Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | MM Docket No. 00-10          |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Establishment of a Class A       | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Television Service               | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted: March 28, 2000 Released: April 4, 2000**

By the Commission:

**Table of Contents**

[Paragraph]{.underline}

I.  Introduction 1

II\. Background 2

III\. Discussion 8

A.  Certification and Application for License 8

> 1\. Statutory Timeframes 8

2.  Ongoing Eligibility 10

B. Qualifying Low-Power Television Stations 15

1.  Statutory Eligibility Criteria 15

2.  Locally-Produced Programming 16

3.  Operating Requirements 21

4.  Alternative Eligibility Criteria 32

> C. Class A Interference Protection Rights and Responsibilities 36

1.  Class A Protected Service Area 36

2.  Time Protection Begins 39

3.  Protection of Pending NTSC TV Applications and Facilities 43

4.  New DTV Service 49

5.  DTV Maximization 51

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Definition of Maximization 51

b.  Preserving the Right to Maximize 54

c.  Allotment Adjustments 61

D. Methods of Interference Protection to Class A Facilities 65

1.  Analog Full-Service TV Protection to Analog Class A 67

2.  Analog LPTV, TV Translator, and Class A Protection

> to Analog Class A 70

3.  Full-Service DTV Protection to Analog Class A 71

4.  Full-Service NTSC and DTV Protection to Digital Class A 72

5.  LPTV, TV Translator, and Class A Modification Protection

> to Digital Class A 73

6.  Alternative Means of Interference Protection 74

E. Methods of Interference Protection by Class A to Other Facilities 76

> 1\. Class A Protection of NTSC 76

2.  Class A Protection of DTV 78

3.  Protection of LPTV and TV Translators 80

4.  Land Mobile Radio Services and TV Channel 16 82

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
F.  Change Applications 85

G.  Common Ownership 88

H.  Issuance of DTV Licenses to Class A, TV Translator, and LPTV
    Stations 90

I.  Interim Qualifications 96

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Stations Operating Between 698 and 806 MHz 96

2.  Channels Off-Limits 104

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
J.  Class A Applications 106

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Application Forms 106

2.  Class A Facilities Changes 109

3.  Class A Channel Displacement Relief 113

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
K.  Remaining Issues 115

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Call Signs 115

2.  Certification of Class A Transmitters 117

3.  Fees 119

> 4\. International Coordination Provisions 121
>
> 5\. Broadcast Auxiliary Frequencies 122

IV\. Conclusion 123

Appendix A: Rules

Appendix B: List of Commenters

Appendix C: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Appendix D: Class A Application Form

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1.  In this *Report and Order*, we establish a Class A television
    service to implement the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of
    1999 (CBPA), which was signed into law November 29, 1999.[^1]
    Pursuant to the CBPA and our implementing rules, certain qualifying
    low-power television (LPTV) stations will be accorded Class A
    status. Class A licensees will have "primary" status as television
    broadcasters, thereby gaining a measure of protection from
    full-service television stations, even as those stations convert to
    digital format. The LPTV stations eligible for Class A status under
    the CBPA and our rules provide locally-originated programming, often
    to rural and certain urban communities that have either no or little
    access to such programming. LPTV stations are owned by a wide
    variety of licensees, including minorities and women, and often
    provide "niche" programming to residents of specific ethnic, racial,
    and interest communities. The actions we take today will facilitate
    the acquisition of capital needed by these stations to allow them to
    continue to provide free, over-the-air programming, including
    locally-originated programming, to their communities. In addition,
    by improving the commercial viability of LPTV stations that provide
    valuable programming, our action today is consistent with our
    fundamental goals of ensuring diversity and localism in television
    broadcasting.

**II. BACKGROUND**

2.  From its creation by the Commission in 1982, the low power
    television service has been a \"secondary spectrum priority\"
    service whose members \"may not cause objectionable interference to
    existing full-service stations, and \... must yield to facilities
    increases of existing full-service stations or to new full-service
    stations where interference occurs.\"[^2] Currently, there are
    approximately 2,200 licensed LPTV stations in approximately 1,000
    communities,[^3] operating in all 50 states. These stations serve
    both rural and urban audiences. Because they operate at reduced
    power levels,[^4] LPTV stations serve a much smaller geographic
    region than full-service stations and can fit into areas where a
    higher power station cannot be accommodated in the Table of
    Allotments. In many cases, LPTV stations may be the only television
    station in an area providing local news, weather, and public affairs
    programming.[^5] Even in some well-served markets, LPTV stations may
    provide the only local service to residents of discrete geographical
    communities within those markets.[^6] Many LPTV stations air "niche"
    programming, often locally produced, to residents of specific
    ethnic, racial, and interest communities within the larger area,
    including programming in foreign languages.[^7]

3.  The LPTV service has significantly increased the diversity of
    broadcast station ownership. Stations are operated by such diverse
    entities as community groups, schools and colleges, religious
    organizations, radio and TV broadcasters, and a wide variety of
    small businesses. The service has also provided first-time ownership
    opportunities for minorities and women.[^8]

4.  In the CBPA, Congress found that the future of low-power television
    is uncertain.[^9] Because LPTV stations have secondary spectrum
    status, they can be displaced by full-service TV stations that seek
    to expand their own service area, or by new full-service stations
    seeking to enter the same market. The statute finds that this
    regulatory status affects the ability of LPTV stations to raise
    necessary capital.[^10] In addition, Congress recognized that the
    conversion to digital television further complicates the uncertain
    future of LPTV stations. To facilitate the transition from analog to
    digital television, the Commission has provided a second channel for
    each full-service television licensee in the country that will be
    used for digital broadcasting during the period of conversion to an
    all-digital broadcast service. In assigning DTV channels, the
    Commission maintained the secondary status of LPTV stations and TV
    translators and, in order to provide all full-service stations with
    a second channel, was compelled to establish DTV allotments that
    will displace a number of LPTV stations.[^11] Although the
    Commission has taken a number of steps to mitigate the impact of the
    DTV transition on stations in the LPTV service,[^12] that transition
    nonetheless will have significant adverse effects on many stations,
    particularly LPTV stations operating in urban areas where there are
    few, if any, available replacement channels.

5.  Congress sought in the CBPA to address some of these issues by
    providing certain low power television stations "primary" spectrum
    use status. The CBPA requires the Commission, within 120 days after
    the date of enactment, to prescribe regulations establishing a Class
    A television license available to qualifying LPTV stations. The CBPA
    directs that Class A licensees be subject to the same license terms
    and renewal standards as full-power television licensees, and that
    Class A licensees be accorded primary status as television
    broadcasters as long as they continue to meet the requirements set
    forth in the statute for a qualifying low-power station. In
    addition, among other matters, the CBPA sets out certain
    certification and application procedures for low-power television
    licensees seeking Class A designation, prescribes the criteria
    low-power stations must meet to be eligible for a Class A license,
    and outlines the interference protection Class A applicants must
    provide to analog (or NTSC), digital (DTV), LPTV, and TV translator
    stations.

6.  Congress also recognized, however, that, because, of the emerging
    DTV service, not all LPTV stations could be guaranteed a certain
    future.[^13] Congress recognized the importance and engineering
    complexity of the FCC\'s plan to convert full-service stations to
    digital format, and protected the ability of these stations to
    provide both digital and analog service during the transition.[^14]

7.  On January 13, 2000, the Commission adopted an *Order and Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making* (*Notice*) seeking comment on a wide range of
    issues related to implementation of the CBPA. The Commission also
    terminated an earlier proceeding relating to establishment of
    primary status for LPTV stations. In its earlier proceeding, the
    Commission had adopted a *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*
    (*September 22 Notice*) [^15] responding to a petition for rule
    making filed by the Community Broadcasters Association (CBA).[^16]
    In light of passage of the CBPA, which addresses many of the same
    issues raised in the *September 22 Notice* and the CBA petition, we
    terminated the earlier proceeding and initiated this new proceeding
    to implement the CBPA.

    **III. DISCUSSION**

    **A. Certification and Application for License**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  **Statutory Timeframes**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
8.  Section (f)(1)(A) of the CBPA requires the Commission, within 120
    days after the date of enactment (November 29, 1999), to prescribe
    regulations establishing a Class A television service.[^17] The CBPA
    establishes a two-part certification and application procedure for
    LPTV stations seeking Class A status. First, the CBPA directed the
    Commission to send a notice to all LPTV licensees describing the
    requirements for Class A designation.[^18] Within 60 days of the
    date of enactment, licensees intending to seek Class A designation
    were required to submit to the Commission a certification of
    eligibility based on the applicable qualification requirements.
    [^19]

9.  The CBPA provides that, absent a material deficiency in a licensee's
    certification of eligibility, the Commission shall grant the
    certification of eligibility to apply for Class A status.[^20] The
    CBPA further provides that licensees "may" submit an application for
    Class A designation "within 30 days after final regulations are
    adopted" implementing the CBPA. We will construe the phrase "final
    regulations" in this context to mean the effective date of the Class
    A rules adopted herein. Thus, Class A applications may be filed
    beginning on the effective date of the rules. Within 30 days after
    receipt of an application that is acceptable for filing, the
    Commission must act on the application.[^21]

**2. Ongoing Eligibility**

10. [Background]{.underline}. Although the Act provides clear guidance
    on the time within which a licensee is entitled to file an
    application, and thus to start the clock for Commission action on
    the application, it does not address the specific question whether
    the Commission may continue to accept applications more than 30 days
    after our adoption of final rules. Section (f)(1)(B) of the statute
    states that licensees intending to seek Class A designation "shall"
    submit a certification of eligibility within 60 days after the date
    of enactment of the Act.[^22] Section (f)(2)(A) lists the
    eligibility requirements for Class A status.[^23] However, Section
    (f)(2)(B) of the statute gives the Commission discretion to
    determine that the public interest, convenience and necessity would
    be served by treating a station as a qualifying LPTV station, or
    that a station should be considered to qualify for such status for
    other reasons, even if it does not meet the Section (f)(2)(A)
    requirements.[^24] Section (f)(1)(C) provides that consistent with
    the requirements set forth in Section (f)(2)(A), a licensee "may"
    submit an application for Class A designation within 30 days after
    the Commission adopts final rules in this docket. In the Notice, we
    asked commenters to address whether the statute permits the
    Commission to continue to accept applications to convert to Class A
    after the 30 day period expires. In addition, presuming we have
    statutory authority to permit the filing of Class A license
    applications beyond that 30 day period, we asked commenters to
    discuss whether we should, as a matter of policy, allow LPTV
    stations to do so.

11. [Decision]{.underline}. We believe that the basic purpose of the
    CBPA was to afford existing LPTV stations a window of opportunity to
    convert to Class A stations. Therefore, we will not accept
    applications from LPTV stations that did not meet the statutory
    criteria and that did not file a certification of eligibility by the
    statutory deadline, absent compelling circumstances. To be eligible
    for a Class A license, an LPTV station must go through several
    steps. First, it must have filed a certification of eligibility
    within 60 days of the enactment of the CBPA. Second, the
    certification of eligibility must be approved by the Commission.
    Third, it must file an application for a Class A license, as we
    determine below, within 6 months from the effective date of the
    Class A rules. And fourth, that license must be granted. The first
    stage of this process has already ended; those potential applicants
    who seek Class A status must have already filed their certifications
    of eligibility.

12. Some commenters asked that we expand the initial group of eligible
    LPTV stations beyond those who filed their certification in a timely
    manner. We decline to expand the eligible class in that way. We
    agree with the commenters who argue that for the purposes of
    conversion of the current class of stations, the statute clearly set
    forth a time frame within which licensees must file Class A
    certifications.[^25] As expressed by the Association of Local
    Television Stations, Inc. (ALTV), the statute was designed to permit
    a one-time conversion of a single pool of LPTV applications that met
    specific criteria before the statute was enacted.[^26] We find the
    statutory interpretation set forth by the Community Broadcasters
    Association (CBA), and others,[^27] arguing that the statute allows
    ongoing eligibility, unpersuasive because the intent of Congress in
    enacting the CBPA was to establish the rights of a very specific,
    already-existing group.[^28] The statute itself states its intent to
    apply to a small number of stations: "Since the creation of
    low-power television licensees by the Federal Communications
    Commission, a small number of license holders have operated their
    stations in a manner beneficial to the public good providing
    broadcasting to their communities that would not otherwise be
    available."[^29] We recognize that Section (f)(2)(B) grants us
    discretion to determine that other LPTV stations qualify for Class A
    status. This discretion will be addressed in detail below.

13. The statute states that applicants "may" apply for licenses within
    30 days after the adoption of final implementing rules, but gives no
    ultimate deadline. In order to allow sufficient time to potential
    applicants to prepare their applications, we will allow licensees
    that have filed timely certifications of eligibility to file Class A
    applications up to 6 months after the effective date of the rules we
    adopt today. We believe that establishing a 6 month period in which
    applications may be filed is consistent with the CBPA. The statute
    states that applicants "may" file license applications within 30
    days from the adoption of final implementing rules. In contrast, the
    statute states that licensees intending to seek Class A designation
    "shall" file a certification of eligibility within 60 days after
    enactment.[^30] We believe that the use of the word "may" in
    relation to applications indicates that the 30 day filing period is
    permissive only. Thus, applicants are not required to file within 30
    days following the adoption of final rules, and we have authority to
    provide for a longer filing period.

14. We find that the 6 month deadline for filing a Class A application
    is a reasonable time frame that will afford all LPTV applicants,
    including those who must file displacement applications, adequate
    time to prepare and file their Class A applications consistent with
    the rules we adopt today. Where potential applicants face
    circumstances beyond their control that prevent them from filing
    within 6 months, we will examine those instances on a case-by-case
    basis to determine their eligibility for filing. We will not,
    however, accept license applications from LPTV licensees who did not
    timely file certifications of eligibility because we do not believe
    that Congress intended to create an open-ended class of potential
    Class A stations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Qualifying Low-Power Television Stations**

    **1. Statutory Eligibility Criteria**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
15. Section (f)(2)(A) of the CBPA provides than an LPTV station may
    qualify for Class A status if, during the 90 days preceding the date
    of enactment of the statute: (1) the station broadcast a minimum of
    18 hours per day; (2) the station broadcast an average of at least 3
    hours per week of programming produced within the market area served
    by the 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; and (3) the
    station was in compliance with the Commission\'s requirements for
    LPTV stations.[^31] In addition, from and after the date of its
    application for a Class A license, the station must be in compliance
    with the Commission\'s operating rules for full-power television
    stations.[^32] Alternatively, Section (f)(2)(B) of the CBPA provides
    that a station may qualify for Class A status if "the Commission
    determines that the public interest, convenience, and necessity
    would be served by treating the station as a qualifying low-power
    television station for purposes of this section, or for other
    reasons determined by the Commission."[^33] This alternative
    eligibility will be addressed below.

> **2. Locally-Produced Programming**

16. [Background]{.underline}. We stated in the *Notice* that the
    statute\'s requirement that, during the 90 days preceding the date
    of enactment of the CBPA, LPTV stations must have broadcast a
    minimum of 18 hours per day is straightforward. The statute also
    prescribes that, during this period, LPTV stations must have
    broadcast an average of at least 3 hours per week of programming
    produced within the \"market area\" served by the station. As the
    statute does not define \"market area,\" we proposed in the *Notice*
    to define it as the station\'s protected service area. We noted that
    we had proposed to define the Class A protected service area as the
    protected area now afforded LPTV stations, and asked commenters to
    address whether the protected service area ultimately adopted by the
    Commission should also be used to define \"market area\" in
    connection with the local programming criterion. With respect to a
    group of commonly controlled stations, we proposed to define the
    \"market area\" of such stations as the area covered by the
    protected service area of all stations in the commonly-owned group.
    We stated that we were not inclined to include repeated programming
    or locally produced commercials as contributing to the mandatory 3
    hours of locally produced programming, and invited comment on this
    tentative conclusion.[^34]

17. [Decision]{.underline}. We will not adopt the definition of \"market
    area\" that we proposed in the *Notice.* We are persuaded to adopt a
    more expansive definition after reviewing the many comments, such as
    those of Larry Schrecongost,[^35] that contend our proposal would be
    too restrictive with respect to the local production of programming.
    Commenters propose a number of broader alternative definitions. For
    example, Turnpike Television (Turnpike) contends that the definition
    of market area should be each station\'s predicted Grade B service
    area,[^36] Centex Television Limited Partnership (Centex) argues for
    the DMA,[^37] and CBA would expand the market area to include
    coverage of out-of-town events. There are several commenters,
    however, such as WB Television Network (WB), that support our
    proposed definition,[^38] but only one, Sinclair Broadcast Group,
    Inc. (Sinclair), argues that the market area should be even more
    restricted, defining the market area as the LPTV station\'s
    community of license.[^39]

18. We instead will expand our definition of \"market area\" to
    encompass the area within the predicted Grade B contour determined
    by the Class A station\'s antenna height and power, which encloses a
    larger area than that of an LPTV station\'s protected service
    contour.[^40] With respect to a group of commonly controlled
    stations, the market area will be the area within the predicted
    Grade B contours of any of the stations in the commonly owned group.

19. With respect to the local market definition, a number of commenters
    urge us to expand our definition of the market area to include the
    predicted Grade B contour, contending that it is the only reasonable
    and realistic definition for defining where locally originated
    programming would be produced. Centex argues that broadening the
    market area definition, rather than limiting it to the protected
    service area, serves the Congressional intent of rewarding and
    protecting LPTV stations which provide communities with locally
    oriented programming.[^41] We agree. We also believe that extending
    the market area to encompass the Grade B contour will give stations
    more flexibility to provide locally oriented programming to the
    community within their signal range, and provide them with a more
    stable economic base in which to improve their commercial viability.
    Accordingly, we believe that the predicted Grade B contour is a more
    appropriate measure than our original protected contour proposal
    with respect to provision of locally oriented programming for the
    communities served by LPTV stations. We do not agree with those
    commenters who suggested that market should be defined even more
    broadly, such as the DMA.[^42] Many LPTV stations serve areas
    considerably smaller than the DMA in which they are located.
    Moreover, some DMAs are extremely large, with the availability of
    even full-service stations throughout the DMA substantially
    dependent on cable carriage. It does not appear appropriate,
    therefore, to consider programming produced anywhere in the DMA to
    be "locally produced" for purposes of Class A stations' eligibility.

20. Some commenters are concerned about the possible conflicts between
    the locally produced programming requirement and the existing main
    studio rule, arguing that we should either consider waivers of the
    main studio rule[^43] or not adopt so restrictive a definition of
    market area as to conflict with the rule.[^44] As discussed below in
    this *Report and Order*, we have decided to require Class A stations
    to maintain a main studio located within their predicted Grade B
    contours. We have also decided to grandfather all main studio
    locations now in existence and operated by LPTV stations. To avoid
    any conflicts between the local market definition and our main
    studio rule, we will consider programming produced at the main
    studio of such grandfathered Class A stations to be locally produced
    programming even though the main studio is located outside the
    stations' Grade B contours.

    **3. Operating Requirements**

21. [Background]{.underline}. To qualify for Class A status, the CBPA
    provides that, during the 90 days preceding enactment of the
    statute, a station must have been in compliance with the
    Commission\'s requirements for LPTV stations.[^45] In addition,
    beginning on the date of its application for a Class A license and
    thereafter, a station must be "in compliance with the Commission\'s
    operating rules for full-power stations."[^46] We stated in the
    *Notice* our intent to apply to Class A applicants and licensees all
    Part 73 rules, except for those which are inconsistent with the
    manner in which LPTV stations are authorized or the lower power at
    which these stations operate. Thus, for example, we proposed that
    Class A stations comply with the Part 73 requirements for
    informational and educational children\'s programming and the limits
    on commercialization during children\'s programming, the political
    programming rules, and the public inspection file rule. We stated
    that we intended to exempt Class A licensees only from Part 73 rules
    that clearly cannot apply, either due to technical differences in
    the operation of low-power and full-power stations, or for other
    reasons. For example, we noted that some Class A stations might not
    be able to comply with the requirement of Section 73.685(a) that
    stations provide a specified level of coverage to their community of
    license. We requested comment on this provision and any other Part
    73 requirement that, for technical or other reasons, either cannot
    apply to Class A stations or must be modified with respect to such
    stations. We also invited comment on whether the Commission should
    group the new Class A service under the Part 73 rules, governing
    full-service facilities, or the Part 74 rules, governing low-power
    stations.

22. We also stated our belief in the *Notice* that the current power
    limits in the LPTV rules should apply to Class A. We noted that
    further increases could hinder the implementation of digital
    television and could limit the number of Class A stations that could
    be authorized. Finally, we sought comment on whether to require
    Class A stations to provide some requisite level of coverage over
    their community. We noted that such stations may not operate with
    sufficient power to serve large communities, and that we had
    reservations about increasing power limits for Class A stations
    beyond the current limits in the LPTV service.[^47]

23. [Decision]{.underline}. We will adopt our proposal to apply to Class
    A applicants and licensees all Part 73 regulations except for those
    that cannot apply for technical or other reasons. We believe that
    this course of action is most consistent with the language of the
    statute, which provides that from and after the date of an
    application for a Class A license, LPTV stations must comply with
    the operating rules for full-power television stations to be
    eligible for Class A status. Most commenters that addressed this
    issue agree that Class A stations should be required to comply with
    most Part 73 obligations except for those that are clearly
    inappropriate or inapplicable.[^48]

24. The Part 73 requirements that we will apply to Class A applicants
    and licensees are set forth in Appendix A. Among other Part 73
    obligations, we will require that Class A applicants and licensees
    comply with the following: our rules governing informational and
    educational children's programming and the limits on
    commercialization during children's programming; the requirement to
    identify a children's programming liaison at the station and to
    provide information regarding the "core" educational and
    informational programming aired by the station to publishers of
    television program guides; the requirement to place in their file
    the quarterly forms 398; the political programming rules; the public
    inspection file rule, including the requirement to prepare and place
    in the public inspection file on a quarterly basis an
    issues/programs list; and station identification requirements. We
    will require Class A stations to comply with the Emergency Alert
    System (EAS) rules applicable to full-service television stations;
    for example, they will be required to have and operate a digital EAS
    encoder and perform the weekly and monthly EAS tests required of
    full-service stations.[^49] As provided in Section (f)(1)(A)(ii) of
    the CBPA, Class A licensees must also continue to meet the
    requirements for a qualifying low-power station in order to continue
    to be accorded Class A status.[^50]

25. We will require Class A applicants and licensees to maintain a main
    studio. As Class A stations will be low-power and thus serve a
    smaller area than most full-service stations, we do not believe it
    is appropriate to permit Class A stations to locate their main
    studio within the principal community contour of any station serving
    that market, or 25 miles from the center of its community of
    license, as we permit for full-service stations.[^51] Instead, we
    will require Class A stations to locate their main studios within
    the station's Grade B contour, as determined pursuant to the
    Commission's rules.[^52] This will ensure that newly created main
    studios are more accessible to the population that receives the
    station's programming. We will grandfather all main studios now in
    existence and operated by LPTV stations. We do not believe it is
    necessary to require these stations to change the location of their
    existing studio, or build a new studio, to comply with our Class A
    rules. We will grandfather those main studios for purposes of our
    Class A main studio rule adopted in this *Report and Order.*

26. For purposes of our Class A rules, we will also modify a number of
    other requirements applicable to full-service television broadcast
    stations, including: (1) minimum hours of operation of 18 hours per
    day, as required by the statute; (2) grandfather the use of LPTV
    broadcast transmitters; and (3) permit Class A stations to operate
    without a carrier frequency offset. We will permit qualified Class A
    station licensees to continue to operate their existing LPTV
    transmitters, provided these transmitters do not cause interference
    due to excessive emissions on frequencies outside of the station's
    assigned channel. We will require Class A stations seeking
    facilities increases under the more inclusive definition of "minor"
    changes we are adopting for these stations to specify operation on
    an offset frequency and to operate with a transmitter meeting the
    required frequency tolerance for offset operation.

27. We will not apply to Class A facilities the following provisions of
    Part 73: (1) the NTSC and DTV Tables of Allotments (sections 73.606
    and 73.607); (2) mileage separations (section 73.610); and (3)
    minimum power and antenna height requirements (section 73.614). As
    qualifying LPTV stations are not governed by mileage separations, do
    not have allotted technical parameters, and will not have a
    community coverage requirement, these provisions of Part 73 will not
    apply to Class A. LPTV stations are not subject to minimum power and
    antenna height requirements under Part 74, and we will not impose
    any such requirements on Class A stations.

28. We will also exempt Class A facilities from the principal city
    coverage requirement of section 73.685(a) of the rules. At this
    time, we believe that it is unnecessary to require Class A stations
    to provide a requisite level of coverage over their community.
    Although LPTV stations are associated with a specific community on
    their license application, they are not subject to any requirement
    to provide a specified level of coverage to that community. As we
    indicated in the *Notice*, those Class A stations that are intended
    to serve an entire community that is otherwise unserved or
    underserved have ample incentive to provide service to the residents
    of the whole of that community without a mandatory requirement to do
    so.[^53] Other stations may intend to serve only a narrow segment of
    their community. In view of the lower power levels at which LPTV
    stations now operate and at which Class A facilities will continue
    to operate, and the fact that in many cases these stations provide
    programming to areas where a higher power station could not be
    accommodated in the Table of Allotments, we do not believe a minimum
    coverage requirement is appropriate. The commenters that addressed
    this issue generally agreed that no new coverage requirement should
    be imposed on existing LPTV stations seeking Class A
    designation.[^54] If the circumstances regarding operation of Class
    A stations change in the future, including, for example, the
    permitted power levels of such facilities, we reserve the right to
    revisit the issue of minimum coverage requirements at that time.

29. As we proposed in the *Notice*, we will also maintain for now the
    current LPTV maximum power levels for Class A stations.[^55] We
    believe that these power levels are sufficient to preserve existing
    service, which is consistent with Congress' objective underlying the
    CBPA.[^56] While many commenters urged us to permit Class A stations
    to increase power above the limits currently applicable to LPTV
    stations,[^57] we will not adopt such a course at this time.
    Congress emphasized in the CBPA the importance of balancing the
    needs of LPTV licensees against the needs of full-service stations
    as they transition to a digital format. We believe that further
    power increases at this time could hinder the implementation of
    digital television, as well as limit the number of Class A stations
    that could be authorized. Moreover, we recently increased power
    levels for LPTV stations in our DTV *Sixth Report and Order*,[^58]
    and have not yet opened a filing window to permit stations to modify
    their facilities to take advantage of this power increase.

30. Several commenters propose that we require Class A licensees to
    certify annually their continued compliance with the Class A
    eligibility criteria and with applicable Part 73 requirements.[^59]
    As we noted above, in addition to requiring Class A applicants and
    licensees to comply with the operating requirements for full-power
    television stations, the CBPA also requires that Class A licensees
    continue to meet the eligibility criteria established for a
    qualifying low-power station in order to retain Class A status.[^60]
    We will not adopt an annual certification or reporting requirement
    for Class A stations. We do not have such a general requirement for
    other television broadcast stations, and see no need to treat Class
    A stations differently. However, like other Part 73 licensees, we
    will require Class A licensees to certify compliance with applicable
    FCC rules at time of renewal. In addition, as in the case of other
    Part 73 licensees, Class A renewal applications will be subject to
    petitions to deny. Finally, we will require licensees seeking to
    assign or transfer a Class A license to certify on the application
    for transfer or assignment of license that the station has been
    operated in compliance with the rules applicable to Class A
    stations. We will also require Class A assignees and transferees to
    certify on their portion of the transfer or assignment application
    that they will operate the station in accordance with these rules.

31. We will place our rules governing the new Class A television service
    under Part 73. As Class A stations must comply with the operating
    rules for full-service stations, which are found in Part 73, it
    appears most logical to group the rules for Class A service with the
    full-service broadcast rules. LPTV stations that are not eligible
    for or choose not to apply for Class A status will continue to be
    governed by Part 74 of our rules.[^61]

> **4. Alternative Eligibility Criteria**

32. [Background]{.underline}. The CBPA grants the Commission authority
    to establish alternative eligibility criteria for LPTV stations
    seeking Class A designation if "the Commission determines that the
    public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by
    treating the station as a qualifying low-power television station
    for purposes of this section, or for other reasons determined by the
    Commission."[^62] In the *Notice*, we sought comment on (1) how far
    an LPTV station may deviate from the statutory eligibility criteria
    and still be considered eligible for Class A status, and (2) whether
    we should establish a different set of criteria for certain types of
    LPTV stations, such as foreign language stations or TV translators.

33. [Decision]{.underline}. Congress mandated three Class A eligibility
    qualifications in the CBPA. For the 90 days prior to enactment of
    the CBPA, an applicant must have (1) broadcast a minimum of 18 hours
    per day, (2) broadcast an average of at least 3 hours per week of
    programming produced within the market area served by the station,
    and (3) been in compliance with Commission requirements of LPTV
    stations. We will allow deviation from the strict statutory
    eligibility criteria only where such deviations are insignificant or
    when we determine that there are compelling circumstances, and that
    in light of those compelling circumstances, equity mandates such a
    deviation Examples of such compelling circumstances include a
    natural disaster or interference conflict which forced the station
    off the air during the 90 day period before enactment of the CBPA.

34. We will not establish a different set of criteria for foreign
    language stations that do not meet the local programming criteria.
    We recognize the valuable service provided by foreign language
    stations, but conclude that Congress' intent was to preserve the
    service of a small class of existing LPTV stations that were
    providing local programming.[^63] We appreciate the comments
    submitted by groups with foreign language programming that encourage
    us to allow such programming to meet the statutory requirement.[^64]
    We conclude, however, that foreign language stations should have the
    same eligibility requirements as any other potential Class A
    station.[^65]

35. We will not adopt separate eligibility criteria for translator
    stations under the CBPA, as requested by the National Translator
    Association (NTA).[^66] The statute limits eligibility to LPTV
    stations that produce local programming and can meet the operating
    rules applicable to full-service stations.[^67] We recognize,
    however, the extremely valuable service that translators provide,
    often representing the only source of free, over-the-air
    broadcasting in rural areas. Indeed, we expressly asked about
    according translators Class A status in the September 22 Notice.
    While that proceeding has been terminated, we still believe that
    this is an issue that should be examined. Thus, we will institute a
    new proceeding seeking comment on whether translators should be
    permitted to qualify for some form of primary status, and what the
    eligibility requirements for such protection should be.

    **C. Class A Interference Protection Rights and Responsibilities**

    **1. Class A Protected Service Area**

36. [Background]{.underline}. The CBPA requires the Commission to
    preserve the service areas of low power television licensees pending
    the final resolution of Class A applications.[^68] In the *Notice*,
    the Commission proposed to protect the service contours of analog
    Class A stations and certified eligible LPTV stations to the field
    strength values that define LPTV protected signal contours.[^69] The
    *Notice* also sought comment on whether protected contour values for
    digital Class A stations should be based on the field strength
    values that define DTV noise-limited contours or other field
    strength values better suited for this purpose.[^70]

37. [Decision]{.underline}. We will adopt the proposal in the *Notice*
    with respect to analog stations and define the following protected
    signal contour values for these stations: 62 dBu for channels 2-6,
    68 dBu for channels 7-13, and 74 dBu for channels 14 and above, as
    calculated using the Commission's F(50,50) signal propagation
    curves. CBA and several LPTV station operators urge an expanded
    Class A protected contour, such as the TV Grade B contour.[^71] We
    recognize, as these commenters point out, that LPTV stations can be
    viewed in the areas between their protected contour and the Grade B
    contour of their facilities, just as the signals of NTSC stations
    are often viewed beyond their Grade B contours.[^72] In enacting the
    CBPA, Congress equated the service areas to be preserved with the
    LPTV signal contours, which have always been defined by the above
    field strength values.[^73] We agree with Fox that expanding contour
    protection for Class A stations would be inconsistent with the
    intent of the CBPA to preserve existing service.[^74] Also, as noted
    by the Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers
    (AFCCE), this would be likely to create new situations of prohibited
    contour overlap between LPTV stations where none currently
    exist.[^75] More than 2,000 LPTV stations have been engineered to
    fit into the broadcast landscape on the basis of protection to the
    LPTV service contours.[^76] The LPTV service is now mature, and
    service expectations are well established. We do not want to upset
    the balance that has been achieved between service and interference
    considerations. For these reasons, we will apply the LPTV service
    contour definitions to Class A stations as the basis for
    interference protection.

38. The above considerations are also relevant to our choice of
    protected signal contours for digital Class A stations. Some
    commenters favor use of the DTV noise-limited signal contours for
    this purpose, which are comparable to NTSC Grade B contours.[^77]
    Use of these values would, in effect, expand protection for digital
    Class A stations, compared to that for analog Class A stations,
    whose protected contours are comparable to NTSC Grade A
    contours.[^78] Using these values would also create situations where
    Class A digital service contours would overlap with the
    interference-limited contours of analog LPTV and Class A stations.
    This "built-in" interference would occur to a lesser extent if the
    Class A digital protected contours were geographically smaller.
    Also, digital conversion opportunities for Class A and other
    services would be precluded to a lesser extent through the use of
    digital contour values more comparable to the Class A analog values.
    We will adopt the protected contour values suggested by the AFCCE,
    du Treil, Lundin & Rackley (du Treil), and the Society of Broadcast
    Engineers (SBE): 43 dBu for channels 2-6, 48 dBu for channels 7-13
    and 51 dBu for channels 14-51.[^79] These values reflect the
    differences between analog LPTV protected contours and NTSC Grade B
    contours. For example, the analog LPTV and Grade B values for UHF
    stations are 74 dBu and 64 dBu, respectively - a 10 dB difference.
    This difference (or scaling factor) is added to the 41 dBu DTV
    noise-limited field strength value to obtain a protected contour of
    51 dBu for UHF digital Class A stations. In a future proceeding, we
    will consider rules for permitting on-channel digital conversion for
    TV translator and non-Class A LPTV stations. We may wish to revisit
    the issue of Class A digital protected contour values at that time.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  **Time Protection Begins**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
39. [Background]{.underline}. Section (f)(1)(D) of the CBPA requires the
    Commission to preserve the service areas of low-power television
    licensees pending the final resolution of a Class A
    application.[^80] In the *Notice*, we proposed to preserve the
    service area of LPTV licensees from the date the Commission receives
    an acceptable certification of eligibility for Class A status; that
    is, a certification that is complete and that, on its face,
    indicates eligibility for Class A status pursuant to the eligibility
    criteria established by statute and any other criteria ultimately
    approved in this proceeding. Thus, we proposed to protect the
    service area of an LPTV station, to the extent provided in the CBPA
    and our rules, from the date a certification for eligibility is
    filed with the Commission, as long as the certification is
    ultimately granted by the Commission.

40. [Decision]{.underline}. We will adopt our proposal to commence
    preservation of the service area of LPTV stations from the date of
    receipt of an acceptable certification of eligibility filed pursuant
    to section (f)(1)(B) of the CBPA. As we stated in the *Notice*, this
    timing appears most consistent with the CBPA's dual certification
    and application scheme for Class A status, despite the reference in
    the statute to the pendency of an application, as opposed to a
    certification, to trigger contour protection. Senator Conrad Burns,
    a sponsor of the CBPA in the Senate, introduced a statement on the
    Senate floor clarifying the issue of when an LPTV station's contour
    should be preserved. He stated in part: "It is clearly our intent
    that as soon as the Commission is in receipt of an acceptable
    certification notice, it should protect the contours of this station
    until final resolution of that application."[^81]

41. We disagree with MSTV/NAB that protection should begin from the time
    a Class A application is filed, rather than the date of filing of a
    certification of eligibility. This reading of the statute would
    render the separate certification of eligibility requirement
    meaningless. MSTV/NAB argue that protecting the more than 1700
    eligibility certifications filed by the January 28, 2000
    deadline[^82] would "paralyze" the Commission. [^83] However, more
    than a third of these certifications, on their face, do not comply
    with the eligibility criteria established in the CBPA and our rules
    adopted herein. Included in this group are certifications submitted
    by translator station licensees and permittees of unbuilt LPTV
    stations. Such licensees and permittees do not meet the eligibility
    standards of the CBPA and our rules. Accordingly, their
    certifications are not acceptable and will be dismissed. Similarly
    deficient are those certifications filed after the January 28, 2000
    deadline and those certifications submitted by LPTV licensees whose
    stations aired no locally produced programming during the entire
    90-day period preceding enactment of the CBPA. They too will be
    dismissed.

42. As discussed above, the CBPA permits the Commission to establish
    alternative criteria for Class A eligibility if it determines that
    the public interest, convenience and necessity would be served
    thereby, or for other reasons.[^84] Thus, there may be instances in
    which a certification of eligibility is filed but the corresponding
    Class A application may not be granted because the alternative
    eligibility showing cannot be approved. We also note that a Class A
    application could be denied if a certification of eligibility were
    later determined to be incorrect. In situations where the Commission
    determines that a Class A certification of eligibility or Class A
    application may not be granted, protection of the service contour of
    that facility will cease from the date the Commission determination
    is made.

    **3. Protection of Pending NTSC TV Applications and Facilities**

43. [Background]{.underline}. The CBPA requires that the Commission
    preserve the service areas of LPTV stations pending the final
    resolution of a Class A application.[^85] As discussed above, we
    interpret that provision to require protection from the date of
    filing of an acceptable certification of eligibility for Class A
    status. With respect to NTSC facilities, Section (f)(7)(A) of the
    CBPA provides that the Commission may not grant a Class A license,
    nor approve a modification of license, unless the applicant shows
    that the proposed Class A station will not cause interference
    "within the predicted Grade B contour (as of the date of enactment
    of the ...\[CBPA\] ...) or as proposed in a change application filed
    on or before such date) of any television station transmitting in
    analog format."[^86] We invited comment in the *Notice* on how to
    interpret the phrase \"transmitting in analog format.\" We indicated
    that we were inclined to include among the NTSC facilities that
    Class A stations must protect both stations actually transmitting in
    analog format and those that have been authorized to construct
    facilities capable of transmitting in analog format (*i.e*.,
    construction permits). Under this interpretation, pending
    applications for new NTSC full-service stations would not be
    protected, including applications of successful bidders in the
    September 1999 broadcast auction that have not been granted a
    construction permit. In addition, there are still pending before the
    Commission applications and channel allotment rule making petitions
    involving channels 60 - 69 and requests for waiver of the 1987 TV
    filing freeze, which may account for approximately 180 potential new
    NTSC stations. We indicated in the *Notice* that these applications
    and allotment proposals would not be protected under this
    interpretation of the CBPA, nor would any modified allotment
    proposals for channel or other technical changes or any applications
    for modification of facilities filed after November 29, 1999.[^87]

44. [Decision]{.underline}. Upon further reflection, and after careful
    consideration of the comments, we have reconsidered our proposal
    regarding interpretation of the interference protection that must be
    accorded by Class A to pending NTSC applications. Instead, we will
    adopt the proposal similar to that advanced by CBA in its comments
    to require Class A stations to protect both existing analog stations
    and full-service applicants that have completed all processing short
    of grant necessary to provide a reasonably ascertainable Grade B
    contour.[^88] We believe this proposal is both equitable and
    consistent with the CBPA. Specifically, we will require Class A
    applicants to protect the predicted Grade B contour (as of November
    29, 1999, or as proposed in a change application filed on or before
    that date) of full-power analog stations licensed on or before
    November 29, 1999. We will also require Class A applicants to
    protect the Grade B contour of full-power analog facilities for
    which a construction permit was authorized on or before November
    29, 1999. Finally, we will require Class A applicants to protect the
    facilities proposed in any application for full-power analog
    facilities that was pending on November 29, 1999, that had completed
    all processing short of grant as of that date, and for which the
    identity of the successful applicant is known. The applications in
    this latter category are post-auction applications, applications
    proposed for grant in pending settlements, and any singleton
    applications cut off from further filings. We will not require Class
    A applicants for initial Class A authorization to protect pending
    rule making petitions for new or modified NTSC channel allotments or
    full-service applications that were not accepted for filing by
    November 29, including most pending television freeze waiver
    applications.

45. We believe that protecting these categories of pending NTSC
    applications is consistent with both the language of the CBPA and
    the underlying intent of Congress. Section (f)(7)(A)(i) requires
    Class A applicants to show that they "will not cause" interference
    within "the predicted Grade B contour (as of the date of the
    enactment of \[CBPA\]... ) of any television station\[s\]
    transmitting in analog format." It is not immediately clear from the
    statutory language whether the station entitled to interference
    protection must have been "transmitting in analog format" as of the
    date of enactment of the CBPA in 1999, or as of the date it would
    experience the interference.[^89] We believe that a sound
    interpretation of the statutory language, in light of the
    considerations that follow, is that it refers to the nature of the
    service entitled to protection (*i.e.*, analog) rather than to its
    operational status on the date of enactment of the CBPA. Therefore,
    the analog station could be licensed, one for which an application
    is currently pending, or one for which a construction permit has
    been granted but which is not yet built. The statute does require
    that analog stations entitled to protection must have had a
    "predicted Grade B contour (as of the date of the enactment of the
    \[CBPA\], or November 1, 1999, whichever is later, or as proposed in
    a change application filed on or before such date)."[^90] A station
    does not have to be operating, however, to have a "predicted grade B
    contour" as described in Section (f)(7)(A)(i). A station proposed in
    a pending application or an unbuilt station with an outstanding
    construction permit may also have a predicted Grade B contour.
    Indeed, the clause referring to the predicted Grade B contour
    specifically includes predicted Grade B contours proposed in change
    applications filed before the specified date. Thus, this section
    explicitly contemplates that interference protection by Class A
    stations may extend to at least some analog stations that are not
    yet operating, but nonetheless had predicted Grade B contours as of
    the date specified in the statute. It would make no sense to protect
    pending change applications and licensed stations but not
    outstanding construction permits, which are closer to operational
    status. We believe that Congress included the reference to change
    applications to make it clear that those are entitled to protection,
    rather than to suggest that other applications or construction
    permits are not similarly protected.

46. Under this reading of the statute, Section (f)(7)(A)(i) requires
    Class A applicants and licensees to protect "the predicted Grade B
    contour (as of ... \[November 29, 1999\], or as proposed in a change
    application filed on or before such date)" of analog facilities.
    Thus, Class A stations must protect the predicted Grade B contour of
    analog stations licensed or granted a construction permit as of
    November 29, 1999, as well as of facilities proposed in certain
    pending analog applications. We note that the phrase "predicted
    Grade B contour" is singular. We believe that the best
    interpretation of this phrase, as modified by the parenthetical in
    Section (f)(7)(A)(i ), is that it limits the facilities proposed in
    applications pending as of November 29, 1999 that must be protected
    by Class A stations to those for which there is a single, reasonably
    ascertainable predicted Grade B contour as of that date. These
    applications consist of post-auction applications, applications
    proposed for grant in pending settlements, and any singleton
    applications cut off from further filing. The applications in each
    of these categories have progressed through the cut off stage and
    the identity of the successful applicant in each case has been
    determined. Class A applicants thus can identify a single predicted
    Grade B contour with respect to these applications for which
    protection must be afforded and are not required to show that they
    will not interfere with multiple, hypothetical contours that may not
    turn out to be actual contours, if the applicant in question does
    not ultimately receive the station license.

47. Moreover, we believe that this interpretation of the statute best
    reflects the intent of Congress as expressed in the overall
    statutory scheme. Under the interpretation we proposed in the
    Notice, Class A applicants and licensees would not have been
    required to protect post-auction applications for which a
    construction permit had not been issued as of the date of enactment
    of the CBPA. There is no language in the statute or the legislative
    history that suggests that Congress intended a result so
    dramatically inconsistent with its grant of auction authority to the
    Commission in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.[^91] As the Supreme
    Court recently noted, it is a "fundamental canon of statutory
    construction that the words of a statute must be read in their
    context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory
    scheme."[^92] The Court further stated that \"the meaning of one
    statute may be affected by other Acts . . . \"[^93] We agree with
    CBA that, in securing the future of qualified LPTV stations,
    Congress did not intend to disrupt the rights and long-settled
    expectations of applicants for pending NTSC facilities that have
    prosecuted their applications past the cut off stage and to the
    point that a final successful applicant has been identified.
    Instead, Congress intended to place Class A licensees on roughly
    even footing with full- service licensees, while protecting the DTV
    transition. These pending cut-off NTSC applications are protected
    against new full-service analog applicants, and therefore should be
    protected by Class A applicants

48. We believe making these distinctions is consistent with Congress\'
    intent because requiring Class A applicants to protect applications
    that have progressed through the cut-off stage strikes an
    appropriate balance between the rights of pending applicants versus
    the interests of LPTV stations seeking primary status. Applicants
    that have prosecuted their applications through the cut off stage
    and to the point that the identity of the successful applicant is
    known have in most cases invested substantial resources in filing
    and prosecuting their applications. Most of these applications have
    been pending for some time, and LPTV stations affected by the
    facilities proposed in these applications have long been on notice
    that they would ultimately be displaced or be required to reduce
    their facilities. Requiring Class A applicants to protect
    applications that had progressed through this stage by November 29,
    1999 is both equitable and a reasonable reading of the CBPA.

> **4. New DTV Service**

49. [Background]{.underline}. Section (f)(7)(A)(ii)(III) of the CBPA
    requires Class A applicants to protect "the digital television
    service areas of stations subsequently granted by the Commission
    prior to the filing of a Class A application."[^94] We stated in the
    *Notice* that we interpreted this provision not to apply to
    applications for initial Class A licenses that have filed acceptable
    certifications of eligibility, but rather to applications seeking to
    modify Class A facilities, such as requests for power
    increases.[^95] We noted that section (f)(1)(D) of the Act, which
    requires the Commission to preserve the service areas of LPTV
    licensees upon certification of eligibility except in the case of
    "technical problems" in connection with DTV replication and
    maximization, does not include an exception to service area
    protection for new DTV service.[^96] We stated our belief that the
    exclusion of new DTV service in section (f)(1)(D) means that new DTV
    entrants must preserve the service areas of LPTV stations that have
    been granted a certification of eligibility, and invited comment on
    this interpretation. We also stated our belief that Class A
    applicants who have filed acceptable certifications of eligibility
    would not be required to protect the DTV application and allotment
    proposals of new DTV entrants, and sought comment on this
    interpretation.

50. [Decision]{.underline}. Upon further reflection, we have decided we
    should treat new DTV station applications[^97] in the same manner as
    we are treating new NTSC station applications. That is, we would
    require Class A applicants to protect pending applications for a new
    DTV station that were on file November 29,1999 and that had
    completed all processing short of grant as of that date. However,
    there are no new DTV station applications that were pending November
    29, 1999 or that are currently pending. Before such an application
    will be accepted, a rule making proceeding must be completed to
    allot a new DTV channel to a community. At this time, we have not
    completed any such rule making proceeding. In a new DTV allotment
    rule making, we will require protection of Class A stations. We will
    not require Class A applicants to protect pending allotment
    proposals from new DTV entrants, that is, petitioners who do not
    already have a DTV authorization.[^98]

    **5. DTV Maximization**

    **a. Definition of Maximization**

51. [Background]{.underline}. The CBPA provides that a Class A
    application for license or license modification may not be granted
    where the proposal would interfere with stations seeking to
    \"maximize power\" under the Commission\'s rules, if such station
    has complied with the notification requirements in Section (f)(1)(D)
    of the statute.[^99] Section (f)(1)(D) requires that, to be entitled
    to protection by Class A applicants, DTV stations must file an
    application for maximization or a notice of intent to seek
    maximization by December 31, 1999, and file a bona fide application
    for maximization by May 1, 2000.[^100] We sought comment in the
    *Notice* on whether the term \"maximize\" in the statute refers only
    to situations in which stations seek power and/or antenna height
    greater than the allotted values, or whether \"maximization\" also
    refers to stations seeking to extend their service area beyond the
    NTSC replicated area by relocating their station from the allotted
    site.

52. [Decision]{.underline}. Comments on this issue were divided.[^101]
    We believe that the best interpretation of the term "maximization,"
    as used in the statute, refers both to power and antenna height
    increases above the values allotted in the DTV Table, and to site
    changes that extend the service area of DTV facilities beyond the
    NTSC replication facilities. A broad interpretation of the term
    maximization is consistent with the CBPA's emphasis on protecting
    the digital transition. Permitting changes to technical parameters
    and sites gives broadcasters wider flexibility to maximize coverage
    and maximize service to the public. In addition, by construing the
    term maximization to include site changes sought by full-service DTV
    stations, we allow such stations greater flexibility to seek
    engineering solutions that provide for efficient spectrum use. In
    this regard, we have historically encouraged applicants to employ
    coordination and interference agreements, including co-location of
    facilities, as a means of resolving interference conflicts. Site
    changes are often integral to such agreements.

53. We indicated in the *Notice* that the statutory language is
    ambiguous regarding the protection to be accorded by Class A
    applicants to DTV stations seeking to replicate or maximize power.
    Section (f)(1)(D), entitled \"Resolution of Technical Problems,\"
    directs the Commission to preserve the service areas of LPTV
    licensees pending final resolution of a Class A application. That
    section further provides that if, after certification of eligibility
    for a Class A license, \"technical problems arise requiring an
    engineering solution to a full-power station's allotted parameters
    or channel assignment in the digital television Table of Allotments,
    the Commission shall make such modifications as necessary (1) to
    ensure replication of the full-power digital television applicant's
    service area ...; and (ii) to permit maximization of a full-power
    digital television applicant\'s service area\...\" (if the applicant
    has complied with the notification and application requirements
    established by that section).[^102] Although Section (f)(1)(D)
    appears to tie replication and maximization to resolution of
    technical problems, Section (f)(7) appears to require all applicants
    for a Class A license or modification of license to demonstrate
    protection to stations seeking to replicate or maximize power, as
    long as the station seeking to maximize has complied with the
    notification and application requirements of (f)(1)(D), without
    reference to any need to resolve technical problems on the part of
    the DTV station. Despite the reference in section (f)(1)(D) to
    technical problems, we continue to believe it is more consistent
    with the statutory schemes both for Class A LPTV service and for
    digital full-service broadcasting to require Class A applicants to
    protect all stations seeking to replicate or maximize DTV power, as
    provided in section (f)(7)(ii), regardless of the existence of
    "technical problems." The large majority of commenters that
    addressed this issue concur with this view.[^103] Stations seeking
    to maximize must comply with the notification requirements in
    paragraph (f)(1)(D). This interpretation seems most consistent with
    the intent of Congress to protect the ability of DTV stations to
    replicate and maximize service areas.

    **b. Preserving the Right to Maximize**

54. [Background]{.underline}. We sought comment in the *Notice* on how
    the maximization rights in the statute can be applied to
    full-service stations that maximize their DTV facilities but
    subsequently move their digital operations to their original analog
    channel at the end of the transition. Some of these stations may not
    be in a position to file maximization applications on their analog
    channels by the deadline prescribed in the statute. We asked in the
    *Notice* whether these stations can preserve the right to maximize
    on their analog channels should they revert to those channels at the
    end of the transition. If so, we asked how the right to replicate
    the station's maximized DTV service area can be preserved on the
    analog channel. As a corollary issue, we also sought comment on how
    the maximization allowance in the CBPA applies to full-service
    stations for which the DTV channel allotment or both the NTSC and
    DTV channel allotments lie outside the DTV core spectrum (channels
    2 - 51). We asked commenters to address whether these stations can
    preserve their right to replicate their maximized DTV service area
    on a new in-core channel once that channel has been assigned.

55. [Decision]{.underline}. As a preliminary matter, we believe that all
    DTV licensees are entitled, at a minimum, to replicate the service
    area of their analog station. As we stated in *the Sixth Report and
    Order* in the DTV proceeding, we believe that service replication is
    important to ensure that digital broadcasters can continue to reach
    the audiences to which they provide analog service and that viewers
    continue to have access to the stations they can receive
    over-the-air.[^104] In enacting the CBPA, Congress made clear that
    Class A service would not interfere with this service replication
    principle. As Congress stated, "recognizing the importance of, and
    the engineering complexity in, the FCC's plan to convert
    full-service television stations to digital format, \[the CBPA\]
    protects the ability of these stations to provide both digital and
    analog service *throughout their existing service areas*."[^105]

56. The CBPA also recognizes and preserves the right of full-service
    television broadcasters to maximize their digital television service
    area, but balances this right against the provision of stability to
    Class A applicants and licensees. Sections (f)(1)(D) and (f)(7)(A)
    of the CBPA require Class A applicants to protect stations seeking
    to maximize power, if such stations have filed an application for
    maximization or a notice of intent to seek maximization by December
    31, 1999, and filed a bona fide application for maximization by May
    1, 2000.[^106]

57. There are 17 full-service television stations that have been
    allotted both NTSC and DTV channels that lie outside the DTV core
    spectrum.[^107] The Commission has stated that stations with both
    NTSC and DTV channels outside the core spectrum will be assigned new
    channels within the core from spectrum recovered after the
    transition.[^108] As a number of commenters in this proceeding point
    out, the deadlines established in the CBPA for filing an application
    for maximization create a dilemma for these stations. These stations
    are required to file a maximization application to preserve their
    rights; however, they either cannot or do not want to maximize
    facilities on an out-of-core channel. Several commenters argue that
    these stations should not be required to file a maximization plan
    based on their temporary out-of-core DTV assignment, as maximization
    is expensive and these stations will not be operating on those
    channels after the transition. Moreover, these commenters argue that
    requiring maximization on an out-of-core channel does not provide
    certainty to Class A stations because the required interference
    protection will ultimately involve a different in-core
    channel.[^109]

58. The problem of preserving the rights of full-service stations in
    this situation, and balancing those rights against the provision of
    certainty to Class A stations, is extremely complex. After careful
    consideration, we will adopt the following compromise. To preserve
    their ability to maximize once assigned a channel within the core,
    we will require stations with both NTSC and DTV channels outside the
    core to nonetheless maximize their DTV service area on their
    temporary out-of-core DTV channel. These stations must have filed a
    notice of intent to maximize and must file an application to
    maximize within the deadlines mandated by the CBPA. Once these
    stations are assigned a permanent in-core DTV channel, we will allow
    these stations to carry over to their in-core channel the maximized
    digital service area achieved on the out-of-core channel, to the
    extent that the in-core channel facilities for maintaining the
    maximized service area provide required interference protection to
    other DTV stations. Section (f)(1)(D) of the statute gives us broad
    authority to resolve problems arising with respect to replication
    and maximization, including problems involving the assignment of
    channels such as those faced by stations with out-of-core channel
    assignments.[^110] Thus, stations seeking to carry over their
    maximized service areas to their newly assigned in-core DTV channels
    will have priority over conflicting Class A facilities.

59. We believe this approach strikes a reasonable balance between the
    rights of full-service stations and Class A facilities. While we
    recognize that there may be inefficiencies involved in requiring
    maximization on an out-of-core channel to preserve the right to
    maximize later on an in-core channel, allowing all full-service
    stations outside the core to "reserve" the right to maximize on
    unidentified channels within the core reduces substantially the
    certainty that can be accorded to Class A facilities. As we
    recognized in our DTV biennial review, core spectrum is becoming
    increasingly crowded and it will become increasingly difficult to
    locate channels for all parties seeking DTV spectrum in the core
    after the transition.[^111] In view of the difficulty in
    establishing priorities among the numerous parties seeking in-core
    spectrum, we believe it is reasonable to require stations with both
    NTSC and DTV assignments outside the core to first maximize DTV
    service on an out-of-core channel in order to retain the right to
    replicate that maximized service area on an in-core channel.

60. We will apply a similar requirement to stations with an analog
    channel within the core and a DTV channel outside the core, as well
    as to those stations with both channels inside the core that intend
    to convert their DTV operations to their analog channel at the end
    of the transition. These stations will also be required to maximize
    on their DTV channel in order to preserve their right to carry over
    that maximized service area to their analog in-core channel. We also
    believe that the CBPA requires that these stations must have filed a
    notice of intent to maximize and must file an application to
    maximize within the deadlines established in the statute. In
    addition, the maximized facilities they ultimately propose for DTV
    operation on their analog channel must provide required interference
    protection to other DTV stations. The election of a post-transition
    DTV channel by stations with both the analog and DTV allotments
    within the core is an issue discussed in our DTV biennial
    review.[^112]

    **c. Allotment Adjustments**

61. [Background]{.underline}. As noted above, Section (f)(1)(D) of the
    CBPA directs the Commission to preserve the service areas of LPTV
    licensees, upon certification of eligibility, pending final
    resolution of a Class A application. However, that section also
    permits modifications to a full-service station\'s allotted
    parameters or channel assignment in the DTV Table of Allotments,
    where made necessary by \"technical problems\" requiring an
    \"engineering solution,\" to ensure both replication and
    maximization of the DTV service area. We raised in the *Notice*
    certain questions regarding DTV allotment adjustments that are not
    addressed in the CBPA. Specifically, we asked whether a station
    requesting an adjustment to the DTV Table that would impinge upon
    the service area of a Class A station should be required to show
    that the modification can *only* be made in this manner. If the
    modification requires displacement of the Class A station, we asked
    if the affected Class A should be permitted to exchange channels
    with the DTV station, provided it could meet interference protection
    requirements on the exchanged channel.

62. [Decision]{.underline}. As we indicated in the *Notice*, we
    recognize that it may be necessary to permit DTV stations to change
    channels and make adjustments to station facilities in order to
    correct unforeseen technical problems. For example, it was necessary
    in some cases to make DTV Table allotments on adjacent channels at
    noncollocated antenna sites in the same markets, which raised
    concerns among broadcasters over possible adjacent channel
    interference.[^113] In addition to changing some of those
    allotments, we stated that we would address these concerns by
    tightening the DTV emission mask and by "allowing flexibility in our
    licensing process and for modification of individual allotments to
    encourage adjacent channel co-locations\...\"[^114] We also provided
    broadcasters with flexibility to deal with allotment problems, for
    example, by permitting allotment exchanges among licensees in the
    same or adjacent markets.

63. Section (f)(1)(D) of the CBPA gives full-service stations the
    flexibility to make these kinds of necessary adjustments to DTV
    allotment parameters, including channel changes, even after
    certification of an LPTV station's eligibility for Class A status.
    That section provides for an exception to protection of Class A
    facilities to resolve "technical problems" associated with DTV
    replication and maximization, and provides for such modifications
    when necessary to "a full-power station's allotted parameters or
    *channel assignment* in the digital television Table of Allotments."
    This language indicates that maximization encompasses channel
    changes as well as site changes and changes to technical parameters.
    Thus, stations that have filed an application for maximization or a
    notice of intent to maximize by December 31, 1999 and an application
    for maximization by May 1, 2000 have flexibility to make adjustments
    to the facilities proposed in these maximization applications where
    necessary to resolve technical problems that prevent implementation
    of the facilities proposed in these applications.

64. We will not require full-service stations requesting an adjustment
    to the DTV Table that will cause interference to the protected
    service contour of a Class A station to demonstrate that the
    adjustment can *only* be made in this fashion. We have outlined
    above the replication and maximization rights of full-service DTV
    licensees vis-a-vis Class A facilities, and do not believe that
    imposing additional obligations on DTV licensees to justify a
    modification request is warranted. However, we note that in the
    interest of ensuring efficient spectrum utilization we may question
    modification requests that unnecessarily impinge on Class A service.
    In addition, while we will not give Class A stations affected by
    allotment adjustments made to accommodate DTV stations the automatic
    right to exchange channels with the DTV station, we will consider
    such allotment exchanges on a case-by-case basis where both parties
    consent and where the parties meet all applicable interference
    requirements on the new channel. Where we determine such swaps meet
    interference and other criteria, we will not consider competing
    applications for these channels.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
D.  **Methods of Interference Protection to Class A Facilities**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
65. [Background]{.underline}. In the CBPA, Congress did not address the
    method of providing interference protection to Class A service
    areas, other than equating these areas with LPTV signal
    contours.[^115] In the *Notice,* the Commission generally proposed
    to protect the Class A service contours in the manner that LPTV
    stations protect NTSC stations and each other.[^116] We proposed
    that applicants for NTSC stations protect Class A stations pursuant
    to the criteria in Section 74.705 of the LPTV rules.[^117] The
    *Notice* proposed that applicants for LPTV and TV translator
    stations and Class A facilities modifications protect Class A
    stations under the standards in Section 74.707.[^118] The *Notice*
    sought comment on the means by which DTV application and allotment
    proposals should protect analog and digital Class A stations, as
    well as the means for protecting such stations against interference
    from NTSC, Class A, LPTV and TV translator application proposals. We
    also invited comment on whether DTV application proposals should
    protect Class A service contours or the population receiving service
    within these contours, in the manner in which DTV stations protect
    full-service NTSC stations and each other.[^119]

66. [Decision]{.underline}. We will adopt the protection methods
    proposed in the *Notice.* We first present the standard methods for
    protecting Class A service and then discuss alternative methods that
    may be used on a waiver basis.

> **1. Analog Full-Service TV Protection to Analog Class A**

67. We will require full-service analog TV stations to protect Class A
    stations by using the criteria in Section 74.705, a position
    supported by the CBA, MSTV/NAB and other commenters. We agree with
    CBA that protection requirements generally based on distance
    separations would be impractical and spectrally inefficient because
    LPTV stations have been authorized at different antenna heights and
    powers on the basis of a contour protection methodology.[^120] Table
    1 below gives the D/U ratios that must be met or exceeded at the
    Class A protected signal contours.

    Table 1

  ------------ ----------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  Service Band Protected   Co-channel   1^st^      1^st^      14^th^     15^th^
               Class A     D/U Ratio    Upper      Lower      Upper      Upper
               Contour     (dB)         Adjacent   Adjacent   Adjacent   Adjacent
               (dBu)                    Channel    Channel    Channel    Channel
                                        D/U Ratio  D/U Ratio  D/U Ratio  D/U Ratio
                                        (dB)       (dB)       (dB)       (dB)

  Low VHF      62          \+ 28/45     \- 12      \- 6       n/a        n/a
  (channel 2                                                             
  --6)                                                                   

  High VHF     68          \+ 28/45     \- 12      \- 6       n/a        n/a
  (channels                                                              
  7-13)                                                                  

  UHF          74          \+ 28/45     \- 15      \- 15      \- 23      \- 6
  (channels                                                              
  14-69)                                                                 
  ------------ ----------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

The Class A protected signal contours are to be determined by using the
Commission F(50,50) signal propagation model. Potentially interfering
signal levels at the protected contour are to be determined by using the
F(50,10) propagation model for co-channel signals and the F(50,50) model
for the 1^st^, 14^th^ and 15^th^ adjacent channel signals.[^121]
Interference predictions will be based on the facilities proposed in the
NTSC application. Parties with pending petitions for new NTSC channel
allotments or those requesting modified channel allotments must identify
reference facilities (site coordinates and elevation above mean sea
level (msl), effective radiated power, antenna radiation center height
above msl, and, if desired, antenna radiation pattern and orientation)
for the purpose of showing the necessary contour protection.

68. We will adopt a 45 dB D/U ratio for co-channel interference
    protection for situations where a Class A station proposal does not
    specify a carrier frequency offset or where the proposed and
    protected co-channel stations specify the same offset.[^122] Where
    different offsets are specified between the proposed and protected
    stations, a 28 dB D/U ratio will apply. The TV Table of Allotments
    is constructed on the basis of frequency offsets; that is, all
    full-service TV stations operate on different offset frequencies
    with respect to their nearby co-channel stations. Offset operation
    permits significantly more efficient utilization of the broadcast
    spectrum; there is a difference of 17 dB between the co-channel D/U
    ratios for offset and nonoffset operations. The LPTV rules permit,
    but do not require offset operation. As a means of facilitating a
    "minimization of interference and maximization of service" we agree
    with du Triel, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. (du Triel) that analog Class A
    stations should operate with a carrier frequency offset and realize
    the advantages of offset operation wherever possible.[^123] Many
    LPTV stations already operate on this basis. Nevertheless, we will
    not make operation with a carrier offset a condition for an initial
    Class A license. However, we will require Class A licensees seeking
    facilities increases to specify an offset in their modification
    applications unless they can demonstrate it would not be possible to
    realize the efficiencies of offset operation. For example, a Class A
    station could be situated between three or more neighboring
    co-channel NTSC, LPTV or translator stations that use all available
    carrier offsets: plus, minus and zero. Any offset chosen by the
    Class A station would be the same as that of one of the neighboring
    stations, rendering the 28 dB co-channel D/U ratio inapplicable. In
    that event, use of the 28 dB ratio could result in interference to
    the Class A station, and, therefore, the 45 dB co-channel D/U ratio
    will be applied. [^124]

69. Section 74.705 (a) of the LPTV rules generally requires the site of
    a proposed UHF LPTV station to be located at least 100 kilometers
    from the site of a protected full-service station operating on the
    7^th^ adjacent channel above the proposed channel. It also requires
    LPTV proposals for stations with more than 50 kilowatts of effective
    radiated power to be separated by at least 32 kilometers from
    full-service stations operating on the 2^nd^, 3^rd^, and 4^th^
    adjacent channel above or below the requested channel. We disagree
    with du Triel's proposal that we eliminate the 14^th^ adjacent
    channel protection requirements in Table 1 above and the
    32-kilometers spacing requirements for protection of Class A
    stations.[^125] Du Triel states that the potential for interference
    to a Class A station from stations operating on these "UHF taboo
    channels"[^126] is limited to the immediate vicinity of the "taboo
    channel" station's transmitter site. It also notes that because of
    their secondary status, LPTV stations have been authorized without
    consideration of interference that would be caused to them by "taboo
    channel" stations and that it is unaware of any instances of
    significant interference to LPTV stations by "taboo channel"
    full-service stations. Du Triel concludes that, with declining
    spectrum availability, it is "unreasonable" to require other NTSC
    stations (full-service, Class A and LPTV) to protect Class A
    stations operating on any "taboo" channel other than the upper
    15^th^ adjacent channel, which has a greater potential for
    interference. DLR does not propose eliminating the "taboo"
    interference requirements for Class A, LPTV and TV translator
    protection of full-service NTSC stations. If the operation of a
    full-service "taboo channel " TV station, with 1 megawatt or more of
    power, would pose a minimal interference risk to Class A service,
    the much lower power levels of Class A stations would pose even less
    risk to the service of full-power stations. Thus, if we were to
    eliminate requirements to protect Class A stations from interference
    on the "taboo channels, " we would also eliminate all remaining
    requirements that Class A stations protect full-service stations
    operating on these channels. In the recently concluded DTV
    proceeding, the Commission relaxed several interference protection
    requirements for LPTV stations. While we understand du Triel's
    reasoning, it would not be appropriate to adopt further relaxation
    on the basis of the scant record on this issue in this proceeding.
    However, we believe du Triel's suggestions may warrant further
    consideration in a subsequent proceeding. We will also adopt our
    proposal in the *Notice* to accept applications for NTSC facilities
    modifications that would not create new interference to Class A
    stations, beyond the interference already predicted by the
    authorized facilities of such NTSC stations; these would include,
    for example, facilities modifications that would not further
    decrease the D/U ratios at the Class A protected contour.

> **2. Analog LPTV, TV Translator, and Class A Protection to Analog
> Class A**

70. We are adopting the proposal in the *Notice* to apply the protection
    requirements in Section 74.707 to protect Class A stations from
    LPTV, TV translators, and other Class A stations. Commenters
    supported this proposal to use the protection methods by which LPTV
    stations protect each other.[^127] This method is well-established
    and has been well-tested.

    **3. Full-Service DTV Protection to Analog Class A**

71. Where interference protection to Class A stations is required,
    full-service DTV proposals must protect the Class A service contours
    in accordance with the D/U ratios in Section 73.623(c)(2) of the DTV
    rules for "DTV into analog TV" protection.[^128] We will not
    eliminate protection requirements from DTV stations proposing
    operation on the "taboo" channels, as suggested by du Triel.[^129]
    The potential for interference to Class A stations, du Triel
    contends, would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the "taboo"
    channel DTV station's transmitter site. However, neither du Triel
    nor any other commenter analyzes the extent of such interference.
    Moreover, digital Class A stations, with significantly lower power
    levels, will be required to protect NTSC stations on the taboo
    channels. Parties filing petitions to amend the DTV Table, where
    required to protect Class A stations, must specify reference
    facilities that meet the above criteria. Several commenters favor
    basing protection on the provisions in Sections 73.622 of the DTV
    rules and OET Bulletin 69 ("OET 69") or, alternatively, allowing use
    of this methodology where contour protection requirements cannot be
    met. [^130] We agree that use of the methods by which DTV stations
    protect full-service NTSC stations would permit flexibility and
    could provide more accurate predictions of interference. However, at
    this time we will not adopt Class A protection standards centered
    around these methods. To do so would require extensive revisions to
    the computer interference model (FLR) used by the Commission and
    outside engineers to include the effects of LPTV, TV translator, and
    Class A stations. For now, the contour protection approach is
    straight forward and can be readily implemented without unduly
    affecting the preparation and processing of DTV applications. We
    will, however, permit use of the Longley-Rice terrain dependent
    propagation model and OET Bulletin 69 to support waivers of the
    Class A interference protection requirements. We will also permit
    Class A station and full-service station parties to negotiate
    interference agreements.

    **4. Full-Service NTSC and DTV Protection to Digital Class A**

72. We will require full-service NTSC and DTV proposals to protect
    digital Class A service contours based on the protection ratios
    (D/U) in Section 73.623(c)(2) of the DTV rules for "Analog TV into
    DTV" and "DTV into DTV."[^131] These ratios must be met or exceeded
    at the protected digital signal contours of Class A stations. Where
    protection to a Class A station is required, parties filing
    petitions to amend the TV or DTV allotment tables must specify
    reference facilities that meet the applicable requirements. We will
    permit the use of OET 69 type showings in support of requests to
    waive these requirements, and we will permit interference agreements
    among the affected parties.

> **5. LPTV, TV Translator, and Class A Modification Protection to
> Digital Class A**

73. We will adopt the requirements in Section 74.706 of the LPTV rules
    for the contour protection of digital Class A stations.[^132]
    Application proposals for analog LPTV, TV translator and those of
    Class A facilities modifications must protect the service contours
    of digital Class A stations to the extent provided by the D/U ratios
    in this rule. Application proposals for digital Class A stations
    must protect the service contours of other digital Class A stations
    to the extent provided by the "DTV into DTV" D/U ratios of Section
    73.623(c) of the Commission's Rules. For both analog and digital
    applicants, we will permit terrain shielding, OET 69- type analysis,
    or interference agreements in support of requests to waive the
    protection requirements.

> **6. Alternative Means of Interference Protection**

74. LPTV and TV translator applicants currently are permitted to support
    requests for waiver of certain interference protection rules on the
    basis of D/U ratio protection for co-located stations on 1^st^ and
    14^th^ adjacent channels, terrain shielding and Longley-Rice terrain
    dependent propagation and OET 69-type methods.[^133] We are not
    adopting protection standards for Class A service based on these
    methods. However, we agree with AFCCE and other commenters that we
    should permit use of available means of interference analysis to
    support requests to waive the Class A contour protection
    requirements.[^134] We will permit waiver requests to be supported
    by interference analysis based on OET Bulletin 69, D/U ratios,
    terrain shielding and other considerations. With regard to OET
    Bulletin 69 studies, we will not permit a *de minimis* interference
    allowance. Interference among full-service stations that is *de
    minimis* usually occurs in the outer reaches of a station's service
    area between the NTSC Grade A and Grade B contours. Analog and
    digital Class A stations will not receive interference protection to
    the Grade B contour. Their protected service contours will be
    similar in extent to an NTSC station's Grade A contour, which is not
    nearly as vulnerable to *de minimis* service population reductions.
    Class A service areas will be smaller and to a greater extent more
    interference-limited than those of full-service stations. The
    viewing audience beyond the Class A LPTV service contour is
    unprotected, and we believe it would be unfair to subject Class A
    stations to additional reductions in service population. For these
    reasons we will not at this time apply a *de minimis* interference
    allowance to the protection of Class A stations.[^135] Where
    analysis is based on OET Bulletin 69 methods, we will allow a
    "service population" rounding tolerance of 0.5%, which is also
    allowed for NTSC applicants protecting DTV service. We will permit
    OET 69-type studies to take into account reductions in a Class A
    service population due to predicted interference from existing
    full-service, LPTV and TV translator stations (the "masking" of
    service) and, on this basis, applicants may demonstrate that their
    proposed facilities would not result in additional interference
    within the protected contours of Class A stations. [^136]

75. We concur with commenters who favor permitting Class A stations to
    enter into interference or relocation agreements with full-service,
    LPTV, TV translator and other Class A licensees, permittees or
    applicants.[^137] Paxson notes that full-service stations may now
    enter into voluntary channel coordination and interference
    agreements and believes that Class A stations with "quasi-primary"
    status should similarly be permitted to enter into agreements to
    resolve interference concerns.[^138] Our rules permit DTV stations
    to negotiate interference agreements with other analog and DTV
    stations, including the exchange of money or other
    compensation.[^139] Agreements will be approved if the Commission
    finds them to be consistent with the public interest.[^140] LPTV and
    TV translator licensees, permittees and applicants are also
    permitted to enter into interference agreements, such as those
    involving terrain shielding. We are persuaded that Class A stations
    should also be permitted to negotiate interference agreements or
    relocation arrangements with full-service, low power service and
    other Class A licensees, permittees or applicants. Agreements may
    include monetary compensation or other considerations from one
    station to another. Agreements must be submitted with the related
    applications for initial or modified broadcast facilities. The
    Commission will grant applications submitted pursuant to agreements
    if it finds the public interest would be served.

    **E. Methods of Interference Protection by Class A to Other
    Facilities**

**1. Class A Protection of NTSC**

76. [Background]{.underline}. With respect to NTSC facilities, Section
    (f)(7)(A) of the CBPA provides that a Class A license or
    modification of license may not be granted where the station will
    cause interference "within the predicted Grade B contour \..."[^141]
    In the *Notice*, we proposed that applicants for Class A stations
    protect the NTSC Grade B contour in the manner given in Section
    74.705 of the LPTV rules, indicating that would be more appropriate
    than establishing a new and different form of interference
    protection. We tentatively concluded that Class A applicants should
    be permitted to utilize all means for interference analysis afforded
    to LPTV stations in the DTV proceeding, including the Longley-Rice
    terrain-dependent propagation model.

77. [Decision]{.underline}. We are adopting the proposal from the
    *Notice*. It is supported by most of the commenters that addressed
    this issue.[^142] However, SBE suggests a different analysis based
    on the Longley-Rice propagation model with an NTSC TV station
    allowed to object if a Class A station would be the source of unique
    (not masked) interference to any viewers.[^143] SBE also indicates
    that this interference analysis should be based on the proposed main
    beam effective radiated power (ERP) and not on the ERP toward the
    radio horizon that LPTV and TV translator applicants are now
    permitted to use.[^144] We believe the SBE proposals would add
    unnecessary complexity to a well-established and well-tested
    process. Class A stations can be established without undue risk of
    excessive interference to NTSC TV stations if the Class A facilities
    conform to the LPTV protection standards contained in Section 74.705
    of our rules. Moreover, where a requested Class A station does not
    provide the protection required by that rule, Section 74.705(e)
    specifies that a waiver can be requested based on terrain shielding
    and use of the Longley-Rice model to demonstrate that actual
    interference would not be predicted to occur.

    **2. Class A Protection of DTV**

78. [Background]{.underline}. With respect to DTV, the statute provides
    that Class A applicants must protect the DTV service areas provided
    in the DTV Table of Allotments and the areas protected in the
    Commission\'s digital television regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.622(e)
    and (f)).[^145] Thus, Class A stations may not interfere with DTV
    broadcasters\' ability to replicate insofar as possible their NTSC
    service areas.[^146] In the *Notice*, we indicated we believed it
    would be appropriate for Class A applicants to determine
    noninterference to DTV in the same manner as applicants for
    full-service NTSC facilities. Thus, we proposed that Class A
    facilities would not be permitted to increase the population
    receiving interference within a DTV broadcaster\'s replicated
    service area or other protected service area. We would not permit
    Class A stations to cause *de minimis* levels of interference to DTV
    service, other than a 0.5% rounding allowance.[^147] Criteria for
    protecting DTV service are given in Sections 73.622 and 73.623 of
    our rules and in OET Bulletin 69.[^148]

79. [Decision]{.underline}. We are adopting the proposal from the
    *Notice* regarding Class A protection of DTV service. Analog and
    digital Class A station proposals generally will be subject to the
    protection criteria in Sections 73.622 and 73.623 of our rules and
    in OET Bulletin 69*.* Commenters generally supported this
    proposal.[^149] Some commenters question allowing interference to
    0.5% of the DTV service population as a rounding tolerance. NAB/MSTV
    are concerned about the cumulative effect of several Class A
    stations. SBE suggests that a DTV station should be allowed to
    object if a Class A station would be the source of unique (not
    masked) interference to any viewers in its authorized service area,
    although it agrees with use of the 0.5% criteria for interference to
    allotted DTV facilities.[^150] Media-Com Television, Inc.
    (Media-Com) supports the DTV interference analysis procedure, but
    suggests that we should allow interference to 2% of the population
    served by the DTV station to be considered *de minimis*, as we
    generally allow that amount of interference to be caused by other
    DTV stations. We are not persuaded that more than 0.5% interference
    should be allowed. Full-service NTSC stations are limited to that
    amount and the statute does not require higher status for Class A
    stations in this regard. Neither are we convinced that any one DTV
    station will be subject to interference from so many Class A
    stations that the cumulative loss of DTV service would be
    significant. Finally, we note that the statute provides that Class A
    applicants also must protect the DTV service areas provided in the
    DTV Table of Allotments and the DTV Table includes approximately 40
    vacant noncommercial educational DTV allotments that must be
    protected.[^151]

    **3. Protection of LPTV and TV Translators**

80. [Background]{.underline}. The CBPA requires Class A stations to
    protect previously authorized LPTV and low-power TV translator
    stations (license and/or construction permit), as well as previously
    filed applications for these facilities. Specifically, section
    (f)(7)(B) of the statute provides that the Commission may not grant
    an application for a Class A license or modification of license
    unless the applicant shows that the Class A station will not cause
    interference within the protected contour of any LPTV or low-power
    TV translator station that was licensed, or for which a construction
    permit was issued, or for which a pending application was filed,
    prior to the date the Class A application was filed.[^152] In the
    *Notice*, we proposed to require that Class A stations protect the
    LPTV and TV translator protected contours on the basis of the
    standards given in Section 74.707 of the LPTV rules, *i.e.*, on the
    basis of compliance with certain desired-to-undesired signal
    strength ratios.

81. [Decision]{.underline}. We are adopting the proposal from the
    *Notice.* Commenters generally supported this proposal.[^153] SBE
    did request that we clarify that the specified LPTV and TV
    translator protection rule involves contour overlap prohibitions and
    not simply application of desired-to-undesired signal strength
    ratios. We will require protection pursuant to all provisions in
    Section 74.707 of the rules, which are based on prohibited contour
    overlap. For purposes of implementing Section (f)(7)(B) of the CBPA,
    we agree with K Licensee, Inc. (K Licensee) that interference caused
    within the protected contour of a licensed LPTV or TV translator
    station or that of a construction permit or pending application
    should not be counted against an applicant for a Class A
    authorization if that interference is permitted by the LPTV rules,
    taking into account the manner in which LPTV and TV translator
    stations are authorized.[^154] The rules require new LPTV stations
    to protect existing LPTV and TV translator stations within their
    defined protected contours.[^155] However, the rules do not prohibit
    new stations from receiving interference from existing stations.
    LPTV and TV translator stations may also enter into written
    agreements to accept interference from other LPTV or TV translator
    stations.[^156] As a result of these provisions, many LPTV stations
    or proposed stations may be predicted to receive interference within
    their protected contours from earlier-authorized stations.[^157] We
    believe it would be inconsistent with the objectives of the CBPA to
    count such permissible interference against applicants for Class A
    stations, nor should interference resulting from a negotiated
    agreement be counted. We are not permitting LPTV licensees to
    request facilities modifications in their applications for initial
    Class A authorizations. Therefore, any interference from existing
    LPTV facilities within the protected contours of later authorized
    and proposed LPTV and TV translator facilities is permitted by the
    LPTV rules and will be grandfathered for the purposes of Section
    (f)(7)(B) of the CBPA.

    **4. Land Mobile Radio Services and TV Channel 16**

82. [Background]{.underline}. Section (f)(7)(C) of the CBPA provides
    that the Commission may not grant a Class A license or modification
    of license where the Class A station will cause interference within
    the protected contour 80 miles from the geographic center of the
    areas listed in Sections 22.625(b)(1) or 90.303 of the Commission's
    rules (47 C.F.R. §§ 22.625(b)(1), 90.303) for frequencies in the
    470-512 megahertz band identified in sections 22.621 or 90.303 of
    our rules (47 C.F.R. §§ 22.621, 90.303), or in the 482-488 megahertz
    band in New York. This provision protects land mobile radio
    services, which have been allocated the use of TV channels 14-20 in
    certain urban areas of the country, as well as Channel 16 in New
    York City metropolitan area. In the *Notice*, we proposed that these
    land mobile operations be protected by Class A applicants in the
    manner prescribed in Section 74.709 of the LPTV rules.

83. We also sought comment on whether the requirement to protect channel
    16 in the New York metropolitan area applies to low power television
    station WEBR-LP, licensed to K Licensee, Inc. (K Licensee) for New
    York City and discussed details of its history.[^158] In view of a
    Senate colloquy between Senators Burns, Moynihan and Hatch, and the
    terms of a condition on the grant of the waiver that permitted the
    land mobile use of channel 16 in New York, we indicated that we were
    inclined to agree that station WEBR-LP is excepted from the
    requirement to show interference protection to use of channel 16 in
    the New York City metropolitan area.

84. [Decision]{.underline}. With respect to general land mobile
    protection, we are adopting our proposal to use the criteria in
    Section 74.709 of the rules. This proposal was supported by the NY
    Police and no commenters opposed it.[^159] With respect to the
    Channel 16 New York City situation, the NY Police object to the
    premise that there is no obligation for WEBR-LP, due to the waiver,
    to protect land mobile operations, indicating that the *Notice*
    ignores the current practice between the member public safety
    agencies and WEBR-LP to coordinate actions and ensure that neither
    party interferes with the other's transmission. K Licensee argues
    that the Commission must implement specific interference
    requirements in a manner consistent with congressional intent and
    with sensitivity to the impact such implementation will have on
    deserving stations such as WEBR-LP, the only free Korean-language
    licensee serving New York City metropolitan area.[^160] We believe
    that it is most consistent with the statutory scheme and with the
    waiver granted for public safety land mobile use of Channel 16 in
    New York City that WEBR-LP and the NY Police continue to cooperate
    to ensure that neither party interferes with the other's
    transmission on Channel 16. The parties have entered into a written
    agreement pursuant to which they will advise each other at least 60
    days in advance of any change, alteration, or modification in its
    transmission facilities that may adversely affect or cause
    interference to the other party's communications system(s).[^161] As
    requested by both parties, we have included a copy of this agreement
    in the record of this proceeding, and will include it in the record
    of any application filed by WEBR-LP to become a Class A television
    station. We believe that the current situation is satisfactory and
    that continued cooperation between the parties will permit maximal
    use of the spectrum in New York City.

    **F. Change Applications**

85. [Background]{.underline}. Section (f)(1)(E) of the CBPA provides for
    protection of a DTV station that has been granted a construction
    permit to maximize or significantly enhance its digital television
    service area and later files an application for a change in
    facilities that reduces its digital television service area. In such
    a case, the statute provides that the protected contour of the DTV
    station "shall be reduced in accordance with such change
    modification."[^162] In the *Notice*, we stated our belief that the
    protection of the reduced coverage area would become effective upon
    grant of the application that requested the reduced facilities and
    that, in these circumstances, Class A stations would no longer need
    to protect the service area produced by the "replication" facilities
    established in the initial DTV Table of Allotments. We stated our
    expectation that few, if any, DTV stations would follow this course,
    and invited comment on our interpretation of this provision.[^163]

86. [Decision]{.underline}. In the event that a DTV station that has
    been granted a construction permit to maximize or significantly
    enhance its digital television service area later files an
    application to reduce its digital television service area, the
    protected contour of that station will be the reduced digital
    service area as long as that area is not less than the area
    resulting from the "replication" facilities provided in the DTV
    Table of Allotments. Where a DTV station chooses to operate with
    technical parameters less than those allotted in DTV Table, we will
    require Class A stations to nonetheless protect the service area
    produced by the "replication" facilities established in the Table.
    We agree with MSTV/NAB that the service areas in the DTV Table
    represent the minimum degree of interference protection that must be
    accorded by Class A stations to full-service stations.[^164] Section
    (f)(7)(A)(ii)(I) of the CBPA requires that Class A stations cause no
    interference to the digital service areas provided in the
    Table.[^165]

87. ALTV argues that the Commission should distinguish between
    full-service stations that intend to lower their coverage areas
    permanently, and those that file change applications to lower power
    on only a temporary basis to, for example, avoid technical problems
    or meet short-term marketplace realities during the DTV
    transition.[^166] We will not adopt the ALTV proposal. The CBPA
    itself does not draw a distinction between a temporary and a
    permanent reduction in service area. Moreover, as a practical
    matter, a station given the option would be likely to characterize
    any reduction in service area as "temporary," if only to preserve
    the value of the station even if larger facilities for the station
    are not contemplated in the future. We believe it is most consistent
    with the intent underlying section (f)(1)(E) of the statute, and
    with Congress' goal of balancing the competing needs of DTV and
    Class A stations, to require Class A stations to protect only the
    reduced service area of full-service stations in the circumstances
    described by (f)(1)(E), as long as those facilities are not less
    than the replication facilities provided in the DTV Table of
    Allotments.

**G. Common Ownership**

88. [Background]{.underline}. The CBPA provides that no LPTV station
    "authorized as of the date of the enactment of the \[CBPA\] may be
    disqualified for a Class A license based on common ownership with
    any other medium of mass communication."[^167] Thus, stations
    authorized as of November 29, 1999 may seek Class A status without
    regard to the station owner's interest in any other media entity. In
    the *Notice*, we sought comment on the appropriate interpretation of
    this provision. We asked whether the ownership exemption confers a
    right to convert only, or whether it also confers a right to
    transfer the station regardless of the buyer's cross media
    interests, and whether it insulates an owner from application of the
    common ownership rules with respect to any new cross media ownership
    acquired after conversion to Class A. We tentatively concluded that
    no LPTV station, regardless of when authorized, should be
    disqualified from Class A status based on common ownership with
    other media entities.

89. [Decision]{.underline}. After review of the record, we will adopt
    our initial tentative conclusion and will not impose any common
    ownership limitations on holders of the new Class A licenses. We
    agree with the commenters who argue that Congress intended that
    Class A stations be exempt from existing common ownership
    requirements and that this exemption should apply when a license is
    subsequently transferred to a buyer with other media
    interests.[^168] As noted above, Congress directed that common
    ownership with any other medium of mass communication will not
    disqualify a potential Class A licensee. We believe that the only
    logical outgrowth of Congress' language here is that the lack of
    common ownership rules would also apply to transferred ownership.

**H. Issuance of DTV Licenses to Class A, TV Translator, and LPTV
Stations**

90. [Background]{.underline}. We stated in the *Notice* that the CBPA
    provides that the Commission is not required to issue an additional
    DTV license to a Class A station licensee or to a licensee of a TV
    translator,[^169] but the Commission "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."[^170]

91. We sought comment in the *Notice* on this provision and how to
    implement it. We asked whether this provision means that the
    Commission does not need to identify a paired DTV channel for each
    Class A station or TV translator, but that the Commission should
    authorize a paired channel for DTV operation if the Class A or TV
    translator station licensee identifies and applies for an acceptable
    channel. We noted that this interpretation might create an apparent
    inequity with respect to full-service permittees and licensees that
    do not have a paired DTV channel because they received their initial
    station construction permit after the April 3, 1997 date used to
    define eligibility for the initial paired DTV licenses.

92. [Decision]{.underline}. As an initial matter, we note that Class A
    stations may convert their existing channel to digital broadcasting
    at any time.[^171] However, we conclude that the plain reading of
    the CBPA, as well as the legislative history of the Act,[^172] does
    not require us to issue an additional license for DTV services to
    Class A or TV translator licensees, but does require us to accept
    DTV applications from licensees of Class A or TV translator stations
    that meet the interference protection requirements that are
    identified in the statute.[^173]

93. Most commenters that address this issue agree with our
    interpretation of these requirements. For example, APTS notes that
    the statute merely requires that we \"shall accept\" a DTV license
    application from such entities and does not require approval of the
    application,[^174] while Turnpike contends that LPTV stations are
    converting from secondary to primary status and should have the
    option of applying for a digital simulcast channel \"just like the
    other television licensees in Part 73.\"[^175] CBA and USAB argue
    that Class A stations should be permitted to apply for a second
    channel for DTV at any time.[^176] WB, however, argues that we
    should not permit Class A stations to apply for a second DTV
    channel, but should limit them to filing applications to convert
    from NTSC to DTV on existing channels.[^177]

94. As we stated in the *Notice*, there currently are a number of
    full-service permittees and licensees who do not have a paired DTV
    channel because they received their construction permits after the
    cut-off date for eligibility for the initial paired DTV licenses.
    Some commenters contend that, if we decide to award additional
    channels for DTV, we should give priority to such full-service
    licensees and permittees who are currently precluded from applying
    for a paired DTV channel. WB, for example, suggests that any
    additional channels should first be awarded to full-service
    licensees, and that we should apply to Class A licensees the same
    technical and service rules as are applied to full-service
    licensees.[^178]

95. Although the statute requires us to accept Class A applications for
    additional DTV licenses, it does not direct us to issue such
    licenses to Class A licensees. We agree with MSTV and NAB that we
    should exercise restraint with respect to issuing additional DTV
    licenses in order to preserve spectrum to accommodate needs
    associated with the transition of full-service stations to digital
    service.[^179] Moreover, we find that the various issues concerning
    the means of issuing additional DTV licenses for Class A stations to
    be outside the scope of this rulemaking. We note that the transition
    to DTV is scheduled to end in 2006, and that a number of issues
    regarding the transition are yet to be resolved in future DTV
    proceedings. We therefore defer matters regarding the issuance of
    additional DTV licenses for Class A stations to a future rulemaking.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
I.  **Interim Qualifications**

    **1. Stations Operating Between 698 and 806 MHz**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
96. [Background]{.underline}. Section (f)(6)(A) of the CBPA provides
    that the Commission may not grant a Class A license to an LPTV
    station for operation between 698 and 806 megahertz (television
    broadcast channels 52 -- 69).[^180] Thus, only LPTV stations
    operating on channels in the core spectrum (television broadcast
    channels 2 through 51) are eligible for Class A status. That section
    also provides, however, that the Commission shall provide to LPTV
    stations assigned to and temporarily operating between 698 and 806
    megahertz the opportunity to meet the qualification requirements for
    a Class A license. If a qualified Class A applicant is assigned a
    channel within the core spectrum, the statute further provides that
    the Commission shall issue a Class A license simultaneously with the
    assignment of the in-core channel.

97. We pointed out in the *Notice* that this provision does not address
    when a station operating outside the core channels becomes eligible
    for contour protection. We stated that we were inclined to provide
    protection to such stations only when the station is assigned a
    channel within the core spectrum, and requested comment on this
    proposal. We also requested comment on whether Class A status and
    contour protection should commence with the grant of a construction
    permit on the in-core channel or a license to cover
    construction.[^181]

98. We also invited comment in the *Notice* on Section (f)(5) of the
    CBPA, which stipulates that the provisions of the statute do not
    preempt or otherwise affect Section 337 of the Communications
    Act.[^182] As we stated in the *Notice,* Section 337 addresses two
    matters relevant to Class A television. First, Section 337 involves
    the reallocation and licensing of TV channels 60-69, which, pursuant
    to Section (f)(6)(A) of the CBPA, are not available to Class A
    stations. Second, Section 337 contains certain provisions for LPTV
    stations already authorized to operate on TV channels 60-69. In the
    Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Budget Act),[^183] Congress required
    that the Commission \"seek to assure\" that a qualifying LPTV
    station authorized on a channel from channel 60 to channel 69 be
    assigned a channel below channel 60 to permit its continued
    operation.[^184] In the DTV proceeding, we amended our rules to
    permit all LPTV stations on channels 60 to 69 to file displacement
    relief applications at any time requesting a channel below channel
    60, even where there is no predicted or actual interference
    conflict.[^185] We have received more than 300 such displacement
    applications from LPTV and TV translator stations operating on these
    channels. These applications have a higher priority than all other
    nondisplacement applications for LPTV and TV translators, regardless
    of when the applications were filed. Other LPTV and TV translator
    stations on channels 60 - 69 have so far elected not to file
    displacement applications, but may do so at any time provided they
    protect the proposed facilities of earlier-filed displacement
    applications. The Commission has not selected channels for
    qualifying LPTV stations; however, it has provided the opportunity
    for affected stations to seek channels below channel 60 on a
    priority basis. We believe this meets our obligation under Section
    337 to assist qualifying LPTV stations on channels 60-69.

99. In contrast, stations on channels 52-59 are not currently entitled
    to the presumption of displacement extended to stations on channels
    60-69, and instead are entitled to seek displacement relief only
    where there is an actual or potential interference conflict,
    including a conflict with a DTV co-channel allotment. Operators on
    channels 52-59 nonetheless face displacement when channels 52-59 are
    reclaimed at the end of the DTV transition, and will be barred from
    becoming Class A stations if they cannot secure a replacement
    channel below channel 52. We sought comment in the *Notice* on
    whether the presumption of displacement should be extended to LPTV
    and TV translator stations authorized on channels 52 - 59, giving
    these operators an immediate opportunity to seek replacement
    channels while such channels might still be available.[^186]

100. [Decision]{.underline}. We will extend the presumption of
     displacement to LPTV stations and TV translators authorized on
     channels 52-59. We will permit these stations to file displacement
     applications immediately if they can locate a replacement channel
     within the core spectrum. The majority of the commenters that
     addressed this issue supported extending the presumption of
     displacement to these stations.[^187] Many of these stations would
     be barred from becoming Class A stations if they cannot secure a
     replacement channel below channel 52. We believe it is most
     consistent with Congress' intent to provide qualified LPTV stations
     the opportunity to obtain Class A status to permit such stations on
     channels 52-59 to seek a replacement channel now on which they may
     apply for a Class A license. Any displacement applications filed by
     LPTV (Class A or non-Class A) or TV translators will receive equal
     treatment for processing purposes.

101. We recognize that full-service NTSC broadcasters on channels 52-59
     may also seek to relocate to an in-core channel and such a proposal
     may conflict with a displacement application filed by an LPTV
     station seeking to move from channels 52-59.[^188] For the time
     being, these full-service stations may continue to operate on their
     present channel and most of them have an in-core paired DTV channel
     allotment. Nevertheless, we do not want to grant a displacement
     application that might preclude a move to an in-core channel
     without giving these broadcasters an opportunity to seek such a
     channel change. The process for the full-service station moving to
     an in-core channel involves filing a petition for rule making
     seeking to amend the TV Table of Allotments. The Commission invites
     comments on the proposal in a Notice of Proposed Rule Making and
     based on the record, decides whether or not to make the proposed
     change in a Report and Order. Conflicting proposals, referred to as
     counterproposals, must be filed during the time period for initial
     comments, so that an opportunity exists for comments on the
     counterproposal to be filed during the time period allowed for
     reply comments. In order to be considered in a channel-change
     rulemaking proceeding, a conflicting displacement application from
     an LPTV station that has been determined to be eligible for Class A
     status must be filed by the end of the initial comment filing
     period. Conflicting displacement applications filed after that date
     will be dismissed.

102. Where such a preclusive displacement application seeking to move
     from channels 52-59 to an in-core channel is filed by an LPTV
     station eligible for Class A status before a full-service
     rulemaking petition, we believe it is appropriate to allow a
     similar, limited opportunity for a conflicting proposal to be
     filed. Complete and acceptable displacement applications are
     announced in a Commission Public Notice called a "Proposed Grant
     List." We will identify any displacement applications filed by
     Class A eligible stations in future Proposed Grant Lists. Petitions
     for a channel change filed by a full-service NTSC licensee or
     permittee must be filed not later than 30 days from the release of
     the Public Notice proposing grant of a conflicting displacement
     application. Conflicting TV rulemaking petitions filed after that
     date must protect the Class A eligible LPTV station's displacement
     application. Similarly, we will apply the same procedures and time
     periods to other displacement applications filed by LPTV stations
     eligible for Class A status, seeking to move from channels 60-69,
     or from one in-core channel to another to avoid DTV or new NTSC
     interference.

103. We will require LPTV stations on channels 52-59 that are seeking
     Class A status to have filed a certification of eligibility within
     the time frame established in the statute (*i.e*., by January 28,
     2000). When a qualified LPTV station outside the core seeking Class
     A status locates an in-core channel, we will require the station to
     file a Class A application simultaneously with its application for
     modification of license to move to the in-core channel. We will
     provide interference protection to such stations on the in-core
     channel from the date of grant of a construction permit for the
     in-core channel. As the CBPA prohibits the award of Class A status
     to stations outside the core, we believe it would be inconsistent
     with the statute to provide interference protection on a channel
     outside the core. We believe it is appropriate to commence contour
     protection with the award of a construction permit on the in-core
     channel, rather than a license to cover construction, as these
     permittees will have already certified their eligibility for Class
     A status. Unlike other Class A applicants, we will not require LPTV
     licensees on out-of-core channels seeking Class A status to file a
     Class A application within 6 months of the date of adoption of this
     order. The CBPA provides that, if a qualified applicant for a Class
     A license operating on an out-of-core channel locates an in-core
     channel, the Commission "shall issue a Class A license
     simultaneously with the assignment of such channel." The statute
     does not impose a time limit on the filing of such applications.
     Accordingly, we will not impose any time limit on the filing of a
     Class A application by LPTV licensees operating on channels outside
     the core. However, we believe that, in most cases, it would be in
     the best interest of qualified LPTV stations operating outside the
     core to try to locate an in-core channel now, as the core spectrum
     is becoming increasingly crowded and it is likely to become
     increasingly difficult to locate an in-core channel in the future.

     **2. Channels Off-Limits**

104. [Background]{.underline}. Section (f)(6)(B) of the CBPA provides
     that the FCC may not grant a Class A license to an LPTV station
     operating on any of the 175 additional channel allotments
     referenced in paragraph 45 of the Commission's February 23, 1998
     *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Sixth
     Report and Order* in MM Docket 87-268.[^189] In that *Order*, the
     Commission expanded the DTV core spectrum to include all channels
     2-51, and noted that this expansion would add approximately 175
     additional channels for DTV stations and other new digital data
     services, many in top markets. The CBPA further requires that the
     Commission identify the channel, location and applicable technical
     parameters of those 175 channels within 18 months after the date of
     enactment of the CBPA. We stated in the *Notice* that these
     additional 175 DTV allotments will be part of the spectrum
     reclaimed at the end of the transition when existing stations end
     their dual channel analog TV/DTV operation and begin providing only
     DTV service on a single channel. Some stations will be continuing
     DTV operation on their DTV channel. Other stations will convert to
     DTV operation on their analog channel. In either case, the channel
     on which these stations discontinue operation may become available
     for other parties. We stated our belief in the *Notice* that the
     protection of these DTV allotments that will become available after
     the transition is effectively provided now because either analog TV
     or DTV stations are currently authorized and protected on these
     channels at these locations, and sought comment on our
     interpretation of this provision. Alternatively, we asked if we
     should interpret the CBPA to prohibit the authorization of Class A
     service on TV channels 2-6, which were added to the permanent core
     spectrum in the DTV proceeding.[^190]

105. [Decision]{.underline}. We continue to believe that the requirement
     of section (f)(6)(B) of the CBPA that we protect the 175 channel
     allotments referenced in the Commission's *Sixth Report and
     Order*[^191] in the DTV proceeding from Class A stations is
     effectively accomplished now because these channels are occupied by
     existing NTSC or DTV allotments. These channels will become
     available for other parties once full-power stations discontinue
     operation on one of their paired channels at the end of the DTV
     transition. Commenters that addressed this issue agreed with this
     view.[^192] Accordingly, we need not take further steps at this
     time to protect these channels from Class A service, and need not
     adopt our alternative proposal of prohibiting the authorization of
     Class A service on television channels 2-6.

**J. Class A Applications**

**1. Application Forms**

106. [Background]{.underline}. We are required, under the terms of the
     CBPA, to award Class A licenses within 30 days after receipt of
     acceptable applications.[^193] In the *Notice*, we proposed to
     grant initial Class A status as a modification of an existing LPTV
     station's license, and to limit those conversions to those stations
     with no change in facilities. We also proposed that applications be
     accepted if they met a "substantially complete" standard. We
     further proposed to require that LPTV stations seeking Class A
     status file FCC Forms 302 and 301 for facilities modifications if
     we placed Class A service under Part 73, and Forms 347 and 346 if
     the service was placed under Part 74.

107. [Decision]{.underline}. We have created a streamlined license
     application form to be used by LPTV stations that seek to convert
     to Class A status. That form, Form 302-CA, requires a series of
     certifications by the Class A applicant and is attached to this
     *Report and Order*.[^194] Where a construction permit to modify
     licensed facilities has been issued, a licensee may choose whether
     to file its Class A application on its license or on its authorized
     construction permit. Until that choice is made, we will protect the
     facilities reflected in the construction permit. We will not
     require a letter perfect application, but will accept applications
     on a "substantially complete" basis and will process them, as
     required by the statute, within 30 days unless the applications
     contain omissions or face challenges. For subsequent modification
     applications, Class A stations will be required to submit modified
     versions of Forms 301 and 302, to be released at a later date.

108. Normally, license applicants are not required to provide local
     public notice of their applications. However, since the nature of
     the underlying service is changing from secondary to primary
     service, Class A license applicants will be required to provide
     local public notice of their applications. Two weeks before and
     after submission of their applications, Class A applicants must
     provide weekly announcements to their listeners informing them that
     the applicant has applied for a Class A license, and announcing the
     public's ability to comment on the application prior to Commission
     action.

> **2. Class A Facilities Changes**

109. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we proposed to define
     Class A minor facilities modifications like full-service television
     stations, to permit Class A stations the flexibility to change
     facilities outside of filing windows. Under this flexible approach,
     Class A stations could seek authorization for a minor change
     outside both filing windows and auction procedures. Channel changes
     would continue to be considered major changes. The *Notice* sought
     comment on whether Class A stations proposing facilities changes
     should be required to protect the maximum facilities of
     full-service stations and, if so, whether we should apply a
     reciprocal rule to protect the maximum facilities of Class A
     stations.

110. [Decision]{.underline}. We will adopt our proposal to define Class
     A facilities modifications in a manner that permits greater
     flexibility and does not require window application filings for
     most changes.[^195] Channel change requests, other than changes in
     frequency offset, will be considered major changes. All other
     proposed facilities changes will be considered "minor", including
     changes in station power, antenna height and antenna horizontal
     radiation pattern and orientation of directional antenna. Proposed
     changes in transmitting antenna site location will also be
     classified as minor, provided the protected signal contour
     resulting from the relocated site would overlap some portion of the
     protected contour based on the Class A station's authorized
     facilities.[^196] This approach will permit flexibility, while
     preventing Class A stations from relocating completely away from
     the viewing audiences they presently serve. Proposed site
     relocations that do meet this requirement will be considered major
     changes. Proposed changes in Class A facilities must meet
     applicable interference protection requirements with respect to DTV
     allotments, authorized DTV and NTSC TV service and must protect
     those pending station proposals that full-service NTSC TV
     applicants are required to protect. In addition, the CBPA requires
     proposals for Class A facilities changes to protect licensed LPTV
     and TV translator facilities, those authorized by construction
     permit, and those proposed in pending applications filed with the
     Commission prior to the filing of the Class A application.[^197]

111. Commenters are divided on whether proposed Class A facilities
     changes should be required to protect NTSC TV service based on
     authorized or maximum permissible facilities. Several commenters
     favor protection of maximum facilities. MSTV and NAB contend that
     this is necessary so as not to threaten the ability of DTV stations
     to return to their analog channels at the end of the DTV transition
     without incurring a loss of service area.[^198] However, we agree
     with du Treil and other commenters that this approach is not
     spectrally efficient because it would require protection of
     facilities that could never be authorized due to interference
     constraints.[^199] As a result, Class A licensees could be
     unnecessarily hindered in seeking facilities changes or locating
     replacement channels in the event of channel displacement.
     Therefore, Class A facilities modification proposals will be
     required to protect full-service TV Grade B contours based on
     authorized facilities. We will, however, permit full-service NTSC
     and Class A station licensees and permittees to file mutually
     exclusive minor change applications until grant of the pending NTSC
     and Class A minor change applications. Mutually exclusive
     applications will be resolved through the auction process in the
     event the parties do not eliminate the mutual exclusivity through
     "minor" engineering amendments to their applications. We will give
     notice of Class A facilities minor change applications in the
     manner notice is given for such NTSC TV applications. We will not
     establish a petition to deny period for Class A minor change
     applications; however, these applications will be subject to the
     filing of informal objections. We will also adopt the above
     provisions for digital Class A stations. Class A stations may file
     minor change applications for the purpose of converting to digital
     operations on their analog channels.

112. As contemplated in the *Notice*, we will apply the more inclusive
     definition of minor facilities changes to TV translator and
     non-Class A LPTV stations in order to provide additional
     flexibility to these stations. NTA indicates that translators and
     non Class A LPTV stations would also benefit from the ability to
     file most facilities changes outside of application filing
     windows.[^200] We will continue authorizing in the normal manner
     those LPTV and TV translator applications that are filed pursuant
     to the current minor change definition in the LPTV rules.[^201]
     Minor change application proposals of non Class A LPTV and TV
     translator stations, filed under the more inclusive definition,
     must meet all applicable interference protection requirements to
     authorized stations. These applications must also protect the
     facilities proposed in full-service NTSC TV minor change
     applications, regardless of which applications are earlier filed.
     The CBPA requires Class A facilities modification proposals to
     protect earlier-filed LPTV and TV translator applications. [^202]
     Therefore, we are adopting a first-come, first-served policy with
     respect to the minor change applications of LPTV, TV translator,
     and Class A stations. We do not want minor change application
     proposals, under the more inclusive definition, to complicate the
     authorization of initial Class A licenses, nor displacement relief
     applications that may be filed shortly after adoption of this
     *Report and Order.* We note that displacement applications would
     have a higher priority than non-displacement minor change
     applications, regardless of which are filed earlier.[^203] For this
     reason, we will not permit the filing of Class A, LPTV and TV
     translator facilities change applications, pursuant to the more
     inclusive minor change definition, until October 1, 2000. However,
     minor change applications under the less inclusive definition in
     the LPTV rules may continue to be filed by LPTV, TV translator, and
     Class A permittees and licensees.

> **3. Class A Channel Displacement Relief**

113. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed
     that displaced Class A stations be permitted to apply for
     replacement channels on a first-come, first-served basis that would
     not be subject to mutually exclusive applications.[^204] Under that
     proposal, Class A stations could apply for replacement channels at
     any time, without waiting for a filing window. The *Notice*
     proposed to interpret the CBPA to grant displaced LPTV stations a
     higher priority than other nondisplacement LPTV applications and
     sought comment on this interpretation.

114. [Decision]{.underline}. The Commission will adopt its proposal and
     allow displaced Class A station licensees and permittees to apply
     for replacement channels on a first-come, first-served basis, not
     subject to mutually exclusive applications. We will adopt generally
     the displacement relief policies and procedures that apply in the
     low power television service.[^205] Class A stations causing or
     receiving interference with full-service NTSC TV, DTV or any other
     service or predicted to cause prohibited interference or to receive
     interference may apply at any time for a replacement channel,
     together with any technical changes that are necessary to eliminate
     or avoid interference or continue serving the area within the
     station's protected signal contour. Site relocation proposals will
     be permitted in displacement applications, provided the protected
     signal contour resulting from the relocated site would overlap some
     portion of the protected contour based on the Class A station's
     authorized facilities. Class A displacement relief applications
     will be filed as major change applications, given their protected
     status. Applications will not be mutually exclusive with other
     displacement applications unless filed on the same day and, in that
     event, will be subject to the auction procedures.[^206] These
     applications will be placed on public notice for a period not less
     than 30 days and will be subject to the filing of petitions to
     deny. Class A displacement relief applications will be afforded a
     higher priority than nondisplacement Class A, LPTV and TV
     translator applications, to the exclusion of those applications
     that are mutually exclusive with a Class A displacement
     application.[^207] We will not prioritize among Class A
     displacement applications, nor will these be afforded a higher
     priority than LPTV and TV translator displacement
     applications.[^208] Displacement applications filed on the same day
     by Class A, non-Class A LPTV or TV translator stations will be
     mutually exclusive and subject to the auction procedures. In such
     cases, we encourage engineering solutions to remove the mutual
     exclusivity wherever possible.

**K. Remaining Issues**

**1. Call Signs**

115. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we sought comment on the
     call sign designation to be used for new Class A stations.
     Currently, LPTV stations have the option of using standard
     broadcast call signs with the suffix "-LP."

116. [Decision]{.underline}. We will allow Class A stations to use
     standard television call signs with the suffix "-CA" to distinguish
     the stations from "-LP" stations. We agree with CBA, National
     Minority T.V., Inc. (NMTV) and others[^209] that use of the suffix
     "-LP" would create confusion between LPTV, LPFM and Class A
     stations. Upon grant of its initial Class A application, the
     qualifying LPTV licensee can change its station's existing
     numerical or four-letter low power call sign to a four-letter call
     sign with the "CA" suffix. Class A licensees should use the Mass
     Media Bureau's automated call sign reservation and authorization
     system to effectuate this change by accessing the call sign change
     request screen and providing the required information. While there
     is no fee payment required for the initial change to a four-letter
     "- CA " call sign, a subsequent change from one four-letter "- CA"
     call sign to another will require payment of a fee.

**2. Certification of Class A Transmitters**

117. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we sought comment
     regarding whether Class A transmitters should be certified in a
     manner similar to the former "type acceptance" requirement or
     whether the less stringent Part 73 "verification" requirements
     should apply.

118. [Decision]{.underline}. We have decided to use the Part 73
     verification scheme for new Class A transmitters. Existing LPTV
     transmitters will eventually be replaced by digital equipment, so
     we will "grandfather" use of these analog transmitters, except
     where these transmitters cause interference due to spurious
     emissions on frequencies outside of the assigned channel. As noted
     above, Class A stations proposing facilities increases, such as
     increased power, must specify a frequency offset. Upon
     authorization to operate with a frequency offset, station licensees
     must use a transmitter capable of meeting a frequency tolerance of
     +1/-1 kHz.

> **3. Fees**

119. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we proposed to apply
     minor modification fees to Class A applications and requested
     comment on treatment of Class A stations for the purposes of annual
     regulatory fees.

120. [Decision]{.underline}. Consistent with the use of a Part 73
     license application form (302-A), we will apply the existing
     full-service television license fee to initial Class A
     applications. This fee is lower than the minor modification fee.
     However, we will apply the low power regulatory fees to Class A
     stations going forward. Class A stations, while having greater
     rights than the preceding LPTV stations, will still be greatly
     limited in their power and height restrictions. To require the same
     regulatory fees as are required for full-power stations would be
     onerous to these small, local operations. We agree with the CBA
     that these lower regulatory fees are more appropriate in the Class
     A context, unless Congress legislates otherwise at some future
     time.[^210]

> **4. International Coordination Provisions**

121. In establishing rules for Class A stations, the Commission is
     mindful of its obligations under its existing bilateral agreements
     with Canada and Mexico regarding the authorization of LPTV service
     in the common border areas.[^211] These agreements do not contain
     provisions for analog or digital Class A TV stations. Under the
     agreements, LPTV stations have a 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 stations protected against interference from these
     stations. The agreements also include provisions for notifying and
     coordinating LPTV station proposals in the border areas. We agree
     with Grupo Televisa, S.A. (Grupo) that any authorization of Class A
     stations must be consistent with international agreements.[^212] We
     will continue to apply the LPTV provisions in our existing
     agreements with Canada and Mexico to LPTV stations, including those
     that seek Class A status. Grupo believes we should not allow
     primary status for any LPTV station "that is required under the
     U.S.-Mexican TV agreements to be operated on a secondary basis or
     to be coordinated between the two governments."[^213] We will not
     grant an analog or digital Class A license to any LPTV station
     affected by the U.S.-Mexican or U.S. Canadian agreements without
     the expressed concurrence of Canada or Mexico. We will work over
     time to update the current bilateral agreements to recognize when
     possible Class A assignments. In the interim we will attempt to
     obtain temporary approval of Class A stations in the border area or
     on a case by case basis. However, any Class A stations authorized
     on this basis would be subject to any conditions resulting from the
     coordination process or any final bilateral agreement reached with
     Canada and Mexico.

     **5. Broadcast Auxiliary Frequencies**

122. LPTV stations may be authorized to operate remote pickup stations
     and various TV broadcast auxiliary stations (BAS). [^214] Some LPTV
     stations use studio-to-transmitter links and other fixed microwave
     links. LPTV stations may also conduct electronic newsgathering
     operations on BAS frequencies. Licenses for television pickup,
     studio-transmitter link and point-to-point TV relay stations are
     issued to LPTV stations on a secondary basis, such that
     full-service stations may displace LPTV station use of broadcast
     auxiliary channels. We agree with SBE that once an LPTV station is
     authorized as a Class A station, all of that station's BAS licenses
     should automatically be upgraded to primary status;[^215] that is,
     upon receiving its initial Class A authorization, the station
     licensee will not be required separately to seek upgraded BAS
     licenses. Class A stations may also file applications under
     existing procedures, requesting authority to operate BAS stations
     on a primary basis. As SBE also points out, we remind Class A
     licensees of their responsibility to avoid interference with other
     users of a BAS channel, including the requirement to consult with a
     local frequency coordinating committee, if one exists.

**IV. CONCLUSION**

123. In this *Report and Order*, we adopt regulations establishing a
     Class A television license for qualifying low power television
     stations in accordance with the Community Broadcasters Protection
     Act of 1999. The measure of primary Class A status afforded to
     qualifying low power television stations will provide stability and
     a brighter future to these stations that provide valuable local
     programming services in their communities, while protecting the
     transition to digital television.

**ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS**

124. [Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis]{.underline}. This *Report and
     Order* has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction
     Act of 1995, and found to impose new or modified reporting and
     recordkeeping requirements or burdens on the public. Implementation
     of these new or modified reporting and recordkeeping requirements
     will be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget
     as prescribed by the Act.

125. [Regulatory Flexibility Analysis]{.underline}. Pursuant to the
     Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, *see* 5 U.S.C. §
     604, the Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for
     this *Report and Order* is attached as Appendix C.

126. [Additional Information]{.underline}. For additional information on
     this proceeding, please contact Kim Matthews, Policy and Rules
     Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2130, or Keith Larson,
     Office of the Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2600.

**ORDERING CLAUSES**

127. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to authority contained in
     sections 1, 4(i), 303, and 336(f) of the Communications Act of
     1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 303, and 336(f), Part
     73 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 73, and Part 74 of the
     Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 74, ARE AMENDED as set forth in
     Appendix A below.

128. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendments set forth in Appendix A
     shall be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal
     Register. Class A applications may be filed beginning on the date
     the rules are effective.

129. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
     Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this
     *Report and Order*, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
     Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business
     Administration.

130. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding IS TERMINATED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

> **Rules**

**List of Subjects**

47 CFR Part 1

Practice and procedure

47 CFR Part 11

Emergency alert system.

47 CFR Part 73 and Part 74

Radio broadcasting

**Rule Changes**

For the reasons set forth in the preamble parts 1, 11, 73 and 74 of
Title 47 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations is amended to read as
follows:

PART 1 - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

> 1\. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
>
> Authority: 15 U.S.C 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155,
> 225, and 303(r).

\* \* \* \* \*

> 2\. Section 1.1104 is amended by adding part 8 to read as follows:

§ 1.1104 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings for the
mass media services.

\* \* \* \* \*

8\. Class A Television Service

Payment

Action FCC Form No. Fee Amount Type Code Address

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| a\. New or  | 301-CA      | 3,245       | MVT         | FCC, Mass   |
| major       |             |             |             | Media       |
| change      |             |             |             | Services,   |
| c           |             |             |             | P.O. Box    |
| onstruction |             |             |             | 358165,     |
| permit      |             |             |             | Pittsburgh, |
|             |             |             |             | PA          |
|             |             |             |             | 15251-5165  |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| b\. New     | 302-CA      | 220         | MJT         | " "         |
| license     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| c\. License | 303-S       | 130         | MGT         | " "         |
| renewal     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| d\. Special | Corres. &   | 130         |             | " "         |
| Temporary   | 159         |             |             |             |
| Authority   |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| e\. License | 314 & 159   | 725         | MPT         | FCC, Mass   |
| assignment  | or 316 &159 |             |             | Media       |
|             |             | 105         | MDT         | Services,   |
|             |             |             |             | P.O. Box    |
|             |             |             |             | 358350,     |
|             |             |             |             | Pittsburgh, |
|             |             |             |             | PA          |
|             |             |             |             | 15251-5350  |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| f\.         | 315 & 159   | 725         | MPT         | " "         |
| Transfer of | or 316 &    |             |             |             |
| control     | 159         | 105         | MDT         |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| g\. Main    | Corres. &   | 725         | MPT         | FCC, Mass   |
| studio      | 159         |             |             | Media       |
| request     |             |             |             | Services,   |
|             |             |             |             | P.O. Box    |
|             |             |             |             | 358165,     |
|             |             |             |             | Pittsburgh, |
|             |             |             |             | PA          |
|             |             |             |             | 15251-5165  |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| h\. Call    | Corres. &   | 75          | MBT         | " "         |
| sign        | 159         |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

\* \* \* \* \*

> 3\. Section 1.1153 is amended by adding part VIII to read, as follows:

§ 1.1153 Schedule of annual regulatory fees and filing locations for
mass media services.

\* \* \* \* \*

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  VIII\. Class A TV (47   290                     FCC, Class A, PO Box
  C.F.R., Part 73)                                358835, Pittsburgh, PA
                                                  15251-5835

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

\* \* \* \* \*

PART 11 - EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM (EAS)

> 4\. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:
>
> Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o), 303(r), 544(g) and 606.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 5\. Section 11.11 is amended by:
>
> \(1\) Adding in paragraph (a) the words "Class A television (CA)
> stations" in the first sentence after the words "TV broadcast
> stations."

(2) Revising the table "Timetable Broadcast Stations."

\* \* \* \* \*

> 6\. The amendment adds a new column to the chart to read as follows:

§ 11.11 The Emergency Alert System (EA).

\* \* \* \* \*

# Timetable

BROADCAST STATIONS

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Requirement                         Class A TV

  Two-tone encoder                    Y

  Two-tone decoder                    Y

  EAS decoder                         Y

  EAS encoder                         Y

  Audio message                       Y

  Video message                       Y
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

> 7\. Section 11.53 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
> follows:

§ 11.53 Dissemination of Emergency Action Notification.

> \(a\) \* \* \*
>
> \(4\) Wire service to all subscribers (AM, FM, low power FM (LPFM),
> TV, LPTV, Class A television (CA) and other stations).

\* \* \* \* \*

PART 73 - RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

> 8\. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
>
> Authority: (47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.)

\* \* \* \* \*

> 9\. Subpart E is amended by adding Section 73.613 to read as follows:

§ 73.613 Protection of Class A TV stations.

\(a\) An application for a new TV broadcast station or for changes in
the operating facilities of an existing TV broadcast station will not be
accepted for filing if it fails to comply with the requirements
specified in this section.

Note: Licensees and permittees of TV broadcast stations that were
authorized on November 29, 1999 (and applicants for new TV 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) may continue to operate with facilities that do not protect Class
A TV stations. Applications filed on or before November 29, 1999 for a
change in the operating facilities of such stations also are not
required to protect Class A TV stations under the provisions of this
section.

\(b\) Due to the frequency spacing which exists between TV channels 4
and 5, between channels 6 and 7, and between channels 13 and 14,
first-adjacent channel protection standards shall not be applicable to
these pairs of channels. Some interference protection requirements of
this section only apply to stations transmitting on the UHF TV channels
14 through 51 (See §73.603(a) of this part).

\(c\) A UHF TV broadcast station application will not be accepted if it
specifies a site less than 100 kilometers from the transmitter site of a
UHF Class A TV station operating on a channel which is the seventh
channel above the requested channel. Compliance with this requirement
shall be determined based on a distance computation rounded to the
nearest kilometer.

\(d\) A UHF TV broadcast station application will not be accepted if it
specifies a site less than 32 kilometers from the transmitter site of a
UHF Class A TV station that is authorized an effective radiated power of
more than 50 kilowatts and operating on a channel which is the second,
third, or fourth channel above or below the requested channel.
Compliance with this requirement shall be determined based on a distance
computation rounded to the nearest kilometer.

\(e\) In cases where a TV broadcast station has been authorized
facilities that do not meet the distance separation requirements of this
section, an application to modify such a station's facilities will not
be accepted if it decreases that separation.

\(f\) New interference must not be caused to Class A TV stations
authorized pursuant to Subpart J of this part, within the protected
contour defined in §73.6010 of this part. For this prediction, the TV
broadcast station field strength is calculated from the proposed
effective radiated power and the antenna height above average terrain in
pertinent directions using the methods in §73.684 of this part.

\(1\) For co-channel protection, the field strength is calculated using
the appropriate F(50,10) chart from Figure 9a, 10a, or 10c of §73.699 of
this part.

\(2\) For TV broadcast stations that do not specify the same channel as
the Class A TV station to be protected, the field strength is calculated
using the appropriate F(50,50) chart from Figure 9, 10, or 10b of
§73.699 of this part.

\(g\) A TV broadcast station application will not be accepted if the
ratio in dB of its field strength to that of the Class A TV station at
the Class A TV station's protected contour fails to meet the following:

\(1\) - 45 dB for co-channel operations where the Class A TV station
does not specify an offset carrier frequency or where the TV broadcast
and Class A TV stations do not specify different offset carrier
frequencies (zero, plus or minus) or -- 28 dB for offset carrier
frequency operation where the TV broadcast and Class A TV stations
specify different offset carrier frequencies.

\(2\) 6 dB when the protected Class A TV station operates on a VHF
channel that is one channel above the requested channel.

\(3\) 12 dB when the protected Class A TV station operates on a VHF
channel that is one channel below the requested channel.

\(4\) 15 dB when the protected Class A TV station operates on a UHF
channel that is one channel above or below the requested channel.

\(5\) 23 dB when the protected Class A TV station operates on a UHF
channel that is fourteen channels below the requested channel.

\(6\) 6 dB when the protected Class A TV station operates on a UHF
channel that is fifteen channels below the requested channel.

\(h\) New interference must not be caused to digital Class A TV stations
authorized pursuant to Subpart J of this part, within the protected
contour defined in §73.6010 of this part. A TV broadcast station
application will not be accepted if the ratio in dB of the field
strength of the digital Class A TV station at the digital Class A TV
station's protected contour to the field strength resulting from the
facilities proposed in the TV broadcast station application fails to
meet the D/U signal ratios for "analog TV-into-DTV" specified in
§§73.623(c)(2) and 73.623(c)(3) of this part. For digital Class A TV
station protection, the TV broadcast station field strength is
calculated from the proposed effective radiated power and the antenna
height above average terrain in pertinent directions using the methods
in §73.684 of this part and using the appropriate F(50,10) chart from
Figure 9a, 10a, or 10c of §73.699 of this part.

\(i\) In cases where a TV broadcast station has been authorized
facilities that do not meet the interference protection requirements of
this section, an application to modify such a station's facilities will
not be accepted if it is predicted to cause new interference within the
protected contour of the Class A TV or digital Class A TV station.

\(j\) In support of a request for waiver of the interference protection
requirements of this section, an applicant for a TV broadcast station
may make full use of terrain shielding and Longley-Rice terrain
dependent propagation methods to demonstrate that the proposed facility
would not be likely to cause interference to Class A TV stations.
Guidance on using the Longely-Rice methodology is provided in *OET
Bulletin No. 69*, which is available through the Internet at
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/ documents/bulletins/#69.

\* \* \* \* \*

10. Section 73.623 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as
    follows:

§ 73.623 DTV applications and changes to DTV allotments.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) \* \* \*

\(5\) A DTV station application that proposes to expand the DTV
station's allotted or authorized coverage area in any direction will not
be accepted if it is predicted to cause interference to a Class A TV
station or to a digital Class A TV station authorized pursuant to
Subpart J of this part, within the protected contour defined in §
73.6010 of this part. This paragraph applies to all DTV applications
filed after May 1, 2000, and to DTV applications filed between December
31, 1999 and April 30, 2000 unless the DTV station licensee or permittee
notified the Commission of its intent to "maximize" by December 31,
1999.

\(i\) Interference is predicted to occur if the ratio in dB of the field
strength of a Class A TV station at its protected contour to the field
strength resulting from the facilities proposed in the DTV application
(calculated using the appropriate F(50,10) chart from Figure 9a, 10a, or
10c of § 73.699 of this part) fails to meet the D/U signal ratios for
"DTV-into-analog TV " specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(ii) Interference is predicted to occur if the ratio in dB of the field
     strength of a digital Class A TV station at its protected contour
     to the field strength resulting from the facilities proposed in the
     DTV application (calculated using the appropriate F(50,10) chart
     from Figure 9a, 10a, or 10c of § 73.699 of this part) fails to meet
     the D/U signal ratios for "DTV-into-DTV" specified in paragraphs
     (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section.

(iii) In support of a request for waiver of the interference protection
      requirements of this section, an applicant for a DTV broadcast
      station may make full use of terrain shielding and Longley-Rice
      terrain dependent propagation methods to demonstrate that the
      proposed facility would not be likely to cause interference to
      Class A TV stations. Guidance on using the Longely-Rice
      methodology is provided in *OET Bulletin No. 69*, which is
      available through the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/
      documents/bulletins/#69.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 11\. Section 73.1001 is revised to read as follows:

§ 73.1001 Scope.

\(a\) The rules in this subpart are common to all AM, FM, TV and Class A
TV broadcast services, commercial and noncommercial.

\(b\) Rules in part 73 applying exclusively to a particular broadcast
service are contained in the following: AM, subpart A; FM, subpart B;
Noncommercial Educational\
FM, subpart C; TV, subpart E; and Class A TV, subpart J.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 12\. Section 73.1120 is revised to read as follows:

§ 73.1120 Station location.

(a) Each AM, FM, TV and Class A TV broadcast station will be licensed to
    the principal community or other political subdivision which it
    primarily serves. This principal community (city, town or other
    political subdivision) will be considered to be the geographical
    station location.

\* \* \* \* \*

13\. Section 73.1125 is amended by adding paragraph (c), and amending
the remaining paragraphs to read as follows:

§ 73.1125 Station main studio location.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) Each Class A television station shall maintain a main studio at
the site used by the station as of November 29, 1999 or a location
within the station's Grade B contour, as defined in Section 73.683 and
calculated using the method specified in Section 73.684 of this part.

\(d\) Relocation of the main studio may be made:

> \(1\) From one point to another within the locations described in
> paragraph (a) or (c) of this section, or from a point outside the
> locations specified in paragraph (a) or (c) to one within those
> locations, without specific FCC authority, but notification to the FCC
> in Washington shall be made promptly.
>
> \(2\) Written authority to locate a main studio outside the locations
> specified in paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section for the first time
> must be obtained from the Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau
> for AM and FM stations, or the Television Branch, Video Services
> Division for TV and Class A television stations before the studio may
> be moved to that location. Where the main studio is already authorized
> at a location outside those specified in paragraphs (a) or (c), and
> the licensee or permittee desires to specify a new location also
> located outside those locations, written authority must also be
> received from the Commission prior to the relocation of the main
> studio. Authority for these changes may be requested by filing a
> letter with an explanation of the proposed changes with the
> appropriate division. Licensees or permittees should also be aware
> that the filing of such a letter request does not imply approval of
> the relocation request, because each request is addressed on a
> case-by-case basis. A filing fee is required for commercial AM, FM, TV
> or Class A TV licensees or permittees filing a letter request under
> the section (see § 1.1104).

\(e\) Each AM, FM, TV and Class A TV broadcast station shall maintain a
local telephone number in its community of license or a toll-free
number.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 14\. Section 73.1201 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.1201 Station identification.

*(a) When regularly required*. Broadcast station identification
announcements shall be made: (1) at the beginning and ending of each
time of operation, and (2) hourly, as close to the hour as feasible, at
a natural break in program offerings. Television and Class A television
broadcast stations may make these announcements visually or aurally.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 15\. Section 73.1202 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.1202 Retention of letters received from the public.

\(a\) All written comments and suggestions received from the public by
licensees of commercial AM, FM, TV and Class A TV broadcast stations
regarding operation of their station shall be maintained in the local
public inspection file, unless the letter writer has requested that the
letter not be made public or when the licensee feels that it should be
excluded from the public inspection file because of the nature of its
content, such as a defamatory or obscene letter.

> \(1\) Letters shall be retained in the local public inspection file
> for three years from the date on which they are received by the
> licensee.

(2) Letters received by TV and Class A TV licensees shall be placed in
    one of the following separated subject categories: programming or
    non-programming. If comments in a letter relate to both categories,
    the licensee shall filed it under the category to which the writer
    has given greater attention.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 16\. Section 73.1210 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.1210 TV/FM dual-language broadcasting in Puerto Rico.

\* \* \* \* \*

(b) Television and Class A television licensees in Puerto Rico may enter
    into dual-language time purchase agreements with FM broadcast
    licensees, subject to the following conditions.

\* \* \*

(3) No television, Class A television, or FM broadcast station may
    devote more than 15 hours per week to dual-language broadcasting,
    nor may more than three (3) hours of such programming be presented
    on any given day.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 17\. Section 73.1211 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.1211 Broadcast of lottery information.

\(a\) No licensee of an AM, FM, television, or Class A television
broadcast station, except as in paragraph (c) of this section, shall
broadcast any advertisement of or information concerning any lottery,
gift enterprise, or similar scheme, offering prizes dependent in whole
or in part upon lot or chance, or any list of the prizes drawn or
awarded by means of any such lottery, gift enterprise or scheme, whether
said list contains any part or all of such prizes. (18 U.S.C. 1304, 62
Stat. 763).

\* \* \* \* \*

18\. Section 73.1250 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.1250 Broadcasting emergency information.

\* \* \* \* \*

(h) Any emergency information transmitted by a TV or Class A TV station
    in accordance with this section shall be transmitted both aurally
    and visually or only visually. TV and Class A TV stations may use
    any method of visual presentation which results in a legible message
    conveying the essential emergency information. Methods which may be
    used include, but are not necessarily limited to, slides, electronic
    captioning, manual methods (e.g., hand printing) or mechanical
    printing processes. However, when an emergency operation is being
    conducted under a national, State or Local Area Emergency Alert
    System (EAS) plan, emergency information shall be transmitted both
    aurally and visually unless only the EAS codes are transmitted as
    specified in Sec. 11.51(b) of this chapter.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 19\. Section 73.1400 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.1400 Transmission system monitoring and control.

The licensee of an AM, FM, TV or Class A TV station is responsible for
assuring that at all times the station operates within tolerances
specified by applicable technical rules contained in this part and in
accordance with the terms of the station authorization. Any method of
complying with applicable tolerances is permissible. The following are
typical methods of transmission system operation:

\* \* \* \* \*

20\. Section 73.1540 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.1540 Carrier frequency measurements.

\(a\) The carrier frequency of each AM and FM station and the visual
carrier frequency and the difference between the visual carrier and the
aural carrier or center frequency of each TV and Class A TV station
shall be measured or determined as often as necessary to ensure that
they are maintained within the prescribed tolerances.

\* \* \* \* \*

21\. Section 73.1545 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

§ 73.1545 Carrier frequency departure tolerances.

\* \* \* \* \*

(e) *Class A TV stations*. The departure of the carrier frequency of
    Class A TV stations may not exceed the values specified in section
    74.761 of this chapter. Provided, however, Class A TV stations
    licensed to operate with a maximum effective radiated power greater
    than the value specified in their initial Class A TV station
    authorization must comply with paragraph (c) of this section.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 22\. Section 73.1560 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.1560 Operating power and mode tolerances.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) TV stations. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this
section, the visual output power of a TV or Class A TV transmitter, as
determined by the procedures specified in Sec. 73.664, must be
maintained as near as is practicable to the authorized transmitter
output power and may not be less than 80% nor more than 110% of the
authorized power.

\* \* \* \* \*

23\. Section 73.1570 is amended by revising the title and paragraph
(b)(3) to read as follows:

§ 73.1570 Modulation levels: AM, FM, TV and Class A TV aural.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) \* \* \*

\(3\) *TV and Class A TV stations.* In no case shall the total
modulation of the aural carrier exceed 100% on peaks of frequent
recurrence, unless some other peak modulation level is specified in an
instrument of authorization. For monophonic transmissions, 100%
modulation is defined as +/- 25 kHz.

\* \* \* \* \*

24\. Section 73.1580 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.1580 Transmission system inspections.

Each AM, FM, TV and Class A TV station licensee or permittee must
conduct periodic complete inspections of the transmitting system and all
required monitors to ensure proper station operation.

\* \* \* \* \*

25\. Section 73.1590 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

§ 73.1590 Equipment performance measurements.

\(a\) The licensee of each AM, FM, TV and Class A TV station, except
licensees of Class D non-commercial educational FM stations authorized
to operate with 10 watts or less output power, must make equipment
performance measurements for each main transmitter as follows:

\* \* \* \* \*

26\. Section 73.1615 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.1615 Operation during modification of facilities.

When the licensee of an existing AM, FM, TV or Class A TV station is in
the process of modifying existing facilities as authorized by a
construction permit and determines it is necessary to either discontinue
operation or to operate with temporary facilities to continue program
service, the following procedures apply:

\(a\) Licensees holding a construction permit for modification of
directional or nondirectional FM, TV or Class A TV or nondirectional AM
station facilities may, without specific FCC authority, for a period not
exceeding 30 days:

\* \* \* \* \*

27\. Section 73.1620 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.1620 Program tests.

\(a\) Upon completion of construction of an AM, FM, TV or Class A TV
station in accordance with the terms of the construction permit, the
technical provisions of the application, the rules and regulations and
the applicable engineering standards, program tests may be conducted in
accordance with the following:

\(1\) The permittee of a nondirectional AM or FM station, or a
nondirectional or directional TV or Class A TV station, may begin
program tests upon notification to the FCC in Washington, DC provided
that within 10 days thereafter, an application for a license is filed
with the FCC in Washington, DC.

\* \* \* \* \*

28\. Section 73.1635 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.1635 Special temporary authorizations (STA).

\(a\) \* \* \*

(4) Certain rules specify special considerations and procedures in
    situations requiring an STA or permit temporary operation at
    variance without prior authorization from the FCC when notification
    is filed as prescribed in the particular rules. See § 73.62,
    Directional antenna system tolerances; § 73.157, Antenna testing
    during daytime; § 73.158, Directional antenna monitoring points; §
    73.691, Visual modulation monitoring; § 73.1250, Broadcasting
    emergency information; § 73.1350, Transmission system operation; §
    73.1560, Operating power and mode tolerances; § 73.1570, Modulation
    levels: AM, FM, TV and Class A TV aural; § 73.1615, Operation during
    modification of facilities; § 73.1680, Emergency antennas; and §
    73.1740, Minimum operating schedule.

\* \* \* \* \*

29\. Section 73.1660 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.1660 Acceptability of broadcast transmitters.

\(a\) An AM, FM, TV or Class A TV transmitter shall be verified for
compliance with the requirements of this part following the procedures
described in part 2 of the FCC rules.

\* \* \* \* \*

30\. Section 73.1665 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.1665 Main transmitters.

\(a\) Each AM, FM, TV and Class A TV broadcast station must have at
least one main transmitter which complies with the provisions of the
transmitter technical requirements for the type and class of station. A
main transmitter is one which is used for regular program service having
power ratings appropriate for the authorized operating power(s).

\(b\) There is no maximum power rating limit for FM, TV or Class A TV
station transmitters, however, the maximum rated transmitter power of a
main transmitter stalled at an AM station shall be as follows:

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Maximum rated

Authorized power transmitter power (kW)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

0.25, 0.5, or 1 kW\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
1

2.5
kW\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
5

5 or 10
kW\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.... 10

25 or 50
kW\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\... 50

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

\* \* \* \* \*

31\. Section 73.1675 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (c)(1)
to read as follows:

§ 73.1675 Auxiliary antennas.

(a)(1) An auxiliary antenna is one that is permanently installed and
available for use when the main antenna is out of service for repairs or
replacement. An auxiliary antenna may be located at the same transmitter
site as the station\'s main antenna or at a separate site. The service
contour of the auxiliary antenna may not extend beyond the following

corresponding contour for the main facility:

\(i\) AM stations: The 0.5 mV/m field strength contours.

\(ii\) FM stations: The 1.0 mV/m field strength contours.

\(iii\) TV stations: The Grade B coverage contours.

\(iv\) Class A TV stations: The protected contours defined in § 73.6010.

\* \* \* \* \*

(c)(1) Where an FM, TV or Class A TV licensee proposes to use a formerly
licensed main facility as an auxiliary facility, or proposes to modify a
presently authorized auxiliary facility, and no changes in the height of
the antenna radiation center are required in excess of the limits in §
73.1690(c)(1), the FM, TV or Class A TV licensee may apply for the
proposed auxiliary facility by filing a modification of license
application. The modified auxiliary facility must operate on the same
channel as the licensed main facility. An exhibit must be provided with
this license application to demonstrate compliance with § 73.1675(a).
All FM, TV and Class A TV licensees may request a decrease from the
authorized facility\'s ERP in the license application. An FM, TV or
Class A TV licensee may also increase the ERP of the auxiliary facility
in a license modification application, provided the application contains
an analysis demonstrating compliance with the Commission\'s
radiofrequency radiation guidelines, and an analysis showing that the
auxiliary facility will comply with § 73.1675(a). Auxiliary facilities
mounted on an AM antenna tower must also demonstrate compliance with §
73.1692 in the license application.

\* \* \* \* \*

32\. Section 73.1680 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:

§ 73.1680 Emergency antennas.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) \* \* \*

\(2\) *FM, TV and Class A TV stations.* FM, TV and Class A TV stations
may erect any suitable radiator, or use operable sections of the
authorized antenna(s) as an emergency antenna.

\* \* \* \* \*

33\. Section 73.1690 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.1690 Modification of transmission systems.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(a\) \* \* \*

\(2\) Those that would cause the transmission system to exceed the
equipment performance measurements prescribed for the class of service,
(AM, § 73.44; FM, §§ 73.317, 73.319, and 73.322; TV and Class A TV, §§
73.682 and 73.687).

\(b\) \* \* \*

\(2\) Any change in station geographic coordinates, including coordinate
corrections. FM, TV and Class A TV directional stations must also file a
construction permit application for any move of the antenna to another
tower structure located at the same coordinates.

(5) Any change which would require an increase along any azimuth in the
    composite directional antenna pattern of an FM station from the
    composite directional antenna pattern authorized (see § 73.316), or
    any increase from the authorized directional antenna pattern for a
    TV broadcast (see § 73.685) or Class A TV station (*see* § 73.6025).

\* \* \* \* \*

\(5\) Any decrease in the authorized power of an AM station or the ERP
of a TV or Class A TV station, or any decrease or increase in the ERP of
an FM commercial station, which is intended for compliance with the
multiple ownership rules in § 73.3555.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(7\) Any increase in the authorized ERP of a television station, Class
A television station, FM commercial station, or noncommercial
educational FM station, except as provided for in Secs. 73.1690(c)(4),
(c)(5), or (c)(7), or Sec. 73.1675(c)(1) in the case of auxiliary
facilities.

\(8\) A commercial TV or noncommercial educational TV station operating
on Channels 14 or Channel 69 or a Class A TV station on Channel 14 may
increase its horizontally or vertically polarized ERP only after the
grant of a construction permit. A television or Class A television
station on Channels 15 through 21 within 341 km of a cochannel land
mobile operation, or 225 km of a first-adjacent channel land mobile
operation, must also obtain a construction permit before increasing the
horizontally or vertically polarized ERP (see part 74, Sec. 74.709(a)
and (b) for tables of urban areas and corresponding reference
coordinates of potentially affected land mobile operations).

(c) The following FM, TV and Class A TV station modifications may be
    made without prior authorization from the Commission. A modification
    of license application must be submitted to the Commission within 10
    days of commencing program test operations pursuant to Sec. 73.1620.
    With the exception of applications filed solely pursuant to Sections
    (c)(6), (c)(9), or (c)(10), the modification of license application
    must contain an exhibit demonstrating compliance with the
    Commission\'s radio frequency radiation guidelines. In addition,
    except for applications solely filed pursuant to Sections (c)(6) or
    (c)(9), where the installation is located within 3.2 km of an AM
    tower or is located on an AM tower, an exhibit demonstrating
    compliance with Sec. 73.1692 is also required.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(3\) A directional TV on Channels 2 through 13 or 22 through 68 or a
directional Class A TV on Channels 2 through 13 or 22 through 51; or a
directional TV or Class A TV station on Channels 15 through 21 which is
in excess of 341 km (212 miles) from a cochannel land mobile operation
or in excess of 225 km (140 miles) from a first-adjacent channel land
mobile operation (see Part 74, § 74.709(a) and (b) for tables of urban
areas and reference coordinates of potentially affected land mobile
operations), may replace a directional TV or Class A TV antenna by a
license modification application, if the proposed horizontal theoretical
directional antenna pattern does not exceed the licensed horizontal
directional antenna pattern at any azimuth and where no change in
effective radiated power will result. The modification of license
application on Form 302-TV or Form 302-CA must contain all of the data
set forth in § 73.685(f) or § 73.6025(a), as applicable.

\(4\) Commercial and noncommercial educational FM stations operating on
Channels 221 through 300 (except Class D), NTSC TV stations operating on
Channels 2 through 13 and 22 through 68, Class A TV stations operating
on Channels 2 through 13 and 22 through 51, and TV and Class A TV
stations operating on Channels 15 through 21 that are in excess of 341
km (212 miles) from a cochannel land mobile operation or in excess of
225 km (140 miles) from a first-adjacent channel land mobile operation
\[see Part 74, Sec. 74.709(a) and (b) for tables of urban areas and
reference coordinates of potentially affected land mobile operations\],
which operate omnidirectionally, may increase the vertically polarized
effective radiated power up to the authorized horizontally polarized
effective radiated power in a license modification application.
Noncommercial educational FM licensees and permittees on Channels 201
through 220, that do not use separate antennas mounted at different
heights for the horizontally polarized ERP and the vertically polarized
ERP, and are located in excess of the separations from a Channel 6

television station listed in Table A of Sec. 73.525(a)(1), may also
increase the vertical ERP, up to (but not exceeding) the authorized
horizontally polarized ERP via a license modification application.
Program test operations may commence at full power pursuant to Sec.
73.1620(a)(1).

\* \* \* \* \*

34\. Section 73.1740 is revised to add paragraph (6) to read as follows.

§ 73.1740 Minimum operating schedule

> \(a\) All commercial broadcast stations are required to operate not
> less than the following minimum hours:

\* \* \* \* \*

(6) *Class A TV stations*. Not less than 18 hours in each day of the
    week.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 35\. Section 73.1870 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.1870 Chief operators.

> \(a\) The licensee of each AM, FM, TV or Class A TV broadcast station
> must designate a person to serve as the station's chief operator. At
> times when the chief operator is unavailable or unable to act (e.g.,
> vacations, sickness), the licensee shall designate another person as
> the acting chief operator on a temporary basis.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 36\. Section 73.2080 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.2080 Equal employment opportunities.

> *(a) General EEO Policy*. Equal opportunity in employment shall be
> afforded by all licensees or permittees of commercially or
> noncommercially operated AM, FM, TV, Class A TV, or international
> broadcast station (as defined in this part) to all qualified persons,
> and no person shall be discriminated against in employment by such
> stations because of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 37\. Section 73.3500 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.3500 Application and Report Forms.

Following are the FCC broadcast application and report forms, listed by
number.

Form number Title

\* \* \* \* \*

302-CA Application for Class A Television Broadcasting

Station Construction Permit or License

\* \* \* \* \*

> 38\. Section 73.3516 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.3516 Specification of facilities.

> \(a\) An application for facilities in the AM, FM, TV or Class A TV
> broadcast services, or low power TV service shall be limited to one
> frequency, or channel, and no application will be accepted for filing
> if it requests an alternate frequency or channel. Applications
> specifying split frequency AM operations using one frequency during
> daytime hours complemented by a different frequency during nighttime
> hours will not be accepted for filing.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 39\. Section 73.2526 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.3526 Local public inspection file of commercial stations.

*(a) Responsibility to maintain a file*. The following shall maintain
for public inspection a file containing the material set forth in this
section.

\* \* \* \* \*

> \(3\) Every permittee or licensee of an AM, FM, TV or Class A TV
> station in the commercial broadcast services shall maintain a public
> inspection file containing the material, relating to that station,
> described in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(10) and paragraph (e)(13)
> of this section. In addition, every permittee or licensee of a
> commercial TV or Class A TV station shall maintain for public
> inspection a file containing material, relating to that station,
> described in paragraphs (e)(11) and (e)(15) of this section, and every
> permittee or licensee of a commercial AM or FM station shall maintain
> for public inspection a file containing the material, relating to that
> station, described in paragraphs (e)(12) and (e)(14) of this section.
> A separate file shall be maintained for each station for which an
> authorization is outstanding, and the file shall be maintained so long
> as an authorization to operate the station is outstanding.

\* \* \* \* \*

(11)(i) *TV issues/programs lists*. For commercial TV and Class A TV
broadcast stations, every three months a list of programs that have
provided the station's most significant treatment of community issues
during the preceding three month period. The list for each calendar
quarter is to filed by the tenth day of the succeeding calendar quarter
(e.g., January 10 for the quarter October - December, April 10 for the
quarter January - March, etc.) The list shall include a brief narrative
describing what issues were given significant treatment and the
programming that provided this treatment. The description of the
programs shall include, but shall not be limited to, the time, date,
duration, and title of each program in which the issue was treated. The
lists described in this paragraph shall be retained in the public
inspection file until final action has been taken on the station's next
license renewal application.

*(ii) Records concerning commercial limits*. For commercial TV and Class
A TV broadcast stations, records sufficient to permit substantiation of
the station's certification, in its license renewal application, of
compliance with the commercial limits on children's programming
established in 47 U.S.C. 303a and 47 C.F.R. 73.670. The records for each
calendar quarter must be filed by the tenth day of the succeeding
calendar quarter (e.g., January 10 for the quarter October - December,
April 10 for the quarter January - March, etc.). These records shall be
retained until final action has been taken on the station's next license
renewal application.

*(iii) Children's television programming reports*. For commercial TV and
Class A TV broadcast stations, on a quarterly basis, a completed
Children's Television Programming Report ("Report"), on FCC Form 398,
reflecting efforts made by the licensee during the preceding quarter,
and efforts planned for the next quarter, to serve the educational and
informational needs of children. The Report for each quarter is to be
filed by the tenth day of the succeeding calendar quarter. The Report
shall identify the licensee's educational and informational programming
efforts, including programs aired by the station that are specifically
designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children,
and it shall explain how programs identified as Core Programming meet
the definition set forth in § 73.671(c). The Report shall include the
name of the individual at the station responsible for collecting
comments on the station's compliance with the Children's Television Act,
and it shall be separated from other materials in the public inspection
file. These Reports shall be retained in the public inspection file
until final action has been taken on the station's next license renewal
application. Licensees shall publicized in an appropriate manner the
existence and location of these Reports. For an experimental period of
three years, licensees shall file these Reports with the Commission on
an annual basis, i.e., four quarterly reports filed jointly each year,
in electronic form as of January 10, 1999. These reports shall be filed
with the Commission on January 10, 1998, January 10, 1999, and January
10, 2000.

\* \* \* \* \*

> *(*15*) Must-carry or retransmission consent election*. Statements of
> a commercial television or Class A television station's election with
> respect to either must-carry or re-transmission consent, as defined in
> § 76.64 of this chapter. These records shall be retained for the
> duration of the three year election period to which the statement
> applies.

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

(16) *Class A TV Continuing Eligibility*. Documentation sufficient to
     demonstrate that the Class A television station is continuing to
     meet the eligibility requirements set forth at § 73.6001.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 40\. Section 73. 3536 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.3536 Application for license to cover construction permit.

\* \* \* \* \*

> \(c\) Eligible low power television stations which have been granted a
> certificate of eligibility may file FCC Form 302-CA, "Application for
> Class A Television Broadcast Station Construction Permit Or License."

41. Section 73.3550 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.3550 Requests for new or modified call sign assignments.

\* \* \* \* \*

> \(f\) Only four-letter call signs (plus an LP, FM, TV or CA suffix, if
> used) will be assigned. However, subject to the other provisions of
> this section, a call sign of a station may be conformed to a commonly
> owned station holding a three-letter call assignment (plus FM, TV, CA
> or LP suffixes, if used.

\* \* \* \* \*

> \(m\) Where a requested call sign, without the "-FM,' "-TV," "-CA" or
> "LP" suffix, would conform to the call sign of any other non-commonly
> owned station(s) operating in a different service, an applicant
> utilizing the on-line reservation and authorization system will be
> required to certify that consent to use the secondary call sign has
> been obtained from the holder of the primary call sign.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 42\. Section 73.3572 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.3572 Processing of TV Broadcast, Class A TV Broadcast, low power
TV, TV translator and TV booster station applications.

\(a\) Applications for TV stations are divided into two groups:

\(1\) In the first group are applications for new stations or major
changes in the facilities of authorized stations. A major change for TV
broadcast stations authorized under this part is any change in frequency
or community of license which is in accord with a present allotment
contained in the Table of Allotments (§ 73.606). Other requests for
change in frequency or community of license for TV broadcast stations
must first be submitted in the form of a petition for rulemaking to
amend the Table of Allotments.

\(2\) In the case of Class A TV stations authorized under subpart J of
this part and low power TV, TV translator, and TV booster stations
authorized under part 74 of this chapter, a major change is any change
in:

\(i\) Frequency (output channel), except a change in offset carrier
frequency; or

\(ii\) Transmitting antenna location where the protected contour
resulting from the change is not predicted to overlap any portion of the
protected contour based on the station's authorized facilities.

\(3\) Other changes will be considered minor; *provided*, until October
1, 2000, proposed changes to the facilities of Class A TV, low power TV,
TV translator and TV booster stations, other than a change in frequency,
will be considered minor only if the change(s) will not increase the
signal range of the Class A TV, low power TV or TV booster in any
horizontal direction.

\(4\) The following provisions apply to displaced Class A TV, low power
TV, TV translator and TV booster stations:

\(i\) In the case of an authorized low power TV, TV translator or TV
booster which is predicted to cause or receive interference to or from
an authorized TV broadcast station pursuant to § 74.705 or interference
with broadcast or other services under § 74.703 or § 74.709, an
application for a change in output channel, together with technical
modifications which are necessary to avoid interference (including a
change in antenna location of less than 16.1km), will not be considered
as an application for a major change in those facilities.

\(ii\) Provided further, that a low power TV, TV translator or TV
booster station authorized on a channel from channel 52 to 69, or which
is causing or receiving interference or is predicted to cause or receive
interference to or from an authorized DTV station pursuant to § 74.706,
or which is located within the distances specified below in paragraph
(iv) of this section to the coordinates of co-channel DTV authorizations
(or allotment table coordinates if there are no authorized facilities at
different coordinates), may at any time file a displacement relief
application for a change in output channel, together with any technical
modifications which are necessary to avoid interference or continue
serving the station\'s protected service area. Such an application will
not be considered as an application for a major change in those
facilities. Where such an application is mutually exclusive with
applications for new low power TV, TV translator or TV booster stations,
or with other nondisplacement relief applications for facilities
modifications of Class A TV, low power TV, TV translator or TV booster
stations, priority will be afforded to the displacement application(s)
to the exclusion of the other applications.

\(iii\) A Class A TV station which is causing or receiving interference
or is predicted to cause or receive interference to or from an
authorized TV broadcast station pursuant to §§ 73.6011 or 73.613; a DTV
station or allotment pursuant to §§ 73.6013 or 73.623, or which is
located within the distances specified below in paragraph (iv) of this
section to the coordinates of co-channel DTV authorizations (or
allotment table coordinates if there are no authorized facilities at
different coordinates); or other service that protects and/or is
protected by Class A TV stations, may at any time file a displacement
relief application for a change in channel, together with technical
modifications that are necessary to avoid interference or continue
serving the station's protected service area, provided the station's
protected contour resulting from a relocation of the transmitting
antenna is predicted to overlap some portion of the protected contour
based on its authorized facilities. A Class A TV station displacement
relief applications will be considered major change applications, and
will be placed on public notice for a period of not less than 30 days to
permit the filing of petitions to deny. However, these applications will
not be subject to the filing of competing applications. Where a Class A
displacement relief application becomes mutually exclusive with
applications for new low power TV, TV translator or TV booster stations,
or with other non-displacement relief applications for facilities
modifications of Class A TV, low power TV, TV translator or TV booster
stations, priority will be afforded to the Class A TV displacement
relief application(s) to the exclusion of other applications. Mutually
exclusive displacement relief applications of Class A TV, low power TV,
TV translators or TV booster stations filed on the same day will be
subject to competitive bidding procedures if the mutual exclusivity is
not resolved by an engineering solution.

(iv)(A) The geographic separations to co-channel DTV facilities or
allotment reference coordinates, as applicable, within which to qualify
for displacement relief are the following:

\(1\) Stations on UHF channels: 265 km (162 miles)

\(2\) Stations on VHF channels 2-6: 280 km (171 miles)

\(3\) Stations on VHF channels 7-13: 260 km (159 miles)

\(B\) Engineering showings of predicted interference may also be
submitted to justify the need for displacement relief.

\(v\) Provided further, that the FCC may, within 15 days after
acceptance of any other application for modification of facilities,
advise the applicant that such application is considered to be one for a
major change and therefore subject to the provisions of Sections.
73.3522, 73.3580, and 1.1111 of this chapter pertaining to major
changes. Such major modification applications filed for Class A TV, low
power TV, TV translator, TV booster stations, and for a non-reserved
television allotment, are subject to competitive bidding procedures and
will be dismissed if filed outside a specified filing period. *See* 47
CFR 73.5002(a).

\(b\) \* \* \* A new file number will be assigned to an application for
a new station or for major changes in the facilities of an authorized
station, when it is amended so as to effect a major change, as defined
in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section, or result in a situation
where the original party or parties to the application do not retain
more than 50% ownership interest in the application as originally filed
and § 73.3580 will apply to such amended application. An application for
change in the facilities of any existing station will continue to carry
the same file number even though (pursuant to FCC approval) an
assignment of license or transfer of control of such licensee or
permittee has taken place if, upon consummation, the application is
amended to reflect the new ownership.

\(c\) Amendments to Class A TV, low power TV, TV translator, TV booster
stations, or non-reserved television applications, which would require a
new file number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, are subject
to competitive bidding procedures and will be dismissed if filed outside
a specified filing period. See 47 CFR 73.5002(a). When an amendment to
an application for a reserved television allotment would require a new
file

number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the applicant will
have the opportunity to withdraw the amendment at any time prior to
designation for a hearing if applicable; and may be afforded, subject to
the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge, an opportunity to
withdraw the amendment after designation for a hearing.

\(d\) \* \* \*

(e)(1) The FCC will specify by Public Notice, pursuant to Sec. 73.5002,
a period for filing applications for a new non-reserved television, low
power TV and TV translator stations or for major modifications in the
facilities of such authorized stations and major modifications in the
facilities of Class A TV stations.

\(2\) Such applicants shall be subject to the provisions of Secs. 1.2105
and competitive bidding procedures. See 47 CFR 73.5000 et seq.

\(f\) Applications for minor modification of Class A TV, low power TV,
TV translator and TV booster stations may be filed at any time, unless
restricted by the FCC, and will be processed on a
"first-come/first-served" basis, with the first acceptable application
cutting off the filing rights of subsequent, competing applicants.
Provided, however, that applications for minor modifications of Class A
TV and those of TV broadcast stations may become mutually exclusive
until grant of a pending Class A TV or TV broadcast minor modification
application and will be subject to competitive bidding procedures.

\(g\) TV booster station applications may be filed at any time.
Subsequent to filing, the FCC will release a Public Notice accepting for
filing and proposing for grant those applications which are not mutually
exclusive with any other TV translator, low power TV, TV booster, or
Class A TV application, and providing for the filing of Petitions To
Deny pursuant to § 73.3584.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 43\. Section 73.3580 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73. 3580 Local public notice of filing of broadcast applications.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) An applicant who files an application or amendment thereto which
is subject to the provisions of this section, must give notice of this
filing in a newspaper. Exceptions to this requirement are applications
for renewal of AM, FM, TV, Class A TV and international broadcasting
stations; \* \* \*

\(d\) The licensee of an operating broadcast station who files an
application or amendment thereto which is subject to the provisions of
this section must give notice as follows:

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

> \(5\) An applicant who files for a Class A television license must
> give notice of this filing by broadcasting announcements on
> applicant's station. (Sample and schedule of announcements are below.)
> Newspaper publication is not required.
>
> \(i\) The broadcast notice requirement for those filing for Class A
> television license applications and amendment thereto are as follows:
>
> *(A) Pre-filing announcements*. Two weeks prior to the filing of the
> license application, the following announcement shall be broadcast on
> the 5th and 10th days of the two week period. The required
> announcements shall be made between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. (5 p.m. and 10
> p.m. Central and Mountain Time) Stations broadcasting primarily in a
> foreign language should broadcast the announcements in that language.
>
> On (date), the Federal Communications Commission granted (Station's
> call letters) a certification of eligibility to apply for Class A
> television status. To become eligible for a Class A certificate of
> eligibility, a low power television licensee was required to certify
> that during the 90-day period ending November 28, 1999, the station:
> (1) broadcast a minimum of 18 hours per day; (2) broadcast an average
> of at least three hours per week of programming produced within the
> market area served by the station or by a group of commonly-owned low
> power television stations; and (3) had been in compliance with the
> Commission's regulations applicable to the low power television
> service. The Commission may also issue a certificate of eligibility to
> a licensee unable to satisfy the foregoing criteria, if it determines
> that the public interest, convenience and necessity would be served
> thereby.
>
> (Station's call letters) intends to file an application (FCC Form
> 302-CA) for a Class A television license in the near future. When
> filed, a copy of this application will be available at (address of
> location of the station's public inspection file) for public
> inspection during our regular business hours. Individuals who wish to
> advise the FCC of facts relating to the station's eligibility for
> Class A status should file comments and petitions with the FCC within
> two weeks of the filing of the license application.
>
> *(B) Post-filing announcements*. The following announcement shall be
> broadcast on the 1st and 10th days following the filing of an
> application for a Class A television license.. The required
> announcements shall be made between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. (5 p.m. and 10
> p.m. Central and Mountain Time). Stations broadcasting primarily in a
> foreign language should broadcast the announcements in that language.
>
> On (date of filing license application) (Station's call letters) filed
> an application, FCC Form 302-CA, for a Class A television license.
> Such stations are required to broadcast a minimum of 18 hours per day,
> and to average at least 3 hours of locally produced programming each
> week, and to comply with certain full-service television station
> operating requirements.
>
> A copy of this application is available for public inspection during
> our regular business hours at (address of location of the station's
> public inspection file). Individuals who wish to advise the FCC of
> facts relating to the station's eligibility for Class A status should
> file comments and petitions with the FCC prior to Commission action on
> this application.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 44\. Section 73.3612 is amended to read as follows:

§ 73.3612 Annual employment report.

Each licensee of permittee of a commercially or noncommercially operated
AM, FM, TV, Class A TV or International Broadcast station with five or
more employees shall file an annual employment report with the FCC on or
before September 30 of each year on FCC Form 395.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 45\. Subpart J of part 73 is adopted as follows.

Subpart J - Class A Television Broadcast Stations

Authority: (47 U.S.C. 336(f))

§ 73.6000 Definitions.

"*Locally produced programming.*" For the purpose of this subpart,
locally produced programming is programming: (1) produced within the
predicted Grade B contour of the station or within the predicted Grade B
contours of any of the stations in a commonly owned group; or (2)
programming produced at the station's main studio.

Note: See Report and Order, In the Matter of Establishment of a Class A
Television Service, MM Docket No. 00-10, released April xx, 2000.

§ 73.6001 Eligibility and service requirements.

\(a\) Qualified low power television licensees which, during the 90-day
period ending November 28, 1999, operated their stations in a manner
consistent with the programming and operational standards set forth in
the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999, may be accorded
primary status as Class A television licensees.

\(b\) Class A television broadcast stations are required to: (1)
broadcast a minimum of 18 hours per day; and (2) broadcast an average of
at least three hours per week of locally produced programming each
quarter.

\(c\) Licensed Class A television broadcast stations shall be accorded
primary status as a television broadcaster as long as the station
continues to meet the minimum operating requirements for Class A status.

\(d\) Licensees unable to continue to meet the minimum operating
requirements for Class A television stations, or which elect to revert
to low power television status, shall promptly notify the Commission, in
writing, and request a change in status.

§ 73.6002 Licensing requirements.

(a) A Class A television broadcast license will only be issued to a
    qualified low power television licensee that: (1) filed a Statement
    of Eligibility for Class A Low Power Television Station Status on or
    before January 28, 2000, which was granted by the Commission;
    and (2) files an acceptable application for a Class A Television
    license (FCC Form 302-CA).

§§ 73.6003-73.6005 \[Reserved\]

§73.6006 Channel assignments.

Class A TV stations will not be authorized on UHF TV channels 52 through
69, or on channels unavailable for TV broadcast station use pursuant to
§73.603 of this part.

§ 73.6007 Power limitations.

An application to change the facilities of an existing Class A TV
station will not be accepted if it requests an effective radiated power
that exceeds the power limitation specified in §74.735 of this chapter.

§ 73.6008 Distance computations.

The distance between two reference points must be calculated in
accordance with §73.208(c) of this part.

§ 73.6010 Class A TV station protected contour.

\(a\) A Class A TV station will be protected from interference within
the following predicted signal contours:

\(1\) 62 dBu for stations on Channels 2 through 6;

\(2\) 68 dBu for stations on Channels 7 through 13; and

\(3\) 74 dBu for stations on Channels 14 through 51.

\(b\) The Class A TV station protected contour is calculated from the
effective radiated power and antenna height above average terrain, using
the F(50,50) charts of Figure 9, 10 or 10b of §73.699 of this part.

\(c\) A digital Class A TV station will be protected from interference
within the following predicted signal 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 51.

\(d\) The digital Class A TV station protected contour is calculated
from the 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 part.

§ 73.6011 Protection of TV broadcast stations.

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. Protection of these stations and applications must
be based on the requirements specified in §74.705 of this chapter. An
application to change the facilities of an existing Class A TV station
will not be accepted if it fails to protect these TV broadcast stations
and applications pursuant to the requirements specified in §74.705 of
this chapter.

§ 73.6012 Protection of Class A TV, low power TV and TV translator
stations.

An application to change the facilities of an existing Class A TV
station will not be accepted if it fails to protect other authorized
Class A TV, low power TV and TV translator stations and applications for
changes in such stations filed prior to the date the Class A application
is filed, pursuant to the requirements specified in §74.707 of this
chapter.

§ 73.6013 Protection of DTV stations.

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 not causing
predicted interference within the service area described in §73.622(e)
of this part. The interference analysis is based on the methods
described in §§73.623(c)(2) through (c)(4) of this part, *except* that a
Class A TV station must not cause a loss of service to 0.5 percent or
more of the population predicted to receive service from the DTV
allotment, station or application. An application to change the
facilities of an existing Class A TV station will not be accepted if it
fails to protect these DTV allotments, stations and applications in
accordance with this section.

§ 73.6014 Protection of digital Class A TV stations.

An application to change the facilities of an existing Class A TV
station will not be accepted if it fails to protect authorized digital
Class A TV stations and applications for changes in such stations filed
prior to the date the Class A application is filed, pursuant to the
requirements specified in §74.706 of this chapter.

§ 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 D/U ratios for "DTV-into-analog TV" specified in
§73.623(c)(2) of this part at the Grade B contour of the TV broadcast
station or application. 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.

§ 73.6017 Digital Class A TV station protection of Class A TV, low power
TV and 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 meet the D/U ratios for "DTV-into-analog TV"
specified in §73.623(c)(2) of this part at the protected contours as
defined in 73.6010 of this part for other authorized Class A TV stations
and 74.707 of this chapter for low power TV and TV translator stations.
This protection also must be afforded to applications for changes in
other authorized Class A TV, low power TV and TV translator stations
filed prior to the date the digital Class A application is filed.

§ 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 not
causing predicted interference within the service area described in
§73.622(e) of this part. The interference analysis is based on the
methods described in §§73.623(c)(2) through (c)(4) of this part,
*except* that a digital Class A TV station must not cause a loss of
service to 0.5 percent or more of the population predicted to receive
service from the DTV allotment, station or application. 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.

§ 73.6019 Digital Class A TV station protection of 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 meet the D/U ratios for "DTV-into-DTV" specified
in §73.623(c)(2) through (c)(4) of this part at the protected contours
as defined in §73.6010 of this part for other authorized Class A TV
stations and applications for changes filed prior to the date the
digital Class A application is filed.

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

An application to change the facilities of an existing 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 stations must not cause
interference to land mobile stations operating on channel 16 in New
York, NY.

§ 73.6022 Negotiated interference and relocation agreements.

\(a\) Notwithstanding the technical criteria in this subpart, Subpart E
of this part, and Subpart G of Part 74 of this chapter regarding
interference protection to and from Class A TV stations, Class A TV
stations may negotiate agreements with parties of authorized and
proposed analog TV, DTV, LPTV, TV translator, Class A TV stations or
other affected parties to resolve interference concerns; *provided*,
however, other relevant requirements are met with respect to the parties
to the agreement. A written and signed agreement must be submitted with
each application or other request for action by the Commission.
Negotiated agreements under this paragraph can include the exchange of
money or other considerations from one entity to another. Applications
submitted pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph will be granted
only if the Commission finds that such action is consistent with the
public interest.

\(b\) A Class A TV station displaced in channel by a channel allotment
change for a DTV station may seek to exchange channels with the DTV
station, provided both parties consent in writing to the change and that
the Class A station meets all applicable interference protection
requirements on the new channel. Such requests will be treated on a
case-by-case basis and, if approved, will not subject the Class A
station to the filing of competing applications for the exchanged
channel.

§ 73.6024 Transmission standards and system requirements.

\(a\) A Class A TV station must meet the requirements of §§ 73.682 and
73.687, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.

\(b\) A Class A TV station may continue to operate with the transmitter
operated under its previous LPTV license, provided such operation does
not cause any condition of uncorrectable interference due to radiation
of radio frequency energy outside of the assigned channel. Such
operation must continue to meet the requirements of §§ 74.736 and 74.750
of this chapter.

\(c\) A Class A TV station is not required to operate on an offset
carrier frequency and must meet the frequency tolerance requirements of
§ 73.1545 of this part.

§ 73.6025 Antenna system and station location.

\(a\) Applications for modified Class A TV facilities proposing the use
of directional antenna systems must be accompanied by the following:

\(1\) Complete description of the proposed antenna system, including the
manufacturer and model number of the proposed directional antenna. In
the case of a composite antenna composed of two or more individual
antennas, the antenna should be described as a "composite" antenna. A
full description of the design of the antenna should also be submitted.

\(2\) Relative field horizontal plane pattern (horizontal polarization
only) of the proposed directional antenna. A value of 1.0 should be used
for the maximum radiation. The plot of the pattern should be oriented so
that 0 degrees (True North) corresponds to the maximum radiation of the
directional antenna or, alternatively in the case of a symmetrical
pattern, the line of symmetry. Where mechanical beam tilt is intended,
the amount of tilt in degrees of the antenna vertical axis and the
orientation of the downward tilt with respect to true North must be
specified, and the horizontal plane pattern must reflect the use of
mechanical beam tilt.

\(3\) A tabulation of the relative field pattern required in paragraph
(a)(2), of this section. The tabulation should use the same zero degree
reference as the plotted pattern, and be tabulated at least every 10
degrees. In addition, tabulated values of all maxima and minima, with
their corresponding azimuths, should be submitted.

\(4\) Horizontal and vertical plane radiation patterns showing the
effective radiated power, in dBk, for each direction. Sufficient
vertical plane patterns must be included to indicate clearly the
radiation characteristics of the antenna above and below the horizontal
plane. In cases where the angles at which the maximum vertical radiation
varies with azimuth, a separate vertical radiation pattern must be
provided for each pertinent radial direction.

\(5\) The horizontal and vertical plane patterns that are required are
the patterns for the complete directional antenna system. In the case of
a composite antenna composed of two or more individual antennas, this
means that the patterns for the composite antenna, not the patterns for
each of the individual antennas, must be submitted.

\(b\) Applications for modified Class A TV facilities proposing to
locate antennas within 61.0 meters (200 feet) of other Class A TV or TV
broadcast antennas operating on a channel within 20 percent in frequency
of the proposed channel, or proposing the use of antennas on Channels 5
or 6 within 61.0 meters (200 feet) of FM broadcast antennas, must
include a showing as to the expected effect, if any, of such proximate
operation.

\(c\) Where a Class A TV licensee or permittee proposes to mount an
antenna on an AM antenna tower, or locate within 3.2 km of an AM
directional station, the TV licensee or permittee must comply with Sec.
73.1692.

\(d\) Class A TV stations are subject to the provisions in § 73.685(d)
regarding blanketing interference.

§ 73.6026 Broadcast regulations applicable to Class A television
stations.

The following rules are applicable to Class A television stations:

§ 73.603 Numerical designation of television channels.

§ 73.635 Use of common antenna site.

§ 73.642 Subscription TV service.

§ 73.643 Subscription TV operating requirements.

§ 73.644 Subscription TV transmission systems.

§ 73.646 Telecommunications Service on the Vertical Blanking Interval
and in the Visual Signal.

§ 73.653 Operation of TV aural and visual transmitters.

§ 73.658 Affiliation agreements and network program practice;
territorial exclusivity in non-network program arrangements.

§ 73.664 Determining operating power.

§ 73.665 Use of TV aural baseband subcarriers.

§ 73.667 TV subsidiary communications services.

§ 73.669 TV stereophonic aural and multiplex subcarrier operation.

§ 73.670 Commercial limits in children's programs.

§ 73.671 Educational and informational programming for children.

§ 73.673 Public information initiatives regarding educational and
informational programming for children.

§ 73.688 Indicating instruments.

§ 73.691 Visual modulation monitoring.

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

46. The authority citation for part 74 is amended to read as follows:

> Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, 336(f) and 554.

47\. Section 74.432 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

§ 74.432 Licensing requirements and procedures.

\(a\) A license for a remote pickup station will be issued to: the
licensee of an AM, FM, noncommercial FM, TV, Class A TV, international
broadcast or low power TV station; broadcast network-entity; or cable
network-entity.

\* \* \* \* \*

48\. Section 74.600 is amended to read as follows:

§ 74.600 Eligibility for license.

A license for a station in this subpart will be issued only to a
television broadcast station, a Class A TV station, a television
broadcast network-entity, a low power TV station, or a TV translator
station.

49\. Section 74.601 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (f) to
read as follows:

§ 74.601 Classes of TV broadcast auxiliary stations.

\(a\) TV pickup stations. A land mobile station used for the
transmission of TV program material and related communications from
scenes of events occurring at points removed from TV station studios to
a TV broadcast, Class A TV or low power TV station or other purposes as
authorized in § 74.631.

\(b\) TV STL station (studio-transmitter link). A fixed station used for
the transmission of TV program material and related communications from
the studio to the transmitter of a TV broadcast, Class A TV or low power
TV station or other purposes as authorized in § 74.631.

\(c\) TV relay station. A fixed station used for transmission of TV
program material and related communications for use by TV broadcast,
Class A TV and low power TV stations or other purposes as authorized in
§ 74.631.

\(d\) TV translator relay station. A fixed station used for relaying
programs and signals of TV broadcast or Class A TV stations to Class A
TV, LPTV, TV translator, and to other communications facilities that the
Commission may authorize or for other purposes as permitted by § 74.631.

\(e\) TV broadcast licensee. Licensees and permittees of TV broadcast,
Class A TV and low power TV stations, unless specifically otherwise
indicated.

\(f\) TV microwave booster station. A fixed station in the TV broadcast
auxiliary service that receives and amplifies signals of a TV pickup, TV
STL, TV relay, or TV translator relay station and retransmits them on
the same frequency.

50\. Section 74.602 is amending by revising paragraphs (f) and (h) to
read as follows:

§ 74.602 Frequency assignment.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(f\) TV auxiliary stations licensed to low power TV stations and
translator relay stations will be assigned on a secondary basis, i.e.,
subject to the condition that no harmful interference is caused to other
TV auxiliary stations assigned to TV broadcast and Class A TV stations,
or to community antenna relay stations (CARS) operating between 12,700
and 13,200 MHz. Auxiliary stations licensed to low power TV stations and
translator relay stations must accept any interference caused by
stations having primary use of TV auxiliary frequencies.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(h\) TV STL and TV relay stations may be authorized, on a secondary
basis and subject to the provisions of Subpart G of this chapter, to
operate fixed point-to-point service on the UHF-TV channels 14-69. These
stations must not interfere with and must accept interference from
current and future full-power UHF-TV stations, Class A TV stations, LPTV
stations, and TV translator stations. They will also be secondary to
current land mobile stations (in areas where land mobile sharing is
currently permitted and contingent on the decision reached in the
pending Dockets No. 85-172 and No. 84-902).

\* \* \* \* \*

51\. Section 74.703 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

§ 74.703 Interference.

\(a\) An application for a new low power TV, TV translator, or TV
booster station or for a change in the facilities of such an authorized
station will not be granted when it is apparent that interference will
be caused. Except where there is a written agreement between the
affected parties to accept interference, or where it can be shown that
interference will not occur due to terrain shielding and/or Longley-Rice
terrain dependent propagation methods, the licensee of a new low power
TV, TV translator, or TV booster shall protect existing low power TV and
TV translator stations from interference within the protected contour
defined in § 74.707 of this part and shall protect existing Class A TV
and digital Class A TV stations within the protected contours defined in
§ 73.6010 of this chapter. Such written agreement shall accompany the
application. Guidance on using the Longley-Rice methodology is provided
in OET Bulletin No. 69. Copies of OET Bulletin No. 69 may be inspected
during normal business hours at the: Federal Communications Commission,
445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257),
Washington, DC 20554. This document is also available through the
Internet on the FCC Home Page at
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/#69.

\* \* \* \* \*

53\. Subpart G is amended by adding a new Section 74.708 to read as
follows:

§ 74.708 Class A TV and digital Class A TV station protection.

\(a\) The Class A TV and digital Class A TV station protected contours
are specified in § 73.6010 of this chapter.

\(b\) 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 Class A TV or
digital Class A TV station or an application for such a station filed
prior to the date the low power TV, TV translator, or TV booster
application is filed.

\(c\) Applications for low power TV, TV translator and TV booster
stations shall protect Class A TV stations pursuant to the requirements
specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of § 74.707 of this part.

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

\(i\) An application must not specify an antenna site within the
protected contour of a co-channel digital Class A TV station.

\(ii\) The ratio in dB of the field strength of the low power TV, TV
translator or TV booster station to that of the digital Class A TV
station must meet the requirements specified in paragraph (d) of §
74.706 of this part, calculated using the propagation methods specified
in paragraph (c) of that section.

> **APPENDIX B**

**Comments**

AirWaves, Inc. (AirWaves)

Alaskan Choice Television (Alaskan)

Apogee Companies, Inc. (Apogee)

Association of America's Public Television Stations (APTS)

Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers (AFCCE)

Association of Local Television Stations, Inc. (ALTS)

Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV), and National
Association of

Broadcasters (NAB)

Blade Communications, Inc. (Blade)

Board of Trustees, Coast Community College District, et al. (Coast)

Centex Television Limited Partnership (Centex)

Certain Channel 2-6 Licensees a/k/a Mt. Mansfield Television, Inc.
(Channels 2-6)

Channel 12 of Beaumont, Inc. (Channel 12)

Channel 13 Television, Inc. (Channel 13)

Commercial Broadcasting Corp. (CBC)

Communications Technologies, Inc. (Com Tech)

Community Broadcasters Association (CBA)

Community Service Television (Com Service)

Connecticut Public Broadcasting, Inc. (Connecticut)

Cordillera Communications, Inc. (Cordillera)

Cosmos Broadcasting Corporation (Cosmos)

Council Tree Communications (Council)

Davis Television Clarksburg, et. al. (Davis)

Delmarva Broadcast Service General Partnership (Delmarva)

Dutchess Community College (Dutchess)

DuTreil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. (DuTreil)

Educational Broadcasting Corporation (EBC)

Engles Communications, Inc. (Engles)

Entravision Holdings (Entravision)

Equity Broadcasting Corporation (Equity)

Eubanks, Derek Ray (Eubanks)

Far Eastern Telecasters (Far Eastern)

First United, Inc. (First United)

Fox Television Stations, Inc. a/k/a Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox)

G.I.G., Inc. (G.I.G.)

Gateway Communications, Inc. (Gateway)

Grupo Televisa S.A. (Grupo)

H&R Production Group (H&R)

HIC Broadcast, Inc. (HIC)

Home Shopping Club, LP (Home Shopping)

IBL (IBL)

Image Video Teleproductions, Inc. (Image)

International Broadcasting Network (IBN)

K Licensee, Inc. (K Licensee)

KB Prime Media (KB)

KM Communications, Inc. (KM)

KRHP Television (KRHP)

KSLS, Inc. (KSLS)

Kelly, Robert E. (Kelly)

Knies, Paul E. (Knies)

Lockwood Broadcasting, Inc. (Lockwood)

Maranatha Broadcasting Company, Inc. (Maranatha)

Marksteiner, Guenter (Marksteiner)

Martinez Group (Martinez)

McGreevy, Ron L. (McGreevy)

Media-Com Television, Inc. (Media-Com)

Miller, Larry A. and World Broadcasting, Inc. (Miller & World)

Mobile Video Tapes, Inc. (Mobile)

Mohave County Board of Supervisors (Mohave)

Montgomery Communications, Inc. (Montgomery)

NYN (NYN)

Nachman, Ivan C. (Nachman)

National Minority Television, Inc. (NMTV)

National Religious Broadcasters Association (NRB)

National Translator Association (NTA)

New York City, Policy Department (NYC)

Nicolas Communications Corporation (Nicolas)

North Rocky Mountain Television (NRMTV)

Oklahoma Educational Television Authority (Oklahoma)

Omni Broadcasting Company (Omni)

Paging Systems, Inc. a/k/a WLMF-LP (Paging)

Pappas Telecasting Companies (Pappas)

Paxson Communications Corporation (Paxson)

Pelican Broadcasting Company (Pelican)

Proclaim Broadcasting, Inc. (Proclaim)

Quorum of Utica License (Quorum)

Robert Broadcasting of Alabama (Robert)

Ruarch Associates Limited Liability Company a/k/a Stamler, Dr. Arthur D.
(Ruarch)

Rule Communications (Rule)

Saga Broadcasting Corp. (Saga)

Sarkes Tarzian, Inc. (Sarkes)

Schrecongost, Larry L. (Schrecongost)

Schwartz, Woods & Miller (Schwartz)

Sherjan Broadcasting Company (Sherjan)

Silentco, Inc. (Silentco)

Simons, Mike (Simons)

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Sinclair)

Skinner Broadcasting, Inc. (Skinner)

Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. (SBE)

Sonshine Family Television, Inc. (Sonshine)

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

TTI, Inc. (TTI)

TV 31 (TV 31)

TV Translator Licensees and LPTV Licensees (Translator-LPTV)

Telemundo's Group, Inc. (Telemundo)

Television Capital Corporation (TCC)

Three TV Licensees (Three TV)

Tiger Eye Broadcasting, Corp. (Tiger)

Turnpike Television (Turnpike)

Union Mission (Union)

University of California (UCA)

Univision Communications, Inc. (Univision)

U.S. Interactive, L.L.C., d/b/a AccelerNet (AccelerNet)

USA Broadcasting, Inc. (USAB)

Venture Technologies Group (Venture)

Vermillion, Richard and Ann (Vermillion)

Viking Communications, Inc. (Viking)

Vista Communications, Inc. (Vista)

WB Television Network (WB)

WLNY-TV, Inc. (WLNY)

WZBN-TV, Inc. (WZBN)

WatchTV, Inc. (WatchTV)

Week-TV License, Inc. (Week-TV)

WinStar Broadcasting Corporation (WinStar)

> **Reply Comments**

Aiken, David R. (Aiken)

Alaskan Choice Television (Alaskan)

Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers (AFCCE)

Association of Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV) & National
Association of

Broadcasters (NAB)

Baughn, David M. (Baughn)

Certain Channel 2-6 Licensees a.k.a. Mt. Mansfield Television, Inc.
(Mansfield)

Communications Technologies, Inc. (Com Tech)

Community Broadcasters Association (CBA)

Cosmos Broadcasting Corporation (Cosmos)

Davis Television Clarksburg, et al. (Davis)

Descriptive Theatre Vision (Descriptive)

Equity Broadcasting Corporation (Equity)

Fox Television Stations, Inc. (Fox)

Good Life Broadcasting, Inc. (Good Life)

Groupo Televisa (Groupo)

HIC Broadcast, Inc. (HIC)

Home Shopping Club (Home Shopping)

Jackson, Martin (Jackson)

K Licensee, Inc. (K)

KM Broadcasting, Inc. (KM)

Mojave Broadcasting Company (Mojave)

National Translator Association (NTA)

Pacific Bay Broadcasting (Pacific)

Paxson Communications Corporation (Paxson)

Schrecongost, Larry L. (Schrecongost)

Sherjan Broadcasting Company (Sherjan)

Simons, Mike (Simons)

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Sinclair)

Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE)

Sonshine Family Television, Inc. (Sonshine)

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

TV-61 San Diego, Inc. (TV-61)

Telemundo Group, Inc. (Telemundo)

Three TV Licensees (Three TV)

Trumbly, Warren a/k/a Polar Broadcasting (Trumbly)

U.S. Interactive, d/b/a AccelerNet (AccelerNet)

Upper Cumberland Broadcast Council (Cumberland)

Vacation Channel, Inc. (Vacation)

Venture Technologies Group (Venture)

WB Television Network (WB)

WGBH Educational Foundation (WGBH)

WinStar Broadcasting Corp. (WinStar)

Wright, Joan and Kenneth (Wright)

**APPENDIX C**

**FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^216] an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the *Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking* (*Notice*).[^217] The Commission sought written
public comment on the proposals in the *Notice*, including comment on
the IRFA. No comments were received in response to the IRFA. This
present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the
RFA.[^218]

**Need for, and Objectives of, the Adopted Rules**

The Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 (CBPA) directed the
Commission, within 120 days after the date of enactment, to prescribe
regulations establishing a Class A television license available to
licensees of qualifying low-power television (LPTV) stations. The CBPA
directs that Class A licensees be subject to the same license terms and
renewal standards as full-power television licensees, and that Class A
licensees be accorded primary status as a television broadcaster as long
as the station continues to meet the requirements set forth in the
statute for a qualifying low-power station. In addition to other
matters, the CBPA sets out certain certification and application
procedures for low-power television licensees seeking to obtain Class A
status, prescribes the criteria low-power stations must meet to be
eligible for a Class A license, and outlines the interference protection
Class A applicants must provide to analog (or "NTSC"), digital ("DTV"),
LPTV, and TV translator stations. The Commission is adopting the *Report
and Order* to implement the CBPA.

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

No comments were received in response to the IRFA.

**Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the
Proposed Rules Apply**

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be
affected by the rules.[^219] The RFA generally defines the term \"small
entity\" as having the same meaning as the terms \"small business,\"
\"small organization,\" and "small business concern" under section 3 of
the Small Business Act.[^220] A small business concern is one which: (1)
is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.[^221]

[Small TV Broadcast Stations]{.underline}. The SBA defines small
television broadcasting stations as television broadcasting stations
with \$10.5 million or less in annual receipts.[^222]

As directed by the CBPA, the *Report and Order* establishes a Class A
television license available to licensees of qualifying LPTV stations.
According to the Commission staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc.,
Master Access Television Analyzer Database, virtually all LPTV broadcast
stations have revenues of less than \$10.5 million. Currently, there are
approximately 2,200 licensed LPTV stations.[^223] The Commission notes,
however, that under SBA's definition, revenues of affiliates that are
not LPTV stations should be aggregated with the LPTV station revenues in
determining whether a concern is small. The Commission\'s 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.

**Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements**

As directed by the CBPA, the *Report and Order* requires LPTV stations
seeking Class A status to file certifications of eligibility and
applications to convert to Class A. In addition, as directed by the
CBPA, Class A stations must comply with the operating requirements for
full-service television broadcast stations, including the requirements
for informational and educational children's programming and the limits
on commercialization during children's programming, the political
programming rules, and the public inspection file rule.[^224] These
rules contain a number of recordkeeping requirements that will apply to
Class A stations.

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

[Creating New Opportunities for Small Businesses]{.underline}. Pursuant
to the CBPA and the Commission\'s implementing rules, certain qualifying
low-power television ("LPTV") stations will be accorded Class A status.
Class A licensees will have "primary" status as television broadcasters,
thereby gaining a measure of protection against full-service television
stations, even as those stations convert to digital format. The LPTV
stations eligible for Class A status under the CBPA and the
Commission\'s rules provide locally-originated programming, often to
rural and certain urban communities that have either no or little access
to local programming. LPTV stations are owned by a wide variety of
licensees, including minorities and women, and often provide "niche"
programming to residents of specific ethnic, racial, and interest
communities. The provisions adopted in the *Report and Order* will
facilitate the acquisition of capital needed by these stations to allow
them to continue to provide free, over-the-air programming, including
locally-originated programming, to their communities. In addition, by
improving the commercial viability of LPTV stations that provide
valuable programming, the *Report and Order* is consistent with the
Commission\'s fundamental goals of ensuring diversity and localism in
television broadcasting.[^225]

[Minimizing Impact on Existing Small Business Broadcast
Stations]{.underline}. The CBPA directs that Class A licensees be
subject to the same license terms and renewal standards as full-power
television licensees. However, the *Report and Order* adopts a number of
rules designed to help LPTV stations seeking to convert to Class A
status and exempts Class A licensees from Part 73 rules that clearly
cannot apply, either due to technical differences in the operation of
low-power and full-power stations, or for other reasons. For example,
although the *Report and Order* applies the Main Studio rule for the
first time to LPTV stations who qualify as Class A stations, requiring
them to locate their main studios within the station's Grade B contour,
as determined pursuant to the Commission's rules, it grandfathers their
main studios at the site in use as of November 28, 1999. The *Report and
Order* also modifies a number of other requirements applicable to
full-service television broadcast stations, including: (1) requiring a
minimum hours of operation of 18 hours per day, as required by the
Statute; (2) grandfathering the use of LPTV broadcast transmitters and
(3) permitting full-service NTSC stations to protect Class A stations on
the basis of carrier frequency offsets.[^226]

In response to comments, the Commission will not apply to Class A
facilities the following provisions of Part 73: (1) the NTSC and DTV
Tables of Allotments (sections 73.606 and 73.607); (2) mileage
separations (section 73.610); and (3) minimum power and antenna height
requirements (section 73.614). The *Report and* Order also exempts Class
A facilities from the principal city coverage requirement of section
73.685(a) of the rules. As proposed in the *Notice,* the *Report and*
Order maintains for now the current LPTV maximum power levels for Class
A stations. In addition, the *Report and Order* does not adopt an annual
certification or reporting requirement for Class A stations, but it does
require licensees seeking to assign or transfer a Class A license to
certify on the application for transfer or assignment of license that
the station has been operated in compliance with the rules applicable to
Class A stations. The *Report and Order* also requires that Class A
renewal applications be subject to petitions to deny. [^227]

[Alternative eligibility criteria]{.underline}. The CBPA grants the
Commission authority to establish alternative eligibility criteria for
LPTV stations seeking Class A designation if "the Commission determines
that the public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by
treating the station as a qualifying low-power television station for
purposes of this section, or for other reasons determined by the
Commission."[^228]

Congress mandated three qualifications in the CBPA. For the 90 days
prior to enactment of the CBPA, an applicant must have (1) broadcast a
minimum of 18 hours per day, (2) broadcast an average of at least 3
hours per week of programming produced within the market area served by
the station, and (3) been in compliance with Commission requirements of
LPTV stations. The *Report and Order* allows deviation from the strict
statutory eligibility criteria only where such deviations are
insignificant or when the Commission determines that there are
compelling circumstances, such as a natural disaster or interference
forcing a station off the air, and that in light of those compelling
circumstances, the interest of equity mandates such a deviation.[^229]

The *Report and Order* does not establish a different set of criteria
for foreign language stations that do not meet the local programming
criteria for a Class A license. Although the *Report and Order*
recognizes the valuable service provided by foreign language stations,
it concludes that congressional intent was to keep the class of stations
granted this special status as a small class and that locally originated
programming was an integral part of the specifics of the class.[^230]
Finally, the *Report and Order* does not adopt separate eligibility
criteria for translator stations, concluding that the statute limits
eligibility to LPTV stations that produce local programming and can meet
the operating rules applicable to full-service stations.[^231]

**Report to Congress**

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 Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, *see* 5 U.S.C. §
801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the
*Report and Order*, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the *Report and
Order* and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
Federal Register. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^1]: ^?^ Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999, Pub. L. No.
    106-113, 113 Stat. Appendix I at pp. 1501A-594 -- 1501A-598 (1999),
    *codified at* 47 U.S.C. § 336(f) (CBPA). This bill was enacted as
    part of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform
    Act of 1999, which itself is part of a larger consolidated omnibus
    appropriations bill entitled "Making consolidated appropriations for
    the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes."

[^2]: ^?^ *Report and Order* in BC Docket No. 78-253, 51 R.R. 2d 476,
    486 (1982). *See also id.* at n. 23: \"\[Because\] it is integral to
    the concept of a secondary service that it yield to a mutually
    exclusive primary service, we shall not take low power stations into
    account in authorizing full-service stations, and we urge low power
    applicants to consider this fact when they select channels.\"

[^3]: ^?^ *Public Notice*, \"Broadcast Station Totals as \[of\]
    September 30, 1999" (*rel*. November 22, 1999).

[^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 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 to a range of approximately 15 to 20
    miles, while the signals of full-service stations can reach as far
    as 60 to 80 miles away.

[^5]: ^?^ *See* *First Report and Order, In the Matter of Review of the
    Commission's Rules Governing the Low Power Television Service*, MM
    Docket No. 93-114, 9 FCC Rcd 2555 (1994)("*LPTV First Report and
    Order*"). *See also* Comments of Free Life Ministries, Inc. at 1.
    References to comments pertain to comments filed in response to the
    *Public Notice* (No. 82996) of the filing of the Community
    Broadcasters Association (CBA) petition for rule making. *See* n.
    16, below.

[^6]: ^?^ Comments of D Lindsey Communications at 1 (noting that its
    LPTV station is the only station providing local news for residents
    of Temecula and Murrietta, CA, both of which are within the Los
    Angeles DMA). *See also* Comments of Engle Broadcasting at 1-2.

[^7]: ^?^ *LPTV First Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 2555 (1994). *See
    also* Comments of Community Broadcasting Company of San Diego at 2;
    Hispanic Broadcasters of AZ, Inc. at 1; Channel 19 TV Corp. at 2;
    ZGS Broadcast Holding, Inc. at 1; National Minority T.V., Inc. at 1;
    Liberty University, Inc. at 2; Debra Goodworth, Turnpike Television
    at 1-2.

[^8]: ^?^ *LPTV First Report and Order,* 9 FCC Rcd at 2555 (1994). *See
    also, Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, In the Matter of
    Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing
    Television Broadcast Service*, MM Docket No. 87-268, 11 FCC Rcd
    10968, 10995 (1996).

[^9]: ^?^ Section-by-Section Analysis to S. 1948, the Act known as the
    "Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of
    1999," as printed in the Congressional Record of November 17, 1999
    at pages S 14708 -- 14726 ("Section-by-Section Analysis"), at S
    14724.

[^10]: ^?^ Section-by-Section Analysis at S 14724.

[^11]: ^?^ In the DTV proceeding the Commission estimated that
    approximately 55 to 65 percent of existing LPTV stations and 80 to
    90 percent of all TV translator stations would be able to continue
    to operate and that operations in or near major urban areas would be
    most affected by the implementation of the DTV service. *Sixth
    Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, MM Docket No. 87-268, 11
    FCC Rcd 10968 (1996). Television translators, which rebroadcast the
    programs of full-service TV stations, may be affected to a lesser
    extent because many translators operate in mountainous areas and are
    terrain-shielded from other stations. In addition to the DTV impact,
    hundreds of LPTV and translator stations operate on channels 60-69
    and are required by law to vacate these channels by the end of the
    DTV transition period due to the reallocation of this spectrum for
    other uses. Full-service TV stations operating on channels 60-69 are
    also required to relocate to lower channels by that time. *In the
    Matter of Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz
    Band*, *Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 97-157, 12 FCC Rcd 22953
    (1998).

[^12]: ^?^ *See* *Notice of Proposed Rule Making, In the Matter of
    Establishment of a Class A Television Service*, MM Docket No.
    99-292, RM-9260, FCC 99-257 (*rel.* Sept. 29, 1999) (*September 22
    Notice*) at ¶¶ 9-14. The Commission terminated this earlier
    proceeding considering establishment of a form of primary status for
    LPTV stations in light of the subsequent passage of the CBPA on
    November 29, 1999.

[^13]: ^?^ Section-by-Section Analysis at S 14725.

[^14]: ^?^ Section-by-Section Analysis at S 14724.

[^15]: ^?^ In its January 13 *Notice*, the Commission indicated it had
    suspended the comment cycle in the earlier proceeding in light of
    passage of the CBPA, and directed that parties that filed comments
    in response to the *September 22 Notice* who wished to have their
    comments considered herein to refile the comments in this
    proceeding. *See Notice* at ¶ 2 and n. 4.

[^16]: ^?^ The petition was filed on September 30, 1997, and amended on
    March 18, 1998. On April 21, 1998, the Commission gave public notice
    of the filing of the petition and amendment and sought public
    comment*. Public Notice* (No. 82996), "Petition for Rulemaking filed
    for 'Class A' TV Service" (RM-9260), April 21, 1998.

[^17]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(A). These regulations must be in place
    by March 28, 2000.

[^18]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(B). The CBPA directed that this notice
    be sent within 30 days of the date of enactment. On December 13,
    1999, the Mass Media Bureau issued a *Public Notice* informing the
    public of the statute and the eligibility requirements. *Public
    Notice*, \"Mass Media Bureau Implements Community Broadcasters
    Protection Act of 1999,\" (*rel.* December 13, 1999). The Commission
    has also mailed to every LPTV licensee a \"Statement of Eligibility
    for Class A Low Power Television Station Status.\" Congress directed
    licensees intending to convert to Class A status to complete the
    statement and return it to the Commission by January 28, 2000.

[^19]: ^?^ More than 1,700 certifications of eligibility have been filed
    with the Commission.

[^20]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(B).

[^21]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(C).

[^22]: ^?^ The provision governing filing of Class A applications does
    not contain the same mandatory language. It states that licensees
    "may" submit an application for Class A designation within 30 days
    after final regulations are adopted. 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(C).

[^23]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(2)(A).

[^24]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(2)(B).

[^25]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* Comments of Association of America's Public
    Television Stations (APTS) at 10; Association of Local Television
    Stations, Inc. (ALTV) at 3; Association for Maximum Service
    Television, Inc. and National Association of Broadcasters (MSTV/NAB)
    at 15-16; Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Sinclair) at 11-12; WB
    Television Network (WB) at 21; AirWaves, Inc. (AirWaves) at 1.

[^26]: ^?^ Comments of ALTV at 8.

[^27]: ^?^ CBA takes the position that the alternative eligibility
    criteria in the statute would be rendered a "nullity" and contrary
    to the intent of Congress if the opportunity to seek Class A
    eligibility ceased after the 60 day period for the filing of
    certificates of eligibility*. See* Comments of CBA at 3*. See also*
    Comments of Commercial Broadcasting Corp. (CBC) at 1; Community
    Service Television Company (Com Service) at 2; Council Tree
    Communications, LLC (Council ) at 2-3; Home Shopping Club (Home
    Shopping)) at 6; Image Video Teleproductions, Inc. (Image) at 2.

[^28]: ^?^ "\[I\]t is not clear that all LPTV stations should be given
    such a guarantee \[of Class A status\] in light of the fact that
    many existing LPTV stations provide little or no original
    programming service." Section-by-Section Analysis at S14725.

[^29]: CBPA, § (b)(1).

[^30]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(B).

[^31]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(2)(A)(i ).

[^32]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(2)(A)(ii).

[^33]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(2)(B).

[^34]: ^?^ *Notice* at ¶ 19.

[^35]: ^?^ *See* Comments of Larry Schrecongost (Schrecongost) at 2-3.

[^36]: ^?^ *See* Comments of Turnpike Television (Turnpike) at 5-6. *See
    also* Comments of Airwaves at 1; CBA at 13. *See also* Reply
    Comments of CBA at 17.

[^37]: ^?^ *See* Comments of Centex at 1. *See also* Comments of
    National Minority TV, Inc. (NRB) at 7.

[^38]: ^?^ *See* Comments of WB at 24. *See also* Comments of Alaskan
    Choice Television (Alaskan) at 2; Sherjan Broadcasting Company
    (Sherjan) at 3-4.

[^39]: ^?^ *See* Comments of Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Sinclair)
    at 10.

[^40]: ^?^ *See* discussion of Class A station\'s antenna height, power,
    and protected service contour, below*.*

[^41]: ^?^ *See* Comments of Centex at 1.

[^42]: ^?^ We note that the predicted Grade B signal contour of an LPTV
    station, which typically would not extend beyond 20-25 miles, is
    generally smaller than the DMA, which normally encompasses several
    counties. In some cases, different communities within a DMA might be
    served by different Class A stations. The LPTV service was tailored
    to meet the needs of local communities, as opposed to such wider
    areas as would be covered in a DMA.

[^43]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 1125.

[^44]: ^?^ *See* Comments of W.B. St. Clair (St. Clair) at 2; WatchTV,
    Inc. (WatchTV) at 2.

[^45]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(2)(A)(i )(III).

[^46]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(2)(A)(ii).

[^47]: ^?^ *See Notice* at ¶¶ 54-56.

[^48]: ^?^ *See, e.g*., Comments of CBA at 13-17 (would exempt Class A
    stations only from certain ownership, principal city coverage,
    filing fee, and call sign requirements); Fox Television Stations,
    Inc. a/k/a Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox) at 13-15 (would exempt
    Class A stations from the Part 73 provisions addressing the table of
    allotments, minimum distance separations, and power and antenna
    height requirements, and would reduce the minimum field strength
    requirements for community coverage to correspond with the lower
    power levels at which Class A stations would operate); Sinclair at
    10 (Class A stations must be subject to all Part 73 rules, such as
    children's television programming requirements, main studio rule,
    public inspection file rules, and political programming rules); WB
    at 24-27 (Class A stations must comply with all Part 73
    requirements, including children's educational programming
    requirements and commercial limits, and the political programming,
    public inspection file, and main studio rules).

[^49]: ^?^ The EAS rules are given in Part 11 of the Commission's Rules.
    LPTV stations, except those that operate as television translator
    stations, are required to have a digital decoder. At the present
    time, manufacturers of EAS equipment produce only integrated
    encoder/decoder devices. Therefore, as a practical matter, we
    believe most LPTV stations already have a digital encoder.

[^50]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(A)(ii).

[^51]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1125.

[^52]: ^?^ The Grade B field strength values are defined in 47 C.F.R. §
    73.683(a) as 47 dBu for channels 2-6, 56 dBu for channels 7-13, and
    64 dBu for channels 14-69. The method of predicting the location of
    the Grade B contour is specified in 47 C.F.R. § 73.684.

[^53]: ^?^ *See Notice* at ¶ 55.

[^54]: ^?^ CBA argues that, at a minimum, every existing LPTV station
    should be grandfathered under any principal city coverage
    requirement the Commission may adopt. For new stations and Class A
    stations seeking to change their community of license, CBA states
    "it may be appropriate" to require that the Class A station
    protected service contour encompass a portion of the community of
    license. *See* Comments of CBA at 15-16. WB would require that a
    Class A station's protected signal contour cover the same or a
    greater percentage of the LPTV station's community of license as it
    did on November 29, 1999. *See* Comments of WB at 35.

[^55]: ^?^ See 47 C.F.R. § 74.735.

[^56]: ^?^ According to Congress, the purpose of the CBPA is to "ensure
    that many communities across the nation *will continue to have*
    access to free, over-the-air low-power television (LPTV) stations,
    even as full-service television stations proceed with their
    conversion to digital format." Section-by-Section Analysis at S
    14724 (emphasis added).

[^57]: ^?^ CBA argues that the FCC should permit increased power levels
    above the current Part 74 limits particularly for high-band VHF
    stations. CBA also states that whatever ERP limits that do apply
    should apply only in the horizontal plane, allowing additional power
    to be directed at downward elevations. Comments of CBA at 22. We
    disagree that the ERP limits should apply strictly in the horizontal
    plane. The LPTV rules establish limits for a station's maximum peak
    effective radiated power. Allowing power levels beyond those
    specified in the LPTV rules in connection with antenna beam tilt
    would increase the potential for causing interference to
    full-service stations operating near a Class A station; for example,
    stations operating on the 2^nd^, 3^rd^ or 4^th^ adjacent channels.
    MSTV/NAB, National Translator Association (NTA), Fox, and WB oppose
    permitting increased power for Class A. *See* Comments of MSTV/NAB
    at 14 n. 43; NTA at 5; Fox at 13; WB at 34.

[^58]: ^?^ *Sixth Report and Order, In the Matter of Advanced Television
    Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast
    Service*, MM Docket No. 87-268, 12 FCC Rcd 14588, 14605-06 (1997)
    (\"*Sixth Report and Order*\").

[^59]: ^?^ *See, e.g*., Comments of WB at 27 (Class A stations should be
    required to certify annually their continued compliance with the
    local programming requirement, the minimum operating requirement,
    and all applicable provisions of Part 73); Sinclair at 10 (FCC
    should adopt reporting requirements for Class A stations to ensure
    they are in compliance with the operating rules for full-service
    stations from the date of their application for a Class A license).

[^60]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(A)(ii).

[^61]: Nothing in this *Report and Order* is intended to affect a Class
    A LPTV station\'s eligibility to qualify for mandatory carriage
    under 47 U.S.C. § 534.

[^62]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(2)(B).

[^63]: ^?^ *See* Section-by-Section Analysis at S14725.

[^64]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* Comments of Council at 3-4; Comments of
    Entravision Holdings, LLC (Entravision) at 4; Comments of K
    Licensee, Inc. (K Licensee) at 2-4; Comments of Paging Systems, Inc.
    (Paging) at 5.

[^65]: ^?^ *See, e.g*., Comments of Nicolas Communications Corporation
    (Nicolas) at 11.

[^66]: ^?^ *See* Comments of NTA at 2.

[^67]: ^?^ \"Congress has recognized that 'LPTV stations are distinct
    from so called \"translators.' " Whereas LPTV stations typically
    offer original programming, translators merely amplify or \'boost\'
    a full-service television station\'s signal into rural or
    mountainous regions adjacent to the station\'s market.\"
    Section-by-Section Analysis at S 14726, n. 28.

[^68]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(D).

[^69]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 74.707(a). Most LPTV interference requirements
    limit the strength of a station's signal at another station's
    protected service contour. The service contour is defined by a field
    strength that is protected against interference. The protected
    signal contour is the locus of points where that field strength is
    predicted to occur. The contour-defining field strength, together
    with an LPTV station's power and antenna height, determine the
    geographic extent of its protected service. For a given facility, as
    long as that field strength is large enough to be received, the
    station's protected area would increase as the defining field
    strength is set to smaller dBu values.

[^70]: ^?^ The DTV noise-limited contour values are: 28 dBu for channels
    2-6, 36 dBu for channels 7-13 and 41 dBu for channels 14-69. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 73.622(e).

[^71]: ^?^ *See* Comments of CBA at 7 (advocating greater protection
    from new prohibited signal contour overlap). *See also* Comments of
    Commercial Broadcasting Corporation at 2; Equity Broadcasting
    Corporation (Equity) at 5; Turnpike at 2; Martinez Group (Martinez)
    at 2; Sherjan at 3; and Airwaves, Inc. at 1.

[^72]: ^?^ The Grade B field strength values are defined in 47 C.F.R. §
    73.683(a) as 47 dBu for channels 2-6, 56 dBu for channels 7-13 and
    64 dBu for channels 14-69.

[^73]: ^?^ *See* Section-by-Section Analysis at S14725.

[^74]: ^?^ *See* Reply Comments of Fox at 4.

[^75]: ^?^ *See* Comments of the Association of Federal Communications
    Consulting Engineers (AFCCE) at 1*. See also* the comments of St.
    Clair at 1 (stating that changing the protected contour definition
    for Class A stations would create confusion).

[^76]: ^?^ Some stations operate with facilities just sufficient to
    protect other LPTV or TV translator stations.

[^77]: ^?^ *See* Comments of MSTV/NAB at 24 and Technical Supplement to
    Reply Comments of CBA at 1.

[^78]: ^?^ NTSC Grade A contour values are defined in 47 C.F.R §
    73.683(a) as 68 dBu for channels 2-6, 71 dBu for channels 7-13 and
    74 dBu for channels 14-69.

[^79]: ^?^ *See* Comments of the AFCCE at 1; du Treil, Lundin & Rackley
    (du Treil) at 1-2; the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) at 5.

[^80]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(D).

[^81]: ^?^ *See* District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000
    --Conference Report Resumed, Congressional Record of November 19,
    1999 at. p. S14989. With respect to LPTV stations operating on
    channels outside the core that seek Class A status, we will commence
    contour protection for those stations upon issuance of a
    construction permit for an in-core channel. *See infra.*

[^82]: ^?^ *See* *Statements of Eligibility for Class A Low Power
    Television Status Tendered for Filing*, Public Notice (rel. Feb. 8,
    2000).

[^83]: ^?^ See Reply Comments of MSTV/NAB at 13.

[^84]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(2)(B).

[^85]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(D).

[^86]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(7)(A)(i).

[^87]: ^?^ *See Notice* at ¶ 27-28.

[^88]: ^?^ *See* Comments of CBA at 9.

[^89]: ^?^ The legislative history merely repeats the phrase "station
    transmitting in analog format," without additional explanation.
    *See* Section-by-Section Analysis at S 14725.

[^90]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(7)(A)(i ).

[^91]: ^?^ *See* Balanced Budget Act of 1997, § 3002(a)(1), codified at
    47 U.S.C. 309(j). As WB points out, winning bidders in the September
    1999 broadcast auction have already submitted their required down
    payments. WB argues that to interpret the CBPA such that these
    winning bidders do not receive an FCC authorization could have a
    chilling effect on the bid amounts in any future FCC auctions, and
    could be a "taking" in violation of the Fifth Amendment. *See*
    Comments of WB at 9-12.

[^92]: ^?^ *Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
    Corp.*, No. 98-1152, slip op. at 10, 2000 WL 289576 (U.S.) (March
    21, 2000).

[^93]: ^?^ *Id.* In applying this principle to the facts of the FDA
    case, the Court noted that this is particularly true \"where
    Congress has spoken subsequently and more specifically to the topic
    at hand.\" *Id.* Nevertheless, the principle applies here as well.

[^94]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(7)(A)(ii)(III).

[^95]: ^?^ We also stated that should we conclude that stations have an
    ongoing right to convert to Class A status, these Class A applicants
    would face the same requirement; that is, they would not be required
    to protect new DTV stations granted by the Commission after the
    Class A station has filed an acceptable certification of
    eligibility.

[^96]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(D).

[^97]: ^?^ These applications do not include applications to implement
    allotments in the initial DTV Table, or DTV maximization
    applications filed pursuant to the May 1, 2000 filing deadline, or
    applications filed pursuant to (f)(1)(D) of the CBPA to effect
    necessary allotment adjustments.

[^98]: ^?^ Allotment proposals filed pursuant to Section (f)(1)(D) of
    the CBPA where necessary to resolve a technical problem are
    discussed under Section III. C. 5. c. of this *Report and Order*.

[^99]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).

[^100]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(D).

[^101]: MSTV/NAB and Fox supported a broad interpretation of the term
    maximization. *See* Comments of MSTV/NAB at 5; Fox at 12. CBA argues
    that the term "maximization" should not be deemed a "carte blanche"
    for full-service stations to shut down Class A stations anytime,
    particularly where a full-service station seeks a power increase
    after the May 1, 2000 deadline in the statute and it seeks to extend
    coverage beyond its analog service area. In those situations, CBA
    argues an existing Class A station should be given priority, and if
    displaced, should be permitted to move to the channel that the
    maximized station abandons at the end of the DTV transition.
    Comments of CBA at 9-10.

[^102]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(D).

[^103]: *See, e.g*., Comments of APTS at 8; MSTV/NAB at 5-6; Fox at 7;
    Sinclair at 14.

[^104]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 14605.

[^105]: Section-by-Section Analysis at S 14724 (emphasis added).

[^106]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(D) and (f)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).

[^107]: *See* Appendix B of the *Memorandum Opinion and Order on
    Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order* in MM Docket No.
    87-268, 13 FCC Rcd 7418 (1998) (\"*Reconsideration of the Sixth
    Report and Order*\"). These 17 stations are located in the following
    cities: Riverside, CA; San Mateo, CA; Stockton, CA; Aurora, IL;
    Joliet, IL; Springfield, MA; Newark, NJ; Vineland, NJ; Riverhead,
    NY; Bethlehem, PA; two stations in Arecibo, PR; Caguas, PR;
    Naranjito, PR; Providence, RI; Lake Dallas, TX; Fairfax, VA.

[^108]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 14628.

[^109]: *See, e.g*., Comments of ALTV at 9-10.

[^110]: The legislative history to Section (f)(1)(D) makes clear that
    problems surrounding the assignment of channels constitute a
    technical problem within the scope of the technical resolution
    provisions of the statute. Congress stated

    > Subparagraph (d) mandates that the FCC must act to preserve the
    > signal contours of an LPTV station pending final resolution of its
    > application for a Class A license. In the event technical problems
    > arise that require an engineering solution to a full-service
    > station's allotted parameters or channel assignment in the DTV
    > table of allotments, subparagraph (d) requires the FCC to make the
    > necessary modifications to ensure that such full-service station
    > can replicate or maximize its service areas, as provided for in
    > the FCC rules. Section-by-Section Analysis at S 14725.

[^111]: *See* *Notice of Proposed Rule Making, In the Matter of Review
    of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to
    Digital Television,* MM Docket No. 00-39, FCC 00-83, (*rel.* March
    8, 2000).

[^112]: *Id.*

[^113]: *Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    7456-57.

[^114]: *Id.*

[^115]: Section-by-Section Analysis at S14725.

[^116]: *Notice* at ¶¶ 14, 16.

[^117]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.705. The various protection standards in this
    rule account for different types of interference based on the
    relationships between the channels of protected and proposed
    facilities. Most of these are given in terms of desired-to-undesired
    ("D/U") field strength ratios, which impose limits on the strength
    of unwanted signals at points along a station's protected contour. A
    D/U ratio is the numerical difference (in dB) between the field
    strength values of the desired and undesired signal (in dBu).
    Different ratios apply to the protection of stations on the same
    channel, the first adjacent channels above and below the proposed
    channel and the 14^th^ and 15^th^ channels below the proposed
    channel. For example, a D/U ratio of 28 dB is used to protect a
    co-channel UHF station where the proposed and protected stations
    specify different carrier frequency offsets. The predicted field
    strength of the proposed LPTV station must be at least 28 dB less
    than the protected 64 dBu field strength at points along the NTSC
    station's Grade B contour; the field strength of the proposed
    facilities cannot exceed 46 dBu. Section 74.705 also prescribes
    minimum distance separations between NTSC stations and proposed LPTV
    facilities for the 2^nd^, 3^rd^, or 4^th^ adjacent channel to that
    of NTSC stations or the 7^th^ adjacent channel below NTSC channels.

[^118]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.707.

[^119]: DTV interference protection criteria are given in 47 C.F.R. §§
    73.622 and 73.623 and also are described in OET Bulletin 69, which
    is available on the FCC Internet site at http://www.fcc.gov/
    oet/info/ documents/ bulletins/#69.

[^120]: *See* Comments of CBA at 6 and accompanying Technical Supplement
    at 2.

[^121]: Use of these signal propagation curves for these purposes are
    specified in Section 74.705(c) of the Commission's Rules. The FCC
    computer model used in application acceptance studies (the "LPONE"
    program) calculates D/U ratios at 10-degree azimuthal increments
    along the protected contour. We note that channels 4 and 5 and
    channels 6 and 7 are not adjacent channels.

[^122]: Frequency offsetting involves shifting the visual carrier
    frequency from its nominal position of 1.25 MHz from the lower edge
    of a TV channel. Standard offsets are of 10 kHz above the nominal
    frequency (plus offset), 10 kHz below (minus offset) or no shift
    (zero offset). Stations operating on the same channel but with
    different offsets may be located closer together with no additional
    interference potential than for stations operating without frequency
    offsets or on the same carrier offset. To maintain the stability of
    frequency offset relationship, stations must employ transmitters
    with a frequency tolerance of at least +/- 1 kHz.

[^123]: *See* Comments of du Triel, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. (du Triel) at
    3-4.

[^124]: The LPTV rules specify a co-channel D/U protection ratio of 45
    dB in situations where the proposed and protected stations do not
    specify different frequency offsets. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.705(d)(1).

[^125]: *See* Comments of du Treil at 4-5. *See also* Comments of Paxson
    at 5.

[^126]: The following protected channels in the LPTV rules are sometimes
    referred to as the "UHF Taboo" channels: 2 adjacent, 3^rd^ adjacent,
    4^th^ adjacent, 7^th^ adjacent, 14^th^ adjacent and 15^th^ adjacent.

[^127]: *See, e.g.*, Comments of MSTV/NAB at 25-26; Comments of St.
    Clair at 2.

[^128]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.623(c)(2).

[^129]: *See* Comments of du Triel at 6.

[^130]: *See, e.g.*, Comments of du Treil at 4-5; AFCCE at 2; SBE at 5;
    Ruarch Associates LLC (Ruarch) at 2; Blade Communications (Blade) at
    5 and Fox at 4.

[^131]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.623(c)(2).

[^132]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.706. The protection ratios in this rule are also
    included in Section 73.623.

[^133]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.705 and 74.707.

[^134]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of AFCCE at 1-2; du Triel at 5; Technical
    Supplement to Reply Comments of the CBA at 1.

[^135]: Analysis involving the DTV *de minimis* interference criteria is
    exceedingly complex. It would require determining a "baseline"
    service population for each Class A station, from which to calculate
    the allowable reductions to the station's service population.
    Baseline populations would have to account for interference already
    caused to Class A stations by other full-service, LPTV and TV
    translator stations, which would require significant revisions to
    the computer adaptations of OET 69 used by the Commission and
    consulting engineers. This would be a time consuming process and
    could affect not only the timely implementation of the Class A
    service, but also DTV application processing.

[^136]: CBA expressed concern that the current computer implementation
    of the OET Bulletin 69 methods may not be compatible with the LPTV
    service contours. This is due to the assumed use in the computer
    program of outdoor receiving antennas that provide as much as 14 dB
    of discrimination between desired and undesired signals. CBA
    suggests that much viewing of LPTV stations is done with indoor
    antennas and that use of OET Bulletin 69 methods could mistakenly
    predict service where, in fact, interference would occur*. See*
    Technical Supplement to Comments of CBA at 2-3. CBA is correct that
    the current computer implementation of OET Bulletin 69 does assume
    use of an outdoor receiving antenna, which attenuates the field
    strength of unwanted signals. However, CBA provides no basis for
    quantifying the extent to which LPTV viewers use only indoor
    antennas. Some LPTV station viewers, as well as those of
    full-service stations, do use outdoor antennas at locations other
    than the periphery of a station's service contour. We cannot
    conclude from CBA's comments that use of OET Bulletin 69 methods
    would result in "severe" interference to the reception of Class A
    stations.

[^137]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Paxson at 5; WB at 18; Connecticut
    Public Broadcasting (Connecticut) at 9; Cosmos Broadcasting (Cosmos)
    at 6.

[^138]: *See* Comments of Paxson at 5.

[^139]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.623(g).

[^140]: *Id*.

[^141]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(7)(A)(i).

[^142]: *See* Comments of NAB/MSTV at 4, 5; Apogee at 5; Connecticut at
    6-7; Sherjan at 6; and Skinner at 3.

[^143]: *See* *C*omments of SBE at 5-6.

[^144]: *See* Comments of SBE at 11-12.

[^145]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(7)(A)(ii)(I), (II).

[^146]: DTV allotment parameters to achieve service areas that replicate
    the areas within the NTSC Grade B service contours are specified in
    Appendix B of the second DTV reconsideration order. *Second
    Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth and
    Sixth Report and Orders* in MM Docket No. 87-268, 64 FR 4322 (1998).

[^147]: In the DTV proceeding, we permitted DTV stations in the initial
    allotment table to decrease by two percent the populations served by
    NTSC and other DTV stations, not to exceed a total reduction of ten
    percent. Unlike this DTV allowance, 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 Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of
    the Sixth Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 87-268, 13 FCC Rcd 7418
    (1998).

[^148]: OET Bulletin 69, Longley-Rice Methodology for Evaluating TV
    Coverage and Interference (July 2, 1997), available at FCC Internet
    address http:\\\\www. fcc.gov\\oet\\info\\documents\\bulletins\\#69.
    *See* also the Mass Media Bureau Public Notice "Additional
    Application Processing Guidelines for Digital Television (DTV),"
    August 10, 1998.

[^149]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of WB at 18-19; NAB/MSTV at 4-5; SBE at
    5-6; Ruarch at 4; and Media-Com Television Inc. (Media-Com) at 5.

[^150]: *See* Comments of SBE at 5-6.

[^151]: *See* Appendix B of the *Sixth Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    14639. Note that Appendix B does not contain facilities or service
    and interference statistics for these allotments. They can be
    activated through the construction permit application process and
    may use the maximum facilities permitted by Section 73.622(f) of the
    rules. Analysis of the 0.5% interference criteria for these
    allotments will require the Class A applicant to determine the
    population that would be served by a maximum facilities DTV station
    at the designated reference coordinates contained in Table 2 of
    Appendix B.

[^152]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(7)(B).

[^153]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of SBE at 9-10; and K Licensee at 4-10.

[^154]: *Id*. *See also* the Comments of CBA at 7 and Equity
    Broadcasting Corporation at 5.

[^155]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.703(a). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 74.707, which
    provides that an application for a new or modified LPTV station will
    not be accepted if it is located within or predicted to interfere
    with the protected contour of an authorized station in the LPTV
    service.

[^156]: *Id*.

[^157]: Communications Technologies, Inc. (CTI) notes that many
    licensees of displaced LPTV stations have elected to receive
    interference from existing stations in their recently filed
    applications for replacement channels. Comments of CTI at 3.

[^158]: *See* *Notice* at ¶40.

[^159]: *See* Comments of NY Police at 2-3.

[^160]: *See* Comments of K Licensee at 2-4.

[^161]: *See* Letter from WEBR-LP and the New York Metropolitan Advisory
    Committee to Roy Stewart, Chief, Mass Media Bureau, dated March 27,
    2000.

[^162]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(E).

[^163]: *See Notice* at ¶ 17.

[^164]: *See* Comments of MSTV/NAB at 10. *See also* Comments of AFCCE
    at 3.

[^165]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(7)(A)(ii)(I).

[^166]: *See* Comments of ALTV at 6-7. *See also* Reply Comments of
    MSTV/NAB at 7-8.

[^167]: CBPA Section (f)(3).

[^168]: *See* Comments of Fox at 16. *See also* Comments of Airwaves,
    Inc. at 3; Apogee at 4; Media-Com Television, Inc. at 5; Ruarch at
    3; and Turnpike at 6-7.

[^169]: TV translators rebroadcast the programs of full-service TV
    stations. In most respects, translators are technically equivalent
    to LPTV stations and are licensed in the same manner. Currently,
    there are approximately 4,900 licensed TV translators, most
    operating in the western mountainous regions of the country. *Public
    Notice*, \"Broadcast Station Totals as \[of\] September 30, 1999"
    (*rel*. November 22, 1999). Translators deliver free over-the-air
    television service, mostly to rural communities that cannot directly
    receive the nearest TV stations because of distance or intervening
    terrain obstructions. They also provide "fill-in" service to
    terrain-obstructed areas within a full-service station's service
    area.

[^170]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(4).

[^171]: The licensee may elect to convert to advanced television
    services on its analog channel, but is not required to convert to
    digital format until the end of the DTV transition. Section-by
    Section Analysis at S14725.

[^172]: Section-by-Section Analysis at S14725.

[^173]: The FCC "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." 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(4).

[^174]: *See* Comments of APTS at 14.

[^175]: *See* Comments of Turnpike at 7.

[^176]: *See* Comments of CBA at 23; USAB at 15-16. *See also* Comments
    of Lockwood at 4-5; NRB at 8.

[^177]: *See* Comments of WB at 31.

[^178]: *See* Comments of WB at 31.

[^179]: *See* Comments of MSTV and NAB at 26.

[^180]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(6)(A).

[^181]: *See Notice* at ¶ 24.

[^182]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(5).

[^183]: Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, §3004 (1997), adding new
    section number 337(e) to the Communications Act.

[^184]: Section 337(f)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    establishes criteria for qualifying LPTV stations. The
    qualifications are: the station broadcasts a minimum of 18 hours per
    day; the station broadcasts an average of at least 3 hours per week
    of programming produced within the market area served by the
    station; and, the station complies with the requirements applicable
    to low-power television stations.

[^185]: *Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    7465-66.

[^186]: *See Notice* at ¶ 53.

[^187]: *See, e.g*., Comments of CBA at 18; NTA at 5. WB opposes
    extending the presumption of displacement to channels 52--59,
    arguing that the CBPA does not require the FCC to give these
    stations priority over existing full-service stations and pending
    applications for new NTSC stations proposing operations on channels
    52--59 with respect to securing an in-core channel. Comments of WB
    at 32-43.

[^188]: *See, e.g., Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, *In
    the Matter of Advanced Television Systems, and Their Impact upon the
    Existing Television Broadcast Services*, MM Docket No. 87-268, 11
    FCC Rcd 10968, 10987 (1996); *Memorandum Opinion and Order on
    Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 6865
    (1998). *See also* \"Mass Media Bureau Announces Window Filing
    Opportunity for Certain Pending Applications and Allotment Petitions
    for New Analog TV Stations,\" *Public Notice*, DA 99-2605 (Nov. 22,
    1988).

[^189]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(6)(B). *See* *Reconsideration of the Sixth
    Report and Order,*13 FCC Rcd 7418 (1998).

[^190]: *See Notice* at ¶ 25.

[^191]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 14698-754.

[^192]: *See* Comments of MSTV/NAB at 27.

[^193]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(C).

[^194]: *See* Appendix D.

[^195]: Commenters generally support this proposal. *See, e.g.,*
    Comments of CBA at 21; NTA at 3-4.

[^196]: A continuity of service provision was proposed in the Comments
    of the NTA at 4 and the Comments of St. Clair at 3 (citing a similar
    restriction in the FM translator rules at 47 C.F.R. §
    74.1233(a)(1)).

[^197]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(7)(B)

[^198]: *See also* Comments of WB at 28.

[^199]: *See* Comments of du Treil at 8; CBC at 3; Equity Broadcasting
    Corporation at 23; North Rocky Mountain Television, L.L.C. (NRMTV)
    at 9.

[^200]: *See* Comments of NTA at 3.

[^201]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3572(a). This rule defines minor changes to
    include antenna site relocations not exceeding 200 meters or
    facilities changes that would not increase the signal range of the
    station in any horizontal direction.

[^202]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(7)(B)

[^203]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3572(a)(2)(ii)

[^204]: *Notice* at ¶ 50.

[^205]: The LPTV displacement relief provisions are found in 47 C.F.R §
    73.3572(a)(2).

[^206]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(14)(c).

[^207]: Commenters generally supported the displacement relief proposals
    in the *Notice*. CBA states that displacement channel changes should
    take priority over other change applications. *See* Comments of CBA
    at 21. *See also* Comments of Commercial Broadcast Corporation at 3;
    AFCCE at 6; Alaskan Choice at 7. We disagree with SBE's view that
    Class A displacement relief applications should be subject to
    mutually exclusive applications, contending there will be few
    displaced Class A stations and that a first-come, first-served
    policy would give a "super priority" to Class A priority of NTSC and
    DTV stations. *See* Comments of SBE at 10. Given their various DTV
    protection responsibilities, we cannot say that only a few Class A
    stations will be displaced, nor is this relevant to providing a
    relief mechanism for facilitating the survival of displaced
    stations. Moreover, Class A licensees do not have an absolute
    priority over full-service broadcasters. For example, as provided by
    the CBPA, they are subject to displacement by DTV stations that
    encounter technical problems with allotments, which require
    engineering solutions.

[^208]: We do not believe the CBPA constrains a priority for
    displacement applications over nondisplacement applications. In fact
    it affords a displacement priority for LPTV stations displaced by
    Class A stations. Treating Class A, LPTV and TV translator
    displacement applications on an equal footing, that is, on a
    first-come, first-served basis, we believe, satisfies the intent of
    Section (f)(7)(B)(iii) of the CBPA.

[^209]: *See* Comments of CBA at 17; National Minority T.V., Inc. (NMTV)
    at 9-10.

[^210]: *See* Comments of CBA at 17.

[^211]: 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.

[^212]: *See* Comments of Grupo Television, S.A. (Groupo) at 5. Grupo is
    a Mexican television broadcaster that operates a number of
    television stations in the U.S.-Mexican border area.

[^213]: *Id*. at 7.

[^214]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.432 and 74.632.

[^215]: *See* Comments of SBE at 7.

[^216]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et seq*.,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^217]: On January 13, 2000, the Commission adopted an *Order and Notice
    of Proposed Rule Making* seeking comment on a wide range of issues
    related to implementation of the CBPA. *See* Order and Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, In the Matter of Establishment of a Class A
    Television Service*, MM Docket No. 99-292, RM-92-60, FCC 00-16
    (*rel*. Jan. 13, 2000) ("*Notice*"). The Commission also terminated
    an earlier proceeding relating to establishment of primary status
    for LPTV stations. *See* Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, In the
    Matter of Establishment of a Class A Television Service*, MM Docket
    No. 99-292, RM-92-60, FCC 99-257 (*rel*. Sept. 29,1999) ("*September
    22 Notice*"), responding to a petition for rule making filed by the
    Community Broadcasters Association ("CBA"). In light of passage of
    the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 (CBPA), which
    addresses many of the same issues raised in the September 22 Notice
    and the CBA petition, the Commission terminated the earlier
    proceeding in the January 13 Notice and initiated this new
    proceeding to implement the CBPA.

[^218]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^219]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^220]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)(1980).

[^221]: 5 U.S.C. § 632.

[^222]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (SIC Code 4833).

[^223]: *Public Notice*, "Broadcast Station Totals as \[of\] September
    30, 1999" (*rel*. November 22, 1999).

[^224]: *See* *Report and Order*, Section III.B.3, Operating
    Requirements.

[^225]: *See Report and Order*, Section I., Introduction.

[^226]: *See Report and Order*, Section III. B. 3., Operating
    Requirements.

[^227]: *Id.*

[^228]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(2)(B).

[^229]: *See Report and Order*, III B 4, Alternative Eligibility
    Criteria.

[^230]: *Id.*

[^231]: *Id.*