**DA 06-378**

**February 17, 2006**

**Guidelines for Interference Conflict Analysis in the Second Round of
DTV Channel Elections**

By letters dated February 1 and 2, 2006, the Media Bureau's Video
Division notified 30 licensees that their proposed digital operation on
their elected channel would result in impermissible interference to one
or more stations, or that the proposed facility did not comply with the
Commission\'s requirements for parties to a Negotiated Channel Agreement
(NCA). These licensees must file a Second Round Conflict Decision Form
385 electronically through the Media Bureau's Consolidated Database
System (CDBS) online electronic forms system, indicating how they will
resolve the interference conflict, no later than April 3, 2006.
Licensees that propose to reduce their technical operating facilities
for their proposed elected channel must attach Schedule B to FCC Form
385 to specify their proposed technical parameters. In addition, the
licensees that have proposed to increase their technical operating
facilities to serve larger coverage areas as part of an NCA must amend
their proposals, no later than March 3, 2006, so that their proposed
coverage contour does not extend beyond the coverage contour of their
currently certified facilities.

Licensees who are unable to resolve their interference and/or coverage
problems on their elected channel must decide whether to request a
contingent channel as their tentative channel designation or to
participate in the Third Round. Our original plan for this stage of the
election process was that a licensee that could not resolve its Second
Round conflict on its elected channel would be limited to requesting the
contingent channel that it had identified on its FCC Form 384. That
contingent channel would then be evaluated based on the licensee's
certified coverage area, and we did not plan on affording licensees an
opportunity to request reduced operating facilities to resolve
engineering conflicts. However, we now are reaching the end of the
channel election process and face a relatively small number of difficult
cases that remain to be accommodated with tentative channel
designations. For many of these stations, the channel options are very
limited. We are concerned that our policy of requiring pre-elected
contingent channels to be studied based on certified coverage area and
then not making assignments if the elected contingent channel would
result in impermissible interference to any station would force most of
these stations to the Third Round. We also note that these Second Round
stations could have identified any in-core channel for their FCC Form
384 contingent election.

Therefore, in order to resolve as many Second Round elections as
possible and thus expedite the conclusion of the channel election
process, we will allow limited additional flexibility to those licensees
unable to resolve their elected-channel conflicts. Specifically, such
licensees may propose any in-core channel as their contingent channel
and may propose reduced technical operating facilities for the
contingent channel. To accommodate this flexibility on the existing FCC
Form 385, licensees that wish to submit contingent-channel should check
Box 2.b; in addition, licensees that wish to reduce technical facilities
for their contingent-channel should attached Schedule B to FCC Form 385.
Licensees proposing to use a contingent channel will not be afforded an
additional opportunity in the Second Round to resolve any interference
conflicts, but will be required to participate in the Third Round of
elections if their FCC Form 385 proposal results in an interference
conflict.

For additional information, contact Gordon Godfrey of the Engineering
Division at 202-418-2193, or
[gordon.godfrey@fcc.gov](mailto:Gordon.godfrey@fcc.gov), or Nazifa Sawez
of the Video Division, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-7059, or
nazifa.sawez@fcc.gov. TTY: (202) 418-7172.

\--FCC\--