Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5521 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information, unless the collection 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Catalogue of Federal Domestic 

Assistance 

The Catalogue of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Number for the principal 

FHA mortgage insurance program is 

14.155. 

List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 200 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Equal employment 

opportunity, Fair housing, Housing 

standards, Lead poisoning, Loan 

programs—housing and community 

development, Mortgage insurance, 

Organization and functions 

(Government agencies), Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Social Security, 

Unemployment compensation, Wages. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated 

above, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR 

part 200 as follows: 

PART 200—INTRODUCTION TO FHA 

PROGRAMS 

1. The authority citation for 24 CFR 

part 200 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1703, 1709, and 

1715b; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). 

2. Revise § 200.24 to read as follows: 

§ 200.24 Existing projects. 

A mortgage financing the purchase or 

refinance of an existing rental housing 

project or refinance of the existing debt 

of an existing cooperative project under 

section 207 of the Act, or for refinancing 

the existing debt of an existing nursing 

home, intermediate care facility, 

assisted living facility, or board and care 

home, or any combination thereof, 

under section 232 of the Act, may be 

insured pursuant to provisions of 

section 223(f) of the Act and such terms 

and conditions established by HUD. 

Dated: December 20, 2010. 

David H. Stevens, 

Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal 

Housing Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2170 Filed 1–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 2, 15 and 73 

[ET Docket No. 10–235; FCC 10–196] 

Innovation in the Broadcast Television 

Bands 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission initiated a process to 

further its ongoing commitment to 

addressing America’s growing demand 

for wireless broadband services, spur 

ongoing innovation and investment in 

mobile and ensure that America keeps 

pace with the global wireless revolution, 

by making a significant amount of new 

spectrum available for broadband. The 

approach proposed is consistent with 

the goal set forth in the National 

Broadband Plan (the ‘‘Plan’’) to 

repurpose up to 120 megahertz from the 

broadcast television bands for new 

wireless broadband uses through, in 

part, voluntary contributions of 

spectrum to an incentive auction. 

Reallocation of this spectrum as 

proposed will provide the necessary 

flexibility for meeting the requirements 

of these new applications. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before March 18, 2011, and reply 

comments must be filed on or before 

April 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ET Docket No. 10–235, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: [Optional: Include the 

E-mail address only if you plan to 

accept comments from the general 

public]. Include the docket number(s) in 

the subject line of the message. 

• Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing 

address for paper, disk or CD–ROM 

submissions needed/requested by your 

Bureau or Office. Do not include the 

Office of the Secretary’s mailing address 

here.] 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Stillwell, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, (202) 418–2925, email: Alan.Stillwell@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 

418–2989. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 

10–235, FCC 10–196, adopted and 

released on November 30, 2010. The full 

text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text of this document also may 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY– 

B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full 

text may also be downloaded at: 

http://www.fcc.gov. 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415, 1.419, and 1.430 

of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, and 1.430, interested 

parties may file comments and reply 

comments on or before the dates 

indicated on the first page of this 

document. Comments may be filed 

using: (1) The Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the 

Federal Government’s eRulemaking 

Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See 

Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, 

May 2, 1998. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St., SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

5522 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

must be held together with rubber bands 

or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 

disposed of before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Summary of Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

1. In the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission 

initiated a process to further its ongoing 

commitment to addressing America’s 

growing demand for wireless broadband 

services, spur ongoing innovation and 

investment in mobile and ensure that 

America keeps pace with the global 

wireless revolution, by making a 

significant amount of new spectrum 

available for broadband. Through this 

NPRM, the Commission takes 

preliminary steps to enable the 

repurposing of a portion of the UHF and 

VHF frequency bands that are currently 

used by the broadcast television service, 

which in later actions it expects to make 

available for flexible use by fixed and 

mobile wireless communications 

services, including mobile broadband. 

At the same time, the Commission 

recognizes that over-the-air TV serves 

important public interests, and its 

approach will help preserve this service 

as a healthy, viable medium. The 

approach the Commission proposed is 

consistent with the goal set forth in the 

National Broadband Plan (the ‘‘Plan’’) to 

repurpose up to 120 megahertz from the 

broadcast television bands for new 

wireless broadband uses through, in 

part, voluntary contributions of 

spectrum to an incentive auction. 

Reallocation of this spectrum as 

proposed will provide the necessary 

flexibility for meeting the requirements 

of new applications. 

2. The specific bands under 

consideration are the low VHF spectrum 

at 54–72 MHz (TV channels 2–4) and 

76–88 MHz (TV channels 5 and 6), the 

high VHF spectrum at 174–216 MHz 

(TV channels 7–13), and the UHF bands 

at 470–608 MHz (TV channels 14–36) 

and 614–698 MHz (TV channels 38–51); 

for purposes of this NPRM, the 

Commission will refer to this spectrum 

as the ‘‘U/V Bands.’’ This NPRM 

proposes three actions that will 

establish the underlying regulatory 

framework to facilitate wireless 

broadband uses of the U/V Bands, while 

maintaining current license assignments 

in the band. First, the Commission 

proposes to add new allocations for 

fixed and mobile services in the U/V 

Bands to be co-primary with the existing 

broadcasting allocation in those bands. 

The additional allocations would 

provide the maximum flexibility for 

planning efforts to increase spectrum 

available for flexible use, including the 

possibility of assigning portions of the 

U/V Bands for new mobile broadband 

services in the future. Second, the 

Commission proposes to establish a 

framework that, for the first time, 

permits two or more television stations 

to share a single six-megahertz channel, 

thereby fostering efficient use of the U/ 

V Bands. Third, the Commission 

intends to consider approaches to 

improve service for television viewers 

and create additional value for 

broadcasters by increasing the utility of 

the VHF bands for the operation of 

television services. 

3. By taking these important steps to 

facilitate wireless broadband uses in the 

U/V Bands, this NPRM is the first in a 

series of actions that will allow us to 

make progress toward our goal of 

improving efficient use of the bands and 

enable ongoing innovation and 

investment through flexible use. The 

Commission intends to propose further 

actions consistent with other of the 

Plan’s recommendations for the U/V 

Bands, including, but not limited to, the 

process of voluntarily returning 

broadcast licenses to the Commission 

and the licensing process and service 

rules for new fixed and mobile wireless 

communications services. As part of 

that process, the Commission will 

address the Plan’s proposal for channel 

re-packing, the band plan for recovered 

spectrum and other related issues and 

will provide full opportunity for public 

comment on those issues at that time. 

4. The National Broadband Plan. The 

Plan was issued on March 17, 2010. As 

required under the Recovery Act, the 

Plan seeks to ensure that every 

American has access to broadband 

capability and establishes clear 

benchmarks for meeting that goal. The 

Plan recommends making 500 

megahertz of spectrum between 225 

MHz and 3.7 GHz newly available to 

meet the needs of mobile, fixed and 

unlicensed wireless broadband in the 

next 10 years and for providing 300 

megahertz of that amount for mobile 

flexible uses within 5 years, of which up 

to 120 megahertz would come from the 

broadcast television bands. 

5. This NPRM takes the first step 

towards achieving these important 

objectives by proposing additional 

frequency allocations, a framework that 

will permit two or more television 

stations to share a single six-megahertz 

channel, and changes to rules for use of 

the VHF band to improve its utility for 

television service. The Commission 

recognizes that broadcast television 

provides an important service to the 

public, and our actions in this 

proceeding will take full account of the 

vital role played by over-the-air 

television while increasing the flexible 

use of spectrum in a manner that meets 

consumer and business needs. The 

Commission remains committed to 

preserving the free, over-the-air 

broadcast television service and 

maintaining the diversity of local voices 

and important informational and 

entertainment benefits it provides the 

American public. 

6. It is our strong intention to provide 

for an orderly transition of a portion of 

the U/V Bands to flexible use, in a 

manner that will minimize any impact 

on over-the-air television broadcasting 

and the consumers it serves, both offthe-air and through multichannel video 

program distributors. In this regard, 

broadcast television stations and other 

primary services operating on the 

spectrum to be recovered will be coprimary with and be protected from 

interference from new broadband 

services for as long as they remain on 

channels in that spectrum. 

7. To facilitate the recovery of 

underutilized television channels while 

continuing to maintain existing 

broadcast television services, the 

Commission also proposes in this 

NPRM new rules that would allow a 

television service licensee to voluntarily 

reduce its occupation of spectrum by 

offering to operate on a shared six 

megahertz channel. Under this 

provision, all of the stations sharing a 

channel would broadcast their services 

through the same ATSC digital 

television signal using that signal’s 

multicasting capabilities. Each licensee 

would have the same rights and service 

obligations as a licensee operating from 

a full channel today, including the right 

to carriage by cable and satellite 

providers pursuant to the rules for 

mandatory carriage or retransmission 

consent. The Commission believes that 

channel sharing could be beneficial to 

certain licensees, particularly those that 

wish to save on their operating costs or 

minimize the amount of their 

investment in spectrum or transmission 

facilities. In addition, channel sharing 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5523 

could provide an incentive for 

broadcasters to relinquish spectrum for 

a portion of the proceeds of the 

revenues of a U/V Band spectrum 

auction, subject to Congress providing 

the Commission the authority to 

conduct an incentive auction. Further, 

channel sharing could offer 

opportunities for broadcasters serving 

minority, foreign language and niche 

interests that might have smaller 

audiences and lower income to operate 

at reduced cost and thereby improve 

their viability. In allowing stations to 

share channels, the Commission notes 

that in some instances changes in the 

operation of television stations could 

raise the possibility of interference to 

radio astronomy operations on channel 

37 or to services operating on 

frequencies immediately above channel 

51. It is the Commission’s intent that 

any channel or other facilities changes 

that might be requested as part of 

sharing agreements not result in 

increased interference to radio 

astronomy operations on channel 37 or 

to operations of other services above 

channel 51. The Commission requests 

comments on specific steps that could 

be taken as part of the implementation 

of its sharing rules to mitigate the 

potential for such interference. The 

Commission describes its initial 

proposed rules for channel sharing by 

television licensees in this NPRM. The 

Commission is also aware that 

broadcasters have encountered technical 

issues in using VHF channels to provide 

satisfactory service to viewers. It intends 

to consider rule changes and other 

alternatives for making the VHF 

channels more desirable for DTV 

operation. The Commission’s proposals 

for adding new allocations to the U/V 

bands, channel sharing by television 

stations and improving television 

service from VHF channels are 

discussed. 

Spectrum Allocations 

8. New Spectrum Allocations. The 

Commission proposes changes to the 

U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations in 

§ 2.106 of the rules that would allow it 

to make a significant portion of the 

spectrum currently used for broadcast 

television available for flexible use, 

including fixed and mobile wireless 

broadband services. To facilitate 

repurposing of a portion of the U/V 

Bands in a later action, the Commission 

proposed in this NPRM to add 

allocations for fixed and mobile services 

in the U/V Bands (excluding channel 

37) for non-Federal use, to be coprimary with that for broadcast services. 

This proposal would also expand the 

existing land mobile allocation in the 

areas where PLMRS and CMRS systems 

operate on specified frequencies in the 

470–512 MHz band to be the same more 

generalized and flexible mobile 

allocation that would be specified for 

other frequencies in the U/V Bands. 

9. These new allotments would allow 

us to consider the entire range of the 

U/V Bands in selecting the specific 

frequencies to be designated for new 

licensed and/or unlicensed uses. This 

approach will provide maximum 

flexibility in planning for the future 

assignment of a portion of the U/V 

Bands for flexible use, including new 

broadband services. The Commission’s 

goal is to adopt a band that will provide 

for flexible use while continuing to 

support the needs of the television 

service. It is not proposing to change or 

add to the existing allocations for land 

mobile (medical telemetry and medical 

telecommand) and radio astronomy that 

are at 608–614 MHz (at channel 37). The 

Commission requests comments on this 

proposed plan for adding new 

allocations to the U/V Bands and invite 

suggestions for alternative approaches. 

Broadcast Television Channel Sharing 

10. The Plan recommends that, to 

facilitate the recovery of spectrum, the 

Commission initiate a rulemaking 

proceeding to ‘‘establish a licensing 

framework to permit two or more 

stations to share a six-megahertz 

channel.’’ The Commission believes that 

the option of channel sharing, in 

addition to aiding in the broadband 

goals of the Plan, could also be 

beneficial to the television industry and 

to viewers. Television stations operating 

on shared channels could use the cost 

savings and additional income from 

such arrangements to strengthen their 

financial condition and to develop new 

and enhanced programming. Channel 

sharing could also provide existing 

small- and minority-owned stations an 

opportunity to enhance or preserve their 

local program offerings. The 

Commission anticipates providing 

broadcast stations an opportunity to 

voluntarily elect to share a channel. The 

Commission therefore seeks comment in 

this proceeding on the development of 

an appropriate regulatory structure for 

voluntary television channel sharing 

that will preserve over-the-air television 

as a healthy, viable medium going 

forward, in a way that would benefit 

consumers overall, while establishing 

mechanisms to make available 

additional spectrum for flexible 

broadband uses. 

11. The Commission envisions, 

consistent with the Plan, that two 

stations could generally broadcast one 

primary HD video stream each over a 

shared six-megahertz channel or more 

than two stations broadcasting in SD 

(not HD) could share a six-megahertz 

channel. As noted in the Plan, 

‘‘numerous permutations are possible, 

including dynamic arrangements 

whereby broadcasters sharing a channel 

reach agreements to exchange capacity 

to enable higher or lower transmission 

bit rates depending on market-driven 

choices.’’ In this regard, the Commission 

observes that at the Broadcast 

Engineering Forum participants 

expressed concerns that sharing a single 

channel would not be practical because 

it would not provide sufficient 

transmission capacity for two or more 

stations to offer the highest quality HD 

programming simultaneously. Stations 

were also concerned that channel 

sharing could impact or eliminate 

current and future DTV services, such as 

expansion of high-definition 

programming and deployment of mobile 

television service. The Commission 

intends to consider these issues in this 

proceeding and welcomes comments on 

these concerns. 

12. Other approaches to channel 

sharing that involve sub-channel 

services such as mobile broadcast may 

also be possible. The Commission seeks 

comment on those approaches. The only 

requirement would be that all stations 

utilizing a shared channel be required to 

retain at least enough spectrum to 

operate one SD channel. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

approach and whether stations sharing 

a single channel will be able to continue 

to comply with the requirement to 

operate at least one SD channel. 

13. In designing a channel sharing 

plan that will result in the more 

efficient use of television spectrum and 

free channels for flexible use, the 

Commission indicated that its goal will 

be to retain as much of its existing 

policy framework for allocating, 

licensing, and operating television 

stations as possible. Despite sharing a 

single channel and transmission facility, 

each station will continue to be licensed 

and operated separately, have its own 

call sign and be separately subject to all 

of the Commission’s obligations, rules, 

and policies. Each station’s 

programming obligations will remain 

the same (e.g., children’s programming, 

political broadcasting, EAS, indecency), 

and a station will not be responsible for 

the programming or violations of any 

other station sharing its channel. In 

addition, stations sharing a channel will 

retain their rights to mandatory carriage 

on multiple video program distributors 

(MVPDs). While the licensees sharing a 

given channel and facility will 

independently maintain their own 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

5524 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

rights and obligations under their 

respective licenses, the Commission 

does not envision that channel sharing, 

from a technological perspective, would 

entail a fixed split of the six-megahertz 

channel into two three-megahertz 

blocks. Rather, the capacity of the sixmegahertz would be shared and the 

Commission would leave it up to the 

licensees to determine the precise 

manner in which that capacity would be 

shared. Moreover, the Commission 

observed that it has licensed spectrum 

on a shared use basis—with each 

licensee remaining responsible for its 

own obligations and holding its own 

licensed rights—for a variety of services 

and under a number of different 

frameworks. For example, during the 

course of charting out an MSS licensing 

regime for Big LEO systems, the 

Commission adopted a plan in which 

four CDMA systems would each be 

authorized to operate over 11.35 

megahertz of bandwidth in the same 1.6 

GHz band, leaving the inter-system 

coordination to the satellite licensees 

themselves. Other examples of shared 

use include certain part 90 Private Land 

Mobile Radio Services (where the large 

number of shared users are coordinated 

through a system of frequency 

coordinators), many part 95 Personal 

Radio Services (such as the General 

Mobile Radio Service, where licensees 

share the same channels through an 

informal system of cooperation), and the 

part 97 Amateur Radio Service (where 

all frequencies are shared and 

coordinated by adherence to rules of 

operation set forth in part 97). The 

Commission seeks comment on how 

television broadcast stations can most 

effectively coordinate their individual 

rights and responsibilities while 

operating under the type of sharing 

arrangement proposed here. Finally, the 

Commission points out that only where 

necessary to implement a shared 

channel licensing scheme will it seek to 

change the existing policies and rules. 

14. The Commission also proposes to 

limit channel sharing to television 

stations with existing applications, 

construction permits or licenses as of 

the date of adoption of this NPRM. The 

dual intentions in proposing this 

channel option are to provide (1) a 

means for stations that may need to be 

more economically efficient in their 

operations to share transmission 

resources and (2) a path for stations to 

make their spectrum available for new 

broadband services and continue to 

operate a broadcast television service. 

The Commission requests comment on 

this proposal. 

Basic Qualifications for Channel 

Sharing 

15. Voluntary operation of broadcast 

stations on shared channels will help to 

increase the efficient use of the U/V 

Bands while ensuring that local public 

interest and service requirements 

continue to be fulfilled. Since it 

ultimately seeks an appropriate, marketbased balance with flexible use in the 

U/V Bands, the Commission expects 

that the extent of channel sharing will 

vary between markets. 

a. Commercial and Noncommercial 

Educational Stations 

16. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether commercial and 

noncommercial educational (NCE) 

stations should be permitted to share a 

single television channel. NCE 

television stations operate on special 

reserved channels and are prohibited 

from airing commercial material. The 

Commission contemplates that stations 

that share a channel will continue to be 

licensed and operated separately, 

although they will be sharing a single 

transmitting facility. Therefore, there 

would be no overlap of programming 

between a commercial and NCE station. 

However, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether a commercial 

station should be permitted to operate 

on a shared channel reserved for NCE 

use. The Commission seeks to 

determine how the new ‘‘shared’’ 

channel might be partitioned or 

designated to preserve the NCE status 

while allowing the channel to be shared 

by a non-NCE entity. 

b. Consideration of Service Losses 

17. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether to require that a certain 

level of television service be preserved 

in the shared channel environment. 

Specifically, it seeks comment on 

whether the Commission should 

consider any prospective loss of 

television service when determining 

whether to permit stations to make the 

modifications to their transmission 

facilities necessary to achieve channel 

sharing. Since stations sharing a single 

television channel must operate from a 

single transmission facility, changes to 

one or more of the stations’ existing 

facilities will be necessary for sharing to 

occur. Such changes could result in a 

loss of television service to some 

persons presently able to receive overthe-air signal from one or more of the 

stations, and could also result in gains 

to television service. 

18. The Commission notes that its 

current policy is to consider losses of 

service on a case-by-case basis, and it 

seeks comment on continuing that 

policy in the context of channel sharing 

arrangements. Although the 

Commission historically has viewed any 

loss of service as prima facie 

inconsistent with the public interest, its 

policy has been to consider and evaluate 

any counterbalancing factors an 

applicant may present to justify service 

losses. This balancing process, to 

determine whether the projected loss of 

service will be outweighed by other 

factors, involves more than a mere 

comparison of numbers. The 

Commission examines the extent of the 

loss, and whether any ‘‘white’’ or ‘‘gray’’ 

loss areas will be created. The 

Commission defines ‘‘white area’’ as an 

area where the population does not 

receive any over-the-air television 

service and ‘‘gray area’’ as one where the 

population receives only one over-theair television service. The Commission 

may also examine whether the loss area 

is ‘‘underserved,’’ i.e., where the 

population receives less than five other 

existing services. The Commission may 

also examine whether the loss involves 

specialized programming such as that 

from a network. 

19. In terms of counterbalancing 

factors, the Commission has examined 

whether gain areas will be created 

including establishment of first 

television service, second television 

service, first network service, etc. 

However, the mere fact that total gains 

exceed losses does not, standing alone, 

constitute an affirmative factor offsetting 

those losses. The Commission may also 

consider the availability of other 

television services in the loss area as 

well as whether the population which 

would lose service is outside the 

station’s DMA and is predicted to 

receive the same network programming 

from a station in their home DMA. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to consider these factors in a similar 

fashion when evaluating losses that 

result from facility modifications and 

relocations related to channel sharing. 

20. In weighing the public interest 

benefits that will result from channel 

sharing, should the Commission 

consider mitigating circumstances such 

as the percentage of local cable 

penetration or satellite use in the loss 

area? Should sharing stations be 

allowed to offset otherwise 

disqualifying service losses by offering 

to deploy on-channel Digital 

Transmission Systems (DTS) or other 

technical measures to restore service to 

the loss area? 

c. Other Issues 

21. In addition to the specific areas set 

forth in this proceeding, the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5525 

Commission seeks comment on other 

areas of interest with respect to channel 

sharing in conjunction with the 

recommendations of the Plan. For 

instance, what is the impact of channel 

sharing on the media ownership rules? 

The Commission contemplates that 

stations that share a channel will 

continue to be licensed and operated 

separately, although they will be sharing 

a single transmitting facility. What are 

the implications of channel sharing for 

the local TV ownership rule, the radio/ 

TV cross-ownership rule and the 

newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership 

rule? 

Preservation of Must Carry Rights 

22. Full power television broadcast 

stations, and certain qualified lowpower television broadcast stations, 

have a right to carriage on cable systems 

that the Supreme Court has recognized 

as essential to preserving ‘‘the widest 

possible dissemination of information 

from diverse and antagonistic sources.’’ 

Full power broadcasters have similar 

rights to mandatory carriage on satellite 

(DBS) systems. The rules proposed in 

this proceeding are designed to ensure 

that stations voluntarily electing to 

share a channel retain their existing 

rights to mandatory carriage, and the 

Commission seeks comment on such 

rules. 

23. The Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, provides for the mandatory 

carriage, by cable operators and satellite 

providers, of certain local broadcast 

signals. The Act and the Commission’s 

implementing rules establish slightly 

different thresholds for carriage, 

depending on whether the station is full 

power or low-power, or commercial or 

noncommercial, and also depending on 

whether carriage is sought on a cable or 

DBS system. Stations meeting these 

thresholds are guaranteed carriage of 

only a single ‘‘primary’’ stream of 

programming, and carriage for any 

additional streams must always be 

negotiated. It is the Commission’s intent 

to adopt a channel sharing framework 

that will neither increase nor decrease 

the carriage rights of any broadcaster on 

any type of system. The Commission 

anticipates, therefore, that regardless of 

the number of licensed stations sharing 

a six-megahertz channel, each would 

continue to have at least one, but only 

one, ‘‘primary’’ stream of programming. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

specific proposals and in general on the 

rules necessary to achieve this result. 

24. Cable Carriage. A full power 

commercial station is entitled to 

carriage on a cable system when it is 

‘‘licensed and operating on a channel 

regularly assigned to its community by 

the Commission,’’ and that community 

is within the same DMA as the cable 

system. A qualified noncommercial 

educational station (‘‘NCE’’), on the 

other hand, can be considered ‘‘local,’’ 

and eligible for mandatory carriage on a 

cable system, in one of two ways. It may 

either be licensed to a principal 

community within 50 miles of the 

system’s headend, or the system’s 

headend is within the station’s noise 

limited signal contour (NLSC). Under 

very narrow circumstances, certain lowpower broadcasters can also become 

‘‘qualified’’ and eligible for must carry. 

Among the several requirements for 

reaching ‘‘qualified’’ status with respect 

to a particular cable operator, the lowpower station must be ‘‘located no more 

than 35 miles from the cable system’s 

headend.’’ 

25. DBS Carriage. A full power station 

is entitled to request carriage by a DBS 

provider any time that provider relies 

on the statutory copyright license to 

retransmit the signal of any other ‘‘local’’ 

full power station (i.e., one located in 

the same DMA). The standards are the 

same for both commercial and 

noncommercial broadcasters, and lowpower broadcasters do not have DBS 

carriage rights. 

26. Carriage of Shared Signals. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the procedures proposed herein would 

ensure that a television station operating 

on a shared channel would continue to 

be: 

• ‘‘Licensed and operating on a 

channel regularly assigned to its 

community by the Commission (for 

purposes of cable carriage of a 

commercial station)’’; 

• Licensed to a specific ‘‘principal 

community’’ or configured with 

technical facilities that have an NLSC 

that encompasses the cable system’s 

principal headend (for purposes of cable 

carriage of a non-commercial station); 

and 

• ‘‘Located within’’ a designated 

market area (for purposes of DBS 

carriage of commercial and 

noncommercial stations). 

27. NCE Issues. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether an NCE 

television station sharing a channel with 

a commercial television station could 

affect the NCE station’s continued 

eligibility for carriage. This is 

particularly relevant in the cable 

context, because, as discussed, 

commercial stations and NCEs must 

meet different criteria in order to be 

eligible for mandatory carriage. Because 

the Commission anticipates that sharing 

stations would continue to be licensed 

and operated separately, it does not 

anticipate that an NCE television station 

would lose its NCE status or eligibility 

by sharing a channel with a commercial 

station. The Commission seeks 

comment on this issue. 

28. Technical Issues. The Commission 

also seeks comment on whether a 

station sharing a channel with one or 

more other stations, or the redesignation 

of a given 6 MHz channel as a ‘‘shared’’ 

channel, would affect the stations’ 

ability to request local carriage on cable 

and DBS systems serving subscribers 

within the stations’ market. Are there 

any unique aspects of channel sharing 

that could prevent a broadcaster, of any 

type, from achieving the necessary 

thresholds for mandatory carriage on 

any cable or DBS system on which it is 

currently carried? Cable and DBS 

systems are currently receiving the full 

6 MHz signal from broadcasters but only 

carrying certain streams; would there be 

any technical differences, from the 

carrier’s perspective, if two or more of 

these streams on a shared channel were 

the ‘‘primary’’ streams of different, 

individually licensed stations? Are there 

other technical issues that would be 

unique to a sharing scenario? 

29. Differing Elections. Even if a 

commercial station meets the threshold 

for carriage, it may elect to pursue 

retransmission consent agreements with 

one or more MVPDs. When a station has 

made such an election, it may not be 

carried by the MVPD without its 

consent. The Commission seeks 

comment on how stations’ carriage 

rights would be affected if one sharing 

station elects retransmission consent 

and the other elects must carry. The 

Commission anticipates that each 

station operating on a shared channel 

will be licensed and operated as a 

totally distinct entity with its own 

‘‘primary’’ stream of programming, and 

that the sharing of a channel would not 

affect a sharing station’s carriage 

election options or rights. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

issue, particularly any technical 

implications for carrying one stream of 

a broadcast channel while not carrying 

another. 

30. Shared signal issues. There are 

certain essential issues inherent to 

sharing a channel that we expect will be 

resolved by stations sharing a channel. 

For example, in addition to the 

threshold requirements discussed 

earlier, local stations are only eligible 

for mandatory carriage if they provide a 

‘‘good quality signal’’ of at least ¥61 

dBm to the cable or satellite provider. 

Failure to provide this signal level 

would therefore affect the carriage rights 

of all stations using the same channel. 

The Commission anticipates that 

stations will make any necessary 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

5526 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

changes to their proposed shared 

transmission facility to ensure 

continued carriage for sharing stations. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

what those changes might be, and, in 

general, what matters must be resolved 

by the stations themselves to ensure the 

success of channel sharing. 

31. New Stations. Currently, licensees 

of newly operating stations that are 

otherwise qualified local stations may 

seek mandatory carriage of such 

stations, even outside of the standard 

election cycle. If the Commission 

permits new stations, or permittees with 

unbuilt stations, to operate on shared 

channels, will any revisions to its rules 

be in order to ensure that they are 

eligible to seek mandatory carriage as 

new stations after they commence 

broadcasting? The Commission seeks 

comment on this issue. 

32. Low-power Stations. The 

Commission is considering allowing 

LPTV, Class A, and translator stations to 

operate on shared channels, both among 

themselves and with full power stations. 

If it does permit low-power stations to 

operate on shared channels, the 

Commission is also proposing to 

provide that currently qualified lowpower stations retain their eligibility for 

must carry rights, but to create no new 

rights. The Commission seeks comment 

on these proposals. Are there other 

issues that should be considered with 

regard to allowing low power stations to 

channel share? 

33. Other Carriage Issues. There are a 

number of other issues that may be 

relevant to the mandatory carriage of 

shared signals. For instance, if, as 

proposed, one stream of each 

individually licensed station on a single 

6 MHz channel will be ‘‘primary’’ for 

purposes of must carry rights, should 

sharing broadcasters have any special 

obligation to identify the ‘‘primary’’ 

signals at the time they elect carriage? 

Given the variety of questions that may 

have some bearing on the development 

of these rules, the Commission seeks 

comment on any additional issues 

pertaining to the mandatory carriage of 

shared broadcast signals, including 

those not specifically raised in this 

NPRM. 

Improving Reception of VHF TV Service 

34. Recognizing that UHF spectrum is 

highly desirable for flexible use, the 

Commission is interested in exploring 

the steps needed to increase the utility 

of VHF spectrum for television 

broadcasts. VHF channels have certain 

characteristics that have posed 

challenges for their use in providing 

digital television service. In particular, 

the propagation characteristics of these 

channels allow undesired signals and 

noise to be receivable at relatively 

farther distances, nearby electrical 

devices tends to emit noise in this band 

that can cause interference, and 

reception of VHF signals requires 

physically larger antennas that are 

generally not well suited to the mobile 

applications expected under flexible 

use, relative to UHF channels. The 

Commission recognizes that television 

broadcasters have had some difficulty in 

ensuring consistent reception of VHF 

signals, and it seeks comment through 

this NPRM on technical changes to the 

Commission’s rules, broadcast 

transmission equipment, or television 

receiver technology that would improve 

the performance of VHF channels for 

television broadcasts, including the 

costs and benefits associated with such 

changes. The Commission’s intent is to 

treat stakeholders in a fair and equitable 

manner through procedures established 

in later actions. 

35. Solutions for VHF Reception 

Challenges. It is plain from the channel 

choices being made by broadcasters that 

reception issues are posing problems for 

use of the VHF channels. The 

Commission is therefore seeking 

solutions to the VHF digital TV 

reception difficulties. In this regard, it is 

considering changes to the DTV 

operating rules to mitigate or overcome 

these challenges. The Commission also 

intends to consider other solutions, 

including the possibility of indoor 

antenna performances standards, to 

make the VHF channels more useful to 

broadcasters. The Commission also 

noted that it has seen no indications 

that there are issues with the 

performance of television receivers, 

either traditional models with display 

screens or stand-alone set-top tuners, in 

receiving VHF channels. 

36. VHF Band Noise/Power Increases. 

One of the problems with indoor VHF 

reception is noise from nearby (typically 

in the same room) consumer electronics 

equipment. While it would be desirable 

to reduce that noise, the rules limiting 

spurious emissions from unintentional 

radiators have been crafted to provide 

protection of licensed services while 

allowing production of economically 

viable devices. Further, any more 

stringent emissions limits the 

Commission might impose would not 

reduce emissions from existing 

products, nor would such limits reduce 

noise from incidental emitters (electric 

motors, switches, etc.), atmospheric 

disturbances and long range propagation 

effects that occur in the VHF bands (the 

latter especially at the low-VHF 

channels). Thus, at least at this time, the 

Commission does not believe it would 

be fruitful to attempt to reduce the 

permitted level of noise in the VHF 

bands. The Commission requests 

comment on whether there are actions 

it might take to reduce noise levels in 

the VHF bands used by the television 

service. 

37. The other approach to overcoming 

noise is to increase the signal-to-noise 

ratio (S/N ratio) by raising the 

transmitted power, i.e., effective 

radiated power (ERP). A number of 

stations operating on high-VHF 

channels have already improved their 

service by increasing their transmitted 

power. Those stations received special 

temporary authorizations from the 

Commission for power increases that 

exceed the existing maximum power 

limits. In each of these cases, either the 

power increase does not cause increased 

interference to other stations or the 

station licensee has negotiated with 

another station to accept some 

minimum level of new interference. 

While the Commission is cognizant of 

the views regarding the limited 

expectations from power increases 

expressed at the Broadcast Engineers’ 

Forum, the Commission nonetheless 

believes that, as demonstrated by the 

stations that have already increased 

their transmitted power, such increases 

can provide some level of improvement 

in reception of VHF television service. 

The Commission therefore believes it 

may be desirable to amend its rules to 

increase the maximum allowed ERP for 

VHF stations at least in Zone I, where 

the current maximum power levels are 

relatively low. The Commission is 

specifically proposing to raise the 

maximum allowed ERP for low-VHF 

stations in Zones I to 40 kW and for 

high-VHF stations in Zone I to 120 kW 

if the station’s antenna height above 

average terrain is 305 meters or less. At 

antenna heights above 305 meters, the 

maximum power for both low-VHF and 

high-VHF stations would be lower in 

accordance with the table in the 

proposed rules in Appendix A. This 

proposal would effectively increase the 

maximum power for low-VHF and highVHF stations in Zone I by 6 dB, a level 

consistent with that indicated as 

achievable by the VHF Reception Panel. 

The Commission does not propose to 

raise the maximum power limits for 

VHF stations in Zones II and III, as the 

existing limits still afford those stations 

the ability to provide stronger signals 

indoors to consumers who view their 

signals at locations close to their 

transmitters. The proposed new 

maximum power limits for VHF stations 

would allow such stations to provide 

signal strengths to areas close to their 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5527 

transmitters, i.e., generally their 

principle community areas, that are 

higher by an amount that would help to 

compensate for some of the higher noise 

levels that tend to be present where 

consumers use indoor antennas. 

38. Stations requesting power 

increases under the proposed new limits 

would be required to afford protection 

to other full power television stations 

from new interference under the 

existing regime of desired-to-undesired 

(D/U) signals limits. The Commission 

believes such an increase would allow 

many VHF stations experiencing 

difficulties in reaching viewers indoors 

to raise their signal levels by a 

reasonable level to overcome localized 

noise indoors, consistent with 

maintaining the approximate range of 

service provided by the existing 

maximum power limits. It does, 

however, recognize that higher power 

operation would increase the service 

range of VHF stations by as much at 14 

km (9 miles). The Commission stated 

that is intention is not generally to 

extend the service range of these 

stations, as such expansions can to some 

degree limit the potential for 

introduction of new stations and 

changes by other co-channel and firstadjacent channel stations by enlarging 

the service area that must be protected. 

Nonetheless, it believes the interests of 

making the VHF channels more useful 

to stations and consumers outweigh 

these concerns about limiting 

opportunities of other stations. The 

Commission requests comment on this 

proposal and suggestions for alternative 

approaches, including both power limits 

and protection of service. In this regard, 

any increases in VHF power under this 

proposal by existing stations and new 

stations that are located within 300 

kilometers (183 miles) of our border 

with Canada or within 400 kilometers 

(248.5 miles) of our border with Mexico 

will need to be coordinated with the 

appropriate foreign administration. 

