[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 20 (Monday, February 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5041-5054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00060]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 15 and 74

[MB Docket No. 03-185; GN Docket No. 12-268; ET Docket No. 14-175; FCC 
15-175]


Low Power Television Digital Rules

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) adopted several measures to facilitate the final 
conversion of low power television (LPTV) and TV translator stations to 
digital service. The Commission also adopted proposals to mitigate the 
potential impact of the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction 
and the repacking process on LPTV and TV translator stations and to 
help preserve the important services they provide.

DATES: The rules will become effective March 2, 2016, except for Sec.  
74.800, which contain new or modified information collection 
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission will publish a 
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for 
those rules.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaun Maher, [email protected] of 
the Media Bureau, Video Division, (202) 418-2324. For additional 
information concerning the PRA information collection requirements 
contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams, Federal 
Communications Commission, at (202) 418-2918, or via email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third 
R&O. The full text is available for inspection and copying during 
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street 
SW., Room CY-A257, Portals II, Washington, DC 20554, and may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, BCPI, Inc., Portals 
II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers 
may contact BCPI, Inc. via their Web site, http://www.bcpi.com, or call 
1-800-378-3160. This document is available in alternative formats 
(computer diskette, large print, audio record, and Braille). Persons 
with disabilities who need documents in these formats may contact the 
FCC by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-
0432.
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis: This document contains 
new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite 
the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 
comment on the information collection requirements contained in this 
document in a separate Federal Register Notice, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, see 44 U.S.C. 3507. 
In addition,

[[Page 5042]]

pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific 
comment on how we might further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    Congressional Review Act: The Commission will send a copy of this 
Third Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).

Synopsis

    1. In this Third R&O, the Commission: (1) Extends the digital 
transition deadline for analog LPTV and TV translator stations to 12 
months after completion of the incentive auction 39-month post-auction 
transition period; (2) harmonizes this deadline with the construction 
deadline for new digital LPTV and TV translator stations; and (3) 
adopts rules to allow channel sharing, outside the auction context, 
between LPTV and TV translator stations. The Commission announces that 
it will use software developed for use in the incentive auction to 
assist LPTV and TV translator stations displaced by the auction and 
repacking process to identify new channels. In addition, the Commission 
creates a ``digital-to-digital replacement translator'' service for 
full power television stations. Finally, the Commission eliminates, as 
of August 31, 2017, the requirement in section 15.117(b) of its rules 
that future TV receivers include analog tuners.

Extending the September 1, 2015 LPTV and TV Translator Digital 
Transition Date

    2. To provide relief to analog LPTV and TV translator stations, the 
Commission extended the digital transition date to 12 months following 
the completion of the incentive auction 39-month post-auction 
transition period (or 51 months from the completion of the incentive 
auction and the release of the post-auction Channel Reassignment PN). 
The Commission extended the construction deadline/expiration date of 
all valid outstanding digital construction permits held by analog LPTV 
and TV translator stations transitioning to digital (currently 
September 1, 2015) to the new transition date. The Commission concluded 
that this new deadline is sufficiently far enough after the public 
announcement of the outcome of the incentive auction and the repacking 
process so as to provide stations with enough time to analyze the 
outcome and determine the best route to convert their analog 
facilities. The new deadline will provide analog stations that are 
displaced as a result of the auction and the repacking process a 
reasonable timeframe in which to obtain displacement channels, 
construct digital facilities, and begin operating.
    3. The Commission disagreed with commenters that argued that it did 
not have ``sufficient information'' to set a new deadline now and that 
it should wait until after the conclusion of the incentive auction. 
Because it did not set a specific transition date as the Commission did 
in the past, but rather established a deadline that will provide a set 
period of time after the incentive auction and the post-auction 
transition process for stations to complete their digital transitions, 
regardless of when the auction is complete, the Commission found that 
there was no additional information needed to make a decision regarding 
the digital transition deadline. Moreover, it disagreed that lack of 
knowledge of the actual impact of the auction and the post-auction 
transition process on analog LPTV and TV translator stations should 
prevent it from establishing a new digital transition date at this 
time. The Commission concluded that it was setting a transition date 
far enough after the completion of the auction (51 months) and Post-
Auction Transition Period (12 months) that stations should have more 
than a sufficient amount of time to react, coordinate, and complete 
their digital transition.
    4. The Commission rejected LPTV Coalition's alternative proposal to 
adopt a series of different deadlines based upon differing station 
criteria. It concluded that such a proposal would be confusing for 
stations, which might have a difficult time determining their specific 
deadline. To avoid confusion and to provide for a coordinated, seamless 
digital transition and consumer education, it instead adopted a uniform 
deadline by which all analog LPTV and TV translator stations must 
complete their digital transition.
    5. The Commission also modified its rules to provide that analog 
LPTV and TV translator stations experiencing delays in completing their 
digital facilities may seek one last extension of time, of not more 
than six months, to be filed not later than four months prior to the 
new transition date. The Commission delegated authority to the Media 
Bureau to process these applications and reminded those stations 
seeking this ``last-minute'' extension that, in completing the Form 
2100--Schedule 337, they will be required to demonstrate that they meet 
the extension criteria set forth in section 74.788(c) of the rules. 
Under that rule, stations that have not completed construction of their 
digital facilities must show that the delay was due to circumstances 
that were either unforeseeable or beyond their control or due to 
financial hardship. Further, stations will need to demonstrate that 
they have taken all reasonable steps to resolve the problem 
expeditiously and must provide detailed information, financial or 
otherwise, as to why they will be unable to meet the new transition 
deadline.
    6. In addition, after the four-month deadline for the submission of 
one last extension application, analog LPTV and TV translator stations 
seeking additional time to construct digital facilities will be able to 
obtain additional time to construct only through the tolling provisions 
in the rules. Extension applications will no longer be accepted at that 
time.
    7. The Commission concluded that the new digital transition date 
must be a hard deadline. That is, all LPTV and TV translator stations 
must terminate all analog operations (including any analog companion 
channels) by 11:59 p.m. local time on the new transition date 
regardless of whether their digital facilities are operational. Those 
without operational digital facilities will be required to remain 
silent while they complete construction.
    8. The Commission also extended the expiration dates of all valid 
construction permits for new digital LPTV and TV translator stations to 
the new digital transition date. All such construction permits are 
hereby extended to the new digital transition date. In addition, the 
Commission dismissed as moot all pending applications for extension of 
time to construct such construction permits. The Commission rejected 
WISPA's request that permittees of new digital LPTV and TV translator 
stations be required to continue to file individual extension 
applications every six months ``in a manner consistent with Commission 
standards.'' The Commission concluded that the potential impact of the 
incentive auction and repacking process warrants extension of the 
construction deadlines of all valid construction permits for new 
digital LPTV and TV translator stations to the new digital transition 
date, without the need for individual extension requests.
    9. The Commission announced that permittees of new digital LPTV and 
TV translator stations may seek one last extension of time to complete 
construction, of not more than six months, to be filed not later than 
four months prior to the new digital

[[Page 5043]]

transition date, consistent with the extension procedures adopted above 
for stations transitioning from analog to digital. In addition, 
construction permits for new digital LPTV and TV translator stations 
granted after the release of this Third Report and Order will receive 
an expiration date of the later of the new digital transition date or 
three years from the date of grant.

