******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect 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: ) ) Urban Communications Transport Corporation ) ) Certification to Operate an ) Open Video System ) ) CONSOLIDATED ORDER Adopted: January 27, 1997 Released: January 27, 1997 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. On January 15, 1997, Urban Communications Transport Corporation ("Urban") filed two applications for certification to operate open video systems pursuant to Section 653(a)(1) of the Communications Act and Commission rules. The first application seeks to operate an open video system in the City of New York, including the boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx. The second application seeks to operate an open video system in Westchester County, New York. Each of these applications contains substantially the same representations. By this Order, we consolidate these two proceedings and rule on the merits of each. 2. As provided in our rules, the Commission published notice of receipt of the certification applications and posted the applications on the Internet. Comments on the certification applications were filed by the Village of Pleasantville, New York, and the Village of Irvington, New York. 3. Pursuant to Section 653(a)(1) of the Communications Act, any person may obtain certification to operate an open video system. In light of the brief period (ten days) for Commission review of certification filings, the Commission concluded that Congress intended a streamlined certification process. Open video system operators may apply for certification at any point prior to the commencement of service, subject to two conditions depending on whether construction of a new physical plant is required. If construction of a new physical plant is required, the applicant must obtain Commission approval of its certification prior to the commencement of construction. If no new construction is required, certification must be obtained prior to the commencement of service, allowing sufficient time to comply with the Commission's notification requirements to programming providers. 4. Despite its streamlined nature, the Commission intended the certification process to provide purposeful representations regarding the responsibilities of the open video system operator, by requiring, inter alia, the submission of specified information and that certifications be verified. To obtain certification, a party must file FCC Form 1275 which requires, among other things: (a) a statement of ownership, including a list of all affiliated entities; (b) a representation that the applicant will comply with the Commission's regulations under Section 653(b); (c) a general description of the anticipated communities or areas to be served; and (d) a statement on the anticipated type and amount of capacity that the system will provide. II. BACKGROUND 5. On December 20, 1996, Urban filed two separate applications for certification to operate open video systems, one for the City of New York, including the five boroughs, and one for Westchester County, New York. By consolidated order dated December 30, 1996, the Bureau denied Urban's two applications for certification. The applications were denied based upon the Bureau's determination that Urban failed to adequately serve copies of its applications on the clerk or designated official of the affected communities in which it intended to operate its open video systems, as required by our rules. As to its New York City application, Urban failed to serve the New York Department of Information and Technology ("DOITT"), which is the designated telecommunications official for the City of New York. In the case of its Westchester County, New York application, while Urban correctly served the Clerk of the County, it failed to also serve each local franchising authority for the municipalities located within the County. Although the applications were denied, the Urban Order noted that denial of an open video system application does not preclude an applicant from filing a revised certification or from refiling its original submission with a statement of issues in dispute. We also noted that such refiling must be served on any objecting party or parties and affected local communities. 6. In response to the Bureau's Order, Urban filed two revised applications for open video system certification. We have reviewed the information contained in Urban's revised FCC Form 1275's, and the comments of the Village of Pleasantville and the Village of Irvington. In addressing the issue of adequacy of service raised in the Urban Order, Urban's revised New York application represents that DOITT was served, as well as Cablevision Systems Corporation, as an objecting party to Urban's initial application. Similarly, Urban's revised Westchester County application represents that all designated officials of affected municipalities, as well as Cablevision, were served. 7. The Village of Pleasantville submitted comments to Urban's Westchester County application noting that they were not familiar with Urban and requested additional information. The Village of Irvington objected to the Westchester County application on similar grounds, asserting that it did not have sufficient information concerning Urban's proposed plans. III. DISCUSSION 8. We find that Urban has corrected the service deficiency in its previous applications. In addition, we conclude that Urban has provided the requisite facts and representations concerning the open video systems it intends to operate, and has properly certified that it "agrees to comply and remain in compliance with each of the Commission's regulations" under Section 653(b). In response to the comments received, we note that the scope of the certification process concerns the adequacy and accuracy of the information the applicant is required to provide under our rules. The commenters' stated concerns, that they lacked sufficient information about, and familiarity with the applicant, do not constitute grounds for denial under our rules. We reiterate that, if any representations in either certification filing prove to be materially false or materially inaccurate, the Commission retains the authority to revoke Urban's certification or impose such other penalties it deems appropriate, including forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the certification of Urban Communications Transport Corporation to operate an open video system in the City of New York, New York, including the boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx, is APPROVED. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the certification of Urban Communications Transport Corporation to operate an open video system in Westchester County, New York is APPROVED. 11. This action is taken by the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to the authority delegated by  0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John E. Logan Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau