[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 221 (Tuesday, November 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71731-71744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29239]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 27 and 73

[GN Docket No. 12-268; ET Docket Nos. 13-26 and 14-14; FCC 15-141]


Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum 
Through Incentive Auctions

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document resolves the remaining technical issues 
affecting the operation of new 600 MHz wireless licensees and broadcast 
television stations in areas where they operate on the same or adjacent 
channels in geographic proximity. Specifically, the Commission adopted 
the methodology and the regulatory framework for the protection of both 
wireless services and broadcasting in the post-auction environment that 
it proposed in October 2014. The Commission affirms its decision 
regarding the methodology to be used during the incentive auction to 
predict inter-service interference between broadcasting and wireless 
services. The Commission also affirmed its decision declining to adopt 
a cap on the aggregate amount of new interference a broadcast 
television station may receive from other television stations in the 
repacking process.

DATES: Effective December 17, 2015, except for the amendments to 
Sec. Sec.  27.1310 and 73.3700(b)(1)(iv)(B), which contain new or 
modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, that are not effective until 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission 
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the 
effective date once OMB approves.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aspasia Paroutsas, 202-418-7285, 
Aspasia.Paroutsas@fcc.gov, Office of Engineering and Technology.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third 
Report and Order and First Reconsideration Order, GN Docket No. 12-268; 
ET Docket Nos. 13-26 and No. 14-14, FCC 15-141, adopted October 21, 
2015 and released October 26, 2015. The full text of this document is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the

[[Page 71732]]

FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, 
DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

Synopsis

    1. In the Third Report and Order the Commission adopts a framework 
to govern the interference environment in the 600 MHz Band where 
wireless operations and television stations may operate on the same or 
adjacent channels in nearby areas following the incentive auction. The 
Commission establishes a zero percent threshold for allowable harmful 
interference from 600 MHz wireless services to television stations 
assigned to channels in the 600 MHz Band. In addition, the Commission 
requires 600 MHz wireless licensees to use the methodology in Bulletin 
OET-74 to predict potential interference to nearby co-channel or 
adjacent-channel television operations before deploying base stations, 
prohibits operation of wireless user equipment operating in the 600 MHz 
Band near these television stations' contours, and prohibits the 
expansion of television stations' contours that would result in 
additional impairments to wireless operations. The Commission also 
addresses the applicability of the ISIX Methodology previously adopted 
in other interference contexts, including between LPTV and TV 
translators and wireless operations, between television and wireless 
operations during the post-transition period, and in identifying 
impairments to wireless licenses along the borders with Canada and 
Mexico.
    2. In the First Order on Reconsideration, the Commission rejects a 
number of petitions for reconsideration of the ISIX Methodology that 
the Commission previously adopted for use during the incentive auction 
to predict the extent that 600 MHz Band wireless licenses may be 
impaired due to interference to, and from, television stations in the 
600 MHz Band. The Commission also made a number of adjustments to the 
ISIX Methodology to be consistent with the decisions made in the Third 
Report and Order regarding OET-74, to reflect recent Commission 
decisions, and to reflect updates and revisions of input values and 
settings of the ISIX software. The Commission also affirmed its 
previous decision to not adopt a cap on new-station-to-station 
interference in the television station repacking process during the 
incentive auction and declined to establish a cap on population loss 
resulting from a new channel assignment in the repacking process.
    3. In the Incentive Auction R&O, 79 FR 48442, August 15, 2014, the 
Commission adopted a flexible band plan framework that accommodates 
market variation, that is, areas where broadcast stations are assigned 
to channels in the 600 MHz Band. Because the amount of spectrum 
repurposed through the incentive auction and the repacking process 
depends on broadcaster participation and other factors, market 
variation will allow the Commission to avoid limiting the amount of 
spectrum repurposed across the nation to what is available in the most 
constrained market. However, market variation creates the potential for 
inter-service interference (``ISIX'') because in markets where 
broadcast television stations are assigned to channels within the 600 
MHz Band, television and wireless services will be operating in close 
geographic proximity on the same and/or adjacent frequencies. There are 
four scenarios of potential interference when broadcast television and 
wireless operations are co-channel or on adjacent channels in nearby 
areas: (1) A digital television (``DTV'') transmitter causing 
interference to a wireless base station (Case 1); (2) a DTV transmitter 
causing interference to wireless user equipment (Case 2); (3) a 
wireless base station causing interference to a DTV receiver (Case 3); 
and (4) wireless user equipment causing interference to a DTV receiver 
(Case 4).
    4. In the ISIX R&O, 79 FR 76903, December 23, 2014, the Commission 
addressed potential interference between DTV stations and wireless 
service in areas with market variation. The ISIX R&O adopted a 
methodology for predicting inter-service interference during the 
incentive auction (``ISIX Methodology''), a methodology which 
necessarily is based on hypothetical 600 MHz Band network deployments, 
as the actual networks will not be deployed until after the auction. 
The companion ISIX Further Notice, 79 FR 76282, December 22, 2014, 
proposed a post-auction inter-service interference methodology for 
evaluating interference from wireless base stations to television 
reception, set forth in the Office of Engineering and Technology 
Bulletin No. 74 (``OET-74''). The ISIX Further Notice also proposed 
rules for preventing interference from wireless to broadcasting 
services on the same or adjacent channels in nearby markets in the 
Cases 3 and 4.

A. Protecting Broadcast Television Receivers From Inter-Service 
Interference

1. Threshold for Interference From Wireless Operations to Television 
Receivers in the 600 MHz Band
    5. The Commission adopts a zero percent threshold for harmful 
interference from wireless operations to the reception of television 
station's signals in the 600 MHz Band. Under this standard, 600 MHz 
wireless licensees will not be permitted to cause harmful interference 
at any level within the noise-limited contour of a full power 
television station or the protected contour of a Class A television 
station to the degree it affects populated areas within those contours. 
The Commission finds that a zero percent threshold, with no rounding 
tolerance, is warranted in the post-auction environment. For the 
reasons discussed below, any interference standard other than zero 
presents practical difficulties given the multiple sources of potential 
interference to the reception of signals from television stations 
assigned to the 600 MHz Band and the continuing evolution of wireless 
networks. Furthermore, the Commission delegates authority to the Media 
Bureau to issue a Public Notice following completion of the incentive 
auction with the final contours of all television stations assigned to 
channels in the 600 MHz Band. The Public Notice will include the 
technical parameters by which the television station contours can be 
generated regardless of whether the station will remain on its pre-
auction channel or has been reassigned to new a channel.
    6. There will be numerous sources of potential interference to the 
reception of signals from television stations assigned to the 600 MHz 
Band because the five-megahertz wireless spectrum blocks will overlap 
in varying degrees with the six-megahertz television channels, creating 
the potential for multiple co- and adjacent-channel relationships 
between television stations and wireless operations in the same or 
nearby geographic areas. Moreover, wireless networks evolve over time 
with the deployment of additional base stations and the adjustment of 
base stations' technical parameters. Addressing the possibility of a 
television receiver receiving interference from multiple wireless 
networks that are continuously evolving presents significant practical 
difficulties, such as how to apportion the permitted interference among 
the

[[Page 71733]]

multiple sources of interference and how to monitor compliance as 
wireless networks evolve. Given the different interference environment 
that television stations will face in the 600 MHz Band, the Commission 
finds that it would be impractical, if not infeasible, to manage any 
interference percentage other than zero percent.
    7. The Commission clarifies that the zero-percent interference 
threshold will prohibit 600 MHz wireless licensees from causing any 
interference to television receivers in any populated area of the 
noise-limited contour of a full power television station or the 
protected contour of a Class A television station. The Commission also 
adopts the proposal from the ISIX Further Notice to treat interference 
between television stations assigned in the 600 MHz Band as ``masking 
interference'' in evaluating wireless interference to a television 
station. Therefore, in a grid cell where masking interference to one 
television station from another television station is predicted, inter-
service interference from wireless operations can be ignored.
2. Determining Potential Interference From Wireless Operations to DTV 
Receivers
a. Case 3: Interference to Television Receivers From Wireless Base 
Stations
    8. Adoption of OET-74. The Commission adopts OET-74, as proposed in 
the ISIX Further Notice, with several modifications as described in 
more detail below. OET-74 is to be used following the incentive auction 
to predict interference to television receivers operating in the 600 
MHz Band from co-channel and adjacent channel wireless base stations in 
nearby markets. The adopted OET-74 Bulletin is included below. The 
Commission rejects the National Association of Broadcaster's (NAB's) 
claim that the Spectrum Act limits our authority to require the use of 
OET-74 to address inter-service interference following the auction.
    9. D/U Ratio Adjustment. The Commission adopts slightly revised 
desired/undesired (D/U) ratio thresholds from those proposed in the 
ISIX Further Notice. Under the methodology of OET-74, the D/U ratio is 
calculated at the population centroid in each two kilometer square cell 
in the television station's contour. This D/U ratio is compared to a 
threshold to determine if harmful interference is predicted to occur to 
DTV service in that cell. The D/U threshold is defined in OET-74 to 
include an adjustment factor ``[alpha],'' which is dependent on the 
signal-to-noise ratio (S/N ratio) of the received television signal. 
The ``[alpha]'' factor in the D/U threshold is necessary to account for 
the effect of the television signal strength on the amount of 
interference that the television receiver can tolerate when the desired 
DTV signal is weak. When the television signal strength is weak (i.e., 
closer to the noise floor), a lower amount of interference from the 
wireless base stations will impede television reception than if the 
television signal is stronger. CEA points out that for faint television 
signals, ``[alpha]'' increases exponentially under the proposed OET-74, 
which can result in a high D/U threshold that will require a large 
separation distance between wireless base stations and the television 
station's contour. To avoid such results and to conform OET-74 with the 
approach used in OET-69 and the Commission's rules, OET-74 as adopted 
will limit the use of the D/U adjustment factor ``[alpha]'' to 
situations where the signal-to-noise ratio of the desired DTV signal is 
greater than 16 dB and less than 28 dB. Specifically, the ``[alpha]'' 
factor will be limited to a maximum value of 8.
    10. In addition, the Commission removes the ``[alpha]'' factor in 
the D/U threshold in OET-74 as adopted when there is no overlap between 
the DTV signal and LTE signal (adjacent channel) in order to be 
consistent with the approach followed in the Commission's rules for 
DTV-to-DTV interference. The Commission's rules specify a constant D/U 
threshold for DTV-to-DTV adjacent channel interference. Consequently, 
OET-74 will not use a D/U threshold that varies with ``[alpha]'' for 
adjacent channel LTE-to-DTV interference. Also, OET-74 will set the 
required D/U threshold for LTE-to-DTV interference to -33 dB because 
the ATSC receiver guidelines specify that DTV receivers should have 
this level of tolerance of adjacent channel DTV interference, and 
measurements have shown that actual DTV receivers do in fact meet or 
exceed this level of performance in the presence of adjacent channel 
LTE interference.
    11. Aggregate Interference. OET-74 will incorporate the root sum 
square (RSS) method to predict the potential for aggregate interference 
to television receivers from multiple base stations for each co-channel 
or adjacent channel 600 MHz licensee. The methodology of OET-74, which 
is based on real-world network deployments, will allow for the 
aggregation of the field strength of interfering signals at the DTV 
receiver from the wireless base stations of a co-channel or adjacent 
channel 600 MHz wireless licensee. The Commission will not, however, 
require a 600 MHz wireless licensee to account for the aggregate 
interference generated by the wireless operations of other 600 MHz 
wireless licensees because it would require wireless licensees to 
incorporate each other's site-specific information into their OET-74 
analysis.
    12. Intermodulation Interference. The Commission rejects arguments 
that it should study further the impact of third order intermodulation 
interference (IM3) from wireless services and television signals to 
television receivers. CEA claims that tests it conducted indicate that 
IM3 interference from LTE and DTV operations into DTV receivers poses a 
substantial risk to DTV reception, not only for legacy receivers 
currently in the market but also for future receivers that may need to 
continue receiving frequencies also used for LTE operations due to 
market variation. CEA further argues that IM3 from two LTE signals is a 
distinct potential problem in the 600 MHz Band that has not been 
adequately analyzed. Based on the present record, further analysis of 
intermodulation effects, either from DTV and LTE signals or two LTE 
signals, is not warranted. The Commission is not aware of any 
intermodulation interference concerns between DTV stations, which 
currently do not have to protect for intermodulation interference. 
Indeed, as CEA acknowledges, providing larger exclusions for 
interference protection reduces the efficiency of spectrum use. 
Protection of DTV receivers from the combinations of signals that can 
produce IM3 interference would impose additional constraints on the 
repacking process that would impact the Commission's ability to clear 
spectrum for new uses in the incentive auction and limit use of the 
recovered spectrum.
    13. The Commission does not expect that the potential for 
interference from intermodulation products from a DTV signal and an LTE 
signal or from two LTE signals will be significantly higher than that 
expected from two DTV signals. In addition, potential intermodulation 
interference can be mitigated through DTV receiver design, antenna 
reorientation, and other factors. In order to meet consumers' 
expectations, receiver manufacturers should design their products to 
operate without experiencing interference from signals permitted by the 
Commission's rules. To the extent that CEA and manufacturers believe 
that current models of DTV receivers are susceptible to IM3, the 
appropriate solution is for them to design their new products to be 
immune to such interference.
    14. ``Error Code 3'' Messages. When ``error code 3'' messages are 
returned by

[[Page 71734]]

