[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26375-26376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11931]



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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 24

[GEN Docket No. 90-314, ET Docket No. 92-100, FCC 95-92]


Personal Communications Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

ACTION: Correction to final rules.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final rules which 
were published Wednesday, March 15, 1995, (60 FR 13915). The rules 
related to the ownership attribution of licenses in view of the 
Commission's decisions to use a multiplier when assessing indirect 
ownership interests.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Wack, Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
(202) 418-1310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 3, 1995, the Commission released 
the full text of a Memorandum Opinion and Order (Order) in the 
captioned matter (FCC 95-92). However, there are several errors in the 
appendix to the Order, ``Appendix A: Final Rules,'' as released and as 
subsequently published in the Federal Register, on March 15, 1995, at 
60 FR 13915. There is a need for correction because these rules contain 
errors which may prove misleading and are in need of clarification. The 
final rules that are the subject of these corrections supersede 
Secs. 24.101(b) and 24.229(c) on the effective date of publication in 
the Federal Register and affect nationwide narrowband PCS licenses and 
certain other PCS licensees that are institutional investors.
    Accordingly, the publication on March 15, 1995 of the final 
regulations, which were the subject of FR Doc. 95-6488, is corrected as 
follows:


Sec. 24.101  [Corrected]

    1. On page 13917, first column, in Sec. 24.101, in paragraph (b), 
line one, the word ``had'' is removed and the words ``applies for a 
license after August 16, 1994 or has a license transferred to it after 
that date, and the party has'' are added in its place.


Sec. 24.229  [Corrected]

    2. On page 13917, third column, in Sec. 24.229, paragraph (c) is 
corrected to read as follows:


Sec. 24.229  Frequencies.

* * * * *
    (c) PCS licensees shall not have an ownership interest in frequency 
blocks [[Page 26376]] that total more than 40 MHz and serve the same 
geographic area. For purposes of this section, PCS licensees are:
    (1) Any institutional investor, as defined in Sec. 24.720(h), with 
an ownership interest of 10 or more percent in a broadband PCS license; 
and
    (2) Any other entities having an ownership interest of 5 or more 
percent or other attributable ownership interest, as defined in 
Sec. 24.204(d), in a PCS license.

    Example 1: Company A, which is a rural telephone company with no 
cellular interests, buys a 7 percent stake in a 30 MHz BTA that 
constitutes 8 percent of the population in MTA 1, which encompasses 
BTA 1. It is then offered an opportunity to buy 8 percent of the 
equity in a 30 MHz license in MTA 1. It cannot accept this offer 
because it would be over the 5 percent threshold on two overlapping 
PCS licenses. Its status as a rural telephone company has no impact 
on the 5 percent threshold for PCS licensees.
    Example 2: (1) Company A has two investors, Company B and 
Company C. Company B owns 15 percent of Company A. Company C, a 
rural telephone company, owns 25 percent of Company A. Company B and 
Company C do not have any interests in each other.
    (2) Company B has 100 percent ownership of cellular license 1 
that covers 20 percent of the pops in BTA 1 and 6 percent of the 
pops in MTA 1. Company C owns 25 percent of cellular license 2 that 
covers 20 percent of the pops in BTA 2 and 6 percent of the pops in 
MTA 1. Company A has no separate cellular interests. MTA 1 
encompasses both BTA 1 and BTA 2.
    (3) Company A cannot purchase 30 MHz of spectrum in BTA 1. Such 
a purchase would put Company B over the aggregation limit of 40 MHz 
in BTA 1 because it would have over 5 percent ownership of the PCS 
license in addition to its cellular license.
    (4) Company A can, however, purchase 30 MHz in BTA 2 or MTA 1 
because Company C is a rural telephone company, and thus Company C's 
interest in cellular license 2 falls below the 40 percent threshold 
and is not counted against the spectrum cap. If Company C were not a 
rural telephone company, then Company A could not acquire 30 MHz in 
BTA 2 or MTA 1 because its partners in those licenses would be over 
the spectrum cap.
    (5) Company B can also buy 30 MHz in BTA 2 or MTZ 1 as long as 
Company A does not also buy 30 MHz in BTA 2 or MTA 1 because Company 
B and Company C have no joint ownership.
    (6) Company C can also buy 30 MHz in BTA 1 or 2 or MTA 1 as long 
as Company A does not also buy in the region where Company C buys. 
If Company A were to buy a 30 MHz MTA 1 license, then Company B and 
Company C would be prohibited from acquiring either of the BTAs 
because they would be over the 5 percent threshold for PCS spectrum 
in the same region.
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11931 Filed 5-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M