Federal Register Vol. 80, No.221,

On December 19, 2014 (79 FR 75871), the Office of Management and Budget issued a joint-agency interim final rule that implemented the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Through that interim final rule, CNCS adopted and implemented the Uniform Guidance and made specific exceptions to the rule. These exceptions are published in 2 CFR part 2205. Additionally, CNCS removed 45 CFR parts 2541 and 2543, which were superseded by the Uniform Guidance and made other conforming amendments to its regulations. The interim final rule was effective on December 26, 2014, and the public comment period closed on February 17, 2015.

CNCS did not receive any comments addressing its regulations. Accordingly, and without change, CNCS adopts and implements the Uniform Guidance as published on December 19, 2014.

CNCS has determined that the rule is not an “economically significant” rule within the meaning of E.O. 12866 because it is not likely to result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or an adverse and material effect on a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government or communities; (2) the creation of a serious inconsistency or interference with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) a material alteration in the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) the raising of novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605 (b)), CNCS certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, CNCS has not performed the initial regulatory flexibility analysis that is required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) for major rules that are expected to have such results.

For purposes of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, as well as Executive Order 12875, this regulatory action does not contain any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures in either Federal, State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or impose an annual burden exceeding $100 million on the private sector.

This rule contains no new information collections subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3506).

Executive Order 13132, Federalism, prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has Federalism implications if the rule imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. The rule does not have any Federalism implications, as described above.

Accordingly, under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 12651c(c), CNCS adopts the interim rule adding 2 CFR part 2205 and amending 45 CFR parts 1235, 2510, 2520, 2541, 2543, 2551, 2552, and 2553, which published at 79 FR 75871 on December 19, 2014, as final, without change.

Section 19(b)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)) requires each depository institution to maintain reserves against its transaction accounts and nonpersonal time deposits, as prescribed by Board regulations, for the purpose of implementing monetary policy. Section 11(a)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248(a)(2)) authorizes the Board to require reports of liabilities and assets from depository institutions to enable the Board to conduct monetary policy. The Board's actions with respect to each of these provisions are discussed in turn below.

Pursuant to section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act (Act), transaction account balances maintained at each depository institution are subject to reserve requirement ratios of zero, three, or ten percent. Section 19(b)(11)(A) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(11)(A)) provides that a zero percent reserve requirement shall apply at each depository institution to total reservable liabilities that do not exceed a certain amount, known as the reserve requirement exemption amount. Section 19(b)(11)(B) provides that, before December 31 of each year, the Board shall issue a regulation adjusting the reserve requirement exemption amount for the next calendar year if total reservable liabilities held at all depository institutions increase from one year to the next. No adjustment is made to the reserve requirement exemption amount if total reservable liabilities held at all depository institutions should decrease during the applicable time period. The Act requires the percentage increase in the reserve requirement exemption amount to be 80 percent of the increase in total reservable liabilities of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment.

Total reservable liabilities of all depository institutions increased by 6.4 percent, from $7,026 billion to $7,476 billion between June 30, 2014, and June 30, 2015. Accordingly, the Board is amending Regulation D to set the reserve requirement exemption amount for 2016 at $15.2 million, an increase of $0.7 million from its level in 2015.1

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)), transaction account balances maintained at each depository institution over the reserve requirement exemption amount and up to a certain amount, known as the low reserve tranche, are subject to a three percent reserve requirement. Transaction account balances over the low reserve tranche are subject to a ten percent reserve requirement. Section 19(b)(2) also provides that, before December 31 of each year, the Board shall issue a regulation adjusting the low reserve tranche for the next calendar year. The Act requires the adjustment in the low reserve tranche to be 80 percent of the percentage increase or decrease in total transaction accounts of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment.

Net transaction accounts of all depository institutions increased 8.0 percent, from $1,904 billion to $2,056 billion between June 30, 2014 and June 30, 2015. Accordingly, the Board is amending Regulation D to increase the low reserve tranche for net transaction accounts by $6.6 million, from $103.6 million for 2015 to $110.2 million for 2016.

The new low reserve tranche and reserve requirement exemption amount will be effective for all depository institutions for the fourteen-day reserve maintenance period beginning Thursday, January 21, 2016. For depository institutions that report deposit data weekly, this maintenance period corresponds to the fourteen-day computation period that begins December 22, 2015. For depository institutions that report deposit data quarterly, this maintenance period corresponds to the seven-day computation period that begins December 15, 2015.

Section 11(b)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act authorizes the Board to require depository institutions to file reports of their liabilities and assets as the Board may determine to be necessary or desirable to enable it to discharge its responsibility to monitor and control the monetary and credit aggregates. The Board screens depository institutions each year and assigns them to one of four deposit reporting panels (weekly reporters, quarterly reporters, annual reporters, or nonreporters). The panel assignment for annual reporters is effective in June of the screening year; the panel assignment for weekly and quarterly reporters is effective in September of the screening year.

In order to ease reporting burden, the Board permits smaller depository institutions to submit deposit reports less frequently than larger depository institutions. The Board permits depository institutions with net transaction accounts above the reserve requirement exemption amount but total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits below a specified level (the “nonexempt deposit cutoff”) to report deposit data quarterly. Depository institutions with net transaction accounts above the reserve requirement exemption amount and with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits greater than or equal to the nonexempt deposit cutoff are required to report deposit data weekly. The Board requires certain large depository institutions to report weekly regardless of the level of their net transaction accounts if the depository institution's total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits exceeds or is equal to a specified level (the “reduced reporting limit”). The nonexempt deposit cutoff level and the reduced reporting limit are adjusted annually, by an amount equal to 80 percent of the increase, if any, in total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment.

From June 30, 2014 to June 30, 2015, total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits at all depository institutions increased 5.3 percent, from $10,256 billion to $10,798 billion. Accordingly, the Board is increasing the nonexempt deposit cutoff level by $16.9 million to $416.9 million in 2016 (from $400.0 million for 2015). The Board is also increasing the reduced reporting limit by $77 million to $1.901 billion for 2016 (from $1.824 billion in 2015).2

Beginning in 2016, the boundaries of the four deposit reporting panels will be defined as follows. Those depository institutions with net transaction accounts over $15.2 million (the reserve requirement exemption amount) or with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits greater than or equal to $1.901 billion (the reduced reporting limit) are subject to detailed reporting, and must file a Report of Transaction Accounts, Other Deposits and Vault Cash (FR 2900 report) either weekly or quarterly. Of this group, those with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits greater than or equal to $416.9 million (the nonexempt deposit cutoff level) are required to file the FR 2900 report each week, while those with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $416.9 million are required to file the FR 2900 report each quarter. Those depository institutions with net transaction accounts less than or equal to $15.2 million (the reserve requirement exemption amount) and with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $1.901 billion (the reduced reporting limit) are eligible for reduced reporting, and must either file a deposit report annually or not at all. Of this group, those with total deposits greater than $15.2 million (but with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $1.901 billion) are required to file the Annual Report of Deposits and Reservable Liabilities (FR 2910a) report annually, while those with total deposits less than or equal to $15.2 million are not required to file a deposit report. A depository institution that adjusts reported values on its FR 2910a report in order to qualify for reduced reporting will be shifted to an FR 2900 reporting panel.

The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) relating to notice of proposed rulemaking have not been followed in connection with the adoption of these amendments. The amendments involve expected, ministerial adjustments prescribed by statute and by the Board's policy concerning reporting practices. The adjustments in the reserve requirement exemption amount, the low reserve tranche, the nonexempt deposit cutoff level, and the reduced reporting limit serve to reduce regulatory burdens on depository institutions. Accordingly, the Board finds good cause for determining, and so determines, that notice in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary. Consequently, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, do not apply to these amendments.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board is amending 12 CFR part 204 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2015 (80 FR 26490).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-32, dated September 8, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0929-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 26490, May 8, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 26490, May 8, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 26490, May 8, 2015).

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 100-24-24, dated June 6, 2014. The service information describes procedures for an inspection, repair if necessary, and modification of the wiring harness installation to prevent contact with the hydraulic line. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 107 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $64 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $43,228, or $404 per product.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0929; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Congress enacted the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., (“FPLA” or “Act”) in 1966 to enable consumers to obtain accurate package quantity information to facilitate value comparisons and prevent unfair or deceptive packaging and labeling of “consumer commodities.” 1 Pursuant to the FPLA, the Commission promulgated the Rules, which generally concern products consumed during household use. However, several categories of these products are exempt from FTC regulations under the FPLA.2 Moreover, the FTC has excluded certain others from the Rules.3

Section 1453 of the Act directs the Commission to issue regulations requiring that all “consumer commodities” be labeled to disclose: (a) The identity of the commodity (e.g., detergent, sponges), which must appear on the principal display panel of the commodity in conspicuous type and position so that identity is easy to read and understand; 4 (b) the name and place of business of the product's manufacturer, packer, or distributor; 5 and (c) the net quantity of contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count, with such disclosure's placement and content in accordance with the Rules.6 The Rules detail how units of weight or mass and measure must be stated, and require use of both U.S. (e.g., pounds, feet, and gallons) and metric measures.7 The Rules also require net quantity disclosures for packages containing more than one product or unit, including: (a) “multi-unit packages”; 8 (b) “variety packages”; 9 and (c) “combination packages.” 10

In addition, the Act grants the FTC authority to issue rules to prevent consumer deception and facilitate value comparisons.11 The FTC has used this authority to address three types of representations: “cents-off,” 12 “introductory offer,” 13 and “economy size.” 14

As part of its ongoing regulatory review program, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) in March 2014 seeking comment on the economic impact of, and the continuing need for, the Rules; the benefits of the Rules to consumers; and any burdens the Rules place on businesses.15

In response, the Commission received fifteen comments. Based on these comments, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on February 2, 2015, proposing several amendments to modernize the place-of-business listing requirement, incorporate a more comprehensive metric chart, address the use of exponents with customary inch/pound measurements, delete prohibitions on certain retail price sale representations, and acknowledge the role of weights-and-measures laws of individual states.16

The Commission received nine comments in response to the NPRM, one from a nonprofit association representing officials and consumers affected by the Rules and eight from individuals.17 The nonprofit association approved of the Commission's proposals.18 One individual approved of the Commission's proposal to modernize the place-of-business listing requirement and acknowledge the role of weights-and measures of individual states; he also suggested the Commission amend Section 500.5(b) to delete the Rules' “actual corporate name” requirement, as well as amend the Rules to acknowledge that FDA labeling rules could be relevant to an entity's FPLA compliance and that the FDA has not finalized its proposal to permit metric measurements.19 One individual approved of the Commission's proposal to modernize the place-of-business listing requirement; she did not address the Commission's other proposals.20 Six individuals discussed extraneous topics not material to this rulemaking.21

Commission Rule 1.26 sets forth the procedures for promulgation of rules under authority other than section 18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act; it governs these FPLA amendments.22 The effective date of any regulations issued under the FPLA will not be prior to 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.23

Based on its consideration of the record, the Commission amends the Rules as explained below.

Currently, the Rules require a label to conspicuously state the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor and further specify that the place of business statement contain the street address, city, state, and ZIP code. The street address, however, may be omitted if it is listed in a current city or telephone directory.24 The Commission proposed revising this exception to permit a business to omit the street address if it is listed in any readily accessible, well-known, widely published, and publicly available resource, including but not limited to a printed directory, electronic database, or Web site. The inclusion of “any readily accessible, widely published, and publicly available resource” in the exception provides flexibility and is intended to encompass new technologies that meet these requirements.

All the comments addressing this proposal supported it.25 One individual suggested that the Commission delete the requirement that certain business entities use their “actual corporate name” (as opposed to their fictitious or doing-business-as name). However, he acknowledged that the requirement did not burden business and he did not demonstrate any benefit associated with his suggested amendment.26 Accordingly, the Commission adopts its proposed amendment without change.

Section 500.19(a) currently contains an incomplete metric conversion chart that fails to list possible, albeit uncommon, conversion factors that a packager might use, such as weight expressed in grain, or length expressed in rods. The Commission proposed to correct this omission by deleting the current chart and incorporating by reference the complete metric conversion chart published in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods (2015 ed., Exhibit E, pgs. 135-157).27 Members of the public can access the Handbook online at NIST's Web site, www.NIST.gov.

The only comment addressing this proposal approved its adoption.28 Accordingly, the Commission adopts this proposed amendment without change for the reasons explained in the NPRM.

In the current rule (Section 500.22), exponents are not listed for customary inch/pound measurements, but are included in the metric examples listed in Section 500.23(b) (e.g., cubic centimeter—cm3). Because exponents are not listed in the customary inch/pound measurements, affected businesses might think they are not permitted, although they are common in the marketplace and historically sanctioned by the Office of Weights and Measures of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, which is authorized to promote uniformity in labeling regulations.29 Therefore, the Commission proposed to clarify the Rules to expressly permit exponents with customary inch/pound measurements (e.g., cubic inches—in3).

The only comment addressing this proposal approved its adoption.30 Accordingly, the Commission adopts this proposed amendment without change.

The Commission proposed to eliminate sections addressing when and how a packager or labeler represents a commodity to be “cents off,” an “introductory offer,” or “economy size.” 31 The Commission originally promulgated these provisions to curtail certain price representations that were commonly used in a deceptive manner during the 1960s and 1970s. However, these representations are now rarely seen in the modern marketplace. Indeed, they have been absent for some time.32 Should they re-appear, the Commission has other tools at its disposal to ensure they are not used deceptively.

The only comment addressing this proposal approved its adoption.33 Accordingly, the Commission adopts this proposed amendment without change.

Many products outside the Commission's FPLA purview fall within the purview of weights-and-measures laws of individual states; amending the Rules to acknowledge the state role would aid compliance efforts by alerting businesses that state laws may apply. Therefore, the Commission proposed to amend the Rules to state “[m]any products exempted through proceedings under section 5(b) of the Act and section 500.3(e) of this chapter or excluded under part 503 of this chapter nonetheless fall within the purview of the weights-and-measures laws of individual states.”

The two comments addressing this proposal approved its adoption.34 One, however, favored further clarification to indicate that FDA also has a role in FPLA regulation, but did not provide any indication that entities were unfamiliar with this fact. Accordingly, the Commission adopts this proposed amendment without change.

The Rules contain various existing information collection requirements for which the Commission has obtained OMB clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”).35 Because the amendments do not trigger additional recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting requirements, there is no incremental burden under the PRA. See 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. None of the comments disputed the PRA analysis in the NPRM.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) 36 requires the Commission to conduct an initial and final analysis of the anticipated economic impact of the amendments on small entities.37 The purpose of a regulatory flexibility analysis is to ensure the agency considers the impacts on small entities and examines regulatory alternatives that could achieve the regulatory purpose while minimizing burdens on small entities. Section 605 of the RFA 38 provides that such an analysis is not required if the agency head certifies that the regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Commission believes the amendments will not have a significant economic impact on small entities, although they may affect a substantial number of small businesses. The amendments expand labeling options to accommodate the rise of online media, remove unnecessary price statement prohibitions, or are technical in nature.

In the Commission's view, the amendments will not have a significant or disproportionate impact on the costs small entities incur in manufacturing, distributing, or selling consumer commodities. Indeed, the Rule revisions provide increased flexibility for companies complying with the Rules. Therefore, the Commission certifies that amending the Rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

Although the Commission certifies under the RFA that the amendments will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Commission nonetheless has determined it is appropriate to publish a final regulatory flexibility analysis to ensure the impact of the amendments on small entities is fully addressed. Therefore, the Commission prepared the following analysis:

The objective of the amendments is to clarify and update the Rules in accordance with marketplace practices. The Act authorizes the Commission to implement its requirements through the issuance of rules. The amendments clarify and update the Rules, and provide covered entities with additional labeling options without imposing significant new burdens or additional costs.

In the NPRM's initial regulatory flexibility analysis, the Commission concluded that the proposed amendments would not have a significant or disproportionate economic impact (including compliance costs) on small entities that produce consumer commodities other than those commodities falling within the authority of other agencies or otherwise outside the Act's or Rules' scope. None of the comments disputed the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The Commission did not receive any comments from the Small Business Administration.

The amendments cover every company in the economy that produces consumer commodities other than those commodities falling within the authority of other agencies or otherwise outside the Act's or Rules' scope. Based on available information, it is not feasible for the Commission to estimate the number of entities within this class of industry that are also small companies within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.39 A substantial number of these entities likely qualify as small businesses. Nevertheless, the Commission estimates that the amendments will not have a significant impact on small businesses because the amendments do not impose any significant new obligations. The Commission sought, but did not receive, comment with regard to the estimated number or nature of small business entities, if any, for which the amendments would have a significant impact.

As explained earlier in this document, the amendments expand labeling options to accommodate the rise of online media, remove unnecessary price statement prohibitions, or are technical in nature. The small entities potentially covered by these amendments will include all such entities subject to the Rules. The professional skills necessary for compliance with the Rules as modified by the amendments will include office and administrative support supervisors to determine label content and clerical personnel to draft and obtain labels and keep records.

The Commission has not proposed any specific small entity exemption or other significant alternatives, because the amendments expand labeling options to accommodate the rise of online media, remove unnecessary price statement prohibitions, or are technical in nature. In addition, these changes provide new flexibilities for small entitities by, for example, allowing regulated entities to omit a business address from a label if the address is readily available in an online directory or other Web site. Under these limited circumstances, the Commission does not believe a special exemption for small entities or significant compliance alternatives are necessary or appropriate to minimize the compliance burden, if any, on small entities while achieving the intended purposes of the proposed amendments. Nonetheless, the Commission sought, but did not receive, comments on the need, if any, for alternative compliance methods to reduce the economic impact of the Rules on small entities.

None of the comments addressed the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis in the NPRM.

Consistent with 1 CFR part 51, the Commission is incorporating the complete metric conversion chart published in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 133, Checking the Contents of Packaged Goods (2015 ed., Exhibit E, pgs. 135-157), as described in Section III.B above. The metric conversion chart provides a complete and up-to-date list of metric conversion factors for packagers.

The metric conversion chart is reasonably available to interested parties. Members of the public can access the metric conversion chart online at NIST's Web site, NIST.gov.

Under 15 U.S.C. 1454-1455 and as discussed in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission amends title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by amending parts 500 and 502 as follows:

The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) (5 U.S.C. 552) provides for the disclosure of agency records and information to the public unless the records and information are exempted from disclosure. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) regulations specifically covering the production and disclosure of records under the FOIA are set forth in part 103 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 103) and consist of sections 103.1-103.13 (19 CFR 103.1-103.13).

Prior to March 1, 2003, the United States Customs Service (“Customs”) was a component of the Department of the Treasury. On November 25, 2002, the President signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq., Public Law 107-296, (the “HSA”), establishing the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Pursuant to section 403(1) of the HSA, Customs was transferred from Treasury to DHS effective March 1, 2003, and renamed as the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (now U.S. Customs and Border Protection or CBP).

DHS published FOIA and Privacy Act regulations in the Federal Register (68 FR 4056) as an interim rule on January 27, 2003. The DHS regulations specifically covering FOIA-related matters are set forth in subpart A of part 5 of title 6 of the Code of Federal Regulations (6 CFR part 5, subpart A) and consist of sections 5.1-5.12 (6 CFR 5.1-5.12).

Section 5.1(a)(2) (6 CFR 5.1(a)(2)) states that, except to the extent a DHS component adopts separate guidance under the FOIA, the provisions of the DHS FOIA regulations apply to each component of the Department. However, under these regulations DHS components may issue their own guidance pursuant to approval by DHS. As discussed in more detail below, CBP published in the Federal Register (71 FR 54197) a final rule on September 14, 2006, relating to the treatment of confidential commercial information. See also interim final rule issued on August 11, 2003 at 68 FR 47453. No other provisions of the CBP FOIA regulations have been amended since CBP became a part of DHS.

For additional resources, please see the CBP FOIA page online at http://www.cbp.gov/site-policy-notices/foia.

Due to the promulgation of DHS FOIA regulations which provide that the DHS FOIA regulations generally apply to all DHS components except to the extent that a DHS component adopts separate guidance, most of the CBP FOIA regulations have been functionally superseded. The current CBP regulation, section 103.0, directs the public to the Treasury FOIA regulations found at 31 CFR part 1 and instructs that for any inconsistency between 19 CFR part 103 and the Treasury FOIA regulations, the Treasury FOIA regulations control. The existing CBP regulations are now obsolete and retaining inconsistent regulations causes confusion for those seeking to file a FOIA request. As a result, CBP is amending sections 103.0 through 103.3, removing and reserving sections 103.4 through 103.13 of Subpart A of Part 103, and directing readers to the DHS FOIA regulations. This will align CBP's regulatory procedures for processing FOIA requests and appeals with DHS procedures.

The DHS FOIA regulations reflect many Congressional amendments to the FOIA, for which conforming changes had not been made in the CBP FOIA regulations. The DHS FOIA regulations also reflect OMB's guidelines established in the Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines publication. In addition, DHS recently proposed additional updates to its FOIA regulations to update and streamline the language of several procedural provisions, and to incorporate changes brought about by the amendments to the FOIA under the OPEN Government Act of 2007, among other changes (80 FR 45101, July 29, 2015).

While in practice, CBP currently follows the FOIA, as amended, and the rules and procedures set forth in the DHS FOIA regulations, CBP hopes to eliminate confusion for the public making FOIA requests, as well as CBP personnel handling FOIA requests by removing conflicting and sometimes outdated CBP FOIA regulations and directing readers to the DHS FOIA regulations, as appropriate.

This document makes amendments to the scope section of part 103 (19 CFR 103.0), sections 103.1 through 103.3 of subpart A (19 CFR 103.1-103.3), and by removing sections 103.4 through 103.13 of subpart A of 19 CFR part 103 (19 CFR 103.4-103.13). Specifically, this document amends section 103.0 by removing references to the FOIA subject matters that are no longer discussed within Part 103 because they are now addressed in the DHS regulations and amends section 103.1 to account for CBP's move to virtual reading rooms (19 CFR 103.1). In addition, section 103.2 is revised to explain in paragraph (a) that CBP processes FOIA requests pursuant to the DHS FOIA regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5, subpart A (19 CFR 103.2(a)), unless CBP provides a particular exception. Paragraph (b) of section 103.2 sets forth the exception that CBP will not apply the DHS FOIA regulation pertaining to the treatment of business information contained in 6 CFR 5.8 (19 CFR 103.2(b)). Rather, as explained below, CBP will continue to apply its current regulation in section 103.35 (19 CFR 103.35) which governs the treatment of confidential commercial information. A corresponding amendment is made to section 103.35 (19 CFR 103.35). Lastly, section 103.3 is revised to explain how CBP processes Privacy Act requests pursuant to the DHS Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5, subpart B (6 CFR 5).