39. The Commission also observes 

that the provisions governing 

transmission of television signals in 

§§ 73.682(a)(14) and 73.625(c) of the 

rules specify that it shall be standard to 

employ horizontal polarization. The 

ERP of a television station is therefore 

considered to be that of its horizontally 

polarized component. However, 

§ 73.682(a)(14) also provides that 

circular or elliptical polarization may be 

employed and that, in such cases, 

transmission of the horizontal and 

vertical components in time and space 

quadrature shall be used. Where such 

polarizations are used, the ERP of the 

vertically polarized component may not 

exceed the ERP of the horizontally 

polarized component. Stations therefore 

could achieve an increase in signal 

levels at indoor locations of perhaps 3 

dB by using circular polarization. This 

step could also be combined with an 

increase in ERP (horizontal ERP) under 

the proposal to allow higher VHF 

maximum power levels. We encourage 

stations to make use of the option to use 

increased power under the vertical 

polarization provisions as a means to 

improve reception of their signals by 

indoor viewers. 

40. A collateral issue that arises in the 

context of consideration of increases in 

the power limits for digital television 

stations on VHF channels is whether the 

Commission should also increase the 

minimum distance requirements for 

new, post-transition VHF channel 

allotments with regard to other stations 

or channel allotments on the same and 

first-adjacent channels, as specified in 

§§ 73.616 and 73.623(d) of the rules. 

Stations on new allotments that operate 

at the proposed new power limits and 

are at or close to the current minimum 

distances with regard to other stations 

could cause more interference to such 

stations (and vice versa) than would 

occur under the current power limits. 

Increasing those distances would 

resolve the interference concerns but 

would also tend to limit opportunities 

or new stations or for stations desiring 

to change channels (which necessitates 

modifying the allotment on which they 

operate). The Commission generally 

believes it would be desirable to 

maintain the current distance standards 

for new and changed allotments in order 

to avoid further limiting opportunities 

for new allotments. The Commission 

therefore is not proposing to change the 

minimum distance requirements for 

new and modified allotments. 

41. In taking this approach, the 

Commission observes that the rules 

require a station that operates on a new 

allotment that meets the distance 

standards to protect other co-channel 

and adjacent channel stations from new 

interference in accordance with the 

desired-to-undesired (D/U) ratio 

interference protection criteria in 

§ 73.616(e). In describing the services to 

be protected, this paragraph provides 

that ‘‘[f]or this purpose, the population 

served by the station receiving 

additional interference does not include 

portions of the population within the 

noise-limited service contour of that 

station that are predicted to receive 

interference from the post-transition 

DTV allotment facilities of the applicant 

***’’ The rules are not specific, 

however, as to the post-transition DTV 

allotment facilities of the applicant, that 

is, the facilities that a station would be 

allowed under the allotment without 

concern for new interference. The 

Commission proposes to amend 

§ 73.616(e) to clarify that the posttransition DTV allotment facilities are 

the maximum facilities allowed 

currently under § 73.622(f). Thus, an 

applicant for a new station would be 

allowed to operate up to the current 

maximum facilities of ERP and antenna 

height on a new allotment that meets 

the distance requirements. 

42. A station on a new allotment 

could also operate with facilities that 

exceed the post-transition allotment 

facilities if such operation would not 

cause new interference to other stations 

as defined under § 73.616(e). In 

addition, a licensee could apply to 

operate a station on a new allotment at 

facilities that exceed the post-transition 

allotment facilities (up to the proposed 

new limits) and could possibly cause 

new interference to another station by 

taking steps to avoid such interference. 

Such steps could include use of a 

directional antenna and/or location of 

the station’s transmitter at a site that is 

different from the site of the allotment 

(such sites are generally farther from 

any stations that would otherwise 

receive interference). The Commission 

requests comment on its plan to 

maintain the existing distance 

requirements as it increases the 

maximum allowed power for digital TV 

stations on VHF channels and on 

whether it should alternatively increase 

the minimum distance requirements to 

match the changes in the power limits. 

The Commission also asks parties that 

advocate that it increase the minimum 

distance requirements to submit 

suggestions for new minimum distance 

standards. 

43. Indoor Antennas. The antenna 

used to receive signals is a critical 

element in the television service path. 

The antenna component of a TV receive 

system (which consists of an antenna, 

connecting cable and receiver) should 

be able to pick up as much of the 

available signal energy as possible. If an 

antenna has a very low ability to receive 

signals or if the level of the desired 

signal is low, reception may not be 

possible. In view of the observed poor 

high-VHF reception capabilities of the 

majority of the indoor antennas 

examined in two studies by Meintel, 

Sgrignoli and Wallace and the FCC 

Laboratory mentioned in the NPRM and 

the likelihood that the low-VHF 

performance of those antennas is even 

poorer, the Commission intends to 

consider establishing standards to 

ensure that indoor antennas are effective 

for low-VHF channel reception. While 

the Commission has not regulated these 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

5528 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq., has been amended by the Contract With 

America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 

104–121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of 

the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). 

2See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 

3See Connecting America: The National 

Broadband Plan, Federal Communications 

Commission, Washington, DC (March 2010); 

available at http://www.broadband.gov/plan/. The 

Plan was developed by the Commission pursuant to 

the direction of Congress in the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), see 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

Public Law 111–5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009). 

products previously, it believes that it 

has authority to set standards to ensure 

that the performance of indoor antennas 

is adequate to allow reception of lowVHF channels by TV receive systems 

under the All Channel Receiver Act, 

which is codified in section 303(s) of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. In this regard, section 303(s) 

specifically provides that the 

Commission shall ‘‘[h]ave authority to 

require that apparatus designed to 

receive television pictures broadcast 

simultaneously with sound be capable 

of adequately receiving all frequencies 

allocated by the Commission to 

television broadcasting * * *’’ Because 

an antenna capable of adequately 

picking up low-VHF channels is 

necessary to allow all-channel reception 

of over-the-air broadcast signals, the 

Commission believes that the standards 

proposed would further its section 

303(s) mandate. The Commission 

requests comment on its authority to 

establish standards for the ability of 

indoor antennas to receive all of the 

channels allocated for television service. 

44. The Commission request 

comment, information and suggestions 

regarding the need for, and desirability 

of, standards for indoor antennas. The 

Commission is specifically proposing to 

require that indoor antennas comply 

with the industry set standards in ANSI/ 

CEA–2032–A, ‘‘Indoor TV Receiving 

Antenna Performance Standard,’’ 

February 2009. The ANSI/CEA–2032–A 

standard defines test and measurement 

procedures for determining the 

performance of indoor TV receiving 

antennas. Section 3.2.2 of this standard 

provides that to meet the standard, an 

antenna must have measured gain that 

exceeds: 

• ¥12 dBd on all CEA test channels 

2, 4, and 6 in the VHF low band 

• ¥8 dBd on all CEA test channels 7, 

9, 11 and 13 in the VHF high band and 

• ¥8 dBd on all CEA test channels 

contained in the UHF band (channels 

14–[51]) 

ANSI/CEA–2032–A further specifies 

that the test procedures in CEA–744–B 

are to be employed to measure the 

antenna performance. It also provides 

standards for active (amplified) 

antennas, including gain, 

intermodulation and spurious emission. 

Further, ANSI/CEA–2032–A provides 

for labeling antenna packaging and 

antennas to indicate the channels or 

bands of channels for which the antenna 

meets the specified technical 

requirements. The Commission observes 

that the high-VHF and UHF 

performance levels under this industrydeveloped standard are well within the 

capabilities of the antennas tested in the 

MSW and FCC Laboratory studies of 

indoor antennas. Under this proposal, 

all indoor television antennas would be 

required to meet the ANSI/CEA–2032– 

A standards for reception of low-VHF, 

high-VHF and UHF signals. In addition, 

to ensure compliance with these 

standards indoor antennas would be 

subject to the Commission’s 

‘‘verification’’ equipment procedure in 

part 2 of the rules. This would promote 

the Commission’s objective of 

improving indoor reception in the VHF 

bands and well as ensure that indoor 

antennas are able to adequately receive 

UHF signals. Antennas that are built-in 

to, or designed for use with, specific 

devices such as portable television 

receivers, dongles, laptop computers, 

and similar TV reception equipment 

would not be subject to this 

requirement. Given the findings of the 

antenna studies by MSW and its 

Laboratory staff the Commission 

believes that the performance levels set 

forth in ANSI/CEA–2032–A are well 

within the capabilities of currently 

available consumer grade television 

receive antennas. 

45. The Commission requests 

comment on whether the ANSI/CEA– 

2032–A performance standards are 

sufficient to ensure adequate reception 

of digital television signals at most 

indoor locations and whether the CEA– 

744–B measurement procedures are 

appropriate for determining compliance. 

The Commission also asks whether 

there might be other standards or 

measurement methods that might be 

more appropriate. Its intent is to ensure 

that consumers are able to achieve 

indoor reception of digital television 

signals, and especially of VHF signals, 

that are comparable to indoor reception 

of the signals of the former analog 

television system. The Commission also 

asks for comment an alternative 

approach under which it would require 

only that manufacturers measure indoor 

antennas using the CEA–744–B test 

procedure and comply with the labeling 

requirements of ANSI/CEA–2032–A. 

Under that approach, antennas would 

also be subject to the Commission’s 

verification equipment authorization 

procedure. The Commission invites 

interested parties to submit comment, 

information and suggestions for 

alternative standards regarding all 

aspects of the indoor antenna issue. 

46. Other Approaches/Solutions for 

Improving Reception of VHF TV 

Services. In addition to power increases 

for VHF band stations and standards for 

indoor antennas, the Commission also 

intends to consider additional options 

for improving television service in the 

VHF bands. Interested parties are 

invited to submit ideas and suggestions 

for additional measures we could take to 

improve reception of television signals 

on VHF channels. The Commission 

requests that parties submit materials 

information and analyses describing 

conditions and phenomenon that 

contribute to VHF reception difficulties 

and ideas for overcoming or mitigating 

them. 

Procedural Matters 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

47. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA),1 the Commission 

has prepared this present Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities by the policies 

and rules proposed in this Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). Written 

public comments are requested on this 

IRFA. Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for specified on the 

first page of this NPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of this 

NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA).2

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

48. In this NPRM the Commission is 

initiating a process to address America’s 

growing demand for wireless broadband 

services, spur ongoing innovation and 

investment in mobile and ensure that 

America keeps pace with the global 

wireless revolution, by making a 

significant amount of new spectrum 

available for broadband. Through this 

NPRM, we take preliminary steps to 

repurpose a portion of the UHF and 

VHF frequency bands that are currently 

used by the broadcast television service, 

which in later actions we expect to 

make available for flexible use by fixed 

and mobile wireless communications 

services, including mobile broadband. 

This approach is consistent with the 

National Broadband Plan (the ‘‘Plan’’) 3

recommendation to repurpose 120 

megahertz from the broadcast television 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5529 

4 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). 

5 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 

6 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the 

definition of ‘‘small business concern’’ in 15 U.S.C. 

632). Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition 

of a small business applies ‘‘unless an agency, after 

consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration and after 

opportunity for public comment, establishes one or 

more definitions of such term which are 

appropriate to the activities of the agency and 

publishes such definition(s) in the Federal 

Register.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 

7Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996). 

8U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 

‘‘515120 Television Broadcasting’’ (partial 

definition); http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ 

ND515120.HTM#N515120. 

9 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515120 (updated 

for inflation in 2008). 

10See FCC News Release, ‘‘Broadcast Station 

Totals as of June 30, 2009,’’ dated September 4, 

2009; http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/ 

Daily_Business/2008/db0318/DOC-280836A1.pdf. 

11We recognize that BIA’s estimate differs 

slightly from the FCC total given supra. 

12 ‘‘[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other 

when one concern controls or has the power to 

control the other or a third party or parties controls 

or has to power to control both.’’ 13 CFR 

21.103(a)(1). 

13See FCC News Release, ‘‘Broadcast Station 

Totals as of June 30, 2009,’’ dated September 4, 

2009; http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/ 

Daily_Business/2008/db0318/DOC-280836A1.pdf. 

14See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6). 

15See FCC News Release, ‘‘Broadcast Station 

Totals as of June 30, 2009,’’ dated September 4, 

2009; http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/ 

Daily_Business/2008/db0318/DOC-280836A1.pdf. 

16U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 

‘‘517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers’’ 

(partial definition); http://www.census.gov/naics/ 

2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110. 

17 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. 

18U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, 

Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size 

of Firms for the United States: 2002, NAICS code 

517510 (issued November 2005). 

19 Id. An additional 61 firms had annual receipts 

of $25 million or more. 

20 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission determined 

that this size standard equates approximately to a 

size standard of $100 million or less in annual 

revenues. Implementation of Sections of the 1992 

Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order 

and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC 

Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995). 

bands for new wireless broadband uses 

through revising (repacking) the channel 

assignments of TV stations and 

voluntary contributions of spectrum to 

an incentive auction. Reallocation of 

this spectrum as proposed will provide 

the Commission flexibility in providing 

additional spectrum resources for 

meeting the needs of these new 

applications. At the same time, we 

recognize that over-the-air TV serves 

important public interests, and our 

approach will help preserve this service 

as a healthy, viable medium. We remain 

mindful of the informational and 

entertainment benefits broadcast 

television provides the public, and our 

goal is to provide additional options for 

broadcast licensees. 

B. Legal Basis 

49. The proposed action is authorized 

under sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 

303(f), 303(r),of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 

154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 

303(r). 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

50. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted.4 The 

RFA generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ 5 In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act.6 A small 

business concern is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA.7

51. Television Broadcasting. This 

Economic Census category ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

broadcasting images together with 

sound. These establishments operate 

television broadcasting studios and 

facilities for the programming and 

transmission of programs to the 

public.’’ 8 The SBA has created the 

following small business size standard 

for Television Broadcasting firms: Those 

having $14 million or less in annual 

receipts.9 The Commission has 

estimated the number of licensed 

commercial television stations to be 

1,395.10 In addition, according to 

Commission staff review of the BIA 

Publications, Inc., Master Access 

Television Analyzer Database (BIA) on 

March 30, 2007, about 986 of an 

estimated 1,395 commercial television 

stations (or approximately 72 percent) 

had revenues of $13 million or less.11

We therefore estimate that the majority 

of commercial television broadcasters 

are small entities. 

52. We note, however, that in 

assessing whether a business concern 

qualifies as small under the above 

definition, business (control) 

affiliations 12 must be included. Our 

estimate, therefore, likely overstates the 

number of small entities that might be 

affected by our action, because the 

revenue figure on which it is based does 

not include or aggregate revenues from 

affiliated companies. In addition, an 

element of the definition of ‘‘small 

business’’ is that the entity not be 

dominant in its field of operation. We 

are unable at this time to define or 

quantify the criteria that would 

establish whether a specific television 

station is dominant in its field of 

operation. Accordingly, the estimate of 

small businesses to which rules may 

apply does not exclude any television 

station from the definition of a small 

business on this basis and is therefore 

possibly over-inclusive to that extent. 

53. In addition, the Commission has 

estimated the number of licensed 

noncommercial educational (NCE) 

television stations to be 390.13 These 

stations are non-profit, and therefore 

considered to be small entities.14

54. In addition, there are also 2,386 

low power television stations (LPTV).15

Given the nature of this service, we will 

presume that all LPTV licensees qualify 

as small entities under the above SBA 

small business size standard. 

55. Cable Television Distribution 

Services. Since 2007, these services 

have been defined within the broad 

economic census category of Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers; that 

category is defined as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired telecommunications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies.’’ 16 The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for this category, which is: All 

such firms having 1,500 or fewer 

employees. To gauge small business 

prevalence for these cable services we 

must, however, use current census data 

that are based on the previous category 

of Cable and Other Program Distribution 

and its associated size standard; that 

size standard was: All such firms having 

$13.5 million or less in annual 

receipts.17 According to Census Bureau 

data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 

firms in this previous category that 

operated for the entire year.18 Of this 

total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of 

under $10 million, and 43 firms had 

receipts of $10 million or more but less 

than $25 million.19 Thus, the majority of 

these firms can be considered small. 

56. Cable Companies and Systems. 

The Commission has also developed its 

own small business size standards, for 

the purpose of cable rate regulation. 

Under the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small 

cable company’’ is one serving 400,000 

or fewer subscribers, nationwide.20

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

5530 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

21These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, 

Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006, ‘‘Top 25 

Cable/Satellite Operators,’’ pages A–8 & C–2 (data 

current as of June 30, 2005); Warren 

Communications News, Television & Cable 

Factbook 2006, ‘‘Ownership of Cable Systems in the 

United States,’’ pages D–1805 to D–1857. 

22 47 CFR 76.901(c). 

23Warren Communications News, Television & 

Cable Factbook 2008, ‘‘U.S. Cable Systems by 

Subscriber Size,’’ page F–2 (data current as of Oct. 

2007). The data do not include 851 systems for 

which classifying data were not available. 

24 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see 47 CFR 76.901(f) 

& nn. 1–3. 

25 47 CFR 76.901(f); see Public Notice, FCC 

Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition 

of Small Cable Operator, DA 01–158 (Cable 

Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001). 

26These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, 

Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006, ‘‘Top 25 

Cable/Satellite Operators,’’ pages A–8 & C–2 (data 

current as of June 30, 2005); Warren 

Communications News, Television & Cable 

Factbook 2006, ‘‘Ownership of Cable Systems in the 

United States,’’ pages D–1805 to D–1857. 

