[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