[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56999-57010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27530]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 99-292; FCC 99-257]


Broadcast Services; Radio Stations, Television Stations

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule making.

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

SUMMARY: This document solicits comment the establishment of a ``Class 
A'' Low Power Television (LPTV) service that would afford some measure 
of ``primary'' station status to qualifying stations that would provide 
them with a degree of protection against channel displacement.

DATES: Comments are due December 21, 1999 and Reply Comments are due 
January 20, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Larson, Associate Bureau Chief 
(Engineering), Mass Media Bureau (202)418-2600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 99-292, FCC 99-257, 
adopted September 22, 1999, and released September 29, 1999. The 
complete text of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Dockets 
Branch (Room TW-A306), 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. The 
complete text of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services (202)857-3800, 1231 20th Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20036.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule Making

I. Introduction

    1. By this document we consider additional interference protections 
for certain stations in the Low Power Television (LPTV) service 
1. At this stage, we believe it is appropriate to consider 
the creation of a new ``Class A'' LPTV service that would afford some 
measure of ``primary'' status to qualifying stations. The stability 
this status could provide to these stations would enhance their ability 
to furnish valuable service to their communities, including locally 
produced

[[Page 57000]]

programming. Additionally, it could augment their capacity to obtain 
financing, to engage in the long-term planning necessary to support the 
continuation of this service, and to enter the world of digital 
television. A Class A service could help to preserve LPTV stations 
that, in some cases, are a community's only local television station. 
It could also preserve and enhance the increased broadcast ownership 
diversity resulting from the LPTV service, including significant 
opportunities for minorities, women and small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Low Power Television Service (Subpart G of Part 74 of 
the Commission's Rules) primarily consists of low power television 
(LPTV) stations and television translator stations. LPTV stations 
may retransmit the programs of full service television stations and 
may originate programming. A TV translator station rebroadcasts the 
programs and signals of a television broadcast station and may 
originate emergency warnings of imminent danger and, additionally, 
not more than thirty-seconds per hour of public service 
announcements and material seeking or acknowledging financial 
support deemed necessary to the continued operation of the station. 
Stations in the low power television service are authorized with 
``secondary'' frequency use status and, as such, may not cause 
interference to, and must accept interference from full service 
television stations and other primary services. Additionally, as the 
name suggests, LPTV service stations have lower authorized power 
levels than full service stations. However, unlike full service 
stations, they are not restricted to operating on a channel 
specified in a table of allotments. Also, they are not subject to 
numerous rules applicable to full service stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The document responds to a petition for rule making filed by the 
Community Broadcasters Association (CBA).2 CBA urges the 
Commission to secure a permanent spectrum home for low power television 
(LPTV) stations that provide substantial amounts of locally produced 
programming to their communities, thereby avoiding disruption or even 
elimination of service due to the emergence of digital television (DTV) 
and other new primary services.3 The document seeks comments 
on creation of a form of primary status for qualifying stations and on 
the appropriate regulatory framework for a Class A television service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The petition was filed on September 30, 1997, and amended on 
March 18, 1998. On April 21, 1998, the Commission gave public notice 
of the filing of the petition and amendment (RM-9260) and sought 
public comment. Public Notice (No. 82996), ``Petition for Rulemaking 
Filed for ``Class A'' TV Service'' (RM-9260), April 21, 1998.
    \3\ On February 2, 1999, legislation was introduced in the U.S. 
House of Representatives by Representative Norwood (R-GA), et al., 
the ``Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999'' (H.R. 486), 
proposing a primary Class A service for qualifying LPTV stations. On 
April 13, 1999, a hearing was held before the House Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection on ``The 
Regulatory Classification of Low-Power Television Stations.'' On 
August 5, 1999, the ``Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 
1999'' (S. 1547) was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Burns 
(R-MT), et al. The legislative proposals are similar in many 
respects to the CBA petition and different in others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. The Low Power Television Service

    3. The Commission created the low power television service in 
1982.4 In so doing, it noted that the first of its 
``decision criteria'' had been the ``public need for program 
diversity.'' 5 Further, it acknowledged the potential for 
these stations to provide local program service and concluded that the 
very nature of the service made it likely that LPTV stations would have 
to be very ``directly responsive'' to the interests of local 
consumers.6 Moreover, it deduced that the relatively low 
construction cost and small coverage area of LPTV stations suited them 
to programming to smaller communities and discrete groups in larger 
communities.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Report and Order in BC Docket No. 78-253, 51 R. R. 2d 476 
(1982).
    \5\ Id. at 484, see also Notice of Inquiry in BC Docket 78-253, 
68 FCC 2d 1525, 1536 (1978).
    \6\ Id. at 484-485.
    \7\ Id. at 485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The Commission, however, also recognized that important spectrum 
utilization issues were present. Accordingly, it created LPTV as 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.'' 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at 486; see also id. at n. 23. ``[Because] it is 
integral to the concept of a secondary service that it yield to a 
mutually exclusive primary service, we shall not take low power 
stations into account in authorizing full service stations, and we 
urge low power applicants to consider this fact when they select 
channels.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Since its inception, and notwithstanding its limitations, the 
LPTV service has grown and is providing significant television service 
to diverse audiences throughout the country. Currently, there are some 
2,200 licensed LPTV stations in approximately 1000 
communities,9 operating in all 50 states. Commenters on the 
CBA petition point out that LPTV stations provide a valuable service. 
They say that, due to their very nature, LPTV stations can be fit into 
areas where a higher power station cannot be accommodated in the Table 
of Allotments 10 and, in many cases, are the only television 
station in an area providing local news, weather and public affairs 
programming.11 Additionally, even in well-served markets, 
LPTV stations can and do provide service to the residents of discrete 
geographical communities within those markets.12 Commenters 
say that many stations air programming, often locally produced, to 
residents of specific ethnic, racial and interest communities within 
the larger area, including airing programming in foreign 
languages.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Public Notice, ``Broadcast Station Totals as [of] August 12, 
1999.''
    \10\ See, e.g., comments of AirWaves, Inc. at 1. All references 
to comments and reply comments pertain to comments filed in response 
to Public Notice (No. 82996).
    \11\ Comments of Free Life Ministries, Inc. at 1.
    \12\ In its comments, D Lindsey Communications notes that its 
LPTV station is the only station providing local news for residents 
of Temecula and Murrietta, CA, both of which are within the Los 
Angeles DMA. Comments of D Lindsey Communications at 1. See also 
comments of Engle Broadcasting at 1-2.
    \13\ See, e.g., comments of Community Broadcasting Company of 
San Diego at 2; comments of Hispanic Broadcasters of AZ, Inc. at 1; 
Channel 19 TV Corp. at 2; comments of ZGS Broadcast Holdings, Inc. 
at 1, comments of National Minority T.V., Inc at 1; comments of 
Liberty University, Inc. at 2; comments of Debra Goodworth, Turnpike 
Television at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The LPTV service has also 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 provided first-time ownership opportunities 
for minorities and women.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ First Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93-114, 9 FCC Rcd 
2555, 59 FR 31552, June 20 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The low power television service also includes television 
translator stations, which rebroadcast the programs of full service TV 
stations. Currently, there are approximately 4,900 licensed TV 
translators; 15 most operate in the western mountainous 
regions of the country. Translators deliver free over-the-air 
television service, mostly to rural communities that cannot directly 
receive the nearest TV stations because of distance or intervening 
terrain obstructions. They also provide ``fill-in'' service to terrain-
obstructed areas within a full service station's service area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Public Notice, ``Broadcast Station Totals as [of] August 
12, 1999.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The pursuit of other compelling public interest goals may 
negatively affect the service of LPTV stations in certain 
communities.16 Specifically, 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.17 At the same time, the 
amount of radio frequency spectrum allocated to broadcast television is 
being reduced.18

[[Page 57001]]

The conversion will eventually accommodate more television stations in 
the reduced spectrum. In the meantime, however, numerous LPTV stations 
will be displaced.19 Many will have to find new channels; 
some will be unable to do so and will have to cease 
operating.20 As we have stated, revisions to the DTV Table 
to protect or otherwise accommodate LPTV stations ``would, by their 
very nature, pose restrictions on our choice of allotments for full 
service DTV stations.'' 21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ TV translator stations may be affected to a lesser extent, 
given that most are distantly located from full service stations or 
are terrain-shielded from them. For instance, in the DTV proceeding 
the Commission estimated that approximately 55 to 65 percent of 
existing LPTV stations and 80 to 90 percent of all TV translators 
would be able to continue to operate and that operations in or near 
major urban areas would be most affected. Sixth Further Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 87-268, 11 FCC Rcd 10968, 61 FR 
43209, August 21, 1996.
    \17\ There are currently 1,599 such stations, both VHF and UHF, 
commercial and noncommercial. Public Notice, ``Broadcast Station 
Totals as [sic] August 12, 1999.''
    \18\ See Section 3004 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Public 
Law 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, approved August 5, 1997; see also Report 
and Order in ET Docket No. 97-157 12 FCC Rcd 22953, 63 FR 06669, 
February 10, 1998; see also Sixth Report and Order in MM Docket No. 
87-268, 12 FCC Rcd 14588, 62 FR 26684, May 14, 1997, recon. granted 
in part, denied in part Memorandum Opinion and Order on 
Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order in MM Docket No. 87-
268, 13 FCC Rcd 7418, 63 FR 13546, March 20, 1998, second recon. 
granted in part, denied in part Second Memorandum Opinion and Order 
on Reconsideration of the Fifth and Sixth Report and Orders in MM 
Docket No. 87-268, 64 FR 4322, January 28, 1999.
    \19\ For example, approximately 260 LPTV stations operate on a 
channel from channel 60-69 and are required by law to vacate these 
channels by the end of the DTV transition period or earlier if they 
cause interference to primary services using these channels.
    \20\ As an indication of the extent of potential displacement, 
on June 1, 1998, 548 LPTV stations and 472 television broadcast 
translator stations filed ``displacement relief'' applications for 
operation on a different channel. Of these 303 applications were 
filed by stations on channels 60-69. These consisted of 116 LPTV and 
187 translator applications. Over 280 applications in over 100 
groups were mutually exclusive and the parties were given time in 
which to try and resolve their situations. As a result, the number 
of mutually exclusive applications has been reduced to 98 in 40 
groups. Since then, we have received other displacement relief 
applications, bringing the total received to 814 LPTV and 772 TV 
translator applications; about 750 of the displacement relief 
applications have been granted.
    \21\ Memorandum, Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the 
Sixth Report and Order in MM Docket No. 87-268, supra at 7462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Current Measures To Ameliorate Station Displacement

    9. In recognition of the severe consequences the transition to 
digital television will have on many stations in the LPTV service, the 
Commission took a number of steps intended to ameliorate those 
consequences. Despite all of the measures that we have taken to 
mitigate the impact of the DTV transition on stations in the LPTV 
service that transition will have significant adverse effects on many 
stations, primarily LPTV stations operating in urban areas where there 
are few, if any, available replacement channels. Although we have 
previously rejected pleas by low power advocates to grant them full 
primary status, we have not explored the option of granting something 
less than full primary status, such as the Class A status suggested by 
CBA. As we noted above, the greater stability that Class A status could 
provide such stations, many of which are small businesses, may enable 
them to make long term commitments to continuation of service, 
expansion of service (including digital operations), station upgrades 
and program production and purchases. Moreover, the comments filed in 
response to the CBA petition indicate that such status would be of 
tremendous benefit in obtaining the financial backing necessary to 
these ends. Finally, such status could remove the cloud over qualifying 
LPTV service stations that, even if they were to weather the DTV 
transition and possible displacement, they could be displaced or 
eliminated at any time by additional DTV stations by new entrants or by 
future primary services. On the other hand, Class A stations need not 
threaten the conversion to DTV because their ``less than full'' primary 
status could be tailored with appropriate safeguards. Accordingly, we 
herein consider whether and how to craft a Class A service with some 
measure of primary status for qualifying stations, and we seek comment 
in this regard.

C. The CBA Petition

    10. On September 30, 1997, the Community Broadcasters Association 
filed a Petition for Rule Making requesting that Part 73, Subpart E of 
the Commission's Rules be amended to create a Class A low power 
television service that would afford primary protection status to the 
members of the Class; the petition was amended on March 18, 
1998.22 CBA proposed that Class A stations be regulated as 
television broadcast stations, except for rules related to station 
power or the manner in which the stations were initially authorized as 
LPTV stations.23 Initial applications to attain Class A 
status would have to be filed within one year of the effective date of 
the rules for the new service. These applications would be considered 
minor change applications, not subject to the filing of competing 
applications. They could not propose a channel change or facilities 
changes that would extend a station's currently protected service area. 
Under the proposal, an applicant would be required: (1) To demonstrate 
that for the period of 3 months immediately preceding submission of the 
application, its LPTV station complied with the minimum operating 
schedule for TV broadcast stations (47 CFR 73.1740) and broadcast not 
less than 3 hours in each calendar week of locally produced 
programming, (2) to show that the Class A station would not cause 
interference within the Grade B contour of any television station 
operating on a channel specified in the TV Table of Allotments (47 CFR 
73.606(b)) or the DTV Table of Allotments (47 CFR 73.622(b)) as of the 
date of filing of the Class A application or within the protected 
contour of any prior-authorized LPTV or TV translator station, (3) to 
certify that on and after the filing of the application that its 
station operated and would continue to operate in compliance with the 
pertinent regulations of Part 73. Class A stations would be protected 
from interference within their principal service contours, could apply 
for a change of channel to resolve interference conflicts without being 
subject to competing applications, could seek interference-free 
operations at certain higher levels of effective radiated power 
(``ERP'') than now permitted in the LPTV service, and could apply to 
convert to digital operation on their existing channels or seek 
authorization on an additional channel for this purpose where 
interference standards could be met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ All references to proposed Part 73 amendments, unless 
otherwise specified, are to the amended rules as set forth in 
Appendix A to the March 18, 1998, ``Amendment to Petition for Rule 
Making.''
    \23\ For example, Class A stations would not be confined to use 
of channels designated in the analog or digital TV allotment tables, 
nor would they be subject to analog full service TV minimum distance 
separations, certain DTV technical application evaluation criteria, 
or the Commission's multiple ownership and cross ownership 
restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. On August 27, 1998, CBA filed a ``Report of Ex Parte 
Communication'' (ex parte letter) indicating that, as a result of 
conversations with Mass Media Bureau personnel, it would clarify some 
parts of its proposal. Principally, CBA clarified that Class A 
television stations should not be permitted to cause interference with 
DTV stations within service areas that replicate their NTSC service 
areas, even if DTV stations were to commence operation at less than the 
allotted transmission parameters; that the protected service area for 
Class A stations be defined in the same manner as that for LPTV 
stations (section 74.707(a) of the Commission's Rules) or the 
equivalent coverage for digital operations; that its proposal to exempt 
Class A stations from section 73.622 of the Commission's Rules was 
intended to permit stations to operate digitally without being limited 
to channels listed in the DTV Allotment Table (other parts of that 
rule, such as computations of distance, might be applicable to Class 
A.)

[[Page 57002]]

D. Comments on the CBA Petition

    12. More than sixty comments were filed in response to the CBA's 
rulemaking petition. A large majority of the commenters favored the 
creation of a Class A service, pointing to the service LPTV stations 
now provide, especially local programming, as well as programming 
designed for niche markets and racial and ethnic minorities.

III. Discussion

    13. We seek comment on whether and how to create a Class A primary 
television service for qualifying stations in the LPTV service. We 
tentatively conclude that the local service they provide their 
audiences warrants protection to the extent possible, and we seek 
comment on this tentative conclusion.
    14. We also wish to consider if there are circumstances under which 
it would be appropriate to extend opportunities for Class A status to 
certain television translator stations. Translator stations deliver 
television programming to remote communities and are often a 
community's only means of receiving free off-air television 
programming, particularly at locations where the signals of the nearest 
TV stations are blocked by mountainous terrain.24 The 
National Translator Association believes that a translator should be 
able meet a minimum local programming qualification for Class A status 
by rebroadcasting the local programming of a full service station 
within that station's Grade B contour. We seek comment on this 
proposal. We also ask if there are other situations that would warrant 
Class A status for translators; for example, translators that provide 
the only television service to a community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Translator licensees could elect to become LPTV operators 
and adapt their operations so as to meet any qualifications we might 
establish for Class A status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Altering the status of LPTV at this highly fluid juncture in 
the transition to digital television would require a careful balancing 
of many competing considerations. Perhaps most critically, we must 
ensure that the transition of full power television to digital 
broadcasting is not undermined. We must ensure our capacity to 
accommodate necessary adjustments in full power stations' operating 
parameters as digital service is being implemented. Therefore, the 
details and precise characteristics of any Class A low power service, 
particularly as to interference with full power stations, would have to 
be carefully crafted if our goals of a stable, protected low power 
service and a supple full power digital environment are all to be 
compatible and attainable. We are also concerned that the creation of a 
Class A LPTV service not unduly disrupt important services provided by 
secondary service facilities such as television translators, including 
public translators and translators that serve rural areas. We turn now 
to these matters.

A. Defining Interference Protection Rights and Responsibilities

    16. The most important question before us is what does ``primary'' 
service mean in this context? To what level of protection should Class 
A stations be entitled? This issue is the most problematical issue to 
be resolved. Significant DTV issues include protection to allotted and 
authorized service, needs of DTV stations to make adjustments to 
correct unforeseen problems, need to accommodate DTV stations allocated 
on non-core channels, maximization of DTV service areas, and requests 
for DTV allotments by new entrants. There are also NTSC TV protection 
issues, which involve pending applications for new stations and 
petitions to amend the TV allotment table, as well as pending and 
future facilities modification requests.
1. DTV Protection Issues
    17. Service Replication. We tentatively conclude that Class A 
status cannot be permitted to interfere with DTV broadcasters' ability 
to replicate insofar as possible their NTSC service areas, a primary 
goal in the DTV proceeding.25 We seek comment on this 
tentative conclusion. At a minimum, we intend for Class A stations to 
protect the service areas resulting from the DTV allotment parameters 
and any additional DTV service authorized by construction permit or 
license or proposed in a DTV construction permit application before the 
filing of a Class A TV application. As stations under Part 73 of our 
rules, 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.26 Criteria for protecting DTV 
service are given in sections 73.622 and 73.623 of our rules and in OET 
Bulletin 69.27 We seek comment on these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Service areas to be replicated approximate the areas within 
the NTSC Grade B service contours. DTV channels and associated 
allotment powers and antenna heights were chosen to achieve service 
area replication insofar as possible. Allotment parameters are 
specified in Appendix B of the second DTV reconsideration order. 
(Second Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth 
and Sixth Report and Orders in MM Docket No. 87-268, 64 FR 4322, 
January 28, 1999.
    \26\ In the DTV proceeding, we permitted DTV stations in the 
initial allotment table to decrease by two percent the populations 
served by NTSC and other DTV stations, not to exceed a total 
reduction of more than ten percent. Unlike this DTV allowance, 
applicants seeking facilities modifications of full service NTSC 
stations similarly may not cause any additional interference to DTV 
service. See Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the 
Sixth Report and Order in MM Docket No. 87-268, 13 FCC Rcd 7418, 63 
FR 13546, March 20, 1998.
    \27\ OET Bulletin 69, Longley-Rice Methodology for Evaluating TV 
Coverage and Interference (July 2, 1997), available at FCC Internet 
address http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/#69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Allotment Adjustments. There are other DTV issues to be worked 
out in this proceeding. Channel changes and adjustments to station 
facilities may be necessary to correct unforeseen technical problems 
among DTV stations. While we have confidence in our DTV Table, 
situations may arise which warrant corrective action. Any requirement 
to protect Class A stations must not restrict our flexibility to make 
necessary adjustments to DTV allotment parameters, including channels 
changes. Accordingly, we propose that Class A primary status include 
this ``safety net'' provision.
    19. We stated in the DTV Sixth Report and Order that we would 
review all requests for modification of the DTV Table for their impact 
on LPTV stations and ``strongly advised'' industry coordinating 
committees to consider LPTV and TV translator stations in developing 
proposed modifications to the DTV Table and to avoid impact on such 
stations wherever possible.28 We propose that this provision 
also extend to Class A stations. Commenters should address the extent 
of protection Class A stations should afford to and receive from full 
service DTV stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ DTV Sixth Report and Order at Paragraph 182. See also the 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket No. 99-34, ``An Industry 
Coordination Committee System for Broadcast Digital Television 
Service'', FCC 99-8, 64 FR 06296 (February 9, 1999), at Paragraph 4. 
Paragraph 16 of this Notice seeks comment on whether coordinating 
committees should assist with coordination of certain LPTV and TV 
translator activities, including stations affected by the 
implementation of DTV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Service Area Increases. Another issue concerns ``maximization'' 
of DTV service; i.e., facilities increases to enlarge DTV service areas 
beyond NTSC-replicated service areas. In the DTV proceeding, we 
permitted

