Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43613 

hazardous substances—has been 

considered at a number of sites since the 

last revision of the CERCLA NRDAR 

regulations. Some States (such as 

Louisiana) have enacted specific 

statutory provisions and promulgated 

regulations on NRDAR banking. The 

existing CERCLA NRDAR regulations do 

not provide any guidance on the use of 

advance restoration and restoration 

banking techniques. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Compliance 

The NRDAR FACA Committee Report 

encouraged DOI to adopt Departmentwide categorical exclusions from NEPA 

as appropriate and to ensure that 

compliance with NEPA requirements 

occurs concurrently with NRDAR 

restoration planning. DOI is interested 

in comments or suggestions whether 

that would best be addressed in the 

NRDAR regulations, NEPA regulations, 

or in Departmental guidance. 

Public Comment Procedures 

DOI is not obligated to consider 

comments that we receive after the close 

of the comment period for this ANPRM, 

or comments that are delivered to an 

address other than those listed in this 

notice. After the comment period for 

this ANPRM closes, DOI will review all 

comment submissions. Upon 

consideration, DOI may publish a notice 

of proposed rulemaking. 

We are particularly interested in 

receiving comments and suggestions 

about the topics identified in the 

Description of Information Requested 

section. Written comments that are 

specific, explain the rationale for the 

comment or suggestion, address the 

issues outlined in this notice, and where 

possible, refer to specific statutes, 

existing regulations, case law, or 

NRDAR practices are most useful. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address or other personal 

identifying information in you 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—might 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you may ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review we 

cannot guarantee that we will do so. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601, secs. 

104,107,111(I), 122. 

Steve Glomb, 

Director, Office of Restoration and Damage 

Assessment. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18498 Filed 8–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4334–63–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 18–214, GN Docket No. 12– 

268; FCC 18–113] 

LPTV, TV Translator, and FM 

Broadcast Station Reimbursement, 

Expanding the Economic and 

Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum 

Through Incentive Auctions 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission proposes rules to 

implement Congress’s recent directive 

that we reimburse certain Low Power 

Television (LPTV), television translator 

(TV translator), and FM broadcast 

stations for costs incurred as a result of 

the Commission’s broadcast television 

spectrum incentive auction. When 

Congress authorized the Commission to 

conduct the incentive auction, it 

required the Commission to reimburse 

certain costs incurred by full power and 

Class A television licensees and 

multichannel video program 

distributors (MVPDs). On March 23, 

2018, Congress adopted the 

Reimbursement Expansion Act (REA), 

which, among other things, expands the 

list of entities eligible to be reimbursed 

for auction-related expenses to include 

LPTV, TV translator, and FM broadcast 

stations, and to provide additional 

funds to the Reimbursement Fund to be 

used for this purpose. The REA requires 

the Commission to complete a 

rulemaking to adopt a reimbursement 

process for LPTV, TV translator, and FM 

stations within a year from the adoption 

date of the Act. This NPRM commences 

the proceeding to implement this 

directive and enable the Commission to 

meet this statutory deadline. 

DATES: Comments may be filed on or 

before September 26, 2018; and reply 

comments may be filed on or before 

October 26, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments and reply comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 18–214 

and GN Docket No. 12–268, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s website: http://fjallfoss.

fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions 

for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the supplementary information 

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Matthews of the FCC’s Media Bureau, 

Policy Division, Kim.Matthews@fcc.gov, 

(202) 418–2154. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 18– 

113, adopted August 2, 2018 and 

released August 3, 2018. The full text of 

this document is available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text may be purchased from 

the Commission’s copy contractor, 445 

12th Street SW, Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS at http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will 

be available electronically in ASCII, 

Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

Alternative formats are available for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format) by 

sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or 

calling the Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

The NPRM may result in new or 

revised information collection 

requirements. If the Commission adopts 

any new or revised information 

collection requirements, the 

Commission will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register inviting the public to 

comment on such requirements, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, the Commission will seek specific 

comment on how it might ‘‘further 

reduce the information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees.’’ 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. In the NPRM, we propose rules to 

implement Congress’s recent directive 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43614 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

that we reimburse certain LPTV, TV 

translator, and FM broadcast stations for 

costs incurred as a result of the 

Commission’s broadcast television 

spectrum incentive auction. When 

Congress authorized the Commission to 

conduct the incentive auction as part of 

the 2012 Spectrum Act, it required the 

Commission to reimburse certain costs 

incurred by full power and Class A 

television licensees that were reassigned 

to new channels as a result of the 

auction, as well as certain costs incurred 

by multichannel video program 

distributors (MVPDs) to continue to 

carry such stations. (47 U.S.C. 1452) On 

March 23, 2018, Congress adopted the 

Reimbursement Expansion Act (REA), 

which amends Section 6403 of the 

Spectrum Act to expand the list of 

entities eligible to be reimbursed for 

auction-related expenses to include 

LPTV, TV translator, and FM broadcast 

stations, and to provide additional 

funds to the Reimbursement Fund to be 

used for this purpose. (47 U.S.C. 1452(j) 

through (n)) The REA also increases the 

funds available to reimburse full power 

and Class A stations and MVPDs, and 

provides funds to the Commission for 

consumer education. 

2. In this NPRM, we propose a 

mechanism for reimbursing the newly 

eligible entities that is substantially 

similar to the process we currently use 

to reimburse full power and Class A 

licensees and MVPDs as established in 

the Incentive Auction R&O. See 

Expanding the Economic and 

Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum 

Through Incentive Auctions, Report and 

Order, 79 FR 48442 (Aug. 15, 2014) 

(Incentive Auction R&O). Among the 

key proposals are the following: 

• We tentatively conclude that LPTV 

and TV translator stations (collectively 

referred to herein as LPTV/translator 

stations) are eligible for reimbursement 

if (1) they filed an application during 

the Commission’s Special Displacement 

Window and obtained a construction 

permit, and (2) were licensed and 

transmitting for at least 9 of the 12 

months prior to April 13, 2017, as 

required by the REA. 

• We also tentatively conclude that 

we will reimburse LPTV/translator 

stations for their reasonable costs to 

construct the facilities authorized by the 

grant of the station’s Special 

Displacement Window application, but 

will require stations to reuse existing 

equipment and take other measures to 

mitigate costs where possible. 

• With respect to FM broadcast 

stations, we tentatively conclude that 

both full power FM stations and FM 

translators that were licensed and 

transmitting on April 13, 2017, using 

the facilities impacted by the repacked 

television station are eligible for 

reimbursement under the REA. We 

propose that this will include FM 

stations that incur costs because they 

must permanently relocate, temporarily 

or permanently modify their facilities, 

or purchase or modify auxiliary 

facilities to provide service to at least 80 

percent of their primary station’s 

coverage area or population during a 

period of time when construction work 

is occurring on a collocated repacked 

television station’s facilities. 

• We propose to reimburse up to 100 

percent of the costs eligible for 

reimbursement for FM stations that 

must relocate permanently, or 

temporarily or permanently modify 

facilities. We seek comment on a 

graduated, prioritized system to 

reimburse FM stations for the cost to 

purchase or modify auxiliary equipment 

to avoid going silent as a result of the 

repacking process. 

• We propose to require LPTV/ 

translator and FM stations seeking 

reimbursement to file with the 

Commission one or more forms 

certifying that they meet the eligibility 

criteria established in this proceeding 

for reimbursement, providing 

information regarding their current 

broadcasting equipment, and providing 

an estimate of their costs eligible for 

reimbursement. We invite comment on 

ways to streamline the submission of 

this information for these entities. 

• We propose that after the 

submission of information, the Media 

Bureau will provide eligible entities 

with an allocation of funds, to be 

available for draw down as the entities 

incur expenses. We propose that the 

Media Bureau will make an initial 

allocation toward eligible expenses, 

followed by subsequent allocation(s) as 

needed, to the extent funds remain for 

LPTV/translator stations and FM 

stations in the Reimbursement Fund, 

and we seek comment on how to 

determine the amount of these 

allocations. 

• We propose to use revised versions 

of the financial forms currently being 

used by full power, Class A, and MVPD 

entities for purposes of reimbursing 

eligible LPTV/translator and FM 

stations, and we propose to use the 

same procedures to provide 

reimbursement payments to these newly 

eligible entities. 

• We discuss the measures we 

propose to take to protect the 

Reimbursement Fund against waste, 

fraud, and abuse. 

3. The Commission adopted a 

companion Order together with the 

NPRM. That Order is the subject of a 

separate Federal Register summary. 

II. Background 

A. Reimbursement Expansion Act 

4. On March 23, 2018, Congress 

adopted the REA, directing the 

Commission to ‘‘reimburse costs 

reasonably incurred’’ by a TV translator 

or LPTV station in order to ‘‘relocate’’ to 

another channel or ‘‘otherwise modify’’ 

its facility as a result of the 

reorganization of broadcast television 

spectrum. In addition, the REA directs 

the Commission to ‘‘reimburse costs 

reasonably incurred’’ by an FM station 

‘‘for facilities necessary for such station 

to reasonably minimize disruption of 

service’’ as a result of the reorganization 

of broadcast television spectrum. The 

REA also provides funding for the 

Commission to make payments for the 

purpose of consumer education relating 

to the reorganization of broadcast 

television spectrum. 

5. The REA appropriates a total of $1 

billion in additional funds for the 

Reimbursement Fund, $600 million in 

fiscal year 2018 and $400 million in 

fiscal year 2019. Of the $600 million 

appropriated in fiscal year 2018, the Act 

authorizes the Commission to use ‘‘not 

more than’’ $350 million to make 

reimbursements to full power and Class 

A stations and MVPDs pursuant to the 

Spectrum Act, ‘‘not more than’’ $150 

million to reimburse TV translator and 

LPTV stations, ‘‘not more than’’ $50 

million to reimburse FM broadcast 

stations, and $50 million to make 

‘‘payments solely for the purposes of 

consumer education relating to the 

reorganization of broadcast television 

spectrum’’ pursuant to the Spectrum 

Act. We seek comment below on two 

different interpretations of the statutory 

provisions that relate to the availability 

of the $400 million appropriated in 

fiscal year 2019 and, specifically, on 

whether these funds are available to 

reimburse newly eligible LPTV, TV 

translator, and FM broadcast stations, in 

addition to full power, Class A, and 

MVPD entities. 

6. The REA establishes a number of 

conditions on the availability and use of 

the $1 billion it appropriates to the 

Reimbursement Fund. First, it provides 

that these funds are available only if the 

Commission makes a certification ‘‘to 

the Secretary of the Treasury that the 

funds available prior to the date of 

enactment’’ of the REA ‘‘in the TV 

Broadcaster Relocation Fund are likely 

to be insufficient to reimburse 

reasonably incurred costs’’ of full power 

and Class A stations and MVPDs 

pursuant to the Spectrum Act. Second, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43615 

it provides that the funds may be used 

by the Commission to make payments 

after April 13, 2020, only if, ‘‘before 

making any such payments after such 

date, the Commission submits to 

Congress a certification that such 

payments are necessary to reimburse’’ 

costs reasonably incurred by entities 

eligible for reimbursement pursuant to 

the Spectrum Act and the REA. Third, 

the REA requires that the Commission 

use the funds it appropriates to make all 

reimbursements to full power and Class 

A stations, MVPDs, LPTV/translators, 

and FM stations by July 3, 2023, at the 

latest. The Commission may, however, 

establish an earlier date by which its 

reimbursement program will end if it 

certifies to the Secretary of the Treasury 

that all reimbursements to full power, 

Class A, and MVPDs, as specified by the 

Spectrum Act, and all reimbursements 

to LPTV/translators and FM stations, as 

specified by the REA, have been made. 

7. Section 511(k)(3) of the REA states 

that duplicative payments to ‘‘a low 

power television station that has been 

accorded primary status as a Class A 

television licensee under [47 CFR 

73.6001(a)]’’ from the Reimbursement 

Fund are prohibited. Specifically, such 

licensee may not receive reimbursement 

under Section 511(k)(1) of the REA, 

which provides for reimbursement of 

eligible displaced LPTV/translator 

stations, if such station has received 

reimbursement under Section 

6403(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Spectrum Act 

(including the additional funding made 

available for reimbursing full power, 

Class A, and MVPDs in Section 

511(j)(2)(A)(i) of the REA). Similarly, 

Section 511(k)(3)(B) specifies that if 

such station receives reimbursement 

under Section 511(k)(1) of the REA, it 

may not receive reimbursement under 

Section 6403(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Spectrum 

Act. Section 511(k)(3)(A) also provides 

that if a low power television station 

that has been accorded primary status as 

a Class A television licensee receives 

reimbursement ‘‘from any other source, 

such station may not receive 

reimbursement under paragraph 1’’ of 

Section 511(k), which permits 

reimbursement of costs reasonably 

incurred by eligible LPTV/translator 

stations that filed in the Special 

Displacement Window. Section 

511(l)(1)(C) states that ‘‘[i]f an FM 

broadcast station has received a 

payment for interim facilities from the 

licensee of a television broadcast station 

that was reimbursed for such payment’’ 

under the Spectrum Act, ‘‘or from any 

other source,’’ such FM broadcast 

station may not receive reimbursement 

under the REA. 

8. Finally, the REA requires the 

Commission to complete a rulemaking 

to implement a reimbursement process 

for LPTV, TV translator, and FM 

stations ‘‘[n]ot later than 1 year’’ after 

the adoption of the Act, or by March 23, 

2019. It also directs that the rulemaking 

include ‘‘the development of lists of 

reasonable eligible costs to be 

reimbursed by the Commission’’ and 

‘‘procedures for the submission and 

review of cost estimates and other 

materials related to those costs 

consistent with the regulations 

developed by the Commission’’ in 

establishing the reimbursement process 

for full power, Class A, and MVPD 

entities. 

B. Incentive Auction and Transition 

Period 

9. Congress authorized the 

Commission to conduct the incentive 

auction to help meet the Nation’s 

growing spectrum needs. In the ‘‘reverse 

auction’’ phase of the incentive auction, 

television broadcasters had the 

opportunity to voluntarily relinquish 

some or all of their broadcast television 

spectrum usage rights in exchange for a 

share of the proceeds from a ‘‘forward 

auction’’ of new, flexible-use licenses 

suitable for mobile broadband use. In 

the Incentive Auction R&O, the 

Commission adopted its proposal to 

limit reverse auction participation to 

licensees of commercial and 

noncommercial educational (NCE) full 

power and Class A stations. 

10. Stations that remained on the air 

after the auction were reorganized 

during the ‘‘repacking’’ process to 

occupy a smaller portion of the 

television spectrum, and some were 

assigned new channels to clear 

spectrum for use by wireless providers. 

The Commission specified that full 

power and Class A facilities that already 

were operating pursuant to a license (or 

a pending application for a license to 

cover a construction permit) on 

February 22, 2012, would be protected 

in the repacking process, as Congress 

required. The Commission also 

exercised its discretion to protect 

certain, additional full power and Class 

A stations. The Commission declined to 

protect other categories of facilities, 

including LPTV/translator stations, on 

the basis that such facilities are 

secondary in nature and protecting them 

would have unduly restrained the 

agency’s flexibility in the repacking 

process and undermined its ability to 

meet the goals of the incentive auction. 

