******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendment of ) Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, ) WT Docket No. 98-20 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission's Rules) to Facilitate the Development and Use of the) Universal Licensing System in the Wireless) Telecommunications Services ) NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: February 19, 1998 Released: March 18, 1998 By the Commission: Comments Due: May 7, 1998 Reply Comments Due: May 22, 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph no. I. INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 III. DISCUSSION A. Electronic Filing and New Forms 1. Consolidation of Application Forms . . . . . . . . . . 15 2. Mandatory Electronic Filing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3. Copy and Microfiche Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4. Filing of Pleadings Associated with Applications . . . 26 5. Letter Requests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 B. Standardization of Practices and Procedures for WTB Applications and Authorizations 1. Overview -- Consolidation of Procedural Rules in Part 130 2. Standardization of Major and Minor Filing Rules. . . . 34 3. Submission of Ownership Information. . . . . . . . . . 42 4. Frequency Coordination of Amendment and Modification Applications49 5. Returns and Dismissals of Incomplete or Defective Applications51 6. Discontinuation of "Reinstatement" Applications. . . . 55 7. Construction and Coverage Verification . . . . . . . . 59 8. Assignments of Authorization and Transfers of Control. 63 9. Change to North American Datum 83 Coordinate Data. . . 69 10. Use of Taxpayer Identification Numbers . . . . . . . . 71 C. Collection of Licensing and Technical Data 1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 2. Use of Notification or Certification in Lieu of Informational Filings80 3. Public Mobile Radio Service Data Requirements. . . . . 82 4. Fixed Microwave Service Data Requirements. . . . . . . 84 5. Maritime and Aviation Services Data Requirements . . . 85 6. Commercial Radio Operator License Data Requirements. . 88 7. Amateur Radio Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 8. General Mobile Radio Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 IV. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . 96 B. Ex Parte Rules - Non-Restricted Proceedings. . . . . . . . . 97 C. Comment Dates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis . . . . . .101 E. Ordering Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102 F. Further Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 Appendix A Proposed Forms Appendices B - N Proposed Rules Appendix O Proposed Consolidated Part 1 Rules Appendix P Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose to consolidate, revise, and streamline our rules governing application procedures for radio services licensed by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB or Bureau). These proposed rule changes are designed in part to facilitate our implementation of the Universal Licensing System (ULS), the Commission's new integrated licensing database for wireless services that will become fully operational later this year. In addition, as part of our 1998 biennial review of regulations, we are initiating this proceeding to streamline our wireless licensing rules by eliminating regulations that are duplicative, outmoded, or otherwise unnecessary. 2. The development of ULS represents a major breakthrough in the Commission's use of state-of-the-art technology in support of its regulatory functions. Until now, wireless applicants and licensees have been required to use a myriad of forms for various wireless services and types of requests, and the information provided on these applications has been collected in eleven separate databases, each for a different group of services. This service-specific approach to application and licensing causes a significant waste of time and resources on the part of applicants and licensees, who must often file duplicative information in different databases following varying procedures. The maintenance of multiple databases also impedes the Commission's ability to carry out its licensing responsibilities efficiently. In addition, the patchwork nature of our existing databases impedes the public's access to licensing information, because the information is scattered and frequently not available in an easily usable form. 3. The integrated ULS database now in development addresses these problems in several ways. First, this database will replace the eleven separate licensing databases previously in use in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Thus, it will provide a single technological platform for information collection from wireless licensees and applicants, eliminating the need for wireless carriers to file duplicative applications, and increasing the accuracy and reliability of licensing information. ULS will also enable all wireless applicants and licensees for the first time to file all licensing-related applications and other filings electronically, thus increasing the speed and efficiency of the application process. 4. ULS will also make licensing information more accessible and more usable by Commission staff in carrying out our regulatory responsibilities. For example, ULS will greatly enhance our ability to collect reliable and accurate information on such issues as licensee ownership, including information regarding entities holding major ownership interests in licenses, and affiliated entities such as parents and subsidiaries of licensees. This will enable the Commission staff to monitor spectrum use and competitive conditions in the wireless marketplace more easily and will promote more effective implementation of our spectrum management policies. 5. Finally, ULS will enhance the availability of licensing information to the public, which will for the first time be able to access all wireless licensing data on-line by dialing into the Commission's wide area network (WAN) and using any World Wide Web (WWW) browser. ULS will also provide information in more usable form than our prior licensing systems, e.g., by allowing the public to generate and download maps showing licensing areas and service providers. These changes will benefit not only Commission licensees, but also members of the public that have historically had little or no access to such information. In addition, the cost of filing applications or obtaining information will be reduced. License applicants will be charged normal filing fees for filing applications under ULS, but will save time and resources by filing electronically. For other uses of ULS, e.g., persons seeking to retrieve licensing or mapping information, the Commission will charge for on-line access, but these charges will be limited to the amount necessary solely to recover the Commission's costs of maintaining ULS, including the cost of protecting the security of the system from outside tampering. We anticipate that when ULS is fully operational, it will be possible to reduce these charges because the cost can be spread among a larger number of users. In any event, we expect that the amount charged to obtain information through ULS will generally be less than the current cost of obtaining copies of Commission records manually from ITS (the Commission's copy contractor) or the Commission's public reference rooms. In addition, Commission orders, public notices, and other releases will be available on the Internet without charge by the Commission. 6. We also note that ULS will provide greater access to persons with disabilities. ULS will incorporate several features that will enable persons with disabilities to use the electronic filing and public access functions. The technical support hotline will have Text Telephone capabilities for the hearing impaired. In addition, the system will allow sight impaired individuals access to Interactive Voice Response Technology. This will allow applicants to determine the status of pending license applications through a touch tone phone. 7. To fully implement ULS for all wireless radio services, we must make certain conforming changes to our wireless licensing rules to reflect new electronic filing procedures, new electronic forms, and other technical changes in the licensing process. However, we believe the development of ULS provides us with an opportunity to simplify and streamline our rules in other ways as well. Thus, we propose in this proceeding to consolidate our wireless radio services licensing rules in a single section of Part 1, to the extent practicable, and to eliminate dozens of corresponding duplicative rules in other service-specific rule parts. This step alone will greatly reduce the administrative burden on applicants and licensees during the course of the licensing process. 8. In addition, as noted above, we are initiating this proceeding as part of our 1998 biennial review of regulations pursuant to section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Communications Act). Section 11 requires us to review all of our regulations applicable to providers of telecommunications services and determine whether any rule is no longer in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between providers of telecommunications service. As part of our biennial review of regulations required under section 11 we believe it is appropriate to review our regulations related to licensing of wireless radio services to determine which regulations can be streamlined or eliminated in light of increased telecommunications competition in the wireless marketplace. Our goal in this proceeding is therefore to establish a simplified set of rules that (1) minimizes filing requirements as much as possible; (2) eliminates redundant, inconsistent, or unnecessary submission requirements; and (3) assures ongoing collection of reliable licensing and ownership data. Accordingly, we propose in this NPRM to revise our regulations to efficiently collect from wireless radio services applicants and licensees only the data necessary to carry out our statutory spectrum management and compliance responsibilities. 9. Finally, we note that this is only one of a number of proceedings that we are initiating to streamline our rules and to take advantage of new technology to perform our regulatory functions more efficiently. For example, in our proceeding on Improving the Commission's Processes, we have sought comment on numerous changes to our rules that would eliminate unnecessary filing and reporting requirements. Similarly, we recently initiated a proceeding proposing to establish electronic filing of comments in rulemaking proceedings. We also anticipate that our proposals for improving wireless licensing through ULS may lead to similar initiatives with respect to non-wireless services and other Commission functions. 10. In this proceeding, we are guided by the principles of (1) furthering competition in the telecommunications industry; (2) ensuring that all communities have real and effective access to telecommunications technology; and (3) drafting clear and concise rules that provide for fair, efficient, and consistent regulation of wireless radio services. Accordingly, we seek to: (1) facilitate the development of electronic filing in general; (2) require, where appropriate, applicants for wireless radio services licenses to file applications and notifications electronically; (3) streamline licensing processes and procedures; and (4) conform application and filing rules for all wireless radio services so that similarly situated applicants and licensees are treated equally. II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11. The proposals in this NPRM consolidate our rules governing application processes and procedures for wireless radio services within Part 1 of the Commission s rules, while eliminating a vast number of duplicative rules and regulations in other parts of the Code of Federal Regulations. The proposed rules are listed by rule part in Appendices B through N of this NPRM. Through this proposed consolidation of application and filing requirements, numerous unnecessary and repetitive rules and regulations would be deleted. In addition, applicants and licensees will be able to refer to a single section of the Commission s rules to ascertain all wireless radio services application requirements. 12. We contemplate that some of the application and service rules we propose to consolidate may be subject to further revision in future proceedings as a result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The Balanced Budget Act expanded the Commission's authority to auction mutually exclusive applications for an initial license. In addition, in our rulemaking proceeding involving the "refarming" of some wireless spectrum, we have proposed that certain services formerly licensed on a non-exclusive basis be licensed on an exclusive basis. Accordingly, any future rules, including ULS procedural rules, developed as a result of these factors will be revisited on a service-by-service basis in the future. 13. We note that many of the rule changes proposed in this NPRM are merely procedural in nature. Section 553(b)(3)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides an exception from notice and comment requirements for procedural rules. However, as a result of the development of the ULS, we are proposing fundamental and extensive changes to the way we receive and process applications. The changes needed to introduce the new universal licensing forms, to require electronic filing of most applications, and to effectuate the automatic processing of licenses are so extensive that we seek public comment on the full impact these changes may have on licensees and the public. Accordingly, we provide notice and seek comment because we propose to change the data collection and management mechanisms, use the Universal Database to prepare, analyze, and report statistics, and use these proposals to form the basis for future rulemakings, compliance actions, and other Commission initiatives. 14. In this NPRM, we seek comment on the following issues:  replacing over 40 existing wireless application forms with five new forms (FCC Forms 601 through 605);  consolidating the procedural rules relating to applications contained in each set of service-specific rules (Parts 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101) into a single set of rules in Part 1, updating references to FCC form numbers throughout our rules, and consolidating long-form application requirements for auction participants;  requiring applicants and licensees in most wireless radio services to file applications and other documents electronically using ULS;  providing for electronic or manual filing, using ULS forms, of routine requests regarding applications (e.g., change of address, change of contact, change of telephone number), and eliminating the use of letter requests for these purposes except in emergencies;  streamlining WTB authorization and application processing, including: cancellations and terminations of authorizations, amendments to pending applications, modifications to existing authorizations, reinstatements of terminated or cancelled authorizations, and construction and coverage notification requirements;  consolidating, and in some cases revising, the rules that determine whether a change to a pending application or existing authorization is major or minor;  conforming return and dismissal procedures for defective or incomplete applications;  standardizing the collection of ownership information from wireless radio services licensees;  requiring the submission of a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) or its functional equivalent by applicants and licensees using ULS, consistent with the requirements of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996; and  eliminating unnecessary or duplicative filing requirements (e.g., submission of antenna information in the Public Land Mobile Service, equipment information in the Fixed Microwave Service, showings of coordination and Coast Guard and/or Federal Aviation approvals in the Maritime and Aviation Services, and technical data in the General Mobile Radio Service.) III. DISCUSSION A. Electronic Filing and New Forms 1. Consolidation of Application Forms 15. Background. Presently there are over 40 different forms used in the WTB application and licensing process. This myriad of forms can create substantial confusion for applicants. WTB devotes significant resources to providing the appropriate forms to the public and advising applicants of the appropriate form required for their particular business purpose. 16. Discussion. We propose to consolidate the current 41 forms into five new forms that have been developed specifically for ULS: FCC Forms 601, 602, 603, 604, and 605. We have already obtained OMB approval to use FCC Forms 601 through 604 in conjunction with auctionable services. We are seeking OMB approval to modify these forms for use more generally for all wireless radio services. In this connection, we believe it is appropriate to seek comment on any additional modifications to the proposed forms.  FCC Form 601 (FCC Application for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Radio Service Authorization) will replace the Form 600, and will be used by the majority of applicants to file initial license applications, as well as filings for modification, renewal, special temporary authority, or other routine applications.  FCC Form 602 (Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Ownership Form) will be used to submit initial and updated ownership information for those wireless radio services that require the submission of such information.  FCC Form 603 (Application for Assignment of Authorization) will be used for requesting approval of assignment of licenses, including partitioning and disaggregation requests.  FCC Form 604 (Application for Transfer of Control) will be used to request approval of transfers of control of licensees.  FCC Short Form 605 (Short-Form Application for Authorization in the Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted, and General Mobile Radio Services, as well as for Commercial Radio Operator Licenses) will be used as a short-form application for applicants who are not presently required to submit extensive technical data to receive a license, such as General Mobile Radio Service, Amateurs, Ships, Aircraft, and Commercial Radio Operators. 17. When winning bidders file their long-form applications after the completion of an auction, our rules require the submission of individual applications for each geographic area license won. This requirement has been waived for a number of auction winners who filed electronically because our current electronic filing system allows processing of an applicant's multiple license applications through a single form. We tentatively conclude that elimination of the separate long-form filing requirement will expedite the post-auction licensing process and eliminate substantial administrative burdens for both the public and the Commission. With the advent of ULS and electronic filing of long-form applications after the completion of an auction, the filing of individual applications for each license won at auction is unnecessary. We propose, therefore, to permit parties to routinely file a single application to authorize all licenses won by them in a single auction. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and proposal. 18. We seek comment on each of these forms and on any possible modifications commenters may wish to suggest. We also note that we do not propose to eliminate use of the auction short-form application (FCC Form 175) or our antenna registration form (FCC Form 854). These forms are used by licensees in other Bureaus and are not exclusively WTB forms; therefore, we will continue to use these forms for the wireless radio services. We note that this rulemaking proceeding does not add, delete, or modify any regulatory or filing fee assessed for certain licensing and application processes. Fee issues will be considered by the Office of Managing Director in conjunction with its periodic review of such fees. 2. Mandatory Electronic Filing 19. Background. While we have previously implemented electronic filing for many wireless radio services, ULS gives us the capability to accept electronically filed applications in all wireless radio services. The percentage of electronically filed applications has increased over the past few years. In general, we have not made electronic filing of applications mandatory in the wireless radio services. Nevertheless, our policies have consistently encouraged electronic filing, and we have stated our intent to minimize the number of applications that are filed and processed manually. With respect to applications for licenses obtained through competitive bidding, we recently amended sections 1.2105(a) and 1.2107(c) of our rules to require electronic filing of all short-form and long-form applications beginning January 1, 1999, unless not feasible. 20. In addition, we note that the public has requested that the Commission implement electronic filing of information wherever feasible to facilitate more user-friendly queries of licensing data. We recently sought comment on various changes to our rules that were intended to eliminate unnecessary filing and reporting requirements. In these proceedings, a number of commenters suggested that we introduce electronic filing measures. 21. Discussion. With the advent of ULS, we will have the ability to accept electronic filing of all forms used for wireless radio services. We propose that beginning on January 1, 1999, applicants, licensees, and frequency coordinators filing applications on behalf of applicants in all of the wireless radio services be required to file electronically. This proposal is consistent with our recent decision in the Part 1 Third Report and Order to require electronic filing of applications for licenses obtained through auctions. Similarly, in the Electronic Tariff Filing Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-187, we established a program for mandatory electronic filing of tariffs and associated documents, such as transmittal letters, requests for special permission, and cost support documents. As in those proceedings, we believe that requiring electronic filing of applications for all wireless radio services is in the public interest because it will help to accomplish our goals of: (1) a more rapid transition to ULS; (2) streamlining our application processing; (3) affording parties a quick and economical means to file applications; and (4) making all licensing information quickly and easily available to interested parties and the public. We believe that the effect of this requirement on applicants, licensees, and frequency coordinators in wireless radio services would be beneficial; indeed, the ULS is intended to relieve the burden on all filers of the time and cost of paper filings. We request comment on these proposals. 22. While we propose to establish mandatory electronic filing for all wireless radio services, we seek comment on whether manual filing should continue as an option for certain services or classes of applicants. We recognize that licensees and applicants interested in wireless radio services are a diverse group which includes commercial entities providing a communications service to subscribers, entities who use radio for internal purposes, and individuals. We note that the commercial entities may be large corporations or small businesses with more limited budgets and resources. We recognize that some applicants may not have access to computers with the hardware and capability to utilize the software necessary to submit their applications electronically, particularly since electronic filing will be accomplished by dial-in procedures and not over the Internet. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether certain wireless radio services, excluding those subject to competitive bidding, should be exempted from our proposed general requirement to file electronically. Commenters advocating an exemption from mandatory electronic filing should explain why a particular service or a particular class of applicants requires manual filing. Commenters should also address whether it would be appropriate to require electronic filing for such services after a period of time. Commenters should suggest an appropriate period of time before mandatory electronic filing would be implemented for these exempted services, with a rationale supporting such proposals. Commenters should also address ways to make ULS more accessible to individuals with disabilities. 23. Finally, we request comment on whether it would benefit applicants and licensees subject to electronic filing if the Commission maintained computer facilities in field offices and at the Washington, D.C. offices for the public to use to file forms and pleadings electronically. Commenters should discuss the resources needed to support this, e.g., the number of computers necessary for public to use. It is our intention to make electronic filing as easily available and successful as possible, and we request public input for further suggestions to meet this goal. 3. Copy and Microfiche Requirements 24. Background. Current Commission rules require the filing of a specified number of copies of all applications and pleadings in order to ensure that appropriate Commission staff have access to the documents and that timely information is provided to the public. Additionally, in many cases copies of applications must be filed on microfiche for inclusion in the station file for the licensee. In our Notice of Inquiry in PP Docket No. 96-17, we sought comment on ways to streamline our processes and to eliminate unnecessary filing requirements. Commenters in that proceeding were overwhelmingly in favor of implementing electronic filing. 25. Discussion. In this proceeding, we propose to change the current copy and microfiche requirements to eliminate those requirements that are no longer necessary. We tentatively conclude that reducing the number of copies that parties have to file and eliminating our current microfiche requirements would serve the public interest because such requirements are unnecessary under ULS. In the past, multiple copies and microfiche were required to make application and licensing information available to the public. ULS, however, provides an unprecedented degree of accessibility to this information. Whether applications or pleadings are filed electronically or manually, all information will be available online to interested parties. After implementation of ULS, any data that is filed manually will be entered or scanned as necessary and will be available in the same fashion as electronically filed information. Thus, there will no longer be a need for an applicant to file numerous paper copies or microfiche. We propose to amend our rules so that applicants who file applications electronically will not be required to provide paper copies, diskettes, or microfiche. We seek comment on these proposals and tentative conclusions. We also seek comment on whether it would impose a significant burden on manual filers to require them to file a diskette containing electronic copies of all attachments and exhibits filed with paper forms. Requiring a diskette containing electronic copies of all attachments to be filed with manually filed applications would expedite the addition of such applications to ULS. 4. Filing of Pleadings Associated with Applications 26. Background. Currently, section 1.49 of our rules requires that pleadings and documents filed in any Commission proceeding be filed on paper. In our proceeding in GC Docket No. 97-113, we are considering whether to allow electronic filing of comments in rulemaking proceedings. 27. Discussion. In conjunction with the enhanced electronic filing capability provided by ULS, we propose to modify our Part 1 rules to allow electronic filing of pleadings regarding wireless radio service applications. With the advent of ULS, we also have the ability to allow pleadings and informal requests for Commission actions associated with applications or licenses in the wireless radio services to be filed electronically. Such pleadings include petitions to deny, petitions for reconsideration, applications for review, comments, motions for extension of time, and subsequently filed pleadings related to such filings (i.e., oppositions and replies). In addition, ULS allows waiver requests to be filed electronically on the FCC Form 601 or in connection with requests submitted on other ULS forms. We anticipate that ULS will be able to accept pleadings prepared in a variety of software formats. Electronic filers will be queried regarding which application is at issue. This query will enable us to easily associate pleadings with related applications and make the pleadings accessible to the public. In addition, parties submitting pleadings via the ULS will continue to be required to serve paper copies on all interested parties. This initiative is intended to complement the system we have previously proposed to permit the electronic filing of pleadings in docketed proceedings. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on whether we should permit other WTB pleadings that are not associated with an application or a docketed proceeding (e.g., a request to stay a filing deadline) to be filed electronically via ULS. 5. Letter Requests 28. Background. The Commission's rules currently permit licensees in some wireless services to request certain actions by letter instead of with a formal application filing. Each year WTB receives thousands of letter requests which must be processed manually. In addition, section 308(a) of the Communications Act states that formal applications are not required during national emergencies or under other exceptional circumstances (Special Situations). 29. Discussion. We seek comment on whether requiring requests relating to licenses or applications to be filed using ULS forms rather than continuing to accept and process letter requests will better serve the public interest. Commenters should address whether we should eliminate letter filings for applications, modifications, renewals, amendments, extensions, cancellations, special temporary authorizations, and name and address changes, except for the Special Situations set forth in section 308(a) of the Communications Act. We note that our forms are widely available to the public on the FCC s web page, via toll free telephone number, and through a fax-on-demand service, and their use should be far less burdensome for the public than drafting a letter request. Using a form instead of a letter will also enable Commission staff to handle requests more quickly and accurately. We also note that even if manually filed with the Commission, the ULS form is more likely than a letter to be sent directly to the appropriate Bureau and division for processing. In addition, many requests for minor modifications could, if filed on a form, be automatically granted, thus relieving the Commission of a significant processing burden. Nonetheless, we are mindful that it may be unduly burdensome for some licensees to use a specific form rather than a letter to request minor changes to an application or license, such as a change of address. Therefore, commenters should address whether letter requests should be permitted under certain circumstances and if so, identify those circumstances. B. Standardization of Practices and Procedures for WTB Applications and Authorizations 1. Overview -- Consolidation of Procedural Rules in Part 1 30. Background. In the past, we have adopted service-specific rules and procedures for processing applications in each wireless service, which are for the most part set forth in separate rule parts pertaining to each service. Thus, because many wireless service providers hold licenses in more than one service, they must consult multiple rule parts when filing applications. Moreover, these rules are not only duplicative, but are sometimes inconsistent, in part, because we have developed many of our service-specific licensing procedures based on separate and independent licensing databases for each service, which have different components and capabilities. Additionally, processing of applications in the various wireless services is carried out by different processing groups within the Bureau, which also leads to varying procedures and processing speeds. Finally, because each service's rules have generally been addressed in separate rulemaking proceedings, which took place at different times, inconsistencies arose in the processing procedures for each service as we have taken an increasingly deregulatory approach to licensing procedures. 31. Discussion. The enhanced technical capabilities of ULS and the upcoming consolidation of our licensing databases provides us with a unique opportunity to replace our disparate service- specific processing rules with a single set of processing rules for all wireless services that utilize ULS. Therefore, as discussed in greater detail below, we propose to consolidate our existing procedural rules for the wireless radio services into unified rules, located in Part 1, that will be tailored to the new ULS database. Moreover, in addition to simply consolidating rules that are identical but duplicative, we propose to eliminate unnecessary or outdated procedural rules and conform inconsistent procedures to the extent feasible. We believe that a single, consolidated set of rules will make our licensing procedures more consistent across different services and will make the rules more accessible and understandable to applicants, licensees, and the public. 32. We believe that adopting a single set of procedural rules tailored to ULS will also make the licensing process more efficient and user-friendly. For example, under ULS applicants seeking multiple licenses in the same service or in more than one service will be able to submit basic licensee information (e.g., name, address, ownership information) only once, and ULS can automatically incorporate this information into all subsequent applications associated with the same applicant. In each subsequent filing, the applicant would be certifying that the prefilled information on the application remains correct. Thus, licensees need not resubmit licensee information that is already in the system unless that information has changed, in which case only a single filing would be required to update the system. By using the same processing rules in conjunction with applications in multiple markets and across multiple services, we can use this common licensee information more efficiently and minimize instances where a licensee must file additional information with a specific application. 33. In the sections below, we highlight some of the principal areas in which we propose to consolidate our processing rules. In general, we are not proposing to make major substantive changes to our rules as part of this process, but simply to eliminate unnecessary or outdated requirements and conform inconsistencies in our rules where feasible. We are also mindful that in some instances, it may be necessary to retain service-specific components to our processing rules that reflect legitimate technical, operational, or policy considerations that are unique to a given service or class of services. We encourage commenters to address our proposed changes, both to identify unnecessary and inconsistent rules and to identify any instances in which retention of service-specific rules is justified. 2. Standardization of Major and Minor Filing Rules 34. Background. Under current WTB rules, the standards for distinguishing between major and minor filings, particularly amendments to applications and modifications of licenses, have been addressed on a service-specific basis and are found in many provisions throughout the rules. The distinction between major and minor filings has significant procedural consequences in the application process, because a major amendment to an application causes the application to be considered newly filed, while a minor amendment generally has no impact on the filing date. A major amendment may be subject to an additional public notice period (where public notice is required) or deemed untimely filed if the new filing date falls outside a filing window. For example, a major ownership amendment to an application for which the filing window has closed would normally make that application untimely and therefore unacceptable for filing. Distinguishing major and minor modifications to licenses is similarly important, because major modifications are subject to the same public notice requirements as initial applications, and typically require prior Commission approval even where public notice is not required. Minor modifications, by contrast, do not trigger public notice obligations and often do not require prior Commission approval. 35. Discussion. The implementation of ULS provides a unique opportunity to replace our service-specific rules with a single set of uniform standards for defining major and minor amendments and modifications in all wireless radio services. We therefore propose to adopt a single rule in Part 1 that defines categories of major and minor changes for purposes of defining whether an amendment to an application or a request for license modification is major or minor. We propose that these major and minor categories should uniformly govern the filing date of applications in all wireless radio services. We are not, however, proposing to revise the types of applications which require public notice or frequency coordination. 36. In proposing a single consolidated rule, however, we note that some differentiation between services remains necessary based on whether they are licensed on a geographic area basis or a site-specific basis. For example, where a license is granted on a site-specific basis, virtually any change to the technical characteristics of the facility (e.g., a change of coordinates, antenna height, or transmitting power) requires the Commission to modify the license. By contrast, most geographic licenses do not generally require modification for technical changes of this type to individual sites within a licensee's service area, because the license affords the licensee the flexibility to make these changes without modification of its authorization provided it complies with the basic operational and technical rules applicable to the service. As a result, where geographic licensing is involved, there are far fewer types of possible license modifications than where licensing is site-specific. 37. In addition, even among services licensed on a site-specific basis, some differentiation is required in defining major and minor changes due to the differing technical parameters governing mobile and fixed services. For example, mobile services involve communications between two or more stations in which at least one of the stations involved is mobile. A common scenario would be where one or more mobile units communicate with a fixed base station and nearby co-channel and adjacent-channel stations are coordinated based on point-radius calculations of potential interference. In contrast, fixed services involve communications among one or more fixed sites. This results in the coordination of neighboring co-channel and adjacent-channel stations by identifying the potential for radio "paths" to interfere with one another. In both cases, however, the technical parameters proposed herein to define major and minor modifications are appropriate to identify which applications could significantly affect nearby licensees and differ consistent with the distinct ways in which co-channel stations are coordinated. MAJOR 38. Based on the above criteria, we tentatively conclude that the following changes should be considered major: For all stations in all wireless radio services, whether licensed geographically or on a site- specific basis:  Any substantial change in ownership or control;  Any addition or change in frequency, excluding removing a frequency;  Any request for partitioning or disaggregation;  Any modification or amendment requiring an environmental assessment (as governed by 47 C.F.R.  1.1301-1319);  Any request requiring frequency coordination (non-CMRS private land mobile only); or  Any modification or amendment requiring notification to the Federal Aviation Administration as defined in 47 C.F.R. Part 17 Subpart B. In addition to those changes listed above, the following are major changes applicable to stations licensed to provide base-to-mobile, mobile-to-base, mobile-to-mobile, or repeater communications on a site-specific basis:  Any increase in antenna height above average terrain (HAAT);  Any increase in effective radiated power (ERP);  Any change in latitude or longitude; or  Any increase or expansion of coverage area (in this context, coverage area is defined in the rule parts governing the particular radio services). In addition to those changes listed above, the following are major changes that apply to stations licensed to provide exclusively fixed point-to-point, multipoint-to-point, or point-to-multipoint communications on a site-specific basis:  Any change in transmit antenna location by more than 5 seconds in latitude or longitude (e.g., a 5 second change in either latitude or longitude would be minor);  Any increase in frequency tolerance (Fixed Microwave only);  Any increase in bandwidth;  Any change in emission type;  Any increase in EIRP greater than 3 dB;  Any increase in EIRP greater than 1.5 dB (DEMS only);  Any increase in transmit antenna height (above mean sea level) more than 3 meters;  Any increase in transmit antenna beamwidth;  Any change in transmit antenna polarization (fixed microwave only); or  Any change in transmit antenna azimuth greater than 1 degree.  Any change in latitude or longitude that requires special aeronautical study; or  Any change which together with all minor modifications or amendments since the last major modification or amendment produces a cumulative effect greater than any of the above major criteria. MINOR 39. We tentatively conclude that any change not specifically listed above as major should be considered minor. This would include:  Any pro forma transfer or assignment;  Any name change not involving change in ownership of the license;  Any address and/or telephone number changes;  Any changes in contact person;  Any change to a CMRS site where the licensee's interference contours are not extended and co-channel separation criteria are met; or  Any conversion of a site-specific license into a single wide-area license where there is no change in the licensee's aggregate service area. 40. In addition, we propose to combine the two categories of minor filings in Part 101 into one category, which will not be required to be placed on public notice. We are also correcting a minor discrepancy in the standard for a major change to antenna parameters that exists between an application amendment and modification to a station. We invite comment on these changes. 41. We further propose to allow licensees to implement minor modifications to their facilities without prior Commission approval; licensees would be required only to electronically notify the Commission within 30 days of implementing the change. However, we note that there are times that applicants and licensees may submit multiple amendments or modifications that individually would be considered minor changes, but that, when considered together, would constitute a major change. In this connection, we propose that multiple minor changes be considered a major change to the extent that their cumulative effects relative to the original authorization exceed the threshold(s) set forth above as major changes. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should address the standard we should adopt to alert applicants and licensees that multiple minor amendments or modifications will be considered a major change. 3. Submission of Ownership Information 42. Background. Our existing service-specific rules contain varying requirements for submission of ownership information by wireless applicants and licensees. For example, in Part 22, we require applicants for licenses to provide detailed real-party-in-interest information concerning stockholders, subsidiaries, and affiliates. Assignees and transferees of Part 22 licenses must also file current ownership information on Form 430 if a current report is not on file with the Commission. In Part 101, we require microwave applicants to file real-party-in-interest information in conjunction with their applications. Most recently, in the Part 1 Third Report and Order, we required all applicants for licenses or for consent to assignment or transfer of licenses in auctionable services to provide specific ownership information with either their short-form or long-form application. 43. Discussion. These various reporting requirements are intended to enable the Commission to review whether applicants and licensees are in compliance with our real-party-in-interest rules, as well as with ownership restrictions such as the CMRS spectrum cap, cellular cross-ownership restrictions, eligibility for treatment as a small business at auction, and foreign ownership limitations. However, because different and sometimes inconsistent reporting requirements apply to different services, entities who hold or apply for multiple licenses may be required to submit duplicative or inconsistent ownership information with each application. These multiple filings burden applicants and congest WTB databases and reference rooms with duplicative information. 44. In the Part 1 Third Report and Order, we established streamlined ownership reporting requirements for applicants in auctionable services, by eliminating the requirement that an applicant separately submit ownership information each time it applies to participate in an auction. We stated that an applicant would be required to provide ownership information when it applies for its first auction, and that such information would then be maintained in a central database which the applicant could update when its ownership information changes. We stated that we would implement this procedure as part of ULS. 45. The development of ULS provides an opportunity to fully implement our decision in the Part 1 Third Report and Order and to further streamline our ownership disclosure requirements by adopting a consolidated rule governing all submissions of ownership information by wireless applicants and licensees. We propose to utilize the new Form 602, developed for ULS, as the common form on which all wireless applicants and licensees submit required ownership information in connection with any application or licensing change. For entities applying for a license for the first time, whether by initial licensing, assignment, or transfer of control, an applicant subject to ownership reporting requirements would file this form simultaneously with the relevant license application (Form 175, 601, 603, or 604). Because the ownership information submitted on the initial Form 602 will be automatically entered into the ULS database, the applicant would be required to submit only a single Form 602 in connection with multiple applications (whether in one wireless service or multiple services), and would be able to reference the same information in all future applications without refiling the form. The licensee would also use the Form 602 to provide amended or updated ownership information as required by the relevant rules, e.g., in connection with transfers and assignments. Again, the licensee would only have to file one ownership form to update this data for all of its licenses. We seek comment on these proposals. 46. In connection with our proposed use of Form 602 for submission of all ownership information, we also propose to streamline and consolidate our rules regarding the types of ownership information that must be submitted by wireless applicants and licensees. In light of our decision in the Part 1 Third Report and Order to establish uniform reporting requirements for applicants and licensees in auctionable services, we propose to eliminate all duplicative and inconsistent reporting requirements in service-specific rule parts that deal with auctionable services. For example, Section 22.108 in our current rules requires Part 22 applicants to provide information regarding investors holding a five percent or greater interest in the applicant. This rule is inconsistent with the ten percent ownership reporting threshold adopted in Section 1.2112, which also applies to Part 22 applicants because all Part 22 services are auctionable. Although we did not delete Section 22.108 in the Part 1 Third Report and Order, we believe it is appropriate to do here in order to carry out the intent of that order and conform our reporting requirements for all auctionable services. Our proposal, however, does not preclude requiring certain applicants to provide different or more specific ownership information where there is a particular need for the information to carry out our regulatory responsibilities. For example, applicants seeking small business eligibility for auction purposes must typically file more detailed information regarding ownership and financial structure than other entities. We do not propose to alter such specific requirements. We also do not propose to address substantive ownership issues such as attribution rules, cross-ownership limitations, or spectrum caps. While the information that applicants provide on Form 602 may be relevant to such issues, they are outside the scope of this proceeding. 47. We also seek comment on whether to revise our rules regarding ownership information to be provided by applicants and licensees in non-auctionable services that are not subject to the disclosure requirements of the Part 1 Third Report and Order. For example, under Part 101, all applicants, including private licensees operating systems exclusively for internal use, are required to disclose real party in interest information and certify that they are not representatives of foreign governments, but are not otherwise subject to ownership reporting requirements. While we do not propose to alter the substance of these reporting requirements at this time, we believe that the current requirements and any additional disclosure requirements that might be adopted in the future should be incorporated into a consolidated rule governing the basic ownership information to be provided by all non-auctionable wireless applicants and licensees. Therefore we propose to incorporate the Part 101 standard into our consolidated Part 1 rule. We seek comment on the proposal. 48. We also seek comment on whether we should use ULS to collect ownership information from applicants and licensees in non-auctionable services beyond what is currently required. For example, we note that in some instances, licenses in private, non-auctionable services are held by commercial enterprises such as railroads or utilities, which could also hold licenses or interests in licenses in auctionable wireless services. We seek comment on whether the possible holding of both types of licenses raises potential competitive or spectrum management issues that would justify requiring such entities to provide ownership information in connection with applications for non- auctionable as well as auctionable licenses. We also seek comment on what types of information should be provided. We tentatively conclude, however, that there is no need to extend ownership reporting requirements to applications or licenses held by governmental entities. We also tentatively conclude that such requirements are unnecessary for the Amateur or General Mobile Radio Services or for Commercial Radio Operators, because these services are essentially personal in nature. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. 4. Frequency Coordination of Amendment and Modification Applications 49. Background. In services requiring frequency coordination in Parts 90 and 101, we have differing rules pertaining to coordination for amendments and modifications that involve substantial engineering changes to applications. Section 90.175 of our rules identifies numerous changes that do not require frequency coordination. However, section 101.103(d) of our rules requires all applicants seeking to amend applications or modify their authorizations to obtain a new frequency coordination. 50. Discussion. We propose amending section 101.103 by requiring frequency coordination only for those applicants filing amendments and modifications that involve changes to technical parameters that are classified as major in accordance with the discussion above. Licensees making minor changes to technical parameters would only be required to notify the Commission, as well as the entity(ies) with which it normally engages in frequency coordination, of the minor change. We seek comment on this proposal. This proposed change to section 101.103 will provide uniformity among the rules for all the affected services. 5. Returns and Dismissals of Incomplete or Defective Applications 51. Background. Currently, electronic filing of applications involves the completion of a form on a computer and forwarding the completed application to the Commission. Incomplete or incorrectly filed applications are returned and/or dismissed in accordance with service-specific rules. The ULS filing system will reduce filing errors by assisting applicants who file electronically to fill in all required information. For example, ULS will prefill ownership and address information for applicants who are already Commission licensees. It will also interactively check that required elements of applications are completed and prompt applicants to correct errors. ULS can also be programmed to interactively perform certain clearances such as verifying tower registration. We anticipate that this system, in combination with the consolidated rules proposed herein, will result in a higher percentage of grantable applications and help to ensure the integrity of the data in our licensing database. 52. There will be two means for parties to electronically file applications with the Commission: batch and interactive. Batch filers will follow a set Commission format for entering data. Batch filers will then send via file transfer protocol (FTP) batches of data to the Commission for compiling. ULS will compile such filings overnight and respond the next business day with a return or dismissal for any defective applications. Thus, batch filers will not receive immediate corrections from the system as they enter the information. Interactive filers will use a WWW browser to contact the Commission on our secure network and complete the appropriate Commission form in real time. Interactive filers will receive prompts from the system identifying data entries outside the acceptable ranges of data for the individual fields at the time the data entry is made. Because interactive filers will be able to enter corrected information in real time, they are less likely to submit applications that are incomplete or incorrect with respect to information in these fields. 53. Discussion. We propose to conform our filing rules for all WTB applicants so that batch, interactive, and, where applicable, manual filers will be subject to the same requirements and procedures for defective or incomplete applications. Interactively filed applications will be screened in real time by the ULS system; therefore errors will be unlikely but may occur in some instances where erroneous information is entered. In the case of batch and manually filed applications, incomplete or erroneous filings will not be detected until after the application is filed. Manually filed applications, if erroneous, will not be returned until the WTB staff reviews the application and detects the problem. In all cases, regardless of filing method, except as indicated below, we propose that an applicant who submits an application that is accepted by ULS but that subsequently is found to have missing or incorrect information be notified of the defect. We seek comment on allowing applicants 30 days from the date of this notification to correct or amend the application if the amendment is minor. If the amendment is major, the applicant's ability to refile will depend on whether major amendments are allowed under the circumstances (e.g., whether the relevant filing window has closed). Notwithstanding the above, in all cases applications that are submitted without a sufficient fee or outside of an applicable filing window and manually filed applications that do not contain a valid signature will be immediately dismissed. We seek comment on these proposals. 54. Finally, we propose a method for handling confidential attachments to applications filed in the ULS. Currently, because applicants may submit proprietary or market sensitive data as attachments to their applications, they may request that the Commission treat these attachments as confidential. If the Commission does not grant this request for confidential treatment, the attachments in question are returned to the applicant, who may decide whether or not to resubmit them without restriction. Under the ULS applicants may request that an electronically submitted attachment be treated as confidential by checking the appropriate box on the attachment form. To ensure that these attachments are kept confidential in ULS, we would put the following security measures in place: (1) any attachment designated as confidential will not be accessible from publicly available query utilities; and (2) a special user name and password will be required for Commission employees to view confidential attachments. To provide the same treatment under ULS as under the current system, we propose that if the Commission decides not to grant a request for confidential treatment, the applicant be informed and the attachments in question be deleted from the ULS database. We request comment on this proposal. 6. Discontinuation of "Reinstatement" Applications 55. Background. Presently, licensees in the Private Land Mobile Services and Fixed Microwave Radio Services who do not file a timely renewal application are given a 30-day period following the expiration of their licenses in which to request reinstatement. This practice was instituted due to the large number of late-filed applications in these services. This practice is inconsistent with other wireless radio service licensing rules where reinstatement is not permitted. Given the development of ULS, we seek comment on whether to modify our rules to utilize ULS to notify applicants of the renewal period for their licenses. This would eliminate the reinstatement period and instead automatically cancel the license following expiration. 56. Discussion. In order to provide regulatory symmetry among all wireless services, we propose to provide automatic pre-expiration notification to all wireless radio services licensees via ULS and to eliminate the reinstatement period in those services that currently allow reinstatement applications. Specifically, we propose that ULS would send notices to all wireless radio services licensees, both site-specific licensees and geographic area licensees, 90 days before the expiration of their licenses. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should address whether 90 days is the appropriate amount of time prior to expiration to send this information. Under this procedure, failure to file for renewal of the license before the end of the license term would result in automatic cancellation of the license. We tentatively conclude that existing rules allowing reinstatement of expired licenses should be eliminated because, under our proposed new rules: (1) licensees will receive notification that their licenses are about to expire and, therefore, should be responsible for submitting timely renewal applications; and (2) interactive electronic filing will make it easier for all licensees to timely file renewal applications. In addition, Commission forms are widely available to the public on the FCC s web page, via toll free telephone number, and through a fax-on-demand service, and licensees should be able to obtain the form more easily than before to timely file their renewal application. We seek comment on our tentative conclusions and on whether this approach will have a negative effect on public safety and local government licensees. In particular, we request comment on whether such entities should be subject to a different procedure, and if so, what that procedure should be. 57. To the extent that we adopt the automatic cancellation proposals described above, licensees whose licenses have been automatically cancelled may file a petition for reconsideration of the cancellation or may file a new license application. The ULS system will show a license expiration as final 30 days after the automatic cancellation date if no petition for reconsideration is filed. Such licenses would then be available for the Commission to reauction or otherwise reassign. If a petition for reconsideration is filed, the license would remain in the ULS pending action on the petition. If we determine that the spectrum is available for reassignment or reauction, the license cancellation will be placed on public notice and a separate public notice will be issued indicating filing procedures for that spectrum. This system comports with the current rules in certain services that allow a filing window for renewals, and those services that have automatic cancellation provisions for failure to file a timely renewal application. We seek comment on these proposals. We note that neither the ULS procedures nor this NPRM is intended to affect the rules in place governing the amateur vanity call sign system cancellation and reassignment procedures. 58. The Commission now informs applicants and licensees of Commission actions in writing. We propose to allow licensees to choose whether they want to continue to be notified in writing via regular mail or instead be notified of Commission actions concerning applications contained in the ULS via electronic mail. We propose that notification by electronic mail be considered the same notice as notification by regular mail. We further propose that if the licensee does not choose electronic mail we will use regular mail for such notifications. We seek comment on these proposals. 7. Construction and Coverage Verification 59. Background. In all wireless radio services, licensees are subject to construction and, in some instances, coverage requirements, and are subject to automatic license cancellation if these requirements are not met. Different procedures have evolved in different services for verifying whether licensees have in fact met these requirements. In some wireless radio services, the rules provide that licenses are cancelled if the licensee fails to notify the Commission that it has met its construction or coverage requirement. In other services, licenses are cancelled automatically if a licensee fails to construct by its construction deadline. In some, but not all, of the latter services, the Commission staff sends letters to determine compliance and then notifies licensees that their licenses are cancelled when licensees fail to certify compliance or state that they did not meet the construction or coverage requirements. In some services that are licensed by geographic area, licensees may forfeit their license by failing to meet coverage requirements, but no procedures have been established for notifying licensees of approaching deadlines or confirming that these deadlines have been met. 60. Discussion. The ULS can be programmed to remind licensees by letter or electronic mail that a construction or coverage deadline is approaching and can also be programmed to permit construction notifications to be filed electronically. We propose to establish uniform procedures for using the ULS to notify all wireless radio licensees of upcoming construction or coverage deadlines. This will conform the rules for all wireless radio services licensees so that similarly situated applicants and licensees are treated equally. In addition, this will lessen the burden on applicants and will ensure that deadlines are met or that the public receives timely notification of terminations. Under this proposal, ULS would automatically send each licensee via e-mail or regular mail a reminder letter before the applicable construction or coverage deadline. We seek comment on how far in advance the notification should be sent. After receiving notification, licensees would then verify that they have met these requirements by updating their FCC Form 601 already on file with ULS. We note, however, that the notification procedure proposed here is not intended to replace the basic construction and coverage requirements set forth in our rules. Thus, even if a licensee does not receive a reminder letter, it remains obligated to meet its construction and coverage benchmarks and cannot cite the lack of notification as an excuse for non-compliance. 61. We propose requiring notifications filed by wireless radio services licensees to be filed electronically. If a licensee does not file the required notification of completion of construction or satisfaction of the coverage requirements, the ULS would send a letter advising the licensee of the termination of the authorization. The ULS would then generate a public notice announcing the termination, which would be deemed final 30 days after the public notice date. We seek comment on this proposal. 62. In addition, we propose to require wireless radio licensees to certify compliance with construction requirements relating to modification applications that involve additional frequencies. In addition, we propose to require fixed microwave licenses awarded on a site-by-site basis to certify compliance with construction requirements for additional or increased service area coverage (e.g., a new station, a change in antenna height or EIRP). We also propose to amend section 101.63 to require fixed microwave licensees to file a further modification application if they fail to construct a granted modification. This additional modification will return the license to its pre-grant status. We seek comment on these proposals. 8. Assignments of Authorization and Transfers of Control 63. Background. The Communications Act requires the Commission to approve assignments of licenses and transfers of control of licensees. In the wireless radio services, we currently process applications for proposed assignments and transfers of control in two ways. Under our CMRS rules, requests for approval of both assignments and transfers are filed on a common application form. Following the approval of the assignment or transfer, the licensee must then file a notification with the Commission that the transaction has been consummated, at which point the Bureau amends its licensing database. In the private and common carrier microwave services, licensees use one of two forms to request Commission approval, depending on whether the proposed transaction is an assignment of license or a transfer of control. The rules applicable to Part 90 services and microwave transfers and assignments also differ from the equivalent CMRS rules in that no post-consummation notice is required; instead, the Bureau amends its database upon approval of the assignment or transfer without seeking confirmation that the transaction was consummated. 64. We note that we recently exercised our forbearance authority for certain pro forma transfers of control and assignments of licenses involving telecommunications service providers licensed by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Specifically, we granted a petition for forbearance filed by the FCBA regarding the prior notification and approval requirements for pro forma transfers and assignments. Rather than requesting approval of the pro forma transaction before it has occurred, licensees must submit written notification of the pro forma transaction within 30 days after consummation, either in letter form or by using the appropriate FCC transfer and assignment form, and must update their records as necessary. Those licensees which are subject to our unjust enrichment provisions, and those transactions involving proxy mechanisms, require additional review and may not take advantage of this forbearance. 65. Discussion. We propose to consolidate our transfer and assignment rules for all wireless services in Part 1, and to eliminate inconsistencies between the procedures that currently govern CMRS and microwave licenses. First, we propose to replace the multiple existing forms for transfers and assignments in the various services with two ULS forms, FCC Form 603 for assignment of licenses and FCC Form 604 for transfers of control. Our proposal to use a separate form for each type of transaction rather than a single consolidated form for all assignments and transfers is based on the fact that transfers and assignments do not require identical types of information from the applicant. In addition, the two types of transactions have different processing results: in an assignment transaction, a new license is issued to the assignee, while in a transfer of control, the identity of the licensee generally remains the same. We propose using two different forms tailored to the two categories of transactions. This will make entering the required information easier and will thereby reduce the filing burden on licensees. We seek comment on these proposals. 66. We also propose to conform our rules with respect to post-transaction notification that a Commission-approved transfer or assignment has been consummated. We propose to require post- consummation notification prior to changing the database to reflect the grant. As noted above, the Part 90 rules for private mobile radio service (PMRS) and our current microwave rules in Part 101 do not require such notification. Experience has shown, however, that problems occur when an assignment or transfer approved by the Commission is entered into the licensing database under this streamlined procedure and is not subsequently consummated. In the absence of a notification procedure, no efficient mechanism exists for correcting the database under these circumstances. Instead, we have generally required the filing of a second transfer application that reflects the "return" of the license from the putative transferee to the original licensee. 67. With the advent of ULS, we believe that a uniform post-consummation notification process can be established that will be efficient and easy to use for all wireless licensees. Using the electronic filing capabilities of the system, licensees will be able to provide such notification by accessing their previously filed Form 603 or 604 associated with a transaction and entering updated information regarding its consummation. We therefore propose to require post-consummation notification under ULS using procedures similar to those currently applicable to CMRS transfers and assignments. We also tentatively conclude that these notification procedures should be reinstated for transfers and assignments of microwave licenses, notwithstanding our prior elimination of the post- consummation notification requirement in the microwave services. Under ULS, we believe the burden of filing such notifications will be substantially reduced. In addition, uniform procedures will ensure regulatory symmetry and will help avoid database errors associated with unconsummated transactions. We seek comment on this approach. 