[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 236 (Friday, December 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30323]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 9, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 21 and 74

[MM Docket No. 94-131 and PP Docket No. 93-253, FFC 94-293]

 

Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in 
the Instructional Television Fixed Service, including Electronic Filing 
and Competitive Bidding

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes a number of alternative procedures for 
the filing of new station applications for single channel and 
multichannel Multipoint Distribution Services (MDS). These procedures 
are designed to expedite processing and facilitate development of 
wireless cable, an industry that delivers video programming to 
subscribers using MDS and Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) 
channels. This proceeding is intended to expedite more service to the 
public and enhance opportunities for wireless cable to reach its 
potential as a competitor to wired cable.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 9, 1995, and 
reply comments must be received on or before January 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply comments may be mailed to Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Bertelsen at (202) 416-0892 or 
Jerianne Timmerman at (202) 416-0881, Video Services Division, Mass 
Media Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The following collection of information contained in these proposed 
rules has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for 
review under Section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Copies of 
the submission may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Service, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, 
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800. Persons wishing to comment on 
this information collection should direct their comments to Timothy 
Fain, (202) 395-3561, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102 NEOB, 
Washington, DC 20503. A copy of any comments should also be sent to the 
Federal Communications Commission, Office of Managing Director, 
Washington, DC 20554. For further information contact William Cline, 
Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-0210. OMB Number: None. An 
existing collection of information, OMB No. 3060-0402, titled 
``Application for New or Modified Microwave Radio Station License Under 
Part 21'' proposes changes to FCC Form 494. This Notice proposes to 
create a separate paper application form to be used for a new MDS 
facilities, and an electronic form to be used for new MDS and ITFS 
facilities.
    Title: Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules with 
Respect to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service and 
in the Instructional Television Fixed Service.
    Form: Undetermined.
    Action: Proposed New Collection.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit, small businesses or 
organizations.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Annual Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Annual Response: 734-17,000, 4 hours per response.
    Needs and Uses: This long-form is proposed to be limited to the 
filing of applications and related amendments for new Multipoint 
Distribution Service stations. The data would be used to ensure that 
the respondent is qualified to become a Commission licensee.
    The complete text of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking follows. It 
is also 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 it may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Service, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 
140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
    1. By this action, the Commission proposes to streamline the 
procedures by which applications for new facilities in the Multipoint 
Distribution Service (MDS)\1\ are filed and processed. We propose to 
adopt filing procedures consistent with our competitive bidding 
procedures. To do this, we propose that applicants file short-form 
applications for predetermined geographic areas and the successful 
bidders file long-form applications. We believe that implementation of 
this process would avoid the lengthy delay associated with licensing 
stations site-by-site, and therefore would allow operators to enhance 
their service more rapidly, providing more competition to wired cable. 
However, we also invite comment on alternative filing procedures, 
including a national filing window and one limited to existing 
licensees and system operators. We solicit comment on the technical and 
practical feasibility of utilizing a mandatory electronic filing 
approach in conjunction with each of these filing approaches.\2\ 
Finally, we invite any other proposals that would allow the Commission 
to process MDS applications for new stations more efficiently and 
result in more MDS service opportunities becoming available to the 
public. We limit the scope of this proceeding to revisions to our rules 
and procedures that will improve the MDS application processes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\In this proceeding, unless otherwise indicated, ``MDS'' 
includes single channel and multichannel applications and 
authorizations collectively.
    \2\There is now outstanding an Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 93-24, 9 FCC Rcd 3348 (1994), 
59 FR 35665 (July 13, 1994), in which the Commission is considering 
further improvements to the Instructional Television Fixed Service 
(ITFS) licensing process, including adoption of a window filing 
procedure. The only aspect of this proceeding which we propose to 
apply to apply to ITFS is the electronic filing proposal.
    \3\As noted in footnote 2, supra, the electronic filing proposal 
if implemented would also apply to the ITFS application proceeding. 
In response to a July 28, 1993 Public Notice, we received several 
comments on ways the Commission could expedite the processing of MDS 
applications. We have considered those views in our drafting of this 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and we will incorporate those 
materials in the public record of this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Our goal in instituting this proceeding is to facilitate 
development of the wireless cable industry\4\ and to continue our 
efforts to coordinate the processing of MDS and ITFS applications. The 
Commission has consistently maintained that, in providing 
communications services, the public interest is better served by 
competition. A competitive industry framework promotes lower prices for 
services, provides incentives for operators to improve those services 
and stimulates economic growth. An essential component of competition 
is choice. As we recognized in our recent report to Congress, consumers 
in the market for video programming do not have enough choices.\5\ 
Although competing technologies have made major strides since the 
previous report on cable competition in 1990, the cable television 
market remains largely noncompetitive. With respect to wireless cable, 
we reported that more systems are being built, the number of 
subscribers has increased, and program access provisions and changes in 
other regulations have given wireless cable operators a better foothold 
in competition with wired cable, including the credibility to gain 
access to financing. Competition Report at paras. 79, 80 and 90. 
However, the difficulty of accumulating sufficient channel capacity 
remains a major obstacle to many wireless cable operators. According to 
the Competition Report, the combination of administrative improvements 
in wireless cable licensing and the use of digital compression\6\ 
should help to alleviate this problem in the future. Id. at para. 90. 
This rulemaking is one of several administrative improvements directed 
toward enhancing the development of wireless cable operators as viable 
competitors in the video programming marketplace. It will also further 
the policies set forth by Congress in the 1992 Cable Act to ``* * * 
promote the availability to the public of a diversity of views and 
information through cable television and other video distribution 
media.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\``Wireless cable'' is the delivery of video programming to 
subscribers using MDS and/or ITFS channels. Wireless cable resembles 
cable television, but instead of coaxial cable, wireless cable uses 
microwave channels. Our use of the term ``wireless cable'' does not 
imply that it constitutes cable television for statutory or 
regulatory purposes.
    \5\Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market 
for the Delivery of Video Programming (Competition Report), CS 
Docket No. 94-48, FCC 94-235 (released Sept. 28, 1994). The 
Commission is required to file such annual reports pursuant to the 
Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 
(1992 Cable Act), Pub. L. No. 102-385, Section 628(g), 106 Stat. 
1460 (amending the Communications Act of 1934), codified at 47 
U.S.C. 548(g).
    \6\Digital compression is a technology that employs various 
techniques to reduce the number of bits required to transmit a 
program. Therefore, for a given channel bandwidth and digital 
transmission rate, an operator may, depending on circumstances, 
transmit a single uncompressed program or multiple compressed 
programs. For example, a six-to-one compression ratio permits the 
operator to offer six program channels from one 6 MHz frequency 
bandwidth.
    \7\1992 Cable Act Section 2(b)(1), 106 Stat. at 1463. An 
essential element of the 1992 Cable Act is promoting increased 
competition and diversity by fostering the development of 
alternative multichannel video programming distributors (MVPD). The 
term ``MVPD'' means ``a person such as, but not limited to, a cable 
operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct 
broadcast satellite service, or a television receive-only satellite 
program distributor, who makes available for purchase, by 
subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming.'' 
Communications Act Section 602(12), 47 U.S.C. 522(12). In markets 
where effective competition is present, the government will no 
longer need to regulate cable rates, as required by the 1992 Cable 
Act, because cable rates will be regulated by the marketplace. 
Communications Act Section 623(a)(2), 47 U.S.C. 543(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. When the Commission reallocated eight channels to MDS in 1983, 
thereby creating wireless cable as a multichannel video distribution 
medium, a variety of application procedures existed because wireless 
cable system operators used a combination of channels accumulated from 
a variety of Commission services with differing sets of rules, 
procedures and policies.\8\ One of the major obstacles faced by 
wireless cable operators over the years has been the difficulty 
involved in accumulating the number of channels necessary to meet 
subscriber demand and be able to compete with wired cable television 
systems in the same area. There are a maximum of thirty-three microwave 
channels available for wireless cable systems. This includes thirteen 
MDS channels (Channels 1, 2 or 2A, E1-E4, F1-F4 and H1-H3) and the 
excess capacity in the twenty ITFS channels (Channels A1-A4, B1-B4, C1-
C4, D1-D4 and G1-G4).\9\ In an effort to consolidate and promote the 
expeditious processing of applications for licenses that may be used to 
provide wireless cable services into one organization, the Commission 
recently transferred responsibility for MDS from the Common Carrier 
Bureau to the Mass Media Bureau. Amendment of Parts 0 and 1 of the 
Commission's Rules to Reflect a Reorganization of Multipoint and 
Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Services, 9 FCC Rcd 3661 (1994), 
59 FR 38374 (July 28, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\Report and Order in Gen. Docket No. 80-112, 94 FCC 2d 1203 
(1983), 48 FR 33873 (July 26, 1983). Therein, the Commission 
reallocated eight of the ITFS channels for use by MDS nationally, 
grandfathered interference protection to existing E or F ITFS 
applicants, permittees or licensees, approved cash payments by MDS 
entities for vacating ITFS channels, and authorized ITFS licensees 
to lease the excess capacity on their systems to wireless cable 
operators.
    \9\In some locales, there are twenty-eight ITFS channels due to 
the 1983 grandfathering of ITFS entities. In 1991, the Commission 
reallocated the H-group channels from the Operational Fixed Service 
to MDS and made MDS operators eligible for authorization on vacant 
ITFS channels with specified restrictions. Second Report and Order 
in Gen. Docket No. 90-54, 6 FCC Rcd 6792, 6793-94, 6801-06 (1991), 
56 FR 57808 (Nov. 14, 1991). In 1992, the frequency spectrum of 2160 
MHz to 2162 MHz (of the former frequency allocation of 2156 MHz to 
2162 MHz, MDS Channel 2) was reallocated to emerging technologies, 
leaving MDS Channel 2A, a 4 MHz channel. Redevelopment of Spectrum 
to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications 
Technologies, ET Docket No. 92-9, 7 FCC Rcd 6886, 6889 n.22 (1992), 
57 FR 49020 (Oct. 29, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. For a number of years, the Commission has been concerned that 
the volume of MDS applications filed by speculators has caused delays 
in the licensing process and has overburdened the Commission's limited 
resources. A rule revision aimed at addressing this problem was adopted 
in the Report and Order in Gen. Docket Nos. 90-54, 80-113, 5 FCC Rcd 
6410, 6424 (1990), 55 FR 46006 (Oct. 31, 1990); Order on 
Reconsideration, Gen. Docket Nos. 90-54, 80-113, 6 FCC Rcd 6764 (1991), 
56 FR 57596 (Nov. 13, 1991), petition for review filed, United States 
Independent Microwave Television Association v. FCC and United States 
of America, No. 91-1637 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 20, 1991) (held in 
abeyance by Court Order of February 21, 1992, pending action on the 
second set of reconsideration petitions). The rule, commonly referred 
to as the ``same calendar day rule'' is found in Section 21.914 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 21.914. Under this rule, an MDS application 
for a new station that is acceptable for filing will be mutually 
exclusive with any other MDS application which is acceptable for filing 
for the same service area and frequency if it is received by the 
Commission on the same calendar day as the first such MDS application 
received by the Commission. This rule change eliminated the opportunity 
for speculators simply to copy applications that were previously filed 
and resubmit them under different names. However, because of our rules 
authorizing lotteries and settlement groups, the filing of applications 
for new MDS stations was nevertheless appealing to speculators, who 
continued to file a large number of applications up to the time the 
Commission imposed a freeze on the filing of applications for new 
facilities in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, PR Docket No. 92-80, 7 
FCC Rcd 3266 (1992), 57 FR 24006 (June 5, 1992).\10\ At the time of the 
freeze, there was a backlog of tens of thousands of applications, the 
majority believed to be speculative. Id. at 3267.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\The Commission adopted a number of rule changes to deter 
systematic abuse by speculators in Report and Order in PR Docket No. 
92-80, 8 FCC Rcd 1444 (1993), 58 FR 11795 (Mar. 1, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Commission has recently stated that all mutually exclusive 
MDS applications for new stations filed after the lifting of the freeze 
will be subject to the competitive bidding process. Implementation of 
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act--Competitive Bidding, Second 
Report and Order in PP Docket No. 93-253, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2359 (1994), 
59 FR 22980 (May 4, 1994) (Second Report and Order), recon. granted in 
part, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC No. 94-215 (released 
Aug. 15, 1994), 59 FR 44272 (Aug. 26, 1994). Therein, the Commission 
determined that the use of competitive bidding for MDS would further 
the objectives described in 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3). The use of competitive 
bidding would speed the development and further deployment of MDS for 
the benefit of the public, with minimal administrative or judicial 
delays. The proposals set forth for consideration in this proceeding 
are designed to avoid the backlogged applications and legal protests 
that have delayed and stifled the deployment of MDS in the past. We 
believe that accelerated processing permitted by electronic filing and 
data collection, along with competitive bidding procedures, will reduce 
the likelihood of speculative filings and generally expedite the 
initiation of new service.
    6. In the discussion that follows, we invite comment on several 
alternatives for acceptance of MDS applications after the processing 
freeze is lifted next year. The Commission favors a filing approach 
which is based upon specific predetermined geographic area, such as 
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) and Rural Service Areas (RSA) or 
Areas of Dominant Influence (ADI). This filing approach would utilize 
short-form applications to identify mutually exclusive applicants for 
competitive bidding purposes. Second Report and Order in PP Docket No. 
93-253, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2376 (1994), 59 FR 22980 (May 4, 1994). Another 
filing approach would restrict applications to Commission-identified 
vacant E, F and H channels. Here, the Commission would also identify 
mutually exclusive situations through the use of short-form 
applications. Under another alternative, the Commission would 
periodically open national filing windows, and there would be no 
geographic restrictions on filing for available MDS channels. One 
option to the national filing window approach would be to limit 
eligibility to file in the first window to existing system operators 
and licensees. These two national window proposals would require long-
form applications, containing the applicant's complete technical 
proposal, to determine mutual exclusivity before competitive bidding 
procedures are implemented.
    7. MSA/RSA/ADI Approach. As our preferred filing approach, we 
invite comment on whether we should adopt a procedure under which 
applications for new MDS stations would be filed for predetermined, 
discrete areas, similar to Cellular Radio's Metropolitan Statistical 
Areas (MSA) and Rural Service Areas (RSA), or the television Areas of 
Dominant Influence (ADI).\11\ The Commission would release a public 
notice announcing auctions by MSA/RSA/ADI, and the time, place and 
method of competitive bidding to be used, including the applicable 
bidding procedures. Applicants would file for all usable E, F and H 
channels. They would be allowed to operate facilities on these channels 
anywhere throughout the service area provided the specific engineering 
design of their wireless cable facility meets the Commission's 
interference protection standards to any previously proposed or 
authorized MDS facilities. The public notice would also specify the 
filing period for short-form applications (FCC Form 175)\12\ and 
deadlines for submitting the applicable filing fee and the upfront 
payment, and the amounts. Applicants would file a short-form 
application for all usable channels in a particular MSA, RSA or ADI and 
those applications would be treated as mutually exclusive and subject 
to the competitive bidding process. Mutually exclusive applicants would 
bid for all usable channels in a particular area as a package, enabling 
operators to amass large channel groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\MSAs and RSAs are standard geographic areas used by the 
Commission for administrative convenience in the licensing of 
cellular radio systems. All of the 306 MSAs and 428 RSAs and the 
counties they comprise are listed in Public Notice Report No. CL-92-
40 ``Common Carrier Public Mobile Services Information, Cellular 
MSA/RSA Markets and Counties,'' DA 92-109, 7 FCC Rcd 742 (1992). See 
also 47 CFR 22.909 (effective Jan. 1, 1995). ADIs are standard 
geographic areas developed by Arbitron Ratings Company. Under this 
market definition, each county in the continental United States is 
placed within one of 210 ADIs, the lowest numbered ADI having the 
highest population.
    \12\Form 175 contains the applicant's name, the licenses on 
which the applicant wishes to bid, the persons authorized to make or 
withdraw a bid, whether the applicant is qualified as a designated 
entity under 47 CFR 1.2110, certifications that the applicant is 
legally, technically, financially and otherwise qualified, and 
identification of all parties involved in agreements, or 
certification that no agreements exist, relating to the conditional 
licenses being auctioned or the bidding process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. We seek comment on whether our current 15 mile radius definition 
of an MDS licensee's protected service area would be appropriate for 
licenses granted on an MSA/RSA/ADI basis. In particular, we request 
comment on whether the MSA/RSA/ADI boundary should become the protected 
service area of the wireless cable system. If this definition of 
protected service area were adopted, how would our current interference 
protection standards, defined by desired-to-undesired signal strength 
ratios, be applied? Would these standards permit service to the areas 
adjacent to the borders between geographic license areas? If not, are 
there modifications to the rules that might serve the public interest, 
for example, permitting parties to negotiate interference rights to 
enable interference-free service in the border areas? We also request 
comment on the impact of our protected service area decision on the 
ordering in which service areas should be auctioned. For example, 
depending on the definition of protected service areas, service areas 
auctioned earlier may be able to secure border area interference 
protection rights. In this case, should service areas be auctioned in 
descending order of population?
    9. The auction winner would have several responsibilities and 
rights. For instance, an auction winner would be required to submit a 
down payment within five business days after the close of the auction. 
The auction winner would be required, by a specified date, to file a 
long-form MDS application which includes a complete engineering 
proposal. This long-form would include a demonstration that the 
proposed MDS stations would not cause harmful interference to any 
previously proposed or authorized MDS stations, and applicants would 
have the opportunity to cure any such defects in their engineering. 
Long-form applications found to be acceptable would be proposed for 
grant by a Commission public notice. This public notice would trigger a 
thirty-day period for the filing of petitions to deny. See 47 U.S.C. 
Section 309(b). If there are no petitions filed, or upon resolution of 
petitions that have been filed, and if the applicant is otherwise 
qualified under 47 CFR 21.32 (e.g., FAA clearance), the conditional 
license would be granted. If the conditional license was granted 
following an auction, the grant would be conditioned upon the winner 
making full payment of the balance of the winning bid within five 
business days following the grant (except for small businesses allowed 
to make installment payments).\13\ Since applicants would receive 
conditional licenses for all usable channels in a particular area as a 
package, we seek comment as to the appropriateness of allowing mergers 
and other transfers prior to the completion of construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\The definition of ``small business'' is discussed in 
paragraph 24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. The Commission believes that this framework provides the most 
manageable and efficient system to disseminate MDS licenses. The use of 
short-form applications prior to the auction reduces the administrative 
burdens on applicants and the Commission, and minimizes the potential 
for delay. In addition, this type of filing approach, coupled with 
competitive bidding procedures, would encourage universal coverage and 
afford the greatest likelihood of rapidly promoting the development of 
MDS as a viable competitive service. This approach is also likely to 
deter speculation because auction methodologies are designed to ensure 
that the party who most highly values the spectrum obtains the license, 
not a speculator. We solicit comment on whether we should adopt this 
proposal, and if so, which geographic areas are most suitable for MDS 
to utilize.
    11. E, F and H Identified Sites. An alternative filing approach, 
which is somewhat more restrictive than our preferred approach, would 
limit applications to predetermined sites. We invite comment on a 
procedure pursuant to which multiple public notices would identify 
sites where there are vacant E, F or H channels available. The 
Commission would identify such sites based upon the location of an 
already authorized E, F or H channel. Pursuant to this proposal, 
applicants for the vacant channels at these identified sites would file 
a short-form application to identify mutually exclusive situations for 
purposes of competitive bidding. Thereafter, the auction winner would 
be required to file a long-form MDS application which contains a 
complete engineering proposal, specifying compatible station design and 
demonstrating a lack of harmful interference to co-channel and 
adjacent-channel previously proposed or authorized MDS stations in 
nearby areas. We request comment on this alternative, which also 
promotes streamlined application processing and works well with 
competitive bidding procedures.
    12. National Filing Window Proposal. Under this proposal, windows 
would be opened periodically in order to provide opportunities for 
filing applications for new MDS stations.\14\ The Commission would 
issue a public notice announcing the filing window for available 
channels which would remain open for a specified period of time, and 
applications for new MDS stations would be filed within that stated 
window. Under this approach, there would be no geographic restrictions 
upon filing for available MDS channels. Accordingly, the applicant 
would initially be required to file a long-form MDS application, with 
the applicant's complete engineering proposal, to enable the Commission 
to determine mutual exclusivity. After the close of the window, each 
application would undergo an acceptability review, which includes an 
engineering interference analysis. To be acceptable for filing, the 
application would have to contain all of the data and other information 
necessary to allow processing of the application. See Appendix, Items 
1-20. An application would be considered unacceptable for filing and 
returned if, inter alia, its proposed facilities are predicted to cause 
harmful interference to any part of the protected service area of an 
authorized station or a facility proposed in an application filed prior 
to the opening of a particular filing window. See 47 CFR 21.31, 21.902 
and 21.914. Applications found to be acceptable and not mutually 
exclusive with any other acceptable application would be proposed for 
grant by a Commission public notice. This public notice would trigger a 
thirty-day period for the filing of petitions to deny. See 47 U.S.C. 
309(b). If there are no petitions filed and if the applicant is 
otherwise qualified, the conditional license would be granted. 
Applications found acceptable for filing and mutually exclusive with 
another would be subject to competitive bidding. Under the national 
window approach, applications may be amended while the window is open. 
After the close of the window and up until the close of the auction, no 
amendment may be filed which corrects any defect in an application that 
is unacceptable for filing on the last day of a filing window. We 
propose that the Commission only accept the following two types of 
amendments after the close of the window and up until the close of the 
auction: (1) Amendments filed pursuant to 47 CFR 1.65 to furnish 
updated information, and (2) minor amendments as defined by 47 CFR 
21.23, including pro forma changes in ownership or control. Following 
the auction, the Commission would provide the auction winner the 
opportunity to cure any defects in its engineering proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\A similar procedure is currently being used by the low power 
television service. Report and Order in MM Docket No. 83-1350, 102 
FCC 2d 295 (1984), 49 FR 47837 (Dec. 7, 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. We believe that since this approach would likely result in a 
larger number of mutually exclusive applications, implementation would 
require significant resources and take a substantial amount of time to 
conduct the competitive bidding process. We request comment on how to 
resolve the ``daisy-chains'' (interlinking application proposals at 
different locations) that might arise under this proposal. We invite 
commenters favoring a national window approach to discuss these 
concerns, how far in advance we should announce the opening of a window 
and the appropriate length of the window.
    14. First Window: Accumulation of ``Critical Mass'' of Channels. As 
an option to the national filing window, the first window could be 
limited to existing system operators and licensees. Under this 
approach, we would require that applications be filed by a licensee or 
system operator who, at the time the application is filed, is operating 
a minimum number of channels, such as four, six, eight or ten. Where 
the existing system operator is not a licensee, we would require a 
certification that lease agreements have been executed between the 
operator and the licensee. We would require such applicants to keep 
copies of lease agreements and make them available upon the request of 
the Commission. This ``critical mass'' approach would encourage 
enhancement of existing wireless cable operations, and thus accelerate 
opportunities for competition with wired cable systems in various 
locales. Such an approach is well within our legal authority. See, 
e.g., United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U.S. 192, 202 
(1956); Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327, 333 n.9 (1945); 
Hispanic Information & Telecommunications Network v. FCC, 865 F.2d 
1289, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1989). We solicit comment on whether we should 
adopt this proposal, and if so, who should be eligible to file 
applications in this window.
    15. Interference Criteria and Mutual Exclusivity. As a complement 
to the various filing proposals and electronic procedures, infra, we 
propose to adopt a technical equation as the basis for the ``free 
space'' interference protection calculations. The following formula is 
currently used by the Commission's MDS engineers and is recognized by 
engineering consulting firms that represent the wireless cable 
industry:
    The received signal power level (RSL)dBW at the output of the 
FCC reference receiving antenna is obtained from the following:\15\

    \15\Leon W. Couch II, Digital and Analog Communication Systems, 
p. 384 (3rd ed. 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(RSL)dBW=(EIRP)dBW-(LFS)dB+(GAR)dB

where the free space loss (LFS)dB is

(LFS)dB=20 log (4d/) dB

In these equations, (RSL)dBW is received power in decibels 
referenced to one watt, (EIRP)dBW is equivalent isotropically 
radiated power in decibels above one watt, d is the distance of the 
signal path in meters,  is the wavelength of the signal in 
meters, and GAR is the gain of the reference receiving antenna, as 
obtained in 47 CFR 21.902(f)(3), Figure 1. We propose to formalize the 
above equations by adopting them as a rule provision, much like the 
equation at 47 CFR 21.902(d)(2). In so doing, we are not proposing 
significant changes in the substantive requirements regarding 
interference showings. To facilitate our plans for computerized 
interference studies, we will require proposed facilities to meet the 
45 dB and 0 dB co-channel desired to undesired signal strength ratios 
at points along the service contours of protected facilities which were 
authorized under the current interference standards. With regard to 
long-form applications, we propose to retain the rules requiring that 
the applicant perform analyses of the potential for harmful 
interference and serve the interference studies upon the previously 
proposed or authorized station applicants, conditional licensees or 
licensees required to be studied. 47 CFR 21.902. On the electronic 
application form, the applicant would supply certain crucial data 
elements describing the station parameters, such as antenna 
polarization and the station equivalent isotropically radiated power 
(EIRP), while the Commission staff would perform the interference 
analysis using a computer program. In this service, there are two rules 
that currently defined mutual exclusivity: Section 21.31 and Section 
22.901(d)(5). See 47 CFR 21.902. In light of the proposed computer-
assisted interference studies that will readily determine whether an 
application is mutually exclusive with another, under our national 
window proposals, the second rule, Section 21.901(d)(5), is no longer 
necessary. We would not require the submission of any types of 
interference or other engineering analyses to the Commission at the 
time the application is filed. Nor would we require the submission of a 
list of each applicant, conditional licensee or licensee served at the 
time the application is filed. We propose to require the applicant to 
make the records available for Commission inspection upon request. We 
invite comment on whether we should adopt this formula as a rule. We 
also seek comment on whether we should eliminate signal contour maps as 
a required part of interference studies.
    16. We are also proposing to improve the current application form 
used for new MDS stations, FCC Form 494,\16\ by excluding certain data 
elements which have yielded information that is no longer necessary or 
of only marginal utility. Further, such modifications should serve to 
facilitate the proposed computer-assisted process. For instance, we 
propose to eliminate queries regarding the antenna vertical sketch and 
the narrative description of why grant of the application would be in 
the public interest. We also generally propose to exclude the following 
parameters of the transmission system: transmitter manufacturer and 
model number, transmitter output power, transmitting antenna gain and 
the specification of transmission line and other transmission losses. 
With regard to transmitters, we are only concerned that MDS licensees 
operate transmitters that are ``type-accepted'' by the Commission for 
use in this service. Although we propose to eliminate the requirement 
that the applicant identify the transmitter make and model, we intend 
to require conditional licensees to certify the use of a type-accepted 
transmitter in their certification of construction, currently FCC Form 
494A. Transmitter output power, system loss, and antenna gain are the 
parameters used to calculate a station's maximum EIRP. The MDS rules 
were recently changed to provide for a maximum EIRP, rather than a 
maximum value for transmitter output power. See 47 CFR 21.904. The 
critical parameter in free space signal propagation analysis is EIRP. 
Applicants, therefore, would be permitted to use any transmitter output 
power necessary to achieve the desired EIRP, provided the EIRP remained 
within the limits given in the Commission's rules. Thus, we believe 
that it is not necessary to require applicants to specify the equipment 
parameters used to calculate the EIRP, i.e., transmitter power, antenna 
gain and transmission losses. We also propose to allow changes to these 
transmission parameters without notification to the Commission, 
provided the resulting EIRP would not change. The station power to be 
specified on the form would be the maximum EIRP in the horizontal 
plane, i.e., the EIRP at an angle of zero degrees in the vertical 
plane. Electrical beam tilting of antennas will be permitted; however, 
in all cases, applicants would be required to specify the EIRP in the 
horizontal plane. In most instances, this value of EIRP closely 
approximates the power radiated to the radio horizon which is most 
relevant to interference analysis. Also, by proceeding in this manner, 
it would not be necessary for us to collect data on antenna vertical 
radiation patterns. We invite commenters to discuss these and other 
possible changes to an application form for MDS facilities and the 
related issues introduced in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\Since Form 494 is a multi-purpose form that is used for 
other services, to the extent that we are proposing changes, we 
intend to create a different form to be used for MDS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. An Electronic Application Form. We propose to modify further 
the long-form MDS application in an effort to make the form compatible 
with an electronic filing system. The proposed electronic version of 
the long-form application for news MDS stations would consolidate 
information from FCC Form 494 and FCC Form 430, the License 
Qualification Report, and be formatted in a manner appropriate for 
electronic data capture. For example, we would retain engineering data 
elements necessary for analysis of interference or possible air safety 
hazards, and we would retain applicant responses which demonstrate 
compliance with a particular statutory requirement, such as an 
environmental assessment. In terms of specific items, the Appendix 
lists proposed data elements and other informational items for our new 
electronic application form. These include general, engineering and 
legal elements. The engineering parameters of proposed stations are 
generally limited to variables used in our interference analysis or air 
safety determinations, such as transmitting antenna site coordinates, 
EIRP, antenna polarization, site elevation and antenna structure height 
above ground. Other data may be used to verify an applicant's 
compliance with a particular Commission rule. For example, antenna beam 
width is used to calculate the maximum allowable EIRP of a station 
using a directional transmitting antenna. Applicants proposing to 
locate stations in areas where notification or coordination with Canada 
or Mexico is required by international agreement would be required to 
submit the following additional technical data, which is not proposed 
as standard data elements in the electronic application form: 
transmitter output power transmitting antenna gain and transmission 
line loss. It may be possible to specify this data in a textual exhibit 
in the electronic long-form application. If not, a paper supplement to 
the application would be submitted as directed by the Commission staff. 
We seek comment on our proposed elements for the electronic filing 
process.
    18. Electronic Filing Process. In 1992, Congress amended the 
Communications Act of 1934 to permit the electronic filing of license 
and construction permit applications. Telecommunications Authorization 
Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-538, Section 204, 106 Stat. 3533, 3543, 
codified at 47 U.S.C. 308(b) and 319(a). Such applications may be 
signed ``in any manner or form, including by electronic means, as the 
Commission may prescribe by regulation.'' Id. The Commission currently 
accepts license applications electronically in the private land mobile 
radio service (FCC Form 574) and we are here considering a proposal to 
accept electronically applications for new MDS stations.\17\ We would 
modify our handwritten signature requirement, 47 CFR 1.743 and 21.6(d), 
and other rules as necessary to implement such an electronic filing 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Modify Signature 
Requirement for License Applications in the Private Radio Services, 
8 FCC Rcd 2662 (1993), 58 FR 21405 (Apr. 21, 1993). Until we have 
gained some experience with electronic filing procedures, we propose 
to limit its use to the filing of applications and related 
amendments for new MDS stations. Certifications of completion of 
construction, applications for assignment or transfer of control of 
licenses, license renewals, signal boosters, extensions and 
modifications pursuant to 47 CFR 21.40, 21.41, 21.42 and 21.910, 
would continue to be filed in paper format according to existing 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. We envision the use of communication links, such as a Value 
Added Network (VAN), that would allow the exchange of data between 
applicants and the Commission. VANs as offered by private entities and 
may require an applicant to establish an account. The use of a VAN is 
particularly attractive as a method of electronically filing 
applications because of its high degree of efficiency and security in 
transferring information. Although our intent is to implement an 
electronic filing system without creating additional burdens, we 
recognize that VANs may impose an added cost to filing an application. 
For example, to establish an electronic mailbox from a VAN may cost as 
much as $300 with added monthly and per use fees. To minimize the costs 
to individuals, an electronic mailbox could be established by a 
representative group, such as a law firm or engineering consulting 
firm, as a service to its customers.
    20. In designing an electronic filing system that will work 
efficiently, we believe that it will be necessary to eliminate the 
filing of paper to the maximum extent possible. Such a system would 
consist of data on a series of computer screens, translated into a 
transaction format, together with electronically prepared exhibits. We 
envision an electronic form designed for personal computers using a 
windows-based environment. Essentially, the data would be uploaded from 
a personal computer to a VAN or other type of electronic mailbox, then 
downloaded to a Commission mailbox in the correct format. Although it 
appears that VANs may have the capability to transfer text 
electronically, a possible limitation concerns the difficulty or 
expense associated with electronic maps or other graphics 
representations. For routine applications, we hope to eliminate the 
need for paper submissions completely, at least during the initial 
application acceptance stage of processing. Implementing such a system 
would expedite the application process in several ways. First and 
foremost, it would eliminate the need for manual entry of application 
data into the Commission's several databases, resulting in instant 
databases that are current and accurate. Our intent is for the public 
to have on-line viewing access to MDS databases through a third-party 
vendor and the Commission's public reference room. Second, an 
electronic filing system, coupled with the proposed computer-assisted 
processing program, would eliminate the need for manual review by the 
Commission's engineering staff of engineering analyses currently 
submitted by applicants under 47 CFR 21.902 and 21.904. This manual 
review is very time-consuming. Finally, the staff would be able to 
handle, with reasonable speed, the anticipated increase in the number 
of applications to be processed. In balancing these multiple factors, 
we believe that the benefits of implementing an electronic filing 
system outweigh the associated costs. We invite comment on the 
feasibility of using a mandatory electronic filing system for new MDS 
station applications in connection with the application filing 
procedures discussed above. We also solicit comment on whether ITFS 
applicants should be required to file applications for new stations 
electronically on a combined application form, and whether there should 
be a paper exception for those educators that are not financially 
supported by a wireless cable operator.
    21. Electronic Fee Payments. Regarding payments of application 
fees, we will use the current methods of payment for application fees 
under 47 CFR 1.1109. The methods include check, bank draft, money 
order, wire transfer, electronic customer-initiated payments and Visa 
or Master Card credit card. The Commission recently amended 47 CFR 
1.1108 and 1.1109 to permit the electronic filing of fee payments, 
initially on an experimental basis. Implementation of Section 9 of the 
Communications Act, Report and Order in MD Docket No. 94-19, FCC No. 
94-140 (released June 8, 1994), 59 FR 30984 (June 16, 1994) at para. 
50-51. In addition to the existing payment methods available, we 
propose to accept electronic payments under Section 1.1109. Pursuant to 
subsection (a)(1) of that section, procedures for the electronic 
payment of fees will be announced by Public Notice. We request comment 
on a fee system where applicants use a unique fee payor number, such as 
a federal employer identification number together with an appropriate 
service code, and a suffix in cases where applicants file multiple 
applications. This would link the fee payment with the electronically 
filed application. Applicants would be permitted to prepay their 
application fee after public notice of any national filing window until 
the close of the filing window, using any currently acceptable form of 
payment. When the applicant makes the fee payment to the Commission's 
lockbox bank, the applicant's unique identification number is supplied 
with the fee payment, and the applicant uses the same number on the 
electronic application for a new station. We seek comment on this 
proposal.
    22. Competitive Bidding Procedures. In light of the proposals set 
forth above, we invite further comment on the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking in PP Docket No. 93-253, 8 FCC Rcd 7635 (1993), 58 FR 53489 
(Oct. 15, 1993), and the Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2348 
(1994), 59 FR 22980 (May 4, 1994), recon. granted in part, Second 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC No. 94-215 (released August 15, 
1994), 59 FR 44272 (Aug. 26, 1994), regarding competitive bidding 
procedures with respect to MDS. Specifically, we invite comment on 
which of the alternative competitive bidding procedures adopted in the 
Second Report and Order is best suited to MDS.
    23. The Second Report and Order in the competitive bidding 
proceeding sets forth three primary auction methods from which the 
Commission may choose in selecting an appropriate competitive bidding 
design:
    (1) Simultaneous multiple round auctions;
    (2) Sequential oral auctions (open outcry); or
    (3) Sealed bid auctions (either sequential or simultaneous). 9 FCC 
Rcd at 2366-67. We seek comment on the suitability of these methods for 
the auctioning of MDS licenses. There appears to be some geographic 
interdependence due to coordination of interference at the borders.\18\ 
However, as the value of and interdependence between MDS licenses in 
different geographic areas may not be sufficiently high to justify the 
use of simultaneous multiple round bidding, we tentatively conclude 
that this type of bidding design is less appropriate for MDS than 
either sequential oral or sealed bid auctions. In commenting on this 
tentative conclusion, commenters should consider the relative value of 
MDS licenses, the importance for wireless cable operators of 
aggregating as many channels as possible within particular geographic 
areas, and the significance for operators of accumulating channels 
across diverse geographic areas. We additionally request comment on the 
relative advantages and disadvantages of utilizing either oral bidding 
or sealed bidding to auction MDS licenses. In commenting on the 
suitability of oral or sealed bidding for MDS, commenters should focus 
their discussion on the following factors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\Licenses are interdependent when the value of a license to 
the bidder depends on the degree to which licenses are substitutes 
or complements. Second Report and Order at 2364.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) The value and interdependence of MDS licenses;
    (b) The number of MDS channels that remain available for auction;
    (c) The expense to the Commission and to bidders;
    (d) The administrative ease of implementing the auction design 
selected; and
    (e) The expected number of bidders for each area. As explained in 
paragraph 7, supra, our preferred approach will utilize predetermined 
geographic service areas and contemplates auctioning all usable 
channels in each area together. We seek comment on this approach.
    24. Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, which gave the 
Commission express authority to employ competitive bidding, also 
mandated that the Commission ``ensure that small businesses, rural 
telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups 
and women are given the opportunity to participate in the provision of 
spectrum-based services.'' 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(4)(D). To implement this 
statutory mandate, the Commission established a menu of preferences, 
including installment payments, tax certificates, bidding credits and 
spectrum set-asides, to choose from in selecting preferences that will 
be applicable to particular services. Second Report and Order at 2389-
92. We request comment on these various preferences, which entities 
should be eligible to receive them, and their appropriateness in light 
of the characteristics of MDS. In particular, with regard to 
determining eligibility for installment payments, we invite comment on 
the appropriate definition of ``small business'' to be employed, taking 
into account the capital requirements for MDS. Commenters may want to 
address the standard definition of ``small business'' utilized by the 
Small Business Administration is appropriate for MDS,\19\ or whether we 
should establish a different standard based on a business' gross 
revenues.\20\ We additionally seek comment on whether spectrum set-
asides are appropriate for MDS. We also request comment on how to 
implement to bidding credit or payment discount program for MDS. In 
connection with preferences for designated entities, commenters may 
also wish to address measures designed to prevent unjust enrichment by 
trafficking licenses acquired through the use of preferences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\The Small Business Administration standard definition 
permits an applicant to qualify for financial assistance based on a 
net worth in excess of six million dollars with average net income 
after federal income taxes for the two preceding years not in excess 
of two million dollars. 13 CFR 121.802.
    \20\For the broadband and narrowband Personal Communications 
Services, small businesses are defined as those with average gross 
revenues for the three preceding years of less than $40 million. It 
may be that this $40 million gross revenue standard is too high for 
MDS, given the more modest capital requirements of MDS operators. 
Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking in PP Docket No. 93-253, FCC No. 94-219 (released Aug. 
17, 1994), 59 FR 44058 (Aug. 26, 1994) at para. 46; Fifth Report and 
Order in PP Docket No. 93-253, FCC No. 94-178 (released July 15, 
1994), 59 FR 37566 (July 22, 1994) at para. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. In addition to commenting on auction methods and preferences, 
commenters should address other issues related to competitive bidding 
for MDS. Commenters may want to comment on payment issues, particularly 
the appropriate amount of the upfront payment submitted prior to an 
auction, and the amount of the default penalty on winning bidders who 
fail to make their required down payments on licenses, fail to make 
final payments for licenses, or are disqualified after the close of an 
auction. Commenters may also wish to address the advisability of 
setting a reservation price, below which a license subject to auction 
will not be awarded. Provisions designed to prohibit collusive conduct 
in the context of competitive bidding may additionally be addressed, as 
should any other issues related to competitive bidding for MDS.
    26. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980, Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the 
Commission has prepared the following Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis of the expected impact on small entities of the proposals 
suggested in this document:
    Reason for Action: The Commission is initiating this rulemaking to 
review and streamline the procedures which govern the filing of 
applications for new MDS facilities.
    Objective: The objective of this proceeding is to improve the 
Commission's application processes for wireless cable and thereby 
expedite more service to the public.
    Legal Basis: Authority for the action proposed in this proceeding 
may be found in Sections 4(i) and (j), 301, 303(g) and (r), 309(j) and 
403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 
154(i), 154(j), 301, 303(g), 303(r), 309(j) and 403.
    Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements: The 
Commission seeks comment on a number of alternative proposals to 
streamline the procedures for filing new applications for MDS 
facilities. Generally, the proposed rule changes would reduce the 
reporting burden on applicants and impose a few new recordkeeping 
obligations. There may be an additional cost burden to implement the 
electronic filing proposal.
    Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With the Proposed 
Rules: None.
    Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities Affected 
by the Proposed Rules: The Commission believes that the proposals set 
forth in this proceeding would affect the estimated 500 existing 
wireless cable operators, many of which are small entities. Adoption of 
the proposals would benefit small entities interested in acquiring new 
MDS stations. The proposals would also provide opportunities for 
equipment manufacturers and video programming providers, many of which 
may be small businesses. The cost associated with initiating the 
electronic filing proposal may affect small entities. We are unable to 
quantify further the potential impact on small entities, and thus, we 
invite specific comments on this point by interested parties.
    Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities 
and Consistent with the Stated Objectives: The Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking solicits comment on alternatives. We request written public 
comment on the analysis. Such comments must be filed in accordance with 
the same filing deadlines as comments filed in this rulemaking 
proceeding, but they must have a separate and distinct heading 
designating them as responses to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in 
accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    27. For purposes of this nonrestricted notice and comment 
rulemaking proceeding, members of the public are advised that ex parte 
presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, 
provided they are disclosed under the Commission's rules. See 
generally, 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203 and 1.1260(a).
    28. The collection of information contained in this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking will be submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget for review under Section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act. 
44 U.S.C. 3504(h). Copies of this submission may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 
Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-
3800. Persons wishing to comment on this collection of information 
should file their comments with the Federal Communications Commission, 
Office of Managing Director, Paperwork Reduction Project, Washington, 
DC 20554, and the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction 
Project, Washington, DC 20503. This Notice proposes further revisions 
to an existing collection of information, OMB No. 3060-0402, titled 
``Application for New or Modified Microwave Radio Station License Under 
Part 21'' to create a separate paper application form to be used for 
new MDS facilities, and an electronic form to be used for new MDS and 
ITFS facilities. For further information regarding this collection of 
information, contact William Cline at (202) 418-0210, Records 
Management Branch, Office of Managing Director.
    29. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in 47 CFR 1.415 and 
1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before January 9, 
1995, and reply comments on or before January 24, 1995. 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

47 CFR Part 21

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Television.

47 CFR Part 74

    Television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.

Appendix

Proposed Long-Form MDS Data Elements for Electronic Filing

1. Applicant Name
    Mailing Address
    City, State and Zip Code
    (Area Code) and Telephone Number
2. Fee Payor Identification Number
    Payment Type Code
    Amount Paid
3. Service Area
4. Channel(s) Requested
    Frequency Offset, if Applicable
5. Proposed Transmitting Antenna Location
    City, County, State
    Address of Location
    Latitude and Longitude
6. Antenna Type (omni or directional)
    Antenna Make and Model
    Antenna Beam Tilt
    Antenna Beam Width
    Antenna Polarization
    For Directional Antennas, Antenna Orientation of Main Horizontal 
Lobe in Degree of Azimuth with Respect to True North
    For Directional Antennas, Tabulation of Horizontal Plane 
Relative Field Strengths
    Antenna Radiation Center Height Above Ground
    Overall Antenna Structure Height Above Ground
    Height of Structure Only
    Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP)
    Site Elevation Above Mean Sea Level
    Type of Supporting Structure (e.g., building or tower)
    Emission Designator
7. Site Availability Certification
8. Certification of Lack of Environmental Impact (or date of 
environmental assessment filing with FCC)
9. Service of MDS Application and Interference Study on ITFS Station 
Licensees with Transmitters within Fifty Miles
10. Carrier Status
11. Legal Entity of Applicant, such as Individual, Partnership, 
Corporation or Association
12. Preference for Designated Entities under 47 CFR 1.2110
13. Ownership and Control of Facilities: Owner, Lessee or Other 
(identification of any real party in interest, including indirect, 
future and option interests)
14. Ownership in, Control by, Affiliation with or Lease Arrangement 
with a Cable Television System and Description of Overlap Between 
MDS Protected Service Area and Cable Franchise Area; All 
Communication Interests of the Applicant
15. Financial Ability to Construct and Operate for Twelve Months
16. Description of Any FCC Licenses or Permits Revoked or 
Applications Denied
17. Issues Relating to Character Qualifications, Including 
Conviction of a Felony
18. Compliance with Alien Ownership Restrictions of 47 CFR 21.4
19. Identification of All Parties Involved in Agreements, or 
Certification that None Exist, Relating to Any Auction or the 
Bidding Process
20. Certification of Applicant, Includes Drug Certification

[FR Doc. 94-30323 Filed 12-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M