**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the matter of                 | *  | MB Docket No. 03-185         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of  | ** |                              |
| the Commission's Rules to        |    |                              |
| Establish Rules for Digital Low  | *  |                              |
| Power Television, Television     | *) |                              |
| Translator, and Television       | ** |                              |
| Booster Stations and to Amend    |    |                              |
| Rules for Digital Class A        | *  |                              |
| Television Stations              | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted: September 9, 2004 Released: September 30, 2004**

By the Commission: Chairman Powell issuing a statement; Commissioners
Copps and Adelstein

approving in part, concurring in part and issuing separate statements.

**[TABLE OF CONTENTS]{.underline}**

Paragraph \#

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. BACKGROUND 2

III\. ISSUE ANALYSIS 9

A. Digital Station Classes in the Low Power Television Service 9

B.  The Digital Transition for Low Power Television, Television
    Translator and

Class A Television Stations 11

C. Permissible Service 20

1\. Digital Television Translator Stations 21

2\. Digital Low Power Television Stations 45

D. Channel Assignments 59

E. Interference Protection 82

1\. Protected Digital Translator and LPTV Service Contour 82

2.  Protection Standards and Methodology \-- Broadcast Station
    Protection....84

a\. Desired-to-Undesired ("D/U") Signal Strength Ratios 86

b\. First Adjacent Channel Ratios 89

c\. Interference Prediction Methodology 93

d\. Interference Agreements 106

e\. Co-located Operation on Adjacent Channels 108

f\. Carrier Frequency Control and Offset 112

g\. Protection of Land Mobile Radio and Other Primary Services 118

F. Authorization of Digital LPTV and TV Translator Stations 127

1\. On-Channel Digital Conversions 127

2\. Authorization of Companion Digital Channels 136

3\. Filing Window for Companion Digital Channels 149

4\. Mutually Exclusive Applications 160

5\. Digital Station Construction Period 168

6\. Application Forms and Fees 173

7\. Ancillary and Supplementary Use Fees 178

8\. International Coordination 182

G. Station Operation 184

1\. Unattended Operation 184

2\. Time of Operation 185

3\. Station Identification 188

4\. Call Signs 195

5\. Broadcasting Auxiliary Service Frequencies 198

6\. Digital Class A TV Area for Locally Produced Programming 200

H. Other Technical Issues 205

1\. Power Limits 205

2\. Out-of-Channel Emission Limits 208

3\. Other Transmission System Facilities Issues 223

4\. Modification of Transmission Systems 231

5\. PSIP 240

I. Digital Booster Stations 244

J. Petition for Rule Making by APTS, PBS and CPB 250

IV\. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 252

V. ORDERING CLAUSES 256

APPENDIX A -- List of Commenters

APPENDIX B -- Final Rule Changes

APPENDIX C -- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

# INTRODUCTION

1.  With this *Report and Order*, we establish rules and policies for
    digital low power television ("LPTV") and television translator ("TV
    translator") stations and modify certain rules applicable to digital
    Class A TV stations ("Class A").[^1] Our action establishes a
    regulatory framework consistent with our stated goals to hasten the
    transition of LPTV and TV translator stations to digital operations
    while minimizing disruption of existing service to consumers served
    by analog LPTV, TV translator and Class A stations. These stations
    are a valuable component of the nation's television system,
    delivering free over-the-air TV service, including locally produced
    programming, to millions of viewers in rural and discrete urban
    communities. We wish to facilitate, wherever possible, the digital
    transition of these stations, thereby enabling their viewers to
    realize the many benefits of digital broadcast television ("DTV")
    technology. The rules and policies adopted herein will provide
    flexible and affordable opportunities for digital LPTV and TV
    translator service, both through the conversion of existing analog
    service and, where spectrum is available, new digital stations.
    Licensees operating analog TV stations in the Class A service may
    also apply for a "companion" digital station in the LPTV service as
    a means of facilitating their digital transition. Our interference
    rules and methodology will provide spectrum for new digital stations
    without undermining established interference protection rights. We
    also address important issues such as the digital low power
    television transition, channel assignments, authorization of digital
    service, permissible service, mutually exclusive applications,
    protected service area, equipment and other technical and
    operational requirements.

# BACKGROUND

2.  The Commission created the low power television service in 1982.[^2]
    The low power television service consists of LPTV, TV translator,
    and television booster stations (referred to herein collectively as
    "low power television stations"). Stations in the low power
    television service are authorized with "secondary" frequency use
    status. These stations may not cause interference to, and must
    accept interference from, full-service television stations, certain
    land mobile radio operations and other primary services.[^3] As the
    name suggests, low power television service stations have lower
    authorized power levels than full-service TV stations.[^4] Unlike
    full-service stations, stations in the low power television service
    are not restricted to operating on a channel specified in a table of
    allotments.

3.  *LPTV Stations.* The Commission created low power television
    stations to bring television service, including local service, to
    viewers "otherwise unserved or underserved" by existing service
    providers.[^5] LPTV stations may originate programming and
    retransmit the programs of full-service television stations.
    Currently, there are approximately 2,128 licensed LPTV stations.[^6]
    These stations operate in all 50 states and serve both rural and
    urban audiences.[^7] Because they operate at reduced power levels,
    LPTV stations serve much smaller geographic regions than
    full-service stations, and they can provide service to areas where a
    higher power station cannot be accommodated in the TV and DTV Tables
    of Allotments. An LPTV station may be the only television station in
    an area providing local news, weather, and public affairs
    programming.[^8] Even in some well-served markets, LPTV stations may
    provide the only local service to residents of discrete geographical
    communities within those markets.[^9] Many LPTV stations air "niche"
    programming, often locally produced, to residents of specific
    ethnic, racial, or special interest communities.[^10]

4.  *Class A TV Stations*. In the Community Broadcasters Protection Act
    of 1999 ("CBPA"),[^11] Congress directed the Commission to establish
    a Class A television service to provide a measure of primary status
    to certain LPTV stations so that those stations could continue to
    operate during and after the DTV transition. In order to qualify for
    Class A status, an LPTV station was required to have broadcast a
    minimum of 18 hours per day and to broadcast an average of at least
    3 hours of locally produced programming per week during the three
    month period preceding enactment of the CBPA. The CBPA directed that
    Class A licensees must be subject to the same license terms and
    renewal standards as full power television licensees, and that Class
    A licensees should be accorded primary status as television
    broadcasters as long as they continue to meet the requirements set
    forth in the statute. Class A TV stations are similar in many
    respects to LPTV stations; their operations are generally governed
    by the same technical standards. Unlike LPTV stations, Class A
    stations must comply with Part 73 regulations applicable to
    full-service TV broadcast stations, except for those that cannot
    apply for technical or other reasons. Class A stations also are
    afforded certain interference protection rights not available to
    LPTV stations. The Class A service rules (Part 73, Subpart J) also
    contain provisions for the operation of digital Class A TV stations.
    The Commission has licensed approximately 610 Class A stations.
    [^12]

5.  *TV Translator Stations*. A TV translator station is a low power
    television broadcast station that receives the signal of a
    television station and simultaneously retransmits it on another TV
    channel. Television translators are technically equivalent to LPTV
    stations in most respects and are licensed in the same manner.[^13]
    Television translator stations are intended to provide service to
    areas where direct reception of full-service broadcast stations is
    unsatisfactory because of distance or intervening terrain
    obstructions. Although translators are not limited to operation
    within the contour of the station they rebroadcast, they may be used
    to provide "fill-in" service to terrain-obstructed areas within a
    full-service station's service area. There are approximately 4,737
    licensed TV translators,[^14] most operating in the western regions
    of the country. These stations are often used to deliver the only
    off-air television service available to rural communities.

6.  LPTV and TV translator stations differ only in the amount of
    programming they may originate. LPTV stations are not limited in the
    amount of programming they may originate. TV translators may
    originate only emergency warnings of imminent danger and, in
    addition, not more than thirty-seconds per hour of public service
    announcements and material seeking and acknowledging financial
    support necessary to the continued operation of the station.[^15]

7.  *TV Booster Stations*. The regulatory provisions for television
    booster stations were adopted by the Commission in 1987.[^16] TV
    booster stations are intended to provide fill-in service to areas
    within the predicted Grade B contours of full-service television
    stations. TV boosters simultaneously retransmit the programming of
    full-service TV stations and may be licensed only to licensees and
    permittees of full-service stations. TV boosters transmit on the
    same TV channel as that of the full-service station they rebroadcast
    and are permitted to broadcast only within the Grade B contour of
    the associated full-service station.

8.  In the *Notice* in this proceeding we sought comment on a number of
    issues related to the DTV transition for LPTV and TV translators. We
    received numerous comments and reply comments in response to the
    *Notice*.[^17]

# ISSUE ANALYSIS

## Digital Station Classes in the Low Power Television Service

9.  The *Notice* sought comment on whether we should continue to
    recognize a distinction between TV translator and LPTV stations when
    these stations operate digitally. Nearly all parties commenting on
    this issue favor retaining the distinction.[^18] The National
    Translator Association, for example, states that TV translator and
    LPTV stations serve different purposes and, therefore, should be
    recognized as separate station classes with regard to digital
    operations.[^19] We agree and expect that most translator licensees
    will focus their operations, at least initially, on rebroadcasting
    without altering the signals of DTV stations. We also believe the
    majority of LPTV licensees operating digital stations will do so in
    a manner similar to that of their analog stations, providing
    programming tailored to their communities. We note that certain
    statutory provisions distinguish between TV translator and LPTV
    station classes.[^20] We disagree with a proposal to establish urban
    (primary status) and rural (secondary status) classes of digital low
    power service, demarcating these on the degree of spectrum
    crowding.[^21] Based on our licensing experience, we disagree with a
    premise of this proposal that available spectrum is scarce only in
    metropolitan areas. Moreover, despite the urgings of several
    commenters, the *Notice* clearly stated that we will not address in
    this proceeding the "interference protection priorities, rights, and
    responsibilities of stations in the LPTV service, which are well
    established."[^22]

10. For these reasons, we will adopt separate definitions and
    permissible use provisions for digital TV translator and LPTV
    stations.[^23] As with analog stations, we will provide flexibility
    by permitting licensees to switch between digital translator and
    LPTV designations by letter notification to the Commission.
    Regulatory provisions in this *Report and Order* that do not
    explicitly refer to digital translator or LPTV stations will apply
    equally to both. The *Notice* also sought comment on whether we
    should establish in the low power television service a class of
    digital booster station. As discussed *infra*, we will not do so in
    this *Report and Order*, but may revisit issues involving the
    authorization and operation of boosters in a future proceeding.

##  {#section .unnumbered}

## The Digital Transition for Low Power Television, Television Translator, and Class A Television Stations

11. A principal concern in this proceeding is the question of how the
    provisions for ending the transition to digital television set forth
    in Sections 309(j)(14)(A) and 336(f)(4) of the Communications Act
    apply to analog station authorizations in the LPTV, TV translator
    and Class A TV services. The determination of when LPTV, TV
    translator, and Class A licensees must cease operating their analog
    facilities may affect the success of their digital transition, as
    well as affect their continued analog TV operations.[^24]

12. Section 309(j)(14)(A) of the Communications Act provides that the
    Commission may not renew a television broadcast license for "analog
    television service" for a period extending beyond December 31,
    2006.[^25] The term "analog television service" in Section
    309(j)(14) is defined in Section 3 of the Communications Act[^26] as
    "television service provided pursuant to the transmission standards
    prescribed by the Commission in Section 73.682(a) of its
    regulations," a rule that deals with full-service station
    transmission standards. In the *Notice* we sought comment on whether
    Section 309(j)(14)(A) applies to analog authorizations in the LPTV,
    TV translator, and Class A services.[^27] Further, we considered
    Section 336(f)(4) of the Communications Act that is entitled
    "Issuances of Licenses for Advanced Television Services to
    Television Translator Stations and Qualifying Low-Power Television
    Stations." That Section provides:

    \(4\) ISSUANCE OF LICENSES FOR ADVANCED TELEVISION SERVICES TO
    TELEVISION TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND QUALIFYING LOW-POWER TELEVISION
    STATIONS. - The Commission is not required to issue any additional
    license for advanced television services to the licensee of a class
    A television station under this subsection, or to any licensee of
    any television translator station, but shall accept a license
    application for such services proposing facilities that will not
    cause interference to the service area of any other broadcast
    facility applied for, protected, permitted, or authorized on the
    date of filing of the advanced television application. Such new
    license or the original license of the applicant shall be forfeited
    after the end of the digital television service transition period,
    as determined by the Commission. A licensee of a low power
    television station or television translator station may, at the
    option of the licensee, elect to convert to the provision of
    advanced television services on its analog channel, but shall not be
    required to convert to digital until the end of such transition
    period. [^28]

We sought comment on the applicability of these provisions to Class A
and TV translator stations and whether or not these extend to non-Class
A LPTV stations.

13. We conclude that Sections 309(j)(14)(A) and 336(f)(4) ultimately
    compel LPTV, TV translator and Class A stations to convert to
    digital. As an integral component of the nation's television system,
    we believe that Congress intended LPTV, TV translator and Class A
    stations to transition to digital service, thereby permitting their
    viewers to realize the benefits of digital broadcast technology. We
    find the statute to be ambiguous, however, with respect to the
    transition deadline itself and conclude that under Section 336(f)(4)
    we have the discretion to set the date by which analog operations of
    stations in the low power and translator service must cease. The
    transition deadline established under 309(j)(14) -- which prohibits
    authorizations for "analog television service" beyond December 31,
    2006 -- does not apply to LPTV and translator stations since neither
    is providing "analog television service" as that term is defined
    under the Act (*i.e.,* neither is subject to the transmission
    standards set forth in Section 73.682(a) of the Commission's
    Rules).[^29] Accordingly, Section 336(f)(4) is best read to allow
    the transition period for these stations to end "as determined by
    the Commission."

14. With respect to Class A stations, we recognize that an argument can
    be made that Class A stations are subject to the deadline in
    309(j)(14) given they arguably provide "analog television service"
    since they are subject to the transmission standards set forth in
    Section 73.682(a) of the Commission's Rules.[^30] Nonetheless, we
    believe the better reading of the statute is that the 309(j)(14)
    deadline does not apply to Class A stations, but rather such
    stations are subject to the transition language in 336(f)(4) which
    specifically allows the Commission to determine the end of the Class
    A transition period. Setting a digital transition date for LPTV, TV
    translator, and Class A stations that is sufficiently after the
    transition for full-service stations is also consistent with the
    principles underlying the applicable statutory provisions. It is
    unlikely that Congress had Class A stations in mind when enacting
    Section 309(j)(14). Section 309(j) was enacted as part of the
    Balanced Budget Act of 1997; the Class A television service was
    created two years later in the Community Broadcasters Protection Act
    of 1999. Section 309(j)(14) arguably applies only because 336(f)(2)
    requires Class A stations to comply with the whole panoply of
    operating rules for full-service stations. In contrast, Section
    336(f)(4) specifically deals with the transition period for Class A
    stations. As part of the 1999 Act, Congress adopted Section
    336(f)(4), which expressly gives the Commission the discretion to
    determine the end of the transition period for Class A, TV
    translator, and LPTV stations. The apparent intent behind Section
    336(f)(4) was to ensure that these stations are not required to
    prematurely convert to digital operations in a manner that could
    disrupt their analog service or, more importantly, that might cause
    them to cease operations Thus, Section 336(f)(4) does not appear to
    hold Class A stations to the full-service transition deadline.

15. We find that interpreting the statute as giving the Commission the
    discretion to establish a date for the transition of
    non-full-service stations "after the end" of the full-service
    station transition period is additionally supported by a
    consideration of the mechanics of how the substitution of digital
    for analog stations in these services must, of necessity, take place
    unless the service they provide to the public is to be severely
    interrupted. We adopted an approach for the transition of
    full-service TV stations that has permitted viewers to continue
    using their existing TV sets to receive analog programming while the
    number of DTV service offerings grows and consumers gradually become
    equipped to receive them. To achieve this purpose, we awarded
    full-service stations a second channel for digital operations during
    a multi-year transition period. However, lacking sufficient
    spectrum, we were unable to award second channels to TV translator,
    LPTV, or Class A stations to facilitate their digital transition.
    Indeed, we do not expect spectrum for new low power digital
    operations, as "companion" channels for existing analog programming
    services, to become available until TV channels are surrendered by
    full-service stations at the end of the full-service DTV transition
    period. Moreover, until this *Report and Order*, our low power
    television service rules have not provided for digital operations.

16. Requiring LPTV, TV translator, and Class A stations to comply with
    the full-service DTV transition deadline would, therefore, force
    these stations to "flash-cut" to digital on the channels authorized
    for their existing analog operations (*i.e.,* cease analog
    transmissions and begin operation of new digital transmitting
    equipment on the same date). We are concerned that such a
    requirement would significantly disrupt the existing service of many
    of these stations because it is likely that a large number of their
    viewers may be unequipped to receive DTV signals off-air at that
    time.[^31] Moreover, because they do not have the benefit of cable
    "must carry" rules, many low power stations do not receive the
    benefit of being carried on local cable or satellite systems. Thus,
    unlike full-service TV stations, loss of service due to the
    termination of a station's analog operation would not be offset by
    cable carriage of the station's DTV channel or the digital-to-analog
    conversion of the station's programming. Of even greater concern,
    some stations might be forced to discontinue service altogether,
    leaving their viewers without local TV service or, in some cases,
    without over-the-air television service.

17. We conclude that the better, less disruptive, approach would be for
    the low power television digital transition to be completed at some
    fixed time after the deadline for full-service television stations.
    We expect that completion of the full-service transition will result
    in the return of a sufficient number of channels to permit most
    LPTV, TV translator, and Class A stations an opportunity to operate
    dual analog and digital operations for some period of time, thereby
    creating an incentive and opportunity for their viewers to
    transition to digital service without loss of their existing analog
    service.

18. Permitting LPTV, TV translators, and Class A stations to continue
    analog operation on a secondary basis beyond the full-service
    digital transition deadline will not in any way slow or otherwise
    detract full-service stations' ability to complete the DTV
    transition. Full-service stations will still be required to return
    one of their channels on schedule irrespective of whatever deadline
    we shall ultimately set for the low power television and Class A
    digital conversion. In addition, a later digital conversion for
    these stations will not adversely affect new commercial and public
    safety services in the 700 MHz band.[^32] As discussed below, all
    digital TV translator and LPTV stations will be licensed on a
    secondary non-interfering basis to 700 MHz commercial and public
    safety licensees. Thus, there will be no harm to the new 700 MHz
    licensees in this band, who will have primary status.

19. Fox Television Stations, Inc., and Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox)
    argue that the December 31, 2006, deadline should apply to all
    analog broadcasting, including low power, and that "Congress would
    not have desired to leave a small group of television stations
    perpetually operating in a legacy technology -- which would only
    serve to discourage the digital transition in rural areas."[^33] We
    disagree. It is not our intention to allow LPTV, TV translator, and
    Class A broadcasters to permanently operate their analog facilities.
    Indeed, we seek to hasten their transition to digital service and
    will work toward the goal of achieving an end-date at, or soon
    after, the end date of the full-service transition. However, until
    we have resolved certain issues for full-service stations and more
    closely approach the end of the full-service DTV transition, we
    cannot establish a fixed termination date for the low power digital
    television transition when LPTV, TV translator, and Class A stations
    will be required to cease analog transmissions. It would be
    irrational and arbitrary to choose such a deadline for these
    stations at this point, given the remaining uncertainties relating
    to the full-service DTV transition. We will continue to monitor
    developments in the DTV transition and the LPTV, TV translator, and
    Class A marketplace. In our third DTV periodic review proceeding, we
    will revisit this issue and consider establishing a deadline and/or
    other criteria for the digital conversion of LPTV, TV translator,
    and Class A stations.[^34]

## **Permissible Service**

20. In practice, TV translators primarily deliver the programming of TV
    broadcast stations to communities that cannot receive these signals
    directly because of distance or terrain. Although LPTV stations may
    rebroadcast TV signals, most air locally produced and/or other
    programming not otherwise available in their communities. We seek to
    preserve in the digital world the important and complementary
    services provided by TV translator and LPTV stations.

### Digital TV Translator Stations

21. In the *Notice* we proposed that a digital TV translator station
    operate for the purpose of rebroadcasting the programs and signals
    of DTV stations. We tentatively concluded that a digital translator
    be technically capable of rebroadcasting the entire DTV input
    signal, producing an output signal that can be satisfactorily viewed
    on consumer receiving equipment designed for our DTV transmission
    standard. The *Notice* sought comment on how we should define a
    digital TV translator in our rules and on the following permissible
    service issues: (1) the technical mode(s) of digital operation; (2)
    the extent and nature of translator-inserted local messages; (3) the
    extent to which a digital translator may alter a DTV broadcast
    signal; and (4) the permissible sources of digital translator input
    signals.

22. *Definition and Digital TV Translator Rebroadcasts:* Although to a
    limited extent we will permit a digital translator to insert local
    messages and otherwise alter the DTV broadcast signal being
    retransmitted, we will define a digital TV translator station as
    follows:

> *Digital television broadcast translator station*. A station operated
> for the purpose of retransmitting the programs and signals of a
> digital television ("DTV") broadcast station, without significantly
> altering any characteristic of the original signal other than its
> frequency and amplitude, for the purpose of providing DTV reception to
> the general public.[^35]

Parties commenting on the definition generally support defining a
digital TV translator station in this manner.[^36] This definition best
reflects the identity and fundamental purpose of a TV translator
station. Although, as noted below, a few commenters propose that digital
translator licensees be afforded a degree of flexibility to alter the
signal of a DTV station, we will not, except for the limited provisions
adopted herein, permit a station licensed as a digital TV translator to
alter the input DTV broadcast signal. However, subject to the consent of
a DTV broadcast station, we will permit a digital LPTV station to engage
in operations that include both retransmission of the DTV broadcast
station and the transmission of non broadcast-related programming or
services.[^37]

23. *Digital Transmission Mode*: The *Notice* sought comment on two
    basic modes of digital translator operation (*i.e.*, the technical
    means by which a TV translator receives an input signal on a TV
    channel, processes the signal information and transfers it to
    another TV channel for transmission): (1) heterodyne frequency
    conversion and (2) a "regenerative" mode. The heterodyne translator
    is a "pass through" device that typically performs two internal
    frequency conversions to shift the input signal information to the
    FCC-authorized output channel for final amplification, out-of-band
    emission filtering, and transmission.[^38] The dual-conversion
    heterodyne translator is widely used in analog TV translator
    installations.[^39] Heterodyne processors have been developed for
    digital translator operation.[^40]

24. The regenerative mode incorporates technology developed specifically
    for digital TV translators. The regenerative digital translator
    employs a complete DTV receiver/processor that demodulates and
    decodes the input 8-VSB signal and performs "equalization" and
    "forward error correction" on the signal information to correct
    signal propagation impairments (*e.g.*, multipath distortion) and
    bit errors. "As long as the impairment and interference effects do
    not cause the DTV receiver to extend beyond the point of threshold
    of visible (TOV) errors, the output MPEG-transport stream is
    regenerated to the exact same data stream that was transmitted from
    the full-service station."[^41] Thus, unlike a simple heterodyne
    translator which passes through signal errors in the received input
    signal -- including, if input filtering is not present, unwanted
    interfering signal energy in the adjacent channels - the
    regenerative translator removes signal errors, distortion and
    interference and is capable of producing an output signal with a
    digital bit stream essentially the same as that transmitted by the
    DTV station.

25. The *Notice* suggested that both transmission modes could serve a
    useful purpose.[^42] Due to its somewhat lower cost, heterodyne
    digital translators might be preferred, for example, in "single-hop"
    installations serving isolated communities, while the regenerative
    translator would be better suited for multi-hop translator networks.
    The *Notice* asked if there is a purpose for heterodyne digital
    translators, if we should prefer the use of regenerative
    translators, and whether we should permit translator operators to
    choose their transmission mode based on individual
    circumstances.[^43]

26. The majority of commenters propose that we permit both modes of
    digital translator operation.[^44] The Association of Federal
    Communications Consulting Engineers (AFCCE) asserts that heterodyne
    translators, equipped with suitable emission mask filters, would
    perform adequately in most single-hop systems, and it fears that
    requiring use of regenerative technology could create an unnecessary
    financial burden on translator operators.[^45] Riverton Freemont TV
    Club (Riverton), a translator licensee, maintains that existing
    analog heterodyne translators could be suitably modified for digital
    operation with the addition of an 8-VSB signal processor or a
    "regenerator" and the required mask filter.[^46] Other commenters
    urge that we adopt only the regenerative mode and/or limit the use
    of heterodyne processors.[^47]

27. The record evidences the superior performance of the regenerative
    transmission mode with regard to in-band signal quality, adjacent
    channel performance, and digital signal coverage, especially in
    those areas severely affected by multipath signal impairments. The
    regenerative mode will therefore expand opportunities for co-sited
    adjacent channel operations. The independence of translator input
    and output signals removes concerns relating to adjacent channel
    interference signals and noise, and enables more reliable
    attenuation of out-of-band spurious emissions. Regenerative
    technology will also facilitate monitoring of such transmission
    parameters as digital average power and in-band signal-to-noise
    ratio. For these reasons, we express a strong preference for and
    encourage, wherever possible, the use of the regenerative
    transmission mode.

28. We will also, however, permit heterodyne digital signal
    retransmissions but, as recommended by NTA, limit the digital output
    power of UHF heterodyne translators to 30 watts and VHF heterodyne
    translators to 3 watts.[^48] Under this approach, we believe most
    translator operators will be permitted the flexibility to choose
    their mode of transmission based on individual circumstances. A
    large majority of analog translator stations operate with UHF and
    VHF transmitter output power levels not exceeding 100 watts and 10
    watts, respectively. Generally the equivalent digital average power
    of such stations would not exceed the 30 watt or 3 watt
    limitations.[^49] Thus, operators of most translator stations could
    consider modifying their existing analog equipment for digital
    operation. The 30-watt UHF and 3-watt VHF output power caps on
    digital heterodyne translators will help to alleviate concerns about
    the adjacent channel interference potential of these devices,
    particularly with regard to translator installations involving
    co-sited first channel adjacent operation.

29. NTA asks finally that we permit a third transmission mode in which a
    digital translator employs modulation equipment (*e.g.*, in
    connection with translator rebroadcasts of incoming signals
    delivered by microwave or translator insertions).[^50] Our rules
    permit analog translator stations to employ modulation equipment and
    we will also permit its use for digital translator operations in
    connection with signal transport and local message insertion.[^51]

30. *Local Message Insertions*: The *Notice* sought comment on the
    merits of permitting licensees to insert local messages into the
    digital translator output channel. It specifically asked for comment
    on the duration and nature of local messages and the technical
    feasibility and cost of translator insertions into the digital bit
    stream.[^52]

31. Television translators have played a unique role in delivering
    over-the-air programming of TV broadcast stations to many
    communities otherwise unable to receive such service, and we want
    this service to continue in the digital age. For this reason, we are
    preserving the separate identity of digital TV translator stations
    and their traditional TV rebroadcast role. We also wish to preserve
    the opportunity for translator operators to insert, on a limited
    basis, messages of importance to their communities. Accordingly, we
    will extend to digital operations the provisions for analog
    translator local message origination. Specifically, we will permit a
    digital TV translator station to originate emergency warnings deemed
    necessary to protect and safeguard life and property. We will also
    permit a digital TV translator to originate local public service
    announcements or messages seeking or acknowledging financial support
    necessary for its continued operation, not to exceed 30 seconds per
    hour.[^53]

32. Commenters generally support these provisions.[^54] According to
    noncommercial educational TV station KAET, "\[I\]t is critically
    important for local communities to be made aware of local weather
    and other emergencies as well as school closings and other local
    bulletins."[^55] Vermont Educational Television also emphasizes the
    crucial importance of emergency warnings, noting that one of its
    translators serves a community located near a nuclear power
    plant.[^56] We also agree with Fox that digital translators should
    also be permitted, if necessary, to modify the PSIP information of a
    DTV signal only to allow proper tuning by consumer DTV receiver
    products and will permit such DTV input signal modifications (*See*
    Section H, *infra*).[^57]

33. The record does not contain information related to technical
    standards for digital translator message origination, and we will
    not prescribe such standards in this proceeding. Rather, we will
    permit any means of translator message insertion that is mutually
    acceptable to a translator operator and the licensee of its primary
    DTV broadcast station (*e.g.*, originating signals that replace a
    DTV signal or those that are inserted into the bit stream of the DTV
    signal). Signals containing local messages must comply with our
    power and emission requirements, not cause destructive interference,
    and should be capable of being satisfactorily received by DTV
    products designed for the Commission's DTV transmission standard.

34. *Other DTV Broadcast Signal Alterations*: We requested comment on
    whether a digital TV translator should be permitted additional
    flexibility to alter the content or video format of a DTV broadcast
    signal, given the consent of the DTV broadcast licensee.[^58] We
    asked if translator rebroadcasts could exclude portions of a DTV
    signal related to ancillary and supplementary services and whether
    translator licensees should be permitted to offer local ancillary
    and supplementary services, including services on a subscription
    basis. We inquired about the merits, technical feasibility and cost
    of digital translator multi-cast operations, whereby a translator
    licensee would arrange with broadcast licensees to rebroadcast the
    programs of two or more DTV stations on the same translator output
    channel.

35. Some parties request that translators be given the same flexibility
    as parent stations to provide ancillary and supplementary services.
    For example, APTS/PBS believes ancillary and supplementary services
    would provide compelling public interest benefits and gives examples
    of the types of services that public TV stations are planning,
    including the delivery of broadband services.[^59] Vermont
    Educational Television states that a digital translator can serve
    the current role of rebroadcasting the programming of full-service
    stations while also having the technical capability to provide
    unique local services to the public in areas not reached by
    full-service stations' signals.[^60] KAET seeks "regulatory
    flexibility" to use the "excess digital capacity" of its
    translator - that remaining after rebroadcast of its primary KAET
    signal - to offer tailored educational programs. [^61]

36. Other commenters oppose permitting digital translators the
    flexibility to alter DTV signals. MSTV/NAB submits that digital TV
    translators should "seamlessly pass through all the bits of the
    parent station without degradation, subject to the limited local
    insertion exceptions set forth in the existing analog rules."[^62]

37. Several commenters support digital translator multiplexing
    ("multi-casting") of the programming of two or more DTV broadcast
    stations on the translator output channel, subject to special
    arrangements with the DTV station licensees; no commenter provided
    information on the technical feasibility or cost of such translator
    operations.[^63] Bonneville comments on how multi-casting could
    offer a spectrally efficient and cost effective option for digital
    translator service:

> "In areas of high translator congestion, operators could realize
> spectrum efficiencies by sharing spectrum to provide more than one DTV
> signal over a single channel. The costs associated with the transition
> to digital for these stations would consequently not burden a lone
> operator, but instead be borne by the multiple operators sharing the
> digital channel."[^64]

MSTV/NAB supports use of digital translator multi-casting with the
consent of the involved DTV broadcast licensees, but only for the
duration of the DTV transition. According to MSTV/NAB, multi-casting
could be beneficial in areas where it may be too expensive for
broadcasters to build separate translators. It also suggests that during
the transition there may be rural areas without enough translators to
serve all parent stations (*e.g.*, due to translator displacement
resulting from the repacking of the DTV core spectrum) and that
multi-casting could help compensate for a temporary shortage of
translators.[^65] NTA believes multi-casting could serve a useful
purpose provided the necessary equipment becomes affordable. It
recommends that we permit a "mixture" of the signals of analog and
digital primary stations to be multiplexed together in the translator
output signal and that the embedded programs be encoded with at least a
standard definition format.[^66] In opposition, Fox submits that
consideration of multi-casting at this time would be premature and that
digital translators should be required to pass through the entire DTV
signal, at least during the transition period. Fox is concerned that to
permit other arrangements could result in viewers not realizing the full
benefits of digital television, particularly high definition
programming.[^67]

38. Consistent with the fundamental purpose of the TV translator, we
    will generally not permit digital translators to alter the content
    or format of DTV broadcast signals, other than for limited local
    origination of the kinds of messages described above. We agree that
    the types of locally tailored ancillary and supplementary services
    suggested by APTS/PBS, KAET and Vermont Educational would benefit
    translator-served communities. We will permit such services under
    the definition of a digital low power television station. Thus, a
    digital LPTV station that rebroadcasts the signal of a DTV broadcast
    station, may, with the consent of a DTV station licensee, supercede
    or alter that station's signal to locally originate other services,
    including ancillary and supplementary services (and will be subject
    to the requirement that they pay a 5% fee on gross revenues of
    feeable service). This distinction preserves the identity of a
    television translator station, while also enabling the flexibility
    sought by APTS/PBS and other commenters.[^68]

39. Because of technical complexity and related equipment costs, we do
    not believe it likely that many digital translator operators will
    multiplex the program signals of multiple DTV broadcast stations.
    Yet, we will permit such operations, subject to arrangements with
    and the consent of all involved DTV station licensees. As requested
    by NTA, we will permit the multiplexing of a mixture of the program
    signals of analog TV and DTV stations, but we will not require a
    minimum video format for the programs embedded in the translator
    output signal. We believe that the parties to such arrangements will
    want to provide the best practicable digital service. We expect only
    that translator output signal be satisfactorily viewable on consumer
    receiver products designed for the Commission's DTV transmission
    (8-VSB) standard. We will monitor the use of digital translator
    signal multi-casting and may revisit in a future periodic review the
    issue of its post-transition use.

40. *Digital to Analog Signal Conversion*: In the *Notice* we sought
    comment on whether translators should be permitted to rebroadcast a
    DTV signal in the analog transmission format and how that issue
    relates to the definition of a digital TV translator station.[^69]
    We also asked if we should permit translators to rebroadcast an
    analog input signal as a digital output signal.[^70]

41. Most parties commenting on the digital-to-analog conversion issue
    support permitting translators to operate in this manner.[^71] We
    agree that permitting translators to convert DTV signals for analog
    rebroadcasts would serve a useful purpose. As noted by Entravision,
    analog conversion would permit viewers to continue to receive the
    programs of TV broadcast stations that switch to digital-only
    operation.[^72] We do not believe that allowing analog conversion of
    DTV signals would prolong the DTV transition. On the contrary, it
    could facilitate the transition by "allow\[ing\] rural translator
    operators that may encounter difficulty in making the transition to
    digital operations to continue providing free-over-the-air service
    to viewers in remote areas throughout the DTV transition and at its
    end \-- once full-service stations being rebroadcast return analog
    channels and broadcast only digital signal."[^73] This mode of
    operation would also permit translators to transmit the programs of
    DTV broadcasters until sufficient DTV set penetration levels exist
    to warrant translator licensees to convert their analog channels to
    digital operation. Digital to analog conversion may also enable
    translator-served communities to experience a significant signal
    quality improvement. According to Gary Sgrignoli, "\[T\]echnology is
    mature for the conversion of digital MPEG streams to analog NTSC
    outputs in affordable commercial equipment."[^74] For these reasons,
    we will permit TV translators and LPTV stations to convert a DTV
    input signal to an output channel in the analog (NTSC) format and to
    do so without Commission authorization or notification.

42. In this regard, NTA asks us to adopt the following provision in our
    rules:

> "If the programs of the analog station are continuously included in
> the signal of the companion digital primary station, then the input
> for the analog translator may be derived from this source."[^75]

Although we agree with the operational flexibility sought by NTA, the
suggested language would prevent a translator from converting to the
analog format the signal of a station with DTV-only operation, which
will be the case for all full-service broadcast stations upon completion
of the DTV transition. We will, therefore, expand the NTA's proposed
rule to permit the rebroadcast of a DTV input signal as an analog output
until such time as translators are required to transmit only digital
signals.

43. NTA asks that we permit digital TV translators to rebroadcast the
    signals of analog TV broadcast stations, thereby allowing "maximum
    flexibility" to bring digital TV service to rural areas.[^76] Such a
    conversion would necessitate use of the regenerative translator
    technology and would therefore result in a significantly improved
    translator output signal during the DTV transition. Although we
    expect this mode of operation will occur infrequently, we will
    permit it.

44. *Digital LPTV and Translator Input Signal Sources*: In the *Notice*
    we proposed to allow digital TV translators to receive broadcast
    signals using any of the signal delivery means available to analog
    TV translator stations.[^77] All parties commenting on this issue
    support this proposal, and we will adopt it.[^78] We agree that
    permitting alternate signal delivery means will facilitate efficient
    spectrum use and could significantly benefit the digital conversion
    of TV translators in frequency congested areas.[^79] We will
    therefore extend all provisions in the relevant rule for analog LPTV
    and TV translator signal inputs to include their digital
    operations.[^80]

### Digital Low Power Television Stations 

45. The *Notice* sought comment on the definition of a digital low power
    TV station and the types of services we should require and permit
    for these stations.[^81] We noted that LPTV stations are defined as
    stations that may retransmit the programs of full-service TV
    broadcast stations, originate programming in any amount greater than
    30 seconds per hour and offer subscription television service.[^82]
    We tentatively concluded that digital LPTV stations should be
    subject to the same minimum video program service requirement
    applicable to DTV broadcast and digital Class A TV stations.[^83]
    Specifically, a digital LPTV station would be required to provide a
    free video programming service of at least NTSC (analog TV) quality,
    intended for reception by the general public. Upon meeting that
    requirement, we tentatively concluded that digital LPTV stations
    should be permitted the same flexibility to offer ancillary and
    supplementary services, including subscription services, allowed for
    DTV and digital Class A stations, including arrangements with
    outside parties to offer such services in the manner provided in our
    DTV rules.[^84] We sought comment on what circumstances, if any,
    should exempt a digital LPTV station from the minimum video program
    service requirement and enable it to use the entire digital bit
    stream for providing ancillary and supplementary services (*e.g.*,
    station operations between 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.). Finally, we
    proposed to apply to digital LPTV stations the public
    interest-related obligations applicable to analog LPTV stations and
    asked if there is any basis for treating digital and analog LPTV
    stations differently in this regard.

46. *Definition*: Commenters did not explicitly address the definition
    of a digital LPTV station, but did so implicitly in terms of the
    required and permitted services of such stations.[^85] Nonetheless,
    building on the definition in our rules for a low power television
    station,[^86] we will define a digital low power TV station as
    follows:

> *Digital low power TV station*: A station authorized under the
> provisions of this subpart that may retransmit the programs and
> signals of a digital television (DTV) broadcast station, may originate
> programming in any amount greater than 30 seconds per hour for the
> purpose providing DTV reception to the general public and, subject to
> a minimum video program service requirement, may offer services of an
> ancillary or supplementary nature, including subscription-based
> services. (See § 74.790 of this part).

47. *Required Digital Service*: In the *Notice* we tentatively concluded
    that a digital low power TV station should be subject to the minimum
    video program service applicable to DTV broadcast and digital Class
    A TV stations.[^87] Under this provision, the transmissions of
    digital LPTV stations would be required to include a free video
    programming service of at least analog (NTSC) TV technical quality,
    intended for over-the-air reception by the general public. This
    provision has three significant elements: (1) the video program
    service need not occupy the entire 19.38 Mbit/sec
    information-bearing capacity of a DTV signal, only enough to provide
    video resolution comparable to an NTSC TV video image -- a
    relatively small portion of the overall bit capacity; (2) the
    service must be offered free of charge to viewers; and (3) the
    signal on which the video program service is carried must be
    intended for reception by the general public -- meaning that the
    digital signal must be transmitted in a form that can be viewed with
    receiver products developed for our universal DTV transmission
    standard (*i.e.*, the ATSC standard incorporating the 8-VSB
    modulation format).

48. Several Class A and LPTV licensees urge us not to impose such a
    requirement, but rather to allow licensees maximum flexibility to
    provide new digital services to the public.[^88] Moreover, Island
    states that many LPTV licensees now face serious economic
    difficulties and submits that a minimum program service requirement,
    together with an 8VSB modulation requirement could "seriously
    jeopardize their continued viability, and possibly result in their
    ultimate demise."[^89] According to Commercial, "the degree of
    operational freedom" afforded to licensees, whose stations generally
    have limited signal coverage and lack cable and satellite carriage,
    will affect their willingness to invest in digital services.[^90]

49. KM argues that enforcing a minimum video program service requirement
    on LPTV stations would be contrary to the decision of the United
    States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
    *Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.*, *et al v. FCC*. [^91]
    In that case, the court held that Section 1 of the Communications
    Act "does not otherwise authorize the FCC to regulate program
    content."[^92] Because the video description rules at issue in the
    case involved program content, the court vacated the Commission's
    video description requirements. In this case, however, our minimum
    video program service requirement is not related to content. LPTV
    broadcasters are free to air the content they choose on their
    stations. The minimum video program service requirement merely is an
    operational rule pertaining to how television broadcasters use their
    licensed digital spectrum.[^93]

50. Other commenters support the minimum video programming service
    requirement for digital LPTV stations.[^94] MSTV/NAB submits that
    "\[E\]nsuring that viewers receive service from digital Class A,
    LPTV and translator licensees that matches what they have come to
    expect from analog stations serves the public's interest in
    preserving free, over-the-air television service."[^95] NTA notes
    that digital LPTV stations will be occupying spectrum designated for
    television broadcast to the public and that a video service
    requirement will minimize "the interest of spectrum speculators"
    seeking digital stations for the exclusive purpose of data
    transmission, which would restrict channel availability for
    broadcasting.[^96]

51. We will adopt for digital low power TV stations the minimum video
    program service requirement applicable to digital Class A TV
    stations. Whenever operating, a digital LPTV station must use some
    portion of its digital capacity to provide a free video programming
    service intended for reception by the general public. This
    requirement could be met by retransmitting the video program
    services of TV broadcast or DTV broadcast stations or video
    programming obtained from other sources. Local video program
    originations would also satisfy the requirement.[^97] The video
    programming service must be viewable on consumer receiver products
    designed for the Commission's DTV transmission standard[^98] with a
    video resolution at least comparable to that of analog (NTSC) TV
    signals.

52. The video programming requirement will further our DTV goal "to
    promote and preserve free, universally available, local broadcast
    television in a digital world."[^99] The Commission created the LPTV
    service to supplement the services of TV broadcast stations and
    provide opportunities for unmet service needs. In many communities,
    viewers uniquely depend on Class A TV and LPTV stations as their
    source of local news, weather and public affairs programming. We
    agree with Zenith that "Class A and LPTV stations are integral
    components of our national system of television stations."[^100] We
    believe these stations should and will play a significant role in
    the nation's digital television broadcast system. We also agree with
    NTA that the minimum service requirement is appropriate, considering
    that digital LPTV stations will occupy TV broadcast channels and
    compete for spectrum with other stations that would provide free
    television programming.

53. *Permitted Digital Service*: In the *Notice* we tentatively
    concluded that digital LPTV stations should be permitted to use
    their bit stream dynamically to transmit one or more digital
    programs in any DTV video format and to offer all of the ancillary
    and supplementary services, including subscription services, allowed
    for DTV and digital Class A TV stations.[^101] We also stated that
    LPTV station operators should be allowed to enter into arrangements
    with outside parties regarding ancillary and supplementary services,
    in the manner permitted for DTV broadcast licensees.[^102]

54. We will adopt all of these flexible-use provisions for digital LPTV
    stations. We agree with CBA and other commenters that LPTV stations
    should have the same freedom as full-service stations to offer
    ancillary services.[^103] We disagree with Rural Stakeholders that
    such flexible use is contrary to the secondary status of the low
    power TV service and would not further the DTV transition.[^104] In
    the DTV proceeding, the Commission reasoned that permitting
    broadcasters to offer ancillary and supplementary services would
    provide opportunities "to develop additional revenues from
    innovative services" that will "help broadcast television to remain
    a strong presence in the video programming markets that will, in
    turn, help support a free programming service."[^105] The record in
    this proceeding suggests this rationale applies with equal or
    greater force to digital LPTV stations. We are mindful of the
    economic concerns expressed in the comments of several Class A and
    LPTV licensees. We believe the flexibility we are providing herein
    will enable licensees of digital LPTV stations to offer many
    supplemental services to the public, including non-broadcast related
    services.

55. *Permissible Service Alternative:* The *Notice* sought comment on a
    permissible service alternative that would allow digital LPTV
    stations to provide only ancillary and supplementary services under
    special circumstances (*e.g.*, during hours such as 12:00 a.m. to
    6:00 a.m.). We asked what circumstances, if any, would justify
    exclusion of the minimum free over-the-air video programming service
    requirement we are adopting for digital LPTV stations.[^106] We also
    asked what interference criteria should be applied to services
    employing transmission methods other than those based on our DTV
    transmission standard.[^107]

56. Few parties commented on this issue, and no commenter addresses
    interference criteria for alternate transmission systems.
    Entravision submits that we should impose a video program service
    requirement only during the hours from 6:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. in urban
    areas and 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. in rural areas.[^108] Bruno maintains
    that this requirement should apply only when an LPTV station is
    "viable," which it defines as a station capable of being received by
    at least 85% of households in its market -- in the sense DTV
    broadcast stations would be considered viable in this manner.[^109]

57. We will not in this proceeding adopt a permissible service
    alternative for digital LPTV stations. First, we are providing LPTV
    station licensees ample flexibility to offer a variety of digital
    services of a nonbroadcast nature. Second, it is unlikely that
    licensees would invest in additional and separate technology to
    offer nonbroadcast services on an exclusive basis, if such service
    was confined to limited periods of time (e.g., 12:00 a.m. to 6:00
    a.m.). Finally, we lack technical criteria for analyzing the
    interference potential of digital LPTV stations that would employ
    two-way communications systems and/or modulation types other than
    8-VSB. We agree with NTA that, without adequate safeguards, digital
    LPTV stations should not be permitted to operate in a manner that
    could be likely to interfere with the reception of DTV
    service.[^110]

58. *Additional Service Obligations*: The *Notice* proposed to apply to
    digital LPTV stations the additional service obligations applicable
    to analog LPTV stations and asked if there is any reason to treat
    analog and digital stations differently.[^111] We received very
    little comment in this regard, and no commenter addressed specific
    requirements.[^112] We reiterate that the purpose of this proceeding
    is to provide the regulatory foundation to permit stations in the
    LPTV service to transition to digital service, rather than to
    fundamentally alter the nature of the service. Accordingly, we adopt
    our proposal in the *Notice* to require digital LPTV stations to
    comply with the additional service obligations applicable to analog
    LPTV stations.[^113]

## Channel Assignments

59. Spectrum availability presents a challenge for the transition of
    LPTV, TV translator, and Class A stations to digital operation. As
    we stated in the *Notice*, "the pace at which these stations begin
    to operate digitally may depend on the ability of station licensees
    to secure additional channels, which, in turn, will depend on the TV
    channels we make available for digital low power operations."[^114]
    We therefore proposed to make available for digital low power
    stations VHF channels 2-13, inclusive, and UHF channels 14-59,
    inclusive (except 37, which is reserved for radio astronomy). We
    proposed the use of these channels for both on-channel
    analog-to-digital station conversions and for new digital LPTV and
    TV translator stations. We stated that these stations would be
    required to operate on a non-interfering basis to primary users of
    these channels and also protect earlier-authorized secondary users.

60. We sought specific comment on our proposal to allow digital low
    power operations on TV channels 52-59.[^115] We noted that in the
    *Channel 52-59 Reallocation Order*, the Commission permitted LPTV
    and TV translator stations to operate indefinitely on these channels
    on a non-interfering basis and to negotiate interference agreements
    with new primary service providers.[^116] We stated that use of
    channels 52-59 would facilitate the digital conversions of existing
    low power service. Alternatively, we sought comment on whether to
    permit use of channels 52-59 only when applicants could demonstrate
    that no lower channels are available for their digital operations.
    We also sought comment on whether this policy should apply to
    applications for new digital low power service or also include
    applications seeking to convert existing analog operations to
    digital.

61. With regard to channels 60-69, we sought comment on whether these
    channels should be made available for new digital LPTV and TV
    translator stations and/or digital conversions of existing analog
    stations.[^117] In the *Channel 60-69 Reallocation Order*, the
    Commission decided that, in view of their secondary status, it would
    continue to authorize LPTV and TV translator service on these
    channels until the end of the DTV transition.[^118] We noted,
    however, that, by statute, all TV broadcasters, including LPTV and
    TV translators, must vacate the use of this spectrum after the DTV
    transition ends.[^119] The Commission concluded that the statute
    left it no discretion in clearing LPTV and TV translator stations
    from the band at the end of the transition period.[^120] In the
    *Notice* we sought comment on whether we should authorize digital
    LPTV and TV translator stations on channels 60-69 and, if so,
    whether we should permit such authorizations only when applicants
    can demonstrate the lack of other available channels.[^121] In
    addition, we sought comment on whether to authorize digital low
    power service only on the channels that are not allocated for public
    safety operations.

62. Several parties support our channel assignment proposals.[^122]
    APTS/PBS states that use of channels 52-69 is "essentially important
    to public television stations."[^123] They estimate that more than
    one-third (35 percent) of public television translators operate on
    channels 52 and above and approximately 25 percent operate on
    channels 60-69. The CBA states that as many channels as possible
    should be made available for low power digital operation, including
    channels 52-59 and 60-69.[^124] The CBA argues that, while it is
    true that "those channels will not be available indefinitely, their
    ultimate fate is well known, and those Class A/LPTV licensees who
    need to use those channels should be permitted to do so, on a
    temporary and secondary basis with knowledge of the risk."[^125]
    APTS/PBS, Entravision and NTA maintain that there should be no
    requirement to demonstrate necessity in connection with an
    application to use an out-of-core channel.[^126] NTA argues that
    "\[A\] prospective translator licensee would not choose an
    out-of-core channel without good reason."[^127]

63. Numerous 700 MHz licensees, a few full-service broadcasters, public
    safety groups and some equipment suppliers, however, oppose
    authorization of new digital LPTV and TV translator stations in
    either the channel 52-59 or 60-69 bands.[^128] The Rural 700 MHz
    Band Licensees take issue with our statement in the *Notice* that
    use of channels 52-69 by digital low power operations "could also
    provide additional opportunities for new digital stations,
    particularly in rural areas where new wireless and other primary
    services may not operate in the near future."[^129] The Rural 700
    MHz Band Licensees represent that many of the winning bidders from
    Auction Numbers 44 and 49 in rural areas "are in a position to
    proceed with their plans for Lower 700 MHz Band networks and to
    begin providing service to rural customers as soon as their business
    plan is completed and suitable equipment is identified and
    acquired."[^130] Although they acknowledge that it will be perhaps
    years before equipment is available for the Lower 700 MHz Band
    Service at affordable prices, they argue that the band must be
    cleared of broadcasters as soon as possible "so that the larger
    auction winners can deploy services in major markets, thereby
    creating the economies of scale that will bring equipment prices
    down for rural providers."[^131]

64. Many of the 700 MHz licensees note that they have spent millions of
    dollars "for the rights to offer services where full-power broadcast
    facilities do not exist."[^132] For example, when Access Spectrum
    bid for spectrum, it did so to acquire service areas that were
    "devoid of incumbent full-service broadcast facilities on the
    co-channel and adjacent channel frequencies to the maximum extent
    possible."[^133] Access Spectrum states that it is likely that low
    power broadcasters will seek that same "white space" for their new
    digital operations. Aloha and Corr argue that they had no notice
    that digital low power service would be permitted in the 700 MHz
    band when they bid for spectrum and that allowing new low power
    broadcasters in the 700 MHz bands "breaks a faith with the companies
    who bid in good faith for the licenses for this spectrum."[^134]

65. APCO is concerned about the potential impact of new digital LPTV and
    TV translator stations to public safety facilities operating in the
    channel 60-69 band.[^135] APCO notes that TV channels 63, 64, 68 and
    69 were reallocated for public safety use and that these channels
    will "play a critical role in alleviating dangerous congestion on
    existing radio systems, promoting greater inoperability among 'first
    responders' to emergencies of all sizes, and facilitating the
    deployment of new public safety communications tools."[^136] APCO
    specifically opposes low power digital operations on these channels
    and first adjacent channels thereto.[^137] APCO argues that allowing
    LPTV and translator stations to initiate operations on channels
    60-69, even if on a secondary basis, would "set the stage for bitter
    community/political battles between LPTV and translator licensees,
    and public safety agencies seeking access to critical
    spectrum."[^138] They support our proposal to license new digital
    low power television stations on channels 2-59.

66. Cavalier argues that, even if new digital low power stations are
    licensed on channels 52-69 on a secondary basis, new wireless
    licensees will "still have to deal with the new secondary stations"
    and that "takes time, money and effort which would be better spent
    providing new wireless services to the public."[^139] This imposes
    an unfair additional cost on 700 MHz licensees, DataCom and Harbor
    Wireless argue.[^140] Cavalier, Corr, and Qualcomm are concerned
    that interference disagreements may be difficult to resolve.[^141]
    If the low power station does not have to shut down until the
    disagreement is resolved, Cavalier maintains that the low power
    station is not really secondary.[^142]

67. Paxson argues that, if clearing these channels for new wireless and
    public safety services is a viable possibility, "it makes little
    sense to create an entire new class of temporary users of that
    spectrum -- another set of stakeholders in whose interests it will
    be to stall band-clearing and the end of the DTV transition."[^143]
    The 700 MHz Advancement Coalition and the Rural 700 MHz Band
    Licensees state that our priorities must be the full-service DTV
    transition and clearing the 700 MHz band.[^144]

68. We conclude that spectrum availability will largely determine the
    extent to which LPTV, TV translator and Class A stations can
    successfully transition to digital operation. Accordingly, we will
    adopt our proposal to make available for digital LPTV and TV
    translator operations VHF channels 2-13, inclusive, and UHF channels
    14-59, inclusive (except channel 37). We agree that use of these
    channels is needed to facilitate the digital transition of the low
    power television service. We find it necessary to also make channels
    60-69 available for digital low power operations, but on a more
    limited basis than the use of channels 52-59.

69. Before the creation of the LPTV service in 1982, TV translator
    stations were confined to the use of channels 55-69. Many hundreds
    of translator stations continue to operate on these channels. Our
    licensing experience indicates that over much the country in-core
    replacement channels for digital operations may not be available for
    many of these stations, at least until full-service broadcasters
    surrender channels upon completion of the DTV transition. We agree
    with the CBA and NTA that this spectrum is needed to ensure
    continued free television service to rural areas and to avoid
    leaving an undue number of low power stations with no realistic
    opportunity to develop digital service.[^145] It would be unfair and
    unreasonable to deny temporary use of channels 52-69 for digital low
    power service at locations where no other channels are available for
    this purpose and where stations could operate without conflicting
    with new primary users of this spectrum. As discussed below, we
    disagree that permitting any use of this spectrum for digital low
    power TV operation will jeopardize public safety operations or
    impede the development of new wireless services.

70. We conclude that making channels 52-69 available for LPTV and TV
    translator station operations in the manner described below will
    balance the concerns of the low power television and 700 MHz
    wireless and public safety communities. As a preliminary matter, we
    will no longer permit the filing of applications for new analog
    stations in the LPTV service proposing these channels. Our goals in
    this proceeding are to facilitate the transition of LPTV, TV
    translator, and Class A stations to digital service and to do so in
    a way that minimizes disruption of new and existing services in the
    700 MHz bands. Accordingly, we believe further use of channels 52-69
    in the secondary low power service should be limited to incumbent
    LPTV, TV translator and Class A licensees and permittees for digital
    LPTV and TV translator operations and to analog LPTV and TV
    translator stations as replacement channels when confronted by
    channel displacement.

71. *Channels 52-59.* We adopt our proposal in the *Notice* to make
    channels 52-59 available for on-channel conversion from
    analog-to-digital operation. Pursuant to the application filing
    process adopted *infra*, we will also permit TV translator, LPTV,
    and Class A station incumbents[^146] to seek use of channels 52-59
    as digital "companion" channels (*i.e.*, to their existing analog TV
    service), but only where applicants can certify in their
    applications the unavailability of any suitable in-core channel for
    this purpose. We define a "suitable in-core channel" as one that
    would enable the station to produce a digital service area
    comparable to its analog service area. In addition, we will require
    that stations proposing use of channels 52-59 for digital operation
    notify all potentially affected 700 MHz commercial wireless
    licensees of the spectrum comprising the proposed TV channel and the
    spectrum in the first adjacent channels thereto. Specifically, we
    will require notification to wireless licensees within whose
    licensed geographic boundaries a digital LPTV or TV translator
    station proposes to locate. We will also require notification to
    co-channel and first adjacent channel licensees whose geographic
    service area boundaries lie within 75 miles and 50 miles,
    respectively, of the proposed digital LPTV or TV translator station
    location. A station seeking an on-channel digital conversion must
    provide such written notification at least 30 days in advance of
    filing its minor change application. An applicant for a digital
    companion channel must provide the required notifications within 30
    days of submitting its "long-form" application. In both cases,
    applicants must certify in their applications that the notification
    requirements have been met. These provisions will provide wireless
    licensees with advance notice of proposed digital low power
    facilities and an opportunity to coordinate with LPTV and TV
    translator licensees and permittees. The identity and contact
    information for all wireless entities in the 700 MHz band is readily
    available through our Universal Licensing System on the Commission
    web site ([www.fcc.gov](http://www.fcc.gov/)).[^147] Digital LPTV
    and TV translator stations may continue to operate on channels 52-59
    on a secondary basis as long as they do not technically conflict
    with the operations of a primary service licensee. LPTV and TV
    translator station authorizations will be explicitly conditioned to
    that effect.

72. Additionally, we adopt the following provisions in an effort to
    prevent secondary digital LPTV and TV translator stations from
    technically conflicting with future operations of primary 700 MHz
    wireless licensees, within their licensed service areas. Any
    existing or future primary wireless licensee in the 700 MHz band may
    provide notice of its intention to initiate or change operations in
    its licensed band that may impact secondary users. This notice
    should take the form of a letter, by certified mail, return receipt
    requested, to any digital LPTV or TV translator station operating on
    the spectrum comprising the TV channel and the spectrum in the first
    adjacent channel thereto. Such notice should indicate the
    approximate date of commencement of, or change to, the wireless
    service, and should be sent no less than 120 days in advance of that
    date. It should also describe the facilities and associated service
    area and operations of the wireless licensee with sufficient detail
    to permit an evaluation by the secondary LPTV or TV translator
    operator of the likelihood of interference from the operation of the
    LPTV or TV translator station to the primary 700 MHz wireless
    service.[^148]

73. Upon receipt of such notice, the LPTV or TV translator licensee must
    cease operation of any interference-causing operation within 120
    days, unless it obtains the agreement of the primary licensee to
    continue operations.[^149] If the LPTV or TV translator licensee
    believes that its operation will not cause interference to the
    primary licensee, or if it wishes to negotiate an alternative
    arrangement, it may enter into discussions with the 700 MHz wireless
    licensee, in which both parties shall cooperate in an effort to
    resolve the potential conflict and permit continued operation of the
    secondary LPTV or TV translator station. The broadcast licensee must
    inform the 700 MHz wireless licensee of any means by which it seeks
    to resolve the potential for interference to the primary licensee.
    The secondary digital LPTV or TV translator licensee may not
    continue operations if such operations would interfere with the
    primary 700 MHz licensee's operations after the commencement or
    change to the wireless service.

74. We seek a balance for the resolution of the potential for
    interference conflicts that will neither unduly delay the rendering
    of 700 MHz wireless service, nor result in the premature disruption
    or cessation of digital LPTV or TV translator service. Based on our
    licensing experience, we expect that primary wireless and secondary
    broadcast licensees will use the notification process described
    above to resolve most potential interference conflicts before the
    commencement of 700 MHz wireless operations and without the need for
    Commission intervention. We believe that, in most cases interference
    conflicts can be resolved within this period. [^150] The secondary
    LPTV or translator licensee may ask the Commission to stay the
    effect of the interference notification and allow it to continue
    secondary operations until the matter is resolved. The Commission
    will address such requests on a case-by-case basis, but in the
    absence of a stay, we will require the digital LPTV or TV translator
    station to cease operating on its 700 MHz channel in the event the
    conflict has not been satisfactorily resolved within 120 days of
    receipt of the notice.[^151]

75. Notwithstanding the notification process described above, we note
    that a primary wireless licensee maintains the right to require that
    a secondary broadcast licensee immediately cease operations that
    cause actual interference to its operations, regardless of whether
    it has gone through the notification process. The notification
    process is intended to deal with potential interference by affording
    a primary licensee a process for initiating the clearance process
    before it actually commences service, while giving the secondary
    licensee time to move or seek a negotiated alternative.

76. *Channels 60-69*. We will limit LPTV and TV translator application
    proposals for channels 60-69 to on-channel digital conversions of
    authorized analog stations and to those related to analog or digital
    channel displacement. In the *Notice* we noted that all
    broadcasters, including LPTV and TV translator stations, are
    statutorily required to vacate the use of this spectrum after the
    full-service DTV transition ends. Digital low power operation on
    channels 60-69 must therefore cease at the end of the full-service
    DTV transition. Considering the potentially limited time stations
    could operate on these channels, we will not permit incumbent
    station permittees and licensees to seek their use as digital LPTV
    or TV translator companion channels. Further, four of the ten
    channels in this band are allocated for use by public safety
    services. We will require applicants for digital conversion on
    channels 60-69 to notify potentially affected commercial wireless
    licensees (including 700 MHz Guard Band managers) on the same basis
    as the notifications to licensees on channels 52-59.[^152] To ensure
    that secondary operations do not conflict with primary wireless
    operations, we adopt the same procedures as in channels 52-59 for
    current and future upper 700 MHz commercial licensees to provide
    notice of potential technical conflicts to digital LPTV or TV
    translator stations, and require the secondary broadcast licensee to
    cease operations within 120 days of such notice, unless the parties
    can resolve the conflict (e.g., by entering into an agreement
    permitting the continued operation of the secondary licensee) or
    until the Commission has stayed the conflict resolution process, if
    requested to do so.

77. Because of the critical nature of public safety operations, we will
    provide an additional "prior coordination" requirement for secondary
    digital low power broadcast use of channels 63, 64, 68 and 69 -- the
    TV channels comprising the upper 700 MHz spectrum allotted for
    public safety operations.[^153] Before filing their minor change
    applications at the Commission, applicants seeking use of one of
    these channels for on-channel digital conversion must successfully
    coordinate their proposed facilities with representatives of the
    potentially affected public safety entities. The purposes of this
    coordination are to prevent interference to current public safety
    operations and to establish a mechanism for eventual cessation of
    broadcast operations to avoid interference to future public safety
    operations. Because spectrum segments in each of these TV channels
    are administered separately by regional planning committees[^154]
    and states,[^155] we will require separate coordination with both
    entities. Coordination agreements may detail the conditions of the
    low power digital operations on the public safety channels,
    including provisions for cessation of broadcast operation to avoid
    interference, but may not provide for acceptance of interference by
    an entity operating on public safety channels. Coordination must be
    undertaken with the regional planning committee[^156] and state 700
    MHz spectrum administrator for the region and state within which a
    digital low power station proposes to locate and for other regions
    and states having boundaries located within 75 miles of the proposed
    digital low power station location.[^157] Within 30 days of filing
    their applications, we will also require applicants proposing
    digital conversion on a channel adjacent to channels 63, 64, 68 or
    69 to notify their proposed facilities to the pertinent regional
    planning committees and state administrators (*i.e.*, for the
    geographic region and state encompassing the proposed broadcast
    antenna site and other regions and states having boundaries located
    within 50 miles of the proposed site). Applicants must certify in
    their applications that these requirements have been met. Thus, for
    channels 63, 64, 68 and 69, obtaining affirmative coordination from
    the proper entity or entities is a prerequisite; it will not be
    sufficient to show that no party objected to the proposal. If prior
    coordination has not been successfully completed, the minor change
    application will be dismissed.[^158] Digital low power broadcast
    operations must not cause interference to public safety operations,
    and these operations must cease if such interference occurs, or in
    any event at the end of the full-service DTV transition.[^159] All
    authorizations will be so explicitly conditioned.

78. We believe the above limitations on digital low power broadcast use
    of channels 52-69 should alleviate concerns about interference and
    other impediments to wireless and public safety operations. We will
    continue to strictly enforce the secondary regulatory provisions of
    the LPTV service. In this regard, the Joint Commenters recall that
    the Commission has "consistently and aggressively reacted to any
    complaint that an LPTV station might be interfering with a primary
    service licensee."[^160] The Joint Commenters add that: "\[T\]here
    is no hesitation on that staff's part to instruct the allegedly
    offending LPTV licensee to immediately cease transmissions. This
    manner of handling primary/secondary conflicts is so consistent that
    when a primary service co-channel licensee signs on the air most
    LPTV licensees automatically sign off the air without even being
    asked to or being confronted with an allegation of
    interference."[^161] We do not believe LPTV and TV translator
    operators will be lulled, as some 700 MHz commenters suggest, into a
    false sense of security, given the history of LPTV channel
    displacement by full-service television stations.[^162] We have no
    reason not to believe that LPTV and TV translator station licensees
    will continue to honor their non-interference obligations and
    maintain the excellent interference track record of the LPTV
    service.

79. We also do not find the potential for channel displacement to be an
    impediment to limited use of channels 52-69. We agree with the CBA
    that "the scenario of secondary use and the disruption that comes
    from displacement is a necessary part of efficient and timely use of
    the spectrum and is absolutely necessary here to avoid leaving an
    undue number of Class A/LPTV stations with no realistic opportunity
    to develop service."[^163] Our licensing experience indicates that
    channel displacement is not a necessarily complicated or
    time-consuming process that would be expected to unduly delay the
    implementation of new wireless uses in the 700 MHz band.[^164] As
    NTA points out, modern LPTV and TV translator transmitters are
    frequency agile . . . "\[T\]hus a channel change need not require a
    major replacement of equipment and can be a relatively minor
    cost."[^165]

80. We acknowledge the concerns of public safety and broadband wireless
    interests about the potential issues associated with permitting
    digital LPTV and TV translators to use the 700 MHz bands; however,
    we do not agree that allowing low power broadcasters to use the 700
    MHz band on a secondary, non-interference basis for digital
    facilities would amount to an unconstitutional taking of rights from
    those wireless licensees that obtained their spectrum at
    auction.[^166] In the channel 60-69 reallocation proceeding, we
    determined to continue licensing analog low power facilities on a
    short-term, secondary basis. In the 52-59 reallocation proceeding we
    retained the discretion to cease accepting applications for
    additional LPTV and TV translator stations, but did not preclude
    altogether the filing of such applications. As APTS/PBS points out,
    the Commission had stated when it reallocated the Lower 700 MHz band
    (Channels 52-59) in 2001 that it intended to allow for some LPTV use
    of that band on a secondary basis.[^167]

81. Finally, we find that limited use of digital low power broadcasting
    on channels 52-69 will not have a negative effect on the
    full-service DTV transition, but rather will help to promote the
    overall transition for rural and underserved areas.

## Interference Protection

### Protected Digital Translator and LPTV Service Contour

82. In the *Notice* we proposed the following protected signal contour
    values for digital LPTV and TV translator stations, as calculated
    from the F(50,90) propagation method in Section 73.625(b)(1) of our
    rules: 43 dBu for stations on channels 2 -- 6, 48 dBu for stations
    on channels 7 -- 13, and 51 dBu for stations on channels 14 --
    69.[^168] These are the values we had previously adopted for the
    digital Class A TV service.[^169] We chose digital Class A TV
    station protected contour values that reflected the differences
    between analog LPTV and full-service TV station protected contours,
    reasoning that these values would yield digital Class A service
    areas comparable in size to analog Class A TV stations' service
    areas, which would also permit the operation of co-channel stations
    at closer distances, increasing opportunities for new digital Class
    A, LPTV, and TV translator stations. We indicated that the rationale
    for selecting the digital Class A protected contour values also
    should apply to digital LPTV and TV translator stations because
    Class A TV stations started as LPTV stations and operate under the
    same effective radiated power limits and many of the same
    interference protection criteria as LPTV stations. We also sought
    comment on our belief that these values continue to be appropriate
    for digital Class A TV stations.

83. Among others, NTA, AFCCE, and Parsons agree that the protected
    contours for each frequency band as proposed in the *Notice* are
    appropriate.[^170] No commenter opposed these values, suggests any
    other values, or suggests changing the current values for digital
    Class A TV stations. For the reasons described in the *Notice*, we
    are adopting our proposed values for digital LPTV and TV translator
    station protected signal contours, and we are re-affirming the same
    values for digital Class A TV stations.

### Protection Standards and Methodology \-- Broadcast Station Protection

84. In the *Notice* we discussed the need to balance providing spectrum
    opportunities for low power digital service and ensuring adequate
    protection to authorized broadcast services. We wish to explore
    every means of maximizing channel use for digital LPTV and
    translator service, recognizing that TV channel availability is
    limited in much of the country. In addition, however, the service of
    full-service and low power broadcast stations must be protected, and
    we seek to minimize instances of interference caused by LPTV and TV
    translator stations.

85. Applications for analog LPTV and TV translator stations must satisfy
    interference prediction criteria that depend on the nature of the
    station being protected and the channel relationship between the
    proposed and protected stations.[^171] Most commonly, predicted
    field strengths of a proposed station must not exceed values that
    would cause certain desired-to-undesired ("D/U") signal strength
    ratios to be exceeded at locations along another station's protected
    contour ("contour overlap methodology"). Application acceptance
    standards for potential interference from analog and digital Class A
    TV facilities to DTV service require the service population within a
    DTV station's noise-limited contour to be protected using the same
    approach as applicants for proposed full-service TV and DTV
    facilities use to analyze potential interference to DTV service
    ("DTV methodology" or "OET 69 method"). Unlike DTV broadcast
    stations, Class A TV and digital Class A TV stations are not
    permitted to cause *de minimis* levels of DTV service population
    reduction other than a 0.5% rounding allowance.[^172]

#### Desired-to-Undesired ("D/U") Signal Strength Ratios 

86. In the *Notice* we proposed to base standards for accepting digital
    LPTV and TV translator station application proposals on D/U
    protection ratios for analysis of predicted interference to and from
    digital LPTV and TV translator stations. We reasoned that D/U ratios
    provide an accurate basis for interference analyses, and that
    D/U-based approaches facilitate efficient spectrum use by taking
    into account such factors as the characteristics of directional
    transmitting and receiving antennas and the effects of terrain on
    the propagation of the signals from both the desired and undesired
    stations. We specifically proposed to apply the co-channel D/U
    ratios for "DTV-into-analog TV," "Analog TV-into-DTV" and
    "DTV-into-DTV" given in Section 73.623(c)(2); the DTV-to-DTV
    co-channel adjustment formula and analog-to-DTV co-channel
    adjustment table given in Section 73.623(c)(3); and the
    "DTV-into-analog TV" D/U ratios given for the following channel
    relationships: N-2, N+2, N-3, N+3, N-4, N+4, N-7, N+7, N-8, N+8,
    N+14 and N+15 (collectively, the "UHF taboo" channel
    relationships).[^173]

87. Commenters generally support our proposals. For example, AFCCE and
    Greg Best support providing protection based on D/U ratios to
    full-service and LPTV/TV translators.[^174] These commenters also
    agree with the using the D/U ratios as proposed for co-channel
    situations.[^175] Sgrignoli generally supports the D/U ratios for
    taboo channel relationships, but points out a discrepancy between
    the rules and OET Bulletin 69 for the N+7 taboo.[^176] In addition,
    dLR supports use of the D/U ratios of 73.623(c) for determining
    interference protection from digital LPTV and TV translator
    stations.[^177] In urging that our interference prediction
    methodology not rely solely on D/U ratios, MSTV/NAB submits that the
    D/U ratios used to develop the DTV Allotment Table "were based on
    limited and incomplete data, and a single prototype DTV receiver was
    used to develop these ratios."[^178] MSTV/NAB notes that the
    broadcast and consumer electronics industries are working through
    the Advanced Television Systems Committee ("ATSC") to recommend DTV
    receiver performance standards to the Commission that would assist
    in refining the initial D/U ratios.[^179]

88. For the reasons described in the *Notice*, we are adopting our
    proposed D/U ratio values for digital LPTV and TV translator
    stations protecting co-channel and UHF-taboo-channel-related
    stations. These values from Section 73.623 of our rules are the ones
    we use for full-service DTV interference analysis with respect to
    these channel relationships. The current version of OET Bulletin 69
    has corrected the N+7 D/U ratio, and it now matches our rule.[^180]
    With regard to the concern of MSTV/NAB, the D/U ratios in our rules
    have been consistently used to analyze TV and DTV broadcast station
    proposals. These ratios have also been applied to study requests to
    waive the LPTV and TV interference protection criteria using OET-69
    interference prediction methods. We are not persuaded that it would
    be inappropriate to apply D/U ratios in our DTV rules to the
    analysis of digital station proposals in the LPTV service. If we
    revise these ratios for purposes of interference protection among TV
    and DTV broadcast stations, we will consider amending our LPTV
    interference rules accordingly.

#### First Adjacent Channel Ratios 

89. In the *Notice* we proposed that analog LPTV and TV translator
    station proposals protect first adjacent channel digital LPTV and TV
    translator stations based on the D/U values given in Section
    73.623(c)(2) of the rules (-48 dB for "Lower analog TV-into-DTV" and
    -49 dB for "Upper analog TV-into-DTV").[^181] For digital LPTV and
    TV translator protection to first adjacent channel analog and
    digital stations, we sought comments on alternatives to the D/U
    ratios in our DTV rules (-14 dB for Lower DTV-into-analog TV, -17 dB
    for Upper DTV-into-analog TV, -28 dB for Lower DTV-into-DTV, and -26
    dB for Upper DTV-into-DTV). Alternatives were described, based on
    the "Sgrignoli Paper," on the effects of DTV transmitted "sideband
    splatter" into adjacent channel NTSC analog and DTV signals.[^182]
    That paper derived first adjacent channel D/U ratios based on
    digital TV translator use of two proposed out-of-band spectral
    emission masks referred to as the "Simple" and "Stringent" masks
    (Simple: 10 dB for DTV- into- Analog and -7 dB for DTV- into- DTV;
    Stringent: 0 dB for DTV- into- Analog and -12 dB for DTV- into-
    DTV). We noted that the more restrictive D/U ratios are associated
    with the less restrictive emission mask. We also asked whether
    selected first adjacent channel ratios and related emission masks
    should be applied to digital Class A TV stations and whether there
    are processing implications that would complicate record-keeping and
    interference analysis if applicants are required to specify one of
    multiple mask options in their applications. We tentatively
    concluded that under such circumstances, stations seeking to change
    their mask would be required to file a minor change application to
    modify their authorizations.

90. Commenters generally support our proposals. Sgrignoli suggests that
    the analog-into-DTV adjacent channel ratios are not being regularly
    met by DTV receivers and were developed without accounting for
    "splatter." He argues that using -43 dB for both upper and lower
    adjacent channels would be more conservative and would more reliably
    protect against interference.[^183] Greg Best argues that the
    adjacent channel analysis provided by the Sgrignoli paper should
    only apply to co-located adjacent channel situations.[^184] Venture
    proposes use of the DTV-into-DTV adjacent channel D/U ratios in our
    DTV rules where stations would use sufficient out-of-channel
    emission filtering.[^185]

91. As proposed, we will use the first adjacent channel D/U ratio values
    in Section 73.623 of our DTV rules for analog LPTV and TV translator
    station protection of digital LPTV and TV translator stations. These
    values are consistently used for determining interference between
    all combinations of full-service TV and Class A TV stations. For
    digital stations protecting analog and digital first adjacent
    channel stations, our decision to allow a station to elect its
    emission mask compels us to specify different D/U ratios based on
    the elected mask. The values derived in the Sgrignoli paper are the
    only documented option. We recognize that these values may be more
    conservative than necessary in certain circumstances and reserve the
    right to re-visit this issue based on our experience authorizing
    service and the actual operation of stations authorized under these
    criteria. These ratios (and the associated emission masks), however,
    would appear to be well suited to accommodate co-sited operations
    involving use of first adjacent channels, a situation we believe
    will occur extensively at TV translator installations. Accordingly,
    we will require applicants to specify the emission mask they will
    comply with, and we will require the use of the following D/U ratios
    based on the specified mask:

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
                          DTV into Analog         DTV into DTV

  Simple Mask             10 dB                   -7 dB

  Stringent Mask          0 dB                    -12 dB
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

92. As discussed *infra*, we will make some accommodation to station
    operators converting existing analog transmitters for "on-channel"
    digital operation where the analog transmitter falls short of the
    Simple Mask (i.e., at the mask "shoulders"), due to limitations of
    the transmitter's RF power amplifier. In this event, we will apply
    the adjacent channel D/U ratios for the Simple Mask.

#### Interference Prediction Methodology 

93. In the *Notice* we sought comment on the appropriate methodology for
    interference analysis to be used in the application process for
    accepting digital LPTV and TV translator applications.[^186] One
    possible choice would be the contour protection approach now used to
    evaluate analog LPTV and TV translator station proposals. We
    proposed to clarify that for digital proposals we would use the
    Commission's F(50,90) propagation method in lieu of the F(50,50)
    curves to determine distances to the protected contours of digital
    stations, and that F(50,10) curves would be used to locate all
    digital interference contours.[^187] While our use of contour
    overlap methodology has resulted in very little reported
    interference to over-the-air broadcast reception, we noted that it
    has shortcomings that could result in fewer opportunities for
    digital LPTV and TV translator service. The shortcomings include
    incomplete consideration of terrain effects on signal propagation,
    not considering locations inside the protected contour where
    interference might occur despite protection being afforded along the
    contour, not considering the effects of interference predicted from
    other stations (interference "masking"), not accounting for the
    directional signal attenuation characteristics of outdoor receiving
    antennas, and not making any allowance for signal attenuation
    characteristics of transmitting antennas in the vertical plane.

94. As a preferred alternative to the contour overlap approach, we
    sought comment on basing application acceptance on our DTV
    interference prediction methodology.[^188] We noted that use of the
    DTV methodology is permitted to support analog LPTV waiver requests
    and in the Class A TV service to protect authorized and allotted DTV
    facilities.[^189] We noted that the DTV methodology overcomes the
    shortcomings we identified with the contour overlap methodology.

95. We suggested that this proceeding is an appropriate time to follow
    through on a 1997 Commission statement in the DTV proceeding that,
    in the future, we would consider changing the LPTV and TV translator
    application acceptance criteria to reflect the DTV service
    approach.[^190] Our DTV prediction methods and computer model have
    been used for several years in the regular processing of
    applications for DTV and NTSC TV facilities, as well as in the
    evaluation of requests by LPTV and TV translator applicants to waive
    the contour protection standards. Most long-form applications filed
    in the most recent LPTV filing window (August 2000) requested
    waivers based on OET-69 type interference analysis. Thus,
    engineering consultants appear to be prepared to use the DTV
    interference prediction methods for digital TV translator and LPTV
    operations.

96. In connection with the possible adoption of DTV methodology, we
    sought comment on necessary revisions for digital LPTV and TV
    translator interference analyses, especially whether using the
    standard vertical antenna pattern assumed in OET Bulletin 69 is
    appropriate for analysis of digital and analog LPTV and TV
    translator stations.[^191] Our concern included some areas close to
    the LPTV or TV translator stations' towers that would not be
    predicted to be served by those stations, possibly including the
    main community. We observed that if service is not predicted,
    protection from interference is not afforded. We also expressed
    concern about possible under-prediction of the interference impact
    to other LPTV and translator stations as well as to full-service
    analog and DTV stations on adjacent channels. We also sought comment
    on the extent of antenna beam tilting by LPTV and translator
    stations and its importance as an input to the interference
    prediction model. Finally, we sought comment on whether we should
    consider using the DTV methodology for analog LPTV, TV translator,
    and Class A TV application acceptance studies. We also asked how to
    deal with the possibility of making changes to protection standards
    currently based on minimum distance separations.[^192]

97. CBA and NTA each suggests that the present system be retained, where
    a prohibition of overlap between interfering and protected contours
    is established as the initial test, and the terrain-based OET
    Bulletin 69/Longley-Rice method is available when the contour method
    produces an unnecessarily restrictive result.[^193] They contend
    that the Longley-Rice method may be more precise, but the contour
    method is easier and less expensive for those who do not need a more
    sophisticated approach. Whether or not the contour overlap approach
    is abandoned, CBA urges that Longley-Rice should be recognized as an
    acceptable approach for any applicant who wants to use it, without
    having to request a rule waiver. NTA agrees.[^194] AFCCE believes
    the OET-69 interference prediction methodology using the Longley
    Rice propagation model should be used instead of the previously used
    contour method.[^195] Greg Best agrees because widely varying
    terrain is not effectively considered using the contour
    method.[^196] Some parties support use of different methodologies in
    different circumstances; for example, contours in rural areas and
    DTV methodology in urban areas.[^197] Fox urges that the contour
    method should be replaced with the TIREM model and not OET-69.[^198]

98. Some parties urge changes to the methodology to make the protection
    requirements more restrictive. For example, MSTV/NAB requests that
    interference standards for protecting full-service stations be
    revised by updating the D/U ratios, not allowing digital LPTV or TV
    translator stations within the noise-limited contour of any
    full-service analog or digital station on the same channel or a
    first adjacent channel and not allowing (in the UHF band) digital
    LPTV and TV translator stations within 31 km of the noise-limited
    contour of a full-service station if operating on the +/- 2nd, 3rd,
    4th, 7th or 8th adjacent channels or within 48 km if operating on
    +/- 14th or 15th channels.[^199] Brey urges that full-service DTV
    stations should be protected from interference by digital Class A,
    LPTV, translator, and booster stations to the limits of the DTV
    stations' actual coverage.[^200] Renard suggests that contour
    interference should not include consideration of directional
    receiving antenna characteristics and that OET-69 should not be
    modified to account for intermodulation interference.[^201]

99. On the other hand, Joint Commenters suggest eliminating the UHF
    taboos for +/- 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th channel for the protection
    of analog stations by digital stations.[^202] Similarly, several
    commenters suggest applying the full-service DTV 2% / 10% *de
    minimis* interference standard to the interference caused by digital
    LPTV and TV translator stations, or at least among digital stations
    in the LPTV service.[^203] CBA also suggests that areas already
    receiving interference should be disregarded in determining whether
    new interference will be caused (known as "masking"), and the
    directional characteristics of over-the-air receiving antennas
    should be recognized.[^204] NTA suggests that stations that already
    accept 10% or more interference before the new application is
    considered should have the predicted new interference amount rounded
    to the nearest whole percent, allowing less than 0.5% and specifying
    the full percent rounding in the rule.[^205] AFCCE believes that a
    2% *de minimis* interference standard should be applied from digital
    LPTV and TV translator stations to Class A TV, LPTV, and TV
    translator stations, analog or digital; full-service DTV stations
    also should be permitted a 2% *de minimis* interference standard
    with respect to protection of Class A TV stations.[^206] AFCCE and
    dLR believe the use of a 1 square kilometer grid resolution should
    be the maximum permitted in evaluating the interference to Class A,
    LPTV, and TV translator facilities, whose smaller service areas
    require a finer grid resolution analysis.

100. With regard to vertical antenna patterns, CBA supports realistic
     interference calculations but does believe that it is important not
     to take the level of detail beyond what is readily available in
     reasonably priced computer software that will run on commonly used
     computers.[^207] NTA expresses concern that the FCC's
     implementation of the OET Bulletin 69 procedures allows for only
     one assumed vertical pattern for each frequency band and type of
     transmission, chosen to be representative of the vertical patterns
     of the antennas used by full-service stations, and that it is not
     possible to specify the actual beam tilt of either a proposed or
     target station.[^208] NTA and other commenters urge accommodation
     of actual vertical antenna patterns and request that the electrical
     and mechanical beam tilt, if any, should be specified in the
     application and utilized in the analysis.[^209] If this is not
     possible, NTA suggests that we establish three standard vertical
     patterns for each band -- broad, medium, and narrow \-- and require
     LPTV and translator applicants to specify which vertical pattern is
     closest to the antenna they will use.[^210] Alternatively, NTA
     suggests that the several vertical patterns be developed by
     industry consensus outside the rulemaking proceeding and
     incorporated into OET Bulletin 69. AFCCE suggests establishing a
     default vertical plane radiation pattern for situations where a
     custom vertical pattern is not specified.[^211] MSTV/NAB wants
     OET-69 expanded with respect to use of vertical antenna
     patterns.[^212] Joint Commenters oppose the use of beam tilt and
     vertical patterns in interference calculations.[^213]

101. AFCCE believes that the OET-69 interference method should be
     adopted for analog LPTV, TV translator, and Class A analyses to
     mitigate the concerns of unequal treatment.[^214] Greg Best
     believes that the Longley-Rice interference method should be
     adopted for analog LPTV and TV translator analyses as well as
     digital and analog Class A TV analyses.[^215] dLR requests that
     OET-69 methodology be applied to analog LPTV and TV translators
     (grandfathering existing stations) and modified to include
     intermodulation interference, while Joint Commenters oppose
     incorporating intermodulation interference.[^216] Cox/Liberty
     opposes any change in protection of full-service stations by LPTV
     and TV translator stations.[^217] Paxson opposes using the 2% *de
     minimis* interference standard for LPTV, Class A TV, and TV
     translator protection of full-service stations.[^218]

102. The use of a single interference prediction methodology is
     preferable; based on the record, it is apparent that it should be
     the DTV methodology. This methodology is widely available and has
     been employed extensively for full-service TV and DTV application
     processing. All parties support allowing use of the DTV methodology
     -- either as a standard approach or at least with regard to rule
     waiver submissions - and it provides more accurate results. To the
     extent that an application proposal might pass a contour overlap
     analysis but fail a DTV methodology analysis, we do not believe the
     public would be served by approving such a facility.

103. Further, it would be inappropriate to allow these secondary service
     stations to be authorized on the basis of the full-service DTV *de
     minimis* criteria (2% / 10%) to determine unacceptable predicted
     interference to full-service analog and DTV stations. Instead we
     conclude that the tolerance we have established elsewhere for "no
     interference" (being less than 0.5%) is an appropriate standard
     here. In the full-service context, the benefit offsetting the loss
     of service to interference was the flexibility to construct DTV
     stations more quickly in order to start the DTV transition and, in
     most cases, the ability to provide new DTV service to a
     substantially larger number of viewers. In the digital LPTV and TV
     translator context, the entire new service area may contain fewer
     people than the 2% of the population served by the interfered-with
     full-service station. We agree, however, that the 2% criteria is
     appropriate for protection of other secondary services (*i.e.*,
     analog and digital LPTV and TV translator stations). The 2%
     criteria applied between low power stations involve much less
     interference than in protecting a full-service station, and the 2%
     criteria will allow proposed new digital low power stations
     flexibility to serve more people. In this regard and others
     (*e.g.,* 1 km maximum grid resolution), we are largely adopting the
     AFCCE recommendations for analysis of digital LPTV and TV
     translator station proposals. We will also permit digital Class A
     stations to protect digital LPTV and TV translator stations on the
     same basis. Because of their technical similarities to digital LPTV
     stations, we will amend the Class A rules to specify that
     application acceptance studies of digital Class A applications will
     be based on the DTV interference prediction methodology, as adapted
     for study of digital LPTV and TV translator applications.

104. Regarding vertical radiation patterns, we are hesitant to make the
     digital LPTV/TV translator procedures significantly more
     complicated than those for full-service stations (*i.e.*, by
     considering use of vertical patterns of the transmitting antennas
     proposed in station applications). If in the future we develop an
     ability to account for actual vertical radiation patterns and
     related beam tilt in the full-service DTV context, we will consider
     applying that ability in the digital LPTV and TV translator
     context. We remain convinced that the assumed vertical patterns in
     Table 8 of OET Bulletin 69 are not appropriate for LPTV and TV
     translator stations, but based on the record before us, we do not
     have suitable replacement patterns to adopt. As a temporary
     measure, we will assume (for predicting both service and
     interference) that the downward relative field strengths for
     digital and analog LPTV and TV translator stations, and digital and
     analog Class A TV stations is double the values specified in OET
     Bulletin 69, Table 8, up to a maximum of 1.000.[^219] We are
     inclined to adopt a revised procedure in the future if parties
     develop and propose realistic alternative vertical patterns,
     including the shifting of relative field strength values to account
     for electrical antenna beam tilting.

105. For processing analog LPTV, TV translator, and Class A TV
     applications, we will continue to allow contour overlap analysis,
     but specifically also allow an optional showing based on DTV
     methodology without a requirement to seek a rule waiver. Based on
     the record in this proceeding, we are not prepared to replace the
     analog spacing requirements with DTV methodology standards.

#### Interference Agreements 

106. In the *Notice* we noted that interference agreements that
     supercede compliance with the LPTV interference protection
     standards are permitted among LPTV, TV translator, and Class A TV
     stations.[^220] Additionally, we noted that applications for LPTV
     and translator facilities predicted to interfere with full-service
     stations may be granted with the written consent of the affected
     stations and that such consent does not obviate the responsibility
     of the LPTV or translator station to eliminate interference caused
     to over-the-air reception of the full-service station, wherever its
     signal is regularly viewed. We sought comment on applying these
     provisions to digital LPTV and TV translator stations.

107. Several parties support continuing to accept interference
     agreements between the concerned parties.[^221] MSTV/NAB opposes
     interference agreements among digital LPTV and TV translator
     stations or between them and full-service stations, expressing
     concern that interference agreements between two parties could
     adversely affect third parties that are not involved in the
     agreement.[^222] On balance, we believe that permitting
     interference agreements for these stations will provide a useful
     means of accommodating technical and non-technical local
     conditions. Fundamentally, these will be secondary stations,
     required to accept interference from, and not cause it to, primary
     stations. MSTV/NAB has not indicated how an interference agreement
     between two stations in the LPTV service could adversely impact a
     full-service broadcaster. Indeed, the increased risk of
     interference to others attributable to interference agreements will
     be negligible and, as with other situations where we have allowed
     interference agreements, we retain the discretion to disapprove
     agreements that do not serve the public interest.[^223]

#### Co-located Operation on Adjacent Channels 

108. In the *Notice* we pointed out that the analog contour protection
     standards do not allow a new or modified LPTV or TV translator
     station to be located within the protected contour of a TV
     broadcast, LPTV, TV translator, or Class A TV station on a first
     adjacent channel or the fourteenth or fifteenth channel above that
     of the potentially affected station.[^224] As we sought ways to
     assist LPTV and TV translator operators displaced by new DTV
     services, we also stated that we would consider co-located or
     "nearly co-located" waiver requests where applicants could
     demonstrate that such stations' replacement channel proposals would
     not cause any new interference.[^225] We also noted in the *Notice*
     that co-locating adjacent channel operations may offer one of the
     most promising opportunities for identifying available channels for
     digital TV translator and LPTV service.[^226]

109. We sought comment on proposals related to co-located adjacent
     channel operations involving digital LPTV and TV translator
     stations, including the first adjacent channel to DTV and analog TV
     and the following channel relationships to analog TV channels,
     where N is the analog channel: N-2, N+2, N-3, N+3, N-4, N+4, N-7,
     N+7, N-8, N+8, N+14, N+15. We indicated that the DTV methodology
     permits interference analysis of such proposals for co-located
     operations so a waiver of the LPTV interference rules would not be
     necessary, but we also sought comment on whether we should require
     a waiver showing, for example, to account for the transmitting
     antenna vertical radiation pattern concerns expressed above. We
     suggested that if the existing contour protection methodology is
     selected, considering co-located adjacent channel operations on a
     waiver basis would seem to be appropriate. In either case, we
     proposed permitting co-located adjacent operations on the basis of
     written agreements among the affected parties. We also asked
     whether the term "co-located" should include only transmitting
     antennas located on the same tower or other supporting structure
     or, alternatively, on structures located within a particular
     proximity and whether we should limit co-location to particular
     classes of adjacent channel station, such as only to LPTV and/or TV
     translator stations.

110. CBA suggests that collocation of first adjacent channel stations
     should be permitted where their power and antenna patterns do not
     diverge greatly.[^227] AFCCE agrees with waiving rules to allow
     operation on an adjacent channel to an analog station provided the
     relevant D/U ratios are satisfied, OET-69 methodology is employed,
     and the stations are located within 2 kilometers of each
     other.[^228] Other commenters support co-located adjacent channel
     operations and suggest that we consider stations to be co-located
     that are geographically separated by distances ranging from 2 to 10
     kilometers.[^229] As discussed above, MSTV/NAB opposes allowing
     digital LPTV and TV translator stations within the noise-limited
     contour of first adjacent-channel analog and digital full-service
     stations.[^230]

111. As discussed above, we are adopting the DTV methodology for
     determining whether digital LPTV and TV translator proposals
     adequately protect authorized stations from interference. The
     interference protection provided by the DTV methodology with
     respect to any co-located (at whatever separation distance)
     facilities renders additional restrictions unnecessary. Moreover,
     LPTV operations on a channel adjacent to a full-service analog or
     digital TV station will usually be avoided because the higher power
     full-service station has a much greater chance of interfering with
     the LPTV or TV translator service than vice versa. In addition, the
     LPTV or TV translator remains secondary. Under the circumstances
     and recognizing the conservative nature of the adjacent channel D/U
     ratios discussed above, the prohibition MSTV/NAB seeks is
     unnecessary.

#### Carrier Frequency Control and Offset 

112. "\[W\]here a low power television station or TV translator station
     is operating on the lower adjacent channel within 32 km of the DTV
     station and notifies the DTV station that it intends to minimize
     interference by precisely maintaining its carrier frequencies, the
     DTV station shall cooperate in locking its carrier frequency to a
     common reference frequency and shall be responsible for any costs
     relating to is own transmission system in complying with this
     provision."[^231] While full-service DTV broadcasters are required
     to maintain a precise frequency separation between their 8VSB pilot
     frequency and the visual carrier frequency of any nearby lower
     adjacent channel analog TV station, we sought comment in the
     *Notice* on whether we should extend this requirement to digital
     and lower first adjacent channel analog LPTV and TV translator
     stations within some geographic proximity.

113. We also sought comment on any other technical means for
     demonstrating interference avoidance that could facilitate channel
     availability for digital LPTV and TV translator service without
     compromising the interference protection rights of other stations.
     In that regard, we asked about other changes to our LPTV service
     interference protection rules that could provide additional
     spectrum opportunities without unduly risking impermissible
     interference such as, for example, requiring all analog LPTV and TV
     translator stations to operate with a frequency offset.[^232]
     Analog Class A TV stations are required to operate with a frequency
     offset.

114. Greg Best believes locking the DTV pilot to the visual carrier of a
     lower first adjacent analog station is not worth the benefit
     gained, due to a combination of the lower output powers of analog
     LPTV and translator stations and the relatively high expense
     involved.[^233] Describing the results of ATTC tests of the "color
     beat" that led to this requirement, Gary Sgrignoli notes that this
     TV picture impairment affected some TV sets (but not all) and that
     it was most noticeable at large interfering signal levels. He
     suggests that if the D/U ratios within a station's service area are
     sufficiently large ("DTV signal much lower than NTSC by at last 10
     dB), the color beat effect should not be a problem, even without
     any DTV pilot carrier frequency offset."[^234]

115. CBA suggests the time has come to require mandatory frequency
     offset as a way to minimize interference because the spectrum is
     becoming crowded, decreasing the justification for allowing
     stations to operate without offset.[^235] CBA suggests that where
     an applicant is constrained because another station does not
     operate with offset, the applicant should be permitted to offer to
     pay for the cost of offset equipment. If the other station does not
     accept the offer, then CBA suggests that station should be required
     to accept the resulting interference. CBA argues there should also
     come a point when the acceptance and installation of offset
     equipment should become mandatory because the existing station may
     cause serious interference to the applicant that could be avoided
     by offset. CBA also urges that the Commission immediately forbid
     the installation of any new or replacement transmitter or exciter
     that does not incorporate the capacity for offset.[^236] Several
     other commenters agree.[^237] Parsons, on the other hand, claims a
     requirement for all TV translator stations to operate with a
     frequency offset would be an economical disaster and would very
     rarely be needed in the rural environment.[^238] Joint Commenters
     indicate that frequency offsets should be required in urban areas,
     but not in rural areas.[^239]

116. First, we conclude that the burden of requiring a digital LPTV or
     TV translator licensee to maintain the pilot frequency of its 8-VSB
     DTV signal to a specified offset with respect to the visual carrier
     of an analog LPTV or TV translator station on the lower first
     adjacent channel is not supported by the record. Such a requirement
     would be unlikely to significantly improve the service quality or
     coverage of the analog station. If a situation develops where there
     appears to be more adjacent channel interference than expected to
     the service of a lower first adjacent channel analog station, we
     encourage the licensees to cooperate in efforts to reduce the
     interference by attempting to achieve and maintain a more desirable
     frequency offset between the DTV pilot and the analog TV visual
     carrier.

117. Where analog LPTV and TV translator stations operating without a
     nominal frequency offset prevent the proposed service of a new or
     modified LPTV, TV translator or Class A station, we agree that the
     time has come to require that station to maintain a designated
     offset. Where non-offset stations are so remotely located that no
     additional service proposals would be obstructed, we also agree
     that the expense of installing "offset" equipment would be
     unnecessary. We address only the situation where protection of an
     existing analog LPTV or translator station without a frequency
     offset (*i.e.*, plus 10 KHz, minus 10 kHz or zero) would render an
     application proposal specifying an offset unacceptable for filing.
     In this situation, the proposed facilities will be analyzed with
     respect to co-channel "non offset" stations based on both the 45 dB
     D/U ratio applicable for non offset operations and the 28 dB D/U
     ratio that applies in the analysis of stations specifying different
     offsets.[^240] In such cases, the application proposal will be
     considered acceptable if it provides adequate protection based on
     the 28 dB "offset" D/U ratio. The existing non-offset station will
     then be required to install at its expense offset equipment and
     notify us that it has done so or, alternatively, that it has
     reached an interference agreement with the new station.[^241] In
     the event the existing station does not cooperate in this regard,
     we will direct it to operate with a frequency offset different than
     that specified in the application proposal.[^242]

#### Protection of Land Mobile Radio and Other Primary Services

118. As explained in the *Notice*, LPTV and TV translator stations are
     authorized on a secondary non-interfering basis to certain land
     mobile operations and other primary services. These include public
     safety and other new wireless services that are operating or will
     operate in the spectrum comprising TV channels 52 -- 69.[^243] With
     regard to digital LPTV and TV translator operations, we did not
     propose to alter the interference priorities and remediation
     provisions identified in our rules.

119. Section 74.709 of our rules specifies criteria for protecting land
     mobile radio operations on TV channels 14-20 in the vicinity of 13
     large cities. Generally, an application for a new or modified LPTV
     or TV translator facility will not be accepted if it proposes (1) a
     transmitting antenna site on a co-channel or first adjacent channel
     within 130 km of these cities, or (2) the proposed LPTV or
     translator facilities would produce a field strength exceeding 52
     dBu at the protected contour (generally extending the 130-km
     distance) of a co-channel land mobile assignment or 76 dBu at the
     protected contour of a first adjacent channel land mobile
     assignment.[^244] We requested comment on the suitability of these
     protection requirements for digital LPTV, TV translator, and Class
     A TV stations.

120. We also proposed to subject digital LPTV, Class A, and TV
     translator digital stations to the requirements of Section 73.1030,
     which requires that applicants for authority to construct a new
     station in the vicinity of radio astronomy, research, and certain
     receiving installations, such as FCC monitoring stations and the
     Department of Commerce's radio receiving zone on Table Mountain,
     Colorado, notify the affected installation(s) and give
     consideration to providing protection to the installation(s)
     against interference.[^245] In addition, we requested comment on
     whether it might be appropriate to subject digital low power
     television stations to those requirements only with regard to the
     more sensitive operations of the radio astronomy observatories at
     Green Bank, West Virginia, and Arecibo, Puerto Rico.[^246] In this
     regard, we also observed that digital low power television stations
     will operate with much lower ERP levels than full-service DTV
     stations and therefore would appear to pose less of a concern for
     radio receiving sites and FCC monitoring stations.

121. APCO urges that we re-examine the adequacy of our current
     interference rules for protecting land mobile operations from DTV,
     stating that some DTV stations have caused interference to public
     safety land mobile operations in the 470 to 512 MHz band.[^247]
     Other parties that oppose digital translator and LPTV station use
     of channels 52-69 also question how protection would be afforded to
     new primary licensees on those frequencies.[^248] Otherwise,
     commenters did not address the related issues raised in the
     *Notice*.

122. As proposed, we will require digital LPTV, TV translator, and Class
     A TV stations to comply with the requirements of Section 73.1030 of
     the rules concerning interference to radio astronomy, research and
     receiving installations. We will also require compliance with the
     criteria specified in Section 74.709 of the rules for protecting
     land mobile radio operations on TV channels 14-20 in the vicinity
     of 13 large cities. While we are aware of indications that some DTV
     stations may be causing some interference to land mobile operations
     on channels 14-20, those situations involve full-service DTV
     stations. The criteria we are adopting herein come from our rules
     for the LPTV and TV translator services (*e.g.*, ERP limits). In
     addition, digital LPTV and TV translator stations will have a
     secondary status that will require the correction of interference
     to a primary service (including mobile operations) even if that
     means the secondary station must cease operating in order to
     eliminate the interference.

123. We have concluded that it is necessary to permit limited operation
     of digital translator and LPTV stations in the 700 MHz bands. Such
     operations will result from the digital conversion of stations'
     authorized analog channels and, to a lesser extent, from operations
     on digital companion channels. As a result, it is likely that some
     stations will seek temporary operations on spectrum that has been
     licensed to new wireless service providers or the immediately
     adjacent spectrum. Some of these stations may be located within the
     geographic service boundaries of a wireless licensee, while others
     may be located at some distance beyond the boundaries. We have
     permitted wireless licensees substantial flexibility to provide a
     variety of communications services involving both fixed-station and
     mobile/portable operations, employing a wide range of signal
     architectures and modulation formats. In light of this service
     flexibility, we decline here to develop specific interference
     prediction criteria from which to protect wireless operations from
     digital stations in the low power television service.

124. We make clear, nonetheless, that any interference caused by a
     digital LPTV or TV translator station to public safety operations
     or the services provided by commercial or public safety wireless
     licensees in the 700 MHz bands must be eliminated, and that the
     offending LPTV or translator station must cease operation
     immediately upon notification by any primary wireless licensees and
     once it has been established that the LPTV or translator station is
     causing the interference. We will add these provisions to our LPTV
     rules (Section 74.703). We will also place a special condition on
     all digital construction permits and licenses for channels 52-69,
     reminding permittees and licensees of their interference
     remediation responsibilities.

125. We are requiring applicants for digital LPTV or TV translator
     station operations on channels 52-69 to meet certain notification
     and coordination requirements with respect to public safety and
     commercial licensees whose operations could be potentially affected
     by interference from the proposed digital television facilities. We
     believe the requirements are conservative, considering that for
     many stations, the radio horizon for their facilities will fall
     well short of the distances we are adopting. Also, the substantial
     out-of-channel emission attenuation requirements we are adopting
     for digital low power stations should substantially mitigate the
     potential for adjacent channel interference. To avoid wasted
     expenditure of time and resources, we are requiring applicants for
     all digital LPTV and TV translator stations to notify all
     potentially affected wireless licensees prior to applying for
     digital facilities. Moreover, we are requiring the coordinated-use
     of agreements for applicants proposing to operate digital LPTV or
     translator stations on the public safety-designated spectrum
     (*i.e*., TV channels 63, 64, 68 and 69).

126. As proposed in the *Notice*, we will extend to digital LPTV and TV
     translator station operations all of the interference remediation
     provisions in Section 74.703 applicable to analog LPTV service
     stations.

## Authorization of Digital LPTV and TV Translator Stations

### On-Channel Digital Conversions

127. In the *Notice* we stated that some licensees of analog LPTV and TV
     translator stations may wish to convert to digital operations
     ("flash-cut") on their authorized channels.[^249] We sought comment
     whether to authorize an on-channel digital conversion as a "minor"
     facilities change provided: (1) the proposed digital facility would
     not involve a channel change not related to channel displacement,
     and (2) the protected digital signal contour of the proposed
     facility would overlap some portion of the protected contour based
     on the station's analog authorization.[^250] We proposed that,
     consistent with our rules for analog minor change applications, we
     would grant on-channel digital conversion applications on a
     first-come, first-served basis under the current processing
     procedures.[^251]

128. We sought comment on whether on-channel digital conversion
     applications having predicted interference conflicts with other
     applications filed the same day would be mutually exclusive and
     whether such mutually exclusive applications would be subject to
     the auction process. We also sought comment on how to resolve
     mutually exclusive digital conversion and channel displacement
     relief applications. We noted that displacement applications are
     accorded a higher priority than applications for new or modified
     facilities, regardless of which application was filed
     earlier.[^252] We asked whether a digital conversion application
     should be subject to dismissal if it becomes mutually exclusive
     with a displacement application of an analog or digital LPTV, TV
     Translator or Class A licensee or permittee.[^253]

129. Those commenters that supported allowing low power broadcasters to
     seek digital facilities also supported our proposal to permit
     incumbent station operators to flash-cut to digital on their
     existing channel by filing a digital conversion application.[^254]
     Bonneville states that on-channel digital conversion, "where it is
     necessary and appropriate, is spectrally efficient because the
     operator requires no additional spectrum to transition to digital
     service."[^255] Bonneville also points out that such a digital
     conversion is more cost effective because it would save the
     operator the "expense of powering both an analog and digital signal
     during the transition."[^256] Finally, the MSTV/NAB and Bonneville
     note that on-channel conversion is a less intrusive manner that
     allows the station the flexibility to decide when to change to
     digital operations once it determines that DTV receiver penetration
     warrants conversion.[^257] There was also general support for the
     concept that digital conversion applications be filed as minor
     change applications.[^258]

130. We will allow existing LPTV and TV translator stations to file
     digital conversion applications as minor changes to their existing
     analog facilities. We adopt the requirement that (1) the proposed
     digital facility not involve a channel change unrelated to channel
     displacement, and (2) the protected digital signal contour of the
     proposed facility overlap some portion of the protected contour
     based on the station's analog authorization. We will also define in
     this manner minor facilities changes of digital LPTV and TV
     translator stations. We will permit the filing of on-channel
     digital conversion applications on a first-come, first-served
     basis.[^259] We define "existing low power station" as one that is
     either licensed or has a valid construction permit.[^260] As
     outlined elsewhere herein, LPTV and TV translator on-channel
     digital conversions will be filed on FCC Form 346 and will be
     treated as minor facilities changes.[^261]

131. We will not require stations proposing on-channel digital
     conversions to notify full-service DTV stations. The MSTV/NAB
     requests that we adopt a requirement that stations undertaking
     on-channel digital conversions notify all full-service stations
     within 150 miles of the low power station's transmitter site at
     least 60 days before filing for the conversion.[^262] MSTV/NAB
     argues that such a requirement is necessary to safeguard against
     interference to full-service broadcasters' DTV facilities.[^263] We
     reject this proposal as an unnecessary burden on low power
     stations. Low power stations proposing digital conversions will be
     required at the application stage to meet the interference
     protections we adopt herein with respect to full service NTSC and
     DTV stations. We do not anticipate unexpected interference problems
     from such on-channel conversions and, in the event that such
     interference is brought to our attention, it will be resolved
     expeditiously.

132. We will not adopt the proposal of the CBA and NTA that incumbent
     low power broadcasters be permitted to convert to digital on their
     existing analog channel by simply notifying the Commission "after
     the fact" as long as the digital effective radiated power (ERP) not
     exceed 25% of the authorized analog ERP and there would be no other
     changes to the authorized analog facilities. Because it is likely
     that spectrum available for digital low power operations will be
     limited, and applicants would be likely to propose various means of
     interference avoidance, the need for prior engineering review to
     ensure compliance with our interference protection provisions will
     be greater in this case. Low power stations must, therefore, file
     an application and obtain prior Commission approval for on-channel
     digital conversions. [^264]

133. We will permit existing stations to file digital on-channel
     conversion applications at any time following the effective date of
     the rule changes in this proceeding and Office of Management and
     Budget approval of revisions to the application form necessary to
     accommodate digital requests.[^265] No commenter advocates that we
     delay opportunities to file such applications. Because such filings
     do not involve the use of new channels, we do not find it necessary
     to wait until certain issues surrounding the DTV transition of
     full-service broadcasters have been resolved. Existing low power
     broadcasters that wish to immediately convert to digital on their
     analog channel may do so or they may wait until a later time to
     determine if additional channels are available.

134. We adopt the following minor change processing rule for digital
     LPTV and TV translator displacement applications filed to replace
     channels that are displaced by a full-service NTSC or DTV station
     or by a 700 MHz commercial wireless or public safety operation.
     Such applications may propose a change in transmitter site of no
     more than 30 miles from the reference coordinates of the existing
     station's community of license, as provided in Section 76.53 of our
     rules.[^266] This will help to prevent applications from using the
     displacement process to propose greater than needed modifications
     to their facilities.

135. We address elsewhere the issue of how to deal with mutually
     exclusive digital applications and resolve mutual exclusivity
     through the auction process. With respect to analog and digital
     displacement applications, we will afford these applications a
     priority over applications for new or modified digital facilities.
     That is, an application for new or modified digital facility or for
     digital conversion shall be subject to dismissal if it becomes
     mutually exclusive with an analog or digital displacement
     application, including a displaced analog station filing for a
     digital replacement channel (*i.e.*, filing for a replacement
     channel and on-channel digital conversion in the same minor change
     application). In order to continue to encourage digital conversion
     and place an emphasis on new digital service, we will also place a
     priority on digital displacement applications over analog
     displacement applications. That is, an application for analog
     displacement relief will be dismissed if it becomes mutually
     exclusive with an application for digital displacement relief.

### Authorization of Companion Digital Channels

136. In the *Notice* we outlined an approach for authorizing digital
     channels to LPTV, TV translator and Class A stations based on Part
     74 of the rules. [^267] We contemplated permitting stations in
     these services to seek a companion channel with a secondary
     spectrum use priority, regardless of whether a station's existing
     analog channel has certain additional protections against
     interference, as is the case for Class A stations, or is subject to
     displacement by primary stations, as are translators and LPTV
     stations. Under this approach, we would not, at this stage of the
     DTV transition, award Class A stations second channels for digital
     operation (*i.e.*, channels having Class A primary status requiring
     protection from full-service stations). To do so would limit our
     spectrum flexibility to complete the implementation of the
     full-service DTV transition.[^268] We stated that an all-secondary
     status licensing scheme would also allow us to use less extensive
     interference protection standards, thus expanding the number of
     stations that might obtain an additional channel.

137. We acknowledged that Section 336(f)(4) of the Act sets forth a
     different approach to providing digital channels for some
     stations.[^269] That section states that the Commission is not
     required to issue additional licenses for advanced television
     services to Class A and television translator stations, but must
     accept applications for such services if they meet certain strict
     interference criteria. In the *Notice* we sought comment on
     whether, under Section 336(f)(4), any additional channels awarded
     under its terms would be protected from displacement by primary
     stations and, if this status would extend to Class A stations and
     to translators' digital channels as well.

138. We received a number of comments by incumbent low power
     broadcasters in support of licensing digital companion
     channels.[^270] In contrast, full-service broadcasters and some 700
     MHz wireless providers oppose allowing low power broadcasters to
     obtain a companion digital channel, urging that we provide only
     that these stations may "flash-cut" to digital operation.[^271]
     They maintain that licensing companion digital channels would
     congest the spectrum, complicate the "re-packing" of the core
     television channels and the clearing of the 700 MHz band, risk
     interference to DTV broadcast operations, and divert needed FCC
     resources from the full-service DTV transition. The CBA responds
     that full-service stations have had more than six years to file for
     their digital facilities and make facilities modifications or DTV
     channel allotment changes.[^272] The CBA states that the DTV
     transition is not, as MSTV/NAB suggests, at a crossroads but is
     instead "nearing the finish line."[^273] The NTA classifies the
     "complication to re-packing" argument as "spurious," arguing that
     if there are no channels available in a particular area, then low
     power broadcasters will not be able to apply for a companion
     digital channel.[^274] It concludes that awarding digital low power
     channels on a secondary basis will have no effect on the
     full-service DTV transition or the efforts to clear the 700 MHz
     band.[^275] As for possible interference to full-service DTV
     facilities and 700 MHz licensees, San Bernardino County remarks
     that the low power services "have a record of non-interference that
     holds every promise for expansion without significant new
     problems."[^276]

139. With respect to the strain on Commission resources that may occur
     if we permit low power broadcasters to apply for a companion
     digital channel, the NTA notes that the Commission has a separate
     staff to process low power applications and that it is "hard to
     imagine how additional applications to be processed by this
     separate staff may affect the Commission's resources."[^277] San
     Bernardino County adds that the processing of applications for new
     service to the public "always involves an expenditure of
     administrative resources, albeit a tiny one compared with the
     beneficial effects for new licensees, manufacturers, program
     producers and the public."[^278]

140. The opposing commenters also argue that Section 336(f)(4) does not
     require grant of a second digital channel or explicitly permit
     non-Class A LPTV stations to apply for these channels. The Joint
     Commenters respond that the statute is clear that the Commission
     should accept applications for DTV channels from Class A
     stations.[^279] The Joint Commenters argue that, for LPTV stations,
     the statute neither provides nor denies the opportunity to file an
     application.

141. We will allow permittees and licensees of LPTV, TV translators and
     Class A stations to seek a companion channel for their digital
     operation on a secondary basis.[^280] We agree with the CBA that
     low power stations "serve the same viewers as full-service stations
     and they face all the same problems over time as the universe of
     television receivers evolves toward digital technology."[^281]
     Allowing opportunities for companion analog and digital channel
     operations would, we believe, facilitate the digital conversion of
     many stations in the LPTV service. We are concerned that
     flash-cutting by all low power stations could leave numerous rural
     viewers without free over-the-air television service and put many
     low power broadcasters out of business. As the CBA states,
     "\[F\]lash-cut from analog to digital operation on a single channel
     may well be suicidal to a station, because it will instantly cut
     off a substantial portion of the station's potential
     audience."[^282] We concur with CBA that "\[M\]ost low power
     stations operate in rural areas or underserved urban markets where
     digital set penetration will likely occur at a slower pace. . . A
     second channel for ramp-up, to attract viewers to digital operation
     while maintaining the analog operation essential for economic
     support is at least as important if not more so to Class A/LPTV
     stations as to full-service stations."[^283]

142. Because we will award companion digital channels on a secondary
     basis, we reject the claims of full-service broadcasters that our
     action will negatively impact their DTV transition.[^284] After
     broadcasters elect their post-transition DTV channel, we will make
     further channel adjustments in generating a final DTV Table of
     Allotments. As they have done throughout their history, LPTV and TV
     translator station operators will accept authorizations with the
     understanding that these may be displaced at a later date by a
     full-service broadcast station (*e.g.*, a station operating on its
     post-transition DTV channel) and assume the risk associated with
     secondary status. The NTA notes that the "very limited possibility
     of future full-service station channel changes is not a reason to
     delay the adoption of rules for digital translators."[^285] We
     agree with CBA that providing opportunities for digital companion
     channels could help "to stimulate digital set penetration, to
     maximize the public interest through continuation of incumbent
     services and to avoid the sudden flash-cut loss of analog service
     in areas that might not be ready for complete digital
     transition."[^286]

143. *Section 336(f)(4).* Class A stations may flash-cut their analog
     channel to digital operation at any time and retain their primary
     regulatory status.[^287] To provide these stations with the same
     flexibility as LPTV and TV translator stations, we will permit
     Class A stations to apply for a companion digital channel, but such
     channels will be licensed on a secondary basis as an LPTV station.
     In the *Notice* we recognized that Section 336(f)(4) of the
     Communications Act describes a different approach to providing
     digital channels for some stations. In pertinent part, this section
     reads as follows:

> The Commission is not required to issue any additional license for
> advanced television service to the licensee of a class A television
> station under this subsection, or to any licensee of any television
> translator station, but shall accept a license application for such
> services proposing facilities that will not cause interference to the
> service area of any other broadcast facility applied for, protected,
> permitted, or authorized on the date of filing of the advanced
> television application.[^288]

The *Notice* sought comment on whether the licensing approach set forth
in the statute is the only means by which we can authorize additional
channels to Class A and translator stations, or whether we may now
permit Class A stations to seek second channels for secondary LPTV
stations and defer implementation of the 336(f)(4) licensing approach
until a later point in the DTV transition. We also asked if there is a
way to combine the statutory and the secondary licensing approaches, for
example, permitting applications to be filed under both approaches and
providing a means for resolving mutually exclusive applications in
different classes. We also sought comment on whether additional channels
awarded under the statute to Class A stations would be protected from
displacement by primary stations and, if so, whether this protection
would also extend to digital channels authorized to TV
translators.[^289]

144. Full-service television broadcasters oppose authorization of second
     channels with protected status for Class A stations, contending
     that the statute does not require to Commission to issue such
     licenses and that to do so would undermine the full-service
     transition to digital television.[^290] Other parties maintain that
     Congress intended that the Commission award second channels for
     digital Class A operations under the provisions of Section
     336(f)(4).[^291] Commenters did not address how we could combine
     the two licensing approaches.

145. In creating the Class A TV service, we acknowledged that the
     statute requires the acceptance of Class A applications for
     additional DTV licenses, but also concluded that "the plain reading
     of the CBPA, as well as the legislative history of the Act, does
     not require us to issue an additional license for DTV services to
     Class A or TV translator licensees."[^292] We also stated that "we
     should exercise restraint to issuing additional DTV licenses in
     order to preserve spectrum to accommodate needs associated with the
     transition of full-service stations to digital service...and that a
     number of issues are yet to be resolved in future DTV
     proceedings."[^293] As a result, we deferred matters regarding
     issuance of additional digital licenses for Class A stations to a
     future proceeding.

146. Significant DTV spectrum matters are yet to be resolved.[^294]
     Indeed, we are approaching a pivotal stage in the transition when
     full-service broadcasters will be electing their post-transition
     DTV channels.[^295] Under the channel election procedures, DTV
     broadcasters first will certify their intentions to replicate their
     NTSC service or maximize their already-authorized service. The
     majority of stations - those with in-core DTV and NTSC channels --
     are scheduled to make their initial election in December 2004. The
     multi-step channel election process will culminate with the
     development of a post-transition DTV allotment table that will
     accommodate all full-service TV broadcasters with an in-core DTV
     channel.

147. More than 600 Class A stations are licensed to operate, many in
     large metropolitan areas. Permitting these stations to file
     applications for digital channels with Class A-protected status
     would introduce uncertainty into the channel election process and
     complicate our efforts to find channels for broadcasters who are
     either unable to make an election or to elect a suitable channel
     (*e.g.*, stations with out-of-core NTSC and DTV channels). [^296]
     Uncertainty would also arise because the CBPA does not explicitly
     address the interference protection rights and responsibilities of
     Class A stations authorized a second channel for "advanced
     television service." [^297] During the election process,
     prospective applicants for digital Class A stations would also face
     uncertainty as they considered their requirement under 336(f)(4) to
     protect "any other broadcast facility applied for, protected,
     permitted or authorized on the date of filing of \[their\] advanced
     television application." In determining the acceptability of such
     applications, we would anticipate controversies over interference
     conflicts between proposed Class A facilities and DTV channel
     elections and service area intentions. We are concerned that such
     complications could delay the election process and, therefore,
     prolong the DTV transition.

148. A better course of action, we believe, is to continue to defer
     awarding second digital channels with protected status to Class A
     licensees, but also provide opportunities for these licensees to
     seek digital channels for LPTV station operations. We make clear
     that Class A station licensees are guaranteed primary status on one
     of their channels. Class A stations, therefore, will retain Class A
     regulatory status on the channel they ultimately choose to retain
     for digital operations. Once the election process has concluded and
     DTV spectrum and service area issues are settled, we will be in a
     better position to consider awarding second channels with protected
     status to Class A station licensees, thereby enabling them to
     operate paired analog and digital stations for the duration of
     their digital transition period. [^298] We will consider in our
     next DTV periodic review proceeding issues related to how and when
     to permit Class A stations to seek companion channels for digital
     Class A operations or to convert their LPTV digital companion
     channels to Class A regulatory status.

### Filing Window for Companion Digital Channels 

149. In the *Notice* we tentatively concluded that we should place a
     high priority on facilitating the digital transition of existing
     LPTV and TV Translator service.[^299] We also stated that we wished
     to provide opportunities for Class A stations to obtain channels
     for digital operations. We stated that the digital low power
     transition should be built around the base of existing analog LPTV,
     TV translator and Class A stations. We contemplated opening an
     initial filing window for only incumbent stations to file for
     digital companion stations. We did not contemplate that such an
     initial incumbent-only digital companion channel filing window
     would be geographically restricted. Only after the completion of
     this initial window, did we anticipate opening additional
     opportunities for new digital low power stations to be filed on a
     first-come, first-served basis.[^300]

150. The commenters generally supported an incumbent-only digital
     companion channel filing window.[^301] The CBA requests that no
     applications for new digital stations be permitted until existing
     stations have had an adequate opportunity to apply for digital
     channels.[^302] Entravision states that "\[B\]uilding initial
     digital service around the base of existing analog LPTV, television
     translator, and Class A stations provides the best means for the
     Commission to accelerate the DTV transition without disrupting
     existing services."[^303] Cordillera notes that, for full-service
     DTV transition, the Commission built initial digital service on the
     base of existing analog stations.[^304] Cordillera believes "there
     is no reason to stray from this approach for low power stations,
     especially given the public interest benefits that would
     result."[^305]

151. A number of commenters suggests that an incumbent-only filing
     window be done on a geographic basis and that we first allow
     applications for digital companion channels in rural areas.[^306]
     San Bernardino County, for example, suggests that we use the same
     approach used for the first LPTV application freeze in 1982. San
     Bernardino County states that, at that time, applications were
     limited to "Phase I" communities, defined as more than 55 miles
     outside the reference coordinates of 212 ranked markets in the
     Commission's TV Channel Utilization Report. Later, Phase II was
     added to the eligible area -- locations outside the reference
     coordinates of the top 100, followed by Phase III which had no
     geographic restrictions. San Bernardino County argues that a
     similar approach should be used for the digital companion channel
     initial window to ensure that applications are for "places where
     there is just one established operator, and therefore a reduced
     likelihood of application conflicts from multiple filers."[^307]

152. Based on the support of the public, we will adopt our contemplated
     filing procedure and allow LPTV, TV translator and Class A station
     licensees and permittees to file for digital companion channels in
     an initial filing window. Allowing existing stations to have the
     first opportunity to obtain digital channels will encourage these
     stations to take the lead to further the DTV transition. This will
     also help to reduce possible disruption of service for existing low
     power stations by allowing these stations the first opportunity to
     seek available TV channels on which to operate companion digital
     facilities.[^308] Restricting the initial window to applications
     for digital companion channels will also avoid the difficult task
     of deciding among mutually exclusive applications for digital
     companion service by incumbents and new digital low power service
     by new entrants.[^309]

153. This window will be announced by Public Notice that will detail the
     pertinent filing parameters and procedures. Only existing LPTV, TV
     translator and Class A TV station licensees and permittees will be
     permitted to file for digital companion channels during this
     initial window. We will allow stations to seek only a single
     digital companion channel for each existing analog channel. In
     addition, applicants for digital companion channels must propose to
     serve the community of license of their associated analog facility.
     Finally, stations will be required at some point - to be determined
     in a future proceeding - to return one of their two companion
     channels to the Commission.

154. We will not adopt a geographic approach to the digital companion
     channel window. As we noted in the *Notice*, many stations,
     particularly LPTV and Class A stations, are located in and around
     major cities for which the last opportunity to file for a new
     station occurred in 1991.[^310] This was done to specifically
     preserve spectrum options for DTV service in the major television
     markets. We are concerned that limiting the digital companion
     channel window to only rural areas, as suggested by the NTA, may
     unfairly limit opportunities for urban LPTV stations to secure
     available spectrum, which may be most limited in these areas.[^311]
     We find that any digital filing window with geographic restrictions
     would be inherently unfair to some parties. We agree with the CBA
     that "wherever the line is drawn between regions, there will always
     be someone on the wrong side of that line, whose ability to find a
     digital channel will be constrained by someone on the other side of
     the line whose window opened earlier."[^312] To encourage the
     roll-out of low power digital TV service to all areas of the United
     States, we will only restrict the filing of applications for
     digital companion channels in the initial filing window to existing
     stations.

155. At some point after the incumbent-only filing window for digital
     companion channels, we will permit applications to be filed for new
     digital LPTV and TV translator stations without eligibility
     restrictions. Such applications will be received on a first-come,
     first-served basis (*i.e*., "rolling one-day windows"). A Public
     Notice will announce the date for the beginning of this application
     filing process.

156. In order to stabilize our low power database and to ensure that
     interested parties are able to identify available channels for
     digital use, a freeze will be announced on the filing of analog
     minor change and displacement applications for LPTV, TV translator
     and Class A stations prior to the beginning of the initial digital
     companion channel window filing period.[^313] The Public Notice
     will set out the length and terms of the analog filing freeze.
     After the digital companion channel window has been completed,
     applications for analog minor change and displacement applications
     will once again be accepted.

157. Currently, applications for new analog stations or major changes to
     analog LPTV, TV translator and Class A stations may not be
     filed.[^314] We recognize that some station operators and other
     entities would like an opportunity to file these types of
     applications, particularly in those locales with relatively little
     or no over-the-air television service.

158. With respect to the timing for the filing of applications for
     digital companion channels, some commenters oppose opening any such
     application filing opportunity until the full-service DTV
     transition has advanced to a later stage.[^315] These commenters
     urge us not to allow the filing of any digital low power
     applications until full-service stations have made their final DTV
     channel election and the final "re-packed" DTV Table of Allotments
     has been announced. They are concerned that allowing digital low
     power applications to be filed before there has been more clarity
     in the full-service DTV transition would hinder that process as
     well as the clearing of the 700 MHz band. The CBA and NTA oppose
     delaying the start of the digital low power transition.[^316]
     APTS/PBS point outs that Congress has appropriated \$29 million to
     the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) to upgrade rural public
     television facilities including translators.[^317] APTS/PBS
     maintains that a delay in the licensing of digital channels would
     prevent the implementation of facilities under the RUS program. The
     CBA states that full-service broadcasters have had more than six
     years to propose their DTV facilities.[^318] The NTA argues that
     the DTV Table of Allotments is "largely in final form now and will
     be even nearer to completion when digital translator applications
     can first realistically be filed."[^319] Commercial Broadcasting
     Corp. agrees saying that the full-service digital transition "is
     well on its way."[^320]

159. We agree that it is desirable to provide opportunities to obtain
     digital companion channels as soon as possible. We also believe,
     however, we should wait until there is additional clarity in the
     full-service television transition before accepting applications
     for new digital service, other than through on-channel conversion.
     After the DTV channel election process for full-service
     broadcasters has sufficiently progressed, it will become clearer
     what channels may be available for digital LPTV and TV translator
     stations.[^321] The majority of full-service broadcasters will be
     making their channel election during the first phase of the process
     scheduled to occur in December 2004. Subsequently, the Media Bureau
     will announce by Public Notice the window filing opportunity for
     digital companion channels and will, at a later date, establish
     parameters for the filing of additional applications.

### Mutually Exclusive Applications

160. Should we receive mutually exclusive applications for digital
     on-channel conversion, digital companion channels or for new
     digital LPTV, TV translator or Class A facilities, we must resolve
     mutual exclusivity through competitive bidding.[^322] In the
     *Notice* we stated that applications for new analog LPTV and TV
     translator stations and major facilities modifications to existing
     LPTV and TV translator stations are subject to the application
     filing and competitive bidding or "auctions" procedures given in
     Section 73.5002 *et seq.* of the rules.[^323] That process
     generally begins with a Commission Public Notice announcing an
     auction proceeding, including the time period during which all
     applicants seeking to participate in an auction must file their
     applications (an "auction filing window"). We sought comment on
     whether to apply some or all of these procedures to digital LPTV
     and TV translator applications or whether to adopt new procedures
     that could better facilitate the transition from analog to digital
     television service.

161. We also sought comment on whether the auction exemption provisions
     of Section 309(j)(2)(B) of the Communications Act apply to mutually
     exclusive applications for new LPTV and TV translator digital
     stations or where such applications are mutually exclusive with
     other applications in the LPTV and Class A TV services.[^324] We
     noted that Section 309(j)(2)(B) exempts from auction applications
     "for initial licenses or construction permits for digital
     television service given to existing terrestrial broadcast
     licensees to replace their analog television service
     licenses."[^325] If the exemption applies, we proposed to permit
     applicants to resolve mutual exclusivities through engineering
     solutions or settlements.

162. The commenters were uniformly against the use of auctions to
     resolve mutual exclusivity among applications for digital low power
     stations.[^326] The CBA states that "mutual exclusivity is a
     nemesis, particularly for existing stations. Many, if not most
     Class A/LPTV, will have to struggle to raise capital to construct
     digital facilities and surely will not have money to bid at auction
     for a digital channel."[^327] Parsons states that rural communities
     cannot compete in an auction because "the highest bidder always
     wins."[^328] The Joint Commenters state that the Commission avoided
     having to use auctions for the full-service television DTV
     transition by finding a companion digital for each station.[^329]
     The Commission should extend the same universal assistance to low
     power broadcasters seeking DTV channels out of a sense of fairness
     and equity, the Joint Commenters argue.[^330] The Joint Commenters
     suggest that filing windows be tailored so that applications for
     stations in rural and urban areas not be mixed. The Rural 700 MHz
     Band Licensees argue that the auction of digital low power
     applications would "likely attract a large number of speculators,
     who are looking to turn a quick profit by reselling their licenses
     and who may or may not have any intention of providing service to
     rural customers."[^331] Even if auctions are required in this case,
     Word, the CBA and APTS/PBS encourage the Commission to use
     engineering techniques to avoid mutual exclusivity.[^332]

163. Section 309(j)(1) plainly states that the Commission "shall" use
     competitive bidding to select among mutually exclusive applications
     unless one of the exemptions set forth in Section 309(j)(2)
     applies. Unless we find that one of the auction exemptions applies
     in this case, we are statutorily mandated to use auctions for
     applications filed for new LPTV and TV translator digital stations.
     Some commenters argue that Section 309(j)(2)(B) forbids the use of
     auctions for such digital stations because they are applications
     for "initial licenses or construction permits for digital
     television service given to existing terrestrial broadcast
     licensees to replace their analog television service
     licenses."[^333] KM argues that the language is clear and
     unambiguous and it creates no exceptions for the LPTV
     service.[^334] A closer examination of the language of this section
     reveals that the exemption does not apply to applications for LPTV
     or TV translator stations. Section 3 of the Communications Act
     defines the term "analog television service" as "television service
     provided pursuant to the transmission standards prescribed by the
     Commission in Section 73.682(a) of its regulations.[^335] In
     addition, the Communications Act defines "digital television
     service" as "television service provided pursuant to the
     transmission standards prescribed by the Commission in Section
     73.682(d) of its regulations."[^336] Under Part 74 of the rules,
     LPTV and TV translator stations are not required to comply with
     either Section 73.682(a) or (d). The list of broadcast regulations
     applicable to the low power television service does not include
     these rules.[^337] LPTV and television translator stations,
     therefore, were not included in the definitions of "analog
     television service" or "digital television service" and are not
     subject to the auction exemption in Section 309(j)(2)(B).[^338]

164. We also do not believe it was Congress' intent that the auction
     exemption apply to applications for new digital LPTV and TV
     translator stations. The exemption was adopted as part of the
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997 in conjunction with provisions intended
     to facilitate the full-service digital television transition. A
     second digital channel had been allocated by the Commission for
     each full-service television station and Congress adopted an
     exemption from the auction provisions to make clear that
     full-service stations would not be required to bid for their second
     digital channel. At the time, we had not considered the DTV
     transition for low power stations. Therefore, we believe it was not
     Congress' intent that the digital television exemption apply to
     applications for low power digital channels.

165. As for Class A stations, as we announce herein, we will permit
     these stations to file an application to either convert to digital
     on their existing analog channel or for a digital companion
     channel. Digital companion channels to Class A stations will be
     licensed on a secondary, LPTV basis and at this juncture operation
     of companion channels will not be subject to the requirements of
     Section 73.682(d) of the rules. Because companion channels to Class
     A stations, like those licensed to LPTV and TV translators, are not
     subject to Section 73.682(d), they do not fall within the
     definition of "digital television service," and they are not
     subject to the auction exemption in Section 309(j)(2)(B). Class A
     TV stations that choose to convert to digital on their existing
     analog channel will be licensed on a primary, Class A basis and
     their converted digital facilities will be subject to the
     requirements of Section 73.682(d). Class A digital conversion
     applications, therefore, are exempt from auction. In the event that
     a Class A digital conversion application is found to be mutually
     exclusive with other such application(s) or digital companion
     channel application(s), we will allow the parties a period of time
     to find an engineering solution to resolve their mutual
     exclusivity. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of the
     applications in the mutually exclusive group.

166. We will utilize the existing Part 1 and broadcast auction and
     filing procedures set forth in the rules with respect to mutually
     exclusive applications for digital LPTV and TV translator
     stations.[^339] The initial digital companion channel window will
     be conducted as an "auction filing window." During the window,
     existing stations seeking a digital companion channel will submit a
     "short-form" application (FCC Form 175) together with required
     certifications, information and exhibits, including technical data
     on the proposed digital facility necessary to determine mutually
     exclusive applications (*i.e.*, applications that cannot all be
     granted in compliance with out interference protection standards).
     Short-form applications determined to not be mutually exclusive and
     winning bidders from the auction will be notified by Public Notice
     and required to submit a "long-form" (FCC Form 346) that will be
     processed according to the rules and be subject to the filing of
     petitions to deny. Filing of digital conversion applications and
     displacement relief applications will not be permitted during the
     digital companion channel auction filing window. Only those
     applications determined to be mutually exclusive will be scheduled
     for auction.

167. While we are statutorily required to use auction procedures to
     select among mutually exclusive applications for LPTV and TV
     translator stations, we intend to provide an opportunity to utilize
     engineering solutions and settlements to resolve conflicts among
     applications. CBA argues that a settlement opportunity may provide
     licensing efficiency and avoid undue delay initiating digital low
     power service.[^340] Consistent with past practice with other
     secondary LPTV applications that are subject to auction (*e.g*.,
     Auction No. 81), the Media Bureau may provide applicants with a
     limited period after the filing of short-form applications to enter
     into settlement agreements[^341] and/or to submit engineering
     amendments to their proposals.[^342]

### Digital Station Construction Period

168. In the *Notice* we proposed applying to digital LPTV and TV
     translator stations the construction period provisions applicable
     to analog stations in these services.[^343] Under the analog rules,
     each original construction permit for a new station or changes to
     an existing station specifies a period of three years from the date
     of the issuance of the original construction permit for completion
     of construction and filing of a license application. The grant of
     an application to modify the construction permit does not extend
     the expiration date of the underlying construction permit.

169. Commenters supported a three-year construction period for digital
     LPTV, TV translator and Class A stations. [^344] APTS/PBS urges
     retention of the three-year period stating that "many public
     television stations will be seeking federal funding assistance for
     digital translator and/or booster construction. . . (and that)
     frequently the time that it takes from filing of the grant
     application to an award is nearly a year."[^345] APTS/PBS also
     points out that many translators are operated by universities and
     colleges that must work with their schools' budget cycle. It is
     important, APTS/PBS argues, to adopt a construction period that
     accommodates these unique circumstances.[^346] KM argues that
     full-service stations have had a number of years to complete their
     DTV facilities and LPTV stations should not have to complete
     construction in a much shorter time period.[^347] Commercial
     suggests that a standard three-year construction period be adopted
     because of possible bottlenecks that may arise with the
     manufacturing community and unforeseen circumstances that may
     arise.[^348] Commercial suggests that on-channel digital
     conversions have no deadline other than the absolute end of the
     transition.[^349]

170. Given the record support, we adopt the three-year construction
     period as proposed in the *Notice*. Once again, the grant of an
     application to modify construction permit will not extend the
     expiration date of the underlying construction period. We decline
     Commercial's suggestion that there should be no construction
     deadline for construction permits issued for on-channel digital
     conversions. We are not certain when the digital transition will be
     completed for stations in the low power television service. In
     order to prevent spectrum from laying fallow and to foster digital
     TV service to the public, we will require that all construction
     permits issued in the digital LPTV, TV translator and Class A
     services, including on-channel digital conversion construction
     permits, expire three years after their issuance.

171. As for requests to extend digital low power construction permits,
     we have two possibilities for processing these requests. We could
     adopt the "tolling" provisions for analog LPTV and TV translator
     construction permits.[^350] Those provisions are strict and only
     permit extension of construction permits under very limited
     circumstances. On the other hand, we could adopt the separate
     extension provisions that were created for full-service DTV
     construction permits.[^351] The Joint Commenters support this
     approach.[^352] The full-service DTV extension provisions allow
     extension whenever the permittee is able to demonstrate that
     construction was delayed do to unforeseeable circumstances or
     circumstances beyond its control. If the permittee shows that it
     took all reasonable steps to overcome the delay expeditiously, an
     extension application is granted. In addition, permittees may
     demonstrate that they were unable to construct their digital
     facility because of financial hardship. Up to two extensions may be
     granted by the staff and further extensions must be acted upon by
     the Commission. Failure to justify an extension can result in the
     application of certain remedial measures.[^353]

172. Because we anticipate that stations in the low power television
     service may find the DTV construction process very challenging, we
     adopt the full-service DTV construction permit extension procedures
     for the digital low power and Class A television services. This
     will allow those permittees that experience delays in construction
     or financial hardship the opportunity to justify an extension of
     their digital construction permit. At the conclusion of the
     three-year construction period, LPTV, TV translator, and Class A
     permittees may request an extension of no more than six months to
     complete construction of their digital facilities. We delegate to
     the Media Bureau the authority to grant or deny the first two
     applications for extension of the digital construction deadlines in
     the low power television and Class A services. Subsequent
     applications for extension must be referred to the Commission for
     action. We adopt the standard for extension currently set forth in
     the full-service television DTV extension rule.

### Application Forms and Fees

173. We requested comment in the *Notice* on what fees should apply to
     digital LPTV and TV translator stations.[^354] We proposed using
     the same application fees for analog and digital LPTV and TV
     translators for particular types of applications (*e.g.*, new and
     major change, minor change, and assignment and transfer). We asked
     how we should consider digital LPTV, and TV translator stations for
     purposes of regulatory fees assessed pursuant to Section 9 of the
     Communications Act.[^355] The majority of commenters supported our
     approach.[^356] The Joint Commenters asked that we adopt lower fees
     for digital LPTV, TV translator and Class A stations in rural areas
     by a factor of 50%.[^357]

174. We will adopt the application fees for digital LPTV, TV translator
     and Class A stations applicable to analog stations.[^358] LPTV and
     TV translator stations will file digital conversion applications
     and applications for digital companion channels on FCC Form 346.
     Class A stations will file digital conversion applications and
     digital companion channel applications on FCC Form 301-CA. In all
     cases, these applications will be filed as a minor change without
     an application filing fee (as is the case with analog minor change
     applications in these services).[^359] The NTA supports this
     approach.[^360] This approach is similar to the one that
     full-service television stations followed when they sought their
     paired digital channel.[^361]

175. Applications for new or major change digital LPTV and TV translator
     stations will also be filed on FCC Form 346, will be treated as an
     application for a new station or major change, and will pay the
     standard application fee. Requests for Special Temporary Authority
     (STA), for extension of construction permit, for assignment or
     transfer of a digital-only station, for a station license and for
     renewal of license will be filed in the same manner as analog
     stations and will pay the same application fees for these
     filings.[^362]

176. We reject the Joint Commenters' suggestion that we lower the
     application fees for stations in "rural areas."[^363] The Joint
     Commenters do not offer any manner by which to define the term
     "rural areas" nor do they give any significant reason why these
     stations should be permitted to pay a significantly lower
     application fee. All applications require the same use of
     Commission resources and the application filing fees should be
     applied regardless of the location of the station.

177. With respect to regulatory fees, a decision will be made in the
     context of the Commission's annual regulatory fee rulemaking.
     However, we note that full-service television stations do not pay a
     separate regulatory fee for their paired digital channel and we
     will not, therefore, propose a separate regulatory fee for those
     stations in the low power television service that obtain a digital
     companion channel. In addition, we will propose that LPTV, TV
     translator and Class A stations that choose to convert on-channel
     to digital (and have a single facility) should continue to pay the
     corresponding regulatory fee for their service.[^364]

### Ancillary and Supplementary Use Fees

178. Section 336(e) of the Communications Act requires that we collect a
     fee from digital stations that offer ancillary and supplementary
     services on a subscription basis.[^365] In the *Notice* we noted
     that these fees relate to the DTV eligibility provisions given in
     Section 336(a) (*i.e.*, full-service DTV broadcasters).[^366] We
     sought comment on whether to impose fees for ancillary and
     supplementary services provided by digital low power stations even
     if the fees are not statutorily required. We also asked what the
     basis should be for such fees, and we sought comment on whether to
     follow the approach applicable to full-service DTV broadcasters
     (*i.e.*, an annual fee in the amount of 5% of a station's gross
     revenue from feeable services). Alternatively, we asked if we
     should not levy such fees.

179. The majority of the commenters supported imposition of the 5% fee
     to digital LPTV stations that provide ancillary and supplementary
     services.[^367] The CBA, APTS/PBS and Vermont Educational support
     the imposition of the 5% ancillary and supplementary fee.[^368] The
     CBA states that Class A/LPTV stations should have the "same freedom
     as full power stations to offer ancillary services."[^369] The CBA
     adds that "\[T\]he benefits to the public are the same, and revenue
     benefits accrue to both licensees and the government."[^370] Bruno
     does not believe that stations should be required to pay the 5% fee
     until they reach a threshold of \$3,000,000 gross sales per
     year.[^371] Bruno states that this was determined by the Commission
     in the closed captioning rules to be a "reasonable threshold for
     station to be able to contribute to public interest funding
     requirements."[^372]

180. We will apply annual fees for ancillary and supplementary services
     provided by digital LPTV and TV translator stations on a
     subscription basis. We will mirror the approach applicable to
     full-service DTV broadcasters, and we will impose an annual fee in
     the amount of 5% of a station's gross revenue from feeable
     services. This was the approach the Commission adopted when it
     concluded that Class A stations should be subject to the fee.[^373]
     As the Commission stated in that proceeding, \"this action furthers
     the Commission\'s goal of encouraging the transition of television
     broadcasting from analog to digital operation. By enabling Class A
     stations to generate additional revenues from ancillary or
     supplementary services, we seek to encourage the early conversion
     of Class A stations from analog to digital operation."

181. The Commission also imposed the 5% fee to LPTV stations involved in
     the digital data service \"pilot project\" set forth in Section
     336(h) of the Act.[^374] When the Commission set up that pilot
     project in 2001, it noted that, under Section 336(h)(6), Congress
     mandated that the Commission collect \"an annual fee or other
     schedule or method of payment comparable to any fee imposed under
     the authority of this Act on providers of similar services.\"[^375]
     We agree with the Commission's finding that: \"Based on the
     statute, we believe that the services that will be offered by LPTV
     licensees in the pilot project (digitally-based interactive
     broadcast services and wireless Internet access) are similar to
     certain of the services, including ancillary or supplementary
     services that may be offered by Digital Television (DTV) licensees.
     . . . Not only are the digital data services that may be provided
     by LPTV stations similar to those that may be provided by DTV
     licensees, but, in addition, we believe that a fee of five percent
     will not discourage the provision of these services just as we
     noted that it would not dissuade DTV broadcasters from offering
     such DTV ancillary or supplementary services.\" Consistent with
     those earlier pronouncements, we conclude that imposition of a 5%
     fee for the provision of feeable ancillary and supplementary
     services by digital LPTV stations is appropriate and will not
     discourage the provision of these services. The same ancillary and
     supplementary services that are feeable if provided by full-service
     stations shall be feeable if provided by LPTV stations.[^376]

### International Coordination

182. In establishing rules for digital LPTV, TV translator and Class A
     stations, we are mindful of our obligations under our existing
     bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding the
     authorization of LPTV service in the common border areas.[^377] We
     recognize that existing bilateral agreements do not contain
     provisions for digital LPTV, TV translator or Class A stations.
     Under the existing agreements, analog LPTV and TV translator
     stations have secondary status with respect to Canadian and Mexican
     primary television stations and allotments and must not cause
     interference to the reception of these stations, nor are LPTV and
     TV translator stations protected against interference from these
     stations.

183. As stated in the *Notice*, we will work over time to update the
     current bilateral agreements to include provisions for digital LPTV
     and TV translator stations and also for digital Class A
     stations.[^378] In the interim, we will attempt to obtain the
     approval of such stations in the border area on a case-by-case
     basis. Any digital low power or Class A stations authorized on this
     basis will be subject to conditions resulting from the coordination
     process and any final bilateral agreements reached with Canada and
     Mexico. We disagree with the MSTV/NAB that authorizing digital
     companion channels to LPTV and translator stations in the border
     areas will complicate the process of full-service stations
     obtaining authorizations for their digital services in the border
     areas.[^379] In this regard, the NTA "does not believe that
     unspecified impacts on international agreements should be the basis
     of a determination that very large segments of the United States
     should not receive free digital television."[^380]

## Station Operation

### Unattended Operation

184. LPTV and TV translator stations may be operated unattended subject
     to certain requirements to guard against interference and outages
     of tower lighting.[^381] In the *Notice* we proposed to apply the
     analog regulatory provisions to digital LPTV and TV translator
     operations.[^382] Bonneville supports our proposal noting that
     rural television translator networks often involve hundreds of
     translator stations in remote areas.[^383] Given the fact that
     unattended operation has not been problematic under the existing
     rule for analog stations, we adopt our proposal and we will apply
     the current rule for unattended operation for digital LPTV and TV
     translator operations.

### Time of Operation

185. LPTV and TV translator stations are not required to adhere to a
     minimum operating schedule because we desire to facilitate flexible
     LPTV station operations and to minimize the cost of regulatory
     compliance. While there is no minimum operating schedule, TV
     translator stations are required to "provide service to the extent
     that such is within its control and to avoid unwarranted
     interruptions in the service provided."[^384]

186. In the *Notice* we sought comment on whether to require minimum
     hours of operation for digital TV translator and/or LPTV stations
     and, if so, how to structure the requirement.[^385] CBA,
     Commercial, and Venture oppose adding a minimum operating
     requirement for digital stations in the low power service.[^386]
     CBA argues that these stations are "not likely to waste
     second-channel digital facilities that they were not compelled to
     construct in the first place."[^387] To encourage low power
     television service stations to convert to digital operation and to
     experiment with innovative services, CBA recommends that the
     Commission "eschew simulcasting requirements."[^388] Entravision
     and the Joint Commenters, however, support a minimum operating
     schedule similar to DTV full-power and Class A stations.[^389]
     Entravision recommends that "in urban areas this requirement be 6
     A.M. to 11 P.M., while in rural areas it \[apply between\] 7 A.M.
     to 10 P.M., local time."[^390]

187. We find no compelling reason to adopt a minimum operating schedule
     for new digital stations in the low power television service. While
     there will be a competitive environment for digital spectrum in
     some areas, we believe that LPTV and TV translator licensees that
     undertake the challenge to construct and operate new digital
     facilities are unlikely to waste their resources and allow these
     stations to remain "dark" for extended periods of time. We also
     desire to allow stations the flexibility to operate their digital
     facilities. Some stations may desire to operate their digital
     facilities 24 hours a day and some may desire to operate them
     according to a program schedule. Requiring minimum operating hours
     could discourage some stations from seeking digital facilities and
     could stifle innovation for those stations. Regard simulcasting of
     programming for stations with companion digital channels, the
     *Notice* did not propose, nor will we adopt such a requirement for
     these stations.

### Station Identification

188. The *Notice* sought comment on appropriate means of station
     identification for digital TV translator and low power TV
     stations.[^391] International radio regulations provide that radio
     transmissions "should be capable of being identified either by
     identification signals or by other means" and that the signals of
     broadcast stations contain such identifying information as call
     sign and station location.[^392] The *Notice* inquired as to what
     identifying information should be required. We also asked about the
     means of station identification for heterodyne translator
     rebroadcast and LPTV signal retransmission. The *Notice* proposed
     that DTV broadcast stations be permitted to identify translators
     rebroadcasting their signals and that satellite service providers
     be permitted to identify LPTV stations retransmitting their
     programming. We sought comment on the technical means and related
     costs of inserting locally generated identification information
     into the digital bit stream being retransmitted. Finally, we asked
     about identification requirements for digital LPTV stations that
     originate local programming, inquiring whether such stations should
     be required to provide visual or aural identification in the manner
     of DTV broadcast stations and about equipment and cost to station
     licensees.

189. Few parties commented on these issues and very little information
     was provided on the technical means for station identification and
     related costs. APTS/PBS opposes a unique identification requirement
     for digital TV translators.[^393] It suggests that "customized
     station identification" would be difficult and expensive and that
     such requirements should apply only to translators operating with
     an effective radiated power of 10 kW or more. NTA also opposes a
     translator identification requirement,[^394] contending that the
     current Morse Code identification alternative in the LPTV rules
     serves no practical purpose.[^395] APTS/PBS and NTA submit that a
     translator output signal would contain sufficient information to
     identify the DTV broadcast station whose signal is being
     rebroadcast, which should satisfy international station
     identification provisions with regard to the translator.[^396]

190. A few commenters suggest technical means for digital translator
     station identification. Riverton submits data from which it
     concludes that frequency shift keying could be used to transmit a
     station's call sign in International Morse Code.[^397] According to
     Greg Best, a heterodyne translator could be modified to enable a 10
     kHz shift of its output signal through the use of a Morse Code
     generator that would control the shift keying of the local
     oscillator frequency of the translator's upconverter stage.[^398]
     David Hale of LARCAN USA states that a regenerative-based
     translator will accommodate insertion of a station's call
     sign.[^399]

191. Kent Parsons recommends that digital translator stations be
     identified by their primary DTV broadcast station or through the
     use of a regenerative translator.[^400] With regard to LPTV
     stations that retransmit programming received via satellite feeds,
     Joint Commenters suggest that we encourage service providers to
     embed in their signals the station identification information of
     their LPTV station affiliates, "since many small LPTV stations have
     extremely limited video insertion capabilities."[^401] For those
     LPTV stations receiving two or more satellite-fed program services,
     Joint Commenters submit that identification of the LPTV station on
     any one of these should meet our requirements, and that digital
     LPTV station identification should be required only at the
     beginning and end of the broadcast day.[^402]

192. Although we recognize the value of the ITU provisions for station
     identification, we conclude that we cannot at this time establish
     identification requirements for digital LPTV and TV translator
     stations, nor do we believe it would be appropriate to attempt to
     "bootstrap" our current analog identification requirements for
     digital station operations.[^403] The record in this proceeding
     lacks sufficient technical and cost information from which to
     develop standards for this purpose. We do not wish to impose
     requirements that could now be cost prohibitive for licensees of
     translator and LPTV stations, thereby discouraging their conversion
     to digital operation.

193. We agree with NTA that the current Morse Code identification
     alternative in the rules should not be applied to digital station
     operations.[^404] As NTA points out, a specially designed receiver
     would be required to discern a call sign transmitted in
     International Morse Code through frequency shift keying of a
     station's local oscillator frequency. Thus, we believe such a
     manner of identification would have little utility in the digital
     world and would increase equipment costs. Also, while it may be
     possible to insert a translator station's call sign into a
     regenerative translator or, alternatively, a PSIP generator, we
     have no information in the record on the practical utility of this
     approach for station identification.

194. Until we have sufficient information to consider means of
     implementing the type of station identification provisions
     contemplated in the ITU regulations, we believe that digital TV
     translator and LPTV stations could be practically identified by
     other means. As NTA notes, a station can be located by
     triangulation on its signal. We agree with APTS/PBS that the
     identity of a digital translator could be ascertained from
     information on its parent station in the DTV broadcast signal. In
     most cases, viewers of a digital LPTV station could identify the
     station using the on-line resources in our web site on the basis of
     the TV channel number and the name of their community. For these
     reasons, we will not establish at this time identification
     requirements for digital LPTV and TV translator stations. We
     recommend that practical and affordable means for the
     identification of such stations be addressed by study groups
     through the auspices of the ITU. We also encourage operators of
     digital LPTV and TV translator stations to experiment with possible
     means for identifying their stations. We plan to revisit this issue
     in a future periodic review proceeding.

### Call Signs

195. In the *Notice* we sought comment on an appropriate set of call
     sign suffixes for digital LPTV, TV translator, and Class A
     stations.[^405] We noted that call signs for analog LPTV and
     translator stations consist of the letter K or W followed by the
     station's assigned channel number and two additional letters.[^406]
     LPTV and Class A stations may use four letter call signs with the
     designated suffices "-LP" and "-CA" respectively.[^407] We sought
     comment on whether these existing call sign formats should be
     altered for digital stations. We suggested, for example, use of the
     following suffixes for digital operation: "-LD" for digital LPTV
     and "-CD" for digital Class A stations.

196. Some commenters support use of new suffixes for digital stations in
     the low power television service.[^408] NTA also suggests using the
     suffix "-DT" for TV translator stations.[^409] The Joint Commenters
     suggest that the "DT" suffix be used for Class A stations, and that
     no special suffix be used to identify digital TV translator
     stations.[^410] Venture suggests using the following suffixes to
     help consumers recognize the station is digital: "-DA" for Class A
     stations and "-DL" for LPTV stations.[^411] Byron St. Clair
     suggests using the following suffixes: "-DT" for TV translators,
     and "-AD" for digital Class A stations.[^412] Bruno argues that the
     use of analog suffixes "-LP" and "-CA" has "caused serious
     confusion in the public and in the advertising marketplace."[^413]
     Bruno maintains that it is necessary to explain to advertisers its
     ads will appear on its station even though the station has a call
     sign with an "-LP" suffix.[^414] Bruno suggests allowing all
     digital stations -- full-service and low power -- the flexibility
     to use the "-DT" suffix "to keep viewers and advertisers from being
     confused about what they are watching."[^415]

197. We adopt the following call sign suffixes for new digital stations
     in the low power and Class A television services. As proposed in
     the *Notice* digital LPTV stations will be identified with the
     suffix "-LD" and digital Class A stations with the suffix "-CD."
     This system will prevent confusion with other call sign
     combinations as well as possible technical problems. We understand
     that PSIP generators can accommodate six character call signs. We
     will, therefore, use the single letter "D" as the suffix for
     identifying digital translators and those digital LPTV stations
     assigned the five character letter/number call sign so that their
     call signs will not extend beyond six characters (*e.g.*, K20AA-D).
     We will not allow LPTV and Class A stations to use the suffix
     "-DT." That suffix has been reserved for use by full-service DTV
     stations. We believe it is necessary for proper station
     identification to avoid using the same suffix for both full-service
     and low power digital stations. Using "-DT" for digital stations in
     the low power stations would *create* confusion for viewers, not
     eliminate it.

### Broadcasting Auxiliary Service Frequencies

198. LPTV stations may be authorized to use television broadcast
     auxiliary service (BAS) spectrum to operate such stations as remote
     pickup, studio-to-transmitter links and point-to-point
     relays.[^416] TV translator stations may be authorized to operate
     translator relay stations. LPTV and TV translator stations use BAS
     spectrum on a secondary basis, subject to displacement by
     full-service television stations. In the *Notice* we proposed to
     extend the BAS eligibility provisions to permit digital LPTV and TV
     translator stations to operate in the same bands and for the same
     purposes as analog LPTV and TV translators, subject to the BAS
     rules governing digital operations.[^417]

199. The Joint Commenters maintain that Class A stations and LPTV
     stations in urban areas should be permitted to use BAS frequencies
     on the same basis as full-service television stations and that TV
     translators should continue to use BAS frequencies on a secondary
     basis.[^418] The Joint Commenters' recommendation is based on their
     proposal that digital Class A and LPTV station in urban areas be
     licensed on a primary, interference-protected basis. Class A
     stations are now permitted to use BAS frequencies on a primary
     basis, and we clarify here that its status also applies to digital
     Class A stations (*i.e.*, those authorized Class A stations that
     convert to digital operation on their analog channels). We reject
     the Joint Commenters' proposal, and we will not license BAS
     frequencies assigned to LPTV stations with primary regulatory
     status. As proposed in the *Notice*, all BAS frequencies assigned
     to digital LPTV and TV translator stations will be on a secondary
     basis.

### Digital Class A TV Area for Locally Produced Programming

200. Class A TV stations are required to broadcast "locally produced"
     programming, which our rules define as programming produced with a
     station's predicted Grade B contour or at the station's main
     studio.[^419] In the *Notice* we clarified that the station's
     predicted analog Grade B contour would also define the area for the
     locally produced programming of digital Class A TV stations and
     sought comment on whether the station's digital service contour
     should be used for this purpose.[^420] CBA submits that it would be
     more reasonable to define this area as the larger of the station's
     analog Grade B contour or the noise-limited contour of its digital
     station or commonly owned group of stations.[^421]

201. The statutory qualifications for Class A TV regulatory status
     include a provision related to programming produced with the
     "market area served by such station, or the market area served by a
     group of commonly controlled low-power stations that carry common
     local programming produced within the market area served by such
     group."[^422] The statute does not define the term "market area."
     In the Report and Order establishing the Class A TV service, we
     defined the market area as the area within a station's predicted
     Grade B contour, finding that this would be a realistic area in
     which local programming would be produced.[^423] Significantly, we
     did not define the market area to be the area within the station's
     protected signal contour, which is smaller than the area within a
     station's Grade B contour.

202. We chose protected signal contour values for digital stations Class
     A stations that would produce protected services areas comparable
     in size to a Class A station's associated analog area. We did not
     choose to protect the area defined by our DTV noise-limited
     contours,[^424] which we noted are comparable to the analog Grade B
     contour.[^425] We agree with CBA that the DTV noise-limited
     contours would offer a more direct basis for defining the market
     area of a digital Class A station for purposes of locally produced
     programming. Also, upon conversion to digital operations, a Class A
     station's former Grade B contour will no longer exist. For these
     reasons, we will define the market area for the locally produced
     programming of a digital Class A station as the area within the
     predicted DTV noise-limited contour based on the station's
     authorized facilities. These contour values are: 28 dBu for
     Channels 2-6, 36 dBu for Channels 7-13, and 41 dBu for Channels
     14-51.

203. In connection with our clarification of the digital Class A TV area
     for locally produced programming, KM asks that we define the term
     "locally produced programming."[^426] KM suggests that we define
     "locally produced programming" as programming that is "locally
     originated." KM notes that the term "locally originated" was used
     by Congress when it created the Class A service in the CBPA and
     that it is defined in Section 74.701(h) of the rules.[^427]

204. We decline KM's suggestion to adopt "locally originated" as the
     definition of "locally produced programming." To begin with, we did
     not seek comment on this issue in the *Notice*, and our intent was
     only to determine whether or not to adopt the analog Grade B
     contour approach for determining the Class A TV area for locally
     produced programming. In any event, KM has confused two different
     terms. As set out in Section 74.701(h) of the rules, "local
     origination" refers to the location of the transmission of a
     program and not to the location of program production.[^428] A
     program produced elsewhere may be considered "locally originated"
     if its transmission is generated at the transmitter site of a low
     power television or television translator station. "Locally
     produced programming" must be produced in some area proximate to
     the community.

## Other Technical Issues 

### Power Limits

205. In the *Notice* we asked for comment on the adequacy of the digital
     effective radiated power ("ERP") limits adopted for low power TV
     and TV translator stations in our DTV proceeding:[^429]

> [Channels]{.underline} [Peak Analog ERP]{.underline} [Average Digital
> ERP]{.underline}

2 - 13 3 kW 300 Watts

14-69 150 kW 15 kW

206. The *Notice* indicated that digital "average" power levels 10 dB
     below those of analog "peak" power levels produce analog and
     digital service areas of approximately comparable size. Of the few
     commenters addressing power issues, some recommend that we
     distinguish between Low Band VHF (channels 2 -- 6) and High Band
     VHF (channels 7 -- 13) stations in setting ERP limitations.
     Specifically, they submit that if the Low Band limits are to remain
     at 3 kW (analog) and 300 watts (digital), the limits for High Band
     should be set to larger values proportional to the differences
     between Low Band and High Band VHF power limits for full-service TV
     and DTV stations.[^430] With respect to the analog vs. digital
     power ratio of 10 dB, there is general agreement among commenters
     that this is a reasonable distinction, at least for the time being,
     [^431] although a few commenters argue that higher digital powers
     are justified at this time. Commenters present no arguments or data
     specifically addressing whether or not these digital ERP levels are
     congruent with the contour values we proposed for digital LPTV and
     TV translator stations: 43 dBu for channels 2 -- 6, 48 dBu for
     channels 7 -- 13, and 51 dBu for channels 14 -- 69.

207. We remain satisfied that the existing ERP limits for analog and
     digital low power stations are adequate and appropriate for the
     corresponding signal contour values, and we are not changing these
     limits.[^432] No commenter has demonstrated that the ERP limits
     would be inadequate for digital signal coverage of the communities
     and areas typically served by LPTV and TV translator stations.
     Conversely, some commenters maintain that lower ERP limits for TV
     translator stations would be beneficial in many circumstances. Kent
     Parsons states that "while the established power limits may be
     adequate for urban or near urban service, they are extremely high
     for rural translator service."[^433] Gary Sgrignoli comments that
     "these maximum powers appear to be fairly large for most translator
     operations and therefore probably reflect the requirements of LPTV
     stations that often reside in urban areas rather than translators
     that reside in rural areas. Obviously, lower transmitted power
     produces less interference, which then allows more DTV stations to
     be utilized."[^434] We agree that station operations with ERP
     levels below the maximum permissible values may be appropriate in
     many circumstances, particularly where outdoor receiving antennas
     are used. We encourage station licensees to confine their
     operations to ERP levels deemed necessary for adequate signal
     coverage. Operating in this manner will further reduce the
     potential for interference and help to maximize spectrum use.

### Out-of-Channel Emission Limits

208. In the *Notice* we sought data and analyses regarding appropriate
     emission mask(s) for digital low power TV and TV translator
     stations.[^435] We asked if there is a need for multiple masks with
     differing performance requirements and associated costs and, if we
     were to adopt multiple masks in our rules, whether we should
     explicitly prescribe situations that would require use of the more
     restrictive mask or whether the choice should be left to station
     operators. We asked if the mask(s) adopted in this proceeding
     should also apply to digital Class A TV stations. We sought comment
     on our proposal to utilize a 500 kHz resolution bandwidth as a
     standard reference for determining compliance with out-of-channel
     emission limits.

209. The *Notice* specifically sought comment on two emission masks
     proposed by Gary Sgrignoli: a "Simple" mask and a "Stringent" mask.
     The decibel attenuation requirements of these masks are given
     below, where Δf is the frequency difference in MHz between the mask
     measurement point and the edge of the 6 MHz channel beyond which
     the measurement is being taken. Emission attenuation levels are
     measured in a 500 kHz resolution bandwidth and compared to the
     total average power in the 6 MHz channel.

[Simple mask]{.underline}

A (dB) = 46 + (Δ f^2^ / 1.44) for Δ f = 0.0 MHz to 6.0 MHz

A (dB) = 71 everywhere else

[Stringent mask]{.underline}

A (dB) = 47 for Δ f = 0.0 MHz to 0.5 MHz

A (dB) = 47 + 11.5 (Δ f -- 0.5) for Δ f = 0.5 MHz to 3.0 MHz

A (dB) = 76 everywhere else

210. The Simple mask is identical in attenuation to the emission mask
     for DTV broadcast stations originally chosen by the
     Commission.[^436] Subsequently, this emission mask was replaced by
     the current and more restrictive DTV mask[^437] The Simple mask can
     be described as having two components: (1) a quadratic curve which
     starts at 46 dB of attenuation below the total in-band power of the
     digital signal (35 dB below the in-band flat top digital spectrum),
     increasing to 71 dB of attenuation at the edge of each
     first-adjacent channel (60 dB below the in-band flat-top digital
     spectrum) and (2) a horizontal line denoting an ultimate
     attenuation level of 71 dB at all frequencies greater than and less
     than 6 MHz from the upper and lower channel edges, respectively.
     The total integrated unweighted "splatter" power within this mask,
     as measured in each first-adjacent channel, is approximately 39 dB
     below the total average digital signal power in the 6 MHz channel.
     The Stringent mask can be described as having 3 components: (1) a
     "shelf" or flat curve that, for the first 500 kHz each side of the
     6 MHz channel, lies 47 dB below the average power in the channel
     (36 dB below the in-band flat-top digital spectrum), (2) a linear
     curve decreasing to an attenuation level of 76 dB at 3 MHz on each
     side of the channel edge (65 dB below the in-band flat-top digital
     spectrum), and (3) a horizontal line denoting an ultimate
     attenuation level of 76 dB at all frequencies greater than 3 MHz
     from the upper channel edge and less than 3 MHz from the lower
     channel edge.

211. Numerous commenters address issues involving low power digital
     emission masks.[^438] Most favor the use of multiple emission
     masks, and several propose additional "grandfathered" masks for the
     digital conversion of existing analog low power stations. These
     masks have somewhat lesser emission attenuation than those of the
     Simple mask.[^439] NTA suggests that we adopt the use of three
     masks based on specific levels of digital transmitter output
     power.[^440] It proposes that digital transmitters with "large"
     power (*e.g.*, above 30 watts for UHF channels) be required to meet
     the Stringent mask, while those using "small" transmitters should
     meet the Simple mask. According to NTA, stations operating with
     "very small" transmitters (up to 1 watt for VHF channels and up to
     6 watts for UHF channels) should, in lieu of any mask, be required
     to attenuate out-of-channel emissions by at least 28 dB in any 500
     kHz measurement bandwidth.[^441] NTA proposes an additional mask
     for analog translators with an output power not exceeding 100 watts
     when custom-modified for digital operations: [^442]

A (dB) = 40.6 + 3.33 Δ f for Δ f = 0.0 MHz to 6.0 MHz

A (dB) = 60.6 + ((Δ f -- 6) (6.37)) for Δ f = 6.0 MHz to 7.5 MHz

A (dB) = 70 for Δ f = 7.5 MHz and beyond

212. Although the attenuation of this mask flattens out at a value only
     1 dB less than the Simple mask (*i.e.*, 70 dB vs. 71 dB), this
     attenuation value occurs at 7.5 MHz from the channel edge, as
     compared to 6 MHz for the Simple mask. Also, NTA's "grandfathered"
     mask ranges from approximately 5 - 10 dB less attenuation than the
     Simple mask in the Δ f segment between 0 and 6 MHz.

213. In considering what mask(s) would be appropriate for low power
     digital stations, we seek to balance the performance benefits and
     costs of the available alternatives. As noted by Sgrignoli and
     others,[^443] one important benefit of the Simple mask is that it
     requires the installation of only a 3-section band pass filter at
     the transmitter output, compared to the more complex and expensive
     5-section band pass mask filter required for compliance with the
     Stringent mask. Another benefit of the 3-section filter over a
     5-section filter is the lower degradation of a transmitted digital
     signal's signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio. Laboratory tests have shown
     that a 27 dB S/N is achievable without using precorrection
     circuitry in digital transmitters with 3-section filters, while the
     same transmitters typically achieve only a 22 dB S/N when a
     5-section filter is used.[^444] This occurs because, as more
     sections are added to a filter in order to achieve greater
     out-of-channel attenuation of emissions, the filter produces
     increased amount of on-channel distortion (*e.g.*, group delay).
     Precorrection circuitry installed in the digital transmitter -
     circuitry that partially compensates for distortion - can restore
     the output S/N from the 5-section mask filter back to at least 27
     dB. Such circuitry would, of course, increase the cost of new
     transmitting equipment as well as the complexity and cost of
     modifying existing analog transmitting equipment for digital
     operation. Gary Sgrignoli notes that, for full-service DTV
     operations, the Advanced Television Systems Committee has
     recommended a minimum S/N of 27 dB and that linear precorrection of
     transmitter distortion is routinely utilized at facilities where,
     otherwise, this standard would not be met.[^445] No similar
     standard has been suggested for low power digital operations, and
     none was proposed in the *Notice*.

214. As noted by Sgrignoli and others, the primary benefit of the
     Stringent emission mask is that it could provide a means for using
     TV channels for low power operations that might not be achievable
     with the Simple mask, particularly some co-sited operations
     involving first adjacent channels.[^446] With such operations,
     licensees must adequately safeguard against "side band splatter"
     interference from transmissions in adjacent channels. The amount of
     power from a transmitter that spills into adjacent channels,
     especially the first-adjacent channels above and below the channel
     in use, is heavily influenced by the shape of the attenuation
     pattern of the mask filter used with the transmitter. Although the
     "flattened" attenuation values of the Stringent and Simple masks
     are 76 dB and 71 dB, respectively, these values are reached
     differently. The Stringent mask flattens out at a separation of +/-
     3 MHz from the channel edge of the potentially interfering station,
     while the 71 dB attenuation of the Simple mask is not reached until
     a separation of +/- 6 MHz. The result of these differences is that
     significantly less out-of-channel transmitter splatter, integrated
     over the 6 MHz bandwidths of the two first-adjacent channels, is
     permitted by the Stringent mask.

215. As noted, many low power licensees may face difficulties securing
     companion channels for digital operations. We believe co-sited
     adjacent channel operations will offer a promising means of meeting
     spectrum availability challenges. Such operations may require more
     stringent attenuation of out-of-channel emissions to prevent
     adjacent channel interference, but at a somewhat greater cost to
     station operators. In other situations, lesser emission filtering
     may suffice, with a cost savings to station licensees. For this
     reason, we will adopt two digital emission masks for the LPTV
     service, the Simple and Stringent masks. We will permit station
     operators the flexibility to select the mask most suitable for
     their operations, even though this will increase the complexity of
     application processing.

216. We seek emission mask requirements for digital low power operations
     that balance performance, cost, and administrative complexity. On
     this basis we conclude that the attenuation of out-of-channel
     emissions of digital LPTV and TV translator stations should at
     least meet the specifications of the Simple emission mask described
     above, regardless of transmitter power level. If a station licensee
     chooses to utilize filtering which meets the attenuation
     requirements of the Stringent mask, whether installed on an
     existing transmitter which has been converted for digital use or
     installed as part of a newly purchased transmitter, that licensee
     will be permitted to conform to the less stringent D/U ratios we
     are adopting for that mask. In the *Notice* we proposed that
     station operators be required to file a minor change application to
     seek a change of emission mask. We adopt this proposal because the
     two masks are associated with adjacent channel D/U ratios used in
     our interference prediction studies.

217. While we understand the cost-saving rationale behind NTA's proposed
     "grandfathered" mask, we do not believe that it provides sufficient
     out-of-channel suppression to facilitate efficient spectrum use.
     Given the congested spectrum environment that now exists in many
     locations, we do not believe an emission mask with lesser
     attenuation specifications than those of the Simple mask is
     generally desirable. Permissible use of a third mask would also
     further increase administrative complexity in our application
     process. Due to the limited budgets of many stations in the LPTV
     service, we will, however, make an accommodation to stations
     converting existing analog transmitters for digital operation that
     may be unable to meet directly the requirement of the Simple mask
     at the channel edge. In this regard, we will permit station
     licensees to reduce their digital transmitter output power to
     levels that would "equivalently" meet this out-of-channel emission
     requirement.

218. In the *Notice* we asked if the emission mask(s) adopted for
     digital LPTV stations should be extended to digital stations in the
     Class A television service.[^447] Currently, Class A digital
     stations must meet the emission mask required for DTV broadcast
     stations.[^448] Class A TV, LPTV, and TV translator stations
     operate with the same power limits and will be subject to the same
     interference standards and prediction methodology. Accordingly, we
     will apply the LPTV emission mask requirements (and associated D/U
     ratios) to digital Class A TV stations. No commenter opposed this
     action.

219. The attenuation values for the Simple and Stringent emission masks
     are referenced to a bandwidth of 500 kHz, which we proposed and are
     adopting as the standard reference bandwidth for calculations and
     measurements of out-of-channel attenuation.[^449] This is the same
     reference bandwidth to be employed for DTV mask calculations and
     measurements.[^450] If an alternate bandwidth is utilized for any
     reason, it should be converted to the 500 kHz reference value by
     use of the formula:

     A (dB) = A~alternate~ + 10 Log (BW~alternate~ / 500)

     where A(dB) is an attenuation measured or calculated referenced to
     a 500 kHz bandwidth and A~alternate~ is an attenuation measured or
     calculated which is referenced to a bandwidth, BW~alternate~, other
     than 500 kHz. For example, an out-of-channel attenuation,
     A~alternate~ calculated or measured as 68 dB as referenced to a
     bandwidth, BW~alternate~, of 1000 kHz, would correspond to 71 dB of
     attenuation in a 500 kHz bandwidth (*i.e.*, 71 = 68 + 10 Log
     (1000/500)).

220. The *Notice* noted the request of NTIA that we sufficiently limit
     emissions to protect operations in the three radio navigation
     satellite service ("RNSS") microwave bands (*i.e.*, from radio
     frequency harmonic emissions falling in these bands): 1164-1188
     MHz, 1215-1240 MHz and 1559-1610 MHz, [^451] and it asked whether
     the Simple and Stringent masks would provide adequate protection.
     In *exparte* filings, Gary Sgrignoli and the U.S. GPS Industry
     Council ("Council") submit differing approaches for protecting the
     RNSS bands.[^452] Other parties provide results of measurements of
     2^nd^ and 3^rd^ harmonic emissions and cost information on emission
     filtering. [^453]

221. The Council subsequently submitted a modified RNSS protection
     proposal reflecting its discussions with the NTA and LPTV industry
     technical advisers.[^454] This proposal specifies requirements for
     filtered attenuation of 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ harmonic emissions falling
     in the RNSS bands. These requirements would apply only to digital
     LPTV and TV translator stations that operate on TV channels for
     which such harmonics are generated (*i.e.*, channels 22-24, 36-38
     and 65-69). As set forth below, with minor modification, we adopt
     the protection requirements proposed in the Council's letter of
     July 26, 2004, into our digital LPTV rules:

In addition to the harmonic limits set by the emission mask, specific
'Out of Band' protection must be provided in the frequency ranges
corresponding to the GPS bands: L5 (1164-1215 MHz); L2 (1215-1240 MHz)
and L1 (1559-1610 MHz). This special requirement applies specifically to
digital LPTV and translator stations operating on channels 22-24, 36-38,
and 65-69.[^455]

1\) A type certified transmitter specifically certified for use on one
or more of the above channels must include filtering with an attenuation
of 85 dB in the GPS band which will have the effect of reducing
harmonics in the GPS bands from what is produced by the digital
transmitter, and this attenuation must be demonstrated as part of the
certification application.

2\) For an installation on one of the above channels with a digital
transmitter not specifically type certified for the channel, a low pass
filter or equivalent device rated by its manufacturer to have an
attenuation of at least 85 dB in the GOS bands, which will have the
effect of reducing harmonics in the GPS bands from what is produced by
the digital transmitter, and must be installed in a manner that will
prevent the harmonic content from reaching the antenna. A description of
the low pass filter or equivalent device with the manufacturer's rating
or a report of measurements by a qualified individual shall be retained
with the station license. Field measurements of the second or third
harmonic output of a transmitter so equipped are not required.[^456]

NTA filed an *ex parte* letter recommending that we adopt the Council's
proposal and include the above text in our rules for digital LPTV and TV
translator stations.[^457] Subsequently, CBA filed an *ex parte letter*
stating that it has consulted with the NTA on this matter and "concurs
with NTA's position and recommendation."[^458] NTIA also supports the
above RNSS protection requirements.[^459]

222. In conjunction with the Simple and Stringent mask filters we are
     adopting for digital low power stations, we believe the 85 dB
     filter requirement will adequately protect the various RNSS
     operations.[^460] The record clearly indicates that filters meeting
     this requirement are readily available at prices that should not be
     financially burdensome to most station operators. Significantly,
     this approach permits LPTV and TV translator operators to rely on
     manufacturers' specifications and does not require station
     operators to make field measurements of 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ harmonic
     output levels. Also, as proposed by the Council, we will apply the
     85 dB filtering requirement only to digital LPTV and TV translator
     station operations on channels 22-24, 36, 38, and 65-69. This
     filter requirement and the associated emission limits are for the
     protection of GPS operations only from possible harmonic emissions
     from digital LPTV and TV translator station operations and does not
     apply to other possible sources of emissions in the GPS
     bands.[^461]

### Other Transmission System Facilities Issues 

223. Section 74.750 of our rules requires that analog transmitters
     operated at LPTV and TV translator stations must either be
     "certificated for licensing" by the Commission or qualify for use
     under the TV broadcast rules in Part 73, which provide a
     verification procedure.[^462] The rule provides specific technical
     requirements that must be met before the Commission will certify
     LPTV and TV translator transmitters. In the *Notice* we sought
     comment on whether the LPTV certification requirement should be
     extended to the digital transmitters used at these stations or
     whether the TV/DTV verification procedure should be used.[^463] If
     we adopted a certification requirement, we asked if we should
     certify a transmitter or translator as a whole, including output
     filtering or also certify individual components (*e.g*., the
     front-end digital processor and final RF amplifier). In this
     regard, the *Notice* considered equipment standards related to
     signal reception and technical quality and those related to
     interference avoidance.

224. NTA supports the certification procedure, noting that full-service
     stations (subject to verification) must undertake a proof of
     performance. NTA submits that many LPTV and translator stations are
     installed by persons that lack the skills and/or test equipment to
     conduct a proof of performance, and that digital signals are more
     complex than analog signals.[^464] Some commenters support
     certification of transmitter components.[^465] One party supports
     the verification procedure.[^466]

225. We will adopt our certification procedure for new digital LPTV and
     TV translator transmitters. Specifically, we are amending Part 74
     of our rules to require that any newly manufactured transmitters
     sold for digital operations at LPTV or TV translator stations after
     the effective date of this *Report and Order* shall be subject to
     the equipment certification provisions of Part 2 of our rules. We
     are taking this action because we believe that certification of new
     equipment is an effective means of assuring that our technical
     standards, especially our out-of-channel emission mask
     requirements, will be met. We agree with NTA that the certification
     process has worked well with respect to analog stations in the LPTV
     service and that some station licensees, lacking the necessary
     skills or resources to verify compliance with our equipment
     standards, may wish to rely on transmitter manufacturers in this
     regard. We are primarily concerned about compliance with standards
     intended for interference avoidance, related to the characteristics
     of the transmitted output signals. Therefore, we will certify new
     digital translator and LPTV transmitters as self-contained units,
     including emission mask filters; tests of the transmitter output
     waveform must be made at the output port of the final filter. This
     will ensure that the components of a transmitter are properly
     interfaced to produce an output signal in compliance with our
     technical standards.

226. *Equipment Standards Related to Signal Reception and Technical
     Quality.* In the *Notice* we proposed not to require specific
     standards related to signal quality (*i.e.*, standards designed to
     enhance the signal viewability or reliability). Unlike an analog
     signal, which is subject to various degrees of picture degradation,
     a digital signal received above a particular threshold level will
     produce a satisfactory visual image, while a signal below this
     level will produce no picture. A digital signal of poor quality
     (*e.g*., low signal-to-noise ratio) will generally decrease service
     reliability and, as NTA points out, reduce a station's coverage
     area.[^467] Some commenters stress the importance maintaining an
     adequate signal-to-noise ratio ("SNR") and a means for determining
     SNR of a transmitted signal.[^468] Clearly, in-band signal
     performance characteristics such as SNR should be important to
     station operators. We believe these concerns should be left to the
     market place; station operators will want to provide service
     technically attractive to their viewers. In this regard, we will
     require transmitter manufacturers or other responsible parties to
     certify only that digital TV translator and LPTV transmitters
     provide signals that are viewable on receiving equipment designed
     for the Commission's DTV transmission standard (*i.e*., the ATSC
     8-VSB standard).

227. *Equipment Standards for Interference Avoidance*. In the *Notice*
     we indicated two principal areas of concern related to transmitter
     standards for interference avoidance: sufficient attenuation of
     out-of-channel emissions and the ability of a transmitter to
     operate within it rated output power.[^469] We proposed that
     digital LPTV transmitters and TV translators must comply with the
     emission mask(s) we adopt herein. We also asked if we should
     establish a tolerance level for deviation from the rated output
     power and a specific means of power control, such as automatic
     level control. We noted that excessive power could result in
     co-channel interference and also cause a rapid rise in the level of
     out-of-channel emissions. We sought comment on whether to adopt any
     other equipment standards for digital translators and transmitters
     in the LPTV service.

228. Several parties commented on these issues, generally agreeing that
     compliance with our out-of-channel emission limits should be a
     required element for transmitter certification. Parsons proposes
     that the output power of a translator "must be maintained and not
     exceed more than 5% of its authorized power."[^470] CBA states that
     it "does not object to automatic power limiters, but it does not
     believe that a licensee should be required to use equipment that
     automatically boosts a falling power level because of the potential
     distortion that such equipment may introduce into a digital
     signal."[^471] Greg Best asserts that "\[I\]t is required to
     implement some form of power output limit on this equipment. This
     power limit should be based on a sample taken at the output of the
     mask filter. Automatic gain control should be permitted in digital
     translators." For equipment placed into service after these rules
     are adopted, he recommends that the power output variation be
     limited to no more than 0.5 dB.[^472] As a condition for permitting
     the digital conversion of analog translators, Riverton recommends
     limiting output power variations to +/- 1 dB "for an input increase
     of 20 dB, and a decrease of 10 dB when the translator has been
     optimized for digital transmission."[^473] Regarding other
     standards issues, Greg Best proposes that we limit the translator
     frequency tolerance to +/- 1 kHz, noting that "the frequency
     tolerance of multiple hop translator systems can stack up in the
     same direction."[^474]

229. We adopt what we believe to be the minimally necessary transmitter
     requirements for interference avoidance, recognizing that
     compliance with additional standards could increase equipment costs
     and be burdensome for stations operating on limited budgets. Thus,
     the following requirements must be met before we will certify LPTV
     and TV translator digital transmitters. First, out-of-channel
     emissions measured at the output terminals of the transmitter
     (including all output filtering) and at the transmitter's rated
     output power must meet at least the specifications of the "Simple"
     emission mask. Transmitters may be certificated for use with either
     the Simple or Stringent masks, as well as with the additional
     filtering for harmonic emission protection of Radio Navigation
     Satellite Service ("RNSS") frequency bands. We will assign
     different FCC identifier numbers to transmitters with different
     emission filtering specifications: (1) Simple emission mask, (2)
     Simple emission mask plus RNSS filtering protection, (3) Stringent
     emission mask and (4) Stringent emission mask plus RNSS filtering
     protection. A transmitter certificated to meet RNSS protection
     requirements must employ filtering that attenuates harmonic
     emissions in the RNSS bands by at least 85 dB.[^475]

230. An LPTV or TV translator digital transmitter will be certified at
     its rated digital average output power level. Similar to our analog
     equipment requirement, we will require that a heterodyne digital
     translator maintain the average digital output power constant
     within 1 dB when the strength of the input signal is varied over a
     range of 30 dB.[^476] Further, we will not permit the digital
     average output power of any digital translator or LPTV transmitter
     to exceed the maximum rated value under any condition.[^477] Based
     on the record, we believe this power tolerance, which is slightly
     more restrictive than the peak power tolerance for analog
     transmitters, could readily be met by transmitter manufacturers.
     This tolerance should also ensure a relatively stable emission
     mask. We will not specify a method of maintaining transmitter
     output power within the required limits, but will leave this
     decision to transmitter manufacturers. We will require the
     transmitter to be suitably equipped to display the average digital
     transmitter output power. To further ensure the stability of the
     emission mask, we will require the local oscillator frequency in
     the RF channel upconverter of the transmitter to be maintained
     within 10 kHz over a temperature range between 0 and 40 degrees
     Centigrade and variations in the main power supply voltage between
     85 and 115 percent.[^478] Because of cost considerations and to
     facilitate flexible use of existing equipment, we will not require
     the 1 kHz tolerance that is recognized by the ATSC as acceptable in
     cases where no interference is expected.[^479] However, we
     encourage manufacturers to design such upconverters with this
     tolerance. We expect that compliance with a 10 KHz tolerance will
     not be problematic for digital LPTV stations or translators
     operating in the regenerative transmission mode. However, this
     tolerance could constrain the operation of heterodyne translators
     in "multiple hop" networks, because frequency deviations from
     nominal values accumulate as signals are retransmitted through such
     networks. For this purpose, we encourage licensees to employ
     regenerative-based digital translators.

### Modification of Transmission Systems 

231. In the *Notice* we sought comment on issues involving modification
     of existing analog LPTV and TV translator transmitters for digital
     operation.[^480] We noted that our rules permit manufacturers to
     obtain authorizations for changes to the mechanical or electrical
     characteristics of certified equipment and to supply field
     modification kits to station operators (*e.g*., to substitute solid
     state modules for vacuum tube modules). Station licensees are not
     required to have approval to make such equipment changes, but are
     required to notify the Commission upon completion.

232. Several commenters recommend that existing stations be permitted to
     convert their existing analog equipment for digital operation if
     certain technical requirements are met.[^481] NTA recommends that
     if a transmitter is modified by the installation of a kit supplied
     by an equipment manufacturer and tested according to the
     manufacturer's instructions, it should be considered as meeting our
     equipment certification requirements.[^482] For analog equipment
     modified for digital use without a manufacturer-supplied kit, NTA
     recommend that such modifications be allowed if the licensee makes
     "appropriate measurements, particularly calibration of the power
     meter and of the out of band spurious emissions" and these
     measurements are "retained as part of the station's permanent
     record."[^483] Greg Best submits that conversion of analog
     transmitters for digital operation would be "significantly more
     cost effective than requiring new generation power amplifiers to be
     employed at all sites."[^484]

233. We will adopt provisions to permit the modification of existing
     analog LPTV and TV translator transmitters for digital operation.
     We recognize that many translator and LPTV stations operate on very
     limited budgets and that, accordingly, their digital operations may
     depend on the use of their existing equipment (*e.g.*, use of the
     final RF amplifier in an analog transmitter they have on hand). We
     will extend our policies and procedures for analog field
     modification kits to analog-to-digital conversion and to
     modifications of digital transmitters. Manufacturers may seek
     authorization to modify certificated analog equipment for digital
     operation. Upon our approval, they may supply station operators
     with kits containing modules or discrete components that can be
     retrofitted into an analog LPTV or translator transmitter, together
     with installation and testing procedures and a label with a new FCC
     identifier and model number.

234. We are therefore amending our rules to authorize this process as
     long as the following requirements are met: (1) Field modifications
     are carried out by a person or persons qualified for such work; (2)
     modification kits, when installed at heterodyne TV translator
     stations, are fitted only to transmitters which, when modified for
     digital operation, will produce a power output of no more than 30
     watts of digital average power for UHF transmitters and 3 watts for
     VHF transmitters; (3) the final amplifier stage of an analog
     transmitter modified for digital output shall not have an average
     digital output power greater than 25% of its previous peak sync
     NTSC output power unless the amplifier has been specifically
     refitted or replaced for higher power operation;[^485] (4) after
     installation of the modification kit, the transmitter is
     performance-tested in accordance with instructions supplied by the
     manufacturer and demonstrated to comply with our digital low power
     transmitter certification requirements, including compliance with
     RNSS filtering protection requirements, as applicable; (5) a record
     of the materials provided by the manufacturer and the results of
     tests and measurements is maintained with the station's records for
     a period of not less than two years and will be made available to
     the Commission upon request; and (6) that the licensee notifies the
     Commission upon completion of the transmitter modifications.

235. We will not require that the original manufacturer of the
     transmitter and the manufacturer of the modification kit be the
     same entity, as this would be impractical, perhaps impossible in
     some cases. Rather, with respect to meeting our certification
     requirements, we will require that the manufacturer of the
     modification kit install and test the kit on each model of
     transmitter to which it can be retrofitted and submit those results
     in accordance with the certification procedures in Part 2 of our
     rules. A unique authorization will be issued for each combination
     of transmitter and associated kit. The person who installs the kit
     at the LPTV or TV translator station becomes, as provided by Rule
     Section 2.909, the party responsible for compliance of the
     transmitter with all applicable provisions of the rules unless that
     party is working under the specific authority of the certification
     grantee.[^486] These procedures require that suitable tests and
     measurements be done by qualified person(s) after the transmitting
     equipment is installed in order to determine its compliance with
     all applicable technical requirements and the results of these
     tests and measurements be kept on file by the licensee and made
     available for Commission inspection and review upon request.

236. We will also permit modification of analog transmitting equipment
     for digital operation without the use of a manufacturer's kit
     (*i.e.*, "custom" modifications). In so doing, we are concerned
     about potential problems that could arise if such work is not done
     properly. Nevertheless, we agree with NTA and other commenters that
     such modifications should be permitted if certain restrictions are
     met: (1) The modifications are carried out by a person or persons
     qualified to perform such work; (2) no modifications are performed
     that will enable a heterodyne digital TV translator to operate with
     a power output exceeding 30 watts for UHF stations and 3 watts for
     VHF stations; (3) the final amplifier stage of an analog
     transmitter modified for digital output is not operated at an
     average digital output power greater than 25% of its previous peak
     sync NTSC power output level unless the amplifier has been
     specifically refitted or replaced for higher power operation; (4)
     after completion of the modifications, the transmitter is
     performance-tested and demonstrated to comply with our digital low
     power transmitter certification requirements, including compliance
     with RNSS protection filtering requirements, as applicable; (5) a
     record including a description of the nature of the modifications
     and test procedures and the results of tests and measurements is
     maintained with the station records for a period of not less than
     two years and will be made available to the Commission upon
     request; and (6) that the licensee notify the Commission upon
     completion of the modification(s) and certify compliance with our
     transmitter certification requirements.

237. With regard to the conversion of existing analog transmitters for
     digital operation, we believe it necessary to make some
     accommodation for those stations operating analog transmitters that
     would not comply with out-of-channel emission specifications of the
     Simple emission mask at the channel edge. Based on testing of a
     sample of existing analog translator with a band pass filter at the
     transmitter output, Greg Best concludes that "\[T\]he general shape
     of the simple mask can be met by most equipment but not the
     shoulder levels."[^487] He indicates that out-of-channel emissions
     for the tested equipment fell about 6 dB short of the requirements
     of the Simple mask. He states that "No amount of filtering can
     practically compensate for the adjacent channel interference
     introduced by the power amplifier 'shoulder' *(i.e*., 500 kHz
     segment just outside the digital channel)."[^488] He submits that
     the emission mask of such equipment be "grandfathered" for a period
     not to exceed five years.[^489] Sgrignoli suggests the following
     approach for addressing this concern:

> "In order to combat this increased adjacent channel splatter (shelves
> less than 35 dB due to the use of some older translator units) and to
> keep all the splatter interference the same, I agree with the
> principle that the in-band average power be reduced one dB for every
> dB that the close-in shelves are less than 35 dB down from the
> flat-top part of the in-band spectrum. This way, the total adjacent
> channel splatter energy would have the same interference power
> (assuming the same splatter spectral shape exists), but the in-band
> power is de-rated."[^490]

238. Because of budgetary considerations, we understand that some
     station operators may want to use their existing analog power
     amplifiers for digital operations. In order to ensure "equivalent"
     compliance with the attenuation requirement of the Simple mask a
     the channel edge, we will adopt the above approach in connection
     with the on-channel conversion of existing analog transmitters for
     digital operation, and illustrate its use. First, we will generally
     assume that the nominal digital transmitter output power of such a
     station is 6 dB below the analog output power used to determine the
     station's authorized ERP. Second, based on measurements, the
     station operator should determine the emission mask attenuation at
     the channel edges and determine the difference of the measured
     value from the required value of 35 dB (below flat-top or,
     alternatively, 46 dB below the average in-band digital power).
     Suppose the measured emission shortfall is 5 dB. To ensure
     equivalency with the Simple mask requirement, the operator would be
     required to further reduce the digital output power by this amount
     and apply for a digital authorization with an ERP at least 11 dB
     less than the authorized ERP of the analog station being modified
     for digital use (*i.e*, 6 dB plus 5 dB). We will require operators
     meeting our mask requirements in this manner to certify equivalent
     compliance on the basis of signal measurements and the appropriate
     power reduction. We emphasize that this procedure will only apply
     to the on-channel conversion of existing analog transmitters for
     digital operation.[^491]

239. As noted, we are permitting station operators substantial
     flexibility to use their existing analog equipment for digital
     operation, which we believe, will facilitate off-air digital
     service to translator-served communities. Nonetheless, we would
     prefer the use of transmitters designed for digital operation,
     including translator use of a regenerative DTV receiver/processor.
     In our future consideration of the end of the DTV transition for
     LPTV and TV translator stations, we may wish to consider a
     termination date for permitting custom conversion of analog
     transmitters for digital operation, including the mask equivalence
     procedure described above. We do not believe that there should be
     an unlimited period available for the custom-conversion of old (and
     perhaps obsolete) analog transmitting gear, when there will be an
     increasing availability of new equipment at a reasonable cost that
     will produce uniformly high quality digital signals. We may address
     this issue in a future proceeding.

### PSIP 

240. In the *Report and Order* in our Second DTV Periodic Review
     proceeding, we adopted into our DTV transmission standard the ATSC
     Program System and Information Protocol ("PSIP") standard (ATSC
     A/65B).[^492] Therein, we described the principal features and
     benefits of PSIP:

PSIP is data that is transmitted along with a station's DTV signal that
tells DTV receivers information about the station and what is being
broadcast. PSIP provides a method for DTV receivers to identify a DTV
station and to determine how a receiver can tune to it. PSIP identifies
both the DTV channel and the associated NTSC channel and enables DTV
receivers to associate the two channels, thereby making it easier for
viewers to tune to the DTV station even if they do not know the channel
number. In addition to identifying the channel number, PSIP tells the
receiver whether multiple program channels are being broadcast and, if
so, how to find them. It also identifies whether the programs are closed
captioned, and conveys available v-chip information, among other
things.[^493]

The ATSC A/65B PSIP standard offers a standard means of channel
navigation and many other benefits to consumers, including the
transmission of an electronic program guide. We therefore concluded that
its adoption into our DTV transmission standard would serve the public
interest. We also indicated that we would address the implications of
PSIP to LPTV and TV translator stations in the digital low power
proceeding[^494]

241. The Second Periodic Review *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*
     requested comment on issues concerning the implications of PSIP on
     the operation of TV translator facilities.[^495] We requested
     comment on how the proper PSIP information is to be provided on TV
     translator rebroadcasts and who should be responsible for ensuring
     that the information is provided. We also requested comment
     regarding the costs of providing PSIP information on TV translators
     as well as any other concerns that translator operators might have
     in implementing PSIP in their digital operations. Commenters agree
     that the PSIP standard now adopted by the Commission accommodates
     translators.[^496]

242. We are generally requiring a digital TV translator to rebroadcast
     all programs and signals of a DTV broadcast station, which includes
     a station's PSIP information. Only in limited situations would a
     digital translator need to modify the incoming PSIP information
     from its primary DTV station. For example, it is possible that a
     translator may rebroadcast a distant DTV station having the same
     major channel number (NTSC channel) as another broadcast station
     being received directly in the translator-served community. The
     ATSC A/65B standard addresses this situation as follows: "For a
     translated signal, the major/minor channel numbers shall remain the
     same as the original broadcast station unless the major channel
     conflicts with a broadcaster operating in the service area of the
     translator. In that case, the translator shall change the major
     number to a non-conflicting number."[^497] This provision for use
     of major channel numbers provides a uniform methodology to access
     DTV services, and we are adopting it for translator rebroadcasts.
     As a second possibility, the operator of a digital translator
     system may seek to rebroadcast two DTV stations with the same major
     channel number (*e.g.*, in multiple-hop networks). This situation
     will also require one of the translators to change the major
     channel to a non-conflicting number, perhaps the number of the
     translator output channel. We believe the resolution of this
     situation is best left to mutual agreement among the licensees of
     the translator and involved DTV stations. We understand that
     regenerative translators can be equipped for this purpose, and we
     will require use of regenerative technology in these
     situations.[^498] Finally, we are permitting translator operators
     to enter into agreements with the licensees of two or more DTV
     broadcast stations to multi-cast individual program streams of
     these stations on the translator output channel, which will also
     require the use of regenerative technology. Through the transport
     stream identifiers ("TSID") of the DTV stations involved in this
     arrangement, the ATSC A/65B PSIP standard provides a receiver
     navigation mechanism to permit such multiplexing of individual
     program streams from different sources. However, it does not
     provide a basis for determining the major channel number embedded
     in the translator output signal. We believe the resolution of this
     situation is also best left to the involved station licensees.

243. The *Notice* in this proceeding did not specifically consider the
     implications of PSIP for digital LPTV stations, including cost
     information, nor did our *Notice* in the *Second DTV Periodic
     Review* proceeding seek comment in this regard. Commenters
     generally did not address this issue.[^499] As described above, the
     A/65B PSIP standard offers significant benefits to broadcasters and
     consumers, including channel navigation protocols to facilitate
     tuning of single and multiple program channels in the digital bit
     stream. It also specifies a means for the transmission of v-chip
     program ratings and closed captioning information.[^500] In order
     to make these benefits available to viewers and provide an
     attractive service, we believe many licensees of digital LPTV
     stations may choose to implement the ATSC A/65B PSIP standard, at
     least those elements that facilitate tuning and channel navigation
     by DTV receivers.[^501] We strongly encourage these licensees to
     implement ATSC A/65B PSIP in their station operations.[^502] We are
     also mindful of the costs of full or partial implementation of
     PSIP, and we do not want to impose requirements that would
     financially burden stations that operate on limited budgets. We are
     concerned that we do not have an adequate record of these costs and
     their impact on LPTV station licensees, particularly the smaller
     stations. [^503] As we begin to create opportunities for digital
     LPTV service, we do not want to impose costs that could discourage
     licensees from operating digital stations. Thus, for this reason,
     we will not at this time require digital LPTV stations to comply
     with the ATSC A65/B standard. Situations may arise, however, that
     may compel a station to become compliant with the PSIP navigational
     elements.[^504] We also note that digital LPTV stations will be
     required to transmit closed captioning information that can be
     displayed on DTV receivers. The full implementation of PSIP would
     facilitate licensee compliance with this requirement.[^505] We will
     revisit the PSIP implications for digital LPTV stations in a future
     DTV proceeding.

## Digital Booster Stations

244. Our LPTV service rules include an analog TV booster station class,
     devices that amplify the signals of a TV broadcast station for
     retransmission on the same channel.[^506] Only full-service TV
     broadcasters may operate TV boosters and for the limited purpose of
     serving areas of low signal strength within their Grade B contours
     (*e.g.*, terrain-shadowed areas). Booster may not be located
     outside of a station's Grade B contour, nor may the predicted Grade
     B contour of a booster extend beyond that of its primary TV
     broadcast station.[^507] Applications for booster stations may be
     filed any time and without geographic restrictions on where these
     stations can be operated.

245. The *Notice* sought comment on whether we should establish a
     digital booster station class in the LPTV rules.[^508] We
     contemplated that low power digital boosters could serve the same
     "fill-in" purpose of analog boosters and might also be useful in
     delivering digital television service to communities where other TV
     channels are unavailable. We asked what requirements should apply
     to the authorization and operation of digital low power booster
     stations; for example, whether eligibility to operate such stations
     should be extended to include Class A TV, LPTV, and TV translator
     licensees. If we were to analyze potential interference from
     boosters using the prediction methodology applicable to
     translators, we asked whether there is any reason to continue
     prohibiting boosters from serving areas outside a station's service
     contour (*i.e.*, as an alternative delivery mechanism to digital TV
     translators.) We also asked if we should apply to digital boosters
     the technical standards adopted for digital LPTV and translator
     stations.

246. Commenters are divided on whether we should establish a digital
     booster station class at this time and how it should be regulated.
     Several parties believe that digital boosters would be useful and
     they recommend that we create this station class in the LPTV
     service. [^509] APTS/PBS notes that it previously submitted
     evidence that digital boosters are "a technically feasible and
     spectrum efficient means of distributing a digital signal to remote
     areas within a station's digital contour that are not ordinarily
     reached due to terrain or other factors."[^510] Most parties favor
     limiting the use of digital boosters to full-service broadcasters
     or imply that we would do so.[^511] Other parties submit that we
     should permit the use of a booster at locations outside of the
     protected contour of a licensee's main station.[^512]

247. MSTV/NAB recommends that we not establish a digital booster station
     class and related rules at this time.[^513] It notes that we are
     considering rules for distributed transmission systems ("DTS") in
     our *Second DTV Periodic Review* proceeding "as an alternative to
     the use of on-channel booster stations."[^514] AFCCE suggests that
     digital boosters are "part of a larger issue regarding use of
     single frequency networks for full-service stations."[^515]

248. At this time, we will not establish a digital booster station class
     in our LPTV service rules.[^516] If such stations were to be
     authorized, we expect these would be primarily used by broadcasters
     to serve terrain-shadowed portions of their DTV service areas, in
     the manner of analog boosters. We concur with MSTV/NAB that we
     should resolve issues regarding distributed transmission systems
     before further considering whether to authorize on-channel digital
     boosters.

249. NTA maintains that there may be circumstances where the best output
     channel for a digital translator would be the input channel of its
     primary DTV broadcast station. It recommends that we make this
     option available to any prospective licensee under our translator
     rules.[^517] NTA notes that the primary broadcast licensee, through
     its retransmission consent, would exercise control over where such
     operations could take place. We recognize that in some areas
     spectrum for digital companion channels will be extremely limited,
     especially during the full-service DTV transition. The NTA proposal
     has merit in that it would facilitate efficient use of available TV
     channels. Therefore, we will permit digital translator and LPTV
     stations to retransmit programming directly received on the same TV
     channel, but only if the licensee of the original input signal
     (*e.g.*, full-service DTV station licensee) has given its
     consent.[^518] We will authorize such operations under our
     technical rules for digital translator and LPTV stations. While
     allowing operations that are technically equivalent to boosters,
     applications for these stations must be filed as a new TV
     translator or LPTV station. These stations will be subject to the
     same interference analysis we perform on other stations in the LPTV
     service.

## Petition for Rule Making by APTS, PBS and CPB

250. APTS, PBS and CPB (referred to collectively as the "LPTV
     Petitioners") filed a Petition for Rulemaking (the "Petition")
     asking that the Commission initiate a proceeding to "ensure the
     delivery of noncommercial educational and public safety services to
     all Americans by protecting the existing system of translators and
     facilitating the development of . . . digital translators and
     digital on-channel repeaters."[^519] In the *Notice* we sought
     comment on some of the requests sought by the LPTV
     Petitioners.[^520] This included whether: (1) to authorize dual
     analog/digital channels for translators; (2) to allow interested
     translator operators to "flash-cut" from analog to digital; (3) to
     allow applications for new digital on-channel repeaters; (4) to
     provide on-channel repeaters the same interference protection
     granted to the main transmitter with which it is associated;
     and (5) to allow applications for new digital translators.

251. Given our actions herein, we believe we have addressed the issues
     raised by the LPTV Petitioners.[^521] We adopt rules to allow
     existing translator stations to seek digital companion channels or
     to convert on-channel from analog to digital. We adopt rules for
     the filing of applications for new digital translators on a
     first-come, first-served basis. Finally, we decided to not create a
     digital low power television booster service at this time. We
     conclude that our actions address the LPTV Petitioners' overall
     goals that we facilitate the transition from analog to digital
     operation for these translators.[^522] We therefore dismiss the
     Petition as moot.

# ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

252. *Accessibility Information*. Accessible formats of this *Report and
     Order* (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording and
     Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting
     Brian Millin, of the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau,
     at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or at <bmillin@fcc.gov>.

253. *Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis*. This document contains
     new and 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 and forms contained in
     this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small
     Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
     *[see]{.underline}* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we have assessed the
     effects of adopting these rules, and find that there may be an
     administrative burden on businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
     However, since this action is consistent with our mandate to ensure
     the successful transition from analog to digital television, we
     believe small businesses will also benefit from the requirements we
     adopt herein in that they will be permitted to participate in the
     digital transition In addition, the rules allow flexibility to
     operate low power digital television facilities, allowing stations
     new and unique sources of income, and for new entrants to seek
     digital television stations, which should substantially alleviate
     any burdens imposed on all businesses, including those with fewer
     than 25 employees.

254. Written comments by the public on the proposed information
     collection(s) are due 60 days from date of publication of this
     *Report and Order* in the Federal Register. Written comments must
     be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget and
     other interested parties on the proposed information collection(s)
     on or before 60 days from date of publication of this *Report and
     Order* in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments with
     the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information
     collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to Judith F.
     Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A804, 445 12^th^
     Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
     <Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov>, and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk
     Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17^th^ Street, NW, Washington, DC
     20503, or via the Internet to Kristy L. <LaLonde@omb.eop.gov>, or
     via fax at 202-395-5167.

255. *Regulatory Flexibility Act*. As required by the Regulatory
     Flexibility Act,[^523] the Commission has prepared a Final
     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") relating to this *Report
     and Order*. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix C.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

256. **IT IS ORDERED** that pursuant to the authority contained in
     Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 5(c)(1), 7, 301, 302*,* 303(f), 303(r),
     303(u), 303(w), 303(x), 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 324, 336(c),
     336(f), 337, 330(b), 330(c), 332(c) of the Communications Act of
     1934, 47 U.S.C §§ 151, 154(i) and (j), 155(c)(1), 157, 301, 302,
     303(f), 303(r), 303(u), 303(w), 303(x), 307, 308, 309, 316, 319,
     324, 336(c), 336(f), 337, 330(b), 330(c), 332(c) that the
     Commission's rules **ARE HEREBY AMENDED** as set forth in Appendix
     *B,* and shall become effective 60 days after publication in the
     Federal Register except that rule sections that contain information
     collection requirements under the PRA shall not be effective until
     approved by OMB. The FCC will publish a document in the Federal
     Register announcing the effective date for those sections.

257. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that the Commission's Consumer and
     Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, **SHALL
     SEND** a copy of this *Report and* *Order*, including the Final
     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
     of the Small Business Administration.

258. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED**, That the Commission will send a copy of
     this *Report and Order* 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).

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

> Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**LIST OF COMMENTERS**

## Comments {#comments .unnumbered}

Abacus Television, Turnpike Television, et. al. (Joint Commenters)

Access Spectrum, LLC (Access)

Adams Telecom (Adams)

Aloha Partners, L.P. (Aloha)

Annapolis Broadcasting Company, Inc. (Annapolis)

Arctic Slope Telephone Assn Coop., Inc.; Grand River Communications,
Inc.; Kanokla

Telephone Assn., Inc.; Peoples Telephone Coop., Inc.; Valley Telephone
Coop. (Arctic)

Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers (AFCCE)

Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. and The National
Association of Broadcasters (MSTV/NAB)

Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International,
Inc. (APCO)

Association of Public Television Stations and the Public Broadcasting
Service (APTS/PBS)

Bonneville International Corp. (Bonneville)

Brey, Ronald J.

Bruno Goodworth Network, Inc. (Bruno)

Cavalier Group, LLC (Cavalier)

Cherryland Wireless, LLC (Cherryland)

Community Broadcasters Assn. (CBA)

Cooperative Television Assn. (CTA)

Cordillera Files\\Common Files, Inc. (Cordillera)

Corr Wireless Communications, LLC (Corr)

Corridor Television, LLP; Rapid Broadcasting Co. (Corridor)

Cox Broadcasting, Inc.; Liberty Corp. (Cox)

Cruze Electronics (Cruze)

Datacom, LLC (Datacom)

Dept. of Special Districts of San Bernadino County, Calif. (San
Bernardino County)

duTriel, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. (duTriel)

Elko Television District (Elko)

Engle Broadcasting (Engle) 

Entravision Holdings, LLC (Entravision)

Fox Television Stations, Inc. and Fox Broadcasting Co. (Fox)

Greg Best Consulting, Inc. (Greg Best)

Harbor Wireless, LLC (Harbor)

H&R Production Group, LLC (H&R)

International Broadcasting Network (International)

Island Broadcasting Co. (Island)

KAET (TV) (Arizona State Univ.) (KAET)

KM Broadcasting, Inc. (KM)

Larcan USA, Inc. (Larcan)

Lin TV Corp. and Banks Broadcasting, Inc. (LIN)

Martin Group, Inc. (Martin)

Metrocast Corporation (Metrocast)

Miller, Keily

Motorola, Inc. (Motorola)

Mullaney Engineering, Inc. (Mullaney)

National Translator Assn. (NTA)

P&P Cable Holdings, LLC (P&P)

Parson, R. Kent (State of Utah) (Parson)

Paxson Communications Corp. (Paxson)

Pioneer Telephone Coop., Inc. (Pioneer)

QUALCOMM, Inc. (Qualcomm)

Renville County TV Corp. (Renville)

Riverton Freemont TV Club, Inc. (Riverton)

Rural 700 MHz Band Licensees (Rural 700 MHz)

Selective TV, Inc. (Selective)

Snoop, Donald R.

Southern Oregon Public Television, Inc. (Southern Oregon)

St. Clair, B.W. (St. Clair)

Sunbelt Television, Inc. (Sunbelt)

TV-61 San Diego, Inc.

United Telephone Assn., Inc. (UTA)

Venture Technologies Group, Inc. (Venture)

Vermont Educational Television (Vermont Educational)

Viacel

Vulcan Spectrum, LLC (Vulcan)

Wardell, Ed; Wardell, Jane

WatchTV, Inc.

Willmar Assembly of God Church

Word of Life Ministries (Word)

Wyoming Pubic Television (Wyoming)

##  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

## Reply Comments/Ex Parte Comments {#reply-commentsex-parte-comments .unnumbered}

##  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

Abacus Television, Turnpike Television, et.al.

Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. and the National
Association of Broadcasters

Association of Public Television Stations and The Public Broadcasting
Service

Bruno Goodworth Network, Inc.

Commercial Broadcasting Corp.

Corridor Television, LLP and Rapid Broadcasting Co.

Cox Broadcasting, Inc. and The Liberty Corp.

Dept. of Special Districts of San Bernardino County, Calif.

Fiori, John

Greg Best Consulting, Inc.

Greg Best Consulting, Inc. for University of New Mexico

Idaho Public Television Stations

International Broadcasting Network

Island Broadcasting Co.

Jackson, Martin J.

KUED-TV and KULC-TV

Larcan USA, Inc.

Lawrence, Kathy for College Media Advisers

Motorola, Inc.

National Translator Assn.

Ogden Valley TV Translator Special Service District

Page, Kevin L. for KHEM-LP

Parsons, R. Kent (State of Utah)

Paxson Communications Corp.

Rancho Palos Verdes Broadcasters, Inc.

Renard Communications Corp.

Reynolds Media Inc.

Riverton Fremont TV Club, Inc.

Rural 700 MHz Band Licensees

Sgrignoli, Gary

Sheldahl, Douglas

Statewide Wireless Network of the New York State Office for Technology

Tiger Eye Broadcasting Corp.

Venture Technologies Group, LLC

WZBN TV, Inc.

Zenith Electronics Corp.

700 MHz Advancement Coalition

 

**APPENDIX B**

**FINAL RULE CHANGES**

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Parts 73 and 74 of the U.S.
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 73 -- RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

1\. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

**Subpart J -- Class A Television Broadcast Stations**

2\. Section 73.6000 is revised by adding a new subparagraph (2) and
renumbering existing subparagraph (2) as subparagraph (3).

**§ 73.6000 Definitions.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(2\) Produced within the predicted DTV noise-limited contour (see §
73.622(e) of this part) of a digital Class A station broadcasting the
program or within the contiguous predicted DTV noise-limited contours of
any of the digital Class A stations in a commonly owned group; or

\* \* \* \* \*

3\. Section 73.6016 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 73.6016 Digital Class A TV station protection of TV broadcast
stations.**

Digital Class A TV stations must protect authorized TV broadcast
stations, applications for minor changes in authorized TV broadcast
stations filed on or before November 29, 1999, and applications for new
TV broadcast stations that had been cut-off without competing
applications or that were the winning bidder in a TV broadcast station
auction as of that date, or that were the proposed remaining applicant
in a group of mutually-exclusive applications for which a settlement
agreement was on file as of that date. This protection must be based on
meeting the requirements of § 74.793 (b)-(d) and (f) of this chapter. An
application for DTV operation of an existing Class A TV station or to
change the facilities of a digital Class A TV station will not be
accepted if it fails to protect these TV broadcast stations and
applications pursuant to these requirements.

4\. Section 73.6017 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 73.6017 Digital Class A TV station protection of Class A TV and
digital Class A TV stations.**

An application for digital operation of an existing Class A TV station
or to change the facilities of a digital Class A TV station will not be
accepted if it fails to protect authorized Class A and digital Class A
stations in accordance with the requirements of § 74.793 (b)-(d) and (g)
of this chapter. This protection must be afforded to applications for
changes in other authorized Class A and digital Class A stations filed
prior to the date the digital Class A applications is filed.

5\. Section 73.6018 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 73.6018 Digital Class A TV station protection of DTV stations.**

Digital Class A TV stations must protect the DTV service that would be
provided by the facilities specified in the DTV Table of Allotments in §
73.622 of this part, by authorized DTV stations and by applications that
propose to expand DTV stations' allotted or authorized coverage contour
in any direction, if such applications either were filed before December
31, 1999 or were filed between December 31, 1999 and May 1, 2000 by a
DTV station licensee or permittee that had notified the Commission of
its intent to "maximize" by December 31, 1999. Protection of these
allotments, stations and applications must be based on meeting the
requirements of § 74.793 (b)-(e) of this chapter. An application for
digital operation of an existing Class A TV station or to change the
facilities of a digital Class A TV station will not be accepted if it
fails to protect these DTV allotments, stations and applications in
accordance with this section.

6\. Section 73.6019 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 73.6019 Digital Class A TV station protection of low power TV, TV
translator, digital low power TV and digital TV translator stations.**

An application for digital operation of an existing Class A TV station
or to change the facilities of a digital Class A TV station will not be
accepted if it fails to protect authorized low power TV, TV translator,
digital low power TV and digital TV translator stations in accordance
with the requirements of § 74.793 (b)-(d) and (h) of this chapter. This
protection must be afforded to applications for changes filed prior to
the date the digital Class A station is filed.

7\. Section 73.6020 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 73.6020 Protection of stations in the land mobile radio service.**

An application for digital operation of an existing Class A TV station
or to change the facilities of an existing Class A TV or digital Class A
TV station will not be accepted if it fails to protect stations in the
land mobile radio service pursuant to the requirements specified in §
74.709 of this chapter. In addition to the protection requirements
specified in § 74.709(a) of this chapter, Class A TV and digital Class A
TV stations must not cause interference to land mobile stations
operating on channel 16 in New York, NY.

\* \* \* \* \*

8\. Section 73.6024 is revised by adding a new paragraph (d).

**§ 73.6024 Transmission standards and system requirements.**

\(d\) A digital Class A station must meet the emission requirements of §
74.794 of this chapter.

\* \* \* \* \*

9\. Section 73.6027 is added to read as follows:

**§ 73.6027 Class A TV notifications concerning interference to radio
astronomy, research and receiving installations.**

An applicant for digital operation of an existing Class A TV station or
to change the facilities of an existing Class A TV or digital Class A TV
station shall be subject to the requirements of § 73.1030 --
Notifications concerning interference to radio astronomy, research and
receiving installations.

\* \* \* \* \*

PART 74 -- EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES

10\. The authority citation for Part 74 is amended to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, 309, 336 and 554

**Subpart G -- Low Power TV, TV Translator, and TV Booster Stations**

11\. Section 74.701 is revised by adding new paragraphs (j) through (p):

§ **74.701 Definitions.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(j\) *Digital television broadcast translator station ("digital TV
translator station")*. A station operated for the purpose of
retransmitting the programs and signals of a digital television ("DTV")
broadcast station, without significantly altering any characteristic of
the original signal other than its frequency and amplitude, for the
purpose of providing DTV reception to the general public.

\(k\) *Digital low power TV station ("digital LPTV station")*. A station
authorized under the provisions of this subpart that may retransmit the
programs and signals of a DTV broadcast station, may originate
programming in any amount greater than 30 seconds per hour for the
purpose of providing digital television (DTV) reception to the general
public and, subject to a minimum video program service requirement, may
offer services of an ancillary or supplementary nature, including
subscription-based services. (*See* § 74.790 of this part).

\(l\) *Digital Program Origination*. For purposes of this part, digital
program origination shall be any transmissions other than the
simultaneous retransmission of the programs and signals of a TV or DTV
broadcast station or transmissions related to service offerings of an
ancillary or supplementary nature. Origination shall include locally
generated television program signals and program signals obtained via
video recordings (tapes and discs), microwave, common carrier circuits,
or other sources.

\(m\) *Existing low power television or television translator station.*
When used in this Subpart G, the terms existing low power television and
existing television translator station refer to an analog or digital low
power television station or television translator station that is either
licensed or has a valid construction permit.

\(n\) *Suitable in core channel.* When used in this Subpart G, the term
"suitable in core channel" refers to a channel that would enable a
digital low power television or television translator station to produce
a protected service area comparable to that of its associated analog
LPTV or TV translator station.

\(o\) *Companion digital channel*. When used in this Subpart G, the term
"companion digital channel" refers to a digital channel authorized to an
existing low power television or television translator station to be
associated with the station's analog channel.

\(p\) *Digital conversion channel*. When used in this Subpart G, the
term "digital conversion channel" refers to a channel previously
authorized to an existing low power television or television translator
station that has been converted to digital operation.

\* \* \* \* \*

12\. Section 74.703 is revised by adding new paragraphs (f) and (g) and
renumbering existing paragraphs (f) and (g) as (h) and (i):

**§ 74.703 Interference.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(f\) It shall be the responsibility of a digital low power TV or TV
translator station operating on a channel from channel 52-69 to
eliminate at its expense any condition of interference caused to the
operation of or services provided by existing and future commercial or
public safety wireless licensees in the 700 MHz bands. The offending
digital LPTV or translator station must cease operations immediately
upon notification by any primary wireless licensee, once it has been
established that the digital low power TV or translator station is
causing the interference.

\(g\) An existing or future wireless licensee in the 700 MHz bands may
notify (certified mail, return receipt requested), a digital low power
TV or TV translator operating on the same channel or first adjacent
channel of its intention to initiate or change wireless operations and
the likelihood of interference from the low power TV or translator
station within its licensed geographic service area. The notice should
describe the facilities, associated service area and operations of the
wireless licensee with sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of the
likelihood of interference. Upon receipt of such notice, the digital
LPTV or TV translator licensee must cease operation within 120 days
unless: (1) it obtains the agreement of the wireless licensee to
continue operations, (2) the commencement or modification of wireless
service is delayed beyond that period (in which case the period will be
extended), or (3) the Commission stays the effect of the interference
notification, upon request.

\* \* \* \* \*

13\. Section 74.705 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

**§ 74.705 TV broadcast analog station protection.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) As an alternative to the preceding paragraphs of this section, an
applicant for a low power TV, TV translator or TV booster may make full
use of terrain shielding and Longley-Rice terrain dependent propagation
prediction methods to demonstrate that the proposed facility would not
be likely to cause interference to TV broadcast stations. Guidance on
using the Longley-Rice methodology is provided in *OET Bulletin No. 69*
(but also see §74.793(d) of this part). Copies of *OET Bulletin No. 69*
may be inspected during normal business hours at the: Federal
Communications Commission, CY-C203, 445 12th Street, SW., Reference
Information Center, Washington, DC 20554. This document is also
available through the Internet on the *FCC Home Page* at
http://www.fcc.gov.

14\. Section 74.705 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

**§ 74.707 Low power TV and TV translator station protection.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) As an alternative to the preceding paragraphs of this section, an
applicant for a low power TV or TV translator station may make full use
of terrain shielding and Longley-Rice terrain dependent propagation
prediction methods to demonstrate that the proposed facility would not
be likely to cause interference to low power TV, TV translator and TV
booster stations. Guidance on using the Longley-Rice methodology is
provided in *OET Bulletin No. 69* (but also see §74.793(d) of this
part). Copies of *OET Bulletin No. 69* may be inspected during normal
business hours at the: Federal Communications Commission, Room CY-C203,
445 12th Street,

SW., Reference Information Center, Washington, DC 20554. This document
is also available through the Internet on the *FCC Home Page* at
http://www.fcc.gov.

15\. Section 74.710 is added to read as follows:

**§ 74.710 Digital low power TV and TV translator station protection.**

\(a\) An application to construct a new low power TV, TV translator, or
TV booster station or change the facilities of an existing station will
not be accepted if it fails to protect an authorized digital low power
TV or TV translator station or an application for such station filed
prior to the date the low power TV, TV translator, or TV booster
application is filed.

\(b\) Applications for low power TV, TV translator and TV booster
stations shall protect digital low power TV and TV translator stations
pursuant to the following requirements:

\(i\) An application must not specify an antenna site within the
protected contour of a co-channel or adjacent channel digital low power
TV or TV translator station, as defined in § 74.792 of this part.

\(ii\) The ratio in dB of the field strength of the low power TV, TV
translator or TV booster station at the protected contour of a
co-channel digital TV or TV translator station must meet the
requirements specified in subparagraph (d)(1) of § 74.706.

\(iii\) The ratio in dB of the field strength of the low power TV, TV
translator or TV booster station at the protected contour of a digital
low power TV or TV translator station on the lower and upper adjacent
channels must not exceed 49 dB and 48 dB, respectively.

\(iv\) The above analysis should use the propagation methods specified
in paragraph (c) of § 74.706.

(c) As an alternative to the requirements of paragraph (b), an applicant
    for a low power TV, TV translator or TV booster may make full use of
    terrain shielding and Longley-Rice terrain dependent propagation
    prediction methods to demonstrate that the proposed facility would
    not be likely to cause interference to digital low power TV or TV
    translator stations, as described in § 74.707(e) of this part
    (*i.e.*, reduce the service population by no more than 0.5% within
    the station's protected contour based on the interference thresholds
    of § 73.623(c) of this chapter).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
16. Section 74.786 is added to read as follows:

**§ 74.786 -- Digital channel assignments.**

(a) An applicant for a new low power television or television translator
    digital station or for changes in the facilities of an authorized
    digital station shall endeavor to select a channel on which its
    operation is not likely to cause interference. The applications must
    be specific with regard to the channel requested. Only one channel
    will be assigned each station.

(b) Any one of the 12 standard VHF Channels (2 to 13 inclusive) may be
    assigned to a VHF digital low power television or television
    translator station. Channels 5 and 6 assigned in Alaska shall not
    cause harmful interference to and must accept interference from
    non-Government fixed operation authorized prior to January 1, 1982.

(c) UHF channels 14 to 36 and 38 to 51 may be assigned to a UHF digital
    low power television or television translator station. In accordance
    with § 73.603(c) of part 73, Channel 37 will not be assigned to such
    stations.

(d) UHF Channels 52-59 may be assigned to a digital low power television
    or television translator station for use as *a digital conversion
    channel*. These channels may also be assigned as a *companion
    digital channel* if the applicant is able to demonstrate that a
    *suitable in core channel* is not available. Stations proposing use
    of such channels shall notify all potentially affected 700 MHz
    wireless licensees not later than 30 days prior to the submission of
    their application (FCC Form 346). Applicants shall notify wireless
    licensees of the 700 MHz spectrum comprising the same TV channel and
    the adjacent channel within whose licensed geographic boundaries the
    digital LPTV or translator station is proposed to be located, and
    also notify licensees of co-channel and adjacent channel spectrum
    whose service boundaries lie within 75 miles and 50 miles,
    respectively, of their proposed station location. Specific
    information for this purpose can be obtained from the Commission's
    auction web site at <http://www.fcc.gov/auctions>.

(e) UHF Channels 60-69 may be assigned to a digital low power television
    or television translator station for use as a *digital conversion
    channel* only. Stations proposing use of such channels shall notify
    all potentially affect 700 MHz commercial licensees not later than
    30 days prior to the submission of their application (FCC Form 346)
    in the manner provided by (d) of this part. Stations proposing use
    of channels 63, 64, 68 and 69 must secure a coordinated spectrum use
    agreement with the pertinent 700 MHz public safety regional planning
    committee and state administrator prior to the submission of their
    application (FCC Form 346). Coordination shall be undertaken with
    regional planning committee and state administrator of the region
    and state within which the digital LPTV or translator station is
    proposed to be located, and those of adjoining regions and states
    with boundaries within 75 miles of the proposed station location.
    Stations proposing use of channels 62, 65, and 67 must notify the
    pertinent regional planning committee and state administrator not
    later than 30 days prior to the submission of their application (FCC
    Form 346). Notification shall be made to the regional and state
    administrators of region and state within which the digital LPTV or
    translator station is proposed to be located, and those of adjoining
    regions and states with boundaries within 50 miles of the proposed
    station location. Information for this purpose is available at the
    above web site and also at the following internet sites:
    <http://wireless.fcc.gov/publicsafety700MHzregional.html>,
    <http://wireless.fcc.gov/publicsafety/700MHz/state.html>, and
    <http://wireless.fcc.gov/publicsafety/700MHz/interop-contacts.html>.

(f) Application for new analog low power television or television
    translator stations specifying operation above Channel 51 will not
    be accepted for filing. Applications for displacement relief on
    channels above 51 will continue to be accepted.

> 17\. Section 74.787 is added to read as follows:

**§ 74.787 -- Digital licensing.**

> \(a\) *Applications for digital low power television and television
> translator stations.*
>
> \(1\) *Applications for digital conversion*. Applications for *digital
> conversion channels* may be filed at any time. Such applications shall
> be filed on FCC Form 346 and will be treated as a minor change
> application. There will be no application fee.
>
> \(2\) *Applications for companion digital channel*.
>
> \(A\) A Public Notice will specify a time period or "window" for
> filing applications for *companion digital channels*. During this
> window, only *existing low power television or television translator
> stations* or licensees and permittees of Class A TV stations may
> submit applications for *companion digital channels*. Applications
> submitted prior to the initial window identified in the Public Notice
> will be returned as premature. At a subsequent time, a Public Notice
> will announcement the commencement of a filing procedure in which
> applications will accepted on a first-come, first-served basis not
> restricted to existing station licensees and permittees.
>
> \(B\) Applications for *companion digital channels* filed during the
> initial window shall be filed in accordance with the provisions of
> §§1.2105 and 73.5002 regarding the submission of the short-form
> application, FCC Form 175, and all appropriate certifications,
> information and exhibits contained therein. To determine which
> applicants are mutually exclusive, applicants must submit the
> engineering data contained in FCC Form 346 as a supplement to its
> short-form application. Such engineering data will not be studied for
> technical acceptability, but will be protected from subsequently filed
> applications as of the close of the initial window period.
> Determinations as to the acceptability or grantability of an
> applicant's proposal will not be made prior to an auction.
>
> \(C\) After the close of the initial window, a Public Notice will
> identify the short-form applications received during the window filing
> period which are found to be mutually exclusive. Such short-form
> applications will be resolved via the Commission's Part 1 and
> broadcast competitive bidding rules, Sections 1.2100 et seq., and
> Sections 73.5000 et seq. Such applicants shall be afforded an
> opportunity to submit settlements and engineering solutions to resolve
> mutual exclusivity pursuant to Section 73.5002(d).
>
> \(D\) After the close of the window, a Public Notice will identify
> short-form applications received that are found to be non-mutually
> exclusive. All non-mutually exclusive applicants will be required to
> submit an FCC Form 346 pursuant to Section 73.5005. Such applications
> shall be processed pursuant to Section 73.5006.
>
> \(E\) With regard to fees, an application (FCC Form 346) for
> *companion digital channels* shall be treated as a minor change
> application and there will be no application fee.
>
> \(3\) *Construction permit applications for new stations, major
> changes to existing stations in the low power television service*. A
> Public Notice will specify the date upon which interested parties may
> begin to file applications for new stations and major facilities
> changes to existing stations in the low power television service. It
> will specify parameters for any applications that may be filed.
> Applications submitted prior to date announced by the Public Notice
> will be returned as premature. Such applications shall be accepted on
> a first-come, first-served basis, and shall be filed on FCC Form 346.
> Applications for new or major change shall be subject to the
> appropriate application fee. Mutually exclusive applications shall be
> resolved via the Commission's Part 1 and broadcast competitive bidding
> rules, Sections 1.2100 et seq., and Sections 73.5000 et seq. Such
> applicants shall be afforded an opportunity to submit settlements and
> engineering solutions to resolve mutual exclusivity pursuant to
> Section 73.5002(d).
>
> \(4\) *Displacement applications*. A digital low power television or
> television translator station which is causing or receiving
> interference or is predicted to cause or receive interference to or
> from an authorized TV broadcast station, DTV station or allotment or
> other protected station or service, may at any time file a
> displacement relief application for change in channel, together with
> technical modifications that are necessary to avoid interference or
> continue serving the station's protected service area, provided the
> proposed transmitter site is not located more than 30 miles from the
> reference coordinates of the existing station's community of license.
> See Section 76.53 of this chapter. A displacement relief application
> shall be filed on FCC Form 346 and will be considered a minor change
> and will be placed on public notice for a period of not less than 30
> days to permit the filing of petitions to deny. These applications
> will not be subject to the filing of competing applications. Where a
> displacement relief application for a digital low power television or
> television translator station becomes mutually exclusive the
> application(s) for new analog or digital low power television or
> television translator stations, with a displacement relief application
> for an analog low power television or television translator station,
> or with other non-displacement relief applications for facilities
> modifications of analog or digital low power television or television
> translator stations, priority will be afforded to the displacement
> application for the digital low power television or television
> translator station to the exclusion of other applications. Mutually
> exclusive displacement relief applications for digital low power
> television and television translator stations shall be resolved via
> the Commission's Part 1 and broadcast competitive bidding rules,
> Sections 1.2100 et seq., and Sections 73.5000 et seq. Such applicants
> shall be afforded an opportunity to submit settlements and engineering
> solutions to resolve mutual exclusivity pursuant to Section
> 73.5002(d).
>
> \(b\) *Definitions of "major" and "minor" changes to digital low power
> television and television translator stations.*
>
> \(1\) Applications for major changes in digital low power television
> and television translator stations include any change in the frequency
> (output channel) not related to displacement relief or transmitting
> antenna location where the protected contour resulting from the change
> does not overlap some portion of the protected contour of the
> authorized facilities of the existing station.
>
> \(2\) Other facilities changes will be considered minor.

18. Section 74.788 is added to read as follows:

**§ 74.788 -- Digital construction period.**

\(a\) Each original construction permit for the construction of a new
digital low power television or television translator station shall
specify a period of three years from the date of issuance of the
original construction permit within which construction shall be
completed and application for license filed.

\(b\) Any construction permit for which construction has not been
completed and for which an application for license or extension of time
has not been filed, shall be automatically forfeited upon expiration
without any further affirmative cancellation by the Commission.

\(c\) *Authority delegated.*

\(1\) Authority is delegated to the Chief, Media Bureau to grant an
extension of time of up to six months beyond the relevant construction
period for each original construction permit upon demonstration by the
digital licensee or permittee that failure to meet the construction
deadline is due to circumstances that are either unforeseeable or beyond
the licensee's control where the licensee has take all reasonable steps
to resolve the problem expeditiously.

> \(2\) Such circumstances shall include, but shall not be limited to:
>
> \(A\) Inability to construct and place in operation a facility
> necessary for transmitting digital television, such as a tower,
> because of delays in obtaining zoning or FAA approvals, or similar
> constraints;
>
> \(B\) the lack of equipment necessary to obtain a digital television
> signal; or
>
> \(C\) where the cost of construction exceeds the station's financial
> resources.

\(3\) The Bureau may grant no more than two extension requests upon
delegated authority. Subsequent extension requests shall be referred to
the Commission. The Bureau may deny extension requests upon delegated
authority.

\(4\) Applications for extension of time shall be filed no earlier than
90 and no later than 60 days prior to the relevant construction
deadline, absent a showing of sufficient reasons for filing within less
than 60 days of the relevant construction deadline.

19. Section 74.789 is added to read as follows:

**§ 74.789 -- Broadcast regulations applicable to digital low power
television and television translator stations.**

The following rules are applicable to digital low power television and
television translator stations:

Section 73.1030 - Notifications concerning interference to radio
astronomy , research and receiving installations.

Sections 74.600- Eligibility for license.

Section 74.703 - Interference

Section 74.709 - Land mobile station protection.

Section 74.732 - Eligibility and licensing requirements.

Section 74.734 -- Attended and unattended operation.

Section 74.735 - Power limitations.

Section 74.751 -- Modification of transmission systems.

Section 74.763 -- Time of operation.

Section 74.765 -- Posting of station and operator licenses.

Section 74.769 - Copies of rules.

> Section 74.780 -- Broadcast regulations applicable to translators, low
> power, and booster stations (except Section 73.653 -- operation of TV
> aural and visual transmitters and Section 73.1201 -- station
> identification).

Section 74.781 - Station records.

Section 74.784 - Rebroadcasts.

20. Section 74.790 is added to read as follows:

**§ 74.790 Permissible service of digital TV translator and LPTV
stations.**

\(a\) Digital TV translator stations provide a means whereby the signals
of DTV broadcast stations may be retransmitted to areas in which direct
reception of such DTV stations is unsatisfactory due to distance or
intervening terrain barriers.

\(b\) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, a digital TV
translator station may be used only to receive the signals of a TV
broadcast or DTV broadcast station, another digital TV translator
station, a TV translator relay station, a television intercity relay
station, a television STL station, or other suitable sources such as a
CARS or common carrier microwave station, for the simultaneous
retransmission of the programs and signals of a TV or DTV broadcast
station. Such retransmissions may be accomplished by any of the
following means:

\(1\) Reception of TV broadcast or DTV broadcast station programs and
signals directly through space and conversion to a different channel by
one of the following transmission modes:

\(i\) Heterodyne frequency conversion and suitable amplification,
subject to a digital output power limit of 30 watts for transmitters
operating on channels 14-69 and 3 watts for transmitters operating on
channels 2-13 or,

\(ii\) Digital signal regeneration (*i.e*., DTV signal demodulation,
decoding, error processing, encoding, remodulation, and frequency
upconversion) and suitable amplification; or,

\(2\) Demodulation, remodulation and amplification of TV broadcast or
DTV broadcast station programs and signals received through a microwave
transport.

\(c\) The transmissions of each digital TV translator station shall be
intended for direct reception by the general public, and any other use
shall be incidental thereto. A digital TV translator station shall not
be operated solely for the purpose of relaying signals to one or more
fixed receiving points for retransmission, distribution, or further
relaying.

\(d\) Except as provided in (e) and (f) of this section, the technical
characteristics of the retransmitted signals shall not be deliberately
altered so as to hinder reception on consumer DTV broadcast receiving
equipment.

\(e\) A digital TV translator station shall not retransmit the programs
and signals of any TV broadcast or DTV broadcast station(s) without the
prior written consent of such station(s). A digital TV translator may
multiplex on its output channel the video program services of two or
more TV broadcast and/or DTV broadcast stations, pursuant to
arrangements with all affected stations, and for this limited purpose,
is permitted to alter a TV broadcast and/or DTV broadcast signal.

\(f\) A digital TV translator station may transmit locally originated
visual and/or aural messages limited to emergency warnings of imminent
danger, to local public service announcements ("PSAs") and to seeking or
acknowledging financial support deemed necessary to the continued
operation of the station. Acknowledgments of financial support may
include identification of the contributors, the size and nature of the
contribution and the advertising messages of the contributors. The
originations concerning financial support and PSAs are limited to 30
seconds each, no more than once per hour. Emergency transmissions shall
be no longer or more frequent than necessary to protect life and
property. Such originations may be accomplished by any technical means
agreed upon between the TV translator and DTV station whose signal is
being retransmitted, but must be capable of being received on consumer
DTV broadcast reception equipment. A digital TV translator shall modify,
as necessary to avoid DTV reception tuning conflicts, the Program System
and Information Protocol ("PSIP") information in the DTV broadcast
signal being retransmitted.

\(g\) A digital LPTV station may operate under the following modes of
service:

\(1\) For the retransmission of programming of a TV broadcast or DTV
broadcast station, subject to the prior written consent of the station
whose signal is being retransmitted;

\(2\) For the origination of programming and commercial matter as
defined in § 74.701(l).

\(3\) Whenever operating, a digital LPTV station must transmit an
over-the-air video program signal at no direct charge to viewers at
least comparable in resolution to that of its associated analog (NTSC)
LPTV station or, in the case of an on-channel digital conversion, that
of its former analog LPTV station.

\(4\) A digital LPTV station may dynamically alter the bit stream of its
signal to transmit one or more video program services in any established
DTV video format.

\(h\) A digital LPTV station is not subject to minimum required hours of
operation and may operate in either of the two modes described in
paragraph (g) of this section for any number of hours.

\(i\) Upon transmitting a signal that meets the requirements of
subparagraph (g)(3) of this section, a digital LPTV station may offer
services of any nature, consistent with the public interest,
convenience, and necessity, on an ancillary or supplementary basis in
accordance with the provisions of § 73.624(c) and (g) of this chapter.

\(j\) A digital LPTV station may not be operated solely for the purpose
of relaying signals to one or more fixed receiving points for
retransmission, distribution or relaying.

\(k\) A digital LPTV station may receive input signals for transmission
or retransmission by any technical means, including those specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.

**\* \* \* \* \***

21\. Section 74.791 is added to read as follows:

**§ 74.791 -- Digital call signs.**

(a) *Digital low power stations*. Call signs for digital low power
    stations will be made up a prefix consisting of the initial letter K
    or W followed by the channel number assigned to the station and two
    additional letters and a suffix consisting of the letters --D.

(b) *Digital television translator stations*. Call signs for digital
    television translator stations will be made up a prefix consisting
    of the initial letter K or W followed by the channel number assigned
    to the station and two additional letters and a suffix consisting of
    the letter --D.

(c) *Digital low power television stations and Class A television
    stations.* Digital low power television and Class A television
    stations may be assigned a call sign with a four-letter prefix
    pursuant to Section 73.3550 of Part 73 of the rules. Digital low
    power stations with four-letter prefixes will be assigned the suffix
    --LD and digital Class A stations with four-letter prefixes will be
    assigned the suffix --CD.

> 22\. Section 74.792 is added to read as follows:

**§ 74.792 -- Digital low power TV and TV translator station protected
contour.**

\(a\) A digital low power TV or TV translator will be protected from
interference from other low power TV, TV translator, Class A TV or TV
booster stations or digital low power TV, TV translator or Class A TV
stations within the following predicted contours:

\(1\) 43 dBu for stations on Channels 2 through 6;

\(2\) 48 dBu for stations on Channels 7 through 13; and

\(3\) 51 dBu for stations on Channels 14 through 69.

\(b\) The digital low power TV or TV translator protected contour is
calculated from the authorized effective radiated power and antenna
height above average terrain, using the F(50,90) signal propagation
method specified in § 73.625(b)(1) of this chapter.

23. Section 74.793 is added to read as follows:

**§ 74.793 -- Digital low power TV and TV translator station protection
of broadcast stations.**

(a) An application to construct a new digital low power TV or TV
    translator station or change the facilities of an existing station
    will not be accepted if it fails to meet the interference protection
    requirements in this section.

(b) Except as provided in this section, interference prediction analysis
    is based on the interference thresholds (D/U signal strength ratios)
    and other criteria and methods specified in **§§**
    73.623(c)(2)-(c)(4) of this chapter. Predictions of interference to
    co-channel DTV broadcast, digital Class A TV, digital LPTV and
    digital TV translator stations will be based on the interference
    thresholds specified therein for "DTV-into-DTV." Predictions of
    interference to co-channel TV broadcast, Class A TV, LPTV and TV
    translator stations will be based on the interference threshold
    specified for "DTV-into-analog TV." Predictions of interference to
    TV broadcast, Class A TV, LPTV and TV translator stations with the
    following channel relationships to a digital channel will be based
    on the threshold values specified for "Other Adjacent Channels
    (Channels 14-69 only)," where N is the analog channel: N-2, N+2,
    N-3, N+3, N-4, N+4, N-7 , N+7, N-8, N+8, N+14, and N+15.

(c) The following D/U signal strength ratios (dB) shall apply to the
    protection of stations on the first adjacent channel. The D/U ratios
    for "Digital TV-into-analog TV" shall apply to the protection of TV
    broadcast, Class A TV, LPTV and TV translator stations. The D/U
    ratios for "Digital TV-into-digital TV" shall apply to the
    protection of DTV, digital Class A TV, digital LPTV and digital TV
    translator stations. The D/U ratios correspond to the digital LPTV
    or TV translator station's specified out-of-channel emission mask.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Simple Mask Stringent Mask
>
> Digital TV-into-analog TV 10 0

Digital TV-into-digital TV -7 -12

(d) For analysis of predicted interference from digital low power TV and
    TV translator stations, the relative field strength values of the
    assumed antenna vertical radiation pattern in Table 8 in OET
    Bulletin 69 shall be doubled up to a value of 1.0.

(e) Protection to the authorized facilities of DTV broadcast stations
    shall be based on not causing predicted interference to the
    population within the service area defined and described in §
    73.622(e) of this chapter, except that a digital low power TV or TV
    translator station must not cause a loss of service to 0.5 percent
    or more of the population predicted to receive service from the
    authorized DTV facilities.

(f) Protection to the authorized facilities of TV broadcast stations
    shall be based on not causing predicted interference to the
    population within the Grade B field strength contours defined and
    described in § 73.683 of this chapter, except that a digital low
    power TV or TV translator station must not cause a loss of service
    to 0.5 percent or more of the population predicted to receive
    service from the authorized TV broadcast facilities.

(g) Protection to the authorized facilities of Class A and digital Class
    A TV stations shall be based on not causing predicted interference
    to the population within the service area defined and described in
    §§ 73.6010 (a)-(b) and (c)-(d), respectively, of this chapter,
    except that a digital low power TV or TV translator station must not
    cause a loss of service to 0.5 percent or more of the population
    predicted to receive service from the authorized Class A TV or
    digital Class A TV facilities.

(h) Protection to the authorized facilities of low power TV and TV
    translator stations and digital low power TV and TV translator
    stations shall be based on not causing predicted interference to the
    population within the service area defined and described in §§
    74.707(a) and 74.792, respectively, of this part, except that a
    digital low power TV or TV translator station must not cause a loss
    of service to 2.0 percent or more of the population predicted to
    receive service from the authorized low power TV, TV translator,
    digital low power TV or digital TV translator station.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
24. Section 74.794 is added to read as follows:

**§ 74.794 -- Digital emissions.**

(a)(1) An applicant for a digital LPTV or TV translator station
construction permit shall specify that the station will be constructed
to confine out-of-channel emissions within one of the following emission
masks: simple or stringent.

\(2\) The power level of emissions on frequencies outside the authorized
channel of operation must be attenuated no less than following amounts
below the average transmitted power within the authorized 6 MHz channel.
In the mask specifications below, A is the attenuation in dB and Δf is
the frequency difference in MHz from the edge of the channel.

\(i\) *Simple mask*: At the channel edges, emissions must be attenuated
no less than 46 dB. More than 6 MHz from the channel edges, emissions
must be attenuated no less than 71 dB. At any frequency between 0 and 6
MHz from the channel edges, emissions must be attenuated no less than
the value determined by the following formula:

> A (dB) = 46 + (Δf^2^ /1.44)

\(ii\) *Stringent mask*: In the first 500 kHz from the channel edges,
emissions must be attenuated no less than 47 dB. More than 3 MHz from
the channel edges, emissions must be attenuated no less than 76 dB. At
any frequency between 0.5 and 3 MHz from the channel edges, emissions
must be attenuated no less than the value determined by the following
formula:

A(dB) = 47 + 11.5 (Δf -- 0.5)

\(3\) The attenuation values for the simple and stringent emission masks
are based on a measurement bandwidth of 500 kHz. Other measurement
bandwidths may be used and converted to the reference 500 kHz value by
the following formula:

A(dB) = A~alternate~ + 10 log (BW~alternate~ / 500)

where A(dB) is the measured or calculated attenuation value for the
reference 500 kHz bandwidth, and A~alternate~ is the measured or
calculated attenuation for a bandwidth BW~alternate~. Emissions include
sidebands, spurious emissions and radio harmonics. Attenuation is to be
measured at the output terminals of the transmitter (including any
filters that may be employed). In the event of interference caused to
any service by out-of-channel emissions, greater attenuation may be
required.

\(b\) In addition to meeting the emission attenuation requirements of
the simple or stringent mask (including attenuation of radio frequency
harmonics), digital low power TV and TV translator stations authorized
to operate on TV channels 22-24 (518-536 MHz), 36 (602-608 MHz), 38
(614-620 MHz) and 65-69 (776-806 MHz) must provide specific "out of
band" protection to Radio Navigation Satellite Services in the bands: L5
(1164-1215 MHz); L2 (1215-1240 MHz) and L1 (1559-1610 MHz).

\(1\) An FCC-certificated transmitter specifically certified for use on
one or more of the above channels must include filtering with an
attenuation of not less than 85 dB in the GPS bands, which will have the
effect of reducing harmonics in the GPS bands from what is produced by
the digital transmitter, and this attenuation must be demonstrated as
part of the certification application to the Commission.

\(2\) For an installation on one of the above channels with a digital
transmitter not specifically FCC-certificated for the channel, a low
pass filter or equivalent device rated by its manufacturer to have an
attenuation of at least 85 dB in the GPS bands, which will have the
effect of reducing harmonics in the GPS bands from what is produced by
the digital transmitter, and must be installed in a manner that will
prevent the harmonic emission content from reaching the antenna. A
description of the low pass filter or equivalent device with the
manufacturer's rating or a report of measurements by a qualified
individual shall be retained with the station license. Field
measurements of the second or third harmonic output of a transmitter so
equipped are not required.

25. Section 74.795 is added to read as follows:

**§ 74.795 -- Digital low power TV and TV translator transmission system
facilities.**

\(a\) A digital low power TV or TV translator station shall operate with
a transmitter that is either certificated for licensing based on the
following provisions or has been modified for digital operation pursuant
to § 74.796 of this part.

\(b\) The following requirements must be met before digital low power TV
and TV translator transmitter will be certificated by the FCC:

\(1\) The transmitter shall be designed to produce digital television
signals that can be satisfactorily viewed on consumer receiving
equipment based on the digital broadcast television transmission
standard in § 73.682(d).

\(2\) Emissions on frequencies outside the authorized channel, measured
at the output terminals of the transmitter (including any filters that
may be employed), shall meet the requirements of § 74.794, as
applicable.

\(3\) The transmitter shall be equipped to display the digital power
output (*i.e.*, average power over a 6 MHz channel) and shall be
designed to prevent the power output from exceeding the maximum rated
power output under any condition.

\(4\) When subjected to variations in ambient temperature between 0 and
40 degrees Centigrade and variations in power main voltage between 85%
and 115% of the rated power supply voltage, the frequency stability of
the local oscillator in the RF channel upconverter shall be maintained
within 10 percent of the nominal value.

\(5\) The transmitter shall be equipped with suitable meters and jacks
so that appropriate voltage and current measurements may be made while
the transmitter is in operation.

\(6\) The following additional requirements apply to digital heterodyne
translators:

\(i\) The maximum rated power output (digital average power over a 6 MHz
channel) shall not exceed 30 watts for transmitters operating on
channels 14-69 and 3 watts for transmitters operating on channels 2-13.

\(ii\) The transmitter shall contain circuits which will maintain the
digital average power output constant within 1 dB when the strength of
the input signal is varied over a range of 30 dB.

(d) Certification will be granted only upon a satisfactory showing that
    the transmitter is capable of meeting the requirements of
    paragraph (b) of this section, pursuant to the procedures described
    in § 74.750(e) of this part.

26\. Section 74.796 is added to read as follows:

**§ 74.796 -- Modification of digital transmission systems and analog
transmission systems for digital operation.**

\(a\) The provisions of § 74.751 shall apply to the modification of
digital low power TV and TV translator transmission systems and the
modification of existing analog transmission systems for digital
operation.

\(b\) The following additional provisions shall apply to the
modification of existing analog transmissions systems for digital
operation, including installation of manufacturers' certificated
equipment ("field modification kits") and custom modifications.

\(1\) The modifications and related performance-testing shall be
undertaken by a person or persons qualified to perform such work.

\(2\) The final amplifier stage of an analog transmitter modified for
digital operation shall not have an "average digital" power" output
greater than 25 percent of its previous NTSC peak sync power output,
unless the amplifier has been specifically refitted or replaced to
operate at a higher power.

\(3\) Analog heterodyne translators, when modified for digital
operation, will produce a power output (digital average power over the 6
MHz channel) not exceeding 30 watts for transmitters operating on
channels 14-69 and 3 watts for transmitters operating on channels 2-13.

\(4\) After completion of the modification, suitable tests and
measurements shall be made to demonstrate compliance with the applicable
requirements in this section including those in § 74.795. Upon
installation of a field modification kit, the transmitter shall be
performance-tested in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

\(5\) The station licensee shall notify the Commission upon completion
of the transmitter modifications. In the case of custom modifications
(those not related to installation of manufacturer-supplied and
FCC-certificated equipment), the licensee shall certify compliance with
all applicable transmission system requirements.

\(6\) The licensee shall maintain with the station's records for a
period of not less than two years the following information and make
this information to the Commission upon request:

\(i\) a description of the modifications performed and performance tests
or, in the case of installation of a manufacturer-supplied modification
kit, a description of the nature of the modifications, installation and
test instructions and other material provided by the manufacturer.

\(ii\) results of performance-tests and measurements on the modified
transmitter.

\(iii\) copies of related correspondence with the Commission.

\(c\) In connection with the on-channel conversion of existing analog
transmitters for digital operation, a limited allowance is made for
transmitters with final amplifiers that do not meet the attenuation of
the Simple emission mask at the channel edges. Station licensees may
obtain equivalent compliance with this attenuation requirement in the
following manner:

\(i\) Measure the level of attenuation of emissions below the average
digital power output at the channel edges in a 500 kHz bandwidth;
measurements made over a different measurement bandwidth should be
corrected to the equivalent attenuation level for a 500 kHz bandwidth
using the formula given in § 74.794 of this section.

\(ii\) Calculate the difference in dB between the 46 dB channel-edge
attenuation requirement of the Simple mask.

\(iii\) Subtract the value determined in the previous step from the
authorized effective radiated power ("ERP") of the analog station being
converted to digital operation. Then subtract an additional 6 dB to
account for the approximate difference between analog peak and digital
average power. For this purpose, the ERP must be expressed in decibels
above one kilowatt: ERP(dBk) = 10 log ERP(kW).

\(iv\) Convert the ERP calculated in the previous step to units of
kilowatts.

\(v\) The ERP value determined through the above procedure will produce
equivalent compliance with the attenuation requirement of the simple
emission mask at the channel edges and should be specified as the
digital ERP in the minor change application for an on-channel digital
conversion. The transmitter may not be operated to produce a higher
digital ERP than this value.

**APPENDIX C**

**FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
("RFA"),[^524] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") was
incorporated in the *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* ("*NPRM*").[^525]
The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the
*NPRM*, including comment on the IRFA. One comment was received on the
IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") conforms to
the RFA.[^526]

**A. Need for and Objectives of the Report and Order**

1.  The *Report and Order* (*R&O*) establishes a regulatory framework
    that will hasten the transition of LPTV and TV translator stations
    to digital operations while minimizing disruption of existing
    service to consumers served by analog LPTV and TV translator
    stations. These stations are a valuable component of the nation's
    television system, delivering over-the-air TV service, including
    locally produced service, to millions of viewers in rural and
    discrete urban communities. The Commission desires to facilitate,
    wherever possible, the digital transition of these stations, thereby
    enabling their viewers to realize the many benefits of digital
    broadcast television (DTV) technology. The rules and policies
    adopted in the *R&O* provide flexible and affordable opportunities
    for low power digital television service, both through the
    conversion of existing analog service and, where spectrum is
    available, new digital stations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
259. The *R&O* provides additional flexibility for existing broadcasters
     to transition to digital. The *R&O* declines to apply the
     full-service deadline for stations to cease analog operations
     finding that low power television broadcasters and their viewers do
     not have the resources to "flash-cut" from analog to digital and
     need additional time to identify available channels for digital
     use. Setting a transition deadline at some fixed time after the
     full-service transition would be less disruptive and minimize
     potential loss of service.

260. The *R&O* allows existing broadcasters the first opportunity to
     either immediately convert from analog to digital ("flash-cut") on
     their existing analog channel or to apply for a digital companion
     channel. This will provide existing broadcasters the flexibility to
     identify a workable digital channel for operation before new
     broadcasters are allowed to apply for channels. These applications
     will be filed as "minor changes," thus reducing the overall time
     and processing burden on the stations.

261. While the *R&O* concludes that digital flash-cut and companion
     channel applications filed by low power broadcasters are subject to
     auction (except Class A flash-cut applications), an opportunity is
     provided for applicants to find settlements or engineering
     solutions to avoid having to go to auction. This will facilitate
     the processing of applications and permit applicants to avoid
     having to use limited resources to bid for their digital channels.

262. Applicants that choose to flash-cut or file for digital companion
     channels will have greater flexibility to seek channels between
     52-69 (with restrictions). This will enable numerous stations that
     otherwise could not find a digital channel with the opportunity to
     participate in the digital transition.

263. Stations will have the flexibility to choose the types of service
     to provide for their viewers. Translators will be limited to
     rebroadcasting programs and signals of full-service DTV stations
     without alteration to content or video format but may insert the
     types of local messages permitted for analog translators and may
     rebroadcast a DTV signal as an analog signal. LPTV stations must
     provide a free over-the-air video program service but have the
     freedom to use the remainder of their spectrum to offer ancillary
     services on the same basis as full-service DTV stations (including
     a 5% fee on gross revenues of feeable services).

264. The interference rules and methodology in the *R&*O provide the
     needed flexibility for stations to engineer new digital operations
     without undermining established interference protection rights of
     existing broadcasters. The equipment rules will enable stations to
     use much of their existing equipment, thus reducing the overall
     cost of digital implementation.

     **B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in
     Response to the IRFA**

265. There were no comments filed in response to the Initial Regulatory
     Flexibility Analysis.

     **C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
     Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply**

266. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and,
     where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that
     will be affected by the proposed rules.[^527] The RFA generally
     defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the
     terms "small business," small organization," and "small
     governmental jurisdiction."[^528] In addition, the term "small
     business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern"
     under the Small Business Act.[^529] 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 Small Business Administration
     ("SBA").[^530]

267. In this context, the application of the statutory definition to
     television stations is of concern. 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 estimates
     that follow of small businesses to which rules may apply do not
     exclude any television station from the definition of a small
     business on this basis and therefore might be over-inclusive.

268. An additional element of the definition of \"small business\" is
     that the entity must be independently owned and operated. It is
     difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media
     entities and our estimates of small businesses might therefore be
     over inclusive.

269. **Class A TV, LPTV, and TV translator stations.** The rules and
     policies apply to licensees of LPTV and TV translator, and to
     potential licensees in these television services. Certain rules and
     policies also apply to licensees of Class A TV stations. The Small
     Business Administration defines a television broadcasting station
     that has no more than \$12 million in annual receipts as a small
     business.[^531] Television broadcasting consists of establishments
     primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound,
     including the production or transmission of visual programming
     which is broadcast to the public on a predetermined schedule.[^532]
     Included in this category are establishments primarily engaged in
     television broadcasting and which produce programming in their own
     studios.[^533] Separate establishments primarily engaged in
     producing programming are classified under other NAICS numbers.

270. Currently, there are approximately 2,100 licensed LPTV stations,
     600 licensed Class A stations, 4,700 licensed TV translators and 11
     TV booster stations.[^534] According to Commission staff review of
     the BIA Publications, Inc., Master Access Television Analyzer
     Database, virtually all LPTV broadcast stations, including LPTV
     stations that have converted to Class A status, have revenues of
     less than \$12 million. We note, however, that under the SBA's
     definition, revenue of affiliates that are not LPTV stations should
     be aggregated with the LPTV station revenues in determining whether
     a concern is small. Our estimate may thus overstate the number of
     small entities since the revenue figure on which it is based does
     not include or aggregate revenues from non-LPTV affiliated
     companies. We do not have data on revenues of TV translator or TV
     booster stations, but virtually all of these entities are also
     likely to have revenues of less than \$12 million and thus may be
     categorized as small, except to the extent that revenues of
     affiliated non-translator or booster entities should be considered.

271. **Cable and Other Program Distribution.** Cable systems often
     receive the television service transmitted over the cable system
     from a TV translator or LPTV station. Thus, cable systems may also
     be affected by the rules in the *R&O*. The SBA has developed a
     small business size standard for cable and other program
     distribution services, which includes all such companies generating
     \$12.5 million or less in revenue annually.[^535] This category
     includes, among others, cable operators, direct broadcast satellite
     ("DBS") services, home satellite dish ("HSD") services, multipoint
     distribution services ("MDS"), multichannel multipoint distribution
     service ("MMDS"), Instructional Television Fixed Service ("ITFS"),
     local multipoint distribution service ("LMDS"), satellite master
     antenna television ("SMATV") systems, and open video systems
     ("OVS"). According to Census Bureau data, there are 1,311 total
     cable and other pay television service firms that operate
     throughout the year of which 1,180 have less than \$10 million in
     revenue.[^536] We address below each service individually to
     provide a more precise estimate of small entities.

272. **Cable Operators.** Under the Commission\'s rules, a \"small cable
     company\" is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers
     nationwide.[^537] We last estimated that there were 1,439 cable
     operators that qualified as small cable companies.[^538] Since
     then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000
     subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that
     caused them to be combined with other cable operators.
     Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,439 small
     entity cable system operators that may be affected by the decisions
     and rules proposed in this *Notice*.

273. The Communications Act, as amended, also contains a size standard
     for a small cable system operator, which is \"a cable operator
     that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate
     less than 1% 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.\"[^539] The Commission has
     determined that there are 68,500,000 subscribers in the United
     States. Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 685,000
     subscribers shall be deemed a small operator if its annual
     revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all of
     its affiliates, do not exceed \$250 million in the aggregate.[^540]
     Based on available data, we find that the number of cable operators
     serving 685,000 subscribers or less totals approximately
     1,450.[^541] Although it seems certain that some of these cable
     system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual
     revenues exceed \$250,000,000, we are unable at this time to
     estimate with greater precision the number of cable system
     operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the
     definition in the Communications Act.

274. **Direct Broadcast Satellite ("DBS") Service.** Because DBS
     provides subscription services, DBS falls within the SBA-recognized
     definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution services.[^542]
     This definition provides that a small entity is one with \$12.5
     million or less in annual receipts.[^543] There are four licensees
     of DBS services under Part 100 of the Commission\'s rules. Three of
     those licensees are currently operational. Two of the licensees
     that are operational have annual revenues that may be in excess of
     the threshold for a small business.[^544] The Commission, however,
     does not collect annual revenue data for DBS and, therefore, is
     unable to ascertain the number of small DBS licensees that could be
     impacted by these proposed rules. DBS service requires a great
     investment of capital for operation, and we acknowledge, despite
     the absence of specific data on this point, that there are entrants
     in this field that may not yet have generated \$12.5 million in
     annual receipts, and therefore may be categorized as a small
     business, if independently owned and operated. Therefore, we will
     assume all four licensees are small, for the purpose of this
     analysis.

275. **Home Satellite Dish ("HSD") Service.** Because HSD provides
     subscription services, HSD falls within the SBA-recognized
     definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution services.[^545]
     This definition provides that a small entity is one with \$12.5
     million or less in annual receipts.[^546] The market for HSD
     service is difficult to quantify. Indeed, the service itself bears
     little resemblance to other MVPDs. HSD owners have access to more
     than 265 channels of programming placed on C‑band satellites by
     programmers for receipt and distribution by MVPDs, of which 115
     channels are scrambled and approximately 150 are unscrambled.[^547]
     HSD owners can watch unscrambled channels without paying a
     subscription fee. To receive scrambled channels, however, an HSD
     owner must purchase an integrated receiver‑decoder from an
     equipment dealer and pay a subscription fee to an HSD programming
     package. Thus, HSD users include: (1) viewers who subscribe to a
     packaged programming service, which affords them access to most of
     the same programming provided to subscribers of other MVPDs; (2)
     viewers who receive only non‑subscription programming; and (3)
     viewers who receive satellite programming services illegally
     without subscribing. Because scrambled packages of programming are
     most specifically intended for retail consumers, these are the
     services most relevant to this discussion.[^548] As noted, *supra*,
     for the category Cable and Other Program Distribution, most of
     providers of these services are considered small.

276. **Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS"), Multichannel Multipoint
     Distribution Service ("MMDS") Instructional Television Fixed
     Service ("ITFS") and Local Multipoint Distribution Service
     ("LMDS").** MMDS systems, often referred to as "wireless cable,"
     transmit video programming to subscribers using the microwave
     frequencies of the MDS and ITFS services.[^549] LMDS is a fixed
     broadband point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for
     two-way video telecommunications.[^550]

277. In connection with the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined
     small businesses as entities that had annual average gross revenues
     of less than \$40 million in the previous three calendar
     years.[^551] This definition of a small entity in the context of
     MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA.[^552] The MDS auctions
     resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities
     for 493 Basic Trading Areas ("BTAs"). Of the 67 auction winners, 61
     met the definition of a small business. In addition, MDS includes
     licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. As noted,
     the SBA has developed a definition of small entities for pay
     television services, which includes all such companies generating
     \$12.5 million or less in annual receipts.[^553] This definition
     includes multipoint distribution services, and thus applies to MDS
     licensees and wireless cable operators that did not participate in
     the MDS auction. Information available to us indicates that there
     are approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do not
     generate revenue in excess of \$12.5 million annually. Therefore,
     using the SBA small business size standard, we find that there are
     approximately 850 small MDS providers.

278. The SBA definition of small entities for Cable and Other
     Distribution services, which includes such companies generating
     \$12.5 million in annual receipts, seems reasonably applicable to
     ITFS.[^554] There are presently 2,032 ITFS licensees. All but 100
     of these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational
     institutions are included in the definition of a small
     business.[^555] However, we do not collect annual revenue data for
     ITFS licensees, and are not able to ascertain how many of the 100
     non-educational licensees would be categorized as small under the
     SBA definition. Thus, we tentatively conclude that at least 1,932
     licensees are small businesses.

279. Additionally, the auction of the 1,030 LMDS licenses began on
     February 18, 1998, and closed on March 25, 1998. The Commission
     defined "small entity" for LMDS licenses as an entity that has
     average gross revenues of less than \$40 million in the three
     previous calendar years.[^556] An additional classification for
     "very small business" was added and is defined as an entity that,
     together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not
     more than \$15 million for the preceding calendar years.[^557]
     These regulations defining "small entity" in the context of LMDS
     auctions have been approved by the SBA.[^558] There were 93 winning
     bidders that qualified as small entities in the LMDS auctions. A
     total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately
     277 A Block licenses and 387 B Block licenses. On March 27, 1999,
     the Commission re-auctioned 161 licenses; there were 40 winning
     bidders. Based on this information, we conclude that the number of
     small LMDS licenses will include the 93 winning bidders in the
     first auction and the 40 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a
     total of 133 small entity LMDS providers as defined by the SBA and
     the Commission's auction rules.

280. **Satellite Master Antenna Television (\"SMATV\") Systems.** The
     SBA definition of small entities for Cable and Other Program
     Distribution services includes SMATV services and, thus, small
     entities are defined as all such companies generating \$12.5
     million or less in annual receipts.[^559] Industry sources estimate
     that approximately 5,200 SMATV operators were providing service as
     of December 1995.[^560] Other estimates indicate that SMATV
     operators serve approximately 1.5 million residential subscribers
     as of July 2001.[^561] The best available estimates indicate that
     the largest SMATV operators serve between 15,000 and 55,000
     subscribers each. Most SMATV operators serve approximately
     3,000-4,000 customers. Because these operators are not rate
     regulated, they are not required to file financial data with the
     Commission. Furthermore, we are not aware of any privately
     published financial information regarding these operators. As
     noted, *supra*, for the category Cable and Other Program
     Distribution, most of providers of these services are considered
     small.

281. **Open Video Systems ("OVS").** Because OVS operators provide
     subscription services,[^562] OVS falls within the SBA-recognized
     definition of cable and other program distribution services.[^563]
     This definition provides that a small entity is one with \$ 12.5
     million or less in annual receipts.[^564] The Commission has
     certified 25 OVS operators with some now providing service.
     Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (\"RCN\")
     received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston,
     Washington, D.C. and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to
     assure us that they do not qualify as small business entities.
     Little financial information is available for the other entities
     authorized to provide OVS that are not yet operational. Given that
     other entities have been authorized to provide OVS service but have
     not yet begun to generate revenues, we conclude that at least some
     of the OVS operators qualify as small entities.

282. **Electronics Equipment Manufacturers.** Rules adopted in this
     proceeding could affect manufacturers of digital transmitting and
     receiving equipment and other types of consumer electronics
     equipment. The SBA has developed definitions of small entity for
     manufacturers of audio and video equipment[^565] as well as radio
     and television broadcasting and wireless communications
     equipment.[^566] These categories both include all such companies
     employing 750 or fewer employees. The Commission has not developed
     a definition of small entities applicable to manufacturers of
     electronic equipment used by consumers, as compared to industrial
     use by television licensees and related businesses. Therefore, we
     will utilize the SBA definitions applicable to manufacturers of
     audio and visual equipment and radio and television broadcasting
     and wireless communications equipment, since these are the two
     closest NAICS Codes applicable to the consumer electronics
     equipment manufacturing industry. However, these NAICS categories
     are broad and specific figures are not available as to how many of
     these establishments manufacture consumer equipment. Census Bureau
     data indicates that there are 554 U.S. establishments that
     manufacture audio and visual equipment, and that 542 of these
     establishments have fewer than 500 employees and would be
     classified as small entities.[^567] The remaining 12 establishments
     have 500 or more employees; however, we are unable to determine how
     many of those have fewer than 750 employees and therefore, also
     qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. Under the SBA's
     regulations, a radio and television broadcasting and wireless
     communications equipment manufacturer must also have 750 or fewer
     employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.[^568]
     Census Bureau data indicates that there 1,215 U.S. establishments
     that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and wireless
     communications equipment, and that 1,150 of these establishments
     have fewer than 500 employees and would be classified as small
     entities.[^569] The remaining 65 establishments have 500 or more
     employees; however, we are unable to determine how many of those
     have fewer than 750 employees and therefore, also qualify as small
     entities under the SBA definition. We therefore conclude that there
     are no more than 542 small manufacturers of audio and visual
     electronics equipment and no more than 1,150 small manufacturers of
     radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications
     equipment for consumer/household use.

