Experimental, Auxiliary, and Special Broadcast and Other Program Distributional Services; ITFS Filing Window

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 74

[MM Docket No. 93-24, FCC 94-148]

Experimental, Auxiliary, and Special Broadcast and Other Program

Distributional Services; ITFS Filing Window

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This Order and Further Notice Proposed Rulemaking seeks

comments on issues relating to the filing of applications for new

Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) facilities, applications

for major changes in existing facilities, and major amendments to

pending applications. Earlier in this proceeding, the Commission

solicited comments on a proposal to institute a window filing procedure

for such applications, in order to stem the processing backlog. The

Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on how

the Commission's Rules might be revised to enhance the efficiency of a

window filing system. It also lifts the freeze on the filing of

applications of major changes to licensed facilities. The Order and

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking responds to the comments received

in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding.

DATES: Comments are due by August 29, 1994 and reply comments are due

by September 28, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul R. Gordon, Mass Media Bureau, Video Services Division, (202) 418-

1630.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is synopsis of the Commission's Order

and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 93-34,

adopted on June 9, 1994, and released on July 6, 1994. The Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking initiating this proceeding may be found at 58 FR

12011 (March 2, 1993).

The complete text of this Order and Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking is available for inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference Center, room 239, at the Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20554, and

may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,

International Transcription Service, at (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street

NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

1. This OFNPRM further considers amending the Commission's rules to

alter the procedures governing the acceptance of applications for new

Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) stations, major

amendments to such applications, or major changes in existing stations.

We also seek comment on several additional proposals put forth by the

commenters and on our motion intended to increase the efficiency and

curtail potential abuse of our application processes. Finally, we

modify the freeze on the filing of major change applications, which we

adopted earlier in this proceeding, to permit the filing of major

change applications and any competing applications thereto.

2. Our goal in this proceeding is to enhance the efficiency of our

processing of ITFS applications. The Notice asserted that changes in

the ITFS service in the last decade have fostered a substantial

increase in the rate of applications filed for new ITFS stations or

major changes in existing stations, creating a significant backlog. The

Notice tentatively concluded that the existing cut-off filing system,

which requires each application to be processed twice, significantly

exacerbates the backlog. We proposed a window filing procedure for

applications for new facilities, applications for major changes in

existing facilities, and major amendments to pending applications. We

would accept such applications only during specific times, or

``windows.'' This would allow us to eliminate the duplicative

processing and control the flow of applications, thereby improving

processing efficiency. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No.

93-24, 58 FR 12011 (March 2, 1993).

3. While most commenters agree that the current filing system is

inefficient and unnecessary, they are divided on the adoption of a

window filing procedure. Supporters of the proposal generally agree

that a window filing procedure will help eliminate the inefficiencies

resulting from the A/B cut-off system that were discussed in the

Notice. Under the A/B cut-off system, educators with wireless cable

lessees would at times file applications simply to be mutually

exclusive with applicants listed on an ``A'' cut-off list. The proposed

window filing procedure would eliminate this practice.

4. However, several commenters argue that the adoption of a filing

window system without concomitant safeguards against abuse would not

increase processing efficiency. According to these parties, a window

filing system would encourage some wireless cable entities to persuade

educational institutions to submit excessively large and unrealistic

numbers of applications, thereby allowing the wireless cable entity to

warehouse spectrum. They assert that such wireless cable entities do

not intend to construct, but rather seek a profitable bargaining

position with allegedly ``legitimate'' wireless cable developers. The

commenters add that a wireless cable operator that plans to construct

may not be ready during a filing window to associate with schools and

prepare its applications. Alternatively, they assert that wireless

cable operators that do intend to construct would have to file

applications in every market in which they hope eventually to operate,

in order to protect themselves from spectrum speculators, diminishing

processing efficiency.

5. Some parties argue that a window filing system is inappropriate

for educational applicants not associated with a wireless cable lessee,

because they require up to 18 months to approve the project and

authorize the funds needed for construction. Thus, NIA states that such

institutions would not be able to respond in time to a Public Notice of

a window. Also, several parties assert that any window filing procedure

must account for the annual January grant application deadline of the

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).\1\

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

\1\NTIA provides grants to educational institutions for the

construction of ITFS facilities.

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

6. Discussion Under the existing cut-off filing system, each

application must undergo a substantive engineering analysis upon

filing, simply to allow the release of an ``A'' cut-off list. No

applications are granted or denied in this stage of processing.

Subsequently, each application undergoes a second technical analysis in

order to determine whether it is grantable. Because each of these

analyses requires significant resources, the elimination of the

duplicative step would substantially improve processing efficiency.

Moreover, a window filing procedure would deny frequency speculators

with no intention to construct the opportunity to file against

applications on an ``A'' cut-off list. These benefits would

significantly improve the Commission's workflow management.

7. In addition, the record reflects that educators would be able to

prepare adequately for each subsequent filing period, due especially

but not solely to the significant involvement of wireless cable

operators in financing and constructing the facilities. Most of these

wireless cable operators have substantial experience in filing for

Commission licenses. The record reflects no reason why educators

without excess capacity leases will not be able to prepare as before

for the financing and construction of an ITFS facility. An ongoing

series of filing windows will still ensure an opportunity for such

educators to file when they are ready. Indeed, because ``A'' cut-off

lists are not announced in advance or released pursuant to a formal

schedule, these educators would be in the same position under the

window system as they are now. Consequently, educators that do not rely

on excess capacity lessees will not be disadvantaged by the change to a

window filing system. for the same reason, the consequences are

identical as under the existing system for parties simply not prepared

to file during a window.

8. Also, in order not to obstruct NTIA grants, we propose allowing

each December the tendering of applications that rely upon NTIA

funding. We would consider such applications, if filed outside a window

period, as having been filed during the immediately following window.

9. Accordingly, we are inclined to adopt the window filing

procedure. We also acknowledge the concerns of the commenters that the

window filing procedure may not by itself alleviate the problems faced

by applicants and the Commission. Thus, as discussed further below, we

seek comment on how we can achieve the significant benefits of a window

filing system while minimizing filing practices that impede efficient

processing.

Proposals To Improve the Application Process

10. Financial Qualifications To deter a significant number of ITFS

speculators, some commenters advocate requiring applicants or their

proposed wireless cable lessees to submit with their applications proof

of their financial ability to construct.\2\ Moreover, they propose

requiring separate financial documentation for each station applied

for, and making the wireless cable lessee submit the documentation when

it is paying for construction of the facilities.

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

\2\Currently, applicants are required to certify their financial

ability.

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

11. We request comment on this proposal. We believe that its

adoption may deter a significant number of speculative applications.

However, we recognize that adoption would entail significant costs.

Compiling the necessary documentation could impose a significant burden

on educational institutions, especially those not leasing their excess

capacity. Further, any enhanced efficiency might be eviscerated by our

having to allocate substantial staff resources to the analysis of each

financial submission. In addition, the requirement could become a basis

for the filing of frivolous petitions, further delaying the grant of

applications. We seek comment on how to balance these costs and

benefits. Moreover, we note that wireless cable lessees are not parties

to ITFS applications. Thus, we ask commenters to address whether it

would be appropriate to require lessees to routinely submit

demonstrations of their financial ability. Commenters should also

address whether our existing rules and policies on misrepresentation

sufficiently prohibit parties from falsely certifying their financial

ability to construct.

12. Application Caps Next, we turn to two related proposals by the

Educational Parties. The first is a cap of three to five applications

that an individual nonlocal ITFS entity could file during a window.

Such applicants, according to the Educational Parties, often work with

frequency speculators and, backed by these wireless cable entities,

submit a number of applications simply to bargain with other wireless

cable entities seeking to construct a viable wireless cable system.

Second, they propose an additional cap of 25 applications associated

with the same wireless cable entity, including any entity with direct

or indirect common ownership or control. According to the Educational

Parties, wireless cable lessees should have to file with their

associated ITFS applications information detailing who has any direct

or indirect interest in the wireless cable lessee, including any

interests as an owner, officer, or director.

13. We invite comments on whether circumstances at this time

warrant inquiry into either of the proposed measures. Adoption of

either proposal might diminish the number of applications submitted,

thereby easing the processing burden substantially. In addition, it

would likely limit multiple filings by frequency speculators and their

affiliated applicants. However, wireless cable operators require a

minimum number of channels with which to operate a viable wireless

cable system. Thus, stringent caps could obstruct the rapid development

of robust wireless cable systems that can vigorously compete in the

rapidly expanding video marketplace. They could also retard the

development of ITFS systems, which often obtain funding from the

wireless cable lessees. Also, commenters should address how to justify

the proposed discrimination against nonlocal applicants. We note that

such entities establish eligibility through letters of intended use

from an official of each receive site, and through the service on a

local programming committee of an official of each receive site. Thus,

we invite commenters to address whether and what kinds of limitations

would promote both ITFS and wireless cable development. How can we

balance the efficiencies of such limitations with the costs they might

impose? If an application ceiling would serve the public interest, how

many applications associated with one entity should we allow per

window? How would we define common control for the purpose of either

ITFS or wireless cable? Should we base our definition on actual

control, or on attribution of ownership?

14. Expedited Consideration of Applications The Educational Parties

and WCA propose that, under certain circumstances, we give expedited

consideration to ITFS applications in return for the applicant's

agreeing to an accelerated construction schedule. WCA suggests that a

wireless cable lessee be able to request and obtain expedited

consideration of an application with which it is associated, if the

lessee has access to a certain minimum number of channels in the

area.\3\ In return, grantees would be required to order their equipment

within 21 days of Public Notice of the grant, and construct the

facilities within six months. Extensions would be granted only under

compelling circumstances, such as the inability of the manufacturer to

deliver timely ordered equipment, or accidental damages to essential

equipment. WCA claims that adoption of the proposal would accelerate

the development of both ITFS and wireless cable systems. In addition,

the Educational Parties propose that educators without excess capacity

leases also have access to such expedited consideration.

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

\3\WCA proposes expedited consideration only if the wireless

cable lessee already has 12 channels, at least 4 of which are MDS.

This would include licensed access to MDS or ITFS stations, cut-off

non-mutually exclusive proposed MDS facilities, and/or proposed ITFS

stations (including the ones at issue). WCA Comments at 7.

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

15. While we do not now view the implementation of the proposal as

practical, we invite comments on the proposal and how it might be

implemented. The staff may have to expend substantial resources

determining which applications were eligible for expedited

consideration, enforcing the requirement for ordering equipment, and

enforcing the construction deadline, thereby delaying service to the

public. Also, would the public be served if we denied an extension

request when construction is nearly complete at the end of the six

months? Finally, the likely substantial number of applicants requesting

expedited consideration could defeat the purpose of the proposal. In

the alternative, would processing efficiency be adequately improved by

a stricter enforcement of the existing requirements for extensions of

time?

16. Assignment of Construction Permits We now turn to a related

proposal to diminish the incentive of frequency speculators to submit

applications for permits that they intend to later assign for profit.

We propose to formalize our current practice of limiting the allowable

consideration for unbuilt ITFS facilities to out-of-pocket expenses, as

is now applied to the sale of broadcast construction permits. We seek

comment on the proposal.

17. Application of the Four-Channel Rule Section 74.902(d) of the

Commission's Rules generally limits an ITFS licensee to four channels

for use in a single area of operation. However, we have not clearly

defined what constitutes an ``area of operation'' for the purpose of

the rule. A clear benchmark would make the standard easier for

applicants to comply with and would also increase the speed of

processing.

18. The staff has considered a single area of operation for this

purpose to extend no farther than 20 miles from the transmitter site.

We seek comment on whether we should adopt that figure as a rule.

Commenters should address whether an educational institution is likely

to routinely serve an area extending beyond that radius. Alternatively,

should we instead define an area of operation in terms of interference,

rather than of distance? Specifically, we seek comment on whether we

should consider two sites to be in different areas of operation, as

long as one could operate at maximum authorized power on the same

channel at each site without co-channel interference.

19. Offset We next turn to our policies toward offset.\4\

Currently, we apply the 28dB D/U ratio standard to determine co-channel

interference. However, we do not require offset if an objection is

raised by one of the affected parties. Instead, we have encouraged

privately negotiated agreements to use offset to resolve interference.

Consequently, we must decide between two mutually exclusive

applications when, if the applicants used offset, both could serve the

public without objectionable co-channel interference. To require offset

between otherwise grantable mutually exclusive ITFS applicants would

help maximize the number of educational entities that can avail

themselves of the service. Thus, we propose requiring the use of offset

in such circumstances when all affected transmitters are capable of

handling frequency offset stability requirements. Such a requirement,

we believe, would both accelerate the granting of applications and

allow for a greater number of ITFS licensees, thereby increasing

service to the public. Also, although we currently require new

applicants to use equipment capable of utilizing offset, we have not

always done so. Accordingly, we would not apply the proposed rule to

facilities predating the requirement that lack offset capability.

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

\4\A licensee utilizing offset operates at a frequency either

slightly higher or slightly lower than the standard frequency for

that channel. Specifically, such a licensee operates its facilities

with a carrier frequency 10 kHz from the nominal carrier

frequency.

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

20. Protected Service Areas. In addition to receive site

protection, ITFS applicants can request interference protection for a

service area.\5\ We provide such protection only at an applicant or

licensee's request. Generally, such protection benefits the wireless

cable lessee, because the protected service area ensures interference

protection within an area where receive sites are not specified, or

extended protection over an area where receive sites are not currently

located. Moreover, the protection is afforded only during the hours

that the wireless cable entity is using the channels.

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

\5\Sections 74.903 (d) and (e) of the Commission's Rules.

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

21. Protected service areas are intended to provide a measure of

protection to wireless cable lessees, in order to promote the

inauguration of new or improved wireless cable service. However, the

protected service area has frequently been used in ways that we had not

contemplated. Specifically, applicants for new facilities often request

and receive interference protection that restricts an existing licensee

from seeking certain modifications to its facilities. In addition,

otherwise grantable ITFS applications in adjacent communities often

obtain interference protection, causing them to become mutually

exclusive with a previously filed application. At the same time, an

existing facility that has not requested such protection often, upon

learning that an application for a nearby operation has been filed,

requests interference protection and thereby obstructs the new

applicant. We believe that these practices may be an abuse of our

processing system driven by certain wireless cable lessees, designed to

prevent or dilute competition. Further, this practice significantly

impacts our processing and delays the inauguration of new or improved

service to the public. Moreover, such practices unfairly disrupt

existing operations and already-proposed facilities.

22. In order to hasten service to the public, then, we propose to

modify our application of interference protection. Specifically, we

propose to apply such protection only prospectively. Thus, it would be

effective only with regard to applications filed after the protection

request. Commenters are invited to address whether our proposal would

sufficiently diminish the disruption and delay resulting from the

current method of granting interference protection. We also seek

comment on a particular application of the proposed rule. Specifically,

if two applications submitted during the same filing window, otherwise

grantable, are mutually exclusive only because both applicants request

a protected service area, we propose to consider them as mutually

exclusive. We invite comments on this proposal.

23. Receive-Site Interference Protection. Pursuant to Sec. 74.903

(d) and (e) of the Commission's Rules, an ITFS licensee, permittee, or

applicant may request interference protection for its receive sites.

The rule does not expressly limit the distance a receive site may be

from the transmitter in order to receive such protection. As a result,

we have received numerous applications in which interference protection

has been requested for receive sites that appear to be beyond the

reasonable coverage ability of an educational institution. We believe

that such requests are an abuse of our processes, designed to increase

artificially the service area of the wireless cable lessee. We also

believe that the elimination of this practice would significantly

increase the efficiency of our processing of applications, thereby

hastening service to the public.

24. Given an ITFS facility's height, power, frequency, and mode of

transmission, our experience suggests that it is generally unlikely

that an educational institution would reasonably serve a receive site

that is more than 35 miles from the transmitter. Thus, absent a showing

of unique circumstances, we propose to provide protection only for

those receive sites 35 miles or less from the transmitter. Further, we

propose that an applicant not be able to claim eligibility for a

license by use of any receive site more than 35 miles from the

transmitter. Applicants are invited to address this proposal.

25. Major Modifications. We classify applications to modify an

existing ITFS facility or to amend a pending application as either

major or minor, attaching different procedural rules to each.\6\ We

generally define major modifications as those that significantly impact

an existing or proposed facility. Pursuant to the window proposal, the

Commission will accept major amendments and applications for major

modifications only during an open window period.

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

\6\Section 74.911 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 74.911.

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

26. However, the current definition of minor changes, we believe,

does not realistically take into account the impact that the proposed

change would have on the facility in question, nearby facilities, or

proposed facilities.\7\ Applicants frequently submit applications for

changes that would substantially affect the operations of such

facilities, yet we now treat many of these changes as minor.

Accordingly, we propose to reclassify certain changes as major.

Consequently, we would accept amendments and applications for such

changes only during a window filing period. We believe that this action

would more accurately reflect the impact of a proposed change.

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

\7\Section 74.911 classifies a small number of specified changes

as major and defines all other changes as minor.

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

27. We have had an informal policy of considering proposals to

relocate a facility's transmitter site by 10 miles or more as a major

change. We now propose to modify our rules to make this policy formal.

In addition, we propose to reclassify as a major change any application

or amendment involving: (1) Any polarization change; (2) the addition

of any receive site that would experience interference from any

licensee or applicant on file prior to the submission of the amendment;

(3) an increase in the EIRP in any direction by more than 1.5 dB;\8\

(4) an increase of 25 feet or more in the transmitting antenna height;

or (5) any change that would cause interference to any previously

proposed application or existing facility. We note that by limiting the

opportunity to file the above types of applications, adoption of the

proposal would appear to somewhat diminish a licensee or applicant's

flexibility to respond to changing needs and circumstances. At the same

time, however, we believe that adoption of the proposed rules would

make our classification of changes more consistent. By doing so, we

believe, we would enhance the efficiency of the window filing system.

Thus, it appears that the benefits gained from the rule would outweigh

the costs. We seek comment on our analysis. Finally, we propose to

exempt from the new rule any change that resolves mutually exclusive

applications without creating new frequency conflicts.

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

\8\Thus, TPO would no longer be the deciding factor in

determining whether a change is major.

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

28. FAA Authorization. Pursuant to Section 17.4 of the Commission's

Rules, we do not grant or modify a license until the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) has determined that the proposed transmitter site

will not pose a hazard to air navigation. Applicants now state in their

applications that they have applied for FAA clearance. However, once

that clearance is obtained, applicants are not required to inform the

Commission. To hasten the time that our staff learns of the FAA's

hazard determinations, we propose to require the applicant to inform

the Commission of the FAA's determination. We believe that this would

accelerate service to the public. Commenters are invited to address the

costs and benefits of adopting the proposal.

29. Interference Studies. Applicants often claim that their

proposed facilities will cause no harmful interference, based either on

their being beyond the radio horizon or on their signal being blocked

by nearby terrain. However, such applicants frequently provide no

terrain profiles to support such claims. Furthermore, whenever an

applicant files a proposal claiming that no interference will be cause

due to the signal's being blocked by the surrounding terrain, a

question almost always arises as to the amount of signal that will be

blocked. Many applicants conclude that any terrain obstruction,

regardless of degree, completely blocks the signal. Our experience has

demonstrated that this conclusion is not necessarily true.

30. Accordingly, we propose to amend the rules to require the

submission of terrain profiles and a quantitative analysis of any

additional signal loss calculated by using the Longley-Rice propagation

model, Version 1.2.2, in the point-to-point mode. Adoption of the

proposal would make mandatory a technical analysis that many applicants

already use. The Longley-Rice model was derived from NBS Technical Note

101 and updated in 1982 by G. A. Hufford. Version 1.2.2 incorporated

modifications described in a memorandum by Hufford in 1985. Terrain

elevations used as input to the model should be from the United States

Geological Survey three-second or 30-second digitized terrain

databases. Further, we propose to disregard any claim of signal

blockage caused by artificial structures. Such claims usually make

impossible any quantitative analysis. Accordingly, we seek comment on

these proposals.

31. Reasonable Assurance of Receive Sites. We have received a

number of applications in which some of the schools listed as receive

sites have subsequently informed us that they had, in fact, not agreed

to participate in the proposed ITFS system. This practice forces the

Commission to allocate its scarce resources processing an inaccurate

application, then reprocessing it (and related mutually exclusive

applications) when the information is corrected. Such duplicative

processing significantly delays the final disposition of all ITFS

applications. Therefore, we seek comment on how an applicant should

demonstrate reasonable assurance of a receive site's legitimacy. We

propose requiring a letter of assurance from the applicant, listing the

receive sites' contact people, titles, and telephone numbers. With

regard to noncompliance with any new requirement, should we

automatically decline to consider any proposed receive site without

adequate assurance?

32. Accreditation of Applicants Currently, pursuant to Section

74.932 of the Commission's Rules, an applicant to construct new

facilities must report whether it, its members, or the receive sites it

serves are accredited. The application form does not require the

educator to specify whether it is the applicant or its members that are

accredited. This ambiguity has opened the door to abuse of our

procedures. Consequently, we have received applications in which the

applicant is an accredited organization, but it proposes receive sites

at non-accredited institutions. Applicants often evade the intent of

the rule by having only one receive site out of many accredited,

thereby defeating the fundamental purpose of the service, which is to

serve the educational needs of accredited institutions.

33. Thus, we propose to require applicants to state whether and by

whom each school listed as a receive site in accredited. We also

propose not to consider in a tie-breaking proceeding a receive site

that lacks this accompanying information, or that is unaccredited, as

that would allow it unwarranted comparative consideration. Commenters

are invited to address other ways we should utilize the additional

information. Should we require a majority of receive sites to be

accredited in order for the application to be grantable? Should we deny

interference protection for any unaccredited receive site? We invite

commenters to address any or all of the above proposals. However, we do

not wish to limit the range of comments in this area. Thus, we welcome

other proposals besides those discussed above that would safeguard both

the efficiency of a window filing system and the integrity of our

processes.

Freeze of New Applications

34. In the Notice we announced that, for a period of time, we would

not accept applications for new ITFS facilities or for major changes to

existing facilities. We expressed our concern that potential applicants

would inundate the Commission with applications while the old cut-off

rule was still in effect, thereby defeating the purpose of the proposed

rulemaking. However, we stated that we would continue to accept (but

not process) applications in which the applicant relies on NTIA for

construction funds. We have also continued to accept major change

proposals where they are filed in the same market to accommodate

settlement agreements among applicants that have previously achieved

cut-off status and where the settlement resolves mutually exclusive

applications.

35. Upon publication of this Order and Further Notice in the

Federal Register, we shall instruct the staff to begin accepting

applications for major changes to existing facilities, and any mutually

exclusive applications thereto. Such applications will be processed

under the existing A/B cut-off rules. We believe that this will ease

the burden that the freeze has caused to educational institutions that

seek to alter their existing facilities. Licensees and those filing

competing applications may file such applications until the effective

date of any window filing rules. We note that this Order and Further

Notice contemplates modifying our definition of a major change. For the

purposes of modifying the freeze, we shall use the existing definition

of the term. Any pending major modification application not cut off as

of the adoption of this Order and Further Notice will be considered in

conjunction with the newly submitted applications.

Administrative Matters

Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and

1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.415 and 1.419, interested

parties may file comments on or before August 29, 1994, and reply

comments on or before September 28, 1994. To file formally in this

proceeding, you must file an original and five copies of all comments,

reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner

to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original

plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply comments to the

Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington,

DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public

inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center,

room 239, at the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20554.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 74

Instructional Television Fixed Service, Television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

LaVera F. Marshall,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 94-16880 Filed 7-12-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M