Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau Adopt a Post-Incentive Auction Transition Scheduling Plan, 11106-11125 [2017-03368]
Download as PDF
11106
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[GN Docket No. 12–268, MB Docket No. 16–
306; DA 17–107]
Incentive Auction Task Force and
Media Bureau Adopt a Post-Incentive
Auction Transition Scheduling Plan
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Media
Bureau, in consultation with the
Incentive Auction Task Force, the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
and the Office of Engineering and
Technology, adopts a methodology to
establish construction deadlines and
transitions schedule for full power and
Class A television stations that are
transitioning to new channels following
the incentive auction.
DATES: Effective March 20, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Evan Morris, Video Division, Media
Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, (202) 418–1656 or Erin
Griffith, Incentive Auction Task Force,
Federal Communications Commission,
(202) 418–2957.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s
document, DA 17–107, in GN Docket
No. 12–268 and MB Docket No. 16–306;
released on January 27, 2017. The full
text of this document, as well as all
omitted Illustrations, Figures and Tables
are available on the Internet at the
Commission’s Web site at: https://
transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_
Business/2017/db0127/DA-17107A1.pdf; or by using the search
function for GN Docket No. 12–268, MB
Docket No. 16–306 on the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS) Web page at https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The full text is also
available for public inspection and
copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Eastern Time (ET) Monday through
Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference
Information Center, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554
(telephone: 202–418–0270, TTY: 202–
418–2555). To request materials in
accessible formats for people with
disabilities, send an email to FCC504@
fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–
418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY).
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
Synopsis
In the Incentive Auction Report and
Order (IA R&O), 79 FR 48441, August
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
15, 2014, the Federal Communications
Commission (Commission or FCC)
delegated authority to the Media Bureau
(the Bureau) to establish construction
deadlines within the 39-month postauction transition period for television
stations that are assigned to new
channels in the incentive auction
repacking process. In consultation with
the Incentive Auction Task Force
(IATF), the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB),
and the Office of Engineering and
Technology (OET), the Bureau proposed
a methodology for establishing
deadlines within a ‘‘phased’’ transition
schedule in the Transition Scheduling
Proposal Public Notice. Commenters
generally expressed support for the
proposal, with some suggested
modifications and additional measures
to facilitate the transition. Based on the
record in this proceeding, the Bureau
adopts, with modifications, the phased
transition plan proposed in the
Transition Scheduling Proposal Public
Notice, including use of the Phase
Assignment Tool and the Phase
Scheduling Tool. Most commenters
support efforts to establish a phased
transition process and the use of the
tools developed to plan and create an
orderly schedule. This methodology
will be used after final channel
reassignments are known in order to
establish an orderly schedule that will
allow stations, manufacturers, and other
vendors and consultants, to coordinate
broadcasters’ post-auction channel
changes. This Public Notice also
addresses other matters related to the
transition scheduling plan that
commenters raised in response to the
Transition Scheduling Proposal Public
Notice.
Creating the Phased Transition
Schedule. Phase Assignment Tool. As
soon as possible after the forward
auction satisfies the final stage rule and
the final channel assignments are
determined, the Bureau will use the
Phase Assignment Tool to assign a
transition phase to each eligible full
power and Class A television station
that receives a new post-auction
channel as a result of the final channel
assignment determination procedure.
The Bureau has announced that it
intends to send each eligible station that
will remain on the air after the auction
a confidential letter after the final stage
rule is met that identifies the station’s
post-auction channel assignment,
technical parameters, and assigned
transition phase. We find that
developing the final channel
assignments and providing the
information to affected stations as early
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
as possible after the final stage rule is
reached will facilitate early planning
and provide additional time for stations
to prepare construction permit
applications.
We conclude that the information
used to create the transition schedule is
sufficiently detailed and reliable to
establish phased transition deadlines
once the final channel reassignments
have been established. Launching an
organized, phased schedule at the
earliest opportunity will provide
broadcasters, equipment manufacturers
and other vendors and consultants,
wireless providers, and television
viewers with certainty and stability.
This is particularly important as
broadcasters prepare their construction
permit applications, coordinate with
other broadcasters, and begin
construction planning. We understand
that unforeseen circumstances may
arise, and the Bureau will work closely
with individual broadcasters, as well as
broadcaster associations, during the
transition process. However, we
conclude that assigning stations to
transition phases as soon as possible is
necessary to carry out the transition in
a timely manner.
We also decline suggestions to collect
additional or different information
about stations that face difficult
approval processes or procurement
issues prior to assigning stations to
phases. The Phase Assignment Tool
already includes a constraint identifying
certain stations as ‘‘complicated’’ based
on data collected by the Bureau.
Commenters who advocated additional
data collection did not identify a source
of additional or different data, or
explain how the Phase Assignment Tool
should take such information into
account. Furthermore, we emphasize
that the obstacles faced by individual
stations are not the only factor that the
Phase Assignment Tool must consider.
Regardless of the difficulty of any one
station’s move, certain stations must
move together in the same phase or
certain stations must move in one phase
before additional stations can move in a
subsequent phase because of station
dependencies created by interference
constraints. The Phase Assignment Tool
is designed to organize the transition of
all transitioning broadcast stations in an
orderly fashion that respects station
dependencies and interference
constraints in addition to accounting for
individual stations complexities, while
simultaneously protecting television
viewers. The Phase Assignment Tool as
proposed strikes the appropriate balance
with respect to these elements.
The constraints and objectives we
adopt will minimize dependencies
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
created by interference issues, ensure
that the 600 MHz Band is cleared as
expeditiously as possible, cluster groups
of stations into the same phase to help
manage scarce transition resources, and
minimize the impact of the transition on
television viewers. Solutions identified
by the Phase Assignment Tool—that is,
assignments of stations to phases—must
satisfy all constraints. Of the many
possible solutions that meet all the
constraints, the tool will use
optimization techniques to then select
the one that best meets the defined
objectives. Each objective is
implemented in order of priority. Thus,
the higher the objective’s priority, the
greater its potential impact on the
solution. We note that a few
commenters specifically requested to be
assigned to later phases or in the same
phase. We deny such requests. The
Phase Assignment Tool uses a holistic
approach to assigning stations to phases
that balances competing priorities and it
is not practical to factor such requests
into the optimization.
Constraints. The Bureau adopts eight
of the constraints proposed in the
Transition Scheduling Proposal Public
Notice. The constraints are discussed
below. Commenters generally support
these constraints, as well as the
constraints indicating that the tool
would not assign stations to temporary
channels, and we discuss each one
below.
In addition to the eight constraints
adopted below, the Transition
Scheduling Proposal Public Notice
proposed as constraints that no
Canadian or U.S. station would be
assigned to a temporary channel.
Although temporary channels could be
useful for breaking dependencies, the
overwhelming number of commenters
agreed with the Bureau’s tentative
conclusion not to use temporary
channels and argued that the use of
temporary channels should be
permitted, but not required. Therefore,
we will not assign any station to a
temporary channel as part of the Phase
Assignment Tool. While the restriction
on temporary channels was included as
a constraint in the proposal, it is
unnecessary to include this restriction
as a constraint in the final tool as the
tool will not assign stations to
temporary channels even absent such a
constraint. As discussed below we will
allow stations to voluntarily seek the
use of a temporary channel.
Constraint 1. During the postincentive auction transition, we will
allow temporary increased pairwise
(station-to-station) interference of up to
two percent. As we previously stated,
temporary pairwise interference
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
increases of up to two percent could
occur at any time during the transition
on a station’s pre-auction and/or postauction channels. This constraint is
likely to significantly reduce
dependencies between stations. The
Commission has in the past allowed
temporary increases in interference to
broadcasters in order to facilitate
transitions to new service. Nothing in
the Spectrum Act limits the Bureau’s
authority to permit temporary pairwise
interference of up to two percent in
order to facilitate the transition to postauction channels.
In the Transition Scheduling Proposal
Public Notice, we explained that limited
increases in pairwise interference were
unlikely to result in significant
aggregate interference increases based
on staff analysis, which reflects that
aggregate interference levels are
unlikely to exceed the pairwise limits
except for a few cases. However, the
Bureau will attempt to find an
alternative phase assignment for any
station predicted to receive more than
five percent temporary aggregate
interference, consistent with the
constraints and objectives of the Phase
Assignment Tool.
Constraints 2 and 3. No Canadian
station will be assigned to a transition
phase before the third phase. This
constraint was developed in
consultation with Canada. Additionally
we will limit the number of transition
phases to 10.
Constraint 4. To minimize consumer
disruption during the 39-month
transition period, and to promote the
efficient use of tower crews, all stations
within a DMA will be assigned to no
more than two transition phases. This
constraint alleviates concerns that
viewers will need to complete frequent
rescans during the transition. Broadcast
commenters put forward a variety of
proposals to modify this constraint, but
none describe how their respective
proposals would affect the overall phase
assignments. One commenter proposes
that the Commission modify this
constraint to a single transition phase in
each market. Another commenter
supports the two-phase constraint, but
urges the Bureau to require that the two
phases occur ‘‘back-to-back.’’ Likewise,
two other commenters suggest that all
stations located on the same tower
should be assigned to the same
transition phase, or that the Commission
should limit the number of stations that
any one broadcast group has in a given
phase. We reject these proposals. Staff
analysis reflects that assigning stations
within a DMA to two, potentially
nonconsecutive phases, is crucial in
providing the optimization with the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11107
flexibility to satisfy other constraints,
such as limiting the number of linked
stations per phase and keeping a
relatively consistent number of stations
assigned to each phase. The
commenters’ proposals would threaten
the Phase Assignment Tool’s ability to
balance such competing goals.
At the same time, we agree with
broadcasters that minimizing viewer
disruption and efficiently clearing
DMAs are important public interest
goals. Accordingly, we adopt below the
second objective of ‘‘minimiz[ing] the
sum, over all DMAs, of the number of
times a DMA must rescan.’’ If it is
possible to satisfy the optimization’s
constraints and its first objective, and
still assign stations to only one DMA,
the optimization will attempt to do so
using the second objective. We find that
this approach gives the optimization the
flexibility to balance competing
priorities, including prioritizing
television viewers and regional clusters.
Constraints 5 and 6. To balance the
number of stations across transition
phases, the difference in the number of
stations in the largest transition phase
and the smallest transition phase will be
no more than 30 stations. One
commenter suggests that the Bureau
treat this constraint as an objective;
however, objectives have less effect on
the solution than constraints and we
find that the benefits of this constraint
cannot be achieved by making it an
objective. While it is true that the actual
makeup of stations within each phase
may require varying draws on resources,
we conclude that this constraint is the
correct approach to ensuring the
number of stations will be spread evenly
throughout the transition phases.
Furthermore, as proposed and adopted
below, the Bureau has an objective that
will attempt to further reduce the
difference in the number of stations in
the largest transition phase and the
smallest transition phase if it can be
accomplished while still satisfying all of
the constraints and the objectives that
come first in priority to that one. Every
transitioning station will also only be
assigned to one transition phase. We
received no comment objecting to this
constraint.
Constraint 7. No transition phase will
have more than 125 linked stations as a
result of the Phase Assignment Tool.
One commenter proposes that the
Bureau should treat this constraint as an
objective. However, the commenter does
not explain what priority such an
objective should be given nor how its
proposal would affect the overall
balancing of the optimization’s
priorities. We decline to treat this
constraint as an objective and find that
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
11108
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
this constraint is the cornerstone of
managing the breadth of coordination
required of any station to complete its
transition.
Constraint 8. No station falling into
the ‘‘complicated’’ category will be
assigned to Phase 1 under the Phase
Assignment Tool. For the purposes of
the Phase Assignment Tool and the
Phase Scheduling Tool, ‘‘complicated’’
stations are those at locations previously
determined as likely to face
extraordinary hurdles. See Auction 1000
Bidding Procedures Public Notice, 80 FR
61917, Oct. 14, 2015 at paras. 265–75;
Application Procedures for Broadcast
Incentive Auction Scheduled to Begin
on March 29, 2016; Technical Formulas
for Competitive Bidding, 30 FCC Rcd
11034, 11176 n.9 (WTB 2015) (‘‘Certain
towers will require extraordinary means
to move a station to a new channel . . .
[S]tations at the following locations in
the U.S. will be considered
extraordinary: Mt. Sutro, Willis Tower,
Hancock Building, Empire State
Building, Times Square, Mount
Mansfield, Lookout Mountain.’’). One
commenter asks the Bureau to clarify
that the least complicated stations will
be assigned to earlier transition phases.
However, phase assignments hinge on
several factors, and in particular must
take into account station dependencies.
For example, a complicated station may
be positioned first in a daisy chain of
interdependent stations, requiring that it
move before all the other stations in that
chain. Additionally, while a less
complicated station with no
dependencies may be able to move
quickly, competing goals such as
ensuring that DMAs transition in a
limited number of phases and balancing
resources across the transition may
dictate later phase assignments for a
specific station. We therefore decline to
adopt the suggestion.
One commenter asks the Bureau to
identify as complicated those structures
that have the additional characteristics
discussed in the Auction 1000 Bidding
Procedures Public Notice. However, for
purposes of the post-auction transition
scheduling plan, we identified certain
locations where stations are likely to
encounter unusually difficult
circumstances when completing their
transitions. Only stations at locations on
this discrete list, which have been
identified as facing extraordinary
hurdles, will be treated as complicated.
As discussed below, however, we note
that the transition schedule is based on
reasonable assumptions about how long
stations—whether they are within the
complicated category or not—will need
to complete their transitions. The
amount of time used to estimate how
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
long stations will need to transition is
based on feedback from the industry
and the Widelity Report. While the time
estimates provided for complicated
stations are consistent with the Widelity
Report Case Study IV, to be even more
conservative, constraint number eight
guarantees that stations identified as
complicated for the purpose of the
Phase Scheduling Tool will have a
minimum of two phases to complete
their transitions since such stations will
not be assigned to the first transition
phase.
We adopt the four objectives and
respective priorities proposed in the
Transition Scheduling Proposal Public
Notice. Specifically, the first objective
will be to assign U.S. stations whose
pre-auction channels are in the 600
MHz Band to earlier phases, while
simultaneously assigning all Canadian
stations and U.S. stations with preauction channels in the remaining
television bands to later phases, where
possible. The second objective is to
minimize the sum, over all DMAs, of the
number of times a DMA must rescan.
The third objective is to minimize the
total number of linked stations. The
fourth objective is to minimize the
difference between the number of
stations in the largest transition phase
and the smallest transition phase.
Commenters generally support these
objectives; however, broadcast
commenters disagree that prioritizing
clearing the 600 MHz Band should be
the first objective. We emphasize that all
phase assignments must satisfy each of
the eight constraints adopted above,
most of which are designed to protect
the interests that the broadcast
commenters appear to believe should be
of primary consideration. As noted,
those constraints will protect broadcast
services and television viewers from
undue pairwise interference, limit the
number of required rescans, minimize
the impact of dependencies and thus the
need for inter-station coordination, and
create an organized phased approach
that spreads the transition across 10
phases. The Commission also tasked the
Bureau with developing a transition
schedule that ‘‘provide[s] certainty to
wireless providers and [is] completed as
expeditiously as possible.’’ We find that
the proposed prioritization of the four
objectives strikes the appropriate
balance and will encourage the
expeditious clearing of the 600 MHz
Band.
One commenter proposes that ‘‘the
two primary objectives be to maximize
the health and safety of tower crews and
the homes and businesses that are in
close proximity to towers and to
minimize service disruptions to viewers
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and users of other services that share
broadcast towers.’’ That commenter has
not explained how we could incorporate
such goals into the mathematical
optimization model and we are unaware
of any mechanism to accomplish the
task. However, we note that the Phase
Scheduling Tool estimates time periods
for construction tasks based on industry
information, and we believe that relying
on such information is reasonable and
will help to promote health and safety.
Phase Scheduling Tool. After the
Phase Assignment Tool assigns stations
to phases, the Bureau will use the Phase
Scheduling Tool to produce an estimate
of the average amount of time, in weeks,
it will take all stations in a phase to
complete their transition. The total
number of estimated weeks for phase 10
is the total time estimate for the postauction transition, based on the Phase
Scheduling Tool’s simulation. In order
to obtain this estimate, the Phase
Scheduling Tool uses the time and
resource estimates to simulate how long
it will take all the stations in each phase
to obtain access to limited resources and
complete their transitions. In the
simulation, a station must complete the
activities in the pre-construction and
construction stages. If a required
resource such as a tower crew is
constrained, stations that require the
resource will obtain access to it
according to a randomly assigned
simulation order. In other words, the
Phase Scheduling Tool creates a random
order within each phase to simulate the
sequence in which stations within each
phase will have access to limited
resources. The output of the tool is the
number of weeks it will take all stations
in a phase to obtain necessary resources
and complete their transition. Because
the number of weeks needed may vary
depending on the simulation order of
the stations in each phase, the Bureau
will run the Phase Scheduling Tool 100
times to generate the average time in
weeks it takes to complete a phase. One
commenter argues that the Bureau
should use the longest timing estimates
for all stations in a phase. We disagree
that the Bureau should always use the
longest timing estimate for all stations
in a phase to set the phase transition
deadline. By generating results for
multiple simulation orders, the Phase
Scheduling Tool produces a range of
estimated completion times for each
phase. Using those ranges as a guide
will provide the staff with the flexibility
it needs to create a reasonable transition
schedule within the 39-month
timeframe. As described below, the
Bureau will use the resulting average of
the estimated time required per phase to
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
guide its determination of the
completion dates for each transition
phase.
Many commenters agree that the
Phase Scheduling Tool is an appropriate
mechanism to guide the Bureau in
setting deadlines for phases, and no
commenter provided an alternative to
the simulation tool. A few commenters
contend that the tool is unrealistic
because broadcasters often use specific
vendors, and the vendors have
preferred-customer relationships and
may manufacture only on a first-comefirst serve basis. These commenters
argue that stations will not line up in a
queue, especially if they risk going dark
if they fail to meet their phase
deadlines. However, the Phase
Scheduling Tool does not mandate that
broadcasters use particular vendors or
access resources in a particular order in
the real world. It is a simulation tool
created to assist the Commission in
setting reasonable deadlines for phases.
Our plan provides flexibility for stations
to make their preferred arrangements by
starting all 10 transition phases at the
same time, so that each station may start
planning for its transition as soon as
possible. Nevertheless, station and
vendor cooperation will be an essential
element of the transition plan and we
urge all industry participants to be
respectful of the overall demands of the
transition on limited resources. We
strongly encourage stations to be
mindful of the overall transition plan
when working with their vendors, and
we note that we will closely monitor the
progress of the transition. Examination
of the record reflects that vendors are
keenly aware of the need to prioritize
projects by phase assignment where
possible and would like stations to
place orders for equipment as early as
possible.
The Pre-Construction Stage will
include (1) the time required for
antenna equipment to be ordered,
manufactured, and delivered and (2) the
time required for all other planning and
administration activities necessary to
prepare for construction. These
categories reflect the type of work that
stations will need to do before they
begin construction on their towers.
Antenna equipment manufacturing
and delivery. In order to account for
limits on antenna manufacturing and
delivery, the Phase Scheduling Tool
uses time estimates to simulate how
long it will take manufacturers to
manufacture and deliver an antenna to
each station. The tool assumes that
auxiliary antenna manufacturing and
delivery will not be a constrained
resource during the transition and that
75 percent of all stations will need to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
install an auxiliary antenna. A few
commenters are concerned that
manufacturers will not be able to meet
the demand for antennas, and
particularly auxiliary antennas, during
the transition. Although several
commenters point out auxiliary
antennas will be a significant means of
helping stations complete timely
transitions, the majority of commenters
contend that the manufacturing and
availability of auxiliary antennas will
not be constrained during the transition.
We find that the model properly reflects
the availability of antennas, including
auxiliary antennas.
Some commenters argue further that
manufacturers will not be able to
maintain or increase manufacturing
capacity throughout the transition.
However, the other commenters argue
that the vendor industry is ramping up
to prepare for the transition.
Additionally, the phased transition
approach is designed to create a steady
stream of work over the course of the
transition, which should allow
manufacturers to keep pace with
demand. On balance, we conclude that
the model accurately reflects the
manufacturing and delivery capabilities
of the vendors throughout the transition.
Administration/Planning. We adopt
the estimates proposed in the Transition
Scheduling Proposal Public Notice for
the Administration/Planning
component of the Pre-Construction
Stage. The Administration/Planning
component includes zoning,
administration, legal work, and preconstruction alterations to tower and
transmitter equipment. One commenter
argues that structural tower
improvements should not be considered
in the Pre-Construction Stage. We
disagree. Stations may start making
structural tower improvements well
before the transition begins in
preparation for the transition and tower
crews will engage tower work during
both the Pre-Construction and
Construction Phase. Another commenter
notes that structural engineers may
become a constrained resource during
the process and that the transition plan
should consider the availability of
structural engineers when setting time
estimates. While structural engineers
will be needed throughout the
transition, we expect that the heaviest
strain on structural engineers will be in
conjunction with the construction
permit application process, and that
structural engineers will not be a
constrained resource during most of the
transition. Commenters generally
express two primary concerns with this
component, first the amount of time it
may take some stations to get through
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11109
zoning and permitting, and second, the
possible procurement issues facing
public broadcast stations.
We acknowledge that local zoning
authorities and entities such as the
FAA, tribal or historic preservation
offices, and municipal authorities will
likely receive requests for approval
during the transition and that these
entities have important roles to play
within their various jurisdictions.
However, we are not persuaded that
these procedural requirements
necessitate increased time estimates. We
conclude that the Widelity case studies
will be sufficient for the majority of
stations, and we are unconvinced that
the time estimates for the transition
schedule should be driven by the worstcase scenarios. The Phase Scheduling
Tool provides conservative estimates for
stations in three categories:
Complicated, DTV, and Class A stations.
This differentiation captures the varying
timelines that the majority of stations in
each group may face during
Administration/Planning activities. We
also note that because all phases will
commence at the same time, stations in
later phases will actually have
significantly more time to complete
their Administration/Planning activities
than the time estimates provided in the
simulation. For example, the Phase
Scheduling Tool estimates that a DTV
station would need 32 weeks to
complete its administrative and
planning activities. A station assigned to
a later phase will have far more than 32
weeks to complete these tasks. The time
estimates in the tool are intended to give
each station the minimum time
necessary to complete these tasks, but
the majority of stations will have more
than the minimum amount of time
provided by the Tool.
Public television entities are
concerned that the adopted timelines do
not adequately take into account the
needs of public broadcast stations, and
they argue that such stations will face
significant hurdles with financing and
procurement. We conclude that the time
estimates for the Administration/
Planning component of the Phase
Scheduling Tool for all stations are
sufficiently conservative. Furthermore,
commenters do not indicate how much
additional time should be allocated to
public stations. Because of the large
number and variety of public stations
and the case-by-case nature of each
station’s transition, we conclude that it
is not reasonable to provide additional
time to all public stations for the
purposes of the Phase Scheduling Tool.
Stations that anticipate these specific
challenges should begin their transition
process as early as possible.
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
11110
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
The Construction Phase will include
(1) the time to complete all general
facets of construction (called
‘‘Construction Related Work’’) and (2)
the time required by tower crews to
install equipment on towers. One
commenter requests clarity on the
definition of ‘‘tower work.,’’ argues that
tower structural modifications and RF
equipment changes should not be
separate as both of these activities will
need to take place sequentially without
any time separation to increase
efficiencies and reduce crew movements
(rigging and de-rigging), and also states
that there are long-lead items for
modifications too, such as guy wires,
which can take from weeks to months
for delivery. We note that the model
does not break tasks down as discretely
as this commenter suggests. However,
the minimum time estimates for
Administration/Planning and
Construction Related Work provides
enough time to complete the
consecutive tasks and time to acquire
the long lead-time equipment. Some
commenters express concern regarding
the time saving estimates for work done
on the same tower, the number and
qualifications of tower crews, and the
impact of weather on construction. We
adopt proposals for the Construction
Phase component as described in the
Transition Scheduling Proposal Public
Notice with slight modifications based
on the comments. Specifically, we
adjust the time required to complete the
work on towers having antennas for
multiple stations. In addition, although
the proposed time estimates are
conservative and should provide
enough to time for stations to complete
their transitions without separately
considering the issue of weather, in
response to comments the Bureau will
specifically consider the possibility of
major weather-related delays when it
assigns completion dates to each phase.
Tower work. Several commenters
argue that the model overestimates the
amount of time-savings that can be
achieved by performing multiple
installations on the same tower in a
single, multi-station job. We find these
arguments have merit. Accordingly, we
modify our proposed approach to
assume that construction on a tower
will commence when the first station on
that tower is ready to begin its
construction work and the total time to
complete all construction for all stations
on that tower is equal to (a) the time
required for the most difficult station
(we assign this time to the first station)
plus (b) the sum of the time estimates
for all stations other than this first
station, multiplied by 50 percent. This
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
revised approach addresses the
concerns identified by the commenters.
One commenter states that allowing
only one week for a tower crew to
install an auxiliary antenna is likely to
be insufficient. On the other hand,
another commenter identified that only
three to four 3–5 additional days for this
task. Based on the record we conclude
that, as a general rule, one week is
insufficient. A commenter proposes that
the model should take into account
special problems and timing needs of
broadcasters that operate from ‘‘fullyloaded towers.’’ While we agree that
fully-loaded (or close to fully-loaded)
towers present some unique challenges,
most such towers can be identified now
and we expect stations on such towers
can take mitigating steps now to work
around this issue. Another commenter
expresses concern that temporary
antennas may not be able to solve the
problem of fully-loaded towers. We note
that while a tower may be fully-loaded
today, it is possible that after the
incentive auction, a tower may have
additional capacity as the result of a
station going off-air in the auction.
Additionally, stations may have options
beyond auxiliary facilities to help
facilitate their transitions, and the
Bureau is open to assisting stations with
creative solutions that do not
compromise the overall transition plan.
We find that the tool provides
estimates intended to account for the
ordinary time necessary to complete
various tasks. It does not attempt to
assess the specific time for each and
every individual hypothetical scenario
available, and it would not be possible
for any scheduling tool to do so
accurately. However, in response to the
comments concerning potential
coordination with other services (e.g.,
FM radio or cellular providers)
operating on the same tower as the
reassigned station, as noted, we have
modified the tool to substantially reduce
the ‘same tower discount’ in order to
account for the additional coordination
that will be required. This reduced
discount will more conservatively
estimate the total tower work times to
account for not only other television
broadcasters but also other broadcast
and non-broadcast facilities on the
tower.
Crew availability and training.
Commenters disagree about whether the
Construction Phase tower crew
estimates are reasonable. The
Commission received varying estimates
for the number of tower crews that will
be available during the transition. Based
on the totality of information received,
we conclude that the estimated number
of tower crews included in the tool for
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
complex stations, DTV stations, and
Canadian stations set forth in the
Transition Scheduling Proposal Public
Notice is reasonable. Many commenters
have noted that companies are gearing
up for the transition and training crews
to perform tower work. Further, we
disagree with one commenter that tower
crews will be unavailable or untrained
to work on U.S. towers and that
companies will be working on wireless
towers. We note that other comments
offer a different assessment of crew
availability. Nevertheless, the Phase
Scheduling Tool includes conservative
assumptions and the tool assumes that
no Canadian tower crews will work on
U.S. towers, and vice versa.
Weather. Although the Phase
Scheduling Tool uses conservative
estimates that will give most stations
ample time to plan their transitions
around any anticipated or unanticipated
weather conditions, nearly all
commenters suggest that the schedule
should be more flexible in taking
seasonal considerations into account.
Commenters are primarily concerned
with the impact of winter weather and
potential hurricanes. It is not possible to
adopt a scheduling plan that prevents
the phase completion date of every
phases from falling during winter
months or hurricane season, even if we
limit the restrictions to specific markets.
We find that imposing such a restriction
would be unnecessarily restrictive and
would undermine the transition
process, especially because adverse
weather conditions may not materialize
in all cases. However, in response to
commenters, the Bureau intends to
examine the output of the Phase
Scheduling Tool and adjust the
deadlines for early transition phases to
accommodate weather. Later transition
phases will be less sensitive to the
impact of weather because the full
transition period will be longer and
industry participants will have longer
periods to plan for particular weather
concerns. As such, we encourage
industry participants to anticipate
weather-related considerations that
might affect their transitions and to plan
tower work accordingly in order to
utilize the full transition phase. A
station facing weather-related
challenges may also consider
implementing intermediate plans to
ensure that it can be off its pre-auction
channel while continuing to broadcast
during the inclement weather.
The Bureau will use the simulations
of the Phase Scheduling Tool to produce
an estimate of the average amount of
time, in weeks, it will take all stations
in a phase to complete their transition.
While all transition phases will begin at
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
the same time, the Bureau will assign
each transition phase a completion date
based on the average number of weeks
determined by the Phase Scheduling
Tool. Although the tool produces
reasonable time estimates based on the
detailed inputs set forth in the
Appendix, it does not account
specifically for certain factors that may
warrant deadline adjustments, such as
the relative length of the testing periods
for each phase or seasonal
considerations. For example, the phase
completion date may be moved later if
an early phase consisting primarily of
stations in northern regions of the
United States is projected to end in the
middle of winter. Thus, the Bureau may
adjust the phase completion dates from
the average durations calculated by the
tool to take such factors into account,
consistent with the overall 39-month
transition deadline imposed by the
Commission’s rules.
Additionally, consistent with the
Bureau’s proposal each phase will have
sequential specified testing periods—
defined by a start and end date, with the
end date corresponding to the phase
completion date. While stations may
engage in planning and construction
activities at any time prior to their phase
completion date, equipment testing on
post-auction channels will be confined
to the specified testing periods. The
wireless industry proposes that stations
should be able to begin testing or
operating on their post-auction channels
outside of their assigned phase testing
period. As a general matter, we will not
allow stations to test or operate on their
post-auction channels until their
designated phase testing period. This
restriction encourages stations to plan
their transition around their particular
phase deadline, which will minimize
interference, incentivize the distribution
of resources across the phases, and
encourage stations within a phase to
switch to their post-auction channels at
roughly the same time, which will
minimize confusion to television
viewers. While the Transition
Scheduling Proposal Public Notice
contemplated that no stage would have
a testing period shorter than four weeks,
the Bureau may need to adjust the
amount of time given to the testing
periods of some phases to accommodate
the overall transition schedule,
particularly in the early transition
phases. The Bureau retains the
discretion to modify phase assignments,
phase completion dates, and testing
period dates as necessary throughout
the 39-month transition. This discretion
responds to commenters’ requests that
the Bureau have flexibility to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
accommodate real-world events. We
note that as the transition progresses,
the later phases should be better able to
accommodate shorter testing periods
because they have more time than
stations in the early phases to prepare
for their transition and complete their
work.
While the majority of phase
assignments and deadlines will not
change once the initial transition
schedule is released, in the unlikely
event, for instance, that a station is
‘‘unable to construct’’ the facility
specified in the Closing and Channel
Reassignment Public Notice (Closing
and Reassignment Public Notice), the
Bureau may need to modify the
transition schedule in order to grant an
application filed during the first priority
window for an alternate facility or
channel. If changes to the transition
schedule are necessary, stations
impacted by the grant will only be
moved to a later phase, not to an earlier
phase. A station will not be moved to
an earlier phase without its consent.
Below we discuss in greater detail how
we will evaluate direct requests to
modify a station’s phase assignment or
other requests made after the initial
transition schedule is announced in the
Closing and Reassignment Public Notice
that would necessitate a modification to
the transition schedule in order to grant.
Other Matters Related to the
Transition Scheduling Plan. As
recognized in the Transition Scheduling
Proposal Public Notice, there are
various scenarios in which a station
may seek to construct an expanded
facility or use an alternate channel that
differs from the technical parameters
assigned to it in the Closing and
Reassignment Public Notice. Some
stations may also request extensions of
their construction deadline and seek
authority to continue operating on their
pre-auction channel after their phase
completion date, including a waiver of
their phase completion deadline. In
evaluating such requests, the Bureau
proposed in the Transition Scheduling
Proposal Public Notice to examine the
impact that granting such requests
would have on the phased transition
schedule. Depending on the requesting
station’s proximity to Mexico or Canada,
coordination may also be required from
that particular country. While a station
may request an extension of its
construction permit deadline as set forth
in 47 CFR 73.3700(b)(5), grant of such
a request only permits the station
additional time to complete its
construction on its final channel and
does not permit a station to continue
operating on its pre-auction channel. In
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11111
order to do so a licensee must request
special temporary authority (STA).
Commenters representing wireless
interests agree that any requests for
relief from the requirements of the
transition plan that could result in a
station’s transition taking longer than its
assigned phase completion date, should
be required to meet a high burden of
proof and consider the impact on 600
MHz Band licensees. On the other hand,
broadcast commenters assert that a
heavy burden of proof runs counter to
efforts to encourage a successful postauction transition.
In order to facilitate a timely and
orderly transition, we find that we must
evaluate on a case-by-case basis requests
for modification of any station’s facility
or transition deadline as set forth in the
Closing and Reassignment Public
Notice, to assess the impact of such
requests on the transition schedule.
Accordingly, we adopt the method for
evaluating such requests proposed in
the Transition Scheduling Proposal
Public Notice, which states, ‘‘[t]he
Bureau will view favorably requests that
are otherwise compliant with our rules
and have little or no impact on the
phase assignments or transition
schedule. However, any request that the
staff determines would be likely to
delay or disrupt the transition, such as
by causing pairwise interference above
two percent to another station, creating
additional linked-station sets,
necessitating another station move to a
different transition phase, or that is
likely to cause a drain on limited
transition resources required by other
stations, will be viewed unfavorably.
The Bureau will view requests that have
such adverse effects on the transition
schedule more favorably if the
requesting station demonstrates that it
has the approval of all the stations that
would be affected if the request were
granted, or it agrees to take steps during
the transition period to mitigate the
impact of the proposed request[.]’’ 31
FCC Rcd at 10814–15, para. 27. We find
that the proposed approach balances the
important goal of clearing the 600 MHz
Band within the 39-month transition
period, as well as the additional goals of
facilitating a smooth transition, limiting
viewer impact, and providing
broadcasters the flexibility to make
requests that are necessary to construct
their post-auction facility and address
unforeseen circumstances to prevent
stations from going dark. Commenters
agree that flexibility is vital to
facilitating a successful transition.
While the Bureau does not intend to
grant requests that would disrupt the
transition, our aim is not to discourage
stations from proposing alternative
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
11112
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
transition solutions that could create
efficiencies or resolve unforeseen
circumstances that could otherwise
force a station to go dark. Indeed, such
proposals may reduce reimbursement
costs or implement a market-wide
transition plan that could allow stations
to more efficiently utilize limited
resources, facilitate coordination, or
reduce the impact of the transition on
television viewers. Nonetheless, such
proposals should specifically
demonstrate that implementation would
not interfere with other stations’
transition efforts and address how
implementation of the proposal may
affect the transition schedule. If the
Bureau grants such a request after
considering such effects, it may choose
to modify transition phase assignments
and construction deadlines of the
requesting station or, if necessary, other
stations; however, no other station
would be assigned to an earlier
transition phase than it was originally
assigned without its consent. Should the
Bureau deny a request for a station to
continue operating on its pre-auction
channel past its phase completion date,
stations can explore a variety of options
to assist with their post-auction
transitions, including the use of
temporary channels and interim or
auxiliary facilities.
In the Transition Scheduling Proposal
Public Notice we also recognized that
individual stations may request changes
to their phase assignment, phase
completion date, and/or testing period
as set forth in the Closing and
Reassignment Public Notice. We
tentatively concluded that we would
rely on existing rules and procedures to
address such requests, and also sought
comment on whether an alternative
process should be established and, if
changes to the transition plan are
permitted, what rules or procedures
would need to be waived. Commenters
disagree whether existing Commission
processes are appropriate for addressing
such requests. Commenters that argue
there should be different processes
neither propose a specific process or
explain why the Commission’s existing
rules would be insufficient. We find
existing Commission processes are
sufficient to address such requests.
Commenters also suggested that
stations should have the flexibility to
move to either an earlier or later
transition phase. While our decision
today does not prohibit stations from
making either request, any request to
modify a station’s phase assignment will
be subject to a high burden of proof and
reviewed in the manner adopted above
for determining the impact of a request
on the overall transition schedule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
Because earlier phases of the transition
are likely to have greater resource
constraints while equipment
manufacturers and suppliers continue to
ramp up capacity, we are less likely to
be able to accommodate requests for
stations to move into the first or second
phase. When resolving a requested
phase change we also will consider the
impact such a request may have on
viewers. As evidenced through our
objectives and constraints, we believe
viewers will benefit from stations in a
given DMA transitioning together. Not
only does this limit the total number of
channel rescans for viewers, but
multiple stations’ communications with
the public about the timing of a rescan
supports education efforts.
We find that the record does not
support the creation of any special
sanction system related to transitioning
stations, despite the call of some
commenters to do so. A station that does
not comply with the requirements of
any Commission order may be subject to
action as contemplated by the
Commission’s rules. A station that is
found to have failed to comply with the
requirements of any Commission order
may be subject to action as
contemplated by the rules. See 47 CFR
1.80 (forfeiture); 47 CFR 73.3598(e)
(automatic forfeiture of an expired
construction permit).
Temporary Joint Use of Channels and
Temporary Individual Channel
Assignments. The transition scheduling
plan we adopt today does not mandate
the use of temporary channels.
However, some commenters have
suggested that use of temporary
channels may be appropriate on a
voluntary basis, especially to prevent
stations that are unable to meet their
transition deadline from going dark or
delaying the transition. Commenters
have also suggested that the
Commission could permit broadcasters
to implement temporary channel
sharing arrangements (hereinafter
referred to as ‘‘temporary joint use of
channels’’) to aide in their transition
efforts. To the extent that the
Commission permits the use of
individual temporary channels, low
power television interests request that
the Commission provide transparency
about when and for how long temporary
channels will be used and whether a
displaced LPTV station can apply for a
channel that is slated to be used on a
temporary basis. One commenter
requests that the Commission limit the
assignment of temporary channels to
‘‘truly rare, exceptional and extreme
situations,’’ due to the hardship such
assignments are likely to place on Class
A and LPTV stations, as well as viewers.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Although we have concluded that the
burdens of assigning temporary
channels on a mandatory basis outweigh
the benefits, we agree there may be
situations in which the voluntary use of
either an individual temporary channel
or temporary joint use of a channel may
aid the transition. We will therefore
permit reassigned Class A and full
power stations to make a request to
operate on a temporary channel either
on an individual or joint basis. When
seeking authorization to operate on an
individual temporary channel or engage
in temporary joint use of a channel, a
broadcaster must file with the
Commission a request for STA
proposing the channel it wishes to
operate on and including the specific
technical parameters. Because STAs are
granted for a period of six months, a
station may need to file for an extension
of its initial STA authorization. Failure
to do so while continuing to operate
pursuant to the initial authorization
would amount to operation without a
valid authorization, which is a violation
of Section 301 of the Communications
Act. See 47 U.S.C. 301. Consistent with
the requirements of Section
73.1635(a)(4) of the Rules, as part of any
extension request an applicant must
demonstrate the necessity of such
extension and describe the steps that are
being taken to resume operation on its
post-auction channel assignment. See 47
CFR 73.1635(a)(4). Such requests may
be made at any time during the
transition period and must demonstrate
that the proposal both complies with the
Commission’s technical rules and will
not otherwise interfere with the
transition. Use of an individual
temporary channel or engaging in
temporary joint use of a channel must
be for purposes of facilitating the
transition. To ensure continuity of
service to viewers throughout the
transition, a station availing itself of one
of these voluntary options must
maintain signal coverage of its
community of license as required by
Section 73.625 of the Rules.
A request for use of an individual
temporary channel will be restricted to
replicating a station’s pre-auction
coverage area and population served.
Because we will evaluate applications
requesting use of an individual
temporary channel under the standard
of review we have adopted for
considering all requests during the
transition, broadcasters should, at a
minimum, evaluate whether their
operation would require coordination
with neighboring stations that are not
already in the same linked-station set,
thereby resulting in new linked-station
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
sets, or whether additional construction
that may be required could divert
resources from other stations.
Temporary channels will also be subject
to all applicable interference rules,
unless otherwise waived by the Bureau.
Furthermore, depending on the station’s
proximity to Mexico or Canada,
coordination approval to operate on a
temporary channel may be required
from that particular country.
In order to provide maximum
flexibility, we will permit a full power
or Class A licensee to request authority
to operate on an individual temporary
channel in the new wireless band
during the post-auction transition.
Although T-Mobile supports
broadcasters voluntarily using
temporary channels, it requests that use
of individual temporary channels be
restricted to channels ‘‘below the new
wireless band.’’ We believe foreclosing
temporary operation in the new wireless
band during the transition period would
be too conservative an approach and
could undercut the benefits of allowing
broadcasters to request temporary
channels because there may be limited
available temporary channels in the
television band. However, to balance the
interests of wireless operators in starting
construction and commencing
operations in cleared spectrum, when
evaluating requests for individual use of
a temporary channel in the new wireless
band we will require broadcasters to
demonstrate that there is no reasonable
alternative to operating in the new
wireless band and provide written
consent from the wireless licensee(s) of
the channel that the broadcaster wishes
to temporarily operate on, as well as
written consent from any wireless
licensee(s) that would otherwise be
required to protect the broadcaster’s
operations under the Commission’s
inter-service interference (ISIX) rules.
Consistent with the policies outlined in
the Broadcast Transition Procedures
Public Notice, no STA may cause
impermissible interference to wireless
licensees. Additionally, the Bureau will
view unfavorably any application or
request that the staff determines would
be likely to delay or disrupt the
transition, including by delaying or
disrupting the deployment of new
wireless services in the 600 MHz Band.
In the case of a request for temporary
joint use of a channel, the applicant
(joint user) must include with its
request a written authorization from the
licensee of the host station. A joint user
will continue to be a Commission
licensee, and will temporarily operate at
variance from its authorized parameters
pursuant to an STA. As such, joint users
must continue to comply with all
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
requirements under the rules and the
Communications Act that would
otherwise be required operating on their
own channel.
Commercial and noncommercial
educational (NCE) stations may request
to engage in temporary joint use of a
channel. A reserved channel NCE
licensee that is granted authority to
operate temporarily on a non-reserved
channel must continue to operate on an
NCE basis. We will evaluate requests by
commercial stations for temporary joint
use of a channel licensed to an NCE
station on a case-by-case basis. We will
also consider requests to allow a Class
A station to operate under the Part 73
rules governing power levels and
interference to jointly use a full power
television station’s channel on a
temporary basis for the purpose of
facilitating the Class A station’s
transition. A full power station
requesting to temporarily jointly use a
Class A station’s channel for the
purpose of facilitating the transition will
be required to operate under the Part 74
power level and interference rules.
Transition Project Management and
Progress Reporting. Commenters offered
a number of suggestions on how the
Commission should manage its staff and
resources to facilitate the transition
process. For instance, several
commenters recommend that as part of
the post-auction transition process, the
Commission should consider hiring a
third party contractor or a full-time
internal project manager to manage the
transition. One commenter suggests that
the Commission should begin building
relationships and working with other
federal, state, and local government
entities that will likely be involved in
the transition, and also recommends
that the Commission also establish ‘‘an
online resource center’’ where service
providers and suppliers can list
themselves as available to work on the
transition. Another commenter suggests
that the Commission should designate
particular FCC staff who would be
familiar with the specific difficulties
faced by state and institutional licensees
and could be made available for
purposes of supporting public
broadcasters’ efforts. Other commenters
recommend the establishment of a ‘‘web
portal’’ to disseminate transition
information to all affected parties. While
at this time we are declining to adopt
any of the commenter’s specific
suggestions, we intend to dedicate
sufficient resources to monitor the
progress of the transition and keep
affected parties informed.
Commenters have also recommended
that the Commission require reassigned
stations to file progress reports so that
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11113
the Commission and interested parties
can monitor the transition progress of
reassigned stations, identify problem
areas, develop solutions, and, if needed,
adjust transition deadlines. In the
Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission
determined that entities receiving
reimbursement will be required, on a
regular basis, to provide information to
the Commission showing how the
disbursed funds had been spent and
what portion of their construction is
complete. The Bureau has developed
and set filing deadlines for a progress
report (FCC Form 2100 –Schedule 387)
that broadcast television stations that
are eligible to receive payment of
relocation expenses from the
Reimbursement Fund will file to track
how disbursements have been spent and
identify the progress and status of their
construction efforts. The Bureau also
proposed to require broadcast television
stations that are not eligible to receive
reimbursement but must transition to
new channels as part of the
Commission’s channel reassignment
plan to file the same form on the same
schedule during the transition period.
The Incentive Auction Task Force and
Media Bureau Release Transition
Progress Report Form and Filing
Requirements for Stations Eligible for
Reimbursement From the TV Broadcast
Relocation Fund and Seek Comment on
the Filing of the Report by NonReimbursable Stations, 82 FR 9009,
February 2, 2017. As suggested by
commenters, the form will allow the
Commission to monitor the progress of
the transition in real time, identify
problem areas, and as needed develop
solutions.
Interim and Auxiliary Facilities. We
agree with commenters that interim and
auxiliary facilities will be an important
part of the transition for broadcasters
and we will take action as appropriate
to facilitate the use of such facilities and
equipment. In order for a station to
continue operating on its pre-auction
channel while its current primary
antenna is removed and a new channel
antenna installed, we expect many
stations will need to utilize auxiliary
facilities and equipment. In order to
operate an interim or auxiliary facility a
station will need to file a request for an
STA. In some cases, stations may wish
to share auxiliary equipment and
facilities, such as broadband antennas,
with other stations.
Nothing that we adopt today restricts
a station from filing a request for STA
to operate on its post-auction channel
using an auxiliary facility prior to its
phase completion date. While we
understand wireless providers’ desire
that the 600 MHz Band be cleared
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
11114
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
expeditiously, we also must maintain an
orderly process and respect the
interference constraints that the
transition presents and that transition
scheduling plan is meant to address. We
will therefore evaluate such requests in
the same manner and subject to the
same standard of review that we would
a station that seeks to continue
operating on its pre-auction channel
after its phase completion date.
Additionally, as with requests for
temporary joint use of a channel, the
Media Bureau will view unfavorably
any application or request that the staff
determines would be likely to delay or
disrupt the transition, including by
delaying or disrupting the deployment
of new wireless services in the 600 MHz
Band. We also commit to process all
applications in an expeditious manner
and will continue to work with
interested parties to efficiently process
applications, however we decline to
commit to adopt specific processing
prioritizations for applications as one
commenter suggests.
Confidential Letters and Prohibited
Communications. Nearly every
commenter in this proceeding asked
that the Commission restate, clarify, or,
if necessary, waive, the auction rules
prohibiting certain communications to
enable stations to make productive use
of channel reassignment information as
soon as possible after receiving their
channel assignment in the confidential
letters that will be sent approximately
three to four weeks from the date that
the final stage rule was met. The
prohibited communications rule
prohibits broadcasters and forward
auction applicants from communicating
any incentive auction applicant’s bids
or bidding strategies to other parties
covered by the relevant rules.
Commenters’ concern is that the rule
prohibits broadcasters from engaging in
communications that would be helpful
in preparing for the post-auction
transition, or that it discourages
broadcasters from making such
communications to avoid the risk of
violating the prohibition. In light of
these comments, we now provide
guidance on the rule as it pertains to
broadcasters and the post-auction
transition—particularly their ability to
hold discussions with vendors not
covered by the rule. The Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau intends to
address any appropriate waiver of the
rule when letters regarding post-auction
channel assignments are sent.
As an initial matter, a great many
preparations that broadcasters may
undertake with respect to the transition
to post-auction channel assignments
will not involve prohibited
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
communications. For example,
broadcasters may communicate with
third parties not covered by the
prohibition, such as consulting
engineers, equipment vendors, and
counsel, without violating the
prohibition, even if the communication
discloses bids and bidding strategies. A
broadcaster or other covered party still
should take care, however, that the third
party to which such communications
are made does not convey the
information to another covered party,
which would violate the prohibition.
In addition, broadcasters may
communicate with other covered parties
regarding many issues in the postauction transition without disclosing
bids and bidding strategies. For
example, broadcasters that did not
apply to participate in the auction do
not have bids and bidding strategies of
their own to disclose and so may
communicate regarding their own postauction transition without violating the
prohibition. Such broadcasters must
bear in mind, however, that they still
are prohibited from communicating any
other incentive auction applicant’s bids
and bidding strategies of which they
may have learned, such as a channel
sharing partner’s bids or bidding
strategies. Finally, broadcasters that did
apply but kept that fact confidential also
may be able to communicate regarding
post-auction channel assignments
without disclosing bids and bidding
strategies.
We recognize that certain broadcasters
cannot communicate with other
broadcasters regarding post-auction
channel assignments without disclosing
bids and bidding strategies (though they
may communicate with non-covered
third parties, as indicated above). For
example, a UHF broadcaster with a
winning bid to move to a VHF channel
cannot communicate its post-auction
channel assignment without
communicating its bidding strategy.
Likewise, a broadcaster that publicly
disclosed that it had applied to
participate in the auction could
implicitly disclose the results of its
bidding when it discloses a post-auction
channel assignment. Moreover, any
communications that disclose a postauction channel sharing arrangement
effectively would disclose the sharee
station’s bids and bidding strategies in
the auction.
Since the final stage rule has been
met, bidding in the reverse auction is
complete, although forward auction is
still ongoing. Accordingly, some relief
from the prohibition for
communications among broadcasters
may be appropriate, particularly where
doing so would assist the public interest
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
in a smooth post-auction transition. We
are sensitive to the concerns raised by
commenters and will address them
specifically at the time post-auction
channel assignment information is
provided to broadcasters.
Matters Outside of the Scope of the
Proceeding or Previously Addressed in
Other Proceedings. A number of
commenters raised concerns regarding
the sufficiency of the 39-month
transition period. Modification of the
length of the 39-month transition period
is beyond the Bureau’s delegated
authority and outside the scope of this
proceeding. We note that the 39-month
transition period is the subject of a
petition for reconsideration that remains
pending before the Commission in GN
Docket No. 12–268. The purpose of this
notice is to carry out the Commission’s
directive to assign construction
deadlines within the 39-month period
prescribed by the Commission.
Several parties seek clarification as to
the eligibility of certain costs for
reimbursement from the TV Broadcaster
Relocation Fund (Reimbursement
Fund). One commenter states that the
Commission should assure broadcasters
that any costs associated with voluntary
transition plans will be eligible for
reimbursement from the Reimbursement
Fund. The Commission anticipated the
possibility of using temporary channels,
as well as interim and auxiliary
facilities to facilitate the transition and
stated that the reasonably incurred costs
of such equipment would be eligible for
reimbursement. See Incentive Auction
R&O, 79 FR 48441 at 48501, para. 451.
However, as already made clear by the
Commission, reassigned stations
constructing alternate or expanded
facilities applied for outside of the
‘‘non-priority window’’ will only be
eligible for reimbursement for the
eligible costs of relocating to the
channel and facilities specified in the
Closing and Channel Reassignment
Public Notice. See id. 450. Another
commenter expressed concern that the
cost of carriage of temporary channels
should not be borne by MVPDs. As
stated in the Incentive Auction R&O,
MVPDs are eligible for reimbursement
when they reasonably incur costs in
order to maintain carriage of a broadcast
station. Finally, a broadcaster seeks
clarification as to who will be
financially responsible when other
services, such as FM, LMR, wireless, or
LPTV, are impacted by the transition.
With respect to costs incurred by nonreimbursement-eligible entities, the
Commission explained in the Incentive
Auction R&O, that reimbursement
claims from reassigned stations for costs
incurred by non-eligible entities would
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
be limited to instances in which ‘‘the
reassigned broadcaster has a contractual
obligation to pay these expenses
through a contract’’ that was entered
into on, or before, the release date of the
Incentive Auction R&O, which was June
2, 2014. See also id. at 48497, para. 429.
Thus, reimbursement-eligible entities
with such contractual obligations may
submit for consideration reimbursement
claims only for expenses incurred by
non-eligible entities that they are
obligated to pay under such timelyentered contracts. To the extent these
requests seek an affirmative declaration
that certain costs will be reimbursed, we
decline to pre-judge the eligibility of
particular reimbursement expenses, and
we remind parties that whether or not
a cost is ‘‘reasonably incurred’’ and
eligible for reimbursement will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Whether or not a specific cost meets the
‘‘reasonably incurred’’ standard for
reimbursement must be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis. See id. at 48500,
para. 446.
Commenters representing the interests
of LPTV and TV translator stations filed
comments arguing that the Bureau failed
to fully address the impact of the
transition scheduling plan on LPTV and
translator licensees and that the Bureau
should take certain actions to address
the impact of the post-incentive auction
transition on their stations and interests.
Commenters provided several actions
the Commission could take to ease the
impact of the transition on LPTV and
translator stations, including: forbearing
from enforcement of Section 312(g) of
the Act; extending the minimum
distance rule for displaced LPTV and
translator stations from 30 miles to 250
miles; specifying in the transition plan
when the LPTV displacement window
will open; and flexibly waiving rules to
minimize the impact of the transition on
displaced LPTV and translator stations.
We find these proposed actions have
already been addressed in other
Commission proceedings. We therefore
decline to adopt any of these proposals.
We remain sensitive, however, to the
concerns of the LPTV and TV translator
community and will continue to explore
measures, as we have already
committed to doing, to alleviate the
impact of repacking on displaced LPTV
and TV translator stations. The
Commission also adopted rules to
permit channel sharing between LPTV
and TV translator stations as an
additional means to help displaced
stations that have difficulty finding
available channels to team with other
such stations in the same predicament.
Several commenters also raise issues
that are already addressed by our
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
existing rules. As an initial matter, we
note that LPTV and TV translator
stations that are displaced by full power
or Class A stations reassigned a new
channel in the repacking process may
continue to operate on their current
channel until the displacing television
station is operational, at which time the
LPTV or TV translator must cease
operations. We note that a change in
frequency, other than for a station that
is displaced, is a ‘‘major change’’ and
that applications for new stations or
major changes by LPTV and TV
translator stations are currently frozen.
One commenter sought clarification as
to when displaced LPTV and TV
translators may begin operating on their
new displacement channel. Because
displacement facilities may not cause
interference to full power or Class A
television stations (either pre-auction,
those set forth in the Closing and
Reassignment Public Notice, or
alternative channels and expanded
facilities proposed during the applicable
filing window), operation will not be
contingent on the post-auction
transition schedule and stations may
begin operating at any time following
the grant of the construction permit for
their displacement facilities. See
Incentive Auction R&O, 79 FR 48441 at
48505, para. 475. Finally, several
commenters sought clarity concerning
the operation of temporary facilities by
displaced LPTV and TV translator
stations. LPTV and TV translator
stations are permitted to apply for
special temporary authority to operate
the facilities proposed in a pending
displacement application so long as the
application is acceptable for filing and
has appeared on a proposed grant list.
Administrative Matters. Pursuant to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,
as amended, a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) relating to
the Public Notice is included.
This document does not contain
proposed information collection(s)
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In
addition, therefore, it does not contain
any new or modified information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Sasha Javid,
Sasha.Javid@fcc.gov; Erin Griffith,
Erin.Griffith@fcc.gov, (202) 418–0660,
Shaun Maher, Shaun.Maher@fcc.gov,
(202) 418–2324, or Evan Morris,
Evan.Morris@fcc.gov, (202) 418–1656.
Press contact: Charles Meisch,
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11115
Charles.Meisch@fcc.gov, (202) 418–
2943.
Appendix A: Phase Assignment and
Scheduling Tools
This appendix sets forth the
methodology for assigning construction
deadlines to stations to transition to
new channel assignments following the
broadcast television spectrum incentive
auction. This is necessary because
potential ‘‘dependencies,’’ or
interference relationships, exist between
certain television stations on preauction and post-auction channels
which will impact the transition
process. Stations with dependencies
must coordinate in order to test
equipment or begin operating on their
new channels without causing
interference to other stations. In many
cases such coordination may only
involve stations agreeing to operate at
lower power or accept increased
interference for short periods of time
while the stations are performing tests,
but dependencies can often involve
numerous and/or distant stations, which
makes successful coordination more
complicated. The methodology adopted
by this Public Notice provides a means
of breaking dependencies in order to
reduce the need for coordination and to
make coordination more manageable.
Under this methodology, stations will
be assigned to 10 transition phases. The
phases will all begin at the same time
when channel reassignments are
announced in the Closing and
Reassignment Public Notice, but each
phase will have sequential end dates.
Equipment testing on post-auction
channels will be confined to set ‘‘testing
periods.’’ With the exception of the first
phase, the testing period for subsequent
phases will begin on the day after the
end of the preceding phase. Every
station must cease operating on its preauction channel at the end of its
assigned phase, also known as the
‘‘phase completion date.’’
The methodology will utilize two
computer-based tools to assign stations
to phases and then to establish phase
completion dates for each phase. First,
stations will be assigned to phases using
the ‘‘Phase Assignment Tool,’’ which
applies mathematical optimization
techniques to identify, among possible
solutions that satisfy a set of defined
rules or constraints, a solution that best
meets a separate set of defined
objectives. Section III below discusses
the Phase Assignment Tool.
After stations are assigned to phases,
the ‘‘Phase Scheduling Tool’’ will be
used to determine the phase completion
date for each phase. The Phase
Scheduling Tool estimates the total time
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
11116
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
necessary for stations assigned to a
phase to perform the tasks required to
complete the transition process. In
addition to accounting for factors such
as transmission power and tower height
that are likely to impact the time
required for individual stations to
complete the transition to a new
channel, the Phase Scheduling Tool also
accounts for potential delays created by
resource limitations that may affect
when a station can obtain resources
such as new antennas or tower crews.
The Phase Scheduling Tool simulates
stations completing the transition and
outputs the time needed to complete
each phase given a random order (called
‘‘simulation order’’) in which stations
have access to scarce resources. The tool
runs 100 simulations, each with a
different simulation order to generate
the average time in weeks it takes to
complete a phase. Based on those
results, the Bureau may then exercise
limited discretion to modify the phase
completion dates from the average
durations calculated by the tool to
account specifically for certain factors
that may warrant deadline adjustments,
such as the relative length of the testing
periods for each phase or seasonal
considerations. For example, the phase
completion date may be moved later if
an early phase consisting primarily of
stations in northern regions of the
United States is projected to end in the
middle of winter. This exercise of
discretion will be done in consultation
with Innovation, Science and Economic
Development Canada (ISED Canada) as
it impacts Canadian stations. In Section
IV below, we discuss the Phase
Scheduling Tool and its inputs,
including the specific tasks required for
stations to transition and the estimated
time required to complete each task.
The methodology set forth herein
differs from that proposed in the
September 30 Transition Scheduling
Proposal Public Notice in several
respects. First, in the unlikely event that
a station is predicted to incur temporary
aggregate interference greater than five
percent, the Phase Assignment Tool will
be re-run in an attempt to reduce the
temporary aggregate interference of all
stations below five percent while
simultaneously adhering to all
constraints and objectives. The second
change concerns the Phase Scheduling
Tool. The amount of time allocated to
tower construction on towers with
multiple stations has been increased
substantially. These changes were
adopted in response to comments
regarding the Transition Scheduling
Proposal Public Notice, and are
discussed below and in this Public
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
Notice adopting the post-incentive
auction transition scheduling plan.
This Appendix provides interested
parties with sufficient information to
replicate the methodology for
determining the overall transition
schedule. The Phase Assignment Tool
implements the objectives and
constraints using commerciallyavailable optimization software. The
Phase Scheduling Tool leverages an
open source discrete event simulation
software package using inputs described
herein. The data presented is the output
of applying this methodology to
representative final television channel
assignment plans for two 84 MHz
spectrum clearing scenarios, and also
making certain assumptions regarding
Canada and Mexico based on ongoing
coordination with those countries. The
representative examples presented
herein are for illustrative purposes only
and are based on channel assignments
that do not rely on or predict any
auction results. The scenarios are
‘‘representative’’ in the sense that they
are consistent with the plans generated
by the Commission’s Final Television
Channel Assignment Plan determination
procedure based on numerous auction
simulations conducted by the staff. With
the Final Stage Rule now met during
Stage 4, the auction will clear 84 MHz.
Therefore, we use two 84 MHz scenarios
as representative examples. We are not
publicly releasing the underlying
simulations, which makes assumptions
regarding reverse auction participation
and outcomes. Interested parties can
create their own television channel
assignment plans for any spectrum
clearing scenario by applying the
Assignment Plan determination
procedure to auction simulations based
on their own assumptions of likely
outcomes.
Section II: Dependencies and Means
of Breaking Them. Before beginning to
operate on their post-auction channels,
stations ideally should be able to test
equipment on their new channels.
During the transition, however, there is
a potential for undue interference
between stations that are still operating
on their pre-auction channels and
stations testing or operating on their
post-auction channels. The
Commission’s rules governing
interference between stations before and
after the post-auction transition will
limit interference between stations that
are both operating on their pre-auction
channels and between stations that are
both operating on their post-auction
channels, respectively. In adopting a
methodology for assigning construction
deadlines to transitioning stations, the
staff has sought to avoid undue
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
interference while providing as much
flexibility as possible for stations to test
equipment prior to commencing
operations on their new channels. The
‘‘Precedence Daisy-Chain Graph’’
(Graph) described in the examples
below explicitly captures any
interference that may occur between
stations operating on their pre-auction
and post-auction channels.
The Graph is constructed as follows:
nodes are stations and a directed arc
connects two nodes (s and s’) when
station s cannot transition until station
s’ has transitioned to its post-auction
channel because the current channel of
station s’ interferes with the future
channel of station s. This relationship is
called a dependency.
Example 1: Dependency. [Illustration
Omitted]. In Example 1 above, suppose
Station A and Station B have co- and
adjacent-channel interference
restrictions on all channels. Station A is
reassigned from channel 25 to channel
18. Station B is reassigned from channel
45 to channel 26. Station A must vacate
channel 25 before Station B can move to
channel 26 so that neither station will
experience undue interference.
Therefore, the Example 1 graphic
includes a directed arc from Station A
to Station B since Station A must
transition before Station B (Station B is
dependent on Station A in order to
transition).
Example 2: Daisy-Chain. [Illustration
Omitted]. Multiple dependencies can be
connected, forming a daisy-chain.
Example 2 illustrates a daisy chain of 4
stations. Station A must transition
before Station B. Station B must
transition before Station C. And Station
C must transition before Station D.
Thus, Stations A, B, and C all must
transition before Station D can
transition.
Daisy-chains can involve numerous
stations and multiple transition
dependencies. Figure 1 below illustrates
a single daisy-chain involving 29
stations in the Northeast in a simulated
outcome where the Commission
repurposes 84 MHz of broadcast
spectrum through the incentive auction.
[Figure 1 Omitted]
Successful coordination to avoid
undue interference among the stations
illustrated in Figure 1 will be
challenging, given the number of
stations involved and their distance
from one another. In order to reduce or
eliminate the need for coordination, the
chain could be broken by assigning
stations to transition during different
time periods or ‘‘phases.’’ At least 29
separate transition phases would be
needed to break the chain completely so
that every station in the chain could
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
transition without the need for
coordination. A large number of
transition phases undercuts other
potential transition goals, such as
transitioning stations within the same
region at the same time and avoiding the
need for multiple channel rescans by
viewers. Therefore, in order to balance
these goals, a certain number of stations
within a daisy chain would need to be
assigned to the same transition phase,
thereby reducing or ‘‘collapsing’’ the
daisy chain into a more manageable
size. For example, the six northern-most
stations in the 29 station daisy-chain in
Figure 1 above could be assigned to the
first transition phase. Each station in
this collapsed daisy chain would have
to coordinate with one or more of the
other stations in the chain in order to
test their equipment without undue
interference, but such coordination
would be more manageable because of
the much smaller number of stations,
particularly if they are also more
localized geographically. However, as
illustrated by Example 3 below, the
staff’s analysis indicates that certain
dependencies, known as ‘‘cycles,’’
cannot be broken by assigning stations
to different transition phases.
Example 3: Cycle. [Illustartion
Omitted]. Example 3 shows a cycle
consisting of three stations. Station A
needs to transition from channel 20 to
channel 17; Station B needs to transition
from channel 28 to channel 20; and
Station C needs to transition from
channel 17 to channel 28. Because all
three stations cannot operate
simultaneously on channels 17, 20, or
28, they must transition from their preauction to their post-auction channels
simultaneously in order to commence
operation on their post-auction channel.
They must also coordinate in order to
test equipment on their post-auction
channels without causing increased
interference to one another. In such
circumstances, the dependencies
between stations cannot be broken by
assigning stations to different transition
phases and these stations must be
assigned to the same phase.
Cycles of much greater complexity
than Example 3 are likely to occur
during the post-auction transition
process. Figure 2 below shows another
simulated outcome in which the auction
repurposes 84 MHz of broadcast
spectrum. The cycle consists of 196
stations and reaches from the Southeast
region of the United States through the
Northeast and into Canada. [Figure 2
Omitted].
The challenge created by daisy-chains
and cycles described above becomes
more complicated when all
dependencies are considered. Daisy-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
chains can intersect and overlap,
creating a larger and more complicated
daisy-chain. A cycle can also be part of
a daisy-chain. As a result, hundreds of
stations may be inter-dependent and
one station may require tens (or even
hundreds) of stations to transition first
in order to be able to begin operating on
its post-auction channel. Figure 3 below
shows another simulated 84 MHz
outcome with a set of 796 interdependent stations. [Figure 3 Omitted].
As indicated above, transition phases
are a useful tool to address
dependencies between stations. Stations
may be assigned to different phases in
order to break daisy chains, or to the
same phase in order to facilitate
coordination by stations involved in a
cycle, or to achieve other goals. We refer
to inter-dependent stations assigned to
the same phase as a ‘‘linked-station set’’
and the individual stations in the
linked-station set as ‘‘linked stations.’’
Stations that are part of a linked-station
set must coordinate their testing with
other stations in the set so as to avoid
undue interference and must transition
to their post-auction channel together.
Another means of breaking
dependencies is to allow temporary,
limited increases in station-to-station
(pairwise) interference that exceed the
0.5 percent allowed under the
Commission’s rules governing preauction and post-transition interference
relationships. As discussed in the
Transition Scheduling Proposal Public
Notice, allowing temporary, limited
increases in pairwise interference will
significantly reduce the number of
dependencies between stations and in
turn reduce the size, number, and
complexity of daisy chains and cycles.
Additionally, the staff’s analysis
indicates that allowing temporary,
limited increases in pairwise
interference will not result in significant
aggregate interference increases.
Another means of breaking
dependencies would be to assign
stations in complicated daisy chains or
cycles to operate on temporary channels
prior to transitioning to their postauction channels. Stations assigned to
temporary channels would have to
‘‘move’’ twice, first to their temporary
channels and then to their ultimate
post-auction channels. Because the
overwhelming majority of commenters
were opposed to mandatory temporary
moves, the adopted methodology will
not require any station to use a
temporary channel during the
transition. However, as discussed in the
Public Notice, staff will consider
voluntary requests by stations to use
either individual temporary channel or
temporary joint use of a channel.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11117
Section III—The Phase Assignment
Tool. Under the methodology we adopt,
stations will be assigned to one of 10
transition phases. Every station in a
phase must cease operating on its preauction channel at the end of the phase,
i.e., the phase completion date. Stations
will be assigned to phases using the
Phase Assignment Tool. This Section
discusses the Phase Assignment Tool as
well as the constraints (i.e., rules by
which all assignments generated by the
tool must abide) and objectives (i.e.,
goals for creating the assignments). We
begin by listing the specific constraints
that will be imposed and the objectives
used, followed by a discussion of the
results of staff analysis illustrating the
rationale underlying the procedure.
ISED Canada is considering using a
similar approach for Canadian stations
and specific transition details will be
published as part of its domestic
process. As a result, the Baseline Results
section of this Appendix may change.
Constraints and Objectives. Based on
the staff’s analysis and the record
developed to date, we adopt the
following constraints and objectives for
assigning stations to phases. Phase
assignments must satisfy all of these
defined constraints. The objectives will
be applied to identify a solution that
best satisfies the Commission’s
transition goals. The Phase Assignment
Tool prioritizes the objectives in the
sequence listed below. Subsequent
objectives are constrained by prior
objectives.
Constraints: (1) A station cannot
cause more than two percent new
interference to another station during
the transition. This constraint seeks to
avoid undue interference during the
transition and to provide stations with
as much flexibility as possible to test
equipment on their post-auction
channels before transitioning. Although
in many cases stations may be able to
achieve these goals through
coordination with affected stations,
coordination may not be feasible in
situations involving large-scale and
complex dependencies among stations.
As discussed in more detail in this
Public Notice, allowing temporary,
limited increases in pairwise
interference will reduce the number and
complexity of dependencies without
resulting in significant aggregate
interference increases. Doing so is also
likely to promote other potential goals,
such as reducing the number of channel
rescans. Although allowing higher
levels of temporary interference—up to
five percent—would further reduce
dependencies, we will allow no more
than two percent as a balance between
avoiding undue interference and
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
11118
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
achieving the goal of limiting
dependencies.
(2) No stations in Canada will be
assigned to transition before the third
transition phase. Due to dependencies
between domestic and Canadian
stations, a joint transition plan with
Canada was agreed to by the FCC and
Innovation, Science and Economic
Development Canada (ISED Canada). In
keeping with our discussions with ISED
Canada, stations in Canada will
generally be assigned to later transition
phases, and in no case before the third
transition phase. This constraint will
promote efficient use of cross-border
resources and respect the minimum
notification periods to Canadian TV
stations established in ISED’s 600 MHz
decision. See Decision on Repurposing
the 600 MHz Band, August 14, 2015,
available at https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/
smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf11049.html.
(3) There will be no more than 10
transition phases. Limiting the number
of transition phases to 10 strikes a
reasonable balance between decreasing
the number of linked-station sets in
each phase and other transition goals,
such as transitioning stations within the
same region at the same time and
avoiding the need for multiple channel
rescans by viewers. Note that the
methodology assumes that all winning
bidders affecting the first phase of the
transition who have agreed to go off-air
completely, or that become a channel
sharee of another station with a postauction channel assignment, will have
gone dark before the stations in the first
transition phase begin testing of their
equipment (e.g., two months before the
end of the first transition phase). This
assumption is reasonable given the
expected timeline for paying winning
stations and the estimated time for the
first phase to complete. Canadian
stations not impeding the transition of
U.S. stations or the ability of the U.S. to
repurpose the new 600 MHz may be
permitted to continue to operate beyond
the tenth phase based on rules to be
established by ISED Canada.
(4) All stations within a DMA will be
assigned to no more than two different
transition phases. This DMA constraint
provides similar benefits to a purely
regional approach. By clustering
stations in a particular geographic area
into the same transition phase, this
constraint will make resource allocation
more efficient. Importantly, the
constraint will limit the number of
rescans consumers will have to
complete as a result of the transition.
While this constraint potentially limits
the ability of the tool to minimize the
number and/or size of linked-station
sets within a transition phase, on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
balance we believe that the benefits to
consumers and broadcasters outweighs
the burden.
(5) The difference in the number of
stations in the largest transition phase
and the smallest transition phase will be
no more than 30 stations. If it is not
feasible to assign stations in such a way
that the difference in the number of
stations in the largest transition phase
and the smallest transition phase is less
than or equal to 30 stations, then an
optimization will be performed
minimizing the difference between the
largest transition phase and smallest
transition phase, and subsequent
optimizations will be limited to no more
than 1.1 times the number found in this
optimization. This strikes an
appropriate balance between restricting
the difference in size between the
largest and smallest transition phases
while providing additional flexibility to
achieve other objectives.
(6) Every transitioning station will be
assigned to one transition phase.
(7) No phase can have more than 125
linked stations. The dependencies
created by the interference constraints
can affect a large number of stations
across large geographic areas. This
constraint will limit the effect of those
dependencies and, to the extent that
coordination is needed, facilitate a
manageable transition process for
broadcasters. We believe the 125-station
limit strikes a balance between
minimizing dependencies and other
goals. If it is not possible to limit the
number of linked stations in a phase to
125, then an optimization will be
performed minimizing the maximum
number of linked stations in any phase,
and constraining the number of linked
stations in any phase in subsequent
optimization to no more than 1.2 times
that maximum number. This strikes an
appropriate balance between
minimizing the number of linked
stations in any phase while providing
additional flexibility to achieve other
objectives.
(8) No station falling into the
‘‘complicated’’ category for purposes of
the Phase Scheduling Tool will be
assigned to Phase 1. This constraint will
help to ensure that the stations facing
the most challenging and timeconsuming transitions have adequate
time, and to avoid the risk of such
stations delaying others’ transitions in
the event of delays.
Objectives: (1) Assign U.S. stations
whose pre-auction channels are in the
600 MHz Band to earlier phases in order
to clear the 600 MHz Band as quickly
as possible, while simultaneously
assigning all Canadian stations and U.S.
stations whose pre-auction channels are
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
in the remaining television bands (U.S.
TV-band stations) to later phases, where
possible. This objective promotes a
number of goals. It helps to clear the 600
MHz Band expeditiously. It also avoids
the problem of Canadian and U.S.
stations competing for limited resources
and provides Canada with the time
needed for its transition. To implement
this objective, the Phase Assignment
Tool weights assignments for stations
transitioning from the 600 MHz Band
after transition Phase 8. Similarly, the
Phase Assignment Tool weights
assignments for Canadian stations and
U.S. TV-band stations assigned to any
transition phase earlier than Phase 9.
The weights for stations not
transitioning out of the 600 MHz Band
before Phase 9 is significantly higher
than the weights for U.S. TV-band
stations or Canadian stations
transitioning early. We use the
following weights when determining
assignments: U.S. stations in the 600
MHz Band assigned to phase 9 are
assigned a weight of 20; U.S. stations in
the 600 MHz Band assigned to phase 10
are assigned a weight of 200; U.S. TVband stations and Canadian stations
assigned before phase 9 are assigned a
weight of 1. The Phase Assignment Tool
minimizes the sum of all weights
incurred by the phase assignments.
(2) Minimize the sum, over all DMAs,
of the number of times a DMA must
rescan. This objective benefits viewers
by minimizing the number of rescans
necessary in a market and creates
regionalized clusters that will make
resource allocation more efficient. As
with the fourth constraint above, the use
of DMAs attempts to provide similar
benefits to those that would flow from
a purely regional approach. This DMAbased objective attempts to move all
stations within the same DMA into the
same phase if such a solution can be
found consistent with all constraints
and prior objectives.
(3) Minimize the total number of
linked stations. Whereas the seventh
constraint above limits the total number
of linked stations in a phase to 125, this
objective minimizes the total number of
linked stations throughout all phases of
the transition. This objective seeks to
provide as many stations as possible
with the ability to test their equipment
on their post-auction channel while
simultaneously broadcasting on their
pre-auction channel without the need to
coordinate.
(4) Minimize the difference between
the number of stations in the largest
transition phase and the smallest
transition phase. Similar to the fifth
constraint above, this objective
equalizes the number of assigned
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
stations in each phase by minimizing
this maximum difference. We believe
that evening out the number of stations
assigned to each transition phase will
help manage limited resources by
ensuring that they can be spread more
evenly across the transition phases.
The Phase Assignment Tool may also
be used during the transition to consider
proposed changes to and, as
appropriate, modify phase assignments
where such reassignments will not
impact the overall schedule. We
recognize that unforeseen events may
occur during the transition that may
warrant adjustments in order to ensure
that the transition proceeds in a timely
fashion. If we modify phase assignments
during the transition, the Phase
Assignment Tool will restrict
reassignments to later transition phases
in order to provide certainty to stations
that any adjustments will not require
them to transition earlier than their
originally scheduled phase completion
date. Any exceptions will require the
consent of any station moved to an
earlier phase.
Preliminary Results of Staff Analysis.
Baseline Results. This Section presents
results from running the Phase
Assignment Tool using representative
final channel assignment plans, for two
alternative 84 MHz spectrum clearing
scenarios. We have updated these
Baseline Results from those used in the
Transition Scheduling Proposal Public
Notice to reflect the fact that higher
clearing targets above 84 MHz are no
longer relevant given the current status
of the incentive auction. In each
scenario, all of the constraints above are
satisfied and the objectives applied in
the order specified above. The joint
transition plan will consist of U.S. and
Canadian stations. We also assume that
Mexican stations will have already
completed their transition to their new
channels below channel 37 prior to the
end of the first phase. The Phase
Assignment Tool assumes that Mexican
stations will have transitioned to their
new channels before the phase
completion date of the first transition
phase. See Exchange of Coordination
Letters with IFT Regarding DTV
Transition and Reconfiguration of 600
MHz Band Spectrum, U.S.-Mex., July
15, 2015, available at https://
wireless.fcc.gov/incentiveauctions/
learn-program/resources.html (Mexican
Coordination).
Figures 4 and 5 below present
histograms for these two representative
84 MHz scenarios, showing the total
number of broadcast stations that
transition in each phase and within
each phase how many are (a) Canadian
stations, (b) U.S. stations whose pre-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
auction channel is in the new 600 MHz
Band and (c) other U.S. stations that
nevertheless must change channels. All
Canadian stations are included in the
simulations. Those Canadian analog
stations that will remain on their
current analog channel but are required
to convert to digital are not currently
reflected in the Phase Assignment Tool.
However, the final joint transition plan
and schedule will include all analog
and digital Canadian stations changing
channels and/or converting to digital.
The figures show that the 600 MHz
Band is mostly clear of U.S.-based
impairments by the end of Phase 8.
Also, the very few Canadian stations
that may impede U.S. stations from
transitioning are assigned to early
transition phases. Table 1 sets forth the
number of stations that are part of
linked-station sets in each of the two
scenarios. Table 2 details the maximum
temporary aggregate interference
(calculated consistent with the
methodology presented in the Aggregate
Interference Public Notice) that any
station would face during the transition
in either of the two 84 MHz scenarios.
[Figure 4, Figure 5, Table 1, and Table
2 Omitted].
Section IV: The Phase Scheduling
Tool. After stations are assigned to
phases by applying the Phase
Assignment Tool, we will use the Phase
Scheduling Tool to inform the
determination of a phase completion
date for each phase. The Phase
Scheduling Tool estimates the total time
necessary for stations within a phase to
perform the tasks required to complete
the transition process. In this Section,
we discuss the Phase Scheduling Tool
and its inputs, including the specific
tasks required for stations to transition
and the estimated time required to
complete each task.
The Phase Scheduling Tool models
the various processes involved in a
station transitioning to its post-auction
channel. It is a simulation tool created
to assist the Commission in setting
reasonable deadlines for phases. It
divides these processes into two
sequential stages: (1) The ‘‘PreConstruction Stage’’ and (2) the
‘‘Construction Stage.’’ While separate
processes within a stage may occur
concurrently, such as equipment
procurement and zoning applications,
all processes within the PreConstruction Stage must be complete
before the station is ready to move to the
Construction Stage. For example, in the
model, the Construction Stage process
of installing a new primary antenna
cannot occur until after the new antenna
is manufactured and delivered during
the Pre-Construction Stage. A transition
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11119
phase cannot end until all stations in
the model assigned to that phase have
completed both stages and are ready to
operate on their post-auction channels.
Some processes require specialized
resources that may be in limited supply.
The Phase Scheduling Tool models
these limited resources by constraining
the amount available at any given time.
If a station needs a constrained resource
to complete a process, and the resource
is unavailable because other stations are
using it, the model places the station in
a queue until the required resource is
available. As described in more detail
below, the processes within each phase
are not designed to be a comprehensive
listing of every task required to
complete the transition; we have instead
separated those processes which need
resources that are most limited in
supply and therefore likely will have
the biggest impact on scheduling.
For each Stage, the Phase Scheduling
Tool uses two inputs: (1) The time it
would take for a station to complete the
tasks required for that stage if all
resources are available when needed;
and (2) the estimated availability of
constrained resources. The Phase
Scheduling Tool uses these inputs to
calculate how long it will take each
station within a transition phase to
complete all work associated with both
Stages. The output of the tool is the
estimated number of weeks from the
start of the transition required for all
stations assigned to a phase to complete
all of the necessary transition tasks, test
equipment on their post-auction
channels, and be ready to operate on
their post-auction channels.
Since it is not possible to know the
exact order stations will begin each
process, the Phase Scheduling Tool uses
discrete event simulation to model this
uncertainty. The Phase Scheduling Tool
does assume, however, that a station
assigned to an earlier phase will begin
its Pre-Construction Stage processes
requiring a constrained resource (e.g.,
ordering an antenna) before a station
assigned to a later phase. By assigning
the station order within a transition
phase randomly, called the ‘‘simulation
order,’’ and simulating the transition
processes, the Phase Scheduling Tool
provides a single estimate of the time
required for all stations assigned to a
phase to complete each transition phase.
The Phase Scheduling Tool operates by
simulating stations completing the
transition and outputs the time needed
to complete each phase given a
simulation order in which stations have
access to scarce resources. The tool will
run 100 simulations each with a
different simulation order. The tool then
provides the average time in weeks it
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
11120
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
takes to complete a phase. Based on
those results, the Bureau may then
exercise limited discretion to modify the
phase completion dates from the
average durations calculated by the tool
to account specifically for certain factors
that may warrant deadline adjustments,
such as the relative length of the testing
periods for each phase or seasonal
considerations. For example, the phase
completion date may be moved later if
an early phase consisting primarily of
stations in northern regions of the
United States is projected to end in the
middle of winter.
The Phase Scheduling Tool also
enables the staff to analyze the
sensitivity of transition phase time
estimates based on changes in input
data. During the transition, as new
information becomes available, the tool
can be rerun to assess the potential
impact of unforeseen developments on
the overall schedule. To give additional
certainty to stations, if we decide to use
the Phase Scheduling Tool during the
transition to modify phase completion
dates, we will not move any phase
completion date forward without the
consent of the impacted station.
The following subsections detail the
specific processes or tasks that the
Phase Scheduling Tool models for each
stage, as well as the estimated time and
resource availability for each process.
We adopt the estimates provided in the
Transition Scheduling Proposal Public
Notice with the exception of time
allocated to tower construction on
towers with multiple stations. The
revised estimates are based on data
contained in the Widelity Report,
submissions from interested parties,
submitted comments, and informational
discussions with tower crew companies,
other antenna and transmitter
manufacturers, and broadcasters. We
believe that the estimates are
conservative and that they reasonably
capture each aspect of the transition.
The final subsection below shows
sample outputs of the Phase Scheduling
Tool for the two baseline Phase
Assignment Tool simulation set forth in
the prior section.
Modeling the Transition Stages. The
individual tasks required for a station to
complete its transition have been
grouped into two stages: (1) The PreConstruction Stage and (2) the
Construction Stage. In the PreConstruction Stage, a station completes
two tasks: Ordering and delivery of the
main and auxiliary antennas; and
administration and planning work,
which includes zoning, administration,
legal, possible structural tower
improvements, equipment
modifications, and other activities. In
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
the Construction Stage, a station
completes two additional tasks:
Construction related work and tower
crew work. The tasks included in each
Stage are shown in Figure 6 below.
[Figure 6 Omitted].
The Phase Scheduling Tool groups
together all tasks within a stage that can
be done regardless of how many other
stations are performing similar tasks.
However, since there are two
constrained resources that are
dependent on the actions of others
(antenna deliveries and tower crew
availability), these tasks are separated
out and the model considers how
resource availability impacts the total
completion time for any station in either
stage. We note that there are many other
resources that are not specifically
identified but are essential to
completion of the transition process.
Based on the staff’s analysis and the
record developed to date, resources
such as auxiliary antenna
manufacturing, transmitter
manufacturing, transmission line
manufacturing and RF component
installers do not affect the time required
for a station to complete its transition.
The availability and manufacturing
capacity of these resources have been
identified as being sufficient to fulfill
the expected demand during the
transition (i.e., these resources have
been designated as being
‘‘unconstrained’’) and therefore these
resources are not broken out separately
in the Phase Scheduling Tool. Instead,
as illustrated in Figure 6, the tasks
related to these unconstrained resources
have been grouped into the general tasks
of Administration/Planning, which is
within the Pre-Construction Stage, and
Construction Related Work, which is
within the Construction Stage. Other
required resources such as RF
consultants and structural engineers
will need to complete their work by the
end of the initial 3-month filing window
for construction permit applications,
and therefore, also are not considered a
constrained resource for purposes of the
Phase Scheduling Tool. The Phase
Scheduling Tool uses conservative
estimates for the time requirements in
order to assure that they meet the
individual needs of each station.
Pre-Construction Stage Inputs. There
are two components to the PreConstruction Stage: (1) The time
required for antenna equipment to be
ordered, manufactured and delivered (a
significant constraint) and (2) the time
required for all other planning and
administration activities necessary to
prepare for construction (called
‘‘Administration/Planning’’). The
Administration/Planning component
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
includes zoning, administration, legal
work, and pre-construction alterations
to tower and transmitter equipment.
Since administration and planning
activities take place in parallel and the
activities of one station are unlikely to
impact the ability of others to perform
the same activities, the model simply
estimates the total time needed to
complete all of these activities.
The Phase Scheduling Tool
categorizes stations based on the
difficulty of completing these activities.
The Commission used a similar
‘‘bucketing’’ approach for categorizing
stations in the Final Channel
Assignment. Time estimates were
derived by taking estimates from
Widelity and, where appropriate,
adding ‘‘slack’’ time so that the overall
estimate of the time required would be
a conservative one. The Widelity Report
estimates that Administration/Planning
could take up to 72 weeks for
‘‘complicated’’ stations (primarily due
to zoning), up to 20 weeks for the
average DTV station and up to 12 weeks
for the average Class A or other lower
power station. To be conservative, we
added another 12 weeks to the
Administration/Planning estimates for
the non-complicated stations since these
timelines were more aggressive.
However, we expect this work will start
during the 3-month filing window for
construction permits (if not earlier,
when each station receives its
confidential letter with its final channel
assignment). The time estimates are
shown in Table 3 below. [Table 3
Omitted].
The Administration/Planning time
estimate establishes the minimum
amount of time required for a station to
complete the Pre-Construction Stage.
While Administration/Planning work is
occurring, stations likely will also place
orders for their main antennas. The time
estimates for this component of the PreConstruction Stage include
manufacturing and delivery time once
the antenna manufacturers receive
orders from stations. However, the
ability of manufacturers to produce
enough antennas may impact the overall
schedule. Therefore, the Phase
Scheduling Tool includes antenna
manufacturing and delivery as a specific
resource constraint. The Phase
Scheduling Tool considers a station to
have completed its Pre-Construction
Stage only after all of its
Administrative/Planning work is
completed and its antenna is delivered.
For purposes of delivery time
estimates, stations are divided into two
categories, based on the assumption that
manufacture and delivery of directional
antennas for full power stations will
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
require more time than for nondirectional and Class A antennas (of
either type). The time estimates shown
in Table 4 are based on the assumption
that the antenna manufacturers will
begin manufacturing antennas as soon
as the orders are received unless they
are manufacturing at their current
capacity. The time estimates for antenna
delivery are generally consistent with, if
not more conservative than, those cited
in the Widelity Report, which estimated
3 months except for deliveries to
complicated stations. [Table 4 Omitted].
The Phase Scheduling Tool also
includes a specific number of antennas
that can be manufactured and delivered
at any given time. Based on those
numbers, some stations may be able to
receive their antennas without waiting
for any additional time, but other
stations may have to wait for their
antennas to be delivered. The Phase
Scheduling Tool will place such
stations in a queue until the antenna can
be delivered, based on the station’s
assigned number in a simulation order.
In addition, the Phase Scheduling Tool
will assume that manufacturers have an
inventory of 20 antennas at the start of
the 39-month transition period, and that
capacity will increase over the course of
the transition period. These
assumptions are listed in Table 5 below.
These estimates are based on public
statements by manufacturers regarding
their planned ramp up in anticipation of
the transition and the assumption that
these manufacturers plan on
maintaining market share. We also
assumed a conservative 5 percent
growth rate. [Table 5 Omitted].
Construction Stage Inputs.
Construction Stage modeling is similar
to Pre-Construction Stage modeling and
consists of two activities: (1) The time
to complete all general facets of
construction (called ‘‘Construction
Related Work’’); and (2) the time
required by tower crews to complete
installation of equipment on the tower.
As with Pre-Construction Stage
activities, these activities can occur in
parallel but the estimated completion
time for the Stage is the time required
to complete both these activities. In
addition, like the Administration/
Planning category in the PreConstruction Stage, the Construction
Related Work category is a catch-all
category that incorporates several types
of activities. The estimated time for this
category includes estimates of the time
to complete all construction work and
associated management and
coordination activities. More
specifically, Construction Related Work
includes estimates for the time
associated with installing the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
transmitter components, combiners, RF
mask filters and the transmission line to
the tower base. Construction Related
Work also allows time for any possible
installation of liquid cooling systems,
AC power, and connection to remote
control equipment and input signal
connections if required. Finally,
Construction Related Work includes
time required for performing any tower
modifications and any final testing of
the system. Table 6 lists the estimates of
the time to complete all work included
in the ‘‘Construction Related Work’’
category. Based on Widelity time
estimates for the various work streams
that fall under Construction Related
Work. [Table 6 Omitted].
The Construction Related Work
column reflects estimates of the
minimum amount of time required for a
station to complete the Construction
Stage. The other process in the
Construction Stage work is tower work.
The time required for tower work is
both tower and antenna specific. Table
7 lists the different characteristics that
determine the amount of time required
to perform tower work. These times
were based on feedback from industry.
This table does not reflect the time to
install an auxiliary antenna. [Table 7
Omitted].
If a station did not need to wait for an
antenna crew to become available in
order to complete its tower work, then
the amount of time the station would
take to complete the Construction Stage
would be the longer of the time
estimated for construction related work
and the time estimated for the station to
complete work on its tower. However,
not every station will be able to have a
tower crew as soon as needed. When
modeling to generate estimates for phase
completion times, the Phase Scheduling
Tool will place any station that is
waiting for a tower crew to become
available in a queue until a crew
becomes available, based on the
station’s assigned number in a
simulation order. Stations will be
removed from the queue according to
their simulation order.
We include in the Phase Scheduling
Tool specific estimates regarding the
number of available tower crews. The
record developed to date reflects
different estimates as to the number and
types of tower crews that will be
available. In light of the variance in
these estimates, we will place tower
crews into three buckets: (1) U.S. crews
capable of servicing towers that are
particularly difficult to work on due to
height or location; (2) U.S. crews that
are capable of servicing easier towers;
and (3) Canadian crews. U.S. stations on
towers that are above 300 feet in height
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11121
and that are top-mounted or located on
a candelabra can only draw from the
pool of U.S. crews that can handle such
difficult sites. Other U.S. stations can
only draw from the other pool of U.S.
crews, on the assumption that these
difficult site crews will be fully
occupied. Canadian stations can only
draw from the pool of Canadian crews.
It is likely that crews will travel
between countries, but separating the
crews in this way provides a more
conservative estimate of the number of
crews available in each country. We
expect that the number of crews will
increase as the transition proceeds. The
specific estimates we will use are set
forth below in Table 8. Tower crew
estimates were based on feedback from
industry and from ISED Canada. We
assume a conservative growth rate in
U.S. tower crews of 5 percent, but no
growth in Canadian crews (which is
very conservative). [Table 8 Omitted].
Other assumptions incorporated into
the Phase Scheduling Tool are: (1) The
estimated time required to complete
work on a tower is reduced or
discounted if more than one station on
the tower is transitioning in the same
phase. The Phase Scheduling Tool
assumes that antenna installations will
be performed by a single tower crew at
the same time for all stations located on
a given tower that are assigned to the
same phase. Based on comments
received and the record developed to
date, we are adjusting the time upwards
for the time required to complete the
work on towers with multiple stations.
Construction on the tower will
commence when the first station on that
tower is ready to begin its construction
work and the total time to complete all
construction for all stations on that
tower is equal to (a) the time required
for the most difficult station (we assign
this time to the first station) plus (b) the
sum of the time estimates for all stations
other than this first station, multiplied
by 50 percent. We believe that these
revised discounts are appropriately
conservative. Staff believes that 50
percent is a reasonable (and
conservative) discount between the
previously proposed 95 percent
discount which was generally supported
by American Tower and the 20 percent
or 10 percent discount that Cordillera, et
al. suggests. Any discount smaller than
50 percent would substantially remove
the time savings produced by the same
tower efficiencies which American
Tower suggests.
(2) The Phase Scheduling Tool
assumes that 75 percent of all stations
(including those with a licensed
auxiliary antenna) will need to install
an auxiliary antenna. For each station
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
11122
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
requiring an auxiliary antenna, the tool
adds one additional week of tower crew
time to the tower crew time, which is
the maximum time required for an
auxiliary in Table 7.
(3) Where the estimated time required
to complete an entire transition phase is
less than four weeks because much of
the work (other than transmission
testing on the new channel) has already
occurred prior to the start date for the
testing period of that transition phase,
the testing period window is scaled up
to allow four weeks for testing. The four
week minimum allows additional
flexibility for the Commission to adjust
deadlines for stations due to unforeseen
circumstances. For example, if many
stations in the same phase experience a
natural disaster, those stations’ deadline
could be extended and the multiple
subsequent phases testing periods could
be shortened to three weeks.
Sample Output. This Section provides
sample results of the Phase Scheduling
Tool using the baseline Phase
Assignment Tool results presented
above and the constraints and objectives
for simulated auction outcomes
involving the two 84 MHz clearing
scenarios. Although Tables 9 and 10
below show the average number of
weeks from the start of the phase to the
phase completion date, each phase
completion date will be listed as a
specific date when the final transition
schedule is released in the Closing and
Reassignment Public Notice. The
outputs of each clearing scenario are
represented graphically below in
Figures 7 and 8, respectively. As both
Figures show, stations within each
phase cannot start testing until the prior
phase is complete, and all stations
within a phase must cease operating on
their pre-auction channels by the phase
completion date.
Figures 7 and 8 below are a graphical
representation of the time estimates
from the Phase Scheduling Tool and
represent estimates only. Although the
tool produces reasonable time estimates
based on the detailed inputs discussed,
it does not account specifically for
certain factors that may warrant
deadline adjustments, such as the
relative length of the testing periods for
each phase or seasonal considerations.
For example, the phase completion date
may be moved later if an early phase
consisting primarily of stations in
northern regions of the United States is
projected to end in the middle of winter.
Thus, the Bureau may adjust the phase
completion dates from the average
durations calculated by the tool to take
such factors into account, consistent
with the overall 39-month transition
deadline imposed by the Commission’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
rules. [Table 9, Figure 7, Table 10, and
Figure 8 Omitted].
Appendix B: Final Regulatory
Flexibility Act Analysis
As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
Transition Scheduling Proposal Public
Notice. The Bureau sought written
public comment on the proposals in the
Notice, including comment on the IRFA.
This Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule
Changes. The Federal Communications
Commission (Commission) delegated
authority to the Media Bureau (Bureau)
to establish construction deadlines
within the 39-month post-incentive
auction transition period for television
stations that are assigned to new
channels in the incentive auction
repacking process. Pursuant to the
Commission’s direction, the Bureau, in
consultation with the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), the
Office of Engineering and Technology
(OET) and the Incentive Auction Task
Force (IATF), has developed a plan for
a ‘‘phased transition schedule.’’
The Bureau will use a Phase
Assignment Tool that will use
mathematical optimization techniques
to assign stations to one of 10
‘‘transition phases.’’ The phases will
have sequential testing periods and
deadlines or ‘‘phase completion dates.’’
The phase completion date is the last
day that a station in its assigned phase
may operate on its pre-auction channel.
The Bureau will use a Phase
Scheduling Tool to estimate the time
required for stations in each phase to
complete the tasks required to transition
to their pre-auction channels in light of
resource availability. The Bureau will
run the Phase Scheduling Tool with
different simulation orders to produce a
range of estimated times for each
transition phase. The Bureau will use
the resulting range of estimated times to
guide its determination of a phase
completion date for each transition
phase.
All transition phases will begin at the
same time, but will have sequential
phase completion dates. Each phase will
have a ‘‘testing period’’ defined by a
start and end date with the end date
corresponding to the phase completion
date. While stations may engage in
planning and construction activities at
any time prior to their phase completion
date, equipment testing on post-auction
channels will be confined to the
specified testing periods in order to
minimize interference and facilitate
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
coordination. Other than for the first
phase, the testing period will begin on
the day after the phase completion date
for the prior phase. Whether a station
needs to coordinate with other stations
during the testing period will depend on
whether it is part of a ‘‘linked-station
set,’’ that is, a set of two or more stations
assigned to the same phase with
interference relationships or
‘‘dependencies.’’ Stations that are not
part of a linked-station set may test on
their post-auction channels during the
testing period without the need for
coordination. Stations that are part of a
linked-station set must coordinate
testing with stations in the set so as to
avoid undue interference. Such stations
must transition to their post-auction
channels simultaneously.
While the Bureau originally
contemplated that no stage would have
a testing period shorter than four weeks,
it concluded that it may adjust the
amount of time given to the testing
periods of some phases to accommodate
the overall transition schedule,
particularly in the early transition
phases.
The Bureau noted that, after the final
stage rule is met, it will send each
eligible station that will remain on the
air after the auction a confidential letter
identifying the station’s post-auction
channel assignment, technical
parameters, and assigned transition
phase. After the conclusion of the
assignment phase of the forward
auction, the Commission will release
the Auction Closing and Channel
Reassignment Public Notice (Closing
and Reassignment Public Notice),
announcing that the reverse and forward
auctions have ended and specifying the
effective date of the repacking process.
Among other things, the Closing and
Reassignment Public Notice will
provide the post-auction channel
assignment and technical parameters of
every station eligible for protection in
the repacking process that will remain
on the air after the incentive auction.
The Closing and Reassignment Public
Notice will also announce the transition
phase, phase completion date, testing
period for each reassigned station, and
whether the station is a part of a
‘‘linked-station set.’’ Stations reassigned
to new channels will have three months
from the Closing and Reassignment
Public Notice release date to file
construction permit applications
proposing modified facilities to operate
on their post-auction channel facility
specified in the Closing and
Reassignment Public Notice. The
Bureau will then issue each station a
construction permit, including the
phase completion date as the
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
construction permit deadline for that
station.
The Bureau noted that there are
various instances in which some
stations may seek to construct an
expanded facility or alternate channel
that differs from the technical
parameters assigned in the Closing and
Reassignment Public Notice. Some
stations may also request extensions of
their construction deadlines and seek
authority to continue operating on their
pre-auction channel after their phase
completion date, including a waiver of
their phase completion deadline. In
evaluating such requests, the Bureau
announced that it will examine the
impact that grant of such requests
would have on the phased transition
schedule. The Bureau stated that,
although it does not intend to grant
requests that would disrupt the
transition, its aim is not to discourage
stations from proposing alternative
transition solutions that could create
efficiencies or resolve unforeseen
circumstances. After evaluation, if the
Bureau grants such a request it may
choose to modify transition phase
assignments and construction deadlines
of the requesting station, or if necessary,
other stations; however, no other station
will be assigned to an earlier transition
phase than it was originally assigned to
without its consent.
The Bureau concluded that there may
be situations in which the voluntary use
of either individual temporary channels
or temporary joint use of a channel may
aid the transition. Therefore, the Bureau
will permit reassigned Class A and full
power stations to make a request to
operate on a temporary channel either
on an individual or joint basis. When
seeking authorization to operate on an
individual temporary channel or engage
in temporary joint use of a channel a
broadcaster must file with the
Commission a request for STA
proposing the channel it wishes to
operate on and including the specific
technical parameters. Such requests
may be made at any time during the
transition period and must demonstrate
that the proposal both complies with the
Commission’s technical rules and will
not otherwise interfere with the
transition. A request for use of an
individual temporary channel will be
restricted to replicating a station’s preauction coverage area and population
served and broadcasters should, at a
minimum, evaluate whether their
operation would require coordination
with neighboring stations that are not
already in the same linked-station set,
would result in new linked-station sets,
or whether significant construction will
be required to commence operation,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
which could divert resources from other
stations. Furthermore, depending on the
station’s proximity to Mexico or Canada,
coordination approval to operate on a
temporary channel may be required
from that particular country.
The Bureau declined to explicitly
prohibit a broadcaster from operating
during the transition on a temporary
channel in the new wireless band that
is vacant. However, to balance the
interests of wireless operators to start
construction and commence operations
in cleared spectrum, when evaluating
requests for individual use of a
temporary channel in the new wireless
band we will require broadcasters to
demonstrate that there is no reasonable
alternative to operating in the new
wireless band and provide written
consent from the wireless licensee of the
channel that broadcaster wishes to
temporarily operate, as well any
wireless licensee(s) that would
otherwise be required to protect the
broadcaster’s operations under the
Commission’s inter-service interference
(ISIX) rules.
The Bureau concluded that, in the
case of a request for temporary joint use
of a channel the applicant (joint user)
must include with its request a written
authorization from the licensee of the
host station. A joint user will continue
to be a Commission licensee, and will
temporarily operate at variance from its
authorized parameters pursuant to STA.
As such, a joint user must continue to
comply with all requirements under the
Rules and the Act that they would
otherwise be required operating on their
own channel. Because joint use of a
channel is only temporary and the
sharee will ultimately operate on its
own channel, the Bureau concluded that
it is important for the station to
maintain coverage of its community of
license and require a sharee to continue
to cover its community of license.
The Bureau concluded that interim
and auxiliary facilities will be an
important part of the transition for
broadcasters and that it will take action
as appropriate to facilitate the use of
such facilities and equipment. In order
for a station to continue operation on its
pre-auction channel while its current
primary antenna is removed and a new
channel antenna is installed, the Bureau
announced that it expects many stations
will need to utilize auxiliary facilities
and equipment. The Bureau concluded
that nothing it had adopted restricts a
station from filing a request for STA to
operate on its post-auction channel
using an auxiliary facility prior to its
phase completion date.
The Transition Scheduling Proposal
Public Notice provided guidance on the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11123
prohibited communications rule as it
pertains to broadcasters and the postauction transition—particularly their
ability to hold discussions with vendors
not covered by the rule. A great many
of the preparations that broadcasters
may undertake with respect to transition
to post-auction channel assignments
will not involve prohibited
communications. For example,
broadcasters may communicate with
third parties not covered by the
prohibition, such as consulting
engineers and counsel, without
violating the prohibition, even if the
communication discloses bids and
bidding strategies. A broadcaster or
other covered party still should take
care, however, that the third party to
which such communications are made
does not convey the information to
another covered party, which would
violate the prohibition. In addition,
broadcasters may communicate with
other covered parties regarding many
issues in the post-auction transition
without disclosing bids and bidding
strategies. For example, broadcasters
that did not apply to participate in the
auction do not have bids and bidding
strategies of their own to disclose and so
may communicate regarding their own
post-auction transition without violating
the prohibition. Such broadcasters must
bear in mind, however, that they still
are prohibited from communicating any
other incentive auction applicant’s bids
and bidding strategies of which they
may learn, such as a channel sharing
partner’s bids or bidding strategies.
Finally, broadcasters that did apply but
kept that fact confidential also may be
able to communicate regarding postauction channel assignments without
disclosing bids and bidding strategies.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised
by Public Comments in Response to the
IRFA. Free Access & Broadcast
Telemedia, LLC, and EICB–TV East, LLC
(FAB/EICB) were the only commenters
to file comments directly addressing the
IRFA in this proceeding. FAB/EICB
argue that, in the IRFA, the Commission
failed to consider the impact or costs of
its proposal on low power television
stations (LPTV). We considered these
concerns when composing the Public
Notice.
Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs
agencies to provide a description of, and
where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if
adopted. The following small entities, as
well as an estimate of the number of
such small entities, are discussed in the
FRFA: Full power television stations; (2)
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
11124
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Class A TV and LPTV stations; (3)
wireless telecommunications carriers
(except satellite); (4) wired
telecommunications carriers; (5) cable
television distribution services; (6) cable
companies and systems; (7) cable
system operators (Telecom Act
standard); and (8) direct broadcast
satellite (DBS) service.
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements. The Transition Schedule
Public Notice does not contain proposed
information collection(s) subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any new
or modified information collection
burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Steps Taken to Minimize Significant
Impact on Small Entities and
Significant Alternatives Considered. The
RFA requires an agency to describe any
significant alternatives that it has
considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standard; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
In general, alternatives to proposed
rules or policies are discussed only
when those rules pose a significant
adverse economic impact on small
entities. In this context, however, the
transition plan set forth in the
Transition Schedule Public Notice
generally confers benefits. In particular,
the intent of the plan is to ensure that
all stations are able to complete a timely
transition to their final post-auction
channel facilities without delay and
without incurring unnecessary costs.
The Bureau declined to adopt a
proposal by the National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB) to not assign
stations to phases until stations have
completed necessary structural and
engineering studies. Alternatively, NAB
suggested that initial phase assignments
should be ‘‘preliminary’’ and should be
re-evaluated after stations have filed
their construction permit applications
and cost estimates in order to allow the
Commission to more fully understand
their scope of work and timing for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
moving to a new channel. The Bureau
found that NAB’s suggested approach
would have a chilling effect on the
transition by undermining the incentive
for broadcasters, including small
entities, to begin preparing for the
transition in earnest. The Bureau
concluded that information used to
create the transition schedule is
sufficiently detailed and reliable to
establish phased transition deadlines
once the final channel reassignments
have been established. The Bureau
determined that launching an organized,
phased schedule at the earliest
opportunity will provide broadcasters,
equipment manufacturers and other
vendors and consultants, wireless
providers, and television viewers with
certainty and stability. Doing so is
particularly important as broadcasters
prepare their construction permits,
coordinate with other broadcasters, and
begin construction planning.
The Bureau also declined suggestions
to collect additional or different
information about stations that face
difficult approval processes or
procurement issues prior to assigning
stations to phases. The Bureau found
that its Phase Assignment Tool already
includes a constraint identifying certain
stations as complicated based on data
collected by the Bureau to date.
Regardless of the difficulty of any one
stations’ move, because of dependencies
between stations and interference
constraints, the Bureau concluded that
certain stations must move together in
the same phase or certain stations must
move in one phase before additional
stations can move in a subsequent
phase. The Phase Assignment Tool is
designed to organize the transition of
over 1,000 broadcast stations in an
orderly fashion that respects station
dependencies and interference
constraints, in addition to accounting
for individual stations complexities,
while simultaneously protecting
television viewers.
The Bureau declined to cap aggregate
interference finding that that doing so
would provide little benefit while
imposing significant costs by
dramatically increasing the
computational difficulty of the Tool.
However, recognizing the potential
problems with a cap, NAB suggested as
an alternative that, after stations are
assigned to phases, the Bureau
determine whether any station has
greater than five percent aggregate
interference, and if so, make appropriate
adjustments. Consistent with this
suggestion, the Bureau announced that
it will attempt to find an alternative
phase assignment for any station
predicted to receive more than five
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
percent temporary aggregate
interference, consistent with the
constraints and objectives.
To minimize consumer disruption
during the 39-month transition period,
and to promote the efficient use of tower
crews, the Bureau announced that all
stations within a DMA will be assigned
to no more than two assignment phases.
Broadcast commenters put forward a
variety of proposals to modify this
constraint, but the Bureau found that
none described how their respective
proposals would affect the overall phase
assignments. Therefore, it rejected those
proposals. The Bureau found that
assigning stations within a DMA to two,
potentially nonconsecutive phases, is
crucial in providing the optimization
with the flexibility to satisfy other
constraints, such as limiting the number
of linked stations per phase and keeping
a relatively consistent number of
stations assigned to each phase. The
proposals by broadcast commenters
would threaten the Tool’s ability to
balance competing goals. At the same
time, the Bureau agreed with
broadcasters that minimizing viewer
disruption and efficiently clearing
DMAs are laudable goals and,
accordingly, the Bureau adopted the
objective of minimizing the total
number of times a DMA must rescan. If
it is possible to satisfy the
optimization’s constraints and its first
objective, and still assign stations to
only one DMA, the optimization will
attempt to do so using the second
objective. The Bureau found that this
approach gives the optimization the
flexibility to balance competing
constraints while continuing to
prioritize consumers and regional
clusters.
The NAB proposed that the Bureau
should treat the ‘‘125 linked stations’’
constraint as an objective. The Bureau
declined this proposal finding that NAB
did not propose a metric for
determining how much additional time
should be added to a phase with more
than 125 linked stations under its
proposed approach.
Despite broadcast commenters’
objections, the Bureau decided to
prioritize clearing the 600 MHz Band as
the first objective. The Bureau
concluded that phase assignments must
satisfy each of the nine constraints it
adopted, most of which are designed to
protect broadcasters. The Bureau
concluded that the four objectives it
adopted strikes the appropriate balance
and will encourage the expeditious
clearing of the 600 MHz Band.
The Bureau also declined Cordillera,
et al.’s proposal that the two primary
objectives be to maximize the health
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
and safety of tower crews and the homes
and businesses that are in close
proximity to towers and to minimize
service disruptions to viewers and users
of other services that share broadcast
towers. The Bureau concluded that
Cordillera et al. had not explained how
the Bureau could incorporate such goals
into the mathematical optimization
model and it was unaware of any
mechanism to accomplish the task. The
Phase Scheduling Tool estimates time
periods for construction tasks based on
industry information, and the Bureau
believed that relying on such
information is reasonable and will help
to promote health and safety.
The Bureau further declined to adopt
Cordillera, et al.’s proposal that
additional factual scenarios be given
additional time in the Phase Scheduling
Tool. The Bureau found that the tool
already provides estimates intended to
account for the ordinary time necessary
to complete various tasks. However, in
response to the comments from
Cordillera, et al. concerning potential
coordination with other services (e.g.,
FM radio or cellular providers)
operating on the same tower as the
reassigned station, the Bureau decided
to substantially reduce the same tower
discount in order to add back some time
to account for the additional
coordination that will be required. The
Bureau found that this new discount
will make the total tower work times
adequately conservative to account for
not only other television broadcasters
but also other broadcast and nonbroadcast facilities on the tower.
In order to facilitate a timely and
orderly transition, the Bureau
concluded that it must evaluate on a
case-by-case basis requests for
modification of any station’s facility or
transition deadline as set forth in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
Closing and Reassignment Public
Notice, to assess the impact of such
requests on the transition schedule plan.
Accordingly, it adopted the method for
evaluating such requests proposed in
the Transition Scheduling Proposal
Public Notice. Although it stated that it
does not intend to grant requests that
would disrupt the transition, the Bureau
stated that its aim is not to discourage
stations from proposing alternative
transition solutions that could create
efficiencies or resolve unforeseen
circumstances that could otherwise
force a station to go dark. Nonetheless,
such proposals should specifically
demonstrate that implementation would
not interfere with other stations’
transition efforts and address how
implementation of the proposal may
affect the transition schedule. If the
Bureau grants such a request after
considering such effects, it stated that it
may choose to modify transition phase
assignments and construction deadlines
of the requesting station or, if necessary,
other stations; however, no other station
would be assigned to an earlier
transition phase than it was originally
assigned without its consent. NAB and
E.W. Scripps supported the
establishment of a process by which a
station can request a different transition
phase, although neither proposed a
specific process or explained why the
Commission’s existing rules would be
insufficient. The Bureau found that
existing Commission processes are
sufficient to address such requests.
Commenters also suggested that stations
should have the flexibility to move to
either an earlier or later transition
phase. The Bureau stated that such
requests will be subject to a high burden
of proof and will be reviewed in its
prescribed manner to determine the
requests impact on the overall transition
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
11125
schedule as well as viewers. The Bureau
also declined AT&T’s suggestion that it
adopt a special sanction system related
to transitioning stations, finding that
such a proposal was not supported by
the record. In addition, the Bureau
concluded that a station that does not
comply with the requirements of any
Commission order may be subject to
action as contemplated by the
Commission’s rules.
The Bureau determined not to
mandate the use of temporary channels
which avoided possible additional
burdens on stations and MVPDs as well
as LPTV and TV translator stations. TMobile requested a prohibition of
voluntary temporary operation in the
new wireless band; however, the Bureau
found that entirely foreclosing this
option could undercut the benefit of
allowing broadcasters to request
temporary channels because there may
be limited available temporary channels
in the TV band.
The Bureau declined to adopt
suggestions on how the Commission
should manage its staff and resources
during the transition period. The Bureau
concluded that it will commit to
dedicating sufficient resources to
monitor the progress of the transition.
While commenters representing the
interests of LPTV and TV translator
stations provided several actions the
Commission could take to ease the
impact of the transition on LPTV and
translator stations, the Bureau found
these proposed actions have already
been addressed in other Commission
proceedings.
Federal Communications Commission.
Thomas Horan,
Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2017–03368 Filed 2–16–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\17FER2.SGM
17FER2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 32 (Friday, February 17, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11106-11125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03368]
[[Page 11105]]
Vol. 82
Friday,
No. 32
February 17, 2017
Part II
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR Part 73
Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau Adopt a Post-Incentive
Auction Transition Scheduling Plan; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 32 / Friday, February 17, 2017 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 11106]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[GN Docket No. 12-268, MB Docket No. 16-306; DA 17-107]
Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau Adopt a Post-
Incentive Auction Transition Scheduling Plan
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Media Bureau, in consultation with the
Incentive Auction Task Force, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
and the Office of Engineering and Technology, adopts a methodology to
establish construction deadlines and transitions schedule for full
power and Class A television stations that are transitioning to new
channels following the incentive auction.
DATES: Effective March 20, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Morris, Video Division, Media
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-1656 or Erin
Griffith, Incentive Auction Task Force, Federal Communications
Commission, (202) 418-2957.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
document, DA 17-107, in GN Docket No. 12-268 and MB Docket No. 16-306;
released on January 27, 2017. The full text of this document, as well
as all omitted Illustrations, Figures and Tables are available on the
Internet at the Commission's Web site at: https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0127/DA-17-107A1.pdf; or by using
the search function for GN Docket No. 12-268, MB Docket No. 16-306 on
the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web page at
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The full text is also available for public
inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET)
Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays
in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554 (telephone: 202-418-0270, TTY: 202-418-
2555). To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities, send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432
(TTY).
Synopsis
In the Incentive Auction Report and Order (IA R&O), 79 FR 48441,
August 15, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or
FCC) delegated authority to the Media Bureau (the Bureau) to establish
construction deadlines within the 39-month post-auction transition
period for television stations that are assigned to new channels in the
incentive auction repacking process. In consultation with the Incentive
Auction Task Force (IATF), the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
(WTB), and the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), the Bureau
proposed a methodology for establishing deadlines within a ``phased''
transition schedule in the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public
Notice. Commenters generally expressed support for the proposal, with
some suggested modifications and additional measures to facilitate the
transition. Based on the record in this proceeding, the Bureau adopts,
with modifications, the phased transition plan proposed in the
Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice, including use of the
Phase Assignment Tool and the Phase Scheduling Tool. Most commenters
support efforts to establish a phased transition process and the use of
the tools developed to plan and create an orderly schedule. This
methodology will be used after final channel reassignments are known in
order to establish an orderly schedule that will allow stations,
manufacturers, and other vendors and consultants, to coordinate
broadcasters' post-auction channel changes. This Public Notice also
addresses other matters related to the transition scheduling plan that
commenters raised in response to the Transition Scheduling Proposal
Public Notice.
Creating the Phased Transition Schedule. Phase Assignment Tool. As
soon as possible after the forward auction satisfies the final stage
rule and the final channel assignments are determined, the Bureau will
use the Phase Assignment Tool to assign a transition phase to each
eligible full power and Class A television station that receives a new
post-auction channel as a result of the final channel assignment
determination procedure. The Bureau has announced that it intends to
send each eligible station that will remain on the air after the
auction a confidential letter after the final stage rule is met that
identifies the station's post-auction channel assignment, technical
parameters, and assigned transition phase. We find that developing the
final channel assignments and providing the information to affected
stations as early as possible after the final stage rule is reached
will facilitate early planning and provide additional time for stations
to prepare construction permit applications.
We conclude that the information used to create the transition
schedule is sufficiently detailed and reliable to establish phased
transition deadlines once the final channel reassignments have been
established. Launching an organized, phased schedule at the earliest
opportunity will provide broadcasters, equipment manufacturers and
other vendors and consultants, wireless providers, and television
viewers with certainty and stability. This is particularly important as
broadcasters prepare their construction permit applications, coordinate
with other broadcasters, and begin construction planning. We understand
that unforeseen circumstances may arise, and the Bureau will work
closely with individual broadcasters, as well as broadcaster
associations, during the transition process. However, we conclude that
assigning stations to transition phases as soon as possible is
necessary to carry out the transition in a timely manner.
We also decline suggestions to collect additional or different
information about stations that face difficult approval processes or
procurement issues prior to assigning stations to phases. The Phase
Assignment Tool already includes a constraint identifying certain
stations as ``complicated'' based on data collected by the Bureau.
Commenters who advocated additional data collection did not identify a
source of additional or different data, or explain how the Phase
Assignment Tool should take such information into account. Furthermore,
we emphasize that the obstacles faced by individual stations are not
the only factor that the Phase Assignment Tool must consider.
Regardless of the difficulty of any one station's move, certain
stations must move together in the same phase or certain stations must
move in one phase before additional stations can move in a subsequent
phase because of station dependencies created by interference
constraints. The Phase Assignment Tool is designed to organize the
transition of all transitioning broadcast stations in an orderly
fashion that respects station dependencies and interference constraints
in addition to accounting for individual stations complexities, while
simultaneously protecting television viewers. The Phase Assignment Tool
as proposed strikes the appropriate balance with respect to these
elements.
The constraints and objectives we adopt will minimize dependencies
[[Page 11107]]
created by interference issues, ensure that the 600 MHz Band is cleared
as expeditiously as possible, cluster groups of stations into the same
phase to help manage scarce transition resources, and minimize the
impact of the transition on television viewers. Solutions identified by
the Phase Assignment Tool--that is, assignments of stations to phases--
must satisfy all constraints. Of the many possible solutions that meet
all the constraints, the tool will use optimization techniques to then
select the one that best meets the defined objectives. Each objective
is implemented in order of priority. Thus, the higher the objective's
priority, the greater its potential impact on the solution. We note
that a few commenters specifically requested to be assigned to later
phases or in the same phase. We deny such requests. The Phase
Assignment Tool uses a holistic approach to assigning stations to
phases that balances competing priorities and it is not practical to
factor such requests into the optimization.
Constraints. The Bureau adopts eight of the constraints proposed in
the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice. The constraints are
discussed below. Commenters generally support these constraints, as
well as the constraints indicating that the tool would not assign
stations to temporary channels, and we discuss each one below.
In addition to the eight constraints adopted below, the Transition
Scheduling Proposal Public Notice proposed as constraints that no
Canadian or U.S. station would be assigned to a temporary channel.
Although temporary channels could be useful for breaking dependencies,
the overwhelming number of commenters agreed with the Bureau's
tentative conclusion not to use temporary channels and argued that the
use of temporary channels should be permitted, but not required.
Therefore, we will not assign any station to a temporary channel as
part of the Phase Assignment Tool. While the restriction on temporary
channels was included as a constraint in the proposal, it is
unnecessary to include this restriction as a constraint in the final
tool as the tool will not assign stations to temporary channels even
absent such a constraint. As discussed below we will allow stations to
voluntarily seek the use of a temporary channel.
Constraint 1. During the post-incentive auction transition, we will
allow temporary increased pairwise (station-to-station) interference of
up to two percent. As we previously stated, temporary pairwise
interference increases of up to two percent could occur at any time
during the transition on a station's pre-auction and/or post-auction
channels. This constraint is likely to significantly reduce
dependencies between stations. The Commission has in the past allowed
temporary increases in interference to broadcasters in order to
facilitate transitions to new service. Nothing in the Spectrum Act
limits the Bureau's authority to permit temporary pairwise interference
of up to two percent in order to facilitate the transition to post-
auction channels.
In the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice, we explained
that limited increases in pairwise interference were unlikely to result
in significant aggregate interference increases based on staff
analysis, which reflects that aggregate interference levels are
unlikely to exceed the pairwise limits except for a few cases. However,
the Bureau will attempt to find an alternative phase assignment for any
station predicted to receive more than five percent temporary aggregate
interference, consistent with the constraints and objectives of the
Phase Assignment Tool.
Constraints 2 and 3. No Canadian station will be assigned to a
transition phase before the third phase. This constraint was developed
in consultation with Canada. Additionally we will limit the number of
transition phases to 10.
Constraint 4. To minimize consumer disruption during the 39-month
transition period, and to promote the efficient use of tower crews, all
stations within a DMA will be assigned to no more than two transition
phases. This constraint alleviates concerns that viewers will need to
complete frequent rescans during the transition. Broadcast commenters
put forward a variety of proposals to modify this constraint, but none
describe how their respective proposals would affect the overall phase
assignments. One commenter proposes that the Commission modify this
constraint to a single transition phase in each market. Another
commenter supports the two-phase constraint, but urges the Bureau to
require that the two phases occur ``back-to-back.'' Likewise, two other
commenters suggest that all stations located on the same tower should
be assigned to the same transition phase, or that the Commission should
limit the number of stations that any one broadcast group has in a
given phase. We reject these proposals. Staff analysis reflects that
assigning stations within a DMA to two, potentially nonconsecutive
phases, is crucial in providing the optimization with the flexibility
to satisfy other constraints, such as limiting the number of linked
stations per phase and keeping a relatively consistent number of
stations assigned to each phase. The commenters' proposals would
threaten the Phase Assignment Tool's ability to balance such competing
goals.
At the same time, we agree with broadcasters that minimizing viewer
disruption and efficiently clearing DMAs are important public interest
goals. Accordingly, we adopt below the second objective of
``minimiz[ing] the sum, over all DMAs, of the number of times a DMA
must rescan.'' If it is possible to satisfy the optimization's
constraints and its first objective, and still assign stations to only
one DMA, the optimization will attempt to do so using the second
objective. We find that this approach gives the optimization the
flexibility to balance competing priorities, including prioritizing
television viewers and regional clusters.
Constraints 5 and 6. To balance the number of stations across
transition phases, the difference in the number of stations in the
largest transition phase and the smallest transition phase will be no
more than 30 stations. One commenter suggests that the Bureau treat
this constraint as an objective; however, objectives have less effect
on the solution than constraints and we find that the benefits of this
constraint cannot be achieved by making it an objective. While it is
true that the actual makeup of stations within each phase may require
varying draws on resources, we conclude that this constraint is the
correct approach to ensuring the number of stations will be spread
evenly throughout the transition phases. Furthermore, as proposed and
adopted below, the Bureau has an objective that will attempt to further
reduce the difference in the number of stations in the largest
transition phase and the smallest transition phase if it can be
accomplished while still satisfying all of the constraints and the
objectives that come first in priority to that one. Every transitioning
station will also only be assigned to one transition phase. We received
no comment objecting to this constraint.
Constraint 7. No transition phase will have more than 125 linked
stations as a result of the Phase Assignment Tool. One commenter
proposes that the Bureau should treat this constraint as an objective.
However, the commenter does not explain what priority such an objective
should be given nor how its proposal would affect the overall balancing
of the optimization's priorities. We decline to treat this constraint
as an objective and find that
[[Page 11108]]
this constraint is the cornerstone of managing the breadth of
coordination required of any station to complete its transition.
Constraint 8. No station falling into the ``complicated'' category
will be assigned to Phase 1 under the Phase Assignment Tool. For the
purposes of the Phase Assignment Tool and the Phase Scheduling Tool,
``complicated'' stations are those at locations previously determined
as likely to face extraordinary hurdles. See Auction 1000 Bidding
Procedures Public Notice, 80 FR 61917, Oct. 14, 2015 at paras. 265-75;
Application Procedures for Broadcast Incentive Auction Scheduled to
Begin on March 29, 2016; Technical Formulas for Competitive Bidding, 30
FCC Rcd 11034, 11176 n.9 (WTB 2015) (``Certain towers will require
extraordinary means to move a station to a new channel . . . [S]tations
at the following locations in the U.S. will be considered
extraordinary: Mt. Sutro, Willis Tower, Hancock Building, Empire State
Building, Times Square, Mount Mansfield, Lookout Mountain.''). One
commenter asks the Bureau to clarify that the least complicated
stations will be assigned to earlier transition phases. However, phase
assignments hinge on several factors, and in particular must take into
account station dependencies. For example, a complicated station may be
positioned first in a daisy chain of interdependent stations, requiring
that it move before all the other stations in that chain. Additionally,
while a less complicated station with no dependencies may be able to
move quickly, competing goals such as ensuring that DMAs transition in
a limited number of phases and balancing resources across the
transition may dictate later phase assignments for a specific station.
We therefore decline to adopt the suggestion.
One commenter asks the Bureau to identify as complicated those
structures that have the additional characteristics discussed in the
Auction 1000 Bidding Procedures Public Notice. However, for purposes of
the post-auction transition scheduling plan, we identified certain
locations where stations are likely to encounter unusually difficult
circumstances when completing their transitions. Only stations at
locations on this discrete list, which have been identified as facing
extraordinary hurdles, will be treated as complicated. As discussed
below, however, we note that the transition schedule is based on
reasonable assumptions about how long stations--whether they are within
the complicated category or not--will need to complete their
transitions. The amount of time used to estimate how long stations will
need to transition is based on feedback from the industry and the
Widelity Report. While the time estimates provided for complicated
stations are consistent with the Widelity Report Case Study IV, to be
even more conservative, constraint number eight guarantees that
stations identified as complicated for the purpose of the Phase
Scheduling Tool will have a minimum of two phases to complete their
transitions since such stations will not be assigned to the first
transition phase.
We adopt the four objectives and respective priorities proposed in
the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice. Specifically, the
first objective will be to assign U.S. stations whose pre-auction
channels are in the 600 MHz Band to earlier phases, while
simultaneously assigning all Canadian stations and U.S. stations with
pre-auction channels in the remaining television bands to later phases,
where possible. The second objective is to minimize the sum, over all
DMAs, of the number of times a DMA must rescan. The third objective is
to minimize the total number of linked stations. The fourth objective
is to minimize the difference between the number of stations in the
largest transition phase and the smallest transition phase.
Commenters generally support these objectives; however, broadcast
commenters disagree that prioritizing clearing the 600 MHz Band should
be the first objective. We emphasize that all phase assignments must
satisfy each of the eight constraints adopted above, most of which are
designed to protect the interests that the broadcast commenters appear
to believe should be of primary consideration. As noted, those
constraints will protect broadcast services and television viewers from
undue pairwise interference, limit the number of required rescans,
minimize the impact of dependencies and thus the need for inter-station
coordination, and create an organized phased approach that spreads the
transition across 10 phases. The Commission also tasked the Bureau with
developing a transition schedule that ``provide[s] certainty to
wireless providers and [is] completed as expeditiously as possible.''
We find that the proposed prioritization of the four objectives strikes
the appropriate balance and will encourage the expeditious clearing of
the 600 MHz Band.
One commenter proposes that ``the two primary objectives be to
maximize the health and safety of tower crews and the homes and
businesses that are in close proximity to towers and to minimize
service disruptions to viewers and users of other services that share
broadcast towers.'' That commenter has not explained how we could
incorporate such goals into the mathematical optimization model and we
are unaware of any mechanism to accomplish the task. However, we note
that the Phase Scheduling Tool estimates time periods for construction
tasks based on industry information, and we believe that relying on
such information is reasonable and will help to promote health and
safety.
Phase Scheduling Tool. After the Phase Assignment Tool assigns
stations to phases, the Bureau will use the Phase Scheduling Tool to
produce an estimate of the average amount of time, in weeks, it will
take all stations in a phase to complete their transition. The total
number of estimated weeks for phase 10 is the total time estimate for
the post-auction transition, based on the Phase Scheduling Tool's
simulation. In order to obtain this estimate, the Phase Scheduling Tool
uses the time and resource estimates to simulate how long it will take
all the stations in each phase to obtain access to limited resources
and complete their transitions. In the simulation, a station must
complete the activities in the pre-construction and construction
stages. If a required resource such as a tower crew is constrained,
stations that require the resource will obtain access to it according
to a randomly assigned simulation order. In other words, the Phase
Scheduling Tool creates a random order within each phase to simulate
the sequence in which stations within each phase will have access to
limited resources. The output of the tool is the number of weeks it
will take all stations in a phase to obtain necessary resources and
complete their transition. Because the number of weeks needed may vary
depending on the simulation order of the stations in each phase, the
Bureau will run the Phase Scheduling Tool 100 times to generate the
average time in weeks it takes to complete a phase. One commenter
argues that the Bureau should use the longest timing estimates for all
stations in a phase. We disagree that the Bureau should always use the
longest timing estimate for all stations in a phase to set the phase
transition deadline. By generating results for multiple simulation
orders, the Phase Scheduling Tool produces a range of estimated
completion times for each phase. Using those ranges as a guide will
provide the staff with the flexibility it needs to create a reasonable
transition schedule within the 39-month timeframe. As described below,
the Bureau will use the resulting average of the estimated time
required per phase to
[[Page 11109]]
guide its determination of the completion dates for each transition
phase.
Many commenters agree that the Phase Scheduling Tool is an
appropriate mechanism to guide the Bureau in setting deadlines for
phases, and no commenter provided an alternative to the simulation
tool. A few commenters contend that the tool is unrealistic because
broadcasters often use specific vendors, and the vendors have
preferred-customer relationships and may manufacture only on a first-
come-first serve basis. These commenters argue that stations will not
line up in a queue, especially if they risk going dark if they fail to
meet their phase deadlines. However, the Phase Scheduling Tool does not
mandate that broadcasters use particular vendors or access resources in
a particular order in the real world. It is a simulation tool created
to assist the Commission in setting reasonable deadlines for phases.
Our plan provides flexibility for stations to make their preferred
arrangements by starting all 10 transition phases at the same time, so
that each station may start planning for its transition as soon as
possible. Nevertheless, station and vendor cooperation will be an
essential element of the transition plan and we urge all industry
participants to be respectful of the overall demands of the transition
on limited resources. We strongly encourage stations to be mindful of
the overall transition plan when working with their vendors, and we
note that we will closely monitor the progress of the transition.
Examination of the record reflects that vendors are keenly aware of the
need to prioritize projects by phase assignment where possible and
would like stations to place orders for equipment as early as possible.
The Pre-Construction Stage will include (1) the time required for
antenna equipment to be ordered, manufactured, and delivered and (2)
the time required for all other planning and administration activities
necessary to prepare for construction. These categories reflect the
type of work that stations will need to do before they begin
construction on their towers.
Antenna equipment manufacturing and delivery. In order to account
for limits on antenna manufacturing and delivery, the Phase Scheduling
Tool uses time estimates to simulate how long it will take
manufacturers to manufacture and deliver an antenna to each station.
The tool assumes that auxiliary antenna manufacturing and delivery will
not be a constrained resource during the transition and that 75 percent
of all stations will need to install an auxiliary antenna. A few
commenters are concerned that manufacturers will not be able to meet
the demand for antennas, and particularly auxiliary antennas, during
the transition. Although several commenters point out auxiliary
antennas will be a significant means of helping stations complete
timely transitions, the majority of commenters contend that the
manufacturing and availability of auxiliary antennas will not be
constrained during the transition. We find that the model properly
reflects the availability of antennas, including auxiliary antennas.
Some commenters argue further that manufacturers will not be able
to maintain or increase manufacturing capacity throughout the
transition. However, the other commenters argue that the vendor
industry is ramping up to prepare for the transition. Additionally, the
phased transition approach is designed to create a steady stream of
work over the course of the transition, which should allow
manufacturers to keep pace with demand. On balance, we conclude that
the model accurately reflects the manufacturing and delivery
capabilities of the vendors throughout the transition.
Administration/Planning. We adopt the estimates proposed in the
Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice for the Administration/
Planning component of the Pre-Construction Stage. The Administration/
Planning component includes zoning, administration, legal work, and
pre-construction alterations to tower and transmitter equipment. One
commenter argues that structural tower improvements should not be
considered in the Pre-Construction Stage. We disagree. Stations may
start making structural tower improvements well before the transition
begins in preparation for the transition and tower crews will engage
tower work during both the Pre-Construction and Construction Phase.
Another commenter notes that structural engineers may become a
constrained resource during the process and that the transition plan
should consider the availability of structural engineers when setting
time estimates. While structural engineers will be needed throughout
the transition, we expect that the heaviest strain on structural
engineers will be in conjunction with the construction permit
application process, and that structural engineers will not be a
constrained resource during most of the transition. Commenters
generally express two primary concerns with this component, first the
amount of time it may take some stations to get through zoning and
permitting, and second, the possible procurement issues facing public
broadcast stations.
We acknowledge that local zoning authorities and entities such as
the FAA, tribal or historic preservation offices, and municipal
authorities will likely receive requests for approval during the
transition and that these entities have important roles to play within
their various jurisdictions. However, we are not persuaded that these
procedural requirements necessitate increased time estimates. We
conclude that the Widelity case studies will be sufficient for the
majority of stations, and we are unconvinced that the time estimates
for the transition schedule should be driven by the worst-case
scenarios. The Phase Scheduling Tool provides conservative estimates
for stations in three categories: Complicated, DTV, and Class A
stations. This differentiation captures the varying timelines that the
majority of stations in each group may face during Administration/
Planning activities. We also note that because all phases will commence
at the same time, stations in later phases will actually have
significantly more time to complete their Administration/Planning
activities than the time estimates provided in the simulation. For
example, the Phase Scheduling Tool estimates that a DTV station would
need 32 weeks to complete its administrative and planning activities. A
station assigned to a later phase will have far more than 32 weeks to
complete these tasks. The time estimates in the tool are intended to
give each station the minimum time necessary to complete these tasks,
but the majority of stations will have more than the minimum amount of
time provided by the Tool.
Public television entities are concerned that the adopted timelines
do not adequately take into account the needs of public broadcast
stations, and they argue that such stations will face significant
hurdles with financing and procurement. We conclude that the time
estimates for the Administration/Planning component of the Phase
Scheduling Tool for all stations are sufficiently conservative.
Furthermore, commenters do not indicate how much additional time should
be allocated to public stations. Because of the large number and
variety of public stations and the case-by-case nature of each
station's transition, we conclude that it is not reasonable to provide
additional time to all public stations for the purposes of the Phase
Scheduling Tool. Stations that anticipate these specific challenges
should begin their transition process as early as possible.
[[Page 11110]]
The Construction Phase will include (1) the time to complete all
general facets of construction (called ``Construction Related Work'')
and (2) the time required by tower crews to install equipment on
towers. One commenter requests clarity on the definition of ``tower
work.,'' argues that tower structural modifications and RF equipment
changes should not be separate as both of these activities will need to
take place sequentially without any time separation to increase
efficiencies and reduce crew movements (rigging and de-rigging), and
also states that there are long-lead items for modifications too, such
as guy wires, which can take from weeks to months for delivery. We note
that the model does not break tasks down as discretely as this
commenter suggests. However, the minimum time estimates for
Administration/Planning and Construction Related Work provides enough
time to complete the consecutive tasks and time to acquire the long
lead-time equipment. Some commenters express concern regarding the time
saving estimates for work done on the same tower, the number and
qualifications of tower crews, and the impact of weather on
construction. We adopt proposals for the Construction Phase component
as described in the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice with
slight modifications based on the comments. Specifically, we adjust the
time required to complete the work on towers having antennas for
multiple stations. In addition, although the proposed time estimates
are conservative and should provide enough to time for stations to
complete their transitions without separately considering the issue of
weather, in response to comments the Bureau will specifically consider
the possibility of major weather-related delays when it assigns
completion dates to each phase.
Tower work. Several commenters argue that the model overestimates
the amount of time-savings that can be achieved by performing multiple
installations on the same tower in a single, multi-station job. We find
these arguments have merit. Accordingly, we modify our proposed
approach to assume that construction on a tower will commence when the
first station on that tower is ready to begin its construction work and
the total time to complete all construction for all stations on that
tower is equal to (a) the time required for the most difficult station
(we assign this time to the first station) plus (b) the sum of the time
estimates for all stations other than this first station, multiplied by
50 percent. This revised approach addresses the concerns identified by
the commenters.
One commenter states that allowing only one week for a tower crew
to install an auxiliary antenna is likely to be insufficient. On the
other hand, another commenter identified that only three to four 3-5
additional days for this task. Based on the record we conclude that, as
a general rule, one week is insufficient. A commenter proposes that the
model should take into account special problems and timing needs of
broadcasters that operate from ``fully-loaded towers.'' While we agree
that fully-loaded (or close to fully-loaded) towers present some unique
challenges, most such towers can be identified now and we expect
stations on such towers can take mitigating steps now to work around
this issue. Another commenter expresses concern that temporary antennas
may not be able to solve the problem of fully-loaded towers. We note
that while a tower may be fully-loaded today, it is possible that after
the incentive auction, a tower may have additional capacity as the
result of a station going off-air in the auction. Additionally,
stations may have options beyond auxiliary facilities to help
facilitate their transitions, and the Bureau is open to assisting
stations with creative solutions that do not compromise the overall
transition plan.
We find that the tool provides estimates intended to account for
the ordinary time necessary to complete various tasks. It does not
attempt to assess the specific time for each and every individual
hypothetical scenario available, and it would not be possible for any
scheduling tool to do so accurately. However, in response to the
comments concerning potential coordination with other services (e.g.,
FM radio or cellular providers) operating on the same tower as the
reassigned station, as noted, we have modified the tool to
substantially reduce the `same tower discount' in order to account for
the additional coordination that will be required. This reduced
discount will more conservatively estimate the total tower work times
to account for not only other television broadcasters but also other
broadcast and non-broadcast facilities on the tower.
Crew availability and training. Commenters disagree about whether
the Construction Phase tower crew estimates are reasonable. The
Commission received varying estimates for the number of tower crews
that will be available during the transition. Based on the totality of
information received, we conclude that the estimated number of tower
crews included in the tool for complex stations, DTV stations, and
Canadian stations set forth in the Transition Scheduling Proposal
Public Notice is reasonable. Many commenters have noted that companies
are gearing up for the transition and training crews to perform tower
work. Further, we disagree with one commenter that tower crews will be
unavailable or untrained to work on U.S. towers and that companies will
be working on wireless towers. We note that other comments offer a
different assessment of crew availability. Nevertheless, the Phase
Scheduling Tool includes conservative assumptions and the tool assumes
that no Canadian tower crews will work on U.S. towers, and vice versa.
Weather. Although the Phase Scheduling Tool uses conservative
estimates that will give most stations ample time to plan their
transitions around any anticipated or unanticipated weather conditions,
nearly all commenters suggest that the schedule should be more flexible
in taking seasonal considerations into account. Commenters are
primarily concerned with the impact of winter weather and potential
hurricanes. It is not possible to adopt a scheduling plan that prevents
the phase completion date of every phases from falling during winter
months or hurricane season, even if we limit the restrictions to
specific markets. We find that imposing such a restriction would be
unnecessarily restrictive and would undermine the transition process,
especially because adverse weather conditions may not materialize in
all cases. However, in response to commenters, the Bureau intends to
examine the output of the Phase Scheduling Tool and adjust the
deadlines for early transition phases to accommodate weather. Later
transition phases will be less sensitive to the impact of weather
because the full transition period will be longer and industry
participants will have longer periods to plan for particular weather
concerns. As such, we encourage industry participants to anticipate
weather-related considerations that might affect their transitions and
to plan tower work accordingly in order to utilize the full transition
phase. A station facing weather-related challenges may also consider
implementing intermediate plans to ensure that it can be off its pre-
auction channel while continuing to broadcast during the inclement
weather.
The Bureau will use the simulations of the Phase Scheduling Tool to
produce an estimate of the average amount of time, in weeks, it will
take all stations in a phase to complete their transition. While all
transition phases will begin at
[[Page 11111]]
the same time, the Bureau will assign each transition phase a
completion date based on the average number of weeks determined by the
Phase Scheduling Tool. Although the tool produces reasonable time
estimates based on the detailed inputs set forth in the Appendix, it
does not account specifically for certain factors that may warrant
deadline adjustments, such as the relative length of the testing
periods for each phase or seasonal considerations. For example, the
phase completion date may be moved later if an early phase consisting
primarily of stations in northern regions of the United States is
projected to end in the middle of winter. Thus, the Bureau may adjust
the phase completion dates from the average durations calculated by the
tool to take such factors into account, consistent with the overall 39-
month transition deadline imposed by the Commission's rules.
Additionally, consistent with the Bureau's proposal each phase will
have sequential specified testing periods--defined by a start and end
date, with the end date corresponding to the phase completion date.
While stations may engage in planning and construction activities at
any time prior to their phase completion date, equipment testing on
post-auction channels will be confined to the specified testing
periods. The wireless industry proposes that stations should be able to
begin testing or operating on their post-auction channels outside of
their assigned phase testing period. As a general matter, we will not
allow stations to test or operate on their post-auction channels until
their designated phase testing period. This restriction encourages
stations to plan their transition around their particular phase
deadline, which will minimize interference, incentivize the
distribution of resources across the phases, and encourage stations
within a phase to switch to their post-auction channels at roughly the
same time, which will minimize confusion to television viewers. While
the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice contemplated that no
stage would have a testing period shorter than four weeks, the Bureau
may need to adjust the amount of time given to the testing periods of
some phases to accommodate the overall transition schedule,
particularly in the early transition phases. The Bureau retains the
discretion to modify phase assignments, phase completion dates, and
testing period dates as necessary throughout the 39-month transition.
This discretion responds to commenters' requests that the Bureau have
flexibility to accommodate real-world events. We note that as the
transition progresses, the later phases should be better able to
accommodate shorter testing periods because they have more time than
stations in the early phases to prepare for their transition and
complete their work.
While the majority of phase assignments and deadlines will not
change once the initial transition schedule is released, in the
unlikely event, for instance, that a station is ``unable to construct''
the facility specified in the Closing and Channel Reassignment Public
Notice (Closing and Reassignment Public Notice), the Bureau may need to
modify the transition schedule in order to grant an application filed
during the first priority window for an alternate facility or channel.
If changes to the transition schedule are necessary, stations impacted
by the grant will only be moved to a later phase, not to an earlier
phase. A station will not be moved to an earlier phase without its
consent. Below we discuss in greater detail how we will evaluate direct
requests to modify a station's phase assignment or other requests made
after the initial transition schedule is announced in the Closing and
Reassignment Public Notice that would necessitate a modification to the
transition schedule in order to grant.
Other Matters Related to the Transition Scheduling Plan. As
recognized in the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice, there
are various scenarios in which a station may seek to construct an
expanded facility or use an alternate channel that differs from the
technical parameters assigned to it in the Closing and Reassignment
Public Notice. Some stations may also request extensions of their
construction deadline and seek authority to continue operating on their
pre-auction channel after their phase completion date, including a
waiver of their phase completion deadline. In evaluating such requests,
the Bureau proposed in the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice
to examine the impact that granting such requests would have on the
phased transition schedule. Depending on the requesting station's
proximity to Mexico or Canada, coordination may also be required from
that particular country. While a station may request an extension of
its construction permit deadline as set forth in 47 CFR 73.3700(b)(5),
grant of such a request only permits the station additional time to
complete its construction on its final channel and does not permit a
station to continue operating on its pre-auction channel. In order to
do so a licensee must request special temporary authority (STA).
Commenters representing wireless interests agree that any requests
for relief from the requirements of the transition plan that could
result in a station's transition taking longer than its assigned phase
completion date, should be required to meet a high burden of proof and
consider the impact on 600 MHz Band licensees. On the other hand,
broadcast commenters assert that a heavy burden of proof runs counter
to efforts to encourage a successful post-auction transition.
In order to facilitate a timely and orderly transition, we find
that we must evaluate on a case-by-case basis requests for modification
of any station's facility or transition deadline as set forth in the
Closing and Reassignment Public Notice, to assess the impact of such
requests on the transition schedule. Accordingly, we adopt the method
for evaluating such requests proposed in the Transition Scheduling
Proposal Public Notice, which states, ``[t]he Bureau will view
favorably requests that are otherwise compliant with our rules and have
little or no impact on the phase assignments or transition schedule.
However, any request that the staff determines would be likely to delay
or disrupt the transition, such as by causing pairwise interference
above two percent to another station, creating additional linked-
station sets, necessitating another station move to a different
transition phase, or that is likely to cause a drain on limited
transition resources required by other stations, will be viewed
unfavorably. The Bureau will view requests that have such adverse
effects on the transition schedule more favorably if the requesting
station demonstrates that it has the approval of all the stations that
would be affected if the request were granted, or it agrees to take
steps during the transition period to mitigate the impact of the
proposed request[.]'' 31 FCC Rcd at 10814-15, para. 27. We find that
the proposed approach balances the important goal of clearing the 600
MHz Band within the 39-month transition period, as well as the
additional goals of facilitating a smooth transition, limiting viewer
impact, and providing broadcasters the flexibility to make requests
that are necessary to construct their post-auction facility and address
unforeseen circumstances to prevent stations from going dark.
Commenters agree that flexibility is vital to facilitating a successful
transition.
While the Bureau does not intend to grant requests that would
disrupt the transition, our aim is not to discourage stations from
proposing alternative
[[Page 11112]]
transition solutions that could create efficiencies or resolve
unforeseen circumstances that could otherwise force a station to go
dark. Indeed, such proposals may reduce reimbursement costs or
implement a market-wide transition plan that could allow stations to
more efficiently utilize limited resources, facilitate coordination, or
reduce the impact of the transition on television viewers. Nonetheless,
such proposals should specifically demonstrate that implementation
would not interfere with other stations' transition efforts and address
how implementation of the proposal may affect the transition schedule.
If the Bureau grants such a request after considering such effects, it
may choose to modify transition phase assignments and construction
deadlines of the requesting station or, if necessary, other stations;
however, no other station would be assigned to an earlier transition
phase than it was originally assigned without its consent. Should the
Bureau deny a request for a station to continue operating on its pre-
auction channel past its phase completion date, stations can explore a
variety of options to assist with their post-auction transitions,
including the use of temporary channels and interim or auxiliary
facilities.
In the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice we also
recognized that individual stations may request changes to their phase
assignment, phase completion date, and/or testing period as set forth
in the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice. We tentatively concluded
that we would rely on existing rules and procedures to address such
requests, and also sought comment on whether an alternative process
should be established and, if changes to the transition plan are
permitted, what rules or procedures would need to be waived. Commenters
disagree whether existing Commission processes are appropriate for
addressing such requests. Commenters that argue there should be
different processes neither propose a specific process or explain why
the Commission's existing rules would be insufficient. We find existing
Commission processes are sufficient to address such requests.
Commenters also suggested that stations should have the flexibility
to move to either an earlier or later transition phase. While our
decision today does not prohibit stations from making either request,
any request to modify a station's phase assignment will be subject to a
high burden of proof and reviewed in the manner adopted above for
determining the impact of a request on the overall transition schedule.
Because earlier phases of the transition are likely to have greater
resource constraints while equipment manufacturers and suppliers
continue to ramp up capacity, we are less likely to be able to
accommodate requests for stations to move into the first or second
phase. When resolving a requested phase change we also will consider
the impact such a request may have on viewers. As evidenced through our
objectives and constraints, we believe viewers will benefit from
stations in a given DMA transitioning together. Not only does this
limit the total number of channel rescans for viewers, but multiple
stations' communications with the public about the timing of a rescan
supports education efforts.
We find that the record does not support the creation of any
special sanction system related to transitioning stations, despite the
call of some commenters to do so. A station that does not comply with
the requirements of any Commission order may be subject to action as
contemplated by the Commission's rules. A station that is found to have
failed to comply with the requirements of any Commission order may be
subject to action as contemplated by the rules. See 47 CFR 1.80
(forfeiture); 47 CFR 73.3598(e) (automatic forfeiture of an expired
construction permit).
Temporary Joint Use of Channels and Temporary Individual Channel
Assignments. The transition scheduling plan we adopt today does not
mandate the use of temporary channels. However, some commenters have
suggested that use of temporary channels may be appropriate on a
voluntary basis, especially to prevent stations that are unable to meet
their transition deadline from going dark or delaying the transition.
Commenters have also suggested that the Commission could permit
broadcasters to implement temporary channel sharing arrangements
(hereinafter referred to as ``temporary joint use of channels'') to
aide in their transition efforts. To the extent that the Commission
permits the use of individual temporary channels, low power television
interests request that the Commission provide transparency about when
and for how long temporary channels will be used and whether a
displaced LPTV station can apply for a channel that is slated to be
used on a temporary basis. One commenter requests that the Commission
limit the assignment of temporary channels to ``truly rare, exceptional
and extreme situations,'' due to the hardship such assignments are
likely to place on Class A and LPTV stations, as well as viewers.
Although we have concluded that the burdens of assigning temporary
channels on a mandatory basis outweigh the benefits, we agree there may
be situations in which the voluntary use of either an individual
temporary channel or temporary joint use of a channel may aid the
transition. We will therefore permit reassigned Class A and full power
stations to make a request to operate on a temporary channel either on
an individual or joint basis. When seeking authorization to operate on
an individual temporary channel or engage in temporary joint use of a
channel, a broadcaster must file with the Commission a request for STA
proposing the channel it wishes to operate on and including the
specific technical parameters. Because STAs are granted for a period of
six months, a station may need to file for an extension of its initial
STA authorization. Failure to do so while continuing to operate
pursuant to the initial authorization would amount to operation without
a valid authorization, which is a violation of Section 301 of the
Communications Act. See 47 U.S.C. 301. Consistent with the requirements
of Section 73.1635(a)(4) of the Rules, as part of any extension request
an applicant must demonstrate the necessity of such extension and
describe the steps that are being taken to resume operation on its
post-auction channel assignment. See 47 CFR 73.1635(a)(4). Such
requests may be made at any time during the transition period and must
demonstrate that the proposal both complies with the Commission's
technical rules and will not otherwise interfere with the transition.
Use of an individual temporary channel or engaging in temporary joint
use of a channel must be for purposes of facilitating the transition.
To ensure continuity of service to viewers throughout the transition, a
station availing itself of one of these voluntary options must maintain
signal coverage of its community of license as required by Section
73.625 of the Rules.
A request for use of an individual temporary channel will be
restricted to replicating a station's pre-auction coverage area and
population served. Because we will evaluate applications requesting use
of an individual temporary channel under the standard of review we have
adopted for considering all requests during the transition,
broadcasters should, at a minimum, evaluate whether their operation
would require coordination with neighboring stations that are not
already in the same linked-station set, thereby resulting in new
linked-station
[[Page 11113]]
sets, or whether additional construction that may be required could
divert resources from other stations. Temporary channels will also be
subject to all applicable interference rules, unless otherwise waived
by the Bureau. Furthermore, depending on the station's proximity to
Mexico or Canada, coordination approval to operate on a temporary
channel may be required from that particular country.
In order to provide maximum flexibility, we will permit a full
power or Class A licensee to request authority to operate on an
individual temporary channel in the new wireless band during the post-
auction transition. Although T-Mobile supports broadcasters voluntarily
using temporary channels, it requests that use of individual temporary
channels be restricted to channels ``below the new wireless band.'' We
believe foreclosing temporary operation in the new wireless band during
the transition period would be too conservative an approach and could
undercut the benefits of allowing broadcasters to request temporary
channels because there may be limited available temporary channels in
the television band. However, to balance the interests of wireless
operators in starting construction and commencing operations in cleared
spectrum, when evaluating requests for individual use of a temporary
channel in the new wireless band we will require broadcasters to
demonstrate that there is no reasonable alternative to operating in the
new wireless band and provide written consent from the wireless
licensee(s) of the channel that the broadcaster wishes to temporarily
operate on, as well as written consent from any wireless licensee(s)
that would otherwise be required to protect the broadcaster's
operations under the Commission's inter-service interference (ISIX)
rules. Consistent with the policies outlined in the Broadcast
Transition Procedures Public Notice, no STA may cause impermissible
interference to wireless licensees. Additionally, the Bureau will view
unfavorably any application or request that the staff determines would
be likely to delay or disrupt the transition, including by delaying or
disrupting the deployment of new wireless services in the 600 MHz Band.
In the case of a request for temporary joint use of a channel, the
applicant (joint user) must include with its request a written
authorization from the licensee of the host station. A joint user will
continue to be a Commission licensee, and will temporarily operate at
variance from its authorized parameters pursuant to an STA. As such,
joint users must continue to comply with all requirements under the
rules and the Communications Act that would otherwise be required
operating on their own channel.
Commercial and noncommercial educational (NCE) stations may request
to engage in temporary joint use of a channel. A reserved channel NCE
licensee that is granted authority to operate temporarily on a non-
reserved channel must continue to operate on an NCE basis. We will
evaluate requests by commercial stations for temporary joint use of a
channel licensed to an NCE station on a case-by-case basis. We will
also consider requests to allow a Class A station to operate under the
Part 73 rules governing power levels and interference to jointly use a
full power television station's channel on a temporary basis for the
purpose of facilitating the Class A station's transition. A full power
station requesting to temporarily jointly use a Class A station's
channel for the purpose of facilitating the transition will be required
to operate under the Part 74 power level and interference rules.
Transition Project Management and Progress Reporting. Commenters
offered a number of suggestions on how the Commission should manage its
staff and resources to facilitate the transition process. For instance,
several commenters recommend that as part of the post-auction
transition process, the Commission should consider hiring a third party
contractor or a full-time internal project manager to manage the
transition. One commenter suggests that the Commission should begin
building relationships and working with other federal, state, and local
government entities that will likely be involved in the transition, and
also recommends that the Commission also establish ``an online resource
center'' where service providers and suppliers can list themselves as
available to work on the transition. Another commenter suggests that
the Commission should designate particular FCC staff who would be
familiar with the specific difficulties faced by state and
institutional licensees and could be made available for purposes of
supporting public broadcasters' efforts. Other commenters recommend the
establishment of a ``web portal'' to disseminate transition information
to all affected parties. While at this time we are declining to adopt
any of the commenter's specific suggestions, we intend to dedicate
sufficient resources to monitor the progress of the transition and keep
affected parties informed.
Commenters have also recommended that the Commission require
reassigned stations to file progress reports so that the Commission and
interested parties can monitor the transition progress of reassigned
stations, identify problem areas, develop solutions, and, if needed,
adjust transition deadlines. In the Incentive Auction R&O, the
Commission determined that entities receiving reimbursement will be
required, on a regular basis, to provide information to the Commission
showing how the disbursed funds had been spent and what portion of
their construction is complete. The Bureau has developed and set filing
deadlines for a progress report (FCC Form 2100 -Schedule 387) that
broadcast television stations that are eligible to receive payment of
relocation expenses from the Reimbursement Fund will file to track how
disbursements have been spent and identify the progress and status of
their construction efforts. The Bureau also proposed to require
broadcast television stations that are not eligible to receive
reimbursement but must transition to new channels as part of the
Commission's channel reassignment plan to file the same form on the
same schedule during the transition period. The Incentive Auction Task
Force and Media Bureau Release Transition Progress Report Form and
Filing Requirements for Stations Eligible for Reimbursement From the TV
Broadcast Relocation Fund and Seek Comment on the Filing of the Report
by Non-Reimbursable Stations, 82 FR 9009, February 2, 2017. As
suggested by commenters, the form will allow the Commission to monitor
the progress of the transition in real time, identify problem areas,
and as needed develop solutions.
Interim and Auxiliary Facilities. We agree with commenters that
interim and auxiliary facilities will be an important part of the
transition for broadcasters and we will take action as appropriate to
facilitate the use of such facilities and equipment. In order for a
station to continue operating on its pre-auction channel while its
current primary antenna is removed and a new channel antenna installed,
we expect many stations will need to utilize auxiliary facilities and
equipment. In order to operate an interim or auxiliary facility a
station will need to file a request for an STA. In some cases, stations
may wish to share auxiliary equipment and facilities, such as broadband
antennas, with other stations.
Nothing that we adopt today restricts a station from filing a
request for STA to operate on its post-auction channel using an
auxiliary facility prior to its phase completion date. While we
understand wireless providers' desire that the 600 MHz Band be cleared
[[Page 11114]]
expeditiously, we also must maintain an orderly process and respect the
interference constraints that the transition presents and that
transition scheduling plan is meant to address. We will therefore
evaluate such requests in the same manner and subject to the same
standard of review that we would a station that seeks to continue
operating on its pre-auction channel after its phase completion date.
Additionally, as with requests for temporary joint use of a channel,
the Media Bureau will view unfavorably any application or request that
the staff determines would be likely to delay or disrupt the
transition, including by delaying or disrupting the deployment of new
wireless services in the 600 MHz Band. We also commit to process all
applications in an expeditious manner and will continue to work with
interested parties to efficiently process applications, however we
decline to commit to adopt specific processing prioritizations for
applications as one commenter suggests.
Confidential Letters and Prohibited Communications. Nearly every
commenter in this proceeding asked that the Commission restate,
clarify, or, if necessary, waive, the auction rules prohibiting certain
communications to enable stations to make productive use of channel
reassignment information as soon as possible after receiving their
channel assignment in the confidential letters that will be sent
approximately three to four weeks from the date that the final stage
rule was met. The prohibited communications rule prohibits broadcasters
and forward auction applicants from communicating any incentive auction
applicant's bids or bidding strategies to other parties covered by the
relevant rules. Commenters' concern is that the rule prohibits
broadcasters from engaging in communications that would be helpful in
preparing for the post-auction transition, or that it discourages
broadcasters from making such communications to avoid the risk of
violating the prohibition. In light of these comments, we now provide
guidance on the rule as it pertains to broadcasters and the post-
auction transition--particularly their ability to hold discussions with
vendors not covered by the rule. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
intends to address any appropriate waiver of the rule when letters
regarding post-auction channel assignments are sent.
As an initial matter, a great many preparations that broadcasters
may undertake with respect to the transition to post-auction channel
assignments will not involve prohibited communications. For example,
broadcasters may communicate with third parties not covered by the
prohibition, such as consulting engineers, equipment vendors, and
counsel, without violating the prohibition, even if the communication
discloses bids and bidding strategies. A broadcaster or other covered
party still should take care, however, that the third party to which
such communications are made does not convey the information to another
covered party, which would violate the prohibition.
In addition, broadcasters may communicate with other covered
parties regarding many issues in the post-auction transition without
disclosing bids and bidding strategies. For example, broadcasters that
did not apply to participate in the auction do not have bids and
bidding strategies of their own to disclose and so may communicate
regarding their own post-auction transition without violating the
prohibition. Such broadcasters must bear in mind, however, that they
still are prohibited from communicating any other incentive auction
applicant's bids and bidding strategies of which they may have learned,
such as a channel sharing partner's bids or bidding strategies.
Finally, broadcasters that did apply but kept that fact confidential
also may be able to communicate regarding post-auction channel
assignments without disclosing bids and bidding strategies.
We recognize that certain broadcasters cannot communicate with
other broadcasters regarding post-auction channel assignments without
disclosing bids and bidding strategies (though they may communicate
with non-covered third parties, as indicated above). For example, a UHF
broadcaster with a winning bid to move to a VHF channel cannot
communicate its post-auction channel assignment without communicating
its bidding strategy. Likewise, a broadcaster that publicly disclosed
that it had applied to participate in the auction could implicitly
disclose the results of its bidding when it discloses a post-auction
channel assignment. Moreover, any communications that disclose a post-
auction channel sharing arrangement effectively would disclose the
sharee station's bids and bidding strategies in the auction.
Since the final stage rule has been met, bidding in the reverse
auction is complete, although forward auction is still ongoing.
Accordingly, some relief from the prohibition for communications among
broadcasters may be appropriate, particularly where doing so would
assist the public interest in a smooth post-auction transition. We are
sensitive to the concerns raised by commenters and will address them
specifically at the time post-auction channel assignment information is
provided to broadcasters.
Matters Outside of the Scope of the Proceeding or Previously
Addressed in Other Proceedings. A number of commenters raised concerns
regarding the sufficiency of the 39-month transition period.
Modification of the length of the 39-month transition period is beyond
the Bureau's delegated authority and outside the scope of this
proceeding. We note that the 39-month transition period is the subject
of a petition for reconsideration that remains pending before the
Commission in GN Docket No. 12-268. The purpose of this notice is to
carry out the Commission's directive to assign construction deadlines
within the 39-month period prescribed by the Commission.
Several parties seek clarification as to the eligibility of certain
costs for reimbursement from the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund
(Reimbursement Fund). One commenter states that the Commission should
assure broadcasters that any costs associated with voluntary transition
plans will be eligible for reimbursement from the Reimbursement Fund.
The Commission anticipated the possibility of using temporary channels,
as well as interim and auxiliary facilities to facilitate the
transition and stated that the reasonably incurred costs of such
equipment would be eligible for reimbursement. See Incentive Auction
R&O, 79 FR 48441 at 48501, para. 451. However, as already made clear by
the Commission, reassigned stations constructing alternate or expanded
facilities applied for outside of the ``non-priority window'' will only
be eligible for reimbursement for the eligible costs of relocating to
the channel and facilities specified in the Closing and Channel
Reassignment Public Notice. See id. 450. Another commenter expressed
concern that the cost of carriage of temporary channels should not be
borne by MVPDs. As stated in the Incentive Auction R&O, MVPDs are
eligible for reimbursement when they reasonably incur costs in order to
maintain carriage of a broadcast station. Finally, a broadcaster seeks
clarification as to who will be financially responsible when other
services, such as FM, LMR, wireless, or LPTV, are impacted by the
transition. With respect to costs incurred by non-reimbursement-
eligible entities, the Commission explained in the Incentive Auction
R&O, that reimbursement claims from reassigned stations for costs
incurred by non-eligible entities would
[[Page 11115]]
be limited to instances in which ``the reassigned broadcaster has a
contractual obligation to pay these expenses through a contract'' that
was entered into on, or before, the release date of the Incentive
Auction R&O, which was June 2, 2014. See also id. at 48497, para. 429.
Thus, reimbursement-eligible entities with such contractual
obligations may submit for consideration reimbursement claims only for
expenses incurred by non-eligible entities that they are obligated to
pay under such timely-entered contracts. To the extent these requests
seek an affirmative declaration that certain costs will be reimbursed,
we decline to pre-judge the eligibility of particular reimbursement
expenses, and we remind parties that whether or not a cost is
``reasonably incurred'' and eligible for reimbursement will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Whether or not a specific cost meets
the ``reasonably incurred'' standard for reimbursement must be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. See id. at 48500, para. 446.
Commenters representing the interests of LPTV and TV translator
stations filed comments arguing that the Bureau failed to fully address
the impact of the transition scheduling plan on LPTV and translator
licensees and that the Bureau should take certain actions to address
the impact of the post-incentive auction transition on their stations
and interests. Commenters provided several actions the Commission could
take to ease the impact of the transition on LPTV and translator
stations, including: forbearing from enforcement of Section 312(g) of
the Act; extending the minimum distance rule for displaced LPTV and
translator stations from 30 miles to 250 miles; specifying in the
transition plan when the LPTV displacement window will open; and
flexibly waiving rules to minimize the impact of the transition on
displaced LPTV and translator stations. We find these proposed actions
have already been addressed in other Commission proceedings. We
therefore decline to adopt any of these proposals. We remain sensitive,
however, to the concerns of the LPTV and TV translator community and
will continue to explore measures, as we have already committed to
doing, to alleviate the impact of repacking on displaced LPTV and TV
translator stations. The Commission also adopted rules to permit
channel sharing between LPTV and TV translator stations as an
additional means to help displaced stations that have difficulty
finding available channels to team with other such stations in the same
predicament.
Several commenters also raise issues that are already addressed by
our existing rules. As an initial matter, we note that LPTV and TV
translator stations that are displaced by full power or Class A
stations reassigned a new channel in the repacking process may continue
to operate on their current channel until the displacing television
station is operational, at which time the LPTV or TV translator must
cease operations. We note that a change in frequency, other than for a
station that is displaced, is a ``major change'' and that applications
for new stations or major changes by LPTV and TV translator stations
are currently frozen. One commenter sought clarification as to when
displaced LPTV and TV translators may begin operating on their new
displacement channel. Because displacement facilities may not cause
interference to full power or Class A television stations (either pre-
auction, those set forth in the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice,
or alternative channels and expanded facilities proposed during the
applicable filing window), operation will not be contingent on the
post-auction transition schedule and stations may begin operating at
any time following the grant of the construction permit for their
displacement facilities. See Incentive Auction R&O, 79 FR 48441 at
48505, para. 475. Finally, several commenters sought clarity concerning
the operation of temporary facilities by displaced LPTV and TV
translator stations. LPTV and TV translator stations are permitted to
apply for special temporary authority to operate the facilities
proposed in a pending displacement application so long as the
application is acceptable for filing and has appeared on a proposed
grant list.
Administrative Matters. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
of 1980, as amended, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
relating to the Public Notice is included.
This document does not contain proposed information collection(s)
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Sasha Javid,
Sasha.Javid@fcc.gov; Erin Griffith, Erin.Griffith@fcc.gov, (202) 418-
0660, Shaun Maher, Shaun.Maher@fcc.gov, (202) 418-2324, or Evan Morris,
Evan.Morris@fcc.gov, (202) 418-1656. Press contact: Charles Meisch,
Charles.Meisch@fcc.gov, (202) 418-2943.
Appendix A: Phase Assignment and Scheduling Tools
This appendix sets forth the methodology for assigning construction
deadlines to stations to transition to new channel assignments
following the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction. This is
necessary because potential ``dependencies,'' or interference
relationships, exist between certain television stations on pre-auction
and post-auction channels which will impact the transition process.
Stations with dependencies must coordinate in order to test equipment
or begin operating on their new channels without causing interference
to other stations. In many cases such coordination may only involve
stations agreeing to operate at lower power or accept increased
interference for short periods of time while the stations are
performing tests, but dependencies can often involve numerous and/or
distant stations, which makes successful coordination more complicated.
The methodology adopted by this Public Notice provides a means of
breaking dependencies in order to reduce the need for coordination and
to make coordination more manageable.
Under this methodology, stations will be assigned to 10 transition
phases. The phases will all begin at the same time when channel
reassignments are announced in the Closing and Reassignment Public
Notice, but each phase will have sequential end dates. Equipment
testing on post-auction channels will be confined to set ``testing
periods.'' With the exception of the first phase, the testing period
for subsequent phases will begin on the day after the end of the
preceding phase. Every station must cease operating on its pre-auction
channel at the end of its assigned phase, also known as the ``phase
completion date.''
The methodology will utilize two computer-based tools to assign
stations to phases and then to establish phase completion dates for
each phase. First, stations will be assigned to phases using the
``Phase Assignment Tool,'' which applies mathematical optimization
techniques to identify, among possible solutions that satisfy a set of
defined rules or constraints, a solution that best meets a separate set
of defined objectives. Section III below discusses the Phase Assignment
Tool.
After stations are assigned to phases, the ``Phase Scheduling
Tool'' will be used to determine the phase completion date for each
phase. The Phase Scheduling Tool estimates the total time
[[Page 11116]]
necessary for stations assigned to a phase to perform the tasks
required to complete the transition process. In addition to accounting
for factors such as transmission power and tower height that are likely
to impact the time required for individual stations to complete the
transition to a new channel, the Phase Scheduling Tool also accounts
for potential delays created by resource limitations that may affect
when a station can obtain resources such as new antennas or tower
crews. The Phase Scheduling Tool simulates stations completing the
transition and outputs the time needed to complete each phase given a
random order (called ``simulation order'') in which stations have
access to scarce resources. The tool runs 100 simulations, each with a
different simulation order to generate the average time in weeks it
takes to complete a phase. Based on those results, the Bureau may then
exercise limited discretion to modify the phase completion dates from
the average durations calculated by the tool to account specifically
for certain factors that may warrant deadline adjustments, such as the
relative length of the testing periods for each phase or seasonal
considerations. For example, the phase completion date may be moved
later if an early phase consisting primarily of stations in northern
regions of the United States is projected to end in the middle of
winter. This exercise of discretion will be done in consultation with
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED Canada) as it
impacts Canadian stations. In Section IV below, we discuss the Phase
Scheduling Tool and its inputs, including the specific tasks required
for stations to transition and the estimated time required to complete
each task.
The methodology set forth herein differs from that proposed in the
September 30 Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice in several
respects. First, in the unlikely event that a station is predicted to
incur temporary aggregate interference greater than five percent, the
Phase Assignment Tool will be re-run in an attempt to reduce the
temporary aggregate interference of all stations below five percent
while simultaneously adhering to all constraints and objectives. The
second change concerns the Phase Scheduling Tool. The amount of time
allocated to tower construction on towers with multiple stations has
been increased substantially. These changes were adopted in response to
comments regarding the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice,
and are discussed below and in this Public Notice adopting the post-
incentive auction transition scheduling plan.
This Appendix provides interested parties with sufficient
information to replicate the methodology for determining the overall
transition schedule. The Phase Assignment Tool implements the
objectives and constraints using commercially-available optimization
software. The Phase Scheduling Tool leverages an open source discrete
event simulation software package using inputs described herein. The
data presented is the output of applying this methodology to
representative final television channel assignment plans for two 84 MHz
spectrum clearing scenarios, and also making certain assumptions
regarding Canada and Mexico based on ongoing coordination with those
countries. The representative examples presented herein are for
illustrative purposes only and are based on channel assignments that do
not rely on or predict any auction results. The scenarios are
``representative'' in the sense that they are consistent with the plans
generated by the Commission's Final Television Channel Assignment Plan
determination procedure based on numerous auction simulations conducted
by the staff. With the Final Stage Rule now met during Stage 4, the
auction will clear 84 MHz. Therefore, we use two 84 MHz scenarios as
representative examples. We are not publicly releasing the underlying
simulations, which makes assumptions regarding reverse auction
participation and outcomes. Interested parties can create their own
television channel assignment plans for any spectrum clearing scenario
by applying the Assignment Plan determination procedure to auction
simulations based on their own assumptions of likely outcomes.
Section II: Dependencies and Means of Breaking Them. Before
beginning to operate on their post-auction channels, stations ideally
should be able to test equipment on their new channels. During the
transition, however, there is a potential for undue interference
between stations that are still operating on their pre-auction channels
and stations testing or operating on their post-auction channels. The
Commission's rules governing interference between stations before and
after the post-auction transition will limit interference between
stations that are both operating on their pre-auction channels and
between stations that are both operating on their post-auction
channels, respectively. In adopting a methodology for assigning
construction deadlines to transitioning stations, the staff has sought
to avoid undue interference while providing as much flexibility as
possible for stations to test equipment prior to commencing operations
on their new channels. The ``Precedence Daisy-Chain Graph'' (Graph)
described in the examples below explicitly captures any interference
that may occur between stations operating on their pre-auction and
post-auction channels.
The Graph is constructed as follows: nodes are stations and a
directed arc connects two nodes (s and s') when station s cannot
transition until station s' has transitioned to its post-auction
channel because the current channel of station s' interferes with the
future channel of station s. This relationship is called a dependency.
Example 1: Dependency. [Illustration Omitted]. In Example 1 above,
suppose Station A and Station B have co- and adjacent-channel
interference restrictions on all channels. Station A is reassigned from
channel 25 to channel 18. Station B is reassigned from channel 45 to
channel 26. Station A must vacate channel 25 before Station B can move
to channel 26 so that neither station will experience undue
interference. Therefore, the Example 1 graphic includes a directed arc
from Station A to Station B since Station A must transition before
Station B (Station B is dependent on Station A in order to transition).
Example 2: Daisy-Chain. [Illustration Omitted]. Multiple
dependencies can be connected, forming a daisy-chain. Example 2
illustrates a daisy chain of 4 stations. Station A must transition
before Station B. Station B must transition before Station C. And
Station C must transition before Station D. Thus, Stations A, B, and C
all must transition before Station D can transition.
Daisy-chains can involve numerous stations and multiple transition
dependencies. Figure 1 below illustrates a single daisy-chain involving
29 stations in the Northeast in a simulated outcome where the
Commission repurposes 84 MHz of broadcast spectrum through the
incentive auction. [Figure 1 Omitted]
Successful coordination to avoid undue interference among the
stations illustrated in Figure 1 will be challenging, given the number
of stations involved and their distance from one another. In order to
reduce or eliminate the need for coordination, the chain could be
broken by assigning stations to transition during different time
periods or ``phases.'' At least 29 separate transition phases would be
needed to break the chain completely so that every station in the chain
could
[[Page 11117]]
transition without the need for coordination. A large number of
transition phases undercuts other potential transition goals, such as
transitioning stations within the same region at the same time and
avoiding the need for multiple channel rescans by viewers. Therefore,
in order to balance these goals, a certain number of stations within a
daisy chain would need to be assigned to the same transition phase,
thereby reducing or ``collapsing'' the daisy chain into a more
manageable size. For example, the six northern-most stations in the 29
station daisy-chain in Figure 1 above could be assigned to the first
transition phase. Each station in this collapsed daisy chain would have
to coordinate with one or more of the other stations in the chain in
order to test their equipment without undue interference, but such
coordination would be more manageable because of the much smaller
number of stations, particularly if they are also more localized
geographically. However, as illustrated by Example 3 below, the staff's
analysis indicates that certain dependencies, known as ``cycles,''
cannot be broken by assigning stations to different transition phases.
Example 3: Cycle. [Illustartion Omitted]. Example 3 shows a cycle
consisting of three stations. Station A needs to transition from
channel 20 to channel 17; Station B needs to transition from channel 28
to channel 20; and Station C needs to transition from channel 17 to
channel 28. Because all three stations cannot operate simultaneously on
channels 17, 20, or 28, they must transition from their pre-auction to
their post-auction channels simultaneously in order to commence
operation on their post-auction channel. They must also coordinate in
order to test equipment on their post-auction channels without causing
increased interference to one another. In such circumstances, the
dependencies between stations cannot be broken by assigning stations to
different transition phases and these stations must be assigned to the
same phase.
Cycles of much greater complexity than Example 3 are likely to
occur during the post-auction transition process. Figure 2 below shows
another simulated outcome in which the auction repurposes 84 MHz of
broadcast spectrum. The cycle consists of 196 stations and reaches from
the Southeast region of the United States through the Northeast and
into Canada. [Figure 2 Omitted].
The challenge created by daisy-chains and cycles described above
becomes more complicated when all dependencies are considered. Daisy-
chains can intersect and overlap, creating a larger and more
complicated daisy-chain. A cycle can also be part of a daisy-chain. As
a result, hundreds of stations may be inter-dependent and one station
may require tens (or even hundreds) of stations to transition first in
order to be able to begin operating on its post-auction channel. Figure
3 below shows another simulated 84 MHz outcome with a set of 796 inter-
dependent stations. [Figure 3 Omitted].
As indicated above, transition phases are a useful tool to address
dependencies between stations. Stations may be assigned to different
phases in order to break daisy chains, or to the same phase in order to
facilitate coordination by stations involved in a cycle, or to achieve
other goals. We refer to inter-dependent stations assigned to the same
phase as a ``linked-station set'' and the individual stations in the
linked-station set as ``linked stations.'' Stations that are part of a
linked-station set must coordinate their testing with other stations in
the set so as to avoid undue interference and must transition to their
post-auction channel together.
Another means of breaking dependencies is to allow temporary,
limited increases in station-to-station (pairwise) interference that
exceed the 0.5 percent allowed under the Commission's rules governing
pre-auction and post-transition interference relationships. As
discussed in the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice, allowing
temporary, limited increases in pairwise interference will
significantly reduce the number of dependencies between stations and in
turn reduce the size, number, and complexity of daisy chains and
cycles. Additionally, the staff's analysis indicates that allowing
temporary, limited increases in pairwise interference will not result
in significant aggregate interference increases.
Another means of breaking dependencies would be to assign stations
in complicated daisy chains or cycles to operate on temporary channels
prior to transitioning to their post-auction channels. Stations
assigned to temporary channels would have to ``move'' twice, first to
their temporary channels and then to their ultimate post-auction
channels. Because the overwhelming majority of commenters were opposed
to mandatory temporary moves, the adopted methodology will not require
any station to use a temporary channel during the transition. However,
as discussed in the Public Notice, staff will consider voluntary
requests by stations to use either individual temporary channel or
temporary joint use of a channel.
Section III--The Phase Assignment Tool. Under the methodology we
adopt, stations will be assigned to one of 10 transition phases. Every
station in a phase must cease operating on its pre-auction channel at
the end of the phase, i.e., the phase completion date. Stations will be
assigned to phases using the Phase Assignment Tool. This Section
discusses the Phase Assignment Tool as well as the constraints (i.e.,
rules by which all assignments generated by the tool must abide) and
objectives (i.e., goals for creating the assignments). We begin by
listing the specific constraints that will be imposed and the
objectives used, followed by a discussion of the results of staff
analysis illustrating the rationale underlying the procedure. ISED
Canada is considering using a similar approach for Canadian stations
and specific transition details will be published as part of its
domestic process. As a result, the Baseline Results section of this
Appendix may change.
Constraints and Objectives. Based on the staff's analysis and the
record developed to date, we adopt the following constraints and
objectives for assigning stations to phases. Phase assignments must
satisfy all of these defined constraints. The objectives will be
applied to identify a solution that best satisfies the Commission's
transition goals. The Phase Assignment Tool prioritizes the objectives
in the sequence listed below. Subsequent objectives are constrained by
prior objectives.
Constraints: (1) A station cannot cause more than two percent new
interference to another station during the transition. This constraint
seeks to avoid undue interference during the transition and to provide
stations with as much flexibility as possible to test equipment on
their post-auction channels before transitioning. Although in many
cases stations may be able to achieve these goals through coordination
with affected stations, coordination may not be feasible in situations
involving large-scale and complex dependencies among stations. As
discussed in more detail in this Public Notice, allowing temporary,
limited increases in pairwise interference will reduce the number and
complexity of dependencies without resulting in significant aggregate
interference increases. Doing so is also likely to promote other
potential goals, such as reducing the number of channel rescans.
Although allowing higher levels of temporary interference--up to five
percent--would further reduce dependencies, we will allow no more than
two percent as a balance between avoiding undue interference and
[[Page 11118]]
achieving the goal of limiting dependencies.
(2) No stations in Canada will be assigned to transition before the
third transition phase. Due to dependencies between domestic and
Canadian stations, a joint transition plan with Canada was agreed to by
the FCC and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED
Canada). In keeping with our discussions with ISED Canada, stations in
Canada will generally be assigned to later transition phases, and in no
case before the third transition phase. This constraint will promote
efficient use of cross-border resources and respect the minimum
notification periods to Canadian TV stations established in ISED's 600
MHz decision. See Decision on Repurposing the 600 MHz Band, August 14,
2015, available at https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf11049.html.
(3) There will be no more than 10 transition phases. Limiting the
number of transition phases to 10 strikes a reasonable balance between
decreasing the number of linked-station sets in each phase and other
transition goals, such as transitioning stations within the same region
at the same time and avoiding the need for multiple channel rescans by
viewers. Note that the methodology assumes that all winning bidders
affecting the first phase of the transition who have agreed to go off-
air completely, or that become a channel sharee of another station with
a post-auction channel assignment, will have gone dark before the
stations in the first transition phase begin testing of their equipment
(e.g., two months before the end of the first transition phase). This
assumption is reasonable given the expected timeline for paying winning
stations and the estimated time for the first phase to complete.
Canadian stations not impeding the transition of U.S. stations or the
ability of the U.S. to repurpose the new 600 MHz may be permitted to
continue to operate beyond the tenth phase based on rules to be
established by ISED Canada.
(4) All stations within a DMA will be assigned to no more than two
different transition phases. This DMA constraint provides similar
benefits to a purely regional approach. By clustering stations in a
particular geographic area into the same transition phase, this
constraint will make resource allocation more efficient. Importantly,
the constraint will limit the number of rescans consumers will have to
complete as a result of the transition. While this constraint
potentially limits the ability of the tool to minimize the number and/
or size of linked-station sets within a transition phase, on balance we
believe that the benefits to consumers and broadcasters outweighs the
burden.
(5) The difference in the number of stations in the largest
transition phase and the smallest transition phase will be no more than
30 stations. If it is not feasible to assign stations in such a way
that the difference in the number of stations in the largest transition
phase and the smallest transition phase is less than or equal to 30
stations, then an optimization will be performed minimizing the
difference between the largest transition phase and smallest transition
phase, and subsequent optimizations will be limited to no more than 1.1
times the number found in this optimization. This strikes an
appropriate balance between restricting the difference in size between
the largest and smallest transition phases while providing additional
flexibility to achieve other objectives.
(6) Every transitioning station will be assigned to one transition
phase.
(7) No phase can have more than 125 linked stations. The
dependencies created by the interference constraints can affect a large
number of stations across large geographic areas. This constraint will
limit the effect of those dependencies and, to the extent that
coordination is needed, facilitate a manageable transition process for
broadcasters. We believe the 125-station limit strikes a balance
between minimizing dependencies and other goals. If it is not possible
to limit the number of linked stations in a phase to 125, then an
optimization will be performed minimizing the maximum number of linked
stations in any phase, and constraining the number of linked stations
in any phase in subsequent optimization to no more than 1.2 times that
maximum number. This strikes an appropriate balance between minimizing
the number of linked stations in any phase while providing additional
flexibility to achieve other objectives.
(8) No station falling into the ``complicated'' category for
purposes of the Phase Scheduling Tool will be assigned to Phase 1. This
constraint will help to ensure that the stations facing the most
challenging and time-consuming transitions have adequate time, and to
avoid the risk of such stations delaying others' transitions in the
event of delays.
Objectives: (1) Assign U.S. stations whose pre-auction channels are
in the 600 MHz Band to earlier phases in order to clear the 600 MHz
Band as quickly as possible, while simultaneously assigning all
Canadian stations and U.S. stations whose pre-auction channels are in
the remaining television bands (U.S. TV-band stations) to later phases,
where possible. This objective promotes a number of goals. It helps to
clear the 600 MHz Band expeditiously. It also avoids the problem of
Canadian and U.S. stations competing for limited resources and provides
Canada with the time needed for its transition. To implement this
objective, the Phase Assignment Tool weights assignments for stations
transitioning from the 600 MHz Band after transition Phase 8.
Similarly, the Phase Assignment Tool weights assignments for Canadian
stations and U.S. TV-band stations assigned to any transition phase
earlier than Phase 9. The weights for stations not transitioning out of
the 600 MHz Band before Phase 9 is significantly higher than the
weights for U.S. TV-band stations or Canadian stations transitioning
early. We use the following weights when determining assignments: U.S.
stations in the 600 MHz Band assigned to phase 9 are assigned a weight
of 20; U.S. stations in the 600 MHz Band assigned to phase 10 are
assigned a weight of 200; U.S. TV-band stations and Canadian stations
assigned before phase 9 are assigned a weight of 1. The Phase
Assignment Tool minimizes the sum of all weights incurred by the phase
assignments.
(2) Minimize the sum, over all DMAs, of the number of times a DMA
must rescan. This objective benefits viewers by minimizing the number
of rescans necessary in a market and creates regionalized clusters that
will make resource allocation more efficient. As with the fourth
constraint above, the use of DMAs attempts to provide similar benefits
to those that would flow from a purely regional approach. This DMA-
based objective attempts to move all stations within the same DMA into
the same phase if such a solution can be found consistent with all
constraints and prior objectives.
(3) Minimize the total number of linked stations. Whereas the
seventh constraint above limits the total number of linked stations in
a phase to 125, this objective minimizes the total number of linked
stations throughout all phases of the transition. This objective seeks
to provide as many stations as possible with the ability to test their
equipment on their post-auction channel while simultaneously
broadcasting on their pre-auction channel without the need to
coordinate.
(4) Minimize the difference between the number of stations in the
largest transition phase and the smallest transition phase. Similar to
the fifth constraint above, this objective equalizes the number of
assigned
[[Page 11119]]
stations in each phase by minimizing this maximum difference. We
believe that evening out the number of stations assigned to each
transition phase will help manage limited resources by ensuring that
they can be spread more evenly across the transition phases.
The Phase Assignment Tool may also be used during the transition to
consider proposed changes to and, as appropriate, modify phase
assignments where such reassignments will not impact the overall
schedule. We recognize that unforeseen events may occur during the
transition that may warrant adjustments in order to ensure that the
transition proceeds in a timely fashion. If we modify phase assignments
during the transition, the Phase Assignment Tool will restrict
reassignments to later transition phases in order to provide certainty
to stations that any adjustments will not require them to transition
earlier than their originally scheduled phase completion date. Any
exceptions will require the consent of any station moved to an earlier
phase.
Preliminary Results of Staff Analysis. Baseline Results. This
Section presents results from running the Phase Assignment Tool using
representative final channel assignment plans, for two alternative 84
MHz spectrum clearing scenarios. We have updated these Baseline Results
from those used in the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice to
reflect the fact that higher clearing targets above 84 MHz are no
longer relevant given the current status of the incentive auction. In
each scenario, all of the constraints above are satisfied and the
objectives applied in the order specified above. The joint transition
plan will consist of U.S. and Canadian stations. We also assume that
Mexican stations will have already completed their transition to their
new channels below channel 37 prior to the end of the first phase. The
Phase Assignment Tool assumes that Mexican stations will have
transitioned to their new channels before the phase completion date of
the first transition phase. See Exchange of Coordination Letters with
IFT Regarding DTV Transition and Reconfiguration of 600 MHz Band
Spectrum, U.S.-Mex., July 15, 2015, available at https://wireless.fcc.gov/incentiveauctions/learn-program/resources.html
(Mexican Coordination).
Figures 4 and 5 below present histograms for these two
representative 84 MHz scenarios, showing the total number of broadcast
stations that transition in each phase and within each phase how many
are (a) Canadian stations, (b) U.S. stations whose pre-auction channel
is in the new 600 MHz Band and (c) other U.S. stations that
nevertheless must change channels. All Canadian stations are included
in the simulations. Those Canadian analog stations that will remain on
their current analog channel but are required to convert to digital are
not currently reflected in the Phase Assignment Tool. However, the
final joint transition plan and schedule will include all analog and
digital Canadian stations changing channels and/or converting to
digital. The figures show that the 600 MHz Band is mostly clear of
U.S.-based impairments by the end of Phase 8. Also, the very few
Canadian stations that may impede U.S. stations from transitioning are
assigned to early transition phases. Table 1 sets forth the number of
stations that are part of linked-station sets in each of the two
scenarios. Table 2 details the maximum temporary aggregate interference
(calculated consistent with the methodology presented in the Aggregate
Interference Public Notice) that any station would face during the
transition in either of the two 84 MHz scenarios. [Figure 4, Figure 5,
Table 1, and Table 2 Omitted].
Section IV: The Phase Scheduling Tool. After stations are assigned
to phases by applying the Phase Assignment Tool, we will use the Phase
Scheduling Tool to inform the determination of a phase completion date
for each phase. The Phase Scheduling Tool estimates the total time
necessary for stations within a phase to perform the tasks required to
complete the transition process. In this Section, we discuss the Phase
Scheduling Tool and its inputs, including the specific tasks required
for stations to transition and the estimated time required to complete
each task.
The Phase Scheduling Tool models the various processes involved in
a station transitioning to its post-auction channel. It is a simulation
tool created to assist the Commission in setting reasonable deadlines
for phases. It divides these processes into two sequential stages: (1)
The ``Pre-Construction Stage'' and (2) the ``Construction Stage.''
While separate processes within a stage may occur concurrently, such as
equipment procurement and zoning applications, all processes within the
Pre-Construction Stage must be complete before the station is ready to
move to the Construction Stage. For example, in the model, the
Construction Stage process of installing a new primary antenna cannot
occur until after the new antenna is manufactured and delivered during
the Pre-Construction Stage. A transition phase cannot end until all
stations in the model assigned to that phase have completed both stages
and are ready to operate on their post-auction channels.
Some processes require specialized resources that may be in limited
supply. The Phase Scheduling Tool models these limited resources by
constraining the amount available at any given time. If a station needs
a constrained resource to complete a process, and the resource is
unavailable because other stations are using it, the model places the
station in a queue until the required resource is available. As
described in more detail below, the processes within each phase are not
designed to be a comprehensive listing of every task required to
complete the transition; we have instead separated those processes
which need resources that are most limited in supply and therefore
likely will have the biggest impact on scheduling.
For each Stage, the Phase Scheduling Tool uses two inputs: (1) The
time it would take for a station to complete the tasks required for
that stage if all resources are available when needed; and (2) the
estimated availability of constrained resources. The Phase Scheduling
Tool uses these inputs to calculate how long it will take each station
within a transition phase to complete all work associated with both
Stages. The output of the tool is the estimated number of weeks from
the start of the transition required for all stations assigned to a
phase to complete all of the necessary transition tasks, test equipment
on their post-auction channels, and be ready to operate on their post-
auction channels.
Since it is not possible to know the exact order stations will
begin each process, the Phase Scheduling Tool uses discrete event
simulation to model this uncertainty. The Phase Scheduling Tool does
assume, however, that a station assigned to an earlier phase will begin
its Pre-Construction Stage processes requiring a constrained resource
(e.g., ordering an antenna) before a station assigned to a later phase.
By assigning the station order within a transition phase randomly,
called the ``simulation order,'' and simulating the transition
processes, the Phase Scheduling Tool provides a single estimate of the
time required for all stations assigned to a phase to complete each
transition phase. The Phase Scheduling Tool operates by simulating
stations completing the transition and outputs the time needed to
complete each phase given a simulation order in which stations have
access to scarce resources. The tool will run 100 simulations each with
a different simulation order. The tool then provides the average time
in weeks it
[[Page 11120]]
takes to complete a phase. Based on those results, the Bureau may then
exercise limited discretion to modify the phase completion dates from
the average durations calculated by the tool to account specifically
for certain factors that may warrant deadline adjustments, such as the
relative length of the testing periods for each phase or seasonal
considerations. For example, the phase completion date may be moved
later if an early phase consisting primarily of stations in northern
regions of the United States is projected to end in the middle of
winter.
The Phase Scheduling Tool also enables the staff to analyze the
sensitivity of transition phase time estimates based on changes in
input data. During the transition, as new information becomes
available, the tool can be rerun to assess the potential impact of
unforeseen developments on the overall schedule. To give additional
certainty to stations, if we decide to use the Phase Scheduling Tool
during the transition to modify phase completion dates, we will not
move any phase completion date forward without the consent of the
impacted station.
The following subsections detail the specific processes or tasks
that the Phase Scheduling Tool models for each stage, as well as the
estimated time and resource availability for each process. We adopt the
estimates provided in the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice
with the exception of time allocated to tower construction on towers
with multiple stations. The revised estimates are based on data
contained in the Widelity Report, submissions from interested parties,
submitted comments, and informational discussions with tower crew
companies, other antenna and transmitter manufacturers, and
broadcasters. We believe that the estimates are conservative and that
they reasonably capture each aspect of the transition. The final
subsection below shows sample outputs of the Phase Scheduling Tool for
the two baseline Phase Assignment Tool simulation set forth in the
prior section.
Modeling the Transition Stages. The individual tasks required for a
station to complete its transition have been grouped into two stages:
(1) The Pre-Construction Stage and (2) the Construction Stage. In the
Pre-Construction Stage, a station completes two tasks: Ordering and
delivery of the main and auxiliary antennas; and administration and
planning work, which includes zoning, administration, legal, possible
structural tower improvements, equipment modifications, and other
activities. In the Construction Stage, a station completes two
additional tasks: Construction related work and tower crew work. The
tasks included in each Stage are shown in Figure 6 below. [Figure 6
Omitted].
The Phase Scheduling Tool groups together all tasks within a stage
that can be done regardless of how many other stations are performing
similar tasks. However, since there are two constrained resources that
are dependent on the actions of others (antenna deliveries and tower
crew availability), these tasks are separated out and the model
considers how resource availability impacts the total completion time
for any station in either stage. We note that there are many other
resources that are not specifically identified but are essential to
completion of the transition process. Based on the staff's analysis and
the record developed to date, resources such as auxiliary antenna
manufacturing, transmitter manufacturing, transmission line
manufacturing and RF component installers do not affect the time
required for a station to complete its transition. The availability and
manufacturing capacity of these resources have been identified as being
sufficient to fulfill the expected demand during the transition (i.e.,
these resources have been designated as being ``unconstrained'') and
therefore these resources are not broken out separately in the Phase
Scheduling Tool. Instead, as illustrated in Figure 6, the tasks related
to these unconstrained resources have been grouped into the general
tasks of Administration/Planning, which is within the Pre-Construction
Stage, and Construction Related Work, which is within the Construction
Stage. Other required resources such as RF consultants and structural
engineers will need to complete their work by the end of the initial 3-
month filing window for construction permit applications, and
therefore, also are not considered a constrained resource for purposes
of the Phase Scheduling Tool. The Phase Scheduling Tool uses
conservative estimates for the time requirements in order to assure
that they meet the individual needs of each station.
Pre-Construction Stage Inputs. There are two components to the Pre-
Construction Stage: (1) The time required for antenna equipment to be
ordered, manufactured and delivered (a significant constraint) and (2)
the time required for all other planning and administration activities
necessary to prepare for construction (called ``Administration/
Planning''). The Administration/Planning component includes zoning,
administration, legal work, and pre-construction alterations to tower
and transmitter equipment. Since administration and planning activities
take place in parallel and the activities of one station are unlikely
to impact the ability of others to perform the same activities, the
model simply estimates the total time needed to complete all of these
activities.
The Phase Scheduling Tool categorizes stations based on the
difficulty of completing these activities. The Commission used a
similar ``bucketing'' approach for categorizing stations in the Final
Channel Assignment. Time estimates were derived by taking estimates
from Widelity and, where appropriate, adding ``slack'' time so that the
overall estimate of the time required would be a conservative one. The
Widelity Report estimates that Administration/Planning could take up to
72 weeks for ``complicated'' stations (primarily due to zoning), up to
20 weeks for the average DTV station and up to 12 weeks for the average
Class A or other lower power station. To be conservative, we added
another 12 weeks to the Administration/Planning estimates for the non-
complicated stations since these timelines were more aggressive.
However, we expect this work will start during the 3-month filing
window for construction permits (if not earlier, when each station
receives its confidential letter with its final channel assignment).
The time estimates are shown in Table 3 below. [Table 3 Omitted].
The Administration/Planning time estimate establishes the minimum
amount of time required for a station to complete the Pre-Construction
Stage. While Administration/Planning work is occurring, stations likely
will also place orders for their main antennas. The time estimates for
this component of the Pre-Construction Stage include manufacturing and
delivery time once the antenna manufacturers receive orders from
stations. However, the ability of manufacturers to produce enough
antennas may impact the overall schedule. Therefore, the Phase
Scheduling Tool includes antenna manufacturing and delivery as a
specific resource constraint. The Phase Scheduling Tool considers a
station to have completed its Pre-Construction Stage only after all of
its Administrative/Planning work is completed and its antenna is
delivered.
For purposes of delivery time estimates, stations are divided into
two categories, based on the assumption that manufacture and delivery
of directional antennas for full power stations will
[[Page 11121]]
require more time than for non-directional and Class A antennas (of
either type). The time estimates shown in Table 4 are based on the
assumption that the antenna manufacturers will begin manufacturing
antennas as soon as the orders are received unless they are
manufacturing at their current capacity. The time estimates for antenna
delivery are generally consistent with, if not more conservative than,
those cited in the Widelity Report, which estimated 3 months except for
deliveries to complicated stations. [Table 4 Omitted].
The Phase Scheduling Tool also includes a specific number of
antennas that can be manufactured and delivered at any given time.
Based on those numbers, some stations may be able to receive their
antennas without waiting for any additional time, but other stations
may have to wait for their antennas to be delivered. The Phase
Scheduling Tool will place such stations in a queue until the antenna
can be delivered, based on the station's assigned number in a
simulation order. In addition, the Phase Scheduling Tool will assume
that manufacturers have an inventory of 20 antennas at the start of the
39-month transition period, and that capacity will increase over the
course of the transition period. These assumptions are listed in Table
5 below. These estimates are based on public statements by
manufacturers regarding their planned ramp up in anticipation of the
transition and the assumption that these manufacturers plan on
maintaining market share. We also assumed a conservative 5 percent
growth rate. [Table 5 Omitted].
Construction Stage Inputs. Construction Stage modeling is similar
to Pre-Construction Stage modeling and consists of two activities: (1)
The time to complete all general facets of construction (called
``Construction Related Work''); and (2) the time required by tower
crews to complete installation of equipment on the tower. As with Pre-
Construction Stage activities, these activities can occur in parallel
but the estimated completion time for the Stage is the time required to
complete both these activities. In addition, like the Administration/
Planning category in the Pre-Construction Stage, the Construction
Related Work category is a catch-all category that incorporates several
types of activities. The estimated time for this category includes
estimates of the time to complete all construction work and associated
management and coordination activities. More specifically, Construction
Related Work includes estimates for the time associated with installing
the transmitter components, combiners, RF mask filters and the
transmission line to the tower base. Construction Related Work also
allows time for any possible installation of liquid cooling systems, AC
power, and connection to remote control equipment and input signal
connections if required. Finally, Construction Related Work includes
time required for performing any tower modifications and any final
testing of the system. Table 6 lists the estimates of the time to
complete all work included in the ``Construction Related Work''
category. Based on Widelity time estimates for the various work streams
that fall under Construction Related Work. [Table 6 Omitted].
The Construction Related Work column reflects estimates of the
minimum amount of time required for a station to complete the
Construction Stage. The other process in the Construction Stage work is
tower work. The time required for tower work is both tower and antenna
specific. Table 7 lists the different characteristics that determine
the amount of time required to perform tower work. These times were
based on feedback from industry. This table does not reflect the time
to install an auxiliary antenna. [Table 7 Omitted].
If a station did not need to wait for an antenna crew to become
available in order to complete its tower work, then the amount of time
the station would take to complete the Construction Stage would be the
longer of the time estimated for construction related work and the time
estimated for the station to complete work on its tower. However, not
every station will be able to have a tower crew as soon as needed. When
modeling to generate estimates for phase completion times, the Phase
Scheduling Tool will place any station that is waiting for a tower crew
to become available in a queue until a crew becomes available, based on
the station's assigned number in a simulation order. Stations will be
removed from the queue according to their simulation order.
We include in the Phase Scheduling Tool specific estimates
regarding the number of available tower crews. The record developed to
date reflects different estimates as to the number and types of tower
crews that will be available. In light of the variance in these
estimates, we will place tower crews into three buckets: (1) U.S. crews
capable of servicing towers that are particularly difficult to work on
due to height or location; (2) U.S. crews that are capable of servicing
easier towers; and (3) Canadian crews. U.S. stations on towers that are
above 300 feet in height and that are top-mounted or located on a
candelabra can only draw from the pool of U.S. crews that can handle
such difficult sites. Other U.S. stations can only draw from the other
pool of U.S. crews, on the assumption that these difficult site crews
will be fully occupied. Canadian stations can only draw from the pool
of Canadian crews. It is likely that crews will travel between
countries, but separating the crews in this way provides a more
conservative estimate of the number of crews available in each country.
We expect that the number of crews will increase as the transition
proceeds. The specific estimates we will use are set forth below in
Table 8. Tower crew estimates were based on feedback from industry and
from ISED Canada. We assume a conservative growth rate in U.S. tower
crews of 5 percent, but no growth in Canadian crews (which is very
conservative). [Table 8 Omitted].
Other assumptions incorporated into the Phase Scheduling Tool are:
(1) The estimated time required to complete work on a tower is reduced
or discounted if more than one station on the tower is transitioning in
the same phase. The Phase Scheduling Tool assumes that antenna
installations will be performed by a single tower crew at the same time
for all stations located on a given tower that are assigned to the same
phase. Based on comments received and the record developed to date, we
are adjusting the time upwards for the time required to complete the
work on towers with multiple stations. Construction on the tower will
commence when the first station on that tower is ready to begin its
construction work and the total time to complete all construction for
all stations on that tower is equal to (a) the time required for the
most difficult station (we assign this time to the first station) plus
(b) the sum of the time estimates for all stations other than this
first station, multiplied by 50 percent. We believe that these revised
discounts are appropriately conservative. Staff believes that 50
percent is a reasonable (and conservative) discount between the
previously proposed 95 percent discount which was generally supported
by American Tower and the 20 percent or 10 percent discount that
Cordillera, et al. suggests. Any discount smaller than 50 percent would
substantially remove the time savings produced by the same tower
efficiencies which American Tower suggests.
(2) The Phase Scheduling Tool assumes that 75 percent of all
stations (including those with a licensed auxiliary antenna) will need
to install an auxiliary antenna. For each station
[[Page 11122]]
requiring an auxiliary antenna, the tool adds one additional week of
tower crew time to the tower crew time, which is the maximum time
required for an auxiliary in Table 7.
(3) Where the estimated time required to complete an entire
transition phase is less than four weeks because much of the work
(other than transmission testing on the new channel) has already
occurred prior to the start date for the testing period of that
transition phase, the testing period window is scaled up to allow four
weeks for testing. The four week minimum allows additional flexibility
for the Commission to adjust deadlines for stations due to unforeseen
circumstances. For example, if many stations in the same phase
experience a natural disaster, those stations' deadline could be
extended and the multiple subsequent phases testing periods could be
shortened to three weeks.
Sample Output. This Section provides sample results of the Phase
Scheduling Tool using the baseline Phase Assignment Tool results
presented above and the constraints and objectives for simulated
auction outcomes involving the two 84 MHz clearing scenarios. Although
Tables 9 and 10 below show the average number of weeks from the start
of the phase to the phase completion date, each phase completion date
will be listed as a specific date when the final transition schedule is
released in the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice. The outputs of
each clearing scenario are represented graphically below in Figures 7
and 8, respectively. As both Figures show, stations within each phase
cannot start testing until the prior phase is complete, and all
stations within a phase must cease operating on their pre-auction
channels by the phase completion date.
Figures 7 and 8 below are a graphical representation of the time
estimates from the Phase Scheduling Tool and represent estimates only.
Although the tool produces reasonable time estimates based on the
detailed inputs discussed, it does not account specifically for certain
factors that may warrant deadline adjustments, such as the relative
length of the testing periods for each phase or seasonal
considerations. For example, the phase completion date may be moved
later if an early phase consisting primarily of stations in northern
regions of the United States is projected to end in the middle of
winter. Thus, the Bureau may adjust the phase completion dates from the
average durations calculated by the tool to take such factors into
account, consistent with the overall 39-month transition deadline
imposed by the Commission's rules. [Table 9, Figure 7, Table 10, and
Figure 8 Omitted].
Appendix B: Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice. The
Bureau sought written public comment on the proposals in the Notice,
including comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule Changes. The Federal
Communications Commission (Commission) delegated authority to the Media
Bureau (Bureau) to establish construction deadlines within the 39-month
post-incentive auction transition period for television stations that
are assigned to new channels in the incentive auction repacking
process. Pursuant to the Commission's direction, the Bureau, in
consultation with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), the
Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) and the Incentive Auction
Task Force (IATF), has developed a plan for a ``phased transition
schedule.''
The Bureau will use a Phase Assignment Tool that will use
mathematical optimization techniques to assign stations to one of 10
``transition phases.'' The phases will have sequential testing periods
and deadlines or ``phase completion dates.'' The phase completion date
is the last day that a station in its assigned phase may operate on its
pre-auction channel.
The Bureau will use a Phase Scheduling Tool to estimate the time
required for stations in each phase to complete the tasks required to
transition to their pre-auction channels in light of resource
availability. The Bureau will run the Phase Scheduling Tool with
different simulation orders to produce a range of estimated times for
each transition phase. The Bureau will use the resulting range of
estimated times to guide its determination of a phase completion date
for each transition phase.
All transition phases will begin at the same time, but will have
sequential phase completion dates. Each phase will have a ``testing
period'' defined by a start and end date with the end date
corresponding to the phase completion date. While stations may engage
in planning and construction activities at any time prior to their
phase completion date, equipment testing on post-auction channels will
be confined to the specified testing periods in order to minimize
interference and facilitate coordination. Other than for the first
phase, the testing period will begin on the day after the phase
completion date for the prior phase. Whether a station needs to
coordinate with other stations during the testing period will depend on
whether it is part of a ``linked-station set,'' that is, a set of two
or more stations assigned to the same phase with interference
relationships or ``dependencies.'' Stations that are not part of a
linked-station set may test on their post-auction channels during the
testing period without the need for coordination. Stations that are
part of a linked-station set must coordinate testing with stations in
the set so as to avoid undue interference. Such stations must
transition to their post-auction channels simultaneously.
While the Bureau originally contemplated that no stage would have a
testing period shorter than four weeks, it concluded that it may adjust
the amount of time given to the testing periods of some phases to
accommodate the overall transition schedule, particularly in the early
transition phases.
The Bureau noted that, after the final stage rule is met, it will
send each eligible station that will remain on the air after the
auction a confidential letter identifying the station's post-auction
channel assignment, technical parameters, and assigned transition
phase. After the conclusion of the assignment phase of the forward
auction, the Commission will release the Auction Closing and Channel
Reassignment Public Notice (Closing and Reassignment Public Notice),
announcing that the reverse and forward auctions have ended and
specifying the effective date of the repacking process. Among other
things, the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice will provide the
post-auction channel assignment and technical parameters of every
station eligible for protection in the repacking process that will
remain on the air after the incentive auction. The Closing and
Reassignment Public Notice will also announce the transition phase,
phase completion date, testing period for each reassigned station, and
whether the station is a part of a ``linked-station set.'' Stations
reassigned to new channels will have three months from the Closing and
Reassignment Public Notice release date to file construction permit
applications proposing modified facilities to operate on their post-
auction channel facility specified in the Closing and Reassignment
Public Notice. The Bureau will then issue each station a construction
permit, including the phase completion date as the
[[Page 11123]]
construction permit deadline for that station.
The Bureau noted that there are various instances in which some
stations may seek to construct an expanded facility or alternate
channel that differs from the technical parameters assigned in the
Closing and Reassignment Public Notice. Some stations may also request
extensions of their construction deadlines and seek authority to
continue operating on their pre-auction channel after their phase
completion date, including a waiver of their phase completion deadline.
In evaluating such requests, the Bureau announced that it will examine
the impact that grant of such requests would have on the phased
transition schedule. The Bureau stated that, although it does not
intend to grant requests that would disrupt the transition, its aim is
not to discourage stations from proposing alternative transition
solutions that could create efficiencies or resolve unforeseen
circumstances. After evaluation, if the Bureau grants such a request it
may choose to modify transition phase assignments and construction
deadlines of the requesting station, or if necessary, other stations;
however, no other station will be assigned to an earlier transition
phase than it was originally assigned to without its consent.
The Bureau concluded that there may be situations in which the
voluntary use of either individual temporary channels or temporary
joint use of a channel may aid the transition. Therefore, the Bureau
will permit reassigned Class A and full power stations to make a
request to operate on a temporary channel either on an individual or
joint basis. When seeking authorization to operate on an individual
temporary channel or engage in temporary joint use of a channel a
broadcaster must file with the Commission a request for STA proposing
the channel it wishes to operate on and including the specific
technical parameters. Such requests may be made at any time during the
transition period and must demonstrate that the proposal both complies
with the Commission's technical rules and will not otherwise interfere
with the transition. A request for use of an individual temporary
channel will be restricted to replicating a station's pre-auction
coverage area and population served and broadcasters should, at a
minimum, evaluate whether their operation would require coordination
with neighboring stations that are not already in the same linked-
station set, would result in new linked-station sets, or whether
significant construction will be required to commence operation, which
could divert resources from other stations. Furthermore, depending on
the station's proximity to Mexico or Canada, coordination approval to
operate on a temporary channel may be required from that particular
country.
The Bureau declined to explicitly prohibit a broadcaster from
operating during the transition on a temporary channel in the new
wireless band that is vacant. However, to balance the interests of
wireless operators to start construction and commence operations in
cleared spectrum, when evaluating requests for individual use of a
temporary channel in the new wireless band we will require broadcasters
to demonstrate that there is no reasonable alternative to operating in
the new wireless band and provide written consent from the wireless
licensee of the channel that broadcaster wishes to temporarily operate,
as well any wireless licensee(s) that would otherwise be required to
protect the broadcaster's operations under the Commission's inter-
service interference (ISIX) rules.
The Bureau concluded that, in the case of a request for temporary
joint use of a channel the applicant (joint user) must include with its
request a written authorization from the licensee of the host station.
A joint user will continue to be a Commission licensee, and will
temporarily operate at variance from its authorized parameters pursuant
to STA. As such, a joint user must continue to comply with all
requirements under the Rules and the Act that they would otherwise be
required operating on their own channel. Because joint use of a channel
is only temporary and the sharee will ultimately operate on its own
channel, the Bureau concluded that it is important for the station to
maintain coverage of its community of license and require a sharee to
continue to cover its community of license.
The Bureau concluded that interim and auxiliary facilities will be
an important part of the transition for broadcasters and that it will
take action as appropriate to facilitate the use of such facilities and
equipment. In order for a station to continue operation on its pre-
auction channel while its current primary antenna is removed and a new
channel antenna is installed, the Bureau announced that it expects many
stations will need to utilize auxiliary facilities and equipment. The
Bureau concluded that nothing it had adopted restricts a station from
filing a request for STA to operate on its post-auction channel using
an auxiliary facility prior to its phase completion date.
The Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice provided guidance
on the prohibited communications rule as it pertains to broadcasters
and the post-auction transition--particularly their ability to hold
discussions with vendors not covered by the rule. A great many of the
preparations that broadcasters may undertake with respect to transition
to post-auction channel assignments will not involve prohibited
communications. For example, broadcasters may communicate with third
parties not covered by the prohibition, such as consulting engineers
and counsel, without violating the prohibition, even if the
communication discloses bids and bidding strategies. A broadcaster or
other covered party still should take care, however, that the third
party to which such communications are made does not convey the
information to another covered party, which would violate the
prohibition. In addition, broadcasters may communicate with other
covered parties regarding many issues in the post-auction transition
without disclosing bids and bidding strategies. For example,
broadcasters that did not apply to participate in the auction do not
have bids and bidding strategies of their own to disclose and so may
communicate regarding their own post-auction transition without
violating the prohibition. Such broadcasters must bear in mind,
however, that they still are prohibited from communicating any other
incentive auction applicant's bids and bidding strategies of which they
may learn, such as a channel sharing partner's bids or bidding
strategies. Finally, broadcasters that did apply but kept that fact
confidential also may be able to communicate regarding post-auction
channel assignments without disclosing bids and bidding strategies.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA. Free Access & Broadcast Telemedia, LLC, and EICB-TV East,
LLC (FAB/EICB) were the only commenters to file comments directly
addressing the IRFA in this proceeding. FAB/EICB argue that, in the
IRFA, the Commission failed to consider the impact or costs of its
proposal on low power television stations (LPTV). We considered these
concerns when composing the Public Notice.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description
of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities
that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The following
small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small
entities, are discussed in the FRFA: Full power television stations;
(2)
[[Page 11124]]
Class A TV and LPTV stations; (3) wireless telecommunications carriers
(except satellite); (4) wired telecommunications carriers; (5) cable
television distribution services; (6) cable companies and systems; (7)
cable system operators (Telecom Act standard); and (8) direct broadcast
satellite (DBS) service.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements. The Transition Schedule Public Notice does not
contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore,
it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities and
Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standard; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
In general, alternatives to proposed rules or policies are
discussed only when those rules pose a significant adverse economic
impact on small entities. In this context, however, the transition plan
set forth in the Transition Schedule Public Notice generally confers
benefits. In particular, the intent of the plan is to ensure that all
stations are able to complete a timely transition to their final post-
auction channel facilities without delay and without incurring
unnecessary costs.
The Bureau declined to adopt a proposal by the National Association
of Broadcasters (NAB) to not assign stations to phases until stations
have completed necessary structural and engineering studies.
Alternatively, NAB suggested that initial phase assignments should be
``preliminary'' and should be re-evaluated after stations have filed
their construction permit applications and cost estimates in order to
allow the Commission to more fully understand their scope of work and
timing for moving to a new channel. The Bureau found that NAB's
suggested approach would have a chilling effect on the transition by
undermining the incentive for broadcasters, including small entities,
to begin preparing for the transition in earnest. The Bureau concluded
that information used to create the transition schedule is sufficiently
detailed and reliable to establish phased transition deadlines once the
final channel reassignments have been established. The Bureau
determined that launching an organized, phased schedule at the earliest
opportunity will provide broadcasters, equipment manufacturers and
other vendors and consultants, wireless providers, and television
viewers with certainty and stability. Doing so is particularly
important as broadcasters prepare their construction permits,
coordinate with other broadcasters, and begin construction planning.
The Bureau also declined suggestions to collect additional or
different information about stations that face difficult approval
processes or procurement issues prior to assigning stations to phases.
The Bureau found that its Phase Assignment Tool already includes a
constraint identifying certain stations as complicated based on data
collected by the Bureau to date. Regardless of the difficulty of any
one stations' move, because of dependencies between stations and
interference constraints, the Bureau concluded that certain stations
must move together in the same phase or certain stations must move in
one phase before additional stations can move in a subsequent phase.
The Phase Assignment Tool is designed to organize the transition of
over 1,000 broadcast stations in an orderly fashion that respects
station dependencies and interference constraints, in addition to
accounting for individual stations complexities, while simultaneously
protecting television viewers.
The Bureau declined to cap aggregate interference finding that that
doing so would provide little benefit while imposing significant costs
by dramatically increasing the computational difficulty of the Tool.
However, recognizing the potential problems with a cap, NAB suggested
as an alternative that, after stations are assigned to phases, the
Bureau determine whether any station has greater than five percent
aggregate interference, and if so, make appropriate adjustments.
Consistent with this suggestion, the Bureau announced that it will
attempt to find an alternative phase assignment for any station
predicted to receive more than five percent temporary aggregate
interference, consistent with the constraints and objectives.
To minimize consumer disruption during the 39-month transition
period, and to promote the efficient use of tower crews, the Bureau
announced that all stations within a DMA will be assigned to no more
than two assignment phases. Broadcast commenters put forward a variety
of proposals to modify this constraint, but the Bureau found that none
described how their respective proposals would affect the overall phase
assignments. Therefore, it rejected those proposals. The Bureau found
that assigning stations within a DMA to two, potentially nonconsecutive
phases, is crucial in providing the optimization with the flexibility
to satisfy other constraints, such as limiting the number of linked
stations per phase and keeping a relatively consistent number of
stations assigned to each phase. The proposals by broadcast commenters
would threaten the Tool's ability to balance competing goals. At the
same time, the Bureau agreed with broadcasters that minimizing viewer
disruption and efficiently clearing DMAs are laudable goals and,
accordingly, the Bureau adopted the objective of minimizing the total
number of times a DMA must rescan. If it is possible to satisfy the
optimization's constraints and its first objective, and still assign
stations to only one DMA, the optimization will attempt to do so using
the second objective. The Bureau found that this approach gives the
optimization the flexibility to balance competing constraints while
continuing to prioritize consumers and regional clusters.
The NAB proposed that the Bureau should treat the ``125 linked
stations'' constraint as an objective. The Bureau declined this
proposal finding that NAB did not propose a metric for determining how
much additional time should be added to a phase with more than 125
linked stations under its proposed approach.
Despite broadcast commenters' objections, the Bureau decided to
prioritize clearing the 600 MHz Band as the first objective. The Bureau
concluded that phase assignments must satisfy each of the nine
constraints it adopted, most of which are designed to protect
broadcasters. The Bureau concluded that the four objectives it adopted
strikes the appropriate balance and will encourage the expeditious
clearing of the 600 MHz Band.
The Bureau also declined Cordillera, et al.'s proposal that the two
primary objectives be to maximize the health
[[Page 11125]]
and safety of tower crews and the homes and businesses that are in
close proximity to towers and to minimize service disruptions to
viewers and users of other services that share broadcast towers. The
Bureau concluded that Cordillera et al. had not explained how the
Bureau could incorporate such goals into the mathematical optimization
model and it was unaware of any mechanism to accomplish the task. The
Phase Scheduling Tool estimates time periods for construction tasks
based on industry information, and the Bureau believed that relying on
such information is reasonable and will help to promote health and
safety.
The Bureau further declined to adopt Cordillera, et al.'s proposal
that additional factual scenarios be given additional time in the Phase
Scheduling Tool. The Bureau found that the tool already provides
estimates intended to account for the ordinary time necessary to
complete various tasks. However, in response to the comments from
Cordillera, et al. concerning potential coordination with other
services (e.g., FM radio or cellular providers) operating on the same
tower as the reassigned station, the Bureau decided to substantially
reduce the same tower discount in order to add back some time to
account for the additional coordination that will be required. The
Bureau found that this new discount will make the total tower work
times adequately conservative to account for not only other television
broadcasters but also other broadcast and non-broadcast facilities on
the tower.
In order to facilitate a timely and orderly transition, the Bureau
concluded that it must evaluate on a case-by-case basis requests for
modification of any station's facility or transition deadline as set
forth in the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice, to assess the
impact of such requests on the transition schedule plan. Accordingly,
it adopted the method for evaluating such requests proposed in the
Transition Scheduling Proposal Public Notice. Although it stated that
it does not intend to grant requests that would disrupt the transition,
the Bureau stated that its aim is not to discourage stations from
proposing alternative transition solutions that could create
efficiencies or resolve unforeseen circumstances that could otherwise
force a station to go dark. Nonetheless, such proposals should
specifically demonstrate that implementation would not interfere with
other stations' transition efforts and address how implementation of
the proposal may affect the transition schedule. If the Bureau grants
such a request after considering such effects, it stated that it may
choose to modify transition phase assignments and construction
deadlines of the requesting station or, if necessary, other stations;
however, no other station would be assigned to an earlier transition
phase than it was originally assigned without its consent. NAB and E.W.
Scripps supported the establishment of a process by which a station can
request a different transition phase, although neither proposed a
specific process or explained why the Commission's existing rules would
be insufficient. The Bureau found that existing Commission processes
are sufficient to address such requests. Commenters also suggested that
stations should have the flexibility to move to either an earlier or
later transition phase. The Bureau stated that such requests will be
subject to a high burden of proof and will be reviewed in its
prescribed manner to determine the requests impact on the overall
transition schedule as well as viewers. The Bureau also declined AT&T's
suggestion that it adopt a special sanction system related to
transitioning stations, finding that such a proposal was not supported
by the record. In addition, the Bureau concluded that a station that
does not comply with the requirements of any Commission order may be
subject to action as contemplated by the Commission's rules.
The Bureau determined not to mandate the use of temporary channels
which avoided possible additional burdens on stations and MVPDs as well
as LPTV and TV translator stations. T-Mobile requested a prohibition of
voluntary temporary operation in the new wireless band; however, the
Bureau found that entirely foreclosing this option could undercut the
benefit of allowing broadcasters to request temporary channels because
there may be limited available temporary channels in the TV band.
The Bureau declined to adopt suggestions on how the Commission
should manage its staff and resources during the transition period. The
Bureau concluded that it will commit to dedicating sufficient resources
to monitor the progress of the transition. While commenters
representing the interests of LPTV and TV translator stations provided
several actions the Commission could take to ease the impact of the
transition on LPTV and translator stations, the Bureau found these
proposed actions have already been addressed in other Commission
proceedings.
Federal Communications Commission.
Thomas Horan,
Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2017-03368 Filed 2-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P