**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

) MM Docket No. 00-10

Establishment of a Class A ) MM Docket No. 99-292

Television Service ) RM-9260

**ORDER AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

**Adopted:** January 13, 2000 **Released:** January 13, 2000

Comment Date: February 10, 2000

Reply Comment Date: February 22, 2000

By the Commission:

**I. Introduction**

1.  On November 29, 1999, Congress enacted the Community Broadcasters
    Protection Act of 1999 (\"CBPA\").[^1] The CBPA requires the
    Commission, within 120 days after the date of enactment, to
    prescribe regulations establishing a Class A television license
    available to licensees of qualifying low-power television (\"LPTV\")
    stations. The CBPA directs that Class A licensees be subject to the
    same license terms and renewal standards as full-power television
    licensees, and that Class A licensees be accorded primary status as
    a television broadcaster as long as the station continues to meet
    the requirements set forth in the statute for a qualifying low-power
    station. In addition to other matters, the CBPA sets out certain
    certification and application procedures for low-power television
    licensees seeking to obtain Class A status, prescribes the criteria
    low-power stations must meet to be eligible for a Class A license,
    and outlines the interference protection Class A applicants must
    provide to analog (or "NTSC"), digital ("DTV"), LPTV, and TV
    translator stations. We are initiating this proceeding to implement
    the Community Broadcasters Protection Act.

2.  On September 22, 1999, the Commission adopted a *Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making (\"September 22 Notice\")* considering a wide range of
    issues related to the establishment of a form of primary status for
    certain low-power television stations.[^2] That *Notice* responded
    to a petition for rule making filed by the Community Broadcasters
    Association (\"CBA\").[^3] Initial comments on the *September 22
    Notice* were due December 21, 1999. In light of passage of the
    Community Broadcasters Protection Act, which addresses many of the
    same issues raised in the earlier *Notice* and the CBA petition, we
    are terminating today our earlier proceeding, and are initiating
    this new proceeding to implement the CBPA.[^4]

**II. Background**

3.  From its creation by the Commission in 1982, the low power
    television service has been a \"secondary spectrum priority\"
    service whose members \"may not cause objectionable interference to
    existing full service stations, and \...must yield to facilities
    increases of existing full service stations or to new full service
    stations where interference occurs.\"[^5] Currently, there are some
    2,200 licensed LPTV stations in approximately 1000 communities,[^6]
    operating in all 50 states. These stations serve both rural and
    urban audiences. Because they operate at reduced power levels,[^7]
    LPTV stations serve a much smaller geographic region than
    full-service stations and can be fit into areas where a higher power
    station cannot be accommodated in the Table of Allotments. In many
    cases, LPTV stations may be the only television station in an area
    providing local news, weather, and public affairs programming.[^8]
    Even in some well-served markets, LPTV stations may provide the only
    local service to residents of discrete geographical communities
    within those markets.[^9] Many LPTV stations air "niche"
    programming, often locally produced, to residents of specific
    ethnic, racial, and interest communities within the larger area,
    including programming in foreign languages.[^10]

4.  The LPTV service has significantly increased the diversity of
    broadcast station ownership. Stations are operated by such diverse
    entities as community groups, schools and colleges, religious
    organizations, radio and TV broadcasters, and a wide variety of
    small businesses. The service has also provided first-time ownership
    opportunities for minorities and women.[^11]

5.  In the Community Broadcasters Protection Act, Congress found that
    the future of low-power television is uncertain.[^12] Because LPTV
    stations have secondary regulatory status, they can be displaced by
    full-service stations that seek to expand their own service area, or
    by new full-service stations seeking to enter the same market. The
    statute finds that this regulatory status affects the ability of
    LPTV stations to raise necessary capital.[^13] In addition, Congress
    recognized that the conversion to digital television further
    complicates the uncertain future of LPTV stations.[^14] To
    facilitate the transition from analog to digital television, the
    Commission has provided a second channel for each full service
    television licensee in the country that will be used for digital
    broadcasting during the period of conversion to an all-digital
    broadcast service. In assigning DTV channels, we maintained the
    secondary status of LPTV stations and TV translators and, in order
    to provide all full-service stations with a second channel, were
    compelled to establish DTV allotments that will displace a number of
    LPTV stations.[^15] Although the Commission has taken a number of
    steps to mitigate the impact of the DTV transition on stations in
    the LPTV service,[^16] that transition will have significant adverse
    effects on many stations, particularly LPTV stations operating in
    urban areas where there are few, if any, available replacement
    channels.

6.  Congress sought in the Community Broadcasters Protection Act to
    address some of these issues by providing certain low power
    television stations "primary" regulatory status. Congress also
    recognized, however, that, because of the emerging DTV service, not
    all LPTV stations could be guaranteed a certain future.[^17]
    Congress indicated its recognition of the importance and engineering
    complexity of the FCC\'s plan to convert full-service stations to
    digital format, and protected the ability of these stations to
    provide both digital and analog service.[^18]

**III. Discussion**

**A. Certification and Application for License**

7.  Section (f)(1)(A) of the CBPA requires the Commission, within 120
    days after the date of enactment (November 29, 1999), to prescribe
    regulations establishing a Class A television service.[^19] The CBPA
    establishes a two-part certification and application procedure for
    LPTV stations seeking Class A status. First, the CBPA directs the
    Commission to send a notice to all LPTV licensees describing the
    requirements for Class A designation.[^20] Within 60 days of the
    date of enactment, licensees intending to seek Class A designation
    are required to submit to the Commission a certification of
    eligibility based on the applicable qualification requirements.

8.  The CBPA provides that, absent a material deficiency in a licensee's
    certification of eligibility, the Commission shall grant the
    certification of eligibility to apply for Class A status.[^21] The
    CBPA further provides that licensees have 30 days after final
    regulations implementing the CBPA are adopted by the Commission in
    which to submit an application for Class A designation. The
    Commission has 30 days after receipt of an application to act on
    applications that meet applicable interference and other
    criteria.[^22]

9.  One issue not addressed by the statute is whether LPTV stations must
    apply for a Class A license within the time frame established in the
    legislation, or whether the Commission may continue to accept and
    approve applications from qualifying LPTV stations to convert to
    Class A status in the future. Section (f)(1)(B) of the statute
    states that licensees intending to seek Class A designation "shall"
    submit a certification of eligibility within 60 days after the date
    of enactment of the Act.[^23] Section (f)(1)(C) provides that
    consistent with the requirements set forth I section (f)(2)(A), a
    licensee may submit an application for Class A designation within 30
    days after the Commission adopts rules in this docket. However, the
    section (f)(2)(B) of statute also gives the Commission discretion to
    determine that the public interest, convenience and necessity would
    be served by treating a station as a qualifying LPTV station, or
    that a station should be considered to qualify for such status for
    other reasons.[^24] We ask commenters to address whether the statute
    permits the Commission to continue to accept applications to convert
    to Class A in the future. In addition, in the event the Commission
    concludes it does have this authority, we invite commenters to
    discuss whether the Commission should, as a matter of policy, allow
    LPTV stations to apply to convert to Class A status after the
    application period provided for in the Act.

# B. Class A Protected Service Area {#b.-class-a-protected-service-area .unnumbered}

10. The statute requires the Commission to "preserve the service areas
    of low-power television licensees pending the final resolution of a
    Class A application."[^25] Since the inception of the LPTV service,
    the service areas of LPTV stations have been defined in terms of
    protected signal contours. LPTV are protected from interference from
    other LPTV and TV translator stations to the following signal
    contours: 62 dBu for stations on channels 2-6; 68 dBu for stations
    on channels 7-13; and 74 dBu for stations on channels 14 -- 69,
    calculated using the Commission's F(50,50) signal propagation
    curves.[^26] Consistent with the proposal in the *September 22
    Notice*, we propose herein to use the same protected areas now
    afforded LPTV stations for analog Class A television. This would
    preserve existing service provided by LPTV stations and minimize
    disruption or preclusion of other services. The CBPA also provides
    for digital Class A operations for which we have no readily
    available contour values other than those values that define DTV
    noise-limited service: 28 dBu for channels 2-6; 36 dBu for channels
    7-13; and 41 dBu for channels 14 -- 69, calculated as a predicted
    F(50,90) field strength.[^27] We invite comment on the protected
    service area of Class A stations and, in particular, on whether
    other field strength values might be better suited for analog and
    digital Class A service.

11. The CBPA also provides that if, after granting certification of
    eligibility for Class A license, technical problems arise requiring
    an engineering solution to a full-power DTV station\'s allotted
    parameters or channel assignment in the digital television Table of
    Allotments, the Commission shall make the modifications necessary
    to (i) ensure replication of the full-power digital television
    applicant\'s service area as provided for in sections 73.622 and
    73.623 of the Commission\'s regulations, and (ii) to permit
    maximization of a full-power digital television applicant\'s service
    area consistent with these sections, if the applicant has filed an
    application for maximization or a notice of its intent to seek
    maximization by December 31, 1999, and filed a \"bona fide\"
    application for maximization by May 1, 2000. [^28]

12. We propose to preserve the service area of LPTV licensees from the
    date the Commission receives an acceptable certification of
    eligibility for Class A status; that is, a certification that is
    complete and that, on its face, indicates eligibility for Class A
    status pursuant to the eligibility criteria established by statute
    and any other criteria ultimately approved in this proceeding.[^29]
    This timing appears most consistent with the CBPA's dual
    certification and application scheme for Class A status.[^30] Thus,
    the service area of an LPTV station would be protected, to the
    extent provided in the CBPA and our rules, from the date a
    certification for eligibility is filed with the Commission, as long
    as the certification is ultimately granted by the Commission. The
    CBPA permits the Commission to establish alternative criteria for
    Class A eligibility if it determines that the public interest,
    convenience and necessity would be served thereby, or for other
    reasons.[^31] We invite comment later in this *Notice* on what those
    alternative criteria should be. There may be instances in which a
    certification of eligibility may be granted but the corresponding
    Class A application may not be granted because the alternative
    eligibility showing cannot be approved. We further note that a Class
    A application could be denied if a certification of eligibility were
    later determined to be incorrect.

13. Thus, with certain exceptions, we believe that the statute requires
    that we act to preserve the service areas of LPTV stations that have
    been granted a certificate of eligibility for Class A status. We
    further believe that this requirement can be met by protecting the
    protected LPTV signal contours against predicted interference from
    NTSC, DTV, LPTV, and TV translator stations authorized after the
    enactment date of the Act (November 29, 1999). We interpret the
    statute as creating three exceptions to the LPTV service
    preservation requirement: (1) DTV stations seeking to replicate
    their analog TV service areas within the station's allotted
    engineering parameters, (2) DTV stations who filed a maximization
    application or statement of intent to maximize their service areas
    by December 31, 1999 and a maximization application by May 1, 2000
    and (3) DTV stations that encounter technical problems that
    necessitate adjustments to the stations' DTV allotment parameters,
    including channel changes. We believe that the statute prohibits us
    from authorizing any other analog or digital station proposals that
    would be predicted to interfere with the protected contours of LPTV
    stations subsequent to the date the station has filed its
    certification for Class A eligibility, as long as the certification
    is ultimately granted. We invite comment on this tentative
    conclusion.

14. We propose the following methods of protecting the service contours
    of Class A stations and LPTV stations whose contours are to be
    preserved from interference under the certification of eligibility
    provisions. Where a full-service NTSC application or rule making
    proposal must protect a Class A station, the protection should be
    based on a contour overlap approach similar to that used for LPTV
    applications protecting the Grade B contour of NTSC stations; i.e.,
    according to the criteria given in Section 74.705 of the LPTV
    rules.[^32] The interference predictions would be based on the
    facilities proposed in the application. Petitioners for analog
    channels must identify reference NTSC facilities (location,
    effective radiated power, antenna height above average terrain and,
    if desired, horizontal antenna radiation pattern) for the purpose of
    showing the necessary contour protection. It is necessary to
    consider a variation on this approach for situations that may occur
    due to the manner in which LPTV stations have been authorized.
    Secondary LPTV stations must accept interference from full-service
    TV stations, and predicted interference from full-service stations
    is not considered in the LPTV application process. Therefore, it is
    possible that the authorized facilities of full-service stations
    would be predicted to interfere with protected Class A/LPTV service
    contours. Such stations may later file applications to modify their
    facilities; for example, to relocate the sites of transmitting
    antennas or increase power. In such an event, we would consider the
    full-service modification application proposal to be acceptable
    provided it did not increase the amount of predicted interference to
    the Class A/LPTV station; *i.e.*, by further reducing the required
    separation between the stations or by further decreasing the
    interference protection ratios. We request comment on this approach
    or other approaches we should consider. We note that protection
    based on minimum distance separations between Class A and NTSC TV
    stations would be simpler, but would provide less flexibility. We
    also note that Class A stations can propose DTV operations and we
    seek comment on the approach that should be used to protect digital
    Class A operations.

15. Class A stations and certified eligible LPTV stations are also
    entitled to protection from some DTV stations, except as provided in
    the statute. For example, petitioners for a new DTV allotment would
    have to protect the contours of licensed or Class A-designated
    stations. We seek comment on whether we should use the approach
    described above for Class A protection from NTSC station proposals,
    but with desired-to-undesired signal strength (D/U) ratios
    applicable to protection of analog signals from DTV signals.[^33] In
    this regard, we could apply the co-channel and first adjacent
    channel, and possibly other, D/U ratios for "DTV-into-analog TV"
    given in Section 73.623(c) of our rules. Alternatively, we seek
    comment on protecting licensed Class A and Class A-designated
    service areas from DTV station proposals in the manner in which DTV
    applicants protect full-service NTSC stations.[^34] If we were to
    adopt this approach, should we permit the same *de minimis*
    interference allowances to Class A service that are now permitted
    for DTV protection of NTSC stations? For either alternative
    approach, petitioners for DTV allotments would need to identify
    reference facilities that would satisfy the required method of
    protection. We invite comment on these matters and other approaches
    to protecting Class A service from DTV station proposals. As above,
    we note that a Class A station may choose digital operation and we
    seek comment on the method that should govern protection to digital
    Class A service.

16. We propose that LPTV and TV translator application proposals protect
    licensed Class A contours and the contours of LPTV stations that
    have filed certifications of eligibility in the manner that LPTV and
    translators stations now protect each other, as provided in Section
    74.707 of the LPTV rules.[^35] This approach is also based on D/U
    ratio compliance at points along the protected signal contour. We
    propose that applications to modify Class A stations (subsequent to
    receiving initial Class A licenses) protect existing Class A service
    in the same manner. We further propose to apply this approach to
    applicants for new Class A stations that would not qualify for this
    status within 90-days of enactment of the CBPA; that is, if we were
    to extend Class A application filing opportunities beyond the 30-day
    period permitted in the CPBA. We invite comment on these matters and
    ask in which manner we should protect the service of digital Class A
    stations from analog or digital LPTV, TV translators and other Class
    A stations.

# Change Applications

17. Section (f)(1)(E) of the CBPA provides for protection of a DTV
    station that has been granted a construction permit to maximize or
    significantly enhance its service area and later files an
    application for a change in facilities that reduces its service
    area. In such a case, the statute provides that the protected
    contour of the DTV station is the reduced service area.[^36] We
    believe that the protection of the reduced coverage area would
    become effective upon grant of the application that requested the
    reduced facilities and that, in these circumstances, Class A
    stations would no longer need to protect the service area produced
    by the "replication" facilities established in the initial DTV Table
    of Allotments. We expect that few, if any, DTV stations will follow
    this course, but those licensees considering it should be aware of
    the consequences. We seek comment on this interpretation.

**D. Qualifying Low-Power Television Stations**

18. *Eligibility Criteria*. The CBPA provides that an LPTV station may
    qualify for Class A status if, during the 90 days preceding the date
    of enactment of the statute: (1) the station broadcast a minimum of
    18 hours per day; (2) the station broadcast an average of at least 3
    hours per week of programming produced within the market area served
    by the station, or the market area served by a group of commonly
    controlled low-power stations that carry common local programming
    produced within the market area served by such group; (3) the
    station was in compliance with the Commission\'s requirements for
    LPTV stations; and (4) from and after the date of its application
    for a Class A license, the station is in compliance with the
    Commission\'s operating rules for full-power television
    stations.[^37] Alternatively, Section (f)(2)(B) of the CBPA provides
    that a station may qualify for Class A status if "the Commission
    determines that the public interest, convenience, and necessity
    would be served by treating the station as a qualifying low-power
    television station for purposes of this section, or for other
    reasons determined by the Commission."[^38]

19. The statute\'s requirement that, during the 90 days preceding the
    date of enactment of Community Broadcasters Protection Act, LPTV
    stations must have broadcast a minimum of 18 hours/day is
    straightforward. The statute also prescribes that, during this
    period, LPTV stations must have broadcast an average of at least 3
    hours per week of programming produced within the \"market area\"
    served by the station. As the statute does not define \"market
    area,\" we propose to define it as the station\'s protected service
    area. As discussed above, we have proposed to define the Class A
    protected service area as the protected area now afforded LPTV
    stations. We ask commenters to address whether the protected service
    area ultimately adopted by the Commission should also be used to
    define \"market area\" in connection with the local programming
    criterion. With respect to a group of commonly controlled stations,
    we propose to define the \"market area\" of such stations as the
    area covered by the protected service area of all stations in the
    commonly-owned group. We are not inclined to include repeated
    programming or locally produced commercials as contributing to the
    mandatory 3 hours of locally produced programming, and invite
    comment on this tentative conclusion.

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

21. *Alternative Eligibility Criteria*. Section (f)(2)(B) of the CBPA
    permits the Commission to establish alternative eligibility criteria
    for Class A designation if "the Commission determines that the
    public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by
    treating the station as a qualifying low-power television station
    for purposes of this section, or for other reasons determined by the
    Commission."[^39] We invite comment on the circumstances that might
    warrant a determination that a station that does not meet the
    eligibility criteria set forth in section (f)(2)(A) of the statute
    nonetheless should be considered qualified for Class A status. For
    example, under what circumstances should we permit stations that
    fall short with respect to one or more of the statutorily prescribed
    qualification criteria to nonetheless apply for a Class A license
    (*e.g*., a station that has broadcast less than 18 hours/day or less
    than an average of 3 hours/week of programming produced in the
    market during the 90 days preceding enactment of the statute)? If
    so, how far may a station have deviated from these minimum
    requirements to still be considered eligible for Class A status? In
    addition, we invite comment on whether we should establish a
    different set of criteria for certain types of stations, such as
    foreign language stations or translators that have converted to low
    power status, that cannot meet the locally produced programming or
    other statutory eligibility criteria.

**E. Common Ownership**

22. Section (f)(3) of the CBPA provides that no LPTV station "authorized
    as of date of the enactment of the Community Broadcasters Protection
    Act of 1999 may be disqualified for a Class A license based on
    common ownership with any other medium of mass communication."[^40]
    Thus, stations authorized as of November 29, 1999 may seek Class A
    status without regard to the station owner's interest in any other
    media entity. We request comment on the appropriate interpretation
    of this provision. Does the ownership exemption confer a right to
    convert only; that is, does it guarantee only that stations
    authorized as of November 29, 1999 may convert to Class A status
    regardless of other cross media interests held by the owner? In this
    regard, we note that Section (f)(3) states that stations authorized
    as of the date of the Act shall not be "disqualified for a Class A
    license;" that is, that such stations have the right to convert
    regardless of other media interests. Alternatively, does the
    exemption also confer a right to transfer the station regardless of
    the buyer's cross media interests? As the exemption applies to
    "stations" authorized as of November 29, 1999, conversions after
    transfer may be covered, but the statute is less clear as to
    transfers of stations already converted to Class A. Finally, does
    the exemption insulate an owner from application of the common
    ownership rules with respect to any new cross media interests
    acquired after conversion of the LPTV to Class A? We also request
    comment as to what, if any, ownership restrictions should apply to
    LPTV stations authorized after November 29, 1999 and seeking Class A
    status.[^41] The statute and legislative history are silent on this
    point. Our inclination is to treat all LPTV stations seeking Class A
    status equally; thus, no LPTV station, regardless of when
    authorized, would be disqualified from Class A status based on
    common ownership with other media entities.[^42] We invite comment
    on this tentative conclusion.

**F. Issuance of DTV Licenses to TV Translator and LPTV Stations**

23. The CBPA provides that the Commission is not required to issue an
    additional DTV license to a Class A station licensee or to a
    licensee of a TV translator,[^43] but the Commission "shall accept a
    license application for such services proposing facilities that will
    not cause interference to the service area of any other broadcast
    facility applied for, protected, permitted, or authorized on the
    date of filing of the \[DTV\] application."[^44] We seek comment on
    this provision and how to implement it. Does this provision mean
    that the Commission does not need to identify a paired DTV channel
    for each Class A station or TV translator, but that the Commission
    should authorize a paired channel for DTV operation if the Class A
    or TV translator station licensee identifies and applies for an
    acceptable channel? We note that this interpretation might create an
    apparent inequity with respect to full service permittees and
    licensees that do not have a paired DTV channel because they
    received their initial station construction permit after the April
    3, 1997 date used to define eligibility for the initial paired DTV
    licenses.

#########  Interim Qualifications 

24. *Stations Operating Between 698 and 806 Megahertz.* Section
    (f)(6)(A) of the Act provides that the Commission may not grant a
    Class A license to an LPTV station for operation between 698 and 806
    megahertz (television broadcast channels 52 -- 69).[^45] Thus, only
    LPTV stations operating on channels in the core spectrum (television
    broadcast channels 2 through 51) are eligible for Class A status.
    That section also provides, however, that the Commission shall
    provide to LPTV stations assigned to and temporarily operating
    between 698 and 806 megahertz the opportunity to meet the
    qualification requirements for a Class A license. If a qualified
    Class A applicant is assigned a channel within the core spectrum,
    the statute further provides that the Commission shall issue a Class
    A license simultaneously with the assignment of the in-core channel.
    This provision does not address when a station operating outside the
    core channels becomes eligible for contour protection. We are
    inclined to provide protection to such stations only when the
    station is assigned a channel within the core spectrum and the
    Commission issues a Class A license. To provide interference
    protection before the station is assigned an in-core channel appears
    inconsistent with the Act's prohibition on awarding Class A status
    to stations outside the core. We request comment on this proposal.
    We also request comment on whether Class A status and contour
    protection should commence with the grant of a construction permit
    on the in-core channel or a license to cover construction.

25. *Channels Off-Limits.* The Act provides that the Commission may not
    grant a Class A license to an LPTV station operating on any of the
    175 additional channel allotments referenced in paragraph 45 of the
    Commission's February 23, 1998 *Memorandum Opinion and Order on
    Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order* in MM Docket
    87-268.[^46] In that *Order*, the Commission expanded the DTV core
    spectrum to include all channels 2-51, and noted that this expansion
    would add approximately 175 additional channels for DTV stations and
    other new digital data services, many in top markets. The Act
    requires the Commission to identify the channel, location and
    applicable technical parameters of those 175 channels within 18
    months. At this time, we note that these additional 175 DTV
    allotments will be part of the spectrum reclaimed at the end of the
    transition when existing stations end their dual channel analog
    TV/DTV operation and begin providing only DTV service on a single
    channel. Some stations will be continuing DTV operation on their DTV
    channel. Other stations will convert to DTV operation on their
    analog channel. In either case, the channel on which these stations
    discontinue operation may become available for other parties. The
    protection of these DTV allotments that will become available after
    the transition is effectively provided now because either analog TV
    or DTV stations are currently authorized and protected on these
    channels at these locations. We seek comment on our interpretation
    of this provision. Specifically, are other steps necessary to
    protect a particular set of 175 additional DTV channel allotments
    and, if so, how should we go about identifying them? Alternatively,
    should we interpret the CBPA to prohibit the authorization of Class
    A service on TV channels 2-6, which were added to the permanent core
    spectrum in the DTV proceeding?

**H. Class A Interference Protection Requirements**

26. The Act provides that a Class A license or modification of license
    may not be granted where the station would cause interference to
    certain NTSC, DTV, LPTV, and TV translator stations and land mobile
    radio operations.

*NTSC* *TV Protection*.

27. *Operational Stations*. With respect to NTSC facilities, Section
    (f)(7)(A) the CBPA provides that a Class A license or modification
    of license may not be granted where the station will cause
    interference "within the predicted Grade B contour (as of the date
    of enactment of the ...\[CBPA\] ... or as proposed in a change
    application filed on or before such date) of any television station
    transmitting in analog format."[^47] We invite comment on how to
    interpret the phrase \"transmitting in analog format.\" We are
    inclined to include among the NTSC facilities that Class A stations
    must protect both stations actually transmitting in analog format
    and those which have been authorized to construct facilities capable
    of transmitting in analog format (*i.e*., construction permits).
    Under this interpretation, pending applications for new NTSC full
    power stations would not be protected, nor would allotment proposals
    for such facilities, modified allotment proposals for channel or
    other technical changes, or the facilities in modification
    applications filed after November 29, 1999. We request comment on
    this tentative conclusion. In this regard, we note that the statute
    does explicitly protect LPTV and TV translator applications filed
    prior to the date on which a Class A application is filed.[^48]

28. In September 1999, we held our first broadcast auction involving
    mutually exclusive applications for new NTSC stations. Under the
    deadlines established in the CBPA, applications for initial Class A
    licenses are due to be filed by late April 2000. It is unlikely all
    of these new NTSC stations will be authorized as of that date. In
    addition, there are still pending before the Commission applications
    and channel allotment rule making petitions involving channels 60 -
    69 and requests for waiver of the 1987 TV filing freeze, which
    account for approximately 180 potential new NTSC stations. Some of
    these applications have been on file with the Commission for more
    than ten years. We note that these long pending applications are
    protected against new full service analog applications. They would
    not be protected against Class A service under this interpretation
    of the statute.

29. Consistent with the *September 22 Notice*, we propose that
    applicants for Class A stations should protect the NTSC Grade B
    contour in the manner given in Section 74.705 of the LPTV rules.
    LPTV stations have been engineered to protect the Grade B contour of
    full-service stations, and continuation of the current standards
    would be more appropriate than a new and different form of
    interference protection such as minimum distance separations between
    stations. We tentatively conclude that Class A applicants should be
    permitted to utilize all means for interference analysis afforded to
    LPTV stations in the DTV proceeding, including the Longley-Rice
    terrain-dependent propagation model. We invite comment on these
    proposals.

*DTV Protection*.

30. *Service Replication.* With respect to digital television, the
    statute provides that Class A applicants must protect the DTV
    service areas provided in the DTV Table of Allotments and the areas
    protected in the Commission\'s digital television regulations (47
    C.F.R. 73.622(e) and (f)).[^49] Thus, Class A stations may not
    interfere with DTV broadcasters\' ability to replicate insofar as
    possible their NTSC service areas.[^50] Although not addressed in
    the statute, we believe it would be appropriate for Class A
    applicants to determine noninterference to DTV in the same manner as
    applicants for full service NTSC facilities. In this manner, Class A
    facilities would not be permitted to increase the population
    receiving interference within a DTV broadcaster\'s replicated
    service area and any additional area associated with its DTV license
    or construction permit. We would not permit Class A stations to
    cause *de minimis* levels of interference to DTV service, other than
    a 0.5% rounding allowance.[^51] Criteria for protecting DTV service
    are given in Sections 73.622 and 73.623 of our rules and in OET
    Bulletin 69.[^52] We seek comment on these proposals.

31. *New DTV Service.* The CBPA also requires Class A applicants to
    protect the digital television service areas of stations
    subsequently granted by the Commission prior to the filing of a
    Class A application.[^53] We interpret this provision not to apply
    to applications for initial Class A licenses that have filed
    acceptable certifications of eligibility, but rather to applications
    seeking to modify Class A facilities, such as power increases.
    Should we conclude that stations have an ongoing right to convert to
    Class A status, these Class A applicants would face the same
    requirement; that is, they would not be required to protect new DTV
    stations granted by the Commission after the Class A station has
    filed an acceptable certification of eligibility.[^54] Section
    (f)(1)(D) of the Act, which requires the Commission to preserve the
    service areas of LPTV licensees upon certification of eligibility
    except in the case of "technical problems" in connection with DTV
    replication and maximization, does not include an exception to
    service area protection for new DTV service.[^55] We believe that
    the exclusion of new DTV service in section (f)(1)(D) means that new
    DTV entrants must preserve the service areas of LPTV stations that
    have been granted a certification of eligibility. We invite comment
    on this interpretation. Class A applicants who have filed acceptable
    certifications of eligibility also would not be required to protect
    the DTV application and allotment proposals of new DTV entrants. We
    invite comment on these interpretations.

32. *DTV Maximization*. Finally, the statute provides that a Class A
    application for license or license modification may not be granted
    where the proposal would interfere with stations seeking to
    \"maximize power\" under the Commission\'s rules, if such station
    has complied with the notification requirements in section (f)(1)(D)
    of the statute. Section (f)(1)(D) requires that, to be protected
    against Class A applicants, DTV stations must file an application
    for maximization or a notice of intent to seek maximization by
    December 31, 1999, and file a bona fide application for maximization
    by May 1, 2000.[^56] We seek comment on whether the term
    \"maximize\" in the statute refers only to situations in which
    stations seek power and/or antenna height greater than the allotted
    values. Alternatively, does \"maximization\" also refer to stations
    seeking to extend their service area beyond the NTSC replicated area
    by relocating their station from the allotted site?

33. The statutory language is ambiguous regarding the protection to be
    accorded by Class A applicants to DTV stations seeking to replicate
    or maximize power. Section (f)(1)(D), entitled \"Resolution of
    Technical Problems,\" directs the Commission to preserve the service
    areas of LPTV licensees pending final resolution of a Class A
    application. That section further provides that if, after
    certification of eligibility for a Class A license, \"technical
    problems arise requiring an engineering solution to a full-power
    station's allotted parameters or channel assignment in the digital
    television Table of Allotments, the Commission shall make such
    modifications as necessary (1) to ensure replication of the
    full-power digital television applicant's service area ...; and (ii)
    to permit maximization of a full-power digital television
    applicant\'s service area\... \"(if the applicant has complied with
    the notification and application requirements established by that
    section).[^57] Although section(f)(1)(D) appears to tie replication
    and maximization to resolution of technical problems, section (7)
    appears to require all applicants for a Class A license or
    modification of license to demonstrate protection to stations
    seeking to replicate or maximize power, as long as the station
    seeking to maximize has complied with the notification and
    application requirements of (f)(1)(D), without reference to any need
    to resolve technical problems on the part of the DTV station.
    Despite the reference in section (f)(1)(D) to technical problems, we
    believe it would be more consistent with the statutory schemes both
    for Class A LPTV service and for digital full service broadcasting
    to require Class A applicants to protect all stations seeking to
    replicate or maximize DTV power, as provided in section (f)(7)(ii),
    regardless of the existence of "technical problems." Stations
    seeking to maximize must comply with the notification requirements
    in paragraph (f)(1)(D). This interpretation seems most consistent
    with the intent of Congress to protect the ability of DTV stations
    to replicate and maximize service areas. We invite commenters to
    address this proposed interpretation of the statute, and to suggest
    any alternative method of resolving the conflicting references to
    replication and maximization in sections (f)(1)(D) and (f)(7) of the
    statute.

34. Finally, we also seek comment on how the maximization rights in the
    statute can be applied to full power stations that maximize their
    DTV facilities but subsequently move their digital operations to
    their original analog channel after the transition. Some of these
    stations may not be in a position to file maximization applications
    on their analog channels by the deadline prescribed in the
    statute.[^58] Can these stations preserve the right to maximize on
    their analog channels should they revert to those channels at the
    end of the transition? If so, how can the right to replicate the
    station's maximized DTV service area be preserved on the analog
    channel? As a corollary issue, we also seek comment on how the
    maximization allowance in the CBPA applies to full power stations
    for which the DTV channel allotment or both the NTSC and DTV channel
    allotments lie outside the DTV core spectrum (channels 2 - 51). Can
    these stations preserve their right to replicate their maximized DTV
    service area on a new in-core channel once that channel has been
    assigned?

35. *Allotment Adjustments*. As noted above, section (1)(D) of the CBPA
    directs the Commission to preserve the service areas of LPTV
    licensees, upon certification of eligibility, pending final
    resolution of a Class A application. However, that section also
    permits modifications to a full power station\'s allotted parameters
    or channel assignment in the DTV Table of Allotments, where made
    necessary by \"technical problems\" requiring an \"engineering
    solution,\" to ensure both replication and maximization of the DTV
    service area.

36. We discussed in our *September 22 Notice* the issue of channel
    changes and adjustments to station facilities necessary to correct
    unforeseen technical problems among DTV stations. For example, it
    was necessary in some cases to make DTV Table allotments on adjacent
    channels at noncollocated antenna sites in the same markets, which
    raised concerns among broadcasters over possible adjacent channel
    interference.[^59] In addition to changing some of those allotments,
    we stated that we would address these concerns by tightening the DTV
    emission mask and by \'allowing flexibility in our licensing process
    and for modification of individual allotments to encourage adjacent
    channel co-locations\...\"[^60] We also provided broadcasters with
    flexibility to deal with allotment problems, for example, by
    permitting allotment exchanges in the same or adjacent markets.
    Section (1)(D) appears to give full power stations the flexibility
    to make these kinds of necessary adjustments to DTV allotment
    parameters, including channel changes, even after certification of
    an LPTV station's eligibility for Class A status.

37. The statute does not address certain questions regarding DTV
    allotment adjustments, some of which were posed in the *September 22
    Notice*. Should a station requesting an adjustment to the DTV Table
    that would impinge upon the service area of a Class A station be
    required to show that the modification can *only* be made in this
    manner? If the modification requires displacement of the Class A
    station, should the affected Class A be permitted to exchange
    channels with the DTV station, provided it could meet interference
    protection requirements on the exchanged channel?

38. *Protection of LPTV and TV Translators.* The CBPA also requires
    Class A stations to protect previously authorized LPTV and low-power
    TV translator stations (license and/or construction permit), as well
    as previously filed applications for these facilities. Specifically,
    section (f)(7)(B) of the statute provides that the Commission may
    not grant an application for a Class A license or modification of
    license unless the applicant shows that the Class A station will not
    cause interference within the protected contour of any LPTV or
    low-power TV translator station that was licensed, or for which a
    construction permit was issued, or for which a pending application
    was filed, prior to the date the Class A application was filed.[^61]
    We propose, as we did in our *September 22 Notice*, to require that
    Class A stations protect the LPTV and TV translator protected
    contours on the basis of the standards given in Section 74.707 of
    the LPTV rules, *i.e.*, on the basis of compliance with certain
    desired-to-undesired signal strength ratios.

39. Section (f)(7)(C) of the CBPA provides that the Commission may not
    grant a Class A license or modification of license where the Class A
    station will cause interference within the protected contour 80
    miles from the geographic center of the areas listed in section
    22.625(b)(1) or 90.303 of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R. §§
    22.625(b)(1), 90.303) for frequencies in the 470-512 megahertz band
    identified in sections 22.621 or 90.303 of our rules (47 C.F.R. §§
    22.621, 90.303), or in the 482-488 megahertz band in New York. This
    provision protects land mobile radio services which have been
    allocated the use of TV channels 14-20 in certain urban areas of the
    country, as well as Channel 16 in New York City metropolitan area.
    As we did in the *September 22 Notice*, we propose that these land
    mobile operations be protected by Class A applicants in the manner
    prescribed in Section 74.709 of the LPTV rules.

40. We seek comment on whether the requirement to protect channel 16 in
    the New York metropolitan area applies to low power television
    station WEBR-LP, licensed to K Licensee, Inc. for New York City. In
    1995, the Commission adopted an Order granting a conditional waiver
    for public safety land mobile use of Channel 16 in New York
    City.[^62] The waiver was granted for a period of at least five
    years or until any television broadcast licensee in the New York
    City metropolitan area initiated use of channel 16 for DTV
    operations, whichever is longer. The Order, at paragraph 16, stated
    that "the potential for adjacent channel interference to public
    safety operations on Channel 16 from LPTV operations on Channel 17
    can be eliminated through engineering approaches and that Channel 16
    can be utilized by public safety entities despite the close
    proximity of the LPTV operations."[^63] The Commission concluded
    that "We therefore will specify in the grant of the Waiver Request
    that LPTV station W17BM \[now WEBR-LP\] has no responsibility to
    protect land mobile operations on adjacent TV Channel 16 other than
    from spurious emissions that exceed those permitted by our
    rules."[^64] We note that we have no records of complaints of
    interference from Channel 17 to land mobile operations. In a Senate
    colloquy, Senator Burns, the prime sponsor of the Community
    Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999, stated his clarification of the
    meaning of section 5008(f)(7)(C)(ii)of the Bill with Senators
    Moynihan and Hatch. Senator Burns stated that this section was not
    intended to prevent LPTV station WEBR-LP (formerly W17BM) from
    qualifying for a Class A license, because the Commission waiver
    explicitly absolved WEBR-LP from any responsibility to protect the
    channel 16 land mobile operations other than from spurious
    emissions.[^65] Senators Hatch and Moynihan concurred with Senator
    Burns in this regard.[^66] In view of this colloquy, and the terms
    of the conditional grant, we are inclined to agree that station
    WEBR-LP is excepted from the requirement to show interference
    protection to use of channel 16 in the New York City metropolitan
    area. We seek comment in this regard.

41. We invite comment on the various Class A interference protection
    requirements. In particular, we ask whether, under the CBPA, we may
    distinguish for the purpose of interference protection requirements
    between applicants for initial Class A designation and applicants
    for new Class A technical facilities, for example, if we were to
    authorize new facilities by extending Class A filing opportunities
    to new entrants. We note that applications for initial designation
    will be filed by LPTV licensees who have already met the
    interference criteria to protect authorized full-service and other
    stations as a requirement for obtaining their licenses. Moreover, we
    propose that initial Class A applications may not include requests
    to modify these facilities.

**I. Class A Applications**

42. *Initial Class A Licenses.* We propose to grant initial Class A
    status to qualified LPTV stations as a modification of a station's
    license. The statute requires that we award Class A licenses within
    30 days after receipt of acceptable applications.[^67] Accordingly,
    to ensure that we grant Class A licenses in a timely manner, we
    propose that initial Class A applications be limited to the
    conversion of existing facilities to Class A status, with no
    accompanying changes in those facilities. In this manner, there
    should be no possibility of mutual exclusivity between Class A
    conversion applications. Licensed LPTV stations also holding
    construction permits to modify their facilities should file Class A
    applications to modify their licensed facilities. Station licensees
    must subsequently file Class A license applications to cover the
    modified facilities authorized in their construction permits, and
    must provide all required interference protection showings in these
    applications. We also propose that applications for Class A stations
    be accepted for filing on the basis of the "substantially complete"
    acceptance standard used for LPTV applications. Under this standard,
    applicants have an opportunity to correct deficiencies identified by
    the processing staff.

43. *Application Forms.* In the *September 22 Notice* we proposed that
    all Class A applications be filed on FCC Form 301, including all
    required exhibits. Because the initial Class A status will be
    awarded as a modification of license, we ask which license
    application form, full-service FCC Form 302 or LPTV Form 347, would
    be the most appropriate vehicle for this purpose. If the Class A
    service is incorporated under Part 73 of the rules, we propose that
    Class A facilities modification applications be filed on FCC
    Form 301. If it is placed under Part 74, we propose that Class A
    construction permit applications be filed on FCC Form 346. We
    propose to apply to Class A applications the electronic filing
    policies and procedures applicable to the services whose application
    forms are being used for Class A. Initial Class A applications will
    be filed in April 2000, and we envision that at that time Class A
    applicants will have the option to file paper applications if they
    so desire. We invite comment on these matters.

44. *Class A Facilities Changes.* In the *September 22* *Notice*, we
    stated that the current LPTV minor change definition may be too
    restrictive[^68], and we sought a revised definition for Class A
    stations that would permit additional flexibility to change
    facilities outside of filing windows, while also assuring that these
    changes would not interfere with other services.[^69] For the
    reasons given in that *Notice*, we propose to define Class A minor
    facilities modifications more in the manner of full-service TV
    stations. We propose to routinely grant Class A facilities changes
    that meet the current LPTV definition, but would permit other more
    expansive changes on a first-come first-served basis provided the
    proposed facilities would not conflict with previously authorized or
    proposed facilities. Under this approach, Class A stations could
    seek authorization for increased power, up to the limits of the
    service, outside of the window and auction procedures, provided
    their proposals met all interference protection requirements. This
    approach would be more consistent with the minor change provisions
    for full service radio and TV stations and we propose it for Class A
    stations.[^70] Channel changes would continue to be major changes.

45. The statute appears to contemplate facilities changes to Class A
    stations in the future, and provides that the Commission shall not
    grant such applications unless they provide the same protection to
    existing analog television facilities and to DTV service areas that
    an existing LPTV station converting to Class A status must provide*.
    See* Section (f)(7). Among other things, this restriction requires
    that a modification to a Class A station protect the Grade B contour
    of an existing television station as that contour existed on
    November 29, 1999. If this provision alone were applied to Class A
    minor change applications as we have proposed to define them here,
    it would permit a Class A station to implement changes, such as
    substantial power increases, that do not protect the maximum
    facilities of full service stations allowed by the NTSC operating
    rules.

46. This approach was beneficial for LPTV stations because it allowed
    them to increase their facilities, yet had it no real adverse effect
    on full service stations because LPTV stations were all secondary.
    If a full service station were to subsequently seek to improve its
    facilities in a manner inconsistent with the upgraded LPTV station
    facilities, the LPTV station would have to yield if interference was
    caused to the reception of the full service station. Now that Class
    A LPTV stations have gained primary status, however, using "contour
    protection" as a basis for granting changes to their facilities
    could preclude a full service station from increasing its power or
    antenna height in the future. Moreover, if Class A stations may make
    preclusive changes based on protecting only the existing service of
    full service stations rather than their maximum facilities, it may
    not be appropriate to continue to insist that full service stations
    protect one another on the basis of maximum facilities. On the other
    hand, we recognize that, as a practical matter, the proximity of
    full service stations to DTV stations or allotments may permanently
    prevent them from increasing their facilities. In certain congested
    regions of the country many, if not most, NTSC stations may be
    constrained in this manner. Thus, under this approach, applicants
    for Class A facilities increases may be required to protect NTSC
    service areas that could not be achieved through authorized
    facilities, unnecessarily precluding them from increasing their
    facilities or making more difficult the location of replacement
    channels for displaced stations. We invite comment on these issues
    and how we should address them. Should we require Class A stations
    to protect the maximum facilities of full service stations? If so,
    should we apply a reciprocal rule as well based on protection to the
    maximum facilities of Class A stations; i.e., based on the power
    limits in the LPTV service?[^71] That is, should we oblige full
    service stations that seek to change their facilities to protect the
    maximum facilities of a Class A station considering that both
    stations have primary status? If we do require protection of the
    maximum facilities of Class A stations, what LPTV antenna height
    above average terrain should be used for this purpose?

47. Alternatively, should we simply adopt a "first come, first served"
    approach as between Class A and full service stations, as we
    proposed in the *September 22 Notice*, granting the modification
    application of whichever licensee files first? If we were to permit
    Class A modification applications that protect only the actual
    facilities of full service stations, should we permit full service
    stations an opportunity to file modification applications that could
    be mutually exclusive with the Class A application? Similarly,
    should we, despite our proposal that the Class A modification
    applications be considered minor, subject them to a petition to deny
    filing period?

48. We propose that the above provisions also be used for digital Class
    A stations. For example, the on-channel digital conversion of a
    Class A station would be filed as a minor change application.
    Facilities changes for analog or digital Class A stations not
    meeting the definition for minor changes would be subject to filing
    windows and the auction process. We invite comment on how we should
    define major and minor Class A TV facilities changes and on other
    ways to streamline the authorization of Class A TV service. If we
    were to adopt a more inclusive definition of minor facilities
    changes for Class A stations, we would be inclined to apply this
    definition to television translator and non Class A LPTV stations
    due to the technical and application processing similarities between
    the LPTV and proposed Class A services and to provide additional
    flexibility to these stations.

49. *Class A Channel Displacement Relief*. Through additional
    protections for Class A stations, we hope to reduce their risk of
    channel displacement or termination. However, it could be necessary
    for a Class A station to seek operations on a different channel, in
    order to avoid or eliminate an interference conflict. In that event,
    we propose that displaced Class A stations be permitted to apply for
    replacement channels on a first-come, first-served basis, not
    subject to mutually exclusive applications. We believe there is a
    need for displacement relief procedures for Class A stations, and we
    propose to adopt procedures similar to those used in the LPTV
    service, which have worked well over the years.[^72] Class A
    stations causing or receiving interference with NTSC TV, DTV or any
    other service or predicted to cause prohibited interference would be
    entitled to apply for a channel change and/or other related
    facilities changes on a first-come first-served basis. Given the
    protected status of Class A stations and the significant facilities
    changes implicit in displacement applications, we propose that
    displacement applications filed by Class A licensees be treated as
    major changes, with the specific exception that such applications
    would be permitted to be filed at any time that displacement status
    could be demonstrated. Thus, like displacement applications by LPTV
    stations, Class A displacement applications would not have to be
    filed in a window. Applications of Class A stations would not be
    mutually exclusive unless filed on the same day. Mutually exclusive
    applications would be subject to the auction procedures.[^73] We
    seek comment on these matters.

