[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 72 (Friday, April 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19050-19053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9346]



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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to Office of 
Management and Budget for Review

April 10, 1995.
    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, N.W., 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 10236 NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 
395-3561.
    Please note: On February 25, 1994 The Commission issued a Final 
Rule (contained in the First Report and Order to PP Docket 93-253) 
implementing Section 309(1) of the Communications Act--Competitive 
Bidding. This rule requires that an application for voluntary transfer 
of control or assignment under Secs. 1.924, 21.38, 22.39, 90.153, 
94.47, and 95.821 where the license was acquired by the transferor or 
assignor through a system of random selection shall together with its 
application for transfer of control or assignment, file with the 
Commission the associated contracts for sale, option agreements, 
management agreements, or other documents disclosing the consideration 
that the applicant would receive in return for the transfer or 
assignment of its license. This information should include not only a 
monetary purchase price, but also any future, contingent, inkind, or 
other consideration (e.g., management or consulting contracts either 
with or without an option to purchase; below-market financing). These 
limited reporting requirements will enable the Commission to evaluate 
whether further restrictions are needed.
    At that time the Commission determined the new or modified 
information collection and/or record retention requirements imposed by 
this Rule were not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 44 
U.S.C. 3501-3520. Upon further evaluation, the Commission is now 
requesting expedited OMB review of this item by April 18, 1995, under 
the provisions of 5 CFR 1320.18.

OMB Number: None.
Title: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, 
Competitive Bidding, PP Docket 93-253, First Report and Order.
Action: Existing collection in use without OMB control number.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
Frequency of Response: On occassion.
Estimated Annual Burden: 1,100 respondents; 1 hour per response; 1,100 
hours total annual burden.
Needs and Uses: The Commission will use the information to determine 
whether the public interest would be served by granting a transfer of 
control or an assignment of a license awarded through lottery 
procedures.

    The foregoing estimates include the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the burden 
estimates or any other aspect of the collection of information 
including suggestions for reducing the burden to the Federal 
Communications Commission, Records Management Branch, Paperwork 
Reduction Project, Washington, DC 20554.

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

First Report and Order

    In the Matter of: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the 
Communications Act Competitive Bidding. PP Docket 93-253.

 [[Page 19051]] Adopted: February 3, 1994
Released: February 4, 1994

    By the Commission:
    1. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (``Budget 
Act'')\1\ requires the Commission to prescribe rules that are 
necessary to prevent the unjust enrichment of recipients of licenses 
or permits that the Commission issues pursuant to the lottery 
authority granted by Section 309(i)(4)(C) of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 309(i)(4)(C) (``Communications 
Act''). This Report and Order responds to Congress' directive. We 
conclude that, in addition to the rigorous requirements that apply 
to lotteries in our existing rules, certain transfer disclosure 
rules are necessary to prevent unjust enrichment with respect to 
licenses issued by lottery. These requirements will enable us to 
monitor the operation and effect of lotteries closely over the next 
one to two years to enable us to determine if additional safeguards 
are necessary.

    \1\Pub. L. No. 103-66, title VI, Sec. 6002(b)(1)(B), 107 Stat. 
388, ---- 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    2. Our authority to issue licenses by lottery stems from Section 
309(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
Sec. 309(i). In the Budget Act, Congress added a new statutory 
provision concerning unjust enrichment in the lottery context to 
this section of the Communications Act, which states that
    [N]ot later than 180 days after [August 10, 1993], the 
Commission shall prescribe such transfer disclosures and 
antitrafficking restrictions and payment schedules as are necessary 
to prevent the unjust enrichment of recipients of licenses or 
permits as a result of the methods employed to issue licenses under 
this subsection.\2\

    \2\47 U.S.C. Sec. 309(i)(4)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``Notice'' or 
``Auction Notice'') implementing this and other sections of the 
Budget Act, we noted that the legislative history of this section 
indicated that the Commission might ``impose or assess payments in 
order to prevent unjust enrichment resulting from trafficking in 
licenses.''\3\ We tentatively concluded that we could assess 
payments in order to prevent unjust enrichment from lotteries. We 
also asked for comment on what other antitrafficking restrictions 
were appropriate in addition to any payments we might impose. We 
suggested, for example, that we might place a three year restriction 
on the transfer of licenses gained through lotteries.

    \3\Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, 
Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, 8 FCC Rcd 7635, 7649-50, 
para. 89 (1993), quoting H.R. Rept. No. 111, 103d Cong., 1st sess. 
256 (1993) (``House Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. With respect to the term ``unjust enrichment,'' it appears 
that Congress was concerned about transactions such as that 
mentioned in the Notice, where we observed that lottery winners of 
the rural cellular license for Columbia County, Wisconsin, sold it 
for $62.3 million in 1990, 165 days after a construction permit had 
been issued.\4\ The legislative history of the Budget Act is highly 
critical of those who filed applications with no intention or 
capability of providing service but instead ``only sought to acquire 
a license at nominal cost and then sell it, making a large profit 
and at the same time delaying the delivery of services to the 
public.'' House Report at 259. The legislative history reemphasizes 
the need for the Commission to limit ``the ability of lottery 
winners to sell their license, so as to prevent the churning and 
profiteering that has characterized lotteries.'' Id.\5\

    \4\8 FCC Rcd at 7641 n. 22. For purposes of this rule making and 
consistent with the intent of the Budget Act, ``unjust enrichment'' 
and ``speculation'' in the lottery context refer to the same act: 
the transfer of a license acquired by lottery for substantial profit 
prior to providing service to the public. Although the term 
``speculation'' has also been associated with the large number of 
lottery applications generated by so-called application mills, we 
believe that the mere act of filing an application for a lottery 
does not give rise to the ``unjust enrichment'' that the Budget Act 
has required us to address.
    \5\We note that this provision was adopted in conference from 
the House bill without change. See H.R. Rept. No. 213, 103d Cong., 
1st sess. 489-90 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Budget Act reduces significantly the Commission's 
authority to conduct lotteries. If the service or class of service 
is potentially eligible for competitive bidding under the statutory 
test in Section 309(j)(2)(A), then the Commission is precluded from 
using lotteries to resolve mutual exclusivity among applications. 
See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 309(i)(1)(B). Because under the Budget Act 
certain mutually exclusive applications may still be resolved by a 
lottery, we sought comment in the Auction Notice on how to implement 
the subject statutory provision.

Comments

    6. Although we received approximately 300 timely filed comments 
and reply comments in this proceeding, we only received two comments 
and no reply comments that directly addressed the subject statutory 
provision. The Domestic Automation Company (DAC) stated that ``bona 
fide entities who have lost in past lotteries often have had to buy 
[Multiple Address Service (MAS)] licenses from those who never 
intended to operate systems for their own use'' and urged that we 
adopt strict rules and restrictions to stem speculation and 
trafficking in licenses won by lottery. Comments of Domestic 
Automation Company at 7. DAC also urged that the Commission adopt 
restrictions that would discourage potential traffickers from 
participating in Commission lotteries in the first place, such as a 
requirement for the posting of performance bonds, similar financial 
guarantees and annual spectrum user fees prior to the lottery. DAC 
also argues that we should adopt restrictions on licensees who 
either fail to construct or who construct and then quickly transfer 
their licenses, presumably for a profit. Id.
    7. The American Petroleum Institute (API) shares these 
sentiments, noting that speculative interest in the radio spectrum 
has grown to the point where the Commission now is flooded with 
applications each time it announces an initial lottery for licenses. 
Comments of API at 7. Like Domestic Automation Company, API states 
that bona fide entities that lost in lotteries often have had to pay 
greenmail to speculators to obtain licenses they need, and urges the 
Commission to adopt strict rules and restrictions to stem 
speculation and trafficking in licenses won by lottery. Id. at 8.

Discussion

    8. The most egregious cases of unjust enrichment and speculation 
associated with past lotteries have occurred in ``commercial'' 
services,\6\ where there are significant opportunities for the sale 
of licensed communications properties to third parties for profit. 
E.g., Cellular Radio Service. Therefore, possibly the strongest 
measure to deter future instances of unjust enrichment in the 
lottery context has already been taken by Congress when, in the 
Budget Act, it granted the Commission auction authority for all 
``commercial'' spectrum-based services, and effectively took away 
the Commission's authority to conduct lotteries for such commercial 
services.\7\ Thus, under the Budget Act, any new rules adopted to 
implement the subject provision would potentially apply to only 
three classes of license applications: 1) mutually exclusive 
applications in certain private, internal-use services that meet the 
legislative criteria in Section 309(j)(2)(A) for random selection, 
but do not meet the legislative criteria for competitive bidding, 2) 
a limited number of mutually exclusive applications in commercial 
services accepted for filing prior to July 26, 1993, that the 
Commission has the authority to either auction or lottery under the 
Budget Act, and 3) possibly where a private, internal-use license 
application is mutually exclusive with a ``commercial'' use 
application for a license in ``shared spectrum,'' that is, spectrum 
for which both entities are eligible to use.\8\

    \6\See Auction Notice, 8 FCC Rcd at 7638-39 para. 25-28 (noting 
that for purposes of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, 
``commercial service'' means a subscriber-based service, and this 
term is substantively distinct from the term ``Commercial Mobile 
Service,'' which is a term associated with Section 332 of the 
Communications Act).
    \7\See Auction Notice, 8 FCC Rcd at 7637, para. 17 (noting that 
the Budget Act provides that the Commission may not issue any 
license or permit by lottery after the date of enactment unless the 
spectrum's use is not a type for which auctions are permitted, or 
the application was accepted for filing before July 26, 1993). 
Citing Section 6002(e) of the Budget Act (Special Rule). Under the 
Budget Act, therefore, mutually exclusive applications accepted for 
filing after July 26, 1993 may not be granted by lottery until the 
Commission determines whether the applicable radio service is not 
subject to competitive bidding under Section 309(j)(2)(A) of the 
Communications Act.
    \8\See Auction Notice, 8 FCC Rcd 7658 paras. 139-140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Furthermore, we note that the Commission has recently adopted 
rules that should assist in preventing unjust enrichment from 
lotteries in a variety of commercial services, including the 
Interactive Video and Data Service (IVDS), [[Page 19052]] Multipoint 
Distribution Service (MDS) and Cellular Radio Service. These rules 
include, inter alia, transfer restrictions tied to an ascending 
scale of build-out requirements over the license term, anti-
greenmail rules, settlement restrictions, and restrictions on 
changes in control of ownership. The Commission has not yet had the 
opportunity to fully evaluate the effectiveness of these rules 
because (1) the rules were adopted within the last two years (e.g., 
cellular radio\9\ and MDS\10\), or the service is not yet 
operational (e.g., IVDS\11\).

    \9\See, e.g., Third Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, and Recon., CC Docket 90-6, 7 FCC Rcd 7813 (1992) (adopting, 
inter alia, anti-greenmail rules), and Report and Order, CC Docket 
90-358, 7 FCC Rcd 719 (1992) (adopting anti-speculation rules in the 
context for comparative renewal proceedings).
    \10\See, e.g., Amendment of Parts 1, 2 and 21 of the 
Commission's Rules in the 2.1 and 2.5 GHz bands, PR Docket 92-80, 8 
FCC Rcd 1444 (1993) (adopting a variety of rules to deter unjust 
enrichment in the MDS context).
    \11\See 47 C.F.R. Part 95, Subpart F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Because in the future, only certain private, internal-use 
services would be subject to lottery, and such services rarely 
involve speculation or mutually exclusive applications, there does 
not appear to be a significant need at this time for new lottery 
rule to deter unjust enrichment. With respect to the limited number 
of ``commercial'' service applications that may be lotteried, the 
Commission has recently adopted rules in such services to deter 
unjust enrichment based on extensive experience in conducting 
lotteries in these services.\12\ Before adopting additional 
measures, we believe it would be appropriate to gain some experience 
in how well these existing rules operate in practice.

    \12\See, e.g., CFR 22.920(c)(1)-(3), 22.927, 22.928, and 22,929 
(cellular radio), and 95.819 and 95.821 (IVDS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. In addition, the record compiled in this proceeding does not 
support adopting major additional measures to combat unjust 
enrichment in the lottery context. The two commenters that did 
address this matter focused primarily on MAS. In MAS, however, a 
licensee is required to meet certain construction benchmarks before 
it can transfer a license.\13\ Therefore, while an MAS lottery may 
attract a large number of applicants, the existing construction 
benchmarks deter unjust enrichment by preventing licensees from 
transferring an MAS license before it provides service to the 
public.\14\

    \13\See 47 CFR 94.47.
    \14\Id. For this reason, we believe existing construction 
benchmarks and associated transfer restrictions adequately deter 
unjust enrichment in other services, such as the Specialized Mobile 
Radio Service (SMRs) and 220-222 MHz Private Land Mobile Radio 
Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Further, the imposition of additional, more stringent 
restrictions could have adverse consequences. Because the randomly 
selected winner of a license may not value it the most highly, 
additional transfer restrictions could operate to deprive the public 
of valuable new communications services, reduce economic growth and 
limit the expansion of jobs. Therefore, we do not believe that the 
public interest would be served by adopting additional transfer 
restrictions under present circumstances.
    13. At the same time, we are anxious to ensure that our recently 
adopted measures will prevent unjust enrichment. Therefore, we will 
adopt a measure expressly recommended in the subject statutory 
provision: Transfer disclosure requirements. We note that there was 
no opposition to the adoption of this measure in the record. 
Specifically, we will require lottery applicants for voluntary 
transfer of control or assignment file with the Commission, along 
with their application, the consideration they will receive if the 
Commission grants their applications for voluntary transfer of 
control or assignment. These limited reporting requirements will 
enable the Commission to evaluate whether further restrictions are 
needed.\15\ Such disclosures will also assist the Commission in 
drafting its mandatory report to Congress that will compare the 
results of the five-year auction experiment against the Commission's 
lottery experience. See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 309(j)(12). In addition, 
transfer price disclosure rules will allow the secondary market to 
function efficiently under existing restrictions against unjust 
enrichment.

    \15\We note that in the case of Low Power Television, the only 
broadcasting service subject to lotteries, the Commission currently 
has transfer disclosure rules. See 47 CFR 73.35540, 73.3597 and FCC 
Form 345.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Accordingly, any applicant for voluntary transfer of control 
or assignment would be required to file, together with its 
application, the associated contracts for sale, option agreements, 
management agreements, or other documents disclosing the total 
consideration received in return for the transfer of its license. 
This information should include not only a monetary purchase price, 
but also any future, contingent, in-kind or other consideration 
(e.g., management or consulting contracts either with or without an 
option to purchase; below-market financing). The Commission has 
existing procedures for maintaining the confidentiality of such 
filings.\16\ The rules shall apply to any future applicant for 
voluntary transfer of control or assignment where the subject 
license was acquired by the transferor or assignor through a 
Commission lottery.

    \16\47 CFR 0.459.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

    15. Because any rules adopted pursuant to Section 309(i)(4)(C) 
of the Communications Act will apply to only a limited number of 
noncommercial services where speculation rarely occurs, and because 
the Commission has recently taken action in a variety of commercial 
services to achieve the same goal of the subject statutory 
provision, we limit our action at this time to the adoption of 
transfer disclosure rules. If the data we collect as a result of 
this requirement indicates that our existing rules are inadequate, 
we may adopt additional measures to deter unjust enrichment in the 
lottery context.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    18. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is contained in 
Appendix B to this order.

Order Clause

    19. Accordingly, It Is Ordered that Parts 1, 21, 22, 90, 94 and 
95 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Parts 1, 21, 22, 90, 94 and 
95 Are Amended as set forth in the Appendix A. It Is Further Ordered 
that these rules are effective 90 days after publication in the 
Federal Register.
    20. Issuance of this First Report and Order is authorized under 
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-66, 
Title VI, section 6002, and Sections 154(i), 309(i), 303(j), and 
303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
Secs. 154(i), 309(i), 303(j), and 303(r).

Contact Persons

    21. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact 
Marc Martin or Kent Nakamura, Office of Plans and Policy, (202) 653-
5940.

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

Appendix A--Final Rule

    Part 1 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is amended as follows:
    1. The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 
U.S.C. 154, 303: Implement 5 U.S.C. 552 and 21 U.S.C. 853(a), unless 
otherwise noted.

    2. Section 1.924 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d) to 
read as follows:

Sec. 1.924  Assignment or transfer of control, voluntary or 
involuntary.

    (a) ***
    (d) An applicant for voluntary transfer of control or assignment 
under this section where the subject license was acquired by the 
transferor or assignor through a system of random selection shall, 
together with its application for transfer of control or assignment, 
file with the Commission the associated contracts for sale, option 
agreements, management agreements, or other documents disclosing the 
consideration that the applicant would receive in return for the 
transfer or assignment of its license. This information should 
include not only a monetary purchase price, but also any future, 
contingent, in-kind, or other consideration (e.g., management or 
consulting contracts either with or without an option to purchase; 
below--market financing).
    Part 21 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is amended as follows:
    3. The authority citation for Part 21 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 1, 2, 4, 201-205, 208, 215, 303, 307, 313, 314, 
403, 404, 410, 610; 48 Stat. as amended, 1064, 1066, 1070-1073, 
1076, 1077, 1080, 1082, 1083, 1087, 1094, 1098, 1102; 47 U.S.C. 151, 
154, 201-205, 208, 215, 218, 303, 307, 313, 314, 403, 404, 602; 47 
U.S.C. 552.

    4. Section 21.38 is amended by adding a new paragraph (g) to 
read as follows:

Sec. 31.38  Assignment or transfer of station authorization.

    (a) *** [[Page 19053]] 
    (g) An applicant for voluntary transfer of control or assignment 
under this section where the subject license was acquired by the 
transferor or assignor through a system of random selection shall, 
together with its application for transfer of control or assignment, 
file with the Commission the associated contracts for sale, option 
agreements, management agreements, or other documents disclosing the 
total consideration that the applicant would receive in return for 
the transfer or assignment of its license. This information should 
include not only a monetary purchase price, but also any future, 
contingent, in-kind, or other consideration (e.g., management or 
consulting contracts either with or without an option to purchase; 
below--market financing).
    Part 22 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is amended as follows:
    5. The authority citation for Part 22 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, unless otherwise noted.

    6. Section 22.39 is amended adding a new paragraph (d) to read 
as follows:

Sec. 22.39  Transfer of control or assignment of station 
authorization.

    (a) * * *
    (d) An applicant for voluntary transfer of control or assignment 
under this section where the subject license was acquired by the 
transferor or assignor through a system of random selection shall, 
together with its application for transfer of control or assignment, 
file with the Commission the associated contracts for sale, option 
agreements, management agreements, or other documents disclosing the 
total consideration that the applicant would receive in return for 
the transfer or assignment of its license. This information should 
include not only a monetary purchase price, but also any future, 
contingent, in-kind, or other consideration (e.g., management or 
consulting contracts either with or without an option to purchase; 
below-market financing).
    Part 90 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is amended as follows:
    7. The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sections 4, 303, and 332, 48, Stat. 1066, 1082, as 
amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303 and 332, unless otherwise noted.

    8. Section 90.153 is amended by adding two new sentences at the 
end of the existing sentence to read as follows:

Sec. 90.153  Transfer of control or assignment of station 
authorization.

    An applicant for voluntary transfer of control or assignment 
under this section where the subject license was acquired by the 
transferor or assignor through a system of random selection shall, 
together with its application for transfer of control or assignment, 
file with the Commission the associated contracts for sale, option 
agreements, management agreements, or other documents disclosing the 
total consideration that the applicant would receive in return for 
the transfer or assignment of its license. This information should 
include not only a monetary purchase price, but also any future, 
contingent, in-kind, or other consideration (e.g., management or 
consulting contracts either with or without an option to purchase; 
below-market financing).
    Part 94 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is amended as follows:
    9. The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sections 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 
U.S.C. 154, 303, unless otherwise noted.

    10. Section 94.47 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to 
read as follows:

Sec. 94.47  Transfer and assignment of station authorization.

    (a) * * *
    (c) An applicant for voluntary transfer of control or assignment 
under this section where the subject license was acquired by the 
transferor or assignor through a system of random selection shall, 
together with its application for transfer of control or assignment, 
file with the Commission the associated contracts for sale, option 
agreements, management agreements, or other documents disclosing the 
total consideration that the applicant would receive in return for 
the transfer or assignment of its license. This information should 
include not only a monetary purchase price, but also any future, 
contingent, in-kind, or other consideration (e.g., management or 
consulting contracts either with or without an option to purchase; 
below-market financing).
    Part 95 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is amended as follows:
    11. The authority citation for Part 95 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sections 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 
U.S.C. 154, 303, unless otherwise noted.

    12. Section 95.821 is amended by adding two new sentences after 
the existing sentence to read as follows:

Sec. 95.821  Application for transfer of control.

    An applicant for voluntary transfer of control or assignment 
under this section where the subject license was acquired by the 
transferor or assignor through a system of random selection shall, 
together with its application for transfer of control or assignment, 
file with the Commission the associated contracts for sale, option 
agreements, management agreements, or other documents disclosing the 
total consideration that the applicant would receive in return for 
the transfer or assignment of its license. This information should 
include not only a monetary purchase price, but also any future, 
contingent, in-kind, or other consideration (e.g., management or 
consulting contracts either with or without an option to purchase; 
below--market financing).
* * * * *

Appendix B--Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
the Commission prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the expected impact of the proposals contained in the 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, PP Docket No. 93-253 on small 
entities. By this Order, the Commission responds to a Congressional 
directive contained in the Budget Act to consider measures to deter 
unjust enrichment in the lottery context. The Commission received no 
comments in response to the IRFA concerning unjust enrichment in the 
lottery context. As noted in the text of the Order, we considered 
and rejected more burdensome requirements designed to deter unjust 
enrichment, such as additional transfer restrictions for licensees 
that acquire their license by lottery. Rather, we adopted the less 
onerous transfer disclosure requirement that is expressly 
recommended in the Budget Act. In the case of some spectrum-based 
services, such as Low Power Television, entities that file transfer 
of control applications with the Commission are currently required 
to submit information similar to what the Commission explicitly 
requires by this Order: copies of documents that reveal the transfer 
price for a license. Further, in other services, applicants for 
voluntary transfer of control or assignment are currently required 
to submit information in support of their request. Inasmuch as any 
contracts, purchase agreements, or similar legal documents detailing 
the consideration received by the transferor or assignor will 
presumably already have been prepared by the parties to the 
transaction for their own purposes, attaching a copy of such 
documents to the application(s) submitted to the Commission should 
not prove onerous. Accordingly, the Commission does not believe this 
limited disclosure requirement adds a significant economic burden on 
small entities.

[FR Doc. 95-9346 Filed 4-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M