[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 18 (Thursday, January 28, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4322-4327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1941]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