283. **Computer Manufacturers**. The Commission has not developed a
     definition of small entities applicable to computer manufacturers.
     Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition of electronic
     computers manufacturing. According to SBA regulations, a computer
     manufacturer must have 1,000 or fewer employees in order to qualify
     as a small entity.[^570] Census Bureau data indicates that there
     are 563 firms that manufacture electronic computers and of those,
     544 have fewer than 1,000 employees and qualify as small
     entities.[^571] The remaining 19 firms have 1,000 or more
     employees. We conclude that there are approximately 544 small
     computer manufacturers.

     **D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and other
     Compliance Requirements**

284. The *R&O* contains additional reporting and recordkeeping
     requirements. For example, stations must file an application to
     either flash-cut to digital or for a companion digital channel.
     Applicants proposing digital channels 52-69 must make a
     certification in their application that no suitable channel 2-51 is
     available. In addition, applicants proposing to use digital channel
     60-69 must certify that they have coordinated the use of their
     facilities with public safety entities. In addition, applicants in
     mutually exclusive groups may file settlements or engineering
     solutions with the Commission to avoid having to go to auction.
     Without these filings, stations cannot participate in the digital
     television transition. Factors that could make the digital
     transition time consuming are not likely to be related to whether
     the entity is small or large. These requirements will serve to
     promote the overall DTV transition and represent a temporary burden
     on stations. We expect that stations will be able to recoup the
     cost of these filings with advance DTV operation.

     **E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
     Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

285. 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.[^572]

286. The Commission is aware that many low power licensees, including
     smaller entities, operate with limited budgets. Accordingly, every
     effort was taken to craft rules that impose the least possible
     burden on all licensees, including smaller licensed entities.

287. The *R&O* allows low power broadcasters additional time (as
     compared to full-service broadcasters) to transition from analog to
     digital service. The amount of additional time has not yet been
     determined. Allowing additional time for the low power DTV
     transition is less disruptive to low power broadcasters and will
     minimize potential loss of service. The Commission considered
     making low power broadcasters cease operating their analog
     facilities at the deadline applicable to full-service broadcasters
     but we found that this would result in many low power stations
     being unable to obtain the spectrum they needed to accomplish the
     digital transition. The Commission rejected this approach in order
     to prevent low power broadcasters from prematurely flash-cutting to
     digital and the loss of service that would result.

288. The *R&O* allows existing broadcasters the first opportunity to
     either flash-cut on their existing analog channel or to apply for a
     digital companion channel. This will provide existing broadcasters
     the flexibility to identify a workable digital channel for
     operation before new broadcasters are allowed to apply for
     channels. The Commission considered allowing applicants to seek new
     channels at the same time that incumbent stations seek companion
     channels but rejected this approach because new channels would use
     valuable spectrum that must be used by incumbent stations to
     successfully transition to digital.

289. The *R&O* concludes that digital flash-cut and companion channel
     applications filed by low power broadcasters are subject to auction
     (except Class A flash-cut applications). The Commission concluded
     that the statute provides the discretion in this case. At the same
     time, the Commission sought to alleviate the burden on all stations
     by allowing all applicants an opportunity to find settlements or
     engineering solutions to avoid having to go to auction. The
     Commission concluded that the settlement opportunity will
     facilitate the processing of applications and permit applicants to
     avoid having to use limited resources to bid for their digital
     channels.

290. The *R&*O allows applicants to seek digital channels between 52-69
     on a limited secondary basis. The Commission found that this
     approach will provide stations with greater flexibility to seek
     channels where a core channel (between 2 and 51) cannot be
     identified. The Commission considered not allowing any additional
     licensing on these channels because of concerns of interference to
     new wireless and public safety users. This approach was rejected
     because it was found that limited use of channels 52-69 was
     necessary for the successful DTV transition of many LPTV and TV
     translator stations. This will enable numerous stations that
     otherwise could not find a digital channel with the opportunity to
     participate in the digital transition.

291. The *R&*O provides stations with the flexibility to choose the
     types of service to provide for their viewers. Translators will be
     limited to rebroadcasting programs and signals of full-service DTV
     stations without alteration to content or video format but may
     insert the types of local messages permitted for analog translators
     and may rebroadcast a DTV signal as an analog signal. LPTV stations
     must provide a free over-the-air video program service but have the
     freedom to use the remainder of their spectrum to offer ancillary
     services on the same basis as full-service DTV stations (including
     5% fee on gross revenues of feeable services). We considered
     allowing LPTV and TV translator stations to operate without
     restrictions but that proposal was rejected because it would
     interfere with the Commission's overall DTV goals and the rules and
     policies adopted for full-service stations.

292. The *R&*O adopts interference rules and methodology to provide the
     needed flexibility for stations to engineer new digital operations
     without undermining established interference protection rights of
     existing broadcasters. The equipment rules will enable stations to
     use much of their existing equipment, thus reducing the overall
     cost of digital implementation. The Commission considered adoption
     of stricter rules but concluded that such rules would interfere
     with low power stations being able to successfully propose and
     construct new DTV facilities and to afford to convert their analog
     facilities.

     **F. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
     Commission's Proposals**

293. None.

     **G. Report to Congress**

294. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including
     this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
     Congressional Review Act.[^573] In addition, the Commission will
     send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the
     Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and
     Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
     Federal Register.[^574]

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL**

*Re: Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Establish
Rules for Digital Low Power Television, Television Translators, and
Television Booster Stations and to Amend Rules for Digital Class A
Television Stations*

A hallmark of the Commission's digital migration agenda has been
ushering in the era of digital television and its many benefits for our
citizens. In so doing, we have sought to bring the DTV transition to a
successful conclusion so that we can reclaim spectrum for vital public
safety and new, broadband wireless services. At the same time, one of
the central goals of the entirety of the Commission's agenda is to bring
universal availability of new, digital services to each and every
American.

Today, we take a substantial step on all of these fronts as we set a
course for translator services and low-power broadcasters to bring the
benefits of the DTV transition to all corners of our country, including
the most rural areas of the United States. By allowing these
broadcasters---many of whom are public, municipally owned, minority or
religious stations---to engage in a mini-digital broadcast television
transition of their own, we signal our desire to prevent disruption of
broadcast service to our nation's citizens during the DTV transition,
while bringing them the benefits of the digital television enjoyed in
the vast majority of markets today.

As we provide these broadcasters with the capability to receive a second
channel so that they can fully participate in the DTV transition, it
should be clear that use of this second channel will be short-lived. To
my mind, bringing an end to this transition at the same time as the end
of the full-power DTV broadcast transition is of utmost importance.

Through these steps and by embracing a hard date for both this and the
end of the full-power DTV transition, we can bring our citizens the
benefits of digital television, bring more "saving lives" spectrum to
the public safety community and drive the development of innovative
wireless broadband services to all Americans.

Our commitment to moving along the DTV transition has been unwavering as
we begin to take the necessary steps to visualize and then realize the
end of the DTV transition and the vast benefits of that end to our
citizens and homeland and economic security. At the same time, we remain
committed to opening up this spectrum for new wireless services, as
demonstrated by our pursuit of the use of broadcast white spaces for new
wireless broadband use. On both fronts, we continue to plan to move
forward aggressively.

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS

APPROVING IN PART, CONCURRING IN PART

*Re:* *Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to
Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television, Television Translator,
and Television Booster Stations and to Amend Rules for Digital Class A
Television Stations*

As I have traveled around the country, I have seen first-hand the
tremendous benefits that low power television stations and translators
bring to the American people. These stations help in significant ways to
meet the needs of underserved audiences and to increase localism,
competition, and diversity in our media. Hundreds of communities all
across this country depend on these stations---often run by
municipalities, schools, colleges, churches and small business---for
free over-the-air television service. In some rural areas, they may be
the only ones providing local news and information. In other areas, low
power television stations may fill a void by airing programming,
including non-English programming, geared to an under-represented
community.

As with any other user of the public's airwaves, these stations have the
responsibility to serve the public interest. Today, as analog stations,
they generally do, often with great distinction. The digital transition
will afford these stations new opportunities to serve their local
communities. Our job is to ensure that these new opportunities are
carried out in a manner that serves the interests of all the people,
most assuredly including those in rural areas for whom digital low power
television and translator stations hold such great promise. Today's
order, on balance, should help us to promote the digital transition for
these stations and achieve this objective.

On one aspect of the decision, however, I do not find the statute as
clear as the decision states. In particular, the Order concludes that
the auction exemptions clearly do not apply at all for temporary second
channels to advance the digital transition. I think this is a debatable
reading of the law and of the intent of Congress. We should be looking
for ways to facilitate the digital transition for these small stations
that often have limited capital to devote to deploying digital
technology. I will therefore concur in part in this decision and I urge
the Commission to use the means at its disposal to minimize costly
conflicts among applicants.

Finally, I note that today's decision applies to low power and
translator stations the same rules on use of spectrum for ancillary and
supplementary services as were applied to full-service DTV stations.
When we adopted the rules on ancillary and supplementary use, we
recognized that the fundamental purpose of this spectrum is to provide
free over-the-air broadcast services. We further indicated that we would
regularly review our approach to permitted ancillary and supplementary
services. Moreover, Congress directed us to reexamine our policies from
time to time to adjust the fees charged for use of the spectrum for such
services. It has been several years since we have undertaken any such
analysis. As technology advances and we gain a clearer picture of how
broadcasters in general are using the spectrum, I hope that the
Commission will carry out such a review.

Thanks to the Bureau and our staffs for their hard work on this
proceeding.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

**APPROVING IN PART AND CONCURRING IN PART**

*Re: Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Establish
Rules for Digital Low Power Television, Television Translator, and
Television Booster Stations and to Amend Rules for Digital Class A
Television Stations, Report and Order*

I'm pleased we're moving the digital transition forward for low power
television stations and the many viewers living in our rural communities
who rely on them.

Thousands of translators and low power stations across our country fill
a vital need as the primary source of over-the-air television for people
in Rural America. As I've seen firsthand, often these stations are the
only station in an area providing local news, weather, public affairs
and emergency programming. They are operated by a diverse range of the
public, including individuals, schools, churches, local governments, and
minority groups. Their modes of operation and programming vary widely,
with some stations airing the most locally-produced programming among
all broadcasters and others broadcasting important news and information
in several languages. The conversion to digital, and the ability to
offer ancillary and supplementary services, should bring opportunities
for even more innovation and local programming services for these
stations.

Today's comprehensive item lays out the avenues available for the
transition of low power services to digital. Opportunities for low power
operators to convert existing stations and to apply for transitional
companion channels where feasible will encourage the overall rollout of
digital services in these areas. I am mindful of the dual challenges of
limited spectrum availability and limited finances of many stations in
the low power service. The Order appropriately protects full power
broadcasters and other primary services like public safety and wireless
services, while seeking to minimize any disruption to viewers who rely
on low power operations.

Yet I do not find the statutory direction compelling the auction of
mutually exclusive low power temporary companion channels as unambiguous
as the item declares. The item's cursory analysis fails to take into
account significant aspects of this unique situation, including the
temporary nature of the licenses and their role in promoting the digital
transition, the status of municipality-owned stations, and that some of
these stations may ultimately be digital Class A stations subject to
full power transmission standards. Wherever legally and practically
possible, digital low power stations should be given the same ability to
ensure a smooth transition for their viewers as full power stations. I
trust that we will use engineering solutions extensively to resolve
conflicts.

Despite today's positive step in accelerating the transition for low
power stations, other work remains to be done. Issues involving the
qualification of Class A stations and public interest responsibilities
for digital operation have yet to be resolved. As I have emphasized with
respect to full power stations, providing certainty on public interest
requirements of broadcasters in the digital age is just as important as
laying out further mechanics of the transition. We should not overlook
this crucial step as we fulfill Congress's vision of an enhanced digital
viewing experience for all Americans.

[^1]: ^?^ *See Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules
    Concerning Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power
    Television, Television Translator, and Television Booster Stations
    and to Amend Rules for Digital Class A Television Stations*, 18 FCC
    Rcd 18365 (2003) (*Notice*). LPTV and TV translator stations are
    regulated under Subpart G of Part 74 of our rules. Class A stations
    are regulated under Subpart J of Part 73.

[^2]: ^?^ *See Report and Order*, 51 R.R.2d 476 (1982).

[^3]: ^?^ *See,* *e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.703, 74.709, 90.303.

[^4]: ^?^ LPTV stations may radiate up to 3 kilowatts of power for
    stations operating on the VHF band (*i.e.*, channels 2 through 13),
    and 150 kilowatts of power for stations operating on the UHF band
    (*i.e.*, channels 14 through 69). By comparison, full-service
    stations on VHF channels 7 through 13 radiate up to 316 kilowatts of
    power, and stations on the UHF channels radiate up to 5,000
    kilowatts of power. LPTV signals typically extend approximately 15
    to 20 miles, while the signals of full-service stations can reach as
    far as 60 to 80 miles.

[^5]: ^?^ *See, e.g., Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 45 F.R. 69178
    (Oct. 17, 1980).

[^6]: ^?^ *Public Notice*, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2004
    (released April 27, 2004).

[^7]: ^?^ *See Establishment of a Class A Television Service*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 6355 (2000) (*Class A Report and Order*), *on recon.*, 16 FCC
    Rcd 8244 (2001).

[^8]: ^?^ *See* *Class A Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 6357, ¶ 2
    (*citing Review of the Commission's Rules Governing the Low Power
    Television Service*, 9 FCC Rcd 2555 (1994) (*LPTV First Report and
    Order*).

[^9]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^10]: ^?^ *Id.*, *citing* *LPTV First Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at
    2555; *Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the
    Existing Television Broadcast Service*, 11 FCC Rcd 10968, 10995
    (1996).

[^11]: ^?^ Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. Appendix I at 1501A-594 -
    1501A-598, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 336(f).

[^12]: ^?^ *Public Notice*, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31,
    2004 (released April 27, 2004).

[^13]: ^?^ Licensees can switch between LPTV and TV translator
    designation by simple letter notification to the Commission. 47
    C.F.R. § 74.732(e).

[^14]: ^?^ *Public Notice*, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31,
    2004 (released April 27, 2004).

[^15]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 74.731(f).

[^16]: ^?^ *See Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules
    Concerning FM Booster Stations and Television Booster Stations*, 2
    FCC Rcd 4625 (1987).

[^17]: ^?^ Parties filing comments and reply comments and abbreviated
    name references for each are listed in Appendix A.

[^18]: ^?^ *See*, *e.g.*, NTA Comments at 8 and Entravision Comments at
    2. With very few exceptions, commenters not specifically focusing on
    this issue at least imply that there will be a regulatory
    distinction between digital TV translator and LPTV stations.

[^19]: NTA Comments at 8.

[^20]: ^?^ *See*, for example, 47 U.S.C. § 614(c) and (h) regarding
    cable carriage of low power TV stations.

[^21]: ^?^ *See* Joint Commenters Comments at 6.

[^22]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18382 and 19383, n. 80.

[^23]: ^?^ Generally, we will pattern the distinction between digital TV
    translator and LPTV stations after that for analog translator and
    LPTV stations.

[^24]: ^?^ *See* CBA Comments at 2; International Comments at 2.

[^25]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(14).

[^26]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 153(49)(A).

[^27]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18409.

[^28]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18407 citing 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(4).

[^29]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 153(49); 309(j)(14)(A); 47 C.F.R. 73.682(a).

[^30]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.6024(a).

[^31]: ^?^ For example, many translator-served communities cannot
    directly receive any off-air signals of DTV stations because of
    intervening terrain. We are concerned that viewers in such
    communities will not become equipped to receive DTV signals until
    after their translators begin to transmit digital signals. Without
    continued analog service, these viewers will experience a disruption
    in service, at least until they secure a digital-to-analog converter
    or this conversion is made at the translator station(s). *See* NTA
    Reply Comments at 21-22 ("To suddenly 'flash cut' in rural areas
    means that the entire rural United States must suddenly develop
    overnight digital reception capability"). *See* also CBA Comments at
    13; Island Comments at 5.

[^32]: ^?^ Pursuant to Section 336(e) of the Act, LPTV and TV translator
    stations must vacate the use of the upper 700 MHz band (channels
    60-69) by the end of the full-service DTV transition (*i.e.*, by
    December 31, 2006, or as extended on the basis of the criteria in
    Section 309(j)(14)(B) of the Act). 47 U.S.C. § 336(e).

[^33]: ^?^ Fox Comments at 8-9.

[^34]: ^?^ Our second periodic review *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*
    considers DTV market definitions in connection with the statutory
    criteria for extending the transition date. *See* *Second Periodic
    Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the
    Conversion to Digital Television*, 18 FCC Rcd 1303 (2003) ("Second
    DTV Periodic NPRM"). Our future consideration of digital transition
    criteria for TV translator, LPTV, and Class A stations may include
    separate market definitions tailored to the service of these
    stations.

[^35]: ^?^ *Cf.* 47 C.F.R. § 74.701(a) (analog counterpart definition).

[^36]: ^?^ *E.g.*, Elko Comments at 3; Entravision Comments at 2; Fox
    Comments at 3; MSTV/NAB Comments at 22; NTA Comments at 3; Riverton
    Comments at 6.

[^37]: ^?^ Stations may not "rebroadcast the program or any part thereof
    of another broadcasting station without the express authority of the
    originating station." 47 U.S.C. § 325(a).

[^38]: ^?^ More specifically, a heterodyne translator mixes the incoming
    RF frequencies of the input signal with frequencies generated by a
    tuned local oscillator to generate an IF frequency (such as 44 MHz)
    that is passed through a band pass filter and "upconverted" by the
    same process to the final RF output channel for amplification. *See*
    Gary Sgrignoli Reply Comments at 3.

[^39]: ^?^ AFCCE Comments at 1. AFCCE estimates that 90% of existing
    translators operate in the heterodyne mode. The remaining analog
    translators employ modulation/demodulation equipment, for example,
    to receive signals transported via FM microwave.

[^40]: ^?^ Riverton Comments at 4.

[^41]: ^?^ Gary Sgrignoli Reply Comments at 3.

[^42]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18372-3.

[^43]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^44]: ^?^ *E.g.,* APTS/PBS Comments at 13; Elko Comments at 2;
    Entravision Comments at 4; KAET Comments at 9; MSTV/NAB Comments at
    22; Vermont Educational Comments at 5; Wyoming Comments at 2.

[^45]: ^?^ AFCCE Comments at 1.

[^46]: ^?^ Riverton Comments at 4.

[^47]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 5-6 (recommending that we adopt the
    regenerative mode for "normal practice" and generally require its
    use for all translators operating with a digital average transmitter
    output power of more than 30 watts); Zenith Reply Comments at 2
    (arguing that transmitted signals using the regenerative mode are
    "far superior" to those transmitted by a heterodyne translator);
    Parsons Reply Comments at 2 (suggesting that heterodyne processors
    should be permitted in cases of economic hardship on a waiver basis
    and only in remote rural areas); Larcan Reply Comments at 1 ("There
    is a general agreement \[in the public record\] that regenerating
    the bit stream is worthwhile if economically feasible."); Sgrignoli
    Reply Comments at 4 (suggesting that we "limit the use of heterodyne
    units to cases where there are no adjacent channels at the
    translator input and encourage the 'preferred' use of digital
    regenerators wherever possible, especially during the
    frequency-congested transition era").

[^48]: ^?^ Although NTA did not differentiate between UHF and VHF power
    limits, we believe NTA intended the 30-watt limit to apply to UHF
    stations. The VHF power limit of 3 watts is based on the approximate
    10 dB difference between VHF and UHF station power levels to obtain
    comparable signal coverage.

[^49]: ^?^ A "digital average" power approximately 6 dB less than a
    "peak of sync NTSC" power will dissipate the same thermal power is a
    load resistor. A digital average power level approximately 12 dB
    less than an NTSC peak power will produce comparable signal
    coverage.

[^50]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 6.

[^51]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.731.

[^52]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18373.

[^53]: ^?^ Cf. 47 C.F.R. § 74.731(f) (analog operations). Although
    equipment is available to insert messages into a digital bit stream,
    it may not be affordable for most translator licensees, and digital
    message insertion may not be practical at this time. *See, e.g.*,
    Greg Best Comments at 2; Larcan Comments at 1. Yet, we recognize the
    potential importance of locally generated messages, especially vital
    emergency warnings and, therefore, we will provide in our rules for
    limited digital translator message origination.

[^54]: ^?^ *See*, *e.g.*, Elko Comments at 3; Entravision Comments at 2;
    Fox Comments at 3; KAET Comments at 6; MSTV/NAB Comments at 22; NTA
    Comments at 6; Vermont Educational Comments at 4.

[^55]: ^?^ KAET Comments at 6.

[^56]: ^?^ Vermont Educational Television Comments at 4.

[^57]: ^?^ Fox Comments at 3. PSIP is the acronym for Program and System
    Information Protocol.

[^58]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18373.

[^59]: ^?^ APTS/PBS Comments at 10-11. Examples include dissemination of
    financial stock exchange information, election returns,
    subscriber-based weather updates, college courses, and transmissions
    that could enhance public safety.

[^60]: ^?^ Vermont Educational Television at 2.

[^61]: ^?^ KAET Comments at 5. KAET maintains that digital translators
    should be permitted to make DTV signal alterations necessary to
    accommodate translator-provided originations, including down
    converting a high definition signal to a standard definition signal.

[^62]: ^?^ MSTV/NAB Comments at 22; *see also* Elko Comments at 3; Fox
    Comments at 3; Riverton Comments at 6; NTA Comments at 6.

[^63]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* Bonneville Comments at 5; Cavalier Comments at
    16; Entravision Comments at 3; Greg Best Comments at 2; KAET
    Comments at 5; MSTV/NAB Reply Comments at 13; NTA Comments at 4 and
    7.

[^64]: ^?^ Bonneville Comments at 5.

[^65]: ^?^ MSTV/NAB Reply Comments at 13.

[^66]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 4 and 7.

[^67]: ^?^ Fox Comments at 3.

[^68]: ^?^ *See* Joint Commenters Comments at 3.

[^69]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18370.

[^70]: ^?^ *Id.* at 18374.

[^71]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* Bonneville Comments at 4; Joint Commenters
    Comments at 4; MSTV/NAB Comments at 23; NTA Comments at 3; Wyoming
    Comments at 2.

[^72]: ^?^ Entravision Comments at 3.

[^73]: ^?^ Bonneville Comments at 4.

[^74]: ^?^ Gary Sgrignoli Comments at 3. *See* also Parsons Comments at
    8. Significant improvements to signal parameters such as the
    translator in-band signal-to-noise ratio, would result from the
    signal and data processing capabilities of the front-end DTV
    receiver/processor in such translator installations, particularly
    improving signal reception in multi-hop translator systems.

[^75]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 3.

[^76]: ^?^ *See* NTA Comments at 6; Entravision Comments at 3.

[^77]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd 18374.

[^78]: ^?^ APTS/PBS Comments at 13; Bonneville Comments at 6;
    Entravision Comments at 4; Greg Best Comments at 2; MSTV/NAB
    Comments at 23; NTA Comments at 7; San Bernardino County Comments at
    9.

[^79]: ^?^ *See* Sgrignoli Reply Comments at 4 (*e.g.*, noting that four
    6 MHz 8-VSB signals can be embedded in a broadcast auxiliary
    microwave channel of 25 MHz bandwidth).

[^80]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.731(b), which lists permissible
    alternative translator input sources including another translator,
    television translator relay, intercity relay, television STL, "or
    other suitable source such as a CARS or common carrier microwave
    relay..." and specifies methods of signal transmission. Note also
    that the microwave bands in the TV broadcast auxiliary service
    (Subpart F of Part 74) may be used for digital transmissions with
    any available signal modulation format.

[^81]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18374.

[^82]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.701(f) and 74.731(g).

[^83]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18375.

[^84]: *Id.*

[^85]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* CBA Comments at 17 (CBA believes that the
    statutory definition of broadcasting could be satisfied by requiring
    only that a signal be distributed without a fee to any member of the
    public who wishes to receive it).

[^86]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 74.701(f).

[^87]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.624(b) \[DTV requirement\] and 73.6026
    \[Digital Class A TV requirement\].

[^88]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* Cherryland Wireless Comments at 2 (requesting
    that digital LPTV stations be initially allowed to provide a high
    speed downstream datacasting service); Bruno Comments at 6 (arguing
    that LPTV stations should be allowed to use or lease their spectrum
    for cellular phone or video-on-demand services); CBA Comments at
    16-17 (suggesting that allowing LPTV stations flexibility to
    experiment with new digital services and technologies would assist
    our evaluation of "alternate systems.").

[^89]: ^?^ Island Comments at 2. Zenith states that after performing
    tests on 8-VSB and COFDM signals, the Commission concluded there was
    insufficient evidence to warrant altering its DTV transmission
    standard and that the VSB modulation format was "sufficiently
    flexible" to accommodate further improvements. Zenith Reply Comments
    at 2.

[^90]: ^?^ Commercial Broadcasting Reply Comments at 10; *see* also CBA
    Comments at 17.

[^91]: ^?^ KM Comments at 8-9.

[^92]: ^?^ 309 F.3d 796, 804 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

[^93]: ^?^ *See generally* 47 U.S.C. § 301.

[^94]: ^?^ Cavalier Comments at 16; Cox and Liberty Reply Comments at 5;
    MSTV/NAB Comments at 21.

[^95]: ^?^ MSTV/NAB Reply Comments at 11.

[^96]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 9 and Reply Comments at 23.

[^97]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.701(g)-(h).

[^98]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.682(d) - *Digital broadcast television
    transmission standard*. This standard incorporates by reference the
    ATSC Digital Television Standard, which incorporates the 8-VSB
    signal modulation format.

[^99]: ^?^ *See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the
    Existing Television Broadcast Service* ("*DTV* *Fifth Report and
    Order")*, 12 FCC Rcd 12809 (1997) ¶ 5.

[^100]: ^?^ Zenith Reply Comments at 5.

[^101]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18375.

[^102]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.624(c) (examples of ancillary and
    supplementary services include computer software distribution, data
    transmissions, aural messages, paging services, audio signals and
    subscription video).

[^103]: ^?^ CBA Reply Comments at 11; *see* also MSTV/NAB Reply Comments
    at 12; NTA Comments at 8.

[^104]: ^?^ Rural Stakeholder Comments at 7. Rural Stakeholders, rural
    telephone companies that have acquired 700 MHz spectrum to provide
    broadband services, contend that digital LPTV stations would have a
    "cost advantage in providing competitive \[subscription\] services"
    because LPTV stations did not acquire spectrum though the
    competitive bidding process and that allowance for digital LPTV
    non-video subscription services would not foster the digital
    transition in rural areas.

[^105]: ^?^ *DTV Fifth Report and Order* at ¶ 29.

[^106]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18377.

[^107]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18394-6.

[^108]: ^?^ Entravision Comments at 4; *see* also NTA Comments at 9 (not
    opposing digital LPTV station transmitting ancillary and
    supplementary services exclusively in the "off-hours").

[^109]: ^?^ Bruno Comments at 7.

[^110]: ^?^ *See* NTA Reply Comments at 23-25 (raising interference
    concerns regarding two-way digital communications systems using UHF
    TV broadcast channels).

[^111]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18376, *citing* 47 C.F.R § 74.780 -
    "Broadcast regulations applicable to translators, low power and
    booster stations (*e.g.*, sponsorship identification and broadcasts
    by candidates for political office).

[^112]: ^?^ MSTV/NAB Comments at 21.

[^113]: ^?^ In a future proceeding, we will consider how to adapt
    existing public interest obligations for LPTV stations if they
    choose to multicast on their digital channels.

[^114]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18377.

[^115]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18378.

[^116]: ^?^ *See Channel 52-59 Reallocation Order*, *supra*.

[^117]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18378.

[^118]: ^?^ *See Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806
    MHz Band*, 12 FCC Rcd 22953 (1997) (*Channel 60-69 Reallocation
    Order*).

[^119]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. 336(e) ("any person who holds a television
    broadcast license to operate between 746 and 806 MHz may not operate
    at that frequency after the date on which the digital television
    service transition period terminates, as determined by the
    Commission").

[^120]: ^?^ *Channel 60-69 Reallocation Order* at ¶ 29.

[^121]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18378.

[^122]: ^?^ *E.g.,* CBA Comments at 9; NTA Comments at 9; APTS/PBS
    Comments at 9; Bonneville Comments at 7; Entravision Comments at
    5-6; KAET Comments at 9; Venture Comments at 4-5; Vermont
    Educational Comments at 6; KM Comments at 9-10. The Joint Commenters
    request that we change our rules and permit applicants for digital
    low power TV authorizations on "channels 14-59 to displace" Private
    Land Mobile Radio operators. *See* Joint Commenters Comments at 9.
    We will not consider the Joint Commenters proposal because this
    issue was not addressed in the *Notice* and is therefore beyond the
    scope of this proceeding.

[^123]: ^?^ APTS/PBS Comments at 10.

[^124]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 9.

[^125]: ^?^ *Id.* (footnotes omitted).

[^126]: ^?^ APTS/PBS Comments at 10; NTA Comments at 10.

[^127]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 10.

[^128]: ^?^ *See* Paxson Comments at 6-9; Artic Comments at 2-6; Aloha
    Comments at 5-6; APCO Comments at 2; and the Comments of Access
    Spectrum, Corr, Datacom, Harbor, LIN/Banks, Martin, Motorola,
    Pioneer, Qualcomm, United, Rural 700 MHz, and Vulcan, *seriatim*.

[^129]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18378.

[^130]: ^?^ Rural 700 MHz Band Licensees Comments at 6.

[^131]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^132]: ^?^ Access Spectrum Comments at 3; *see also* Aloha Comments at
    3; Motorola Comments at 3; Rural Stakeholders Comments at 4.

[^133]: ^?^ Access Spectrum Comments at 3.

[^134]: ^?^ Corr Comments at 4; Aloha Comments at 4.

[^135]: ^?^ *See* APCO Comments at 1-4.

[^136]: ^?^ *Id* at 2.

[^137]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^138]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^139]: ^?^ Cavalier Comments at 7.

[^140]: ^?^ DataComm Comments at 2; Harbor Comments at 3.

[^141]: ^?^ Cavalier Comments at 7; Corr Comments at 3; Qualcomm
    Comments at 12.

[^142]: ^?^ Cavalier Comments at 8.

[^143]: ^?^ Paxson Comments at 9.

[^144]: ^?^ 700 MHz Advancement Coalition Reply Comments at 5; Rural 700
    MHz Band Licensees at 1.

[^145]: ^?^ *See* CBA Reply Comments at 12; NTA Reply Comments at 15.

[^146]: ^?^ In this regard, Class A incumbents will be filing as
    applicants for digital LPTV stations, rather than digital Class A
    stations, which are limited to the use of in-core channels.

[^147]: ^?^ At present, auctions have been held and commercial licenses
    have been issued for the spectrum comprising TV channels 54 and 59
    (spectrum Block C) and channel 55 (Block D). Geographic service
    areas for the Block C are the 306 Metropolitan Statistic Areas
    ("MSAs") and 428 Rural Service Areas ("RSAs"). These areas,
    generally consisting of one or more counties, can be ascertained
    from [www.fcc.gov/auctions](http://www.fcc.gov/auctions) or FCC
    Report No. CL-92-40 entitled "Common Carrier Public Mobile Services
    Information, Cellular MSA/RSA Markets and Counties. 7 FCC Rcd 742
    (1992). Geographic areas for the Block D consist of six Economic
    Area Groups ("EAGs"), consisting of Economic Areas, which, in turn,
    consist of an aggregate of counties. A map of these areas and a
    listing of counties and EAGs is available at the above web site.
    Contact information on wireless licensees can also be obtained from
    this site for a particular auction (Auctions 44 and 49) or using the
    "Market-Based" license search tools under
    [www.fcc.gov/wtb](http://www.fcc.gov/wtb).

[^148]: ^?^ The notice should provide such information as the
    frequencies, bandwidth, modulation, and radiated power of fixed and
    mobile/portable emitters, the geographic coordinates and antenna
    heights of fixed stations, and the mobile/portable operating area.

[^149]: ^?^ A digital LPTV or TV translator licensee may file a
    "displacement relief" application for an available replacement
    channel and related facilities and a request for special temporary
    authority to begin operating on that channel.

[^150]: ^?^ The 120-day period should help to overcome the constraints
    imposed by seasonal conditions on access to remotely located LPTV or
    TV translator sites (*e.g.*, site inaccessibility due to snow).

[^151]: ^?^ In the event that the commencement of wireless service is
    delayed beyond the 120-day period, the period will automatically be
    extended until the actual commencement of wireless service.

[^152]: ^?^ At present, auctions have been held and band manager
    licenses have been issued for the two paired blocks of "guard band"
    spectrum: 746 -747 MHz paired with 776-777 MHz (Block A, including
    portions TV channels 60 and 65) and 762-764 MHz paired with 792-794
    MHz (Block B, including portions of TV channels 62 and 67). The
    licensed geographic market areas for these blocks are the 52 Major
    Economic Areas ("MEAs"). Detailed information is available at the
    web sites given in the preceding footnote (*see* Auction 33). *See
    also*
    [www.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/areas](http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/areas)
    for a map and county list for the MEAs.

[^153]: ^?^ The spectrum in each of these TV channels is subdivided into
    narrow band (6.25 kHz) and wideband (50 kHz) channels. The 6 MHz
    spectrum in a TV channel contains interspersed groups of public
    safety channels assigned for the following purposes: general use,
    interoperability, state channels, low power operations, secondary
    trunking and reserve spectrum. The 12.5 MHz designated as "general
    use" spectrum is administered by 55 Regional Planning Committees
    (RPCs), comprised of representatives of various public safety
    entities. Although most of these regions consist of single states,
    some are comprised of multiple states or portions of states. For
    example, the state of California contains two regions. The spectrum
    assigned for "state channels" and "interoperability" is administered
    by designated state government entities known as State
    Interoperability Executive Committees (SIECs).

[^154]: ^?^ There may be regions in which there is no 700 MHz RPC,
    either because no RPC was formed or because the RPC disbanded upon
    completion of its planning tasks regarding the 700 MHz public safety
    spectrum. In areas without a 700 MHz RPC, LPTV and TV translator
    applicants should undertake the required prior coordination directly
    with the potentially affected licensees, or with a frequency
    advisory committee certified by the Commission to coordinate 700 MHz
    public safety channels.

[^155]: ^?^ Some states have chosen not to form SIECs. In those states,
    the function of SIECs is performed by the 700 MHz RPC, so the
    required coordination should be undertaken with the relevant 700 MHz
    RPC.

[^156]: ^?^ We here clarify the RPC are not required or expected to
    amend their regional plans to reflect secondary LPTV or TV
    translator operations on Channels 63, 64, 68 and 69.

[^157]: ^?^ The location of public safety planning regions and contact
    information for the regional planning committees and states is
    available at the Commissions Internet site. *See*
    <http://wireless.fcc.gov/publicsafety/700MHz/regional.html>,
    <http://wireless.fcc.gov/publicsafety/700MHz/state.html> and
    <http://wireless.fcc.gov/publicsafety/700MHz/interop-contacts.html>

[^158]: ^?^ We have no reason to believe the RPCs and SIECs will
    unreasonably refuse to coordinate with LPTV and TV translator
    applicants. In that connection, we understand that developing,
    budgeting for, and implementing public safety communications systems
    is often a multi-year process. We therefore do not expect RPCs and
    SIECs always to be in a position to identify with precision the
    facilities for which protection is necessary.

[^159]: ^?^ As noted *infra*, LPTV or TV translators that receive a
    report of interference to 700 MHz licensees, must cease operation
    immediately upon notification by any primary wireless licensees and
    once it has been established that the LPTV or translator station is
    causing the interference.

[^160]: ^?^ Joint Commenters Reply Comments at n.1.

[^161]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^162]: ^?^ *See* Motorola Reply Comments at 5; Joint Commenters Reply
    Comments at ¶ 31.

[^163]: ^?^ CBA Reply Comments at 8.

[^164]: ^?^ *See* Motorola Reply Comments at 5.

[^165]: ^?^ NTA Reply Comments at 15.

[^166]: ^?^ Corr argues that allowing low power broadcasters to use the
    700 MHz band for digital operations is a deprivation of the 700 MHz
    licensees' exclusive rights in that property and would be subject to
    the taking provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
    Constitution and would require either a rebate of some or all of the
    auction price or a payment for the lost value. Corr Comments at 6.
    The Commission has on numerous occasions stated that while its
    "exclusive use" licensing model resembles property rights in
    spectrum, this model does not imply or require creation of \"full\"
    private property rights in spectrum. *See*, *e.g*., Allocations and
    Service Rules for the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz and 92-95 GHz Bands, 18
    FCC Rcd 23318, 23346, n. 184 (2003). Courts have held that licensees
    have no property rights in a radio license. *See*, *e.g*., Ashbacker
    Radio Corp. v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327, 331 (1945) (stating that \"\[n\]o
    licensee obtains any vested interest in any frequency\").
    Furthermore we do not view the licensing of a limited number of new
    digital low power television stations in the 700 MHz band as a
    deprivation of the rights of the 700 MHz licensees. The 700 MHz
    licensees will not be deprived of their right to use their spectrum
    because digital low power television licensing in the 700 MHz band
    will be done on a secondary basis. Under the rules we adopt herein,
    new digital low power television stations will not be permitted to
    interfere with 700 MHz wireless operations. Therefore, 700 MHz
    licensees will retain the flexibility to deploy their facilities and
    use their auctioned spectrum as they see fit.

[^167]: ^?^ APTS/PBS Reply Comments at 13.

[^168]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 73.625(b)(1). This rule specifies the procedure
    for determining F(50,90) field strength values from the Commission's
    F(50,50) and F(50,10) propagation curves.

[^169]: ^?^ *See Class A Report and Order* ¶ 38; *see* also 47 C.F.R. §
    73.6010.

[^170]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 10; AFCCE Comments at 2; Parsons Comments at
    11.

[^171]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.705, 74.706, 74.707, and 74.708 define
    requirements for the protection of TV broadcast stations, DTV
    stations, low power TV and TV translator stations, Class A TV and
    digital Class A TV stations, respectively.

[^172]: ^?^ In the DTV proceeding, we permitted DTV stations in the
    initial allotment table to decrease the populations served by NTSC
    TV and other DTV stations by no more than two percent, not to exceed
    a total population reduction from all stations of ten percent.
    Applicants seeking facilities modifications of full-service NTSC
    stations may not cause any additional interference to DTV service,
    other than a 0.5% reduction in service population to account for
    rounding and calculation tolerances. *See Advanced Television
    Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast
    Service*, 13 FCC Rcd 7418 (1998).

[^173]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18382-3.

[^174]: ^?^ AFCCE Comments at 3; Greg Best Comments at 3.

[^175]: ^?^ Sgrignoli Reply Comments at 5; Greg Best Comments at 3.

[^176]: ^?^ Sgrignoli Comments at 6.

[^177]: ^?^ dLR Comments at 3.

[^178]: ^?^ MSTV/NAB Comments at 15.

[^179]: ^?^ *Id*. On June 22, 2004, the Advanced Television Systems
    Committee (ATSC) approved "ATSC Recommended Practice: Receiver
    Performance Guidelines" (ATSC Doc. A/74). This document, which
    establishes voluntary guidelines for DTV receiver performance, is
    available at [www.atsc.org](http://www.atsc.org/).

[^180]: ^?^ OET Bulletin No. 69, "Longley-Rice Methodology for
    Evaluating TV Coverage and Interference (February 06, 2004),
    available at FCC Internet address:
    <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet69/oet69.pdf>.

[^181]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18383.

[^182]: ^?^ "DTV Repeater Emission Mask Analysis," Gary Sgrignoli, *IEEE
    Transactions on Broadcastin*g, March 2003, Volume 49, Number 1,
    Pages 32-80, ISSN 0018-9316, which is also available at the
    following Internet site:
    www.zenith.com/digitalbroadcast/downloads/DTV Emission Mask
    Analysis.pdf.

[^183]: ^?^ Sgrignoli Reply Comments at 7 (indicating that his analysis
    corrects a short-coming of the original D/U ratio development
    ignoring "splatter").

[^184]: ^?^ Greg Best Comments at 3.

[^185]: ^?^ Venture Comments at 5.

[^186]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18384.

[^187]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.625(b).

[^188]: ^?^ The DTV interference model is based on service area and
    interference provisions given in Sections 73.622 and 73.623 of our
    rules and additional engineering criteria given in OET Bulletin 69.
    OET Bulletin, "Longley-Rice Methodology for Evaluating TV Coverage
    and Interference (July 2, 1997), available at FCC Internet address
    http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet69/oet69.pdf.

[^189]: ^?^ *See*, *e.g*., 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.705(e), 73.6013 and 73.6018.
    Class A station proposals are not permitted to decrease the
    predicted service populations of DTV stations and allotted
    facilities by more than 0.5%, an allowance for rounding and computer
    platform tolerance.

[^190]: ^?^ *See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the
    Existing Television* Broadcast *Services,* 12 FCC Rcd (1997), ¶ 145.

[^191]: ^?^ We noted that use of the assumed transmitting antenna
    vertical plane radiation patterns set forth in Table 8 of OET
    Bulletin 69 could under-predict LPTV and translator service and
    interference potential. OET Bulletin 69 specifies analog and digital
    radiation patterns for the frequency band of the channel being
    considered based on antennas typically used by full-service TV
    stations, employing a moderate amount of electrical beam tilt (0.75
    degrees) and a relatively high gain in the main lobe, while typical
    LPTV and TV translator stations use transmitting antennas with less
    gain and more beam tilt because such antennas are less expensive,
    smaller and lighter, and transmit a larger proportion of the
    stations' limited power downward toward the close-in locations these
    stations want to serve. In addition, we noted that TV translator
    stations are often sited on hills or mountain slopes where they use
    electrical antenna beam tilt or combinations of mechanical and
    electrical tilt to maximize their signal down into the served
    communities.

[^192]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.705.

[^193]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 4.

[^194]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 11; *see also* St. Clair Reply Comments at 5
    (suggesting a combination of contour overlap and DTV methodology);
    Parsons Comments at 12 (advocating use of contour protection method
    with allowance for Longley-Rice and OET 69-type methods on a waiver
    basis).

[^195]: ^?^ AFCCE Comments at 3.

[^196]: ^?^ Greg Best Comments at 5; *see also* APTS/PBS Comments at 14;
    dLR Comments at 4.

[^197]: ^?^ Joint Commenters Comments at 11; Mullaney Comments at 2;
    Venture Comments at 5; *see also* Metrocast Comments at 4
    (expressing concern about unrestricted use of Longley-Rice);
    MSTV/NAB Reply Comments at 16 (supporting a combination of contour
    protection and minimum distance separations).

[^198]: ^?^ Fox Comments at 9.

[^199]: ^?^ MSTV/NAB Comments at 16; *see also* Paxson Reply Comments at
    4 (urging re-examinination of existing interference standards).

[^200]: ^?^ Brey Comments at 3.

[^201]: ^?^ Renard Reply Comments at 7-8.

[^202]: ^?^ Joint Commenters Comments at 10.

[^203]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 4; NTA Comments at 12; Greg Best Comments at
    5.

[^204]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 11.

[^205]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 12.

[^206]: ^?^ AFCCE Comments at 4.

[^207]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 11.

[^208]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 13.

[^209]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 13; dLR Comments at 4; St. Clair Reply
    Comments at 4; Sgrignoli Reply Comments at 9.

[^210]: ^?^ *See* Greg Best Comments at 5 (suggesting that specific
    antenna types be added to the table of antennas for OET-69).

[^211]: ^?^ AFCCE Comments at 3.

[^212]: ^?^ MSTV/NAB Reply Comments at 16; *see also* Metrocast Comments
    at 5-7 (urging that standard vertical patterns are necessary to
    prevent applicants from specifying unattainable antenna vertical
    radiation lobes that result in an erroneously low value of a
    station's effective radiated power to the radio horizon).

[^213]: ^?^ Joint Commenters Reply Comments at 15.

[^214]: ^?^ AFCCE Comments at 4.

[^215]: ^?^ Greg Best comments at 5.

[^216]: ^?^ dLR Comments at 5; Joint Commenters Reply Comments at 14.

[^217]: ^?^ Cox/Liberty Reply Comments at 4.

[^218]: ^?^ Paxson Reply Comments at 5.

[^219]: ^?^ To illustrate: For UHF DTV stations at a depression angle of
    2 degrees, Table 8 specifies a relative strength field value of
    0.690, but we will assume a LPTV or TV translator relative field
    value would be 1.000. For UHF DTV stations at a depression angle of
    6 degrees, Table 8 specifies a relative field strength value of
    0.150, but we will assume a LPTV or TV translator relative field
    value would be 0.300.

[^220]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.703(a), 73.6022.

[^221]: ^?^ Parsons Comments at 13; APTS/PBS Comments at 5; dLR Comments
    at 5; NTA Reply Comments at 15.

[^222]: ^?^ MSTV/NAB Comments at 17-18.

[^223]: ^?^ *See*, *e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. § 74.623(g).

[^224]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.705(b), 74.707(b) and 74.708(c). In addition
    waivers may be requested based on the applicable D/U protection
    ratios not being exceeded at any location within the co-located
    stations' protected contour.

[^225]: ^?^ DTV *Sixth Report and Orde*r, ¶ 146.

[^226]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18387-8.

[^227]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 11.

[^228]: ^?^ AFCCE Comments at 4.

[^229]: ^?^ dLR Comments at 6; Joint Commenters Comments at 13; St.
    Clair Reply at 3; Sgrignoli Reply Comments at 9.

[^230]: ^?^ MSTV/NAB Comments at 16.

[^231]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18389, citing 47 C.F.R. §
    73.622(g)(2).

[^232]: ^?^ Frequency offsetting involves positioning the TV station's
    signal so that its visual carrier frequency is at its nominal
    position of 1.25 MHz above the lower edge of a TV channel (zero
    offset), 10 kHz above the nominal frequency (plus offset), or 10 kHz
    below (minus offset). For stations with the same (or no) offset,
    co-channel interference is predicted to occur when the D/U ratio is
    45 dB, while for stations with different offsets the co-channel
    interference D/U ratio is reduced to 28 dB.

[^233]: ^?^ Greg Best Comments at 6; *see also* APTS/PBS Comments at 4
    (arguing that we should not require frequency offset for digital
    LPTV and TV translator stations where a nearby analog station is on
    the lower adjacent channel).

[^234]: ^?^ Sgrignoli Reply Comments at 10.

[^235]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 11.

[^236]: ^?^ *Id.* at 12.

[^237]: ^?^ AFCCE Comments at 4; Greg Best Comments at 6; Venture
    Comments at 5; Commercial Broadcasting Reply Comments at 6.

[^238]: ^?^ Parsons Comments at 13.

[^239]: ^?^ Joint Commenters Comments at 12.

[^240]: ^?^ The 45 dB D/U ratio also applies to predictions of
    co-channel interference between stations specifying the same
    frequency offset.

[^241]: ^?^ The existing non offset station would be required to accept
    the additional interference associated with maintaining its non
    offset operation.

[^242]: ^?^ In the proceeding that created the Class A TV service, we
    established a time frame within which all Class A stations were
    required to operate with a frequency offset. During the interim
    period, we established a policy that directed Class A station
    licensees, permittees and Class A-eligible LPTV applicants to
    operate their station with a carrier frequency offset at the request
    of a displaced Class A station, displaced Class A-eligible LPTV
    station or applicant or allotment petitioner for a new NTSC
    television station. For purposes of such accommodations, we also
    reserved the right, on a case-by-case basis, to modify the license
    of a TV translator or non-Class A LPTV station, subject to the
    provisions of the Section 316 of the Communications Act. *See
    Establishment of a Class A Television Service, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order on Reconsideration*, 16 FCC Rcd 8244 (2001).

[^243]: ^?^ The *Notice* also indicated that LPTV and translator
    stations must not interfere with reception at a cable TV headend or
    output channel of a cable TV, MDS, or ITFS system converter, if the
    cable, MDS or ITFS operator is the "earlier user," and must protect
    stations in the Off-Shore Radio Service if proposing to use channels
    15, 16, 17 or 18 by not locating within a specified area near the
    Gulf of Mexico.

[^244]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 74.709(a)-(d). These provisions also apply to
    Class A TV stations.

[^245]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18390-91; *see also* 47 C.F.R. §
    73.1030.

[^246]: ^?^ The National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration ("NTIA") has requested that we subject digital low
    power television stations to Section 73.1030 of our rules.

[^247]: ^?^ APCO Comments at 3.

[^248]: ^?^ Access Spectrum Comments at 5; Adams Telcom Comments at 2;
    Motorola Comments at 4.

[^249]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18401.

[^250]: ^?^ *Id.* We noted that this contour overlap constraint also
    applies to analog LPTV and TV Translator minor change applications.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3572(a)(2).

[^251]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18401.

[^252]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18041 *citing* 47 C.F.R. §
    73.3572(a).

[^253]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18042.

[^254]: ^?^ *See* CBA Comments at 5; NTA Comments at 22; APTS/PBS
    Comments at 6; MSTV/NAB Comments at 12; Bonneville Comments at 6; KM
    Communications Comments at 6-7; Fox Comments at 4-5; Paxson Comments
    at 7; Cavalier Comments at 14. As outlined herein, some commenters
    believe this is the only method by which low power broadcasters
    should be permitted to convert to digital.

[^255]: ^?^ Bonneville Comments at 6.

[^256]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^257]: ^?^ MSTV/NAB Comments at 13; Bonneville Comments at 6.

[^258]: ^?^ *See*, *e.g.*, CBA Comments at 8.

[^259]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18041.

[^260]: ^?^ *See* CBA Comments at 6. We will not adopt, as suggested by
    the CBA, a processing priority for digital conversion applications
    filed by licensed low power stations over digital conversion
    applications filed by valid construction permit holders. We consider
    both to be incumbent stations.

[^261]: ^?^ On-channel digital conversions of authorized Class A
    stations are filed on FCC Form 301-CA.

[^262]: ^?^ MSTV/NAB Comments at 19.

[^263]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^264]: ^?^ We have no experience with the station operations permitted
    on this basis and, therefore, to ensure compliance with our
    interference prediction criteria, will not permit station licensees
    to seek digital on-channel conversions as a modification of a
    station license. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1690.

[^265]: ^?^ *See* Section V., *infra*.

[^266]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 76.53.

[^267]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18404.

[^268]: ^?^ A number of commenters suggest that we take this opportunity
    to transform some or all of the low power broadcasting service into
    a service having primary regulatory status. As we stated in the
    *Notice*, "\[I\]n this proceeding we are not addressing the
    interference protection priorities, rights and responsibilities of
    stations in the LPTV service, which are well established. . . .
    Provisions regarding the secondary regulatory status of stations in
    the LPTV service are not at issue in this proceeding." *See*
    *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18383, n. 80. Requests to radically alter
    the nature of the service by authorizing some or all new digital
    stations on a primary, interference-protection basis are clearly
    beyond the scope of this proceeding.

[^269]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18407.

[^270]: ^?^ *See*, *e.g.*, CBA Comments at 3 and Reply Comments at 4-7;
    NTA Comments at 29 and Reply Comments at 5-8; APTS/PBS Comments at
    4; Fox Comments at 4-5; Joint Commenters Reply Comments at 39-47;
    San Bernardino County Comments at 4 and Reply Comments at 3-5; Bruno
    Reply Comments, seriatim; Commercial Reply Comments, seriatim; Tiger
    Eye Reply Comments, seriatim.

[^271]: ^?^ *See*, *e.g.*, MSTV/NAB Comments at 2-4 and 9-20 and Reply
    Comments 1-5; Venture Comments at 2-3 and 7; Annapolis Comments at
    2; International Comments at 4; Word of Life Comments at 2; Cox
    Comments at 3-4; Paxson Comments at 6-7 and Reply Comments 2-3.

[^272]: ^?^ CBA Reply Comments at 3.

[^273]: ^?^ *Id.* at 3-4.

[^274]: ^?^ NTA Reply Comments at 6.

[^275]: ^?^ NTA Reply Comments at 7; *see also* Joint Commenters Reply
    Comments at ¶ 40..

[^276]: ^?^ San Bernardino County Reply Comments at 4.

[^277]: ^?^ NTA Reply Comments at 7.

[^278]: ^?^ San Bernardino County Reply Comments at 5.

[^279]: ^?^ Joint Commenters Reply Comments at ¶ 45.

[^280]: ^?^ Similar to the approach we followed for the authorization of
    full-service digital channels, we will authorize the companion
    digital channel together with the station's analog authorization as
    part of a single modified station license.

[^281]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 3.

[^282]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^283]: ^?^ CBA Reply Comments at 5.

[^284]: ^?^ Paxson notes that some full-service stations do not have a
    paired DTV channel and argues that the Commission should focus its
    attention on outstanding full-service DTV issues instead of using
    spectrum to award second channels to low power television
    broadcasters. Paxson Comments at 2-4. The issue of how to address
    full-service television stations that were not awarded a paired DTV
    channel will be considered in a future DTV proceeding.

[^285]: ^?^ NTA Reply Comments at 8.

[^286]: ^?^ *See* CBA Reply Comments at 7.

[^287]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(4).

[^288]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^289]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18408

[^290]: ^?^ *See*, for example, MSTV/NAB Comments at 3-12 (second
    channels to Class A stations would "make the challenge of
    accommodating the transition of all full service stations even more
    difficult by further congesting \[the\] broadcast spectrum" and, in
    the event second channels are awarded to Class A stations, 336(f)(4)
    does not specify that these should have the interference protections
    of Class A stations).

[^291]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 6-7 ("Failure to award primary status both
    runs contrary to the intent of Congress and creates a negative
    incentive for an analog operator to invest in high quality digital
    transmission facilities"); APTS/PBS Comments at 3-5 (submitting that
    the statute requires acceptance of applications for digital upgrades
    by translator stations and questioning why Congress would require
    processing of such applications without authorizing digital
    service).

[^292]: ^?^ *See Class A Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 6394*.*

[^293]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^294]: ^?^ MSTV/NAB urge that we take a "cautious approach" because
    "\[O\]nce full power broadcasters begin to migrate to their final
    digital channels, there will inevitably be unexpected service and
    interference issues that will need to be worked through, and the
    Commission needs to conserve adequate spectrum to ensure that these
    matters can be resolved as effectively as possible." MSTV/NAB
    Comments at 7.

[^295]: ^?^ *See* *Second Periodic Review of the Commission's rules and
    Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television*, *Report
    and Order*, FCC 04-192, released September 7, 2004.

[^296]: ^?^ There are also more than 4700 licensed TV translator
    stations. In the CBPA, we believe that Congress intended to provide
    these stations an opportunity to seek a companion channel for
    digital operations, but with the same secondary regulatory status
    applicable to their analog station operations; there is no
    indication to the contrary in the statute or accompanying
    legislative history.

[^297]: ^?^ The CBPA provides analog Class A stations certain protection
    rights with respect to DTV service maximization and requests for
    allotments by new entrants, but also stipulates that Class A
    stations must yield to DTV stations in the event of conflicts
    arising from technically necessary modifications to DTV facilities
    or channel allotments. 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(D).

[^298]: ^?^ *See* *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18408, n 181.

[^299]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18403.

[^300]: ^?^ *Id.* at 18404.

[^301]: ^?^ *See* Bonneville Comments at 10; CBA Comments at 5 and 7-8;
    Entravision Comments at 7-8; NTA Comments at 24; Riverton Comments
    at 6; Vermont Educational Comments at 5; Cordillera Comments at 2-4.

[^302]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 5; NTA Comments at 25.

[^303]: ^?^ Entravision Comments at 8.

[^304]: ^?^ Cordillera Comments at 2.

[^305]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^306]: ^?^ *See* Bonneville Comments at 10-11; APTS/PBS Comments at
    6-8; Joint Commenters Comments at 21.

[^307]: ^?^ San Bernardino County Comments at 6.

[^308]: ^?^ *See* Vermont Educational Comments at 5.

[^309]: ^?^ *See* Joint Commenters Comments at 21.

[^310]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18403.

[^311]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 2.

[^312]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 5, n. 12; *see also* St. Clair Reply
    Comments at 7.

[^313]: ^?^ *See* CBA Comments at 4-5; Riverton Comments at 6.

[^314]: ^?^ Additional new Class A stations are limited to those LPTV
    stations that have already received Class A eligibility status. The
    remaining Class A-eligible LPTV stations operate on channels 52-69,
    which are not available to Class A stations under the Community
    Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 ("CBPA"). The CBPA stipulates
    that these stations may seek Class A licenses only upon securing an
    in-core TV channel.

[^315]: ^?^ *See* Paxson Comments at 7-8; Cox Reply Comments at 3; Rural
    700 MHz Band Licensees Reply Comments at 4; 700 MHz Advancement
    Coalition Reply Comments at 5.

[^316]: ^?^ CBA Reply Comments at 2-4; NTA Reply Comments at 7.

[^317]: ^?^ *See* APTS/PBS' *ex parte* filing dated September 1, 2004,
    "The Importance of Digital Translators to Public Television and
    Rural America."

[^318]: ^?^ CBA Reply Comments at 3.

[^319]: ^?^ NTA Reply Comments at 7.

[^320]: ^?^ Commercial Broadcasting Corp. Reply Comments at 7.

[^321]: ^?^ *See* *Second Periodic Review of the Commission's rules and
    Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television*, *Report
    and Order*, FCC 04-192, released September 7, 2004 (providing a
    procedure and timetable for full-service stations to elect their
    post-transition DTV channel).

[^322]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).

[^323]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18402.

[^324]: *^?^* *Id.* *citing* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2)(B).

[^325]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2)(B).

[^326]: ^?^ *See*, *e.g.*, Joint Commenters Comments at 20; CBA Comments
    at 8-10; APTS/PBS Comments at 7; Parsons Comments at 15.

[^327]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 8.

[^328]: ^?^ Parsons Comments at 15.

[^329]: ^?^ Joint Commenters Comments at 20.

[^330]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^331]: ^?^ Rural 700 MHz Band Licensees Comments at 14-15.

[^332]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 9 *citing* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(6)(E);
    APTS/PBS Comments at 8; Word Comments at 3.

[^333]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 9; APTS/PBS Comments at 7-8.

[^334]: ^?^ KM Comments at 8.

[^335]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 3 (49).

[^336]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. § 153(49)(A).

[^337]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.780.

[^338]: ^?^ We note that Section 309(j)(2)(C) of the Act provides a
    separate auction exemption for noncommercial educational (NCE)
    stations. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2)(C). The Commission, however,
    found that LPTV and TV translators are not exempt under this section
    because these stations are not licensed on a NCE basis. *See*
    *Reexamination of the Comparative Standard for Noncommercial
    Educational Applicants*, 18 FCC Rcd 6691, 6697 (2003) *recon.
    pending* (*Noncommercial Report and Order*),. The Commission did,
    however, find that LPTV and TV translators "owned and operated by a
    municipality and which transmit only noncommercial and educational
    programs for education purposes" are exempt from auction under
    Sections 309(j)(2)(C) and 397(6)(B) of the Act. We will follow the
    procedures established by the Commission for resolving applications
    filed by municipalities that are determined to be mutually exclusive
    with other applications. *Noncommercial Report and* Order, 18 FCC
    Rcd at 6700.

[^339]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2100 *et seq.* and 73.5000 *et seq*;
    *see also* *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications
    Act -- Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and
    Instructional Fixed Service Licenses*, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 (1998).

[^340]: ^?^ CBA Reply Comments at 10.

[^341]: ^?^ To prevent possible abuse by applicants, we will require
    that parties submitting a settlement agreement comply with the
    settlement limitations set forth in Section 311(c) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 73.3525 of the
    Commission's rules, including, *inter alia*, the reimbursement
    limitations.

[^342]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.5002(d).

[^343]: ^?^ *See* *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18410 *citing* 47 C.F.R. §
    73.3598.

[^344]: ^?^ *See* APTS/PBS Comments at 9; Joint Commenters Comments at
    23; Parsons Comments at 15; San Bernardino County Comments at 3; KM
    Comments at 13; Commercial Reply Comments at 6-7.

[^345]: ^?^ APTS/PBS Comments at 9.

[^346]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^347]: ^?^ KM Comments at 13.

[^348]: ^?^ Commercial Reply Comments at 6-7.

[^349]: ^?^ Commercial Reply Comments at 7.

[^350]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3598(b).

[^351]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.624(d)(3).

[^352]: ^?^ Joint Commenters Comments at 23-24.

[^353]: ^?^ *See* *Remedial Measures For Failure to Comply with Digital
    Television Construction Schedule*, 18 FCC Rcd 7174 (2003).

[^354]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18412.

[^355]: *^?^* *Id.* *citing* 47 U.S.C. § 159.

[^356]: ^?^ Entravision Comments at 9; APTS/PBS Comments at 12; NTA
    Comments at 28.

[^357]: ^?^ Joint Commenters Comments at 25.

[^358]: ^?^ Eligible noncommercial educational stations will continue to
    be exempt from application and regulatory fees. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    1.1162(e) and 47 U.S.C. § 159(h)(1).

[^359]: ^?^ The Media Bureau will implement the necessary changes to all
    forms used in the low power television service for use with digital
    stations. Such changes will be announced in a subsequent Bureau
    Public Notice.

[^360]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 28.

[^361]: ^?^ *See* *Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the
    Existing Television Broadcast* Service, 12 FCC Rcd 12809 (1997).

[^362]: ^?^ As is the case with full-service television broadcasters'
    paired DTV channel, the low power broadcaster's companion digital
    channel will be considered part of its station's analog license and
    may not be separately assigned to a third party.

[^363]: ^?^ *See* Joint Commenters Comments at 25.

[^364]: ^?^ We note that Class A stations are treated as LPTV stations
    with respect to regulatory fees.

[^365]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. § 336(e); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 73.624(g).

[^366]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18412.

[^367]: ^?^ Eagle mistakenly believes that we proposed that all digital
    Class A and LPTV stations be required to pay 5% of their yearly
    gross revenues to the Commission. *See* Eagle Comments at 1. We only
    proposed that stations providing ancillary and supplementary
    services on a subscription basis pay a fee equal to 5% of the gross
    revenues derived from such services.

[^368]: ^?^ CBA Reply Comments at 11; APTS/PBS Comments at 10; Vermont
    Educational Comments at 3.

[^369]: ^?^ CBA Reply Comments at 11.

[^370]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^371]: ^?^ Bruno Comments at 8.

[^372]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^373]: ^?^ *See* *Establishment of Class A Television* Service, 16 FCC
    Rcd 8244, 8258 (2001).

[^374]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. § 336(h).

[^375]: ^?^ *See* *Implementation of LPTV Digital Data Service Pilot*
    Project, 16 FCC Rcd 9734, 9743 (2001).

[^376]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. 73.624(c).

[^377]: ^?^ Agreement on the Assignment of Low Power Television Stations
    along the Border, Sept. 14, 1998, United States-Mexico; Agreement on
    VHF and UHF Television Broadcasting Channels, Jan. 5, 1994, United
    States-Canada.

[^378]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18414.

[^379]: ^?^ MSTV/NAB Comments at 8.

[^380]: ^?^ NTA Reply Comments at 8.

[^381]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.734. For example, if a transmitter site
    cannot be promptly reached at all times, technical means must be
    provided to turn the transmitter on and off from a location that is
    readily accessible.

[^382]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18398-9.

[^383]: ^?^ Bonneville Comments at 9.

[^384]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 74.763(a).

[^385]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18398.

[^386]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 18; Venture Comments at 6-7; Commercial
    Reply Comments at 11-12.

[^387]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 18.

[^388]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 18.

[^389]: ^?^ Entravision Comments at 4; Joint Commenters Comments at 8.

[^390]: ^?^ Entravision Comments at 4.

[^391]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18399.

[^392]: ^?^ *See* ITU RR 19.1, 19.4, 19.16, 19.17.

[^393]: ^?^ APTS/PBS Comments at 15.

[^394]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 20.

[^395]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 74.783. This rule provides an option for
    transmission of a station's call sign in International Morse Code
    through the mechanism of "frequency shift keying" of the aural and
    visual carrier frequencies. This is accomplished by shifting a
    translator's local oscillator frequency. NTA states that a specially
    designed receiver would be required to convert to the frequency
    shifts to an audible and readable signal. NTA Comments at 20.

[^396]: ^?^ APTS/PBS Comments at 15; NTA Comments at 21.

[^397]: Riverton Comments at 3 (concluding that frequency shifts of 10
    kHz would not adversely affect the bit error rate of a DTV signal);
    *see also* Elko Comments at 3.

[^398]: ^?^ Greg Best Comments at 8.

[^399]: ^?^ Larcan Comments at 1; *see also* Sgrignoli Reply Comments at
    3.

[^400]: ^?^ Parsons Comments at 14.

[^401]: ^?^ Joint Commenters Comments at 18.

[^402]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^403]: ^?^ For example, Section 74.783 of our rules provides an
    alternative in which TV broadcast stations may identify within
    specific time intervals the translators rebroadcasting their
    programming. "Two such identifications shall be made between 7:00
    a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. each broadcast day at
    approximately one hour intervals during each time period. Television
    stations which do not begin their broadcast day before 9:00 a.m.
    shall make these identifications in the hours closest to these time
    periods at the specified intervals." 47 C.F.R. § 74.783. However,
    DTV broadcast stations subject to the May 1, 2002, and May 1, 2003,
    DTV construction deadlines are required to operate, at a minimum,
    during the prime time hours specified in our rules. Thus, such DTV
    stations are not generally required to operate during the time
    intervals specified for the identification of analog transmitters.

[^404]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 20.

[^405]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18412.

[^406]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.783(d).

[^407]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3550.

[^408]: ^?^ Entravision Comments at 9; NTA Comments at 28.

[^409]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 28.

[^410]: ^?^ Joint Commenters Comments at 24.

[^411]: ^?^ Venture Comments at 8-9.

[^412]: ^?^ St. Clair Reply Comments at 2.

[^413]: ^?^ Bruno Comments at 7.

[^414]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^415]: ^?^ Bruno Comments at 7; *see also* International Comments at 4;
    KHEM Reply Comments at 2.

[^416]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.432 and 74.632.

[^417]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18413.

[^418]: ^?^ Joint Commenters Comments at 25.

[^419]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.6000 and 73.6001. This area is also defined
    to include "the contiguous predicted Grade B contours of any of the
    stations in a commonly owned group."

[^420]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18413.

[^421]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 2. We are not in this proceeding authorizing
    Class A licensees a separate channel for digital Class A operations,
    but rather, licensees are permitted on-channel conversions of their
    analog stations for digital operation. Thus, the area defined as the
    station's Grade B contour refers to the area associated with the
    licensee's former analog operation.

[^422]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(2).

[^423]: ^?^ *See Class A Report and Order* at ¶ 18.

[^424]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.622(e). The DTV noise-limited signal
    contours are defined to have the following values: 28 dBu for
    Channels 2-6, 36 dBu for Channels 7-13, and 41 dBu for Channels
    14-69.

[^425]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18384.

[^426]: ^?^ KM Comments at 16-18.

[^427]: ^?^ KM Comments at 16-17 *citing* H.R. Report No. 384, 106^th^
    Cong., 2d Sess. 6.

[^428]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 74.701(h).

[^429]: ^?^ *Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the
    Existing Broadcasting Services,* 12 FCC Rcd (1997), ¶ 147; *see
    also* 47 C.F.R. § 74.735

[^430]: ^?^ *See*, for example, CBA Comments at 15 (proposing analog and
    digital ERP limits of 9.5 kW and 900 watts, respectively, for
    channels 7-13). *See* also the full-service TV and DTV ERP limits in
    §§ 73.614(b) and 73.622(f), respectively.

[^431]: ^?^ *See*, *e.g*.*,* NTA Comments at 14.

[^432]: ^?^ As noted, *supra*, we are also adopting 30-watt and 3-watt
    transmitter output power limits for UHF and VHF heterodyne digital
    translators.

[^433]: ^?^ Parsons Comments at 12.

[^434]: ^?^ Gary Sgrignoli Reply Comments at 11.

[^435]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18391-3.

[^436]: ^?^ *Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the
    Existing Television Broadcast Services* (*Sixth Report and Order*),
    12 FCC Rcd 14588 (1997) at ¶195.

[^437]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 73.622(h)(1).

[^438]: ^?^ *See*, *e.g.*, MSTV/ NAB Comments at 16; APTS/PBS Comments
    at 14-15; Elko Comments at 2; Greg Best Comments at 3-7; Joint
    Commenters Comments at 14; NTA Comments at 14-18; Parsons Comments
    at 11-12; Riverton Comments at 9-10; Venture Comments at 6; and Gary
    Sgrignoli Reply Comments at 8.

[^439]: ^?^ *See*, *e.g.*, Greg Best Comments at 4; Riverton Comments at
    10.

[^440]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 16-17.

[^441]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^442]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^443]: ^?^ Gary Sgrignoli Reply Comments at 11.

[^444]: ^?^ Gary Sgrignoli Paper "DTV Repeater Emission Mask Analysis,"
    *IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting*, March 2003, Volume 49, Number
    1, at 35.

[^445]: ^?^ *Id.* at 33.

[^446]: ^?^ Gary Sgrignoli Reply Comments at 12. He also notes that the
    Stringent mask might be needed when "an NTSC signal is 'sandwiched'
    in-between" two digital signals and the adjacent channel splatter
    from both of these add to cause interference.

[^447]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18392.

[^448]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R § 73.622(h)(1).

[^449]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18395.

[^450]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 73.622(h)(2).

[^451]: ^?^ *See* letter of July 30, 2003, from Frederick R. Wentland,
    Associate Administrator, NTIA Office of Spectrum Management, to
    Edmond J. Thomas, FCC Office of Engineering and Technology.

[^452]: ^?^ *See* Gary Sgrignoli Supplemental Reply Comments, filed
    April 6, 2004 (proposing that emissions of digital TV translator and
    LPTV stations in the RNSS bands be limited to 10 microwatts in any
    500 kHz bandwidth - the emission power equal to that of a 1 Megawatt
    UHF DTV station operating with the Commission's DTV mask, with
    emissions attenuated by 110 dB below the in-channel average digital
    power); *see* also Written *Ex Parte* presentations of F. Michael
    Swiek, Executive Director of the U.S. GPS Industry Council, filed
    April 26, 2004 (providing analysis and concluding that low power
    digital stations should meet approximately the same 110 dB
    attenuation below in-channel power applicable to full-service DTV
    stations).

[^453]: ^?^ *See* Supplemental Engineering Field Study of R. Kent
    Parsons, filed May 28, 2004 (concluding that with the addition of
    low pass filtering, interference would not occur to GPS reception
    and that suitable filters are available in the price range of
    \$275.00-\$475.00); *see* also Supplemental Reply Comments of
    Riverton Freemont TV Club, Inc., filed June 7, 2004 and the
    supplemental *ex parte* filing of the U.S. GPS Council dated May 20,
    2004.

[^454]: ^?^ *See* letter dated July 26, 2004, to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission from Raul R. Rodriguez,
    Esq. Counsel for the U.S. GPS Council.

[^455]: ^?^ We note that while the GPS Council refers to these emissions
    as "out-of-band" (*see* letter from the GPS Council to Ms. Marlene
    Dortch, July 26, 2004), these are more properly termed "harmonic
    emissions".

[^456]: ^?^ *Id*. at 3. The Council notes that its modified GPS
    protection proposal recognizes "that power in the second and third
    harmonics are at least 25 dB below carrier power. Consequently, we
    modified the attenuation specification included in our original
    comments to reflect this knowledge." *Id*. at 2.

[^457]: ^?^ *See* letter dated July 30, 2004, to Ms, Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission from George R. Borsari,
    Jr., Esq. and Anne Thomas Paxson, Esq., Counsel for the National
    Translator Association.

[^458]: ^?^ *See* letter dated August 5, 2004, to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission from Peter Tannenwald,
    Esq. Counsel for the Community Broadcasters Association.

[^459]: ^?^ See letter of August 27, 2004, from Frederick R. Wentlend,
    Associate Administrator, NTIA Office of Spectrum Management, to
    Edmund J. Thomas, FCC Office of Engineering and Technology.

[^460]: ^?^ We note that the emission masks we are adopting for
    broadcast protection are based on signal attenuation below the
    digital average power in a station's 6 MHz channel. In contrast, the
    RNSS protection requirements are based on filter specifications
    (*i.e*., an attenuation of 85 dB in the GPS bands).

[^461]: ^?^ For example, other out-of-band emission limitations to
    protect GPS operations from transmitters operating on frequencies
    near the GPS bands are addressed in the GMPCS Rulemaking. *See
    generally* Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global
    Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) Memorandum of
    Understanding and Arrangements, IB Docket 99-67, *Report and Order
    and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 17 FCC Rcd 8903 (2002),
    *Second Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 24423 (2003).

[^462]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 74.750. The certification procedure is set forth
    in Sections 2.907 and 2.1031-2.1060 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.907
    and 2.1031-2.1060; the verification procedure is set forth in
    Sections 2.902 and 2.951-2.962 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.902 and
    2.951-2.962. Under the certification procedure, applicants
    (equipment manufacturers or responsible parties) submit descriptions
    of equipment, measurement data, and other information to the
    Commission in an application for grant of equipment authorization.
    The Commission reviews this submission and, if it finds the device
    to be in compliance with the applicable rules, issues a grant of
    equipment authorization. Under the verification procedure, the
    equipment manufacturer or responsible party conducts appropriate
    measurements to determine whether a device is in compliance with the
    rules and then "self-approves" the device. There is no requirement
    for notification to or approval by the Commission. However, the
    manufacturer/responsible party must maintain records of the
    equipment design, test procedure, report of test results and other
    information and must submit this information to the Commission upon
    request.

[^463]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18397.

[^464]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 19.

[^465]: ^?^ Riverton Comments at 4 (certify the transmitter final
    amplifier and emission mask); Parsons Reply Comments at 1 (certify
    the exciter front-end of a translator).

[^466]: ^?^ Greg Best Comments at 7 (however, in the event of a
    certification procedure, certify the entire transmitter, including
    emission mask filter).

[^467]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 18.

[^468]: ^?^ *See*, for example, Parsons Reply Comments at 1.

[^469]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18396.

[^470]: ^?^ Parsons Comments at 14.

[^471]: ^?^ CBA Comments at 15.

[^472]: ^?^ Greg Best Comments at 7.

[^473]: ^?^ Riverton Comments at 2.

[^474]: ^?^ Greg Best Comments at 8. *See* also KNME Comments at 3.

[^475]: ^?^ As discussed above, this protection requirement applies only
    to station operations on channels 22-24, 36, 38, and 65-69.

[^476]: ^?^ The power output of regenerative translators is independent
    of the strength of the input signal.

[^477]: ^?^ Analog low power LPTV and TV translator transmitters must
    maintain the peak visual power output constant within 2 dB when the
    strength of the input signal is varied over a range of 30 dB and
    prevent the peak visual power output from exceeding the maximum
    transmitter power output rating under any circumstances. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 74.750(c)(4).

[^478]: ^?^ This power supply voltage range is specified for analog low
    power transmitters in § 74.750(c). The selected temperature range,
    we believe, encompasses the ambient temperature at most transmitter
    installations.

[^479]: ^?^ See, "Guide to Use of the ATSC DTV Standard" at Section
    8.5.6., available at [www.atsc.org](http://www.atsc.org/).

[^480]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18397.

[^481]: ^?^ *See*, for example, CBA Comments at 14; Elko Comments at 2;
    Greg Best Comments at 3 and Reply Comments at 4; NTA Comments at
    19-20; Riverton Comments at 2.

[^482]: ^?^ With regard to equipment changes that we have approved, the
    manufacturer includes with the modification kit a label giving a new
    FCC identifier, which is to be affixed to the transmitter.

[^483]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 20; *See* also, Riverton Comments at 2.

[^484]: ^?^ Greg Best Comments at 3.

[^485]: ^?^ This requirement stems from the approximate 6 dB
    relationship between levels of NTSC peak and digital average power.
    Absent special circumstances (*e.g.*, an upgrading of the power
    handling capacity of the amplifier, we are concerned that permitting
    a greater power conversion ratio could result in excessive
    degradation of the quality of the digital signal, as well as an
    increase in the amount of unwanted out-of-channel power. As Parsons
    notes in his comments, "one should strive for the out-of-band
    shoulders to be near 36 dB down at the output of the translator,
    with a minimum in-band signal to noise ratio of 27 dB. We have been
    able to accomplish these numbers even with older translator power
    amplifiers using bi-polar output transistors while producing 25% of
    the rated analog power." Parsons Comments at 14.

[^486]: ^?^ This rule states, in pertinent part: "The following parties
    are responsible for the compliance of radio frequency equipment with
    the applicable standards: (a) In the case of equipment which
    requires the issuance by the Commission of a grant of equipment
    authorization, the party to whom that grant of authorization is
    issued (the grantee). If the radio frequency equipment is modified
    by any party other than the grantee and that party is not working
    under the authorization of the grantee pursuant to § 2.929(b), the
    party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of
    the product with the applicable administrative and technical
    provisions in this chapter.

[^487]: ^?^ Greg Best Comments at 3.

[^488]: ^?^ Greg Best Reply Comments at 3.

[^489]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^490]: ^?^ Sgrignoli Reply Comments at 12.

[^491]: ^?^ We recognize that a potential exists with this approach for
    an inaccurate future depiction of "masking" interference. This
    inaccuracy will arise where our interference prediction software
    assumes the authorized digital low power facility is meeting the
    Simple mask and that the associated adjacent channel D/U signal
    strength ratios apply. Because of the equivalent power reduction,
    the digital station would meet the requirements to protect adjacent
    channel stations. However, as part of the broadcast environment, the
    masking effects of this station would factor into the analysis of
    other proposed stations. In this regard, the digital station's
    adjacent channel emissions would actually be equivalent to those
    that a higher power digital station would produce, thus potentially
    creating some adjacent channel interference that is not predicted by
    the prediction software. In other circumstances, the facilities
    proposed in a future application would be accepted where predicted
    interference from this facility would fall in an area that already
    is predicted to receive interference from an already-authorized
    station (*i.e.*, where the existing station would meet the mask
    requirements). However, in this case, such a future application
    proposal would need to protect an area that receives unpredicted
    interference. We believe this situation will not occur often and
    will have only a minor impact on the facilities future digital low
    power stations can operate. In our view, the greater impact will be
    "masking" due to co-channel interference, and that will be
    accurately determined by this approach.

[^492]: ^?^ *See* *Second Periodic Review of the Commission's rules and
    Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television*, *Report
    and Order*, FCC 04-192, released September 7, 2004 ("*Second
    Periodic Report and Order*"). *See* also "Program and System
    Information for Broadcast and Cable," Advanced Television Systems
    Committee, Doc. A/65B, Rev. B to PSIP for Terrestrial Broadcast and
    Cable ("ATSC A/65B") (Mar. 18, 2003).

[^493]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^494]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^495]: ^?^ *See* *Second DTV Periodic Review NPRM*, at ¶123.

[^496]: ^?^ *See* *Second Periodic Report and Order*, *supra*. We
    received comments on these issues from the Consumer Electronics
    Association, and the Harris Corporation, and the joint comments of
    the Association for Public Television Stations, Corporation for
    Public Broadcasting and the Public Broadcasting Service.

[^497]: ^?^ *See* ATSC A/65B, Annex B, Assignment of Major Channel
    Numbers for Terrestrial Broadcast in the U.S. (March 18, 2003). The
    major channel number in the PSIP Virtual Channel Table is generally
    a broadcaster's NTSC RF channel number; a DTV viewer tunes to this
    channel. Minor channel numbers identify specific programs and
    services (*e.g*., channel 7.0 corresponds to the NTCS channel, 7.1,
    7.2, ... may indicate DTV HDTV or SDTV program channels).

[^498]: ^?^ Heterodyne translators are simple "pass through" devices
    and, thus, are not designed to modify PSIP and other signal
    information.

[^499]: ^?^ See MSTV/NAB Comments at 21 ("\[D\]igital LPTV stations,
    like full service stations, must have PSIP generation capability so
    that they will be compliant with the ATSC channel-mapping
    protocol.")

[^500]: ^?^ The PSIP Event Information Tables ("EITs") contain Content
    Advisory Descriptors for broadcast programming for broadcasters that
    choose to provide v-chip blocking information and the Rating Region
    Table ("RRT"), which explains the content advisory rating systems
    being used. The ATSC PSIP standard also requires that the EITs
    contain the caption service descriptor to facilitate a DTV
    receiver's search for closed caption information.

[^501]: ^?^ The following system tables and descriptors under ATSC A/65B
    related to tuning and channel navigation entail a one-time setup in
    the PSIP generation equipment: Transport Stream Identifier (TSID),
    Short Channel Name, Service Type, Modulation Mode, Source ID, and
    Service Location Descriptor.

[^502]: ^?^ We clarify here that the transmissions of digital Class A
    stations are required to comply with our DTV broadcast transmission
    standard, which now incorporates the ATSC A/65B PSIP standard. Thus,
    digital Class A stations must comply with the ATSC PSIP standard in
    the same manner as full-service DTV broadcasters.

[^503]: ^?^ *See* Harris Comments at 9 in the *Second DTV Periodic
    Review* proceeding, April 21, 2003("Based on Harris' experience as a
    manufacturer of broadcast station PSIP equipment, it currently would
    cost a DTV broadcast station \$29,900 for full implementation of
    PSIP, including all Program and System tables, or \$16,500 for full
    implementation of the PSIP System tables and limited implementation
    of the Program tables").

[^504]: ^?^ For example, if the transmissions of a digital LPTV station
    impeded the PSIP-related tuning of a DTV broadcast station, we may
    require the LPTV station to implement PSIP to the extent it could
    eliminate the conflict.

[^505]: ^?^ Captioning information can also be placed in the PMT table
    of the DTV bit stream.

[^506]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 74.701(i).

[^507]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 74.731(j).

[^508]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18410.

[^509]: ^?^ APTS/PBS Comments at 12; Entravision Comments at 8; Greg
    Best Consulting Comments at 8; KHEM-LP Reply Comments at 2; NTA
    Comments at 26; Southern Oregon Comments at 1; Sunbelt Comments at
    2; T50/51 Telemundo Reply Comments.

[^510]: ^?^ APTS/PBS Comments at 12 (citing its Petition for Rulemaking,
    *Enhancement of Broadband Access Through the Preservation of Public
    Television Translator Service and the Development of Digital
    Translators and Digital On-Channel Repeaters* (May 29, 2002). The
    *Notice* in this proceeding generally sought comment on this
    petition.

[^511]: ^?^ APTS/PBS Comments at 12; Entravision Comments at 8; NTA
    Comments at 26; Southern Oregon Comments at 1; Sunbelt Comments at
    3.

[^512]: ^?^ APTS/PBS Comments at 13; Entravision Comments at 8; Greg
    Best Consulting Comments at 8; Sunbelt Comments at 3 (*See* also
    Rancho Palos Verdes Broadcasters Reply Comments at 4, which oppose
    Sunbelts comments in this regard.)

[^513]: ^?^ MSTV/NAB Comments at 23. S*ee* also Joint Commenters Reply
    Comments at 38.

[^514]: ^?^ *Id*. at 24. Distributed transmission systems involve the
    operation of multiple highly synchronized transmitters that could
    operate in single frequency networks. The Commission has sought
    comment on a range of issues for distributed systems including
    regulatory status, location and service area, power, interference
    protection and other technical standards. *See* Second DTV Periodic
    Review NPRM, ¶¶ 99-106. On August 4, 2004, the Commission adopted a
    *Report and Order* in this proceeding that (1) approved "in
    principle" the use of DTS technology, and (2) committed to
    commencing in the near future a separate "fast track" proceeding to
    propose rules for use of DTS. *See* *Second Periodic Review of the
    Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital
    Television*, *Report and Order*, FCC 04-192, released September 7,
    2004.

[^515]: ^?^ AFCCE Comments at 5 (AFCEE states that until rules for
    distributed transmission systems are established, we should permit
    booster operation by special temporary authority (STA), confining
    the noise-limited signal contour of a booster to within the
    noise-limited contour of the associated DTV broadcast station, based
    on its authorized or allotted facilities).

[^516]: ^?^ Nor will we amend of our rules (Section 74.733 - "UHF
    translator signal boosters") to permit translator licensees to
    operate low power analog booster stations, as recommended by NTA.
    NTA submits that operation of booster stations with an effective
    radiated power not exceeding 20 watts would be both useful and
    feasible. NTA Comments at 27. However, the *Notice* did not address
    this issue and we find it to be outside of the scope of this
    proceeding.

[^517]: ^?^ NTA Comments at 27.

[^518]: ^?^ We contrast such operations with the situation where the
    broadcast signal on the same TV channel as that of the translator
    output channel is not directly received by the translator, but via a
    relay station on a different frequency. The latter case is a
    translator rebroadcast of a TV broadcast station, but is not
    technically similar to the operation of a TV booster.

[^519]: ^?^ APTS/PBS Petition for Rule Making at 3.

[^520]: ^?^ *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd 18413.

[^521]: ^?^ In the *Notice* we declined to address certain issues raised
    by the LPTV Petitioners. *See* *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd at 18415-18416.

[^522]: ^?^ LPTV Petitioners' Petition for Rule Making at 3.

[^523]: ^?^ *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^524]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^525]: *Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd 18365 (2003).

[^526]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^527]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(b)(3).

[^528]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(b)(3).

[^529]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^530]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^531]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (North American Industry Classification
    System ("NAICS") Code 515120).

[^532]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series --
    Source of Receipts, Information Sector 51, Appendix B at B-7-8
    (2000).

[^533]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series --
    Source of Receipts, Information Sector 51, Appendix B at B-7 (2000).

[^534]: *Public Notice*, "Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2003"
    (May 5, 2003).

[^535]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS Code 517510). This NAICS Code applies
    to all services listed in this paragraph.

[^536]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series --
    Establishment and Firm Size, Information Sector 51, Table 4 at 50
    (2000). The amount of \$10 million was used to estimate the number
    of small business firms because the relevant Census categories
    stopped at \$9,999,999 and began at \$10,000,000. No category for
    \$12.5 million existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is
    possible to calculate with the available information.

[^537]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition
    based on its determinations that a small cable system operator is
    one with annual revenues of \$100 million or less. *Implementation
    of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation*, Sixth Report
    and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd. 7393
    (1995).

[^538]: Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996
    (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).

[^539]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2).

[^540]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.1403(b).

[^541]: Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996
    (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).

[^542]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS Code 517510).

[^543]: *Id.*

[^544]: *Id*.

[^545]: 13 C.F.F. § 121.201 (NAICS Code 517510).

[^546]: *Id.*

[^547]: *Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in Markets for
    the Delivery of Video Programming,* 12 FCC Rcd 4358, 4385 (1996)
    ("*Third Annual Report").*

[^548]: *Id.* at 4385.

[^549]: *Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's rules with
    Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service
    and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation
    of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding*,
    10 FCC Rcd at 9589, 9593 (1995) ("*ITFS Order*").

[^550]: *See Local Multipoint Distribution Service,* 12 FCC Rcd 12545
    (1997) ("*LMDS Order*").

[^551]: 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).

[^552]: *See ITFS* *Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at 9589.

[^553]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS Code 515210).

[^554]: *Id*.

[^555]: SBREFA also applies to nonprofit organizations and governmental
    organizations such as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,
    school districts, or special districts, with populations of less
    than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^556]: *See LMDS* *Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 12545.

[^557]: *Id.*

[^558]: *See* Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau (FCC) from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA
    (January 6, 1998).

[^559]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NCAIS Code 517510).

[^560]: *See Third Annual Report*, 12 FCC Rcd at 4403-4.

[^561]: *See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in Markets
    for the Delivery of Video Programming*, 17 FCC Rcd 1244, 1281 (2001)
    ("*Eighth Annual Report*").

[^562]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 573.

[^563]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS Code 515210).

[^564]: *Id.*

[^565]: 13 CFR § 121.201 (NAICS Code 334310).

[^566]: 13 CFR § 121.201 (NAICS Code 334220).

[^567]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series --
    Manufacturing, Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing, Table 4 at 9
    (1999). The amount of 500 employees was used to estimate the number
    of small business firms because the relevant Census categories
    stopped at 499 employees and began at 500 employees. No category for
    750 employees existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is
    possible to calculate with the available information.

[^568]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS Code 517510).

[^569]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series --
    Manufacturing, Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
    Communications Equipment Manufacturing, Table 4 at 9 (1999). The
    amount of 500 employees was used to estimate the number of small
    business firms because the relevant Census categories stopped at 499
    employees and began at 500 employees. No category for 750 employees
    existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is possible to
    calculate with the available information.

[^570]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS Code 334111).

[^571]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series --
    Manufacturing, Electronic Computer Manufacturing, Table 4 at 9
    (1999).

[^572]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b).

[^573]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^574]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).