Replacement Digital Television Translator Service, 61-67 [E8-31227]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2009 / Proposed Rules
informal decision-making processes or
beneficial use programs relating to the
use of solid wastes. Materials are no
longer subject to the state’s solid waste
regulations under the state rules when
a state determines that the secondary
materials are no longer solid wastes
when beneficially used.
The Agency acknowledges state
beneficial use determinations and seeks
comment on whether to consider
secondary materials that receive a state
beneficial use determination for use as
a fuel or as an ingredient as not a solid
waste, should also not be considered a
solid waste under federal law.
Commenters who support such a
position should provide the basis or
rationale for this position. For example,
would a determination be needed that
shows the beneficial use determination
was in-line with EPA’s principles as
outlined in section V.A.2. (i.e., whether
they were legitimate fuels or
ingredients)?
rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
D. Biofuels
Biofuels and byproducts from the
production of biofuels are nontraditional alternative fuels being
offered for stakeholder consideration.
Biofuels can be generally described as a
gas or liquid fuel made from biological
materials, including plants, animal
manure, and other organic sources.
Thus, biofuels produced from these
materials, such as ethanol and biodiesel
are not considered to be solid wastes
themselves, but rather are viewed as
legitimate fuel products. Biofuels
production has increased dramatically
in the past few years and is expected to
continue increasing over the coming
years. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
amended the CAA to establish a
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
program which established a major new
federal renewable fuel volume mandate.
While market forces initially caused
renewable fuel use to far exceed these
mandates, this program provided
certainty that at least a minimum
amount of renewable fuel would be
used in the U.S. transportation market,
which in turn provided assurance for
investment in production capacity. The
Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (EISA) updated the RFS
program to include a new definition of
renewable fuels that accounted for the
fuel life-cycle emissions of greenhouse
gases (GHG) 63 and also increased the
63 A ‘‘renewable fuel’’ is defined in EISA as a fuel
that is produced from renewable biomass and that
is used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil
fuel present in transportation fuel. ‘‘Renewable
biomass’’ is defined as (1) Planted crops and crop
residue, (2) planted trees and tree residue, (3)
animal waste material and animal byproducts, (4)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:08 Dec 31, 2008
Jkt 217001
total renewable fuel volume mandate to
36 billion gallons per year by 2022; the
statute also established four specific
categories of renewable fuels, each with
a separate volume mandate. These
categories are renewable fuel, advanced
biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and
cellulosic biofuel.
Biofuels production can be viewed as
including both the feedstock materials
that are used to produce biofuels, as
well as the byproducts generated from
the production of biofuels. EPA
considers these materials to be
legitimate alternative fuels when they
have meaningful heating value, do not
contain contaminants that are
significantly higher in concentration
than traditional fuels, and are handled
as a valuable commodity. For example,
a project completed by the University of
Georgia (UGA) Engineering Outreach
Service (EOS) demonstrated that
biofuels processed from fats and grease
(chicken fat, yellow grease, choice white
grease, and beef tallow), either singly or
blended with No. 2 fuel oil, are
technically and economically viable
alternatives to No. 2 fuel oil in
industrial boilers.64 We request
additional data and comment on the
extent to which fats, oils, and greases
(FOGs) and related biomass materials
that can be used as feedstocks to
produce biofuels and that are not
previously addressed in this ANPRM,
are also used directly as fuels in
stationary combustion sources. Further,
the Agency requests comment on the
extent to which FOGs and biomass
materials are processed into biofuels for
use in stationary combustion sources,
such that their assessment as part of this
rulemaking effort is warranted. For
example, the U.S. Energy Information
Administration estimated used cooking
oil is produced at a rate of some 100
million gallons per day in the USA.65
Literature suggests that biodiesel can be
prepared from waste cooking oil.
Although there are instances where
such oil is used as a fuel for engines
with only minimal processing (such as
filtering), more intensive processing
(such as the addition of ethyl alcohol
with sodium hydroxide as a catalyst for
the transesterification of vegetable oils
and animal fats) is necessary to produce
slash and commercial thinnings, (5) biomass from
the immediate vicinity of buildings, (6) algae, and
(7) separated yard waste or food waste, including
recycled cooking and trap grease.
64 FY 2005 FoodPAC Final Report; ‘‘Combustion
of Poultry Fat for Plant Heat and Steam,’’ University
of Georgia.
65 Radich, A. Biodiesel performance, costs, and
use. U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2006.
https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/
biodiesel/.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61
true biodiesel fuel.66 Finally, we request
comment on whether non-hazardous
byproducts generated from the
production of biofuels, such as dry
distiller’s grain from corn ethanol and
lignin from cellulosic ethanol, are being
used as alternative fuels, which
therefore should be assessed as part of
this rulemaking effort.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ‘‘significant regulatory
action.’’ Accordingly, EPA submitted
this action to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under EO
12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action.
Generally, because this action is
‘‘advanced’’ in nature and does not,
therefore, propose any requirements on
any entities, the various administrative
requirements EPA must address in the
rulemaking process are not applicable.
When EPA issues a notice of proposed
rulemaking, EPA will address those
requirements. EPA expects to prepare an
Economic Assessment (EA) in support
of the proposed action. We will submit
this EA, along with the proposed
rulemaking to OMB for review.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 257
Environmental protection, Waste
treatment and disposal.
Dated: December 22, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–30987 Filed 12–31–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 74
[MB Docket No. 08–253; FCC 08–278]
Replacement Digital Television
Translator Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: In this document, the
Commission proposes and seeks
comment on rules that would create a
new ‘‘replacement’’ digital television
translator service. The new replacement
66 Energies 2008, 1, 3–18; DOI: 10.3390/
en1010003, ‘‘Waste Cooking Oil as an Alternate
Feedstock for Biodiesel,’’ https://www.mdpi.com/
1996-1073/1/1/3/pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
62
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2009 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
digital television translator service will
permit full-service television stations to
continue to provide service to viewers
within their coverage area who have lost
service as a result of those stations’
digital transition. We seek comment on
how to implement this new service and
tentatively conclude that it should be
subject to all other rules for television
translators with respect to secondary
frequency use, filing and processing of
applications, construction, and
operation. Finally, we announce interim
filing procedures to begin acceptance of
applications for replacement translators
and the authorization of temporary
facilities.
DATES: Comments for this proceeding
are due on or before January 12, 2009;
reply comments are due on or before
January 22, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MB Docket No. 08–253
and/or FCC 08–278, by any of the
following methods:
› Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
› Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
› Mail: Filings can be sent by hand
or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail
(although we continue to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service
mail.) All filings must be addressed to
the Commission’s Secretary, Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
› People with Disabilities: Contact
the FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shaun Maher, Shan.Maher@fcc.gov of
the Media Bureau, Video Division, (202)
418–1600. For additional information
concerning the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements
contained in this document, send an email to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Cathy
Williams at (202) 418–2918, or via email at Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08–278,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:32 Dec 31, 2008
Jkt 217001
adopted on December 22, 2008, and
released on December 23, 2009. The full
text of this document is available for
public inspection and copying during
regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street, SW., CY–A257, Washington, DC
20554. It may also be purchased from
the Commission’s duplicating contractor
at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554; the
contractor’s Web site: https://
www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800)
378–3160, facsimile (202) 488–5563, or
e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. These
documents will also be available via
ECFS (https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/).
(Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/
or Adobe Acrobat.) Additionally, the
complete item is available on the
Federal Communications Web site at
https://www.fcc.gov. To request this
document in accessible formats
(computer diskettes, large print, audio
recording, and Braille), send an e-mail
to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419
of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using: (1) The Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s
eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing
paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
› Electronic Filers: Comments may
be filed electronically using the Internet
by accessing the ECFS: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Filers should
follow the instructions provided on the
Web site for submitting comments.
› For ECFS filers, if multiple docket
or rulemaking numbers appear in the
caption of this proceeding, filers must
transmit one electronic copy of the
comments for each docket or
rulemaking number referenced in the
caption. In completing the transmittal
screen, filers should include their full
name, U.S. Postal Service mailing
address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number. Parties may also
submit an electronic comment by
Internet e-mail. To get filing
instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the
following words in the body of the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
› Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. If more than
one docket or rulemaking number
appears in the caption of this
proceeding, filers must submit two
additional copies for each additional
docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail
(although we continue to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service
mail). All filings must be addressed to
the Commission’s Secretary, Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
› The Commission’s contractor will
receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110,
Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours
at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All
hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
› Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
› U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (tty).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
was analyzed with respect to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(‘‘PRA’’) 1 and will revise an existing
information collection.2 The
Commission will seek approval under
the PRA under OMB’s emergency
processing rules 3 for this information
collection requirement in order to
1 The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (‘‘PRA’’),
Public Law 104–13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified
in Chapter 25 of Title 44 U.S.C.).
2 The existing information collection that will be
revised to add the new proposed information
collection requirement is OMB control number
3060–1086. The new proposed information
collection requirement is contained in 47 CFR
74.787(a)(i)(5).
3 See 5 CFR 1320.13.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2009 / Proposed Rules
implement the rules and policies for a
new replacement digital low power
television (LPTV) translator service that
would permit full-service television
stations to continue to provide service
to viewers within their coverage area
who have lost service as a result of those
stations’ digital transition. We believe
there is good cause for requesting
emergency PRA approval from OMB
due to the statutory digital television
transition deadline of February 17,
2009.4
Synopsis
Creation of New Replacement Digital
Television Translator Service
We tentatively conclude that
replacement translators should be
licensed only for digital operation and
should be licensed only on channels 2–
59 and not for out-of-core channels 60–
69. In order to prevent possible
interference to public safety entities,
and avoid the potential for displacement
of replacement translator facilities, we
believe that replacement translators
should not be licensed on channels 60–
69. We tentatively conclude that
stations seeking a replacement translator
on channels 52–59 be required to certify
in their applications the unavailability
of any suitable in-core channel for this
purpose. We propose defining ‘‘suitable
in-core channel’’ as one that would
enable the station to produce a digital
service area comparable to its analog
service area. This is similar to the
requirement we adopted for stations
proposing a digital companion channel
on channels 52–59.5 We further propose
requiring stations seeking replacement
translators on channels 52–59 to
provide the notifications to wireless
licensees that we adopted for low power
television and TV translator stations
seeking to flash cut or a digital
companion channel on channels 52–
59.6 We seek comment on these
proposals.
rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
4 Due
to the short time frame provided for the
Commission to act on the new replacement digital
low power television translator service, we
requested and received OMB approval to waive
Federal Register notice for this emergency request
under the PRA. See 5 CFR 1320.13(d).
5 See Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the
Commission’s Rules to Establish Rules for Digital
Low Power Television, Television Translator, and
Television Booster Stations and to Amend Rules for
Digital Class A Television Stations, 19 FCC Rcd
19331, 71 (2004).
6 Id. Low power television and TV translator
station digital flash cut and digital companion
channel applicants on channels 52–59 are required
to notify all potentially affected 700 MHz
commercial wireless licensees of the spectrum
comprising the proposed TV channel and the
spectrum in the first adjacent channels thereto.
They are also required to provide notification to cochannel and first adjacent channel licensees whose
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:32 Dec 31, 2008
Jkt 217001
We further tentatively conclude that
applications for replacement translators
should be given licensing priority over
all other low power television and TV
translator applications except
displacement applications (for which
they would have co-equal priority).
Therefore, a replacement translator
application, when filed, would have
processing priority over other
applications for new stations, major
changes and minor changes.
Furthermore, we tentatively conclude
that we should limit the eligibility for
such service to only those full-service
television stations that can demonstrate
that a portion of their analog service
area 7 will not be served by their full,
post-transition digital facilities and for
translators to be used for that purpose.
We seek comment on these tentative
conclusions.
In Unlicensed Operation in the TV
Broadcast Bands, we adopted rules to
allow unlicensed radio transmitters to
operate in the broadcast television
spectrum at locations where that
spectrum is not being used by licensed
services (this unused TV spectrum is
often termed ‘‘white spaces’’).8
Unlicensed devices must fully protect
the licensed services, such as television
translators, that operate in the TV
bands. We seek to comment on the
effect, if any, of this new translator
service on the prospects for future white
spaces use of the spectrum.
We further tentatively conclude that
the service area of the replacement
translator should be limited to only a
demonstrated loss area and seek
comment on whether a replacement
translator should be permitted to
expand nominally a full-service
station’s post-transition, digital service
area in order to fully cover the loss area.
We recognize that it may be impossible
for some full-service stations to site a
translator that replaces a loss area
without also slightly expanding the
geographic service area boundaries lie within 75
miles and 50 miles, respectively, of the proposed
digital LPTV or TV translator station location. A
station seeking an on-channel digital conversion
must provide such written notification at least 30
days in advance of filing its minor change
application. An applicant for a digital companion
channel must provide the required notifications
within 30 days of submitting its ‘‘long-form’’
application. In both cases, applicants must certify
in their applications that the notification
requirements have been met.
7 We define ‘‘analog service area’’ as the
authorized service area actually served by the
analog signal prior to analog termination for the
transition, consistent with our approach in the DTS
proceeding. See DTS Report and Order at 28.
8 See Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast
Bands, ET Docket No. 04–186, Second Report and
Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC
08–260, November 14, 2008 (Unlicensed Operation
in the TV Broadcast Bands).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63
station’s digital service area. Although
we seek to limit these new translators to
replacing service in a loss area, and not
to expanding service, we tentatively
conclude that we should allow de
minimis expansion of service and seek
comment on how to define the term ‘‘de
minimis’’ in this context.
We tentatively conclude that
replacement digital television translator
stations should be licensed with
‘‘secondary’’ frequency use status. These
stations would not be permitted to cause
interference to, and must accept
interference from, full-service television
stations, certain land mobile radio
operations and other primary services.9
Licensing of Replacement Digital
Television Translator Stations
We tentatively conclude that, unlike
other television translator licenses, the
license for the replacement translator
will be associated with the full power
station’s main license.10 Therefore, the
replacement translator license could not
be separately assigned or transferred
and would be renewed or assigned
along with the full-service station’s
main license. We believe that such a
measure is necessary to ensure that the
replacement translator service is limited
to only those situations where a station
seeks to restore service to a loss area and
is used for that purpose.
We tentatively conclude that the other
rules associated with television
translator stations would apply to the
new replacement translator service,
including those rules concerning the
filing of applications,11 payment of
filing fees,12 processing of
applications,13 power limits,14 out-ofchannel emission limits,15 call signs,16
unattended operation,17 and time of
operation.18 We tentatively conclude
that stations seeking a replacement
digital television translator would
submit a completed FCC Form 346 and
pay the requisite $675.00 filing fee for
a new station. The Commission would
process such applications, and those
found acceptable would be placed on a
‘‘proposed grant’’ public notice subject
to petitions to deny. New stations would
receive a call sign assigned to digital
translator stations (e.g., K20AA–D).
