[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 18 (Thursday, January 28, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4322-4327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1941]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

[MM Docket No. 87-268; FCC 98-315]


Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing 
Television Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission has adopted a Second Memorandum Opinion and 
Order (Second MO&O) addressing petitions for reconsideration of the 
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and 
Order (Service Reconsideration Order) and the Memorandum Opinion and 
Order on Reconsideration of the Sixth

[[Page 4323]]

Report and Order (Allotment Reconsideration Order) in this proceeding. 
This Second MO&O generally reaffirms the Commission's DTV eligibility 
and allotment policies. The Commission is, however, revising and 
clarifying certain of its DTV allotment policies in response to 
petitioners' requests. These actions will resolve the remaining issues 
regarding our policies and rules for DTV and analog (NTSC) channel 
allotments.

DATES: Effective March 1, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Franca (202-418-2470), Alan 
Stillwell (202-418-2470) or Robert Eckert (202-428-2470), Office of 
Engineering and Technology.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth and Sixth 
Report and Orders (Second MO&O) in MM Docket No. 87-268, FCC 98-315, 
adopted November 24, 1998, and released December 18, 1998. The full 
text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room 230), 1919 M 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. The complete text of this decision also 
may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, 
International Transcription Service, 1231 20th Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20036, (202-857-3800).

Summary of the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order on 
Reconsideration of the Fifth and Sixth Report and Orders

    1. In the Second MO&O, the Commission has affirmed, with some minor 
modifications and clarifications, its Memorandum Opinion and Order on 
Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order (Service Reconsideration 
Order) in MM Docket No. 87-268, FCC 98-23, adopted February 17, 1998, 
63 FR 15774 (April 1, 1998), and its Memorandum Opinion and Order on 
Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order (Allotment 
Reconsideration Order) in MM Docket No. 87-268, adopted February 17, 
1998, FCC 98-24, 63 FR 13546 (March 3, 1998). In the Service 
Reconsideration Order, the Commission addressed petitions for 
reconsideration of its eligibility standards for the initial DTV 
channels and other rules and procedures for broadcasters to convert to 
digital television (DTV) service. In the Allotment Reconsideration 
Order, the Commission addressed petitions for reconsideration of its 
decisions on a Table of Allotments for digital television (DTV) 
service, policies and rules for the initial DTV allotments, procedures 
for assigning those allotted channels, and plans for spectrum recovery.
    2. The Commission revised and clarified certain of its DTV 
allotment policies in response to petitioners' requests. First, in 
response to a petition from Fox Broadcasting Company, the Commission 
modified its policy temporarily restricting requests for maximization 
of UHF DTV station power to 200 kW to provide flexibility for DTV 
licensees to request higher power, up to the 1000 kW maximum, where 
certain conditions are met. The Commission found that the 200 kW cap 
may not be needed in all situations and that it is desirable to permit 
immediate full maximization to 1000 kW in situations where such changes 
would not affect the maximization plans of others. The Commission 
indicated that the following provisions will apply to applications 
proposing such power increases that would increase a station's DTV 
service area in one or more directions beyond the area resulting from 
the station's allotment parameters. Such requests must include an 
interference analysis that demonstrates compliance with the de minimis 
interference standard set forth in Sec. 73.623(c)(2) of the rules. This 
interference analysis must be performed assuming that all other DTV 
facilities are operating at the DTV power levels specified for their 
allotment, or 200 kW, whichever is greater, and at the allotted site 
and antenna height above average terrain. All such applications will be 
placed on public notice and interested parties will be allowed 30 days 
to file objections. A party may object to such requests where the 
change would impact its future plans to maximize its own DTV 
operations, i.e., to an extent greater than could be achieved at a 
power level of 200 kW. Upon the filing of an objection to a 
maximization application, the affected parties will be allowed 30 days 
to resolve the conflict. In the event the parties are unable to resolve 
their differences, the application will be dismissed and the applicant 
will be allowed to resubmit the application with a request for no more 
than 200 kW ERP. These policies will apply both to future applications 
and applications now on file at the Commission.
    3. The Commission also clarified its policy with respect to pending 
applications to modify existing analog, or NTSC, television facilities. 
Several petitioners argued that the Commission's treatment of 
applications for modification of NTSC facilities and new NTSC 
applications is disparate and unfair. They observed that in the 
Allotment Reconsideration Order the Commission stated that service 
replication of DTV allotments is based on facilities authorized as of 
April 3, 1997, and that it refused requests to process all pending NTSC 
modification applications and grant them full DTV service replication 
of the modified facility. In contrast to this decision, they observe 
that in the Service Reconsideration Order the Commission stated that 
applications for new NTSC facilities that were pending as of April 3, 
1997, would be processed and that the grantees could operate either a 
digital or analog station prior to conversion. These petitioners argued 
that all applications pending as of April 3, 1997, whether for new or 
modified NTSC facilities, should be treated the same. The Commission 
explained that its actions with respect to modification applications 
granted before the DTV Table were evaluated based on the same criteria 
that will be applied in evaluating other NTSC modification applications 
and did not compromise either its DTV allotment goals or opportunities 
for increasing the NTSC or DTV facilities of other stations, and 
therefore its treatment of all such applications is fair and equitable.
    4. The Commission advised interested parties that in processing the 
remaining pending applications for modification of NTSC facilities, it 
will consider the impact of the proposed change on the service area of 
any affected DTV station as computed from the location and facilities 
specified in the Second MO&O, or any increases in facilities authorized 
subsequent to those established in Appendix B. The Commission further 
advised applicants that, to the extent it grants applications for 
modifications of NTSC facilities, it will not automatically increase 
the facilities of the associated DTV channel to replicate the new NTSC 
service area. In this regard, the Commission stated that it is 
concerned that increasing DTV facilities in this manner could result in 
significant new interference to either or both NTSC stations or other 
DTV stations. Accordingly, if parties with pending applications for 
NTSC modifications also desire to have their DTV facilities modified, 
they must submit a separate application for modification of the DTV 
station. Such applications for DTV station modifications will be 
evaluated under the criteria set forth in Secs. 73.622 and 73.623 of 
the rules.
    5. The Commission next clarified its policy with respect to 
protection of allotments for proposed new NTSC stations. A number of 
petitioners that had filed applications for new NTSC stations within 
areas covered by the

[[Page 4324]]

Commission's 1987 Order (Freeze Order) freezing acceptance of 
applications for new television stations in certain congested areas 
sought reconsideration to ensure that allotments will be available for 
their applications. These petitioners argued that, in the Sixth Report 
and Order in the DTV proceeding, the Commission indicated that it would 
continue to process applications filed on or before September 20, 1996, 
because it did not believe that those applications would have a 
significant negative impact on the DTV Table. They further contended 
that in the Allotment Reconsideration Order the Commission confirmed 
that it intended to protect pending NTSC applications filed by this 
deadline. These parties argued that in the Allotment Reconsideration 
Order the Commission made clear for the first time that applications 
not accepted for filing were not protected and that to the extent that 
a conflicting DTV allotment has been made, it did not plan to allot a 
replacement channel for those applications. They stated that the 
Commission did not provide an explanation for not protecting the 
allotments sought in their applications.
    6. In reviewing the petitioners' requests for reconsideration, the 
Commission found that these parties appeared to misunderstand its 
policy with respect to applications for new NTSC stations that were 
filed on or before September 20, 1996, as that policy applies to 
applications for new stations at locations within areas covered by the 
1987 Freeze Order. The Commission indicated that its policy of 
maintaining and protecting vacant NTSC allotments that are the subject 
of pending applications applied only to applications for new NTSC 
stations outside of the freeze areas. It stated that it did not 
consider applications within the freeze areas to be pending and did not 
protect such applications by avoiding the creation of DTV allotments 
that would conflict with the new NTSC stations they propose. In this 
regard, the Commission noted that it had indicated previously, in the 
Sixth Further Notice in the DTV proceeding, that it would continue its 
longstanding policy of considering requests for waiver of the Freeze 
Order on a case-by-case basis. The Commission noted that if all vacant 
allotments were protected, it would not be possible to accommodate all 
existing broadcasters and the expected service areas of many of the DTV 
allotments would be reduced.
    7. The Commission did, however, indicate that it found it desirable 
to provide applicants seeking to operate new NTSC stations in the 
freeze areas with options to pursue their applications wherever such 
options would not conflict with NTSC or DTV stations (including DTV 
allotments, authorized or requested increases in DTV allotment 
facilities and proposals for new or modified DTV allotments). In this 
regard, it adopted the suggestion of several of the petitioners that it 
allow parties whose NTSC applications conflict with DTV stations to 
request a change in the NTSC channel they seek or to amend their 
application to eliminate all such conflicts. The Commission agreed that 
where an alternate NTSC channel below channel 60 is available, it would 
provide a win-win solution in avoiding interference to DTV service and 
allowing the public to receive additional television service. The 
Commission therefore stated that in a subsequent Public Notice, its 
Mass Media Bureau will announce a window of time during which such 
petitions to amend the NTSC Table of Allotments or amendments to 
freeze-waiver applications may be filed. Parties that had filed 
applications for new NTSC stations using allotments in the freeze areas 
will be permitted to amend their applications if such amendment would 
eliminate interference to DTV service predicted using the criteria set 
forth in Sec. 73.623(c) of the rules. Such amendments may include 
changes in the ERP, directional antenna pattern, antenna height or site 
location requested in the application, but the amendment must conform 
to pertinent NTSC requirements. The application amendment may also 
specify DTV operation.
    8. In response to an ex parte request from the Dispatch Broadcast 
Group (Dispatch), the Commission modified its operating requirements 
for DTV stations to provide licensees with greater flexibility in 
scheduling their DTV operations in the early phases of the DTV 
implementation process. In particular, the Commission modified its 
rules to allow stations, both commercial and noncommercial, that 
voluntarily commence DTV service early full flexibility in determining 
the schedule on which they operate their DTV service, and thereafter to 
require that they operate in accordance with the existing requirement 
that they must provide at least one free over-the-air DTV video program 
at no charge to viewers, at any time their associated NTSC stations are 
operating.
    9. Finally, the Commission make several adjustments to the DTV 
Table in response to requests of individual petitioners. The revised 
DTV Table and associated technical parameters for station operation are 
available for inspection on the internet at www.fcc.gov and at the FCC 
Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 
during regular business hours.

Procedural Matters

    10. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This Second MO&O has 
been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
Public Law No. 104-13, and found to impose no new or modified 
information collection requirements on the public.
    11. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. With 
respect to this Second MO&O, the Commission has prepared a Supplemental 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of 
the rules in this document. None of the petitions for reconsideration 
of the Service Reconsideration Order or the Allotment Reconsideration 
Order raised issues concerning the Supplemental FRFAs prepared for 
those decisions. The Supplemental FRFA for the Second MO&O is as 
follows:

A. Need for, and Objectives of, this Memorandum Opinion and Order

    12. In the Fifth Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules for 
the transition to DTV service, including eligibility standards for the 
initial DTV channels, a construction schedule, a requirement that 
broadcasters continue to provide a free, over-the-air television 
service, and a simulcast requirement phased-in at the end of the 
transition period. In the Service Reconsideration Order, the Commission 
addressed petitions for reconsideration of its eligibility standards 
for the initial DTV channels and other elements of its rules and 
procedures for broadcasters to convert to DTV service. In the Sixth 
Report and Order, the Commission adopted policies, procedures and 
technical criteria for use in conjunction with operation of broadcast 
digital television (DTV) service, adopted a DTV Table of Allotments, 
adopted a plan for the recovery of a portion of the spectrum currently 
allocated to TV broadcasting, and provided procedures for assigning DTV 
frequencies. In the Allotment Reconsideration Order, the Commission 
addressed petitions for reconsideration of its decisions on the DTV 
Table of Allotments, policies and rules for the initial DTV allotments, 
procedures for assigning those allotted channels, and plans for 
spectrum recovery. In the present Memorandum Opinion and Order, the 
Commission addresses petitions for reconsideration

[[Page 4325]]

of both the Service Reconsideration Order and the Allotment 
Reconsideration Order. Throughout this proceeding, we have sought to 
allot DTV channels in a manner that is most efficient for broadcasters 
and the public and least disruptive to broadcast television service 
during the period of transition from NTSC to DTV service. We wish to 
ensure that the spectrum is used efficiently and effectively through 
reliance on market forces, and ensure that the introduction of digital 
TV fully serves the public interest.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public In Response to 
the Supplemental FRFAs

    13. None.

C. Description and Estimate Of The Number Of Small Entities To Which 
The Rules Will Apply

    14. As noted, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses were 
incorporated into the Fifth Report and Order and the Sixth Report and 
Order. In those analyses, we described in detail the small entities 
that might be significantly affected by the rules adopted in the Fifth 
Report and Order and the Sixth Report and Order. Those entities 
included full service television stations, TV translator facilities, 
and LPTV stations. In addition, while we did not believe that 
television equipment manufacturers, manufacturers of television 
equipment used by consumers, and computer manufacturers constituted 
regulated entities for the purpose of those previous FRFAs, we included 
them in the analysis of the FRFAs because we thought that some rule 
changes and textual discussions in the Fifth Report and Order and the 
Sixth Report and Order might ultimately have some affect on equipment 
compliance. In the present Memorandum Opinion and Order we address 
reconsideration petitions filed in response to the Service 
Reconsideration Order and the Allotment Reconsideration Order. In this 
present Supplemental FRFA, we hereby incorporate by reference the 
description and estimate of the number of small entities from the 
previous FRFAs in this proceeding.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    15. The rules adopted will result in no changes in current 
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Burdens on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    16. As noted in the previous FRFAs, the DTV Table of Allotments 
will affect all of the commercial and noncommercial broadcast 
television stations eligible for a DTV channel in the transition period 
and a significant number of the LPTV and TV translator stations. LPTV 
and TV translator stations, especially, are likely to be small 
entities. It is expected that the allotments will constitute the 
population of channels on which broadcasters will operate DTV service 
in the near future. Affected stations will need to modify or obtain new 
transmission facilities and, to a varying extent, production equipment 
to operate on the new DTV channels. The actual cost of equipment is 
expected to vary in accordance with the degree to which the station 
becomes involved in DTV programming and origination.
    Considering this and other information, the Memorandum Opinion and 
Order makes the following changes to the Commission's DTV policies:
    (1) Reaffirms the Commission's initial DTV eligibility standards 
and denies requests by several petitioners that we change the channel 
of certain DTV allotments that conflict with the NTSC allotments for 
which they have submitted applications or petitions for rule making. 
(In general, these petitioners filed applications that had not been 
accepted or acted upon by the Commission because they contained a 
request for waiver of the 1987 Freeze Order.) The MO&O does, however, 
grant the petitioners' alternative suggestion that they be permitted to 
modify their existing applications to specify alternative channels that 
do not conflict with the DTV allotments. This will allow those parties 
to continue to pursue their outstanding investments in seeking a new 
stations wherever possible.
    (2) Grants Fox's request that we modify our decision to limit 
initial maximization requests to 200 kW, subject to certain conditions. 
Accordingly, the item permits parties to submit requests for DTV power 
increases above 200 kW, up to the 1000 kW maximum. Such requests must 
include an engineering showing that demonstrates compliance with the de 
minimis interference standard with all affected stations assumed to be 
operating at the DTV power level specified for their allotment or at 
200 kW, whichever is greater. Requests will be placed on public notice 
for 30 days and any objections to the increase above 200 kW must be 
resolved by the applicant. This action will allow a number of stations 
to construct their initial DTV facilities with greater than 200 kW 
effective radiated power and thereby avoid the need for them to 
undertake a more costly two-stage construction process to achieve 
higher power in the future, after the current 200 kW limitation on 
power increases is lifted.
    (3) Grants Dispatch's request for modification of the operating 
requirements for DTV stations to provide licensees with greater 
flexibility in scheduling their DTV operations in the early phases of 
the DTV implementation process. In particular, the rules have been 
modified to allow stations, both commercial and noncommercial, that 
voluntarily commence DTV service early full flexibility in determining 
the schedule on which they operate their DTV service. Thereafter, such 
stations must operate in accordance with the existing requirement that 
they provide at least one free over-the-air DTV video program at no 
charge to viewers, at any time their associated NTSC stations are 
operating.
    (4) Grants a number of individual requests for changes in the 
initial DTV allotments. These actions do not alter in any significant 
way the previous FRFAs and Supplemental FRFAs or the potential effect 
of the rules on any small entities that may be subject to them.
    17. The Commission will send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, including the Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Ordering Clauses

    18. In accordance with the actions described herein, it is ordered 
that Part 73 of the Commission's rules is amended as set forth in the 
rule changes. In addition, it is ordered that the rule amendments as 
set forth shall be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register. This action is taken pursuant to authority contained in 
Secs. 4(i), 7, 301, 302, 303, 307 and 336 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157, 301, 302, 303, 307 and 336.
    19. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of Public 
Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall send a copy of this 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Supplemental Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.
    20. For additional information concerning this matter, contact 
Bruce

[[Page 4326]]

Franca, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2470, Alan 
Stillwell, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2470, or 
Robert Eckert, Office of Engineering and Technology, Technical Research 
Branch, (202) 418-2433.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

    Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

    Parts 73 and 74 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are 
amended as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.


Sec. 73.622  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.622 is amended by removing the designation ``c'' from 
entries in paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Under CALIFORNIA, channel 63 at Concord
Under CALIFORNIA, channel 39 at Corona
Under CALIFORNIA, channel 48 at Porterville
Under CALIFORNIA, channels 21, 35, *53 and 55 at Sacramento
Under CALIFORNIA, channel 43 at Salinas
Under CALIFORNIA, channel 61 at San Bernardino
Under CALIFORNIA, channel 41 at San Jose
Under CONNECTICUT, channel *52 at Bridgeport
Under FLORIDA, channel *44 at Boca Raton
Under FLORIDA, channel 22 at Miami
Under HAWAII, channel 31 at Honolulu
Under HAWAII, channel *7 at Lihue
Under ILLINOIS, channels 19 and 43 at Chicago
Under ILLINOIS, channel 16 at Rockford
Under INDIANA, channel 51 at Salem
Under MASSACHUSETTS, channel 29 at Worcester
Under MICHIGAN, channel *55 at East Lansing
Under MICHIGAN, channel 51 at Lansing
Under NEW HAMPSHIRE, channel *49 at Keene
Under NEW HAMPSHIRE, channel 59 at Manchester
Under NEW JERSEY, channel *18 at New Brunswick
Under NEW YORK, channel *42 at Binghamton
Under NEW YORK, channel 56 at New York
Under NEW YORK, channel 19 at Syracuse
Under NEW YORK, channel 21 at Watertown
Under OHIO, channel 42 at Sandusky
Under OHIO, channels 19 and 49 at Toledo
Under OHIO, channel 20 at Youngstown
Under PENNSYLVANIA, channel *62 at Allentown
Under PENNSYLVANIA, channel 64 at Philadelphia
Under PENNSYLVANIA, channels 25 and *26 at Pittsburgh
Under RHODE ISLAND, channel 17 at Block Island
Under TENNESSEE, channel *29 at Memphis
Under TEXAS, channel 44 at Houston
Under VIRGINIA, channel 43 at Manassas
Under VIRGINIA, channel 22 at Petersburg
Under WASHINGTON, channel 46 at Wenatchee
Under PUERTO RICO, channel *16 at Fajardo
Under PUERTO RICO, channels 29 and 35 at Mayaguez

    3. Section 73.622 is amended by adding or revising the following 
entries in the table in paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 73.622  DTV Table of Allotments.

* * * * *
    (b) DTV Table of Allotments.

 
                  *        *        *        *        *
Arizona
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Kingman.................................  19, *46
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
California
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Barstow.................................  44
  Blythe..................................  *4
  Calipatria..............................  50
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Clovis..................................  44c
  Coalinga................................  *22
  Concord.................................  63c
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Huntington Beach........................  *48
  Long Beach..............................  61c
  Los Angeles.............................  31c, 35c, 36, *41c, 42, 43,
                                             53c, *59c, 60, 65c, 66
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  San Bernardino..........................  *26, 38
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
Colorado
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Colorado Springs........................  10, 22c, 24
  Craig...................................  *48
  Denver..................................  16, 17, *18, 19, 32c, 34,
                                             35, *40, 43, 51c
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Glenwood Springs........................  23, *39
  Grand Junction..........................  2, 7, 12c, 15, *17
  La Junta................................  *30
  Lamar...................................  *50
  Leadville...............................  *49
  Longmont................................  29
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
Florida
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Bradenton...............................  *5, 42
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Live Oak................................  48
  Marathon................................  *34
  Melbourne...............................  20, 48
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
Idaho
  Boise...................................  *21, 26, 28
  Burley..................................  *48
  Caldwell................................  10c
 
              *        *        *        *        *
  Twin Falls..............................  16, *22, 34
  Weiser..................................  *34
Illinois
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
Indiana
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Evansville..............................  28, 45c, 46, *54, 59
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
Iowa
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Cedar Rapids............................  27, 47, 51, 52
  Centerville.............................  *44
  Council Bluffs..........................  *33c
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
Kansas
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Garden City.............................  16, 18, *42
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Lawrence................................  36
  Oakley..................................  *40
  Pittsburg...............................  30
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
Minnesota
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Hibbing.................................  36, *51
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
Missouri
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Birch Tree..............................  *7

[[Page 4327]]

 
  Bowling Green...........................  *50
  Cape Girardeau..........................  22, 57
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
Montana
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Miles City..............................  13, *39
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
Nevada
  Elko....................................  8, *15
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
New Jersey
  Atlantic City...........................  49, 50
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
New Mexico
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Las Cruces..............................  *23c, 47
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Roswell.................................  28c, 38, 41
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Silver City.............................  12, *33
  Socorro.................................  *31
New York
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
Oklahoma
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Eufala..................................  *31
  Guymon..................................  *29
  Lawton..................................  23
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
Texas
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Longview................................  31
  Lubbock.................................  25, 27, 35c, *39, 40, 43
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Texarkana...............................  15, *50
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
Utah
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
  Cedar City..............................  14, 44
  Monticello..............................  *41
  Ogden...................................  29, *34
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
 

    4. Section 73.622 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 73.622  Digital television table of allotments.

* * * * *
    (e) DTV Service Areas. (1) The service area of a DTV station is the 
geographic area within the station's noise-limited F(50,90) contour 
where its signal strength is predicted to exceed the noise-limited 
service level. The noise-limited contour is the area in which the 
predicted F(50, 90) field strength of the station's signal, in dB above 
1 microvolt per meter (dBu) as determined using the method in 
Sec. 73.625(b), exceeds the following levels (these are the levels at 
which reception of DTV service is limited by noise):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  dBu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channels 2-6.................................................         28
Channels 7-13................................................         36
Channels 14-69...............................................         41
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Within this contour, service is considered available at 
locations where the station's signal strength, as predicted using the 
terrain dependent Longley-Rice point-to-point propagation model, 
exceeds the levels above. Guidance for evaluating coverage areas using 
the Longley-Rice methodology is provided in OET Bulletin No. 69. Copies 
of OET Bulletin No. 69 may be inspected during normal business hours at 
the: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M St., N.W., Public 
Reference Room (Room 239), Washington, DC 20554. This document is also 
available through the Internet on the FCC Home Page at http://
www.fcc.gov.
    5. Section 73.623 is amended by redesignating paragraph (f) as 
paragraph (g) and adding a new paragraph (f), to read as follows:


Sec. 73.623   DTV applications and changes to DTV allotments.

* * * * *
    (f) Parties requesting new allotments on channel 6 be added to the 
DTV Table must submit an engineering study demonstrating that no 
interference would be caused to existing FM radio stations on FM 
channels 200-220.
* * * * *
    6. Section 73.624 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 73.624   Digital television broadcast stations.

* * * * *
    (b) At any time that a DTV broadcast station permittee or licensee 
transmits a video program signal on its analog television channel, it 
must also transmit at least one over-the-air video program signal at no 
direct charge to viewers on the DTV channel that is licensed to the 
analog channel, provided that, before the date on which DTV station is 
required to be constructed under paragraph (d) of this section, the DTV 
broadcast station permittee or licensee is not subject to any minimum 
schedule for operation on the DTV channel. The DTV service that is 
provided pursuant to this paragraph must be at least comparable in 
resolution to the analog television station programming transmitted to 
viewers on the analog channel, but subject to paragraph (f) of this 
section, DTV broadcast stations are not required to simulcast the 
analog programming.
* * * * *

PART 74--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER 
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION SERVICES

    7. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, and 554.

    8. Section 74.706 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 74.706   Digital TV (DTV) station protection.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) -2 dB or less for co-channel operations. This maximum L/D ratio 
for co-channel interference to DTV service is only valid at locations 
where the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio is 25 dB or greater. At the edge 
of the noise-limited service area, where the S/N ratio is 16 dB, the 
maximum L/D ratio for co-channel interference from analog low power TV, 
TV translator or TV booster service into DTV service is -21 dB. At 
locations where the S/N ratio is greater than 16 dB but less than 25 
dB, the maximum L/D field strength ratios are found from the following 
Table (for values between measured values, linear interpolation can be 
used):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              DTV-to-low
                 Signal-to-noise ratio(dB)                   power ratio
                                                                 (dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.00......................................................        21.00
16.35......................................................        19.94
17.35......................................................        17.69
18.35......................................................        16.44
19.35......................................................         7.19
20.35......................................................         4.69
21.35......................................................         3.69
22.35......................................................         2.94
23.35......................................................         2.44
25.00......................................................         2.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-1941 Filed 1-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P