[[Page 57003]]

broadcasters to request facilities increases that would enable them to 
provide service to larger audiences, and this was a partial basis for 
establishing the de minimis interference allowance. We seek comment on 
whether a Class A station should be required to yield to subsequently 
increased or relocated facilities of DTV stations or should have to 
protect a DTV station's ability to maximize its facilities. Conversely, 
should the service areas of authorized or proposed Class A facilities 
be protected against subsequent DTV application proposals to increase 
or modify service areas beyond the areas produced by a station's DTV 
allotment parameters?
    21. New DTV Entrants. We seek comment on whether existing Class A 
stations should be protected by new entrants seeking new DTV channel 
allotments and whether Class A stations should be considered as primary 
television broadcast stations with respect to future primary services; 
i.e., their operations on ``core'' channels (channels 2-51) could not 
be displaced by future primary services.29 Without 
protection against displacement by future primary services, these 
stations would still lack the certainty and stability that they seek 
and that we tentatively believe are important to their continued 
viability as significant sources of local programming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Section 3003 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 mandates 
that the Commission auction recaptured broadcast channels between 
channels 2-59. Citation at footnote 18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Hybrid Primary Status. We seek comment on whether Class A 
service should have a hybrid primary status that protects existing 
service while protecting Class A stations against new DTV and future 
primary services on core spectrum. In this instance we believe that 
consideration should be given to the preservation and stability of an 
existing service to the public, for which investments have already been 
made. We seek comment on whether Class A station licensees should be 
afforded the certainty that their stations will not be vulnerable to 
displacement by new and future DTV stations or other primary services.
    23. We seek comment on these proposals. Should interference 
protection by DTV allotment petitions for new DTV service be given to 
earlier-filed Class A station applications, in addition to authorized 
stations? Should distance separations be used to protect Class A 
stations? If so, which distances should apply? Alternatively, should 
the service contours of Class A stations be protected, and are the 
protection criteria in section 73.623(c) of our rules suitable for this 
purpose?
2. NTSC TV Protection Issues
    24. Authorized Service. With regard to NTSC television, we agree 
with CBA that applicants for Class A stations should protect previously 
authorized service within a station's Grade B contour in the manner 
given in section 74.705 of the LPTV rules. LPTV stations have been 
engineered to avoid causing interference to the Grade B contour of 
full-service stations, often using directional antennas to avoid such 
interference and, for this reason, continuation of the current 
standards would appear to be more appropriate than a different form of 
interference protection, such as minimum distance separations between 
stations. We believe that Class A station applicants should be 
permitted to utilize all means for interference analysis afforded to 
LPTV stations in the DTV proceeding, such as use of the Longley-Rice 
terrain-dependent propagation model. To provide additional stability, 
we would consider not imposing a requirement that Class A stations 
protect NTSC stations at locations beyond their Grade B contours 
wherever their signals are regularly viewed.30
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 47 CFR 74.703(b). The Report and Order establishing the 
LPTV service allows consideration of certain mitigating 
circumstances in the event of interference caused beyond a TV 
station's Grade B contour; for example, the programming of the 
signal being degraded can be received from another station or 
interference occurs due to anomalous reception conditions such as a 
viewer's use of a taller than normal outdoor receiving antenna. 
Report and Order in BC Docket No. 78-253, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. Pending Application and Allotment Proposals for New NTSC 
Stations. Additionally, we have questions concerning protection of 
pending application and allotment proposals for new NTSC full power 
stations. Altogether, these proposals could result in approximately 250 
new TV stations, most located in the eastern half of the country or in 
the western coastal region.
    26. We have previously stated that we would seek to accommodate 
applicants and petitioners who have pending proposals for channels 60-
69, none of which can be granted due to the reallocation of these 
channels, or freeze waivers that conflict with DTV stations or 
allotments.31 We stated that these parties will be given an 
opportunity to seek replacement channels below channel 60, where this 
is possible, and that the details of the amendment opportunity period 
would be announced by public notice. This public notice will be issued 
shortly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806 
MHz Band, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22953, 63 FR 06669 (1998) and 
see also Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the 
Existing Television Broadcast Service, Second Memorandum Opinion and 
Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth and Sixth Report and Orders, 
64 FR 4322, January 28, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. Releasing the NTSC amendment opportunity Notice soon after the 
adoption of the Class A Notice of Proposed Rule Making will assist us 
in gauging the impact of NTSC channel changes on LPTV and TV translator 
stations and, thus, the extent to which new NTSC service would limit 
opportunities for Class A service. It is not possible to approximate 
the magnitude of risk without first evaluating the NTSC channel change 
proposals filed in the amendment period. Based on our experience in 
developing the DTV allotment table, we believe it may be difficult, if 
not impossible, for many NTSC applicants and petitioners to find 
replacement channels consistent with our interference protection 
requirements. It is also likely, however, that many of the NTSC new-
station proposals will no longer be pending if and when we begin 
authorizing Class A service. Our proposal that Class A applicants 
protect authorized NTSC stations would apply to any now-pending station 
proposals that would be earlier-authorized. We invite comment and 
analyses on the extent to which new NTSC service could affect the 
viability of a new Class A service.32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ A number of mutually exclusive LPTV and TV translator 
applications, including displacement relief applications, will 
participate in the September broadcast auction. We strongly advise 
applicants to consider the likelihood of any channel displacement 
that could result from the authorization of new NTSC stations or 
channel changes by applicants and petitioners eligible to file in 
the NTSC amendment opportunity window.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. There is also the question of interference protection rights 
for any NTSC application and allotment proposals still pending at the 
time Class A applications are filed, if we were to adopt a Class A 
service. There are NTSC station proposals in applications that have 
remained pending for several years through no fault of the 
applicants.33 Many other applications were submitted in 
response to our decision in the DTV proceeding to permit a last filing 
opportunity for new-station proposals that were then already under 
development.34 We also maintained and

[[Page 57004]]

protected vacant NTSC allotments outside of the freeze areas that are 
the subject of pending applications, and avoided creating DTV 
allotments that would conflict with these proposed new NTSC 
allotments.35 And, as we noted above, new NTSC service would 
increase competition and enhance broadcast diversity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Processing of these applications was frozen as the result 
of a court decision invalidating the Commission's comparative policy 
in Bechtel v. FCC, 10 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Some of these 
pending applications have since been involved in settlements among 
the parties.
    \34\ In the DTV proceeding, we established July 25, 1996 as the 
last date for filing rule making petitions to add new channel 
allotments to the TV Table of Allotments and September 20, 1996 as 
the last date to file applications for new NTSC TV stations (except 
for applications filed in response to application cutoff lists). See 
Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 87-268, 
11 FCC Rcd 10968, 61 FR 43209 (1996).
    \35\ Sixth Report and Order in MM Docket No. 87-268, supra, at 
paragraph 112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. We also recognize that hundreds of new NTSC full power stations 
could potentially jeopardize the continued operations of prospective 
Class A LPTV stations, perhaps including LPTV stations that began 
operating long before many of the NTSC proposals were even conceived. 
Failure to protect Class A stations from later-authorized new-station 
NTSC proposals could affect the extent of relief and stability offered 
by a Class A service, thereby minimizing its potential value to 
viewers. The number of mutually exclusive LPTV and translator 
displacement applications filed to date suggests that additional 
replacement channels may not be available in some areas.
    30. We seek comment on how we should balance this difficult policy 
issue. Should Class A applicants be required to protect new NTSC TV 
station proposals in pending applications or allotment petitions? If 
not, should operating Class A stations be required to protect the 
actual service of later-authorized facilities? Alternatively, should 
applicants and allotment petitioners for new NTSC stations be required 
to protect earlier-authorized Class A stations? Are there measures we 
could adopt that, in some instances, could accommodate both new NTSC 
stations and prospective Class A stations? We invite comments on this 
difficult issue.
    31. NTSC Facilities Modifications. An issue also arises regarding 
Class A protection rights and responsibilities with respect to NTSC TV 
facilities modifications (minor changes); for example, stations site 
relocation or increased power. Considering that both facilities would 
be ``primary'' under part 73 of our rules, we are inclined to favor a 
``first-in'' approach for affording protection priority. Under this 
approach, protection rights between proposed NTSC TV facility 
modifications and initial and modified Class A stations would be given 
to the earlier-filed application. We would be disinclined to consider 
NTSC minor change and Class A applications to be mutually exclusive in 
the event one was filed before grant of the other. Priority to the 
earlier-filed application in such situations could result in much 
faster authorization of service. We invite comments on this proposal 
and whether the triggering event for interference protection rights 
should be the application filing date. We also ask in what manner NTSC 
proposals should protect earlier-filed Class A proposals. Should such 
protection be based on minimum distance separations between the 
stations or should such NTSC station proposals be required to provide 
contour protection to Class A stations in the manner that LPTV stations 
protect NTSC stations?
3. LPTV and TV Translator Station Protection Issues
    32. We believe that Class A stations should protect the service 
contours of previously authorized LPTV and TV translator stations and 
must continue to accept interference from such stations. In this 
regard, we note that any ``primary'' service classification that would 
be given Class A stations would be a hybrid of current concepts of 
primary and secondary services. This is because we agree with CBA that 
Class A stations should have to protect existing LPTV and translator 
stations, which would not be the case with a full primary service. With 
this hybrid, Class A stations could have primary status with regard to 
translator and other secondary service applications filed in the future 
but not against existing secondary facilities. We envision carrying 
over the current contour protection standards (section 74.707 of the 
LPTV rules) for interference protection among Class A stations and also 
between Class A stations and LPTV and TV translator stations; i.e., 
Class A stations would continue to provide the same protection to 
translators and non-Class A LPTV stations as they did when regulated 
under part 74. LPTV and translator stations would protect previously 
authorized Class A stations in the same manner. We further propose that 
Class A, LPTV and TV translators licensees, permittees and applicants 
be permitted to negotiate interference agreements in the manner now 
permitted in the LPTV service. Inasmuch as Class A stations would come 
from the LPTV service (at the least the initial stations), the 
transition to Class A would appear to be the least disruptive by 
continuing the use of LPTV protection standards.
    33. We invite comments as to how these standards should be applied. 
Should applications to modify Class A facilities be required to protect 
previously filed LPTV and TV translator applications? Should 
applications for new stations and major changes in the two services be 
filed in the same windows and participate in the same auctions--
excluding the initial applications for Class A status of stations that 
were first authorized in the LPTV service? What criteria should govern 
interference protection to and from digital Class A stations? In this 
regard, would it be appropriate to use the protection ratios applicable 
to DTV station facilities modifications? 36
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 47 CFR 73.623(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Land Mobile Radio and Other Services
    34. As indicated in the comments, land mobile radio services, 
including public safety services, now operate on designated channels in 
the channel 14-20 band in several major cities.37 Public 
safety services will also be operating on reallocated TV channels 63, 
64, 68 and 69 and other yet to be determined primary services will 
eventually occupy the remaining spectrum from channel 60 to channel 
69.38 Congress has mandated that all broadcast operations on 
channels 60-69 cease at the end of the DTV transition 
period.39 In reply comments, CBA indicates that compliance 
with Part 73 rules would ensure protection to land mobile operations on 
channels 14-20. We concur that spectrum allocated for land mobile 
operations and authorized land mobile service should continue to be 
protected, and we propose to apply to Class A stations the protection 
requirements currently contained in section 74.709 of the Commission's 
Rules. We also would continue the requirements in this rule concerning 
protection of the Off Shore Radio Service in the Gulf of Mexico 
region.40 Finally, we are inclined to carry over to the 
Class A service the ``earliest user'' provisions for protecting cable 
television and the other services listed in section 74.703(d), to which 
we would add ``earlier used'' TV translator input

[[Page 57005]]

channels. We invite comment on these matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 47 CFR 74.709.
    \38\ See generally Report and Order in ET Docket No. 97-157, 12 
FCC Rcd 22953, 63 FR 06669 (1998), recon den. Memorandum Opinion and 
Order in ET Docket No. 97-157, FCC 98-261, 63 FR 63798 (1998).
    \39\ See section 3004 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, supra 
at footnote 20.
    \40\ Section 74.709(e) of the Commission's Rules provides that 
LPTV or TV translator applications for channels 15-18 will not be 
accepted for specified locations in the area of the Gulf of Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Class A Protected Service Area
    35. LPTV stations protect 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 and above, in combination with the Commission's F(50,50) propagation 
curves.41 We find merit in continuing for Class A television 
the protected areas now afforded LPTV stations. This would fit well 
with our primary purposes of preserving existing service provided by 
LPTV stations and minimizing disruption or preclusion of other 
services. We have no readily available contour values for digital 
stations other than those values that define DTV noise-limited service: 
28 dBu for channels 2-6, 36 dBu for channels 7-13, and 41 dBu for 
channels 14 and above, in combination with the locations of the 
predicted F(50,90) field strength.42 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 47 CFR 74.707(a).
    \42\ 47 CFR 73.622(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Class A Eligibility

    36. Opportunity Period to Apply for Class A Status. Under its 
proposed section 73.627(a), qualifying stations in the LPTV service 
would be able to apply for Class A status only within one year after 
the effective date of the rules adopting a Class A service. Some 
commenters object to this aspect of the proposal and believe that Class 
A eligibility ought to be ongoing as LPTV stations become qualified. On 
the one hand, we believe that there may be practical limits on the 
number of LPTV stations that could become Class A stations. Based on 
our findings in the DTV proceeding, we believe there is insufficient 
spectrum to provide primary status on a wholesale basis to the more 
than 2,200 LPTV stations. On the other hand, is it unduly restrictive 
to limit the opportunity to convert to Class A status to only those 
stations that could qualify in the twelve month period following 
conclusion of this proceeding, ignoring other LPTV stations that 
provide similar local service but at a later date? Accordingly, we seek 
comment on the correct balance to strike between these competing 
considerations.
    37. Qualifying Criteria. Another issue is the qualifying criteria 
for Class A status. We seek comment on whether Class A applicants 
should be required to meet the definition of ``Small Business'' 
43 and provide a certain amount of local programming as more 
fully discussed below. We note that many LPTV stations operate as small 
businesses and that this would be consistent with our ongoing 
obligation to consider barriers affecting small businesses (for 
example, in the areas of spectrum and financing).44 
Commenters should address whether broader service eligibility criteria 
are needed to afford Class A opportunities to other types of LPTV 
licensees, such as educational organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The general definition of the term ``small business'' is 
given in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, infra.
    \44\ Under section 257 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
the Commission is required to identify and eliminate ``market entry 
barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the 
provision and ownership of telecommunications services and 
information services, or in the provision of parts or services to 
providers of telecommunications services and informational services 
* * * and must promote the policies and purposes of this Act 
favoring diversity of media voices, vigorous economic competition, 
technological advancement, promotion of the public interest, 
convenience and necessity.'' See Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
Pubic Law 104, section 257, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. CBA proposed that Class A applicants be required to show that 
for the three months preceding filing they have (1) provided three 
hours per week of programming produced within the city grade service 
contour of the station, or produced within the city grade service 
contour of any of a group of commonly controlled stations operating in 
contiguous or closely grouped areas that carry common local or 
specialized programming not otherwise available to their communities 
and (2) have complied with the minimum operating schedule required for 
television stations.
    39. Given the benefits that would accrue to an LPTV station 
converting to Class A status, and the difficulty in balancing the 
stability of qualifying LPTV stations with the preclusive impact on 
other services, we seek comment on whether these proposals are 
appropriate or whether more stringent or well-defined qualifications 
would be in order. For example, is ``locally produced'' too vague a 
criteria, as opposed to programming aired live or filmed in the 
community? We ask commenters to address this question. Should we 
require that some or all of the qualifying programming be informational 
in nature? In this regard, is it sufficient to rely on applicants' 
certifications of compliance with pertinent content regulations 
applicable to full service stations, also proposed by the CBA? Is three 
hours per week out of a potential 168 hours of broadcasting per week 
sufficient or should we require more (e.g., a minimum of seven hours 
per week or at least one hour per day of locally originated 
programming?) Should repeated programming or locally produced 
commercials count? Should local production requirements continue after 
the application has been filed? To ensure continued eligibility for 
Class A status, should licensees be required to certify annually as to 
their compliance with the local programming, children's informational 
programming and commercialization regulations and minimum operating 
hours? If a Class A station is to be sold, should the buyer be required 
to certify continued compliance with these provisions? Is three months 
a sufficient period in which to determine the commitment of an LPTV 
station to local origination to warrant awarding it Class A status? Are 
there alternative, possibly more objective, criteria that we could use 
to determine which LPTV stations have made particular efforts to 
respond to the needs of their communities so as to justify an upgrade 
to Class A status? Would signal coverage or audience ratings provide 
such criteria? 45 Is there some other qualification criteria 
that would not involve the Commission in content regulation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ We realize that, often, LPTV stations are not rated by 
national audience rating services. This would not, however, preclude 
an LPTV licensee desiring Class A status from undertaking its own 
study of audience share or public acceptance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. Statutory requirements that now apply to LPTV stations must 
also apply to Class A stations; for example, the prohibitions on the 
broadcasting of obscene material. In creating the LPTV service, the 
Commission determined that the ``equal time'' and ``lowest unit 
charge'' provisions in sections 312(a)(7) and 315 of the Communications 
Act would apply to LPTV stations ``to the extent their origination 
capacity permits * * * [T]he reasonable requests of legally qualified 
candidates for federal elective office who seek to purchase reasonable 
amounts of time or respond to their opponents messages must be acceded 
to, so long as they provide program material that is compatible with 
the station's origination equipment.'' 46 We believe that 
these statutory provisions should apply to all Class A stations, which, 
we expect, would be equipped with or have access to the necessary 
origination equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Report and Order in BC Docket No. 78-253 at para 105. 
Citation given in footnote 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. Are there part 73 rules with which Class A stations should not 
have to

[[Page 57006]]

comply, including certain rules identified in the CBA petition or 
others such as the public inspection file 47 and main studio 
rules? 48 If we do not apply the public inspection file rule 
to Class A stations, should we nevertheless apply the issue responsive 
programming requirement inherent in itto Class A licensees? Should 
Class A stations have to comply with the part 73 requirements for 
informational and educational children's' programming 49 and 
the limits on commercialization during children's programming? 
50 Are there current LPTV rules in part 74, other than 
interference protection provisions, which should be carried over to a 
Class A service? Finally, what process should we use for Class A 
licensees who wish to revert to LPTV status?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 47 CFR 73.3526 and 73.3527.
    \48\ 47 CFR 73.1125.
    \49\ 47 CFR 73.671.
    \50\ 47 CFR 73.670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Class A Applications

    42. Initial Class A Licenses. Although CBA proposed that initial 
applications for Class A status should not include changes in channel 
or facilities changes that would increase a station's coverage area, 
that initial Class A applications not be subject to the filing of 
mutually exclusive applications, and that Class A applicants be allowed 
to pursue a changes of channel or extensions of coverage area in 
separate applications filed simultaneously with initial Class A status 
applications, we do not believe that applicants should be permitted to 
file Class A facilities modification applications at the same time. The 
authorization process would be quicker and less complicated if 
modification applications were filed only after Class A status had been 
initially authorized. We therefore seek comment on whether initial 
Class A applications should be limited to the conversion of existing 
facilities to Class A status, with no accompanying changes in those 
facilities. Moreover, by protecting all existing facilities, including 
those of LPTV and translator stations, there should be no possibility 
of mutual exclusivity between or among Class A conversion applications. 
Accordingly, we propose that initial Class A applications be filed as 
``minor changes'' and be processed in a manner consistent with such 
status.
    43. We propose that all Class A applications would be filed on FCC 
Form 301, including all required exhibits. In the interest of 
streamlining the process, we seek comment on whether certifications of 
compliance with filing requirements would suffice in lieu of 
application exhibits? Should applicants certify that their stations 
comply with relevant interference standards in lieu of detailed 
analyses? Should a special application form be developed to expedite 
the process? Development of a new form for Class A TV could help to 
expedite application processing. In this regard, we contemplate that, 
consistent with our streamlining actions,51 we would require 
electronic filing of Class A applications irrespective of the 
particular form to be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ ``Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules and 
Processes'', Report and Order in MM Docket Nos. 98-43, 13 FCC Rcd 
23056, 63 FR 70040 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. Class A Facilities Changes. The definition of major and minor 
facilities changes is another important issue to be considered. The 
LPTV service rules define ``minor'' changes to be changes to existing 
facilities such as an antenna site relocation of less than 200 meters 
or, more generally, any changes (other than a channel change) that do 
not extend a station's protected signal contour in any 
direction.52 This definition has ensured that LPTV minor 
change applications are not mutually exclusive with other applications. 
However, it has often hindered stations from making desired or needed 
changes such as power increases, antenna changes, or site relocations. 
These changes often must be requested in application filing windows and 
are subject to competing mutually exclusive applications and the 
auction process. As a result, stations are finding it difficult to 
improve their facilities or respond to urgent situations, such as loss 
of their transmitter site. Stations with critical needs have been 
forced to seek operation under special temporary authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 47 CFR 73.3572(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. We agree that the current minor change provisions in the LPTV 
service may be too restrictive. We seek a ``minor change'' definition 
that would permit additional flexibility to change facilities, 
including changes to improve coverage, but also would assure that such 
changes would not cause interference to existing service. As one way of 
striking a balance, we could routinely grant Class A facilities changes 
that meet the current LPTV definition, but permit other more expansive 
changes on a first-come first-served basis provided the proposed 
facilities would not conflict with previously authorized or proposed 
facilities. Under this approach, Class A stations could seek 
authorization for increased power, up to the limits of the service, 
outside of the window and auction procedures, provided their proposals 
met all interference protection requirements. This approach would be 
more consistent with the minor change provisions for full service radio 
and TV stations, and we propose it for Class A stations.53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ We recently altered the definitions of ``major'' and 
``minor'' facilities changes for the AM, Noncommercial FM and FM 
translator services so that fewer changes are regarded as major. See 
Report and Order in MM Docket 98-93, 64 FR 19498 (1999). Most 
facilities modifications in the FM and TV services are now 
considered minor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. One important distinction between full power TV service and the 
proposed Class A service exists, however, which may warrant a somewhat 
different process for Class A modifications. TV minor change 
applications are not subject to a 30-day petition to deny period, but 
are subject to the filing of informal objections. However, unlike Class 
A stations, analog full-power analog TV interference is governed 
through channel allotments based on mileage separation requirements 
which serve to ensure facilities changes will not result in 
interference problems.54 Because we do not propose specific 
separation requirements for Class A stations, we invite comment on 
whether we should subject the ``more expansive'' Class A minor change 
applications to a 30-day petition to deny period. The opportunity to 
file petitions to deny could serve to give some assurance that Class A 
facilities increases would not result in interference to existing 
service. This approach would essentially duplicate the process we now 
use in considering LPTV displacement applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ This approach is also applicable for DTV allotments not 
included in the initial allotment table (See 47 CFR 73.623(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    47. We contemplate further requiring that the station be able to 
continue to serve at least part of the community identified on its 
authorization. Any of the above provisions could also be used for 
digital Class A stations. Facilities changes for analog or digital 
Class A stations that would not meet 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, should it also apply to 
television translator and non Class A LPTV stations? We would be 
inclined to do so because of the technical and application processing 
similarities

[[Page 57007]]

between the LPTV and proposed Class A services.
    48. Class A Channel Displacement Relief. Through additional 
protections for Class A stations, we hope to reduce their risk of 
channel displacement or termination. However, it could be necessary for 
a Class A station to seek operations on a different channel, as a way 
to avoid or eliminate interference conflicts. In that event, we propose 
that Class A stations be permitted to apply for new channels on a 
first-come, first-served basis, not subject to mutually exclusive 
applications. We believe there is a need for displacement relief 
procedures in a Class A service, and we propose to adopt procedures 
similar to those used in the LPTV service, which have worked well over 
the years.55 Class A stations causing or receiving 
interference with NTSC TV, DTV or any other service or predicted to 
cause such interference would be entitled to apply for a channel change 
and/or other related facilities changes on a first-come first-served 
basis. 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, 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. We tentatively conclude that mutually exclusive applications 
would be subject to the auction procedures pursuant to section 309(j) 
of the Communications Act. We seek comment on these matters. Commenters 
may also address whether Class A applications could be excluded from 
the auction requirements consistent with legislative intent, and the 
basis on which we would resolve mutual exclusivity when it arises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 47 CFR 73.3572(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. We note that in the LPTV service, displacement applications 
related to DTV conflicts or channel relocations from channels 60-69 are 
given priority over all other types of nondisplacement applications, 
regardless of when these were filed. 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 television. 
Should there be any different or special provisions for Class A TV 
conflicts with DTV stations? 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? 
56 Should we consider reasons for displacement other than 
electromagnetic interference, such an unavoidable loss of antenna site? 
We ask whether Class A displacement applications should have priority 
over Part 74 LPTV or TV translator non-displacement applications filed 
earlier or on the same day? If a Class A station and a non-Class A LPTV 
station file mutually exclusive displacement applications, should we 
favor the Class A application? We invite comment on these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See paragraph 54, infra. LPTV stations displaced by 
interference conflicts with analog TV service are permitted to 
relocate their sites within 16 kilometers; there is no relocation 
restriction to resolve DTV conflicts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. Channels 60-69. In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (``Budget 
Act''),57 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.58 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.59 On June 1, 1998, we received 116 applications 
from LPTV stations and 187 applications from TV translator stations 
operating on these channels. We note that 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 who have so 
far not elected to file displacement applications, 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 any and if so, what further actions 
should be taken to meet this Congressional mandate. 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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Public Law 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, section 3004 (1997), 
adding new section 337(e) to the Communications Act.
    \58\ Section 337(f)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, establishes criteria for qualifying LPTV stations. The 
qualifications are: the station broadcast a minimum of 18 hours per 
day; the station broadcast an average of at least 3 hours per week 
of programming that was produced within the market area served by 
the station; and, the station was in compliance with the 
requirements applicable to low-power television stations.
    \59\ Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the 
Sixth Report and Order, supra, at paragraph 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Other Technical Issues

    51. Television Channels for Class A Stations. We propose not to 
authorize Class A service on channels 52-59. In the DTV proceeding, 
channels 2-51 were established as the permanent ``core'' spectrum, 
permitting the recovery of channels 52-59 at the end of the DTV 
transition period.60 In the interest of providing long term 
stability for Class A stations, we believe it would be best not to 
authorize Class A status on these channels, only to subject stations to 
future displacement. Accordingly, we propose to grant Class A status 
only to qualifying stations already authorized to operate on channels 
2-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Sixth Report and Order in MM Docket No. 87-268, supra, at 
paragraph 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. 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, 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 be available. We recognize this could lead to additional 
competition for replacement channels, channels which may be needed now 
by some LPTV and translator stations facing imminent displacement. We 
invite comment on spectrum issues for Class A stations and, in 
particular, on whether we should extend a presumption of channels 
displacement to LPTV and TV

[[Page 57008]]

translator stations authorized for channels 52-59.
    53. Power Levels. We believe the current 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. 
CBA has proposed maximum levels of effective radiated power (ERP) for 
Class A stations that exceed the ERP limits in the LPTV service 
rules.61 However, we note that our primary purpose in this 
proceeding is to provide additional stability for qualifying LPTV 
stations, and this by itself is a formidable undertaking. Our current 
belief is that any further power increases for Class A stations should 
await a fuller understanding of the coverage and interference potential 
of full service digital television stations. We invite comment on this 
aspect of the proposed Class A service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ In the DTV proceeding, section 74.735 of the LPTV rules was 
amended to replace transmitter power output limits with limits for 
effective radiated power. The limits for analog LPTV and TV 
translator stations are 3 kW and 150 kW for VHF and UHF channels, 
respectively. For digital operations, the limits are 300 watts for 
VHF and 15 kW for UHF stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    54. Coverage Requirements. Another issue to be resolved is whether 
to require Class A stations to provide some requisite level of coverage 
over their community. 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.
    55. 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? 62 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ We recognize that, in effect, LPTV stations are licensed to 
serve particular areas rather than particular communities. This type 
of requirement would require that Class A stations be licensed to a 
particular community even though they would not have to serve a 
requisite percentage of the entire community or its population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Ownership Restrictions

    56. A principal objective of any proposal to elevate certain LPTV 
stations to Class A status is to recognize their contribution to local 
diversity. Accordingly, our preliminary view is that, if we create a 
Class A service, these rules should apply to Class A licensees to the 
same extent they apply to full service licensees, at least with regard 
to local ownership limits. At the present time, we do not believe it 
appropriate to apply the national audience reach cap to Class A 
stations. That reach cap is premised on the ability of a full service 
station to reach the entire market (or, in the case of UHF stations, to 
actually reach half of the entire market). As noted above, we do not 
anticipate that Class A stations would be required to reach or, in many 
instances, would be able to reach an appreciable portion of the markets 
in which they are located. Thus, it would be inequitable to charge a 
Class A station with reaching its entire market, and to cap Class A 
stations under common ownership to reaching a theoretical 35% of the 
national TV audience, when, in actuality, such a group of stations 
might reach only a small proportion of that figure. We seek comment on 
these issues. In this regard, there are several questions we would like 
addressed by commenters. First, to what degree would application of 
part 73 multiple and cross-ownership limitations limit the ability of 
LPTV stations to upgrade to Class A? Second, if we do decide to impose 
these ownership limitations, should we grandfather existing 
combinations that would be prohibited by the rule and, if so, should 
grandfathered status terminate at some point? Third, on the local 
level, what should be the triggering threshold for any applicable 
ownership restraints? For example, should the duopoly rule for Class A 
stations prohibit common ownership of stations whose protected service 
contours overlap?