the software used to implement the Longley-Rice propagation model, OET-
74 will use the desired and undesired signal strengths determined by 
the Longley-Rice propagation model in evaluating the subject cell for 
potential interference. The Commission declines to adopt NAB's 
suggestion that when an ``error code 3'' warning is returned and the 
desired signal strength calculated by OET-74 is below 41 dB[mu]V/m, the 
threshold of service, the calculated desired signal strength be 
replaced with a signal strength equal to the threshold of service or 
threshold of service plus 3 dB. NAB's approach would be contrary to the 
goal of OET-74 which is to provide a methodology for predicting 
interference to television receivers based on the actual technical 
parameters of the television stations and wireless networks.
    15. Other OET-74 Technical Issues. The Commission rejects NAB's 
contention that it should evaluate interference to the reception of 
Class A station's signals using a one-kilometer grid instead of the 
two-kilometer grid proposed in OET-74 so as to be ``consistent with 
current practice.'' Using a different grid size for Class A stations 
than for full power stations would be inconsistent with the 
Commission's repacking methodology and would create a layer of 
unnecessary complexity for the ISIX and OET-74 calculations. 
Accordingly, the Commission will use a two-kilometer grid for the ISIX 
and OET-74 calculations for both full power and Class A stations.
    16. The Commission also rejects NAB's suggestion that OET-74 
consider interference in all cells, and not only the populated cells. 
OET-74 will consider interference harmful only if the D/U ratio is 
below the threshold in a cell containing population.
    17. In addition, the Commission rejects NAB's argument that OET-74 
should not rely on manufacturers' published antenna patterns for 
wireless base stations. According to NAB, the manufacturers' published 
patterns may suggest unrealistically superior performance, while the 
wireless licensee may adjust the antenna after installation to manage 
coverage or interference conditions, or the antenna alignment during 
installation may be imprecise. While the Commission is cognizant that 
wireless base station antenna installations may vary from the antenna 
manufacturer's specified patterns or may be misaligned, it sees no 
reason to modify the manufacturer's specified wireless base station 
antenna patterns based on NAB's assumptions, which may or may not be 
more accurate for any given base station installation.
    18. The Commission disagrees with Cohen, Dippell, and Everist, 
P.C.'s (``CDE'') claim that the FCC has not forecasted the potential 
interference to television receivers in cases where five megahertz 600 
MHz licenses are aggregated. Given the DTV receiver performance 
measurements in the record and the fact that OET-74 is applicable to 
aggregated channels, CDE fails to articulate the need for additional 
testing of the effects of inter-service interference where five 
megahertz wireless licenses are aggregated. Nevertheless, based on 
examination of the record, the Commission concludes that the proposal 
for a separate analysis for each frequency overlap when two five-
megahertz blocks are aggregated into a ten megahertz block would 
require additional effort by the wireless licensee without providing 
increased protection for DTV signal reception compared with a combined 
analysis of aggregated five megahertz blocks. For this reason, OET-74 
will require that only a single interference analysis be performed when 
five megahertz blocks are aggregated. Therefore, in cases of aggregated 
wireless blocks the OET-74 analysis will be adjusted to reflect the 
amount of spectral overlap between the aggregated wireless signal and 
the DTV channel and the effective radiated power (``ERP'') as 
described. When the aggregated wireless signal completely overlaps the 
DTV channel, the analysis will use the values in the OET-74 tables 
associated with a spectral overlap of five megahertz and the ERP that 
is the portion of the power in the aggregated wireless signal that 
overlaps the six megahertz television channel. When the aggregated 
wireless signal overlaps the DTV channel by five megahertz or less, the 
analysis will use the values in the OET-74 tables associated with the 
amount of spectral overlap and the ERP of the overlapping wireless five 
megahertz block (i.e. the analysis will ignore the other five megahertz 
blocks of the aggregated signal). When the aggregate wireless signal is 
adjacent to the DTV channel (i.e. no overlap), the interference 
analysis will use the values in the OET-74 tables associated with the 
five megahertz block that is closest to the adjacent DTV channel and 
the ERP of that block. A wireless licensee with non-contiguous spectrum 
blocks will be required to conduct a separate OET-74 interference 
analysis for each spectrum block. In addition, a wireless licensee that 
is adjacent or co-channel to multiple DTV stations, will have to 
perform separate OET-74 interference analysis for each of the DTV 
stations.
b. Case 4: Interference to Television Receivers From Wireless User 
Equipment
    19. The Commission adopts fixed geographic separation distances for 
Case 4. Specifically, 600 MHz wireless licensees will be required to 
limit the service area of their wireless networks so that wireless user 
equipment (i.e., mobile and portable devices) will not operate within 
the contour or within a set distance from the contour of a co-channel 
or adjacent channel television station. As proposed in the ISIX Further 
Notice, the Commission adopts a separation distance of five kilometers 
for co-channel operations, and one-half kilometer for adjacent channel 
operations. Therefore, wireless licenses that will be co-channel or 
adjacent channel to a television station in the 600 MHz Band uplink 
spectrum will have impairments that cover the area of the station's 
contour and an additional five kilometers if the television station is 
co-channel or one-half kilometer if the television station is adjacent 
channel to the wireless operations. The separation distance for 
adjacent channel operation will only apply to the first adjacent 
channel. Consequently, wireless user equipment may be operated within 
the contour of a television station if there is a frequency separation 
of at least six megahertz or more between the wireless spectrum block 
edge and a television channel edge.
3. Obligations of 600 MHz Licensees in Markets With Variation
a. Requirements on Wireless Base Station Deployment
    20. As proposed in the ISIX Further Notice, the Commission will (1) 
prohibit a 600 MHz wireless licensee from operating base stations 
within the contour of a co-channel or adjacent-channel full power and 
Class A television station, (2) require the 600 MHz wireless licensee 
to use OET-74 to predict interference to television receivers within 
such a station's contour prior to deploying base stations within a 
specified culling distance of the station's contour, and (3) prohibit 
operating base stations within that distance if harmful interference is 
predicted. The culling distances are specified in OET-74 and are based 
on the spectral overlap between wireless operations and television 
operations, and the power and antenna height of wireless base stations.
    21. The Commission finds that prohibiting wireless base stations 
from

[[Page 71735]]

operating within the contours of co-channel and adjacent channel DTV 
stations is an appropriate safeguard for preventing interference to 
television receivers. The Commission also finds that requiring the use 
of OET-74 to identify potential interference from base stations located 
within the culling distance, and prohibiting operation of base stations 
within that distance if harmful interference is predicted, will ensure 
that television stations assigned to channels in the 600 MHz Band are 
not subject to harmful interference from 600 MHz Band wireless 
operations following the auction.
    22. The Commission declines CTIA's request that the required use of 
OET-74 apply only to 600 MHz wireless licenses that have been formally 
designated as impaired during the incentive auction. Rather, as 
proposed, the OET-74 analysis must be performed for any base station 
located within the culling distance, even if the license was not 
identified as impaired during the auction. Qualified forward auction 
bidders will be provided information about the degree of impairment to 
the license, but such impairments will be estimated using the ISIX 
Methodology based on assumptions of a hypothetical wireless network 
deployment. Post-auction, the Commission's inter-service interference 
methodology will be based on the actual interference environment to 
protect DTV receivers. The Commission notes that qualified forward 
auction bidders will be able to determine prior to bidding whether they 
will be subject to regulatory requirements for a particular license 
because it will provide them with specific information about the 
television stations that will potentially cause impairments to wireless 
licenses (including the facility ID) prior to each stage of the 
auction.
    23. The Commission rejects CTIA's claims that the OET-74 
methodology is burdensome and impractical. A new OET-74 analysis will 
be required only if a base station modification could result in an 
increase in energy in the direction of a full power or Class A 
television station's contour. CTIA's concerns over the number of base 
stations subject to the OET-74 analysis, especially with the deployment 
of small cell architectures, are exaggerated. Antennas at lower power 
and lower height as found in small cell architectures result in shorter 
culling distances, as small as three kilometers in some cases, thereby 
reducing the likelihood that an OET-74 analysis will have to be 
performed for small cell antennas.
    24. The Commission will require a 600 MHz wireless licensee to 
retain the latest copy of its OET-74 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. The wireless licensee will be required to make this 
analysis available for inspection by the Commission at any time and to 
make this analysis available to a television station upon request when 
there are complaints of interference either from the subject television 
station or a station viewer. The Commission rejects NAB's request that 
wireless licensees be required to send all of their OET-74 analyses to 
all potentially affected broadcasters. The Commission finds that 
requiring wireless licensees to retain their most recent OET-74 
analyses, which they may store electronically, and make them available 
in cases of interference complaints will more efficiently assist in the 
investigation and resolution of any complaints.
b. Elimination of Actual Interference to Broadcast Television Stations 
in the 600 MHz Band
    25. The Commission adopts the proposal to require wireless 
licensees to eliminate any actual harmful interference to television 
reception within the contours of a full power or Class A television 
station in the 600 MHz Band, even if OET-74 did not predict such 
interference. The Commission also adopts the proposal for handling such 
interference incidents. As proposed in the ISIX Further Notice, a 
television station operating in the 600 MHz Band that experiences 
harmful interference from co-channel or adjacent channel wireless 
operations must first contact the wireless licensee to resolve the 
issue. The wireless licensee must provide to the television station the 
latest OET-74 analysis showing that no harmful interference was 
predicted to occur in the specific geographic area at issue. Wireless 
licensees and television stations are required to cooperate in good 
faith to resolve any disputes, so as not to unreasonably disrupt 
wireless and broadcast operations. In the event the parties do not 
reach resolution, the broadcaster can submit a claim of harmful 
interference to the Commission.
    26. The Commission declines CDE's requests that it create a toll-
free number and a Web site for consumers to report potential inter-
service interference problems or that it create an interference 
handbook that demonstrates how a television viewer may face 
interference. Instead, the Commission will rely on the framework 
described above, which requires television stations experiencing 
interference problems to contact wireless licensees to resolve the 
potential interference issues.
c. Effect of Interference-Related Restrictions on Wireless Licenses
    27. A 600 MHz wireless licensee will hold a license for its entire 
PEA service area, but its operations will be limited only to those 
portions of the PEA where the licensee will not cause harmful 
interference to the reception of signals from television stations 
assigned to the 600 MHz Band consistent with the standards set forth 
above.
    28. As discussed in the Incentive Auction R&O, 600 MHz licensees 
will be required to meet the 600 MHz Band interim and final build-out 
requirements, except that they may show they are unable to operate in 
areas where they may cause harmful interference to the reception of the 
signals of television stations that remain in the 600 MHz Band due to 
market variation. The same exception to interim and final build-out 
requirements will apply to cases where 600 MHz licensees receive 
harmful interference from television stations assigned to channels in 
the 600 MHz Band. The Commission adopts its proposal to require 
wireless licensees to use the ISIX Methodology it adopted for use 
during the auction for prediction of interference in the Case 1, 2 and 
4 scenarios and the methodology in OET-74 for the Case 3 interference 
scenario to demonstrate that they cannot serve the entire PEA service 
area for purposes of fulfilling the build-out requirements of their 
license. If a licensee is not able to serve its entire license area, it 
must demonstrate why certain areas are excluded from its service area 
due to impairments when it files its construction notification. If the 
impairing television station ceases to operate before the construction 
benchmarks, 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 build-out 
requirements.

