[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 21, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43209-43214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21261]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 87-268; FCC 96-317]
Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact on the Existing
Television Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is continuing the process for implementation of
the next era of broadcast television: digital television (DTV) service.
In this action, the Commission proposes policies for developing the
initial DTV Table of Allotments, procedures for assigning DTV
frequencies, and plans for spectrum recovery. The Commission also
proposes technical criteria for the allotment of additional DTV
frequencies and provides a draft DTV Table of Allotments. These
proposals are intended to provide frequencies on which broadcasters
will operate digital television service and to plan for recovery of
spectrum from television service for other uses.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 22, 1996, and
reply comments on or before December 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554.
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 Sixth
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 87-268, FCC 96-
317, adopted July 25, 1996. 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, 2100 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202-857-3800).
Summary of the Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
1. In this action, the Commission is continuing the DTV
implementation process by proposing policies for developing the initial
DTV allotments and procedures for assigning DTV frequencies to
broadcasters. The Commission also proposed technical criteria for the
allotment of additional DTV frequencies and provided a draft DTV Table
of Allotments. The draft Table, which shows how digital frequencies
might be allotted in individual markets, is based on the principles of
accommodating all eligible broadcasters, replicating existing service
areas, and sound spectrum management. The Commission stated that, while
it expects the final DTV Table of Allotments to be based on these
principles, the Table issued in this Further Notice is a draft and
revisions are anticipated. The Commission's staff will work with
broadcasters and other parties to revise the Table as appropriate. The
Commission said that its goals in this phase of the proceeding are to
ensure that the spectrum is used efficiently and effectively through
reliance on market forces, and to ensure that the introduction of
digital television fully serves the public interest.
2. The Commission is proposing several primary objectives for
guiding the development of DTV allotments and assignments to ensure
that broadcasters will be able to transition their transmitting
facilities to DTV service. The first of these principles is to fully
accommodate all eligible broadcasters,
[[Page 43210]]
i.e., the Commission will attempt to provide a second channel for DTV
service for all existing NTSC broadcasters. Eligible broadcasters
include: (1) all full service television broadcast stations licensees;
(2) permittees authorized as of October 24, 1994; and (3) all parties
with applications for a construction permit on file as of October 24,
1991, who are ultimately awarded full-service broadcast station
licenses. This approach would ensure that all full service broadcasters
are able to provide digital TV service.
3. The second objective is to provide, to the extent possible, all
existing broadcasters with a DTV service area that is comparable to
their existing NTSC service area (service replication). Broadcasters
would thus be assigned channels that replicate the service areas of
their existing stations.
4. The third objective is to attempt to minimize all unavoidable
interference without preference to either NTSC or DTV service. The
proposed allotment approach would balance unavoidable interference
among both NTSC and DTV stations equally.
5. The Commission stated that it intends to consider a spectrum
plan under which all future digital TV service would eventually be
located in a core region of the existing VHF and UHF broadcast
spectrum, namely the spectrum at VHF channels 7-13 and UHF channels 14-
51. This is the area of the TV spectrum that is technically best suited
for the transmission of DTV. Under this plan, the Commission would
attempt to provide all broadcasters with access to a 6 MHz channel for
DTV broadcasting within the core region. Because of the limited
availability of spectrum and the need to accommodate all existing
facilities with minimal interference among stations, however, some
broadcasters would be provided transition DTV channels outside this
area. These broadcasters would move their DTV operations to a channel
in the core spectrum when one became available. This plan would permit
the eventual recovery of 138 MHz of spectrum nationwide. This spectrum
wold be obtained from the lower VHF channels, i.e., channels 2-6, and
the upper UHF channels, i.e., channels 52-69. The Commission further
observed that this plan may facilitate the early recovery of channels
60-69.
6. The FNPRM also asks for comment on an option suggested by the
Association of Maximum Service Television, Inc. This approach would not
attempt to concentrate DTV allotments in a core area of the spectrum.
Since all channels would be available, such an approach could
theoretically provide for some degree of improved service area
replication and interference performance. Such an approach might also
have less impact on low power TV and TV translator stations. On the
other hand, this option would place more DTV stations on channels that
are less desirable for broadcast operations. Further, early recovery of
spectrum would be more difficult and therefore less likely.
7. The Commission also presented a number of proposals for other
policies, procedures and technical criteria to be used in allotting DTV
channels. These proposals include: (1) specifying the use of existing
NTSC transmitter site coordinates as the reference points for the new
DTV allotments; (2) deleting all existing vacant NTSC allotments to
provide sufficient spectrum for DTV and, where feasible, replacing
deleted NTSC vacant noncommercial allotments with new DTV allotments;
(3) avoiding the use of TV channels 3, 4, and 6 to minimize
interference to cable terminal devices, VCRs and FM radio service; and,
(4) protecting land mobile authorizations on channels 14-20. In
addition, the Commission requested comments and proposals regarding an
appropriate frequency labeling scheme for DTV service.
8. The Commission proposed to continue the secondary status of low
power TV and TV translator stations. However, it requested comment on
ways in which to minimize the impact on low power operations.
9. The construction of an actual Table of Allotments is an
extremely complex and difficult task. To fulfill this task, the
Commission's our staff has developed sophisticated operations research
methodology and computer software that provides the capability to
produce allotment/assignment table based on alternative policy plans
and to incorporate alternate allotment schemes that may be negotiated
by broadcasters.
10. The Commission proposed an initial DTV Table of Allotments that
is based on the principles, policies and methodologies described above.
This Table, which provides a DTV allotment for all 1578 eligible
broadcasters and also allows for an additional 143 DTV allotments to be
reserved for future noncommercial use, meets all of the Commission's
proposed policy objectives.
11. The Commission stated that it intended to provide broadcasters
an opportunity to negotiate changes to the proposed DTV Table of
Allotments and would consider such negotiated changes in the
development of the final DTV Table. Specifically, the Commission
indicated that it will permit broadcasters within a community to
exchange among themselves their designated allotments. It also stated
that it will permit broadcasters to develop alternative allotment/
assignment plans for their local area.
12. The Commission stated that, consistent with its proposal to
eliminate all existing vacant allotments, it will not accept additional
applications for new NTSC stations that are filed after 30 days from
the publication of this Further Notice in the Federal Register. This
will provide time for filing of any applications that are currently
under preparation. The Commission stated that as it processes the
applications on file now and those that are filed before the end of
this filing opportunity, it will continue its current policy of
considering requests for waiver of its 1987 freeze Order (Order, RM-
5811, Mimeo No. 4074, released July 17, 1987), on a case-by-case basis.
When applications for new stations are accepted for filing, the
Commission will continue its process of issuing Public Notices that
``cut-off'' the opportunity for filing competing, mutually-exclusive
applications. In connection with these cut-off notices, it will allow
additional competing applications to be filed after the end of this
filing opportunity. The Commission indicated that while it anticipates
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, it reserves 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.
13. The Commission stated that it also will not accept petitions
for rule making proposing to amend the existing TV Table of Allotments
in Section 73.606(b) of the rules, 47 CFR Section 73.606(b), to add an
allotment for a new NTSC station. Other petitions to amend the TV Table
of Allotments (for example, proposing to change a station's community
of license or altering the channel on which it operates, including
changes in which channel allotment in a community is reserved for
noncommercial educational use) can continue to be filed, but any such
changes to the table that include a modification of a station's
authorization will be conditioned on the outcome of this DTV rule
making proceeding. This termination of the opportunity to file
petitions to add NTSC allotments for new stations is effective as of
the close
[[Page 43211]]
of business on the date of adoption of this Further Notice. Any
petitions that are currently on file and any rule making proceedings
that are currently open will be addressed on a case-by-case basis,
taking into account the impact on the draft DTV allotment table. For
those pending cases in which a new NTSC channel is allotted, the
Commission will make an exception to its decision to cease accepting
applications for new NTSC stations, and the accompanying allotment
Report and Order will specify the period of time for filing
applications.
14. The Commission stated that its decision to cease accepting
applications for new NTSC TV stations 30 days after publication of this
Further Notice in the Federal Register and new petitions for rule
making to add new NTSC allotments immediately, as indicated above, is
based on the need to preserve the available spectrum for use by new DTV
stations during the transition. The draft DTV Table provided herein was
developed on the assumption that the existing vacant NTSC allotments
for which no construction permit application is pending will be
deleted. It is necessary to delete these allotments in order to provide
a DTV allotment for all eligible broadcast stations. The Commission
also stated that it is necessary to terminate the licensing of new NTSC
as quickly as possible in order to begin the process of transitioning
to DTV service. To continue to accept new applications for NTSC
stations, now that the actual start of this new service is approaching,
could potentially prolong the transition process. The Commission
indicated that the additional 30 day period it has provided for filing
new applications for NTSC construction permits will accommodate any
parties who may be in the process of preparing such applications now.
Accordingly, as allowed under Section 553 (b) and (d) of the
Administrative Procedures Act, the Commission found that there is good
cause for implementing these new policies without a notice and comment
procedure and that such a procedure would be contrary to its efforts to
implement DTV service.
15. With regard to modifications of existing stations, the
Commission stated that it is concerned that the service area
replications to be provided by the draft Table set forth herein could
be substantially affected if stations make changes to their technical
operations, i.e., maximum effective radiated power (ERP), antenna
height above average terrain (HAAT), and transmitter locations from
this point on. Furthermore, continuing changes in station operations
could affect broadcasters ability to comment meaningfully on the
proposed Table and our ability to finalize the DTV Table of Allotments.
The Commission indicated, however, that it is also concerned that
freezing modifications to existing NTSC stations could pose hardships
for broadcasters. The Commission noted that in many cases it may be
possible to permit modification of existing stations without affecting
the DTV Table. It therefore stated that it will continue to permit the
filing of applications to modify the technical facilities, i.e., ERP,
HAAT or transmitter location, of existing or authorized NTSC TV
stations. However, in order to preserve our ability to develop the DTV
Table, the Commission stated that it will henceforth condition the
grant of applications for modifications of technical facilities,
including those for applications on file before the date of the
adoption of this Further Notice but granted after that date, on the
outcome of its final decision on the DTV Table of Allotments. To the
extent that an existing station's service or potential for causing
interference are extended into new areas by grant of an application,
the condition may require the station's authorized facilities to be
reduced or modified. The Commission is seeking comment on whether this
condition should involve different consequences for applications for
modifications on file as of the date of adoption of this Further
Notice, as opposed to such applications filed after that date.
Procedural Matters
16. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR Sections 1.415 and 1.419,
interested parties may file comments on or before November 22, 1996,
and reply comments on or before December 23, 1996. To file formally in
this proceeding, you must file an original and five copies of all
comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each
Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file
an original plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply
comments to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available
for public inspection during regular business hours in the Dockets
Reference Room of the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. You may also file comments electronically
via the internet at dtvallotments@fcc.gov.
17. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the expected significant economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making in MM Docket No. 87-268. Written public comments are requested
on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further Notice
provided above in Section X.
Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rule: In this rule making
action the Commission presents proposals for the policies, procedures
and technical criteria that it will use in allotting channels for
broadcast digital television (DTV), plans for the recovery of a portion
of the spectrum currently allocated to TV broadcasting, and a draft DTV
Table of Allotments. The objective of this action is to obtain comment
and information that will assist the Commission in allotting DTV
channels. The Commission seeks 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 and to recover spectrum.
Legal Basis: The proposed action is authorized under Sections 4(i),
7, 301, 302, 303 and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 157, 301, 302, 303 and 307.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the
Rules Will Apply
(1) Definition of a ``Small Business''
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, small entities may include
small organizations, small businesses, and small governmental
jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601(6). The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. Sec. 601(3) generally defines the term ``small business'' as
having the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under
the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 632. A small business concern is
one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant
in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business Administration (``SBA''). According
to the SBA's regulations, entities engaged in television broadcasting
may have a maximum of $10.5 million in annual receipts in order to
qualify as a small business concern. 13 CFR 121.201. This
[[Page 43212]]
standard also applies in determining whether an entity is a small
business for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601(3), the statutory definition of a
small business applies ``unless an agency after consultation with the
Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after
opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of
such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and
publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' While we
tentatively believe that the foregoing definition of ``small business''
greatly overstates the number of television broadcast stations that are
small businesses and is not suitable for purposes of determining the
impact of the new rules on small business, we did not propose an
alternative definition in the IRFA. Accordingly, for purposes of this
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, we utilize the SBA's definition
in determining the number of small businesses to which the rules apply,
but we reserve the right to adopt a more suitable definition of ``small
business'' as applied to television broadcast stations and to consider
further the issue of the number of small entities that are television
broadcasters in the future. Further, in this IRFA, we will identify the
different classes of small television stations that may be impacted by
the rules adopted in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
(2) Issues in Applying the Definition of a ``Small Business''
The SBA has defined ``annual receipts'' specifically in 13 CFR part
104, and its calculations include an averaging process. We do not
currently require submission of financial data from licensees that we
could use to apply the SBA's definition of a small business. Thus, for
purposes of estimating the number of small entities to which the rules
apply, we are limited to considering the revenue data that are publicly
available, and the revenue data on which we rely may not correspond
completely with the SBA definition of annual receipts.
Under SBA criteria for determining annual receipts, if a concern
has acquired an affiliate or been acquired as an affiliate during the
applicable averaging period for determining annual receipts, the annual
receipts in determining size status include the receipts of both firms.
13 CFR 121.104(d)(1). The SBA defines affiliation in 13 CFR 121.103.
While the Commission refers to an affiliate generally as a station
affiliated with a network, the SBA's definition of affiliate is
analogous to our attribution rules. Generally, under the SBA's
definition, concerns are affiliates of each other when one concern
controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or
parties controls or has the power to control both. 13 CFR
121.103(a)(1). The SBA considers factors such as ownership, management,
previous relationships with or ties to another concern, and contractual
relationships, in determining whether affiliation exists. 13 CFR
121.103(a)(2). Instead of making an independent determination of
whether television stations were affiliated based on SBA's definitions,
we relied on the industry data bases available to us to afford us that
information.
(3) Estimates Based on Census and BIA Data
According to the Census Bureau, in 1992, there were 1,155 out of
1,478 operating television stations with revenues of less than ten
million dollars. This represents 78 percent of all television stations,
including non-commercial stations. See 1992 Census of Transportation,
Communications, and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, May 1995,
at 1-25. The Census Bureau does not separate the revenue data by
commercial and non-commercial stations in this report. Neither does it
allow us to determine the number of stations with a maximum of 10.5
million dollars in annual receipts. Census data also indicates that 81
percent of operating firms (that owned at least one television station)
had revenues of less than $10 million.
We have also performed a separate study based on the data contained
in the BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Television Analyzer
Database, which lists a total of 1,141 full-power commercial television
stations. It should be noted that the percentage figures derived from
the data base may be underinclusive because the data base does not list
revenue estimates for noncommercial educational stations, and these are
therefore excluded from our calculations based on the data base. Non-
commercial stations would be subject to the allotment rules and
policies proposed herein. The data indicate that, based on 1995 revenue
estimates, 440 full-power commercial television stations had an
estimated revenue of 10.5 million dollars or less. That represents 54
percent of commercial television stations with revenue estimates listed
in the BIA program. The data base does not list estimated revenues for
331 stations. Using a worst case scenario, if those 331 stations for
which no revenue is listed are counted as small stations, there would
be a total of 771 stations with an estimated revenue of 10.5 million
dollars or less, representing approximately 68 percent of the 1,141
commercial television stations listed in the BIA data base.
Alternatively, if we look at owners of commercial television
stations as listed in the BIA data base, there are a total of 488
owners. The data base lists estimated revenues for 60 percent of these
owners, or 295. Of these 295 owners, 158 or 54 percent had annual
revenues of $10.5 million or less. Using a worst case scenario, if the
193 owners for which revenue is not listed are assumed to be small, the
total of small entities would constitute 72 percent of owners.
In summary, based on the foregoing worst case analysis using census
data, we estimate that our rules will apply to as many as 1,155
commercial and non-commercial television stations (78 percent of all
stations) that could be classified as small entities. Using a worst
case analysis based on the data in the BIA data base, we estimate that
as many as approximately 771 commercial television stations (about 68
percent of all commercial television stations) could be classified as
small entities. As we noted above, these estimates are based on a
definition that we believe greatly overstates the number of television
broadcasters that are small businesses. Further, it should be noted
that under the SBA's definitions, revenues of affiliates that are not
television stations should be aggregated with the television station
revenues in determining whether a concern is small. The estimates
overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figures on
which they are based do not include or aggregate such revenues from
non-television affiliated companies.
The proposed DTV Table of Allotments would also affect low power
television (LPTV) and TV translator stations. The Commission's records
indicate that currently, there are about 1,750 licensed LPTV stations
and 5,050 licensed TV translators. The Commission has also issued about
1,400 construction permits for new LPTV stations. We do not collect
individual station financial data for low power television (LPTV)
Stations and TV translator stations. However, based on its experience
with LPTV and TV translator stations, the Commission believes that all
such stations have revenues of less than $10.5 million. We also seek
information on the number of low power stations that operate
commercially and noncommercially.
[[Page 43213]]
(4) Alternative Classification of Small Stations
An alternative way to classify small television stations is by the
number of employees. The Commission currently applies a standard based
on the number of employees in administering its Equal Employment
Opportunity Rule (EEO) for broadcasting. Thus, radio or television
stations with fewer than five full-time employees are exempted from
certain EEO reporting and recordkeeping requirements. We estimate that
the total numbers of commercial and noncommercial television stations
with 4 or fewer employees are 132 and 136, respectively.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements: The proposals set forth in this action would
involve no changes to reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance
requirements beyond what is already required under the current
regulations.
Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These
Rules: None.
Significant Alternatives to Proposed Rules Which Minimize
Significant Economic Impact of Small Entities and Accomplish Stated
Objectives: The DTV Table of Allotments proposed in this action 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 low power and TV translator stations. It is
expected that the proposed allotments will constitute the population of
channels on which broadcasters will operate DTV service in the future.
Allotment of these channels is therefore expected to be very important
to the broadcast community. All of the affected stations will have to
obtain new transmission facilities and, to a varying extent, production
equipment to operate on the new DTV channels. The cost of equipment to
operate on these new channels is expected to vary from $750,000 upwards
to $10 million. 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.
The proposed DTV Table of Allotments will also affect low power
television (LPTV) and TV translator stations. Total investment in the
LPTV and TV translator facilities is estimated to be about $150-$250
million. Studies by the FCC staff indicate that there is not sufficient
spectrum to accommodate both low power stations and DTV stations. These
studies estimate that up to about one-third of all LPTV stations and
one-quarter of all TV translators may have to cease operation to make
way for DTV stations. In general, most LPTV stations within major
markets will be affected, while rural operations will be affected to
lesser degrees. In this regard, we note that, at our December 12, 1995,
en banc meeting on digital television, Mr. Sherwin Grossman of the
Community Broadcasters Association expressed concern about the impact
that implementation of DTV service would have on the low power TV
industry. He argued that to avoid affecting low power TV service we
should pick a date or range of dates and require all existing stations
to convert to DTV service, rather than giving them a second channel,
and that we should not look to recover TV spectrum until everyone who
needs broadcast service is able to receive it. Similarly, Abacus
Television (Abacus), in comments submitted in response to our Fourth
Further Notice and Third Notice of Inquiry in this proceeding, 60 FR
42130 (August 15, 1995), argued that we should attempt to protect low
power stations in order to protect the unique and diverse services that
low power stations provide the public.
The process of creating DTV channel allotments is an optimization
task that offers a great number of possible alternative ``mixes'' of
channel allotments for each community. In evaluating the merits of
allotment alternatives, the Commission intends to make every effort to
accommodate the needs and concerns of all affected parties. We also
intend to consider negotiated allotment/assignment agreements submitted
by broadcasters. We expect that the final Table that is adopted will
contain a number of revisions of the allotments proposed herein.
As indicated above, we also intend to consider policies for
minimizing the impact of our DTV allotment and spectrum recovery
proposals on low power stations. In particular, we are proposing to
permit displaced low power stations to apply for a suitable replacement
channel in the same area without being subject to competing
applications. We will also permit low power stations to operate until a
displacing DTV station or new service provider is operational. Further,
we are proposing to allow low power stations to file non-window
displacement relief applications to change their operating parameters
to cure or prevent interference caused to or received from a DTV
station or other protected service. Finally, we intend to explore other
possibilities that would preserve access to LPTV programming. One
approach would be to require DTV stations to devote a portion of their
channel capacity to the carriage of local LPTV stations that are
displaced. Another approach would be to require that all full service
broadcasters in a market agree on some arrangement for the carriage of
the programming of displaced LPTV stations during the transition.
We recognize that in addition to the costs incurred to upgrade
engineering and technical operations from analog to digital
transmission, small stations will also incur costs to promote their new
channel identification. Such costs may include: advertising and
publicity on-air and additional media; changes to the signage mounted
in studio and newsroom sets; channel identification on vehicles,
camera/video equipment and accessories; graphic design, typesetting and
printing costs for new stationary and paper products; and the
production of sales marketing and promotional materials. We seek
comment on the type of modifications, production and costs necessary to
facilitate a transition to a new channel and the economic impact these
expenses will have on small commercial and noncommercial television
stations. We seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt
measures that will assist small stations (as classified under either
the SBA definition or their number of employees) in their transition,
either in their cost to upgrade technical operations or new channel
identification. If such measures should be taken, please provide
recommendations and state with particularity what class of small
stations should be the beneficiaries of such proposals.
It is possible that there may be some small stations that will be
required to move a second time, and will incur additional costs, within
a relatively short period of time, to promote their new DTV channel
identification. We seek comments on how to minimize or offset these
additional costs to a small station who is also subjected to a second
move.
Ordering Clauses
18. In accordance with the proposals and actions described herein,
it is ordered, that the Commission will not accept additional
applications for new NTSC stations that are filed after 30 days from
the date of publication of this Further Notice in the Federal Register.
The Commission will continue to process applications for new NTSC
stations that are currently on file and any new such applications that
are filed
[[Page 43214]]
on or before 30 days from the date of publication of this Further
Notice in the Federal Register in accordance with procedures and
standards indicated herein. In addition, it is ordered that, effective
immediately as of the close of business on the date of adoption of this
Further Notice, the Commission will not accept any additional Petitions
for Rule Making proposing to amend the existing TV Table of Allotments
in Section 73.606(b) of its rules to add an allotment for a new NTSC
station. It is further ordered that, effective immediately as of the
close of business on the date of adoption of this Further Notice, the
Commission will condition the grant of any modifications of the
technical parameters of existing full service NTSC stations on the
outcome of this rule making proceeding.
19. This action is being taken pursuant to authority contained in
Sections 4(i), 7, 301, 302, 303 and 307 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 157, 301, 302, 303 and
307. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rule making
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the
Commission's rules. See generally 47 CFR Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and
1.1206(a).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Television.
Federal Communications Commission
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-21261 Filed 8-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
