WPCt 2 B Z 3|I  Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldCourier 10 PitchHP LaserJet 4Mitional); Local PrintHPLAS4M.WRSX\  P6G;,,,f%P2=?!O'@3|a 'Courier 10 PitchTimes New Roman^#)0<I=.X&I7  PT6Q&P, y>N=.X&N7  pTQ&d|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2 o0Y w_  S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  P6G;WXP##&a\  P6G;&P#2e=5,!&e4  pG;&Sg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\Times New RomanTimes New Roman (Bold)CG TimesCG Times (Bold)Times New Roman (Italic)Times New Roman (Bold Italic)#Xj\  P6G;9XP##&a\  P6G;&P#\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\2 KK#n S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  P6G;9XP##&a\  P6G;&P#"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd+>,?-dI@a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf*[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf+f  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf,q Bld/UnderlieBold and Underline Text-/  2C. @/A0sB1'CCitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output File.W r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BIndentquoteeSingle space left & right indent/N X HeadingChapter Heading0J d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers1>a݅@  I.   X(# 2F2C3dD4D5FSubheadingSubheading20\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd3+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date4 X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off5@@    2J6XF71(G81YH91IHEADERHeader A - Appearance6LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.57 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.58f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   2eM:1J;nL<XL=LLEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14: 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document;K\ * ăFOOTERFooter A - Appearanced<BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented=N X 2P>iM?dN@jdNANHEADING 33rd Heading Level>| XHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large?B*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored@ V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsAu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   2VBEQC-dRD8SE8TINVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math InvoiceB ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatCD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math InvoiceD:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math MacroEz 4p, $0$002XF3VGXWH[,XI[XINVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math InvoiceF+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleGSMALLSmall TypestyleHFINEFine TypestyleI2[J[YK[oYL[YM%ZLARGELarge TypestyleJEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestyleKVERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleLENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with HeaderM+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   2]N[OeY\Pl\Ql*]footnote tex#N']#d6X@C@#footnote referencefootnote referenceO Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontP Document 8Document 8Q 2_Rx]Sl@^Tl^Ul_Document 4Document 4R  Document 6Document 6S Document 5Document 5T Document 2Document 2U 2dVl_W"`X@bYl^dDocument 7Document 7V Right Par 1Right Par 1W` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 2Right Par 2X` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 3Document 3Y 2tmZd[g\8i]VkRight Par 3Right Par 3Z` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4[` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5\` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6]` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2.v^m_o`(qa$ tRight Par 7Right Par 7^` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 8_` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 1Document 1`` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 5a` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2{b$`vclxdlxe$\yTechnical 6Technical 6b` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2c Technical 3Technical 3d Technical 4Technical 4e` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2fl{g$|h$B~ifTechnical 1Technical 1f Technical 7Technical 7g` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8h` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 1toc 1i` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2.jkԄlmtoc 2toc 2j` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3k` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4l` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5m` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#20n`ov~pqtoc 6toc 6n` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7o toc 8toc 8p` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9q` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2(rbstulindex 1index 1r` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2s` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoat` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#_Equation Caption_Equation Captionu 2vrZwp̙xq<yeendnote referenceendnote referencev 13,6gDocument Style=(/D ,*/3Ew/0` ` ` 23-6gDocument Style=(/D -*/3Ex1 2 . 33.6gDocument Style=(/D .*/3Ey 34 2>zeD{|p<}43/6gDocument Style=(/D /*/3Ez 56 5306gDocument Style=(/D 0*/3E{*78   6316gDocument Style=(/D 1*/3E|9:` ` ` 7326gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E}8;<@   2~p D8336gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E~A=>@` `  ` ` ` 9346gDocument Style=(/D 4*/3E0? @    10356gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EJAB` ` @  ` `  11366gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3ESCD` `  @  21#٠`12376gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E\EF` `  @hh# hhh 13386gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EeGH` `  hh#@( hh# 14396gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EnIJ` `  hh#(@- ( 153:6gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EwKL` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2åc'163;6gDocument Style=(/D ;*/3EFMN *  ׃  173<6gTechnical Document StyleD <*/3E&OP  . 183=6gTechnical Document StyleD =*/3E&QR  . 193>6gTechnical Document StyleD >*/3E*ST    2SΧ203?6gTechnical Document StyleD ?*/3E'UV   213@6gTechnical Document StyleD @*/3E&WX   223A6gTechnical Document StyleD A*/3E4Y$Z     233B6gTechnical Document StyleD B*/3E&[\  . 2̫ J243C6gTechnical Document StyleD C*/3E&]^  . Format Downl6gFormat Downloaded DocumentD H*/3EUab XX    X\ #d6X@7@#referenceP6g` U/=(/D P*/3E;kl#FxX  P CXP#itemizeQ6gn U/=(/D Q*/3E*mn F r#FxX  PCXP#2mpkqۭeLheader2R6g| U/=(/D R*/3Eo p`    #FxX  PCXP# Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O g` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  2ݰeHpۯKDocument[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g8 @  2?Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gS` ` `  @  2ж³x7Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O ge` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 2bAƸDocument[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g*%&    2)mTechnical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&-.  . 2o$}jTechnical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&/0  . Format DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$ab Paragraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B/cd` ` ` 2/4ҿ{Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B:ef` ` `  Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B[kl 2a }gParagraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bfmn Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop 25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 26S&CNC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CU -2( -Ct )/` ` ` 2!R27S&COC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cc -2( -Ct ):` ` `  28S&CPC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cq -2( -Ct )E` ` `  29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )[ 2j831S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )q Default ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#28 vvendnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#footnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#heading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 2vv6vv"heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 endnote textendnote text 2.v@d^lfootnote textfootnote text toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#A, B,|G?@6 Uppercase Letters=(*/|G?.E ._Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 2`1a12:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O8mn@   a22:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OAop@` `  ` ` ` a32:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OJqr` ` @  ` `  a42:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OSst` `  @  2Ma52:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O\uv` `  @hh# hhh a62:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Oewx` `  hh#@( hh# a72:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Onyz` `  hh#(@- ( a82:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Ow{|` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2dbPl(< ӎSMALL s†NSMALL s†NORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC ӆNORMAL¤ TNORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#bly remains several bly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awa` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2$ljD Technical 4¸ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#T 2 Ҷ TechnicaT 2 Ҷ Technical 7Ҳ Right Par 7z INV` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#ОC:\mw3022.tmpC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\C :\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMP` hp x (#` hp x (## P7P# 2lLjރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOCރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: ~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#: , : , ,0` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2l2 ,  , ,0` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#:\mw3024.tmpt :\mw3024.tmpt C:\WINDOWS\MSAPPS\TEXTCONV\RTF_W` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#wwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbwwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbbbwwwwbwwwwbwwwwbwbwwwbwbb` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#,,0kjH 2Z*W1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')8ij@   a21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Akl@` `  ` ` ` a31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Jmn` ` @  ` `  2-Oa41I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Sop` `  @  a51I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')\qr` `  @hh# hhh a61I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')est` `  hh#@( hh# a71I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')nuv` `  hh#(@- ( 2Iq@a81I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')wwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Chapter?I@6HChapter Heading=(')8?I *')'0 ?I.E9y z ` CHAPTER 3  Report Body@6HMain Text of Report8?I *')'0 ?I.E{|  TitleNotesTitle Page NotesH('0\F H rW?I ''#Z*f9 x$X# #Z*f9 x%X#2 wvWorks CitedWorks Cited PageH('0\F H rW?I 99         Page TitlePage Title PageH('0\F H rW?I #  `  Hanging indent   #Xx PXP#  X` hp x (#%'0*#Xx PXP#WPC3  2BJZ Courier3|xix6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Add) rm 804 L2HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\ ZX@2 6 ZF v3|xHP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Add) rm 804 L2HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\ ZX@a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2a =U !MACDocument4     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP##u\4 PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# ,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP##:}D4PXP#para numnumbered indented paragraphs'Style 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO 2lrzStyle 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn 2|8TStyle 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO 2&KK"Kc$Style 10oInitial Codes for Advanced U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 "i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNM\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\252K&K+)Kv+Z-"i~'^:DTddDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDd||||DXp||dp||ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlD4lTDDD4DDDDDDdDd8|d|d|d|d|dX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDddllXp8pHpDp@p8dtdddd|L|L|LdLdLdLllpHp8pTddddddplpLpLpLdpDddLpDpdx4ddC,CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdDDxddzHxxHkddDpd<"dxtldxxd"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^5Fg\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyyyyF\yrrygryyrr>3>g\>\\Q\Q>\g33\3g\\\FF3gQy\QF>(>g>0gg>>>0>>>>>>\>\3y\y\y\y\y\yQyQyQyQyQF3F3F3F3g\\\\ggggrQy\\\\rQ\r\y\y\y\yQyQygyQyQyQyQyQ\\\g\ggF3F\F>F\gggy\r3r_r>rFr3ggg\\yFyFyFgFgFgFggrcr3rgggggggyrgrFrFrF\r>ggFr>r\0\\=3=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB\\F\\\\\\07\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBigg>\\7"yyyy\nyc\gnn\ n9B8*X6B7  PT6QP DPC2XWXP7  PT6QXP y>I=.X&I7  PT6Q&P, y>N=.X&N7  pTQ&t8RC;X'{XR PE3QXP7WC;X0XW_ pQX I%,%X!J,7  PT6QJP      x     hHWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNp00x000x0MMPx"00p02;<@g2@7*p"5@^*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ*8888CE8SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS8S888SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo8oE]A]AN:*LS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}288JJS88SS8J82t8[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*********************************8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZv**8SJSS8]8****88JJ:S8A8x**x*8SSSS!S8.S^8SC[228`L*824S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff8888xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSLP:% ,J:\  P6G;JP\M0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&X N1a=5,<t&a9 xOG;&P#mt,\  P6G;PO#mt,P4  pG;fQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italic"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNx00x((0x0MMPx"00p02B@m<\k/@?"5@^.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc.====IK=\\QQQQQzzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\f\\QQzQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\\I\=\===\G\p3pK\\\z=zKfGfGN@.S\=Q\\\\\39\7\7==QQ\==\\=Q=7t=eeeegoo.Ijg2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.................................=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc..=\Q\\=f=....==QQ@\=G=...=\\\\%\=3\g=\Ie77=jS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\\\"5@^.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_.====IK=\f\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\QQQzQzQzQ\\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\fz3zKff\QQfGfGN@.c\=\\\\\\7=\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7t=eeeeioo.Iji2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.................................=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_..=\\\\=f=....==\\@\=G=...=\\\\(\=7\i=\Ie77=jc.=7=\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\e\ffff\f2L@C2@_F@I"5@^;B\ddBBBdBBBBddddddddddBBDZX}}vBM}rk}BBBdddXdXdXBdd77d7ddddJM7ddddXXdXddd!dddRdddXXXXXX}X}X}X}XB7B7B7B7ddddddddddXdddddrddddXdd}d}d}dddddddddddddBddd}7}RdddJRkMkMNdddBXQQddddddFdddFBBggd44ddzBgBFtBnnyy2do7cQQnCzohcnonvyXzXshn~|y;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;B\ddBBBdBBBBddddddddddBBDZX}}vBM}rk}BBBdddXdXdXBdd77d7ddddJM7ddddXXdXd;;Bdgdddk4;;;;BBggdddzM4;;;BdddddddddQBdddFFdoddFdQX}}}}BBBBrdXXXXXXXXXXX7777dddddddddddddd"5@^;B\ddBBBdBBBBddddddddddBBDZdzM`zoǐBBBddddoXoXFdo7Bo7odooXMBodddXdddddd!dddRddodddddϐXXXXXM7M7M7M7oddddooooddoddddzodddXdddddddddoodododdModo7RoodᓐXXoMoMNdddBdUUddddddFdddFBBrrd44ddzBrBFtBnnyy2do7cUUnCzohcnonvyXzXshn~|y;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;B\ddBBBdBBBBddddddddddBBDZdzM`zoǐBBBddddoXoXFdo7Bo7odooXMBodddXdddd;;Bdrdddo4;;;;BBrrdddzM4;;;BdddddddddUBdddFFdoddFdUdϐMMMMzoddddddXXXXX7777doddddddoooodo"5@^%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,-%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7OO7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7CC-O7O7O7bOI%I-=+=+N'27%177777"SS7!TT7S!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!t%<<<<>mBBs,?>[N6Wms[77UUUH_%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<77777772V@M @QPm @S"5@^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!()!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2HH2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2==)H2H2H2YHC!C)8'8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!t!77778c<<!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!:-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,222222272222222"5@^.Gf\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzzzzG\zppzfpzzpp=3=i\=\\Q\Q=\f33\3f\\\GG3fQz\QG@(@i.====IK=\\z\z\z\z\z\zQzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffffpQz\\\\pQ\p\z\z\z\zQzQzQzQzQzQ\\\\ffI\G\G=G\\z\p3pKff\zGzKfGfGN@.\\G\\\\\\17\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7t=eeeeooo.Iji2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.................................Gf\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzzzzG\zppzfpzzpp=3=i\=\\Q\Q=\f33\3f\\\GG3fQz\QG@(@i..=\\\\=f=....==\\@\=G=..p.G\\\\(\=1\o=\Ie77=j\.=77\\zzzzzzzzzzzGGGGipp\\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\e\ffffQ\"5@^*8FSS$88Sq*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88qqqSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*8888CE8SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS8S888SJoJ].]EoSoSxSofAfESASAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}288]]S88SS8]82t8[[[[qee*C`q.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*********************************8FSS$88Sq*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88qqqSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv**8S]SS8S8****88]]:S8A8o**]*ASSSS.S8.Sq8SC[228`W*824S}}}Sffffffoffff8888xoxxxxxqxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS2a @W @_Z@] "5@^*8]SS.88S_*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo8.8aS8S]J]J8S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJB%BW*8888CE8S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJxJoJoJoJSSSS]]C]A]A8A]S]o.oEx]x]SxxJxJ]A]AN:*ZS8SSSSSS27}}S2||S}288SSS88SS8S82t8[[[[_ee*C`_.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*********************************8]SS.88S_*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo8.8aS8S]J]J8S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJB%BWv**8SSSS8]8****88SS:S8A8x**x*8SSSS%S8|2S_8|SC[228`Z*827S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]"5@^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic.====IK=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\p\p\p\zQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\\I\=\===\QzQf3fKz\z\\zpGpK\G\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7t=eeee|oo.Ij|2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.................................=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic..=\f\\=\=....==ff@\=G=z..f.G\\\\2\=3\|=\Ie77=j`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\Q\"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddI=.X@,&I7  xTQ&X y>K=.XYB&K7  xTyQ& dX@7  PT6QP2Kt ^/b ^h`n`"H^^dM7Hddoooq!  !!!!c!!! !!y!!oooo7o!PdC!!!!!c  oooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   !!!!!!!!o!!!c!  Ndo|,,x00,xxtdmI>I333YC!!!1!>3dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddM7Hddoooq!  !!!!c!!! !!y!!oooo7o!Pddcdddd!dd!dP0o0xxdx|,,,!!!!!!c !!!!!!!!!!!!! oooo"H^^dModdot! !! 777 y!77! !!!! oooM!XdC!!!!!!!    oooo!7777!!!!!!!77!!!!!!!!   77777777 o !!7!!!Ndx,,x++,xxtdmI>I333YC!!!1!>3dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddModdot! !! 777 y!77! !!!! oooM!Xdddddd!dd!dX+x+xxdx,,,!!!!!!!    !!777777!!!!!!oooo n9B8*X6B7  PT6QP DPC2XWXP7  PT6QXP y>I=.X&I7  PT6Q&P , y>N=.X&N7  pTQ&t8RC;X'{XR PE3QXP7WC;X0XW_ pQX I%,%X!J,7  PT6QJP B"(!X,(7  PT6Q,Pj n9C8*X@<C7  xTQX, n9G8*X8+G7  pTQj y>I=.X@,&I7  xTQ&X y>K=.XYB&K7  xTyQ&  dX@7  PT6QP ,  dXN7  pTQ, DUC2XYXU7  pTQX:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`a2}t y_( X   ֋ y_(Y Federal Communications Commission`j(#FCC 98302 ă  yxdddy Պ #&a\  P6G;&P#Q #&a\  P6G;&P##&J\  P6Q&P#Before the  y_(#XZ\  P@Q{XP##&J\  P6Q&P#YFederal Communications Commission  y_(&Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter of) )  y_(Satellite Delivery of Network Signals)hXppXCS Docket No. 98201(#p  y_(to Unserved Households for )hXppXXRM No. 9335(#  y_(Purposes of the Satellite Home)hXppXXRM No. 9345(# Viewer Act) ) Part 73 Definition and Measurement) of Signals of Grade B Intensity)  y_ (F  NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING x  y_X(X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:Significantly, while the Commission anticipated that the Grade B standard might be used generally to  xdetermine the service area, or contour, of a television station, use of the standard to identify individual  y_( xunserved households under SHVA was not then at issue. Grade B represents the field strength of a signal  xt30 feet above ground that is strong enough, in the absence of manmade noise or interference from other  xstations, to provide a television picture that the median observer would classify as "acceptable" using a  y_p( x$receiving installation (antenna, transmission line, and receiver) typical of outlying or nearfringe areas.CXp k' nZ(ЍSee O'Connor, Robert A., "Understanding Television's Grade A and Grade B Service Contours," IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, 139 (December 1968). The median observer is not the "average" observer; rather, it is the middle observer, or the 50th observer out of 100.C  x`The Grade B contour is defined as the set of points along which the best 50% of the locations should get  y_ (an acceptable picture at least 90% of the time.@ k' nZ`(ԍThe "time variability" planning factor used in the determination of the Grade B standard may create some confusion. In the TV & Cable Factbook, TV Stations Volume (1998 edition page A-15), the Grade B is  nZ(described as providing service to 50% of locations 90% of the time. The Commission's Sixth Report and OrderĄ  nZ(in Dockets 8736 et al. 41 FCC 148, 177 (1952), which adopted the initial television station allocation rules, states, "In the case of Grade B service the figures are 90 percent of the time and 50 percent of the locations."  nZH(See also, Third Notice of Further Proposed Rule Making, FCC Report 51-144, 16 Fed. Reg. 3072, Appendices A and B (1951); O'Connor, Robert A., "Understanding Television's Grade A and Grade B Service Contours," at 137. Both the broadcast and satellite parties state the time variability factor differently than above. They describe the field strength at the Grade B contour as being available to at least 50% of the locations at least 50% of the time. This apparent inconsistency arises from an adjustment the Commission adopted for the Grade B signal strength values when it originally established them. This adjustment results in a Grade B value that predicts reception of an acceptable picture 90% of the time. For example, on channels 26, a signal strength of 41 dBu is needed for an acceptable picture. In order for this signal strength to be available 90% of the time, the median or F(50,50) field strength is set at 47 dBu.@ " X,`(`(88 "Ԍ y_( ` 5. ` ` The Grade B contour values (which represent the required field strength in dB above one microvolt per meter) are defined for each television channel in Section 73.683 of the Commission's rules: Channels2-6................ 47 dBu Channels7-13.............. 56 dBu Channels14-69............ 64 dBu  x Section 73.684 contains the Commission's "traditional" methodology for predicting station service coverage and Section 73.686 describes a procedure for making field strength measurements.  y_p(X C.X` ` The PrimeTime 24 Lawsuits (#`  y_ ( ` 6. ` ` This proceeding was precipitated by petitions for rulemaking filed following the decisions  y_ ( xof the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in CBS, Inc. et al. v. PrimeTime  y_ ( x24 Joint Venture.X k' nZ8(ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#CBS, Inc. et al. v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, Order Affirming in Part and Reversing in Part Magistrate  nZ(Judge Johnson's Report and Recommendations, 9 F.Supp.2d 1333 (S.D. FL., May 13, 1998) ("CBS v. PrimeTime  nZ(24, Order"); CBS, Inc. et al. v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, Supplemental Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for  nZ(Preliminary Injunction (S.D. FL., July 10, 1998) (No. 963650CIV) ("CBS v. PrimeTime 24, Supplemental Order"). X In that litigation, the plaintiffs CBS Inc.; Fox Broadcasting Co.; CBS Television  xAffiliates Association; PostNewsweek Stations Florida, Inc.; KPAX Communications, Inc.; LWWI  x`Broadcasting, Inc.; and Retlaw Enterprises brought a copyright infringement action against PrimeTime  x.24, a satellite carrier, for retransmitting distant network programming to satellite dish owners in violation  xof the SHVA. The plaintiffs alleged that PrimeTime 24 distributed the signals of distant networkaffiliated  xtelevision broadcast stations by satellite to subscribers that were not "unserved households" within the  xmeaning of the SHVA. Finding evidence that violations of the Act had taken place, the court issued a  xpreliminary, nationwide injunction ordering PrimeTime 24 not to deliver CBS or Fox television network  xprogramming to any customer that does not live in an unserved household. It was specifically enjoined from providing CBS or Fox network programming:  Xto any customer within an area shown on LongleyRice propagation maps, created using  LongleyRice Version 1.2.2 in the manner specified by the Federal Communications  y_( Commission ("FCC"),@k' nZ(ԍFor an explanation of the LongleyRice methodology for predicting signal strength, see  34. as receiving a signal of at least grade B intensity of a CBS or Fox  primary network station, without first either (i) obtaining the written consent of the CBS  por Fox station affiliated or the relevant network, or (ii) after giving 15 business days  (written advance notice to the stations of its intention to conduct a test and of the time and  place at which the test will be conducted, providing the station with a signal strength test  at the customer's household showing that the household cannot receive a signal of grade  y_(B intensity.NXk' nZH%(ԍThe court ruled that the signal strength test at individual households within a station's predicted LongleyRice contour should be "conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Declaration of Jules Cohen,  nZ&(filed on March 11, 1997." See infra at note 76.N " ,`(`(88"Ԍ y_( ` ~ԙ 7.` ` The court initially provided PrimeTime 24 with 90 days to comply with the preliminary  xinjunction, which applies only to subscribers who signed up with PrimeTime 24 after March 11, 1997 (the  xday the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit). The parties subsequently and jointly agreed to an extension of the  xcompliance date to February 28, 1999, and the court approved the parties' agreement on October 6, 1998.  xIf enforced, the preliminary injunction could result in the termination of network signals to an estimated  y_8( x700,000 to one million subscribers.8k' nZ(ԍLetter from William E. Kennard, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, to Senator John McCain and Representative Tom Bliley, September 4, 1998 (figures based on publicly available information). A permanent injunction could end satellite network service to as  y_(many as 2.2 million subscribers. k' nZ (ԍId. As noted, the court chose the preliminary injunction's March 11, 1997 date because that is when CBS and Fox filed their lawsuit against PrimeTime 24. If the court issues a permanent injunction, the 700,000 to one million subscribers affected by the preliminary injunction will increase to include PrimeTime 24's subscribers before March 11, 1997. This would be an additional 1.5 million subscribers, thus raising the total subscribers affected by the Miami court orders to 2.2 million.  y_( ` 8.` ` On July 16, 1998, a Raleigh, North Carolina, federal district court ruled against PrimeTime  y_( x24 in a similar lawsuit brought by the local ABC affiliate.k' nZ(ԍABC, Inc. v. PrimeTime 24, Joint Venture,   F.Supp.2d  , 1998 WL 544286 (M.D. N.C., July 16, 1998)  nZ((Case No. Civ. A. 1:97CV00090) ("ABC v. PrimeTime 24, Court Opinion").  A permanent injunction followed on  y_p( x0August19, 1998. p( k' nZ8(ԍABC, Inc. v. PrimeTime 24, Joint Venture,   F.Supp.2d   , 1998 WL 544297 (M.D. N.C., Aug. 19,  nZ(1998) (Case No. Civ. A. 1:97CV00090) ("ABC v. PrimeTime 24, Permanent Injunction").  Similar to the Miami ruling, the court found that the SHVA defines unserved  x4household and Grade B using strictly objective standards. The court stated, "PrimeTime's screening  xprocedures have systematically substituted a subjective inquiry into the quality of the picture on a potential  x$subscriber's television set for any signal strength showing. PrimeTime has ignored or turned a blind eye  xto the necessity of objective signal strength testing and thus willfully or repeatedly provides network  y_ ( xprogramming to subscribers under SHVA."; k' nZ(ԍ1998 WL 544297, *2.; In contrast to the Miami ruling, the Raleigh court did not  xuse the LongleyRice predictive model to identify the affected subscribers, but applied the injunction to  y_X( xall subscribers living within 75miles of the affiliate's transmitting tower.bXk' nZ(ԍFor an explanation of the LongleyRice model, see  34.b PrimeTime 24 has provided  y_0( xnetwork services to as many as 35,000 households in the ABC affiliate's Raleigh/Durham market.0k' nZp (ԍABC v. PrimeTime 24, Permanent Injunction, 1998 WL 544297, *2; ABC v. PrimeTime 24, Court Opinion, 1998 WL 544286, *9. At  xthe time of the court's decision, PrimeTime 24 continued to serve more than 9,000 subscribers within the  y_(affiliate's Grade B contour.k' nZx$(ԍ1998 WL 544297, *2, *6; 1998 WL 544286, *9. A third lawsuit was brought by an NBC affiliate in Amarillo, Texas, and awaits judgment by a federal  nZ&(court. Kannan Communications, Inc. v. Primetime 24 Joint Venture, No. 296CV086 (N.D. Tex.). A fourth lawsuit was filed by EchoStar against CBS, Fox, NBC, and ABC on October 19, 1998. EchoStar asks the court to find that the Commission has never endorsed a particular model for predicting or"',`(`('" measuring Grade B intensity for the purposes of the SHVA. EchoStar wants the court to declare that a viewer's own opinion of the quality of his or her signal quality is adequate for determining whether that home is unserved under the SHVA, and asks the court to endorse a predictive model for identifying served households such that 95% of households receive a Grade B signal 95% of the time with a 50% degree of confidence. (EchoStar's 95 / 95 / 50 court request contrasts with the request in its petition before the Commission, in which it asks for a 99 /  nZx(99 / 99 model. See infra at  9)."@,`(`(88r"Ԍ y_(ԙX D.X` ` The NRTC and EchoStar Petitions (#`  y_( ` `9. ` ` In response to the Miami court case, the NRTC and EchoStar filed their petitions. We  x$address both Petitions in this rulemaking because the issues are similar and for reasons of administrative  xefficiency. The NRTC, a distributor of DirecTV DBS service, has asked the Commission to adopt,  xvexclusively for purposes of interpreting the SHVA, a new definition of "unserved" that includes all  xhouseholds located outside a Grade B contour encompassing a geographic area in which 100 percent of  xthe population receives overtheair coverage by network affiliates 100 percent of the time using readily  xavailable, affordable receiving equipment. EchoStar, which is a provider of DBS service, urges the  x~Commission to adopt a prediction model to locate unserved households. EchoStar endorses a model that  xpredicts an area where 99 percent of households receive a Grade B signal 99 percent of the time with a  x99 percent confidence level. EchoStar also urges adoption of a methodology for measuring signal strength  xthat more closely reflects the signal that a viewer's television set actually receives. It argues that a number  xbof flaws exist in the current measurement and prediction processes when they are used for SHVA purposes.  y_ ( ` \ 10. ` ` Several parties filed comments either opposing or supporting the petitions._H @k' nZ`(ԍ NRTC Petition: NAB Preliminary Response to NRTC Petition, July 17, 1998; Satellite Broadcasting & Communications Assn (SBCA) Comments to NRTC Petition, July 22, 1998; NRTC Reply to NAB Preliminary Response to NRTC Petition, August 6, 1998; NAB Further Response to NRTC Petition, September 4, 1998; Network Affiliated Stations Alliance (NASA) Comments to NRTC Petition, September 4, 1998; DirecTV  nZ(Comments to NRTC Petition, September 4, 1998 (joint for NRTC & Echostar); DSI / National Programming Service (NPS) Comments to NRTC Petition, September 4, 1998; National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) Comments to NRTC Petition, September 4, 1998; PrimeTime 24 Comments to NRTC Petition, September 4, 1998; SCBA Comments to NRTC Petition, September 4, 1998; Small Cable Business  nZ(Assn (SCBA) Reply Comments to NRTC Petition, September 21, 1998 (joint for NRTC & Echostar); NRTC  nZh(Reply Commentsto NRTC Petition, September 21, 1998. EchoStar Petition: DirecTV Comments to EchoStar  nZ0(Petition, September 4, 1998 (joint for NRTC & Echostar); SCBA Reply Comments to EchoStar Petition,  nZ(September 21, 1998 (joint for NRTC & Echostar); SBCA Comments to EchoStar Petition, September 25, 1998; A.H. Belo Corp. Opposition to EchoStar Petition, September 25, 1998; Network Affiliated Stations Alliance (NASA) Comments to EchoStar Petition, September 25, 1998; Superstar/Netlink Group Comments to EchoStar Petition, September 25, 1998; Cosmos / Cox Broadcasting Comments to EchoStar Petition, September 25, 1998; NAB Comments to EchoStar Petition, September 25, 1998; PrimeTime 24 Comments to EchoStar Petition, September 25, 1998; EchoStar Reply Comments to EchoStar Petition, October 13, 1998._ Those  xopposing the petitions generally represented broadcast interests, while those supporting the petitions  xgenerally included DTH satellite interests. Broadcasters generally argue that Congress did not grant the  xCommission the authority to amend the definition of Grade B for purposes of the SHVA. Specifically,  xVthey contend that Congress chose the Grade B definition that existed at the time of the SHVA's adoption  xfbecause it wanted to balance the viability of network/affiliate relationships with consumers' interest in  xpreceiving broadcast network service. If the Commission alters the Grade B definition, the petitioners'"P,`(`(88N"  xopponents argue, the number of households entitled to receive distant network signals may inappropriately  xrise and the number of people watching the local stations will fall as the stations' viewing area shrinks.  xFewer viewers could mean lower ratings and less advertising revenue. Further, the petitioners' opponents  xLargue that a reduced viewing area might impact a network station's ability to enforce its exclusivity rights within that area.  y_( ` > 11.` ` Opponents to the petitions also contend that Congress did not craft the SHVA with  xjcompetition in mind, and, although competition is an important goal, it carries little weight in this context.  xFurthermore, broadcasters challenge the DTH industry's concerns about subscribers who will lose their  xnetwork signals under the Miami court's injunction by declaring that many of those subscribers are  xreceiving that service illegally. The broadcasters advocate a localintolocal approach for satellitedelivery  y_H ( xof network signals, whereby all local network signals would be retransmitted into a local area (e.g., Boston  xnetwork affiliates would be retransmitted to Boston subscribers). Until that time, broadcasters urge the Commission to refrain from acting on a copyright issue that falls outside of its purview.  y_ ( ` x 12.` ` The DTH industry, on the other hand, contends that Congress did not freeze the definition  xof Grade B when it enacted the SHVA, and asserts that the Commission has legal authority to change that  xdefinition. The supporters of the petitions argue that the Commission can and should conduct a  xtrulemaking to make the definition of Grade B more applicable to the SHVA. Some commenters contend  xthat the current Grade B standard makes it more difficult for DTH providers to compete with cable  xcompanies, because DTH providers cannot offer network programming to subscribers while cable can.  xThese commenters argue that subscribers are therefore less likely to consider DTH as a true alternative  x to cable. The DTH industry states that the Commission has not adopted a definition of Grade B for  xpurposes of SHVA and urges adoption of a standard that reflects actual reception of an adequate television  xHsignal at a household's television set. Moreover, instead of an actual testing regime for determining a  xhousehold's eligibility for retransmission of a network television station's signal, they argue, the  xBCommission should adopt a predictive testing methodology that will be accurate and costeffective. The  x\DTH industry suggests a predictive testing methodology that will return results that reveal, with 99 to  x100% confidence, that 99 to 100% of households within a given area can receive a network television  y_x( xstation's signal 99 to 100% of the time.xk' nZ(ԍNRTC Petition at 16; EchoStar Petition at 24, 29; NPS NRTC Comments at 3; DirecTV Joint NRTC & EchoStar Comments at 18. The DTH industry requests that the Commission act now to further consumer choice, foster competition, and respond to congressional support for action.  y_( `  13.` ` Members of Congress and the Executive Branch have expressed their concern about the  x*issues raised in the petitions. On July 8, 1998, Senator McCain, Chairman of the Senate Commerce  x0Committee, and Representative Bliley, Chairman of the House Commerce Committee, wrote the  xBCommission, indicating that the Miami injunction "threatens to undermine the progress the Congress has  y_`( xmade in promoting competition."` k' nZ #(ԍLetter to William E. Kennard from Senator John McCain and Representative Tom Bliley, July 8, 1998. On August 7, 1998, Representative Boucher and 22 other members  x\of Congress stated in a letter to the Commission that the court's preliminary injunction "raises serious  y_ ( xconsumer and competitive issues that require immediate review and action by the Commission." k' nZ`&(ԍLetter to William E. Kennard from Representative Rick Boucher, et al., August 7, 1998. The  xletter continued, "As the expert regulatory agency in telecommunications matters, the Commission was" @,`(`(88"  xLspecifically authorized by Congress to define `Grade B' for purposes of the SHVA. . . . [W]e believe the  xBCommission should expeditiously act to prevent the imminent disenfranchisement of more than a million  y_(satellite customers." k' nZ(ԍThe Commission has received other comments from Congress, including: Letter to William E. Kennard from Senator Tim Hutchinson, September 15, 1998 ("everyone should have the opportunity to access network programming"); Letter to William E. Kennard from Rep. Pat Danner, August 25, 1998 ("I believe a termination of service [to one million subscribers] raises serious consumer and competitive issues that require immediate review and action by the Commission"); Letter to William E. Kennard from Rep. Bill Redmond, September 15, 1998 ("Action on the NRTC petition represents the most immediate relief available to consumers affected by the events in [the Miami court case]"); Letter to William E. Kennard from Rep. Virgil Goode, September 16, 1998 ("I want to see that residents in rural and mountainous areas will be able to continue to receive network television"); Letter to William E. Kennard from Rep. James H. Maloney, September 25, 1998 ("The FCC should . . . develop a new rule that allows those who otherwise cannot receive acceptable antennadelivered network signals to receive them with a satellite").  y_`( ` $ 14.` ` Larry Irving, director of the National Telecommunications Information Administration  x(NTIA) at the Department of Commerce, stated that, depending upon which predictive methodology is  xused, as many as nine million households (10 percent of American television households) could change  y_( xfrom served to unserved households.g!( k' nZ(ԍLetter to William Kennard from Larry Irving, September 4, 1998.g He reiterated the Administration's support for "robust competition"  xin the MVPD industry and noted that the definition of Grade B intensity could have a "marked effect" on satellite companies' competitive position in the market.  y_H (  y_ ( !II. ANALYSIS AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ă  y_ ( ` 415.` ` These rulemaking petitions address issues that are significant to consumers and the  xpromotion of competition, as well as to the affected industry parties, and we believe that an expedited  xrulemaking is necessary to protect satellite subscribers who are truly unserved from losing network service.  x`We seek to ensure that as many consumers as possible can receive a broadcast network signal consistent  x|with the intent of the SHVA. We also seek to promote competition among multichannel video  xprogramming distributors, where that is possible under the SHVA, and we recognize the important role  xvthat local broadcast stations play in their communities. We acknowledge that the SHVA limits the  xproposals we can make to further these goals and address the petitions. Further, we do not appear to have  xthe statutory authority to prevent most of PrimeTime 24's subscribers from losing their network service  xunder the Miami preliminary injunction (and under a possible permanent injunction). The evidence in the  xMiami and Raleigh court cases strongly suggests that many, if not most, of those subscribers do not live  y_(in "unserved households" under any interpretation of that term." k' nZp"(ԍSee CBS v. PrimeTime 24, Order, 9 F.Supp.2d at 1333; ABC v. PrimeTime 24, Court Opinion, 1998 WL at 544286. " ",`(`(88"Ԍ y_( ` 16.` ` Two courts have noted that Congress used the Grade B standard when it defined "unserved  y_( xLhouseholds" because it wanted an objective measure of a television signal's strength.#k' nZ@(ԍSee CBS v. PrimeTime 24, Order, 9 F.Supp.2d at 1339; ABC v. PrimeTime 24, Court Opinion, 1998 WL 544286. The Commission  xhas sought in its own regulations to advance this approach by establishing discrete field strength values  x(measured in dBu's) when it defined Grade B and when it created a detailed methodology for determining  y_`( xGrade B contours.M$` k' nZ (ԍ47 C.F.R.  73.683 and 73.684.M Consequently, a satellite company may not deliver network signals to a viewer simply  xzbecause the viewer is subjectively unhappy with his or her television picture. The Miami and Raleigh  xDdistrict courts both concluded that PrimeTime 24 has chosen not to abide by the SHVA's and the  y_(Commission's objective standard.%k' nZ8 (ԍSee CBS v. PrimeTime 24, Order, 9 F.Supp.2d at 1341; ABC v. PrimeTime 24, Court Opinion, 1998 WL 544286 at 2829.  y_(  y_( `  17.` ` We will explore four issues in this NPRM. First, we seek comment on the Commission's  x(authority to address the issues raised in the court decisions and the NRTC and EchoStar petitions. Second,  x.we seek comment on changing the definition of Grade B intensity so that truly unserved households can  xbe better identified. Third, we seek comment on endorsing or developing a methodology for accurately  xpredicting whether an individual household is able to receive a signal of Grade B intensity. Fourth, we  x seek comment on developing an easytouse and inexpensive method for testing the strength of a broadcast network signal at an individual household.  y_X(X A.X` ` Commission's Authority to Proceed (#`   y_( ` 18.` ` As indicated above, several broadcasters contend that the Commission lacks the authority  y_( xto grant the relief requested in the NRTC and EchoStar petitions.:&Xk' nZ(ԍNAB NRTC Comments 2, 6; NASA NRTC Comments 34, 17, 2728; SCBA NRTC Comments 2, 8; Belo Echostar Comments at 3 n.3; Cosmos Echostar Comments at 911, 19; NAB Echostar Comments at 5, 2627; NASA Echostar Comments at 3, 1418, 2223, 28, 34; SCBA Joint Reply Comments at 3.: They state that Congress incorporated  xby reference the Commission's Grade B definitions and measurement procedures effectively freezing  y_( xthem in place when the SHVA was adopted in 1988.'( k' nZX(ԍSCBA NRTC Comments at 4; NAB Echostar Comments at 2729; NASA Echostar Comments at 1418, 2427; NASA NRTC Comments at 17, 2126. Accordingly, the broadcasters conclude that the  x`Commission may not change its rules now. Some commenters cite legislative history purporting to show  xthat Section 73.683 was specifically included as part of an early draft of the unserved household definition,  y_( xthus demonstrating Congress' intention to incorporate the definition as it existed at passage.l( k' nZ8#(ԍSee NASA EchoStar Comments at 23; NAB EchoStar Comments at 27.l Commenters  xargue that Congress did not explicitly direct the Commission to conduct a rulemaking on the definition,  y_( xso the Commission has no authority to change it.b)k' nZx&(ԍSee, e.g., NASA EchoStar Comments at 23.b They note that the SHVA is a copyright statute, not  x~a communications law to be administered by the Commission. The National Association of Broadcasters" ),`(`(88"  y_( x`cites a number of cases, including the Supreme Court's decision in Hassett v. Welch, for the "well settled  xBcanon" that "[w]here one statute adopts the particular provisions of another by a specific and descriptive  x`reference to the statute or provisions adopted . . . [s]uch adoption takes the statute as it exists at the time  xof adoption and does not include subsequent additions or modifications by the statute so taken unless it  y_`(does so by express intent."A*`k' nZ(ԍ303 U.S. 303, 314 (1938).A  y_( ` 19. ` ` Parties supporting the petitions respond that Grade B intensity is an ambiguous and open xended term in the SHVA, evidenced by Congress' failure to explicitly incorporate a rule section into the  y_( xSHVA's definition of unserved households.>+Xk' nZ (ԍNRTC NRTC Reply at 13.> These commenters conclude that Congress intentionally left  y_( xthe definition in the Commission's hands. EchoStar cites the Supreme Court's holding in Lukhard v. Reed  y_p( x\that "[i]t is of course not true that whenever Congress enacts legislation using a word that has a given  y_H (administrative interpretation it means to freeze that administrative interpretation in place."A,H k' nZ(ԍ481 U.S. 368, 379 (1989).A  y_ ( ` 20.` ` There are four matters relating to the Commission's authority to proceed on particular  xVissues in this rulemaking. First, we seek comment on whether Congress "froze" the definition of a signal  xof Grade B intensity for purposes of the SHVA when it adopted the Act in 1988. That is, if the  xCommission were to revise the definition as a general matter, would the definition nevertheless remain  xunchanged for the purposes of the SHVA? We tentatively conclude that Congress did not "freeze" the  xdefinition of a signal of Grade B intensity for SHVA purposes in 1988 and seek comment on this tentative  x~conclusion. When Congress incorporated Grade B into the definition of "unserved households" it did not  x*incorporate specific values, such as the dBu levels the Commission uses in Section 73.683. Further,  xnothing in the SHVA or legislative history indicates that Congress intended to freeze the value of Grade  xB when it passed the law in 1988 or when it renewed it in 1994. Where Congress intended to incorporate  y_h( x$regulations as they existed on a certain date, it has expressly done so. For example, in Section 111(f) of  xthe Copyright Act, Congress' definition of "local service area of a primary transmitter" explicitly references  x>Commission regulations "in effect on April 15, 1976, or such station's television market as defined in  y_( xsection 76.55(e) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on September 18, 1993) . . . ">-xk' nZ(ԍ17 U.S.C.  111(f).> The  xfederal courts and the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress are primarily responsible for enforcing  xBand administering the copyright laws, but Congress unquestionably turned to the Commission's expertise  y_x( xwhen it defined unserved household in reference to a "signal of Grade B intensity (as defined by the  y_P(Federal Communications Commission)."  y_( ` 21.` ` With respect to the cases cited by commenters, we note that in reaching its conclusion in  y_( xLukhard v. Reed, the Court followed Helvering v. Wilshire, in which it held that "a regulation interpreting  xa provision of one act [does not become] frozen into another act merely by reenactment of that  y_( xLprovision."C.k' nZ0&(ԍ308 US 90, 100-101 (1939).C Indeed, the Supreme Court reasoned that if legislation so constrained an agency's ability to  xconduct rulemaking under its enabling legislation, then "the result would be to read into the grant of"` .,`(`(88"  xexpress administrative powers an implied condition that they were not to be exercised unless, in effect,  xthe Congress had consented. We do not believe that such impairment of the administrative process is  y_( x.consistent with the statutory scheme which the Congress has designed."9/k' nZ(ԍId. at 101.9 Both Helvering and Lukhard  y_( xsuggest that the meaning of "signal of Grade B intensity" in SHVA was not frozen for purposes of that Act when SHVA was enacted, but rather can be modified over time by the Commission.  y_( ` 22. ` ` Second, we seek comment on whether the Commission has the authority to revise its  y_( xGrade B rules specifically for the purposes of the SHVA.0 Xk' nZ (ԍWe consider Grade B construct to include (1) the signal intensity levels assigned to Grade B, 47 C.F.R.  73.683; (2) models for predicting where a Grade B signal exists in an area or at an individual point (or  nZp (household), e.g., 47 C.F.R.  73.684 and 73.686 predictive models; and (3) the methodologies for testing signal strength in an area or at an individual point. Initially, we note that it is indisputable that  xthe Commission has the authority, as a general matter, to revise any of its rules, as long as we explain our  y_( xjreasons for doing so.s1@k' nZx(ԍGreater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 850851 (1971).s But may we create special provisions that would apply only to SHVA? Does the  xstatute permit the Commission to promulgate a special definition of Grade B intensity for the exclusive  xpurposes of the SHVA? What was the Congress' intent? Some commenters argue that we ought to make  x*a specific definition for the SHVA because the Grade B construct is most often used for determining  y_ ( xlsignal intensity over broad areas, not for individual households as the SHVA contemplates.a2 k' nZh(ԍSee 17 U.S.C.  119(a)(2)(B) and 119(d)(10).a The  xNCommission has tailored its rules for specific purposes in the past. For example, the Commission  xdetermines television stations' service areas using two different, but related, methods, depending on the  xpurpose. For exceptions to the cable syndicated exclusivity rules and for crossownership purposes, the  xhCommission uses its traditional Grade B contour scheme, but for digital television stations, the  y_0(Commission uses the LongleyRice predictive model.30` k' nZ0(ԍSee infra  34; 47 C.F.R.  76.156(a) (exceptions to syndicated exclusivity rules); 47 C.F.R.  76.501(a) (crossownership rules); 47 C.F.R.  73.622(e)(1) (DTV service areas).  y_( ` 23.` ` Third, we seek comment on whether the Commission has the authority to develop a model  xfor predicting whether an individual household can receive a signal of Grade B intensity for purposes of  xthe SHVA. The Commission has developed and used predictive models for determining signal intensity  xin other contexts for example, the traditional Grade B contour and the LongleyRice models.  xBroadcasters argue that the Commission does not have the authority to develop a predictive model for  x~SHVA purposes, because the definition of "unserved households" depends on a household's actual ability  y_( xto receive a signal of Grade B intensity as measured at the household itself.q4 k' nZH#(ԍNASA NRTC Comments at 23, 1720; NASA Echostar Comments at 1011, 1418.q While satellite providers  xand broadcasters may negotiate the use of a predictive model, the argument continues, the SHVA does  xvnot provide the Commission with jurisdiction to interfere with or to endorse a particular predictive  xmethodology. The satellite providers respond by citing the Commission's current use of predictive  xmethodologies for other purposes. They argue that the Commission may therefore develop a predictive model specifically for the SHVA."( H 4,`(`(88"Ԍ y_( ` ԙ24.` ` A predictive model need not replace actual measurement, but could serve as a presumption  y_( xof service or lack of service for purposes of the SHVA.!5 k' nZ@(ԍWe note that some broadcasters have entered into agreements with Primestar and Netlink (satellite television providers) to resolve disputes arising from the SHVA requirements. These settlements assign fivedigit zip codes to each station and classify each zip code as "red light" if more than 50% of the zip code's population is served based on LongleyRice propagation data and as "green light" of 50% or less of the population in the zip code is served. Primestar and Netlink agreed in this settlement that they will not sign up new subscribers who are in a "red light zip code" unless the station grants a waiver or the satellite carrier conducts a signal intensity test that shows the household does not receive a Grade B intensity signal. The agreement also describes a simplified testing methodology for measuring signal intensity at a home and provides that the "loser  nZ (pays" for any tests that are conducted. See Settlement and Compliance Agreement Between ABC, Inc., CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, National Broadcasting Company, and Certain ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC Network Stations; the National Association of Broadcasters; the ABC Television Affiliates Association, the CBS Television Network Affiliates Association, the Fox Television Affiliates Association, and the NBC Television Affiliates Association AND Primestar Partners, L.P., Netlink USA, and Telluride Cablevision, Inc. This settlement is a part of the public record in this proceeding.! A presumption could make administration of  xthe unserved household rule easier and more costeffective for consumers and the industry. Broadcasters  xand satellite providers would be able to rely on a Commissionendorsed model when deciding whether  y_`( xindividual consumers are presumed to be eligible to receive satellitedelivered network signals.6` k' nZ(ԍCommenters note that consumers and industry need certainty in this area. PrimeTime 24 NRTC Comments at 89, 13; Superstar Echostar Comments at 810; DirecTV Joint Comments at 2, 1011, 19.  xMoreover, a predictive process might be a judicially acceptable means for a satellite service provider to  x carry its burden of showing "that its secondary transmission of a primary transmission by a network station  y_( xis for private home viewing to an unserved household."C7k' nZ`(ԍ17 U.S.C. 119(a)(5)(D).C Such an approach is consistent with the federal  xpcourt's use of a variation of the Commission's LongleyRice predictive methodology in its preliminary  y_(injunction in the PrimeTime 24 proceeding in Miami.8hk' nZ(ԍCBS, Inc. et al. v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, Supplemental Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, at 3. (For an explanation of the LongleyRice model, see  34.).  y_H ( ` 25.` ` Fourth, we seek comment on our conclusion that the Commission's authority to define a  xsignal of Grade B intensity reasonably includes the authority to adopt a method of measuring signal  xzintensity at an individual household. The Commission has already established a method of measuring  xservice within an area or for propagation analysis, but has not established a method specifically for  y_ ( x~measuring signal intensity at an individual household.,9X k' nZ!(ԍPropagation analysis generally involves predictions of the strength of a signal over specified paths or areas. Propagation models may incorporate the effects of terrain elevations along the path and other inherent physical characteristics of the environment., The SHVA is concerned with adequate television" 9,`(`(880 "  y_( xLsignals at individual households.:@k' nZh(ԍSee H.R. Rep. 100887(I), at 1 ("The purpose of the proposed legislation is to create an interim statutory license in the Copyright Act for satellite carriers to retransmit television broadcast signals of superstations and  nZ(network stations to earth station owners for private home viewing"); 17 U.S.C.  119(d)(1) (definition of distributor refers to secondary transmission of network signals to "individual subscribers");  119(d)(8) (definition of subscriber refers to an "individual" who receives satellite service); H.R. Rep. 100887(I), at 56  nZP((1998), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5577 (before the 1988 SHVA, "[v]ery little attention was paid to copyright issues posed by satellite transmissions directly to individuals for private home viewing . . . it is appropriate for Congress to intercede and delineate this Nation's intellectual property laws"). Importantly, it does not matter to consumers that other households (a nextdoor neighbor or a family across town) can actually receive network signals when they cannot.  