11. On April 13, 2017, after the 

conclusion of auction bidding, the 

Incentive Auction Task Force and the 

Media and Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureaus released 

the Closing and Channel Reassignment 

PN, which announced the completion of 

the auction, the auction results, and the 

broadcast television channel 

reassignments. The release of the 

Closing and Channel Reassignment PN 

also commenced the 39-month postauction transition period (transition 

period) during which all reassigned 

stations must transition to their postauction channel assignments. 

Reassigned stations had three months, 

or until July 12, 2017, to file 

construction permit applications for any 

minor changes to their facilities needed 

to operate on their new channels. 

Following the three-month application 

filing deadline, stations have up to 36 

months, or until July 13, 2020, to 

transition to their new channels. 

12. To ensure an orderly, managed 

transition process, the Commission 

established a phased construction 

schedule for the transition period and 

grouped all full power and Class A 

television stations transitioning to new 

channels into one of 10 transition 

phases. The Closing and Channel 

Reassignment PN announced the 

specific transition phase, phase 

completion date, and testing period 

applicable to each transitioning station. 

C. LPTV and TV Translator Stations and 

FM Broadcasters 

13. LPTV and TV Translators. LPTV/ 

translator stations are secondary to full 

power television stations, which may be 

authorized and operated ‘‘without 

regard to existing or proposed low 

power TV or TV translator stations.’’ 

LPTV/translator stations were not 

eligible to participate in the incentive 

auction and were not eligible for 

reimbursement pursuant to the 

Spectrum Act. In addition, while the 

Spectrum Act required the Commission 

to make ‘‘all reasonable efforts’’ to 

preserve the coverage area and 

population served of eligible full power 

and Class A television stations in the 

incentive auction repacking process, as 

noted above, LPTV/translator stations 

were not protected. Accordingly, the 

Incentive Auction R&O noted the 

potential for a significant number of 

LPTV/translator stations to be displaced 

as a result of the auction or repacking 

process which would require them 

either to find a new channel from the 

smaller number of channels that remain 

in the reorganized broadcast television 

bands or to discontinue operations 

altogether. 

14. The Commission has taken a 

number of steps to mitigate the impact 

of the auction and repacking process on 

LPTV/translator stations. The Media 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43616 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Bureau opened a special filing window 

on April 10, 2018 to offer operating 

LPTV/translator stations that are 

displaced an opportunity to select a new 

channel. That displacement window 

closed on June 1, 2018. In total, the 

Commission received 2,159 applications 

during the window which are currently 

under consideration. Applicants will 

have the opportunity to resolve any 

mutual exclusivity through settlement 

or engineering amendments filed prior 

to the close of a Settlement Window to 

be announced by the Media Bureau. 

Should applications remain mutually 

exclusive after the Settlement Window, 

a schedule will be set for them to be 

resolved subject to the Commission’s 

competitive bidding rules. 

15. Some LPTV/translator stations 

have already been displaced. Pursuant 

to our rules, LPTV/translator stations 

that were on channels 38 through 51 

must terminate operations if they 

receive notice of likely interference to a 

new 600 MHz Band licensee that 

intends to commence operations or 

conduct first field application (FFA) 

testing on their licensed 600 MHz 

spectrum. The Commission has granted 

a number of 600 MHz licenses, which 

authorized the licensees to construct 

facilities on their new spectrum. TMobile USA (T-Mobile), one of the 

recipients of those licenses, provided 

notices to certain LPTV and TV 

translator stations that it would 

commence operations or conduct FFA 

testing on some of its licensed spectrum 

before the opening of the Special 

Displacement Window. The 

Commission therefore provided tools to 

these ‘‘early displaced’’ LPTV/translator 

stations to ensure that they would be 

able to continue to broadcast. One of 

these tools was for a displaced station 

to submit a displacement application 

prior to the opening of the Special 

Displacement Window with a request 

for waiver of the current displacement 

freeze, and file for Special Temporary 

Authority to temporarily operate the 

facility proposed in the displacement 

application. The Tools PN further 

explained that applications filed with a 

request for waiver of the displacement 

freeze would be treated as if filed on the 

last day of the Special Displacement 

Window and processed in accordance 

with the rules for that window. 

Approximately 340 displacement 

applications were filed prior to the 

Special Displacement Window pursuant 

to the Tools PN. Independent of the 

Tools PN, T-Mobile created a 

Supplemental Reimbursement Plan 

whereby it committed to pay the 

reasonable costs associated for such 

stations to move from a temporary 

channel to a permanent channel if the 

station’s displacement application for 

the temporary channel was not granted 

and the station therefore needs to move 

twice. In addition, T-Mobile and PBS 

announced in June 2017 that T-Mobile 

had committed to cover the costs for 

PBS translator stations to relocate their 

frequencies following the incentive 

auction. 

16. FM Broadcasters. FM broadcasters 

were not eligible to participate in the 

auction, were not subject to the 

repacking process, and were not eligible 

for reimbursement pursuant to the 

Spectrum Act. While FM spectrum was 

not subject to reorganization in the 

repacking process, FM stations may be 

affected by the reorganization of 

broadcast television spectrum if, for 

example, an FM station shares a tower 

with a repacked TV station. Changes to 

the facilities of the TV station could 

affect the FM station if, for example, the 

FM station antenna must be moved, 

either temporarily or permanently, to 

accommodate the TV station’s change or 

if an FM station needs to power down, 

or cease operating temporarily, to 

permit a repacked TV broadcaster to 

modify its facilities. In total, we 

estimate this could include fewer than 

500 full-service stations. 

D. Full Power, Class A, and MVPD 

Reimbursement Process 

17. As we initiate the proceeding to 

reimburse additional entities affected by 

the reorganization of broadcast 

television spectrum, we find the current 

eligibility criteria, process, and 

procedures associated with the 

Reimbursement Fund instructive. We 

summarize pertinent details below. 

18. The Spectrum Act requires the 

Commission to reimburse full power 

and Class A broadcast television 

licensees for costs ‘‘reasonably 

incurred’’ in relocating to their new 

channels assigned in the repacking 

process, and to reimburse MVPDs for 

costs ‘‘reasonably incurred’’ in order to 

continue to carry the signals of stations 

relocating to new channels as a result of 

the repacking process or a winning 

reverse auction bid. Congress specified 

that these reimbursements be made from 

the Reimbursement Fund, and that the 

Commission make all reimbursements 

within three years after completion of 

the forward auction (Reimbursement 

Period). In the Incentive Auction R&O, 

the Commission concluded that, with 

respect to broadcast licensees, the 

Spectrum Act’s reimbursement mandate 

applies only to full power and Class A 

television licensees that are 

involuntarily reassigned to new 

channels in the repacking process. 

19. In the Incentive Auction R&O, the 

Commission established the 

reimbursement process that is currently 

in place. Following the release of the 

Closing and Channel Reassignment PN, 

entities seeking reimbursement 

provided information regarding their 

existing broadcasting equipment and 

their plan to accomplish the channel 

transition, including an estimate of their 

eligible costs, by filing FCC Form 2100, 

Schedule 399 (the Reimbursement 

Form), in the Media Bureau’s Licensing 

and Management System (LMS). 

Estimated costs could be provided by 

the entity or by using predetermined 

cost estimates based on the Catalog of 

Potential Expenses and Eligible Costs 

(Catalog of Reimbursement Expenses, or 

Catalog) developed by the Media 

Bureau. The Catalog sets forth categories 

of expenses that are most likely to be 

commonly incurred by broadcasters and 

MVPDs as a result of the repacking 

process, together with ranges of prices 

for the potential expenses. The Media 

Bureau, with assistance from a 

contractor with extensive experience in 

television broadcast engineering and 

Federal funds management (Fund 

Administrator), reviews the cost 

estimates. 

20. The Commission’s goal is to 

ensure that reimbursement funds are 

allocated fairly and consistently across 

all eligible entities and, at the same 

time, to have sufficient flexibility to 

make reasoned allocation decisions that 

maximize the funds available for 

reimbursement. To this end, 

reimbursement funds are being 

allocated in tranches, with the 

allocation amounts calculated based in 

part on the total amount of repacking 

expenses reported on the estimated cost 

forms as well as the amount of money 

available in the Reimbursement Fund. 

On October 16, 2017, an initial 

allocation of approximately $1 billion 

was made, which represented 

approximately 52 percent of the thencurrent verified cost estimates for 

commercial stations and MVPDs, and 62 

percent for NCE broadcasters. A further 

allocation of approximately $742 

million was made on April 16, 2018, 

providing all repacked full power and 

Class A stations and MVPDs access to 

approximately 92.5 percent of their 

then-current verified cost estimates. The 

Commission will continue to monitor 

closely the draw-down of the 

Reimbursement Fund to determine if 

additional allocations are warranted. 

21. The allocation is available for 

draw down and reimbursement from the 

U.S. Treasury as the entities incur 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43617 

expenses eligible for reimbursement and 

submit invoices that are approved for 

payment. Entities draw down against 

their individual allocations using the 

Reimbursement Form to report incurred 

expenses and upload invoices or 

receipts into LMS. To facilitate the 

disbursement of reimbursement 

payments, entities were also required to 

submit payment instructions to the 

Commission by (i) submitting a signed 

and notarized FCC Form 1876, along 

with a bank account verification letter 

or redacted bank statement that 

confirms ownership of the bank 

account, for each Facility ID/File 

Number receiving a reimbursement 

payment; and (ii) entering bank account 

information for the reimbursement 

payment recipient in the CORES 

Incentive Auction Financial Module. 

22. Prior to the end of the three-year 

Reimbursement Period, entities must 

provide information regarding their 

actual and remaining estimated costs 

and will be issued a final allocation, if 

appropriate, to cover the remainder of 

their eligible costs. If any allocated 

funds remain in excess of the entity’s 

actual costs determined to be eligible for 

reimbursement, those funds will revert 

back to the Reimbursement Fund. In 

addition, if an overpayment is 

discovered, even after the end of the 

Reimbursement Period, entities will be 

required to return the excess to the 

Commission. 

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

A. Amounts Available for 

Reimbursement 

23. As an initial matter, we seek 

comment on how to interpret the statute 

with respect to amounts available to 

reimburse eligible entities pursuant to 

the REA using funds appropriated for 

fiscal year 2019. Section 511(j)(1) of the 

REA appropriates funds ‘‘to the TV 

Broadcaster Relocation Fund 

established by [47 U.S.C. 1452(d)]’’— 

specifically, $600 million for fiscal year 

2018 and $400 million for fiscal year 

2019. Section 511(j)(2) of the REA 

discusses the ‘‘availability of funds’’ and 

provides that, if the Commission makes 

the required certification, ‘‘amounts 

made available to the TV Broadcaster 

Relocation Fund by [Section 511(j)(1)] 

shall be available to the Commission to 

make’’ certain specified payments. In 

particular, Section 511(j)(2)(A) states 

that funds appropriated in Section 

511(j)(1) shall be available to the 

Commission to make payments required 

by the Spectrum Act and the REA, 

including ‘‘not more than’’ $350 million 

to reimburse full power and Class A 

stations and MVPDs from fiscal year 

2018 funds, ‘‘not more than’’ $150 

million to reimburse LPTV and TV 

translator stations from fiscal year 2018 

funds, and ‘‘not more than’’ $50 million 

to reimburse FM broadcast stations from 

fiscal year 2018 funds. It also states that 

funds appropriated in Section 511(j)(1) 

shall be available to the Commission to 

make payments ‘‘solely for the purposes 

of consumer education relating to the 

reorganization of broadcast television 

spectrum,’’ including $50 million from 

the funds available for fiscal year 2018. 

While Section 511(j)(2)(A) clearly 

delineates the availability of funds for 

fiscal year 2018, it does not do so with 

respect to fiscal year 2019 funding. 

24. We therefore seek comment on 

whether the $400 million appropriated 

to the Reimbursement Fund for fiscal 

year 2019 is only available to reimburse 

eligible full power and Class A stations 

and MVPDs for costs reasonably 

incurred in the repacking process or 

whether the REA also permits this 

money to be used to reimburse LPTV, 

TV translators, and FM broadcast 

stations, as well as to fund the 

Commission’s consumer education 

efforts. 

25. If the Commission were to 

interpret the statute to find that it is 

authorized to reimburse eligible LPTV, 

TV translator, and FM broadcast stations 

and to fund consumer education efforts 

from the fiscal year 2019 funds, in 

addition to reimbursing full power, 

Class A, and MVPD entities, we seek 

comment on whether and how the 

Commission should prioritize this 

funding. While we have received 

estimates of the costs that full power 

and Class A stations anticipate as a 

result of their channel reassignments, 

we have no estimates to date of the costs 

that will be incurred by LPTV, TV 

translator, and FM stations. Moreover, 

as we have indicated, we anticipate that 

the estimates for full power and Class A 

stations will increase as their 

construction process continues. It is 

therefore possible that there will be 

significant demand on the 

Reimbursement Fund from all categories 

of eligible entities such that the total 

amount available may not be sufficient 

to cover all their eligible expenses. If so, 

should the Commission prioritize the 

payments to full power and Class A 

stations over those of FM stations and 

LPTV/translator stations? We also seek 

comment on whether the Commission 

should prioritize the payment of full 

power and Class A stations over any 

aggregate costs exceeding the limits 

described in Section 511(j)(2) of $50 

million for FM stations and $150 

million for LPTV/translator stations. In 

other words, should the Commission 

consider reimbursement of costs above 

those aggregate amounts for FM and 

LPTV/translator stations only after full 

power and Class A expenses are fully 

satisfied? We seek comment on these 

issues. 

B. LPTV and TV Translator Stations— 

Eligibility and Expenses 

26. As discussed above, the REA 

authorized the Commission to 

reimburse ‘‘costs reasonably incurred by 

a television translator or low power 

television station on or after January 1, 

2017, in order for such station to 

relocate its television service from one 

channel to another channel or otherwise 

modify its facility as a result of the 

reorganization of broadcast television 

spectrum’’ under Section 6403(b) of the 

Spectrum Act. In this section, we seek 

comment on issues related to eligibility 

and expenses under the REA provisions 

for reimbursement of displaced LPTV 

and TV translator stations. 

1. Stations Eligible for Reimbursement 

a. LPTV/Translator Stations 

27. The REA provides that costs 

reasonably incurred by certain 

‘‘television translator station[s] or low 

power television station[s]’’ to relocate 

channels or modify facilities as a result 

of the reorganization of broadcast 

television spectrum are eligible for 

reimbursement. The REA specifies that 

these two types of stations are to be 

defined pursuant to the definition 

included in 47 CFR 74.701. We interpret 

this provision to mean that LPTV and 

TV translator stations, as defined by 

§ 74.701 of our rules, may be eligible for 

reimbursement under the 

Reimbursement Fund if they meet the 

additional eligibility criteria discussed 

below, and we seek comment on this 

interpretation. 

(i) Special Displacement Window 

Eligibility Criteria 

28. The REA provides that ‘‘[o]nly 

stations that are eligible to file and do 

file an application in the Commission’s 

Special Displacement Window are 

eligible to seek reimbursement.’’ The 

Media Bureau has provided that, to be 

eligible to file in the Special 

Displacement Window, a station had to 

be an LPTV/translator station that was 

‘‘operating’’ on April 13, 2017—the date 

of the release of the Closing and 

Channel Reassignment PN. 

Furthermore, for this purpose, a station 

is ‘‘operating’’ if it had licensed its 

authorized construction permit facilities 

or had an application for a license to 

cover on file with the Commission on 

that date. The station must also be 

‘‘displaced . . . as a result of the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43618 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

broadcast television spectrum incentive 

auction.’’ Therefore, we tentatively 

conclude that, to be eligible for 

reimbursement, a station must be an 

LPTV/translator station that was eligible 

to file and did file an application during 

the Special Displacement Window. As 

noted above, the Commission received 

2,159 applications during the window 

which, subject to the other eligibility 

requirements, represents the largest 

possible universe of LPTV/translator 

stations that could be eligible for 

reimbursement. 

29. While the threshold eligibility 

criteria set forth in the REA require only 

that a station was ‘‘eligible to file and 

[did] file an application’’ in the Special 

Displacement Window, we tentatively 

conclude that, to be eligible for 

reimbursement, a station’s displacement 

application filed during the Special 

Displacement Window (or prior to the 

window with grant of a waiver, or 

subsequently amended prior to the close 

of the Settlement Window) must be 

granted. Although this requirement is 

not mandated by the REA, we believe 

that this additional criterion is essential 

to ensure the integrity of the 

reimbursement program and is 

consistent with Section 511(k)(1), which 

requires reimbursement of only costs 

reasonably incurred to ‘‘relocate . . . 

television service from one channel to 

another channel . . . or otherwise 

modify [a] facility.’’ We believe that 

eligibility must be limited to stations 

with valid displacement construction 

permits obtained through the procedural 

mechanisms associated with the Special 

Displacement Window that will permit 

them to construct the displacement 

facilities for which they receive 

reimbursement. Otherwise, providing 

reimbursement to eligible stations 

whose applications are not granted will 

result in reimbursement for expenses 

related to facilities that will not be 

constructed to ‘‘relocate . . . television 

service from one channel to another 

channel . . . or otherwise modify [a] 

facility.’’ We seek comment on this 

tentative conclusion. 

30. An LPTV/translator station that 

filed in the Special Displacement 

Window whose application is dismissed 

may subsequently file a displacement 

application when the Media Bureau lifts 

the freeze on the filing of such 

applications. We tentatively conclude 

that such stations will be eligible for 

reimbursement under the REA if their 

later-filed displacement application is 

subsequently granted. Although they 

would receive their construction permit 

through a displacement application that 

was not filed during the Special 

Displacement Window, these stations 

would meet the threshold eligibility 

criteria under the REA because such 

stations were ‘‘eligible to file and [did] 

file an application’’ in the Special 

Displacement Window. In addition, 

such stations are affected by the 

reorganization of broadcast television 

spectrum in the same way as other 

displaced LPTV/translator stations. We 

seek comment on whether and how 

such stations could be included in the 

reimbursement process considering that 

they will not be able to meet the same 

filing deadlines applicable to other 

eligible LPTV/translator stations that 

have applications granted in the Special 

Displacement Window and, depending 

on the demand on the Reimbursement 

Fund, this difference could result in a 

lack of reimbursement resources. Would 

allowing such stations to be eligible for 

reimbursement be appropriate given the 

finite resources of the Reimbursement 

Fund? Should such stations be eligible 

for reimbursement only to the extent 

funds remain available for LPTV/ 

translator stations in the Reimbursement 

Fund? 

(ii) ‘‘Licensed and Transmitting’’ 

Eligibility Criteria 

31. The REA provides that only 

stations that were ‘‘licensed and 

transmitting for at least 9 of the 12 

months prior to April 13, 2017,’’ are 

eligible to receive reimbursement under 

the REA. The statute also specifies that 

‘‘the operation of analog and digital 

companion facilities may be combined’’ 

for purposes of the ‘‘licensed and 

transmitting’’ requirement. We propose 

that, consistent with the eligibility 

requirement for participation in the 

Special Displacement Window, stations 

that were licensed or that filed a license 

to cover application prior to April 13, 

2017, be considered ‘‘licensed’’ for 

purposes of REA reimbursement 

eligibility. 

32. Because neither Commission rules 

nor the REA specifies a definition of 

‘‘transmitting,’’ we propose a definition 

that relies on the Commission’s 

minimum operating schedule rule for 

commercial full power television 

broadcast stations. That rule provides 

that commercial full power television 

stations must ‘‘operate’’ not less than 2 

hours in each day of the week and not 

less than a total of 28 hours per calendar 

week. Therefore, we propose that, in 

order to be considered ‘‘transmitting,’’ 

stations seeking reimbursement under 

the REA must have been operating not 

less than 2 hours in each day of the 

week and not less than a total of 28 

hours per calendar week for 9 of the 12 

months prior to April 13, 2017. We 

believe that, given the finite nature of 

the Reimbursement Fund, it is necessary 

to give reasonable meaning to the 

eligibility criteria set forth in the REA. 

By defining ‘‘transmitting’’ in the same 

way as we do for full power stations, we 

intend to prioritize reimbursement for 

LPTV/translator stations that provided 

more robust service to the public over 

those that were on the air for only a 

brief period each day. Because a 

translator station is required to 

retransmit the signal of a television 

station, we would expect that most, if 

not all, translators would meet this 

requirement. We believe that this 

requirement reflects the legislative 

mandate that only ‘‘transmitting’’ 

stations be eligible to receive 

reimbursement. We seek comment on 

this proposal. 

33. We propose that stations be 

required to certify compliance with the 

minimum operating requirement we 

adopt as part of the reimbursement 

process. LPTV/translator stations may 

be required to provide evidence to 

support this certification, such as 

documentation of the programming 

aired by the station during the period of 

time in question, electric power bills, or 

other evidence showing that the station 

was transmitting during this time 

period. The Commission previously 

determined that, with respect to the 

incentive auction reimbursement 

program, ‘‘audits, data validations, and 

site visits are essential tools in 

preventing waste, fraud, and abuse, and 

that use of these measures will 

maximize the amount of money 

available for reimbursement.’’ With 

respect to reimbursing low-power 

broadcast stations, we contemplate that 

a third party firm on behalf of, or in 

conjunction with, the Media Bureau 

may conduct audits, data validations, 

site visits or other verifications to 

substantiate the supporting evidence 

and representations of entities that 

certify that they meet the eligibility 

criteria adopted in this proceeding to 

the extent necessary. We propose to 

direct such entities to make available 

any relevant documentation upon 

request from the Commission or its 

contractor. We emphasize that a false 

certification may result in 

disqualification and other sanctions 

provided for in the Communications Act 

and the Commission’s rules. We seek 

comment on these proposals. 

b. Other Eligible Stations 

34. Early Displaced Stations. We 

propose that LPTV and TV translator 

stations that were displaced early, were 

eligible to file in the Special 

Displacement Window, and filed a 

displacement application prior to the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43619 

Special Displacement Window will be 

eligible for reimbursement under the 

REA. As described above, some LPTV/ 

translator stations were displaced prior 

to the Special Displacement Window as 

a result of T-Mobile’s decision to 

commence wireless operations in the 

600 MHz band. As noted above, 

approximately 340 such stations filed a 

request for waiver of the displacement 

freeze and a request for an STA, and the 

Media Bureau has treated these filings 

as if filed on the last day of the Special 

Displacement Window. Such 

applications will be processed in 

accordance with the rules for that 

window. Because these stations meet 

the definition of LPTV/translator 

stations eligible for reimbursement 

under the REA, and their displacement 

applications were considered as filed 

during the Special Displacement 

Window, we propose that these stations 

will be eligible for reimbursement if 

they meet all of the other eligibility 

requirements. We seek comment on this 

proposal. 

35. Replacement Translators. In the 

Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission 

concluded that digital low power TV 

translator stations authorized pursuant 

to § 74.787(a)(5) of the Commission’s 

rules (analog-to-digital replacement 

translators, or DRTs) that were 

displaced by the incentive auction and 

repacking process are eligible to file 

displacement applications during the 

Special Displacement Window. Because 

DRTs are potentially displaced as a 

result of the reorganization of broadcast 

television spectrum, were eligible to file 

in the Special Displacement Window, 

and are considered ‘‘TV translators’’ and 

licensed under the same Part 74 rules as 

other TV translator stations, we propose 

that displaced DRTs also are eligible for 

reimbursement pursuant to the REA, as 

long as they meet the other eligibility 

requirements. We seek comment on this 

proposal. 

36. In the LPTV DTV Third R&O, the 

Commission established a new digitalto-digital replacement translator 

(DTDRT) service to allow eligible full 

power television stations to recover lost 

digital service area that could result 

from the repacking process. The 

Commission concluded that full power 

stations may begin to file for DTDRTs 

beginning with the opening of the 

Special Displacement Window on April 

10, 2018, and ending one year after 

completion of the incentive auction 

transition period. Although they were 

eligible to file in the Special 

Displacement Window, and DTDRTs are 

similar to DRTs in that they are 

considered ‘‘TV translators’’ and 

licensed under the same Part 74 rules as 

other TV translator stations, we 

tentatively conclude that new DTDRTs 

are not eligible for reimbursement under 

the REA because they would not have 

been ‘‘licensed and transmitting’’ for 9 

of the past 12 months prior to April 13, 

2017, as required by the statute. In 

addition, even if they were otherwise 

eligible under the statutory criteria, 

DTDRTs are newly established facilities 

and thus are not ‘‘relocat[ing] . . . from 

one channel to another channel’’ or 

‘‘modify[ing]’’ their facilities as required 

by the statute. We seek comment on this 

tentative conclusion. 

37. Class A Television Licensees. As 

noted above, Section 511(k)(3) of the 

REA prohibits duplicative payments 

from the Reimbursement Fund to ‘‘a low 

power television station that has been 

accorded primary status as a Class A 

television licensee under [47 CFR 

73.6001(a)].’’ Specifically, Section 

511(k)(3)(A) provides that such licensee 

may not receive reimbursement under 

Section 511(k)(1) of the REA if such 

station has received reimbursement 

under Section 6403(b)(4)(A)(i) of the 

Spectrum Act (including the additional 

funding made available for reimbursing 

full power, Class A, and MVPDs in 

Section 511(j)(2)(A)(i) of the REA). We 

interpret this language to underscore 

that Class A stations reimbursed from 

funds for Class A stations under the 

Spectrum Act or the REA are not 

eligible for reimbursement from funds 

dedicated to LPTV/translator 

reimbursement under the REA. Such 

Class A stations were not eligible to file 

an application during the Special 

Displacement Window and thus do not 

qualify for reimbursement for LPTV/ 

translator stations under the REA. 

Similarly, Section 511(k)(3)(B) specifies 

that a low power television station that 

has been accorded primary status as a 

Class A television licensee that receives 

reimbursement under Section 511(k)(1) 

of the REA may not receive 

reimbursement under Section 

6403(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Spectrum Act. We 

interpret this language to underscore 

that such stations that filed in the 

Special Displacement Window are not 

eligible for reimbursement under 

Section 6403(b)(4)(A)(i) because they are 

not full power or Class A stations 

involuntarily reassigned to a new 

channel in the repacking process. We 

seek comment on our interpretations. 

2. Expenses Eligible for Reimbursement 

a. Costs Reasonably Incurred 

38. The REA provides that the 

Commission shall ‘‘reimburse costs 

reasonably incurred by a television 

translator station or low power 

television station on or after January 1, 

2017, in order for such station to 

relocate its television service from one 

channel to another channel or otherwise 

modify its facility as a result of the 

reorganization of broadcast television 

spectrum’’ under the Spectrum Act. As 

discussed above, on April 13, 2017, we 

released the Closing and Channel 

Reassignment PN, which announced the 

completion of the auction, the auction 

results, the broadcast television channel 

reassignments made through repacking, 

and the 600 MHz Band plan reflecting 

the reallocations of broadcast television 

spectrum for flexible use and the 

frequencies that will serve as part of the 

600 MHz Band guard bands. We 

interpret the REA to provide for 

reimbursement of reasonably incurred 

relocation costs for LPTV/translator 

stations that were displaced ‘‘as a result 

of the reorganization of broadcast 

television spectrum’’ under the 

Spectrum Act, which includes 

displacement resulting from full power 

and Class A channel reassignments 

made in the Closing and Channel 

Reassignment PN and from the 

reallocation of broadcast television 

spectrum for flexible use by a 600 MHz 

Band wireless licensee or for use as 600 

MHz Band guard bands. 

39. While the Commission’s 

reorganization of television spectrum 

under Section 1452(b) of the Spectrum 

Act was completed with the issuance of 

the Closing and Channel Reassignment 

PN, the Commission also afforded 

reassigned stations the opportunity to 

file applications for alternate channels 

or expanded facilities during two filing 

windows that ended on September 15 

and November 2, 2017. We anticipate 

that some LPTV/translator stations that 

filed applications during the Special 

Displacement Window may have been 

displaced by grant of an application 

filed during one of the alternate 

channel/expanded facilities filing 

windows, rather than the channel 

reassignments specified in the Closing 

and Channel Reassignment PN. While 

applications filed during the two filing 

windows by reassigned full power and 

Class A stations to modify their 

repacked facilities were not required 

under Section 1452(b) of the Spectrum 

Act, they may have resulted in 

displacement of LPTV/translator 

stations making those stations eligible to 

file applications in the Special 

Displacement Window. Accordingly, we 

seek comment on whether the REA’s 

requirement that we reimburse costs 

reasonably incurred ‘‘as a result of the 

reorganization of broadcast television 

spectrum’’ extends to include costs 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43620 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

incurred by LPTV/translator stations 

that were displaced solely due to 

modifications made by full power and 

Class A facilities as a result of receiving 

authorizations through these two filing 

windows. 

40. We tentatively conclude that the 

equipment and other costs necessary for 

an eligible LPTV/translator station to 

construct the facilities authorized by 

grant of the station’s Special 

Displacement Window application shall 

be considered costs ‘‘reasonably 

incurred,’’ and seek comment on this 

tentative conclusion. This approach is 

similar to the reimbursement program 

used for full power and Class A stations 

with the following distinction. In 

implementing the Spectrum Act’s 

reimbursement provisions for full power 

and Class A stations reassigned to new 

channels, the Commission concluded 

that the Act required that it reimburse 

costs ‘‘that are reasonable to provide 

facilities comparable to those that a 

broadcaster . . . had prior to the auction 

that are reasonably replaced or modified 

following the auction, as a result of the 

repacking process, in order to allow the 

broadcaster to operate on a new channel 

. . . .’’ This included reimbursement 

‘‘for modification or replacement of 

facilities on the post-auction channel 

consistent with the technical parameters 

identified in the Channel Reassignment 

PN.’’ The Spectrum Act required that 

the Commission make ‘‘all reasonable 

efforts’’ in the repacking process to 

preserve coverage area and population 

served of full power and Class A 

stations. Thus, the post-auction channel 

reassignments specified in the Closing 

and Channel Reassignment PN were 

made at stations’ existing locations and 

largely replicated stations’ pre-auction 

facilities. 

41. We do not believe that a similar 

‘‘comparable’’ facilities reimbursement 

standard can, as a technical matter, be 

applied to displaced LPTV/translator 

stations. Displaced LPTV/translator 

stations, unlike full power and Class A 

stations, may need to move their 

transmitter and antenna locations in 

addition to changing channels. In order 

to continue to provide service to 

viewers from the new site, stations may 

need to increase their effective radiated 

power and height, which may require 

the purchase of transmitters, 

transmission lines, and other equipment 

that is not ‘‘comparable’’ to their 

existing equipment. Therefore, we 

tentatively conclude that the equipment 

and other costs necessary for an eligible 

LPTV/translator station to construct the 

facilities authorized by grant of the 

station’s Special Displacement Window 

application shall be considered 

‘‘reasonably incurred,’’ consistent with 

other reimbursement procedures and 

processes we propose herein (such as 

requiring broadcasters to reuse 

equipment and take other steps to 

mitigate costs where possible). We 

propose to permit LPTV/translators to 

be reimbursed for both ‘‘hard’’ expenses, 

such as new equipment and tower 

rigging, and ‘‘soft’’ expenses, such as 

legal and engineering services, but, as 

discussed below, propose to direct the 

Media Bureau to prioritize, if necessary, 

the payment of certain hard costs 

necessary to operate the stations over 

soft costs to assure that such costs are 

recoverable to the extent possible under 

a limited fund. We seek comment on 

these tentative conclusions and on any 

alternative reimbursement approaches 

for eligible LPTV/translator stations. For 

example, should we permit as costs 

‘‘reasonably incurred’’ those costs 

necessary to provide replacement 

facilities of comparable coverage? When 

reimbursing low-power broadcasters for 

equipment, to what extent could the 

Commission reimburse the costs for full 

service mask filters that could promote 

spectrum efficiency, even if the station 

technically could operate at its new 

location with a stringent or simple 

mask? Should such equipment be 

considered a ‘‘reasonably incurred’’ 

expense that is related to the repack 

because it would promote greater use of 

the television band or should it be 

considered an upgrade that is not 

eligible for reimbursement? 

42. The REA limits reimbursement for 

LPTV/translators to ‘‘costs . . . incurred 

. . . on or after January 1, 2017.’’ We 

propose to interpret this provision to 

require that an LPTV/translator station 

have either expended funds or ordered 

equipment or services for a cost 

otherwise eligible for reimbursement on 

or after that date in order to be eligible 

for reimbursement pursuant to the REA. 

We invite comment on this proposal. 

b. Equipment Upgrades and Reuse of 

Existing Equipment 

43. In implementing the Spectrum 

Act’s reimbursement provisions, the 

Commission concluded that it would 

not reimburse stations for new, optional 

features in equipment that are not 

already present in the equipment being 

replaced, and we propose to apply this 

same approach to eligible LPTV/ 

translator stations. In addition, the 

Commission required full power and 

Class A stations seeking reimbursement 

to reuse their own equipment to the 

extent possible, rather than acquiring 

new equipment to be paid for from the 

Reimbursement Fund, and to ‘‘provide a 

justification when submitting their 

estimated cost form as to why it is 

reasonable under the circumstances to 

purchase new equipment rather than 

modify their . . . current equipment. 

. . .’’ We propose to adopt a similar 

requirement that displaced LPTV/ 

translator stations reuse their own 

equipment to the extent possible, and 

that displaced LPTV/translator stations 

seeking reimbursement provide a 

justification why it is reasonable to 

purchase new equipment rather than 

reuse existing equipment. We seek 

comment on these proposals. 

c. Interim Facilities 

44. We propose to exclude ‘‘interim 

facilities’’ from the type of expenses 

eligible for reimbursement under the 

REA. In the Incentive Auction R&O, the 

Commission concluded that stations 

that are assigned a new channel in the 

incentive auction repacking process 

may need to use interim facilities to 

avoid prolonged periods off the air 

during the transition, and, thus, the 

Commission decided to reimburse full 

power and Class A stations for such 

facilities under the Spectrum Act 

reimbursement provisions. Because of 

their lower operating power and the fact 

that the engineering work that is 

involved in changing channels is more 

limited than for full power television 

stations, we believe it is unlikely that 

LPTV/translator stations will construct 

interim facilities as part of the 

displacement process. Furthermore, 

LPTV/translators are actually displaced 

at a time determined either by the 

receipt of a notice from a wireless 

carrier that the wireless carrier intends 

to commence operations in the new 600 

MHz wireless band or the phase 

completion date for a full power or 

Class A station pursuant to the 

transition schedule. Because LPTV/ 

translators will have less time to 

construct interim facilities as a practical 

matter due to the timing of their actual 

displacement, interim facilities are 

unlikely to be utilized by such stations. 

We believe this proposal will also 

maximize the limited reimbursement 

funds available for all eligible LPTV/ 

translator stations and seek comment on 

this analysis. 

d. Lost Revenues 

45. The REA, like the 2012 Spectrum 

Act, prohibits reimbursement of LPTV/ 

translator stations for ‘‘lost revenues.’’ 

In the Incentive Auction R&O, the 

Commission defined ‘‘lost revenues’’ to 

include ‘‘revenues that a station . . . 

loses as a direct or ancillary result of the 

reverse auction or the repacking 

process.’’ We propose to adopt a similar 

definition of ‘‘lost revenues’’ for 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43621 

purposes of reimbursing LPTV/ 

translator stations: ‘‘revenues that a 

station loses as a direct or ancillary 

result of the reorganization of broadcast 

television spectrum, including the 

repacking process and the reallocation 

of UHF spectrum in conjunction with 

the incentive auction.’’ Under this 

definition and consistent with the 

Commission’s approach in connection 

with reimbursing full power and Class 

A stations, we would not reimburse a 

station’s loss of advertising revenues 

while it is off the air during its 

displacement, or for refunds a station is 

required to make for payments for 

airtime as a result of being off the air in 

order to implement a channel change. 

We seek comment on our proposal and 

on whether there are other additional 

categories of costs that LPTV/translator 

stations may incur that would constitute 

‘‘lost revenues’’ not eligible for 

reimbursement under the REA. 

e. Costs To Resolve Mutually Exclusive 

Applications 

46. The REA provides that ‘‘[t]he 

Commission may not make 

reimbursement . . . for costs incurred to 

resolve mutually exclusive applications, 

including costs incurred in any auction 

of available channels.’’ Applications 

filed during the Special Displacement 

Window that remain mutually exclusive 

will be resolved through competitive 

bidding. We interpret the prohibition 

against reimbursing for ‘‘costs incurred 

in any auction’’ to mean that the 

Commission may not reimburse LPTV/ 

translator station auction bidders under 

the REA for the costs related to filing an 

auction application associated with a 

competitive bidding process, 

participating in such an auction, and 

winning bid payments. We seek 

comment on this interpretation. We also 

tentatively conclude that costs 

associated with the Settlement Window 

to resolve mutual exclusivity will not be 

reimbursed under the REA. Thus, we 

propose not to reimburse stations for 

costs in resolving mutual exclusivity, 

including engineering studies and 

preparing application amendments, or 

the payment of other stations’ expenses 

as part of a settlement. However, we 

propose to reimburse for costs 

reasonably incurred in constructing the 

facilities resulting from settlement and 

coordination between mutually 

exclusive applicants. We seek comment 

on these proposals. 

f. Stations With Other Sources of 

Funding 

47. We seek comment on whether 

stations that receive or have received 

reimbursement of certain expenses from 

sources of funding other than the 

Reimbursement Fund should receive 

reimbursement for those expenses from 

the Reimbursement Fund. As an initial 

matter, we note that Section 

511(k)(3)(A) specifies that Class A 

stations that receive reimbursement 

from ‘‘any other source’’ may not 

receive reimbursement under the REA. 

While the REA does not set forth the 

same requirement for LPTV stations 

generally, we seek comment on whether 

a similar prohibition should extend to 

LPTV stations because a cost that is 

reimbursed by another source of 

funding is not a ‘‘cost . . . incurred’’ by 

the station under Section 511(k)(1). For 

example, we seek comment on whether 

displaced LPTV/translator stations that 

have received reimbursement from TMobile for a particular expense should 

receive reimbursement for that expense 

pursuant to Section 511(k)(1). As 

mentioned above, T-Mobile, which 

holds a number of 600 MHz licenses, 

began deploying its spectrum in 2017, 

thereby displacing a number of LPTV/ 

translator stations before the Special 

Displacement Window opened on April 

10, 2018. With respect to these 

displaced stations that began operating 

a displacement facility pursuant to an 

STA, T-Mobile has established a 

Supplemental Reimbursement Program, 

to be administered by T-Mobile. 

According to T-Mobile, it will reimburse 

eligible licensees ‘‘for the costs that they 

reasonably incur to comply with the 

permanent channel assignments that 

they may receive under the Special 

Displacement Window to the extent 

those channel assignments differ from 

the channel assignment these licensees 

may build following displacement from 

the 600 MHz band due to T-Mobile’s 

rapid broadband deployment.’’ 

Similarly, T-Mobile has reportedly 

awarded a grant to PBS to ‘‘provide 

funding to enable public television 

translators . . . to move to new 

displacement channels regardless of the 

reason for displacement.’’ We seek 

comment on how to address the 

interplay between the expanded 

Reimbursement Fund and such pre-REA 

funding for LPTV relocation. 

48. We also seek comment on whether 

a displaced LPTV/translator station that 

has received a state governmental grant 

to construct its displacement facility 

should be eligible for reimbursement 

under the REA. Similarly, we seek 

comment on whether the licensee of a 

displaced station that has solicited and 

received donations to construct its 

displacement facility should be eligible 

for reimbursement from the REA. 

49. Finally, we seek comment on 

whether displaced LPTV/translator 

stations should be required to indicate 

on their reimbursement submissions 

whether they have received or expect to 

receive reimbursement from another 

source as part of the reimbursement 

process. If so, should they provide 

documentation of the amount that they 

have received or expect to receive and 

the associated eligible expenses covered 

by that alternate reimbursement? We 

seek comment on whether stations that 

are eligible to receive reimbursement 

from other sources for certain expenses 

(e.g., insurance) should be required to 

pursue those alternative sources before 

requesting reimbursement for those 

expenses pursuant to the REA, and on 

the type of documentation such stations 

should be required to provide. 

C. FM Broadcast Stations—Eligibility 

and Expenses 

50. As mentioned above, in the REA, 

Congress allocated funds for the 

purpose of reimbursing costs 

‘‘reasonably incurred by an FM 

broadcast station for facilities necessary 

for such station to reasonably minimize 

disruption of service as a result of the 

reorganization of broadcast television 

spectrum.’’ In this section, we seek 

comment on issues related to eligibility 

and expenses under the REA provisions 

for reimbursement of FM stations. 

1. Stations Eligible for Reimbursement 

a. FM Broadcast Stations and FM 

Translator Stations 

51. Congress defined ‘‘FM broadcast 

stations’’ in the REA by referencing 

§§ 73.310 and 74.1201 of the 

Commission’s rules. Section 73.310 

defines an FM broadcast station as ‘‘[a] 

station employing frequency 

modulation in the FM broadcast band 

and licensed primarily for the 

transmission of radiotelephone 

emissions intended to be received by 

the general public.’’ Additionally, 

§ 74.1201 defines an FM translator as 

‘‘[a] station in the broadcasting service 

operated for the purpose of 

retransmitting the signals of an AM or 

FM radio broadcast station or another 

FM broadcast translator station without 

significantly altering any characteristics 

of the incoming signal other than its 

frequency and amplitude, in order to 

provide radio broadcast service to the 

general public.’’ Given these references, 

we tentatively conclude that ‘‘FM 

broadcast station’’ as used in the REA 

includes full-service FM stations and 

FM translator stations. We seek 

comment on this tentative conclusion. 

Further, although low-power FM 

(LPFM) stations were not specifically 

referenced in the REA, we note that 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43622 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

such stations meet the criteria for ‘‘FM 

broadcast station’’ set forth in § 73.310 

of the rules and they are licensed under 

Part 73 of the rules like full-service FM 

stations. We therefore seek comment on 

whether LPFM stations should also be 

considered ‘‘FM broadcast stations’’ for 

reimbursement purposes. 

b. Licensed and Transmitting at Time of 

Repack 

52. We tentatively conclude that to be 

eligible for reimbursement under the 

REA, an FM station must have been 

licensed and transmitting on April 13, 

2017, and using facilities impacted by a 

repacked television station. We also 

tentatively conclude that only those 

costs associated with the impact at that 

location will be considered eligible. The 

REA seeks to reimburse costs 

‘‘reasonably incurred’’ by FM stations to 

‘‘reasonably minimize disruption of 

service’’ as a result of the reorganization 

of broadcast television spectrum, but 

provides no other additional specificity 

as to the eligibility of FM stations for 

reimbursement. We believe it is both 

necessary and appropriate to impose 

some reasonable standards on the 

eligibility of FM stations to be 

reimbursed from the Reimbursement 

Fund. We tentatively conclude that we 

should place the same limitation on FM 

stations that is applied to LPTV/ 

translator stations. That is, we first 

propose a cut-off date of April 13, 2017, 

by which the FM station had to be 

licensed and transmitting. We choose 

this date because it is the date on which 

reverse auction winners and the 

television stations subject to the repack 

were identified in the Closing and 

Channel Reassignment PN. Thus, we 

tentatively conclude that any FM station 

that began operating on a facility or at 

a location impacted by a repacked 

television station after that date 

voluntarily assumed the risk of any 

potential disruption of service to the FM 

station. We tentatively conclude that 

any costs incurred by FM stations that 

undertook such a risk are not 

‘‘reasonably incurred’’ under the 

statutory standard and thus are not 

eligible for reimbursement pursuant to 

the REA. We propose that FM stations 

will be required to certify that they were 

licensed and transmitting at the facility 

implicated by the reorganization of 

broadcast television spectrum on April 

13, 2017, and seek comment on this 

proposal. The REA requires 

reimbursement ‘‘to reasonably minimize 

disruption of service as a result of the 

reorganization of broadcast television 

spectrum under [47 U.S.C. 1452(b)].’’ As 

an initial matter, we tentatively 

conclude that an FM station can 

experience a service disruption ‘‘as a 

result of the reorganization of broadcast 

television spectrum under [47 U.S.C. 

1452(b)]’’ either because a full power or 

Class A television station has been 

reassigned to a new channel in the 

Closing and Channel Reassignment PN 

or because a full power or Class A 

television station relinquished spectrum 

usage rights in the reverse auction. In 

either case, the full power or Class A 

television station may need to modify 

its facilities (e.g., dismantling 

equipment in the case of a license 

relinquishment station) that may impact 

the FM station. We read the statutory 

language to require a causal link 

between the facilities being reimbursed 

and the activities associated with the 

repacked full power or Class A 

television station, and likewise interpret 

this provision to mean that only the FM 

broadcast facilities directly impacted by 

the repacked television station are 

eligible for reimbursement. We believe 

our interpretation of this REA language 

is consistent with Congress’s provision 

of limited funds for FM facility 

reimbursement. We invite comment on 

this interpretation of the REA. We also 

seek comment on whether the REA’s 

requirement that we reimburse costs 

incurred by FM stations to ‘‘reasonably 

minimize disruption of service as a 

result of the reorganization of broadcast 

television spectrum under [47 U.S.C. 

1452(b)]’’ extends to include costs that 

were incurred by FM stations solely due 

to modifications made by full power 

and Class A facilities as a result of 

receiving authorizations through the 

two alternate channel/expanded 

facilities filing windows. 

c. Categories of Eligible FM Stations 

53. In addition, we believe it is both 

necessary and appropriate to impose 

eligibility requirements for FM stations 

that define the way an FM station could 

‘‘reasonably incur’’ costs as the result of 

a ‘‘disruption of service’’ caused by ‘‘the 

reorganization of broadcast television 

spectrum’’ as required by the REA. We 

believe a large majority of FM stations 

will not incur any costs or encounter 

any disruption of service as a result of 

the reorganization of broadcast 

television spectrum. However, in 

limited circumstances, as defined 

herein, some FM stations may be 

affected because they are collocated 

with, or adjacent, or in close proximity 

to, a repacked television station such 

that construction work on the repacked 

television station’s facility necessarily 

results in a disruption of service to the 

FM station and requires the FM station 

to incur costs. Accordingly, we 

tentatively conclude that only stations 

that are collocated with, or adjacent, or 

in close proximity to, a repacked 

television station are eligible for 

reimbursement and that the FM station 

will be required to certify to that fact 

and identify the television station. We 

seek comment on these conclusions. We 

believe that only stations in the 

following categories will encounter any 

disruption of service as a result of the 

reorganization of broadcast television 

spectrum such that they would be 

eligible for reimbursement under the 

REA: 

• Category (1)—Stations Forced to 

Relocate Permanently. We propose that 

this eligibility category include FM 

stations required either to vacate their 

towers, and which therefore incur costs 

for alternative facilities at a different 

site, or to relocate their antennas to a 

different level of their current towers. 

Either change would modify the 

station’s transmissions and would thus 

require prior Commission approval. We 

anticipate that there will be a very small 

number of FM stations if any in this 

eligibility category. 

• Category (2)—Stations Forced to 

Temporarily Dismantle Equipment or 

Make Other Changes Not Requiring 

Commission Approval. We propose that 

this eligibility category include FM 

stations required temporarily to 

dismount or disassemble equipment, 

most likely antennas, in order to 

accommodate work on a television 

antenna or a tower. We propose that this 

category also include FM stations 

required to physically move their 

transmitter to accommodate new 

television transmission equipment. 

While such an equipment move may not 

be temporary, it is not the kind of 

facility modification that would change 

the station’s transmissions, and thus 

would not require Commission 

approval. We propose this category also 

include other types of necessary 

equipment modifications that do not 

require Commission approval. We 

anticipate there will be a very small 

number of FM stations in this eligibility 

category. 

• Category (3)—Stations Forced to 

Temporarily Reduce Power or Cease 

Transmission on Their Primary Facility 

to Accommodate Antenna or Tower 

Modifications. We propose that this 

eligibility category would include those 

FM stations that are required to reduce 

power or go off the air to protect 

workers making modifications to 

television facilities on a tower from RF 

exposure. The length of time during 

which a station would have to reduce 

power or cease transmissions could 

range from hours to weeks or even 

months. Such stations could incur costs 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43623 

to build or modify auxiliary facilities to 

permit FM broadcast service to continue 

during this period. Category (3) would 

include stations with no existing 

auxiliary facilities and stations that are 

unable to access auxiliary transmission 

facilities. Category (3) would also 

include stations that have existing 

auxiliary facilities, but whose facilities 

do not provide substantial (80+ percent) 

coverage of the primary station’s 

coverage area or population. FM stations 

in other eligibility categories could also 

qualify as Category (3) stations if they 

otherwise meet the reimbursement 

requirements. We anticipate that this 

category of stations will be the most 

numerous of eligible FM stations but is 

still likely to include only a limited 

number of FM stations. 

54. We believe that reimbursing FM 

stations for the types of service 

disruptions described in these 

categories is consistent with our 

statutory mandate to reimburse FM 

stations for ‘‘costs . . . for facilities 

necessary for such station to reasonably 

minimize disruption of service as a 

result of the reorganization of broadcast 

television spectrum,’’ and we seek 

comment on our interpretation. We 

invite comment on the scope of our 

categories above and ask commenters 

specifically to explain whether there are 

additional categories of service 

disruption that should be reimbursed. 

We tentatively conclude that FM 

stations would be required to certify 

which eligibility category they satisfy, 

and we seek comment on that 

conclusion. 

55. Section 511(l)(1)(C) specifies that 

an FM broadcast station that has 

received payment for ‘‘interim 

facilities’’ from either a station that was 

reimbursed under the Spectrum Act or 

‘‘from any other source’’ may not 

receive ‘‘any reimbursements’’ under 

the REA. Thus, as required by the 

statutory language, we propose that if an 

FM broadcast station has received such 

payment for ‘‘interim facilities,’’ it is 

ineligible for any reimbursement under 

the REA. We tentatively conclude that 

FM stations would be required to certify 

whether they have received payment for 

such interim facilities. 

2. Expenses Eligible for Reimbursement 

56. The REA states that the 

Commission shall provide 

reimbursement for ‘‘costs reasonably 

incurred by an FM broadcast station for 

facilities necessary for such station to 

reasonably minimize disruption of 

service as a result of the reorganization 

of broadcast television spectrum.’’ We 

note that the statute does not require 

reimbursement of costs to ensure there 

is no disruption of service at all. We 

tentatively conclude that some level of 

disruption of service to eligible FM 

stations is reasonable, and we do not 

propose to reimburse costs incurred to 

avoid reasonable disruptions. We also 

believe that the public interest requires 

that we seek to maximize the limited 

funds available for all facilities to 

address the most significant service 

disruptions to ensure that the most 

needed facilities are fully funded. We 

seek comment below on how to define 

what costs are ‘‘reasonably incurred’’ 

and on how to interpret the phrase ‘‘to 

reasonably minimize disruption of 

service’’ as contemplated by the REA, 

and we propose an approach for 

prioritization of reimbursement to 

stations with a greater level of service 

disruption to preserve limited funds. 

a. Costs Reasonably Incurred 

57. As described below, we propose 

that eligible costs for Category (1) and 

Category (2) stations are similar to 

eligible costs for full power and Class A 

stations in the repack and therefore 

should be reimbursed in a similar 

manner. We propose, however, that the 

cost for Category (3) stations should be 

subject to a graduated priority system 

and reimbursable only when the 

disruption of service is significant 

enough to make it reasonable for a 

station to incur costs to minimize the 

disruption, and then on a scale that 

balances the level of the service 

disruption with the need to maximize 

the finite funds and ensure the most 

significantly impacted facilities are fully 

funded. We seek comment on these 

proposals as detailed below. 

(i) Replacing or Restoring Facilities— 

Category (1) and (2) Stations 

58. The existing reimbursement 

program for full power and Class A 

stations seeks to reimburse costs 

reasonably incurred for stations to move 

their facilities to a new channel that was 

assigned as a result of the incentive 

auction repacking process using 

reasonable efforts to preserve each 

station’s coverage area and population 

served. We believe it is in the public 

interest to develop a similar standard for 

the reimbursement of costs associated 

with Category (1) stations because the 

nature of the displacement of the FM 

station and the types of costs incurred 

are similar. We seek comment on these 

conclusions. We believe the goal for 

Category (1) stations should be to 

rebuild their facility to reasonably 

replicate the station’s coverage area and 

population served, similar to the 

standard applicable to full power and 

Class A stations. Further, we believe 

that Category (1) stations should be 

eligible for reimbursement for costs 

similar to full power and Class A 

stations to move and reconstruct the 

current facilities at a new site or tower 

location, including costs of equipment, 

professional services such as 

engineering, and tower and construction 

work. We believe that such stations are 

likely to experience the most significant 

disruption of service of all FM stations 

because they will be required to entirely 

or partially dismantle and reconstruct 

their facilities. As a result, if sufficient 

funds allocated to reimburse FM 

stations exist in the Reimbursement 

Fund, we believe that Category (1) 

stations should be reimbursed for up to 

100 percent of eligible costs similar to 

the reimbursements provided to 

impacted full power and Class A 

stations. As noted above, we believe 

only a very small number of stations are 

likely to be included in this category 

and therefore we do not believe the 

reimbursement of these stations is likely 

to be a primary resource demand on the 

Reimbursement Fund. We seek 

comment on these conclusions. 

59. Examples of reimbursable 

equipment costs that we believe could 

be reasonably incurred include 

transmitters, antennas, coaxial cable or 

wave guides, and associated equipment 

needed to reasonably replicate the 

service being lost. We propose that 

existing equipment should be reused as 

appropriate. To the extent that existing 

equipment cannot be reused, we 

propose that new equipment may be 

reimbursable if needed to reasonably 

replicate service and coverage area. We 

propose that the costs of engineering to 

determine what technical facilities are 

needed to replace existing service at a 

new site should be considered 

reimbursable expenses, as well as 

transportation costs of physically 

moving equipment to a new site or new 

location on a tower and any engineering 

costs associated with the move. We seek 

comment on these proposals. 

60. We believe it is also in the public 

interest to develop a similar standard for 

eligible expenses for reimbursement of 

Category (2) stations because the types 

of costs incurred are also similar. We 

seek comment on these conclusions. We 

believe the goal for Category (2) stations 

should be to restore the station’s 

existing facility. For example, Category 

(2) stations could reasonably incur costs 

that are related to their need to 

temporarily dismantle equipment or 

modify their physical facilities. 

Examples of reimbursable costs could 

include costs of equipment, professional 

services such as engineering, and tower 

and construction work, similar to the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43624 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

costs incurred by full power and Class 

A stations. Additionally, similar to 

Category (1), the service disruptions 

associated with these costs are likely to 

be significant in magnitude, but the 

number of stations incurring such costs 

is likely to be very small and not the 

most significant drain on the 

Reimbursement Fund. Therefore, we 

propose that, if sufficient funds 

allocated to reimburse FM stations exist 

in the Reimbursement Fund, Category 

(2) stations should be reimbursed for up 

to 100 percent of eligible costs similar 

to full power and Class A stations. We 

seek comment on this proposal. 

(ii) Interim Facilities—Category (3) 

Stations 

61. In the full power and Class A 

reimbursement program, the costs of 

interim facilities are reimbursed in the 

same manner as other costs incurred for 

a station to change channels. With 

respect to the types of costs that would 

qualify for reimbursement as interim 

facilities, we seek to apply the same 

approach to FM stations. We propose 

that Category (3) stations be reimbursed 

for the cost of constructing new 

auxiliary facilities or upgrading existing 

auxiliary facilities. This would permit 

FM stations to continue broadcasting 

while their primary facilities are off the 

air due to the need to protect tower 

personnel working on modifications 

related to the reorganization of 

broadcast television spectrum. 

Reimbursable costs could include costs 

of equipment, professional services such 

as engineering, and tower and 

construction work. 

62. As described in more detail below, 

we tentatively conclude that 

reimbursement of interim facility costs 

should be linked to the level of service 

disruption avoided by resorting to 

interim facilities, and therefore propose 

to reimburse on a graduated priority 

system reflecting a percentage of total 

costs for these interim facilities. We 

further tentatively conclude that it is not 

unreasonable for there to be some 

temporary disruption of service to 

permit construction work or 

maintenance on a collocated, adjacent, 

or nearby station. FM stations regularly 

power down or remain silent for 

temporary periods to accommodate 

tower or antenna work and transmitter 

maintenance, and we conclude from 

this fact that such actions are ordinary 

and reasonable occurrences. We 

therefore believe that it is appropriate to 

reimburse costs for interim facilities 

only if they are needed to avoid service 

interruptions that would otherwise 

exceed ordinary construction or 

maintenance requirements. 

Furthermore, operating from interim 

facilities does not require service that is 

identical to the station’s primary 

service. We believe this different 

approach is justified by the different 

standard enunciated in the REA, 

requiring us to consider what expenses 

‘‘reasonably minimize’’ disruption of 

service rather than the Spectrum Act’s 

mandate to reimburse expenses 

resulting from a channel change. 

Furthermore, we anticipate that the 

majority of reimbursement requests 

from FM stations will be in Category (3), 

and that they will account for the 

majority of the demand by FM stations 

for resources from the Reimbursement 

Fund. Thus, we tentatively conclude 

that a graduated scale is in the public 

interest because it properly reflects the 

level of service disruption, which could 

vary from hours to weeks or even 

months, and therefore balances our need 

to preserve finite funds for the most 

significant instances of service 

disruption. Under this proposal, 

reimbursement percentages in excess of 

those proposed below might be 

available if, after making all the 

payments for interim facilities and other 

eligible expenses, there is sufficient 

money to pay a higher reimbursement 

percentage to FM stations in the 

Reimbursement Fund. We seek 

comment on these proposals herein. 

63. We believe that the amount of 

broadcaster reimbursement for interim 

facilities should be linked to the amount 

of time the FM station is off the air due 

to the reorganization of broadcast 

television spectrum. These time periods 

will likely range from hours to, in 

extreme and hopefully rare cases, 

months. Additionally, we believe that 

the times of day during which stations 

are off the air should also play a part in 

our calculus. Some stations may be 

subject to limited service disruptions, 

for instance, if tower work or work on 

co-tenant antennas is limited to 

nighttime hours which would minimize 

broadcast time lost during peak 

listening hours. Such stations will not 

be as adversely affected as those 

required to reduce power or go off-air 

for extended periods of time. As to the 

latter group of affected stations, we find 

that the reimbursement for interim 

facilities should be greater the longer 

they are required to be off the air. The 

longer the lost airtime, the more service 

disruption and, thus, the greater 

justification for reimbursement for the 

construction of permanent auxiliary 

facilities. 

64. Further, we note that 

transmissions from interim facilities 

would not exactly replicate the areas or 

populations covered from the licensed 

transmitter site. Thus, we propose that 

80 percent of an FM station’s coverage 

area or covered population should be 

replicated by the interim facility in 

order to constitute reasonably minimal 

disruption of service. In another 

context, when a rule requires provision 

of a certain strength signal to an entire 

community, the Commission has held 

that when a station provides that signal 

strength to 80 percent or more of either 

the area or the population of the 

community, such a signal may be 

considered to be in substantial 

compliance with the rule. We believe 

this 80 percent standard is an acceptable 

yardstick for measuring interim FM 

service, especially given that near-exact 

replication of a station’s coverage area 

from an alternative site, in many if not 

most cases, may not be achieved 

without significant expense. 

Accordingly, we propose that FM signal 

coverage of either 80 percent of the area 

or 80 percent of the population covered 

by an FM station at its licensed site be 

considered to be substantial interim 

coverage and, thus, tentatively conclude 

it would meet the REA standard of 

reasonably minimizing disruption of 

service. We invite comment on this 

proposal, including comment on the 

costs of requiring a greater or lesser 

level of interim service. 

