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

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word 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, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original 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 version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

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

In the Matter of                     )
                                     )
                                     )
                                     )
Review of the Commission's          )        MM Docket No. 00-39
Rules and Policies                   )
Affecting the Conversion             )
to Digital Television               )
                                     )
                                     )
                                     )
                                     

                 NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING


   Adopted:  March 6, 2000              Released:  March 8, 2000

Comment date:  May 17, 2000
Reply Comment date:  June 16, 2000

By the Commission:

I.  Introduction

     1.  With this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, we commence our first periodic review of the progress
of the conversion of our nation's television system from analog technology to digital television ("DTV").  In
the Fifth Report and Order in MM Docket No. 87-268, we stated that we would conduct a review every two
years to "ensure that the introduction of digital television and the recovery of spectrum at the end of the
transition fully serves the public interest."  For the most part, this conversion is progressing, and television
stations are working hard to convert to digital television pursuant to the construction schedule we established
in the Fifth Report and Order.  In this Notice, we invite comment on a number of issues that we believe
require resolution to ensure that this progress continues and that potential sources of delay are eliminated.
Specifically, we invite comment on:  (1) whether to adopt a service replication requirement and to require
enhanced service to the DTV stations' city of license; (2) whether to adopt a requirement that DTV stations
elect their post-transition DTV channel by a certain date; and (3) how to resolve mutually exclusive DTV and
DTV/NTSC applications.

II.  Background

     2.  Our efforts to convert our nation's television system to digital television began in 1987, when we
issued our first inquiry into the potential for advanced television ("ATV") services.  The ensuing proceeding
lasted a decade, during which we had the benefit of numerous comments and participation by broadcasters,
equipment manufacturers, public interest groups, and the public.  As the proceeding progressed, all-digital
advanced television systems were developed and we began to refer to advanced television as digital television
("DTV"), recognizing that technological developments meant that any ATV system was certain to be digital. 
In February of 1993, the Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service (the "Advisory Committee")
reported that a digital HDTV system was achievable, but that all four competing digital systems then under
consideration would benefit significantly from further development and none would be recommended over the
others at that time.  In May of 1993, seven companies and institutions that had been proponents of the four
tested digital ATV systems, joined together in a "Grand Alliance" to develop a final digital ATV system for
the standard.  Over the next two-and-a-half years, that system was developed, extensively tested, and is
documented in the ATSC DTV Standard.  On November 28, 1995, the Advisory Committee voted to
recommend the Commission's adoption of the ATSC DTV Standard.  In 1996, the Commission adopted a
standard for the transmission of digital television based on the ATSC DTV Standard with minor
modifications.

     3.  In 1997, in the Fifth Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules to implement the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act"), which provided that initial eligibility for any advanced
television licenses issued by the Commission should be limited to existing broadcasters, conditioned on the
eventual return of either the current 6 MHz channel or the new digital channel.  The Commission issued initial
licenses for DTV, established service rules, including a requirement that broadcasters continue to provide free,
over-the-air television service, and set an aggressive but reasonable construction schedule and a target date of
2006 for the completion of the transition.  The Commission adopted a simulcasting requirement phased in at
the end of the transition period.  The Commission also recognized that digital broadcasters remain public
trustees of the nation's airwaves and have a responsibility to serve the public interest.  In the Sixth Report and
Order, the Commission adopted a DTV Table of Allotments.  After the adoption of the Fifth Report and
Order, Congress made the 2006 reversion date statutory, in enacting the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which
provides that "[a] broadcast license that authorizes analog television service may not be renewed to authorize
such service for a period that extends beyond December 31, 2006" unless the Commission grants an extension
based on specific criteria enumerated in the statute.  Since 1997, we have clarified and reconsidered the Fifth
Report and Order and Sixth Report and Order during the course of two rounds of reconsideration, during
which we have had the opportunity to remedy initial problems that might delay or derail the transition to
digital television.  With this Notice, we commence our first periodic review in our continuing effort to assure
that the transition goes smoothly for American consumers, broadcasters, and other interested parties.

     III. Progress Report

     4.  Pursuant to the construction schedule set forth in the Fifth Report and Order and in Section
73.624(d) of the Commission's rules, affiliates of the top four networks in the top ten television markets were
required to complete construction by May 1, 1999; top four network affiliates in markets 11-30 by November
1, 1999; all remaining commercial television stations by May 1, 2002; and all noncommercial television
stations by May 1, 2003.  Construction permit applications are required to be filed before the mid-point in
a particular applicant's required construction period.  Thus, all commercial television stations subject to the
May 1, 2002 buildout deadline were required to file their DTV construction permit applications by November
1, 1999, and all noncommercial television stations are required to file their construction permit applications
by May 1, 2000.

     5.  As of February 23, 2000, a total of 1376 television stations in all markets (amounting to 81% of
all stations) have filed DTV construction permit applications, regardless of whether they were required to file
by November 1, 1999.  Applications have been received from approximately 97% of the 1314 commercial TV
stations that were required to file by November 1, 1999. Requests for extensions of the filing deadline filed by
stations that are not included in this 97% category generally indicated that they had pending rule making
petitions requesting changes to their DTV channel, tower site problems or that their consulting engineer was
unable to complete studies by the deadline.  A total of 316 of all of these applicants have been granted
construction permits; and 92 of those stations are on the air pursuant to those permits. Twenty-seven other
stations are on the air with special or experimental DTV authority.  The remaining pending applications are
either awaiting additional information or Mexican, Canadian or other clearances or are technically more
difficult to process because they require an interference analysis (applications that do not meet the "checklist"
criteria for streamlined processing).  Thirty-three of the 40 stations in the top ten markets required to complete
construction by May 1, 1999, are on the air, and 6 others have been granted construction permits to build.  In
each of these markets, there is at least one DTV facility on the air pursuant to its permit and in six of these
markets, the four affiliates of the largest commercial networks are all on the air.  In markets 11-30, 78 of the
79 stations required to file construction permit applications by August 3, 1998 have filed these applications. 
Seventy-two of these stations have been granted a construction permit and three others have been granted
special temporary authority to operate while action on their application is pending.  Forty-two stations are on
the air pursuant to their permits, and 34 stations have requested extensions of time to complete construction
and go on the air. Of these 34 stations requesting extensions, all but seven are facing practical and easily
resolvable delays, according to the licensees.  Examples of factors causing these delays are untimely delivery
of equipment, bad weather and unavailability of tower crews.  Most of these stations expect to be on the air
early in 2000.

     6.  Initial evidence indicates that stations are facing relatively few technical problems in building
digital facilities.  Some stations are facing problems with tower availability and/or local zoning issues, but
these problems do not seem to be widespread at this time, and, while some cases may be problematic, it
appears that many cases are being worked out.  Indeed, the Commission has helped broadcasters remedy
such local problems in a number of ways, including creating, in May, 1998, a DTV Tower Strike Force,
chaired by Commissioner Susan Ness to target potential problems in the implementation of DTV and to work
with local authorities and broadcasters to expedite implementation of DTV.  The Strike Force makes
Commission staff available to aid local authorities and broadcasters by providing expedited answers to
questions related to the process of assessing tower modification or construction and to facilitate the
deliberations of reviewing entities. The DTV Strike Force has, for example, assisted local and county
governments in understanding the FCC's Radio-frequency Radiation (RFR) requirements as they relate to the
implementation of DTV and the related construction of towers. In one instance, the Strike Force sent technical
experts to make RFR measurements with county engineers and to testify in an effort to assure these officials
that radiation harmful to humans would not result from the proposed DTV construction. Commissioner Ness
and the Strike Force also regularly participate in the meetings of the FCC Local and State Government
Advisory Committee (LSGAC). The Strike Force presents the current facts regarding the DTV rollout and
related tower construction issues and takes comments and ideas from the Committee under advisement.