On September 14, 2006, CBP published a final rule in the Federal Register (71 FR 54197) governing the disclosure procedures that CBP follows when commercial information is provided to CBP by a business submitter. The rule finalized an interim rule in section 103.35 (19 CFR 103.35) to subpart C, published in the Federal Register on August 11, 2003 (68 FR 47453), in order to clearly set forth CBP's policy governing the disclosure of confidential commercial information that is provided to CBP by a business submitter.

As opposed to section 103.35 in title 19 CFR, the DHS FOIA regulation controlling the treatment of business information in 6 CFR 5.8 contains an affirmative requirement that a business submitter must identify information as privileged or confidential in order to be withheld from disclosure. In this regard, 6 CFR 5.8 specifically states that a submitter of business information must use good-faith efforts to designate, by appropriate markings, either at the time of submission or at a reasonable time thereafter, any portions of their submission that they consider to be exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.

Section 5.8 of title 6 CFR also states that, before business information is released, notice will be provided to submitters whenever a FOIA request is made that seeks the business information that has been designated in good faith as confidential or when the agency has a reason to believe that the information may be protected from disclosure. When notice is provided by the agency, the submitter is required to submit a detailed written statement specifying the grounds for withholding any portion of the information and show why the information is a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential.

CBP has determined that 19 CFR 103.35 remains an effective regulation. In addition, CBP believes that this regulation should be retained in order to assure the public that CBP's established policy governing the treatment of confidential commercial information subject to FOIA requests will not change as a result of the amendments in this document. See 68 FR 47753 (August 11, 2003). For example, CBP will not require business submitters to designate information as protected from disclosure as privileged or confidential in order for CBP to withhold the information in response to a FOIA request. Therefore, CBP will continue to apply 19 CFR 103.35 in order to process confidential information under the FOIA. This action is fully consistent with DHS's recent proposed rule on FOIA, which explicitly proposed to incorporate the provisions of 19 CFR 103.35 into DHS's title 6 FOIA regulation. See 80 FR at 45103.

CBP has also determined that paragraph (b) of section 103.13 (19 CFR 103.13(b)), which provides that identifying data will not be eliminated from petitions by domestic interested parties, is more appropriately placed within 19 CFR part 175. Part 175 sets forth the regulations for petitions by domestic interested parties. As existing 19 CFR 103.13(b) is specific to petitions by domestic interested parties, this relocation will provide the public involved with such petitions with all relevant regulations in one location. Accordingly, this document moves the provision currently found in paragraph (b) of section 103.13 (19 CFR 103.13(b)) to the end of section 175.21(b) (19 CFR 175.21(b)).

This document also amends sections 103.31a, 103.32, 103.34, 161.15, and 175.21 (19 CFR 103.31a, 103.32, 103.34, 161.15, and 175.21) in order to remove references in these sections to the CBP FOIA regulations that are being removed and to update the references accordingly. In sections 103.31a and 103.32 (19 CFR 103.31a and 103.32), references to CBP FOIA regulations are removed and replaced with references to the DHS FOIA provisions at 6 CFR 5.3. In addition, the introductory paragraph to section 103.31a (19 CFR 103.31a) is revised to replace a reference to section 103.12(d), which is removed by this document, with text from current section 103.12(d) (19 CFR 103.12) providing that trade secrets and commercial or financial information are per se exempt from disclosure.

In sections 103.34, 161.15, and 175.21 (19 CFR 104.34, 161.15, and 175.21), the reference to CBP FOIA regulations are replaced with references to the FOIA statute at 5 U.S.C. 552. In addition, section 161.15 (19 CFR 161.15) is revised to replace a reference to section 103.12(g)(4) (19 CFR 103.12), which is removed by this document, with a reference to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(D) and text from current section 103.12(g)(4). Section 161.15 (19 CFR 161.15) is also being revised to replace a reference to 103.12(i) (19 CFR 103.12), which is removed by this document, with text from current section 103.12(i) which tracks the language found in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(7)(C)(2). Lastly, this document makes non-substantive amendments to these regulations to reflect the nomenclature changes effected by the reorganization of the U.S. Customs Service under DHS in 2003 and to remove the word consignee from section 175.21 to be consistent with the statutory amendments to 19 U.S.C. 1484(a)(2)(B).

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this regulation.

Following the creation of DHS in 2003, DHS promulgated the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Procedures interim final rule set forth in 6 CFR part 5. For consistent and appropriate administration, CBP generally began applying the DHS FOIA procedures after their publication. However, the CBP FOIA procedures remained in the Code of Federal Regulations, sometimes causing confusion about their use among the public and agency personnel. Unlike the CBP FOIA regulations outlined in 19 CFR 103 subpart A, the DHS FOIA procedures are up-to-date and conform to FOIA guidelines established by OMB. This rule will serve to remove obsolete provisions of CBP's FOIA regulations and will establish uniform FOIA administration procedures among DHS and its component, CBP, in the Code of Federal Regulations. This rule will not affect CBP's current application of FOIA procedures as CBP already adheres to DHS FOIA regulations. Instead, the rule will provide greater clarity of CBP's application of FOIA procedures. Therefore, this rule will not have an economic impact on CBP or the public.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), CBP has determined that it would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to delay publication of this rule in final form pending an opportunity for public comment because the existing regulations are obsolete and maintaining inconsistent regulations causes confusion for the public. In addition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), CBP has determined that there is good cause for this final rule to become effective immediately upon publication. CBP currently follows the DHS FOIA regulations as a matter of law and policy. The amendments contained in this document merely align CBP's regulatory procedures for processing FOIA requests and appeals with DHS procedures and bring CBP in compliance with OMB's guidelines established in the Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines publication.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, requires agencies to assess the impact of regulations on small entities. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act); a small not-for-profit organization; or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people). The Regulatory Flexibility Act applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other law (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because this rule is not subject to such notice and comment rulemaking requirements, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply. However, as discussed above in the “Executive Orders 13563 and 12866” section, this rule will not have an economic impact on the public because it merely clarifies CBP's current adherence to DHS FOIA procedures rather than existing, outdated CBP FOIA regulations.

This document is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.2(a), which provides that the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to CBP regulations that are not related to customs revenue functions was transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to section 403(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Accordingly, this final rule to amend such regulations may be signed by the Secretary of Homeland Security (or his delegate).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, parts 103, 161, and 175 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR parts 103, 161, and 175) are amended as set forth below.

On September 15, 2015, the EPA proposed to approve revisions to the general air quality regulations contained in the Washington SIP as they apply to BCAA's jurisdiction (80 FR 55280). An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the submittal, and the EPA's reasons for approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on October 15, 2015. The EPA received no comments on the proposal.

The EPA is approving and incorporating by reference into the Washington SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 4, “Additional Regulations Approved for the Benton Clean Air Agency (BCAA) Jurisdiction” the BCAA and Ecology regulations listed in the tables below for sources within BCAA's jurisdiction.

In addition to the regulations approved and incorporated by reference above, the EPA reviews and approves state and local clean air agency submissions to ensure they provide adequate enforcement authority and other general authority to implement and enforce the SIP. However, regulations describing such agency enforcement and other general authority are generally not incorporated by reference so as to avoid potential conflict with the EPA's independent authorities. The EPA reviewed and is approving BCAA, Regulation 1, Article 2, General Provisions, as having adequate enforcement and other general authority for purposes of implementing and enforcing the SIP, but is not incorporating this section by reference into the SIP codified in 40 CFR 52.2470(c). Instead, the EPA is including sections 2.01, Powers and Duties of the Benton Clean Air Agency (BCAA); 2.02, Requirements for Board of Directors Members (replaces WAC 173-400-220); 2.03, Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors; 2.04, Powers and Duties of the Control Officer; 2.05, Severability; and 2.06, Confidentiality of Records and Information, in 40 CFR 52.2470(e), EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures, as approved but not incorporated by reference regulatory provisions. Finally, for the reasons discussed above, the EPA is moving WAC 173-400-220, Requirements for Board Members; WAC 173-400-230, Regulatory Actions; WAC 173-400-240, Criminal Penalties; WAC 173-400-250, Appeals; and WAC 173-400-260, Conflict of Interest, currently incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 4, to the list of provisions in 40 CFR 52.2470(e) that are approved but not incorporated by reference.

The regulations contained in Washington's SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 4 were last approved by the EPA on June 2, 1995 (60 FR 28726). The EPA is removing from this table WAC 173-400-010 and 173-400-020 because these provisions are replaced by the BCAA corollaries 1.02, Policy and Purpose and 1.03, Applicability, as shown in Attachment 2 of the SIP revision. We are also removing WAC 173-400-100, because this outdated provision is no longer part of the EPA-approved SIP for Ecology's direct jurisdiction under CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 2 and BCAA has requested that it be removed from the BCAA's jurisdiction under CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 4. For more information please see the EPA's proposed (79 FR 39351, July 10, 2014) and final (79 FR 59653, October 3, 2014) actions on the general provisions of Chapter 173-400 WAC.

This revision to the SIP applies specifically to the BCAA jurisdiction incorporated into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 4. As discussed in the EPA's October 3, 2014 action on the general provisions of Chapter 173-400 WAC, jurisdiction is generally defined on a geographic basis (Benton County); however there are exceptions (79 FR 59653 at page 59654). By statute, BCAA does not have authority for sources under the jurisdiction of the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). See Revised Code of Washington Chapter 80.50. Under the applicability provisions of WAC 173-405-012, WAC 173-410-012, and WAC 173-415-012, BCAA also does not have jurisdiction for kraft pulp mills, sulfite pulping mills, and primary aluminum plants. For these sources, Ecology retains statewide, direct jurisdiction. Ecology also retains statewide, direct jurisdiction for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. Therefore, the EPA is not approving into 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 4 those provisions of Chapter 173-400 WAC related to the PSD program. Specifically, these provisions are WAC 173-400-116 and WAC 173-400-700 through 750.

As described in the EPA's April 29, 2015 action, jurisdiction to implement the visibility permitting program contained in WAC 173-400-117 varies depending on the situation. Ecology retains authority to implement WAC 173-400-117 as it relates to PSD permits (80 FR 23721 at page 23726). However for facilities subject to nonattainment new source review (NNSR) under the applicability provisions of WAC 173-400-800, we are approving BCAA to implement those parts of WAC 173-400-117 as they relate to NNSR permits. See 80 FR 23726.

Lastly, the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian reservations in the State, except for non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also known as the 1873 Survey Area), or any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction.

In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is revising our incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 4 “Additional Regulations Approved for the Benton Clean Air Agency (BCAA) Jurisdiction” to reflect the regulations shown in the tables in section III.A. Regulations to Approve and Incorporate by Reference into the SIP and the rules removed from the SIP in section III.C. Regulations to Remove from the SIP. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and

• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. This SIP revision is not approved to apply in Indian reservations in the State or any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 19, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order (R&O), FCC 15-100, adopted August 5, 2015, and released August 11, 2015. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

1. The repurposing of broadcast television band spectrum for wireless services set forth in the Incentive Auction R&O, 79 FR 48441, August 15, 2014, will significantly alter the regulatory environment in which wireless microphones operate. Currently, wireless microphone users rely heavily on access to unused channels in the television bands. Following the incentive auction, with the repacking of the television band and the repurposing of current television spectrum for wireless services, there will be fewer frequencies in the UHF band available for use for wireless microphone operations. The Commission took several steps in the Incentive Auction R&O to accommodate wireless microphone operations—including providing more opportunities to access spectrum on the channels that will remain allocated for television post-auction and making the 600 MHz Band guard bands available for wireless microphone operations—while also recognizing that the reduction of total available UHF band spectrum will require many wireless microphone users to make adjustments over the next few years regarding the spectrum that they access and the equipment they use. To facilitate wireless microphone users' ability to make these adjustments, the Commission provided that users could continue to access spectrum repurposed for wireless services during the post-auction transition period, under specified conditions, as they transition affected services to alternative spectrum.

2. This proceeding was initiated to explore steps to address wireless microphone users' longer term needs. The actions the Commission is taking in this R&O make additional spectrum resources available to accommodate wireless microphones users' needs over the long term. The Commission's goal is to enable the development of a suite of devices that operate in different bands and can meet wireless microphone users' various needs while efficiently sharing the spectrum with other users.

3. In this proceeding the Commission uses the term “wireless microphones” to reference wireless microphones and other related wireless audio devices. The Commission has authorized wireless microphone operations in different spectrum bands to accommodate the growing use of these devices by different users. The technical and operational rules for wireless microphone operations in these different bands have varied, depending on the band, and generally are designed to enable wireless microphone users to operate in shared bands along with other users.

4. Under current rules, the Commission has authorized wireless microphones to operate both on a licensed basis, limited to specified users, and on an unlicensed basis. The table below sets forth the bands in which wireless microphones and related audio devices generally operate today pursuant to the Commission's rules.

5. Recent actions affecting operations in the TV bands. Most wireless microphones users today operate their devices on a secondary basis in the TV bands, with most operations occurring in the UHF TV bands. Recent actions taken by the Commission in three proceedings affecting the TV bands spectrum—which have involved the repurposing of UHF TV band spectrum for wireless services in the 700 MHz band (channels 52-69, the 698-806 MHz band), the development of rules for TV white space devices in the TV bands, and the repurposing of the 600 MHz Band following the upcoming incentive auction—have affected and will affect the future availability of spectrum for wireless microphone users and uses in these bands. These proceedings inform the instant proceeding, providing the backdrop for many of the issues the Commission is addressing in its efforts here to accommodate wireless microphone users and uses both in the near and longer term.

6. In the Incentive Auction R&O (GN Docket No. 12-268) adopted in May 2014, the Commission adopted rules to implement the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction, which will involve reorganizing the existing television band and repurposing a portion of the UHF television band for new wireless broadband services, and which will affect wireless microphone operations across the current TV bands. As part of its decision, the Commission took several actions to accommodate wireless microphone operations, including making rule revisions to provide additional opportunities for wireless microphone operations in the bands that will remain allocated for television following the incentive auction, permitting wireless microphone operations in the newly-designated 600 MHz Band guard bands, and providing for a transition period to give wireless microphone users that will need to cease operating in the spectrum repurposed for 600 MHz Band wireless services sufficient time to replace their equipment and move operations to other spectrum bands available for wireless microphone uses.

7. Finally, concurrent with adoption of the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission adopted the TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O, 79 FR 40680, July 14, 2014, (part of WT Dockets 08-166 and 08-167, ET Docket No. 10-24) to broaden the eligibility for wireless microphone operations in the TV bands to include entities that regularly utilize a substantial number of wireless microphones for large events and productions and which have the same needs for interference protection as existing low power auxiliary station (LPAS) licensees. Specifically, the Commission expanded part 74 LPAS eligibility to include qualifying professional sound companies and operators of large venues that routinely use 50 or more wireless microphones.

8. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 79 FR 69387, November 21, 2014 in this proceeding, the Commission examined wireless microphone users' needs and technologies that can address them, and sought broad comment on a variety of existing and new spectrum bands that might accommodate those needs in the future. It presented an overview of current wireless microphone operations, and observed that most wireless microphone operations today occurred in the TV bands. It also generally discussed wireless microphone operations in other bands, both on a licensed and an unlicensed basis. It discussed the many different types of users and uses (e.g., broadcasters, major sports leagues and theater/entertainment venues, houses of worship, conference centers, corporations, schools, etc.), different types of wireless microphones serving specific needs and applications (from extremely sophisticated, high fidelity microphones used in a professional setting, to microphones that do not require the same level of audio quality or performance to meet particular needs), and varying operational environments (both outdoor and indoor). It also noted that there had been many technological advances in recent years, and that many operations were being migrated to bands outside of the TV bands, including in bands available for unlicensed operations. Given that wireless microphones serve the needs of diverse users for different types of applications, and make use of several different frequency bands, it sought to develop a full record and framework for how best to accommodate these needs in the near and over the long term. In response to the NPRM, the Commission received nearly 90 comments and 17 reply comments.

9. In this Order, the Commission takes several actions to accommodate wireless microphone users' needs in the coming years. Many types of users employ wireless microphones in a variety of settings. Wireless microphone operations range from professional uses, with the need for numerous high-performance microphones along with other microphones, to an individual consumer's use of a handheld microphone at a conference or in a karaoke bar. Through these actions, the Commission seeks to enable wireless microphone users to have access to a suite of devices that operate effectively and efficiently in different spectrum bands and can address their respective needs.

10. As discussed below, the Commission adopts several changes in its rules for operations in the TV bands, where most wireless microphone operations occur today. With respect to the TV bands, the Commission revises its rules to provide more opportunities to access spectrum by allowing greater use of the VHF channels and more co-channel operations without the need for coordination where use would not cause harmful interference to TV service. It also expands eligibility for the licensed use of the duplex gap to all entities now eligible to hold LPAS licenses for using TV band spectrum. The Commission also will require new wireless microphones operating in the TV bands and certain other bands to meet the more efficient analog and digital European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) standards, which will ensure more efficient use of the spectrum. In addition, the Commission addresses consumer education and outreach efforts that can help consumers transition out of the TV band spectrum that is repurposed for wireless services, and equipment certification procedures that will apply to wireless microphones in the future. The Commission also takes several additional actions with respect to other spectrum bands currently available for wireless microphone operations to enable greater use of these bands to accommodate wireless microphone uses in the future. Specifically, it adopts revisions to provide new opportunities for such use in the 169-172 MHz band and the 944-952 MHz band. Finally, the Commission opens up portions of three other sets of spectrum bands—the 941-944 MHz and 952-960 MHz bands (on each side of the 944-952 MHz band), the 1435-1525 MHz band, and the 6875-7125 MHz band—for sharing with licensed wireless microphone operations under specified conditions.

11. In the NPRM, the Commission inquired about advances in the state of analog and digital wireless microphone technologies and the extent to which these technologies could be made more efficient for different types of operations, thereby increasing the number of microphones that could access a given amount of spectrum. In particular, the Commission asked whether it should adopt more spectrally efficient analog and digital emission masks for operations in certain bands. It also sought comment on other technological advances that could promote more opportunities for accommodating wireless microphone operations in different bands over the long term—including development of equipment with replaceable components, expanding the tunability of equipment within bands, the development of multi-band equipment, the use of databases, or the use of electronic keys or similar mechanisms.

12. Wireless microphone manufacturers assert that significant steps have already been taken to make for more efficient use of available spectrum, including the increasing use of newer digital technologies that can greatly expand the number of microphones on a TV channel for many types of applications that do not require the highest sound fidelity. Several also state that more devices are increasingly being designed for operations in bands outside of the TV bands, including in bands permitting unlicensed operations, and that these new devices can efficiently and effectively accommodate many wireless microphone users' needs. Wireless microphone manufacturers generally asserted that adopting rules that require specific features (e.g., modular components, use of multi-band equipment, requirement for database connectivity, or use of electronic keys) are unnecessary and could impair design features and add costs and complexities.

13. While many wireless microphone manufacturers explain that they are already committed to harnessing technological advances in this area, the Commission reiterates the importance of improved spectral efficiency, spectrum sharing, and flexibility. It expects wireless microphone manufacturers to continue to take advantage of technological advances to promote more efficient use of spectrum available for wireless microphone operations. To further promote efficient use, the Commission also is taking the step of adopting the more efficient ETSI standards for wireless microphones in several bands, as discussed below. The Commission also anticipates that future technological advances will enable wireless microphones to more effectively share the available spectrum resource, and require use of certain technological advances to protect incumbent operation when authorizing wireless microphone users to access the 1435-1525 MHz band spectrum in the future.

14. In the sections below, the Commission addresses the actions that it is taking in this R&O with respect to wireless microphone operations in different spectrum bands. The Commission discusses each of the bands on which it sought comment in the NPRM, and its decisions regarding these bands and any revisions that it is adopting.

15. The Commission's current part 74, subpart H rules authorize operations of wireless microphones and other LPAS on a licensed basis in the bands allocated for TV broadcasting (Channels 2-51, except channel 37). These LPAS devices are intended to transmit over distances of approximately 100 meters. In addition to wireless microphones, these LPAS devices include such uses as cue and control communications and synchronization of TV camera signals. The Commission's rules permit licensed LPAS operations on a secondary, non-exclusive basis. Entities eligible to hold these LPAS licenses include broadcasters, television producers, cable producers, motion picture producers, and qualifying professional sound companies and operators of large venues. Since 2010, the Commission also has permitted unlicensed operations of wireless microphones in the core television bands (channels 2-51, except channel 37) pursuant to a limited waiver and certain part 15 rules until such time as final rules for unlicensed operations under part 15 are adopted.

16. Under the part 74 LPAS rules, licensed wireless microphones are permitted to operate with a maximum bandwidth of 200 kHz (made up of one or more 25 kHz segments). In the VHF band (channels 2-13, which include the 54-72 MHz, 76-88 MHz, and 174-216 MHz frequencies) power levels are limited to 50 mW, whereas in the UHF band (channels 14-51, except channel 37, which include the 470-608 MHz and 614-698 MHz frequencies), power levels can range up to 250 mW. The power levels for unlicensed wireless microphone operations pursuant to waiver, however, are limited to no more than 50 mW throughout the TV bands (both VHF and UHF). Licensed and unlicensed wireless microphones may operate co-channel with television stations at locations that are separated from television stations by at least 4 kilometers from their protected contours. In addition, licensed LPAS users may operate on a co-channel basis even closer to television stations provided that such operations have been coordinated with affected broadcasters.

17. The particular television channels available for wireless microphone operations will vary depending on the specific location. In many instances these channels also are available for use by unlicensed white space devices. The Commission currently designates the two unused television channels (where available) nearest channel 37 (above and below) for wireless microphone uses, prohibiting white space devices on those channels. As discussed in the Incentive Auction R&O, following the incentive auction, these two channels will no longer be designated exclusively for wireless microphones following the repacking of the TV bands. On channels where both wireless microphones and white space devices may operate, licensed LPAS operators—including the newly eligible professional sound companies and venue licensees—will be able to register to obtain protection from interference from white space devices by reserving channel(s), on an as-needed basis, at specified locations and times of operation in the broadcast TV bands databases. In addition, under existing rules certain qualifying unlicensed wireless microphone operators can obtain interference protection from unlicensed white space devices at specified times by registering with the Commission, enabling them to have their operations included within the broadcast TV bands databases. The Commission also indicated that it would be taking steps in the Part 15 proceeding to make improvements to the registration system in the TV bands databases to enable more timely and effective reservation of channels that would be protected from unlicensed white space device operations.

18. As set forth in the Incentive Auction R&O, the current VHF/UHF television bands (channels 2-51, except channel 37) will be reorganized following the upcoming incentive auction. As a result of this auction, the amount of spectrum allocated for television services will be reduced and repacked, some of the current TV bands spectrum will be designated for 600 MHz Band guard bands (including the duplex gap), and other TV bands spectrum will be repurposed for 600 MHz Band wireless services. As discussed below, these revisions will affect wireless microphone operations, which currently operate throughout in existing TV bands, in several ways. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on wireless microphone operations with respect to each of these bands—the TV bands, the 600 MHz Band guard bands, and the 600 MHz Band being repurposed for wireless services.

19. In this section, the Commission sets forth part 74 rule revisions to accommodate licensed wireless microphone (and other LPAS) operations in the VHF and UHF spectrum in the repacked TV bands that will continue to be available for TV broadcast services following the incentive auction. The Commission is not addressing in this proceeding certain issues relating to wireless microphone operations in the TV bands and in the repurposed 600 MHz Band since these matters are being addressed instead in the part 15 proceeding. In particular, it does not here address the rules for unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands and the repurposed 600 MHz Band, which are addressed as part of the Part 15 Report and Order (FCC 15-99, ET Docket No. 14-165, adopted August 6, 2015 and released August 11, 2015). Similarly, it does not address in this proceeding the technical rules for operations of unlicensed wireless microphones in the guard bands, including the duplex gap. Nor does it address here the technical rules for licensed wireless microphone operations in the duplex gap, since the technical issues relating to their operations are intertwined with the technical issues concerning unlicensed operations in the duplex gap and protection of licensed operations outside of the duplex gap. Finally, the Commission addresses revisions pertaining to the white spaces databases in the Part 15 Report and Order.

20. Under the existing technical rules for LPAS operations under part 74, licensed wireless microphone users that operate on a secondary basis in the VHF band (channels 2-13) operate generally under the same technical rules as for operations in the UHF bands. However, with respect to power levels, VHF band operations are restricted to no more than 50 mW, well below the 250 mW levels permitted for operations in the UHF bands.

21. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the potential for expanding use of VHF television channel spectrum for wireless microphone operations. In particular, it asked whether it should revise the power limits for LPAS operations in the VHF band to conform to those applicable for LPAS devices in the UHF television band. The Commission asked whether allowing higher power limits would raise concerns regarding potential interference to TV stations operating in the VHF bands or the wireless video assist devices that operate in the upper VHF band. It also sought comment on the minimum co-channel separation distance, and whether that distance would need to be increased. In addition, it invited comment on other rule revisions that would facilitate more use of this spectrum.

22. The Commission is revising its rules to provide more opportunities for licensed wireless microphone use of these VHF channels. While the Commission is not permitting power levels of up to 250 mW conducted power, it is revising the rules that currently measure the 50 mW limit in terms of conducted power, to specify the 50 mW limit in terms of effective or equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP), as suggested by Shure in its comments. Several reasons inform this approach. As noted by Shure, specifying the power levels in terms of EIRP instead of conducted power will be particularly beneficial to wireless microphone users in the VHF band, where the efficiency of antennas is lower due to the longer radio wavelengths. This approach will allow manufacturers to adjust the conducted power output of a device to compensate for low antenna efficiency, thus helping address wireless microphone operators' interest in making greater use of this spectrum without the need for a larger antenna. By revising the rules to specify the current 50 mW power limits in terms of EIRP, the Commission addresses the Consumer Electronic Association's concerns that wireless microphone operations do not increase the potential for interference to TV broadcasts. This revision represents a balance in addressing the concerns raised, and will increase the performance and usability of wireless microphones operating on this VHF spectrum without significantly increasing the risk of interference to TV. Specifying the power limit in terms of EIRP also ensures uniformity in the maximum radiated power for wireless microphone operations (licensed and unlicensed) in the VHF band. The change the Commission is making does not necessitate any increase in the four kilometer separation distance between wireless microphones and co-channel TV contours since the Commission is not allowing any higher EIRP than it assumed in establishing this distance. The Commission will accept applications to certify LPAS devices under this rule as soon as that rule becomes effective, and it will require applications to certify under this revised rule nine months following release of the Commission's (Forthcoming Channel Reassignment PN) to conform the date with related certification requirements the Commission is adopting.

23. In the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission permitted licensed wireless microphone users to operate closer to television stations than permitted under the revised separation distances (i.e., no closer than 4 kilometers from the outside of the digital television contours) provided that they coordinated their operations with affected broadcasters. The Commission noted, however, that several commenters had proposed to permit wireless microphone operations on a co-channel basis without requiring coordination, such as in locations where the TV signal falls below specified threshold, where the microphones are shielded from the TV signals due to building attenuation, or where no over-the-air television receivers are in operation.

24. In the NPRM, the Commission sought to develop a more extensive record on whether to permit licensed wireless microphone operations on a co-channel basis closer than the generally applicable separation distances set forth in its rules, without the need for coordination, noting its goal to provide more opportunities for licensed wireless microphone operations in the spectrum that will continue to be allocated for television services to the extent such operations would not cause harmful interference to TV operations. In particular, the Commission proposed to allow LPAS licensees to operate co-channel with television closer to the television station than provided by the separation distance rules in locations in which the co-channel TV signal is below a specified threshold. It sought comment on the suitable TV signal threshold, and whether other safeguards would ensure that licensed wireless microphone operators do not otherwise cause harmful interference to TV reception. It limited this proposal to licensed wireless microphone users, whom the Commission would expect to have the requisite wireless microphone systems, as well as technical and operational abilities, to be able to determine the level of the co-channel TV signals at a given location, and thus would be able to comply with such a threshold. The Commission also asked whether it should require licensed wireless microphone users to register their co-channel operations in the TV bands databases to provide information to any television licensee concerned about possible harmful interference. As an alternative, it sought comment on whether to permit co-channel licensed wireless microphone operations in indoor venues, such as in theaters or music auditoriums. It also invited comment on other approaches.

25. The Commission will permit closer co-channel operations by licensed wireless microphone operators on any TV channel where the TV signal falls below a threshold of -84 dBm over the entire TV channel, provided certain conditions are met. Such operations will be limited to systems operating at an indoor location, and not in an itinerant fashion where the signal threshold could be ever-changing, and the location is not being used for over-the-air television viewing. The Commission also requires that the licensed operators have the requisite wireless microphone systems for determining the threshold at the location, as well as the professional qualifications for evaluating the signals, and that the signals be measured where the wireless microphones would be operated at the location, and must be scanned across the full six-megahertz TV channel; to the extent directional antennas are employed, they must be rotated to the place of the maximum signal at the location. The Commission believes this approach for licensed wireless microphone operations is reasonable for several reasons. As Sennheiser points out in its comments, the signals would exceed the threshold of visibility under the Advanced Television Systems Committee guidelines. The location of operations is indoors and contained, and wireless microphone signals do not generally transmit beyond very limited distances (e.g., generally ranging between 100-300 feet) at low levels. In addition, the Commission expects that there would be significant attenuation of the wireless microphone signal, both around the microphone (e.g., loss because it is hand-held, or because of body loss) and as a result of building and other attenuation, thus further reducing the likelihood of harming TV viewers outside of the location.

26. The technical rules applicable to part 74 LPAS devices operations in the TV bands set forth specified out-of-band emission mask requirements for wireless microphones, regardless of whether the device is analog or digital. These rules have not been revised since 1987.

27. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed revising the emission masks applicable to wireless microphones and LPAS devices, with respect to both analog and digital wireless microphones, to comply with the applicable ETSI standards for analog and digital wireless microphones that operate over 200 kHz channels. Specifically, it proposed to require that emissions from analog and digital unlicensed wireless microphones comply with the emission masks in Section 8.3 of ETSI EN 300 422-1, Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Wireless microphones in the 25 MHz to 3 GHz frequency range; Part 1: Technical characteristics and methods of measurement. Because the ETSI emission masks are defined only over a frequency range of plus or minus one megahertz from the wireless microphone carrier frequency, the Commission sought comment on the emission limits that should apply outside of this frequency range. In addition to the ETSI standards, or as an alternative, it inquired whether there are other technical standards that it should adopt to promote more efficient use of the spectrum available for wireless microphone operations in the TV bands. Finally, it asked that, if it were to decide to adopt revised standards, how quickly it should require new devices to comply with the new standards.

28. To promote more efficient use of the limited TV band spectrum available for wireless microphones, the Commission is adopting the ETSI standard emission masks for LPAS devices used by wireless microphone licensees under its part 74 rules. Specifically, it will require that emissions from analog and digital unlicensed wireless microphones comply with the emission masks in Section 8.3 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08), Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Wireless microphones in the 25 MHz to 3 GHz frequency range; Part 1: Technical characteristics and methods of measurement. Requiring wireless microphones to meet these tighter emission requirements will protect authorized services in adjacent bands from harmful interference, and will improve spectrum sharing by wireless microphones. Outside of the frequency range where the ETSI masks are defined (one megahertz above and below the wireless microphone carrier frequency), the Commission will require that emissions comply with same limit as the edge of the ETSI masks, specifically, 90 dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier. The Commission is incorporating the emission mask requirements set forth in ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08) into the Part 74 Subpart H LPAS rules by reference and adding it to the list of measurement procedures in section 74.861. The Commission is not persuaded by Lectrosonics' comments that existence of its legacy unlicensed wireless microphones that would not be compliant with the new standard should prevent the Commission from establishing a more efficient standard for wireless microphone devices going forward. The Commission will require the LPAS devices to comply with this standard no later than nine months following release of the Channel Reassignment PN.

29. In the NPRM, the Commission also sought comment generally on whether it should adopt any other rule revisions for operations of wireless microphones in the TV bands spectrum that would facilitate more effective and efficient operations in these bands. It asked that commenters provide detailed information on reasons for the proposed changes as well as the types of specific rules that they advocate.

30. The Commission concludes that extending the existing waiver of its rules to permit nuclear power plants the continued use of spectrum in the core TV bands would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Commission hereby grants a permanent waiver of its rules to allow the continued use of wireless headsets at nuclear power plants, under the same conditions as the current waiver, in the spectrum that will continue to be allocated for television following the incentive auction. In addition, this waiver will permit nuclear power plants to continue to access the spectrum repurposed for 600 MHz wireless service during the transition period, but no later, provided that they meet the conditions for secondary operations in this band. The terms of this waiver do not extend to include operations in the 600 MHz guard bands, including the duplex gap, which will no longer be allocated for broadcast TV. As discussed in the Part 15 Report and Order, wireless microphone operations in these bands will be limited to 20 mW EIRP, which is more restrictive than allowed for wireless microphones in the TV bands. Further, the Commission is not granting, under the terms of this waiver, any right to continue to operate in the 600 MHz Band after the end of the post-auction transition period. Unlike the waiver the Commission is granting, nothing in the record before it indicates whether the 600 MHz wireless licensees might agree to the request of the Nuclear Energy Institute and the United Telecom Council relating to this issue, so the Commission declines to grant their additional request at this time.

31. In granting this permanent waiver, the Commission declines to revise the part 74 LPAS rules to provide for such operations on a licensed basis. The Commission previously declined to make nuclear plants eligible under part 74, and the issues raised regarding the use of these particular devices involve considerations unique to the nuclear power industry, and do not apply to other part 74 LPAS licensees. Further, in light of the Commission's grant of a permanent waiver with the associated conditions, licensee status is not necessary.

32. In the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission provided that broadcasters and cable programming networks using wireless microphones on a licensed basis would be able to obtain interference protection from unlicensed devices in a portion of the duplex gap at specified times and locations, on an as-needed basis. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether it should expand eligibility for licensed wireless microphone operations in the duplex gap to include all of the entities now eligible for Part 74 LPAS licenses in the TV bands. In particular, the Commission asked whether such expanded eligibility would create problems for broadcasters or cable programming networks operating on this spectrum, or whether these different users generally operate at different locations, such that their respective operations would not likely interfere with each other.

33. As discussed in the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission provided that broadcasters and cable programming networks using wireless microphones on a licensed basis could operate in a portion of the duplex gap, where they would be protected from interference by unlicensed devices in order to have access to spectrum for certain programming, including emergency information. The Commission concludes that expanding eligibility to the other licensed part 74 entities should not cause any problems for broadcasters and cable programming networks since the licensed entities will be obligated to coordinate their operations when and where necessary. The Commission notes that, as a general matter, these different licensees will likely operate at different locations and not interfere with each other.

34. Following the upcoming incentive auction, certain existing television channels in the UHF band will be repurposed for 600 MHz Band wireless services. In the Incentive Auction R&O the Commission provided for a multi-year period to help smooth the transition as wireless microphone operators take steps to obtain new equipment and transition out of the use of this spectrum no later than the end of post-auction transition period (i.e., 39 months after the issuance of the Channel Reassignment PN). Specifically, following the auction these operators may continue to access the 600 MHz Band during the transition period, but no later, subject to certain conditions. To the extent that either licensed or unlicensed wireless microphone users operate in the 600 MHz Band during this transition period, then consistent with their secondary or unlicensed status they will not be entitled to any interference protection from operations of the primary 600 MHz licensees, and they will be required to cease any operations in the 600 MHz Band if their operations cause harmful interference to any 600 MHz licensee's operations.

35. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on how best to facilitate a smooth transition as wireless microphone and other LPAS users cease their operations on the repurposed 600 MHz Band frequencies no later than the end of the post-auction transition period. The Commission indicated that achieving a smooth transition will involve actions by it, by manufacturers and distributors of wireless microphones, and by the various wireless microphone operators themselves, both licensed and unlicensed users. Even though the specific UHF band frequencies repurposed for 600 MHz Band wireless services will not be known until following the auction, beginning preparation for transition as soon as possible will contribute to a smoother transition. The Commission observed that some wireless microphones are likely to be capable of operating on repurposed channels, while others will not. The Commission also pointed out that although the specific frequencies on which particular wireless microphones operate may be identified in the owner's manual, the channels often are not evident on the devices themselves.

36. The Commission specifically sought comment in the NPRM on how best to inform users of wireless microphones on the changes following the auction that will affect their use of wireless microphones in the TV band spectrum that is being repurposed, including the steps necessary to prevent interference to new wireless operations in the 600 MHz spectrum, consistent with its goals expressed in the Incentive Auction R&O. The Commission anticipated a need for education and outreach directed at wireless microphone users, and that this should commence before the auction and continue even beyond the end of the 39-month transition period. The Commission proposed that these education and outreach efforts should be undertaken by it, manufacturers, wireless microphone users groups, and relevant trade publications and other possible sources of information for wireless microphone users. As a companion to these efforts, the Commission also proposed requiring that written disclosures accompany new devices at the point of sale to provide further education to wireless microphone users on the devices' operations. In considering these actions, the Commission drew extensively from the approach that it took with respect to the transition of wireless microphones out of the 700 MHz band. Its goals were to make information available so users, particularly unlicensed users, are aware that they must not cause harmful interference to new wireless operations in the 600 MHz band, and must cease operating their wireless microphones on the repurposed 600 MHz Band allocated for 600 MHz Band wireless services no later than the end of the transition period (i.e., 39 months after the release of the Channel Reassignment PN); to set in motion a process so they are aware of relevant factors concerning the operation of wireless microphones that are currently in use; and to establish a means for users to locate additional spectrum and equipment for their operations that will be available for their use. The Commission believed that a successful consumer education and outreach campaign would involve its staff working with a broad group of interested entities, including wireless microphone manufacturers, wireless microphones users, and user representatives.

37. The Commission sought comment on the particular actions that wireless microphone manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and other entities comprising the wireless microphone community should take to inform the wide range of wireless microphone users about the ongoing developments concerning wireless microphone use—particularly the need to vacate the repurposed 600 MHz Band, the timetable for doing so, and the conditions for operating in the band during the transition period. It asked what specific information should be provided to wireless microphone users to ensure that they know the requirements for operating in the repurposed spectrum during the transition period and the need to exit the band by the end of the transition, as well as what steps can be taken to provide wireless microphone users with information on the transition prior to the auction. In particular, the Commission inquired whether it would it be beneficial for wireless microphone users to have access to a database or some form of online mapping tool to help users that enter the location and operating frequencies to determine whether they can continue to operate in the repurposed 600 MHz Band during the transition period, and if so, who should be responsible for developing and maintaining (hosting) it. Similarly, the Commission asked whether it should work with wireless microphone manufacturers to obtain information on models of wireless microphones that it could list on its Web site in order to facilitate a smooth transition from the 600 MHz Band. In addition to steps that may involve manufacturers, the Commission sought comment on what steps other parties associated with the sale and operation of wireless microphones (e.g., trade associations, user groups, or industry associations), may be able to take to provide users with information relevant to the transition.

38. The Commission also invited specific comment on what additional information it should make available for wireless microphone users, including Commission-issued consumer “fact sheets” and “frequently asked questions” (FAQ's) which would address, among other matters, information on operation in the 600 MHz Band, the reason for the need to operate on frequencies outside of that band following the transition, the availability of other frequency bands for wireless microphone use, and the need to comply with Commission rules.

39. Finally, the Commission proposed to revise its point-of-sale disclosure requirement that it adopted in the TV Bands Wireless Microphones R&O, 75 FR 9113, March 1, 2010, in order to provide information to wireless microphone users that may have to purchase or lease new equipment so that they can vacate the repurposed 600 MHz Band. Specifically, with regard to sales of wireless microphones that are capable of operating in repurposed spectrum, the Commission proposed to require that such sales include point-of-sale disclosures that inform buyers that they are buying a microphone that cannot be used in certain frequencies following the transition. The Commission also sought comment on how point-of-sale disclosures could be designed to effectively address any ban on manufacturing and marketing of wireless microphones that are capable of operating in the repurposed 600 MHz Band. It also proposed that the revised point-of-sale disclosures direct buyers to the manufacturer's toll free telephone number or the manufacturer's Web site where the buyer can obtain more detailed information on the extent to which the microphone may be affected by repurposing the 600 MHz Band, and asked whether it should retain the existing language in the point-of-sale disclosure requirement that includes the Commission's toll free number and the Commission's Web site where users can obtain additional information on the operation of wireless microphones during the transition period and after the transition period. The Commission proposed that the effective date for any disclosure requirement, including a point-of-sale requirement, which it may adopt in connection with this or a related proceeding, would be 18 months after the release of the Channel Reassignment PN, and sought comment on possible alternative dates as well. It requested comment on the particular factors that should enter into this determination.

40. As set forth in the NPRM, consumer education regarding the operations of wireless microphones following the incentive auction is important. Consumers will need to be informed of the many changes that will affect their use of the current TV bands that is being repurposed, including their use of the 600 MHz guard bands and duplex gap, their continued use of repurposed 600 MHz Band during the post-auction transition period (i.e., the 39 months following issuance of the Channel Reassignment PN), and their need to cease operations in the 600 MHz Band no later than the end of the post-auction transition period. The steps required are similar to those taken in 2010 to inform consumers about their use of the TV bands that were repurposed for 700 MHz Band wireless services.

41. Disclosure Requirement. The Commission requires anyone selling, leasing, or offering for sale or lease wireless microphones that operate in the 600 MHz Band to provide certain disclosures to consumers, pursuant to section 302. These entities must display the Consumer Disclosure, the text of which will be developed by Commission staff, at the point of sale or lease, in a clear, conspicuous, and readily legible manner. In addition, the Consumer Disclosure must be displayed on the Web site of the manufacturer (even in the event the manufacturer does not sell wireless microphones directly to the public) and of dealers, distributors, retailers, and anyone else selling or leasing the devices. The Commission finds that these disclosures are necessary to ensure that consumers are informed that the wireless microphones may be used, under specified conditions, no longer than the post-auction transition period, and to help ensure that wireless microphone users comply with their obligation during the transition period and cease operating on the 600 MHz band after the end of the transition period. The Commission delegates authority to its Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), working with its Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) and Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), to prepare the specific language, following issuance of the Channel Reassignment PN, that must be used in the Consumer Disclosure and publish it in the Federal Register. As discussed above, there is more than one way in which the point-of-sale Consumer Disclosure may be provided to potential purchasers or lessees of wireless microphones, but each of them must satisfy all the requirements noted above, including that the disclosure be provided in writing at the point of sale in a clear, conspicuous, and readily legible manner. One way to fulfill this disclosure requirement would be to display the Consumer Disclosure in a prominent manner on the product box by using a label (either printed onto the box or otherwise affixed to the box), a sticker, or other means. Another way to fulfill the disclosure requirement would be to display the text immediately adjacent to each wireless microphone offered for sale or lease and clearly associated with the model to which it pertains. For wireless microphones offered online or via direct mail or catalog, the disclosure must be prominently displayed in close proximity to the images and descriptions of each wireless microphone. The Commission will require manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and other entities that sell or lease wireless microphones for operation in the 600 MHz Band to comply with the disclosure requirements no later than three months following issuance of the Channel Reassignment PN, and it encourages these entities to provide consumers with the required information earlier.

42. Consumer Outreach. In addition, the Commission finds that several means should be employed to provide as much notice as possible to users of the need to clear the 600 MHz Band of wireless microphones. The Commission directs CGB, working with WTB and OET, to establish a Web page on its Web site, and prepare and release consumer publications, including a Consumer Fact Sheet and answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), that inform the public of its decisions affecting wireless microphone operations in the repurposed 600 MHz Band and the guard bands, as set forth in the Incentive Auction R&O, this Order, and the Part 15 Report and Order. The Commission further directs its staff to identify and contact organizations that represent entities that are known to be users of wireless microphones in the 600 MHz Band, including groups that represent theaters, houses of worship, and sporting venues. The Commission will inform these entities of its decisions affecting wireless microphone operations in the repurposed spectrum and available resources for information on options for wireless microphone use going forward.

