Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, 15284-15333 [E8-5662]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 56 (Friday, March 21, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15284-15333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5662]



[[Page 15283]]

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

Part II





Federal Communications Commission





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



47 CFR Part 73



Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing 
Television Broadcast Service; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 56 / Friday, March 21, 2008 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 15284]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MB Docket No. 87-268; FCC 08-72]


Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing 
Television Broadcast Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document disposes of the petitions for reconsideration 
filed in response to the Seventh Report and Order in this digital 
television (``DTV'') Table of Allotments proceeding and also addresses 
the comments filed in response to the Eighth Further Notice of Proposed 
Rule Making in this proceeding. This document finalizes the post-
transition DTV table and provides all eligible stations with a channel 
for digital operation after the transition from analog to digital 
television in February 2009. This document makes several changes to the 
DTV Table in response to petitions for reconsideration and comments and 
establishes in Appendix B the parameters for post-transition operation 
by television broadcasters.

DATES: Effective March 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 87-268, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting 
comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Kim Matthews of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, 
(202) 418-2154.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Seventh Report 
and Order and Eighth Report and Order (``MO&OR'') in MB Docket No. 87-
268, FCC 08-72, adopted March 3, 2008, and released March 6, 2008. The 
full text of this document is available for public inspection and 
copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS 
(https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available 
electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete 
text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request this 
document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio 
recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 
Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

I. Introduction

    1. On August 6, 2007, we adopted a new, and final, Table of 
Allotments for digital television (``DTV'') providing all eligible 
stations with channels for DTV operations after the DTV transition on 
February 17, 2009. Seventh Report and Order and Eighth Further Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making (Seventh R&O and Eighth FNPRM), Advanced 
Television Systems and their Impact Upon the Existing Television 
Broadcast Service, 22 FCC Rcd 15581 (2007) (Seventh R&O and Eighth 
FNPRM). The final DTV Table accommodates all eligible broadcasters, 
reflects to the extent possible the channel elections made by 
broadcasters, and is consistent with efficient spectrum use. The final 
DTV Table also establishes the channels and facilities necessary to 
complete the digital transition and ultimately will replace the 
existing DTV Table at the end of the DTV transition. The post-
transition DTV Table will be codified at 47 CFR 73.622(i). The 
revisions to the post-transition table made herein are attached hereto 
in Appendix A. The current DTV Table, which is contained in 47 CFR 
73.622(b), will become obsolete at the end of all authorized pre-
transition DTV operations. The current NTSC Table, which is contained 
in 47 CFR 73.606(b), will become obsolete at the end of the transition, 
when all full-power analog operations must cease. The existing DTV 
Table continues to govern stations' DTV operations until the end of the 
DTV transition. This MO&OR resolves all petitions for reconsideration 
and related issues in connection with the final DTV Table of 
Allotments.
    2. We received 124 timely filed petitions for reconsideration of 
the Seventh R&O reflecting 221 requests for action on individual 
stations. The vast majority of the petitions request specific changes 
to the DTV Table and/or Appendix B facilities. The DTV Table specifies 
a channel for each eligible full power broadcast television station. 
Appendix B sets forth specific technical facilities--ERP, antenna HAAT, 
antenna radiation pattern, and geographic coordinates--at which 
stations will be allowed to operate. Appendix B also includes 
information on service area and population coverage. In the MO&OR, we 
address these specific requests as well as several more general issues 
raised by some petitioners. In general, we have accommodated the 
requests made by petitioners for changes to the DTV Table and/or 
Appendix B to the extent possible consistent with the interference and 
other standards outlined in the Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making (Seventh FNPRM), 71 FR 66592, November 15, 2006 and the Seventh 
R&O in this proceeding. A large number of the petitions requested 
changes to Appendix B facilities to permit the station to use an 
existing analog antenna when the station returns to its analog channel 
for post-transition digital operations. We addressed and resolved 30 
such requests that were raised during the comment period for the 
Seventh R&O. Where possible, we have made the revisions requested by 
these petitioners. We note, too, that the flexibility we recently 
adopted in the Third DTV Periodic Review Report and Order will provide 
many of the petitioners with the opportunity to request and receive the 
facilities they sought in this docket when the station files its 
application for authorization on its final, post-transition channel. 
Reliance on the application process for modifying facilities is 
consistent with the requests and preferences of several petitioners, as 
described, infra. We also note that when stations filed their petitions 
for reconsideration, they were unaware of the flexibility we would 
provide in the application process, and many filed to preserve their 
rights, while advocating for revision through the application process 
rather than by reconsideration. We also reiterate that requests for 
revisions to Appendix B in this docket, or for modifications in the 
application process, that are attempts to maximize beyond authorized 
post-transition facilities will not be granted at this time. However, 
as provided in the Third DTV Periodic Report and Order, stations will 
have the opportunity to request

[[Page 15285]]

expanded facilities later this year. See Third DTV Periodic Report and 
Order, Section V.E., para. 148.
    3. In addition, we are adopting an Eighth Report and Order (Eighth 
R&O) herein addressing a number of revisions to the DTV Table and/or 
Appendix B proposed in the Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making (Eighth FNPRM). In the Eighth FNPRM, we sought comment on 
tentative channel designations (``TCDs'') for three new permittees and 
identified a number of other proposed revisions to the DTV Table and/or 
Appendix B advanced by commenters in either reply comments or late-
filed comments to the Seventh FNPRM. In the Eighth R&O, we address 
comments received in response to the Eighth FNPRM.

Third DTV Periodic Review

    4. On December 22, 2007, the Commission adopted a Report and Order 
in the Third DTV Periodic Review proceeding. See Report and Order, 
Third Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting 
the Conversion to Digital Television, MB Docket No. 07-91, FCC 07-228 
(rel. Dec. 31, 2007) (``Third DTV Periodic Report and Order'') (73 FR 
5634, Jan. 30, 2008). In the Third DTV Periodic Report and Order, we 
adopted a number of procedures and rules changes designed to provide 
flexibility to broadcasters to ensure that they meet the statutory 
transition deadline and complete construction of their final, post-
transition facilities. Among other things, we established construction 
deadlines for full-power television stations to construct their full, 
authorized post-transition (DTV Table Appendix B) facilities and 
decided that stations moving to a different channel for post-transition 
operation would not be required to construct or complete a digital 
facility on their pre-transition DTV channel. Specifically, the 
Commission established the following construction deadlines: (1) May 
18, 2008 for stations that will use their pre-transition DTV channel 
for post-transition operations and already have a construction permit 
that matches their post-transition (DTV Table Appendix B) facilities; 
(2) August 18, 2008 for stations that will use their pre-transition DTV 
channel for post-transition operations, but which do not have a 
construction permit that matches their post-transition (DTV Table 
Appendix B) facilities; and (3) February 17, 2009 for stations building 
digital facilities based on a new channel allotment in the post-
transition DTV Table and for stations facing a unique technical 
challenge, such as the need to reposition a side-mounted antenna, that 
prevents them from completing construction of their final DTV 
facilities before turning off their analog transmission. In addition, 
we announced our intent to lift the freeze on the filing of 
maximization applications on August 17, 2008, the date by which we 
expect to have completed processing stations' applications to build 
their post-transition facilities. Until this date, we will maintain our 
freeze and, except as discussed below, will not accept maximization 
applications to expand facilities.
    5. We also adopted several policies in the Third DTV Periodic 
Report and Order designed to accommodate stations that apply for 
facilities that deviate to some extent from the facilities set forth in 
the Appendix B adopted herein. For example, we adopted a waiver policy 
that will permit rapid approval of minor (i.e., not exceeding 5 miles) 
expansion applications filed by stations that are moving to a different 
channel (e.g., their analog channel) for post-transition operation. Id. 
Specifically, we will permit stations to expand beyond their authorized 
service area where the station demonstrates that such expansion: (1) 
Would allow the station to use its analog antenna or a new antenna to 
avoid a significant reduction in post-transition service from its 
analog service area; (2) would be no more than five miles larger in any 
direction than their authorized service area, as defined by the post-
transition DTV Table Appendix B; and (3) would not cause impermissible 
interference, i.e., more than 0.5 percent new interference, to other 
stations. We also stated that, while we generally will not permit more 
than 0.5 percent new interference, we will consider on a case-by-case 
basis allowing stations to cause additional new interference if 
stations can demonstrate that they need this additional flexibility to 
serve their analog viewers. Consistent with our existing rules, we will 
also consider on a case-by-case basis stations' negotiated interference 
agreements provided these agreements are consistent with the public 
interest. Id. This policy will allow added flexibility for stations 
that wish to use their existing analog channel antenna, and will help 
the transition process by reducing the demands on equipment suppliers 
and installation crews during a critical time as the transition 
deadline nears. As noted above, we received a number of petitions for 
reconsideration from stations seeking changes to the DTV Table and 
Appendix B to permit them to use their analog antenna when they return 
to their analog channel. The 5-mile waiver policy we adopted in the 
Third DTV Periodic Report and Order, in addition to the relief we grant 
herein, should provide significant relief to stations in this 
situation. In addition, with respect to evaluating interference in 
applications to construct post-transition facilities, we permitted 
stations a limit of 0.5 percent new interference in addition to that in 
the DTV Table Appendix B. This approach provides more flexibility than 
the interference standard proposed in the Third DTV Periodic Review 
NPRM, which would have permitted a total of 0.5 percent interference 
post-transition, rather than 0.5 percent interference in addition to 
existing interference reflected in DTV Table Appendix B. This added 
flexibility in the interference standard, together with the 5-mile 
waiver policy, should permit quick action on and approval of the vast 
majority of applications for the final DTV facilities adopted in the 
DTV Table and Appendix B herein. In the Third DTV Periodic Report and 
Order, we stated that stations should file their applications for post-
transition facilities as soon as possible in order to have the maximum 
time to order equipment and build their facilities. We provided 
expedited processing (generally within 10 days) to stations whose 
applications demonstrate the following requirements: (1) The 
application does not seek to expand the station's facilities beyond its 
final post-transition DTV Table Appendix B facilities; (2) the 
application specifies facilities that match or closely approximate the 
DTV Table Appendix B facilities (i.e., if the station is unable to 
build precisely the facilities specified in DTV Table Appendix B, then 
it must apply for facilities that are no more than five percent smaller 
than its facilities specified in Appendix B with respect to predicted 
population); and (3) the application is filed within 45 days of the 
effective date of the Third DTV Periodic Report and Order, which became 
effective January 30, 2008. Stations that filed a petition for 
reconsideration of the Seventh R&O may receive expedited processing 
provided they file their applications within 45 days of the 
Commission's release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order on 
Reconsideration and otherwise qualify for expedited processing.

II. Discussion

A. General Issues

    6. Most of the petitions for reconsideration filed in response to 
the Seventh R&O pertain to individual

[[Page 15286]]

station situations. We will discuss these petitions in detail below, 
grouped according to the nature of the request. However, a number of 
petitioners raised general issues, and we begin by discussing these 
petitions.
1. MSTV Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification
    7. We grant in part and deny in part the Association for Maximum 
Service Television, Inc. (``MSTV'') Petition for Reconsideration and 
Clarification, which, along with several ex parte letters, urges the 
Commission to afford regulatory flexibility to stations to permit them 
to build post-transition facilities that will serve current viewers. We 
agree with many of the points raised by MSTV and have taken a number of 
steps in this proceeding and in the Third DTV Periodic Review 
proceeding to address their concerns.
    8. MSTV argued in both this docket and the Third DTV Periodic 
Review that the Commission should entertain and grant stations' 
requests as part of the applications process rather than through the 
allotment process based on petitions for reconsideration of the Seventh 
R&O. We agree and grant their petition to the extent that many of the 
requests made by specific broadcasters can be addressed at the 
application stage and do not require adjustments to Appendix B. 
However, we are taking a two-pronged approach by both revising Appendix 
B in response to petitions for reconsideration, where appropriate, and 
providing significant flexibility in the Third DTV Periodic Review 
proceeding for applications for post-transition facilities. These two 
approaches together will permit stations to apply for post-transition 
facilities that match as closely as possible the facilities that the 
station has requested, is authorized to serve, and that reach current 
analog viewers without causing interference to other stations or 
violating the freeze.
    9. MSTV is particularly concerned that the Commission provide 
flexibility to stations that are not currently on their final, post-
transition channels with respect to antenna patterns, particularly 
those stations that want to use their current analog antennas for post-
transition operation. MSTV argues that, as a technical matter, it can 
be difficult and in some cases impossible to build DTV facilities to 
operate on a new channel that will replicate the interim DTV antenna 
pattern, which is the pattern the Commission tried to replicate in the 
DTV Table Appendix B. In addition, MSTV states that many stations would 
like to use their analog antenna for their post-transition operations 
and this antenna may not be capable of replicating precisely the 
antenna pattern reflected in DTV Table Appendix B. MSTV also notes 
that, in light of these difficulties, many stations may have to reduce 
power significantly on the post-transition channel to shrink the 
station's service area in order to keep the service contour within the 
contour allotted on Appendix B. This could result in a loss of service 
post-transition to many current viewers. We shared MSTV's concern in 
this regard and therefore urged stations to file petitions for 
reconsideration, including stations that had not filed during the 
comment cycle following the Seventh FNPRM. These general concerns, as 
well as the specific circumstances portrayed in the individual 
petitions and comments, contributed to the Commission's decisions in 
the Third DTV Periodic Review Report and Order to provide procedures 
and policies affording greater flexibility in the application process.
    10. MSTV notes that, in the Third DTV Periodic Review proceeding, 
broadcasters proposed a number of solutions to address these antenna 
pattern issues. Specifically, MSTV and the National Association of 
Broadcasters (``NAB'') proposed that the Commission permit stations 
returning to their analog channel for post-transition operations and 
planning to use their existing analog antenna to exceed the Appendix B 
service contour by no more than five miles. In addition, in its 
Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification in this proceeding, MSTV 
also proposed, as an alternative measure to address antenna pattern 
concerns, that the Commission apply a more relaxed interference 
standard to stations returning to their NTSC channel (i.e., permit such 
stations to cause a maximum of 2 percent interference for 12 months 
after February 2009) to afford these stations the ability to replicate 
their NTSC coverage. MSTV asserted that the Commission could resolve 
the antenna pattern issue by adopting these proposals in the Third DTV 
Periodic Review proceeding. However, MSTV also urges the Commission to 
grant individual stations' requests for relief if they have filed 
petitions for reconsideration of the Seventh R&O in this proceeding.
    11. As noted above, in the Third DTV Periodic Report and Order we 
adopted a waiver policy that will permit rapid approval of minor (i.e., 
not exceeding 5 miles) expansion applications filed by stations that 
are moving to a different channel (e.g., their analog channel) for 
post-transition operation. This 5-mile waiver policy will allow added 
flexibility for stations that wish to use their existing analog antenna 
and, by permitting more such stations to use existing antennas, should 
reduce the demand for new equipment and installers for the remainder of 
the transition period. While we declined in the Third DTV Periodic 
Report and Order to permit more than 0.5 percent new interference 
generally, we stated that we would consider on a case-by-case basis 
allowing stations to cause additional new interference if stations can 
demonstrate that they need this additional flexibility to serve their 
analog viewers. We also stated that, consistent with our existing 
rules, we would consider on a case-by-case basis stations' negotiated 
interference agreements provided these agreements are consistent with 
the public interest. We decline to adopt any further relief proposed by 
MSTV in this proceeding. As we stated in the Third DTV Periodic Report 
and Order, we believe that the 5-mile waiver policy, together with 
other policies adopted in that Order, provide sufficient flexibility to 
stations, especially when combined with the changes to the DTV Table 
Appendix B we adopt herein for stations that filed petitions for 
reconsideration.
    12. We received a total of 124 timely filed petitions reflecting 
221 requests for changes to the DTV Table and/or Appendix B for 
individual stations. We grant, in whole or in part, 112 of these 
requests. For these stations, as discussed further below, we are 
changing Appendix B to either reflect the specific parameters requested 
by the station for post-transition operation or to otherwise provide 
the station with substantial relief. For stations for whom the revised 
Appendix B adopted herein has been changed to reflect the exact 
parameters sought by the station, these parameters either match a 
current authorization for the station or the station will presumably 
file an application for post-transition operation requesting these 
parameters that will be eligible for expedited processing pursuant to 
the procedures adopted in the Third DTV Periodic Report and Order. 
Thus, for these stations there should be no antenna pattern issue left 
to resolve. With respect to stations for whom the revised Appendix B 
herein provides some but not all of the relief sought by the station, 
the flexibility adopted in the Third DTV Periodic Report and Order will 
permit these stations to file an application for post-transition 
operation that deviates to some extent from these Appendix B 
parameters. The combination of the relief provided herein and the 
flexibility adopted in the Third DTV Periodic Report and Order

[[Page 15287]]

should be sufficient to address antenna pattern concerns for the vast 
majority of stations moving to a new channel post transition.
    13. We grant MSTV's request that, where stations did not seek 
reconsideration of discrepancies between Appendix B and the facilities 
that DTV stations are using or intend to use post-transition, (See 
Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification of MSTV at 8-9.), they 
will not be deemed to have given up any rights to fix these 
discrepancies at the application or licensing stage.
    14. It is worthwhile to clarify that the specific parameters listed 
on DTV Table Appendix B describe each station's service area based on 
its certification during the channel election process. In many cases 
this is a hypothetical facility. See Seventh R&O, 22 FCC Rcd at 15588-
89, paras. 17-18. When a station applies for the construction permit to 
build its facility, it may need to depart to some extent from the 
parameters listed on Appendix B to construct the actual facility, for 
example, to reflect an achievable directional antenna pattern or to 
locate the antenna at a height on the tower where mounting is possible. 
Station applications that cover the same area (or not more than five 
percent smaller) will be processed quickly. For such stations, no 
change to Appendix B will be necessary. For stations that wish to make 
a more significant adjustment, for example, to use their existing 
analog antenna, we will consider their petition for reconsideration, as 
described herein, as well as their forthcoming application for 
construction permit (``CP''). Stations that did not file a petition for 
reconsideration, or filed too late to be considered, may nevertheless 
apply for the facilities they want and we will consider their 
application consistent with the procedures and policies adopted in the 
Third DTV Periodic Review Report and Order.
2. Protection of DTV Allotments
    15. We deny the request of several petitioners to abandon Appendix 
B and rely exclusively on the DTV Table of Allotments, specifying only 
communities and channel numbers and not the specific parameters for 
digital facilities. Contrary to these petitioners' arguments, use of 
Appendix B is consistent with the Commission's longstanding practice 
for analog and digital channel allotments.
3. TV Channels 5 and 6
    16. Mullaney Engineering, Inc. (``MEI'') and EME Communications 
(``EME'') have filed petitions requesting that the Commission eliminate 
the requirement in section 73.525 of the Commission's rules that new FM 
stations protect channel 6 DTV allotments or, alternatively, that it 
altogether eliminate channel 6, and possibly channel 5, from the 
digital TV allotment process and allocate that corresponding spectrum 
to the FM service. Section 73.525 requires that applications for 
construction permits for new or modified facilities for a non-
commercial educational (``NCE'') FM station on Channels 200-220 (88.1-
91.9 MHz) protect affected TV stations operating on channel 6 unless 
the application is accompanied by a written agreement between the NCE-
FM applicant and each affected TV Channel 6 broadcast station 
concurring with the proposed NCE-FM facilities. See 47 CFR 73.525. 
Affected stations are defined as TV Channel 6 stations located within 
specified distances of an NCE-FM station on FM channels 200-220. We 
deny these requests.

B. Requests for Minor Adjustments

    17. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, we 
grant five requests for minor adjustments to station coordinates for 
stations that are remaining on their pre-transition digital channel. At 
this stage in the allotment process, we need make such changes only for 
stations whose pre- and post-transition DTV channels are the same and 
that, therefore, generally need not file an application for 
construction or modification. Where the station's pre- and post-
transition DTV channels are the same, the corrected coordinates are 
specified on a station license or construction permit, and the 
requested change did not result in a change of more than three seconds 
latitude or longitude for the station, we are making the requested 
correction. The stations for which we make such a correction are listed 
in Appendix D1 hereto and the changes requested by those stations are 
reflected in DTV Table Appendix B adopted herein. We deny the requests 
for similar changes from nine stations that are moving to a different 
channel for post-transition operations and that may request such minor 
coordinate changes as part of the station's application for post-
transition facilities. The stations for which we decline to make minor 
adjustments herein but which may request these adjustments in an 
application are: KDSE, Dickinson, ND; KFME, Fargo, ND; KUPK, Garden 
City, KS; WBKO, Bowling Green, KY; WEAU, Eau Claire, WI; WIBW, Topeka, 
KS; WJHG, Panama City, FL; WSAW, Wausau, WI; and KBSH, Hays, KS. Such 
minor changes will not prevent applications that otherwise qualify from 
receiving expedited processing.
    18. Some of the stations listed on Appendix D1 requested 
modification of Appendix B to round a station's geographic coordinates 
to the nearest whole second rather than merely truncate the data. For 
such petitioners whose pre- and post-transition channels are the same, 
and that provided us with station coordinates expressed to the tenth of 
a second, we have revised DTV Table Appendix B herein to round the 
coordinates to the nearest whole second.
    19. In addition, for five stations we deny the request to change 
station coordinates because the geographic coordinates as listed in 
Appendix B match the coordinates listed on the station's license or 
construction permit. The five stations are KSEE, Fresno, CA; WTAP, 
Parkersburg, WV; WTVY, Dothan, AL; KKTV, Colorado Springs, CO; WOWT, 
Omaha, NE. We are revising parameters in Appendix B to match a current 
license or CP, but any desired adjustment to a license or CP itself 
must be requested by application. For each of these five stations, the 
pre- and post-transition DTV channels are the same. Thus, these 
stations already have an authorization on their post-transition channel 
and should revise the coordinates on their license or CP by requesting 
such revisions on FCC Form 302.

C. Requests To Make Changes to Certification

    20. We grant 55 petitions consistent with our treatment in the 
Seventh R&O to permit changes to stations' facility certifications (FCC 
Form 381) based on appropriate demonstrations from these stations where 
such changes are consistent with the circumstances contemplated in the 
Seventh Further Notice. In paragraph 28 of the Seventh Further Notice, 
the Commission recognized that some stations have already constructed 
or received authorization to construct facilities on the station's TCD 
that provide service to areas that extend beyond that to which the 
station certified on FCC Form 381. Because the interference protection 
provided during the channel election process was limited to the 
facilities to which the station certified in FCC Form 381, the 
Commission noted that stations serving or authorized to serve areas 
beyond their certified area could become subject to interference in 
those areas. The Commission stated that it would permit stations in 
this situation to propose to modify their certified facilities to match 
their authorized or constructed facilities. Stations requesting such a 
change were required

[[Page 15288]]

either to (1) submit an engineering analysis demonstrating that the 
proposed change to their certified facilities would not result in 
interference in excess of 0.1 percent to any licensee's existing TCD or 
(2) submit the signed, written consent of every affected licensee. The 
Commission also stated in the Seventh Further Notice that stations in 
these circumstances seeking a change in their certification would be 
required to accept interference from any channel election already 
approved.
1. Requests That Meet the Interference Criteria
    21. We grant 53 petitions, as we did in the Seventh R&O, to permit 
stations to change their facility certifications (FCC Form 381), and 
thus our post-transition DTV Table Appendix B, where such stations have 
demonstrated in a petition for reconsideration that such modification 
of their facilities will conform to licensed or authorized facilities 
and where the proposed change to the Appendix B facilities either meets 
the interference criterion discussed above (i.e., the proposed change 
would not result in interference in excess of 0.1 percent to any 
licensee's existing TCD) or, as discussed further below, the station 
affected agreed to accept the interference. We have made the changes 
requested by these petitioners and the changes are reflected in the 
revised DTV Table Appendix B adopted herein. A list of the stations for 
which we made these changes is attached hereto in Appendix D2. To 
address the requests of those commenters in this group whose stations 
are moving to a different channel for post-transition service, we 
recalculated their post-transition DTV coverage area based on their 
authorized or licensed DTV facility, as indicated by the file number 
shown in Appendix D2. Only one of these stations requires special 
explanation, KPXC, due to its atypical circumstances.
    22. KPXC, Denver, CO. As noted on Appendix D2, we grant the request 
from Paxson Denver License, Inc. (``Paxson''), licensee of station 
KPXC-TV, channel 59, and permittee of KPXC-DT, channel 43, Denver, CO, 
which was allotted channel 43 in the DTV Table in the Seventh R&O. 
Paxson requests that the KPXC certification and Appendix B allotment be 
made consistent with its DTV construction permit originally granted on 
November 29, 2005. While our interference analysis shows that the 
change requested by KPXC would cause 2.2 percent interference to KOAA, 
Pueblo, CO (analog channel 5, digital channel 42 for both pre- and 
post-transition), KOAA has submitted a letter stating that it consents 
to the allotment change requested by KPXC.
    23. As we noted in the Seventh R&O, KPXC has encountered zoning 
issues that have been the subject of litigation. As Paxson is still 
lacking zoning approval for its preferred site for KPXC, it has 
informed the Commission that it will be filing an application to move 
to a new site. According to Paxson, the combination of the changes to 
Appendix B for KPXC granted herein and the flexibility adopted in the 
Third DTV Periodic Report and Order will permit it to file an 
application to specify a new tower site for KPXC. We continue to 
request that Paxson keep us informed concerning any relevant progress 
and events in its zoning case.
2. Requests by Operating Stations That Do Not Meet Interference 
Criteria
    24. We grant requests from two stations, consistent with our 
treatment in the Seventh R&O, to permit stations that are already 
operating their final, post-transition DTV facilities to change their 
facility certifications (FCC Form 381), and thus our post-transition 
DTV Table Appendix B, to reflect those facilities, even though such 
operations will exceed the 0.1 percent interference standard. As 
described below, these stations requested changes to the proposed DTV 
Table Appendix B to reflect operating facilities where we have 
determined that the interference caused to the TCD of another licensee 
exceeds the 0.1 percent interference standard and there is no 
interference agreement with the affected station. While these stations 
are requesting changes to the parameters adopted in the Seventh R&O in 
situations where the level of interference exceeds the relevant 
standard, we find that they have met their burden of demonstrating that 
special circumstances justify a waiver because they are already 
operating their final, post-transition DTV facilities. We believe it is 
unnecessary and unfair to require these already-operational facilities 
to reduce service. In addition, the stations receiving the interference 
have not filed an opposition to the stations requesting the change.
    25. WBNX, Akron, OH. We grant the request of Winston Broadcasting 
Network, Inc. (``Winston''), licensee of station WBNX-TV, channel 55, 
and WBNX-DT, channel 30, Akron, OH, which was allotted channel 30 in 
the DTV Table in the Seventh R&O. Winston requests that the parameters 
for WBNX in Appendix B be changed to conform the antenna ID number to 
the information reflected in the WBNX-DT license. The Commission's 
interference analysis shows that WBNX-DT's licensed facility causes 
0.16 percent interference to WEYI, Saginaw, MI (analog channel 25, 
digital channel 30 for both pre- and post-transition).
    26. KALB, Alexandria, LA. We grant the request of Media General 
Communications Holdings, LLC (``Media General''), licensee of station 
KALB, channel 5, and KALB-DT, channel 35, Alexandria, LA, which was 
allotted channel 35 in the DTV Table in the Seventh R&O. Media General 
requests that the certification and Appendix B parameters for KALB be 
changed. The changes requested would make those parameters consistent 
with the KALB-DT license. The Commission's interference analysis shows 
that KALB-DT's licensed facility causes 0.59 percent interference to 
KARD, West Monroe, LA (analog channel 14, digital channel 36 for both 
pre- and post-transition).

D. Requests for Modified Coverage Area

    27. We grant the requests filed on behalf of 40 stations whose 
post-transition DTV channel is different from their pre-transition DTV 
channel to change the coverage area in the Seventh R&O DTV Table 
Appendix B. The stations for which we are modifying the coverage area 
herein are listed in Appendix D3 and the modified parameters for those 
stations are reflected in Appendix B as modified herein. In general, 
these petitioners argue that the facilities specified in the DTV Table 
Appendix B adopted in the Seventh R&O do not permit the station to 
provide service to the area served by the station's analog facility. We 
deny the requests filed on behalf of 24 stations for which our 
adjustment would result in a smaller facility than that described by 
the parameters on Appendix B as adopted in the Seventh R&O or that 
would shift the station's service area in such a way that existing 
viewers would lose service post-transition. In addition, we deny the 
requests filed by 13 stations for which our adjustment to Appendix B 
would result in impermissible interference. Both groups of 
petitioners--those granted or denied--can apply for desired facilities 
in the application process.
    28. Many of these petitioners plan to return to their station's 
analog channel post-transition and request changes to the parameters 
specified on Appendix B to permit the station to use its existing 
analog antenna. In general, these petitioners argue that it is 
difficult or impossible for the station to use their preferred antenna 
to serve the allotment specified on Appendix B. In many

[[Page 15289]]

cases, in order to stay within this allotment, as required by the 
existing freeze on expansion of a station's contour, the station would 
be required to significantly reduce power, thereby potentially 
resulting in a loss of service post-transition to existing viewers. 
Other petitioners request changes to the power level or antenna 
specified in Appendix B in order to allow the station to continue to 
serve its analog viewers post-transition.
    29. In response to the petitions filed on behalf of these stations, 
we have provided the same relief herein that we provided to similarly 
situated stations in the Seventh R&O. Specifically, we have 
recalculated Appendix B facilities based on replicating the analog 
coverage that was used to determine the station's initial DTV table 
facilities. If the recalculation would result in a reduction in the 
Appendix B facilities or would result in an undesirable shift in the 
station's service area, we are retaining the Appendix B facilities that 
we adopted in the Seventh R&O without change. The stations whose 
Appendix B facilities are not being changed for this reason are: KABY, 
Aberdeen, SD; KAII, Wailuku, HI; KARE, Minneapolis, MN; KAZT, Prescott, 
AZ; KETA, Oklahoma City, OK; KFPH, Flagstaff, AZ; KHAW, Hilo, HI; KHET, 
Honolulu, HI; KMEB, Wailuku, HI; KPNX, Mesa, AZ; KSFY, Sioux Falls, SD; 
KUSA, Denver, CO; KUVI, Bakersfield, CA; KWEX, San Antonio, TX; WBIR, 
Knoxville, TN; WEEK, Peoria, IL; WIRT, Hibbing, MN; WMAE, Booneville, 
MS; WMAZ, Macon, GA; WMMP, Charleston, SC; WNAC, Providence, RI; WOTF, 
Melbourne, FL; WTVX, Fort Pierce, FL; and WZZM, Grand Rapids, MI. 
Although we are not revising Appendix B in these latter cases, we note 
that these stations may be able to obtain much, if not all, of the 
relief they seek when they file an application for their final post-
transition DTV channel pursuant to the rules and procedures adopted in 
the Third DTV Periodic Report and Order. As discussed above, we adopted 
a number of policies in that Order designed to give substantial 
flexibility to stations moving to a different channel for post-
transition digital service, including stations that are returning to 
their analog channel and that plan to use their analog antenna.
    30. If our recalculation of Appendix B based on replication of the 
station's initial DTV table facilities would result in a larger 
coverage area or a desirable coverage area shift, and our analysis 
indicates that the recalculated facilities (1) meet the 0.1 percent 
interference standard specified in the Second DTV Periodic Report and 
Order or (2) would cause more than 0.1 percent new interference but the 
affected station(s) agree to accept the interference, we are granting 
the request to change DTV Appendix B to reflect the larger or shifted 
coverage area. These stations are listed in Appendix D3, and the 
revised parameters for these stations are reflected in the revised DTV 
Table Appendix B, infra. We believe that permitting these changes to 
Appendix B is consistent with our overall goal in the DTV transition of 
encouraging replication of analog service. One of the Commission's 
objectives throughout the transition has been to permit broadcasters to 
reach with digital service the audiences they have been serving with 
analog service so that viewers will continue to have access to the 
stations that they are accustomed to receiving over the air. We remain 
committed to ensuring that viewers maintain the best possible 
television service after the transition date. The revisions granted to 
the stations listed in Appendix D3 are consistent with this goal as 
they will permit these stations to provide digital service to more of 
their established analog viewers.
1. Granted Requests for Which an Opposition Was Filed
    31. For three stations listed on Appendix D3, WUSA, Washington, DC, 
WHAS, Louisville, KY, and WPBN, Traverse City, MI, there was an 
opposition filed to the station's petition for reconsideration. We 
briefly discuss these oppositions and related pleadings below. As 
described above, for all stations listed on Appendix D3, including 
WUSA, WHAS, and WPBN, our recalculation of Appendix B herein resulted 
in a larger coverage area consistent with our interference standards. 
Accordingly, we revised Appendix B for these stations to provide them 
with this larger coverage area. While these revisions to Appendix B may 
not include the specific parameters requested by WUSA, WHAS, and WPBN 
in their petitions, the revised Appendix B parameters together with the 
flexibility adopted in the Third DTV Periodic Report and Order should 
provide to these stations some, if not all, the relief they seek when 
they file applications for post-transition facilities.
    32. WUSA, Washington, DC. We grant, in part, the request of Gannett 
Co. Inc. (``Gannett''), indirect owner of WUSA, channel 9, and WUSA-DT, 
channel 34, Washington, DC, allotted channel 9 in the DTV Table in the 
Seventh R&O. Gannett submitted a petition for reconsideration 
requesting to amend the Form 381 certification of WUSA-DT to specify 
the station's replicated service area rather than the maximized service 
area in order to permit the station to use an existing combined analog 
antenna for its post-transition DTV operations. Sonshine Family 
Television, Inc. (``Sonshine'') filed an opposition to the petition 
claiming that the proposed revised allotment for WUSA would cause 
interference to WBPH-DT, Bethlehem, PA (analog channel 60, post-
transition digital channel 9) in excess of the applicable interference 
standard. Sonshine argued initially that the proposed revised WUSA 
allotment would cause new interference to WBPH of 3.744 percent. In 
response to a later pleading filed by Gannett, Sonshine revised its 
position to support the WUSA proposal if certain power limitations were 
met by the post-transition WUSA facilities. The Commission recalculated 
Appendix B facilities for WUSA pursuant to the process described above 
and performed an interference analysis based on these recalculated 
Appendix B facilities. The Commission's interference analysis shows no 
new interference from the revised Appendix B facilities for WUSA to 
WBPH or any other station and the revised WUSA parameters are reflected 
in the Appendix B adopted herein. While these revised parameters may 
not reflect all of the changes requested by Gannett, the changes to 
Appendix B when combined with the flexibility provided in the Third DTV 
Periodic Report and Order for the application process should provide 
all or much of the relief sought for WUSA.
    33. WHAS, Louisville, KY. We grant, in part, the request of Belo 
Corp. (``Belo''), licensee of WHAS, channel 11, and WHAS-DT, channel 
55, Louisville, KY, allotted channel 11 in the DTV Table in the Seventh 
R&O. Belo submitted a petition for reconsideration requesting that its 
Form 381 certification be amended to specify the WHAS replicated analog 
service area rather than its maximized service area and that Appendix B 
be modified to reflect an omni-directional antenna pattern that would 
permit WHAS to use its existing analog omni-directional antenna for 
post-transition operations. Primeland Television, Inc. filed an 
opposition arguing that the proposed changes to WHAS are premature and 
will cause substantial interference to the post-transition operations 
of WLFI, Lafayette, LA (analog channel 18, post-transition digital 
channel 11). Primeland also states that WLFI has declined to enter into 
an interference agreement with WHAS. Belo acknowledges in its

[[Page 15290]]

petition that its proposed changes to WHAS would cause interference to 
WLFI-DT, but argues that its proposal actually represents a reduction 
from the level of interference currently caused to WLFI-TV by WHAS-TV's 
analog facility. In its opposition, Primeland argues that the 
facilities specified in the DTV Table concern post-transition 
operations and that any masking interference caused by WHAS's analog 
facilities should be disregarded. In reply Belo argues that grant of 
its petition would best serve the public interest as the changes it 
requests for WHAS will permit existing analog viewers of that station 
to receive WHAS digital service, while those changes will not deprive 
any current analog viewers of WLFI of that station's digital service. 
The Commission recalculated Appendix B facilities for WHAS pursuant to 
the process described above and performed an interference analysis 
based on these recalculated Appendix B facilities. The Commission's 
interference analysis shows no new interference from the revised 
Appendix B facilities for WHAS to WLFI or any other station and those 
revised WHAS parameters are reflected in the Appendix B adopted herein. 
While these revised parameters may not reflect all of the changes 
requested by Belo, the changes to Appendix B when combined with the 
flexibility provided in the Third DTV Periodic Report and Order should 
provide all or most of the relief sought for WHAS.
    34. WPBN, Traverse City, MI. We grant, in part, the petition for 
reconsideration filed on behalf of WPBN. Barrington Traverse City 
License LLC, licensee of television station WPBN, channel 7, and WPBN-
DT, channel 50, Traverse City, MI, was allotted channel 7 for post-
transition operations in the Seventh R&O. In its petition for 
reconsideration, Barrington seeks revised technical parameters for 
WPBN's post-transition operations in order to operate at the 
coordinates and height of its channel 7 analog operation, using its 
analog antenna.
    35. WOOD License Company, LLC, licensee of WOOD-TV/DT in Grand 
Rapids, Michigan, opposes Barrington's petition on the grounds that 
granting the requested change for WPBN would cause interference to 
WOOD's post-transition operations on DTV channel 7, resulting in loss 
of service to 11,868 persons or 0.52 percent of WOOD's service 
population. In its reply, Barrington argues that WOOD is incorrect and 
that the requested allotment for WPBN would actually cause 
substantially less interference to WOOD-DT post-transition than is 
caused currently by the WPBN analog facility.
    36. The Commission recalculated Appendix B facilities for WPBN 
pursuant to the process described above and performed an interference 
analysis based on these recalculated Appendix B facilities. The 
Commission's interference analysis shows no new interference from the 
revised Appendix B facilities for WPBN to WOOD or any other station and 
those revised WPBN parameters are reflected in the Appendix B adopted 
herein. While these revised parameters may not reflect all of the 
changes requested by Barrington, the changes to Appendix B when 
combined with the flexibility provided in the Third DTV Periodic Report 
and Order should permit Barrington to obtain at least some of the 
relief it seeks for WPBN.
2. Granted Requests Filed by Stations That Were Previously Addressed in 
the Seventh Report and Order
    37. Petitions for reconsideration were filed on behalf of the 
following stations requesting reconsideration of the Commission's 
decisions in the Seventh R&O regarding the stations. The Commission has 
modified Appendix B herein for these stations and the stations appear 
on Appendix D3 herein. As these petitions relate to particular 
decisions made in the Seventh R&O, they are discussed individually 
below.
    38. KCET, Los Angeles, CA. We grant, in part, the petition for 
reconsideration of Community Television of Southern California 
(``CTSC''), licensee of NCE station KCET, channel 28, and KCET-DT, 
channel 59, Los Angeles, CA, which received channel 28 for its TCD in 
the proposed DTV Table. In its comments filed in response to the 
Seventh Further Notice, CTSC requested that the Commission change DTV 
Table Appendix B to specify maximized parameters for KCET-DT. The 
Commission denied the CTSC request because the KCET maximized 
facilities would cause interference to the certified facilities of 
KEYT, Santa Barbara, CA (analog channel 3, post-transition digital 
channel 27) on its TCD in excess of the permissible 0.1 percent limit. 
In its petition for reconsideration, CTSC states that it has determined 
that Appendix B specifies a different antenna than the current KCET 
analog antenna, which CTSC states is the antenna it has always intended 
to use for its post-transition facility. CTSC requests that the 
Commission modify Appendix B to specify its current antenna, which will 
permit replication of KCET's current NTSC and DTV service areas.
    39. The Commission has recalculated the Appendix B facilities for 
KCET pursuant to the process described above and performed an 
interference analysis based on these recalculated Appendix B 
facilities. The Commission's interference analysis shows no new 
interference to other stations from the revised Appendix B facilities 
for KCET and, accordingly, we have revised Appendix B herein to reflect 
these revised KCET parameters. While these revised parameters may not 
reflect all of the changes requested by CTSC, the changes we make 
herein to Appendix B when combined with the flexibility provided in the 
Third DTV Periodic Report and Order should provide all or most of the 
relief sought for KCET.
    40. WGAL, Lancaster, PA. We grant, in part, the petition for 
reconsideration of Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc. (``Hearst''), parent 
company of the licensees of WGAL channel 8 and WGAL-DT channel 58, 
which was allotted channel 8 for post-transition operations in the 
Seventh R&O. Hearst seeks reconsideration of the Commission's denial of 
its request to change the certified technical parameters for its post-
transition facilities to replicate analog service. Specifically, it 
reiterates its comments filed in response to the Seventh Further Notice 
where it requested an increase in HAAT to 415 meters and a decrease in 
ERP to 5.36kW. In response to these comments, the Commission 
recalculated WGAL's Appendix B facilities based on replicating its 
analog coverage area and determined that the recalculation resulted in 
a reduction in the Appendix B facilities for WGAL. Accordingly, in the 
Seventh R&O, we retained the larger Appendix B facilities that we had 
initially proposed for WGAL. Hearst argues in its petition that the 
Commission erred in its treatment of WGAL in the Seventh R&O because, 
in fact, the recalculated Appendix B facilities based on replication 
would result in a larger coverage area for WGAL.
    41. As Hearst indicates in its petition that it would prefer a 
modified coverage area for WGAL even if that coverage area is smaller 
or shifted from the area on Appendix B, the Commission has recalculated 
the Appendix B facilities for WGAL pursuant to the process described 
above and performed an interference analysis based on these 
recalculated Appendix B facilities. The Commission's interference 
analysis shows no new interference to other stations from the revised 
Appendix B facilities for WGAL and, accordingly, we have revised 
Appendix B herein to reflect these revised parameters.

[[Page 15291]]

3. Requests That Do Not Meet the Interference Standard
    42. As described in greater detail below, we deny the requests from 
13 stations that filed petitions requesting changes to the DTV Table 
Appendix B adopted in the Seventh R&O to increase the station's 
coverage area, because our recalculations of the Appendix B facilities 
and interference analysis show that the requested change would result 
in interference that would exceed the 0.1 percent interference standard 
and the affected station has not agreed to accept this interference. 
None of these petitions request changes to reflect DTV facilities they 
are operating or are authorized to operate. We note, however, that many 
of these stations must file an application for authority to construct 
the station's post-transition facility. As a result of the flexibility 
adopted in the Third DTV Periodic Report and Order, stations whose 
requests for modified coverage area are denied may be able to specify 
facilities in that application that more closely approach the 
parameters requested in the station's petition for reconsideration. The 
following is a list of these stations and a description of their 
individual circumstances.
    43. KEMV, Mountain View, AR. We deny the petition for 
reconsideration filed by Arkansas Educational Television Commission 
(``AETC''), licensee of noncommercial educational station KEMV, channel 
6, and KEMV-DT, channel 13, Mountain View, AR, which was allotted 
channel 13 for post-transition operations in the DTV Table in the 
Seventh R&O. AETC requests that the parameters for KEMV-DT in Appendix 
B be adjusted to include an omnidirectional antenna with an ERP of 6.9 
kW. The Commission's interference analysis based on recalculated 
Appendix B facilities shows that KEMV would cause 0.6 percent 
interference to KTHV, Little Rock, AR (analog channel 11, digital 
channel 12 for both pre- and post-transition), 2.1 percent interference 
KETG, Arkadelphia, AR (analog channel 9, digital channel 13 for both 
pre- and post-transition), and 0.6 percent interference to WHBQ, 
Memphis, TN (analog channel 13, pre-transition digital channel 53, 
post-transition digital channel 13).
    44. WBBM, Chicago, IL. We deny the petition for reconsideration 
filed by CBS Corporation (``CBS''), the ultimate owner of station WBBM, 
channel 2, and WBBM-DT, channel 3, Chicago, IL. CBS filed a petition 
for reconsideration of the Seventh R&O requesting that the parameters 
for WBBM-DT in Appendix B be adjusted to reflect operation with a 
directional antenna and an increase in ERP to 13.6 kW to nearly match 
the carried-over, maximized service contour of WBBM's channel 3 
authorized operations. The Commission's interference analysis based on 
recalculated Appendix B facilities shows that WBBM would cause 0.4 
percent interference to WINM, Angola, IN (analog channel 63, digital 
channel 12 for both pre- and post-transition).
    45. KTVU, Oakland, CA. We deny the petition for reconsideration 
filed by KTVU Partnership (``Cox''), licensee of KTVU, channel 2, and 
KTVU-DT, channel 56, Oakland, CA. KTVU was allotted channel 44 for 
post-transition operations in the DTV Table in the Seventh R&O. Cox 
requests a change in certified facilities and a revision of KTVU-DT's 
allotment in Appendix B to reflect operation with a directional 
antenna, a decrease in ERP to 500 kW, and an increase in HAAT to 513 
meters. The Commission's interference analysis based on recalculated 
Appendix B facilities shows that KTVU would cause 0.6 percent 
interference to KCSM, San Mateo, CA (analog channel 60, digital channel 
43 for both pre- and post-transition) and 0.4 percent interference to 
KBCW, San Francisco, CA (analog channel 44, digital channel 45 for both 
pre- and post-transition).
    46. WTOV, Steubenville, OH. We deny the petition for 
reconsideration of WTOV, Inc. (``Cox''), licensee of WTOV, channel 9, 
and WTOV-DT, channel 57, Steubenville, Ohio. WTOV was allotted channel 
9 for post-transition operations in the DTV Table in the Seventh R&O. 
Cox requests a change in certified facilities and a revision of WTOV-
DT's allotment in Appendix B to reflect operation with a nondirectional 
antenna, an increase in ERP to 12 kW, and an increase in HAAT to 282 
meters. The Commission's interference analysis based on recalculated 
Appendix B facilities shows that WTOV would cause 2.9 percent 
interference to WWCP, Johnstown, PA (analog channel 8, pre-transition 
digital channel 29, and post-transition digital channel 8) and 0.6 
percent interference to WVFX, Clarksburg, West Virginia (analog channel 
46, digital channel 10 for both pre- and post-transition).
    47. WKRG, Mobile, AL. We deny the petition for reconsideration of 
Media General Communications Holdings, LLC (``Media General''), 
licensee of WKRG, channel 5, and WKRG-DT, channel 27, Mobile, AL. WKRG 
was allotted channel 27 for post-transition operations in the DTV Table 
in the Seventh R&O. Media General requests a change in the 
certification for WKRG and a revision of the station's allotment in 
Appendix B to reflect operation with a new antenna ID. The Commission's 
interference analysis based on recalculated Appendix B facilities shows 
that WKRG would cause 1.0 percent interference to WAIQ, Montgomery, AL 
(analog channel 26, digital channel 27 for both pre- and post-
transition).
    48. WRBL, Columbus, GA. We deny the petition for reconsideration 
Media General Communications Holdings, LLC (``Media General''), 
licensee of WRBL, channel 3, and WRBL-DT, channel 15, Columbus, GA. 
WRBL was allotted channel 15 for post-transition operations in the DTV 
Table in the Seventh R&O. Media General requests a change in the 
certification for WRBL and a revision of the station's allotment in 
Appendix B to reflect operation with an increased HAAT of 543 meters. 
The Commission's interference analysis based upon the recalculated 
Appendix B facilities for WRBL shows that WRBL would cause 0.2 percent 
interference to WGXA, Macon, GA (analog channel 24, digital channel 16 
for both pre- and post-transition).
    49. WKMG, Orlando, FL. We deny the petition for reconsideration of 
Post-Newsweek Stations, Orlando, Inc. (``Post-Newsweek''), licensee of 
WKMG, channel 6, and WKMG-DT, channel 58, Orlando, FL. WKMG was 
allotted channel 26 for post-transition operations in the DTV Table in 
the Seventh R&O. Post-Newsweek requests that its post transition DTV 
allotment parameters be modified to reflect use of a polarized 
dielectric antenna with an ERP of 866 kW. The Commission's interference 
analysis based on recalculated Appendix B facilities shows that WKMG 
would cause 0.9 percent interference to WVEA, Venice, FL (analog 
channel 62, digital channel 25 for both pre- and post-transition) and 
0.2 percent interference to WRDQ, Orlando, FL (analog channel 27, pre-
transition digital channel 14, post-transition digital channel 27).
    50. WAFB, Baton Rouge, LA. We deny the petition for reconsideration 
of Raycom Media, Inc. (``Raycom''), licensee of WAFB, channel 9, and 
WAFB-DT, channel 46, Baton Rouge, LA. WAFB was allotted channel 9 for 
post-transition operations in the DTV Table in the Seventh R&O. Raycom 
requests that Appendix B be revised to reflect use of WAFB's existing 
analog omnidirectional antenna. The Commission's interference analysis 
based on recalculated Appendix B facilities shows that WAFB would cause 
1.0 percent interference to WVUE, New Orleans, LA (analog channel 8, 
pre-transition digital channel 29, post-transition digital channel 8) 
and 12.9

[[Page 15292]]

percent interference to KLFY, Lafayette, LA (analog channel 10, pre-
transition digital channel 56, post-transition digital channel 10).
    51. WITV, Charleston, SC. We deny the petition for reconsideration 
filed by South Carolina Educational Television Commission (``SCETV''), 
licensee of WITV, channel 7, and WITV-DT, channel 49, Charleston, SC. 
WITV was allotted channel 7 for post-transition operations in the DTV 
Table in the Seventh R&O. SCETV requests an increase in ERP to 20 kW to 
aid the station in replicating its analog coverage. The Commission's 
interference analysis based on recalculated Appendix B facilities shows 
that WITV would cause 0.2 percent interference to WOLO, Columbia, SC 
(analog channel 25, digital channel 8 for both pre- and post-
transition).
    52. WFUT, Newark, NJ. We deny the petition for reconsideration of 
Univision New York LLC (``Univision''), licensee of WFUT, channel 68, 
and WFUT-DT, channel 53, Newark, NJ, which was allotted channel 30 for 
post-transition operations in the DTV Table in the Seventh R&O. 
Univision requests an increase in ERP and a change to the WFUT antenna 
radiation pattern to aid the station in replicating the WFUT-DT 
coverage area. The Commission's interference analysis based on 
recalculated Appendix B facilities shows that WFUT would cause 0.2 
percent interference to WFME, West Milford, NJ (analog channel 66, 
digital channel 29 for both pre- and post-transition).
    53. WDEF, Chattanooga, TN. We deny the petition for reconsideration 
filed by WDEF-TV, Inc. (``WDEF''), licensee of WDEF, channel 12, and 
WDEF-DT, channel 47, Chattanooga, TN. WDEF was allotted channel 12 for 
post-transition operations in the DTV Table in the Seventh R&O. WDEF 
requests use of its existing nondirectional antenna with a decrease in 
ERP to 13 kW. The Commission's interference analysis based on 
recalculated Appendix B facilities shows that WDEF would cause 0.5 
percent interference to WRCB, Chattanooga, TN (analog channel 3, 
digital channel 13 for both pre- and post-transition).
    54. WWBT, Richmond, VA. We deny the petition for reconsideration 
filed by WWBT, Inc. (``WWBT''), licensee of WWBT, channel 12, and WWBT-
DT, channel 54, Richmond, VA. WWBT was allotted channel 12 for post-
transition operations in the DTV Table in the Seventh R&O. WWBT 
requests an increase in ERP to 12.1 kW. Although WWBT could cause up to 
2 percent interference because it is a station with a pre-transition 
digital allotment out of core that is moving to its analog channel, the 
Commission's interference analysis based on recalculated Appendix B 
facilities shows that WWBT would cause 3.0 percent interference to 
WVEC, Chattanooga, TN (analog channel 13, pre-transition digital 
channel 41, post-transition digital channel 13).
    55. KAAL, Austin, MN. We deny the petition for reconsideration of 
Hubbard Broadcasting Inc. (``Hubbard''), licensee of station KAAL-TV, 
channel 6, and KAAL-DT, channel 33, Austin, MN. KAAL was allotted 
channel 36 for post-transition operations in the Seventh R&O. In its 
petition for reconsideration, Hubbard requests that it be permitted to 
operate post-transition using the existing channel 36 facilities of 
station KTTC-DT, Rochester, MN (analog channel 10, pre-transition 
digital channel 36, post-transition digital channel 10). We find that 
KTTC's facilities are roughly 30 miles from KAAL's current tower and 
that KTTC is licensed to a different community (Rochester, MN instead 
of Austin, MN). Both findings indicate that it would be difficult for 
KAAL to properly serve Austin. In addition, the Commission's 
interference analysis based on recalculated Appendix B facilities that 
KAAL would cause 0.40 percent interference to KWSD, Sioux Falls, SD 
(analog channel 36, pre-transition digital ch