WPCK 2BJZ Courier3|jx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL) Room 600_2HPLA4MPC.PRSx  @\NX@26 ZFK3|jHP LaserJet 4M (PCL) Room 600_2HPLA4MPC.PRSXj\  P6G;\NXP"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xw PE37=XP##X\  P6G;IP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G; XP#2C KK/Sz v "i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN` ưX "i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""A.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/gon April 7, 1992, proposing a transmitter site at Greeley, Colorado.1 yOf- xԍ Application File Nos. 04020CMP92 for Channel H1; 04021CMP92 for Channel H2; and 04023CMP92 for Channel H3. A preliminary review of  xthe Greeley applications, conducted by Commission staff, revealed that the applications were  X- xunacceptable for filing. 1 yO!- xZԍ #Xj\  P6G; XP##X\  P6G;IP#Section 21.20(a) of the rules, 47 C.F.R.  21.20(a), sets forth the standards for returning MDS applications as unacceptable for filing:   xUnless the Commission shall otherwise permit, an application will be unacceptable for filing and will be xreturned to the applicant with a brief statement as to the omissions or discrepancies if:   ?x(1) The application is defective with respect to completeness of answers to questions, informational xshowings, execution, or other matters of a formal character; or x(2) The application does not substantially comply with the Commission's rules, regulations, specific 3"3" xrequests for additional information, or other requirements. "(,)))"ԌX(#P The staff dismissed the three Greeley applications on August 31, 1995,"X,))ZZ"  xpursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.20. $cSpecifically, the dismissal letters stated that the applicant failed  x=to provide a copy of FAA Form 74601 that indicates FAA approval of the proposed structure  xlpursuant to 47 C.F.R.  17.4, 17.7 and 21.15(d); failed to provide an analysis concerning  xpossible impact upon Canadian or Mexican communications pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(5);  X- xland failed to provide a list of program input facilities pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.13(a)(3).zXD yO- xwԍ Failure to provide an analysis concerning possible impact on Canadian or Mexican communications, and failure  x<to provide a list of program input facilities were incorrectly listed as deficiencies in each of the August 31, 1995  {O= - xdismissal letters. See Greater Boston Television Corporation v. FCC, 444 F.2d 851 (D.C. Cir. 1970), cert. denied,  xh403 U.S. 923 (1971) ("The court will not upset a decision because of errors that are not material, "there being room for the doctrine of harmless error.").z  X- x[Based on a de novo review on reconsideration, we conclude that petitioner's applications were  xunacceptable for filing for failure to meet the requirements of Section 21.902, due to failure to  xLsubmit adequate interference studies, failure to consider all authorized or previously proposed  xMDS stations and failure to serve all affected parties with interference studies. Although the  xAugust 31, 1995 dismissal letters did not list Section 21.902, these deficiencies are discussed below.  X -  x3. On October 12, 1995, Telcast filed three timely petitions for reconsideration. On  xreconsideration, petitioner contends that it was under no obligation to submit FAA Form 74601  xbecause no FAA notification was required. Petitioner also argues that it was not required to  x@submit an analysis concerning the stations' possible impact on Canadian or Mexican  x[communications, citing Section 21.905(c)(5), because its proposed transmitter site is not within  x56.3 kilometers (35 miles) of the Mexican or Canadian border. Finally, petitioner states that as  xa noncommon carrier applicant, it is not required to provide a list of the program input facilities.  xTherefore, petitioner contends that its applications were in compliance with the Commission's rules and should be reinstated. %III. DISCUSSION  X-  x4. Interference Protection. At the very inception of MDS, the Commission established  X- xthe principle that subsequently filed applications must not cause harmful interference to any  xpreviously proposed or authorized MDS station. "Of course, the applicant for the second channel  xsought will be expected to demonstrate that his system is designed so that significant interference  X~- xwill not occur with respect to the first MDS channel. . . ." Amendments of Parts 1, 2, 21 and  xk43 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to Provide for Licensing and Regulation of  XR- xCommon Carrier Radio Stations in the Multipoint Distribution Service, 45 FCC 2d 616, 62021  X=- x(1974) (MDS Allocation Order). A decade before the Greeley applications were filed, the Commission explained its emphasis on this requirement for MDS applications:   #XxIt is possible for cochannel interference generated by one MDS station to cause  X-  Nunacceptable distortion of another station's signal from as far away as 50 miles. Section" ,-(-(ZZ"   21.902(c) of our Rules therefore requires an MDS application to include an interference   study containing an analysis of the potential for harmful interference with other MDS stations located within a 50 mile radius of the proposed station.(#  X- xR.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 606 (1981).D yO- xԍ The distance was extended in 1984 to the radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical path from the  xapplicant's proposed station to the protected service area of the authorized or previously proposed station.  {M- xAmendment of Parts 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations with regard to the technical  xxrequirements applicable to the Multipoint Distribution Service, the Instructional Television Fixed Service and the  {O= -Private OperationalFixed Microwave Service (OFS), 98 FCC 2d 68, at 8991 (1984) (MDS Technical Order).  It has also been recognized that "the demonstration of  xinterference protection, at the time of filing, aids the Commission in the public interest  Xx- xdetermination that an applicant is technically qualified to be an MDS/MMDS licensee." Family  Xc- x[Entertainment Network, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 566, 56768 n.10 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994). Thus, Section  x21.902(b) sets certain threshold interference protection levels and requires all MDS applicants to  X7-demonstrate that protection in interference studies submitted with the applications.0$c07zD {Ob- xLԍ MDS applicants have consistently been required to comply with  21.902(b). In Family Entertainment  {O,- xNetwork, 9 FCC Rcd at 568, the Domestic Facilities Division upheld the return, as unacceptable for filing, of an  xapplication which demonstrated that the level of interference was within 0.16 dB of meeting the 45 dB cochannel standard. In so doing, it was stated that: Xx(#  {ON-  >x[W]e reject FEN's claim that its applications should be granted because the level of interference . . . is de  {O-  Xxminimis. Section 21.902(b)(3) requires that an applicant demonstrate 45 dB of cochannel interference   >protection. In this rule provision, no reference is made to qualifying terms, degrees or levels, other than 45 dB, at which interference would be deemed acceptable. (#    |$cx5. At the time the Greeley applications were filed, in order to demonstrate compliance  xwith Section 21.902(b), and so that mutual exclusivity determinations could be made, Section  x21.902(c)(1) of the Commission's rules required that an MDS applicant include with the  x-application an analysis of the potential for harmful interference with any authorized or previously  xproposed station if the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical  xpath to any part of the protected service area of any other authorized or previously proposed  x-cochannel station, or if the applicant's proposed transmitter was within 50 miles of the transmitter  x>coordinates of any other authorized or previously proposed cochannel station. 47 C.F.R.   xk21.902(c)(1) (1991). In addition, Section 21.902(c)(2) required that an MDS applicant include  x{with the application an analysis of the potential for harmful interference if the applicant's  xproposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected  xservice area of any other authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel station. 47 C.F.R.  x\ 21.902(c)(2) (1991). $cThe applicant was also required to show what steps it took to comply  xwith the requirements of Section 21.902(a), which requires MDS applicants, licensees and  x<conditional licensees, to make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and  xto avoid blocking potential adjacent channel stations in the same area and cochannel stations in nearby areas. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(a) (1991).",-(-(ZZ"Ԍ  x6. These interference showings are a significant requirement because the Commission  xxunderstood that certain adjacent channel interference problems might arise. The Commission also  xanticipated that some authorized cochannel stations would be spaced more closely than ordinarily  X- xallowed and require careful planning and engineering. See Amendment of Parts 2, 21, 74 and  V- x94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations in Regard to Frequency Allocation to the  V- xInstructional Television Fixed Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private  Xx- xOperationalFixed Microwave Service, 94 FCC 2d 1203, 1264 (1983)$c. Thus, the Commission  xstressed, "we expect applicants to address this problem in their applications. Those applications  xthat do not contain an analysis of how the applicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in  X5- xzadjacent areas will not be considered acceptable for filing." Id. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b)(c); see  X - xalso Dan S. Bagley, Jr., 7 FCC Rcd 4002, 4003 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("In the processing of  xMDS station applications, the interference analyses required by 47 C.F.R.  21.902 are crucial.").  xBecause petitioner here failed to make the required showings regarding interference protection,  xlits application cannot be characterized as complete or in substantial compliance with the Commission's rules.  X-  x7. In a de novo review on reconsideration, we have determined that the Greeley  xapplications did not include adequate interference analyses of the potential for harmful  x-interference to authorized or previously proposed MMDS cochannel stations within 50 miles and  x?cochannel and adjacent channel stations to whose protected service areas there was an  X>- xunobstructed electrical path. Specifically, we have found that the Greeley applicant failed to file  X'- xrequired interference studies for six previously proposed MMDS stations.'D yO- x Application File No. 04020CMP92 failed to include interference studies for: Application File Nos.  x758887, MDS station WNTG790 at Fountain, Colorado, and 03932CMP92, at Ft. Morgan, Colorado. Application  xFile No. 04021CMP92 failed to include interference studies for: Application File Nos. 758888, MDS station  x: WNTG791, at Fountain, Colorado, and 03929CMP92 at Ft. Morgan, Colorado. Application File No. 04023CMP x92 failed to include interference studies for: Application File Nos. 758461, MDS station WNTA854 at Colorado Springs, Colorado, and 03930CMP92 at Ft. Morgan, Colorado, all on the H channels.  We have also  xdetermined that the Greeley applicant failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21.902  x.in that the applicant did not include free space calculations for the desired to undesired signal  xratio to each referenced receiving antenna within the protected service area of the authorized or  xpreviously proposed stations pursuant to Section 21.902(c), (d) and (f); used incorrect  xzmethodology in calculating the protected service area of authorized or previously proposed  xstations; and indicated terrain blockage, but did not submit required demonstrations, such as  xshadow maps or terrain profiles. Therefore, since petitioner both submitted inadequate  xZinterference studies and failed to file other required interference studies, we conclude that Telcast failed to comply with the Section 21.902 interference protection requirements.  X*-  x8. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition to submitting the required interference analyses  xto the Commission, an MDS applicant also must serve each required interference study upon the  xapplicant, conditional licensee or licensee at each previously proposed or authorized station  xrequired to be studied, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.902(g). The same rule requires that a list  xidentifying each applicant, conditional licensee, and licensee served be submitted with the" @,-(-(ZZ"  X- x.application. The Greeley applicant failed to serve required interference analyses, as mandated  X- xby Section21.902(g), on six of the required applicants, conditional licensees and licensees for  x[stations stipulated to be studied by Section21.902(c), thus depriving affected parties of notice  X- xand opportunity to be heard.sD yO8- xԍ Application File Nos. 03932CMP92 at Ft. Morgan, Colorado, and 758887, MDS station WNTG790 at  xFountain, Colorado, were not served with a copy of Application File No. 04020CMP92. Application File Nos.  x03929CMP92 and 758888, MDS station WNTG791, at Fountain, Colorado, were not served with a copy of  xApplication File No. 04021CMP92. Application File Nos. 03930CMP92 and 758461, MDS station WNTA854, at Colorado Springs, Colorado, were not served with a copy of Application File No. 04023CMP92. s In Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442, 5444 (Dom. Fac. Div.  xM1993), the return of a modification application was upheld for failure to comply with Section 21.902(g):   XxThe 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.(#  xThus, these applications were also properly dismissed as unacceptable for filing based on their failure to comply with the service requirements contained in Section21.902(g). x  Xh-  x9. FAA Notification. Petitioner's applications indicated that FAA notification was not  XQ- xrequired and left blank the date of FAA notification. Petitioner was required, however, to notify  X:- xthe FAA and to indicate on its application that such notification of the FAA had been made. 47  x C.F.R.  17.7(a) and 21.15(d). Petitioner argues that pursuant to Section 21.15(d), no such  xnotification was required because the addition of its transmit antenna would not increase the  xoverall height of the support structure. Nevertheless, Section 21.15(d) states that "complete  xinformation as to rules concerning construction . . . of antenna structures is contained in Part  x17...." Section 17.7(a) of the Commission's rules states that "notification to the Federal  xAviation Administration is required . . . for . . . any construction or alteration of more than 60.96  xmeters (200 feet) in height above ground level at its site." 47 C.F.R.  17.7(a). Exhibit C in  xeach of the abovecaptioned applications illustrates that the addition of Telcast's transmit antenna  x-to the support structure occurs at 282.5 feet, thus requiring FAA notification pursuant to Section  XT- xM17.7(a). Finally, lack of FAA notification affects processing of MDS applications and itself  X=- xrenders the applications unacceptable for filing pursuant to Section 21.20. Friendly Community  X(-Television Services, 7 FCC Rcd 7892, 7893 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992). "IV. CONCLUSION  X -  x10. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's dismissal of the  x>applications filed by Telcast, Inc. under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not"!x,-(-(ZZ " justified and reinstatement of the applications is not warranted.   mx11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petitions filed by Telcast,  X-Inc. ARE HEREBY DENIED.   x12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send  xa copy of the decision to the authorized representative for the petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested. pX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: