Innovation in the Broadcast Television Bands, 5521-5537 [2011-2102]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5521-5537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2102]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2, 15 and 73

[ET Docket No. 10-235; FCC 10-196]


Innovation in the Broadcast Television Bands

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission initiated a process to 
further its ongoing commitment to addressing America's growing demand 
for wireless broadband services, spur ongoing innovation and investment 
in mobile and ensure that America keeps pace with the global wireless 
revolution, by making a significant amount of new spectrum available 
for broadband. The approach proposed is consistent with the goal set 
forth in the National Broadband Plan (the ``Plan'') to repurpose up to 
120 megahertz from the broadcast television bands for new wireless 
broadband uses through, in part, voluntary contributions of spectrum to 
an incentive auction. Reallocation of this spectrum as proposed will 
provide the necessary flexibility for meeting the requirements of these 
new applications.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before March 18, 2011, and reply 
comments must be filed on or before April 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 10-235, 
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.
     E-mail: [Optional: Include the E-mail address only if you 
plan to accept comments from the general public]. Include the docket 
number(s) in the subject line of the message.
     Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing address for paper, 
disk or CD-ROM submissions needed/requested by your Bureau or Office. 
Do not include the Office of the Secretary's mailing address here.]
     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 of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Stillwell, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, (202) 418-2925, e-mail: Alan.Stillwell@fcc.gov, TTY 
(202) 418-2989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 10-235, FCC 10-196, adopted and 
released on November 30, 2010. The full text of this document is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also may be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and 
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: https://www.fcc.gov.
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415, 1.419, and 1.430 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, and 1.430, 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, 
May 2, 1998.
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
     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. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries

[[Page 5522]]

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).

Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission 
initiated a process to further its ongoing commitment to addressing 
America's growing demand for wireless broadband services, spur ongoing 
innovation and investment in mobile and ensure that America keeps pace 
with the global wireless revolution, by making a significant amount of 
new spectrum available for broadband. Through this NPRM, the Commission 
takes preliminary steps to enable the repurposing of a portion of the 
UHF and VHF frequency bands that are currently used by the broadcast 
television service, which in later actions it expects to make available 
for flexible use by fixed and mobile wireless communications services, 
including mobile broadband. At the same time, the Commission recognizes 
that over-the-air TV serves important public interests, and its 
approach will help preserve this service as a healthy, viable medium. 
The approach the Commission proposed is consistent with the goal set 
forth in the National Broadband Plan (the ``Plan'') to repurpose up to 
120 megahertz from the broadcast television bands for new wireless 
broadband uses through, in part, voluntary contributions of spectrum to 
an incentive auction. Reallocation of this spectrum as proposed will 
provide the necessary flexibility for meeting the requirements of new 
applications.
    2. The specific bands under consideration are the low VHF spectrum 
at 54-72 MHz (TV channels 2-4) and 76-88 MHz (TV channels 5 and 6), the 
high VHF spectrum at 174-216 MHz (TV channels 7-13), and the UHF bands 
at 470-608 MHz (TV channels 14-36) and 614-698 MHz (TV channels 38-51); 
for purposes of this NPRM, the Commission will refer to this spectrum 
as the ``U/V Bands.'' This NPRM proposes three actions that will 
establish the underlying regulatory framework to facilitate wireless 
broadband uses of the U/V Bands, while maintaining current license 
assignments in the band. First, the Commission proposes to add new 
allocations for fixed and mobile services in the U/V Bands to be co-
primary with the existing broadcasting allocation in those bands. The 
additional allocations would provide the maximum flexibility for 
planning efforts to increase spectrum available for flexible use, 
including the possibility of assigning portions of the U/V Bands for 
new mobile broadband services in the future. Second, the Commission 
proposes to establish a framework that, for the first time, permits two 
or more television stations to share a single six-megahertz channel, 
thereby fostering efficient use of the U/V Bands. Third, the Commission 
intends to consider approaches to improve service for television 
viewers and create additional value for broadcasters by increasing the 
utility of the VHF bands for the operation of television services.
    3. By taking these important steps to facilitate wireless broadband 
uses in the U/V Bands, this NPRM is the first in a series of actions 
that will allow us to make progress toward our goal of improving 
efficient use of the bands and enable ongoing innovation and investment 
through flexible use. The Commission intends to propose further actions 
consistent with other of the Plan's recommendations for the U/V Bands, 
including, but not limited to, the process of voluntarily returning 
broadcast licenses to the Commission and the licensing process and 
service rules for new fixed and mobile wireless communications 
services. As part of that process, the Commission will address the 
Plan's proposal for channel re-packing, the band plan for recovered 
spectrum and other related issues and will provide full opportunity for 
public comment on those issues at that time.
    4. The National Broadband Plan. The Plan was issued on March 17, 
2010. As required under the Recovery Act, the Plan seeks to ensure that 
every American has access to broadband capability and establishes clear 
benchmarks for meeting that goal. The Plan recommends making 500 
megahertz of spectrum between 225 MHz and 3.7 GHz newly available to 
meet the needs of mobile, fixed and unlicensed wireless broadband in 
the next 10 years and for providing 300 megahertz of that amount for 
mobile flexible uses within 5 years, of which up to 120 megahertz would 
come from the broadcast television bands.
    5. This NPRM takes the first step towards achieving these important 
objectives by proposing additional frequency allocations, a framework 
that will permit two or more television stations to share a single six-
megahertz channel, and changes to rules for use of the VHF band to 
improve its utility for television service. The Commission recognizes 
that broadcast television provides an important service to the public, 
and our actions in this proceeding will take full account of the vital 
role played by over-the-air television while increasing the flexible 
use of spectrum in a manner that meets consumer and business needs. The 
Commission remains committed to preserving the free, over-the-air 
broadcast television service and maintaining the diversity of local 
voices and important informational and entertainment benefits it 
provides the American public.
    6. It is our strong intention to provide for an orderly transition 
of a portion of the U/V Bands to flexible use, in a manner that will 
minimize any impact on over-the-air television broadcasting and the 
consumers it serves, both off-the-air and through multichannel video 
program distributors. In this regard, broadcast television stations and 
other primary services operating on the spectrum to be recovered will 
be co-primary with and be protected from interference from new 
broadband services for as long as they remain on channels in that 
spectrum.
    7. To facilitate the recovery of underutilized television channels 
while continuing to maintain existing broadcast television services, 
the Commission also proposes in this NPRM new rules that would allow a 
television service licensee to voluntarily reduce its occupation of 
spectrum by offering to operate on a shared six megahertz channel. 
Under this provision, all of the stations sharing a channel would 
broadcast their services through the same ATSC digital television 
signal using that signal's multicasting capabilities. Each licensee 
would have the same rights and service obligations as a licensee 
operating from a full channel today, including the right to carriage by 
cable and satellite providers pursuant to the rules for mandatory 
carriage or retransmission consent. The Commission believes that 
channel sharing could be beneficial to certain licensees, particularly 
those that wish to save on their operating costs or minimize the amount 
of their investment in spectrum or transmission facilities. In 
addition, channel sharing

[[Page 5523]]

could provide an incentive for broadcasters to relinquish spectrum for 
a portion of the proceeds of the revenues of a U/V Band spectrum 
auction, subject to Congress providing the Commission the authority to 
conduct an incentive auction. Further, channel sharing could offer 
opportunities for broadcasters serving minority, foreign language and 
niche interests that might have smaller audiences and lower income to 
operate at reduced cost and thereby improve their viability. In 
allowing stations to share channels, the Commission notes that in some 
instances changes in the operation of television stations could raise 
the possibility of interference to radio astronomy operations on 
channel 37 or to services operating on frequencies immediately above 
channel 51. It is the Commission's intent that any channel or other 
facilities changes that might be requested as part of sharing 
agreements not result in increased interference to radio astronomy 
operations on channel 37 or to operations of other services above 
channel 51. The Commission requests comments on specific steps that 
could be taken as part of the implementation of its sharing rules to 
mitigate the potential for such interference. The Commission describes 
its initial proposed rules for channel sharing by television licensees 
in this NPRM. The Commission is also aware that broadcasters have 
encountered technical issues in using VHF channels to provide 
satisfactory service to viewers. It intends to consider rule changes 
and other alternatives for making the VHF channels more desirable for 
DTV operation. The Commission's proposals for adding new allocations to 
the U/V bands, channel sharing by television stations and improving 
television service from VHF channels are discussed.

Spectrum Allocations

    8. New Spectrum Allocations. The Commission proposes changes to the 
U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations in Sec.  2.106 of the rules that 
would allow it to make a significant portion of the spectrum currently 
used for broadcast television available for flexible use, including 
fixed and mobile wireless broadband services. To facilitate repurposing 
of a portion of the U/V Bands in a later action, the Commission 
proposed in this NPRM to add allocations for fixed and mobile services 
in the U/V Bands (excluding channel 37) for non-Federal use, to be co-
primary with that for broadcast services. This proposal would also 
expand the existing land mobile allocation in the areas where PLMRS and 
CMRS systems operate on specified frequencies in the 470-512 MHz band 
to be the same more generalized and flexible mobile allocation that 
would be specified for other frequencies in the U/V Bands.
    9. These new allotments would allow us to consider the entire range 
of the U/V Bands in selecting the specific frequencies to be designated 
for new licensed and/or unlicensed uses. This approach will provide 
maximum flexibility in planning for the future assignment of a portion 
of the U/V Bands for flexible use, including new broadband services. 
The Commission's goal is to adopt a band that will provide for flexible 
use while continuing to support the needs of the television service. It 
is not proposing to change or add to the existing allocations for land 
mobile (medical telemetry and medical telecommand) and radio astronomy 
that are at 608-614 MHz (at channel 37). The Commission requests 
comments on this proposed plan for adding new allocations to the U/V 
Bands and invite suggestions for alternative approaches.

Broadcast Television Channel Sharing

    10. The Plan recommends that, to facilitate the recovery of 
spectrum, the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to 
``establish a licensing framework to permit two or more stations to 
share a six-megahertz channel.'' The Commission believes that the 
option of channel sharing, in addition to aiding in the broadband goals 
of the Plan, could also be beneficial to the television industry and to 
viewers. Television stations operating on shared channels could use the 
cost savings and additional income from such arrangements to strengthen 
their financial condition and to develop new and enhanced programming. 
Channel sharing could also provide existing small- and minority-owned 
stations an opportunity to enhance or preserve their local program 
offerings. The Commission anticipates providing broadcast stations an 
opportunity to voluntarily elect to share a channel. The Commission 
therefore seeks comment in this proceeding on the development of an 
appropriate regulatory structure for voluntary television channel 
sharing that will preserve over-the-air television as a healthy, viable 
medium going forward, in a way that would benefit consumers overall, 
while establishing mechanisms to make available additional spectrum for 
flexible broadband uses.
    11. The Commission envisions, consistent with the Plan, that two 
stations could generally broadcast one primary HD video stream each 
over a shared six-megahertz channel or more than two stations 
broadcasting in SD (not HD) could share a six-megahertz channel. As 
noted in the Plan, ``numerous permutations are possible, including 
dynamic arrangements whereby broadcasters sharing a channel reach 
agreements to exchange capacity to enable higher or lower transmission 
bit rates depending on market-driven choices.'' In this regard, the 
Commission observes that at the Broadcast Engineering Forum 
participants expressed concerns that sharing a single channel would not 
be practical because it would not provide sufficient transmission 
capacity for two or more stations to offer the highest quality HD 
programming simultaneously. Stations were also concerned that channel 
sharing could impact or eliminate current and future DTV services, such 
as expansion of high-definition programming and deployment of mobile 
television service. The Commission intends to consider these issues in 
this proceeding and welcomes comments on these concerns.
    12. Other approaches to channel sharing that involve sub-channel 
services such as mobile broadcast may also be possible. The Commission 
seeks comment on those approaches. The only requirement would be that 
all stations utilizing a shared channel be required to retain at least 
enough spectrum to operate one SD channel. The Commission seeks comment 
on this approach and whether stations sharing a single channel will be 
able to continue to comply with the requirement to operate at least one 
SD channel.
    13. In designing a channel sharing plan that will result in the 
more efficient use of television spectrum and free channels for 
flexible use, the Commission indicated that its goal will be to retain 
as much of its existing policy framework for allocating, licensing, and 
operating television stations as possible. Despite sharing a single 
channel and transmission facility, each station will continue to be 
licensed and operated separately, have its own call sign and be 
separately subject to all of the Commission's obligations, rules, and 
policies. Each station's programming obligations will remain the same 
(e.g., children's programming, political broadcasting, EAS, indecency), 
and a station will not be responsible for the programming or violations 
of any other station sharing its channel. In addition, stations sharing 
a channel will retain their rights to mandatory carriage on multiple 
video program distributors (MVPDs). While the licensees sharing a given 
channel and facility will independently maintain their own

[[Page 5524]]

rights and obligations under their respective licenses, the Commission 
does not envision that channel sharing, from a technological 
perspective, would entail a fixed split of the six-megahertz channel 
into two three-megahertz blocks. Rather, the capacity of the six-
megahertz would be shared and the Commission would leave it up to the 
licensees to determine the precise manner in which that capacity would 
be shared. Moreover, the Commission observed that it has licensed 
spectrum on a shared use basis--with each licensee remaining 
responsible for its own obligations and holding its own licensed 
rights--for a variety of services and under a number of different 
frameworks. For example, during the course of charting out an MSS 
licensing regime for Big LEO systems, the Commission adopted a plan in 
which four CDMA systems would each be authorized to operate over 11.35 
megahertz of bandwidth in the same 1.6 GHz band, leaving the inter-
system coordination to the satellite licensees themselves. Other 
examples of shared use include certain part 90 Private Land Mobile 
Radio Services (where the large number of shared users are coordinated 
through a system of frequency coordinators), many part 95 Personal 
Radio Services (such as the General Mobile Radio Service, where 
licensees share the same channels through an informal system of 
cooperation), and the part 97 Amateur Radio Service (where all 
frequencies are shared and coordinated by adherence to rules of 
operation set forth in part 97). The Commission seeks comment on how 
television broadcast stations can most effectively coordinate their 
individual rights and responsibilities while operating under the type 
of sharing arrangement proposed here. Finally, the Commission points 
out that only where necessary to implement a shared channel licensing 
scheme will it seek to change the existing policies and rules.
    14. The Commission also proposes to limit channel sharing to 
television stations with existing applications, construction permits or 
licenses as of the date of adoption of this NPRM. The dual intentions 
in proposing this channel option are to provide (1) a means for 
stations that may need to be more economically efficient in their 
operations to share transmission resources and (2) a path for stations 
to make their spectrum available for new broadband services and 
continue to operate a broadcast television service. The Commission 
requests comment on this proposal.

Basic Qualifications for Channel Sharing

    15. Voluntary operation of broadcast stations on shared channels 
will help to increase the efficient use of the U/V Bands while ensuring 
that local public interest and service requirements continue to be 
fulfilled. Since it ultimately seeks an appropriate, market-based 
balance with flexible use in the U/V Bands, the Commission expects that 
the extent of channel sharing will vary between markets.
a. Commercial and Noncommercial Educational Stations
    16. The Commission seeks comment on whether commercial and 
noncommercial educational (NCE) stations should be permitted to share a 
single television channel. NCE television stations operate on special 
reserved channels and are prohibited from airing commercial material. 
The Commission contemplates that stations that share a channel will 
continue to be licensed and operated separately, although they will be 
sharing a single transmitting facility. Therefore, there would be no 
overlap of programming between a commercial and NCE station. However, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether a commercial station should be 
permitted to operate on a shared channel reserved for NCE use. The 
Commission seeks to determine how the new ``shared'' channel might be 
partitioned or designated to preserve the NCE status while allowing the 
channel to be shared by a non-NCE entity.
b. Consideration of Service Losses
    17. The Commission seeks comment on whether to require that a 
certain level of television service be preserved in the shared channel 
environment. Specifically, it seeks comment on whether the Commission 
should consider any prospective loss of television service when 
determining whether to permit stations to make the modifications to 
their transmission facilities necessary to achieve channel sharing. 
Since stations sharing a single television channel must operate from a 
single transmission facility, changes to one or more of the stations' 
existing facilities will be necessary for sharing to occur. Such 
changes could result in a loss of television service to some persons 
presently able to receive over-the-air signal from one or more of the 
stations, and could also result in gains to television service.
    18. The Commission notes that its current policy is to consider 
losses of service on a case-by-case basis, and it seeks comment on 
continuing that policy in the context of channel sharing arrangements. 
Although the Commission historically has viewed any loss of service as 
prima facie inconsistent with the public interest, its policy has been 
to consider and evaluate any counterbalancing factors an applicant may 
present to justify service losses. This balancing process, to determine 
whether the projected loss of service will be outweighed by other 
factors, involves more than a mere comparison of numbers. The 
Commission examines the extent of the loss, and whether any ``white'' 
or ``gray'' loss areas will be created. The Commission defines ``white 
area'' as an area where the population does not receive any over-the-
air television service and ``gray area'' as one where the population 
receives only one over-the-air television service. The Commission may 
also examine whether the loss area is ``underserved,'' i.e., where the 
population receives less than five other existing services. The 
Commission may also examine whether the loss involves specialized 
programming such as that from a network.
    19. In terms of counterbalancing factors, the Commission has 
examined whether gain areas will be created including establishment of 
first television service, second television service, first network 
service, etc. However, the mere fact that total gains exceed losses 
does not, standing alone, constitute an affirmative factor offsetting 
those losses. The Commission may also consider the availability of 
other television services in the loss area as well as whether the 
population which would lose service is outside the station's DMA and is 
predicted to receive the same network programming from a station in 
their home DMA. The Commission seeks comment on whether to consider 
these factors in a similar fashion when evaluating losses that result 
from facility modifications and relocations related to channel sharing.
    20. In weighing the public interest benefits that will result from 
channel sharing, should the Commission consider mitigating 
circumstances such as the percentage of local cable penetration or 
satellite use in the loss area? Should sharing stations be allowed to 
offset otherwise disqualifying service losses by offering to deploy on-
channel Digital Transmission Systems (DTS) or other technical measures 
to restore service to the loss area?
c. Other Issues
    21. In addition to the specific areas set forth in this proceeding, 
the

[[Page 5525]]

Commission seeks comment on other areas of interest with respect to 
channel sharing in conjunction with the recommendations of the Plan. 
For instance, what is the impact of channel sharing on the media 
ownership rules? The Commission contemplates that stations that share a 
channel will continue to be licensed and operated separately, although 
they will be sharing a single transmitting facility. What are the 
implications of channel sharing for the local TV ownership rule, the 
radio/TV cross-ownership rule and the newspaper/broadcast cross-
ownership rule?

Preservation of Must Carry Rights

    22. Full power television broadcast stations, and certain qualified 
low-power television broadcast stations, have a right to carriage on 
cable systems that the Supreme Court has recognized as essential to 
preserving ``the widest possible dissemination of information from 
diverse and antagonistic sources.'' Full power broadcasters have 
similar rights to mandatory carriage on satellite (DBS) systems. The 
rules proposed in this proceeding are designed to ensure that stations 
voluntarily electing to share a channel retain their existing rights to 
mandatory carriage, and the Commission seeks comment on such rules.
    23. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides for the 
mandatory carriage, by cable operators and satellite providers, of 
certain local broadcast signals. The Act and the Commission's 
implementing rules establish slightly different thresholds for 
carriage, depending on whether the station is full power or low-power, 
or commercial or noncommercial, and also depending on whether carriage 
is sought on a cable or DBS system. Stations meeting these thresholds 
are guaranteed carriage of only a single ``primary'' stream of 
programming, and carriage for any additional streams must always be 
negotiated. It is the Commission's intent to adopt a channel sharing 
framework that will neither increase nor decrease the carriage rights 
of any broadcaster on any type of system. The Commission anticipates, 
therefore, that regardless of the number of licensed stations sharing a 
six-megahertz channel, each would continue to have at least one, but 
only one, ``primary'' stream of programming. The Commission seeks 
comment on specific proposals and in general on the rules necessary to 
achieve this result.
    24. Cable Carriage. A full power commercial station is entitled to 
carriage on a cable system when it is ``licensed and operating on a 
channel regularly assigned to its community by the Commission,'' and 
that community is within the same DMA as the cable system. A qualified 
noncommercial educational station (``NCE''), on the other hand, can be 
considered ``local,'' and eligible for mandatory carriage on a cable 
system, in one of two ways. It may either be licensed to a principal 
community within 50 miles of the system's headend, or the system's 
headend is within the station's noise limited signal contour (NLSC). 
Under very narrow circumstances, certain low-power broadcasters can 
also become ``qualified'' and eligible for must carry. Among the 
several requirements for reaching ``qualified'' status with respect to 
a particular cable operator, the low-power station must be ``located no 
more than 35 miles from the cable system's headend.''
    25. DBS Carriage. A full power station is entitled to request 
carriage by a DBS provider any time that provider relies on the 
statutory copyright license to retransmit the signal of any other 
``local'' full power station (i.e., one located in the same DMA). The 
standards are the same for both commercial and noncommercial 
broadcasters, and low-power broadcasters do not have DBS carriage 
rights.
    26. Carriage of Shared Signals. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether the procedures proposed herein would ensure that a television 
station operating on a shared channel would continue to be:
     ``Licensed and operating on a channel regularly assigned 
to its community by the Commission (for purposes of cable carriage of a 
commercial station)'';
     Licensed to a specific ``principal community'' or 
configured with technical facilities that have an NLSC that encompasses 
the cable system's principal headend (for purposes of cable carriage of 
a non-commercial station); and
     ``Located within'' a designated market area (for purposes 
of DBS carriage of commercial and noncommercial stations).
    27. NCE Issues. The Commission seeks comment on whether an NCE 
television station sharing a channel with a commercial television 
station could affect the NCE station's continued eligibility for 
carriage. This is particularly relevant in the cable context, because, 
as discussed, commercial stations and NCEs must meet different criteria 
in order to be eligible for mandatory carriage. Because the Commission 
anticipates that sharing stations would continue to be licensed and 
operated separately, it does not anticipate that an NCE television 
station would lose its NCE status or eligibility by sharing a channel 
with a commercial station. The Commission seeks comment on this issue.
    28. Technical Issues. The Commission also seeks comment on whether 
a station sharing a channel with one or more other stations, or the 
redesignation of a given 6 MHz channel as a ``shared'' channel, would 
affect the stations' ability to request local carriage on cable and DBS 
systems serving subscribers within the stations' market. Are there any 
unique aspects of channel sharing that could prevent a broadcaster, of 
any type, from achieving the necessary thresholds for mandatory 
carriage on any cable or DBS system on which it is currently carried? 
Cable and DBS systems are currently receiving the full 6 MHz signal 
from broadcasters but only carrying certain streams; would there be any 
technical differences, from the carrier's perspective, if two or more 
of these streams on a shared channel were the ``primary'' streams of 
different, individually licensed stations? Are there other technical 
issues that would be unique to a sharing scenario?
    29. Differing Elections. Even if a commercial station meets the 
threshold for carriage, it may elect to pursue retransmission consent 
agreements with one or more MVPDs. When a station has made such an 
election, it may not be carried by the MVPD without its consent. The 
Commission seeks comment on how stations' carriage rights would be 
affected if one sharing station elects retransmission consent and the 
other elects must carry. The Commission anticipates that each station 
operating on a shared channel will be licensed and operated as a 
totally distinct entity with its own ``primary'' stream of programming, 
and that the sharing of a channel would not affect a sharing station's 
carriage election options or rights. The Commission seeks comment on 
this issue, particularly any technical implications for carrying one 
stream of a broadcast channel while not carrying another.
    30. Shared signal issues. There are certain essential issues 
inherent to sharing a channel that we expect will be resolved by 
stations sharing a channel. For example, in addition to the threshold 
requirements discussed earlier, local stations are only eligible for 
mandatory carriage if they provide a ``good quality signal'' of at 
least -61 dBm to the cable or satellite provider. Failure to provide 
this signal level would therefore affect the carriage rights of all 
stations using the same channel. The Commission anticipates that 
stations will make any necessary

[[Page 5526]]

changes to their proposed shared transmission facility to ensure 
continued carriage for sharing stations. The Commission seeks comment 
on what those changes might be, and, in general, what matters must be 
resolved by the stations themselves to ensure the success of channel 
sharing.
    31. New Stations. Currently, licensees of newly operating stations 
that are otherwise qualified local stations may seek mandatory carriage 
of such stations, even outside of the standard election cycle. If the 
Commission permits new stations, or permittees with unbuilt stations, 
to operate on shared channels, will any revisions to its rules be in 
order to ensure that they are eligible to seek mandatory carriage as 
new stations after they commence broadcasting? The Commission seeks 
comment on this issue.
    32. Low-power Stations. The Commission is considering allowing 
LPTV, Class A, and translator stations to operate on shared channels, 
both among themselves and with full power stations. If it does permit 
low-power stations to operate on shared channels, the Commission is 
also proposing to provide that currently qualified low-power stations 
retain their eligibility for must carry rights, but to create no new 
rights. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. Are there 
other issues that should be considered with regard to allowing low 
power stations to channel share?
    33. Other Carriage Issues. There are a number of other issues that 
may be relevant to the mandatory carriage of shared signals. For 
instance, if, as proposed, one stream of each individually licensed 
station on a single 6 MHz channel will be ``primary'' for purposes of 
must carry rights, should sharing broadcasters have any special 
obligation to identify the ``primary'' signals at the time they elect 
carriage? Given the variety of questions that may have some bearing on 
the development of these rules, the Commission seeks comment on any 
additional issues pertaining to the mandatory carriage of shared 
broadcast signals, including those not specifically raised in this 
NPRM.

