Opinion ID: 680967
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petitioners' Preference Applications

Text: 11 In 1990, the FCC sought comments on how it should regulate the development of personal communications services, roughly defined as technologies that free individuals from the constraints of the telephone wire and allow them to send and receive communications while away from their homes or offices. 5 F.C.C.R. 3995 (1990). In response to the FCC's interest in developing these new technologies and pursuant to the pioneer's preference rules as subsequently adopted, 96 parties filed pioneer's preference applications seeking licenses to use a portion of the radio spectrum to provide these services. Nineteen of them were filed prior to April 3, 1992. On that day, the Commission issued a public notice specifying May 4, 1992, as the final date it would accept pioneer's preference requests. The remaining 77 applications, including those of the 15 petitioners, were filed between April 3 and the May 4 deadline. 12 On May 22, 1992, the FCC's Chief Engineer sent each petitioner a terse form letter explaining that its application had been dismissed for failure to meet the Commission's filing requirements. Dismissal Letters, Joint Appendix at 715-44. In each case, the Chief Engineer explained that the application failed to describe the specific attributes of a proposed service or otherwise document[ ] the role of [petitioner] in having developed a specific distinctive innovation or new technology for which a pioneer's preference is sought. Id. 13 Petitioners sought reconsideration by the FCC, claiming that their applications did in fact meet the filing requirements. Certain petitioners also argued that the Commission should reverse the Chief Engineer's dismissals because it had accepted, for notice and comment, applications that were comparable to theirs, but had been filed before the Commission's April 3 announcement of its May 4 deadline. On October 8, 1992, the FCC affirmed the dismissals of petitioners' applications. Tentative Decision and Memorandum Opinion and Order (Preference Order), 7 F.C.C.R. 7794, 7809-13 (1992). It found that the applications did no more than describe concepts for new services and technologies that were yet to be developed, whereas the rules clearly indicate that [the Commission] requires claims to be based on work already accomplished. Id. at 7812. It maintained, further, that the different treatment accorded the applications filed before and after April 3 was justified by the different expectations of the two groups on their respective filing dates. The Commission also stated that even if the disparate treatment was not justified, petitioners were not prejudiced by the error because all defective preference requests would ultimately be denied, whether or not they were initially accepted for notice and comment. Id. at 7810. 14 Petitioners seek our review of that order, arguing that it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A) (1988).