70824 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

October 1, 2014 (79 FR 59186) (FRL– 

9912–87). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Jeffrey 

Taylor, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–8828; email address: 

taylor.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document extends the public comment 

period established in the Federal 

Register document of October 1, 2014. 

In that document, EPA proposed a 

SNUR for 15 related chemical 

substances commonly known as 

nonylphenols (NP) and nonylphenol 

ethoxylates (NPE). For 13 NPs and 

NPEs, EPA proposed to designate any 

use as a ‘‘significant new use,’’ and for 

2 additional NPs, EPA proposed that 

any use other than use as an 

intermediate or use as an epoxy cure 

catalyst would constitute a ‘‘significant 

new use.’’ EPA is hereby extending the 

comment period, which was set to end 

on December 1, 2014, to January 15, 

2015. 

To submit comments, or access the 

docket, please follow the detailed 

instructions provided under ADDRESSES

in the Federal Register document of 

October 1, 2014. If you have questions, 

consult the technical person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Hazardous substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: November 21, 2014. 

Wendy C. Hamnett, 

Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28215 Filed 11–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 15 and 74 

[MB Docket No. 03–185; GN Docket No. 12– 

268; ET Docket No. 14–175; FCC 14–151] 

Low Power Television Digital Rules 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this Third Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks comment on a 

number of issues involving low power 

television (LPTV) and TV translator 

stations including measures to facilitate 

the final conversion of LPTV and TV 

translator stations to digital service and 

consider additional means to mitigate 

the potential impact of the incentive 

auction and the repacking process on 

LPTV and TV translator stations to help 

preserve the important services they 

provide. 

DATES: Comments Due: December 29, 

2014. Reply Comments Due: January 12, 

2015. Written comments on the 

proposed information collection 

requirements, subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Pub. L. 

104–13, should be submitted on or 

before January 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 03–185, 

GN Docket No. 12–268 and ET Docket 

No. 14–175 and/or FCC 14–151, by any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• 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 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving 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. 

In addition to filing comments with 

the Secretary, a copy of any PRA 

comments on the proposed collection 

requirements contained herein should 

be submitted to the Federal 

Communications Commission via email 

to PRA@fcc.gov and to 

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov and also to 

Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of 

Management and Budget, via email to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via 

fax at 202–395–5167. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shaun Maher, Shaun.Maher@fcc.gov of 

the Media Bureau, Video Division, (202) 

418–2324. For additional information 

concerning the PRA information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, contact Cathy Williams, 

Federal Communications Commission, 

at (202) 418–2918, or via email 

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Third 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 

14–151, adopted October 9, 2014, in MB 

Docket No. 03–185 (Third NPRM). The 

Commission released its Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 

18365 (2003) in 2003 and Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 

13833 (2010) in 2010. The full text of 

the Third NPRM is available for 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

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

A257, Portals II, Washington, DC 20554, 

and may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, BCPI, 

Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. 

Customers may contact BCPI, Inc. via 

their Web site, http://www.bcpi.com, or 

call 1–800–378–3160. This document is 

available in alternative formats 

(computer diskette, large print, audio 

record, and Braille). Persons with 

disabilities who need documents in 

these formats may contact the FCC by 

email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202– 

418–0530 or TTY: 202–418–0432. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

This Third NPRM contains proposed 

new and modified information 

collection requirements. 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 contained in this 

document, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. Comments should address: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70825 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; and (e) ways to 

further reduce the information 

collection burden on small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

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 seeks 

specific comment on how it might 

further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

PRA comments should be submitted 

to Cathy Williams, Federal 

Communications Commission via email 

at PRA@fcc.gov and 

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov and Nicholas A. 

Fraser, Office of Management and 

Budget via fax at 202–395–5167 or via 

email to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov. 

To view a copy of this information 

collection request (ICR) submitted to 

OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http:// 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, 

(2) look for the section of the Web page 

called ‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ (3) 

click on the downward-pointing arrow 

in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box below the 

‘‘Currently Under Review’’ heading, (4) 

select ‘‘Federal Communications 

Commission’’ from the list of agencies 

presented in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, 

(5) click the ‘‘Submit’’ button to the 

right of the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, (6) 

when the list of FCC ICRs currently 

under review appears, look for the Title 

of this ICR and then click on the ICR 

Reference Number. A copy of the FCC 

submission to OMB will be displayed. 

OMB Control Numbers: 3060–1100. 

Title: Section 15.117(k), TV Broadcast 

Receivers; section 15.117(b), 

Elimination of Analog Tuner 

Requirement. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other for 

profit entities. 

Number of Respondents/Responses: 

1,550; 5,550 responses. 

Estimated Hours per Response: 0.25– 

5 hrs. 

Frequency of Response: One time 

reporting requirement; Third party 

disclosure requirement. 

Total Annual Burden: 4,000 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: No cost. 

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory for 

the disclosure requirement and required 

to obtain or retain benefits for the other 

requirement. The statutory authority for 

this information collection is contained 

in sections 1, 2(a), 3(33) and (52), 4(i) 

and (j), 7, 154(i), 301, 303(r) and (s), 307, 

308, 309, 336, 337 and 624(a) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

There is no need for confidentiality with 

this collection of information. 

Privacy Act Assessment: No impact(s). 

Needs and Uses: In this Third NPRM, 

the Commission proposed eliminating 

the analog tuner requirement contained 

in § 15.117(b) of the rules. Should it 

adopt its proposal, the Commission also 

proposed that broadcast receiver 

manufacturers and importers who 

market digital-only equipment to 

educate consumers and retailers about 

the devices’ limits and capabilities to 

prevent consumer confusion. 

The information collection 

requirements that are contained in 47 

CFR 15.117(k) remain a part of this 

collection and it is not impacted by the 

Third NPRM. Therefore, it remains 

unchanged since the information 

collection requirements were last 

approved by OMB. 

OMB Control Numbers: 3060–0017. 

Title: Application for a Low Power 

TV, TV Translator or TV Booster Station 

License, FCC Form 347. 

Form Numbers: FCC Form 347. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other for 

profit entities; Not for profit institutions; 

State, local or Tribal government. 

Number of Respondents/Responses: 

550 respondents; 550 responses. 

Estimated Hours per Response: 1.5 

hours per response. 

Frequency of Response: One time 

reporting requirement; On occasion 

reporting requirement. 

Total Annual Burden: 825 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: $66,446. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain benefits. The statutory authority 

for this information collection is 

contained in sections 154(i), 301, 303, 

307, 308 and 309 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

There is no need for confidentiality with 

this collection of information. 

Privacy Act Assessment: No impact(s). 

Needs and Uses: In this Third NPRM, 

it is proposed that low power television 

and TV translator stations be permitted 

to share a channel. FCC Form 347 will 

be used to license channel sharing 

between these types of stations. This 

Third NPRM adopts the following 

proposed information collection 

requirements: 

The information collection 

requirements that are contained in 47 

CFR 74.800(b) (Licensing of Channel 

Sharing Stations) proposes to require 

that the LPTV or TV translator channel 

sharing station relinquishing its channel 

must file an application for the initial 

channel sharing construction permit 

(FCC Form 346), include a copy of the 

channel sharing agreement as an 

exhibit, and cross reference the other 

sharing station(s). Any engineering 

changes necessitated by the channel 

sharing arrangement may be included in 

the station’s application. Upon 

initiation of shared operations, the 

station relinquishing its channel must 

notify the Commission that it has 

terminated operation pursuant to 

§ 73.1750 of this part and each sharing 

station must file an application for 

license (FCC Form 347). Therefore, FCC 

Form 347, Application for Low Power 

TV, TV Translator or TV Booster Station 

License, will be modified to allow 

applicants to propose that their stations 

be licensed on a shared basis. 

OMB Control Numbers: 3060–1086. 

Title: Section 74.787 Digital 

Licensing; § 74.790, Permissible Service 

of Digital TV Translator and LPTV 

Stations; § 74.794, Digital Emissions, 

and § 74.796, Modification of Digital 

Transmission Systems and Analog 

Transmission Systems for Digital 

Operation; § 74.798, LPTV Digital 

Transition Consumer Education 

Information, Protection of Analog LPTV. 

Form Number: Not applicable. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other for 

profit entities; not for profit institutions; 

State, local or Tribal government. 

Number of Respondents/Responses: 

8,445 respondents; 27,386 responses. 

Estimated Hours per Response: 0.50– 

4 hours. 

Frequency of Response: 

Recordkeeping requirement; One-time 

reporting requirement; Third party 

disclosure requirement. 

Total Annual Burden: 56,386 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: $69,033,000. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. The statutory 

authority for this information collection 

is contained in section 301 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

There is no need for confidentiality with 

this collection of information. 

Privacy Act Assessment: No impact(s). 

Needs and Uses: In this Third NPRM, 

the Commission proposed rules and 

policies for a digital-to-digital 

replacement digital replacement 

translator to permit full power 

television stations to continue to 

provide service to viewers that may 

have otherwise lost service as a result of 

the station being ‘‘repacked’’ in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70826 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Commission’s incentive auction 

process. 

Unlike other television translator 

licenses, the replacement digital 

television translator license will be 

associated with the full-service station’s 

main license and will have the same 

four letter call sign as its associated 

main station. As a result, a replacement 

digital television translator license may 

not be separately assigned or transferred 

and will be renewed or assigned along 

with the full-service station’s main 

license. Almost all other rules 

associated with television translator 

stations are applied to replacement 

digital television translators. 

