80256 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’ 

116. In the NPRM, the Commission 

takes steps to minimize the economic 

impact on small entities and considers 

significant alternatives by proposing 

and seeking alternative proposals 

designed to balance its requirements to 

provide support that is sufficient to 

achieve the Commission’s universal 

service goals, while also providing 

appropriate incentives for prudent and 

efficient expenditures. With these goals 

in mind, in the NPRM, the Commission 

took the steps of considering measures 

related to the budget for the Alaska 

Connect Fund support mechanism that 

could potentially benefit legacy support 

recipients, including small entities, by 

having their support shifted towards 

costs that are trending higher for such 

carriers. For example, the Commission 

considered providing funding for both 

areas that still requires buildout and 

ongoing support for areas that are 

already built out. In addition, the 

Commission also considered allowing 

the option to participate in the Alaska 

Connect Fund for small entities and 

other carriers that are not current 

support recipients. In considering these 

matters, the Commission notes that the 

costs of high-cost universal service is 

ultimately borne by consumers through 

the contributions factors assessed on 

their bills. 

117. The Commission also considered 

alternatives for specific deployment 

obligations for carriers receiving Alaska 

Plan support. For example, the 

Commission considered whether it 

should change the obligations to require 

the deployment of broadband at a 

different speed, for example 100/20 

Mbps consistent with the Infrastructure 

Act. Alternatively, the Commission 

considered retaining the existing 

requirement that support recipients 

offer broadband at speeds of 25/3 Mbps 

deployment obligations, as well as 

revisiting deployment obligations to 

account for another government agency 

making a qualifying award with 

enforceable deployment obligations in 

the carrier’s service area. If the 

Commission were to adopt lower 

broadband speed obligations, like 25/3 

Mbps, it might reduce costs for small 

and other legacy support recipients. A 

carrier’s costs may also be reduced if 

other funding programs award funding 

in the rate-of-return carrier’s service 

area, and that carrier is no longer 

required to serve the locations receiving 

the alternative funding. However, these 

scenarios may affect support for such 

carriers if the Commission adjusts 

support to account for the lower costs or 

duplicative funding. 

118. Additionally, the Commission 

considered alternatives for specific 

deployment obligations for mobileprovider participants that receive 

Alaska Connect Fund support. For 

example, the Commission considered 

whether it should require the 

deployment of 5G–NR at 35/3 Mbps, or 

whether it should revisit deployment 

obligations to account for another 

agency making a qualifying award with 

enforceable deployment obligations in 

the carrier’s service area. If the 

Commission were to adopt lower 

broadband speed obligations, like 7⁄1

Mbps, it might reduce costs for small 

and other legacy support recipients. A 

carrier’s costs may also be reduced if 

other funding programs award grants in 

the mobile participant’s awarded area, 

and if carriers receiving duplicative 

support are no longer required to serve 

the locations receiving the alternative 

funding. However, as is the case for rateof-return carriers, these scenarios may 

result in the reduction of support for 

these carriers if the Commission adjusts 

support to account for the lower costs or 

duplicative funding. 

119. Lastly, in consideration of 

reducing the economic burden small 

and other entities might experience, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

alternatives for reducing a carrier’s 

support amount to reflect the 

availability of funding from other 

Federal and state programs in their 

service areas or to reflect that an 

unsubsidized competitor serves the 

area. For example, the Commission 

could identify whether the timing for 

BEAD funding, which instructs states to 

award funding for unserved locations, 

underserved locations and community 

anchor institutions, overlaps with the 

Alaska Connect Fund funding, thereby 

warranting changing the timing for 

awarding support amounts. 

120. The matters discussed in the 

NPRM are designed to ensure the 

Commission has a better understanding 

of both the benefits and the potential 

burdens associated with the different 

actions and methods before adopting its 

final rules. 

121. To assist in the Commission’s 

evaluation of the economic impact on 

small entities, as a result of actions it 

has proposed in the NPRM, and to better 

explore options and alternatives, the 

Commission has sought comment from 

the parties. In particular, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

any of the burdens associated the filing, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements described in this 

document can be minimized for small 

businesses. Through comments received 

in response to the NPRM and the IRFA, 

including costs and benefits information 

and any alternative proposals, the 

Commission expects to more fully 

consider ways to minimize the 

economic impact on small entities. The 

Commission’s evaluation of the 

comments filed in this proceeding will 

shape the final alternatives it considers, 

the final conclusions it reaches, and the 

actions it ultimately takes in this 

proceeding to minimize any significant 

economic impact that may occur on 

small entities as a result of any final 

rules that are adopted. 

III. Ordering Clauses 

122. It is ordered that, pursuant to the 

authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4, 

5, 201–06, 214, 218–220, 251–52, 254, 

256, 301, 303, 309, 332, and 403, and of 

the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–52, 

154–55, 201–06, 214, 218–20, 251–52, 

254, 256, 301, 303, 309, 332, and 403 

this NPRM is adopted. This NPRM will 

be effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register, with comment dates 

indicated therein. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25375 Filed 11–16–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 23–380; RM–11968; DA 23– 

1053; FR ID 184411] 

Television Broadcasting Services 

Missoula, Montana 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Video Division, Media 

Bureau (Bureau), has before it a petition 

for rulemaking filed August 16, 2023, by 

Sinclair Media Licensee, LLC (Petitioner 

or Sinclair), the licensee of KECI–TV, 

channel 13, Missoula, Montana (Station 

or KECI–TV). As discussed below, the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80257 

Station is currently operating on 

channel 13 and Sinclair successfully 

petitioned to have its channel changed 

from channel 13 to channel 20. The 

Petitioner now requests the substitution 

of channel 21 for channel 20 at 

Missoula, Montana (Missoula) in the 

Table of TV Allotments. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before December 18, 2023 and reply 

comments on or before January 2, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 

L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In 

addition to filing comments with the 

FCC, interested parties should serve 

counsel for the Petitioner as follows: 

Paul A. Cicelski, Esq., Lerman Senter, 

PLLC, 2001 L Street NW, Washington, 

DC 20036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 

418–1647; or Joyce Bernstein, Media 

Bureau, at Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2021, 

the Bureau granted Sinclair’s request to 

substitute UHF channel 20 for VHF 

channel 13 at Missoula, and Sinclair 

currently holds a construction permit to 

modify its facility to operate on channel 

20. While the adopted channel 20 noise 

limited service contour (NLSC) did not 

completely encompass the relevant 

channel 13 NLSC, the Bureau found 

there would only be a loss of service to 

approximately 65 persons, a number the 

Commission considers de minimis. In 

addition, the adopted channel 20 

facility is predicted to serve a total of 

252,689 persons, a net gain of 38,879 

potential viewers over the existing 

KECI–TV channel 13 facility. Sinclair 

simultaneously had requested and was 

granted the substitution of UHF channel 

20 for VHF channel 6 for co-owned 

station KTVM–TV, Butte, Montana. As a 

result, both KTVM–TV and KECI–TV 

would operate on a co-channel basis. 

Sinclair had determined that predicted 

interference from both stations 

operating on channel 20 would affect 

less than 1 percent of the populations 

within the noise limited service 

contours. The Petitioner now requests 

that we substitute channel 21 for 

channel 20 for KECI–TV, stating that in 

preparing to construct the new facilities 

on channel 20, local engineering staff 

realized that the real-world interference 

consequences of both stations operating 

on channel 20 would result in a 

significant number of persons receiving 

interference, a greater impact than was 

realized when the TVStudy analyses 

had been done. The Petitioner went on 

to state that ‘‘such interference would 

not be localized, but rather would be 

spread throughout large portions of the 

Missoula and Butte service areas. An 

analysis provided by the Petitioner 

using the Commission’s TVStudy 

software tool indicates that operation of 

KECI–TV on channel 21 instead of 

channel 20 would result in an estimated 

40,481 additional persons within the 

Station’s NLSC being able to receive the 

Station’s signal. This is an increase of 

1,602 person over the population that 

would be served if the Station were to 

remain on channel 20. 

We believe that the Petitioner’s 

channel substitution proposal for KECI– 

TV warrants consideration. Channel 21 

can be substituted for channel 20 at 

Missoula, Montana, as proposed, in 

compliance with the principal 

community coverage requirements of 

section 73.625(a) of the Commission’s 

Rules (rules) at coordinates 47–01′– 

04.0′′ N and 114–00′–50.0′′ W. In 

addition, we find that this channel 

change meets the technical 

requirements set forth in sections 73.616 

and 73.623 of the rules. The proposed 

channel substitution would not cause 

any additional loss of service, but would 

increase the population served within 

KECI–TV’s NLSC, as well as within 

KTVM–TV’s NLSC, by resolving cochannel interference issues caused by 

the stations’ approved co-channel 

operation. 

This is a synopsis of the 

Commission’s Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 23–380; 

RM–11968; DA 23–1053, adopted 

November 7, 2023, and released 

November 7, 2023. The full text of this 

document is available for download at 

https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request 

materials in accessible formats (braille, 

large print, computer diskettes, or audio 

recordings), please send an email to 

FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (VOICE), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

This document does not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, do not apply to this proceeding. 

Members of the public should note 

that all ex parte contacts are prohibited 

from the time a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is issued to the time the 

matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, 

however, exceptions to this prohibition, 

which can be found in section 1.1204(a) 

of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.1204(a). 

See Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the 

Commission’s rules for information 

regarding the proper filing procedures 

for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

Providing Accountability Through 

Transparency Act: The Providing 

Accountability Through Transparency 

Act, Public Law 118–9, requires each 

agency, in providing notice of a 

rulemaking, to post online a brief plainlanguage summary of the proposed rule. 

The required summary of this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking/Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is available at 

https://www.fcc.gov/proposedrulemakings. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Thomas Horan, 

Chief of Staff, Media Bureau. 

Proposed Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 

307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339. 

■ 2. Amend § 73.622, in the table in 

paragraph (j), under ‘‘Montana’’, by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Missoula’’ to read 

as follows: 

§ 73.622 Digital television table of 

allotments. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

Community Channel No. 

* * * * * 

Montana 

* * * * * 

Missoula .................... * 11, 21, 23, 25. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–25392 Filed 11–16–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS