********************************************************    
                                       NOTICE
  ********************************************************
                              
              This document was converted from
         WordPerfect or Word 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, italic, underlining, etc. from the
  original document will not show up in this text version.
                              
      Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
         will not be preserved in the text version.
                              
      If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
                              
*****************************************************************
Before the
               Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554



In the Matter of 

Establishment of a Class A
Television Service


)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)


MM Docket No. 00-10







                        REPORT AND ORDER
                                
Adopted:  March 28, 2000                Released:  April 4, 2000      

By the Commission:
                                
                       Table of Contents
                                
                                                      Paragraph

     I.   Introduction                                           1

II.  Background                                             2    

III. Discussion                                             8

       A. Certification and Application for License                        8
     
       1. Statutory Timeframes                                   8
          2.   Ongoing Eligibility                               10
       
B.  Qualifying Low-Power Television Stations                     15
       
          1.   Statutory Eligibility Criteria                              15
          2.   Locally-Produced Programming                           16
          3.   Operating Requirements                                 21
          4.   Alternative Eligibility Criteria                            32

     C.  Class A Interference Protection Rights and Responsibilities            36
     
          1.   Class A Protected Service Area                              36
          2.   Time Protection Begins                                 39
          3.   Protection of Pending NTSC TV Applications and Facilities        43
          4.   New DTV Service                                   49
          5.   DTV Maximization                                  51
       
                 a. Definition of Maximization                        51
                 b. Preserving the Right to Maximize                  54
                 c. Allotment Adjustments                        61
               
D.  Methods of Interference Protection to Class A Facilities               65
     
          1.   Analog Full-Service TV Protection to Analog Class A              67
          2.   Analog LPTV, TV Translator, and Class A Protection 
            to Analog Class A                          70
          3.   Full-Service DTV Protection to Analog Class A                    71
          4.   Full-Service NTSC and DTV Protection to Digital Class A          72
          5.   LPTV, TV Translator, and Class A Modification Protection 
            to Digital Class A                              73
          6.   Alternative Means of Interference Protection                74

E.  Methods of Interference Protection by Class A to Other Facilities      76

       1. Class A Protection of NTSC                             76
          2.   Class A Protection of DTV                              78
          3.   Protection of LPTV and TV Translators                       80
          4.   Land Mobile Radio Services and TV Channel 16                82

       F. Change Applications                               85

       G. Common Ownership                                  88

       H. Issuance of DTV Licenses to Class A, TV Translator, and LPTV Stations 90

       I. Interim Qualifications                                 96

          1.   Stations Operating Between 698 and 806 MHz                  96
          2.   Channels Off-Limits                               104

       C. Class A Applications                                   106

          1.   Application Forms                                 106
          2.   Class A Facilities Changes                             109
          3.   Class A Channel Displacement Relief                         113

       D. Remaining Issues                                       115

          1.   Call Signs                                        115
          2.   Certification of Class A Transmitters                       117
          3.   Fees                                         119
       4. International Coordination Provisions                       121
       5. Broadcast Auxiliary Frequencies                             122
       
IV.  Conclusion                                             123
     
Appendix A:  Rules
     Appendix B:  List of Commenters
Appendix C:  Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Appendix D:  Class A Application Form

I.   INTRODUCTION

1.     In this Report and Order, we establish a Class A television service to implement the
Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 (CBPA), which was signed into law November 29, 1999. 
Pursuant to the CBPA and our implementing rules, certain qualifying low-power television (LPTV) stations
will be accorded Class A status.  Class A licensees will have "primary" status as television broadcasters,
thereby gaining a measure of protection from full-service television stations, even as those stations convert
to digital format.  The LPTV stations eligible for Class A status under the CBPA and our rules provide
locally-originated programming, often to rural and certain urban communities that have either no or little
access to such programming.  LPTV stations are owned by a wide variety of licensees, including minorities
and women, and often provide "niche" programming to residents of specific ethnic, racial, and interest
communities.  The actions we take today will facilitate the acquisition of capital needed by these stations
to allow them to continue to provide free, over-the-air programming, including locally-originated
programming, to their communities.  In addition, by improving the commercial viability of LPTV stations
that provide valuable programming, our action today is consistent with our fundamental goals of ensuring
diversity and localism in television broadcasting. 
II.  BACKGROUND

2.     From its creation by the Commission in 1982, the low power television service has been a
"secondary spectrum priority" service whose members "may not cause objectionable interference to existing
full-service stations, and ... must yield to facilities increases of existing full-service stations or to new full-
service stations where interference occurs."  Currently, there are approximately 2,200 licensed LPTV
stations in approximately 1,000 communities, operating in all 50 states.  These stations serve both rural and
urban audiences.  Because they operate at reduced power levels, LPTV stations serve a much smaller
geographic region than full-service stations and can fit into areas where a higher power station cannot be
accommodated in the Table of Allotments.  In many cases, LPTV stations may be the only television station
in an area providing local news, weather, and public affairs programming.  Even in some well-served
markets, LPTV stations may provide the only local service to residents of discrete geographical
communities within those markets.  Many LPTV stations air "niche" programming, often locally produced,
to residents of specific ethnic, racial, and interest communities within the larger area, including
programming in foreign languages.  
3.     The LPTV service has significantly increased the diversity of broadcast station ownership. 
Stations are operated by such diverse entities as community groups, schools and colleges, religious
organizations, radio and TV broadcasters, and a wide variety of small businesses.  The service has also
provided first-time ownership opportunities for minorities and women.
4.     In the CBPA, Congress found that the future of low-power television is uncertain.  Because
LPTV stations have secondary spectrum status, they can be displaced by full-service TV stations that seek
to expand their own service area, or by new full-service stations seeking to enter the same market.  The
statute finds that this regulatory status affects the ability of LPTV stations to raise necessary capital.  In
addition, Congress recognized that the conversion to digital television further complicates the uncertain
future of LPTV stations. To facilitate the transition from analog to digital television, the Commission has
provided a second channel for each full-service television licensee in the country that will be used for
digital broadcasting during the period of conversion to an all-digital broadcast service.  In assigning DTV
channels, the Commission maintained the secondary status of LPTV stations and TV translators and, in
order to provide all full-service stations with a second channel, was compelled to establish DTV allotments
that will displace a number of LPTV stations.  Although the Commission has taken a number of steps to
mitigate the impact of the DTV transition on stations in the LPTV service, that transition nonetheless will
have significant adverse effects on many stations, particularly LPTV stations operating in urban areas where
there are few, if any, available replacement channels.  
5.     Congress sought in the CBPA to address some of these issues by providing certain low power
television stations "primary" spectrum use status. The CBPA requires the Commission, within 120 days
after the date of enactment, to prescribe regulations establishing a Class A television license available to
qualifying LPTV stations.  The CBPA directs that Class A licensees be subject to the same license terms
and renewal standards as full-power television licensees, and that Class A licensees be accorded primary
status as television broadcasters as long as they continue to meet the requirements set forth in the statute for
a qualifying low-power station.  In addition, among other matters, the CBPA sets out certain certification
and application procedures for low-power television licensees seeking Class A designation, prescribes the
criteria low-power stations must meet to be eligible for a Class A license, and outlines the interference
protection Class A applicants must provide to analog (or NTSC), digital (DTV), LPTV, and TV translator
stations.
6.     Congress also recognized, however, that, because, of the emerging DTV service, not all LPTV
stations could be guaranteed a certain future.  Congress recognized the importance and engineering
complexity of the FCC's plan to convert full-service stations to digital format, and protected the ability of
these stations to provide both digital and analog service during the transition.
7.     On January 13, 2000, the Commission adopted an Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(Notice) seeking comment on a wide range of issues related to implementation of the CBPA.  The
Commission also terminated an earlier proceeding relating to establishment of primary status for LPTV
stations.  In its earlier proceeding, the Commission had adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(September 22 Notice)   responding to a petition for rule making filed by the Community Broadcasters
Association (CBA).  In light of passage of the CBPA, which addresses many of the same issues raised in
the September 22 Notice and the CBA petition, we terminated the earlier proceeding and initiated this new
proceeding to implement the CBPA.
III.   DISCUSSION
A.     Certification and Application for License
               1.   Statutory Timeframes
2.     Section (f)(1)(A) of the CBPA requires the Commission, within 120 days after the date of
enactment (November 29, 1999), to prescribe regulations establishing a Class A television service. The
CBPA establishes a two-part certification and application procedure for LPTV stations seeking Class A
status.  First, the CBPA directed the Commission to send a notice to all LPTV licensees describing the
requirements for Class A designation.  Within 60 days of the date of enactment, licensees intending to
seek Class A designation were required to submit to the Commission a certification of eligibility based on
the applicable qualification requirements. 
3.     The CBPA provides that, absent a material deficiency in a licensee's certification of eligibility,
the Commission shall grant the certification of eligibility to apply for Class A status.  The CBPA further
provides that licensees "may" submit an application for Class A designation "within 30 days after final
regulations are adopted" implementing the CBPA.  We will construe the phrase "final regulations" in this
context to mean the effective date of the Class A rules adopted herein.  Thus, Class A applications may be
filed beginning on the effective date of the rules.  Within 30 days after receipt of an application that is
acceptable for filing, the Commission must act on the application.
          2.   Ongoing Eligibility

4.     Background.  Although the Act provides clear guidance on the time within which a licensee is
entitled to file an application, and thus to start the clock for Commission action on the application, it does
not address the specific question whether the Commission may continue to accept applications more than
30 days after our adoption of final rules.  Section (f)(1)(B) of the statute states that licensees intending to
seek Class A designation "shall" submit a certification of eligibility within 60 days after the date of
enactment of the Act.  Section (f)(2)(A) lists the eligibility requirements for Class A status.  However,
Section (f)(2)(B) of the statute gives the Commission discretion to determine that the public interest,
convenience and necessity would be served by treating a station as a qualifying LPTV station, or that a
station should be considered to qualify for such status for other reasons, even if it does not meet the Section
(f)(2)(A) requirements.  Section (f)(1)(C) provides that consistent with the requirements set forth in
Section (f)(2)(A), a licensee "may" submit an application for Class A designation within 30 days after the
Commission adopts final rules in this docket.  In the Notice, we asked commenters to address whether the
statute permits the Commission to continue to accept applications to convert to Class A after the 30 day
period expires.  In addition, presuming we have statutory authority to permit the filing of Class A license
applications beyond that 30 day period, we asked commenters to discuss whether we should, as a matter of
policy, allow LPTV stations to do so.  
5.     Decision.  We believe that the basic purpose of the CBPA was to afford existing LPTV stations
a window of opportunity to convert to Class A stations.  Therefore, we will not accept applications from
LPTV stations that did not meet the statutory criteria and that did not file a certification of eligibility by the
statutory deadline, absent compelling circumstances.  To be eligible for a Class A license, an LPTV station
must go through several steps.  First, it must have filed a certification of eligibility within 60 days of the
enactment of the CBPA.  Second, the certification of eligibility must be approved by the Commission. 
Third, it must file an application for a Class A license, as we determine below, within 6 months from the
effective date of the Class A rules.  And fourth, that license must be granted.  The first stage of this process
has already ended; those potential applicants who seek Class A status must have already filed their
certifications of eligibility.  
6.     Some commenters asked that we expand the initial group of eligible LPTV stations beyond
those who filed their certification in a timely manner.  We decline to expand the eligible class in that way. 
We agree with the commenters who argue that for the purposes of conversion of the current class of
stations, the statute clearly set forth a time frame within which licensees must file Class A certifications. 
As expressed by the Association of Local Television Stations, Inc. (ALTV), the statute was designed to
permit a one-time conversion of a single pool of LPTV applications that met specific criteria before the
statute was enacted.  We find the statutory interpretation set forth by the Community Broadcasters
Association (CBA), and others, arguing that the statute allows ongoing eligibility, unpersuasive because
the intent of Congress in enacting the CBPA was to establish the rights of a very specific, already-existing
group.  The statute itself states its intent to apply to a small number of stations: "Since the creation of low-
power television licensees by the Federal Communications Commission, a small number of license holders
have operated their stations in a manner beneficial to the public good providing broadcasting to their
communities that would not otherwise be available."  We recognize that Section (f)(2)(B) grants us
discretion to determine that other LPTV stations qualify for Class A status.  This discretion will be
addressed in detail below.  
7.     The statute states that applicants "may" apply for licenses within 30 days after the adoption of
final implementing rules, but gives no ultimate deadline.  In order to allow sufficient time to potential
applicants to prepare their applications, we will allow licensees that have filed timely certifications of
eligibility to file Class A applications up to 6 months after the effective date of the rules we adopt today. 
We believe that establishing a 6 month period in which applications may be filed is consistent with the
CBPA.  The statute states that applicants "may" file license applications within 30 days from the adoption
of final implementing rules.  In contrast, the statute states that licensees intending to seek Class A
designation "shall" file a certification of eligibility within 60 days after enactment.  We believe that the
use of the word "may" in relation to applications indicates that the 30 day filing period is permissive only. 
Thus, applicants are not required to file within 30 days following the adoption of final rules, and we have
authority to provide for a longer filing period.
8.     We find that the 6 month deadline for filing a Class A application is a reasonable time frame
that will afford all LPTV applicants, including those who must file displacement applications, adequate
time to prepare and file their Class A applications consistent with the rules we adopt today. Where potential
applicants face circumstances beyond their control that prevent them from filing within 6 months, we will
examine those instances on a case-by-case basis to determine their eligibility for filing.  We will not,
however, accept license applications from LPTV licensees who did not timely file certifications of
eligibility because we do not believe that Congress intended to create an open-ended class of potential Class
A stations.
          B.   Qualifying Low-Power Television Stations

     1.   Statutory Eligibility Criteria
3.     Section (f)(2)(A) of the CBPA provides than an LPTV station may qualify for Class A status if,
during the 90 days preceding the date of enactment of the statute: (1) the station broadcast a minimum of 18
hours per day; (2) the station broadcast an average of at least 3 hours per week of programming produced
within the market area served by the station, or the market area served by a group of commonly controlled
low-power stations that carry common local programming produced within the market area served by such
group; and (3) the station was in compliance with the Commission's requirements for LPTV stations.  In
addition, from and after the date of its application for a Class A license, the station must be in compliance
with the Commission's operating rules for full-power television stations.  Alternatively, Section (f)(2)(B)
of the CBPA provides that a station may qualify for Class A status if "the Commission determines that the
public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by treating the station as a qualifying low-
power television station for purposes of this section, or for other reasons determined by the Commission." 
This alternative eligibility will be addressed below.  
     2.   Locally-Produced Programming

4.     Background.  We stated in the Notice that the statute's requirement that, during the 90 days
preceding the date of enactment of the CBPA, LPTV stations must have broadcast a minimum of 18 hours
per day is straightforward.  The statute also prescribes that, during this period, LPTV stations must have
broadcast an average of at least 3 hours per week of programming produced within the "market area" served
by the station.  As the statute does not define "market area," we proposed in the Notice to define it as the
station's protected service area.  We noted that we had proposed to define the Class A protected service area
as the protected area now afforded LPTV stations, and asked commenters to address whether the protected
service area ultimately adopted by the Commission should also be used to define "market area" in
connection with the local programming criterion.  With respect to a group of commonly controlled stations,
we proposed to define the "market area" of such stations as the area covered by the protected service area
of all stations in the commonly-owned group.  We stated that we were not inclined to include repeated
programming or locally produced commercials as contributing to the mandatory 3 hours of locally produced
programming, and invited comment on this tentative conclusion.
5.     Decision.  We will not adopt the definition of "market area" that we proposed in the Notice. 
We are persuaded to adopt a more expansive definition after reviewing the many comments, such as those
of Larry Schrecongost, that contend our proposal would be too restrictive with respect to the local
production of programming.  Commenters propose a number of broader alternative definitions.  For
example, Turnpike Television (Turnpike) contends that the definition of market area should be each
station's predicted Grade B service area, Centex Television Limited Partnership (Centex) argues for the
DMA, and CBA would expand the market area to include coverage of out-of-town events.  There are
several commenters, however, such as WB Television Network (WB), that support our proposed
definition, but only one, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Sinclair), argues that the market area should be
even more restricted, defining the market area as the LPTV station's community of license.  
6.     We instead will expand our definition of "market area" to encompass the area within the
predicted Grade B contour determined by the Class A station's antenna height and power, which encloses
a larger area than that of an LPTV station's protected service contour.  With respect to a group of
commonly controlled stations, the market area will be the area within the predicted Grade B contours of any
of the stations in the commonly owned group.
7.     With respect to the local market definition, a number of commenters urge us to expand our
definition of the market area to include the predicted Grade B contour, contending that it is the only
reasonable and realistic definition for defining where locally originated programming would be produced. 
Centex argues that broadening the market area definition, rather than limiting it to the protected service
area, serves the Congressional intent of rewarding and protecting LPTV stations which provide
communities with locally oriented programming.  We agree.  We also believe that extending the market
area to encompass the Grade B contour will give stations more flexibility to provide locally oriented
programming to the community within their signal range, and provide them with a more stable economic
base in which to improve their commercial viability.  Accordingly, we believe that the predicted Grade B
contour is a more appropriate measure than our original protected contour proposal with respect to
provision of locally oriented programming for the communities served by LPTV stations. We do not agree
with those commenters who suggested that market should be defined even more broadly, such as the
DMA.  Many LPTV stations serve areas considerably smaller than the DMA in which they are located. 
Moreover, some DMAs are extremely large, with the availability of even full-service stations throughout
the DMA substantially dependent on cable carriage.  It does not appear appropriate, therefore, to consider
programming produced anywhere in the DMA to be "locally produced" for purposes of Class A stations'
eligibility.
8.     Some commenters are concerned about the possible conflicts between the locally produced
programming requirement and the existing main studio rule, arguing that we should either consider waivers
of the main studio rule or not adopt so restrictive a definition of  market area as to conflict with the rule. 
As discussed below in this Report and Order, we have decided to require Class A stations to maintain a
main studio located within their predicted Grade B contours.  We have also decided to grandfather all main
studio locations now in existence and operated by LPTV stations.  To avoid any conflicts between the local
market definition and our main studio rule, we will consider programming produced at the main studio of
such grandfathered Class A stations to be locally produced programming even though the main studio is
located outside the stations' Grade B contours.
          3.   Operating Requirements
9.  Background.  To qualify for Class A status, the CBPA provides that, during the 90 days
preceding enactment of the statute, a station must have been in compliance with the Commission's
requirements for LPTV stations.  In addition, beginning on the date of its application for a Class A license
and thereafter, a station must be "in compliance with the Commission's operating rules for full-power
stations."  We stated in the Notice our intent to apply to Class A applicants and licensees all Part 73 rules,
except for those which are inconsistent with the manner in which LPTV stations are authorized or the lower
power at which these stations operate.  Thus, for example, we proposed that Class A stations comply with
the Part 73 requirements for informational and educational children's programming and the limits on
commercialization during children's programming, the political programming rules, and the public
inspection file rule.  We stated that we intended to exempt Class A licensees only from Part 73 rules that
clearly cannot apply, either due to technical differences in the operation of low-power and full-power
stations, or for other reasons.  For example, we noted that some Class A stations might not be able to
comply with the requirement of Section 73.685(a) that stations provide a specified level of coverage to their
community of license. We requested comment on this provision and any other Part 73 requirement that, for
technical or other reasons, either cannot apply to Class A stations or must be modified with respect to such
stations.  We also invited comment on whether the Commission should group the new Class A service
under the Part 73 rules, governing full-service facilities, or the Part 74 rules, governing low-power stations. 
10. We also stated our belief in the Notice that the current power limits in the LPTV rules should
apply to Class A.  We noted that further increases could hinder the implementation of digital television and
could limit the number of Class A stations that could be authorized.  Finally, we sought comment on
whether to require Class A stations to provide some requisite level of coverage over their community. We
noted that such stations may not operate with sufficient power to serve large communities, and that we had
reservations about increasing power limits for Class A stations beyond the current limits in the LPTV
service.
11. Decision.  We will adopt our proposal to apply to Class A applicants and licensees all Part 73
regulations except for those that cannot apply for technical or other reasons.  We believe that this course of
action is most consistent with the language of the statute, which provides that from and after the date of an
application for a Class A license, LPTV stations must comply with the operating rules for full-power
television stations to be eligible for Class A status.  Most commenters that addressed this issue agree that
Class A stations should be required to comply with most Part 73 obligations except for those that are clearly
inappropriate or inapplicable.
12. The Part 73 requirements that we will apply to Class A applicants and licensees are set forth in
Appendix A.  Among other Part 73 obligations, we will require that Class A applicants and licensees
comply with the following: our rules governing informational and educational children's programming and
the limits on commercialization during children's programming; the requirement to identify a children's
programming liaison at the station and to provide information regarding the "core" educational and
informational programming aired by the station to publishers of television program guides; the requirement
to place in their file the quarterly forms 398; the political programming rules; the public inspection file rule,
including the requirement to prepare and place in the public inspection file on a quarterly basis an
issues/programs list; and station identification requirements.  We will require Class A stations to comply
with the Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules applicable to full-service television stations; for example,
they will be required to have and operate a digital EAS encoder and perform the weekly and monthly EAS
tests required of full-service stations.  As provided in Section (f)(1)(A)(ii) of the CBPA, Class A licensees
must also continue to meet the requirements for a qualifying low-power station in order to continue to be
accorded Class A status. 
13.    We will require Class A applicants and licensees to maintain a main studio.  As Class A stations
will be low-power and thus serve a smaller area than most full-service stations, we do not believe it is
appropriate to permit Class A stations to locate their main studio within the principal community contour
of any station serving that market, or 25 miles from the center of its community of license, as we permit for
full-service stations.  Instead, we will require Class A stations to locate their main studios within the
station's Grade B contour, as determined pursuant to the Commission's rules.  This will ensure that newly
created main studios are more accessible to the population that receives the station's programming.  We
will grandfather all main studios now in existence and operated by LPTV stations.  We do not believe it is
necessary to require these stations to change the location of their existing studio, or build a new studio, to
comply with our Class A rules.  We will grandfather those main studios for purposes of our Class A main
studio rule adopted in this Report and Order.
14. For purposes of our Class A rules, we will also modify a number of other requirements
applicable to full-service television broadcast stations, including: (1) minimum hours of operation of 18
hours per day, as required by the statute; (2) grandfather the use of LPTV broadcast transmitters; and (3)
permit Class A stations to operate without a carrier frequency offset.  We will permit qualified Class A
station  licensees to continue to operate their existing LPTV transmitters, provided these transmitters do not
cause interference due to excessive emissions on frequencies outside of the station's assigned channel.  We
will require Class A stations seeking facilities increases under the more inclusive definition of "minor"
changes we are adopting for these stations to specify operation on an offset frequency and to operate with
a transmitter meeting the required frequency tolerance for offset operation. 
15. We will not apply to Class A facilities the following provisions of Part 73: (1) the NTSC and
DTV Tables of Allotments (sections 73.606 and 73.607); (2) mileage separations (section 73.610); and (3)
minimum power and antenna height requirements (section 73.614).  As qualifying LPTV stations are not
governed by mileage separations, do not have allotted technical parameters, and will not have a community
coverage requirement, these provisions of Part 73 will not apply to Class A.  LPTV stations are not subject
to minimum power and antenna height requirements under Part 74, and we will not impose any such
requirements on Class A stations. 
16. We will also exempt Class A facilities from the principal city coverage requirement of section
73.685(a) of the rules. At this time, we believe that it is unnecessary to require Class A stations to provide
a requisite level of coverage over their community.  Although LPTV stations are associated with a specific
community on their license application, they are not subject to any requirement to provide a specified level
of coverage to that community.  As we indicated in the Notice, those Class A stations that are intended to
serve an entire community that is otherwise unserved or underserved have ample incentive to provide
service to the residents of the whole of that community without a mandatory requirement to do so.  Other
stations may intend to serve only a narrow segment of their community.  In view of the lower power levels
at which LPTV stations now operate and at which Class A facilities will continue to operate, and the fact
that in many cases these stations provide programming to areas where a higher power station could not be
accommodated in the Table of Allotments, we do not believe a minimum coverage requirement is
appropriate.  The commenters that addressed this issue generally agreed that no new coverage requirement
should be imposed on existing LPTV stations seeking Class A designation.  If the circumstances regarding
operation of Class A stations change in the future, including, for example, the permitted power levels of
such facilities, we reserve the right to revisit the issue of minimum coverage requirements at that time. 
17. As we proposed in the Notice, we will also maintain for now the current LPTV maximum
power levels for Class A stations.  We believe that these power levels are sufficient to preserve existing
service, which is consistent with Congress' objective underlying the CBPA.  While many commenters
urged us to permit Class A stations to increase power above the limits currently applicable to LPTV
stations, we will not adopt such a course at this time.  Congress emphasized in the CBPA the importance
of balancing the needs of LPTV licensees against the needs of full-service stations as they transition to a
digital format.  We believe that further power increases at this time could hinder the implementation of
digital television, as well as limit the number of Class A stations that could be authorized.  Moreover, we
recently increased power levels for LPTV stations in our DTV Sixth Report and Order, and have not yet
opened a filing window to permit stations to modify their facilities to take advantage of this power increase.
18. Several commenters propose that we require Class A licensees to certify annually their
continued compliance with the Class A eligibility criteria and with applicable Part 73 requirements.  As
we noted above, in addition to requiring Class A applicants and licensees to comply with the operating
requirements for full-power television stations, the CBPA also requires that Class A licensees continue to
meet the eligibility criteria established for a qualifying low-power station in order to retain Class A status.
We will not adopt an annual certification or reporting requirement for Class A stations.  We do not have
such a general requirement for other television broadcast stations, and see no need to treat Class A stations
differently.  However, like other Part 73 licensees, we will require Class A licensees to certify compliance
with applicable FCC rules at time of renewal.  In addition, as in the case of other Part 73 licensees, Class A
renewal applications will be subject to petitions to deny.  Finally, we will require licensees seeking to assign
or transfer a Class A license to certify on the application for transfer or assignment of license that the
station has been operated in compliance with the rules applicable to Class A stations.  We will also require
Class A assignees and transferees to certify on their portion of the transfer or assignment application that
they will operate the station in accordance with these rules. 
19.    We will place our rules governing the new Class A television service under Part 73.  As Class
A stations must comply with the operating rules for full-service stations, which are found in Part 73, it
appears most logical to group the rules for Class A service with the full-service broadcast rules.  LPTV
stations that are not eligible for or choose not to apply for Class A status will continue to be governed by
Part 74 of our rules.
     4.   Alternative Eligibility Criteria

20.    Background.  The CBPA grants the Commission authority to establish alternative eligibility
criteria for LPTV stations seeking Class A designation if "the Commission determines that the public
interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by treating the station as a qualifying low-power
television station for purposes of this section, or for other reasons determined by the Commission."  In the
Notice, we sought comment on (1) how far an LPTV station may deviate from the statutory eligibility
criteria and still be considered eligible for Class A status, and (2) whether we should establish a different set
of criteria for certain types of LPTV stations, such as foreign language stations or TV translators.
21.    Decision.  Congress mandated three Class A eligibility qualifications in the CBPA.  For the 90
days prior to enactment of the CBPA, an applicant must have (1) broadcast a minimum of 18 hours per day,
(2) broadcast an average of at least 3 hours per week of programming produced within the market area
served by the station, and (3) been in compliance with Commission requirements of LPTV stations.  We
will allow deviation from the strict statutory eligibility criteria only where such deviations are insignificant
or when we determine that there are compelling circumstances, and that in light of those compelling
circumstances, equity mandates such a deviation  Examples of such compelling circumstances include a
natural disaster or interference conflict which forced the station off the air during the 90 day period before
enactment of the CBPA. 
22.    We will not establish a different set of criteria for foreign language stations that do not meet the
local programming criteria.  We recognize the valuable service provided by foreign language stations, but
conclude that Congress' intent was to preserve the service of a small class of existing LPTV stations that
were providing local programming.  We appreciate the comments submitted by groups with foreign
language programming that encourage us to allow such programming to meet the statutory requirement. 
We conclude, however, that foreign language stations should have the same eligibility requirements as any
other potential Class A station.
23.    We will not adopt separate eligibility criteria for translator stations under the CBPA, as
requested by the National Translator Association (NTA).  The statute limits eligibility to LPTV stations
that produce local programming and can meet the operating rules applicable to full-service stations.  We
recognize, however, the extremely valuable service that translators provide, often representing the only
source of free, over-the-air broadcasting in rural areas.  Indeed, we expressly asked about according
translators Class A status in the September 22 Notice.  While that proceeding has been terminated, we still
believe that this is an issue that should be examined.  Thus, we will institute a new proceeding seeking
comment on whether translators should be permitted to qualify for some form of primary status, and what
the eligibility requirements for such protection should be. 
C.     Class A Interference Protection Rights and Responsibilities
     1.   Class A Protected Service Area
24.    Background. The CBPA requires the Commission to preserve the service areas of low power
television licensees pending the final resolution of Class A applications.  In the Notice, the Commission
proposed to protect the service contours of analog Class A stations and certified eligible LPTV stations to
the field strength values that define LPTV protected signal contours.  The Notice also sought comment on
whether protected contour values for digital Class A stations should be based on the field strength values
that define DTV noise-limited contours or other field strength values better suited for this purpose. 
25.    Decision.  We will adopt the proposal in the Notice with respect to analog stations and define
the following protected signal contour values for these stations: 62 dBu for channels 2-6, 68 dBu for
channels 7-13, and 74 dBu for channels 14 and above, as calculated using the Commission's F(50,50) signal
propagation curves.  CBA and several LPTV station operators urge an expanded Class A protected contour,
such as the TV Grade B contour.  We recognize, as these commenters point out, that LPTV stations can
be viewed in the areas between their protected contour and the Grade B contour of their facilities, just as the
signals of NTSC stations are often viewed beyond their Grade B contours.  In enacting the CBPA,
Congress equated the service areas to be preserved with the LPTV signal contours, which have always been
defined by the above field strength values.  We agree with Fox that expanding contour protection for Class
A stations would be inconsistent with the intent of the CBPA to preserve existing service.  Also, as noted
by the Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers (AFCCE), this would be likely to
create new situations of prohibited contour overlap between LPTV stations where none currently exist. 
More than 2,000 LPTV stations have been engineered to fit into the broadcast landscape on the basis of
protection to the LPTV service contours.  The LPTV service is now mature, and service expectations are
well established.  We do not want to upset the balance that has been achieved between service and
interference considerations.  For these reasons, we will apply the LPTV service contour definitions to Class
A stations as the basis for interference protection.
26.    The above considerations are also relevant to our choice of protected signal contours for digital
Class A stations.  Some commenters favor use of the DTV noise-limited signal contours for this purpose,
which are comparable to NTSC Grade B contours.  Use of these values would, in effect, expand protection
for digital Class A stations, compared to that for analog Class A stations, whose protected contours are
comparable to NTSC Grade A contours.  Using these values would also create situations where Class A
digital service contours would overlap with the interference-limited contours of analog LPTV and Class A
stations.  This "built-in" interference would occur to a lesser extent if the Class A digital protected contours
were geographically smaller.  Also, digital conversion opportunities for Class A and other services would
be precluded to a lesser extent through the use of digital contour values more comparable to the Class A
analog values.  We will adopt the protected contour values suggested by the AFCCE, du Treil, Lundin &
Rackley (du Treil), and the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE): 43 dBu for channels 2-6, 48 dBu for
channels 7-13 and 51 dBu for channels 14-51.  These values reflect the differences between analog LPTV
protected contours and NTSC Grade B contours.  For example, the analog LPTV and Grade B values for
UHF stations are 74 dBu and 64 dBu, respectively - a 10 dB difference.  This difference (or scaling factor)
is added to the 41 dBu DTV noise-limited field strength value to obtain a protected contour of 51 dBu for
UHF digital Class A stations.  In a future proceeding, we will consider rules for permitting on-channel
digital conversion for TV translator and non-Class A LPTV stations.  We may wish to revisit the issue of
Class A digital protected contour values at that time. 
               27.  Time Protection Begins
28.    Background.  Section (f)(1)(D) of the CBPA requires the Commission to preserve the service
areas of low-power television licensees pending the final resolution of a Class A application.  In the
Notice, we proposed to preserve the service area of LPTV licensees from the date the Commission receives
an acceptable certification of eligibility for Class A status; that is, a certification that is complete and that,
on its face, indicates eligibility for Class A status pursuant to the eligibility criteria established by statute
and any other criteria ultimately approved in this proceeding.  Thus, we proposed to protect the service area
of an LPTV station, to the extent provided in the CBPA and our rules, from the date a certification for
eligibility is filed with the Commission, as long as the certification is ultimately granted by the
Commission. 
29.    Decision.  We will adopt our proposal to commence preservation of the service area of LPTV
stations from the date of receipt of an acceptable certification of eligibility filed pursuant to section
(f)(1)(B) of the CBPA.  As we stated in the Notice, this timing appears most consistent with the CBPA's
dual certification and application scheme for Class A status, despite the reference in the statute to the
pendency of an application, as opposed to a certification, to trigger contour protection.  Senator Conrad
Burns, a sponsor of the CBPA in the Senate, introduced a statement on the Senate floor clarifying the issue
of when an LPTV station's contour should be preserved.  He stated in part: "It is clearly our intent that as
soon as the Commission is in receipt of an acceptable certification notice, it should protect the contours of
this station until final resolution of that application." 
30.    We disagree with MSTV/NAB that protection should begin from the time a Class A application
is filed, rather than the date of filing of a certification of eligibility.  This reading of the statute would render
the separate certification of eligibility requirement meaningless.  MSTV/NAB argue that protecting the
more than 1700 eligibility certifications filed by the January 28, 2000 deadline  would "paralyze" the
Commission.   However, more than a third of these certifications, on their face, do not comply with the
eligibility criteria established in the CBPA and our rules adopted herein.  Included in this group are
certifications submitted by translator station licensees and permittees of unbuilt LPTV stations.  Such
licensees and permittees do not meet the eligibility standards of the CBPA and our rules.  Accordingly, their
certifications are not acceptable and will be dismissed.  Similarly deficient are those certifications filed after
the January 28, 2000 deadline and those certifications submitted by LPTV licensees whose stations aired no
locally produced programming during the entire 90-day period preceding enactment of the CBPA.  They too
will be dismissed.
31.    As discussed above, the CBPA permits the Commission to establish alternative criteria for
Class A eligibility if it determines that the public interest, convenience and necessity would be served
thereby, or for other reasons.  Thus, there may be instances in which a certification of eligibility is filed
but the corresponding Class A application may not be granted because the alternative eligibility showing
cannot be approved.  We also note that a Class A application could be denied if a certification of eligibility
were later determined to be incorrect.  In situations where the Commission determines that a Class A
certification of eligibility or Class A application may not be granted, protection of the service contour of
that facility will cease from the date the Commission determination is made.
     3.   Protection of Pending NTSC TV Applications and Facilities
32.    Background.  The CBPA requires that the Commission preserve the service areas of LPTV
stations pending the final resolution of a Class A application.  As discussed above, we interpret that
provision to require protection from the date of filing of an acceptable certification of eligibility for Class
A status.  With respect to NTSC facilities, Section (f)(7)(A) of the CBPA provides that the Commission
may not grant a Class A license, nor approve a modification of license, unless the applicant shows that the
proposed Class A station will not cause interference "within the predicted Grade B contour (as of the date
of enactment of the  [CBPA]  ) or as proposed in a change application filed on or before such date) of any
television station transmitting in analog format."  We invited comment in the Notice on how to interpret
the phrase "transmitting in analog format."  We indicated that we were inclined to include among the NTSC
facilities that Class A stations must protect both stations actually transmitting in analog format and those
that have been authorized to construct facilities capable of transmitting in analog format (i.e., construction
permits).  Under this interpretation, pending applications for new NTSC full-service stations would not be
protected, including applications of successful bidders in the September 1999 broadcast auction that have
not been granted a construction permit.  In addition, there are still pending before the Commission
applications and channel allotment rule making petitions involving channels 60 - 69 and requests for waiver
of the 1987 TV filing freeze, which may account for approximately 180 potential new NTSC stations.  We
indicated in the Notice that these applications and allotment proposals would not be protected under this
interpretation of the CBPA, nor would any modified allotment proposals for channel or other technical
changes or any applications for modification of facilities filed after November 29, 1999.
33.    Decision.  Upon further reflection, and after careful consideration of the comments, we have
reconsidered our proposal regarding interpretation of the interference protection that must be accorded by
Class A to pending NTSC applications.  Instead, we will adopt the proposal similar to that advanced by
CBA in its comments to require Class A stations to protect both existing analog stations and full-service
applicants that have completed all processing short of grant necessary to provide a reasonably ascertainable
Grade B contour.  We believe this proposal is both equitable and consistent with the CBPA.  Specifically,
we will require Class A applicants to protect the predicted Grade B contour (as of November 29, 1999, or
as proposed in a change application filed on or before that date) of full-power analog stations licensed on
or before November 29, 1999.  We will also require Class A applicants to protect the Grade B contour of
full-power analog facilities for which a construction permit was authorized on or before November 29,
1999.  Finally, we will require Class A applicants to protect the facilities proposed in any application for
full-power analog facilities that was pending on November 29, 1999, that had completed all processing
short of grant as of that date, and for which the identity of the successful applicant is known.  The
applications in this latter category are post-auction applications, applications proposed for grant in pending
settlements, and any singleton applications cut off from further filings.  We will not require Class A
applicants for initial Class A authorization to protect pending rule making petitions for new or modified
NTSC channel allotments or full-service applications that were not accepted for filing by November 29,
including most pending television freeze waiver applications.
34.    We believe that protecting these categories of pending NTSC applications is consistent with
both the language of the CBPA and the underlying intent of Congress.  Section (f)(7)(A)(i) requires Class
A applicants to show that they "will not cause" interference within "the predicted Grade B contour (as of the
date of the enactment of [CBPA]  ) of any television station[s] transmitting in analog format."  It is not
immediately clear from the statutory language whether the station entitled to interference protection must
have been "transmitting in analog format" as of the date of enactment of the CBPA in 1999, or as of the date
it would experience the interference.  We believe that a sound interpretation of the statutory language, in
light of the considerations that follow, is that it refers to the nature of the service entitled to protection (i.e.,
analog) rather than to its operational status on the date of enactment of the CBPA.  Therefore, the analog
station could be licensed, one for which an application is currently pending, or one for which a construction
permit has been granted but which is not yet built.  The statute does require that analog stations entitled to
protection must have had a "predicted Grade B contour (as of the date of the enactment of the [CBPA], or
November 1, 1999, whichever is later, or as proposed in a change application filed on or before such
date)."  A station does not have to be operating, however, to have a "predicted grade B contour" as
described in Section (f)(7)(A)(i).  A station proposed in a pending application or an unbuilt station with an
outstanding construction permit may also have a predicted Grade B contour.  Indeed, the clause referring to
the predicted Grade B contour specifically includes predicted Grade B contours proposed in change
applications filed before the specified date.  Thus, this section explicitly contemplates that interference
protection by Class A stations may extend to at least some analog stations that are not yet operating, but
nonetheless had predicted Grade B contours as of the date specified in the statute.  It would make no sense
to protect pending change applications and licensed stations but not outstanding construction permits, which
are closer to operational status.  We believe that Congress included the reference to change applications to
make it clear that those are entitled to protection, rather than to suggest that other applications or
construction permits are not similarly protected.
35.    Under this reading of the statute, Section (f)(7)(A)(i) requires Class A applicants and licensees
to protect "the predicted Grade B contour (as of   [November 29, 1999], or as proposed in a change
application filed on or before such date)" of analog facilities. Thus, Class A stations must protect the
predicted Grade B contour of analog stations licensed or granted a construction permit as of November 29,
1999, as well as of facilities proposed in certain pending analog applications.  We note that the phrase
"predicted Grade B contour" is singular.  We believe that the best interpretation of this phrase, as modified
by the parenthetical in Section (f)(7)(A)(i ), is that it limits the facilities proposed in applications pending
as of November 29, 1999 that must be protected by Class A stations to those for which there is a single,
reasonably ascertainable predicted Grade B contour as of that date.  These applications consist of post-
auction applications, applications proposed for grant in pending settlements, and any singleton applications
cut off from further filing.  The applications in each of these categories have progressed through the cut off
stage and the identity of the successful applicant in each case has been determined.  Class A applicants thus
can identify a single predicted Grade B contour with respect to these applications for which protection must
be afforded and are not required to show that they will not interfere with multiple, hypothetical contours
that may not turn out to be actual contours, if the applicant in question does not ultimately receive the
station license. 
36.    Moreover, we believe that this interpretation of the statute best reflects the intent of Congress
as expressed in the overall statutory scheme.  Under the interpretation we proposed in the Notice, Class A
applicants and licensees would not have been required to protect post-auction applications for which a
construction permit had not been issued as of the date of enactment of the CBPA.  There is no language in
the statute or the legislative history that suggests that Congress intended a result so dramatically
inconsistent with its grant of auction authority to the Commission in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.  As
the Supreme Court recently noted, it is a "fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a
statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme."  The
Court further stated that "the meaning of one statute may be affected by other Acts . . . " We agree with
CBA that, in securing the future of qualified LPTV stations, Congress did not intend to disrupt the rights
and long-settled expectations of applicants for pending NTSC facilities that have prosecuted their
applications past the cut off stage and to the point that a final successful applicant has been identified. 
Instead, Congress intended to place Class A licensees on roughly even footing with full- service licensees,
while protecting the DTV transition. These pending cut-off NTSC applications are protected against new
full-service analog applicants, and therefore should be protected by Class A applicants
37.    We believe making these distinctions is consistent with Congress' intent because requiring
Class A applicants to protect applications that have progressed through the cut-off stage strikes an
appropriate balance between the rights of pending applicants versus the interests of LPTV stations seeking
primary status.  Applicants that have prosecuted their applications through the cut off stage and to the point
that the identity of the successful applicant is known have in most cases invested substantial resources in
filing and prosecuting their applications.  Most of these applications have been pending for some time, and
LPTV stations affected by the facilities proposed in these applications have long been on notice that they
would ultimately be displaced or be required to reduce their facilities.  Requiring Class A applicants to
protect applications that had progressed through this stage by November 29, 1999 is both equitable and  a
reasonable reading of the CBPA.
     4.   New DTV Service
     
38.    Background.  Section (f)(7)(A)(ii)(III) of the CBPA requires Class A applicants to protect "the
digital television service areas of stations subsequently granted by the Commission prior to the filing of a
Class A application."  We stated in the Notice that we interpreted this provision not to apply to
applications for initial Class A licenses that have filed acceptable certifications of eligibility, but rather to
applications seeking to modify Class A facilities, such as requests for power increases.  We noted that
section (f)(1)(D) of the Act, which requires the Commission to preserve the service areas of LPTV licensees
upon certification of eligibility except in the case of "technical problems" in connection with DTV
replication and maximization, does not include an exception to service area protection for new DTV
service.  We stated our belief that the exclusion of new DTV service in section (f)(1)(D) means that new
DTV entrants must preserve the service areas of LPTV stations that have been granted a certification of
eligibility, and invited comment on this interpretation.  We also stated our belief that Class A applicants
who have filed acceptable certifications of eligibility would not be required to protect the DTV application
and allotment proposals of new DTV entrants, and sought comment on this interpretation.
39.    Decision.  Upon further reflection, we have decided we should treat new DTV station
applications in the same manner as we are treating new NTSC station applications.  That is, we would
require Class A applicants to protect pending applications for a new DTV station that were on file
November 29,1999 and that had completed all processing short of grant as of that date.  However, there are
no new DTV station applications that were pending November 29, 1999 or that are currently pending. 
Before such an application will be accepted, a rule making proceeding must be completed to allot a new
DTV channel to a community.  At this time, we have not completed any such rule making proceeding.  In
a new DTV allotment rule making, we will require protection of Class A stations.  We will not require Class
A applicants to protect pending allotment proposals from new DTV entrants, that is, petitioners who do not
already have a DTV authorization.
     5.   DTV Maximization
               a.   Definition of Maximization
40.    Background.  The CBPA provides that a Class A application for license or license modification
may not be granted where the proposal would interfere with stations seeking to "maximize power" under the
Commission's rules, if such station has complied with the notification requirements in Section (f)(1)(D) of
the statute.  Section (f)(1)(D) requires that, to be entitled to protection by Class A applicants, DTV stations
must file an application for maximization or a notice of intent to seek maximization by December 31, 1999,
and file a bona fide application for maximization by May 1, 2000.  We sought comment in the Notice on
whether the term "maximize" in the statute refers only to situations in which stations seek power and/or
antenna height greater than the allotted values, or whether "maximization" also refers to stations seeking to
extend their service area beyond the NTSC replicated area by relocating their station from the allotted site.
41.    Decision.  Comments on this issue were divided.  We believe that the best interpretation of
the term "maximization," as used in the statute, refers both to power and antenna height increases above the
values allotted in the DTV Table, and to site changes that extend the service area of DTV facilities beyond
the NTSC replication facilities.  A broad interpretation of the term maximization is consistent with the
CBPA's emphasis on protecting the digital transition.  Permitting changes to technical parameters and sites
gives broadcasters wider flexibility to maximize coverage and maximize service to the public.  In addition,
by construing the term maximization to include site changes sought by full-service DTV stations, we allow
such stations greater flexibility to seek engineering solutions that provide for efficient spectrum use.  In this
regard, we have historically encouraged applicants to employ coordination and interference agreements,
including co-location of  facilities, as a means of resolving interference conflicts.  Site changes are often
integral to such agreements. 
42.    We indicated in the Notice that the statutory language is ambiguous regarding the protection to
be accorded by Class A applicants to DTV stations seeking to replicate or maximize power.  Section
(f)(1)(D), entitled "Resolution of Technical Problems," directs the Commission to preserve the service areas
of LPTV licensees pending final resolution of a Class A application.  That section further provides that if,
after certification of eligibility for a Class A license, "technical problems arise requiring an engineering
solution to a full-power station's allotted parameters or channel assignment in the digital television Table
of Allotments, the Commission shall make such modifications as necessary (1) to ensure replication of the
full-power digital television  applicant's service area  ; and (ii) to permit maximization of a full-power
digital television applicant's service area..." (if the applicant has complied with the notification and
application requirements established by that section).  Although Section (f)(1)(D) appears to tie
replication and maximization to resolution of technical problems, Section (f)(7) appears to require all
applicants for a Class A license or modification of license to demonstrate protection to stations seeking to
replicate or maximize power, as long as the station seeking to maximize has complied with the notification
and application requirements of (f)(1)(D), without reference to any need to resolve technical problems on
the part of the DTV station.  Despite the reference in section (f)(1)(D) to technical problems, we continue
to believe it is more consistent with the statutory schemes both for Class A LPTV service and for digital
full-service broadcasting to require Class A applicants to protect all stations seeking to replicate or
maximize DTV power, as provided in section (f)(7)(ii), regardless of the existence of "technical problems." 
The large majority of commenters that addressed this issue concur with this view.  Stations seeking to
maximize must comply with the notification requirements in paragraph (f)(1)(D).  This interpretation seems
most consistent with the intent of Congress to protect the ability of DTV stations to replicate and maximize
service areas. 
          b.   Preserving the Right to Maximize
43.    Background.  We sought comment in the Notice on how the maximization rights in the statute
can be applied to full-service stations that maximize their DTV facilities but subsequently move their digital
operations to their original analog channel at the end of the transition.  Some of these stations may not be
in a position to file maximization applications on their analog channels by the deadline prescribed in the
statute.  We asked in the Notice whether these stations can preserve the right to maximize on their analog
channels should they revert to those channels at the end of the transition.  If so, we asked how the right to
replicate the station's maximized DTV service area can be preserved on the analog channel.  As a corollary
issue, we also sought comment on how the maximization allowance in the CBPA applies to full-service
stations for which the DTV channel allotment or both the NTSC and DTV channel allotments lie outside the
DTV core spectrum (channels 2 - 51).  We asked commenters to address whether these stations can preserve
their right to replicate their maximized DTV service area on a new in-core channel once that channel has
been assigned.
44.    Decision.  As a preliminary matter, we believe that all DTV licensees are entitled, at a
minimum, to replicate the service area of their analog station.  As we stated in the Sixth Report and Order
in the DTV proceeding, we believe that service replication is important to ensure that  digital broadcasters 
can continue to reach the audiences to which they provide analog service and that viewers continue to have
access to the stations they can receive over-the-air.  In enacting the CBPA, Congress made clear that 
Class A service would not interfere with this service replication principle.  As Congress stated, "recognizing
the importance of, and the engineering complexity in, the FCC's plan to convert full-service television
stations to digital format, [the CBPA] protects the ability of these stations to provide both digital and analog
service throughout their existing service areas."
45.    The CBPA also recognizes and preserves the right of full-service television broadcasters to
maximize their digital television service area, but balances this right against the provision of stability to
Class A applicants and licensees.  Sections (f)(1)(D) and (f)(7)(A) of the CBPA require Class A applicants
to protect stations seeking to maximize power, if such stations have filed an application for maximization
or a notice of intent to seek maximization by December 31, 1999, and filed a bona fide application for
maximization by May 1, 2000.
46.    There are 17 full-service television stations that have been allotted both  NTSC and DTV
channels that lie outside the DTV core spectrum.  The Commission has stated that stations with both
NTSC and DTV channels outside the core spectrum will be assigned new channels within the core from
spectrum recovered after the transition.  As a number of commenters in this proceeding point out, the
deadlines established in the CBPA for filing an application for maximization create a dilemma for these
stations.  These stations are required to file a maximization application to preserve their rights; however,
they either cannot or do not want to maximize facilities on an out-of-core channel.  Several commenters
argue that these stations should not be required to file a maximization plan based on their temporary out-of-
core DTV assignment, as maximization is expensive and these stations will not be operating on those
channels after the transition.  Moreover, these commenters argue that requiring maximization on an out-of-
core channel does not provide certainty to Class A stations because the required interference protection will
ultimately involve a different in-core channel.
47.    The problem of preserving the rights of full-service stations in this situation, and balancing
those rights against the provision of certainty to Class A stations, is extremely complex.  After careful
consideration, we will adopt the following compromise.  To preserve their ability to maximize once
assigned a channel within the core, we will require stations with both NTSC and DTV channels outside the
core to nonetheless maximize their DTV service area on their temporary out-of-core DTV channel.  These
stations must have filed a notice of intent to maximize and must file an application to maximize within the
deadlines mandated by the CBPA.  Once these stations are assigned a permanent in-core DTV channel, we
will allow these stations to carry over to their in-core channel the maximized digital service area achieved
on the out-of-core channel, to the extent that the in-core channel facilities for maintaining the maximized
service area provide required interference protection to other DTV stations.  Section (f)(1)(D) of the statute
gives us broad authority to resolve problems arising with respect to replication and maximization, including
problems involving the assignment of channels such as those faced by stations with out-of-core channel
assignments.  Thus, stations seeking to carry over their maximized service areas to their newly assigned
in-core DTV channels will have priority over conflicting Class A facilities.  
48.    We believe this approach strikes a reasonable balance between the rights of full-service stations
and Class A facilities.  While we recognize that there may be inefficiencies involved in requiring
maximization on an out-of-core channel to preserve the right to maximize later on an in-core channel,
allowing all full-service stations outside the core to "reserve" the right to maximize on unidentified
channels within the core reduces substantially the certainty that can be accorded to Class A facilities.  As
we recognized in our DTV biennial review, core spectrum is becoming increasingly crowded and it will
become increasingly difficult to locate channels for all parties seeking DTV spectrum in the core after the
transition.  In view of the difficulty in establishing priorities among the numerous parties seeking in-core
spectrum, we believe it is reasonable to require stations with both NTSC and DTV assignments outside the
core to first maximize DTV service on an out-of-core channel in order to retain the right to replicate that
maximized service area on an in-core channel.
49.    We will apply a similar requirement to stations with an analog channel within the core and a
DTV channel outside the core, as well as to those stations with both channels inside the core that intend to
convert their DTV operations to their analog channel at the end of the transition.  These stations will also
be required to maximize on their DTV channel in order to preserve their right to carry over that maximized
service area to their analog in-core channel. We also believe that the CBPA requires that these stations must
have filed a notice of intent to maximize and must file an application to maximize within the deadlines
established in the statute. In addition, the maximized facilities they ultimately propose for DTV operation
on their analog channel must provide required interference protection to other DTV stations.  The election
of a post-transition DTV channel by stations with both the analog and DTV allotments within the core is an
issue discussed in our DTV biennial review.
     c.   Allotment Adjustments 
50.    Background.  As noted above, Section (f)(1)(D) of the CBPA directs the Commission to
preserve the service areas of LPTV licensees, upon certification of eligibility, pending final resolution of a
Class A application.  However, that section also permits modifications to a full-service station's allotted
parameters or channel assignment in the DTV Table of Allotments, where made necessary by "technical
problems" requiring an "engineering solution," to ensure both replication and maximization of the DTV
service area.  We raised in the Notice certain questions regarding DTV allotment adjustments that are not
addressed in the CBPA.  Specifically, we asked whether a station requesting an adjustment to the DTV
Table that would impinge upon the service area of a Class A station should be required to show that the
modification can only be made in this manner.  If the modification requires displacement of the Class A
station, we asked if the affected Class A should be permitted to exchange channels with the DTV station,
provided it could meet interference protection requirements on the exchanged channel.
51.    Decision.  As we indicated in the Notice, we recognize that it may be necessary to permit DTV
stations to change channels and make adjustments to station facilities in order to correct unforeseen
technical problems.  For example, it was necessary in some cases to make DTV Table allotments on
adjacent channels at noncollocated antenna sites in the same markets, which raised concerns among
broadcasters over possible adjacent channel interference.  In addition to changing some of those
allotments, we stated that we would address these concerns by tightening the DTV emission mask and by
"allowing flexibility in our licensing process and for modification of individual allotments to encourage
adjacent channel co-locations..."  We also provided broadcasters with flexibility to deal with allotment
problems, for example, by permitting allotment exchanges among licensees in the same or adjacent markets. 

52.    Section (f)(1)(D) of the CBPA gives full-service stations the flexibility to make these kinds of
necessary adjustments to DTV allotment parameters, including channel changes, even after certification of
an LPTV station's eligibility for Class A status. That section provides for an exception to protection of
Class A facilities to resolve "technical problems" associated with DTV replication and maximization, and
provides for such modifications when necessary to "a full-power station's allotted parameters or channel
assignment in the digital television Table of Allotments."  This language indicates that maximization
encompasses channel changes as well as site changes and changes to technical parameters. Thus, stations
that have filed an application for maximization or a notice of intent to maximize by December 31, 1999 and
an application for maximization by May 1, 2000 have flexibility to make adjustments to the facilities
proposed in these maximization applications where necessary to resolve technical problems that prevent
implementation of the facilities proposed in these applications. 
53.    We will not require full-service stations requesting an adjustment to the DTV Table that will
cause interference to the protected service contour of a Class A station to demonstrate that the adjustment
can only be made in this fashion.  We have outlined above the replication and maximization rights of full-
service DTV licensees vis-a-vis Class A facilities, and do not believe that imposing additional obligations
on DTV licensees to justify a modification request is warranted.  However, we note that in the interest of
ensuring  efficient spectrum utilization we may question modification requests that unnecessarily impinge
on Class A service.  In addition, while we will not give Class A stations affected by allotment adjustments
made to accommodate DTV stations the automatic right to exchange channels with the DTV station, we will
consider such allotment exchanges on a case-by-case basis where both parties consent and where the parties
meet all applicable interference requirements on the new channel.  Where we determine such swaps meet
interference and other criteria, we will not consider competing applications for these channels.
       D. Methods of Interference Protection to Class A Facilities 
5.     Background.  In the CBPA, Congress did not address the method of providing interference
protection to Class A service areas, other than equating these areas with LPTV signal contours.  In the
Notice, the Commission generally proposed to protect the Class A service contours in the manner that
LPTV stations protect NTSC stations and each other.  We proposed that applicants for NTSC stations
protect Class A stations pursuant to the criteria in Section 74.705 of the LPTV rules.  The Notice
proposed that applicants for LPTV and TV translator stations and Class A facilities modifications protect
Class A stations under the standards in Section 74.707.  The Notice sought comment on the means by
which DTV application and allotment proposals should protect analog and digital Class A stations, as well
as the means for protecting such stations against interference from NTSC, Class A, LPTV and TV translator
application proposals.  We also invited comment on whether DTV application proposals should protect
Class A service contours or the population receiving service within these contours, in the manner in which
DTV stations protect full-service NTSC stations and each other.  
6.     Decision.  We will adopt the protection methods proposed in the Notice. We first present the
standard methods for protecting Class A service and then discuss alternative methods that may be used on
a waiver basis.  
     1.   Analog Full-Service TV Protection to Analog Class A
     
7.     We will require full-service analog TV stations to protect Class A stations by using the criteria
in Section 74.705, a position supported by the CBA, MSTV/NAB and other commenters.  We agree with
CBA that protection requirements generally based on distance separations would be impractical and
spectrally inefficient because LPTV stations have been authorized at different antenna heights and powers
on the basis of a contour protection methodology.  Table 1 below gives the D/U ratios that must be met
or exceeded at the Class A protected signal contours.
Table 1

Service Band
Protected
Class A
Contour
(dBu)
Co-channel
D/U Ratio
(dB)
1st Upper
Adjacent
Channel
D/U Ratio
(dB)
1st Lower
Adjacent
Channel
D/U Ratio
(dB)
14th Upper
Adjacent
Channel
D/U Ratio
(dB)
15th Upper
Adjacent
Channel
D/U Ratio
(dB)


Low VHF
(channel 2  6)
                
  62
                    
+ 28/45        

                     
   - 12         
                     
    - 6          
                     
     n/a
                     
     n/a


High VHF
(channels 7-13)
                
  68
                    
+ 28/45        
 
                     
   - 12
                     
    - 6         
                     
     n/a
                     
     n/a


UHF      
(channels 14-69)
                
  74
                    
+ 28/45
                     
   - 15
                     
   - 15
                     
   - 23
                     
     - 6


The Class A protected signal contours are to be determined by using the Commission F(50,50) signal
propagation model.  Potentially interfering signal levels at the protected contour are to be determined by
using the F(50,10) propagation model for co-channel signals and the F(50,50) model for the 1st, 14th and 15th
adjacent channel signals.  Interference predictions will be based on the facilities proposed in the NTSC
application.  Parties with pending petitions for new NTSC channel allotments or those requesting modified
channel allotments must identify reference facilities (site coordinates and elevation above mean sea level
(msl), effective radiated power, antenna radiation center height above msl, and, if desired, antenna radiation
pattern and orientation) for the purpose of showing the necessary contour protection.
8.     We will adopt a 45 dB D/U ratio for co-channel interference protection for situations where a
Class A station proposal does not specify a carrier frequency offset or where the proposed and protected co-
channel stations specify the same offset.  Where different offsets are specified between the proposed and
protected stations, a 28 dB D/U ratio will apply.  The TV Table of Allotments is constructed on the basis of
frequency offsets; that is, all full-service TV stations operate on different offset frequencies with respect to
their nearby co-channel stations.  Offset operation permits significantly more efficient utilization of the
broadcast spectrum; there is a difference of 17 dB between the co-channel D/U ratios for offset and
nonoffset operations.  The LPTV rules permit, but do not require offset operation.  As a means of
facilitating a "minimization of interference and maximization of service" we agree with du Triel, Lundin &
Rackley, Inc. (du Triel) that analog Class A stations should operate with a carrier frequency offset and
realize the advantages of offset operation wherever possible.  Many LPTV stations already operate on this
basis. Nevertheless, we will not make operation with a carrier offset a condition for an initial Class A
license.  However, we will require Class A licensees seeking facilities increases to specify an offset in their
modification applications unless they can demonstrate it would not be possible to realize the efficiencies of
offset operation.  For example, a Class A station could be situated between three or more neighboring co-
channel NTSC, LPTV or translator stations that use all available carrier offsets: plus, minus and zero.  Any
offset chosen by the Class A station would be the same as that of one of the neighboring stations, rendering
the 28 dB co-channel D/U ratio inapplicable.  In that event, use of the 28 dB ratio could result in
interference to the Class A station, and, therefore, the 45 dB co-channel D/U ratio will be applied.  
9.     Section 74.705 (a) of the LPTV rules generally requires the site of a proposed UHF LPTV
station to be located at least 100 kilometers from the site of a protected full-service station operating on the
7th adjacent channel above the proposed channel.  It also requires LPTV proposals for stations with more
than 50 kilowatts of effective radiated power to be separated by at least 32 kilometers from full-service
stations operating on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th adjacent channel above or below the requested channel.  We
disagree with du Triel's proposal that we eliminate the 14th adjacent channel protection requirements in
Table 1 above and the 32-kilometers spacing requirements for protection of Class A stations.  Du Triel
states that the potential for interference to a Class A station from stations operating on these "UHF taboo
channels" is limited to the immediate vicinity of the "taboo channel" station's transmitter site.  It also
notes that because of their secondary status, LPTV stations have been authorized without consideration of
interference that would be caused to them by "taboo channel" stations and that it is unaware of any
instances of significant interference to LPTV stations by "taboo channel" full-service stations.  Du Triel
concludes that, with declining spectrum availability, it is "unreasonable" to  require other NTSC stations
(full-service, Class A and LPTV) to protect Class A stations operating on any "taboo" channel other than
the upper 15th adjacent channel, which has a greater potential for interference. DLR does not propose
eliminating the "taboo" interference requirements for Class A, LPTV and TV translator protection of full-
service NTSC stations.  If the operation of a full-service "taboo channel " TV station, with 1 megawatt or
more of power, would pose a minimal interference risk to Class A service, the much lower power levels of
Class A stations would pose even less risk to the service of full-power stations.  Thus, if we were to
eliminate requirements to protect Class A stations from interference on the "taboo channels, " we would
also eliminate all remaining requirements that Class A stations protect full-service stations operating on
these channels.  In the recently concluded DTV proceeding, the Commission relaxed several interference
protection requirements for LPTV stations.  While we understand du Triel's reasoning, it would not be
appropriate to adopt further relaxation on the basis of the scant record on this issue in this proceeding. 
However, we believe du Triel's suggestions may warrant further consideration in a subsequent proceeding. 
We will also adopt our proposal in the Notice to accept applications for NTSC facilities modifications that
would not create new interference to Class A stations, beyond the interference already predicted by the
authorized facilities of such NTSC stations; these would include, for example, facilities modifications that
would not further decrease the D/U ratios at the Class A protected contour.  
     2.   Analog LPTV, TV Translator, and Class A Protection to Analog Class A 
     
10.    We are adopting the proposal in the Notice to apply the protection requirements in Section
74.707 to protect Class A stations from LPTV, TV translators, and other Class A stations.  Commenters
supported this proposal to use the protection methods by which LPTV stations protect each other.  This
method is well-established and has been well-tested.
     3.   Full-Service DTV Protection to Analog Class A
11.    Where interference protection to Class A stations is required, full-service DTV proposals must
protect the Class A service contours in accordance with the D/U ratios in Section 73.623(c)(2) of the DTV
rules for "DTV into analog TV" protection.  We will not eliminate protection requirements from DTV
stations proposing operation on the "taboo" channels, as suggested by du Triel.  The potential for
interference to Class A stations, du Triel contends, would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the
"taboo" channel DTV station's transmitter site. However, neither du Triel nor any other commenter 
analyzes the extent of such interference.  Moreover, digital Class A stations, with significantly lower power
levels, will be required to protect NTSC stations on the taboo channels.  Parties filing petitions to amend the
DTV Table, where required to protect Class A stations, must specify reference facilities that meet the above
criteria.  Several commenters favor basing protection on the provisions in Sections 73.622 of the DTV rules
and OET Bulletin 69 ("OET 69") or, alternatively, allowing use of this methodology where contour
protection requirements cannot be met.  We agree that use of the methods by which DTV stations protect
full-service NTSC stations would permit flexibility and could provide more accurate predictions of
interference.  However, at this time we will not adopt Class A protection standards centered around these
methods.  To do so would require extensive revisions to the computer interference model (FLR) used by the
Commission and outside engineers to include the effects of LPTV, TV translator, and Class A stations.  For
now, the contour protection approach is straight forward and can be readily implemented without unduly
affecting the preparation and processing of DTV applications.  We will, however, permit use of the
Longley-Rice terrain dependent propagation model and OET Bulletin 69 to support waivers of the Class A
interference protection requirements.  We will also permit Class A station and full-service station parties to
negotiate interference agreements.  
     4.   Full-Service NTSC and DTV Protection to Digital Class A
12.    We will require full-service NTSC and DTV proposals to protect digital Class A service
contours  based on the protection ratios (D/U) in Section 73.623(c)(2) of the DTV rules for "Analog
TV into DTV" and "DTV into DTV."  These ratios must be met or exceeded at the protected digital
signal contours of Class A stations.  Where protection to a Class A station is required, parties filing
petitions to amend the TV or DTV allotment tables must specify reference facilities that meet the
applicable requirements.  We will permit the use of OET 69 type showings in support of requests to
waive these requirements, and we will permit interference agreements among the affected parties. 
               5.         LPTV, TV Translator, and Class A Modification Protection to Digital
               Class A
     
13.    We will adopt the requirements in Section 74.706 of the LPTV rules for the contour protection of digital
Class A stations.  Application proposals for analog LPTV, TV translator and those of Class A facilities modifications
must protect the service contours of digital Class A stations to the extent provided by the D/U ratios in this rule. 
Application proposals for digital Class A stations must protect the service contours of other digital Class A stations to
the extent provided by the "DTV into DTV" D/U ratios of Section 73.623(c) of the Commission's Rules.  For both
analog and digital applicants, we will permit terrain shielding, OET 69- type analysis, or interference agreements in
support of requests to waive the protection requirements. 
     
     6.   Alternative Means of Interference Protection
     
14.    LPTV and TV translator applicants currently are permitted to support requests for waiver of
certain interference protection rules on the basis of D/U ratio protection for co-located stations on 1st and
14th adjacent channels, terrain shielding and Longley-Rice terrain dependent propagation and OET 69-type
methods. We are not adopting protection standards for Class A service based on these methods. 
However, we agree with AFCCE and other commenters that we should permit use of available means of
interference analysis to support requests to waive the Class A contour protection requirements.  We will
permit waiver requests to be supported by interference analysis based on OET Bulletin 69, D/U ratios,
terrain shielding and other considerations.  With regard to OET Bulletin 69 studies, we will not permit a de
minimis interference allowance.  Interference among full-service stations that is de minimis usually occurs
in the outer reaches of a station's service area between the NTSC Grade A and Grade B contours.  Analog
and digital Class A stations will not receive interference protection to the Grade B contour.  Their protected
service contours will be similar in extent to an NTSC station's Grade A contour, which is not nearly as
vulnerable to de minimis service population reductions.  Class A service areas will be smaller and to a
greater extent more interference-limited than those of full-service stations.  The viewing audience beyond
the Class A LPTV service contour is unprotected, and we believe it would be unfair to subject Class A
stations to additional reductions in service population.  For these reasons we will not at this time apply a de
minimis interference allowance to the protection of Class A stations.  Where analysis is based on OET
Bulletin 69 methods, we will allow a "service population" rounding tolerance of 0.5%, which is also
allowed for NTSC applicants protecting DTV service.  We will permit OET 69-type studies to take into
account reductions in a Class A service population due to predicted interference from existing full-service,
LPTV and TV translator stations (the "masking" of service) and, on this basis, applicants may demonstrate
that their proposed facilities would not result in additional interference within the protected contours of
Class A stations. 
15.    We concur with commenters who favor permitting Class A stations to enter into interference or
relocation agreements with full-service, LPTV, TV translator and other Class A licensees, permittees or
applicants.  Paxson notes that full-service stations may now enter into voluntary channel coordination and
interference agreements and believes that Class A stations with "quasi-primary" status should similarly be
permitted to enter into agreements to resolve interference concerns.  Our rules permit DTV stations to
negotiate interference agreements with other analog and DTV stations, including the exchange of money or
other compensation.  Agreements will be approved if the Commission finds them to be consistent with
the public interest. LPTV and TV translator licensees, permittees and applicants are also permitted to
enter into interference agreements, such as those involving terrain shielding.  We are persuaded that Class
A stations should also be permitted to negotiate interference agreements or relocation arrangements with
full-service, low power service and other Class A licensees, permittees or applicants. Agreements may
include monetary compensation or other considerations from one station to another.  Agreements must be
submitted with the related applications for initial or modified broadcast facilities.  The Commission will
grant applications submitted pursuant to agreements if it finds the public interest would be served.
E.     Methods of Interference Protection by Class A to Other Facilities
          1.   Class A Protection of NTSC 

16.    Background.  With respect to NTSC facilities, Section (f)(7)(A) of the CBPA provides that a
Class A license or modification of license may not be granted where the station will cause interference
"within the predicted Grade B contour ..."  In the Notice, we proposed that applicants for Class A stations
protect the NTSC Grade B contour in the manner given in Section 74.705 of the LPTV rules, indicating that
would be more appropriate than establishing a new and different form of interference protection.  We
tentatively concluded that Class A applicants should be permitted to utilize all means for interference
analysis afforded to LPTV stations in the DTV proceeding, including the Longley-Rice terrain-dependent
propagation model.
17.    Decision.  We are adopting the proposal from the Notice.  It is supported by most of the
commenters that addressed this issue.  However, SBE suggests a different analysis based on the Longley-
Rice propagation model with an NTSC TV station allowed to object if a Class A station would be the source
of unique (not masked) interference to any viewers.  SBE also indicates that this interference analysis
should be based on the proposed main beam effective radiated power (ERP) and not on the ERP toward the
radio horizon that LPTV and TV translator applicants are now permitted to use.  We believe the SBE
proposals would add unnecessary complexity to a well-established and well-tested process.  Class A
stations can be established without undue risk of excessive interference to NTSC TV stations if the Class A
facilities conform to the LPTV protection standards contained in Section 74.705 of our rules.  Moreover,
where a requested Class A station does not provide the protection required by that rule, Section 74.705(e)
specifies that a waiver can be requested based on terrain shielding and use of the Longley-Rice model to
demonstrate that actual interference would not be predicted to occur.
          2.   Class A Protection of DTV
18.    Background.  With respect to DTV, the statute provides that Class A applicants must protect the
DTV service areas provided in the DTV Table of Allotments and the areas protected in the Commission's
digital television regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.622(e) and (f)).  Thus, Class A stations may not interfere with
DTV broadcasters' ability to replicate insofar as possible their NTSC service areas.  In the Notice, we
indicated we believed it would be appropriate for Class A applicants to determine noninterference to DTV
in the same manner as applicants for full-service NTSC facilities.  Thus, we proposed that Class A facilities
would not be permitted to increase the population receiving interference within a DTV broadcaster's
replicated service area or other protected service area.  We would not permit Class A stations to cause de
minimis levels of interference to DTV service, other than a 0.5% rounding allowance. Criteria for
protecting DTV service are given in Sections 73.622 and 73.623 of our rules and in OET Bulletin 69.  
19.    Decision.  We are adopting the proposal from the Notice regarding Class A protection of DTV
service.  Analog and digital Class A station proposals generally will be subject to the protection criteria in
Sections 73.622 and 73.623 of our rules and in OET Bulletin 69.  Commenters generally supported this
proposal.  Some commenters question allowing interference to 0.5% of the DTV service population as a
rounding tolerance.  NAB/MSTV are concerned about the cumulative effect of several Class A stations. 
SBE suggests that a DTV station should be allowed to object if a Class A station would be the source of
unique (not masked) interference to any viewers in its authorized service area, although it agrees with use
of the 0.5% criteria for interference to allotted DTV facilities.  Media-Com Television, Inc. (Media-Com)
supports the DTV interference analysis procedure, but suggests that we should allow interference to 2% of
the population served by the DTV station to be considered de minimis, as we generally allow that amount
of interference to be caused by other DTV stations.  We are not persuaded that more than 0.5% interference
should be allowed.  Full-service NTSC stations are limited to that amount and the statute does not require
higher status for Class A stations in this regard.  Neither are we convinced that any one DTV station will be
subject to interference from so many Class A stations that the cumulative loss of DTV service would be
significant.  Finally, we note that the statute provides that Class A applicants also must protect the DTV
service areas provided in the DTV Table of Allotments and the DTV Table includes approximately 40
vacant noncommercial educational DTV allotments that must be protected.
          3.   Protection of LPTV and TV Translators
20.    Background.  The CBPA requires Class A stations to protect previously authorized LPTV and
low-power TV translator stations (license and/or construction permit), as well as previously filed
applications for these facilities.  Specifically, section (f)(7)(B) of the statute provides that the Commission
may not grant an application for a Class A license or modification of license unless the applicant shows that
the Class A station will not cause interference within the protected contour of any LPTV or low-power TV
translator station that was licensed, or for which a construction permit was issued, or for which a pending
application was filed, prior to the date the Class A application was filed.  In the Notice, we proposed to
require that Class A stations protect the LPTV and TV translator protected contours on the basis of the
standards given in Section 74.707 of the LPTV rules, i.e., on the basis of compliance with certain desired-
to-undesired signal strength ratios.  
21.    Decision.  We are adopting the proposal from the Notice.  Commenters generally supported this
proposal.  SBE did request that we clarify that the specified LPTV and TV translator protection rule
involves contour overlap prohibitions and not simply application of desired-to-undesired signal strength
ratios.  We will require protection pursuant to all provisions in Section 74.707 of the rules, which are based
on prohibited contour overlap.  For purposes of implementing Section (f)(7)(B) of the CBPA, we agree with
K Licensee, Inc. (K Licensee) that interference caused within the protected contour of a licensed LPTV or
TV translator station or that of a construction permit or pending application should not be counted against
an applicant for a Class A authorization if that interference is permitted by the LPTV rules, taking into
account the manner in which LPTV and TV translator stations are authorized.  The rules require new
LPTV stations to protect existing LPTV and TV translator stations within their defined protected
contours.  However, the rules do not prohibit new stations from receiving interference from existing
stations.  LPTV and TV translator stations may also enter into written agreements to accept interference
from other LPTV or TV translator stations.  As a result of these provisions, many LPTV stations or
proposed stations may be predicted to receive interference within their protected contours from earlier-
authorized stations.  We believe it would be inconsistent with the objectives of the CBPA to count such
permissible interference against applicants for Class A stations, nor should interference resulting from a
negotiated agreement be counted.  We are not permitting LPTV licensees to request facilities modifications
in their applications for initial Class A authorizations.  Therefore, any interference from existing LPTV
facilities within the protected contours of later authorized and proposed LPTV and TV translator facilities
is permitted by the LPTV rules and will be grandfathered for the purposes of  Section (f)(7)(B) of the
CBPA.
          4.   Land Mobile Radio Services and TV Channel 16
22.    Background.  Section (f)(7)(C) of the CBPA provides that the Commission may not grant a
Class A license or modification of license where the Class A station will cause interference within the
protected contour 80 miles from the geographic center of the areas listed in Sections 22.625(b)(1) or 90.303
of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R.  22.625(b)(1), 90.303) for frequencies in the 470-512 megahertz
band identified in sections 22.621 or 90.303 of our rules (47 C.F.R.  22.621, 90.303), or in the 482-488
megahertz band in New York.  This provision protects land mobile radio services, which have been
allocated the use of TV channels 14-20 in certain urban areas of the country, as well as Channel 16 in New
York City metropolitan area.  In the Notice, we proposed that these land mobile operations be protected by
Class A applicants in the manner prescribed in Section 74.709 of the LPTV rules.  
23.    We also sought comment on whether the requirement to protect channel 16 in the New York
metropolitan area applies to low power television station WEBR-LP, licensed to K Licensee, Inc. (K
Licensee) for New York City and discussed details of its history.  In view of a Senate colloquy between
Senators Burns, Moynihan and Hatch, and the terms of a condition on the grant of the waiver that permitted
the land mobile use of channel 16 in New York, we indicated that we were inclined to agree that station
WEBR-LP is excepted from the requirement to show interference protection to use of channel 16 in the
New York City metropolitan area.
24.    Decision.  With respect to general land mobile protection, we are adopting our proposal to use
the criteria in Section 74.709 of the rules.  This proposal was supported by the NY Police and no
commenters opposed it.  With respect to the Channel 16 New York City situation, the NY Police object
to the premise that there is no obligation for WEBR-LP, due to the waiver, to protect land mobile
operations, indicating that the Notice ignores the current practice between the member public safety
agencies and WEBR-LP to coordinate actions and ensure that neither party interferes with the other's
transmission.  K Licensee argues that the Commission must implement specific interference requirements
in a manner consistent with congressional intent and with sensitivity to the impact such implementation will
have on deserving stations such as WEBR-LP, the only free Korean-language licensee serving New York
City metropolitan area.  We believe that it is most consistent with the statutory scheme and with the
waiver granted for public safety land mobile use of Channel 16 in New York City that WEBR-LP and the
NY Police continue to cooperate to ensure that neither party interferes with the other's transmission on
Channel 16.  The parties have entered into a written agreement pursuant to which they will advise each
other at least 60 days in advance of any change, alteration, or modification in its transmission facilities that
may adversely affect or cause interference to the other party's communications system(s).  As requested
by both parties, we have included a copy of this agreement in the record of this proceeding, and will include
it in the record of any application filed by WEBR-LP to become a Class A television station.  We believe
that the current situation is satisfactory and that continued cooperation between the parties will permit
maximal use of the spectrum in New York City.
F.     Change Applications
25.    Background.  Section (f)(1)(E) of the CBPA provides for protection of a DTV station that has
been granted a construction permit to maximize or significantly enhance its digital television service area
and later files an application for a change in facilities that reduces its digital television service area.  In such
a case, the statute provides that the protected contour of the DTV station "shall be reduced in accordance
with such change modification."  In the Notice, we stated our belief that the protection of the reduced
coverage area would become effective upon grant of the application that requested the reduced facilities and
that, in these circumstances, Class A stations would no longer need to protect the service area produced by
the "replication" facilities established in the initial DTV Table of Allotments.  We stated our expectation
that few, if any, DTV stations would follow this course, and invited comment on our interpretation of this
provision.
26.    Decision.  In the event that a DTV station that has been granted a construction permit to
maximize or significantly enhance its digital television service area later files an application to reduce its
digital television service area, the protected contour of that station will be the reduced digital service area
as long as that area is not less than the area resulting from the "replication" facilities provided in the DTV
Table of Allotments. Where a DTV station chooses to operate with technical parameters less than those
allotted in DTV Table, we will require Class A stations to nonetheless protect the service area produced by
the "replication" facilities established in the Table.  We agree with MSTV/NAB that the service areas in the
DTV Table represent the minimum degree of interference protection that must be accorded by Class A
stations to full-service stations.  Section (f)(7)(A)(ii)(I) of the CBPA requires that Class A stations cause
no interference to the digital service areas provided in the Table.  
27.    ALTV argues that the Commission should distinguish between full-service stations that intend
to lower their coverage areas permanently, and those that file change applications to lower power on only
a temporary basis to, for example, avoid technical problems or meet short-term marketplace realities during
the DTV transition.  We will not adopt the ALTV proposal.  The CBPA itself does not draw a distinction
between a temporary and a permanent reduction in service area.  Moreover, as a practical matter, a station
given the option would be likely to characterize any reduction in service area as "temporary," if only to
preserve the value of the station even if larger facilities for the station are not contemplated in the future. 
We believe it is most consistent with the intent underlying section (f)(1)(E) of the statute, and with
Congress' goal of balancing the competing needs of DTV and Class A stations,  to require Class A stations
to protect only the reduced service area of full-service stations in the circumstances described by (f)(1)(E),
as long as those facilities are not less than the replication facilities provided in the DTV Table of
Allotments.
G.   Common Ownership

28.    Background.  The CBPA provides that no LPTV station "authorized as of the date of the
enactment of the [CBPA] may be disqualified for a Class A license based on common ownership with any
other medium of mass communication."  Thus, stations authorized as of November 29, 1999 may seek
Class A status without regard to the station owner's interest in any other media entity.  In the Notice, we
sought comment on the appropriate interpretation of this provision.  We asked whether the ownership
exemption confers a right to convert only, or whether it also confers a right to transfer the station regardless
of the buyer's cross media interests, and whether it insulates an owner from application of the common
ownership rules with respect to any new cross media ownership acquired after conversion to Class A.  We
tentatively concluded that no LPTV station, regardless of when authorized, should be disqualified from
Class A status based on common ownership with other media entities.
29.    Decision.  After review of the record, we will adopt our initial tentative conclusion and will not
impose any common ownership limitations on holders of the new Class A licenses.  We agree with the
commenters who argue that Congress intended that Class A stations be exempt from existing common
ownership requirements and that this exemption should apply when a license is subsequently transferred to
a buyer with other media interests.  As noted above, Congress directed that common ownership with any
other medium of mass communication will not disqualify a potential Class A licensee.  We believe that the
only logical outgrowth of Congress' language here is that the lack of common ownership rules would also
apply to transferred ownership. 
H.   Issuance of DTV Licenses to Class A, TV Translator, and LPTV Stations 

30.    Background.  We stated in the Notice that the CBPA provides that the Commission is not
required to issue an additional DTV license to a Class A station licensee or to a licensee of a TV
translator, but the Commission "shall accept a license application for such services proposing facilities
that will not cause interference to the service area of any other broadcast facility applied for, protected,
permitted, or authorized on the date of filing of the advanced television application."  
31.    We sought comment in the Notice on this provision and how to implement it.  We asked
whether this provision means that the Commission does not need to identify a paired DTV channel for each
Class A station or TV translator, but that the Commission should authorize a paired channel for DTV
operation if the Class A or TV translator station licensee identifies and applies for an acceptable channel. 
We noted that this interpretation might create an apparent inequity with respect to full-service permittees
and licensees that do not have a paired DTV channel because they received their initial station construction
permit after the April 3, 1997 date used to define eligibility for the initial paired DTV licenses.
32.    Decision.  As an initial matter, we note that Class A stations may convert their existing channel
to digital broadcasting at any time.  However, we conclude that the plain reading of the CBPA, as well as
the legislative history of the Act, does not require us to issue an additional license for DTV services to
Class A or TV translator licensees, but does require us to accept DTV applications from licensees of Class
A or TV translator stations that meet the interference protection requirements that are identified in the
statute. 
33.    Most commenters that address this issue agree with our interpretation of these requirements. 
For example, APTS notes that the statute merely requires that we "shall accept" a DTV license application
from such entities and does not require approval of the application, while Turnpike contends that LPTV
stations are converting from secondary to primary status and should have the option of applying for a digital
simulcast channel "just like the other television licensees in Part 73."  CBA and USAB argue that Class
A stations should be permitted to apply for a second channel for DTV at any time.  WB, however, argues
that we should not permit Class A stations to apply for a second DTV channel, but should limit them to
filing applications to convert from NTSC to DTV on existing channels. 
34.    As we stated in the Notice, there currently are a number of full-service permittees and licensees
who do not have a paired DTV channel because they received their construction permits after the cut-off
date for eligibility for the initial paired DTV licenses.  Some commenters contend that, if we decide to
award additional channels for DTV, we should give priority to such full-service licensees and permittees
who are currently precluded from applying for a paired DTV channel. WB, for example, suggests that any
additional channels should first be awarded to full-service licensees, and that we should apply to Class A
licensees the same technical and service rules as are applied to full-service licensees. 
35.    Although the statute requires us to accept Class A applications for additional DTV licenses, it
does not direct us to issue such licenses to Class A licensees.  We agree with MSTV and NAB that we
should exercise restraint with respect to issuing additional DTV licenses in order to preserve spectrum to
accommodate needs associated with the transition of full-service stations to digital service.  Moreover, we
find that the various issues concerning the means of issuing additional DTV licenses for Class A stations to
be outside the scope of this rulemaking.  We note that the transition to DTV is scheduled to end in 2006,
and that a number of issues regarding the transition are yet to be resolved in future DTV proceedings.  We
therefore defer matters regarding the issuance of additional DTV licenses for Class A stations to a future
rulemaking.
      I.  Interim Qualifications
      1.  Stations Operating Between 698 and 806 MHz 
10.    Background.  Section (f)(6)(A) of the CBPA provides that the Commission may not grant a
Class A license to an LPTV station for operation between 698 and 806 megahertz (television broadcast
channels 52   69).  Thus, only LPTV stations operating on channels in the core spectrum (television
broadcast channels 2 through 51) are eligible for Class A status.  That section also provides, however, that
the Commission shall provide to LPTV stations assigned to and temporarily operating between 698 and 806
megahertz the opportunity to meet the qualification requirements for a Class A license.  If a qualified Class
A applicant is assigned a channel within the core spectrum, the statute further provides that the Commission
shall issue a Class A license simultaneously with the assignment of the in-core channel.  
11.    We pointed out in the Notice that this provision does not address when a station operating
outside the core channels becomes eligible for contour protection.  We stated that we were  inclined to
provide protection to such stations only when the station is assigned a channel within the core spectrum, and
requested comment on this proposal.  We also requested comment on whether Class A status and contour
protection should commence with the grant of a construction permit on the in-core channel or a license to
cover construction.
12.    We also invited comment in the Notice on Section (f)(5) of the CBPA, which stipulates that the
provisions of the statute do not preempt or otherwise affect Section 337 of the Communications Act.  As
we stated in the Notice, Section 337 addresses two matters relevant to Class A television.  First, Section 337
involves the reallocation and licensing of TV channels 60-69, which, pursuant to Section (f)(6)(A) of the
CBPA, are not available to Class A stations.  Second, Section 337 contains certain provisions for LPTV
stations already authorized to operate on TV channels 60-69.  In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Budget
Act), Congress required that the Commission "seek to assure" that a qualifying LPTV station authorized
on a channel from channel 60 to channel 69 be assigned a channel below channel 60 to permit its continued
operation.  In the DTV proceeding, we amended our rules to permit all LPTV stations on channels 60 to
69 to file displacement relief applications at any time requesting a channel below channel 60, even where
there is no predicted or actual interference conflict. We have received more than 300 such displacement
applications from LPTV and TV translator stations operating on these channels.  These applications have
a higher priority than all other nondisplacement applications for LPTV and TV translators, regardless of
when the applications were filed.  Other LPTV and TV translator stations on channels 60 - 69 have so far
elected not to file displacement applications, but may do so at any time provided they protect the proposed
facilities of earlier-filed displacement applications.  The Commission has not selected channels for
qualifying LPTV stations; however, it has provided the opportunity for affected stations to seek channels
below channel 60 on a priority basis.  We believe this meets our obligation under Section 337 to assist
qualifying LPTV stations on channels 60-69.  
13.    In contrast, stations on channels 52-59 are not currently entitled to the presumption of
displacement extended to stations on channels 60-69, and instead are entitled to seek displacement relief
only where there is an actual or potential interference conflict, including a conflict with a DTV co-channel
allotment.  Operators on channels 52-59 nonetheless face displacement when channels 52-59 are reclaimed
at the end of the DTV transition, and will be barred from becoming Class A stations if they cannot secure
a replacement channel below channel 52.  We sought comment in the Notice on whether the presumption
of displacement should be extended to LPTV and TV translator stations authorized on channels 52 - 59,
giving these operators an immediate opportunity to seek replacement channels while such channels might
still be available.
14.    Decision.  We will extend the presumption of displacement to LPTV stations and TV translators
authorized on channels 52-59.  We will permit these stations to file displacement applications immediately
if they can locate a replacement channel within the core spectrum.  The majority of the commenters that
addressed this issue supported extending the presumption of displacement to these stations.  Many of
these stations would be barred from becoming Class A stations if they cannot secure a replacement channel
below channel 52. We believe it is most consistent with Congress' intent to provide qualified LPTV stations
the opportunity to obtain Class A status to permit such stations on channels 52-59 to seek a replacement
channel now on which they may apply for a Class A license.  Any displacement applications filed by LPTV
(Class A or non-Class A) or TV translators will receive equal treatment for processing purposes.
15.    We recognize that full-service NTSC broadcasters on channels 52-59 may also seek to relocate
to an in-core channel and such a proposal may conflict with a displacement application filed by an LPTV
station seeking to move from channels 52-59.  For the time being, these full-service stations may continue
to operate on their present channel and most of them have an in-core paired DTV channel allotment. 
Nevertheless, we do not want to grant a displacement application that might preclude a move to an in-core
channel without giving these broadcasters an opportunity to seek such a channel change.  The process for
the full-service station moving to an in-core channel involves filing a petition for rule making seeking to
amend the TV Table of Allotments.  The Commission invites comments on the proposal in a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making and based on the record, decides whether or not to make the proposed change in a
Report and Order.  Conflicting proposals, referred to as counterproposals, must be filed during the time
period for initial comments, so that an opportunity exists for comments on the counterproposal to be filed
during the time period allowed for reply comments.  In order to be considered in a channel-change
rulemaking proceeding, a conflicting displacement application from an LPTV station that has been
determined to be eligible for Class A status must be filed by the end of the initial comment filing period. 
Conflicting displacement applications filed after that date  will be dismissed.
16.    Where such a preclusive displacement application seeking to move from channels 52-59 to an
in-core channel is filed by an LPTV station eligible for Class A status before a full-service rulemaking
petition, we believe it is appropriate to allow a similar, limited opportunity for a conflicting proposal to be
filed.  Complete and acceptable displacement applications are announced in a Commission Public Notice
called a "Proposed Grant List."  We will identify any displacement applications filed by Class A eligible
stations in future Proposed Grant Lists.  Petitions for a channel change filed by a full-service NTSC licensee
or permittee must be filed not later than 30 days from the release of the Public Notice proposing grant of a
conflicting displacement application.  Conflicting TV rulemaking petitions filed after that date must protect
the Class A eligible LPTV station's displacement application.  Similarly, we will apply the same procedures
and time periods to other displacement applications filed by LPTV stations eligible for Class A status,
seeking to move from channels 60-69, or from one in-core channel to another to avoid DTV or new NTSC
interference.  
17.    We will require LPTV stations on channels 52-59 that are seeking Class A status to have filed
a certification of eligibility within the time frame established in the statute (i.e., by January 28, 2000). 
When a qualified LPTV station outside the core seeking Class A status locates an in-core channel, we will
require the station to file a Class A application simultaneously with its application for modification of
license to move to the in-core channel.  We will provide interference protection to such stations on the in-
core channel from the date of grant of a construction permit for the in-core channel.  As the CBPA prohibits
the award of Class A status to stations outside the core, we believe it would be inconsistent with the statute
to provide interference protection on a channel outside the core.  We believe it is appropriate to commence
contour protection with the award of a construction permit on the in-core channel, rather than a license to
cover construction, as these permittees will have already certified their eligibility for Class A status.  Unlike
other Class A applicants, we will not require LPTV licensees on out-of-core channels seeking Class A status
to file a Class A application within 6 months of the date of adoption of this order.  The CBPA provides that,
if a qualified applicant for a Class A license operating on an out-of-core channel locates an in-core channel,
the Commission "shall issue a Class A license simultaneously with the assignment of such channel."  The
statute does not impose a time limit on the filing of such applications.  Accordingly, we will not impose any
time limit on the filing of a Class A application by LPTV licensees operating on channels outside the core. 
However, we believe that, in most cases, it would be in the best interest of qualified LPTV stations
operating outside the core to try to locate an in-core channel now, as the core spectrum is becoming
increasingly crowded and it is likely to become increasingly difficult to locate an in-core channel in the
future.  
     2.   Channels Off-Limits
18.    Background.  Section (f)(6)(B) of the CBPA provides that the FCC may not grant a Class A
license to an LPTV station operating on any of the 175 additional channel allotments referenced in
paragraph 45 of the Commission's February 23, 1998 Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration
of the Sixth Report and Order in MM Docket 87-268.  In that Order, the Commission expanded the DTV
core spectrum to include all channels 2-51, and noted that this expansion would add approximately 175
additional channels for DTV stations and other new digital data services, many in top markets.  The CBPA
further requires that the Commission identify the channel, location and applicable technical parameters of
those 175 channels within 18 months after the date of enactment of the CBPA.  We stated in the Notice that
these additional 175 DTV allotments will be part of the spectrum reclaimed at the end of the transition
when existing stations end their dual channel analog TV/DTV operation and begin providing only DTV
service on a single channel.  Some stations will be continuing DTV operation on their DTV channel.  Other
stations will convert to DTV operation on their analog channel.  In either case, the channel on which these
stations discontinue operation may become available for other parties.  We stated our belief in the Notice
that the protection of these DTV allotments that will become available after the transition is effectively
provided now because either analog TV or DTV stations are currently authorized and protected on these
channels at these locations, and sought comment on our interpretation of this provision.  Alternatively, we
asked if we should interpret the CBPA to prohibit the authorization of Class A service on TV channels 2-6,
which were added to the permanent core spectrum in the DTV proceeding.
19.    Decision.  We continue to believe that the requirement of section (f)(6)(B) of the CBPA that we
protect the 175 channel allotments referenced in the Commission's Sixth Report and Order in the DTV
proceeding from Class A stations is effectively accomplished now because these channels are occupied by
existing NTSC or DTV allotments.  These channels will become available for other parties once full-power
stations discontinue operation on one of their paired channels at the end of the DTV transition. 
Commenters that addressed this issue agreed with this view.  Accordingly, we need not take further steps
at this time to protect these channels from Class A service, and need not adopt our alternative proposal of
prohibiting  the authorization of Class A service on television channels 2-6. 
J.   Class A Applications

          1.   Application Forms

20.    Background.  We are required, under the terms of the CBPA, to award Class A licenses within
30 days after receipt of acceptable applications.  In the Notice, we proposed to grant initial Class A status
as a modification of an existing LPTV station's license, and to limit those conversions to those stations with
no change in facilities.  We also proposed that applications be accepted if they met a "substantially
complete" standard.  We further proposed to require that LPTV stations seeking Class A status file FCC
Forms 302 and 301 for facilities modifi