[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 32 (Friday, February 17, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11106-11125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03368]



[[Page 11105]]

Vol. 82

Friday,

No. 32

February 17, 2017

Part II





Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Part 73





Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau Adopt a Post-Incentive 
Auction Transition Scheduling Plan; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 11106]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[GN Docket No. 12-268, MB Docket No. 16-306; DA 17-107]


Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau Adopt a Post-
Incentive Auction Transition Scheduling Plan

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Media Bureau, in consultation with the 
Incentive Auction Task Force, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
and the Office of Engineering and Technology, adopts a methodology to 
establish construction deadlines and transitions schedule for full 
power and Class A television stations that are transitioning to new 
channels following the incentive auction.

DATES: Effective March 20, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Morris, Video Division, Media 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-1656 or Erin 
Griffith, Incentive Auction Task Force, Federal Communications 
Commission, (202) 418-2957.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document, DA 17-107, in GN Docket No. 12-268 and MB Docket No. 16-306; 
released on January 27, 2017. The full text of this document, as well 
as all omitted Illustrations, Figures and Tables are available on the 
Internet at the Commission's Web site at: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0127/DA-17-107A1.pdf; or by using 
the search function for GN Docket No. 12-268, MB Docket No. 16-306 on 
the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web page at 
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The full text is also available for public 
inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) 
Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays 
in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554 (telephone: 202-418-0270, TTY: 202-418-
2555). To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities, send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 
(TTY).

Synopsis

    In the Incentive Auction Report and Order (IA R&O), 79 FR 48441, 
August 15, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or 
FCC) delegated authority to the Media Bureau (the Bureau) to establish 
construction deadlines within the 39-month post-auction transition 
period for television stations that are assigned to new channels in the 
incentive auction repacking process. In consultation with the Incentive 
Auction Task Force (IATF), the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
(WTB), and the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), the Bureau 
proposed a methodology for establishing deadlines within a ``phased'' 
transition schedule in the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public 
Notice. Commenters generally expressed support for the proposal, with 
some suggested modifications and additional measures to facilitate the 
transition. Based on the record in this proceeding, the Bureau adopts, 
with modifications, the phased transition plan proposed in the 
Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice, including use of the 
Phase Assignment Tool and the Phase Scheduling Tool. Most commenters 
support efforts to establish a phased transition process and the use of 
the tools developed to plan and create an orderly schedule. This 
methodology will be used after final channel reassignments are known in 
order to establish an orderly schedule that will allow stations, 
manufacturers, and other vendors and consultants, to coordinate 
broadcasters' post-auction channel changes. This Public Notice also 
addresses other matters related to the transition scheduling plan that 
commenters raised in response to the Transition Scheduling Proposal 
Public Notice.
    Creating the Phased Transition Schedule. Phase Assignment Tool. As 
soon as possible after the forward auction satisfies the final stage 
rule and the final channel assignments are determined, the Bureau will 
use the Phase Assignment Tool to assign a transition phase to each 
eligible full power and Class A television station that receives a new 
post-auction channel as a result of the final channel assignment 
determination procedure. The Bureau has announced that it intends to 
send each eligible station that will remain on the air after the 
auction a confidential letter after the final stage rule is met that 
identifies the station's post-auction channel assignment, technical 
parameters, and assigned transition phase. We find that developing the 
final channel assignments and providing the information to affected 
stations as early as possible after the final stage rule is reached 
will facilitate early planning and provide additional time for stations 
to prepare construction permit applications.
    We conclude that the information used to create the transition 
schedule is sufficiently detailed and reliable to establish phased 
transition deadlines once the final channel reassignments have been 
established. Launching an organized, phased schedule at the earliest 
opportunity will provide broadcasters, equipment manufacturers and 
other vendors and consultants, wireless providers, and television 
viewers with certainty and stability. This is particularly important as 
broadcasters prepare their construction permit applications, coordinate 
with other broadcasters, and begin construction planning. We understand 
that unforeseen circumstances may arise, and the Bureau will work 
closely with individual broadcasters, as well as broadcaster 
associations, during the transition process. However, we conclude that 
assigning stations to transition phases as soon as possible is 
necessary to carry out the transition in a timely manner.
    We also decline suggestions to collect additional or different 
information about stations that face difficult approval processes or 
procurement issues prior to assigning stations to phases. The Phase 
Assignment Tool already includes a constraint identifying certain 
stations as ``complicated'' based on data collected by the Bureau. 
Commenters who advocated additional data collection did not identify a 
source of additional or different data, or explain how the Phase 
Assignment Tool should take such information into account. Furthermore, 
we emphasize that the obstacles faced by individual stations are not 
the only factor that the Phase Assignment Tool must consider. 
Regardless of the difficulty of any one station's move, certain 
stations must move together in the same phase or certain stations must 
move in one phase before additional stations can move in a subsequent 
phase because of station dependencies created by interference 
constraints. The Phase Assignment Tool is designed to organize the 
transition of all transitioning broadcast stations in an orderly 
fashion that respects station dependencies and interference constraints 
in addition to accounting for individual stations complexities, while 
simultaneously protecting television viewers. The Phase Assignment Tool 
as proposed strikes the appropriate balance with respect to these 
elements.
    The constraints and objectives we adopt will minimize dependencies

[[Page 11107]]

created by interference issues, ensure that the 600 MHz Band is cleared 
as expeditiously as possible, cluster groups of stations into the same 
phase to help manage scarce transition resources, and minimize the 
impact of the transition on television viewers. Solutions identified by 
the Phase Assignment Tool--that is, assignments of stations to phases--
must satisfy all constraints. Of the many possible solutions that meet 
all the constraints, the tool will use optimization techniques to then 
select the one that best meets the defined objectives. Each objective 
is implemented in order of priority. Thus, the higher the objective's 
priority, the greater its potential impact on the solution. We note 
that a few commenters specifically requested to be assigned to later 
phases or in the same phase. We deny such requests. The Phase 
Assignment Tool uses a holistic approach to assigning stations to 
phases that balances competing priorities and it is not practical to 
factor such requests into the optimization.
    Constraints. The Bureau adopts eight of the constraints proposed in 
the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice. The constraints are 
discussed below. Commenters generally support these constraints, as 
well as the constraints indicating that the tool would not assign 
stations to temporary channels, and we discuss each one below.
    In addition to the eight constraints adopted below, the Transition 
Scheduling Proposal Public Notice proposed as constraints that no 
Canadian or U.S. station would be assigned to a temporary channel. 
Although temporary channels could be useful for breaking dependencies, 
the overwhelming number of commenters agreed with the Bureau's 
tentative conclusion not to use temporary channels and argued that the 
use of temporary channels should be permitted, but not required. 
Therefore, we will not assign any station to a temporary channel as 
part of the Phase Assignment Tool. While the restriction on temporary 
channels was included as a constraint in the proposal, it is 
unnecessary to include this restriction as a constraint in the final 
tool as the tool will not assign stations to temporary channels even 
absent such a constraint. As discussed below we will allow stations to 
voluntarily seek the use of a temporary channel.
    Constraint 1. During the post-incentive auction transition, we will 
allow temporary increased pairwise (station-to-station) interference of 
up to two percent. As we previously stated, temporary pairwise 
interference increases of up to two percent could occur at any time 
during the transition on a station's pre-auction and/or post-auction 
channels. This constraint is likely to significantly reduce 
dependencies between stations. The Commission has in the past allowed 
temporary increases in interference to broadcasters in order to 
facilitate transitions to new service. Nothing in the Spectrum Act 
limits the Bureau's authority to permit temporary pairwise interference 
of up to two percent in order to facilitate the transition to post-
auction channels.
    In the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice, we explained 
that limited increases in pairwise interference were unlikely to result 
in significant aggregate interference increases based on staff 
analysis, which reflects that aggregate interference levels are 
unlikely to exceed the pairwise limits except for a few cases. However, 
the Bureau will attempt to find an alternative phase assignment for any 
station predicted to receive more than five percent temporary aggregate 
interference, consistent with the constraints and objectives of the 
Phase Assignment Tool.
    Constraints 2 and 3. No Canadian station will be assigned to a 
transition phase before the third phase. This constraint was developed 
in consultation with Canada. Additionally we will limit the number of 
transition phases to 10.
    Constraint 4. To minimize consumer disruption during the 39-month 
transition period, and to promote the efficient use of tower crews, all 
stations within a DMA will be assigned to no more than two transition 
phases. This constraint alleviates concerns that viewers will need to 
complete frequent rescans during the transition. Broadcast commenters 
put forward a variety of proposals to modify this constraint, but none 
describe how their respective proposals would affect the overall phase 
assignments. One commenter proposes that the Commission modify this 
constraint to a single transition phase in each market. Another 
commenter supports the two-phase constraint, but urges the Bureau to 
require that the two phases occur ``back-to-back.'' Likewise, two other 
commenters suggest that all stations located on the same tower should 
be assigned to the same transition phase, or that the Commission should 
limit the number of stations that any one broadcast group has in a 
given phase. We reject these proposals. Staff analysis reflects that 
assigning stations within a DMA to two, potentially nonconsecutive 
phases, is crucial in providing the optimization with the flexibility 
to satisfy other constraints, such as limiting the number of linked 
stations per phase and keeping a relatively consistent number of 
stations assigned to each phase. The commenters' proposals would 
threaten the Phase Assignment Tool's ability to balance such competing 
goals.
    At the same time, we agree with broadcasters that minimizing viewer 
disruption and efficiently clearing DMAs are important public interest 
goals. Accordingly, we adopt below the second objective of 
``minimiz[ing] the sum, over all DMAs, of the number of times a DMA 
must rescan.'' If it is possible to satisfy the optimization's 
constraints and its first objective, and still assign stations to only 
one DMA, the optimization will attempt to do so using the second 
objective. We find that this approach gives the optimization the 
flexibility to balance competing priorities, including prioritizing 
television viewers and regional clusters.
    Constraints 5 and 6. To balance the number of stations across 
transition phases, the difference in the number of stations in the 
largest transition phase and the smallest transition phase will be no 
more than 30 stations. One commenter suggests that the Bureau treat 
this constraint as an objective; however, objectives have less effect 
on the solution than constraints and we find that the benefits of this 
constraint cannot be achieved by making it an objective. While it is 
true that the actual makeup of stations within each phase may require 
varying draws on resources, we conclude that this constraint is the 
correct approach to ensuring the number of stations will be spread 
evenly throughout the transition phases. Furthermore, as proposed and 
adopted below, the Bureau has an objective that will attempt to further 
reduce the difference in the number of stations in the largest 
transition phase and the smallest transition phase if it can be 
accomplished while still satisfying all of the constraints and the 
objectives that come first in priority to that one. Every transitioning 
station will also only be assigned to one transition phase. We received 
no comment objecting to this constraint.
    Constraint 7. No transition phase will have more than 125 linked 
stations as a result of the Phase Assignment Tool. One commenter 
proposes that the Bureau should treat this constraint as an objective. 
However, the commenter does not explain what priority such an objective 
should be given nor how its proposal would affect the overall balancing 
of the optimization's priorities. We decline to treat this constraint 
as an objective and find that

[[Page 11108]]

this constraint is the cornerstone of managing the breadth of 
coordination required of any station to complete its transition.
    Constraint 8. No station falling into the ``complicated'' category 
will be assigned to Phase 1 under the Phase Assignment Tool. For the 
purposes of the Phase Assignment Tool and the Phase Scheduling Tool, 
``complicated'' stations are those at locations previously determined 
as likely to face extraordinary hurdles. See Auction 1000 Bidding 
Procedures Public Notice, 80 FR 61917, Oct. 14, 2015 at paras. 265-75; 
Application Procedures for Broadcast Incentive Auction Scheduled to 
Begin on March 29, 2016; Technical Formulas for Competitive Bidding, 30 
FCC Rcd 11034, 11176 n.9 (WTB 2015) (``Certain towers will require 
extraordinary means to move a station to a new channel . . . [S]tations 
at the following locations in the U.S. will be considered 
extraordinary: Mt. Sutro, Willis Tower, Hancock Building, Empire State 
Building, Times Square, Mount Mansfield, Lookout Mountain.''). One 
commenter asks the Bureau to clarify that the least complicated 
stations will be assigned to earlier transition phases. However, phase 
assignments hinge on several factors, and in particular must take into 
account station dependencies. For example, a complicated station may be 
positioned first in a daisy chain of interdependent stations, requiring 
that it move before all the other stations in that chain. Additionally, 
while a less complicated station with no dependencies may be able to 
move quickly, competing goals such as ensuring that DMAs transition in 
a limited number of phases and balancing resources across the 
transition may dictate later phase assignments for a specific station. 
We therefore decline to adopt the suggestion.
    One commenter asks the Bureau to identify as complicated those 
structures that have the additional characteristics discussed in the 
Auction 1000 Bidding Procedures Public Notice. However, for purposes of 
the post-auction transition scheduling plan, we identified certain 
locations where stations are likely to encounter unusually difficult 
circumstances when completing their transitions. Only stations at 
locations on this discrete list, which have been identified as facing 
extraordinary hurdles, will be treated as complicated. As discussed 
below, however, we note that the transition schedule is based on 
reasonable assumptions about how long stations--whether they are within 
the complicated category or not--will need to complete their 
transitions. The amount of time used to estimate how long stations will 
need to transition is based on feedback from the industry and the 
Widelity Report. While the time estimates provided for complicated 
stations are consistent with the Widelity Report Case Study IV, to be 
even more conservative, constraint number eight guarantees that 
stations identified as complicated for the purpose of the Phase 
Scheduling Tool will have a minimum of two phases to complete their 
transitions since such stations will not be assigned to the first 
transition phase.
    We adopt the four objectives and respective priorities proposed in 
the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice. Specifically, the 
first objective will be to assign U.S. stations whose pre-auction 
channels are in the 600 MHz Band to earlier phases, while 
simultaneously assigning all Canadian stations and U.S. stations with 
pre-auction channels in the remaining television bands to later phases, 
where possible. The second objective is to minimize the sum, over all 
DMAs, of the number of times a DMA must rescan. The third objective is 
to minimize the total number of linked stations. The fourth objective 
is to minimize the difference between the number of stations in the 
largest transition phase and the smallest transition phase.
    Commenters generally support these objectives; however, broadcast 
commenters disagree that prioritizing clearing the 600 MHz Band should 
be the first objective. We emphasize that all phase assignments must 
satisfy each of the eight constraints adopted above, most of which are 
designed to protect the interests that the broadcast commenters appear 
to believe should be of primary consideration. As noted, those 
constraints will protect broadcast services and television viewers from 
undue pairwise interference, limit the number of required rescans, 
minimize the impact of dependencies and thus the need for inter-station 
coordination, and create an organized phased approach that spreads the 
transition across 10 phases. The Commission also tasked the Bureau with 
developing a transition schedule that ``provide[s] certainty to 
wireless providers and [is] completed as expeditiously as possible.'' 
We find that the proposed prioritization of the four objectives strikes 
the appropriate balance and will encourage the expeditious clearing of 
the 600 MHz Band.
    One commenter proposes that ``the two primary objectives be to 
maximize the health and safety of tower crews and the homes and 
businesses that are in close proximity to towers and to minimize 
service disruptions to viewers and users of other services that share 
broadcast towers.'' That commenter has not explained how we could 
incorporate such goals into the mathematical optimization model and we 
are unaware of any mechanism to accomplish the task. However, we note 
that the Phase Scheduling Tool estimates time periods for construction 
tasks based on industry information, and we believe that relying on 
such information is reasonable and will help to promote health and 
safety.
    Phase Scheduling Tool. After the Phase Assignment Tool assigns 
stations to phases, the Bureau will use the Phase Scheduling Tool to 
produce an estimate of the average amount of time, in weeks, it will 
take all stations in a phase to complete their transition. The total 
number of estimated weeks for phase 10 is the total time estimate for 
the post-auction transition, based on the Phase Scheduling Tool's 
simulation. In order to obtain this estimate, the Phase Scheduling Tool 
uses the time and resource estimates to simulate how long it will take 
all the stations in each phase to obtain access to limited resources 
and complete their transitions. In the simulation, a station must 
complete the activities in the pre-construction and construction 
stages. If a required resource such as a tower crew is constrained, 
stations that require the resource will obtain access to it according 
to a randomly assigned simulation order. In other words, the Phase 
Scheduling Tool creates a random order within each phase to simulate 
the sequence in which stations within each phase will have access to 
limited resources. The output of the tool is the number of weeks it 
will take all stations in a phase to obtain necessary resources and 
complete their transition. Because the number of weeks needed may vary 
depending on the simulation order of the stations in each phase, the 
Bureau will run the Phase Scheduling Tool 100 times to generate the 
average time in weeks it takes to complete a phase. One commenter 
argues that the Bureau should use the longest timing estimates for all 
stations in a phase. We disagree that the Bureau should always use the 
longest timing estimate for all stations in a phase to set the phase 
transition deadline. By generating results for multiple simulation 
orders, the Phase Scheduling Tool produces a range of estimated 
completion times for each phase. Using those ranges as a guide will 
provide the staff with the flexibility it needs to create a reasonable 
transition schedule within the 39-month timeframe. As described below, 
the Bureau will use the resulting average of the estimated time 
required per phase to

[[Page 11109]]

guide its determination of the completion dates for each transition 
phase.
    Many commenters agree that the Phase Scheduling Tool is an 
appropriate mechanism to guide the Bureau in setting deadlines for 
phases, and no commenter provided an alternative to the simulation 
tool. A few commenters contend that the tool is unrealistic because 
broadcasters often use specific vendors, and the vendors have 
preferred-customer relationships and may manufacture only on a first-
come-first serve basis. These commenters argue that stations will not 
line up in a queue, especially if they risk going dark if they fail to 
meet their phase deadlines. However, the Phase Scheduling Tool does not 
mandate that broadcasters use particular vendors or access resources in 
a particular order in the real world. It is a simulation tool created 
to assist the Commission in setting reasonable deadlines for phases. 
Our plan provides flexibility for stations to make their preferred 
arrangements by starting all 10 transition phases at the same time, so 
that each station may start planning for its transition as soon as 
possible. Nevertheless, station and vendor cooperation will be an 
essential element of the transition plan and we urge all industry 
participants to be respectful of the overall demands of the transition 
on limited resources. We strongly encourage stations to be mindful of 
the overall transition plan when working with their vendors, and we 
note that we will closely monitor the progress of the transition. 
Examination of the record reflects that vendors are keenly aware of the 
need to prioritize projects by phase assignment where possible and 
would like stations to place orders for equipment as early as possible.
    The Pre-Construction Stage will include (1) the time required for 
antenna equipment to be ordered, manufactured, and delivered and (2) 
the time required for all other planning and administration activities 
necessary to prepare for construction. These categories reflect the 
type of work that stations will need to do before they begin 
construction on their towers.
    Antenna equipment manufacturing and delivery. In order to account 
for limits on antenna manufacturing and delivery, the Phase Scheduling 
Tool uses time estimates to simulate how long it will take 
manufacturers to manufacture and deliver an antenna to each station. 
The tool assumes that auxiliary antenna manufacturing and delivery will 
not be a constrained resource during the transition and that 75 percent 
of all stations will need to install an auxiliary antenna. A few 
commenters are concerned that manufacturers will not be able to meet 
the demand for antennas, and particularly auxiliary antennas, during 
the transition. Although several commenters point out auxiliary 
antennas will be a significant means of helping stations complete 
timely transitions, the majority of commenters contend that the 
manufacturing and availability of auxiliary antennas will not be 
constrained during the transition. We find that the model properly 
reflects the availability of antennas, including auxiliary antennas.
    Some commenters argue further that manufacturers will not be able 
to maintain or increase manufacturing capacity throughout the 
transition. However, the other commenters argue that the vendor 
industry is ramping up to prepare for the transition. Additionally, the 
phased transition approach is designed to create a steady stream of 
work over the course of the transition, which should allow 
manufacturers to keep pace with demand. On balance, we conclude that 
the model accurately reflects the manufacturing and delivery 
capabilities of the vendors throughout the transition.
    Administration/Planning. We adopt the estimates proposed in the 
Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice for the Administration/
Planning component of the Pre-Construction Stage. The Administration/
Planning component includes zoning, administration, legal work, and 
pre-construction alterations to tower and transmitter equipment. One 
commenter argues that structural tower improvements should not be 
considered in the Pre-Construction Stage. We disagree. Stations may 
start making structural tower improvements well before the transition 
begins in preparation for the transition and tower crews will engage 
tower work during both the Pre-Construction and Construction Phase. 
Another commenter notes that structural engineers may become a 
constrained resource during the process and that the transition plan 
should consider the availability of structural engineers when setting 
time estimates. While structural engineers will be needed throughout 
the transition, we expect that the heaviest strain on structural 
engineers will be in conjunction with the construction permit 
application process, and that structural engineers will not be a 
constrained resource during most of the transition. Commenters 
generally express two primary concerns with this component, first the 
amount of time it may take some stations to get through zoning and 
permitting, and second, the possible procurement issues facing public 
broadcast stations.
    We acknowledge that local zoning authorities and entities such as 
the FAA, tribal or historic preservation offices, and municipal 
authorities will likely receive requests for approval during the 
transition and that these entities have important roles to play within 
their various jurisdictions. However, we are not persuaded that these 
procedural requirements necessitate increased time estimates. We 
conclude that the Widelity case studies will be sufficient for the 
majority of stations, and we are unconvinced that the time estimates 
for the transition schedule should be driven by the worst-case 
scenarios. The Phase Scheduling Tool provides conservative estimates 
for stations in three categories: Complicated, DTV, and Class A 
stations. This differentiation captures the varying timelines that the 
majority of stations in each group may face during Administration/
Planning activities. We also note that because all phases will commence 
at the same time, stations in later phases will actually have 
significantly more time to complete their Administration/Planning 
activities than the time estimates provided in the simulation. For 
example, the Phase Scheduling Tool estimates that a DTV station would 
need 32 weeks to complete its administrative and planning activities. A 
station assigned to a later phase will have far more than 32 weeks to 
complete these tasks. The time estimates in the tool are intended to 
give each station the minimum time necessary to complete these tasks, 
but the majority of stations will have more than the minimum amount of 
time provided by the Tool.
    Public television entities are concerned that the adopted timelines 
do not adequately take into account the needs of public broadcast 
stations, and they argue that such stations will face significant 
hurdles with financing and procurement. We conclude that the time 
estimates for the Administration/Planning component of the Phase 
Scheduling Tool for all stations are sufficiently conservative. 
Furthermore, commenters do not indicate how much additional time should 
be allocated to public stations. Because of the large number and 
variety of public stations and the case-by-case nature of each 
station's transition, we conclude that it is not reasonable to provide 
additional time to all public stations for the purposes of the Phase 
Scheduling Tool. Stations that anticipate these specific challenges 
should begin their transition process as early as possible.

[[Page 11110]]

    The Construction Phase will include (1) the time to complete all 
general facets of construction (called ``Construction Related Work'') 
and (2) the time required by tower crews to install equipment on 
towers. One commenter requests clarity on the definition of ``tower 
work.,'' argues that tower structural modifications and RF equipment 
changes should not be separate as both of these activities will need to 
take place sequentially without any time separation to increase 
efficiencies and reduce crew movements (rigging and de-rigging), and 
also states that there are long-lead items for modifications too, such 
as guy wires, which can take from weeks to months for delivery. We note 
that the model does not break tasks down as discretely as this 
commenter suggests. However, the minimum time estimates for 
Administration/Planning and Construction Related Work provides enough 
time to complete the consecutive tasks and time to acquire the long 
lead-time equipment. Some commenters express concern regarding the time 
saving estimates for work done on the same tower, the number and 
qualifications of tower crews, and the impact of weather on 
construction. We adopt proposals for the Construction Phase component 
as described in the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice with 
slight modifications based on the comments. Specifically, we adjust the 
time required to complete the work on towers having antennas for 
multiple stations. In addition, although the proposed time estimates 
are conservative and should provide enough to time for stations to 
complete their transitions without separately considering the issue of 
weather, in response to comments the Bureau will specifically consider 
the possibility of major weather-related delays when it assigns 
completion dates to each phase.
    Tower work. Several commenters argue that the model overestimates 
the amount of time-savings that can be achieved by performing multiple 
installations on the same tower in a single, multi-station job. We find 
these arguments have merit. Accordingly, we modify our proposed 
approach to assume that construction on a tower will commence when the 
first station on that tower is ready to begin its construction work and 
the total time to complete all construction for all stations on that 
tower is equal to (a) the time required for the most difficult station 
(we assign this time to the first station) plus (b) the sum of the time 
estimates for all stations other than this first station, multiplied by 
50 percent. This revised approach addresses the concerns identified by 
the commenters.
    One commenter states that allowing only one week for a tower crew 
to install an auxiliary antenna is likely to be insufficient. On the 
other hand, another commenter identified that only three to four 3-5 
additional days for this task. Based on the record we conclude that, as 
a general rule, one week is insufficient. A commenter proposes that the 
model should take into account special problems and timing needs of 
broadcasters that operate from ``fully-loaded towers.'' While we agree 
that fully-loaded (or close to fully-loaded) towers present some unique 
challenges, most such towers can be identified now and we expect 
stations on such towers can take mitigating steps now to work around 
this issue. Another commenter expresses concern that temporary antennas 
may not be able to solve the problem of fully-loaded towers. We note 
that while a tower may be fully-loaded today, it is possible that after 
the incentive auction, a tower may have additional capacity as the 
result of a station going off-air in the auction. Additionally, 
stations may have options beyond auxiliary facilities to help 
facilitate their transitions, and the Bureau is open to assisting 
stations with creative solutions that do not compromise the overall 
transition plan.
    We find that the tool provides estimates intended to account for 
the ordinary time necessary to complete various tasks. It does not 
attempt to assess the specific time for each and every individual 
hypothetical scenario available, and it would not be possible for any 
scheduling tool to do so accurately. However, in response to the 
comments concerning potential coordination with other services (e.g., 
FM radio or cellular providers) operating on the same tower as the 
reassigned station, as noted, we have modified the tool to 
substantially reduce the `same tower discount' in order to account for 
the additional coordination that will be required. This reduced 
discount will more conservatively estimate the total tower work times 
to account for not only other television broadcasters but also other 
broadcast and non-broadcast facilities on the tower.
    Crew availability and training. Commenters disagree about whether 
the Construction Phase tower crew estimates are reasonable. The 
Commission received varying estimates for the number of tower crews 
that will be available during the transition. Based on the totality of 
information received, we conclude that the estimated number of tower 
crews included in the tool for complex stations, DTV stations, and 
Canadian stations set forth in the Transition Scheduling Proposal 
Public Notice is reasonable. Many commenters have noted that companies 
are gearing up for the transition and training crews to perform tower 
work. Further, we disagree with one commenter that tower crews will be 
unavailable or untrained to work on U.S. towers and that companies will 
be working on wireless towers. We note that other comments offer a 
different assessment of crew availability. Nevertheless, the Phase 
Scheduling Tool includes conservative assumptions and the tool assumes 
that no Canadian tower crews will work on U.S. towers, and vice versa.
    Weather. Although the Phase Scheduling Tool uses conservative 
estimates that will give most stations ample time to plan their 
transitions around any anticipated or unanticipated weather conditions, 
nearly all commenters suggest that the schedule should be more flexible 
in taking seasonal considerations into account. Commenters are 
primarily concerned with the impact of winter weather and potential 
hurricanes. It is not possible to adopt a scheduling plan that prevents 
the phase completion date of every phases from falling during winter 
months or hurricane season, even if we limit the restrictions to 
specific markets. We find that imposing such a restriction would be 
unnecessarily restrictive and would undermine the transition process, 
especially because adverse weather conditions may not materialize in 
all cases. However, in response to commenters, the Bureau intends to 
examine the output of the Phase Scheduling Tool and adjust the 
deadlines for early transition phases to accommodate weather. Later 
transition phases will be less sensitive to the impact of weather 
because the full transition period will be longer and industry 
participants will have longer periods to plan for particular weather 
concerns. As such, we encourage industry participants to anticipate 
weather-related considerations that might affect their transitions and 
to plan tower work accordingly in order to utilize the full transition 
phase. A station facing weather-related challenges may also consider 
implementing intermediate plans to ensure that it can be off its pre-
auction channel while continuing to broadcast during the inclement 
weather.
    The Bureau will use the simulations of the Phase Scheduling Tool to 
produce an estimate of the average amount of time, in weeks, it will 
take all stations in a phase to complete their transition. While all 
transition phases will begin at

[[Page 11111]]

the same time, the Bureau will assign each transition phase a 
completion date based on the average number of weeks determined by the 
Phase Scheduling Tool. Although the tool produces reasonable time 
estimates based on the detailed inputs set forth in the Appendix, it 
does not account specifically for certain factors that may warrant 
deadline adjustments, such as the relative length of the testing 
periods for each phase or seasonal considerations. For example, the 
phase completion date may be moved later if an early phase consisting 
primarily of stations in northern regions of the United States is 
projected to end in the middle of winter. Thus, the Bureau may adjust 
the phase completion dates from the average durations calculated by the 
tool to take such factors into account, consistent with the overall 39-
month transition deadline imposed by the Commission's rules.
    Additionally, consistent with the Bureau's proposal each phase will 
have sequential specified testing periods--defined by a start and end 
date, with the end date corresponding to the phase completion date. 
While stations may engage in planning and construction activities at 
any time prior to their phase completion date, equipment testing on 
post-auction channels will be confined to the specified testing 
periods. The wireless industry proposes that stations should be able to 
begin testing or operating on their post-auction channels outside of 
their assigned phase testing period. As a general matter, we will not 
allow stations to test or operate on their post-auction channels until 
their designated phase testing period. This restriction encourages 
stations to plan their transition around their particular phase 
deadline, which will minimize interference, incentivize the 
distribution of resources across the phases, and encourage stations 
within a phase to switch to their post-auction channels at roughly the 
same time, which will minimize confusion to television viewers. While 
the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice contemplated that no 
stage would have a testing period shorter than four weeks, the Bureau 
may need to adjust the amount of time given to the testing periods of 
some phases to accommodate the overall transition schedule, 
particularly in the early transition phases. The Bureau retains the 
discretion to modify phase assignments, phase completion dates, and 
testing period dates as necessary throughout the 39-month transition. 
This discretion responds to commenters' requests that the Bureau have 
flexibility to accommodate real-world events. We note that as the 
transition progresses, the later phases should be better able to 
accommodate shorter testing periods because they have more time than 
stations in the early phases to prepare for their transition and 
complete their work.
    While the majority of phase assignments and deadlines will not 
change once the initial transition schedule is released, in the 
unlikely event, for instance, that a station is ``unable to construct'' 
the facility specified in the Closing and Channel Reassignment Public 
Notice (Closing and Reassignment Public Notice), the Bureau may need to 
modify the transition schedule in order to grant an application filed 
during the first priority window for an alternate facility or channel. 
If changes to the transition schedule are necessary, stations impacted 
by the grant will only be moved to a later phase, not to an earlier 
phase. A station will not be moved to an earlier phase without its 
consent. Below we discuss in greater detail how we will evaluate direct 
requests to modify a station's phase assignment or other requests made 
after the initial transition schedule is announced in the Closing and 
Reassignment Public Notice that would necessitate a modification to the 
transition schedule in order to grant.
    Other Matters Related to the Transition Scheduling Plan. As 
recognized in the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice, there 
are various scenarios in which a station may seek to construct an 
expanded facility or use an alternate channel that differs from the 
technical parameters assigned to it in the Closing and Reassignment 
Public Notice. Some stations may also request extensions of their 
construction deadline and seek authority to continue operating on their 
pre-auction channel after their phase completion date, including a 
waiver of their phase completion deadline. In evaluating such requests, 
the Bureau proposed in the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice 
to examine the impact that granting such requests would have on the 
phased transition schedule. Depending on the requesting station's 
proximity to Mexico or Canada, coordination may also be required from 
that particular country. While a station may request an extension of 
its construction permit deadline as set forth in 47 CFR 73.3700(b)(5), 
grant of such a request only permits the station additional time to 
complete its construction on its final channel and does not permit a 
station to continue operating on its pre-auction channel. In order to 
do so a licensee must request special temporary authority (STA).
    Commenters representing wireless interests agree that any requests 
for relief from the requirements of the transition plan that could 
result in a station's transition taking longer than its assigned phase 
completion date, should be required to meet a high burden of proof and 
consider the impact on 600 MHz Band licensees. On the other hand, 
broadcast commenters assert that a heavy burden of proof runs counter 
to efforts to encourage a successful post-auction transition.
    In order to facilitate a timely and orderly transition, we find 
that we must evaluate on a case-by-case basis requests for modification 
of any station's facility or transition deadline as set forth in the 
Closing and Reassignment Public Notice, to assess the impact of such 
requests on the transition schedule. Accordingly, we adopt the method 
for evaluating such requests proposed in the Transition Scheduling 
Proposal Public Notice, which states, ``[t]he Bureau will view 
favorably requests that are otherwise compliant with our rules and have 
little or no impact on the phase assignments or transition schedule. 
However, any request that the staff determines would be likely to delay 
or disrupt the transition, such as by causing pairwise interference 
above two percent to another station, creating additional linked-
station sets, necessitating another station move to a different 
transition phase, or that is likely to cause a drain on limited 
transition resources required by other stations, will be viewed 
unfavorably. The Bureau will view requests that have such adverse 
effects on the transition schedule more favorably if the requesting 
station demonstrates that it has the approval of all the stations that 
would be affected if the request were granted, or it agrees to take 
steps during the transition period to mitigate the impact of the 
proposed request[.]'' 31 FCC Rcd at 10814-15, para. 27. We find that 
the proposed approach balances the important goal of clearing the 600 
MHz Band within the 39-month transition period, as well as the 
additional goals of facilitating a smooth transition, limiting viewer 
impact, and providing broadcasters the flexibility to make requests 
that are necessary to construct their post-auction facility and address 
unforeseen circumstances to prevent stations from going dark. 
Commenters agree that flexibility is vital to facilitating a successful 
transition.
    While the Bureau does not intend to grant requests that would 
disrupt the transition, our aim is not to discourage stations from 
proposing alternative

[[Page 11112]]

transition solutions that could create efficiencies or resolve 
unforeseen circumstances that could otherwise force a station to go 
dark. Indeed, such proposals may reduce reimbursement costs or 
implement a market-wide transition plan that could allow stations to 
more efficiently utilize limited resources, facilitate coordination, or 
reduce the impact of the transition on television viewers. Nonetheless, 
such proposals should specifically demonstrate that implementation 
would not interfere with other stations' transition efforts and address 
how implementation of the proposal may affect the transition schedule. 
If the Bureau grants such a request after considering such effects, it 
may choose to modify transition phase assignments and construction 
deadlines of the requesting station or, if necessary, other stations; 
however, no other station would be assigned to an earlier transition 
phase than it was originally assigned without its consent. Should the 
Bureau deny a request for a station to continue operating on its pre-
auction channel past its phase completion date, stations can explore a 
variety of options to assist with their post-auction transitions, 
including the use of temporary channels and interim or auxiliary 
facilities.
    In the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice we also 
recognized that individual stations may request changes to their phase 
assignment, phase completion date, and/or testing period as set forth 
in the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice. We tentatively concluded 
that we would rely on existing rules and procedures to address such 
requests, and also sought comment on whether an alternative process 
should be established and, if changes to the transition plan are 
permitted, what rules or procedures would need to be waived. Commenters 
disagree whether existing Commission processes are appropriate for 
addressing such requests. Commenters that argue there should be 
different processes neither propose a specific process or explain why 
the Commission's existing rules would be insufficient. We find existing 
Commission processes are sufficient to address such requests.
    Commenters also suggested that stations should have the flexibility 
to move to either an earlier or later transition phase. While our 
decision today does not prohibit stations from making either request, 
any request to modify a station's phase assignment will be subject to a 
high burden of proof and reviewed in the manner adopted above for 
determining the impact of a request on the overall transition schedule. 
Because earlier phases of the transition are likely to have greater 
resource constraints while equipment manufacturers and suppliers 
continue to ramp up capacity, we are less likely to be able to 
accommodate requests for stations to move into the first or second 
phase. When resolving a requested phase change we also will consider 
the impact such a request may have on viewers. As evidenced through our 
objectives and constraints, we believe viewers will benefit from 
stations in a given DMA transitioning together. Not only does this 
limit the total number of channel rescans for viewers, but multiple 
stations' communications with the public about the timing of a rescan 
supports education efforts.
    We find that the record does not support the creation of any 
special sanction system related to transitioning stations, despite the 
call of some commenters to do so. A station that does not comply with 
the requirements of any Commission order may be subject to action as 
contemplated by the Commission's rules. A station that is found to have 
failed to comply with the requirements of any Commission order may be 
subject to action as contemplated by the rules. See 47 CFR 1.80 
(forfeiture); 47 CFR 73.3598(e) (automatic forfeiture of an expired 
construction permit).
    Temporary Joint Use of Channels and Temporary Individual Channel 
Assignments. The transition scheduling plan we adopt today does not 
mandate the use of temporary channels. However, some commenters have 
suggested that use of temporary channels may be appropriate on a 
voluntary basis, especially to prevent stations that are unable to meet 
their transition deadline from going dark or delaying the transition. 
Commenters have also suggested that the Commission could permit 
broadcasters to implement temporary channel sharing arrangements 
(hereinafter referred to as ``temporary joint use of channels'') to 
aide in their transition efforts. To the extent that the Commission 
permits the use of individual temporary channels, low power television 
interests request that the Commission provide transparency about when 
and for how long temporary channels will be used and whether a 
displaced LPTV station can apply for a channel that is slated to be 
used on a temporary basis. One commenter requests that the Commission 
limit the assignment of temporary channels to ``truly rare, exceptional 
and extreme situations,'' due to the hardship such assignments are 
likely to place on Class A and LPTV stations, as well as viewers.
    Although we have concluded that the burdens of assigning temporary 
channels on a mandatory basis outweigh the benefits, we agree there may 
be situations in which the voluntary use of either an individual 
temporary channel or temporary joint use of a channel may aid the 
transition. We will therefore permit reassigned Class A and full power 
stations to make a request to operate on a temporary channel either on 
an individual or joint basis. When seeking authorization to operate on 
an individual temporary channel or engage in temporary joint use of a 
channel, a broadcaster must file with the Commission a request for STA 
proposing the channel it wishes to operate on and including the 
specific technical parameters. Because STAs are granted for a period of 
six months, a station may need to file for an extension of its initial 
STA authorization. Failure to do so while continuing to operate 
pursuant to the initial authorization would amount to operation without 
a valid authorization, which is a violation of Section 301 of the 
Communications Act. See 47 U.S.C. 301. Consistent with the requirements 
of Section 73.1635(a)(4) of the Rules, as part of any extension request 
an applicant must demonstrate the necessity of such extension and 
describe the steps that are being taken to resume operation on its 
post-auction channel assignment. See 47 CFR 73.1635(a)(4). Such 
requests may be made at any time during the transition period and must 
demonstrate that the proposal both complies with the Commission's 
technical rules and will not otherwise interfere with the transition. 
Use of an individual temporary channel or engaging in temporary joint 
use of a channel must be for purposes of facilitating the transition. 
To ensure continuity of service to viewers throughout the transition, a 
station availing itself of one of these voluntary options must maintain 
signal coverage of its community of license as required by Section 
73.625 of the Rules.
    A request for use of an individual temporary channel will be 
restricted to replicating a station's pre-auction coverage area and 
population served. Because we will evaluate applications requesting use 
of an individual temporary channel under the standard of review we have 
adopted for considering all requests during the transition, 
broadcasters should, at a minimum, evaluate whether their operation 
would require coordination with neighboring stations that are not 
already in the same linked-station set, thereby resulting in new 
linked-station

[[Page 11113]]

sets, or whether additional construction that may be required could 
divert resources from other stations. Temporary channels will also be 
subject to all applicable interference rules, unless otherwise waived 
by the Bureau. Furthermore, depending on the station's proximity to 
Mexico or Canada, coordination approval to operate on a temporary 
channel may be required from that particular country.
    In order to provide maximum flexibility, we will permit a full 
power or Class A licensee to request authority to operate on an 
individual temporary channel in the new wireless band during the post-
auction transition. Although T-Mobile supports broadcasters voluntarily 
using temporary channels, it requests that use of individual temporary 
channels be restricted to channels ``below the new wireless band.'' We 
believe foreclosing temporary operation in the new wireless band during 
the transition period would be too conservative an approach and could 
undercut the benefits of allowing broadcasters to request temporary 
channels because there may be limited available temporary channels in 
the television band. However, to balance the interests of wireless 
operators in starting construction and commencing operations in cleared 
spectrum, when evaluating requests for individual use of a temporary 
channel in the new wireless band we will require broadcasters to 
demonstrate that there is no reasonable alternative to operating in the 
new wireless band and provide written consent from the wireless 
licensee(s) of the channel that the broadcaster wishes to temporarily 
operate on, as well as written consent from any wireless licensee(s) 
that would otherwise be required to protect the broadcaster's 
operations under the Commission's inter-service interference (ISIX) 
rules. Consistent with the policies outlined in the Broadcast 
Transition Procedures Public Notice, no STA may cause impermissible 
interference to wireless licensees. Additionally, the Bureau will view 
unfavorably any application or request that the staff determines would 
be likely to delay or disrupt the transition, including by delaying or 
disrupting the deployment of new wireless services in the 600 MHz Band.
    In the case of a request for temporary joint use of a channel, the 
applicant (joint user) must include with its request a written 
authorization from the licensee of the host station. A joint user will 
continue to be a Commission licensee, and will temporarily operate at 
variance from its authorized parameters pursuant to an STA. As such, 
joint users must continue to comply with all requirements under the 
rules and the Communications Act that would otherwise be required 
operating on their own channel.
    Commercial and noncommercial educational (NCE) stations may request 
to engage in temporary joint use of a channel. A reserved channel NCE 
licensee that is granted authority to operate temporarily on a non-
reserved channel must continue to operate on an NCE basis. We will 
evaluate requests by commercial stations for temporary joint use of a 
channel licensed to an NCE station on a case-by-case basis. We will 
also consider requests to allow a Class A station to operate under the 
Part 73 rules governing power levels and interference to jointly use a 
full power television station's channel on a temporary basis for the 
purpose of facilitating the Class A station's transition. A full power 
station requesting to temporarily jointly use a Class A station's 
channel for the purpose of facilitating the transition will be required 
to operate under the Part 74 power level and interference rules.
    Transition Project Management and Progress Reporting. Commenters 
offered a number of suggestions on how the Commission should manage its 
staff and resources to facilitate the transition process. For instance, 
several commenters recommend that as part of the post-auction 
transition process, the Commission should consider hiring a third party 
contractor or a full-time internal project manager to manage the 
transition. One commenter suggests that the Commission should begin 
building relationships and working with other federal, state, and local 
government entities that will likely be involved in the transition, and 
also recommends that the Commission also establish ``an online resource 
center'' where service providers and suppliers can list themselves as 
available to work on the transition. Another commenter suggests that 
the Commission should designate particular FCC staff who would be 
familiar with the specific difficulties faced by state and 
institutional licensees and could be made available for purposes of 
supporting public broadcasters' efforts. Other commenters recommend the 
establishment of a ``web portal'' to disseminate transition information 
to all affected parties. While at this time we are declining to adopt 
any of the commenter's specific suggestions, we intend to dedicate 
sufficient resources to monitor the progress of the transition and keep 
affected parties informed.
    Commenters have also recommended that the Commission require 
reassigned stations to file progress reports so that the Commission and 
interested parties can monitor the transition progress of reassigned 
stations, identify problem areas, develop solutions, and, if needed, 
adjust transition deadlines. In the Incentive Auction R&O, the 
Commission determined that entities receiving reimbursement will be 
required, on a regular basis, to provide information to the Commission 
showing how the disbursed funds had been spent and what portion of 
their construction is complete. The Bureau has developed and set filing 
deadlines for a progress report (FCC Form 2100 -Schedule 387) that 
broadcast television stations that are eligible to receive payment of 
relocation expenses from the Reimbursement Fund will file to track how 
disbursements have been spent and identify the progress and status of 
their construction efforts. The Bureau also proposed to require 
broadcast television stations that are not eligible to receive 
reimbursement but must transition to new channels as part of the 
Commission's channel reassignment plan to file the same form on the 
same schedule during the transition period. The Incentive Auction Task 
Force and Media Bureau Release Transition Progress Report Form and 
Filing Requirements for Stations Eligible for Reimbursement From the TV 
Broadcast Relocation Fund and Seek Comment on the Filing of the Report 
by Non-Reimbursable Stations, 82 FR 9009, February 2, 2017. As 
suggested by commenters, the form will allow the Commission to monitor 
the progress of the transition in real time, identify problem areas, 
and as needed develop solutions.
    Interim and Auxiliary Facilities. We agree with commenters that 
interim and auxiliary facilities will be an important part of the 
transition for broadcasters and we will take action as appropriate to 
facilitate the use of such facilities and equipment. In order for a 
station to continue operating on its pre-auction channel while its 
current primary antenna is removed and a new channel antenna installed, 
we expect many stations will need to utilize auxiliary facilities and 
equipment. In order to operate an interim or auxiliary facility a 
station will need to file a request for an STA. In some cases, stations 
may wish to share auxiliary equipment and facilities, such as broadband 
antennas, with other stations.
    Nothing that we adopt today restricts a station from filing a 
request for STA to operate on its post-auction channel using an 
auxiliary facility prior to its phase completion date. While we 
understand wireless providers' desire that the 600 MHz Band be cleared

[[Page 11114]]

expeditiously, we also must maintain an orderly process and respect the 
interference constraints that the transition presents and that 
transition scheduling plan is meant to address. We will therefore 
evaluate such requests in the same manner and subject to the same 
standard of review that we would a station that seeks to continue 
operating on its pre-auction channel after its phase completion date. 
Additionally, as with requests for temporary joint use of a channel, 
the Media Bureau will view unfavorably any application or request that 
the staff determines would be likely to delay or disrupt the 
transition, including by delaying or disrupting the deployment of new 
wireless services in the 600 MHz Band. We also commit to process all 
applications in an expeditious manner and will continue to work with 
interested parties to efficiently process applications, however we 
decline to commit to adopt specific processing prioritizations for 
applications as one commenter suggests.
    Confidential Letters and Prohibited Communications. Nearly every 
commenter in this proceeding asked that the Commission restate, 
clarify, or, if necessary, waive, the auction rules prohibiting certain 
communications to enable stations to make productive use of channel 
reassignment information as soon as possible after receiving their 
channel assignment in the confidential letters that will be sent 
approximately three to four weeks from the date that the final stage 
rule was met. The prohibited communications rule prohibits broadcasters 
and forward auction applicants from communicating any incentive auction 
applicant's bids or bidding strategies to other parties covered by the 
relevant rules. Commenters' concern is that the rule prohibits 
broadcasters from engaging in communications that would be helpful in 
preparing for the post-auction transition, or that it discourages 
broadcasters from making such communications to avoid the risk of 
violating the prohibition. In light of these comments, we now provide 
guidance on the rule as it pertains to broadcasters and the post-
auction transition--particularly their ability to hold discussions with 
vendors not covered by the rule. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
intends to address any appropriate waiver of the rule when letters 
regarding post-auction channel assignments are sent.
    As an initial matter, a great many preparations that broadcasters 
may undertake with respect to the transition to post-auction channel 
assignments will not involve prohibited communications. For example, 
broadcasters may communicate with third parties not covered by the 
prohibition, such as consulting engineers, equipment vendors, and 
counsel, without violating the prohibition, even if the communication 
discloses bids and bidding strategies. A broadcaster or other covered 
party still should take care, however, that the third party to which 
such communications are made does not convey the information to another 
covered party, which would violate the prohibition.
    In addition, broadcasters may communicate with other covered 
parties regarding many issues in the post-auction transition without 
disclosing bids and bidding strategies. For example, broadcasters that 
did not apply to participate in the auction do not have bids and 
bidding strategies of their own to disclose and so may communicate 
regarding their own post-auction transition without violating the 
prohibition. Such broadcasters must bear in mind, however, that they 
still are prohibited from communicating any other incentive auction 
applicant's bids and bidding strategies of which they may have learned, 
such as a channel sharing partner's bids or bidding strategies. 
Finally, broadcasters that did apply but kept that fact confidential 
also may be able to communicate regarding post-auction channel 
assignments without disclosing bids and bidding strategies.
    We recognize that certain broadcasters cannot communicate with 
other broadcasters regarding post-auction channel assignments without 
disclosing bids and bidding strategies (though they may communicate 
with non-covered third parties, as indicated above). For example, a UHF 
broadcaster with a winning bid to move to a VHF channel cannot 
communicate its post-auction channel assignment without communicating 
its bidding strategy. Likewise, a broadcaster that publicly disclosed 
that it had applied to participate in the auction could implicitly 
disclose the results of its bidding when it discloses a post-auction 
channel assignment. Moreover, any communications that disclose a post-
auction channel sharing arrangement effectively would disclose the 
sharee station's bids and bidding strategies in the auction.
    Since the final stage rule has been met, bidding in the reverse 
auction is complete, although forward auction is still ongoing. 
Accordingly, some relief from the prohibition for communications among 
broadcasters may be appropriate, particularly where doing so would 
assist the public interest in a smooth post-auction transition. We are 
sensitive to the concerns raised by commenters and will address them 
specifically at the time post-auction channel assignment information is 
provided to broadcasters.
    Matters Outside of the Scope of the Proceeding or Previously 
Addressed in Other Proceedings. A number of commenters raised concerns 
regarding the sufficiency of the 39-month transition period. 
Modification of the length of the 39-month transition period is beyond 
the Bureau's delegated authority and outside the scope of this 
proceeding. We note that the 39-month transition period is the subject 
of a petition for reconsideration that remains pending before the 
Commission in GN Docket No. 12-268. The purpose of this notice is to 
carry out the Commission's directive to assign construction deadlines 
within the 39-month period prescribed by the Commission.
    Several parties seek clarification as to the eligibility of certain 
costs for reimbursement from the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund 
(Reimbursement Fund). One commenter states that the Commission should 
assure broadcasters that any costs associated with voluntary transition 
plans will be eligible for reimbursement from the Reimbursement Fund. 
The Commission anticipated the possibility of using temporary channels, 
as well as interim and auxiliary facilities to facilitate the 
transition and stated that the reasonably incurred costs of such 
equipment would be eligible for reimbursement. See Incentive Auction 
R&O, 79 FR 48441 at 48501, para. 451. However, as already made clear by 
the Commission, reassigned stations constructing alternate or expanded 
facilities applied for outside of the ``non-priority window'' will only 
be eligible for reimbursement for the eligible costs of relocating to 
the channel and facilities specified in the Closing and Channel 
Reassignment Public Notice. See id. 450. Another commenter expressed 
concern that the cost of carriage of temporary channels should not be 
borne by MVPDs. As stated in the Incentive Auction R&O, MVPDs are 
eligible for reimbursement when they reasonably incur costs in order to 
maintain carriage of a broadcast station. Finally, a broadcaster seeks 
clarification as to who will be financially responsible when other 
services, such as FM, LMR, wireless, or LPTV, are impacted by the 
transition. With respect to costs incurred by non-reimbursement-
eligible entities, the Commission explained in the Incentive Auction 
R&O, that reimbursement claims from reassigned stations for costs 
incurred by non-eligible entities would

[[Page 11115]]

be limited to instances in which ``the reassigned broadcaster has a 
contractual obligation to pay these expenses through a contract'' that 
was entered into on, or before, the release date of the Incentive 
Auction R&O, which was June 2, 2014. See also id. at 48497, para. 429.
    Thus, reimbursement-eligible entities with such contractual 
obligations may submit for consideration reimbursement claims only for 
expenses incurred by non-eligible entities that they are obligated to 
pay under such timely-entered contracts. To the extent these requests 
seek an affirmative declaration that certain costs will be reimbursed, 
we decline to pre-judge the eligibility of particular reimbursement 
expenses, and we remind parties that whether or not a cost is 
``reasonably incurred'' and eligible for reimbursement will be 
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Whether or not a specific cost meets 
the ``reasonably incurred'' standard for reimbursement must be 
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. See id. at 48500, para. 446.
    Commenters representing the interests of LPTV and TV translator 
stations filed comments arguing that the Bureau failed to fully address 
the impact of the transition scheduling plan on LPTV and translator 
licensees and that the Bureau should take certain actions to address 
the impact of the post-incentive auction transition on their stations 
and interests. Commenters provided several actions the Commission could 
take to ease the impact of the transition on LPTV and translator 
stations, including: forbearing from enforcement of Section 312(g) of 
the Act; extending the minimum distance rule for displaced LPTV and 
translator stations from 30 miles to 250 miles; specifying in the 
transition plan when the LPTV displacement window will open; and 
flexibly waiving rules to minimize the impact of the transition on 
displaced LPTV and translator stations. We find these proposed actions 
have already been addressed in other Commission proceedings. We 
therefore decline to adopt any of these proposals. We remain sensitive, 
however, to the concerns of the LPTV and TV translator community and 
will continue to explore measures, as we have already committed to 
doing, to alleviate the impact of repacking on displaced LPTV and TV 
translator stations. The Commission also adopted rules to permit 
channel sharing between LPTV and TV translator stations as an 
additional means to help displaced stations that have difficulty 
finding available channels to team with other such stations in the same 
predicament.
    Several commenters also raise issues that are already addressed by 
our existing rules. As an initial matter, we note that LPTV and TV 
translator stations that are displaced by full power or Class A 
stations reassigned a new channel in the repacking process may continue 
to operate on their current channel until the displacing television 
station is operational, at which time the LPTV or TV translator must 
cease operations. We note that a change in frequency, other than for a 
station that is displaced, is a ``major change'' and that applications 
for new stations or major changes by LPTV and TV translator stations 
are currently frozen. One commenter sought clarification as to when 
displaced LPTV and TV translators may begin operating on their new 
displacement channel. Because displacement facilities may not cause 
interference to full power or Class A television stations (either pre-
auction, those set forth in the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice, 
or alternative channels and expanded facilities proposed during the 
applicable filing window), operation will not be contingent on the 
post-auction transition schedule and stations may begin operating at 
any time following the grant of the construction permit for their 
displacement facilities. See Incentive Auction R&O, 79 FR 48441 at 
48505, para. 475. Finally, several commenters sought clarity concerning 
the operation of temporary facilities by displaced LPTV and TV 
translator stations. LPTV and TV translator stations are permitted to 
apply for special temporary authority to operate the facilities 
proposed in a pending displacement application so long as the 
application is acceptable for filing and has appeared on a proposed 
grant list.
    Administrative Matters. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
of 1980, as amended, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
relating to the Public Notice is included.
    This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act 
of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
    For additional information on this proceeding, contact Sasha Javid, 
[email protected]; Erin Griffith, [email protected], (202) 418-
0660, Shaun Maher, [email protected], (202) 418-2324, or Evan Morris, 
[email protected], (202) 418-1656. Press contact: Charles Meisch, 
[email protected], (202) 418-2943.

Appendix A: Phase Assignment and Scheduling Tools

    This appendix sets forth the methodology for assigning construction 
deadlines to stations to transition to new channel assignments 
following the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction. This is 
necessary because potential ``dependencies,'' or interference 
relationships, exist between certain television stations on pre-auction 
and post-auction channels which will impact the transition process. 
Stations with dependencies must coordinate in order to test equipment 
or begin operating on their new channels without causing interference 
to other stations. In many cases such coordination may only involve 
stations agreeing to operate at lower power or accept increased 
interference for short periods of time while the stations are 
performing tests, but dependencies can often involve numerous and/or 
distant stations, which makes successful coordination more complicated. 
The methodology adopted by this Public Notice provides a means of 
breaking dependencies in order to reduce the need for coordination and 
to make coordination more manageable.
    Under this methodology, stations will be assigned to 10 transition 
phases. The phases will all begin at the same time when channel 
reassignments are announced in the Closing and Reassignment Public 
Notice, but each phase will have sequential end dates. Equipment 
testing on post-auction channels will be confined to set ``testing 
periods.'' With the exception of the first phase, the testing period 
for subsequent phases will begin on the day after the end of the 
preceding phase. Every station must cease operating on its pre-auction 
channel at the end of its assigned phase, also known as the ``phase 
completion date.''
    The methodology will utilize two computer-based tools to assign 
stations to phases and then to establish phase completion dates for 
each phase. First, stations will be assigned to phases using the 
``Phase Assignment Tool,'' which applies mathematical optimization 
techniques to identify, among possible solutions that satisfy a set of 
defined rules or constraints, a solution that best meets a separate set 
of defined objectives. Section III below discusses the Phase Assignment 
Tool.
    After stations are assigned to phases, the ``Phase Scheduling 
Tool'' will be used to determine the phase completion date for each 
phase. The Phase Scheduling Tool estimates the total time

[[Page 11116]]

necessary for stations assigned to a phase to perform the tasks 
required to complete the transition process. In addition to accounting 
for factors such as transmission power and tower height that are likely 
to impact the time required for individual stations to complete the 
transition to a new channel, the Phase Scheduling Tool also accounts 
for potential delays created by resource limitations that may affect 
when a station can obtain resources such as new antennas or tower 
crews. The Phase Scheduling Tool simulates stations completing the 
transition and outputs the time needed to complete each phase given a 
random order (called ``simulation order'') in which stations have 
access to scarce resources. The tool runs 100 simulations, each with a 
different simulation order to generate the average time in weeks it 
takes to complete a phase. Based on those results, the Bureau may then 
exercise limited discretion to modify the phase completion dates from 
the average durations calculated by the tool to account specifically 
for certain factors that may warrant deadline adjustments, such as the 
relative length of the testing periods for each phase or seasonal 
considerations. For example, the phase completion date may be moved 
later if an early phase consisting primarily of stations in northern 
regions of the United States is projected to end in the middle of 
winter. This exercise of discretion will be done in consultation with 
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED Canada) as it 
impacts Canadian stations. In Section IV below, we discuss the Phase 
Scheduling Tool and its inputs, including the specific tasks required 
for stations to transition and the estimated time required to complete 
each task.
    The methodology set forth herein differs from that proposed in the 
September 30 Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice in several 
respects. First, in the unlikely event that a station is predicted to 
incur temporary aggregate interference greater than five percent, the 
Phase Assignment Tool will be re-run in an attempt to reduce the 
temporary aggregate interference of all stations below five percent 
while simultaneously adhering to all constraints and objectives. The 
second change concerns the Phase Scheduling Tool. The amount of time 
allocated to tower construction on towers with multiple stations has 
been increased substantially. These changes were adopted in response to 
comments regarding the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice, 
and are discussed below and in this Public Notice adopting the post-
incentive auction transition scheduling plan.
    This Appendix provides interested parties with sufficient 
information to replicate the methodology for determining the overall 
transition schedule. The Phase Assignment Tool implements the 
objectives and constraints using commercially-available optimization 
software. The Phase Scheduling Tool leverages an open source discrete 
event simulation software package using inputs described herein. The 
data presented is the output of applying this methodology to 
representative final television channel assignment plans for two 84 MHz 
spectrum clearing scenarios, and also making certain assumptions 
regarding Canada and Mexico based on ongoing coordination with those 
countries. The representative examples presented herein are for 
illustrative purposes only and are based on channel assignments that do 
not rely on or predict any auction results. The scenarios are 
``representative'' in the sense that they are consistent with the plans 
generated by the Commission's Final Television Channel Assignment Plan 
determination procedure based on numerous auction simulations conducted 
by the staff. With the Final Stage Rule now met during Stage 4, the 
auction will clear 84 MHz. Therefore, we use two 84 MHz scenarios as 
representative examples. We are not publicly releasing the underlying 
simulations, which makes assumptions regarding reverse auction 
participation and outcomes. Interested parties can create their own 
television channel assignment plans for any spectrum clearing scenario 
by applying the Assignment Plan determination procedure to auction 
simulations based on their own assumptions of likely outcomes.
    Section II: Dependencies and Means of Breaking Them. Before 
beginning to operate on their post-auction channels, stations ideally 
should be able to test equipment on their new channels. During the 
transition, however, there is a potential for undue interference 
between stations that are still operating on their pre-auction channels 
and stations testing or operating on their post-auction channels. The 
Commission's rules governing interference between stations before and 
after the post-auction transition will limit interference between 
stations that are both operating on their pre-auction channels and 
between stations that are both operating on their post-auction 
channels, respectively. In adopting a methodology for assigning 
construction deadlines to transitioning stations, the staff has sought 
to avoid undue interference while providing as much flexibility as 
possible for stations to test equipment prior to commencing operations 
on their new channels. The ``Precedence Daisy-Chain Graph'' (Graph) 
described in the examples below explicitly captures any interference 
that may occur between stations operating on their pre-auction and 
post-auction channels.
    The Graph is constructed as follows: nodes are stations and a 
directed arc connects two nodes (s and s') when station s cannot 
transition until station s' has transitioned to its post-auction 
channel because the current channel of station s' interferes with the 
future channel of station s. This relationship is called a dependency.
    Example 1: Dependency. [Illustration Omitted]. In Example 1 above, 
suppose Station A and Station B have co- and adjacent-channel 
interference restrictions on all channels. Station A is reassigned from 
channel 25 to channel 18. Station B is reassigned from channel 45 to 
channel 26. Station A must vacate channel 25 before Station B can move 
to channel 26 so that neither station will experience undue 
interference. Therefore, the Example 1 graphic includes a directed arc 
from Station A to Station B since Station A must transition before 
Station B (Station B is dependent on Station A in order to transition).
    Example 2: Daisy-Chain. [Illustration Omitted]. Multiple 
dependencies can be connected, forming a daisy-chain. Example 2 
illustrates a daisy chain of 4 stations. Station A must transition 
before Station B. Station B must transition before Station C. And 
Station C must transition before Station D. Thus, Stations A, B, and C 
all must transition before Station D can transition.
    Daisy-chains can involve numerous stations and multiple transition 
dependencies. Figure 1 below illustrates a single daisy-chain involving 
29 stations in the Northeast in a simulated outcome where the 
Commission repurposes 84 MHz of broadcast spectrum through the 
incentive auction. [Figure 1 Omitted]
    Successful coordination to avoid undue interference among the 
stations illustrated in Figure 1 will be challenging, given the number 
of stations involved and their distance from one another. In order to 
reduce or eliminate the need for coordination, the chain could be 
broken by assigning stations to transition during different time 
periods or ``phases.'' At least 29 separate transition phases would be 
needed to break the chain completely so that every station in the chain 
could

[[Page 11117]]

transition without the need for coordination. A large number of 
transition phases undercuts other potential transition goals, such as 
transitioning stations within the same region at the same time and 
avoiding the need for multiple channel rescans by viewers. Therefore, 
in order to balance these goals, a certain number of stations within a 
daisy chain would need to be assigned to the same transition phase, 
thereby reducing or ``collapsing'' the daisy chain into a more 
manageable size. For example, the six northern-most stations in the 29 
station daisy-chain in Figure 1 above could be assigned to the first 
transition phase. Each station in this collapsed daisy chain would have 
to coordinate with one or more of the other stations in the chain in 
order to test their equipment without undue interference, but such 
coordination would be more manageable because of the much smaller 
number of stations, particularly if they are also more localized 
geographically. However, as illustrated by Example 3 below, the staff's 
analysis indicates that certain dependencies, known as ``cycles,'' 
cannot be broken by assigning stations to different transition phases.
    Example 3: Cycle. [Illustartion Omitted]. Example 3 shows a cycle 
consisting of three stations. Station A needs to transition from 
channel 20 to channel 17; Station B needs to transition from channel 28 
to channel 20; and Station C needs to transition from channel 17 to 
channel 28. Because all three stations cannot operate simultaneously on 
channels 17, 20, or 28, they must transition from their pre-auction to 
their post-auction channels simultaneously in order to commence 
operation on their post-auction channel. They must also coordinate in 
order to test equipment on their post-auction channels without causing 
increased interference to one another. In such circumstances, the 
dependencies between stations cannot be broken by assigning stations to 
different transition phases and these stations must be assigned to the 
same phase.
    Cycles of much greater complexity than Example 3 are likely to 
occur during the post-auction transition process. Figure 2 below shows 
another simulated outcome in which the auction repurposes 84 MHz of 
broadcast spectrum. The cycle consists of 196 stations and reaches from 
the Southeast region of the United States through the Northeast and 
into Canada. [Figure 2 Omitted].
    The challenge created by daisy-chains and cycles described above 
becomes more complicated when all dependencies are considered. Daisy-
chains can intersect and overlap, creating a larger and more 
complicated daisy-chain. A cycle can also be part of a daisy-chain. As 
a result, hundreds of stations may be inter-dependent and one station 
may require tens (or even hundreds) of stations to transition first in 
order to be able to begin operating on its post-auction channel. Figure 
3 below shows another simulated 84 MHz outcome with a set of 796 inter-
dependent stations. [Figure 3 Omitted].
    As indicated above, transition phases are a useful tool to address 
dependencies between stations. Stations may be assigned to different 
phases in order to break daisy chains, or to the same phase in order to 
facilitate coordination by stations involved in a cycle, or to achieve 
other goals. We refer to inter-dependent stations assigned to the same 
phase as a ``linked-station set'' and the individual stations in the 
linked-station set as ``linked stations.'' Stations that are part of a 
linked-station set must coordinate their testing with other stations in 
the set so as to avoid undue interference and must transition to their 
post-auction channel together.
    Another means of breaking dependencies is to allow temporary, 
limited increases in station-to-station (pairwise) interference that 
exceed the 0.5 percent allowed under the Commission's rules governing 
pre-auction and post-transition interference relationships. As 
discussed in the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice, allowing 
temporary, limited increases in pairwise interference will 
significantly reduce the number of dependencies between stations and in 
turn reduce the size, number, and complexity of daisy chains and 
cycles. Additionally, the staff's analysis indicates that allowing 
temporary, limited increases in pairwise interference will not result 
in significant aggregate interference increases.
    Another means of breaking dependencies would be to assign stations 
in complicated daisy chains or cycles to operate on temporary channels 
prior to transitioning to their post-auction channels. Stations 
assigned to temporary channels would have to ``move'' twice, first to 
their temporary channels and then to their ultimate post-auction 
channels. Because the overwhelming majority of commenters were opposed 
to mandatory temporary moves, the adopted methodology will not require 
any station to use a temporary channel during the transition. However, 
as discussed in the Public Notice, staff will consider voluntary 
requests by stations to use either individual temporary channel or 
temporary joint use of a channel.
    Section III--The Phase Assignment Tool. Under the methodology we 
adopt, stations will be assigned to one of 10 transition phases. Every 
station in a phase must cease operating on its pre-auction channel at 
the end of the phase, i.e., the phase completion date. Stations will be 
assigned to phases using the Phase Assignment Tool. This Section 
discusses the Phase Assignment Tool as well as the constraints (i.e., 
rules by which all assignments generated by the tool must abide) and 
objectives (i.e., goals for creating the assignments). We begin by 
listing the specific constraints that will be imposed and the 
objectives used, followed by a discussion of the results of staff 
analysis illustrating the rationale underlying the procedure. ISED 
Canada is considering using a similar approach for Canadian stations 
and specific transition details will be published as part of its 
domestic process. As a result, the Baseline Results section of this 
Appendix may change.
    Constraints and Objectives. Based on the staff's analysis and the 
record developed to date, we adopt the following constraints and 
objectives for assigning stations to phases. Phase assignments must 
satisfy all of these defined constraints. The objectives will be 
applied to identify a solution that best satisfies the Commission's 
transition goals. The Phase Assignment Tool prioritizes the objectives 
in the sequence listed below. Subsequent objectives are constrained by 
prior objectives.
    Constraints: (1) A station cannot cause more than two percent new 
interference to another station during the transition. This constraint 
seeks to avoid undue interference during the transition and to provide 
stations with as much flexibility as possible to test equipment on 
their post-auction channels before transitioning. Although in many 
cases stations may be able to achieve these goals through coordination 
with affected stations, coordination may not be feasible in situations 
involving large-scale and complex dependencies among stations. As 
discussed in more detail in this Public Notice, allowing temporary, 
limited increases in pairwise interference will reduce the number and 
complexity of dependencies without resulting in significant aggregate 
interference increases. Doing so is also likely to promote other 
potential goals, such as reducing the number of channel rescans. 
Although allowing higher levels of temporary interference--up to five 
percent--would further reduce dependencies, we will allow no more than 
two percent as a balance between avoiding undue interference and

[[Page 11118]]

achieving the goal of limiting dependencies.
    (2) No stations in Canada will be assigned to transition before the 
third transition phase. Due to dependencies between domestic and 
Canadian stations, a joint transition plan with Canada was agreed to by 
the FCC and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED 
Canada). In keeping with our discussions with ISED Canada, stations in 
Canada will generally be assigned to later transition phases, and in no 
case before the third transition phase. This constraint will promote 
efficient use of cross-border resources and respect the minimum 
notification periods to Canadian TV stations established in ISED's 600 
MHz decision. See Decision on Repurposing the 600 MHz Band, August 14, 
2015, available at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf11049.html.
    (3) There will be no more than 10 transition phases. Limiting the 
number of transition phases to 10 strikes a reasonable balance between 
decreasing the number of linked-station sets in each phase and other 
transition goals, such as transitioning stations within the same region 
at the same time and avoiding the need for multiple channel rescans by 
viewers. Note that the methodology assumes that all winning bidders 
affecting the first phase of the transition who have agreed to go off-
air completely, or that become a channel sharee of another station with 
a post-auction channel assignment, will have gone dark before the 
stations in the first transition phase begin testing of their equipment 
(e.g., two months before the end of the first transition phase). This 
assumption is reasonable given the expected timeline for paying winning 
stations and the estimated time for the first phase to complete. 
Canadian stations not impeding the transition of U.S. stations or the 
ability of the U.S. to repurpose the new 600 MHz may be permitted to 
continue to operate beyond the tenth phase based on rules to be 
established by ISED Canada.
    (4) All stations within a DMA will be assigned to no more than two 
different transition phases. This DMA constraint provides similar 
benefits to a purely regional approach. By clustering stations in a 
particular geographic area into the same transition phase, this 
constraint will make resource allocation more efficient. Importantly, 
the constraint will limit the number of rescans consumers will have to 
complete as a result of the transition. While this constraint 
potentially limits the ability of the tool to minimize the number and/
or size of linked-station sets within a transition phase, on balance we 
believe that the benefits to consumers and broadcasters outweighs the 
burden.
    (5) The difference in the number of stations in the largest 
transition phase and the smallest transition phase will be no more than 
30 stations. If it is not feasible to assign stations in such a way 
that the difference in the number of stations in the largest transition 
phase and the smallest transition phase is less than or equal to 30 
stations, then an optimization will be performed minimizing the 
difference between the largest transition phase and smallest transition 
phase, and subsequent optimizations will be limited to no more than 1.1 
times the number found in this optimization. This strikes an 
appropriate balance between restricting the difference in size between 
the largest and smallest transition phases while providing additional 
flexibility to achieve other objectives.
    (6) Every transitioning station will be assigned to one transition 
phase.
    (7) No phase can have more than 125 linked stations. The 
dependencies created by the interference constraints can affect a large 
number of stations across large geographic areas. This constraint will 
limit the effect of those dependencies and, to the extent that 
coordination is needed, facilitate a manageable transition process for 
broadcasters. We believe the 125-station limit strikes a balance 
between minimizing dependencies and other goals. If it is not possible 
to limit the number of linked stations in a phase to 125, then an 
optimization will be performed minimizing the maximum number of linked 
stations in any phase, and constraining the number of linked stations 
in any phase in subsequent optimization to no more than 1.2 times that 
maximum number. This strikes an appropriate balance between minimizing 
the number of linked stations in any phase while providing additional 
flexibility to achieve other objectives.
    (8) No station falling into the ``complicated'' category for 
purposes of the Phase Scheduling Tool will be assigned to Phase 1. This 
constraint will help to ensure that the stations facing the most 
challenging and time-consuming transitions have adequate time, and to 
avoid the risk of such stations delaying others' transitions in the 
event of delays.
    Objectives: (1) Assign U.S. stations whose pre-auction channels are 
in the 600 MHz Band to earlier phases in order to clear the 600 MHz 
Band as quickly as possible, while simultaneously assigning all 
Canadian stations and U.S. stations whose pre-auction channels are in 
the remaining television bands (U.S. TV-band stations) to later phases, 
where possible. This objective promotes a number of goals. It helps to 
clear the 600 MHz Band expeditiously. It also avoids the problem of 
Canadian and U.S. stations competing for limited resources and provides 
Canada with the time needed for its transition. To implement this 
objective, the Phase Assignment Tool weights assignments for stations 
transitioning from the 600 MHz Band after transition Phase 8. 
Similarly, the Phase Assignment Tool weights assignments for Canadian 
stations and U.S. TV-band stations assigned to any transition phase 
earlier than Phase 9. The weights for stations not transitioning out of 
the 600 MHz Band before Phase 9 is significantly higher than the 
weights for U.S. TV-band stations or Canadian stations transitioning 
early. We use the following weights when determining assignments: U.S. 
stations in the 600 MHz Band assigned to phase 9 are assigned a weight 
of 20; U.S. stations in the 600 MHz Band assigned to phase 10 are 
assigned a weight of 200; U.S. TV-band stations and Canadian stations 
assigned before phase 9 are assigned a weight of 1. The Phase 
Assignment Tool minimizes the sum of all weights incurred by the phase 
assignments.
    (2) Minimize the sum, over all DMAs, of the number of times a DMA 
must rescan. This objective benefits viewers by minimizing the number 
of rescans necessary in a market and creates regionalized clusters that 
will make resource allocation more efficient. As with the fourth 
constraint above, the use of DMAs attempts to provide similar benefits 
to those that would flow from a purely regional approach. This DMA-
based objective attempts to move all stations within the same DMA into 
the same phase if such a solution can be found consistent with all 
constraints and prior objectives.
    (3) Minimize the total number of linked stations. Whereas the 
seventh constraint above limits the total number of linked stations in 
a phase to 125, this objective minimizes the total number of linked 
stations throughout all phases of the transition. This objective seeks 
to provide as many stations as possible with the ability to test their 
equipment on their post-auction channel while simultaneously 
broadcasting on their pre-auction channel without the need to 
coordinate.
    (4) Minimize the difference between the number of stations in the 
largest transition phase and the smallest transition phase. Similar to 
the fifth constraint above, this objective equalizes the number of 
assigned

[[Page 11119]]

stations in each phase by minimizing this maximum difference. We 
believe that evening out the number of stations assigned to each 
transition phase will help manage limited resources by ensuring that 
they can be spread more evenly across the transition phases.
    The Phase Assignment Tool may also be used during the transition to 
consider proposed changes to and, as appropriate, modify phase 
assignments where such reassignments will not impact the overall 
schedule. We recognize that unforeseen events may occur during the 
transition that may warrant adjustments in order to ensure that the 
transition proceeds in a timely fashion. If we modify phase assignments 
during the transition, the Phase Assignment Tool will restrict 
reassignments to later transition phases in order to provide certainty 
to stations that any adjustments will not require them to transition 
earlier than their originally scheduled phase completion date. Any 
exceptions will require the consent of any station moved to an earlier 
phase.
    Preliminary Results of Staff Analysis. Baseline Results. This 
Section presents results from running the Phase Assignment Tool using 
representative final channel assignment plans, for two alternative 84 
MHz spectrum clearing scenarios. We have updated these Baseline Results 
from those used in the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice to 
reflect the fact that higher clearing targets above 84 MHz are no 
longer relevant given the current status of the incentive auction. In 
each scenario, all of the constraints above are satisfied and the 
objectives applied in the order specified above. The joint transition 
plan will consist of U.S. and Canadian stations. We also assume that 
Mexican stations will have already completed their transition to their 
new channels below channel 37 prior to the end of the first phase. The 
Phase Assignment Tool assumes that Mexican stations will have 
transitioned to their new channels before the phase completion date of 
the first transition phase. See Exchange of Coordination Letters with 
IFT Regarding DTV Transition and Reconfiguration of 600 MHz Band 
Spectrum, U.S.-Mex., July 15, 2015, available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/incentiveauctions/learn-program/resources.html 
(Mexican Coordination).
    Figures 4 and 5 below present histograms for these two 
representative 84 MHz scenarios, showing the total number of broadcast 
stations that transition in each phase and within each phase how many 
are (a) Canadian stations, (b) U.S. stations whose pre-auction channel 
is in the new 600 MHz Band and (c) other U.S. stations that 
nevertheless must change channels. All Canadian stations are included 
in the simulations. Those Canadian analog stations that will remain on 
their current analog channel but are required to convert to digital are 
not currently reflected in the Phase Assignment Tool. However, the 
final joint transition plan and schedule will include all analog and 
digital Canadian stations changing channels and/or converting to 
digital. The figures show that the 600 MHz Band is mostly clear of 
U.S.-based impairments by the end of Phase 8. Also, the very few 
Canadian stations that may impede U.S. stations from transitioning are 
assigned to early transition phases. Table 1 sets forth the number of 
stations that are part of linked-station sets in each of the two 
scenarios. Table 2 details the maximum temporary aggregate interference 
(calculated consistent with the methodology presented in the Aggregate 
Interference Public Notice) that any station would face during the 
transition in either of the two 84 MHz scenarios. [Figure 4, Figure 5, 
Table 1, and Table 2 Omitted].
    Section IV: The Phase Scheduling Tool. After stations are assigned 
to phases by applying the Phase Assignment Tool, we will use the Phase 
Scheduling Tool to inform the determination of a phase completion date 
for each phase. The Phase Scheduling Tool estimates the total time 
necessary for stations within a phase to perform the tasks required to 
complete the transition process. In this Section, we discuss the Phase 
Scheduling Tool and its inputs, including the specific tasks required 
for stations to transition and the estimated time required to complete 
each task.
    The Phase Scheduling Tool models the various processes involved in 
a station transitioning to its post-auction channel. It is a simulation 
tool created to assist the Commission in setting reasonable deadlines 
for phases. It divides these processes into two sequential stages: (1) 
The ``Pre-Construction Stage'' and (2) the ``Construction Stage.'' 
While separate processes within a stage may occur concurrently, such as 
equipment procurement and zoning applications, all processes within the 
Pre-Construction Stage must be complete before the station is ready to 
move to the Construction Stage. For example, in the model, the 
Construction Stage process of installing a new primary antenna cannot 
occur until after the new antenna is manufactured and delivered during 
the Pre-Construction Stage. A transition phase cannot end until all 
stations in the model assigned to that phase have completed both stages 
and are ready to operate on their post-auction channels.
    Some processes require specialized resources that may be in limited 
supply. The Phase Scheduling Tool models these limited resources by 
constraining the amount available at any given time. If a station needs 
a constrained resource to complete a process, and the resource is 
unavailable because other stations are using it, the model places the 
station in a queue until the required resource is available. As 
described in more detail below, the processes within each phase are not 
designed to be a comprehensive listing of every task required to 
complete the transition; we have instead separated those processes 
which need resources that are most limited in supply and therefore 
likely will have the biggest impact on scheduling.
    For each Stage, the Phase Scheduling Tool uses two inputs: (1) The 
time it would take for a station to complete the tasks required for 
that stage if all resources are available when needed; and (2) the 
estimated availability of constrained resources. The Phase Scheduling 
Tool uses these inputs to calculate how long it will take each station 
within a transition phase to complete all work associated with both 
Stages. The output of the tool is the estimated number of weeks from 
the start of the transition required for all stations assigned to a 
phase to complete all of the necessary transition tasks, test equipment 
on their post-auction channels, and be ready to operate on their post-
auction channels.
    Since it is not possible to know the exact order stations will 
begin each process, the Phase Scheduling Tool uses discrete event 
simulation to model this uncertainty. The Phase Scheduling Tool does 
assume, however, that a station assigned to an earlier phase will begin 
its Pre-Construction Stage processes requiring a constrained resource 
(e.g., ordering an antenna) before a station assigned to a later phase. 
By assigning the station order within a transition phase randomly, 
called the ``simulation order,'' and simulating the transition 
processes, the Phase Scheduling Tool provides a single estimate of the 
time required for all stations assigned to a phase to complete each 
transition phase. The Phase Scheduling Tool operates by simulating 
stations completing the transition and outputs the time needed to 
complete each phase given a simulation order in which stations have 
access to scarce resources. The tool will run 100 simulations each with 
a different simulation order. The tool then provides the average time 
in weeks it

[[Page 11120]]

takes to complete a phase. Based on those results, the Bureau may then 
exercise limited discretion to modify the phase completion dates from 
the average durations calculated by the tool to account specifically 
for certain factors that may warrant deadline adjustments, such as the 
relative length of the testing periods for each phase or seasonal 
considerations. For example, the phase completion date may be moved 
later if an early phase consisting primarily of stations in northern 
regions of the United States is projected to end in the middle of 
winter.
    The Phase Scheduling Tool also enables the staff to analyze the 
sensitivity of transition phase time estimates based on changes in 
input data. During the transition, as new information becomes 
available, the tool can be rerun to assess the potential impact of 
unforeseen developments on the overall schedule. To give additional 
certainty to stations, if we decide to use the Phase Scheduling Tool 
during the transition to modify phase completion dates, we will not 
move any phase completion date forward without the consent of the 
impacted station.
    The following subsections detail the specific processes or tasks 
that the Phase Scheduling Tool models for each stage, as well as the 
estimated time and resource availability for each process. We adopt the 
estimates provided in the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice 
with the exception of time allocated to tower construction on towers 
with multiple stations. The revised estimates are based on data 
contained in the Widelity Report, submissions from interested parties, 
submitted comments, and informational discussions with tower crew 
companies, other antenna and transmitter manufacturers, and 
broadcasters. We believe that the estimates are conservative and that 
they reasonably capture each aspect of the transition. The final 
subsection below shows sample outputs of the Phase Scheduling Tool for 
the two baseline Phase Assignment Tool simulation set forth in the 
prior section.
    Modeling the Transition Stages. The individual tasks required for a 
station to complete its transition have been grouped into two stages: 
(1) The Pre-Construction Stage and (2) the Construction Stage. In the 
Pre-Construction Stage, a station completes two tasks: Ordering and 
delivery of the main and auxiliary antennas; and administration and 
planning work, which includes zoning, administration, legal, possible 
structural tower improvements, equipment modifications, and other 
activities. In the Construction Stage, a station completes two 
additional tasks: Construction related work and tower crew work. The 
tasks included in each Stage are shown in Figure 6 below. [Figure 6 
Omitted].
    The Phase Scheduling Tool groups together all tasks within a stage 
that can be done regardless of how many other stations are performing 
similar tasks. However, since there are two constrained resources that 
are dependent on the actions of others (antenna deliveries and tower 
crew availability), these tasks are separated out and the model 
considers how resource availability impacts the total completion time 
for any station in either stage. We note that there are many other 
resources that are not specifically identified but are essential to 
completion of the transition process. Based on the staff's analysis and 
the record developed to date, resources such as auxiliary antenna 
manufacturing, transmitter manufacturing, transmission line 
manufacturing and RF component installers do not affect the time 
required for a station to complete its transition. The availability and 
manufacturing capacity of these resources have been identified as being 
sufficient to fulfill the expected demand during the transition (i.e., 
these resources have been designated as being ``unconstrained'') and 
therefore these resources are not broken out separately in the Phase 
Scheduling Tool. Instead, as illustrated in Figure 6, the tasks related 
to these unconstrained resources have been grouped into the general 
tasks of Administration/Planning, which is within the Pre-Construction 
Stage, and Construction Related Work, which is within the Construction 
Stage. Other required resources such as RF consultants and structural 
engineers will need to complete their work by the end of the initial 3-
month filing window for construction permit applications, and 
therefore, also are not considered a constrained resource for purposes 
of the Phase Scheduling Tool. The Phase Scheduling Tool uses 
conservative estimates for the time requirements in order to assure 
that they meet the individual needs of each station.
    Pre-Construction Stage Inputs. There are two components to the Pre-
Construction Stage: (1) The time required for antenna equipment to be 
ordered, manufactured and delivered (a significant constraint) and (2) 
the time required for all other planning and administration activities 
necessary to prepare for construction (called ``Administration/
Planning''). The Administration/Planning component includes zoning, 
administration, legal work, and pre-construction alterations to tower 
and transmitter equipment. Since administration and planning activities 
take place in parallel and the activities of one station are unlikely 
to impact the ability of others to perform the same activities, the 
model simply estimates the total time needed to complete all of these 
activities.
    The Phase Scheduling Tool categorizes stations based on the 
difficulty of completing these activities. The Commission used a 
similar ``bucketing'' approach for categorizing stations in the Final 
Channel Assignment. Time estimates were derived by taking estimates 
from Widelity and, where appropriate, adding ``slack'' time so that the 
overall estimate of the time required would be a conservative one. The 
Widelity Report estimates that Administration/Planning could take up to 
72 weeks for ``complicated'' stations (primarily due to zoning), up to 
20 weeks for the average DTV station and up to 12 weeks for the average 
Class A or other lower power station. To be conservative, we added 
another 12 weeks to the Administration/Planning estimates for the non-
complicated stations since these timelines were more aggressive. 
However, we expect this work will start during the 3-month filing 
window for construction permits (if not earlier, when each station 
receives its confidential letter with its final channel assignment). 
The time estimates are shown in Table 3 below. [Table 3 Omitted].
    The Administration/Planning time estimate establishes the minimum 
amount of time required for a station to complete the Pre-Construction 
Stage. While Administration/Planning work is occurring, stations likely 
will also place orders for their main antennas. The time estimates for 
this component of the Pre-Construction Stage include manufacturing and 
delivery time once the antenna manufacturers receive orders from 
stations. However, the ability of manufacturers to produce enough 
antennas may impact the overall schedule. Therefore, the Phase 
Scheduling Tool includes antenna manufacturing and delivery as a 
specific resource constraint. The Phase Scheduling Tool considers a 
station to have completed its Pre-Construction Stage only after all of 
its Administrative/Planning work is completed and its antenna is 
delivered.
    For purposes of delivery time estimates, stations are divided into 
two categories, based on the assumption that manufacture and delivery 
of directional antennas for full power stations will

[[Page 11121]]

require more time than for non-directional and Class A antennas (of 
either type). The time estimates shown in Table 4 are based on the 
assumption that the antenna manufacturers will begin manufacturing 
antennas as soon as the orders are received unless they are 
manufacturing at their current capacity. The time estimates for antenna 
delivery are generally consistent with, if not more conservative than, 
those cited in the Widelity Report, which estimated 3 months except for 
deliveries to complicated stations. [Table 4 Omitted].
    The Phase Scheduling Tool also includes a specific number of 
antennas that can be manufactured and delivered at any given time. 
Based on those numbers, some stations may be able to receive their 
antennas without waiting for any additional time, but other stations 
may have to wait for their antennas to be delivered. The Phase 
Scheduling Tool will place such stations in a queue until the antenna 
can be delivered, based on the station's assigned number in a 
simulation order. In addition, the Phase Scheduling Tool will assume 
that manufacturers have an inventory of 20 antennas at the start of the 
39-month transition period, and that capacity will increase over the 
course of the transition period. These assumptions are listed in Table 
5 below. These estimates are based on public statements by 
manufacturers regarding their planned ramp up in anticipation of the 
transition and the assumption that these manufacturers plan on 
maintaining market share. We also assumed a conservative 5 percent 
growth rate. [Table 5 Omitted].
    Construction Stage Inputs. Construction Stage modeling is similar 
to Pre-Construction Stage modeling and consists of two activities: (1) 
The time to complete all general facets of construction (called 
``Construction Related Work''); and (2) the time required by tower 
crews to complete installation of equipment on the tower. As with Pre-
Construction Stage activities, these activities can occur in parallel 
but the estimated completion time for the Stage is the time required to 
complete both these activities. In addition, like the Administration/
Planning category in the Pre-Construction Stage, the Construction 
Related Work category is a catch-all category that incorporates several 
types of activities. The estimated time for this category includes 
estimates of the time to complete all construction work and associated 
management and coordination activities. More specifically, Construction 
Related Work includes estimates for the time associated with installing 
the transmitter components, combiners, RF mask filters and the 
transmission line to the tower base. Construction Related Work also 
allows time for any possible installation of liquid cooling systems, AC 
power, and connection to remote control equipment and input signal 
connections if required. Finally, Construction Related Work includes 
time required for performing any tower modifications and any final 
testing of the system. Table 6 lists the estimates of the time to 
complete all work included in the ``Construction Related Work'' 
category. Based on Widelity time estimates for the various work streams 
that fall under Construction Related Work. [Table 6 Omitted].
    The Construction Related Work column reflects estimates of the 
minimum amount of time required for a station to complete the 
Construction Stage. The other process in the Construction Stage work is 
tower work. The time required for tower work is both tower and antenna 
specific. Table 7 lists the different characteristics that determine 
the amount of time required to perform tower work. These times were 
based on feedback from industry. This table does not reflect the time 
to install an auxiliary antenna. [Table 7 Omitted].
    If a station did not need to wait for an antenna crew to become 
available in order to complete its tower work, then the amount of time 
the station would take to complete the Construction Stage would be the 
longer of the time estimated for construction related work and the time 
estimated for the station to complete work on its tower. However, not 
every station will be able to have a tower crew as soon as needed. When 
modeling to generate estimates for phase completion times, the Phase 
Scheduling Tool will place any station that is waiting for a tower crew 
to become available in a queue until a crew becomes available, based on 
the station's assigned number in a simulation order. Stations will be 
removed from the queue according to their simulation order.
    We include in the Phase Scheduling Tool specific estimates 
regarding the number of available tower crews. The record developed to 
date reflects different estimates as to the number and types of tower 
crews that will be available. In light of the variance in these 
estimates, we will place tower crews into three buckets: (1) U.S. crews 
capable of servicing towers that are particularly difficult to work on 
due to height or location; (2) U.S. crews that are capable of servicing 
easier towers; and (3) Canadian crews. U.S. stations on towers that are 
above 300 feet in height and that are top-mounted or located on a 
candelabra can only draw from the pool of U.S. crews that can handle 
such difficult sites. Other U.S. stations can only draw from the other 
pool of U.S. crews, on the assumption that these difficult site crews 
will be fully occupied. Canadian stations can only draw from the pool 
of Canadian crews. It is likely that crews will travel between 
countries, but separating the crews in this way provides a more 
conservative estimate of the number of crews available in each country. 
We expect that the number of crews will increase as the transition 
proceeds. The specific estimates we will use are set forth below in 
Table 8. Tower crew estimates were based on feedback from industry and 
from ISED Canada. We assume a conservative growth rate in U.S. tower 
crews of 5 percent, but no growth in Canadian crews (which is very 
conservative). [Table 8 Omitted].
    Other assumptions incorporated into the Phase Scheduling Tool are: 
(1) The estimated time required to complete work on a tower is reduced 
or discounted if more than one station on the tower is transitioning in 
the same phase. The Phase Scheduling Tool assumes that antenna 
installations will be performed by a single tower crew at the same time 
for all stations located on a given tower that are assigned to the same 
phase. Based on comments received and the record developed to date, we 
are adjusting the time upwards for the time required to complete the 
work on towers with multiple stations. Construction on the tower will 
commence when the first station on that tower is ready to begin its 
construction work and the total time to complete all construction for 
all stations on that tower is equal to (a) the time required for the 
most difficult station (we assign this time to the first station) plus 
(b) the sum of the time estimates for all stations other than this 
first station, multiplied by 50 percent. We believe that these revised 
discounts are appropriately conservative. Staff believes that 50 
percent is a reasonable (and conservative) discount between the 
previously proposed 95 percent discount which was generally supported 
by American Tower and the 20 percent or 10 percent discount that 
Cordillera, et al. suggests. Any discount smaller than 50 percent would 
substantially remove the time savings produced by the same tower 
efficiencies which American Tower suggests.
    (2) The Phase Scheduling Tool assumes that 75 percent of all 
stations (including those with a licensed auxiliary antenna) will need 
to install an auxiliary antenna. For each station

[[Page 11122]]

requiring an auxiliary antenna, the tool adds one additional week of 
tower crew time to the tower crew time, which is the maximum time 
required for an auxiliary in Table 7.
    (3) Where the estimated time required to complete an entire 
transition phase is less than four weeks because much of the work 
(other than transmission testing on the new channel) has already 
occurred prior to the start date for the testing period of that 
transition phase, the testing period window is scaled up to allow four 
weeks for testing. The four week minimum allows additional flexibility 
for the Commission to adjust deadlines for stations due to unforeseen 
circumstances. For example, if many stations in the same phase 
experience a natural disaster, those stations' deadline could be 
extended and the multiple subsequent phases testing periods could be 
shortened to three weeks.
    Sample Output. This Section provides sample results of the Phase 
Scheduling Tool using the baseline Phase Assignment Tool results 
presented above and the constraints and objectives for simulated 
auction outcomes involving the two 84 MHz clearing scenarios. Although 
Tables 9 and 10 below show the average number of weeks from the start 
of the phase to the phase completion date, each phase completion date 
will be listed as a specific date when the final transition schedule is 
released in the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice. The outputs of 
each clearing scenario are represented graphically below in Figures 7 
and 8, respectively. As both Figures show, stations within each phase 
cannot start testing until the prior phase is complete, and all 
stations within a phase must cease operating on their pre-auction 
channels by the phase completion date.
    Figures 7 and 8 below are a graphical representation of the time 
estimates from the Phase Scheduling Tool and represent estimates only. 
Although the tool produces reasonable time estimates based on the 
detailed inputs discussed, it does not account specifically for certain 
factors that may warrant deadline adjustments, such as the relative 
length of the testing periods for each phase or seasonal 
considerations. For example, the phase completion date may be moved 
later if an early phase consisting primarily of stations in northern 
regions of the United States is projected to end in the middle of 
winter. Thus, the Bureau may adjust the phase completion dates from the 
average durations calculated by the tool to take such factors into 
account, consistent with the overall 39-month transition deadline 
imposed by the Commission's rules. [Table 9, Figure 7, Table 10, and 
Figure 8 Omitted].

Appendix B: Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice. The 
Bureau sought written public comment on the proposals in the Notice, 
including comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
    Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule Changes. The Federal 
Communications Commission (Commission) delegated authority to the Media 
Bureau (Bureau) to establish construction deadlines within the 39-month 
post-incentive auction transition period for television stations that 
are assigned to new channels in the incentive auction repacking 
process. Pursuant to the Commission's direction, the Bureau, in 
consultation with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), the 
Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) and the Incentive Auction 
Task Force (IATF), has developed a plan for a ``phased transition 
schedule.''
    The Bureau will use a Phase Assignment Tool that will use 
mathematical optimization techniques to assign stations to one of 10 
``transition phases.'' The phases will have sequential testing periods 
and deadlines or ``phase completion dates.'' The phase completion date 
is the last day that a station in its assigned phase may operate on its 
pre-auction channel.
    The Bureau will use a Phase Scheduling Tool to estimate the time 
required for stations in each phase to complete the tasks required to 
transition to their pre-auction channels in light of resource 
availability. The Bureau will run the Phase Scheduling Tool with 
different simulation orders to produce a range of estimated times for 
each transition phase. The Bureau will use the resulting range of 
estimated times to guide its determination of a phase completion date 
for each transition phase.
    All transition phases will begin at the same time, but will have 
sequential phase completion dates. Each phase will have a ``testing 
period'' defined by a start and end date with the end date 
corresponding to the phase completion date. While stations may engage 
in planning and construction activities at any time prior to their 
phase completion date, equipment testing on post-auction channels will 
be confined to the specified testing periods in order to minimize 
interference and facilitate coordination. Other than for the first 
phase, the testing period will begin on the day after the phase 
completion date for the prior phase. Whether a station needs to 
coordinate with other stations during the testing period will depend on 
whether it is part of a ``linked-station set,'' that is, a set of two 
or more stations assigned to the same phase with interference 
relationships or ``dependencies.'' Stations that are not part of a 
linked-station set may test on their post-auction channels during the 
testing period without the need for coordination. Stations that are 
part of a linked-station set must coordinate testing with stations in 
the set so as to avoid undue interference. Such stations must 
transition to their post-auction channels simultaneously.
    While the Bureau originally contemplated that no stage would have a 
testing period shorter than four weeks, it concluded that it may adjust 
the amount of time given to the testing periods of some phases to 
accommodate the overall transition schedule, particularly in the early 
transition phases.
    The Bureau noted that, after the final stage rule is met, it will 
send each eligible station that will remain on the air after the 
auction a confidential letter identifying the station's post-auction 
channel assignment, technical parameters, and assigned transition 
phase. After the conclusion of the assignment phase of the forward 
auction, the Commission will release the Auction Closing and Channel 
Reassignment Public Notice (Closing and Reassignment Public Notice), 
announcing that the reverse and forward auctions have ended and 
specifying the effective date of the repacking process. Among other 
things, the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice will provide the 
post-auction channel assignment and technical parameters of every 
station eligible for protection in the repacking process that will 
remain on the air after the incentive auction. The Closing and 
Reassignment Public Notice will also announce the transition phase, 
phase completion date, testing period for each reassigned station, and 
whether the station is a part of a ``linked-station set.'' Stations 
reassigned to new channels will have three months from the Closing and 
Reassignment Public Notice release date to file construction permit 
applications proposing modified facilities to operate on their post-
auction channel facility specified in the Closing and Reassignment 
Public Notice. The Bureau will then issue each station a construction 
permit, including the phase completion date as the

[[Page 11123]]

construction permit deadline for that station.
    The Bureau noted that there are various instances in which some 
stations may seek to construct an expanded facility or alternate 
channel that differs from the technical parameters assigned in the 
Closing and Reassignment Public Notice. Some stations may also request 
extensions of their construction deadlines and seek authority to 
continue operating on their pre-auction channel after their phase 
completion date, including a waiver of their phase completion deadline. 
In evaluating such requests, the Bureau announced that it will examine 
the impact that grant of such requests would have on the phased 
transition schedule. The Bureau stated that, although it does not 
intend to grant requests that would disrupt the transition, its aim is 
not to discourage stations from proposing alternative transition 
solutions that could create efficiencies or resolve unforeseen 
circumstances. After evaluation, if the Bureau grants such a request it 
may choose to modify transition phase assignments and construction 
deadlines of the requesting station, or if necessary, other stations; 
however, no other station will be assigned to an earlier transition 
phase than it was originally assigned to without its consent.
    The Bureau concluded that there may be situations in which the 
voluntary use of either individual temporary channels or temporary 
joint use of a channel may aid the transition. Therefore, the Bureau 
will permit reassigned Class A and full power stations to make a 
request to operate on a temporary channel either on an individual or 
joint basis. When seeking authorization to operate on an individual 
temporary channel or engage in temporary joint use of a channel a 
broadcaster must file with the Commission a request for STA proposing 
the channel it wishes to operate on and including the specific 
technical parameters. Such requests may be made at any time during the 
transition period and must demonstrate that the proposal both complies 
with the Commission's technical rules and will not otherwise interfere 
with the transition. A request for use of an individual temporary 
channel will be restricted to replicating a station's pre-auction 
coverage area and population served and broadcasters should, at a 
minimum, evaluate whether their operation would require coordination 
with neighboring stations that are not already in the same linked-
station set, would result in new linked-station sets, or whether 
significant construction will be required to commence operation, which 
could divert resources from other stations. Furthermore, depending on 
the station's proximity to Mexico or Canada, coordination approval to 
operate on a temporary channel may be required from that particular 
country.
    The Bureau declined to explicitly prohibit a broadcaster from 
operating during the transition on a temporary channel in the new 
wireless band that is vacant. However, to balance the interests of 
wireless operators to start construction and commence operations in 
cleared spectrum, when evaluating requests for individual use of a 
temporary channel in the new wireless band we will require broadcasters 
to demonstrate that there is no reasonable alternative to operating in 
the new wireless band and provide written consent from the wireless 
licensee of the channel that broadcaster wishes to temporarily operate, 
as well any wireless licensee(s) that would otherwise be required to 
protect the broadcaster's operations under the Commission's inter-
service interference (ISIX) rules.
    The Bureau concluded that, in the case of a request for temporary 
joint use of a channel the applicant (joint user) must include with its 
request a written authorization from the licensee of the host station. 
A joint user will continue to be a Commission licensee, and will 
temporarily operate at variance from its authorized parameters pursuant 
to STA. As such, a joint user must continue to comply with all 
requirements under the Rules and the Act that they would otherwise be 
required operating on their own channel. Because joint use of a channel 
is only temporary and the sharee will ultimately operate on its own 
channel, the Bureau concluded that it is important for the station to 
maintain coverage of its community of license and require a sharee to 
continue to cover its community of license.
    The Bureau concluded that interim and auxiliary facilities will be 
an important part of the transition for broadcasters and that it will 
take action as appropriate to facilitate the use of such facilities and 
equipment. In order for a station to continue operation on its pre-
auction channel while its current primary antenna is removed and a new 
channel antenna is installed, the Bureau announced that it expects many 
stations will need to utilize auxiliary facilities and equipment. The 
Bureau concluded that nothing it had adopted restricts a station from 
filing a request for STA to operate on its post-auction channel using 
an auxiliary facility prior to its phase completion date.
    The Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice provided guidance 
on the prohibited communications rule as it pertains to broadcasters 
and the post-auction transition--particularly their ability to hold 
discussions with vendors not covered by the rule. A great many of the 
preparations that broadcasters may undertake with respect to transition 
to post-auction channel assignments will not involve prohibited 
communications. For example, broadcasters may communicate with third 
parties not covered by the prohibition, such as consulting engineers 
and counsel, without violating the prohibition, even if the 
communication discloses bids and bidding strategies. A broadcaster or 
other covered party still should take care, however, that the third 
party to which such communications are made does not convey the 
information to another covered party, which would violate the 
prohibition. In addition, broadcasters may communicate with other 
covered parties regarding many issues in the post-auction transition 
without disclosing bids and bidding strategies. For example, 
broadcasters that did not apply to participate in the auction do not 
have bids and bidding strategies of their own to disclose and so may 
communicate regarding their own post-auction transition without 
violating the prohibition. Such broadcasters must bear in mind, 
however, that they still are prohibited from communicating any other 
incentive auction applicant's bids and bidding strategies of which they 
may learn, such as a channel sharing partner's bids or bidding 
strategies. Finally, broadcasters that did apply but kept that fact 
confidential also may be able to communicate regarding post-auction 
channel assignments without disclosing bids and bidding strategies.
    Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA. Free Access & Broadcast Telemedia, LLC, and EICB-TV East, 
LLC (FAB/EICB) were the only commenters to file comments directly 
addressing the IRFA in this proceeding. FAB/EICB argue that, in the 
IRFA, the Commission failed to consider the impact or costs of its 
proposal on low power television stations (LPTV). We considered these 
concerns when composing the Public Notice.
    Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description 
of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities 
that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The following 
small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small 
entities, are discussed in the FRFA: Full power television stations; 
(2)

[[Page 11124]]

Class A TV and LPTV stations; (3) wireless telecommunications carriers 
(except satellite); (4) wired telecommunications carriers; (5) cable 
television distribution services; (6) cable companies and systems; (7) 
cable system operators (Telecom Act standard); and (8) direct broadcast 
satellite (DBS) service.
    Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements. The Transition Schedule Public Notice does not 
contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, 
it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to 
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
    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, standard; and (4) an exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
    In general, alternatives to proposed rules or policies are 
discussed only when those rules pose a significant adverse economic 
impact on small entities. In this context, however, the transition plan 
set forth in the Transition Schedule Public Notice generally confers 
benefits. In particular, the intent of the plan is to ensure that all 
stations are able to complete a timely transition to their final post-
auction channel facilities without delay and without incurring 
unnecessary costs.
    The Bureau declined to adopt a proposal by the National Association 
of Broadcasters (NAB) to not assign stations to phases until stations 
have completed necessary structural and engineering studies. 
Alternatively, NAB suggested that initial phase assignments should be 
``preliminary'' and should be re-evaluated after stations have filed 
their construction permit applications and cost estimates in order to 
allow the Commission to more fully understand their scope of work and 
timing for moving to a new channel. The Bureau found that NAB's 
suggested approach would have a chilling effect on the transition by 
undermining the incentive for broadcasters, including small entities, 
to begin preparing for the transition in earnest. The Bureau concluded 
that information used to create the transition schedule is sufficiently 
detailed and reliable to establish phased transition deadlines once the 
final channel reassignments have been established. The Bureau 
determined that launching an organized, phased schedule at the earliest 
opportunity will provide broadcasters, equipment manufacturers and 
other vendors and consultants, wireless providers, and television 
viewers with certainty and stability. Doing so is particularly 
important as broadcasters prepare their construction permits, 
coordinate with other broadcasters, and begin construction planning.
    The Bureau also declined suggestions to collect additional or 
different information about stations that face difficult approval 
processes or procurement issues prior to assigning stations to phases. 
The Bureau found that its Phase Assignment Tool already includes a 
constraint identifying certain stations as complicated based on data 
collected by the Bureau to date. Regardless of the difficulty of any 
one stations' move, because of dependencies between stations and 
interference constraints, the Bureau concluded that certain stations 
must move together in the same phase or certain stations must move in 
one phase before additional stations can move in a subsequent phase. 
The Phase Assignment Tool is designed to organize the transition of 
over 1,000 broadcast stations in an orderly fashion that respects 
station dependencies and interference constraints, in addition to 
accounting for individual stations complexities, while simultaneously 
protecting television viewers.
    The Bureau declined to cap aggregate interference finding that that 
doing so would provide little benefit while imposing significant costs 
by dramatically increasing the computational difficulty of the Tool. 
However, recognizing the potential problems with a cap, NAB suggested 
as an alternative that, after stations are assigned to phases, the 
Bureau determine whether any station has greater than five percent 
aggregate interference, and if so, make appropriate adjustments. 
Consistent with this suggestion, the Bureau announced that it will 
attempt to find an alternative phase assignment for any station 
predicted to receive more than five percent temporary aggregate 
interference, consistent with the constraints and objectives.
    To minimize consumer disruption during the 39-month transition 
period, and to promote the efficient use of tower crews, the Bureau 
announced that all stations within a DMA will be assigned to no more 
than two assignment phases. Broadcast commenters put forward a variety 
of proposals to modify this constraint, but the Bureau found that none 
described how their respective proposals would affect the overall phase 
assignments. Therefore, it rejected those proposals. The Bureau found 
that assigning stations within a DMA to two, potentially nonconsecutive 
phases, is crucial in providing the optimization with the flexibility 
to satisfy other constraints, such as limiting the number of linked 
stations per phase and keeping a relatively consistent number of 
stations assigned to each phase. The proposals by broadcast commenters 
would threaten the Tool's ability to balance competing goals. At the 
same time, the Bureau agreed with broadcasters that minimizing viewer 
disruption and efficiently clearing DMAs are laudable goals and, 
accordingly, the Bureau adopted the objective of minimizing the total 
number of times a DMA must rescan. If it is possible to satisfy the 
optimization's constraints and its first objective, and still assign 
stations to only one DMA, the optimization will attempt to do so using 
the second objective. The Bureau found that this approach gives the 
optimization the flexibility to balance competing constraints while 
continuing to prioritize consumers and regional clusters.
    The NAB proposed that the Bureau should treat the ``125 linked 
stations'' constraint as an objective. The Bureau declined this 
proposal finding that NAB did not propose a metric for determining how 
much additional time should be added to a phase with more than 125 
linked stations under its proposed approach.
    Despite broadcast commenters' objections, the Bureau decided to 
prioritize clearing the 600 MHz Band as the first objective. The Bureau 
concluded that phase assignments must satisfy each of the nine 
constraints it adopted, most of which are designed to protect 
broadcasters. The Bureau concluded that the four objectives it adopted 
strikes the appropriate balance and will encourage the expeditious 
clearing of the 600 MHz Band.
    The Bureau also declined Cordillera, et al.'s proposal that the two 
primary objectives be to maximize the health

[[Page 11125]]

and safety of tower crews and the homes and businesses that are in 
close proximity to towers and to minimize service disruptions to 
viewers and users of other services that share broadcast towers. The 
Bureau concluded that Cordillera et al. had not explained how the 
Bureau could incorporate such goals into the mathematical optimization 
model and it was unaware of any mechanism to accomplish the task. The 
Phase Scheduling Tool estimates time periods for construction tasks 
based on industry information, and the Bureau believed that relying on 
such information is reasonable and will help to promote health and 
safety.
    The Bureau further declined to adopt Cordillera, et al.'s proposal 
that additional factual scenarios be given additional time in the Phase 
Scheduling Tool. The Bureau found that the tool already provides 
estimates intended to account for the ordinary time necessary to 
complete various tasks. However, in response to the comments from 
Cordillera, et al. concerning potential coordination with other 
services (e.g., FM radio or cellular providers) operating on the same 
tower as the reassigned station, the Bureau decided to substantially 
reduce the same tower discount in order to add back some time to 
account for the additional coordination that will be required. The 
Bureau found that this new discount will make the total tower work 
times adequately conservative to account for not only other television 
broadcasters but also other broadcast and non-broadcast facilities on 
the tower.
    In order to facilitate a timely and orderly transition, the Bureau 
concluded that it must evaluate on a case-by-case basis requests for 
modification of any station's facility or transition deadline as set 
forth in the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice, to assess the 
impact of such requests on the transition schedule plan. Accordingly, 
it adopted the method for evaluating such requests proposed in the 
Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice. Although it stated that 
it does not intend to grant requests that would disrupt the transition, 
the Bureau stated that its aim is not to discourage stations from 
proposing alternative transition solutions that could create 
efficiencies or resolve unforeseen circumstances that could otherwise 
force a station to go dark. Nonetheless, such proposals should 
specifically demonstrate that implementation would not interfere with 
other stations' transition efforts and address how implementation of 
the proposal may affect the transition schedule. If the Bureau grants 
such a request after considering such effects, it stated that it may 
choose to modify transition phase assignments and construction 
deadlines of the requesting station or, if necessary, other stations; 
however, no other station would be assigned to an earlier transition 
phase than it was originally assigned without its consent. NAB and E.W. 
Scripps supported the establishment of a process by which a station can 
request a different transition phase, although neither proposed a 
specific process or explained why the Commission's existing rules would 
be insufficient. The Bureau found that existing Commission processes 
are sufficient to address such requests. Commenters also suggested that 
stations should have the flexibility to move to either an earlier or 
later transition phase. The Bureau stated that such requests will be 
subject to a high burden of proof and will be reviewed in its 
prescribed manner to determine the requests impact on the overall 
transition schedule as well as viewers. The Bureau also declined AT&T's 
suggestion that it adopt a special sanction system related to 
transitioning stations, finding that such a proposal was not supported 
by the record. In addition, the Bureau concluded that a station that 
does not comply with the requirements of any Commission order may be 
subject to action as contemplated by the Commission's rules.
    The Bureau determined not to mandate the use of temporary channels 
which avoided possible additional burdens on stations and MVPDs as well 
as LPTV and TV translator stations. T-Mobile requested a prohibition of 
voluntary temporary operation in the new wireless band; however, the 
Bureau found that entirely foreclosing this option could undercut the 
benefit of allowing broadcasters to request temporary channels because 
there may be limited available temporary channels in the TV band.
    The Bureau declined to adopt suggestions on how the Commission 
should manage its staff and resources during the transition period. The 
Bureau concluded that it will commit to dedicating sufficient resources 
to monitor the progress of the transition. While commenters 
representing the interests of LPTV and TV translator stations provided 
several actions the Commission could take to ease the impact of the 
transition on LPTV and translator stations, the Bureau found these 
proposed actions have already been addressed in other Commission 
proceedings.

Federal Communications Commission.
Thomas Horan,
Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2017-03368 Filed 2-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P