B. Protecting Wireless Licensees in the 600 MHz Band from Inter-Service 
Interference

    29. In this section, the Commission adopts rules to ensure that 600 
MHz wireless licenses obtained in the forward auction do not experience 
additional impairments following the incentive auction.

[[Page 71736]]

1. Limitation on Expanding 600 MHz Broadcast Television Stations' 
Contour
    30. The Commission limits full-power and Class A television 
stations assigned to channels in the 600 MHz Band from expanding their 
noise-limited and protected contours, respectively, if doing so would 
increase the impairments to co-channel or adjacent channel 600 MHz 
wireless licenses, unless an agreement is reached with the co-channel 
or adjacent channel wireless licensee allowing for such expansion. For 
purposes of this limitation, impairments refer to both additional 
interference from a television station anywhere in the 600 MHz Band in 
a PEA (Cases 1 and 2), and to any increased restriction on wireless 
operations within a PEA in order to avoid causing harmful interference 
to television receivers within a television station's expanded contour 
(Cases 3 and 4). For purposes of this limitation, a television 
station's baseline contours are those set forth in its initial post-
auction construction permit application. As the Commission stated in 
the Incentive Auction R&O, it will carefully consider requests for 
waiver of the limitation in extraordinary circumstances.
    31. CEA argues for a set distance between the edge of a wireless 
license area and the contours of a co-channel or adjacent channel 
television station beyond which the television station would be allowed 
to expand. The Commission rejects this proposal because the appropriate 
distance would depend largely on factors like transmitted power, 
antenna height, and antenna pattern, as well as terrain and frequency 
overlap, that vary by station. However, if the distance between the 
proposed expanded contour and a co-channel or adjacent channel wireless 
licensee's service area is greater than 500 kilometers, the television 
station will not be required to make a showing that its expanded 
contour does not cause additional impairments to the wireless 
operations.
2. Predicting Potential Interference From LPTV or TV Translator Into 
Wireless Service
    32. As set forth in the Incentive Auction R&O, LPTV and TV 
translator stations in the 600 MHz Band may continue operating 
indefinitely unless a 600 MHz wireless licensee provides advance notice 
that it intends to commence operations and that the LPTV or TV 
translator station is likely to cause harmful interference to the 
wireless operations, based on the methodology the Commission adopts to 
prevent inter-service interference. As proposed in the ISIX Further 
Notice, 600 MHz wireless licensees will use the ISIX Methodology, as 
modified in the First Order on Reconsideration, for predicting 
interference to their operations from LPTV and TV translator stations 
for purposes of providing these stations with advance displacement 
notice.
    33. For this analysis, 600 MHz licensees will use the threshold 
values for the prediction of interference from full power television to 
wireless operations from the ISIX Methodology. With regard to adjacent 
channel interference, LPTV and TV translator stations are allowed to 
operate using either the same emission mask as a full power station or 
one of the other two alternative emission masks specified in the 
Commission's rules. The Commission analyzed the frequency dependent 
rejection (``FDR'') performance of wireless receivers in the presence 
of DTV signals using the three different emission masks and found that 
there is only a 1 dB difference in the threshold values for adjacent 
channel interference to the wireless service across the three masks, 
for both wireless base stations and user equipment. The Commission does 
not find this 1 dB difference to be significant enough to warrant using 
separate thresholds for each emission mask option. Therefore, the 
Commission adopts the same field strengths for co-channel and adjacent 
channel emissions from LPTV and TV translator stations to wireless 
service as the ISIX Methodology provides for full power television 
stations. The Commission will also use the antenna elevation patterns 
for LPTV and TV translator stations in the Consolidated Database System 
(CDBS) or LMS (Licensing and Management System), the successor system 
to CDBS. If CDBS/LMS does not include elevation pattern values for a 
given LPTV or TV translator station, the elevation pattern of these 
stations as they are defined in section 74.793(d) of the Commission's 
rules will apply. The Commission finds that the more conservative 
F(50,10) measure is appropriate when 600 MHz wireless licensees use the 
ISIX Methodology to predict if they will experience interference from 
LPTV or translator stations.
    34. The Commission will require that interference from analog LPTV 
and TV translator stations be analyzed using 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 interfering 
field strength of the ``replicated'' analog television signal should be 
treated the same as an interfering digital television signal when 
conducting the interference analysis.

C. Inter-Service Interference During the Post-Auction Transition Period

    35. The Commission adopts its proposal in the ISIX Further Notice 
to protect full power and Class A television stations that have not yet 
relocated from the 600 MHz Band during the Post-Auction Transition 
Period in the same manner that it will protect stations that remain in 
or relocate to the 600 MHz Band. A wireless operator commencing 
operations before the end of the Post-Auction Transition Period must 
perform an OET-74 analysis when it intends to deploy base stations 
within the culling distance of a co-channel or adjacent channel full 
power or Class A television station that is operating in the 600 MHz 
Band to predict whether its wireless operations in all or part of its 
license area would cause harmful interference to the reception of 
signals from nearby television stations, regardless of whether these 
television stations will be relocated by the end of the Post-Auction 
Transition Period. Consistent with the requirements adopted, the 
wireless licensee must retain the latest copy of its OET-74 
interference analysis, make this analysis available for inspection by 
the Commission at any time, and make this analysis available to a 
television station upon request when there are complaints of 
interference either from the subject television station or a station 
viewer. In addition, if there are co-channel or adjacent channel 
television stations in the wireless licensee's uplink spectrum, the 
wireless provider must limit its service area to ensure that user 
equipment does not operate within five kilometers of the contour when 
co-channel or within a half kilometer when adjacent channel. Consistent 
with the rules set forth, once a nearby full power or Class A station 
has transitioned from its pre-auction channel, the 600 MHz Band 
licensee need no longer limit its operations in order to protect the 
station from inter-service interference.
    36. Television stations assigned to the 600 MHz Band in the 
repacking process may not actually relocate to their assigned channel 
until late in the Post-Auction Transition Period. However, the 
Commission will not permit wireless licensees to deploy networks in the 
period before the station relocates in areas that will potentially 
interfere with these television stations once they commence 
broadcasting. Consequently, television stations that have not yet 
constructed their new facilities will be protected from inter-service 
interference during the Post-Auction Transition

[[Page 71737]]

Period based on the contours specified in their initial post-auction 
construction permits. Therefore, a 600 MHz wireless licensee that wants 
to commence operations prior to the end of the Post-Auction Transition 
Period will have to protect television stations that are operating co-
channel or adjacent channel at that time and television stations that 
will be operating co-channel or adjacent channel by the end of the 
Post-Auction Transition Period.

D. Assessing Interference From and to International Broadcast 
Television Stations During the Auction

    37. The Commission adopts its proposal to use the ISIX Methodology 
to identify impairments to repurposed 600 MHz spectrum along the 
international borders during the auction. During the incentive auction, 
the ISIX Methodology will be used to predict interference from U.S. 
television stations to Canadian wireless operators (Cases 1 and 2). In 
accordance with the U.S.-Canada Statement of Intent, the ISIX 
Methodology will use F(50,10) signal strength predictions for the 
signals from U.S. television stations and will assume the Canadian 
wireless base stations are 50 meters above ground level. Even though 
the U.S. and Mexico have not reached an agreement on inter-service 
interference between television and wireless operations across the 
U.S.-Mexico border, coordination letters have been exchanged which 
provide a channel plan for the reassignment of broadcast television 
stations in the border region. Because the ISIX methodology is not 
designed for analog signals, and Canada and Mexico have not completed 
their digital transitions, the Commission will use TVStudy's capability 
to ``replicate'' a Canadian or Mexican analog signal as an equivalent 
digital signal and analyze the station as though it is transmitting a 
digital signal.

Summary of the First Order on Reconsideration

A. ISIX Methodology

    38. In the ISIX R&O, the Commission adopted the ISIX Methodology 
for use during the incentive auction to predict the extent to which 600 
MHz Band wireless licenses may be impaired due to potential 
interference to, and from, broadcast television stations assigned to 
the 600 MHz Band as a result of market variation. The Commission 
received several petitions for reconsideration regarding the ISIX 
Methodology.
    39. In its Petition for Reconsideration, NAB claims that the ISIX 
Methodology will fail to predict wireless impairments ``with any useful 
degree of accuracy'' because wireless carriers will have to use a 
``different methodology'' following the auction based on real-world 
deployments. NAB repeats its recommendation made in several of its 
filings in this proceeding that, instead of the ISIX Methodology, the 
Commission should use a fixed distance-based approach, because doing so 
would be ``far easier to implement and will not sacrifice meaningful 
spectral efficiency.'' The Commission denies NAB'S petition for 
reconsideration because NAB offers no basis to revisit its conclusion 
that the ISIX Methodology accommodates market variation in a more 
spectrally efficient manner than a fixed distance-based approach and 
disagree with NAB's claim that the decision to use a different 
methodology to predict inter-service interference after the auction 
calls into question the accuracy of the ISIX Methodology for predicting 
impairments during the auction. NAB also claims that the base station 
antenna heights and powers assumed in the ISIX Methodology are less 
than what is permitted by the Commission's rules and therefore 
understates the potential for interference. The Commission rejects this 
claim because it was fully considered and rejected when the ISIX R&O 
was adopted.
    40. Sprint and NAB, sought reconsideration of the decision to use 
the F(50,50) statistical measure instead of the F(50,10) measure in the 
ISIX Methodology when estimating interference from television stations 
to wireless operations. The Commission denies Sprint's and NAB's 
Petitions for Reconsideration and affirms its conclusion that F(50,50) 
is an appropriate statistical measure for this purpose, whereas the 
F(50,10) measure is unnecessarily conservative. In any event, bidders 
in the forward auction will have the necessary information to make 
their own calculations of impairments based on any number of factors 
they wish to consider, including their choice of statistical parameter.
    41. The Commission will revise the ISIX Methodology to reflect the 
adjustments to the D/U thresholds for the Case 3 interference scenario 
it adopted in the companion Third Report and Order. These values are 
not assumptions that will change once the wireless networks are 
deployed. Accordingly, there is no basis to have interference threshold 
values applied during the auction to determine impairments that differ 
from the interference threshold values applied after the auction to 
determine interference. Therefore, the Commission will update the 
interference threshold values in the ISIX Methodology to be consistent 
with the values adopted above.
    42. The Commission also makes a number of miscellaneous changes to 
the ISIX Methodology. These changes were made to reflect updates and 
revisions of input values and software settings to improve 
functionality and to reflect the U.S.-Canada Statement of Intent and 
decisions the Commission made in the Bidding Procedures PN, 80 FR 
61918, October 14, 2015. These changes are reflected in the Appendix D 
of the Third Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration 
describing the ISIX Methodology:
     Updated references to the LPTV digital transition.
     Updated references to license categories which were 
adopted in the Bidding Procedures PN.
     Revised references to emission limits and receiver 
standards in paragraph 13 to reflect the use of the FCC's emission 
limits for DTV and wireless receiver performance standards published by 
3GPP.
     Provided threshold values for inter-service interference 
calculations in the repacking process along the border regions. These 
values do not relate to the computation of impairments on 600 MHz 
licenses.
     Added an explanation in paragraph 31 that for Case 3, the 
base station transmitter azimuth pattern is assumed to be non-
directional and is based on UHF DTV vertical pattern described in OET 
Bulletin No. 69, Table 8. However, the elevation pattern is assumed to 
be symmetrical above and below the maximum.
     Table 14 lists the TVStudy settings unique to the ISIX 
Methodology.
     In Table 15, the entry HAS_EPAT was changed from ``False'' 
to ``True'' because TVStudy will import the pattern in the XML 
scenario.
     Paragraph 38 updated to indicate that the elevation 
pattern for each base station must be imported in the XML file and 
lists the values for the symmetrical generic pattern.

B. Request for Additional Protection in the Repacking Process

    43. In the ISIX R&O, the Commission declined to adopt a cap on the 
amount of total or aggregate new station-to-station interference that a 
broadcast station will be allowed to receive as a result of the 
repacking process. The Commission denies the petitions for 
reconsideration of CDE and NAB requesting reconsideration of this 
decision. Neither CDE nor NAB challenge the staff study that concluded 
that approximately 99 percent of

[[Page 71738]]

stations will not experience new interference above one percent or 
otherwise dispute the study's conclusion that stations are unlikely to 
be experience significant new interference as a result of the repacking 
process. The Commission explained in the ISIX R&O how an aggregate 
interference cap would deprive the repacking feasibility checker of its 
speed. CDE and NAB do not offer any reason to dispute this conclusion, 
nor do they propose a means of implementing an aggregate interference 
cap without compromising the speed of the bidding process.
    44. Because radio signals propagate differently on different 
frequencies, the signal of a station reassigned to a different channel 
will generally not be receivable in precisely the same locations within 
a station's contour as it was in its original channel. In its ex parte 
filings prior to adoption of the ISIX R&O, NAB asked the Commission to 
address both station-to-station interference and population loss 
resulting from new channel assignments by adopting a cap on ``aggregate 
population loss,'' which the Commission refused to do on procedural 
grounds. NAB ask for reconsideration of the Commission's decision 
declining to adopt a cap on population loss resulting from new channel 
assignments in the repacking process. The Commission grants in part and 
denies in part NAB's petition for reconsideration. The Commission 
expects most stations will not lose viewers as a result of terrain loss 
resulting from new channel assignments. Even if some stations are 
predicted to lose viewers as a result of terrain loss resulting from 
new channel assignments, the Commission's final television channel 
assignment plan selection procedure includes optimization techniques to 
address this concern.
    45. In the event some stations are predicted to lose viewers as a 
result of new channel assignments even after optimization techniques 
are applied, there will be post-auction solutions to address this 
situation. First, as adopted in the Incentive Auction R&O, a television 
station may request up to a one percent coverage contour increase as 
part of its initial post-auction construction permit application, 
subject to certain conditions. Second, the Commission amends its rules 
to provide that stations predicted to experience a loss in population 
served in excess of one percent as a result of the repacking process--
either because of new station-to-station interference or terrain loss 
resulting from a new channel assignment (or a combination of both)--may 
file an application proposing an alternate channel or expanded 
facilities in a priority filing window, along with a limited number of 
other stations that have been assigned the same priority. Third, the 
Commission proposed in the LPTV Third FNPRM to allow a full power 
station that is predicted to experience a loss in its pre-auction 
digital service area as a result of its new channel assignment to seek 
authority to deploy a digital-to-digital replacement translator 
(``DTDRT'') to serve the loss area.
    46. A cap on population loss resulting from new channel assignments 
as proposed by NAB would compromise the central objective of a 
successful auction to allow market forces to repurpose spectrum. NAB's 
proposed approach for incorporating its cap on population loss into the 
repacking process involves certain elements that are either infeasible 
or meaningless and, on the whole, would impede the Commission's ability 
to conduct a successful auction and thereby sacrifice the goal of 
repurposing spectrum.

C. Use of TVStudy To Determine Coverage Area and Population Serviced by 
Television Stations

    47. The Commission denies Petitions for Reconsideration of the 
Incentive Auction R&O filed by the Affiliates Associations and CDE 
challenging the Commission's decision to use the TVStudy software and 
certain inputs in applying the methodology described in OET-69 to 
determine the coverage area and population served by television 
stations. The Commission explained in the Incentive Auction R&O why the 
TVStudy software and inputs are distinct from the OET-69 methodology 
and Affiliates Associations offer no basis to revisit this conclusion. 
Affiliates Associations and CDE take issue with the fact that, using 
identical inputs, TVStudy produces different results than previous 
versions of the software used to implement OET-69. The Spectrum Act 
mandates that the Commission use the ``methodology described in OET 
Bulletin 69,'' not particular software to implement that methodology or 
arrive at a pre-determined result. The Commission's decision to use 
software that is ``user-friendly and better adapted to handle the kinds 
of computations the Commission will need to conduct in the reverse 
auction and repacking process called for by the Spectrum Act'' is fully 
consistent with Congressional intent.
    48. Affiliates Associations also claims that the Incentive Auction 
R&O ``fail[ed] to address'' losses in ``coverage area.'' The 
Commission's decision pertaining to preservation of ``coverage area'' 
was affirmed by the D.C. Circuit. Affiliates Associations offers no 
basis to revisit the Commission's approach to preserving ``coverage 
area.''

Procedural Matters

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    49. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA),\1\ an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM).\2\ The 
Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, 
including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 through 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).
    \2\ See Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of 
Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 12-268, ET Docket 
No. 13-26, ET Docket No. 14-14, Second Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 13071 (2014) (ISIX R&O/
FNPRM or ISIX R&O or ISIX Further Notice).
    \3\ See 5 U.S.C. 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules

    50. In the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission adopted a flexible 
band plan framework that accommodates market variation. Market 
variation occurs where broadcast stations remain on spectrum that is 
repurposed for wireless broadband under the 600 MHz Band Plan. In this 
Third Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration, it adopted 
the framework proposed in the inter-service interference, Further 
Notice (ISIX Further Notice) to govern the interference environment in 
the new 600 MHz Band due to market variation.
    51. The Commission adopted a number of measures to protect 
television reception for those television stations that will remain in 
the 600 MHz Band after the incentive auction. It adopted a zero percent 
threshold for interference from wireless operations to the reception of 
signals from television broadcast stations in the 600 MHz Band, which 
will prohibit 600 MHz wireless licensees from causing harmful 
interference at any level within the contour of a broadcast station. 
The Commission also adopted OET-74, a methodology for predicting 
interference to television receivers from wireless base stations. 
However, the Commission modified the D/U threshold used to determine if 
interference to television reception is occurring in OET-74 from

[[Page 71739]]

what was proposed in the ISIX Further Notice so that the threshold does 
not become unrealistically large when the television signal is weak. 
Wireless licensees will be allowed to deploy base stations within a 
specified culling distance of co-channel or adjacent channel television 
stations only where they can demonstrate using OET-74 that they will 
not cause harmful interference to television reception within the 
stations' contours. In addition, the Commission prohibits the operation 
of wireless user equipment within five kilometers of the contours of 
co-channel television stations and one-half kilometer of adjacent 
channel television stations. It will require wireless licensees to 
eliminate any actual harmful interference to the reception of signals 
from television station in the 600 MHz Band, even if such interference 
was not predicted using OET-74.
    52. The Commission also adopted measures to protect the future 
operations of 600 MHz Band wireless licensees from television stations 
that remain in the 600 MHz band. It will prohibit broadcast television 
licensees who operate in the 600 MHz Band from expanding their noise-
limited or protected contours if doing so would increase the potential 
for interference to a wireless licensee's service area or would result 
in additional impairments to the wireless licenses because of the 
obligations of the wireless licensee to protect television reception. 
The Commission also adopted the use of the ISIX Methodology specified 
in the ISIX R&O, as modified in the First Order on Reconsideration, for 
predicting when an LPTV or TV translator station will cause harmful 
interference to wireless operations. For this purpose, the ISIX 
Methodology will use the same threshold values for the prediction of 
interference from full power television to wireless operations as 
specified in the ISIX R&O and will use the F(50,10) statistical measure 
to predict the strength of the LPTV or TV translator signal.
    53. Under the rules adopted in the Incentive Auction R&O, 600 MHz 
Band wireless licensees are required to meet interim and final build-
out requirements, but the build-out requirements only apply to areas 
they are permitted to serve. The Commission will require 600 MHz 
wireless licensees to use the ISIX Methodology and/or OET-74 to 
demonstrate that they cannot meet build-out requirements for portions 
of the geographic area covered by their license.
    54. U.S. television stations may cause interference to Canadian 
wireless operations after the incentive auction. For purposes of 
predicting these impairments during the incentive auction, the 
Commission adopts the use of the ISIX Methodology with adjustments to 
reflect an agreement reached with Canada.
    55. In the First Order on Reconsideration the Commission considered 
a number of petitions for reconsideration filed in response to the ISIX 
R&O. It affirmed our decision to use the ISIX Methodology to predict 
inter-service interference between television and wireless services 
during the incentive auction. The Commission modified the ISIX 
Methodology adopted in the ISIX R&O by making the same adjustment to 
the D/U threshold used to determine if interference will occur to 
television reception as we did for OET-74. The Commission also affirmed 
its decisions declining to adopt a cap on the aggregate amount of new 
interference a broadcast television station may receive from other 
television stations in the repacking process and declining to adopt a 
cap on population loss that a television station may experience because 
of a new channel assignment in the repacking process. The Commission 
amended its rules to provide that a television station that will 
experience a loss in population served in excess of one percent as a 
result of the repacking process--either because of new station-to-
station interference or terrain loss resulting from a new channel 
assignment (or a combination of both)--may file an application 
proposing an alternate channel or expanded facilities in a priority 
filing window. In response to a petition for reconsideration of the 
Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission affirmed its decision to use the 
TVStudy software and certain inputs in applying the methodology 
described in OET-69 to determine the coverage area and population 
served by television stations when making new channel assignments 
during the incentive auction.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    56. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    57. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission 
is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a 
detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result 
of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in 
response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply

    58. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\4\ The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' \5\ In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act.\6\ A small business concern is one which: 
(1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its 
field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the SBA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \5\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \6\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition 
of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the 
RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies ``unless 
an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public 
comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are 
appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such 
definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
    \7\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    59. Television Broadcasting. This economic census category 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images 
together with sound. These establishments operate television 
broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and 
transmission of programs to the public.'' \8\ The SBA has created the 
following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting 
firms: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.\9\ The 
Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television 
stations to be 1,388.\10\ In addition, according to Commission staff 
review of the BIA Advisory Services, LLC's Media Access Pro Television 
Database on March 28, 2012, about 950 of an estimated 1,300 commercial 
television stations (or

[[Page 71740]]

approximately 73 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less.\11\ 
The Commission therefore estimate that the majority of commercial 
television broadcasters are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 515120 
Television Broadcasting, http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=515120&search=2012 (last visited Mar. 6, 2014).
    \9\ 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 515120) (updated for inflation in 
2010).
    \10\ See 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.
    \11\ We recognize that BIA's estimate differs slightly from the 
FCC total given the information provided above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    60. The Commission notes, however, that in assessing whether a 
business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, 
business (control) affiliations must be included.\12\ Our estimate, 
therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be 
affected by our action because the revenue figure on which it is based 
does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In 
addition, an element of the definition of ``small business'' is that 
the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one 
concern controls or has the power to control the other, or a third 
party or parties controls or has the power to control both.'' 13 CFR 
121.103(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    61. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of 
licensed noncommercial educational (``NCE'') television stations to be 
395.\13\ These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be 
small entities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 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.
    \14\ See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. There are also 2,414 LPTV stations, including Class A stations, 
and 4,046 TV translator stations.\15\ Given the nature of these 
services, we will presume that all of these entities qualify as small 
entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    63. 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.
    64. 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.
    65. 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.'' \16\ 
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.\17\ For this category, census data for 2007 show 
that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.\18\ Of 
this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 
had employment of 1000 employees or more.\19\ 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.\20\ Of these, an 
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 
1,500 employees.\21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ U.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).
    \17\ 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 517210).
    \18\ U.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://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5.
    \19\ 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.
    \20\ See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
    \21\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    66. Wireless licensees in the 600 MHz Band will be required to 
conduct an interference analysis using OET-74 before operating a base 
station within the culling distance of the contour of a co-channel or 
adjacent channel broadcast television station. They will also be 
required to conduct an OET-74 interference analysis when making a 
modification to such a base station that could result in an increase in 
energy in the direction of broadcast station's contour. The wireless 
licensee will be required to retain the latest copy of their OET-74 
analysis for each base station that is within the culling distance of a 
co-channel or adjacent channel broadcast station. The wireless licensee 
will be required to make this analysis available for inspection by the 
Commission at any time and to make this analysis available to a 
television station upon request when there are complaints of 
interference either from the subject television station or a station 
viewer. Wireless licensees and television stations will cooperate in 
good faith to resolve any disputes, as not to unreasonably frustrate 
wireless and broadcast operations. In the event the parties do not 
reach resolution, a broadcaster can submit a claim of harmful 
interference to the Commission.
    67. Wireless licensees in the 600 MHz Band will be prohibited from 
operating a base station within the contour of a co-channel or adjacent 
channel broadcast station. Wireless licensees will also be required to 
limit their coverage areas so that mobile and portable devices

[[Page 71741]]

maintain a minimum distance of five kilometers from a co-channel 
broadcast station's contour and 500 meters from an adjacent channel 
broadcast station's contour.
    68. Wireless licensees will be required to eliminate any harmful 
interference that occurs to television reception within the contours of 
a co-channel or adjacent channel broadcast television station. This 
requirement to eliminate harmful interference applies even if the OET-
74 analysis indicates that no harmful interference will occur.
    69. A broadcast television station in the 600 MHz Band will not be 
allowed to expand its contour such that it would increase impairments 
to a wireless licensee either by causing additional interference to the 
wireless licensee's service area or because of the obligations of the 
wireless licensee to protect television reception, unless an agreement 
is reached with the wireless licensee allowing the expansion.
    70. A wireless licensee that intends to commence operations will be 
required to use the ISIX Methodology adopted in the ISIX R&O, as 
modified in the First Order on Reconsideration, to determine if a LPTV 
or translator station will cause it harmful interference. The wireless 
licensee will then be able to send the required notification to the 
LPTV or translator station that will cause it harmful interference.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The requirement that the LPTV or translator station that 
will cause a wireless licensee harmful interference cease operation 
within 120 days after receiving notification from a wireless 
licensee that is going to commence operations was adopted in the 
Incentive Auction R&O. Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6834-
6835, 6839-6841, paras. 657, 668-671.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    71. Wireless licensees will use the ISIX Methodology or OET-74 to 
show that they are unable to operate in portions of their license area 
for purposes of satisfying their build-out requirements. They will use 
the ISIX Methodology for demonstrating harmful interference from co-
channel and adjacent channel broadcast television stations to their 
base stations and user equipment as well as demonstrating harmful 
interference from wireless user equipment to television receivers. They 
will use OET-74 for demonstrating harmful interference from wireless 
base stations to television receivers.\23\ If the impairing television 
station ceases to operate before the construction benchmarks, 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 build-out requirements.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6883, 684, paras. 778, 
781; 47 CFR 1.946(d). The construction notification will have to be 
filed within 15 days of the relevant milestone certifying that it 
has met the applicable performance benchmark within its permitted 
boundaries.
    \24\ Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6606, para. 86 n. 277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    72. A television station that will experience a loss in population 
served in excess of one percent as a result of the repacking process--
either because of new station-to-station interference or terrain loss 
resulting from a new channel assignment (or a combination of both)--may 
file an application proposing an alternate channel or expanded 
facilities in a priority filing window. Previously, our rules permitted 
a station to file an application in the priority filing window only 
when the greater than one percent loss in population served was from 
station-to-station interference.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    73. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    74. Many of the reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance 
requirements we adopt here are designed to protect television broadcast 
stations and 600 MHz Band wireless licensees from harmful interference. 
Because many of these television broadcast stations and wireless 
licensees are small entities, the rules will protect the economic 
interest of small entities. Consequently, the effect of these rules on 
small entities can be viewed as a tradeoff between the compliance 
burdens of the rules on some small entities balanced against the 
interference protections supplied by the rules to other small entities. 
We conclude that the benefits of these rules in protecting small 
entities from interference is stronger than the compliance burdens that 
the rules place on small entities.
    75. For example, the adopted rules require wireless licensees to 
conduct an OET-74 interference analysis before locating a base station 
within the culling distance of a co-channel or adjacent channel 
television broadcast station. This rule will impact those wireless 
licensees that are small entities by requiring them to perform the OET-
74 analysis and potentially preventing them from constructing base 
stations in portions of their licensed service areas. However, this 
requirement will help prevent harmful interference to the reception of 
signals from co-channel and adjacent channel television broadcast 
stations, many of whom are small entities. As an alternative to 
requiring an OET-74 analysis, we could have specified an exclusion zone 
around a broadcast television station's contour that wireless base 
stations could not be located within to prevent interference to 
television reception. However, this would have excluded the base 
stations from a much larger area than the adopted rules because it 
would not have taken into account the effects that terrain has on 
signal propagation and the characteristics of the base stations such as 
transmitted power and antenna height. Requiring an OET-74 analysis 
instead of relying on an exclusion zone thereby enables the wireless 
licensee to use a greater portion of its licensed service area, which 
is of significant economic benefit to the wireless licensee.
    76. As another example, the adopted rules prohibit television 
broadcast stations in the 600 MHz Band from expanding their contours in 
a way that will impair a wireless license by causing interference to a 
wireless licensee or because of a wireless licensee's obligation to 
protect television reception. This rule will impact television 
broadcast stations in the 600 MHz Band by preventing them from 
expanding their contours in the future, but the rule will protect the 
interests of wireless licensees by preventing impairments of their 
licenses.
    77. Some of the rules adopted here provide a means to implement 
rules we have previously adopted. For example, in the Incentive Auction 
R&O, the Commission adopted rules requiring 600 MHz Band wireless 
licensees to meet build-out requirements.\26\ While the previously 
adopted rules do not require wireless licensees to build-out their 
networks in areas that are impaired by either receiving interference 
from television broadcasters remaining in the band or because they will 
cause interference to television reception, the rules do not specify 
how the wireless

[[Page 71742]]

licensee will show what areas are impaired. For purposes of 
demonstrating impairments for the build-out requirements, the Third 
Report and Order will require 600 MHz wireless licensees to use the 
ISIX Methodology for showing interference from television broadcasters 
to wireless operations and for interference from wireless user 
equipment to television receivers and will require wireless licenses to 
use OET-74 to demonstrate interference to television receivers. This 
requirement will benefit 600 MHz Band wireless licensees by enabling 
them to exclude impaired locations of their licensed areas from the 
build-out requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6877-78, para 764.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    78. In the Incentive Auction R&O, we specified that LPTV and TV 
translator station in the 600 MHz band could continue to operate until 
a wireless licensee provided advance notice that it intends to commence 
operations and the LPTV or TV translator is likely to cause harmful 
interference. For purposes of providing this displacement notice, in 
the Third Report and Order the Commission specify that wireless 
licensees will use the ISIX Methodology to determine if the LPTV or TV 
translator stations will cause them interference for purposes of 
notifying the LPTV or TV translator stations. While this requirement 
will burden 600 MHz Band wireless licensees by requiring them to 
perform an ISIX Methodology interference study, it will benefit LPTV 
and TV translator licensees by allowing them to continue operating 
until their spectrum is actually needed by the wireless licensees. 
Consequently, this requirement represents a reasonable balancing 
between the interest of LPTV and translators, many of whom are small 
businesses, and 600 MHz Band wireless licensees, many of whom are also 
small licensees.
    79. To minimize the burdens on small businesses that are required 
by the rules we are adopting that require OET-74 and ISIX Methodology 
interference analyses, we intend to make a version of our TVStudy 
software available that can perform these analyses. The software can be 
used on a computer that costs less than $2000 and is available free 
online at http://data.fcc.gov/download/incentive-auctions/OET-69/. 
Because we are making this software available, licensees will not need 
to develop their own software or contract with an engineering 
consultant to perform these interference analyses. To further reduce 
the compliance burden on 600 MHz Band wireless licensees, we will not 
require them to share their OET-74 interference analysis with 
television broadcasters unless there is an actual interference 
complaint. The wireless licensee will be able to store the OET-74 
analysis electronically, which will reduce the record keeping and 
compliance cost to the wireless licensee.
    80. Television stations that are relocated during the incentive 
auction may experience a change in coverage area due to terrain loss 
because of the different propagation characteristics at their new 
frequency. Television stations that experience a loss in population 
served in excess of one percent as a result of the repacking process--
either because of new station-to-station interference or terrain loss 
resulting from a new channel assignment (or a combination of both)--
will now be permitted to file an application proposing an alternate 
channel or expanded facilities in a priority filing window. This will 
benefit television stations that experience such a loss of population 
serviced.
    81. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the 
Third Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration, including 
this FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act.\27\ In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Third 
Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration, including this 
FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Third 
Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration, including this 
FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ordering Clauses

    82. Pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 4, 301, 303, 
307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 332, and 403 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, and sections 6402 and 6403 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, 316, 319, 332, 403, 1452, and 
1454, the Third Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration is 
adopted. The Commission's rules are hereby amended as set forth in 
Appendix B.
    83. The rules adopted herein will become effective December 17, 
2015, except for Sections 27.1310 and 73.3700(b)(1)(iv)(B) of the rules 
which contain new or modified information collection requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, that 
are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB). The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in 
the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the effective date of 
this rule.
    84. Pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.429, the Petitions for Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order 
in GN Docket No. 12-268, ET Docket No. 13-26, and ET Docket No. 14-14 
filed by Cohen, Dippell, and Everist, P.C. and by Sprint Corporation 
are denied to the extent described herein.
    85. Pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and section 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.429, the Petition for Reconsideration of the Second Report and 
Order in GN Docket No. 12-268, ET Docket No. 13-26, and ET Docket No. 
14-14 filed by the National Association of Broadcasters is granted in 
part and denied in part to the extent described herein.
    86. Pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.429, the Petitions for Reconsideration of the Report and Order in GN 
Docket No. 12-268 filed by ABC Television Affiliates Association, CBS 
Television Network Affiliates Association, FBC Television Affiliates 
Association, and NBC Television Affiliates and by Cohen, Dippell, and 
Everist, P.C. are denied to the extent described herein.
    87. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Third Report 
and Order and First Order on Reconsideration in GN Docket No. 12-268, 
ET Docket No. 13-26, and ET Docket No. 14-14, including the Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.
    88. The Commission shall send a copy of this Third Report and Order 
and First Order on Reconsideration in GN Docket No. 12-268, ET Docket 
No. 13-26, and ET Docket No. 14-14 in a report to be sent to Congress 
and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 27 and 73

    Communications equipment, Radio, Television, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.


[[Page 71743]]


    Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 27 and 73 as follows:

PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for 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.


0
2. Add an undesignated center heading and Sec.  27.1310.to read as 
follows:

Protection of Other Services


Sec.  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 
signals of broadcast television stations transmitting co-channel or on 
an adjacent channel.
    (1) Such wireless operations must comply with the D/U ratios in 
Table 5 in OET Bulletin No. 74, Methodology for Predicting Inter-
Service Interference to Broadcast Television from Mobile Wireless 
Broadband Services in the UHF Band ([DATE]) (``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., 
Dockets Branch (Room CY A09257), Washington, DC 20554. This document is 
also available through the Internet on the FCC Home Page at http://www.fcc.gov.
    (2) If a 600 MHz band licensee causes harmful interference within 
the noise-limited contour or protected contour of a broadcast 
television station that is operating co-channel or on an adjacent 
channel, the 600 MHz band licensee must eliminate the harmful 
interference.
    (b) A licensee authorized to operate wireless services in the 600 
MHz downlink band:
    (1) Is not permitted to deploy wireless base stations within the 
noise-limited contour or protected contour of a broadcast television 
station licensed on a co-channel or adjacent channel in the 600 MHz 
downlink band;
    (2) Is required to perform an interference study using the 
methodology in OET Bulletin No. 74 before deploying or operating 
wireless base stations within the culling distances specified in Tables 
7-12 of OET Bulletin No. 74 from the noise-limited contour or protected 
contour of such a broadcast television station;
    (3) Is required to perform an interference study using the 
methodology in OET Bulletin No. 74 when modifying a base station within 
the culling distances in Tables 7-12 of OET Bulletin 74 that results in 
an increase in energy in the direction of co-channel or adjacent 
channel broadcast television station's contours;
    (4) Is required to maintain records of the latest OET Bulletin No. 
74 study for each base station and make them available for inspection 
to the Commission and, upon a claim of harmful interference, to the 
requesting broadcasting television station.
    (c) A licensee authorized to operate wireless services in the 600 
MHz uplink band must limit its service area so that mobile and portable 
devices do not transmit:
    (1) Co-channel or adjacent channel to a broadcast television 
station within that station's noise-limited contour or protected 
contour;
    (2) Co-channel to a broadcast television station within five 
kilometers of that station's noise-limited contour or protected 
contour; and
    (3) Adjacent channel to a broadcast television station within 500 
meters of that station's noise-limited contour or protected contour.
    (d) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
    (1) Broadcast television station is defined pursuant to Sec.  
73.3700(a)(1) of this chapter;
    (2) Noise-limited contour is defined to be the full power station's 
noise-limited contour pursuant to Sec.  73.622(e);
    (3) Protected contour is defined to be a Class A television 
station's protected contour as specified in section 73.6010;
    (4) Co-channel operations in the 600 MHz band are defined as 
operations of broadcast television stations and wireless services where 
their assigned channels or frequencies spectrally overlap;
    (5) Adjacent channel operations are defined as operations of 
broadcast television stations and wireless services where their 
assigned channels or frequencies spectrally abut each other or are 
separated by up to 5 MHz.

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
3. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.


0
4. Section 73.3700 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(B) and 
adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  73.3700  Post-Incentive Auction Licensing and Operation.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (B) The licensee of any broadcast television station that the 
Commission makes all reasonable efforts to preserve pursuant to section 
6403(b)(2) of the Spectrum Act that is predicted to experience a loss 
in population served in excess of one percent as a result of the 
repacking process, either because of new station-to-station 
interference or terrain loss resulting from a new channel assignment 
(or a combination of both), will be afforded an opportunity to submit 
an application for a construction permit pursuant to paragraph 
(b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section in the priority filing window 
required by paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A) of this section.
* * * * *
    (i) A broadcast television station licensed in the 600 MHz band, as 
that band is defined in section 27.5(l)--
    (1) Shall not be permitted to modify its facilities, except as 
provided in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, if such modification 
will expand its noise limited service contour (in the case of a full 
power station) or protected contour (in the case of a Class A station) 
in such a way as to:
    (i) Increase the potential of harmful interference to a wireless 
licensee which is co-channel or adjacent channel to the broadcast 
television station; or
    (ii) Require such a wireless licensee to restrict its operations in 
order to avoid causing harmful interference to the broadcast television 
station's expanded noise limited service or protected contour;
    (2) Shall be permitted to modify its facilities, even when 
prohibited by paragraph (i)(1) of this section, if all the wireless 
licensees in paragraph (i)(1) who either will experience an increase in 
the potential for harmful interference or must restrict their 
operations in order to avoid causing interference agree to permit the 
modification and the modification otherwise meets all the requirements 
in this part;
    (3) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
    (i) Co-channel operations in the 600 MHz band are defined as 
operations of broadcast television stations and wireless services where 
their assigned

[[Page 71744]]

channels or frequencies spectrally overlap.
    (ii) Adjacent channel operations are defined as operations of 
broadcast television stations and wireless services where their 
assigned channels or frequencies spectrally abut each other or are 
separated by up to 5 MHz.

[FR Doc. 2015-29239 Filed 11-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P