27The Commission does receive such information 

on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals 

a local franchise authority’s finding that the 

operator does not qualify as a small cable operator 

pursuant to § 76.901(f) of the Commission’s rules. 

See 47 CFR 76.909(b). 

28The band 608–614 MHz, i.e., TV channel 37, 

is used for radio astronomy and is not part of the 

spectrum being considered for reallocation. See 47 

CFR 2.106., US 74 and US 246. 29See 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 

Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 

cable operators nationwide, all but 

eleven are small under this size 

standard.21 In addition, under the 

Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is 

a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer 

subscribers.22 Industry data indicate 

that, of 6,635 systems nationwide, 5,802 

systems have under 10,000 subscribers, 

and an additional 302 systems have 

10,000–19,999 subscribers.23 Thus, 

under this second size standard, most 

cable systems are small. 

57. Cable System Operators. The 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, also contains a size standard 

for small cable system operators, which 

is ‘‘a cable operator that, directly or 

through an affiliate, serves in the 

aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all 

subscribers in the United States and is 

not affiliated with any entity or entities 

whose gross annual revenues in the 

aggregate exceed $250,000,000.’’ 24 The 

Commission has determined that an 

operator serving fewer than 677,000 

subscribers shall be deemed a small 

operator, if its annual revenues, when 

combined with the total annual 

revenues of all its affiliates, do not 

exceed $250 million in the aggregate.25

Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 

cable operators nationwide, all but ten 

are small under this size standard.26 We 

note that the Commission neither 

requests nor collects information on 

whether cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250 million,27

and therefore we are unable to estimate 

more accurately the number of cable 

system operators that would qualify as 

small under this size standard. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

58. The specific bands under 

consideration are the low VHF spectrum 

at 54–72 MHz (TV channels 2–4) and 

76–88 MHz (TV channels 5 and 6), the 

high VHF spectrum at 174–216 MHz 

(TV channels 7–13), and the UHF bands 

at 470–608 MHz (TV channels 14–36) 

and 614–698 MHz (TV channels 38–51); 

for purposes of this NPRM, we will refer 

to this spectrum as the ‘‘U/V Bands.’’ 28

This NPRM proposes three actions that 

will establish the underlying regulatory 

framework to facilitate wireless 

broadband uses of the U/V Bands, 

without affecting current license 

assignments in the band. First, we are 

proposing to add new allocations for 

fixed and mobile services in the U/V 

Bands to be co-primary with the existing 

broadcasting allocation in those bands. 

The additional allocations would 

provide the maximum flexibility for 

planning efforts to increase spectrum 

available for flexible use, including the 

possibility of assigning portions of the 

U/V Bands for new mobile broadband 

services in the future. Second, we are 

proposing to establish a framework that 

permits two or more television stations 

to share a single six-megahertz channel, 

thereby enhancing efficient use of the 

U/V Bands. Third, we intend to 

consider approaches to create value for 

television viewers and broadcasters by 

increasing the utility of the VHF bands 

for the operation of television services. 

59. By establishing the underlying 

regulatory framework to facilitate 

wireless broadband uses in the U/V 

Bands, this NPRM is the first in a series 

of actions that will allow us to make 

progress toward our goal of improving 

efficient use of the bands and enable 

ongoing innovation and investment 

through flexible use. We will propose 

further actions consistent with other of 

the Plan’s recommendations for the U/ 

V Bands, including, but not limited to, 

the process of voluntarily returning 

broadcast licenses to the Commission 

and the licensing process and service 

rules for new fixed and mobile wireless 

communications services. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

60. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities.29

61. We do not propose in this NPRM 

to specify a band plan for the spectrum 

to be recovered, we do, however, 

request comment on how we should reconfigure the current U/V Bands to 

ensure that the services involved, i.e., 

broadcast television as well as new 

fixed and mobile services, can best be 

supported. Recognizing that UHF 

spectrum is useful for mobile services, 

one approach would be to select the 

spectrum to be recovered from the 

upper portion of the UHF band and 

designate it for use by the wireless 

communications service (WCS). This 

would effectively extend the current 

allocation plan and WCS spectrum in 

the adjacent WCS bands at 700 MHz 

(WCS 700 MHz bands) to include new 

lower adjacent frequencies. 

Alternatively, it might be technically 

desirable to configure the bands to 

provide paired spectrum in separate 

bands for broadband applications, or to 

designate a portion of the spectrum for 

unpaired uses or different wireless 

services. For example, current rules in 

the U/V Band allow for unlicensed use 

of unassigned channels (‘‘white spaces’’), 

and the Plan recommended the creation 

of a nationwide contiguous band for 

unlicensed use. We also request 

comment on whether a new 

U/V Band plan should incorporate an 

unlicensed block of spectrum, or if other 

bands would be better suited to this 

purpose. 

62. We seek comment on other areas 

of interest with respect to channel 

sharing in conjunction with the 

recommendations of the National Plan. 

We welcome comments from stations 

that anticipate that they may participate 

in channel sharing as well as from other 

interested parties. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

63. None. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5531 

Ordering Clauses 

64. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 301, 302, 

303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C.154(i), 301, 302, 

303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), this Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making is adopted. 

65. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis to the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2, 15 

and 73 

Communications equipment, 

Incorporation by reference, Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

parts 2, 15, and 73 to read as follows: 

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS 

AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; 

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 

336, unless otherwise noted. 

2. Section 2.106, the Table of 

Frequency Allocations, is amended as 

follows: 

a. Pages 19, 20, 24, and 28 are revised. 

b. In the list of Non-Federal 

Government (NG) Footnotes, footnotes 

NG66 and NG149 are removed. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations. 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

5532 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP01FE11.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5533 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP01FE11.002</GPH>
5534 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP01FE11.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5535 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–C 

* * * * * 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP01FE11.004</GPH>
5536 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY 

DEVICES 

3. The authority citation for part 15 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 

307, 336, and 544a. 

4. Section 15.38 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (b)(14) and (b)(15) to 

read as follows: 

§ 15.38 Incorporation by reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(14) ANSI/CEA–2032–A: ‘‘Indoor TV 

Receiving Antenna Performance 

Standard,’’ May 2005, IBR approved for 

§ 15.117(l). 

(15) ANSI/CEA–744–B: ‘‘TV Receiving 

Antenna Performance Presentation and 

Measurement,’’ February 2009, IBR 

approved for § 15.117(l). 

* * * * * 

5. Section 15.117 is amended by 

adding paragraph (l) to read as follows: 

§ 15.117 TV broadcast receivers. 

* * * * * 

(l) Indoor Antennas. Effective [12 

MONTHS AFTER ADOPTION OF THE 

FINAL ORDER IN THIS PROCEEDING], 

antennas intended for indoor reception 

of television broadcast service shall 

comply with the standards set forth in 

ANSI/CEA–2032–A: ‘‘Indoor TV 

Receiving Antenna Performance 

Standard,’’ May 2005, (incorporation by 

reference, see § 15.38(c)), including the 

requirement for measurements in 

accordance with the procedures set 

forth in ANSI/CEA–744–B: ‘‘TV 

Receiving Antenna Performance 

Presentation and Measurement,’’ 

February 2009, (incorporated by 

reference, see § 15.38(c). Antennas that 

are built-in to, or designed for use with 

specific devices, such as portable 

television receivers, dongles, laptop 

computers, and similar TV reception 

equipment are not be subject to this 

requirement. 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

6. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

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

and 339. 

7. Section 73.616 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 73.616 Post-transition DTV station 

interference protection. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) The facilities of a post-transition 

DTV allotment are as follows: 

(i) (A) For a station that operates on 

a channel 2–6 allotment, the allotment 

ERP is 40 kW if its antenna HAAT is at 

or below 305 meters and the station is 

located in Zone I or 45 kW if its HAAT 

is at or below 305 meters and the station 

is located in Zone II or Zone III. For a 

station located in Zone I that operates 

on channels 2–6 with HAAT that 

exceeds 305 meters, the allotment ERP, 

expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) 

is determined using the following 

formula, with HAAT expressed in 

meters: 

ERP = 92.57 ¥ 33.24*log10(HAAT) 

(B) For a station located in Zone II or 

Zone III that operates on channels 2–6 

with an antenna HAAT that exceeds 305 

meters, the allotment ERP level is 

determined from the following table (the 

allotment ERP for intermediate values of 

HAAT is determined using linear 

interpolation based on the units 

employed in the table): 

ALLOTMENT ERP AND ANTENNA

HEIGHT FOR DTV STATIONS IN

ZONES II OR III ON CHANNELS 2–6 

Antenna HAAT 

(meters) 

ERP 

(kW) 

610 ............................................ 10 

580 ............................................ 11 

550 ............................................ 12 

520 ............................................ 14 

490 ............................................ 16 

460 ............................................ 19 

425 ............................................ 22 

395 ............................................ 26 

365 ............................................ 31 

335 ............................................ 37 

305 ............................................ 45 

(C) For a DTV station located in Zone 

II or Zone III that operates on channels 

2–6 with an antenna HAAT that exceeds 

610 meters, the allotment ERP expressed 

in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is 

determined using the following formula, 

with HAAT expressed in meters: 

ERP = 57.57 ¥ 17.08*log10(HAAT) 

(ii)(A) For a station that operates on 

a channel 7–13 allotment, the allotment 

ERP is 120 kW if its antenna HAAT is 

at or below 305 meters and the station 

is located in Zone I or 160 kW if its 

HAAT is at or below 305 meters and the 

station is located in Zone II or Zone III. 

