FCC 96 181 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
Central Radio Communications Corporation ) File No. 538455
Application For A New )
Conventional Specialized Mobile Radio )
System in New York City, New York )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: April 18, 1996 Released: April 30, 1996
By the Commission:
Introduction
1. On December 30, 1992, Central Radio Communications Corporation ("Central") 
filed an application for review1 in which Central argues that the dismissal of its application 
for a Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) system in New York City was in error. Central's 
SMR application was filed after the former licensee allowed its license to expire, but before 
that license was deleted from the Commission's licensing database. The staff dismissed the 
SMR application in accordance with Section 90.175 of the Commission's Rules.2 For the 
reasons that follow, we affirm the Bureau's dismissal of Central's application and deny 
Central's Application for Review.
Background
2. On October 8, 1990, Station KNEW212 licensed to James Franchi and William 
Pollenz expired. The licensees failed to file a renewal within the 180 day grace period after
1 Central filed a petition for reconsideration challenging the dismissal of its application 
on November 19, 1991. This petition was dismissed by letter from the Deputy Chief, 
Licensing Division dated December 3, 1992.
2 47C.F.R. § 90.175. 17110
the expiration date.3 On'the 181st day, April 9, 1991, three applicants, Central, Winston 
American Transportation, Inc. ("Winston") and Spectrum Resources filed applications. The 
Commission staff dismissed all three applications because they each sought a channel after the 
expiration of the station KNEW212 license which was not yet available.4 The frequencies 
were encumbered on the Commission's lice.ising database on the date the applications were 
filed as the former licensee's authorization had not been deleted from the Commission's 
database.5
Discussion
3. Central argues that prior to January 21, 1992, the effective date of Amendment of 
Parts 1 and 90 of the Commission's Rules Concerning the Construction. Licensing and 
Operation of Private Land Mobile Radio Stations6 dealing with licensing procedures that 
changed the renewal grace period from 180 days to 30 days,7 frequencies were recovered 
when licenses were not renewed and thus were "available" on the day after the renewal grace 
period ended, the 181st day after the previous license expired. Central asserts that some 
applications coordinated by the Commission's designated frequency coordinators were granted 
despite the fact that the licenses were encumbered on our database.
4. Section 90.175 of the Commission's Rules requires that applications be 
accompanied by a statement from a coordinator recommending an "available" frequency.8 
Central argues that in 1991 frequencies were "available" when no other licensee continued to 
have a right to renew an existing license. While Central's interpretation has some appeal 
because it facilitates rapid reassignment of frequencies, for the reasons discussed below, the
3 Under the rules hi effect at that time, licensees could file a renewal within 180 days 
after expiration. This grace period has since been changed to thirty days. Amendment of 
Parts 1 and 90 of the Commission's Rules Concerning the Construction, Licensing, and 
Operation of Private Land Mobile Stations, PR Dkt 90-481, 6 FCC Red 7297, 7301 (1991) 
(para. 24).
4 Letters from Chief, Land Mobile Branch dated October 21, 1991 ("The requested 
frequency was not available until 6/1/91, the date records KNEW212 [sic] was purged from 
the Commission's database. Accordingly, your application is defective and is hereby 
dismissed.").
5 On October 21, 1991, Winston filed a new application, the first filed after deletion of 
Station KNEW212 from the database. Winston filed an opposition to Central's Application 
for Review on January 14, 1993.
6 6 FCC Red 7297, 7300-03 (1991) (paras. 15-26).
7 See, paragraph 9 infra.
8 47 C.F.R. § 90.175(b). Effective October 22, 1986. 51 Fed. Reg. 14993 (1986).
17111
Commission has repeatedly interpreted "available" as used in Section 90.1759 to mean that 
the frequency is not encumbered on the licensing database.
5. On January 11, 1989, the Chief of the Land Mobile and Microwave Division, 
Private Radio Bureau, set forth in writing for the National Association of Business and 
Educational Radio ('^ABER"), the frequency coordinator for Central's application, and 
Specialized Industrial Radio Services Association ("SIRSA"),10 another coordinator, the 
Commission's interpretation of the term "available" as used in Section 90.175." He stated:
We feel that the coordinators, licensees, applicants, and the general public 
should rely on the same sources of information regarding the availability of 
frequencies the Commission's database. To this end, coordinators must rely 
upon the update of our database as official notification that frequencies are 
available for reassignment.12
While the definition was offered in the specific context of frequencies recovered from 
licensees who fail to construct, the broad interpretation of the term and the public interest 
rationale underlying it - notification to the public - is generally applicable to any frequencies 
recovered from licensees.
6. In 1990, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking relating to Private Land Mobile 
licensing procedures and requirements, the Commission reiterated its interpretation of the term 
"available," and explained the rationale for the interpretation. The Commission stated:
If a licensee does not seek reinstatement within this six month period, the 
station authorization is deleted from our license records and the channel is 
considered available for further assignment or, in other terms unencumbered. 13
In the footnote to the statement, the Commission provided further detail regarding this 
interpretation:
Generally speaking, a frequency remains encumbered until the license records 
are deleted from our automated database, which generally occurs approximately
9 47 C.F.R. § 90.175.
10 SIRSA has changed its name to Industrial Telecommunications Association.
11 Letter from Chief, Land Mobile and Microwave Branch, Private Radio Bureau to Mark 
E. Crosby, President, NABER, and Emett B. Kitchen, President, SIRSA.
12 Id. at p. 2.
13 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules 
Concerning the Construction, Licensing, and Operation of Private Land Mobile Radio 
Stations, PR Dkt 90-481, 5 FCC Red 6401, 6402 (1990) (para 9).
17112
sn months after the expiration of a non-renewed license. Consequently, 
frequencies encumbered by an expired license do nol become available for 
further assignment until the database is purged, which alerts all interested 
applicants and the coordinators that the channels are no longer encumbered. 14
The restatement of the existing interpretation provided the groundwork for a discussion of 
possible changes in licensing procedure.
7. In the Notic; of Proposed Rulemaking. the Commission set forth its rationale for 
maintaining the "unencumbered" interpretation rather than adopting SIRSA's proposal to make 
channels available the day following the renewal grace period. The Commission stated that if 
an applicant filed a renewal application near the end of the grace period, other applicants 
would not have notice of the filing until several days later when the Commission staff 
processed the application. All coordinations on the day following the grace period would not 
be based on up to date information. Thus, innocent applicants would file, their applications 
would be dismissed, and the filing fee would be forfeited. In keeping with this rationale, the 
Commission stated that it intended to retain the interpretation that frequencies are unavailable 
until all encumbrances are deleted from the database, and that it intended to shorten the grace 
period in order to make unused frequencies available more quickly. The Commission 
requested comment on this proposal. 15 Central filed its application during the comment period 
oftheNPRM.
8. As a result of this rule making proceeding, the Commission shortened the time 
period prior to removing expired licenses from our data base,16 and declined to adopt SIRSA's 
proposal to alter the interpretation of the term "available."17
9. Central relied on statements by designated frequency coordinators that they 
understood that the Commission considered the frequencies to be "available" on the day 
following the grace period, and that some applications which they coordinated (thereby
14 Id- at note 15.
15 The Commission was reviewing that request at the time Central filed its application. 
On October 22, 1991, the Commission adopted an order resolving the rulemaking proceeding. 
The pertinent portions of the database deletion policy cited by the staffs letter of October 21, 
1991 were discussed and remained unchanged in the Commission's order. Report and Order, 
PR Dkt 90-481, 6 FCC Red 7297, 7302 (1991) ("under no circumstances will we accept an 
application for a particular frequency until that frequency has actually been deleted from the 
database - unless [a finder's preference award is included]"). See also. Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, PR Dkt 90-481, 8 FCC Red 6690 (1993) (paras. 3-5).
16 Amendment of Parts 1 and 90 of the Commission's Rules Concerning the 
Construction, Licensing, and Operation of Private Land Mobile Radio Station, 6 FCC Red 
7297 (1991) (discussion at paras. 22-26).
17 Id- at para. 26.
17113
assuring the Commission's processing staff that the channels were available) were granted. 
The coordinators' misiaken interpretation of the term "available" is insufficient to cure the 
defect in Central's application. The coordinators are not authorized to substitute tueir 
interpretation of Commission Rules for ours. 18 While the Commission staff may have failed 
to discover defects in some applications processed in reliance on a coordinator's defective 
certifications, the Corrmission has not interpreted Section 90.175 in any manner inconsistent 
with its directions to tie coordinators and its statements in published Commission items.
10. For the above reasons, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Bureau's dismiss^ of 
Central's application IS AFFIRMED and the Application for Review filed by Central Radio 
Communications Corporation IS DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William F. Caton 
Acting Secretary
18 See. 47 C.F.R. § 0.455(d).
17114