3188 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 260

[FRL–6527–4]

Proposed Exclusion From the

Definition of Solid Waste; Hazardous

Waste Management System;

Identification and Listing of Hazardous

Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public comment

period extension.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

the public, EPA is extending the public

comment period for the proposed rule

regarding a variance from EPA’s

hazardous waste management

requirements for certain materials

reclaimed by the World Resources

Company (WRC) from metal-bearing

sludges. The proposed rule was

published December 9, 1999 (64 FR

68968). The comment period has been

extended an additional 30 days and will

end March 8, 2000.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted to EPA by March 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must submit

an original and two copies of comments

referencing docket number F–99–

WRCP–FFFFF to: RCRA Docket

Information Center, Office of Solid

Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Headquarters, Ariel

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.

Hand deliveries of comments should be

made to the Arlington, VA address

below.

Comments may also be submitted

electronically to: rcradocket@epamail.epa.gov. Comments in

electronic format should also be

identified by the docket number F–99–

WRCP–FFFFF. All electronic comments

should be submitted as an ANCII file

and should not use any special

characters or any form of encryption.

Commenters should not submit any

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

by e-mail. An original and two copies of

CBI must be submitted under separate

cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control

Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

Public Comments and supporting

materials are available for public

viewing at the RCRA Information Center

(RIC) located at: Crystal Gateway 1, First

Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA. The docket is open from

9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. To

review docket materials it is

recommended that a member of the

public make an appointment by calling

(703) 603-9230. Members of the public

may make a maximum of 100 copies

from the regulatory docket at no charge.

Additional copies cost $0.15/page. For

instructions on how to access the docket

index see the Supplementary

Information Section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information contact the RCRA/

Superfund/ EPCRA/UST Hotline at

(800) 424–9346 (toll free) or TDD (800)

553–7672 (hearing impaired). In the

Washington, DC metropolitan area call

(703) 412–9810 or TDD (703) 412–3323.

For more detailed information on

specific aspects of this rulemaking

contact Ms. Marilyn Goode, U.S. EPA,

MC 5304W, Ariel Rios Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC

20460. E-mail: goode.marilyn@epa.gov.

Phone: (703) 308–8800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Index

to the docket is available on the

Internet. Access it by following these

directions:

WWW: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/

osw/hazwaste.htm#id

FTP: FTP: ftp.epa.gov

Login: Anonymous

Password: Your Internet Address

Files are located in /pub/epaoswer

The official record for this action will

be kept in paper form. Accordingly, EPA

will transfer all comments received

electronically into paper form and place

them in the official record, which will

also include all comments submitted

directly in writing. The official record is

a paper record maintained at the

address in ADDRESSES at the beginning

of this notice. EPA responses to

comments, whether the comments are

written or electronic, will be in a notice

in the Federal Register or in a response

to comments document placed in the

official record for this rulemaking. EPA

will not immediately reply to

commenters electronically other than to

seek clarification of electronic

comments that may be garbled in

transmission or during conversion to

paper form.

Dated: January 11, 2000.

Elizabeth Cotsworth,

Director, Office of Solid Waste.

[FR Doc. 00–1364 Filed 1–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLIING CODE 6560–50–P

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 jboley@fcc.gov, and to

Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to vhuth@eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim

Matthews, Policy and Rules Division,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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

jboley@fcc.gov.

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/MasslMedia/

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 lowpower 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

3190 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 noiselimited 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 §§ 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 § 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 fullservice TV stations, and predicted

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 Adesignated 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 § 73.623(c) of our rules.

Alternatively, we seek comment on

protecting licensed Class A and Class Adesignated service areas from DTV

station proposals in the manner in

which DTV applicants protect fullservice 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 § 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 fullpower 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 lowpower 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

3192 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 § 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 incore 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 § 74.705 of the LPTV rules.