LPTV and TV Translator Channel Sharing

    10. The Commission extended the opportunity for channel sharing to 
LPTV and TV translator stations. The Commission found that specific 
provisions of Title III of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
provides ample authority to adopt rules for channel sharing between 
LPTV and TV translator stations, including section 303(g), which 
authorizes the Commission to ``generally encourage the larger and more 
effective use of radio in the public interest,'' and section 307(b), 
which directs the Commission to ``provide a fair, efficient, and 
equitable distribution of radio service.'' Consistent with these 
provisions, adopting channel sharing rules will serve the public 
interest by promoting the efficient use of spectrum and facilitating 
the continued operation of LPTV and TV translator stations.
    11. The Commission found that permitting channel sharing has the 
potential to be greatly beneficial to the low power television 
community. For example, stations that are displaced by the incentive 
auction and repacking process that have difficulty finding available 
channels may be able to use channel sharing to team with other such 
stations in the same predicament. Two or more displaced LPTV or TV 
translator stations may file displacement applications proposing to 
share a single channel. Alternatively, a displaced LPTV or TV 
translator station could agree to share the channel of a non-displaced 
station. In this way, channel sharing may offer displaced LPTV and TV 
translator stations valuable opportunities to continue broadcasting and 
a sensible way for a greater amount of service to be preserved to local 
communities. Channel sharing agreements (CSAs) could also minimize the 
number of mutually exclusive applications filed in the post-incentive 
auction displacement window and free up valuable channels for use by 
other displaced stations. Displaced stations could thus use channel 
sharing as a means to prevent or settle the mutual exclusivity of their 
applications and avoid lengthy delays in the processing of their 
displacement applications.
    12. In addition, the Commission found that channel sharing could 
provide potential cost-saving benefits to LPTV and TV translator 
stations through new programming and business arrangements. In the 
future, LPTV and TV translator stations, many of whom are small 
entities that operate on limited budgets, could reduce costs (such as 
tower leases, infrastructure, and others) by sharing facilities, and 
sharing could provide a source of income for stations that agree to 
utilize their channels to host other stations.
    13. Moreover, the Commission concluded that channel sharing may 
also assist stations in meeting the digital transition deadline by 
allowing them to share the cost to construct a shared digital facility. 
The Commission rejected those comments questioning the potential 
benefits of channel sharing for LPTV and TV translator stations. The 
Commission concluded that channel sharing may not be right for all such 
stations, but the possibility that it may be a useful arrangement for 
some stations justifies adoption of new rules today.
    14. The Commission announced that channel sharing by and between 
LPTV and TV translator stations will be ``entirely voluntary.'' It does 
not intend to take a role in matching licensees interested in channel 
sharing with potential partners. Rather, LPTV and TV translator 
stations will decide whether and with whom to enter into a channel 
sharing arrangement. The rules are also flexible and allow stations to 
structure their CSA in a manner that will allow a variety of different 
types of spectrum sharing to meet the individualized programming and 
economic needs of the parties involved. As with full power and Class A 
television channel sharing, the Commission will require each LPTV and 
TV translator station involved in a CSA to operate in digital on the 
shared channel and to retain spectrum usage rights sufficient to ensure 
at least enough capacity to operate one SD programming stream at all 
times. However, the Commission will not prescribe a fixed split of the 
capacity of the six megahertz channel between the stations from a 
technological or licensing perspective. All LPTV and TV translator 
channel sharing stations will be licensed for the entire capacity of 
the six megahertz channel, and stations will be allowed to determine 
the manner in which that capacity will be divided among themselves 
subject only to the minimum capacity requirement.
    15. The Commission stated that it would apply its existing 
framework for the licensing and operation of channel sharing between 
full power and Class A stations to LPTV and TV translator stations. 
Under this framework, each sharing station will continue to be licensed 
separately, each will have its own call sign, and each licensee will 
separately be subject to all of the Commission's obligations, rules, 
and policies.
    16. The Commission rejected OTI/PK's proposal that it require LPTV 
and TV translator stations to channel share under certain 
circumstances. OTI/PK asked that the Commission ``analyze the 
feasibility of such a requirement in the 30 largest [Designated Market 
Areas], if it appears technically feasible for a substantial number of 
stations and markets'' to channel share, seek further comment on 
implementing it. The Commission found no record support for OTI/PK's 
assertion that it should require stations to channel share because they 
are not using their spectrum efficiently. Because of their lower power 
and secondary nature, LPTV and TV translator stations have always been 
allowed to choose their channels. Changing course now and forcing LPTV 
and TV translator stations to share a channel would impede stations' 
ability to engineer their facilities to meet the needs of their 
viewers. Moreover, since adoption of our first channel sharing rules in 
2012, the Commission has held that channel sharers, as business 
partners, should ``have the ability to choose partners that satisfy 
their own criteria.''
    17. The Commission adopted procedures for reviewing and licensing 
of LPTV and TV translator station CSAs, and will apply the 30-mile and 
contour overlap rules to station moves resulting from channel sharing. 
The Commission adopted a two-step process for implementing channel 
sharing between LPTV and TV translator stations. As the first step, if 
no technical changes are necessary for sharing, a channel sharing 
station relinquishing its channel will file an application for a 
digital construction permit for the same technical facilities as the 
sharer station, include a copy of the CSA as an exhibit, and cross 
reference the other sharing station(s). The sharer station will not 
need to seek Commission authorization at this time unless the CSA 
requires technical changes to the sharer station's facilities. If the 
CSA requires technical changes to the sharer station's facilities, each 
sharing station will be required to file an application for a 
construction permit for identical technical facilities proposing to 
share the channel, along with the CSA. As a second step, after the 
sharing stations have obtained the necessary construction permits, 
implemented their shared facility, and

[[Page 5044]]

initiated shared operations, a station relinquishing its channel will 
notify the Commission that it has terminated operation on its former 
channel. At the same time, each sharing station will file an 
application for a license to complete the licensing process.
    18. The Commission announced that it will allow channel sharing 
LPTV and TV translator stations three years to implement their 
arrangements. Although it will require that channel sharing 
arrangements involving full power and Class A stations resulting from 
the incentive auction be implemented within six months after the 
relinquishing station receives its reverse auction proceeds to expedite 
the transition to the reorganized UHF band, these concerns do not apply 
to CSAs entered into outside the auction context. Some stations, such 
as those displaced by the repacking process, may be anxious to quickly 
implement their shared arrangement to avoid having to go silent. Such 
stations are free to begin channel sharing as soon as feasible. 
However, other stations, including those not facing this timing 
constraint, may want or need more time to implement a sharing 
agreement.
    19. The Commission stated that, in cases where the sharer station 
has not been displaced, it will begin accepting applications for LPTV 
and TV translator channel sharing after completion of the incentive 
auction. In cases where the sharing stations were all displaced, it 
will begin accepting applications for LPTV and TV translator channel 
sharing at the initiation of the post-incentive auction displacement 
window. After that, applications may be submitted at any time on an 
ongoing basis.
    20. The Commission stated that it would apply its existing 30-mile 
and contour overlap restrictions to station relocations resulting from 
proposed CSAs. Specifically, if requested in conjunction with a digital 
displacement application, a station relocation resulting from a 
proposed CSA may not be greater than 30 miles from the reference 
coordinates of the relocating station's community of license. In all 
other cases, a station relocating as a result of a proposed CSA (i) 
must maintain overlap between the protected contour of its existing and 
proposed facilities; and (ii) may not relocate greater than 30 miles 
from the reference coordinates of the relocating station's antenna 
location. Although it declined to eliminate the restrictions, the 
Commission announced that it will consider waivers for LPTV and TV 
translator stations to allow channel sharing modifications that do not 
comply with these limits. A displaced station proposing to channel 
share with a station located more than 30 miles from the reference 
coordinates of the displaced station's community of license will have 
to show: (1) That there are no channels available that comply with 
section 74.787(a)(4) of the rules; and (2) that the proposed sharer 
station is the station closest to the reference coordinates of the 
displaced station's community of license that is available for channel 
sharing. As for non-displacement, the Commission will apply a stricter 
standard because the proposed modification would be voluntary and the 
station would not be faced with going off the air if not permitted to 
channel share. In such cases, it will consider a waiver if the station 
seeking to relocate through channel sharing demonstrates: (1) That 
there is no other sharing partner that operates with a location that 
would comply with the contour overlap and 30-mile restrictions on the 
station seeking the waiver; and (2) the population in the relocating 
station's loss area is de minimis and/or well-served and/or would 
continue to receive the programming aired by the relocating station 
from another station.
    21. The Commission adopted channel sharing operating rules that 
cover the terms of CSAs, the transfer or assignment of channel sharing 
licenses, and what occurs when a channel sharing station's license is 
terminated due to voluntary relinquishment, revocation, or failure to 
renew. The Commission will require that LPTV and TV translator CSAs 
contain provisions outlining each licensee's rights and 
responsibilities in the following areas: (1) Access to facilities, 
including whether each licensee will have unrestricted access to the 
shared transmission facilities; (2) allocation of bandwidth within the 
shared channel; (3) operation, maintenance, repair, and modification of 
facilities, including a list of all relevant equipment, a description 
of each party's financial obligations, and any relevant notice 
provisions; (4) transfer/assignment of a shared license, including the 
ability of a new licensee to assume the existing CSA; and (5) 
termination of the license of a party to the CSA, including reversion 
of spectrum usage rights to the remaining parties to the CSA. While 
channel sharing partners will be required to address these matters in 
their CSAs, they may craft provisions as they choose, based on 
marketplace negotiations, subject to pertinent statutory requirements 
and the Commission's rules and regulations.
    22. A station seeking approval to channel share will submit a copy 
of its CSA along with its application for a digital construction 
permit. The Commission will review the CSA to ensure compliance with 
its rules and policies. However, the Commission announced that it will 
limit its review to confirming that the CSA contains the required 
provisions and that any terms beyond those related to sharing of 
bitstream and related technical facilities comport with its general 
rules and policies regarding licensee agreements. The Commission 
reserved the right to require modification of a CSA that does not 
comply with the rules and policies.
    23. When an LPTV or TV translator sharing station's license is 
terminated due to voluntary relinquishment, revocation, failure to 
renew, or any other circumstance, its spectrum usage rights (but not 
its license) may revert to the remaining sharing partners if the 
partners so agree. In the event that only one station remains on the 
shared channel, that station may apply to change its license to non-
shared status using FCC Form 2100--Schedule C. Alternatively, the 
station may enter into a CSA with another LPTV or TV translator station 
or permittee and resume shared operations, subject to Commission 
approval.
    24. In addition, the Commission will allow rights under a CSA to be 
assigned or transferred, subject to the requirements of Section 310 of 
the Communications Act, the rules, and the requirement that the 
assignee or transferee comply with the applicable CSA. The Commission 
believes that secondary stations sharing with other secondary stations 
should have the flexibility to be able to determine the length of their 
CSAs.

