FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 9, Pages 2437 to 2750, April 27 - May 8, 1987 Page: 2,490
This book is part of the collection entitled: Federal Communications Commission Record and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Communications Commission Record
2 FCC Rcd Vol. 9
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In re Application ofCANAAN
INDUSTRIES. INC.File No. 59467-CL-P-228-A-86
For a new system in the Domestic
Public Cellular Radio
Telecommunications Service on
Frequency Block A for the
Vineland-Miliville-Bridgeton,
New Jersey MSA
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERAdopted April 22, 1987;
Released: April 29, 1987
By the Chief, Mobile Services Division:
1. The application of Canaan Industries. Inc. (Canaan)
was selected first in the lottery conducted for the nonwireline
cellular authorization in the VinelandMillville-Bridgeton.
New Jersey MSA. S. Tony Gore
(Gore) filed a petition to deny. Canaan filed an opposition.
2. Gore argues that Canaan's application should be
dismissed for its failure to comply with the Commission's
"letter perfect" standard as it existed prior to the Bureau's
decision in Johnstown Cellular Communications, DA
86-332, December 16, 1986.1 Gore cites Canaan's employment
of outdated emission designators and its deviation
from the form of certification required by Section
22.913(b)(3) of the Rules as violations of the
"letter-perfect" standard. In addition, Gore argues that
while Canaan disclosed certain ownership interests held
by various individuals in the company in its financial
amendment, it failed to disclose, in its application, all its
ownership interests, as is required by 22.13(a)(i) of the
Rules. Finally, Gore argues that, Canaan's demand analysis,
consisting solely of the mathematical application of
generic penetration factors developed on the basis of
contacts made in other markets, was not a sufficient
public interest showing under Section 22.13(a)(4) of the
Rules.
3. In its opposition to the petition to deny, Canaan
asserts that its application did not violate the
"letter-perfect" standard, which Canaan notes, only pertains
to certain items required for the application intake
process, because neither the employment of outdated
emission designators, nor the form of certification used by
Canaan, made its application unacceptable for filing.
Next, Canaan explains that the Commission's interpretation
of the disclosure rules provides that an applicant is
only required to disclose subsidiaries or affiliates with
interests in Part 22 systems. Finally, Canaan argues that,
while a unique demand survey in connection with cellular
applications was critical in comparative hearings,
the Commission has never required the same as a basic,qualifying requirement. Further, Canaan asserts that given
the Commission's limit of the demand analysis exhibit to
three pages. it has submitted a good-faith estimate of the
cellular demand for the Vineland market.
DISCUSSION
4. Gore's argument that Canaan violated the
"letter-perfect" standard is rejected. The Common Carrier
Bureau has held that the "letter
perfect" standard is
applicable only to certain specified requirements at the
original intake stage of cellular application processing.
Johnstown Cellular Communications, 1 FCC Rcd. 1164
(1986). Accordingly, Canaan's employment of outdated
emission designators does not violate the "letter-perfect"
standard because it is not one the specified requirements.2
sin Johns town. the Bureau noted that its intention in
adopting new procedures for filing was "to streamline the
pre-lottery processing of applications" Id. at para. 12.
While the "letter-perfect" standard, as clarified in Johnstown,
requires a proper certification, we find that as long
as the text of the certification is in fact identical to that of
the certification in the rule. a deviation in format is not a
violation of the "letter-perfect" standard because. for example.
unlike a missing market number, such a deviation
does not vitiate the goal of streamlining the intake procedure.
5. Gore's argument that Canaan failed to comply with
the disclosure requirements of 22.13(a)(1) of the Rules is
rejected. The Commission has established that Section
22.13(a)(1) of the Rules does not require submission of
information concerning subsidiaries or affiliates other
than those which have financial interests in Part 22
licensees, permittees, or applicants, in the same geographical
area. Public Notice, "Real Party in Interest Disclosure
Requirements in the Public Mobile Radio Services
(PMRS)," Mimeo 1060, released November 26, 1982. Canaan
certifies that neither it nor its principals, have any
subsidiaries or affiliates with interests in Part 22 systems.
Therefore. we find that Canaan has complied with the
disclosure requirements of 22.13(a)(1) of the Rules.
6. Finally, Gore's argument that Canaan failed to make
the public interest showing required by Section
22.13(a)(4) of the Rules is rejected. Gore has not demonstrated
that Canaan's methodology in predicting public
demand in the Vineland market based on the application
of generic pentration factors in other markets, is inaccurate
or unreasonable or that a unique demand survey is
required by the Commission. In cellular markets beyond
the top 90, an applicant must demonstrate that its system
is "market-specific and was designed in response to local
demand characteristics through the use of demographic
data, demographic-based projections and other predictive
methodologies". Public Notice, "Cellular Application
Filings Policies," Report No. CL-75, released June 6,
1984. (emphasis added).3 Further, the Commission has
indicated that there is a distinction between the public
need showing that was required under comparative criteria
and that now required in order to comply with basic
cellular qualifications. See Cellular Lottery Rule Making,
98 FCC 2d 175, 213 (1984) (noting that a determination
of which applicant has submitted the most accurate estimate
of demand "is precisely the type of lengthy, specu-
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 9, Pages 2437 to 2750, April 27 - May 8, 1987, book, May 1987; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1602/m1/59/: accessed May 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.