*************************************************** NOTICE *************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, itallic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the orginal document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************** Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Advanced Television Systems ) and Their Impact upon the Existing ) MM Docket No. 87-268 Television Broadcast Service ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION OF THE SIXTH REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: February 17, 1998 ; Released: February 23, 1998 By the Commission: Commissioner Ness issuing a separate statement; Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth dissenting in part and issuing a statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Para. No. I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BACKGROUND 5 III. DTV ALLOTMENT ISSUES 12 A. General DTV Allotment Plan 12 B. Selection of the DTV Core Spectrum 34 C. Out-of-Core Allotments 47 D. DTV Power 59 E. DTV Adjacent Channel Operation 87 F. Low Power TV and TV Translator Stations 96 G. Land Mobile Sharing Issues 128 H. Use of Existing Transmitter Sites 131 I. Noncommercial Allotments and NTSC Station Modifications 133 J. International Coordination 138 K. Negotiations and Frequency Coordinators 141 L. Other Allotment Issues 148 M. Technical Issues 159 IV. REQUESTS FOR MODIFICATION OF INITIAL ALLOTMENTS A. General Treatment of Allotment Change Requests 187 B. Petitions Granted or Made Moot 193 C. Requests for Changes by Low Power Interests 312 D. Petitions Addressing Service Replication and Maximization Issues 362 E. Petitions Requesting Unspecified Alternative Channels 402 F. Petitions Objecting to Allotment of Channels Outside the Core Spectrum 413 G. Other Petitions Requesting Specific Changes to the DTV Table of Allotments 442 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 672 APPENDIX A- Petitioning and Commenting/Opposing Parties APPENDIX B- DTV Table of Allotments APPENDIX C- DTV Allotment Changes to Avoid Adjacent Channel Interference APPENDIX D- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis APPENDIX E- Amendments to the Rules I. INTRODUCTION 6. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission addresses the petitions for reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order in this proceeding. In that action, we adopted a Table of Allotments for digital television (DTV), policies and rules for the initial DTV allotments, procedures for assigning those allotted channels, and plans for spectrum recovery. We received 231 petitions requesting reconsideration of various aspects of this decision. 1. With this action, we complete the final steps in our plan for the implementation of DTV service. After a long and cooperative effort by industry and this Commission, all of the elements necessary for broadcasters and related industries to begin the conversion from the existing analog television technology to the new digital technology are now in place. The Commission has adopted a DTV transmission standard, service and application rules, channel allotments/assignments, and technical parameters for station operation. Broadcasters now have the administrative and technical certainty they need to proceed with this historic change. In accordance with this plan, broadcasters are preparing to construct and operate their DTV facilities and consumer equipment manufacturers will soon market the first generation of the new DTV receivers and related devices. 2. With the introduction of DTV technology we are now on the threshold of major changes in broadcast television. This new technology will open the door to dramatic changes in the nature of broadcast television, allowing broadcasters to offer high definition television service, with major improvements in picture quality, compact-disc quality audio signals, simultaneous multiple program services ("multicasting"), and data services. Broadcasters will also have the flexibility to switch easily and quickly the types of services they provide and amount of their total digital bit stream that is used for each type of service. These new capabilities will allow broadcasters to offer immediate and significant improvements in the service they provide to the public and provide them the flexibility to alter their mix of services or add new services in response to viewer demand and future technical advances. The advent of digital television service will also promote greater competition within the broadcast industry by providing individual broadcasters with greater ability to differentiate their services from those of other broadcasters. In addition, the expanded service capabilities provided by the new DTV system will enhance the ability of broadcasters to compete with other video services such as cable television, direct broadcast satellite service and others. 3. In our action herein, we are generally maintaining the DTV allotment principles and policies set forth in the Sixth Report and Order. We are, however, making a number of revisions in response to the petitions for reconsideration. These include: 1) amending and expanding the DTV core spectrum approach, which establishes a plan for recovery of a portion of the television spectrum after the transition, to include channels 2-6, so that the final DTV core spectrum will be channels 2-51; 2) permitting increased power for UHF DTV stations through use of antenna beam-tilting techniques; 3) adopting a de minimis interference standard for changes to the DTV Table; 4) clarifying a number of rules and procedures for modifying the DTV Table; and 5) providing more specific guidance and procedures for low power stations that may be displaced or otherwise impacted by DTV operations. In addition, we are revising a number of the DTV allotments to address new test data on DTV-to-DTV adjacent channel performance; to reduce interference problems such as in the Southern California region; and to respond to requests from petitioners. The discussion herein first addresses the petitioners' requests for reconsideration of our DTV allotment policies and rules and then addresses requests for modification of specific allotments included in the DTV Table in light of the revisions to our policies and rules. II. BACKGROUND 4. In the Sixth Report and Order, we adopted: 1) a comprehensive plan for the establishment of an initial DTV Table of Allotments and assigning those allotments to eligible broadcasters; 2) an initial DTV Table that was developed using those policies and a sophisticated computer allotment system; and 3) plans for spectrum recovery. In allotting DTV channels, we first sought to accommodate all eligible broadcasters with a second channel for DTV service. We indicated that this approach will promote an orderly transition to the new service by ensuring that all eligible full service broadcasters are able to provide digital service. Eligible broadcasters include all parties that, as of the date of issuance of the initial DTV licenses, are licensed to operate a television station or hold a permit to construct such a station, or both. The DTV Table of Allotments adopted in the Sixth Report and Order provides a channel for all such eligible broadcasters. In addition, we attempted, to the extent possible, to provide each broadcaster with a new channel that will allow them to "replicate" the service areas of their existing NTSC operations, i.e., to provide DTV service to areas that are generally comparable to their existing NTSC service areas. Thus, broadcasters were assigned DTV channels that would best allow them to match their stations' existing service areas. The DTV Table was also designed to minimize all unavoidable interference to both existing analog TV and new DTV service. 5. In addition, we provided for recovery of a portion of the spectrum now used by television broadcasting. In particular, the DTV Table allows for early recovery of the 60 MHz of spectrum now used for TV channels 60-69 (746-806 MHz), and also provides for recovery of up to an additional 78 MHz at the end of the DTV transition period, for a total recovery of up to 138 MHz of spectrum. Under this plan, all DTV channels will eventually be located in a core spectrum of VHF and UHF TV channels that are technically most suited to DTV operation. The DTV Table adopted was based on use of channels 2-51. However, we also stated that in the future we would specify a core spectrum of either channels 7-51 or 2-46, and that in deciding this issue we would consider whether the lower VHF channels 2-6 prove acceptable for DTV use. 6. In the Sixth Report and Order, we continued the secondary status of low power television (LPTV) and TV translator stations. However, we adopted a number of administrative and technical measures to minimize the impact of DTV implementation on low power operations. We also adopted policies and rules with respect to a number of other issues related to the DTV allotments and to the implementation of this new service. Other issues addressed include DTV transmitter sites, existing vacant NTSC allotments, applications for new NTSC stations and NTSC station modifications, sharing with land mobile operations, a DTV frequency labeling plan, negotiations among broadcasters for allotment and assignment changes, and the use of industry frequency coordinators in developing allotment changes. We generally used the technical and interference characteristics of the ATSC DTV Standard in developing the DTV allotments and in specifying the criteria for determining the technical acceptability of requests for modification of the Table. Finally, we set forth technical criteria for the allotment of additional DTV frequencies and the modification of allotments included in the initial Table. 7. We received 231 petitions for reconsideration of issues addressed in the Sixth Report and Order. At the time the petitions were first received, our staff observed that many of the petitioners expressed concern that OET Bulletin No. 69, which is referenced in the new rules as a source of guidance for evaluating DTV coverage areas, was not available and that they therefore had not been able to fully evaluate the DTV channels that were paired with existing stations. They generally argued that without the technical guidance of OET Bulletin No. 69, they were unable to fully evaluate either the acceptability of the DTV allotments provided for their existing stations or the suitability of alternative channels. These parties also generally requested that we provide additional time after the issuance of OET Bulletin No. 69 to evaluate their allotments and then supplement their petitions with additional information relating to specific changes in the DTV Table. 8. On July 2, 1997, our Office of Engineering and Technology issued an Order, DA 97-1377, clarifying the Sixth Report and Order with respect to OET Bulletin No. 69 and providing an additional period of time for parties requesting reconsideration of additional DTV allotments to submit supplemental information relating to their petitions. OET Bulletin No. 69 was released concurrent with that Order. The Order clarified that OET Bulletin No. 69 provides guidance on the implementation and use of the Longley-Rice methodology for evaluating DTV and NTSC coverage and interference. It further clarified that this guidance is generally intended to be used for the purposes of preparing applications requesting facilities that do not conform to the DTV Table, petitions to amend the DTV Table, applications for new DTV stations, changes in authorized DTV stations, and evaluating the impact of low power TV and TV translator stations on DTV service areas. In short, the Order explained that the purpose of OET Bulletin No. 69 is to serve as a guide for parties preparing submissions for possible actions that we might take subsequent to the development of the initial DTV Table. It also explained that the information in OET Bulletin No. 69 is not essential for evaluation of the DTV allotments adopted in the Sixth Report and Order. It noted that the terrain dependent Longley-Rice propagation model and the methodologies used in evaluating DTV coverage and interference are well known to the broadcast industry. Nonetheless, in view of the concern that occurred with regard to this Bulletin, the Order provided the parties that requested reconsideration of their DTV allotments an additional opportunity to supplement their petitions. We received 65 supplements to petitions for reconsideration pursuant to this opportunity. 9. On November 20, 1997, the Association for Maximum Service Broadcasters, Inc. and other broadcasters (MSTV) submitted an ex parte filing that presents suggestions for addressing two issues relating to the DTV Table of Allotments. The first of these issues concerns DTV-to- DTV adjacent channel assignments. The second concerns assignments in the most congested areas of the country -- the Northeast, the Great Lakes region, and the California coastal area. MSTV's filing suggests making 357 changes to the DTV Table in the continental United States. Then, on November 25, 1997, the Association of Local Television Stations, Inc. (ALTV) submitted a proposal, by letter, for addressing the disparity in the authorized power between the DTV channels of existing UHF stations that will operate on UHF DTV channels (U-to-U stations) and the DTV channels of existing VHF stations that will operate on UHF channels. ALTV's proposal would permit DTV stations to increase power to 1000 kW, provided tilt-beam antennas and/or other technologies are employed to prevent any incremental visible interference. In a Public Notice released December 2, 1997, the Chief of the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology provided an opportunity for parties to respond to these filings by MSTV and ALTV. 10. On July 9, 1997, we adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket No. 97-157, FCC 97-245 (released July 10, 1997), proposing to reallocate channels 60-69. Specifically, we proposed to allocate 24 MHz at 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz to the fixed and land mobile services and to designate this spectrum for public safety use. We proposed to allocate the remaining 36 MHz at 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz to the fixed, mobile and broadcasting services, and anticipated that licenses in this band may be assigned through competitive bidding. Subsequent to this Notice, on August 5, 1997, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-33, 111 Stat 251 (1997), was enacted. It added a new Section 337(a) to the Communications Act requiring that, by January 1, 1998, the Commission must reallocate 24 MHz of the channel 60-69 spectrum for public safety use, and that it reallocate the remaining 36 MHz of that spectrum for commercial use to be assigned by competitive bidding. Under the provisions of Section 337(a) the Commission is to commence licensing of the public safety portion of this reallocation by September 30, 1998 and is to commence competitive bidding for the commercial licenses after January 1, 2001. A Report and Order in ET Docket No. 97-157 completing this reallocation was adopted on December 31, 1997, FCC 97-421, released January 6, 1998. III. DTV ALLOTMENT ISSUES A. General DTV Allotment Plan 11. The Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc., the Broadcasters' Caucus and other broadcasters (Joint MSTV Petitioners) request that we reconsider and clarify certain aspects of the Sixth Report and Order. The Joint MSTV Petitioners submit that the DTV allotments/assignments are premised on many of the principles supported by a majority of broadcasters and that they do not seek to alter the basic priorities and principles on which the DTV allotments/assignments are based. They recognize that the DTV allotments are the product of a balancing among many different interests and goals, such as the recovery of channels 60-69, protection of land mobile service, replication of NTSC service, minimization of interference, etc. They state that in most cases the results of this balancing are acceptable, but in certain limited cases they are not. For example, the Joint MSTV Petitioners contend that in a few parts of the country, i.e. the Northeast Corridor, Great Lakes, and California Coastal regions, interference and replication remain concerns. They argue that given the congestion in these areas, stations have few, and in many cases no, options to improve their service via channel or facility changes. Accordingly, they seek "targeted and limited adjustments" to the DTV allotments/assignments, so as to prevent the loss of DTV and NTSC service. In particular, they request that we allow a limited number of exceptions to the restriction with regard to use of channels 60-69, among other things. They argue that our priority to keep channels 60-69 free of DTV allotments has resulted in increased interference, and that limited exceptions to the channel 60-69 bar must be made to correct some of the most troublesome allotments in the congested areas. 12. ALTV and a number of other parties representing UHF interests oppose the Joint MSTV Petitioners' petition to the extent that it seeks to solve some problems without addressing the UHF power issue. They submit that the Joint MSTV Petitioners fail to address the power problem facing existing UHF stations that are assigned UHF DTV channels (U-to-U stations). ALTV, for example, states that in several specific respects their failure to address the UHF power problem is glaring. For example, ALTV notes that the Joint MSTV Petitioners assert that "many of the stations subject to the UHF power minimum have DTV service that extends significantly beyond their Grade B contours." ALTV argues that such statements obscure the concerns that such stations may fail to provide reliable service even within their NTSC Grade A contours. 13. DeSoto Broadcasting, Inc. (DeSoto), the Minnesota Broadcasting Association (MBA), Mountain Broadcasting Corporation (MBC), and WWAC, Inc., argue that the DTV core spectrum plan will solidify the disparities in service between VHF and UHF stations and forever relegate UHF stations to second-class citizenship in the broadcast spectrum. These petitioners submit that under the core spectrum plan, it is very difficult to find available spectrum for the expansion of a station's service area. They state that if the entire existing broadcast spectrum was available, there would be little problem allowing smaller UHF stations to expand their reach, and LPTV and TV translators to find spectrum. Expressing the views of these parties, MBC requests that we eliminate the core spectrum and spectrum recovery policies and extend to broadcasters the choice to retain channel 60 to 69 assignments on a permanent basis. 14. Hardy & Carey LLP argue that a new DTV Table should be developed that will ensure that the ability of underdeveloped stations to grow will not be hampered. To facilitate this revision, they state that any spectrum recovery should be deferred until after DTV is fully implemented. Tribune contends that because we did not make full use of the entire existing TV spectrum, we were unable to adhere to our own minimum separation standards. It states that this results in a number of short spaced situations that will ultimately result in unacceptable interference to existing NTSC service or to new DTV service. It therefore submits that we should re-do the DTV Table, adhering more closely to our spacing requirements, even if in doing so we must allot channels outside the DTV core spectrum. It states that the objectives underlying the core spectrum can be realized when the television bands are re-packed after the transition. In its supplemental filing, Tribune urges that we eliminate any NTSC/VHF to DTV/UHF assignments on channels 60-69 in the DTV Table of Allotments in light of the recent Congressional action requiring that we reallocate 24 MHz in this band for public safety. 15. The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) and the Land Mobile Coordinating Committee (LMCC) seek reconsideration of the 15 DTV allotments on TV channels 60-69. These petitioners are concerned that where a DTV allotment occupies a channel in this range, that channel cannot be used in the affected area for other uses until the end of the transition. They state that the most severe situation is in Southern California, where there are six DTV stations and four existing NTSC stations on channels 60-69. It states that as a result nearly all of the 746-806 MHz band is, or will be, encumbered and public safety agencies in Southern California will have to wait for these frequencies until the end of the transition. APCO argues that this is the most spectrum-congested area where there is an immediate need for additional spectrum for public safety. APCO and LMCC state that we should explore all possible methods for eliminating the allotments in channels 60-69. 16. The California Highway Patrol (CHP), the County of Los Angeles, California (LA County) and the LMCC also express concern that the use of channel 69 in particular for DTV in Southern California poses an interference threat to land mobile operations in the 800 MHz band. In this regard, LMCC submits that the channel 69 DTV allotment provided for KRCA-TV in Riverside, California could result in harmful interference to existing Los Angeles area public safety, private and special mobile radio (SMR) systems operating in portions of the adjacent 806- 821/851-866 MHz band. These petitioners request that we provide KRCA-TV with a different channel for DTV service and that we otherwise avoid the use of channel 69 in reallotting DTV channels in Southern California. LMCC also requests that we affirm that stations allotted channels adjacent to existing land mobile operations will bear the responsibility of ensuring that no harmful interference occurs to land mobile systems as a result of their operations. 17. A number of parties representing low power interests argue that the plan for early recovery of channels 60-69 will adversely impact low power television (LPTV) and TV translator stations. For example, Abacus Television, Jose Luis Rodriguez, and the Videohouse, Inc. (Urban LPTV Parties), the Community Broadcasters Association (CBA), and the Department of Special Districts, San Bernardino, California (DSD) submit that the removal of channels 60-69 from broadcasting service will cause the loss of many LPTV stations that currently operate on those channels. Telemundo states we need to weigh the important service provided to Hispanic viewers by its LPTV operations and the value of diversity against the spectrum efficiency concerns prompting the reclamation of channels 60-69. 18. The DSD and the Urban LPTV Parties request that we withhold final action on the reallotment of channels 60-69 until after the transition. CBA states that whatever the ultimate disposition of channels 60-69 may be, LPTV stations should be allowed to remain and/or to move there until the mandatory end of analog NTSC service. It states that any spectrum sold at auction should be sold with a caveat that use of some of it may have to wait until the end of the digital transition. Telemundo argues that no broadcast service should be displaced by a non-broadcast service, and specifically that LPTV stations operating in channels 60-69 should never be displaced due to reclamation of their channels unless the Commission provides alternate channels. KM Communications (KMC) states that the methodology for the DTV Table should be reconsidered and developed on a basis which minimizes displacement of LPTV stations by all available means, including use of channels 60-69. It submits that at a minimum, channels 60-69 should be used in major urban markets for displaced LPTV stations. 19. First Baptist Church, Paris, Texas (FBC) submits that, as a result of the Sixth Report and Order, there are no unused television channels available for which it may apply. FBC requests that we take some action to reserve spectrum for use by new applicants. 20. In its November 20, 1997, ex parte filing, MSTV suggests making 357 changes to the DTV allotments in the continental United States. It submits that these changes would reduce interference to both NTSC and DTV service in the congested areas and cure the short-spacing of a large number of the cases of DTV-to-DTV adjacent channel allotments. It further submits that neither the Commission nor the industry knew of the adjacent channel problem until late summer, when the ATTC study of DTV-to-DTV adjacent channel operations was released. MSTV's suggestions would place an additional 32 allotments on channels 60-69 in the continental U.S. It states that these additional allotments on channels 60-69 would have little impact on the availability of spectrum for public safety services. 21. Over one hundred filings were submitted in response to the suggested changes set forth in MSTV's ex parte filing. A number of parties supported the MSTV changes and/or indicated that the suggested changes improved their individual situations. ABC, Inc. (ABC), for example, states that the MSTV changes solve the problems it has identified in its individual petition for reconsideration and provides a fair and workable plan to remedy the most egregious cases of interference as well as the DTV-to-DTV adjacent channel interference problem. Tribune states that the MSTV Table would eliminate the problematic DTV channel 68 allotment for its station, KTLA-TV in Los Angeles and correct interference in the Northeast corridor. Astroline Communications Company, Brunson Communications, Inc., Central Michigan University, Gulf- California Broadcast Company and others endorse the MSTV changes for their individual stations. They indicate that the proposed changes would eliminate interference, eliminate out-of- core operation, or improve replication for their stations. 22. On the other hand, the majority of parties that submitted responses, including both broadcast and public safety interests, oppose the changes suggested by MSTV. These parties generally argue that the MSTV changes would result in their stations being disadvantaged in some way, such as receiving more interference, reducing service replication or being assigned out-of- core DTV channels. Parties representing public safety interests oppose MSTV's changes to the extent that the changes use additional channel 60-69 DTV allotments and thereby would reduce the amount of spectrum available to public safety and propose allotments that infringe on current land mobile shared spectrum. AAPTS/PBS, for example, state that the MSTV Table creates additional out-of-core and technical problems for a number of PTV licensees. It states that the MSTV Table would increase the number of PTV stations with both their NTSC and DTV channels out of the core spectrum and would increase the number of PTV stations on channels 60-69. It also states that the proposed changes would reduce coverage and replication for some PTV stations and create other problems for PTV stations. 23. Bangor Communications, Inc., states that while the MSTV filing purports to improve the DTV Table, the proposed changes would result in a disproportionate loss of viewers and coverage area for its station. Central Virginia Education Telecommunications Corporation (CVET) states that MSTV's suggested changes would have a significant adverse effect on its station since under MSTV's approach both of its channels would be outside of the core spectrum. Cox broadcasting (Cox) states that its stations will lose a substantial number of viewers and coverage if the MSTV proposals are adopted. Chris-Craft/United Group (Chris-Craft) and Golden Orange Broadcasting Co., Inc., in their separate filings, oppose MSTV's changes for their stations in the Los Angeles market area. Chris-Craft states that MSTV's proposed change for its station would conflict with an existing Mexican television allotment. Dispatch Broadcast Group (Dispatch) objects to MSTV proposal to assign DTV channel 21 in Columbus, Ohio to WCMH- TV rather than to Dispatch's WBNS-TV in the same market. Dispatch states that this proposed assignment is not necessitated by either of the two problems the MSTV filing purports to address. Sullivan states that in most cases MSTV changes do not benefit its stations and, in some cases, makes their prospects worse. 24. APCO, the County of Los Angeles, Motorola, National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) generally oppose the changes suggested by MSTV to the extent it proposes additional use of channels 60-69. NPSTC, for example, notes that MSTV proposes 32 new DTV allotments on channels 60-69 and 23 of these are either on or adjacent to channels proposed for public safety use. They state that these allotments would severely reduce the ability of public safety agencies in a number of major metropolitan areas. The New York Metropolitan Advisory Committee states that MSTV's proposed channel 16 DTV allotment for New Haven, Connecticut would pose harmful interference to its existing land mobile operations on UHF TV channels 14-20. It further states that the additional channel 60-69 DTV allotments would prevent the use of this spectrum for public safety in New York City. APCO, the County of Los Angeles and NPSTC do, however, support MSTV's proposed elimination of the use of channels 68 and 69 for DTV in Los Angeles. 25. Decision. We continue to believe that the general principles and priorities used for the development of the DTV allotments/assignments remain appropriate. We reaffirm our approach to provide all eligible broadcasters with the temporary use of a second channel that, to the extent possible, will allow them to replicate the service areas of their existing NTSC operations. We continue to find that such an approach will promote the orderly transition of DTV by broadcasters and foster the provision of service to the public. We also affirm our general plans for spectrum recovery, including the core spectrum and the early recovery of channels 60- 69, and maintaining the secondary status of low power stations. In this regard, the petitioners have not presented any new information or analysis that was not available at the time of the Sixth Report and Order that would warrant a change in our basic plan to recover a portion of the existing television spectrum, nor have they persuaded us that we were incorrect in our balancing of the various factors that weigh in this issue. 26. To the extent that petitioners, such as the Joint MSTV Petitioners, suggest that certain "targeted and limited adjustments" to the DTV Table are needed, we are making a number of limited changes in the DTV Table of Allotments in order to prevent the loss of DTV service and minimize the impact of DTV operations on existing NTSC service. In this regard, for example, we have reviewed the DTV-to-DTV adjacent channel situations identified in MSTV's ex parte filing and are modifying the DTV allotments to eliminate these DTV-to-DTV adjacent channel situations in a number of instances. Specifically, we are making changes to 42 DTV allotments, including a number of the changes suggested by MSTV, to resolve cases where use of adjacent channels is no longer acceptable and would impact our service replication and interference goals. We also, as discussed below, are making a number of modifications to our technical rules for DTV operation to further reduce the potential for interference between DTV stations that operate on adjacent channels in the same area. We are further making 29 additional allotment changes to address requests by individual petitioners. As part of these changes, we agree with MSTV and others parties, including those representing land mobile interests, that some revision to the DTV allotments are needed in the Southern California area. Therefore, the 29 changes include modifications to four DTV allotments in this region to address concerns regarding interference to television and land mobile services. We believe that these 71 changes, adequately address the interference and replication concerns identified in MSTV's ex parte filing and the petitions of other broadcasters. 27. We do not find that additional changes in the DTV Table or increased use of channels 60-69 are needed or warranted to address either DTV adjacent channel concerns or DTV operations in the congested areas identified by MSTV and other petitioners. As the Joint MSTV Petitioners note in their petition, the DTV allotments are the product of a balancing among many different interests and goals. While some broadcast parties would have liked such balancing to give greater preeminence to certain specific broadcast concerns, the Commission must balance all of the relevant factors in determining the public interest. In this regard, we find that the DTV Table of Allotments, as amended herein, will provide the vast majority of broadcasters with DTV allotments that offer a high level of service replication. We further conclude, as indicated below, that making additional changes would provide little or no improvement, would have other adverse consequences such as increasing the number of out-of-core allotments or allotments on channels 60-69, or would lead to the improved service of some broadcasters at the expense of other broadcasters. 28. As stated in the Sixth Report and Order, we find the impact of our core and spectrum recovery approaches on interference to be insubstantial. The new DTV Table of Allotments ensures that almost 99 percent of all existing NTSC service areas and viewers will be unaffected by the implementation of DTV. We note that the cumulative differences in NTSC interference between the DTV Table, as amended herein, and the recently filed MSTV Table that includes 357 new changes are a small fraction of 1 percent. As we indicated with regard to the previous Table submitted by MSTV and the Joint Broadcasters, such a difference is not scientifically significant or is at best de minimis when considering the accuracy and probalistic nature of propagation and the other engineering models and assumptions used to calculate interference. We further note that practical implementation considerations, such as transmitter moves required because of lack of tower space, will likely result in far greater differences. 29. We further find that full implementation of MSTV's suggested changes would come at a cost of many additional broadcasters being assigned out-of-core allotments that would necessitate those broadcasters being faced with a subsequent second DTV channel move and the costs of that move. In addition, we continue to find that the benefits associated with rapid recovery of channels 60-69 are substantial and would outweigh any positive impact that increased use of channels 60-69 might have for DTV implementation. Moreover, we believe that increased use of channels 60-69 would be inconsistent with our statutory mandate under Section 3004 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In this same light, it is not practicable to eliminate all DTV allotments from channels 60-69 as requested by land mobile interests. We have found that it is necessary to make use of those channels for DTV allotments in a few instances in order to achieve our full accommodation and service replication goals. 30. We do not agree that the issue of the UHF/VHF disparity is best addressed through the elimination of the core spectrum approach, as suggested by DeSoto and others. We believe that there are other approaches, as discussed below, that will more effectively address this issue. With regard to Tribune's contention that we were unable to adhere to our own minimum separation standards because we did not make full use of the entire existing TV spectrum or an expanded core, we note that the DTV Table was not developed based on spacing distances. Rather, the Table was developed using engineering standards to provide for replication of existing NTSC service areas during the DTV transition period. In many instances, full replication can be achieved without meeting the spacing standards for new DTV allotments. 31. With regard to low power operations, we are affirming our earlier decision to permit low power stations to continue to operate on channels 60-69 on a secondary basis through the transition process. As set forth in the Report and Order in ET Docket No. 97-157, we have reallocated channels 60-69 for public safety and a broad range of other services, including broadcasting, in accordance with the requirements of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. However, in that decision, we stated that low power stations will be allowed to operate on these channels, provided no interference is caused to primary users. We also encouraged, wherever possible, private negotiations between low power and new service providers to resolve interference problems in a manner which is acceptable and beneficial to both parties. 32. We do not find it desirable, or indeed, practical to reserve spectrum for new stations as requested by FBC. In many areas there remain opportunities for establishing new stations. We believe the best approach for accommodating new stations is through individual requests for amendment of the DTV Table. This will facilitate use of the available spectrum in locations where there is specific interest in establishing a new station. We also find that FBC's suggestions that we accommodate new stations by reducing or otherwise infringing the service areas of new DTV stations would be inconsistent with our goal of replicating the service areas of existing stations. B. Selection of the DTV Core Spectrum 33. As noted in the Sixth Report and Order, one of our principal concerns in this proceeding is to provide broadcasters with the best possible spectrum for DTV service. In the Sixth Further Notice, we stated that a core region between channels 7-51 may be the most appropriate location for DTV broadcasting; that this spectrum would be sufficient to accommodate all existing broadcasters; and that it would provide additional DTV channels for new entrants after the conversion to digital service. We noted that the lower VHF channels 2-6 are subject to technical penalties, including higher ambient noise levels and concerns of possible interference to and from FM radio service. We did, however, recognize that these channels offer unique characteristics for broadcasting, particularly with regard to propagation. In the Sixth Report and Order, we recognized that a number of commenting parties strongly believed that DTV signals can perform well in the presence of noise and that the lower VHF channels 2-6, with their desirable propagation characteristics, should be made part of the DTV core spectrum. However, other parties agreed with our initial assessment that these channels may not be appropriate for TV use. We therefore concluded that the best approach was to develop the DTV Table based on use of channels 2-51, and modified our allotment software to attempt to locate all DTV channels within this portion of the spectrum. We stated that if channels 2-6 prove acceptable for DTV use, we will consider retaining these channels for DTV use and adjusting the core spectrum to encompass channels 2-46, rather than channels 7-51. 34. A number of petitioners, including the Ad Hoc Group of 25 Low-VHF Stations (Low-VHF Stations), A.H. Belo Corporation (Belo), the Joint MSTV Petitioners, Capitol, Chronicle Publishing Corporation (CPC), Citadel Communications Co., Ltd. (Citadel), Cordillera, DSD, Granite Broadcasting Company (Granite), Harte-Hanks Television, Inc. (Harte-Hanks), Landmark Television of Tennessee, Inc. (Landmark), Mt. Mansfield, Pulitzer Broadcasting Company (Pulitzer), Ramar Communications, Inc. (Ramar), Retlaw Enterprises, Inc. (Retlaw), Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company (SHBC), and the US Broadcast Group Licensees, L.P. (US Broadcast Group) request that we reconsider our decision to defer the determination of the final core spectrum pending information on the suitability of channels 2-6 for DTV service. These parties express concern with regard to the equivocation reflected in our statement that if the lower VHF channels prove acceptable for DTV use, we will consider retaining these channels for DTV and adjusting the core spectrum to encompass channels 2-46, rather than channels 7-51. For example, the Ad Hoc Group of 25 Low-VHF Stations (Low-VHF Stations) argue that no spectrum should be stigmatized with "wait and see" status, particularly channels 2-6. 35. Cordillera, Gannett, Landmark, the Low VHF Stations, and Retlaw argue that our concerns with regard to channels 2-6 are unfounded given the specially suitable characteristics of the lower VHF channels for wide-area broadcast service. The Low-VHF Stations and Retlaw submit that if noise problems in the spectrum at channels 2-6 emerge, there are means of dealing with those problems, such as encouraging manufacturers to develop more robust receivers and addressing leakage from power lines. The Joint MSTV Petitioners argue that more than 280 NTSC stations on low-VHF channels have provided outstanding service on these channels for many years. They also state that putting a cloud on the suitability of channels 2-6 now is problematic because it assumes that portions of the band are more hospitable to DTV without the benefit of real world data from the early stages of DTV implementation. Belo and the Low-VHF Stations similarly argue that our reservations with regard to channels 2-6 lack support in engineering calculations or field data. 36. Citadel and SHBC argue that the testing and analysis that has been completed to date indicates that the propagation characteristics of channels 2-6 provide superior coverage capabilities for DTV service and that potential interference concerns are minimal. They state that the field tests of the DTV system conducted in Charlotte, North Carolina indicate a substantially improved coverage area on DTV channel 6 as compared with analog TV service on the same channel. Citadel argues that while the Charlotte Report did indicate some unanticipated interference from impulse noise, the report noted that the study's results were impacted by the use of extremely limited power and that any interference would be substantially diminished when full power levels were employed. It thus states that the record presents no reason to believe that channels 2-6 will fail to perform well for DTV. 37. These petitioners also generally argue that delaying the decision on channels 2-6 creates uncertainty for a considerable number of both commercial and noncommercial broadcasters, in that it makes business planning for the DTV era problematic. As expressed by Granite and Ramar, these parties generally state that by establishing the DTV core spectrum as encompassing channels 2-51 for the transition period, but holding out the possibility that licensees using channels 2-6 or 47-51 may be required to move, we are potentially placing unnecessary technical burdens and expense on stations whose DTV allotments are at either end of the core spectrum. 38. In view of the above considerations, these petitioners request that we expand or amend the DTV core spectrum to include channels 2-6. For example, the Low-VHF Stations and others ask that we consider all channels between 2 and 51 for the DTV core spectrum. Hart- Hanks and Pulitzer state that more stations will be able to switch to their existing channels if the post-transition core is channels 2-46 than if the core is channels 7-51. Pulitzer states that by adopting a core of channels 2-46, a significantly greater number of stations (71 vs. 12) with initial DTV channels outside the core will be able to switch to their existing NTSC channels. Ramar states that we should make clear that the core spectrum includes channels 47-51, even if channels 2-6 are included in the core. Ramar believes that it is important to allocate as much core spectrum as possible to facilitate achievement of the important goal of providing high quality DTV service to all viewers. 39. Guy Gannett Communications (Guy Gannett), in its supplemental filing, maintains that television transmissions on channel 2 often experience interference caused by both impulse noise from natural and man-made sources and sporadic E-layer ionospheric reflections. Guy Gannett further states that this interference, coupled with the low ERP specified for WTWC-TV and the poor performance generally of commercially available receive antennas, makes it very unlikely that WTWC-TV could achieve the service replication necessary for viable DTV operations. 40. National Public Radio (NPR) requests that we reconsider the DTV Table to the extent that it provides DTV allotments on channel 6. It also states that we should reconsider permitting TV broadcasters to switch their DTV service to the their current NTSC channel 6 assignments at the end of the transition. NPR argues that it is inappropriate at this time to permit such an option because there has not been sufficient field testing or practical experience to determine whether it is appropriate to use channel 6 for digital broadcasting and that the return of 50 or more broadcasters to channel 6 may result in significant interference to FM radio services. NPR argues that in the case of an existing or new noncommercial FM station that either experiences or causes adjacent channel interference of a new type, degree, or effect that is associated with the operation of a DTV channel 6 station, the DTV station should be responsible for such interference. NPR also states that there is no justification for requiring FM noncommercial educational stations to bear the substantial costs and burdens associated with compliance with Section 73.525 of the rules, which requires that new noncommercial educational FM stations operating on channels 201-220 protect existing TV operations on channel 6, if it is believed that no adjacent interference will occur. 41. Decision. We recognize that postponing a decision on the low-VHF channels has raised uncertainties for licensees whose existing and/or DTV channels are in that portion of the spectrum. We further understand that these uncertainties can make planning for DTV service more difficult and burdensome. We also concur that there is no engineering evidence available at this time to indicate that these channels are unsuitable for DTV operation and such channels offer desirable propagation characteristics for television service. We therefore recognize the benefits of including these channels in the core spectrum. We also note, however, that a DTV core spectrum of channels 2-46 would require significantly more second moves by broadcasters than a core of channels 7-51. In reconsidering this matter, we now believe that the most desirable course of action is to expand the core to include all channels 2-51. 42. This expansion of the core will eliminate the planning uncertainties for many broadcasters that have either DTV or NTSC channels in the channel 2-6 or 47-51 regions of the spectrum. Providing an additional five channels for DTV will reduce the number of out-of-core allotments, thereby further reducing the number of stations that will be required to make second channel moves. Expanding the core will also promote additional competition and diversity in the provision of DTV services by increasing the availability of channels for new stations and networks. Expansion of the core will also provide more flexibility to address new technical information on adjacent DTV channel performance and ensure that there is sufficient spectrum to eliminate DTV-to-DTV adjacent channel interference situations. 43. This change will also reduce the impact on low power operations. In this regard, channels 2-6 and 47-51 now support a significant number of low power and TV translators. The low VHF channels, for example, have some of the highest concentration of low power stations. Expanding the core to include channels 2-6 would eliminate the eventual displacement of most of these stations. In addition, expanding the core will also provide low power stations with more channels and opportunities for new stations and relocation of existing stations. 44. While we recognize that this change will reduce by 30 MHz the amount of contiguous spectrum to be recovered, we believe that the benefits of expanding the DTV core spectrum to include channels 2-51 outweigh the benefits of clearing either channels 2-6 or 47-51. Expanding the DTV core spectrum will permit recovery of 108 MHz of spectrum at the end of the transition period, which is more than one-fourth of the total spectrum used for broadcast television today. We note that this amount of spectrum is significantly more than our original plan to recover 72 MHz of spectrum. While expansion of the core spectrum may raise concerns about providing broadcasters with additional spectrum and reducing the amount of spectrum available to other service providers, these concerns are offset by the fact that this expansion will provide additional opportunities for new DTV stations and other new digital data services. Our analysis indicates that expanding the core will add approximately 175 additional channels, and that many of these new channels will be in top markets, including at least three new channels each in congested and highly-valuable New York, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Detroit. Last July, Congress expanded our auction authority to include assignment of broadcast licenses and therefore most of the new channels will be awarded through our auction procedures, as required under new Section 309(j)(14)(C) of the Communications Act. Additional benefits also exist, including less interference to existing broadcasters in major markets during the transition, continued operation of some 500 additional low power TV and TV translator stations that provide service to many suburban and rural areas and that otherwise might have been required to cease operation, and elimination of mandatory second moves into the core for about 120 broadcasters at the end of the transition. Based on these factors, we conclude that the public will benefit substantially from our expanding the core. 45. With regard to the concerns of noncommercial radio interests regarding the use of channel 6, we first note that in developing the initial DTV Table we have sought to minimizing the potential for interference between DTV and FM radio service by avoiding the use of channel 6 for DTV wherever possible. There is only one channel 6 allotment in the initial DTV Table. To the extent that stations may return to existing channel 6 assignments, we note that DTV operations will be at substantially lower power levels than existing NTSC channel 6 operations. Analysis by our staff indicates that the current rules for protection of analog TV channel 6 service from interference caused by FM radio service are adequate to protect DTV operations on existing analog channel 6 allotments as long as DTV coverage on these channels is the same as, or does not significantly exceed, the coverage of the analog service it would replace. The existing rules will similarly provide adequate protection for new DTV stations on new channel 6 allotments. Our staff analysis also indicates that a DTV station operating on a new channel 6 allotment would not cause interference to an existing FM radio service in most cases, particularly where the FM station is operating at or near its maximum allowed power. In other cases, particularly where the FM station operates significantly below 3 kW, some interference may occur. We agree with NPR that noncommercial radio licensees should not be solely responsible for resolving interference that might result from our inclusion of channel 6 in the core spectrum. Accordingly, as a general matter and consistent with our longstanding policy regarding new stations, it will be the initial responsibility of a DTV licensee to protect against or eliminate harmful interference to any FM radio stations that are in operation at the time the DTV station commences operation. In view of our staff analysis, as discussed above, we believe this policy is adequate to address any instances where stations relocating their DTV service to their existing analog service channels might result in interference to FM radio service. In the case of new DTV stations on new channel 6 allotments, however, the nature of the potential for interference to FM service from DTV signals necessitates that determinations of whether such interference would occur be made on a case-by- case basis. We therefore will require that parties requesting allotment of new DTV allotments on channel 6 submit an engineering study to demonstrate that no interference would be caused to existing FM radio stations on FM channels 200-220. C. Out-of-Core Allotments 46. A number of parties, including AK Media Group, Inc. (AK Media), Allbritton Communications Company (Allbritton), AAPTS/PBS, Brechner, Blade Communications, Inc. (Blade), the Christian Network, Inc. (CNI), the Educational Broadcasting Corporation (EBC), LeHigh Valley Public Television (LeHigh Valley), the University of North Carolina Center for Public Television (UNCTV), Univision Communications Inc. (Univision), and the WGBH Educational Foundation (WGBH) express concern regarding the additional burden that will be placed on stations that are provided transitional DTV channels outside the core spectrum. These parties generally state that because they will have relocate their DTV operations to channels within the core spectrum they will have to endure additional costs and be placed at a disadvantage with respect to their competitors. For example, Brechner submits that a "double move" for its stations, while unlikely to be as expensive the initial conversion to DTV, could easily cost millions of dollars in technical, legal and equipment costs, and in destabilizing effects on viewers and revenues. It further points out that a second conversion would necessitate changes to the digital converter equipment used at the headend of each cable system that carries the station and that affected stations could well be asked to bear the costs of such changes to cable retransmission equipment. These petitioners argue that the disparity in treatment of similarly situated broadcasters, where some must pay to relocate while others enjoy DTV allotments in the core is unfair. Univision also argues that a disproportionate number of minority-oriented licensees like itself have been allotted DTV channels in areas of the spectrum that will eventually be recovered and that the need for these stations to build their DTV facilities twice threatens the future health and diversity of minority programming. 47. The petitioners request that we take a variety of steps to alleviate the additional burdens faced by stations with out-of-core DTV channels. CNI requests that we modify the "no new interference criteria" for allotment changes to make it easier for such broadcasters to find channels in the core. AK Media Group, Inc. (AK Media) suggests that we require stations that have both a DTV and NTSC channel within the range of channels 7-46 to choose now the channel they intend to keep following the transition. It states that this would allow stations with out-of- core DTV channels to know the channels that will be available so that they can select their ultimate DTV channel now. AAPTS/PBS makes a similar request with regard to public television (PTV) licensees. 48. Allbritton submits that replicating the signals of some of its existing VHF stations on out-of-core UHF channels will necessitate the construction and operation of massive transmitters. It states that the burden of cost and difficulty associated with these conversion investments will be heightened because the stations' DTV channels must be surrendered after the transition. Allbritton therefore requests that we permit stations with out-of-core DTV channels to retain those channels after the transition. It also states that we should consider alternative proposals for new allotments for these stations. 49. AAPTS/PBS and other parties representing the interests of noncommercial stations are concerned that a number of PTV stations were provided out-of-core DTV channels and that the burdens associated with such channels will materially impair the ability of these stations to make the transition to DTV. AAPTS/PBS submits that many PTV stations will have great difficulty in building a single DTV facility, and given their reliance on federal, state and private contributions for operating and capital expenses, it will be difficult or even impossible for PTV stations assigned channels outside the core to build a second DTV facility in the short span of the transition period. It further submits that because PTV stations must raise capital funds from the same sources as operating funds, the need to raise additional funds to construct a second DTV station may affect the ability of even the largest PTV licensees to fund their operating expenses. These petitioners request that we take a number of steps specifically to alleviate the burdens of out-of-core allotments on public television stations. 50. AAPTS/PBS and EBC request that, to the extent we modify the DTV Table, we also allot, wherever possible, core channels for PTV licensees currently allotted channels outside the core. WGBH states that we should give special consideration to PTV stations with out-of-core DTV channels as DTV channel assignments are changed and channels become available for reassignment. Specifically, it requests that we provide that PTV stations with out-of-core NTSC and DTV channels be entitled to be "first in line" to move to technically appropriate channels within the core as such channels open up if, for example, licensees do not participate in the conversion or do not construct their facilities on time. 51. AAPTS/PBS further submits that we should provide PTV stations with out-of-core DTV channels greater flexibility than the rules currently provide to deal with the burdens caused by out-of-core allotments. In this regard, it requests that we allow PTV stations with DTV allotments outside the core spectrum to select DTV channels in the core, even if the alternative channel does not fully comport with our planning factors. Such exceptions to the planning factors could include, for example: 1) channels that do not fully replicate a station's NTSC coverage; 2) channels that require the station to operate from a transmitter site more than 5 km from its current site; or, 3) channels that receive more interference from NTSC stations than our planning factors allowed. AAPTS/PBS states that such solutions would, of course, only be acceptable if they did not cause additional interference to another DTV allotment, an existing NTSC station, or a currently pending NTSC application, or if the affected licensee or applicant concurs. AAPTS/PBS submits that while these suggestions vary from the principles used in developing the DTV Table, they are not inconsistent with them, in that they would protect DTV allotments and existing and proposed NTSC stations. AAPTS/PBS next requests that we permit a PTV licensee with both NTSC and DTV channels outside the core to defer construction of its DTV station until its permanent DTV channel is assigned. It states that this would alleviate the burden of constructing a DTV station that would have to be abandoned relatively soon, perhaps some three or four years after it is built. AAPTS/PBS also states that we should allow PTV stations with an NTSC channel out of the core and a DTV assignment in the core to operate an NTSC station on the in-core DTV channel during the transition and to switch operation to DTV on that same channel at any point during the transition, as long as no additional interference is caused. It further states that we should allow PTV stations with both an NTSC and DTV channel within the core to convert to DTV on their in-core NTSC channel, rather than having to spend the resources to build a separate DTV stations. 52. In addition, AAPTS/PBS requests that we allow PTV licensees with two or more stations in a market to use any of the channels assigned to them for NTSC or DTV operation, as long as no additional interference is caused to other stations. AAPTS/PBS states that as with any multiple station licensee, it would be particularly burdensome for such licensees to construct multiple DTV stations simultaneously. They submit that the existence of a second station in the same market affords the possibility of a workable compromise that would ensure that the public retains access to the licensee's analog and digital services throughout the transition. They also argue that PTV licensees with two stations in the same market should be permitted to employ the overnight switch option and convert one of their stations to DTV on either their current NTSC or their allotted DTV channels. 53. A number of petitioners, including AK Media, Allbritton, AAPTS/PBS, Brechner, Capitol, CPC, Citadel, EBC, Fox, Granite, Harte-Hanks, the Joint MSTV Petitioners, Pulitzer and WGBH request that we address the issue of compensation for full service and low power stations displaced by new service providers on reconsideration, rather than address this issue in a future rule making proceeding. In a statement representative of these petitioners, the Joint MSTV Petitioners request that, on reconsideration, we require that new users of the recaptured broadcast spectrum compensate broadcasters for the cost of forced relocation to the core spectrum. They argue that the transition to DTV will impose heavy financial burdens on broadcasters and that compensation for relocation would avoid an additional burden of spectrum recovery that is particularly onerous for small and noncommercial stations and that falls arbitrarily on some stations and not on others. AAPTS/PBS states that the availability of reimbursement would provide some additional assurance that PTV stations will be able to continue operations after the transition. AAPTS/PBS and EBC state that since new public safety users of channels 60-69 would be unable to pay broadcasters' relocation costs, the reimbursement could be either from a general pool of funds collected from the auctioned spectrum, from the commercial entities that acquire the spectrum in the affected market, or some other source. WGBH requests that we expressly adopting the principle that licensees assigned out-of-core channels, particularly licensees of noncommercial stations and those with out-of-core NTSC channels as well, be compensated for the costs of moving their DTV operations to an in-core channel as a result of spectrum recovery. 54. Decision. We recognize the additional burden placed on licensees with out-of-core DTV allotments. In view of this concern, we have attempted to minimize to the extent possible the number of out-of-core DTV allotments in developing the DTV Table. We note that we are further reducing the number of stations with out-of-core DTV channels by our expansion of the DTV core spectrum to include all channels between 2-51, as discussed above. As a result of these efforts, there are now only 189 stations with out-of-core DTV allotments. All but 12 of these stations have existing NTSC channels within the core spectrum to which they may relocate at the end of the transition period. In addition, to the extent that in-core channels become available during the transition, we will attempt to further reduce the number of out-of-core allotments in any future amendments to the Table. 55. In general, we do not believe that approaches such as CNI's suggestion that we modify our "no interference criteria" would offer significant relief in further reducing the number of out-of-core allotments. We note that most out-of-core allotments occur in the most congested areas of the country where we have already permitted some interference in order to achieve our goal of full accommodation and to maximize the number of in-core allotments. We also do not find that it is practicable to require stations to choose now the channel they intend to keep following the transition, as suggested by AK Media. We believe that in implementing a new technology such as DTV, stations will need some experience to make an appropriate decision on which channel to keep. We are also denying Allbritton's request that we permit stations with out- of-core DTV channels to retain those channels after the transition. Such an approach would be contrary to our decision to eventually recover this spectrum and reallocate it for new uses. 56. We agree with AAPTS/PBS and other parties that the allotment of out-of-core channels may present a particular burden to noncommercial public television licensees because of their reliance on federal, state and private contributions to raise funds. In this regard, we are initiating a separate proceeding to seek comment on the ability of noncommercial public television stations to use the DTV channel capacity for commercial purposes. As discussed above, however, we are not undertaking a general revision of the DTV Table that would facilitate relocation of the DTV allotments of all PTV stations to in-core channels, as requested by AAPTS/PBS and EBC. We also believe that providing all PTV stations with an in-core DTV allotment at this time would pose significant problems for replication and interference. Nevertheless, as stated in the Sixth Report and Order, we remain committed to the recovery of channels temporarily assigned for the transition. Once these channels are recovered, there will be adequate spectrum to ensure that all stations with initial out-of-core DTV allotments can readily be provided with new channels within core spectrum between channels 2-51. In this regard, we do not believe that any special provisions or priorities for PTV stations are needed at this time. With regard to WGBH's request that PTV stations with both NTSC and DTV channels out of the core should receive "first in line" priority in obtaining new channels within the core, as such channels open up, we note that there are now only 12 such cases overall. We therefore do not find that PTV stations in this situation should have a priority merely based on the noncommercial nature of their operations, but rather believe that these limited situations should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. While noncommercial operation is one of the factors that we will consider, we will also weigh other factors such as minimizing interference and/or significantly improving replication in making such decisions. On a case-by-case basis, we will also consider requests by stations with both NTSC and DTV channels outside the core area to defer the construction of their DTV station beyond the current construction deadline, or to convert their operations directly to DTV at the end of the transition, where such stations can show that implementing DTV in accordance with our schedule will cause undue hardship to their operations. 57. With regard to the issue of compensation, we continue to believe that this matter is best addressed in the context of future proceedings. The petitioners have presented no new information that persuades us that our decision to address this matter separately was incorrect or that there is need to finalize compensation decisions now. Furthermore, as pointed out by the petitioners, the issue of compensation is complex and likely to involve special considerations, such as allocations for not-for-profit services such as public safety communications, where compensation might not be appropriate. To decide this matter on reconsideration without a complete and adequate record that includes comment from potential new users of the reallocated spectrum would be inappropriate. D. DTV Power 58. In the Sixth Report and Order, we allotted DTV channels using a "service replication/maximization" concept that was suggested by a variety of broadcast industry interests and representatives. Under this approach,, we specified for each DTV allotment a maximum permissible effective radiated power (ERP) and antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) that will, to the extent possible, provide for replication of the station's existing Grade B service area. The antenna HAAT specified for each DTV allotment was the same as antenna HAAT of its associated NTSC station. The ERP specified was the value calculated to provide service replication. We recognized, however, that the service replication approach originally proposed by the broadcast community could lead to increased disparities among stations. Therefore, in considering the DTV power issue, we stated that it is important to adopt an approach that provides for a high degree of service replication by all stations, while at the same time ensures that all stations are able to provide DTV service competitively within their respective markets. To this end, we adopted elements of a compromise plan set forth in the reply comments of AAPTS, the Broadcasters Caucus and others. In particular, we developed the DTV Table based on providing all new DTV allotments with a minimum of 50 kW and no more than a maximum of 1000 kW. We also stated that if future field testing and studies show that higher power is needed to provide a satisfactory level of replication or that changes in the treatment of interference are warranted, we will be able to evaluate those results at our planned two-year review and consider whether adjustments are needed. In order to allow broadcasters to study this matter, we stated that we will entertain requests for a limited number of stations to experiment at power levels higher than those specified for individual allotments in the DTV Table. 59. Many parties representing existing UHF station interests request that we reconsider our policy with respect to the amount of DTV power authorized for UHF stations. These parties include ALTV, Blade, Media General, Inc. (Media General), Paxson Communications Corporation (Paxson), Pegasus Communications Corporation (Pegasus), Sainte Partners II, L.P. (Sainte), the Sinclair Broadcasting Group (Sinclair), Sullivan Broadcasting Company (Sullivan), Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc./Trinity Broadcasting Network (Trinity), Univision, US Broadcast Group and Viacom, Inc. (Viacom). These parties generally submit that our approach for replicating broadcasters' NTSC Grade B contours creates a serious and unfair competitive disparity between existing UHF stations with UHF DTV channels (U-to-U stations) and existing VHF stations with UHF DTV channels (V-to-U stations). They state that as a result of our Grade B replication policy, V-to-U stations receive power levels of up to 20 times higher than U- to-U stations. They state that the power levels provided U-to-U stations are generally so low that these stations will be unable to provide high-quality service within their core business areas, where most of their audience is located and where most of their revenue is generated. They express concern that at such power levels they may not be able to serve even close-in viewers that use indoor "rabbit ear" or loop antennas. On the other hand, they note that the high power levels of V-to-U stations will provide those stations with a significant margin for error in the event that the DTV system's real world performance does not match its effectiveness in the laboratory. A number of these parties are concerned that U-to-U stations will also be at a significant disadvantage in the delivery of ancillary services, such as transmission of data to computers with low gain antennas. 60. These parties also submit that service maximization offers only illusory benefits for addressing the UHF power problem because many allotments are located in congested areas where, as a practical matter, it is not possible to increase power and coverage. A number of these parties also object to the decision to reduce the DTV receiver noise figure for UHF from 10 dB to 7 dB, while raising the DTV receiver noise figure for VHF from 5 dB to 10 dB. They argue that these changes were unwarranted and have the effect of further increasing the power disparity between U-to-U and V-to-U stations. 61. The petitioners submit a number of suggestions for resolving the UHF power problem. Paxson, Pegasus, and Sinclair argue that in determining whether or not a station can increase its power, we should weigh interference to another broadcaster only where such interference occurs inside an affected station's Grade A contour, rather than inside the station's Grade B contour. ALTV suggests a similar approach and proposes that we permit power increases by U-to-U stations on a case-by-case basis, using a more lenient definition of interference in the Grade B area (outside the Grade A contour). Specifically, it submits that in calculating DTV-to-NTSC interference within an NTSC station's predicted Grade B coverage area, we should permit a higher predicted field strength of the undesired or interfering signal by using the F(50,50) curves in lieu of F(50,10) curves. Under this approach, the existing definitions of interference using F(50,10) curves would be used within the predicted Grade A contour of the affected NTSC station, and no new interference would be permitted within the Grade A contours of either NTSC stations or DTV stations. ALTV states that if the applicant satisfied the above standards, its proposed increase would be further evaluated under a set of public interest criteria relating to cumulative and area/population-specific interference to affected stations and the need for increase. Viacom supports use of the relaxed interference standard and public interest criteria recommended by ALTV, and argues that its application should be limited to only UHF stations. It submits that U-to-U stations willing to sacrifice portions of their Grade B service areas in order to ease the power disparity should not be made to lose any of their Grade B or Grade A service areas at the expense of V-to-U stations that have already been assigned higher operating power levels. It further requests that we clarify that as part of our two-year reviews we will take whatever actions are necessary to maintain the competitive posture of UHF and VHF stations, even if such action involves amending the DTV Table. 62. Blade, Grant Broadcasting Group (Grant), and Media General request that stations be permitted to increase and maximize power now, in the reconsideration process, rather than in individual modification applications. Blade argues that acting now on power increases would avoid costly and time-consuming procedures and conserve our administrative resources. Blade states that we should designate the current Table as an "interim Table" and allow parties additional time to bring engineering solutions (including facilities requests) to the Commission. Grant and Media General submit that maximizing power now would resolve fairness questions in the transition process. Media General also argues that maximizing power now would allow the Commission and licensees to focus on addressing the real engineering issues certain to arise in implementing DTV. Media General states that we should permit stations to increase their power upon a showing that any predicted interference can be avoided through engineering techniques such as using directional antennas, moving transmitter sites or using terrain shielding. Sullivan also supports increasing power, but states that it is unlikely that many stations will be able to meet a "no new interference" test in requesting an increase in facilities. It recommends that we permit power and/or antenna increases as long as no more than 5 percent of the homes of a co-channel or adjacent channel station receive interference. It states that this represents a reasonable de minimis standard for interference. Sullivan also states that we should permit the use of directional antennas to shape signals in order to protect stations from harmful interference. 63. Viacom suggests an "intermediate maximization" plan for U-to-U stations. Under this plan, a 3-month "window period" would be provided for submission of requests to increase power to 250 kW for those U-to-U stations that are assigned power levels more than four times less than that assigned to the highest powered station in the market. It states that such maximization requests should be granted provided that they are feasible within the confines of the Table using accepted engineering remedies. It states further that any mutual exclusivity or conflicts should be resolved first by negotiations and, if that fails, by the Commission such that each affected party is permitted a proportionate level of maximization. In its supplemental filing, Viacom states that a study of the DTV Table conducted by its consulting engineers indicates that if the power of 964 UHF DTV stations were raised to 250 kW, 93 percent of all stations would experience only 1 percent or less increased interference. It further states that under this scenario 3.7 percent of all stations would experience between 1 and 2 percent increased interference, and 2.3 percent would experience between 2 and 5 percent increased interference. Viacom submits that this minimal increase in interference, balanced against the ability of U-to-U stations to better compete within their Grade A contours, warrants adoption of its "intermediate maximization" plan. 64. Fox and Sinclair recommend solutions based on employing the vertical beam of the transmitting antenna to place the energy where it is needed. Fox states that mechanisms such as beam tilt would maximize station coverage and service without increasing interference. Sinclair submits that a technically achievable option would be to allow U-to-U stations to radiate at the same power as the maximum allowed for V-to-U stations, i.e. 1000 kW, as long as they directed that power so that it did not produce a field at their Grade B contour that was greater than the equivalent of their current allotted DTV power. It states that this approach would achieve true replication of the Grade A coverage for UHF stations, preserve the interference protection built into the current DTV Table and allow VHF stations to reach their Grade B viewers. 65. ALTV, in its November 27, 1997, ex parte filing, proposes that we permit all UHF DTV stations to increase power to 1000 kW, provided tilt-beam antennas and/or other technologies are employed to prevent any incremental visible interference. It submits that this proposal is intended to address situations where a station is not expanding its overall coverage area, but rather desires to increase its signal strength within its protected contour without increasing the field strength at the protected contour. ALTV also proposes that we adopt procedures for resolving interference disputes that might occur as a result of such power increases. These procedures would include field strength and interference tests by the station and an accelerated dispute resolution procedure for stations that perceive that they would be subject to additional interference. Many parties representing UHF broadcast interests support the approach as set forth in ALTV's ex parte filing. For example, Chris-Craft/United Group states that the ALTV's proposal contains sensible procedures for allowing power increases and resolving engineering disputes expeditiously without causing additional interference. Sullivan states that ALTV has proposed a sensible and much needed procedure by which U-to-U stations will be able to achieve some competitive parity with their V-to-U neighbors. Its supports the ALTV proposal as one mechanism to address that UHF power imbalance. 66. In a joint filing, a number of UHF Broadcasters (Joint UHF Broadcasters) support the ALTV proposal as one component of a two-part solution to the power problem. They suggest a second component based on a revised version of the immediate, across-the-board, power maximization plan previously proposed by Viacom. Under this plan, the DTV Table would be modified to increase the power of all UHF stations to at least 200 kW, provided that such increase does not create more than 2 percent additional interference to the population of any NTSC station. They state that this increase in interference is de minimis and will affect the analog operations of UHF stations generally at the outer edges of their Grade B contours where service is already typically degraded and cable service has higher penetration. They state that the UHF analog community is willing to accept this slight potential interference in order to continue to reach existing viewers in their core service area. The Joint UHF Broadcasters indicate that preliminary studies conducted by Viacom and MSTV reveal that all but a small percentage of the over 800 stations now assigned less than 200 kW could increase their power to that level under this proposal. 67. AAPTS/PBS share the concerns articulated by ALTV and many UHF broadcasters. They state, however, that ALTV's proposed enforcement procedures simply cannot be implemented in a practical and workable manner and would place an unfair burden on aggrieved stations. In lieu of the ALTV proposal, AAPTS/PBS reiterate their support for Viacom's suggestion to establish a special window during which only UHF licensees assigned UHF DTV channels could request permission to use higher power levels and directional antennas. Lincoln opposes ALTV's automatic grant of power increases but supports a policy permitting applicants to request power increases based on beam-tilting and other interference abatement techniques. SHBC argues that the ALTV process would over burden the Commission, cause needless cost and effort to stations receiving interference and compromise NTSC and DTV service to the public. 68. MSTV states that ALTV's beam-tilt proposal raises serious technical and other issues. It submits that while the beam-tilt antenna may be useful to solve coverage and interference problems, if used with proper engineering practice, the ALTV proposal appears to permit an "excessive ratio of power at the radio horizon to power within the service area." MSTV also states that ALTV's proposal to place the burden of proof on stations suffering interference should not be accepted and that its scheme for proving interference, including field measurements, is imprecise and cannot be implemented as currently presented. It further states that the use of Designated Market Areas (DMAs) instead of the Grade B contour could result in confusion and loss of service. Cosmos is concerned that beam-tilting could have a significant effect on power radiated toward the radio horizon. It urges that we reject the use of beam-tilting except where it is demonstrated, on a case-by-case basis, that under maximum deflection conditions its use would not create interference to neighboring stations. In a joint filing, ABC, Inc., CBS Broadcasting Inc., and National Broadcasting Company (the Networks) submit comments limited to ALTV's ex parte filing. The Networks state the ALTV proposal need not be acted upon before the Commission adopts a final DTV Table. They submit that not enough has been done to quantify the UHF power problem and solutions and that these issues therefore should be considered separately from the DTV Table. 69. On January 6, 1998, MSTV submitted a letter setting forth its proposal for a de minimis interference standard for dealing with requests for minor DTV facility changes and UHF stations' requests for power increases up to 200 kW during the DTV transition. Under MSTV's proposal, which is similar to the de minimis standard suggested by the Joint UHF Broadcasters, power increases and facility changes would be permitted provided that the increase or change does not create more than 2 percent additional interference, in the aggregate, to the population served by either a DTV or NTSC station. MSTV further states that an additional one percent be permitted under certain circumstances in the acute problem areas (i.e., the Northeast, Great Lakes and California). It states that this standard would help expedite the application process and speed the DTV build-out. 70. Fox, Paxson, Sinclair, Sullivan and Viacom also request that we use a 10 dB DTV receiver noise figure for all frequencies. They request that UHF power levels be adjusted upwards to reflect this higher noise figure. 71. The Joint MSTV Petitioners support our decision to develop the DTV allotments based on the receiver noise figures recommended by the Broadcasters' Caucus Technical Committee, i.e., a 10 dB noise figure for the VHF band and a 7 dB noise figure for the UHF band. They indicate that they have examined the DTV allotments using power levels consistent with a 10 dB noise figure for all channels and have found that it shows substantially increased interference to NTSC DTV service and less replication. 72. The Joint MSTV Petitioners submit that for some stations the service areas and other statistics shown in the DTV Table do not reflect the actual DTV service areas that are protected under the rules. They contend that many stations given the 50 kW UHF power minimum will have protected DTV service areas that extend beyond their NTSC Grade B contours and that these increases are not reflected in the Table. They note that, on the other hand, for stations subject to the 1000 kW cap, the DTV Table counts all population and area served within the Grade B even though in some instances such service may not be protected under the rules. To address this concern, the Joint MSTV Petitioners request that we modify the rules to comport with Appendix B's treatment of stations subject to the power cap. In this regard, they state that Section 73.622(e) should provide that an existing station will receive protection out to its NTSC Grade B contour or DTV coverage contour, whichever is greater. The Joint MSTV Petitioners also argue that exceptions to the 1000 kW DTV power cap may be needed to ameliorate substantial replication shortfalls. They therefore submit that we should permit limited experimental operations at power levels above 1000 kW, and in our planned two-year review, consider an across-the- board relaxation of the power cap if appropriate. 73. AAPTS/PBS states that it supports the existing 1000 kW maximum power level and that exceptions to the power cap should be allowed only in limited cases where necessary to correct serious replication problems. Viacom, in its opposition/comments filing, requests that we deny requests for reconsideration that would exacerbate the VHF/UHF power disparity, particularly those proposals that advocate providing a protected area equivalent to the Grade B contour, creating exceptions to the 1000 kW power cap, and eliminating the cap. 74. Longmont Channel 25 ("Longmont") and Viacom, Inc. ("Viacom") request additional information regarding the procedural framework for processing applications to maximize DTV facilities. Viacom defines maximization as any extension of the Grade A or Grade B contour of a DTV facility from that authorized, either by construction permit or by the Table of Allotments. Viacom requests that the Commission classify any such application as one for a major change, making it subject to the "cut-off" procedures of Section 73.3572 of the Commission's Rules. This would provide other parties the opportunity to file applications that are mutually exclusive with the major change application. 75. Under Viacom's proposal, mutually exclusive applicants would be required to negotiate a settlement within a certain period of time. Settlement agreements could include the voluntary funding of upgraded technical equipment for noncommercial stations in exchange for ceding a portion of the requested area of maximization. If mutually exclusive applicants could not reach a settlement, the Commission should then refer the matter to a "geographically relevant, neutral industry coordinating committee" for resolution, and the Commission would determine whether the Committee's proposed settlement would serve the public interest. 76. Viacom requests that the Commission not limit the parties eligible to submit maximization applications to broadcasters that already hold DTV licenses or construction permits. Because expanded coverage allows a station to serve a larger segment of the viewing public, Viacom argues that all stations assigned to DTV channels in the Table of Allotments should be eligible to participate in the maximization process, regardless of whether they have a construction permit. Otherwise, according to Viacom, those stations subject to the earlier construction timetable (i.e., network affiliates in the top 30 markets) will have a distinct advantage over all other stations. Viacom suggests that those stations without construction permits should be allowed to utilize the station parameters relied upon by the Commission in constructing the table or other valid information, and it also urges the Commission to adopt cut-off procedures under Section 73.3572 for applicants seeking to maximize their DTV service areas. 77. Decision. In the Sixth Report and Order, we attempted to address the concerns of many existing UHF broadcasters with the service replication approach. In this regard, we established a 50 kW minimum UHF power level as part of the DTV allotment process, so that all UHF DTV stations were assigned at least 50 kW as their DTV power even in cases where less power was needed for service replication. We also established a power cap of 1000 kW. Both of these actions were intended to reduce the disparity between existing UHF and VHF stations. We also provided rules and procedures for stations to "maximize," or increase, their service areas provided they do not cause interference to other stations. 78. We recognize the petitioners' concerns with regard to the difficulties that UHF stations may face under the current service replication plan in providing DTV service within their core market or Grade A service areas and in competing with the higher-powered DTV service of existing VHF stations. Accordingly, on reconsideration of this issue, we find that additional measures are needed to allow UHF stations to better serve their core market areas and to reduce the disparities that are inherent in the current service replication process. 79. We first agree with MSTV, the Joint UHF Broadcasters, Sullivan and others that a de minimis standard for permissible new interference is needed to provide flexibility for broadcasters in the implementation of DTV. This will provide additional opportunities for stations to maximize their DTV coverage and service through increasing their power and/or making other changes in their facilities. We therefore are replacing the current standard that specifies that changes in DTV operations may not cause any new interference with a new de minimis standard along the lines suggested by the Joint UHF Broadcasters and MSTV. Under this new de minimis standard, stations will be permitted to increase power or make other changes in their operation, such as modification of their antenna height or transmitter location, where the requested change would not result in more than a 2 percent increase in interference to the population served by another station; provided, however, that no new interference may be caused to any station that already experiences interference to 10 percent or more of its population or that would result in a station receiving interference in excess of 10 percent of its population. Parties requesting such changes shall be required to submit an engineering showing that the change comports with the de minimis standard. The station population values for existing NTSC service and DTV service contained in Appendix B of this Memorandum Opinion and Order are to be used for the purposes of determining whether a power increase or other change is permissible under this de minimis standard. 80. To ensure that parties have a fair opportunity to take advantage of our new de minimis approach, we initially are limiting maximization requests for increased power by UHF DTV stations to 200 kW. We therefore will not accept requests by UHF DTV licensees to increase their service area through a maximization of power above 200 kW until substantial progress has been made in the rollout of DTV service. This initial limit on the ability of stations to maximize power beyond 200 kW should put all licensees and permittees on a more equal footing and will give the Commission flexibility to accommodate other facilities changes that will be essential to some applicants. As suggested by the Joint UHF Broadcasters based on computer studies by MSTV, almost 700 of the about 850 stations with less than 200 kW could increase their DTV facilities to 200 kW without creating more than 1 percent interference to any NTSC station. We therefore believe that our 2 percent de minimis standard will provide major relief for stations seeking to increase their facilities. We do not find that a more complicated standard that would take into account aggregate interference, include different levels of interference and geographic considerations, or limit interference increases to only NTSC stations, as suggested in the recent filings, is necessary. Such a standard would also be more complex and difficult for broadcasters and the Commission to apply and administer. 81. We also are adopting an approach that will allow stations to increase their power within their existing DTV service areas using beam tilting techniques, as suggested by Sinclair, Fox and ALTV. We believe that use of techniques that permit increased power within a station's core service area will allow all UHF stations to better achieve full replication of their Grade A coverage, will preserve the interference protection built into the current DTV Table, and will not impede the ability of NTSC VHF stations to provide DTV service to their Grade B viewers. 82. We find that the comprehensive plan suggested by ALTV in its ex parte letter, with some modification, offers an appropriate model for providing for increased power within a station's service area through using antenna beam tilting techniques. Under the approach we are adopting, a UHF DTV station will be permitted to increase its power up to a maximum of 1000 kW, provided antenna beam tilting techniques are employed so that the field strengths at the outer edge of the station's service area are no greater than the levels that our model predicts would exist if the station were operating at its assigned DTV power. In addition, we will require that the field strengths at the edge of the service area be calculated assuming 1 dB of additional antenna gain over the antenna gain pattern specified by the manufacturer. This will effectively reduce the permissible field strength at the edge of the service area of a station using antenna beam tilting from 41 to 40 dBu, but will allow much higher field strengths in the Grade A or core areas. We believe that providing for a 1 dB margin in antenna gain will provide additional assurances that this approach will not result in increased interference above our de minimis standard. This margin will also serve to minimize the potential for increased interference where the beam tilting is reduced due to deflection of the antenna by wind and avoid the need for complex and expensive procedures for resolving disputes that might occur as a result of power increases under this option. 83. As suggested by ALTV, a station desiring to operate at a higher power level than that specified for it in the DTV Table shall submit, with its initial application for a DTV construction permit or subsequent application to modify its DTV facilities, an engineering analysis demonstrating that the predicted field strengths and predicted interference within its service area comport with the above requirements. Stations seeking to operate at higher power levels under these provisions will be required to notify, by certified mail, all stations that could potentially be affected by such operation at the time the station files its application for a construction permit or modification of facilities. Potentially affected stations to be notified include stations on co- channel and adjacent channel allotments that are located at distances less than the minimum geographic spacing requirements in section 73.623(d)(2). A station that believes that its service is being affected beyond our de minimis standard may file an opposition with the Commission. Such an opposition shall include an engineering analysis demonstrating that additional impermissible interference would occur. In certain instances, grants for increased power may be conditioned on validation of performance through field measurements of actual station operation by the station licensee or opposing parties. 84. We believe that the above measures adequately address the UHF power disparity matter. We do not believe that an across the board increase for all UHF stations, as suggested by Viacom and others, is warranted or desirable. Similarly, we do not find that we should employ a more lenient standard for the determination of interference within the Grade B contour of a station or amend the UHF receiver noise figure to increase authorized station power, as suggested by a number of parties. Such approaches could lead to substantial additional interference that would be detrimental to the television service provided to viewers. Further, we do not find that it would be appropriate to act on requests for maximization of DTV facilities in the context of this reconsideration. We have adopted specific provisions in our rules to allow licensees to request an increase in their DTV facilities and believe that to consider maximization requests as part of reconsideration would unfairly disadvantage parties that have expected such maximization requests to be dealt with under the rules. Accordingly, we are not herein acting on requests to maximize DTV station facilities. At the same time, we are aware of petitioners' concerns that our consideration of individual requests for modification not delay the DTV implementation process. We therefore will consider any requested change meeting the new de minimis standard a minor modification and treat such requests under those application processing procedures. Finally, to ensure that all parties are fully aware of our procedures and priorities for processing full service broadcast television applications, we are directing the staff to issue a public notice on this subject in the near future. 85. Upon reconsideration, we agree with the Joint MSTV Petitioners that the definition of DTV service area should be amended for stations subject to the 1000 kW power cap. We therefore will amend the service area definition contained in Section 73.622(e) to include all of the geographic area that is served by such DTV stations and is within the Grade B area of the associated NTSC station. This will ensure that the statistics associated with the DTV Table comport with the rules. We reiterate our statement in the Sixth Report and Order that we will entertain requests for a limited number of stations to experiment at power levels higher than those specified in the DTV Table. We are also clarifying the rules to make clear that the DTV service area that is to be protected from interference is to be calculated using the technical parameters specified for each individual allotment. E. DTV Adjacent Channel Operation 86. In the Sixth Report and Order, we adopted an "emissions mask" that limits out-of- channel emissions from a DTV station's transmitter. Specifically, we required that: 1) at the channel edge, transmitter emissions must be attenuated no less than 46 dB below the average transmitted power; 2) more than 6 MHz from the channel edge, emissions must be attenuated no less than 71 dB below the average transmitted power; and 3) at any frequency between 0 and 6 MHz from the channel edge, emissions must be attenuated no less than the value determined by the following formula: Attenuation in dB = 46 + [( f)2/1.44]; where: f = frequency difference in MHz from the edge of the channel. In addition, in those cases where it was necessary to use adjacent channels in the same area, we paired and co-located adjacent NTSC and DTV channels to the extent possible. 87. Cannell, Fox, Gannett, the Joint MSTV Petitioners, Lincoln, Tribune and others request that we re-evaluate the criteria used in making DTV allotments on first-adjacent channels to NTSC channels. Cannell argues that DTV operation on a channel that is first-adjacent to an NTSC channel and that will operate close to or within the NTSC station's Grade B contour may cause excessive interference to the NTSC operation. It requests that we reconsider this aspect of our allotment methodology to determine whether DTV channels could be allotted without creating interference to first-adjacent NTSC operations. Fox submits that we should develop a lower sideband emissions mask for NTSC stations located within 100 km of DTV stations operating on lower adjacent channels. It states that this would minimize interference and allow more efficient use of the spectrum. Lincoln requests that we provide for streamlined and expedited treatment of applications for alternative channels by stations with DTV channels that are adjacent to other TV operations if use of adjacent channels proves infeasible. Tribune submits that the Charlotte DTV field tests have confirmed the existence of sideband splatter in adjacent DTV channels that would be permitted by our emissions mask. 88. The Joint MSTV Petitioners acknowledge that there are not enough potential DTV channels to avoid assigning adjacent channels in the most congested markets. They note that we have generally assigned adjacent DTV allotments so as to provide exact co-location and reduce interference, as they have suggested. Nonetheless, they are concerned that the existing DTV transmitter emissions mask will not ensure sufficient protection of NTSC service. They now favor a weighting-function approach developed by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) over the mask above. The ATSC, in its comment filing, submits that its weighting function for DTV transmitters will provide greater protection of adjacent NTSC channels than will result from the fixed emission mask currently specified in the rules. The Advanced Television Technology Center (ATTC), in its comment filing, states that recent tests indicate that the RF mask contained in the Sixth Report and Order should be re-evaluated. It submits a report that it states shows that DTV-to-DTV adjacent channel interference in the presence of sideband splatter, the dominant interference mechanism in the adjacent channel scenario, has been significantly underestimated in the DTV planning factors. Based on new testing, ATTC now states that the minimum desired-to-undesired (D/U) ratio for DTV-to-DTV lower adjacent channel operation should be about -23 dB rather than about -42 dB; and that the minimum D/U ratio for DTV-to- DTV upper adjacent channel operation should be about -21 dB rather than about -43 dB. Based on these results, ATTC recommends that the RF mask requirement be eliminated and that instead the total sideband power of the DTV signal be limited. Comark, in late-filed comments, submits that we should: 1) maintain the emissions mask adopted in the Sixth Report and Order for cases where there are no adjacent channel assignments; adopt the weighting function mask developed by the ATSC where DTV channels are adjacent to NTSC channels; and, 3) limit the total power integrated over the 6 MHz adjacent channel in cases where DTV channels are adjacent to another DTV channel. 89. In its ex parte filing, MSTV states that it has completed further analysis with regard to the DTV-to-DTV adjacent channel problem. It indicates that the DTV Table of Allotments contains about 250 adjacent DTV channel assignments that are too close together given the new information about DTV adjacent channel interference. It includes a list of these channel pairs and states that "(t)his short-spacing will significantly reduce the DTV service areas by up to 60 percent for nearly 130 stations (or at least one in each pair of adjacent channels)." It also includes an exhibit that shows recalculations of the coverage and interference figures for the DTV Table based on new adjacent channel interference values. 90. MSTV also submits that its suggested 357 changes to the DTV Table would cure the short-spacing of all cases of DTV-to-DTV adjacent channels. It states that about two-thirds of these changes address the DTV-to-DTV adjacent channel situation. It further states that in developing these changes, efforts were made to preserve most of the current DTV allotments. It asserts that changes were made only where called for by the most extreme cases of interference. It also reiterates that one way to slightly lessen the impact of adjacent channel interference problems would be to replace the fixed mask adopted in the Sixth Report and Order with a mask that limits total average power in the adjacent channel, weighted for DTV-to-NTSC adjacencies and unweighted for DTV-to-DTV adjacencies. 91. Decision. We agree with the petitioners and other commenting parties that revisions are needed to reduce the potential for adjacent channel interference. We believe that a solution that includes tightening the DTV emissions mask, making a number of specific DTV allotment changes where needed, and providing flexible administrative processes to encourage adjacent channel co-locations offers the best approach for addressing adjacent channel interference concerns. 92. The current DTV transmitter mask requires that the total out-of-band emissions in the adjacent 6 MHz channel be attenuated by 39 dB relative to the transmitter's in-band average power. We are revising this emissions mask to require an additional 5 dB of attenuation of the total out-of-band emissions in the adjacent channel. This new emission standard will apply to all DTV stations. We believe that this further reduction in out-of-band emissions is economically practicable with the available technology for broadcast transmitters and will help to reduce all cases of potential for interference, including DTV-to-NTSC and DTV-to-DTV adjacent channel situations. Accordingly, we are revising the DTV out-of-band "emissions mask" to require that: 1) in the first 500 kHz from the authorized channel edge, transmitter emissions must be attenuated no less than 47 dB below the average transmitted power; 2) more than 6 MHz from the channel edge, emissions must be attenuated no less than 110 dB below the average transmitted power; and 3) at any frequency between 0.5 and 6 MHz from the channel edge, emissions must be attenuated no less than the value determined by the following formula: Attenuation in dB = -11.5( f +3.6); where: f = frequency difference in MHz from the edge of the channel. All attenuation limits are based on a measurement bandwidth of 500 kHz. This mask will lower the power radiated in the adjacent channel as compared to our current RF mask by approximately 5 dB to a level of -44 dB below the average power transmitted. Other measurement bandwidths may be used as long as the appropriate correction factors are applied. As with our original mask, in the event interference is caused to any service, greater attenuation may be required. 93. We note that the ATTC test results can be interpreted to indicate that all calculations involving D/U ratios for adjacent channel operation should be changed by a factor of about 20 dB; and, in fact, MSTV in its re-tabulation of DTV coverage and interference took this approach. However, predictions of service areas and interference are complex matters. The estimates contained in the DTV Table are based on the assumption that the interfering and desired signals are not correlated when it comes to signal fading. That is, the methodology assumes that the desired signal is at its weakest or minimum level and the undesired signal is at its strongest or maximum level at any particular point. At the edge of the station's service area, this results in very large differences in desired and undesired signal levels. In practice, however, adjacent channel signals from co-located or closely-located sources tend to be highly correlated since the signals travel over the same or nearly the same path and are affected by the same propagation and weather conditions. In these instances, the signals tend to exhibit the same fading characteristics and large differences due to propagation factors do not occur. Recent studies by our laboratory confirm this correlation. We therefore believe that a more accurate modeling of service coverage and interference would take this correlation into account and that the service coverage and interference for many adjacent channel situations will be better in practice than the estimates shown for the DTV Table. 94. As indicated above, we are also making a number of specific DTV channel allotment changes to eliminate DTV-to-DTV adjacent channel situations where such allotments resulted in significantly reduced DTV service areas. In this regard, we are changing 42 DTV allotments. These changes include many of the changes suggested by MSTV, including its proposal for the San Francisco, California area. We are not, however, making all of the adjacent channel changes suggested by MSTV. We note that many of the DTV allotments for which MSTV raised a concern would still provide a high degree of service replication and/or provide DTV service areas larger than their NTSC service area even taking into account the new adjacent channel test data. We further note that some of the changes requested by MSTV would not provide significant improvements in service or replication, or raise other concerns such as out-of-core operation. Furthermore, as a general matter, we do not believe that simply changing DTV allotments is an appropriate universal solution to the adjacent channel matter. As the Joint MSTV Petitioners acknowledge, there are not enough potential DTV channels to avoid any assignment of adjacent channels. Further, even if that could be done in all instances, we recognize that many stations may be forced to implement their DTV operations at locations other than their NTSC transmitter sites, and that these new, yet unknown, locations may create additional adjacent channel concerns. We therefore believe that a solution that includes tightening the emissions mask, allowing flexibility in our licensing process and for modification of individual allotments in the DTV Table to encourage adjacent channel co-locations, and continued monitoring of this situation, offers the best approach in a dynamic process like the implementation of DTV. We also note that petitioners' proposal raises other concerns, such as operating on channels outside the core spectrum, on channels 60-69, or on spectrum shared with land mobile services, that must also be weighed against slight increases in service replication and DTV coverage. We believe that our improved emissions mask and DTV channel changes provide the appropriate balance between all of these factors. F. Low Power and TV Translator Stations 95. In the Sixth Report and Order, we recognized that in providing all full service TV stations with a second DTV channel, it will be necessary to displace a number of LPTV and TV translator operations, especially in the major markets. This determination was based on studies by our staff and by our Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service (Advisory Committee) that indicate there is insufficient spectrum available in the broadcast TV bands to factor in low power displacement considerations in making DTV allotments. Notwithstanding our decision to maintain the secondary status of low power stations, we indicated that we were concerned about the effect of DTV implementation on low power services, especially the impact with regard to LPTV stations for which the likelihood of displacement is greater, and therefore took steps to minimize the impact on those stations. We adopted a number of changes to our rules in order to provide additional flexibility to accommodate low power operations during and after the transition to DTV, and thereby substantially mitigate the impact of DTV implementation on this segment of the television industry. We estimated that these changes will permit hundreds of LPTV stations and TV translators to continue providing service to their viewers. 96. We first took a number of steps to assist low power stations in relocating to new channels. In this regard, we allowed low power stations that are displaced by new DTV stations to apply for a suitable replacement channel in the same area without being subject to competing applications. We also amended our rules to provide that such applications will be considered on a first-come, first-served basis, without waiting for the Commission to open a low power application window. Under this process, the low power licensee requesting such a channel or related facilities change submits an application for the requested channel change. If no other prior requests for that channel had been made within the same area and the application is acceptable for filing, the Commission would propose to grant the application. Assuming no negative comments or petitions to deny, the request would be granted at the end of the 30 day period. 97. We stated that we would extend this "displacement" relief measure to LPTV and TV translator licensees and permittees whose facilities are predicted to conflict with a DTV station. Applications for such relief may be filed when there would be a reasonable expectation of displacement; for example, upon the filing of an application by a full service broadcaster for a DTV channel that would conflict with operation of the LPTV or TV translator station. We stated that as secondary operations, LPTV and TV translator stations will be permitted to operate until a displacing DTV station or a new primary service provider is operational. We also permitted low power stations to file non-window displacement relief applications to change their operating parameters to cure or prevent interference caused to or received from a DTV station or other protected service. In this regard, we stated that we will continue to allow low power operations on all existing TV channels, including channels 60-69, provided that such operations do not cause harmful interference to any primary operations. We stated that we will also permit displaced LPTV or TV translator stations to request operation on these channels on a non-interfering basis. We found that the current interference rules for low power operations are overly restrictive and adopted a number of rule changes that will provide additional operating flexibility for low power stations. 98. In addition to these processing and technical rule changes, we stated that we would consider providing relief for low power stations in a number of other ways. We stated that we will entertain requests to waive the LPTV protection standards where it can be demonstrated that proposed LPTV or TV translator stations would not cause any new interference to the reception of TV broadcast analog stations. We also stated that we will entertain waiver requests for low power and TV translator applications proposing co-located or nearly co-located facilities to those of TV broadcast analog stations operating on the first adjacent channel above or below, or the fourteenth adjacent channel below. We stated that until we gain some experience with near co- located operations, we are inclined to limit consideration of such waivers to applications for "displacement relief" filed by LPTV and TV translator permittees and licensees in jeopardy of losing their channels. We next stated that we will consider waiving the LPTV interference protection standards when the applicant obtains the written consent of the potentially affected NTSC or DTV licensee or permittee to the grant of the waiver. This policy, which has worked well for terrain shielding waivers, permits a full service licensee or permittee to concur that interference is unlikely, but without absolving the LPTV or TV translator applicant of the responsibility to eliminate interference caused to the regularly viewed signal of the station. Finally, we amended our low power rules to replace the existing transmitter power (TPO) limits with limits for effective radiated power (ERP). 99. Many petitioners representing the interests of low power television and TV translator stations continue to express concern for the impact of DTV implementation on these stations. As stated by the Urban LPTV Parties, these parties generally urge that we keep a sense of proportion in considering the public interest gains and losses from the particulars of the DTV allotment plan. They state that we should tread very lightly where the very survival of these stations during the transition is an issue. As discussed below, these parties submit requests urging that we modify and amend our policies and rules in a number of ways to ensure the viability and survivability of LPTV stations in a digital world. (1) Protection of Secondary Low Power Stations 100. CBA, Paxson Communications LPTV, Inc. (Paxson LPTV), and Skinner Broadcasting, Inc. (Skinner) request that we reconsider the meaning of secondary status with respect to low power stations. Paxson LPTV argues that we must reconsider our decision not to accommodate low power stations in developing the DTV Table. CBA submits that while those opposing relief for LPTV stations on the basis that such stations are secondary operations often cite Polar Broadcasting, et al. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 1184 (1994) to support their position, the Polar case is not dispositive. CBA argues that Polar was decided in a different environment than exists today, where we have in one action doubled the number of television allotments and reduced the total number of channels available for television service. It argues that because of these differences we must undertake every effort to facilitate LPTV survival. 101. Skinner argues that we should conduct a reasonable Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and must review, pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the impact of our decision on communities that will lose LPTV or TV translator service. It argues that we failed to comply with the Section 307(b) mandate that we consider community needs prior to displacing facilities that cannot be replaced on other channels to serve the same community. It contends that our claim that low power service is secondary is an inadequate defense to our failure to make any analysis of the effect of the DTV Table on either the licensees or the communities affected by LPTV/TV translator displacement, since no LPTV or TV translator licensed earlier than five years ago ever envisioned the extent of displacement that would occur on a national scale. Skinner further argues that we should hold in abeyance the implementation of the analog-to-digital television conversion, particularly the dual-channel simulcasting provisions, until a reasonable system has been implemented for reimbursing, or otherwise re-accommodating displaced low power stations. 102. CBA, Cordillera, KMC, KPDX, Paxson LPTV, Skinner, and WHNS request that we revise the DTV Table to protect and/or accommodate low power stations. CBA argues that the DTV Table adopted Sixth Report and Order will result in the displacement of at least 160 operating LPTV stations and that these displacements are not necessary to accommodate the transition to digital television. It submits that the forced elimination of so many LPTV stations will concentrate television broadcasting in large markets at the expense of smaller communities. In arguing for reconsideration, CBA notes that the DTV Table of Allotments was generated without any penalty in the computer software for displacing LPTV stations. It contends that this omission was contrary to the public interest because it resulted in the allotment program selecting many of the same channels for DTV service that LPTV search programs have found for LPTV stations, when alternatives were readily available for DTV use. Cordillera argues that LPTV and TV translator operations should be protected throughout the DTV conversion process, since these stations provide extended coverage for "primary" stations. 103. CBA states that it undertook to accommodate LPTV stations in the allotment process using our allotment software. CBA states that to do this it modified the TV data base to include operating LPTV stations and added instructions to the program to avoid displacing an operating LPTV station unless no other way were available to provide a DTV channel for a full service station. It submits that using this approach it was able to develop an alternative Table that saves a substantial number of LPTV stations. CBA includes a copy of this Table with its petition. CBA states that the point is not that its Table is optimal, but that it has shown that the transition to DTV service can be achieved without ignoring LPTV stations and without wholesale displacement of the LPTV industry. In order reduce the impact on these LPTV stations, it requests that we substitute the CBA Table for the current Table or generate a new Table using a significant penalty for displacing LPTV stations. In its most recent filing, CBA indicates that it has modified the Commission's computer program to include an algorithm that avoids displacing LPTV and TV translator stations where possible. This is done by placing a small penalty for the use of a channel for DTV that is currently used by a low power station. CBA states that algorithm can be used so that it doesn't impact full service stations in the three congested or problem areas; impede the rollout of DTV in the top 30 markets; or, affect channels that have already been applied for. CBA states that it has used this algorithm to create a new DTV Table that would reduce the number of co-channel LPTV/TV translator displacements from 779 stations to 477 stations, with an increase in overall interference to full service stations of about 2.5 percent. 104. CBA also requests that we allow LPTV stations to request changes in the DTV allotments for individual full service stations in order to avoid displacement of LPTV stations. Specifically, CBA requests that we provide that if a potentially displaced LPTV station files a request to amend the DTV Table, i.e. modify one or more DTV allotments for full service stations, so as to avoid displacement, and the LPTV station's proposal meets the spacing and other requirements of the DTV rules, there will be a strong presumption that the public interest requires a grant. It argues that a request to substitute digital allotments should not be rejected unless the full service station would be significantly worse off as a result and that all channels should be considered equally in determining which channel is made available to a particular full service station. 105. Decision. We continue to believe that our decision to retain the secondary status of low power stations with regard to digital television and other new primary television services is appropriate. As indicated above, studies throughout this proceeding, by industry and our staff, have indicated that it would be necessary to displace a significant number of low power TV and TV translators in order to implement DTV service. As secondary operations, low power stations must give way to new operations by primary users of the spectrum, including in this case new full service DTV stations operated by existing broadcasters under our DTV implementation plan. While we recognize the important services low power stations provide, we must ensure that our goals for the implementation of DTV are achieved before taking any additional steps to minimize the impact on these seco