F. Digital Class A Stations

    57. We propose to allow Class A stations at any time to request 
authority to convert from analog to digital operation on their existing 
channels, provided interference protection standards are met. However, 
we will not, as CBA proposed, permit Class A stations to apply for a 
second channel for digital operations. We invite comments on this 
issue.
    58. Digital operation by Class A stations presents the issue of 
compliance with the technical and service rules applicable to full 
service DTV stations.63 We invite comment on rules that 
should or should not apply to digital Class A stations. We currently 
believe that, at a minimum, these stations should have some broadcast 
requirement, and we seek comment on this view. What supplementary and 
ancillary fees regulatory approach should apply to Class A broadcasters 
providing feeable services? Should it be the same as we apply to full 
service DTV stations? We also believe primary stations should be 
required to use the transmission standard adopted for DTV stations and 
seek comment on this issue. Within what period of time after receiving 
digital authority, such as CBA's proposal of 18 months, should we 
require stations to commence digital operation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Fourth Report and Order in MM Docket 87-268, 11 FCC Rcd 
17771, 62 FR 14006 (1996); Fifth Report and Order in MM Docket No. 
87-268, 12 FCC Rcd. 12809, 62 FR 26966 (1997), recon. granted in 
part and denied in remainder Memorandum Opinion and Order on 
Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order in MM Docket No. 87-
268, supra; Sixth Report and Order in MM Docket 87-658, supra, 
recon. granted in part and denied in remainder 13 FCC Rcd 7418, 63 
FR 13546 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Remaining Issues

    59. Three remaining issues should also be addressed. One issue 
concerns the format of call signs to be issued to Class A stations? 
LPTV stations may request use of four-letter call signs, which must be 
appended by the suffix ``-LP''. Should Class A stations be assigned 
four-letter call signs without a designating suffix other than ``-TV,'' 
for example, in the manner of Class A FM radio stations? If not, what 
is an appropriate suffix? Another issue, which is not mentioned in the 
CBA petition, is the issue of 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? Finally, what class of fees should apply to Class 
A applicants? We believe it appropriate to classify Class A 
applications as minor

[[Page 57009]]

modifications for fee purposes. How should Class A stations be 
considered for the purposes of regulatory fees assessed pursuant to 
section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended? 64 
We seek comment on these and other issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 47 U.S.C. 159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    60. In this document, we seek comment on the creation of a Class A 
low power television service, which would afford stability to LPTV 
stations providing local service, while also considering the needs of 
other services, foremost among these the transition to digital 
television service. Creation of such a service will require the 
balancing of a number of factors, which will not be easy to strike. 
Accordingly, we seek comment on all of the issues raised herein to 
assist us in achieving that balance.

V. Administrative Matters

    61. Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415 and 
1.419, interested parties may file comments on before 60 days after 
publication in the Federal Register and reply comments on or before 90 
days after publication in the Federal Register. 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).
    62. Comments filed through the 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 [email protected], and 
should include the following words in the body of the message, ``get 
form 65
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164. 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 
(1981), as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    69. Reason Why Agency Action is Being Considered: The Community 
Broadcasters Association filed a Petition for Rule Making asking that 
the Commission create a ``Class A'' broadcast service consisting of 
low-power television stations that had provided at least three hours 
per week of locally produced programming during the three months 
immediately preceding the filing of their application for Class A 
status and met other eligibility criteria. Public Notice of that 
Petition was given on April 21, 1998. Comments and reply comments were 
filed. On the basis of those comments, the Commission believes that a 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, considering creation of such a class of 
television broadcast stations is appropriate. Creation of such a class 
of television stations would provide qualifying low power television 
stations primary status

[[Page 57010]]

that should help them survive the transition to digital television, 
which will require, during the transition, a doubling of the number of 
authorized primary full service stations that will otherwise displace 
numerous low power stations and eliminate a number of these stations. 
The document considers creation of the Class A service and asks 
specific questions on issues on which a further record is necessary and 
appropriate.
    70. Need For and Objectives of the Proposed Rule Changes: The 
document in this proceeding is seeking comment on whether and how the 
Commission should create a Class A service that will give qualifying 
low power television broadcast stations primary status. This will allow 
the continued development of locally produced programming aired on 
these stations to the benefit of the informational and entertainment 
needs of the audiences they serve notwithstanding the transition to 
digital broadcast television service.
    71. Legal Basis: Authority for the actions proposed in this 
document may be found in sections 4(i), 303 and 307 of the Commissions 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 307 and 307.
    72. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements: 
The Commission is not proposing any new or modified reporting, 
recordkeeping, information collection, or compliance requirements in 
this proceeding.
    73. Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the 
Proposed Rules: The initiatives and proposed rules raised in this 
proceeding do not overlap, duplicate or conflict with any other rules.
    74. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Rules Would Apply: Under the RFA, small entities may include 
small organizations, small businesses, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C. 601(6). The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601(3), generally 
defines the term ``small business'' as having the same meaning as the 
term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 
632. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA''). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory 
definition of a small business applies ``unless an agency after 
consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the SBA and after 
opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of 
such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and 
publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register. There are 
approximately 2,200 LPTV stations that potentially could be affected by 
decisions reached it this proceeding. The impact of actions taken in 
this proceeding on small entities would ultimately depend on the final 
decisions taken by the Commission and the number of LPTV stations that 
would qualify and apply for Class A status. However, the impact of the 
decisions taken in this proceeding on LPTV stations should be a 
positive one, enabling those qualifying for Class A status to gain a 
greater degree of security in the continuation of their existence 
without the potential for continuing displacement during the transition 
to digital television.
    75. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small 
Entities and Consistent with the Stated Objectives: This document 
solicits comment on a variety of alternatives discussed herein. Any 
significant alternatives presented in the comments will be considered. 
This proposal will ultimately provide benefits all qualifying low power 
television stations by facilitating means for them to survive the 
transition to digital television. We seek comment on the alternatives 
proposed in this document, on any other alternatives that commenters 
feel would provide benefits to such stations as they go through the 
period of transition to digital television, and on whether there is a 
significant economic impact on any class of small licensees or 
permittees as a result of any of our proposed approaches.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    76. This document explores the potential creation of a Class A 
service of television broadcasters. In this Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making, we solicit comment on the possibility of creating a new 
application form for LPTV licensees applying for Class A status. As 
part of our 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 collection 
contained in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Public and agency 
comments are due at the same time as other comments on this document; 
OMB comments are due 60 days from the date of publication of this 
document in the Federal Register. 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. In addition to filing comments 
with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information 
collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.; 1-C8004., 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected] and to 
Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 725 17th St., N.W. Room 10236 NEOB, 
Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to VH[email protected].
    77. Additional Information. For additional information on this 
proceeding, please contact Keith Larson, Office of the Bureau Chief, 
Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2600 or Roger Holberg, Policy and Rules 
Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2134.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-27530 Filed 10-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P