[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-21844]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 7, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 24

[GEN Docket No. 90-314 and ET Docket No. 92-100; FCC 94-218]

 

Narrowband Personal Communications Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Second Memorandum Opinion and Order (2nd MO&O) finalizes 
the service rules for the narrowband personal communications service 
(PCS). This action is taken in part on the Commission's own motion and 
in part in response to a petition for reconsideration of the Memorandum 
Opinion and Order. The changes adopted herein are intended to improve 
the fairness of the licensing process for narrowband PCS and provide 
for more effective use of the narrowband PCS spectrum.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tom Mooring, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 653-8114.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 2nd 
MO&O in GEN Docket No. 90-314 and ET Docket No. 92-100, adopted August 
16, 1994, and released August 25, 1994. The complete 2nd MO&O is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
D.C., and also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication 
contractor, International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M 
Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.

Summary of 2nd MO&O

Introduction

    1. By this action, we are amending the rules concerning the 
licensing of ``response channels'' in the narrowband personal 
communications services (PCS). Response channels are channels that are 
set aside to provide existing paging systems with two-way capability, 
including acknowledgement of a page or advanced messaging capability. 
Specifically, we are modifying the definition of an existing paging 
licensee, the requirement that an existing paging licensee operate a 
base station in the area for which it is applying for a response 
channel and the rule limiting existing paging licensees to two response 
channels in any given geographic area. These changes are in response to 
a Petition for Reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in 
this matter that was filed by the National Association of Business and 
Educational Radio, Inc. (NABER).\1\ We are also modifying the 
attribution standards with regard to narrowband PCS channels and 
revising the Basic Trading Area (BTA) service area definition to 
provide two local service areas in Puerto Rico. We believe these 
changes will improve the fairness of the licensing process for 
narrowband PCS and provide for more effective use of the narrowband PCS 
spectrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\See Memorandum Opinion and Order, 59 FR 14115 (March 25, 
1994). The Memorandum Opinion and Order was issued in response to 
petitions for reconsideration and clarification of the First Report 
and Order, 58 FR 42681 (August 11, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    2. In the First Report and Order, we allocated three megahertz of 
spectrum at 900 MHz for the narrowband PCS service and adopted rules to 
govern narrowband PCS operation. As part of this action, we allotted 
eight 12.5 kHz wide response channels exclusively for use by existing 
common carrier and private paging licensees. In the Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, we designated four of the eight response channels for 
licensing at the Major Trading Area (MTA) level and four for licensing 
at the BTA level.\2\ We also defined an existing paging licensee as a 
paging licensee authorized under Part 22 or Part 90, as of June 24, 
1993, the adoption date of the First Report and Order. Additionally, we 
stated that to be eligible for a response channel license, an existing 
paging licensee must operate at least one base station in the MTA or 
BTA for which it requests a license. Finally, we limited each licensee 
to two paging response channels per geographic area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\See Rand McNally, 1992 Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, at 
pages 38-39. Rand McNally organizes the 50 States and the District 
of Columbia into 47 MTAs and 487 BTAs. For PCS licensing purposes, 
we adopted service areas based on the Rand McNally MTA and BTA 
definitions with certain exceptions. In particular, we separated 
Alaska from the Seattle MTA and added five insular areas: Puerto 
Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and 
American Samoa. In our rules, the insular areas are treated as five 
BTA service areas and three MTA service areas, see Section 24.102 of 
the Commission's Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. On April 25, 1994, NABER submitted a Petition for 
Reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Order requesting 
reconsideration and clarification of certain aspects of the eligibility 
and multiple ownership rules that apply to the response channels. 
Comments were filed by Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet);\3\ no reply 
comments were filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\PageNet's comments were filed 33 days late. In a petition for 
acceptance of late-filed comments, PageNet states that it did not 
focus on NABER's petition until it was reviewing the proposed 
auction rules for the response channels. In the interest of 
considering a full record in this matter, we are accepting PageNet's 
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

Eligibility for Response Channel Licenses
    4. As indicated above, we limited eligibility for acquiring 
narrowband PCS response channels to existing paging licensees and 
defined an existing paging licensee to be a paging licensee authorized 
under Part 22 or Part 90 of our rules as of June 24, 1993. We also 
required that the existing paging licensee operate at least one base 
station in any MTA or BTA for which it requests a response channel.
    5. In its petition, NABER requests that the eligibility requirement 
to operate a base station in the service or trading area for which a 
response channel is sought be changed to a requirement that the 
applicant merely provide coverage within the trading area. NABER argues 
that basing eligibility on the location of a transmitter instead of 
coverage area could prevent operators from obtaining response channels. 
It states that the coverage provided by a single base station may 
include more than one BTA and that thus, under the adopted rules, the 
operator would not be eligible for response channels in all of the BTAs 
in which it provides conventional one-way paging services. NABER 
recommends that we allow paging licensees to apply for response 
channels in trading areas that are within 25 miles of the geographic 
coordinates of any base station licensed as of May 10, 1994, the 
release date of the Third Report and Order in PP Docket No. 93-253 59 
FR 26741, May 24, 1994.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\This recommendation was submitted by NABER in an ex parte 
presentation to the Commission's staff on June 29, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. NABER also requests that we clarify whether the June 24, 1993, 
date for determining whether an entity is an existing paging licensee 
is applicable in determining the area of operation for license 
eligibility purposes. It notes that an existing carrier, initially 
licensed as of June 24, 1993, may have expanded or constructed its 
system into adjacent areas after June 24, 1993. NABER contends that 
such a carrier should be able to include its current coverage area for 
purposes of obtaining response channels so as to make its entire system 
compatible and competitive even though parts of it were constructed or 
put into operation after June 24, 1993.
    7. PageNet, in its comments, generally supports the rule 
modifications suggested by NABER. In addition, PageNet requests that 
the rule limiting applicants to only Part 22 and Part 90 licensees as 
of June 24, 1993, be eliminated or modified. It argues that this 
restriction is not needed to prevent speculative or frivolous 
applications under an auction regime and that the ability to improve 
service should not be arbitrarily restricted to those that were 
licensees on a certain date. PageNet requests that the rules be 
modified to permit applications for response channels by any licensee 
operating a system serving at least some portion of the market on the 
date the application is filed.
    8. Our decision to license the response channels on an MTA and BTA 
basis and to require operation of a base station transmitter in the 
service area was intended to facilitate our licensing process and 
provide a simple method for determining mutually exclusive 
applications. Existing paging stations are currently licensed on a 
mileage separation basis rather than an MTA and BTA basis. We concur 
with the parties that there are advantages to basing eligibility on the 
coverage area of existing base stations. As noted by NABER, a single 
base station may often cover more than one BTA. We therefore find that 
a coverage area standard for response channel eligibility would better 
conform with the service needs of existing paging operations. 
Accordingly, we are amending our rules to permit licensees to obtain 
response channels sufficient to upgrade existing paging systems over 
their entire coverage area.
    9. We also believe that a simple ``brightline'' test is needed for 
determining the coverage area of existing paging systems in order to 
facilitate the licensing of response channels. In considering this 
issue, we note that while existing paging operations include several 
classes of operations with varying service radii, a 20-mile (32.2 
kilometer) radius of reliable service is typical of paging operations. 
We therefore believe that a 20-mile service radius would better reflect 
the service areas of most existing paging operations than the 25-mile 
standard suggested by NABER. At the same time, we recognize that, as 
specified in our rules, some paging operations have service areas 
larger than 20 or 25 miles. Accordingly, we will consider the service 
radius of a paging transmitter to be 20 miles for purposes of 
determining eligibility for response channel licenses, except that for 
certain classes of high-powered paging stations we will use a graduated 
series of wider service radii specified in our paging rules.\5\ This 
standard will establish a clear and concise test for all applicants and 
minimize the administrative burden on our resources. Existing paging 
licensees will be eligible for response channels in any BTA or MTA that 
encompasses an authorized base station or which is partly or wholly 
overlapped by the paging system's service area as defined above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\In the case of ``F,'' ``G,'' ``H,'' or ``K'' class paging 
stations under both Sections 22.502(c) and 90.495(b)(1) of our 
rules, the service area for purposes of response channel eligibility 
will be defined by the service area radius specified in Section 
22.504(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. We also find merit in NABER's request to allow existing 
licensees that expand their service areas after June 24, 1993, to be 
eligible for response channels in the expanded service areas. This 
request is consistent with our decision to provide opportunities for 
upgrading existing paging operations. We further agree with PageNet 
that any licensee operating a system that serves some portion of a 
market should be eligible to apply for response channels in that 
market, regardless of whether the licensee was operating before June 
24, 1993. In this regard, we see no reason why operators of existing 
systems that have been expanded into adjacent trading areas after June 
24, 1993, should be entitled to bid for response channels in newly 
served areas while operators of new systems authorized after that date 
should be barred from bidding for those channels. We therefore conclude 
that, as a matter of equity, the eligibility criterion should be 
modified to permit any paging licensee to apply for the response 
channels in a market, so long as the licensee's system serves some 
portion of that market on the date the application is filed. In 
particular, we note that on October 21, 1993, we adopted amendments to 
our private paging rules that resulted in the issuance of substantial 
numbers of new licensees for conventional paging. We find that 
licensees of both expanded systems and new systems authorized after 
June 24, 1993, should have an opportunity to purchase the response 
channels. Accordingly, we are amending the eligibility requirements for 
holding narrowband PCS response channels as follows. Existing paging 
licensees will be defined as paging licensees authorized under Part 22 
or Part 90 of our Rules as of the deadline for filing applications to 
participate in the competitive bidding for the paging response 
channels.\6\ This application filing deadline will be established in a 
public notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\Mercury Communications, Inc. (Mercury) filed a petition for 
clarification of the Third Report and Order in the competitive 
bidding proceeding (PP Docket No. 93-253) requesting that the June 
24, 1993 date apply only to the initial auction and that this date 
not apply should response channels remain available following the 
initial auction. Mercury states that it is an applicant to provide 
private carrier paging service at numerous locations in the New York 
City metropolitan area, but was not authorized in that area as of 
June 24, 1993. Mercury argues that it would not serve the public 
interest to forever preclude companies not authorized as of June 24, 
1993 because paging is a dynamic, evolving industry. We believe that 
the revised rules we are adopting herein will remedy the inequity to 
which Mercury refers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acquisition of Multiple Response Channels
    11. In the Memorandum Opinion and Order, we limited existing paging 
licensees to acquisition of two response channels in a given geographic 
area. Our intent in imposing this limit was to allow an opportunity for 
at least four existing paging licensees to upgrade their operations. 
NABER agrees that the two channel limit is useful as it relates to the 
initial auctioning of frequencies and that it should serve as a 
protective measure against the hoarding of response channels by a few 
carriers. NABER is concerned, however, that this rule could interfere 
with the orderly operation of the marketplace if maintained on a long 
term basis. It states that when paging licensees merge or are acquired, 
the response channels used with their systems should be transferred as 
an integral part of the new system. Such transfers would not be 
permitted under the current rules if the acquiring operator would end 
up with more than two response channels in a particular service area. 
NABER recommends that we modify the two channel limit to provide that, 
under certain conditions, existing paging licensees would not be 
subject to a limit on the number of response channels they could 
acquire at any time after the initial grants of the licenses for those 
channels are final.\7\ Under NABER's proposal, aggregation of response 
channels would be limited to parties that acquire the channels as part 
of an existing system or to supplement their own existing system. It 
suggests that approval for such acquisitions be conditioned on a review 
by the Commission to ensure that the purpose of the rule would not be 
violated and that this scrutiny be relaxed after one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\This description of NABER's recommendation includes 
clarifications that were submitted in its ex parte presentation to 
the Commission's staff on June 29, 1994. NABER had initially 
suggested that this problem be resolved by providing for waivers of 
the rule or by establishing a sunset date after which the rule would 
be automatically eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Our purpose in adopting the two-channel limit was to ensure 
that at least four existing paging licensees will have the opportunity 
to upgrade their one-way services. We now believe that once the 
existing paging licensees have had an opportunity to obtain response 
channels and the competitive structure of narrowband PCS markets have 
taken form, it will not be necessary to limit the number of response 
channels a paging licensee may hold.\8\ We agree with NABER that in 
cases where paging systems are merged or acquired, the seller should be 
permitted to transfer the response channels as well. At that point, the 
response channels would be integral to the individual systems that are 
merged, and we see no reason to require that they be divested. We also 
agree with NABER that eliminating the rule immediately after the 
initial licensing auction could encourage frivolous bidding in the 
auction process. We therefore find that NABER's initial suggestion for 
providing a sunset period is reasonable, and believe that a period of 
two years will be sufficient to discourage such speculation. 
Accordingly, we are amending the rules to provide that the two response 
channel per market limit will expire two years after the date of 
initial license grant. We believe that this sunset provision addresses 
NABER's concerns and that additional scrutiny by the Commission of 
response channel acquisitions would impose an unnecessary 
administrative burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\We do not believe that it is necessary to maintain the two 
channel limit in order to ensure a competitive market for narrowband 
PCS services in the long run. In this regard we note that our rules 
provide for twenty-one 50 kHz based narrowband PCS licenses with 
associated response channels at any geographic point. Nine of these 
response channels are 50 kHz (five nationwide, two regional, and two 
MTA channels) and twelve are 12.5 kHz (three nationwide, four 
regional, three MTA, and two BTA channels). Thus, existing paging 
licensees that operate narrowband PCS services using response 
channels will compete with other narrowband PCS licensees in each 
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ownership Attribution
    13. The narrowband PCS rules provide that licensees shall not have 
an ownership interest in more than three narrowband PCS channels in any 
geographic area. The rules further provide that, for the purpose of 
this restriction, a licensee is any person or entity with an ownership 
interest of five or more percent in an entity holding a narrowband PCS 
license.\9\ On our own motion, we reconsider this attribution 
requirement as it applies to indirect ownership of narrowband PCS 
licenses. In cases where a party has indirect ownership, through an 
interest in an intervening corporation or partnership that has less 
than a controlling ownership in a narrowband PCS license, we consider 
whether to apply a ``multiplier'' to determine the effective ownership 
interest of that party. A multiplier is currently used in our 
attribution rules for broadcast licenses, and has recently been adopted 
for broadband PCS licenses, by multiplying together each non-majority, 
non-controlling interest in a license to determine the effective 
ownership interest of a party whose interest is held through 
intervening entities. For example, if Party X owns a 25-percent non-
controlling interest in Corporation Y that holds a 10-percent non-
controlling interest in Licensee Z, Party X would be deemed to have a 
2.5-percent effective ownership interest in Licensee Z. Use of a 
multiplier allows the Commission to accurately take account of a 
party's ``actual involvement with the ultimate licensee'' as well as 
the party's ability to exert control over that licensee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\As we have stated in addressing interests acquired at 
auction, where common non-controlling ownership exists between two 
or more bidders and such bidders cumulatively obtain more licenses 
than permitted, we permit divestiture of non-controlling interests 
to bring the entities into compliance if completed within 90 days of 
license grant. Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, PP Docket No. 93-253, GEN Docket No. 90-314, 
and ET Docket No. 92-100, FCC 94-219 at 29 (adopted August 16, 
1994). Further, both investors and corporate licensees have a 
continuing obligation to be vigilant in monitoring relevant holdings 
to ensure compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. In the Memorandum Opinion and Order, we adopted a flat five 
percent attribution rule for any party that has any ownership interest 
in an entity holding a narrowband PCS license to ensure that no person 
or entity is able to exert undue market power through partial ownership 
in multiple narrowband PCS licensees in a single service area. We did 
not specify that both direct and indirect interests in a narrowband PCS 
licensee were attributable. Compare Section 24.204 (a), (d)(2)(viii) of 
the Commission's Rules. On reconsideration, we conclude that 
consideration of indirect ownership interests, through the use of a 
multiplier in future application proceedings,\10\ will better 
facilitate a competitive narrowband PCS market. Under our prior rule, a 
party that has an ownership interest in a company that has a non-
controlling ownership interest in a narrowband PCS licensee would be 
permitted to acquire an attributable ownership interest in three 
additional narrowband PCS licensees in the same area. For example, if 
Party A has a 40-percent non-controlling ownership interest in Company 
B, which in turn has a 40-percent non-controlling ownership interest in 
Narrowband PCS Licensee C, Party A (having only an indirect interest in 
Licensee C) would, under this rule, be permitted to acquire an 
attributable ownership interest in Narrowband PCS Licensees D, E, and F 
in the same area. By contrast, when considering its indirect ownership 
interest under the multiplier approach, Party A would be deemed to have 
a 16-percent effective ownership interest in Narrowband PCS Licensee C, 
well in excess of our five percent limitation, and would therefore be 
permitted to have an attributable ownership interest in only two 
additional narrowband PCS licensees in the same area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\The multiplier rule will not be applied to Mobile 
Telecommunication Technologies Corporation's pioneer's preference 
license for a nationwide channel, or to the other ten nationwide 
channels that already have been auctioned. We do not believe that it 
would be equitable to apply this new rule retroactively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. We also find that using a multiplier to calculate the effective 
indirect ownership interest will better promote a competitive 
narrowband PCS market than attributing to a party in full the ownership 
interest of an intervening company in a narrowband PCS licensee. This 
approach would likely exclude parties that pose no threat to 
competition and prevent a party that has neither the ability to exert 
control nor a substantial financial stake in a narrowband PCS licensee 
from acquiring an attributable ownership interest in more than two 
additional narrowband PCS licensees in the same area. In the example in 
paragraph 13, supra, Corporation Y's 10 percent non-controlling 
interest in Licensee Z would be deemed in excess of the five percent 
threshold applicable to narrowband PCS ownership. Thus, Party X, which 
has a 25-percent non-controlling interest in Corporation Y, would be 
restricted to acquiring an attributable ownership interest in only two 
additional narrowband PCS licensees in the same area despite its 
inability to exert control or significant influence over the operations 
of Licensee Z. By contrast, use of a multiplier produces an effective 
ownership interest of only 2.5 percent by Party X in Licensee Z, 
permitting Party X to acquire an attributable ownership interest in 
three additional narrowband PCS licensees in the same area.
    16. Considerations of true economic interest in, and ability to 
control, a licensee are crucial in determining whether a particular 
indirect ownership interest could affect the degree of competition in a 
market and therefore should be attributed to the holder for purposes of 
our multiple ownership rules. These considerations apply equally in the 
broadband and narrowband PCS contexts. Accordingly, a multiplier 
similar to that used in applying our attribution rules in broadband PCS 
will be used to determine effective ownership interests in narrowband 
PCS licensing. We therefore will amend Section 24.101 of our rules to 
include the use of a multiplier to determine whether an entity holding 
an indirect non-controlling interest in a narrowband PCS licensee has 
an attributable interest for the purpose of our multiple ownership 
rules. As in our broadcast and broadband PCS rules, where an entity's 
ownership interest in any link in the ownership chain is greater than 
50 percent or is controlling, the interest will be treated as if it 
were 100 percent for the purposes of applying the multiplier.
Local Service Areas in Puerto Rico
    17. In response to a suggestion by Pegasus Communications, Inc. 
(Pegasus) in the recent broadband PCS proceeding, we are revisiting the 
local service area adopted for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. We 
currently treat Puerto Rico as a BTA for narrowband PCS licensing 
purposes. In the broadband PCS proceeding, Pegasus requested that we 
divide the Puerto Rico service area into two local service areas and 
suggested that we likewise establish two BTA-like service areas in 
Puerto Rico for the narrowband PCS service. Pegasus argued that due to 
the size and mountainous terrain of the island, Puerto Rico essentially 
is split in half, comprising two commercial centers: San Juan and 
Mayaguez-Ponce. Pegasus stated that these mountains make travel to San 
Juan difficult for Puerto Ricans located in the southern and western 
portions of the island, and therefore they must conduct essentially all 
commerce in the port cities of Mayaguez, Aguadilla, or Ponce. Pegasus 
also stated that the population of its proposed Mayaguez/Aguadilla-
Ponce service area is more than one million and this area would be 
larger in population than several of the existing BTAs. Pegasus 
provided a list of municipios that it suggests constitute the Mayaguez/
Aguadilla-Ponce service area and suggested that the San Juan service 
area consist of all municipios not listed for the Mayaguez/Aguadilla-
Ponce BTA-like service area.\11\ No party responded to this petition. 
In our Memorandum Opinion and Order on broadband PCS, we adopted 
Pegasus's suggestion and provided two separate service areas in Puerto 
Rico, one for Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce and one for San Juan. This 
change recognized the difficulties created by the mountain range 
separating these two areas. We also stated that no parties opposed this 
request\12\ and that we found this adjustment to be in the public 
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\The primary political divisions of Puerto Rico are termed 
``municipios.''
    \12\We note, however, that Puerto Rico Telephone Company has 
filed a petition for reconsideration of the broadband PCS Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, in which it requests that we reconsider our 
decision to divide Puerto Rico into two BTAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. We agree with Pegasus that it is desirable to modify the Puerto 
Rico narrowband PCS service area to specify two BTA-like service areas 
in the same manner as our action in the broadband PCS proceeding. The 
1990 census for Puerto Rico is 3,522,037. The population of the new 
Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce service area is 1,048,473 and the population 
of the new San Juan service area is 2,473,564. Only 49 of the remaining 
491 BTAs have a population of greater than 1,048,473 and only 18 BTAs 
have a population greater than 2,473,564. We find that the population 
of each of these service areas is sufficient to support advanced 
narrowband PCS services.\13\ Additionally, we conclude that the 
patterns of local trade caused by the mountainous terrain of the island 
make the proposed division economically and geographically desirable. 
Accordingly, we are providing two BTA-like service areas in Puerto Rico 
for narrowband PCS service. This modification will apply to all BTA 
channels in the narrowband PCS service, i.e., both the eight paging 
response channels and the two 50 kHz paired with 12.5 kHz channels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\We note that Puerto Rico is licensed as five Metropolitan 
Statistical Areas (MSAs) and seven Rural Service Areas (RSAs) in the 
Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ordering Clauses

    19. Accordingly, it is ordered, That Part 24 of the Commission's 
Rules is amended as specified below, effective 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register.
    20. It is further ordered, That the Petition for Reconsideration 
filed by the Association of Private Carrier Paging Section of the 
National Association of Business and Educational Radio, Inc. is granted 
to the extent discussed above. It is further ordered, That the Petition 
for Acceptance of Late-filed Comments by Paging Network, Inc. is 
granted.
    21. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 302, 
303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i) 157(a), 302, 303(c), 303(f), 
303(g), and 303(r).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 24

    Personal communications service, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.

Amendatory Text

    Part 24 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 24--PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

    1. The authority citation in Part 24 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 309, and 332, unless 
otherwise noted.

    2. Section 24.101 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 24.101  Multiple ownership restrictions.

    (a) Narrowband PCS licensees shall not have an ownership interest 
in more than three of the 26 channels listed in Section 24.129 in any 
geographic area. For the purpose of this restriction, a narrowband PCS 
licensee is any person or entity with an ownership interest of five or 
more percent in a narrowband PCS license.
    (b) In cases where a party applies for a license after August 16, 
1994 or has a license transferred to it after that date, and the party 
has indirect ownership, through an interest in an intervening entity 
(or entities) that has ownership in the narrowband PCS license, that 
indirect ownership shall be attributable if the percentages of 
ownership at each level, multiplied together, equal five or more 
percent ownership of the narrowband PCS license, except that if the 
ownership percentage for an interest in any link in the chain exceeds 
50 percent or represents actual control, it shall be treated as if it 
were a 100 percent interest.

    Example: Party X has a non-controlling ownership interest of 25 
percent in Company Y, which in turn has a non-controlling ownership 
interest of 10 percent in Company Z, the narrowband PCS licensee. 
Party X's effective ownership interest in Company Z is Party X's 
ownership interest in Company Y (25 percent) times Company Y's 
ownership interest in Company Z (10 percent). Therefore, Party X's 
effective ownership interest in Company Z is 2.5 percent, and is not 
attributable.

    3. Section 24.102 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 24.102  Service areas.

* * * * *
    (d) The BTA service areas are based on the Rand McNally 1992 
Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, 123rd Edition, at pages 38-39, with 
the following additions licensed separately as BTA-like areas: American 
Samoa; Guam; Northern Mariana Islands; Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce, Puerto 
Rico; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and the United States Virgin Islands. The 
Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce BTA-like service area consists of the 
following municipios: Adjuntas, Aguada, Aguadilla, Anasco, Arroyo, Cabo 
Rojo, Coamo, Guanica, Guayama, Guayanilla, Hormigueros, Isabela, 
Jayuya, Juana Diaz, Lajas, Las Marias, Maricao, Maunabo, Mayaguez, 
Moca, Patillas, Penuelas, Ponce, Quebradillas, Rincon, Sabana Grande, 
Salinas, San German, Santa Isabel, Villalba, and Yauco. The San Juan 
BTA-like service area consists of all other municipios in Puerto Rico.
    4. Paragraph (a) of Section 24.130 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 24.130  Paging response channels.

    (a) The channels listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section 
are available to licensees of conventional one-way paging base stations 
licensed pursuant to Part 22 or Part 90 of this chapter as of the 
application filing deadline for the paging response channels. 
Eligibility for response channels shall be based on the authorized 
service area of each existing paging licensee. This service area is 
defined as the area within a 32.2 kilometer radius of the licensee's 
base stations or, in the case of ``F,'' ``G,'' ``H,'' or ``K'' class 
stations under Sections 22.502(c) and 90.495(b)(1) of this chapter, as 
the area that is within the service area radius specified in Section 
22.504(b)(2) of this chapter. Existing paging licensees are eligible to 
bid for any response channel in any BTA or MTA which encompasses an 
authorized base station or which is partly or wholly overlapped by a 
licensee's service area. These channels shall be used only in paired 
communications with existing paging channels to provide mobile-to-base 
station communications. Until two years after the date of initial 
license grant, eligible paging licensees are limited to a maximum of 
two response channels within the same geographic area. Licenses for 
paging response channels are not counted toward the multiple ownership 
restrictions of Section 24.101.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-21844 Filed 9-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M