference by 23.8 dB, resulting in a net increase in interference potential of 1.2 dB for a receiver having a 25 kHz bandwidth.

34. We therefore propose to amend our rules to account for this increase of 1.2 dB to interference from digital signals. The general signal leakage requirement, stated in § 76.605(a)(12), provides that the field strength of signal leakage should not exceed 15 microvolts per meter (µV/m) measured at 30 meters for frequencies below 54 MHz and above 216 MHz, and 20 µV/m measured at 3 meters for frequencies between 54 MHz and 216 MHz. Accordingly, we propose to decrease the maximum leakage level for both of these bands by 1.2 dB, which when rounded to the nearest 0.1 µV/m, results in a 17.4 µV/m threshold between 54 MHz and 216 MHz, and a 13.1 µV/m threshold at all other frequencies. We seek comment on this proposal. Additionally, the requirement for regular signal leakage monitoring requires the use of a detector capable of detecting a leak in excess of 20 µV/m at 3 meters. Following our reasoning above, we propose to permit the use of analog detectors with this sensitivity when measuring analog signals in a system which operates no digital signals in the aeronautical bands, but to require analog and digital detectors to have sufficient sensitivity to detect the 1.2 dB decrease in the maximum signal leakage level we propose above, or 17.4 µV/m, in those systems which operate digital signals in the aeronautical bands. Further, we propose to require digital leakage in excess of this threshold to be noted and repaired within a reasonable time, factoring in the severity of the leak and operational considerations. We seek comment regarding any potential burdens that this change in the general signal leakage requirement may have on operators. For instance, would cable operators have to acquire new or more sensitive equipment, or modify their testing procedures, to comply with the proposal? To the extent there are increased costs, are there also countervailing benefits?

35. For cumulative signal leakage, there are three thresholds that we propose adjusting to address digital transmission. They are the threshold at which the rules become applicable, the threshold at which leaks must be included in the cumulative leakage index (“CLI”) calculation, and the maximum leakage and CLI permissible. Under § 76.610, the CLI rules apply where operations in the aeronautical frequency bands exceed an average power level of 100 microwatts (10⁻⁴ watts) or 38.75 dBmV in transmitting carriers or any signal component in a 25 kHz bandwidth in any 160 microsecond period at any point in the cable distribution system. We propose to decrease the signal level at which the rules become applicable by 1.2 dB for digital signals resulting in a threshold power level of 75.85 microwatts or 37.55 dBmV. Once an operator is subject to CLI, the operators may demonstrate compliance based either upon a § 76.611(a)(1) ground-based measurement or by a § 76.611(a)(2) airspace measurement. For ground-based measurements, operators must include analog leaks in excess of 50 µV/m in the signal leakage index calculation, and an I₃₀₀₀ of less than or equal to −7 or I_∞ of less than or equal to 64 is permissible. Therefore, by subtracting 1.2 dB from each of these components, we propose that digital leaks in excess of 43.6 µV/m be included in the calculation (and reported to the Commission) and that the maximum acceptable I₃₀₀₀ becomes −8.2 and the maximum acceptable I_∞ becomes 62.8. For airspace measurements, coaxial cable operators may not exceed a field strength of 10 µV/m RMS at any point 450 meters above the average terrain of the coaxial cable system. Converting for digital leakage, the new maximum field strength becomes 8.7 µV/m. We seek comment on these proposals and any other issues that may arise from this conversion, especially on the equivalency of our ground and air based measurements. We also seek comment regarding any potential burdens that this change in the general signal leakage requirement may have on operators. For instance, would cable operators have to acquire new or more sensitive equipment, or modify their testing procedures, to comply with the proposal? To the extent there are increased costs, are there also countervailing benefits?

2. Miscellaneous Issues

36. We seek comment on several additional issues associated with the appropriate regulation of signal leakage with regard to digital transmissions. First, § 76.609(h) contains a detailed methodology for performing signal leakage measurements. This methodology, however, is specific to analog signals and may not be appropriate for digital signals. We maintain this requirement for analog signals, and we seek comment on an appropriate measurement technique for digital signals. To the extent that § 76.1803 requires submission to the Commission of a description of the method by which compliance with the basic signal leakage criteria is achieved, we will continue to require such submission in the absence of a common procedure for digital signal as we believe this is necessary to permit verification of sound engineering practices. However, we may revisit this issue if measurement of digital signal leakage becomes widely standardized in the future.

37. Next, we address the issues of what type of signal, analog or digital, an operator must test and what signal leakage limit they must adhere to. The decreased signal levels we propose in the section above are designed to be equivalent in interference potential to analog signals. Accordingly, we propose to allow operators to choose to test either an analog carrier using either their existing analog signal leakage test equipment and an offset analog signal, or a digital carrier using new digital signal leakage test equipment. Either method should yield the same peak signal leakage from the coaxial cable plant. Thus, we tentatively conclude that operators are allowed to select whether to perform tests on an analog carrier or a digital carrier at their discretion, except that where an operator transmits any digital signals in the aeronautical bands, the operator would be required to use the digital limits we described above.

38. We seek comment on whether our signal leakage performance criteria rules are sufficient, whether or not we need to expand the frequencies protected, and whether to maintain the requirement that the test frequency be located within the 108-137 MHz band. We note that at the time of the Second Report and Order, 400 MHz was near the upper limit of the bandwidth of coaxial cable systems deployed at the time. Today, coaxial cable systems routinely deploy in excess of 750 MHz, and deployments up to 1 GHz exist. We seek comment on potential and actual interference from coaxial cable systems to critical infrastructure operating above 400 MHz and the implications of extending signal leakage protection to higher bandwidths. We further seek comment on our current testing and recordkeeping requirements, including the requirement that tests be performed every three months, that tests be reported to the Commission once per year, the duration of time that records must be kept, and any other associated burdens that might be reduced without diminishing the efficacy of the Commission's signal leakage program. We seek comment on whether to retain or modify these rules.

39. Finally, we propose limiting, or potentially eliminating, the I₃₀₀₀ method of calculating CLI, favoring the I_∞ method. I₃₀₀₀ differs from I_∞ in that it provides discounting of leaks based on their distance from the geographic center of the system, whereas I_∞ considers all leaks equally. The respective total CLI values for each, however, are designed to result in equivalent levels of permissible leakage. At the time these formulas were established, systems were much smaller than they are today. Now that systems generally cover much larger geographical areas; the discounting based on distance results in a previously unforeseen breakdown in the I₃₀₀₀ formula. Specifically, for sufficiently large systems, significant leaks, which alone would be impermissible under the I_∞ formula, become minimized due to their distance from the center of the system. By calculation, we can determine that a single leak of 1340.05 µV/m located at the center of a coaxial cable system results in that system exceeding the maximum allowable CLI. However, that leak, if located more than 80.32 km from the system center, would appear to be equivalent to a 50 µV/m leak located at the system center. Such a leak, would be potentially strong enough to interfere with aircraft receivers alone, but would not be captured in an I₃₀₀₀ measurement. Therefore, we propose to limit the application of I₃₀₀₀ to systems with a total geographic diameter of less than 160 km. However, we also note that very few systems choose to calculate CLI using the I₃₀₀₀ method due to the increased recordkeeping and calculation burden associated with determining the distance of a particular leak from the center of a system. Thus, in the alternative, we propose eliminating I₃₀₀₀ as a calculation method altogether and requiring operators to use only I_∞. We seek comment on both of these proposals.

C. Reorganizations, Corrections, and Other Updates in Part 76

40. We further propose edits to remove references to effective dates that have passed, make editorial corrections, delete obsolete rules, update various technical standards that are incorporated by reference into our rules, and clarify language in Part 76 of our rules. The proposed changes are intended to set forth existing compliance requirements more clearly for MVPDs, franchising authorities, and the public. We seek comment on any other requirements that have been implemented by Commission order, but that have inadvertently been omitted from our rules.

41. Specifically, we propose to remove obsolete references to dates in §§ 76.56(b), 76.57(e), 76.64(a), 76.105(b), 76.127(f), 76.309(c)(1), 76.606, 76.1204(a), 76.1601, and 76.1602. We propose to correct citation references in §§ 76.56(a)(1)(i), 76.612(b)(2), 76.1508, 76.1509, 76.1510, and 76.1701(d). We propose to correct the numbering and references in Section 76.1205, and to eliminate the duplicative reporting requirements found in § 76.1610(f) and (g). We seek comment on these proposed changes, and encourage commenters to propose any other non-substantive changes to Part 76 of our rules that will correct errors or more clearly convey the Commission's intent.

42. We propose to delete § 76.1909, which was created as part of the Commission's Broadcast Flag rules in 2003, since it is obsolete and without legal effect. The Broadcast Flag rules were vacated by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2005 insofar as they required demodulators to give effect to the Broadcast Flag. The Media Bureau released an order on August, 24, 2011 deleting the Broadcast Flag rules in Parts 15 and 73 of the Commission's rules, but did not delete § 76.1909 from the CFR. Although this provision was not vacated by the Court, without the obligation that equipment respect the Broadcast Flag, these rules would seem to be ineffective. Our proposed deletion of Section 76.1909 would remove the obsolete Broadcast Flag Rule. We seek comment on this proposed deletion.

43. We propose to update the various incorporations by reference in Part 76 to the most current versions made available by the relevant standards bodies. We believe the standards incorporated in Part 76 have changed in minor ways since their original adoption by the Commission, correcting typographical errors, adding clarification, and updating various requirements in minor ways to reflect improvements in technology and continued innovation. Further, we expect that most industry participants are adhering to the current versions of these standards, even though they are not required to by our rules. The standards we are proposing to update are as follows:

(1) ATSC A/65D: “ATSC Standard: Program and System Information Protocol for Terrestrial Broadcast and Cable (Revision D),” IBR used for § 76.640. Note: Part 76 of the Commission's rules currently incorporates revision B of this standard. Revision C was adopted for broadcast purposes in the 3rd DTV Periodic Review. Regarding cable television, revision D primarily adds language to reflect the Commission's rules implementing the standard. Additionally, the potential exists for revision E of this standard to be released before the end of 2012.

(2) CEA-542-C, “CEA Standard: Cable Television Channel Identification Plan,” IBR used for § 76.605. Note: In the update from version B to version C, the channel plan has been extended from 864 MHz to 1002 MHz, accommodating the largest cable systems.

(3) CEA-931-C, “Remote Control Command Pass-through Standard for Home Networking,” IBR used for § 76.640. Note: This revision primarily extended the existing specifications to work over IP connections, among other minor changes.

(4) ANSI/SCTE 26 2010 (formerly DVS 194): “Home Digital Network Interface Specification with Copy Protection,” IBR used for § 76.640. Note: The 2010 revision to SCTE 26 provides for numerous minor updates, adding requirements to support additional features, such as powering-on and off, passing through tuning, mute, and restore volume functions, and other minor protocol additions.

(5) SCTE 28 2012 (formerly DVS 295): “Host-POD Interface Standard,” IBR used for § 76.640. Note: The most recent version of SCTE 28 has not yet been ANSI approved, and merely updates and adds references. Previous revisions have made minor changes to the ID reporting mechanism, application interface, and baseline HTML profile requirements.

(6) ANSI/SCTE 40 2011 (formerly DVS 313), “Digital Cable Network Interface Standard,” IBR used for §§ 76.605 and 76.640. Note: The 2011 update to SCTE 40 updates internal citations, renumbers various tables, and makes minor adjustments to the performance specifications that generally loosen the standard.

(7) ANSI/SCTE 41 2011 (formerly DVS 301): “POD Copy Protection System,” IBR used for § 76.640. Note: The 2011 revision to SCTE 41 updates internal references to other standards, requires PODs and Hosts to support an “ID reporting screen,” and removes the section on Two-Way System Host Authentication Message Protocol.”

(8) ANSI/SCTE 54 2009 (formerly DVS 241), “Digital Video Service Multiplex and Transport System Standard for Cable Television,” IBR used for § 76.640. Note: The 2009 revision to SCTE 54 updates internal references to other standards, and containing minor revisions to the MPEG-2 registration descriptor, program identifier, audio elementary stream identifier, among others and adds a section for Emergency Cable Alert as adopted by the Commission's EAS orders.

(9) ANSI/SCTE 65 2008 (formerly DVS 234), “Service Information Delivered Out-of-Band for Digital Cable Television,” 2008, IBR used for § 76.640. Note: The most recent revisions to SCTE 65 primarily update internal references, including requiring compliance SCTE 28 for host-POD interaction.

We believe that the updated versions of these standards are generally backwards-compatible, such that parties following the version currently incorporated in the Commission's rules would also be in compliance with the current versions of these standards. We seek comment on our proposal to revise our rules by incorporating these updated standards.

44. Finally, we propose to amend the note to § 76.55(d). Section 76.55 contains the definitions applicable to the Commission's must-carry rules, and subpart (d) lists the requirements to be considered a “qualified low power station.” Among the requirements, § 76.55(d)(4) requires the station to deliver a “good quality signal” to the appropriate cable system headend, and the Note to Paragraph (d) provides the definition of “good quality signal” in this context. In 2001, the Commission established the standard for digital television, but the Note to paragraph (d) was never updated. We propose, then, to amend the paragraph to list the digital threshold of −61 dBm at all channels. We also propose to strike the phrase, “or a baseband signal” from the note. This phrase contradicts both the plain language and the purpose of the section it clarifies. Section 76.55(d)(4), requires a low power television station to deliver a good quality over-the-air signal to qualify for carriage on the system. A baseband signal, in contrast, is not an over-the-air signal, instead being the result of an alternate means of delivery. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that the inclusion of the phrase “or a baseband signal” was inadvertent, and propose removing it for clarity.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

45. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”) the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM provided above. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

46. With this NPRM, we propose to update our cable television technical rules to facilitate the cable industry's widespread transition from analog to digital transmission systems. Specifically, we seek comment on our proposals to modernize and modify the Commission's proof-of-performance rules and basic signal leakage performance criteria. In addition, we propose modifications throughout Part 76 to remove outdated language, correct citations, and make other minor or non-substantive updates. We seek to adopt clear and effective rules that reflect technological advancements in the cable television industry, and to apply them to cable operators in a way that is minimally burdensome.

47. Cable Signal Quality (Proof-of-Performance). The need for FCC action in this area derives from changing technology in the cable services market. Section 624(e) of the Communications Act requires the Commission to maintain standards for cable systems to ensure that consumers receive good quality signals. When the Commission adopted technical rules in the 1990s, digital cable service was in its infancy, and therefore the rules were adopted with analog cable service in mind. Today, digital cable service is common, but certain analog technical rules related to cable service do not translate well to digital cable. Therefore, the NPRM proposes to establish proof-of-performance rules that specifically address digital technology. Today, digital cable can be divided into those systems which utilize QAM, a type of digital modulation, and those that do not. QAM digital cable is used by the majority of systems to serve the vast majority of cable subscribers in the United States. Therefore, the NPRM proposes to adopt a QAM standard, SCTE 40, which was designed to ensure that unidirectional CableCARD products receive good quality service, and to apply it broadly as a new proof-of-performance standard for QAM digital cable systems. For non-QAM systems to which SCTE 40 cannot be applied, the NPRM proposes a new, streamlined process by which each such system can coordinate with the Commission to develop a plan to follow. Thus, the Commission seeks to ensure that consumers continue to receive good quality cable service while imposing the minimum possible compliance, testing, and recordkeeping burden on cable operators.

48. Cable Signal Leakage (CLI). The NPRM further tentatively concludes that the Commission's protection of spectrum used for aeronautical navigation and communication remains a critical need for public safety. However, the rules designed for analog systems were established prior to the current widespread deployment of digital cable technology and must be updated to provide adequate protection to aeronautical frequencies from digital systems. With the proposed digital rules, MVPDs utilizing coaxial cable systems will no longer be prohibited from operating above certain power thresholds. By updating our signal leakage standards, removing the required channel offsets, but retaining notification of operation above certain power levels and regular testing, recordkeeping, and reporting, operators will be permitted to operate above these thresholds provided they can demonstrate a lack of harm to other spectrum users. In so doing, cable operators will be able to offer additional and expanded services on these aeronautical frequency bands, thus utilizing their facilities more efficiently. Therefore, the Commission predicts that these rules will be a benefit to small entities, which have generally fewer resources to expand their facilities to higher frequencies to avoid causing interference to the aeronautical bands. Further, the Commission predicts that by adopting flexible rules for testing leakage, small entities will be able to demonstrate their lack of leakage with minimal, if any, additional burden.

49. Finally, by revising and updating the Commission's rules, the Commission seeks to make it easier for MVPDs to understand the Commission's rules, and therefore to make compliance more straightforward. By reducing the burden associated with reading and interpreting the Commission's rules, we believe that small entities will need to expend fewer resources to ensure compliance.

2. Legal Basis

50. The authority for the action proposed in this rulemaking is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 624(e), and 624A of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 308, 544(e), and 544a.

3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

51. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental entity” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”).

52. Cable and Other Program Distribution. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 955 firms in the subcategory of Cable and Other Program Distribution that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 939 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 16 firms had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus, under this size standard, the Commission believes that a majority of firms operating in this industry can be considered small.

53. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation Standard). The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but 11 are small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of 6,635 systems nationwide, 5,802 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 302 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this second size standard, the Commission believes that most cable systems are small.

54. Cable System Operators. The Act also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but 10 are small under this size standard. We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore we are unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard.

55. Open Video Services. Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide subscription services. The open video system (“OVS”) framework was established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of video programming services by local exchange carriers. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, which is “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for the OVS service, the Commission relies on data currently available from the U.S. Census for the year 2007. According to that source, there were 3,188 firms that in 2007 were Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Of these, 3,144 operated with less than 1,000 employees, and 44 operated with more than 1,000 employees. However, as to the latter 44 there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. Based on this data, the majority of these firms can be considered small. In addition, we note that the Commission has certified some OVS operators, with some now providing service. Broadband service providers (“BSPs”) are currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises. The Commission does not have financial or employment information regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. Thus, at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities. The Commission further notes that it has certified approximately 45 OVS operators to serve 116 areas, and some of these are currently providing service. Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, DC, and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Little financial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 44 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.

56. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA's broad economic census category, “Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” which was developed for small wireline firms. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 indicate that in that year there were 1,906 firms operating businesses as wired telecommunications carriers. Of that 1,906, 1,880 operated with 999 or fewer employees, and 26 operated with 1,000 employee or more. Based on this data, we estimate that a majority of operators of SMATV/PCO companies were small under the applicable SBA size standard.

4. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

57. The rules proposed in the NPRM will impose additional reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements on cable operators. Currently, all cable operators are required to perform proof-of-performance testing twice each year, in the warmest and coldest parts of the year, to document the successful completion of those tests, and to maintain the records in their public file for five years. Further, all operators of coaxial cable systems, which includes not just cable operators but non-cable operators, such as PCOs, Open Video Systems, SMATV operators, are required to perform signal leakage testing four times per year, to document the results of those test, to maintain those records in their public file for five years, and to submit the results of one of those tests on FCC Form 320 to the Commission. The NPRM proposes tests to new digital standards, to be performed by operators of hybrid and all-digital cable systems, but maintains the existing recordkeeping requirements.

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

58. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for 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.

59. Cable Signal Quality (Proof-of-Performance). In this NPRM, the Commission tentatively concludes that creating rules for digital cable systems using QAM will lead to benefits for consumers in the form of consistent, good quality signals, and will reduce the burden on operators by removing the need to file individual waivers for exemption from the analog rules. For non-QAM systems, where simple standards are not readily available, the NPRM proposes a streamlined process which will reduce the economic burden on small operators of filing formal waivers by providing a case-by-case evaluation of a proof-of-performance plan based on the operator's internal guidelines. Therefore the Commission believes that this proposed streamlined process will result in minimal additional burdens on small entities. The Commission predicts that adopting a simple, easily understood signal quality standard already supported by numerous entities protects the public interest with a minimum of burden on cable operators.

60. With respect to the modification of technical standards for digital cable transmission, the Commission considered maintaining the status quo. The Commission has tentatively concluded that its proposal to adopt new standards for signal quality with respect to digital service will provide cable operators with certainty that the signals that they provide to their subscribers are of adequate quality, and permit them to operate within the Commission's rules without submitting individual waiver requests. The Commission's proposed rules are based on performance rather than design standards, and are already required of some cable systems as a result of their support for CableCARD products. Therefore, no new burdens of compliance will be imposed on these systems. The rules further reduce burdens on small entities because they contain provisions for small cable systems to test fewer channels, and to test those channels in fewer locations. The proposed rules further simplify the means by which these numbers are calculated. Finally, similar to the analog rules the recordkeeping burden associated with this testing is not required of very small systems.

61. Cable Signal Leakage (CLI). With respect to the proposals regarding basic signal leakage performance criteria, the Commission has undertaken to create a digital rule equivalent in interference protection to basic signal rules for analog cable signals. The existing basic signal leakage rules as they apply to analog cable signals cannot apply to digital cable signals due to the differences in the physical attributes of the two types of signals. However, the Commission has proposed a testing procedure that permits systems with limited resources to continue utilizing existing equipment when complying with the new, digital standards.

62. We welcome comments that suggest modifications of any proposal if based on evidence of potential differential impact on smaller entities. We also seek comment on alternatives to the proposed rules that would assist small entities while ensuring the Commission's goals of providing good quality signals to consumers and protecting aeronautical communications and spectrum users from interference are met.

6. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Commission's Proposals

63. None.

B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

64. This NPRM has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) and contains proposed modified information collection requirements. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites OMB, the general public, and other interested parties to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the PRA.

C. Ex Parte Presentations

65. Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding will be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that a memorandum summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations in “permit-but-disclose” proceedings are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the rules.

66. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be publically available online via ECFS. These documents will also be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

V. Ordering Clauses

67. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 624(e), and 624A of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 308, 544(e), and 544a, notice is hereby given of the proposals and tentative conclusions described in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

68. It is further ordered that the Reference Information Center, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

• Cable television
• Incorporation by reference
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

Proposed Rules

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 part 76 as follows:

PART 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE:

1. The Authority Citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.

2. Revise § 76.55 Note to paragraph (d) to read as follows: