******************************************************** 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. For information on downloading documents using File Transfer Protocol(FTP) see the file how2ftp in the following directory path: /pub/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/ ***************************************************************** FCC 96-317 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Advanced Television Systems ) and Their Impact upon the ) MM Docket No. 87-268 Existing Television Broadcast ) Service ) Sixth Further Notice Of Proposed Rule Making Adopted: July 25, 1996 ; Released August 14, 1996 Comment Date: November 22, 1996 Reply Comment Date: December 23, 1996 By the Commission: Chairman Hundt issuing a statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Para. No. I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 4 III. ALLOTMENT AND ASSIGNMENT PRINCIPLES 8 A. Full Accommodation 9 B. Digital TV Service Areas 11 C. Spectrum for DTV 15 Proposals 18 Request for Comments 31 D. Allotment Preference 38 E. Assignment Methodology 42 F. Negotiated Allotments/Assignments 44 G. Additional Considerations 50 IV. OTHER ISSUES 54 A. Use of Existing Transmitter Sites 55 B. Existing Vacant Allotments, New NTSC Applications and Station Modifications 57 C. Low Power and TV Translator Stations 64 D. Use of TV Channels 3, 4 and 6 73 E. Land Mobile Sharing 75 F. DTV Frequency Labeling Plan 78 V. ALLOTMENT METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH 80 A. Technical Performance of the DTV System 80 B. Methodology for Allotting DTV Frequencies 81 VI. DTV TABLE OF ALLOTMENTS 84 A. Allotment Computer Software 84 B. Proposed DTV Allotments 88 Full Accommodation 89 DTV Service Areas 90 Spectrum for DTV Allotments 91 Other Allotment Considerations 93 VII. ALLOTMENT MODIFICATIONS 94 A. Maximum Station Facilities 94 B. Future Allotments and Modifications to the DTV Table 97 Geographic Spacing Approach 98 Engineering Criteria Approach 99 Use of Frequency Coordinators 100 VIII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 103 A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 104 B. Submission of Comments 105 IX. ORDERING CLAUSES 106 APPENDIX A- Technical Data APPENDIX B- Proposed DTV Table of Allotments APPENDIX C- Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis I. INTRODUCTION 1. By this action, the Commission begins the final step in the implementation of the next era of broadcast television: digital television (DTV). Recently, we considered the issue of a DTV broadcast standard. Earlier, we adopted a Notice addressing the manner in which digital licensees may use the spectrum identified for digital broadcasting, and other issues. In this action, we continue the implementation process by proposing policies for developing the initial DTV allotments, procedures for assigning DTV frequencies, and plans for spectrum recovery. 2. We also propose technical criteria for the allotment of additional DTV frequencies and provide a draft DTV Table of Allotments. The Table, which shows how initial digital frequencies might be allotted and assigned in individual markets, is based on the principles of accommodating all eligible existing broadcasters, replicating existing service areas, and ensuring sound spectrum management. While we expect our final Table of Allotments to be based on these principles, the Table we issue today is a draft and we anticipate revisions. Our staff will work with broadcasters and other parties to revise the Table as appropriate. We have also proposed procedures by which broadcasters within a community can request alternative allotments for their market, both before and after adoption of a Table. 3. Our overarching goals in this phase of the proceeding are to ensure that the spectrum is used efficiently and effectively through reliance on market forces and to ensure that the introduction of digital TV fully serves the public interest. In this latter regard, our proposals will serve to foster the competitive provision of new and innovative DTV services and to promote economic growth and the creation of jobs in the telecommunications industry. II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 4. On July 16, 1992, the Commission adopted a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making that addressed issues relating to the development of channel allotments for DTV service. In that action, we presented proposals for the policies, procedures and technical criteria to be used in allotting and assigning channels for DTV service. Included in this action was a "draft" proposal for a DTV Table of Allotments. 5. On July 28, 1995, we adopted a Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Third Further Notice of Inquiry (Fourth Further Notice) that revisited a number of policy issues in response to technical and system developments with regard to digital broadcast television technology. We noted that digital encoding and transmission technology permits the transmission of multiple standard definition television (SDTV) programming, data and other services in addition to high definition television (HDTV) service. With regard to spectrum issues, we restated our commitment to recovery of spectrum. We stated that the temporary grant of an additional 6 MHz channel for digital broadcasting would be conditioned explicitly on, among other things, return of one of the channels at the end of a transition period. We further stated that we may require broadcasters to change their channels at the end of the transition period, so that recovered spectrum can be aggregated into contiguous blocks, thereby increasing its value. We also indicated that we intended to issue another Further Notice proposing a DTV Table of Allotments and channel assignment methodology. 6. We adopted a Fifth Further Notice to consider the issue of a DTV broadcast technical standard on May 9, 1996. We proposed to require that DTV licensees use the ATSC DTV Standard recommended by our Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service (Advisory Committee) as the transmission system for digital broadcast television. To ensure that our rules encourage future innovation, we also proposed to do one or more of the following: 1) proceed under our current processes, which include consideration of requests to amend our rules when the Commission, industry, or other members of the public believe change warranted; 2) provide for reviewing the standard at some future time; or, 3) adopt a sunset provision making the standard optional after an established period of time. We also sought comment on alternatives to requiring use of the ATSC DTV Standard, including the possibility of mandating only certain portions of the standard, or simply authorizing use of the ATSC DTV Standard and protecting it against interference. 7. In this action, we consider policies, procedures and technical criteria to be used in allotting and assigning channels for digital TV service. The DTV Table on which we are seeking comment is based on the principles of full accommodation for all eligible existing broadcasters, replication of existing broadcast service areas, and sound spectrum management, and it uses the technical and interference characteristics of the ATSC DTV Standard. We proceed with this Further Notice on the assumption that 6 MHz channels will be assigned to existing broadcasters, and that there will be a transition period after which broadcasters will return one of their two 6 MHz channels. We do not address in this Further Notice the issue of whether digital licenses should be assigned through competitive bidding, which is beyond our statutory authority. III. ALLOTMENT AND ASSIGNMENT PRINCIPLES 8. The development of a proposed new Table of Allotments for digital TV broadcasting is a complex and difficult task. Over 1900 new DTV allotments must be identified to serve the almost 1000 TV markets and communities throughout the United States. Sophisticated, state-of-the-art computational capabilities are required to perform the complicated task of creating these new allotments and calculating the anticipated coverage and interference effects of the proposed new DTV frequencies. Comprehensive engineering and technical analyses must be performed to study the potential for recovery of spectrum. The principles and policies that have resulted in our DTV allotment proposals are discussed fully below. We request comment on all aspects of the principles and assumptions underlying the attached draft DTV Table. A. Full Accommodation 9. In the Second Further Notice issued in 1992, we proposed that our primary allotment objective would be to accommodate all eligible existing broadcasters with a second channel for DTV service. We had previously indicated that eligible broadcasters would include: a) all full-service television broadcast station licensees; b) permittees authorized as of October 24, 1991; and c) all parties with applications for a construction permit on file as of October 24, 1991, who are ultimately awarded full-service broadcast station licenses. In the Fourth Further Notice, we reiterated our 1992 decision that initial eligibility for DTV frequencies should be limited to existing broadcasters. The recently enacted 1996 Telecommunications Act provides that if we decide to issue additional licenses for advanced television services, we should limit the initial eligibility for such licenses to persons that, as of the date of such issuance, are licensed to operate a television broadcast station or hold a permit to construct such a station. 10. Proposal. Consistent with the above, we propose that our primary allotment objective continue to be to develop an allotment approach that will accommodate all eligible existing broadcasters. Subject to any changes resulting from our Fourth Further Notice, existing broadcasters eligible for a DTV channel will include those broadcasters we have previously identified: a) all full-service television broadcast station licensees; b) permittees authorized as of October 24, 1991; and c) all parties with applications for a construction permit on file as of October 24, 1991, who are ultimately awarded full-service broadcast station licenses. This approach will ensure that all eligible full service broadcasters are able to provide the new digital TV service. Our proposals herein regarding full accommodation are also consistent with the provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act regarding initial eligibility for licenses. As described below, we are also proposing procedures for creating additional allotments beyond those needed initially for accommodating all existing full service broadcasters. B. Digital TV Service Areas 11. In the Second Further Notice, we proposed to employ an allotment approach that would maximize the service areas of all DTV allotments. We also stated that it is important to enable DTV stations to serve geographic areas that encompass their communities of license and surrounding market areas. We indicated that we intended to establish a minimum DTV service area objective and stated that, at a minimum, DTV stations should have the capability to provide service to an area within a radius of 85-90 km (about 55 miles) of their transmitter sites. Under this approach, frequencies would be assigned to broadcasters in a community either through a negotiation process or on a first- come, first-served basis. 12. We also requested comment on a "service replication/maximization" concept suggested by a variety of broadcast industry interests and representatives. Under this approach, in the allotment process, we would attempt to provide DTV coverage areas comparable to existing NTSC coverage areas, taking each station's actual facilities and interference into account. We would also attempt, where possible, to provide smaller NTSC stations with larger DTV coverage areas, up to the size of the coverage area of the largest station in their market. Consistent with the comparable coverage objective, using the service replication approach we would match DTV frequencies with existing NTSC frequencies to create channel pairings/assignments. The goal of this approach would be two-fold: 1) to provide DTV coverage comparable to a station's entire current coverage area and, 2) to provide the best correspondence between the size and shape of the proposed DTV channel's coverage area and the station's existing coverage. 13. Proposal. In reviewing this issue, we agree with those in the broadcasting industry who have argued that replication of existing service areas in the new DTV allotments offers important benefits for both viewers and stations. Replication would generally maintain the service areas of existing NTSC stations, thereby preserving viewers' access to off-the-air TV service and the ability of stations to reach the audiences that they now serve. Accordingly, we are proposing to identify digital TV allotments that, to the extent possible, will allow all existing broadcasters to provide digital TV service to a geographic area that is comparable to their existing NTSC service area. In this regard, we also propose to specify for each DTV allotment a maximum permissible effective radiated power (ERP) and antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) that would, to the extent possible, provide for replication of the station's existing service area. Furthermore, as discussed below, we are proposing to allow stations to maximize or increase their service area where such an increase would not create additional interference. 14. We request comment on all aspects of our proposal to use the service replication plan in allotting and assigning initial channels for digital TV service. We also request comment on whether it might be more desirable instead to adopt our original plan to allot DTV channels using an approach that maximizes the service areas of all DTV stations. This approach would tend to equalize the coverage areas of all stations within a market and reduce the current disparities among stations. We request comment on whether our original approach would be more appropriate and would provide more incentives for broadcasters to implement digital service more quickly than the service replication approach. C. Spectrum for DTV 15. In the Second Report/Further Notice, we set forth a plan for implementing DTV service. As part of that plan, we proposed to provide broadcasters with the temporary use of a second channel for DTV operations, and we emphasized that at the end of the transition period we would reclaim one of the two channels. In the Second Further Notice, we proposed to locate all DTV allotments in the UHF band. We indicated that locating all DTV allotments in a single band would help reduce the cost of DTV receiving equipment and reduce technical disparities between stations. We also stated that allotting DTV channels only to UHF frequencies would leave the VHF band vacant after the transition to DTV is completed and would make this band available for new radio services. 16. In the Fourth Further Notice, we stated that we remain committed to spectrum efficiency and to the recovery of spectrum. We noted that over 400 MHz of spectrum in the VHF and UHF bands is currently allocated for television broadcasting. We indicated that while the NTSC system does not permit all of the TV channels designated in this spectrum to be used in the same geographic area, the ATSC DTV system does not appear to pose the same limitations on spectrum use. Accordingly, we stated that as part of our long term plans to promote efficient use of the spectrum, we are considering reducing the amount of spectrum allocated to television broadcasting, but without reducing the number of licensees. In particular, we stated that by moving some digital broadcast stations to new frequencies upon cessation of NTSC service, we would be able to condense broadcasting assignments to significantly less than 400 MHz, facilitate spectrum recovery in contiguous blocks and thereby achieve a more spectrum-efficient arrangement. Finally, we questioned our previous view that the UHF band is the part of the spectrum to which all television broadcasting should be moved and sought comment on which parts of the VHF and UHF bands are most highly valued for digital broadcast use. 17. We also noted in the Fourth Further Notice that we had not made any decisions concerning which of the two channels would eventually be surrendered. We stated that to minimize the number of digital broadcast stations that may need to be moved to facilitate the creation of large contiguous blocks of VHF and/or UHF spectrum, it will likely be necessary for the Commission, not the licensee, to determine which 6 MHz channel the broadcaster must use for digital transmission and which must be surrendered. We also indicated that by making these decisions early we can aid broadcasters in their investment decisions. 18. Proposals. The primary goal of this proceeding is to ensure that the implementation of the DTV service is accomplished in a manner that serves the public interest. To achieve this goal, we believe that it is important to provide the new digital stations with the spectrum that is the most appropriate and technically suitable for their operation. In addition, given our obligation to manage the spectrum efficiently in the public interest and the increased number of stations that the TV spectrum can accommodate, we believe it is important that the recovery of spectrum continue to be a key component of our implementation of DTV service. In this regard, we remain committed to the recovery of the channels temporarily assigned for the transition and to ensuring that the spectrum is used efficiently. 19. DTV Core Spectrum Option. In revisiting the issue of the location of DTV allotments, we agree with broadcasters who have argued against a UHF-only plan. We now believe that an approach that uses portions of both the VHF and UHF TV spectrum would better serve the public interest. Based on studies by our staff in developing DTV allotments, we believe that a core region of 270 MHz between channels 7 and 51 may be the most appropriate location for DTV broadcasting; that it would be sufficient to accommodate all existing broadcasters; and that it would provide additional DTV frequencies for new entrants after the conversion to digital service. From a technical perspective, we believe that this spectrum is the most desirable for broadcasting. In this regard, we observe that signals in the lower VHF spectrum are more susceptible to degradation due to man-made and atmospheric noise, while those in the upper UHF spectrum suffer greater propagation losses and are more susceptible to multipath and shadowing effects. 20. We therefore are considering a revised spectrum option under which all future digital TV service would be located in a core region of the existing VHF and UHF broadcast spectrum, namely the spectrum at VHF channels 7 to 13 (174-216 MHz), and the spectrum at UHF channels 14-51 (470-698 MHz). Figures 1 and 2 below show the existing NTSC television channels and the proposed spectrum to be used for digital television: Figure 1 - Current NTSC TV Channels Figure 2 - Proposed DTV Spectrum (Shaded Areas) 21. Under this spectrum plan, we would attempt to provide all existing broadcasters with access to a 6 MHz channel for digital broadcasting within the core digital TV spectrum, i.e., channels 7 to 51. Because of the limited availability of spectrum and the need to accommodate all existing facilities with minimal interference among stations, however, some broadcasters would be provided transition DTV channels outside of this area. These broadcasters would have to move their DTV operations to a channel in the core spectrum when one became available. Broadcasters whose existing NTSC channels are in the core spectrum could move their DTV operations to their NTSC channel at some time in the future. Broadcasters whose DTV transition channel and existing NTSC channel are both outside of the core area could obtain a new DTV channel when channels in the core spectrum are recovered. 22. The following illustrates how a broadcaster assigned a new DTV channel in the core spectrum could make the transition: In the example on the left, a broadcaster operating on channel 20, in the core DTV spectrum, is provided DTV channel 42, also in the core spectrum. After the transition, this broadcaster could choose either to continue to operate his DTV service on channel 42 or to switch his DTV operations to his existing NTSC channel 20. Whichever channel is not used for DTV would be reclaimed and could become available for other DTV operations. In the example on the right, a broadcaster operating on channel 55, outside of the core DTV spectrum, would be provided with DTV channel 24, inside the core spectrum. After the transition, channel 55 would be recovered. 23. Alternatively, the following illustrates how a broadcaster assigned a DTV channel outside the core spectru m could make the transiti on: In the example on the left, a broadcaster operating on channel 21, which is in the core DTV spectrum, is provided a "temporary DTV" channel 52 outside the core DTV spectrum. After the transition, this broadcaster would have to move his channel 52 DTV operation to channel 21. In the example on the right, a broadcaster operating on channel 56, which is outside of the core DTV spectrum, would be provided with "temporary DTV" channel 54 also outside the core spectrum. After the transition, this broadcaster would be required to move to a new DTV channel within the core spectrum, e.g., channel 20 from our first example above, which would be made available through release of an NTSC channel. 24. We believe that this option provides broadcasters with a sound plan for the implementation of DTV. By attempting to provide all broadcasters a "core" DTV channel, this option would provide the vast majority of broadcasters with the capability to provide DTV service on a channel that is technically most suited for DTV operation. For 90 percent of stations, broadcasters, if they desired, would be able to provide DTV services on the same channel both during and after the transition. This will allow the greatest number of broadcasters to establish early and permanent channel identification with viewers and will minimize the expense and confusion associated with second channel transitions. 25. Another benefit of this option is that it would allow the spectrum outside the core region to be recovered without a repacking that would force many broadcasters to move to new channels twice. Specifically, this option would permit the eventual recovery of 138 MHz of spectrum nationwide. This spectrum would be obtained from the lower VHF channels, i.e., channels 2-6 (54-72 MHz and 76-88 MHz), and upper UHF channels, i.e., 52-69 (698-806 MHz). In addition, this option may facilitate the early recovery of a portion of this spectrum. For example, it may be possible to recover 60 MHz of spectrum almost immediately from the band 746-806 MHz, i.e., UHF channels 60-69, while protecting the relatively few full-service analog and digital broadcasters in that spectrum. In this regard, we note that only 97 of the almost 1600 television licensees operate on channels 60-69. And in the attached Table of Allotments we have attempted to minimize the number of DTV channels that would be located on channels 60-69. Thus, a benefit of this approach is that substantial amounts of spectrum could rapidly be made available. 26. While we are not, in this proceeding, deciding that this spectrum be reallocated, we note that there are other uses for this spectrum. For example, this spectrum could be licensed through competitive bidding for flexible mobile operations; a portion of it could be used to meet public safety needs; and/or a portion could be designated temporarily or permanently for LPTV and TV translator stations. If such an early recovery were to occur, we would initiate a separate allocation proceeding to decide how this spectrum should be used. In addition, we would allow broadcasters using channels 60-69, both NTSC and DTV, to continue to use those channels as long as broadcasters beneath channel 60 were permitted to retain two channels and we would protect them from interference by new licensees. We also may consider requiring the new licensees to compensate broadcasters for the cost of relocating to DTV channels in the core spectrum area. (This compensation, we anticipate, could also be available to broadcasters at channels 52-59 and 2-6 at a later date.) Thus this approach would minimize the impact of the spectrum recovery process on broadcasters and viewers as compared to an approach that involved the "repacking" of many broadcast stations. 27. The attached draft Table of Allotments is based on a "core spectrum" approach that minimizes -- but that does not eliminate -- digital allotments at channels 60-69. Where necessary to avoid undesirable interference, the draft Table uses channels 60-69. The draft table does so roughly 30 times. We believe that this approach meets our goals of implementing digital television in the public interest and that it is consistent with our obligations with respect to sound spectrum management. 28. Alternative Spectrum Option. On January 13, 1995, the Association of Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV), on behalf of parties within the broadcast industry, filed recommendations for the allotment/assignment of channels for DTV service. The MSTV filing also includes a preliminary DTV Table of Allotments and Assignments. The MSTV Table is based on principles that are similar to those we are proposing herein. The MSTV Table is based on full accommodation of all broadcasters. It also attempts to provide DTV coverage that is comparable to the coverage of existing NTSC coverage and use service replication or matching to assign DTV channels. The principle difference between the MSTV Table and the Table included herein is with regard to the use of spectrum. While the two approaches use both VHF and UHF channels, the MSTV proposed approach does not attempt to concentrate all DTV operations within a core area of the spectrum. 29. Under this alternative approach, each broadcaster would be provided with a 6 MHz DTV channel without preference to any specific channels. Since all channels would be available, such an approach could theoretically provide for some degree of improved service area replication and interference performance. Such an approach might also have less impact on low power TV and TV translator stations. On the other hand, this option would place more DTV stations on channels that are less desirable for broadcast operations. For example, the MSTV Table includes over 350 allotments on channels 60 and above. In addition, recovery of contiguous spectrum at the end of the transition period would require many stations to change channels a second time. These channel changes could have an independent negative impact on broadcasters and viewers. Further, early recovery of spectrum would be more difficult and therefore less likely. 30. The MSTV preliminary DTV Table of Allotments and Assignments provides information that is useful for comparison of the options discussed herein. It is important to note, however, that the MSTV Table could not be adopted as submitted and is not directly comparable to the Table of Allotments developed by our staff. The MSTV Table is based on a 1992 television station database, while the staff Table is based on our most current database. The MSTV Table does not provide full protection to some Canadian television operations and does not protect land mobile operations on TV channel 20 in Philadelphia. In addition, the MSTV Table is not based on the final DTV system performance values. Even as submitted, however, the MSTV Table is not significantly different from the draft DTV Table included herein. 31. Request for Comments. We request comment on all aspects of our DTV spectrum options. We specifically request comment on the differences between DTV Tables developed under the two options discussed above and how these differences should be viewed in selecting an appropriate spectrum plan. We ask commenters to quantify, to the extent possible, the costs and benefits of each approach. Interested parties are also invited to submit alternative DTV allotment plans that would ensure the implementation of digital television in the public interest. We also invite comment on whether our original proposal for an all-UHF DTV service might be appropriate and better ensure the recovery of spectrum. 32. Studies by our staff indicate that the service area replication and interference differences associated with attempting to locate all DTV operations within a core spectrum area and minimize use of channels 60-69 are small. For example, a nationwide comparison of a table that uses all channels without preference and one that prefers channels within the core area shows only a 1.4% difference in cumulative geographic coverage and 0.7% difference in cumulative population served where additional new interference from DTV operations may occur. These values are based on calculation of coverage and interference using the FCC curves (See 47 CFR Section 73.699). Without a preference for placing digital TV allotments in the core, the cumulative geographic coverage of existing NTSC stations is 97.3% and the cumulative population coverage is 94.6%. With a preference for digital TV allotments in the core, these numbers are 95.9% and 93.9%, respectively. When more precise, terrain-dependent Longley-Rice calculations are used, the "core channel" plan preserves almost 100% NTSC coverage of geography and population -- namely, 99% geographic coverage and 98% population coverage. These are the figures for the NTSC stations in the attached draft Table of Allotments. 33. It is important to place these numbers in context. Where interference occurs, it does so along the edges of a station's Grade B service area where signal reception is generally weaker and cable penetration is generally higher. In most instances, over-the-air viewers would not experience a loss of the channel in question, but rather they would experience some degradation in picture quality. Depending on the height and quality of their antenna, many of these viewers would notice no difference at all. Finally, these interference numbers assume that each new digital television licensee broadcasts at full authorized power. Anticipated interference will be reduced to the extent that licensees do not transmit digital signals at their full authorized power. We note that a number of digital allotments will go to licensees that do not now have functional television stations, or stations operating at full power, but rather to licensees that, prior to 1991, received construction permits to build or modify NTSC stations but have not yet done so. It may be some time before these licensees not only build or modify their NTSC facilities, but also erect new digital transmitters. In addition, some digital licensees may agree temporarily to reduce the power of their digital signals to avoid interference to analog signals. We propose to permit such agreements, including those that involve compensation. In addition, in some cases interference to NTSC stations can be minimized or eliminated by increasing the transmitter power or antenna height of the affected NTSC station. We propose to permit such changes provided that they do not cause more than de minimus interference to neighboring DTV operations, and we propose to permit agreements including compensation under which a DTV licensee would temporarily agree to accept a slightly elevated level of interference so that reception of an NTSC station is improved. 34. We request comment on our staff's assessment with regard to the two spectrum options. Commenting parties are invited to provide their own assessments of the differences in the two options. Such assessments should be based, to the extent possible, on concrete engineering and other data. It should address all factors, including any differences at both the nationwide and individual station levels. Cementers may address whether the different plans have different effects on the potential competitiveness of segments of the broadcasting industry such as the emerging networks. We also seek comment on whether such differences warrant selection of one approach over the other. Finally, we request comments on the costs and benefits of different plans with respect to LPTV and TV translator stations. 35. We also request comment on specific issues relating to the "core area" option. We ask that comments address whether our proposed choice of the spectrum for the core area is appropriate and whether there are any other considerations relating to this choice that should be addressed. In particular, we request comment on our tentative conclusion that the upper UHF frequencies are less desirable for broadcasting purposes and more appropriate for other uses. Similarly, we request comment on our assessment that VHF channels 2-6 are less suitable for broadcasting because of high levels of noise. Parties addressing this issue are requested to provide specific information and engineering analysis on whether the longer range propagation characteristics of channels 2-6 outweigh the disadvantage of higher levels of atmospheric and man-made noise on these frequencies with regard to digital signals. 36. We further request comment on what mechanisms and criteria we should use to determine the channel that will become the permanent DTV spectrum for each existing station. We tentatively propose to allow broadcasters with both NTSC and DTV frequencies in the core DTV spectrum to choose one of those channels for their permanent DTV spectrum. Under this plan, broadcasters would be required to make their spectrum choices within a specific period of time, e.g., three to five years, after the implementation of DTV service begins. Once these choices were made, the Commission would identify new DTV allotments that would be available for relocation of stations initially operating on frequencies outside the core area or for new DTV assignments. This would facilitate an orderly transition to DTV service by both broadcasters and viewers, permit the creation of additional DTV allotments and facilitate the accommodation of parties with channels outside of the core area. 37. We further request comment on whether we should adopt special transition provisions for broadcasters with NTSC channels or DTV allotments outside the core area. For example, where such a broadcaster's existing NTSC channel is outside the core should we allow the broadcaster to cease NTSC operation and permit early transition to a DTV channel in the core? In addition, where a broadcaster's existing NTSC channel is in the core and its DTV allotment is outside the core, should we allow the broadcaster to convert its NTSC channel to DTV operation, rather than activate its "temporary" out-of-core DTV allotment. Finally, where a broadcasters' existing NTSC channel and DTV allotment are both outside the core area, should we allow such broadcasters to wait to begin DTV operations until spectrum becomes available in the core area? This would allow some broadcasters to avoid making a second transition to convert to DTV. We specifically ask whether the above special transition approaches should apply to broadcasters with NTSC or DTV frequencies on channels 60-69. D. Allotment Preference 38. In the Second Further Notice, we proposed, as our final objective, to give a relative preference to new DTV operations over NTSC operations in the allotment process. We noted that in most instances, the choice of channels for a DTV allotment will involve consideration of other nearby DTV allotments and existing NTSC stations. Where a choice must be made between providing greater service area for a new DTV allotment or minimizing interference to an existing NTSC allotment, we proposed to choose in favor of the DTV allotment. 39. Proposal. We now believe that a review of our previous proposal regarding the provision of a preference for new DTV allotments in the development of the DTV Table of Allotments is warranted. We recognize that NTSC operations will continue to be important for some time, and now believe that an approach that is more neutral in protecting both existing NTSC stations and new DTV allotments would be appropriate and would better serve the interests of broadcasters and the public. Accordingly, the draft Table attempts to minimize interference to all stations and to balance unavoidable interference among both NTSC and DTV stations equally. Under this approach, existing NTSC service would be better protected than under our 1992 plan. At the same time, our service replication approach and the improved interference performance characteristics of the ATSC DTV system will ensure that future DTV service is equal or superior in coverage to today's NTSC service. We request comment on whether it would be desirable to minimize, to the extent possible, interference to all stations, both NTSC and DTV. Alternatively, we request comment on whether we should provide a preference for DTV allotments when a choice must be made between providing greater service area for a new DTV allotment or minimizing interference to an existing NTSC allotment. 40. We note that any plan that provides all eligible broadcasters with a new DTV allotment will unavoidably result in some degree of interference to both NTSC and DTV stations. This is true whether the digital frequencies are distributed throughout the existing broadcast spectrum or whether the digital frequencies are generally placed in the spectrum at channels 7-51. We note that interference to NTSC service could be mitigated by a number of factors. For example, as indicated previously, affected signals may be required to be carried by cable TV systems in their local area and thus may be available to many viewers in areas where the station's reception may be affected by interference. In this regard, interference occurs mainly at the edges of a station's coverage, where reception is relatively weak and where cable penetration is generally higher. We also note that viewers at the edges of a TV market often take steps on their own to improve reception, such as using improved directional antennas and other receiving equipment. Such equipment would also provide additional protection from interference by new DTV stations. 41. In addition, we could limit the power of certain DTV stations during the transition so that existing NTSC service would not be affected or that interference would be minimized. After the transition or when affected NTSC operations cease, the DTV stations would be permitted to increase their power. We also could permit broadcasters to negotiate agreements regarding interference among themselves. For example, a broadcaster could agree, for some amount of compensation, to reduce either its NTSC or DTV power to protect another station's service, or conversely, to accept a certain level of interference. We also note that in many instances the potential interference to NTSC service is more substantial for smaller NTSC stations that operate at significantly less power than full facilities. In such cases, interference may be eliminated or reduced by increasing the transmitter power or antenna height of the affected station. We propose to allow such changes provided that they do not cause any substantial increase in interference to neighboring DTV operations. We seek comment on these approaches and also invite parties to submit additional suggestions for methods to mitigate interference between DTV and NTSC stations. E. Assignment Methodology 42. In the Second Report/Further Notice, we proposed a first-come/first-served methodology for assigning DTV channels. We also provided for negotiations among eligible broadcasters. Under this plan, we would first provide broadcasters with a fixed period of time to negotiate with each other and submit plans for pairing NTSC and DTV channels either nationwide or on a market-by-market basis. Once the negotiations period ended, if there were markets remaining where broadcasters were unable to agree on a pairing plan, the channels in those markets were to be made available to the eligible broadcasters on a first-come/first-served basis. 43. Proposal. We are proposing to revise our methodology for assigning DTV channels to eligible broadcasters consistent with our plan to assume service replication in developing the DTV Table of Allotments. Under our revised proposal, DTV channels would be designated for existing stations based on the results of the matching process that is an intrinsic feature of the service replication approach used in developing the Table. This will greatly simplify and reduce the burden of the channel assignment activity for both broadcasters and the Commission. It may also serve to expedite the transition process by removing an element of uncertainty for broadcasters. This revised plan will also resolve the concern expressed by many broadcasters that use of a first-come/first-served approach could lead to legal challenges and delays in licensing DTV spectrum. We request comment on this proposal and on related issues involving DTV channel assignments. We also request comment on whether a first-come/first-served or other approach for assigning channels would better meet our goal of implementing digital television in an efficient, effective manner. F. Negotiated Allotments/Assignments 44. Throughout this proceeding, we have recognized that the implementation of DTV will be a dynamic process and that mechanisms are needed to accommodate the inevitable changes that will occur. We believe that mechanisms are needed to consider changes to the Table of Allotments and the resultant assignments that are made to individual broadcasters. In this regard, we intend to provide broadcasters with the flexibility to develop alternative allotment approaches and plans both prior to and after our adoption of a final Table of Allotments. In this section, we discuss proposals for pre- adoption flexibility; and, in a following section on modifications to the DTV Allotment Table, we discuss proposals for post-adoption flexibility. 45. As noted above, in the Second Report/Further Notice, we proposed that negotiations would be an integral part of the allotment/assignment process. We also indicated that at the time we propose a "final" DTV Table of Allotments broadcasters would be provided a fixed period of time to negotiate and submit alternative plans for allotting and pairing NTSC and DTV channels. 46. Proposal. We continue to believe that voluntary negotiations among broadcasters should be permitted as part of the DTV allotment/assignment process. Consistent with the service replication approach, the DTV Table proposed herein provides for specific pairings between existing NTSC stations and new DTV allotments. While our computer software finds the "optimal" channels for each community and for stations within communities, we continue to believe that the flexibility to accommodate different frequency pairing arrangements developed through negotiations among broadcasters should be an integral part of the DTV allotment/assignment process. In this regard, we recognize that individual market circumstances might lead broadcasters to seek different allotment and assignment pairings based on considerations other than service replication. For example, channel numbering and identification factors might outweigh service area considerations for an individual broadcaster. 47. We therefore believe it is important to provide broadcasters an opportunity to negotiate changes to our proposed DTV Table of Allotments and propose to consider such negotiated changes in the development of our final DTV Table as part of this rule making process. Specifically, we will permit broadcasters within a community to negotiate among themselves their designated allotments and to develop an alternative allotment/assignment plan for their local area. In either case, however, all affected broadcasters, including those in neighboring geographic areas, must agree to the revised plan and the change must not result in additional interference to other stations or allotments. We also propose to not accept negotiated changes that would adversely limit our ability to gain the full benefits of spectrum reclamation that might accrue if we were to adopt the "core" allotment option described above. In addition, any changes will be subject to international coordination, as appropriate. We propose to require that all requests for DTV channel changes among stations be signed by the licensees of all of the stations involved in the exchange. We also propose to allow such exchanges to include agreements for compensation. We request comment on providing for privately negotiated changes, on our proposals to govern this process and on any other factors or suggestions we should consider. 48. We note that negotiations among broadcasters could result in agreements to co- locate DTV transmitters at a common site. Co-location could provide broadcasters increased flexibility to share spectrum and develop multichannel programming services and may also encourage the development of alternative DTV transmission technologies. In addition, a single DTV transmitter site would make it easier for viewers to receive programming from all of their local broadcast services. At the same time, we recognize that co-location may not be desirable for all broadcasters. In this regard, we note that, in some instances, co-location may limit the ability of a station to replicate its existing service area or could cause increased interference among stations in the same and neighboring markets. We request comment on whether we should provide special incentives to encourage the broadcasters in a market to locate all of their DTV operations at a common transmitter site. For example, should negotiated arrangements for co-located DTV stations be afforded priority over other stations? Should incentives apply only if such arrangements would result in no or less interference to other stations? 49. As indicated in our Second Report/Further Notice, we will provide broadcasters with a fixed period of time to negotiate with each other and to submit plans for pairing NTSC and DTV channels. We request that parties submit such plans as comments during the comment period for this Further Notice, that is, by November 20, 1996. Interested parties are also invited to respond to any negotiated plans that we may receive during the period for filing reply comments, that is by December 20, 1996. Agreements that are submitted within the regular comment period will be considered in our decision on the final table. We will also permit negotiated changes after that time, and will treat requests for such changes as petitions for rule making to amend the Table of Allotments. However, parties are cautioned that negotiated changes will not be considered as justification for extending the period of time within which broadcasters will be required to apply, construct and begin to operate on their DTV channels. G. Additional Considerations 50. During the transition, in most communities, digital allotments will use up all of the available spectrum for full-power broadcasting. But in some communities-- mainly rural areas-- unused channels may remain even after all existing broadcasters receive allotments. After the transition, in many communities, additional substantial spectrum will be available in the core spectrum as a result of the approximately 1100 NTSC stations operating in this spectrum that will cease operating, even after the approximately 186 DTV stations that will operate in non-core spectrum relocate to the core spectrum. 51. Thus, assuming that some channels will be vacant in certain geographic areas during the transition, and more after the transition, we request comment on whether and how we should make those channels available. For example, once we have identified any remaining channels, should we accept applications for new primary, LPTV, and TV translator stations? Should we consider other possibilities, such as permitting existing broadcasters, either individually or jointly, to use the available channel or channels for additional broadcast or subscription programming? Should we permit broadcasters in a community to propose, as an alternative to the allotment plan in the attached Table, an allotment plan that would allow them to use, jointly or individually, more than one vacant channel apiece? Would we be required in this situation to consider other mutually exclusive applications ? If we permit such proposals, should the channels be used on a primary or secondary basis? If such use were on a primary basis, should we permit it where it would displace secondary LPTV and TV translator stations? If such use were on a secondary basis, how would we treat a subsequent application for a new primary station or a new LPTV or TV translator station? If we adopt the core spectrum approach, should our policies depend on whether the spectrum at issue is inside or outside the core? We request comment on these possibilities and on any other manner in which the spectrum might be utilized to bring additional service to the public both during and after the transition. 52. In evaluating allotment plans for DTV we ask commenters to consider the costs and benefits under alternative approaches to spectrum recovery. The amount, the location, and the date spectrum becomes available for new uses depends on both the table of DTV allotments adopted and on the choice of spectrum recovery policy towards unoccupied spectrum and spectrum currently occupied by NTSC licensees. One approach to spectrum recovery, put forth by Senator Pressler in draft legislation, would provide NTSC and DTV licensees with immediate broad flexibility in their use of the spectrum and require exhaustive flexible licensing of all available spectrum capacity by "overlaying" the entire VHF and UHF bands with new geographic area licenses that could use any available spectrum consistent with protecting existing full power broadcast licensees. The stated objective of the Pressler plan is to maximize the value of this spectrum by allowing its allocation to be reshaped by market forces. The approach could be applied to either of the allotment plans discussed above, and to all or part of the VHF and UHF bands. We request comment on the costs and benefits of this approach, including: when such an approach might best be implemented were it to be used; its impact on the amount, timing, and value to the public of spectrum recovered; and how it might affect the future availability of spectrum for television broadcasting. 53. With regard to either alternative approach discussed above, we note that since July 1987, our policy has been to not accept applications for any new stations in 30 major markets. Given this lengthy freeze, we request comment on whether, if we were to adopt an overlay approach, new broadcast TV applications should be accepted from these markets first. We also note that in the Fourth Further Notice, we recognized this Commission's longstanding policy of fostering programming and ownership diversity, and sought comment on what measures we might adopt to include new entrants in the emerging era of digital television broadcasting. Similarly, we request comment on the affect adoption of the above proposals would have on new entry to broadcasting. IV. OTHER ISSUES 54. In addition to the principles and objectives discussed above, there are several other matters that need to be considered in developing the DTV Table of Allotments. These matters include use of existing transmitter sites for DTV service, treatment of vacant NTSC allotments, displacement of low power TV stations and TV translators, use of TV channels 3, 4 and 6, and protection of land mobile services. These matters are addressed below. A. Use of Existing Transmitter Sites 55. In the Second Further Notice, we proposed to allot DTV channels on the basis of current transmitter sites, rather than community reference points. Under this proposal, the current NTSC transmitter sites would be used to develop the DTV Table and to determine whether DTV allotments met the proposed minimum spacing requirements. We further indicated that for purposes of this proposal, we would assume that an existing site location is the area within a three-mile radius of the actual transmitter location. We also proposed to permit a licensee to operate its DTV station at a site different from that of its NTSC operation where the alternate sites would meet the proposed DTV minimum spacing requirements and the station would continue to serve its community of license. We noted that such site relocations could include movement to a common local TV transmission site. 56. Proposal. We continue to believe it is desirable to allot DTV channels based on the transmitter sites of existing stations. We believe our reasoning with regard to this issue in the Second Further Notice still applies. As we noted in the Second Further Notice, there are advantages in taking existing transmitter sites into account in the allotment procedure. Using the locations of the existing transmitters sites as reference points for the initial DTV Table would facilitate replication of existing service areas. It also would ensure that, where possible, broadcasters are able to co-locate their NTSC and DTV operations. Accordingly, we are maintaining our proposal to use current transmitter sites to develop the DTV Table. We request comment regarding any circumstances where it might be desirable to evaluate DTV allotments on the basis of sites other than those occupied by existing TV stations. In recognition of the fact that many broadcasters will not be able to locate their DTV operations at the same exact site as their NTSC station, we are proposing to permit a broadcaster to locate its DTV facility at any site within a three-mile radius of the actual transmitter location, so long as the station would continue to serve its community of license. Our experience in studying sample DTV Tables indicates that allowing a licensee's actual DTV transmitter site to be located within three miles of its existing transmitter site generally would not have a significant effect on station service areas and that any effect would be outweighed by the need to provide broadcasters with some flexibility in locating their digital TV operations. We request comment on these proposals and specifically invite discussion on whether three miles is an appropriate choice for the range within which a licensee would be allowed to choose a different site for its DTV transmitter. B. Existing Vacant Allotments, New NTSC Applications and Station Modifications 57. In the Second Further Notice, we proposed to delete vacant existing NTSC commercial allotments where necessary to facilitate creation of DTV allotments and indicated that we would not accept applications for those deleted allotments. We also stated that, in keeping with our decision in the Second Report/Further Notice, we would attempt to maintain existing vacant noncommercial NTSC allotments and also attempt to provide new DTV channels for such allotments. We indicated that we would eliminate noncommercial allotments only where no feasible alternative exists for allotting DTV channels for eligible broadcasters. We further decided not to impose a "freeze" on applications for new stations on any remaining vacant NTSC allotments that are not needed to create the DTV Table of Allotments. We also chose not to limit modifications to existing NTSC operations or changes in the transmitter locations of such stations. 58. Proposal. We now believe that an approach that would eliminate vacant NTSC allotments would be beneficial to the development of the DTV Table and would help us to better achieve our goals of full accommodation, replication and spectrum recovery. There are currently about 600 vacant NTSC allotments. The presence of these unused allotments reduces the amount of spectrum that is available for DTV allotments. In some areas, it would not be possible to accommodate all of the existing broadcasters with a DTV channel unless the unused NTSC allotments in the area are deleted. In others, the presence of unused NTSC allotments would result in crowding that reduces the expected service areas of the DTV allotments. It is also possible that such crowding could result in increased interference to existing NTSC stations. In addition, if vacant allotments are retained, we will have to use more channels to achieve full accommodation, so that less spectrum would be available for recovery for other uses. We therefore propose to eliminate all vacant NTSC allotments. 59. At the same time, we request comment on whether allotments for noncommercial service deserve special consideration. As we observed in previous decisions in this proceeding, our spectrum planning with respect to the broadcast industry has traditionally taken into account the important role noncommercial stations play in providing educational and other quality programming and the financial constraints they face. In addition, our technical studies indicate that we can, in most instances, provide DTV allotments to replace existing vacant noncommercial allotments. For example, in developing the draft DTV Table of Allotments in Appendix B, it is possible to include replacement DTV allotments for 326 of the 338 existing vacant noncommercial NTSC allotments. However, most of these allotments would not be in the core DTV spectrum area. For example, of the 326 possible new vacant noncommercial DTV allotments, 64 would be in the core area, 76 would be on channels 2-6 and 52-59, and 186 would be on channels 60-69. We therefore request comment on how to treat noncommercial vacant allotments. If we were to adopt the core spectrum option, should we include those vacant allotments on channels in the core area and on channels 52-59? This would provide 140 new vacant noncommercial DTV allotments. We note, however, that after the transition it may be possible to create additional vacant noncommercial allotments in the core spectrum to replace those not accommodated in the initial DTV Table. 60. Consistent with our proposal to eliminate all existing vacant allotments, we will not accept additional applications for new NTSC stations that are filed after 30 days from the publication of this Further Notice in the Federal Register. This will provide time for filing of any applications that are currently under preparation. We note that there are currently on file with the Commission more than 300 applications that if processed would result in more than 100 new NTSC stations. As we process the applications on file now and those that are filed before the end of this filing opportunity, we will continue our current policy of considering requests for waiver of our 1987 freeze Order on a case-by-case basis. When applications for new stations are accepted for filing, we will continue our process of issuing Public Notices that "cut-off" the opportunity for filing competing, mutually-exclusive applications. In connection with these cut-off notices, we will allow additional competing applications to be filed after the end of this filing opportunity. While we anticipate that these applications for new NTSC TV stations on existing allotments will not have a significant negative impact on the development of the DTV Table of Allotments, we reserve the right, in specific cases, to determine that the public interest is better served if they are not granted, granted only if amended to specify reduced facilities, or granted only with a condition that limits the interference that the station would be allowed to cause. 61. Consistent with our decision to stop accepting applications for new NTSC stations, we also will not accept petitions for rule making proposing to amend the existing TV Table of Allotments in Section 73.606(b) of our rules to add an allotment for a new NTSC station. Other petitions to amend the TV Table of Allotments (for example, proposing to change a station's community of license or altering the channel on which it operates, including changes in which channel allotment in a community is reserved for noncommercial educational use) can continue to be filed, but any such changes to the table that include a modification of a station's authorization will be conditioned on the outcome of this DTV rule making proceeding. This termination of the opportunity to file petitions to add NTSC allotments for new stations is effective as of the close of business on the date of adoption of this Further Notice. Any petitions that are currently on file and any rule making proceedings that are currently open will be addressed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the impact on the draft DTV allotment table. For those pending cases in which a new NTSC channel is allotted, we will make an exception to our decision to cease accepting applications for new NTSC stations, and the accompanying allotment Report and Order will specify the period of time for filing applications. 62. Our decision to cease accepting applications for new NTSC TV stations 30 days after publication of this Further Notice in the Federal Register and new petitions for rule making to add new NTSC allotments immediately, as indicated above, is based on the need to preserve the available spectrum for use by new DTV stations during the transition. The DTV Table proposed herein was developed on the assumption that the existing vacant NTSC allotments for which no construction permit application is pending will be deleted. It is necessary to delete these allotments in order to achieve our goal of providing a DTV allotment for all eligible broadcast stations. In addition, we also believe it is necessary to terminate the licensing of new NTSC as quickly as possible in order begin the process of transitioning to DTV service. To continue to accept new applications for NTSC stations, now that we are approaching the actual start of this new service, could potentially prolong the transition process. We note that the additional 30 day period we have provided for filing new applications for NTSC construction permits will accommodate any parties who may be in the process of preparing such applications now. Accordingly, as allowed under Section 553(b) and (d) of the Administrative Procedures Act, we find that there is good cause for implementing these new policies without a notice and comment procedure and that such a procedure would be contrary to our efforts to implement DTV service. 63. With regard to modifications of existing stations, we are concerned that the service area replications to be provided by the draft Table set forth herein could be substantially affected if stations make changes to their technical operations, i.e., maximum effective radiated power (ERP), antenna height above average terrain (HAAT), and transmitter locations from this point on. Furthermore, continuing changes in station operations could affect broadcasters ability to comment meaningfully on the proposed Table and our ability to finalize the DTV Table of Allotments. We are also concerned, however, that freezing modifications to existing NTSC stations could pose hardships for broadcasters. We note that in many cases it may be possible to permit modification of existing stations without affecting the DTV Table. We therefore will continue to permit the filing of applications to modify the technical facilities, i.e., ERP, HAAT or transmitter location, of existing or authorized NTSC TV stations. However, in order to preserve our ability to develop the DTV Table, we will henceforth condition the grant of applications for modifications of technical facilities, including those for applications on file before the date of the adoption of this Further Notice but granted after that date, on the outcome of our final decision on the DTV Table of Allotments. To the extent that an existing station's service or potential for causing interference are extended into new areas by grant of an application, the condition may require the station's authorized facilities to be reduced or modified. We seek comment on whether this condition should involve different consequences for applications for modifications on file as of the date of adoption of this Further Notice, as opposed to such applications filed after that date. C. Low Power and TV Translator Stations 64. In previous actions in the proceeding, we determined that in order to provide DTV allotments for existing full service stations, it will be necessary to displace low power TV (LPTV) and TV translator stations to some degree, especially in the major markets. This determination was based on our staff studies and studies by the Advisory Committee that indicate there is insufficient spectrum available in the broadcast TV bands to factor in low power displacement considerations in making DTV assignments. We observed that, in fact, it will be a challenge just to provide all full-service licensees with an additional 6 MHz for DTV. We therefore concluded that we must continue LPTV and TV translators secondary status vis-a-vis DTV stations. In view of the important benefits that LPTV and TV translators provide to the public, we also took a number of steps to mitigate the likelihood and effects of displacement on low power stations. Our decisions with regard to this issue have been upheld on judicial review. See Polar Broadcasting vs. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 1184 (D.C. Cir. 1994)(table). 65. Proposal. Consistent with our determinations and actions in the Second Report/Further Notice and based on our examination of the performance characteristics of the ATSC DTV system, we propose to continue the secondary status of LPTV and TV translator stations. As indicated in the Second Report/ Further Notice, it will likely be necessary that we require a significant number of low power stations, particularly those in the more congested areas of the nation, to make changes in their operation, including the possibility of ceasing operation, to avoid interference to new digital TV stations. This is true under any allotment plan that has been suggested for the implementation of DTV. Low power stations operate in spectrum now unoccupied by NTSC stations. Any DTV allotment plan requires that unoccupied spectrum to accommodate over 1900 new digital TV stations. 66. In general, LPTV and TV translator stations are carefully engineered to avoid causing interference to full service TV operations. For example, almost 50 percent of LPTV stations use directional antennas to provide service and avoid such interference. Reduced power and/or antenna gain are also used to achieve satisfactory operation. Stations operating in mountainous or hilly terrain often rely on terrain obstructions as a means of preventing interference. The task of analyzing the impact of DTV on LPTV and TV translator stations is extremely complex and station specific. Because of this, we can only approximate the number of LPTV stations that would be affected or have to cease operation because of new DTV operations. Based on the proposed DTV Table, we estimate that about 55 to 65 percent of existing LPTV operations and about 80 to 90 percent of all TV translators would be able to continue to operate. In general, operations in or near major TV markets would be affected to a greater degree than operations in other areas. Furthermore, these estimates are based on the expected impact of new DTV operations and do not take into account our spectrum recovery proposals. We note, for example, that about 17 percent of all LPTV and TV translator stations would be affected by recovery of channels 60-69. However, it should be noted that channels 60-69 are used for DTV allotments in a number of instances and some impact on low power operations on these channels would occur even absent our spectrum recovery effort. We also note that many current TV channels have fewer than 100 LPTV or TV translator stations nationwide, while many other channels have significantly more than 100 such stations. We therefore believe that with more intensive utilization of the remaining channels, it should be possible to accommodate many LPTV and TV translator operations that are displaced. Accordingly, while we recognize that the implementation of DTV service and our spectrum recovery proposals are likely to have a significant impact on low power stations, we believe on balance that the benefits and innovations to be derived from these actions outweigh this impact. 67. At the same time, we continue to recognize the benefits that low power stations provide to the public. LPTV stations have increased the diversity of television programming and station ownership, and serve many rural and urban ethnic communities. TV translators are used to provide TV service to communities located in areas of mountainous terrain and to provide "fill-in" service to shadowed areas within a full service stations service area. We therefore desire to minimize the impact of our DTV allotment and spectrum recovery proposals on low power TV operations. In view of these considerations and keeping with the decisions made in the Second Report/Further Notice, we are maintaining our proposal to continue to permit displaced low power stations to apply for a suitable replacement channel in the same area without being subject to competing applications. We will extend this relief measure to LPTV and TV translator licensees and permittees whose facilities have or would be predicted to conflict with a DTV station operation. To insure the most effective use of this policy, we propose that applications for such "displacement" relief could be filed at such time as 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. Moreover, we will permit low power stations to operate until a displacing DTV station or a new primary service provider is operational. We will also permit 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. 68. We also propose to permit low power TV operations on channels outside the core digital TV spectrum area. Such operations would, however, continue to be on a secondary basis and would have to avoid interference to any full service DTV or NTSC stations or to any new primary service operations. While we are proposing that LPTV and TV translator stations remain secondary to other new primary uses of this spectrum, we also request comment on whether new service providers should be required to compensate existing LPTV and TV translator licensees for their existing investment or for their move to another channel if such a move is possible. 69. Despite these measures, a number of LPTV stations would still be forced to cease operation in order to avoid interference to new DTV channels. We seek to explore other policies that would preserve access to LPTV programming. Are there ways for low power stations to obtain carriage on new DTV stations or other video distributors? For example, in view of the ATSC DTV system's multiple programming capability, should the Commission consider incentives to encourage full-service digital stations to find ways to accommodate LPTV and TV translator stations? Similarly, should the Commission consider incentives to encourage carriage of LPTV stations on cable systems beyond the requirements set forth in Section 614(c) of the Communications Act? 70. We seek comment on any and all means of lessening the impact on low power TV and TV translator stations. In so doing, we invite the LPTV and TV translator communities to identify workable means of preserving existing LPTV service to the extent possible and providing a digital migration path for LPTV and TV translator stations. If we were to adopt the core approach described above, we could also set aside a few frequencies between channels 52 and 59 specifically for use by displaced LPTV stations. If such frequencies were used for digital services, each channel could accommodate a number of LPTV broadcasters. Use of such channels by low power stations, as a guard band, could reduce the potential for interference to any future nonbroadcast operations. 71. Currently, the rules do not permit low power and TV translator stations to operate on certain channels within specified distances of full service stations. For example, a UHF low power or TV translator station is not permitted to operate on a channel that is seven channels above a full service station unless the low power station is located 100 kilometers or more from that station. There are similar restrictions for other UHF channels. While these restrictions are generally needed to protect against interference, in many instances interference would not occur between the stations due to terrain or other factors. The current LPTV interference protection rules, however, do not allow for terrain shielding and other mechanisms, such as co-location of adjacent channel stations. We do, however, permit applicants for LPTV and TV translator stations to request a waiver of the rules to take terrain shielding and other mechanisms into account. In order to provide low power operations with additional flexibility, we propose to allow any low power operation that is adversely affected by the implementation of DTV or our spectrum recovery efforts to take terrain and other appropriate engineering factors into account in finding replacement channels. We propose to permit such low power stations to use any available channel provided interference is not caused to any authorized full service NTSC or DTV operations or to other authorized low power operations. Applications that rely on terrain shielding to avoid interference would need to be supported by the written assent of the operator of the potentially affected station or service or, alternatively, an engineering analysis showing that interference to the off-air reception of the DTV station or other primary service would not be likely due to terrain shielding. We also request comment on any other actions we could take that would provide low power stations, where necessary, with additional flexibility to find replacement channels. 72. We also ask for comment on whether, once DTV channels have been allotted to full service television broadcasters, should licensed LPTV stations be afforded a window of opportunity to seek "primary" use of DTV channels; that is, ahead of new broadcast entrants? If so, should such stations be permitted to seek full service DTV licenses or facilities that would replicate their LPTV coverage areas? How should we proceed in areas where there would be more LPTV stations than available channels? Should we allow multiple LPTV licensees to share a DTV channel, by multiplexing their signals? Given the large numbers of stations in the LPTV service, should we consider such a provision only for certain LPTV stations; for example, those which meet the programming and public interest requisites for LPTV cable must carry, as set forth in the 1992 Cable Act? D. Use of TV Channels 3, 4 and 6 73. In the Second Further Notice, we observed that if we decide to use the VHF channels for DTV, there could be potential for interference to cable terminal devices (set- top boxes) and videocassette recorders (VCRs) if channels 3 and 4, at 60-66 MHz and 66- 72 MHz respectively, were used in the same area. These devices typically use either channel 3 or 4 for their output signal and could be vulnerable to interference if there were an off-the-air signal present on the same channel as their output signal. We therefore proposed to avoid the allotment of both Channels 3 and 4 within the same community wherever possible. We also noted that we would need to protect against possible interference from TV channel 6 operations, at 82-88 MHz, to FM radio service on FM channel 253, at 98.5 MHz and to TV channel 6 from FM radio service on noncommercial educational FM channels 201-220, in the 88-92 MHz band. We therefore proposed to make DTV allotments to TV channel 6 only where there is no other readily available allotment opportunity that would meet the minimum spacing requirements. For cases where it might be necessary to use channel 6, we proposed to apply an appropriate standard similar to that currently specified in the rules to protect against interference between NTSC Channel 6 and FM radio. 74. Proposal. We are maintaining our proposals to avoid use of both channels 3 and 4 for DTV service in the same community wherever possible and to make DTV allotments to TV channel 6 only where there is no other readily available allotment opportunity that would meet the minimum spacing requirements. We also propose to maintain our plan to apply an appropriate standard similar to that currently specified in the rules to protect against interference between NTSC Channel 6 and FM radio. While we do not have specific data with regard to interference between DTV and FM operations, we believe that the current standards to protect against interference between FM radio and NTSC TV stations should be sufficient to avoid interference between DTV and FM service. E. Land Mobile Sharing 75. In the Second Further Notice, we also set forth proposals for protecting against possible interference between DTV stations and land mobile operations on TV broadcast frequencies in certain areas. The rules authorize land mobile sharing operations on frequencies in the range of UHF channels 14-20, which occupy the 470-512 MHz band, in 13 urbanized areas, the Gulf of Mexico offshore region and Hawaii. We therefore proposed to allow DTV stations to operate at co-channel and adjacent channel spacings to the city-center of land mobile operations as close as 250 km (155 miles) and 176 km (110 miles), respectively. We also noted that some additional conditions may be necessary in those few instances where these spacing distances cannot be met. We also noted that our existing border agreements with Canada preclude activation of land mobile stations on channels 15 and 16 in Detroit and channels 14 and 15 in Cleveland and proposed to make these channels available for allotment purposes in those markets. 76. Proposal. We believe that our earlier proposed spacing approach remains appropriate for regulating interference between DTV stations and existing land mobile operations. Based on performance of the ATSC DTV system, the co-channel and adjacent channel spacing requirements proposed in the Second Further Notice should provide a conservative measure of protection for both DTV and land mobile operations. We will therefore continue to propose to permit DTV stations to operate at co-channel and adjacent channel spacings to the city-center of land mobile operations as close as 250 km (155 miles) and 176 km (110 miles), respectively. We will also maintain our proposal to make channels 15 and 16 in Detroit and channels 14 and 15 in Cleveland available for DTV allotment purposes. We request comment on these proposals. We specifically invite comment and suggestions regarding the additional conditions that would be applied in cases where the proposed spacing standards cannot be met and the manner in which such conditions should be applied to achieve an appropriate balance between DTV and land mobile interests. 77. The DTV Table proposed herein assumes that channel 20 would remain available for land mobile operations in Philadelphia. However, we note that the broadcast industry, in developing sample DTV plans, has assumed that the land mobile use of channel 20 in Philadelphia would be eliminated and that this frequency would be available for DTV purposes. We recognize that the elimination of channel 20 for land mobile operations in Philadelphia could significantly reduce the interference among TV stations in the congested northeast corridor. At the same time, we also recognize that there are a substantial number of land mobile operations licensed in the Philadelphia area. We request comment on the impact of eliminating channel 20 use for land mobile service in Philadelphia and on whether the reduction in broadcast service interference would outweigh the benefits of maintaining channel 20 for land mobile in Philadelphia. We further request comment on what alternatives are available for accommodating the existing land mobile operations and to what extent broadcasters should be required to assist in such a reaccommodation if we were to recover channel 20 in Philadelphia for broadcast use. F. DTV Frequency Labeling Plan 78. Under the DTV core spectrum option presented above, the core spectrum for DTV service would occupy the frequencies now used by NTSC channels 7-51. It would seem appropriate to establish a new labeling scheme for the DTV frequencies, so that TV frequencies in the future would not begin with "Channel 7." We request proposals and comments relating to an appropriate frequency labeling scheme for DTV service. We encourage interested parties to be creative in their proposals. In this regard, we do not intend to limit our consideration to approaches that only use numerical designations. In considering this matter, we note that the most obvious approach would be to simply renumber NTSC channels 7-51 as channels 1-45 for DTV service. However, it might be simpler, more appropriate and ultimately less confusing to viewers to whom the term "channel" implies a single stream of video programming to employ a different designation format for DTV channels that clearly indicated that a channel would carry DTV service. For example, we could use a prefix such as "D" for digital or DTV before each channel number or we could start numbering DTV channels at 101. Another approach would be to use alphabetic designators, i.e., channels A, B, C ... AA, BB, CC, etc. This would allow broadcasters to label multiplexed programming, channels A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, etc. Another approach for labeling or numbering of DTV channels could be to use a scheme similar to that used for FM radio. Such an approach would permit broadcasters to use the center frequency of the DTV channel, or an abbreviated center channel designation in combination with a call sign, e.g., channels 19 and 20 might be called 503 MHz and 509 MHz or "WXXX500" and "WYYY510." 79. The establishment of a new basic designation format for DTV channels plan might also help to highlight the channels of DTV stations for viewers during the transition period. We believe it is important that the DTV channel designators be kept as brief as possible, as a matter of convenience for stations, viewers and those who provide program listings. We therefore ask that suggestions for the DTV channel numbering plan minimize both the length and complexity of the channel designators. For purposes of the DTV Table of Allotments proposed herein, we will continue to use the equivalent NTSC channel designations for DTV channels. V. ALLOTMENT METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH A. Technical Performance of the DTV System 80. Proposal. In the early stages of this proceeding, studies by our staff indicated that in order to accommodate all existing stations with a DTV channel it would be necessary to locate some co-channel DTV operations at distances to other NTSC and other DTV stations as close as 160 km (100 miles), with perhaps a very few stations at slightly closer spacings. Our staff studies further indicated that to achieve full accommodation it will be necessary to co-locate or reduce spacings between adjacent channels in some instances and to eliminate many of the UHF taboo restrictions. The information from these studies was used in designing the performance capabilities and interference characteristics of the ATSC DTV system. We propose to use the performance characteristics of the ATSC DTV system in developing DTV allotments and have used these characteristics in developing the proposed DTV Table of Allotments set forth herein. We request comment on our proposal to use the performance capabilities and interference characteristics of the ATSC DTV system in developing the DTV Table of Allotments. B. Methodology for Allotting DTV Frequencies 81. In the Second Further Notice, we proposed to allot DTV channels using geographical spacing criteria in the same manner that we currently allot NTSC TV and FM radio channels. These spacing criteria would specify the minimum permissible distance between stations operating on the same or adjacent channels. 82. Proposal. We are now proposing to revise our methodology and approach for developing the DTV Table of Allotments. In particular, we are now proposing to create DTV allotments based on evaluation of service replication and interference considerations, rather than minimum spacing standards. We believe this new approach for allotting digital TV channels will better meet our policy objectives of full accommodation, spectrum recovery, and service replication/maximization. The proposed methodology first identifies a list of available candidate DTV channels for each existing NTSC station using a threshold minimum spacing measure. As noted above, our earlier studies indicated that spacings as close as 97 miles will be necessary to achieve full accommodation. Our proposed methodology therefore identifies the candidate DTV channels for each existing NTSC station as all available channels at the station's location that would have a co-channel separation of at least 97 miles. Next, each of the candidate channels is evaluated with regard to its ability to replicate the coverage of the existing station and the interference caused to other stations. The computer model selects DTV allotments from the candidate channels using an optimization process. This process optimizes the DTV allotments based on the channels that best replicate the existing service areas while minimizing interference. 83. The engineering evaluations for determining service coverage area and interference are computed using appropriate propagation models, technical planning factors recommended by the Advisory Committee and the measured performance characteristics of the ATSC DTV system. These evaluations consider the potential for interference between stations, particularly between stations operating on the same channel (co-channel interference) and stations operating on channels one frequency apart (adjacent channel interference). In addition, while our earlier studies had indicated that UHF taboo restrictions would not be needed for DTV allotments, the test results for the ATSC DTV system now indicate that certain taboo restrictions should be applied between DTV and NTSC operations. In particular, these tests indicate that interference could occur from DTV to NTSC stations within a station's service area Therefore, our evaluation takes into account possible interference from DTV service to NTSC service on channels 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14 and 15 channels removed from the channel under evaluation. We request comment on this revised methodology for developing the DTV Table. VI. DTV TABLE OF ALLOTMENTS A. Allotment Computer Software 84. The development of a table of digital TV allotments is an extremely difficult and complex engineering and computational task. To handle this task, the staff of the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology has developed sophisticated operations research methodology and computer software for optimizing the allotment of DTV channels. In addition, our staff and industry have worked together to incorporate methodologies for calculating the service area and interference considerations that are required under a service replication allotment approach. We have used the allotment capabilities provided by this methodology and computer software in preparing the proposed DTV Table of Allotments presented below. 85. The computer model developed by the FCC staff and industry generates DTV allotments that optimize and balance the various policy objectives and proposals discussed above. The computer software incorporates an operations research optimization methodology known as "simulated annealing." This methodology employs a system of penalties that attach to conditions that fall short of specified objectives. The simulated annealing method seeks to minimize the sum of these penalties, or "costs," to achieve an optimum condition. 86. The computer model permits the rapid computation and analysis of service area coverage provided by the NTSC and DTV systems, both on an overall cumulative basis and for individual stations. The service area of an individual NTSC station is defined as the area within the station's Grade B service contour, reduced by any interference; and is computed based upon the actual transmitter location, power, and antenna height. The service area of a DTV station is defined as the area contained within the station's noise- limited contour, reduced by the interference within that contour. DTV coverage calculations assume locations and antenna heights identical to those of the replicated companion NTSC station and power generally sufficient to achieve noise-limited coverage equal to the companion station's Grade B coverage. 87. As stated in the Second Further Notice, we recognize that there may be instances where the allotment of channels in specific local situations can best be resolved on a case-by-case basis. Our allotment software therefore is able to merge specific local designs into complete tables and, where necessary, make changes in other allotments to preserve a balance of the specified policy considerations. This capability will allow us to incorporate allotment/pairing agreements that broadcasters may reach in any negotiated settlements. B. Proposed DTV Allotments 88. A draft DTV Table of Allotments is presented in Appendix B. This Table shows DTV allotments and channels pairings for all eligible broadcast entities that would result from "core spectrum" option described above. The Table is a draft and we anticipate revisions. Our staff will work with broadcasters and other parties to revise the draft Table as appropriate. This Table is based on the allotment principles and engineering assumptions discussed above. Changes in any of these proposals may affect the individual allotments that appear on the Table. The draft DTV Table of Allotments is described below. 89. Full Accommodation. The draft Table meets our primary objective of full accommodation of all eligible broadcasters. The Table proposes 1578 new DTV allotments in 878 communities in the continental U.S. This would provide a DTV allotment for all eligible broadcasters as defined in the Second Report/Further Notice. In addition, the proposed Table allows for 140 additional DTV allotments for non-commercial use. 90. DTV Service Areas. The draft Table also fulfills our goals of service replication/maximization. In general, existing broadcasters would be provided with a DTV allotment that is capable of providing digital TV coverage of a geographic area that is comparable to their existing NTSC coverage. In fact, during the transition period, over 50% of all existing broadcasters would receive a DTV allotment that fully replicates their existing service area; and more than 94% would receive an allotment that replicates at least 95% of their existing service area. We also believe that the draft Table meets our objective of minimizing new interference to NTSC service. For example, 96% of all NTSC stations would receive less than 10% new interference from DTV operations. 91. Spectrum for DTV Allotments. The draft DTV Table also meets our spectrum goals of providing all eligible broadcasters with a suitable DTV allotment and for ensuring that the spectrum is used efficiently. Based on our analysis of the proposed Table, all eligible broadcasters eventually would have access to a suitable DTV frequency within the proposed new spectrum area designated for digital TV, i.e., existing TV channels 7-51 in the frequency bands 174-216 MHz and 470-698 MHz; and, a total of 138 MHz of valuable VHF and UHF spectrum could be recovered eventually. 92. Specifically, the draft Table provides for the great majority of new DTV allotments within the proposed new digital TV spectrum. 1392 of the 1578 new DTV allotments for existing eligible broadcasters in the continental U.S. are on TV channels 7 through 51. Of the 186 new allotments that are outside this core DTV spectrum area, 169 of these are paired with existing NTSC stations that are currently operating on TV channels 7 through 51. There are only 17 instances where both the new DTV allotment and the existing NTSC operation are on channels located outside the core DTV spectrum. Even in these cases, however, suitable channels within the core area will become available as NTSC operations cease and channels are recovered from other stations. We have asked above whether all costs associated with any second transition that is necessary to convert DTV operations from channels located outside of the core area to channels located in the core spectrum should be borne by the new user of the spectrum. 93. Other Allotment Considerations. The draft Table avoids use of TV channels 3, 4 and 6 for the reasons given above and no new DTV allotments are provided on these channels. With regard to land mobile sharing, all of the allotments contained in the proposed DTV Table would comply with the proposed 155 mile co-channel spacing requirement between DTV allotments and land mobile operations; but the proposed Table includes nine cases where DTV allotments would be located at distances less than 110 miles from the city-center of an adjacent channel land mobile system. Nevertheless, while such geographical separations are desirable, we believe that there are engineering solutions available to handle any adjacent channel interference concerns between land mobile and DTV. VII. ALLOTMENT MODIFICATIONS A. Maximum and Minimum Station Facilities 94. As indicated above, we are proposing to provide initial DTV allotments that will allow existing broadcasters to provide DTV service to a geographic area that replicates the service area of their existing NTSC station. The draft DTV Table of Allotments identifies an effective radiated power (ERP) and an antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) for each DTV station. The antenna HAAT specified for each DTV allotment is the same as antenna HAAT of its associated NTSC station. The ERP for each allotment is then calculated to provide service area replication up to a maximum ERP of 5 megawatts. We also propose in the draft DTV Table the following minimum values for ERP: 1 kW for lower VHF channels, 3.2 kW for upper VHF channels, and 50 kW for UHF channels. This would ensure that smaller stations, if they desire, are able to expand their existing coverage as they transition to DTV. We request comment on this approach and on our proposed maximum and minimum ERP values. 95. We also believe that new stations that operate on DTV allotments created after the initial Table should also be authorized sufficient technical facilities to enable them to serve their communities of license as well as an area around those communities comparable to the service areas of typical NTSC stations. We are therefore proposing to specify a maximum permissible power of 316 kW effective radiated power and a maximum antenna height of 2000 feet height above average terrain for stations that operating on new DTV allotments created subsequent to the initial Table. Our proposed maximum permissible ERP and HAAT specifications for future DTV allotments would allow a station to serve a geographic area with a radius of up to 107 km (about 66 miles), which corresponds to the predicted Grade B service area of an NTSC station operating at maximum power and HAAT on a UHF channel. We observe that at antenna heights lower than the proposed 2000-foot maximum, additional power would be needed to serve a geographic area of this size. We therefore are proposing to allow DTV stations to operate with higher ERP levels at lower antenna HAAT levels in accordance with the following table: Proposed Maximum Allowable ERP and Antenna Height for Future DTV Stations Antenna Height HAAT (feet) Effective Radiated Power (kW) 2000 316 1900 400 1800 450 1700 500 1600 600 1500 700 1200 1000 1000 1500 700 2500 500 3000 We request comment on these proposals for the maximum technical facilities for future DTV stations. 96. Finally, we note that Section 73.614 of the rules provides formulas for calculating the maximum permissible ERP where a station's antenna exceeds the 2000 feet maximum. We believe a similar approach would be appropriate for DTV stations. We request suggestions for the appropriate HAAT/power equivalency formulas to use for DTV stations. We also request comment on whether we should specify a minimum ERP for full service DTV stations in the same manner as we specify for NTSC stations in Section 73.614. B. Future Allotments and Modifications to the DTV Table 97. We request comment on what approach or approaches should be used for the purpose of adding future DTV allotments and modifying the initial DTV Table. Specifically, we request comment on whether an approach that uses minimum geographical spacing distances similar to what is now used for NTSC allotment changes or an approach that uses engineering criteria to show that the new allotment does not cause additional interference to other allotments or stations would be more appropriate for DTV. 98. Geographic Spacing Approach. Spacing standards have proven to be an efficient and effective means for managing interference between NTSC stations and we believe that such an approach could be used to determine the technical acceptability of DTV channel allotments. We note that geographic spacing approach provides considerable flexibility in the specification of station operating parameters such as power and antenna height. Based on the engineering performance characteristics used in developing the initial DTV Table proposed herein, we have developed the following DTV spacing standards. If we adopt a geographical spacing approach, we would propose to permit the addition or modification of DTV allotments provided such allotments meet the following spacing standards. Channel Relationship Separation Requirement VHF Channels 7-13 Co-channel, DTV to DTV Zone I 152 miles (244.6 km) Zones II & III 170 miles (273.6 km) Co-channel, DTV to NTSC Zone I 152 miles (244.6 km) Zone II & III 170 miles (273.6 km) Adjacent Channel DTV to DTV No allotments permitted between: Zone I 25 miles (40.2 km) and 60 miles (96.6 km) Zones II & III 30 miles (48.3 km) and 60 miles (96.6 km) DTV to NTSC No allotments permitted between: Zone I 7 miles (11.3 km) and 71 miles (114.3 km) Zone II & III 11 miles (17.7 km) and 91 miles (146.4 km) UHF Channels Co-channel, DTV to DTV Zone I 122 miles (196.3 km) Zone II & III 139 miles (223.7 km) Co-channel, DTV to NTSC Zone I 135 miles (217.3 km) Zone II & III 152 miles (244.6 km) Adjacent Channel DTV to DTV No allotments permitted between: All Zones 20 miles (32.2 km) and 55 miles (88.5 km) DTV to NTSC No allotments permitted between: All Zones 6 miles (9.7 km) and 55 miles (88.5 km) Taboo Channels, DTV to NTSC only (+/- 2, +/- 3, +/- 4, +/- 5, +/- 7, +/- 8, +/- 14 and +/- 15 channels) No allotments permitted between: Zone I 15 miles (24.1 km) and 50 miles (80.5 km) Zone II & III 15 miles (24.1 km) and 60 miles (96.6 km) 99. Engineering Criteria Approach. To satisfy the engineering allotment criteria, the petitioner would have to show that a station operating at the maximum permissible ERP and antenna height on the proposed allotment would not exceed the engineering interference criteria with regard to any other existing allotment. The engineering criteria would be specified in terms of desired-to-undesired signal ratios and would include consideration of potential interference to a station operating on the proposed allotment as well as potential interference from a station operating on the allotment to stations operating on other allotments. All evaluations of interference would be made under that assumption that stations on the allotments involved would be operating at the maximum allowed power and antenna height. We would use the same propagation models, technical planning factors and DTV system performance characteristics in performing engineering evaluations of interference that we used in developing our proposals for the DTV Table and allotment spacing criteria. The engineering evaluations would therefore examine possible interference between DTV service and between DTV and NTSC service on channels 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, and 15 channels removed from the channel under evaluation. We request comment all aspects of this alternative proposal for assessing the technical acceptability of additions or changes to the DTV Table of Allotments. We will also consider additional proposals for the standards by which we will assess the technical acceptability of requests for changes to the DTV Table. Such proposals should be accompanied by a description of how interference would be managed between stations, and include supporting technical analysis and data. 100. Use of Frequency Coordinators. Broadcasters have suggested that the Commission establish industry assignment coordinating committees to evaluate proposals for post-assignment changes to the table. They state that evaluating and accommodating proposed changes to the DTV Table is a complex and technically challenging matter and that the current allotment /assignment processes are too cumbersome and litigious for this new DTV environment. They state that the Commission has used frequency coordinating committees in other areas and that they have proven to be effective. As proposed, the assignment coordinating committees would use objective engineering criteria to evaluate proposals for post-assignment changes to the DTV Table; and, would be funded by licensee contributions. The assignment coordinators would make recommendations to the Commission about how to dispose of allotment/assignment proposals or would provide the Commission with the detailed coverage and interference data necessary to make these decisions. 101. We agree that an industry coordination process could be used effectively in the digital television broadcast area. Such committees could conserve the Commission's limited resources and could provide an efficient and effective means to resolve disputes that may arise with regard to proposed changes to the DTV Table of Allotments. We believe that having a coordinating committee evaluate proposed changes and resolve potential disputes among broadcasters prior to submission of such changes to the Commission may be appropriate. Given the dynamic changes that are likely to occur during the transition from NTSC to DTV, such a pre-coordination process by an industry assignment coordinating committee could provide for a smoother and more orderly processing of such changes by the Commission. We therefore invite industry to pursue the establishment of such a coordinating committee. We tentatively propose that such a committee would evaluate and provide advice to the Commission with regard to coordination of changes in allotments; the creation of new allotments; and, changes in authorized facilities (for both NTSC and DTV stations) that would impact other allotments/assignments. We invite comment on all aspects of this proposal. We also solicit comment on whether any statutory changes would be appropriate to facilitate our use of such committees. 102. The proposed new service replication allotment methodology will, like our former proposal, result in a number of DTV allotments that are at distances to other DTV allotments and existing stations that are less than our proposed spacing standards. While such "short-spaced" or non-conforming allotments are necessary to achieve our full accommodation objective, we continue to believe that it is desirable to minimize the use of short-spacing and its effect on neighboring stations. We therefore are maintaining our proposal to make short-spaced or non-conforming allotments only during the initial assignment phase for existing stations, so that subsequent additions to the DTV Table for stations to be operated by new applicants would be required to comply with the minimum spacing or engineering requirements. We are also maintaining our proposal to delete all short-spaced allotments that have not been activated by an eligible broadcaster after the initial application period. For purposes of this proposal, an allotment would be considered short-spaced if it does not meet the spacing standards or engineering criteria for new DTV allotments. We request comment on this proposal. Interested parties are specifically asked to comment on the effect our proposal to delete short-spaced allotments would have on opportunities for new digital TV broadcast stations after the initial application period or after the transition. VIII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 103. This action is being taken pursuant to authority contained in Sections 4(i), 7, 301, 302, 303 and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 157, 301, 302, 303 and 307. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rule making proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 CFR Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a). 104. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the proposals suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix C. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the Further Notice, but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. 105. Submission of Comments. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR Sections 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before November 22, 1996, and reply comments on or before December 23, 1996. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original and five copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply comments to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. You may also file comments electronically via the internet at dtvallotments@fcc.gov. IX. ORDERING CLAUSES 106. In accordance with the proposals and actions described herein, IT IS ORDERED, THAT the Commission WILL NOT ACCEPT additional applications for new NTSC stations that are filed after 30 days from the date of publication of this Further Notice in the Federal Register. The Commission will continue to process applications for new NTSC stations that are currently on file and any new such applications that are filed on or before 30 days from the date of publication of this Further Notice in the Federal Register in accordance with procedures and standards indicated herein. In addition, IT IS ORDERED THAT, effective immediately as of the close of business on the date of adoption of this Further Notice, the Commission WILL NOT ACCEPT any additional Petitions for Rule Making proposing to amend the existing TV Table of Allotments in Section 73.606(b) of its rules to add an allotment for a new NTSC station. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, effective immediately as of the close of business on the date of adoption of this Further Notice, the Commission WILL CONDITION the grant of any modifications of the technical parameters of existing full service NTSC stations on the outcome of this rule making proceeding. 107. For further information regarding this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, please send an electronic mail message via the internet to dtvallotments@fcc.gov, or contact Bruce Franca or Alan Stillwell, Office of Engineering and Technology, at (202) 418-2470. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary APPENDIX A TECHNICAL DATA I. System Independent Planning Factors Recommended by the Advisory Committee Planning Factor Low VHF High VHFUHF Geometric mean frequency (MHz) 69 194 615 Dipole factor (dBm-dBu) dB (Kd) -111.8 -120.8 -130.8 Thermal noise (dBm) (Nt) -106.2 -106.2-106.2 Antenna Gain (dB) (G) 4 610 Downlead line loss 1 2 4 for 50 ft. (15 m.) of coax (dB) (L) Front-to-back ratio (dB) 10* 12* 14* (ratio of forward gain to maximum response over rear 180o Receiver noise figure (dB) (NR) 5** 5** 10** Time probability factor for *** *** *** 90% availability (dB) (dT) Location probability for (dL) 0 0 0 50% availability (dB) * For the receiving antenna manufacturer's objectives the values are 14, 16, and 20. ** Possible changes in the VHF figures are still under consideration. *** The time probability factor is defined as the difference F(50,10) minus F(50,50), where these two values are determined from the FCC charts in Section 73.699. This factor is a function of the distance between the transmitting and receiving antennas. See "Fifth Interim Report of the Planning Subcommittee of the FCC Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service," March, 1992 II. ATSC DTV System Performance Capabilities See "Final Technical Report," prepared by the Technical Subgroup of the FCC Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service, October 30, 1995. The values tabulated are the results of tests of the Grand Alliance system, except those marked with an asterisk. Estimates marked with "*" were made for the purpose of evaluating service and interference. Measurement data for these factors were not taken for the Grand Alliance DTV system. These estimates are based on measurements of the four DTV systems that preceeded the Grand Alliance system. Parameter Measured Value (dB) Carrier-to-Noise Ratio +15.19 Co-channel D/U Ratio DTV-into-NTSC +34.44 NTSC-into-DTV +1.81 DTV-into-DTV +15.27 Adjacent D/U Ratio Lower DTV-into-NTSC -17.43 Upper DTV-into-NTSC -11.95 Lower NTSC-into-DTV -47.73 Upper NTSC-into-DTV -48.71 Lower DTV-into-DTV -41.98 Upper DTV-into-DTV -43.17 Taboo D/U Ratio, DTV-into-NTSC N-2 -23.73 N+2 -27.93 N-3 -29.73 N+3 -34.13 N-4 -34.00 * N+4 -24.96 N-7 -35.00 * N+7 -34.00 * N-8 -31.62 N+8 -43.22 N+14 -33.38 N+15 -30.58 Taboo D/U Ratio, NTSC-into-DTV N-2 -62.45 N+2 -59.86 N-3 < -61.79 N+3 < -62.49 N-4 -58.00 * Taboo D/U Ratio, NTSC-into-DTV (continued) N+4 -58.00 * N-7 -58.00 * N+7 -58.00 * N-8 -58.00 * N+8 -58.00 * N+14 -58.00 * N+15 -58.00 * Taboo D/U Ratio, DTV-into-DTV N-2 -60.52 N+2 -59.13 N-3 < -60.61 N+3 < -61.53 N-4 -58.00 * N+4 -62.00 * N-7 -63.00 * N+7 -63.00 * N-8 -63.00 * N+8 -63.00 * N+14 -63.00 * N+15 -63.00 * APPENDIX B DRAFT DTV TABLE OF ALLOTMENTS This appendix presents the draft DTV Table of Allotments. We emphasize that this table may differ significantly from the final DTV Table, depending on which principles are ultimately used to generate the table and the results of any broadcaster negotiated settlements. The table allots a DTV channel to each eligible existing broadcaster, with eligibility determined by the proposed allotment principles, and existence established by presence in the FCC TV Engineering Data Base dated May 13, 1996. Technical parameters needed for calculation of the tabulated engineering quantities were taken from the same engineering data base. ERP and Antenna Height The tabulated value of effective radiated power (ERP) for DTV operation was calculated to replicate NTSC coverage. It is the maximum, over a set of uniformly spaced compass directions, of the ERP values required to extend noise-limited DTV coverage as far as the grade B contour of the NTSC station. This maximum is shown in the column entitled "DTV POWER." To determine the ERP that will approximately replicate NTSC coverage in each specific direction, the distance to the existing grade B contour was first determined from information in the engineering data base, including directional antenna data, and from terrain elevation data at points separated by 3 arc-seconds of longitude and latitude. FCC curves (47 CFR 73.699) were applied in the usual way, as described in 47 CFR 73.684, to find this grade B contour distance. The replicating ERP for DTV was then calculated by a further application of FCC curves, with noise-limited DTV coverage defined as the presence of field strengths of 26.8, 31.8 and 43.8 dBę respectively for low VHF, high VHF and UHF, at 50% of locations and 90% of the time. The specified field strengths can be calculated from the data given in Appendix A. They include an allowance of 4 dB (lowband VHF) and 1 dB (highband VHF) for electrical noise external to TV receivers. The column entitled "ANTENNA HEIGHT" gives the height of the transmitting antenna above average terrain as found in the engineering data base for the particular station. This value represents the height above terrain of the radiation center of the station being replicated, averaged from 3.2 to 16.1 kilometers (2 to 10 miles) over 8 evenly spaced radials. In a few cases, the value found in the engineering data base is unrealistically low or negative, and the height above ground or other reasonable value has been substituted. Evaluation of Service and Interference - Digital Television During Transition Under the heading "DIGITAL TELEVISION SERVICE DURING TRANSITION," prospective conditions are evaluated in terms of both area and population. The values tabulated under this heading are net values: service area is the area where the desired signal is above the DTV noise threshold less the area where service receives interference from other DTV or NTSC stations. Similarly, the number of people served is the population receiving an adequate signal relative to noise excluding people in areas with interference. Levels of interference are calculated as desired-to-undesired (D/U) ratios, and these levels must be above certain threshold values for acceptable service. The threshold values used to prepare the table in this appendix are those tabulated for the Grand Alliance System in Appendix A. The procedure used to identify areas of service and interference is the following:  Elements of area in a large rectangle centered at the desired transmitter are examined to determine whether the propagated signal is above the noise level for reception. The elemental areas are 1 square kilometer in size. Propagation predictions are made using the Longley-Rice point-to-point propagation model Version 1.2.2 taking into consideration the station's directional transmitting antenna, if any, and the transmitting antenna's height above average terrain along the pertinent radial. The desired signal is set equal to the value predicted for 50% of locations, 90% of the time.  If the element of area has an adequate signal, the interfering signal levels from neighboring stations are similarly evaluated with Longley-Rice. Interfering signals are set equal to the values predicted for 50% of locations and 10% of the time so that we will be making a worst-case comparison.  Finally, if the undesired signal arrives off-axis, it is reduced by an amount determined by a gain pattern assumed for the receiving system antenna. Computer code for the Longley-Rice point-to-point radio propagation model is published in an appendix of NTIA Report 82-100, A Guide to the Use of the ITS Irregular Terrain Model in the Area Prediction Mode, authors G.A. Hufford, A.G. Longley and W.A. Kissick, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1982. Some modifications to the code were described by G.A. Hufford in a memorandum to users of the model dated January 30, 1985. With these modifications, the code is referred to as Version 1.2.2 of the Longley-Rice model. Evaluation of Service and Interference - Existing NTSC Under the heading "EXISTING NTSC," current conditions in NTSC services are evaluated along with the effects of new interference from DTV. Calculations of new interference assume that all DTV stations in the allotment table come on the air. The additional interference is evaluated in terms of both area and population with results expressed as percentages of the area and population inside the respective grade B contours. The areas tabulated under the subheading "SERVICE," are net values calculated by subtracting areas receiving interference from the area inside each station's grade B contour. Here the only interference under consideration is that from other NTSC stations actually on the air. Similarly, the number of people currently served is the population inside the grade B contour less the number of people in interference areas. The effects of introducing DTV, evaluated as percentages of the reference conditions, are presented under the subheading "INTERFERENCE." Interference issues are discussed in the Further Notice at paragraphs 33, 40-41. The procedure used to identify areas of service and interference for NTSC is the same as outlined for DTV with the following changes due to the change in type of desired station:  In each element of area, the desired signal level is set equal to the value predicted for median conditions, that is, 50% of both locations and time by the Longley-Rice model. (50% of locations, 90% of time was used in the procedure outlined for DTV.) Elements of area are dropped from consideration if this desired signal level falls below the values established for NTSC grade B field strength contours in 47 CFR 73.683 (these are 47, 56 and 64 dBę respectively in the low VHF, high VHF and UHF bands).  Interference between VHF NTSC stations is deemed to exist when the D/U ratio falls below the threshold values of -3 dB, 28 dB and -13 dB respectively for lower adjacent, co-channel and upper adjacent channel relationships. For example, the most favorable ratio of the three, -13 dB, applies if the desired station is on channel 7 and the interference is on channel 8.  Interference between UHF NTSC stations on co- and adjacent channels is determined by the same D/U ratios used for VHF, and the criteria used for taboo channel interference are presented below. Taboo Channel Relationship NTSC-NTSC D/U Ratio (dB) Taboo Channel Relationship NTSC-NTSC D/U Ratio (dB) -2 -26.0 +2 -29.0 -3 -33.0 +3 -34.0 -7 -30.0 +4 -23.0 -8 -32.0 +7 -33.0 +8 -41.0 +14 -25.0 +15 -9.0 The NTSC-to-NTSC ratios used for interference evaluation were determined by FCC staff observers at the Advanced TV Test Center during the tests of digital systems. All values are threshold-of-visibility (TOV) observations, except the co-channel value of 28 dB which is the precise offset value corresponding to impairment rating 3 according to the Advanced TV Evaluation Laboratory in Canada. No observations were made for channel differences of -5, -4 and +5, and no calculations were made for these taboos when evaluating NTSC-to- NTSC interference. Percentage Match A single column under the heading DTV / NTSC AREA MATCH shows the degree to which the allotment table has succeeded in providing each NTSC station with a DTV channel for replication of service during the transition. The area which will receive DTV service is divided by the area now served by the NTSC channel, and the result is presented as a percentage. This percentage is never larger than 100% because DTV service areas outside the current grade B are ignored in this view of the consequences of the table. The areas receiving NTSC and DTV service are determined by subtracting interference areas from the area inside the NTSC station's grade B contour in the same way as service and interference are determined for the preceding columns. AK ANCHORAGE 2 51 5011.9 219.0 28607 265 28907 265 0.0 0.0 99.0 AK ANCHORAGE 4 23 478.6 55.0 10968 256 10912 256 0.0 0.0 100.0 AK ANCHORAGE 5 21 4897.8 250.0 30785 266 30730 266 0.0 0.0 100.0 AK ANCHORAGE 7 16 1258.9 238.0 22498 264 22456 265 0.0 0.0 100.0 AK ANCHORAGE 9 15 436.5 366.0 22176 265 22184 265 0.0 0.0 100.0 AK ANCHORAGE 11 14 79.4 91.0 10270 250 10259 250 0.0 0.0 99.9 AK ANCHORAGE 13 17 2511.9 238.0 26028 265 25978 265 0.0 0.0 100.0 AK ANCHORAGE 33 32 0.3 160.9 1208 212 1175 212 0.0 0.0 100.0 AK BETHEL 4 16 8.5 61.0 5648 7 5629 7 0.0 0.0 100.0 AK DILLINGHAM 2 11 16.2 305.0 33890 4 33677 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 AK FAIRBANKS 2 44 123.0 200.0 6744 77 6670 77 0.0 0.0 100.0 AK FAIRBANKS 9 5 1.1 152.0 13637 78 13637 78 0.0 0.0 100.0 AK FAIRBANKS 11 13 0.4 51.2 4966 76 4966 76 0.0 0.0 100.0 AK JUNEAU 3 34 1.3 78.9 2195 27 2155 27 0.0 0.0 100.0 AK JUNEAU 8 9 0.1 33.0 3096 27 771 25 0.0 0.0 100.0 AK KETCHIKAN 9 17 436.5