43. Further, the Commission expects all manufacturers of wireless microphones to make significant efforts to ensure that all users of such equipment capable of operating in the 600 MHz Band are fully informed of the decisions affecting them, as set forth in the Incentive Auction R&O, this Order, and the Part 15 Report and Order. Specifically, the Commission expects these manufacturers, at a minimum, to ensure that these users are informed of the need to clear the 600 MHz Band. Manufacturers also should inform users of wireless microphones that they may continue to operate in the 600 MHz Band until the end of the post-auction transition period, but only subject to the conditions set forth in these orders, including the early clearing mechanisms. Further, the Commission expects all manufacturers to contact dealers, distributors, and anyone else who has purchased wireless microphones, and inform them of its decisions to help clear the 600 MHz Band. Manufacturers should also provide information on these decisions to any users that have filed warranty registrations for 600 MHz Band equipment with the manufacturer. The Commission also expects manufacturers to post this information on their Web sites and include it in all of their sales literature.

44. In addition, the Commission notes that manufacturers may choose to offer rebates and trade-in programs for any 600 MHz Band wireless microphones, similar to what was done with respect to transitioning wireless microphone users out of the 700 MHz band. The Commission encourages them to consider creating or establishing such programs here. In contacting dealers and distributors, it expects manufacturers to inform these entities that they should: (1) Inform all customers who have purchased wireless microphones that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz Band of its decision to clear the 600 MHz Band of such devices; (2) post such information on their Web sites; (3) include this information in all other sales materials; (4) provide information in sales materials, including on their Web sites, on the availability of any manufacturer rebate offerings and trade-in programs related to wireless microphones operating in the 600 MHz Band; and (5) comply with the disclosure requirements that the Commission is adopting in this Order.

45. All wireless microphones that now operate in the TV bands are certified as compliant with part 74, subpart H of the Commission's rules. The Commission decided in the Incentive Auction R&O that all wireless microphones that operate in the portion of the TV bands that will be repurposed 600 MHz Band for licensed wireless services may continue to operate in that spectrum during the post-auction transition period but must cease those operations no later than 39 months after release of the Channel Reassignment PN. At the end of the post-auction transition, licensed microphones will be permitted to operate in a portion of the duplex gap, and unlicensed wireless microphones will be permitted to operate in the guard bands and duplex gap, pursuant to the rules adopted in the Part 15 Report and Order.

46. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to establish cutoff dates for the certification, manufacturing, and marketing of wireless microphones in the repurposed spectrum to ensure that manufacturers cease making and marketing equipment for operation in repurposed 600 MHz Band spectrum to ensure that manufacturers cease making marketing equipment that cannot be legally used after a certain date. Because similar technical requirements would apply to both licensed and unlicensed wireless microphones, the Commission proposed to apply to both the same transition rules for certification, manufacturing, and marketing in order to be the least disruptive to wireless microphone manufacturers and users. It proposed taking this action pursuant to its authority under section 302(a) of the Communications Act. This Order addresses these issues for licensed wireless microphones generally, and the Part 15 Report and Order addresses these issues for unlicensed wireless microphones.

47. In this proceeding, the Commission proposed that parties could no longer submit applications to certify Part 74 wireless microphones that operate in repurposed TV spectrum beginning nine months after the release of the Channel Reassignment PN, when the particular frequencies that will need to be vacated will first be identified. The Commission also proposed that it not certify wireless microphones under part 74 that would operate in the 600 MHz guard bands or the unlicensed portion of the duplex gap. The Commission also inquired whether parties should not be able to submit applications to certify wireless microphones that operate in repurposed TV spectrum later than 24 months after the effective date of the service rules that it adopts for licensed wireless microphones, and microphones that do not comply with the new rules may not be manufactured and marketed later than 33 months after the effective date of the service rules it adopts in this proceeding. The Commission also proposed that the effective date of any prohibition on manufacturing or marketing these devices will be 18 months after the release of the Channel Reassignment PN. In addition, it requested comment on the economic costs and benefits of different effective dates for the proposed prohibition on manufacturing or marketing. Finally, to the extent that the Commission determines to prohibit such manufacture or marketing, it proposed that any such ban would not apply to devices manufactured in the United States solely for export.

48. The Commission adopts its proposals for establishing cutoff dates for the certification, manufacturing and marketing of licensed wireless microphones in the TV bands, the guard bands (including the duplex gap), and the repurposed 600 MHz Band. The Commission adopts transition rules for the TV bands, the guard bands (including the duplex gap), and the repurposed 600 MHz Band that will allow it to gradually phase out older microphones and introduce new ones that are compliant with the technical rules for part 74 wireless microphones that it adopts in this proceeding and for unlicensed wireless microphones generally and for licensed wireless microphones in the duplex gap that it adopts in the Part 15 Report and Order. The Commission is aligning the transition periods as closely as possible with the post-auction transition schedule because this will ensure compliance with the post-auction 600 MHz Band plan and be less disruptive to wireless microphone manufacturers and users.

49. The Commission adopts the cutoff dates proposed in the NPRM. It will require applications to certify wireless microphones under the modified part 74 rules nine months after the release of the Channel Reassignment PN or no later than 24 months after the effective date of the new rules, whichever occurs first. The Commission will require that manufacturing and marketing of all part 74 wireless microphones that would not comply with the rules for operation in the 600 MHz Band cease 18 months after release of the Channel Reassignment PN or no later than 33 months after the effective date of the new rules, whichever occurs first.

50. The Commission recognizes that it is important to provide manufacturers with sufficient time to design new products, obtain Commission certification, and commence manufacturing. It is equally important to allow manufacturers to sell existing devices that allow the public to continue providing service until new products are available in the marketplace. The cutoff dates that the Commission adopts for certification, manufacturing and marketing of wireless microphones appropriately balance these two goals, and it disagrees with the cutoff dates proposed by CTIA and Mobile Future. Manufacturers will not know what band plan they need to design and manufacture to until after the incentive auction is concluded, and it would be unreasonable to require that only certification applications complying with the new rules be accepted at the time the Channel Reassignment PN is released. Broadcast stations will be vacating the 600 MHz Band over a 39 month period after the release of the Channel Reassignment PN, and new wireless operations will be built out gradually as broadcast stations leave the band and most likely continuing beyond the 39 month transition period. It would be unreasonable to cut off manufacturing and marketing six months into the 39 month transition period since this would deny the public access to devices that would allow them to continue to provide service. The Commission concludes that the cutoff dates it has chosen will encourage manufacturers to concentrate on developing wireless microphones that operate in compliance with new part 74 and part 15 rules and ensure that manufacturers cease making and marketing equipment that cannot be legally used after a certain date. Finally, as proposed in the NPRM, the prohibition on manufacture and marketing will not apply to devices manufactured in the United States solely for export.

51. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed, pursuant to its authority under section 316 of the Communications Act, to modify existing LPAS licenses to the extent necessary to delete frequencies identified as repurposed for the 600 MHz Band in the Channel Reassignment PN, effective on the date that the post-auction transition period ends. In addition, it proposed that, following these license modifications, the LPAS licenses will continue to include authorization to use all frequencies currently included in those licenses other than the repurposed 600 MHz Band. Finally, the Commission proposed that if a licensed user must cease operations of a wireless microphone prior to the end of the post-auction transition period (i.e., because it causes harmful interference to any 600 MHz licensee's operations), the license relating to that wireless microphone will be modified automatically without Commission action to delete the authorization to operate on the repurposed 600 MHz Band, effective on the date that operations are required to cease.

52. The Commission adopts the proposal set forth in the NPRM. As set forth in the Incentive Auction R&O, during the transition period, wireless microphone users must cease operations if they would cause harmful interference to any 600 MHz wireless operations, and if there are violations of this requirement it will enforce its rules accordingly. The Commission declines the requests to permit wireless microphone operations in the 600 MHz Band following the transition period. As the Commission explained in the Incentive Auction R&O, establishing a hard date by which all licensed and unlicensed wireless microphone operations must cease provides needed certainty and clarity about transitioning out of the band, and no party petitioned for reconsideration of its decision on this matter. Finally, the Commission directs WTB to modify LPAS licenses to delete the affected frequencies from LPAS licensees' authorizations, effective at the end of the transition period.

53. Wireless microphones operating pursuant to the part 74 LPAS rules also are authorized to operate on a licensed basis in small portions of certain broadcast bands, including the 26.100-26.480 MHz, the 161.625-161.775 MHz, the 450-451 MHz, and the 455-456 MHz bands. Eligibility for operating in these bands is limited to broadcasters and broadcast network entities. While the Commission did not propose any specific revisions concerning these rules in the NPRM, it sought comment on the current use of these bands for wireless microphone operations, and the more expansive use of these bands in the future. The Commission asked where there are technological advances that may promote more intensive use, and requested comment on any potential revisions that it should make to facilitate the use of these bands for wireless microphone operations.

54. Given commenters' general view that additional use of these bands is limited, and considering the small amount of spectrum they offer, revision of its rules to permit expanded operations in these bands would not yield much benefit. Furthermore, the Commission has sought comment on revising the rules in these bands to allow for the use of digital technologies of Remote Pickup (RPU) stations in another rulemaking, which could result in more intensive use of these bands. The Commission therefore concludes that it will not make these bands available for wireless microphone operations other than as currently authorized, and subject to the outcome in the latter proceeding.

55. As discussed in the NPRM, wireless microphone operations have long been permitted in the 88-108 MHz FM band on an unlicensed basis under section 15.239 of the Commission's part 15 rules. While the Commission did not propose any rule revisions in the NPRM, it sought comment on whether wireless microphone users continue to make use of this band for their operations and the extent to which existing or revised rules will be useful for accommodating wireless microphone users' needs in the future. To the extent that revisions were proposed, the Commission requested that parties submit technical information in support of their proposals, as well as analysis of the benefits of such revisions and likely impact on FM broadcasters.

56. Based on the comments and record before the Commission, and the apparently minimal opportunity for making use of this band, it declines to make any revisions to the rules applicable to wireless microphone operations in the 88-108 MHz FM band.

57. Under the Commission's part 90 rules, entities eligible to hold a Public Safety Pool or Industrial/Business Pool license may operate wireless microphone operations on a secondary basis on eight frequencies in the 169-172 MHz band, which is allocated primarily for Federal use. Specifically, these rules permit wireless microphones to be operated on only eight frequencies: 169.445 MHz, 169.505 MHz, 170.245 MHz, 170.305 MHz, 171.045 MHz, 171.105 MHz 171.845 MHz, and 171.905 MHz. The emission bandwidth may not exceed 54 kilohertz, the frequency stability of the microphones must limit the total emission to within ± 32.5 kilohertz of the assigned frequency, and operations may not exceed an output power level of 50 mW.

58. Wireless microphone operations are not protected from other licensed operations in the band, and must not cause interference to any Government or non-Government operations, and wireless microphone license applications are subject to Government coordination. Other non-Federal operations in the band, which also are secondary to the Federal allocation, operate on 12.5 kilohertz channels, and include (1) operations on 36 specified frequencies between 169.425 MHz and 171.925 MHz for the purpose of transmitting hydrological or meteorological data (hydro channels), (2) operations on 9 frequencies between 170.425 MHz and 172.375 MHz for forest firefighting and conservation purposes (forest firefighting channels), and (3) operations on frequency 170.150 MHz for public safety purposes and broadcast remote pickup stations in certain parts of the country. The current 169-172 MHz band wireless microphone channels overlap the hydro channels, but not the forest firefighting channels or public safety operations on frequency 170.150 MHz.

59. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the current use of spectrum in the 169-172 MHz band for wireless microphones, and how the spectrum potentially could be used more expansively and intensively without interfering with Federal operations or the other secondary non-Federal services. It asked what steps it could take to make the band a viable option for more wireless microphone users, and sought comment on two specific approaches: Allowing wireless microphone licensees to combine each of the four neighboring pairs of channels with each other, making four larger-bandwidth channels available on new channel centers between the existing assignable frequencies; or making as much of the 169-172 MHz band as possible available for wireless microphone use and allowing operation with bandwidths of up to 200 kilohertz, subject to appropriate technical or geographic limitations.

60. As noted above, the current 169-172 MHz band wireless microphone channels overlap the hydro channels, but not the forest firefighting channels. Making as much of the 169-172 MHz band as possible available for wireless microphone use and allowing operation with bandwidths of up to 200 kilohertz on center frequencies throughout the band, as advocated by the commenters, would result in wireless microphone channels overlapping forest firefighting channels. In another proceeding, a petition for rulemaking proposed to make the forest firefighting channels available for vehicular repeater systems (VRS) and other mobile repeaters by other firefighters fighting in-building fires. Despite the benefits that VRS use provides for first responders, the Commission denied that portion of the rulemaking petition. It noted concerns expressed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration that an interference-free environment must be maintained on the forest firefighting channels because even VRS public safety operations on a secondary basis would pose a risk of creating conflicts with primary Federal safety operations. Consistent with this precedent, the Commission declines to allow wireless microphone operations on center frequencies throughout the band that would overlap forest firefighting channels.

61. The Commission agrees with commenters that it should promote more opportunities for wireless microphone use of this band. Consequently, the Commission will pursue the approach of creating new channel centers between the existing neighboring pairs of channels (i.e., 169.475, 170.275, 171.075, and 171.875 MHz). The Commission concludes that the record supports permitting operation on these new channel centers with a bandwidth of up to 200 kilohertz, rather than merely combining the existing channels into new channels with a bandwidth of less than 120 kilohertz, because 200 kilohertz bandwidth will support higher audio quality, which could facilitate operation in the band by a wider range of users. Wireless microphones that have bandwidth exceeding 54 kilohertz will be required to comply with the emission masks in Section 8.3 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2008-11) that the Commission is adopting for licensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands.

62. In order to protect Federal operations and the other secondary non-Federal services, the Commission rejects the suggestion that it authorize wireless microphone operations in the 169-172 MHz band on an unlicensed basis pursuant to part 15. Unlicensed operations would eliminate the Federal Government's ability to review and object to new assignments in this primary Federal band. Instead, these operations will be licensed pursuant to part 90 and applications will be subject to Government coordination.

63. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on making revisions to the rules in the 944-952 MHz band and the two adjacent bands, the 941-944 MHz and 952-960 MHz bands, to accommodate additional licensed wireless microphone operations.

64. The Commission's part 74, subpart H rules authorize operations of wireless microphones on a licensed basis in the 944-952 MHz band. These LPAS operations are authorized on a co-primary basis along with other Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) consisting of fixed Aural Studio to Transmitter links (STL) stations and fixed Aural Intercity Relay Links stations (ICR). Entities eligible for a license to operate wireless microphones are limited to broadcast licensees and broadcast network entities. LPAS devices using this particular band of spectrum may also be used to transmit synchronizing signals and various control signals to portable or hand-carried TV cameras which employ low power radio signals in lieu of cable to deliver picture signals to the control point at the scene of a remote broadcast. Under the applicable technical rules, the operating bandwidth for LPAS operations may not exceed 200 kHz, and the maximum transmitter power is 1 watt. Several manufacturers have developed wireless microphones that use this band.

65. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on potential for more intensive use of this band for the licensed wireless microphone operations among the other BAS that use the band. It asked whether, considering that less spectrum may be available for wireless microphone operations in the UHF television bands, licensees expect to make greater use of this band in this band by migrating particular types of uses to this spectrum when they are spectrum-constrained in the TV bands, and whether this band is well-suited for high-quality uses. Because the Commission had proposed adopting ETSI standards for operations in the TV bands, it also proposed adopting these standards for LPAS operations in the 944-952 MHz band.

66. The Commission also proposed expanding eligibility in the 944-952 MHz band to include all of the entities currently eligible under part 74 for licensed operation of LPAS devices in the TV bands, given that their wireless microphone needs are similar to those of broadcasters and broadcast network entities. It asked whether technical limitations and other considerations should be weighed when assessing expansion of licensee eligibility in this band to ensure that such eligibility expansion would not be problematic for existing LPAS operations in this band.

67. Consistent with this record and in accord with adoption of the ETSI standard on emission masks for LPAS devices in the TV bands, the Commission will require that emissions from analog and digital wireless microphones comply with the emission masks in Section 8.3 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08), for future wireless microphones that will use this band—applying these revised standards to new equipment certified under Part 74 in the 944-952 MHz band 9 months after issuance of the Channel Reassignment PN, consistent with the requirements for new equipment certified for LPAS devices that operate in the TV bands. Further, the Commission expands eligibility for operations in the 944-952 MHz band to include all entities currently eligible to hold LPAS licenses for operation in the TV bands. This step should help address the need for additional spectrum outside of the TV bands for this entire group of licensed users.

68. Licensed LPAS users operating in the 944-952 MHz band (as in the TV bands) are subject to the frequency selection requirements contained in § 74.803 of its Rules. The Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) runs a local frequency coordination program for this band and asserts that coordination would have to be mandatory in order to avoid interference among different licensees. Accordingly, the Commission will also require wireless microphone users seeking access to this band to coordinate their proposed use through the local SBE coordinator.

69. The two bands immediately adjacent to 944-952 MHz band—the 941-944 MHz and the 952-960 MHz bands—are licensed for fixed services in varying bandwidths (from 12.5 kHz up to 200 kHz) in different areas and segments of these eleven megahertz. Most of the spectrum in these two bands is licensed for Private Operational Fixed (including business industrial and public safety) and Common Carrier Fixed Microwave Services authorized under part 101, and fixed Aural Broadcast Auxiliary Services (STL and ICR) authorized under part 74, while smaller portions are authorized for Multiple Address Systems (MAS), which consist of point-to-multipoint Fixed Microwave Services authorized under part 101 of the rules.

70. Specifically, most of the 941-944 MHz band—the two and a half megahertz between 941.5-944 MHz—is available for licensing for Private and Common Carrier Fixed Microwave Services or for broadcast auxiliary stations. Fixed point-to-point links in these bands are typically used for long distance low data-rate links between locations that have line of sight capability. They employ directional antennas and operate with fairly high effective isotropic radiated power. Receive antennas are also directional, affording some rejection of unwanted signals off-axis from the main lobe of the antenna. The other portion, the half megahertz between 941-941.5 MHz, is authorized for MAS operations, specifically communications from MAS master stations to remote stations; consequently, transmission from the master station is generally omni-directional, generally within a 25-mile radius, to many remote stations. MAS historically has been used by the power, petroleum, and security industries for various alarm, control, interrogation and status reporting requirements as well as by the paging industry, and the licensing scheme adopted by the Commission was designed to accommodate these past and present uses. MAS licenses in this band are either geographically-based or site-based.

71. Most of the 952-960 MHz band—6.8 megahertz of spectrum between 952.85-956.25 MHz and 956.45-959.85 MHz—is licensed for Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service (including business industrial and public safety) authorized under part 101. The remaining portions of the band are also authorized for MAS operations in three distinct portions, totaling 1.2 megahertz. The MAS bands are divided into two groups with differing licensing and service characteristics; these are commonly known as the 928/952/956 band—used for private internal or public safety communications, and the 928/959 MHz band—used by CMRS and paging network incumbents. The MAS portions of these bands have historically been used by the power, petroleum, and security industries for various Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) operations as well as by the paging industry. These licenses also could be either geographically-based or site-based.

72. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed making unused portions of the 941-944 MHz and the 952-960 MHz bands available for licensed wireless microphone operations on a secondary basis, generally under the rules applicable for LPAS operations in the 944-952 MHz band, provided that incumbent users in the band could be protected from interference. The Commission inquired about the extent to which there are many locations in these bands where spectrum is unused, potentially available, and in sufficient bandwidth (e.g., 200 kHz) suitable for wireless microphone uses similar to their uses in the TV bands and 944-952 MHz band. Considering the different services and service rules that apply to portions of these bands, and the mix of point-to-point and point-to-multipoint services already operating in these bands, the Commission asked whether specific sub-bands would be more suitable than others for sharing with wireless microphones. In this regard, it first inquired about those portions of the spectrum available for licensing for fixed microwave services, which constitutes the majority of the spectrum in these bands. The Commission sought comment on the ability of wireless microphone users to determine the availability of suitable spectrum at particular locations in these portions of the band, and what issues or factors it should take into account to make spectrum available for wireless microphone operations while protecting the incumbent fixed services that operate in these bands. The Commission then made similar inquiries about making the portions of the spectrum in these bands that are authorized for MAS operations available for wireless microphone operations. Considering that many MAS systems are used by utilities for SCADA operations, it sought comment on whether these existing users operate in the same general geographic areas as wireless microphone users, or whether the wireless microphone operations would be separated geographically because these are different types of uses. It also asked about other factors that it should consider when determining whether and how to permit wireless microphone operations in these MAS portions.

73. The Commission also sought comment on designing rules that would be necessary to address any interference concerns with particular incumbent operations that could arise. It asked whether certain types of services, such as fixed microwave services, would generally not be prone to interference, and whether others, such as MAS operations involving SCADA operations, could be more susceptible to interference and require more protected rules (e.g., rules to specify minimum separation distances, or create protection zones, or imposed greater limitations on power levels used by wireless microphones, or restricting use to indoors). In addition, the Commission sought comment on the technical rules that would apply to wireless microphone operations in these bands. It specifically asked whether wireless microphones should be permitted to operate under the same technical rules for LPAS operations that apply to operations in the 944-952 MHz band (e.g., power limits, maximum bandwidth, Out of Band Emissions (OOBE), including the ETSI standards that it proposed to apply to such operations. Finally, it sought comment on the equipment issues that would pertain to wireless microphone operations in these bands, including various issues relating to the certification process (e.g., whether manufacturers should be able to certificate equipment under the same rules and procedures for LPAS devices that operate in the 944-952 MHz band, or needed to develop new equipment for these bands that would be certificated in a different manner).

74. Based on the record before us, the Commission will open most of the 941-944 and 952-960 MHz bands—the 2.5 megahertz of spectrum between 941.5-944 MHz and the 6.8 megahertz of spectrum between 952.85-956.25 MHz and 956.45-959.85 MHz—for use by wireless microphones and other LPAS license eligible entities currently operating in the TV broadcast bands and for whom it has expanded eligibility to operate in the 944-952 MHz bands. Because wireless microphones operate at low power over short distances, and fixed point-to-point systems employ directional antennas and operate with fairly high effective isotropic radiated power, the Commission believes that the risk of interference between LPAS operations and fixed point-to-point operations is low, and commenters generally agree with that conclusion. The Commission finds further support for its decision in parties' assurances that equipment to utilize these expanded bands could be brought to market quickly. Furthermore, it finds that LPAS operations in the these bands should be subject to the same part 74 technical rules that apply to LPAS operations in the 944-952 MHz band (e.g., the same power limits, maximum bandwidth, and coordination requirements). The Commission also adopts the ETSI standard for emission masks in Section 8.3 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08); and will require emissions beyond +/−1 MHz from the carrier or center frequency to be attenuated by 90 dB. It will apply this standard to new licenses in the 941.5-944 MHz, 952.85-956.25 MHz and 956.45-959.85 MHz bands upon the effective date of this order. Consistent with the coordination requirements the Commission adopted for the 944-952 MHz band, it will also require wireless microphone users seeking access to the 941.5-944 MHz, 952.85-956.25 MHz and 956.45-959.85 MHz bands to coordinate their proposed use through the local SBE coordinator.

75. The Commission does not, however, open the remaining portions of the bands authorized for MAS operations, in three distinct portions totaling 1.7 megahertz, for licensed wireless microphone operations. Unlike with fixed point-to-point operations, it concludes that there is a greater risk of interference from a wireless microphone being operated at close proximity to a MAS remote station. Unlike fixed point-to-point operations (including BAS studio transmitter links), geographic area MAS licensees may add master and remote stations throughout their service area without prior Commission approval, and incumbent MAS licensees are allowed to expand their systems under certain circumstances. Given the record before the Commission, including the concerns of representatives of MAS interests, it concludes that proponents of using the MAS bands for wireless microphones have not demonstrated that they can coexist with MAS without causing interference. Furthermore, there is only a relatively small amount of spectrum in discrete segments potentially unused and available in this 1.7 megahertz.

76. The 902-928 MHz, 2.4 GHz (2400-2483.5 MHz), and 5 GHz (5725-5850 MHz) bands generally permit operations of unlicensed devices pursuant to two part 15 rules, 47 CFR 15.247 and 15.249. Wireless microphones are among the devices that operate on an unlicensed basis in these bands under these rules.

77. In the NPRM, the Commission sought general comment on the current and potential uses of the band for various wireless microphone operations, the types of applications for which the bands are best suited, the limitations associated with use of these bands, and technological advances that have improved the ability to make use of the band for wireless microphone operations. In requesting information on the use of these bands, it sought to develop a more complete record of how these bands are useful in meeting various needs of wireless microphone users. The Commission did not propose to revise any of these part 15 rules that apply to a broad range of unlicensed operations.

78. The Commission concludes that although the use of these bands at this time may be more appropriate for certain types of wireless microphone applications, they nonetheless can support devices that are part of the suite of wireless microphone devices that accommodate the needs of various users. It also anticipates that further technological advances can make improvements in performance, and hence make use of these bands more attractive for meeting many wireless microphone users' needs. As noted above, the Commission did not propose to make any revisions of the rules applicable for a wide range of unlicensed uses in these bands, and decline here to make any revisions. It generally is not inclined to make changes to these rules without demonstrated need that changes would benefit the many users of these bands.

79. The 1920-1930 MHz band is allocated to Fixed and Mobile services on a primary basis and is designated for use by Unlicensed Personal Communications Service (UPCS) devices under the Commission's part 15 rules for unlicensed operations. To facilitate the sharing of spectrum in the UPCS band, the current rules require use of a “listen-before-transmit” protocol that specifies a process for monitoring the time and spectrum windows that a transmission is intended to occupy for signals above a defined threshold. Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) technology may be used in this band since it complies with the general rules for operating in this band. DECT-based radio technology facilitates voice, data, and networking applications with range requirements up to a few hundred meters. DECT technologies minimize interference and can be particularly effective for voice communications, and many manufacturers make wireless microphones that use this spectrum.

80. In the NPRM, the Commission invited comment on the current and potential uses of the 1920-1930 MHz UPCS band for wireless microphone applications, advances in wireless microphone technologies making use of this spectrum, and the types of applications for which it may be best suited. It did not propose any revisions, but did ask generally whether it should consider any technical revisions that could make this band more useful for wireless microphone applications without adversely affecting operations of other users in the band.

81. As discussed above, wireless microphone manufacturers are finding ways under the existing rules to make use of this unlicensed band to address particular types of wireless microphone users' needs. The Commission encourages wireless microphone users to make use of this band where it can effectively serve their needs. It did not propose revisions to the rules in this band, and recognizing the many other applications that make use of this band, it will not make revisions at this time.

82. The 1435-1525 MHz band (1.4 GHz band) is shared by the Federal government and industry for aeronautical mobile telemetry (AMT) operations. AMT systems are used for flight testing of manned and unmanned aircraft, missiles, and space vehicles, and associated communications such as range safety, chase aircraft, and weather data. The Department of Defense (DOD) is the major Federal user of the band, although the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) also have assignments within it. The commercial aviation industry uses the band for flight testing of new and modified commercial, corporate, and general aviation aircraft at various facilities across the United States. Both the FCC and NTIA recognize the Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council (AFTRCC) as the non-governmental coordinator for assignment of flight test frequencies in the band. Through the Special Temporary Authority (STA) process, professional sound engineering companies responsible for major event productions have obtained authority to operate both wireless microphones (and similar audio devices) and video equipment on a temporary basis (e.g., a few days or a week) to access this spectrum. These STAs supplement the parties' existing access to other spectrum resources (primarily the TV bands) for coverage of sporting and other public events at specified locations around the country. Under existing practice, the applicants have had to demonstrate that they have fully coordinated their proposed spectrum use with AFTRCC before the Commission will grant a STA. The STAs have provided the applicants access to up to 90 megahertz of spectrum in the 1435-1525 MHz band, and only when that spectrum is not subject to AMT use at the specified times and locations. Operators generally use equipment that has been specially developed or modified for use of the 1.4 GHz band spectrum.

83. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed making the 1.4 GHz band spectrum available for use by wireless microphones on a secondary licensed basis, with use limited to licensed professional users at specified locations and times operating pursuant to specified safeguards designed to protect AMT use of the band. It sought general comment on the suitability of this spectrum for wireless microphone operations, and stated its commitment to ensuring that any wireless microphones operating in this spectrum are spectrally efficient and frequency agile.

84. While the Commission sought to provide wireless microphone users in need of additional spectrum resources with access to the 1.4 GHz band spectrum to help accommodate those needs, it contemplated only limited use of this spectrum and did not propose to open it for either widespread or itinerant uses throughout the nation. In particular, the Commission proposed that wireless microphone uses be restricted to specific fixed locations, such as large venues (whether outdoor or indoor), where there may be a need to deploy large numbers of microphones (e.g., 100 or more), and only at specified times. It proposed limiting eligibility to professional users, including broadcasters, professional television and cable programmers, and professional sound engineering companies, and operators at major venues that manage and coordinate wireless microphone operations, i.e., the entities eligible for licensed LPAS operations in the TV bands. In proposing to require prior coordination with AFTRCC, the Commission sought comment on specific coordination mechanisms that would ensure that wireless microphone operations only occur at the locations and times where authorized, and would be effective in preventing the use of these devices at any other location or time without authorization.

85. In considering the appropriate framework for wireless microphone operations in the band, the Commission noted that it already permits secondary, low power short-range Medical Body Area Network (MBAN) devices to share use of another band where AMT operations are primary (i.e., the 2360-2390 MHz band) pursuant to a specified coordination process. The Commission asked about the extent to which the rules for MBAN operations might serve as a model for rules that it should adopt for wireless microphone operations in the 1.4 GHz band. MBAN device operators are required to register each device with the frequency coordinator and provide specified information—including the frequencies to be used, the location of the devices, the power levels used, and point of contact information regarding the entity responsible for the MBAN device operations. MBAN devices also must cease transmission in the absence of a control message. The Commission further noted that, as part of the MBAN proceeding, it had recognized that specific tools, such as electronic keys, could be useful to coordinators as they sought to achieve mutually agreeable coordination agreements.

86. The Commission sought comment on requiring that wireless microphone systems, which often are moved from one location to another (e.g., when used to cover different events), could only operate through use of an automatic mechanism (such as an electronic key, and location-awareness capability, or similar mechanisms) that would serve to prevent wireless microphones from operating unless on approved frequencies in the 1.4 GHz band at the approved location/venue(s) during approved time(s). In addition, the Commission invited comment on whether it should adopt point-of-sale restrictions that would enable only entities licensed to operate in this band (discussed below) to obtain the devices.

87. To the extent the Commission decided to authorize wireless microphone operations in this band, it sought comment on the technical rules that would apply to devices that would use the band, including considerations designed to ensure that the primary AMT operations would be protected. It asked whether the technical rules should be the similar to those that apply to wireless microphones that operate in other bands, as well as whether ETSI standards should be adopted for those devices. To preserve maximum flexibility for wireless microphone operations in the band, it inquired whether it should require wireless microphones to have the capability of tuning across the band, as well as whether wireless microphones designed to operate in the 1.4 GHz band should have modular transmitting components that, if necessary, could be replaced to enhance frequency agility. In addition, the Commission asked whether there should be an interim process for permitting wireless microphone operations in the band as any necessary new devices are being made, and what device certification process should be employed. Finally, consistent with its proposal, the Commission envisioned adding a secondary mobile except aeronautical mobile service allocation to the 1435-1525 MHz band for limited use under the service rules it adopts for the band.

88. As proposed in the NPRM, the Commission authorized limited use of the 1.4 GHz band for licensed wireless microphones operations, with secondary status in the band in the table of allocations, and only provided that certain conditions and safeguards designed to protect AMT services are met. Experience through the STA process demonstrates that, under proper conditions, wireless microphones will be able to operate in this band without interfering with the critical aeronautical flight test operations that rely on primary access to this spectrum. Eligibility to use this band will be restricted to professional users (to include broadcasters, professional television and cable programmers, and professional sound engineering companies, and operators at major venues that manage and coordinate wireless microphone operations). The Commission also adopted Shure's recommendation, and will permit 200 kHz analog and digital masks and adopt the emission masks in Section 8.3 of ETSI standard EN 300-422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08), with power levels of up to 250mW consistent with the rules for UHF operations in the TV bands. To accommodate this limited use, the Commission is adding a new footnote, US84, to the Table of Frequency Allocations. This footnote explicitly permits secondary wireless microphone use in the 1435-1525 MHz band, which is already allocated to the mobile service on a primary basis but restricted to aeronautical telemetry.

89. As proposed in the NPRM, the Commission is only authorizing limited use of this spectrum for licensed wireless microphone uses, where access may be important for certain specified events. It is not opening up this band either for widespread use or for itinerant uses throughout the nation. In particular, it is restricting use to specific fixed locations, such as large venues (whether outdoor or indoor), where there is a need to deploy large numbers of microphones (typically 100 or more) for specified time periods, for situations in which the other available spectrum resources are insufficient.

90. Protection of primary service in the band by this new secondary service is of paramount importance. Wireless microphone use in the band must be coordinated with the non-governmental coordinator for assignment of flight test frequencies in the band (i.e., AFTRCC), and authentication and location verification will be required before a coordinated wireless microphone begins operation. Wireless microphones operating in this band must also be tunable across the entire 1435-1525 MHz band, as recommended by AFTRCC. This capability will facilitate coordination with incumbent users whose aeronautical testing may be variable across the band. Additionally, the Commission will authorize all microphones operating in a particular area to access no more than 30 megahertz in the 1435-1525 MHz band. This requirement will facilitate coexistence in the band by ensuring that wireless microphones operating be able to coordinate around AMT operations and by promoting the development of spectrally efficient technologies (e.g., digital technologies). The Commission also emphasizes that the STA process remains available to address extraordinary situations or special events requiring more spectrum access.

91. The Commission is convinced that many of the elements that led to the successful adoption of the final MBAN service rules will also promote licensed secondary wireless microphone use of the 1.4 GHz band. Chief among these will be the cooperation of the AMT community in recognizing opportunities to share use of the band in those locations and times that will not interfere with the critical existing primary use, and the implementation of a coordination process to allow for such determinations in a timely and effective manner. However, the Commission recognizes that this coordination scenario is different from the MBANs case in that the secondary use will not be restricted to indoor locations in relatively limited and well-defined geographic places (i.e., hospitals). The Commission thinks there is good basis for AFTRCC's suggestions that equipment authentication be done through an automated mechanism and repeated regularly, that the equipment be designed to automatically cease operation in the absence of such registration and authentication, and that the equipment incorporate a geolocation capability more sophisticated than the manual entry of coordinates. Accordingly, the Commission will require manufacturers to design, and operators to use, software-based controls (or similar functionality) to prevent devices from operating in the band except in the specific channels coordinated with AFTRCC for any given location.

92. The Commission will leave the details of these matters for resolution at a future time, to be informed by further negotiation between manufacturers and the flight test community. It is also not mandating, at this time, the use of a specific coordinator or coordinators to represent the wireless microphone community (analogous to the MBAN coordinator). The decision as to whether such a coordinator may be appropriate for the professional licensed wireless microphone user base (and consideration of whether such a coordinator would provide sufficient user oversight so as to allow greater flexibility in how 1.4 GHz wireless microphone equipment may be designed) will be better informed after further discussion by the interested parties.

93. The Commission's intent is to provide a stable new environment for professional wireless microphone users, but it must also be mindful of the fact that, as noted above, wireless microphone use of the 1.4 GHz band will operate pursuant to a secondary allocation. In light of this regulatory status, and considering the history of wireless microphone users having to replace equipment as band availability has evolved, the Commission strongly encourages parties designing equipment for this band to incorporate design elements—such as modular transmitting components or wider tuning capability extending to other bands—that will allow the greatest future flexibility should regulatory circumstances ever change. The Commission reminds licensees and manufacturers that they will bear the future cost of any such changes and, therefore, that relatively small upfront costs to increase flexibility may prevent much greater costs associated with replacing equipment in the unforeseeable future. It intends to continue a dialog with the wireless microphone community so that licensees and manufacturers will be able to anticipate, well in advance, any new developments (e.g., the availability of other bands for wireless microphones) that might inform the design of new equipment.

94. While the Commission concludes that the costs of the particular requirements it is establishing for wireless microphone use of the 1.4 GHz band are outweighed by the benefits of allowing licensed secondary use in a band that would otherwise not be available, it recognizes that the requirements are likely to limit 1.4 GHz wireless microphone use to a relatively limited community of professional users. The limited size of the user pool will facilitate coordinated use of the band and mitigate successfully AFTRCC's concerns regarding unauthorized users. The Commission also expects wireless microphone manufactures to continue to innovate and find further operational efficiencies, and believe that they will be able to draw on the experiences of MBAN proponents as they develop equipment designed to operate in the AMT space. Finally, because the Commission will continue to allow for the existing coordinated use of this band under the STA process, it is not establishing an interim process for permitting wireless microphone use under the new procedures pending the development of new equipment and final coordination and registration requirements.

95. In the NPRM, the Commission noted the 3.5 GHz Band FNPRM adopted earlier in 2014, in which it sought comment various potential uses of the 3.5 GHz band as it developed rules for operating in that band, see 79 FR 31247, June 2, 2014. It made clear that all of the issues regarding the policies and rules for operations in the 3.5 GHz proceeding would be decided in that proceeding, but nonetheless sought general comment on whether wireless microphone operations potentially could be employed in the 3.5 GHz band to help accommodate particular needs of users.

96. In April 2015, the Commission adopted rules for commercial use of 150 megahertz in the 3.5 GHz band, see 80 FR 34119, June 15, 2015. These rules specified a federal/non-federal sharing arrangement of that band as part of a broader three-tiered sharing framework, which included Priority Access and General Authorized Access (GAA) tiers of service for commercial wireless use. This band potentially can provide opportunities for wireless microphone operations. Both tiers of service are open to any party eligible for a Commission license and could provide opportunities for wireless microphone operations.

97. As the Commission discussed in the NPRM, the 6875-7125 MHz band (7 GHz band) has long been authorized for shared co-primary use for fixed microwave operations among TV BAS stations (including television studio-transmitter links, television relay stations, and television translator relay stations) under part 74 and cable television relay stations (CARS) under part 78 of its rules. Broadcast network and cable entities may also use the band on a secondary basis for mobile or temporary fixed microwave operations for TV and CARS pickup stations. In addition, broadcasters can operate certain BAS facilities in the 7 GHz band on a short-term, secondary basis without prior authorization for up to 720 hours a year. The BAS stations make it possible for television and radio stations and networks to transmit program materials from the sites of breaking news stories or other live events to television studios for inclusion in broadcast programs. The CARS stations enable cable operators to distribute programming to microwave hubs where it is impossible or too expensive to run cable and to cover live events. In 2011, the Commission also authorized Fixed Services (FS) microwave operations under part 101 (for Private, Common Carrier, or Public Safety microwave systems) to share use of the band, on a co-primary basis, but only in areas where BAS and CARS television pickup operations are not licensed and not on two 25 megahertz channels in the middle of the band reserved for TV pickup stations (channels at 6975-7000 MHz and 7000-7025 MHz).

98. The 250 megahertz in the 7 GHz band is comprised of ten 25 megahertz channels. BAS and CARS licensees may be authorized to operate both fixed and mobile stations on any of these channels, and FS licensees on all but two of them (as noted above). The Commission has not otherwise adopted a formal, nationwide segmentation plan for the 7 GHz band to separate fixed and mobile operation. BAS and CARS licensees are authorized to operate on 25 megahertz channels, FS operators may be authorized to operate on 25 megahertz channels or on smaller channels of 5, 8.33 or 12.5 megahertz. Furthermore, all fixed BAS, CARS, and part 101 FS stations must engage in the same frequency coordination process required of all part 101 services, whereas temporary fixed or mobile TV pickup services continue to be subject to informal coordination procedures within their service areas.

99. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to permit licensed wireless microphone operations on available channels in this band, on a secondary basis, for entities eligible to hold BAS or CARS licenses. Considering the likelihood of significant areas of unused spectrum throughout this band, the Commission sought comment on whether spectrum in this band could be made available for relatively low power, short-range wireless microphone operations without interfering with existing services. Given that BAS and CARS licensees already use the 7 GHz band for certain types of video applications and programming production, it asked whether there would be synergies in permitting wireless microphone operations that could supplement those existing applications. The Commission sought comment on particular rules that could facilitate wireless microphone operations in the band while also protecting existing services, specifically inquiring whether it should make spectrum in all of the 7 GHz band available for wireless microphone operations on a secondary, non-interfering basis, or only make certain portions of the 7 GHz band available for wireless microphone operations. It also sought comment on what technical rules (LPAS or otherwise) would best facilitate wireless microphone operations in the band, whether such rules should include the ETSI standards, and what if any interference criteria such as geographic exclusion zones or OOBE limits would protect incumbent services in the band. Given that coordination among licensees currently is required, the Commission asked to what extent formal or informal coordination of wireless microphone operations should be required—i.e., whether wireless microphone users could share operations among themselves on the same private-sector, frequency-coordinated basis that exists for the use of BAS mobile shared spectrum. Finally, it sought comment on the availability of wireless microphone equipment for this band.

100. The Commission will permit BAS and CARS eligible entities, as well as the other entities eligible to hold LPAS licenses under part 74, to operate wireless microphones on a licensed, secondary basis in the 7 GHz band on two 25 megahertz channels that it will set aside for such use on the top and bottom channels of this band (6875-6900 MHz and 7100-7125 MHz). It declines to make the entire band available for wireless microphone use because there has been no demonstration that there is a need for all 250 megahertz of spectrum to be made available for wireless microphone use. The Commission is particularly concerned about compatibility between wireless microphones and itinerant BAS operations in the two channels reserved for nationwide use. SBE originally supported use of one 25 megahertz channel in the band, and by offering twice as much spectrum, the Commission hopes to create the necessary flexibility for wireless microphones to opportunistically find frequencies they can use on a secondary basis without interfering with, or receiving interference from, primary users with whom they must share and who typically operate at a higher power. Additionally, the Commission is reassured in its approach to the 7 GHz band by the commenters stating that equipment for these bands is readily available internationally and could be easily brought to market. While Broadcast Sports, Incorporated (BSI) favored setting aside 13 megahertz spectrum segments only for wireless microphone use on a primary basis, the Commission declines to do so because the 7 GHz band should remain fully available for BAS, CARS, and point-to-point operations. It is concerned that granting LPAS exclusive or co-primary status could impede the growth of the important existing uses of the band. Furthermore, under the Commission's existing rules, LPAS users are required to avoid causing harmful interference to any other class of station authorized under its rules or the Table of Allocations. BSI has not explained why a different rule is necessary or appropriate in the 7 GHz band. Moreover, the Commission has endeavored to make two 25 megahertz channels available at the top and bottom of the band (more than BSI requested) so that wireless microphones will have additional flexibility to select specific frequencies within the channel that will not cause interference to other services in the bands.

101. With respect to coordination, generally, in lieu of mandating specific interference criteria in its rules, the Commission expects applicants and licensees to work out interference issues in the frequency coordination process. FS, BAS, and CARS (other than mobile or temporary fixed operations) already operate in the 7 GHz band subject to a formal Part 101 coordination process pursuant to which all fixed station applicants must provide affected licensees and contemporaneous applicants with 30-day prior notification and an opportunity to participate in frequency coordination before filing their applications with the Commission. Mobile and temporary fixed stations are generally coordinated through local SBE coordinators pursuant to the requirements in section 74.638(d). The Commission will require new wireless microphone operations in the band to coordinate their operations through the local SBE coordinator. It will permit licensees to aggregate channels in these bands for wider-band transmission. Finally, it will apply the same part 74 technical rules applicable to wireless microphones in the TV broadcast bands to their operations in these bands, require that wireless microphones comply with the emission masks in Section 8.3 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08) and will require that emissions beyond +/−1 MHz from the carrier or center frequency to be attenuated by 90 dB.

102. The Commission's rules for ultra-wideband (UWB) unlicensed devices are set forth in part 15, subpart F. Operating pursuant to the technical rules set forth in part 15, UWB devices can use spectrum occupied by existing radio services without causing harmful interference, thereby permitting scarce spectrum resources to be used more efficiently. Wireless microphones operating under these rules would be required to operate pursuant to the UWB rules for communications systems, which permit operations in the 3.1-10.6 GHz band. Under the UWB rules, these devices must be designed to ensure that operation can occur indoors only, or must consist of hand-held devices that may be employed for such activities as peer-to-peer operation. The Commission noted that at least one wireless microphone manufacturer has developed and markets wireless microphones that operate under these rules.

103. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the current and potential uses of UWB devices for wireless microphone applications. It asked whether there are there particular uses for which wireless microphones operating under UWB rules are well suited, such as indoor and/or short-range operations, and whether manufacturers are promoting the use of UWB wireless microphones for particular applications. Finally, it invited comment regarding steps that it should take to facilitate use of UWB devices for wireless microphone uses. It did not propose or seek comment on any rule revisions that would be designed to accommodate wireless microphone applications.

104. While the Commission did not propose, nor is it adopting, any changes to these rules, it does encourage further developments that can enable various wireless microphone applications to meet particular consumers' needs. Any changes to the existing rules would require much more extensive technical justification and analyses, as an initial matter, which are not before the Commission.

105. In the NPRM, the Commission invited comment on whether there are other bands not currently available for wireless microphone operations that may be useful in helping to accommodate their needs, whether in the nearer term and over the longer term. In particular, the Commission inquired about the 2020-2025 MHz band, asking whether this band might be technically suitable for wireless microphone operations, the potential equipment availability, and other issues that would need to be considered. It also requested comment on how a decision to permit wireless microphone operations in this band would affect its earlier decision to allocate those five megahertz for non-federal fixed and mobile service, whether allowing access would be helpful in accommodating wireless microphone operations, and whether use of this band for wireless microphones would advance its spectrum management goals, including promoting efficient use of spectrum.

106. The Commission declines to take any action with respect to 2020-2025 MHz at this time. In the NPRM, it asked commenters who were interested in this band to address the technical suitability of this band for wireless microphones, to identify the potential availability of equipment for operations in the band, and to explain how wireless microphone use would be consistent with the Commission's earlier decision to allocate this band for non-federal fixed and mobile service. It also sought comment on how permitting wireless microphone operations would be advance spectral efficiency and other spectrum management goals. While certain parties express support for using this band for wireless microphones, the record currently before the Commission does not provide sufficient basis to make this spectrum available for wireless microphone operations at this time, particularly in light of the substantial steps it takes in this R&O to accommodate wireless microphone operations in other bands. Accordingly, while the Commission does not foreclose future consideration of wireless microphone operations in the 2020-2025 MHz band, it is not permitting wireless microphone access to this band at this time.

107. This Report and Order contains new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

108. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations, GN Docket No. 14-166 and Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 12-268.2 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.3

109. In this Report and Order, we take several actions to accommodate wireless microphone users' needs in the coming years. Many types of users employ wireless microphones in a variety of settings. Wireless microphone operations range from professional uses, with the need for numerous high-performance microphones along with other microphones, to the need for a handheld microphone to transmit voice communications, to a range of different uses and needs for different numbers of microphones in different settings. Through these actions, we seek to enable wireless microphone users to have access to a suite of devices that operate effectively and efficiently in different spectrum bands and can address their respective needs.

110. We adopt several changes in our rules for operations in the TV bands, where most wireless microphone operations occur today. With respect to the TV bands, we revise our rules to provide more opportunities to access spectrum by allowing greater use of the VHF channels and more co-channel operations without the need coordination where use would not cause harmful interference to TV service. We also open up the licensed use of the duplex gap to all entities eligible to hold LPAS licenses for using TV band spectrum. We also will require new wireless microphones operating in the TV bands and certain other bands to meet the more efficient analog and digital ETSI standards, which will ensure more efficient use of the spectrum. In addition, we address consumer education and outreach efforts that can help consumers transition out of the TV band spectrum that is repurposed for wireless services, and equipment certification procedures that will apply to wireless microphones in the future. We also discuss several additional actions we are taking with respect to other spectrum bands currently available for wireless microphone operations to enable greater use of these band to accommodate wireless microphone uses in the future. Specifically, we adopt revisions to provide new opportunities in the 169-172 MHz band and the 944-952 MHz band. Finally, we open up three other sets of spectrum bands—portions of the 941-944MHz and 952-960 MHz bands, the 1430-1525 MHz band, and the 6875-7125 MHz band—for sharing with licensed wireless microphone operations under specified conditions.

111. There were no public comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.

112. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

113. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.4 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 5 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.6 A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.7

114. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards.8 First, nationwide, there are a total of 28.2 million small businesses, according to the SBA.9 In addition, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” 10 Nationwide, as of 2012, there were approximately 2,300,000 small organizations.11 Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” 12 Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that there were 90,056 local governments in the United States.13 Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

115. Low Power Auxiliary Station (LPAS) Licensees. Existing LPAS operations are intended for uses such as wireless microphones, cue and control communications, and synchronization of TV camera signals. These low power auxiliary stations transmit over distances of approximately 100 meters.14 The appropriate LPAS size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The size standard for that category is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.15 For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.16 Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or more.17 Thus, using this data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small. There are a total of more than 1,200 Low Power Auxiliary Station (LPAS) licenses in all bands and a total of over 600 LPAS licenses in the UHF spectrum.18

116. Low Power Auxiliary Device Manufacturers: Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” 19 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 750 or fewer employees.20 According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year.21 Of this total, 912 establishments had employment of less than 500, and an additional 10 establishments had employment of 500 to 999.22 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

117. Low Power Auxiliary Device Manufacturers: Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing communications equipment (except telephone apparatus, and radio and television broadcast, and wireless communications equipment).” 23 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 750 or fewer employees.24 According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 452 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year.25 Of this total, 448 establishments had employment below 500, and an additional 4 establishments had employment of 500 to 999.26 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

118. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.” 27 The SBA has created the following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting firms: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.28 The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,388.29 In addition, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Advisory Services, LLC's Media Access Pro Television Database on March 28, 2012, about 950 of an estimated 1,300 commercial television stations (or approximately 73 percent) had revenues of $14 million or less.30 We therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities.

119. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included.31 Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.

120. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 396.32 These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.33

121. There are also 2,414 low power television stations, including Class A stations and 4,046 television translator stations.34 Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

122. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.” 35 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees.36 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the duration of that year.37 Of those, 3,144 had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had more than 1,000 employees. Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of such firms can be considered small.

123. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.38 Industry data indicate that of approximately 1,100 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard.39 In addition, under the Commission's rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.40 Current Commission records show 4,945 cable systems nationwide.41 Of this total, 4,380 cable systems have fewer than 20,000 subscribers, and 565 systems have 20,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard, we estimate that most cable systems are small entities.

124. Cable System Operators. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” 42 The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.43 Industry data indicate that of approximately 1,100 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard.44 We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,45 and therefore we are unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard.

125. Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) Service. DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers,46 which was developed for small wireline firms. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.47 To gauge small business prevalence for the DBS service, the Commission relies on data currently available from the U.S. Census for the year 2007. According to that source, there were 3,188 firms that in 2007 were Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Of these, 3,144 operated with less than 1,000 employees, and 44 operated with more than 1,000 employees. However, as to the latter 44 there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. Based on this data, the majority of these firms can be considered small.48 Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and EchoStar Communications Corporation (“EchoStar”) (marketed as the DISH Network).49 Each currently offers subscription services. DIRECTV 50 and EchoStar 51 each report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, we believe it is unlikely that a small entity as defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS service provider.

126. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature (e.g., limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own facilities or acquire programming. The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers.52 The SBA size standard for this industry establishes as small any company in this category which receives annual receipts of $38.5 million or less.53 Based on U.S. Census data for 2007, a total of 659 establishments operated for the entire year.54 Of that 659, 197 operated with annual receipts of $10 million or more. The remaining 462 establishments operated with annual receipts of less than $10 million. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of establishments operating in this industry are small.

127. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” 55 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 750 or fewer employees.56 According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 912 had less than 500 employees and 17 had more than 1000 employees.57 Thus, under that size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

128. Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing. The SBA has classified the manufacturing of audio and video equipment under in NAICS Codes classification scheme as an industry in which a manufacturer is small if it has fewer than 750 employees.58 Data contained in the 2007 U.S. Census indicate that 492 establishments operated in that industry for all or part of that year. In that year, 488 establishments had fewer than 500 employees; and only 1 had more than 1000 employees.59 Thus, under the applicable size standard, a majority of manufacturers of audio and video equipment may be considered small.

129. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.” 60 The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The size standard for that category is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.61 For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.62 Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or more.63 Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (“SMR”) Telephony services.64 Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.65 Consequently, the Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.

130. Manufacturers of unlicensed devices. In the context of this FRFA, manufacturers of part 15 unlicensed devices that are operated in the UHF-TV band (channels 14-51) for wireless data transfer fall into the category of Radio and Television and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” 66 The SBA has developed the small business size standard for this category as firms having 750 or fewer employees.67 According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year.68 Of this total, 912 had less than 500 employees and 17 had more than 1000 employees. Thus, under that size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

131. Personal Radio Services/Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (“WMTS”). Personal radio services provide short-range, low power radio for personal communications, radio signaling, and business communications not provided for in other services. The Personal Radio Services include spectrum licensed under part 95 of our rules.69 These services include Citizen Band Radio Service (“CB”), General Mobile Radio Service (“GMRS”), Radio Control Radio Service (“R/C”), Family Radio Service (“FRS”), Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (“WMTS”), Medical Implant Communications Service (“MICS”), Low Power Radio Service (“LPRS”), and Multi-Use Radio Service (“MURS”).70 There are a variety of methods used to license the spectrum in these rule parts, from licensing by rule, to conditioning operation on successful completion of a required test, to site-based licensing, to geographic area licensing. Under the RFA, the Commission is required to make a determination of which small entities are directly affected by the rules adopted. Since all such entities are wireless, we apply the definition of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), pursuant to which a small entity is defined as employing 1,500 or fewer persons.71 For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.72 Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or more.73 Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of personal radio service and WMTS providers are small entities.

132. However, we note that many of the licensees in these services are individuals, and thus are not small entities. In addition, due to the mostly unlicensed and shared nature of the spectrum utilized in many of these services, the Commission lacks direct information upon which to base a more specific estimation of the number of small entities under an SBA definition that might be directly affected by our action.

133. Motion Picture and Video Production. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in producing, or producing and distributing motion pictures, videos, television programs, or television commercials.” 74 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having $30 million dollars or less in annual receipts.75 Census data for 2007 show that there were 9,478 establishments that operated that year.76 Of that number, 9,128 had annual receipts of $24,999,999 or less, and 350 had annual receipts ranging from not less than $25,000,000 to $100,000,000 or more.77 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small entities.

134. Radio Broadcasting. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than $38.5 million in annual receipts.78 Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.” 79 According to review of the BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Radio Analyzer Database as of November 26, 2013, about 11,331 (or about 99.9 percent) of 11,341 commercial radio stations have revenues of $35.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission notes, however, that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations 80 must be included. This estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.

135. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and therefore may be over-inclusive to that extent. Also, as noted, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.

136. Radio, Television, and Other Electronics Stores. The Census Bureau defines this economic census category as follows: “This U.S. industry comprises: (1) establishments known as consumer electronics stores primarily engaged in retailing a general line of new consumer-type electronic products such as televisions, computers, and cameras; (2) establishments specializing in retailing a single line of consumer-type electronic products; (3) establishments primarily engaged in retailing these new electronic products in combination with repair and support services; (4) establishments primarily engaged in retailing new prepackaged computer software; and/or (5) establishments primarily engaged in retailing prerecorded audio and video media, such as CDs, DVDs, and tapes.” 81 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Electronic Stores, which is: All such firms having $32.5 million or less in annual receipts.82 According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 11,358 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.83 Of this total, 11,323 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million, and 35 firms had receipts of $25 million or more but less than $50 million.84 Thus, the majority of firms in this category can be considered small.

137. In this proceeding, we invited comment on potential revisions to the existing rules for part 74 wireless microphone (and other LPAS) operations in the spectrum that will remain allocated for TV services following the repacking process. Specifically, we invited comment on revisions to the technical rules for LPAS operations on the VHF band; on permitting licensed LPAS operations on channels in locations closer to the television stations (including within the DTV contour), without the need for coordination, provided that the television signal falls below specified technical thresholds; on adoption of the ETSI emission mask standard for analog and digital wireless microphones; and general comment on other potential revisions concerning licensed LPAS operations in the TV bands.

138. We understand the importance of the 944-952 MHz band for broadcasters as well as other licensed, professional wireless microphone users. Consistent with this record and in accord with adoption of the ETSI standard for LPAS devices in the TV bands. we also adopt the ETSI standards EN 300 422-1, section 8.3.1.2 for analog emissions and section 8.3.2.2 for digital emissions uniformly for future wireless microphones that will use this band—applying these revised standards to new equipment certified under part 74 in the 944-952 MHz band 9 months after issuance of the Channel Reassignment PN, consistent with the requirements for new equipment certified for LPAS devices that operate in the TV bands. Further, we expand eligibility for operations in the 944-952 MHz band to include all entities currently eligible to hold LPAS licenses for operation in the TV bands, which should help address the need for additional spectrum outside of the TV bands for this entire group of licensed users.

139. Licensed LPAS users operating in the 944-952 MHz band (as in the TV bands) are subject to the frequency selection requirements contained in section 74.803 of our rules.85 SBE runs a local frequency coordination program for this band and asserts its coordination would have to be mandatory in order to avoid interference among different licensees.86 Accordingly, we will also require wireless microphone users seeking access to this band to coordinate their proposed use through the local SBE coordinator.87

140. Consumer Outreach. We find that several means should be employed to provide as much notice as possible to users of the need to clear the 600 MHz Band of wireless microphones. We direct CGB, working with WTB and OET, to establish a Web page on the Commission's Web site, and prepare and release consumer publications, including a Consumer Fact Sheet and answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), that inform the public of our decisions affecting wireless microphone operations in the repurposed 600 MHz Band and the guard bands, as set forth in the Incentive Auction R&O, this R&O, and the Part 15 Report and Order. 88 We further direct Commission staff to identify and contact organizations that represent entities that are known to be users of wireless microphones in the 600 MHz Band, including groups that represent theaters, houses of worship, and sporting venues. We will inform these entities of our decisions affecting wireless microphone operations in the repurposed spectrum and available resources for information on options for wireless microphone use going forward.

141. Further, we expect all manufacturers of wireless microphones to make significant efforts to ensure that all users of such equipment capable of operating in the 600 MHz Band are fully informed of the decisions affecting them, as set forth in the Incentive Auction R&O, this Report and Order, and the Part 15 Report and Order. Specifically, we expect these manufacturers, at a minimum, to ensure that these users are informed of the need to clear the 600 MHz Band. Manufacturers also should inform users of wireless microphones that they may continue to operate in the 600 MHz Band until the end of the post-auction transition period, but only subject to the conditions set forth in these orders, including the early clearing mechanisms. Further, we expect all manufacturers to contact dealers, distributors, and anyone else who has purchased wireless microphones, and inform them of our decisions to help clear the 600 MHz Band. Manufacturers should also provide information on these decisions to any users that have filed warranty registrations for 600 MHz Band equipment with the manufacturer. We also expect manufacturers to post this information on their Web sites and include it in all of their sales literature.

142. In addition, we urge all manufacturers to offer rebates and trade-in programs for any 600 MHz Band wireless microphones, and widely publicize these programs to ensure that all users of wireless microphones are fully informed. To the extent manufacturers do not offer a rebate or trade-in program for 600 MHz Band wireless microphones, we strongly encourage them to create or re-establish such programs. In contacting dealers and distributors, we expect manufacturers to inform these entities that they should: (1) Inform all customers who have purchased wireless microphones that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz Band of our decision to clear the 600 MHz Band of such devices; (2) post such information on their Web sites; (3) include this information in all other sales literature; (4) provide information in sales literature, including on their Web sites, on the availability of any manufacturer rebate offerings and trade-in programs related to wireless microphones operating in the 600 MHz Band; and (5) comply with the disclosure requirements that we are adopting in this Report and Order.

143. Disclosure Requirement. We require anyone selling, leasing, or offering for sale or lease wireless microphones that operate in the 600 MHz Band to provide certain written disclosures to consumers, pursuant to section 302. These entities must display the Consumer Disclosure, the text of which will be developed by Commission staff, at the point of sale or lease,89 in a clear, conspicuous, and readily legible manner. In addition, the Consumer Disclosure must be displayed on the Web site of the manufacturer (even in the event the manufacturer does not sell wireless microphones directly to the public) and of dealers, distributors, retailers, and anyone else selling or leasing the devices. We delegate authority to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, working with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology, to prepare the specific language, following issuance of the Channel Reassignment PN, that must be used in the Consumer Disclosure and publish it in the Federal Register. As discussed above, there is more than one way in which the point-of-sale Consumer Disclosure may be provided to potential purchasers or lessees of wireless microphones, but each of them must satisfy all the requirements noted above, including that the disclosure be provided in writing at the point of sale in a clear, conspicuous, and readily legible manner. One way to fulfill this disclosure requirement would be to display the Consumer Disclosure in a prominent manner on the product box by using a label (either printed onto the box or otherwise affixed to the box), a sticker, or other means. Another way to fulfill the disclosure requirement would be to display the text immediately adjacent to each wireless microphone offered for sale or lease and clearly associated with the model to which it pertains. For wireless microphones offered online or via direct mail or catalog, the disclosure must be prominently displayed in close proximity to the images and descriptions of each wireless microphone. We will require manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and other entities that sell or lease wireless microphones for operation in the 600 MHz Band to comply with the disclosure requirements no later than three months following issuance of the Channel Reassignment PN, and we encourage these entities to provide consumers with the required information earlier.90

This is a summary of the Commission's Third Report and Order and First Reconsideration Order, GN Docket No. 12-268; ET Docket Nos. 13-26 and No. 14-14, FCC 15-141, adopted October 21, 2015 and released October 26, 2015. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov.

People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

1. In the Third Report and Order the Commission adopts a framework to govern the interference environment in the 600 MHz Band where wireless operations and television stations may operate on the same or adjacent channels in nearby areas following the incentive auction. The Commission establishes a zero percent threshold for allowable harmful interference from 600 MHz wireless services to television stations assigned to channels in the 600 MHz Band. In addition, the Commission requires 600 MHz wireless licensees to use the methodology in Bulletin OET-74 to predict potential interference to nearby co-channel or adjacent-channel television operations before deploying base stations, prohibits operation of wireless user equipment operating in the 600 MHz Band near these television stations' contours, and prohibits the expansion of television stations' contours that would result in additional impairments to wireless operations. The Commission also addresses the applicability of the ISIX Methodology previously adopted in other interference contexts, including between LPTV and TV translators and wireless operations, between television and wireless operations during the post-transition period, and in identifying impairments to wireless licenses along the borders with Canada and Mexico.

2. In the First Order on Reconsideration, the Commission rejects a number of petitions for reconsideration of the ISIX Methodology that the Commission previously adopted for use during the incentive auction to predict the extent that 600 MHz Band wireless licenses may be impaired due to interference to, and from, television stations in the 600 MHz Band. The Commission also made a number of adjustments to the ISIX Methodology to be consistent with the decisions made in the Third Report and Order regarding OET-74, to reflect recent Commission decisions, and to reflect updates and revisions of input values and settings of the ISIX software. The Commission also affirmed its previous decision to not adopt a cap on new-station-to-station interference in the television station repacking process during the incentive auction and declined to establish a cap on population loss resulting from a new channel assignment in the repacking process.

3. In the Incentive Auction R&O, 79 FR 48442, August 15, 2014, the Commission adopted a flexible band plan framework that accommodates market variation, that is, areas where broadcast stations are assigned to channels in the 600 MHz Band. Because the amount of spectrum repurposed through the incentive auction and the repacking process depends on broadcaster participation and other factors, market variation will allow the Commission to avoid limiting the amount of spectrum repurposed across the nation to what is available in the most constrained market. However, market variation creates the potential for inter-service interference (“ISIX”) because in markets where broadcast television stations are assigned to channels within the 600 MHz Band, television and wireless services will be operating in close geographic proximity on the same and/or adjacent frequencies. There are four scenarios of potential interference when broadcast television and wireless operations are co-channel or on adjacent channels in nearby areas: (1) A digital television (“DTV”) transmitter causing interference to a wireless base station (Case 1); (2) a DTV transmitter causing interference to wireless user equipment (Case 2); (3) a wireless base station causing interference to a DTV receiver (Case 3); and (4) wireless user equipment causing interference to a DTV receiver (Case 4).

4. In the ISIX R&O, 79 FR 76903, December 23, 2014, the Commission addressed potential interference between DTV stations and wireless service in areas with market variation. The ISIX R&O adopted a methodology for predicting inter-service interference during the incentive auction (“ISIX Methodology”), a methodology which necessarily is based on hypothetical 600 MHz Band network deployments, as the actual networks will not be deployed until after the auction. The companion ISIX Further Notice, 79 FR 76282, December 22, 2014, proposed a post-auction inter-service interference methodology for evaluating interference from wireless base stations to television reception, set forth in the Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 74 (“OET-74”). The ISIX Further Notice also proposed rules for preventing interference from wireless to broadcasting services on the same or adjacent channels in nearby markets in the Cases 3 and 4.

5. The Commission adopts a zero percent threshold for harmful interference from wireless operations to the reception of television station's signals in the 600 MHz Band. Under this standard, 600 MHz wireless licensees will not be permitted to cause harmful interference at any level within the noise-limited contour of a full power television station or the protected contour of a Class A television station to the degree it affects populated areas within those contours. The Commission finds that a zero percent threshold, with no rounding tolerance, is warranted in the post-auction environment. For the reasons discussed below, any interference standard other than zero presents practical difficulties given the multiple sources of potential interference to the reception of signals from television stations assigned to the 600 MHz Band and the continuing evolution of wireless networks. Furthermore, the Commission delegates authority to the Media Bureau to issue a Public Notice following completion of the incentive auction with the final contours of all television stations assigned to channels in the 600 MHz Band. The Public Notice will include the technical parameters by which the television station contours can be generated regardless of whether the station will remain on its pre-auction channel or has been reassigned to new a channel.