Assistance to LPTV and TV Translator Stations in Finding Displacement 
Channels After the Incentive Auction

    25. To assist LPTV and TV translator stations displaced by the 
auction and repacking process, the Commission delegated to the Media 
Bureau authority to utilize the incentive auction optimization and 
repacking software to identify new channels for displaced stations. The 
Commission concluded that use of the repacking and optimization 
software for this purpose will expedite and ease the post-auction 
transition and help many low power stations find new channel homes.
    26. Specifically, the Commission instructed the Media Bureau, prior 
to opening the post-auction LPTV and TV translator displacement window, 
to utilize the repacking and optimization software to identify channels 
that can be proposed by displaced LPTV and TV translator stations. The 
Commission

[[Page 5045]]

directed the Media Bureau to issue a Public Notice listing potential 
channel assignments in all areas in which LPTV or TV translator 
stations are displaced. If there is more than one displaced station, 
the Commission encouraged the stations to file for those channels in 
the displacement window and coordinate their filings to avoid cases of 
mutual exclusivity. In cases where not all displaced LPTV and TV 
translator stations can be accommodated onto available channels using 
current operating parameters, the Media Bureau will identify possible 
arrangements based on other objectives, such as maximizing the number 
of stations assigned or minimizing the interference that stations might 
experience, to assist stations in examining engineering solutions to 
find channels. The Commission instructed the Media Bureau to issue the 
public notice not less than 60 days in advance of the filing window for 
displacement applications.
    27. The Commission rejected suggestions to use our repacking and 
optimization software to designate LPTV and TV translator channel 
assignments that optimize channels for TV white space devices. Through 
use of the repacking and optimization software, the Media Bureau will 
identify potential channel assignments, but it will not ``repack'' LPTV 
and TV translator stations by requiring that they adhere to these 
assignments. Rather, the decision whether to seek the specific channel 
assignments identified by the Media Bureau will be voluntary. Stations 
will not be required to apply for possible channel assignments 
identified by the Media Bureau and will retain the flexibility to seek 
displacement channels that work best for their particular 
circumstances, so long as the channel selections comply with the 
licensing and technical rules.
    28. The Commission also declined ATBA's and Liberman's suggestion 
that it make the repacking and optimization software available for 
outside use. First, the repacking software is not available at this 
time; the TVStudy software which will be used in the incentive auction 
and the repacking process, and which the Commission has made publicly 
available, will have to be modified to identify potential channels for 
displaced LPTV and TV translator stations. In addition, the 
optimization software incorporates proprietary software that is subject 
to restrictions against its release to the public, but is commercially 
available. The Commission also rejected LPTV Coalition's and Syncom's 
suggestion that it conduct a ``mock'' auction to see the effects on 
LPTV and translators. The effects on LPTV and translators depend in 
large part on broadcaster participation levels in the incentive auction 
and the amount of spectrum that the auction clears, and the individual 
channel reassignments made to repacked broadcasters. In light of 
Congress's decision that LPTV and translators are not to be protected 
in the repack, the Commission was not persuaded that the time and staff 
resources that would be required to study the potential effects are 
warranted in light of the hypothetical nature of any such analysis 
prior to the auction.

Elimination of Analog Tuner Requirement

    29. Given its decision to extend the digital transition date for 
analog LPTV and TV translator stations for one year after the post-
auction transition period (51 months after the conclusion of the 
auction), the Commission concluded it is appropriate to retain the 
analog tuner requirement for a limited period. Specifically, it will 
sunset on August 31, 2017. The Commission believes that retaining the 
analog tuner requirement until that date will minimize disruption to 
viewers of analog LPTV and TV translator stations while at the same 
time providing certainty to manufacturers that choose to phase out 
analog tuners.
    30. The Commission agreed with public broadcasters that it is still 
currently necessary for consumer equipment to include both analog and 
digital tuners to receive all signals, but the requirement will become 
less necessary as the new digital transition date for LPTV and TV 
translator stations approaches. Analog broadcasting is likely to 
continue until the new transition date because LPTV and TV translator 
stations do not want to ``double build'' their facilities: once for a 
digital transition and again for the repack. Although it sought to 
minimize disruption to consumers, the Commission also recognized that 
the analog tuner requirement imposes costs on television manufacturers 
that may be passed through to consumers. Significantly, sixty-two 
percent of low-power stations and seventy-eight percent of TV 
translator stations have already transitioned to digital, and these 
stations continue to make the transition. Therefore the vast majority 
of consumers no longer need to rely on devices with analog tuners and 
the number of consumers that still do will steadily decline as this 
percentage continues to grow. Given this, and the fact that devices 
with analog tuners will continue to be available in remaining retail 
inventory and on the secondary market, the Commission concluded that it 
is appropriate to phase out the obligation of manufacturers prior to 
the transition date. The Commission found that relieving manufacturers 
of the analog tuner obligation on August 31, 2017 reasonably balances 
the goals of reducing costs for manufacturers and consumers, while 
minimizing disruption to viewers of analog low power television.
    31. The Commission announced that it will not require manufacturers 
or retailers to label devices, after the rule sunsets, to alert 
consumers that devices do not include analog tuners. Although it 
recognized the importance of providing education to consumers about the 
capability of their devices, the Commission believed that imposing a 
universal requirement that manufacturers notify consumers about the 
limitations of digital-only devices would be counterproductive after 
the sunset.

Additional Measures To Preserve LPTV and TV Translator Services

    32. The Commission declined to adopt the various proposals to 
permit LPTV and TV translator stations to operate using alternative 
technical standards. For the success of the post-incentive auction 
displacement process and to ensure continued service to the public, the 
Commission concluded that it is imperative that all LPTV and TV 
translator stations continue to operate within the current technical 
rules and standards. Consideration of whether to adopt new or 
alternative technical standards or network architectures, such as ATSC 
3.0, is premature as such standards have not yet been adopted by 
standard setting groups. Even if such standards were to be adopted in 
the near future, a plan for implementation would have to be considered 
and developed by the Commission through notice and comment rulemaking 
proceedings. The Commission found that such matters are outside of the 
scope of this proceeding and are better left for future proceedings.
    33. The Commission declined to adopt proposals to allow LPTV and/or 
TV translators to obtain primary interference protection status so that 
they may avoid future displacement by primary users. However, the 
Commission stated that it may revisit the question of allowing 
additional LPTV and/or TV translators to obtain primary interference 
protection status in the future. Without reaching the legal issues, the 
Commission declined as a policy matter any proposal that would allow 
LPTV and/or TV translator

[[Page 5046]]

stations to obtain primary status before the completion of the Post-
Auction Transition Period. If LPTV or TV translators obtained primary 
status during this period, reassigned full power and Class A stations 
would have to take into account these additional protected stations 
when proposing expanded facilities and alternate channels, thereby 
impeding our goal of facilitating the post-auction transition. In 
addition, allowing LPTV and/or TV translator stations to become primary 
before the post-auction LPTV and TV translator displacement window 
would amount to granting these stations a priority in the displacement 
window--an action that would run counter to the decision in the 
Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd 6567 (2014) to grant a priority to 
the displacement applications for existing digital replacement 
translators (DRTs) and the decision to grant a priority to applications 
for new digital-to-digital replacement translators (DTDRTs). The 
Commission stated that it may consider at a later date whether to allow 
LPTV and/or TV translator stations to obtain primary status after the 
completion of the Post-Auction Transition Period.
    34. The Commission rejected proposals to provide displacement 
priorities in the post-auction LPTV and TV translator displacement 
window beyond those established in the Incentive Auction R&O. In the 
Incentive Auction R&O, in order to help preserve the existing services 
of full power stations, the Commission determined that applications 
filed by full power television stations seeking new channels for their 
displaced DRTs would receive a displacement priority. A number of 
commenters suggest that displacement applications filed by other types 
of stations also be given a priority. In the Incentive Auction R&O, the 
Commission thoroughly considered the issue of whether to grant 
additional priorities during the post-auction LPTV and TV translator 
displacement window and decided against such action. The Commission 
concluded that it was not persuaded to reverse course and add 
additional displacement priorities at this time.
    35. The Commission declined LPTV Coalition's proposal to extend the 
post-auction displacement window filing opportunity to holders of 
construction permits for new digital LPTV and TV translator stations. 
As decided in the Incentive Auction R&O, only operating LPTV and TV 
translator stations may file displacement applications during the post-
auction LPTV and TV translator displacement window. Unlike operating 
stations that have completed construction and are providing service to 
the public, permittees have not completed construction and do not have 
existing viewers that will be impacted by displacement. Permittees of 
unbuilt stations will be permitted to file for displacement channels 
after the conclusion of the LPTV and TV translator displacement window.
    36. The Commission rejected proposals that would afford LPTV and TV 
translator stations more expansive cable carriage rights than those 
provided in the Communications Act. Commenters do not explain how such 
action would be within the Commission's statutory authority and, even 
assuming we had such authority, the Commission declined to grant must 
carry rights beyond those required by statute.
    37. The Commission denied requests for other rule changes as 
unworkable or because of their potential to negatively affect the 
incentive auction or fall subject to other impracticalities. It 
announced that it will not adopt OTI/PK's proposal to permit white 
space devices to use the channels of licensed LPTV and TV translator 
stations when those stations are not broadcasting. The white space 
databases would have to collect additional information on the operating 
times of LPTV and TV translator stations on a real-time basis in order 
to implement OTI/PK's proposal. Because the databases are not currently 
designed to do so, it would not be feasible to adopt OTI/PK's proposal 
at this time.
    38. The Commission rejected NTA's proposal to relax the limits on 
interference that LPTV and TV translator stations may cause to other 
LPTV and TV translator stations and to full-power and Class A stations. 
With the upcoming post-incentive auction transition process and the 
ongoing low power digital transition, the Commission concluded that 
this is not the appropriate time to allow additional interference. The 
costs resulting from the potential increase in interference and loss of 
service to viewers would outweigh the potential benefit of the slight 
increase in flexibility for LPTV and TV translator stations to engineer 
their displacement facilities. Once these transitions are complete, the 
Commission stated that it may consider whether to modify our rules to 
allow such additional flexibility.
    39. The Commission rejected SEI's and Watch TV's request that it 
establish a general policy allowing any LPTV and TV translator station 
facing financial challenges to remain off the air until full power and 
Class A stations have been assigned new channels, even if that period 
exceeds 12 consecutive months. Section 312(g) of the Communications Act 
provides that the license of a station that is dark for any consecutive 
12-month period expires automatically at the end of that period, except 
that the Commission can extend or reinstate such license ``to promote 
equity and fairness.'' The Commission announced that it will continue 
to consider individual requests from stations that remain dark for any 
consecutive 12-month period for reinstatement of their license and a 
waiver of the pertinent Commission rules, taking into account the 
individual circumstances of each case. Consideration of a blanket 
exception to Section 312(g) at this time would be premature as the 
impact of the auction and repacking process on LPTV and TV translator 
stations is not yet known.
    40. The Commission declined St. Clair's request that it ask 
Congress to provide for reimbursement of costs incurred by displaced 
LPTV and TV translator stations. The decision whether to authorize such 
funding is Congress's prerogative. Congress in the Spectrum Act limited 
reimbursement from the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund to only full 
power and Class A stations. While NTA recommends that the Commission 
``cooperate with NTIA'' to help make funding available for displaced 
LPTV and TV translator stations, the Commission stated that it is not 
aware of any funding available from other agencies that could be used 
by displaced LPTV and TV translator stations. The Commission stated 
that it would cooperate as needed if LPTV and TV translator stations 
identify any funding opportunities.
    41. The Commission announced that, as part of the cross-border 
coordination process it intends to make efforts to streamline the 
cross-border coordination processes so it will not delay the post-
auction displacement application process for LPTV and TV translator 
stations.
    42. The Commission rejected LPTV Coalition's request that it study 
the LPTV industry and ``what is possible to both preserving the unique 
services and networks it currently provides, and all of the new ones in 
the digital future pipeline.'' The Commission found that it had 
satisfied this request by conducting this proceeding considering ways 
to preserve the low power television service and the valuable 
programming and services they offer. The Commission announced that it 
will continue to assist LPTV and TV translator stations with the post-
incentive auction displacement process and transition to digital 
operation and to

[[Page 5047]]

reach out to the community for their valuable input.
    43. The Commission denied requests to reconsider matters previously 
raised in the incentive auction proceeding finding that each of these 
matters was fully considered in the incentive auction rulemaking 
proceeding and subsequent orders on reconsideration.

Creation of a New Digital-to-Digital Replacement Translator Service

    44. The Commission established a new digital-to-digital replacement 
translator service (DTDRT) to allow eligible full power television 
stations to recover lost digital ``service area'' that results from the 
reverse auction and repacking process. The Commission previously 
created a similar analog-to-digital replacement translator service 
(DRT) in 2009, as full power stations were transitioning from analog to 
digital operation, to assist full power stations to restore service to 
any loss areas that may have occurred as a result of the transition and 
to maintain ``broadcast service that the public has come to depend upon 
and enjoy [in analog].'' The Commission concluded that a similar 
replacement service may be needed for full power stations that are 
reassigned to new channels, either in the repacking process or through 
a winning UHF-to-VHF or high-VHF-to-low-VHF bid, if those full power 
stations discover that a portion of their existing pre-auction digital 
service area is lost after the station transitions to its new channel. 
There may be some instances in which a station may not be able to fully 
replicate its pre-auction digital service area. For example, a loss in 
pre-auction digital service area may occur as a result of a change in 
frequency. Moreover, like some stations transitioning to digital during 
the DTV transition, a station may be unable to build facilities to 
operate on its assigned channel at its current tower site as a result 
of technical or legal issues. In addition, broadcasters that 
voluntarily relocate to a different band may have difficulty 
maintaining their antenna pattern on the new channel and may experience 
unusual coverage problems.
    45. The Commission disagreed with Venture that this new service 
will be unnecessary, finding that the circumstances outlined above 
could arise and result in full power television stations experiencing a 
loss of reception within their pre-auction digital service areas on 
initiation of their new channel facilities, despite Commission efforts 
to preserve coverage area and population served during the repacking 
process. To assist stations to overcome these potential challenges and 
to replace lost pre-auction digital service area resulting from new 
channel assignments, the Commission created a new DTDRT service.
    46. The Commission will limit eligibility for DTDRTs to full power 
television stations reassigned in the repacking process that can 
demonstrate: (1) A loss of a portion of their pre-auction digital 
service area; and (2) that the proposed DTDRT will be used solely to 
fill in such loss areas, subject to an allowance for a de minimis 
expansion of the station's pre-auction digital service area. The 
Commission concluded that these requirements are consistent with the 
limited scope of its objective in proposing this new service: To assist 
full power television stations to maintain their pre-auction digital 
service areas following the completion of the repacking process and 
auction, but not to expand such service areas. The Commission declined 
to extend eligibility for DTDRTs, as suggested by Sinclair, to ``[a]ny 
station that suffers loss of service as a result of repacking--from 
channel changes, power changes, site changes, or any other factors 
beyond the station's control.'' The Commission decided to limit 
eligibility for new DTDRTs to only stations reassigned in the repacking 
process in order to preserve channels for use by other broadcasters, 
especially displaced LPTV and TV translators.
    47. To implement this eligibility restriction, applicants for 
DTDRTs will be required to demonstrate a digital loss area through an 
engineering study that depicts the stations' pre- and post-incentive 
auction digital service areas and will be required to demonstrate that 
the loss resulted from the station's being repacked in conjunction with 
the incentive auction. The Commission defined the ``pre-auction digital 
service area'' as the geographic area within the full power station's 
noise-limited contour of its facility as set forth in the Auction 
Procedures PN, DA 15-1296 (rel. Nov. 12, 2015).
    48. To accommodate situations where it may be impossible to locate 
a translator that replaces digital loss areas without also slightly 
expanding the station's pre-auction digital service areas, the 
Commission announced it will allow applicants to propose de minimis 
expansions of pre-auction digital service areas based on the showing 
described below. The Commission defines de minimis on a case-by-case 
basis, consistent with the approach it took for processing DRT 
applications. Therefore, the Commission will require stations to show 
the need to site their DTDRT with a de minimis expansion of the 
station's pre-auction digital service area. The Commission declined 
Sinclair's suggestion that it adopt a more flexible approach and allow 
applicants to demonstrate that the site specified for their DTDRT is 
the most practical or cost-efficient option, that the de minimis 
expansion offsets other loss of service by the broadcaster that cannot 
be remedied by a DTDRT, or that the site better facilitates 
preservation of service by another reassigned broadcaster. Because 
there will be a more tightly packed broadcast band post-auction, the 
Commission concluded to strictly limit DTDRT's coverage to just what is 
needed.
    49. The Commission will allow eligible stations to file for DTDRTs 
beginning with the opening of the post-auction LPTV and TV translator 
displacement window and ending one year after the completion of the 
incentive auction 39-month post-auction transition period. Pursuant to 
this plan, stations may begin applying for DTDRTs during the LPTV and 
TV translator displacement window and will then have one year beyond 
the completion of the Post-Auction Transition Period to identify the 
need and apply for a DTDRT. Full power television stations must have 
the flexibility to file for a DTDRT throughout the post-auction 
transition and for a brief period thereafter. A full power television 
station may identify the need for a DTDRT early in the post-auction 
transition or may not realize that it needs one until it completes 
construction of its new facilities and begins operating. Some stations 
may not identify the need for a DTDRT until a short time later when 
they begin receiving reports of loss of service from viewers. 
Accordingly, the Commission concluded that allowing full power stations 
to file for a DTDRT for one year after the completion of the Post-
Auction Transition Period will provide sufficient time to identify any 
possible loss areas while also helping to limit this service to its 
proposed objective of recovering lost service area that results from 
the auction and repacking process.
    50. The Commission will afford DTDRT applications co-equal 
processing priority with DRT displacement applications. Therefore, 
applications for new DTDRTs and displacement applications for existing 
DRTs will have processing priority over all other LPTV and TV 
translator applications including new, minor change, and displacement 
applications. Under this approach, the Commission will begin accepting 
applications for new DTDRTs commencing with the opening of the post-
auction LPTV and TV translator displacement window. All

[[Page 5048]]

applications for new DTDRTs and displacement applications for existing 
DRTs filed during the post-auction displacement window will be 
considered filed on the last day of the window, will have priority over 
all other displacement applications filed during the window by LPTV and 
TV translator stations, and will be considered co-equal if mutually 
exclusive. Following the close of the displacement window, applications 
for new DTDRTs will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis, 
will continue to have priority over all LPTV and TV translator new, 
minor change, or displacement applications, even if first-filed, and 
co-equal priority with displacement applications for existing DRTs 
filed on the same day.
    51. The Commission concluded that adoption of this processing 
priority is necessary to assist those full power stations that identify 
the need to implement a new DTDRT to quickly obtain an authorization 
and schedule construction of the DTDRT to coincide with the completion 
of their modified full-power facilities and thereby avoid disruption of 
service. Were it to not afford these applications a priority, they 
could become mutually exclusive with LPTV and TV translator 
applications filed in the post-incentive auction displacement window, 
greatly delaying their processing. This, in turn, could prevent full 
power television stations from completing construction of their DTDRTs 
until after the post-incentive auction transition, thus resulting in a 
loss of service. At the same time, the Commission established co-equal 
processing priority with displaced DRTs to ensure that full power 
stations with existing DRTs can construct on their new channel 
expeditiously to help preserve their existing service. The Commission 
concluded that it had authority to afford DTDRTs a co-equal processing 
priority under specific provisions of Title III of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, including Section 303(c), which empowers the 
Commission to ``assign frequencies for each individual station'' in the 
public interest; Section 303(g), which authorizes the Commission to 
``generally encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the 
public interest''; and Section 307(b), which directs the Commission to 
``provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio 
service.'' Consistent with these provisions, the processing priority 
will serve the public interest by assisting full power television 
stations to maintain their pre-auction digital service areas and help 
prevent loss of service following the completion of the repacking 
process and auction.
    52. The Commission rejected Mako's claim that its grant of a 
processing priority to DTDRTs is contrary to section 1452(b), which 
provides for the UHF band reorganization. While Section 1452(b)(5) 
provides that ``[n]othing in [section 1452(b)] shall be construed to 
alter the spectrum usage rights of low-power television stations,'' it 
does not affect the Commission's broad authority outside of section 
1452(b) to manage spectrum in the public interest, which provides the 
legal basis for the actions we take today. To the contrary, section 
1452(i)(1) specifically preserves that authority by stating that 
nothing in section 1452(b) ``shall be construed to . . . expand or 
contract the authority of the Commission, except as otherwise expressly 
provided.'' There is no express provision in section 1452(b) 
prohibiting the Commission from granting DTDRT applications a 
processing priority. Further, adoption of a processing priority for 
applications for new DTDRTs is consistent with the 2009 decision to 
grant a similar priority for applications for DRTs.
    53. The Commission also rejected arguments that its decision could 
negatively affect the ability of displaced LPTV and TV translator 
stations to find a new channel post-auction and force some stations off 
the air. While we recognize that many LPTV and TV translator stations 
will also be struggling to deal with the impact of the incentive 
auction and repacking process while constructing their digital 
facilities to meet the newly established digital transition date, the 
Commission concluded that the need to help full power stations prevent 
or restore lost service area outweighs the limited impact that the 
licensing of new DTDRTs will have on the availability of channels for 
displaced LPTV and TV translator stations.
    54. The Commission also rejected LeSea's proposal that full power 
stations be required to identify the need for a DTDRT earlier, such as 
during the three-month period following the release of the Channel 
Reassignment PN when stations will submit applications for construction 
permits for their newly assigned channels. After the three-month period 
closes, LeSea suggests that applications for DTDRTs be accepted without 
the priority over other earlier-filed LPTV and TV translator 
applications. Some full power television stations, however, may not 
identify the need for a DTDRT until later in the transition when, for 
example, they begin testing or operating their completed modified 
facilities. Therefore, full power stations in such situations may need 
to obtain a DTDRT later in the transition. In these circumstances, 
priority processing will ensure that the application for DTDRT is 
quickly processed.
    55. Finally, the Commission rejected Venture's proposal that 
applications for DTDRTs ``be accepted only after existing licensed LPTV 
stations are successfully displaced to other channels.'' Adoption of 
Venture's proposal could prevent full power television stations that 
identify the need to implement a new DTDRT early in the transition 
process to quickly obtain an authorization and schedule construction to 
coincide with the completion of their modified facilities.
    56. In order to implement the new DTDRT service, the Commission 
adopted the following licensing and operating rules. The Commission 
will associate DTDRTs with the full power television station's main 
license. This is the same approach adopted for licensing DRTs. DTDRTs, 
therefore, may not be separately assigned or transferred and will be 
renewed, transferred, or assigned along with the main license. 
Applications for DTDRTs will be filed on FCC Form 2100--Schedule C, 
will be treated as minor change applications, and will be exempt from 
filing fees. DTDRTs will be licensed with ``secondary'' frequency use 
status. Under this approach, DTDRTs, like DRTs before them, will not be 
permitted to cause interference to, and must accept interference from, 
full power television stations, certain land mobile radio operations, 
and other primary services, and will be subject to the interference 
protections to land mobile station operations in the 470-512 MHz band 
set forth in our rules. The Commission will apply the existing rules 
associated with TV translator stations to DTDRTs, including the rules 
concerning power limits, out-of-channel emission limits, unattended 
operation, time of operation, and resolution of mutual exclusivity. The 
Commission will assign DTDRTs the same call sign as their associated 
full power television station and provided a full three-year 
construction period for full power television stations to build their 
DTDRTs.
    57. The Commission announced that it was permanently discontinuing 
the acceptance of applications for new DRTs. In August 2014, following 
adoption of rules for the incentive auction, the Media Bureau placed a 
freeze on the filing of applications for DRTs because full power 
stations had more than five years to apply for this type of replacement 
translator following

[[Page 5049]]

the 2009 full-power digital transition. The Commission concluded that 
future DRT applications are no longer necessary for stations to replace 
an analog loss area that occurred as a result of the digital transition 
over six years ago. However, the Commission will continue to accept 
displacement applications for existing DRTs.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA),\1\ an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') was 
incorporated in the Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 29 FCC Rcd 
12536 (2014) (Third Notice). The Commission sought written public 
comment on the proposals in the Third Notice, including comment on the 
IRFA. Because we amend the rules in this Third R&O, we have included 
this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) which conforms to the 
RFA.\2\ We note that no formal comments were filed on the IRFA but many 
of the commenters raised issues concerning the impact of the various 
proposals in this proceeding on small entities. These comments were 
considered in the Third R&O and in the FRFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (``SBREFA''), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 
(1996).
    \2\ See 5 U.S.C. 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Need for and Objectives of the Rules

    On June 2, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) 
released its Incentive Auction Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 657 (2014), 
adopting rules to implement the broadcast television spectrum incentive 
auction authorized by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act 
(Spectrum Act). The Commission recognized in the Incentive Auction 
Report and Order that the incentive auction will have a significant 
impact on low power television stations and TV translator stations. As 
part of the incentive auction, the Commission will (1) conduct a 
``reverse auction,'' whereby full power and Class A television stations 
may opt to relinquish some or all of their spectrum usage rights in 
exchange for incentive payments, and (2) reorganize or ``repack'' the 
broadcast television bands in order to free up a portion of the ultra 
high frequency (UHF) band for new flexible uses. The Commission 
concluded in the Incentive Auction Report and Order that the Spectrum 
Act does not mandate the protection of LPTV and TV translator stations 
because the scope of mandatory protection under section 6403(b)(2) is 
limited to full power and Class A television stations. The Commission 
also declined to extend discretionary protection to these stations 
because of the detrimental impact such protection would have on the 
repacking process and the success of the incentive auction. 
Accordingly, some LPTV and TV translator stations will be displaced as 
a result of the repacking process and required to either find a new 
channel or discontinue operations.
    In order to mitigate the impact of the auction and repacking 
process on LPTV and TV translator stations, the Commission stated that 
it intended to initiate an LPTV/TV Translator rulemaking proceeding 
``to consider additional measures that may help alleviate the 
consequences of LPTV and TV translator station displacements resulting 
from the auction and repacking process.''
    In the Third R&O, the Commission: (1) Extended the September 1, 
2015 digital transition deadline for LPTV and TV translator stations; 
and (2) adopted rules to allow channel sharing by and between LPTV and 
TV translator stations. The Commission also announced that it would use 
the incentive auction optimization software to assist LPTV and TV 
translator stations displaced by the auction and repacking process to 
identify new channels. The Commission considered and rejected other 
measures proposed by commenters to further mitigate the impact of the 
auction and repacking process on LPTV and TV translator stations. In 
the Third Report and Order, the Commission also created a ``digital-to-
digital replacement translator'' service for full power stations that 
experience losses in their pre-auction digital service areas. The 
Commission also eliminated the requirement in section 15.117(b) of the 
rules that TV receivers include analog tuners.

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

    The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will 
be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\3\ The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' small organization,'' and ``small government 
jurisdiction.'' \4\ In addition, the term ``small business'' has the 
same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small 
Business Act.\5\ The statutory definition of a small business applies 
unless an agency 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. 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. at Sec.  603(b)(3).
    \4\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \5\ Id. at Sec.  601(3).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 632. Application of the statutory criteria of 
dominance in its field of operation and independence are sometimes 
difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television. 
Accordingly, the Commission's statistical account of television 
stations may be over-inclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' \7\ The SBA has created the following small business size 
standard for Television Broadcasting firms: Those having $14 million or 
less in annual receipts.\8\ The Commission has estimated the number of 
licensed commercial television stations to be 1,390.\9\ In addition, 
according to Commission staff review of the BIA Advisory Services, 
LLC's Media Access Pro Television Database on March 28, 2012, about 950 
of an estimated 1,300 commercial television stations (or approximately 
73 percent) had revenues of $14 million or less.\10\ We therefore 
estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are 
small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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). 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).
    \8\ 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 515120) (updated for inflation in 
2010).
    \9\ See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 
31, 2015 (rel. April 9, 2015).
    \10\ We recognize that BIA's estimate differs slightly from the 
FCC total given the information provided above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern 
qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) 
affiliations must be included.\11\ Our estimate, therefore,

[[Page 5050]]

likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected 
by our action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not 
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, 
an element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity 
not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time 
to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a 
specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. 
Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply 
does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small 
business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that 
extent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``[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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed 
noncommercial educational (``NCE'') television stations to be 395.\12\ 
These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small 
entities.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 
31, 2015 (rel. April 8, 2015).
    \13\ See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are also 2,344 LPTV stations, including Class A stations, and 
3,689 TV translator stations.\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 
31, 2015 (rel. April 8, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Electronics Equipment Manufacturers. Rules adopted in this 
proceeding could apply to manufacturers of television receiving 
equipment and other types of consumer electronics equipment. The SBA 
has developed definitions of small entity for manufacturers of audio 
and video equipment \15\ as well as radio and television broadcasting 
and wireless communications equipment.\16\ These categories both 
include all such companies employing 750 or fewer employees. The 
Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable 
to manufacturers of electronic equipment used by consumers, as compared 
to industrial use by television licensees and related businesses. 
Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definitions applicable to 
manufacturers of audio and visual equipment and radio and television 
broadcasting and wireless communications equipment, since these are the 
two closest NAICS Codes applicable to the consumer electronics 
equipment manufacturing industry. However, these NAICS categories are 
broad and specific figures are not available as to how many of these 
establishments manufacture consumer equipment. According to the SBA's 
regulations, an audio and visual equipment manufacturer must have 750 
or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.\17\ 
Census Bureau data indicates that there are 554 U.S. establishments 
that manufacture audio and visual equipment, and that 542 of these 
establishments have fewer than 500 employees and would be classified as 
small entities.\18\ The remaining 12 establishments have 500 or more 
employees; however, we are unable to determine how many of those have 
fewer than 750 employees and therefore, also qualify as small entities 
under the SBA definition. Under the SBA's regulations, a radio and 
television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment 
manufacturer must also have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify 
as a small business concern.\19\ Census Bureau data indicates that 
there 1,215 U.S. establishments that manufacture radio and television 
broadcasting and wireless communications equipment, and that 1,150 of 
these establishments have fewer than 500 employees and would be 
classified as small entities.\20\ The remaining 65 establishments have 
500 or more employees; however, we are unable to determine how many of 
those have fewer than 750 employees and therefore, also qualify as 
small entities under the SBA definition. We therefore conclude that 
there are no more than 542 small manufacturers of audio and visual 
electronics equipment and no more than 1,150 small manufacturers of 
radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment 
for consumer/household use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 334310.
    \16\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.
    \17\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 334310.
    \18\ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series--
Manufacturing, Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing, Table 4 at 9 
(1999). The amount of 500 employees was used to estimate the number 
of small business firms because the relevant Census categories 
stopped at 499 employees and began at 500 employees. No category for 
750 employees existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is 
possible to calculate with the available information.
    \19\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.
    \20\ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series--
Manufacturing, Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, Table 4 at 9 (1999). The 
amount of 500 employees was used to estimate the number of small 
business firms because the relevant Census categories stopped at 499 
employees and began at 500 employees. No category for 750 employees 
existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is possible to 
calculate with the available information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    The Third R&O adopted the following new reporting requirements. To 
implement channel sharing between LPTV and TV translator stations, the 
Commission will follow a two-step process--stations will first filing 
an application for construction permit and then application for 
license. Stations terminating operations to share a channel will be 
required to submit a termination notice pursuant to the existing 
Commission rule. These existing forms and collections will be revised 
to accommodate these new channel-sharing related filings and to expand 
the burden estimates. In addition, channel sharing stations will be 
required to submit their channel sharing agreements (CSAs) with the 
Commission and be required to include certain provisions in their CSAs. 
In addition, if upon termination of the license of a party to a CSA 
only one party to the CSA remains, the remaining licensee may file an 
application to change its license to non-shared status. The existing 
collection concerning the execution and filing of CSAs will be revised.
    To implement its proposed new digital-to-digital replacement 
translator service, the Commission will revise its existing replacement 
translator form, rules and collections and to expand the burden 
estimates.
    These new reporting requirements will not differently affect small 
entities.

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

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives 
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Digital Transition Date. The Commission's decision to extend the 
September 1, 2015 LPTV and TV Translator digital transition date will 
greatly minimize the impact on small

[[Page 5051]]

entities having to complete their transition to digital. Instead of 
having to possibly endure the expense of having to construct a digital 
facility only to be displaced by the incentive auction reorganization 
of spectrum and having to finance the construction of a second digital 
facility, the Commission's extension of the transition deadline will 
allow small entities to wait until the incentive auction is complete 
and to determine the impact on their digital transition plan.
    Channel Sharing. The Commission's decision to allow LPTV and TV 
Translator to share channels between themselves will greatly minimize 
the impact on small entities. Many stations will be displaced by the 
incentive auction reorganization of spectrum and allowing these 
stations to channel share will reduce the cost of having to build a new 
facility to replace the one that was displaced. Stations can share in 
the cost of building a shared channel facility and will experience cost 
savings by operating a shared transmission facility. In addition, 
channel sharing is voluntary and only those stations that determine 
that channel sharing will be advantageous will enter into this 
arrangement.
    The Commission's licensing and operating rules for channel sharing 
between LPTV and TV translator stations were designed to minimize 
impact on small entities. The rules provide a streamlined method for 
reviewing and licensing channel sharing for these stations as well as a 
streamlined method for resolving cases where a channel sharing station 
loses its license on the shared channel. These rules were designed to 
reduce the burden and cost on small entities.
    Assistance to Displaced Stations. The Commission's efforts to 
assist LPTV and TV translator stations in finding displacement channels 
after the incentive auction will greatly benefit small entities. By 
helping stations find new channels from a smaller universe of channels 
that will remain after the incentive auction reorganization of 
channels, the Commission will save small entities time and money by not 
having to consult with an engineer to make such determinations. Such 
savings can then be used to construct and operate the displacement 
facility. The Commission rejected calls to ``repack'' all displaced 
LPTV and TV translator stations by assigning their frequencies finding 
that such a plan would interfere with stations ability to engineer 
their facilities as they see fit and 30 years of licensing history.
    Digital to Digital Replacement Translators. The Commission is aware 
that some full service television stations operate with limited 
budgets. Accordingly, every effort was taken to adopt rules for the new 
digital-to-digital replacement translator service that impose the least 
possible burden on all licensees, including small entities. Existing 
forms will be used to implement this new service thereby reducing the 
burden on small entities.
    The Commission concluded that applications for digital-to-digital 
replacement translators should be given licensing priority over all 
other low power television and TV translator applications, except 
displacement applications for analog-to-digital replacement translators 
(for which they would have co-equal priority). The Commission could 
have adopted no such priority, but this would have resulted in many 
more mutually exclusive filings and delayed the implementation of this 
valuable service.
    The Commission also decided to limit the eligibility for such 
service to any station that can demonstrate that it experienced a loss 
of digital service area as a result of the incentive auction or 
repacking process. Alternatively, the Commission could have allowed all 
interested parties to file for new translators, however such approach 
would also result in numerous mutually exclusive filings and would 
greatly delay implementation of this needed service.
    The Commission further concluded that the service area of the 
replacement translator should be limited to only a demonstrated loss 
area and permitted stations to expand slightly its pre-incentive 
auction service area. Once again, the Commission could have allowed 
stations to file for expansion of their existing service areas but such 
an alternative could result in the use of valuable spectrum that the 
Commission seeks to preserve for other uses.
    The Commission concluded that replacement digital television 
translator stations should be licensed with ``secondary'' frequency use 
status. The Commission could have decided that replacement translators 
be licensed on a primary frequency use basis, but this alternative was 
not adopted because it would result in numerous interference and 
licensing problems.
    The Commission determined that, unlike other television translator 
licenses, the license for the replacement translator should be 
associated with the full power station's main license. Therefore, the 
replacement translator license may not be separately assigned or 
transferred and will be renewed or assigned along with the full-service 
station's main license. Alternatively, the Commission could have 
decided that the replacement translator license be separate from the 
main station's license, however this approach could result in licenses 
being sold or modified to serve areas outside of the loss area, and 
thus would undermine the purpose of this new service.
    The Commission also concluded that the other rules associated with 
television translator stations will apply to the new replacement 
translator service, including those rules concerning the filing of 
applications, payment of filing fees, processing of applications, power 
limits, out-of-channel emission limits, call signs, unattended 
operation, and time of operation. The alternative could have been to 
design all new rules for this service, but that alternative was not 
adopted as it would adversely impact stations ability to quickly 
implement these new translators.
    The Commission's conclusion to discontinue accepting applications 
for analog-to-digital replacement translators may impact small 
entities. However, the Commission determined that future analog-to-
digital replacement translator applications are no longer necessary for 
stations to replace an analog loss area that occurred as a result of 
the digital transition over six years ago.
    Elimination of Analog Tuner Mandate. The Commission decided to 
permit equipment manufacturers to forego having to include an analog 
tuner in their television sets determining that it would benefit small 
entity equipment manufacturers. Having to include an analog tuner 
increases the cost of a television sets and equipment manufacturers, 
some of whom may be small entities, would enjoy a cost savings as a 
result of the Commission's proposal. The Commission determined that any 
impact that not including an analog tuner in new television sets may 
have upon consumers should be minimal now that the full power digital 
transition has been complete for over five years and would be 
outweighed by the benefit of less expensive digital television sets.

Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Commission's Proposals

    None.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 15

    Communications equipment.

47 CFR Part 74

    Television.


[[Page 5052]]


Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl Todd,
Deputy Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 15 and 73 as follows:

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307, 336, and 544A.


0
2. Amend Sec.  15.117 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  15.117  TV broadcast receivers.

* * * * *
    (b) Until August 31, 2017, TV broadcast receivers shall be capable 
of adequately receiving all channels allocated by the Commission to the 
television broadcast service. After August 31, 2017, TV broadcast 
receivers shall be capable of adequately receiving all channels 
allocated by the Commission to the television broadcast service that 
broadcast digital signals, buy they need not be capable of receiving 
analog signals.
* * * * *

PART 74--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER 
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES

0
2. The authority citation for Part 74 is amended to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, 309, 336 and 554.


0
3. Amend Sec.  74.731 by revising paragraph (l) and adding paragraph 
(m) to read as follows:


Sec.  74.731  Purpose and permissible service.

* * * * *
    (l) After 11:59 p.m. local time on September 1, 2015, Class A 
television stations may no longer operate any facility in analog (NTSC) 
mode.
    (m) After 11:59 p.m. local time, 51 months following the release of 
the Channel Reassignment Public Notice announcing completion of the 
incentive auction conducted under Title VI of the Middle Class Tax 
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96)), low power 
television and TV translator stations may no longer operate any 
facility in analog (NTSC) mode and all licenses for such analog 
operations shall automatically cancel at that time without any 
affirmative action by the Commission.
0
4. Amend Sec.  74.787 by revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (b)(2) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  74.787  Digital Licensing.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Applications for analog-to-digital and digital-to-digital 
replacement television translators. (i) Applications for new analog-to-
digital replacement translators will not be accepted. Displacement 
applications for analog-to-digital replacement translators will 
continue to be accepted. An application for a new digital-to-digital 
replacement translator may be filed beginning the first day of the low 
power television and TV translator displacement window set forth in 
Sec.  73.3700(g)(1) of this part to one year after the completion of 
the 39-month post-auction transition period as defined in Sec.  27.4 of 
this chapter. Applications for digital-to-digital replacement 
translators filed during the displacement window will be considered 
filed on the last day of the window. Following the completion of the 
displacement window, applications for digital-to-digital replacement 
translators will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis.
    (ii) Each original construction permit for the construction of a 
displacement analog-to-digital or new or displacement digital-to-
digital replacement television translator station shall specify a 
period of three years from the date of issuance of the original 
construction permit within which construction shall be completed and 
application for license filed. The provisions of Sec.  74.788(c) of 
this chapter shall apply for stations seeking additional time to 
complete construction of their displacement analog-to-digital or new or 
displacement digital-to-digital replacement television translator 
station.
    (iii) Displacement applications for analog-to-digital replacement 
television translators shall be given processing priority over all 
other low power television and TV translator new, minor change, or 
displacement applications except applications for digital-to-digital 
replacement television translators with which they shall have co-equal 
priority. Applications for digital-to-digital replacement television 
translators shall be given processing priority over all low power 
television and TV translator new, minor change, or displacement 
applications, except displacement applications for analog-to-digital 
replacement translators with which they shall have co-equal priority.
    (iv) Applications for new digital-to-digital replacement television 
translators and displacement applications for analog-to-digital and 
digital-to-digital replacement television translators shall be treated 
as an application for minor change. Mutually exclusive applications 
shall be resolved via the Commission's part 1 and broadcast competitive 
bidding rules, Sec.  1.2100 et seq. and Sec.  73.5000 et seq. of this 
chapter.
    (v) A license for a digital-to-digital replacement television 
translator will be issued only to a full-power television broadcast 
station licensee that demonstrates in its application a loss in the 
station's pre-auction digital service area as a result of the broadcast 
television spectrum incentive auction, including the repacking process, 
conducted under section 6403 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 
Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96). ``Pre-auction digital service 
area'' is defined as the geographic area within the full power 
station's noise-limited contour (as set forth in Public Notice, DA 15-
1296, released November 12, 2015). The service area of the digital-to-
digital replacement translator shall be limited to only the 
demonstrated loss area within the full power station's pre-auction 
digital service area, provided that an applicant for a digital-to-
digital replacement television translator may propose a de minimis 
expansion of its full power pre-auction digital service area upon 
demonstrating that the expansion is necessary to replace a loss in its 
pre-auction digital service area.
    (vi) The license for the analog-to-digital and digital-to-digital 
replacement television translator will be associated with the full 
power station's main license, will be assigned the same call sign, may 
not be separately assigned or transferred, and will be renewed with the 
full power station's main license.
    (vii) Analog-to-digital and digital-to-digital replacement 
television translators may operate only on those television channels 
designated for broadcast television use following completion of the 
broadcast television spectrum incentive auction conducted under section 
6403 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. 
L. 112-96).
    (viii) The following sections are applicable to analog-to-digital 
and digital-to-digital replacement television translator stations:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Applicable Rule Sections
Sec.   73.1030 Notifications concerning interference to radio astronomy,
 research and receiving installations.
Sec.   74.703 Interference.
Sec.   74.709 Land mobile station protection.
Sec.   74.734 Attended and unattended operation.
Sec.   74.735 Power Limitations.

[[Page 5053]]

 
Sec.   74. 751 Modification of transmission systems.
Sec.   74.763 Time of Operation.
Sec.   74.765 Posting of station and operator licenses.
Sec.   74.769 Copies of rules.
Sec.   74.780 Broadcast regulations applicable to translators, low
 power, and booster stations (except Sec.   73.653--Operation of TV
 aural and visual transmitters and Sec.   73.1201--Station
 identification).
Sec.   74.781 Station records.
Sec.   74.784 Rebroadcasts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Other facilities changes will be considered minor including 
changes made to implement a channel sharing arrangement provided they 
comply with the other provisions of this section.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  74.788 by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(1), (c)(3) and 
(d) to read as follows:


Sec.  74.788--Digital  construction period.

    (a) Except as indicated below, each original construction permit 
for the construction of a new digital low power television or 
television translator station shall specify a period of three years 
from the date of issuance of the original construction permit within 
which construction shall be completed and application for license 
filed. Construction permits for the construction of a new digital low 
power television or television translator station granted after the 
release of the LPTV DTV Third Report and Order, MB Docket No. 03-185 
(FCC 15-175) shall specify the later of either the digital transition 
deadline or three years from the date of issuance of the original 
construction permit within which construction shall be completed and 
application for license filed.
* * * * *
    (c) Authority delegated. (1) For the September 1, 2015 Class A 
television digital construction deadline, authority is delegated to the 
Chief, Media Bureau to grant an extension of time of up to six months 
beyond September 1, 2015 upon demonstration by the Class A station that 
failure to meet the construction deadline is due to circumstances that 
are either unforeseeable or beyond the licensee's control where the 
licensee has taken all reasonable steps to resolve the problem 
expeditiously. For the low power television and TV translator station 
digital transition deadline set forth in Sec.  74.731(l) of this 
subpart, authority is delegated to the Chief, Media Bureau to grant an 
extension of time of up to six months beyond the digital transition 
deadline set forth in Sec.  74.731(l) upon demonstration that failure 
to meet the construction deadline is due to circumstances that are 
either unforeseeable or beyond the station's control where the station 
has taken all reasonable steps to resolve the problem expeditiously.
* * * * *
    (3) Applications for extension of time filed by Class A television 
stations shall be filed not later than May 1, 2015 absent a showing of 
sufficient reasons for late filing. Applications for extension of time 
filed by low power television and TV translator stations shall be filed 
not later than four months before the digital transition deadline set 
forth in Sec.  74.731(l) of this subpart absent a showing of sufficient 
reasons for late filing.
    (d) For Class A television digital construction deadlines occurring 
after September 1, 2015, the tolling provisions of Sec.  73.3598 shall 
apply. For low power television and TV translator digital construction 
deadlines occurring after the digital transition deadline set forth in 
Sec.  74.731(l) of this subpart, the tolling provisions of Sec.  
73.3598 shall apply.
* * * * *
0
6. Add Sec.  74.800 to read as follows:


Sec.  74.800  Low Power Television and TV Translator Channel Sharing.

    (a) Channel sharing generally. (1) Subject to the provisions of 
this section, low power television and TV translator stations may 
voluntarily seek Commission approval to share a single six megahertz 
channel with other low power television and TV translator stations.
    (2) Each station sharing a single channel pursuant to this section 
shall continue to be licensed and operated separately, have its own 
call sign and be separately subject to all of the Commission's 
obligations, rules, and policies.
    (b) Licensing of channel sharing stations. The low power television 
or TV translator channel sharing station relinquishing its channel must 
file an application for the initial channel sharing construction 
permit, include a copy of the channel sharing agreement as an exhibit, 
and cross reference the other sharing station(s). Any engineering 
changes necessitated by the channel sharing arrangement may be included 
in the station's application. Upon initiation of shared operations, the 
station relinquishing its channel must notify the Commission that it 
has terminated operation pursuant to Sec.  73.1750 of this part and 
each sharing station must file an application for license.
    (c) Deadline for implementing channel sharing arrangements. Channel 
sharing arrangements submitted pursuant to this section must be 
implemented within three years of the grant of the initial channel 
sharing construction permit.
    (d) Channel sharing agreements. (1) Channel sharing agreements 
(CSAs) submitted under this section must contain provisions outlining 
each licensee's rights and responsibilities regarding:
    (i) Access to facilities, including whether each licensee will have 
unrestrained access to the shared transmission facilities;
    (ii) Allocation of bandwidth within the shared channel;
    (iii) Operation, maintenance, repair, and modification of 
facilities, including a list of all relevant equipment, a description 
of each party's financial obligations, and any relevant notice 
provisions;
    (iv) Transfer/assignment of a shared license, including the ability 
of a new licensee to assume the existing CSA; and
    (v) Termination of the license of a party to the CSA, including 
reversion of spectrum usage rights to the remaining parties to the CSA.
    (2) CSAs must include provisions:
    (i) Affirming compliance with the channel sharing requirements in 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section and all relevant Commission rules and 
policies; and
    (ii) Requiring that each channel sharing licensee shall retain 
spectrum usage rights adequate to ensure a sufficient amount of the 
shared channel capacity to allow it to provide at least one Standard 
Definition program stream at all times.
    (e) Upon termination of the license of a party to a CSA, the 
spectrum usage rights covered by that license may revert to the 
remaining parties to the CSA. Such reversion shall be governed by the 
terms of the CSA in accordance with paragraph (d)(1)(v) of this 
section. If upon termination of the license of a party to a CSA only 
one party to the CSA remains, the remaining licensee may file an 
application to change its license to non-shared status using FCC Form 
2100, Schedule D.
    (f) If the rights under a CSA are transferred or assigned, the 
assignee or the transferee must comply with the terms of the CSA in 
accordance with paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section. If the transferee 
or assignee and the licensees of the remaining channel sharing station 
or stations agree to amend the terms of the existing CSA, the agreement 
may be

[[Page 5054]]

amended, subject to Commission approval.

[FR Doc. 2016-00060 Filed 1-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P