65. We seek comment on the need to 

develop a prioritization scheme for 

reimbursement of FM broadcast stations 

under either statutory interpretation of 

the amounts available to reimburse such 

stations. We seek comment on the 

following graduated priority system of 

reimbursement for interim facilities 

constructed to minimize service 

disruptions to FM broadcast stations 

forced to go off-air due to the 

reorganization of broadcast television 

spectrum. We note that additional 

percentages for reimbursement might be 

available if, after making all the 

payments for interim facilities and other 

eligible expenses, there is sufficient 

money to pay a higher reimbursement 

percentage to FM stations in the 

Reimbursement Fund. If adopted, we 

propose to direct the Media Bureau to 

determine whether and what higher 

percentage of funds should be paid to 

Category (3) stations. 

• Stations Off-Air for Less Than 24 

Hours, or Off-Air Only During Hours 

from 10:00 p.m.–6:00 a.m. Local Time or 

Less Than Five Non-Peak Broadcast 

Hours Per Day: No reimbursement. We 

propose that such periods off-air be 

considered a de minimis disruption of 

service. 

• Stations Off-Air for 24 Hours to 10 

Days: May be reimbursed up to 50 

percent of eligible costs reasonably 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43625 

incurred to construct new auxiliary 

facilities, to upgrade existing auxiliary 

facilities to cover 80 percent of the 

covered area and/or population of the 

existing facility, or to build interim 

facilities for eligible secondary services. 

• Stations Off-Air for 11 Days to 30 

Days: May be reimbursed up to 75 

percent of eligible costs reasonably 

incurred to construct new auxiliary 

facilities, to upgrade existing auxiliary 

facilities to cover 80 percent of the 

covered area and/or population of the 

existing facility, or to build interim 

facilities for eligible secondary services. 

• Stations Off-Air for More than 30 

Days: May be reimbursed up to 100 

percent of eligible costs reasonably 

incurred to construct new auxiliary 

facilities, to upgrade existing auxiliary 

facilities to cover 80 percent of the 

covered area and/or population of the 

existing facility, or to build interim 

facilities for eligible secondary services. 

66. We seek comment on these issues 

and on whether reimbursing FM 

stations on a graduated scale is in the 

public interest. In particular, we seek 

comment on whether failing to pro-rate 

the amount of reimbursement for 

interim facilities might reduce 

reimbursement for all affected FM 

stations, given the total amount of 

money available to FM stations for 

reimbursements. We also request 

comment on the time off-air benchmarks 

set forth in paragraph 65, and whether 

they should be adjusted up or down. In 

particular, we seek comment on 

whether time off-air during nighttime 

and early morning hours should be 

considered de minimis and, if not, what 

level of reimbursement for auxiliary 

facilities should be allowed for such 

stations to provide interim nighttime 

service. If commenters disagree with the 

proposed reimbursement scheme, what 

alternative proposals do they 

recommend to ensure we allocate the 

limited funds fairly and equitably across 

all FM stations? 

67. We acknowledge that the 

graduated scale could be subject to 

manipulation where the construction 

project is prolonged in order to reach a 

number of days that correlates to a 

higher reimbursement percentage. We 

believe that this concern is mitigated by 

the fact that the FM station will 

ordinarily not be in control of the 

repacked television station’s 

construction project, and that a 

repacked television station is unlikely to 

prolong for the benefit of the FM station 

the time period that it employs vendors 

and service providers to perform 

construction. Nevertheless, in order to 

minimize the potential for gaming the 

system, we seek comment on whether to 

pay reimbursement for interim stations 

only after the period of time has expired 

and the number of days can be and is 

certified by the station. We also seek 

comment on whether to require 

certification by the FM station 

concerning the number of days the 

station could not broadcast from its 

primary facility due to construction 

work of a repacked television station. As 

noted herein, we intend to conduct 

audits, data validations, and site visits, 

as appropriate, to prevent waste, fraud, 

and abuse. As part of that process, we 

could require a repacked television 

station to provide, upon request, a 

statement or other information regarding 

the dates that work was being done that 

impacted the FM station. We seek 

comment on these issues and on 

additional ways we can minimize this 

potential problem. 

68. To the extent that a Category (3) 

station is required to lease tower space 

for a new auxiliary facility, we propose 

to allow reimbursement only for those 

lease payments covering the period of 

time during which the primary station 

is off the air due to the reorganization 

of broadcast television spectrum. In 

other words, we will not reimburse for 

tower lease payments except during the 

period when the repacked television 

station’s construction work is actively 

preventing the FM station from 

broadcasting from its primary facility 

and not for any period of time 

thereafter. We request comment on this 

proposal. 

b. Channel Change Equipment 

69. We expect that no FM broadcast 

station will be forced to change its 

frequency as a result of the 

reorganization of broadcast television 

spectrum and, thus, we tentatively 

conclude that expenses for retuning or 

replacing antennas or transmitters to 

accommodate channel changes will not 

be eligible for reimbursement. We seek 

comment on this expectation. 

c. Equipment Upgrades and Reuse of 

Existing Equipment 

70. As noted above, full power and 

Class A stations can be reimbursed only 

for comparable facilities, while we 

propose that LPTV/translators may in 

certain cases require modified facilities 

due to the fact that LPTV/translators 

may need to change locations and not 

just channels. Similarly, we tentatively 

conclude that the full power and Class 

A comparable facilities reimbursement 

standard cannot be applied in the same 

manner to FM stations in Categories (1) 

and (2) because the goal is to reasonably 

replicate the service type and area from 

a different location (Category (1)) or 

restore service using alternate 

equipment (Category (2)). In some cases, 

this can be accomplished using existing 

equipment or its equivalent, but in other 

cases this will require modified or 

differently configured equipment. For 

instance, a move of an FM station’s 

antenna to a lower spot on the same 

tower could, in order to replicate the 

station’s existing signal contours, 

require replacement equipment with an 

increase in ERP, either by using a 

transmitter with higher power output or 

an antenna with higher gain. In the (we 

expect rare) cases in which a station is 

forced to move to another tower, 

reasonably replicating current service 

might involve both of those options 

and/or design and construction of an 

antenna with a directional pattern, in 

order to avoid prohibited interference to 

other FM stations. 

71. To the extent that a Category (1) 

station would propose to construct a 

new tower, we propose to reimburse 

tower construction expenses only upon 

a showing that no space is available on 

other local towers that would enable it 

to reasonably replicate current service. 

Even if it were able to make such a 

showing, we seek comment on whether 

and how we should discount any 

reimbursement for tower construction 

costs, given that such ‘‘vertical real 

estate’’ carries with it the potential for 

revenue generation for the FM station, 

perhaps in substantial amounts. We 

seek comment on this proposal. 

72. Similar to our tentative conclusion 

above concerning LPTV/translators, we 

also propose that we will follow the 

Commission’s determination in the 

existing reimbursement program and 

not reimburse stations for new, optional 

features in equipment that are not 

already present in the equipment being 

replaced. For example, we would not 

reimburse an analog-only FM station to 

add hybrid digital capability. A station 

that contemplates a rule-compliant 

modification to a higher station class or 

to an expanded service area as part of 

a required move may do so, but we 

propose to limit reimbursement only to 

costs needed to return the station to its 

original service area. We seek comment 

on these proposals. While the REA 

contains a provision precluding 

duplicative payments relating only to 

‘‘interim facilities,’’ we tentatively 

conclude that FM broadcast stations that 

receive or have received reimbursement 

of expenses from sources of funding 

other than the Reimbursement Fund, 

such as co-located television stations 

and/or tower owners providing 

reimbursement under contractual 

provisions, will not receive 

reimbursement for those expenses from 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43626 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

the Reimbursement Fund. We 

tentatively conclude that a cost that is 

reimbursed by another source of 

funding is not a ‘‘cost . . . incurred’’ by 

the FM broadcast station under Section 

511(l)(1)(A). We seek comment on this 

tentative conclusion. 

73. In addition, the Commission 

required full power and Class A stations 

seeking reimbursement to reuse their 

own equipment to the extent possible, 

rather than acquiring new equipment to 

be paid for from the Reimbursement 

Fund, and to ‘‘provide a justification 

when submitting their estimated cost 

form as to why it is reasonable under 

the circumstances to purchase new 

equipment rather than modify their . . . 

current equipment . . .’’ We propose to 

adopt a similar requirement that FM 

stations reuse their own equipment, to 

the extent possible. As noted above, we 

expect that FM stations will not be 

required to change frequencies, so there 

should be no issues regarding channelrelated equipment modifications. Thus, 

we believe it is reasonable to require FM 

stations seeking reimbursement to 

provide a justification why it is 

reasonable to purchase new equipment 

rather than reuse existing equipment. 

We seek comment on this proposal. 

d. Lost Revenues 

74. The REA, like the 2012 Spectrum 

Act, prohibits reimbursement of FM 

broadcast stations for ‘‘lost revenues.’’ 

In the Incentive Auction R&O, the 

Commission defined ‘‘lost revenues’’ to 

include ‘‘revenues that a station . . . 

loses as a direct or ancillary result of the 

reverse auction or the repacking 

process.’’ We propose to adopt a similar 

definition of ‘‘lost revenues’’ for 

purposes of reimbursing FM broadcast 

stations: ‘‘revenues that a station loses 

as a direct or ancillary result of the 

reorganization of broadcast television 

spectrum, including the reverse auction 

and the repacking process.’’ Under this 

definition, we would not reimburse a 

station’s loss of advertising revenues 

while it is off the air implementing 

either replacement or interim facilities, 

or for refunds a station is required to 

make for payments for airtime as a 

result of being off the air in order to 

implement such a facility change. We 

seek comment on our proposal and 

whether there are other additional 

categories of costs that FM stations may 

incur that would constitute ‘‘lost 

revenues’’ not eligible for 

reimbursement under the REA. 

D. Reimbursement Process 

75. Our goal is to develop a 

reimbursement process for the newly 

eligible entities that is as simple and 

straightforward as possible to minimize 

both the costs associated with 

reimbursement as well as the burdens 

on affected parties and the Commission. 

At the same time, we are committed to 

a process that is fair and equitable to all 

eligible entities and that maximizes the 

funds available for reimbursement by 

avoiding waste, fraud, and abuse. 

76. As discussed below, we propose 

to reimburse eligible LPTV, TV 

translator, and FM broadcast stations 

using a procedure that is substantially 

similar to what is currently being used 

by the Commission to provide 

reimbursements to full power and Class 

A stations and MVPDs. We believe that 

using a process and resources that have 

proven effective is a reasonable 

approach as it should result in a smooth 

and expeditious reimbursement process 

for LPTV/translator and FM stations. At 

the same time, we propose to make 

certain adjustments and simplifications 

to this process as we describe below. We 

invite comment generally on whether 

and how the process might be further 

streamlined in light of the fact that the 

money available to reimburse LPTV/ 

translator and FM stations is less than 

that allocated to full power, Class A, 

and MVPD entities, individual entity 

expenses may also be expected to be 

smaller, and many of the stations 

seeking reimbursement may already 

have incurred the costs associated with 

the transition. 

1. Eligibility Certification 

77. We propose to require LPTV/ 

translator and FM stations that believe 

they meet the eligibility requirements 

and intend to request reimbursement for 

eligible expenses, to file a form 

(Eligibility Certification) indicating that 

they intend to request reimbursement 

funds. We seek comment on this 

proposal. We propose that entities be 

required to certify on the Eligibility 

Certification that they meet the 

eligibility criteria adopted in this 

proceeding and provide documentation 

or other evidence to support their 

certification. For example, LPTV/ 

translator stations may be required to 

provide evidence to support their 

certification that they meet the 

minimum operating requirement 

adopted in this proceeding to be eligible 

for reimbursement under the REA. Such 

evidence could include evidence of the 

programming aired by the station during 

the period of time in question, as well 

as electric power bills, and we seek 

comment on other types of evidence 

that might be used to demonstrate that 

a station was transmitting during the 

relevant time period. Similarly, FM 

stations could be required to identify 

the repacked TV station that caused it 

to be eligible for reimbursement and to 

provide evidence to support its 

certification that it was off the air for a 

sufficient period of time to be eligible 

for reimbursement for interim facilities, 

and the period of time it was, or expects 

to be, silent. As stated previously, the 

Commission previously determined 

that, with respect to the incentive 

auction reimbursement program, 

‘‘audits, data validations, and site visits 

are essential tools in preventing waste, 

fraud, and abuse, and that use of these 

measures will maximize the amount of 

money available for reimbursement.’’ 

With respect to reimbursing low-power 

broadcast stations, we contemplate that 

a third party firm on behalf of, or in 

conjunction with, the Media Bureau 

may conduct audits, data validations, 

site visits or other verifications to 

substantiate the supporting evidence 

and representations of entities that 

certify that they meet the eligibility 

criteria adopted in this proceeding to 

the extent necessary. We propose to 

direct such entities to make available 

any relevant documentation upon 

request from the Commission or its 

contractor. We emphasize that a false 

certification may result in 

disqualification and other sanctions 

provided for in the Communications Act 

and the Commission’s rules. We invite 

comment on this approach and on 

possible other kinds of evidence and/or 

documentation the Media Bureau 

should require LPTV/translator and FM 

stations to submit to support their 

Eligibility Certifications. 

2. Estimated Expenses 

78. We also propose to require LPTV/ 

translator and FM stations to list on a 

revised Reimbursement Form their 

existing broadcasting equipment and the 

types of costs they expect to incur. In 

the full power and Class A program, the 

Media Bureau developed a list of the 

types of costs stations were most likely 

to incur together with a range of prices 

applicable to such expenses. This cost 

catalog is embedded in the 

Reimbursement Form used by full 

power and Class A stations. We intend 

to develop a revised cost catalog to help 

LPTV/translator and FM stations 

provide estimated costs. Alternatively, 

these stations, like full power and Class 

A stations, may choose instead to 

provide their own estimates or actual 

costs. As noted above, in the Incentive 

Auction R&O, the Commission required 

full power and Class A broadcasters and 

MVPDs eligible for reimbursement to 

file a form providing estimates of their 

channel relocation costs. We propose to 

adopt a consistent approach for entities 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43627 

newly eligible for reimbursement. 

Specifically, similar to the current 

process used by full power and Class A 

stations and MVPDs using the 

Reimbursement Form, we propose that 

eligible LPTV/translator and FM 

stations submit a revised version of our 

existing Reimbursement Form that will 

contain a new cost catalog. The new 

cost catalog will offer ranges of prices 

for the potential expenses that can be 

used to generate total estimated costs. 

For example, LPTV/translator stations 

may be required to indicate whether 

they will need to purchase new 

equipment in order to operate on their 

new channel, or whether they can reuse 

some of their existing equipment. FM 

stations may be required to indicate 

whether they will need to move to a 

different tower or a different location on 

the same tower, and whether they will 

have to go silent or power down 

temporarily to move or to permit work 

on their existing tower as a result of 

changes being made to a repacked full 

power or Class A station. 

79. We note that some LPTV/ 

translator and FM stations will already 

have incurred costs eligible for 

reimbursement by the time we adopt 

rules in this proceeding and begin 

accepting Eligibility Certifications and 

Reimbursement Forms. We propose to 

permit entities to indicate their actual 

costs instead of providing estimates on 

the Reimbursement Form for costs 

already incurred in their initial filings 

with the Commission. We seek 

comment on this proposal. 

80. We tentatively conclude that the 

Reimbursement Form for use by newly 

eligible entities should be simpler and 

easier to use than the forms used by full 

power and Class A stations and MVPDs. 

We seek comment on how we can 

modify the Form to make it simpler to 

use. We propose to consider methods by 

which the revised cost catalog could 

more readily determine a reasonable 

estimate for newly eligible stations than 

the current form used by full power and 

Class A stations. Are there other ways 

that a reasonable estimate of expenses 

can be more readily derived than under 

the current process? We tentatively 

conclude that an approach that would 

eliminate altogether the requirement to 

submit estimated expenses would not 

provide the Commission with 

information concerning the potential 

total demand on the Reimbursement 

Fund and other information necessary 

for the Media Bureau and Fund 

Administrator to make reasoned 

allocation decisions and determine 

whether reimbursement claims are 

reasonable, as required by the REA. To 

the extent, however, that parties 

disagree with our tentative conclusion, 

we seek comment on how a 

reimbursement process without the 

submission of estimates would work? 

Without estimates, how would the 

Media Bureau determine allocations 

that assure a fair and equitable 

distribution of the finite Reimbursement 

Fund? Supporters of a reimbursement 

process without estimated expenses 

should also address how such an 

approach is consistent with Section 

511(m)(2) of the REA. We seek comment 

on our tentative conclusions. 

3. Reimbursement Allocations 

81. We propose that, once the Media 

Bureau completes its review of the 

Eligibility Certifications and 

Reimbursement Forms, it will issue an 

initial allocation from the 

Reimbursement Fund to each eligible 

LPTV/translator and FM station, which 

will be available to the entity to draw 

down as expenses are incurred. In the 

context of the existing reimbursement 

process for full power and Class A 

stations, the Media Bureau exercised 

discretion to determine the appropriate 

allocation amount based on the 

circumstances and information available 

from submitted Reimbursement Forms. 

Consistent with this approach, as noted 

in the Order below, we direct the Media 

Bureau to make allocation decisions for 

stations eligible for reimbursement 

under the REA. The amount of the 

initial allocation, as well as the total 

amount allocated to each entity, will 

depend in part on the number of LPTV/ 

translator stations and the number of 

FM stations that file an Eligibility 

Certification and the amount available 

for reimbursement for each type of 

entity. For example, the Media Bureau 

may give entities an allocation that is a 

percentage of their total costs eligible for 

reimbursement, similar to the approach 

we took for full power and Class A 

stations and MVPDs. Alternatively, it 

could allocate the same fixed amount to 

entities that must take similar steps as 

a result of, or are similarly affected by, 

the reorganization of broadcast 

television spectrum (i.e., a fixed amount 

to all FM stations that must be off the 

air for 11–30 days, and a different fixed 

amount to all FM stations that must be 

off the air for 24 hours to 10 days). We 

invite comment on each of these 

approaches. 

82. Subsequent Allocations. We 

propose that, after the initial allocation 

of reimbursement funds to eligible 

LPTV/translator and FM stations, the 

Media Bureau may issue one or more 

subsequent allocation(s). The timing 

and amount of these subsequent 

allocation(s) will depend in part on the 

funds remaining in the LPTV/translator 

and FM portions of the Reimbursement 

Fund, the eligible expenses entities have 

incurred, and the Commission’s goal in 

terms of the percentage or total dollar 

amount of eligible costs we expect to be 

able to cover for each entity based on 

the steps they must take as a result of 

the reorganization of broadcast 

television spectrum. We seek comment 

generally on this proposed 

reimbursement process. 

83. Prioritization of Certain Costs. To 

the extent that the total amount of 

reimbursement funds available to LPTV/ 

translators or FM stations may not be 

not sufficient to cover all eligible 

expenses at the end of the program, it 

may be necessary to establish a 

prioritization scheme for reimbursing 

eligible expenses. We propose to direct 

the Media Bureau to perform this 

prioritization, if necessary. In order to 

assist the Media Bureau, we seek 

comment on whether we should 

prioritize the payment of certain costs, 

such as certain equipment and 

engineering expenses, over other types 

of expenses, such as project 

management fees, for LPTV/translator 

and FM stations. For instance, project 

management fees have proven difficult 

for the Media Bureau and Fund 

Administrator to validate in the context 

of the ongoing reimbursement effort for 

full power and Class A stations and 

MVPDs. Given that the amount available 

for reimbursement for LPTV/translator 

and FM stations may not be sufficient to 

cover all eligible expenses incurred by 

these entities, we believe it may make 

sense to prioritize, at least initially, 

certain expenses to maximize the 

possibility that these costs are covered 

for all eligible entities. The Media 

Bureau could, for example, limit the 

initial allocation provided to LPTV/ 

translator stations to an amount 

necessary to cover the costs related to 

any necessary transmitter, transmission 

line, and antenna equipment, as well as 

engineering expenses necessary to 

locate a new channel. Any funds 

remaining in the LPTV/translator 

portion of the Reimbursement Fund 

after these expenses are covered could 

be distributed in a subsequent 

allocation. We seek comment generally 

on this approach. If we were to 

prioritize certain equipment and 

engineering costs, which such costs 

should be prioritized for LPTV/ 

translator stations and which should be 

prioritized for FM stations? 

4. Requests for Reimbursement 

84. Once the Commission has issued 

an initial allocation to each eligible 

LPTV/translator and FM station, we 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43628 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

propose to allow these entities to submit 

claim(s), together with any required 

supporting invoices and other cost 

documentation, for reimbursement for 

any eligible costs they have incurred, 

using a method consistent with the 

existing process. We propose that the 

Media Bureau, together with the Fund 

Administrator, will review each 

reimbursement claim and, if approved, 

authorize a draw down from the entity’s 

individual allocation. We propose to 

allow entities to submit multiple 

reimbursement requests as they incur 

expenses throughout the reimbursement 

period. As noted above, we also propose 

to allow entities that have already 

incurred costs at the time they make 

their initial filings with the Commission 

to submit actual costs instead of 

estimates. We seek comment on these 

proposals. 

E. Financial Forms and Procedures 

85. We propose to use revised 

versions of the financial forms currently 

being used by full power, Class A, and 

MVPD entities for purposes of 

reimbursing eligible LPTV/translator 

and FM stations. We also propose to use 

the same procedures to provide 

reimbursement payments to these newly 

eligible entities. These procedures were 

set forth in the Financial Procedures PN. 

We seek comment generally on this 

approach. Are there any procedures that 

we should alter for purposes of 

reimbursing these newly eligible 

entities? 

86. Specifically, we propose to require 

LPTV, TV translators, and FM stations 

to submit their Eligibility Certification, 

cost estimates, and subsequent requests 

for reimbursement for expenses they 

have incurred, together with any 

required supporting documentation, 

using the Reimbursement Form (FCC 

Form 2100, Schedule 399), which we 

plan to revise for this purpose. As 

required for full power and Class A 

stations and MVPDs, we propose that 

LPTV/translator and FM stations submit 

the Reimbursement Form electronically 

via the Commission’s LMS database. We 

propose to require LPTV/translator and 

FM stations to use a procedure and form 

similar to our existing FCC Form 1876 

and file electronically in the CORES 

Incentive Auction Financial Module. 

Entities will be able to track 

reimbursement payments using the 

Auction Payments component of the 

CORES Incentive Auction Financial 

Module. 

87. As discussed in the Order below, 

we direct the Media Bureau together 

with the Office of Managing Director to 

revise these reimbursement forms and 

procedures as necessary for use by 

LPTV/translator and FM stations. 

F. Measures To Prevent Waste, Fraud, 

and Abuse 

88. As with full power, Class A, and 

MVPD entities, we intend to establish 

strong measures to protect against 

waste, fraud, and abuse with respect to 

disbursements from the Reimbursement 

Fund for newly eligible entities. The 

Media Bureau, with assistance from the 

Fund Administrator, will review the 

information entities provide in their 

Eligibility Certification and may require 

additional information to validate 

whether the entity is, in fact, eligible for 

reimbursement pursuant to the criteria 

established in this proceeding. We 

propose to require entities to document 

their actual expenses, including by 

providing all relevant invoices and 

receipts, and to retain other relevant 

records substantiating their 

certifications and reimbursement 

claims. Similar to the existing 

requirement for full power, Class A, and 

MVPD entities, we also propose to 

require LPTV/translator and FM stations 

seeking reimbursement to retain all 

relevant documents pertaining to 

construction or other reimbursable 

changes or expenses for a period ending 

not less than 10 years after the date on 

which it receives final payment from the 

Reimbursement Fund. We invite 

comment on these proposals. 

89. We anticipate that the 

Reimbursement Form we develop for 

use by LPTV/translator and FM stations 

will contain certifications similar to 

those on the Reimbursement Form used 

by full power, Class A, and MVPD 

entities. Thus, an LPTV/translator or FM 

station seeking reimbursement will be 

required to certify, inter alia, that it 

believes in good faith that it will 

reasonably incur all of the estimated 

costs that it claims as eligible for 

reimbursement on the estimated cost 

form, it will use all money received 

from the Reimbursement Fund only for 

expenses it believes in good faith are 

eligible for reimbursement, and it will 

comply with all policies and procedures 

related to reimbursement. In addition, 

we intend to conduct audits, data 

validations, and site visits, as 

appropriate, to prevent waste, fraud, 

and abuse and to maximize the amount 

of money available for reimbursement. 

To ensure transparency with respect to 

the Reimbursement Fund, we plan to 

make eligibility and actual cost 

information available to the public as 

well as information regarding 

Reimbursement Fund disbursements. If 

we discover evidence of intentional 

fraud, we intend to refer the matter to 

the Commission’s Office of Inspector 

General or to law enforcement for 

criminal investigation, as appropriate. 

We invite comment on these proposals. 

Are there other steps we should take to 

avoid potential fraud and ensure that 

appropriate safeguards are applied to 

the Reimbursement Fund? 

IV. Order 

90. The companion Order, which was 

adopted together with the NPRM, 

appears separately in the Federal 

Register. 

V. Procedural Matters 

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

91. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission) has prepared 

this present Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning 

the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities by the policies 

and rules proposed in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written 

public comments are requested on this 

IRFA. Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments provided 

on the first page of the NPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

B. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

92. The NPRM proposes rules to 

implement Congress’s recent directive 

that the Commission reimburse certain 

Low Power Television (LPTV), 

television translator (TV translator), and 

FM broadcast stations for costs incurred 

as a result of the Commission’s 

broadcast television spectrum incentive 

auction. When Congress authorized the 

Commission to conduct the incentive 

auction as part of the 2012 Spectrum 

Act, it required the Commission to 

reimburse certain costs incurred by full 

power and Class A television licensees 

that were reassigned to new channels as 

a result of the auction, as well as certain 

costs incurred by multichannel video 

program distributors (MVPDs) to 

continue to carry such stations. On 

March 23, 2018, Congress adopted the 

Reimbursement Expansion Act (REA), 

which amends Section 6403 of the 

Spectrum Act to expand the list of 

entities eligible to be reimbursed for 

auction-related expenses to include 

LPTV, TV translator, and FM broadcast 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43629 

stations, and to provide additional 

funds to the Reimbursement Fund to be 

used for this purpose. The REA also 

increases the funds available to 

reimburse full power and Class A 

stations and MVPDs, and provides 

funds to the Commission for consumer 

education. 

93. The NPRM proposes a mechanism 

for reimbursing the newly eligible 

entities that is substantially similar to 

the process currently used by the 

Commission to reimburse full power 

and Class A licensees and MVPDs as 

established in the Incentive Auction 

R&O. The NPRM: 

• Tentatively concludes that LPTV 

and TV translator stations (collectively 

referred to as LPTV/translator stations) 

are eligible for reimbursement if (1) they 

filed an application during the 

Commission’s Special Displacement 

Window and obtained a construction 

permit, and (2) were licensed and 

transmitting for at least 9 of the 12 

months prior to April 13, 2017, as 

required by the REA. 

• Tentatively concludes that the 

Commission will reimburse LPTV/ 

translator stations for their reasonable 

costs to construct the facilities 

authorized by the grant of the station’s 

Special Displacement Window 

application, but will require stations to 

reuse existing equipment and take other 

measures to mitigate costs where 

possible. 

• Tentatively concludes that both full 

power FM stations and FM translators 

that were licensed and transmitting on 

April 13, 2017, using the facilities 

impacted by the repacked television 

station are eligible for reimbursement 

under the REA. The NPRM proposes 

that this will include FM stations that 

incur costs because they must 

permanently relocate, temporarily or 

permanently modify their facilities, or 

purchase or modify auxiliary facilities 

to provide service to at least 80 percent 

of their primary station’s coverage area 

or population during a period of time 

when construction work is occurring on 

a collocated repacked television 

station’s facilities. 

• Proposes to reimburse up to 100 

percent of the costs eligible for 

reimbursement for FM stations that 

must relocate permanently, or 

temporarily or permanently modify 

facilities, and seeks comment on a 

graduated, prioritized system to 

reimburse FM stations for the cost to 

purchase or modify auxiliary equipment 

to avoid going silent as a result of the 

repacking process. 

• Proposes to require LPTV/translator 

and FM stations seeking reimbursement 

to file with the Commission one or more 

forms certifying that they meet the 

eligibility criteria established in this 

proceeding for reimbursement, 

providing information regarding their 

current broadcasting equipment, and 

providing an estimate of their costs 

eligible for reimbursement. The NPRM 

invites comment on ways to streamline 

the submission of this information for 

these entities. 

• Proposes that after the submission 

of information, the Media Bureau will 

provide eligible entities with an 

allocation of funds, to be available for 

draw down as the entities incur 

expenses. The NPRM proposes that the 

Media Bureau will make an initial 

allocation toward eligible expenses, 

followed by subsequent allocation(s) as 

needed, to the extent funds remain for 

LPTV/translator stations and FM 

stations in the Reimbursement Fund, 

and seeks comment on how to 

determine the amount of these 

allocations. 

• Proposes to use revised versions of 

the financial forms currently being used 

by full power, Class A, and MVPD 

entities for purposes of reimbursing 

eligible LPTV/translator and FM 

stations, and proposes to use the same 

procedures to provide reimbursement 

payments to these newly eligible 

entities. 

• Discusses the measures the 

Commission proposes to take to protect 

the Reimbursement Fund against waste, 

fraud, and abuse. 

C. Legal Basis 

94. The proposed action is authorized 

pursuant to sections 1, 4, 303, and 336(f) 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, Section 6403 of the Middle 

Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 

2012, and Section 511, Division E, Title 

V of the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2018, Public Law 115–141 (2018), 

47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 303, 336(f), 1452. 

D. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities To Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

95. 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. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

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

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. A small 

business concern is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. Below, we 

provide a description of such small 

entities, as well as an estimate of the 

number of such small entities, where 

feasible. 

96. Radio and Television Broadcasting 

and Wireless Communications 

Equipment Manufacturing. This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in manufacturing 

radio and television broadcast and 

wireless communications equipment. 

Examples of products made by these 

establishments are: Transmitting and 

receiving antennas, cable television 

equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, 

cellular phones, mobile 

communications equipment, and radio 

and television studio and broadcasting 

equipment. The Small Business 

Administration has established a size 

standard for this industry of 750 

employees or less. Census data for 2012 

show that 841 establishments operated 

in this industry in that year. Of that 

number, 819 establishments operated 

with less than 500 employees. Based on 

this data, we conclude that a majority of 

manufacturers in this industry are 

small. 

97. Audio and Video Equipment 

Manufacturing. This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

manufacturing electronic audio and 

video equipment for home 

entertainment, motor vehicles, and 

public address and musical instrument 

amplification. Examples of products 

made by these establishments are video 

cassette recorders, televisions, stereo 

equipment, speaker systems, householdtype video cameras, jukeboxes, and 

amplifiers for musical instruments and 

public address systems. The SBA has 

established a size standard for this 

industry, in which all firms with 750 

employees or less are small. According 

to U.S. Census data for 2012, 466 audio 

and video equipment manufacturers 

were operational in that year. Of that 

number, 465 operated with fewer than 

500 employees. Based on this Census 

data and the associated size standard, 

we conclude that the majority of such 

manufacturers are small. 

98. Radio Stations. This economic 

Census category ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

broadcasting aural programs by radio to 

the public.’’ The SBA has created the 

following small business size standard 

for this category: Those having $38.5 

million or less in annual receipts. 

Census data for 2012 shows that 2,849 

firms in this category operated in that 

year. Of this number, 2,806 firms had 

annual receipts of less than $25,000,000, 

and 43 firms had annual receipts of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43630 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

$25,000,000 or more. Because the 

Census has no additional classifications 

that could serve as a basis for 

determining the number of stations 

whose receipts exceeded $38.5 million 

in that year, we conclude that the 

majority of television broadcast stations 

were small under the applicable SBA 

size standard. 

99. Apart from the U.S. Census, the 

Commission has estimated the number 

of licensed commercial AM radio 

stations to be 4,429 stations and the 

number of commercial FM radio 

stations to be 6,741, for a total number 

of 11,170. Of this total, 9,898 stations 

had revenues of $38.5 million or less, 

according to Commission staff review of 

the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro 

Television Database (BIA) in October 

2014. In addition, the Commission has 

estimated the number of noncommercial 

educational FM radio stations to be 

4,125. NCE stations are non-profit, and 

therefore considered to be small entities. 

Therefore, we estimate that the majority 

of radio broadcast stations are small 

entities. 

100. Low Power FM Stations. The 

same SBA definition that applies to 

radio stations would apply to low power 

FM stations. As noted above, the SBA 

has created the following small business 

size standard for this category: Those 

having $38.5 million or less in annual 

receipts. The Commission has estimated 

the number of licensed low power FM 

stations to be 2,150. In addition, as of 

June 30, 2017, there were a total of 7,604 

FM translator and FM booster stations. 

Given that low power FM stations and 

FM translators and boosters are too 

small and limited in their operations to 

have annual receipts anywhere near the 

SBA size standard of $38.5 million, we 

will presume that these licensees 

qualify as small entities under the SBA 

definition. 

101. We note again, however, that in 

assessing whether a business concern 

qualifies as ‘‘small’’ under the above 

definition, business (control) affiliations 

must be included. Because we do not 

include or aggregate revenues from 

affiliated companies in determining 

whether an entity meets the applicable 

revenue threshold, our estimate of the 

number of small radio broadcast stations 

affected is likely overstated. In addition, 

as noted above, one element of the 

definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that an 

entity not be dominant in its field of 

operation. We are unable at this time to 

define or quantify the criteria that 

would establish whether a specific radio 

broadcast station is dominant in its field 

of operation. Accordingly, our estimate 

of small radio stations potentially 

affected by the proposed rules includes 

those that could be dominant in their 

field of operation. For this reason, such 

estimate likely is over-inclusive. 

102. 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.’’ 

These establishments also produce or 

transmit visual programming to 

affiliated broadcast television stations, 

which in turn broadcast the programs to 

the public on a predetermined schedule. 

Programming may originate in their own 

studio, from an affiliated network, or 

from external sources. The SBA has 

created the following small business 

size standard for Television 

Broadcasting firms: Those having $38.5 

million or less in annual receipts. The 

2012 economic Census reports that 751 

television broadcasting firms operated 

during that year. Of that number, 656 

had annual receipts of less than $25 

million per year. Based on that Census 

data we conclude that a majority of 

firms that operate television stations are 

small. We therefore estimate that the 

majority of commercial television 

broadcasters are small entities. 

103. We note, however, that in 

assessing whether a business concern 

qualifies as small under the above 

definition, business (control) affiliations 

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. 

104. In addition, the Commission has 

estimated the number of licensed 

noncommercial educational (NCE) 

television stations to be 390. These 

stations are non-profit, and therefore 

considered to be small entities. 

105. There are also 2,309 LPTV 

stations, including Class A stations, and 

3,727 TV translator stations. Given the 

nature of these services, we will 

presume that all of these entities qualify 

as small entities under the above SBA 

small business size standard. 

E. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

106. The NPRM proposes the 

following revised reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements. To 

implement the REA, it is proposed that 

eligible entities file forms to 

demonstrate their eligibility and 

estimated costs for reimbursement. 

Specifically, the NPRM proposes to use 

revised versions of the financial forms 

currently being used by full power, 

Class A, and multichannel video 

programming distributors (MVPD) 

entities from the incentive auction for 

purposes of reimbursing eligible LPTV/ 

translator and FM stations. The NPRM 

proposes to use the procedures to 

provide reimbursement payments to 

these newly eligible entities that are 

similar to those it used for 

reimbursement in the incentive auction. 

For example, the NPRM proposes that 

LPTV, TV translators, and FM stations 

be required to submit their Eligibility 

Certification, cost estimates, and 

subsequent requests for reimbursement 

for expenses they have incurred, 

together with any required supporting 

documentation, using the 

Reimbursement Form (FCC Form 2100, 

Schedule 399), which the Commission 

plans to revise for this purpose. As 

required for full power and Class A 

stations and MVPDs, the NPRM 

proposes that LPTV/translator and FM 

stations submit the Reimbursement 

Form electronically via the 

Commission’s Licensing and 

Management System (LMS) database. 

The NPRM proposes to require LPTV/ 

translator and FM stations to use a 

procedure and form similar to the 

existing FCC Form 1876 and to file 

electronically in the CORES Incentive 

Auction Financial Module. 

107. The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, will invite the general public 

and the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

proposed in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. 

F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

108. 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43631 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance, rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for small entities.’’ 

109. The NPRM proposes rules to 

implement the REA. The proposed rules 

are designed allow small entity 

broadcasters to seek reimbursement in 

such a manner that is streamlined and 

the least burdensome. The Commission 

will consider all comments submitted in 

connection with the NPRM including 

any suggested alternative approaches to 

implementing the REA that would 

reduce the burden and costs on smaller 

entities. 

110. In addition, pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

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

3506(c)(4), the Commission will seek 

specific comment on how it might 

further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

111. None. 

H. Paperwork Reduction Act 

112. The NPRM contains proposed 

new or modified information 

collections. The Commission, as part of 

its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

proposed in the NPRM, as required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA), 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on 

how we might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

I. Ex Parte Rules 

113. Permit But Disclose. The 

proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be 

treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making ex parte presentations must file 

a copy of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable.pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

J. Filing Requirements 

114. Comments and Replies. Pursuant 

to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, 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 the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy 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 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes 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 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

115. People with Disabilities. To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 

or call the Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 

202–418–0432 (tty). 

116. Availability of Documents. 

Comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte submissions will be available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th St. SW, Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

These documents will also be available 

via ECFS. Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, 

and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

VI. Ordering Clauses 

117. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

Sections 1, 4, 303, and 336(f) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, Section 6403 of the Middle 

Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 

2012, and Section 511, Division E, Title 

V of the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2018, Public Law 115–141 (2018), 

47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 303, 336(f), 1452, the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

adopted. 

118. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Order, including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43632 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Multichannel video programming 

distributors (MVPDs), Radio, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 309, 310, 

334, 336 and 339. 

■ 2. Section 73.3701 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 73.3701 Reimbursement under the 

Reimbursement Expansion Act. 

(a) Definitions— 

(1) FM station. For purposes of this 

section, the term FM station means 

those stations authorized by 47 CFR 

73.310. 

(2) Incentive Auction. For purposes of 

this section, the term Incentive Auction 

means the broadcast television spectrum 

incentive auction conducted under 

Section 6403 of the Spectrum Act 

specifying the new channel assignments 

and technical parameters of any 

broadcast television stations that are 

reassigned to new channels. 

(3) Licensed. For purposes of this 

section, the term licensed means a 

station that was licensed or that filed a 

license application prior to April 13, 

2017. 

(4) Low power television station. For 

purposes of this section, the term low 

power television station means those 

stations authorized by 47 CFR 74.701. 

(5) Predetermined cost estimate. For 

purposes of this section, predetermined 

cost estimate means the estimated cost 

of an eligible expense as generally 

determined by the Media Bureau in a 

catalog of expenses eligible for 

reimbursement. 

(6) Reimbursement Expansion Act or 

REA. For purposes of this section, the 

term Reimbursement Expansion Act or 

REA means Division E, Financial 

Services & General Appropriation Act, 

2018, Title V Independent Agencies, 

Public Law 115–141, Section 511 

(codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452(j) through 

(n)) adopted as part of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law 

115–141 (2018). 

(7) Reimbursement period. For 

purposes of this section, reimbursement 

period means the period ending July 3, 

2023 pursuant to sections 510(j)(1)(A) 

and (B) of the REA. 

(8) Replacement translator station. 

For purposes of this section, the term 

replacement translator station means 

analog to digital replacement translator 

stations authorized pursuant to 47 CFR 

74.787(a)(5). 

(9) Spectrum Act. For purposes of this 

section, the term Spectrum Act means 

Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief 

and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 

112–96). 

(10) Special Displacement Window. 

For purposes of this section, the term 

Special Displacement Window means 

the displacement application filing 

window conducted April 10, 2018 to 

June 1, 2018 for low power television, 

TV translator, and analog-to-digital 

replacement translator stations that 

were displaced by the incentive auction 

and repacking process. 

(11) Transmitting. For purposes of 

this section, the term transmitting 

means operating not less than 2 hours 

in each day of the week and not less 

than a total of 28 hours per calendar 

week for 9 of the 12 months prior to 

April 13, 2017. 

(12) TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund. 

For purposes of this section, the TV 

Broadcaster Relocation Fund means the 

fund established by the REA. 

(13) TV translator station. For 

purposes of this section, the term TV 

translator station means those stations 

authorized by 47 CFR 74.701. 

(b) Only the following entities are 

eligible for reimbursement of relocation 

costs reasonably incurred: 

(1) Low power television stations. Low 

power television stations that filed an 

application for construction permit 

during the Special Displacement 

Window and such application was 

subsequently granted. Station must have 

been licensed and transmitting for at 

least 9 of the 12 months prior to April 

13, 2017. 

(2) TV translator stations. TV 

translator stations that filed an 

application for construction permit 

during the Special Displacement 

Window and such application was 

subsequently granted. Station must have 

been licensed and transmitting for at 

least 9 of the 12 months prior to April 

13, 2017. 

(3) Replacement translator stations. 

Replacement translator stations that 

filed an application for construction 

permit during the Special Displacement 

Window and such application was 

subsequently granted. Station must have 

been licensed and transmitting for at 

least 9 of the 12 months prior to April 

13, 2017. 

(4) FM station. FM stations that 

experienced a disruption of service as a 

result of the reorganization of broadcast 

television spectrum under 47 U.S.C. 

1452(b). 

(c) Reimbursement process. 

(1) Estimated costs. 

(i) All entities that are eligible to 

receive reimbursement will be required 

to file an estimated cost form providing 

an estimate of their reasonably incurred 

costs. 

(ii) Each eligible entity that submits 

an estimated cost form will be required 

to certify, inter alia, that: 

(A) It is eligible for reimbursement; 

(B) It believes in good faith that it will 

reasonably incur all of the estimated 

costs that it claims are eligible for 

reimbursement on the estimated cost 

form; 

(C) It will use all money received from 

the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund 

only for expenses it believes in good 

faith are eligible for reimbursement; 

(D) It will comply with all policies 

and procedures relating to allocations, 

draw downs, payments, obligations, and 

expenditures of money from the TV 

Broadcaster Relocation Fund; 

(E) It will maintain detailed records, 

including receipts, of all costs eligible 

for reimbursement actually incurred; 

and 

(F) It will file all required 

documentation of its relocation 

expenses as instructed by the Media 

Bureau. 

(iii) If an eligible entity seeks 

reimbursement for new equipment, it 

must provide a justification as to why it 

is reasonable under the circumstances to 

purchase new equipment rather than 

modify its corresponding current 

equipment. 

(iv) Eligible entities that submit their 

own cost estimates, as opposed to the 

predetermined cost estimates provided 

in the estimated cost form, must submit 

supporting evidence and certify that the 

estimate is made in good faith. 

(2) Final Allocation Deadline. 

(i) Upon completing construction or 

other reimbursable changes, or by a 

specific deadline prior to the end of the 

Reimbursement Period to be established 

by the Media Bureau, whichever is 

earlier, all eligible entities that received 

an initial allocation from the TV 

Broadcaster Relocation Fund must 

provide the Commission with 

information and documentation, 

including invoices and receipts, 

regarding their actual expenses incurred 

as of a date to be determined by the 

Media Bureau (the ‘‘Final Allocation 

Deadline’’). 

(ii) If an eligible entity has not yet 

completed construction or other 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43633 

reimbursable changes by the Final 

Allocation Deadline, it must provide the 

Commission with information and 

documentation regarding any remaining 

eligible expenses that it expects to 

reasonably incur. 

(3) Final accounting. After completing 

all construction or reimbursable 

changes, eligible entities that have 

received money from the TV 

Broadcaster Relocation Fund will be 

required to submit final expense 

documentation containing a list of 

estimated expenses and actual expenses 

as of a date to be determined by the 

Media Bureau. Entities that have 

finished construction and have 

submitted all actual expense 

documentation by the Final Allocation 

Deadline will not be required to file at 

the final accounting stage. 

(4) Documentation requirements. 

(i) Each eligible entity that receives 

payment from the TV Broadcaster 

Relocation Fund is required to retain all 

relevant documents pertaining to 

construction or other reimbursable 

changes for a period ending not less 

than 10 years after the date on which it 

receives final payment from the TV 

Broadcaster Relocation Fund. 

(ii) Each eligible entity that receives 

payment from the TV Broadcaster 

Relocation Fund must make available 

all relevant documentation upon request 

from the Commission or its contractor. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17844 Filed 8–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1