******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Streamlining the Commission's Antenna ) WT Docket No. 95-5 Structure Clearance Procedure ) ) and ) ) Revision of Part 17 of the Commission's Rules ) Concerning Construction, Marking and Lighting ) of Antenna Structures ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: March 1, 2000 Released: March 8, 2000 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. By this action, we address and resolve various filings concerning the Commission's antenna structure clearance procedure established and adopted in the Report and Order in WT Docket No. 95-5. Specifically, we dismiss as moot a petition for partial reconsideration filed by the Wireless Cable Association International, Inc. (WCA); deny a petition for partial reconsideration filed by Comp Comm, Inc. (Comp Comm); and grant in part and deny in part a petition for declaratory ruling filed by Teletech, Inc. (Teletech). The basis for our actions is set forth below. II. BACKGROUND 2. Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, vests in the Commission the authority to require painting and/or lighting of antenna structures that may constitute a hazard to air navigation. To accomplish this taskIn this regard, Part 17 of the Commission's Rules sets forth procedures for identifying those antenna structures that might affect air navigation and for registering thosesuch structures with the Commission. . In November 1995, the Commission substantially revised this antenna structure registration process to require owners of antenna structures (versusrather than the Commission licensees utilizing those structures) to register with the Commission those structures that meet the registration criteria and to exercise primary responsibility for the prescribed painting and lighting., and by The Commission also updatinged its our Rules to be consistent with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air safety recommendations. In the time sSince these revised procedures tookbecame effective, the Commission has registered more thanmore than 6569,000 antenna structures. 3. Based on commenters' support for a standard format for reporting antenna structure data, the Commission adopted a registration process wherein owners submit location data in terms of degrees, minutes, and seconds, and height and elevation data in meters. The Commission stated that owners could use surveying tools of differing accuracy to determine site data including maps, Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, and GPS receivers with differential corrections but left it to the owner to "evaluate the surveying method being used and round to the appropriate significant digit." Because we require the antenna structure owner to register with the Commission, the antenna structure registration procedures the Commission adopted also recognized the fact that data filed for antenna structure registrations might differ from the technical data previously submitted for radio stations licensed on those antenna structures. The Commission directed owners to submit accurate site data without regard to the height and coordinates listed on tenant licensees' station authorizations, but instructed licensees whose license data differs from that submitted by the antenna structure owner to coordinate the correction of their data with the appropriate licensing branch within the Commission. III. DISCUSSION 4. Accuracy Standard. Comp Comm and Teletech ask the Commission toat we require antenna structure owners to certify that their site data is correct within certain parameters, i.e., that we establish an accuracy standard for the submission of antenna structure data. Comp Comm claimscontends that by allowing an antenna structure owner to choose the method it uses to obtain site data, the Commission will receive antenna structure registration data that varies widely in terms of precision. Teletech contends that by allowing an antenna structure owner to choose the means of measurement, the Commission's procedures allow owners to employ methods with negligible accuracy, such as counting distances by heel-to-toe footsteps from a known location or measuring height by the amount of time it takes a coin to fall from the top of an antenna structure. Comp Comm agrees that owners are likely to use the quickest and easiest methods to determine site data; and because these methods tend to be the least accurate the antenna structure database will be less useful as a means of promoting air safety. Comp Comm suggests that the Commissionwe require that the reported coordinate location of an antenna structure be accurate within one meter and that the structure's reported overall height above mean sea level be accurate to within three meters,. andSimilarly, Teletech suggests a specified accuracy standard of coordinate location to the nearest whole second and elevation to the nearest whole meter. 5. We conclude that a specific accuracy standard is unnecessary because the requirement that antenna structure owners first obtain an aeronautical study from the FAA insures reliability of the antenna structure site data and promotes air safety. Before the Commissionwe will grant an antenna structure registration, the applicant must provide proof of the FAA's determination of "no hazard" that the FAA issues when it studies a proposed antenna structure and determines that it will not adversely affect air navigation. Because the FAA in the first instance determines whether an antenna structure poses a hazard to air navigation and recommends appropriate painting and lighting, we conclude that it is appropriate that the FAA and not the FCC specify the accuracy of site information that is necessary for the FAA to make its determination. . The CommissionAs a result, we will not process a registration application in which the specified coordinates differ from those on the FAA determination by more than one second in latitude and longitude, or 0.3 meters (one foot) in height. By requiring that an applicant for an antenna structure registration submit a valid FAA determination of "no hazard" that is no more than one second and 0.3 meters different from the coordinates and height listed on the registration application, we promote the accuracy of our antenna structure registration database while recognizing deferring tothat the FAA isas the expert agency for air safety in determining the appropriate accuracy for how accurate antenna structure data must be. 6. We agree with Pacific Telesis, who argues that because of the FAA notification requirements, owners will not determine the antenna structure site location by GPS receiver alone. Furthermore, we note that some of the measurement tools identified in the Report and Order might be insufficiently precise for the purposes of obtaining a determination from the FAA, and therefore will be of minimal practical use to antenna structure owners. An antenna structure owner who conducts one set of measurements for purposes of FAA notification but who uses another measurement tool to obtain data for the purpose of registering the structure with the Commission very well might obtain calculations that differ by more than one second in coordinates or one foot in height. As noted above, we will not process registration applications with such discrepancies. Accordingly, we will not establish an FCC-mandated accuracy standard as part of our antenna structure registration rules, but we will continue to process registration applications in a manner wholly consistent with the FAA's procedures. 7. Discrepancies in Registration and MDS and ITFS Licensing Data. In the Report and Order, the Commission recognized the benefits of requiring antenna structure owners, as opposed to FCC licensees and permittees, to register with the Commission. The Commission also recognized, however, that there would be cases in which the coordinate and height data for an antenna structure would differ from the licensing data for pre-existing stations sited on antenna structures. In these cases, the Commission established specific procedures for licensees to correct licensing data. For Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) licenses, the Commission required that "such [data correction] filings be made within 30 days of receipt of FCC Form 854-R from the structure owner." In its petition, WCA expresses concern that by allowing the registration of antenna structures at coordinates that differ from the coordinates specified on pre-existing MDS and ITFS stations sited on the structures, the filing requirement for tenant licensees who have to correct their license data will be unduly burdensome to the wireless cable industry. Specifically, it claims contends that discrepancies between antenna structure registration data and licensing data will cause many MDS and ITFS licensees to prepare and submit license modification applications that include extensive interference analyses. and that tAs a result of these modification applications, it concludes, the Commission may might require these licensees to take steps to take measurestry to avoid harmful interference, such as decreasing antenna height, reducing power, or employing a directional radiator. These measures, WCA states, will impose a significant burden on the wireless cable industry, and, thus, it proposes that if an antenna structure is registered within three or fewer seconds of the coordinates on an MDS or ITFS authorization, the licensee be allowed to correct its authorization without submitting interference studies or demonstrating non-interference. 8. We deny WCA's petition as moot. Under the antenna structure registration program, all antenna structures meeting the registration criteria and that were built before July 1, 1996 ("existing structures") were required to have been registered during a two-year period that ended on June 30, 1998. For structures built or modified on or after July 1, 1996 ("new structures"), the Commission has required registration prior to the construction or alteration. AUnder our Rules, an antenna structure owner is required to "immediately provide a copy" of the antenna structure registration document to each tenant licensee and permittee on its antenna structure. Effective July 1, 1996, the Commission began requiring each applicant for a new or modified FCC license or construction permit to list on the relevant license application form the registration number of the antenna structure on which its facility is sited. In the case of licensees sited on existing structures, because nearly a year-and-a-half has elapsed since the registration period for existing structures closedended, we conclude that MDS and ITFS licensees have had sufficient time to receive a copy of the registration document from their antenna structure owners, note any discrepancies, and file for license modifications within the thirty-day time period. Licensees proposing facilities on antenna structures registered after July 1, 1996, or on new structures, have been required to provide a registration number as a supplement to FCC application forms. Because these licensees have had the opportunity to obtain antenna structure registration data prior to completion of the licensing process and, thus, have had time to identify and correct any differences before filing license applications with the Commission, there should be no discrepancy between licensing and registration data in these cases. Accordingly, because MDS and ITFS licensees no longer face the data correction burdens described in WCA's petition, we conclude that the petition is moot. 9. We recognize that because the antenna structure registration program places the primary responsibility on antenna structure owners who might or might not be Commission licensees, licensees sometimes face difficulties when coordinating and reconciling FCC licensing data with the antenna structure data reported by owners. We also recognize that while antenna structure owners must report accurate site data to both the Commission and the FAA in order to assure air safety, licensees must provide the Commission with accurate licensing data in order to assure efficient frequency coordination, conduct interference studies, and comply with Commission rules. We take this opportunity to discuss our expectations for those situations in which an antenna structure owner is a different entity from the Commission licensee(s) sited on the structure. 10. Appendix C of the Report and Order outlines outlined the procedures by which a licensee can correct its licensing data when it differs from the data on the antenna structure registration. Two recent Commission initiatives have required licensees to re-familiarize themselves with this process. First, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) has been contactinged licensees who appear to be at sites that require registration but for which the Commission has no record of a registered antenna structure. We believe that it isfind it reasonable to expect an FCC licensee to know whether it is sited on a structure that requires registration and, even if it has not yet had an opportunity to correct its licensing data as part of a station modification or license renewal application, to be able to identify the antenna structure owner and registration number. Second, under the Universal Licensing System, the WTB implemented a procedure to dismiss license applications that did do not include a registration number (when the license data equates to a site that requires registration), or where the registration coordinates do not match the site coordinates on the license application. Thus, we have in place a process by which licensees whose site data differs from the antenna structure registration data cannot file for modifications at a licensed site without first correcting the discrepancy. 11. In the Report and Order, the Commission emphasized that it would not impose administrative sanctions on any licensee or permittee who, through the registration process, realizes that it has inadvertently provided incorrect data in obtaining a station authorization or construction permit, and the Commission stated that it would not require licensees and permittees to cease operations while seeking to amend their licenses. We also recognize that there will be cases where a licensee disagrees with the site data provided by an antenna structure owner. Just as we expect licensees to correct data that they discover to be incorrect, we look to antenna structure owners to modify antenna structure registration data that they determine (either through their own actions, from tenant licensees on the site, or by FCC or FAA notification) to be incorrect. In cases where the correction involves a change in latitude and/or longitude by more than one second or an increase in height by more than 0.3 meters, the owner will need to first obtain a new FAA determination of "no hazard" for the antenna structure. To assist antenna structure owners in making these corrections, tenant licensees and permittees might wish to help owners with administrative details, such as obtaining and helping to prepare FAA and FCC forms. 12. We also recognize that there may beIn extraordinary circumstances, where an antenna structure owner and tenant licensee(s) may not be able to agree on the correct coordinates for a site for example, when the owner and licensee use different survey methods to determine site coordinates. In these cases, the licensee may request a waiver of the policy that licensing data must match registration data and ask WTB to review the situation. We emphasize that we consider this requested relief to be an extraordinary situation, and we will expect the licensee to fully describe the steps it has taken to negotiate with the owner and explain in detail why it will not or cannot agree with the coordinates the owner has used. In situations of irreconcilable disagreement between the structure owner and licensee, the licensee might find that the best solution is either to acquire ownership of the structure or to locate its facilities elsewhere. 13. Application of Antenna Structure Requirements to Specific Situations. Finally, Teletech asks the Commission torequests that we clarify how the registration procedures relate to multiple antenna structures on building rooftops and to antenna towers that are increased in height. Teletech first notes that in some cases, multiple antennas are mounted atop building rooftops, and that these antennas can sometimes be clustered at nearly the same coordinates (e.g., when antennas are mounted atop a tall building with a limited surface area, such as the top of a skyscraper), or mounted at distinct coordinates on a sprawling building (e.g., antennas located on opposite ends of an industrial warehouse). Teletech asks (1) whether each antenna structure atop a building or only the tallest antenna structure must be registered with the Commission; and (2) what which coordinates should be used for registering the antenna structure. 14. Our Part 17 rules clearlyexpressly state that "the owner of any proposed or existing antenna structure that requires notice of proposed construction to the Federal Aviation Administration must register the structure with the Commission." Thus, in cases of multiple antenna structures mounted atop buildings, we expect the owner of each antenna structure to determine if that structure requires registration and, if so, we expect the owner to register that structure with the Commission regardless of what other antenna structures are sited in close proximity. Furthermore, we stress that our rRules require the owner of the antenna structure not the building owner, if the two are different entities to determine whether registration is necessary and to secure a valid FAA determination of "no hazard" for the structure. As with all registrations, the antenna structure owner must use the specific coordinates and elevation for each structure, not the general or centerpoint coordinates for the building on which it is mounted. 145. Second, Teletech asks forseeks guidance on who must file an application for antenna structure registration when a third party erects an antenna atop a tower that causes a tower, that previously did not require registration, to meet the registration criteria, or increases the overall height of a previously registered tower. In both situations, the owner of the tower, and not the party authorized to erect the surmounting antenna, is responsible for filing or amending an antenna structure registration. Section 17.2(a) of our Rules defines an "antenna structure" to include "the radiating and/or receive system, its supporting structures and any appurtenances mounted thereon." The "antenna structure owner" (i.e., the one who must register the structure under Section 17.4 of our Rules) is "the individual or entity vested with ownership, equitable ownership, dominion, or title to the antenna structure." Because our registration procedures envision a single registration for each antenna tower, we conclude that the "antenna structure owner" in those situations where two or more entities own different components of the antenna structure is the owner of the support tower structure who allows the third party to add a surmounting antenna. Any painting and lighting assigned to the antenna tower will apply to the tower as a whole and not to the surmounting antenna exclusively. The We believe that the tower owner is in the best position to comply with our registration requirements and is, therefore, the entity we will look tohold responsible for complying with our registration requirements. Additionally, because the tower owner can control whether it will let a third party site on its tower, we believe that it can take into account any registration burdens and structure accordingly thewhen establishing an agreement it makes with the third party for use of its structure. IV. CONCLUSION 156. WFor the reasons stated herein, we deny as unnecessary the requests of Comp Comm and Teletech that the Commission specify an accuracy standard for antenna structure site data, . and In addition, we deny as moot WCA's request for relaxed procedures for MDS and ITFS licensees whose license coordinate and height data differs from the data on the antenna structure registration. We also clarify some of the responsibilities of the various parties when the licensee and the antenna structure owner are not the same entity. By resolving these outstanding petitions, we reaffirm our antenna structure registration procedures adopted in WT Docket 95-5. We will continue to work with the FAA to insure ensure that antenna structures regulated by the Commission do not pose a hazard to air safety, and will rely on our antenna structure registration program to fulfill our statutory responsibilities in this area. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 167. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 303(q), and Sections 1.2, 1.3 and 1.429 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.2, 1.3 and 1.429, that the petition for partial reconsideration filed by of Comp Comm, Inc., on February 24, 1996, IS DENIED. 178. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for partial reconsideration filed by the Wireless Cable Association International, Inc., on March 6, 1996, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. 189. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the relief requested in the petition for declaratory ruling filed by Teletech, Inc., on June 4, 1996, is GRANTED in part and is DENIED in part. 1920. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for emergency stay filed by Teletech, Inc., on June 4, 1996, IS DISMISSED AS MOOTENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary