[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20597]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 23, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to Office of
Management and Budget for Review
August 17, 1994
The Federal Communications Commission has submitted the following
information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507).
Copies of this submission may be purchased from the Commission's
copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 2100 M
Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800. For
further information on this submission contact Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission, (202) 418-0214. Persons wishing to comment
on this information collection should contact Timothy Fain, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10214 NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202)
395-3561.
OMB Number: 3060-0457
Title: Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission's Rules to Establish
Standards for Conducting Comparative Cellular Renewal Proceedings (CC
Docket No. 90-358)
Action: Revision to a currently approved collection
Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit (including small
businesses)
Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement
Estimated Annual Burden: 110 responses; 19.81 hours average burden per
response; 2,180 hours total annual burden
Needs and Uses: In the Memorandum Opinion and Order on Further
Reconsideration (Further Reconsideration Order), the Commission revised
certain rules governing the conduct of comparative renewal proceedings
in the cellular radio service. Section 22.942(d) is amended 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. This rule section is also revised 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. Section 22.942(a) of the rules is
revised to provide that renewal applicants will have sixty 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. Section 22.942(f) of the
rules is amended to state specifically that the expedited hearing
procedures of Sections 22.916(b)(5)-(8) of the rules apply to step one
hearings as well as to step two hearings. Section 22.941(b)(4) of the
rules was amended to eliminate the language which required the
disclosure of non-FCC misconduct as part of a licensee's renewal
expectancy showing. The Commission also 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 be best resolved in a broad rulemaking proceeding and
not on reconsideration of the cellular renewal rules. The instructions
to the renewal application form (FCC Form 405) do not specifically
require the submission of any character information concerning the
renewal applicant. However, in response to item 8 on FCC Form 405,
renewal applicants must reference its most recently filed FCC Form 401
or FCC Form 430 by file numbers, date filed, and any other relevant
questions concerning the general character qualifications of the
applicant. If there have been changes in the information submitted
since the referenced form was filed, the renewal applicant must
indicate those changes in a separate exhibit. (See paragraph 22 in the
Further Reconsideration Order and also the Public Notice entitled,
``Information Regarding Cellular Renewal Applications'' enclosed in
this OMB submission.) The information will be used by Commission staff
to conduct comparative renewal proceedings. The rules and requirements
have been designed to prevent possible abuses by speculative applicants
who might file competing applications against renewal applications
solely to extract payments from the existing licensees. With these
rules we intend to deter the filing of speculative applications by
thinly or noncapitalized entities having little interest in providing
cellular service. These rules will also maximize the utilization of the
Commission's resources. The revisions made in the Further
Reconsideration Order are needed to establish and explain several
procedural aspects of comparative renewal proceedings in the cellular
radio service. The intent is to promote efficiency and fairness in the
licensing of the cellular radio service.
Federal Communications Commission.
LaVera F. Marshall,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-20597 Filed 8-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
