WPC 2WBJZ]Courier3|j>x6X@`7X@J4/LJ_HP4_2000M_413_1HPLAS4.PRSx  @\2YX@ X0  #Xj\  P6G;XP#2TKXDCourierTimes New Roman"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdl?xxx,>x6X@`7X@ 7jC:,Xj\  P6G;XP ,<Ufx%2`7X@W 2BVJ Z]Courierl?xxx3|j2c K EK"i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNa݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingo0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldeddp+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Dateq X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟ2rs1t1u1DRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offr@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5s 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5tf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11uL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   2Еv1Lwn}xydlLEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14v 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentwK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedxN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeyB*d. 2zj{l|E}-ЙHIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscoredz V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins{u H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice| ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format}D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   2~8/8gX@INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice~:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macroz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle26[ʟ[%[[۠SMALLSmall TypestyleFINEFine TypestyleLARGELarge TypestyleEXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle2>[háXFVERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   1dfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO 2pl[Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  2q)|1ѭStyle 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO 2VCJQStyle 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advanced U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2KKK4UpdateInitial Codes for Update Module )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 "i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""A.SSxSSJR"RNOxxSxS8JSVSSSSS;88VVS++SSfSSxSc]]8VS;xxSxdS]ddq]^^^z0^88^^^zxzzzgg+E]S^/zU*FvggxxzzzzKggqU^^^zxxxxzzK|lr]iAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]c|YoSxJ^_^efx]ff|i{8SxfJffff88SSSS"i~'^:DTddDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDd||||DXp||dp||ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlD4lTDDD4DDDDDDdDd8|d|d|d|d|dX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDddllXp8pHpDp@p8dtdddd|L|L|LdLdLdLllpHp8pTddddddplpLpLpLdpDddLpDpdx4ddC,CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdDDxddzHxxHkddDpd<"dxtldxxd"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN8HxI yOq ԍ KUPN comments, p. 1.> Some of these parties argue that using the May 13, 1996, data base would be particularly unfair to stations that filed their application for modification before the date of  X 0adoption of the Sixth Further Notice.e9X I yO ԍ Parties that support basing replication on a station's new service area if the application for modification  yO was filed before adoption of the Sixth Further Notice include Grant, the Joint Broadcasters, KUPNTV, the Modifiers, Sonshine Family TV Corporation (Sonshine), UCI, and VCY America.e In this regard, UCI states that if we use the May 13, 1996, data base as the standard against which service replication will be measured, it will not receive digital replication capability for any of the NTSC contours for which it has applied since 1994, even though the applications for the changes to achieve these new contours were  X 0filed prior to the adoption of the Sixth Further Notice.=: ( I yO ԍ UCI comments, p. 4.= Costa argues that there is no reason why viewers should suffer NTSC or DTV service losses due to the selection of a cutoff date  X0after a station has filed an application for facilities change.?; I yO ԍ Costa comments, p. 3.? These parties submit that at a minimum we should include grants of applications for facility changes that were filed prior to  Xb0the Sixth Further Notice in the data base used to determine existing service areas.  X40q25. A number of broadcasters disagree with our proposal to base DTV service areas  X0on replication of the service areas of existing stations. <H I yO" ԍ Parties opposing the service replication plan include BET Holdings (BET), Blade Communications, Inc. (Blade), Cannell Cleveland, L.P. (Cannell), DeSoto Broadcasting, Inc. (DeSoto), Grant Broadcasting Group (Grant), KLGTTV, LeSea, Lewis Broadcasting (Lewis), Sunbelt Communications Company (Sunbelt), TV52, Inc. (TV52), Wabash Valley Broadcasting Corporation (Wabash), the Western New York Public Broadcasting Association, and WLEXTV and Word Broad Broadcasting Network (WBN).  These parties, who represent primarily the interests of existing UHF stations, generally express concern that the service replication plan would perpetuate the existing competitive disparities between UHF and VHF"<,-(-(ZZP" stations. For example, Blade, DeSoto and Grant submit that limiting DTV coverage to an area comparable to a station's existing NTSC coverage would prolong inequities that result from the more favorable propagation characteristics of VHF signals compared to UHF  X0signals.l=I yO4 ԍ Blade comments, p. 4; DeSoto comments, p. 2; Grant comments, p. 3.l In statements generally representative of this group, Grant argues that with the implementation of DTV service, we have the opportunity to remove these inequities. It states that such action would serve not only UHF broadcasters, but also the public interest in that it would result in a wider variety of free television choices for viewers. DeSoto and WBN are concerned that the strategy of allotting first and maximizing later would provide no guarantee,  XH0or reasonable expectation, that a station will be able to maximize its service area.@>HXI yOQ ԍ DeSoto comments, p. 3.@ BET also submits that if we equalize service areas, new entrants that acquire spectrum through  X 0acquisition will be able to more effectively enter the DTV market.>? I yO ԍ BET comments, p. 10.>  X 0q26. Most of the broadcasters opposing the service replication approach ask that we ensure that stations in a market have comparable technical facilities. For example, Cannell argues that all UHF stations in a market should be allowed the same maximum power, so long as this would not result in interference. Grant and DeSoto submit that if we decide to base DTV service areas on service replication, then we should build in flexibility to permit stations with smaller service areas to maximize their coverage once the transition to and development  Xb0of DTV is completed.V@bxI yO ԍ DeSoto comments, p. 3; Grant comments, p. 3.V Aries Telecommunications Corporation (Aries), Lewis, and TV52 support our earlier proposal to maximize the service areas of all DTV stations as a means to resolve the current disparities between stations, particularly with respect to the inequalities that  X0currently exist between VHF and UHF stations.kAI yO ԍ Aries comments, p. 2; Lewis comments, p. 3; TV52 comments, p. 2.k Aries and Lewis also state that broadcasters would be motivated to construct DTV facilities if they perceive an opportunity to improve an inferior market position.  X0q27. The Community Broadcasters Association (CBA) argues that we should not  X0attempt to replicate the full service areas of existing stations.=BI yO! ԍ CBA comments, p. 8.= It is concerned that replication of stations' existing service areas would result in greater impact on LPTV and TV translator stations. CBA observes that accommodating both full power and low power television will be most difficult during the transition, when the demand for broadcast spectrum will be highest. It therefore recommends an alternative approach under which the second channels would only replicate stations' existing Grade A contours. CBA submits that replication of a station's"7( B,-(-(ZZ" Grade A contour would provide service to all or nearly all of the viewers in the its market area. Under CBA's approach, the second channels would be "loaner" channels for interim DTV operations; stations would revert back to their existing channels at the end of the transition, when it should be easier to accommodate both full power and low power stations.  X0q28. The Joint Broadcasters, on the other hand, continue to oppose the Commission's earlier proposal to allot DTV channels using an approach that maximizes the service areas of  X_0all DTV stations.QC_I yO ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, pp. 1213.Q They state that such an approach would disenfranchise significant numbers of viewers of the larger NTSC stations and would actually have the effect of reducing the service areas of a majority of the nation's television stations. The Joint Broadcasters argue that these considerations would result in a disincentive for broadcasters to implement DTV service, rather than roll out service as quickly as possible.  X 0q29. Decision. We continue to believe that our service replication proposal, with some modifications, is the appropriate approach for implementation of DTV. We believe that providing DTV allotments that replicate the service areas of existing stations offers important benefits for both viewers and broadcasters. This approach will ensure that broadcasters have the ability to reach the audiences that they now serve and that viewers have access to the stations that they can now receive overtheair. At the same time, we recognize, as pointed out by many of the commenting parties, that the service replication approach proposed by the  X40broadcast community and presented in the Sixth Further Notice could lead to increased disparities among stations. The basic compromise plan set forth in the reply comments of AAPTS, the Broadcasters Caucus and others, addresses many of these concerns. We believe that many aspects of the compromise would be useful in developing a more equitable service replication approach.  X0q30. In considering the DTV power issue, we believe that it is important to adopt an approach that provides for a high degree of service replication by all stations, while at the same time ensuring that all stations are able to provide DTV service competitively within their respective markets. We therefore believe that it is appropriate to develop the DTV Table  XN0based on a minimum power level of 50 kW and a maximum power level of 1000 kW.DNXI yOW ԍ These minimum and maximum power levels are for allotment purposes only for DTV facilities on UHF frequencies. The minimum DTV levels for VHF facilities are: 1 kW for lower VHF channels and 3.2 kW for upper VHF channels. All power levels specified in the DTV Table are the maximum permitted ERP taking into account existing antenna patterns. Actual service and operating requirements for DTV stations are addressed in  yOw" the Fifth Report and Order in this proceeding.  We find that a 50 kW minimum power level will ensure that stations have a sufficient service area to compete effectively in the provision of DTV services and is consistent with the maximization concept supported by the industry. We further believe that this minimum power approach, along with maximization, will provide more opportunities for stations, in particular existing UHF stations, to provide larger DTV service areas than the minimum service area"D,-(-(ZZ!" approach suggested by the Joint Broadcasters and the Broadcasters Caucus. We also expect that the results of the broadcasters' studies will show that 1000 kW is sufficient to provide a very high degree of service replication for almost all stations. Accordingly, we believe that 1000 kW is an appropriate maximum power level for use in development of the DTV Table. We also believe that the 1000 kW power limit may help to reduce the impact on low power TV stations and poses less potential for interference among full service stations. This power level will also allow us to provide a more equitable distribution of opportunities for maximization of service areas to full service DTV stations of all sizes. Furthermore, as indicated below, we are considering whether to maintain use of the lower VHF channels for DTV service. If service replication proves difficult for existing VHF stations operating on UHF channels with 1000 kW, those stations may have the option to revert to their VHF channels, if such channels prove feasible for DTV operation. In addition, if future field testing and studies show that higher power is needed to provide a satisfactory level of replication or changes in the treatment of interference are warranted, we will be able to evaluate those results at our planned twoyear review and consider whether adjustments are  X 0needed.E  I yO  ԍ See Fifth Report and Order for description of our twoyear review. We note that in ex parte submissions  yO Viacom, et alia, recommend that we consider an upward adjustment of the minimum DTV power level based on  yO modification of permissible interference levels. See letter dated March 26, 1997, to the Honorable Reed E. Hundt, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. In order to allow broadcasters to study this matter, we will entertain requests for a limited number of stations to experiment at power levels higher than those specified for individual allotments in the DTV Table.  XK0q31. With regard to permitting stations to maximize or increase their service areas by operating with additional power or higher antennas than specified in the DTV Table, we agree that stations should be able to maximize their facilities provided that no new interference is  X0caused to other stations.5FI yOg ԍ In this regard, we would entertain requests for increases in power by DTV stations above the 1000 kW level where such additional power would be required to provide service to the station's Grade B contour and would not result in additional interference. For stations with DTV power below 1000 kW, we would entertain requests for additional power to allow them to serve an area up to the Grade B contour of the largest station in the market provided that such increases in power would not result in additional interference.5 We therefore will permit stations to request an increase in their operating power and/or height of antenna from that specified in the DTV Table, up to the maximum permissible limits on DTV power and antenna height set forth below or up to that needed to provide the same geographic coverage as the largest station within their market. Such requests must be accompanied by a technical showing that the increase would not result in new interference or statements agreeing to the change from any cochannel or adjacent  X|0channel stations that might be affected.G|` I yO$ ԍ The maximum permissible power and antenna combinations are discussed in section VIIA, below. These limits are set forth in Section 73.622(f) of the rules in Appendix E. If such requests are approved by the Commission, the larger service area resulting from an authorized power or antenna height increase will be protected in the same manner as the initial replicated service area."N G,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X0ԙq32. For purposes of service replication, the service or coverage area of a DTV allotment is the predicted noiselimited service area, contained within the Grade B contour of the NTSC station associated with that allotment, less any area where interference from other  X0DTV or NTSC operations may occur.HI yO4 ԍ The definition of the Grade B contour of an NTSC station is set forth in  73.683 of the rules, 47 CFR 73.683. DTV service areas are calculated using the parameters specified in the DTV Table, including maximum ERP, HAAT, and the actual antenna patterns of the associated NTSC stations. This definition of service area shall also be used for purposes of determining whether a "maximization" of facilities or other type of  X_0modification causes interference to a DTV allotment.I_ I yO0 ԍ Where a modification or maximization of the values for an individual allotment contained in the TV Table adopted herein is approved, the new service area resulting from such modification or maximization beyond the associated station's Grade B contour shall be protected. The new service area shall be calculated in  yO accordance with the procedures specified in the Fifth Report and Order. This procedure shall also be used for determining the service areas of TV stations that are provided larger service areas through the minimum power level provisions in the TV Table. q  X10q 33. With respect to comments requesting that we update the May 13, 1996,  X 0engineering data base, we concur and, as stated previously, the Table included in the Sixth  X 0Further Notice was a draft. It has always been our intention to use the most current station data available in developing the DTV Table. Accordingly, the DTV Table of Allotments  X 0adopted herein is based on a data base that is current as April 3, 1997.cJ I yO ԍ See Sixth Further Notice, at paras. 2 and 88.c This data base includes new station parameters corresponding to modifications of facilities granted to date, and to the extent possible, provides for replication of modified facilities that were granted on  X0a conditional basis. As discussed in the Fifth Report and Order, broadcasters will be allowed to begin DTV operations at power levels less than those needed for achieving full service area  Xb0replication. That is, broadcasters will be allowed to operate at power levels lower than those specified for their operation in the DTV Table. This will afford them an opportunity to increase their power over time and thereby "grow into" the power level needed for full service area replication, as specified in the DTV Table. We plan to review this policy two years after the adoption of this Report and Order. "( J,-(-(ZZ"  X0C. Spectrum for DTV  X0q!34. In the Sixth Further Notice, we stated that the primary goal of this proceeding is to ensure that the implementation of DTV is accomplished in a manner that serves the public interest. We also stated that it is important to provide the new digital TV stations with the spectrum that is the most appropriate and technically suitable for their operation. In addition, we stated that given our obligation to manage the spectrum efficiently in the public interest and the increased number of stations that the TV spectrum can accommodate, we believe it is important that the recovery of spectrum that is not needed for DTV continue to be a key component of its implementation of DTV service. In this regard, we stated that we remain committed to the recovery of the channels temporarily assigned for the transition and to ensuring that the spectrum is used efficiently.  X 0q"35. We stated that believe that an approach that uses portions of both the VHF and UHF TV spectrum for DTV service appears desirable. Based on studies by our staff in developing DTV allotments, we indicated that a core region of 270 MHz between channels 7 and 51 may be the most appropriate location for DTV broadcasting; that this region would be sufficient to accommodate all existing broadcasters; and that it would provide additional DTV frequencies for new entrants. We therefore asked for comment on two spectrum plans. Under the first, our "core spectrum" option, all future digital TV service would be located in a core region of the existing VHF and UHF broadcast spectrum, namely the spectrum at VHF  X0channels 7 to 13 (174216 MHz), and the spectrum at UHF channels 1451 (470698 MHz).|K I yO ԍ These bands correspond to the existing TV channels between VHF channel 7 and UHF channel 51. TV channel 37 (608614 MHz) is currently used for radio astronomy research. In order to protect sensitive radio astronomy operations, TV Channel 37 currently is not used for NTSC broadcast television and also would not be used for DTV service.| Figures 1 and 2 below show the existing NTSC television channels and the proposed spectrum to be used for digital television: \  Figure 1 Current NTSC TV Channels y!t@!@!Lddatvfcht5ty XK,-(-(ZZ 3Lx!{!A%!l@!nt 4DocX yAn0 0 Lddatv3.wmfhnyQ  Figure 2 Proposed DTV Spectrum (Shaded Areas)  XH0q#36. Under this core spectrum plan, we would attempt to provide all existing broadcasters with access to a 6 MHz channel for digital broadcasting within the core digital  X 0TV spectrum, i.e., channels 7 to 51. Because of the limited availability of spectrum and the need to accommodate all existing facilities with minimal interference among stations, however, during the transition some broadcasters would be provided DTV channels outside of this area. These broadcasters would have to move their DTV operations to a channel in the core spectrum when one became available. Broadcasters whose existing NTSC channels were in the core spectrum could move their DTV operations to their NTSC channel at some time in the future. Broadcasters whose DTV transition channel and existing NTSC channel were both outside of the core area could obtain a new DTV channel when channels in the core spectrum are recovered.  X40q$37. We also indicated that this plan would allow the spectrum outside the core region to be recovered without a full channel repacking that would force many broadcasters to move to new channels twice. Specifically, this option would permit the eventual recovery of 138 MHz of spectrum nationwide. This spectrum would be obtained from the lower VHF  X0channels, i.e., channels 2-6 (54-72 MHz and 76-88 MHz), and upper UHF channels, i.e., 52-69 (698-806 MHz). We observed that one advantage of this option was that it could facilitate the early recovery of a portion of the TV spectrum. For example, we stated that it may be possible to recover 60 MHz of spectrum almost immediately from the band 746-806  X|0MHz, i.e., UHF channels 60-69, while protecting the relatively few full-service analog and digital broadcasters in that spectrum. In this regard, we noted that only 97 of the almost 1600 television licensees operate on channels 6069. In the draft DTV Table of Allotments  X70included with the Sixth Further Notice, we attempted to minimize the number of DTV  X 0channels that would be located on channels 60-69.L I yO ԍ There are also a number of LPTV and TV translator stations that operate on a secondary basis on these channels. The draft DTV Table was based on a "core spectrum" design that minimized but that did not eliminate -- digital allotments at channels 60-69. Where necessary to avoid undesirable interference, the draft Table used channels 60-69. The draft Table did so roughly 30 times. X! L,-(-(ZZ"3Lh e!M Al0 hnt 4DocX  X0q%38. We also requested comment on the alternative spectrum allotment/assignment plan for DTV service suggested by MSTV. The plan suggested by MSTV was based on principles that are similar to our proposals. That is, the MSTV preliminary Table was based on full accommodation of all broadcasters, attempts to provide stations with DTV coverage comparable to their existing NTSC coverage, and uses service replication to assign DTV channels. The principle difference between our draft DTV Table and MSTV's preliminary Table was with regard to the use of spectrum. While the two approaches use both VHF and UHF channels, the MSTV proposed approach does not attempt to concentrate all DTV  XH0operations within a core area of the spectrum.DM@HI yO ԍ The MSTV proposal also contains a number of other differences. One difference, for example, is in the manner in which noncommercial vacant allotments are treated. MSTV did not consider commercial vacant allotments it stated that in most cases vacant allotments would have to be eliminated. It did, however, attempt to provide a replacement NTSC and DTV channel for all noncommercial vacant allotments. It was successful in finding a replacement NTSC channel for noncommercial vacant allotments in about twothirds of all cases. MSTV was also successful in finding a replacement DTV channel in all but one case. The actual channels for these vacant allotments are not shown on the draft Table submitted by MSTV. LPTV and TV translator stations were not considered in the MSTV Table.D Under this alternative approach, each broadcaster would be provided with a 6 MHz DTV channel without preference to any specific channels. Since all channels would be available, such an approach could theoretically provide for some degree of improved service area replication and interference performance. We also observed that such an approach might also have less impact on low power TV and TV translator stations. On the other hand, we noted that there were disadvantages with this plan. For example, this option would place more DTV stations on channels that are less desirable for broadcast operations; the MSTV Table included over 350 allotments on channels 60 and  X0above.dNI yO ԍ This represents over 20 percent of the new DTV allotments.d We requested comment with regard to these two options. Commenting parties were also invited to address whether the different plans would have different effects on specific segments of the broadcasting industry such LPTV and TV translator stations and the emerging networks.  X0q&39. We also requested comment on specific issues relating to the "core area" option. We asked that comments address whether our proposed choice of the spectrum for the core area was appropriate and whether there are any other considerations relating to this choice that should be addressed. In particular, we requested comment on our tentative conclusion that the upper UHF frequencies are less desirable for broadcasting purposes and more appropriate for other uses. Similarly, we requested comment on our assessment that VHF channels 26 are less suitable for digital broadcasting because of high levels of noise.  Xe0q'40. We further requested comment on what mechanisms and criteria we should use to determine the channel that will become the permanent DTV spectrum for each existing station. We tentatively proposed to allow broadcasters with both NTSC and DTV frequencies in the core DTV spectrum to choose one of those channels for their permanent DTV" ` N,-(-(ZZ@" spectrum. Under this plan, broadcasters would be required to make their spectrum choices  X0within a specific period of time, e.g., three to five years, after the implementation of DTV service begins. Once these choices were made, the Commission would identify new DTV allotments that would be available for relocation of stations initially operating on frequencies outside the core area or for new DTV assignments.  Xv0q(41. We requested comment on whether we should adopt special transition provisions for broadcasters with NTSC channels or DTV allotments outside the core area. For example, where such a broadcaster's existing NTSC channel is outside the core should we allow the broadcaster to cease NTSC operation and permit early transition to a DTV channel in the core? In addition, where a broadcaster's existing NTSC channel is in the core and its DTV allotment is outside the core, we asked whether we should allow the broadcaster to convert its NTSC channel to DTV operation, rather than activate its "temporary" outofcore DTV allotment. Finally, where a broadcasters' existing NTSC channel and DTV allotment are both outside the core area, we asked for comment on whether we should allow such broadcasters to wait to begin DTV operations until spectrum becomes available in the core area? This would allow some broadcasters to avoid making a second transition to convert to DTV. We specifically ask whether the above special transition approaches should apply to broadcasters  Xb0with NTSC or DTV frequencies on channels 6069.]ObI yO ԍ Cf. Fourth Further Notice, at para. 60.]  X40 q)42. In considering the spectrum issues relating to DTV implementation, we also observed that digital licensees may be willing to temporarily reduce the power of their digital signals to avoid interference to analog signals. We proposed to permit such agreements, including those that involve compensation. In addition, we noted that in some cases interference to NTSC stations can be minimized or eliminated by increasing the transmitter power or antenna height of the affected NTSC station. We proposed to permit such changes  X0provided that they do not cause more than de minimis interference to neighboring DTV operations, and we proposed to permit agreements including compensation under which a DTV licensee would temporarily agree to accept a slightly elevated level of interference so that reception of an NTSC station is improved.  X90q*43. Comments. Most parties with broadcasting interests oppose proposals that would reduce the spectrum that is available for television broadcast purposes. These parties argue that no spectrum should be recovered prior to the end of the transition to DTV service. They argue that using all the channels without preference will provide increased flexibility for DTV implementation and mitigate interference and service area concerns. Parties representing LPTV and TV translator interests state that using all the spectrum would minimize the impact of DTV on their operations. The public safety community and most other land mobile interests, on the other hand, support the core approach and argue that spectrum recovery is needed to meet important communications needs, such as public safety. "j$XO,-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ X0q+44. The Joint Broadcasters, in their comments, oppose the core spectrum approach.  X0They submit that we should adopt their Modified Table, subject to further adjustments.\PI yOb ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, pp. 4243, and 4647.\ They state that their Modified Table demonstrates that use of the full television band reduces interference to existing NTSC and to new DTV stations and improves opportunities for  X0replication and maximization.fQ@XI yO ԍ To provide a basis for comparing our proposed spectrum plan with their full spectrum approach, the Joint Broadcasters used the draft DTV Table to create a "Baseline Table" that incorporates the core spectrum plan and their recommendations for modifying the assumptions/methodology used in allotting channels. The Joint Broadcasters' used the May 13, 1996, data base used in generating their Baseline Table. They did not update or otherwise make corrections to that data base. Joint Broadcasters comments, pp. 2324. The Joint Broadcasters submit that, under their Baseline Table, new interference to NTSC service and interference to DTV service would be reduced and that a slightly smaller number of stations would receive a DTV channel that would achieve 95% or better replication. Joint Broadcasters comments, pp. 2223.f The Joint Broadcasters argue that a channel plan that uses that entire band will provide for more flexibility during the transition to DTV. They state that experience is needed to identify the optimal spectrum into which DTV stations may be re X_0packed, thereby vacating contiguous spectrum for other uses.LR_` I yOp ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 7.L They also argue that the core  XH0approach would result in increased interference and would impact service replication.oS H I yO ԍ The Joint Broadcasters base their comparison on the differences between their Modified Table and a Baseline Table that is a modified version of the draft DTV Table that incorporates the Joint Broadcasters recommendations for changes in the technical methodology used in making allotments. Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 26.o They assert that the core approach would increase new interference to NTSC by 18%, and that  X 0interference to DTV service would be 28% less under a full band plan.Tx I yO ԍ The Joint Broadcasters state that in determining the significance of improvements from one alternative DTV Table to another, it is important to settle on the method for comparing interference and coverage data. They recommend the method used by the Advisory Committee to evaluate competing DTV transmission systems. Under this method, interference performance is compared relative to how each alternative measures up against an ideal overall plan that would achieve 100% replication of NTSC service and create no new interference to NTSC service. Thus, if plan X creates 2% new interference, and plan Y creates 1% new interference, the difference between plans is 100%, not 1%. Joint Broadcasters comments, p.25. In addition, they claim that under their plan, 95% of stations would achieve 95% replication or better as compared to 91% of stations achieving 95% replication under a core approach. They argue that these service differences are important and contend that the Commission has held that the loss of service to even a relatively few viewers has been definitive in past relocation,  X 0deintermixture and maximum spacing decisions.QU I yOp$ ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, pp. 2831.Q  Xy0q,45. The Joint Broadcasters also argue that eliminating the core and spectrum recovery"yU,-(-(ZZ"  X0approaches would lessen the impact LPTV and TV translator stations.?VI yOy ԍ Id., pp. 2728.? They state that while there is not enough spectrum to preserve all existing low power stations, their approach would displace fewer LPTV and TV translator stations than the proposed core approach. They estimate that approximately 20% of all low power stations would be displaced under their Baseline Table and that an additional 16% would be displaced if channels 6069 were recovered and made available for other uses during the transition. The Joint Broadcasters submit that they worked with the low power community in constructing their Modified Table, and include with their comments a list of the LPTV and TV translator stations that they  XH0believe would be displaced.?WHXI yOQ ԍ Id., pp. 3334.?  X 0q-46. The Joint Broadcasters also contend that the selection of permanent channels for  X 0DTV is premature.;X I yO ԍ Id., p. 35.; They argue that excluding channels 26 from the ultimate DTV spectrum is particularly problematic. They argue that in the absence of evidence that the lower VHF band is unsuitable for DTV operation, it is unwise and could be extremely disruptive to inform stations operating on the lower VHF channels long among the most desirable for their longer propagation range and lower power requirements that they will  X0have to abandon their facilities at the end of the transition.?YxI yO ԍ Id., pp. 3637.? They also argue that their modified full band approach would provide many stations with the opportunity to increase  Xb0their service areas beyond their NTSC service area.;ZbI yO ԍ Id., p. 40.; They argue that the benefits of the core spectrum approach are speculative and uncertain and that their approach would result in the eventual return of essentially the same amount of spectrum. They further argue that the assumed economic benefits of the core approach and spectrum recovery proposals have been greatly overrated and contend that the proposed early auction of segments of channels 6069  X0would earn far less than a later auction of contiguous spectrum.G[XI yO8 ԍ Broadcasters contend that the amount of useable spectrum that would be available for relocation under our proposed approach is about the same small amount as that which would be available under their Modified Table. They submit that the buffer zones needed to protect the 97 incumbent NTSC stations and the 51 DTV stations overlap substantially with the zones needed to protect the 139 DTV stations their Modified Table would create. (pp. 4041) Broadcasters submit that the potential value of the spectrum that would be available for reallocation is vastly reduced by its location (rural) and fragmentation (approximately 12 MHz blocks). Broadcasters also include with their comments a report by Dr. Jerry Hausman of MIT that indicates that the early recovery of smaller amounts of noncontiguous spectrum is likely to be a less economically efficient solution than later recovery of larger blocks of contiguous spectrum. Using data collected from the PCS spectrum auctions, Dr. Hausman concludes that the government could earn 2.310.6 times more revenue (on a net present value basis) by waiting 15 years to auction channels 6069 in a cleared spectrum block. He also calculates the consumer"'Z,-(-(&" value lost to increased interference that would result from the core channel approach. Using a Boston station as the basis for his analysis, Dr. Hausman concludes that the loss in consumer value alone is between 3.5 and 4.7 timers higher than the revenue that the Commission would raise in an early auction of the spectrum.G "[,-(-(ZZ0"Ԍ X0ԙq.47. Other broadcasting parties expressed similar views. AAPTS, for example, states  X0that the full broadcast band should be used for DTV during the transition period.D\I yO ԍ AAPTS comments, pp. 1215.D It states that such an approach will afford more opportunities for coverage maximization and will reduce the adverse impact of DTV allotments on noncommercial translators. ChrisCraft/United Group (ChrisCraft) recommends that we maintain maximum flexibility for  X0modifying the initial allotments.H]xI yO ԍ ChrisCraft comments, pp. 67.H To this end, it argues that we should not adopt the core spectrum proposal. Similarly, Freedom Communications, Inc. (Freedom) believes that the full amount of spectrum currently allocated for TV should continue to be available in the future,  XH0particularly in the transition period.A^HI yO ԍ Freedom comments, p. 3.A KARKTV, Inc., opposes the core spectrum proposal.@_HI yO ԍ KARK comments, p. 13.@ It argues that because the DTV has not been thoroughly tested, broadcasters will need flexibility to work out allotment problems during the transition and for a considerable period thereafter. It also contends that there has been no immediate demand for more frequencies by other services demonstrated.  X 0q/48. Harris Corporation (Harris), a manufacturer of television transmitters, states that it is important to maintain flexibility during the DTV implementation stage by utilizing the full  X0television spectrum for DTV allotment purposes.@`( I yOi ԍ Harris comments, p. 3.@ Similarly, AFCCE recommends that we  Xy0retain the entire UHF TV spectrum until DTV interference issues are resolved.@ay I yO ԍ AFCCE comments, p. 16.@ Thomas C. Smith believes that our DTV spectrum plan should consider the future growth of broadcast television, the need for additional full service stations and the future of secondary TV  X40translators and low power TV stations.?b4H I yO-! ԍ Smith comments, p. 2.? He is concerned that the overriding consideration in this proceeding is to raise revenue for the U.S. Treasury, rather than the technical and growth needs of the existing industry.  X0q049. National Broadcasting Company (NBC) submits that a critical element in maintaining the flexibility to make changes to the DTV Table is not to arrive at a premature"b,-(-(ZZ0"  X0conclusion as to which parts of the spectrum may be best for DTV operation.=cI yOy ԍ NBC comments, p. 2.= It states that, for example, it believes that the low band VHF channels are entirely suitable to carry DTV signals. It states that the advantages of longer range propagation with significantly lower power compensate for the characteristics of the lowband VHF frequencies that can impair DTV service.  Xv0q150. Several other parties also argue that the low VHF channels should continue to be available for future DTV operations. DLR, for example, urges that we retain the low VHF  XH0channels for TV use.=dHXI yOQ ԍ DLR comments, p. 6.= It disagrees with our initial assessment that the low VHF channels are less suitable for DTV service because of high levels of atmospheric and manmade noise. It submits that the DTV field tests performed on channel 6 at Charlotte, NC, while limited in sample size and interference experienced, indicate that DTV service was substantially better than NTSC service in the presence of impulse noise. Citadel Communications Co., Ltd. (Citadel) proposes that VHF channels 2 to 6 be retained and that stations currently licensed on those channels be permitted to return to those channel locations for final DTV operations. It believes that the various technical penalties of operating there (leaky power lines, ignition noise, and educational FM interference) deserve more study before the band is discarded for  Xy0DTV.HeyI yO ԍ Citadel comments, pp. 2 and 5.H  XK0q251. Silver King Communications, Inc. (Silver King) states that our plan for early recovery of channels 6069 would create additional interference, impede the maximization and modification of NTSC and DTV facilities, and give TV receiver manufacturers an incentive to  X0omit channels 6069 from new TV sets.ZfxI yO/ ԍ Silver King comments, pp. 36 and summary, p. 1.Z It states that this would unfairly and uniquely limit the ability of Silver King, with eight major market stations on channels between 60 and 69, to compete in the NTSC and DTV marketplaces. Silver King states that new service providers should be required to compensate broadcasters for the cost of relocating their DTV channels to the core spectrum area. Telemundo Group, Inc. (Telemundo) and UCI argue that we should reject the core spectrum plan and retain the current broadcast spectrum. Telemundo is concerned that as spectrum outside the core is recovered for other uses, the noncore channels  Xe0will become subject to increasing levels of interference.DgeI yO# ԍ Telemundo comments, p. 20.D It also argues that TV set manufacturers may stop building receivers that tune channels outside of the core spectrum. UCI argues that the proposals for mitigating the impact on low power stations will have little impact if an artificial contraction of the broadcast spectrum, as would occur under our core" g,-(-(ZZ"  X0spectrum plan, leaves no digital or replacement channels available for LPTV licensees.=hI yOy ԍ UCI comments, p. 8.= Pappas Telecasting Companies (Pappas) submits that the benefits that might accrue from auctioning spectrum from channels 6069 before the completion of the transition to DTV are at best speculative and states that this spectrum could be worth significantly more if it were to be auctioned as a cleared block.  Xv0q352. WB Television Network (WB) states that the core plan would reduce the number  X_0of channels that are available for new TV stations and thereby impact new networks.?i_XI yOh ԍ WB comments, pp. 56.? Rather than adopt the core spectrum option, WB urges that we delay making any decision about the precise amount of spectrum to be recovered until after the transition to DTV is complete and after the pending applications and rule making proceedings for new NTSC stations have been acted on. q  X 0q453. Parties with interests in low power operations, both LPTV and translators, are generally concerned that the core approach and channel 6069 spectrum recovery efforts would result in additional impact to their operations. Acadiana Cable Advertising, Inc. (Acadiana), for example, opposes the core spectrum approach and the plan for early recovery  Xy0of channels 6069.IjyI yO ԍ Acadiana comments, pp. 2 and 4.I It argues that shrinking the available spectrum would effectively eliminate LPTV and TV translator stations and would result in loss of program diversity. Apogee Broadcasting Corp. (Apogee) submits that our proposed core spectrum plan makes  X40finding a replacement channel more difficult.Gk4xI yO] ԍ Apogee comments, pp. 1 and 3.G Apogee acknowledges that eventual auctioning of unused spectrum would offer taxpayers a financial benefit, but urges that any such action be deferred until the end of the transition. q  X0q554. The Community Broadcasters Association (CBA) argues that we should postpone any spectrum reallocation until more is known about the transition process. CBA states that channels 6069 are more heavily populated by LPTV and translators than full power  X0stations.BlI yOL! ԍ CBA comments, pp. 1011.B The National Translator Association (NTA) submits that all the TV spectrum  X|0should be retained until all stations are converted to digital.=m|I yO# ԍ NTA comments, p. 4.= It argues that it would be unfair to people in rural areas to require translator operations to move again as they have done from above channel 69. F. A. Bibeau & Associates (Bibeau) states that in the Southwest area of the U.S., especially the Mountain States, there are few full power TV stations and a greater"7( m,-(-(ZZ"  X0portion of the population receive their only television service by translators.CnI yOy ԍ Bibeau comments, pp. 12.C It submits that channels 6069 are needed for TV translators to provide service to these unserved areas. Blue Mountain Translator District (Blue Mountain) states that the TV spectrum in central and eastern Oregon is being used in its entirety and that removing channels 6069 would impact  X0reliable broadcast services to communities in northeastern Oregon.JoXI yO ԍ Blue Mountain comments, pp. 23.J WatchTV states that if we move to reclaim channels 6069, the new service providers should be required to compensate LPTV licensees for their existing investment or for moves to new channels to accommodate new entrants.  X10q655. The Department of Special Districts, San Bernardino County, CA (DSD) submits that we should not reallocate channels 6069 until after the transition to DTV is completed in  X 0order to protect the operation of LPTV and TV translator services.Kp I yO ԍ DSD comments, pp. 67, 10, and 12K It argues that no spectrum reallocation, the purpose of which would be to garner revenue for the U.S. Treasury, should result in any direct or indirect cost to Special Districts' taxpayercreated and financed services without 100% restitution, paid by either the U.S. Government or by the successful bidder at auction or other new user. The DSD also submits that, to the extent possible the DTV Table should be modified, to encourage all stations to revert to their existing channel after the transition.  XK0q756. KUEDTV and KULCTV (KUEDTV) argue that further consideration should be given to preservation of the existing TV translators and LPTV stations in allotting DTV  X0channels.JqxI yOF ԍ KUEDTV comments, pp. 34 and 9.J KUEDTV submits that the loss of one translator could cause loss of service to many communities. It argues that because of this "domino" effect, the number of translators affected by DTV could be up to 3 or 4 times higher than estimated. The International Broadcasting Network (IBN) argues that our DTV proposals must accommodate all existing television stations, including the nation's approximately 2,000 low power stations and more  X0than 1,500 full power television stations, on a fair and equitable basis.=rI yOc ԍ IBN comments, p. 5.= q  X|0q857. Tiger Eye Broadcasting Corporation (Tiger Eye) submits that community broadcast television is perhaps the only source where viewers can consistently watch locally  XN0televised events.FsNI yO% ԍ Tiger Eye comments, pp. 12.F It requests that channels 6069 be retained in order to preserve low power television service. Raoul Lowery Contereras argues that LPTV stations provide for"7( s,-(-(ZZ" minority/ethnic participation in mass communications and provide coverage of minority/ethnic events that are ignored by full power broadcasters. He asks that we revise our proposed rules  X0and policies for DTV to protect LPTV.GtI yOK ԍ Contereras comments, pp. 13.G WJYLLP 26 (WJYL) urges that LPTV service be preserved at all costs. It states that many in the low power industry have invested their life  X0savings and credit into the financing of their stations.9uXI yO ԍ Watch TV, p. 2.9 WJYL recommends that we allocate a group of channels for LPTV service. Community Teleplay, Inc. (CTI) submits that  Xv0frequencies between 5259 should be setaside band for displaced LPTV stations.=vvI yO ԍ CTI comments, p. 5.=  XH0q958. The Benton Foundation (Benton) argues that we should adopt an allotment plan  X10that includes LPTV stations and provides for their continued success in the DTV era.Cw1xI yOZ ԍ Benton comments, pp. 67.C Independent Broadcasting Company (IBC) states that we should attempt to facilitate the transition of TV translators to DTV operations in a manner that will not impact full service  X 0DTV conversion.>x I yO ԍ IBC comments, p. 3. > It argues, however, that LPTV is a failed experiment and that we should not treat LPTV stations any different than TV translators.  X 0q:59. Several parties with broadcast interests support the core approach, suggest modifications to the core concept or support approaches that would limit DTV allotments to the UHF band or portions of the UHF band. KSCITV and LABCTS, for example, support the concept of a core spectrum. They submit that excess spectrum should be returned for other purposes but that enough spectrum should be maintained for broadcasting to provide an  X40interference free transition and continued operation of DTV.^y4I yO} ԍ KSCITV comments, pp. 23; LABCTS comments, at p. 2.^ KSCITV and LABCTS recommend that DTV be implemented in a core spectrum of channels 2266. They state that this would simplify receiver design and antenna problems. They submit that this would release the existing VHF TV spectrum and make channels 1421 contiguous with the existing land mobile spectrum now ending at 470 MHz.  X0q;60. National Public Radio (NPR) supports our proposal to allot DTV channels in a  X0manner that would permit the early recovery and auction of channels 6069.=z( I yOl$ ԍ NPR comments, p. 1.= It states that a portion of the auction proceeds should be used to support public broadcasting. It asks that if there are insuperable technical barriers to the early recovery of this spectrum, we continue to pursue and support other appropriate mechanisms to sustain the public broadcasting system. "N z,-(-(ZZ" BET states that we should adopt our core spectrum proposal and other mechanisms to recover spectrum quickly and efficiently in order to be able to conduct auctions for the recovered  X0spectrum in a manner that encourages new entrant participation.D{I yOK ԍ BET comments, pp. 7 and 9.D It also states that the core spectrum approach will promote rapid efficient recovery of vacated spectrum and is far superior to the firstcome/firstserved approach we proposed earlier.  Xv0q<61. Lewis supports our earlier proposal to allot all DTV channels to the UHF band. It submits that this approach would provide strong encouragement for medium and small  XH0market stations to participate in the transition to DTV technology.B|HXI yOQ ԍ Lewis comments, pp. 45.B The LABCTS believe that DTV should be implemented in a core spectrum of contiguous UHF channels. They submit that this approach would simplify receiver design and antenna problems.  X 0VictoriaVision, Inc. (VVI) requests that we locate all DTV allotments in the UHF band.K} I yO ԍ VictoriaVision comments, pp. 12.K It argues that locating all TV stations in the same band would eliminate the existing disparities between VHF and UHF stations and simplify receiver and antenna designs.  X 0q=62. Fox recommends that low band VHF channels generally not be used for DTV  X0allotments due to the crowded nature and propagation characteristics of this band.=~xI yO ԍ Fox comments, p. 3.= Cannell Cleveland, L.P. (Cannell) argues that both our core spectrum plan and the alternative approach supported by the Joint Broadcasters appear to exacerbate the disparities between UHF and  XK0VHF stations.DKI yO ԍ Cannell comments, pp. 23.D To address these concerns, Cannell recommends that we establish a DTV core spectrum that is entirely within the UHF band. Holston also recommends that all DTV channels be located in the UHF band as a means to avoid impulse noise in the VHF bands  X0and to avoid repacking stations at the end of the transition.AI yOO ԍ Holston comments, p. 4.A It submits that modern UHF transmitters can be operated throughout the band with only minor modifications and that this would minimize the cost of any repacking that would be necessary. Kentuckiana believes that in order to place all broadcasters on a level playing field, DTV service should be located  X0entirely in the UHF band.H( I yO# ԍ Kentuckiana comments, pp. 23.H It submits that locating all DTV stations in the UHF band would finally eliminate the disadvantages that UHF stations face with respect to VHF stations. It states that the result would be a stronger overall television system.  XN0q>63. The public safety community and other land mobile parties strongly support"N ,-(-(ZZ" proposals that would permit spectrum recovery. The Association of PublicSafety Communications OfficialsInternational, Inc., (APCO) supports the plan to allot DTV  X0channels in a manner that would allow for reallocation of channels 6069 for other services.QI yOK ԍ APCO comments, pp. 23, 67, and 1011.Q  X0APCO notes that one of the key findings of the Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee to the Federal Communications Commission and the National  X0Telecommunications and Information Administration, September 11, 1996, is that public safety needs an additional 25 MHz of spectrum within the next five years. It states that the spectrum now allocated for channels 6069 would be extremely valuable for public safety and is immediately adjacent to the 800 MHz frequency bands already allocated for public safety operations. It further observes that the impact on existing TV service and DTV  X 0implementation would be de minimis. APCO asks that at least 24 MHz be made available to public safety within five years.  X 0q?64. APCO also states that we should reduce and, if possible, avoid channel 6069  X 0DTV allotments altogether.? XI yO ԍ APCO comments, p. 13.? It submits that to the extent that it is necessary to place any DTV allotments on channels 6069, we should adopt strict guidelines by which stations must either initiate DTV service or relinquish the channel for reallocation. It states that we should also attempt to concentrate the DTV allotments on particular channels rather than scattering them across all ten channels. APCO indicates that such concentration would allow the reallocation of common frequencies to public safety across the country. APCO argues that while it understands the situation of low power TV stations, the radio spectrum is a finite resource subject to reallocation in the public interest. It states that low power TV stations were granted licenses on a secondary basis, and have always been on notice that their operations could be temporary. APCO opposes requiring new users of channels 6069 to compensate low power licensees for their displacement, at least insofar as it would apply to new users that are state and local government agencies. It argues that public agencies have limited resources that will be needed to implement the new public safety systems on those frequencies.  Xk0q@65. APCO further states that there is a substantial need for new public safety spectrum in the lower VHF band above 174 MHz (adjacent to current 150174 MHz land mobile bands) and in the lower UHF band at 470512 MHz (channels 1420, where land  X&0mobile sharing already exists in eleven major markets).H&I yO" ԍ APCO comments, pp. 34 and 16.H APCO states that additional spectrum is needed in these bands to provide for enhanced interoperability, especially for wide area operations for state police and similar agencies. It therefore recommends that we modify our core spectrum proposal to allow for the eventual recovery of spectrum in the range of VHF channels 78 (174186 MHz) and UHF channels 1420 (470512 MHz). It states that to offset the impact of making additional spectrum below 512 MHz available for public safety,"!!x,-(-(ZZ#" we could either use VHF channels 56 as part of the DTV core spectrum, or extend the DTV core spectrum one or two channels above channel 51.  X0qA66. In a joint letter submitted on February 26, 1997, APCO et. al., states that we must  X0not delay any further in addressing public safety needs."I yO ԍ See letter of February 27, 1997, from APCO, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, International Association of Fire Chiefs, International Municipal Signal Association, International Union of Police Associations, AFLCIO, League of California Cities, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Coordinating Council on Emergency management, National League of Cities, City of New York, and County of Los Angeles." These parties disagree with the broadcasting interests that reallocation of channels 6069 should be delayed for several years. These parties further observe that the process of making new public safety spectrum available and constructing systems to operate on that spectrum will not be completed overnight. APCO  XH0et. al. therefore urge that we allocate spectrum in channels 6069 now, so that implementation of new public safety systems can begin as soon as possible. To facilitate this process, they also urge that the DTV allotment plan eliminate or at least minimize, the number of DTV allotments on these channels.  X 0qB67. The County of Los Angeles (LA County) states that it supports our DTV  X 0allotment proposals, including the plan for recovery of channels 6069 for other uses.L xI yO ԍ LA County comments, pp. 2 and 69.L It urges that a significant portion of reallocated spectrum be made available for public safety use and states that many governmental entities in Southern California have substantial need for more spectrum to modernize overburdened communications, to provide interoperability, and allow for the implementation of new communications technologies for public safety. LA County also states that it supports the suggestion made in APCO's comments that we modify the core spectrum plan to allow for eventual public safety use of VHF channel 7, and to facilitate additional land mobile sharing of UHF channels 1420. It argues that elimination of channels 6069 would have minimal impact on current television broadcasters. It also supports the proposal to continue the secondary status of low power television stations and argues that public safety agencies should not be required to compensate such secondary licensees for terminating operation or relocating to other spectrum.  X0qC68. Department of Communications, County of Bucks, Pennsylvania (DOCBC) submits that there is an urgent need in many parts of the country, including the Philadelphia  Xe0area, for additional public safety radio channels.?eI yO# ԍ DOCBC comments, p. 1.? It points out that the PSWAC, in its recently released Final Report found that public safety agencies need at least 2.5 MHz of additional spectrum immediately for interoperability, at least 25 MHz within 5 years, and an additional 70 MHz within the next 15 years. AC Transit submits that the San Francisco Bay area has a serious shortage of available frequencies to support the communications needs of its" ",-(-(ZZP" transit systems.  X0qD69. The Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) states that our proposal for recovery of a portion of the existing broadcast television spectrum for new uses is a winwin  X0situation that accommodates both DTV operations and new mobile operations.NI yO ԍ LMCC comments, pp. 12, 78, and 12.N It submits that the spectrum in channels 6069 is adjacent to existing mobile service allocations at 800 MHz and therefore would be of significant benefit for land mobile use. It states that this  X_0spectrum could, for example as noted in the Sixth Further Notice, be licensed through competitive bidding for flexible mobile operations; a portion of it could be used to meet public safety needs; and/or a portion could be designated temporarily or permanently for LPTV and TV translator stations. The LMCC also suggest some of the recovered spectrum could be used to meet the communications needs of electric and water utilities, petroleum producers, railroads, transportation facilities and many smaller businesses. LMCC suggests several modifications to our DTV allotment proposals. First, it recommends that we reexamine the draft Table to determine whether alternative solutions exist that would avoid the need to make any DTV allotments on channels 6069. Second, it states that we should establish some mechanism to retire NTSC operation on channels 6069 in a timely manner. It suggests that, given the relatively poor propagation of broadcast signals in this band, we should examine the extent to which the audience share for the approximately 100 NTSC stations on channels 6069 is actually achieved over cable rather than overtheair.  X0qE70. In a letter submitted March 14, 1997, the LMCC states that the Commission and the American public will not reap the full benefits of the DTV allotment plan unless prompt action is taken to make more efficient use of the spectrum represented by TV channels 6069. It urges that we pursue a schedule that would lead to: 1) adoption of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making by May 1, 1997, for the reallocation of channels 6069 for public safety, critical industries/businesses and CMRS uses, and licensing and service rules to implement the reallocation, 2) adoption of a Report and Order finalizing the reallocation by August 1, 1997, or sooner; and 3) adoption of a Report and Order finalizing service rules for land mobile use of channels 6069 by December 31, 1997, or sooner.  X70qF71. UTC, the Telecommunications Association, urges that we initiate a proceeding to immediately allocate the channel 6069 band to meet the needs of public safety and to address  X 0the needs of the private radio community.H XI yO" ԍ UTC comments, pp. 1, 4, and 6.H In particular, UTC argues that a portion of the recovered spectrum could be used to 1) address congestion in the private land mobile bands below 512 MHz, 2) accommodate relocated users from the 800 MHz band, 3) meet anticipated growth in private land mobile operations, and 4) permit the introduction of new and innovative technologies. UTC also states that entities, such as utilities and pipelines, have a need to interoperate with public safety agencies. It believes that the channel 6069 band""#,-(-(ZZ#" would be ideal for this interoperability band. q  X0qG72. Ericsson Inc. (Ericsson) supports the core spectrum concept but suggests that by repacking the UHF broadcast spectrum it may be possible to free up additional radio  X0spectrum for other uses or more broadcast channels.VI yO ԍ Ericsson comments, pp. 34, 5, 7, and 1213.V Ericsson believes that it is likely that  X0a core spectrum area smaller than the 44 channels proposed in the Sixth Further Notice could provide all broadcasters with DTV facilities comparable to their existing NTSC facilities. It notes that the UHF TV channels are lightly packed with only about 18 stations per channel. Ericsson submits that if the post transition core spectrum were packed only as tightly as VHF  X10stations are packed now, i.e., 58 stations per channel, then only about 30 channels would be needed to accommodate DTV. It states that such a compact plan would ultimately free up more than 200 MHz of spectrum. Ericsson also recommends that we modify our core spectrum proposal to free spectrum at the lower UHF TV band and to leave channels 7 and 8 out of the core spectrum. While it acknowledges that it would be extremely difficult and disruptive to relocate existing channel TV operations, it states that freeing these channels after this transition would be less difficult. It notes that our draft Table proposes only 10 DTV allotments for channel 7 and 14 allotments for channel 8. It submits that these allotments could be moved to other channels so that channels 7 and 8 could be left free of DTV operations. q  X40qH73. Motorola supports our proposals to adopt DTV allotment criteria that promote  X0both the near term and long term recovery of underutilized broadcast television spectrum.IXI yO& ԍ Motorola comments, pp. 1 and 5.I It states that this proceeding presents perhaps the last opportunity to foster major improvements in the efficient use of the spectrum below 1 GHz. Motorola agrees with our initial assessment that recovery of significant portions of the television spectrum can occur without reducing the number of broadcast outlets. It states that given the more robust nature of the DTV technology, as opposed to the existing NTSC service, we will be able to use a higher percentage of the television allocation. It agrees that once the transition is complete, all existing broadcast operations will be able to coexist within channels 751 with capacity remaining for additional allotments.  X70qI74. Motorola states that it strongly supports the proposal to provide for early recovery  X 0of channels 6069.J I yO" ԍ Motorola comments, p. 9. Motorola indicates that it used our DTV allotment software to analyze whether the number of allotments could be reduced below the number proposed in the draft Table. Motorola indicates that by placing a higher "penalty" on use of channels 6069 and increasing the priority for maintaining the level of existing protection to land mobile stations operating on channels 1420, it was able to significantly improve our proposed plan from the perspective of enhancing the opportunity for early recovery of channels 6069.J To this end, it submitted two DTV Tables or "solutions" that it says" $` ,-(-(ZZ@" would further limit the number of DTV allotments on channels 6069. Motorola states that by focusing on the allotment of new channels for the DTV allotments proposed for channels 6069, while attempting to maintain a constant "cost" factor imposed on broadcasters, it was able to reduce the number of DTV allotments on channels 6069 from 30 to 5. It states that this Table was achieved with only a minor increase in the "cost" of the solution as calculated  X0by the software. I yO ԍ Motorola also submits that in subsequent analyses where it allowed "shortspacing" between cochannel DTV allotments it was able to reduce the number of DTV allotments on channels 6069 to two. Motorola states that in some cases shortspacing allotments at distances less than the 175 km "hard limit" we used may be appropriate solutions where terrain and other considerations minimize its impact.  It submits that this solution would result in no DTV operations on 5 of the 10 channels between 6069. It also indicates that by "shortspacing" a few DTV allotments it was able to further reduce the number of DTV allotments in channels 6069 from 5 to 2. In addition, it states that these solutions maintain interference protection for land mobile stations now occupying portions of the 470512 MHz band (channels 1420) in certain cities. In its reply comments, Motorola states that the performance of the Joint Broadcaster's Modified Table is insignificantly different (1.5% vs. 1.6% reduction in service area) from the Motorola solution considering that its cost precludes the possibility of early recovery of  X 0channels 6069.K I yO6 ԍ Motorola reply comments, pp. 89.K  X 0qJ75. Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, et al. (CSEF) submits that our proposal to locate DTV channels in the core spectrum area constitutes a more efficient assignment of the spectrum, and that to the extent that it obviates the need for later repacking  Xb0will permit swifter recovery of spectrum, which could then be used for other purposes.Ab@I yOS ԍ CSEF comments, pp. 23.A It states that to the extent that our proposal permits channels 6069 to be made available for other uses, it would provide some immediate compensation for the broadcasters' use of 12 MHz. It urges that we reallocate these channels as soon as possible in a subsequent proceeding. q  X0qK76. Decision. We continue to believe that the spectrum principles set forth in the  X0Sixth Further Notice are appropriate. We believe that it is important to provide broadcasters with spectrum that is most appropriate and technically suitable for DTV. In this regard, we have developed a Table of DTV Allotments that attempts to provide all eligible broadcasters with a DTV allotment within channels 251 without bias against the use of any channel in this  Xe0band.eI X#0#Xj\  P6G;XP#э As previously noted, channel 37 is not used in order to protect existing radio astronomy uses. Where necessary, however, channels outside this region are also used. We believe that approach will provide for full accommodation of all eligible broadcasters in a manner that minimizes interference to existing NTSC service and provides for a high degree of service"7%j ,-(-(ZZ" area replication by new DTV facilities. We also continue to believe that we can accomplish these goals in a manner that ensures that the radio spectrum is used efficiently and effectively. In this regard, we believe that the public interest is best served by developing a Table of DTV Allotments that meets the DTV spectrum needs of broadcasters during the transition; facilitates the early recovery of spectrum from channels 60 to 69; and also facilitates the eventual recovery of 138 MHz of spectrum currently being used for analog broadcasting.  X_0qL77. In this regard, we do not believe that either the early recovery of channels 6069 or our core approach will have a significant impact on the flexibility needed for the implementation of DTV. We note that the ATSC digital system has been rigorously tested and studied. We also note that significant industry efforts have gone into developing the technical planning criteria to be used in the implementation of DTV. We believe that the Table we are adopting is fully consistent with these technical decisions. We also note that if DTV implementation problems do arise, they are most likely to do so in the most congested markets where channels within the 60 to 69 range will already be in use by either NTSC or DTV operations and thus will not be available to solve such implementation problems. Accordingly, while we are confident that problems in implementation will not arise, we believe that if they do they will better be addressed through technical solutions other than relying on channels 6069. For example, some technical solutions to unexpected interference could include using directional antennas or limiting power and/or antenna height during the transition.  X0qM78. We find that the impact of our core and spectrum recovery approaches on  X0interference and service replication to be insubstantial.* I yOh ԍ The cumulative differences in interference and service replication between the draft Table contained in  yO0 the Sixth Further Notice and the Table submitted by Joint Broadcasters was less than 1%. We believe that such  {O a difference is not scientifically "significant" or is at best de minimis when considering the accuracy and probalistic nature of the propagation and other engineering models used to calculate both interference and service area. We note, for example, that considerable debate took place within our Advisory Committee with regard to the planning factors for DTV. We further note that Industry Canada has suggested that it would use somewhat different engineering planning factors for the development of DTV in its country. Changing certain DTV planning factors would have a significantly greater impact than 1% on the interference and service replication calculations. Furthermore, the actual implementation of DTV will likely vary considerably from that assumed in the calculations. For example, many broadcasters will not be able to use their existing towers or transmitter sites for DTV. These practical implementation considerations will likely result in significantly greater differences than those calculated between the two draft Tables. We believe that all of these factors warrant a conclusion that the very small differences in the two different approaches are insignificant. We disagree with those parties that assert that these approaches would impact the implementation of DTV by full service broadcasters. Under the DTV Table we are adopting, almost 99% of all existing NTSC service areas and viewers will be unaffected by the implementation of DTV operations. In  X0addition, 93% of all DTV allotments would provide at least 95% service area replication. I yO% ԍ This level of replication is calculated based on a 1 MW power limit for DTV operations. Further, the DTV Table accommodates more than 100 additional new NTSC stations and"|&J ,-(-(ZZ" provides DTV allotments for these stations. It also eliminates all but one of the land mobile sharing problems that were present in both the draft and the Joint Broadcasters' Tables. In summary, we find that the DTV Table will fully meet the needs of broadcasters during the DTV transition. We believe that cumulative differences in interference and service replication  X0between the Table we are adopting and approaches suggested by the Joint Broadcasters are de  X0minimis and are clearly outweighed by the benefits to be achieved through our core and spectrum recovery plans.  XL0qN79. We also disagree with those broadcasting parties that assert that we should not recover early channels 60 to 69 because there is no need for additional spectrum by other services. We believe that the record clearly demonstrates that additional spectrum is required to meet the needs of public safety and other land mobile services. As indicated by APCO, LA County, the Governor of New Jersey and the many governmental organizations that filed comments in this proceeding, there is an urgent need for additional spectrum to meet important public safety needs, such as broadband data transmissions of fingerprints, mugshots, criminal histories, building diagrams, hazardous material information, medical images and related emergency response data. The record also strongly supports a conclusion that spectrum in the region of channels 6069 is appropriate to meet some of these needs. As indicated by several parties, the proximity of existing land mobile communications systems to channels 60-69 would permit equipment economies and could enhance interoperability between future public safety systems and current systems now operating in the 800 MHz land mobile bands. Accordingly, as indicated above, our DTV Table of Allotments minimizes the use of channels 6069 to facilitate that early recovery of this portion of the spectrum.  X0qO80. We will initiate a separate proceeding in the very near future to address how to  X0allocate available spectrum at channels 6069. In our recent Report and Order in the WCS proceeding, we stated that we would give serious consideration to allocating 24 MHz for  X0public safety use. I yO ԍ See Report and Order in GN Docket No. 96228, adopted February 19, 1997, FCC 9750. We also observe that legislation recently introduced by Senator McCain would direct the Commission to allocate 24MHz of the channel 6069 spectrum to public safety use within 30 days of enactment of the legislation, and that the  yOh Administration has stated its support for such a reallocation. Senator McCain's proposed legislation would also require assignment by auction for commercial use of the remaining 36 MHz of recovered spectrum at channels  yO 6069. See S.255, The Law Enforcement and Public Safety Telecommunications Empowerment Act, as  yO introduced in the United States Senate on February 4, 1997, Section 4(a); see also Testimony of Larry Irving, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce, before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection of the U.S. House of Representatives  yO" Committee on Commerce, February 12, 1997, at 24; see also Statement by Attorney General Janet Reno on Proposal to Set Aside communications frequencies for Public Safety Use, released February 6, 1997.  We will also consider whether some or all of the remaining 36 MHz  X0could be assigned by auction. All existing NTSC and DTV full service broadcast operations on these channels will be fully protected during the transition. We will also address whether to require compensation by new service providers to full service or low power operations for the displacement or relocation of such operations from channels 6069. With regard to";'( ,-(-(ZZ0" eventual recovery of spectrum beyond channels 6069, our planning for the future recovery of such additional spectrum does not in any way prejudge the potential uses of that additional spectrum or the services that might operate thereon.  X0qP81. With regard to LPTV and TV translator stations, we continue to believe that the principal impact on low power operations will be from the accommodation of all full service broadcasters with a second channel for DTV. Further, we find that the potential benefits of recovering channels 6069, as discussed above, outweigh any additional impact this plan may have on low power operations. Nevertheless, as we discuss below at paragraphs 141 to 146, we are taking a number of significant steps to mitigate this impact. We therefore continue to conclude that LPTV and TV translator stations should retain their secondary allocation  X 0status. I yO| ԍ As noted above, our decisions with regard to this issue have been upheld on judicial review in Polar  yOD Broadcasting v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 1184 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (table). qpp  X 0qQ82. DTV Core Spectrum. One of our principal concerns is to provide broadcasters  X 0with the best possible spectrum for DTV operation. In the Sixth Further Notice, we stated our belief that channels 751 are the most suitable frequencies for DTV service. We noted that TV operations on the lower VHF channels 26 are subject to a number of technical penalties, including higher ambient noise levels due to leaky power lines, vehicle ignition systems, and other impulse noise sources and interference to and from FM radio service. At the same time, we recognized that the lower VHF channels 26 offer unique technical  X60characteristics for broadcasting, particularly with regard to propagation. Finally, we observed there are propagation limitations for TV service on higher UHF channels.  X0qR83. Our core concept was designed to facilitate and minimize the cost to broadcasters of spectrum recovery. A number of commenting parties, however, strongly urge that the core spectrum be modified to include channels 26. Other parties agree with our initial assessment that these channels may not be appropriate for DTV. We, therefore, believe that best approach at this time is to develop the DTV Table of Allotments based on use of channels 251. Accordingly, we have modified our allotment software to attempt to locate all DTV channels within this portion of the spectrum. If the lower VHF channels 26 prove acceptable for DTV use, we will consider retaining these channels for DTV and adjusting the core spectrum to encompass channels 246 rather than channels 751. We do not believe that expansion of the core, or elimination of our computer allotment penalties, to include channels above channel 51 is warranted or would significantly reduce interference. Further, such an approach would lead to additional assignments outside the DTV spectrum core area, thereby increasing the number of second channel moves, with concomitant costs, for broadcasters. Accordingly, the DTV Table of Allotments, adopted herein, is based on use of channels 251. This approach will allow us to monitor closely the experiments and early implementation of DTV operations before determining the core spectrum for DTV. "#( ,-(-(ZZ$"Ԍ X0qS84. We also will allow broadcasters, wherever feasible, to switch their DTV service to their existing NTSC channels at the end of the transition if they so desire. Such channel switches would be permitted provided that the station's existing channel is within the final DTV core spectrum. Stations, with both NTSC and DTV channels outside the core spectrum, will be assigned new channels within the core from recovered spectrum. We note that the new Table contains 68 instances where both channels are outside of channels 751 and 89 instances where both channels are outside of channels 246.  XH0D. Allotment Preference  X 0qT85. In most instances, the choice of channels for a DTV allotment will involve consideration of other nearby DTV allotments and existing NTSC stations. We noted that any plan that provides all eligible broadcasters with a new DTV allotment will unavoidably result in some degree of interference to both NTSC and DTV stations. This is true whether the digital frequencies are distributed throughout the existing broadcast spectrum or whether the  X 0digital frequencies are generally placed in the spectrum at channels 751.Z I yO  ԍ The total amount of interference to NTSC service is primarily a function of full accommodation, i.e., our goal of providing all existing stations with a companion DTV operation. Because all TV channels are used when necessary to avoid interference, there is, in general, very little impact on total NTSC interference from our spectrum recovery proposals. That is, a full accommodation approach that used all channels and did not attempt any spectrum recovery would still result in about the same level of additional interference to NTSC service areas. Z In the Sixth  X0Further Notice, we proposed to allot DTV channels using an approach that is neutral in protecting both existing NTSC stations and new DTV allotments. The draft Table therefore attempted to minimize interference to all stations and to balance unavoidable interference among NTSC and DTV stations equally. We also asked questions about how to mitigate interference to NTSC service.  X0qU86. Comments. AAPTS supports our proposal to employ a neutral approach in  X0protecting NTSC and DTV stations from interference.DxI yO ԍ AAPTS comments, pp. 2728.D It also states that we should take the additional step of requiring DTV stations to operate at reduced power where necessary to protect NTSC stations from interference during the transition. AAPTS argues that broadcast stations, which must compete with many other video distributors, cannot afford to alienate a substantial portion of their viewers by suddenly delivering a deteriorated level of NTSC service. Joint Broadcasters maintain their longstanding position that the DTV allotment process should attempt to reduce interference to NTSC service to the maximum degree  XN0possible, in order to avoid disenfranchising viewers.LNI yO$ ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 5.L On the other hand, BET supports our earlier proposal to provide a relative preference to new DTV operations when a choice must be made between providing greater service area for a new DTV allotment or minimizing interference to an existing NTSC station. It states that maximizing a DTV station's service" ),-(-(ZZP" area will result in rapid, comprehensive DTV overage, thereby encouraging the transition to  X0DTV.=I yOb ԍ BET comments, p. 8.= Other commenting parties did not address this issue.  X0qV87. Decision. We believe it is important that our approach for development of DTV allotments minimize the amount of interference that would be caused to both existing TV  X0service as well as the new DTV service. It is important to protect the existing NTSC service in designing the DTV Table so that the public does not lose television service during the transition. At the same time, we believe it is equally important to avoid interference to new DTV stations wherever possible in order to provide for the best possible DTV service in the future. We therefore have attempted to minimize interference to all stations and to balance unavoidable interference between both NTSC and DTV stations equally in developing the DTV Table of Allotments. The DTV Table we are adopting today will fully protect 98.8 percent of existing geographic service area and 98.6 percent of the population now served within the Grade B contours of existing stations. At the same time, the service replication allotment approach we are using and the superior performance characteristics of the ATSC DTV system have allowed us to provide for DTV coverage that is equal or superior in coverage to today's NTSC service. We also find that the DTV Table sufficiently minimizes interference among stations such that it is not necessary to adopt special provisions to mitigate interference during the transition.  X40E. Assignment Methodology  X0qW88. In the Sixth Further Notice, we proposed to assign DTV channels to eligible broadcasters in a manner consistent with our plan to employ service replication in developing the DTV Table of Allotments. We therefore proposed to designate DTV channels for existing stations based on the results of the matching process that is an intrinsic feature of the service replication approach used in developing the Table. We also requested comment on whether a firstcome/firstserved or some other approach for assigning channels would better meet our goal of implementing digital television in an efficient, effective manner.  XN0qX89. Comments. The commenting parties addressing this issue support our proposal to assign channels to existing broadcasters based on the matching process involved in replicating the service areas of those stations. For example, the Joint Broadcasters submit that an assignment method based on replication of service areas provides the greatest opportunity for  X0an orderly and successful transition to the digital environment.MXI yO" ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 12.M They state that replication of a station's service area will maintain viewer continuity. AAPTS also specifically endorses the paired channel approach. It states that the pairing of channels will avoid the "firstcome/first serve" spectrum freeforall that would place noncommercial stations at a severe"!*,-(-(ZZ""  X0disadvantage to their counterparts.?I yOy ԍ AAPTS comments, p. 3.?  X0qY90. Decision. We continue to believe that the most advantageous approach for assignment of DTV channels is to match stations with the channel that best replicates their existing service areas. We agree with the commenting parties that this approach will preserve both viewers' access to the existing stations in their market and stations' access to their existing populations of viewers, and thereby ensure an orderly transition to DTV service for both commercial and noncommercial stations. Accordingly, we are offering eligible broadcasters DTV assignments in accordance with the matched plan of DTV allotments specified on the DTV Table set forth in Appendix B. These assignments will be offered to  X 0eligible broadcasters pursuant to the schedules and conditions established in our Fifth Report  X 0and Order in this proceeding.  X 0F. Additional Considerations  X 0qZ91. In the Sixth Further Notice, we observed that during the transition, in most communities, digital allotments will use up all of the available spectrum for full service broadcasting. But in some communities mainly rural areas unused channels may remain  Xb0even after all existing broadcasters receive allotments.bXI yOk ԍ For example, in Bangor/Orono, Maine, currently there are four NTSC stations. The attached DTV Table of Allotments provides DTV allotments for these four stations. However, even considering LPTV and TV translator operations, there appears to be sufficient spectrum in this area to operate a number of additional channels, either NTSC or DTV. In addition, after the transition, additional spectrum will be available when NTSC stations cease operating.  Assuming that some channels will be vacant in certain geographic areas during the transition, and more after the transition, we requested comment on whether and how we should make those channels available. We asked, for example, if once we have identified any remaining channels, we should accept applications for new primary stations? Or should we consider other possibilities, such as permitting existing broadcasters, either individually or jointly, to use the available channel or channels for additional broadcast or subscription programming? We also asked whether we should permit broadcasters in a community to propose, as an alternative to the allotment plan in the attached Table, an allotment plan that would allow them to use, jointly or individually, more than one vacant channel apiece? We asked whether we would be required in this situation to  X|0consider other mutually exclusive applications ?x|I yO5" ԍ See Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327 (1945). In Ashbacker, the Supreme Court held that the Commission is required under Section 309 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. to give consideration to all  yO# bona fide mutually exclusive applications. In so holding, the Court did not, however, preclude the Commission from establishing threshold qualification standards that must be met before applicants are entitled to comparative  yOU% consideration. Indeed, in United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U.S. 192 (1956), the Court held that, in the context of a rule making proceeding, the Commission may establish eligibility standards that applicants must  yO& meet in order to receive comparative consideration. See also Fourth Further Notice, at para. 29. We further requested comment on"|+H ,-(-(ZZ" whether, if we permit such proposals, should the channels be used on a primary or secondary basis? Finally, we asked that if we adopt the core spectrum approach, should our policies depend on whether the spectrum at issue is inside or outside the core? We also asked that in evaluating allotment plans for DTV, commenting parties consider the costs and benefits under alternative approaches to spectrum recovery. We requested comment on the affect such approaches would have on new entry to broadcasting.  X_0q[92. Comments. Several parties responded to our inquiries with regard to these issues. WB, for example, submits that we should assign DTV channels to NTSC broadcasters currently not eligible for a DTV channel (noneligible broadcasters) on a priority basis if  X 0spectrum is or becomes available.@ I yO ԍ WB comments, p. 1314.@ It urges that we make vacant channels available to noneligible NTSC licensees and permittees both during and after the transition. WB also states that to the extent that an additional channel does not become available or if an noneligible broadcaster wishes to keep its existing channel, we should allow that broadcaster to convert its existing channel to DTV operation. It further submits that wherever feasible we should make new DTV allotments available to noneligible broadcasters at the same time channels are made available to eligible broadcasters. It states that this would facilitate a smooth transition of all broadcasters from NTSC to DTV service and thereby foster diversity.  XK0q\93. CSEF argues that we should not permit existing broadcasters to have the exclusive right to use any vacant channels that might be available after the DTV assignments have been made. It states that to do so would be contrary to our goals of competition and diversity, and  X0would run afoul of the Supreme Court's holding in Ashbacker.EXI yO ԍ CSEF comments, pp. 2 and 5.E CSEF submits that broadcasters should not be given more free spectrum than they will already receive through the proposed assignment of a second DTV channel. It states that it would be more appropriate to make this spectrum available to displaced low power TV stations, to mutually exclusive applicants, or, if Congress permits, to competitive bidders and/or for flexible use.  X|0q]94. BET urges that we provide measures to compensate for the effects of the freeze on new broadcast applications, megamergers, and the loss of LPTV stations to promote  XN0diversity in media ownership.GNI yO ԍ BET comments, pp. 57 and 10.G It argues that although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires that we provide the initial allotment of DTV channels to incumbent full service broadcast licensees, we must also take steps promote distribution of DTV broadcast licenses to  X 0new entrants under Section 307 of the Communications Act. xI yO2% ԍ See  336(a)(1) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 336(a)(1), enacted in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and 47 U.S.C.  307(b). In this regard, BET submits that we should make all vacant DTV allotments available to new entrants via auction",,-(-(ZZ` " following adoption of the DTV Table of Allotments for all full service broadcasters. It further recommends that we: 1) adopt rules that promote partnerships, joint ventures, and local marketing arrangements between TV broadcasters and minority and womenowned businesses, 2) allow geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation for ancillary and supplementary services, and 3) provide for early recovery and auction of spectrum for new entrants. BET suggests that we adopt rules that encourage LPTV, TV translator and noncommercial operators to form partnerships with new entrants. BET also states that the revenues from supplementary/ancillary DTV services could provide incentives for noncommercial/new entrant partnerships and additional funding for noncommercial broadcast DTV operations. It urges that we encourage partnerships between incumbent television broadcasters and new entrants, particularly minority and womenowned entities, by requiring incumbent broadcasters who are assigned DTV licenses to form partnerships with minority and womenowned entrants as a condition for the flexibility to provide supplementary services.  X 0q^95. Decision. We concur with the commenting parties that it is important to continue to foster our longstanding broadcast policy goals of diversity and encouraging new entry, particularly by minorities and women. We also believe that fostering these goals is consistent with our spectrum management responsibilities to ensure that the DTV spectrum is used efficiently. Accordingly, we will permit unused DTV spectrum to be used by both new and displaced LPTV and TV translator stations. We will also allow new entrants and noneligible  X0broadcasters to seek and apply for new DTV allotments. I yO ԍ We intend to give particular consideration to those parties who had applications for a construction permit on file as of October 24, 1991, who are ultimately awarded a fullservice broadcast station license, given the reliance that these parties may have placed on the scheme we established before passage of the Telecomm Act.  yO See Fourth Further Notice, at 1054445. In addition, as suggested by WB, we will allow noneligible broadcasters to convert their existing NTSC operations to DTV service at any time during the transition, provided those operations are within the core spectrum area. We believe that this action will further our diversity goals and promote the development and expansion of new networks. We further encourage incumbent broadcasters to seek partnerships with new entrants in developing new stations in areas where additional  X0unused spectrum may be available.oI yO ԍ For example, in markets such as Bangor/Orono, ME, as discussed above.o f IV. OTHER ISSUES  X 0q_96. In addition to the principles and objectives discussed above, there are several other matters that need to be resolved in developing the DTV Table of Allotments. These matters include use of existing transmitter sites for DTV service, treatment of vacant NTSC allotments, displacement of low power TV stations and TV translators, use of TV channels 3, 4 and 6, and protection of land mobile services. These matters are addressed below." -@,-(-(ZZ""Ԍ X0ԙA. Use of Existing Transmitter Sites  X0q`97. In the Sixth Further Notice, we proposed to allot DTV channels on the basis of current transmitter sites, rather than community reference points. Under this proposal, the current NTSC transmitter sites would be used to develop the DTV Table and to determine whether DTV allotments met the proposed minimum allotment requirements. In recognition of the fact that many broadcasters will not be able to locate their DTV operations at the same exact site as their NTSC station, we proposed to permit a broadcaster to locate its DTV facility at any site within a threemile radius of the actual transmitter location, so long as the  X10station would continue to serve its community of license.X1I yO ԍ Such site relocations could include movement to a common local TV transmitter site, provided the new common site is within three miles of the station's existing site and would allow the station to serve its community of license. We also proposed to permit a licensee to operate its DTV station at a site different from that of its NTSC operation where the alternate site would meet the proposed DTV minimum spacing requirements and the station would continue to serve its community of license. We noted that such site relocations could include movement to a common local TV transmission site. We also requested comment regarding any circumstances where it might be desirable to evaluate DTV allotments on the basis of sites other than those occupied by existing TV stations.  Xy0qa98. Comments. Most of the commenting parties who address this issue support our  Xb0proposal to allot DTV channels on the basis of stations' current transmitter sites.bI yO ԍ Parties supporting this proposal include AAPTS, Aries, the Joint Broadcasters, KSCITV, Pappas, Sunbelt, TV52, and Mr. Smith. For example, the Joint Broadcasters and AAPTS note that this strategy will facilitate replication of NTSC service areas, thereby assuring continued service to viewers and minimizing disruption  X0during the transition, and encourage colocation of NTSC and DTV operations.f@I yO ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 13; AAPTS comments, pp. 45.f AAPTS also states that colocation of NTSC and DTV facilities will permit stations to realize cost savings both in converting to DTV service and in operating dual facilities during the transition.  X0qb99. Freedom Communications, Inc. (Freedom), however, opposes allotment of DTV channels based on stations' existing transmitter sites. It contends that using existing transmitter sites will perpetuate current inequities of the current NTSC Table in cases where  Xe0there is shortspacing to other stations and/or where transmitter sites are located away from a main local antenna farm, so that most viewers' antennas tend to be oriented away from the  X70station's transmitter.D7I yO% ԍ Freedom comments, pp. 24.D KSCITV and the LABCTS support colocation of all DTV"7.` ,-(-(ZZp"  X0transmitters within a market to a common site.^I yOy ԍ KSCITV comments, pp. 23; LABCTS comments, pp. 23.^ They state that a common transmitter site would help reduce interference, provide more available channels and eliminate receiving antenna orientation problems. KSCITV also submits that if a station moves its transmitter to a different site which is colocated with the other stations in the market, the station should be allowed to use repeaters to provide service to areas currently served that would not be served from the new site.  X_0qc100. The Joint Broadcasters oppose our proposal to allow a station to locate its DTV facility at any site within a threemile radius of its NTSC transmitter. While they support our recognition of the need to provide broadcasters flexibility in locating their DTV operations, they are concerned that any decision to choose a different transmitter site, even one as close as one mile away, may significantly affect other stations. Broadcasters therefore believe that relocations should be considered on a casebycase basis and recommend that this task be assigned to the proposed industry coordinating committees. They further state that requests  X 0for DTV transmitter relocation should be granted freely.M XI yO ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 14.M  X0qd101. Aries, Sarkes Tarzian, Inc., Sunbelt, and TV52 submit that stations need greater  Xy0flexibility to locate their DTV transmitters than the threemile radius proposed in the Sixth  Xb0Further Notice. For example, Sarkes Tarzian supports allowing licensees the flexibility to operate their DTV service from locations at other than their NTSC transmitter site where such operation would not create unacceptable new interference to either the DTV or NTSC service of other stations. It submits that this approach would result in significant maximization of  X0DTV service and better NTSC/DTV matching.HI yO ԍ Sarkes Tarzian comments, p. 2.H TV52 submits that greater flexibility in locating DTV transmitter sites may be needed given the difficulty inherent in locating existing  X0tower space or in constructing new towers.?xI yO ԍ TV52 comments, p. 2.? It further states that if we grant authority to a licensee to relocate its authorized NTSC site, its DTV site should be relocated as well, even if the move would require a change of the DTV allotment. Sunbelt asks that we be flexible in permitting waivers or variations where the circumstances warrant choice of a different  X|0location.D|I yO5" ԍ Sunbelt comments, pp. 56.D  XN0qe102. Decision. Given our decision on service replication, we continue to believe that DTV allotments should be based on current transmitter sites, rather than community references. We also find that allowing broadcasters the flexibility to locate their transmitting facilities at any site within a three mile radius of their existing antenna site coordinates is" /,-(-(ZZ" appropriate. Accordingly, we adopt these proposals. While we understand the concern of those commenting parties who suggest that permitting such location flexibility may impact the operations of other stations, we also recognize that existing transmitter sites may not always be available and that use of alternative sites must be accommodated to permit DTV operations. We further believe that the impact of allowing stations to move their transmitter sites within a three mile area should be minimal, providing existing antenna patterns are maintained, and can be taken into account through minor adjustments in power and antenna height if problems arise. We also agree with those parties who suggest that we should provide as much flexibility as possible with regard to changes in transmitter locations. To provide broadcasters' flexibility, we will allow stations to relocate to other locations or co-locate their facilities with other broadcasters where such relocations and co-locations would  X 0not increase interference.U I yO| ԍ See for example, paragraph 32, above.U  X 0B. Existing Vacant Allotments, New NTSC Applications and Station Modifications  X 0qf103. In the Sixth Further Notice, we proposed to eliminate all vacant NTSC  X0allotments to facilitate development of the DTV Table. We also requested comment on whether allotments for noncommercial service deserve special consideration.  XK0qg104. Consistent with our proposal to eliminate all existing vacant NTSC allotments, we stated that we would not accept additional applications for new NTSC stations that are  X0filed after 30 days from the publication of the Sixth Further Notice in the Federal Register.XI yO& ԍ See Sixth Further Notice, at para. 60. Under this decision, the last day for filing of applications for new NTSC stations that would use an existing vacant allotment was September 20, 1996. We stated that as we process the applications on file now and those that are filed before the end of this filing opportunity, we would continue our current policy of considering requests  X0for waiver of our 1987 freeze Order on a casebycase basis.I yO9 ԍ Since July 1987, it has been the Commission's policy not to accept applications for any new stations in  yO 30 major markets. See Order, RM5811 (Mimeo No. 4074, released July 17, 1987). We also stated that when applications for new stations are accepted for filing, we would continue our process of issuing Public Notices that "cutoff" the opportunity for filing competing, mutuallyexclusive applications. In connection with these cutoff notices, we stated that we would allow additional competing applications to be filed after the end of this filing opportunity. We anticipated that these applications for new NTSC TV stations on existing allotments will not have a significant negative impact on the development of the DTV Table of Allotments, but reserved the right, in specific cases, to determine that the public interest is better served if they are not granted, granted only if amended to specify reduced facilities, or granted only with a condition that limits the interference that the station would be allowed to cause.  X0qh105. We also stated that, effective as of the close of business on the date of adoption"0,-(-(ZZ0!"  X0of the Sixth Further Notice, i.e., July 25, 1996, we would no longer accept petitions for rule making proposing to amend the existing TV Table of Allotments in Section 73.606(b) of our  X0rules to add an allotment for a new NTSC station.vI yOK ԍ See Sixth Further Notice, at para. 61, and 47 CFR 73.606(b).v We indicated that other petitions to amend the TV Table of Allotments (for example, proposing to change a station's community of license or altering the channel on which it operates, including changes in which channel allotment in a community is reserved for noncommercial educational use) could continue to be filed, but any such changes to the TV Table that include a modification of a station's authorization would be conditioned on the outcome of this DTV rule making proceeding. We stated that any petitions that were on file and any rule making proceedings that were open would be addressed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account their impact on the draft DTV Table. For those pending cases in which a new NTSC channel is allotted, we indicated that we would make an exception to our decision to cease accepting applications for new NTSC stations, and that the accompanying allotment Report and Order would specify the period of time for filing applications.  X 0qi106. We stated that we would continue to permit the filing of applications by existing  X0or authorized NTSC TV stations to modify their technical facilities, i.e., maximum effective radiated power (ERP), antenna height above average terrain (HAAT), and transmitter locations. However, in order to preserve our ability to develop the DTV Table, we stated that we would henceforth condition the grant of applications for modifications of technical  X40facilities, including those for applications on file before the date of the adoption of the Sixth  X0Further Notice, but granted after that date, on the outcome of our final decision on the DTV Table of Allotments. We indicated that to the extent that an existing station's service or potential for causing interference are extended into new areas by grant of an application, the condition may require the station's authorized facilities to be reduced or modified. We sought comment on whether this condition should involve different consequences for applications for  X0modifications on file as of the date of adoption of the Sixth Further Notice, as opposed to such applications filed after that date.  Xe0qj107. Comments. The commenting parties support our proposal to eliminate vacant NTSC allotments. These parties agree that recovery of the vacant commercial NTSC  X70allotments is necessary to facilitate the creation of new DTV allotments.7XI yO@ ԍ The parties that specifically support the elimination of vacant NTSC allotments include the Joint Broadcasters, Meredith, SHBC, LA County and BET. For example, the Joint Broadcasters state that we should use unassigned/unallotted NTSC channels to increase  X 0new service while protecting NTSC and predicted DTV service.M I yOj$ ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 48.M BET submits that provision of a DTV channel for a vacant NTSC commercial or noncommercial allotment is not the most efficient use of the spectrum and suggests that such vacant allotments be recovered and made part of an auction to new entrants for DTV and other supplementary and" 1@,-(-(ZZ ""  X0other services.?I yOy ԍ BET comments, p. 10.? LA County and LeSEA state that elimination of the existing vacant commercial and noncommercial NTSC allotments would allow us to maximize the number of DTV allotments for existing stations in both the commercial and noncommercial services and  X0more effectively freeup spectrum for new uses.YXI yO ԍ LA County comments, p. 8; LeSEA comments, p. 5.Y SHBC submits that vacant channels should  X0be deleted if they prevent a DTV channels from being assigned elsewhere in a market.>I yO= ԍ SHBC comments, p. 4.>  Xv0qk108. AAPTS, the Joint Broadcasters, and Rural ask that we take steps to protect vacant noncommercial allotments. AAPTS and Rural argue that maintaining public broadcasting capacity is a bedrock Congressional and Commission policy that should not lightly be cast aside. The Joint Broadcasters state that they have long recognized the  X 0importance of preserving noncommercial vacant allotments in the DTV world. xI yOC ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 53. They also submit that their Modified Table would replace some of the noncommercial vacant NTSC allotments with DTV equivalents. AAPTS states that we should not delete vacant noncommercial channels unless we find on the basis of an engineering analysis that there is no other way to accommodate existing broadcasters with  X 0DTV channels.] I yOV ԍ AAPTS comments, pp. 1924; Rural comments, pp. 23.] AAPTS states that it often takes years to lay the ground work for a noncommercial application, and that it would be unjust if we were to reallocate a vacant reserved NTSC channel for DTV service at the eleventh hour and deny an application to use that channel for noncommercial service. It states that we should be particularly careful to protect vacant reserved noncommercial NTSC channels in cases where a party has already applied for the channel during the filing period that closed on September 20, 1996. AAPTS and the Joint Broadcasters also submit that we should replace any deleted noncommercial NTSC channels with noncommercial DTV channels, where possible, and that we should pair DTV channels with vacant NTSC channels. It further submits that we should replace the rest of the vacant channels that we delete with digital channels reserved for noncommercial use when analog channels are returned at the end of the transition.  X0ql109. Many of the commenting parties address our decision to place a condition on  X0modifications of facilities granted after the adoption of the Sixth Further Notice.w ` I yO" ԍ Parties addressing our decision to apply a condition to facility modifications include AAPTS, the Joint Broadcasters, Costa, Crossville, Maranatha, the Modifiers, Media Properties, Inc. (Media), MVM, Meredith Corporation (Meredith), Pulitzer Broadcasting Company (Pulitzer), Ramar, Red River, Second Generation, Sonshine, and Valley.w AAPTS and the Joint Broadcasters support this decision. They submit that in processing such applications, we should determine whether the proposed change would cause new interference"|2H ,-(-(ZZ"  X0to the protected service of any new DTV channel.dI yOy ԍ AAPTS comments, p. 43; Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 49.d Most of the parties addressing this issue argue that we should not condition facility modifications in cases where the application was  X0submitted prior to the adoption of the Sixth Further Notice. XI yO ԍ The parties arguing that we should not condition modifications grants where the application was filed before July 25, 1996, include Costa, Crossville, Maranatha, the Modifiers, Media Properties, Inc. (Media), MVM, Meredith Corporation (Meredith), Pulitzer Broadcasting Company (Pulitzer), Ramar, Red River, Second Generation, Sonshine, Valley, and WB. For example, MVM argues that conditioning grant of preexisting modification applications on the outcome of the DTV allotment proceedings would penalize broadcasters who improve their service to the public. It states that few if any licensees would spend money in the improvement of service if the public and financial benefits of that improved service would be lost or compromised upon implementation of the DTV Table. The Modifiers argue that because of the condition, communities that now receive service from a modified NTSC stations may lose that service  X10during the transition.N1@I yO" ԍ The Modifiers comments, pp. 5 and 9.N They further submit that the applications for modification filed for  X 0before the adoption of the Sixth Further Notice were developed as a routine part of the business of providing and improving current television service to viewers. The Modifiers also argue that the applicants did not cause the delays in granting their own applications. The Modifiers further submit that with the advent of the fledgling UPN and WB networks, a substantial number of independent stations that either were not built or were operating with inferior facilities have now found the resources to upgrade their facilities. They argue that these stations should not be held to that inferior status in the digital environment.  Xb0qm110. Pulitzer Broadcasting Company (Pulitzer) argues that many applicants relied on  XK0our previous decision, in the Second Further Notice, not to restrict modifications in preparing and filing their pending modification applications and that these parties would be unfairly  X0prejudiced by this reversal.]I yO ԍ See Second Further Notice, at para. 38.] It also notes that some older applications remain pending, while other applications, filed more recently, have been granted. Pulitzer states that each pending application should be considered on a case by case basis to determine whether the factual and legal circumstances warrant application of this new policy. It also argues that applications for modification filed after July 25, 1996, have less of a claim of prejudice because they undertook the investment in the facilities changes with full knowledge of the uncertainties that  X0might stem from this proceeding.B` I yO# ԍ Pulitzer comments, p. 8.B  Xe0qn111. WB states that because new networks have acute need for additional affiliates now, it urges us to consider and act on all pending applications and rule makings for new"N3 ,-(-(ZZ"  X0NTSC stations before we allot DTV channels for eligible broadcasters.<I yOy ԍ WB comments, p. 8.< It argues that we should not sacrifice diversity of overtheair television in the process of implementing DTV service and that we should consider the role that networks play in promoting programming and ownership diversity. CBA argues that waivers and new applications should not be  X0granted until a specific effort has been made to minimize damage to LPTV.>XI yO ԍ CBA comments, p. 18.> Meredith  X0agrees we should freeze new facilities.GI yO& ԍ Meredith comments, pp. 1415.G  X_0qo112. Decision. As we stated in the Sixth Further Notice, eliminating existing vacant NTSC allotments will help us better achieve our goals of full accommodation, service area replication and spectrum recovery in the development of DTV allotments. If vacant allotments were retained, it would not be possible to accommodate all existing broadcasters in some areas and the expected service areas of many of the DTV allotments would be reduced. Such crowding could also result in increased interference to existing NTSC stations. Moreover, we believe that new television broadcast stations should operate with the new DTV technology. In this regard, the licensing of new NTSC stations will come to an end as  X 0provided in the Sixth Further Notice. Thus, there is no need to maintain vacant NTSC allotments that are not the subject of a pending application or rule making proceeding.  Xy0Accordingly, as proposed, we are deleting all existing vacant NTSC allotments.MxyxI yO ԍ In order to allow us the opportunity to identify and resolve all cases where there are pending requests to use existing vacant allotments, we are not implementing the deletion of vacant allotments in the rule amendments set forth in Appendix E of this Report and Order. We will eliminate the vacant NTSC allotments from Section 73.606 of the rules, 47 CFR  73.606, in a separate Order at an appropriate time in the future. Nonetheless, we will henceforth treat the existing vacant allotments that are not the subject of pending applications as deleted and,  yO consistent with our decision in the Sixth Further Notice not to accept applications for new NTSC stations after September 20, 1996 (see above), will not accept new applications for new stations on those allotments.M With regard to noncommercial vacant allotments, the DTV Table replaces existing vacant noncommercial NTSC allotments with new noncommercial reserved DTV allotments where feasible, in a manner similar to the approach suggested by the Joint Broadcasters. After the transition, we also will consider establishing additional noncommercial reserved allotments on recovered spectrum for those existing vacant noncommercial allotments that cannot be  X0replaced at this time. Consistent with our policy stated in the Sixth Further Notice with regard to pending applications and petitions for rule making requesting new allotments, we will maintain and protect those vacant NTSC allotments that are the subject of pending applications and will avoid creating DTV allotments that would conflict with proposed new NTSC allotments. This will ensure that parties who have already begun to invest in new stations, including those planning noncommercial stations, may continue to pursue their ongoing station development projects. "N4 ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X0qp113. In developing the DTV Table of Allotments, we have been able to accommodate all of the eligible broadcasters with DTV allotments that would not conflict with any of the authorizations to modify existing NTSC facilities that have been granted subsequent to July, 25, 1996. Accordingly, we are removing the condition from all such authorizations to modify existing NTSC facilities. Henceforth, we will consider any impact on DTV allotments in deciding whether to grant applications for modification of NTSC facilities.  X_0C. Low Power and TV Translator Stations  X10qq114. In the Sixth Further Notice, we recognized the benefits that low power stations provide to the public. We therefore indicated that we would attempt to minimize the impact of our DTV allotment and spectrum recovery proposals on low power TV operations. We proposed a number of measures for mitigating the impact on low power stations. First, in  X 0keeping with the decisions made in the Second Report/Further Notice, we reiterated our proposal to continue to permit displaced low power stations to apply for a suitable  X 0replacement channel in the same area without being subject to competing applications. I yO  ԍ See Second Report/Further Notice, at para. 45. The rules now permit special relief for authorized stations in the LPTV service having an actual or predicted interference conflict with a TV broadcast station or protected land mobile radio service. In that event, a station licensee or permittee may immediately file an application for a change in output channel, together with other changes necessary to avoid interference. Provided, such an application is acceptable for filing, it may be granted without opportunity for the filing of  yO competing applications. See 47 CFR. 73.3572. In this regard, we noted that many current TV channels have fewer than 100 LPTV or TV translator stations nationwide, while many other channels have significantly more than 100 such stations. We therefore stated that with more intensive utilization of the remaining channels, it should be possible to accommodate many LPTV and TV translator operations that are displaced. We stated that we would extend this relief measure to LPTV and TV translator licensees and permittees whose facilities are predicted to conflict with a DTV station. To insure the most effective use of this policy, we proposed to permit applications for such "displacement" relief to be filed at such time as there would be a reasonable expectation of displacement; for example, upon the filing of an application by a full service broadcaster for a DTV channel that would conflict with operation of the LPTV or TV translator station. We proposed to permit low power stations to operate until a displacing DTV station or a new primary service provider is operational. We also proposed to permit low power stations to file nonwindow displacement relief applications to change their operating parameters to cure  Xe0or prevent interference caused to or received from a DTV station or other protected service.Xe@I yOV" ԍ LPTV and TV translator stations would be allowed to continue to operate provided they protected full service DTV operations in accordance with the desiredtoundesired signal ratios used for modifications to the DTV Table of Allotments.  X70qr115. We further proposed to permit low power TV operations on existing TV channels outside the core digital TV spectrum area. Under this proposal, low power TV" 5` ,-(-(ZZ@" operations on outofcore channels would continue to be on a secondary basis and would have to avoid interference to any full service DTV or NTSC stations or to any new primary service operations. We requested comment on whether new service providers displacing low power stations should be required to compensate the licensees of those stations for their investment or for their move to another channel if such a move is possible.  Xv0qs116. We indicated that despite the above measures, a number of LPTV stations would still be required to cease operation in order to avoid interference to new DTV channels. We therefore sought to explore other policies that would preserve access to LPTV programming. We asked whether there are ways for low power stations to obtain carriage on new DTV stations or other video distributors. For example, in view of the ATSC DTV system's multiple programming capability, we asked whether we should consider incentives to encourage fullservice digital stations to find ways to accommodate LPTV and TV translator stations? Similarly, we asked whether we should consider incentives to encourage carriage of LPTV stations on cable systems beyond the requirements set forth in Section 614(c) of the Communications Act?  Xy0qt117. We sought comment on any and all means of lessening the impact on low power TV and TV translator stations. In so doing, we invited the LPTV and TV translator communities to identify workable means of preserving existing LPTV service to the extent possible and of providing a digital migration path for LPTV and TV translator stations. We asked whether, if we were to adopt our core spectrum proposal, we should also set aside a few frequencies between channels 52 and 59 specifically for use by displaced LPTV stations. We requested comment on other possibilities, such as permitting existing broadcasters, either individually or jointly, to use the available channel or channels for additional broadcast or subscription programming. We asked, for example, if once we have identified any remaining channels, we should create a new class of primary LPTV and TV translator stations?  X|0qu118. In the Sixth Further Notice, we observed that currently the rules do not permit low power and TV translator stations to operate on certain channels within specified distances  XN0of full service stations.cNI yO ԍ See Section 74.705 of the rules, 47 CFR 74.705.c For example, a UHF low power or TV translator station is not permitted to operate on a channel that is seven channels above a full service station unless the low power station is located 100 kilometers or more from that station. There are similar restrictions for other UHF channels. While these rules are intended to protect against interference, in many instances interference would not occur between stations operating at closer distances due to terrain or other factors. The current LPTV interference protection rules do not allow for terrain shielding and other mechanisms, such as colocation of adjacent channel stations. We do, however, permit applicants for LPTV and TV translator stations to"!6X,-(-(ZZ""  X0request a waiver of the rules to take terrain shielding and other mechanisms into account.I yOy ԍ Generally, an applicant for a low power TV or TV translator station may support a terrain waiver request by obtaining the assent of a potentially affected station or, alternatively, by submitting an engineering study, based on terrain profiles, which demonstrates that interference would not occur due to the effects of the terrain.  {O See Commission Policy Regarding Terrain Shielding, 3 FCC Rcd 2664 (1988), recon granted in part, 3 FCC  yO Rcd 7105 (Terrain Shielding Policy Statement); see also, First Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93114, 9 FCC Rcd 2555 (1994), which broadened the scope of the LPTV terrain waiver policy. In order to provide low power operations with additional flexibility, we proposed to allow any low power operation that is adversely affected by the implementation of DTV or our spectrum recovery efforts to take terrain and other appropriate engineering factors into account in finding replacement channels. We proposed to permit such low power stations to use any available channel, provided interference is not caused to any authorized full service NTSC or DTV operations or to other authorized low power operations. Under this plan, applications that would rely on terrain shielding to avoid interference would need to be supported by the written assent of the operator of the potentially affected station or service or, alternatively, an engineering analysis showing that interference to the offair reception of the DTV station or other primary service would not be likely due to terrain shielding. We also requested comment on any other actions we could take that would provide low power stations with additional flexibility to find replacement channels.  X 0qv119. We requested comment on whether, once DTV channels have been allotted to full service television broadcasters, we should afford licensed LPTV stations a window of opportunity to seek "primary" use of DTV channels; that is, ahead of new broadcast entrants. We asked whether if so, such stations should be permitted to seek full service DTV licenses or facilities that would replicate their LPTV coverage areas. We asked how we should proceed in areas where there would be more LPTV stations than available channels and whether we should allow multiple LPTV licensees to share a DTV channel, by multiplexing their signals. We asked whether, given the large numbers of stations in the LPTV service, we should consider such a provision only for certain LPTV stations; for example, those which meet the programming and public interest requisites for LPTV cable must carry, as set forth in the 1992 Cable Act.  X0qw120. Comments. Parties representing LPTV and TV translator interests express considerable concern with regard to the impact that the implementation of DTV service will have on their service and ask that we take a wide range of steps to avoid or reduce that  Xe0impact.`eBI yOX" ԍ Parties addressing the concerns of low power stations include AAPTS, Acadiana Cable Advertising, Inc. (Acadiana), Acrodyne, ALB, Apogee, Aries, BrunoGoodworth Network, Inc, (BGN), Joint Broadcasters, Busse Broadcasting Corp. (Busse), CBA, Channel 6, Community Teleplay, Inc. (CTI), Arnold Cruze, DSD, Holston Valley Broadcasting Corporation (HVBC), Island Broadcasting Co. (Island), KSCITV, KUEDTV, KYNETV, Lindsey, SHBC, Mr. Richard Smith, Silver King, Telemundo, Tiger Eye, UCI, the U.S. Broadcast Group Licensee, L.P.I. (USBGL), VenTech, WatchTV, and WJYLTV.` These parties generally submit that low power stations provide important and valuable local and other program services oriented to minority and special interests in their"N7 ,-(-(ZZ`"  X0communities that should be preserved.I yOy ԍ See for example, comments of CBA, p. 1; Channel 6, p. 23; UCI, pp. 67; and USBGL, p. 5. UCI states that because of the lower cost of building and operating LPTV stations, as well as the fact that they were the only option available to minority programmers in many markets, a disproportionately high percentage of minority programming is carried on LPTV stations. It states that these services would be lost  X0if LPTV stations are displaced.@XI yO ԍ UCI comments, pp. 67.@ AAPTS specifically asks that we take steps to ameliorate  X0the impact of DTV allocations on noncommercial translator service.@I yO& ԍ AAPTS comments, p. 40.@  X_0qx121. In a March 6, 1997, letter to Chairman Hundt, 53 members of the United States  XH0Senate also urge that we address the interests of LPTV and TV translator stations.HxI yOq ԍ See Letter, dated March 6, 1997, to Honorable Reed E. Hundt, Chairman, Federal Communications  {O9 Commission from Senator Wendell H. Ford, et. al. The  X10Senators, inter alia, encourage us to make more efficient use of the spectrum and eliminate current technical restrictions such as the UHF taboos in order to reduce the impact on low power operations.  X 0qy122. Low power interests generally support our proposal to allow low power stations that are displaced by new DTV stations to apply for a suitable replacement channel in the  X 0same area without being subject to competing applications.$X I yO, ԍ The parties that specifically express support for allowing low power stations to apply for replacement channels without being subject to competing applications include Busse, CBA, CTI, DSD, KSCITV, KULCTV, Silver King, Telemundo, UCI, and VenTech. $ For example, CBA supports liberal displacement relief for LPTV stations by permitting them to apply for any other available channel on a first come first served basis, without waiting for an application filing  Xd0window.>d I yO ԍ CBA comments, p. 14.> The DSD submits that we should allow low power stations to change channels  XM0through minor, rather than major, change procedures.BM I yO ԍ DSD comments, pp. 1011.B Under DSD's plan, channel changes could be made with FCC notification and a 30day publication requirement. Applicants would be required to certify that they has performed a channel availability study prior to filing. The DSD states that this change, while it would not obviate the costs of modifying equipment and installation of a new antenna, would go far to alleviate the impact on these services generally. Acadiana and Busse, however, submit that allowing low power stations to apply for replacement channels is not satisfactory means for ameliorating the DTV impact on"8,-(-(ZZP"  X0these stations.[I yOy ԍ Acadiana comments, pp. 56; Busse comments, p. 5.[ They argue that low power stations, as the least affluent members of the broadcast community, are the most poorly equipped to undertake the expense and engineering study involved in searching for unoccupied space in a shrinking spectrum environment.  X0qz123. AAPTS, Channel 6, CTI and KSCITV support our proposal to allow LPTV and TV translator stations to continue to operate until a new, displacing DTV station is operational  Xv0on their channels.vXI yO ԍ AAPTS comments, p. 40; Channel 6 comments, p. 3; CTI comments, p. 3; KSCITV comments, p. 3. AAPTS, Acrodyne, CTI, and KSCITV state that this policy should apply to low power stations on channels both within and outside the core region. CTI also agrees that LPTV stations should be able to file nonwindow displacement relief applications to change their operating parameters. KUEDTV supports our proposal to permit low power stations to operate outside the DTV core spectrum. They also state that we should require  X 0television receiver manufacturers to support these channels.A I yO ԍ KUEDTV comments, p. 7.A  X 0q{124. AAPTS states that we should require new nonbroadcast users of reallocated spectrum to compensate translator and LPTV licensees that they displace for the costs those  X 0licensees incur in moving to a new channel.@ xI yO ԍ AAPTS comments, p. 40.@ However, it does not believe that new DTV licensees should be required to compensate translator or LPTV licensees for moving costs since the latter constructed their facilities with the knowledge that they were secondary to full service broadcast facilities. Apogee, BGN, CBA, Channel 6, Cruze, CTI, KUEDTV and VenTech argue that a DTV licensee displacing a low power station should be required to pay for the LPTV channel change, or pay it for the lost business opportunities in the event that no channel is available. Channel 6 states that compensation would ease the transition to new  X0channels and help to ensure the continued operation of low power service.CI yO ԍ Channel 6 comments, p. 3.C KUED notes that most translator licensees are nonprofit, do not have the funds for replacement and a new  X0translator station can cost up to $50,000.AI yO! ԍ KUEDTV comments, p. 7.A BGN submits that LPTV stations forced off the air by reallocation of spectrum should be compensated at least one million dollars from  X0revenues obtained through the spectrum auction.@( I yO# ԍ BGN comments, pp. 56.@ CBA argues that such compensation should be awarded irrespective of whether the low power stations's channel is inside or outside the core spectrum. It argues that such compensation could come from the full service station that chooses to displace the LPTV station rather than use another channel; but"e9 ,-(-(ZZ"  X0indicates that it may be more appropriate that compensation come from auction revenues.>I yOy ԍ CBA comments, p. 18.>  X0q|125. AAPTS, Apogee, CBA, and VenTech submit that we should take additional steps to encourage or require cable systems to carry local LPTV stations. AAPTS argues that we should allow noncommercial TV translators, whether providing NTSC or DTV service, to  X0qualify for carriage on cable systems under Section 615 of the Communications Act.GXI yO ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  535.G It states that Section 615 explicitly requires carriage of noncommercial educational translators  X_0with five watts or higher power serving a cable franchise area.@_I yO ԍ AAPTS comments, p. 41.@ Apogee believes that LPTV stations that meet certain local origination, children's programming and regulatory standards  X10should be given the benefits of "mustcarry" rights.@1xI yOZ ԍ Apogee comments, p. 4.@ CBA supports greater incentives for cable carriage of LPTV. It suggests, for example, that we permit cable operators a 20cent subscriber rate increase in return for adding an LPTV signal and through establishing  X 0reasonable leased access channel rates.B I yO ԍ CBA comments, pp. 1516.B VenTech states that in the event that our cable "must carry" authority survives, it would be appropriate to require all cable operators to carry  X 0LPTV stations.A I yO ԍ VenTech comments, p. 8.A  X0q}126. Apogee submits that, as an alternative, we could require DTV operators proposing a multichannel service to provide a replacement channel for displaced LPTV  Xb0operators at a cost comparable to the LPTV station's operating costs.@b( I yO; ԍ Apogee comments, p. 4.@ Benton supports adoption of a plan that would provide for channel sharing in DTV broadcasting to lessen the  X40impact on LPTV stations.@4 I yO ԍ Benton comments, p. 5.@ It states that existing LPTV stations should be afforded priority in such sharing arrangements. Benton also proposes that a channel sharing plan also include new entrants to broadcasting. SHBC believes that the rules should permit broadcasters to negotiate with LPTV and TV translator station operators for the purpose for transmitting their  X0signal.>H I yO$ ԍ SHBC comments, p. 5.> It believe such arrangements could allow broadcasters to serve areas where interference cannot be avoided during the transition. On the other hand, BET opposes allocating free spectrum for LPTV and TV translator stations that have secondary status in the":,-(-(ZZ"  X0current TV licensing process.>I yOy ԍ BET comments, p. 11.> It states that the interests of a diversity of viewpoints mandates that a wider pool of applicants be allowed to apply for new spectrum that could be used for DTV and other services.  X0q~127. Many parties representing low power television interests submit that we should  X0provide for conversion of LPTV and TV translator stations to DTV service.XI yO ԍ The parties addressing conversion of low power stations to DTV service include Acadiana, Acrodyne, BGN, Busse, CBA, DSD, and Freedom. For example, CBA submits that LPTV stations that survive the transition should be permitted to migrate, on a permanent basis, to digital operations on any available channel where interference would not  XH0be caused, when and as they are ready to do so.>HI yO ԍ CBA comments, p. 20.> CBA states that as existing service providers, these stations should be given access to available spectrum before the general public is permitted to apply. It further submits that full service broadcasters should be subject to a "useitorloseit timetable." Acadiana and Busse argue that, where feasible, we should provide each LPTV and TV translator station with a channel on the DTV Table and allow  X 0them to determine when to make the transition to DTV service.[ @I yO ԍ Acadiana comments, pp. 67; Busse comments, p. 7.[ The DSD and Freedom similarly request that we leave the transition of low power stations to DTV service to the  X 0market.Z I yO( ԍ DSD comments, pp. 1112; Freedom comments, p. 9.Z Freedom argues that low power stations should be under no requirement to make a transition to DTV, either having to wait for some specific opening date or to change by a specified date at the end. The DSD is concerned that the costs of transition on a fixed schedule could be more expensive that low power operators could afford. It further requests that once the DTV Table is adopted the existing freeze on low power applications should be lifted. It states that new applications should be required to demonstrate compliance with all required D/U separation criteria, and would be licensed on a secondary, noninterference basis. The DSD believes that this approach would mitigate some of the lack of new entry built in to the current proposal. Acrodyne, a manufacturer of low power and full service TV transmitters, argues that low power broadcasters should be given the opportunity to provide DTV services immediately so as to be able to compete effectively with other DTV providers  X0in their markets.E` I yO" ԍ Acrodyne comments, pp. 12.E It states that many of the low power transmitters currently in use and being manufactured can be easily converted/modified for use with DTV signals, thereby allowing LPTV broadcasters to implement DTV service early.  XN0q128. Cruze, HVBC and Mr. Smith believe that we should reserve some channels for low power operations in order to preserve the local television service provided by these"7; ,-(-(ZZ" stations. Cruze recommends that we preserve channels 6069 for use by existing translators  X0and displaced translator operations.?I yOb ԍ Cruze comments, p. 2.? HVBC suggests that we allocate perhaps four UHF channels just above the final full service TV band for the exclusive primary use of LPTV  X0stations and the secondary use of TV translators.?XI yO ԍ HVBC comments, p. 14.? Mr. Smith supports reserving the top ten channels of the UHF band for low power service, whether it be channels 5159 or 6069 and states that we should allow displaced stations the first opportunity to move to these  Xv0channels.FvI yO ԍ Mr. Smith comments, pp. 56.F  XH0q129. Low power TV operators and others also submit that we should afford low power stations priority in access to spectrum not needed for implementation by eligible  X 0broadcasters and additional spectrum that may become available. X xI yOC ԍ Parties that believe we should afford low power stations priority or primary status with regard to available spectrum include AAPTS, Aries, the Joint Broadcasters, Channel 6, CTI, HVBC, KSCITV, KYNE, UCI, VenTech, and WatchTV.  For example, Apogee states that as a matter of fairness and equity, displaced LPTV operators should be given first priority in any surplus DTV channels. Apogee also argues that priority should be afforded to multichannel DTV applicants who agree to allocate one or more channels to displaced LPTV  X 0stations.@ I yO ԍ Apogee comments, p. 4.@ Aries, Channel 6, CTI, UCI, Venture Technologies Group (VenTech), and WatchTV believe that we should provide a window of opportunity for LPTV and TV translator stations to seek primary status before new applicants are allowed to apply for DTV  Xy0channels.y( I yOR ԍ Aries comments, p. 3; Channel 6 comments, p. 3; CTI comments, p. 5; UCI comments, p. 8; VenTech comments, pp. 34; WatchTV comments, pp. 23. HVBC argues that LPTV stations that originate programming should be afforded  Xb0primary status.?b I yO ԍ HVBC comments, p. 10.? KYNE proposes that we establish a new class of LPTV license called a "Primary Low Power TV Station" that would provide primary status to low power stations if  X40they meet the same responsibilities and programming requirements as full service stations.>4I yO! ԍ KYNE comments, p. 4.> KSCITV argues that channels for TV translators and onchannel repeaters should be given a  X0priority over other low power stations.AI yOW% ԍ KSCITV comments, p. 3.A It states that translators are used to provide the signal of a full service station to viewers who cannot receive the full service station because of terrain factors."<0,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X0ԙq130. The Joint Broadcasters state that after the initial construction period, it would be appropriate to give LPTV and translator stations that were displaced from their existing channels special consideration in assigning DTV channels that are still unassigned or have not  X0been built.QI yO4 ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, pp. 5253.Q AAPTS argues that we should give noncommercial translators priority in using  X0newly available spectrum. It states that this priority should be afforded in two ways.@XI yO ԍ AAPTS comments, p. 37.@ First, it states that until one year after DTV stations are required to commence operation, we should make vacant noncommercial DTV channels available only for noncommercial translator service except where an applicant proposes to operate a full service noncommercial station on the channel. Second, it recommends that, for noncommercial translators that 1) provide a first noncommercial service to an area and 2) were required to cease operation as a result of the commencement of a DTV service, we provide a preference over other translator and LPTV applicants for all digital channels that become available in their service areas until one year after the end of the transition. The DSD disagrees with those who would make LPTV a  X 0primary service.B I yOn ԍ DSD comments, pp. 1112.B It states that secondary status creates latitude for LPTV to take a leadership role in experimentation.  X0q131. The commenting parties are generally supportive of our proposals to relax existing technical standards for location and operation of low power stations. They agree that the proposed technical changes would mitigate the impact of DTV operation on low power stations and ask that we adopt them as a start in preserving these stations. Several parties also submit suggestions for additional measures for affording relief to low power stations.  X0q132. CBA, KSCITV, Telemundo and VenTech agree that we should allow displaced low power stations to take terrain and other appropriate engineering considerations into account in finding replacement channels. CBA submits that we should fully recognize and expand our existing policies regarding the use of directional antennas and terrain shielding as  X0a means to avoid interference to full service stations.BxI yO ԍ CBA comments, pp. 1113.B KSCITV states that because translators are normally located in mountainous areas, flat earth calculations are not  X|0relevant.A|I yO5" ԍ KSCITV comments, p. 4.A VenTech requests that we use terrain limited contours for NTSC stations and take  Xe0terrain into account when determining interference from LPTV stations to any other station.BeI yO$ ԍ VenTech comments, p. 10.B CBA also states that LPTV and TV translator licensees should be able to use the same analytic methods, including LongleyRice analysis, that we use in developing the DTV Table"7=( ,-(-(ZZ"  X0to show that a proposed new channel would not cause interference.>I yOy ԍ CBA comments, p. 14.> VenTech asks that in all cases where interference calculations are made to NTSC stations from LPTV stations, we assume the same receiving antenna patterns for determining the protection levels of NTSC and  X0DTV stations.BXI yO ԍ VenTech comments, p. 10.B  X0q133. A number of parties representing low power TV interests request that we eliminate or reduce the existing rules intended to limit interference by low power stations to full service stations. CBA states that the interference requirements for low power stations are more stringent than the fixed mileage separation requirements applied between full service  X10stations.B1I yO ԍ CBA comments, pp. 1415.B It states that interference rules for low power stations should be conformed to the assumptions underlying the full power rules. It further submits that LPTV operators should always be allowed to accept any interference they are willing to endure. CTI submits that the criteria for controlling interference from low power stations should be the desiredtoundesired (D/U) signal ratios, as calculated from the currently licensed technical parameters of the  X 0stations involved.= xI yO ԍ CTI comments, p. 3.=  X0q134. VenTech states that cochannel protection to DTV service from low power  Xy0stations should be phased in over the first five years.ByI yO2 ԍ VenTech comments, p. 12.B It submits that once DTV receivers are available to the general public, DTV signals should be protected from cochannel low power stations at a contour 15 dB above the minimum DTV service contour. VenTech states that this should be phased to full contour protection within five years or when the DTV receiver population reaches a significant level, whichever is longer.  X0q135. With regard to adjacent channel operation, Island proposes that we accept low power applications if the applicant demonstrates: 1) that the station's signal will not exceed the signal of an adjacent channel full service NTSC station by more than 15 dB in any area in which the full service station is significantly viewed over the air, and 2) the station's signal will not be more than 20 dB different in level from the signal received by another LPTV station operating on an adjacent channel in any area in which the potential victim LPTV  Xe0station is, or is predicted to be, significantly viewed overtheair.@eI yO$ ԍ Island comments, p. 2.@ Island notes that this may require colocation, or near colocation of the LPTV station with the adjacent channel full service station and that the LPTV station would risk being overwhelmed by the full service"7>( ,-(-(ZZ" station. CBA and Island submit that in cases where a low power NTSC station is on a channel adjacent to a DTV station, we should require the DTV station to minimize its impact  X0on the LPTV station.UI yOK ԍ CBA comments, p. 12; Island comments, p. 2.U They state that we should require the DTV station to cooperate with the LPTV station to make it possible to maintain the precise frequency separation of the two stations within the 6 Hz tolerance that minimizes the beat between the DTV carrier and the NTSC color subcarrier that shows up as interference in the NTSC picture. VenTech submits that, during the transition, adjacent channel interference from low power TV to DTV service can be reduced by additional filtering at the low power transmitter, and may also be treated at DTV receivers by filters or antenna changes, and so that in no case should such interference  X10result in the termination of NTSC low power service.E1XI yO: ԍ VenTech comments, pp. 912.E VenTech also proposes that we permit the use of first adjacent channels from sites within 3 km of an adjacent channel NTSC UHF station without a waiver request, providing that an analysis of signal strengths shows adequate protection of the adjacent channel NTSC station at receiver locations.  X 0q136. Low power interests, including Cruze, CTI, Island, VenTech, and WJYLTV also ask that we eliminate the UHF taboo fixed mileage spacing standards for low power  X0stations. I yO) ԍ In addition to the cochannel and adjacent channel interference concerns, it is possible for stations operating on certain other combinations of channels, principally in the UHF band, to interfere with one another.  yO Allotment constraints on these combinations (e.g., channels +/ 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, and 15) are known as UHF taboos. These parties argue that the existing taboos are unnecessary for low power operations and should be eliminated as a means to mitigate the impact of DTV implementation on low power stations. For example, WJYLTV submits the current mileage separations and taboos that apply to low power TV operation could be altered, based on improvements that have occurred in receiver technology and quality. It states that the taboos should be reevaluated using modern day receiver sensitivity and rejection performance. Arnold Cruze recommends removing UHF taboos that cause minor or no interference to colocated stations. He argues that this has been proven in actual service when waivers have been granted. Island argues that our plan to establish a DTV core spectrum area places a priority on optimum use of the spectrum and that we can no longer afford blanket, supersafe  X0UHF taboos.@I yO+! ԍ Island comments, p. 2.@ Island argues that in cases where it can be shown to be probable that no interference will occur, we should allow a low power station to operate at its own risk. It states that reception tests in the New York City area show very little evidence of interference even though a number of violations of the UHF taboos exist among the stations operating there. VenTech submits that given their low signal levels, low power stations are unlikely to  X70cause interference to stations on other than co or adjacent channels.B7` I yOH' ԍ VenTech comments, p. 11.B It therefore argues"7? ,-(-(ZZ" that we should not employ taboo restrictions on low power stations during the transition. Lindsey states that we should allow LPTV stations to relocate to current oscillator, aural image and intermodulation channels at their own risk.  X0q137. CBA and Island state that to encourage more efficient use of the spectrum, we  X0should regulate low power TV stations by ERP rather than transmitter output power.YI yO ԍ CBA comments, pp. 1112; Island comments, p. 6.Y They argue that the existing limit on total power output (TPO) unnecessarily restricts LPTV operation. Island submits that it is actually ERP that governs coverage and interference, not TPO. It states that if LPTV stations were allowed to operate with higher TPO, while held to the existing strict interference standards, they could easily, in many cases, raise their closein received power level so that they could operate and survive colocated with adjacent channel full service stations. Island therefore requests that we accept LPTV applications where the only power specification is an ERP value in any azimuth or elevation direction that is no greater than 3 kW for low VHF, 10 kW for high VHF and 150 kW for UHF, and meets all other interference criteria then in effect and not waived.  X0q138. KYNE and Lindsey requests that we allow LPTV stations to increase power to a level that would allow them to maintain a 15 dB signal to interference ratio with neighboring  Xb0full service stations.YbXI yOk ԍ KYNE comments, p. 3; Lindsey comments, pp. 45.Y They state that this change would significantly reduce the number of LPTV casualties during the DTV transition. Lindsey also argues that we should abolish our zero tolerance policy with regard to interference and allow reasonable interference to occur in an LPTV station's Grade B contour, as has always been allowed for full service stations. VenTech also submits that we should make allowances for LPTV stations to "provide greater  X0interference to full service stations to preserve them in the spectrum."AI yO ԍ VenTech comments, p. 6.A  X0q139. Telemundo submits that we should permit low power stations to colocate with DTV or NTSC facilities. It states that by allowing displaced low power stations to colocate with existing NTSC or new DTV stations, the necessary interference protection ratios can be maintained throughout the NTSC or DTV station's service area. It also states that we should permit displaced low power stations to increase power in order to serve their previous coverage areas following colocation of their facilities with an NTSC or DTV station. VenTech requests that we permit low power stations to operate within the land mobile protected contour on the adjacent channel to one of the land mobile assignments in Sec. 74.709(a) of the rules, provided that sufficient filtering is used in the LPTV transmitting  X0system to protect the adjacent land mobile stations.JxI yO& ԍ See 47 CFR  74.709(a).J "@,-(-(ZZP!"Ԍ X0q140. Several parties representing low power TV interests also argue that we should include low power stations in the computer software used to develop the DTV Table. Acadiana and Busse argues that by failing to include low power stations in the allotment software, we have failed to take the one step that might have illuminated the hazards facing  X0low power operators._I yO ԍ Acadiana comments, pp. 2 and 6; Busse comments, p. 6._ Busse states that we should modify our allotment software to include instructions such that in cases where a channel currently occupied by a low power station is required for the DTV transition, the program would look for an alternative channel for the displaced station. Acadiana and Busse also state that inclusion of low stations in the computer software would allow us to furnish a reasonable estimate of the scope of the impact faced by LPTV and TV translator operators. Apogee states that we should redo the draft  X 0Table taking low power stations into account and protecting them wherever possible.@ XI yO# ԍ Apogee comments, p. 3.@ CBA  X 0suggests the allotment software include a penalty for displacing an operating LPTV station.> I yO ԍ CBA comments, p. 17.> It recommends that where there is a conflict between LPTV and full power stations, the first attempt should be to find an alternative DTV channel for the full service station, and that one DTV channel should be deemed equivalent to another if their NTSC replication is within 5% and there are no other serious countervailing considerations.  Xy0q141. Decision. In providing all full service TV stations with a second DTV channel, we have previously found that it will be necessary to displace a number of LPTV and TV  XK0translator operations, especially in the major markets.KxI yOt ԍ See Second Report/Further Notice, at paras. 3945; and Second Further Notice, at para. 41. This determination was based on studies by our staff and by our Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service (Advisory Committee) that indicate there is insufficient spectrum available in the broadcast  X0TV bands to factor in low power displacement considerations in making DTV allotments.I yO ԍ See "Interim Report: Estimate of the Availability of Spectrum for Advanced Television (ATV) in the Existing Broadcast Television Bands," OET Technical Memorandum, FCC/OET TM881, August 1988 and, "Interim Report: Further Studies on the Availability of Spectrum for Advanced Television," OET Technical Memorandum, FCC/OET TM891, December 1989; and, "Preliminary Analysis of VHF and UHF Planning Subcommittee Working Party 3, Doc. 0174 (June 1991).  X0As the Joint Broadcasters state in their comments in response to the Sixth Further Notice, during the transition there is simply not enough available spectrum to preserve all existing  X0translators and LPTV stations.M I yO*$ ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 33.M  X0q142. Notwithstanding our decision to maintain the secondary status of low power stations, we are concerned about the impact of DTV implementation on low power services,"|AH ,-(-(ZZ" especially the impact with regard to LPTV stations, and believe it is desirable to take certain steps to minimize the impact on those stations. As discussed below at paragraphs 144 to 147, we are adopting a number of changes to our rules, including many of the changes to the technical rules requested by the low power TV and TV translator industries, that will provide additional flexibility to accommodate low power operations during and after the transition to DTV, and thereby substantially mitigate the impact of DTV implementation on this segment of the television industry. We believe that these changes will provide significantly more relief  X_0for LPTV than the reservation of channels, as suggested by some commenters. We further believe that these technical relaxations are consistent with the technical changes suggested in the Senate letter on low power. We also note that as secondary operations, LPTV and TV translator stations will be able to continue to operate until a displacing DTV station or a new primary service provider is operational and would receive interference from the low power TV or TV translator station. In this regard, we will continue to allow low power operations on all existing TV channels, including channels 6069, provided that such operations do not cause harmful interference to any primary operations. We will also permit displaced LPTV or TV translator stations to request operation on these channels on a noninterfering basis.  Xy0q143. In summary, we believe that the rule changes we are adopting below will preserve many existing low power operations and will open many new channels for those low power operations that might be displaced by DTV. We estimate these changes will permit hundreds of LPTV and TV translators to continue providing service to their viewers. With regard to compensation, as indicated above, we will address this issue in our forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rule Making on reallocation of channels 6069. Finally, we recognize that most low power stations can continue to operate throughout the DTV transition. We intend to consider in a future rule making whether to create a new class of low power television broadcast stations that would modify the secondary status of these stations and provide them some level of interference protection.  X0  X|0q144. Channel Displacement Relief. We are adopting our proposal to allow low power stations that are displaced by new DTV stations to apply for a suitable replacement channel in  XP0the same area without being subject to competing applications.PI yO ԍ This streamlined low power licensing procedure, described herein, will also apply to a request for any channel change from a low power station that is displaced by a DTV station. To provide LPTV operators with as much flexibility as possible in finding a replacement channel, the channel change request can include a replacement channel for NTSC operation or a channel change to be used for DTV operations, on a casebycase basis. We will also permit displaced stations to request an increase in power or other facility modifications necessary to avoid interference or permit it to continue serving its current coverage area. As suggested by CBA, we are also amending our rules to indicate that such applications will be considered on a firstcome, firstserved basis without waiting for the Commission to issue a low power application window. Under this approach, the LPTV licensee requesting such a channel or related facilities change would submit an application for the requested channel change. If no other prior requests for that channel had been made within the same area and the application is acceptable for filing, the Commission would propose to grant the application. Assuming no" B@,-(-(ZZ!" negative comments or petitions to deny, the request would be granted at the end of the 30 day period. We believe that this approach will minimize the administrative burden and uncertainty in finding replacement channels for displaced LPTV operations.  X0q145. Technical Rule Changes. We find that the current interference rules for low power operations are overly restrictive and are adopting a number of rule changes that will  Xx0provide additional operating flexibility for low power stations, as follows:w xI yO ԍ For example, the current UHF taboo channel restrictions are based on the interference potential of full service stations operating on these channels. Low power stations are subject to some of the same UHF taboo restrictions even though they operate at much less power and therefore have much less potential for causing interference.w q  XJ0qa) Low PowertoLow Power Considerations. As suggested by CBA and Island, we are deleting the current taboo restrictions on use of a channel either 7 channels below or 14 channels above the channel of another station in the low power TV service. We will also allow LPTV and TV translator stations to make use of terrain shielding, LongleyRice terrain dependent propagation prediction methods and appropriate interference abatement techniques to show that the station will not cause interference to other low power operations. As suggested by Island, we will also allow low power TV and TV translator station operators and applicants to agree to accept interference from other low power TV and TV translator stations.  X}0qb) Low PowertoNTSC Considerations. We are eliminating the requirement that low power stations consider the existing full service UHF taboo restrictions on channels +/ 2, 3, 4, or 5 removed from an existing NTSC station, except for stations operating at higher power levels as specified below. These taboos are no longer needed based on measurements  X#0conducted by the ATTC. #I yO ԍ See for example, "Record of Test Results Channel Compatible DigiCipher HDTV," Taboo Interference into NTSC, Table 19-9A, page I-19-35, Advanded Television Test Center, January 1993. We will also allow LPTV and TV translator stations to make use of terrain shielding, LongleyRice terrain dependent propagation prediction methods, and appropriate interference abatement techniques to show that the low power station will not cause interference to NTSC stations. As suggested by CBA and Island, we will permit low power operations on a channel 7 channels below a full service NTSC operation if it can be shown that the low power station's coverage area is not within an area where the affected NTSC station is regularly viewed overtheair.  Xk0qc) Low PowertoDTV Considerations. We are establishing clear D/U signal ratios for interference between low power and DTV operations based on the performance of the ATSC system. We are limiting considerations between low power and DTV operations to cochannel and first adjacent channel interference factors only. In addition, we are specifying that a low power operation need protect only actual DTV operating facilities. In this regard, applications for low power stations will be accepted provided they specify a site outside of the noiselimited service areas, based on actual facilities, of cochannel or adjacent channel DTV"C ,-(-(ZZ!"  X0stations. I yOy ԍ For the purposes of this analysis, the noiselimited service or coverage area of a DTV station is defined as the geographic area where the station's field strength exceeds the values for noiselimited service, as specified  yO  in  73.622(e) in Appendix E herein and in the Fifth Report and Order, less any geographic area where interference may occur from other DTV or NTSC operations.  For cochannel operations, applications for low power stations will be accepted if the low power station's field strength at the edge of the noiselimited service area of the DTV  X0station would be more than 21 dB below the field strength of the DTV station.  xI yO ԍ The Advisory Committee's test results indicate that 21 dB is the minimum acceptable D/U ratio between a DTV signal and an undesired NTSC signal in areas at the edge of a DTV station's service contour, where  yO interference from low power service can be expected to occur. See "Record of Test Results of the Grand Alliance System," Advanced Television Test Center, October 1995, Section I-12-2. For adjacent channel operations, applications for low power stations will be accepted if the proposed low power station's field strength at the edge of the DTV station's noiselimited  X0service area is less than +48 dB above the field strength of the DTV station.  X` I yO ԍ +48 dB is the maximum allowable (U/D) ratio between an undesired NTSC signal and a desired DTV signal and is based on the performance characteristics of the ATSC DTV System. This value is shown as a D/U ratio in Appendix A.  Alternatively, applications for low power stations proposing to locate at a site within an adjacent channel DTV station's noiselimited service area will be accepted if the applicant demonstrates that the ratio of the proposed low power station's field strength to that of the DTV station is less than +48 dB at all points within the noiselimited service area of the DTV station. We agree with CBA that low power stations should be permitted to use uptodate, sophisticated  X 0methods of predicting signal coverage, to enable the most efficient use of the spectrum.>  I yO4 ԍ CBA comments, p. 14.> We will allow low power TV and TV translator applicants to make use of terrain shielding and the LongleyRice terrain dependent propagation methods and other established engineering techniques, such as receiving antenna modelling, to show that interference will not be caused to DTV stations. We will also consider amending our rules in a future proceeding to change our application acceptance criteria to reflect this approach after we have gained practical experience with these techniques and have upgraded our application processing software accordingly.  X40q146. We will entertain requests to waive the LPTV protection standards where it can be demonstrated that proposed LPTV or TV translator stations would not cause any new interference to the reception of TV broadcast analog stations; that is, an LPTV or TV translator station would not be predicted to interfere at locations where there is not already predicted interference from other NTSC TV broadcast stations. We agree with the CBA, Island and other commenters that colocating with adjacent channel NTSC and TV facilities may prove a vital means of the survival for some LPTV stations. CBA comments that operational experience and measurements show that LPTV and NTSC stations can operate at"D ,-(-(ZZ" the same or nearby locations on adjacent channels and on channels separated by fourteen  X0channels.MI yOb ԍ CBA comments, Technical Exhibit, p.5M Accordingly, we will entertain waiver requests for low power and TV translator applications proposing colocated or nearly colocated facilities to those of TV broadcast analog stations operating on the first adjacent channel above or below, or the fourteenth adjacent channel below. These applications will be accepted if the applicant demonstrates that the predicted signal strength of the proposed station does not exceed by more than 15 dB the signal strength of a first adjacent station, or by more than 23 dB the signal strength of a fourteenth adjacent channel station, at locations within the station's protected contour where the station is regularly viewed. A waiver based on "near" colocation could enable an LPTV station to operate on a channel adjacent to that of a full power station located on a different tower in the same antenna farm. Until we gain some experience with near colocated operations, as described above, we are favorably inclined to limit consideration of such waivers to applications for "displacement relief" filed by LPTV and TV translator permittees and licensees in jeopardy of losing their channels. Finally, we will consider waiving the LPTV interference protection standards when the applicant obtains the written consent of the potentially affected NTSC or TV licensee or permittee to the grant of the waiver. This policy, which has worked well for terrain shielding waivers, permits a full service licensee or permittee to concur that interference is unlikely, but without absolving the LPTV or TV translator applicant of the responsibility to eliminate interference caused to the regularly viewed signal of the station.  X0q147. Currently, stations in the low power TV service are limited to total power output (TPO) of 1000 watts for UHF channels and 10 watts for VHF channels. We agree with Island, VenTech and others that the actual ERP of the station is a more appropriate factor for determining coverage and interference and that the existing TPO limit may be unnecessarily restrictive. We are, therefore, amending our low power rules to replace the existing TPO limits with limits for effective radiated power (ERP), as follows: T ddx !ddxeE( ( ( T       ! pFrequency Band & NTSC Power& DTV Power  q e    VHF 13 kW X< 300 Wq   &    UHF8 +150 kW8 15 kW   However, applications for low power NTSC stations on UHF channels proposing an ERP exceeding 50 kW will continue to be subject to the current taboo restrictions for the +/ second through fourth adjacent channels, although we will consider waivers of these restrictions based on showings of noninterference. We believe that the impact on the fifth adjacent channel is sufficiently minimal to permit us to generally eliminate this restriction as a"$EX,-(-(ZZ%" processing standard in the LPTV service. Although we are providing maximum values of digital ERP for the low power television service, we will defer to a future proceeding matters relating to the general authorization of digital television by low power and TV translator stations.  X0D. Use of TV Channels 3, 4 and 6  X_0q148. In the Sixth Further Notice, we proposed not to allot both Channels 3 and 4 within the same community wherever possible to avoid potential interference to cable terminal devices (settop boxes) and videocassette recorders (VCRs). These devices typically use either channel 3 or 4 for their output signal and could be vulnerable to interference if there were an offtheair signal present on the same channel as their output signal. In order to avoid possible interference either to or from FM radio service, we also proposed to make DTV allotments to TV channel 6 only where there is no other readily available allotment opportunity that would provide for adequate replication of an existing station's service area. For cases where it might be necessary to use channel 6, we proposed to apply an appropriate standard similar to that currently specified in the rules to protect against interference between  Xy0NTSC Channel 6 and FM radio.yL yO ԍ The rules regulating TV channel 6 and FM radio interference are set forth in 47 CFR 73.207(c), 73.525 and 73.610(f). TV channel 6 is restricted with respect to the IF separation to FM channel 253 (Section 73.610(f) of the rules). Commercial FM stations on channel 253 and noncommercial educational FM stations on FM channels 201220 must protect TV channel 6. There are no restrictions on new TV channel 6 stations or changes with respect to FM channels 201220.  XK0q149. Comments. The Joint Broadcasters and the EIA support our proposal to avoid use of channels 3 and 4 in the same market to avoid problems in using cable terminal devices  X0and videocassette recorders.axL yOF ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 18; EIA comments, p. 5.a They agree that cable systems, broadcasters, equipment manufacturers and the public should not be burdened with the interference problems that would ensue if neither channel 3 nor 4 is available for VCR and cable settop box use. The EIA states that consumers will obviously benefit enormously if there is no increase in the potential for interference to VCRs and settop boxes.  X0q150. The Santa Monica Community College District (SMCCD), the licensee of an FM radio station in Santa Monica, CA supports our proposal not to use channel 6 for provision of DTV service. It is concerned that the quality of its FM radio service would be degraded if we were to allot channel 6 for DTV operation in Los Angeles. On the other hand, the Joint Broadcasters submit that, with proper engineering design and safeguards, channel 6 can be used for DTV during the transition. They indicate that the lower power of DTV transmitters, the improved performance of DTV transmitters with regard to outofband emissions, and improved performance capabilities of DTV receivers will reduce the potential for interference"F,-(-(ZZ "  X0between DTV channel 6 and FM radio service.ML yOy ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 48.M  X0q151. Decision. We continue to believe it is important to avoid the allotment of both channels 3 and 4 in the same market and to avoid the use of channel 6 in developing DTV  X0allotments. As we observed in the Sixth Further Notice, broadcast operation on both channels 3 and 4 in the same market would result in conflict with cable terminal devices, VCRs and other TV interface devices that provide output signals selectably on either channel 3 or 4. Also, DTV operation on channel 6 could pose potential conflicts with FM radio service on adjacent frequencies. Accordingly, we have developed the DTV Table to avoid any instances where channels 3 and 4 would both be used in the same area and have minimized the use of channel 6, so that the new DTV Table contains only two allotments on channel6.  X 0E. Land Mobile Sharing  X 0q152. In the Sixth Further Notice, we set forth proposals for protecting against possible interference between DTV stations and land mobile operations. The rules currently authorize sharing between land mobile and TV operations on frequencies in the range of UHF channels 1420, which occupy the 470512 MHz band, in 13 urbanized areas, the Gulf of Mexico  Xb0offshore region and Hawaii.$ bXL yOk ԍ See 47 CFR 2.106, Notes NG66, NG114 and NG127. The 13 urbanized areas where UHF channels may be used for land mobile operations and the channels set aside for such operations in those areas are: qpp @ @  hh,TV Channel  yO qNew YorkNortheastern New Jersey,VV514, 15  yO qLos Angeles@ @  hh,VV514, 16, 20  yOS qChicagoNorthwestern Indianahh,VV514, 15  yO qPhiladelphia, PANew Jerseyhh,VV519, 20  yO qDetroit, MI@ @  hh,VV515, 16  yO qSan FranciscoOakland, CAhh,VV516, 17  yOs qBoston, MA@ @  hh,VV514, 16  yO; qWashington, DCMarylandVirginia,VV517, 18  yO qPittsburgh, PA@ @  hh,VV514, 18  yO qCleveland, OH@ @  hh,VV514, 15  yO qMiami, FL@ @  hh,VV514  yO[ qHouston, TX@ @  hh,VV517  yO# qDallas, TX@ @  hh,VV516$ Based on the performance characteristics of the ATSC DTV system, we proposed to allow DTV stations to operate at cochannel and adjacent channel spacings to the citycenter of land mobile operations as close as 250 km (155 miles) and 176  X0km (110 miles), respectively. @L yOn$ ԍ Currently, our practice is to evaluate petitions for rule making requesting new television allotments on the same channel as, or first adjacent channel to, a channel used in a nearby area for land mobile service on a casebycase basis. In these casebycase evaluations, spacing standards derived from policy statements in Docket No. 18261 are used. Under these standards, the transmitter site of a new NTSC TV station must be at"&,-(-(&" least 345 km (212 miles) from the citycenter of a cochannel land mobile operation and at least 230 km (140  yOX miles) from the citycenter of an adjacent channel land mobile operation. In the Second Further Notice, we stated that because DTV stations are expected to operate with 10 dB less power than NTSC stations, we believe it is acceptable to allow DTV stations to operate closer to land mobile operations than is permitted under our current TV station/land mobile spacing policy. We stated that we generally believe that it would be possible to allow DTV stations to operate at cochannel and adjacent channel spacings to the citycenter of land mobile  yO@ operations as close as 250 km (155 miles) and 176 miles (110 miles), respectively. Second Further Notice, at  yO para. 46. We maintained this proposal in the Sixth Further Notice. Sixth Further Notice, at para 76. We also noted that some additional conditions may be"G,-(-(ZZ" necessary in those few instances where these spacing distances cannot be met.  X0q153. The draft DTV Table included with the Sixth Further Notice assumed that channel 20 would remain available for land mobile operations in Philadelphia. However, the broadcast industry, in developing sample DTV plans, assumed that the land mobile use of channel 20 in Philadelphia would be eliminated and that this frequency would be available for DTV purposes. We recognized, as argued by broadcasters, that the elimination of channel 20 for land mobile operations in Philadelphia could significantly reduce the interference among TV stations in the congested northeast corridor. We also recognized that there are a  X10substantial number of land mobile operations licensed in the Philadelphia area.1L yO ԍ Over 600 licenses have been granted for land mobile use of channel 20 in the Philadelphia area. We therefore requested comment on the impact of eliminating channel 20 use for land mobile service in Philadelphia and on whether the reduction in interference to broadcast service would outweigh the benefits of maintaining channel 20 for land mobile use in Philadelphia. We also noted that our existing border agreements with Canada preclude activation of land mobile stations on channels 15 and 16 in Detroit and channels 14 and 15 in Cleveland, and proposed to make these channels available for DTV allotment purposes in those markets.  Xy0 154. Comments. The Joint Broadcasters submit that we should allow a minimum cochannel spacing of 240 km (146 miles) between DTV allotments and the city center of land  XK0mobile channels that occupy channels in the range 1420.MK` L yO\ ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 45.M They state that these spacings are necessary to avoid interference to NTSC and DTV service. UTC submits that we need to ensure that the proposed separation distances will adequately protect land mobile operations operating pursuant to the new private land mobile refarming rules that were adopted in PR  X0Docket No. 92235.> L yO! ԍ UTC comments, p. 10.> It asks that we review our proposed cochannel and adjacent channel spacing criteria for DTV and land mobile operations in light of the power, antenna height and channel spacing requirements applicable to land mobile operations pursuant to the new refarming rules.  X|0q155. Land mobile users and parties representing their interests also express concern that interference will occur where DTV allotments are shortspaced to land mobile operations. "eH ,-(-(ZZ" APCO, the LMCC, Motorola and UTC submit that adjustments to the draft DTV Table are  X0necessary to protect existing public safety and land mobile operations.L yOb ԍ APCO comments, p. 4; LMCC comments, pp. 2, and 1216; Motorola comments, p. 2; and UTC comments, p. 11. These parties are particularly concerned that shortspaced DTV allotments in the New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles areas would disrupt land mobile service in those areas. APCO notes that land mobile transmitters are allowed to operate anywhere within a 50mile radius of the geographic center of the relevant city. It states that in several instances adjacent channel DTV operations in the draft Table would be virtually colocated with existing land mobile facilities. Motorola similarly notes that in some cases allotments in our draft Table would be as close as two miles to the reference coordinates of adjacent channel land mobile cities. The LMCC argues that without modification, our draft DTV allotment plan would result in interference to land  X 0mobile operations.VX L yO ԍ The LMCC notes that our recently released Inventory of Spectrum Usage shows 41,705 land mobile base and fixed stations operating within these channels. The LMCC also notes that private radio statistics from our 1994 annual report show over 400,000 transmitters authorized for that band at that time.V UTC states that the broadcast community and the Commission should  X 0offer technical solutions to protect these important land mobile operations.> @L yO ԍ UTC comments, p. 11.> Motorola states that without significant reductions in DTV outofband emissions (at least 30 dB), land mobile use of its allocated spectrum will be impossible. Motorola also provides specific recommendations for alternative allotments to minimize this interservice problem.  X0q156. AC Transit is concerned that our proposals to allot channels 15 and 18 for DTV  Xy0use in the San Francisco area could conflict with its operations on channels 16 and 17.GyL yO ԍ AC Transit comments, pp. 23.G The  Xb0CDGS states that these DTV allotments would adversely affect the current land mobile operations permitted on channels 1420 in California, including vital public safety operations  X40on those channels.>4` L yOE ԍ CDGS comments, p. 2.> It notes that the draft Table provides no separation between proposed DTV allotments on channels 15 and 18 and land mobile channels 16 and 17 in the San Francisco/Oakland metropolitan area. It also notes that the draft Table provides no separation between the proposed DTV allotment on channel 21 in Los Angeles and land mobile channel 20. It further states that the proposed DTV allotments on channel 15 in Corona (66 km separation) and channel 19 in San Bernardino (88 km separation) provide significantly less than the proposed 176 km minimum separation distance. The CSAA is concerned that interference could occur to its land mobile operations on channel 17 frequencies if we allot channels 18 and 19 for DTV service in the San Francisco area, as proposed on the draft  Xe0Table.@e L yO' ԍ CSAA comments, p. 13.@ LA County is particularly concerned with regard to the proposed allotment of"eI ,-(-(ZZ"  X0channel 15 for DTV use in Corona, CA.FL yOy ԍ LA County comments, p. 910.F It states that the transmitter site for this station would be on Mt. Wilson, just 2.2 miles from a current channel 16 land mobile radio base station used by the Sheriff's Department. It states that this allotment would pose a significant danger of harmful interference both to vital safety communications and to the television service to be broadcast on that channel. It also submits that other fixed and mobile transmitter sites that operate on channel 15 are also in the "line of sight" of Mt. Wilson and could be affected by interference.  XH0q157. A number of local government administrations and public safety users submit that our draft Table allotment of channels 18 and 21 for DTV use by TV channel 65 in Vineland, NJ and TV channel 9 in Secaucus, NJ, respectively, would harm public safety  X 0communications in the Pennsylvania/New Jersey area. XL yO  ԍ These parties include the Barnsboro Fire Co. No. 1 (BFC), the Glassboro Emergency Medical Services (GEMS), the Mantua Volunteer Fire Company (MVFC), and many others. For example, the MVFC states that the Gloucester County Communications Center and the local emergency response units have recently converted to the 500 MHz band at a cost of millions of dollars to taxpayers. It submits that the taxpayers of Gloucester should not have to pay the cost in loss of lives, property and tax dollars that will occur if TV station operate on these frequencies. It estimates that the costs to again replace the local radio and paging system would be in excess of $100,000. In addition, Congressman Rob Andrews and Congressman Curt Weldon submitted joint comments stating that while they support our effort to expand use of the spectrum to allow DTV service, they are concerned that the operation of existing public safety  X40communications systems could be impeded in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.4L yO ԍ Congressmen Andrews and Weldon are Cochairmen of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus. They submit that any allotment of DTV channels that would hinder the effectiveness of these networks is not in the public interest and urge that we adopt a different approach. In addition, ChrisCraft/United Group (ChrisCraft) is also concerned that the allotment of channel 18 in the draft Table for its WWORTV, Secaucus, NJ would cause unacceptable interference to land mobile operations in Philadelphia on adjacent channel 19 and asks that we change this  X0allotment.E @L yO ԍ ChrisCraft comments, p. 3.E It notes that the distance between the tower site for the Secaucus station on the World Trade Center and centercity reference location for Philadelphia is only 80 miles, which is 60 miles short of the proposed 140 miles adjacent channel spacing to land mobile systems.  X70q158. The LMCC and Motorola provide suggestions for engineering solutions to  X 0prevent interference to the land mobile operations in shortspaced situations._! L yO& ԍ LMCC comments, pp. 1316; Motorola comments, p. 15. _ They first" J` !,-(-(ZZ" submit that a significant tightening of the DTV emissions mask may partially reduce the level of interference for some of the adjacent channel situations. The LMCC states that in practice many NTSC transmitters currently provide approximately 60 dB of protection at the band edge. It also submits that some channel 14 and channel 69 stations already operate at reduced power and/or have installed additional filtering to the visual carrier in order to help reduce interference to adjacent channel land mobile users. In an appendix to its comments, Motorola provides a technical discussion indicating that a minimum 30 dB of additional attenuation in the DTV emissions mask is needed to minimize the potential for adjacent channel interference to land mobile services from shortspaced DTV allotments. Motorola also suggests that we  X10modify the DTV allotment plan to allow shortspacings on an ad hoc basis. It states that in some cases, even more attenuation will be needed to avoid the loss of useable mobile spectrum. Both the LMCC and Motorola state, however, that given the extreme shortspacings involved in some of the draft DTV allotments, and the relative powers of television and land mobile operations, it is unlikely that additional filtering of the DTV output will be the total solution for avoiding harmful interference. Motorola notes that the draft Table included 13 cases where the adjacent channel is less than 10 miles from land mobile operations. It indicates that even greatly reduced DTV emissions will not eliminate adjacent  X{0channel interference problems close to (i.e., within 10 miles) a DTV transmitter nor would it address the potential for land mobile interference to DTV receivers. It states that this is an issue where continued analysis is needed by all parties concerned. Motorola urges that we indicate on any shortspaced DTV license that it remains the obligation of the DTV licensee to correct any interference without cost to the land mobile licensee. It notes this approach is consistent with our "last in fixes the interference problem" policy we have already adopted for TV licensees operating on channels 1420 that are adjacent to land mobile operations.  X0q159. Land mobile interests argue that we should maintain and protect the current allocation of channel 20 for land mobile use in Philadelphia. APCO notes that there are an estimated 9,600 units licensed to public safety agencies now operating on channel 20 in  X~0Philadelphia and argues that these are vital operations that must not be disrupted.?"~L yO ԍ APCO comments, p. 18.? The Department of Communications, County of Bucks, PA (Bucks County) similarly states that it operates a twenty frequency pair police radio system on channel 19 (500506 MHz) and has been looking for frequencies in channel 20 (506512 MHz) that might help to alleviate its  X"0current crowding.=#"XL yO+! ԍ UTC comments, p. 2.= UTC states that a number of its members operate systems on channel 20 in Philadelphia and that, given the extreme congestion in the land mobile frequencies in the northeast corridor, alternative spectrum may be difficult, if not impossible, to locate. It submits that we should not force these licensees to relocate without identifying adequate replacement spectrum and that we should impose an obligation on the DTV licensees that will  X!0operate in this band to pay to relocate the land mobile users to comparable facilities.B$!L yOH' ԍ UTC comments, pp. 1011.B"!Kx$,-(-(ZZ""Ԍ X0ԙq160. The Joint Broadcasters indicate that, as we observed in the Sixth Further Notice, making channel 20 available for DTV significantly reduces interference in the congested northeast region. In taking this position, Joint Broadcasters state that they support reallocation of land mobile channels in all markets, not just the Philadelphia area, for the transition to DTV. They submit that using for DTV at least one of the channels now allocated for land mobile use, particularly those that are lightly used, would improve interference during the transition period and simplify the DTV allotment/assignment process. The Joint Broadcasters submit that such reallocation would not impair land mobile operations. They suggest that a more efficient use of the spectrum would be to make one of the land mobile channels in each market available solely to public safety services. Under this plan, nonsafety related services would make use of frequencies in the 800 MHz, 900 MHz and 2 GHz PCS spectrum.  X 0q161. In its reply comments, the Broadcasters Caucus state that the unavoidable reality of the land mobile television sharing issue is that it is necessary to use channels 1420 in certain areas in order to accommodate all eligible broadcasters and that it is in the very  X 0regions where interservice sharing occurs that broadcast channels are most scarce.R% L yO  ԍ Broadcasters caucus comments, pp. 2930.R The Caucus submits that the proposed spacing requirements are based on test data from the Advisory Committee and should provide sufficient protection for both television stations and land mobile operations on channels 1420. It further states that, as with other aspects of the DTV Table, marketbymarket adjustments can be made throughout the transition should realworld data show the need for finetuning.  X0q162. UTC states that in order to protect land mobile operations, we should reconsider our proposals to make channels 15 and 16 in Detroit and channels 14 and 15 in Cleveland  X0available for DTV operations.>&XL yO ԍ UTC comments, p. 10.> It argues that although these channels are currently precluded from land mobile use due to existing border agreements with Canada, there is an existing need for spectrum in the Cleveland and Detroit areas for land mobile operations and this need is expected to increase in the near future. It therefore urges that we redouble our efforts to secure a satisfactory sharing agreement with Canada to allow use of these channels for land mobile operations. Gateway Communications Inc. (Gateway) notes that Offshore Radio Communications Services (ORTS) are permitted within specified areas within the Gulf Of Mexico and adjoining U.S. land areas on TV channels 15, 16, and 17. It submits that several allotments in the draft Table would conflict with ORTS operations and asks that we  X 0clarify and resolve this issue.A' L yO# ԍ Gateway comments, p. 8.A  X0q163. Decision. In both the Second Further Notice and the Sixth Further Notice, we proposed minimum separation distances between DTV and existing land mobile operations on channels 14 to 20. We find that our proposed minimum spacing distances between cochannel"!Lx',-(-(ZZ#" and adjacent channel DTV and land mobile operations are appropriate for avoiding interference and ensuring the operation of both DTV and land mobile services. We also find that these separations are appropriate given our recent changes for "refarming" in the land mobile services, as noted by UTC. Accordingly, we generally have attempted to provide allotments for DTV stations at cochannel and adjacent channel spacings to the citycenter of land mobile operations of at least 250 km (155 miles) and 176 km (110 miles), respectively. We will also use these separation distances as the land mobiletoDTV spacing standards for any future DTV allotments.  X10q164. We recognized, however, that in developing the initial DTV Table there would be some instances in which these separation distances could not be met and that additional conditions would be necessary to avoid interference. As noted by the commenting parties, the draft Table included several instances where DTV allotments used channels adjacent to existing land mobile operations in the same area. In particular, the situations of most concern occurred in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New Jersey areas. In preparing the final Table, we have resolved or substantially reduced these land mobile/DTV sharing problems. In the San Francisco area, we have worked with local public safety representatives to take terrain shielding into account and thereby develop alternative allotments that will avoid interference to land mobile operations. In addition, as a result of our negotiations with the Mexican government, we have been able to provide alternative channels for the proposed DTV allotments that posed conflicts with land mobile operations in the Los Angeles area. The DTV Table of Allotments includes only one instance where our cochannel separation distance could not be met and only nine instances where our adjacent channel separation is not met. Unlike the draft Table, there are no instances of close spacings between DTV and  X0land mobile on adjacent channels, i.e., less 10 miles, that were of concern to Motorola and other land mobile parties. Given that our spacing requirements were chosen to be very conservative in protecting both DTV and land mobile operations, we believe that these ten  X0situations should not present a significant problem for either land mobile or DTV licensees.K(@L yO  ԍ We recognize the comments with regard to use of channel 18 for DTV service in the New Jersey. As suggested in the Broadcasters' Modified Table, the Table of Allotments included herein pairs this channel with a noncommercial station in New Brunswick, New Jersey. In providing this allotment, we recognize that the majority of the New Brunswick area is also served by the three other stations in the New Jersey public broadcast network. Thus, if some restrictions on the use of channel 18 are necessary to protect existing land mobile operations, viewers in the New Brunswick area should still be able to receive noncommercial DTV service. We will work with the New Jersey public broadcasting authorities to design a plan that will minimize any impact this allotment has on its network and services.K However, if such problems occur, it will be the initial responsibility of the DTV licensee to protect against or eliminate harmful interference to land mobile services that have commenced operations and that are operating in accordance with our rules at the time the DTV licensee goes on the air.  X 0q165. With regard to use of channel 20 for DTV purposes in the Philadelphia area, we agree with the land mobile interests that this channel should remain for land mobile use. As"M(,-(-(ZZ " APCO notes, there are over 9,000 licensed public safety operations that are now providing vital services on channel 20 frequencies. Concerning UTC's request to make additional land mobile use of channels 1416 in Cleveland and Detroit, we find that these channels are needed for DTV service, especially to allow us flexibility in completing a DTV channel arrangement with Canada. We also note that our spectrum recovery plan may provide relief for any additional land mobile spectrum needs in these markets. Finally, with regard to Gateway's concern about the impact of DTV operations on ORTS, we note that the offshore telephone  X_0service must protect TV operations on channels 15, 16, and 17.X)_L yO ԍ See, for example, 47 CFR 22.1013(c).X We clarify that this will include new DTV operations on these channels. We will, however, allow ORTS operators to work out arrangements with broadcasters to protect such DTV operations and maintain ORTS services by methods other than the spacing requirements contained in the rules.  X 0F. DTV Frequency Labeling Plan  X 0q166. Under our proposed DTV core spectrum plan, DTV service was to occupy the  X 0frequencies now used by NTSC channels 751. In the Sixth Further Notice, we stated the it would seem appropriate to establish a new labeling scheme for the DTV frequencies, so that TV frequencies in the future would not begin with "Channel 7." We requested proposals and comments relating to an appropriate frequency labeling scheme for DTV service.  X40q167. Comments. The Joint Broadcasters believe that the most important aspect of any channel labeling scheme should be maintaining channel identity, so that viewers can readily identify the corresponding DTV channels and NTSC stations both during and after the  X0transition.M*XL yO ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 63.M They also state that DTV channel labels should be as brief and simple as possible. They submit that a labeling scheme that is easy to follow and that preserves identity over time and across carriers may alleviate station anxieties about losing viewers due to DTV assignments. The Joint Broadcasters believe this could reduce requests for channel changes and encourage stations to build DTV facilities sooner, rather than later. The Joint Broadcasters do not comment on specific suggestions for labeling DTV channels. Rather, they recommend that we allow this matter be explored by an interindustry committee that would prepare a recommendation for the Commission. Members of this committee would include representatives of the broadcasting industry, equipment manufacturers, and cable industry. AAPTS supports the Joint Broadcasters' call for an industry committee to  X 0recommend a DTV frequency labeling plan.@+ L yO# ԍ AAPTS comments, p. 42.@ It states that this issue deserves careful analysis and input by all affected industries.  X 0q168. The EIA believes that we should await a recommendation from the ATSC before" Nx+,-(-(ZZ ""  X0addressing DTV channel labeling issues.@,L yOy ԍ EIA comments, pp. 56.@ It states that in promoting the transition to DTV we should take care to minimize disruption of the existing labelling scheme, and seek to ensure consistency across various transmission media. The EIA states, for example, that if the DTV labelling plan is not coordinated between broadcasters and cable operators, consumers will surely have a harder time acclimating to the DTV environment. It states that to headoff consumer frustration and speed the transition, any new scheme should be easy to assimilate and use. Mr. Smith submits that DTV channels should be labeled in such a way that they are seamless when a viewer switches between NTSC and DTV stations. He states that any  XH0labeling system that is overly complex will alienate viewers.D-HXL yOQ ԍ Mr. Smith comments, p. 11.D  X 0q169. A number of parties offer specific suggestions for labeling DTV channels. Blade, Mr. Ronald J. Brey, Gateway, Kentuckiana, and KUPNTV recommend that DTV  X 0channels be prefixed with a "D.". L yO ԍ Blade comments, p. 2; Brey comments, p. 11; Gateway comments, p. 9; Kentuckiana comments, p. 8; and KUPNTV comments, p. 2. KUPNTV also states that the primary concern should be  X 0retention of call letters to maintain station identity.A/ @L yO ԍ KUPNTV comments, p. 2.A LeSEA suggests a plan for labeling DTV channels with the prefixes "Q," "X," "Y," and "Z" and the numerical designations 2 X 013.?0 L yO( ԍ LeSEA comments, p. 6.? Cannell states that we should number the DTV channels sequentially, beginning with  X0"1."A1` L yO ԍ Cannell comments, p. 5.A Mr. Brey also proposes that we specify DTV channel designations as double digits beginning with "D11." He submits that any subchannels could be designated by an alphabetical letter beginning with "A," and that we could drop the "D" prefix after the transition is complete.  X0q170. Decision. We do not believe that it is necessary to prescribe a special DTV channel designation scheme at this time. Accordingly, we will allow this matter be explored by an interindustry committee that would prepare a recommendation for the Commission. We encourage those organizing this committee to include membership from all interested parties, including broadcasters, equipment manufacturers, cable operators, and the public.  X0G. International Coordination.  Xe0q171. As indicated in the Second Further Notice, we have been coordinating for some"eO 1,-(-(ZZ"  X0time now with Canada and Mexico on the allotment of DTV channels in the border areas.2L yOy ԍ See Second Further Notice, at para. 49. Use of television frequencies in the Canadian and Mexican border areas currently are governed by international agreements. Use of these frequencies in the Canadian border area are governed under the "Agreement Relating to the Allocation of Television Channels," exchange of notes at Ottawa April 23, and June 23, 1952, entered into force June 23, 1952, 3 UST 4443, TIAS 2594, 207 UNTS 25, Amendment: February 26 and April 7, 1982 (TIAS 10645). Use of these frequencies in the Mexican border areas are governed under two agreements: 1) "Agreement Relating to the Assignment and Use of Television Channels Along the United StatesMexican Border," exchange of notes at Mexico April 18, 1962, 13 UST 997; TIAS 5043; 452 UNTS 3; and 2) "Agreement Relating to Assignment and Usage of Television Broadcasting Channels in the Frequency Range 470806 MHz (Channels 1469) Along the United StatedMexico Border," signed at Mexico June 18, 1982, entered into force January 17, 1983, TIAS 10535, Amendments: October 31, 1984 and April 8, 1985, June 22 and October 19, 1988.  We are working to complete interim agreements on DTV with both of these countries. We have also coordinated the DTV Table with the Canadian and Mexican administrations and believe that it will be generally acceptable to them. We therefore expect that only minor adjustments will be necessary to conform the Table to these agreements.  Xv0H. Negotiations and Frequency Coordinators  XH0q172. In the Sixth Further Notice, we stated that mechanisms are needed to consider changes to the Table of Allotments. In this regard, we stated that we intend to provide broadcasters with the flexibility to develop alternative allotment approaches and plans both  X 0before and after our adoption of a final Table of Allotments. Consistent with this view, we stated that voluntary negotiations among broadcasters should be permitted as part of the DTV allotment/assignment process. We therefore proposed to permit broadcasters within a community to negotiate among themselves their designated allotments and to develop an alternative allotment/assignment plan for their local area. We indicated, however, that all affected broadcasters, including those in neighboring geographic areas, must agree to the revised plan and the change must not result in additional interference to other stations or  Xb0allotments.3Xb( L yO; ԍ We proposed that an "affected broadcaster" would be a broadcaster whose allotment within a community would be changed or whose existing NTSC or new DTV service area would be affected technically by a proposed change to the Table. We also proposed not to accept negotiated changes that would adversely limit our ability to gain the full benefits of spectrum reclamation if that approach were adopted. In addition, any changes would be subject to international coordination, as appropriate. We proposed to require that all requests for DTV channel changes among stations be signed by the licensees of all of the stations involved in the exchange. We also proposed to allow such exchanges to include agreements for compensation. We further observed that in some cases it might be advantageous for broadcasters to colocate their DTV transmitters at a common site. We therefore requested comment on whether we should provide special incentives to encourage the broadcasters in a market to locate all of their DTV operations at a common transmitter site. "|PH 3,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X0q173. In the Sixth Further Notice, we also noted that parties representing broadcasting interests suggested that we establish industry assignment coordinating committees to evaluate  X0proposals for postassignment changes to the table.|4L yOK ԍ See for example, MSTV filing in this proceeding submitted, January 13, 1995.| These parties recommended an approach under which industry coordinating committees would use objective engineering criteria to evaluate proposals for postassignment changes to the DTV Table. The assignment coordinators would make recommendations to the Commission about how to dispose of allotment/assignment proposals or would provide the Commission with the detailed coverage and interference data necessary to make these decisions. We tentatively agreed that an industry precoordination process could promote a smoother and more orderly process for modifying the DTV Table. We therefore invited industry to pursue the establishment of such coordinating committees. We proposed that such committees would evaluate and provide advice to the Commission with regard to coordination of changes in allotments; the creation of new allotments; and, changes in authorized facilities (for both NTSC and DTV stations) that would impact other allotments/assignments.  X 0q174. Comments. The Joint Broadcasters submit that, over the course of the transition,  X0a significant number of changes will be needed to any DTV Table that is adopted.M5XL yO ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 48.M Pulitzer states that the flexibility for licensees to make changes in their DTV allotments is important in view of uncertainties that remain about the feasibility of specific channels for DTV use; DTV propagation characteristics on VHF versus UHF channels; the feasibility of specific NTSC/DTV channel pairings; DTV receiver characteristics; and the appropriate DTV  X0transmission power to achieve replication.B6L yO ԍ Pulitzer comments, p. 2.B Grant states that flexibility is needed to ensure  X0fairness and to permit improvements to the Table.?7xL yO/ ԍ Grant comments, p. 1.? Pappas states that flexibility to modify allotments is particularly important to broadcasters that acquired lowerpowered stations with  X0the intent of building them into higherpowered facilities.A8L yO ԍ Pappas comments, p. 23.A The Joint Broadcasters and ChrisCraft also submit that our procedures should provide for expedited processing of  X0requests for modifications of the initial DTV Table.i9L yO! ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 55; ChrisCraft comments, p. 7.i The Joint Broadcasters further state that we should adopt any proposed change, whether pre or postadoption of a DTV Table that does not cause unacceptable additional interference to assigned NTSC or DTV  Xe0channels.M:e( L yO>& ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 50.M "NQ :,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X0q175. AAPTS states that there are numerous variables that may affect the desirability of channels in individual markets, and the affected stations should have the freedom to  X0negotiate changes in their assignments both before and after adoption of the DTV Table.@;L yOK ԍ AAPTS comments, p. 28.@ It submits that some stations may wish to negotiate changes in both their NTSC and DTV channel assignments as part of a negotiated "repairing" of channels. ABA and several other submitted negotiated allotments for specific areas. As discussed below, we have considered these plans and, where feasible, included them in the DTV Table of Allotments we are adopting herein.  X10q176. Pulitzer, VCY America and WB also advocate that we allow additional flexibility for stations to specify an alternative set of coordinates for their initial DTV allotment. Pulitzer states that, for postadoption changes, we should permit stations to specify an alternative set of coordinates within the proposed threemile radius of their existing transmitter site or any other distance away from the current transmitter site provided that: 1) service from the alternative site meets the requirements for coverage of the community of license; and 2) operation from the alternative site meets the allotment technical criteria to  X0ensure that significant interference to other stations will not occur.B<XL yO ԍ Pulitzer comments, p. 6.B Pulitzer states that this type of flexibility would facilitate agreements between two or more stations in a market to use a common antenna site for their DTV operations. VCY America recommends that we encourage stations to seek colocated sites in order to minimize orientation and adjacent  X40channel technical problems.E=4L yO ԍ VCY America comments, p. 5.E WB states that allowing stations to relocate to a common site more than three miles from their designated sites could avoid interference between stations  X0that would otherwise be subject to a UHF taboo constraint.A>xL yO/ ԍ WB comments, pp. 1112.A  X0q177. The Joint Broadcasters and others support the use of private frequency  X0coordinating committees.?L yOz ԍ Parties specifically supporting the establishment of industry assignment coordinating committees include Harris, the Joint Broadcasters, LABCTS, Meredith, NBC, Pappas, Rural, and VCY America. The Joint Broadcasters submit that the use of industry committees will facilitate efficient and fair resolution of proposed modifications to the DTV Table while minimizing the burden on the Commission. They recommend that the coordinating committees be permitted to review all modification requests, including channel change requests, requests for new DTV assignments, requests for transmitter site relocations and other facility changes (for both NTSC and DTV stations), colocation issues, and adjacent channel  X70and land mobile interference concerns.M@7` L yOH' ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 56.M The Joint Broadcasters further state that under their"7R @,-(-(ZZ" plan, the Commission would retain ultimate control of the process through its ability to monitor the committee's performance and responsiveness through licensee surveys and similar  X0studies.AL yOK ԍ On January 10, 1997, the Broadcasters Caucus submitted a Petition for Further Rule Making requesting that we establish a DTV coordination process and proposing a plan for the structure, operating rules and composition of industry coordinating committees. The Caucus submits that DTV coordinating committees should function according to the basic principles established in the private land mobile radio service for frequency coordinators. In particular, it proposes that the coordinating committees: 1) be representative of the industry; 2) generally process requests in the order in which they are received; 3) provide all stations that might be affected by a proposed change notice and an opportunity to comment, object, or submit their own proposals that could be precluded by a proposal under consideration; 4) provide coordination services on a nondiscriminatory basis for reasonable fees; 5) serve in a purely advisory role to the Commission; and 6) help resolve licensee disputes. The Caucus also proposes that the committees function on a coordinated fashion nationwide, using an updated data  yO base and the methodology described in the Joint Broadcasters' comments responding to the Sixth Further Notice.  X0q178. Other broadcasters, including the LABCTS, Pappas, and VCY America also support the use of an industry coordinating committee process to facilitate changes in DTV channel allotments/assignments. The LABCTS believes that industry coordinating committees  X_0can help to address the unique allotment problems of congested areas.@B_( L yO8 ԍ LABCTS comments, p. 4.@ It recommends that we assign regional coordination areas centered on major metropolitan areas to regional coordinating committees that would recommend local modifications to the national DTV Table of Allotments. The LABCTS also states that the regional coordinating committees should provide for equal representation from all stations requesting representation in the region. Pappas supports the Joint Broadcasters in calling for consideration of newlyfiled and pending applications for construction permits to modify such facilities on a firstcome/first X 0served basis.GC L yO' ԍ Pappas comments, pp. 2 and 9.G Pappas submits that broadcasters such as itself who have had modification  X 0applications on file for months prior to the adoption of the Sixth Further Notice and have expended considerable resources in prosecuting those application should be given preference  Xy0over laterfiled applicants.?DyH L yOr ԍ Id., pp. 2324.?  XK0q179. BET submits that negotiated agreements regarding DTV allotments/assignments  X40should not be allowed to interfere with the reclamation of NTSC spectrum for new entrants.=E4L yO" ԍ BET comments, p. 9.= APCO states that any changes to the DTV Table resulting from private negotiations by television stations should not be permitted to prejudice or limit the amount of spectrum  X0available for reallocation to public safety.?FhL yO' ԍ APCO comments, p. 14.?"SF,-(-(ZZ0"Ԍ X0ԙq180. Apogee, CBA and VenTech argue that full power stations should be required to  X0include LPTV stations in any negotiations relating to allotment changes.oGL yOb ԍ Apogee comments, p. 3; CBA comments, pp. 910; VenTech comments, p. .o In statements representative of the views of these parties, VenTech argues that LPTV stations should be allowed to negotiate interference rights with broadcasters if any negotiations are allowed at all. It states that because LPTV stations compete with full service stations, full service  X0stations will be tempted to seek channels that actually eliminate LPTV stations.DHXL yO ԍ VenTech comments, pp. 67.D VenTech also states that stations negotiating to operate their DTV services from a common site should be allowed to do so only if they also negotiate good faith understandings to avoid interference with LPTV stations in the market.  X 0q181. CBA and others argue that private coordinating committees should not be given any authority to make changes unless the committees are required to give notice and to be  X 0open to all participants, including LPTV operators.AI L yO ԍ CBA comments, pp. 910.A CBA further argues that the private coordinating committees should be directed to establish a priority for preserving LPTV service. Apogee states that the Commission must require full service stations to negotiate  X 0with low power stations.@J xL yO ԍ Apogee comments, p. 3.@  Xy0q182. Decision. Throughout this proceeding, we have recognized that the implementation of DTV will be a dynamic process. We believe that continued industry negotiation and coordination efforts will help to facilitate this process and accommodate the inevitable changes that will occur. Accordingly, we encourage the industry to continue their current voluntary coordination efforts. We believe that an approach similar to that set forth in the Broadcasters Caucus' petition provides an appropriate model for industry coordination of  X0DTV allotment and facility modifications.`KL yO ԍ See description of Caucus' petition in footnote above.` We also believe, however, that it is important that any voluntary negotiation or coordination effort be open to all affected parties, including low power broadcasters and the public, and will require that such negotiations be open to all affected parties. In this regard, we will review all requests for modification of the DTV Table for their impact on low power stations. Industry coordinating committees therefore are strongly advised that they should consider LPTV and TV translator stations in developing proposed modifications to the DTV Table and avoid impact on such stations wherever possible. Parties coordinating proposals for changes to the DTV Table are also advised that we will not consider requests for allotment modifications that would relocate an allotment to a channel in channels 6069, nor will we consider creating new DTV allotments in this area of the spectrum." TK,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ V. ALLOTMENT METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH  X0  X0q183. On December 24, 1996, we issued a Fourth Report and Order in this proceeding  X0in which we adopted a standard for the transmission of digital television.LL yO ԍ See Fourth Report and Order, MM Docket No. 87268, 11 FCC Rcd 17771 (1996). This standard is a  X0modification of the ATSCGMXXL yO ԍ "ATSC" is the Advanced Television Systems Committee, an industry organization whose members include television networks, motion picture and television program producers, trade associations, television and other electronic equipment manufacturers and segments of the academic community.G DTV Standard and is consistent with a consensus agreement voluntarily developed by a broad crosssection of parties, including the broadcasting,  X_0consumer equipment manufacturing and computer industries.N_xL yO ԍ See letter of Broadcasters Caucus, Consumer electronics Manufacturers Association and Computer Industry Coalition on Advanced Television Service, dated November 26, 1996. The standard we adopted differs from the ATSC DTV Standard in that it does not include the ATSC specifications with respect to scanning formats, aspects ratios, and lines of resolution.  X 0q184. In the Sixth Further Notice, we proposed to use the performance characteristics of the ATSC DTV system in developing DTV allotments and used these characteristics in  X 0developing the draft DTV Table of Allotments set forth therein.O L yOV ԍ The system performance capabilities and planning factors include: 1) the signaltonoise ratio (S/N) defining the outer limit of service; 2) cochannel desiredtoundesired interference ratios (D/U) for DTVtoDTV, DTVtoNTSC and NTSCtoDTV signals; and, 3) the upper and lower adjacent channel D/U ratios for these same signal relationships. The specific system performance characteristics of the ATSC DTV system used in the development of the DTV Table are presented in Appendix A. We also proposed to perform the engineering evaluations for determining service coverage area and interference using the terrain dependent LongleyRice pointtopoint propagation model, technical planning factors recommended by the Advisory Committee and the measured performance  Xy0characteristics of the ATSC DTV system.Py L yO ԍ A description of the propagation models and service area planning factors are included with the system performance data in Appendix A. We indicated that these evaluations consider the potential for interference between stations, particularly between stations operating on the same channel (cochannel interference) and stations operating on channels one frequency apart  X40(adjacent channel interference).;Q 4L yO" ԍ The degree to which television stations interfere with one another depends in part on the ability of TV receivers to reject undesired signals in favor of a desired signal. The common measure of interference between stations is the ratio of the desired signal to the undesired signal (D/U ratio). Depending on receiver characteristics, unacceptable interference will occur when the D/U ratio between signals exceeds some level that is determined through testing. The D/U level at which unacceptable interference occurs varies depending on the channel relationship of the desired and undesired signals. In general, interference between stations can be"&P,-(-(}&" managed by limiting the power of their signals, the height of their transmitting antennas and the distance between their transmitter locations. In the case of NTSC TV service, the Commission has managed interference between stations by requiring that the locations of cochannel and adjacent stations meet minimum geographic separation standards.; In addition, while our earlier studies had indicated that"4UQ,-(-(ZZ`" UHF taboo restrictions would not be needed for DTV allotments, the test results for the  X0ATSC DTV system now indicate that certain taboo restrictions should be applied.R L yOJ ԍ In addition to the cochannel and adjacent channel interference concerns, it is possible for stations operating on certain other combinations of channels, principally in the UHF band, to interfere with one another.  yO Allotment constraints on these combinations are known as UHF taboos. In particular, these tests indicate that interference could occur from DTV to NTSC stations within a station's service area. We therefore proposed to take into account possible interference from DTV service to NTSC service on channels 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14 and 15 channels removed from the channel under evaluation.  Xv0q185. In the Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Fifth Further Notice) in this proceeding, which addressed the DTV technical standard, we proposed to adopt an  XH0emissions mask limiting outofchannel emissions from a DTV station transmitter.SHL yO ԍ See Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 87268, 11 FCC Rcd 6235 (1996), at para. 56. Specifically, we proposed to require that: 1) at the channel edge, transmitter emissions must be attenuated no less than 35 dB below the average transmitted power; 2) more than 6 MHz from the channel edge, emissions must be attenuated no less than 71 dB below the average transmitted power; and 3) at any frequency between 0 and 6 MHz from the channel edge, emissions must be attenuated no less than the value determined by the following formula:  X 0XqAttenuation in dB = 35 + [(f)2/1.44] ; where: f = frequency difference in MHz from the edge of the channel(# To protect against interference from an upperadjacent channel DTV signal to reception of the audio portion an NTSC signal, we proposed to require that, in such cases the ATSC DTV Standard pilot frequency be located 5.082138 MHz above the visual carrier of the lower adjacent channel NTSC station. We stated that this frequency difference would need to be  X0maintained within a tolerance of +/ 3 Hz.\T L yO ԍ See Fifth Further Notice, at para. 57.\  X0q186. Comments. The commenting parties address a variety of issues relating to our proposed methodology for allotting DTV channels. The Joint Broadcasters and the EIA support using the performance characteristics of the ATSC DTV system and the engineering  X0planning factors recommended by the Advisory Committee.iU L yO& ԍ EIA comments, p. 3; Joint Broadcasters comments, pp. 11 and 44.i The Joint Broadcasters also"VU,-(-(ZZ" state that, based on a suggestion by Broadcast Caucus Technical Committee, we should  X0include a dipole correction factor in the planning factors.MVL yOb ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 44.M The EIA submits that if the DTV allotment plan is to replicate existing television service areas as proposed, the ACATS planning factors represent the only thorough assessment of how the DTV transition can be accomplished without reducing consumers' access to overtheair television service. AFCCE  X0recommends a different set of planning factors.WXXL yO ԍ AFCCE comments, p. 9. These proposals are based on a paper entitled "Planning Factors for HDTV Broadcasting A Proposal" by committee member Oded Bendov, a copy of which is included with AFCCE's comments.  X_0q187. The Joint Broadcasters, EIA, and FOX note that while the Advisory Committee recommended 10 dB be used for both the VHF and UHF as the receiver noise figures, we  X10used 5 dB for VHF channels.wX1xL yOZ ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 19; Fox comments, p. 4; EIA comments, p. 34.w The Joint Broadcasters contend that a 5 dB noise figure for VHF channels would underestimate the amount of "new" interference that caused to existing NTSC stations operating in the VHF band. EIA submits that a 5 dB VHF noise figure would raise the cost of DTV receivers. The Joint Broadcasters and Fox submit that we should use a  X 07 dB noise figure for UHF channels.aY L yO ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 44; Fox comments, p. 4.a The Joint Broadcasters state that this lower UHF noise figure has been recommended by the Broadcasters Caucus Technical Committee. Fox states that we should attempt to improve the UHF noise figure to 7 dB through the ongoing regulatory and negotiation process. Island also recommends that we use a lower UHF noise figure. It notes that several manufacturers now sell preamplifiers covering the entire UHF  Xb0band that have noise figures below 3 dB and sell for under $15 in quantity.AZbL yO ԍ Island comments, p. 10.A AFCCE recommends that we assume use of a "smart antenna" that is integrated with a UHF low noise  X40amplifier.[4( L yO  ԍ AFCCE comments, p. 9. These proposals are based on a paper entitled "Planning Factors for HDTV Broadcasting A Proposal" by committee member Oded Bendov, a copy of which is included with AFCCE's comments.  X0q188. The Joint Broadcasters support our proposal to use the terrain dependent  X0LongleyRice propagation methodology in measuring replication.M\ L yO # ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 16.M Sunbelt Television, Inc. (STV) argues that our plan to use the LongleyRice method for predicting service may cost some stations the rights they currently have to provide service to their entire Grade B contour"W\,-(-(ZZP"  X0as predicted under standard prediction methods.@]L yOy ԍ STV comments, pp. 12.@ It is concerned that a station could lose the right to provide service to that entire area, through "fillin" boosters and cable must carry rights, in situations where its new DTV Grade B service area does not match with its former Grade B predicted service area.  X0q189. The Joint Broadcasters submit that in areas where there are not enough potential DTV channels to avoid DTV allotments adjacent to NTSC channels, we should assign  X_0adjacent channels to the same licensee.Q^_XL yOh ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, pp. 2122.Q They argue that colocating adjacent channels and assigning them to the same licensee is the only way to control interference to NTSC service. They further state that we should adopt a tight emissions mask to reduce outofband emissions. AFCCE argues that recent adjacent channel testing at the Advanced Television Test Center (ATTC) in Alexandria, VA, indicates that further review is needed of this issue, particularly in cases where adjacent channels are specified for paired NTSC/DTV use in the  X 0same market._ L {On ԍ See "An Evaluation of the FCC Proposed RF Mask for the Protection of Adjacent Channel NTSC Signals," Advanced Television Test Center (October 22, 1996). The Joint Broadcasters state that these tests indicate that use of the technical criteria recommended by the Advisory Committee with regard to allotment of adjacent channels in the same and neighboring markets will lead to significant interference to NTSC service  yO within those markets. It believes that such adjacent channel use should be permitted with lower DTV power and/or significantly improved transmitter outofband attenuation relative to our  X 0proposed DTV transmission mask.@` L yO ԍ AFCCE comments, p. 11.@ IBC and Mr. Smith express concern that making DTV  X0allotments on channels adjacent to NTSC channels may not be workable.Za* L yOk ԍ IBC comments, p. 2; Mr. Smith comments, pp. 45.Z Mr. Smith states that in such situations both transmitters will need special filtering and will need to be locked together to a common frequency reference. Because of these factors, he states that it would make the most sense if both the NTSC and DTV transmitters were operated by a single entity.  X0q190. California Oregon Broadcasting, Inc. (COBI) argues that because the supply of potential DTV channels is limited, we should not limit adjacent channel assignments to the  X0same licensee.@b L yOZ" ԍ COBI comments, p. 67.@ It states that adoption of appropriate interference specifications or a requirement for mutual consent of both licensees would be adequate to protect the public and broadcasters' common interest in noninterference. COBI states that at a minimum we should allow assignment of adjacent NTSC and DTV channels where the licensees of both stations have agreed to the assignment. "|XJ b,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X0q191. CBA submits that the DTV technical rules should include a tighter emission  X0mask and improved linearity requirements to minimize outofband emissions.BcL yOb ԍ CBA comments, pp. 1112.B It argues that modern transmitter technology will permit the application of techniques that allow equipment to meet more stringent limits in these areas. Acrodyne, a manufacturer of TV transmitter equipment, submits that with regard to band edge performance, filters in the traditional sense cannot be used to limit the signal level. It states that any improvement at the precise band edge must be brought about by DTV signal processing, probably at IF. It states that it would be very difficult and prohibitively expensive to require the band edge signal to  XH0be less than -35 dB.BdHXL yOQ ԍ Acrodyne comments, p. 3.B  X 0q192. Finally, Joint Broadcasters note that an updated data base is needed to determine  X 0the most appropriate allotments for existing stations. They further observe that there are a great many inaccuracies in the data base that need to be corrected. To assist in the data correction effort, they include with their comments information on 150 corrections for the data base.  X0q193. Decision. We are generally adopting our proposals to use the performance characteristics of the ATSC DTV system in developing DTV allotments and have used these characteristics in developing the DTV Table of Allotments adopted herein. We are also adopting the DTV allotment planning factors generally as proposed. We are, however, amending the proposed planning factors to take into account the concerns and suggestions presented by the Joint Broadcasters and other commenting parties. First, we have constructed the DTV Table of Allotments adopted herein using the new receiver noise figures recommended Broadcasters Caucus Technical Committee. That is, a 10 dB noise figure is used for the VHF band and a 7 dB noise figure is used for the UHF band. In addition, the Table takes into account the "dipole correction factor" for UHF frequencies recommended by the Joint Broadcasters.  X|0q194. As proposed, the allotments contained in the DTV Table are specified based on service area replication. Service area replication, as defined by the broadcast industry and adopted herein, is based on a broadcast station's existing Grade B service taking into account both interference and propagation, using the LongleyRice propagation prediction model. While we recognize that this may change the rights of certain broadcasters, as suggested by STV, we believe that this is the most equitable method of developing DTV allotments. We believe that these policies will generally address the concerns raised by STV.  X 0q195. We recognize the concerns expressed in the comments with regard to use of channels adjacent to existing NTSC stations for DTV allotments. As suggested by the commenting parties, in those cases where it is necessary to use adjacent channels in the same""Yd,-(-(ZZ#" area, the Table pairs and colocates adjacent NTSC and DTV channels to the extent possible. Furthermore, we are requiring that the adjacent channel DTV and NTSC carrier frequencies  X0be locked to a common reference frequency.e L yOK ԍ Specifically, we are requiring that the pilot frequency location of DTV signals with reference to the visual carrier of a lower adjacent channel NTSC station be located 5.082138 MHz above the visual carrier of the lower adjacent channel NTSC station and that this frequency difference to be maintained within a tolerance of  yO 3 Hz.  This operating requirement will help protect  X0against interference to the NTSC signal, as recommended by the Advisory Committee.vfL yO ԍ See "Final Technical Report" of the Advisory Committee on Advance Television Service (1995), at Section 5.2.8. This reports indicates that "[w]ith regard to upper adjacentchannel interference ATVintoNTSC, the tests found a 'color stripe' artifact in the NTSC video at all NTSC power levels. Analysis shows that it is caused by the ATV pilot carrier frequency 'beating' with the NTSC color subcarrier. Analysis also suggests that another 'luminance beat,' hidden during the testing by the color beat, would be present, caused by the ATV pilot carrier beating with the NTSC visual carrier. Finally, during these tests, some NTSC receivers showed loss of color and other picture artifacts. The analysis shows that use of precision carrier offset between the ATV pilot  yO ant the NTSC color subcarrier will eliminate visibility of both artifacts." See also Annex to "Final Report and Recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service," "Record of Test Results for Digital HDTV Grand Alliance System," (October, 1995), at Section I1467.v Finally, we will require that transmitter outofband emissions be attenuated consistent with  X0the emissions mask proposed in the Fifth Further Notice. gXH L yO ԍ Consistent with these operating requirements, manufacturers and television station licensees are advised that DTV transmitters are subject to our equipment authorization requirements as set forth in Parts 2 and 73 of the rules.  The original proposal to require 35 dB of attenuation at the band edge was based on the average power in a 500 kHz segment of the DTV channel. To correctly reference the total average power within a 6 MHz channel, we have modified this figure to 46 dB. Thus, we will require that: 1) at the channel edge, emissions must be attenuated no less than 46 dB below the average transmitted power; 2) more than 6 MHz from the channel edge, emissions must be attenuated no less than 71 dB below the average transmitted power; and 3) at any frequency between 0 and 6 MHz from the channel edge, emissions must be attenuated no less than the value determined by the following formula, which is based on a measurement bandwidth of 500 kHz:  X 0XqAttenuation in dB = 46 + [(f)2/1.44] ; where: f = frequency difference in MHz from the edge of the channel.(# q  Xb0q196. Finally, we have updated the engineering data base used in generating the DTV Table to include new stations and station modifications granted as of the date of the adoption  X40of this Report and Order. We have also made requested corrections to station data where those corrections are consistent with the authorized station facilities specified in our licensing records.  X0 "Zhg,-(-(ZZ" VI. DTV TABLE OF ALLOTMENTS  X0A. Allotment Computer Software  X0q197. The development of a table of digital TV allotments is an extremely difficult and complex engineering and computational task. To handle this task, the staff of the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology has developed sophisticated operations research methodology and computer software for optimizing the allotment of DTV channels. In addition, our staff and industry have worked together to incorporate methodologies for calculating the service area and interference considerations that are required under a service replication allotment approach. We used the allotment capabilities provided by this methodology and computer software in preparing both the draft and final versions of the DTV Table of Allotments.  X 0q198. The computer model developed by the FCC staff generates DTV allotments that optimize and balance the various policy objectives and proposals discussed above. The computer software incorporates an operations research optimization methodology known as  Xy0"simulated annealing."hyL yO ԍ See David S. Johnson, Cecilia R. Aragon, Lyle A. McGeoch and Catherine Schevon, "Optimization by Simulated Annealing: An Experimental Evaluation, Part II (Graph Coloring and Number Partitioning),"  yO Operations Research, Vol. 39, MayJune 1991. In addition to the simulated annealing software, the staff has obtained software that incorporates a method known as "Lagrangian Relaxation." This method and its software implementation were developed by DecisionScience Applications, Inc. (DSA) under contract to the FCC. The DSA DTV allotment software is an extension of earlier work by DSA that produced the computer software used  yO by the FCC to develop new FM radio allotments in MM Docket No. 8090. The DSA software complements the simulated annealing software, and partial allotment solutions developed through either software package can be used in the other so that the two packages can be used together. This methodology employs a system of penalties that attach to conditions that fall short of specified objectives. The simulated annealing method seeks to minimize the sum of these penalties, or "costs," to achieve an optimum condition.  X0q199. The computer model permits the rapid computation and analysis of service area coverage provided by the NTSC and DTV systems, both on an overall cumulative basis and for individual stations. The service area of an individual NTSC station is defined as the area within the station's Grade B service contour, reduced by any interference; and is computed  X0based upon the actual transmitter location, power, and antenna height.iL yO ! ԍ The Grade B contour of analog TV broadcast stations is defined in Section 73.683 of our rules, see 47 CFR 73.683. The service area of a DTV station is defined as the area contained within the station's noiselimited service contour, reduced by the interference within that contour. DTV coverage calculations assume locations and antenna heights identical to those of the replicated companion NTSC station and power generally sufficient to achieve noiselimited coverage equal to the companion station's Grade B coverage. "7[ i,-(-(ZZP"Ԍ X0q200. We also recognized that there may be instances where the allotment of channels in specific local situations can best be resolved on a casebycase basis. Our allotment software therefore is able to merge specific local designs into complete tables and, where necessary, make changes in other allotments to preserve a balance of the specified policy considerations. This capability allows us to incorporate, where feasible, allotment/pairing agreements reached by broadcasters in negotiated settlements. In evaluating the feasibility of local agreements, we considered whether incorporation of given agreements would still allow us to meet our specified policy criteria.  X10B. DTV Allotments  X 0q201. The draft DTV Table of Allotments included in the Sixth Further Notice, showed possible DTV allotments and channels pairings for all eligible broadcast entities that would result from an allotment based on our core spectrum option with channels 751 specified as the core. We emphasized that this Table was a draft and that we anticipated revisions. The draft Table met all of our proposed principle objectives for allotment of DTV channels  Xb0q202. Comments. A number of individual broadcasters requested changes in the  XK0allotments proposed for their stations on the draft Table.j0KL yO ԍ For example, parties requesting changes for one or more stations include: AK Media Group, Inc., Alaska Broadcasters Association, Allbritton Communications Company, Appalachian Broadcasting Corporation, Aries Telecommunication Corp., Blackstar, Channel 26, Green Bay WI, Central Missouri State University, Champlain Valley Telecasting, Inc., Channel 3 of Corpus Christi, Inc., Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc., Christian Communications of Chicagoland Inc., Coast TV, Costa de Oro Television, Inc., Dimension Broadcasting Company, L.L.C., Fouce Amusement Enterprises, Fox, Freedom Communications, Inc., Golden Orange Broadcasting Co., Inc., Grant Broadcasting Group, Great Trails Broadcasting Corporation, HSN, Inc., Hutchins Communications, Inc., Iberia Communications, L.L.C., Jovon Broadcasting Corporation, KADN Broadcasting, Inc., KLUR Television, KXII Broadcasters, Inc., Kern Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Lewis Broadcasting Corporation, Macon Urban Industries, Inc., Marsand, Inc., McGraw-Hill Broadcasting, Inc., Media Venture Management, Inc., Mid-State Television, Inc., Mountain States Broadcasting, Inc., New York Times Company, New York Times Company, Northwoods Educational Television Association, Pacific FM, Inc., Pikes Peak Broadcasting Company, Renaissance Communications Corp., Riverbank Restaurants, Inc., Santa Monica Community College District, Sarkes Tarzian, Inc., Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company, Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company, Second Generation of Iowa, Ltd., Shockley Communications Corporation, Sunbelt Communication Company, Tanana Valley Television Company, Telemundo Group, Inc., Tri-State Public Teleplex, Inc., Unicorn Communications, Univision Communications, Inc., Valley Channel 48, Inc., W. Russel Withers, Jr., WEAU License, Inc., WHDH-TV, Inc., WKYT Licensee Corp., WRNN-TV Associates Limited Partnership, WWWB-TV Company, Warwick Communications, Inc. Fox is also concerned that its stations WNYWTV, New York, NY; WTXFTV, Philadelphia, PA; WFLDTV, Chicago, IL; and WJBKTV, Detroit, MI would be shortspaced to new DTV allotments and would therefore be subject to interference from those stations. It requests that we revise allotments as necessary to resolve these interference concerns.  In its comments, the LABCTS provide a sample alternative allotment table for the Southern California area that incorporates"4\j,-(-(ZZ"  X0its policy recommendations.BkL yOy ԍ LABCTS comments, p. 45.B It states that in this sample alternative, only one station in all of Southern California would not be in the modified core spectrum it suggests and that there would be no interference to the existing land mobile operations. The ABA proposes a modified DTV allotment plan for the communities of Anchorage, Fairbanks and North Pole,  X0Alaska.@lXL yO ԍ ABA comments, pp. 23.@ It states that pursuant to our suggestion, the Alaskan Broadcasters that currently operate full service TV stations in these communities have negotiated among themselves to create allotment and assignment pairings that they believe will allow them to provide future DTV service that is equal to, if not superior, in coverage to their current NTSC service. ABA further states that the broadcasters in these communities propose a cooperative colocation of their DTV transmitters. They state that the common sites for these transmitters will provide numerous benefits, including lower costs, allow orientation of receiver antennas towards a single site, minimize interference concerns, and reduce FAA and environmental concerns.  X 0q203. Cornell University, which manages and operates the Arecibo Radio Astronomy Laboratory in Arecibo, PR, requests that we revise the proposed DTV allotments of channel 38 at Christiansted, VI and channel 53 at Arecibo, PR to avoid interference to protect radio astronomy observations. In a "Technical Statement" accompanying its comments, Cornell submits a that DTV operations should not be permitted on channels 36, 38, 52, 53, or 54 in the vicinity of the radio astronomy observatories at Arecibo and at St. Croix, VI. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro, NM (NRAO) is concerned that observations made with its Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) and Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope systems will be degraded by several of the DTV allotments proposed in the draft  X0Table. mL yO ԍ The NRAO indicates that the VLBA facility consists of ten automated 25meter dishes at ten sites across the U.S. and its territories, from Mauna Kea, HI to St. Croix, VI. Data from each receiver are combined in a special computer system allowing the synthesis of a single radio telescope 5000 Miles in diameter. The VLA facility consists of twentyseven automated 25meter radio telescope antennas, the data from which are combined in a manner similar to that of the VLBA facility.  The NRAO submits that its most serious concern is the proposed allotment of channel 38 at Christiansted, VI. The NRAO also submits that harmonic emissions from other DTV allotments on the draft Table present potential harmful interference conditions for its  X0operations.@nL yO ! ԍ NRAO comments, p. 45.@ It states that channels 11, 14, 25, 27, 28, 31, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 69 have second or third harmonics that fall within allocated or footnoted radio astronomy bands and urges that we avoid creating DTV allotments on these channels in certain locations.  Xe0q204. Decision. Our staff has worked with broadcasters and other parties to develop a final DTV Table of Allotments that incorporates the policy decisions on the allotment principles and engineering assumptions discussed above and addresses the concerns of"7]( n,-(-(ZZ" broadcasters and radio astronomy interests. To the extent possible, we have incorporated the allotment requests of individual broadcasters, radio astronomers, and others. The DTV Table of Allotments we are adopting is described below.  X0q205. Full Accommodation.  The DTV Table meets our primary objective of full  X0accommodation of all eligible broadcasters.o L yO ԍ The single exception is Puerto Rico, where more than half the broadcasting channels are already allotted. (There are only 67 channels in the TV broadcast bands. Of these, 34 channels are operating or have been awarded construction permits and an application is on file for a 35th channel, all on an island whose size does not normally permit frequency reuse. Channel 37 is used for radio astronomy and therefore is not available for assignment to a broadcaster. This leaves 32 channels available as candidates for DTV allotments in Puerto Rico.) In developing the proposed allotments for Puerto Rico, we gave first priority to the operating stations. To make best use of the channels available, we included a DTV allotment of the same channel, 62, as that of the (ineligible) NTSC application in San Juan. The allotment is made to the station most distant (144 km or 90 miles) from San Juan, and the intervening terrain is mountainous. We were then left a small number of eligible stations having only construction permit status. Of the latter, only Fajardo channel 34 is in a multistation  yO community. We therefore choose, as in the Sixth Further Notice, to provide Fajardo with only two DTV allotments for the three stations there. In making this choice, we also considered that Fajardo is at the east end of the island, which affords the best chance of duplicating a westend DTV channel through application of a casebycase engineering analysis. 2pX L yO ԍ We also note that some of the channels specified in the draft table are not fully compliant with the existing U.S.Mexican and U.S.Canadian agreements. We are continuing to work with these administrations to finalize the status of DTV allotments in border areas.2 The Table provides 1605 new DTV  Xv0allotments in almost 900 communities in the continental U.S.qvL yO ԍ The DTV Table also includes allotments for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. This provides a DTV  X_0allotment for all eligible broadcasters as defined above. In addition, the DTV Table establishes 39 additional vacant DTV allotments reserved for noncommercial use, as discussed above.  X 0q206. DTV Service Areas. The DTV Table also fulfills our goals of service replication/maximization. In general, existing broadcasters will be provided with a DTV allotment that is capable of providing digital TV coverage of a geographic area that is  X 0comparable to their existing NTSC coverage.rX 0L yO ԍ For each allotment, the DTV Table, in general, specifies the maximum ERP needed to replicate a station's existing service area. This power level is based on the station's existing antenna height and pattern. In fact, during the transition period, over 50% of all existing broadcasters would receive a DTV allotment that fully replicates their existing service area; and more than 93% would receive an allotment that replicates at least 95% of their existing service area. We also believe that the DTV Table meets our objective of minimizing new interference to NTSC service. For example, 98 to 99% of all NTSC stations will receive less than 10% new interference (in terms of both area and population"K^Pr,-(-(ZZ0"  X0served) from DTV operations.sL yOy ԍ These estimates are based on terraindependent LongleyRice propagation models and assume that all NTSC and DTV stations are in operation.  X0q207. Spectrum for DTV Allotments. The DTV Table also meets our spectrum goals of providing all eligible broadcasters with a suitable DTV allotment and for ensuring that the spectrum is used efficiently. Based on our analysis of the proposed Table, all eligible broadcasters eventually will have access to a suitable DTV frequency within the spectrum area  Xv0ultimately designated for digital TV, e.g., existing TV channels either 751 or 246. As indicated above, the DTV Table contains 68 instances where both channels are outside of channels 751 and 89 instances where both channels are outside of channels 246. Even in these cases, however, suitable channels within the core area will become available when NTSC operations cease and channels are recovered from other stations. f VII. ALLOTMENT MODIFICATIONS  X 0A. Maximum Station Facilities  Xy0q208. In the Sixth Further Notice, we indicated our view that new stations that operate on DTV allotments created after the initial Table should also be authorized sufficient technical facilities to enable them to serve their communities of license as well as an area around those communities comparable to the service areas of typical NTSC stations. We therefore proposed to specify a maximum permissible power of 316 kW effective radiated power and a maximum antenna height of 2000 feet height above average terrain for stations that operate on new UHF DTV allotments created subsequent to the initial Table. Our proposed maximum permissible ERP and HAAT specifications for future DTV allotments would allow a station to serve a geographic area with a radius of up to 107 km (about 66 miles), which corresponds to the predicted Grade B service area of an NTSC station operating at maximum power and HAAT on a UHF channel. We observed that at antenna heights lower than the proposed 2000foot maximum, additional power would be needed to serve a geographic area of this size. We therefore proposed to allow DTV stations to operate with higher ERP levels at  XN0lower antenna HAAT levels in accordance with the following table:BtXN L yO ԍ For antenna heights 1600 feet and below, the maximum permissible power would be slightly less than the level needed to fully serve the area within a 107 km radius. This adjustment is necessary to avoid the potential for increasing interference to neighboring cochannel stations.B  X 0 "N " _@t,-(-(ZZ@!"  "N  Proposed Maximum Allowable ERP and Antenna Height for Future DTV Stations O !ddxeE( ( (  A ddx`( ( O       g Antenna HAAT (feet)5 LEffective Radiated Power (kW)  q    (20008 Z316q q  (1900 Z400q q 8 (1800  Z450q q  (1700  Z500q q   (1600  Z600q q   (1500m Z700q q   (1200 (1000q q m (1000O (1500q q  Z700 (2500q  O   Z500a (3000   q209. Finally, we noted that Section 73.614 of the rules provides formulas for calculating the maximum permissible ERP where a station's antenna exceeds the 2000 feet  X0maximum.BuL yO~ ԍ See 47 CFR 76.614.B We stated that we believe a similar approach would be appropriate for DTV stations. We requested suggestions for the appropriate HAAT/power equivalency formulas to use for such DTV stations.  X0q210. Comments. Only a few parties commented on this issue. Aries supports our  X0proposals regarding maximum and minimum power levels.?vXL yO ԍ Aries comments, p. 2.? Aries believes that our proposal would assist in equalizing service areas among stations. LeSEA supports limiting DTV power  Xd0levels to 1500 kw at 1000 feet HAAT and prorating it in accordance with the proposed  XM0Maximum Allowable ERP and Antenna Height Table.?wML yO$ ԍ LeSEA comments, p. 5.? It believes this revision of the permissible power levels would help reduce the power disparities that are present in the draft Table. The Joint Broadcasters argue that limits on maximum facilities are unnecessary so"!`xw,-(-(ZZ"`"  X0long as we use an allotment approach that protects DTV station service contours.LxL yOy ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 44L They believe that use of maximum power levels may unnecessarily cap stations' ability to achieve greater service areas. As noted above, the Broadcasters Caucus support a twoyear temporary  X0limit on maximum power. They indicate that the industry could not, however, agree on what  X0power limit should be imposed during this period, either 500 kW or 1000 kW.XyXL yO ԍ Broadcasters Caucus reply comments, pp. 1316.X  X0  Xv0q211. Telemundo submits that we could improve service to urban audiences by  X_0permitting UHF stations to calculate maximum ERP levels at their contour edge.Dz_L yO ԍ Telemundo comments, p. 22.D Specifically, Telemundo states that UHF stations should be allowed to calculate their ERP at the depression angle to their DTV contour (43.8 dBu). Under this plan, if a station were to use a directional antenna, it would calculate its ERP at the radial to the most distant point on the DTV coverage contour. Telemundo also states that stations should be allowed to use  X 0beam tilt to improve coverage inside their coverage areas, even if it results in higher ERP levels than those specified on the draft Table.  X 0q212. The ABA urges that we adopt flexible minimum power levels for DTV  X0operations.@{xL yO ԍ ABA comments, pp. 34.@ The ABA states that because the small population of Alaska is concentrated in its metropolitan areas and there are vast areas with little or no human habitation, it would better serve the public interest to initially allow UHF stations to operate at a lower ERP than we proposed. It states that this would allow stations to implement DTV service at lower power levels and avoid the high costs predicted for some UHF transmitters.  X0q213. Decision. In the Sixth Further Notice, we proposed a maximum permissible power of 316 kW effective radiated power and a maximum antenna height of 2000 feet height above average terrain for new DTV allotments in the UHF band. We proposed an equivalency table for various power (ERP) and antenna height (HAAT) combinations to permit increased power at antenna heights under 2000 feet. We indicated that these maximum facility values will enable a DTV station to serve their communities of license and provide service comparable to the service areas of typical NTSC stations. We are generally adopting these proposals. However, consistent with our service replication decision above, we are at this time limiting the maximum power to 1000 kW, regardless of antenna height, and are amending our power (ERP)/antenna height (HAAT) table accordingly, as shown in AppendixE. In addition, as set forth in the rules in Appendix E, we are adopting equivalent power and antenna height provisions for new DTV allotments for VHF channels. We are also providing different power levels for Zone I and Zones II and III, similar to our rules for NTSC service."a{,-(-(ZZP!`"Ԍ X0ԙB. Future Allotments and Modifications to the DTV Table  X0q214. In the Sixth Further Notice, we requested comment on what approach or approaches should be used for the purpose of adding future DTV allotments and modifying the initial DTV Table. Specifically, we requested comment on whether an approach that uses minimum geographical spacing distances similar to what is now used for NTSC allotment changes or an approach that uses engineering criteria to show that the new allotment does not cause additional interference to other allotments or stations would be more appropriate for  XH0DTV.  X 0q215. Based on the engineering performance characteristics of the ATSC DTV system that we used in generating the draft DTV Table, we developed the following proposals as possible spacing standards for determining whether to permit the addition or modification of  X 0DTV allotments:j|X L yON ԍ Proposals for new DTV allotments would also be subject to other requirements and standards for new  yO allotments set forth in Sections 73.610 and 73.611 of our rules, see 47 CFR 73.610 and 73.611. The DTV to NTSC minimum spacing requirements would apply only during the transition period.j  X 0 Channel Relationshiphh,Separation Requirement p @ hVL!p @ hVL! VHF Channels 713 ^Cochannel, DTV to DTV  XK0^qpp @ @  Zone Ihh,152 miles (244.6 km)  X40^qpp @ @  Zones II & III,170 miles (273.6 km) ^Cochannel, DTV to NTSC  X0^qpp @ @  Zone I hh,152 miles (244.6 km)  X0^qpp @ @  Zone II & III,170 miles (273.6 km) ^ ^Adjacent Channel  X0^qDTV to DTV hh,No allotments permitted between:  X|0^qpp @ @  Zone Ihh,25 miles (40.2 km) and 60 miles (96.6 km)  Xe0^qpp @ @  Zones II & III,30 miles (48.3 km) and 60 miles (96.6 km)  X70 ^qDTV to NTSC  hh,No allotments permitted between:  X 0^qpp @ @  Zone Ihh,7 miles (11.3 km) and 71 miles (114.3 km)  X 0^qpp @ @  Zone II & III,11 miles (17.7 km) and 91 miles (146.4 km) ^qpp @ @  UHF Channels ^Cochannel, DTV to DTV  X!0^qpp @ @  Zone I hh,122 miles (196.3 km)  X"0^qpp @ @  Zone II & III,139 miles (223.7 km) "N ""b|,-(-(ZZ#`"Ԍ "N ^Cochannel, DTV to NTSC  X0^qpp @ @  Zone Ihh,135 miles (217.3 km)  X0^qpp @ @  Zone II & III,152 miles (244.6 km) ^qpp @ @  ^Adjacent Channel  X0^qDTV to DTV hh,No allotments permitted between:  Xv0^qpp @ @  All Zoneshh,20 miles (32.2 km) and 55 miles (88.5 km) ^qpp @ @  hh,  XH0^qDTV to NTSC hh,No allotments permitted between:  X10^qpp @ @  All Zoneshh,6 miles (9.7 km) and 55 miles (88.5 km) ^qpp @ @ ^qTaboo Channels, DTV to NTSC only  X 0^q(+/ 2, +/ 3, +/ 4, +/ 5, hh,  X 0^q+/ 7, +/ 8, +/ 14 and hh,  X 0^q+/ 15 channels) hh,No allotments permitted between:  X 0^qpp @ @  Zone Ihh,15 miles (24.1 km) and 50 miles (80.5 km)  X0^qpp @ @  Zone II & III,15 miles (24.1 km) and 60 miles (96.6 km) p @ hVL!p @ hVL!  XK0q216. Alternatively, we proposed to require that a party requesting an addition to, or modification of, the DTV Table show that a station operating at the maximum permissible ERP and antenna height on the proposed allotment would not exceed the engineering interference criteria with regard to any other existing allotment. Under this approach, the engineering criteria would be specified in terms of desiredtoundesired signal ratios and would include consideration of potential interference to a station operating on the proposed allotment as well as potential interference from a station operating on the allotment to stations operating on other allotments. All evaluations of interference would be made under the assumption that stations on the allotments involved would be operating at the maximum allowed power and antenna height. We would use the same propagation models, technical planning factors and DTV system performance characteristics in performing engineering evaluations of interference that we used in developing our proposals for the DTV Table and  X70allotment spacing criteria.}7L yO ԍ The propagation models, technical planning factors and ATSC DTV system performance characteristics are presented in Appendix A. The engineering evaluations would therefore examine possible interference between DTV service and between DTV and NTSC service on channels 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, and 15 channels removed from the channel under evaluation.  X0q217. We observed that the proposed new service replication allotment methodology would result in a number of DTV allotments that are at distances to other DTV allotments and existing stations that are less than our proposed spacing standards. We stated that while such "shortspaced" or nonconforming allotments are necessary to achieve our full accommodation objective, we continue to believe that it is desirable to minimize the use of shortspacing and"#c },-(-(ZZ$`" its effect on neighboring stations. We therefore proposed to make shortspaced or nonconforming allotments only during the initial assignment phase for existing stations, so that subsequent additions to the DTV Table for stations to be operated by new applicants would be required to comply with the minimum spacing or engineering requirements. We also proposed to delete all shortspaced allotments that have not been activated by an eligible broadcaster after the initial application period. For purposes of this proposal, an allotment would be considered shortspaced if it does not meet the spacing standards or engineering criteria for new DTV allotments.  X10q218. Comments. Century, KUPNTV and Mr. Smith support the use of a geographic  X 0spacing approach for evaluating the acceptability of future DTV allotments.t~ L yO ԍ Century comments, p. 3; KUPNTV comments, p. 2; Mr. Smith comments, p. 4. t KUPNTV submits that spacing standards have proven efficient and reliable in use with NTSC service and would not impose a burden on future petitioners. Century states that we should adopt a spacing approach to remain consistent with the spacing methodology used in treaties with Canada and Mexico. It is concerned that allotments otherwise acceptable under interference standards might not be allowed due to an unwaiveable geographic spacing conflict with Mexican of Canadian stations. Mr. Smith submits that we should allot DTV channels using a geographic spacing approach that would allow stations to maximize their coverage up to the current limits. He states that use of engineering studies to allot channels has in the past resulted in shortspacing of stations which in turn curtails the upgrading of stations. He believes that all stations should have the option of being able to upgrade to similar coverage. q219. The Joint Broadcasters recommend that we consider the following factors in  X0evaluating proposals for a DTV channel or facility change: 1) spectrum and administrative efficiency; 2) preservation of NTSC service; 3) expansion of DTV service; and 4) interference  X0to neighboring stations.MXL yO ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, p. 56.M They state that these factors would also be considered by the regional industry coordinating committees in their evaluation of requests for changes. Pappas disagrees with the Joint Broadcasters' proposal to maintain the service replication principle  X|0after the transition is completed.D|L yO ԍ Pappas comments, p. 1112.D It argues that replication, as opposed to maximization, is a means to address the problem of accommodating all television broadcasters during the transition, when available spectrum will be at a premium. Pappas submits that once the transition is over, there should be ample spectrum available to enable broadcasters to maximize their coverage and hence to maximize their service to the public. q220. With regard to making additional channels available for new DTV stations, the  X0Joint Broadcasters and ChrisCraft argue that we should refrain from assigning unassigned"dx,-(-(ZZ0!`"  X0DTV channels or making new allotments throughout the DTV construction period.pL yOy ԍ Joint Broadcasters comments, pp. 5253; ChrisCraft comments, pp. 78.p They state that this will allow the existing licensees the flexibility needed to make DTV channel changes and otherwise respond to external circumstances and new information about DTV service characteristics. ChrisCraft argues that during this time existing stations should be able to seek changes to their initial allotments without the risk of facing competing applications for new stations and should have a priority that would allow them to change their DTV channels to that of an unbuilt allotment in the same or adjacent market. The Joint Broadcasters state that after that point, we should accept requests for new allotments subject to protection of the service contours of assigned DTV and NTSC stations. Under this approach, new channels would be allotted based on the criterion that they do not create new interference.  X 0q221. Decision. As an interim measure until we have more extensive experience with the implementation of DTV by existing broadcasters, we are adopting our spacing proposals as the criteria for adding future DTV allotments. Geographic spacing provides a clear and simple measure of acceptability of an allotment proposal without the need to engage in extensive analysis of interference and has been used successfully in the television service for many years. We recognize that engineering criteria may allow more efficient use of the spectrum and we therefore plan to revisit our allotment criteria at an appropriate point later in the DTV transition process. q222. With regard to modification of allotments, we will use the same engineering technical criteria that we have used in developing the DTV Table. We will require that a party requesting a modification of the DTV Table show that such modification would not result in any new predicted interference to other DTV allotments or existing NTSC stations. Under this approach, any request for modification must include an engineering showing indicating that no new interference would be caused. The engineering evaluations should examine possible interference between DTV service and between DTV and NTSC service on channels 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, and 15 channels removed from the channel under evaluation in accordance with the rules set forth in Appendix E. RVIII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS  X0q223. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. The decision herein has been  X0analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 10413, and found to propose or impose no modified information collection requirements on the public.  X"0q224. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility""eX,-(-(ZZ#`"  X0Act,FL yOy ԍ See 5 U.S.C.  604.F the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the rules in this document. The FRFA is set forth as Appendix D.  X0q225. Ordering Clauses. In accordance with the actions described herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Part 73 of the Commission's rules ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix E. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT eligible broadcasters are offered the opportunity to apply for digital TV allotments paired with their existing NTSC channels in accordance with the allotment plan and associated technical specifications set forth in  X10Appendix B, and the procedures set forth in our Fifth Report and Order in this proceeding, FCC 97116, adopted April 3, 1997. This action is taken pursuant to authority contained in Sections 4(i), 7, 301, 302, 303, 307 and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 157, 301, 302, 303, 307 and 336. q226. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, the rule amendments set forth in Appendix E SHALL BE EFFECTIVE either 30 days after publication in the Federal Register or after the receipt by Congress and the General Accounting Office of a report in compliance with the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, whichever is later. q227. For additional information concerning this matter, contact Bruce Franca, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 4182470, Alan Stillwell, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 4182470, or Robert Eckert, Office of Engineering and Technology, Technical Research Branch, (202) 4182433. qpp @ @  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION qpp @ @  William F. Caton qpp @ @  Acting Secretary