Although we expect full-service stations
9 See,
e.g., 47 CFR 74.703, 74.709, 90.303.
47 CFR 73.3540(e).
11 See 47 CFR 73.3572(a)(2).
12 See 47 CFR 1.1102.
13 See 47 CFR 73.3572(a). Cite rule on processing
of translator applications.
14 See 47 CFR 74.735.
15 See 47 CFR 74.736.
16 See 47 CFR 74.791.
17 See 47 CFR 74.734.
18 See 47 CFR 74.763.
10 See
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
64
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2009 / Proposed Rules
to quickly construct their replacement
translator facilities, we seek comment
on whether to limit the construction
period for replacement translators to six
months. Although TV translators are
ordinarily afforded a three-year period
for completion of construction,19 we
believe that expedited construction of
replacement translators is vital to the
continued provision of television
service following the digital transition
and that a shorter construction period is
warranted.
Interim Filing Procedures
In order to preserve service to
possible loss areas and expedite the
future consideration of applications for
replacement translator facilities, we will
begin accepting applications for
replacement digital television translator
stations following the release date of
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We
will withhold the processing of such
applications pending the outcome of
this proceeding.20 In the interim fullservice stations will be permitted to
submit requests for special temporary
authority (STA) pursuant to our existing
STA procedures in order to operate
temporary replacement translator
facilities during the pendency of this
proceeding. Applications will be filed
on a first-come, first-serve basis.21 If we
adopt our proposal to create this new
service, and provide with them a
processing priority, the processing of
applications for replacement translators
will be completed and mutually
exclusive applications will be resolved
by our broadcast competitive bidding
rules.22 We propose to allow a 10-day
opportunity for mutually exclusive
replacement translator applicants to
settle or otherwise find an engineering
solution to resolve their mutual
exclusivity. We propose that this will
expedite the final processing of such
applications and ensure that stations are
able to replace service to loss areas as
quickly as possible.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(‘‘RFA’’) 23 the Commission has
19 See
47 CFR 73.3598.
delegate to the Media Bureau authority to
announce the exact date that applications for
replacement translator stations will begin to be
accepted and the interim procedures and policies
that will be applied to such filings.
21 Any applications filed on or before the effective
date of any rules adopted in this proceeding will
be treated as if they were filed the day after the
effective date.
22 See 47 CFR 73.5000 et seq.
23 See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq., has been amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
20 We
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:08 Dec 31, 2008
Jkt 217001
prepared this present Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’)
concerning the possible significant
economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM). Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA
and must be filed by the deadlines for
comments indicated on the first page of
the NPRM. The Commission will send
a copy of the NPRM, including this
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).24 In addition, the NPRM and
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.25
Need for and Objectives of the Proposed
Rules
Full-service television stations have
been undertaking changes to their final,
post-transition digital facilities in order
to continue to provide the high level of
service to their community of license
after the completion of the digital
transition. In some cases, a portion of
the existing analog service areas of some
full-service stations will no longer be
able to receive service after the station
transitions to digital broadcasting. Some
of these ‘‘loss’’ areas are a result of
unavoidable engineering changes that
stations were required to implement in
order to avoid interference or other
problems on their post-transition digital
channel. At times, the analog signal of
certain full-service stations could not be
replicated because of technical
complexities. To assist full-service
stations to replace service to these loss
areas, this NPRM proposes to establish
a new ‘‘replacement’’ digital television
translator service that would permit
full-service television stations to obtain
new digital translators to maintain
existing service and request comment
on an expedited basis.
The NPRM tentatively concludes that
replacement translators should be
licensed only for digital operation and
should be licensed on only channels 2–
59 and not for out-of-core channels 60–
69. The NPRM tentatively concludes
that stations seeking a replacement
translator on channels 52–59 be
required to certify in their applications
the unavailability of any suitable in-core
channel for this purpose.
The NPRM further tentatively
concludes that applications for
replacement translators should be given
licensing priority over all other low
(‘‘SBREFA’’), Public Law 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat.
847 (1996).
24 See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
25 See id. 603(a).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
power television and TV translator
applications except displacement
applications (for which they would have
co-equal priority). The NPRM also
tentatively concludes that the
Commission should limit the eligibility
for such service to only those fullservice television stations that can
demonstrate that a portion of their
analog service area will not be served by
their full, post-transition digital
facilities and for translators to be used
for that purpose. The NPRM further
tentatively concludes that the service
area of the replacement translator
should be limited to only a
demonstrated loss area and seeks
comment on whether a replacement
translator should be permitted to
expand slightly a full-service station’s
post-transition, digital service area.
Finally, the NPRM tentatively concludes
that replacement digital television
translator stations should be licensed
with ‘‘secondary’’ frequency use status.
The NPRM tentatively concludes that,
unlike other television translator
licenses, the license for the replacement
translator should be associated with the
full power station’s main license.
Therefore, the replacement translator
license could not be separately assigned
or transferred and would be renewed or
assigned along with the full-service
station’s main license. The NPRM also
tentatively concludes that the other
rules associated with television
translator stations would apply to the
new replacement translator service
including those rules concerning the
filing of applications, payment of filing
fees, processing of applications, power
limits, out-of-channel emission limits,
call signs, unattended operation, and
time of operation. The NPRM seeks
comment whether to limit the
construction period for replacement
translators to six months.
In order to preserve service to
possible loss areas, and expedite the
future consideration of applications for
replacement translator facilities, the
NPRM announces that the Commission
will begin accepting applications for
replacement digital television translator
stations following the release date of the
NPRM. The Commission will withhold
the processing of such applications
pending the outcome of the rulemaking
proceeding. In the interim, full-service
stations will be permitted to submit
requests for special temporary authority
(STA) in order to operate temporary
replacement translator facilities during
the pendency of this proceeding. The
NPRM delegates to the Media Bureau
authority to announce the exact date
that applications for replacement
translator stations will begin to be
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2009 / Proposed Rules
accepted and the interim procedures
and policies that will be applied to such
filings. Applications will be filed on a
first-come, first-serve basis.
Legal Basis
The authority for the action proposed
in this rulemaking is contained in
Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 7, 301, 302, 303,
307, 308, 309, 312, 316, 318, 319, 324,
325, 336, 337, 614 and 615 of the
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
151, 154(i) and (j), 157, 301, 302a, 303,
307, 308, 309, 312, 316, 318, 319, 324,
325, 336, 337, 534, and 535.
Description and Estimate of the Number
of Small Entities to Which the Proposed
Rules Will Apply
The RFA directs the Commission to
provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that will be affected by the
proposed rules, if adopted.26 The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small government
jurisdiction.’’ 27 In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small business concern’’
under the Small Business Act.28 A small
business concern is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.29
Television Broadcasting. The SBA
defines a television broadcasting station
as a small business if such station has
no more than $14 million in annual
receipts.30 Business concerns included
in this industry are those ‘‘primarily
engaged in broadcasting images together
with sound.’’ 31 According to
rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
26 Id.
at 603(b)(3).