6. There will be numerous sources of potential interference to the reception of signals from television stations assigned to the 600 MHz Band because the five-megahertz wireless spectrum blocks will overlap in varying degrees with the six-megahertz television channels, creating the potential for multiple co- and adjacent-channel relationships between television stations and wireless operations in the same or nearby geographic areas. Moreover, wireless networks evolve over time with the deployment of additional base stations and the adjustment of base stations' technical parameters. Addressing the possibility of a television receiver receiving interference from multiple wireless networks that are continuously evolving presents significant practical difficulties, such as how to apportion the permitted interference among the multiple sources of interference and how to monitor compliance as wireless networks evolve. Given the different interference environment that television stations will face in the 600 MHz Band, the Commission finds that it would be impractical, if not infeasible, to manage any interference percentage other than zero percent.

7. The Commission clarifies that the zero-percent interference threshold will prohibit 600 MHz wireless licensees from causing any interference to television receivers in any populated area of the noise-limited contour of a full power television station or the protected contour of a Class A television station. The Commission also adopts the proposal from the ISIX Further Notice to treat interference between television stations assigned in the 600 MHz Band as “masking interference” in evaluating wireless interference to a television station. Therefore, in a grid cell where masking interference to one television station from another television station is predicted, inter-service interference from wireless operations can be ignored.

8. Adoption of OET-74. The Commission adopts OET-74, as proposed in the ISIX Further Notice, with several modifications as described in more detail below. OET-74 is to be used following the incentive auction to predict interference to television receivers operating in the 600 MHz Band from co-channel and adjacent channel wireless base stations in nearby markets. The adopted OET-74 Bulletin is included below. The Commission rejects the National Association of Broadcaster's (NAB's) claim that the Spectrum Act limits our authority to require the use of OET-74 to address inter-service interference following the auction.

9. D/U Ratio Adjustment. The Commission adopts slightly revised desired/undesired (D/U) ratio thresholds from those proposed in the ISIX Further Notice. Under the methodology of OET-74, the D/U ratio is calculated at the population centroid in each two kilometer square cell in the television station's contour. This D/U ratio is compared to a threshold to determine if harmful interference is predicted to occur to DTV service in that cell. The D/U threshold is defined in OET-74 to include an adjustment factor “α,” which is dependent on the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N ratio) of the received television signal. The “α” factor in the D/U threshold is necessary to account for the effect of the television signal strength on the amount of interference that the television receiver can tolerate when the desired DTV signal is weak. When the television signal strength is weak (i.e., closer to the noise floor), a lower amount of interference from the wireless base stations will impede television reception than if the television signal is stronger. CEA points out that for faint television signals, “α” increases exponentially under the proposed OET-74, which can result in a high D/U threshold that will require a large separation distance between wireless base stations and the television station's contour. To avoid such results and to conform OET-74 with the approach used in OET-69 and the Commission's rules, OET-74 as adopted will limit the use of the D/U adjustment factor “α” to situations where the signal-to-noise ratio of the desired DTV signal is greater than 16 dB and less than 28 dB. Specifically, the “α” factor will be limited to a maximum value of 8.

10. In addition, the Commission removes the “α” factor in the D/U threshold in OET-74 as adopted when there is no overlap between the DTV signal and LTE signal (adjacent channel) in order to be consistent with the approach followed in the Commission's rules for DTV-to-DTV interference. The Commission's rules specify a constant D/U threshold for DTV-to-DTV adjacent channel interference. Consequently, OET-74 will not use a D/U threshold that varies with “α” for adjacent channel LTE-to-DTV interference. Also, OET-74 will set the required D/U threshold for LTE-to-DTV interference to -33 dB because the ATSC receiver guidelines specify that DTV receivers should have this level of tolerance of adjacent channel DTV interference, and measurements have shown that actual DTV receivers do in fact meet or exceed this level of performance in the presence of adjacent channel LTE interference.

11. Aggregate Interference. OET-74 will incorporate the root sum square (RSS) method to predict the potential for aggregate interference to television receivers from multiple base stations for each co-channel or adjacent channel 600 MHz licensee. The methodology of OET-74, which is based on real-world network deployments, will allow for the aggregation of the field strength of interfering signals at the DTV receiver from the wireless base stations of a co-channel or adjacent channel 600 MHz wireless licensee. The Commission will not, however, require a 600 MHz wireless licensee to account for the aggregate interference generated by the wireless operations of other 600 MHz wireless licensees because it would require wireless licensees to incorporate each other's site-specific information into their OET-74 analysis.

12. Intermodulation Interference. The Commission rejects arguments that it should study further the impact of third order intermodulation interference (IM3) from wireless services and television signals to television receivers. CEA claims that tests it conducted indicate that IM3 interference from LTE and DTV operations into DTV receivers poses a substantial risk to DTV reception, not only for legacy receivers currently in the market but also for future receivers that may need to continue receiving frequencies also used for LTE operations due to market variation. CEA further argues that IM3 from two LTE signals is a distinct potential problem in the 600 MHz Band that has not been adequately analyzed. Based on the present record, further analysis of intermodulation effects, either from DTV and LTE signals or two LTE signals, is not warranted. The Commission is not aware of any intermodulation interference concerns between DTV stations, which currently do not have to protect for intermodulation interference. Indeed, as CEA acknowledges, providing larger exclusions for interference protection reduces the efficiency of spectrum use. Protection of DTV receivers from the combinations of signals that can produce IM3 interference would impose additional constraints on the repacking process that would impact the Commission's ability to clear spectrum for new uses in the incentive auction and limit use of the recovered spectrum.

13. The Commission does not expect that the potential for interference from intermodulation products from a DTV signal and an LTE signal or from two LTE signals will be significantly higher than that expected from two DTV signals. In addition, potential intermodulation interference can be mitigated through DTV receiver design, antenna reorientation, and other factors. In order to meet consumers' expectations, receiver manufacturers should design their products to operate without experiencing interference from signals permitted by the Commission's rules. To the extent that CEA and manufacturers believe that current models of DTV receivers are susceptible to IM3, the appropriate solution is for them to design their new products to be immune to such interference.

14. “Error Code 3” Messages. When “error code 3” messages are returned by the software used to implement the Longley-Rice propagation model, OET-74 will use the desired and undesired signal strengths determined by the Longley-Rice propagation model in evaluating the subject cell for potential interference. The Commission declines to adopt NAB's suggestion that when an “error code 3” warning is returned and the desired signal strength calculated by OET-74 is below 41 dBμV/m, the threshold of service, the calculated desired signal strength be replaced with a signal strength equal to the threshold of service or threshold of service plus 3 dB. NAB's approach would be contrary to the goal of OET-74 which is to provide a methodology for predicting interference to television receivers based on the actual technical parameters of the television stations and wireless networks.

15. Other OET-74 Technical Issues. The Commission rejects NAB's contention that it should evaluate interference to the reception of Class A station's signals using a one-kilometer grid instead of the two-kilometer grid proposed in OET-74 so as to be “consistent with current practice.” Using a different grid size for Class A stations than for full power stations would be inconsistent with the Commission's repacking methodology and would create a layer of unnecessary complexity for the ISIX and OET-74 calculations. Accordingly, the Commission will use a two-kilometer grid for the ISIX and OET-74 calculations for both full power and Class A stations.

16. The Commission also rejects NAB's suggestion that OET-74 consider interference in all cells, and not only the populated cells. OET-74 will consider interference harmful only if the D/U ratio is below the threshold in a cell containing population.

17. In addition, the Commission rejects NAB's argument that OET-74 should not rely on manufacturers' published antenna patterns for wireless base stations. According to NAB, the manufacturers' published patterns may suggest unrealistically superior performance, while the wireless licensee may adjust the antenna after installation to manage coverage or interference conditions, or the antenna alignment during installation may be imprecise. While the Commission is cognizant that wireless base station antenna installations may vary from the antenna manufacturer's specified patterns or may be misaligned, it sees no reason to modify the manufacturer's specified wireless base station antenna patterns based on NAB's assumptions, which may or may not be more accurate for any given base station installation.

18. The Commission disagrees with Cohen, Dippell, and Everist, P.C.'s (“CDE”) claim that the FCC has not forecasted the potential interference to television receivers in cases where five megahertz 600 MHz licenses are aggregated. Given the DTV receiver performance measurements in the record and the fact that OET-74 is applicable to aggregated channels, CDE fails to articulate the need for additional testing of the effects of inter-service interference where five megahertz wireless licenses are aggregated. Nevertheless, based on examination of the record, the Commission concludes that the proposal for a separate analysis for each frequency overlap when two five-megahertz blocks are aggregated into a ten megahertz block would require additional effort by the wireless licensee without providing increased protection for DTV signal reception compared with a combined analysis of aggregated five megahertz blocks. For this reason, OET-74 will require that only a single interference analysis be performed when five megahertz blocks are aggregated. Therefore, in cases of aggregated wireless blocks the OET-74 analysis will be adjusted to reflect the amount of spectral overlap between the aggregated wireless signal and the DTV channel and the effective radiated power (“ERP”) as described. When the aggregated wireless signal completely overlaps the DTV channel, the analysis will use the values in the OET-74 tables associated with a spectral overlap of five megahertz and the ERP that is the portion of the power in the aggregated wireless signal that overlaps the six megahertz television channel. When the aggregated wireless signal overlaps the DTV channel by five megahertz or less, the analysis will use the values in the OET-74 tables associated with the amount of spectral overlap and the ERP of the overlapping wireless five megahertz block (i.e. the analysis will ignore the other five megahertz blocks of the aggregated signal). When the aggregate wireless signal is adjacent to the DTV channel (i.e. no overlap), the interference analysis will use the values in the OET-74 tables associated with the five megahertz block that is closest to the adjacent DTV channel and the ERP of that block. A wireless licensee with non-contiguous spectrum blocks will be required to conduct a separate OET-74 interference analysis for each spectrum block. In addition, a wireless licensee that is adjacent or co-channel to multiple DTV stations, will have to perform separate OET-74 interference analysis for each of the DTV stations.

19. The Commission adopts fixed geographic separation distances for Case 4. Specifically, 600 MHz wireless licensees will be required to limit the service area of their wireless networks so that wireless user equipment (i.e., mobile and portable devices) will not operate within the contour or within a set distance from the contour of a co-channel or adjacent channel television station. As proposed in the ISIX Further Notice, the Commission adopts a separation distance of five kilometers for co-channel operations, and one-half kilometer for adjacent channel operations. Therefore, wireless licenses that will be co-channel or adjacent channel to a television station in the 600 MHz Band uplink spectrum will have impairments that cover the area of the station's contour and an additional five kilometers if the television station is co-channel or one-half kilometer if the television station is adjacent channel to the wireless operations. The separation distance for adjacent channel operation will only apply to the first adjacent channel. Consequently, wireless user equipment may be operated within the contour of a television station if there is a frequency separation of at least six megahertz or more between the wireless spectrum block edge and a television channel edge.

20. As proposed in the ISIX Further Notice, the Commission will (1) prohibit a 600 MHz wireless licensee from operating base stations within the contour of a co-channel or adjacent-channel full power and Class A television station, (2) require the 600 MHz wireless licensee to use OET-74 to predict interference to television receivers within such a station's contour prior to deploying base stations within a specified culling distance of the station's contour, and (3) prohibit operating base stations within that distance if harmful interference is predicted. The culling distances are specified in OET-74 and are based on the spectral overlap between wireless operations and television operations, and the power and antenna height of wireless base stations.

21. The Commission finds that prohibiting wireless base stations from operating within the contours of co-channel and adjacent channel DTV stations is an appropriate safeguard for preventing interference to television receivers. The Commission also finds that requiring the use of OET-74 to identify potential interference from base stations located within the culling distance, and prohibiting operation of base stations within that distance if harmful interference is predicted, will ensure that television stations assigned to channels in the 600 MHz Band are not subject to harmful interference from 600 MHz Band wireless operations following the auction.

22. The Commission declines CTIA's request that the required use of OET-74 apply only to 600 MHz wireless licenses that have been formally designated as impaired during the incentive auction. Rather, as proposed, the OET-74 analysis must be performed for any base station located within the culling distance, even if the license was not identified as impaired during the auction. Qualified forward auction bidders will be provided information about the degree of impairment to the license, but such impairments will be estimated using the ISIX Methodology based on assumptions of a hypothetical wireless network deployment. Post-auction, the Commission's inter-service interference methodology will be based on the actual interference environment to protect DTV receivers. The Commission notes that qualified forward auction bidders will be able to determine prior to bidding whether they will be subject to regulatory requirements for a particular license because it will provide them with specific information about the television stations that will potentially cause impairments to wireless licenses (including the facility ID) prior to each stage of the auction.

23. The Commission rejects CTIA's claims that the OET-74 methodology is burdensome and impractical. A new OET-74 analysis will be required only if a base station modification could result in an increase in energy in the direction of a full power or Class A television station's contour. CTIA's concerns over the number of base stations subject to the OET-74 analysis, especially with the deployment of small cell architectures, are exaggerated. Antennas at lower power and lower height as found in small cell architectures result in shorter culling distances, as small as three kilometers in some cases, thereby reducing the likelihood that an OET-74 analysis will have to be performed for small cell antennas.

24. The Commission will require a 600 MHz wireless licensee to retain the latest copy of its OET-74 interference analysis for each co-channel or adjacent channel partial economic area (“PEA”) license area where any of its base stations fall within the specified OET-74 culling distances. The wireless licensee will be required to make this analysis available for inspection by the Commission at any time and to make this analysis available to a television station upon request when there are complaints of interference either from the subject television station or a station viewer. The Commission rejects NAB's request that wireless licensees be required to send all of their OET-74 analyses to all potentially affected broadcasters. The Commission finds that requiring wireless licensees to retain their most recent OET-74 analyses, which they may store electronically, and make them available in cases of interference complaints will more efficiently assist in the investigation and resolution of any complaints.

25. The Commission adopts the proposal to require wireless licensees to eliminate any actual harmful interference to television reception within the contours of a full power or Class A television station in the 600 MHz Band, even if OET-74 did not predict such interference. The Commission also adopts the proposal for handling such interference incidents. As proposed in the ISIX Further Notice, a television station operating in the 600 MHz Band that experiences harmful interference from co-channel or adjacent channel wireless operations must first contact the wireless licensee to resolve the issue. The wireless licensee must provide to the television station the latest OET-74 analysis showing that no harmful interference was predicted to occur in the specific geographic area at issue. Wireless licensees and television stations are required to cooperate in good faith to resolve any disputes, so as not to unreasonably disrupt wireless and broadcast operations. In the event the parties do not reach resolution, the broadcaster can submit a claim of harmful interference to the Commission.

26. The Commission declines CDE's requests that it create a toll-free number and a Web site for consumers to report potential inter-service interference problems or that it create an interference handbook that demonstrates how a television viewer may face interference. Instead, the Commission will rely on the framework described above, which requires television stations experiencing interference problems to contact wireless licensees to resolve the potential interference issues.

27. A 600 MHz wireless licensee will hold a license for its entire PEA service area, but its operations will be limited only to those portions of the PEA where the licensee will not cause harmful interference to the reception of signals from television stations assigned to the 600 MHz Band consistent with the standards set forth above.

28. As discussed in the Incentive Auction R&O, 600 MHz licensees will be required to meet the 600 MHz Band interim and final build-out requirements, except that they may show they are unable to operate in areas where they may cause harmful interference to the reception of the signals of television stations that remain in the 600 MHz Band due to market variation. The same exception to interim and final build-out requirements will apply to cases where 600 MHz licensees receive harmful interference from television stations assigned to channels in the 600 MHz Band. The Commission adopts its proposal to require wireless licensees to use the ISIX Methodology it adopted for use during the auction for prediction of interference in the Case 1, 2 and 4 scenarios and the methodology in OET-74 for the Case 3 interference scenario to demonstrate that they cannot serve the entire PEA service area for purposes of fulfilling the build-out requirements of their license. If a licensee is not able to serve its entire license area, it must demonstrate why certain areas are excluded from its service area due to impairments when it files its construction notification. If the impairing television station ceases to operate before the construction benchmarks, the wireless licensee will be permitted to use the entire license area, and will be obligated to serve the area that was previously restricted in demonstrating that it has met its build-out requirements.

29. In this section, the Commission adopts rules to ensure that 600 MHz wireless licenses obtained in the forward auction do not experience additional impairments following the incentive auction.

30. The Commission limits full-power and Class A television stations assigned to channels in the 600 MHz Band from expanding their noise-limited and protected contours, respectively, if doing so would increase the impairments to co-channel or adjacent channel 600 MHz wireless licenses, unless an agreement is reached with the co-channel or adjacent channel wireless licensee allowing for such expansion. For purposes of this limitation, impairments refer to both additional interference from a television station anywhere in the 600 MHz Band in a PEA (Cases 1 and 2), and to any increased restriction on wireless operations within a PEA in order to avoid causing harmful interference to television receivers within a television station's expanded contour (Cases 3 and 4). For purposes of this limitation, a television station's baseline contours are those set forth in its initial post-auction construction permit application. As the Commission stated in the Incentive Auction R&O, it will carefully consider requests for waiver of the limitation in extraordinary circumstances.

31. CEA argues for a set distance between the edge of a wireless license area and the contours of a co-channel or adjacent channel television station beyond which the television station would be allowed to expand. The Commission rejects this proposal because the appropriate distance would depend largely on factors like transmitted power, antenna height, and antenna pattern, as well as terrain and frequency overlap, that vary by station. However, if the distance between the proposed expanded contour and a co-channel or adjacent channel wireless licensee's service area is greater than 500 kilometers, the television station will not be required to make a showing that its expanded contour does not cause additional impairments to the wireless operations.

32. As set forth in the Incentive Auction R&O, LPTV and TV translator stations in the 600 MHz Band may continue operating indefinitely unless a 600 MHz wireless licensee provides advance notice that it intends to commence operations and that the LPTV or TV translator station is likely to cause harmful interference to the wireless operations, based on the methodology the Commission adopts to prevent inter-service interference. As proposed in the ISIX Further Notice, 600 MHz wireless licensees will use the ISIX Methodology, as modified in the First Order on Reconsideration, for predicting interference to their operations from LPTV and TV translator stations for purposes of providing these stations with advance displacement notice.

33. For this analysis, 600 MHz licensees will use the threshold values for the prediction of interference from full power television to wireless operations from the ISIX Methodology. With regard to adjacent channel interference, LPTV and TV translator stations are allowed to operate using either the same emission mask as a full power station or one of the other two alternative emission masks specified in the Commission's rules. The Commission analyzed the frequency dependent rejection (“FDR”) performance of wireless receivers in the presence of DTV signals using the three different emission masks and found that there is only a 1 dB difference in the threshold values for adjacent channel interference to the wireless service across the three masks, for both wireless base stations and user equipment. The Commission does not find this 1 dB difference to be significant enough to warrant using separate thresholds for each emission mask option. Therefore, the Commission adopts the same field strengths for co-channel and adjacent channel emissions from LPTV and TV translator stations to wireless service as the ISIX Methodology provides for full power television stations. The Commission will also use the antenna elevation patterns for LPTV and TV translator stations in the Consolidated Database System (CDBS) or LMS (Licensing and Management System), the successor system to CDBS. If CDBS/LMS does not include elevation pattern values for a given LPTV or TV translator station, the elevation pattern of these stations as they are defined in section 74.793(d) of the Commission's rules will apply. The Commission finds that the more conservative F(50,10) measure is appropriate when 600 MHz wireless licensees use the ISIX Methodology to predict if they will experience interference from LPTV or translator stations.

34. The Commission will require that interference from analog LPTV and TV translator stations be analyzed using TVStudy's capability to replicate an analog signal as an equivalent digital signal and analyze the station as though it were operating in digital. The interfering field strength of the “replicated” analog television signal should be treated the same as an interfering digital television signal when conducting the interference analysis.

35. The Commission adopts its proposal in the ISIX Further Notice to protect full power and Class A television stations that have not yet relocated from the 600 MHz Band during the Post-Auction Transition Period in the same manner that it will protect stations that remain in or relocate to the 600 MHz Band. A wireless operator commencing operations before the end of the Post-Auction Transition Period must perform an OET-74 analysis when it intends to deploy base stations within the culling distance of a co-channel or adjacent channel full power or Class A television station that is operating in the 600 MHz Band to predict whether its wireless operations in all or part of its license area would cause harmful interference to the reception of signals from nearby television stations, regardless of whether these television stations will be relocated by the end of the Post-Auction Transition Period. Consistent with the requirements adopted, the wireless licensee must retain the latest copy of its OET-74 interference analysis, make this analysis available for inspection by the Commission at any time, and make this analysis available to a television station upon request when there are complaints of interference either from the subject television station or a station viewer. In addition, if there are co-channel or adjacent channel television stations in the wireless licensee's uplink spectrum, the wireless provider must limit its service area to ensure that user equipment does not operate within five kilometers of the contour when co-channel or within a half kilometer when adjacent channel. Consistent with the rules set forth, once a nearby full power or Class A station has transitioned from its pre-auction channel, the 600 MHz Band licensee need no longer limit its operations in order to protect the station from inter-service interference.

36. Television stations assigned to the 600 MHz Band in the repacking process may not actually relocate to their assigned channel until late in the Post-Auction Transition Period. However, the Commission will not permit wireless licensees to deploy networks in the period before the station relocates in areas that will potentially interfere with these television stations once they commence broadcasting. Consequently, television stations that have not yet constructed their new facilities will be protected from inter-service interference during the Post-Auction Transition Period based on the contours specified in their initial post-auction construction permits. Therefore, a 600 MHz wireless licensee that wants to commence operations prior to the end of the Post-Auction Transition Period will have to protect television stations that are operating co-channel or adjacent channel at that time and television stations that will be operating co-channel or adjacent channel by the end of the Post-Auction Transition Period.

37. The Commission adopts its proposal to use the ISIX Methodology to identify impairments to repurposed 600 MHz spectrum along the international borders during the auction. During the incentive auction, the ISIX Methodology will be used to predict interference from U.S. television stations to Canadian wireless operators (Cases 1 and 2). In accordance with the U.S.-Canada Statement of Intent, the ISIX Methodology will use F(50,10) signal strength predictions for the signals from U.S. television stations and will assume the Canadian wireless base stations are 50 meters above ground level. Even though the U.S. and Mexico have not reached an agreement on inter-service interference between television and wireless operations across the U.S.-Mexico border, coordination letters have been exchanged which provide a channel plan for the reassignment of broadcast television stations in the border region. Because the ISIX methodology is not designed for analog signals, and Canada and Mexico have not completed their digital transitions, the Commission will use TVStudy's capability to “replicate” a Canadian or Mexican analog signal as an equivalent digital signal and analyze the station as though it is transmitting a digital signal.

38. In the ISIX R&O, the Commission adopted the ISIX Methodology for use during the incentive auction to predict the extent to which 600 MHz Band wireless licenses may be impaired due to potential interference to, and from, broadcast television stations assigned to the 600 MHz Band as a result of market variation. The Commission received several petitions for reconsideration regarding the ISIX Methodology.

39. In its Petition for Reconsideration, NAB claims that the ISIX Methodology will fail to predict wireless impairments “with any useful degree of accuracy” because wireless carriers will have to use a “different methodology” following the auction based on real-world deployments. NAB repeats its recommendation made in several of its filings in this proceeding that, instead of the ISIX Methodology, the Commission should use a fixed distance-based approach, because doing so would be “far easier to implement and will not sacrifice meaningful spectral efficiency.” The Commission denies NAB'S petition for reconsideration because NAB offers no basis to revisit its conclusion that the ISIX Methodology accommodates market variation in a more spectrally efficient manner than a fixed distance-based approach and disagree with NAB's claim that the decision to use a different methodology to predict inter-service interference after the auction calls into question the accuracy of the ISIX Methodology for predicting impairments during the auction. NAB also claims that the base station antenna heights and powers assumed in the ISIX Methodology are less than what is permitted by the Commission's rules and therefore understates the potential for interference. The Commission rejects this claim because it was fully considered and rejected when the ISIX R&O was adopted.

40. Sprint and NAB, sought reconsideration of the decision to use the F(50,50) statistical measure instead of the F(50,10) measure in the ISIX Methodology when estimating interference from television stations to wireless operations. The Commission denies Sprint's and NAB's Petitions for Reconsideration and affirms its conclusion that F(50,50) is an appropriate statistical measure for this purpose, whereas the F(50,10) measure is unnecessarily conservative. In any event, bidders in the forward auction will have the necessary information to make their own calculations of impairments based on any number of factors they wish to consider, including their choice of statistical parameter.

41. The Commission will revise the ISIX Methodology to reflect the adjustments to the D/U thresholds for the Case 3 interference scenario it adopted in the companion Third Report and Order. These values are not assumptions that will change once the wireless networks are deployed. Accordingly, there is no basis to have interference threshold values applied during the auction to determine impairments that differ from the interference threshold values applied after the auction to determine interference. Therefore, the Commission will update the interference threshold values in the ISIX Methodology to be consistent with the values adopted above.

42. The Commission also makes a number of miscellaneous changes to the ISIX Methodology. These changes were made to reflect updates and revisions of input values and software settings to improve functionality and to reflect the U.S.-Canada Statement of Intent and decisions the Commission made in the Bidding Procedures PN, 80 FR 61918, October 14, 2015. These changes are reflected in the Appendix D of the Third Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration describing the ISIX Methodology:

• Updated references to the LPTV digital transition.

• Updated references to license categories which were adopted in the Bidding Procedures PN.

• Revised references to emission limits and receiver standards in paragraph 13 to reflect the use of the FCC's emission limits for DTV and wireless receiver performance standards published by 3GPP.

• Provided threshold values for inter-service interference calculations in the repacking process along the border regions. These values do not relate to the computation of impairments on 600 MHz licenses.

• Added an explanation in paragraph 31 that for Case 3, the base station transmitter azimuth pattern is assumed to be non-directional and is based on UHF DTV vertical pattern described in OET Bulletin No. 69, Table 8. However, the elevation pattern is assumed to be symmetrical above and below the maximum.

• Table 14 lists the TVStudy settings unique to the ISIX Methodology.

• In Table 15, the entry HAS_EPAT was changed from “False” to “True” because TVStudy will import the pattern in the XML scenario.

• Paragraph 38 updated to indicate that the elevation pattern for each base station must be imported in the XML file and lists the values for the symmetrical generic pattern.

43. In the ISIX R&O, the Commission declined to adopt a cap on the amount of total or aggregate new station-to-station interference that a broadcast station will be allowed to receive as a result of the repacking process. The Commission denies the petitions for reconsideration of CDE and NAB requesting reconsideration of this decision. Neither CDE nor NAB challenge the staff study that concluded that approximately 99 percent of stations will not experience new interference above one percent or otherwise dispute the study's conclusion that stations are unlikely to be experience significant new interference as a result of the repacking process. The Commission explained in the ISIX R&O how an aggregate interference cap would deprive the repacking feasibility checker of its speed. CDE and NAB do not offer any reason to dispute this conclusion, nor do they propose a means of implementing an aggregate interference cap without compromising the speed of the bidding process.

44. Because radio signals propagate differently on different frequencies, the signal of a station reassigned to a different channel will generally not be receivable in precisely the same locations within a station's contour as it was in its original channel. In its ex parte filings prior to adoption of the ISIX R&O, NAB asked the Commission to address both station-to-station interference and population loss resulting from new channel assignments by adopting a cap on “aggregate population loss,” which the Commission refused to do on procedural grounds. NAB ask for reconsideration of the Commission's decision declining to adopt a cap on population loss resulting from new channel assignments in the repacking process. The Commission grants in part and denies in part NAB's petition for reconsideration. The Commission expects most stations will not lose viewers as a result of terrain loss resulting from new channel assignments. Even if some stations are predicted to lose viewers as a result of terrain loss resulting from new channel assignments, the Commission's final television channel assignment plan selection procedure includes optimization techniques to address this concern.

45. In the event some stations are predicted to lose viewers as a result of new channel assignments even after optimization techniques are applied, there will be post-auction solutions to address this situation. First, as adopted in the Incentive Auction R&O, a television station may request up to a one percent coverage contour increase as part of its initial post-auction construction permit application, subject to certain conditions. Second, the Commission amends its rules to provide that stations predicted to experience a loss in population served in excess of one percent as a result of the repacking process—either because of new station-to-station interference or terrain loss resulting from a new channel assignment (or a combination of both)—may file an application proposing an alternate channel or expanded facilities in a priority filing window, along with a limited number of other stations that have been assigned the same priority. Third, the Commission proposed in the LPTV Third FNPRM to allow a full power station that is predicted to experience a loss in its pre-auction digital service area as a result of its new channel assignment to seek authority to deploy a digital-to-digital replacement translator (“DTDRT”) to serve the loss area.

46. A cap on population loss resulting from new channel assignments as proposed by NAB would compromise the central objective of a successful auction to allow market forces to repurpose spectrum. NAB's proposed approach for incorporating its cap on population loss into the repacking process involves certain elements that are either infeasible or meaningless and, on the whole, would impede the Commission's ability to conduct a successful auction and thereby sacrifice the goal of repurposing spectrum.

47. The Commission denies Petitions for Reconsideration of the Incentive Auction R&O filed by the Affiliates Associations and CDE challenging the Commission's decision to use the TVStudy software and certain inputs in applying the methodology described in OET-69 to determine the coverage area and population served by television stations. The Commission explained in the Incentive Auction R&O why the TVStudy software and inputs are distinct from the OET-69 methodology and Affiliates Associations offer no basis to revisit this conclusion. Affiliates Associations and CDE take issue with the fact that, using identical inputs, TVStudy produces different results than previous versions of the software used to implement OET-69. The Spectrum Act mandates that the Commission use the “methodology described in OET Bulletin 69,” not particular software to implement that methodology or arrive at a pre-determined result. The Commission's decision to use software that is “user-friendly and better adapted to handle the kinds of computations the Commission will need to conduct in the reverse auction and repacking process called for by the Spectrum Act” is fully consistent with Congressional intent.

48. Affiliates Associations also claims that the Incentive Auction R&O “fail[ed] to address” losses in “coverage area.” The Commission's decision pertaining to preservation of “coverage area” was affirmed by the D.C. Circuit. Affiliates Associations offers no basis to revisit the Commission's approach to preserving “coverage area.”

49. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM).2 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.3

50. In the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission adopted a flexible band plan framework that accommodates market variation. Market variation occurs where broadcast stations remain on spectrum that is repurposed for wireless broadband under the 600 MHz Band Plan. In this Third Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration, it adopted the framework proposed in the inter-service interference, Further Notice (ISIX Further Notice) to govern the interference environment in the new 600 MHz Band due to market variation.

51. The Commission adopted a number of measures to protect television reception for those television stations that will remain in the 600 MHz Band after the incentive auction. It adopted a zero percent threshold for interference from wireless operations to the reception of signals from television broadcast stations in the 600 MHz Band, which will prohibit 600 MHz wireless licensees from causing harmful interference at any level within the contour of a broadcast station. The Commission also adopted OET-74, a methodology for predicting interference to television receivers from wireless base stations. However, the Commission modified the D/U threshold used to determine if interference to television reception is occurring in OET-74 from what was proposed in the ISIX Further Notice so that the threshold does not become unrealistically large when the television signal is weak. Wireless licensees will be allowed to deploy base stations within a specified culling distance of co-channel or adjacent channel television stations only where they can demonstrate using OET-74 that they will not cause harmful interference to television reception within the stations' contours. In addition, the Commission prohibits the operation of wireless user equipment within five kilometers of the contours of co-channel television stations and one-half kilometer of adjacent channel television stations. It will require wireless licensees to eliminate any actual harmful interference to the reception of signals from television station in the 600 MHz Band, even if such interference was not predicted using OET-74.

52. The Commission also adopted measures to protect the future operations of 600 MHz Band wireless licensees from television stations that remain in the 600 MHz band. It will prohibit broadcast television licensees who operate in the 600 MHz Band from expanding their noise-limited or protected contours if doing so would increase the potential for interference to a wireless licensee's service area or would result in additional impairments to the wireless licenses because of the obligations of the wireless licensee to protect television reception. The Commission also adopted the use of the ISIX Methodology specified in the ISIX R&O, as modified in the First Order on Reconsideration, for predicting when an LPTV or TV translator station will cause harmful interference to wireless operations. For this purpose, the ISIX Methodology will use the same threshold values for the prediction of interference from full power television to wireless operations as specified in the ISIX R&O and will use the F(50,10) statistical measure to predict the strength of the LPTV or TV translator signal.

53. Under the rules adopted in the Incentive Auction R&O, 600 MHz Band wireless licensees are required to meet interim and final build-out requirements, but the build-out requirements only apply to areas they are permitted to serve. The Commission will require 600 MHz wireless licensees to use the ISIX Methodology and/or OET-74 to demonstrate that they cannot meet build-out requirements for portions of the geographic area covered by their license.

54. U.S. television stations may cause interference to Canadian wireless operations after the incentive auction. For purposes of predicting these impairments during the incentive auction, the Commission adopts the use of the ISIX Methodology with adjustments to reflect an agreement reached with Canada.

55. In the First Order on Reconsideration the Commission considered a number of petitions for reconsideration filed in response to the ISIX R&O. It affirmed our decision to use the ISIX Methodology to predict inter-service interference between television and wireless services during the incentive auction. The Commission modified the ISIX Methodology adopted in the ISIX R&O by making the same adjustment to the D/U threshold used to determine if interference will occur to television reception as we did for OET-74. The Commission also affirmed its decisions declining to adopt a cap on the aggregate amount of new interference a broadcast television station may receive from other television stations in the repacking process and declining to adopt a cap on population loss that a television station may experience because of a new channel assignment in the repacking process. The Commission amended its rules to provide that a television station that will experience a loss in population served in excess of one percent as a result of the repacking process—either because of new station-to-station interference or terrain loss resulting from a new channel assignment (or a combination of both)—may file an application proposing an alternate channel or expanded facilities in a priority filing window. In response to a petition for reconsideration of the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission affirmed its decision to use the TVStudy software and certain inputs in applying the methodology described in OET-69 to determine the coverage area and population served by television stations when making new channel assignments during the incentive auction.

56. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.

57. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

58. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.4 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 5 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.6 A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.7

59. Television Broadcasting. This economic census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.” 8 The SBA has created the following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting firms: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.9 The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,388.10 In addition, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Advisory Services, LLC's Media Access Pro Television Database on March 28, 2012, about 950 of an estimated 1,300 commercial television stations (or approximately 73 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less.11 The Commission therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities.

60. The Commission notes, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included.12 Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.

61. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (“NCE”) television stations to be 395.13 These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.14

62. There are also 2,414 LPTV stations, including Class A stations, and 4,046 TV translator stations.15 Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

63. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 912 had less than 500 employees and 17 had more than 1000 employees. Thus, under that size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

64. Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing. The SBA has classified the manufacturing of audio and video equipment under in NAICS Codes classification scheme as an industry in which a manufacturer is small if it has less than 750 employees. Data contained in the 2007 U.S. Census indicate that 492 establishments operated in that industry for all or part of that year. In that year, 488 establishments had fewer than 500 employees; and only 1 had more than 1000 employees. Thus, under the applicable size standard, a majority of manufacturers of audio and video equipment may be considered small.

65. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.” 16 The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The size standard for that category is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.17 For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.18 Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or more.19 Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (“SMR”) Telephony services.20 Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.21 Consequently, the Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.

66. Wireless licensees in the 600 MHz Band will be required to conduct an interference analysis using OET-74 before operating a base station within the culling distance of the contour of a co-channel or adjacent channel broadcast television station. They will also be required to conduct an OET-74 interference analysis when making a modification to such a base station that could result in an increase in energy in the direction of broadcast station's contour. The wireless licensee will be required to retain the latest copy of their OET-74 analysis for each base station that is within the culling distance of a co-channel or adjacent channel broadcast station. The wireless licensee will be required to make this analysis available for inspection by the Commission at any time and to make this analysis available to a television station upon request when there are complaints of interference either from the subject television station or a station viewer. Wireless licensees and television stations will cooperate in good faith to resolve any disputes, as not to unreasonably frustrate wireless and broadcast operations. In the event the parties do not reach resolution, a broadcaster can submit a claim of harmful interference to the Commission.

67. Wireless licensees in the 600 MHz Band will be prohibited from operating a base station within the contour of a co-channel or adjacent channel broadcast station. Wireless licensees will also be required to limit their coverage areas so that mobile and portable devices maintain a minimum distance of five kilometers from a co-channel broadcast station's contour and 500 meters from an adjacent channel broadcast station's contour.

68. Wireless licensees will be required to eliminate any harmful interference that occurs to television reception within the contours of a co-channel or adjacent channel broadcast television station. This requirement to eliminate harmful interference applies even if the OET-74 analysis indicates that no harmful interference will occur.

69. A broadcast television station in the 600 MHz Band will not be allowed to expand its contour such that it would increase impairments to a wireless licensee either by causing additional interference to the wireless licensee's service area or because of the obligations of the wireless licensee to protect television reception, unless an agreement is reached with the wireless licensee allowing the expansion.

70. A wireless licensee that intends to commence operations will be required to use the ISIX Methodology adopted in the ISIX R&O, as modified in the First Order on Reconsideration, to determine if a LPTV or translator station will cause it harmful interference. The wireless licensee will then be able to send the required notification to the LPTV or translator station that will cause it harmful interference.22

71. Wireless licensees will use the ISIX Methodology or OET-74 to show that they are unable to operate in portions of their license area for purposes of satisfying their build-out requirements. They will use the ISIX Methodology for demonstrating harmful interference from co-channel and adjacent channel broadcast television stations to their base stations and user equipment as well as demonstrating harmful interference from wireless user equipment to television receivers. They will use OET-74 for demonstrating harmful interference from wireless base stations to television receivers.23 If the impairing television station ceases to operate before the construction benchmarks, the wireless licensee will be permitted to use the entire license area, and will be obligated to serve the area that was previously restricted in demonstrating that it has met its build-out requirements.24

72. A television station that will experience a loss in population served in excess of one percent as a result of the repacking process—either because of new station-to-station interference or terrain loss resulting from a new channel assignment (or a combination of both)—may file an application proposing an alternate channel or expanded facilities in a priority filing window. Previously, our rules permitted a station to file an application in the priority filing window only when the greater than one percent loss in population served was from station-to-station interference.

73. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.25

74. Many of the reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements we adopt here are designed to protect television broadcast stations and 600 MHz Band wireless licensees from harmful interference. Because many of these television broadcast stations and wireless licensees are small entities, the rules will protect the economic interest of small entities. Consequently, the effect of these rules on small entities can be viewed as a tradeoff between the compliance burdens of the rules on some small entities balanced against the interference protections supplied by the rules to other small entities. We conclude that the benefits of these rules in protecting small entities from interference is stronger than the compliance burdens that the rules place on small entities.

75. For example, the adopted rules require wireless licensees to conduct an OET-74 interference analysis before locating a base station within the culling distance of a co-channel or adjacent channel television broadcast station. This rule will impact those wireless licensees that are small entities by requiring them to perform the OET-74 analysis and potentially preventing them from constructing base stations in portions of their licensed service areas. However, this requirement will help prevent harmful interference to the reception of signals from co-channel and adjacent channel television broadcast stations, many of whom are small entities. As an alternative to requiring an OET-74 analysis, we could have specified an exclusion zone around a broadcast television station's contour that wireless base stations could not be located within to prevent interference to television reception. However, this would have excluded the base stations from a much larger area than the adopted rules because it would not have taken into account the effects that terrain has on signal propagation and the characteristics of the base stations such as transmitted power and antenna height. Requiring an OET-74 analysis instead of relying on an exclusion zone thereby enables the wireless licensee to use a greater portion of its licensed service area, which is of significant economic benefit to the wireless licensee.

76. As another example, the adopted rules prohibit television broadcast stations in the 600 MHz Band from expanding their contours in a way that will impair a wireless license by causing interference to a wireless licensee or because of a wireless licensee's obligation to protect television reception. This rule will impact television broadcast stations in the 600 MHz Band by preventing them from expanding their contours in the future, but the rule will protect the interests of wireless licensees by preventing impairments of their licenses.

77. Some of the rules adopted here provide a means to implement rules we have previously adopted. For example, in the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission adopted rules requiring 600 MHz Band wireless licensees to meet build-out requirements.26 While the previously adopted rules do not require wireless licensees to build-out their networks in areas that are impaired by either receiving interference from television broadcasters remaining in the band or because they will cause interference to television reception, the rules do not specify how the wireless licensee will show what areas are impaired. For purposes of demonstrating impairments for the build-out requirements, the Third Report and Order will require 600 MHz wireless licensees to use the ISIX Methodology for showing interference from television broadcasters to wireless operations and for interference from wireless user equipment to television receivers and will require wireless licenses to use OET-74 to demonstrate interference to television receivers. This requirement will benefit 600 MHz Band wireless licensees by enabling them to exclude impaired locations of their licensed areas from the build-out requirements.

78. In the Incentive Auction R&O, we specified that LPTV and TV translator station in the 600 MHz band could continue to operate until a wireless licensee provided advance notice that it intends to commence operations and the LPTV or TV translator is likely to cause harmful interference. For purposes of providing this displacement notice, in the Third Report and Order the Commission specify that wireless licensees will use the ISIX Methodology to determine if the LPTV or TV translator stations will cause them interference for purposes of notifying the LPTV or TV translator stations. While this requirement will burden 600 MHz Band wireless licensees by requiring them to perform an ISIX Methodology interference study, it will benefit LPTV and TV translator licensees by allowing them to continue operating until their spectrum is actually needed by the wireless licensees. Consequently, this requirement represents a reasonable balancing between the interest of LPTV and translators, many of whom are small businesses, and 600 MHz Band wireless licensees, many of whom are also small licensees.

79. To minimize the burdens on small businesses that are required by the rules we are adopting that require OET-74 and ISIX Methodology interference analyses, we intend to make a version of our TVStudy software available that can perform these analyses. The software can be used on a computer that costs less than $2000 and is available free online at http://data.fcc.gov/download/incentive-auctions/OET-69/. Because we are making this software available, licensees will not need to develop their own software or contract with an engineering consultant to perform these interference analyses. To further reduce the compliance burden on 600 MHz Band wireless licensees, we will not require them to share their OET-74 interference analysis with television broadcasters unless there is an actual interference complaint. The wireless licensee will be able to store the OET-74 analysis electronically, which will reduce the record keeping and compliance cost to the wireless licensee.

80. Television stations that are relocated during the incentive auction may experience a change in coverage area due to terrain loss because of the different propagation characteristics at their new frequency. Television stations that experience a loss in population served in excess of one percent as a result of the repacking process—either because of new station-to-station interference or terrain loss resulting from a new channel assignment (or a combination of both)—will now be permitted to file an application proposing an alternate channel or expanded facilities in a priority filing window. This will benefit television stations that experience such a loss of population serviced.

81. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration, including this FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.27 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Third Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.

82. Pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 4, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 332, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 6402 and 6403 of Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 332, 403, 1452, and 1454, the Third Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration is adopted. The Commission's rules are hereby amended as set forth in Appendix B.

83. The rules adopted herein will become effective December 17, 2015, except for Sections 27.1310 and 73.3700(b)(1)(iv)(B) of the rules which contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, that are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the effective date of this rule.

84. Pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the Petitions for Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order in GN Docket No. 12-268, ET Docket No. 13-26, and ET Docket No. 14-14 filed by Cohen, Dippell, and Everist, P.C. and by Sprint Corporation are denied to the extent described herein.

85. Pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and section 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the Petition for Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order in GN Docket No. 12-268, ET Docket No. 13-26, and ET Docket No. 14-14 filed by the National Association of Broadcasters is granted in part and denied in part to the extent described herein.

86. Pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the Petitions for Reconsideration of the Report and Order in GN Docket No. 12-268 filed by ABC Television Affiliates Association, CBS Television Network Affiliates Association, FBC Television Affiliates Association, and NBC Television Affiliates and by Cohen, Dippell, and Everist, P.C. are denied to the extent described herein.

87. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Third Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration in GN Docket No. 12-268, ET Docket No. 13-26, and ET Docket No. 14-14, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

88. The Commission shall send a copy of this Third Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration in GN Docket No. 12-268, ET Docket No. 13-26, and ET Docket No. 14-14 in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 27 and 73 as follows: