Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service
Federal RegisterJan 26, 1996
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 21 and 94
[FCC 95-500]
Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this Order portion of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making
and Order, the Commission generally holds in abeyance and will not
process pending applications for frequency assignments in the 38.6-40.0
GHz (39 GHz) band that are mutually exclusive with other applications
or that were still within the 60-day period for filing mutually
exclusive applications as of November 13, 1995. Further, the Commission
holds in abeyance and will not process modification applications for 39
GHz licenses filed on or after November 13, 1995, unless the
application meets certain requirements as discussed in the summary
below. The Commission takes this action to stop processing mutually
exclusive or potentially mutually exclusive applications under outdated
licensing rules in anticipation of the adoption of new licensing rules.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 15, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Mooring, Office of Engineering and
Technology, (202) 418-2450.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order,
adopted and released December 15, 1995. The complete Notice of Proposed
Rule Making and Order is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M
Street, N.W., 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 Order
1. In the companion Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``Notice'') in
this proceeding, the Commission proposed to amend the licensing and
technical rules for fixed point-to-point microwave operations in the 39
GHz band. On November 13, 1995, pursuant to delegated authority, the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) ordered that no additional
applications for 39 GHz frequency assignments would be accepted for
filing as of the date of the Bureau's order pending the outcome of this
proceeding.1 The Bureau observed that over 2,100 applications for
39 GHz licenses had been filed since January 1995, and noted that the
increasing number of applications filed pursuant to the existing rules
was a burden on Commission resources and could inhibit the Commission's
ability to update the regulatory structure of this service in light of
today's marketplace conditions. The Bureau also stated that the freeze
does not apply to applications for assignment or transfer of control of
license. Likewise, the Commission stresses that the interim policy
described below will not apply to assignment or transfer of control
applications, which will continue to be processed under existing
procedures.
\1\ Order, RM-8553, DA 95-2341, released November 13, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. With respect to previously filed 39 GHz applications now pending
before the Commission, the Commission took the following action.
Pending applications will be processed if (1) they were not mutually
exclusive with other applications at the time of the Bureau's Order,
and (2) the 60-day period for filing mutually exclusive applications
expired prior to November 13, 1995. The Commission concluded that
processing pending applications against which no competing application
has been timely filed will not impede the goals of this proceeding and
can be accomplished without significant burden on Commission resources.
The Commission also proposed to apply to all licenses granted under
this procedure the same revised construction threshold and
grandfathering requirements that it proposed to apply to incumbent 39
GHz licensees who received license grants prior to this Notice.
3. With respect to all other pending applications (i.e., those that
were subject to mutual exclusivity or still within the 60-day period as
of November 13), the Commission concluded that processing and
disposition should be held in abeyance during the pendency of this
proceeding.2 First, resolving mutually exclusive applications
requires greater expenditure of Commission resources than processing
uncontested applications. Second, the Commission is concerned that
attempting to award licenses in mutually exclusive situations under its
current rules could lead to results that are inconsistent with the
objectives of this proceeding. Therefore, the Commission will not
process these applications (or any amendments thereto filed on or after
November 13, 1995) at this time, but intends to determine whether to
process or return them, as appropriate, at the conclusion of this
proceeding. The Commission solicits comment on how these applications
that will be held in abeyance should later be treated if new licensing
and service rules are ultimately adopted in this proceeding.
\2\ Whenever the 60-day ``cut-off'' date for an application
occurs on or after the processing ``freeze'' date of November 13,
1995, we will hold the application in abeyance. This will assure
fairness to potential applicants who were precluded by the freeze
from filing competing applications in time to be entitled to
comparative consideration. Accordingly, all 39 GHz applications
placed on public notice on or after September 14, 1995, will be
treated for purposes of interim processing as if they were mutually
exclusive. See 47 C.F.R. Secs. 21.27, 21.31(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Also in regard to pending applications for 39 GHz licenses,
amendments received on or after November 13, 1995 will be held in
abeyance during the pendency of this proceeding. The Commission will
similarly hold in abeyance those applications for modification of
existing 39 GHz licenses filed on or after November 13, 1995, or
modification
[[Page 2453]]
application amendments filed on or after that date, and will not accept
for filing any additional such modification applications and
amendments, but for the following limited exception which will afford
existing licensees alternative means of meeting the threshold
construction requirement. To be acceptable for filing, modification
applications or amendments to them must meet both of the following
criteria:
Do not involve any enlargement in any portion of the
proposed area of operation; and
Do not change frequency blocks, other than to delete a
frequency block(s).
5. Accordingly, it is ordered, That pending applications for new 39
GHz frequency assignments or for modification to 39 GHz licenses shall
be held in abeyance and not processed until further notice, except as
otherwise indicated in paragraphs 1 through 4 above. It is further
ordered, That applications for modification of 39 GHz licenses or
amendments to pending 39 GHz applications shall not be accepted for
filing until further notice, except as indicated in paragraphs 1
through 4 above. The imposition of these changes in application
processing is procedural in nature and, therefore, is not subject to
the notice and comment and effective date requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act.3 In any event, good cause exists for
imposing immediately the processing changes without following these
requirements because the changes are necessary to avoid impeding the
purpose of any new rules adopted in this proceeding.
\3\ See Neighborhood TV Co., Inc. v. FCC, 742 F.2d 629 (D.C.
Cir. 1984); Buckeye Cablevision, Inc. v. United States, 438 F.2d 948
(6th Cir. 1971); Kessler v. FCC, 326 F.2d 673 (D.C. Cir. 1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 21
Communications common carriers, Radio.
47 CFR Part 94
Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-1246 Filed 1-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.