76282 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

application to the coordinator for 

review. 

(3) If, in the coordinator’s assessment, 

an application is in compliance with all 

applicable rules, the coordinator shall 

submit the application to the 

Commission for processing. The 

coordinator shall also submit along with 

the application a statement that 

indicates the application is compliant 

with all applicable rules and 

recommends that the FCC grant the 

application. 

(b) The functions and 

recommendations of a frequency 

coordinator under this section are 

advisory in nature for the applicant and 

the Commission, and its 

recommendations are not binding upon 

either the applicant or the Commission. 

If there is a disagreement between an 

applicant and a coordinator regarding 

the coordinator’s recommendation, the 

coordinator and applicant are jointly 

responsible for taking action to resolve 

the disagreement, up to and including 

notifying the Commission that the 

disagreement cannot be resolved. In the 

event of such an irresolvable dispute, 

the applicant may direct the reviewing 

coordinator to submit the application to 

the Commission without the 

coordinator’s recommendation. Such an 

application should indicate that the 

applicant sought frequency coordination 

and be accompanied by a statement 

from the coordinator explaining its 

reasons for not recommending the 

proposed operations. The affected 

applicant shall bear the burden of 

proceeding and the burden of proof in 

requesting that the Commission 

overturn a coordinator’s 

recommendation. 

(c) An applicant that files any of the 

following types of applications must 

first submit them to a certified 

frequency coordinator in the Cellular 

Service for review: 

(1) A major modification application 

claiming at least 130 square kilometers 

(50 contiguous square miles) of 

Unserved Area as Cellular Geographic 

Service Area (CGSA); 

(2) An application seeking 

authorization for a new Cellular system; 

and 

(3) Any other application when 

submitted together with an application 

type that is listed in paragraph (c)(1) or 

(2) of this section. 

(d) Within one business day of 

making a recommendation, a frequency 

coordinator must notify and provide the 

information listed in paragraph (e) of 

this section to all other coordinators 

who are certified to review Cellular 

applications. A coordinator that does 

not make any recommendations 

regarding Cellular applications on a 

given day must notify all other certified 

coordinators for the Cellular Service of 

such fact. A notification under this 

paragraph (d) of this section must be 

made to all the other certified 

coordinators at approximately the same 

time and can be made using any method 

that ensures compliance with this samebusiness-day requirement. 

(e) At a minimum, the following 

information must be included in each 

notification that is required under 

paragraph (d) of this section: 

(1) Name of the applicant; 

(2) The type of application under 

paragraph (c) of this section; 

(3) CMA designator(s) pertaining to 

where the applicant is expanding its 

CGSA or starting a new system; 

(4) For an application type under 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the 

license (call sign) at issue, and the CMA 

description and channel block; 

(5) New or modified transmitter 

location(s) along with coordinates and 

antenna height; 

(6) Effective radiated power (ERP), 

antenna center of radiation height above 

average terrain (HAAT), height above 

sea level (HASL) or height above mean 

sea level (HAMSL) and distance to the 

SAB and to the CGSA for the eight 

radials of each new/modified location; 

and 

(7) Date and time of the 

recommendation. 

(f) Upon request, each frequency 

coordinator for the Cellular Service 

must provide any additional 

information requested by another 

certified coordinator regarding a 

Cellular application already reviewed 

by the coordinator but still pending 

before the Commission. 

(g) It is the responsibility of each 

frequency coordinator to ensure that its 

recommendations do not conflict with 

the recommendations of any other 

certified coordinator for the Cellular 

Service. Should a conflict arise, the 

affected coordinators are jointly 

responsible for taking action to resolve 

the conflict, up to and including 

notifying the Commission that an 

application may have to be returned. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29848 Filed 12–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 27 and 73 

[GN Docket No. 12–268; ET Docket Nos. 

13–26 and 14–14; FCC 14–157] 

Expanding the Economic and 

Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum 

Through Incentive Auctions 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document seeks 

comment on proposed rules to govern 

the interference relationship between 

broadcast television and wireless 

service in the 600 MHz Band following 

the incentive auction. The Commission 

anticipates that after the auction some 

broadcast television stations may 

operate on channels in the 600 MHz 

Band as a result of market variation. The 

Commission proposes to allow no 

harmful interference from wireless 

operations to reception of television 

service; the Commission proposes to 

require wireless licensees to use 

proposed OET Bulletin No. 74 (OET–74) 

before deploying base stations; and 

seeks comment on how the ISIX 

Methodology and inputs adopted in the 

companion Second Report & Order can 

be adapted to predict inter-service 

interference between wireless services 

and analog television stations in Canada 

and Mexico, for purposes of identifying 

license impairments during the auction. 

In addition, the Commission proposes 

not to permit broadcast licensees who 

operate in the 600 MHz Band to expand 

their noise-limited or protected contours 

if doing so would increase the potential 

for interference to a wireless licensee’s 

service area. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before January 21, 2015, and reply 

comments must be filed on or before 

February 5, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by GN Docket No. 12–268 and 

ET Docket Nos. 13–26 and 14–14, by 

any of the following methods: 

D Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

D Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

D Email: [Optional: Include the Email 

address only if you plan to accept 

comments from the general public]. 

Include the docket number(s) in the 

subject line of the message. 

D Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing 

address for paper, disk or CD–ROM 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76283 

submissions needed/requested by your 

Bureau or Office. Do not include the 

Office of the Secretary’s mailing address 

here.] 

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: 

Aspasia Paroutsas, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, 202–418–7285, 

Aspasia.Paroutsas@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 

418–2989. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Report and Order and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, GN Docket no. 

12–268 and ET Docket No. 13–26 and 

14–14; FCC 14–157, adopted October 

16, 2014, and released October 17, 2014. 

The full text of this document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center (Room CY–A257), 

445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20554. The complete text of this 

document also may be purchased from 

the Commission’s copy contractor, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street 

SW., Room, CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554. The full text may also be 

downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. 

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). 

Summary of the Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

1. In this Further Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making (FNPRM), the Commission 

seeks comment on proposed rules to 

govern the interference relationship 

between broadcast television and 

wireless service in the 600 MHz Band 

following the incentive auction. As 

discussed in the companion Second 

Report & Order, the Commission 

anticipates that after the auction some 

broadcast television stations may 

operate on channels in the 600 MHz 

Band as a result of market variation. The 

Commission proposes to allow no 

harmful interference from wireless 

operations to reception of television 

service. There are two scenarios that 

present the potential for harmful 

interference to television stations, 

depending on whether a station is 

assigned to the 600 MHz Band downlink 

or uplink spectrum. First, if a station is 

located in the downlink spectrum, we 

will need to protect against harmful 

interference from wireless base stations 

to TV receivers (Case 3). Second, if a 

station is located in the uplink 

spectrum, the Commission will need to 

consider interference from wireless user 

equipment to TV receivers (Case 4). As 

an initial matter, this FNPRM addresses 

the level of inter-service interference to 

television stations in the 600 MHz Band 

that should be permitted. The 

Commission also proposes a 

methodology for new 600 MHz Band 

licensees to predict whether wireless 

operations will interfere with television 

stations in the 600 MHz Band in order 

to identify the ‘‘permitted boundaries’’ 

of wireless license areas following the 

auction. Specifically, for Case 3 

scenarios, the Commission seeks 

comment on requiring wireless 

licensees to use proposed OET Bulletin 

No. 74 (OET–74). For Case 4 scenarios, 

the Commission proposes to adopt the 

same fixed separation distances adopted 

in the companion Second Report & 

Order for use in the incentive auction. 

In the event that wireless operations 

actually cause harmful interference to 

television reception in the 600 MHz 

Band where interference was not 

predicted to occur, we also propose to 

require wireless providers to take action 

to eliminate the interference. 

2. The Commission also seeks 

comment in this FNPRM on procedures 

to prevent inter-service interference 

following the incentive auction. It 

proposes to require wireless providers 

to analyze potential interference to any 

co-channel or adjacent channel 

television station in the 600 MHz Band 

within a set distance using the 

methodology in OET–74 before 

deploying base stations, regardless of 

whether the wireless license area was 

identified as ‘‘impaired’’ in the auction. 

The Commission also proposes to allow 

broadcast television stations in the 600 

MHz Band to modify their facilities only 

to the degree that doing so does not 

extend their contours in the direction of 

a co-channel or adjacent-channel 600 

MHz Band wireless license area within 

a set distance. 

3. This FNPRM also seeks comment 

on how the ISIX Methodology and 

inputs adopted in the companion 

Second Report & Order for predicting 

interference to wireless operations from 

television stations (Cases 1 and 2) 

should be modified to predict harmful 

interference that LPTV and TV 

translator stations may cause to 600 

MHz Band wireless service as it is 

deployed following the auction. Further, 

the Commission proposes to allow new 

600 MHz Band wireless licensees that 

intend to deploy facilities during the 39- 

month Post Auction Transition Period 

to use the ISIX Methodology and inputs, 

as detailed in the proposed OET–74, to 

determine whether there is any 

potential for harmful interference to a 

television station that has not yet 

cleared its pre-auction channel in the 

600 MHz Band. 

4. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on how the ISIX Methodology 

and inputs adopted in the companion 

Second Report & Order can be adapted 

to predict inter-service interference 

between wireless services and analog 

television stations in Canada and 

Mexico, for purposes of identifying 

license impairments during the auction. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76284 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Protecting Television Stations in the 

600 MHz Band From Inter-Service 

Interference 

Proposed Threshold for Interference 

From Wireless Operations to Television 

Stations in the 600 MHz Band 

5. The Commission proposes to 

establish a zero percent threshold for 

harmful interference. Under this 

approach, 600 MHz Band wireless 

licensees would not be permitted to 

cause harmful interference within the 

service area of a full power station or 

the protected contour of a Class A 

station, to the degree it affects 

population within that service area or 

protected contour. 

6. The Commission proposes this 

threshold for a number of reasons. First, 

a different, more cautious approach may 

be warranted than in the context of 

preventing harmful interference 

between television stations because this 

will be the first time such proposed 

methodology is used. Second, the 

Commission does not believe that a zero 

percent interference threshold would 

undermine the goals for the incentive 

auction. Third, the Commission is 

concerned that there is a potential for 

significant aggregate new interference 

from wireless operations to television 

stations if it set a de minimis threshold. 

The is no safety valve measures 

available to address aggregate wireless 

interference like they are in addressing 

aggregate television-to-television 

interference, and the risk of significant 

levels of new aggregate wireless 

interference is higher. Six megahertz 

channels in the television bands are 

aligned, and only a limited number of 

television stations can operate on the 

same or adjacent channels in nearby 

areas. In contrast, varying degrees of 

spectral overlap between six-megahertz 

television channels and five-megahertz 

wireless spectrum blocks in the 600 

MHz Band, along with the different 

technical facilities employed by 

television and wireless services, create 

the potential for multiple co- and 

adjacent-channel relationships between 

television stations and wireless 

operations in the 600 MHz Band in the 

same or nearby geographic areas. 

Fourth, the Commission does not think 

that an aggregate threshold for 

interference to television stations from 

wireless operations would be either 

feasible or practical. For these reasons, 

the Commission proposes a zero percent 

threshold for interference from wireless 

operations to television stations 

following the incentive auction. 

7. In the event that interference is 

predicted between television stations 

assigned in the 600 MHz Band, the 

Commission proposes to treat that 

interference as ‘‘masking interference’’ 

in evaluating wireless interference to a 

television station. That is, in a grid cell 

where masking interference to one 

television station from another is 

predicted to occur, the Commission 

proposes to ignore the inter-service 

interference from the wireless 

operations. This approach would be 

consistent with the treatment of 

interference between television stations 

under the rules. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. 

Proposed Methodology and Inputs for 

Predicting Interference to Television 

Stations in the 600 MHz Band From 

Wireless Operations 

Case 3: Interference From Wireless Base 

Stations to Television Stations Assigned 

to the 600 MHz Downlink Spectrum 

8. If television stations are assigned to 

the 600 MHz Band downlink spectrum, 

the Commission proposes to (1) prohibit 

a wireless licensee from operating base 

stations within the contour of a cochannel or adjacent-channel DTV 

station and (2) require the wireless 

licensee to use the proposed OET–74 to 

predict interference to such station’s 

service prior to deploying wireless base 

stations within a specified culling 

distance of the station’s contour. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

proposals. The culling distances 

proposed are based on the spectral 

overlap between wireless operations 

and broadcast television operations, and 

the power and antenna height of 

wireless base stations. The Commission 

seeks comment on this proposal and the 

specific distances proposed in OET–74. 

Because there is the potential for 

impairments in any license that is cochannel or adjacent channel with a 

broadcast television station, the 

Commission proposes to apply these 

requirements to all wireless operations 

within the culling distance that are cochannel or adjacent channel to a 

broadcast television station, regardless 

of whether the wireless licensee’s 

spectrum block was identified as 

‘‘impaired’’ in the auction. 

9. The proposed methodology and 

input values for predicting interference 

from a wireless base station into DTV 

service are set forth in detail in the 

proposed OET–74. The OET–74 

methodology is similar to the ISIX 

Methodology for Case 3 adopted in the 

companion Second Report & Order, but 

instead of a placement of hypothetical 

wireless base stations and the associated 

technical parameters, wireless providers 

would be required to use the actual 

technical parameters of their base 

stations. The Commission proposes to 

require wireless providers planning cochannel or adjacent-channel operations 

with any television stations in the 600 

MHz Band downlink spectrum to apply 

the OET–74 methodology using the 

actual location, HAAT, ERP, and 

antenna pattern and orientation of their 

base stations prior to deployment of 

such facilities within the specified 

culling distance of a television station’s 

contour. To provide wireless providers 

with additional flexibility, the 

Commission also proposes to allow 

them to elect to use omnidirectional 

patterns in their analyses rather than 

actual antenna patterns, either in 

azimuth or elevation. The Commission 

requests comment on this proposal. 

10. The Commission proposes to 

incorporate the root sum square (RSS) 

method into OET–74 to predict the 

potential for aggregate interference to a 

television station from multiple wireless 

base stations. As noted, broadcasters 

raise concerns with regard to the 

potential for interfering LTE signals to 

combine at the point of DTV signal 

reception, resulting in additional 

interference. In the Second Report & 

Order, the Commission declined to 

apply the RSS method during the 

auction because the predictions of interservice interference will be based on a 

hypothetical network deployment. In 

contrast, because proposed OET–74 

would be based on real-world network 

deployments, the Commission believes 

that its accuracy would be improved by 

application of RSS method. 

Accordingly, the Commission proposes 

to aggregate the interfering field strength 

at the DTV receiver from the actual 

wireless base stations to be deployed 

post-auction using the RSS method. 

11. The Commission proposes to 

specify in OET–74 the same D/U and 

OFR ratios adopted in the Second 

Report & Order for predicting 

interference from wireless base stations 

to DTV reception during the auction. 

For the reasons stated in the Second 

Report & Order, the Commission 

believes the same values adopted there 

are appropriate to use as the thresholds 

for predicting interference in the postauction environment. The Commission 

requests comment on this proposal. 

12. The Commission proposes to 

require that a 600 MHz Band wireless 

licensee perform an interference 

analysis using the methodology in OET– 

74 prior to deploying a base station for 

co-channel or adjacent-channel 

operations with the televisions stations 

within the set culling distance. The 

Commission anticipates that wireless 

providers will use their own network 

planning software to process the OET– 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76285 

74 studies, but the Commission’s 

TVStudy software would be made 

available for this purpose as well. Before 

deploying a new base station or making 

changes to existing base stations located 

within the specified OET–74 culling 

distances for co-channel or adjacentchannel operations with a television 

station, a wireless licensee would have 

to update its interference analysis to 

ensure that the RSS evaluations are upto-date and accurate. The wireless 

licensee would be required to retain the 

latest copy of its interference analysis 

for each co-channel or adjacent-channel 

Partial Economic Area (PEA) license 

area where any of its base stations fall 

within the specified OET–74 culling 

distances and make the analysis 

available to the Commission or a subject 

television station upon request in cases 

where there are complaints of 

interference either from the subject 

television station, a station viewer or the 

Commission. The Commission seeks 

comment on these proposals. 

Case 4: Interference From Wireless User 

Equipment to Broadcast Television 

Stations Assigned to the 600 MHz 

Uplink Spectrum 

13. If broadcast television stations are 

assigned to channels in the 600 MHz 

Band uplink spectrum, the Commission 

proposes to restrict wireless user 

equipment (i.e. mobile and portable 

devices) operating on co-channel or 

adjacent-channel frequencies to areas 

outside the separation distances from 

the DTV station contours adopted in the 

Second Report & Order. First, for cochannel operations, the Commission 

proposes to not allow wireless user 

equipment to operate within the 

television station’s contour and within 

five kilometers of that contour. Second, 

for adjacent channel operations, the 

Commission proposes to restrict user 

equipment operation within the contour 

of the television station and within onehalf kilometer of that contour. The 

Commission proposes to limit the onehalf kilometer restriction to the firstadjacent channel; thus, wireless user 

equipment could be operated anywhere 

within the contour of a broadcast 

television station if there is a frequency 

separation of six megahertz or more 

between the wireless spectrum block 

edge and a TV channel edge. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

proposals for protecting DTV service 

from harmful interference caused by 

wireless user equipment. Wireless 

providers may meet the distance 

requirements by limiting their coverage 

area to areas that are at least five 

kilometers if co-channel with a 

broadcast television station or one-half 

kilometer if they are adjacent channel 

outside the noise-limited or protected 

contours of the broadcast television 

station. Interested parties are also 

invited to submit suggestions for 

alternative approaches for providing 

protection to broadcast television 

service that would rely on methods 

other than pre-calculated separation 

distances. Parties submitting such 

approaches should include technical 

analyses and information describing 

how their suggested method would 

adequately protect broadcast television 

services. 

Proposed Obligation of Wireless 

Licensees To Eliminate Actual 

Interference to Television Stations in the 

600 MHz Band 

14. While the Commission proposes 

to use a predictive model to prevent 

inter-service interference to television 

stations based on wireless base station 

deployments, it also proposes to require 

a wireless licensee to eliminate any 

actual harmful interference to television 

service in the 600 MHz Band, even if no 

harmful interference is predicted. This 

proposed requirement will ensure that 

television stations assigned to the 600 

MHz Band are not detrimentally 

affected by being co-channel or adjacent 

channel to wireless operations. 

15. If a television station operating in 

the 600 MHz Band experiences harmful 

interference, the Commission proposes 

that the television station be required to 

contact the co-channel or adjacentchannel wireless provider thought to be 

causing the interference to resolve the 

issue. In the event of such contact, the 

Commission proposes to require that the 

wireless licensee provide the television 

station with the results of its OET–74 

analysis demonstrating that no harmful 

interference was predicted to occur in 

the specific geographic area at issue. In 

the event that the parties do not reach 

resolution, they can submit a claim of 

harmful interference to the Commission. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

these proposals. 

Proposed Procedures To Prevent InterService Interference 

General Wireless Licensee Obligations 

16. Given the proposed rules set forth 

in the FNPRM, the Commission seeks 

comment on appropriate wireless 

licensee obligations, both with respect 

to technical requirements and service 

rules. Specifically, consistent with the 

guidance set forth in the Incentive 

Auction R&O, the Commission proposes 

that a 600 MHz Band licensee will hold 

a license for its entire PEA service area, 

but operations will be limited to the 

portions of the license where the 

licensee will not cause harmful 

interference to broadcast television 

stations assigned to the 600 MHz Band. 

Under this proposal, a wireless licensee 

will be allowed to operate base stations 

at the power and out-of-band emission 

(OOBE) limits authorized by the 

technical rules only within the areas 

where it can demonstrate using the 

proposed OET–74 methodology and 

inputs that it will not cause harmful 

interference to a television station, even 

if the actual boundaries of the license 

area extend further (i.e., it may not 

operate in ‘‘restricted’’ areas). As the 

Commission stated in the Incentive 

Auction R&O, nothing in the rules 

prevents a wireless provider from 

operating in a part of its service area in 

which it may receive interference from 

broadcast operations (i.e., in an 

‘‘infringed’’ area). The Commission 

seeks comment on the obligations of 600 

MHz Band wireless licensees in 

operating in areas of their PEAs with 

impairments. 

17. As discussed in the Incentive 

Auction R&O, 600 MHz Band wireless 

licensees will be required to meet the 

600 MHz Band interim and final buildout requirements, except that they may 

show they are unable to operate in areas 

where they may cause harmful 

interference to the broadcast television 

stations that remain in the 600 MHz 

Band due to market variation. The areas 

where a wireless licensee may operate 

without causing harmful interference 

are the ‘‘permitted boundaries’’ of a 

license area. If a licensee is not able to 

serve its entire license area, when it files 

its construction notification within 15 

days of the relevant milestone certifying 

that it has met the applicable 

performance benchmark within its 

permitted boundaries, the licensee must 

demonstrate why certain areas are 

excluded from its service area due to 

impairments. The Commission proposes 

to require that wireless licensees use the 

ISIX Methodology adopted in the 

Second Report & Order for prediction of 

interference in Cases 1, 2 and 4 and the 

methodology in proposed OET Bulletin 

74 for Case 3 to demonstrate they cannot 

serve their entire PEA service area, 

among other evidence. Further, as 

discussed in the Incentive Auction R&O, 

if the impairing television station ceases 

to operate, the wireless licensee will be 

permitted to use the entire license area, 

and will be obligated to serve the area 

that was previously restricted in 

demonstrating that it has met its 

buildout requirements. 

18. Additionally, the Commission 

seeks comment on any additional or 

modified service rules that should be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76286 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

applied to 600 MHz Band licensees to 

address the potential for inter-service 

interference. 

Broadcasters in the 600 MHz Band 

19. Consistent with the guidance in 

the Incentive Auction R&O, the 

Commission proposes not to permit 

broadcast licensees who operate in the 

600 MHz Band to expand their noiselimited or protected contours if doing so 

would increase the potential for 

interference to a wireless licensee’s 

service area. At the same time, the 

Commission tentatively concludes that 

broadcast television stations should be 

allowed to demonstrate non-interference 

to a wireless licensee’s service area by 

showing that a proposed modification 

will not expand its contour in the 

direction of a co-channel or adjacent 

channel wireless licensee. This 

approach will ensure that wireless 

providers that acquire spectrum through 

the forward auction can rely on the 

information available at the time of the 

auction as to the existence and contours 

of a co-channel or adjacent television 

station, and rely on their modeling 

using OET Bulletin 74 for as long as the 

such television station is operating. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

20. The contours of broadcast 

television stations that will be 

reassigned to new channels in the 600 

MHz Band as a result of the repacking 

process will be specified in the Channel 

Reassignment PN. For such stations to 

be able to engineer their modified 

facilities and quickly transition to their 

new channels, in the Incentive Auction 

R&O the Commission granted them a 

window filing priority to propose 

transmission facilities in their initial 

construction permit applications with 

up to a one percent coverage contour 

increase if necessary to achieve the 

contour coverage specified in the 

Channel Reassignment PN or to address 

loss of coverage area resulting from their 

new channel assignment. Consistent 

with that decision, for purposes of the 

proposal set forth immediately above, 

the Commission proposes that the 

contours of such stations be deemed to 

be those described in their initial 

construction permit for their new 

channel. The impact on a wireless 

licensee of allowing stations reassigned 

to channels in the 600 MHz Band such 

flexibility would be negligible because a 

one percent increase is de minimis the 

increase may not be in the direction of 

the wireless licensee, and the initial 

construction applications must be filed 

within three months of release of the 

Channel Reassignment PN. The 

Commission does not propose, however, 

that these stations be permitted to file 

for further expanded facilities on their 

new channels, unless they can 

demonstrate that the proposed 

expanded facility will not increase their 

contour in the direction of a wireless 

license area. The Commission seeks 

comment on these proposals. 

Predicting Inter-Service Interference 

During the Post-Auction Transition 

Period 

Predicting Interference to New 600 MHz 

Band Licensees From LPTV Stations 

and TV Translators for Notification 

Purposes 

21. In the Incentive Auction R&O, the 

Commission stated that during the PostAuction Transition Period new 600 

MHz Band wireless licensees intending 

to commences operations in areas of 

their licenses where there is a likelihood 

of receiving harmful interference from 

an LPTV or TV translator station, based 

‘‘on the methodology the Commission 

adopted to prevent inter-service 

interference,’’ must provide LPTV and 

TV translator stations with advance 

notification that they will be displaced. 

In the Second Report & Order, the 

Commission adopted the ISIX 

Methodology and input values to 

predict interference from full power and 

Class A television stations to wireless 

services during the course of the 

auction. 

22. The Commission seeks comment 

on appropriate modifications to the ISIX 

Methodology to predict interference to 

600 MHz Band wireless operations from 

LPTV and TV Translators. First, the 

Commission seeks comment on use of 

the field strength values below for 

predicting such interference. The 

interference potential of LPTV and TV 

Translators that have migrated their 

operations to digital is evaluated 

differently from that of full power DTV 

stations under the rules. In particular, 

the rules specify different values for the 

adjacent channel emissions and 

elevation patterns of low power and full 

power DTV stations. The Commission 

examined the effect of the different 

LPTV/TV translator emission masks, 

however, and found that the field 

strength thresholds of these masks and 

the full power television mask is no 

more than 1dB. Therefore, the 

Commission proposes to use the same 

field strength values as full power 

television for the interference thresholds 

of co-channel and adjacent channel 

emissions for LPTV and TV translators 

to wireless service in the ISIX 

Methodology. Those thresholds are 

based on technical assumptions 

regarding the wireless receivers (both 

base stations and user equipment) that 

appear respectively in Tables 5 and 6 in 

the ISIX PN, as well as Tables 3 and 4 

in the Technical Appendix of the 

Second Report and Order. 

23. In addition, the Commission 

proposes to use the same elevation 

patterns for LPTV and TV translators as 

those patterns appear in the 

Consolidated Database System (CDBS). 

In the event the CDBS does not include 

elevation pattern values for a given low 

power station, it proposes to use the 

elevation patterns of LPTV and TV 

translators as they are defined in 

§ 74.793(d) of the Commission’s rules. 

24. In the event a potentially 

interfering LPTV or TV translator station 

is operating an analog signal, the 

Commission invites comment on 

additional modifications to the 

methodology for predicting inter-service 

interference that may be appropriate. 

One potential approach is to use 

TVStudy’s capability to ‘‘replicate’’ an 

analog signal as an equivalent digital 

signal and analyze the station as though 

it were operating in digital. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

approach and on any other potential 

approaches. In the event it uses the 

TVStudy approach, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether it should 

treat the interfering field strength of an 

analog television signal the same as an 

interfering digital television signal. 

Wireless Operations Prior to Broadcast 

Television Station Relocation 

25. As set forth in the Incentive 

Auction R&O, wireless providers may 

commence operations prior to the end of 

the 39-month Post-Auction Transition 

Period, as soon as their licensed 

frequencies are vacated by any full 

power or Class A television stations that 

occupied those frequencies prior to the 

incentive auction. Because television 

stations transitioning to new channels 

or going off the air may be operating on 

different timetables under the rules 

established in the Incentive Auction 

R&O, there is a potential for interservice interference between wireless 

providers that commence operations on 

frequencies that have been vacated by a 

broadcast television station in their 

license area or in part of their license 

area and broadcast television stations in 

nearby markets that have not 

transitioned yet. 

26. Accordingly, in the event that a 

wireless provider seeks to commence 

operations prior to the end of the 39- 

month Post-Auction Transition Period 

and there are co-channel or adjacentchannel broadcast television stations in 

the wireless licensee’s downlink 

spectrum within the culling distances 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76287 

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

612, has been amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA), Public Law 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat. 

857 (1996). 

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

3See id. 

4See Expanding the Economic and Innovation 

Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive 

Auctions, GN Docket No. 12–268, Report and Order, 

29 FCC Rcd 6567 (2014) (Incentive Auction R&O). 

5 Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6605, 

para. 82 (discussing how the 600 MHz Band Plan 

can accommodate market variation to avoid 

restricting the amount of repurposed spectrum that 

is available in most areas nationwide). 

6See Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 

6604–6607, paras. 81–87. 

7 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). 

8 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 

9 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the 

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

632). Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition 

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

consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration and after 

opportunity for public comment, establishes one or 

more definitions of such term which are 

appropriate to the activities of the agency and 

Continued 

specified in OET–74, the Commission 

proposes to require the wireless 

provider to use OET–74 to predict 

whether wireless operations in its 

license area or part of its license area 

will cause harmful interference to the 

subject television stations. The wireless 

licensees would be required to retain 

the latest copy of the OET–74 study for 

each co-channel or adjacent-channel 

PEA license area where any of their base 

stations fall within the specified OET– 

74 culling distances and make it 

available to the Commission and to a 

subject television station upon request if 

there are complaints of interference 

either from a subject television station, 

a member of the public or the 

Commission. The Commission seeks 

comment on these proposals. 

27. If there are co-channel or adjacent 

channel broadcast television stations in 

the wireless licensee’s uplink spectrum 

that have not cleared their pre-auction 

channels, the Commission proposes to 

require the wireless providers to ensure 

that their user equipment does not 

operate in the contours and within five 

kilometers of the contour when cochannel or within a half kilometer when 

adjacent channel. The Commission 

seeks comment on this proposal. 

Using the ISIX Methodology To Assess 

Interference From and to International 

Broadcast Television Stations During 

the Auction 

28. The Commission has engaged in 

extensive discussions with Canada and 

Mexico to determine interference 

protection along the border areas. At 

this time, both Canada and Mexico are 

transitioning their broadcast services 

into digital in line with their regulatory 

requirements. Because the timing of 

these transitions is under the control of 

the administration of the respective 

countries, the Commission seeks 

comment on using the ISIX 

Methodology and input values to 

identify impairments to wireless 

spectrum along the international 

borders during the auction. 

29. As noted, the ISIX Methodology 

adopted in the companion Second 

Report & Order item is not designed for 

analog signals. As Canada and Mexico 

have not completed their digital 

transitions, the Commission also seeks 

comment on implementing an approach 

similar to that proposed above for 

predicting interference from analog 

LPTV to wireless service. Specifically, 

in predicting interference to and from 

foreign analog broadcast television 

stations along the international borders, 

it proposes to use TVStudy’s capability 

to ‘‘replicate’’ an analog signal as an 

equivalent digital signal and analyze the 

station as though it was operating as 

digital. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

30. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA),1 the Commission 

has prepared this present Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities by the policies 

and rules proposed in this Further 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

(FNPRM). Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments provided on the first page of 

this FNPRM. The Commission will send 

a copy of this FNPRM, including this 

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA).2 In addition, the FNPRM and 

IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register.3

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

31. The FNPRM addresses issues that 

arise from the Incentive Auction R&O to 

repurpose a portion of the broadcast 

spectrum for new wireless services and 

proposes rules governing the 

interference in the 600 MHz Band 

following the incentive auction.4 In the 

Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission 

adopted a flexible band plan framework 

that accommodates market variation.5

Market variation occurs where broadcast 

stations remain on spectrum that is 

repurposed for wireless broadband 

under the 600 MHz Band Plan.6 The 

FNPRM proposes rules for the 

protection of broadcast services from 

wireless operations in the 600 MHz 

Band when co-channel or adjacent 

channel and for the protection of 

wireless license areas from broadcast 

television stations seeking to expand 

their contours. It proposes a 

methodology in OET Bulletin No. 74 for 

predicting when a wireless base station 

will cause interference to a broadcast 

station. It proposes to require wireless 

user equipment to operate outside of 

certain separation distances from the 

broadcast station contours to avoid 

interference to television reception. In 

the event that wireless operations 

actually cause harmful interference to 

television reception in the 600 MHz 

Band where interference was not 

predicted to occur, the FNPRM proposes 

to require wireless providers to take 

action to eliminate the interference. The 

FNPRM seeks comment on appropriate 

wireless licensee obligations, both with 

respect to technical requirements and 

service rules. The FNPRM also proposes 

to adopt the ISIX Methodology to 

predict whether LPTV or TV Translators 

will cause interference to a wireless 

system in the 600 MHz Band. The 

FNPRM also proposes use of the ISIX 

Methodology and inputs, as detailed in 

the proposed OET–74, for ensuring that 

wireless services that are deployed 

during the 39-month transition period 

do not cause interference to broadcast 

television stations that have not yet 

transitioned to their final channel 

assignments. 

B. Legal Basis 

32. The proposed action is authorized 

under sections 1, 4, 301, 303, 307, 308, 

309, 310, 316, 319, 332, and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, and sections 6004, 6402, 

6403, 6404, and 6407 of Middle Class 

Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 

Public Law 112–96, 126 Stat. 156, 47 

U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 

310, 316, 319, 332, 403, 1404, 1452, and 

1454. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities To Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

33. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted.7 The 

RFA generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

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

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ 8 In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act.9 A small 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76288 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

publishes such definition(s) in the Federal 

Register.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 

10Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996). 

11U.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). 

12 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 515120) (updated 

for inflation in 2010). 

13See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station 

Totals as of December 31, 2013 (rel. Jan. 8, 2014), 

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_

Business/2014/db0108/DOC-325039A1.pdf. 

14We recognize that BIA’s estimate differs 

slightly from the FCC total given the information 

provided above. 

15 ‘‘[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). 

16See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station 

Totals as of December 31, 2013 (rel. Jan. 8, 2014), 

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_

Business/2014/db0108/DOC-325039A1.pdf. 

17See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6). 

18See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station 

Totals as of December 31, 2013 (rel. January 8, 

2014), http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/

Daily_Business/2014/db0108/DOC-325039A1.pdf. 

19U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 

517210 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 

(except Satellite), http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/

sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2012 

(last visited Mar. 6, 2014). 

20 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 517210). 

21U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0751SSSZ5, 

Information: Subject Series—Establishment and 

Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the United 

States: 2007 (NAICS code 517210), http://fact

finder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/

productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5. 

22 Id. Available census data do not provide a more 

precise estimate of the number of firms that have 

employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the 

largest category provided is for firms with 1000 

employees or more. 

23See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3. 

24See id. 

