**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

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

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

**Adopted: August 6, 2003 Released:** **August 29, 2003**

**Comment Date: \[60 days after publication in the Federal Register\]**

**Reply Comment Date: \[90 days after publication in the Federal
Register\]**

By the Commission:

Table of Contents

Paragraph

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. background 3

III\. ISSUE ANALYSIS 9

A. Permissible Service 9

1\. Digital Television Translator Stations 9

2\. Digital Low Power Television Stations 18

B. Channel Assignments 26

C. Interference Protection 31

1\. Protected Digital Translator and LPTV Service Contour 31

2\. Protection Standards and Methodology 34

a\. Broadcast Station Protection 34

b\. Protection of Land Mobile Radio and Other Primary Services 58

D. Other Technical Issues 61

1\. Power Limits 61

2\. Out-of-Channel Emission Limits 62

3\. Other Transmission System Facilities Issues 71

4\. Modification of Transmission Systems 80

E. Station Operation 82

1\. Time of Operation 82

2\. Unattended Operation 84

3\. Station Identification 85

F. Authorization of Digital LPTV and TV Translator Stations 91

G. Digital Booster Stations 118

H. Remaining Issues 123

1\. Digital Call Signs 123

2\. Fees 124

3\. International Coordination Provisions 125

4\. Use of Broadcast Auxiliary Service Frequencies 126

5\. Digital Class A TV Area for Locally Produced Programming 127

I. Petition for Rule Making by the Association of Public Television
Stations, the Public Broadcasting Service, and the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting 128

IV\. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 132

V. ORDERING CLAUSES 138

**APPENDIX A: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

#  INTRODUCTION

1.  With this *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, we seek comment on rules
    for digital low power television ("LPTV") and television translator
    stations, and consider issues related to digital television booster
    stations. Translators and LPTV stations will play a significant role
    in furthering the transition to digital television. Viewers in many
    communities depend on the services of TV translator and LPTV
    stations for their over-the-air television service. Through our
    rules, policies and application processes, we seek to provide
    flexible and affordable opportunities for low power digital service,
    both through the digital conversion of existing analog service and,
    where spectrum is available, new digital stations. We seek to
    develop interference protection rules and methodology that will
    provide spectrum for new digital stations without undermining
    established interference protection rights. The *Notice* also
    addresses key issues relating to permissible service, spectrum for
    digital low power service, protected service area, equipment and
    other technical and operational requirements, and authorization of
    digital service. It seeks comment on the impact of our proposals on
    television broadcast and other primary services, particularly those
    in the 470-512 MHz band and the new services in the 698-806 MHz
    (Upper and Lower 700 MHz) bands.

2.  Our goals in this proceeding are to establish a regulatory framework
    that will hasten the transition of LPTV and TV translator stations
    to digital operations and to do so in a manner that minimizes
    disruption of existing service to the consumers served by analog
    LPTV and translator stations. We are mindful of the challenges
    presented by limited spectrum availability for new digital stations
    in certain areas of the country and the limited budgets of many
    stations in the LPTV service. In this proceeding we seek comment on
    a number of measures to facilitate the availability and permitted
    use of TV channels for digital operations, particularly with regard
    to the transition of existing analog service. For instance, we
    consider replacing the analog LPTV contour protection methods with
    the more flexible digital television ("DTV") interference prediction
    methodology. We also seek comment on flexible means for digital
    translator operations, for example, the combining the signals of two
    or more DTV broadcast stations on a translator's transmitted output
    channel, provided such operation is technically and economically
    feasible. We propose to permit digital LPTV stations to provide
    ancillary and supplementary services upon meeting a minimum video
    program service requirement. To expedite authorization of service,
    we propose that LPTV and translator operators be permitted convert
    to digital on their existing analog channels by applying for a minor
    facilities change at any time. We seek comment on filing procedures
    for new digital stations that would facilitate the transition of
    existing LPTV and translator service and quicken the authorization
    of digital service. The *Notice* invites comment on these and other
    technical, legal, and policy issues. Additionally, we seek comment
    on any other issues that may be relevant to this proceeding.

#  background

3.  The Commission created the low power television service (Subpart G
    of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules) in 1982.[^1] The low power
    television service consists of low power television, television
    translator, and television booster stations. Stations in the low
    power television service are authorized with "secondary" frequency
    use status. These stations may not cause interference to, and must
    accept interference from, full-service television stations, certain
    land mobile radio operations and other primary services.[^2] As the
    name suggests, low power television service stations have lower
    authorized power levels than full-service TV stations.[^3] Unlike
    full-service stations, stations in the low power television service
    are not restricted to operating on a channel specified in a table of
    allotments.

4.  *LPTV Stations.* The Commission created low power television
    stations to bring television service, including local service, to
    viewers "otherwise unserved or underserved" by existing service
    providers.[^4] LPTV stations may originate programming and
    retransmit the programs of full-service television stations.
    Currently, there are approximately 2,100 licensed LPTV stations.[^5]
    These stations operate in all 50 states and serve both rural and
    urban audiences.[^6] Because they operate at reduced power levels,
    LPTV stations serve much smaller geographic regions than
    full-service stations, and they can provide service to areas where a
    higher power station cannot be accommodated in the Table of
    Allotments. An LPTV station may be the only television station in an
    area providing local news, weather, and public affairs
    programming.[^7] Even in some well-served markets, LPTV stations may
    provide the only local service to residents of discrete geographical
    communities within those markets.[^8] Many LPTV stations air "niche"
    programming, often locally produced, to residents of specific
    ethnic, racial, or special interest communities.[^9]

5.  In the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 ("CBPA"),[^10]
    Congress directed the Commission to establish a Class A television
    service to provide a measure of primary status to certain LPTV
    stations so that those stations could continue to operate during and
    after the digital transition. In order to qualify for Class A
    status, an LPTV station was required to have broadcast a minimum of
    18 hours per day during the three month period preceding enactment
    of the CBPA and to broadcast an average of at least 3 hours of
    locally produced programming per week. The CBPA directed that Class
    A licensees must be subject to the same license terms and renewal
    standards as full-power television licensees, and that Class A
    licensees should be accorded primary status as television
    broadcasters as long as they continue to meet the requirements set
    forth in the statute. Class A TV stations are similar in many
    respects to LPTV stations; their operations are generally governed
    by the same technical standards. Unlike LPTV stations, Class A
    stations must comply with Part 73 regulations applicable to
    full-service TV broadcast stations, except for those that cannot
    apply for technical or other reasons. Class A stations also are
    afforded certain interference protection rights not available to
    LPTV stations. The Class A service rules (Part 73, Subpart J) also
    contain provisions for the operation of digital Class A TV stations.
    The Commission has licensed approximately 600 Class A stations.

6.  *TV Translator Stations*. A TV translator station is a low power
    television broadcast station that receives the signal of a
    television station and simultaneously retransmits it on another TV
    channel. Television translators are technically equivalent to LPTV
    stations in most respects and are licensed in the same manner.[^11]
    Television translator stations are intended to provide service to
    areas where direct reception of full-service broadcast stations is
    unsatisfactory because of distance or intervening terrain
    obstructions. Although translators are not limited to operation
    within the contour of the station they rebroadcast, they may be used
    to provide "fill-in" service to terrain-obstructed areas within a
    full-service station's service area. There are approximately 4,700
    licensed TV translators,[^12] most operating in the western regions
    of the country. These stations are often used to deliver the only
    free off-air television service available to rural communities.

7.  LPTV and TV translator stations differ only in the amount of
    programming they may originate. LPTV stations are not limited in the
    amount of programming they may originate. TV translators may
    originate only emergency warnings of imminent danger and, in
    addition, not more than thirty-seconds per hour of public service
    announcements and material seeking financial support necessary to
    the continued operation of the station.[^13]

8.  *TV Booster Stations*. The regulatory provisions for television
    booster stations were adopted by the Commission in 1987.[^14] TV
    booster stations are intended to provide fill-in service to areas
    within the predicted Grade B contours of full-service television
    stations. TV boosters simultaneously retransmit the programming of
    full-service TV stations and may be licensed only to licensees and
    permittees of full-service stations. TV boosters transmit on the
    same TV channel as that of the full-service station they rebroadcast
    and are permitted to broadcast only within the Grade B contour of
    the associated full-service station.

#  ISSUE ANALYSIS

## Permissible Service

### Digital Television Translator Stations

9.  Television translators have provided a valuable service in
    delivering television programming to locations where the signals of
    TV broadcast stations cannot be directly received due to distance or
    terrain obstructions. We envision that translators will also play a
    significant role in delivering digital television service to such
    locations. To that end, we propose generally that digital TV
    translator stations should be operated for the purpose of
    rebroadcasting the programs and signals of DTV stations. We seek to
    craft service rules that will enable translators to provide DTV
    programming to the millions of viewers who depend on translators as
    a source of free television service. In so doing, we must consider
    the differences in the nature of analog and DTV broadcast signals,
    the types of digital equipment that have been developed, and the
    costs of providing service.

10. *Current Permissible Service for TV Translator Stations.* A
    television translator station is "a station in the broadcast service
    operated for the purpose of retransmitting the programs and signals
    of a television broadcast station, without significantly altering
    any characteristic of the original signal other than its frequency
    and amplitude, for the purpose of providing television reception to
    the general public."[^15] Translators simultaneously retransmit such
    programs and signals subject to the prior written consent of the TV
    broadcast stations whose signals are rebroadcast.[^16] TV
    translators may receive TV broadcast signals directly off-air or
    indirectly from other TV translators or suitable sources.[^17]
    Translator rebroadcasts may be accomplished through direct frequency
    conversion of a TV station's signal to the translator's assigned
    output channel or, where microwave transport is used, by modulation
    of the baseband video and audio signals onto the translator output
    channel.[^18] A TV translator may originate local public service
    announcements or messages seeking or acknowledging financial support
    necessary for its continued operation, not to exceed 30 seconds per
    hour. It may also originate emergency warnings deemed necessary to
    protect life and property.[^19]

11. *Nature of DTV Broadcasting*. Fundamental differences exist between
    analog and digital television broadcasts that could affect the
    permissible service of DTV translators. Analog broadcasts consist of
    single TV program signals transmitted in conformance with a
    specified wave form.[^20] A DTV signal consists of a dynamic stream
    of video, audio and data packets. The digital content has a
    "payload" capacity of 19.38 megabits per second within a 6 MHz
    television channel. DTV broadcasters have significant flexibility as
    to how they may use this capacity. The Commission's DTV transmission
    standard permits numerous video formats that are characterized by
    different bit consumption rates and TV picture quality.[^21] High
    definition ("HDTV") formats produce the sharpest video images and
    have the highest bit rates. Standard definition ("SDTV") formats
    produce video images comparable to or better than analog TV and are
    less bit-consumptive than HDTV formats. A DTV broadcaster may use
    its total bit capacity to transmit simultaneously one or more
    television programs in the same video format or transmit programs in
    different formats. For example, a single program may be transmitted
    in an HDTV format. Alternatively, multiple programs in an SDTV
    format may be multi-casted.[^22] DTV broadcasters may dynamically
    alter the use of their channel bit capacity. For example, a station
    may multi-cast SDTV programs during day-time hours and switch to
    HDTV programming during evening hours. As a minimum service
    requirement, our rules require only that a DTV station transmit "at
    least one over-the-air video programming signal at no direct charge
    to viewers on the DTV channel...at least comparable in resolution to
    the \[associated\] analog television station programming."[^23]
    After meeting this requirement, a DTV broadcaster may use its
    remaining digital capacity to offer a wide variety of ancillary and
    supplementary services, including service on a subscription
    basis.[^24] These services may be intended for reception by a DTV
    receiver or may be intended for reception by other devices (*e.g.,*
    personal computers).

12. *Digital Translator Rebroadcasts*. We expect that a digital TV
    translator station should be technically capable of rebroadcasting
    the entire incoming signal of its primary DTV broadcast station and
    producing a digital output signal that can be satisfactorily viewed
    on a receiver designed for the Commission's DTV transmission
    standard. We seek a definition for a digital TV translator
    consistent with this tentative conclusion. If we were to extend the
    current analog translator definition, a digital TV translator would
    be a station operating for the purpose of retransmitting the
    programs and signals of a DTV broadcast station for reception by the
    general public, without significantly altering any characteristic of
    the original signal other than its frequency and amplitude. A
    digital TV translator would "pass through" the content and video
    format of a primary DTV station (*e.g.*, an HDTV input signal would
    be retransmitted as an HDTV output signal). We seek comment on how
    to define digital TV translators and, in particular, how allowances
    for local message insertions should be incorporated into the
    definition.

13. In the *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* initiating the second
    periodic review of the transition to digital television ("*Second
    DTV Periodic Review NPRM"*),[^25] we asked a series of questions
    about the carriage of digital signals by television translators and
    how that carriage should be interpreted under Section 309(j)(14) of
    the Communications Act.[^26] Section 309(j)(14)(A) requires the
    Commission to reclaim the 6 MHz each broadcaster uses for
    transmission of analog television service by December 31, 2006,
    unless one or more of three conditions that qualify a station for an
    extension exist in a market.[^27] In connection with Section
    309(j)(14)(B)(iii), we asked about the impact on the availability of
    extensions in a market where a signal originally broadcast in
    digital format is carried on a cable system in analog format because
    the signal was delivered to the cable head end via a TV translator
    that operates only in analog format (*e.g*., the digital broadcast
    transmission was down-converted to analog by the translator). We
    also asked what the impact on extensions under Section
    309(j)(14)(B)(iii) would be when a full-service station originally
    broadcasts a signal in digital format, but viewers receive the
    signal over-the-air in analog format from a translator that has
    down-converted the signal from digital to analog.[^28] We noted that
    Section 74.701 of our rules requires that TV translators retransmit
    the signals of the primary station "without significantly altering
    any characteristic of the original signal other than its frequency
    and amplitude."[^29] We asked whether our rules should permit TV
    translators to down-convert to analog format a signal originally
    broadcast by the parent station in digital format.[^30] We seek
    comment here on how these issues relate to the appropriate
    definition of a "digital TV translator" and what, if any,
    limitations should be imposed on the ability of a translator to
    alter the signal of the main station.

14. We seek comment on two transmission modes for digital TV translator
    rebroadcasts: (1) heterodyne frequency conversion and (2) a
    "regenerative" mode. Like its analog counterpart, the heterodyne
    digital translator would receive the signal of a DTV broadcast
    station or another digital translator, amplify the signal, and
    retransmit it on the translator's authorized output channel.[^31]
    The "regenerative" translator could also retransmit all DTV
    broadcast content, but it would also perform signal and data
    processing to mitigate distortion and bit errors in the input
    signal. It would function as a DTV receiver/processor and transmit a
    "cleaned up" digital bit stream.[^32] The heterodyne digital
    translator is conceptually less complex than the regenerative
    translator and less costly. Its lower cost might be preferred in
    certain situations (*e.g.*, in "single-hop" translator systems
    serving very small communities). The regenerative DTV translator
    could be particularly beneficial in multi-hop translator
    networks[^33] because the technical quality of the translator output
    signal could be restored at each translator in the network.[^34] We
    seek comment on the use of heterodyne and regenerative digital
    translators, including their utility, advantages or disadvantages.
    In particular, we seek information from technology proponents on the
    state of development of both types of digital TV translators and
    related costs. Should we prefer the use of regenerative digital
    translators because of their signal and data processing functions?
    Is there a role for heterodyne digital translators? Should we permit
    translator operators to choose their mode of transmission based on
    individual circumstances? Finally, should we consider additional
    digital translator rebroadcast modes (*e.g.*, digital rebroadcasts
    of analog input signals)?

15. *Translator Local Signal Insertions*. It is likely that translator
    operators will limit their initial use of digital translators to
    rebroadcasts of DTV signals. Eventually, however, some may wish to
    use digital translators to transmit the types of local messages now
    allowed for analog translators (*e.g.*, public service announcements
    or emergency warnings). We believe that permitting such messages
    could benefit translator-served communities, provided a technically
    feasible and affordable means for doing so exists or could be
    developed. We seek comment on the merits of local message insertion
    and the permissible nature and duration of such messages. Should
    digitally transmitted local messages be limited to the types of
    messages permitted for analog TV translators? We also seek comment
    on available technical means for local message insertion and
    transmission. For example, in the regenerative transmission mode,
    could small amounts of information be inserted into the DTV signal
    transport layer without significantly altering broadcast
    content?[^35] Broadcasters may dynamically use their digital bit
    stream, and the availability of unused portions of the bit stream
    ("null packets") could vary with time. Thus, a translator operator
    may need to coordinate any such local message insertions with its
    primary DTV station. Is digital translator local message insertion
    technically feasible and affordable at this time? What additional
    equipment would be required and at what cost?

16. *DTV Broadcast Signal Alterations*. We request comment on whether a
    digital translator operator should be permitted some flexibility to
    alter the content or video format of a DTV broadcast signal prior to
    retransmission, provided it has been given the consent of its
    primary DTV station. Because of limited spectrum availability, we
    expect that many translator operators will have difficulty securing
    additional channels for rebroadcasting the DTV programming of the
    analog TV stations included in their systems.[^36] Until a
    sufficient base of DTV receivers exists in translator-served
    communities, translator operators may be reluctant to terminate
    analog TV rebroadcasts to create channel opportunities for DTV
    rebroadcasts. As a result, during the DTV transition,
    translator-served viewers may be unable to receive DTV signals of
    all of the analog TV stations they are accustomed to watching. We
    seek possible means of alleviating this situation. As one means, we
    wish to explore the idea of permitting DTV translators to
    rebroadcast in the same output channel multiple video program
    streams of different broadcast stations, pursuant to arrangements
    with the involved TV station licensees. Such digital translator
    "multi-casting" might, in most cases, require that DTV programs be
    rebroadcast in a standard definition (SDTV) video format. In that
    event, program signals received by a translator would be reduced to
    baseband signals and reassembled in an SDTV format prior to signal
    multiplexing and retransmission. If technically feasible and
    affordable, translator multi-casting could offer viewers access to
    the DTV programming of more television stations, particularly in
    those areas with the least channel availability. However, this
    approach would likely provide fewer opportunities to receive high
    definition television programming. Also, at the present time, the
    necessary equipment for such operations may be cost-prohibitive for
    translator operators.[^37] We invite comment on the merits,
    technical feasibility and cost of the DTV translator multi-casting
    concept described above. If not feasible at this time, is it a
    concept worthy of future consideration? More generally, we seek
    comment on the extent to which DTV translators should be permitted
    to alter the characteristics of DTV broadcasts signal prior to
    retransmission. Should translator operators be permitted to change
    the video format of a DTV program or exclude retransmission of
    portions of a DTV signal related to ancillary and supplementary
    ("A&S") services (*e.g.*, where a DTV broadcast station offers
    subscription A&S service)? Should a DTV broadcaster be permitted to
    withhold its retransmission consent if a TV translator operator
    seeks to retransmit only the free over-the-air video portions of
    that broadcaster's signal? Pursuant to an arrangement with the
    primary DTV broadcast station, should translator operators be
    permitted to replace the broadcaster's A&S portion of the digital
    bit stream with locally generated messages or its own ancillary and
    supplementary services? Should translator operators be permitted to
    offer A&S services on a subscription basis and, if so, should the
    A&S fees applicable to DTV broadcasters apply to DTV translators?
    Should DTV translator operators be permitted to provide A&S services
    for the sole purpose of funding the operation and maintenance of
    translator systems?

17. *Digital Translator Input Signal Sources*. We propose to allow
    digital TV translators to receive DTV broadcast signals using any of
    the signal delivery means available to analog TV translators
    (*e.g.*, a TV translator relay or other suitable terrestrial
    microwave source.)[^38] Such flexibility could facilitate the
    implementation of digital TV translators. Signal delivery through
    multi-hop translator networks may not always be feasible due to lack
    of TV channel availability, whereas frequencies might be available
    in a Broadcast Auxiliary Service ("BAS") microwave band.[^39]
    Translator operators are eligible to use BAS frequencies for
    translator relays on a secondary non-interfering basis.[^40] We seek
    comment on this proposal.

### Digital Low Power Television Stations

18. Low power television stations also have provided a valuable service
    in providing television programming, including locally-produced
    programs, to rural communities and ethnic and other specific
    communities within urban areas. We believe that LPTV stations will
    play a significant role in bringing digital television service to
    these and other communities.

19. *Current Permissible Service for Analog Low Power Television
    Stations*. By definition, an LPTV station may provide the following
    services in any combination: (1) television station signal
    rebroadcast, (2) program origination of unlimited amount, and (3)
    subscription television service.[^41] Program originations are
    defined as "any transmissions other than the simultaneous
    retransmission of the programs and signals of a TV broadcast
    station...\[and\] shall include locally generated television program
    signals and program signals obtained via video recordings (tapes and
    discs), microwave, common carrier circuits, or other sources."[^42]

20. *Distinctions Between Low Power Television and Television Translator
    Stations*. TV translators and LPTV stations use the same TV channels
    and operate under the same technical standards. Our rules permit
    LPTV stations to rebroadcast TV station programming.[^43]
    Conversely, by notification to the Commission, TV translators may
    become LPTV stations and originate programming more than 30 seconds
    per hour. Yet, our experience has been that LPTV and TV translator
    stations largely serve different purposes. Translator licensees have
    generally limited their operations to TV rebroadcasts. LPTV stations
    have aired programming from non-TV broadcast sources and locally
    produced programs. We seek comment on how we should definitionally
    distinguish between digital LPTV and TV translator stations. Is it
    likely that digital LPTV and TV translator stations will serve
    different purposes? Should a digital LPTV station be defined as a
    station that may originate programming more than 30 seconds per
    hour? How should this benchmark and the term "program origination"
    be interpreted given the differences between analog TV and DTV
    signals? For example, if a station rebroadcasting a DTV signal were
    permitted to insert local messages into the DTV bit stream, should
    transmission of such messages in excess of 30 seconds per hour
    define it as an LPTV station? Alternatively, should a digital TV
    translator station, by definition, be permitted to insert some
    amount of information into a DTV bit stream for some specific time
    duration? If so, how much and what type of information? Is there a
    better way to craft a regulatory distinction between digital TV
    translator and LPTV stations? Should we continue to recognize a
    distinction between TV translator and LPTV stations when they
    operate in the digital transmission mode?

21. *Permissible Digital Low Power Television Service*. The Commission
    established LPTV stations with a "secondary" regulatory status. As
    such, it concluded that LPTV stations "should be subject to a
    minimum of program-related regulations, so they might be fully
    responsive to marketplace conditions." The Commission established
    the following principle for permissible LPTV service: [^44]

    "The principal structural limit we shall impose on low power
    stations with respect to programming is that the programming aired
    must comply with the definition of 'broadcast' in the Communications
    Act and Section 73.641(b) of the Commission's Rules. Where a
    potential use of radio frequencies has not yet been authorized for
    broadcast use, it will not be permitted via low power." [^45]

22. Consistent with this principle, we wish to provide LPTV station
    licensees and their viewers the opportunity to realize the full
    benefits of digital television technology, including the flexible
    service offerings available from DTV stations. In this regard, we
    must consider whether to adopt a minimum program service requirement
    for digital LPTV stations. DTV and digital Class A TV stations must
    broadcast a free over-the-air video program service at least
    comparable to NTSC technical quality.[^46]

23. We tentatively conclude that digital LPTV stations should be subject
    to the same minimum video program service requirement applicable to
    DTV broadcast and digital Class A stations. Accordingly, digital
    LPTV stations would be required to use some of their channel
    capacity to provide a free video programming service of at least
    NTSC technical quality, intended for reception by the general
    public. Digital LPTV stations will be broadcast stations operating
    on television channels, a difference being the requirement that they
    operate on a secondary basis to primary services. Many LPTV stations
    serve as the only local television station and source of local TV
    news and public affairs programming to their communities. Therefore,
    we believe that a minimum program service requirement would be
    appropriate. Further, LPTV and translator station operators will
    compete for the remaining available TV channels for their digital
    operations. Translators will deliver free over-the-air DTV
    programming to areas that cannot be reached directly by DTV
    broadcast stations. In our view, digital LPTV stations also should
    provide a free over-the-air video programming service to their
    communities, whether in the form of a DTV rebroadcast or other video
    programming.[^47] We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

24. We also tentatively conclude that digital LPTV stations should be
    permitted to use their bit stream dynamically to transmit one or
    more digital programs in any DTV video format. Upon meeting the
    minimum video service requirement, we believe that digital LPTV
    stations should be permitted to offer all of the ancillary and
    supplemental services, including subscription services, allowed for
    DTV and digital Class A TV broadcasters.[^48] They should also be
    permitted to enter into arrangements with outside parties with
    regard to ancillary and supplementary service operations in the
    manner permitted for DTV broadcasters.[^49] The opportunity to offer
    such services may encourage the early operation of digital LPTV
    stations. We propose to apply to digital LPTV stations the public
    interest-related obligations applicable to analog LPTV
    stations.[^50] We invite comment on these tentative conclusions and
    proposals. With regard to public interest criteria, is there any
    reason to treat analog and digital LPTV stations differently?

25. Assuming we adopt a minimum video programming service requirement,
    we seek comment on a permissible service alternative that would
    permit LPTV stations to provide only ancillary and supplementary
    services under special circumstances, for example, during particular
    hours of the day, such as 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. What
    circumstances, if any, would justify exclusion of a minimum free
    over-the-air digital video program service requirement?[^51] With
    regard to ancillary or supplementary services for digital LPTV
    stations, what is the relevance of Section 336(b) of the
    Communications Act, which directs the Commission to limit such
    services to "avoid derogation of advanced television services,
    including high definition television broadcasts that the Commission
    may require using such frequencies?"[^52]

## Channel Assignments

26. Our rules permit analog LPTV and TV translator stations to operate
    on VHF TV channels 2--13 and UHF TV channels 14--69.[^53] Stations
    in the LPTV service have always operated on these channels on a
    secondary non-interfering basis with respect to analog full-service
    television stations. They are also secondary to authorized DTV
    stations and certain land mobile radio service operations[^54],
    including new primary auctioned services (*i.e.*, the services using
    the reallocated TV channels 52-69).[^55]

27. Spectrum availability presents a great challenge to the digital
    conversion of TV translator and LPTV stations. The pace at which
    these stations begin to operate digitally may depend on the ability
    of station licensees to secure additional channels, which, in turn,
    will depend on the TV channels we make available for digital low
    power operations. As the DTV transition progresses, some TV
    translator and LPTV station licensees may choose to convert their
    existing analog stations to digital ("on-channel digital
    conversion"). Until DTV set penetration is sufficiently high in a
    served community, however, many, if not most, station operators may
    prefer to seek additional channels for digital operations. Our
    application processing experience indicates that it is becoming
    increasingly difficult for LPTV and translator operators in many
    areas of the country to find additional channels.[^56] Spectrum
    availability will become even more limited as more DTV stations
    begin broadcasting and new primary services begin to operate on the
    reallocated 700 MHz spectrum comprising TV channels 52--69. In this
    regard, we have begun to license public safety entities and new
    wireless users in the 700 MHz bands.

28. To facilitate digital service opportunities, we propose to make
    available for digital LPTV and translator stations VHF channels
    2-13, inclusive, and UHF channels 14-59, inclusive (except channel
    37). We propose the use of these channels for both on-channel analog
    to digital station conversions and for new digital LPTV and TV
    translator stations. These stations will be required to operate on a
    non-interfering basis to primary users of these channels and also
    protect earlier-authorized secondary users. Thus, digital LPTV and
    TV translator operations would not preclude or impede service from
    DTV stations or new primary services. We invite comment on these
    proposals.

29. In particular, we seek comment on our proposal to permit digital low
    power operations on TV channels 52-59.[^57] In the *Channel 52-59
    reallocation order*, the Commission permitted LPTV and TV translator
    stations to operate indefinitely on these channels on a
    non-interfering basis and to negotiate interference agreements with
    new primary service providers.[^58] With regard to future filing
    windows, it retained "the discretion to geographically restrict or
    preclude altogether the filing of applications for new LPTV and TV
    translator stations seeking to operate on channels 52-69.[^59]
    Although it may be appropriate to preclude or restrict the filing of
    additional applications for new analog LPTV and TV translator
    service on these channels, we believe the use of channels 52-59
    would facilitate the digital conversion of existing low power
    service. These channels could also provide additional opportunities
    for new digital stations, particularly in rural areas where new
    wireless and other primary services may not operate in the near
    future. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should permit
    use of channels 52-59 only when applicants could demonstrate that no
    lower channels are available for their digital operations. Should
    such a policy apply only with regard to applications for new digital
    low power service or also include applications seeking to convert
    existing analog operations to digital?

30. We seek comment on whether TV channels 60--69 (746 MHz to 806 MHz)
    should be made available during the DTV transition for new digital
    LPTV and translator stations and/or digital conversions of existing
    analog stations.[^60] In the *Channel 60-69 reallocation order*, the
    Commission decided that, in view of their secondary status, it would
    continue to authorize LPTV and TV translator service on these
    channels until the end of the DTV transition.[^61] However, by
    statute, all TV broadcasters, including LPTV and translator
    stations, must vacate the use of this spectrum after the transition
    ends in each TV market.[^62] The Commission concluded that the
    statute left it no discretion in clearing LPTV and TV translator
    stations from the band at the end of the transition period.[^63]
    Should digital LPTV and TV translator stations be authorized on
    these channels during the transition, considering the potentially
    limited time such stations could operate in this spectrum? If so,
    should we permit such authorizations only when applicants can
    demonstrate the lack of other available channels? Should we
    authorize digital low power service only on the channels that are
    not allocated for public safety operations?

## Interference Protection

### Protected Digital Translator and LPTV Service Contour

31. The service areas of analog LPTV and TV translator stations have
    always been defined in terms of protected signal contours. LPTV and
    TV translator stations are protected against interference from
    later-authorized LPTV and TV translator stations at the following
    contours: 62 dBu for stations on channels 2 through 6; 68 dBu for
    stations on channels 7 through 13; and 74 dBu for stations on
    channels 14 through 69.[^64] These field strength values also define
    protected contours for analog Class A TV stations.

32. In the Class A TV proceeding, the Commission adopted the following
    protected signal contours for digital Class A stations: 43 dBu for
    channels 2 through 6, 48 dBu for channels 7 through 13, and 51 dBu
    for channels 14 through 51.[^65] The Commission considered using the
    full-service DTV stations' "noise-limited" signal contours, which
    would have produced larger digital service areas than Class A
    stations' corresponding analog service areas,[^66] but it chose
    protected contour values that reflected the differences between
    analog LPTV and full-service TV station protected contours.[^67] It
    reasoned that these values would yield digital Class A service areas
    comparable in size to stations' analog service areas. The adopted
    protected contours would also permit the operation of co-channel
    stations at closer distances, increasing opportunities for new
    digital Class A, LPTV and TV translator stations.[^68]

33. We believe the rationale for selecting the digital Class A protected
    contour values also should be applicable to digital LPTV and TV
    translator stations. Class A TV stations started as LPTV stations
    and operate under the same effective radiated power limits and many
    of the same interference protection criteria as LPTV stations.
    Therefore, we propose the following protected signal contour values
    for digital LPTV and TV translator stations, as calculated from the
    F(50,90) propagation method in Section 73.625(b)(1) of our rules: 43
    dBu for stations on channels 2 -- 6, 48 dBu for stations on channels
    7 -- 13, and 51 dBu for stations on channels 14 -- 69.[^69] We seek
    comment on this proposal and on alternative protected signal contour
    values. In the Class A *Report and Order*, we stated that in a
    future proceeding we might revisit the above protected signal
    contours for digital Class A stations. At this time, we continue to
    believe these values are appropriate for digital Class A stations
    and seek comment in this regard.

### Protection Standards and Methodology

#### Broadcast Station Protection

34. *Existing Analog Rules*. LPTV, TV translator and TV booster stations
    are secondary to and must not cause interference to the reception of
    "regularly used" signals of TV broadcast and DTV stations.[^70]
    Absent agreements among affected parties, new LPTV, TV translator
    and TV booster stations must not interfere within the protected
    contour of existing LPTV, TV translator or Class A TV stations.[^71]
    As a condition for application acceptance, proposed LPTV, TV
    translator and TV booster facilities must satisfy interference
    prediction criteria that depend on the nature of the station being
    protected and the channel relationship between the proposed and
    protected stations.[^72] As the most common means of protection,
    predicted field strengths of a proposed station must not exceed
    values that would cause certain desired-to-undesired ("D/U") signal
    strength ratios to be exceeded at locations along another station's
    protected contour.[^73] This method governs protection from proposed
    analog LPTV and TV translator stations to co-channel and adjacent
    channel TV, DTV, Class A, LPTV and TV translator stations; the
    threshold D/U ratios depend on the channel relationship.[^74]
    Contour protection is also the method used to analyze potential
    interference to and from digital Class A station proposals, with the
    exception of the analysis of potential interference from digital
    Class A to DTV stations.[^75]

35. Application acceptance standards for the LPTV and Class A services
    specify different methods for analyzing potential interference to
    DTV service. LPTV, TV translator and TV booster station proposals
    must protect the noise-limited signal contour of authorized
    co-channel and 1^st^ adjacent channel DTV stations,[^76] whereas
    analog and digital Class A facilities protect the service population
    within a DTV station's noise-limited contour.[^77] Unlike DTV
    broadcast stations, Class A and digital Class A stations are not
    permitted to cause *de minimis* levels of DTV service population
    reduction other than a 0.5% rounding allowance.[^78] The DTV
    protection requirements also differ in that LPTV and TV translator
    stations are required to protect only the service of authorized DTV
    facilities, those specified in station construction permits and
    licenses. Class A and digital Class A stations are required to
    protect the service populations resulting from authorized facilities
    [and]{.underline} allotted DTV facilities, which may be
    different.[^79]

36. *Discussion*. Interference standards, criteria and methods for
    digital LPTV and TV translator stations must balance facilitating
    spectrum opportunities for low power digital service and ensuring
    adequate protection to authorized broadcast service. With limited TV
    channel availability throughout much of the country, we wish to
    explore every means of maximizing channel use for digital LPTV and
    translator service. In so doing, we must also consider the
    interference protection rights of others, both full power and low
    power stations. A hallmark of the low power television service in
    its 20-year history has been the few reported cases of interference
    caused by LPTV and TV translator stations. We seek comment on
    protection standards and methods that will permit digital service
    opportunities and provide adequate safeguards against interference.

37. *Desired-to-Undesired ("D/U") Signal Strength Ratios*. We propose to
    base standards for accepting digital LPTV and TV translator station
    application proposals on D/U protection ratios for analysis of
    predicted interference to and from digital LPTV and TV translator
    stations.[^80] D/U ratios provide an accurate basis for interference
    analyses.[^81] D/U-based approaches also facilitate efficient
    spectrum use by permitting interference avoidance to be demonstrated
    through flexible system engineering (*e.g.*, by taking into account
    the signal attenuation characteristics of directional transmitting
    and receiving antennas and considering the entire transmission path
    from both the desired and undesired stations). The D/U ratios given
    in Section 73.623(c) of our rules were used in the construction of
    the DTV Allotment Table and are used in the analysis of DTV and TV
    broadcast station proposals.

38. We propose to apply to digital LPTV and translator interference
    analysis the co-channel D/U ratios for "DTV-into-analog TV," "Analog
    TV-into-DTV" and "DTV-into-DTV" given in Section 73.623(c)(2) and
    the DTV-to-DTV co-channel adjustment formula and analog-to-DTV
    co-channel adjustment table given in Section 73.623(c)(3).[^82] We
    also propose to apply the "DTV-into-analog TV" D/U ratios given for
    the following channel relationships: N-2, N+2, N-3, N+3, N-4, N+4,
    N-7, N+7, N-8, N+8, N+14 and N+15 (collectively, the "UHF taboo"
    channel relationships). The values of these UHF taboo ratios range
    from -24 dB to -43 dB, which indicate that a strong signal is
    required before interference is predicted. Because of the limited
    power levels at which digital LPTV and TV translator stations will
    be operating, we expect these requirements will have only a minimal
    impact on spectrum availability.[^83] Yet, measurement studies
    indicate a potential for interference between stations operating
    with these channel relationships at locations where an undesired
    signal is substantially larger than the desired signal. We invite
    comment on our proposal to apply the digital-into-analog D/U ratios
    for taboo channels to digital LPTV and TV translator stations.

39. *First Adjacent Channel Ratios*. We propose that analog LPTV and TV
    translator station proposals protect 1^st^ adjacent channel digital
    LPTV and TV translator stations based on the following D/U ratios,
    the values given in our DTV rules:[^84]

    "Lower analog TV-into-DTV" -48 dB

    "Upper analog TV-into-DTV" -49 dB

We seek specific comment on alternatives to the D/U ratios in our DTV
rules for digital LPTV and TV translator protection to 1^st^ adjacent
channel analog and digital stations.[^85] An alternative has been
suggested in a recent paper ("Sgrignoli Paper") of the effects of DTV
transmitted "sideband splatter" into adjacent channel NTSC analog and
DTV signals.[^86] This study evaluates several out-of-band spectral
emission masks and proposes two of these for digital TV translators --
referred to as the "Simple" and "Stringent" masks. [^87] In conjunction
with use of these masks, the Sgrignoli Paper derives the following D/U
ratios to protect against sideband splatter, which it states is the
predominant cause of adjacent channel interference into analog NTSC or
digital signals:[^88]

[Emission Mask]{.underline} [DTV-into Analog NTSC]{.underline}
[DTV-into-DTV]{.underline}

"Simple" 10 dB - 7 dB

"Stringent" 0 dB -12 dB

The more restrictive D/U ratios are associated with the less restrictive
emission mask. The above ratios are more restrictive than those given in
Section 73.623(c), but also correspond to emission masks that are less
stringent than the full-service DTV mask. It is likely that many LPTV
and TV translator operators will seek to co-locate digital transmission
facilities at sites used to transmit analog and other digital signals on
first adjacent channels. Because of spectrum limitations, it is also
likely that digital output signals may be adjacent to analog or digital
input signals in a translator system. Sideband splatter from
transmissions on adjacent channels cannot be filtered at viewers'
receivers or the receiver portions of TV translators. It can only be
limited through transmitter linearity and/or output filtering. Adequate
first adjacent channel D/U ratios would be particularly important in
such situations.

40. We seek comment on D/U ratios for 1^st^ adjacent channel protection
    from digital TV translators and LPTV stations. Should the D/U ratios
    and any related emission masks adopted for digital LPTV and
    translator stations be applied to digital Class A TV stations?[^89]
    Commenters should also consider the processing implications of
    multiple emission masks and related D/U ratios. Would it unduly
    complicate the record-keeping and interference analysis if
    applicants are required to specify one of multiple mask options in
    their applications, which would become a term of a station's
    construction permit and license authorizations? We tentatively
    conclude that stations seeking to change their mask would be
    required to file a minor change application to modify their
    authorization.

41. *Interference Prediction Methodology*. In this proceeding we will
    adopt a methodology for interference analysis to be used in the
    application process for accepting digital LPTV and TV translator
    applications. One possible choice would be the contour protection
    approach now used to evaluate analog LPTV and TV translator station
    proposals.[^90] This methodology is familiar to LPTV and translator
    operators and their engineering consultants. It is "tried and
    tested" and has resulted in very little reported interference to
    over-the-air broadcast reception. It could readily be adapted for
    digital interference analysis by substituting digital D/U ratios and
    signal propagation formulations.[^91]

42. The contour protection approach, however, has shortcomings that
    could result in fewer opportunities for digital LPTV and TV
    translator service. First, the existing methodology does not fully
    consider the effects of terrain on signal propagation. It includes
    only those terrain elevations within 3 -- 16 km from the proposed
    facility under study, averaging these elevations to determine a
    station's antenna "height above average terrain" along a signal
    propagation path. This approach can lead to erroneous predictions of
    interference on propagation paths where the terrain more than 16 km
    from the transmitter site differs from the average terrain 3 to 16
    km from the transmitter site. Second, it does not account for
    signals being significantly attenuated or blocked by terrain
    obstructions. Third, the contour protection method checks for
    predicted interference only along the perimeter of the service area
    of a protected station. It does not consider locations inside the
    protected contour where interference might occur, even when the
    locations along the contour are protected (*e.g*., at elevated
    locations within the protected contour). Fourth, the existing
    contour protection method does not consider the effects of
    interference predicted from other stations (interference "masking").
    A proposed LPTV or translator facility would fail an interference
    study if it were predicted to interfere at a location along a
    station's protected contour. It would make no difference if
    interference from an existing station was also predicted at that
    location. Finally, the existing contour method does not account for
    the directional signal attenuation characteristics of outdoor
    receiving antennas, nor does it make any allowance for signal
    attenuation characteristics of transmitting antennas in the vertical
    plane.

43. As an alternative to the contour overlap approach, we could base
    application acceptance on our DTV interference prediction
    methodology.[^92] The LPTV rules permit applicants to use the
    Longley-Rice propagation methods described in OET Bulletin 69 to
    support requests for waiver of the contour protection and other LPTV
    interference rules.[^93] Also, the DTV methodology is used in the
    Class A TV service to protect the service populations resulting from
    authorized and allotted DTV facilities.[^94]

44. The shortcomings of the contour protection method are not present in
    the DTV interference model. The DTV model incorporates the
    Longley-Rice propagation model, which considers the effects of
    terrain elevations along entire propagation paths from transmitting
    to receiving locations. The model partitions the area within the DTV
    noise-limited contour into small cells. Each cell is examined to
    determine if noise-limited service is attainable, or if service to
    the population in a particular cell is precluded by terrain
    obstructions. The DTV model then checks to determine whether service
    at a cell would be prevented by masking interference from another
    station. In checking for interference, the DTV model assumes an
    outdoor antenna at receiving locations, pointed toward the desired
    station and having a directional pattern and "front-to-back"
    ratio.[^95] The model checks the remaining served cells for
    predicted interference from the proposed facility under study.

45. In the 1997 DTV *Sixth Report and Order*, the Commission stated that
    in a future proceeding it would consider changing the LPTV and TV
    translator application acceptance criteria to reflect the DTV
    service approach "after we have gained practical experience with
    these techniques and have upgraded our application processing
    software accordingly."[^96] We are now in a position to consider
    such methodology for digital LPTV and TV translator applications.
    Our DTV prediction methods and computer model have been used for
    several years in the processing of applications for DTV and NTSC TV
    facilities. They have also been upgraded and used extensively to
    evaluate requests by LPTV and TV translator applicants to waive the
    contour protection standards. Our processing experience suggests
    that engineering consultants are prepared to use the DTV
    interference prediction methods to seek available channels for
    digital TV translator and LPTV operations.

46. We seek comment on whether we should adopt a version of the DTV
    methodology for digital LPTV and TV translator interference
    analysis. The DTV methods provide more comprehensive, accurate and
    realistic analyses than the contour protection method currently used
    for the LPTV service. Given these advantages and the DTV model's
    wide-spread use, we are inclined to prefer the DTV methodology over
    the contour protection method as the basis for accepting digital
    LPTV and TV translator applications. Alternatively, should we
    continue to use the contour protection method with allowance for
    Longley-Rice and OET 69-type methods on a waiver basis? Are there
    other methods we should consider (*e.g.,* a contour protection
    method using the Longley-Rice propagation model)?