50. The Act provides a priority to LPTV stations that are displaced by
    the facilities proposed in Class A applications, and states that
    these LPTV stations "shall have priority over other low-power
    stations in the assignment of available channels."[^74] We interpret
    this provision to mean that the channel displacement applications of
    LPTV stations displaced by Class A stations would have a higher
    priority than any other nondisplacement LPTV applications. In this
    regard, we note that in the LPTV service, displacement applications
    to avoid DTV interference conflicts are given priority over all
    other types of nondisplacement applications, regardless of when
    these were filed, and we propose to extend this policy to include
    LPTV stations displaced by Class A stations.[^75] We seek comment on
    whether we should adopt a similar policy for prioritizing Class A
    facilities modification applications, and whether some or all of the
    LPTV displacement relief provisions should apply to Class A. Should
    there be a limitation on how far a station should be permitted to
    relocate its antenna site to avoid or eliminate an interference
    conflict or would some form of a minimum coverage requirement
    provide a natural limit on this distance?[^76] Should we consider
    reasons for displacement other than electromagnetic interference,
    such an unavoidable loss of antenna site? The CBPA stipulates that
    we may not grant Class A facilities modification applications that
    do not protect against interference the facilities proposed in
    earlier filed LPTV and TV translator applications.[^77] Thus, we
    apparently cannot grant a processing priority to a Class A
    displacement application over an earlier filed LPTV or TV translator
    application. If a Class A station and a non-Class A LPTV station
    file mutually exclusive displacement applications, should we favor
    the Class A application? In this regard, we believe there may be
    merit to awarding a priority to Class A stations in view of their
    Part 73 regulatory obligations. We invite comment on all of these
    issues.

**J. Other Technical Issues**

51. *Television Channels for Class A Stations.* The CBPA provides that
    Class A station licenses may not be granted to LPTV stations that
    operate between 698 to 806 MHz (TV channels 52-69). In the DTV
    proceeding, channels 2 -51 were established as the permanent
    \"core\" spectrum, permitting the recovery of channels 52 - 59 at
    the end of the DTV transition period. Accordingly, we propose to
    grant Class A status only to qualifying stations authorized on
    channels 2 - 51.

52. *Section 337 of the Communications Act and Channels 60 - 69.* The
    CBPA stipulates that its provisions do not preempt or otherwise
    affect Section 337 of the Communications Act.[^78] Section 337
    addresses two matters relevant to Class A television, the first of
    which involves the reallocation and licensing of TV channels 60-69.
    These channels are not available to Class A stations. Second, it
    contains certain provisions for LPTV stations already authorized to
    operate on TV channels 60-69. In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997
    (\"Budget Act\"),[^79] Congress required that the Commission \"seek
    to assure\" that a qualifying LPTV station authorized on a channel
    from channel 60 to channel 69 be assigned a channel below channel 60
    to permit its continued operation.[^80] In the DTV proceeding, we
    amended our rules to permit all LPTV stations on channels 60 to 69
    to file displacement relief applications requesting a channel below
    channel 60, even where there is no predicted or actual interference
    conflict.[^81] We have received more than 300 hundred applications
    from LPTV and TV translator stations operating on these channels.
    These applications have a higher priority than all other
    nondisplacement applications for LPTV and TV translators, regardless
    of when the applications were filed. Other LPTV and TV translator
    stations on channels 60 - 69 have so far not elected to file
    displacement applications, but may do so at any time provided they
    protect the proposed facilities of earlier-filed displacement
    applications. The Commission has not selected channels for
    qualifying LPTV stations; however, it has provided the opportunity
    for affected stations to seek channels below channel 60 on a
    priority basis. We invite comment on whether the actions we have
    taken in this regard meet the Congressional mandate and what, if
    any, further actions should be taken. Should we give special
    consideration to the processing of displacement applications from
    qualifying stations in the LPTV service seeking to vacate use of a
    channel above channel 59? Should these applications be given
    priority where they are mutually exclusive with other displacement
    applications that do not qualify under the terms of the Budget Act?
    The CPBA does not permit the authorization of Class A stations on
    channels 52-59, while Section 337 provides for these channels as
    replacement channels for LPTV stations on channels 60-69. We see no
    conflict between these provisions and believe that our proposals in
    this proceeding are consistent with both the CPBA and Section 337.
    We invite comments on these matters.

53. We recognize that this spectrum limitation could adversely affect
    stations above channel 51. LPTV and TV translator operators on
    channels 60 - 69 have a presumption of displacement and may seek
    replacement channels at any time without further qualification.
    However, station operators on channels 52 - 59 may seek displacement
    relief only where there is an actual or potential interference
    conflict, including a conflict with a DTV co-channel allotment.
    Nonetheless, these operators face displacement when channels 52 - 59
    are reclaimed, and would be barred from becoming Class A stations if
    they could not secure a replacement channel below channel 52. Thus,
    we ask if the presumption of displacement should be extended to LPTV
    and TV translator stations authorized on these channels, giving
    these operators an immediate opportunity to seek replacement
    channels while such channels might still available. We recognize
    this could lead to additional competition for replacement channels,
    channels that may be needed now by LPTV and translator stations
    facing displacement. We invite comment on whether we should extend a
    presumption of channel displacement to LPTV and TV translator
    stations authorized for channels 52 - 59.

54. *Power Levels*. We believe the current LPTV station power levels are
    sufficient to preserve existing service, and we believe that further
    increases could hinder the implementation of digital television and
    could limit the number of Class A stations that could be authorized.
    Although the CBA petition asked for higher power levels for Class A
    stations, our current belief is that any further power increases
    should await a fuller understanding of the coverage and interference
    potential of full service digital television stations.

55. *Coverage Requirements*. Another issue to be resolved is whether to
    require Class A stations to provide some requisite level of coverage
    over their community. In its amended petition, CBA proposed that a
    certain minimum field strength be placed over at least 75% of the
    community of license. Several commenters opposed this proposal,
    believing that coverage of population was more important than
    geographic area or that a certain percentage (75%) of a station\'s
    minimum field strength contour must be over the station\'s community
    of license. We question whether a minimum coverage requirement
    should be imposed on Class A stations. Such stations may not operate
    with sufficient power to serve large communities, and we have
    expressed reservations about increasing power limits for Class A
    stations beyond the current limits in the LPTV service. Those Class
    A stations that are intended to serve an entire community that is
    otherwise unserved or underserved would appear to have ample
    incentive to provide a requisite level of service to the residents
    of the whole of that community without a Commission requirement to
    do so. Other stations, by their very nature, might intend to serve
    only a narrow segment of their community. We also recognize that
    some LPTV stations do not place a contour over the community named
    on their license. We invite comment on whether we should impose a
    coverage requirement on these stations.

56. We seek comment on whether to require any certain signal level or
    other measure of Class A reception quality to any particular
    geographical area or population. Alternatively, if we do adopt a
    coverage requirement, should it be couched in terms of a certain
    proportion of the Class A station\'s signal contour having to be
    placed over at least some part of its community of license? This
    type of requirement would serve to maintain a connection between the
    Class A station and its community of license without requiring it to
    serve any requisite portion of that community. This would be
    particularly beneficial where the community of license is large and
    the Class A station is intended to serve only a part of it. We seek
    comment on this issue and on what portion of a Class A station\'s
    signal contour, if any, should have to be placed over some part of
    its community of license.

# K. remaining Issues {#k.-remaining-issues .unnumbered}

57. Three remaining issues should be addressed as discussed in the
    earlier NPRM. One issue concerns the format of call signs to be
    issued to Class A stations. As these stations are changing status
    from LPTV to Class A, should they continue to use the suffix "-LP,"
    or should a different call sign scheme be used? Another issue is
    whether Class A transmitters should be certified (similar to the
    previous \"type acceptance\" requirement) or should the less
    stringent Part 73 \"verification\" requirement or some other
    criteria apply? We are inclined to apply the Part 73 verification
    requirement, but seek comment on whether the more stringent
    certification requirement should apply in view of the possibility
    that the transmitter could be used by a station that later chooses
    not to operate with Class A status. Finally, what class of fees
    should apply to Class A applicants? We believe it appropriate to
    classify Class A applications as minor modifications for fee
    purposes. How should Class A stations be considered for the purposes
    of regulatory fees assessed pursuant to Section 9 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended?[^82] We seek comment and
    these and other issues.

**IV. Conclusion**

58. In this *Notice*, we propose regulations to establish a Class A
    television license for qualifying low power television stations in
    accordance with the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999.
    The measure of primary Class A regulatory status afforded in the Act
    will provide stability and a brighter future to many LPTV stations
    that provide valuable local programming services in their
    communities, but without constraining the implementation of the
    digital television service. We seek comment on all of the issues
    raised.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
V.  **Administrative Matters**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
59. *Comments and Reply Comments*. 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 February 10, 2000 and reply
    comments on or before February 22, 2000. We have established these
    relatively short comment periods due to the very short 120 day
    statutory deadline imposed by the CBPA. Moreover, in order to ensure
    that we meet the deadline imposed by Congress, we will not extend
    these comment deadlines. Given the existence of the statute and the
    relative narrowness of some of the issues raised in this *Notice*,
    we believe these deadlines will allow sufficient time for comment.
    Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment
    Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies*. See Electronic
    Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121
    (1998).

60. Comments filed through 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 appear in the caption of this
    proceeding, 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, 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.

61. 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
    appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two
    additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
    All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie
    Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.; TW-A325, Washington, D.C.
    20554.

62. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
    comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to: Wanda
    Hardy, Paralegal Specialist, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., 2-C221,
    Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch
    diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word 97 or
    compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover
    letter and should be submitted in "read only" mode. The diskette
    should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding
    (including the lead docket number in this case (MM Docket No.
    00-10), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of
    submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The
    label should also include the following phrase "Disk Copy -- Not an
    Original." Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings,
    preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, commenters must
    send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor,
    International Transcription Service, Inc., 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.,
    CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 20554.

63. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection
    during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
    Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., CY-A257,
    Washington, D.C. 20554. Persons with disabilities who need
    assistance in the FCC Reference Center may contact Bill Cline
    at (202) 418-0270, (202) 418-2555 TTY, or <bcline@fcc.gov>

64. *Ex Parte Rules*. This proceeding will be treated as a
    permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding,
    subject to the "permit-but-disclose" requirements under section
    1.1206(b) of the rules. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b), as revised. *Ex
    parte* presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with
    Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when
    presentations, *ex parte* or otherwise, are generally prohibited.
    Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that a
    memorandum summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of the
    substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the
    subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of
    the views and arguments presented is generally required. *See* 47
    C.F.R. Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).

65. *Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis*. With respect to this
    *Notice*, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") in
    contained in Appendix A. As required by Section 603 of the
    Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an IRFA of
    the expected impact on small entities of the proposals contained in
    this *Notice*. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. In
    order to fulfill the mandate of the Contract with America
    Advancement Act of 1996 regarding the Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis, we ask a number of questions in our IRFA regarding the
    prevalence of small business in the television broadcasting
    industry. Comments on the IRFA must be filed in accordance with the
    same filing deadlines as comments on the *Notice*, but they must
    have a distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
    The Reference Information Center, Consumer Information Bureau, will
    send a copy of this *Notice*, including the IRFA, to the Chief
    Counsel of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in
    accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
    Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. (1981), as
    amended.

66. *Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis*. This *Notice* may
    contain either proposed or modified information collections subject
    to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Pub. L. No. 104-13.
    Any new or modified information collections will be submitted to the
    Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for emergency clearance under
    Section 3507(j) of the PRA upon adoption of final rules in this
    proceeding.

67. *Additional Information.* For additional information on this
    proceeding, please contact Keith Larson, Office of the Bureau Chief,
    Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2600, or Kim Matthews, Policy and Rules
    Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2154.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
VI. **Ordering Clauses**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
68. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained
    in sections 4(i), 303, 307, and 336(f) of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303, 307, 336(f) this *Notice
    of Proposed Rule Making* is ADOPTED.

69. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Reference Information
    Center, Consumer Information Bureau, shall send a copy of this
    Notice, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
    the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
    in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

70. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MM Docket No. 99-292, RM-9260 is
    terminated.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Magalie Roman Salas
>
> Secretary

.

**APPENDIX A**

**INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 603
("RFA"), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis ("IRFA") of the possible economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in this *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*
("*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. The Commission will send a
copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
In addition, the Notice and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register*. See id*.

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

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

**Legal Basis**

This *Notice* is adopted pursuant to the Community Broadcasters
Protection Act of 1999 and to sections 4(i), 303, 307, and 336(f) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § § 154(i), 303, 307,
336(f).

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act defines the term "small entity" as having
the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization,"
and "small business concern" under section 3 of the Small Business
Act.[^83] A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.[^84]

[Small TV Broadcast Stations]{.underline}. The SBA defines small
television broadcasting stations as television broadcasting stations
with \$10.5 million or less in annual receipts.[^85]

As directed by the CBPA, the *Notice* would establish a Class A
television license available to licensees of qualifying LPTV stations.
According to the Commission staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc.,
Master Access Television Analyzer Database, virtually all LPTV broadcast
stations have revenues of less than \$10.5 million. Currently, there are
approximately 2,200 licensed LPTV stations.[^86] We note, however, that
under SBA's definition, revenues of affiliates that are not LPTV
stations should be aggregated with the LPTV station revenues in
determining whether a concern is small. 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.

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

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

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

The *Notice* solicits comment on a number of proposals that would limit
the impact of the proposed rules on LPTV stations seeking to convert to
Class A. For example, the *Notice* states that the Commission intends to
except Class A licensees from Part 73 rules that clearly cannot apply,
either due to technical differences in the operation of low-power and
full-power stations, or for other reasons, and invites comment on which
Part 73 requirements cannot apply to Class A or must be modified to
apply to these stations. In addition, the Commission also seeks comment
on the circumstances that might warrant considering for a Class A
license stations that fall short with respect to one or more of the
statutorily prescribed Class A qualification criteria.

**Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules**

None.

[^1]: ^?^ Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999, Section 5008 of
    Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999), Appendix I, *codified
    at* 47 U.S.C. § 336(f). The CBPA was enacted as part of the
    Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999,
    which itself is part of a larger consolidated omnibus appropriations
    bill entitled "Making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal
    year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes."

[^2]: ^?^ *Notice of Proposed Rule Making, In the Matter of
    Establishment of a Class A Television Service*, MM Docket No.
    99-292, RM-9260, FCC 99-257 (*rel*. Sept. 29, 1999).

[^3]: ^?^ The petition was filed on September 30, 1997, and amended on
    March 18, 1998. On April 21, 1998, the Commission gave public notice
    of the filing of the petition and amendment and sought public
    comment. *Public Notice* (No. 82996), \"Petition for Rulemaking
    Filed for \"Class A\" TV Service\" (RM-9260), April 21, 1998.

[^4]: ^?^ We have already suspended the comment cycle in our earlier
    proceeding. *See Order*, MM Docket 99-292 , RM-9260, FCC 99-389,
    *rel*. December 14, 1999. Parties who filed comments in response to
    our *September 22 Notice* who wish to have those comments considered
    herein should refile the comments in this proceeding.

[^5]: ^?^ *Report and Order* in BC Docket No. 78-253, 51 R.R. 2d 476,
    486 (1982). *See also id.* at n. 23: \"\[Because\] it is integral to
    the concept of a secondary service that it yield to a mutually
    exclusive primary service, we shall not take low power stations into
    account in authorizing full service stations, and we urge low power
    applicants to consider this fact when they select channels.\"

[^6]: ^?^ *Public Notice*, \"Broadcast Station Totals as \[of\]
    September 30, 1999" (*rel*. November 22, 1999).

[^7]: ^?^ 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.*, channels14 through 69). By comparison, full-service
    stations on VHF channels radiate up to 316 kilowatts of power, and
    stations on the UHF channels radiate up to 5,000 kilowatts of power.
    LPTV signals typically extend to a range of approximately 15 to 20
    miles, while the signals of full-service stations can reach as far
    as 60 to 80 miles away.

[^8]: ^?^ *See* *First Report and Order, In the Matter of Review of the
    Commission's Rules Governing the Low Power Television Service*, MM
    Docket No. 93-114, 9 FCC Rcd 2555 (1994)("*LPTV First Report and
    Order*"). *See also* Comments of Free Life Ministries, Inc. at 1.
    References to comments pertain to comments filed in response to the
    *Public Notice* (No. 82996) of the filing of the CBA petition for
    rule making.

[^9]: ^?^ Comments of D Lindsey Communications at 1(noting that its LPTV
    station is the only station providing local news for residents of
    Temecula and Murrietta, CA, both of which are within the Los Angeles
    DMA). *See also* Comments of Engle Broadcasting at 1-2.

[^10]: ^?^ *LPTV First Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 2555 (1994). *See
    also* Comments of Community Broadcasting Company of San Diego at 2;
    Hispanic Broadcasters of AZ, Inc. at 1; Channel 19 TV Corp. at 2;
    ZGS Broadcast Holding, Inc. at 1; National Minority T.V., Inc. at 1;
    Liberty University, Inc. at 2; Debra Goodworth, Turnpike Television
    at 1-2.

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

[^12]: ^?^ Section-by-Section Analysis to S. 1948, the Act known as the
    "Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of
    1999," as printed in the Congressional Record of November 17, 1999
    at pages S 14708 -- 14726 ("Section-by-Section Analysis") , at p. S
    14724.

[^13]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^14]: ^?^ *Id.* at S 14724 -- 14725. TV translator stations may be
    affected to a lesser extent, given that most are distantly located
    from full service stations or are terrain-shielded from them. For
    instance, in the DTV proceeding the Commission estimated that
    approximately 55 to 65 percent of existing LPTV stations and 80 to
    90 percent of all TV translators would be able to continue to
    operate and that operations in or near major urban areas would be
    most affected. *Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, MM
    Docket No. 87-268, 11 FCC Rcd 10968 (1996).

[^15]: ^?^ In addition, approximately 260 LPTV stations operate on a
    channel from channel 60-69 and are required by law to vacate these
    channels by the end of the DTV transition period or earlier if they
    cause interference to primary services using these channels.

[^16]: ^?^ *See* *September 22 Notice* at ¶¶ 9-14.

[^17]: ^?^ Section-by-Section Analysis at S14725.

[^18]: ^?^ *Id*. at S14724.

[^19]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(A). These regulations must be in place
    by March 28, 2000.

[^20]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(B). The CBPA directs that this notice
    be sent within 30 days of the date of enactment. On December 13,
    1999, the Mass Media Bureau issued a *Public Notice* informing the
    public of the statute and the eligibility requirements. *Public
    Notice*, \"Mass Media Bureau Implements Community Broadcasters
    Protection Act of 1999,\" *rel.* December 13, 1999. The Commission
    has also mailed to every LPTV licensee a \"Statement of Eligibility
    for Class A Low Power Television Station Status.\" Licensees
    intending to convert to Class A status have been directed to
    complete the statement and return it to the Commission by January
    28, 2000.

[^21]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(B).

[^22]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(C).

[^23]: ^?^ The provision governing filing of Class A applications does
    not contain the same mandatory language. It states that licensees
    "may" submit an application for Class A designation within 30 days
    after final regulations are adopted. 47 U.S.C. § 336 (f)(1)(C).

[^24]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336 (f)(2)(B).

[^25]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(D).

[^26]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 74.707(a).

[^27]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 73.622(e) .

[^28]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(D).

[^29]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. §§ 336(f)(2)(qualifying LPTV stations); 336
    (f)(1)(B) (certification).

[^30]: ^?^ Senator Conrad Burns, a sponsor of the Community Broadcasters
    Protection Act in the Senate, introduced a statement on the Senate
    floor clarifying the issue of when an LPTV station's contour should
    be preserved. He stated in part: "It is clearly our intent that as
    soon as the Commission is in receipt of an acceptable certification
    notice, it should protect the contours of this station until final
    resolution of that application." See District of Columbia
    Appropriations Act, 2000 --Conference Report Resumed, Congressional
    Record of November 19, 1999 at. p. S14989.

[^31]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(2)(B).

[^32]: 47 C.F.R. 74.705. This rule provides a number of interference
    protection standards depending on the channel relationship between
    the proposed and protected facilities. Threshold
    desired-to-undesired signal strength ratios are provided for
    facilities using the same channel and 1^st^ adjacent channels and
    for proposed facilities 14 and 15 channels above the channel of the
    protected facilities. In addition, minimum station separation
    distances apply to facilities using channels separated by 2, 3, and
    4 channels and where the proposed facilities specify a channel that
    is 7 channels below that of the protected facilities.

[^33]: This is the manner in which LPTV application proposals must
    protect authorized DTV service. *See* 47 C.F.R. 74.706

[^34]: Prescribed in Sections 73.622 and 73.623 of the Commission's
    Rules and as described in OET Bulletin 69.

[^35]: ^?^ The interference protection requirements in Sections 74.705
    and Section 74.707 are similar in most respects. Because of the
    secondary status of LPTV stations, certain protection requirements
    to full-service stations in Section 74.705 do not apply to
    protection among LPTV and TV translator stations in Section 74.707;
    for example, 14^th^ adjacent channel protection.

[^36]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(E).

[^37]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. §336(f)(2)(A).

[^38]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. §336(f)(2)(B).

[^39]: 47 U.S.C. §336(f)(2)(B).

[^40]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(3).

[^41]: ^?^ LPTV and TV translator stations are not subject to multiple
    ownership restrictions. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.732(b).

[^42]: ^?^ As a practical matter, there may be few LPTV stations
    eligible for Class A status authorized after the date of enactment,
    unless we conclude that we will continue to permit LPTV stations to
    convert to Class A after the filing period established in the
    CBPA*.*

[^43]: ^?^ TV translators rebroadcast the programs of full service TV
    stations. In most respects, translators are technically equivalent
    to LPTV stations and are licensed in the same manner. Currently,
    there are approximately 4,900 licensed TV translators, most
    operating in the western mountainous regions of the country. *Public
    Notice*, \"Broadcast Station Totals as \[of\] September 30, 1999"
    (*rel*. November 22, 1999). Translators deliver free over-the-air
    television service, mostly to rural communities that cannot directly
    receive the nearest TV stations because of distance or intervening
    terrain obstructions. They also provide "fill-in" service to
    terrain-obstructed areas within a full service station's service
    area.

[^44]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(4).

[^45]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(6)(A).

[^46]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(6)(B). *See* *Memorandum Opinion and Order
    on Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order, In the Matter of
    Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing
    Television Broadcast Service*, MM Docket No. 87-268, 13 FCC Rcd 7418
    (1998).

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

[^48]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(7)(B).

[^49]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(7)(A)(ii)(I), (II).

[^50]: ^?^ Service areas to be replicated approximate the areas within
    the NTSC Grade B service contours. DTV channels and associated
    allotment powers and antenna heights were chosen to achieve service
    area replication insofar as possible. Allotment parameters are
    specified in Appendix B of the second DTV reconsideration order.
    *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth
    and Sixth Report and Orders* in MM Docket No. 87-268, 64 FR 4322
    (1998).

[^51]: ^?^ In the DTV proceeding, we permitted DTV stations in the
    initial allotment table to decrease by two percent the populations
    served by NTSC and other DTV stations, not to exceed a total
    reduction of more than ten percent. Unlike this DTV allowance,
    applicants seeking facilities modifications of full service NTSC
    stations may not cause any additional interference to DTV service,
    other than a 0.5% reduction in service population to account for
    rounding and calculation tolerances. *See Memorandum Opinion and
    Order on Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order* in MM Docket
    No. 87-268, 13 FCC Rcd 7418 (1998).

[^52]: ^?^ OET Bulletin 69, Longley-Rice Methodology for Evaluating TV
    Coverage and Interference (July 2, 1997), available at FCC Internet
    address http:\\\\www. fcc.gov\\oet\\info\\documents\\bulletins\\#69.
    *See* also the Mass Media Bureau Public Notice "Additional
    Application Processing Guidelines for Digital Television (DTV),"
    August 10, 1998.

[^53]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(7)(A)(ii)(III).

[^54]: ^?^ The details of when these certifications would be filed
    remain to be resolved if the Commission concludes that stations will
    have an ongoing right to convert to Class A status.

[^55]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(D).

[^56]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. §§ 336(f)(1)(D). The deadline for filing a notice
    of intent to maximize, December 31, 1999, has passed.

[^57]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(D).

[^58]: ^?^ This issue was raised in a letter dated December 29, 1999 to
    H. John Morgan, Assistant Chief (Engineering), Video Services
    Division, from Jonathan D. Blake.

[^59]: ^?^ *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of Sixth
    Report and Order, supra*, at ¶ 95.

[^60]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^61]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(7)(B).

[^62]: ^?^ *In the Matter of Waiver of Parts 2 and 90 of the
    Commission's Rules to Permit New York Metropolitan Area Public
    Safety Agencies to Use Frequencies at 482-488 MHz on a Conditional
    Basis*. 10 FCC Rcd 4466 (1995).

[^63]: ^?^ 10 FCC Rcd at 4468.

[^64]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^65]: Congressional Record -- U.S. Senate at S14989, November 19, 1999.

[^66]: *Id.*

[^67]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(C).

[^68]: The LPTV service rules define \"minor\" changes to be changes to
    existing facilities such as an antenna site relocation of less than
    200 meters or, more generally, any changes (other than a channel
    change) that do not extend a station\'s protected signal contour in
    any direction. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3572(a).

[^69]: *September 22* *Notice* at paras 54-57.

[^70]: We recently altered the definitions of \"major\" and \"minor\"
    facilities changes for the AM, Noncommercial FM and FM translator
    services so that fewer changes are regarded as major. *See Report
    and Order* in MM Docket 98-93, 64 FR 19498 (1999). Most facilities
    modifications in the FM and TV services are now considered minor.

[^71]:

[^72]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3572(a)(2).

[^73]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(14)(C).

[^74]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(8).

[^75]: As a practical matter, we do expect many instances of LPTV
    station displacement by Class A stations because of the requirement
    that proposed Class A stations must show interference protection
    within the protected contours of LPTV stations licensed before the
    filing date of the Class A application.

[^76]: LPTV stations displaced by interference conflicts with analog TV
    service are permitted to relocate their sites within 16 kilometers;
    there is no relocation restriction to resolve DTV conflicts.

[^77]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(7)(B).

[^78]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(5).

[^79]: Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, §3004 (1997), adding new
    section number 337(e) to the Communications Act.

[^80]: Section 337(f)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    establishes criteria for qualifying LPTV stations. The
    qualifications are: the station broadcast a minimum of 18 hours per
    day; the station broadcast an average of at least 3 hours per week
    of programming that was produced within the market area served by
    the station; and, the station was in compliance with the
    requirements applicable to low-power television stations.

[^81]: *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Sixth
    Report and Order*, *supra* at 7465-66.

[^82]: 47 U.S.C. § 159.

[^83]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)(1980).

[^84]: 5 U.S.C. § 632.

[^85]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (SIC Code 4833).

[^86]: *Public Notice*, "Broadcast Station Totals as \[of\] September
    30, 1999" (*rel*. November 22, 1999).