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.10

34. 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.’’ 11 The SBA has created the 

following small business size standard 

for Television Broadcasting firms: those 

having $38.5 million or less in annual 

receipts.12 The Commission has 

estimated the number of licensed 

commercial television stations to be 

1,388.13 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 $38.5 million or less.14 We therefore 

estimate that the majority of commercial 

television broadcasters are small 

entities. 

35. We note, however, that in 

assessing whether a business concern 

qualifies as small under the above 

definition, business (control) affiliations 

must be included.15 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. 

36. In addition, the Commission has 

estimated the number of licensed 

noncommercial educational (‘‘NCE’’) 

television stations to be 395.16 These 

stations are non-profit, and therefore 

considered to be small entities.17

37. There are also 2,414 LPTV 

stations, including Class A stations, and 

4,046 TV translator stations.18 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. 

38. Radio and Television 

Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing. The Census Bureau 

defines this category as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in manufacturing 

radio and television broadcast and 

wireless communications equipment. 

Examples of products made by these 

establishments are: Transmitting and 

receiving antennas, cable television 

equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, 

cellular phones, mobile 

communications equipment, and radio 

and television studio and broadcasting 

equipment.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for Radio 

and Television Broadcasting and 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, which is: All such firms 

having 750 or fewer employees. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

2007, there were a total of 939 

establishments in this category that 

operated for part or all of the entire year. 

Of this total, 912 had less than 500 

employees and 17 had more than 1000 

employees. Thus, under that size 

standard, the majority of firms can be 

considered small. 

39. Audio and Video Equipment 

Manufacturing. The SBA has classified 

the manufacturing of audio and video 

equipment under in NAICS Codes 

classification scheme as an industry in 

which a manufacturer is small if it has 

less than 750 employees. Data contained 

in the 2007 U.S. Census indicate that 

492 establishments operated in that 

industry for all or part of that year. In 

that year, 488 establishments had fewer 

than 500 employees; and only 1 had 

more than 1000 employees. Thus, under 

the applicable size standard, a majority 

of manufacturers of audio and video 

equipment may be considered small. 

40. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except satellite). The Census 

Bureau defines this category as follows: 

‘‘This industry comprises 

establishments engaged in operating and 

maintaining switching and transmission 

facilities to provide communications via 

the airwaves. Establishments in this 

industry have spectrum licenses and 

provide services using that spectrum, 

such as cellular phone services, paging 

services, wireless Internet access, and 

wireless video services.’’ 19 The 

appropriate size standard under SBA 

rules is for the category Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite). The size standard for that 

category is that a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees.20 For this 

category, census data for 2007 show that 

there were 1,383 firms that operated for 

the entire year.21 Of this total, 1,368 

firms had employment of 999 or fewer 

employees and 15 had employment of 

1000 employees or more.22 Similarly, 

according to Commission data, 413 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in the provision of wireless telephony, 

including cellular service, PCS, and 

Specialized Mobile Radio (‘‘SMR’’) 

Telephony services.23 Of these, an 

estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and 152 have more than 

1,500 employees.24 Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that 

approximately half or more of these 

firms can be considered small. Thus, 

using available data, we estimate that 

the majority of wireless firms can be 

considered small. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

41. This FNPRM proposes to establish 

the following reporting, recordkeeping, 

and compliance requirements. All 

wireless providers that hold licenses to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76289 

25See 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 

operate co-channel or adjacent channel 

to a television station would perform an 

interference analysis using the 

methodology in OET–74 prior to 

deploying a base station within the set 

culling distance. The rule proposes that 

wireless licensees retain the latest copy 

of its interference analysis for each cochannel or adjacent channel Partial 

Economic Area (PEA) license area 

where any of its base stations fall within 

the specified OET–74 culling distances 

and make the analysis available to the 

Commission or a subject television 

station upon request in cases where 

there are complaints of interference 

from either the subject television 

station, a station viewer or the 

Commission. In addition, in the event 

that a television station and a 600 MHz 

Band wireless licensee do not reach 

resolution of an interference complaint, 

this FNPRM proposes that they can 

submit a claim of harmful interference 

to the Commission. This FNPRM also 

proposes that when a 600 MHz Band 

wireless licensee files a construction 

notification, it use the ISIX 

Methodology for certain interference 

cases and the methodology in proposed 

OET Bulletin 74 in another interference 

case to demonstrate that it cannot serve 

its entire PEA service area, among other 

evidence. This FNPRM also tentatively 

concludes that broadcast licensees who 

operate in the 600 MHz Band can 

demonstrate non-interference to a 

wireless licensee’s service area by 

showing that a proposed modification 

will not expand its contour in the 

direction of a co-channel or adjacent 

channel wireless licensee. This FNPRM 

also proposes that, in the event that a 

wireless provider seeks to commence 

operations prior to the end of the 39- 

month transition period and there are 

co-channel or adjacent-channel 

broadcast television stations in the 

wireless licensee’s downlink spectrum 

within the culling distances specified in 

OET–74, the wireless provider will use 

OET–74 to predict whether its 

operations will cause harmful 

interference to the subject television 

stations. This FNPRM proposes to 

require the wireless licensee to retain 

the latest copy of the OET–74 study and 

make it available to the Commission and 

to a subject television station upon 

request if there are complaints of 

interference either from a subject 

television station, a member of the 

public, or the Commission. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

42. 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.25

43. The proposed reporting, 

recordkeeping, and compliance 

requirements will apply to all entities in 

the same manner. The Commission 

believes that applying the same rules 

equally to all entities in this context 

promotes fairness. The Commission 

does not believe that the costs and/or 

administrative burdens associated with 

the rules will unduly burden small 

entities. Wireless providers may use 

either the Commission’s TVStudy 

software available for free online at 

http://data.fcc.gov/download/incentiveauctions/OET-69/ or their own network 

planning software in which they can 

incorporate the Longley-Rice Fortran 

Code included with the TVStudy source 

code, to perform the OET–74 analysis. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

44. None. 

Procedural Matters 

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 

45. This FNPRM contains proposed 

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. 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. 

Ordering Clauses 

46. Pursuant to the authority found in 

sections 1, 4, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 

310, 316, 319, 332, and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, and sections 6004, 6402, 

6403, 6404, and 6407 of Middle Class 

Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 

Public Law 112–96, 126 Stat. 156, 47 

U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 

310, 316, 319, 332, 4031404, 1452, and 

1454, and 1.2 of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 1.2, the Second Report and 

Order and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making is adopted. 

47. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Second Report and Order and 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

in GN Docket No. 12–268, including the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR part 27 and 

73 

Communications equipment, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

parts 27 and 73 as follows: 

PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS 

WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation of part 27 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302(a), 303, 

307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, 1451, 

and 1452 unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Section 27.1310 is added to read as 

follows: 

Subpart N—600 MHz Band 

§ 27.1310 Protection of Broadcast 

Television Service in the 600 MHz Band 

from Wireless Operations. 

(a) Licensees authorized to operate 

wireless services in the 600 MHz band 

must cause no harmful interference to 

public reception of the signal of 

broadcast television stations 

transmitting co-channel or on the 

adjacent channel. 

(1) Such wireless operations must 

comply with the D/U ratios in Tables 7– 

13 in OET Bulletin No. 74. Copies of 

OET Bulletin No. 74 may be inspected 

during normal business hours at the 

Federal Communications Commission, 

445 12th St. SW., Reference Information 

Center (Room CY A257), Washington, 

DC 20554. This document is also 

available through the Internet on the 

FCC Home Page at http://www.fcc.gov. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76290 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(2) If the 600 MHz band licensee 

causes harmful interference to the 

public reception of a signal of a 

broadcast television station that is 

operating co-channel or on an adjacent 

channel, that licensee must eliminate 

the harmful interference. 

(b) Licensees authorized to operate 

wireless services in the 600 MHz band: 

(1) Are not permitted to deploy 

wireless base stations within noiselimited service contour or protected 

contour of a broadcast television station 

licensed on a co-channel or adjacent 

channel in the 600 MHz Band, and 

(2) Are required to perform studies to 

evaluate the potential for their 

operations to cause harmful interference 

to public reception of the signal of such 

broadcast television station using the 

methodology in OET Bulletin No. 74 

when they intend to deploy wireless 

base stations within the culling 

distances from the noise-limited contour 

or protected contour of a broadcast 

television station licensed on a cochannel or adjacent channel in the 600 

MHz band specified in OET Bulletin No. 

74. Licensees shall maintain records of 

those studies and make them available 

for inspection upon a claim of harmful 

interference to the requesting 

broadcasting television station or the 

Commission. 

(c) Mobile and portable devices that 

operate in the 600 MHz band shall 

afford protection to co-channel and 

adjacent channel broadcast television 

stations in the following manner: 

(1) By maintaining a minimum 

distance of 5 kilometers (3 miles) from 

co-channel broadcast television station 

noise-limited service or protected 

contours. 

(2) By maintaining a minimum 

distance of 500 meters from adjacentchannel broadcast television station 

noise-limited service or protected 

contours (3) by not operating within the 

contours of a broadcast television 

station that is operating co-channel or 

adjacent channel. 

(3) Licensees authorized to operate 

wireless services in the 600 MHz band 

may meet the requirements of this 

subparagraph by limiting their coverage 

to areas at least the distance prescribed 

by paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) outside 

all noise-limited service or protected 

contours from co-channel or adjacent 

broadcast television stations. 

(d) For purposes of this section, 

broadcast television station is defined 

pursuant to § 73.3700(a)(1) of this 

chapter. 

(e) For purposes of this section, cochannel operations in the 600 MHz 

band are defined as operations of 

broadcast television stations and 

wireless services where their assigned 

channels spectrally overlap. Adjacent 

channel operations are defined as 

operations of broadcast television 

stations and wireless services where 

their assigned channels spectrally abut 

each other or are separated by up to 5 

MHz. 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 3. The authority citation of part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

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

and 339. 

■ 4. Sections 73.3700 is amended by 

adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 73.3700 Post-incentive auction aicensing 

and operation. 

* * * * * 

(i) A broadcast television station 

licensed in the 600 MHz band, as that 

is defined in § 27.57(l), 

(1) Shall not be permitted to modify 

its facilities, if such modification will 

expand the noise limited service 

contour of a full power station or the 

protected contour of a Class A station in 

the direction of a wireless license area 

which is co-channel or adjacent channel 

to the broadcast television station; 

(2) May request a waiver of paragraph 

(a), if 

(i) A modification of the facilities is 

caused by extraordinary circumstances 

outside the broadcast television station’s 

control, or 

(ii) The broadcast television station 

cannot replicate its service area on the 

reassigned channel following the 

publication of the Channel 

Reassignment Public Notice. 

Proposed OET Bulletin No. 74; LongleyRice Methodology for Predicting InterService Interference to Broadcast 

Television From Mobile Wireless 

Broadband Services in the UHF Band 

I. Introduction 

This Bulletin provides the 

methodology for prediction of 

interference from fixed wireless base 

stations in the 600 MHz downlink 

spectrum to digital full-power and Class 

A television service areas that operate 

co-channel or adjacent-channel to 

mobile wireless broadband operations. 

The methodology provides guidance on 

the implementation and use of the NTIA 

Institute for Telecommunications 

Science’s Longley-Rice radio 

propagation model for predicting interservice interference (ISIX) to broadcast 

television from mobile wireless 

broadband services. For broadcast 

television, this methodology assumes 

use of the Advanced Television Systems 

Committee’s (ATSC) Digital Television 

(DTV) Standard, although it is possible, 

especially across U.S. international 

borders, that the National Television 

Systems Committee (NTSC) analog 

Television (TV) standard may also be 

used. Consideration of interference 

predictions from fixed wireless base 

stations to analog television service 

areas is outside of the scope of this 

Bulletin. 

The methodology uses the LongleyRice model for predicting field strength 

at receive points based on the elevation 

profile of terrain between the 

transmitter and each specific reception 

point. The methodology described in 

this Bulletin generates predictions over 

large areas using the broadcast mode. 

For practical reasons, a computer is 

needed to make these predictions 

because of the large amount of data 

required for each calculation. Computer 

code for Version 1.2.2 of the LongleyRice radio propagation model (LongleyRice model) is available at http://

www.its.bldrdoc.gov/resources/radiopropagation-software/itm/itm.aspx. 

II. Evaluation of Service 

The service areas subject to 

interference calculation are defined in 

the FCC rules for both digital full-power 

and Class A television stations; the rules 

also specify standards for determining 

interference to DTV service. Because 

wireless services are expected to be 

noise-like and studies have shown that 

noise-like signals have interference 

potential nearly identical to DTV, 

interference protection criteria similar 

to those currently used for DTV-to-DTV 

can generally be applied with some 

adjustments as discussed below. 

For digital full-power television 

stations, service is evaluated inside the 

noise-limited contour defined in 47 CFR 

73.622(e) with the exception that the 

defining field strength threshold for 

UHF channels is modified by 

subtracting a frequency-dependent 

dipole antenna adjustment factor. Thus, 

the area subject to interference 

calculation for digital full-power TV 

stations consists of the area within the 

contours described by the geographic 

points at which the field strength 

predicted for 50% of locations and 90% 

of the time by FCC curves is at least as 

great as 41—20log10[615/(channel midfrequency in MHz)]. 

For digital Class A TV stations, 

service is protected only inside the 

‘‘protected contour’’ defined in 47 CFR 

73.6010(c), with the exception that the 

defining field strength threshold for 

UHF channels is modified by 

subtracting a frequency-dependent 

dipole antenna adjustment factor. Thus, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76291 

the area subject to interference 

calculation for digital Class A TV 

stations consists of the area within the 

contours described by the geographic 

points at which the field strength 

predicted for 50% of locations and 90% 

of time by FCC curves is at least as great 

as 51—20log10[615/(channel midfrequency in MHz)]. 

The service area subject to 

interference calculation is divided into 

trapezoidal cells approximately 2 

kilometers on a side across a global grid. 

The Longley-Rice propagation model 

Version 1.2.2 is applied between the 

DTV transmitter site and a point in each 

cell to determine whether the predicted 

desired field strength is above the 

values identified above, for each digital 

full-power or Class A TV station, 

respectively, based on the TV station’s 

operating channel. For cells with 

population, the point chosen is the 

population centroid, as determined 

using the method implemented in the 

FCC’s TVStudy software implementing 

the Longley-Rice model—otherwise the 

point chosen is the geometric center of 

the cell and the point so determined 

represents the entire cell in all 

subsequent service and interference 

calculations. The station’s directional 

transmitting antenna patterns (azimuth 

and elevation), if applicable, are taken 

into account in determining the 

effective radiated power (ERP) in the 

direction of each cell. 

Longley-Rice parameter settings for 

the calculations specified in this 

Bulletin are shown in table below. 

Parameter Value Meaning/comment 

EPS ............................................................ 15.0 .............. Relative permittivity of ground. 

SGM (S/m) ................................................. 0.005 ............ Ground conductivity. 

ZSYS .......................................................... 0.0 ................ General System Elevation. Coordinated with setting of EN0. 

EN0 (ppm) .................................................. 301.0 ............ Surface refractivity in N-units. 

IPOL ........................................................... 0 ................... Denotes horizontal polarization. 

MDVAR ...................................................... 3 ................... Calculation Mode (Broadcast). 

KLIM ........................................................... 5 ................... Climate Code (Continental Temperate). 

XI (km) ........................................................ 0.1 ................ Terrain sampling interval. 

HG(1) (m) ................................................... 30 ................. Height of the radiation center above ground. 

HG(2) (m) ................................................... 10 ................. Height of DTV receiver above ground. 

Time variability (desired signal) ................. 90% 

Time variability (undesired signal) ............. 10% 

Location variability ...................................... 50% 

Confidence variability ................................. 50% .............. (Also called situational variability) 

Error Code (KWX = 3) ............................... Ignore ........... Accept the path loss value that is returned by Longley-Rice code. 

Note: HG(1) is the height of the wireless transmitting antenna radiation center above ground at its specific geographic coordinates, which may 

be determined by subtracting the ground elevation above mean sea level (AMSL) at the transmitter location from the height of the antenna radiation center AMSL. However, if ground elevation is retrieved from the terrain elevation database as a function of the transmitter site coordinates, 

then bilinear interpolation between the surrounding data points in the terrain database shall be used to determine the ground elevation. Care 

should be used to ensure that consistent horizontal and vertical datums are employed among all data sets. 

III. Evaluation of Interference 

A. Application of the Longley-Rice 

Model To Determine Interfering Signal 

Strength 

The presence or absence of 

interference in each grid cell of the area 

subject to calculation is determined by 

further application of the Longley-Rice 

model. Radio paths between undesired 

transmitters and each global 2-kilometer 

grid point inside the service area are 

examined. The undesired transmitters 

included in the analysis of each cell are 

those which are possible sources of 

interference at that cell, considering 

their distance from the cell and 

frequency relationships. For each such 

radio path, the Longley-Rice model is 

applied for median situations (that is, 

confidence 50%), for 50% of locations, 

10% of the time for the prediction of 

potential interference to TV receivers. In 

those cases that error code 3 occurs, the 

predicted interfering field strength 

nevertheless is to be accepted in 

determining whether there is 

interference at that location. 

B. Areas of Potential Interference 

To determine whether the placement 

of a wireless base station at a particular 

location would cause interference to any 

TV station, information about each site 

in a planned wireless base station 

deployment is required. Specifically, 

actual values are required for: 

• Effective radiated power (ERP), 

• geographic location, and 

• antenna height above average 

terrain (HAAT) 

The wireless transmit antennas may 

conservatively be assumed to be nondirectional in both the azimuth and 

elevation directions, as these may be 

simpler to implement. However, actual 

antenna azimuth and elevation patterns 

for each planned wireless base station 

site may be used for increased accuracy 

by importing these patterns into the 

software implementing the Longley-Rice 

model and setting the azimuth 

orientation (N ° E, T) on a site-by-site 

basis. 

The interference analysis for TV 

reception examines only those cells 

across the global 2-kilometer grid within 

the area subject to calculation that have 

already been determined to have a 

desired field strength above the 

threshold for reception referenced above 

in Section II, as appropriate. A cell on 

the global 2-kilometer grid is counted as 

receiving interference to TV if the ratio 

of the desired field to that of the square 

root of the sum of the squares (root-sumsquare, or RSS) of all of an individual 

wireless licensee’s undesired wireless 

interference sources within the 

appropriate culling distances, defined 

below, is less than the minimum D/U 

threshold value for the corresponding 

spectral overlap between the TV and 

wireless channels. The comparison is 

made after applying the discrimination 

effect of the receiving TV antenna. 

C. DTV D/U Ratios for Co-Channel and 

Adjacent Channel Operations 

Thresholds of interference using the 

ratio of desired to undesired field 

strength to protect DTV reception from 

wireless co-channel interference are 

computed from the following formula: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76292 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Because a 5 MHz wireless channel 

and a 6 MHz DTV channel may not 

always fully overlap, the total wireless 

power in the TV channel is a function 

of the degree of spectral overlap, 

expressed in integer megahertz (MHz). 

In Table 1, a fully co-channel scenario 

would correspond to 5 MHz of 

transmitter/receiver overlap, while a 

first-adjacent situation would 

correspond to 0 MHz of overlap. Partial 

co-channel overlaps correspond to 

values of 1, 2, 3, and 4 MHz. Negative 

overlap values define the amount of 

frequency separation between channel 

edges in the adjacent-channel cases. The 

co-channel values at 5 MHz may be 

used where there is more than 5 MHz 

of overlap. Wireless operations with 

frequency separations more than 5 MHz 

between channel edges or distance 

separations greater than the culling 

distances beyond a DTV station’s noiselimited or protected contour, for fullpower and Class A stations, 

respectively, are not evaluated for 

interference because the probability of 

interference beyond those values for 

each height and/or power combination 

specified in Table 3 through Table 9 

below is unlikely. 

TABLE 1—CALCULATED OFF-FREQUENCY REJECTION (OFR) VALUES FOR WIRELESS BASE STATION INTO DTV 

Overlap in MHz OFR 

(dB) 5 4 3 2 1 0 ¥1 ¥2 ¥3 ¥4 ¥5 

Downlink into DTV ..... 0 0.9 2.2 3.9 6.7 17.0 33 33 33 33 33 

The values for off-frequency rejection 

(OFR) were derived using NTIA’s 

MSAM FDR computer program using 

FCC’s emission limits, and DTV receiver 

performance standards published by 

ATSC for the first-adjacent channel. 

To protect DTV reception from 

wireless downlink interference at 

various degrees of spectral overlap, the 

minimum threshold D/U ratios are 

shown in Table 2. These were derived 

using Equation 1 and the OFR values 

from Table 1. Values of a vary for each 

cell and are determined by the predicted 

desired field strength in each cell, the 

DTV planning factors, and the S/N of 

Equation 2. 

TABLE 2—THRESHOLD INTERFERING D/U RATIOS FOR WIRELESS BASE STATION INTO DTV 

Spectral Overlap (MHz) 5 4 3 2 1 0 ¥1 to ¥5 

Downlink into DTV D/U 

Required (dB) ........... 16.0 + a 15.1 + a 13.8 + a 12.1 + a 9.3 + a ¥2.0 + a ¥18 + a 

D. DTV Planning Factors 

The field strength values identified in 

Section II define the area subject to 

interference calculations for full-power 

and Class A UHF DTV stations, 

respectively. These field strengths are 

based on the DTV planning factors for 

UHF provided in OET Bulletin No. 69, 

which are assumed to characterize the 

equipment, including antenna systems, 

used for consumer reception at fixed 

locations. They determine the minimum 

field strength for DTV reception in the 

UHF band. 

For UHF, the dipole adjustment 

factor, Ka = 20log10[615/(channel midfrequency in MHz)], is added to Kd in 

each case to account for the fact that 

field strength requirements are greater 

for UHF channels above the geometric 

mean frequency of the historically 

defined UHF TV band (i.e., channels 

14–69) and smaller for UHF channels 

below that mean frequency. The 

geometric mean frequency, 615 MHz, is 

approximately the mid-frequency of TV 

channel 38. By applying the planning 

factors and using the Longley-Rice 

model to predict the desired field 

strength ‘‘E,’’ the predicted signal-tonoise ratio (S/N) is then calculated from 

the formula: 

The predicted S/N value associated 

with the field strength of the desired 

signal in each cell is used, based on the 

TV station’s operating channel, to 

determine the applicable interference 

threshold using Table 2 and the 

planning factors. 

E. DTV Receiving Antenna Pattern 

The TV receiving antenna is assumed 

to have a directional gain pattern which 

tends to discriminate against off-axis 

undesired stations. This pattern is a 

planning factor affecting the receiver’s 

susceptibility to interference. A working 

group of the FCC Advisory Committee 

for Advanced Television Service chose 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP22DE14.000</GPH> EP22DE14.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76293 

the specific form of this pattern. The 

discrimination, in relative field, 

provided by the assumed TV receiving 

pattern is a fourth-power cosine 

function of the angle between the lines 

joining the desired and undesired 

stations to the reception point. One of 

these lines goes directly to the desired 

station, the other goes to the undesired 

station. The discrimination is calculated 

as the fourth power of the cosine of the 

angle between these lines but never 

more than represented by the front-toback ratio of 14 dB for UHF. When both 

desired and undesired stations are on 

the receive antenna’s boresight, the 

angle is 0.0 giving a cosine of unity so 

that there is no discrimination. When 

the undesired station is somewhat offaxis, the cosine will be slightly less than 

unity and the resulting interference field 

strength is reduced accordingly by this 

value (while the desired field strength 

remains unchanged); when the 

undesired station is far off-axis, the 

maximum discrimination given by the 

14 dB front-to-back ratio is attained, and 

the resulting interference field strength 

is reduced by 14 (while the desired field 

strength still remains unchanged). 

F. Identification of Potentially 

Interfering Stations 

Potential sources of interference are 

identified as a function of distance for 

the given ERP, HAAT, and frequency 

relationship in terms of spectral overlap 

of each site in a planned wireless 

deployment. Spectral overlap is defined 

as the frequency separation between 

channel edges of a wireless block and 

DTV channel. For wireless bandwidths 

larger or smaller than 5 MHz, 

interference evaluations need only 

consider the separation between the 

occupied portions of each 5 MHz block. 

The interference analysis is performed 

independently for each cell in the DTV 

service area subject to calculation. Only 

those wireless base stations with 

transmitter sites at distances less than 

the culling distance (corresponding to 

the wireless base station ERP, HAAT, 

and spectral overlap) from the edge of 

a DTV station noise-limited or protected 

contour are to be considered in the 

interference analysis. Table 3 through 

Table 9 specify these culling distances, 

which were derived based on the 

distance to the UHF F(50,10) {OFR (dB) 

+ 18} dBmV/m contour, depending on 

the OFR for each spectral overlap case. 

TABLE 3—CULLING DISTANCES (IN KM) FROM DTV NOISE-LIMITED OR PROTECTED CONTOUR

(spectral overlap ≥ 5 MHz) 

HAAT 

(m): 

ERP (kW) per 5 MHz block: 

5 4 3 2 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.1 

305 ............................................... 209 204 196 186 169 163 153 136 115 

200 ............................................... 197 191 183 174 158 151 141 125 104 

150 ............................................... 190 184 178 168 152 145 135 119 98 

100 ............................................... 183 178 171 160 144 137 127 111 91 

80 ................................................. 180 174 166 156 140 133 123 107 86 

65 ................................................. 176 170 163 153 137 130 120 104 83 

50 ................................................. 172 167 159 150 133 126 117 100 80 

35 ................................................. 168 162 155 145 129 122 113 97 76 

TABLE 4—CULLING DISTANCES (IN KM) FROM DTV NOISE-LIMITED OR PROTECTED CONTOUR

[spectral overlap = 4 MHz] 

HAAT 

(m): 

ERP (kW) per 5 MHz block: 

5 4 3 2 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.1 

305 ............................................... 205 199 192 181 166 159 148 132 111 

200 ............................................... 192 186 179 169 153 146 137 121 100 

150 ............................................... 185 180 173 164 147 140 131 115 94 

100 ............................................... 179 173 166 156 139 132 123 107 86 

80 ................................................. 175 169 162 152 136 128 119 103 82 

65 ................................................. 171 166 158 149 132 125 116 99 79 

50 ................................................. 168 162 155 146 129 122 112 96 76 

35 ................................................. 163 158 151 141 125 118 108 92 73 

TABLE 5—CULLING DISTANCES (IN KM) FROM DTV NOISE-LIMITED OR PROTECTED CONTOUR

[spectral overlap = 3 MHz] 

HAAT 

(m): 

ERP (kW) per 5 MHz block: 

5 4 3 2 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.1 

305 ............................................... 197 191 183 173 158 150 141 124 104 

200 ............................................... 183 178 171 162 146 139 129 113 93 

150 ............................................... 178 172 166 156 140 133 123 108 87 

100 ............................................... 171 165 158 149 131 124 116 100 79 

80 ................................................. 167 161 154 145 127 121 112 96 75 

65 ................................................. 163 158 151 142 125 118 108 92 73 

50 ................................................. 159 154 148 138 121 114 105 89 70 

35 ................................................. 155 150 143 133 117 110 101 85 66 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76294 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6—CULLING DISTANCES (IN KM) FROM DTV NOISE-LIMITED OR PROTECTED CONTOUR

[spectral overlap = 2 MHz] 

HAAT 

(m): 

ERP (kW) per 5 MHz block: 

5 4 3 2 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.1 

305 ............................................... 187 181 174 166 148 141 132 116 97 

200 ............................................... 174 170 163 153 137 130 121 105 86 

150 ............................................... 169 164 157 147 131 124 115 99 80 

100 ............................................... 161 156 149 140 123 116 107 91 73 

80 ................................................. 157 152 146 136 119 112 103 87 69 

65 ................................................. 154 149 143 132 116 109 100 84 66 

50 ................................................. 151 146 139 129 112 105 96 81 63 

35 ................................................. 146 141 134 125 108 102 92 77 60 

TABLE 7—CULLING DISTANCES (IN KM) FROM DTV NOISE-LIMITED OR PROTECTED CONTOUR

[spectral overlap = 1 MHz] 

HAAT 

(m): 

ERP (kW) per 5 MHz block: 

5 4 3 2 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.1 

305 ............................................... 171 166 160 149 133 126 116 102 87 

200 ............................................... 159 154 147 138 121 115 105 91 75 

150 ............................................... 153 148 141 131 116 109 100 85 69 

100 ............................................... 146 140 133 123 108 101 92 77 63 

80 ................................................. 142 136 129 120 104 97 88 73 60 

65 ................................................. 139 133 126 116 100 94 84 71 57 

50 ................................................. 135 130 123 113 97 90 81 67 54 

35 ................................................. 131 125 119 109 93 87 78 64 51 

TABLE 8—CULLING DISTANCES (IN KM) FROM DTV NOISE-LIMITED OR PROTECTED CONTOUR

[spectral overlap = 0 MHz] 

HAAT 

(m): 

ERP (kW) per 5 MHz block: 

5 4 3 2 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.1 

305 ............................................... 115 110 104 97 86 82 76 68 59 

200 ............................................... 104 99 93 85 73 70 65 59 52 

150 ............................................... 98 93 87 79 68 65 61 55 48 

100 ............................................... 90 85 79 72 62 59 55 49 42 

80 ................................................. 86 81 75 69 59 56 52 46 38 

65 ................................................. 83 78 73 66 56 53 49 43 36 

50 ................................................. 80 75 70 62 53 50 46 40 33 

35 ................................................. 76 72 66 59 50 46 42 35 28 

TABLE 9—CULLING DISTANCES (IN KM) FROM DTV NOISE-LIMITED OR PROTECTED CONTOUR

[spectral overlap <0, ≥¥5 MHz] 

HAAT 

(m): 

ERP (kW) per 5 MHz block: 

5 4 3 2 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.1 

305 ............................................... 61 59 57 53 48 46 43 37 31 

200 ............................................... 53 52 50 47 42 39 37 32 26 

150 ............................................... 49 48 46 42 37 35 32 28 23 

100 ............................................... 43 42 39 37 32 30 27 23 18 

80 ................................................. 40 38 36 33 29 27 25 21 16 

65 ................................................. 37 36 34 31 26 25 22 18 14 

50 ................................................. 34 33 30 28 23 22 19 15 12 

35 ................................................. 29 28 26 23 19 17 15 13 10 

G. Engineering Databases 

DTV Engineering Data. Engineering 

data for TV stations in the U.S. 

(including full-power DTV and Class A) 

is available from the FCC. Data for 

individual stations can be found at 

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/tvq.html, 

and consolidated data for all authorized 

stations can be found at ftp://ftp.fcc.gov/ 

pub/Bureaus/MB/Databases/cdbs/. 

Where more than one authorization 

exists for a particular station, the record 

associated with the facility actually 

operating shall be used. Where specific 

elevation pattern data are not provided 

in the engineering data, a generic 

elevation pattern may be used as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76295 

described generally in OET Bulletin No. 

69 or in the rules. The generic elevation 

pattern should, however, be offset by 

the amount of electrical beam tilt 

specified in the CDBS. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29688 Filed 12–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 14–245, RM–11740; DA 14– 

1761] 

Television Broadcasting Services; 

Longview, Texas 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission has before it 

a petition for rulemaking filed by KCEB 

License Company, LLC (‘‘KCEB 

License’’), the licensee of KCEB(TV), 

channel 51, Longview, Texas, requesting 

the substitution of channel 26 for 

channel 51 at Longview. While the 

Commission instituted a freeze on the 

acceptance of full power television 

rulemaking petitions requesting channel 

substitutions in May 2011, it 

subsequently announced that it would 

lift the freeze to accept such petitions 

for rulemaking seeking to relocate from 

channel 51 pursuant to a voluntary 

relocation agreement with Lower 700 

MHz A Block licensees. KCEB License 

has entered into such a voluntary 

relocation agreement with T-Mobile 

USA, Inc. and states that operation on 

channel 26 would eliminate potential 

interference to and from wireless 

operations in the adjacent Lower 700 

MHZ A Block. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before January 21, 2015, and reply 

comments on or before February 5, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20554. In addition to filing comments 

with the FCC, interested parties should 

serve counsel for petitioner as follows: 

Tom W. Davidson, Esq., Akin Gump 

Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 1333 New 

Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Bernstein, Joyce.Bernstein@

fcc.gov, Media Bureau, (202) 418–1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

14–245, adopted December 8, 2014, and 

released December 8, 2014. The full text 

of this document is available for public 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, CY– 

A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, 

DC 20554. This document will also be 

available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ 

or Adobe Acrobat.) This document may 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

telephone 1–800–478–3160 or via email 

www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

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

418–0432 (TTY). This document does 

not contain proposed information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

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

3506(c)(4). 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. Members of the public 

should note that from the time a Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until 

the matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, all ex parte contacts (other than 

ex parte presentations exempt under 47 

CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in 

Commission proceedings, such as this 

one, which involve channel allotments. 

See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing 

restricted proceedings. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Barbara A. Kreisman, 

Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

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

and 339. 

§ 73.622 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.622(i), the PostTransition Table of DTV Allotments 

under Texas is amended by adding 

channel 26 and removing channel 51 at 

Longview. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29916 Filed 12–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 350 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0470] 

State Inspection Programs for 

Passenger-Carrying Vehicles; 

Listening Sessions 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of public listening 

sessions. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it will 

hold two public listening sessions on 

January 13 and 18, 2015, to solicit 

information concerning section 32710 of 

the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112–141, 

MAP–21). This provision requires 

FMCSA to complete a rulemaking 

proceeding to consider requiring States 

to establish a program for annual 

inspections of commercial motor 

vehicles (CMVs) designed or used to 

transport passengers. Additionally, 

under MAP–21, FMCSA must assess the 

risks associated with improperly 

maintained or inspected CMVs designed 

or used to transport passengers; the 

effectiveness of existing Federal 

standards for the inspection of such 

vehicles in mitigating the risks 

associated with improperly maintained 

vehicles and ensuring the safe and 

proper operation condition of such 

vehicles; and the costs and benefits of 

a mandatory inspection program. Any 

data regarding this topic would be 

appreciated. 

The January 13, 2015, session will be 

held at the American Bus Association’s 

(ABA) Marketplace conference in St. 

Louis, Missouri. The January 18, 2015, 

session will be held at the United 

Motorcoach Association (UMA) Expo 

2015 conference in New Orleans, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS