NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous. ***************************************************************** ******** Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 95-241 Washington, D.C. In the Matter of Nine ) Applications for Authority ) To Construct and Operate ) Multipoint Distribution Service ) Stations at Bismarck, North Dakota ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: June 15, 1995 Released: July 7, 1995 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it a consolidated petition for reconsideration of the return, pursuant to delegated authority, of nine applications for authority to construct and operate Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) stations on the E channels at Bismarck, North Dakota, which has been referred by the staff to the Commission pursuant to  1.106(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106(a). These nine applications were filed with the Commission on March 12, 1991, after the Commission had reopened the filing period for MDS applications on the E or F channels, subject to certain location restrictions. As discussed in detail below, we conclude that the applications were defective because each applicant failed to serve all affected parties with the required interference analysis, and submit a list of all parties so served pursuant to  21.902(g); filed in an area not open for filing as specified in  21.901(d)(4); and filed after the specified cut-off date. Additionally, the reconsideration petition was untimely filed and, therefore, procedurally defective. II. BACKGROUND 2. Each of the returned applications proposed an MDS station on the E channels to which Part 21 of the Commission's rules apply. Section 21.20(a) of the rules sets forth the standards for returning MDS applications as unacceptable for filing: Unless the Commission shall otherwise permit, an application will be unacceptable for filing and will be returned to the applicant with a brief statement as to the omissions or discrepancies if: (1) The application is defective with respect to completeness of answers to questions, informational showings, execution, or other matters of a formal character; or (2) The application does not substantially comply with the Commission's rules, regulations, specific requests for additional information, or other requirements. 47 C.F.R.  21.20(a). Section 21.20(b) lists examples of common deficiencies which result in defective applications under paragraph (a) such as, the "application does not demonstrate compliance with the special requirements applicable to the radio service involved," the "application does not include all necessary exhibits," and the "application is filed after the cut-off date prescribed in  21.31 or  21.914 of this part." 47 C.F.R.  21.20(b)(4), (8) and (9); see 47 C.F.R.  21.13, 21.15, 21.26 and 21.900. 3. Mutual Exclusivity. Typically, the first determination made by Commission staff is whether an MDS application is mutually exclusive with any previously filed application or authorized station. Section 21.31(a) of the Commission's rules provides the standard for this determination. The Commission will consider applications to be mutually exclusive if their conflicts are such that the grant of one application would effectively preclude by reason of harmful electrical interference, or other practical reason, the grant of one or more of the other applications. The Commission will presume "harmful electrical interference" to mean interference which would result in a material impairment to service rendered to the public despite full cooperation in good faith by all applicants or parties to achieve reasonable technical adjustments which would avoid electrical conflict. 47 C.F.R.  21.31(a); see 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c), (d) and (f). In applying this standard, the staff evaluates whether the MDS applications were filed: (1) within 50 miles of an authorized or previously proposed MDS station, and (2) within the radio horizon (with an unobstructed electrical path) of the protected service area of an authorized or previously proposed MDS station. Applications which are determined to be either within 50 miles or with an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any station, are considered to be mutually exclusive with the station unless they demonstrate a lack of harmful interference by submission of interference studies with their applications pursuant to the standards specified in the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b)(3) and (4) and  6 and 7, infra. For the above-referenced MDS applications on the E channels,  21.901(d)(5) also defines mutual exclusivity as based on whether the proposed transmitter site is within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or its 15-mile buffer zone of an authorized or previously proposed station. 4. Cut-off Rules. In order to be acceptable for filing, MDS applications must be filed on or before the applicable cut-off date for mutually exclusive applications. By way of background, the Commission initially authorized the filing of MDS applications on the E or F channels on one filing date, September 9, 1983. See MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1262-66; Establishment of Multi-Channel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873, as corrected 48 Fed. Reg. 34,746 (1983). Thereafter, no additional applications for new stations were accepted for filing until April 20, 1988, pursuant to  21.901(d)(4). Applications for the E or F channels which complied with specified restrictions could then be filed between April 20, 1988 and April 9, 1992. See  10, infra. 5. If an MMDS application is mutually exclusive with a 1983 application or authorized station, the applicable cut-off date is the one-day filing date designated for those applications, September 9, 1983. Establishment of Multi-Channel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873, as corrected. If there is no mutually exclusive 1983 application or authorized station, but there is a mutually exclusive, post-1983, previously proposed or authorized station, the applicable cut-off rule for the above-referenced applications, all of which were filed after October 31, 1990, is  21.914, which provides that: Notwithstanding the provisions of  21.31(b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this part, to be entitled to a random selection process or to comparative consideration with one or more conflicting applications, an [MDS] application . . . must be received by the Commission in a condition acceptable for filing on the same calendar day as the first of the conflicting applications is received by the Commission in a condition acceptable for filing. 47 C.F.R.  21.914. 6. MDS Interference Studies. At the time the above-referenced applications were filed, in order to demonstrate compliance with  21.902(b), and so that mutually exclusive determinations could be made,  21.902(c)(1) of the Commission's rules required that an MDS applicant include with the application an analysis of the potential for harmful cochannel interference with any authorized or previously proposed station if the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any other authorized or previously proposed cochannel station, or if the applicant's proposed transmitter is within 50 miles of the transmitter coordinates of any other authorized or previously proposed cochannel station. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(1)(1991). In addition,  21.902(c)(2) required that an MDS applicant include with the application an analysis of the potential for harmful adjacent channel interference if the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any other authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel station. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(2) (1991); see 47 C.F.R.  21.902(a), (b), (d) and (f). Section 21.901(d)(7) further requires that each MDS application for the E or F channels include the applicant's written statement of the techniques that would be employed at the proposed station to avoid interference with the operation of adjacent channel stations. The applicant must also show what steps it has taken to comply with the requirements of  21.902(a), which requires MDS applicants, licensees, and conditional licensees, to make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and to avoid blocking potential adjacent channel stations in the same area and cochannel stations in nearby areas. 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(7). 7. Service Requirement. In addition to submitting the required interference analyses to the Commission, an MDS applicant also must serve each required interference study upon the previously proposed or authorized station applicant, conditional licensee or licensee required to be studied, pursuant to  21.902(g) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(g). The same rule requires that a list identifying each applicant, conditional licensee, and licensee served be submitted with the application. 8. ITFS Interference Protection. For MDS applications on the E or F channels which were filed beginning October 11, 1990, through December 29, 1991, the applicant also was required to file with the application, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(1), an engineering analysis demonstrating a lack of harmful interference to each cochannel or adjacent channel Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) licensed station with a transmitter site within 50 miles of the proposed MDS transmitter site. In addition, a copy of the analysis had to be served on each affected ITFS licensee. In the alternative, the MDS applicant could submit a statement from the ITFS licensee stating that it did not object to the MDS operation. See Wireless Cable Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 6413. 9. Location Restrictions. After the initial filing date of September 9, 1983, no filing period was designated until 1988. In accordance with  21.901(d)(4) of the Commission's rules, the Commission then designated that MDS applications for E or F channel stations could be submitted for filing commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations which were: (1) farther than 50 miles from any proposed location of an MDS application for the E or F channels pending on April 19, 1988, or an existing authorized facility, and (2) farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical area for which there was an MDS application for the E or F channels pending as of April 19, 1988. Public Notice, Common Carrier Bureau Opens Filing Period For Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service Applications, 3 FCC Rcd 2661 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) (hereinafter 1988 Public Notice). The 1988 Public Notice also advised potential applicants that all applications must comply with the specified location restrictions, that grant of waivers of the location restrictions were not anticipated, and that applications failing to meet these location restrictions would be dismissed as unacceptable for filing. Id. at 2661-2662. 10. The 1988 location restrictions were a natural outgrowth of a policy that had provided certain efficiencies in the processing of MDS applications for channels 1, 2, and 2A. In 1981, we noted: At the inception of the MDS service in 1974 . . . we . . . established the presumption that no harmful interference would occur if stations were greater than 50 miles apart. If a proposed station were to be located 50 miles or closer to an existing station then we required (and still require) that the applicant submit an engineering showing of the possible impact it would have on the other station. The 50 mile presumption was primarily a processing standard to assist staff . . . . Our intention was to establish general standards which would permit authorization of operations to proceed in an expeditious manner. R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d at 604. See also Sioux Valley, 2 FCC Rcd at 7376. It was our experience prior to 1988 that there were fewer interference analyses submitted for authorized or previously proposed stations with transmitter sites beyond 50 miles of the subsequently proposed transmitter sites, but within the radio horizon, than for authorized or previously proposed stations within 50 miles. Without the need to review interference analyses for 1983 stations within 50 miles of the post-1983 MMDS applications' transmitter sites, scarce engineering resources instead could be used to review interference analyses filed for modification applications, or to make necessary engineering determinations on 1983 applications. 11. Summary. Thus, at the time the above-referenced applications were filed, applicants for new MMDS stations were required to file for a location farther than 50 miles from the location of any station proposed in an application which was pending on April 19, 1988, and farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical area for which there was one or more MMDS applications pending on April 19, 1988. Applicants were permitted to file: (1) beyond 50 miles of a station proposed in an application pending on April 19, 1988, as long as the location was also farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical area for which there was one or more MMDS applications pending on April 19, 1988; and (2) within 50 miles of a station proposed in an application filed after April 19, 1988. Applicants filing within these areas were required to file their applications before the applicable cut-off dates. In order to demonstrate compliance with these interference protection standards, applicants were directed to submit, as part of their application, interference studies which analyzed the potential for harmful cochannel and adjacent channel interference for all stations and pending applications within 50 miles or the radio horizon of the proposed station, and to serve those studies on the stations and applicants required to be studied. In addition, for applications filed beginning October 11, 1990, through December 29, 1991, the MMDS applicant was also required to submit with its application either an engineering analysis demonstrating a lack of harmful interference to each cochannel or adjacent channel ITFS licensee with a transmitter site within 50 miles of the proposed MMDS transmitter site, or a no objection letter from each ITFS station licensee. Section 21.20 of the rules explicitly put all applicants on notice that failure to comply with these requirements would result in the return of their application as unacceptable for filing. Notice was also provided in the MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d 1203, and MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d 68. III. PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION 12. On March 12, 1991, petitioners filed nine applications proposing the same transmitter site at Bismarck, North Dakota. After review of the Bismarck applications by the staff, each was returned by return notification letter dated May 4, 1992. The letters indicated that each application was returned for failure to serve all affected parties with interference studies pursuant to  21.902(g). On June 10, 1992, petitioners filed sworn statements indicating that another party had been served. These filings were returned by return notification letter dated July 13, 1992, as untimely filed. A consolidated reconsideration petition was untimely filed for the nine returned applications on August 10, 1992. 13. The applications proposed a transmitter site that was within 50 miles or the radio horizon of: (1) one 1983 previously authorized MMDS station; and (2) seven 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, which had applications pending on March 12, 1991, the filing date of the Bismarck applications. 14. The applicants failed to conduct interference studies for and serve: (1) one 1983 previously authorized MMDS station; and (2) seven 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, which had applications pending on March 12, 1991, the filing date of the Bismarck applications. No waiver requests were included in the Bismarck applications. III. DISCUSSION 15. Untimely Petition for Reconsideration. As a preliminary matter, we note that this consolidated petition for reconsideration was untimely filed. Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  405, requires that petitions for reconsideration "must be filed within thirty days from the date upon which public notice is given of the order, decision, report, or action complained of." Because the time period for filing petitions for reconsideration is prescribed by statute, the Commission may not ordinarily waive or extend the filing period. Reuters Limited v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946, 952 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ("[W]e conclude that the Commission acted beyond its lawful authority when it entertained the belated petition for reconsideration."); Metromedia, Inc., 56 FCC 2d 909 (1975) (Commission may not waive 30 day filing period to accept a petition for reconsideration filed one day late). 16. Here, the untimely petition was filed more than two months after the initial return of the applications. Petitioners acknowledge their tardiness in filing the reconsideration petition, and request waiver of  1.106(f) "to the extent necessary." Petitioners claim that delay in filing this reconsideration petition was due to delay in filing what they have alternately characterized as amendments to, and as resubmission of, applications filed on June 10, 1992. Petitioners also claim that delay in filing these June 10, 1992, amendments was due to the receipt of returned applications on different dates, if at all. Moreover, petitioners allege that the decision to make a June 10, 1992, filing was made because of an informal request by Commission staff that petitioners resubmit all the applications at one time. Petitioners claim that this delayed their submission because all of the applications had not been returned and those that had been returned were not received at one time. Petitioners do not claim Commission staff indicated that they were exempt from Commission regulations with regard to timeliness of filing. 17. Reliance on Staff Statements. Petitioners assert detriment resulting from reliance on alleged statements of Commission staff. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that such statements were made, they neither bind the Commission nor prevent us from enforcing Commission regulations. The Commission has specifically held that parties who rely on staff advice or interpretations do so at their own risk. See, e.g., AAT Electronics Corp., 53 RR 2d 1241, 1225-26 (1983), aff'd, P&R Temmer v. FCC, 743 F.2d 918, 931 (D.C. Cir. 1984). When the staff advice is contrary to the Commission's rules, the Commission may still enforce its rules, despite any reliance by the public. See Malkan FM Associates v. FCC, 935 F.2d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (affirming Commission's decision to enforce its rules despite earlier staff statements giving erroneous interpretation of the rules at official seminar). Here, the requirements are clear and the Commission reasonably expects that applicants will turn to those requirements for guidance. 18. Further, at the time they filed the sworn statements of service on June 10, 1992, petitioners characterized the filings as "minor amendments." These amendments, however, were untimely since the applications had already been returned on May 24, 1992, and were therefore no longer pending. Therefore, petitioners had no right to file amendments. See  21.23(a)(1). 19. In their reconsideration petition, however, petitioners characterize the June 10, 1992, filing not as an amendment but as a resubmission of applications. These resubmissions were not filed in accordance with the rules for filing applications, or with the appropriate fees, hence they cannot be considered as applications. Further, even if the Commission were to consider these filings as refiling of the applications, because they were filed after the filing freeze, they could not be accepted. Whether these filings are characterized as minor amendments or resubmissions, the reconsideration petition was due not later than 30 days from May 4, 1992, when the original applications were returned. Consequently, the reconsideration petition, received August 10, 1992, was more than two months late. Because of these applicants' failure to comply with 47 U.S.C.  405, the untimely petition for reconsideration will be dismissed. We note, however, that even if we were to consider the merits of the arguments raised in the untimely petition for reconsideration, we would still deny the petition for the reason discussed below. 20. Interference Protection. In a de novo review, we have determined that each applicant failed to perform and serve interference studies, as required by  21.902, for all applicants, conditional licensees and licensees for stations required to be studied by  21.902(c), when the applications were filed, thus depriving affected parties of notice and an opportunity to be heard. Section 21.20 of the rules explicitly put all applicants on notice that failure to comply with these requirements would result in the return of their applications as unacceptable for filing. Notice was also provided in the MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d 1203, and MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d 68. In Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442, 5444 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993), the return of a modification application was upheld for failure to comply with  21.902(g): The Commission makes provision for actual notice and an opportunity to be heard by parties in interest by requiring at Section 21.902(g) that microwave stations that might be affected by operation of an MDS station be served a copy of the required interference analysis for their station. Cornaggia admittedly failed to properly serve VisionAire with a copy of the interference analysis . . . . Due to this lack of service, the orderly process contemplated in the Commission's rulemaking order, in which the Commission staff resolves interference problems after oppositions are filed, was negated. 21. Mutual Exclusivity and Cut-off. After conducting a de novo review of the returned applications and publicly available information regarding authorized MMDS stations and pending applications, we also conclude that the petitioned applications were untimely filed with respect to authorized stations or previously filed applications with which the returned applications were mutually exclusive. The determining factors we used to ascertain if the above-referenced MMDS applications were mutually exclusive pursuant to  21.31(a) were whether the applications were filed: (1) within 50 miles of an authorized or previously proposed MMDS station; or (2) within the radio horizon (with an unobstructed electrical path) of the protected service area of an authorized or previously proposed MMDS station. Each of these returned applications propose a transmitter site which made the proposed stations mutually exclusive, pursuant to  21.31 or 21.914, with authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations. See  3-5, supra. Specifically, all of the returned applications were mutually exclusive and were cut-off with respect to: (1) a 1983 pending application or authorized station (for which the cut-off date was September 9, 1983); or (2) a post-1983 pending application or authorized station, which had a cut-off date prior to the filing date of the returned applications. Thus, the applications were cut-off and were properly returned as unacceptable for filing pursuant to  21.31(d), which states: An application otherwise mutually exclusive with one [or] more previously filed applications, but filed after the appropriate date prescribed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, will be returned without prejudice and will be eligible for refiling only after final action is taken by the Commission with respect to the previously filed application (or applications). 47 C.F.R.  21.31(d). 22. Location Requirements. The 1988 Public Notice allowed the filing of MDS applications on the E and F channels commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations that were: (1) farther than 50 miles from any proposed location of an MMDS application pending on April 19, 1988 or an existing station; and (2) farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical area for which there are applications pending on April 19, 1988. The 1988 Public Notice set the dates on which applications for the E or F channels could be filed, pursuant to the stipulations of the Commission's authority under  21.901(d)(4). The first paragraph of the Notice explicitly stated that "[a]pplications filed must comply with the location restrictions contained in this Notice. We do not anticipate granting any waivers of this location requirement." 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. It also emphasized twice that applications filed in violation of the location requirements would be returned as unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite these directives, the above-referenced MMDS applications proposed a transmitter site in violation of the location restriction of the 1988 Public Notice. Therefore, these applicants submitted applications on dates not designated by the Commission for filing of MDS applications. 23. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the applications under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the applications is not warranted. 24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the untimely consolidated reconsideration petition filed by the applicants IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Mass Media Bureau shall send copies of the decision to the authorized representative for petitioners by certified mail, return receipt requested. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary