WPCJ 2?BJZECourier3|j#Xw PE37}XP#c406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\PX@ Y-#Xw PE37}XP#2@qf X CourierCG Times",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L<?xxx,>fx6X@`7X@8wC;,}Xw PE37XP\ @^5q.$h';U7G;A 7Xn-6F[w!/DTck{2lr ZKE'3|jc406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\PXP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdTimes New RomanCG TimesTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic2a#f KOK!",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNoB( ?RRK+P4"     a2Technical+b3tTechnical Document Style>oB( ?RRK+P*    a3Technical+b3tTechnical Document Style>oB( ?RRK+P'     a4Technical+b3tTechnical Document Style>oB( ?RRK+P&     2p.\,, f- -a5Technical+b3tTechnical Document Style>oB( ?RRK+P&   . a6Technical+b3tTechnical Document Style>oB( ?RRK+P&  . a7Technical+b3tTechnical Document Style>oB( ?RRK+P &  . a8Technical+b3tTechnical Document Style>oB( ?RRK+P &  . 21 . / U00Doc Initx(7QtInitialize Document StyleRK+P3t ?Rf—+b     I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲa1Document+b3tDocument Style>oB( ?R#RK+P F *  ׃  a2Document+b3tDocument Style>oB( ?R#RK+P *    a3Document+b3tDocument Style>oB( ?R#RK+P0     2_3q1f"2f2q2a4Document+b3tDocument Style>oB( ?R#RK+P . a5Document+b3tDocument Style>oB( ?R#RK+P   a6Document+b3tDocument Style>oB( ?R#RK+P !" a7Document+b3tDocument Style>oB( ?R#RK+P#$` ` ` 29q3*4e,8p8a8Document+b3tDocument Style>oB( ?R#RK+P%&` ` ` Pleadingx(7QtHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperP3t ?Rf—+b'(   ,# P7P# X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   ӲHeading 2x(7QtǁUnderlined Heading Flush LeftRK+P3t ?Rf—+b)* Heading 1x(7QtǁCentered Heading ?R)RK+P3t ?Rf—+b+,* à  2z;s3999::Bullet List(7QtIndented Bullet List ?R*RK+P3t ?Rf—+b-.` ` ` a1Right Par+b3tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersoH(eRK+P8/0@   a2Right Par+b3tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersoH(eRK+PA12@` `  ` ` ` a3Right Par+b3tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersoH(eRK+PJ34` ` @  ` `  2>;Z<==a4Right Par+b3tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersoH(eRK+PS56` `  @  a5Right Par+b3tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersoH(eRK+P\78` `  @hh# hhh a6Right Par+b3tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersoH(eRK+Pe9:` `  hh#@( hh# a7Right Par+b3tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersoH(eRK+Pn;<` `  hh#(@- ( 2F>K?KAK4Da8Right Par+b3tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersoH(eRK+Pw=>` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp "i~'^#)0<8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""4.NOV_VGA X- X    X-w  Federal Communications Commission`(#DA 96917 ă  yxdddy v3#X\  P6G;ɓP# Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO} Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  XA-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#In re Applications ofR#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#) R)  X-RURALVISION CENTRAL, INC.R)hppFile No. 00136CMP92 R) For Authority to Construct And Operate aR) Multipoint Distribution Service Station onR) Channel 1 at Forrest City, ArkansasR) R)  X -RURALVISION SOUTH, INC.R)hppFile No. 00111CMP92 R) For Authority to Construct And Operate aR) Multipoint Distribution Service Station onR) Channel 2A at Adairsville, GeorgiaR) R)  X-RURALVISION CENTRAL, INC.R)hppFile No. 00134CMP92 R) For Authority to Construct And Operate aR) Multipoint Distribution Service Station onR) Channel 1 at Crystal, MichiganR) R)  Xu-RURALVISION SOUTH, INC.R)hppFile No. 00416CMP92 R) For Authority to Construct And Operate aR) Multipoint Distribution Service Station onR) Channel 2A at Las Cruces, New MexicoR) T  X-  ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION TP  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:  @ yO-  ԍ Application File Nos. 50550CMP90, WLW913, at Grand Rapids, Michigan and 50570CMP90, WMH976,   iat Grand Rapids, Michigan. With respect to these proposed stations that the Crystal applicant lacked studies, we   note, for example, the applicant failed to file a study for WLW913, which was 48.7 miles away from the transmitter   site proposed in petitioner's returned application. The authorization of station WLW913 was placed on public notice on May 23, 1990.> Thus, the Crystal applicant failed to demonstrate that the station proposed in the   returned application would not cause harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed  X -  stations.  See 21.902. In addition, the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for service of interference studies stipulated by 21.902(g).  