**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| # In re Applications of  {#in    | * | File No. BPLIF-920608DD      |
| -re-applications-of .unnumbered} | * |                              |
|                                  | ) | File No. BPLIF-930107DA      |
| POJOAQUE HIGH SCHOOL             | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| For Construction Permit and      |   |                              |
| License in the Instructional     | * |                              |
| Television Fixed Service on the  | * |                              |
| A Group Channels, Santa Fe, New  | ) |                              |
| Mexico                           | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| HISPANIC INFORMATION AND         |   |                              |
| TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK, INC. | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| For Construction Permit and      | ) |                              |
| License in the Instructional     | * |                              |
| Television Fixed Service on the  | * |                              |
| A Group Channels, Santa Fe, New  |   |                              |
| Mexico                           | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**Adopted: September 24, 2003 Released: September 26, 2003**

By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  On May 21, 1997, the Hispanic Information and Telecommunications
    Network, Inc. (HITN) filed a petition seeking reconsideration[^1] of
    the April 21, 1997 dismissal[^2] of its application to construct and
    operate a new Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) station
    on the A Group Channels in Santa Fe, New Mexico.[^3] HITN therefore
    seeks reconsideration of the April 21, 1997 grant of a mutually
    exclusive application filed by Pojoaque High School (PHS).[^4] For
    the reasons discussed below, we grant in part and deny in part the
    PFR.

# BACKGROUND

2.  On June 8, 1992, PHS filed an application seeking authority to
    construct and operate a new ITFS station on the A Group Channels in
    Santa Fe, New Mexico.[^5] On December 12, 1992, PHS amended its
    application.[^6] Subsequently, on January 7, 1993, HITN filed an
    application that was mutually exclusive to the PHS application. On
    January 25, 1993, PHS filed a request for waiver of the Commission's
    Rule[^7] limiting the assignment of no more than four channels to a
    licensee for use in a single area of operation.[^8] PHS supplemented
    its waiver request on its own initiative on November 29, 1993,[^9]
    and at the request of the staff on June 10, 1994[^10] and June 23,
    1994.[^11]

3.  The Video Services Division (Division) of the former Mass Media
    Bureau granted the Pojoaque applicants' request for waiver of the
    four-channel limitation based on its finding that the requested
    channels were necessary to provide the wide range of educational and
    instructional programming proposed.[^12] The Division noted that the
    Pojoaque applicants' proposal reflected an average of 40 hours of
    ITFS programming per channel per week.[^13] The Division further
    noted that both PHS and PVS amended their excess capacity leases
    with Ruralvision South, Inc. (Ruralvision) to require a minimum of
    40 hours per channel per week to be devoted to formal educational
    programming.[^14] The Division explained that, whereas PHS will
    provide programming for students in high school, with an emphasis on
    foreign language and advanced placement programming, PVS will
    provide programming for students at the elementary and middle school
    levels.[^15] The Division found no repetition among the programs and
    noted that the programming on all eight channels will be presented
    simultaneously throughout most of the school day.[^16] The Division
    concluded that such a comprehensive schedule for over twelve
    different grade levels would not be possible on only four
    channels.[^17] The Division therefore concluded that grant of the
    waiver was warranted.

4.  Under the rules in effect at that time, in cases of mutually
    exclusive applications - where applicants were competing for the
    same or adjacent channels in the same geographic area - each
    application was reviewed pursuant to the Commission's comparative
    process. This procedure awarded a maximum of twelve merit points
    based on five criteria deemed to have been most relevant to
    determining the applicant best qualified to provide the service for
    which the ITFS spectrum had been allocated.[^18] First, four points
    were awarded to local applicants. Second, three points were awarded
    to applicants which were accredited schools, educational
    institutions, or school boards and school districts applying within
    their jurisdictions. Third, two points were awarded to applicants
    whose requests would result in the acquisition by these applicants
    of four or fewer ITFS channels within the particular area. Fourth,
    either one or two points may have been awarded to applicants for
    specified levels of proposed ITFS programming.[^19] Fifth, one point
    was awarded to applicants which were existing E or F channel
    licensees seeking to relocate on another ITFS channel group, where
    such applicants showed an established need for an expanded service
    that could not have been accommodated on their grandfathered E or F
    facilities. The tentative selectee was the applicant with the
    highest score.

5.  In this instance, the Division found PHS to be the tentative
    selectee.[^20] Whereas HITN was awarded a total of two points for
    observing the four-channel limitation, PHS was awarded a total of
    eight points - four points for being local; three points for being
    accredited; and one point for proposing at least twenty-one hours of
    formal educational programming per channel per week.[^21] The
    Division further found that grant of PHS's application would serve
    the public interest, convenience, and necessity.[^22] HITN's
    application was dismissed.[^23]

# DISCUSSION

6.  Section 74.902(d)(1) of the Commission's Rules limits a licensee "to
    the assignment of no more than four channels for use in a single
    area of operation, all of which should be selected from the same
    \[channel\] Group . . . ."[^24] Applicants shall not apply for more
    channels than they intend to construct within a reasonable time,
    simply for the purpose of reserving additional channels.[^25]
    Rather, the number of channels authorized to an applicant will be
    based on the demonstration of need for the number of channels
    requested.[^26] The Commission will take into consideration such
    factors as the amount of use of any currently assigned channels and
    the amount or proposed use of each channel requested, the amount of,
    and justification for, any repetition in the schedules, and the
    overall demand and availability of ITFS channels in the
    community.[^27]

7.  In the PFR, HITN contends that PHS is not basically qualified to be
    an applicant. According to HITN, the initial waiver request filed by
    PHS on January 25, 1993 fails to satisfy the "heavy burden imposed
    by Commission precedent and regulatory criteria to secure a waiver
    of the four-channel rule."[^28] HITN contends that the Commission
    may only consider the waiver request as initially filed by PHS on
    January 25, 1993 because any supplements that were filed by PHS
    after the "B" cut-off date violate the Commission's Rules and confer
    a comparative advantage to PHS in the mutually exclusive selection
    process.[^29] Moreover, HITN argues that PHS had not committed to
    serving its own students by the "B" cut-off date and therefore was
    required to provide documentation of proposed receive sites that
    were intending to use PHS's formal educational programming.[^30]
    HITN concludes that, because PHS failed to establish its basic
    eligibility by the "B" cut-off date for the reasons noted above, the
    Division should have dismissed the PHS application.

8.  HITN argues that, even if PHS is basically qualified, the Division
    erroneously found PHS to be the superior applicant.[^31] First, HITN
    contends that PHS is not local because it is not physically located
    in the community where service is proposed.[^32] HTIN notes that PHS
    is neither located nor has any receive sites in Santa Fe, New
    Mexico.[^33] According to HITN, the Division's finding that PHS
    qualified as being a local applicant because Pojoaque was located in
    the Santa Fe metropolitan area is erroneous.[^34] HITN asserts that
    Pojoaque is not a suburb of Santa Fe because it is located
    approximately 15 miles from Santa Fe and because it maintains a
    separate school system.[^35] HITN argues that the Division created a
    new definition for the term "metropolitan area" in this
    instance.[^36] HTIN therefore concludes that the Division's action
    is arbitrary and capricious because it is a substantive change of
    the Commission's Rules requiring adoption via a rulemaking
    proceeding.[^37] Second, HITN contends that the Division should not
    have awarded PHS points for being accredited because PHS "made no
    concrete commitment to provide educational programming to its own
    students."[^38] Third, HITN asserts that PHS also should not have
    received any points for its proposed programming.[^39] According to
    HITN, the Division improperly considered amendments that PHS filed
    after the "B" cut-off date.[^40] Based on the above, HITN calculates
    that the Division should have awarded it the license because the two
    points that HITN received for observing the four-channel limitation
    exceeds the zero points that PHS should have received had the
    Division correctly applied the comparative criteria.[^41]

9.  We affirm the Division's grant of PHS's request for waiver of the
    four-channel limitation. We reject HITN's contention that the
    Division improperly considered supplements to the waiver request
    that were filed by PHS.[^42] As noted above, the Pojoaque applicants
    initially requested a waiver of the four-channel limitation on
    January 25, 1993, prior to the "A" cut-off date in this proceeding,
    and supplemented their waiver request on their own initiative on
    November 29, 1993 and at the request of the staff on June 10, 1994
    and June 23, 1994. The Commission has consistently allowed ITFS
    applicants to perfect their four-channel waiver requests by post "B"
    cut-off amendments because the supplemental information is used only
    for the purpose of evaluating the four-channel waiver request, an
    analysis that involves no comparison with competing applicants.[^43]
    HITN's reliance on *Unified School District #511* and *Fishburne
    Military School* for a proposition to the contrary is misplaced
    because those cases addressed amendments to applications and not
    supplements to requests for waiver of the four-channel
    limitation.[^44] In this matter, the Division was very careful to
    note that, while it was accepting the supplements in its
    consideration of the waiver request, it would nevertheless "look to
    the Pojoaque applications as of the 'B' cut-off date to determine
    merit points for programming."[^45]

10. We find that the Division correctly determined PHS to be the
    superior applicant.[^46] First, we further find that the Division
    correctly awarded PHS three merit points for being accredited. HITN
    does not contest that PHS is accredited by the New Mexico State
    Board of Education. Rather, HITN argues that the Division should not
    have awarded PHS points for being accredited because PHS "made no
    concrete commitment to provide educational programming to its own
    students."[^47] We disagree. PHS indicated in its application that
    it would be providing service to its own students.[^48] As noted by
    the Division, PHS was not required to submit letters of intended use
    because it proposed to serve its own students.[^49] HITN mistakenly
    assumes that letters of intended use that were submitted by PHS on
    June 10, 1994 "form\[ed\] the basis of PHS's showing of
    accreditation."[^50] As a result, HITN's contention that the
    Division conferred PHS a comparative advantage by "accepting" the
    submission of such letters of intended use subsequent to the "B"
    cut-off date is inaccurate.[^51]

11. Second, we affirm the Division's finding that PHS was entitled to
    one point for proposing at least twenty-one hours of formal
    educational programming per channel per week.[^52] All ITFS
    applicants are required to detail their formal educational and other
    ITFS programming proposals in both a programming grid and an
    illustrative schedule.[^53] When PHS filed its original application
    on June 8, 1992, it specified a total of four hours of formal
    educational programming per channel per week in its programming
    grid. However, PHS detailed an average of 24.375 hours of
    programming per channel per week in the submitted programming
    schedule.[^54] On December 12, 1992, prior to the "B" cut-off date
    in this proceeding,[^55] PHS amended its application to correct the
    discrepancy with regard to the total hours of formal educational
    programming. PHS therein stated that "the total number of hours of
    formal educational programming on the proposed ITFS station will be
    24.375 hours per week" and attached a revised programming grid
    showing an average of 24.375 hours of formal education programming
    per channel per week. The amendment explained that the grid
    submitted with the original application filed on June 8, 1992
    erroneously proposed four hours of formal educational
    programming.[^56] We therefore agree with the Division's conclusion
    that, based on the application, as amended, PHS was entitled to one
    programming merit point for proposing at least twenty-one hours of
    formal educational programming per channel per week.[^57]

12. However, we agree with HITN that the Division erred in awarding PHS
    four merit points for being a local applicant. The Division found
    that PHS is entitled to four points because it is local to Santa Fe
    and proposes to offer formal educational programming to its own
    students.[^58] The Commission's Rules define an institution or
    organization applying for an ITFS construction permit and license as
    "local" if it is "physically located in the community, or
    metropolitan area, where service is proposed."[^59] It is undisputed
    that PHS is not physically located in Santa Fe. The issue is whether
    PHS is within the Santa Fe metropolitan area. While we recognize
    that the Commission adopted the term "metropolitan area" to afford
    the staff flexibility where facts warranted a broader
    interpretation,[^60] we disagree with the Division that, "\[g\]iven
    the relative size and proximity of Pojoaque and Santa Fe," Pojoaque
    is physically located in the Santa Fe metropolitan area.[^61] The
    Division did not provide the basis for its definition of the Santa
    Fe metropolitan area. By contrast, HITN posits that Pojoaque is not
    a suburb of Santa Fe and that there are no communities between Santa
    Fe and Pojoaque.[^62] Further, HITN notes that PHS is in the
    Pojoaque School district as opposed to the Santa Fe school
    district.[^63] Finally, HITN notes that Pojoaque is not part of the
    Santa Fe metropolitan area as defined by Rand McNally.[^64] We find
    these factors combined to be decisionally significant and conclude
    that PHS therefore should not have been awarded four merit points
    for being a local applicant.

13. Even though we reverse the Division's finding that PHS was a local
    applicant, we nevertheless affirm the Division's conclusion that PHS
    was the superior applicant. Whereas HITN was awarded a total of two
    points for observing the four-channel limitation, PHS was entitled
    to four points - three points for being accredited; and one point
    for proposing at least twenty-one hours of formal educational
    programming per channel per week. The Division therefore correctly
    determined PHS to be the tentative selectee for the A Group Channels
    in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

14. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405
    of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and
    Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, the
    Petition for Reconsideration filed by the Hispanic Information and
    Telecommunications Network, Inc. on May 21, 1997 IS GRANTED IN PART
    and is otherwise DENIED.

15. This action is taken under designated authority pursuant to Sections
    0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131,
    0.331.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

D'wana R. Terry

> Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: Petition for Reconsideration (May 21, 1997) (PFR).

[^2]: Pojoaque High School, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd
    24454 (1997) (*1997 MO&O*).

[^3]: FCC File No. BPLIF-930107DA (Jan. 7, 1993) (HITN Application).

[^4]: FCC File No. BPLIF-920608DD (June 8, 1992) (PHS Application).

[^5]: PHS is part of the Pojoaque Valley Schools (PVS) system. On the
    same date of June 8, 1992, PVS filed an application seeking
    authority to construct and operate a new ITFS station on the C Group
    Channels in Santa Fe, New Mexico. FCC File No. BPLIF-920608DB (June
    8, 1992) (PVS Application). We may hereinafter collectively refer to
    PHS and PVS as the "Pojoaque applicants."

[^6]: FCC File No. BPLIF-920608DD (Dec. 12, 1992). PVS also amended its
    application on the same date. FCC File No. BPLIF-920608DB (Dec. 12,
    1992).

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(d)(1) (1993). In interpreting this provision,
    the Commission has found parties under common control to be the same
    applicant, even though the applications were filed under the name of
    separate parties. In this instance, PHS is a high school under the
    control and supervision of PVS, whose Superintendent, Arthur R.
    Blea, signed both of the applications on behalf of the applicants.
    Because these applications were filed under the aegis of the same
    county public school system, the Pojoaque applicants' requested a
    waiver of the four-channel limitation.

[^8]: Letter from Arthur R. Blea, Superintendent, Pojoaque High School,
    to Clay Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Mass
    Media Bureau, FCC (filed Jan. 25, 1993) (Waiver Request).

[^9]: Letter from Peter D. Shields, Esq., Gardner, Carton, and Douglass,
    to Mr. William Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission (filed Nov. 29, 1993).

[^10]: Letter from A. B. Cruz, III, Esq., Gardner, Carton, and Douglass,
    to Mr. William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (filed June 10, 1994);
    *see also* Letter from Clay Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution
    Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, FCC, to
    Pojoaque High School and Pojoaque Valley Schools (May 17, 1994)
    (requesting additional information from applicants).

[^11]: Letter from A. B. Cruz, III, Esq., Gardner, Carton, and Douglass,
    to Mr. William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (filed June 23, 1994);
    *see also* Letter from Clay Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution
    Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, FCC, to
    Pojoque High School and Pojoaque Valley Schools (June 20, 1994)
    (requesting additional information from applicants).

[^12]: *1997 MO&O*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24456 ¶ 5.

[^13]: *Id.* The Division rejected the contention that the waiver
    requests were untimely. *Id.* at 24456 n.3. The Division explained
    that the Commission has consistently allowed ITFS applicants to
    perfect their four-channel waiver requests by filing amendments
    after the "B" cut-off date because the supplemental information is
    used only for the purpose of evaluating the four-channel waiver
    request, an analysis that involves no comparison with competing
    applicants. *Id.* (internal citations omitted). However, the
    Division also noted that, in its comparative analysis, it would
    examine the Pojoaque applications as of the "B" cut-off date to
    determine the number of merit points to be awarded for programming.
    *Id.*

[^14]: *Id.*

[^15]: *Id.* In addition, the Division noted that the Pojoaque
    applicants stated that the channels will also be used to provide
    formal educational programming to students who cannot physically
    attend classes or are home schooled. *Id.*

[^16]: *Id.*

[^17]: *Id.*

[^18]: *See* Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules and
    Regulations in Regard to the Instructional Television Fixed Service,
    *Second Report and Order*, 101 FCC 2d 49, 65-72 (1985) *(Second
    R&O*); 47 C.F.R. § 74.913 (1993).

[^19]: One point was awarded for a proposed weekly schedule of at least
    twenty-one average hours per channel of formal educational
    programming or of at least forty-one average hours per channel of
    other ITFS programming. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.913(b)(4) (1993). Two
    points were awarded for a proposed weekly schedule of at least
    forty-one average hours per channel of formal educational
    programming or at least sixty-one hours per channel of ITFS
    programming where at least twenty-one of those hours were formal
    educational programming. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.913(b)(4) (1993).

[^20]: *1997 MO&O*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24459 ¶ 7. PVS was found to be the
    tentative selectee for the C Group Channels in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
    *Id.*

[^21]: *Id.* at 24457-24459 ¶ 7. Neither HITN nor PHS was awarded one
    point for being the current licensee of an E or F channel seeking to
    relocate on other channels. *See id.*

[^22]: *Id.* at 24460 ¶ 9. PHS was granted a license to operate under
    call-sign WNC853.

[^23]: *Id.* at 24460 ¶ 10.

[^24]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(d)(1) (1993). In interpreting this provision,
    the Commission has found parties under common control to be the same
    applicant, even though the applications were filed under the name of
    separate parties. In this instance, PHS is a high school under the
    control and supervision of PVS, whose Superintendent, Arthur R.
    Blea, signed both of the applications on behalf of the applicants.
    Because these applications were filed under the aegis of the same
    county public school system, the Pojoaque applicants requested a
    waiver of the four-channel limitation.

[^25]: *Id.*

[^26]: *Id.*

[^27]: *Id.*

[^28]: PFR at 13. In this respect, HITN argues that the extent of the
    repetition of the programming in this instance is "100%" because
    both PHS and PVS proposed "identical programming." *Id.* HITN
    further contends that PHS failed to "supply a statement of need with
    any type of substantive showing." *Id.*

[^29]: *Id.* at 14-15 (*citing* Unified School District #511,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 8 FCC Rcd 7060 (1993); Fishburne
    Military School, *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd 18589
    (1996)).

[^30]: *Id.* at 16-17.

[^31]: *Id.* at 17.

[^32]: *Id.* at 17-18.

[^33]: *Id.* at 18.

[^34]: *Id.*

[^35]: *Id.* HITN further notes that Pojoaque cannot be considered a
    suburb of Santa Fe because the definition of a suburb embodies the
    concept of contiguous communities and there are communities between
    Pojoaque and Santa Fe. *Id.* at 18-19.

[^36]: *Id.* at 19.

[^37]: *Id.*

[^38]: *Id.* at 19-20.

[^39]: *Id.* at 20.

[^40]: *Id.*

[^41]: *Id.* at 21.

[^42]: Because we find that the Division properly considered the
    supplements, we need not address HITN's contention that the waiver
    request, as initially filed, was inadequate to warrant granting a
    waiver of the four-channel limitation. Moreover, HITN does not argue
    in the PFR that the waiver request, as supplemented, is inadequate
    to warrant granting a waiver of the four-channel limitation.

[^43]: *See* Board of Regents, Eastern New Mexico University,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 10 FCC Rcd 3162 (1995); Northern
    Arizona University Foundation, *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 7 FCC
    Rcd 5943 (1992); School District No. 1, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order,* 3 FCC Rcd 6392 (1988) (*School Dist. No. 1*).

[^44]: *Unified School District #511*, 8 FCC Rcd at 7061 n.4; *Fishburne
    Military School*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18591-18593 ¶¶ 4-8.

[^45]: *1997 MO&O,* 12 FCC Rcd at 24456 n. 3. Under the traditional
    "A/B" cut-off approach, applicants triggering the "A" cut-off list,
    such as the Pojoaque applicants, were allowed to make major changes
    to their proposal prior to the end of the "A" cut-off period.
    Applicants on the "A" and "B" cut-off list are permitted to file
    minor amendments until the "B" cut-off date, but no comparative
    advantage will derive from amendments filed after the "B" cut-off
    date. *See Second R&O,* 101 FCC 2d at 72-75.

[^46]: As noted above, HITN was awarded a total of two points for
    observing the four-channel limitation. *See 1997 MO&*O, 12 FCC Rcd
    at 24457-24459 ¶ 7. However, PHS was awarded a total of eight
    points - four points for being local; three points for being
    accredited; and one point for proposing at least twenty-one hours of
    formal educational programming per channel per week. *See id.*
    Neither HITN nor PHS was awarded one point for being the current
    licensee of an E or F channel seeking to relocate on other channels.
    *See id.*

[^47]: PFR at 19-20.

[^48]: *See* PHS Application, Section II, Question 3.

[^49]: *1997 MO&O*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24455 n.2.

[^50]: PFR at 15.

[^51]: *See id.*

[^52]: *Id.* at 24457-24459 ¶ 7.

[^53]: Question 5 of FCC Form 330 states, in pertinent part, that for
    each channel requested, the applicant must complete the chart on the
    following page to provide "a proposed weekly schedule of ITFS
    programming together with a brief description of programs not
    recognizable by their titles." Applicants must also "\[i\]ndicate by
    "F" \[for formal\] those programs which are delivered to enrolled
    students for academic credit." Question 6 sets out a program grid
    which requires that the applicant summarize, among other things,
    both the "\[t\]otal hours \[of\] formal education programming for
    credit for enrolled students on \[each\] channel" and the "\[t\]otal
    hours \[of\] other ITFS service (see 47 C.F.R. § 74.931(b)) on
    \[each\] channel."

[^54]: However, none of the programs was designated as formal
    educational programming.

[^55]: HITN is correct that ITFS applicants are permitted to file
    amendments to their applications upgrading their comparative status
    until the "B" cut-off date. *See PFR at 20; see also Second Report
    and Order*, 101 FCC 2d at 74. HITN also correctly notes that the "B"
    cut-off with regard to the PHS Application was July 20, 1993. See
    PFR at 4. As noted above, PHS amended its application prior to that
    date. We therefore reject HITN's contention that the Division
    improperly considered amendments that PHS filed after the "B"
    cut-off date.

[^56]: PHS intended the actual formal educational proposal to be "the
    number indicated by \[the\] illustrative programming schedule,
    *i.e.*, . . . an average of 24.375 hours per channel per week." PHS
    did not submit a new page 8 to the application with an "F" typed
    next to the program titles. However, the text of the amendment
    indicated that the program schedule proposed formal educational
    programming. As a result, we find that, prior to the "B" cut-off
    date, PHS resolved the original application's inconsistency
    concerning the total number of hours of formal educational
    programming being proposed.

[^57]: *1997 MO&O*, 12 FCC Rcd 24459 ¶ 7.

[^58]: *1997 MO&O,* 12 FCC Rcd 24457 ¶ 7.

[^59]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.932, Note 1; *see also Second R&O*, 101 FCC 2d at
    59.

[^60]: *School Dist. No. 1*, 3 FCC Rcd at 6394 ¶ 14.

[^61]: *1997 MO&O,* 12 FCC Rcd 24457 ¶ 7.

[^62]: Petition at 18-19.

[^63]: *Id*. at 18.

[^64]: *Id.* at 19. *See* Rand McNally Commercial Atlas 1996 at 97 (HITN
    Petition, Exhibit 4).