IV. Issue Analysis

     7.  In the Fifth Report and Order, we concluded that we should undertake a periodic review every two
years until the cessation of analog service to help the Commission ensure that the introduction of digital
television and the recovery of spectrum at the end of the transition fully serves the public interest.  We noted
that, during these reviews, we would "address any new issues raised by technological developments, necessary
alterations in our rules, or other changes necessitated by unforeseen circumstances."  We invite commenters
to provide us with information not previously presented to the Commission raising issues that must be
resolved in order to assure a smooth transition.  Our goal is to assure an open proceeding that will allow us to
resolve any impediments to a complete and rapid transition.  Aside from regulatory benchmarks, is the digital
transition proceeding in such a way as to serve the public interest?  Are there factors such as the pace of DTV
receiver sales or the availability of financing for digital facilities that reflect the state of the digital transition?

     8.  Concerns have arisen in a number of areas, including tower siting, copy protection, and cable
compatibility. We invite comment on the critical unresolved issues in these areas and how they affect the
progress of the digital transition.  Are broadcasters able to secure necessary tower locations and construction
resources?  To what extent do zoning disputes, private negotiations with tower owners, and the availability of
tower construction resources affect the transition?  

     9.  With respect to cable compatibility, a recent agreement between the Consumer Electronics
Association ("CEA") and the National Cable Television Association ("NCTA") should permit introduction of
cable-compatible television receivers in the near term.  While the agreement covers a number of technical
specifications, including on-screen program guides, the agreement does not cover labeling of digital receivers. 
While we favor allowing the affected industries to reach agreement on this issue, industry failure to reach such
agreement on a timely basis may necessitate further Commission action in the form of initiating a rule making
proceeding.  To what extent would a failure to reach agreement on the labeling of digital receivers hinder the
transition?

     10.  In addition, the agreement does not cover the copy protection issues.  We also seek comment on
the extent to which a failure to reach agreement on copy protection technology licensing and related issues
would hinder the transition.

     11.  Concerns also have arisen regarding the DTV transmission standard.  We adopted the DTV
Standard in the Fourth Report and Order in the digital television proceeding after extensive testing and with
the participation of the affected industries and the public.  While we continue to believe that NTSC service
replication is achievable by DTV operations using the 8-VSB standard, we recognize that some in the industry
have raised various issues with respect to that standard.  For example, Sinclair Broadcasting Group filed a
Petition for Expedited Rulemaking urging the Commission to modify its rules to permit the use of COFDM
modulation in addition to the 8-VSB standard.  Sinclair argued that the COFDM standard offered easier
reception with simple antennas and would enable broadcasters to provide fixed, mobile and portable video
services with greater capacity for technological improvement. We dismissed that petition, indicating that
concerns about 8-VSB, such as those raised in the Petition, were better addressed in the context of this
proceeding.     

     12.  We invite comment on the current status of the 8-VSB DTV standard.  We are particularly
interested in the progress being made to improve indoor DTV reception under the existing transmission
standard and manufacturers' efforts to implement DTV design or chip improvements.  We also ask the
industry to submit information regarding any additional studies that may have been conducted regarding
NTSC replication using the 8-VSB standard.

     13.  Some broadcasters have recommended that the Commission address over-the-air signal reception
by setting receiver standards, which we understand to mean performance thresholds (like the UHF noise figure
requirement), as opposed to mandatory technology specifications (like the ATSC digital standard itself). 
Accordingly, we ask for comment first on whether we have the authority to set minimum performance levels
for DTV receivers.  This issue was pleaded several years ago by various parties in response to the
Commission's Fourth and Fifth Further Notices of Proposed Rule Making in the DTV proceeding, and
comments in this proceeding should take account of these earlier submissions.  Second, we request comment
on the desirability of adopting minimum performance levels.  And, third, comments should address how these
requirements should be structured, including timing considerations.
     
     14.  Some additional issues pertain to the transition, such as the issue of digital broadcast signal
carriage on cable systems, and are the subject of their own separate proceedings.  While we intend for this
proceeding to be a broad and open proceeding, it would not be constructive, as a general matter, to unduly
burden this proceeding with issues that are the subject of their own proceedings or with requests for
reconsideration of issues that have already been decided, or where the standard set out in the Fifth Report and
Order is not met.  Some of the issues that are outside the scope of this proceeding include: fee issues;
eligibility issues; issues relating to public television; and channel allotment or change requests.  In addition,
we believe that it is too early in the transition to address a number of issues referenced in the Fifth Report and
Order,  34, 116, as issues we would handle in our periodic reviews. These issues include reconsidering the
flexible approach to ancillary or supplementary services, the proper application of the simulcast requirement,
and the special needs of noncommercial stations in converting to digital television beyond the accommodation
granted them by allowing them to complete construction a year after the last category of commercial
broadcasters.  The issue of the appropriateness of 2006 as a target recovery date, also referenced in the Fifth
Report and Order,  116, is inappropriate for this review as Congress has, in the Balanced Budget Act of
1997, confirmed December 31, 2006 as the date for completion of the transition and established a procedure
and standards for stations to seek an extension of that date.

     15.  In addition to inviting general comment on the progress of the transition, we invite specific
comments on the areas discussed in detail below. 

     A.  Full-replication and principal community coverage

     16.  Replication.  In the DTV Sixth Report and Order, we established "replication" as a goal in the
creation of the initial DTV Table of Allotments.  Our replication goal means that each DTV channel allotment
was chosen to best allow its DTV service to match the Grade B service of the NTSC station with which it was
paired.  Implicit in our use of this criterion in creating the initial DTV Table is an expectation that DTV
stations will eventually be constructed with "full-replication" facilities.  Full-replication facilities would entail
a combination of transmitter site, effective radiated power, directional antenna characteristics and antenna
height that is adequate to cover at least the same area as is served by the NTSC station.

     17.  While expecting eventual use of full-replication facilities by each station, we recognized that there
initially would be few DTV receivers on which DTV stations could be viewed.  Thus, early DTV broadcasts
would reach very few viewers and present negligible opportunity for revenue to offset the DTV construction
costs that were expected to exceed one million dollars per station.  Accordingly, we granted the flexibility for
DTV stations to build initial facilities that would cover a significantly smaller area than full-replication
facilities, provided that the predicted DTV service contour covered the station's city of license.  We did not,
therefore, in previous DTV proceedings, adopt an explicit replication requirement or a requirement that DTV
stations provide a higher level of service than Grade B to their city of license.  Nevertheless, we are presently
protecting the full replicated service areas based on the engineering parameters associated with the DTV
allotment table.  As discussed below, we are concerned that the lack of an explicit replication requirement
and a city-grade service requirement may encourage some licensees to locate their proposed DTV facilities at
a substantial distance from their NTSC facilities and their communities of license.  This may have negative
consequences for the transition to digital television.

     18.  We expected that some stations would build their DTV station at a different site from their
authorized NTSC site.  In particular, we encouraged stations in a market to explore development of a common
site where that was feasible.  We also allowed the flexibility to move within a 5-kilometer radius of the DTV
Table reference coordinates with a streamlined "checklist" application.  While anticipating some movement
and allowing small initial DTV facilities, we expected that most stations would build their DTV facilities at
or near their NTSC sites.  We did not focus on stations that operate from "fringe" sites, such as those licensed
to smaller communities near the edge of their market or those that are site restricted and required to broadcast
from a site that does not serve their market as well as other stations with which they compete.  Nor did we
consider that some small market stations operate adjacent to a larger market.  These fringe area stations often
would prefer to operate from a central location or in the larger market where they can potentially serve a
larger population and achieve higher revenues.

     19.  Most of the DTV applications that have been filed and granted thus far are for locations at or
near their current NTSC antenna sites.  However, in conformance with the rules we established, several
licensees have sought authority to move their DTV station to a more central location in their market or toward
a larger market.  Others have filed petitions for rule making to change their DTV allotment, including their
assumed transmitter site and/or technical facilities.

     20.  These situations pose a problem with respect to our expectation that licensees will eventually
replicate their NTSC facilities.  Licensees that build DTV facilities that do not cover the same area as their
NTSC stations may present problems at the end of the transition.  If these stations choose to, and are able to,
remain on their DTV channel at the end of the transition, people within the NTSC service area but outside of
the DTV service area will lose service.  We question whether this loss of service would serve the public
interest. Similarly, the goals of our requirement that the NTSC programming be simulcast on the DTV
channel near the end of the transition would be undermined if the DTV coverage does not approximate or
encompass the NTSC coverage area. In addition, a large scale move of DTV stations to larger urban markets
would pose a problem under Section 307(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  307(b), as it might
represent a de facto reallotment from smaller, more rural and underserved areas to larger well-served urban
areas and might undermine our allotment decisions.

     21.  Request for Comments.  We believe it is important now to consider what requirements are
appropriate for eventual replication so that stations can take account of these requirements as they plan and
construct their DTV facilities.  We seek comment on whether we should establish a replication requirement
and, if so, how we should frame it, when it should become effective, and what consequences should follow for
stations that fail to meet it.

     22.  If we decide to adopt a replication requirement, we must decide how to determine whether a DTV
station is replicating its NTSC facilities.  One possible approach would be to require essentially the same
service as is provided by the NTSC facilities.  In order to implement this approach, we would need to decide
whether to depict NTSC and DTV service using coverage contours or using the Longley-Rice propagation
model in accordance with OET Bulletin 69 (July 2, 1997).  We would also need to decide whether the
replication requirement should be based on the population or the area served.  We note that our rules for
determining interference between DTV stations are based on population.  Finally, we would need to address
the question of what percentage of the NTSC Grade B service must be replicated.  While conceptually
straightforward, this approach may be difficult to implement, with many circumstances needing individual
interpretations or exceptions.

     23.  A possible alternative is the use of a DTV principal community service requirement as discussed
below.  Such a requirement might be easier to implement than a service replication requirement, but the extent
to which replication would actually be achieved could vary significantly and for some stations it may leave
more people unserved.  A requirement for a stronger signal to cover a station's city of license would effectively
ensure that the DTV service contour would extend some distance beyond the city of license.  The field
strengths suggested below at paragraph 33 would be based on the differences between NTSC Grade B and
principal community service.  We believe that the resulting DTV coverage would extend past the DTV
principal community service contour to an extent that would approximate NTSC Grade B service.  We invite
comment on these proposals and invite commenters to offer their own additional or alternative proposals as to
how we might assure eventual full replication by DTV licensees of their NTSC facilities.

     24.  We also seek comment on when we should implement a replication requirement.  While many of
the DTV applications that have been filed propose facilities that would serve a high percentage of the station's
analog Grade B contour, and some have sought to maximize facilities in a manner that would expand their
DTV coverage, there are also a large number of applicants that have chosen to "start small."  Construction of
most of these stations is not required to be completed until May 1, 2002. Noncommercial educational DTV
stations do not need to complete construction until May 1, 2003.  In order to allow stations a reasonable
period to operate with smaller facilities, it seems appropriate to delay a replication requirement until at least
May 1, 2004.  Other possible choices include requiring full replication by the planned end date of the
transition, which is December 31, 2006, or by the date the transition actually ends for the stations in each
particular market, whether or not that date is extended beyond December 31, 2006 pursuant to the statute.  It
is possible that delaying the replication requirement for too long could undermine the broad availability of
digital service and thus forestall the transition itself by blunting the incentive for digital set penetration.  One
alternative that might mitigate this effect would be to require each DTV station to achieve replication by one
year after the date it is required to complete construction pursuant to the DTV construction schedule.  We
invite comment on these alternatives.  The appropriate date by which we should require full replication may
also depend on how strictly replication is required and on the consequences of not complying.  Another factor
in our decision as to when to institute a replication requirement is the timing and options available for
licensees choosing which of their two channels they want to operate their DTV station on after the transition. 
This factor is discussed in more detail below.  We invite comment on these issues.

     25.  We presume that licensees will follow all applicable FCC rules as a matter of course.  Moreover,
with respect to any replication rule we might adopt, we note that it would be in a licensee's best interest to
comply with a replication rule in order to maximize potential audiences.  Nonetheless, we propose that any
station's failure to comply with the proposed replication rule would result in the loss of protection of the
station's full-replication allotment facilities.  We also invite comment on what, if any, other consequences we
might impose for a station's failure to replicate.

     26.  We note that we have proposed as a possible consequence for failing to meet a replication
requirement, the loss of protection of the full allotted DTV facility.  We invite comment as to whether
regardless of what other consequence we impose for failure to replicate, or even in the event that we do not
adopt a full-replication requirement, we should, by a certain date, place an end to our current policy of
protecting the full replication facility regardless of the parameters and service contour a DTV station provides. 
Such a policy would foster spectrum efficiency.  It would allow increased opportunities for new DTV service
by new entrants and would allow other existing stations to maximize their service on what would otherwise be
fallow or wasted spectrum, in that it is being protected but not used.  If we adopt such a policy, when should
we stop protecting a station's DTV facilities beyond the actual service contour?

     27.  DTV Principal Community Coverage.  Although we referred to the provision we made for
allowing DTV stations to operate initially with limited minimum DTV facilities as a requirement for coverage
of a station's principal community, it is actually inconsistent with the NTSC principal community coverage
requirement, as the city-grade coverage requirement for NTSC stations is stronger than a Grade B signal.  As
discussed below, for NTSC stations, the principal community requirement is a significantly stronger signal
level than the Grade B service standard.  For DTV stations, the initial required signal over the community of
license is the same as the DTV service contour standard.  A signal that meets the principal community
coverage standard ("city grade signal") is commonly considered to be one that produces a better picture
quality than a Grade B signal.  While it is true for NTSC that service can be described as a picture quality
that gets better as the median signal level increases, it can also be described in terms of an "acceptable"
picture quality being available for a larger percentage of the time as the median signal level increases.

     28.  In DTV, there are virtually no gradations in picture quality that are dependent on signal strength. 
The signal must reach a certain minimum threshold for a picture to occur; it does not matter how little or
much the signal exceeds that threshold requirement, the picture quality will not change.  When the signal is
insufficient, the picture screen will freeze or go blue.  Thus, DTV levels of service can be described in terms
of the percentage of the time that the picture is available.  An individual's subjective determination of
"acceptable" DTV service would be based on their tolerance for interruptions to the programming (picture
freezing or going to a blue screen).  Some viewers may find DTV service acceptable, even if lost for a minute
or two each hour (two to three percent of the time).  Others may find service to be unacceptable if disruptions
exceed 10 or 20 seconds in an average hour (less than one half percent of the time).

     29.  For the most part, we believe DTV stations that replicate their NTSC service will effectively
provide city grade service to their community of license.  Such DTV stations would provide a signal level over
their city of license that is stronger than the signal level we established for the DTV service contour by an
amount comparable to the difference between NTSC city grade and Grade B service contour values.  Also,
where a DTV station is paired with an NTSC station, its DTV allotment is protected, which maintains its
ability to replicate to a great extent and therefore protects its ability to provide a stronger signal level over its
city of license.  Thus, in these instances, sufficient signal strength will be available to maintain reliable
reception.  However, we have been presented with proposals that do not involve replication.  In such
situations, a DTV licensee might seek to locate its station so that its city of license is barely within its service
contour, which may result in service that is less reliable or available to a smaller percentage of locations than
usually expected for "city grade service."

     30.  Request for Comments.  In most respects, the planning factors for the DTV service contour
correspond to the planning factors for the NTSC TV Grade B service contour. Applications to change the
power, antenna height or location of other DTV stations are permitted to cause interference, as long as the
interference is "de minimis" (reducing the population served by a station by no more than 2%, not to exceed
10% for all interfering sources). Reception near the edge of the DTV service contour is not protected from
interference.  A similar situation occurs among NTSC stations where a new or modified NTSC facility is
permitted to cause interference within another station's Grade B contour, as long as the minimum distance
spacing requirements are met.  Accordingly, we invite comment as to how to define adequate DTV service to
the city of license.

     31.  How to define adequate service to the city of license also is an issue for DTV stations that do not
have a paired NTSC channel.  In the Fifth MO&O, we afforded applicants for NTSC stations whose
construction permit applications were not granted as of the date of adoption of the Fifth Report and Order
(and who therefore were not eligible for initial paired DTV licenses) the opportunity to construct a DTV
station immediately on their single 6 MHz NTSC channel provided that the proposed DTV facility protected
all DTV and NTSC stations by complying with all applicable DTV technical rules. Alternatively, if they
chose first to construct an NTSC station, they would be allowed to convert it to a DTV station, upon
application to the Commission, at any time during the transition (and they would be required to convert to
DTV at the end of the transition, when NTSC broadcasting ceases).  In the DTV Second MO&O, we
clarified that the pending NTSC applicants could convert to DTV without first being granted an NTSC
construction permit.  We seek comment on the appropriate level of principal community service for these
DTV stations.  We also seek comment on the appropriate level of principal community service for those DTV
stations that have changed their DTV channel (and authorized facilities) pursuant to rule making, where there
is no longer a correspondence between NTSC and DTV service areas.

     32. In order to address the foregoing concerns while minimizing the impact on DTV broadcasters, we
propose to require that a DTV principal community be served by a stronger signal than that specified for the
general DTV service contour.  By requiring that DTV broadcasters provide a minimum, higher, level of
service over their community of license, we would limit the extent to which DTV broadcasters can migrate
from their current service contour.  A stronger principal community coverage requirement would improve the
availability and reliability of DTV service in the city of license. It would also provide an extra measure of
protection from interference to DTV service in the city of license.  Finally, it would provide a method of
requiring improved replication performance that can be determined by relatively simple and straightforward
methods that are well established in the NTSC service.  We note that NTSC broadcasters must provide a
signal over their city of license that is stronger than the signal strength defined for their Grade B service
contour.  We invite comment on this approach of requiring DTV stations to provide a similarly stronger
signal.  Would it resolve the problems that we have identified?  Would it create undue difficulties for DTV
broadcasters to accomplish, and, if so, would these difficulties be so severe as to delay the transition?

     33.  We invite comment as to the signal level that we should require to be placed over the DTV
station's principal community, should we adopt such a requirement for DTV.  One approach to resolving this
issue is to use a set of field strength values that corresponds to the current principal community signal
requirements for NTSC stations.  We note that the required principal community service contours for NTSC
stations are 27, 21 and 16 dB higher than the Grade B service contours for channels 2-6, 7-13 and 14-69
respectively.  The stronger NTSC principal community contours are based on an assumed receiving antenna
with less gain, urban noise, and greater probability of locations receiving service (90%).  Adding the same
amounts to the DTV service field strength values results in the following table:


Channels
Field Strength (dBu)


2-6
55


7-13
57


14-69
57


Even though these signal intensities are defined as discrete values measured in dBu's, the intensity of
broadcast signals at particular locations and at particular times cannot be precisely determined, regardless of
the predictive method used.  Signal strength varies randomly over location and time, so signal propagation
must be considered on a statistical basis. Most prediction methods, including the Commission's propagation
curves, predict the occurrence of median signal strengths (i.e., signal strengths expected to be exceeded at 50%
of the locations in a particular area at least 50% of the time). Under this approach, "location" and "time"
variability factors are added to the signal level so that the desired statistical reliability is achieved.  The values
chosen for the principal community signal intensity account for this variability.  Therefore, assuming the use
of a receiving antenna with 0 dB gain relative to a half-wave dipole, the above values predict that at least 90%
of the locations along principal community contour will receive an acceptable picture 90% of the time.  We
invite comment on whether this required signal coverage to the community of license is an appropriate one to
adopt for DTV stations. Could it be accomplished readily?  Would the economic costs of adopting the
proposed level of principal community service outweigh the benefits that we seek to achieve?  If so, we invite
commenters to address whether we should adopt an alternative minimum level of principal community service
and to justify that alternative proposed level.

     34.  We tentatively believe that we can minimize any increased difficulties such a requirement might
place on DTV broadcasters by delaying its implementation.  Accordingly, we seek comment on when any such
requirement should be made effective.  We tentatively propose that DTV stations that are paired with NTSC
stations be required to meet the new principal community requirement by May 1, 2004.  Alternatively, we
invite comment as to whether we should tie the city-grade service requirement to the construction schedule,
with the requirement imposed within a certain period, a year, for example, after construction is scheduled to
be completed (see paragraph 24, supra).  For licensees with paired DTV and NTSC stations that intend to
operate with DTV on their current NTSC channel after the transition (see paragraphs 35-39, below), we
propose that they be required to file a DTV application reflecting that decision by that date.  For NTSC
stations that do not have a paired DTV station, we propose that the stronger DTV principal community
service be required when they seek to switch to DTV operation.  For petitioners seeking a DTV channel
change, we propose to require a showing that the principal community service requirement can be met with the
proposed DTV allotment facilities or a commitment to elect their NTSC channel for their post-transition DTV
operation.  The 2004 date is two years before the end of the transition, and by that point DTV broadcasters
should be able to build out their permanent facilities.  That date is at least one year after the deadline for all
broadcasters, including noncommercial broadcasters, to complete construction, and commercial broadcasters
by that date will have been on the air for at least two years.  For these reasons we believe that it would not be
unduly onerous to implement a requirement for a higher principal community service contour at this date.  We
invite comment on these proposals and ask commenters to address whether other measures are necessary in
addition to or as an alternative to these proposals to address our concerns.

     B. Channel Election

     35.  In the DTV Sixth MO&O, the Commission decided that the DTV service after the transition will
be limited to core spectrum, comprised of current TV channels 2 through 51.  We had minimized the number
of out-of-core DTV channel allotments and made a special effort to designate a DTV channel in the core for
each station that had its NTSC channel outside of the core.  In this way, at the end of the transition, whichever
channel (DTV or NTSC) was in the core could become the station's permanent DTV channel.  There are
currently 17 stations that have both their NTSC and their DTV channels outside of the core.  We indicated
that once the transition ended and one of the two channels each broadcaster is temporarily authorized to use
is recovered, there will be adequate spectrum to ensure that all stations with initial out-of-core DTV
allotments can be provided with new channels within core spectrum between channels 2-51.

     36.  On reconsideration of the DTV Sixth Report and Order, some broadcasters asked that we require
stations with both channels in the core to immediately choose the channel they intend to keep following the
transition.  They argued that early election should be required so that those stations with DTV channels
outside the core would know what channels will eventually become available and could plan for their
conversion to one of those channels.  We declined to require early channel election at that time based on the
small number of situations with both NTSC and DTV on out-of-core channels and the lack of needed
experience with DTV operation, which would prevent many broadcasters with both channels in the core from
making an appropriate decision. We indicated that we would make case-by-case decisions on channels for
stations moving into the core, considering factors such as preserving noncommercial educational TV service,
reducing interference and improving replication.

     37.  Changed circumstances suggest that it would be helpful now to adopt a deadline for channel
election.  We believe that there will be more out of core stations that must be accommodated with a core
channel than we initially anticipated.  As discussed above, new applicants will be allowed to convert their
single NTSC channels to DTV operation and those on channels outside the core will be provided a post-
transition channel inside the core.  There are a number of such "new applicant" NTSC stations authorized on
channels outside the core, and dozens more could be authorized under procedures announced in the recent
filing window Public Notice.  The problem of finding a core channel for these stations is exacerbated
because there are more stations currently occupying core channels than we initially planned on.  Pursuant to
the window filing Public Notice, some of those pending applications and rule making petitions could also be
granted on core channels, if they can adequately protect NTSC and DTV stations from interference. 
Further, recent legislation requires the establishment of a new category of primary, "Class A" TV stations,
which also may limit availability of core channels in some areas.  In addition, maximized DTV facilities that
operate on channels within the core might complicate the problem of finding a core channel for out-of-core
stations because these maximized stations are more difficult to protect.

     38.  Request for Comments.  We tentatively conclude that it is now time to begin setting up a process
to assure early election by DTV stations of their post-transition channel.  Stations making the channel
conversion at the end of the transition will need time to plan facilities, order equipment and arrange for
construction.  Ideally, they would turn on their DTV station on their new core channel the day after the
transition ends and other broadcasters turn off their second channel.  With the target date for the end of the
transition set for December 31, 2006, it seems reasonable to identify the channels these stations will be
moving to not later than 2004.  To accomplish this, we could require DTV licensees to make a binding
decision and elect one of their two core channels by early 2004, at the latest.  One possibility is to impose May
1, 2004 as the deadline for election.  This date would allow at least one year of DTV operation pursuant to
our staggered construction schedule (with noncommercial educational TV stations provided the longest time
to construct and required to complete construction by May 1, 2003). We seek comment on whether this date
represents the proper balance between the goals of allowing DTV stations enough time to gain experience with
DTV operation and allowing stations that must move enough time to plan for their DTV channel conversion. 
We note that the recently adopted Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 requires the Commission,
within 18 months of the Act's enactment, to identify by channel, location, and applicable technical parameters,
the 175 additional DTV channels that were referenced in paragraph 45 of the Commission's "February 23,
1998, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order (MM Docket No.
87-268)."  In that Order, the Sixth MO&O, the Commission expanded the DTV core spectrum to include all
channels 2-51, and noted that this expansion would add approximately 175 additional DTV channels.  We
invite comment as to whether, based on the new obligations imposed by this recent legislation, we are required
to impose an earlier election date than May 1, 2004. 

     39.  We also seek comment on the appropriate criteria for determining who is allowed to participate
in this process, whether any category of participants should have blanket priority over other participants, and
which channels are available.  Should all stations with an out-of-core DTV channel and a core NTSC channel
be required to use their NTSC channel, as opposed to being permitted to seek an alternative in-core DTV
channel?  Additional stations may want to become involved in changing their DTV channels at the end of the
transition in order to improve their replication or decrease interference. Some stations with both channels in
the core may not want to remain on either channel.  Should stations that must move to a new channel have the
highest priority (first selection of channels that are returned)? We also seek comment on whether particular
channels should be off limits as we explore the possibilities of alternative uses.  For example, should channel
6 or another channel or channels be cleared for other broadcast purposes, such as is being considered in our
terrestrial digital audio broadcasting proceeding? Should new use of channels 3 and 4 be avoided to
minimize expense and inconvenience to cable subscribers whose cable boxes are wired for output on one of
those channels? We also invite comment on whether the FCC should select the final channels in order to allow
us to maximize efficiency of broadcast allotments.  Assuming we do allow broadcasters to elect their channel,
of course, under our authority to manage the spectrum, we would review the stations' channel elections to be
sure that the use of spectrum is efficient and serves the public interest.

     C. Mutually Exclusive Applications

     40.  We also wish to use this proceeding to examine some DTV application processing procedures. 
In particular, we invite comment on (1) whether to establish DTV application cut-off procedures; (2) how we
should resolve conflicts between DTV applications to implement "initial" allotments; and (3) the order of
priority between DTV applications and NTSC applications.

     41.  DTV applications must protect DTV allotments from predicted interference as indicated in the
Sixth Report and Order and Section 73.623 of our rules.  In general, DTV applications that do not expand the
coverage area of their DTV allotment also do not increase the interference that the applied-for station would
be predicted to cause.  In this respect, these applications are treated like "checklist" applications, which
conform to their allotment and accordingly are subject to streamlined processing that allows them to be
granted without analysis of predicted interference.  In addition, the protection afforded facilities authorized
pursuant to such applications is based on the required protection of their DTV allotment.

     42.  Applications for the paired DTV allotments in the initial DTV table (whether the first application
for a construction permit (CP), a subsequent application to modify a DTV CP, or an application for a CP to
change a licensed DTV facility) generally may request facilities that would expand their coverage area, subject
to not exceeding the maximum facilities permitted by the rules.  As indicated above, such an area-expanding
application must protect DTV stations, including DTV allotments and authorized (CP or licensed) DTV
stations.  Where two DTV applications seek to expand their allotment coverage area and one or both would
cause prohibited interference with the facilities specified in the other application, such applications are
mutually exclusive (MX).  If the first-filed application is granted before the second application is filed, the
second application must protect the first, which would then be an authorized DTV facility.  If the second
application is filed before the first is granted, the two conflicting applications would be mutually exclusive. 
We wish to explore several options for resolving such MX cases.

     43.  Request for Comments.  As a primary matter, we seek comment on whether to adopt a cut-off
procedure for such DTV area-expansion applications to minimize the number of mutual exclusivities and to
facilitate applicants' planning with respect to their proposals.  A cut-off process could minimize the number
of MX situations that develop by requiring conflicting applications filed after a cut-off date to protect the
earlier-filed, cut-off application. In the past, the Commission has managed the processing of some other
categories of broadcast service applications by publishing "cut-off" notices that established a date after which
competing or otherwise mutually exclusive applications were not allowed to be filed. NTSC minor change
applications have not been subject to cut-off procedures, so such applications can become MX until the day
they are granted. We have previously indicated that we would treat an initially eligible station's DTV
construction permit application as a "minor change."  Minor change status meant that we did not consider
these initial applications to be requests for new stations but rather a modification of facilities.  Under current
processing procedures, we do announce the acceptance of these DTV applications without establishing a cut-
off date.  With respect to DTV service area-expansion applications, we could augment this public notice by
including a cut-off date provision, which would announce that MX applications must be filed within a period
of time.  Under such an approach, conflicting applications filed after that time has passed would not be
considered MX, but would have to protect the earlier-filed application.  We seek comment on an appropriate
duration for a cut-off period should we adopt such an approach.  This approach could be similar to the
process established for DTV "maximization" applications, where we allow a thirty day period during which
oppositions to the application must be filed.  Another option would be to consider such applications cut-off
as of the close of business on the date they are filed.  We would be concerned that such a day-to-day cut-off
could prompt an initial surge of area-expansion applications on the first day it became effective.  However,
after that day, such an approach would minimize the number of MX situations.  We invite comment on
whether we should adopt a cut-off process and if so, on the appropriate duration. 

     44.  Next, we seek comment on how to resolve mutual exclusivities that arise.  There are a number of
alternative methods we could use, and we invite comment on these as well as others that commenters may wish
to propose. Under one possible approach, where two or more DTV area-expansion applications are MX, we
could grant all such applications regardless of the interference that could be caused in areas beyond the DTV
allotment service area.  Such an approach would facilitate Commission action on applications, resulting in an
early resolution of contested cases and more rapid grant of construction permits.  This option might prove to
be an effective system to provide DTV service to the public at the earliest date.  We anticipate that where each
application proposal protects the other DTV allotment and any authorized DTV service area, but their mutual
expansion efforts result in a prohibited amount of interference, the loss of service would be to areas that would
not have been served by the original allotments, anyway.  If we adopt such an approach and grant all
applications in such a situation, we would encourage the stations to negotiate and seek engineering solutions
to minimize the loss of service in a mutually agreeable manner.  It appears that if both stations begin
transmissions with their proposed facilities at the same time, the people subject to interference will not be
suffering a loss of service as they will not have had sufficient signal for service prior to the interfering power
increases. Instead, they simply will never gain the service they might have had if only one of the stations had
sought to expand its coverage.  We invite comment on this view.

     45.  As an alternative to the foregoing approach, we invite comment as to whether we should consider
MX DTV area-expansion applications using a DTV new station application procedure. Using such an
approach, we would encourage pending mutually exclusive new DTV applications (or modifications involving
area expansion) to resolve their mutual exclusivity by engineering solutions or by settlements.  We note the
statutory directive to "use engineering solutions...and other means" to resolve competing applications.  We
invite comment on this approach for resolving MX situations involving new DTV station applications, as well
as situations involving only DTV area-expansion applications.  Where such mutual exclusivities cannot be
resolved by negotiation, we invite comment as to whether these applications should be dismissed or,
alternatively, whether spectrum auctions are legally permitted and, if so, to what extent, and whether they are
an appropriate approach.  We note that Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the
Act"), 47 U.S.C.  309(j), added by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, provided for competitive bidding to
resolve mutually exclusive applications for "any initial license or construction permit," but specifically
excludes from competitive bidding, "initial licenses or construction permits for digital television service given
to existing terrestrial broadcast licensees to replace their analog television service licenses...."  Thus, by its
terms, Section 309(j) would permit us to use competitive bidding to resolve mutual exclusivities for DTV
applications for new facilities that are not intended to replace analog stations.

     46.  We invite comment as to whether we could use competitive bidding to resolve mutually exclusive
applications from initial DTV licensees involving area expansion beyond the full-replication facility.  In the
First Report and Order in MM Docket No. 97-234, GC Docket No. 92-2, & GEN Docket No. 90-264, we
concluded that the Commission is not precluded by the language of Section 309(j) from auctioning mutually
exclusive analog modification applications.  As we noted, "applications proposing major changes to existing
facilities are, in our view, analogous to applications for construction permits for new stations."  The
Commission also noted that "subjecting a modification application to competitive bidding may also be
particularly appropriate where it is mutually exclusive with one (or more) initial applications, as Section
309(j) mandates the use of auctions where mutually exclusive applications are accepted for "any initial license
or construction permit."  The Commission was there speaking about analog applications.  To what extent,
if any, do the considerations involving digital area-expansion applications dictate a different result? We note
that we are precluded by Section 309(j) from auctioning initial DTV replacement licenses (or the
accompanying construction permits), but it does not appear that a digital area-expansion application would
constitute such a replacement.  We seek comment, however, on whether grant of such area-expansion
applications is properly viewed as merely a component of the replacement of the analog television service
license, or whether it should be classified as an extension of the analog authorization outside the statutory
exclusion from competitive bidding.  We also invite comment as to how to resolve mutually exclusive
applications where one applicant is seeking a new DTV facility, which conflicts with an area-expansion
request by an initial DTV licensee.

     47.  The First Auction R&O decided that competitive bidding would not be used to resolve mutually
exclusive minor change applications submitted for analog TV stations.  We invite comment as to whether the
same conclusion would apply in the context of DTV.  The First Auction R&O noted that analog minor
modification applications are infrequently mutually exclusive and involve less significant changes than major
modifications.  Thus, the Commission held that there would be greater utility in expecting parties to work
together to resolve the mutual exclusivity in the rare instances in which minor modification applications
become mutually exclusive.  NTSC minor change applications only become MX if they involve a site change
and become short-spaced with another application.  In the case of DTV, MX situations may arise in more
cases.  Use of engineering criteria to determine interference protection can result in MX situations where
stations seek to increase their power or antenna height, even if they do not seek to change their site.  With the
large number of DTV applications being filed, we do expect that there will be numerous mutual exclusivities
involving area-expansion applications.

     48.  If commenters oppose use of competitive bidding, we invite them to suggest alternative
approaches to resolving mutual exclusitivities.  Would these alternative methods be permitted under the
Balanced Budget Act?  Finally, in the event we hold auctions, we propose to use the auction techniques
established in the First Auction R&O.  We invite comment on this approach.

     49.  Application Processing/Protection Priority.  We invite comment on what processing priorities
we should establish as between DTV area-expansion applications and NTSC applications and rule making
petitions.  We have determined and reiterated several times that the future of television is DTV.  For that
reason, in 1996, the Commission decided to stop accepting petitions to add new NTSC channels and
applications for new NTSC stations.  Those pending applications for new NTSC stations that were not
subject to the TV application freeze were protected by the initial DTV table of allotments.  Applications for
new NTSC stations in the areas subject to the TV freeze and rule making petitions to add new NTSC channels
were not protected or otherwise accommodated in the development of the initial DTV table of allotments or
subsequent amendments to that initial table.  Similarly, NTSC applications for minor changes in existing or
authorized stations were not protected or otherwise considered when the DTV table was developed, adopted
or amended.

     50. The Commission addressed the need for new NTSC station construction permit applications that
sought a waiver of the TV application freeze in major markets to amend or propose a substitute channel in the
DTV Second MO&O.  At that time, we decided that those NTSC applications must protect all DTV stations,
including authorized DTV stations, facilities requested in DTV station applications, DTV allotments, and rule
making proposals to change or add a DTV channel allotment.  A recent Public Notice opened a window for
amendments or channel change proposals to be submitted for such NTSC freeze-area applications, as well as
new NTSC station applications that had not been subject to the freeze, but requested an allotment in the range
of channels 60 to 69 and pending petitions for rule making seeking to add an NTSC channel allotment.  In
that processing Public Notice, we also clarified that rule making petitions seeking to add an NTSC channel
allotment must protect all DTV stations (including allotments, applications and rule making proposals as
listed above).  NTSC applications for minor changes in authorized stations also must protect all such DTV
stations. 

     51.  We have not clarified the extent to which these NTSC petitions and applications could have
protection from later-filed DTV applications and at what point such protection should be afforded.  It is
important to specify such a priority to allow orderly processing and reasonable certainty that an NTSC
applicant or petitioner's grant is valid. 

     52.  We note that Congress recently enacted new legislation to provide for Class A TV stations.  This
legislation establishes the priority such stations would have with respect to DTV and NTSC stations.  In
order to receive a Class A license, the applicant must show interference protection to: 

          (i) the predicted Grade B contour (as of the date of enactment of the
          Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999, or November 1, 1999,
          whichever is later, or as proposed in a change application filed on or before
          such date) of any television station transmitting in analog format; or
          (ii)(I) the digital television service areas provided in the DTV Table of
          Allotments; (II) the areas protected in the Commission's digital television
          regulations (47 CFR 73.622(e) and (f)); (III) the digital television service
          areas of stations subsequently granted by the Commission prior to the filing
          of a class A application; and (IV) stations seeking to maximize power under
          the Commission's rules, if such station has complied with the notification
          requirements in paragraph (1)(D) .

This legislation would thus require Class A stations to protect: (1) TV stations "transmitting in analog format"
as of the enactment date, November 29, 1999, or "change" applications filed as of that date; (2) DTV service
areas provided by the DTV allotment Table, including DTV service authorized before the filing of a Class A
application; and (3) DTV stations seeking to "maximize" their service areas, provided they notify the
Commission by December 31, 1999, of their intent to maximize and file their maximization applications by
May 1, 2000.

     53.  We invite comment as to whether a similar priority scheme should be adopted as between DTV
and NTSC stations, and, if so, what the priorities should be as between DTV and NTSC applications and
stations.  There are a number of pending new NTSC station and NTSC minor change applications.  Some of
the pending new NTSC station applications were the subject of competitive bidding in the Commission's
broadcast auction this past fall.  Should we follow an analogous priority scheme to that established in the new
Class A legislation in prioritizing between DTV and NTSC applications?  If so, should the reliance interest of
the applicants that have participated in the auction and won change the result for these particular applicants? 
If we should not follow an analogous scheme, what priority scheme should be established and what, if any,
cut-off protection should be established to protect new NTSC station applications from last-minute DTV
applications and allow NTSC applicants to participate in auctions and plan their facilities?  What processing
priorities should apply between applications for minor changes in authorized NTSC stations and DTV area-
expansion applications?

V. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

     54.  Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis.  This Notice may contain either proposed or
modified information collections.  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 that might be required, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L.
No. 104-13.  Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice (i.e.,
May 17, 2000); OMB comments are also due May 17, 2000.  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, Room C-1804, 445 12th Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Edward C. Springer, Office of
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 725 17th Street, N.W., Room 10236,
NEOB, Washington, DC  20503 or via the Internet to Edward.Springer@omb.eop.gov.

     55.  Filing of 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 or before May 17,
2000, and reply comments on or before June 16, 2000.  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).

     56.  Comments filed through 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.  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 via 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.

     57.  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing.  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.

     58.  Parties who choose to file paper should also submit their comments on diskette.  These diskettes
should be addressed to: Wanda Hardy, Paralegal Specialist, Mass Media Bureau, Policy and Rules Division,
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., 2-C221, Washington, D.C.  20554.  Such
a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word 97 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 labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding (including the lead
docket number in this case (MM Docket No. 00-39), 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 sent diskette copies to the Commission's copy
contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 
20554.

     59.  Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., CY-
A257, Washington, D.C.  20554.  Persons with disabilities who need assistance in the FCC Reference Center
may contact Bill Cline at (202) 418-0270, (202) 418-2555 TTY, or bcline@fcc.gov. 

     60.  Ex Parte Rules.  This proceeding will be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding subject to
the "permit-but-disclose" requirements under Section 1.1206(b) of the rules.  47 C.F.R.  1.1206(b), as
revised.  Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except
during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally prohibited. 
Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that a memorandum summarizing a presentation
must contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. 
More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required.  See
47 C.F.R.  1.1206(b)(2), as revised.  Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set
forth in Section 1.1206(b).

     61.  Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  With respect to this Notice, an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") is contained in Appendix A.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see
5 U.S.C.  603, the Commission has prepared an IRFA of the possible economic impact on small entities of
the proposals contained in this Notice.  Written public comments are requested on the IFRA.  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, and must have a distinct heading designating them as a response
to the IRFA.  The Reference Information Center, Consumer Information Bureau, will 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.

     62.  Additional Information.  For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Gordon
Godfrey, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau at (202) 418-2190, or Keith A. Larson, Office of the
Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau at (202) 418-2600.

VI. ORDERING CLAUSE

     63.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i) & (j),
303(r), 307, 309, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 C.F.R.  4(i) & (j), 303(r),
307, 309, and 336, this Notice of Proposed Rule Making IS ADOPTED.

     64.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference
Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Magalie Roman Salas
                         Secretary
                           APPENDIX A

            INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C.  603 ("RFA"), the Commission has prepared
this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible economic impact on small entities
by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice). Written public comments
are requested on this IRFA.  Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the Notice provided above in paragraph 55.  The Commission will send a copy of
the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 
See 5 U.S.C.  603(a).  In addition, the Notice and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
Federal Register.  See id.

1.    Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

As described in the Notice, the proposed rules are required to ensure a smooth transition of the nation's
television system to digital television.  We have specifically invited comment on:  (1) whether to adopt a
service replication requirement and to require enhanced service to the DTV stations' city of license; (2)
whether to adopt a requirement that DTV stations elect their post-transition DTV channel by a certain date;
and  (3) how to resolve mutually exclusive DTV and DTV/NTSC applications.

2.    Legal Basis

This Notice is adopted pursuant to sections 4(i) & (j), 303(r), 307, 309, and 336 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  4(i) & (j), 303(r), 307, 309, and 336.

3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small
entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.  The Regulatory Flexibility Act defines the
term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and
"small business concern" under section 3 of the Small Business Act.  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 SBA.  This action concerns TV broadcast stations.

Small TV Broadcast Stations.  The SBA defines small television broadcasting stations as television
broadcasting stations with $10.5 million or less in annual receipts.  There were 1,509 television stations
operating in the nation in 1992.  That number has remained fairly constant as indicated by the approximately
1,616 operating television broadcasting stations in the nation as of September 1999.  For 1992, the number
of television stations that produced less than $10.0 million in revenue was 1,155 establishments.  Thus, the
proposed rule changes will affect approximately 1,616 television stations, approximately 1244 of which are
considered small businesses.  These estimates may overstate the number of small entities since the revenue
figures on which they are based do not include or aggregate revenues from non-television affiliated companies.

Television Equipment Manufacturers: Since the Commission had not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to manufacturers of television equipment, it decided in its 6th R&O, at Appendix D-8, to utilize the
SBA definition of manufacturers of Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications Equipment.
We will again take that approach here. According to the SBA's regulations, a TV equipment manufacturer
must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.  Census Bureau data
indicates that there are 858 U.S. firms that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and
communications equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would be
classified as small entities.  The Census Bureau category is very broad, and specific figures are not available
as to how many of these firms are exclusive manufacturers of television equipment or how many are
independently owned and operated.  We conclude that there are approximately 778 small manufacturers of
radio and television equipment.

Household/Consumer Television Equipment: Since the Commission had not developed a definition of small
entities applicable to manufacturers of television equipment used by consumers as compared to industrial use
by television licensees and related businesses, it decided in its 6th R&O, at Appendix D-8, to utilize the SBA
definition applicable to manufacturers of Household Audio and Visual Equipment. We will again take that
approach here.  According to the SBA's regulations, a household audio and visual equipment manufacturer
must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.  Census Bureau data
indicates that there are 410 U.S. firms that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and
communications equipment, and that 386 of these firms have fewer than 500 employees and would be
classified as small entities.  The remaining 24 firms have 500 or more employees; however, we are unable
to determine how many of those have fewer than 750 employees and therefore, also qualify as small entities
under the SBA definition.  Furthermore, the Census Bureau category is very broad, and specific figures are
not available as to how many of these firms are exclusive manufacturers of television equipment for
consumers or how many are independently owned and operated.  We conclude that there are approximately
386 small manufacturers of television equipment for consumer/household use.

4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

Comments are sought as to whether to explicitly require DTV stations to replicate the coverage areas of their
paired analog stations, whether to require enhanced signal strength to the DTV station's city of license,
whether to require that broadcasters elect which of their channels will be the DTV channel after the transition
at an early date, and how to resolve mutually exclusive DTV and DTV/NTSC applications. The Notice also
invites comment on other issues that must be resolved in order to assure a smooth transition, including critical
unresolved issues relating to tower siting, copy protection, and cable compatibility and how they affect the
progress of the digital transition.  With respect to the DTV transmission standard, while the Commission
continues to believe that NTSC service replication is achievable by DTV operations using the 8-VSB
standard, we recognize that some in the industry, including Sinclair Broadcasting Group, have raised various
issues with respect to that standard. Comments are sought on the current status of the 8-VSB DTV standard. 
We are particularly interested in the progress being made to improve indoor DTV reception under the existing
transmission standard and manufacturers' efforts to implement DTV design or chip improvements.

Some broadcasters have recommended that the Commission address over-the-air signal reception by setting
receiver standards, which we understand to mean performance thresholds (like the UHF noise figure
requirement), as opposed to mandatory technology specifications (like the ATSC digital standard itself). 
Accordingly, comment is sought first on whether we have the authority to set minimum performance levels for
DTV receivers.  Comment is also sought on the desirability of adopting minimum performance levels, and
comments are asked to address how these requirements should be structured, including timing considerations.
    
5. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered

Below, we have described various proposals (with alternatives considered) that we believe will accrue to the
benefit of the described licensees, including small entity licensees.  We seek comment on whether, to further
benefit small entity licensees while remaining consistent with the stated objectives of this proceeding, we
should utilize some of the alternatives described, or perhaps utilize others that commenters might provide.

In order to allow stations a reasonable period to operate with smaller facilities and thus minimize potential
burdens, the Notice states that it seems appropriate to delay a replication requirement until at least May 1,
2004, a year after the last stations are required to complete construction.  Other options referenced by the
Notice as to the date for any required replication include December 31, 2006, or the date the transition
actually ends in the station's market, or one year after the station is required to complete construction
pursuant to the DTV construction schedule.  We seek small entity comments on these alternatives, which we
expect to lessen small entity burdens.

The Notice states the Commission's tentative belief that it can minimize any increased difficulties that might
result from a city grade signal requirement by delaying its implementation. The Notice tentatively proposes
that DTV stations that are paired with NTSC stations be required to meet the new principal community
requirement by May 1, 2004.  As an alternative, the Notice invites comment as to whether the city-grade
service requirement should be tied to the construction schedule, with the requirement imposed within a certain
period -- a year, for example, after construction is scheduled to be completed.  For licensees with paired DTV
and NTSC stations that intend to operate with DTV on their current NTSC channel after the transition, the
Notice proposes that they be required to file a DTV application reflecting that decision by that date.  For
NTSC stations that do not have a paired DTV station, the Notice proposes that the stronger DTV principal
community service be required when they seek to switch to DTV operation.  For petitioners seeking a DTV
channel change, the Notice proposes to require a showing that the principal community service requirement
can be met with the proposed DTV allotment facilities or a commitment to elect their NTSC channel for their
post-transition DTV operation.  The 2004 date is two years before the end of the transition, and by that point
DTV broadcasters should be able to achieve their permanent facilities.  That date is at least one year after the
deadline for all broadcasters, including noncommercial broadcasters, to complete construction, and
commercial broadcasters by that date will have been on the air for at least two years.  For these reasons the
Commission believes that it would not be unduly onerous to implement a requirement for a higher principal
community service contour at this date. The Notice invites comment on these proposals and asks commenters
to address whether other measures are necessary in addition to or as an alternative to these proposals to
address the Commission's concerns.

The Notice tentatively concludes that it is now time to begin setting up a process to assure early election by
DTV stations of their post-transition channel.  Stations making the channel conversion at the end of the
transition will need time to plan facilities, order equipment and arrange for construction.  The Notice states
that, with the target date for the end of the transition set for December 31, 2006, it seems reasonable to
identify the channels these stations will be moving to not later than 2004.  To accomplish this, the Notice
states that we could require DTV licensees to make a binding decision and elect one of their two core channels
by early 2004, at the latest and suggests imposing May 1, 2004 as the deadline for election.  This date would
allow at least one year of DTV operation pursuant to our staggered construction schedule (with
noncommercial educational TV stations provided the longest time to construct and required to complete
construction by May 1, 2003).  The Notice seeks comment on whether this date represents the proper balance
between the goals of allowing DTV stations enough time to gain experience with DTV operation and allowing
stations that must move enough time to plan for their DTV channel conversion.  The Notice invites comment
as to whether we are required to impose an earlier date based on recent legislation requiring identification of
175 additional DTV channels within 18 months of the law's enactment.

To the extent the Commission may adopt performance thresholds for DTV receivers, the Commission has
requested comment on timing considerations, which will enable it to take into account potential burdens that
may otherwise be placed on small entity manufacturers of these receivers. In contrast, any action taken with
respect to the DTV transmission standard  (specifically in connection with the 8-VSB standard) will have only
an indirect effect on manufacturers of television equipment designed for use by the industry.  Nevertheless, the
comment sought in the Notice is broad enough to provide the Commission with sufficient opportunity to
address this issue.

6.  Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

None.