Xd- A11. Las Cruces, New Mexico. On January 2, 1992, a petitioner filed an application   proposing MDS station operation on channel 2A at a transmitter site at Las Cruces, New  X6-  <Mexico.N 6  yO-ԍ Application File No. 00416CMP92.N After reviewing the application, Commission staff returned the application as defective   and unacceptable for filing by return notification letter dated January 19, 1994. The letter   yindicated that the application was returned because the applicant: (1) failed to demonstrate site   yavailability pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.15(a); (2) failed to submit sufficient, specific maintenance  X-  information pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.15(e);   yO $-  ԍ Upon further examination of the petitioned application on reconsideration, we find that the application did   meet the requirements of  21.15(e). The staff characterization of this defect as grounds for return of the application  {O%-  was harmless error as the application was properly returned for other reasons. See Greater Boston Television Corp.  {Oe&-  v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 851 (D.C. Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923 (1971) (holding that the court will not upset  yO/'-a decision because of errors that are not material, "there being room for the doctrine of harmless error").  (3) failed to meet the requirements for"4 ,-(-(ZZ"   performance of interference analysis as required by 47 C.F.R.  21.902 due to failure to serve   [all affected parties with interference studies and failure to consider all authorized or previously   yproposed MDS stations; and (4) failed to submit an adequate analysis concerning the possible  X-  kimpact upon Canadian or Mexican communications as required by 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(5).D$ yO4-  ԍ Upon further examination of the petitioned application on reconsideration, we find that the application did   meet the requirements of  21.902(c)(5). The staff characterization of this defect as grounds for return of the  {O-  application was harmless error as the application was properly returned for other reasons. See Greater Boston  {O-Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 851 (D.C. Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923 (1971).D A reconsideration petition for the returned application was timely filed on February 18, 1994.  @12. The application proposed a transmitter site that was within 50 miles of, or had an   <unobstructed electrical path to, three previously authorized MDS stations, for which applications  XH-  were pending on January 2, 1992, the filing date of the Las Cruces application.H yO -  iԍ WJM88, Application File No. 50034CMP84, at Las Cruces, New Mexico, and WSL59, Application File No. 2936CMP72, and WHM880, Application File No. 51727CMP91, at El Paso, Texas. The application   lacked interference studies, required by 21.902(b) and (c), for one previously authorized MDS  X -  station.X  yO-  ;ԍ The Las Cruces applicant failed to submit an interference study for authorized station WHM880, Application  yO-  File No. 51727CMP91, which is located 45.27 miles from the site proposed in petitioner's returned application and was listed on the December 16, 1991 Commission internal staff listing of active applications. The interference studies that were submitted were inadequate in that the applicants: (1)   did not include free space calculations for the desired to undesired signal ratio to each reference   receiving antenna within the protected service area of the authorized or previously proposed  X -  stations, as required by 21.902(c), (d) and (f) (see 21.902(e)); (2) used incorrect methodology   jin calculating the protected service area of authorized or previously proposed stations; and (3)   failed to engineer the station to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection   [pursuant to 21.902(b)(3), and/or 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection pursuant to   =21.902(b)(4). Thus, the Las Cruces applicant failed to demonstrate that the station proposed   in the returned application would not cause harmful interference to authorized or previously  XM-  proposed stations.  See 21.902. In addition, the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for   service of interference studies stipulated by 21.902(g). No waiver requests were included in the Las Cruces application. >IV. DISCUSSION  X- 13. We note that each of the above applications was returned for failure to demonstrate   site availability as required by 21.15(a). Upon further examination, on reconsideration, we find   that the applications did meet the requirements of  21.15(a). It was harmless error nonetheless   as the applications were deficient and unacceptable for filing due to each applicant's failure to   [submit required interference studies with its application and to give notice, by service of these  XR-  studies, to parties required to be studied as noted infra and supra. See Greater Boston Television  X=-Corporation v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 851 (D.C. Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923 (1971)."=, ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X- ԙ14. Failure to File Interference Studies. Applicants for new MDS stations are required   to file with their applications specific, technical interference showings for: (1) authorized and   pending cochannel stations which are within 50 miles of the proposed station or to which the  X-  proposed station has an unobstructed electrical path (see 47 C.F.R. 21.902(c)(1)); and (2)  X-  adjacent channel stations to which the proposed station has an unobstructed electrical path (see  X-  47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(2)). See also In the Matter of 4,430 Applications for Authority to  X|-  ZConstruct and Operate Multipoint Distribution Service Stations at 62 Transmitter Sites, 10 FCC  Xg-  Rcd 1335, 1342 (1994) aff'd mem A/B Financial Inc., et. al. v. FCC, No. 951027 (D.C. Cir. Dec   [26, 1995) (per curiam). Section 21.902(b) of the Commission's rules requires all MDS applicants   jto provide 45 dB of cochannel interference protection and 0 dB of adjacent channel protection,   and  21.902(c) requires that the applicant demonstrate that protection in interference studies   submitted with the applications. It has been recognized that   "the demonstration of interference   protection, at the time of filing, aids the Commission in the public interest determination that an  X -  applicant is technically qualified to be an MDS/MMDS licensee." Family Entertainment Network,  X -Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 566, 56768 n. 10 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994).  15. Petitioners failed to file interference analyses for the authorized and previously  X-  proposed MDS stations that were within 50 miles of the applicants' proposed transmitter sites.QZ {O-  ԍ See  6,  8,  10,  12 supra. We emphasize again that all of these authorized and pending applications   Zwere listed either on prior public notice or the Commission's December 16, 1991 internal staff listing of pending MDS applications. Q   Two of the petitioned applications, the Adairsville and Las Cruces applications, were also   returned for failing to meet the requirements for performance of interference analysis as required   zby 47 C.F.R.  21.902 due to failure to serve all affected parties with interference studies and  X+-  failure to consider all authorized or previously proposed MDS stations. Upon a de novo review   ion reconsideration, Commission staff has determined that the Forrest City and Crystal petitioners   also failed to file interference studies for all authorized or previously proposed MDS stations within 50 miles or an unobstructed electrical path of the proposed station.  16. On reconsideration, the Adairsville and Las Cruces petitioners claim that for purposes   /of preparing interference studies they used a privately maintained electronic data base and   referred to the Commission's database, both of which indicated that there were no pending or   authorized MDS applications within 50 miles of petitioners' applications. The Adairsville and Las   Cruces petitioners contend that they cannot be held accountable for information that is beyond their "ken."  |17. We do not find the Adairsville and Las Cruces petitioners' claims persuasive. As   <noted previously, all of the proposed and authorized stations that petitioners failed to file studies   for appeared on prior public notice or were listed on the Commission's December 16, 1991,",-(-(ZZ"  X-  internal staff listing.HX yOy-  hԍ All of the applications subject to this order were filed on January 2, 1992. Therefore, the December 16, 1991   Commission internal staff listing of active applications was the listing available immediately prior to the filing of the subject applications.H Therefore, had these petitioners reviewed the Commission's data base as   Lclaimed, they would have discovered the pending and authorized stations for which they were required to conduct interference studies.  18. The Adairsville and Las Cruces petitioners do not indicate which commercial data   base they relied upon. It is possible that petitioners consulted a data base other than that of the   Commission official online contractor, which provides a readonly version of the Commission's  X_-  .actual data base._ yO -  -ԍ As early as November 1990, before any of the subject applications were filed, the Commission announced  {O -  that the MDS data base was available to the public through a third party access contractor, ATA Services, Inc. See  {O -  KPublic Notice, New Contractor for Online Public Access to Commission Data Bases, Mimeo No. 10511 (Nov. 7,  {OT-  i1990); Erratum, New Public Contractor for Online Public Access to Commission Data Bases, Mimeo No. 10859 (Dec. 5, 1990). Information on how to contact the contractor was provided in public notices. Therefore, without providing additional facts, the Commission is unable to   address the argument of these petitioners regarding their reliance upon a commercially available database.   19. The Las Cruces and Adairsville petitioners contend that their consulting engineers   Kreviewed their respective return letters and, after consultation with Commission staff, learned that   ?there were pending applications or authorized stations within 50 miles of their proposed  X -  -transmitter sites.CX  yO -  hԍ These are Application File Nos. 59764CMP91 and 62632CMP91 for Rome, Georgia, and 51324CMP yO-  92 for Jasper, Georgia for the Adairsville petitioner, and WHM880, Application File No. 51727CMP91, for the Las Cruces petitioner.C On reconsideration, petitioners submitted interference studies for these newly  X -  discovered stations or pending applications. However, as discussed supra, these applications and   stations were all listed on the publicly available sources of prior public notice or the   -Commission's internal staff listing. Therefore, we decline to accept these postreturn interference   showings. It is established that the Commission is under no obligation to accept curative   showings after an application has been returned or dismissed, and there has been a series of cases  X6-  denying attempts to submit such showings postreturn. See, e.g., Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd  X!-  5442, 5444 n.7 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993); Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd 4668, 4669, n.9 (Dom.   Fac. Div. 1992). Thus, we find that these applications were properly returned as unacceptable  X-  for filing. See MDS Technical Order, Amendment of Parts 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's   KRules and Regulations with regard to the Technical Requirements Applicable to the Multipoint   YDistribution Service, the Instructional Fixed Television Service and the Private OperationalFixed  X-  yMicrowave Service (OFS), 98 FCC 2d 68, 93 (1984); see also Family Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd  X-at 567; Dan S. Bagley, Jr., 7 FCC Rcd 4002, 4003 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992).  Xq- 20. Notice to Affected Parties In addition, each applicant failed to serve copies of   interference analyses, as required by  21.902(g), on all applicants, conditional licensees and"Z ,-(-(ZZ"   licensees for stations required to be studied by  21.902(c), thus depriving affected parties of  X-  notice and an opportunity to be heard. In Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd at 5444, the return of a modification application was upheld for failure to comply with  21.902(g):  XThe 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  0analysis 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 Commission staff resolves interference problems after oppositions are filed, was negated.(#   Thus, these applications were also properly returned as unacceptable for filing due to failure to comply with the service requirements of  21.902(g). <V. CONCLUSION  21. In view of all of the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the   Ruralvision Central, Inc. and Ruralvision South, Inc. applications under consideration in this order. Reinstatement is not warranted and reconsideration is not justified.  22. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the \  abovereferenced  \ Ruralvision Central, Inc. and Ruralvision South, Inc. petitions for reconsideration ARE HEREBY DENIED.  23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send   copies of the decision to the authorized representative for the petitioners by certified mail, return receipt requested. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhCharles E. Dziedzic x` `  hhAssistant Chief, Video Services Division x` `  hhMass Media Bureau