47. If we were to apply the DTV methodology to digital LPTV and TV
    translator interference analyses, it may be necessary to tailor the
    DTV prediction model. We have become aware that using the standard
    vertical antenna pattern assumed in OET Bulletin 69 for analysis of
    digital and analog LPTV and TV translator stations could
    under-predict their service and interference potential.
    Specifically, the assumed transmitting antenna vertical plane
    radiation patterns are set forth in Table 8 of OET Bulletin 69.
    Different patterns are depicted depending on the frequency band of
    the channel being considered and whether the station is analog or
    digital. These patterns are all based on antennas typically used by
    full-service TV stations, employing a moderate amount of electrical
    beam tilt (0.75 degrees) and a relatively high gain in the main
    lobe. Such antennas allow full-service TV and DTV stations to direct
    more power outward toward the edge of the stations' service areas
    and less power downward toward locations relatively closer to the
    stations' towers (where a small percentage of the maximum radiated
    power produces a signal that is strong enough for good reception
    because the receiving locations are so close to the transmitting
    antenna). Typically, LPTV and TV translator stations use
    transmitting antennas with less gain and more beam tilt because such
    antennas are less expensive, smaller and lighter, and transmit a
    larger proportion of the stations' limited power downward toward the
    close-in locations these stations want to serve. These antennas
    generally have broader vertical radiation attenuation
    characteristics than the values given in Table 8 (*i.e.*,
    numerically larger relative field strengths for the corresponding
    vertical angles, particularly for UHF antennas). Further, TV
    translator stations are typically sited at high elevations (hills or
    mountain slopes) and commonly employ electrical antenna beam tilt or
    combinations of mechanical and electrical tilt to maximize their
    signal down into the served communities.

48. To illustrate the concern, based on the Table 8 antenna pattern, an
    LPTV station in the UHF band with a maximum effective radiated power
    of 10 kilowatts (kW) would have only 121 watts (0.121 kW) assumed
    downward power toward locations more than 6 degrees below the
    horizontal plane from the antenna. Applying the full-service antenna
    assumption could result in areas close to the LPTV or TV translator
    stations' towers that would not be predicted to be served by those
    stations. In many cases, stations have chosen transmitter sites
    situated at a high elevation with respect to the served community,
    but located several miles from the site. In some situations of this
    nature, the DTV model has predicted service areas located very close
    to the transmitter that exclude the community that is being served.
    If service is not predicted, protection from interference is not
    afforded. In addition, studies using the full-service antenna
    assumption could under-predict the interference impact to other LPTV
    and translator stations as well as to full-service analog and DTV
    stations on adjacent channels (including "taboo" related channels
    for analog stations). Accordingly, we seek comment on appropriate
    departures from the OET Bulletin 69 analysis to model more
    accurately the transmitting antennas normally used by LPTV and TV
    translator stations. We believe that incorporating antenna beam tilt
    into our LPTV software implementation of OET Bulletin 69 would help
    to alleviate the above concern. We seek comment on the extent of
    antenna beam tilting by LPTV and translator stations and its
    importance as an input to the interference prediction model.

49. If we were to adopt the DTV methods for digital stations in the LPTV
    service, should we also adopt their use for analog LPTV and
    translator application acceptance studies? Certain standards for
    protecting NTSC TV broadcast stations from analog LPTV and TV
    translator station proposals are based on minimum distance
    separations.[^97] Should these be unaffected by a change from the
    contour to the DTV interference prediction methodology? Should
    interference standards and methodology adopted for the digital or
    analog LPTV service also be extended to the Class A TV service?

50. *Interference Agreements*. Interference agreements are permitted
    among LPTV and TV translator station applicants, permittees and
    licensees. Class A TV stations may also negotiate interference
    agreements with applicants for or licensees or permittees of
    authorized LPTV and translator stations.[^98] Such agreements may
    supercede compliance with the LPTV interference protection
    standards. Additionally, applications for LPTV and translator
    facilities predicted to interfere with full-service stations may be
    granted with the written consent of the affected stations. The
    consent of a full-service station does not obviate the
    responsibility of the LPTV or translator station to eliminate
    interference caused to over-the-air reception of the full-service
    station, wherever its signal is regularly viewed. We propose to
    apply all of these provisions to digital LPTV and TV translator
    stations. We seek comment on this proposal.

51. *Co-located Operation on Adjacent Channels*. The analog LPTV contour
    protection standards stipulate that an application for a new or
    modified LPTV or TV translator station will not be accepted if the
    proposed transmitting antenna site lies within the protected contour
    of an adjacent channel station.[^99] Applicants may support requests
    to waive this rule by showing that the applicable D/U protection
    ratios would not be exceeded within the co-located stations'
    protected contour.[^100]

52. In the DTV proceeding, the Commission sought ways to assist
    channel-displaced LPTV and TV translator operators in securing
    replacement channels. The Commission stated that it would consider
    requests to waive its LPTV protection standards where applicants
    could demonstrate that station proposals would not cause any new
    interference. In this regard, the Commission agreed with commenters
    that co-locating with adjacent channel NTSC and DTV facilities may
    prove vital for the survival for some LPTV stations.[^101] The
    Commission concluded that it would entertain waiver requests for
    LPTV and TV translator stations proposing co-located or nearly
    co-located facilities to those of analog TV stations operating on
    the first adjacent channel above or below, or the fourteenth
    adjacent channel below, provided applicable D/U protection ratios
    were not exceeded at locations within the TV station's protected
    contour where the station was regularly viewed.[^102]

53. Co-located station operations on adjacent channels may offer one of
    the most promising opportunities for identifying available channels
    for digital TV translator and LPTV service. Such co-location could
    especially benefit TV translator operators whose installations use
    two-channel spacing (*e.g.*, channels 40, 42, 44, 46 and 48). With
    careful engineering and sufficient attenuation of out-of-channel
    emissions, it may be possible to interleave digital channels between
    the analog channels without causing interference to reception of the
    analog translator output channels.[^103]

54. Our consideration of co-located operations on adjacent channels may
    depend on the interference prediction methodology we adopt in this
    proceeding. The DTV methodology, as described in OET Bulletin 69,
    permits interference analysis of such operations (*i.e.*, it
    calculates the D/U ratios from the signals of a protected station
    and a proposed co-located station on an adjacent channel at
    locations in the protected service area). Therefore, under this
    methodology, a waiver of the LPTV interference rules would not be
    necessary. Under the existing contour protection method, considering
    co-located adjacent channel operations on a waiver basis would seem
    to be appropriate because this method does not include D/U
    calculations at locations inside a protected contour, where
    interference might otherwise be predicted. In any event, we also
    propose to consider permitting co-located adjacent operations on the
    basis of written agreements among the affected parties.

55. We seek comment on our proposals and on issues related to co-located
    adjacent channel operations involving digital LPTV and TV translator
    stations.[^104] Should we consider co-located transmitting antennas
    to be only those located on the same tower or other supporting
    structure or, alternatively, on structures located within a
    particular proximity? Should we limit consideration of co-located
    adjacent channel digital operations by requiring that it be done on
    a waiver basis?[^105] If so, should such a waiver policy be required
    for co-location with any class of adjacent channel station,
    including co-located facilities only of LPTV and/or TV translator
    stations?

56. We seek comment on whether we should apply in the low power TV
    service a provision similar to that in Section 73.622(g) of our DTV
    rules. In pertinent part, Section 73.622(g)(2) provides that "where
    a low power television station or TV translator station is operating
    on the lower adjacent channel within 32 km of the DTV station and
    notifies the DTV station that it intends to minimize interference by
    precisely maintaining its carrier frequencies, the DTV station shall
    cooperate in locking its carrier frequency to a common reference
    frequency and shall be responsible for any costs relating to is own
    transmission system in complying with this provision." DTV
    broadcasters are required to maintain a precise frequency separation
    between their 8VSB pilot frequency and the visual carrier frequency
    of a lower adjacent channel NTSC TV station located within 88 km of
    the DTV station. To maintain this separation, the two stations are
    required to lock these frequencies to a common reference
    frequency.[^106] Considering the lower power levels of stations in
    the LPTV service, is there a need to apply this requirement among
    digital and lower 1^st^ adjacent channel analog LPTV and TV
    translator stations within some geographic proximity?[^107]

57. Finally, we seek comment on any other technical means for
    demonstrating interference avoidance that could facilitate channel
    availability for digital LPTV and TV translator service without
    compromising the interference protection rights of other stations.
    We also seek comment on other changes to our LPTV service
    interference protection rules that could provide additional spectrum
    opportunities without unduly risking impermissible interference. For
    example, should we require all analog LPTV and TV translator
    stations to operate with a frequency offset?[^108] Carrier
    offsetting permits two co-channel stations with different offsets to
    operate closer to each other with no additional interference
    potential than if one or both of the stations operated without a
    carrier offset or the stations used the same offset.[^109] Analog
    Class A TV stations are required to operate with a frequency offset.

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

58. LPTV and TV translator stations are authorized on a secondary
    non-interfering basis to existing land mobile operations and certain
    other primary services. These include public safety and other new
    wireless services that are operating or will operate in the spectrum
    comprising TV channels 52 -- 69.[^110] With regard to digital LPTV
    and TV translator operations, we do not propose to alter the
    interference priorities and remediation provisions identified in
    Section 74.703 of our rules.

59. Section 74.709 specifies criteria for protecting land mobile radio
    operations on TV channels 14-20 in the vicinity of 13 large cities.
    Generally, an application for a new or modified LPTV or TV
    translator facility will not be accepted if it proposes (1) a
    transmitting antenna site on a co-channel or first adjacent channel
    within 130 km of these cities, or (2) the proposed LPTV or
    translator facilities would produce a field strength exceeding 52
    dBu at the protected contour (generally extending the 130-km
    distance) of a co-channel land mobile assignment or 76 dBu at the
    protected contour of a first-adjacent channel land mobile
    assignment.[^111] We request comment on the suitability of these
    protection requirements for digital LPTV, TV translator, and Class A
    TV stations.[^112] Are the above protection criteria appropriate for
    this purpose? If not, what criteria should be applied and on what
    basis?

60. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
    ("NTIA") has requested that we ensure that digital LPTV, Class A, TV
    translator, and TV booster stations do not impact operations at
    radio astronomy, research, and certain receiving installations such
    as FCC monitoring stations and the Department of Commerce's *radio
    receiving zone* on Table Mountain, Boulder County, Colorado.[^113]
    NTIA specifically requests that we subject digital low power
    television stations to Section 73.1030 of our rules, which requires
    that applicants for authority to construct a new station in the
    vicinity of those installations notify the affected installation(s)
    and give consideration to providing protection to the
    installation(s) against interference.[^114] We therefore propose to
    subject LPTV, Class A, TV translator and TV booster digital stations
    to the requirements of Section 73.1030. We also request comment on
    whether it might be appropriate to subject digital low power
    television stations to those requirements only with regard to the
    more sensitive operations of the radio astronomy observatories at
    Green Bank, West Virginia and Arecibo, Puerto Rico. In this regard,
    we also observe that digital low power television stations will
    operate with much lower ERP than full service DTV stations (*i.e.*,
    maximum ERP of 300 kW for VHF stations and 15 kW for UHF stations),
    and therefore would appear to pose less of a concern for radio
    receiving sites and FCC monitoring stations.

## Other Technical Issues

### Power Limits

61. In the DTV proceeding, the Commission established the following
    effective radiated power ("ERP") limits for analog and digital LPTV
    and TV translator stations:[^115]

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

    2 -- 13 3 kW 300 watts

    14 -- 69 150 kW 15 kW

The digital ERP limits were set to values 10 dB below the corresponding
analog ERP limits.[^116] As noted, the combination of a station's
protected contour value and its effective radiated power affects the
size of the station's service area. Assuming we adopt the contour values
we have proposed for digital LPTV and TV translator stations,[^117] we
invite comment on the adequacy of the above digital effective radiated
power limits. Are these limits generally appropriate for coverage of the
communities and areas served by LPTV and TV translator stations, based
on typical receiving installations and proximity of transmitting sites
to the served communities? If not, how should the limits be changed and
on what basis? [^118]

### Out-of-Channel Emission Limits

62. The term "emission mask" describes required levels of signal
    attenuation below a reference power value at specified frequency
    intervals outside of the bandwidth of an assigned channel. Unless
    sufficiently attenuated, out-of-channel emissions could cause
    co-channel interference to signals received in an adjacent channel.
    The Sgrignoli Paper highlights the importance of the emission mask
    and its role for digital LPTV and TV translator stations:

> "The amount of acceptable adjacent channel splatter must be determined
> and limited in practice for both full-service and low power facilities
> in order to achieve optimum allocation of TV channels in the shrinking
> television spectrum. Adjacent channel splatter reduction is usually
> accomplished by controlling transmitter power and linearity as well as
> with band-pass filtering at the final output, while still providing
> acceptable in-band signal quality. However, the fact that translator
> and low power transmitters radiate so little power relative to
> full-service stations may allow less stringent and less costly
> emissions masks, which is especially important in light of the typical
> financial status of low power facilities."[^119]

63. Our rules specify emission masks for most communications services,
    including radio and television broadcasting. Emission masks for
    analog LPTV, TV translator and TV booster stations are specified in
    Section 74.736 of the rules. These require that emissions on
    frequencies greater than 3 MHz from the edges of the assigned
    channel be attenuated no less than:

    \(a\) 30 dB for transmitters rated at no more than 1 watt power
    output

    \(b\) 50 dB for transmitters rated between 1 watt and 100 watts
    power output

\(c\) 60 dB for transmitters rated at more than 100 watts power output

The DTV broadcast emission mask requires the following attenuation below
the average transmitted power: (1) 47 dB in the first 500 kHz from the
authorized channel edge, (2) 110 dB at frequencies more than 6 MHz from
the channel edge, and (3) at any frequency between 500 kHz and 6 MHz
from the channel edge, emissions must be attenuated no less than the
value determined by the formula A = -11.5 (Δf + 3.6), where A is the
attenuation in dB and Δf is the frequency difference in MHz from the
edge of the channel.[^120]

64. We invite comment on the appropriate emission mask(s) for digital
    LPTV and TV translator stations.[^121] We seek a mask(s) that would
    enable sufficient interference protection to and from these
    stations, taking into account their power levels and the typical
    nature of their operations. Also, we do not wish to burden station
    licensees with mask requirements that would be unduly costly. We
    agree that cost of compliance is an important consideration to the
    many station licensees that operate on limited budgets. Initially,
    we believe the DTV broadcast mask may be unnecessarily restrictive
    and too costly for digital LPTV and TV translator stations.

65. An alternative to the full-service DTV broadcast emission mask is
    offered in the Sgrignoli Paper, which analyzes the impact of
    sideband splatter on adjacent channel NTSC and DTV signals. The
    paper suggests two digital emission masks, a "Stringent Mask" and a
    "Simple Mask," each with its own associated required adjacent
    channel D/U ratios. The paper uses as a reference the
    above-described mask given in our DTV rules. The suggested masks are
    described below, where A (dB) is the attenuated emission level below
    the average transmitted power of a DTV channel and Δf is the
    frequency difference in MHz from the edge of the channel:[^122]

    [Stringent Mask]{.underline}

    A (dB) = 47 dB from Δf = 0.0 MHz to 0.5 MHz

    A (dB) = 11.5 \* (Δf + 3.6) = 47 + 11.5\* (Δf -- 0.5) from Δf = 0.5
    MHz to 3.0 MHz

    A (dB) = 76 dB everywhere else

This mask is the same as the DTV mask except that it "flattens out" with
a required attenuation of 76 dB beyond the midpoint of the adjacent
channel. For comparison, the DTV mask flattens out at 110 dB attenuation
at the far edge of the adjacent channel.

[Simple Mask]{.underline}

A (dB) = 46 + (Δf ^2^ /1.44) from Δf = 0.0 MHz to 6.0 MHz

A (dB) = 71 dB everywhere else

66. According to the Sgrignoli Paper, the Simple Mask "allows simple and
    cost-effective translator implementation" and the Stringent Mask
    "still allows a reasonably cost effective implementation but allows
    larger D/U ratios between interfering signals and thus is more
    efficient for spectrum utilization in crowded regions."[^123] Both
    masks are crafted to work in tandem with adjacent channel D/U ratios
    and are therefore independent of transmitter power.[^124] The paper
    also analyzes the extent of transmission filtering necessary for
    compliance with these masks, concluding that five-section and
    three-section filtering would suffice for the Stringent and Simple
    masks, respectively.

67. With regard to interference avoidance, the Sgrignoli Paper
    establishes a relationship between permissible levels of
    out-of-channel "splatter" emissions and the adjacent channel D/U
    ratio. It suggests D/U ratios needed to overcome the amount of
    splatter permitted by the masks (*e.g.*, for the interference
    threshold of visibility). We seek comment on the two emission masks
    and resulting adjacent channel D/U ratios suggested in the Sgrignoli
    Paper. We request comment from equipment manufacturers and other
    knowledgeable parties on the associated costs to licensees.

68. NTIA has also expressed concern for the potential for harmonic
    emissions from digital low power television operations to radio
    navigation satellite service (RNSS) operations within the 1559-1610
    MHz, 1215-1240 MHz, and 1164-1188 MHz bands.[^125] For example, NTIA
    notes that the third harmonic of TV channel 23 signals at 525.14 MHz
    is 1575.42 MHz, which is the center frequency of the Global
    Positioning Satellite L1 signal.[^126] We request comment on whether
    the two out-of-band emissions masks discussed above are adequate to
    limit digital low power television harmonic signals in the 1559-1610
    MHz, 1215-1240 MHz, and 1164-1188 MHz bands to levels necessary to
    protect service to aeronautical and ground-based RNSS receivers.

69. More generally, we invite comment on the role of emission masks for
    digital LPTV and TV translator stations. Is there a need for
    multiple masks with differing performance requirements and costs? We
    believe that the amount of attenuation of out-of-channel emissions
    could vary with a stations' environment. A stricter mask might be
    needed to avoid adjacent channel interference in a crowded TV
    environment (*e.g.*, a TV translator installation using adjacent
    output channels or adjacent output and input channels). Other TV
    translators or LPTV stations might be located in areas where
    adjacent channel interference is not a problem and a less
    restrictive emission mask would suffice. If we were to adopt
    multiple emission masks, should we prescribe in our rules those
    situations requiring a more restrictive mask or should the choice be
    left to applicants for digital stations? Should the emission mask(s)
    adopted for the digital or analog LPTV service also be extended to
    digital stations in the Class A TV service?

70. We invite comment on alternative formulations for digital LPTV and
    TV translator emission masks and related permissible levels of
    out-of-channel emissions. We ask commenters to provide the technical
    basis for such formulations and, to the extent possible, the
    estimated cost of compliance. We are concerned that any
    out-of-channel emission requirements we adopt in this proceeding not
    be unduly costly to translator and LPTV station operators, or
    unnecessarily penalize stations operating at relatively low power
    levels. In this regard, we note that our rules for certain services
    specify absolute levels of emission, expressed by the following
    formulation: A + 10 log P, where "A" could represent the minimum
    level of signal attenuation (in dB) over some frequency interval
    below the average digital power in the channel ("P").[^127] Finally,
    we propose to specify a resolution bandwidth value of 500 kHz for
    determining compliance with out-of-channel emission limits, the
    value specified in our DTV rules, and request comment on this
    proposal.

### Other Transmission System Facilities Issues

71. Generally, stations in the LPTV service must operate with a
    transmitter or translator that the Commission has "certificated for
    licensing."[^128] Certification is an equipment authorization "based
    on representations and test data submitted by the applicant,"
    normally the equipment manufacturer, to the Commission.[^129] It
    provides one means for ensuring that radio frequency transmitting
    equipment complies with the Commission's technical standards. LPTV
    service equipment standards primarily relate to interference
    avoidance. To a lesser extent, they involve the satisfactory
    reception of transmitted signals by the public. We seek to establish
    the minimally necessary standards for the transmitting equipment
    that will be used for digital low power operations and the process
    for addressing compliance with these standards.

72. *Equipment Standards Related to Signal Reception and Technical
    Quality*. When the Commission proposed the analog low power TV
    service, it expressed its view on the role of transmission
    standards:

"We are concerned primarily with maintaining those standards necessary
for the prevention of objectionable interference. Additional standards
that are calculated to maintain a first-rate quality of signal into the
home appear to us neither necessary or desirable. Rigorous standards may
preclude the service altogether in some instances, and we have every
confidence that the operator will attempt to make his or her use
attractive to viewers."[^130]

Thus, our rules for analog stations in the LPTV service do not include
detailed signal quality standards for transmitting equipment. Rather,
LPTV and TV translator stations are expected to transmit signals that
can be received by the public. For example, with regard to locally
inserted messages, the rules stipulate that "the apparatus used to
generate the local signal which is used to modulate the translator or
low power station must be capable of producing a visual or aural signal
or both which will provide acceptable reception on television receivers
designed for the transmission standards employed by TV broadcast
stations."[^131] As a criterion for Commission certification of
translators, "the equipment shall be so designed that the electrical
characteristics of a standard television signal introduced into the
input terminals will be maintained at the output."[^132]

73. Consistent with this emphasis on general functionality, we do not
    propose signal quality-related standards for digital translator and
    LPTV transmitting equipment.[^133] In considering permissible use
    for digital translators, we stated our expectation that a translator
    should be capable of rebroadcasting ("passing through") the signal
    of a DTV broadcast station and that the translator output signal
    should be viewable on a receiver designed for the Commission's DTV
    transmission standard (*i.e.,* the ATSC 8-VSB standard).

74. We tentatively concluded that digital LPTV stations should be
    required to provide a free over-the-air video program service
    intended for reception by the general public. To meet this
    requirement, stations would need to transmit signals that could be
    viewed by receivers designed for the Commission's DTV transmission
    standard (*i.e.*, the ATSC standard including the 8-VSB modulation
    system). Beyond these general requirements, we do not believe it
    necessary to propose standards for digital LPTV transmitters related
    to signal quality. We believe LPTV licensees will want to provide
    service attractive to their viewers.

75. *Equipment Standards for Interference Avoidance*. We also seek to
    establish digital LPTV and translator equipment standards related to
    interference avoidance. In this regard, we believe the principal
    areas of concern are compliance with the out-of-channel emission
    mask and a transmitter's ability to operate within its rated output
    power. Transmitter output power, together with transmission line
    loss and antenna gain, determines a station's effective radiated
    power ("ERP"). A station's ERP and antenna height affect the range
    of a transmitted signal and, thus, its potential for causing
    interference. Analog transmitters in the LPTV service are required
    to maintain their output NTSC peak visual power within 2 dB when
    their input signal strength varies over a range of 30 dB and to
    prevent the rated power output from being exceeded under any
    condition.[^134] For this purpose, translators generally use
    automatic gain control circuitry.

76. Digital transmitters have a rated "average power" measured at the
    transmitter's output channel filtering. We seek comment on whether
    we should establish a tolerance level for deviation from the rated
    average power output and, if so, what value to apply. Should we
    require a specific means of power control (*e.g.*,, automatic level
    control based on sampling of the output power at a transmitter's
    power amplifier)? The power control issue is doubly important
    because excessive power can result in more co-channel interference,
    and because out-of-channel emission levels can rise rapidly if a
    digital transmitter is operated at excessive power levels. Should we
    require use of automatic level control or other means to clamp
    transmitter output power at its rated value and require compliance
    with the emission mask at this level of output power?

77. We propose that digital LPTV transmitters and TV translators must
    comply with the emission mask(s) established in this proceeding,
    measured at the transmitter/translator output terminal (after output
    filtering). Sufficient attenuation of out-of-channel emissions is
    needed to avoid adjacent channel interference caused by sideband
    splatter. We seek comment on whether we should adopt any other
    equipment standards for digital translators and transmitters used in
    the LPTV service?

78. In considering permissible use, we are seeking comment on whether
    digital LPTV stations should be partially or fully exempted from a
    minimum video program service requirement based on special
    circumstances. In this regard, we seek comment on what technical
    standards and interference criteria should apply to transmitted
    material if and when a free off-air video program service is not
    required.

79. Analog LPTV and TV translator stations are required to operate with
    a transmitter that is either "certificated" by the Commission for
    compliance with the requirements of Section 74.750(c) of our rules,
    or alternatively, qualifies for use under the TV broadcast rules in
    Part 73.[^135] Transmitters that qualify for use under the TV
    broadcast rules must be evaluated for compliance with the technical
    rules for that equipment under the "verification" procedure. The
    Commission's "certification" and "verification" procedures specify
    requirements for authorization of radiofrequency equipment by the
    Commission and manufacturer self-approval, respectively.[^136] We
    seek comment on whether the certification requirements for analog
    LPTV transmitters and TV translators should be applied for digital
    LPTV and TV translator transmitters or whether the TV/DTV
    verification procedure should be used. If we adopt a certification
    requirement for new digital equipment operated in the LPTV service,
    should we certify a transmitter or translator as a whole, including
    output filtering or also certify transmitter components such as a
    front-end digital processor (or digital transcoder)? Should we
    revise our equipment approval requirements for analog LPTV and TV
    translator transmitters to conform to our decision on such
    requirements for digital LPTV and TV translators? We seek comment on
    any other equipment approval issues that should be addressed in this
    proceeding.

### Modification of Transmission Systems

80. Generally, the LPTV rules prohibit changes to the mechanical or
    electrical characteristics of certified equipment without
    authorization.[^137] Where such authorization has been given, the
    manufacturer may provide instructions for making equipment changes.
    Station licensees are not required to have prior approval to make
    such equipment changes, but are required to notify the Commission
    upon completion. Licensees of analog LPTV or translator stations may
    add or replace analog modulation equipment to their facilities. A
    "qualified person" must examine the transmitting system after
    installation and certify in an application for station license
    compliance with pertinent technical standards.[^138]

81. We seek comment on whether these provisions should be extended to
    digital LPTV and TV translator equipment. Assuming we adopt a
    certification requirement, under what circumstances, if any, should
    we permit LPTV or TV translator equipment certified for analog
    operation to be used for digital transmissions? For example, should
    we permit a translator operator to combine a certified digital
    front-end processor with the power amplifier of a translator
    certified for analog transmissions? Alternatively, should the
    Commission certify digital front-end processors for use with
    particular amplifiers and other equipment (*e.g.*, frequency
    up-converters and output filtering) and permit manufacturers to
    issue instructions for any necessary field modifications of the
    analog equipment? Would the permitted use of analog transmitter
    components in digital transmission systems result in significant
    cost savings to LPTV and translator licensees? If we were to allow
    such field modifications, how could we ensure the integrity of our
    technical standards? For example, how could a station licensee
    operating digitally with an analog heterodyne translator, rated for
    peak NTSC power output, determine the station's digital average
    transmitter output power and demonstrate that it would be maintained
    within permissible limits? Should station licensees be permitted to
    have a qualified person certify in FCC license applications that
    such transmitting systems, after installation, meet all digital
    equipment standards? Are there other facilities modification issues
    that should be addressed in this proceeding?

## Station Operation

### Time of Operation

82. Our rules do not require LPTV stations to operate according to a
    schedule, nor do the rules impose minimum hours of operation for
    these stations. The absence of such requirements stemmed from the
    Commission's desire to facilitate flexible LPTV station operations
    and minimize the cost of regulatory compliance. The Commission
    concluded that LPTV stations would have a self-interest in being
    responsive to the needs of the viewers they serve. The rules also do
    not specify minimum operating hours for analog TV translator
    stations. However, a translator station is expected to "provide
    service to the extent that such is within its control and to avoid
    unwarranted interruptions in the service provided."[^139]

83. We invite comment on whether we should require minimum hours of
    operation for digital TV translator and/or LPTV stations and, if so,
    how should we structure the requirement?[^140] We are mindful of
    rationale for not requiring minimum hours for analog LPTV stations,
    and we do not want to impose regulatory burdens that would
    discourage LPTV licensees from operating digital stations. We also
    recognize that even without such a requirement, many LPTV stations
    operate according to a program schedule; some operate 24 hours a
    day. Yet, a counterbalancing reason may exist for favoring at least
    a minimal operating requirement for digital stations. We expect that
    many LPTV and TV translator stations will encounter difficulty
    securing additional channels for digital operations. Prospective
    digital operators in nearby communities might have to compete for a
    remaining available channel(s). We desire that channels authorized
    to digital translator and LPTV stations be utilized to the extent
    possible to bring digital service to their communities. We are
    concerned that prospective stations, willing and able to provide
    extensive digital service, could be denied spectrum opportunities
    because of the need to protect other stations that operate only
    sporadically.[^141] Should we adopt minimum daily and/or weekly
    hours of operation for digital LPTV and TV translator stations? If
    so, how many hours of operation should be required? Should any
    minimum required operating hours be phased-in? Would a minimum hours
    requirement be a disincentive to constructing and operating digital
    LPTV stations?

### Unattended Operation

84. LPTV and TV translator stations may be operated unattended subject
    to certain requirements to guard against interference and outages of
    tower lighting.[^142] For example, if a transmitter site cannot be
    promptly reached at all times, technical means must be provided to
    turn the transmitter on and off from a location that is readily
    accessible. Such unattended operation has not been problematic for
    analog stations, and we propose to apply the rule for digital LPTV
    and TV translator operations. We invite comment on this proposal.
    Although we do not understand this to be the case, are there
    technical differences for remotely controlling analog and digital
    transmitters/translators that we should consider?

### Station Identification

85. Article 19 of the ITU Radio Regulations provides that "All
    transmissions should be capable of being identified either by
    identification signals or by other means" and that broadcast
    stations should carry signals identifying them by call sign, name of
    station, station location or other specified identifying
    information.[^143] Identification signals make take forms including,
    but not limited to, "speech, using simple amplitude or frequency
    modulation" and "international Morse code transmitted at manual
    speed."[^144]

86. Our rules provide several means for LPTV and TV translator station
    identification. Stations that do not originate local programming
    must either transmit the station's call sign in International Morse
    Code at least once each hour or arrange for a TV broadcast station,
    whose signal is being rebroadcast, to identify the station's call
    sign and location within certain periods of each broadcast
    day.[^145] The Morse Code requirement dates back to the FCC's
    initial authorization of UHF translators in 1956. Its primary
    purpose was to assist the Commission or authorities in other
    countries to identify particular stations for the "policing of the
    radio frequency spectrum and the detection of violators."[^146] When
    locally originating programming, LPTV stations must identify their
    stations aurally or visually at the beginning and ending of each
    time of such operations and on an hourly basis.[^147]

87. We seek comment on appropriate means for digital LPTV and TV
    translator station identification. What identifying information
    should be required other than a station's call sign? The operation
    of many analog translators consists entirely of the heterodyne
    retransmission of TV broadcast signals. Also, some LPTV station
    operations consist only of the simultaneous retransmission of
    programming obtained from sources other than TV broadcast stations.
    It is likely that many digital TV translator and LPTV stations would
    operate in this manner. We seek comment on how stations equipped
    only to retransmit digital signals should be identified. We propose
    that that DTV broadcast stations or other program suppliers be
    permitted to identify the translator or LPTV stations that
    retransmit their signals.[^148] Could station identifying
    information be embedded in the incoming digital signals of the
    programming sources being retransmitted and, if so, how could this
    be done? DTV broadcast stations may transmit multiple program
    streams in a single channel. Where such stations identify TV
    translators, should the identifying information be required in each
    stream? Would this requirement be burdensome for DTV stations? In
    the *Second DTV Periodic Review NPRM* we sought comment on whether
    digital full power stations that chose to multi-cast should be
    permitted to include additional information in their station
    announcements identifying each program stream.[^149]

88. It is likely that some TV translator and LPTV stations would
    retransmit signals for which DTV broadcasters or other program
    suppliers did not encode their identifying information. We seek
    comment on how these stations could identify? This would necessitate
    some means of interrupting the station's input signal or,
    alternatively, locally inserting identifying information into the
    input signal bit stream. We understand that regenerative-type
    transmitter/translators could be designed to accommodate data
    insertion, provided station licensees obtained additional equipment
    (*e.g.*, a digital service multiplexer). We are concerned that such
    equipment would be cost prohibitive to LPTV and TV translator
    stations, many of which operate on limited budgets. We seek comment
    on the equipment necessary for local insertion of digital station
    identification information and the related cost. Could this be
    accomplished through the use of a PSIP generator at an LPTV or
    translator station and, if so, how would the identifying information
    be inserted and at what cost? [^150]

89. How could heterodyne-type digital translator stations identify
    themselves, other than through their primary DTV broadcast stations?
    The method used to transmit analog station call signs in Morse Code
    might not be applicable to the rebroadcast of DTV signals. Analog
    translators transmit call signs either through frequency shift
    keying of the NTSC aural and visual carrier frequencies or amplitude
    modulation of the aural carrier frequency. DTV signals do not have
    visual and aural carriers, other than a small VSB pilot carrier. Are
    there available and inexpensive technical means by which a station's
    identifying information could be added to its transmitted signal?

90. We seek comment on station identification requirements for digital
    LPTV stations equipped to originate local programming. Should such
    stations be required to identify in the manner of DTV broadcast
    stations (*i.e.*, either visually or aurally)? What specialized
    equipment would be required to do so and at what cost to station
    operators? We note that in the *Second DTV Periodic Review NPRM* we
    have proposed to require digital stations to follow the same rules
    for station identification as analog stations. We have sought
    comment on whether channel identification should be required for DTV
    stations and, if so, how the channel number should be
    identified.[^151]

## Authorization of Digital LPTV and TV Translator Stations

91. In this proceeding we will adopt rules and policies to govern the
    authorization of digital LPTV and TV translator service. We seek
    comment on application filing criteria and other issues relating to
    authorization of the following: digital conversion of existing
    analog stations, new digital stations, and modifications of digital
    facilities, including provisions for channel "displacement" relief.
    We seek rules, policies and processes that will facilitate the rapid
    implementation of digital LPTV and TV translator service and also
    consider other LPTV service needs. Unless specifically addressed in
    this *Notice*, we propose to apply to digital LPTV and TV translator
    stations the rules, policies, and procedures applicable to analog
    stations in the LPTV service.

92. *Digital Conversion on Channels Authorized for Analog Service*. As
    the DTV transition progresses, licensees of analog LPTV and TV
    translator stations may wish to convert to digital operations on
    their authorized channels. We propose to authorize the digital
    conversion of a licensed analog LPTV or TV translator station, or a
    station holding a construction permit for such a facility, as a
    "minor" facilities change[^152] provided: (1) the proposed digital
    facility would not involve a channel change not related to channel
    displacement, and (2) the protected digital signal contour of the
    proposed facility would overlap some portion of the protected
    contour based on the station's analog authorization.[^153]
    Consistent with our rules for LPTV minor change applications, we
    propose to grant "digital conversion" applications on a first-come,
    first-served basis under the current processing procedures.[^154]
    Digital conversion applications having predicted interference
    conflicts with other applications filed on the same day would be
    mutually exclusive. As discussed below, we ask whether digital
    applications that are mutually exclusive with other analog or
    digital applications filed would be subject to the auction process.
    Permitting on-channel digital conversion proposals to be filed as
    minor change applications would in most cases result in a quicker
    authorization of service than if these applications were filed as
    major facilities changes. We seek comment on these proposals and, in
    particular, how we should consider mutually exclusive digital
    conversion and channel displacement relief applications.
    Applications for replacement channels by stations whose channels
    have been displaced are accorded a higher priority than applications
    for new or modified facilities, regardless of which application was
    filed earlier.[^155] Should a digital conversion application be
    subject to dismissal if it becomes mutually exclusive with a
    displacement relief application of an analog or digital LPTV, TV
    translator or Class A TV licensee or permittee?

93. *Authorization of New Digital Stations*. Applications for new analog
    LPTV and TV translator stations and major facilities modifications
    to existing LPTV and TV translator stations are subject to the
    application filing and competitive bidding or "auctions" procedures
    given in Section 73.5002 *et seq*. of our rules.[^156] The process
    begins with a Commission Public Notice announcing an auction
    proceeding, including the time period during which all applicants
    seeking to participate in an auction must file their applications
    ("auction filing window").[^157] We must consider whether to apply
    some or all of these procedures to digital LPTV and TV translator
    applications or whether to adopt new procedures that could better
    facilitate the transition from analog to digital television service.

94. We first ask whether the auction exemption provisions in Section
    309(j)(2)(B) of the Communications Act apply to mutually exclusive
    applications for new LPTV and TV translator digital stations or
    where such applications are mutually exclusive with other
    applications in the LPTV or Class A TV services.[^158] That
    provision states that competitive bidding authority shall not apply
    to licenses or construction permits "for initial licenses or
    construction permits for digital television service given to
    existing terrestrial broadcast licensees to replace their analog
    television service licenses." Since that provision was adopted in
    the Balanced Budget Act of 1997[^159] in conjunction with a number
    of other provisions meant to facilitate the full power digital
    television transition, we ask whether it was Congress' intent to
    include applications for low power and television translator digital
    stations in the statutory auction exemption.[^160] We seek comment
    on this analysis. If the auction exemption does not apply, we
    propose to permit applicants for digital stations in the LPTV
    service to resolve mutual exclusivities through engineering
    solutions or settlements.[^161] We seek comment on this proposal.

95. Should we determine that the auction exemption does apply, we seek
    comment as to an alternative proposal for resolving mutually
    exclusive applications for low power and television translator
    digital stations. For this purpose, we could utilize a procedure
    similar to the one we adopted for full power digital television
    "maximization" applications.[^162] Under such an approach, we could
    notify the members of the mutually exclusive group via Public Notice
    and allow the parties a specific period of time to resolve their
    mutual exclusivity via settlement or engineering solution. If the
    parties failed to find a resolution, we could dismiss all
    applications in the group that remained mutually exclusive. We seek
    comment as to the feasibility of such an approach for dealing with
    mutually exclusive applications for digital low power and television
    translator stations should we determine that we do not have the
    authority to use auctions in such cases. We also invite comment on
    any alternative means for resolving mutually exclusive applications
    if the auction exemption does apply.

96. We face difficult choices as we consider policies and priorities for
    creating digital service opportunities for the LPTV service. One
    major difficulty will be deciding how to structure application
    filing opportunities in a way that balances our goals for the
    digital transition with the other needs of existing licensees, as
    well as unmet needs for analog service. The LPTV service is now
    well-established. Hundreds of communities throughout the country
    depend on LPTV and TV translator stations for free over-the-air
    television service. Many LPTV stations provide the only local
    off-air TV service in a community. Because of limited channel
    availability in many areas of the country, station licensees will
    also have to balance new digital service offerings to their viewers
    against the continuation of current analog TV programming services.
    Some stations may be able to secure additional channels for digital
    operations, depending in part on the extent of competition for these
    channels. Others may not be able to do so and must eventually
    consider converting their existing analog service to digital
    service.

97. We tentatively conclude that we should place a high priority on
    facilitating the digital transition of existing LPTV and TV
    translator service. We also wish to provide opportunities for Class
    A TV stations to secure channels for digital LPTV operations.[^163]
    In the DTV proceeding, initial digital service was built around the
    base of existing analog TV broadcast stations.[^164] We believe
    similar action may now be appropriate with respect to existing LPTV,
    TV translator and Class A stations (*i.e.*, providing those stations
    the initial opportunity to further the DTV transition in their
    communities before providing digital station opportunities to
    non-incumbents). We believe that such a policy would maximize
    opportunities for viewers, stimulate DTV set penetration, and also
    minimize the loss of existing analog program services.[^165] Given
    that Section 336(a)(1) does not apply here, we seek comment on this
    tentative conclusion.[^166]

98. We seek comment on the following approach for accepting applications
    for construction permits for new digital LPTV and TV translator
    stations. Under this approach, we would first issue a Public Notice
    announcing a digital-only application filing window with filing
    eligibility limited to LPTV, TV translator and Class A TV licensees
    and permittees ("incumbents"). Class A TV licensees and permittees
    would be filing for digital authorizations in the low power
    television service. This window would not be geographically
    restricted.[^167] At some time after processing the applications
    received in the initial window, we would announce the commencement
    of a separate filing procedure referred to as "rolling one-day
    filing windows." In this first-come-first-served filing procedure,
    the applicant eligibility would not be restricted.[^168] As an
    application acceptance condition, proposed facilities would be
    required to protect those in all earlier-filed applications.
    Applications having predicted interference conflicts with other
    applications filed on the same day would be considered to be
    mutually exclusive.

99. We believe this application filing approach would further the goals
    of the DTV transition in two important respects. First, it would
    provide incumbent station operators the initial opportunity to seek
    available channels for the provision of digital service to their
    communities. In the DTV proceeding we concluded that there would be
    insufficient spectrum to accommodate fully existing translator and
    LPTV stations. Stations that could not secure channels for digital
    service would eventually need to convert existing analog service to
    digital. We can understand the reluctance of station licensees to
    terminate analog program offerings until there would be a sufficient
    penetration of DTV receiving equipment in their communities. A
    digital-only window with restricted eligibility would help existing
    station operators obtain channels on which to begin digital service
    offerings, thereby minimizing the disruption that could be caused by
    the earlier than desired cessation of analog service. During the DTV
    transition, viewers in such communities would have access to both
    digital and analog service, as do viewers that can directly receive
    the signals of full-service TV and DTV stations. Thus, we believe an
    initial digital window for incumbents could stimulate digital
    service in those areas served by LPTV and TV translator stations,
    particularly in rural communities that cannot receive the signals of
    full-service stations. A window of sufficient duration and announced
    suitably in advance would provide a fair opportunity for incumbents
    to prepare their applications.

100. As a second benefit, a digital-only window for incumbents would
     likely result in the filing of substantially fewer applications
     than would be received in a window without eligibility
     restrictions. We believe it also would reduce the extent of
     mutually exclusive application filings.[^169] As a result, digital
     stations could be authorized more quickly, facilitating an earlier
     delivery of digital LPTV and translator service.

101. We seek comment on the issue of whether our incumbent-first filing
     approach is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in
     *Ashbacker* and subsequent court decisions.[^170] In *Ashbacker*,
     the Court interpreted the hearing requirement in Section 309 of the
     Communications Act[^171] to require the Commission to consider two
     mutually exclusive applications, both of which had been accepted
     for filing, in a comparative hearing before granting one and
     denying the other. At the same time, *Ashbacker* allows the
     Commission to promulgate regulations limiting the filing rights of
     competing applicants, and leaves to the Commission\'s discretion
     the circumstances under which applications are considered mutually
     exclusive. We do not believe that *Ashbacker* applies directly in
     this case because the procedures we address are to restrict
     eligibility and do not deal with mutually exclusive applications.
     We seek comment on this issue.

102. With respect to the so-called "spirit of Ashbacker" line of cases,
     the fundamental legal premise underlying those cases was that
     "comparable consideration ... is the process most likely to serve
     the public."[^172] That policy, however, has been affected by
     subsequent amendments to the Communications Act establishing an
     auction environment. For example, when Congress adopted Section
     309(j), it provided that the Commission should continue to avoid or
     reduce the likelihood of mutual exclusivity among applications when
     the Commission finds that it is in the public interest to do so.
     The procedure we address here is premised on a desire to limit the
     number of mutually exclusive digital LPTV applications to expedite
     the low power digital transition. Therefore, we believe that the
     incumbent-first approach may best serve the public interest.

103. With regard to rolling one-day windows, neither the auction statute
     nor our rules prescribe a fixed time period for permitting the
     filing of applications. Rather, the statute stipulates only that
     non-exempted mutually exclusive applications are subject to
     competitive bidding.[^173] We believe that rolling one-day windows
     could help to manage the flow of applications and result in a
     quicker authorization of LPTV and translator service. Applicants,
     including new entrants, could seek available channels without
     having to wait the customarily long periods of time between auction
     filing windows. In the long run, we expect this approach would also
     avoid the large backlogs of mutually exclusive applications
     associated with pre-announced filing windows. As possible draw
     backs, applications for new and major changes could become mutually
     exclusive with minor facilities change applications filed on the
     same day. There would also be an increased possibility that
     applications for new stations would become mutually exclusive with
     channel "displacement relief" applications. If we were to continue
     according displacement applications the highest priority, mutually
     exclusive applications for new stations would be subject to
     dismissal.[^174]

104. We recognize that an initial digital-only application filing window
     restricted to incumbent station operators would delay and could
     preclude digital service offerings by new entrants willing and able
     to operate stations within a relatively short period of time. It
     would also delay and could limit spectrum opportunities for
     additional new analog translator or LPTV service, possibly
     affecting service to communities that have little or no off-air
     access to television service or local service.[^175]

105. Over the years, the Commission has taken actions intended to
     further or preserve the analog service provided by LPTV and TV
     translator stations. For example, we established an application
     priority and other provisions to assist stations that were
     displaced by actual or potential interference conflicts.[^176] We
     also altered the definition of minor facilities changes in a manner
     that permits nearly all changes to be filed at any time on a
     first-come-first-served basis.[^177] The Commission has accepted
     applications for new LPTV and TV translator service in several
     filing windows. Even with the constraints imposed by the transition
     of full-service stations to digital, we have sought to address LPTV
     service needs. For example, the most recent application filing
     window was tailored to provide additional analog service
     opportunities in rural areas where service needs may be
     greater.[^178]

106. We now believe it is appropriate to focus our attention on digital
     translator and LPTV service. In doing so, for the reasons given
     above, it may be necessary for us to take actions that could limit
     further growth of analog LPTV and TV translator service. This would
     be analogous to the approach we followed in the DTV proceeding to
     preserve spectrum options for DTV stations. In 1996, we ceased
     accepting applications and rule making petitions for new analog
     full-service.[^179] Many existing LPTV and translator stations may
     have little choice but to convert to digital service on their
     existing analog channels at an appropriate time for their
     communities. We are concerned about making this situation even more
     difficult by authorizing additional analog stations, particularly
     in those geographic areas where spectrum is most limited.

107. We seek comment on how we should structure application filing
     policies and procedures to appropriately balance our digital
     service objectives and analog LPTV service needs. We invite comment
     on the merits of an initial digital-only application filing window
     limited to incumbent LPTV, TV translator, and Class A TV licensees
     and permittees. If we were to adopt this approach, should we place
     additional restrictions on application filings? For example, should
     we limit the number of applications that could be filed by a single
     entity? We would propose to require that incumbents obtaining
     digital channels in such a window serve the same communities
     receiving their analog service. In this regard, should we further
     require co-located or nearly co-located analog and digital
     operations? Full-service broadcasters are authorized the use of a
     second channel on which to provide DTV service. By statute,
     broadcasters must surrender one of these channels at the end of the
     transition. In exchange for the "first" opportunity to seek
     available digital channels, should we require LPTV, TV translator
     and Class A station incumbents that secure such channels to give
     back the same number of channels at the end of the DTV transition
     or at some other time?[^180] Such a requirement may create future
     opportunities for new entrants seeking spectrum for digital LPTV or
     translator stations.

108. We also seek comment on the use of rolling one-day windows. What
     are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach? Are there
     other filing approaches we should consider? Finally, we invite
     comment on the extent to which we should continue to permit the
     filing of applications for new analog LPTV and TV translator
     service. If we adopted rolling one-day windows, should we accept
     applications for new analog stations? Should we geographically
     restrict the filing of applications for new analog stations
     (*e.g.*, to those areas having the most extreme unmet television
     service needs)? Alternatively, should we permit the filing of
     applications for new analog stations on the condition that they
     would be subject to dismissal where mutually exclusive with an
     application for a digital LPTV or translator station?

109. *Section 336(f)(4).* We have described above a licensing scheme for
     digital channels for Class A, LPTV and television translator
     stations that is based on Part 74 of our rules; that is, it
     contemplates awarding stations in these services an additional
     channel that would be secondary in nature, regardless of whether
     the station's existing analog channel is protected, as are those of
     Class A stations, or subject to displacement by primary stations,
     as are those of translators and LPTV stations. This approach has
     several key benefits. It does not require us to distinguish among
     applicants for additional channels based on their current class of
     analog license, thus simplifying the licensing process. It does not
     award channels in the digital service that would, at this point in
     the digital transition, require protection by full-service
     stations, thus easing concerns that providing digital channels to
     Class A, LPTV and translator stations would limit our flexibility
     in implementing the digital transition for full-service television
     stations.[^181] And, given the secondary nature of the channels
     awarded, it permits us to use less extensive interference
     protection standards, thus expanding the number of stations that
     might obtain an additional channel. If the channels awarded were to
     be protected, the interference standards would have to be more
     stringent.[^182]

110. We recognize, however, that Section 336(f)(4) of the Communications
     Act describes a different approach to providing digital channels
     for some stations.[^183] Specifically, this section states that the
     Commission is not required to issue additional licenses for
     advanced television services to Class A and television translator
     stations, but must accept applications for such services if they
     meet certain strict interference criteria. Section 336(f)(4) does
     not appear to provide for additional channels for non-Class A low
     power stations and expressly requires that either the analog
     channel or the additional digital channel be forfeited at the end
     of the digital television transition period. Finally, the section
     provides that low power television and translator stations may, at
     their option, elect to convert to digital operation on their analog
     channel. One significant question raised by Section 336(f)(4) is
     whether any additional channels awarded under its terms would be
     protected from displacement by primary stations and, if so, would
     this status extend only to Class A stations' digital channels or to
     translators' channels as well.

111. We seek comment on whether the licensing approach detailed in
     Section 336(f)(4) is the only means by which we might award
     additional digital channels to Class A and translator stations or
     whether we may use the "all-secondary" channel approach we have
     described above and defer the implementation of the 336(f)(4)
     licensing scheme until a later point in the digital transition. *In
     the Class A TV Report and Order*, we deferred matters regarding the
     issuance of additional licenses pursuant to Section 336(f)(4),
     noting our concern "to preserve spectrum to accommodate needs
     associated with the transition of full-service stations to digital
     service."[^184] Alternatively, is there a method by which we might
     combine the statutory approach with the secondary channel approach?
     For example, could we permit applications meeting Section 336(f)(4)
     standards to be filed at the same time as those seeking secondary
     licenses and provide for some means of resolving mutual exclusivity
     between applications in different classes? Should we prefer one
     class of application over another where a conflict is presented?
     Would any such preference be consistent with *Ashbacker?*[^185]

112. *Minor Facilities Change and Displacement Relief Authorizations*.
     In addition to the on-channel digital conversion of analog service,
     we propose that subsequent application proposals for digital LPTV
     and TV translator facilities changes be authorized as "minor"
     changes, using the definition given for analog station minor
     changes[^186] (*i.e.*, all changes except non displacement-related
     channel changes and site relocations for which the modified and
     authorized protected service contours would not overlap to any
     extent). We also propose that the displacement relief policies and
     procedures now applicable for analog translator and LPTV stations
     generally apply to digital LPTV and TV translator stations (*i.e.*,
     stations having a reasonable expectation of channel displacement
     due to actual or predicted interference conflicts.)[^187] We seek
     comment on these proposals. How should we resolve situations where
     applications for digital TV translator or LPTV stations would
     become mutually exclusive with displacement relief applications of
     analog LPTV, TV translator or Class A TV stations? Should an
     absolute priority be awarded to either class of application?

113. *Section 309(j)(14)*. Section 309(j)(14)(A) of the Communications
     Act provides that the Commission may not renew a license for analog
     broadcast television service for a period extending beyond December
     31, 2006.[^188] We seek comment on whether this provision applies
     to analog authorizations in the low power television service. We
     note that Section 3 of the Communications Act defines the term
     "analog television service" as "television service provided
     pursuant to the transmission standards prescribed by the Commission
     in Section 73.682(a) of its regulations.[^189] The LPTV service
     rules (Part 74, Subpart G) do not make reference to this rule
     section. Does this mean that stations licensed in the LPTV service
     do not have to cease analog service by the deadline prescribed in
     Section 309(j)(14)? What about Class A stations licensed under Part
     73? If we conclude that stations in the low power television
     service are not subject to Section 309(j)(14), does that mean that
     such stations are not required to operate digitally for purposes of
     Section 309(j)(14)(B), which sets forth three conditions that
     qualify a station for an exemption of the analog authorization
     termination date in Section 309(j)(14)(A)?

114. Under the heading "Issuances of Licenses for Advanced Television
     Services to Television Translator Stations and Qualifying Low-Power
     Television Stations," Section 336(f)(4) of the Communications Act
     provides that "A licensee of a low-power television station or
     television translator station may, at the option of the licensee,
     elect to convert to the provision of advanced television services
     on its analog channel, but shall not be required to convert to
     digital until the end of such transition period."[^190] This
     statutory provision appears to require that Class A TV and TV
     translator stations convert to digital operation at the end of the
     transition period. We seek comment on the applicability of this
     provision and whether or not the digital conversion requirement
     extends to non-Class A LPTV stations.

115. We reiterate our goals to hasten and facilitate the transition to
     digital television service. Accordingly, what, if any, digital
     conversion requirement we should adopt for any stations for which
     the conversion is not statutorily mandated? Should we adopt for
     these stations a trigger-based mechanism for the eventual cessation
     of analog service (*i.e.*, with transition-ending triggers
     analogous to those for full-service stations, but taking into
     account significant differences between full-service stations and
     LPTV, TV translator and Class A TV stations)?[^191] If so, what
     would be the appropriate criteria? We invite comment on this issue.

116. *Digital Station Construction Period*. We propose to apply to
     digital LPTV and TV translator stations the construction period
     provisions applicable to analog LPTV and TV translator
     stations.[^192] Each original construction permit for a new station
     or changes to an existing station specifies a period of three years
     from the date of issuance of the original construction permit for
     completion of construction and filing of a license application. For
     example, at some time within three years of receiving its initial
     construction permit, a station may submit an application to modify
     the authorized, but as yet unbuilt, facilities. The construction
     permit for the modified facilities will specify the same expiration
     date as the original construction permit. We seek comment on our
     proposals regarding construction periods for digital stations in
     the LPTV service. If we were to adopt an initial filing window for
     new digital stations, restricted to incumbent stations, should we
     consider an accelerated buildout for digital stations granted
     through this window (*e.g.*, a two-year construction time)? Would
     such a requirement be reasonable in exchange for a "first filing
     opportunity," and would it be likely to advance the digital
     transition?

117. *Application Forms*. Applications for new LPTV, TV translator and
     TV booster station construction permits or for modifications to
     authorized facilities are made on FCC Form 346. We anticipate that
     use of this form for digital station proposals would require few
     alterations (*e.g.* the addition of indicator that the application
     relates to digital service and specification of an emission mask,
     in the event we were to adopt multiple masks with associated
     adjacent channel D/U protection ratios).

## Digital Booster Stations

118. The LPTV service rules contain provisions for the authorization of
     analog television broadcast booster stations.[^193] Booster
     stations are secondary stations that retransmit the programming of
     TV broadcast stations on the same channel without significantly
     altering any characteristic of the input signal other than its
     amplitude. They provide a means of serving shadowed areas within a
     broadcast station's service area and may be authorized only to
     full-service TV broadcasters whose signal the booster will
     retransmit. The predicted Grade B signal contour of a booster may
     not extend beyond the Grade B contour of the associated analog TV
     broadcast station. Boosters operate under the LPTV and TV
     translator technical standards (*e.g.*, effective radiated power
     limits and out-of-channel emissions). Boosters can either amplify
     their input signal or use a signal demodulation/remodulation
     process. They can receive input signals directly off-air or via the
     same microwave delivery sources permitted for TV translator
     stations.

119. Analog on-channel boosters must be carefully engineered to ensure
     sufficient isolation between incoming and outgoing signals.
     Otherwise, the booster output signal will interfere with its
     ability to receive the input broadcast signal on the same TV
     channel. The necessary isolation is often achieved by physically
     separating the receiving and transmitting portions of the booster,
     sometimes with an intervening terrain barrier, and using a
     microwave link to connect the input and output sections.
     Engineering an analog booster station also requires careful
     consideration of the propagation characteristics for both the
     primary station's and the booster station's signals to ensure that
     one signal is enough stronger than the other at all desired
     receiving locations so that unacceptable degradation does not
     occur. Similarly, engineering a digital booster station would also
     require careful consideration of the propagation characteristics of
     the direct and reflected paths of the incoming and outgoing signals
     to ensure that a DTV receiver's adaptive equalizer could
     satisfactorily process signal echoes.

120. We seek comment on whether we should establish a digital booster
     class of station in our LPTV service rules and, if so, what
     requirements should govern the authorization and operation of such
     stations. In the *Second DTV Periodic Review NPRM*, we are
     considering distributed "single frequency network" transmission
     technology, which differs from the on-channel booster stations
     addressed in this proceeding.[^194] A low power digital booster
     could prove useful in delivering DTV signals within
     terrain-challenged portions of a digital station's service area.
     Where they could be effectively engineered, on-channel boosters
     might also be the only means of providing service to communities
     where TV channels otherwise would not be available for digital
     translator stations. If we were to create a digital booster class
     of station in our LPTV rules, who should be eligible to receive a
     booster authorization (*e.g.,* only full-service broadcasters, as
     is the case now, or also licensees of Class A TV, LPTV and TV
     translator stations)?

121. Should digital boosters be limited to improving signal coverage
     within a station's protected signal contour as is the case for
     analog boosters (*i.e.*, by requiring the service contour of a
     digital booster to be encompassed by the service contour of the
     station whose signal is being retransmitted)? Should digital
     boosters also be permitted to deliver programming to communities or
     areas located beyond the protected area of the station whose signal
     is being retransmitted (*i.e.*, where technically feasible, as an
     alternative delivery mechanism to a digital TV translator)? Could
     such use of boosters enable more efficient spectrum use (*e.g.*, in
     areas of hilly or mountainous terrain where spectrum opportunities
     are limited due to a high density of analog translators)? Because
     DTV interference analysis does not consider analog or DTV broadcast
     stations to be serving shadowed areas, other stations may be
     allowed to provide service in those areas or to transmit a signal
     into those areas that would interfere with service. Under these
     conditions, booster stations would be more likely to cause or
     receive interference than they were when the analog booster service
     was created. Therefore, the interference analysis used for LPTV and
     TV translator stations may now be appropriate for digital boosters,
     although it was avoided when the analog booster rules were adopted.
     If such interference analysis is necessary even for boosters within
     the primary station's service contour, is there any reason to
     continue prohibiting boosters from serving areas outside the
     primary station's service contour?

122. Should we apply to digital boosters the interference protection
     methodology and technical standards we adopt for digital LPTV and
     TV translator stations (*e.g.*, protected signal contour, effective
     radiated power limits, emission mask and interference protection
     D/U ratios and methodology, excluding co-channel protection of the
     station whose signal is retransmitted by the booster)? Should
     digital boosters be permitted to receive input signals in the
     manner of digital LPTV and translator stations? Do any other issues
     involving digital on-channel boosters need to be addressed in this
     proceeding? Are there any reasons why we should not create a
     digital booster station class in our LPTV rules or, alternatively,
     should restrict their use?

## Remaining Issues

### Digital Call Signs

123. We seek comment on an appropriate call sign suffix for digital TV
     translator and LPTV stations. Call signs for analog LPTV and
     translator stations consist of the letter K or W followed by the
     station's assigned channel number and two additional letters.[^195]
     Should this call sign format be altered for digital stations and in
     what manner? LPTV and Class A stations may use four letter call
     sign with the designated suffixes "-LP" and "-CA"
     respectively.[^196] Should these suffixes be changed to denote
     digital operation (*e.g.*, "-LD" for digital LPTV and "-CD" for
     digital Class A stations)?

### Fees

124. We request comment on what fees should apply to digital LPTV and TV
     translator stations. We believe it would be appropriate to use the
     same application fees for analog and digital LPTV and TV
     translators for particular types of applications (*e.g.*, new and
     major change, minor change, and assignment and transfer). How
     should we consider digital LPTV and TV translator stations for
     purposes of regulatory fees assessed pursuant to Section 9 of the
     Communications Act of 1934?[^197] If we permitted digital LPTV
     service stations to offer ancillary and supplementary ("A&S")
     services on a subscription basis that are feeable for DTV broadcast
     station, does Section 336(e) of the Act require us to levy fees for
     such services?[^198] This statute relates fees to the DTV
     eligibility provisions given in Section 336(a) (*i.e.*,
     full-service DTV broadcasters). If fees are not statutorily
     required for digital LPTV A&S services, should we nonetheless
     impose annual fees for subscription services feeable for
     full-service broadcasters? What should be the basis for such fees
     if we impose them? Should we follow the approach applicable to DTV
     broadcasters (*i.e.*, an annual fee in the amount of 5% of a
     station's gross revenue from feeable services)? Alternatively,
     should we not levy subscription fees on digital stations in the
     LPTV service, many of which operated on limited budgets and may
     provide subscription-based services to raise revenues to maintain
     station operations?

### International Coordination Provisions

125. Existing bilateral agreements with Mexico and Canada do not address
     digital LPTV and TV translator stations.[^199] Under these
     agreements, analog LPTV and TV translator 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 and TV translator
     stations protected against interference from these stations. The
     agreements also include provisions for notifying and coordinating
     analog LPTV and TV translator station proposals in the border
     areas. We will work over time to update the current bilateral
     agreements to include provisions for digital LPTV and TV translator
     stations. In the interim, we will attempt to obtain the approval of
     digital LPTV and TV translator stations in the border area on a
     case-by-case basis.

### Use of Broadcast Auxiliary Service Frequencies

126. LPTV stations may be authorized to use television broadcast
     auxiliary service ("BAS") spectrum to operate remote pickup
     stations, studio-to-transmitter links and point-to-point relay
     systems.[^200] TV translator stations may be authorized to operate
     translator relay stations. LPTV service stations use BAS spectrum
     bands on a secondary basis, subject to displacement by full-service
     TV stations. We propose to extend BAS eligibility provisions to
     permit digital LPTV and TV translator stations to operate on the
     same bands and for the same purposes as analog LPTV and TV
     translators, subject to the BAS rules governing digital operations.
     We seek comment on this proposal.

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

127. We wish to clarify a matter not explicitly addressed in the Class A
     TV rules or in the proceeding that established the Class A service.
     Pursuant to Section 73.6000 of our rules, locally produced
     programming by Class A stations is programming "(1) Produced within
     the predicted Grade B contour or within the contiguous predicted
     Grade B contours of any of the stations in a commonly owned group,
     or (2) Programming produced at the station's main studio." We here
     clarify that these provisions also apply to the locally produced
     programming of digital Class A TV stations. More specifically, if a
     Class A TV station converts from analog to digital service on its
     authorized channel, locally produced digital programming will be
     programming produced within the predicted Grade B contour
     associated with the station's former analog operation or at the
     station's main studio. We seek comment on whether a particular
     digital service contour would be more appropriate with regard to
     defining the area for locally produced programming of digital Class
     A TV stations.

## Petition for Rule Making by the Association of Public Television Stations, the Public Broadcasting Service, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

128. On May 29, 2002, the Association of Public Television Stations, the
     Public Broadcasting Service and the Corporation for Public
     Broadcasting (referred to jointly as the "LPTV Petitioners") filed
     a Petition for Rulemaking asking that the Commission initiate a
     rulemaking proceeding to "ensure the delivery of noncommercial
     educational and public safety services to all Americans by
     protecting the existing system of translators and facilitating the
     development of . . . digital translators and digital on-channel
     repeaters."[^201] The LPTV Petitioners request that the Commission:

\(1\) facilitate the relocation of analog translators that provide a
noncommercial service;

\(2\) facilitate the transition of existing or relocated analog
noncommercial educational translators to digital operation;

\(3\) make additional technical modifications to its rules to support
the licensing of translators and repeaters; and

\(4\) extend public television digital service through new on-channel
repeaters or translators and protect these services from unreimbursed
displacement or in some instances offer these services additional
interference protection.[^202]

129. We seek comment on the LPTV Petitioners requests set forth in 1 --
     3 above. We believe that the rules we propose today will facilitate
     the relocation of existing analog translators to new digital
     operation, including those held by entities that air noncommercial
     programming. Furthermore, we believe that our proposals will make
     the necessary technical modifications to our rules to support the
     licensing of digital translators. At the same time, we seek comment
     as to whether we should adopt any of the specific proposals set
     forth in their Petition for Rulemaking. In particular, the LPTV
     Petitioners request that we:

\(1\) authorize translators to operate dual analog/digital channels
where channel allotments are available and desired by the
licensee;[^203]

\(2\) authorize translators to switch overnight from analog to digital
operations where no channels are available or where the licensee is
unable to construct dual channels (by use of "fast track licensing" and
"check-list" applications);[^204]

\(3\) accept applications for new digital on-channel repeaters that
improve the service of an existing full-power transmitter within the
predicted DTV service area of that transmitter (such applications to be
accepted without waiting for filing windows);[^205]

\(4\) provide such on-channel repeaters the same interference protection
granted to the main transmitter with which it is associated;[^206]

\(5\) accept applications for new digital translators that improve the
service area of an existing full-power transmitter within the predicted
DTV service area of that transmitter (such applications to be accepted
on a first-come, first-served basis without waiting for filing
windows);[^207] and

\(6\) accept applications for digital translators and digital on-channel
repeaters that extend the service of an existing transmitter beyond the
predicted DTV service area of the existing transmitter (such
applications to be accepted at any time).[^208]

We seek comment on these proposals.

130. The LPTV Petitioners also request that we approve new digital TV
     translator applications without allowing for competing applications
     if the applicant demonstrates that the need for a noncommercial
     educational translator would be greater than the need for any other
     LPTV or TV translator station. Such showing would be accomplished
     by demonstrating that the noncommercial educational TV translator
     applicant would be a first or second television NCE service to ten
     percent of the population within the proposed NCE translator
     station's protected contour.[^209] We do not intend to consider
     this proposal. Such a policy is not feasible because we currently
     have no rules or procedures to define which stations qualify as
     "noncommercial educational TV translator stations." The LPTV
     Petitioners do not offer any method for making such a
     determination. To adopt this procedure, we would have to create a
     new digital noncommercial educational translator service so that
     noncommercial educational stations were easily identifiable. The
     Commission previously determined not to create an NCE translator
     service when it created the low power television service in
     1982.[^210] The Commission stated that it perceived several reasons
     for not imposing strict regulations regarding noncommercial
     operation of low power stations. With respect to all aspects,
     except technical ones, the Commission stated that it envisioned
     "the low power service as an essentially unregulated
     service."[^211] The Commission left to the individual licensees the
     mode of support, including free and pay programming and the
     discretion whether to air commercials or not. The Commission
     specifically stated that it would not concern itself with the
     question of whether a low power television applicant would qualify
     as "noncommercial educational" entity. The Commission noted that
     this was the same approach for television translators which were
     secondary by nature. We will not depart in this proceeding from the
     more than twenty years of television translator policy and create a
     new noncommercial educational digital translator. For all the
     reasons we have previously recognized, we conclude that the better
     approach is to allow individual licensees the discretion to operate
     their translators with or without commercials.

131. To protect existing "public television" translators, the LPTV
     Petitioners request that the Commission require full power stations
     to "reimburse the translator licensee for any and all costs
     associated with relocation."[^212] As stated above, we believe that
     the low power and television translator digital service should
     remain a secondary service. The provision of DTV broadcast service
     by full-service broadcasters remains our top priority, and we
     conclude that the reimbursement proposal would interfere with the
     full expansion of DTV full power digital television service. We
     must continue to exercise restraint in order to accommodate needs
     associated with the transition of full power stations to digital
     service.[^213] We, therefore, decline to consider this portion of
     the LPTV Petitioners' Petition for Rulemaking.

**IV. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS**

132. *Ex Parte Rules.* This is a permit but permit-but-disclose notice
     and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are
     permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that
     they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's Rules. *See
     generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).

133. *Comment Information*. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
     Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties
     may file comments on or before **\[60 days after publication in the
     Federal Register\]**, and reply comments on or before **\[90 days
     after publication in the Federal Register\]**. Comments may be
     filed using the Commission\'s Electronic Comment Filing System
     (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. [See]{.underline} [Electronic
     Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings]{.underline}, 63 Fed.
     Reg. 24121 (1998). Accessible formats (computer diskettes, large
     print, audio recording and Braille) are available to persons with
     disabilities by contacting Brian Millin, of the Consumer &
     Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202)418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365,
     or at <bmillin@fcc.gov>[.]{.underline}

134. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
     via the Internet to \<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html\>.
     Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.
     If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers are referenced in the
     caption of the comments, however, commenters must transmit one
     electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number
     referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen,
     commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service
     mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number.
     Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail.
     To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should
     send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following
     words in the body of the message, \"get form \<your e-mail
     address\>.\" A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.
     Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
     copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number
     appears in the caption of the comment, commenters must submit two
     additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
     Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
     overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
     Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in
     receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission\'s contractor,
     Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered
     paper filings for the Commission\'s Secretary at 236 Massachusetts
     Avenue, N.E., Suite 110, Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours
     at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries
     must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes
     must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial
     overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and
     Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol
     Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express
     Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW,
     Washington, D.C. 20554. All filings must be addressed to the
     Commission\'s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
     Communications Commission.

135. *Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis*. This *Notice of
     Proposed Rulemaking* ("*Notice*") may contain new or modified
     information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
     1995 (PRA). However, because of the various possible burdens
     depending on the proposal ultimately adopted by the Commission, the
     Commission is not seeking public comment or OMB approval on the
     *Notice* at this time. We will open the PRA burdens in the *Notice*
     for public comment and submit them for OMB approval at the time
     final rules are adopted.

136. *Regulatory Flexibility Act*. As required by the Regulatory
     Flexibility Act,[^214] the Commission has prepared an Initial
     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
     economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the
     proposals addressed in this *Notice* *of Proposed Rulemaking*. The
     IRFA is set forth in Appendix A. Written public comments are
     requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance
     with the same filing deadlines for comments on the *Notice*, and
     they should have a separate and distinct heading designating them
     as responses to the IRFA.

137. *Additional Information*. For additional information on this
     proceeding, please contact Keith Larson, Media Bureau at (202)
     418-2607.

# V. ORDERING CLAUSES {#v.-ordering-clauses .unnumbered}

138. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority
     contained in sections 4(i) & (j), 303, 307, 309 and 336 of the
     Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) & (j),
     303, 307, 309 and 336, this *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* IS
     ADOPTED.

139. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
     Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will
     send a copy of this *Notice*, including the IRFA, to the Chief
     Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in
     accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.[^215]

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

     Marlene H. Dortch

     Secretary

     **APPENDIX A**

     **INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

1\. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
("RFA"),[^216]the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") of the possible significant economic
impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this
*Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* ("*Notice*")^.^ Written public comments
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the *Notice*
provided above in paragraph 133. The Commission will send a copy of the
*Notice*, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.[^217] In addition, the *Notice* and IRFA
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.[^218]

A.  **Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules.**

2\. As described in the *Notice*, the proposed rules are intended to
permit low power television ("LPTV"), television translator, and
television booster stations to transition to digital service. Provisions
in the *Notice* may also facilitate the digital transition of Class A TV
stations. Beginning in 1987, the Commission undertook to bring the most
up-to-date technology to broadcast television. That resulted in several
Commission decisions, including those adopting a digital television
(DTV) standard, DTV service rules, and a Table of DTV Allotments. The
rules proposed in the *Notice* are a fundamental part of the
Commission's effort to establish rules to help effectuate the transition
of the nation's television broadcast service from analog to digital
format.

3\. The proposed rules are intended to meet the need recognized by the
Commission to provide flexible and affordable opportunities for low
power digital service, both through the digital conversion of existing
analog service and, where spectrum is available, new digital stations.
The Commission's goals are to hasten the transition of LPTV and TV
translator stations to digital operations, and to do so in a manner that
minimizes disruption of existing service to the consumers served by
analog LPTV and translator stations. The following proposals in the
*Notice* serve as examples of how the Commission seeks to realize these
objectives. As one example, the *Notice* seeks comment on flexible means
for digital translator operations, including combining the signals of
two or more DTV broadcast station signals on a translator's transmitted
output channel, provided such operations are technically and
economically feasible. The *Notice* also proposes to permit digital LPTV
stations to provide ancillary and supplementary services upon meeting a
minimum video program service requirement, and seeks to impose as few
interference requirements on digital low power service stations as
necessary to ensure interference-free operation. In addition, to
expedite authorization of service, the *Notice* proposes that LPTV and
translator operators be permitted to convert to digital on their
existing analog channels by applying for a minor facilities change at
any time. The *Notice* also seeks comment on filing procedures for new
digital stations that would facilitate the transition of existing LPTV
and translator service and quicken the authorization of digital service.

B.  **Legal Basis.**

4\. The authority for the action proposed in this rulemaking is
contained in Sections 4(i) & (j), 303, 307, 309 and 336 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) & (j), 303,
307, 309 and 336.

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

5\. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be
affected by the proposed rules.[^219] The RFA generally defines the term
"small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business,"
"small organization," and "small governmental entity."[^220] In
addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term
"small business concern" under the Small Business Act.[^221] A small
business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated;
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
("SBA").[^222]

6\. In this context, the application of the statutory definition to
television stations is of concern. An element of the definition of
\"small business\" is that the entity not be dominant in its field of
operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria
that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant
in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimates that follow of
small businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any television
station from the definition of a small business on this basis and
therefore might be over-inclusive.

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

8\. **Class A TV, LPTV, TV translator, and TV booster stations.** The
proposed rules and policies would apply to licensees of LPTV, TV
translator, and TV booster stations, and to potential licensees in these
television services. Certain rules and policies would also apply to
licensees of Class A TV stations. The Small Business Administration
defines a television broadcasting station that has no more than \$12
million in annual receipts as a small business.[^223] Television
broadcasting consists of establishments primarily engaged in
broadcasting images together with sound, including the production or
transmission of visual programming which is broadcast to the public on a
predetermined schedule.[^224] Included in this category are
establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and which
produce programming in their own studios.[^225] Separate establishments
primarily engaged in producing programming are classified under other
NAICS numbers.[^226]

9\. Currently, there are approximately 2,100 licensed LPTV stations, 600
licensed Class A stations, 4,700 licensed TV translators and 11 TV
booster stations.[^227] According to Commission staff review of the BIA
Publications, Inc., Master Access Television Analyzer Database,
virtually all LPTV broadcast stations, including LPTV stations that have
converted to Class A status, have revenues of less than \$12 million. We
note, however, that under the SBA's definition, revenue of affiliates
that are not LPTV stations should be aggregated with the LPTV station
revenues in determining whether a concern is small. Our estimate may
thus overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figure on
which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from non-LPTV
affiliated companies. We do not have data on revenues of TV translator
or TV booster stations, but virtually all of these entities are also
likely to have revenues of less than \$12 million and thus may be
categorized as small, except to the extent that revenues of affiliated
non-translator or booster entities should be considered.

10\. **Cable and Other Program Distribution.** Cable systems often
receive the television service transmitted over the cable system from a
TV translator or LPTV station. Thus, cable systems may also be affected
by the rules proposed in the *Notice*. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for cable and other program distribution
services, which includes all such companies generating \$12.5 million or
less in revenue annually.[^228] This category includes, among others,
cable operators, direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") services, home
satellite dish ("HSD") services, multipoint distribution services
("MDS"), multichannel multipoint distribution service ("MMDS"),
Instructional Television Fixed Service ("ITFS"), local multipoint
distribution service ("LMDS"), satellite master antenna television
("SMATV") systems, and open video systems ("OVS"). According to Census
Bureau data, there are 1,311 total cable and other pay television
service firms that operate throughout the year of which 1,180 have less
than \$10 million in revenue.[^229] We address below each service
individually to provide a more precise estimate of small entities.

11\. **Cable Operators.** The Commission has developed, with SBA\'s
approval, our own definition of a small cable system operator for the
purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission\'s rules, a \"small
cable company\" is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers
nationwide.[^230] We last estimated that there were 1,439 cable
operators that qualified as small cable companies.[^231] Since then,
some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000
subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that
caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, we
estimate that there are fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system
operators that may be affected by the decisions and rules proposed in
this *Notice*.

12\. The Communications Act, as amended, also contains a size standard
for a small cable system operator, which is \"a cable operator that,
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate less than 1%
of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any
entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
\$250,000,000.\"[^232] The Commission has determined that there are
68,500,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, an operator
serving fewer than 685,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator
if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of
all of its affiliates, do not exceed \$250 million in the
aggregate.[^233] Based on available data, we find that the number of
cable operators serving 685,000 subscribers or less totals approximately
1,450.[^234] Although it seems certain that some of these cable system
operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues
exceed \$250,000,000, we are unable at this time to estimate with
greater precision the number of cable system operators that would
qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the
Communications Act.

13\. **Direct Broadcast Satellite ("DBS") Service.** Because DBS
provides subscription services, DBS falls within the SBA-recognized
definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution services.[^235] This
definition provides that a small entity is one with \$12.5 million or
less in annual receipts.[^236] There are four licensees of DBS services
under Part 100 of the Commission\'s Rules. Three of those licensees are
currently operational. Two of the licensees that are operational have
annual revenues that may be in excess of the threshold for a small
business.[^237] The Commission, however, does not collect annual revenue
data for DBS and, therefore, is unable to ascertain the number of small
DBS licensees that could be impacted by these proposed rules. DBS
service requires a great investment of capital for operation, and we
acknowledge, despite the absence of specific data on this point, that
there are entrants in this field that may not yet have generated \$12.5
million in annual receipts, and therefore may be categorized as a small
business, if independently owned and operated. Therefore, we will assume
all four licensees are small, for the purpose of this analysis.

14\. **Home Satellite Dish ("HSD") Service.** Because HSD provides
subscription services, HSD falls within the SBA-recognized definition of
Cable and Other Program Distribution services.[^238] This definition
provides that a small entity is one with \$12.5 million or less in
annual receipts.[^239] The market for HSD service is difficult to
quantify. Indeed, the service itself bears little resemblance to other
MVPDs. HSD owners have access to more than 265 channels of programming
placed on C‑band satellites by programmers for receipt and distribution
by MVPDs, of which 115 channels are scrambled and approximately 150 are
unscrambled.[^240] HSD owners can watch unscrambled channels without
paying a subscription fee. To receive scrambled channels, however, an
HSD owner must purchase an integrated receiver‑decoder from an equipment
dealer and pay a subscription fee to an HSD programming package. Thus,
HSD users include: (1) viewers who subscribe to a packaged programming
service, which affords them access to most of the same programming
provided to subscribers of other MVPDs; (2) viewers who receive only
non‑subscription programming; and (3) viewers who receive satellite
programming services illegally without subscribing. Because scrambled
packages of programming are most specifically intended for retail
consumers, these are the services most relevant to this
discussion.[^241] As noted, *supra*, for the category Cable and Other
Program Distribution, most of providers of these services are considered
small.

15\. **Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS"), Multichannel Multipoint
Distribution Service ("MMDS") Instructional Television Fixed Service
("ITFS") and Local Multipoint Distribution Service ("LMDS").** MMDS
systems, often referred to as "wireless cable," transmit video
programming to subscribers using the microwave frequencies of the MDS
and ITFS services.[^242] LMDS is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint
microwave service that provides for two-way video
telecommunications.[^243]

16\. In connection with the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined
small businesses as entities that had annual average gross revenues of
less than \$40 million in the previous three calendar years.[^244] This
definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been
approved by the SBA.[^245] The MDS auctions resulted in 67 successful
bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas
("BTAs"). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small
business. In addition, MDS includes licensees of stations authorized
prior to the auction. As noted, the SBA has developed a definition of
small entities for pay television services, which includes all such
companies generating \$12.5 million or less in annual receipts.[^246]
This definition includes multipoint distribution services, and thus
applies to MDS licensees and wireless cable operators that did not
participate in the MDS auction. Information available to us indicates
that there are approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that
do not generate revenue in excess of \$12.5 million annually. Therefore,
using the SBA small business size standard, we find that there are
approximately 850 small MDS providers.

17\. The SBA definition of small entities for Cable and Other
Distribution services, which includes such companies generating \$12.5
million in annual receipts, seems reasonably applicable to ITFS.[^247]
There are presently 2,032 ITFS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses
are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions are
included in the definition of a small business.[^248] However, we do not
collect annual revenue data for ITFS licensees, and are not able to
ascertain how many of the 100 non-educational licensees would be
categorized as small under the SBA definition. Thus, we tentatively
conclude that at least 1,932 licensees are small businesses.

18\. Additionally, the auction of the 1,030 LMDS licenses began on
February 18, 1998, and closed on March 25, 1998. The Commission defined
"small entity" for LMDS licenses as an entity that has average gross
revenues of less than \$40 million in the three previous calendar
years.[^249] An additional classification for "very small business" was
added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates,
has average gross revenues of not more than \$15 million for the
preceding calendar years.[^250] These regulations defining "small
entity" in the context of LMDS auctions have been approved by the
SBA.[^251] There were 93 winning bidders that qualified as small
entities in the LMDS auctions. A total of 93 small and very small
business bidders won approximately 277 A Block licenses and 387 B Block
licenses. On March 27, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 161 licenses;
there were 40 winning bidders. Based on this information, we conclude
that the number of small LMDS licenses will include the 93 winning
bidders in the first auction and the 40 winning bidders in the
re-auction, for a total of 133 small entity LMDS providers as defined by
the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.

19\. **Satellite Master Antenna Television (\"SMATV\") Systems.** The
SBA definition of small entities for Cable and Other Program
Distribution services includes SMATV services and, thus, small entities
are defined as all such companies generating \$12.5 million or less in
annual receipts.[^252] Industry sources estimate that approximately
5,200 SMATV operators were providing service as of December 1995.[^253]
Other estimates indicate that SMATV operators serve approximately 1.5
million residential subscribers as of July 2001.[^254] The best
available estimates indicate that the largest SMATV operators serve
between 15,000 and 55,000 subscribers each. Most SMATV operators serve
approximately 3,000-4,000 customers. Because these operators are not
rate regulated, they are not required to file financial data with the
Commission. Furthermore, we are not aware of any privately published
financial information regarding these operators. As noted, *supra*, for
the category Cable and Other Program Distribution, most of providers of
these services are considered small.

20\. **Open Video Systems ("OVS").** Because OVS operators provide
subscription services,[^255] OVS falls within the SBA-recognized
definition of cable and other program distribution services.[^256] This
definition provides that a small entity is one with \$ 12.5 million or
less in annual receipts.[^257] The Commission has certified 25 OVS
operators with some now providing service. Affiliates of Residential
Communications Network, Inc. (\"RCN\") received approval to operate OVS
systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C. and other areas. RCN
has sufficient revenues to assure us that they do not qualify as small
business entities. Little financial information is available for the
other entities authorized to provide OVS that are not yet operational.
Given that other entities have been authorized to provide OVS service
but have not yet begun to generate revenues, we conclude that at least
some of the OVS operators qualify as small entities.

21\. **Electronics Equipment Manufacturers.** Rules adopted in this
proceeding could affect manufacturers of digital transmitting and
receiving equipment and other types of consumer electronics equipment.
The SBA has developed definitions of small entity for manufacturers of
audio and video equipment[^258] as well as radio and television
broadcasting and wireless communications equipment.[^259] These
categories both include all such companies employing 750 or fewer
employees. The Commission has not developed a definition of small
entities applicable to manufacturers of electronic equipment used by
consumers, as compared to industrial use by television licensees and
related businesses. Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definitions
applicable to manufacturers of audio and visual equipment and radio and
television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment, since
these are the two closest NAICS Codes applicable to the consumer
electronics equipment manufacturing industry. However, these NAICS
categories are broad and specific figures are not available as to how
many of these establishments manufacture consumer equipment. According
to the SBA's regulations, an audio and visual equipment manufacturer
must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business
concern.[^260] Census Bureau data indicates that there are 554 U.S.
establishments that manufacture audio and visual equipment, and that 542
of these establishments have fewer than 500 employees and would be
classified as small entities.[^261] The remaining 12 establishments have
500 or more employees; however, we are unable to determine how many of
those have fewer than 750 employees and therefore, also qualify as small
entities under the SBA definition. Under the SBA's regulations, a radio
and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment
manufacturer must also have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify
as a small business concern.[^262] Census Bureau data indicates that
there 1,215 U.S. establishments that manufacture radio and television
broadcasting and wireless communications equipment, and that 1,150 of
these establishments have fewer than 500 employees and would be
classified as small entities.[^263] The remaining 65 establishments have
500 or more employees; however, we are unable to determine how many of
those have fewer than 750 employees and therefore, also qualify as small
entities under the SBA definition. We therefore conclude that there are
no more than 542 small manufacturers of audio and visual electronics
equipment and no more than 1,150 small manufacturers of radio and
television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment for
consumer/household use.

22\. **Computer Manufacturers**. The Commission has not developed a
definition of small entities applicable to computer manufacturers.
Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition of electronic computers
manufacturing. According to SBA regulations, a computer manufacturer
must have 1,000 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small
entity.[^264] Census Bureau data indicates that there are 563 firms that
manufacture electronic computers and of those, 544 have fewer than 1,000
employees and qualify as small entities.[^265] The remaining 19 firms
have 1,000 or more employees. We conclude that there are approximately
544 small computer manufacturers.

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

23\. This *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* ("*Notice"*) contains
additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements. While the
requirements proposed in the *Notice* could have an impact on LPTV,
Class A, TV translator, and TV booster licensees, and potential
licensees in these services, we believe such impact would be similarly
costly for both large and small entities. We seek comment on whether
others perceive a need for more extensive recordkeeping and, if so,
whether the burden would fall on large and small entities differently.

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

24\. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.[^266]

25\. The Commission staff is aware that many low power licensees,
including smaller entities, operate with limited budgets. Accordingly,
in drafting the *Notice*, the staff attempted to propose rules that
would impose the least possible burden on all licensees. For example,
the proposals concerning interference requirements for digital stations
were drafted with the goal of imposing as few requirements as necessary
to ensure interference-free operation, as were the proposals for related
digital transmission equipment. Similarly, in discussing applications to
convert to digital service and applications for new digital service, we
have sought comment on whether to provide initial opportunities to
existing licensees first, thus limiting the possible need to auction
competing applications. This approach, should it be adopted, would help
smaller low power licensees who presumably would prefer to avoid an
auction for digital licenses.

26\. The *Notice* also considers other means of providing flexible and
affordable opportunities for low power digital service, including
permitting translators to combine the signals of two or more DTV
broadcast station signals on a translator's transmitted output channel
and permitting digital LPTV stations to provide ancillary and
supplementary services upon meeting a minimum video program service
requirement. In addition, the *Notice* proposes that LPTV and translator
operators be permitted to convert to digital on their existing channels
by applying for a minor facilities change at any time.

27\. In conclusion, we seek comment generally on how adoption of the
Commission's general plan, as described in the *Notice*, to facilitate
the transition to digital service in the above-referenced industries can
be accomplished without imposing undue burden on smaller entities.
Suggestions from commenters for alternative proposals or modifications
of our proposed rules will be welcome for this purpose.

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

28\. None.

[^1]: *Report and Order*, 51 R.R.2d 476 (1982).

[^2]: *See,* *e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.703, 74.709, 90.303.

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

[^4]: *See, e.g., Notice of Proposed Rule Making*. 45 F.R. 69178 (Oct.
    17, 1980).

[^5]: *Public Notice*, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2003
    (May 5, 2003).

[^6]: *See Establishment of a Class A Television Service*, 15 FCC Rcd
    6355 (2000) ("*Class A Report and Order*"), *on recon.*, 16 FCC Rcd
    8244 (2001).

[^7]: *See* *Class A Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 6357, ¶ 2 (*citing
    Review of the Commission's Rules Governing the Low Power Television
    Service*, 9 FCC Rcd 2555 (1994) ("*LPTV First Report and Order*").

[^8]: *Class A Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 6358, ¶ 2.

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

[^10]: Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. Appendix I at 1501A-594 -
    1501A-598, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 336(f).

[^11]: Licensees can switch between LPTV and TV translator designation
    by simple letter notification to the Commission. 47 C.F.R. §
    74.732(e).

[^12]: *Public Notice*, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2003
    (May 5, 2003).

[^13]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.731(f).

[^14]: *See Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules Concerning FM
    Booster Stations and Television Booster Stations*, 2 FCC Rcd 4625
    (1987).

[^15]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.701.

[^16]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.784. The rebroadcast consent requirement is
    statutory. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 325(a).

[^17]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.731.

[^18]: *Id.*

[^19]: *Id.*

[^20]: Certain ancillary services may also be transmitted in the
    vertical blanketing interval and video and aural portions of the
    television signal. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.646, 73.665, 73.667 and
    73.682.

[^21]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.682(d).

[^22]: Other possible combinations exist such as the simultaneous
    transmission of one program in HDTV and another in the SDTV video
    format.

[^23]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.624(b).

[^24]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.624(c), which includes the following as
    examples of ancillary and supplementary services: computer software
    distribution, data transmissions, teletext, interactive materials,
    aural messages, paging services, audio signals and subscription
    video. DTV broadcasters are levied an annual "fee of five percent of
    the gross revenues derived from all ancillary or supplementary
    services...which are feeable." 47 C.F.R. § 73.624(f).

[^25]: *Second Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies
    Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television*, *Public Interest
    Obligations of TV Broadcast Licensees*, 18 FCC Rcd 1279 (2003).

[^26]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(14).

[^27]: Section 309(j)(14) provides:

    \(A\) LIMITATIONS ON TERMS OF TERRESTRIAL TELEVISION BROADCAST
    LICENSES. -- A television broadcast license that authorizes analog
    television service may not be renewed to authorize such service for
    a period that extends beyond December 31, 2006.

    \(B\) EXTENSION. -- The Commission shall extend the date described
    in subparagraph (A) for any station that requests such an extension
    in any television market if the Commission finds that --

    \(i\) one or more of the stations in such market that are licensed
    to or affiliated with one of the four largest national television
    networks are not broadcasting a digital television service signal,
    and the Commission finds that each such station has exercised due
    diligence and satisfies the conditions for an extension of the
    Commission's applicable construction deadlines for digital
    television service in that market;

    \(ii\) digital-to-analog converter technology is not generally
    available in such market; or

    \(iii\) in any market in which an extension is not available under
    clause (i) or (ii), 15 percent or more of the television households
    in such market --

    \(I\) do not subscribe to a multichannel video programming
    distributor (as defined in section 602) that carries one of the
    digital television service programming channels of each of the
    television stations broadcasting such a channel in such market; and

    \(II\) do not have either --

    \(a\) at least one television receiver capable of receiving the
    digital television service signals of the television stations
    licensed in such market; or

    \(b\) at least one television receiver of analog television service
    signals equipped with digital-to-analog converter technology capable
    of receiving the digital television service signals of the
    television stations licensed in such market.

[^28]: *Second DTV Periodic Review NPRM*, 18 FCC Rcd at 1311, ¶¶ 89-91.

[^29]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.701(a); *see* *also* 47 C.F.R. § 74.731(d). ("The
    technical characteristics of the retransmitted signals shall not be
    deliberately altered so as to hinder reception on conventional
    television broadcast receivers").

[^30]: It is technically possible for an analog translator to be
    equipped to receive a DTV input signal and convert the signal for
    analog retransmission on the translator output channel.

[^31]: Simple heterodyne conversion involves the mixing of the radio
    frequencies ("RF") of an input signal with those generated by a
    tuned local oscillator, shifting the signal directly to the RF
    frequencies of the desired output TV channel. A more sophisticated
    heterodyne translator first converts an incoming signal to a
    standard intermediate frequency ("IF") and then "up-converts" the IF
    signal to the desired TV output channel.

[^32]: The "receiver" portion of the process entails conversion of the
    received DTV broadcast signal to the translator's standard IF
    frequency, followed by demodulation to reduce the signal payload to
    its "symbol" output form. Symbols are then processed by an adaptive
    equalizer to correct for multipath distortion and sent to the VSB
    decoder, which converts the signal content to a stream of video,
    audio and data packets. The decoder also provides "forward error
    correction" to correct bit errors. This packetized signal content is
    then sent to the transmitter portion of the DTV translator,
    including a VSB encoder, modulator and frequency up-converter, where
    the data and signal processing steps are reversed. The encoder
    restores forward error correction to the output signal. The
    up-converter converts the output channel IF frequency to the
    translator's authorized TV channel for final amplification and
    transmission.

[^33]: In a multi-hop network, the signal of a TV broadcast station is
    directly received off-air by the first translator in the network
    chain and retransmitted for viewing in the associated
    served-community. This translator's output signal is also received
    and retransmitted by one or more subsequent-level translators
    serving other communities in the chain.

[^34]: In analog multi-hop translator networks, the technical quality of
    the original TV broadcast signal deteriorates as it passes through
    the network.

[^35]: Packetized information could be inserted into the transport
    stream by a service multiplexer (a packet combiner/modulator). In a
    regenerative digital translator, the multiplexer would be placed
    between the VSB decoder in the receiver portion and the VSB encoder
    in the transmitter portion. For instance, small amounts of local
    information could replace "null packets" in the transport stream
    (*i.e.*, empty packets in the stream not used by a broadcaster to
    convey video, audio or data content). Heterodyne digital translators
    would not be capable of inserting messages in this manner.

[^36]: Typically, a television translator system rebroadcasts the
    programming of 5-7 TV stations.

[^37]: A translator multi-casting system would require separate
    receiving subsystems for each DTV station signal. The receiver would
    require the capability to select the desired program in a DTV signal
    and process the program content to enable SDTV signal multiplexing.
    For example, it would be necessary to reduce an HDTV signal to
    baseband video and audio signals before being reconstituted as SDTV
    signals. This could necessitate use of HDTV decoding and SDTV
    encoding equipment, a multiplexer to combine the individual SDTV
    transport streams, and perhaps other specialized equipment.

[^38]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.731(b).

[^39]: All BAS microwave bands may now be used for digital transmissions
    with any available signal modulation format. *See* *Revisions to
    Broadcast Auxiliary Service Rules in Parts 74 and Conforming
    Technical Rules for Broadcast Auxiliary Service, Cable Television
    Relay Service, and Fixed Services in Parts 74, 78 and 101 of the
    Commission's Rules,* 17 FCC Rcd 22979 (2002).

[^40]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.600.

[^41]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.701(f), 74.731(g).

[^42]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.701(h).

[^43]: An LPTV station may operate in the translator mode only with the
    written consent of the TV broadcast station whose signal is being
    retransmitted.

[^44]: *See* *Report and Order*, 51 R.R.2d 476 (1982), ¶ 103.

[^45]: *Id*., ¶ 104. Broadcasting is "the dissemination of radio
    communications intended to be received by the public, directly or by
    the intermediary of relay stations." 47 U.S.C. § 153. A subscription
    television program is "a television broadcast program intended to be
    received in intelligible form for a fee or charge." 47 C.F.R. §
    73.641(b).

[^46]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.6026, which references Section 73.624(b).

[^47]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.701(g).

[^48]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.624(c), 73.6026. Digital Class A ancillary
    and supplementary services may not derogate free over-the-air video
    service and are subject to the fees applicable to DTV broadcasters
    under Section 73.624(g) of our rules.

[^49]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.624(c).

[^50]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.780, "Broadcast regulations applicable to
    translators, low power, and booster stations." For example, this
    rule references, among others, Sections 73.1212 and 73.1940, which
    pertain to sponsorship identification and broadcasts by candidates
    for political office, respectively. *See also* the closed captioning
    requirements in Section 79.1 and *Second Periodic Review of the
    Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting Conversion to Digital
    Television, Public Interest Obligations of TV Broadcast Licensees*,
    18 FCC Rcd 1279 (2003).

[^51]: Section 143 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, the *LPTV
    Pilot Project Digital Data Services Act* ("DDSA"), Pub L. No
    106-554, 114 Stat. 4577 (Dec. 21, 2000), modified Section 336 of the
    Communications Act to add new subsection (h). The DDSA establishes a
    pilot project under which 12 specific LPTV stations and an
    additional station in Alaska to be chosen by the Commission, can
    provide one-way or two-way digital data services, portable or fixed,
    to demonstrate the feasibility of using LPTV stations to provide
    high-speed wireless digital data service, including interactive
    broadcast service and wireless Internet access. *See*
    *Implementation of LPTV Digital Data Services Pilot Project*,
    ("Implementation *Order*") 66 Fed. Reg. 29040 (May 29, 2001) as
    codified in 47 C.F.R. § 74.785; *Order on Reconsideration*, 17 FCC
    Rcd 2988 (2002). The Implementation *Order* provided a process for
    applying for pilot project authorizations. To date, no applications
    have been filed.

[^52]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(b)(2).

[^53]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.702. Stations are not authorized on TV channel 37,
    which is reserved for radio astronomy.

[^54]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.703, 74.709.

[^55]: The lower 700 MHz spectrum (channels 52-59) has been reallocated
    for new fixed, mobile, private and broadcast services. The upper 700
    MHz spectrum has been reallocated for new commercial services
    (fixed, mobile, private, band manager and broadcast on channels
    60-62 and 65-67) and public safety services (channels 63-64 and
    68-69). *See* *Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746
    Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59)*, 17 FCC Rcd 1022 (2001)
    (*Channel 52-59 reallocation order*) and *Reallocation of Television
    Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz band*, 12 FCC Rcd 22953 (1997)
    (*Channel 60-69 reallocation order*).

[^56]: More than 2,000 "displacement relief" applications have been
    filed, which have sought replacement channels in order to resolve or
    avoid interference conflicts or to vacate the use of TV channels
    52-69.

[^57]: Approximately 820 analog TV translator and LPTV stations are
    licensed to operate on these channels.

[^58]: *Channel 52-59 reallocation order*, paragraphs 14, 27 and 48.

[^59]: *Id*.

[^60]: Approximately 825 analog LPTV and TV translator stations are
    licensed to operate on these channels.

[^61]: *Channel 60-69 reallocation order*, ¶ 31.

[^62]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(e) ( "Any person who holds a television broadcast
    license to operate between 746 and 806 MHz may not operate at that
    frequency after the date on which the digital television service
    transition period terminates, as determined by the Commission").

[^63]: *Id.,* ¶ 29.

[^64]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.707(a). Most LPTV and translator interference
    requirements limit the predicted strength of a station's signal at
    another station's protected service contour. The protected service
    contour is defined by the field strength value that is protected
    against interference. It encompasses the area within the locus of
    points where that field strength is predicted to occur. The
    contour-defining field strength, together with a station's power,
    antenna height and radiation pattern, and local terrain elevations,
    determine the geographic size and shape of the station's protected
    contour -- calculated from the Commission signal propagation
    methods. Provided the contour-defining field strength is large
    enough to permit TV reception, a station's service area increases as
    that field strength is set to smaller values, in units of dBu. For
    example, for the same facilities and terrain and station
    environment, the DTV 41 dBu service contour for UHF channels yields
    a larger service area than the proposed 51 dBu service contour for
    digital LPTV and TV translator stations.

[^65]: *Establishment of a Class A Television Service*, 15 FCC Rcd 6355
    (2000) ("*Class A* *Report and Order*"), ¶ 38. *See* also 47 C.F.R.
    § 73.6010.

[^66]: The service areas of DTV stations are bounded by the following
    noise-limited signal contours, calculated using the Commission's
    F(50,90) signal propagation curves: 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).

[^67]: "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) was 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." *Id.,* ¶ 38.

[^68]: *Id*.

[^69]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.625(b)(1). This rule specifies the procedure for
    determining F(50,90) field strength values from the Commission's
    F(50,50) and F(50,10) propagation curves.

[^70]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.703

[^71]: *Id*.

[^72]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.705, 74.706, 74.707, and 74.708 define
    requirements for the protection of TV broadcast stations, DTV
    stations, low power TV and TV translator stations, and Class A TV
    and digital Class A TV stations, respectively.

[^73]: A D/U ratio is the numerical difference (in dB) between the field
    strength values of a desired signal (D) and an undesired signal (U),
    calculated as D -- U. The LPTV interference rules specify threshold
    D/U ratios that define predicted interference for various channel
    relationships. For example, LPTV protection of analog TV broadcast
    stations involves different threshold D/U ratios for the following
    channel relationships: co-channel, 1^st^ adjacent channel, 14^th^
    adjacent channel and 15^th^ adjacent channel. To illustrate, a D/U
    ratio of 28 dB is used to protect an analog co-channel UHF TV
    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 analog TV station's Grade
    B contour; that is, the predicted field strength cannot exceed 46
    dBu (64 dBu -- 28 dB) at the Grade B contour.

[^74]: For other channel relationships, LPTV and TV translator stations
    protect analog full-service TV stations on the basis of minimum
    station distance separations (*e.g.*, where the UHF channels of the
    proposed and protected stations are separated by 2, 3 or 4
    channels).

[^75]: Digital Class A stations protect the service contours of analog
    full-service, Class A, LPTV and TV translator stations and other
    digital Class A stations by meeting the D/U ratios for
    "DTV-into-analog TV" specified in Section 73.623(c) of the
    Commission's Rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.6016, 73.73.6017 and
    73.6019, respectively. Criteria for protection to digital Class A
    stations are given in Sections 73.6014 and 74.708.

[^76]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.706. The D/U protection ratios in this rule are
    also found in Section 73.623(c) of the DTV broadcast rules.
    Application proposals to locate analog LPTV or translator stations
    within the noise-limited contour of DTV stations operating on an
    adjacent channel must satisfy the required D/U ratio at all points
    within the DTV noise-limited contour.

[^77]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.6018. Applicants for TV and DTV facilities also
    use this approach to analyze potential interference to DTV service.
    Criteria for protecting DTV service populations are given in 47
    C.F.R. §§ 73.622 and 73.623 and in OET Bulletin 69, Longley-Rice
    Methodology for Evaluating TV Coverage and Interference (July 2,
    1997). *See*
    <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet69/oet69.pdf>.

[^78]: In the DTV proceeding, we permitted DTV stations in the initial
    allotment table to decrease the populations served by NTSC TV and
    other DTV stations by no more than two percent, not to exceed a
    total population reduction from all stations of ten percent.
    Applicants seeking facilities modifications of full-service NTSC
    stations may not cause any additional interference to DTV service,
    other than a 0.5% reduction in service population to account for
    rounding and calculation tolerances. *See Advanced Television
    Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast
    Service* (*Memorandum and Order on Reconsideration of the Sixth
    Report and Order*), 13 FCC Rcd 7418 (1998).

[^79]: Class A and digital Class A stations must also protect the
    "maximized" DTV service proposed in applications filed before
    December 31, 1999, or that were filed between December 31, 1999, and
    May 1, 2000, by a DTV station licensee or permittee that had
    notified the Commission by December 31, 1999, of its intent to
    maximize its facilities. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).

[^80]: In this proceeding we are not addressing the interference
    protection priorities, rights, and responsibilities of stations in
    the LPTV service, which are well established. Except as raised
    herein, the interference protection and remediation provisions in
    Sections 74.702 and 74.703 of our rules will apply equally to analog
    and digital LPTV and TV translator stations. Provisions regarding
    the secondary regulatory status of stations in the LPTV service are
    not at issue in this proceeding.

[^81]: Values for D/U protection ratios were determined from laboratory
    testing conducted during the DTV proceeding. These are based on the
    results of interference measurements for signals meeting the
    Commission's DTV transmission standard (*e.g.*, signals with the
    8-VSB modulation method). Section 73.623(c) of our rules gives
    threshold D/U ratios for DTV protection of co-channel and first
    adjacent channel analog stations and for analog stations with the
    following additional ("taboo") channel relations to that of a DTV
    station: N-2, N+2, N-3, N+3, N-4, N+4, N-7, N+7, N-8, N+8, N+14, and
    N+15, where N is the analog TV channel. It also gives D/U ratios for
    DTV station protection of co-channel and first adjacent channel DTV
    stations and for analog station protection of co-channel and first
    adjacent channel DTV stations.

[^82]: This rule indicates that the specified D/U values for co-channel
    interference protection "are only valid at locations where the
    signal-to-noise ratio is 28 dB or greater for interference from DTV
    or 25 dB or greater for interference from analog TV service. At the
    edge of the noise-limited service area, where the signal-to-noise
    (S/N) ratio is 16 dB, these values are 21 dB and 23 dB for
    interference from analog TV and DTV, respectively. At locations
    where the S/N ratio is greater than 16 dB, but less than 28 dB,..."
    the rule gives a formula for calculating D/U as a function of S/N;
    values range from 15-23 dB. The rule tabulates D/U values for
    analog-to-DTV co-channel interference ranging from 2-21 dB.

[^83]: Effective radiated power limits for digital stations in the LPTV
    service are 300 watts for stations that will operate on channels 2 -
    13 and 15 kW for stations on channels 14 - 69.

[^84]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.623(c)(2).

[^85]: *Id*. The ratios are: Lower DTV-into-analog TV -14 dB

    Upper DTV-into-analog TV -17 dB

    Lower DTV-into-DTV" -28 dB

    Upper DTV-into-DTV" -26 dB

[^86]: "DTV Repeater Emission Mask Analysis," Gary Sgrignoli, *IEEE*
    *Transactions on Broadcasting*, March 2003, Volume 49, Number 1,
    Pages 32-80, ISSN 0018-9316. ("Sgrignoli Paper"). The Sgrignoli
    Paper is also available at the following Internet site:
    [www.zenith.com/digitalbroadcast/downloads/DTV Emission Mask
    Analysis.pdf](http://www.zenith.com/digitalbroadcast/downloads/DTV Emission Mask Analysis.pdf).
    The term "splatter" refers to emissions, such as intermodulation
    products, that are manifested as co-channel interference to a
    receiver tuned to an adjacent channel.

[^87]: *See* below the discussion of digital LPTV and TV translator
    emission masks under the section heading "Other Technical Issues."
    For example, the "simple" mask attenuates emissions more than 6 MHz
    from the edge of a TV channel by 71 dB below the average transmitted
    power, and the "stringent" mask attenuates by 76 dB at and beyond 3
    MHz from the channel edge. By comparison, the emission mask required
    for DTV stations specifies an attenuation of 110 dB at and beyond 6
    MHz from the channel edge. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.622(g).

[^88]: Sgrignoli Paper at p. 78, Summary and Conclusion. The study
    determines the D/U ratios at Thresholds of Visibility and
    Audibility.

[^89]: Digital Class A stations are subject to the adjacent channel D/U
    ratios given in the DTV rules.

[^90]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.705, 74.706, 74.707, 74.708. Minimum station
    separation distances given in Section 74.705 would not apply to
    protection from digital LPTV and TV translator stations.

[^91]: If the contour protection were to be adopted, we propose that the
    Commission's F(50,90) propagation method replace the F(50,50) curves
    to determine distances to the protected contours of digital
    stations, and that F(50,10) curves be used to locate all digital
    interference contours. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.625(b).

[^92]: The DTV interference model is based on service area and
    interference provisions given in Sections 73.622 and 73.623 of our
    rules and additional engineering criteria given in OET Bulletin 69.
    OET Bulletin, "Longley-Rice Methodology for Evaluating TV Coverage
    and Interference (July 2, 1997), available at FCC Internet address
    <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet69/oet69.pdf>.

[^93]: *See*, *e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. § 74.705(e).

[^94]: Class A station proposals are not permitted to decrease the
    predicted service populations of DTV stations and allotted
    facilities by more than 0.5%, an allowance for rounding and computer
    platform tolerance.

[^95]: OET Bulletin 69 at pages 8-10. The front-to-back ratio is a
    measure (in dB) of an antenna's ability to suppress unwanted signals
    arriving from "behind" the antenna. It is calculated by subtracting
    the antenna's rearward gain from its forward gain, where these
    directions are 180 degrees apart. The antenna's radiation pattern
    determines the extent of attenuation from signals received off-axis.

[^96]: *See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the
    Existing Television Broadcast Services,* 12 FCC Rcd (1997), ¶ 145.

[^97]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.705.

[^98]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.703(a), 73.6022.

[^99]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.705(b) prohibits locating the antenna site inside
    the protected contour of TV broadcast station on a 1^st^ adjacent
    channel or the 14^th^ or 15^th^ channel above that of the TV
    station. Sections 74.707(b) and 74.708(c) of our rules prohibit
    locating the antenna site inside the protected contours of 1^st^
    adjacent channel LPTV, TV translator or Class A TV stations.

[^100]: For example, the D/U ratio for 1^st^ adjacent channel protection
    is -15 dB (*i.e.*, the strength of the undesired signal at any
    location inside the protected contour can be as much as 15 dB higher
    than that of the desired signal before interference is predicted).

[^101]: DTV *Sixth Report and Order*, ¶ 146.

[^102]: *Id*. Stations operating within the same antenna farm are an
    example of "nearly co-located" stations. The Commission indicated
    that until it had gained experience with near co-located operations,
    it was inclined to limit such waivers to applications from
    channel-displaced stations.

[^103]: For example, this could be achieved by multiplexing adjacent
    channels through the same antenna and sufficiently balancing the
    radiated power levels.

[^104]: In this regard, adjacent channels are taken to include the 1^st^
    adjacent channel to DTV and NTSC analog TV and the following channel
    relationships between digital and NTSC analog TV channels, where N
    is the analog channel: N-2, N+2, N-3, N+3, N-4, N+4, N-7, N+7, N-8,
    N+8, N+14, N+15.

[^105]: Interference analyses of co-located adjacent channel facilities
    require predictions of the strengths of desired and undesired
    signals at locations close to the antenna site. As discussed above,
    we are concerned that, in our DTV methodology for application
    processing, the assumed vertical patterns may not adequately reflect
    the patterns of antennas typically used at LPTV and TV translator
    facilities. Thus, our consideration of co-located adjacent channel
    digital LPTV and TV translator station proposals on a non-waiver
    basis may require modification of our LPTV processing software with
    respect to the assumed vertical relative field strength values, or
    may require other consideration of proposed antennas' vertical
    pattern and beam tilt characteristics.

[^106]: This requirement stems from tests conducted during the DTV
    proceeding that found artifacts in the NTSC signal ascribed to the
    "beating" of the DTV pilot and NTSC visual carrier and color
    subcarrier frequencies. It was found that precise offsets between
    these frequencies eliminated the artifacts.

[^107]: Such a requirement, if adopted, could apply only to digital
    stations transmitting a VSB pilot carrier frequency.

[^108]: 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 10 kHz above the nominal
    frequency (plus offset), 10 kHz below (minus offset) or no shift
    (zero offset).

[^109]: This is because the required co-channel D/U of 45 dB for
    non-offset operations is reduced to 28 dB for stations operating
    with different carrier offsets.

[^110]: In addition, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 74.703(d), LPTV and
    translator stations must not interfere with reception at a cable TV
    headend or output channel of a cable TV, MDS, or ITFS system
    converter, if the cable, MDS or ITFS operator is the "earlier user."
    Also, to protect stations in the Off-Shore Radio Service, an
    application for a new LPTV and TV translator station to use channels
    15, 16, 17 and 18 will not be accepted if it proposes a site located
    within a specified area near the Gulf of Mexico. 47 C.F.R. §
    74.709(e).

[^111]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.709(a)-(d). These provisions also apply to Class
    A TV stations.

[^112]: The reference in the Class A rules to Section 74.709 does not
    explicitly address interference protection requirements for proposed
    digital Class A TV stations.

[^113]: *See* letter of July 30, 2003, from Frederick R. Wentland,
    Associate Administrator, NTIA Office of Spectrum Management, to
    Edmond J. Thomas, Chief, FCC Office of Engineering and Technology
    (NTIA letter). The Federal Communications Commission administers
    non-Federal Government spectrum; NTIA, which is an operating unit of
    the Department of Commerce, administers Federal Government spectrum.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.105(a). Section 305(a) of the Communications Act
    of 1934, as amended, authorizes the President to assign frequencies
    to Federal Government stations. This authority has been assigned to
    the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
    Information, who also serves as the administrator for NTIA. *See*
    Pub. Law 102-538, 106 Stat. 3533 (1992).

[^114]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.1030.

[^115]: *Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing
    Television Broadcast Services,* 12 FCC Rcd (1997), ¶ 147; s*ee*
    *also* 47 C.F.R. § 74.735.

[^116]: Field test results during the DTV proceeding suggested that
    approximately comparable service areas are produced by a digital
    "average" ERP level about 12 dB below an NTSC "peak" ERP level.

[^117]: 43 dBu for stations on channels 2 -- 6, 48 dBu for stations on
    channels 7 -- 13, and 51 dBu for stations on channels 14 -- 69.

[^118]: In the Class A proceeding, we declined a request to increase the
    ERP limits, noting that to do so could "hinder the implementation of
    digital television as well as limit the number of Class A stations
    that could be authorized." *Establishment of a Class A Television
    Service*, 16 FCC Rcd at 8256, ¶ 32 (2001).

[^119]: Sgrignoli Paper, Abstract.

[^120]: 47 C.F.R. §73.622(h). All attenuation limits are based on a
    uniform measurement bandwidth of 500 kHz. If other measurement
    bandwidths are used, suitable adjustments in the calculated
    attenuation values must be made.

[^121]: We also invite comment on a spectral emission mask for digital
    on-channel booster stations, in the event we adopt this station
    class for the LPTV service.

[^122]: Sgrignoli Paper, *IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting*, March
    2003, Volume 49, Number 1, at pp. 48-49. As acknowledged by the
    Sgrignoli Paper, these masks were developed by the FCC staff and
    adopted by the Commission in the DTV *Sixth Report and Order*, 12
    FCC Rcd 14588 (1997) (Simple Mask) and the *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order on Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd
    7418 (1998) (Stringent Mask). The Sgrignoli Paper truncates the
    attenuation required by the Stringent Mask at 3 MHz into the
    adjacent channel, thereby resulting in a maximum attenuation
    requirement of 76 dB.

[^123]: Sgrignoli Paper at p. 77, Summary and Conclusion.

[^124]: *See* *also* the discussion of first adjacent channel D/U
    protection ratios in the above discussion of interference protection
    standards.

[^125]: *See* NTIA letter, *supra*.

[^126]: The full TV channel 23 signal occupies the frequency band
    524-530 MHz.

[^127]: For example, this type of formulation specifies part of the
    emission mask for FM broadcast stations. 47 C.F.R. § 73.317(d).

[^128]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.750(a).

[^129]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.907(a). The particulars for applications for
    certification are given in Section 2.1033.

[^130]: *Inquiry into the Future Role of Low Power Television
    Broadcasting and Television Translators in the National
    Telecommunications System.* 45 F.R. 69178 (1980).

[^131]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.731(f).

[^132]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.750(c).

[^133]: DTV broadcast stations must comply with the ATSC transmission
    standard, as incorporated by reference in Section 73.682(d) of our
    rules. ATSC is the abbreviation for the Advanced Television Systems
    Committee. Specifically, the transmission standard incorporates ATSC
    Documents A/52 (ATSC Standard Digital Audio Compression (AC-3), 20
    Dec. 95 and A/53B (ATSC Digital Television Standard, 7 Aug. 01),
    except for Section 5.1.2. ("Compression format constraints") of
    Annex A ("Video System Characteristics") and the phrase "see Table
    3" in Section 5.1.1 Table 2 and Section 5.1.2 Table 4. The standard
    includes the 8-VSB (vestigial side band) modulation system. The
    standard, as adopted by the Commission, excludes limitations
    regarding scanning formats, aspect ratios, and lines of resolution.
    The ATSC standard is available in its entirety at
    [http://www.atsc.org](http://www.atsc.org/).

[^134]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.750(c).

[^135]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.750(a).

[^136]: The certification procedure is set forth in Sections 2.907 and
    S2.1031-2.1060 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.907 and 2.1031-2.1060;
    the verification procedure is set forth in Sections 2.902 and
    2.951-2.962 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.907 and 2.951-2.962. Under
    the certification procedure, applicants (equipment manufacturers or
    responsible parties) submit descriptions of equipment, measurement
    data, and other information to the Commission in an application for
    grant of equipment authorization. The Commission reviews this
    submission and, if it finds the device to be in compliance with the
    applicable rules, issues a grant of equipment authorization. Under
    the verification procedure, the equipment manufacturer or
    responsible party conducts appropriate measurements to determine
    whether a device is in compliance with the rules and then
    "self-approves" the device. There is no requirement for notification
    to or approval by the Commission. However the
    manufacturer/responsible party must maintain records of the
    equipment design, test procedure, report of test results and other
    information and must submit this information to the Commission on
    request.

[^137]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.751(a).

[^138]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.750(g).

[^139]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.763(a).

[^140]: For example, after three years of operation, full-service TV
    stations must operate not less than two hours in each day of the
    week and not less than 28 hours per calendar week. 47 C.F.R. §
    73.1740. Class A TV stations are required to broadcast at least 18
    hours each day. 47 C.F.R. § 73.6001.

[^141]: It is possible that an LPTV or TV translator licensee or other
    prospective digital operator would secure a channel with the intent
    of offering only a minimal amount of digital service until there was
    sufficient DTV set penetration in the community.

[^142]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.734.

[^143]: *See* ITU RR 19.1, 19.4, 19.16, 19.17.

[^144]: *Id*. at 19.18.

[^145]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.783.

[^146]: See *Report and Order* in Docket No. 12116, 20 R.R. 1555 (1956).

[^147]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1201 (the identification requirements for
    full-service TV stations).

[^148]: As indicated above, many TV broadcast stations identify analog
    TV translators that rebroadcast their signals, although they are not
    required to do so.

[^149]: *Second DTV Period Review*, 18 FCC Rcd at 1325, ¶ 125.

[^150]: PSIP stands for Program System and Information Protocol. A PSIP
    generator would add information to the digital bit stream to
    facilitate, *inter alia*, program identification and channel
    mapping. The role of the A/65A PSIP standard of the Advanced
    Television Systems Committee is being considered in the Commission's
    second periodic review of its DTV policies and rules. *Id.,* ¶ 114.

[^151]: *Id.,*¶ 125.

[^152]: On-channel digital conversion of an analog TV broadcast station
    that has not been provided with a paired digital channel would also
    be authorized as a minor change.

[^153]: This contour overlap constraint also applies to analog LPTV and
    translator minor change applications. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    73.3572(a)(2). The LPTV minor change definition permits flexibility
    to change facilities, while also preventing a station from
    relocating away from its viewing audience.

[^154]: Class A stations may convert their existing analog channels for
    digital operations at any time, thus becoming digital Class A TV
    stations (*Class A Report and Order*, ¶ 92). Class A TV facilities
    changes, other than channels changes, are considered to be "minor"
    changes, provided the protected signal contour resulting from the
    changed facilities would overlap some portion of the protected
    contour based on the Class A station's authorized facilities (*Class
    A Report and Order*, ¶110). The *Class A Report and Order* did not
    explicitly characterize an on-channel digital conversion of an
    analog Class A station authorization as a minor change. We here
    clarify that Class A station licensees and permittees may seek an
    on-channel digital conversion by filing an application for a minor
    facilities change pursuant to the definition and application
    processing criteria given in Sections 73.3572 at paragraphs (a) and
    (f). An analog-to-digital converted digital Class A station would
    have the same interference protection priorities as an analog Class
    A station.

[^155]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3572(a).

[^156]: We recently upheld the use of auctions with respect to LPTV and
    TV translator applications filed by noncommercial educational
    entities. We concluded that the auction exemption extends only to
    LPTV and TV translator applications for which the proposed
    facilities would be owned and operated by municipalities that would
    transmit only education programming. *See* *Reexamination of the
    Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applications*,
    18 FCC Rcd 6691 (2003), paragraphs 15-18.

[^157]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.5002(a). During the auction filing window, LPTV,
    translator and Class A TV applicants for new stations and major
    facilities changes submit "short-form" applications, together with
    required certifications, information and exhibits, which includes
    technical data on the proposed facility necessary to determine
    mutually exclusive applications (*i.e.*, applications that cannot
    all be granted in compliance with our interference protection
    standards). Complete "long form" applications are filed by
    applicants who are notified by Public Notice that their applications
    are not mutually exclusive and by winning auction bidders. Long form
    applications are processed according to the Commission's rules and
    policies and subject to the filing of petitions to deny.

[^158]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2)(B).

[^159]: Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251 (1997) (*Balanced Budget Act
    of 1997).*

[^160]: *See* H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 217, 105^th^ Cong., 1^st^ Sess. 1997,
    at 573; 1997 U.S.C.C.A.N. 176, ("Any mutually exclusive applications
    received after June 30, 1997, shall be subject to the Commission's
    rules regarding competitive bidding, including applications for
    secondary broadcast services such as low power television,
    television translators, and television booster stations.")

[^161]: Applicants for stations in the low power television and other
    secondary services are "permitted to resolve mutual exclusivities by
    means of engineering solutions or settlements during a limited
    period after the filing of short-form applications." 47 C.F.R. §
    73.5002(d).

[^162]: *See* *Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting
    the Conversion to Digital Television*, 16 FCC Rcd 5946 (2001) ("*DTV
    R&O*"), paragraphs 43-49.

[^163]: Class A TV stations were formerly LPTV stations.

[^164]: Congress limited the initial eligibility for licenses for
    advanced television services (DTV) to "...persons that, as the date
    of such issuance, are licensed to operate a television broadcast
    station or hold a permit to construct such a station (or both)" 47
    U.S.C. § 336(a)(1). In the DTV 5^th^ *Report and Order*, the
    Commission awarded initial DTV licenses (and DTV channel allotments)
    to full-service broadcasters that held either an analog station
    license or a construction permit on the date of adoption of that
    *Order*.

[^165]: We do not propose an analog/digital simulcast requirement for
    LPTV or TV translator stations that would provide both digital and
    analog service. We believe that many station licensees would seek to
    offer the same programming services on both channels in an effort to
    provide continuity of programming service.

[^166]: In limiting initial eligibility for DTV licenses to existing
    full-service TV broadcasters, the Commission noted its previous
    determination that "there is insufficient spectrum to include LPTV
    stations and translators, which are secondary under our rules and
    policies, to be initially eligible for a DTV channel." *See*
    *Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing
    Broadcast Service* (*5^th^ Report and Order*), 12 FCC Rcd 12809
    (1997), ¶ 18.

[^167]: Many stations, particularly LPTV and Class A stations, are
    located in and around major cities for which the last opportunity to
    file for a new station occurred in 1991. Thereafter, the Commission
    has precluded the filing of applications for new stations located
    within 100 miles of the then 30 highest ranked television
    market-cities. This was done to preserve spectrum options for DTV
    service in those markets. Under this filing approach, licensees and
    permittees of LPTV, translator and Class A stations within these
    areas would be permitted to file applications for new digital
    stations.

[^168]: The Commission adopted the approach of an initial window
    followed by rolling one-day windows for certain applications filings
    in the Multipoint Distribution Service. *Amendment of Parts 21 and
    74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Services and Instructional
    Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-way Transmissions*,
    13 FCC Rcd 112 (1998). One-day windows also govern the filing of DTV
    maximization applications. *DTV R&O*, ¶ 41.

[^169]: Based on our experience, we are concerned that an unrestricted
    window, albeit digital-only, could result in the filing of many
    thousands of applications, especially if we did not impose
    geographic restrictions on application filing (*i.e.*, to permit
    opportunities for all TV translator and LPTV stations to seek
    channels for digital operations). The most recent LPTV Service
    auction filing window occurred in August, 2000. It was
    geographically restricted in an effort to provide filing
    opportunities in rural areas. Applicants were not permitted to
    propose new translator or LPTV stations within 75 miles of cities
    corresponding to the 125 highest ranked television markets. Yet,
    approximately 4700 applications were filed in this window.
    Approximately 3700 of these applications were mutually exclusive.

[^170]: 326 U.S. 327 (1945) (*Ashbacker*); s*ee also, e.g., Community
    Broadcasting Co. v. FCC*, 274 F.2d 753, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1960).

[^171]: 47 U.S.C. § 309.

[^172]: See, *United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co.,* 351 U.S. 192,
    202, 205 (1956); *see also, Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. FCC*, 928
    F.2d 428, 439 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

[^173]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(1).

[^174]: In the LPTV service, applications seeking replacement channels
    are accorded the highest priority as a means of mitigating service
    disruptions due to a station's loss of its channel because of an
    actual or potential interference conflict. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    73.3572(a)(4).

[^175]: *See, e.g., For Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules
    to Add a Rural Translator Service,* filed by the National Translator
    Association ("NTA"), RM-10666 (2002). In its Petition for Rule
    Making, the NTA examines current levels of television service
    provided by translators, concluding there is a need for additional
    translator stations to serve rural America. It seeks a streamlined
    authorization of translator service for those communities that
    receive Grade B service from no more than three full-service
    television stations. *See also* *Media Bureau Seeks Comment on
    National Translator Association's Petition for Rule Making to
    Establish a Rural Translator Service*, 18 FCC Rcd 3262 (2003)
    (*Public Notice*).

[^176]: *See*, *e.g.*, *DTV Sixth Report and Order*.

[^177]: *See* *Class A Report and Order*, ¶ 110.

[^178]: *See Notice and Filing Requirements Regarding July 31 through
    August 4, 2000 Limited Low Power Television/Television
    Translator/Class A Television Auction Filing Window*, Report No.
    AUC-00-81-A (Auction No. 81), DA 00-1383 (June 23, 2000) (*Public
    Notice*).

[^179]: *See* *Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 11 FCC Rcd
    10968 (1996).

[^180]: In this event, a Class A station would retain Class A TV
    regulatory status on the channel it chose to retain for digital
    operations.

[^181]: The secondary nature of the additional channel that would be
    awarded to Class A stations under our proposed licensing scheme does
    not mean that Class A stations would be denied protected Class A
    status on their digital channel either after the digital transition
    or at some later point in that transition. Rather, we intend only
    that the additional channel provided here would -- at least
    initially -- be secondary.

[^182]: LPTV and TV translator stations must protect the DTV service
    resulting from the facilities specified in station licenses and
    construction permits (*i.e.*, the authorized service). 47 C.F.R. §
    74.706. Pursuant to Section 336(f)(7) of the Communications Act,
    Class A stations must protect both the authorized service and the
    service that would result from the engineering parameters associated
    with the station's DTV channel allotment.

[^183]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(4).

[^184]: *Class A TV Report and Order*, ¶ 95.

[^185]: 326 U.S. 327 (1945) (*Ashbacker*).

[^186]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3572(a)(2).

[^187]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3572 (a)(4) at subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iv).

[^188]: Section 309(j)(14) provides:

    \(A\) LIMITATIONS ON TERMS OF TERRESTRIAL TELEVISION BROADCAST
    LICENSES. -- A television broadcast license that authorizes analog
    television service may not be renewed to authorize such service for
    a period that extends beyond December 31, 2006.

[^189]: 47 U.S.C. § 3(49).

[^190]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(4).

[^191]: For example, stations in the LPTV service operate on a secondary
    basis and serve much smaller audiences than full-service stations.
    Many TV translator stations are community-supported, and many LPTV
    stations also operate on limited budgets. Further, LPTV, TV
    translator and Class A stations have not been awarded channels for
    digital service, and many would be required to convert to digital
    service on their analog channels. These stations also will have been
    given less time than full-service stations to prepare for operations
    after the DTV transition ends.

[^192]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3598.

[^193]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.701 (i), 74.731 at subparagraphs (g) and (h) and
    74.784 (d).

[^194]: *Second DTV Period Review NPRM,* paragraphs 99-106. Distributed
    transmission systems involve the operation of multiple highly
    synchronized transmitters. In that proceeding, the Commission sought
    comment on a range of issues for distributed systems including
    regulatory status, location and service area, power, interference
    protection and other technical standards. As distinct from that
    consideration of distributed transmission systems, herein we are
    only considering a digital equivalent of secondary-status analog TV
    booster systems.

[^195]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.783(d).

[^196]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3550.

[^197]: 47 U.S.C. § 159.

[^198]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(e).

[^199]: 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.

[^200]: 47 C.F.R. §§74.432, 74.632.

[^201]: LPTV Petitioners' Petition For Rulemaking at 3.

[^202]: *Id.*

[^203]: *Id.* at 27.

[^204]: *Id.* at 27-28.

[^205]: *Id.* at 28.

[^206]: *Id.*

[^207]: *Id.* at 29.

[^208]: *Id.* at 30.

[^209]: *Id.*

[^210]: *See* *An Inquiry Into the Future Role of Low Power Television
    Broadcasting and Television Translators in the National
    Telecommunications System*, 47 Fed Reg 21468 (1982).

[^211]: *Id*.

[^212]: *Id.* at 25.

[^213]: *See Class A Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 6395.

[^214]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^215]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^216]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^217]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^218]: *See Id.*

[^219]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^220]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^221]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^222]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^223]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (North American Industry Classification
    System ("NAICS") Code 515120).

[^224]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series --
    Source of Receipts, Information Sector 51, Appendix B at B-7-8
    (2000).

[^225]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series --
    Source of Receipts, Information Sector 51, Appendix B at B-7 (2000).

[^226]: NAICS Code 512110 (Motion Picture and Video Production); NAICS
    Code 512120 (Motion Picture and Video Distribution); NAICS Code
    512191 (Teleproduction and Other Post-Production Services); NAICS
    Code 512199 (Other Motion Picture and Video Industries).

[^227]: *Public Notice*, "Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2003"
    (May 5, 2003).

[^228]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS Code 517510). This NAICS Code applies
    to all services listed in this paragraph.

[^229]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series --
    Establishment and Firm Size, Information Sector 51, Table 4 at 50
    (2000). The amount of \$10 million was used to estimate the number
    of small business firms because the relevant Census categories
    stopped at \$9,999,999 and began at \$10,000,000. No category for
    \$12.5 million existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is
    possible to calculate with the available information.

[^230]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition
    based on its determinations that a small cable system operator is
    one with annual revenues of \$100 million or less. *Implementation
    of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation*, Sixth Report
    and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd. 7393
    (1995).

[^231]: Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996
    (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).

[^232]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2).

[^233]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.1403(b).

[^234]: Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996
    (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).

[^235]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS Code 517510).

[^236]: *Id.*

[^237]: *Id*.

[^238]: 13 C.F.F. § 121.201 (NAICS Code 517510).

[^239]: *Id.*

[^240]: *Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in Markets for
    the Delivery of Video Programming,* 12 FCC Rcd 4358, 4385 (1996)
    ("*Third Annual Report").*

[^241]: *Id.* at 4385.

[^242]: *Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules with
    Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service
    and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation
    of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding*,
    10 FCC Rcd at 9589, 9593 (1995) ("*ITFS Order*").

[^243]: *See Local Multipoint Distribution Service,* 12 FCC Rcd 12545
    (1997) ("*LMDS Order*").

[^244]: 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).

[^245]: *See ITFS* *Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at 9589.

[^246]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS Code 517510).

[^247]: *Id*.

[^248]: SBREFA also applies to nonprofit organizations and governmental
    organizations such as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,
    school districts, or special districts, with populations of less
    than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^249]: *See LMDS* *Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 12545.

[^250]: *Id.*

[^251]: *See* Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau (FCC) from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA
    (January 6, 1998).

[^252]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NCAIS Code 517510).

[^253]: *See Third Annual Report*, 12 FCC Rcd at 4403-4.

[^254]: *See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in Markets
    for the Delivery of Video Programming*, 17 FCC Rcd 1244, 1281 (2001)
    ("*Eighth Annual Report*").

[^255]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 573.

[^256]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS Code 517510).

[^257]: *Id.*

[^258]: 13 CFR § 121.201 (NAICS Code 334310).

[^259]: 13 CFR § 121.201 (NAICS Code 334220).

[^260]: 13 CFR § 121.201 (NAICS Code 334310).

[^261]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series --
    Manufacturing, Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing, Table 4 at 9
    (1999). The amount of 500 employees was used to estimate the number
    of small business firms because the relevant Census categories
    stopped at 499 employees and began at 500 employees. No category for
    750 employees existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is
    possible to calculate with the available information.

[^262]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS Code 517510).

[^263]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series --
    Manufacturing, Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
    Communications Equipment Manufacturing, Table 4 at 9 (1999). The
    amount of 500 employees was used to estimate the number of small
    business firms because the relevant Census categories stopped at 499
    employees and began at 500 employees. No category for 750 employees
    existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is possible to
    calculate with the available information.

[^264]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS Code 334111).

[^265]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series --
    Manufacturing, Electronic Computer Manufacturing, Table 4 at 9
    (1999).

[^266]: 5 U.S.C. § 603.