[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