Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 86 / Thursday, May 2, 1996 / Notices 19625

meet the strict standards for obtaining a

stay as requested here.

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

10. Petitioners’ assertion that they

will ultimately prevail on the merits is

based upon their erroneous contention

that the Commission has failed to

comply with its statutory mandate. That

mandate includes, according to

Petitioners, the obligation to

disseminate licenses to a wide variety of

applicants, including businesses owned

by minorities. Petitioners state that only

way under Section 309(j)(3)(B) of the

Act to implement this goal in a

meaningful way is to delay licensing the

A and B block auction winners until the

Commission is ready to license the

eventual C block auction winners.

Otherwise, according to Petitioners, the

value of the C block licenses will

decrease as a result of the headstart

granted to the A and B block licensees.

Nothing in the statute or legislative

history requires such a result. In

directing the Commission to establish

bidding rules for PCS, Congress

enumerated three other objectives in

Section 309(j)(3) besides the one

Petitioners cite: (1) development and

rapid deployment of services with a

minimum of administrative and judicial

delay; (2) recovery for the public of a

portion of the value of the spectrum;

and (3) promoting efficient and

intensive use of the spectrum. In its

auction rules, the Commission has

properly balanced these objectives with

the Section 309(j)(3)(B) goal of diversity

of ownership by establishing PCS

frequency blocks of varying sizes and

service areas, reserving certain of these

blocks for entrepreneurs, and creating

special provisions for designated

entities to bid for licenses in those

blocks. We do not believe the statute

further requires the Commission to

promote diversity at the cost of delaying

much needed service that could

otherwise be provided to the public. A

stay would serve the individualized

interest of Petitioners rather than the

broader public interest. The

Commission is not at liberty to

subordinate the public interest to the

interest of ‘‘equalizing competition.’’

SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 56

F.3d 1484, 1491 (D.C. Cir. 1995) quoting

Hawaiian Telephone v. FCC , 498 F.2d

771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 1974). The Bureau

correctly rejected Petitioners’ argument

that minorities will be unable to enter

the PCS market because of illegal and

unfair ‘‘territorial allocations’’ in

violation of the antitrust laws by the A

and B block bidders. In our companion

order, we find that the Bureau correctly

concluded that these allegations were

too vague to meet the requirements of a

petition to deny. We conclude here that

Petitioners have not shown any

likelihood of success on the merits.

B. Irreparable Harm

11. We agree with the Bureau that

Petitioners’ allegations of irreparable

harm are speculative, and that

Petitioners have overstated the

‘‘headstart’’ advantage of the A and B

block winners over prospective C block

winners. First, the A and B block

winners themselves will have to

compete with well-entrenched cellular

companies, who enjoy a ten-year

headstart over all broadband PCS in

terms of business arrangements, market

share, and investment in infrastructure.

Furthermore, Petitioners’ alleged

injuries from loss of cell sites, loss of

access to distributors, and difficulty in

obtaining market share do not constitute

‘‘irreparable’’ harm of the type that

would warrant grant of a stay. Nothing

prevents Petitioners and other

prospective C block bidders from

entering into agreements that are

contingent upon their winning the

auction. As the Bureau noted, to the

extent that late entry in fact

disadvantages C block winners, that

disadvantage will translate into lower

prices at auction as bids are adjusted

downward to compensate for any such

detriment. Finally, C block entrants may

actually benefit from late entry because

they will be able to evaluate the

business strategies and performances of

the A and B block winners.

C. Harm to Others

12. The third prong of the Holiday

Tours test is the potential harm a stay

would cause to others. Petitioners

acknowledge that the A and B block

winners have paid over $7 billion to the

United States Treasury for their PCS

licenses. Since winning the licenses, A

and B block winners have also invested

significant funds to cover start-up and

development costs which they cannot

begin to recoup until they are able to

use their licenses to provide service. In

light of these considerations, we believe

that a stay would cause significant harm

to other parties.

D. Public Interest

13. Finally, we conclude that a stay of

A and B block licensing would not be

in the public interest. The Bureau

correctly found that besides imposing a

financial burden on the A and B block

winners themselves, a stay would delay

the introduction of new competition

and new services to the public.

Conversely, granting the licenses will

further the Congressional directive to

promote the development and rapid

deployment of PCS for the benefit of the

public with a minimum of

administrative or judicial delay. 47

U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(A) We continue to

believe that the public interest in

rapidly providing new competitive

sources of wireless services outweighs

any possible competitive harm that

might result from the A and B block

licensees being licensed ahead of

auction winners in other PCS blocks.

V. Conclusion

14. For the reasons discussed above,

we are dismissing Petitioners’

Application for Review for failure to

comply with Section 1.115(b)(2) of our

rules. Although our action renders

further discussion unnecessary, we

agree with the Bureau’s disposition of

the issues Petitioners raised in their

original stay request.

VI. Order Clauses

15. Accordingly, it is ordered that,

pursuant to Section 4 (i) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) and 47 CFR

§ 1.115(c)(2), the Application for Review

filed by Petitioners on July 21, 1995, is

denied

16. It is further ordered that pursuant

to Section 4 (i) of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.

§ 154(i) the Motion for Leave to File

Supplement to Application for Review

filed by Petitioners on August 4, 1995,

is granted.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–10614 Filed 5–01–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, May 7, 1996 at

10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C.

STATUS: This meeting Will Be Closed to

the Public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C.

§ 437g.

Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C.

§ 437g, § 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.

Matters concerning participation in civil

actions or proceedings or arbitration

Internal personnel rules and procedures or

matters affecting a particular employee

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, May 9, 1996

at 10:00 a.m.
19626 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 86 / Thursday, May 2, 1996 / Notices

PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. (Ninth Floor.)

STATUS: This Meeting Will Be Open to

the Public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes.

Advisory Opinion 1996–8: Pamela Rochester

on behalf of Jefferson County Democratic

Executive Committee.

Advisory Opinion 1996–10: Bruce E. Lammel

on behalf of USX Corporation.

Advisory Opinion 1996–11: James Bopp, Jr.

on behalf of the National Right to Life

Conventions, Inc.

Administrative Matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer,

Telephone: (202) 219–4155.

Marjorie W. Emmons,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 96–11100 Filed 4–30–96; 2:21 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715–01–M

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Freight Forwarder License

Applicants

Notice is hereby given that the

following applicants have filed with the

Federal Maritime Commission

applications for licenses as ocean freight

forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the

Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app.

1718 and 46 CFR 510).

Persons knowing of any reason why

any of the following applicants should

not receive a license are requested to

contact the Office of Freight Forwarders,

Federal Maritime Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20573.

Expeditors International (Puerto Rico),

Inc., 65 Infantry Station, San Juan,

Puerto Rico 00929, Officers: Kevin M.

Walsh, President, Mario Alfonso,

Treasurer/Secretary/Director

Unitrans International, Inc., 1851

Alexander Bell Drive, #400, Reston,

VA 22091, Officers: A. Huda Farouki,

Director, Mazen T. Farouki, President

Barnettt Trading, Inc. d/b/a C2C Ocean

Freight Forwarding, 217 Humphrey

Street, Marblehead, MA 01945–1620,

Officers: Andrew L. Barnett,

President, Michael Ohsman, Director

G & B International, Inc., 755 Route 83,

Suite #215, Bensenville, IL 60106,

Officer: Joon Hwan Tae, President

Pacific Wells Crop. d/b/a Pelican

Shipping Line, 250 W. Walnut Street,

Compton, CA 90220, Officer: Woon K.

Paik, President

Rimtech Int’l Transport, 460 E. Carson

Plaza Drive, #103, Carson, CA 90746,

Officer: Yon S. Kim, President

EMC Shipping, Inc., 4034 E. Mercer

Way, Mercer Island, WA 98040,

Officer: Elizabeth Finch Miller,

President

Dated: April 29, 1996.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–10894 Filed 5–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices;

Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or

Bank Holding Companies

The notificants listed below have

applied under the Change in Bank

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and §

225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12

CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank

holding company. The factors that are

considered in acting on the notices are

set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12

U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for

immediate inspection at the Federal

Reserve Bank indicated. Once the

notices have been accepted for

processing, they will also be available

for inspection at the offices of the Board

of Governors. Interested persons may

express their views in writing to the

Reserve Bank indicated for that notice

or to the offices of the Board of

Governors. Comments must be received

not later than May 16, 1996.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas

City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice

President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas

City, Missouri 64198:

1. C. Gage Overall and Mary C.

Overall, both of Caldwell, Kansas; to

acquire an additional 31.9 percent, for a

total of 43.4 percent of the voting shares

of Stock Exchange Financial

Corporation, Caldwell, Kansas, and

thereby indirectly acquire Stock

Exchange Bank, Caldwell, Kansas.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, April 26, 1996.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 96–10909 Filed 5–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

The companies listed in this notice

have applied to the Board for approval,

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part

225), and all other applicable statutes

and regulations to become a bank

holding company and/or to acquire the

assets or the ownership of, control of, or

the power to vote shares of a bank or

bank holding company and all of the

banks and nonbanking companies

owned by the bank holding company,

including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well

as other related filings required by the

Board, are available for immediate

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank

indicated. Once the application has

been accepted for processing, it will also

be available for inspection at the offices

of the Board of Governors. Interested

persons may express their views in

writing on the standards enumerated in

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the

proposal also involves the acquisition of

a nonbanking company, the review also

includes whether the acquisition of the

nonbanking company complies with the

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act,

including whether the acquisition of the

nonbanking company can ‘‘reasonably

be expected to produce benefits to the

public, such as greater convenience,

increased competition, or gains in

efficiency, that outweigh possible

adverse effects, such as undue

concentration of resources, decreased or

unfair competition, conflicts of

interests, or unsound banking practices’’

(12 U.S.C. 1843). Any request for

a hearing must be accompanied by a

statement of the reasons a written

presentation would not suffice in lieu of

a hearing, identifying specifically any

questions of fact that are in dispute,

summarizing the evidence that would

be presented at a hearing, and indicating

how the party commenting would be

aggrieved by approval of the proposal.

Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking

activities will be conducted throughout

the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments

regarding each of these applications

must be received at the Reserve Bank

indicated or the offices of the Board of

Governors not later than May 28, 1996.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of New

York (Christopher J. McCurdy, Senior

Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New

York, New York 10045:

1. Banco Santander, S.A., Madrid,

Spain; to acquire 99.248 percent of the

voting shares of Banco Central Hispano

Puerto Rico, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of

Richmond (Lloyd W. Bostian, Jr., Senior

Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street,

Richmond, Virginia 23261:

1. First National Corporation,

Orangeburg, South Caroina; to acquire

100 percent of the voting shares of

National Bank of York County, Rock

Hill, South Carolina (an organizing

bank).

C. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas

City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice