[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16880]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 13, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 74
[MM Docket No. 93-24, FCC 94-148]
Experimental, Auxiliary, and Special Broadcast and Other Program
Distributional Services; ITFS Filing Window
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Order and Further Notice Proposed Rulemaking seeks
comments on issues relating to the filing of applications for new
Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) facilities, applications
for major changes in existing facilities, and major amendments to
pending applications. Earlier in this proceeding, the Commission
solicited comments on a proposal to institute a window filing procedure
for such applications, in order to stem the processing backlog. The
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on how
the Commission's Rules might be revised to enhance the efficiency of a
window filing system. It also lifts the freeze on the filing of
applications of major changes to licensed facilities. The Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking responds to the comments received
in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding.
DATES: Comments are due by August 29, 1994 and reply comments are due
by September 28, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul R. Gordon, Mass Media Bureau, Video Services Division, (202) 418-
1630.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is synopsis of the Commission's Order
and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 93-34,
adopted on June 9, 1994, and released on July 6, 1994. The Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking initiating this proceeding may be found at 58 FR
12011 (March 2, 1993).
The complete text of this Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is available for inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, room 239, at the Federal
Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20554, and
may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Service, at (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street
NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Synopsis of Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. This OFNPRM further considers amending the Commission's rules to
alter the procedures governing the acceptance of applications for new
Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) stations, major
amendments to such applications, or major changes in existing stations.
We also seek comment on several additional proposals put forth by the
commenters and on our motion intended to increase the efficiency and
curtail potential abuse of our application processes. Finally, we
modify the freeze on the filing of major change applications, which we
adopted earlier in this proceeding, to permit the filing of major
change applications and any competing applications thereto.
2. Our goal in this proceeding is to enhance the efficiency of our
processing of ITFS applications. The Notice asserted that changes in
the ITFS service in the last decade have fostered a substantial
increase in the rate of applications filed for new ITFS stations or
major changes in existing stations, creating a significant backlog. The
Notice tentatively concluded that the existing cut-off filing system,
which requires each application to be processed twice, significantly
exacerbates the backlog. We proposed a window filing procedure for
applications for new facilities, applications for major changes in
existing facilities, and major amendments to pending applications. We
would accept such applications only during specific times, or
``windows.'' This would allow us to eliminate the duplicative
processing and control the flow of applications, thereby improving
processing efficiency. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No.
93-24, 58 FR 12011 (March 2, 1993).
3. While most commenters agree that the current filing system is
inefficient and unnecessary, they are divided on the adoption of a
window filing procedure. Supporters of the proposal generally agree
that a window filing procedure will help eliminate the inefficiencies
resulting from the A/B cut-off system that were discussed in the
Notice. Under the A/B cut-off system, educators with wireless cable
lessees would at times file applications simply to be mutually
exclusive with applicants listed on an ``A'' cut-off list. The proposed
window filing procedure would eliminate this practice.
4. However, several commenters argue that the adoption of a filing
window system without concomitant safeguards against abuse would not
increase processing efficiency. According to these parties, a window
filing system would encourage some wireless cable entities to persuade
educational institutions to submit excessively large and unrealistic
numbers of applications, thereby allowing the wireless cable entity to
warehouse spectrum. They assert that such wireless cable entities do
not intend to construct, but rather seek a profitable bargaining
position with allegedly ``legitimate'' wireless cable developers. The
commenters add that a wireless cable operator that plans to construct
may not be ready during a filing window to associate with schools and
prepare its applications. Alternatively, they assert that wireless
cable operators that do intend to construct would have to file
applications in every market in which they hope eventually to operate,
in order to protect themselves from spectrum speculators, diminishing
processing efficiency.
5. Some parties argue that a window filing system is inappropriate
for educational applicants not associated with a wireless cable lessee,
because they require up to 18 months to approve the project and
authorize the funds needed for construction. Thus, NIA states that such
institutions would not be able to respond in time to a Public Notice of
a window. Also, several parties assert that any window filing procedure
must account for the annual January grant application deadline of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\NTIA provides grants to educational institutions for the
construction of ITFS facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Discussion Under the existing cut-off filing system, each
application must undergo a substantive engineering analysis upon
filing, simply to allow the release of an ``A'' cut-off list. No
applications are granted or denied in this stage of processing.
Subsequently, each application undergoes a second technical analysis in
order to determine whether it is grantable. Because each of these
analyses requires significant resources, the elimination of the
duplicative step would substantially improve processing efficiency.
Moreover, a window filing procedure would deny frequency speculators
with no intention to construct the opportunity to file against
applications on an ``A'' cut-off list. These benefits would
significantly improve the Commission's workflow management.
7. In addition, the record reflects that educators would be able to
prepare adequately for each subsequent filing period, due especially
but not solely to the significant involvement of wireless cable
operators in financing and constructing the facilities. Most of these
wireless cable operators have substantial experience in filing for
Commission licenses. The record reflects no reason why educators
without excess capacity leases will not be able to prepare as before
for the financing and construction of an ITFS facility. An ongoing
series of filing windows will still ensure an opportunity for such
educators to file when they are ready. Indeed, because ``A'' cut-off
lists are not announced in advance or released pursuant to a formal
schedule, these educators would be in the same position under the
window system as they are now. Consequently, educators that do not rely
on excess capacity lessees will not be disadvantaged by the change to a
window filing system. for the same reason, the consequences are
identical as under the existing system for parties simply not prepared
to file during a window.
8. Also, in order not to obstruct NTIA grants, we propose allowing
each December the tendering of applications that rely upon NTIA
funding. We would consider such applications, if filed outside a window
period, as having been filed during the immediately following window.
9. Accordingly, we are inclined to adopt the window filing
procedure. We also acknowledge the concerns of the commenters that the
window filing procedure may not by itself alleviate the problems faced
by applicants and the Commission. Thus, as discussed further below, we
seek comment on how we can achieve the significant benefits of a window
filing system while minimizing filing practices that impede efficient
processing.
Proposals To Improve the Application Process
10. Financial Qualifications To deter a significant number of ITFS
speculators, some commenters advocate requiring applicants or their
proposed wireless cable lessees to submit with their applications proof
of their financial ability to construct.\2\ Moreover, they propose
requiring separate financial documentation for each station applied
for, and making the wireless cable lessee submit the documentation when
it is paying for construction of the facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Currently, applicants are required to certify their financial
ability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. We request comment on this proposal. We believe that its
adoption may deter a significant number of speculative applications.
However, we recognize that adoption would entail significant costs.
Compiling the necessary documentation could impose a significant burden
on educational institutions, especially those not leasing their excess
capacity. Further, any enhanced efficiency might be eviscerated by our
having to allocate substantial staff resources to the analysis of each
financial submission. In addition, the requirement could become a basis
for the filing of frivolous petitions, further delaying the grant of
applications. We seek comment on how to balance these costs and
benefits. Moreover, we note that wireless cable lessees are not parties
to ITFS applications. Thus, we ask commenters to address whether it
would be appropriate to require lessees to routinely submit
demonstrations of their financial ability. Commenters should also
address whether our existing rules and policies on misrepresentation
sufficiently prohibit parties from falsely certifying their financial
ability to construct.
12. Application Caps Next, we turn to two related proposals by the
Educational Parties. The first is a cap of three to five applications
that an individual nonlocal ITFS entity could file during a window.
Such applicants, according to the Educational Parties, often work with
frequency speculators and, backed by these wireless cable entities,
submit a number of applications simply to bargain with other wireless
cable entities seeking to construct a viable wireless cable system.
Second, they propose an additional cap of 25 applications associated
with the same wireless cable entity, including any entity with direct
or indirect common ownership or control. According to the Educational
Parties, wireless cable lessees should have to file with their
associated ITFS applications information detailing who has any direct
or indirect interest in the wireless cable lessee, including any
interests as an owner, officer, or director.
13. We invite comments on whether circumstances at this time
warrant inquiry into either of the proposed measures. Adoption of
either proposal might diminish the number of applications submitted,
thereby easing the processing burden substantially. In addition, it
would likely limit multiple filings by frequency speculators and their
affiliated applicants. However, wireless cable operators require a
minimum number of channels with which to operate a viable wireless
cable system. Thus, stringent caps could obstruct the rapid development
of robust wireless cable systems that can vigorously compete in the
rapidly expanding video marketplace. They could also retard the
development of ITFS systems, which often obtain funding from the
wireless cable lessees. Also, commenters should address how to justify
the proposed discrimination against nonlocal applicants. We note that
such entities establish eligibility through letters of intended use
from an official of each receive site, and through the service on a
local programming committee of an official of each receive site. Thus,
we invite commenters to address whether and what kinds of limitations
would promote both ITFS and wireless cable development. How can we
balance the efficiencies of such limitations with the costs they might
impose? If an application ceiling would serve the public interest, how
many applications associated with one entity should we allow per
window? How would we define common control for the purpose of either
ITFS or wireless cable? Should we base our definition on actual
control, or on attribution of ownership?
14. Expedited Consideration of Applications The Educational Parties
and WCA propose that, under certain circumstances, we give expedited
consideration to ITFS applications in return for the applicant's
agreeing to an accelerated construction schedule. WCA suggests that a
wireless cable lessee be able to request and obtain expedited
consideration of an application with which it is associated, if the
lessee has access to a certain minimum number of channels in the
area.\3\ In return, grantees would be required to order their equipment
within 21 days of Public Notice of the grant, and construct the
facilities within six months. Extensions would be granted only under
compelling circumstances, such as the inability of the manufacturer to
deliver timely ordered equipment, or accidental damages to essential
equipment. WCA claims that adoption of the proposal would accelerate
the development of both ITFS and wireless cable systems. In addition,
the Educational Parties propose that educators without excess capacity
leases also have access to such expedited consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\WCA proposes expedited consideration only if the wireless
cable lessee already has 12 channels, at least 4 of which are MDS.
This would include licensed access to MDS or ITFS stations, cut-off
non-mutually exclusive proposed MDS facilities, and/or proposed ITFS
stations (including the ones at issue). WCA Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. While we do not now view the implementation of the proposal as
practical, we invite comments on the proposal and how it might be
implemented. The staff may have to expend substantial resources
determining which applications were eligible for expedited
consideration, enforcing the requirement for ordering equipment, and
enforcing the construction deadline, thereby delaying service to the
public. Also, would the public be served if we denied an extension
request when construction is nearly complete at the end of the six
months? Finally, the likely substantial number of applicants requesting
expedited consideration could defeat the purpose of the proposal. In
the alternative, would processing efficiency be adequately improved by
a stricter enforcement of the existing requirements for extensions of
time?
16. Assignment of Construction Permits We now turn to a related
proposal to diminish the incentive of frequency speculators to submit
applications for permits that they intend to later assign for profit.
We propose to formalize our current practice of limiting the allowable
consideration for unbuilt ITFS facilities to out-of-pocket expenses, as
is now applied to the sale of broadcast construction permits. We seek
comment on the proposal.
17. Application of the Four-Channel Rule Section 74.902(d) of the
Commission's Rules generally limits an ITFS licensee to four channels
for use in a single area of operation. However, we have not clearly
defined what constitutes an ``area of operation'' for the purpose of
the rule. A clear benchmark would make the standard easier for
applicants to comply with and would also increase the speed of
processing.
18. The staff has considered a single area of operation for this
purpose to extend no farther than 20 miles from the transmitter site.
We seek comment on whether we should adopt that figure as a rule.
Commenters should address whether an educational institution is likely
to routinely serve an area extending beyond that radius. Alternatively,
should we instead define an area of operation in terms of interference,
rather than of distance? Specifically, we seek comment on whether we
should consider two sites to be in different areas of operation, as
long as one could operate at maximum authorized power on the same
channel at each site without co-channel interference.
19. Offset We next turn to our policies toward offset.\4\
Currently, we apply the 28dB D/U ratio standard to determine co-channel
interference. However, we do not require offset if an objection is
raised by one of the affected parties. Instead, we have encouraged
privately negotiated agreements to use offset to resolve interference.
Consequently, we must decide between two mutually exclusive
applications when, if the applicants used offset, both could serve the
public without objectionable co-channel interference. To require offset
between otherwise grantable mutually exclusive ITFS applicants would
help maximize the number of educational entities that can avail
themselves of the service. Thus, we propose requiring the use of offset
in such circumstances when all affected transmitters are capable of
handling frequency offset stability requirements. Such a requirement,
we believe, would both accelerate the granting of applications and
allow for a greater number of ITFS licensees, thereby increasing
service to the public. Also, although we currently require new
applicants to use equipment capable of utilizing offset, we have not
always done so. Accordingly, we would not apply the proposed rule to
facilities predating the requirement that lack offset capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\A licensee utilizing offset operates at a frequency either
slightly higher or slightly lower than the standard frequency for
that channel. Specifically, such a licensee operates its facilities
with a carrier frequency 10 kHz from the nominal carrier
frequency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Protected Service Areas. In addition to receive site
protection, ITFS applicants can request interference protection for a
service area.\5\ We provide such protection only at an applicant or
licensee's request. Generally, such protection benefits the wireless
cable lessee, because the protected service area ensures interference
protection within an area where receive sites are not specified, or
extended protection over an area where receive sites are not currently
located. Moreover, the protection is afforded only during the hours
that the wireless cable entity is using the channels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Sections 74.903 (d) and (e) of the Commission's Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Protected service areas are intended to provide a measure of
protection to wireless cable lessees, in order to promote the
inauguration of new or improved wireless cable service. However, the
protected service area has frequently been used in ways that we had not
contemplated. Specifically, applicants for new facilities often request
and receive interference protection that restricts an existing licensee
from seeking certain modifications to its facilities. In addition,
otherwise grantable ITFS applications in adjacent communities often
obtain interference protection, causing them to become mutually
exclusive with a previously filed application. At the same time, an
existing facility that has not requested such protection often, upon
learning that an application for a nearby operation has been filed,
requests interference protection and thereby obstructs the new
applicant. We believe that these practices may be an abuse of our
processing system driven by certain wireless cable lessees, designed to
prevent or dilute competition. Further, this practice significantly
impacts our processing and delays the inauguration of new or improved
service to the public. Moreover, such practices unfairly disrupt
existing operations and already-proposed facilities.
22. In order to hasten service to the public, then, we propose to
modify our application of interference protection. Specifically, we
propose to apply such protection only prospectively. Thus, it would be
effective only with regard to applications filed after the protection
request. Commenters are invited to address whether our proposal would
sufficiently diminish the disruption and delay resulting from the
current method of granting interference protection. We also seek
comment on a particular application of the proposed rule. Specifically,
if two applications submitted during the same filing window, otherwise
grantable, are mutually exclusive only because both applicants request
a protected service area, we propose to consider them as mutually
exclusive. We invite comments on this proposal.
23. Receive-Site Interference Protection. Pursuant to Sec. 74.903
(d) and (e) of the Commission's Rules, an ITFS licensee, permittee, or
applicant may request interference protection for its receive sites.
The rule does not expressly limit the distance a receive site may be
from the transmitter in order to receive such protection. As a result,
we have received numerous applications in which interference protection
has been requested for receive sites that appear to be beyond the
reasonable coverage ability of an educational institution. We believe
that such requests are an abuse of our processes, designed to increase
artificially the service area of the wireless cable lessee. We also
believe that the elimination of this practice would significantly
increase the efficiency of our processing of applications, thereby
hastening service to the public.
24. Given an ITFS facility's height, power, frequency, and mode of
transmission, our experience suggests that it is generally unlikely
that an educational institution would reasonably serve a receive site
that is more than 35 miles from the transmitter. Thus, absent a showing
of unique circumstances, we propose to provide protection only for
those receive sites 35 miles or less from the transmitter. Further, we
propose that an applicant not be able to claim eligibility for a
license by use of any receive site more than 35 miles from the
transmitter. Applicants are invited to address this proposal.
25. Major Modifications. We classify applications to modify an
existing ITFS facility or to amend a pending application as either
major or minor, attaching different procedural rules to each.\6\ We
generally define major modifications as those that significantly impact
an existing or proposed facility. Pursuant to the window proposal, the
Commission will accept major amendments and applications for major
modifications only during an open window period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Section 74.911 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 74.911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. However, the current definition of minor changes, we believe,
does not realistically take into account the impact that the proposed
change would have on the facility in question, nearby facilities, or
proposed facilities.\7\ Applicants frequently submit applications for
changes that would substantially affect the operations of such
facilities, yet we now treat many of these changes as minor.
Accordingly, we propose to reclassify certain changes as major.
Consequently, we would accept amendments and applications for such
changes only during a window filing period. We believe that this action
would more accurately reflect the impact of a proposed change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Section 74.911 classifies a small number of specified changes
as major and defines all other changes as minor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. We have had an informal policy of considering proposals to
relocate a facility's transmitter site by 10 miles or more as a major
change. We now propose to modify our rules to make this policy formal.
In addition, we propose to reclassify as a major change any application
or amendment involving: (1) Any polarization change; (2) the addition
of any receive site that would experience interference from any
licensee or applicant on file prior to the submission of the amendment;
(3) an increase in the EIRP in any direction by more than 1.5 dB;\8\
(4) an increase of 25 feet or more in the transmitting antenna height;
or (5) any change that would cause interference to any previously
proposed application or existing facility. We note that by limiting the
opportunity to file the above types of applications, adoption of the
proposal would appear to somewhat diminish a licensee or applicant's
flexibility to respond to changing needs and circumstances. At the same
time, however, we believe that adoption of the proposed rules would
make our classification of changes more consistent. By doing so, we
believe, we would enhance the efficiency of the window filing system.
Thus, it appears that the benefits gained from the rule would outweigh
the costs. We seek comment on our analysis. Finally, we propose to
exempt from the new rule any change that resolves mutually exclusive
applications without creating new frequency conflicts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Thus, TPO would no longer be the deciding factor in
determining whether a change is major.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. FAA Authorization. Pursuant to Section 17.4 of the Commission's
Rules, we do not grant or modify a license until the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) has determined that the proposed transmitter site
will not pose a hazard to air navigation. Applicants now state in their
applications that they have applied for FAA clearance. However, once
that clearance is obtained, applicants are not required to inform the
Commission. To hasten the time that our staff learns of the FAA's
hazard determinations, we propose to require the applicant to inform
the Commission of the FAA's determination. We believe that this would
accelerate service to the public. Commenters are invited to address the
costs and benefits of adopting the proposal.
29. Interference Studies. Applicants often claim that their
proposed facilities will cause no harmful interference, based either on
their being beyond the radio horizon or on their signal being blocked
by nearby terrain. However, such applicants frequently provide no
terrain profiles to support such claims. Furthermore, whenever an
applicant files a proposal claiming that no interference will be cause
due to the signal's being blocked by the surrounding terrain, a
question almost always arises as to the amount of signal that will be
blocked. Many applicants conclude that any terrain obstruction,
regardless of degree, completely blocks the signal. Our experience has
demonstrated that this conclusion is not necessarily true.
30. Accordingly, we propose to amend the rules to require the
submission of terrain profiles and a quantitative analysis of any
additional signal loss calculated by using the Longley-Rice propagation
model, Version 1.2.2, in the point-to-point mode. Adoption of the
proposal would make mandatory a technical analysis that many applicants
already use. The Longley-Rice model was derived from NBS Technical Note
101 and updated in 1982 by G. A. Hufford. Version 1.2.2 incorporated
modifications described in a memorandum by Hufford in 1985. Terrain
elevations used as input to the model should be from the United States
Geological Survey three-second or 30-second digitized terrain
databases. Further, we propose to disregard any claim of signal
blockage caused by artificial structures. Such claims usually make
impossible any quantitative analysis. Accordingly, we seek comment on
these proposals.
31. Reasonable Assurance of Receive Sites. We have received a
number of applications in which some of the schools listed as receive
sites have subsequently informed us that they had, in fact, not agreed
to participate in the proposed ITFS system. This practice forces the
Commission to allocate its scarce resources processing an inaccurate
application, then reprocessing it (and related mutually exclusive
applications) when the information is corrected. Such duplicative
processing significantly delays the final disposition of all ITFS
applications. Therefore, we seek comment on how an applicant should
demonstrate reasonable assurance of a receive site's legitimacy. We
propose requiring a letter of assurance from the applicant, listing the
receive sites' contact people, titles, and telephone numbers. With
regard to noncompliance with any new requirement, should we
automatically decline to consider any proposed receive site without
adequate assurance?
32. Accreditation of Applicants Currently, pursuant to Section
74.932 of the Commission's Rules, an applicant to construct new
facilities must report whether it, its members, or the receive sites it
serves are accredited. The application form does not require the
educator to specify whether it is the applicant or its members that are
accredited. This ambiguity has opened the door to abuse of our
procedures. Consequently, we have received applications in which the
applicant is an accredited organization, but it proposes receive sites
at non-accredited institutions. Applicants often evade the intent of
the rule by having only one receive site out of many accredited,
thereby defeating the fundamental purpose of the service, which is to
serve the educational needs of accredited institutions.
33. Thus, we propose to require applicants to state whether and by
whom each school listed as a receive site in accredited. We also
propose not to consider in a tie-breaking proceeding a receive site
that lacks this accompanying information, or that is unaccredited, as
that would allow it unwarranted comparative consideration. Commenters
are invited to address other ways we should utilize the additional
information. Should we require a majority of receive sites to be
accredited in order for the application to be grantable? Should we deny
interference protection for any unaccredited receive site? We invite
commenters to address any or all of the above proposals. However, we do
not wish to limit the range of comments in this area. Thus, we welcome
other proposals besides those discussed above that would safeguard both
the efficiency of a window filing system and the integrity of our
processes.
Freeze of New Applications
34. In the Notice we announced that, for a period of time, we would
not accept applications for new ITFS facilities or for major changes to
existing facilities. We expressed our concern that potential applicants
would inundate the Commission with applications while the old cut-off
rule was still in effect, thereby defeating the purpose of the proposed
rulemaking. However, we stated that we would continue to accept (but
not process) applications in which the applicant relies on NTIA for
construction funds. We have also continued to accept major change
proposals where they are filed in the same market to accommodate
settlement agreements among applicants that have previously achieved
cut-off status and where the settlement resolves mutually exclusive
applications.
35. Upon publication of this Order and Further Notice in the
Federal Register, we shall instruct the staff to begin accepting
applications for major changes to existing facilities, and any mutually
exclusive applications thereto. Such applications will be processed
under the existing A/B cut-off rules. We believe that this will ease
the burden that the freeze has caused to educational institutions that
seek to alter their existing facilities. Licensees and those filing
competing applications may file such applications until the effective
date of any window filing rules. We note that this Order and Further
Notice contemplates modifying our definition of a major change. For the
purposes of modifying the freeze, we shall use the existing definition
of the term. Any pending major modification application not cut off as
of the adoption of this Order and Further Notice will be considered in
conjunction with the newly submitted applications.
Administrative Matters
Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.415 and 1.419, interested
parties may file comments on or before August 29, 1994, and reply
comments on or before September 28, 1994. To file formally in this
proceeding, you must file an original and five copies of all comments,
reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner
to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original
plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply comments to the
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington,
DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center,
room 239, at the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 74
Instructional Television Fixed Service, Television broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
LaVera F. Marshall,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-16880 Filed 7-12-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
