[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3188-3199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1329]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

[MM Docket Nos. 00-10; FCC 00-16]


Establishment of a Class A Television Service

AGENCY:  Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY:  This document proposes 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 low power television 
stations that provide valuable local programming services in their 
communities, but without constraining the implementation of the digital 
television service.

DATES:  Comments must be filed on or before February 10, 2000. Reply 
comments must be filed on or before February 22, 2000. Written comments 
by the public on the proposed information collections are due February 
10, 2000. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collection on 
or before March 20, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, Room 
TW-A306, SW, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with 
the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections 
contained herein should be submitted to Kim Matthews, Legal Branch, 
Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. Alternatively, 
comments may also be filed by using the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS), via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov.e-file/ecfs.html. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of 
any comments on the information collection contained herein should be 
submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-
C804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8de7efe2e1e8f4cdebeeeea3eae2fb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7ddd5d8dbd2cef7d1d4d499d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>, and to Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 
17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84f2ecf1f0ecc4e1ebf4aae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="493f213c3d21092c2639672e263f">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Kim Matthews, Policy and Rules 
Division,

[[Page 3189]]

Mass Media Bureau (202) 418-2120. For additional information concerning 
the information collection contained in this document, contact Judy 
Boley at (202) 418-0214, or via the Internet at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96fcf4f9faf3efd6f0f5f5b8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbd1d9d4d7dec2fbddd8d895dcd4cd">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This is a summary of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC 00-16, adopted January 13, 2000, 
and released January 13, 2000. The full text of this Commission Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 
12 St. S.W., Washington, D.C. The complete text of this Notice may also 
be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., CY-B402, (202) 857-
3800. It is also available on the Commission's web page at www.fcc.gov/
Bureaus/Mass__Media/Orders/2000/fcc00016.txt.

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making

    1. On November 29, 1999, Congress enacted the Community 
Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 (``CBPA''). 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''), 64 FR 56,999 (1999), 
considering a wide range of issues related to the establishment of a 
form of primary status for certain low-power television stations. That 
Notice responded to a petition for rule making filed by the Community 
Broadcasters Association (``CBA''). 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.
    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.'' Currently, there are some 2,200 licensed LPTV 
stations in approximately 1000 communities, operating in all 50 states. 
These stations serve both rural and urban audiences. Because they 
operate at reduced power levels, 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. Even in some well-served markets, LPTV stations may 
provide the only local service to residents of discrete geographical 
communities within those markets. 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.
    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.
    5. The Community Broadcasters Protection Act, Congress found that 
the future of low-power television is uncertain. 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. In addition, Congress recognized that the 
conversion to digital television further complicates the uncertain 
future of LPTV stations. To facilitate the transition from analog to 
digital television, the Commission has provided a second channel for 
each full service television licensee in the country that will be used 
for digital broadcasting during the period of conversion to an all-
digital broadcast service. In assigning DTV channels, 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. Although the Commission has taken a number of steps to 
mitigate the impact of the DTV transition on stations in the LPTV 
service, 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. 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.
    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. 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. 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. 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

[[Page 3190]]

designation. The Commission has 30 days after receipt of an application 
to act on applications that meet applicable interference and other 
criteria.
    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. Section (f)(1)(C) provides that consistent with the 
requirements set forth in section (f)(2)(A), a licensee may submit an 
application for Class A designation within 30 days after the Commission 
adopts rules in this docket. However, 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. 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.
    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.'' 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. 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. 
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 Secs. 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.
    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. This timing 
appears most consistent with the CBPA's dual certification and 
application scheme for Class A status. 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. 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 Sec. 74.705 of the LPTV rules. 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

[[Page 3191]]

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. 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 Sec. 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. 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 
Sec. 74.707 of the LPTV rules. 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.
    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. 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.
    18. 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. 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.''
    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

[[Page 3192]]

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 Sec. 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. 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.'' 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 and meet whatever 
alternative eligibility criteria we might adopt.
    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.'' 
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. 
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. We invite comment on this tentative conclusion.
    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, 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.'' 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.
    24. 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). 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. 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, 63 FR 13,546 (1998). 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

[[Page 3193]]

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?
    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.
    27. 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.'' 
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.
    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 Sec. 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.
    30. 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 CFR 73.622(e) and (f)). Thus, Class 
A stations may not interfere with DTV broadcasters' ability to 
replicate insofar as possible their NTSC service areas. 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. 
Criteria for protecting DTV service are given in Secs. 73.622 and 
73.623 of our rules and in OET Bulletin 69. We seek comment on these 
proposals.
    31. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

[[Page 3194]]

fide application for maximization by May 1, 2000. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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 * * *. '' 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. 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. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 22.625(b)(1) or 
90.303 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 22.625(b)(1), 90.303) for 
frequencies in the 470-512 megahertz band identified in Sec. 22.621 or 
90.303 of our rules (47 CFR 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

[[Page 3195]]

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 Sec. 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. 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.'' 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.'' 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. Senators Hatch and 
Moynihan concurred with Senator Burns in this regard. 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.
    42. 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. 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. 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. In the September 22 Notice, we stated that the current LPTV 
minor change definition may be too restrictive, 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. 
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. 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

[[Page 3196]]

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? 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. 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. 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. 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.'' 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. 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? 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. 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.
    51. 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

[[Page 3197]]

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. The CBPA stipulates that its provisions do not preempt or 
otherwise affect section 337 of the Communications Act. 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''), 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
    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

[[Page 3198]]

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? We seek comment and these and other issues.
    58. Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to Secs. 1.415 and 1.419 
of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may 
file comments on or before February 10, 2000 and reply comments on or 
before February 20, 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 FR 24,121 (1998).
    59. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3e5b5d584d7e585d5d10595148"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2a4f494c596a4c4949044d455c">[email protected]</span></a>, 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.
    60. 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.
    61. 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.
    62. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9dbdad5d0d7dcf9dfdada97ded6cf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f193929d989f94b1979292df969e87">[email protected]</span></a>.
    63. 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 Sec. 1.1206(b) of the rules. 
47 CFR 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 CFR 
1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
    64. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA''). 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.
    65. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Notice may 
contain either proposed or modified information collection. As part of 
its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the 
general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take 
this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in 
this Notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. 
Law 104-13. Written comments by the public on the proposed information 
collections are due February 10, 2000. Written comments must be 
submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed 
information collection on or before March 20, 2000. Comments should 
address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Ordering Clauses

    66. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 
4(i), 303, 307, and 336(f) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 USC 154(i), 303, 307, 336(f) this Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making is adopted.
    67. 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.


     

[[Page 3199]]

Federal Communications Commission
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-1329 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>