LPTV stations have been engineered to

protect the Grade B contour of fullservice 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 LongleyRice 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

§§ 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

3194 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 § 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

§ 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 § 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 firstserved 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

3196 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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

3198 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 §§ 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 ecfs@fcc.gov, and should

include the following words in the body

of the message, ‘‘get form <your e-mail

address.’’ A sample form and directions

will be sent in reply.

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 bcline@fcc.gov.

63. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding

will be treated as a permit-but-disclose

notice and comment rulemaking

proceeding, subject to the ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ requirements under

§ 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3199

Federal Communications Commission

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–1329 Filed 1–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[I.D. 121799E]

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species

Fisheries; Additional Public Hearings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Public hearings; extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: NMFS filed a public hearing

announcement and request for

comments on December 21, 1999, to

receive comments from fishery

participants and other members of the

public regarding proposed regulations to

reduce bycatch in the Atlantic pelagic

longline fishery. NMFS also announced

a joint meeting of the HMS and Billfish

Advisory Panels (APs). NMFS herewith

announces three additional public

hearings and extends the comment

period for both the proposed rule and

the Draft Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement/Regulatory Impact

Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (DSEIS/RIR/IRFA).

To accommodate people unable to

attend a hearing or wishing to provide

written comments, NMFS also solicits

written comments on the proposed rule

and the DSEIS/RIR/IRFA.

DATES: The additional hearings are

scheduled as follows:

1. Tuesday, February 15, 2000, 7 to

9:30 p.m., Biloxi, MS.

2. Wednesday, February 16, 2000, 7 to

9:30 p.m., New Orleans, LA.

3. Thursday, February 17, 2000, 7 to

9:30 p.m., Riverhead, NY.

Written comments on the proposed

rule or DSEIS/RIR/IRFA must be

received at the appropriate address or

fax number (see ADDRESSES) no later

than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on

March 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The locations for the

additional hearings are as follows:

1. Department of Marine Resources,

Back Bay Auditorium, 1141 Bayview

Avenue, Biloxi, MS 39530

2. Four Points Hotel, 333 Poydras

Street, New Orleans, LA 70130

3. Town Hall, 2000 Howell Avenue,

Riverhead, NY 11901

Persons submitting written comments

on the proposed rule or the DSEIS/RIR/

IRFA should include their name,

address and if possible phone number;

the title of the document on which

comments are being submitted; and

specific factors or comments along with

supporting reasons why you believe

NMFS should consider them in reaching

a decision.

Written comments on the proposed

rule or DSEIS/RIR/IRFA should be sent

to Rebecca Lent, Chief, Highly Migratory

Species Management Division, Office of

Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), National

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910. Comments also may be sent via

facsimile (fax) to 301–713–1917.

Comments will not be accepted if

submitted via e-mail or Internet. For

copies of the draft Technical

Memorandum and DSEIS/RIR/IRFA

contact Jill Stevenson at 301–713–2347,

or write to Rebecca Lent.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill

Stevenson at 301–713–2347, fax 301–

713–1917, e-mail

jill.stevenson@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed regulations that are the subject

of the hearings are necessary to address

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act for the conservation and

management of HMS.

A complete description of the

measures, and the purpose and need for

the proposed actions, is contained in the

proposed rule, published December 15,

1999 (64 FR 69982) and is not repeated

here. Information on other hearing

locations and the AP meeting was

published on December 28, 1999 (64 FR

72636). Copies of the proposed rule or

the list of other hearing and AP meeting

locations may be obtained by writing

(see ADDRESSES) or by calling Jill

Stevenson (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT).

On December 30, 1999, the

Environmental Protection Agency

published a Notice of Availability of the

DSEIS/RIR/IRFA for the proposed action

(64 FR 73550). The comment period on

this document (EIS No. 990495) is also

extended until March 1, 2000.

Special Accommodations

The hearings and the AP meeting are

physically accessible to people with

disabilities. Requests for sign language

interpretation or other auxiliary aids

should be directed to Jill Stevenson (see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at

least 7 days prior to the hearing or

meeting.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq., and 16

U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: January 14, 2000.

Bruce C. Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–1348 Filed 1–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F