y_(  y_(X B.X` ` Definition, Prediction, and Measurement Proposals (#`  y_8( ` d26.` ` The measurement and prediction techniques included in Part 73 of the Commission's rules  xand as developed in other contexts constitute a set of tools relating to signal propagation and reception  x$that are useful for a variety of purposes. Although this proceeding focuses on concerns that are specific  xto SHVA, we recognize that refinements in the rules and in our knowledge about the inhome viewing  xenvironment (antennas, transmission lines, and receivers) and prediction methodologies have potential  xcarryover into some other aspects of the Commission's rules. In some respects, however, the matters are  xtunique to the SHVA context. Thus, for example, the Commission's rules do not typically focus on signal  xavailability measurement techniques relating to service to a single discrete location or household.  xStandardization of a single household measurement process would thus not necessarily have broad  ximplications for other parts of the Commission's rules. Although our focus is on changes specifically  xrelevant for SHVA purposes, we seek comment on the general question of what other nonSHVA rules  x.or policies might be implicated by the changes that are discussed below. We note, for example, that our  xDTV service replication models are also based upon duplicating the Grade B service area of existing  xanalog broadcast stations. Certain interference criteria also incorporate the Grade B service area of  xtelevision broadcast stations. We also note that the Commission has a history of using different tools in  xVdifferent contexts depending on the degree of precision desired, the expense of the process used, and the  y_( xeconomic and technical tradeoffs involved in any specific issue.;k' nZ((ԍAs the Commission has previously noted in a related context (Report and Order in Dockets 16004 and  nZ(18052, 53 FCC 2d 855, para. 17 (1975)): XX` ` In a regulatory system engineering rules are administrative tools, and a decision, at any time, to substitute new tools for old, even though they may be demonstrated to be keener and more precise than the ones presently available, inevitably must take into consideration the practical consequences of such action, both with respect to efficiency, expeditiousness and finality of regulatory processes, and the impact of the rule changes on those whose activities are under the jurisdiction of the regulatory body.x`  We invite comment on this issue and  xbrequest that parties provide specific rationales for any differences between SHVA and nonSHVA definitions, prediction models, and measurement methods that they advocate. "@h;,`(`(88"Ԍ y_(8X ` ` 1. ,Defining a Signal of Grade B Intensity (#  y_( ` F27.` ` A signal of Grade B intensity is an objective standard that, as currently defined in Section  x73.683, may not distinguish adequately between served and unserved households. The Grade B signal  xH8intensity values specified in our rules were designed to enable reception of a television picture that is  x>acceptable to the median observer, "assuming a receiving installation (antenna, transmission line, and  y_( xreceiver) considered to be typical of outlying or nearfringe areas."<k' nZx(ԍSee, e.g., O'Connor, Robert A., "Understanding Television's Grade A and Grade B Service Contours," at 139. Grade B service also assumes the  y_( xabsence of manmade noise or interference from other stations.1= k' nZ (ԍId.1 There was little specific comment in the  x NRTC and EchoStar petitions or in the responsive pleadings addressing possible changes in the field  x4strength levels specified in the rules. Has what constitutes a "conventional outdoor rooftop receiving  xantenna" and the concept of the quality of service that viewers consider acceptable changed since the  xCommission adopted the Grade B signal strength levels in the 1950s? Would these standards need  xmodification so that the median observer would continue to find the service acceptable? For example,  x8receivers may have improved, or the assumptions regarding interference in outlying areas may no longer  y_ ( xbe valid.>  k' nZ (ԍ See, e.g., Gary S. Kalagian, "A review of the Technical Planning Factors for the VHF Television Service," FCC, Office of Chief Engineer, Bulletin RS7701 (March 1, 1977), p. 11 ("The assumption of 0 db to overcome rural noise in these `rural' areas' is probably no longer valid because of the increased number of high voltage  nZx(power lines and motor vehicle traffic volume.") Changing the standard of an acceptable signal could have detrimental effects on the viability  xXof local television stations and, potentially, on the goal of localism. We have no evidence that the  xtunderlying technical planning factors have changed in a way that would justify revising the current Grade  y_X( xB signal intensity levels..?Xk' nZ(ԍId.; see also O'Connor, Robert A., "Understanding Television's Grade A and Grade B Service Contours."  nZX(As noted in fn.16, supra, these signal intensity values incorporate "time variability" factors. See also  32.. We welcome comments, supported by evidence, regarding any claimed changes to the assumptions made in deriving the Grade B signal intensity.  y_( ` 28.` ` In soliciting comments on this issue, we recognize that our flexibility to change the Grade  xB intensity values is naturally constrained by the existence of the Grade A standard. The Grade A  y_( x4intensity values are based on 70% of the locations receiving an acceptable picture 90% of the time.?@ k' nZ (ԍSee also  32.?  x Therefore, we believe that we cannot modify Grade B intensity so much that it effectively equals or  x*exceeds Grade A signal intensity. We invite comments on all the factors that determine the Grade B  xsignal intensity. We also seek comment on whether changes to the current intensity values would have  xa detrimental effect on networkaffiliate relationships and localism, as well as other Commission rules that involve the current Grade B standard.  y_(  y_x(X` ` 2. ,Predicting a Signal of Grade B Intensity (#  y_(( ` 29.` ` The definition of an unserved household as a household that "cannot receive ... a signal  xtof Grade B intensity" most logically refers to signal measurement at an individual household to determine" @,`(`(88"  xif an adequate signal is actually received. Because of the costs and difficulties of individual  xmeasurements, however, for many purposes a predictive model is used in lieu of actual measurements.  xConsistent with this notion, the EchoStar petition asks the Commission to adopt or endorse an accurate  y_(model for predicting whether an individual household receives a Grade B intensity signal.AAk' nZ(ԍEchoStar Petition at 12.A  y_8( ` H30.` ` We believe that predictive models can be effective proxies for individual household  xVmeasurements. The satellite and broadcast industry currently make use of predictive models such as the  x4LongleyRice methodology. However, different parties do not always agree on which model is most  xappropriate for identifying unserved households. Even when parties use the same model, they may  xdisagree on the factors that are considered in that model. For example, different variations of the Longley xTRice model may or may not account for vegetation or buildings. In addition, studies using the  xLongley-Rice model, such as our DTV analyses, may account for interference. If the Commission  xendorses a predictive model in this rulemaking, parties will not need to spend future resources and time  xdebating methodology. However, consistent with the SHVA, no Commissionendorsed model will preclude a party from using actual measurements at individual households.  y_ ( ` x31.` ` The difference in taking actual measurements at individual households and using predictive  xmodels is significant, because measurement requires time, money, and other resources that often outweigh  xthe benefits. For example, it may cost more for a satellite company to take a measurement than it can  xrecover through subscriber fees. To avoid these costs, satellite providers, broadcasters, and consumers  xhave often turned to predictive models that erroneously permit some served households to receive satellite  xnetwork service, or, conversely, that prevent some unserved households from being eligible to receive  y_(network stations via satellite.BXk' nZ(ԍSee NTIA NRTC Comments at 12; PrimeTime 24 NRTC Comments at 4, 7, 13; PrimeTime 24 Echostar Comments at 34; DirecTV Joint Comments at 17.  y_@( `  32.` ` Even though Grade B signal intensity is defined as discrete values measured in dBu's, the  xintensity of broadcast signals at particular locations and at particular times cannot be precisely determined,  x*regardless of the predictive method used. Signal strength varies randomly over location and time, so  xsignal propagation must be considered on a statistical basis. This is true whether the signal intensity is  xpredicted at a fixed location (such as an individual household) or over an area. Some prediction methods,  y_x( xincluding the Commission's propagation curves, predict the occurrence of median signal strengths (i.e.,  xsignal strengths expected to be exceeded at 50% of the locations in a particular area at least 50% of the  xptime). Under this approach, "location" and "time" variability factors are added to the signal level for  xan acceptable picture so that the desired statistical reliability is achieved. The values chosen for the Grade  xRB signal intensity account for this variability, and therefore, predict that the best 50% of the locations  xalong the Grade B contour will receive an acceptable picture 90% of the time. In other predictive models,  xincluding the LongleyRice pointtopoint model, this variability is built into the model, rather than into  xthe signal intensity value. We seek comment on whether it would be appropriate to consider changing  xBthe location and time variability percentages. For example, should more than 50% of viewers receive an  xVacceptable picture more than 90% of the time? We also seek comment on whether such changes should be incorporated into the signal intensity values or the predictive model. "!B,`(`(88|"Ԍ y_( ` ~ 33.` ` As previously noted, the Commission has used predictive models for determining signal  y_( xintensity in the past.:Ck' nZ@(ԍSee  20.: We seek comment on the application of these models in the SHVA context. We  xLtentatively conclude that the Commission's traditional predictive methodology for determining a Grade B  xcontour, outlined in Section 73.684 of the Commission's rules, is insufficient for predicting signal strength  xat individual households. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. The traditional Grade B  xDmethodology predicts a signal's strength by using radial lines extending ten miles from a television  y_( xstation's transmitter.]DXk' nZ (ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  73.684(d) and 73.686(b).] This methodology does not accurately reflect topographic differences in a station's  y_( xVtransmission area, and explicitly does not account for interference from other signals.TEk' nZp (ԍ47 C.F.R.  73.683(a) and 73.684(a). T These omissions  xresult in an imperfect methodology for predicting whether an individual household can receive an adequate  xsignal. For example, terrain features beyond 10 miles from a station's transmitter site may block a house's  xreception or a house that sits at the edge of two different television markets may suffer from interfering signals.  y_ ( ` !34.` ` While our traditional Grade B contour methodology is inadequate for predicting the signal  x~level at a single location, we have recently adopted rules in the DTV proceeding for analyzing TV service  y_ ( xusing a pointtopoint prediction method based on the LongleyRice propagation model.F xk' nZ(ԍOur implementation of the LongleyRice model for analysis of DTV and analog TV service in the DTV proceeding is described in "LongleyRice Methodology for Evaluating TV Coverage and Interference," OET Bulletin 69, Federal Communications Commission (July 2, 1997) . LongleyRice is the Commission's designated  nZ(methodology for determining where service is provided by a DTV station. See 47 C.F.R.  73.622(e). We propose  xthat the LongleyRice propagation model, as implemented for DTV, be used to refine the Grade B service  xprediction for the purpose of SHVA determinations. The LongleyRice propagation model is the most  xwidelyused private means of predicting a Grade B coverage area for SHVA purposes. It provides an  xestimate of signal strength, similar to the traditional Grade B contour method. However, the LongleyRice  y_( xVmodel adjusts the predictions for changes in terrain (e.g., hills and valleys) along the entire path from the  xtransmitter site to the specified receive site. Thus, while the traditional method often results in smooth  xconcentric circles surrounding a transmission tower, the LongleyRice method more precisely describes  xactual areas of coverage. While the broadcasters support the use of the LongleyRice model in the SHVA  xcontext, the satellite interests claim it is insufficient. The detractors agree that a LongleyRice analysis  xhas advantages over a traditional Grade B contour, but note that it fails to account for several important  xfactors that affect signal availability, including interference from other signals, vegetation, and buildings.  xWe seek comment generally on this proposal, as well as specifically on the following questions. Should  xconsideration of cochannel and adjacentchannel interference as implemented for DTV be part of the  x methodology used for SHVA purposes? Is it necessary to prescribe how accurately receive location  xcoordinates are specified? Can LongleyRice be modified to increase the probability of identifying served  xand unserved households more accurately? How? What are the predictive factors that are missing in the  x`current LongleyRice model? Can LongleyRice reasonably be modified to account for all these factors?  xWhat effect would incorporation of these additional factors have on the cost and practicality of the  xNLongleyRice methodology? Can LongleyRice or a modified version of LongleyRice be used in"( F,`(`(88"  xBconjunction with a commercially available geocoding process to provide a workable predictive model for  xsatellite providers, broadcasters, and consumers to use for determining whether a given subscriber is  xpresumed to be unserved? We seek comment on whether such currentlyavailable approaches are working  y_(well for the industries and consumers.G k' nZ(ԍFor example, Decisionmark Corporation is currently working with broadcasters and satellite providers to provide mapping information about signal areas. They sponsor web sites, and , that provide information about served and unserved areas to consumers, broadcasters and participating satellite providers.   y_8( `  "35.` ` We also invite parties to submit any other methodology that they believe will more  xaccurately and costeffectively predict whether an individual household is able to receive a signal of Grade  xB intensity. We seek to identify a predictive model that more accurately determines whether a household  xis unserved for purposes of the SHVA. Is there a predictive methodology that will increase the probability  y_( xthat unserved households will be more accurately identified (e.g., by taking into account interference)?  xDWhat is that methodology? For either a version of the LongleyRice model or another alternative  xBmethodology, how might parties use a new predictive model? Can and should the Commission endorse  xor develop a predictive model? Should we endorse a model that already exists or endorse such a model with modifications? What are the costs associated with any of the suggested methodologies?  y_ ( ` Z#36.` ` We acknowledge and reiterate Congress' decision in the SHVA to protect networkaffiliate  x\relationships and to foster localism in broadcasting. If we change the number of viewers predicted to  xreceive a local station, we may substantially affect these policies. As we have noted, localism is central  y_0( xzto our policies governing broadcasting and the obligation of broadcasters to serve the public interest.FH0k' nZ(ԍSee supra para. 3.F  xIn proposing a new or modified predictive model for purposes of the SHVA, we seek comment on what,  x`if any, effects different predictive models will have on these policies, and what, if any, steps we can take to further such policies.  y_h( X` ` 3. ,Testing for Signal Intensity at Individual Householdsxx  (#x  y_( ` $37. ` ` For the SHVA to function properly, a relatively low cost, accurate, and reproducible  x methodology for measuring the presence of a Grade B intensity signal in a household is of particular  ximportance. Although, because of the costs and delays involved, it would be desirable to minimize the  x`need for individual testing to the extent possible, individual testing is the key safety net mechanism under  xRthe SHVA for proving that a specific household is unserved and thus eligible under the law to receive  xsatellite delivery of network affiliated television stations. We therefore propose to explore a method of  xzmeasuring signal intensity at individual households that is accurate, easier, and less expensive than the current method.  y_( ` %38.` ` The Commission's current method of measuring the field strength of overtheair signals  y_( xin a station service area requires a socalled 100foot mobile run.AI@k' nZh%(ԍ47 C.F.R.  73.686(b).A The run typically involves a truck with  y_`( xa 30foot antenna that takes continuous measurements while being driven a distance of 100 feet. The  xantenna must be rotated to the best receiving position, and engineers record factors that might affect"8I,`(`(88B"  xsignals, such as topography, height and type of vegetation, buildings, obstacles, and weather. If overhead  xobstacles get in the way, a cluster of measurements must be taken at locations within 200 feet of each  y_( x.other. This elaborate procedure can cost several hundred dollars each time it is performed.J k' nZ(ԍSee, e.g., EchoStar Communications Corp., et al, v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., et al, Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Request for Declaratory Judgment, Civil Action No. 98B2285 (D. Colo.) (October 19, 1998) (testing averages $150 per household). We note that DBS dishes often retail for as little at $99, plus the programming package. This is an  x expensive proposition for a satellite company or a consumer who wants to prove that a household is  xunserved by overtheair signals. When multiplied over hundreds of households at the outer edges of a  xjstation's service area, the cost may become prohibitive and may prevent many truly unserved consumers from receiving broadcast network service.  y_( ` ~&39.` ` In addition to the difficulties inherent in this test, many of its assumptions may not hold  xin individual situations. For example, many homes do not have antennas 30 feet above the ground,  xespecially if they are onestory homes. The definition of unserved household only describes reception over  y_H ( xa conventional outdoor rooftop receiving antenna,EKH k' nZ(ԍ17 U.S.C.  119(d)(10)(A).E so requiring measurements on a 30foot antenna may  xnot reflect what is "conventional." Requiring the truck's antenna to face the direction of the station's tower  xignores the reality that consumers' antennas receive several stations, and many do not rotate to the best  xposition for each station. Finally, requiring clusters of tests and a 100foot mobile run ignores the fact  xtthat homes are stationary and that reception may vary considerably over a mobile run on a nearby street.  xThe purpose of the procedure specified in the rules is not to determine the receivability of a signal at a  xsingle spot, but to determine, through measurements at a series of grid intersections over a community,  y_0(the nature of service to the community. L00@k' nZ(ԍThe Miami court ruled that the signal strength test should be "conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in the DECLARATION OF JULES COHENDeclaration of Jules Cohen, filed on March 11, 1997." Mr. Cohen states in his Declaration that the procedure "was based on that prescribed by the FCC in 47 C.F.R.  73.686." Declaration of Jules Cohen in  nZh(CBS, et al., v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, CIVNesbitt No. 963650 at 8 (executed on March 8, 1998). Mr. Cohen describes the measuring procedure in the following terms. At an accessible road closest to a household, a 100foot mobile run is made with a conventional rooftop antenna elevated to 30 feet. During the run, a station's field intensity is recorded and the data is stored in a computer. Analysis of the data, made with the aid of a computer program, permits the extraction of the maximum, minimum, and median field intensity found, together with the standard deviation. Median field intensity minus standard deviation is a measure of the least signal intensity likely to be found at the specific location of the household. In contrast, EchoStar has proposed a signal strength test, in a lawsuit filed in October 1998, that focuses  nZ(more directly on a single point at a household.  EchoStar Communications Corp., et al, v. CBS Broadcasting,  nZp (Inc., et al, Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Request for Declaratory Judgment, Civil Action No. 98B2285 (D. Colo.) (October 19, 1998). Its procedure involves placement of a conventional outdoor rooftop antenna within three feet of the home and raised to the height of the roof. The antenna is oriented to maximize signal strength for the one local station that the consumer watches most often. A length of standard household cable is attached to the antenna, and a number of splitters are attached to duplicate the number of splitters the consumer uses to service multiple televisions. A signal measurement is then conducted. If the signal strength is not stable, the antenna is relocated and the same procedure utilized until a stable signal strength is achieved. Readings are taken approximately every thirty seconds for a period of five minutes. If any of the signal strength readings register less than the Grade B signal strength threshold as established by Congress and the FCC, the consumer will be deemed an "unserved household" eligible to receive distant network signals. "08L,`(`(88L"Ԍ y_( ` ԙ'40.` ` We seek comment on the modification of the current testing methodology or the creation  xof a new methodology for measuring signal strength. Any recommendations should lead to a test that is  xrelatively easy to use and inexpensive enough to make it economically practical for the industry and for  y_( xconsumers. We seek comment on what qualifies as "a conventional outdoor rooftop receiving antenna."OMk' nZ(ԍSee 17 U.S.C.  119(d)(10)(A).O  x Are different antennas required for different parts of the country, or as one moves farther from a television  x transmitter? What special problems do viewers in multiple dwelling unit buildings ("MDUs") face in  x.gaining access to a conventional outdoor rooftop television antenna? Should the testing methodology be  xdifferent for highrise MDUs? Does "conventional outdoor rooftop receiving antenna" include a rotor?  y_( xHow, if at all, should the Grade B criterion of typical of outlying or nearfringe areasNXk' nZ (ԍSee O'Connor, Robert A., "Understanding Television's Grade A and Grade B Service Contours," at 139. influence the  xVconcept of "conventional" antenna? On another note, how do we ensure the objectivity and accuracy of  x:any signal strength test? How do we do so without making the test more difficult, impractical, or  x8expensive? How should antenna height be measured? Should antenna height be set at 30 feet, should it  xbe five feet above the roof, or something else? Should the measurement be related to the placement of  xthe satellite receiver in situations where the satellite and local signal antennas are integrated? If antenna  xdesigns are improved over those historically available so that the definition of "conventional" changes,  y_ ( xhow should that be accommodated in the measurement process?O k' nZ0(ԍWe note that initiatives are in progress with the consumer electronics and satellite industries to improve the  nZ(ability of consumers to receive local signals with individual antennas. See, e.g., fn. 53. How should we account for the  xchallenges of raising a rooftop antenna in multiple dwelling units? How should the test account for  xrotation, or lack of rotation, of antennas that receive the signals of several stations? What type and  x calibration of measurement equipment is needed? How can the process account for the variations of signal level over the course of a day or with seasonal changes?  y_( C.` ` Other Issues  y_h( ` (41.` ` We seek comment on whether the lack of an established methodology for measuring Grade  xB signal intensity at individual households has hampered the effective functioning of the SHVA. In  xparticular, we note that the SHVA contains a "loser pays" mechanism that allows recovery, in any civil  y_( xjaction, of signal measurement costs at a subscriber's household.1PX@k' nZ(ԍ17 U.S.C.  119(a)(9) (loser pays for signal intensity measurement; recovery of measurement costs in a  nZ(civil action). See also 17 U.S.C.  119(a)(8)(B)(ii) and (C)(ii) (expired transitional signal intensity measurement procedures).1 Under the SHVA, if a network station  xquestions whether a particular subscriber is unserved, an actual measurement at the subscriber's household  x>may result. If the household is unserved, the broadcast station must pay for the measurement; if the  xhousehold is served, the satellite carrier must pay. We believe that the loser pays mechanism, if used even  xin the absence of a civil action, would substantially alleviate the cost burden of actual signal measurements  xby giving both parties an economic incentive to avoid actual measurements in most circumstances. We  xseek comment on whether parties are making use of the "loser pays" mechanism. If they are not, why  xLnot? Can and should we establish rules or policies that will facilitate their ability to do so? We also seek  xcomment on whether the loser pays mechanism, combined with a predictive model that would minimize the need for individual testing in most cases, would facilitate the effective functioning of the Act. "` P,`(`(88"Ԍ y_( ` jԙ)42.` ` We also seek comment on whether we can and should adopt a procedure similar to the  y_( x`SHVA's expired transitional "loser pays" mechanism.Qk' nZ@(ԍSee 17 U.S.C.  119(a)(8)(B)(ii) and (C)(ii). Section 119(a)(8) expired on December 31, 1996. Satellite  nZ(Home Viewer Act of 1994,  6(c), Pub. L. 103369 (Oct. 18, 1994). Does that provision represent a workable system  xfor allocating burdens of proof, and appropriate incentives to challenge a presumptive rule, in determining  xfwho is and who is not an unserved household? Establishing a system based on an initial presumption  xHwould help create certainty and provide a good starting point for managing this issue on a large scale.  xAre there other mechanisms that can better serve the purposes of the SHVA? One alternative might be  xthe agreement reached between broadcasters and two satellite carriers, Primestar Partners and Netlink  y_( x USA, that created presumptive zones of served and unserved households based on zip codes.@R k' nZ (ԍSee, supra, n. 53.@ Yet  xanother althernative might be the methodology developed by Decisionmark Corporation of Cedar Rapids,  x:Iowa, that is used by both PrimeTime 24 and broadcasters in the Miami federal court case. This  xmethodology uses a variation of the LongleyRice methodology to determine whether individual homes  xtare unserved. We seek comment on these approaches. Are there additional actions the Commission can and should take to make enforcement of the SHVA more effective?  y_ ( ` ^   *43.` ` Finally, we seek comment on the prospect that the industry will develop "localintolocal"  technology to serve every community. The localintolocal concept means that satellite carriers would  provide subscribers with the signals of their local broadcast network affiliates instead of signals from distant  nstations. If satellite carriers were allowed to retransmit a broadcast network station's signal into that station's  local market, then the risks of damaging the goals of broadcast localism could be mitigated. Some satellite  pcarriers have already developed limited plans for accomplishing localintolocal service. For example,  PEchoStar has a localintolocal option for unserved households in more than a dozen television markets, and  BCapitol Broadcasting Inc. of Raleigh, North Carolina, has reportedly developed the technology to deliver  y_( localintolocal service for most, if not all, television markets.S nZ(ԍSee Echostar Communications Corp., DISH NETWORK IS THE ONLY ONE! (press release), Jan. 8, 1998;  nZ(Vincent Kiernan, Making Satellites More Local, Satellite Communications, Apr. 30, 1998. We note that some interested parties have  Pargued that a local-into-local extension of the compulsory license in the current copyright laws might obviate  the need for Commission action in this area. The Commission, of course, lacks the statutory authority to  fcreate such an extension. However, Section 335(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 instructs the  Commission to "examine the opportunities that the establishment of direct broadcast satellite service provides  Zfor the principle of localism under this Act, and the methods by which such principle may be served through  y_( Dtechnological and other developments in, or regulation of, such service.">T nZH (ԍ47 U.S.C.  335(a).> If Congress adopted a  local-into-local extension of the compulsory license, how would such a change affect the need for, and  viability of, the proposals in this rulemaking? We seek comment on the feasibility particularly the  technical feasibility of a localintolocal option and on a time frame for implementing this possible solution to the demands for satellite delivery of network station signals.     y_( "T,`(`(88"Ԍ y_(8sIII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ă  y_( ` +44. ` `  Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. The requirements proposed in this Notice  xhave been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the "1995 Act") and would  xim8pose new and modified information collection requirements on the public. The Commission, as part  xof its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of  xHManagement and Budget ("OMB") to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed information  x.collection requirements contained in this Notice, as required by the 1995 Act. Public comments are due  xon or before 30 days from date of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register. OMB comments are  x due on or before 60 days from date of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register. Comments  x|should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper  x~performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information would have practical  xutility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and  xLclarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information  xon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  y_X( ` F,45. ` ` Written comments by the public on the proposed new and modified information collection  xrequirements are due on or before 30 days from the date of publication of this Notice in the Federal  x~Register. Written comments must be submitted by OMB on the proposed new and modified information  xlcollection requirements on or before 60 days after date of publication of this Notice in the Federal  xRegister. Comments should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room  xC1804, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and to  x Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via  x4the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov. For additional information on the proposed information collection requirements, contact Judy Boley at 2024180214 or via the Internet at the above address.  y_( ` -46.` ` Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. The regulatory flexibility analysis is found in Appendix A, attached.  y_P( ` .47.` `  Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding will be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding  xsubject to the "permit-but-disclose" requirements under Section 1.1206(b) of the rules. 47 C.F.R.  xh1.1206(b), as revised. Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with  xBCommission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise,  xare generally prohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that a memorandum  x`summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely  x:a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and  y_8( xarguments presented is generally required. See 47 C.F.R.  1.1206(b)(2), as revised. Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b).  y_ (  y_!( ` /48. ` ` Filing of Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the  xCommission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before  y_p#( xDecember 11, 1998 and reply comments on or before December 21, 1998. Comments may be filed using  y_H$( xthe Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic  y_ %(Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998). "%T,`(`(88(#"Ԍ y_( ` 049.` ` Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to  y_( x. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.  xIf multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters  xmust transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in  xthe caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal  xService mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an  xelectronic comment by Internet email. To get filing instructions for email comments, commenters should  xjsend an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, "get form