Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Service

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

[MM Docket No. 87-268; FCC 98-315]

Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing

Television Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission has adopted a Second Memorandum Opinion and

Order (Second MO&O) addressing petitions for reconsideration of the

Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and

Order (Service Reconsideration Order) and the Memorandum Opinion and

Order on Reconsideration of the Sixth

[[Page 4323]]

Report and Order (Allotment Reconsideration Order) in this proceeding.

This Second MO&O generally reaffirms the Commission's DTV eligibility

and allotment policies. The Commission is, however, revising and

clarifying certain of its DTV allotment policies in response to

petitioners' requests. These actions will resolve the remaining issues

regarding our policies and rules for DTV and analog (NTSC) channel

allotments.

DATES: Effective March 1, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Franca (202-418-2470), Alan

Stillwell (202-418-2470) or Robert Eckert (202-428-2470), Office of

Engineering and Technology.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second

Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth and Sixth

Report and Orders (Second MO&O) in MM Docket No. 87-268, FCC 98-315,

adopted November 24, 1998, and released December 18, 1998. The full

text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room 230), 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. The complete text of this decision also

may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor,

International Transcription Service, 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036, (202-857-3800).

Summary of the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order on

Reconsideration of the Fifth and Sixth Report and Orders

1. In the Second MO&O, the Commission has affirmed, with some minor

modifications and clarifications, its Memorandum Opinion and Order on

Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order (Service Reconsideration

Order) in MM Docket No. 87-268, FCC 98-23, adopted February 17, 1998,

63 FR 15774 (April 1, 1998), and its Memorandum Opinion and Order on

Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order (Allotment

Reconsideration Order) in MM Docket No. 87-268, adopted February 17,

1998, FCC 98-24, 63 FR 13546 (March 3, 1998). In the Service

Reconsideration Order, the Commission addressed petitions for

reconsideration of its eligibility standards for the initial DTV

channels and other rules and procedures for broadcasters to convert to

digital television (DTV) service. In the Allotment Reconsideration

Order, the Commission addressed petitions for reconsideration of its

decisions on a Table of Allotments for digital television (DTV)

service, policies and rules for the initial DTV allotments, procedures

for assigning those allotted channels, and plans for spectrum recovery.

2. The Commission revised and clarified certain of its DTV

allotment policies in response to petitioners' requests. First, in

response to a petition from Fox Broadcasting Company, the Commission

modified its policy temporarily restricting requests for maximization

of UHF DTV station power to 200 kW to provide flexibility for DTV

licensees to request higher power, up to the 1000 kW maximum, where

certain conditions are met. The Commission found that the 200 kW cap

may not be needed in all situations and that it is desirable to permit

immediate full maximization to 1000 kW in situations where such changes

would not affect the maximization plans of others. The Commission

indicated that the following provisions will apply to applications

proposing such power increases that would increase a station's DTV

service area in one or more directions beyond the area resulting from

the station's allotment parameters. Such requests must include an

interference analysis that demonstrates compliance with the de minimis

interference standard set forth in Sec. 73.623(c)(2) of the rules. This

interference analysis must be performed assuming that all other DTV

facilities are operating at the DTV power levels specified for their

allotment, or 200 kW, whichever is greater, and at the allotted site

and antenna height above average terrain. All such applications will be

placed on public notice and interested parties will be allowed 30 days

to file objections. A party may object to such requests where the

change would impact its future plans to maximize its own DTV

operations, i.e., to an extent greater than could be achieved at a

power level of 200 kW. Upon the filing of an objection to a

maximization application, the affected parties will be allowed 30 days

to resolve the conflict. In the event the parties are unable to resolve

their differences, the application will be dismissed and the applicant

will be allowed to resubmit the application with a request for no more

than 200 kW ERP. These policies will apply both to future applications

and applications now on file at the Commission.

3. The Commission also clarified its policy with respect to pending

applications to modify existing analog, or NTSC, television facilities.

Several petitioners argued that the Commission's treatment of

applications for modification of NTSC facilities and new NTSC

applications is disparate and unfair. They observed that in the

Allotment Reconsideration Order the Commission stated that service

replication of DTV allotments is based on facilities authorized as of

April 3, 1997, and that it refused requests to process all pending NTSC

modification applications and grant them full DTV service replication

of the modified facility. In contrast to this decision, they observe

that in the Service Reconsideration Order the Commission stated that

applications for new NTSC facilities that were pending as of April 3,

1997, would be processed and that the grantees could operate either a

digital or analog station prior to conversion. These petitioners argued

that all applications pending as of April 3, 1997, whether for new or

modified NTSC facilities, should be treated the same. The Commission

explained that its actions with respect to modification applications

granted before the DTV Table were evaluated based on the same criteria

that will be applied in evaluating other NTSC modification applications

and did not compromise either its DTV allotment goals or opportunities

for increasing the NTSC or DTV facilities of other stations, and

therefore its treatment of all such applications is fair and equitable.

4. The Commission advised interested parties that in processing the

remaining pending applications for modification of NTSC facilities, it

will consider the impact of the proposed change on the service area of

any affected DTV station as computed from the location and facilities

specified in the Second MO&O, or any increases in facilities authorized

subsequent to those established in Appendix B. The Commission further

advised applicants that, to the extent it grants applications for

modifications of NTSC facilities, it will not automatically increase

the facilities of the associated DTV channel to replicate the new NTSC

service area. In this regard, the Commission stated that it is

concerned that increasing DTV facilities in this manner could result in

significant new interference to either or both NTSC stations or other

DTV stations. Accordingly, if parties with pending applications for

NTSC modifications also desire to have their DTV facilities modified,

they must submit a separate application for modification of the DTV

station. Such applications for DTV station modifications will be

evaluated under the criteria set forth in Secs. 73.622 and 73.623 of

the rules.

5. The Commission next clarified its policy with respect to

protection of allotments for proposed new NTSC stations. A number of

petitioners that had filed applications for new NTSC stations within

areas covered by the

[[Page 4324]]

Commission's 1987 Order (Freeze Order) freezing acceptance of

applications for new television stations in certain congested areas

sought reconsideration to ensure that allotments will be available for

their applications. These petitioners argued that, in the Sixth Report

and Order in the DTV proceeding, the Commission indicated that it would

continue to process applications filed on or before September 20, 1996,

because it did not believe that those applications would have a

significant negative impact on the DTV Table. They further contended

that in the Allotment Reconsideration Order the Commission confirmed

that it intended to protect pending NTSC applications filed by this

deadline. These parties argued that in the Allotment Reconsideration

Order the Commission made clear for the first time that applications

not accepted for filing were not protected and that to the extent that

a conflicting DTV allotment has been made, it did not plan to allot a

replacement channel for those applications. They stated that the

Commission did not provide an explanation for not protecting the

allotments sought in their applications.

6. In reviewing the petitioners' requests for reconsideration, the

Commission found that these parties appeared to misunderstand its

policy with respect to applications for new NTSC stations that were

filed on or before September 20, 1996, as that policy applies to

applications for new stations at locations within areas covered by the

1987 Freeze Order. The Commission indicated that its policy of

maintaining and protecting vacant NTSC allotments that are the subject

of pending applications applied only to applications for new NTSC

stations outside of the freeze areas. It stated that it did not

consider applications within the freeze areas to be pending and did not

protect such applications by avoiding the creation of DTV allotments

that would conflict with the new NTSC stations they propose. In this

regard, the Commission noted that it had indicated previously, in the

Sixth Further Notice in the DTV proceeding, that it would continue its

longstanding policy of considering requests for waiver of the Freeze

Order on a case-by-case basis. The Commission noted that if all vacant

allotments were protected, it would not be possible to accommodate all

existing broadcasters and the expected service areas of many of the DTV

allotments would be reduced.

7. The Commission did, however, indicate that it found it desirable

to provide applicants seeking to operate new NTSC stations in the

freeze areas with options to pursue their applications wherever such

options would not conflict with NTSC or DTV stations (including DTV

allotments, authorized or requested increases in DTV allotment

facilities and proposals for new or modified DTV allotments). In this

regard, it adopted the suggestion of several of the petitioners that it

allow parties whose NTSC applications conflict with DTV stations to

request a change in the NTSC channel they seek or to amend their

application to eliminate all such conflicts. The Commission agreed that

where an alternate NTSC channel below channel 60 is available, it would

provide a win-win solution in avoiding interference to DTV service and

allowing the public to receive additional television service. The

Commission therefore stated that in a subsequent Public Notice, its

Mass Media Bureau will announce a window of time during which such

petitions to amend the NTSC Table of Allotments or amendments to

freeze-waiver applications may be filed. Parties that had filed

applications for new NTSC stations using allotments in the freeze areas

will be permitted to amend their applications if such amendment would

eliminate interference to DTV service predicted using the criteria set

forth in Sec. 73.623(c) of the rules. Such amendments may include

changes in the ERP, directional antenna pattern, antenna height or site

location requested in the application, but the amendment must conform

to pertinent NTSC requirements. The application amendment may also

specify DTV operation.

8. In response to an ex parte request from the Dispatch Broadcast

Group (Dispatch), the Commission modified its operating requirements

for DTV stations to provide licensees with greater flexibility in

scheduling their DTV operations in the early phases of the DTV

implementation process. In particular, the Commission modified its

rules to allow stations, both commercial and noncommercial, that

voluntarily commence DTV service early full flexibility in determining

the schedule on which they operate their DTV service, and thereafter to

require that they operate in accordance with the existing requirement

that they must provide at least one free over-the-air DTV video program

at no charge to viewers, at any time their associated NTSC stations are

operating.

9. Finally, the Commission make several adjustments to the DTV

Table in response to requests of individual petitioners. The revised

DTV Table and associated technical parameters for station operation are

available for inspection on the internet at www.fcc.gov and at the FCC

Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554

during regular business hours.

Procedural Matters

10. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This Second MO&O has

been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law No. 104-13, and found to impose no new or modified

information collection requirements on the public.

11. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. With

respect to this Second MO&O, the Commission has prepared a Supplemental

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of

the rules in this document. None of the petitions for reconsideration

of the Service Reconsideration Order or the Allotment Reconsideration

Order raised issues concerning the Supplemental FRFAs prepared for

those decisions. The Supplemental FRFA for the Second MO&O is as

follows:

A. Need for, and Objectives of, this Memorandum Opinion and Order

12. In the Fifth Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules for

the transition to DTV service, including eligibility standards for the

initial DTV channels, a construction schedule, a requirement that

broadcasters continue to provide a free, over-the-air television

service, and a simulcast requirement phased-in at the end of the

transition period. In the Service Reconsideration Order, the Commission

addressed petitions for reconsideration of its eligibility standards

for the initial DTV channels and other elements of its rules and

procedures for broadcasters to convert to DTV service. In the Sixth

Report and Order, the Commission adopted policies, procedures and

technical criteria for use in conjunction with operation of broadcast

digital television (DTV) service, adopted a DTV Table of Allotments,

adopted a plan for the recovery of a portion of the spectrum currently

allocated to TV broadcasting, and provided procedures for assigning DTV

frequencies. In the Allotment Reconsideration Order, the Commission

addressed petitions for reconsideration of its decisions on the DTV

Table of Allotments, policies and rules for the initial DTV allotments,

procedures for assigning those allotted channels, and plans for

spectrum recovery. In the present Memorandum Opinion and Order, the

Commission addresses petitions for reconsideration

[[Page 4325]]

of both the Service Reconsideration Order and the Allotment

Reconsideration Order. Throughout this proceeding, we have sought to

allot DTV channels in a manner that is most efficient for broadcasters

and the public and least disruptive to broadcast television service

during the period of transition from NTSC to DTV service. We wish to

ensure that the spectrum is used efficiently and effectively through

reliance on market forces, and ensure that the introduction of digital

TV fully serves the public interest.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public In Response to

the Supplemental FRFAs

13. None.

C. Description and Estimate Of The Number Of Small Entities To Which

The Rules Will Apply

14. As noted, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses were

incorporated into the Fifth Report and Order and the Sixth Report and

Order. In those analyses, we described in detail the small entities

that might be significantly affected by the rules adopted in the Fifth

Report and Order and the Sixth Report and Order. Those entities

included full service television stations, TV translator facilities,

and LPTV stations. In addition, while we did not believe that

television equipment manufacturers, manufacturers of television

equipment used by consumers, and computer manufacturers constituted

regulated entities for the purpose of those previous FRFAs, we included

them in the analysis of the FRFAs because we thought that some rule

changes and textual discussions in the Fifth Report and Order and the

Sixth Report and Order might ultimately have some affect on equipment

compliance. In the present Memorandum Opinion and Order we address

reconsideration petitions filed in response to the Service

Reconsideration Order and the Allotment Reconsideration Order. In this

present Supplemental FRFA, we hereby incorporate by reference the

description and estimate of the number of small entities from the

previous FRFAs in this proceeding.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other

Compliance Requirements

15. The rules adopted will result in no changes in current

reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Burdens on Small

Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

16. As noted in the previous FRFAs, the DTV Table of Allotments

will affect all of the commercial and noncommercial broadcast

television stations eligible for a DTV channel in the transition period

and a significant number of the LPTV and TV translator stations. LPTV

and TV translator stations, especially, are likely to be small

entities. It is expected that the allotments will constitute the

population of channels on which broadcasters will operate DTV service

in the near future. Affected stations will need to modify or obtain new

transmission facilities and, to a varying extent, production equipment

to operate on the new DTV channels. The actual cost of equipment is

expected to vary in accordance with the degree to which the station

becomes involved in DTV programming and origination.

Considering this and other information, the Memorandum Opinion and

Order makes the following changes to the Commission's DTV policies:

(1) Reaffirms the Commission's initial DTV eligibility standards

and denies requests by several petitioners that we change the channel

of certain DTV allotments that conflict with the NTSC allotments for

which they have submitted applications or petitions for rule making.

(In general, these petitioners filed applications that had not been

accepted or acted upon by the Commission because they contained a

request for waiver of the 1987 Freeze Order.) The MO&O does, however,

grant the petitioners' alternative suggestion that they be permitted to

modify their existing applications to specify alternative channels that

do not conflict with the DTV allotments. This will allow those parties

to continue to pursue their outstanding investments in seeking a new

stations wherever possible.

(2) Grants Fox's request that we modify our decision to limit

initial maximization requests to 200 kW, subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the item permits parties to submit requests for DTV power

increases above 200 kW, up to the 1000 kW maximum. Such requests must

include an engineering showing that demonstrates compliance with the de

minimis interference standard with all affected stations assumed to be

operating at the DTV power level specified for their allotment or at

200 kW, whichever is greater. Requests will be placed on public notice

for 30 days and any objections to the increase above 200 kW must be

resolved by the applicant. This action will allow a number of stations

to construct their initial DTV facilities with greater than 200 kW

effective radiated power and thereby avoid the need for them to

undertake a more costly two-stage construction process to achieve

higher power in the future, after the current 200 kW limitation on

power increases is lifted.

(3) Grants Dispatch's request for modification of the operating

requirements for DTV stations to provide licensees with greater

flexibility in scheduling their DTV operations in the early phases of

the DTV implementation process. In particular, the rules have been

modified to allow stations, both commercial and noncommercial, that

voluntarily commence DTV service early full flexibility in determining

the schedule on which they operate their DTV service. Thereafter, such

stations must operate in accordance with the existing requirement that

they provide at least one free over-the-air DTV video program at no

charge to viewers, at any time their associated NTSC stations are

operating.

(4) Grants a number of individual requests for changes in the

initial DTV allotments. These actions do not alter in any significant

way the previous FRFAs and Supplemental FRFAs or the potential effect

of the rules on any small entities that may be subject to them.

17. The Commission will send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and

Order, including the Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Ordering Clauses

18. In accordance with the actions described herein, it is ordered

that Part 73 of the Commission's rules is amended as set forth in the

rule changes. In addition, it is ordered that the rule amendments as

set forth shall be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal

Register. This action is taken pursuant to authority contained in

Secs. 4(i), 7, 301, 302, 303, 307 and 336 of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157, 301, 302, 303, 307 and 336.

19. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of Public

Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall send a copy of this

Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Supplemental Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of

the Small Business Administration.

20. For additional information concerning this matter, contact

Bruce

[[Page 4326]]

Franca, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2470, Alan

Stillwell, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2470, or

Robert Eckert, Office of Engineering and Technology, Technical Research

Branch, (202) 418-2433.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

Television.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Rule Changes

Parts 73 and 74 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are

amended as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

Sec. 73.622 [Amended]

2. Section 73.622 is amended by removing the designation ``c'' from

entries in paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Under CALIFORNIA, channel 63 at Concord

Under CALIFORNIA, channel 39 at Corona

Under CALIFORNIA, channel 48 at Porterville

Under CALIFORNIA, channels 21, 35, *53 and 55 at Sacramento

Under CALIFORNIA, channel 43 at Salinas

Under CALIFORNIA, channel 61 at San Bernardino

Under CALIFORNIA, channel 41 at San Jose

Under CONNECTICUT, channel *52 at Bridgeport

Under FLORIDA, channel *44 at Boca Raton

Under FLORIDA, channel 22 at Miami

Under HAWAII, channel 31 at Honolulu

Under HAWAII, channel *7 at Lihue

Under ILLINOIS, channels 19 and 43 at Chicago

Under ILLINOIS, channel 16 at Rockford

Under INDIANA, channel 51 at Salem

Under MASSACHUSETTS, channel 29 at Worcester

Under MICHIGAN, channel *55 at East Lansing

Under MICHIGAN, channel 51 at Lansing

Under NEW HAMPSHIRE, channel *49 at Keene

Under NEW HAMPSHIRE, channel 59 at Manchester

Under NEW JERSEY, channel *18 at New Brunswick

Under NEW YORK, channel *42 at Binghamton

Under NEW YORK, channel 56 at New York

Under NEW YORK, channel 19 at Syracuse

Under NEW YORK, channel 21 at Watertown

Under OHIO, channel 42 at Sandusky

Under OHIO, channels 19 and 49 at Toledo

Under OHIO, channel 20 at Youngstown

Under PENNSYLVANIA, channel *62 at Allentown

Under PENNSYLVANIA, channel 64 at Philadelphia

Under PENNSYLVANIA, channels 25 and *26 at Pittsburgh

Under RHODE ISLAND, channel 17 at Block Island

Under TENNESSEE, channel *29 at Memphis

Under TEXAS, channel 44 at Houston

Under VIRGINIA, channel 43 at Manassas

Under VIRGINIA, channel 22 at Petersburg

Under WASHINGTON, channel 46 at Wenatchee

Under PUERTO RICO, channel *16 at Fajardo

Under PUERTO RICO, channels 29 and 35 at Mayaguez

3. Section 73.622 is amended by adding or revising the following

entries in the table in paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 73.622 DTV Table of Allotments.

* * * * *

(b) DTV Table of Allotments.

* * * * *

Arizona

* * * * *

Kingman................................. 19, *46

* * * * *

California

* * * * *

Barstow................................. 44

Blythe.................................. *4

Calipatria.............................. 50

* * * * *

Clovis.................................. 44c

Coalinga................................ *22

Concord................................. 63c

* * * * *

Huntington Beach........................ *48

Long Beach.............................. 61c

Los Angeles............................. 31c, 35c, 36, *41c, 42, 43,

53c, *59c, 60, 65c, 66

* * * * *

San Bernardino.......................... *26, 38

* * * * *

Colorado

* * * * *

Colorado Springs........................ 10, 22c, 24

Craig................................... *48

Denver.................................. 16, 17, *18, 19, 32c, 34,

35, *40, 43, 51c

* * * * *

Glenwood Springs........................ 23, *39

Grand Junction.......................... 2, 7, 12c, 15, *17

La Junta................................ *30

Lamar................................... *50

Leadville............................... *49

Longmont................................ 29

* * * * *

Florida

* * * * *

Bradenton............................... *5, 42

* * * * *

Live Oak................................ 48

Marathon................................ *34

Melbourne............................... 20, 48

* * * * *

Idaho

Boise................................... *21, 26, 28

Burley.................................. *48

Caldwell................................ 10c

* * * * *

Twin Falls.............................. 16, *22, 34

Weiser.................................. *34

Illinois

* * * * *

Indiana

* * * * *

Evansville.............................. 28, 45c, 46, *54, 59

* * * * *

Iowa

* * * * *

Cedar Rapids............................ 27, 47, 51, 52

Centerville............................. *44

Council Bluffs.......................... *33c

* * * * *

Kansas

* * * * *

Garden City............................. 16, 18, *42

* * * * *

Lawrence................................ 36

Oakley.................................. *40

Pittsburg............................... 30

* * * * *

Minnesota

* * * * *

Hibbing................................. 36, *51

* * * * *

Missouri

* * * * *

Birch Tree.............................. *7

[[Page 4327]]

Bowling Green........................... *50

Cape Girardeau.......................... 22, 57

* * * * *

Montana

* * * * *

Miles City.............................. 13, *39

* * * * *

Nevada

Elko.................................... 8, *15

* * * * *

New Jersey

Atlantic City........................... 49, 50

* * * * *

New Mexico

* * * * *

Las Cruces.............................. *23c, 47

* * * * *

Roswell................................. 28c, 38, 41

* * * * *

Silver City............................. 12, *33

Socorro................................. *31

New York

* * * * *

Oklahoma

* * * * *

Eufala.................................. *31

Guymon.................................. *29

Lawton.................................. 23

* * * * *

Texas

* * * * *

Longview................................ 31

Lubbock................................. 25, 27, 35c, *39, 40, 43

* * * * *

Texarkana............................... 15, *50

* * * * *

Utah

* * * * *

Cedar City.............................. 14, 44

Monticello.............................. *41

Ogden................................... 29, *34

* * * * *

4. Section 73.622 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as

follows:

Sec. 73.622 Digital television table of allotments.

* * * * *

(e) DTV Service Areas. (1) The service area of a DTV station is the

geographic area within the station's noise-limited F(50,90) contour

where its signal strength is predicted to exceed the noise-limited

service level. The noise-limited contour is the area in which the

predicted F(50, 90) field strength of the station's signal, in dB above

1 microvolt per meter (dBu) as determined using the method in

Sec. 73.625(b), exceeds the following levels (these are the levels at

which reception of DTV service is limited by noise):

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

dBu

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

Channels 2-6................................................. 28

Channels 7-13................................................ 36

Channels 14-69............................................... 41

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

(2) Within this contour, service is considered available at

locations where the station's signal strength, as predicted using the

terrain dependent Longley-Rice point-to-point propagation model,

exceeds the levels above. Guidance for evaluating coverage areas using

the Longley-Rice methodology is provided in OET Bulletin No. 69. Copies

of OET Bulletin No. 69 may be inspected during normal business hours at

the: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M St., N.W., Public

Reference Room (Room 239), Washington, DC 20554. This document is also

available through the Internet on the FCC Home Page at http://

www.fcc.gov.

5. Section 73.623 is amended by redesignating paragraph (f) as

paragraph (g) and adding a new paragraph (f), to read as follows:

Sec. 73.623 DTV applications and changes to DTV allotments.

* * * * *

(f) Parties requesting new allotments on channel 6 be added to the

DTV Table must submit an engineering study demonstrating that no

interference would be caused to existing FM radio stations on FM

channels 200-220.

* * * * *

6. Section 73.624 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

Sec. 73.624 Digital television broadcast stations.

* * * * *

(b) At any time that a DTV broadcast station permittee or licensee

transmits a video program signal on its analog television channel, it

must also transmit at least one over-the-air video program signal at no

direct charge to viewers on the DTV channel that is licensed to the

analog channel, provided that, before the date on which DTV station is

required to be constructed under paragraph (d) of this section, the DTV

broadcast station permittee or licensee is not subject to any minimum

schedule for operation on the DTV channel. The DTV service that is

provided pursuant to this paragraph must be at least comparable in

resolution to the analog television station programming transmitted to

viewers on the analog channel, but subject to paragraph (f) of this

section, DTV broadcast stations are not required to simulcast the

analog programming.

* * * * *

PART 74--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER

PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION SERVICES

7. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, and 554.

8. Section 74.706 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read

as follows:

Sec. 74.706 Digital TV (DTV) station protection.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) -2 dB or less for co-channel operations. This maximum L/D ratio

for co-channel interference to DTV service is only valid at locations

where the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio is 25 dB or greater. At the edge

of the noise-limited service area, where the S/N ratio is 16 dB, the

maximum L/D ratio for co-channel interference from analog low power TV,

TV translator or TV booster service into DTV service is -21 dB. At

locations where the S/N ratio is greater than 16 dB but less than 25

dB, the maximum L/D field strength ratios are found from the following

Table (for values between measured values, linear interpolation can be

used):

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

DTV-to-low

Signal-to-noise ratio(dB) power ratio

(dB)

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

16.00...................................................... 21.00

16.35...................................................... 19.94

17.35...................................................... 17.69

18.35...................................................... 16.44

19.35...................................................... 7.19

20.35...................................................... 4.69

21.35...................................................... 3.69

22.35...................................................... 2.94

23.35...................................................... 2.44

25.00...................................................... 2.00

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

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99-1941 Filed 1-27-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P