For a station located in Zone I that 

operates on channels 7–13 with HAAT 

that exceeds 305 meters, the allotment 

ERP, expressed in decibels above 1 kW 

(dBk) is determined using the following 

formula, with HAAT expressed in 

meters: 

ERP = 97.35 ¥ 33.24*log10(HAAT) 

(B) For a station located in Zone II or 

Zone III that operates on channels 7–13 

with an antenna HAAT above 305 

meters, the allotment ERP level is 

determined from the following table (the 

allotment ERP for intermediate values of 

HAAT is determined using linear 

interpolation based on the units 

employed in the table): 

ALLOTMENT ERP AND ANTENNA

HEIGHT FOR DTV STATIONS IN

ZONES II OR III ON CHANNELS 7–13 

Antenna HAAT 

(meters) 

ERP 

(kW) 

610 ............................................ 30 

580 ............................................ 34 

550 ............................................ 40 

520 ............................................ 47 

490 ............................................ 54 

460 ............................................ 64 

425 ............................................ 76 

395 ............................................ 92 

365 ............................................ 110 

335 ............................................ 132 

305 ............................................ 160 

(C) For a station located in Zone II or 

Zone III that operates on channels 7–13 

with an antenna HAAT that exceeds 610 

meters, the allotment ERP expressed in 

decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is 

determined using the following formula, 

with HAAT expressed in meters: 

ERP = 62.34 ¥ 17.08*log10(HAAT) 

(iii)(A) For a station that operates on 

a channel 14–51 allotment, the 

allotment ERP is 1000 kW if its antenna 

HAAT is at or below 365 meters. At 

higher antenna HAAT levels, the 

allotment ERP level for such a station is 

determined from the following table (the 

allotment ERP for intermediate values of 

HAAT is determined using linear 

interpolation based on the units 

employed in the table): 

ALLOTMENT ERP AND ANTENNA

HEIGHT FOR DTV STATIONS ON

CHANNELS 14–51, ALL ZONES

Antenna HAAT 

(meters) 

ERP 

(kW) 

610 ............................................ 10 

580 ............................................ 11 

550 ............................................ 12 

520 ............................................ 14 

490 ............................................ 16 

460 ............................................ 19 

425 ............................................ 22 

395 ............................................ 26 

365 ............................................ 31 

(B) For a station located in Zone I, II 

or III that operates on channels 14–51 

with an antenna HAAT that exceeds 610 

meters, the allotment ERP expressed in 

decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is 

determined using the following formula, 

with HAAT expressed in meters: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5537 

ERP = 72.57¥17.08*log10(HAAT) 

* * * * * 

8. Section 73.622 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (f)(6) and (f)(7) to 

read as follows: 

§ 73.622 Digital television table of 

allotments. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(6) A DTV station that operates on a 

channel 2–6 allotment will be allowed 

a maximum ERP of 40 kW if its antenna 

HAAT is at or below 305 meters and the 

station is located in Zone I or a 

maximum ERP of 45 kW if its HAAT is 

at or below 305 meters and the station 

is located in Zone II or Zone III. An 

existing DTV station that operates on a 

channel 2–6 allotment may request an 

increase in power and/or HAAT up to 

these power levels, provided that the 

increase also complies with the 

provisions of paragraph (f)(5) of this 

section. 

(i) For DTV stations located in Zone 

I that operate on channels 2–6 with an 

antenna HAAT that exceeds 305 meters, 

the allowable maximum ERP, expressed 

in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is 

determined using the following formula, 

with HAAT expressed in meters: 

ERPmax = 98.57 ¥ 33.24*log10(HAAT) 

(ii) For DTV stations located in Zone 

II or Zone III that operate on channels 

2–6 with an antenna HAAT that exceeds 

305 meters, the allowable maximum 

ERP level is determined from the 

following table (the allowable maximum 

ERP for intermediate values of HAAT is 

determined using linear interpolation 

based on the units employed in the 

table): 

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE ERP AND ANTENNA HEIGHT FOR DTV STATIONS IN ZONES II OR III ON CHANNELS 2–6 

Antenna HAAT 

(meters) 

ERP 

(kW) 

610 ............................................ 10 

580 ............................................ 11 

550 ............................................ 12 

520 ............................................ 14 

490 ............................................ 16 

460 ............................................ 19 

425 ............................................ 22 

395 ............................................ 26 

365 ............................................ 31 

335 ............................................ 37 

305 ............................................ 45 

(iii) For DTV stations located in Zone 

II or Zone III that operate on channels 

2–6 with an antenna HAAT that exceeds 

610 meters, the allowable maximum 

ERP expressed in decibels above 1 kW 

(dBk) is determined using the following 

formula, with HAAT expressed in 

meters: 

ERPmax = 57.57 ¥ 17.08*log10(HAAT) 

(7) A DTV station that operates on a 

channel 7–13 allotment will be allowed 

a maximum ERP of 120 kW if its 

antenna HAAT is at or below 305 meters 

and the station is located in Zone I or 

a maximum ERP of 160 kW if its HAAT 

is at or below 305 meters and the station 

is located in Zone II or Zone III. An 

existing DTV station that operates on a 

channel 7–13 allotment may request an 

increase in power and/or HAAT up to 

these power levels, provided that the 

increase also complies with the 

provisions of paragraph (f)(5) of this 

section. 

(i) For DTV stations located in Zone 

I that operate on channels 7–13 with an 

antenna HAAT that exceeds 305 meters, 

the allowable maximum ERP, expressed 

in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is 

determined using the following formula, 

with HAAT expressed in meters: 

ERPmax = 103.35 ¥ 33.24*log10(HAAT) 

(ii) For DTV stations located in Zone 

II or Zone III that operate on channels 

7–13 with an antenna HAAT above 305 

meters, the allowable maximum ERP 

level is determined from the following 

table (the allowable maximum ERP for 

intermediate values of HAAT is 

determined using linear interpolation 

based on the units employed in the 

table): 

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE ERP AND ANTENNA HEIGHT FOR DTV STATIONS IN ZONES II OR III ON CHANNELS 7–13 

Antenna HAAT 

(meters) 

ERP 

(kW) 

610 ............................................ 30 

580 ............................................ 34 

550 ............................................ 40 

520 ............................................ 47 

490 ............................................ 54 

460 ............................................ 64 

425 ............................................ 76 

395 ............................................ 92 

365 ............................................ 110 

335 ............................................ 132 

305 ............................................ 160 

(iii) For DTV stations located in Zone 

II or Zone III that operate on channels 

7–13 with an antenna HAAT that 

exceeds 610 meters, the allowable 

maximum ERP expressed in decibels 

above 1 kW (dBk) is determined using 

the following formula, with HAAT 

expressed in meters: 

ERPmax = 62.34 ¥ 17.08*log10(HAAT) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–2102 Filed 1–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 385, 390, and 395 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0167] 

RIN 2126–AB20 

Electronic On-Board Recorders and 

Hours of Service Supporting 

Documents 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

proposes to amend the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to 

require certain motor carriers operating 

commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in 

interstate commerce to use electronic 

on-board recorders (EOBRs) to 

document their drivers’ hours of service 

(HOS). Under this proposal, all motor 

carriers currently required to maintain 

Records of Duty Status (RODS) for HOS 

recordkeeping would be required to use 

EOBRs to systematically and effectively 

monitor their drivers’ compliance with 

HOS requirements. Additionally, this 

proposal sets forth the supporting 

documents that all motor carriers 

currently required to use RODS would 

still be required to obtain and keep, as 

required by section 113(a) of the 

Hazardous Materials Transportation 

Authorization Act (HMTAA). It 

explains, however, that although motor 

carriers subject to the proposed EOBR 

requirements would still need to retain 

some supporting documents, they 

would be relieved of the requirements to 

retain supporting documents to verify 

driving time. FMCSA also proposes to 

require all motor carriers—both RODS 

and timecard users—to systematically 

monitor their drivers’ compliance with 

HOS requirements. Motor carriers 

would be given 3 years after the 

effective date of the final rule to comply 

with these requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 4, 2011. Comments sent 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) on the collection of information 

must be received by OMB on or before 

April 4, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Docket Number FMCSA– 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS