[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 147 (Tuesday, August 2, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18729]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 22
[CC Docket No. 90-358; FCC 94-164]
Cellular Radio Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission has revised certain
rules governing the conduct of comparative renewal proceedings in the
cellular radio service. The revisions are needed to establish and
explain several procedural aspects of comparative renewal proceedings
in the cellular radio service. The intent of these revisions is to
promote efficiency and fairness in the licensing of the cellular radio
service.
EFFECTIVE DATES: October 3, 1994. In addition, the effective date for
the revised version of Sec. 22.942 of the Rules which was adopted in a
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration (Reconsideration Order)
in this proceeding, 58 FR 21928 (April 26, 1993), was stayed until the
Reconsideration Order was final and no longer subject to judicial
review. Section 22.942 of the Rules, which was adopted in the
referenced Reconsideration Order, will become effective September 1,
1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
R. Barthen Gorman, Mobile Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau,
(202) 418-1310.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order on Further Reconsideration,
adopted June 13, 1994, and released July 7, 1994. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Dockets Branch, (Room 230), 1919 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision
may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Service, Inc.; (202) 857-3800; 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140; Washington, DC 20037.
Summary of the Memorandum Opinion and Order on Further Reconsideration
1. This Order amends and clarifies certain rules governing the
conduct of comparative renewal proceedings in the Domestic Public
Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service. Such proceedings are
initiated when a cellular radio licensee seeks renewal of its license
at the end of its 10-year license period and challengers file competing
applications. The Report and Order, 57 FR 3027 (January 27, 1992),
which first established standards for conducting cellular radio
comparative renewal proceedings, also created standards for awarding a
renewal expectancy, which is a major comparative preference awarded to
a licensee for its substantial performance during its license term. A
renewal expectancy would be more significant than any other preference
awarded in a comparative renewal proceeding. The Memorandum Opinion and
Order on Reconsideration (Reconsideration Order) in this proceeding, 58
FR 21928 (April 26, 1993), created a two-step procedure for cellular
license renewal hearings and also modified the renewal expectancy
standards.
2. Pursuant to the two-step procedure, the Presiding Judge will
conduct a threshold (step one) hearing to determine whether the renewal
applicant deserves a renewal expectancy for providing ``substantial''
service during its license term. If the renewal applicant is awarded a
renewal expectancy, the renewal application would be granted. If the
renewal applicant does not receive a renewal expectancy in the
threshold hearing, the Presiding Judge would then conduct a full (step
two) hearing comparing the applicants pursuant to the evaluation
criteria described in the Rules. Further, a challenging applicant which
proposes to provide service which far exceeds that presently being
provided by the incumbent licensee may request a waiver of step one of
the two-step procedure. The two-step procedure is described in revised
Section 22.942 of the Rules, which was stayed until the Reconsideration
Order became final and was no longer subject to judicial review. The
revised version of Section 22.942 adopted in the referenced
Reconsideration Order will become effective thirty days after the
publication of this summary in the Federal Register.
3. The Further Reconsideration Order revises Sec. 22.942 of the
Commission's Rules in several respects. First, it amends Sec. 22.942(d)
to explicitly state that if a waiver of the step one hearing is
granted, a renewal expectancy issue will be designated as part of the
step two hearing and will be the most important comparative factor in
deciding the case. Second, it revises Sec. 22.942(a) of the Rules to
provide that renewal applicants will have sixty (60) days after the
issuance of the Public Notice announcing the filing of competing
applications to file their renewal expectancy showing, rather than the
thirty (30) days now specified in the Rules. Third, it amends
Sec. 22.942(f) of the Rules to state specifically that the expedited
hearing procedures of Secs. 22.916(b) (5)-(8) of the Rules apply to
step one hearings as well as to step two hearings. Fourth, it revises
Section 22.942(d) to require challenging applicants to file requests
for waiver of step one hearings at the time they file their
applications and to allow other parties to respond to those requests at
the same time that petitions to deny any of the applications are filed,
i.e., thirty days after the renewal applicant files its renewal
expectancy showing.
4. In addition, the Further Reconsideration Order explained that
unserved area applications or authorizations would play no role in the
cellular renewal process, including the comparison of the proposed
service areas of competing applicants. Further, since the
Reconsideration Order ruled that relevant non-FCC misconduct will no
longer be considered as part of a licensee's renewal expectancy
showing, the Commission eliminated the language of Section 22.941(b)(4)
of the Rules which required the disclosure of non-FCC misconduct as
part of a licensee's renewal expectancy showing. Lastly, the Commission
vacated the character reporting requirements set forth in footnote six
of the Reconsideration Order, observing that the issue of what
character reporting requirements should be imposed on cellular renewal
applicants and other Part 22 applicants can best be resolved in a broad
rulemaking proceeding and not on reconsideration of the cellular
renewal rules.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, It Is Ordered that the rule changes made herein Will
Become Effective sixty (60) days after publication in the Federal
Register, and that the stay imposed by the Reconsideration Order on the
effectiveness of Sec. 22.942 of the Rules is vacated.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 22
Communications common carriers, Domestic cellular radio
telecommunications service, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rural areas.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Part 22 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 22--PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 22 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1083, as amended; 47
U.S.C. Sections 154, 303.
2. Section 22.941 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read
as follows:
Sec. 22.941 Criteria for comparative cellular renewal proceedings.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Copies of all Commission orders finding the licensee to have
violated the Communications Act or any Commission rule or policy, and a
list of any pending proceedings that relate to any matter described in
paragraphs (b) (1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
3. Section 22.942 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 22.942 Procedures for comparative renewal proceedings.
The following procedures shall apply to comparative renewal
proceedings in the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications
Service:
(a) Within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the Public Notice
announcing the filing of a renewal application and applications
competing with that renewal application, the renewal applicant must
file an original and four copies of its renewal expectancy showing with
the Commission.
(b) Interested parties have thirty (30) days from the date that the
renewal applicant submits its renewal expectancy showing to file
petitions to deny any of the mutually exclusive applications.
Applicants have fifteen (15) days to file replies; no further pleadings
will be accepted.
(c) In most instances, the renewal application and any competing
application(s) will be designated for a two-step hearing procedure. An
Administrative Law Judge will conduct a threshold (step one) hearing,
in which both the licensee and the competing applicants will be
parties, to determine whether the renewal applicant deserves a renewal
expectancy. If the order designating the applications for hearing
specifies any basic qualifying issues against the licensee, those
issues will be tried in this threshold (step one) hearing. If the
Presiding Judge determines that the renewal applicant is basically
qualified and due a renewal expectancy, the competing applicants will
be found ineligible for further consideration and their applications
will be denied. If the Presiding Judge determines that the renewal
applicant does not merit a renewal expectancy but is otherwise
qualified, then all the applications filed for that market will be
considered in a comparative hearing (step two) which follows the
expedited procedures described in Secs. 22.916 (b)(5) through (b)(8).
(d) If a competing applicant demonstrates that its proposal so far
exceeds the services presently being provided that there would be no
purpose in making a threshold determination as to whether the renewal
applicant deserved a renewal expectancy vis-a-vis such a competing
applicant, such a competing applicant may request a waiver of the
threshold hearing (step one) of the two-step hearing procedure. Such a
waiver request must be filed at the time the requestor's application is
filed. Petitions opposing such waiver requests must be filed within
thirty (30) days after the renewal applicant has filed its renewal
expectancy showing. Replies to such petitions must be filed within 15
days of the petitions; no further pleadings will be accepted. If a
request to waive the step one hearing is granted, the renewal
expectancy issue will be designated as part of the step two hearing and
will remain the most important comparative factor in deciding the case,
as provided in Sec. 22.941(a).
(e) If the Presiding Judge issues a ruling in the step one hearing
which denies the licensee a renewal expectancy, all the applicants
involved in the proceeding will be allowed 90 days after the release of
the Judge's ruling in step one to file their direct cases. Rebuttal
cases must be filed within 30 days after the filing of the direct
cases.
(f) The Presiding Judge shall use the expedited hearing procedures
delineated in Secs. 22.916 (b)(5) through (b)(8) in both step one and
step two hearings conducted in comparative cellular radio renewal
proceedings.
[FR Doc. 94-18729 Filed 8-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M