Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of

Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz 
Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the 
Commission's Rules

Carriage of the Transmissions of Digital 
Television Broadcast Stations

Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies 
Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)



WT Docket No. 99-168


CS Docket No. 98-120


MM Docket No. 00-39



ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION OF THE THIRD REPORT AND ORDER

Adopted:  September 7, 2001	Released: September 17, 2001

By the Commission:  Commissioners Tristani and Copps concurring and issuing separate statements; 
Commissioners Abernathy and Martin issuing separate statements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading	Paragraph #
I.	INTRODUCTION	1
II.	BACKGROUND	2
III.	DISCUSSION	7
A.	DTV Construction Deadlines For Single-Channel Broadcasters	7
B.	Interference Protection Standards	12
C.	DTV Replication Policy	17
D.	Other Matters Relating to Early, Voluntary Band Clearing	21
1.	Spectrum Clearing Alliance's Comprehensive Band-Clearing Plan	22
2.	Expedited Processing of Regulatory Requests	26
3.	Proposal to Relax Waiver Policies	30
4.	Treatment of Pending Channel 59-69 Applicants	32
5.	Other Band Clearing Approaches	34
IV.	PROCEDURAL MATTERS	36
A.	Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act	36
B.	Alternative Formats	37
C.	Further Information	38
V.	ORDERING CLAUSES	39
APPENDIX:	 PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION, COMMENTS, REPLY 
COMMENTS, AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS

I. INTRODUCTION
1. By this Order on Reconsideration of the Third Report and Order, we resolve petitions 
for reconsideration and clarification of the Third Report and Order in this proceeding ("Upper 
700 MHz Third Report and Order").   We generally affirm the decisions we reached in the Upper 
700 MHz Third Report and Order, although we make certain adjustments to the rules and 
policies adopted in this proceeding and the related digital television ("DTV") proceeding to 
accommodate the implementation of voluntary band-clearing agreements among incumbent 
broadcasters and new licensees in the 746-806 MHz ("Upper 700 MHz") band, which is 
currently occupied by TV Channels 60-69.  We also reject arguments by a petitioner seeking to 
reverse our decisions on interference issues, and clarify certain aspects of the applicable 
interference standards. 
II. BACKGROUND
2. With the Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, we completed the adoption of 
policies to facilitate voluntary clearing of the spectrum currently used for TV Channels 59-69 to 
allow for the introduction of new wireless services and to promote the transition of incumbent 
analog television licensees to DTV service.   The Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order 
provided additional guidance regarding the Commission's review of regulatory requests filed in 
connection with voluntary private band-clearing agreements.   In particular, the Upper 700 MHz 
Third Report and Order extended the general rebuttable presumption previously adopted in favor 
of bilateral agreements (between new 700 MHz wireless licensees and incumbent Channel 59-69 
broadcasters) to three-way agreements (which would provide for TV incumbents on television 
Channels 59-69 to agree with new 700 MHz wireless licensees to relocate to lower band TV 
channels that, in turn, would be voluntarily cleared by the lower band TV incumbents).   The 
Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order also provided guidance on interference issues that may 
arise from a proposal to relocate a broadcast operation to a channel below Channel 59, and 
adopted various procedural changes in order to streamline the process of reviewing regulatory 
requests needed to effectuate private band-clearing agreements.  
3. In this proceeding, the Commission has enunciated a policy of facilitating the 
clearance of the Upper 700 MHz band to the extent that incumbent broadcasters and new 700 
MHz licensees voluntarily negotiate agreements toward that end.  The Commission has 
previously found that "[v]oluntary agreements have the potential of facilitating both the provision 
of next-generation and Internet wireless services and the transition to DTV by these incumbent 
broadcast stations."   The Commission has recognized that "[t]he overall effect of voluntary 
agreements that result in an infusion of capital to incumbent broadcasters, should . be a 
strengthening of the free, over-the-air DTV service ultimately provided by Channel 59-69 
incumbents."   In addition, the expeditious recovery of the 700 MHz television spectrum for use 
in providing other services, as mandated by Congress, will further the broad public interest in 
intensive and efficient use of the radio spectrum.   Thus, the Commission has recognized that 
"both the transition to DTV and clearance of this spectrum will generally be furthered, not 
frustrated by such voluntary agreements."   This policy favoring voluntary band-clearing 
arrangements derives from our belief that private parties generally are the best evaluators of their 
own economic circumstances and alternatives and that the Commission should not attempt to 
second guess private business decisions.   The Commission observed in a previous order in this 
proceeding: 
Our underlying policy premise is that voluntary agreements can provide 
supplemental resources to broadcasters that will both expedite their transition to 
DTV and strengthen their economic viability, as well as enable earlier delivery of 
new wireless services, but the private parties should determine for themselves, in 
light of specific circumstances, when the economic case is made.  When the 
private parties are satisfied, therefore, we will be inclined to grant regulatory 
requests arising from such private commercial arrangements, provided the 
requests do not, on balance, have adverse public policy consequences.   

We have thus viewed our primary role to be assessing the effect on the public interest of 
regulatory requests in connection with such agreements.   Our belief in the efficacy of market-
based forces also led us to conclude that it is not necessary or appropriate at this time to adopt 
cost-sharing rules, cost caps, or cost recovery guidelines to assist in clearing the Upper 700 MHz 
band, and to leave cost-sharing arrangements to voluntary negotiations among new wireless 
licensees.   Similarly, we have left the implementation of any process by which broadcasters and 
new wireless licensees reach band-clearing agreements, including any secondary auction process, 
to private, voluntary efforts.  We have stated that these processes must be consistent with 
Commission policies and rules and must not interfere with the integrity and operations of the 
Commission's spectrum auctions. 

4. The Commission has received three petitions for reconsideration of the Upper 700 
MHz Third Report and Order.   One petition was filed by Spectrum Clearing Alliance ("SCA"), 
which is led by Paxson Communications Corporation and joined by a number of other 
broadcasters having existing analog TV operations on Channels 60-69 as well as by other parties 
interested in band clearing.   SCA states in its petition that it is developing a comprehensive, 
private band-clearing plan that would be a "definitive framework for clearing the 700 MHz 
band."   SCA asserts that the adoption by the Commission of certain procedural and DTV policy 
changes would facilitate early clearing and provide certainty to prospective bidders that the 
Channel 59-69 spectrum will be cleared by a certain date.   One signatory of the SCA Petition, 
Spectrum Exchange Group, LLC ("Spectrum Exchange"), which has expressed an interest in 
serving as an intermediary to facilitate SCA's clearing scheme, also filed a separate petition in 
support of the SCA plan. 
5. The Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. ("MSTV") also filed a 
petition, primarily seeking reconsideration of our decision in the Upper 700 MHz Third Report 
and Order not to adopt a new "no interference" standard that would prohibit any new involuntary 
interference to existing licensees.   MSTV also seeks clarification of the appropriate interference 
standard to be used for protection of DTV allotments and facilities from modified analog 
operations.   Finally, MSTV requests that the Commission rule out the possibility that other 
types of band-clearing policies might be adopted in the future and express "an unqualified 
commitment to voluntary band clearing." 
6. Because these petitions were filed within six months of the then-scheduled start of 
the auction of commercial licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band (Auction No. 31, the auction of 
licenses in the 747-762 and 777-792 MHz band),  an expedited pleading schedule was 
established to give the Commission an opportunity to provide timely guidance regarding these 
issues to prospective bidders and incumbent broadcasters in advance of Auction No. 31. 
III. DISCUSSION
A. DTV Construction Deadlines For Single-Channel Broadcasters 
7. Background.  The Commission initially adopted a DTV construction schedule that 
requires rapid build-out of digital broadcast facilities, among other reasons, to "ensure that 
recovery of broadcast spectrum occurs as quickly as possible."   The DTV construction 
deadlines are set forth in Section 73.624(d) of the Commission's rules.   According to the 
remaining deadlines, those commercial television broadcasters that have not yet constructed their 
authorized digital facilities must do so by May 1, 2002, and noncommercial broadcasters must 
complete their DTV facilities by May 1, 2003.   Consistent with this plan, the Upper 700 MHz 
Third Report and Order stated that, if a broadcaster is left with only a single analog allotment as 
a result of a voluntary band-clearing agreement, it must convert to DTV by the deadline set forth 
in Section 73.624(d). 
8. SCA seeks reconsideration of the Commission's decision in the Upper 700 MHz 
Third Report and Order to require broadcasters that are left with a single channel as a result of a 
band-clearing arrangement to comply with the current DTV construction deadlines.  In its 
petition, SCA requested that the Commission permit an incumbent broadcaster participating in an 
arrangement that clears an allotment in the Channels 59-69 band and leaves that broadcaster with 
only a single channel to remain in analog operation beyond the DTV construction deadline and to 
convert to digital at any time during the DTV transition.   SCA points out that this approach 
would be consistent with the Commission's decision in the DTV proceeding to afford those 
stations that were not allotted a paired channel the flexibility to convert to digital operation at a 
later stage in the DTV transition.    SCA contends that, due to the limited number of stations that 
would be affected, delaying their conversion to digital would not have an impact on the 85% 
market penetration trigger in Section 309(j)(14)(B) of the Communications Act that defines the 
end of the DTV transition period.   SCA also asserts that, by allowing such stations the 
discretion to convert to DTV at any time up until the end of the DTV transition, single-channel 
broadcasters would minimize service losses.  In a subsequent ex parte submission, SCA now 
proposes that such single-channel broadcasters be permitted to continue to operate in analog 
"until December 31, 2005 or when 70% of the television households in their markets are capable 
of receiving digital broadcast signals over-the-air." 
9. Discussion.  Upon review of the arguments presented, we agree with SCA, Spectrum 
Exchange, and Ericsson that a broadcaster that gives up one of its channels to accommodate band 
clearing should have the flexibility to convert to DTV at a later stage in the transition period.   
We note that all of the commenters addressing this subject support the proposal to afford such 
broadcasters greater flexibility in timing their conversion to digital operations,  and no parties 
have objected.  This approach is consistent with the policy applied to pending TV applicants not 
deemed eligible for a second 6-megahertz channel because their analog TV applications were not 
granted by the DTV eligibility date.   Under our existing DTV policy, broadcasters that were not 
eligible for an initial DTV paired license and therefore have only a single allotment are subject to 
the three-year construction period for analog stations, and may, upon application to the 
Commission, convert their analog facility to digital at any point up to the end of the DTV 
transition period. 
10. Accordingly, we find that the DTV conversion process as a whole will not be 
significantly retarded by affording this limited group of broadcasters the flexibility to complete 
their digital conversion at a later date.    Under the policy we adopt today, if a broadcaster gives 
up one of its channels to accommodate band clearing (pursuant to Commission authorization), 
that single-channel broadcaster may continue to operate in analog until December 31, 2005.   
Moreover, if such single-channel broadcaster seeks an extension of this deadline and is able to 
demonstrate that less than 70% of the television households in its market are capable of receiving 
digital broadcast signals, we will presume that such request is in the public interest.   Because 
the number of Channel 59-69 stations is small and because stations with low viewership may be 
more likely to give up their second allotment, extending the DTV construction deadline for these 
single-channel broadcasters should not have a significant effect on the broadcast industry's 
ability to meet the 85% consumer penetration target set forth in Section 309(j)(14)(B) of the 
Act.   Thus, we find that the benefits of relief from the upcoming DTV construction deadline for 
this group of broadcasters outweigh the potential risk that such limited relief may delay the DTV 
transition.
11. Our decision is made in furtherance of the Commission's existing policies in favor of 
facilitating the possibility of early clearing of the Upper 700 MHz spectrum.   The 
Commission's voluntary band-clearing policies have been established pursuant a statutory 
scheme which directs the Commission to reallocate the Channel 60-69 spectrum to new 
commercial and public safety services, assign commercial licenses by competitive bidding, and 
clear all broadcast television licensees from the band.   We take this approach with the intent 
that broadcasters continue to make progress toward achieving the DTV construction goals and 
penetration targets while also carrying out our band-clearing goals.  We also note that we are 
requiring such broadcasters to construct their digital facilities prior to the end of the DTV 
transition period. Further, by affording these particular single-channel broadcasters such 
flexibility in scheduling their conversion, this policy will not only promote early clearing of this 
band, but will also help assure that the public's radio spectrum resource is put to its highest and 
most valued use. 
B. Interference Protection Standards
12. Background.  The Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order confirms our intention to 
review license modification applications associated with band-clearing arrangements under 
established DTV protection criteria.   Among those criteria are provisions that specifically allow 
certain levels of de minimis interference from proposed DTV stations to nearby full-service TV 
and DTV facilities.   Under our de minimis interference allowance, non-conforming DTV 
applications may be permitted where interference will affect less than two percent of the 
population served by another analog or DTV station (provided that no new interference may be 
caused to a station already predicted to receive interference from all other broadcasters to ten 
percent or more of its population).   The Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order rejected a 
proposal by MSTV and other broadcast interests seeking the adoption of a new "no interference" 
standard that would prohibit any new involuntary interference to existing licensees. 
13. MSTV seeks reconsideration of this decision.  MSTV argues that "the Commission 
has effectively taken a de minimis source interference standard designed to address one particular 
problem (the need to facilitate DTV implementation) and applied it to a completely different 
problem (the need to clear space in the 700 MHz band) without articulating any coherent reason 
for doing so."   Further, MSTV claims that the use of the DTV de minimis interference standard 
in the band-clearing context has a negative effect on the public's interest in free, over-the-air 
television while offering no offsetting, broadcast-related benefits. Finally, MSTV urges the 
Commission to clarify that the DTV two percent de minimis interference allowance does not 
extend to analog license modification applications. 
14. Discussion.  We disagree with the premise of MSTV's argument, and affirm the 
policies announced in the Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order.  MSTV's argument is 
premised on its belief that issues associated with clearing of the Upper 700 MHz band are 
"completely different" from those of the DTV transition.   MSTV fails to recognize that the 
process of clearing the Upper 700 MHz band has long been an integral part of the DTV transition 
process.  For example, in the DTV Sixth Further Notice, the Commission stated that "the recovery 
of spectrum continue[s] to be a key component of our implementation of DTV service."   
Contrary to MSTV's assertion, the policies outlined in the Upper 700 MHz Third Report and 
Order do not extend the de minimis interference protection criteria to a new or different problem. 
 Rather, the Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order simply clarified that DTV broadcasters 
participating in band-clearing arrangements could continue to benefit from the flexibility allowed 
under the DTV technical rules. 
15. The Commission's DTV interference protection standards are based on our 
recognition that a "de minimis standard for permissible new interference is needed to provide 
flexibility for broadcasters in the implementation of DTV," a process which includes recovery 
and clearing of spectrum currently used for television service.   The Upper 700 MHz Third 
Report and Order notes that "[t]he record in this proceeding contains no basis for the 
Commission to conclude that a departure from established DTV interference protection criteria is 
warranted."   We find nothing in MSTV's petition that provides any basis to change our DTV 
interference protection policies, and therefore reject MSTV's arguments in this regard.
16. In urging the Commission to clarify that the DTV two percent de minimis 
interference allowance does not extend to analog license modification applications, MSTV 
contends that the Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order has created an ambiguity about the 
circumstances in which the DTV two percent de minimis interference limit applies.   The Upper 
700 MHz Third Report and Order did not change the interference standards for analog proposals 
to protect DTV service.  Applicants seeking modifications of full-service analog TV 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.  
C. DTV Replication Policy 
17.  Background.   One of the Commission's goals in designing the initial DTV Table of 
Allotments was to design DTV service areas that would, to the greatest extent possible, allow 
each broadcaster to provide DTV service to a geographic area that is comparable to its existing 
NTSC service area.   This replication goal meant that each DTV channel allotment was chosen 
to best allow its DTV service to match the Grade B service contour of the NTSC station with 
which it was paired.   Implicit in the replication goal is the Commission's expectation that DTV 
stations will eventually be constructed with "full-replication" facilities.   In the initial stages of 
the DTV transition, each DTV facility will be entitled to interference protection to its existing 
and authorized DTV contour,  as well as to its April 1997 NTSC Grade B service area.   
Although the Commission considered whether broadcasters should be required to replicate fully 
their analog service areas with DTV coverage,  the Commission decided in its recent DTV 
Biennial Review Order not to require full replication of analog facilities with DTV.   Instead, the 
Commission decided that it would "cease to give interference protection to [broadcasters'] 
unreplicated service area as of December 31, 2004."   Thus, by December 31, 2004, commercial 
DTV licensees must either be on-the-air replicating their April 1997 NTSC Grade B service area 
or lose interference protection to the unreplicated portion of this service area outside the noise-
limited signal contour.   As we explained in that order, by eliminating such protection for 
broadcasters that do not replicate their analog service areas, we enable other broadcasters to make 
efficient use of the unused spectrum "in order to restore any service lost by viewers as a result of 
the lack of full replication."   In adopting this policy, we noted that "[w]hile we wish to assure 
broadcasters a measure of flexibility in constructing their DTV facilities, we continue to want to 
assure that viewers do not lose service and we take seriously our mandate to speed the transition 
and to ensure that the spectrum is used efficiently."   To accomplish this objective without 
imposing undue cost and delay on broadcasters, and to minimize environmental effects, we 
elected not to expressly require full replication of analog coverage with DTV service, and instead 
adopted this "use-or-lose" policy as an incentive for broadcasters to achieve such replication.  
18. In its petition, SCA asserts that, where a broadcaster does not fully replicate for 
purposes of implementing a band-clearing arrangement, the Commission should not eliminate 
interference protection from unreplicated service areas at the end of 2004.   SCA points out that 
broadcasters may have to reduce their coverage area to achieve full compliance with the de 
minimis interference standard and may not be able to maintain full replication.   
19. Discussion.  We decide to create a limited exception to the DTV replication use-or-
lose policy for single-channel broadcasters that do not fully replicate (operate with their full 
allotted facilities) after implementing a band-clearing arrangement.  As with our decision on DTV 
construction deadlines for single-channel broadcasters,  we believe that this approach is 
supported by the congressional plan for the transition of this spectrum to new public safety and 
commercial uses. 
20. In the DTV Biennial Review Order, the Commission chose not to require such 
replication so as "to give broadcasters a measure of flexibility as they build their DTV facilities 
to collocate their antennas at common sites, thus minimizing potential local difficulties locating 
towers and eliminating the cost of building new towers."   We find that it is consistent with the 
underlying intent of that policy to afford certain broadcasters relief from the DTV replication 
protection deadline.  For instance, in connection with a band-clearing arrangement as discussed 
above,  it would be inconsistent with the intent of the replication policy to remove DTV 
replication protection at the end of 2004 from a single-channel broadcaster that has been 
permitted to continue its analog operations on a digital allotment until the end of 2005 (or 
perhaps later).   Instead, in such a case, we believe that a broadcaster that is left with a DTV 
single-channel allotment as a result of a band-clearing arrangement should retain the interference 
protection associated with that DTV allotment for a period of 31 months after beginning to 
transmit in digital.  This period is equal to the period of interference protection for unreplicated 
areas that the Commission provided to all broadcasters in the DTV Biennial Review Order.   
Although SCA seeks additional relief from the Commission's replication policy for those 
broadcasters that participate in band-clearing agreements under which they would retain two 
allotments, we will not address that issue here.  
D. Other Matters Relating to Early, Voluntary Band Clearing
21. A number of the issues raised in the petitions involve matters which, the petitioners 
argue, may promote greater certainty for parties involved in the DTV transition and band-clearing 
processes.  Throughout this proceeding, the Commission has attempted to promote greater 
regulatory certainty to facilitate market-based band clearing.   As we have recognized in other 
contexts, "regulatory certainty is critical to providing the industry with incentives to make 
investments, including in new technologies such as 3G service."   SCA's petition includes a 
proposal to promote greater certainty for potential bidders in the Commission's spectrum auction 
with the use of a comprehensive, voluntary band-clearing mechanism.   Other such issues 
involve the processing of license modification applications, the treatment of currently-pending 
Channel 59-69 applications, and the use of other regulatory approaches to facilitate the efficient 
clearing of the Upper 700 MHz band.
1. Spectrum Clearing Alliance's Comprehensive Band-Clearing Plan
22. Background.  In the Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, we found that 
"secondary auctions" or other such comprehensive market-oriented band-clearing mechanisms 
could be used to facilitate efficient band clearing. We observed in the Upper 700 MHz Third 
Report and Order that such market-based mechanisms:
may encourage band clearing in a more systematic and comprehensive fashion 
than would be the case with individual ad hoc clearing arrangements among 
incumbent broadcasters and winning bidders.  A secondary auction may give 
potential wireless licensees greater certainty that the spectrum will be cleared.  
The efficiency of such a secondary market mechanism is likely to ensure that the 
spectrum is employed in the most highly valued economic use.  

23. SCA asserts that, with Spectrum Exchange and other broadcasters, it is currently in 
the process of developing a "comprehensive" band-clearing plan that is intended to serve as a 
framework for clearing the Channel 59-69 band.  In its petition, SCA asks for a certain level of 
Commission involvement in executing its plan, and outlines certain actions to be taken by the 
Commission to assist in publicizing SCA's band-clearing plan. 
24. Discussion. We acknowledge that there are strong public interest benefits favoring 
comprehensive band clearing.  However, we find that additional involvement by the Commission 
beyond our existing processes is not necessary to facilitate SCA's proposed private clearing 
arrangement (or any other comprehensive clearing plans).  We note that there already appears to 
be significant support for SCA's plan among broadcasters in the Upper 700 MHz band and other 
interested parties,  and no parties have objected to SCA's proposal. Under a voluntary, 
comprehensive band-clearing scheme established prior to the auction, bidders in the 
Commission's auction will be able to bid with some certainty that the spectrum will be cleared 
and avoid the delay and expense of complex post-auction bargaining. We expect that, if 
implemented, SCA's plan would result in greater participation by Channel 59-69 broadcasters 
than individual, post-auction negotiations.  As we have previously recognized, a comprehensive 
plan is also more likely than individual negotiations to lead to the clearing of the Upper 700 MHz 
public safety and guard bands in addition to the commercial spectrum. 
25. We find that this order, in addition to the existing public processes for considering 
modification applications and associated regulatory requests to implement band-clearing 
agreements, should be sufficient to maximize the likelihood that all potential participants would 
have actual notice of an opportunity to participate in voluntary, comprehensive band-clearing 
arrangements, such as that being developed by SCA.
2. Expedited Processing of Regulatory Requests
26. Background.  In the Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, we found it 
unnecessary to adopt a 60-day application processing deadline advocated by Paxson, Spectrum 
Exchange, and others.   In that order, we acknowledged, however, that the goals of our voluntary 
band-clearing policies would be frustrated in the event of undue delays in processing regulatory 
requests to facilitate voluntary band-clearing agreements.   Thus, we announced our commitment 
to "processing all such requests as expeditiously as possible."   Further, the Commission stated 
that "we fully expect that routine regulatory requests will be acted on within 90 days." 
27. SCA requests reconsideration of the decision not to adopt an explicit timeline.   
SCA and Spectrum Exchange argue that the absence of a processing timeline creates too much 
uncertainty for the band-clearing process, particularly for "non-routine" cases, and propose the 
adoption of a 90-day timeline to process "all technical modifications" filed in connection with 
SCA's plan.   Petitioners envision that modification applications would be granted prior to 
Auction No. 31, so that bidders would have certainty that the Commission had no problems with 
the broadcast operation changes contemplated as part of the clearing plan. 
28. Discussion.  In light of the substantial public interest benefits associated with 
voluntary band-clearing agreements, we delegate to the Mass Media Bureau authority to establish 
a 90-day processing period for band-clearing requests.  We conclude that an explicit time period 
would promote certainty in the clearing process. With a processing period in place, broadcasters 
may promptly secure authorizations for the necessary license modifications and thereby provide 
potential bidders with greater certainty that the spectrum can be cleared by a specific date. 
Greater procedural certainty for potential bidders may create a more efficient license assignment 
process. 
29. Under the approach we adopt today, license modification applications necessary to 
implement band-clearing arrangements would be granted at the end of the 90-day time period, 
unless the application is found to be defective, is opposed, or an integral request for waiver or 
other regulatory request cannot be granted.   Upon notice to the applicant, the Mass Media 
Bureau could toll the 90-day deadline during the period in which an applicant is responding to a 
staff request for additional information.  The Mass Media Bureau could also, upon notice to the 
applicant, extend the processing period if the caseload of regulatory requests associated with 
band-clearing arrangements makes it administratively impractical to complete processing within 
a 90-day period.  The 90-day processing period would not apply to those applications that do not 
make a prima facie case of meeting the presumptions previously established in this proceeding 
for voluntary requests associated with band-clearing arrangements or that are not otherwise 
entitled to streamlined processing.   Staff will regularly issue notice of modifications granted 
pursuant to this process.
3. Proposal to Relax Waiver Policies
30. Background.  Our previous decisions in this proceeding have provided guidance on a 
number of aspects of the Commission's treatment of regulatory requests associated with band-
clearing arrangements.  In regard to such regulatory requests, SCA proposes that the Commission 
adopt a "relaxed waiver standard" with respect to interference to Class A stations or where other 
requirements (e.g., city grade coverage) are not met.   
31. Discussion.  In light of the balance that we have achieved among the various 
objectives in this proceeding, we decline to adopt a general "relaxed waiver" policy.   We find 
that our decisions today, together with the policies we have previously adopted, strike an 
appropriate balance between the objectives underlying our established interference policies and 
the need to provide broadcasters with greater flexibility to implement band-clearing agreements.  
Thus, we intend to entertain any requests for waiver on a case-by-case basis.  
4. Treatment of Pending Channel 59-69 Applicants
32. Background.  In its petition, SCA seeks clarification that full-service television 
applicants with pending applications for stations in the Channel 59-69 band would be entitled to 
participate in band-clearing arrangements. 
33. Discussion.  We confirm that broadcasters with pending DTV applications will be 
permitted to benefit from band-clearing policies announced in this proceeding.  We find no 
principled reason to distinguish between those broadcasters that have already been granted 
authority to operate in this band and those that have not yet received an authorization.  Clearing 
of both pending applications and authorized facilities would serve the objectives of this 
proceeding.
5. Other Band Clearing Approaches
34. Background.  In the 700 MHz proceeding, the Commission has chosen to rely on 
voluntary, market-based efforts to clear the band, rather than require mandatory relocation.  The 
Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order also states that the Commission may revisit this 
approach in the future "if we find it necessary."  MSTV requests that the Commission reconsider 
its refusal to rule out mandatory band clearing as a future option.   SCA supports MSTV's 
request.   According to MSTV, broadcasters believe that the Commission's statement contains 
"an apparent threat that aggressive band clearing measures could be used in the future" and that 
this "invites delay and gamesmanship." 
35. Discussion. We continue to believe that voluntary agreements between broadcasters 
and new wireless licensees should result in the effective clearing of the 700 MHz band, and find 
no basis for disturbing our announced policy.
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act
36. Section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 states that the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (as well as certain provisions of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 
1996 and the Paperwork Reduction Act) shall not apply to the rules and competitive bidding 
procedures governing the frequencies in the 746 - 806 MHz band (currently used for television 
broadcasts on Channels 60-69).   Because the policies and rules adopted in this Order on 
Reconsideration of the Third Report and Order relate only to assignments of those frequencies, no 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Paperwork Reduction Analysis is necessary. 
B. Alternative Formats  
37. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette and Braille) are 
available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 (voice), TTY 
(202) 418-7365, or at bmillin@fcc.gov.  This Order on Reconsideration  of the Third Report and 
Order can also be downloaded at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/index.html.
C. Further Information
38. For further information concerning this Order on Reconsideration of the Third Report 
and Order, contact William Huber of the Auctions and Industry Analysis Division at (202) 418-
0660 (voice), (202) 418-7233 (TTY), e-mail: whuber@fcc.gov, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, Washington, DC 20554.  
V.  ORDERING CLAUSES
39. Pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5(c), 7(a), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309(j), 309(k), 
311, 316, 319, 324, 331, 332, 333, 336, 337, 614, and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 152, 154(i), 155(c), 157(a), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309(j), 
309(k), 311, 316, 319, 324, 331, 332, 333, 336, 337, 614, and 615, the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 2502, and Section 1.425 of the 
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.425, IT IS ORDERED that the ORDER ON 
RECONSIDERATION OF THE THIRD REPORT AND ORDER is hereby adopted.
40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), and 303 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 152, 154(i) and 303, and Section 
1.429 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.429, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by 
MSTV on March 16, 2001 IS DENIED, and the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by Spectrum 
Clearing Alliance and Spectrum Exchange Group, LLC on March 16, 2001 ARE GRANTED TO 
THE EXTENT DISCUSSED HEREIN.
41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AUTHORITY IS HEREBY DELEGATED to the 
Mass Media Bureau to implement the policies for the introduction of new wireless services and to 
promote the early transition of incumbent analog television licensees to DTV service TO THE 
EXTENT DISCUSSED HEREIN. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



Magalie Roman Salas
Secretary


APPENDIX:		PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION, COMMENTS, REPLY 
COMMENTS, AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS
Parties Filing Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification:

Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. ("MSTV")
Spectrum Clearing Alliance ("SCA") (joint filing of broadcasters and other entities 
interested in band clearing policies), including:
Paxson Communications Corporation
Jovon Broadcasting Corporation
Mid-State Television
Whitehead Media, Inc.
Spectrum Exchange Group, LLC ("Spectrum Exchange")
WRNN-TV Associates Limited Partnership
Daystar Television Network
Allen & Company Incorporated
Christian Communications of ChicagoLand, Inc.
Bryant Broadcasting Co.
Unicorn Communications
B & C Kentucky, LLC
Pappas Telecasting Companies
Sanger Telecasters, Inc.
Shop at Home, Inc.
Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc. d/b/a Trinity Broadcasting Network
Radiant Life Ministries
Tri-State Christian T.V., Inc.
Entravision Holdings, LLC
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
Spectrum Exchange

Parties Filing In Support of Spectrum Clearing Alliance's Petition for Reconsideration and 
Clarification:

Butler University
Brevard Community College/WBCC-TV 
Christian Television of Palm Beach County, Inc.
Connecticut Public Broadcasting
Four Seasons Peoria, LLC
Four Seasons Las Vegas, LLC
Good Companion Broadcasting Co., Inc.
High Mountain Broadcasting, Inc.
Jacksonville Educators Broadcasting, Inc.
Living Faith Ministries
McLaughlin Broadcasting, Inc./Dove Broadcasting, Inc.
Spartan TV, LLC
Venture Technologies Group, LLC
World Television of Washington, LLC


Parties Filing Responses or Oppositions to Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification:

SCA

Parties Filing Replies:

MSTV 
Ericsson, Inc.

Parties Filing Ex Parte Notifications:

	Paxson Communications Corporation
SCA
	Spectrum Exchange


CONCURRING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER GLORIA TRISTANI

RE:  	Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions of Part 27 of the 
Commission's Rules, Order on Reconsideration of the Third Report and Order, WT 
Docket No. 99-168 

I concur in today's result because it will allow viewers to continue to enjoy free, over-the-air 
analog broadcasts in instances where a broadcaster chooses to give up one of its two channel 
allotments as part of an agreement to clear the upper 700 MHz band.  I write separately because 
preserving viewers' access to over-the-air broadcasting is a result but not a factor in today's 
decision, which continues the Commission's singular focus on clearing this band for new wireless 
services.

This proceeding involves four competing interests:  the promise of new wireless services, public 
safety access to much needed spectrum, the transition to digital television (DTV), and the 
continued ability of today's viewers to enjoy free, over-the-air broadcasts.  Early in this 
proceeding, I voted in favor of a band clearing approach that weighed these interests on a case-
by-case basis, consistent with Commission precedent regarding use of spectrum and the possible 
loss of broadcast services. 

I broke with my colleagues when the majority chose to defer spectrum use decisions to private 
parties and adopted a strong presumption in favor of band clearing.  This policy was intended to 
provide wireless providers with certainty that they would be able to clear existing broadcast 
stations from the band.  To that end, the majority abandoned the Commission's long-standing 
standard of review, applied on a case-by-case basis, that "once in operation, a [broadcast] station 
assumes an obligation to maintain service to its viewing audience, and the withdrawal or 
downgrading of existing service is justifiable only if offsetting factors are shown which establish 
that the public generally will be benefited."   

The majority asserted that a strong presumption in favor of clearing the band would serve two 
public policy purposes:  "to facilitate the clearing of the 746-806 MHz band to allow for the 
introduction of new wireless services, and to promote the early transition of incumbent analog 
television licensees to [DTV]."   Broadcasters that relinquished their interests in a channel 
allotment, it was presumed, would acquire additional resources to build out DTV facilities by the 
Commission's May 2002 deadline.  The decision concluded that today's viewers would 
experience a "temporary loss" of analog service that was deemed acceptable.  For the millions of 
Americans who only receive over-the-air broadcasting - many of whom are among the nation's 
poorest - this temporary loss could be permanent given rising charges in the MVPD market and 
the high cost of DTV sets.  I dissented because Congress never envisioned a Commission policy 
to facilitate early recovery of the broadcasters' spectrum at the expense of today's free, over-the-
air viewers.

On reconsideration, private parties assert that broadcasters need additional relief if they are to 
consider "giving up" their second channel allotment.  Specifically, they wish to continue analog 
operations on their remaining channel rather than broadcast in DTV by the Commission's May 
2002 deadline.  Today's decision accedes to that request.  Broadcasters that enter private 
agreements to vacate their second channel will be allowed to operate their lone channel in analog 
format until 2005 or beyond.  

As I have noted throughout this proceeding, I am committed to preserving consumer access to 
free, over-the-air broadcasting.  I therefore support this result as an improvement over the status 
quo that left viewers of these stations without broadcast service.   I note, however, that this comes 
only at the expense of the Commission's stated goal of furthering the DTV transition.    

If the majority demands across-the-board band clearing policies rather than case-by-case review, 
I believe that continued access to free over-the-air broadcasting must take precedence over 
facilitating the transition to DTV.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN ABERNATHY

In re:  Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the 
Commission's Rules et al; WT Docket No. 99-168, CS Docket No. 98-120, MM Docket 00-39, 
Order on Reconsideration and Third Report and Order, FCC 01-258 (rel. September 17, 2001)

	Today's decision moves the Commission one step closer to the Congressionally mandated 
goal of transitioning the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz broadcast bands to new public safety and 
commercial uses.  The Commission has struggled to balance the needs of the incumbent 
broadcasters and their analog viewers in these bands with the mandate to transition this spectrum 
prior to the end of the DTV transition.  I support the prior Commission's policy of facilitating 
private transactions that allow for incumbents to clear the band early.  This policy framework is 
completed in today's order by removing some lingering regulatory impediments to such 
transactions.  In my view today's order is another example of the Commission getting it right: 
removing needless regulatory uncertainty to allow licensees, consistent with the public interest, to 
more freely exercise their rights as they see fit.   

Today's order provides for regulatory symmetry between single channel broadcasters 
who were not eligible for a second channel and those left with a single channel as a result of a 
voluntary band clearing arrangement.   Therefore it allows broadcasters that are left with a single 
channel after a voluntary band clearing transaction to continue to broadcast in analog until 2005 
or later -- if less than 70% of the area's households are capable of receiving a digital broadcast 
signal.   In addition, these stations are also granted the same 31-month replication period after 
beginning to transmit in digital that the Commission provided to all broadcasters in the DTV 
Biennial Review Order.   Finally the Commission assures licensees that it will endeavor to 
provide prompt service to these licensees by processing routine spectrum clearing applications 
within 90 days of receipt.   

While our goal is not to stand in the way, the Commission also does not abdicate its 
responsibility to analyze each transaction's impact on the public interest.  There are significant 
public interest benefits to such transactions.  For broadcasters, these transactions will speed up 
the inevitable - relocation from this band-while providing additional resources for the DTV 
transition.  Congress has mandated that this spectrum be reclaimed from strictly broadcasting use 
and designated for new uses.  Therefore delay in relocation only prolongs the period of 
uncertainty for all the parties involved.  Private band clearing arrangements will also provide the 
resources for these stations to make the digital transition more smoothly.  The DTV transition is 
an expensive proposition.  For some stations in this band, the funds made available through 
voluntary band clearing may make the difference between going digital and going dark.  

The private transactions will provide benefits to new commercial and public safety 
wireless services in these communities.  In particular, spectrum clearing will speed fulfillment of 
the congressional mandate to provide for additional public safety spectrum for enhanced voice 
and data communications as well as interoperability channels that will greatly enhance the ability 
of multiple public safety entities to communicate with one another, particularly in emergencies.  
The fine work of the Public Safety National Coordination Committee (NCC) has aided the 
Commission in adopting the appropriate regulatory approach to this vital public safety resource.  
The sooner the band is cleared, the sooner these services can be deployed.  In addition, guard 
band licensees have already purchased spectrum in these bands and also await band clearing to 
launch their operations.   Finally, the Commission will auction off 30 MHz of commercial 
wireless spectrum for potential use for wireless advanced services, such as third generation 
wireless systems.   All of these applications await clearing of the band.     

There are cases where the Commission has determined that the public interest benefits 
described above do not weigh as clearly in favor of spectrum clearing agreements.  Therefore 
where the proposed transaction would result in the loss of a top four station, the sole local station, 
or the sole noncommercial educational broadcast service our public interest presumption in favor 
of the transaction does not apply.   It is also important to keep in mind that not a single 
broadcaster will ever be forced to relocate as a result of our decisions in this docket.  The 
Commission has simply cleared away some regulatory uncertainty to permit licensees to act 
freely in the marketplace and to exercise more readily the bundle of rights inherent in their 
existing authorizations.

CONCURRING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER COPPS

RE:  	Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions of Part 27 of the 
Commission's Rules, Order on Reconsideration of the Third Report and Order, WT 
Docket No. 99-168 

I concur in today's result.  I am writing separately, however, because I am troubled by the 
potential disenfranchisement of American television viewers that could occur if we accelerate the 
mandatory conversion from analog to digital. 

On balance, today's order is a positive development for consumers.  But this is true only because 
our Third Report and Order otherwise would have resulted in a requirement that "single channel" 
licensees broadcast in a digital format on their remaining channel by 2002, leaving analog 
consumers without access to these channels.  I don't believe that stranding these viewers next 
year was ever the intent of the Commission.  Under today's Order, the single channel stations 
will now be able to broadcast in analog beyond the 2002 date.  Strict adherence to this date would 
have been worse than our alteration of their final conversion responsibilities. Were it not for this 
unique circumstance, I would have been troubled by potentially accelerating the mandatory 
conversion from analog to digital.  

While I strongly support the conversion to digital television, here we meet what I think is an 
unintended consequence - potentially leaving more analog consumers behind.  I am troubled by a 
conversion schedule that could leave Americans without access to broadcast services.

In the future, I hope that the Commission will assign high priority to protecting consumers of free 
over-the-air television service and will act so as to minimize the number of consumers left 
without access to broadcast television when the conversion is complete. 


SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER KEVIN J. MARTIN

Re:	Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions of Part 27 of the 
Commission's Rules, Order on Reconsideration of the Third Report and Order, WT 
Docket No. 99-168 

I am supportive of today's item, which facilitates our continuing efforts to clear the 700 
MHz band for new wireless services and public safety needs while balancing the needs of 
incumbent broadcasters during their transition to digital television.  

It is imperative that the Commission promote the deployment of next generation mobile 
services and spectrally efficient technologies in order to help meet the intensifying demand for 
mobile telephone, Internet, and data applications.  It is also critical that the needs of the public 
safety community are met and that we are able to provide them with additional spectrum.  I am 
fully supportive of both these goals.    

As we charge forward to meet these pressing economic and public safety needs, however, 
it is important that we remain mindful of other requirements for a robust democracy -- including 
access to diverse viewpoints.  I write separately to emphasize that in our quest to move incumbent 
broadcasters off this band, we must not lose sight of the value of free, over-the-air television 
services.  The availability of such services and outlets helps ensure that all Americans enjoy a 
variety of programming and views.  Policies that threaten analog broadcasts, and the resulting 
loss of such services, without providing for sufficient transition time to digital receivers for 
consumers merit significant scrutiny.  

I am comfortable that this item strikes the proper balance.  I agree that extending the time 
period in which single channel broadcasters may continue analog operations will help prevent a 
premature disruption of these valuable services.  I am concerned, however, by the potential 
ramifications of the new conversion schedule for single channel stations, which seems to require 
a conversion when as many as 30% of viewers in a market still may not have access to a digital 
signal.  I am troubled by the possibility that such a requirement may leave too many analog 
viewers behind.  As no broadcaster will ever be forced to relocate as a result of our decisions 
here, I support allowing licensees the flexibility to engage in voluntary negotiations for band 
clearing.  As the Commission faces the challenges associated with the digital transition, I believe 
we must continue to place a high priority on ensuring that viewers of free, over-the-air broadcast 
are not jeopardized.

  Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the 
Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, Carriage of the Transmissions of Digital Broadcast 
Stations, CS Docket No. 98-120, Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the 
Conversion to Digital Television, MM Docket No. 00-39, Third Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 2703 
(2001) (Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order).
  See id.  The foundation for these policies was established in earlier decisions in the Upper 700 
MHz proceeding.  See Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of 
the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, Carriage of the Transmissions of Digital Broadcast 
Stations, CS Docket No. 98-120, Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the 
Conversion to Digital Television, MM Docket No. 00-39, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 20845 (2000) (Upper 700 MHz MO&O and FNPRM); 
Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's 
Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, Carriage of the Transmissions of Digital Broadcast Stations, CS Docket 
No. 98-120, Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital 
Television, MM Docket No. 00-39, First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 476 (2000) (Upper 700 MHz 
First Report and Order); Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 
of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, Carriage of the Transmissions of Digital Broadcast 
Stations, CS Docket No. 98-120, Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the 
Conversion to Digital Television, MM Docket No. 00-39, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 
11006 (1999).
  See Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2708-18  10-36.
  See id., 16 FCC Rcd at 2709-12  13-18.
  See id. at 2712-17  19-33.
  Upper 700 MHz MO&O and FNPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 20847  2.
  Id., 15 FCC Rcd at 20865  50.
  Id. at 20866-67  52-53.
  Id., 15 FCC Rcd at 20862  44.
  See, e.g., Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2707  9, 2721  44.
  Upper 700 MHz MO&O and FNPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 20869  58.
  See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 20863-67  46-53, 20869  58; Upper 700 MHz Third Report and 
Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2720-21  42-44.
  See Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2706-07  5-9, 2723-24  48-
50.
  See id., 16 FCC Rcd at 2718-21  37-44.
  The attached appendix is a list of the petitioners and other parties that submitted petitions, 
responsive filings, and ex parte notifications concerning band-clearing issues.
  See The Spectrum Clearing Alliance Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration, WT Docket 
No. 99-168, CS Docket No. 98-120, MM Docket No. 00-39 (filed Mar. 16, 2001) ("SCA Petition").
  See id. at 2-6, 11-12.
  See id. at 12.  SCA also requested a brief delay in the start of Auction No. 31 to provide time to 
implement a band-clearing plan.  See id. at 5-6.  On July 11, 2001, the Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau ("WTB") announced the postponement of Auction No. 31 pending resolution of petitions for 
reconsideration and clarification of the Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order.  WTB stated that it will 
announce key auction dates upon release of this order.  See "Auction of Licenses for 747-762 and 777-792 
MHz Bands (Auction No. 31) Is Postponed," Public Notice, DA 01-1546, Report No. AUC-01-31-B (rel. 
July 11, 2001).
  See Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration of Spectrum Exchange Group, LLC, WT 
Docket No. 99-168, CS Docket No. 98-120, MM Docket No. 00-39 (filed Mar. 16, 2001).
  See Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration of the Association for Maximum Service 
Television, Inc., LLC, WT Docket No. 99-168, CS Docket No. 98-120, MM Docket No. 00-39 (filed Mar. 
16, 2001) ("MSTV Petition").
  See id. at 9-10.  
  Id. at 4-5.  
  See "Auction of Licenses for the 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands Postponed Until September 
12, 2001," Public Notice, Report No. AUC-01-31-A, DA 01-266 (rel. Jan. 31, 2001).
  See "Pleading Cycle Established for Responses to Petitions For Reconsideration of the Third 
Report and Order in WT Docket No. 99-168, CS Docket No. 98-120, and MM Docket No. 00-39," Public 
Notice, DA 01-788 (March 29, 2001).
  See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast 
Service, MM Docket No. 87-268, Fifth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12809, 12843  83 (1997).
  47 C.F.R.  73.624(d).
  Deadlines for construction of DTV facilities affiliated with the four major networks in the top 
30 markets have already passed.  See 47 C.F.R.  73.624(d). 
  See Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2717  33.
  See SCA Petition at 6-9.
  SCA Petition at 7, citing Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing 
Television Broadcast Service, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth 
and Sixth Report and Orders, MM Docket No. 87-268, 14 FCC Rcd 1348, 1367  41 (1998).
  SCA Petition at 8-9.  See also 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(14)(B).
  SCA Petition at 9.
  Ex parte letter from Lowell W. Paxson to Chairman Michael K. Powell (filed June 6, 2001).  
SCA also suggests that this penetration benchmark should be reduced to 50% if the Commission adopts 
"full digital multicast must carry rules . providing that all free, over-the air video programming services 
provided by a digital broadcast station, electing must carry, are carried by all multichannel video 
programming providers, i.e., cable, DBS, DSL, in its market."  Id.  We note, however, that the Commission 
deferred consideration of similar must-carry issues that were raised earlier in this proceeding pending 
development of an improved record in response to the DTV Must-Carry Order and FNPRM, having found 
that those submissions did "not raise distinctive or additional factual or policy considerations that justify 
departure from the broad determinations made in the DTV Must-Carry Order and FNPRM." Upper 700 
MHz Third Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd  at 2726  53.  We continue to believe that those issues should 
be resolved in the DTV Must-Carry proceeding.  See Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals, CS 
Docket No. 98-120, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 
2598, 2620-22  52-56 (2001) ("DTV Must-Carry Order and FNPRM").
  See SCA Petition at 9; Spectrum Exchange Petition at 2; Ericsson Reply at 2.
  See id.  In addition, a number of broadcasters have filed letters in support of SCA's plan. A 
listing of those filers is attached.  See Appendix.  
  See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast 
Service, MM Docket No. 87-268, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth 
Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 6860, 6865  11 (1998).
  See id.  The construction period for broadcast stations was extended from two to three years.  
See 47 C.F.R.  73.3598(a), as amended by 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review - Streamlining of Mass 
Media Applications, Rules and Processes, Policies and Rules Regarding Minority and Female Ownership 
of Mass Media Facilities, MM Docket Nos. 98-43 and 94-149, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 23056, 
23090  83 (1998).
  We note that, in the DTV proceeding, the Commission has afforded broadcasters flexibility to 
achieve broadcast-related goals where such an approach is consistent with the public interest.  See Review 
of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, MM Docket No. 
00-39, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 16 FCC Rcd 5946, 5955-56  21 
(discussing licensees' flexibility in selecting transmitter locations), 5961 36 (discussing flexibility 
permitted under de minimis interference allowance), 5966-67  48 (providing flexibility to competing 
applicants to negotiate settlements by suspending application of settlement limitations for limited period) 
(2001) (DTV Biennial Review Order) recons. pending.
  We clarify that this policy will apply to all broadcasters that are left with only a single allotment 
as a result of an arrangement that results in the clearing of Upper 700 MHz spectrum, regardless of whether 
the remaining allotment is an analog or digital channel.
  See Letter from Lowell W. Paxson to Chairman Michael K. Powell, at p. 2 (filed June 5, 2001). 
 Cf. 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(14)(B)(iii) (85% digital penetration test for determining end of DTV transition 
period).  We intend to use the same evidentiary standards in assessing whether this 70% penetration target 
has been met as will be used when making similar determinations under the statutory 85% standard.  We 
also delegate to the Chief, Mass Media Bureau, authority to implement to adopt such procedures or make 
such determinations as may be necessary to implement this policy.
  47 U.S.C.  309(j)(14)(B).  See also letter from Lowell W. Paxson, Chairman, Paxson 
Communications Corporation, to Chairman Michael K. Powell (filed May 21, 2001) (". the impact on the 
DTV transition from the Spectrum Clearing Alliance plan will be miniscule.").
  See Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 476, 534  145; Upper 700 MHz 
MO&O and FNPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 20860-72  39-66; Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, 16 
FCC Rcd 2703.
  See 47 U.S.C.  337(a) (reallocation of 746-806 MHz band), (b) (assignment of commercial 
licenses by competitive bidding), and (e) (clearing of incumbent licensees);  309(j)(14)(C) (directive to 
reclaim and reassign spectrum occupied by analog television licensees); and  337(c) (recovery of 
broadcast licenses for reallocation or reassignment).  See also Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order, 15 
FCC Rcd 476, 534  145; Upper 700 MHz MO&O and FNPRM 15 FCC Rcd at 20860-72  39-66; Upper 
700 MHz Third Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2709  13 (statutory basis for Commission's authority 
to facilitate the early clearing of incumbent broadcasters).  
We note that, pursuant to the DTV transition plan, the core spectrum of Channels 2-51 is to 
remain allocated to broadcast use indefinitely (see Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz 
Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), GN Docket No. 01-74, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 16 
FCC Rcd 7278, 7282  5 (2001)), and that the Commission's band-clearing policies for Channels 52-59 are 
under consideration in another proceeding (see id., 16 FCC Rcd at 7330-35  125-36).
  Our adoption of this postponement of the DTV construction deadline for this limited group of 
broadcasters having only a single allotment as a result of an arrangement that results in the clearing of 
Channel 59-69 spectrum does not mean that we will be adopting exceptions or granting extensions to those 
broadcasters that have two allotments.  Rather, we intend to consider such requests on a case-by-case basis 
within the context of our on-going DTV Biennial Review Proceeding.  See DTV Biennial Review Order, 16 
FCC Rcd 5946, recons. pending.
  See Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2713  22.
  See 47 C.F.R.  73.623(c)(2) (2% de minimis interference standard).
  See id.
  See Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2713  22.  The Upper 700 MHz 
Third Report and Order characterized MSTV's proposed standard as a "new" standard reflecting the fact 
that this proposal would deviate from existing DTV policy.   Thus, contrary to MSTV's assertion (see 
MSTV Petition at n. 13), the adoption of MSTV's proposed "no interference" standard would have been a 
new DTV interference standard.
  MSTV Petition at 5.
  See id. at 9.
  Id.  
  See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast 
Service, MM Docket No. 87-268, Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 10968, 
10977  18 (1996).  Thus, at the outset of the Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, we observed that 
our objectives in this proceeding are both "to facilitate the clearing of the 746-806 MHz band to allow for 
the introduction of new wireless services, and to promote the early transition of incumbent analog 
television licensees to [DTV]." Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2074  1.
  Ericsson filed a Reply noting its support for a flexible interference policy, observing that "an 
interference policy which considers and adapts to the needs of broadcasters may allow broadcasters to 
timely clear the 700 MHz band when they would otherwise be precluded from relocating."  Ericsson Reply 
at 4.
  Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast 
Service, MM Docket No. 87-268, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Sixth 
Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 7418, 7450  80 (1998).  This de minimis interference standard was 
adopted at the urging of MSTV and other broadcast groups.  See id.
  Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2713  22.
  See MSTV Petition at 8-9.  Other commenters found no ambiguity in the Upper 700 MHz 
Third Report and Order with regard to this standard.  See SCA Response, Attachment 2:  Engineering 
Statement, at 1-3 (describing application of 0.5% interference allowance).
  See "Additional Application Processing Guidelines for Digital Television (DTV)," Public 
Notice, at 8 (MMB Aug. 10, 1998).   See also Establishment of a Class A Television Service, Report and 
Order, 15 FCC Rcd 6355, 6388 n. 147 (2000).
  See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast 
Service, MM Docket No. 87-268, Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 14588, 14595-56  12 (1997).
  See DTV Biennial Review Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 5956  22.
  "Full-replication facilities would entail a combination of transmitter site, effective radiated 
power, directional antenna characteristics and antenna height that is adequate to cover at least the same 
area as is served by the NTSC station."  Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the 
Conversion to Digital Television, MM Docket No. 00-39, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 
5257, 5263  16 (2000).
  See 47 C.F.R.  73.622.
  See DTV Biennial Review Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 5956  22.
  See id., 16 FCC Rcd at 5955-56  21-22.
  See id. at 5956  22.
  See id.  Noncommercial DTV licensees will not lose such protection until December 31, 2005.  
See id. at 5956  24.
  See id.
  Id.
  Id. 
  See id.
  See SCA Petition at 8.
  See id.
  See Section III.A., supra (postponement of DTV construction deadline for single-channel 
broadcasters).
  See note 39, supra (statutory scheme governing reallocation of Channels 60-69 and assignment 
of licenses for new services).
  DTV Biennial Review Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 5956  21.
  See Section III.A. supra.
  If the band-clearing broadcaster has retained its own initial DTV allotment, the allotment 
facilities are designed to replicate its April 1997 authorized analog TV Grade B service contour.  In a 
three-way band-clearing agreement, if the broadcaster left with a single channel has the DTV allotment of a 
second broadcast licensee, the DTV allotment facilities are designed to replicate the April 1997 authorized 
analog TV Grade B service contour of that second licensee.  Thus, a single-channel broadcaster that 
occupies a second broadcaster's DTV allotment will be protected within the area defined by the second 
broadcaster's April 1997 Grade B contour.
  Commercial broadcasters that are required to construct their DTV facilities by May 1, 2002 
must replicate their April 1997 analog service contour by December 31, 2004 (a period of 31 months) or 
they will risk losing interference protection.  DTV Biennial Review Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 5955-56  21-
24.  
  Thus, we will address separately those petitions for reconsideration filed by certain broadcast 
interests, including Paxson, the National Association of Broadcasters, and others, which seek a 
modification or complete reversal of the DTV replication policy.  See, e.g., MSTV/NAB/ALTV Petition 
for Reconsideration, MM Docket No. 00-39 (filed March 15, 2001); Petition for Reconsideration and 
Clarification of Paxson Communications Corporation, MM Docket No. 00-39 (filed Mar. 15, 2001).
  See Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2709-10  15 (greater certainty 
regarding approval of regulatory requests), 2720  41 (increased certainty through the use of secondary 
auctions and other comprehensive clearing mechanisms); Upper 700 MHz MO&O and FNPRM, 15 FCC 
Rcd at 20846-47  2 (providing guidance on Commission consideration of regulatory requests will provide 
greater certainty), 20883-4  98 (increased certainty through the use of secondary auctions and other 
comprehensive clearing mechanisms).
  1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Spectrum Aggregation Limits for Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers, WT Docket No. 98-205, Cellular Telecommunications Industry 
Association's Petition for Forbearance from the 45 MHz CMRS Spectrum Cap, Amendment of Parts 20 
and 24 of the Commission's Rules - Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and Commercial Mobile Radio 
Service Spectrum Cap, WT Docket No. 96-59, Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the 
Communications Act, GN Docket No. 93-252, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, Report and 
Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9219, 9243  51 (1999).  See also Gregory L. Rosston & Jeffrey S. Steinberg, Using 
Market-Based Spectrum Policy to Promote the Public Interest, 50 Fed. Comm. L.J. 87, 111 (1997) ("If 
spectrum users and their financial supporters are not reasonably certain of the rules that will govern 
spectrum use, they will be less willing to invest in obtaining and developing the spectrum.. In the absence 
of such certainty, the spectrum may not be used to its full potential and the public may fail to realize its full 
value.")
  See SCA Petition at 2-6.  See also SCA Reply at 1-2.
  See Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2720  41.
  SCA requests that the Commission provide public notice of the submission of its band-clearing 
plan (including the governing agreement), which interested parties could then review.  SCA anticipates that 
license modification applications and other regulatory requests necessary to implement band-clearing 
arrangements in particular markets would be submitted well in advance of the Commission's spectrum 
auction and most such applications would be acted upon prior to the auction, giving potential bidders 
greater certainty that the spectrum will be extensively cleared.  See SCA Petition at 2-6.
  SCA says that broadcasters representing over 70% of the analog stations operating in the 
Channel 59-69 band have signed on to its plan.  See ex parte letter from Lowell W. Paxson to Chairman 
Michael K. Powell, WT Docket 99-168 (filed July 12, 2001).  Spectrum Exchange, a signatory to the SCA 
Petition, also filed a separate petition in support of SCA.  See Spectrum Exchange Petition.  Ericsson also 
supports SCA's plan.  See Ericsson Reply.
  See Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2720  41.
  See id., 16 FCC Rcd at 2715  29-30.
  See id.
  See id., 16 FCC Rcd at 2715  30.
  Id. 
  See SCA Petition at 4-5.
  SCA Petition at 4-5; Spectrum Exchange Petition at 2.
  See id.
  The Commission has long recognized that awarding licenses to those who value them most 
highly is likely to encourage growth and competition and ensure rapid deployment of new technologies and 
services.  See Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, 
Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2349-50  5 (1994).
  This policy is an outgrowth of the rebuttable presumption that certain regulatory requests 
associated with band-clearing arrangements will serve the public interest. In the Upper 700 MHz MO&O 
and FNRPM, the Commission established a rebuttable presumption that, in certain circumstances, 
substantial public interest benefits will arise from a voluntary agreement between a 700 MHz licensee and 
an incumbent broadcast licensee on Channels 59-69 that clears the 700 MHz band of incumbent television 
licensee(s).  In particular, this favorable presumption attaches to any requests that: (1) would make new or 
expanded wireless service, such as `2.5' or `3G' services, available to consumers;  (2) would clear 
commercial frequencies that enable provision of public safety services;  or (3) would result in the provision 
of wireless service to rural or other underserved communities.  The applicant would also need to show that 
grant of the request would not result in any one of the following: (1) the loss of any of the four stations in 
the designated market area (DMA) with the largest audience share; (2) the loss of the sole service licensed 
to the local community; or (3) the loss of a community's sole service on a channel reserved for 
noncommercial educational broadcast service.  See Upper 700 MHz MO&O and FNRPM, 15 FCC Rcd at 
20870-71  61.  The Commission further indicated that when this presumption is not established, or is 
rebutted, it would review regulatory requests by weighing the loss of broadcast service and the advent of 
new wireless service on a case-by-case basis.  See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 20869-71  60-61.  Subsequently, 
the Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order extended this general presumption, standards of review, and 
policies to three-way band-clearing agreements.  See Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, 16 FCC 
Rcd at 2709-17  13-33.
  The Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order also adopted certain procedural changes designed 
to streamline the Commission's review of regulatory requests associated with band-clearing arrangements. 
 Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2716-17  32.
  See SCA Petition at 9-10; Ericson Reply at 3-4.
  We note that statutory requirements may restrict our ability to waive certain requirements, such 
as those governing interference to Class A stations.  See Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999, 
Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. Appendix I at pp. 1501A-594 - 1501A-598 (1999), codified at  47 U.S.C.  
336(f); Establishment of a Class A Television Service, MM Docket No. 00-10, Report and Order, 15 FCC 
Rcd 6355, 6370-87  36-75 (2000). 
  See SCA Petition at 10-11.
  See MSTV Petition at 2, 4-5; MSTV Reply at 1.
  See SCA Response at 2-3.
  MSTV Petition at 4; MSTV Reply at 1.
  In particular, this exemption extends to the requirements imposed by Chapter 6 of Title 5, 
United States Code, Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.  632), and Sections 3507 and 3512 of 
Title 44, United States Code.  Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 
2502, Appendix E, Sec. 213(a)(4)(A)-(B); see 145 Cong. Rec. H12493-94 (Nov. 17, 1999); 47 U.S.C.A.  
337 note at Sec. 213(a)(4)(A)-(B).
  Triangle Publications, Inc., 37 FCC 307, 313 (1964), citing Hall v. FCC, 237 F.2d 567 (D.C. 
Cir. 1954).
  Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions of Part 27 of the 
Commission's Rules, Third Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 2703, 2704 para. 1 (2001). 
  In re Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the 
Commission's Rules et al; WT Docket No. 99-168, CS Docket No. 98-120, MM Docket 00-39, Order on 
Reconsideration and Third Report and Order, FCC 01-258  (rel. Sept. 11, 2001).
  Id. at  10.
  Id. at  20 (citing DTV Biennial Review Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 5956  21).
  Id. at  28.
  See Public Safety National Coordination Committee's Recommendations to the Federal 
Communication Commission for Technical and Operational Standards for Use of the 764-776 MHz and 
794-806 MHz Public Safety Band Pending Development of Final Rules (Feb. 25, 2000) (NCC Report).  
The NCC Report included detailed technical information. See also The Development of Operational, 
Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communication 
Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket 96-86, Fourth Report and Order and Fifth Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making, 16 FCC Rcd 2020 (2000)(Fourth R&O).  Copies of the NCC Report and the 
Fourth R&O can be obtained via the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/publicsafety/ncc.html, or from 
Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-
B402, Washington, DC, 20554.
  The initial auction of 700 MHz guard band licenses was completed on September 21, 2000 
(Auction No. 33), and the subsequent auction of the eight remaining Guard Band Manager licenses 
concluded on February 21, 2001 (Auction No. 38). See http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/auctions/.
  See "Auction of Licenses for the 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands (Auction 31) is Postponed, 
Public Notice, Report No. AUC-01-31-B (rel. July 11, 2001).

  Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the 
Commission's Rules et al; WT Docket No. 99-168, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd. 20845, 20870-71 (2000).
 
(Continued from previous page)   
(continued..)

 
 
	Federal Communications Commission	FCC 01-258




		 
3