Moreover, the Third NPRM proposes 

an information collection requirement 

contained in 47 CFR 74.787(a)(5)(v). The 

proposed information collection 

requirements contained in proposed 

rule 47 CFR 74.787(a)(5)(v) states that an 

application for a digital to digital 

replacement digital television translator 

may be filed by a full power television 

station that can demonstrate that a 

portion of its digital service area will 

not be served by its post-incentive 

auction digital facilities. The service 

area of the replacement digital 

television translators shall be limited to 

only a demonstrated loss area. However, 

an applicant for a replacement digital 

television translator may propose a de 

minimis expansion of its full power preincentive auction digital service area 

upon demonstrating that it is necessary 

to replace its post-incentive auction 

digital loss area. 

The information collection 

requirements that are contained in 47 

CFR 74.787(a)(2)(iii), (a)(3), (a)(4) and 

(a)(5)(i), 47 CFR 74.790(f), (e) and (g), 47 

CFR 74.794, 47 CFR 74.796(b)(5) and 

74.796(b)(6), 47 CFR 74.798 and the 

protection of analog LPTV requirement 

remain a part of this information 

collection. The information collection 

requirements contained in these rule 

sections remain unchanged and FCC 

14–151 did not impact on them. 

Synopsis of Third Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

1. In this Third NPRM, the 

Commission considers measures to 

ensure the successful completion of the 

LPTV and TV translator digital 

transition, help preserve the important 

services LPTV and TV translator 

stations provide, and other related 

matters. Specifically, the Commission: 

(1) Tentatively concludes to extend the 

September 1, 2015 digital transition 

deadline for LPTV and TV translator 

stations; (2) tentatively concludes to 

adopt rules to allow channel sharing by 

and between LPTV and TV translator 

stations; (3) tentatively concludes to 

create a ‘‘digital-to-digital replacement 

translator’’ service for full power 

stations that experience losses in their 

pre-auction service areas; (4) seeks 

comment on the proposed use of the 

incentive auction optimization model to 

assist LPTV and TV translator stations 

displaced by the auction and repacking 

process to identify new channels; (5) 

seeks comment on whether to permit 

digital LPTV stations to operate analog 

FM radio-type services on an ancillary 

or supplementary basis; and (6) seeks 

comment on whether to eliminate the 

requirement in § 15.117(b) of our rules 

that TV receivers include analog tuners. 

The Commission also invites input on 

any other measures it should consider to 

further mitigate the impact of the 

auction and repacking process on LPTV 

and TV translator stations. 

Extending the September 1, 2015 LPTV 

and TV Translator Digital Transition 

Date 

2. The Commission tentatively 

concluded that it should postpone the 

September 1, 2015 deadline for LPTV 

and TV translator stations to transition 

to digital. The Commission concluded 

that it appears that the current LPTV 

and TV translator digital transition 

deadline may occur in close conjunction 

with the incentive auction, leaving 

LPTV and TV translator stations little or 

no time to consider its impact before 

having to complete their digital 

conversion. The Commission noted that, 

as of the release date of the Third 

NRPM, approximately 56% of LPTV and 

80% of TV translator stations have 

completed their transition to digital. 

However, 795 LPTV and 779 TV 

translator stations have not yet 

completed their conversion. Because a 

significant number of stations have yet 

to complete their transition to digital 

service, and with less than a year before 

the digital transition deadline, the 

Commission tentatively concluded that 

it should postpone the transition 

deadline in order to avoid requiring 

stations to incur the costs of digital 

transition before completion of the 

auction and repacking process, which is 

likely to impact a significant number of 

LPTV and TV translator stations. The 

Commission also sought input from the 

industry about why the remaining 

analog stations have not yet converted. 

3. The Commission noted that this 

proceeding concerns matters related 

only to LPTV and TV translator stations 

and not Class A television stations. 

Because Class A stations are not 

similarly impacted by the incentive 

auction and repacking process, the 

measures discussed In this Third NRPM 

to mitigate the impact on LPTV and TV 

translator stations, including extending 

the digital transition deadline, do not 

extend to Class A stations. 

4. Although the Commission 

tentatively concluded that 

postponement of the digital transition 

deadline is appropriate, it noted that, 

since the initiation of the digital 

television conversion process, the 

Commission has consistently sought to 

ensure an expedited and successful 

transition for all television services, so 

that the public will be able to enjoy the 

benefits of digital broadcast television 

technology. It sought comment on 

whether and how postponement of the 

low power transition date will impact 

these goals. In addition, it sought 

comment from existing LPTV and TV 

translator stations on the status of their 

conversion efforts and the additional 

costs they may have to incur should 

they have to ‘‘double build’’ their digital 

facilities. The Commission also invited 

comment from low power stations that 

have completed the conversion process 

regarding their experience and the 

extent of their current digital service 

offerings. 

5. Should it decide to adopt its 

tentative conclusion and postpone the 

September 1, 2015 transition date, the 

Commission sought comment on 

whether to establish a new deadline 

now or wait until after the incentive 

auction. The advantage of the latter 

approach would be to allow the 

Commission to examine the outcome of 

the incentive auction and take into 

account the overall impact of the 

repacking process on LPTV and TV 

translator stations before settling on a 

new transition date. Alternatively, prior 

to the auction, the Commission could 

establish a new transition date based on 

the record in this proceeding. That 

approach would provide LPTV and TV 

translator stations with more certainty 

about when the transition will end and 

might expedite completion of the digital 

transition. The Commission sought 

comment on the advantages and 

disadvantages of both approaches. 

6. If the Commission decides to set, 

prior to the auction, a new transition 

date, it sought comment on an 

appropriate new transition date. The 

Commission noted that LPTV and TV 

translator stations may have to wait 

several months after the conclusion of 

the incentive auction to determine 

whether they are displaced as well as 

the channel availability for 

displacement applications. The 

Commission sought comment on 

whether a postponement of the current 

deadline to twelve months after the 

close of the incentive auction would be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70827 

appropriate in order to further its goal 

of expediting the transition to digital for 

these services. The Commission also 

invited comment on alternative 

approaches and dates. Whatever the 

new deadline, the Commission 

announced that it intended that it will 

continue to be a ‘‘hard’’ deadline and 

that all analog transmissions will be 

required to cease even if stations’ digital 

facilities are not yet constructed. 

7. If the Commission extends the 

digital transition deadline for LPTV and 

TV translator stations, it proposed to 

make corresponding rule changes and to 

modify transition-related digital 

construction permits to effectuate any 

new transition date. In addition, the 

Commission proposed to modify the 

rules to continue to allow transitioning 

stations to request one ‘‘last minute’’ 

extension beyond the transition 

deadline of up to six months, so long as 

the request is filed at least four months 

before the new deadline and meets the 

other criteria in our current rule. As in 

the current rule, the Commission 

proposed that extension requests no 

longer be accepted after that deadline 

and that use of the tolling rule 

commence the following day. The 

Commission sought comment on these 

proposals. 

8. The Commission noted that the 

September 1, 2015 digital transition date 

does not apply to holders of unbuilt 

construction permits for new digital 

LPTV and TV translator stations. These 

permits are issued a three-year 

construction deadline at the time the 

initial construction permit is granted. 

Many of the more than 1,700 

outstanding new digital LPTV and TV 

translator station permittees have been 

granted two extensions of time to 

construct by the Media Bureau staff and 

some have filed applications requesting 

a third extension of time. In order to 

treat these permittees similarly to the 

permittees of transitioning LPTV and 

TV translator stations, the Commission 

noted that, by a Public Notice that was 

released the same day, it had suspended 

the expiration date and construction 

deadlines of construction permits for 

new digital LPTV and TV translator 

stations pending final action in this 

proceeding. In the event the 

Commission extends the deadline for 

transitioning analog LPTV and TV 

translator stations in this proceeding, it 

tentatively concluded to extend the 

deadline for construction permits for 

new digital stations to conform their 

construction deadline to the new digital 

transition deadline. The Commission 

sought comment on this tentative 

conclusion. 

LPTV and TV Translator Channel 

Sharing 

9. The Commission tentatively 

concluded that it should adopt rules to 

permit channel sharing by and between 

LPTV and TV translator stations, and 

sought comment on a variety of rules to 

implement channel sharing for these 

stations. The Commission tentatively 

concluded that such rules are permitted 

under its general authority in Title III of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. 

10. The Commission tentatively 

concluded that authorizing channel 

sharing between and among LPTV and 

TV translator stations would serve the 

public interest, and we sought comment 

on this tentative conclusion. 

11. Should the Commission decide to 

authorize channel sharing by and 

between LPTV and TV translator 

stations, it announced that channel 

sharing would be entirely voluntary. 

The Commission stated that it did not 

intend to be involved in the process of 

matching licensees interested in 

channel sharing with potential partners. 

Rather, LPTV and TV translator stations 

would decide for themselves whether 

and with whom to enter into a channel 

sharing arrangement. The Commission 

proposed to require all LPTV and TV 

translator stations to operate in digital 

on the shared channel and to retain 

spectrum usage rights sufficient to 

ensure at least enough capacity to 

operate one standard definition (‘‘SD’’) 

programming stream at all times. The 

Commission proposed to allow stations 

flexibility within this ‘‘minimum 

capacity’’ requirement to tailor their 

agreements and allow a variety of 

different types of spectrum sharing to 

meet the individualized programming 

and economic needs of the parties 

involved. The Commission will not 

propose to prescribe a fixed split of the 

capacity of the six megahertz channel 

between the stations from a 

technological or licensing perspective 

and that all channel sharing stations be 

licensed for the entire capacity of the six 

megahertz channel and that the stations 

be allowed to determine the manner in 

which that capacity will be divided 

among themselves subject only to the 

minimum capacity requirement. 

12. The Commission proposed to 

retain its existing policy framework for 

the licensing and operation of channel 

sharing LPTV and TV translator 

stations. Under this policy, despite 

sharing a single channel and 

transmission facility, each station would 

continue to be licensed separately. Each 

station would have its own call sign, 

and each licensee would separately be 

subject to all of the Commission’s 

obligations, rules, and policies. The 

Commission sought comment on these 

proposals. 