27 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
28 Id. Section 601(3) (incorporating by reference
the definition of ‘‘small business concern’’ in 15
U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the
statutory definition of a small business applies
‘‘unless an agency, after consultation with the
Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration and after opportunity for public
comment, establishes one or more definitions of
such term which are appropriate to the activities of
the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the
Federal Register.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
29 15 U.S.C. 632. Application of the statutory
criteria of dominance in its field of operation and
independence are sometimes difficult to apply in
the context of broadcast television. Accordingly, the
Commission’s statistical account of television
stations may be over-inclusive.
30 See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 515120
(adopted Oct. 2002).
31 NAICS Code 515120. This category description
continues, ‘‘These establishments operate television
broadcasting studios and facilities for the
programming and transmission of programs to the
public. These establishments also produce or
transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast
television stations, which in turn broadcast the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:08 Dec 31, 2008
Jkt 217001
Commission staff review of the BIA
Publications, Inc. Master Access
Television Analyzer Database (BIA) on
March 30, 2007, about 986 of an
estimated 1,374 commercial television
stations 32 (or approximately 72 percent)
have revenues of $13.5 million or less
and thus qualify as small entities under
the SBA definition. We note, however,
that, in assessing whether a business
concern qualifies as small under the
above definition, business (control)
affiliations 33 must be included. Our
estimate, therefore, likely overstates the
number of small entities that might be
affected by our action, because the
revenue figure on which it is based does
not include or aggregate revenues from
affiliated companies. The Commission
has estimated the number of licensed
NCE television stations to be 380.34 The
Commission does not compile and
otherwise does not have access to
information on the revenue of NCE
stations that would permit it to
determine how many such stations
would qualify as small entities.
Class A TV, LPTV, and TV Translator
Stations. The same SBA definition that
applies to television broadcast licensees
would apply to these stations. The SBA
defines a television broadcast station as
a small business if such station has no
more than $14 million in annual
receipts.35
Currently, there are approximately
567 licensed Class A stations, 2,227
licensed LPTV stations, 4,518 licensed
TV translators and 11 TV booster
stations.36 Given the nature of these
services, we will presume that all of
these licensees qualify as small entities
under the SBA definition. We note,
however, that under the SBA’s
programs to the public on a predetermined
schedule. Programming may originate in their own
studios, from an affiliated network, or from external
sources.’’ Separate census categories pertain to
businesses primarily engaged in producing
programming. See Motion Picture and Video
Production, NAICS code 512110; Motion Picture
and Video Distribution, NAICS Code 512120;
Teleproduction and Other Post-Production
Services, NAICS Code 512191; and Other Motion
Picture and Video Industries, NAICS Code 512199.
32 Although we are using BIA’s estimate for
purposes of this revenue comparison, the
Commission has estimated the number of licensed
commercial television stations to be 1374. See News
Release, ‘‘Broadcast Station Totals as of December
31, 2006’’ (dated Jan. 26, 2007); see https://
www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/totals/bt061231.html.
33 ‘‘[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other
when one concern controls or has the power to
control the other or a third party or parties controls
or has to power to control both.’’ 13 CFR
121.103(a)(1).
34 Broadcast Stations Total as of December 31,
2006.
35 See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 515120.
36 See News Release, ‘‘Broadcast Station Totals as
of December 31, 2006’’ (dated Jan. 26, 2007);
https://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/totals/bt061231.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
65
definition, revenue of affiliates that are
not LPTV stations should be aggregated
with the LPTV station revenues in
determining whether a concern is small.
Our estimate may thus overstate the
number of small entities since the
revenue figure on which it is based does
not include or aggregate revenues from
non-LPTV affiliated companies. We do
not have data on revenues of TV
translator or TV booster stations, but
virtually all of these entities are also
likely to have revenues of less than $13
million and thus may be categorized as
small, except to the extent that revenues
of affiliated non-translator or booster
entities should be considered.
In addition, an element of the
definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the
entity not be dominant in its field of
operation. We are unable at this time to
define or quantify the criteria that
would establish whether a specific
television station is dominant in its field
of operation. Accordingly, the estimate
of small businesses to which rules may
apply does not exclude any television
station from the definition of a small
business on this basis and is therefore
over-inclusive to that extent. Also as
noted, an additional element of the
definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the
entity must be independently owned
and operated. We note that it is difficult
at times to assess these criteria in the
context of media entities and our
estimates of small businesses to which
they apply may be over-inclusive to this
extent.
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
The NPRM proposes one new
reporting requirement. The NPRM
proposes that full-service stations
seeking a new replacement digital
television translator station submit a
showing with their FCC Form 346 that
they have a loss area as a result of their
transition to digital and that the
proposed replacement translator will
serve the loss area. The new reporting
requirement will not differently affect
small entities.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
66
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2009 / Proposed Rules
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.37
The Commission is aware that some
full service television stations operate
with limited budgets. Accordingly,
every effort was taken to propose rules
that impose the least possible burden on
all licensees, including smaller licensed
entities. Existing rules, forms and
procedures will be used to implement
this new service thereby reducing the
burden on small entities.
The NPRM tentatively concludes that
replacement translators should be
licensed only for digital operation and
should be licensed on only channels 2–
59 and not for out-of-core channels 60–
69. Alternatively, the Commission could
have allowed stations to file for analog
facilities but the digital transition for
full power stations is closely
approaching thus making the need for
further analog service unnecessary.
Further, the Commission could have
allowed for replacement translators to
be filed on channels 60–69, but it is
likely that these stations would very
quickly be displaced by wireless and
public safety entities and small entities
would waste their resources and time
having to find a new channel for their
proposed facility. The NPRM tentatively
concludes that stations seeking a
replacement translator on channels 52–
59 be required to certify in their
applications the unavailability of any
suitable in-core channel for this
purpose. The alternative approach
would be to not require a certification,
but that could lead to administrative
delay and a waste of administrative
resources as the staff would have to
verify the lack of channels.
The NPRM further tentatively
concludes that applications for
replacement translators should be given
licensing priority over all other low
power television and TV translator
applications except displacement
applications (for which they would have
co-equal priority). The Commission
could have proposed allowing no such
priority, but this alternative was not
considered because it would result in
many more mutually exclusive filings
and delay the implementation of this
valuable service. The NPRM also
tentatively concludes that the
Commission should limit the eligibility
for such service to only those fullservice television stations that can
demonstrate that a portion of their
37 5
U.S.C. 603(c)(1)–(c)(4).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:08 Dec 31, 2008
Jkt 217001
analog service area will not be served by
their full, post-transition digital
facilities and for translators to be used
for that purpose. Alternatively, the
Commission could have allowed all
interested parties to file for new
translators, however such approach was
not considered because it would also
result in numerous mutually exclusive
filings and would greatly delay
implementation of this needed service.
The NPRM further tentatively concludes
that the service area of the replacement
translator should be limited to only a
demonstrated loss area and seeks
comment on whether a replacement
translator should be permitted to
expand slightly a full-service station’s
post-transition, digital service area.
Once again, the Commission could have
allowed stations to file for expansion of
their existing service areas but such an
alternative was not seriously considered
because it could result in the use of
valuable spectrum that the Commission
seeks to preserve for other uses such as
new digital low power service. Finally,
the NPRM tentatively concludes that
replacement digital television translator
stations should be licensed with
‘‘secondary’’ frequency use status. The
Commission could have proposed that
replacement translators be licensed on a
primary frequency use basis, but this
alternative was not proposed because it
would result in numerous interference
and licensing problems and could
disrupt the full-power digital transition.
The NPRM tentatively concludes that,
unlike other television translator
licenses, the license for the replacement
translator should be associated with the
full power station’s main license.
Therefore, the replacement translator
license could not be separately assigned
or transferred and would be renewed or
assigned along with the full-service
station’s main license. Alternatively, the
Commission could have proposed that
the replacement translator license be
separate from the main station’s license,
however this approach was not
seriously considered because it could
result in licenses being sold or modified
to serve areas outside of the loss area,
would undermine the purpose of this
new service. The NPRM also tentatively
concludes that the other rules associated
with television translator stations would
apply to the new replacement translator
service including those rules concerning
the filing of applications, payment of
filing fees, processing of applications,
power limits, out-of-channel emission
limits, call signs, unattended operation,
and time of operation. The alternative
could have been to design all new rules
for this service, but that alternative was
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
not considered as it would adversely
impact stations’ ability to quickly
implement these new translators. The
NPRM seeks comment whether to limit
the construction period for replacement
translators to six months. Alternatively,
the Commission could have proposed
that the existing three-year construction
period be allowed, however that
alternative was not proposed in an effort
to ensure that replacement translators
are built and operating quickly to
replace loss areas.
Federal Rules Which Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the
Commission’s Proposals
None.
The Commission will send a copy of
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 74
Television, Television broadcasting,
Low power television.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 74 as follows:
PART 74—EXPERIMENTAL RADIO
AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST
AND OTHER PROGRAM
DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES
1. The authority for part 74 continues
to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, 336(f),
336(h) and 554.
§ 74.787
[Amended]
2. Section 73.787 is amended by
adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:
§ 74.787
Digital licensing.
(a) * * *
(5) Application for replacement
digital television translator.
(i) An application for replacement
digital television translator may be filed
by a full-service television station that
can demonstrate that a portion of its
analog service area will not be served by
its full, post-transition digital facilities.
Replacement digital television translator
may operate on channels 2–59.
Applications for replacement digital
television translator shall be given
licensing priority over all other low
power television and TV translator
applications except displacement
applications (for which they shall have
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2009 / Proposed Rules
co-equal priority). The service area of
the replacement translator shall be
limited to only a demonstrated loss area.
The license for the replacement digital
television translator will be associated
with the full power station’s main
license and may not be separately
assigned or transferred and will be
renewed with the full-service station’s
main license.
(ii) Each original construction permit
for the construction of a replacement
digital television translator station shall
specify a period of six months from the
date of issuance of the original
construction permit within which
construction shall be completed and
application for license filed. The
provisions of § 74.788(c) shall apply for
stations seeking additional time to
complete construction of their
replacement digital television translator
station.
(iii) A public notice will specify the
date upon which interested parties may
begin to file applications for
replacement digital television
translators. Such applications shall be
filed on FCC Form 346, shall be subject
to the appropriate application fee and
shall be accepted on a first-come, firstserve basis. Mutually exclusive
applications shall be resolved via the
Commission’s part 1 and broadcast
competitive bidding rules, § 1.2100 et
seq. and § 73.5000 et seq. of this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–31227 Filed 12–29–08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 697
[Docket No. 0812121592–81605–01]
RIN 0648–AX40
rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative
Management Act Provisions; American
Lobster Fishery; Control Date for
American Lobster
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking; Consideration of a control
date for the American lobster fishery.
SUMMARY: NMFS announces that it is
considering, and is seeking public
comment on a proposed rulemaking that
would limit or restrict future access to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:08 Dec 31, 2008
Jkt 217001
the American lobster (Homarus
americanus) trap fishery in the Federal
waters of Lobster Management Area 1
(Area 1), the inshore Gulf of Maine,
based upon a permit holder’s ability to
document a history of fishing with
lobster traps in Area 1 prior to the date
of this notice . This notice should
discourage American lobster non-trap
vessels from entering the lobster trap
fishery, and discourage American
lobster trap vessels fishing in other
lobster management areas from entering
the Area 1 lobster trap fishery, based
upon economic speculation while
NMFS, in consultation with the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission
(Commission), considers whether and
how access and effort should be
controlled. This document, therefore,
gives the public two-fold notification:
first, that interested participants should
locate and preserve records that
substantiate and verify their past
participation in the American lobster
trap fishery in Federal waters; and
second, that new participants to the
Area 1 lobster trap fishery may be
restricted from fishing in Area 1 with
traps in the future depending upon the
limited access criteria developed if, in
fact, NMFS proceeds forward in this
rulemaking.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than 5 p.m. eastern standard time
on or before February 2, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN number 0648–AX40,
by any of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking portal https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Fax: (978) 281–9117, Attn: Bob
Ross.
• Mail: Harold Mears, Director, State,
Federal and Constituent Programs
Office, Northeast Regional Office,
NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930–2276. Mark the
outside of the envelope: ‘‘Comments on
Lobster Control Date.’’
Instructions: All comments received
are part of the public record and will
generally be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov without change.
All Personal Identifying Information (for
example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted may be publicly
accessible. Do not submit confidential
business information or otherwise
sensitive or protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter N/A in the required
fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted via
Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel,
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67
WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats
only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
Ross, Supervisory Fishery Management
Specialist, 978–281–9234.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
American lobster fishery in the United
States takes place from North Carolina
to Maine. Over three-quarters of all
American lobsters are landed in Maine,
with most of the other landings
occurring in or from Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Long Island Sound, and
Georges Bank. The majority of American
lobsters are taken in state waters, which
extend from the coast to 3 nautical miles
(5.56 kilometers) from shore. The
offshore trap fishery, which occurs
primarily in the offshore canyon areas at
the edge of the continental shelf, has
developed in the past 25 years and
accounts for most of the remaining
landings. The American lobster fishery
is a year-round fishery in the United
States, including the summer and fall
months when the lobsters are molting.
Approximately 96 percent of lobsters
are taken in lobster traps. The rest are
taken in trawls, gillnets, dredges, and by
divers.
The Commission develops fishery
conservation and management strategies
for certain coastal species and
coordinates the efforts of the states and
Federal Government toward concerted
sustainable ends. The Commission,
under the provisions of the Atlantic
Coastal Fisheries Cooperative
Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act),
decides upon a management strategy
and then forwards that strategy to the
states and Federal Government, along
with a recommendation that the states
and Federal Government take action
(e.g., enact regulations) in furtherance of
this strategy. The Federal Government is
obligated by statute to support the
Commission’s American Lobster
Interstate Fishery Management Plan
(ISFMP) and overall fishery
management efforts. At its October 2008
Annual Meeting, the Commission voted
to initiate an addendum to the ISFMP
that includes options for a limited entry
program for Area 1. In the same motion,
the Commission voted to request the
Secretary of Commerce publish a
control date in the Federal Register that
may be used to limit future participation
in the Area 1 Federal American lobster
trap fishery to those Federal permit
holders who could document trap
fishing history prior to the control date.
The control date is the publication date
of this advance notice of proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register.
There has been a dramatic increase in
fishing effort since the 1970s and effort
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61-67]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-31227]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 74
[MB Docket No. 08-253; FCC 08-278]
Replacement Digital Television Translator Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on
rules that would create a new ``replacement'' digital television
translator service. The new replacement
[[Page 62]]
digital television translator service will permit full-service
television stations to continue to provide service to viewers within
their coverage area who have lost service as a result of those
stations' digital transition. We seek comment on how to implement this
new service and tentatively conclude that it should be subject to all
other rules for television translators with respect to secondary
frequency use, filing and processing of applications, construction, and
operation. Finally, we announce interim filing procedures to begin
acceptance of applications for replacement translators and the
authorization of temporary facilities.
DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before January 12,
2009; reply comments are due on or before January 22, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 08-253
and/or FCC 08-278, by any of the following methods:
[dec221] Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[dec221] Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[dec221] Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail.) All filings must be addressed to
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission.
[dec221] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaun Maher, Shan.Maher@fcc.gov of the
Media Bureau, Video Division, (202) 418-1600. For additional
information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information
collection requirements contained in this document, send an e-mail to
PRA@fcc.gov or contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918, or via e-mail
at Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08-278, adopted on December 22, 2008, and
released on December 23, 2009. The full text of this document is
available for public inspection and copying during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission,
445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It may also be
purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; the
contractor's Web site: https://www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 378-
3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. These
documents will also be available via ECFS (https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/
or Adobe Acrobat.) Additionally, the complete item is available on the
Federal Communications Web site at https://www.fcc.gov. To request this
document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio
recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
[dec221] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
[dec221] For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions,
filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
[dec221] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S.
Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[dec221] The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
[dec221] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[dec221] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202)
418-0432 (tty).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was analyzed with respect to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'') \1\ and will revise an
existing information collection.\2\ The Commission will seek approval
under the PRA under OMB's emergency processing rules \3\ for this
information collection requirement in order to
[[Page 63]]
implement the rules and policies for a new replacement digital low
power television (LPTV) translator service that would permit full-
service television stations to continue to provide service to viewers
within their coverage area who have lost service as a result of those
stations' digital transition. We believe there is good cause for
requesting emergency PRA approval from OMB due to the statutory digital
television transition deadline of February 17, 2009.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''), Public Law
104-13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 25 of Title 44
U.S.C.).
\2\ The existing information collection that will be revised to
add the new proposed information collection requirement is OMB
control number 3060-1086. The new proposed information collection
requirement is contained in 47 CFR 74.787(a)(i)(5).
\3\ See 5 CFR 1320.13.
\4\ Due to the short time frame provided for the Commission to
act on the new replacement digital low power television translator
service, we requested and received OMB approval to waive Federal
Register notice for this emergency request under the PRA. See 5 CFR
1320.13(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Synopsis
Creation of New Replacement Digital Television Translator Service
We tentatively conclude that replacement translators should be
licensed only for digital operation and should be licensed only on
channels 2-59 and not for out-of-core channels 60-69. In order to
prevent possible interference to public safety entities, and avoid the
potential for displacement of replacement translator facilities, we
believe that replacement translators should not be licensed on channels
60-69. We tentatively conclude that stations seeking a replacement
translator on channels 52-59 be required to certify in their
applications the unavailability of any suitable in-core channel for
this purpose. We propose defining ``suitable in-core channel'' as one
that would enable the station to produce a digital service area
comparable to its analog service area. This is similar to the
requirement we adopted for stations proposing a digital companion
channel on channels 52-59.\5\ We further propose requiring stations
seeking replacement translators on channels 52-59 to provide the
notifications to wireless licensees that we adopted for low power
television and TV translator stations seeking to flash cut or a digital
companion channel on channels 52-59.\6\ We seek comment on these
proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules
to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television, Television
Translator, and Television Booster Stations and to Amend Rules for
Digital Class A Television Stations, 19 FCC Rcd 19331, 71 (2004).
\6\ Id. Low power television and TV translator station digital
flash cut and digital companion channel applicants on channels 52-59
are required to notify all potentially affected 700 MHz commercial
wireless licensees of the spectrum comprising the proposed TV
channel and the spectrum in the first adjacent channels thereto.
They are also required to provide notification to co-channel and
first adjacent channel licensees whose geographic service area
boundaries lie within 75 miles and 50 miles, respectively, of the
proposed digital LPTV or TV translator station location. A station
seeking an on-channel digital conversion must provide such written
notification at least 30 days in advance of filing its minor change
application. An applicant for a digital companion channel must
provide the required notifications within 30 days of submitting its
``long-form'' application. In both cases, applicants must certify in
their applications that the notification requirements have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We further tentatively conclude that applications for replacement
translators should be given licensing priority over all other low power
television and TV translator applications except displacement
applications (for which they would have co-equal priority). Therefore,
a replacement translator application, when filed, would have processing
priority over other applications for new stations, major changes and
minor changes. Furthermore, we tentatively conclude that we should
limit the eligibility for such service to only those full-service
television stations that can demonstrate that a portion of their analog
service area \7\ will not be served by their full, post-transition
digital facilities and for translators to be used for that purpose. We
seek comment on these tentative conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ We define ``analog service area'' as the authorized service
area actually served by the analog signal prior to analog
termination for the transition, consistent with our approach in the
DTS proceeding. See DTS Report and Order at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, we adopted rules
to allow unlicensed radio transmitters to operate in the broadcast
television spectrum at locations where that spectrum is not being used
by licensed services (this unused TV spectrum is often termed ``white
spaces'').\8\ Unlicensed devices must fully protect the licensed
services, such as television translators, that operate in the TV bands.
We seek to comment on the effect, if any, of this new translator
service on the prospects for future white spaces use of the spectrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, ET
Docket No. 04-186, Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion
and Order, FCC 08-260, November 14, 2008 (Unlicensed Operation in
the TV Broadcast Bands).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We further tentatively conclude that the service area of the
replacement translator should be limited to only a demonstrated loss
area and seek comment on whether a replacement translator should be
permitted to expand nominally a full-service station's post-transition,
digital service area in order to fully cover the loss area. We
recognize that it may be impossible for some full-service stations to
site a translator that replaces a loss area without also slightly
expanding the station's digital service area. Although we seek to limit
these new translators to replacing service in a loss area, and not to
expanding service, we tentatively conclude that we should allow de
minimis expansion of service and seek comment on how to define the term
``de minimis'' in this context.
We tentatively conclude that replacement digital television
translator stations should be licensed with ``secondary'' frequency use
status. These stations would not be permitted to cause interference to,
and must accept interference from, full-service television stations,
certain land mobile radio operations and other primary services.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 74.703, 74.709, 90.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licensing of Replacement Digital Television Translator Stations
We tentatively conclude that, unlike other television translator
licenses, the license for the replacement translator will be associated
with the full power station's main license.\10\ Therefore, the
replacement translator license could not be separately assigned or
transferred and would be renewed or assigned along with the full-
service station's main license. We believe that such a measure is
necessary to ensure that the replacement translator service is limited
to only those situations where a station seeks to restore service to a
loss area and is used for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 47 CFR 73.3540(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We tentatively conclude that the other rules associated with
television translator stations would apply to the new replacement
translator service, including those rules concerning the filing of
applications,\11\ payment of filing fees,\12\ processing of
applications,\13\ power limits,\14\ out-of-channel emission limits,\15\
call signs,\16\ unattended operation,\17\ and time of operation.\18\ We
tentatively conclude that stations seeking a replacement digital
television translator would submit a completed FCC Form 346 and pay the
requisite $675.00 filing fee for a new station. The Commission would
process such applications, and those found acceptable would be placed
on a ``proposed grant'' public notice subject to petitions to deny. New
stations would receive a call sign assigned to digital translator
stations (e.g., K20AA-D). Although we expect full-service stations
[[Page 64]]
to quickly construct their replacement translator facilities, we seek
comment on whether to limit the construction period for replacement
translators to six months. Although TV translators are ordinarily
afforded a three-year period for completion of construction,\19\ we
believe that expedited construction of replacement translators is vital
to the continued provision of television service following the digital
transition and that a shorter construction period is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 47 CFR 73.3572(a)(2).
\12\ See 47 CFR 1.1102.
\13\ See 47 CFR 73.3572(a). Cite rule on processing of
translator applications.
\14\ See 47 CFR 74.735.
\15\ See 47 CFR 74.736.
\16\ See 47 CFR 74.791.
\17\ See 47 CFR 74.734.
\18\ See 47 CFR 74.763.
\19\ See 47 CFR 73.3598.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Filing Procedures
In order to preserve service to possible loss areas and expedite
the future consideration of applications for replacement translator
facilities, we will begin accepting applications for replacement
digital television translator stations following the release date of
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We will withhold the processing of
such applications pending the outcome of this proceeding.\20\ In the
interim full-service stations will be permitted to submit requests for
special temporary authority (STA) pursuant to our existing STA
procedures in order to operate temporary replacement translator
facilities during the pendency of this proceeding. Applications will be
filed on a first-come, first-serve basis.\21\ If we adopt our proposal
to create this new service, and provide with them a processing
priority, the processing of applications for replacement translators
will be completed and mutually exclusive applications will be resolved
by our broadcast competitive bidding rules.\22\ We propose to allow a
10-day opportunity for mutually exclusive replacement translator
applicants to settle or otherwise find an engineering solution to
resolve their mutual exclusivity. We propose that this will expedite
the final processing of such applications and ensure that stations are
able to replace service to loss areas as quickly as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ We delegate to the Media Bureau authority to announce the
exact date that applications for replacement translator stations
will begin to be accepted and the interim procedures and policies
that will be applied to such filings.
\21\ Any applications filed on or before the effective date of
any rules adopted in this proceeding will be treated as if they were
filed the day after the effective date.
\22\ See 47 CFR 73.5000 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(``RFA'') \23\ the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') concerning the possible
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public
comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments
indicated on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a
copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).\24\ In addition,
the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
Federal Register.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., has
been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (``SBREFA''), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat.
847 (1996).
\24\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
\25\ See id. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules
Full-service television stations have been undertaking changes to
their final, post-transition digital facilities in order to continue to
provide the high level of service to their community of license after
the completion of the digital transition. In some cases, a portion of
the existing analog service areas of some full-service stations will no
longer be able to receive service after the station transitions to
digital broadcasting. Some of these ``loss'' areas are a result of
unavoidable engineering changes that stations were required to
implement in order to avoid interference or other problems on their
post-transition digital channel. At times, the analog signal of certain
full-service stations could not be replicated because of technical
complexities. To assist full-service stations to replace service to
these loss areas, this NPRM proposes to establish a new ``replacement''
digital television translator service that would permit full-service
television stations to obtain new digital translators to maintain
existing service and request comment on an expedited basis.
The NPRM tentatively concludes that replacement translators should
be licensed only for digital operation and should be licensed on only
channels 2-59 and not for out-of-core channels 60-69. The NPRM
tentatively concludes that stations seeking a replacement translator on
channels 52-59 be required to certify in their applications the
unavailability of any suitable in-core channel for this purpose.
The NPRM further tentatively concludes that applications for
replacement translators should be given licensing priority over all
other low power television and TV translator applications except
displacement applications (for which they would have co-equal
priority). The NPRM also tentatively concludes that the Commission
should limit the eligibility for such service to only those full-
service television stations that can demonstrate that a portion of
their analog service area will not be served by their full, post-
transition digital facilities and for translators to be used for that
purpose. The NPRM further tentatively concludes that the service area
of the replacement translator should be limited to only a demonstrated
loss area and seeks comment on whether a replacement translator should
be permitted to expand slightly a full-service station's post-
transition, digital service area. Finally, the NPRM tentatively
concludes that replacement digital television translator stations
should be licensed with ``secondary'' frequency use status.
The NPRM tentatively concludes that, unlike other television
translator licenses, the license for the replacement translator should
be associated with the full power station's main license. Therefore,
the replacement translator license could not be separately assigned or
transferred and would be renewed or assigned along with the full-
service station's main license. The NPRM also tentatively concludes
that the other rules associated with television translator stations
would apply to the new replacement translator service including those
rules concerning the filing of applications, payment of filing fees,
processing of applications, power limits, out-of-channel emission
limits, call signs, unattended operation, and time of operation. The
NPRM seeks comment whether to limit the construction period for
replacement translators to six months.
In order to preserve service to possible loss areas, and expedite
the future consideration of applications for replacement translator
facilities, the NPRM announces that the Commission will begin accepting
applications for replacement digital television translator stations
following the release date of the NPRM. The Commission will withhold
the processing of such applications pending the outcome of the
rulemaking proceeding. In the interim, full-service stations will be
permitted to submit requests for special temporary authority (STA) in
order to operate temporary replacement translator facilities during the
pendency of this proceeding. The NPRM delegates to the Media Bureau
authority to announce the exact date that applications for replacement
translator stations will begin to be
[[Page 65]]
accepted and the interim procedures and policies that will be applied
to such filings. Applications will be filed on a first-come, first-
serve basis.
Legal Basis
The authority for the action proposed in this rulemaking is
contained in Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309,
312, 316, 318, 319, 324, 325, 336, 337, 614 and 615 of the
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 157, 301,
302a, 303, 307, 308, 309, 312, 316, 318, 319, 324, 325, 336, 337, 534,
and 535.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will
be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\26\ The RFA generally
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
government jurisdiction.'' \27\ In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act.\28\ A small business concern is one
which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id. at 603(b)(3).
\27\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
\28\ Id. Section 601(3) (incorporating by reference the
definition of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business
applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term
which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes
such definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
\29\ 15 U.S.C. 632. Application of the statutory criteria of
dominance in its field of operation and independence are sometimes
difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television.
Accordingly, the Commission's statistical account of television
stations may be over-inclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Television Broadcasting. The SBA defines a television broadcasting
station as a small business if such station has no more than $14
million in annual receipts.\30\ Business concerns included in this
industry are those ``primarily engaged in broadcasting images together
with sound.'' \31\ According to Commission staff review of the BIA
Publications, Inc. Master Access Television Analyzer Database (BIA) on
March 30, 2007, about 986 of an estimated 1,374 commercial television
stations \32\ (or approximately 72 percent) have revenues of $13.5
million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition. We note, however, that, in assessing whether a business
concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business
(control) affiliations \33\ must be included. Our estimate, therefore,
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected
by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. The Commission
has estimated the number of licensed NCE television stations to be
380.\34\ The Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have
access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit
it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 515120 (adopted Oct. 2002).
\31\ NAICS Code 515120. This category description continues,
``These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and
facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the
public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual
programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in
turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined
schedule. Programming may originate in their own studios, from an
affiliated network, or from external sources.'' Separate census
categories pertain to businesses primarily engaged in producing
programming. See Motion Picture and Video Production, NAICS code
512110; Motion Picture and Video Distribution, NAICS Code 512120;
Teleproduction and Other Post-Production Services, NAICS Code
512191; and Other Motion Picture and Video Industries, NAICS Code
512199.
\32\ Although we are using BIA's estimate for purposes of this
revenue comparison, the Commission has estimated the number of
licensed commercial television stations to be 1374. See News
Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2006'' (dated
Jan. 26, 2007); see https://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/totals/
bt061231.html.
\33\ ``[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one
concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third
party or parties controls or has to power to control both.'' 13 CFR
121.103(a)(1).
\34\ Broadcast Stations Total as of December 31, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class A TV, LPTV, and TV Translator Stations. The same SBA
definition that applies to television broadcast licensees would apply
to these stations. The SBA defines a television broadcast station as a
small business if such station has no more than $14 million in annual
receipts.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 515120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, there are approximately 567 licensed Class A stations,
2,227 licensed LPTV stations, 4,518 licensed TV translators and 11 TV
booster stations.\36\ Given the nature of these services, we will
presume that all of these licensees qualify as small entities under the
SBA definition. We note, however, that under the SBA's definition,
revenue of affiliates that are not LPTV stations should be aggregated
with the LPTV station revenues in determining whether a concern is
small. Our estimate may thus overstate the number of small entities
since the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or
aggregate revenues from non-LPTV affiliated companies. We do not have
data on revenues of TV translator or TV booster stations, but virtually
all of these entities are also likely to have revenues of less than $13
million and thus may be categorized as small, except to the extent that
revenues of affiliated non-translator or booster entities should be
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of December
31, 2006'' (dated Jan. 26, 2007); https://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/
totals/bt061231.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business'' is
that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are
unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would
establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to
which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the
definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore over-
inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional element of the
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be
independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times
to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our
estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive
to this extent.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
The NPRM proposes one new reporting requirement. The NPRM proposes
that full-service stations seeking a new replacement digital television
translator station submit a showing with their FCC Form 346 that they
have a loss area as a result of their transition to digital and that
the proposed replacement translator will serve the loss area. The new
reporting requirement will not differently affect small entities.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
[[Page 66]]
consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting
requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is aware that some full service television stations
operate with limited budgets. Accordingly, every effort was taken to
propose rules that impose the least possible burden on all licensees,
including smaller licensed entities. Existing rules, forms and
procedures will be used to implement this new service thereby reducing
the burden on small entities.
The NPRM tentatively concludes that replacement translators should
be licensed only for digital operation and should be licensed on only
channels 2-59 and not for out-of-core channels 60-69. Alternatively,
the Commission could have allowed stations to file for analog
facilities but the digital transition for full power stations is
closely approaching thus making the need for further analog service
unnecessary. Further, the Commission could have allowed for replacement
translators to be filed on channels 60-69, but it is likely that these
stations would very quickly be displaced by wireless and public safety
entities and small entities would waste their resources and time having
to find a new channel for their proposed facility. The NPRM tentatively
concludes that stations seeking a replacement translator on channels
52-59 be required to certify in their applications the unavailability
of any suitable in-core channel for this purpose. The alternative
approach would be to not require a certification, but that could lead
to administrative delay and a waste of administrative resources as the
staff would have to verify the lack of channels.
The NPRM further tentatively concludes that applications for
replacement translators should be given licensing priority over all
other low power television and TV translator applications except
displacement applications (for which they would have co-equal
priority). The Commission could have proposed allowing no such
priority, but this alternative was not considered because it would
result in many more mutually exclusive filings and delay the
implementation of this valuable service. The NPRM also tentatively
concludes that the Commission should limit the eligibility for such
service to only those full-service television stations that can
demonstrate that a portion of their analog service area will not be
served by their full, post-transition digital facilities and for
translators to be used for that purpose. Alternatively, the Commission
could have allowed all interested parties to file for new translators,
however such approach was not considered because it would also result
in numerous mutually exclusive filings and would greatly delay
implementation of this needed service. The NPRM further tentatively
concludes that the service area of the replacement translator should be
limited to only a demonstrated loss area and seeks comment on whether a
replacement translator should be permitted to expand slightly a full-
service station's post-transition, digital service area. Once again,
the Commission could have allowed stations to file for expansion of
their existing service areas but such an alternative was not seriously
considered because it could result in the use of valuable spectrum that
the Commission seeks to preserve for other uses such as new digital low
power service. Finally, the NPRM tentatively concludes that replacement
digital television translator stations should be licensed with
``secondary'' frequency use status. The Commission could have proposed
that replacement translators be licensed on a primary frequency use
basis, but this alternative was not proposed because it would result in
numerous interference and licensing problems and could disrupt the
full-power digital transition.
The NPRM tentatively concludes that, unlike other television
translator licenses, the license for the replacement translator should
be associated with the full power station's main license. Therefore,
the replacement translator license could not be separately assigned or
transferred and would be renewed or assigned along with the full-
service station's main license. Alternatively, the Commission could
have proposed that the replacement translator license be separate from
the main station's license, however this approach was not seriously
considered because it could result in licenses being sold or modified
to serve areas outside of the loss area, would undermine the purpose of
this new service. The NPRM also tentatively concludes that the other
rules associated with television translator stations would apply to the
new replacement translator service including those rules concerning the
filing of applications, payment of filing fees, processing of
applications, power limits, out-of-channel emission limits, call signs,
unattended operation, and time of operation. The alternative could have
been to design all new rules for this service, but that alternative was
not considered as it would adversely impact stations' ability to
quickly implement these new translators. The NPRM seeks comment whether
to limit the construction period for replacement translators to six
months. Alternatively, the Commission could have proposed that the
existing three-year construction period be allowed, however that
alternative was not proposed in an effort to ensure that replacement
translators are built and operating quickly to replace loss areas.
Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Commission's Proposals
None.
The Commission will send a copy of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 74
Television, Television broadcasting, Low power television.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 74 as follows:
PART 74--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES
1. The authority for part 74 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, 336(f), 336(h) and 554.
Sec. 74.787 [Amended]
2. Section 73.787 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 74.787 Digital licensing.
(a) * * *
(5) Application for replacement digital television translator.
(i) An application for replacement digital television translator
may be filed by a full-service television station that can demonstrate
that a portion of its analog service area will not be served by its
full, post-transition digital facilities. Replacement digital
television translator may operate on channels 2-59. Applications for
replacement digital television translator shall be given licensing
priority over all other low power television and TV translator
applications except displacement applications (for which they shall
have
[[Page 67]]
co-equal priority). The service area of the replacement translator
shall be limited to only a demonstrated loss area. The license for the
replacement digital television translator will be associated with the
full power station's main license and may not be separately assigned or
transferred and will be renewed with the full-service station's main
license.
(ii) Each original construction permit for the construction of a
replacement digital television translator station shall specify a
period of six months from the date of issuance of the original
construction permit within which construction shall be completed and
application for license filed. The provisions of Sec. 74.788(c) shall
apply for stations seeking additional time to complete construction of
their replacement digital television translator station.
(iii) A public notice will specify the date upon which interested
parties may begin to file applications for replacement digital
television translators. Such applications shall be filed on FCC Form
346, shall be subject to the appropriate application fee and shall be
accepted on a first-come, first-serve basis. Mutually exclusive
applications shall be resolved via the Commission's part 1 and
broadcast competitive bidding rules, Sec. 1.2100 et seq. and Sec.
73.5000 et seq. of this chapter.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-31227 Filed 12-29-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