Improving Reception of VHF TV Service

    34. Recognizing that UHF spectrum is highly desirable for flexible 
use, the Commission is interested in exploring the steps needed to 
increase the utility of VHF spectrum for television broadcasts. VHF 
channels have certain characteristics that have posed challenges for 
their use in providing digital television service. In particular, the 
propagation characteristics of these channels allow undesired signals 
and noise to be receivable at relatively farther distances, nearby 
electrical devices tends to emit noise in this band that can cause 
interference, and reception of VHF signals requires physically larger 
antennas that are generally not well suited to the mobile applications 
expected under flexible use, relative to UHF channels. The Commission 
recognizes that television broadcasters have had some difficulty in 
ensuring consistent reception of VHF signals, and it seeks comment 
through this NPRM on technical changes to the Commission's rules, 
broadcast transmission equipment, or television receiver technology 
that would improve the performance of VHF channels for television 
broadcasts, including the costs and benefits associated with such 
changes. The Commission's intent is to treat stakeholders in a fair and 
equitable manner through procedures established in later actions.
    35. Solutions for VHF Reception Challenges. It is plain from the 
channel choices being made by broadcasters that reception issues are 
posing problems for use of the VHF channels. The Commission is 
therefore seeking solutions to the VHF digital TV reception 
difficulties. In this regard, it is considering changes to the DTV 
operating rules to mitigate or overcome these challenges. The 
Commission also intends to consider other solutions, including the 
possibility of indoor antenna performances standards, to make the VHF 
channels more useful to broadcasters. The Commission also noted that it 
has seen no indications that there are issues with the performance of 
television receivers, either traditional models with display screens or 
stand-alone set-top tuners, in receiving VHF channels.
    36. VHF Band Noise/Power Increases. One of the problems with indoor 
VHF reception is noise from nearby (typically in the same room) 
consumer electronics equipment. While it would be desirable to reduce 
that noise, the rules limiting spurious emissions from unintentional 
radiators have been crafted to provide protection of licensed services 
while allowing production of economically viable devices. Further, any 
more stringent emissions limits the Commission might impose would not 
reduce emissions from existing products, nor would such limits reduce 
noise from incidental emitters (electric motors, switches, etc.), 
atmospheric disturbances and long range propagation effects that occur 
in the VHF bands (the latter especially at the low-VHF channels). Thus, 
at least at this time, the Commission does not believe it would be 
fruitful to attempt to reduce the permitted level of noise in the VHF 
bands. The Commission requests comment on whether there are actions it 
might take to reduce noise levels in the VHF bands used by the 
television service.
    37. The other approach to overcoming noise is to increase the 
signal-to-noise ratio (S/N ratio) by raising the transmitted power, 
i.e., effective radiated power (ERP). A number of stations operating on 
high-VHF channels have already improved their service by increasing 
their transmitted power. Those stations received special temporary 
authorizations from the Commission for power increases that exceed the 
existing maximum power limits. In each of these cases, either the power 
increase does not cause increased interference to other stations or the 
station licensee has negotiated with another station to accept some 
minimum level of new interference. While the Commission is cognizant of 
the views regarding the limited expectations from power increases 
expressed at the Broadcast Engineers' Forum, the Commission nonetheless 
believes that, as demonstrated by the stations that have already 
increased their transmitted power, such increases can provide some 
level of improvement in reception of VHF television service. The 
Commission therefore believes it may be desirable to amend its rules to 
increase the maximum allowed ERP for VHF stations at least in Zone I, 
where the current maximum power levels are relatively low. The 
Commission is specifically proposing to raise the maximum allowed ERP 
for low-VHF stations in Zones I to 40 kW and for high-VHF stations in 
Zone I to 120 kW if the station's antenna height above average terrain 
is 305 meters or less. At antenna heights above 305 meters, the maximum 
power for both low-VHF and high-VHF stations would be lower in 
accordance with the table in the proposed rules in Appendix A. This 
proposal would effectively increase the maximum power for low-VHF and 
high-VHF stations in Zone I by 6 dB, a level consistent with that 
indicated as achievable by the VHF Reception Panel. The Commission does 
not propose to raise the maximum power limits for VHF stations in Zones 
II and III, as the existing limits still afford those stations the 
ability to provide stronger signals indoors to consumers who view their 
signals at locations close to their transmitters. The proposed new 
maximum power limits for VHF stations would allow such stations to 
provide signal strengths to areas close to their

[[Page 5527]]

transmitters, i.e., generally their principle community areas, that are 
higher by an amount that would help to compensate for some of the 
higher noise levels that tend to be present where consumers use indoor 
antennas.
    38. Stations requesting power increases under the proposed new 
limits would be required to afford protection to other full power 
television stations from new interference under the existing regime of 
desired-to-undesired (D/U) signals limits. The Commission believes such 
an increase would allow many VHF stations experiencing difficulties in 
reaching viewers indoors to raise their signal levels by a reasonable 
level to overcome localized noise indoors, consistent with maintaining 
the approximate range of service provided by the existing maximum power 
limits. It does, however, recognize that higher power operation would 
increase the service range of VHF stations by as much at 14 km (9 
miles). The Commission stated that is intention is not generally to 
extend the service range of these stations, as such expansions can to 
some degree limit the potential for introduction of new stations and 
changes by other co-channel and first-adjacent channel stations by 
enlarging the service area that must be protected. Nonetheless, it 
believes the interests of making the VHF channels more useful to 
stations and consumers outweigh these concerns about limiting 
opportunities of other stations. The Commission requests comment on 
this proposal and suggestions for alternative approaches, including 
both power limits and protection of service. In this regard, any 
increases in VHF power under this proposal by existing stations and new 
stations that are located within 300 kilometers (183 miles) of our 
border with Canada or within 400 kilometers (248.5 miles) of our border 
with Mexico will need to be coordinated with the appropriate foreign 
administration.
    39. The Commission also observes that the provisions governing 
transmission of television signals in Sec. Sec.  73.682(a)(14) and 
73.625(c) of the rules specify that it shall be standard to employ 
horizontal polarization. The ERP of a television station is therefore 
considered to be that of its horizontally polarized component. However, 
Sec.  73.682(a)(14) also provides that circular or elliptical 
polarization may be employed and that, in such cases, transmission of 
the horizontal and vertical components in time and space quadrature 
shall be used. Where such polarizations are used, the ERP of the 
vertically polarized component may not exceed the ERP of the 
horizontally polarized component. Stations therefore could achieve an 
increase in signal levels at indoor locations of perhaps 3 dB by using 
circular polarization. This step could also be combined with an 
increase in ERP (horizontal ERP) under the proposal to allow higher VHF 
maximum power levels. We encourage stations to make use of the option 
to use increased power under the vertical polarization provisions as a 
means to improve reception of their signals by indoor viewers.
    40. A collateral issue that arises in the context of consideration 
of increases in the power limits for digital television stations on VHF 
channels is whether the Commission should also increase the minimum 
distance requirements for new, post-transition VHF channel allotments 
with regard to other stations or channel allotments on the same and 
first-adjacent channels, as specified in Sec. Sec.  73.616 and 
73.623(d) of the rules. Stations on new allotments that operate at the 
proposed new power limits and are at or close to the current minimum 
distances with regard to other stations could cause more interference 
to such stations (and vice versa) than would occur under the current 
power limits. Increasing those distances would resolve the interference 
concerns but would also tend to limit opportunities or new stations or 
for stations desiring to change channels (which necessitates modifying 
the allotment on which they operate). The Commission generally believes 
it would be desirable to maintain the current distance standards for 
new and changed allotments in order to avoid further limiting 
opportunities for new allotments. The Commission therefore is not 
proposing to change the minimum distance requirements for new and 
modified allotments.
    41. In taking this approach, the Commission observes that the rules 
require a station that operates on a new allotment that meets the 
distance standards to protect other co-channel and adjacent channel 
stations from new interference in accordance with the desired-to-
undesired (D/U) ratio interference protection criteria in Sec.  
73.616(e). In describing the services to be protected, this paragraph 
provides that ``[f]or this purpose, the population served by the 
station receiving additional interference does not include portions of 
the population within the noise-limited service contour of that station 
that are predicted to receive interference from the post-transition DTV 
allotment facilities of the applicant * * *'' The rules are not 
specific, however, as to the post-transition DTV allotment facilities 
of the applicant, that is, the facilities that a station would be 
allowed under the allotment without concern for new interference. The 
Commission proposes to amend Sec.  73.616(e) to clarify that the post-
transition DTV allotment facilities are the maximum facilities allowed 
currently under Sec.  73.622(f). Thus, an applicant for a new station 
would be allowed to operate up to the current maximum facilities of ERP 
and antenna height on a new allotment that meets the distance 
requirements.
    42. A station on a new allotment could also operate with facilities 
that exceed the post-transition allotment facilities if such operation 
would not cause new interference to other stations as defined under 
Sec.  73.616(e). In addition, a licensee could apply to operate a 
station on a new allotment at facilities that exceed the post-
transition allotment facilities (up to the proposed new limits) and 
could possibly cause new interference to another station by taking 
steps to avoid such interference. Such steps could include use of a 
directional antenna and/or location of the station's transmitter at a 
site that is different from the site of the allotment (such sites are 
generally farther from any stations that would otherwise receive 
interference). The Commission requests comment on its plan to maintain 
the existing distance requirements as it increases the maximum allowed 
power for digital TV stations on VHF channels and on whether it should 
alternatively increase the minimum distance requirements to match the 
changes in the power limits. The Commission also asks parties that 
advocate that it increase the minimum distance requirements to submit 
suggestions for new minimum distance standards.
    43. Indoor Antennas. The antenna used to receive signals is a 
critical element in the television service path. The antenna component 
of a TV receive system (which consists of an antenna, connecting cable 
and receiver) should be able to pick up as much of the available signal 
energy as possible. If an antenna has a very low ability to receive 
signals or if the level of the desired signal is low, reception may not 
be possible. In view of the observed poor high-VHF reception 
capabilities of the majority of the indoor antennas examined in two 
studies by Meintel, Sgrignoli and Wallace and the FCC Laboratory 
mentioned in the NPRM and the likelihood that the low-VHF performance 
of those antennas is even poorer, the Commission intends to consider 
establishing standards to ensure that indoor antennas are effective for 
low-VHF channel reception. While the Commission has not regulated these

[[Page 5528]]

products previously, it believes that it has authority to set standards 
to ensure that the performance of indoor antennas is adequate to allow 
reception of low-VHF channels by TV receive systems under the All 
Channel Receiver Act, which is codified in section 303(s) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended. In this regard, section 303(s) 
specifically provides that the Commission shall ``[h]ave authority to 
require that apparatus designed to receive television pictures 
broadcast simultaneously with sound be capable of adequately receiving 
all frequencies allocated by the Commission to television broadcasting 
* * *'' Because an antenna capable of adequately picking up low-VHF 
channels is necessary to allow all-channel reception of over-the-air 
broadcast signals, the Commission believes that the standards proposed 
would further its section 303(s) mandate. The Commission requests 
comment on its authority to establish standards for the ability of 
indoor antennas to receive all of the channels allocated for television 
service.
    44. The Commission request comment, information and suggestions 
regarding the need for, and desirability of, standards for indoor 
antennas. The Commission is specifically proposing to require that 
indoor antennas comply with the industry set standards in ANSI/CEA-
2032-A, ``Indoor TV Receiving Antenna Performance Standard,'' February 
2009. The ANSI/CEA-2032-A standard defines test and measurement 
procedures for determining the performance of indoor TV receiving 
antennas. Section 3.2.2 of this standard provides that to meet the 
standard, an antenna must have measured gain that exceeds:
     -12 dBd on all CEA test channels 2, 4, and 6 in the VHF 
low band
     -8 dBd on all CEA test channels 7, 9, 11 and 13 in the VHF 
high band and
     -8 dBd on all CEA test channels contained in the UHF band 
(channels 14-[51])
    ANSI/CEA-2032-A further specifies that the test procedures in CEA-
744-B are to be employed to measure the antenna performance. It also 
provides standards for active (amplified) antennas, including gain, 
intermodulation and spurious emission. Further, ANSI/CEA-2032-A 
provides for labeling antenna packaging and antennas to indicate the 
channels or bands of channels for which the antenna meets the specified 
technical requirements. The Commission observes that the high-VHF and 
UHF performance levels under this industry-developed standard are well 
within the capabilities of the antennas tested in the MSW and FCC 
Laboratory studies of indoor antennas. Under this proposal, all indoor 
television antennas would be required to meet the ANSI/CEA-2032-A 
standards for reception of low-VHF, high-VHF and UHF signals. In 
addition, to ensure compliance with these standards indoor antennas 
would be subject to the Commission's ``verification'' equipment 
procedure in part 2 of the rules. This would promote the Commission's 
objective of improving indoor reception in the VHF bands and well as 
ensure that indoor antennas are able to adequately receive UHF signals. 
Antennas that are built-in to, or designed for use with, specific 
devices such as portable television receivers, dongles, laptop 
computers, and similar TV reception equipment would not be subject to 
this requirement. Given the findings of the antenna studies by MSW and 
its Laboratory staff the Commission believes that the performance 
levels set forth in ANSI/CEA-2032-A are well within the capabilities of 
currently available consumer grade television receive antennas.
    45. The Commission requests comment on whether the ANSI/CEA-2032-A 
performance standards are sufficient to ensure adequate reception of 
digital television signals at most indoor locations and whether the 
CEA-744-B measurement procedures are appropriate for determining 
compliance. The Commission also asks whether there might be other 
standards or measurement methods that might be more appropriate. Its 
intent is to ensure that consumers are able to achieve indoor reception 
of digital television signals, and especially of VHF signals, that are 
comparable to indoor reception of the signals of the former analog 
television system. The Commission also asks for comment an alternative 
approach under which it would require only that manufacturers measure 
indoor antennas using the CEA-744-B test procedure and comply with the 
labeling requirements of ANSI/CEA-2032-A. Under that approach, antennas 
would also be subject to the Commission's verification equipment 
authorization procedure. The Commission invites interested parties to 
submit comment, information and suggestions for alternative standards 
regarding all aspects of the indoor antenna issue.
    46. Other Approaches/Solutions for Improving Reception of VHF TV 
Services. In addition to power increases for VHF band stations and 
standards for indoor antennas, the Commission also intends to consider 
additional options for improving television service in the VHF bands. 
Interested parties are invited to submit ideas and suggestions for 
additional measures we could take to improve reception of television 
signals on VHF channels. The Commission requests that parties submit 
materials information and analyses describing conditions and phenomenon 
that contribute to VHF reception difficulties and ideas for overcoming 
or mitigating them.

Procedural Matters

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    47. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\1\ the 
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small 
entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed 
Rule Making (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 specified on the first page of this NPRM. The 
Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., has 
been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, 
Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the 
CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA).
    \2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
    48. In this NPRM the Commission is initiating a process to address 
America's growing demand for wireless broadband services, spur ongoing 
innovation and investment in mobile and ensure that America keeps pace 
with the global wireless revolution, by making a significant amount of 
new spectrum available for broadband. Through this NPRM, we take 
preliminary steps to repurpose a portion of the UHF and VHF frequency 
bands that are currently used by the broadcast television service, 
which in later actions we expect to make available for flexible use by 
fixed and mobile wireless communications services, including mobile 
broadband. This approach is consistent with the National Broadband Plan 
(the ``Plan'') \3\ recommendation to repurpose 120 megahertz from the 
broadcast television

[[Page 5529]]

bands for new wireless broadband uses through revising (repacking) the 
channel assignments of TV stations and voluntary contributions of 
spectrum to an incentive auction. Reallocation of this spectrum as 
proposed will provide the Commission flexibility in providing 
additional spectrum resources for meeting the needs of these new 
applications. At the same time, we recognize that over-the-air TV 
serves important public interests, and our approach will help preserve 
this service as a healthy, viable medium. We remain mindful of the 
informational and entertainment benefits broadcast television provides 
the public, and our goal is to provide additional options for broadcast 
licensees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, Federal 
Communications Commission, Washington, DC (March 2010); available at 
https://www.broadband.gov/plan/. The Plan was developed by the 
Commission pursuant to the direction of Congress in the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), see American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 
115 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Legal Basis
    49. The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 301, 
302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r),of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
    50. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\4\ The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' \5\ In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act.\6\ A small business concern is one which: 
(1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its 
field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the SBA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    51. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images 
together with sound. These establishments operate television 
broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and 
transmission of programs to the public.'' \8\ The SBA has created the 
following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting 
firms: Those having $14 million or less in annual receipts.\9\ The 
Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television 
stations to be 1,395.\10\ In addition, 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 1,395 
commercial television stations (or approximately 72 percent) had 
revenues of $13 million or less.\11\ We therefore estimate that the 
majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, ``515120 
Television Broadcasting'' (partial definition); https://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND515120.HTM#N515120.
    \9\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515120 (updated for inflation in 
2008).
    \10\ See FCC News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of June 
30, 2009,'' dated September 4, 2009; https://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2008/db0318/DOC-280836A1.pdf.
    \11\ We recognize that BIA's estimate differs slightly from the 
FCC total given supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern 
qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) 
affiliations \12\ 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. In addition, 
an element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity 
not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time 
to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a 
specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. 
Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply 
does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small 
business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that 
extent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    53. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of 
licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 
390.\13\ These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be 
small entities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See FCC News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of June 
30, 2009,'' dated September 4, 2009; https://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2008/db0318/DOC-280836A1.pdf.
    \14\ See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    54. In addition, there are also 2,386 low power television stati