13. The Commission proposed a 

licensing scheme for reviewing and 

approving channel sharing between 

LPTV and TV translator stations that 

differs from the one adopted for full 

power and Class A stations. Because the 

implementation of a channel sharing 

arrangement does not involve 

construction that requires Commission 

pre-approval, and because channel 

sharing arrangements involving full 

power and Class A stations will have 

been reviewed already in conjunction 

with the stations submitting bids in the 

incentive auction, the Commission 

found that there was no need for such 

stations to go through a two-step process 

by first applying for construction 

permits to implement their channel 

sharing proposals and then filing for 

new shared licenses. In contrast, LPTV 

and TV translator stations will not have 

already participated in the incentive 

auction, and the Commission will not 

have had an opportunity to review their 

proposed channel sharing arrangements, 

including any technical changes to the 

stations’ facilities. Therefore, the 

Commission proposed the following 

two-step process for implementing 

channel sharing between LPTV and TV 

translator stations that addresses the 

particularities of the low power 

television service while minimizing 

costs and burdens in order to encourage 

channel sharing among these stations. 

14. As the first step, if no technical 

changes are necessary for sharing, a 

channel sharing station relinquishing its 

channel would file an application for 

digital construction permit (FCC Form 

346) for the same technical facilities as 

the sharer station, including a copy of 

the channel sharing agreement (‘‘CSA’’) 

as an exhibit, and cross reference the 

other sharing station(s). In this case, the 

sharer station would not need to take 

action at this time. If the CSA required 

technical changes to the sharer station’s 

facilities, each sharing station would file 

an application for construction permit 

for identical technical facilities 

proposing to share the channel, along 

with the CSA. As a second step, after 

the sharing stations have obtained the 

necessary construction permits, 

implemented their shared facility and 

initiated shared operations, a station 

relinquishing its channel would notify 

the Commission that it has terminated 

operation on that channel. At the same 

time, sharing stations would file 

applications for license (FCC Form 347) 

to complete the licensing process. The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70828 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Commission sought comment on these 

proposed procedures. 

15. The Commission comment on an 

appropriate length of time for channel 

sharing LPTV and TV translator stations 

to implement their arrangements. The 

Commission required that channel 

sharing arrangements involving full 

power and Class A stations in the 

incentive auction be implemented 

within three months after the 

relinquishing station receives its reverse 

auction proceeds. While the 

Commission found that this deadline 

would expedite the transition to the 

reorganized UHF band, it does believe it 

is necessary to set a similar deadline for 

LPTV and TV translator stations to 

implement their channel sharing 

arrangements. Therefore, the 

Commission sought comment on 

whether to allow channel sharing 

stations the standard three-year 

construction period under the rules to 

implement their sharing deals. It stated 

that it expected that many stations will 

not need a full three-year time period. 

Indeed, some LPTV and TV translator 

stations displaced by the repacking 

process and forced to go silent will need 

to resume operations within twelve 

months to avoid automatic cancellation 

of their license pursuant to section 

312(g) of the Communications Act. 

Finding a channel sharing partner and 

resuming operations on a shared facility 

within the twelve months could be an 

important way for displaced stations to 

avoid automatic cancellation of their 

license. Other stations not facing this 

timing constraint may want or need 

more time to implement their new 

shared facilities. The Commission 

sought comment on this issue. 

16. The Commission also sought 

comment on whether to apply existing 

restrictions on relocation proposals to 

LPTV and TV translator channel sharing 

arrangements. LPTV and TV translator 

stations may need flexibility in their 

ability to move their facilities in order 

to take advantage of channel sharing. 

Specifically, LPTV and TV translator 

stations may need to propose to relocate 

to a shared transmission site that is 

several miles from the location of their 

current transmission site. However, 

under our current rules, LPTV and TV 

translator stations filing a minor change 

application may not propose a move of 

their transmitter site of greater than 30 

miles (48 kilometers) from the reference 

coordinates of the existing station’s 

antenna location. In addition, LPTV and 

TV translator stations may file a minor 

change application only if there is 

contour overlap between the proposed 

and existing facilities. The Commission 

sought comment on whether continued 

application of these limitations is 

necessary and appropriate or whether 

their application in the context of 

channel sharing modifications would 

unduly limit channel sharing between 

LPTV and TV translator stations. 

Alternatively, should these restrictions 

be waived in certain cases to allow 

LPTV and TV translators more 

flexibility in their channel sharing 

arrangements, and if so, under what 

circumstances? 

17. The Commission proposed to 

adopt ‘‘channel sharing operating rules’’ 

similar to those adopted for full power 

and Class A television stations in the 

Incentive Auction Report and Order 

with respect to the terms of CSAs, as 

well as the transfer or assignment of 

channel sharing licenses. The 

Commission proposed a different 

approach, however, when a channel 

sharing station’s license is terminated 

due to voluntary relinquishment, 

revocation, or failure to renew. 

18. CSAs for full power and/or Class 

A stations must include provisions 

governing certain key aspects of their 

operations. In so requiring, the 

Commission recognized that channel 

sharing will create new and complex 

relationships, and sought to avoid 

disputes that could lead to a disruption 

in service to the public and to ensure 

that each licensee is able to fulfill its 

independent obligation to comply with 

all pertinent statutory requirements and 

our rules. At the same time, the 

Commission noted that it ordinarily 

does not become involved in private 

contractual agreements and that it does 

not wish to discourage channel sharing 

relationships. 

19. The Commission tentatively 

concluded that the same requirements 

are warranted in the context of LPTV 

and TV translator channel sharing. As 

with full power and Class A sharing 

arrangements, the Commission believes 

this approach will protect the public 

interest and ensure the success of 

channel sharing with minimal intrusion 

into channel sharing relationships. 

Therefore, it proposed that LPTV and 

TV translator CSAs be required to 

contain provisions outlining each 

licensee’s rights and responsibilities in 

the following areas: (1) Access to 

facilities, including whether each 

licensee will have unrestrained access 

to the shared transmission facilities; (2) 

allocation of bandwidth within the 

shared channel; (3) operation, 

maintenance, repair, and modification 

of facilities, including a list of all 

relevant equipment, a description of 

each party’s financial obligations, and 

any relevant notice provisions; and (4) 

termination or transfer/assignment of 

rights to the shared licenses, including 

the ability of a new licensee to assume 

the existing CSA. The Commission 

proposed to reserve the right to review 

CSA provisions and require 

modification of any that do not comply 

with these requirements or the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission 

sought comment on these proposals. 

20. The Commission sought comment 

on a streamlined approach to the 

situation in which an LPTV or TV 

translator channel sharing station’s 

license is terminated due to voluntary 

relinquishment, revocation, failure to 

renew, or any other circumstance. 

Under the proposed approach, where an 

LPTV or TV translator sharing station’s 

license is terminated, the Commission 

would modify the license(s) of the 

remaining channel sharing station(s) to 

reflect that its channel is no longer 

shared with the terminated licensee. In 

the event that only one station remains 

on the shared channel, that station 

could request that the shared channel be 

re-designated as a non-shared channel 

or could enter into a CSA with another 

LPTV or TV translator station and 

resume shared operations, subject to 

Commission approval. This approach 

differs from the approach the 

Commission adopted for full power and 

Class A television channel sharing 

arrangements in order to reduce the cost 

and burden to LPTV and TV translator 

stations and to encourage channel 

sharing among these stations. 

21. In addition, the Commission 

proposes to allow rights under a CSA to 

be assigned or transferred, subject to the 

requirements of section 310 of the 

Communications Act, the Commission’s 

rules, and the requirement that the 

assignee or transferee comply with the 

applicable CSA. The Commission 

sought comment on the above proposals 

and on any alternative approaches it 

should consider. 

22. Should the Commission adopt 

rules authorizing channel sharing for 

LPTV and TV translator stations, it 

sought comment on whether to permit 

these stations to channel share with full 

power and Class A television stations as 

well. The Commission sought comment 

on the feasibility of allowing channel 

sharing between primary (full power 

and Class A) and secondary (LPTV and 

TV translator) services, each of which 

operate with differing power levels and 

interference protection rights. In the 

Incentive Auction Report and Order, the 

Commission allowed channel sharing 

between full power and Class A 

television stations despite the fact that 

each operate with different technical 

rules. It concluded that the Class A 

television station sharing a full power 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70829 

television station’s channel after the 

incentive auction would be permitted to 

operate under the part 73 rules 

governing power levels and 

interference. To facilitate channel 

sharing and further assist displaced 

LPTV and TV translator stations to find 

a new channel, the Commission sought 

comment on whether to allow LPTV and 

TV translator stations that share a full 

power or Class A television station’s 

channel to similarly operate under the 

rules governing power levels and 

interference for full power and Class A 

television stations. In the unlikely event 

a full power or Class A television station 

proposes to share an LPTV or TV 

translator station’s channel, the 

Commission proposes that the full 

power or Class A station would be 

subject to the power level and 

interference protection rules associated 

with the channel of the LPTV or TV 

translator station. The Commission 

sought comment on these proposals, 

including any regulatory difficulties that 

would result from channel sharing 

between a full power or Class A 

television station and an LPTV or TV 

translator station. 

Creation of a New Digital-to-Digital 

Replacement Translator Service 

23. The Commission proposes to 

establish a new ‘‘digital-to-digital’’ 

replacement translator service that will 

allow eligible full power television 

stations to recover lost digital service 

area that results from the reverse 

auction and repacking process. The 

Commission tentatively concluded that 

eligibility for the digital-to-digital 

replacement translator service should be 

limited to those full power television 

stations whose channels are changed 

following the incentive auction that can 

demonstrate that (1) a portion of their 

pre-auction service area will not be 

served by the facilities on their new 

channel, and (2) the proposed digital-todigital replacement translator will be 

used solely to fill in such loss areas. The 

Commission sought comment on this 

tentative conclusion. 

24. The Commission proposed to limit 

the service area of digital-to-digital 

replacement translators to digital loss 

areas resulting from the reverse auction 

and repacking process. To implement 

this restriction, it proposed to require 

applicants for a digital-to-digital 

replacement translator to demonstrate a 

digital loss area through an engineering 

study that depicts the station’s pre- and 

post-incentive auction digital service 

areas. The Commission tentatively 

concluded that ‘‘pre-auction digital 

service area’’ should be defined as the 

geographic area within the full power 

station’s noise-limited contour (of its 

facility licensed by the pre-auction 

licensing deadline). The Commission 

recognized that, due to the lack of 

available transmitter sites, it may be 

impossible or extremely costly for 

stations to locate a translator that 

replaces digital loss areas without also 

slightly expanding their pre-auction 

digital service areas. The Commission 

stated that it believed a better approach 

would be to allow applicants to propose 

de minimis expansions of pre-auction 

digital service areas on a showing that 

the expansions are necessary to replace 

service area lost as a result of their new 

channel assignments. To demonstrate 

necessity, the Commission proposed 

that stations be required to show that it 

is not possible to site a digital-to-digital 

replacement translator without de 

minimis expansion of the station’s preauction digital service area. Further, it 

proposed to define de minimis on a 

case-by-case basis, consistent with the 

approach it took for processing analog to 

digital replacement translator 

applications. The Commission sought 

comment on these proposals. 

25. The Commission also sought 

comment on the appropriate timing for 

the availability of this proposed new 

service. Specifically, the Commission 

proposed that the opportunity to apply 

for a digital-to-digital replacement 

translator be limited, commencing with 

the opening of the post-auction LPTV 

and TV translator displacement window 

and ending one year after the 

completion of the 39-month postincentive auction transition period. 

Under this proposal, stations could 

begin applying for digital-to-digital 

replacement translators during the 

LPTV and TV translator displacement 

window and would then have one year 

beyond the completion of the postauction transition period to identify the 

need and apply for a digital-to-digital 

replacement translator. The Commission 

stated that it believed this proposed 

deadline will provide full power 

television stations sufficient time to 

identify any possible loss areas that 

result from their new channel 

assignments while also helping to limit 

this service to its proposed objective of 

replacing a loss that results from the 

reverse auction and repacking process. 

The Commission sought comment on 

this proposal and on any alternative 

commencement and expiration dates it 

should consider. 

26. The Commission proposed to 

afford applications for new digital-todigital replacement translators co-equal 

processing priority with displacement 

applications for existing DRTs that are 

displaced as a result of the auction and 

repacking process. The Commission 

proposed co-equal processing treatment 

of these two types of applications to 

meet two goals. First, we seek to assist 

those full power stations that need a 

new digital-to-digital replacement 

translator to quickly obtain an 

authorization and schedule construction 

to coincide with the completion of their 

repacked facilities. The Commission 

also recognized that full power stations 

with existing DRTs that are displaced by 

the repacking process will need to 

construct on their new channel to help 

preserve their existing service. 

Therefore, to balance these two goals, it 

proposed that applications for new 

digital-to-digital replacement translators 

be afforded a co-equal processing 

priority with displacement applications 

for existing DRTs in cases of mutual 

exclusivity. 

27. The Commission also proposed 

that both applications for new digital-todigital replacement translators and 

displacement applications for existing 

DRTs would have processing priority 

over all other LPTV and TV translator 

applications including new, minor 

change and displacement applications. 

Under this approach, the Commission 

would begin to accept applications for 

new digital-to-digital replacement 

translators commencing with the 

opening of the post-auction LPTV and 

TV translator displacement window. All 

applications for new digital-to-digital 

replacement translators and 

displacement applications for existing 

DRTs filed during the post-auction 

displacement window would be 

considered filed on the last day of the 

window, would have priority over all 

other displacement applications filed 

during the window by LPTV and TV 

translator stations, and would be 

considered co-equal if mutually 

exclusive. Following the close of the 

displacement window, applications for 

new digital-to-digital replacement 

translators would be accepted on a firstcome, first-served basis, would continue 

to have priority over all LPTV and TV 

translator new, minor change or 

displacement applications, even if firstfiled, and co-equal priority with 

applications for displacement 

applications for existing DRTs filed on 

the same day. The Commission sought 

comment on these proposals and 

requested input on any alternative 

approaches it should consider. 

28. The Commission sought comment 

on a number of proposed licensing and 

operating rules for digital-to-digital 

replacement translators analogous to 

those the Commission adopted for 

analog to digital replacement translators 

in 2009. Although the Commission 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70830 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

tentatively concluded that the same 

rules would be appropriate, it welcomed 

input regarding why a different 

approach might be preferable in this 

context and any alternative proposals. 

29. The Commission proposed that 

the digital-to-digital replacement 

translator license could not be 

separately assigned or transferred and 

would be renewed, transferred, or 

assigned along with the main license. 

The Commission also proposed that 

applications for digital-to-digital 

replacement translators be filed on FCC 

Form 346, be treated as minor change 

applications, and be exempt from filing 

fees. The Commission proposed that 

digital-to-digital replacement translator 

stations be licensed with ‘‘secondary’’ 

frequency use status. Under this 

approach, these translators would not be 

permitted to cause interference to, and 

must accept interference from, full 

power television stations, certain land 

mobile radio operations, and other 

primary services, and would be subject 

to the interference protections to land 

mobile station operations in the 470- 

512 MHz band set forth in the rules. 

30. The Commission proposed to 

apply the existing rules associated with 

television translator stations to digitalto-digital replacement translators, 

including the rules concerning power 

limits, out-of-channel emission limits, 

unattended operation, time of operation, 

and resolution of mutual exclusivity. 

The Commission also proposed to 

assign digital-to-digital replacement 

translators the same call sign as their 

associated full power television station. 

31. The Commission proposed that 

stations be given a full three-year 

construction period to build their 

digital-to-digital replacement 

translators. The Commission believes 

that a full three-year period for 

completion of replacement translator 

facilities will help to ensure the 

successful implementation of this new 

service. Among other things, the 

Commission believes it will allow 

stations that are reassigned to new 

channels in the repacking process, some 

of which will have 39 months to 

complete construction of their postauction facilities, to schedule 

construction of their replacement 

translator to coincide with the 

completion of their full power facilities. 

The Commission is concerned that a 

shorter construction period could 

discourage licensees from taking 

advantage of their processing priority by 

applying for digital-to-digital 

replacement translators at the earliest 

possible time. 

32. The Commission tentatively 

concluded that allowing the licensing of 

new analog-to-digital replacement 

translators is no longer necessary and 

proposed to no longer accept 

applications for such facilities. Given 

the length of time that has passed since 

the digital transition deadline, the 

Commission believes any future 

applications will be unnecessary for 

stations to replace an analog loss area 

that occurred as a result of the digital 

transition. The Commission sought 

comment on this tentative conclusion. 

Assistance to LPTV and TV Translator 

Stations in Finding Displacement 

Channels After the Incentive Auction 

33. The Commission stated that it 

believes that the availability of the 

repacking and optimization software 

may provide a unique opportunity for 

the Commission to assist with the 

challenges displaced LPTV and TV 

translator stations face in finding new 

channel homes. The Commission sought 

comment on the use of these software 

tools to facilitate the relocation of 

displaced low power stations. In 

particular, because it is likely that a 

number of low power stations will be 

displaced from UHF channels, the 

Commission sought comment on 

whether and, if so how, our 

optimization software could facilitate 

the ability of low power stations to 

relocate to VHF channels where UHF 

channels are unavailable. One 

possibility is that, prior to opening the 

special window for LPTV and TV 

translator stations affected by the 

repacking process to file displacement 

applications, the Media Bureau could 

utilize the optimization model to 

identify market areas where all 

displaced LPTV and TV translator 

stations can be accommodated onto new 

channels. For such markets, the Media 

Bureau would issue a Public Notice 

listing potential channel assignments for 

displaced low power stations. Displaced 

low power stations would be 

encouraged to file for those channels in 

the displacement window. In cases 

where not all LPTV and TV translator 

stations can be accommodated onto new 

channels using current operating 

parameters, the Media Bureau could use 

the software to identify possible 

arrangements based on other objectives, 

such as maximizing the number of 

stations assigned or minimizing the 

interference that stations might 

experience, to assist stations in 

examining engineering solutions to find 

channels. In addition, the Commission 

seek comment on alternative methods 

for efficiently assigning the spectrum 

that will remain available post-auction 

for LPTV and TV translator stations. 

34. The Commission emphasized that 

stations’ decision to seek channel 

assignments recommended by the 

Media Bureau as a result of using 

repacking and optimization software or 

another method to assist with the 

displacement process would be 

voluntary. It does not propose to require 

stations to accept channel assignments 

identified by the Media Bureau. It 

intends that these stations continue to 

be permitted to seek displacement 

channels that work best for their 

particular circumstances, so long as the 

channel selections comply with our 

licensing and technical rules. The 

Commission sought comment on these 

proposals. 

Operation of Analog Radio Services by 

Digital LPTV Stations as Ancillary or 

Supplementary Services 

35. The Commission sought comment 

on whether to allow LPTV stations on 

digital television channel 6 (82–88 

MHz) to operate analog FM radio-type 

services on an ancillary or 

supplementary basis pursuant to 

§ 73.624(c) of the rules. Currently, some 

analog LPTV stations licensed on 

channel 6 are operating with very 

limited visual programming and an 

audio signal that is programmed like a 

radio station. FM radio listeners are able 

to receive the audio portion of these 

LPTV stations at 87.76 MHz, which is 

adjacent to noncommercial educational 

(NCE) FM channel 201 (88.1 MHz). 

When these LPTV stations convert to 

digital, however, they are unable to 

continue providing such radio service 

because the digital audio portion of 

their signal can no longer be received by 

standard FM receivers. LPTV stations 

have been proposing engineering 

solutions to allow their continued FM 

radio-type operation following their 

conversion to digital. For example, a 

station has proposed using a single 

transmitter that allows a digital visual 

and audio stream, as well as a separate 

analog audio transmission, to 

simultaneously operate a digital LPTV 

station on channel 6 and an analog FM 

radio-type service at 87.76 MHz. Under 

this proposal, the Commission would 

treat the analog FM audio transmission 

as an ‘‘ancillary or supplementary’’ 

service offering under § 74.790(i) of the 

Commission’s rules, which provides 

that ‘‘a digital LPTV station may offer 

services of any nature, consistent with 

the public interest, convenience, and 

necessity, on an ancillary or 

supplementary basis in accordance with 

the provisions of § 73.624(c). . . .’’ 

Section 73.624(c) in turn provides that: 

The kinds of services that may be 

provided include, but are not limited to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70831 

computer software distribution, data 

transmissions, teletext, interactive 

materials, aural messages, paging 

services, audio signals, subscription 

video, and any other services that do not 

derogate DTV broadcast stations’ 

obligations under paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

36. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether to permit LPTV stations on 

digital television channel 6 (82–88 

MHz) to operate dual digital and analog 

transmission systems in this manner. 

These stations are low power television 

stations and, following the eventual 

transition, will be operating solely in 

digital. The Commission sought 

comment on whether a digital LPTV 

station can provide an analog FM radiotype service as an ancillary or 

supplementary service consistent with 

the Communications Act and our rules. 

37. The Commission sought comment 

on the potential for a digital LPTV 

station’s analog FM radio-type service to 

interfere with or disrupt the LPTV 

station’s digital TV service. Section 

336(b)(2) of the Act provides that the 

Commission shall ‘‘limit the 

broadcasting of ancillary or 

supplementary services on designated 

frequencies so as to avoid derogation of 

any advanced television services, 

including high definition television 

broadcasts, that the Commission may 

require using such frequencies.’’ Would 

a digital LPTV station be able to operate 

an analog transmitter without 

interfering or derogating its co-channel 

digital operation? 

38. In addition, the Commission 

sought comment on the potential of 

interference to other primary licensees. 

Because an LPTV station operates on a 

secondary interference basis, the 

provision of an ancillary or 

supplementary service by the station 

must also be on a secondary basis. 

Therefore, it must protect the operations 

of all primary licensees. LPTV stations 

on channel 6 are second and third 

adjacent to FM channels 201 and 202, 

which are licensed on a primary basis 

for NCE FM radio operations. The 

Commission sought comment on the 

potential for interference from digital 

LPTV stations’ ancillary or 

supplementary analog FM radio-type 

operations to primary licensees, 

including NCE FM radio stations. It also 

sought comment on what rules we 

might adopt to prevent such 

interference. If it permits such 

operations, should the Commission 

prohibit any overlap between the 100 

dBu interfering contour of the channel 

6 LPTV station and the 60 dBu 

protected contour of the NCE FM 

station? In addition, should the 

Commission propose that if the 

operation of the LPTV station causes 

any actual interference to the 

transmission of any authorized FM 

broadcast station, the LPTV station 

would be required to eliminate the 

interference or immediately suspend 

operations? Would such a prohibition of 

contour overlap adequately prevent 

interference to primary licensees 

including NCE FM stations? 

39. If the Commission decides to 

permit analog FM radio-type operations 

by LPTV stations on an ancillary or 

supplementary basis, it sought comment 

on whether such operations should be 

subject to the part 73 rules applicable to 

FM radio stations. Section 336(b)(3) of 

the Communications Act mandates that 

the Commission ‘‘apply to any other 

ancillary or supplementary service such 

of the Commission’s regulations as are 

applicable to the offering of analogous 

services by any other person . . . .’’ 

The Commission sought comment on 

whether the analog FM radio-type 

service discussed herein is ‘‘analogous 

to other services subject to regulation by 

the Commission’’ within the meaning of 

section 336(b)(3) and the Commission’s 

implementing rules and, if so, on which 

of the part 73 rules should apply to the 

offering of an analog FM radio-type 

service. 

40. Finally, should the Commission 

permit the provision of an analog FM 

radio-type service on an ancillary or 

supplementary basis, it sought comment 

on whether that service would be 

subject to a five percent fee. The 

ancillary and supplementary rule 

provides that digital television stations 

‘‘must annually remit a fee of five 

percent of the gross revenues derived 

from all ancillary and supplementary 

services . . . which are feeable . . . .’’ 

‘‘Feeable’’ services are defined as ‘‘[a]ll 

ancillary or supplementary services for 

which payment of a subscription fee or 

charge is required in order to receive the 

service.’’ ‘‘Feeable’’ services are also 

defined as ‘‘[a]ny ancillary or 

supplementary service for which no 

payment is required from consumers in 

order to receive the service . . . if the 

DTV licensee directly or indirectly 

receives compensation from a third 

party in return for the transmission of 

material provided by that third party 

(other than commercial advertisements 

used to support broadcasting for which 

a subscription fee is not required).’’ The 

FM radio-type services provided by 

LPTV stations, thus far, appear to have 

been available to the general public 

without subscription. Given these 

definitions, the Commission sought 

comment on whether, and under what 

circumstances, an LPTV station’s 

ancillary or supplementary analog FM 

radio service should be deemed 

‘‘feeable’’ and subject to the five percent 

fee. 

Elimination of Analog Tuner 

Requirement 

41. The Commission sought comment 

on a proposed change to § 15.117(b) of 

our rules that would eliminate any 

obligation to integrate analog tuners in 

TV receivers. This proposed 

modification would allow TV broadcast 

receiver manufacturers and importers to 

ship and import devices without analog 

tuners before all LPTV and TV translator 

stations cease analog broadcasting, but 

would continue to require those devices 

to be able to receive all digital broadcast 

TV channels. The Commission asked if 

it should eliminate the analog tuner 

requirement before all broadcast TV 

stations cease broadcasting in analog. 

The Commission sought comment on 

the costs to manufacturers of continuing 

to build analog tuners into their devices 

in comparison with the benefits to 

consumers. If the Commission 

eliminates the analog tuner requirement, 

it sought comment on whether to 

modify § 15.117 to remove requirements 

that apply to analog tuners. 

42. In its waiver orders, the Media 

Bureau also conditioned the waivers on 

the recipients’ voluntary commitments 

to educate consumers and retailers 

about the devices’ limits and 

capabilities to prevent consumer 

confusion. If the Commission adopts its 

proposal, it sought comment on whether 

to impose similar consumer protection 

or education measures on broadcast 

receiver manufacturers and importers 

who market digital-only equipment 

prior to the LPTV and TV translator 

digital transition deadline. If so, should 

such measures only be required for a 

defined period of time? Or would such 

requirements be unnecessary because 

the effect on consumers by the time any 

elimination would become effective will 

be ‘‘de minimis’’? The Commission 

sought comment on its statutory 

authority to adopt consumer protection 

or education measures and on any other 

issues related to our analog tuner rule 

that we should consider. 

Additional Measures To Preserve LPTV 

and TV Translator Services 

43. Finally, the Commission sought 

comment on additional measures it 

should consider in order to mitigate the 

impact of the incentive auction on LPTV 

and TV translator stations and to help 

preserve the important services they 

provide. Commenters proposing other 

measures for consideration should 

identify the legal authority to take the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70832 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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

seq., has been amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(‘‘SBREFA’’), Pub. L. 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847 

(1996). The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of the 

Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 

(‘‘CWAAA’’). 

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

3 Id. 

proposed measures and describe in 

detail any perceived benefits and 

disadvantages of the measures 

advocated. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(‘‘RFA’’) 1 the 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 this 

Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

FCC 14–151, adopted October 9, 2014 in 

MB Docket No. 03–185 (Third 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 indicated on the first page of 

the Third NPRM. The Commission will 

send a copy of the Third NPRM 

including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA).2 In 

addition, the Third NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register.3

Need for and Objectives of the Proposed 

Rules 

On June 2, 2014, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) released its Incentive 

Auction Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 

657 (2014), adopting rules to implement 

the broadcast television spectrum 

incentive auction authorized by the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act (Spectrum Act). The 

Commission recognized in the Incentive 

Auction Report and Order that the 

incentive auction will have a significant 

impact on low power television stations 

and TV translator stations. As part of the 

incentive auction, the Commission will 

(1) conduct a ‘‘reverse auction,’’ 

whereby full power and Class A 

television stations may opt to relinquish 

some or all of their spectrum usage 

rights in exchange for incentive 

payments, and (2) reorganize or 

‘‘repack’’ the broadcast television bands 

in order to free up a portion of the ultra 

high frequency (UHF) band for new 

flexible uses. The Commission 

concluded in the Incentive Auction 

Report and Order that the Spectrum Act 

does not mandate the protection of 

LPTV and TV translator stations because 

the scope of mandatory protection 

under section 6403(b)(2) is limited to 

full power and Class A television 

stations. The Commission also declined 

to extend discretionary protection to 

these stations because of the detrimental 

impact such protection would have on 

the repacking process and the success of 

the incentive auction. Accordingly, 

some LPTV and TV translator stations 

will be displaced as a result of the 

repacking process and required to either 

find a new channel or discontinue 

operations. 

In order to mitigate the impact of the 

auction and repacking process on LPTV 

and TV translator stations, the 

Commission stated that it intended to 

initiate an LPTV/TV Translator 

rulemaking proceeding ‘‘to consider 

additional measures that may help 

alleviate the consequences of LPTV and 

TV translator station displacements 

resulting from the auction and 

repacking process. In this Third NPRM, 

the Commission considers the measures 

discussed in the Incentive Auction 

Report and Order as well as other 

measures to ensure the successful 

completion of the LPTV and TV 

translator digital transition and the 

continued viability of these services. 

In this Third NPRM, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether to extend 

the September 1, 2015 digital transition 

deadline for LPTV and TV translator 

stations. Because a significant number 

of stations have yet to complete their 

transition to digital service, and with 

less than a year before the digital 

transition deadline, the Commission 

believes that it is appropriate to 

reconsider whether the deadline should 

be postponed in light of the projected 

timing of its incentive auction. The 

Commission seeks comment on an 

appropriate new transition date and 

whether to revise its related rules to 

accommodate the change. 

The Commission also tentatively 

concludes to adopt rules to permit 

channel sharing by and between LPTV 

and TV translator stations, and seeks 

comment on a variety of rules to 

implement channel sharing for these 

stations. The Commission’s existing 

channel sharing rules apply only to full 

power and Class A stations bidding in 

the incentive auction. The Commission 

now considers creating channel sharing 

rules for LPTV and TV translator 

stations outside of the auction context. 

The Commission also tentatively 

concludes to create a ‘‘digital-to-digital 

replacement translator’’ service for full 

power stations that are reassigned to 

new channels in the incentive auction, 

either in the repacking process and or 

through a winning UHF-to-VHF or highVHF-to-low-VHF bid, if those full power 

stations discover that a portion of their 

existing pre-auction service area will no 

longer be able to receive service after the 

station transitions to its new channel. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

various rules and policies to implement 

the new digital-to-digital replacement 

translator service. 

In this Third NPRM, the Commission 

seeks comment on a proposed use of the 

incentive auction optimization model to 

assist LPTV and TV translator stations 

displaced by the incentive auction 

repacking process to identify new 

channels. 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on whether to permit digital LPTV 

stations to operate analog FM radio-type 

services on an ancillary or 

supplementary basis. Currently, some 

analog LPTV stations licensed on 

channel 6 are operating with very 

limited visual programming and an 

audio signal that is programmed like a 

radio station. FM radio listeners are able 

to receive the audio portion of these 

LPTV stations at 87.76 MHz, which is 

adjacent to noncommercial educational 

(NCE) FM channel 201 (88.1 MHz). 

When these LPTV stations convert to 

digital, however, they are unable to 

continue providing such radio service 

because the digital audio portion of 

their signal can no longer be received by 

standard FM receivers. Anticipating the 

end of their FM radio-type operations, 

LPTV stations have been proposing 

engineering solutions to allow their 

continued operation following their 

conversion to digital. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether to permit 

LPTV stations to operate dual digital 

and analog transmission systems in this 

manner and whether the provision of an 

analog FM radio-type service is what 

Congress intended when it passed the 

1996 Telecom Act to allow digital 

television stations, including LPTV 

stations, to offer ancillary or 

supplementary services. 

In this Third NPRM, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether to eliminate 

the requirement in § 15.117(b) of our 

rules that TV receivers include analog 

tuners. This proposed modification 

would allow TV broadcast receiver 

manufacturers and importers to build 

and import devices without analog 

tuners before all LPTV and TV translator 

stations cease analog broadcasting, but 

would continue to require those devices 

to be able to receive all digital broadcast 

TV channels. 

Finally, the Commission invites input 

on any other measures it should 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70833 

4 Id. at 603(b)(3). 

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

6 Id. at 601(3) (incorporating by reference the 

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

632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory 

definition of a small business applies ‘‘unless an 

agency, after consultation with the Office of 

Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 

and after opportunity for public comment, 

establishes one or more definitions of such term 

which are appropriate to the activities of the agency 

and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal 

Register.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 

7 15 U.S.C. 632. Application of the statutory 

criteria of dominance in its field of operation and 

independence are sometimes difficult to apply in 

the context of broadcast television. Accordingly, the 

Commission’s statistical account of television 

stations may be over-inclusive. 

8U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 

515120 Television Broadcasting, http://

www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/

naicsrch?code=515120&search=2012 (last visited 

Mar. 6, 2014). 

9 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 515120) (updated 

for inflation in 2010). 

10See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station 

Totals as of June 30, 2014 (rel. July 9, 2014). 

11We recognize that BIA’s estimate differs 

slightly from the FCC total given the information 

provided above. 

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

when one concern controls or has the power to 

control the other, or a third party or parties controls 

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

121.103(a)(1). 

13See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station 

Totals as of June 30, 2014 (rel. July 9, 2014). 

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

15See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station 

Totals as of June 30, 2014 (rel. July 9, 2014). 

16 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 334310. 

17 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 334220. 

18 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 334310. 

19Economics and Statistics Administration, 

Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1997 Economic Census, Industry Series— 

Manufacturing, Audio and Video Equipment 

Manufacturing, Table 4 at 9 (1999). The amount of 

500 employees was used to estimate the number of 

small business firms because the relevant Census 

categories stopped at 499 employees and began at 

500 employees. No category for 750 employees 

existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is 

possible to calculate with the available information. 

20 13 C.F.R 121.201, NAICS Code 334220. 

consider to further mitigate the impact 

of the auction and repacking process on 

LPTV and TV translator stations. 

Legal Basis 

The authority for the action proposed 

in this rulemaking is contained in 

sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 5(c)(1), 7, 301, 

302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 312, 316, 319, 

324, 332, 336, and 337 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C 

151, 154(i) and (j), 155(c)(1), 157, 301, 

302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 312, 316, 319, 

324, 332, 336, and 337. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rules Will Apply 

The RFA directs the Commission to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that will be affected by the 

proposed rules, if adopted.4 The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

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

organization,’’ and ‘‘small government 

jurisdiction.’’ 5 In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act.6 A small 

business concern is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA.7

Television Broadcasting. This 

economic census category ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

broadcasting images together with 

sound. These establishments operate 

television broadcasting studios and 

facilities for the programming and 

transmission of programs to the 

public.’’ 8 The SBA has created the 

following small business size standard 

for Television Broadcasting firms: Those 

having $14 million or less in annual 

receipts.9 The Commission has 

estimated the number of licensed 

commercial television stations to be 

1,387.10 In addition, according to 

Commission staff review of the BIA 

Advisory Services, LLC’s Media Access 

Pro Television Database on March 28, 

2012, about 950 of an estimated 1,300 

commercial television stations (or 

approximately 73 percent) had revenues 

of $14 million or less.11 We therefore 

estimate that the majority of commercial 

television broadcasters are small 

entities. 

We note, however, that in assessing 

whether a business concern qualifies as 

small under the above definition, 

business (control) affiliations must be 

included.12 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. 

In addition, the Commission has 

estimated the number of licensed 

noncommercial educational (‘‘NCE’’) 

television stations to be 395.13 These 

stations are non-profit, and therefore 

considered to be small entities.14

There are also 2,460 LPTV stations, 

including Class A stations, and 3838 TV 

translator stations.15 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. 

Electronics Equipment Manufacturers. 

Rules adopted in this proceeding could 

apply to manufacturers of television 

receiving equipment and other types of 

consumer electronics equipment. The 

SBA has developed definitions of small 

entity for manufacturers of audio and 

video equipment 16 as well as radio and 

television broadcasting and wireless 

communications equipment.17 These 

categories both include all such 

companies employing 750 or fewer 

employees. The Commission has not 

developed a definition of small entities 

applicable to manufacturers of 

electronic equipment used by 

consumers, as compared to industrial 

use by television licensees and related 

businesses. Therefore, we will utilize 

the SBA definitions applicable to 

manufacturers of audio and visual 

equipment and radio and television 

broadcasting and wireless 

communications equipment, since these 

are the two closest NAICS Codes 

applicable to the consumer electronics 

equipment manufacturing industry. 

However, these NAICS categories are 

broad and specific figures are not 

available as to how many of these 

establishments manufacture consumer 

equipment. According to the SBA’s 

regulations, an audio and visual 

equipment manufacturer must have 750 

or fewer employees in order to qualify 

as a small business concern.18 Census 

Bureau data indicates that there are 554 

U.S. establishments that manufacture 

audio and visual equipment, and that 

542 of these establishments have fewer 

than 500 employees and would be 

classified as small entities.19 The 

remaining 12 establishments have 500 

or more employees; however, we are 

unable to determine how many of those 

have fewer than 750 employees and 

therefore, also qualify as small entities 

under the SBA definition. Under the 

SBA’s regulations, a radio and television 

broadcasting and wireless 

communications equipment 

manufacturer must also have 750 or 

fewer employees in order to qualify as 

a small business concern.20 Census 

Bureau data indicates that there 1,215 

U.S. establishments that manufacture 

radio and television broadcasting and 

wireless communications equipment, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70834 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

21Economics and Statistics Administration, 

Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1997 Economic Census, Industry Series— 

Manufacturing, Radio and Television Broadcasting 

and Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, Table 4 at 9 (1999). The amount of 

500 employees was used to estimate the number of 

small business firms because the relevant Census 

categories stopped at 499 employees and began at 

500 employees. No category for 750 employees 

existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is 

possible to calculate with the available information. 22 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)–(c)(4). 

and that 1,150 of these establishments 

have fewer than 500 employees and 

would be classified as small entities.21

The remaining 65 establishments have 

500 or more employees; however, we 

are unable to determine how many of 

those have fewer than 750 employees 

and therefore, also qualify as small 

entities under the SBA definition. We 

therefore conclude that there are no 

more than 542 small manufacturers of 

audio and visual electronics equipment 

and no more than 1,150 small 

manufacturers of radio and television 

broadcasting and wireless 

communications equipment for 

consumer/household use. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

This Third NRPM proposes the 

following new or revised reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements. 

To implement channel sharing 

between LPTV and TV translator 

stations, stations will follow a two-step 

process proposed by the Commission— 

first filing an application for 

construction permit (Form 346) and 

then application for license (Form 347). 

Stations terminating operations to share 

a channel would be required to submit 

a termination notice pursuant to the 

existing Commission rule. These 

existing forms and collections will need 

to be revised to accommodate these new 

channel-sharing related filings and to 

expand the burden estimates. In 

addition, the Commission proposes that 

channel sharing stations submit their 

channel sharing agreements (CSAs) with 

the Commission and be required to 

include certain provisions in their 

CSAs. The existing collection 

concerning the execution and filing of 

CSAs will need to be revised. 

To implement its proposed new 

digital-to-digital replacement translator 

service, the Commission will need to 

revise its existing replacement translator 

forms (346 and 347), rules and 

collections and to expand the burden 

estimates. 

Should the Commission eliminate its 

rule requiring that television receivers 

include an analog tuner, prior to the 

time that all broadcasters are operating 

digital-only, it is considering requiring 

that all broadcast receiver 

manufacturers and importers who 

market digital-only equipment prior to 

the LPTV and TV translator digital 

transition deadline educate consumers 

and retailers about the devices’ limits 

and capabilities to prevent consumer 

confusion. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities.22

The Commission’s proposal to extend 

the September 1, 2015 LPTV and TV 

Translator digital transition date will 

greatly minimize the impact on small 

entities having to complete their 

transition to digital. Instead of having to 

possibly endure the expense of having 

to construct a digital facility only to be 

displaced by the incentive auction 

reorganization of spectrum and having 

to finance the construction of a second 

digital facility, the Commission’s 

proposal will allow small entities to 

wait until the incentive auction is 

complete and to determine the impact 

on their digital transition plan. 

The Commission’s proposal to allow 

LPTV and TV Translator to share 

channels between themselves and with 

other television services would greatly 

minimize the impact on small entities. 

Many stations will be displaced by the 

incentive auction reorganization of 

spectrum and allowing these stations to 

channel share will reduce the cost of 

having to build a new facility to replace 

the one that was displaced. Stations can 

share in the cost of building a shared 

channel facility and will experience cost 

savings by operating a shared 

transmission facility. In addition, 

channel sharing is voluntary and only 

those stations that determine that 

channel sharing will be advantageous 

will enter into this arrangement. 

The Commission’s proposed licensing 

and operating rules for channel sharing 

between LPTV and TV translator 

stations and other television services 

were designed to minimize impact on 

small entities. The rules provide a 

streamlined method for reviewing and 

licensing channel sharing for these 

stations as well as a streamlined method 

for resolving cases where a channel 

sharing station loses its license on the 

shared channel. These rules were 

designed to reduce the burden and cost 

on small entities. 

The Commission is aware that some 

full service television stations operate 

with limited budgets. Accordingly, 

every effort was taken to propose rules 

for the new digital-to-digital 

replacement translator that impose the 

least possible burden on all licensees, 

including small entities. Existing forms 

will be used to implement this new 

service thereby reducing the burden on 

small entities. 

The Commission proposes that 

applications for digital-to-digital 

replacement translators should be given 

licensing priority over all other low 

power television and TV translator 

applications except displacement 

applications for analog-to-digital 

replacement translators (for which they 

would have co-equal priority). The 

Commission could have proposed 

allowing no such priority, but this 

alternative was not considered because 

it would result in many more mutually 

exclusive filings and delay the 

implementation of this valuable service. 

The Commission also proposes to 

limit the eligibility for such service to 

only those full-service television 

stations that can demonstrate that a 

portion of their digital service area will 

not be served by their post-incentive 

auction facilities and for translators to 

be used for that purpose. Alternatively, 

the Commission could have allowed all 

interested parties to file for new 

translators, however such approach was 

not considered because it would also 

result in numerous mutually exclusive 

filings and would greatly delay 

implementation of this needed service. 

The Commission further proposes that 

the service area of the replacement 

translator should be limited to only a 

demonstrated loss area and seeks 

comment on whether a replacement 

translator should be permitted to 

expand slightly a full-service station’s 

post-incentive auction service area. 

Once again, the Commission could have 

allowed stations to file for expansion of 

their existing service areas but such an 

alternative was not seriously considered 

because it could result in the use of 

valuable spectrum that the Commission 

seeks to preserve for other uses. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70835 

The Commission proposes that 

replacement digital television translator 

stations should be licensed with 

‘‘secondary’’ frequency use status. The 

Commission could have proposed that 

replacement translators be licensed on a 

primary frequency use basis, but this 

alternative was not proposed because it 

would result in numerous interference 

and licensing problems. 

The Commission proposes that, 

unlike other television translator 

licenses, the license for the replacement 

translator should be associated with the 

full power station’s main license. 

Therefore, the replacement translator 

license could not be separately assigned 

or transferred and would be renewed or 

assigned along with the full-service 

station’s main license. Alternatively, the 

Commission could have proposed that 

the replacement translator license be 

separate from the main station’s license 

however this approach was not 

seriously considered because it could 

result in licenses being sold or modified 

to serve areas outside of the loss area, 

and thus would undermine the purpose 

of this new service. 

The Commission also tentatively 

concludes that the other rules associated 

with television translator stations 

should apply to the new replacement 

translator service including those rules 

concerning the filing of applications, 

payment of filing fees, processing of 

applications, power limits, out-ofchannel emission limits, call signs, 

unattended operation, and time of 

operation. The alternative could have 

been to design all new rules for this 

service, but that alternative was not 

considered as it would adversely impact 

stations ability to quickly implement 

these new translators. 

The Commission’s proposal to 

discontinue accepting applications for 

analog-to-digital replacement translators 

may impact small entities. However, the 

Commission determined that the need 

to prevent a negative impact on the 

post-incentive auction displacement 

window that could occur if the precious 

few channels were used for this service 

rather than for use by displaced LPTV 

and TV translator stations outweighed 

the limited impact on full power 

stations seeking a replacement translator 

given that the DTV transition was 

completed over five years ago. 

The Commission’s efforts to assist 

LPTV and TV translator stations in 

finding displacement channels after the 

incentive auction will greatly benefit 

small entities. By helping stations find 

new channels from an ever shrinking 

universe of channels that will remain 

after the incentive auction 

reorganization of channels, the 

Commission will save small entities 

time and money by not having to 

consult with an engineer to make such 

determinations. Such savings can then 

be used to construct and operate the 

displacement facility. 

The Commission seeking comment on 

whether to permit operation of analog 

radio services by digital LPTV stations 

as ancillary or supplementary services 

could greatly benefit small entity LPTV 

stations by allowing them to find new 

business operations and sources of 

income. LPTV stations could establish a 

separate radio operation on an ancillary 

basis in addition to their primary digital 

television service. Such ancillary 

operation could provide a separate 

source of income to supplement their 

television operation and provide a 

separate audience for their programming 

and advertising. 

The Commission seeking comment on 

whether to permit equipment 

manufacturers to forego having to 

include an analog tuner in their 

television sets could benefit small entity 

equipment manufacturers. Having to 

include an analog tuner increases the 

cost of a television sets and equipment 

manufacturers, some of whom may be 

small entities, would enjoy a cost 

savings as a result of the Commission’s 

proposal. Any impact that not including 

an analog tuner in new television sets 

may have upon consumers should be 

minimal now that the digital transition 

has been complete for over five years 

and would be outweighed by the benefit 

of less expensive digital television sets. 

Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the 

Commission’s Proposals 

None. 

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Part 15 

Communications equipment. 

47 CFR Part 74 

Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

parts 15 and 74 as follows: 

PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY 

DEVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 15 

continues to read as follows: 

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

307, 336, 544a, and 549. 

■ 2. Amend § 15.117 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 15.117 TV broadcast receivers. 

* * * * * 

(b) TV broadcast receivers shall be 

capable of adequately receiving all 

digital channels allocated by the 

Commission to the television broadcast 

service. 

* * * * * 

PART 74—EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, 

AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST 

AND OTHER PROGRAM 

DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 74 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 

309, 336 and 554 

■ 4. Amend § 74.731 by revising 

paragraph (l) to read as follows: 

§ 74.731 Purpose and permissible service. 

* * * * * 

(l) After 11:59 p.m. local time on 

September 1, 2015, Class A television 

stations may no longer operate any 

facility in analog (NTSC) mode. After 

11:59 p.m. local time on (insert new 

transition date), low power television 

and TV translator stations may no 

longer operate any facility in analog 

(NTSC) mode. 

■ 5. Amend § 74.787 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 74.787 Digital licensing. 

(a) * * * 

(5) Applications for analog-to-digital 

and digital-to-digital replacement 

television translators. 

(i) Applications for new analog-todigital replacement translators will not 

be accepted. Displacement applications 

for analog-to-digital replacement 

translators will continue to be accepted. 

An application for a digital-to-digital 

replacement translator may be filed 

beginning the first day of the low power 

television and TV translator 

displacement window set forth in 

§ 73.3700(g)(1) of this chapter to one 

year after the completion of the 39 

month transition period set forth in 

§ 73.3700(b)(4) of this chapter. 

Applications for digital-to-digital 

replacement translators filed during the 

displacement window will be 

considered filed on the last day of the 

window. Following the completion of 

the displacement window, applications 

for digital-to-digital replacement 

translators will be accepted on a firstcome, first-serve basis. 

(ii) Applications for analog-to-digital 

replacement television translator shall 

be given processing priority over all 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70836 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

other low power television and TV 

translator applications except 

displacement applications (with which 

they shall have co-equal priority) as set 

forth in § 73.3572(a)(4)(ii) of this 

chapter. Applications for digital-todigital replacement television translator 

shall be given processing priority over 

all other low power television and TV 

translator applications and shall have 

co-equal priority with displacement 

applications filed for analog-to-digital 

replacement translators. 

(iii) The service area of the digital-todigital replacement translator shall be 

limited to only a demonstrated loss area 

within the full-service station’s preauction digital service area. ‘‘Preauction digital service area’’ is defined 

as the geographic area within the full 

power station’s noise-limited contour 

(of its facility licensed by the preauction licensing deadline prior to the 

incentive auction conducted under Title 

VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and 

Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112– 

96)). An applicant for a digital-to-digital 

replacement television translator may 

propose a de minimis expansion of its 

full power pre-auction digital service 

area upon demonstrating that the 

expansion is necessary to replace its 

digital loss area. 

(iv) The license for the analog-todigital and digital-to-digital replacement 

television translator will be associated 

with the full power station’s main 

license, will be assigned the same call 

sign, may not be separately assigned or 

transferred, and will be renewed with 

the full power station’s main license. 

(v) Analog-to-digital and digital-todigital replacement television 

translators may only operate on those 

television channels designated for 

broadcast television use following 

completion of the auctions conducted 

under Title VI of the Middle Class Tax 

Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 

(Pub. L. 112–96). 

(vi) Each original construction permit 

for the construction of an analog-todigital or digital-to-digital replacement 

television translator station shall specify 

a period of three years from the date of 

issuance of the original construction 

permit within which construction shall 

be completed and application for 

license filed. The provisions of 

§ 74.788(c) of this chapter shall apply 

for stations seeking additional time to 

complete construction of their 

replacement television translator 

station. 

(vii) Applications for analog-to-digital 

and digital-to-digital replacement 

television translators shall be filed on 

FCC Form 346 and shall be treated as an 

application for minor change. Mutually 

exclusive applications shall be resolved 

via the Commission’s part 1 and 

broadcast competitive bidding rules, 

§ 1.2100–§ 1.2114. and § 73.5000– 

§ 73.5009 of this chapter. 

(viii) The following sections are 

applicable to analog-to-digital and 

digital-to-digital replacement television 

translator stations: 

§ 73.1030 Notifications concerning 

interference to radio astronomy, 

research and receiving installations. 

§ 74.703 Interference 

§ 74.709 Land mobile station protection. 

§ 74.734 Attended and unattended 

operation 

§ 74.735 Power Limitations 

§ 74. 751 Modification of transmission 

systems. 

§ 74.763 Time of Operation 

§ 74.765 Posting of station and operator 

licenses. 

§ 74.769 Copies of rules. 

§ 74.780 Broadcast regulations 

applicable to translators, low power, 

and booster stations (except 

§ 73.653—Operation of TV aural and 

visual transmitters and § 73.1201— 

Station identification). 

§ 74.781 Station records. 

§ 74.784 Rebroadcasts. 

■ 6. Amend § 74.788 by revising 

paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(3) and (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 74.788 Digital construction period. 

* * * * * 

(c) Authority delegated. (1) For the 

September 1, 2015 Class A television 

digital construction deadline, authority 

is delegated to the Chief, Media Bureau 

to grant an extension of time of up to six 

months beyond September 1, 2015 upon 

demonstration by the digital licensee or 

permittee that failure to meet the 

construction deadline is due to 

circumstances that are either 

unforeseeable or beyond the licensee’s 

control where the licensee has taken all 

reasonable steps to resolve the problem 

expeditiously. For the (insert new 

transition date) low power television 

and TV translator station digital 

construction deadline, authority is 

delegated to the Chief, Media Bureau to 

grant an extension of time of up to six 

months beyond (insert new transition 

date) upon demonstration by the digital 

licensee or permittee that failure to meet 

the construction deadline is due to 

circumstances that are either 

unforeseeable or beyond the licensee’s 

control where the licensee has taken all 

reasonable steps to resolve the problem 

expeditiously. 

* * * * * 

(3) Applications for extension of time 

filed by Class A television stations shall 

be filed not later than May 1, 2015 

absent a showing of sufficient reasons 

for late filing. Applications for 

extension of time filed by low power 

television and TV translator stations 

shall be filed not later than (insert new 

filing deadline) absent a showing of 

sufficient reasons for late filing. 

(d) For Class A television digital 

construction deadlines occurring after 

May 1, 2015, the tolling provisions of 

§ 73.3598 of this chapter shall apply. 

For low power television and TV 

translator digital construction deadlines 

occurring after (insert new transition 

date), the tolling provisions of § 73.3598 

of this chapter shall apply. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Add § 74.800 to read as follows 

§ 74.800 Low power television channel 

sharing. 

(a) Channel sharing generally. (1) 

Subject to the provisions of this section, 

low power television and TV translator 

stations may voluntarily seek 

Commission approval to share a single 

six megahertz channel with other low 

power television, TV translator, full 

power television and Class A television 

station. 

(2) Each station sharing a single 

channel pursuant to this section shall 

continue to be licensed and operated 

separately, have its own call sign and be 

separately subject to all of the 

Commission’s obligations, rules, and 

policies. 

(b) Licensing of channel sharing 

stations. The LPTV or TV translator 

channel sharing station relinquishing its 

channel must file an application for the 

initial channel sharing construction 

permit (FCC Form 346), include a copy 

of the channel sharing agreement as an 

exhibit, and cross reference the other 

sharing station(s). Any engineering 

changes necessitated by the channel 

sharing arrangement may be included in 

the station’s application. Upon 

initiation of shared operations, the 

station relinquishing its channel must 

notify the Commission that it has 

terminated operation pursuant to 

section 73.1750 of this part and each 

sharing station must file an application 

for license (FCC Form 347). 

(c) Deadline for implementing 

channel sharing arrangements. Channel 

sharing arrangements submitted 

pursuant to this section must be 

implemented within three years of the 

grant of the initial channel sharing 

construction permit. 

(d) Channel sharing agreements. (1) 

Channel sharing agreements submitted 

under this section must contain 

provisions outlining each licensee’s 

rights and responsibilities regarding: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70837 

(i) Access to facilities, including 

whether each licensee will have 

unrestrained access to the shared 

transmission facilities; 

(ii) Operation, maintenance, repair, 

and modification of facilities, including 

a list of all relevant equipment, a 

description of each party’s financial 

obligations, and any relevant notice 

provisions; and 

(iii) Termination or transfer/

assignment of rights to the shared 

licenses, including the ability of a new 

licensee to assume the existing CSA. 

(2) Channel sharing agreements 

submitted under this section must 

include a provision affirming 

compliance with the channel sharing 

requirements in this section including a 

provision requiring that each channel 

sharing licensee shall retain spectrum 

usage rights adequate to ensure a 

sufficient amount of the shared channel 

capacity to allow it to provide at least 

one Standard Definition (SD) program 

stream at all times. 

(e) Termination and assignment/

transfer of shared channel. If a channel 

sharing station’s license authorized 

under this section is terminated, the 

remaining channel sharing station or 

stations will continue to have rights to 

their portion(s) of the shared channel. 

The license(s) of the remaining channel 

sharing station(s) shall be modified to 

reflect that its channel is no longer 

shared with the terminated licensee. In 

the event that only one station remains 

on the shared channel, that station may 

request that the shared channel be redesignated as a non-shared channel or 

could enter into a CSA with another 

station and resume shared operations, 

subject to Commission approval. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27895 Filed 11–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[WT Docket No. 10–4; FCC 14–138] 

The Commission’s Rules To Improve 

Wireless Coverage Through the Use of 

Signal Boosters 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission 

ACTION: Further notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In the Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether to retain the 

‘‘personal use’’ restriction for ProviderSpecific Consumer Signal Boosters. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

December 29, 2014 and reply comments 

on or before January 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 10–4 or 

FCC 14–138, by any of the following 

methods: 

D Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

D Mail: FCC Headquarters, 445 12th 

St. SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

D 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: 

Amanda Huetinck of the Mobility 

Division, Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, at (202) 418–7090 or 

Amanda.Huetinck@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is the 

Commission’s Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, in WT Docket 

No. 10–4, FCC 14–138, adopted 

September 19, 2014, and released 

September 23, 2014. The Order on 

Reconsideration that was adopted 

concurrently with the Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

The full text of that document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street 

SW., Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 

20554, or by downloading the text from 

the Commission’s Web site at http://

www.fcc.gov/document/signal-boostersorder-reconsideration-and-fnprm. The 

complete text also may be purchased 

from the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Suite 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. 

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). 

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

D 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. 

D 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. 

D Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

D U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction and Background 

1. In this Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, we seek comment on 

whether to retain the ‘‘personal use’’ 

restriction for Provider-Specific 

Consumer Signal Boosters. 

2. The Commission released the 

Signal Boosters NPRM on April 6, 2011, 

whereby it proposed rules to facilitate 

the development and deployment of 

well-designed signal boosters. On 

February 20, 2013, in the Signal 

Boosters Report and Order (Report and 

Order), the Commission adopted the 

new regulatory framework to allow 

consumers to realize the benefits of 

using signal boosters while preventing, 

controlling, and, if necessary, resolving 

interference to wireless networks. In the 

Report and Order, the Commission 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS