*************************************************** 
                         NOTICE
***************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page
numbers will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, itallic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the orginal document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect, Word97, or Adobe Acrobat versions, if available.

The path and name of the WordPerfect, Word97, and Acrobat files
 will be the same as the ASCII Text file except that they  will 
end with the letters wp, doc, or pdf  respectively, 
instead of the letters txt.

*****************************************************                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                )
                                )                 MM Docket No. 99-292
Establishment of a Class A      )                 RM-9260
Television Service              )
                                 



                 NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING


   Adopted:    September 22, 1999       Released:    September 29, 1999

Comment Date:  [60 days after publication in the Federal Register]

Reply Comment Date:  [90 Days after publication in the Federal Register]

By the Commission:  Chairman Kennard and Commissioner Tristani issuing a joint statement.


                         I.  Introduction

     1.  By this Notice we consider additional interference protections for certain stations in the
Low Power Television (LPTV) service, including some of the protections available to full service
TV stations.  At this stage, we believe it is appropriate to consider the creation of a new "Class A"
LPTV service that would afford some measure of "primary" status to qualifying stations.  The
stability this status could provide to these stations would enhance their ability to furnish valuable
service to their communities, including locally produced programming.  Additionally, it could
augment their capacity to obtain financing, to engage in the long-term planning necessary to support
the continuation of this service, and to enter the world of digital television.  A Class A service could
help to preserve LPTV stations that, in some cases, are a community's only local television station. 
It could also preserve and enhance the increased broadcast ownership diversity resulting from the
LPTV service, including significant opportunities for minorities, women and small businesses.
  
     2.  The Notice responds to a petition for rule making filed by the Community Broadcasters
Association (CBA).  CBA urges the Commission to secure a permanent spectrum home for low
power television (LPTV) stations that provide substantial amounts of locally produced programming
to their communities, thereby avoiding disruption or even elimination of service due to the emergence
of digital television (DTV) and other new primary services.  In the DTV proceeding, we stated our
intention to address CBA's petition.  The Notice seeks comments on creation of a form of primary
status for qualifying stations and on the appropriate regulatory framework for a Class A television
service.       


                         II.  BACKGROUND

A.  The Low Power Television Service

     3.  The Commission created the low power television service in 1982.  In so doing, it noted
that the first of its "decision criteria" had been the "public need for program diversity."  The
Commission concluded that the record in the proceeding evidenced "a public desire for additional
television service, as well as a belief that low power stations can provide diverse programming." 
Further, it acknowledged the potential for these stations to provide local program service and
concluded that the very nature of the service made it likely that LPTV stations would have to be very
"directly responsive" to the interests of local consumers.  Moreover, it deduced that the relatively
low construction cost and small coverage area of LPTV stations suited them to programming to
smaller communities and discrete groups in larger communities.  

     4.  The Commission, however, also recognized that important spectrum utilization issues were
present.  Accordingly, it created LPTV as a "secondary spectrum priority" service whose members
"may not cause objectionable interference to existing full service stations, and...must yield to facilities
increases of existing full service stations or to new full service stations where interference occurs." 
    

     5.  Since its inception, and notwithstanding its limitations, the LPTV service has grown and
is providing significant television service to diverse audiences throughout the country.  Currently,
there are some 2,200 licensed LPTV stations in approximately 1000 communities, operating in all
50 states.  These stations serve both rural and urban audiences.  Commenters on the CBA petition
point out that LPTV stations provide a valuable service.  They say that, due to their very nature,
LPTV stations can be fit into areas where a higher power station cannot be accommodated in the
Table of Allotments.  In  many cases, LPTV stations are the only television station in an area
providing local news, weather and public affairs programming.  Additionally, even in well-served
markets, LPTV stations can and do provide service to the residents of discrete geographical
communities within those markets.  Similarly, they provide a wide variety of programming. 
Commenters say that many stations air programming, often locally produced, to residents of specific
ethnic, racial and interest communities within the larger area, including airing programming in foreign
languages.  Some LPTV stations are affiliates of broadcast networks.  

     6.  The LPTV service has also significantly increased the diversity of broadcast station
ownership.  Stations are operated by such diverse entities as community groups, schools and colleges,
religious organizations, radio and TV broadcasters, and a wide variety of small businesses.  The
service has provided first-time ownership opportunities for minorities and women.  

     7.  The low power television service also includes television translator stations, which
rebroadcast the programs of full service TV stations.  In most respect translators are technically
equivalent to LPTV stations and are licensed in the same manner.  Currently, there are approximately
4,900 licensed TV translators; most operate in the western mountainous regions of the country. 
Translators serve the public by delivering free over-the-air television service, mostly to rural
communities that cannot directly receive the nearest TV stations because of distance or intervening
terrain obstructions.  They also provide "fill-in" service to terrain-obstructed areas within a full service
station's service area.

     8.  As we have acknowledged throughout the course of our DTV proceedings, the pursuit of
other compelling public interest goals may negatively affect the service of LPTV stations in certain
communities.  Specifically, to facilitate the transition from analog to digital television, the
Commission has provided a second channel for each full service television licensee in the country that
will be used for digital broadcasting during the period of conversion to an all-digital broadcast
service.  At the same time, the amount of radio frequency spectrum allocated to broadcast television
is being reduced.  The conversion will eventually accommodate more television stations in the
reduced spectrum.  In the meantime, however, numerous LPTV stations will be displaced.  Many
will have to find new channels; some will be unable to do so and will have to cease operating.  As
we have stated, revisions to the DTV Table to protect or otherwise accommodate LPTV stations
"would, by their very nature, pose restrictions on our choice of allotments for full service DTV
stations."

B.  Current Measures to Ameliorate Station Displacement  

     9.  In recognition of the severe consequences the transition to digital television will have on
many stations in the LPTV service, the Commission took a number of steps intended to ameliorate
those consequences.  Although in the DTV proceeding we retained the secondary status of LPTV
and TV translator stations, we estimated that the steps we were taking would permit hundreds of
these stations to continue to provide service to their viewers.  We allowed LPTV and TV translator
stations that are displaced by new DTV stations or allotments to apply for a suitable replacement
channel in the same area.  We amended our rules to provide that such applications would be
considered on a first-come, first-served basis, without waiting for the Commission to open a low
power application filing window.  We afforded displacement relief applications priority over all
other pending LPTV service applications not related to displacement.   
     10.  We stated that we would not open windows for filing applications for new LPTV and TV
translator stations until existing low power licensees had an adequate opportunity to assess the impact
of the DTV Table on their stations and to seek displacement relief, if necessary.  This was done to
maximize the availability of alternate channels and allow the Commission to focus its administrative
resources on the processing of displacement relief applications.  Displacement relief is now being
extended to licensees and permittees whose facilities are predicted to conflict with DTV stations or
where there is an otherwise "reasonable expectation" of displacement.  We provided that displaced
stations may seek modifications other than channel changes, including, where necessary, increases
in effective radiated power up to the maximum allowed values.

     11.  We stated that we would permit LPTV and TV translator stations to operate until a
displacing DTV or new primary service provider is operational.  We are continuing to permit LPTV
operations on all existing TV channels, including channels 60-69, so long as these operations do not
cause harmful interference to any primary operations, and we are allowing displaced LPTV stations
to request operation on these channels on a non-interfering basis.  We found several of our
interference protection rules for LPTV operations to be overly restrictive and adopted rule changes
to provide stations with additional operating flexibility.  We permitted the negotiation of interference
agreements among LPTV and TV translator station operators.

     12.  In addition, we stated that we would entertain requests to waive the LPTV protection
requirements where applicants could demonstrate that their station proposal would not cause any new
interference to the reception of analog broadcast television stations.  We stated that we would
entertain waiver requests for LPTV or translator stations proposing co-located, or nearly co-located,
facilities to those of TV broadcast analog stations operating on the first adjacent channel above or
below, or the fourteenth adjacent channel below.  We also stated that we would consider waiving
the interference protection standards when applicants could obtain the written consent of potentially
affected full service station licensees or permittees to the grant of a waiver.  This would permit full
service stations to concur that interference is unlikely, due to, for instance, the presence of terrain
shielding, without absolving LPTV or translator licensees of the responsibility to eliminate
interference caused to regularly viewed full service TV signals. 

     13.  We replaced the then-existing transmitter power limits in the LPTV service with limits
for effective radiated power, in effect increasing the power limits for the service.  Finally, on
reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order, we identified a number of cases in certain areas of the
country where it was found possible to avoid using a channel occupied by low power stations by
providing full service stations with an equivalent alternative DTV channel.  Accordingly, we made
64 DTV channel changes eliminating 36 co-channel conflicts with one or more low power stations.

     14.  The Commission also amended the LPTV service rules to specify the same co-channel
desired-to-undesired signal protection ratios applicable to full service stations seeking to modify
allotments in the initial DTV Table.  In addition, with regard to adjacent channel operation where
a DTV station is immediately above an analog LPTV or translator station in frequency, we required
that such DTV stations cooperate and maintain the necessary offset to eliminate interference to the
LPTV or translator station.  By these actions, we sought to allow new LPTV and translator service
and to maintain existing service where there is a relatively small increased risk of interference or a
relatively small incremental costs for full service stations.

     15.  Despite all of the measures that we have taken to mitigate the impact of the DTV
transition on stations in the LPTV service, as outlined above, that transition will have significant
adverse effects on many stations, primarily LPTV stations operating in urban areas where there are
few, if any, available replacement channels.  Although we have previously rejected pleas by low
power advocates to grant them full primary status, we have not explored the option of granting
something less than full primary status, such as the Class A status suggested by CBA.  Indeed, there
could be some advantages to such a Class A service.  As we noted above, the greater stability that
Class A status could provide such stations, many of which are small businesses, may enable them to
make long term commitments to continuation of service, expansion of service (including digital
operations), station upgrades and program production and purchases.  Moreover, the comments filed
in response to the CBA petition indicate that such status would be of tremendous benefit in obtaining
the financial backing necessary to these ends.  Finally, such status could remove the cloud over
qualifying LPTV service stations that, even if they were to weather the DTV transition and possible
displacement, they could be displaced or eliminated at any time by additional DTV stations by new
entrants or by future primary services.  On the other hand, Class A stations need not threaten the
conversion to DTV because their "less than full" primary status could be tailored with appropriate
safeguards.  Accordingly, we herein consider whether and how to craft a Class A service with some
measure of primary status for qualifying stations, and we seek comment in this regard.
    
C.  The CBA Petition  
 
     16.  On September 30, 1997, the Community Broadcasters Association filed a Petition for
Rule Making requesting that Part 73, Subpart E of the Commission's Rules be amended to create a
Class A low power television service that would afford primary protection status to the members of
the Class; the petition was amended on March 18, 1998.  On April 21, 1998, the Commission gave
public notice of the filing of the petition, as amended (RM-9260), and sought public comment.
  
     17.  CBA proposed that Class A stations be regulated as television broadcast stations, except
for rules related to station power or the manner in which the stations were initially authorized as
LPTV stations.  Initial applications to attain Class A status would have to be filed within one year
of the effective date of the rules for the new service.  These applications would be considered minor
change applications, not subject to the filing of competing applications.  They could not propose a
channel change or facilities changes that would extend a station's currently protected service area. 
Under the proposal, an applicant  would be required: (1) to demonstrate that for the period of 3
months immediately preceding submission of the application, its LPTV station complied with the
minimum operating schedule for TV broadcast stations (47 C.F.R. Section 73.1740) and broadcast
not less than 3 hours in each calendar week of locally produced programming, (2) to show that the
Class A station would not cause interference within the Grade B contour of any television station
operating on a channel specified in the TV Table of Allotments (47 C.F.R. Section 73.606(b)) or the
DTV Table of Allotments (47 C.F.R. Section 73.622(b)) as of the date of filing of the Class A
application or within the protected contour of any prior-authorized LPTV or TV translator station,
(3) to certify that on and after the filing of the application that its station operated and would continue
to operate in compliance with the pertinent regulations of Part 73.  Class A stations would be
protected from interference within their principal service contours, could apply for a change of
channel to resolve interference conflicts without being subject to competing applications, could seek
interference-free operations at certain higher levels of effective radiated power ("ERP") than now
permitted in the LPTV service, and could apply to convert to digital operation on their existing
channels or seek authorization on an additional channel for this purpose where interference standards
could be met.

     18.  On August 27, 1998, CBA filed a "Report of Ex Parte Communication" (ex parte letter")
indicating that, as a result of conversations with Mass Media Bureau personnel, it would clarify some
parts of its proposal.  Principally, CBA clarified that Class A television stations should not be
permitted to cause interference with DTV stations within service areas that replicate their NTSC
service areas, even if DTV stations were to commence operation at less than the allotted transmission
parameters; that the protected service area for Class A stations be defined in the same manner as that
for LPTV stations (Section 74.707(a) of the Commission's Rules) or the equivalent coverage for
digital operations; that its proposal to exempt Class A stations from Section 73.622 of the
Commission's Rules was intended to permit stations to operate digitally without being limited to
channels listed in the DTV Allotment Table (other parts of that rule, such as computations of
distance, might be applicable to Class A.)     

D.  Comments on the CBA Petition 

     19.  More than sixty comments were filed in response to the CBA's rulemaking petition.  We
here summarize the views of commenters on whether a Class A television service should be
established.  A discussion of specific issues raised in the comments is set forth in Appendix C.  A
large majority of the commenters favored the creation of a Class A service, pointing to the service
LPTV stations now provide, especially local programming, as well as programming designed for
niche markets and racial and ethnic minorities.  They note that LPTV's secondary status is
jeopardizing continued provision of that service.  This is primarily due to the advent of digital
television (DTV), which will necessitate displacing LPTV stations that have been utilizing on a
secondary basis the channels now allotted for full service digital broadcasting.  Commenters say some
displaced LPTV stations may not be able to find suitable alternative channels.  Even those that will
not be displaced note the difficulty of making business plans and attracting capital when their stations
can be displaced at any time by full service stations.  According to commenters, this, in turn, hinders
their ability to expand and provide programming and training opportunities.  Additionally, supporters
of the CBA petition point to the comparatively high degree of female and minority ownership of
LPTV stations, and the diversity of voices that this ownership brings to broadcasting, and argue that
this will be jeopardized if primary status is not granted qualifying Class A stations.  Commenters well
disposed to the CBA petition proposed specific changes on issues including local programming
requirements, station power levels, community coverage and interference protection.  The National
Translator Association (NTA) supports the concept of a Class A service, but states that translators
should have the opportunity to qualify for the benefits of Class A status on the basis of carriage of
the local programming of a primary station within that station's Grade B contour; that the entry
opportunity should be ongoing rather than limited to a fixed period of time; and that Class A, LPTV
and translator stations should be on equal footing with respect to interference protection, facilities
modifications and gaining additional channels for digital operations.
          
     20.  Some full service broadcasters and broadcast associations oppose the CBA petition. 
They primarily assert that it is currently unknown what will happen when 1500 digital television
stations "light up."  Commenting parties note the planning factors for DTV are aggressive and
unproven.  Should more interference occur among DTV stations in the real world than is currently
foreseen, it is virtually certain, they assert, that the Commission will need to revise its methods of
spectrum utilization to resolve those problems and should have as much spectrum to work with as
possible.  This flexibility, they state, was built into the DTV Table of Allotments.  If qualifying LPTV
stations are given primary status, full service stations will be unable to use the channels occupied by
Class A LPTV stations in resolving interference issues and, thus, the DTV Table of Allotments would
be undermined.  Further, they argue that LPTV licensees have been aware that they were a secondary
service since the LPTV service was authorized and that this has been repeatedly recognized and relied
upon in the DTV proceeding.  Commenters state that the Commission took full account of the local
programming benefits provided by LPTV when it sustained its secondary status in the DTV
proceeding -- a decision, they note, that has withstood judicial challenge.  At best, they believe, it is
premature to consider the CBA proposal, which should only be considered after the transition to
digital, including the complicated task of making any necessary spectrum adjustments.  The
Association of America's Public Television Stations (APTS) is concerned that Class A stations could
hamper the ability of small public TV facilities to increase their service areas through facilities
modifications, that primary Class A stations could foreclose opportunities for displaced public
translators to find replacement channels, and that Class A stations could hinder the replacement of
the reserved non-commercial channels deleted from the NTSC allotment table in order to
accommodate digital allotments during the DTV transition.            

     21.  Finally, others commenters, while not opposing the CBA proposal generally, seek to
ensure that it would not adversely affect their services.  These include public safety and other land
mobile radio interests who seek to ensure that Class A stations not have primacy over land mobile
and public safety services within frequency bands allocated for their operations.  


                       III.  DISCUSSION   

     22.  We seek comment on whether and how to create a Class A primary television service for
qualifying stations in the LPTV service.  We are persuaded that many LPTV stations provide
important local programming to their communities and are often a community's only local TV station.
We tentatively conclude that the local service they provide their audiences warrants protection to the
extent possible, and we seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  Some form of primary service
classification could benefit qualifying stations by providing greater stability and, as CBA puts it,
"assurance of a means to continue to deliver their service to the public."  This stability could be of
assistance to these stations in attracting financial support, advertisers and cable carriage.  It could also
assist them in planning for future local programming, expansion, and hiring efforts and help them to
more securely invest in new equipment for eventual digital television operations.  Finally, creating a
Class A primary service could continue to foster the minority, female and small business ownership
of broadcasting facilities that has been a hallmark of the low power television service.
  
     23.  We also wish to consider if there are circumstances under which it would be appropriate
to extend opportunities for Class A status to certain television translator stations.  Translator stations
deliver television programming to remote communities and are often a community's only means of
receiving free off-air television programming, particularly at  locations where the signals of the
nearest TV stations are blocked by mountainous terrain.  The National Translator Association
believes that a translator should be able meet a minimum local programming qualification for Class
A status by rebroadcasting the local programming of a full service station within that station's Grade
B contour.  We seek comment on this proposal.  We also ask if there are other situations that would
warrant Class A status for translators; for example, translators that provide the only television service
to a community.
    
     24.  While CBA has provided strong arguments in support of the creation of a Class A
service, altering the status of LPTV at this highly fluid juncture in the transition to digital television
would require a careful balancing of many competing considerations.  Perhaps most critically, we
must ensure that the transition of full power television to digital broadcasting is not undermined.  We
must ensure our capacity to accommodate necessary adjustments in full power stations' operating
parameters as digital service is being implemented.  Therefore, the details and precise characteristics
of any Class A low power service, particularly as to interference with full power stations, would have
to be carefully crafted if our goals of a stable, protected low power service and a supple full power
digital environment are all to be compatible and attainable.  We are also concerned that the creation
of a Class A LPTV service not unduly disrupt important services provided by secondary service
facilities such as television translators, including public translators and translators that serve rural
areas.  We turn now to these matters.    


A.  Defining Interference Protection Rights and Responsibilities

     25.  The most important question before us is what does "primary" service mean in this
context?  To what level of protection should Class A stations be entitled?  This  issue is very much
in dispute in the comments and is, in our view, the most problematical issue to be resolved.  A stable
future for such stations will be affected by many factors, foremost among these, the implementation
of the DTV service.  Significant DTV issues include protection to allotted and authorized service,
needs of DTV stations to make adjustments to correct unforeseen problems, need to accommodate
DTV stations allocated on non-core channels, maximization of DTV service areas, and requests for
DTV allotments by new entrants.  There are also NTSC TV protection issues, which involve pending
applications for new stations and petitions to amend the TV allotment table, as well as pending and
future facilities modification requests.  Appropriately balancing these factors is, we believe, a
worthwhile undertaking. 

     1.  DTV Protection Issues

     26.  Service Replication. We tentatively conclude that Class A status cannot be permitted to
interfere with DTV broadcasters' ability to replicate insofar as possible their NTSC service areas, a
primary goal in the DTV proceeding.  We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  We have
described the transition to digital television as an "historic change" that will alter the very nature of
broadcast television.  The Commission has gone to great lengths to ensure a smooth and rapid
implementation of the DTV service and the benefits that it will bring to the American people.  After
many years of careful planning and preparation, the DTV rollout has begun and approximately 75
DTV stations are now operating.

     27.  At a minimum, we intend for Class A stations to protect the service areas resulting from
the DTV allotment parameters and any additional DTV service authorized by construction permit or
license or proposed in a DTV construction permit application before the filing of a Class A TV
application.  As stations under Part 73 of our rules, we believe it would be appropriate for Class A
applicants to determine noninterference to DTV in the same manner as applicants for full service
NTSC facilities.  In this manner, Class A facilities would not be permitted to increase the population
receiving interference within a DTV broadcaster's replicated service area and any additional area
associated with its DTV license or construction permit.  We would not permit Class A stations to
cause "de minimis" levels of interference to DTV service.  Criteria for protecting DTV service are
given in Sections 73.622 and 73.623 of our rules and in OET Bulletin 69.  We seek comment on
these proposals.        

     28.  Allotment Adjustments.  There are other DTV issues to be worked out in this proceeding. 
The National Association of Broadcasters and other commenters point out that  channel changes and
adjustments to station facilities may be necessary to correct unforeseen technical problems among
DTV stations.  For example, it was necessary to make DTV Table allotments on adjacent channels
at noncollocated antenna sites in the same markets, which raised concerns among broadcasters over
possible adjacent channel interference.  In addition to changing some of those allotments, we stated
that we would address these concerns by tightening the DTV emission mask and by "allowing
flexibility in our licensing process and for modification of individual allotments to encourage adjacent
channel co-locations..."  We also provided broadcasters with flexibility to deal with allotment
problems; for example, by permitting allotment exchanges in the same or adjacent markets.  While
we have confidence in our DTV Table, situations may arise which warrant corrective action.  Our
initial experience in implementing DTV has gone smoothly, and we are optimistic that significant
engineering problems with allotments will seldom occur.  Yet, any  requirement to protect Class A
stations must not restrict our flexibility to make necessary adjustments to DTV allotment parameters,
including channels changes.  Accordingly, we propose that Class A primary status include this "safety
net" provision.   
     29.  We stated in the DTV Sixth Report and Order that we would review all requests for
modification of the DTV Table for their impact on LPTV stations and "strongly advised" industry
coordinating committees to consider LPTV and TV translator stations in developing proposed
modifications to the DTV Table and to avoid impact on such stations wherever possible.  We
propose that this provision also extend to Class A stations.  Commenters should address the extent
of protection Class A stations should afford to and receive from full service DTV stations.  Should
Class A stations have their "primary" status limited to the extent that, in the event adjustments to the
DTV Table have to be made that require substitution of a new channel, and this can only be done
through use of a channel occupied by a Class A station, the Class A station will have to be displaced? 
In that event, should the affected Class A station be permitted to exchange channels with a DTV
station, provided it could meet interference protection requirements on the exchanged channel? 
Should broadcasters be permitted to swap DTV allotments affecting Class A stations where there is
no need to correct a significant technical problem; for example, as a cost saving measure?

     30.  Service Area Increases.  Another issue concerns "maximization" of DTV service; i.e.,
facilities increases to enlarge DTV service areas beyond NTSC-replicated service areas.  In the DTV
proceeding, we permitted broadcasters to request facilities increases that would enable them to
provide service to larger audiences, and this was a partial basis for establishing the de minimis
interference allowance.  We seek comment on whether a Class A station should be required to yield
to subsequently increased or relocated facilities of DTV stations or should have to protect a DTV
station's ability to maximize its facilities.  Conversely, should the service areas of authorized or
proposed Class A facilities be protected against subsequent DTV application proposals to increase
or modify service areas beyond the areas produced by a station's DTV allotment parameters?    

     31.  New DTV Entrants.  We seek comment on whether existing Class A stations should be
protected by new entrants seeking new DTV channel allotments and whether Class A stations should
be considered as primary television broadcast stations with respect to future primary services; i.e.,
their operations on "core" channels (channels 2-51) could not be displaced by future primary
services.  Without protection against displacement by future primary services, these stations would
still lack the certainty and stability that they seek and that we tentatively believe are important to their
continued viability as significant sources of local programming.  
  
     32.  Hybrid Primary Status.  We seek comment on whether Class A service should have a
hybrid primary status that protects existing service while protecting Class A stations against new
DTV and future primary services on core spectrum.  We recognize our long standing policy of
encouraging new entrants and our diversity goals for broadcasting.  In this instance we believe that
consideration should also be given to the preservation and stability of an existing service to the public,
for which investments have already been made.  We note that prospective Class A stations may be
required to incur substantial costs to change channels or relocate their stations in order to prevent
DTV or NTSC interference conflicts.  It has been stated that costs of relocating and rebuilding an
LPTV station to avoid a conflict can be as high as $100,000, even where a replacement channel is
available.  These costs cannot and should not have to be borne again and again in order for a station
to continue serving its community.  We seek comment on whether Class A station licensees should
be afforded the certainty that their stations will not be vulnerable to displacement by new and future
DTV stations or other primary services.        

     33.  We seek comment on these proposals.  Should interference protection by DTV allotment
petitions for new DTV service be given to earlier-filed Class A station applications, in addition to
authorized stations? We note that petitions for new DTV allotments must protect the DTV Table by
meeting minimum separation distances between allotment reference points.  Should distance
separations be used to protect Class A stations?  If so, which distances should apply?  Alternatively,
should the service contours of Class A stations be protected, and are the protection criteria in Section
73.623(c) of our rules suitable for this purpose?                         

     2.  NTSC TV Protection Issues

     34.  Authorized Service.  With regard to NTSC television, we agree with CBA that applicants
for Class A stations should protect previously authorized service within a station's Grade B contour
in the manner given in Section 74.705 of the LPTV rules.  LPTV stations have been  engineered to
avoid causing interference to the Grade B contour of full-service stations, often using directional
antennas to avoid such interference and, for this reason, continuation of the current standards would
appear to be more appropriate than a different form of interference protection, such as minimum
distance separations between stations.  We believe that Class A station applicants should be permitted
to utilize all means for interference analysis afforded to LPTV stations in the DTV proceeding, such
as use of the Longley-Rice terrain-dependent propagation model.  To provide additional stability, we
would consider not imposing a requirement that Class A stations protect NTSC stations at locations
beyond their Grade B contours wherever their signals are regularly viewed.  In this regard, we
propose not to impose  a requirement on Class A that is imposed on LPTV and translator stations. 
As a practical matter, over the years we have received very few complaints of interference caused by
LPTV stations to full service reception and very few, if any, of these have been widespread or
uncorrectable. 

     35.  Pending Application and Allotment Proposals for New NTSC Stations.  Additionally, we
have questions concerning protection of pending application and allotment proposals for new NTSC
full power stations.  Altogether, these proposals could result in approximately 250 new TV stations,
most located in the eastern half of the country or in the western coastal region.  These include
approximately 75 groups of mutually exclusive applications involving 325 applications; some of these
applicants are scheduled to participate in the first broadcast auction in late September.  Also pending
are applications and channel allotment rule making petitions involving channels 60-69 and requests
for waiver of the 1987 TV filing freeze, which account for more than 180 of the potential new
NTSC stations.  The channel 60-69 application proposals for locations outside of the freeze areas
include 45 applications in 9 mutually exclusive groups and two non mutually exclusive ("singleton")
applications.  There are approximately 95 "freeze waiver" applications in 35 mutually exclusive
groups and 85 such singleton applications.  Also pending are about 55 petitions to add allotments to
the TV Table of Allotments; many of these involve channels 60 -69 or freeze waiver requests.    

     36.  We have previously stated that we would seek to accommodate applicants and petitioners
who have pending proposals for channels 60-69, none of which can be granted due to the reallocation
of these channels, or freeze waivers that conflict with DTV stations or allotments.  In so doing, we
acknowledged that new NTSC service would foster competition and create opportunities for
increased broadcast diversity.  We stated that these parties will be given an opportunity to seek
replacement channels below channel 60, where this is possible, and that the details of the amendment
opportunity period would be announced by public notice.  This public notice will be issued shortly. 


     37.  Releasing the NTSC amendment opportunity Notice soon after the adoption of  the Class
A Notice of Proposed Rule Making will assist us in gauging the impact of NTSC channel changes on
LPTV and TV translator stations and, thus, the extent to which new NTSC service would limit
opportunities for Class A service.  Existing LPTV service, and to a lesser extent TV translator
service, is at some unknown risk of channel displacement by potential new NTSC stations that will
be facilitated by the NTSC amendment opportunity.  It is not possible to approximate the magnitude
of risk without first evaluating the NTSC channel change proposals filed in the amendment period. 
Based on our experience in developing the DTV allotment table, we believe it may be difficult, if not
impossible, for many NTSC applicants and petitioners to find replacement channels consistent with
our interference protection requirements.  It is also likely, however, that many of the NTSC new-
station proposals will no longer be pending if and when we begin authorizing Class A service; given,
for example, that non-freeze waiver applications will be auctioned in September.  Our proposal that
Class A applicants protect authorized NTSC stations would apply to any now-pending station
proposals that would be earlier-authorized.  We invite comment and analyses on the extent to which
new NTSC service could affect the viability of a new Class A service.

     38.   There is also the question of interference protection rights for any NTSC application and
allotment proposals still pending at the time Class A applications are filed, if we were to adopt a Class
A service.  This is a difficult policy issue with equities on both sides.  There are NTSC station
proposals in applications that have remained pending for several years through no fault of the
applicants.  Many other applications were submitted in response to our decision in the DTV
proceeding to permit a last filing opportunity for new-station proposals that were then already under
development.  We also maintained and protected vacant NTSC allotments outside of the freeze
areas that are the subject of pending applications, and avoided creating DTV allotments that would
conflict with these proposed new NTSC allotments.  And, as we noted above, new NTSC service
would increase competition and enhance broadcast diversity.
  
     39.  We also recognize that hundreds of new NTSC full power stations could potentially
jeopardize the continued operations of prospective Class A LPTV stations, perhaps including LPTV
stations that began operating long before many of the NTSC proposals were even conceived.  LPTV
licensees have invested heavily in the construction and operation of their stations, and LPTV stations
have an established presence in their communities, including substantial locally produced
programming.  Failure to protect Class A stations from later-authorized new-station NTSC proposals
could affect the extent of relief and stability offered by a Class A service, thereby minimizing its
potential value to viewers.  The number of mutually exclusive LPTV and translator displacement
applications filed to date suggests that additional replacement channels may not be available in some
areas.  We are concerned that existing services be preserved wherever possible.  

     40.  We seek comment on how we should balance this difficult policy issue.  Should Class A
applicants be required to protect new NTSC TV station proposals in pending applications or
allotment petitions?  If not, should operating Class A stations be required to protect the actual service
of later-authorized facilities?  Alternatively, should applicants and allotment petitioners for new NTSC
stations be required to protect earlier-authorized Class A stations?  Are there measures we could
adopt that, in some instances, could accommodate both new NTSC stations and prospective Class
A stations?  For example, should we permit affected parties to negotiate interference agreements? 
This might help in situations where interference between proposed NTSC and Class A stations would
be predicted only near the outer reaches of the station's protected areas.  Should consideration be
given to protecting existing LPTV or proposed NTSC stations that provide or would provide the only
television service, or local service, in a community?  We invite comments on this difficult issue.
  
     41.  NTSC Facilities Modifications.  An issue also arises regarding Class A protection rights
and responsibilities with respect to NTSC TV facilities modifications (minor changes); for example,
stations site relocation or increased power.  Considering that both facilities would be "primary" under
Part 73 of our rules, we are inclined to favor a "first-in" approach for affording protection priority. 
Under this approach, protection rights between proposed NTSC TV facility modifications and initial
and modified Class A stations would be given to the earlier-filed application.  We would be
disinclined to consider NTSC minor change and Class A applications to be mutually exclusive in the
event one was filed before grant of the other.  Priority to the earlier-filed application in such situations
could result in much faster authorization of service.  We invite comments on this proposal and
whether the triggering event for interference protection rights should be the application filing date. 
We also ask in what manner NTSC proposals should protect earlier-filed Class A proposals.  Should
such protection be based on minimum distance separations between the stations or should such NTSC
station proposals be required to provide contour protection to Class A stations in the manner that
LPTV stations protect NTSC stations? 

     3.  LPTV and TV Translator Station Protection Issues

     42.  We believe that Class A stations should protect the service contours of previously
authorized LPTV and TV translator stations and must continue to accept interference from such
stations.  In this regard, we note that any "primary" service classification that would be given Class
A stations would be a hybrid of current concepts of primary and secondary services.  This is because
we agree with CBA that Class A stations should have to protect existing LPTV and translator
stations, which would not be the case with a full primary service.  With this hybrid, Class A stations
could have primary status with regard to translator and other secondary service applications filed in
the future but not against existing secondary facilities.  We envision carrying over the current contour
protection standards (Section 74.707 of the LPTV rules) for interference protection among Class A
stations and also between Class A stations and LPTV and TV translator stations; i.e., Class A stations
would continue to provide the same protection to translators and non-Class A LPTV stations as they
did when regulated under Part 74.  LPTV and translator stations would protect previously authorized
Class A stations in the same manner.  We further propose that Class A, LPTV and TV translators
licensees, permittees and applicants be permitted to negotiate interference agreements in the manner
now permitted in the LPTV service.  Inasmuch as Class A stations would come from the LPTV
service (at the least the initial stations), the transition to Class A would appear to be the least
disruptive by continuing the use of LPTV protection standards.  

     43.  While this approach appears straightforward, we invite comments as to how these
standards should be applied.  Should applications to modify Class A facilities be required to protect
previously filed LPTV and TV translator applications?  Should applications for new stations and
major changes in the two services be filed in the same windows and participate in the same auctions -
excluding the initial applications for Class A status of stations that were first authorized in the LPTV
service?  What criteria should govern interference protection to and from digital Class A stations? 
In this regard, would it be appropriate to use the protection ratios applicable to DTV station facilities
modifications?

     4.  Land Mobile Radio and Other Services

     44.  As indicated in the comments, land mobile radio services, including public safety services,
now operate on designated channels in the channel 14 - 20  band in several major cities.  Public
safety services will also be operating on reallocated TV channels 63, 64, 68 and 69 and other yet to
be determined primary services will eventually occupy the remaining spectrum from channel 60 to
channel 69.  Congress has mandated that all broadcast operations on channels 60 - 69 cease at the
end of the DTV transition period.  In reply comments, CBA indicates that compliance with Part 73
rules would ensure protection to land mobile operations on channels 14 - 20.  We concur that
spectrum allocated for land mobile operations and authorized land mobile service should continue to
be protected, and we propose to apply to Class A stations the protection requirements currently
contained in section 74.709 of the Commission's Rules.  We also would continue the requirements
in this rule concerning protection of the Off Shore Radio Service in the Gulf of Mexico region. 
Finally, we are inclined to carry over to the Class A service the "earliest user" provisions for
protecting cable television and the other services listed in section 74.703(d), to which we would add
"earlier used" TV translator input channels.  The Commission established this rule to control
interference problems at cable TV headends, the output channel of cable system converters or the
output of system converters used in the Multipoint Distribution and Instructional Fixed Television
Services.  These protections have minimized disruption to existing services and have not proven
burdensome in the LPTV service.  We invite comment on these matters.

     5.  Class A Protected Service Area
        
     45.  CBA originally proposed that a Class A station be protected from interference within its
"principal city grade contour," without defining that term.  It later clarified in its ex parte letter that
protected areas for analog stations should be defined in terms of contour definitions given in the
LPTV rules or "an equivalent coverage area if operating digitally."  LPTV stations protect other
LPTV and TV translator stations to the following signal contours:  62 dBu for stations on channels
2 - 6, 68 dBu for stations on channels 7 - 13, and 74 dBu for stations on channels 14 and above, in
combination with the Commission's F(50,50) propagation curves.  We find merit in continuing for
Class A television the protected areas now afforded LPTV stations.  This would fit well with our
primary purposes of preserving existing service provided by LPTV stations and minimizing disruption
or preclusion of other services.  We have no readily available contour values for digital stations other
than those values that define DTV noise-limited service:  28 dBu for channels 2 - 6, 36 dBu for
channels 7 - 13, and 41 dBu for channels 14 and above, in combination with the locations of the
predicted F(50,90) field strength.  We invite comment on the protected service area of Class A
stations and, in particular, on whether other field strength values might be better suited for analog and
digital Class A service.            


B.  Class A Eligibility

     46. Opportunity Period to Apply for Class A Status.  CBA contemplates that Class A
conversion would be a one-time event.  Under its proposed section 73.627(a), qualifying stations in
the LPTV service would be able to apply for Class A status only within one year after the effective
date of the rules adopting a Class A service.  Some commenters object to this aspect of the proposal
and believe that Class A eligibility ought to be ongoing as LPTV stations become qualified.  On the
one hand, we believe that there may be practical limits on the number of LPTV stations that could
become Class A stations.  Based on our findings in the DTV proceeding, we believe there is
insufficient spectrum to provide primary status on a wholesale basis to the more than 2,200 LPTV
stations.  On the other hand, is it unduly restrictive to limit the opportunity to convert to Class A
status to only those stations that could qualify in the twelve month period following conclusion of this
proceeding, ignoring other LPTV stations that provide similar local service but at a later date, for
example, stations who were awarded LPTV licenses through the auction process?  Accordingly, we
seek comment on the correct balance to strike between these competing considerations.  

     47.  Qualifying Criteria.  Another issue is the qualifying criteria for Class A status.  We seek
comment on whether Class A applicants should be required to meet the definition of "Small
Business" and provide a certain amount of local programming as more fully discussed below.  We
note that many LPTV stations operate as small businesses and that this would be consistent with our
ongoing obligation to consider barriers affecting small businesses (for example, in the areas of
spectrum and financing).  Commenters should address whether broader service eligibility criteria
are needed to afford Class A opportunities to other types of LPTV licensees, such as educational
organizations.  
    
     48.  CBA proposed that Class A applicants be required to show that for the three months
preceding filing they have (1) provided three hours per week of programming produced within the
city grade service contour of the station, or produced within the city grade service contour of any of
a group of commonly controlled stations operating in contiguous or closely grouped areas that carry
common local or specialized programming not otherwise available to their communities and (2) have
complied with the minimum operating schedule required for television stations.    

     49.  Given the benefits that would accrue to an LPTV station converting to Class A status,
and the difficulty in balancing the stability of qualifying LPTV stations with the preclusive impact on
other services, we seek comment on whether these proposals are appropriate or whether more
stringent or well-defined qualifications would be in order.  For example, is "locally produced" too
vague a criteria, as opposed to programming aired live or filmed in the community?  We ask
commenters to address this question.  Should we require that some or all of the qualifying
programming be informational in nature?  In this regard, is it sufficient to rely on applicants'
certifications of compliance with pertinent content regulations applicable to full service stations, also
proposed by the CBA?  Is three hours per week out of a potential 168 hours of broadcasting per
week sufficient or should we require more (e.g., a minimum of seven hours per week or at least one
hour per day of locally originated programming?)  Should repeated programming or locally produced
commercials count?  Should local production requirements continue after the application has been
filed?  To ensure continued eligibility for Class A status, should licensees be required to certify
annually as to their compliance with the local programming, children's informational programming
and commercialization regulations and minimum operating hours?  If a Class A station is to be sold,
should the buyer be required to certify continued compliance with these provisions? Is three months
a sufficient period in which to determine the commitment of an LPTV station to local origination to
warrant awarding it Class A status?  Are there alternative, possibly more objective, criteria that we
could use to determine which LPTV stations have made particular efforts to respond to the needs of
their communities so as to justify an upgrade to Class A status?  Would signal coverage or audience
ratings provide such criteria?  Is there some other qualification criteria that would not involve the
Commission in content regulation?      

     50.  Statutory requirements that now apply to LPTV stations must also apply to Class A
stations; for example, the prohibitions on the broadcasting of obscene material. In creating the LPTV
service, the Commission determined that the "equal time" and "lowest unit charge" provisions in
Sections 312(a)(7) and 315 of the Communications Act would apply to LPTV stations "to the extent
their origination capacity permits...[T]he reasonable requests of legally qualified candidates for federal
elective office who seek to purchase reasonable amounts of time or respond to their opponents
messages must be acceded to, so long as they provide program material that is compatible with the
station's origination equipment." We believe that these statutory provisions should apply to all Class
A stations, which, we expect, would be equipped with or have access to the necessary origination
equipment.    

     51.  Are there Part 73 rules with which Class A stations should not have to comply, including
certain rules identified in the CBA petition or others such as the public inspection file  and main
studio rules?  If we do not apply the public inspection file rule to Class A stations, should we
nevertheless apply the issue responsive programming requirement inherent in it to Class A licensees? 
Should Class A stations have to comply with the Part 73 requirements for informational and
educational children's' programming and the limits on commercialization during children's
programming?  Are there current LPTV rules in Part 74, other than interference protection
provisions, which should be carried over to a Class A service?  Finally, what process should we use
for Class A licensees who wish to revert to LPTV status?  


C.  Class A Applications  
   
       52.  Initial Class A Licenses.  Although CBA proposed that initial applications for Class A
status should not include changes in channel or facilities changes that would increase a station's
coverage area, that initial Class A applications not be subject to the filing of mutually exclusive
applications, and that Class A applicants be allowed to pursue a changes of channel or extensions of
coverage area in separate applications filed simultaneously with initial Class A status applications, we
do not believe that applicants should be permitted to file Class A facilities modification applications
at the same time.  The authorization process would be quicker and less complicated if modification
applications were filed only after Class A status had been initially authorized.  We therefore seek
comment on whether initial Class A applications should be limited to the conversion of existing
facilities to Class A status, with no accompanying changes in those facilities.  Moreover, by protecting
all existing facilities, including those of LPTV and translator stations, there should be no possibility
of mutual exclusivity between or among Class A conversion applications.  Accordingly, we propose
that initial Class A applications be filed as "minor changes" and be processed in a manner consistent
with such status.  

       53.  We propose that all Class A applications would be filed on FCC Form 301, including all
required exhibits.  In the interest of streamlining the process, we seek comment on whether
certifications of compliance with filing requirements would suffice in lieu of application exhibits? 
Should applicants certify that their stations comply with relevant interference standards in lieu of
detailed analyses?  Should a special application form be developed to expedite the process? 
Development of a new form for Class A TV could help to expedite application processing.  In this
regard, we contemplate that, consistent with our streamlining actions, we would require electronic
filing of Class A applications irrespective of the particular form to be used.  

       54.  Class A Facilities Changes.  The definition of major and minor facilities changes is
another important issue to be considered.  CBA submits that Class A stations should be permitted to
file applications to improve their facilities without having to wait for filing windows.  The LPTV
service rules define "minor" changes to be changes to existing facilities such as an antenna site
relocation of less than 200 meters or, more generally, any changes (other than a channel change) that
do not extend a station's protected signal contour in any direction.  This definition has ensured that
LPTV minor change applications are not mutually exclusive with other applications.  However, it has
often hindered stations from making desired or needed changes such as power increases, antenna
changes, or site relocations.  These changes often must be requested in application filing windows and
are subject to competing mutually exclusive applications and the auction process.  As a result, stations
are finding it difficult to improve their facilities or respond to urgent situations, such as loss of their
transmitter site.  Stations with critical needs have been forced to seek operation under special
temporary authority. 

       55.  We agree that the current minor change provisions in the LPTV service may be too
restrictive.  We seek a "minor change" definition that would permit additional flexibility to change
facilities, including changes to improve coverage, but also would assure that such changes would not
cause interference to existing service.  As one way of striking a balance, we could routinely grant
Class A facilities changes that meet the current LPTV definition, but permit other more expansive
changes on a first-come first-served basis provided the proposed facilities would not conflict with
previously authorized or proposed facilities.  Under this approach, Class A stations could seek
authorization for increased power, up to the limits of the service, outside of the window and auction
procedures, provided their proposals met all interference protection requirements.  This approach
would be more consistent with the minor change provisions for full service radio and TV stations, and
we propose it for Class A stations. 

       56.  One important distinction between full power TV service and the proposed Class A
service exists, however, which may warrant a somewhat different process for Class A modifications. 
TV minor change applications are not subject to a 30-day petition to deny period, but are subject to
the filing of informal objections.  However, unlike Class A stations, analog full-power analog TV
interference is governed through channel allotments based on mileage separation requirements which
serve to ensure facilities changes will not result in interference problems.  Because we do not
propose specific separation requirements for Class A stations, we invite comment on whether we
should subject the "more expansive" Class A minor change applications to a 30-day petition to deny
period.  The opportunity to file petitions to deny could serve to give some assurance that Class A
facilities increases would not result in interference to existing service.  This approach would
essentially duplicate the process we now use in considering LPTV displacement applications.
  
       57.  We contemplate further requiring that the station be able to continue to serve at least part
of the community identified on its authorization.  (See Paragraph. 64, infra.)  Any of the above
provisions could also be used for digital Class A stations.  Facilities changes for analog or digital
Class A stations that would not meet the definition for minor changes would be subject to filing
windows and the auction process.  We invite comment on how we should define major and minor
Class A TV facilities changes and on other ways to streamline the authorization of Class A TV
service.  If we were to adopt a more inclusive definition of minor facilities changes for Class A
stations, should it also apply to television translator and non Class A LPTV stations?  We would be
inclined to do so because of the technical and application processing similarities between the LPTV
and proposed Class A services.  
  
       58.  Class A Channel Displacement Relief.  Through additional protections for Class A
stations, we hope to reduce their risk of channel displacement or termination. However,  it could be
necessary for a Class A station to seek operations on a different channel, as a way to avoid or
eliminate interference conflicts.  In that event, we propose that Class A stations be permitted to apply
for new channels on a first-come, first-served basis, not subject to mutually exclusive applications. 
We believe there is a need for displacement relief procedures in a Class A service, and we propose
to adopt procedures similar to those used in the LPTV service, which have worked well over the
years.  Class A stations causing or receiving interference with NTSC TV, DTV or any other service
or predicted to cause such interference would be entitled to apply for a channel change and/or other
related facilities changes on a first-come first-served basis.  Given the protected status of Class A
stations and the significant facilities changes implicit in displacement applications, we propose that
displacement applications filed by Class A licensees be treated as major changes, with the specific
exception that such applications would be permitted to be filed at any time that displacement status
could be demonstrated.  Thus, like displacement applications by LPTV stations, Class A displacement
applications would not have to be filed in a window.  Applications of Class A stations would not be
mutually exclusive unless filed on the same day.  We tentatively conclude that mutually exclusive
applications would be subject to the auction procedures pursuant to Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act.  We seek comment on these matters.  Commenters may also address whether
Class A applications could be excluded from the auction requirements consistent with legislative
intent, and the basis on which we would resolve mutual exclusivity when it arises.      

       59.  We note that in the LPTV service, displacement applications related to DTV conflicts
or channel relocations from channels 60-69 are given priority over all other types of nondisplacement
applications, regardless of when these were filed.  We seek comment on whether we should adopt
a similar policy for prioritizing Class A facilities modification applications, and whether some or all
of the LPTV displacement relief provisions should apply to Class A television.  Should there be any
different or special provisions for Class A TV conflicts with DTV stations?  Should there be a
limitation on how far a station should be permitted to relocate its antenna site to avoid or eliminate
an interference conflict or would some form of a minimum coverage requirement provide a natural
limit on this distance?  Should we consider reasons for displacement other than electromagnetic
interference, such an unavoidable loss of antenna site?  We ask whether Class A displacement
applications should have priority over Part 74 LPTV or TV translator non-displacement applications
filed earlier or on the same day?  If a Class A station and a non-Class A LPTV station file mutually
exclusive displacement applications, should we favor the Class A application?  These are difficult
questions; yet we believe there may be merit to awarding a priority to Class A stations in view of their
Part 73 regulatory obligations.  On the other hand, should LPTV or TV translator displacement
applications have priority over Class A applications for facilities modifications not involving channel
displacement?  We invite comment on these issues.

       60.  Channels 60 - 69.  In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 ("Budget Act"), Congress
required that the Commission "seek to assure" that a qualifying LPTV station authorized on a channel
from channel 60 to channel 69 be assigned a channel below channel 60 to permit its continued
operation.  In the DTV proceeding, we amended our rules to permit all LPTV stations on channels
60 to 69 to file displacement relief applications requesting a channel below channel 60, even where
there is no predicted or actual interference conflict.  On June 1, 1998, we  received 116 applications
from LPTV stations and 187 applications from TV translator stations operating on these channels. 
We note that these applications have a higher priority than all other nondisplacement applications for
LPTV and TV translators, regardless of when the applications were filed.  Other LPTV and TV
translator stations on channels 60 - 69 who have so far not elected to file displacement applications,
may do so at any time provided they protect the proposed facilities of earlier-filed displacement
applications.  The Commission has not selected channels for qualifying LPTV stations; however, it
has provided the opportunity for affected stations to seek channels below channel 60 on a priority
basis.  We invite comment on whether any and if so, what further actions should be taken to meet this
Congressional mandate.  Should we give special consideration to the processing of displacement
applications from qualifying stations in the LPTV service seeking to vacate use of a channel above
channel 59?  Should these applications be given priority where they are mutually exclusive with other
displacement applications that do not qualify under the terms of the Budget Act?     

D.  Other Technical Issues 

       61.  Television Channels for Class A Stations.  Although CBA proposed that Class A status
be granted only to LPTV stations already authorized to operate on TV channels 2 - 59, we do not
think this is appropriate.  We propose not to authorize Class A service on channels 52 - 59.  In the
DTV proceeding, channels 2 -51 were established as the permanent "core" spectrum, permitting the
recovery of channels 52 - 59 at the end of the DTV transition period.   In the interest of providing
long term stability for Class A stations, we believe it would be best not to authorize Class A status
on these channels, only to subject stations to future displacement.  Accordingly, we propose to grant
Class A status only to qualifying stations already authorized to operate on channels 2 - 51.  


       62.  We recognize that this spectrum limitation could adversely affect stations above channel
51.  LPTV and TV translator operators on channels 60 - 69 have a presumption of displacement and
may seek replacement channels at any time without further qualification.  However, operators on
channels 52 - 59 may seek displacement relief only where there is an actual or potential interference
conflict, including a conflict with a DTV co-channel allotment.  Nonetheless, these operators face
displacement when channels 52 - 59 are reclaimed, and would be barred from becoming Class A
stations if they could not secure a replacement channel below channel 52.  Thus, we ask if the
presumption of displacement should be extended to LPTV and TV translator stations authorized on
these channels, giving these operators an immediate opportunity to seek replacement channels while
such channels might still available.  We recognize this could lead to additional competition for
replacement channels, channels which may be needed now by some LPTV and translator stations
facing imminent displacement.  We invite comment on spectrum issues for Class A stations and, in
particular, on whether we should extend a presumption of channels displacement to LPTV and TV
translator stations authorized for channels 52 - 59.              

       63.  Power Levels.  We believe the current power levels are sufficient to preserve existing
service, and we believe that further increases could hinder the implementation of digital television and
could limit the number of Class A stations that could be authorized.  CBA has proposed maximum
levels of effective radiated power (ERP) for Class A stations that exceed the ERP limits in the LPTV
service rules.  For example, CBA proposes that analog Class A stations operating on channels 14
and above be authorized at ERP levels up to 500 kW ERP, a power level above that being used by
many full service UHF television stations.  CBA proposes that digital Class A ERP be the same as
the provisions in the Commission's Rules for digital television stations operating on allotments created
after the initial DTV Table.  We understand CBA's desire to enhance the signal coverage of Class
A stations.  However, we note that our primary purpose in this proceeding is to provide additional
stability for qualifying LPTV stations, and this by itself is a formidable undertaking.  Our current
belief is that any further power increases for Class A stations should await a fuller understanding of
the coverage and interference potential of full service digital television stations.  We invite comment
on this aspect of the proposed Class A service. 

       64.  Coverage Requirements.  Another issue to be resolved is whether to require Class A
stations to provide some requisite level of coverage over their community.  CBA originally proposed
that Class A stations should be required to provide certain signal strength levels over the entire
"principal community to be served."  In its amended petition it revised its proposal to  specify that
a certain minimum field strength be placed over at least 75% of the community of license.  Several
commenters opposed this proposal, believing that coverage of population was more important than
geographic area or that a certain percentage (75%) of a station's minimum field strength contour must
be over the station's community of license.  We question whether a minimum coverage requirement
such as that proposed by petitioner should be imposed on Class A stations.  Such stations may not
operate with sufficient power to serve large communities, and we have expressed reservations about
increasing power limits for Class A stations beyond the current limits in the LPTV service.  Those
Class A stations that are intended to serve an entire community that is otherwise unserved or
underserved would appear to have ample incentive to provide a requisite level of service to the
residents of the whole of that community without a Commission requirement to do so.  Other
stations, by their very nature, might intend to serve only a narrow segment of their community.  

       65.  We seek comment on whether to require any certain signal level or other measure of
Class A reception quality to any particular geographical area or population.  Alternatively, if we do
adopt a coverage requirement, should it be couched in terms of a certain proportion of the Class A
station's signal contour having to be placed over at least some part of its community of license? 
This type of requirement would serve to maintain a connection between the Class A station and its
community of license without requiring it to serve any requisite portion of that community.  This
would be particularly beneficial where the community of license is large and the Class A station is
intended to serve only a part of it.  We seek comment on this issue and on what portion of a Class
A station's signal contour, if any, should have to be placed over some part of its community of license. 



E.  Ownership Restrictions

       66.  A principal objective of any proposal to elevate certain LPTV stations to Class A status
is to recognize their contribution to local diversity.  Accordingly, our preliminary view is that, if we
create a Class A service, these rules should apply to Class A licensees to the same extent they apply
to full service licensees, at least with regard to local ownership limits.  At the present time, we do not
believe it appropriate to apply the national audience reach cap to Class A stations.  That reach cap
is premised on the ability of a full service station to reach the entire market (or, in the case of UHF
stations, to actually reach half of the entire market).  As noted above, we do not anticipate that Class
A stations would be required to reach or, in many instances, would be able to reach an appreciable
portion of the markets in which they are located.  Thus, it would be inequitable to charge a Class A
station with reaching its entire market, and to cap Class A stations under common ownership to
reaching a theoretical 35% of the national TV audience, when, in actuality, such a group of stations
might reach only a small proportion of that figure.  We seek comment on these issues.  In this regard,
there are several questions we would like addressed by commenters.  First, to what degree would
application of Part 73 multiple and cross-ownership limitations limit the ability of LPTV stations to
upgrade to Class A?  Second, if we do decide to impose these ownership limitations, should we
grandfather existing combinations that would be prohibited by the rule and, if so, should
grandfathered status terminate at some point?  Third, on the local level, what should be the triggering
threshold for any applicable ownership restraints?  For example, should the duopoly rule for Class
A stations prohibit common ownership of stations whose protected service contours overlap? 


F.  Digital Class A Stations

       67.  We propose to allow Class A stations at any time to request authority to convert from
analog to digital operation on their existing channels, provided interference protection standards are
met.  However, we will not, as CBA proposed, permit Class A stations to apply for a second channel
for digital operations.  We believe this could be detrimental to the smooth implementation of DTV,
including the possible spectrum needs of DTV stations having unforeseen problems with their initial
allotments.  In some parts of the country, available spectrum is scarce, and it may be difficult, if not
impossible, to accommodate all LPTV stations qualified for Class A with a single channel.  Also, we
are concerned about the impact on the LPTV stations and TV translators that would not be part of
the Class A service, as evidenced by the nearly 1,600 LPTV and TV translator displacement relief
applications we have received since June 1, 1998; nearly 300 of these application proposals were
mutually exclusive when filed with one or more applications competing for replacement channels. 
These may involve stations that could meet CBA's proposed Class A qualifications.  In the DTV
proceeding, we denied a request to award second channels to applicants for new TV stations, whose
applications were pending on the day on which DTV channel allotments and initial "modification
licenses" were awarded eligible broadcasters; i.e., those holding full service TV licenses or
construction permits.  CBA's third proposal would allow Class A stations to apply for digital
channels in the Table if the full service licensee or permittee failed to file a DTV construction permit
application within its prescribed deadline.  It may be possible for a Class A station to seek operations
on a channel which would become available; however, for the reasons given above, we do not
propose awarding a second channel to Class A stations.  We invite comments on these issues.
                
       68.  Digital operation by Class A stations presents the issue of compliance with the technical
and service rules applicable to full service DTV stations.  We invite comment on rules that should
or should not apply to digital Class A stations.  We currently believe that, at a minimum, these
stations should have some broadcast requirement, and we seek comment on this view.  What
supplementary and ancillary fees regulatory approach should apply to Class A broadcasters providing
feeable services?  Should it be the same as we apply to full service DTV stations?  We also believe
primary stations should be required to use the transmission standard adopted for DTV stations and
seek comment on this issue.  Within what period of time after receiving digital authority, such as
CBA's proposal of 18 months, should we require stations to commence digital operation? 


G.  Remaining Issues

       69.  Three remaining issues should also be addressed.  One issue concerns the format of call
signs to be issued to Class A stations?  LPTV stations may request use of four-letter call signs, which
must be appended by the suffix "-LP".  In its petition, the CBA proposes only that Class A call signs
be assigned pursuant to section 73.3550 of the Commission's Rules, which includes the current LPTV
call sign provisions.  Should Class A stations be assigned four-letter call signs without a designating
suffix other than "-TV," for example, in the manner of Class A FM radio stations?  If not, what is an
appropriate suffix?  Another issue, which is not mentioned in the CBA petition, is the issue of whether
Class A transmitters should be certified (similar to the previous "type acceptance" requirement) or
should the less stringent Part 73 "verification" requirement or some other criteria apply?  Finally, what
class of fees should apply to Class A applicants?  We believe it appropriate to classify Class A
applications as minor modifications for fee purposes.  How should Class A stations be considered for
the purposes of regulatory fees assessed pursuant to Section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended?  We seek comment and these and other issues.      

                         IV.  CONCLUSION

       70.  In this Notice, we seek comment on the creation of a Class A low power television
service, which would afford stability to LPTV stations providing local service, while also considering
the needs of other services, foremost among these the transition to digital television service.  Creation
of such a service will require the balancing of a number of factors, which will not be easy to strike. 
Accordingly, we seek comment on all of the issues raised herein to assist us in achieving that balance. 


                   V.  ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS  

       71.  Comments and Reply Comments.  Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on before [60
days after publication in the Federal Register] and reply comments on or before [90 days after
publication in the Federal Register].  Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.  See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998).  

       72.  Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>.  Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must
be filed.  If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however,
commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption.  In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full
name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number.  Parties may
also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail.  To get filing instructions for e-mail comments,
commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the
body of the message, "get form <your e-mail address."  A sample form and directions will be sent in
reply.  

       73.  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. 
If more than one docket or rulemaking number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.  All filings must
be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.; TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554.  

       74.  Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their comments on diskette.  These
diskettes should be submitted to: Wanda Hardy, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.; 3-C221, Washington,
D.C.  20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible
format using WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows or compatible software.  The diskette should be
accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in "read only" mode.  The diskette should be
clearly labelled with the commenter's name, proceeding (including the lead docket number in this case
(MM Docket No. 99-292), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and
the name of the electronic file on the diskette.  The label should also include the following phrase
"Disk Copy - Not an Original."  Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably
in a single electronic file.  In addition, commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's
copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.; CY-B402,
Washington, D.C. 20554.

       75.  Ex Parte Rules.  This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking
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 C.F.R. Sections
1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).

       76.  Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  With respect to this Notice, an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") is contained in Appendix A.  As required by Section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an IRFA of the expected impact on small
entities of the proposals contained in this Notice.  Written public comments are requested on the
IRFA.  In order to fulfill the mandate of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996
regarding the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we ask a number of questions in our IRFA
regarding the prevalence of small businesses in the television broadcasting industry.  Comments on
the IRFA must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the Notice, but
they must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the Notice, but they
must have a distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.  The Secretary shall send
a copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96-
354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq. (1981), as amended.

       77.  Authority.  This Notice is issued pursuant to authority contained in Sections 4(i), 303,
and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303, and 307.

       78.  Additional Information.  For additional information on this proceeding, please contact
Keith Larson, Office of the Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2600 or Roger Holberg,
Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2134.

                                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




                                Magalie Roman Salas
                                Secretary
                            APPENDIX A

           Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  603 ("RFA"), the
Commission is incorporating an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") of the expected
impact on small entities of the policies and proposals as an Appendix to this Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (Notice).  Written public comments concerning the effect of the proposals in this Notice,
including the IRFA, on small businesses are required.  Comments must be filed in accordance with
the same filing deadlines as comments on the Notice, but they must have a separate and distinct
heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.  The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice,
including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in
accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Reason Why Agency Action is Being Considered:  The Community Broadcasters Association filed
a Petition for Rule Making asking that the Commission create a "Class A" broadcast service
consisting of low-power television stations that had provided at least three hours per week of locally
produced programming during the three months immediately preceding the filing of their application
for Class A status and met other eligibility criteria.  Public Notice of that Petition was given on April
21, 1998.  Comments and reply comments were filed.  On the basis of those comments, the
Commission believes that a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, considering creation of such a class of
television broadcast stations is appropriate.  Creation of such a class of television stations would
provide qualifying low power television stations primary status that should help them survive the
transition to digital television, which will require, during the transition, a doubling of the number of
authorized primary full service stations that will otherwise displace numerous low power stations and
eliminate a number of these stations.  The Notice considers creation of the Class A service and asks
specific questions on issues on which a further record is necessary and appropriate.  

Need For and Objectives of the Proposed Rule Changes:  The Notice in this proceeding is seeking
comment on whether and how the Commission should create a Class A service that will give
qualifying low power television broadcast stations primary status.  This will allow the continued
development of locally produced programming aired on these stations to the benefit of the
informational and entertainment needs of the audiences they serve notwithstanding the transition to
digital broadcast television service.  

Legal Basis:  Authority for the actions proposed in this Notice may be found in Sections  4(i), 303
and 307 of the Commissions Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303, 307 and 307.


Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements:  The Commission is not
proposing any new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, information collection, or compliance
requirements in this proceeding.

Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules:  The initiatives and
proposed rules raised in this proceeding do not overlap, duplicate or conflict with any other rules.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Would Apply: 
Under the RFA, small entities may include small organizations, small businesses, and small
governmental jurisdictions.  5 U.S.C.  601(6).  The RFA, 5 U.S.C.  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.  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").  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  601(3),
the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency after consultation with the Office
of Advocacy of the SBA 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.  There are approximately 2,200 LPTV stations that potentially
could be affected by decisions reached it this proceeding.  The impact of actions taken in this
proceeding on small entities would ultimately depend on the final decisions taken by the Commission
and the number of LPTV stations that would qualify and apply for Class A status.  However, the
impact of the decisions taken in this proceeding on LPTV stations should be a positive one, enabling
those qualifying for Class A status to gain a greater degree of security in the continuation of their
existence without the potential for continuing displacement during the transition to digital television.

Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities and Consistent with the
Stated Objectives:  This Notice solicits comment on a variety of alternatives discussed herein.  Any
significant alternatives presented in the comments will be considered.  This proposal will ultimately
provide benefits all qualifying low power television stations by facilitating means for them to survive
the transition to digital television.  We seek comment on the alternatives proposed in this Notice, on
any other alternatives that commenters feel would provide benefits to such stations as they go through
the period of transition to digital television, and on whether there is a significant economic impact on
any class of small licensees or permittees as a result of any of our proposed approaches.
                                                                                                                                                            APPENDIX B 

            Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 
                                                                                                                      This Notice explores
the potential creation of a Class A service of television broadcasters.  In this Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, we solicit comment on the possibility of creating a new application form for LPTV licensees
applying for Class A status. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite
the general public and the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") to take this opportunity to
comment on the information collection contained in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making.  Public and
agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice; OMB comments are
due 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register.  Comments should
address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.  In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the
information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.; 1-C8004., Washington, DC  20554, or via the Internet to
jboley@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 - 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC  20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov.  


                           APPENDIX C 

Summary of Additional Comments to the Petition of the Community Broadcasters 
 Association (CBA) for Establishment of a Class A Low Power Television Service

     1.  The Notice, at paragraphs 19 - 21, summarizes statements of support and opposition as
to whether a low power Class A television service should be established.  The views of commenters
on  specific issues raised in the CBA petition are summarized below.

A.  Comments favoring a Class A television service

                Qualifications for Class A Status

     2.  An area receiving substantial comment from commenters favorable to a Class A service
was the requirement that, in order to qualify, an LPTV licensee would have to demonstrate in its
application that it had, during the three months prior to filing, broadcast not less than three hours in
each calendar week programming produced within the principal city contour of the station, or
produced within the principal city contour of any of a group of commonly controlled stations that
carry common local or specialized programming not otherwise available to their communities.  Some
differ with CBA on where qualifying programming should have to be produced.  Some argue that,
to qualify, it should have to be produced within the Designated Market Area in which the station's
community of license is located or within a certain stated distance of the transmitter site.  Others
differ with CBA on when the local programming requirement should take effect.  Polar Broadcasting,
Inc. would allow a station to apply for Class A status 30 days after certifying that it is in compliance
with the local program origination requirement.  Debra Goodworth believes that the requirement
for three hours per week of local programming should take effect two years after a station converts
to Class A status, at least in the case of Class A stations owned by women, minorities and small
businesses, not before primary status is applied for as is proposed by CBA.  National Minority T.V.,
Inc. would phase in a local programming requirement.  Under its proposal, to qualify, a station would
have to provide one hour of local programming each week within one year of the effective date of
the Class A rules, two hours per week within two years of that date and three hours of local
programming per week by the third anniversary of the effective date.  They would phase in the
requirement in this manner because of the financial burden of a local program production requirement. 
"By allowing a gradual increase of the number of local programming hours that must be aired per
week, LPTV/TV translator stations will be able to make the transition to digital operation with
minimal disruption, allowing it to focus on building contacts within the community and continuing
to create programming that best serves the needs of its audience." 
 
     3.  Another commenter, Larry L. Schrecongost, believes that, rather than having to provide
three hours of local programming in each week for 90 days prior to filing, the prospective Class A
licensee should be allowed to average qualifying programming over the period in order to take into
account the  operational problems, staffing limitations, etc., common to LPTV stations. 
Additionally, he advocates a "special computational programming incentive credit" for licensees who
would work with bona fide educational institutions in their areas to produce certain locally produced
programming.  Under this plan, if a licensee airs, or helps develop local programming that both
matches any curriculum or school program offered in that local educational institution and includes
the participation of that institution's students, then a special "double computational credit" should be
given that licensee so that, for example, a thirty-minute program qualifying for the double credit
would count as a one hour program for purposes of meeting any qualification requirement.  KM
Broadcasting, Inc. asks that "locally-produced" be clearly defined and asks the Commission to clarify
whether locally produced commercials, public service announcements and repeated programming may
be counted.  Univision  Communications Inc. questions what the "specialized programming not
otherwise available to their communities" aspect of the local programming requirement means.  It
asks under what circumstances foreign language programming will be considered "not otherwise
available."  Univision questions whether any LPTV stations in a given community will be able to
convert to Class A status if foreign language programming is already being carried in the
community.  Accordingly, it recommends dropping the "otherwise unavailable" aspect from the
definition.  Also, it fears that the 3 hour criterion "might reward a licensee who constantly airs a tape
of his or her daughter's dance recital, but fails to acknowledge that certain LPTV licensees produce
special programming for the audience, but do not do so within the principal community contour of
commonly-controlled stations.  Accordingly, it advocates limiting Class A status to LPTV stations
that have broadcast programming other than test-patterns 24 hours per day for the year prior to
adoption of the order creating Class A service.  Other commenters believe that Class A status
should not be limited to LPTV stations alone but should be given to translators as well with the three
hour local programming requirement being met by the carriage of local programming of the primary
station within that station's Grade B contour.    

     4.  CBA petition supporter Trinity Broadcasting Network disagrees with the programming
proposal in its entirety.  It believes that retroactive application of a 90-day local programming rule
would "trench upon" the prohibition against the Commission making content-based analysis in
programming and such a rule would treat similarly situated LPTV broadcasters in a disparate manner
based on an invalid content-based criterion.  Also, Trinity believes that there is no articulated
reason for differential treatment of similarly situated LPTV  broadcasters (those with and those
without local programming) based upon a rational factual basis and, accordingly any such requirement
would be struck down as arbitrary and capricious.  Finally, Trinity believes that the "90 days prior"
proposal runs afoul of the Administrative Procedures Act because it fails to give all affected parties
an opportunity to have input into the process.

     5.  Some commenters believes that LPTV stations ought to be able to qualify for Class A
status at any time they meet the qualifications and not simply for a limited window of opportunity, 
while others oppose the proposed filing fee. 

                 Community Coverage Requirements

     6.  Island Broadcasting Company would amend the coverage requirement proposed by CBA
to require 75% coverage of either population or geographic area of the proposed Class A station's
community of license since, in some cases, geographic area alone is an unfair measure of a station's
coverage.  Similarly, KM Communications Inc. would require that the minimum field strength be
provided over at least 75% of the Class A station's community of license or 75% of the Class A
station's minimum field strength contour must be over the station's community of license.  Polar
Broadcasting, Inc., contends that the dBu coverage requirement as proposed by CBA (in proposed
Section 73.683(a)) is restrictive and that many LPTV stations converting to Class A status may not
be able to increase power sufficiently to meet the requirement.  It recommends that the dBu
requirement be dropped and that stations only be required "to substantiate reasonable coverage and/or
viewability."  Third Coast Broadcasting, Inc., also objects to the coverage requirement.  It states
that this has not previously been required and, in order to fairly implement this requirement, the
Commission should have "frequent, regular, and predictable major modification filing windows" so
that LPTV stations can change their facilities to meet this requirement.

                 Station Effective Radiated Power

     7.  Other commenters supporting the petition oppose CBA's proposal to allow increased
power by LPTV stations qualifying for Class A status.  The National Translator Association opposes
the proposed increase in maximum ERP for Class A stations.  It states that, in effect, an increase in
LPTV power limits was granted last year in the DTV proceeding and the Commission should see how
those limits work in practice before increasing them further.  Arthur D. Stamler argues that the
proposed power increase is overly ambitious and believes a limitation of 10 kW for VHF and 150 kW
for UHF stations is appropriate.  Telemundo would limit power levels for Class A DTV stations
to one-tenth of those of full power DTV stations.  

                     Interference Protection
       
     8.  Questions concerning interference were also raised by commenters otherwise supporting
the CBA petition.  D Lindsey Communications made several recommendations for changes including
that the Class A applicant should only have to file a statement that it is operating in accordance with
its construction permit or license and would not cause any additional interference to any existing full
service station's Grade B contour or LPTV protected contour.   It would allow Class A stations
to show the absence of interference due to terrain shielding, directional receiving antenna factors, lack
of population served and interference already existing from other sources, and it would allow LPTV
stations to upgrade to Class A status and continue to operate "until actual interference occurs and
the interference cannot be eliminated by remedial measures."  KM Broadcasting, Inc. would like
the Class A rules to incorporate all current Commission standards and methodologies for determining
interference between two TV stations rather than adopt CBA's proposal which it believes could
restrict a Class A licensee's ability to meet Commission interference standards.  Both TTI, Inc. and
Third Coast Broadcasting, Inc., believe that the CBA proposal would prohibit an upgrading LPTV
station to cause interference with a new LPTV station which, under existing Commission rules in Part
74, is permitted to accept interference from existing LPTV stations.


B.   Comments of parties opposing a Class A television service 

     9.  The Association of America's Public Television Stations (APTS) is concerned that the
CBA proposals in the CBA petition could hamper the ability of current public television stations that
operate with limited facilities, due to limited financial resources, from being able to make public
television service more widely available by increasing their power or antenna height when finances
permit.  Also, the petition is said to be silent as to whether full service stations assigned DTV
channels outside the core frequencies will be required to protect Class A stations when they shift to
an in-core digital assignment.  If there is such a protection requirement, it would restrict public
television stations' choices of permanent digital channels and could force them to accept less desirable
channels, with smaller coverage areas, lower power and poorer quality service.  The need to protect
Class A stations would also make it more difficult, if not impossible in some areas,  for the
Commission to replace the reserved non-commercial channels that were deleted from the NTSC
Allotment Table in order to accommodate digital assignments during the transition.  APTS is also
concerned that giving Class A stations priority over public television translators would jeopardize the
ability of many of these translators to continue operating during and after the transition to digital.

     10.  The CBA proposal is also criticized for creating a priority for Class A stations as of the
date they apply as against full service stations that are subsequently "authorized."  First, the
Association of Maximum Television comments that the word "authorized" is not defined in the CBA
proposal.  Second, it and other commenters assert, this will limit the ability of full power DTV
stations to adjust antenna height and power after LPTV stations have applied for Class A licenses and
could permit Class A licensees to obtain DTV licenses and supplant or cause interference to full
power DTV stations "authorized" after the Class A licensee applies for its DTV channel.  This
would undermine the Commission's goals of accommodating all NTSC licensees and of replicating
wide-area NTSC coverage in the digital arena.  Moreover, it would fail to address the underlying
and fundamental balance of interests previously determined by the Commission - a preference for
stations that reach a broad audience.  Cox Broadcasting comments that LPTV's secondary status
was based on sound technical considerations and that CBA has not provided evidence that low power
stations either air more local programming or are more sensitive to a communities programming
needs than full power stations.  


C.   Comments of nonbroadcast parties neither supporting or opposing a Class A service  

     11.  The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials - International, Inc. (APCO),
objects to CBA's proposal to the extent it would grant LPTV stations primary status over new public
safety operations in the 764-776/794-806 MHz band (i.e., LPTV operations on Channels 63, 64, 68
and 69, as well as adjacent channel operations on channels 62, 65, and 67).  APCO argues that this
band has been reallocated per congressional mandate for public safety services.  This reallocation was
based on the needs of police, fire, emergency medical services and other agencies for approximately
24 MHz of new spectrum to support their critical communications operations.  Without it, APCO
asserts, public safety agencies will not be able to adequately discharge their obligations  However,
APCO acknowledges the serious concerns of LPTV operators concerning the impact of the DTV
transition on their operations and notes that LPTV stations need not cease operation unless and until
those operations pose a potential for interference to actual public safety systems.

     12.  Motorola, while taking no general position on the CBA petition,  believes that any new
broadcast service should not impose a negative impact on primary land mobile operations.  The
Commission has already considered the impact of the reallocation of channels 60-69 on LPTV service
and concluded that interference protection for LPTV and TV translators was incompatible with the
reallocation and would preclude access to the spectrum throughout much of the nation.  While
believing that it would inappropriate for the Commission to take steps to increase the number of
protected incumbents at this time, Motorola argues that, if the Commission goes forward with Class
A television service, it should restrict it to channels below UHF-TV channel 60 and should protect
land mobile services between 470-512 MHz (UHF-TV channels 14-20) in 11 major markets by
establishing interference standards, as the Commission's rules now prescribe for secondary services,
including LPTV.   If the Commission pursues the CBA proposal for channels below UHF-TV
channel 60, Motorola concludes, it must protect land mobile stations to levels consistent with the
existing provisions of Section 74.709 or the original mileage separations adopted in Docket 18261,
whichever offers greater protection.
        Joint Statement of Chairman William E. Kennard 
                and Commissioner Gloria Tristani


          Re. In the Matter of Establishment of a Class A Television Service (MM Docket No. 99-292).

     We wholeheartedly support commencement by the Commission of a rule making
proceeding looking toward the creation of a Class A license for qualifying stations in the low
power television service (LPTV).  Many LPTV stations offer their communities significant
services, often functioning as the only local television station.  LPTV stations commonly serve as
exclusive outlets for foreign language and special programming for unserved and underserved
audiences.  Moreover, many LPTV stations are owned by small businesses, minorities and women
and thus enhance the diversity of ownership in the broadcast industry.   Nonetheless, because
LPTV stations are secondary, they continue to be displaced and dislocated as new primary users
and changes to existing primary users' facilities are authorized.  Class A status represents a means
of ameliorating these problems and preserving the valued services many LPTV stations provide. 
We therefore support the issuance of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making to consider Class A
status for certain LPTV stations.

We strongly disagree, however, with the tenor of the Notice that we issue today.  It essentially
avoids proposing any specific protections for a Class A service, asking instead "whether and how"
a Class A service should be crafted.  We would have preferred affirmative proposals for a Class A
service and a measure of primary status that would afford those stations carefully defined
protections from further displacement, consistent with our ongoing implementation of digital
television service.  For example, we believe that the Commission should have proposed to provide
prospective Class A stations priority against new digital television applications that are filed after
Class A status is awarded and that do not involve a "paired" digital channel.  

We recognize that we are at the notice stage of this proceeding and that any proposals we make
or conclusions we reach here are necessarily tentative; they should, and will, be tested by public
comment and further analysis. But, this does not mean that we must equivocate to the point of
utter agnosticism.  This is, after all, a notice of proposed rule making.  Nevertheless, our action
today is a welcomed step toward resolving the longstanding uncertainty and insecurity that LPTV
stations have faced.  We invite all parties to participate fully and to provide as much detail and
specificity in their comments as possible.