68. Finally, we propose to apply these same post-consummation procedures to pro forma transactions for which we have recently adopted streamlined procedures in response to the FCBA forbearance petition. Thus, in the case of pro forma transfers and assignments involving telecommunications carriers, for which prior Commission approval is no longer required, we tentatively conclude that licensees should provide the required post-consummation notification and related information regarding the transaction on Form 603 or 604. 9. Change to North American Datum 83 Coordinate Data 69. Background. To perform its licensing role, WTB requires that certain applicants submit coordinate data with their applications. In each of these rules, applicants are required to submit coordinate data using the 1927 North American Datum (NAD27) geographical survey. A more recent North American Datum (NAD83) was completed in 1983, which provides updated coordinate data. NAD83 was adopted as the official coordinate system for the United States in 1989. On September 1, 1992, we issued a public notice noting the change and stating that we would be converting our databases to NAD83. However, in order to provide sufficient time to study the changes, we allowed applicants to continue indefinitely to provide coordinate data using NAD27. 70. Discussion. We tentatively conclude that use of NAD83 will result in more accurate licensing decisions via the ULS and will also conform with the current Federal Aviation Administration regulations which require the use of NAD83 data. We propose that all wireless radio services application processing rules requiring the submission of site coordinate data should be revised to require that such data be supplied using the NAD83 datum for sites located in the coterminous United States and Alaska. Additionally, we propose that the rules be revised to require site coordinate data for sites in areas such as Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the South Pacific Islands, etc., be submitted using WGS84. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion and proposal. 10. Use of Taxpayer Identification Numbers 71. Background. In 1996, Congress enacted the Debt Collection Improvement Act as part of an effort to increase collection from private entities of delinquent government debts. As a result of DCIA, the Commission and executive agencies are required to monitor and provide information about their regulatees to the U.S. Treasury. This provision includes a requirement that the Commission collect Taxpayer Identifying Numbers (TIN) and share them with the U.S. Treasury to ensure that the Commission does not refund monies to entities that have an outstanding debt with the federal government. TINs are 9-digit identifiers required of all individuals and employers to identify their tax accounts. Individuals use their Social Security Number as their TIN, while employers use the Employer Identification Number (EIN) issued by the IRS to all employers. TINs are an integral part of the DCIA system and are necessary for the collection of delinquent debt owed to federal agencies. The TIN matches payment requests with delinquent information. As a result, federal agencies have been required to share the TINs of benefit recipients since April 26, 1996, the effective date of DCIA. The Financial Management Service of the U.S. Treasury has recommended that agencies obtain the TIN when an agency first has direct contact with a person. 72. Discussion. The Commission has already taken steps to ensure proper collection of TINs from parties seeking to make filings using ULS. Development of the ULS will require that we continue to collect TINs from WTB applicants and licensees because some of these parties may be the recipients of a refund for overpayment of filing and/or regulatory fees or auction bids. The WTB has received approval from OMB to require existing licensees to register their TIN using FCC Form 606. Form 606 is for use on an interim basis, until the ULS is operational. On November 4, 1997, the WTB released a public notice announcing that existing licensees could register their TIN and associated call signs on-line. 73. We further propose that all parties seeking to file applications through ULS should be required to submit a TIN as a prerequisite for using the system, and that the Bureau should use TINs as the unique identifier for such parties. Under this proposal, individuals would use their Social Security Number as their TIN, while other entities would use their EINs as the TIN. Parties submitting manually filed applications should also be required to supply their TIN on their application form because all such applications will be placed on the ULS and a TIN is necessary to track these applications. Parties filing applications using ULS would be required to complete Form 606 to register their TIN. 74. We note that under the proposal, parties other than applicants and licensees would have some access to ULS without providing a TIN. For example, parties seeking to file a pleading electronically through ULS would not be required to submit a TIN but rather would be permitted to register with the ULS using a unique identifier and password of their choosing. Members of the public also would not be required to register to simply view applications or search the ULS database. We seek comment on whether requiring the use of TINs with the ULS system would satisfy the requirements of the DCIA and would provide a unique identifier for parties filing applications with the ULS that would ensure that the system functions properly. We tentatively conclude that the TIN is the logical choice for the system identifier because it is unique to each licensee and applicant, and these parties will likely have already obtained a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service in order to conduct their business. 75. We also propose to take steps to prevent misuse of TINs; for example, the ULS system would be designed so that TINs will not be available to the public. Accordingly, members of the general public will not be able to search the ULS system via TINs. Only a small number of Commission employees would have access to TIN information in conjunction with their work. Finally, a Privacy Act submission would be published in the Federal Register to obtain the requisite public and Congressional comment and OMB approval prior to implementation of the ULS system. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions and proposals. C. Collection of Licensing and Technical Data 1. Overview 76. In reviewing our processing functions to adapt them to electronic filing and universal forms, we have identified certain existing data collection requirements and licensing requirements that no longer serve a useful purpose or that can be further streamlined. Accordingly, we take this opportunity to propose the elimination or streamlining of such requirements. More generally, we seek comment on the types of technical data that we should collect from applicants and licensees, and whether there are particular data collection requirements that should be either added or deleted. 77. Background. Prior to geographic area licensing, all wireless radio services were licensed on a site-by-site basis. The Commission's rules currently require most applicants for site-specific licenses in the wireless radio services to submit technical details regarding their proposed stations. Such detail is necessary for site-specific licensing (1) to minimize the potential for harmful interference between stations; (2) to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; (3) to perform international coordination; (4) to carry out spectrum management responsibilities; and (5) to ensure the proper enforcement of our rules. The collection of technical data for each site may not be appropriate under geographic area licensing. The Commission has reduced the amount of technical information required by geographic area licensees; however, geographic area licensees currently have different reporting requirements depending on the service under which they are licensed. For example, PCS licensees must comply with the technical rules of 47 C.F.R. Part 24, but are not required to submit any technical data to the Commission on their application forms and cellular licensees need only submit technical data for the cell sites that comprise their Cellular Geographic Service Area (CGSA). In contrast, the service specific rules for the Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), 220 MHz, and 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) require that applicants submit technical data for all sites even though licenses for these services either have been or are scheduled to be auctioned on a geographic basis. 78. Discussion. Because of the inconsistencies in our rules, we propose to examine the technical reporting requirements for all geographic area licensees with a view toward equalizing, as much as possible, the reporting burden on such license holders. This proposal will ensure that similarly situated licensees are treated in a consistent manner, and allow us to more effectively collect the data we need to fulfill our statutory mandates. We believe that applicants for geographic area licenses in the wireless telecommunications services should, at a minimum, provide the Commission with technical information (1) when an Environmental Assessment is needed, as prescribed by section 1.1307; or (2) to effect international coordination, when necessary. Site data is also needed where towers will extend more than 200 feet above ground or will be located near an airport in order to maintain safety in air navigation. 79. In general, we believe that a reduced filing burden would be in the public interest. By changing our rules to make our technical reporting requirements more consistent, we believe we can eliminate those rules and requirements that are no longer necessary. We also realize, however, that technical data is needed in situations other than those cited above (e.g., for coordination between adjacent geographic areas, for enforcement purposes, or to improve our overall management of the spectrum), and that some licensees may be required to submit more detailed information than previously required. We seek comment on what reporting requirements, both technical and non- technical, should be established for geographic area licensees. Commenters should indicate those rules and requirements that can be eliminated from the wireless radio services rules, those that will need to be modified, and any additional requirements that may be necessary to make the reporting requirements consistent across services. When providing comments on this issue, commenters should clearly distinguish between the reporting requirements for geographic area and site-specific licensees. Additionally, there are many instances where geographic area licenses have been granted in areas that have site-specific, incumbent licensees (e.g., LMDS, 220 MHz, 800 MHz SMR). These situations should also be considered when addressing reporting requirements. Finally, when discussing rule and reporting requirement changes, commenters should suggest specific procedures that will allow us to collect the required information in a way that puts the least burden on licensees. 2. Use of Notification or Certification in Lieu of Informational Filings 80. Discussion. In order to best utilize the electronic filing system proposed to be implemented herein, and to most efficiently use the Commission's resources, we propose to replace many data or other informational filing requirements with either certification or notification, where appropriate. As with applications, we propose to require that wireless radio services licensees be required to file certifications and notifications electronically. Some certification statements will be made directly on a form or schedule, while others will be made in an exhibit. Only certifications made on a form or schedule will be searchable in ULS. An example of a new certification requirement in lieu of an information filing requirement can be found in proposed Section 101.701, which requires common carrier fixed microwave licensees to certify that substantial non-private use is being made of facilities used to relay broadcast television signals. 81. With regard to notifications, we are proposing to change some informational filings to notification. An example of a new notification requirement in lieu of an informational filing is in proposed Section 101.305, where non-dominant common carriers planning to discontinue service must give electronic notification of discontinuance to the Commission. We request comment on these proposals. 3. Public Mobile Radio Service Data Requirements 82. Discussion. Under Part 22 of the Commission's rules, applicants for certain Public Mobile Radio Service licenses are required to file antenna model, manufacturer, and type with the Commission. This antenna information is no longer required due to the adoption of the Part 22 Rewrite, which fundamentally altered the way that service contours and cellular geographic service areas (CGSAs) are determined. Accordingly, because we have adopted new calculation methods for CGSAs, we tentatively conclude that the antenna information that we presently collect is superfluous. We propose to eliminate this filing requirement. 83. In addition, our rules currently require that unserved area applicants in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service submit paper copies of: (1) an application cover, (b) transmittal sheet, (c) table of contents, and (d) numerous engineering exhibits. These paper copy requirements are inconsistent with our proposal to require electronic filing by cellular applicants. We therefore propose to eliminate this requirement for cellular unserved applicants. We request comment on this proposal. 4. Fixed Microwave Service Data Requirements 84. Discussion. Effective August 1996, the Commission consolidated all regulations concerning fixed microwave services from Parts 21 and 94 of the Commission s rules into a single consolidated Part 101, eliminating and combining a number of rules. Fixed microwave service applicants are required to file the following four items of technical information: type acceptance number, line loss, channel capacity, and baseband signal type for each application. Because the Commission is placing an increasing amount of responsibility for interference coordination on the parties themselves, it is not critical that such information be filed with the Commission, nor does it provide useful data in support of WTB licensing processes. Thus, we propose to eliminate these filing requirements for fixed microwave service applicants. We request comment on this proposal. 5. Maritime and Aviation Services Data Requirements 85. Discussion. Presently, applicants for certain types of station licenses in the Maritime and Aviation radio services are required to submit written showings with their applications in order to provide specific information concerning eligibility, to verify frequency coordination, or to show that the U.S. Coast Guard or Federal Aviation Administration approves of the operation of the proposed station. In order to facilitate electronic filing for these radio services, we propose to eliminate various rules which currently require applicants to attach the types of showings and coordination statements described above. In lieu of these written showings, we propose to allow applicants to certify that certain information is correct or that appropriate coordination has taken place. Where applications involve safety of life at sea or in air navigation, we propose to reserve the right to contact applicants to obtain additional information where such action serves the public interest. We seek comment on whether our proposal could negatively affect the quality of maritime or aviation communications. Commenters opposing the proposed rule changes should identify which written showings should be retained, why they should be retained, and any alternative rule changes that could aid in achieving our goal of facilitating electronic filing in the wireless services. 86. Although we are generally proposing to allow applicants to certify as to frequency coordination, implementation of this proposal for flight test stations under Part 87 requires individual discussion. Section 87.305 requires flight test station applications to include a statement from a frequency advisory committee, including detailed technical information to be specified at the time of licensing. This is in contrast to other coordination statements required for these services. In this connection, we seek comment on how best to implement our proposals above. We seek comment on whether we should require the frequency advisory committee to submit the application on behalf of the applicant, as is current practice in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should allow individual applicants to specify the technical data at time of application and certify that is it correct and represents the committee's recommendation. 87. In addition to the written showings described above, there is another inconsistency between our current procedures for licensing Maritime and Aviation radio stations and other types of wireless systems. The rules currently prohibit the assignment of ship and aircraft station licenses between entities otherwise eligible for licensing. The intent of these rules is to maintain the integrity of the data stored in the Commission's ship and aircraft licensing databases. As a practical matter, this means that when a ship or aircraft is sold, the former owner is required to submit its license to the Commission for cancellation and the new owner must request a new station license. We tentatively conclude that prohibiting the assignment of ship and aircraft station licenses no longer serves any regulatory purpose and that the Commission could provide better service to the public by allowing licensees to assign their station licenses, as it does for other wireless services. Therefore, we propose to eliminate the prohibition against assigning ship and aircraft station licenses, so long as applicants provide updated information concerning the stations in question upon application for assignment. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and proposal. 6. Commercial Radio Operator License Data Requirements 88. Discussion. Commission-licensed Commercial Radio Operators serve as radio officers aboard U.S. vessels, repair and maintain maritime or aviation radio equipment, and use international maritime and aviation frequencies to communicate with foreign stations. With one exception, applicants must pass a written examination prior to obtaining a Commercial Radio Operator license. In order to obtain a license, an applicant must contact a Commission-certified examination manager, pass one or more written tests, obtain a proof of passing certificate (PPC) from the examination manager, and provide the original PPC to the Commission upon application for a license. In order to facilitate electronic filing in this area, we must consider alternative means of verifying that applicants have passed the requisite written examinations under the supervision of a Commission- certified examination manager. 89. We tentatively conclude that the Commission must retain measures to verify whether an applicant has passed the requisite examinations. As noted above, license holders are responsible for emergency communications aboard vessels and for repairing radio equipment that serves as a mariner's or pilot's lifeline during emergencies. In the future, the Commission's role in ship inspections may be performed by the private sector and license holders may be responsible for inspecting compulsory radio installations aboard U.S. vessels. Because of the critical, safety-related responsibilities of license holders, the Commission must ensure that only qualified individuals receive a Commercial Radio Operator license. 90. We seek comment on ways for the Commission to automate the verification of applicants' PPCs. One alternative would be for examination managers to electronically file with the Commission data showing which examination elements an examinee has passed. A second option would be for examination managers to establish procedures that would allow them to verify the authenticity of a PPC, upon Commission request. A third option would be to require examination managers to submit applications on behalf of applicants. Commenters should discuss the administrative burdens associated with automating the verification of PPCs, and any alternative solutions not discussed herein. 7. Amateur Radio Services 91. Discussion. The United States has reciprocal arrangements with 65 countries to allow amateur operators to operate their stations temporarily in the other country. The Commission currently grants annually some 2,000 reciprocal permits for alien amateur licensee (FCC Form 610- AL) to amateur operators from those countries. The visitor must obtain the application form (FCC Form 610-A) -- which is often difficult to do in a foreign country -- and file it with the Commission. No standards are required of these applicants other than possession of the license document issued by their country of citizenship. There is no fee. The FCC-issued permit, therefore, simply confirms that the holder of the permit also holds a license from his or her home country. For Canadian amateur operators who visit the United States, no permit is required because they are authorized to operate by rule. We tentatively conclude that there is little or no need to continue issuing the reciprocal permit for alien amateur licensees because the license from any foreign country with which the United States has reciprocity would stand as the proof that the foreign operator is qualified for the reciprocal operating authority. We propose, therefore, to authorize all reciprocal operation by rule. As is now the case, however, no citizen of the United States -- regardless of any other citizenship held -- would be eligible under this authorization procedure. United States citizens would continue to have to acquire an FCC-issued amateur operator license by passing the requisite examinations. 92. Currently, the Commission processes annually some 1,500 applications for new, renewed and modified amateur service club, military recreation and radio amateur civil emergency service ("RACES") station grants. Application is made on FCC Form 610-B. There is no fee. The resulting license grant simply authorizes the use of a unique call sign in the station identification procedure. It does not authorize any operating privileges. Section 4(g)(3)(B) of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission, for purposes of providing club and military recreation station call signs, to use the voluntary, uncompensated and unreimbursed services of amateur radio organizations that have tax- exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Commission's rules were amended in 1995 to administer the club call sign system under the Commission's then-new automated licensing process. We believe that the ULS provides an opportunity to utilize the electronic batch filing services provided by the private sector. We propose, therefore, to accept the services of any organization meeting the minimum requirements of section 4(g)(3)(B) of the Communications Act that completes a pilot electronic autogrant batch filing project similar to that completed by the 16 volunteer-examiner coordinators ("VECs"). Moreover, we anticipate that many VECs would be likely to volunteer their service as club station call sign administrators. 8. General Mobile Radio Service 93. Background. The GMRS is a UHF land mobile radio service for short-distance two-way communications. It is used to facilitate the business or personal activities of licensees and their immediate family members. Under the current rules, there are fifteen frequencies allocated to this service. Applicants may be authorized to use up to ten of these channels. Applicants are currently required to submit technical information and location information for control points and small base stations. 94. Discussion. All GMRS frequencies are shared and no frequency coordination is required; therefore, we propose to revise the rules for GMRS to limit the data collection required of individuals applying for a license to contact information, such as name, address, and telephone number. Additionally, we propose to authorize stations to transmit on any authorized channel from any geographical location where the FCC regulates communication without the need for temporary licensing. We believe that there is no regulatory purpose to be served by limiting the number of frequencies for which a licensee may be authorized or by collecting technical information from applicants. We seek comment on these proposals. IV. CONCLUSION 95. In this proceeding, we have set forth proposals to consolidate our licensing rules into a single set of rules for all wireless radio services. Our goal is to establish a streamlined set of rules that minimizes filing requirements as much as possible; eliminates redundant, inconsistent, or unnecessary submission requirements; and assures ongoing collection of reliable licensing and ownership data. We believe that these consolidated rules will eliminate duplication and inconsistencies that exist in our rules and will make it easier for applicants to determine our application requirements by referencing a single set of licensing rules. We find that such consolidation will allow the ULS to function more efficiently. A more efficient and fully functional ULS will mean that licensing information will be widely available to members of the public. We also believe that development of full electronic filing and universally available databases for the wireless radio services will shorten application filing times for applicants, make the most recent data available to them concerning other spectrum uses, and relieve the administrative burden on this Commission, enabling us to operate with greater efficiency. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that it is in the public interest to implement the electronic filing of applications and other documents, and that ULS implementation, as well as the combined application and processing rules proposed herein, will help achieve that goal. V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 96. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C.  603, the Commission has prepared the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Appendix P) of the possible impact on small entities of the proposals set forth in this document. Written public comments are requested on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. In order to fulfill the mandate of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 regarding the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis we ask a number of questions in our Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis regarding the prevalence of small entities that may be affected by the proposed procedures. Comments on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the NPRM, but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall send a copy of this NPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C.  603(a). B. Ex Parte Rules -- Non-Restricted Proceedings 97. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1201, 1203, and 1.1206(a). C. Comment Dates 98. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments to the NPRM on or before May 7, 1998 and reply comments on or before May 22, 1998. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original and five copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original plus ten copies. You should send comments and reply comments to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center of the Federal Communications Commission, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. 99. Parties are encouraged to submit comments and reply comments on diskette for possible inclusion on the Commission's Internet site so that copies of these documents may be obtained electronically. Such diskette submissions would be in addition to and not a substitute for the formal filing requirements presented above. Parties submitting diskettes should submit them to the Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 2100 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible form using Word Perfect 5.1 for Windows software. The diskette should be submitted in "read only" mode, and should be clearly labelled with the party's name, proceeding, type of pleading (comment or reply comment), and date of submission. 100. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information collections are due at the same time as other comments on this NPRM. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections on or before 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to: Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 - 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov. D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 101. This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of this NPRM in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. E. Ordering Clauses 102. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), this NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING is hereby ADOPTED. 103. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. F. Further Information 104. For further information concerning the NPRM, contact Wilbert E. Nixon, Jr., Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-7240, or Susan Magnotti, Policy and Rules Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0871. Finally, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau in conjunction with the Office Of Managing Director will work to coordinate the ULS and fee collection. The fee collection process will be consistent with our objective to streamline application procedures. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary TABLE OF CONTENTS FORM APPENDIX A Form 601 FCC Application for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Radio Service Authorization Form 601, Schedule A Schedule for Multiple Call Signs or File Numbers Form 601, Schedule B Schedule for Auctionable Services Form 601, Schedule C Border Area Schedule for Auctionable Services Form 601, Schedule D Wireless Telecommunications Services Schedule for Fixed Station Locations and Antenna Structures Form 601, Schedule E Wireless Telecommunications Services Schedule for Schedule for Mobile, Temporary Fixed, and 6.1 Meter Control Station Locations Form 601, Schedule F Technical Data Schedule for Cellular and Air-Ground (Commercial Aviation) Radio Telephone Services (Part 22) Form 601, Schedule G Technical Data Schedule for Maritime and Aviation Services (Parts 80 and 87) Form 601, Schedule H Technical Data Schedule for Private Land Mobile and Broadcast Auxiliary Land Mobile Radio Services (Parts 90 and 74) Form 601, Schedule I Technical Data Schedule for the Fixed Microwave and Broadcast Auxiliary Services (Parts 101 and 74) Form 601, Schedule J Technical Data Schedule for the Paging, Rural, Air-ground (General Aviation), and Offshore Radiotelephone Services (Part 22) Form 601, Schedule K Schedule for Required Notifications for Wireless Services Form 601, Schedule L Schedule for Extension of Time Requests for Wireless Services Form 602 FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless Telecommunications Services Form 603 FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Application for Assignment of Authorization Form 603, Schedule A Assignment Schedule for Auctionable Services Form 603, Schedule B Partition and Disaggregation Schedule Form 603, Schedule C Undefined Geographic Area Schedule Form 604 FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Application for Transfer of Control Form 604, Schedule A Transfer of Control for Auctionable Services Form 605 Quick-Form Application for Authorization in the Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and Commercial Operator, and General Mobile Radio Services Form 605, Schedule A Schedule for Additional Data for the Ship Radio Service Form 605, Schedule B Schedule for Additional Data for the Aircraft Radio Service Form 605, Schedule C Schedule for Additional Data for the Amateur Radio Service Form 605, Schedule D Schedule for Additional Data for the Commercial Radio, Restricted Radiotelephone, and Restricted Radiotelephone-Limited Use Radio Services Form 605, Schedule E Schedule for Additional Data for the General Mobile Radio Service (Part 95) Form 606 TIN Registration Form TABLE OF CONTENTS RULE APPENDICES B - N APPENDIX . . . . . . . RULE PART B Part 0 C Part 1 D Part 13 E Part 22 F Part 24 G Part 26 H Part 27 I Part 80 J Part 87 K Part 90 L Part 95 M Part 97 N Part 101 APPENDIX B PROPOSED RULES - PART 0 CURRENT RULE NUMBER SUBJECT (proposed change) PROPOSED NEW OR REVISED RULE NUMBER 0.401(b) Location of Commission offices (change to allow electronic filing of general correspondence via ULS). 0.401(b)(3) 0.408(b) OMB control numbers and expiration dates assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (revised to reflect new ULS forms). 0.408(b) Part 0 of Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is amended as follows: PART 0 -- COMMISSION ORGANIZATION. . #. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 155. . #. Section 0.401 is amended by adding subparagraph (b) (3) in the following manner: Sec. 0.401 . . . . . . Location of Commission offices. * * * * * . (b) * * * . . (3) Alternatively, applications and other filings may be se nt electronically via the Universal Licensing System (ULS). . #. Section 0.408 is amended by adding the following forms to the table in paragraph (b): Sec. 0.408 . . . . . OMB control numbers and expiration dates assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Re duction Act. * * * * * . . . . . . . . . . (b) * * * 3060-xxxx.. FCC 601........................................ x/xx/xx 3060-xxxx.. FCC 602........................................ x/xx/xx 3060-xxxx.. FCC 603........................................ x/xx/xx 3060-xxxx.. FCC 604........................................ x/xx/xx 3060-xxxx.. FCC 605........................................ x/xx/xx * * * APPENDIX C PROPOSED RULES - PART 1 CURRENT RULE NUMBER SUBJECT (proposed change) PROPOSED NEW OR REVISED RULE NUMBER 1.41 Informal Requests for Commission action (change to allow electronic filing of informal requests via ULS). 1.41 1.45 Pleadings; filing periods (change to allow electronic filing of pleadings and other documents via ULS; eliminate microfiche requirement). 1.45 1.49 Specifications as to pleadings and documents (change to allow electronic filing of pleadings and other documents via ULS and to delete microfiche requirements). 1.49 1.50 Specifications as to briefs (add specifications for briefs filed via ULS). 1.50 1.51 Number of copies of pleadings, briefs, and other papers (eliminate provision requiring extra copies for pleadings filed via ULS). 1.51(f) 1.52 Subscription and verification (change to allow electronic versions of pleadings and other documents via ULS to be acceptable for filing). 1.52 1.83(b) Applications for radio operator licenses (change organizational name from Private Radio Bureau to Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division). 1.83(b) 1.85 Suspensions of operator licenses (change organizational name from Private Radio Bureau to Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch Public Safety and Private Wireless Division). 1.85 1.106 Petitions for Reconsideration (change to allow electronic filing of petitions for reconsideration via ULS). 1.106(o) 1.821 Random selection procedures -- Scope (delete references to Public Mobile Services and DEMS). 1.821 1.823 Random selection procedures for Public Mobile Services (delete). No new rule Title - Subpart F Subpart F (revise title to refer to Wireless Radio Services). Title - Subpart F 1.901 Scope (renumbered and expanded to cover all Wireless Radio Services). 1.902 1.911 Application requirements (renumbered and paragraphs (a) and (b) amended to cover all Wireless Radio Services). 1.915 1.912 Where applications are to be filed (renumbered and revised to incorporate ULS forms, electronic and manual filing procedures). 1.913 1.914 Full disclosures (incorporated into other Part 1 rules). 1.919, 1.923 1.916 Repetitious applications (renumbered and amended to cover all Wireless Radio Services). 1.937 1.918 Amendment of applications (moved and amended to cover all Wireless Radio Services). 1.927 1.921 Procedure for obtaining a radio station authorization and commencing operation (deleted). No new rule 1.922 Forms to be used (deleted; ULS forms set forth in new rule). 1.913 1.923 Waiver of construction permit requirement (deleted). No new rule 1.924 Assignment or transfer of control, voluntary and involuntary (renumbered and amended to cover all Wireless Radio Services). 1.948 1.925 Application for special temporary authorization, temporary permit or temporary operating authority (renumbered and amended to cover all Wireless Radio Services). 1.931 1.926 Application for renewal of license (renumbered and amended to cover all Wireless Radio Services). 1.949 1.931 Requests for waiver of private radio rules (renumbered and amended to cover all Wireless Radio Services). 1.925 1.933 Installation or removal of apparatus (deleted). No new rule 1.934 Procedure with respect to amateur radio operator license (renumbered and revised to reflect new ULS forms). 1.957 1.951 How applications are distributed (deleted). No new rule 1.952 How file numbers are assigned (deleted). No new rule 1.953 How applications are processed (renumbered and revised to reflect ULS procedures). 1.926 1.955 Frequency coordination, Canada (renumbered and combined with other rules into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.923 1.958 Defective applications (renumbered and combined with other rules into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.934 1.959 Resubmitted applications (renumbered and combined with other rules into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.933, 1.934 1.961 Dismissal of applications (renumbered and combined with other rules into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.934 1.962 Public notice of acceptance for filing; petitions to deny applications of specified categories (public notice and petition sections divided; rules combined with other rules into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.933, 1.939 1.971 Grants without a hearing (renumbered and combined with other rules into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.945 1.972 Grants by random selection (deleted per Balanced Budget Act of 1997). No new rule 1.973 Designation for hearing (renumbered and combined with other rules into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.945 Station files. 1.911 Duty to respond to official communications. 1.951 1.981 Reports, annual and semi-annual (revised to reflect electronic filing). 1.981 1.1102 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings in the wireless telecommunications services (change form number to reflect ULS forms). 1.1102 1.1111 Filing locations (change to allow electronic filing of applications and other filings with attached fees via ULS). 1.1111 1.1152 Schedule of annual regulatory fees and filing locations for wireless radio services (change form number to reflect ULS forms). 1.1152 1.2003 Applications affected (change form number to reflect ULS forms). 1.2003 Part 1 of Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: . #. The Table of Contents for Part 1 - Subpart F is amended as follows: Subpart F - Wireless Telecommunications Services Applications and Proceedings Scope and Authority 1.901 Basis and purpose. 1.902 Scope. 1.903 Authorization required. 1.907 Definitions. Application Requirements and Procedures 1.911. . . . . . . . . Station files. 1.913 Application forms; electronic and manual filing. 1.915. . . . . . . . . General application requirements. 1.917 Who may sign applications. 1.919 Ownership information. 1.923 Content of applications. 1.925 Waivers. 1.926 Application processing; initial procedures. 1.927 Amendment of applications. 1.929 Classification of filings as major or minor. 1.931 Application for special temporary authority, temporary permit or temporary . operating authority. 1.933 Public notices. 1.934 Defective applications and dismissal. 1.935 Agreements to dismiss applications, amendments or pleadings. 1.937 Repetitious or conflicting applications. 1.939. . . . . . . . . Petitions to deny. 1.945. . . . . . . . . License grants. 1.946 Construction and coverage requirements. 1.947 Modification of licenses. 1.948 Assignment of authorization or transfer of control, notification of consummation. 1.949 Application for renewal of license. 1.951. . . . . . . . . Duty to respond to official communications 1.955. . . . . . . . . Termination of authorizations. 1.956 Settlement conference. 1.957 Procedure with respect to amateur radio operator licenses. Reports to be filed with the Commission 1.981. . . . . . . . . Reports, annual and semi-annual. . #. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 207, 303, and 309(j) unless otherwise noted. . #. Section 1.41 is amended by adding the following sentence at the end of the paragraph: Sec. 1.41 . . . . . Informal requests for Commission action. * * * In application and licensing matters pertaining to the Wireless Radio Services, as defined in section 1.904 of this part, such requests may also be sent electronically, via the ULS. . #. Section 1.45 is amended by adding a sentence to end of the introductory paragraph, deleting the last sentence of paragraph (a), and deleting the last sentence of paragraph (b) to read as follows: Sec. 1.45 . . . . . Pleadings; filing periods. * * * Pleadings associated with licenses and applications filed in the Wireless Radio Services may be filed via the ULS. . (a) Oppositions. Oppositions to any motion, petition, or request may be filed within 10 days after the original pleading is filed. . . . . . . . . . (b) Replies. The person who filed the original pleading may reply to oppositions within 5 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired. The reply shall be limited to matters raised in the oppositions, and the response to all such matters shall be set forth in a single pleading; separate replies to individual oppositions shall not be filed. * * * * * . #. Section 1.49 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a) and removing paragraph (e) to read as follows: Sec. 1.49 . . . . . . Specifications as to pleadings and documents. (a) All pleadings and documents filed in any Commission proceeding shall be either typewritten, prepared by other mechanical processing methods, or, in the case of application and licensing matters in the Wireless Radio Services, composed electronically and sent via the ULS, [and account for manually filed diskettes]. Paper pleadings and documents shall be filed on A4 (21 cm. x 29.7 cm.) or on 8\1/2\ x 11 inch (21.6 cm. x 27.9 cm.) paper with the margins set so that the printed material does not exceed 6\1/2\ x 9\1/2\ inches (16.5 cm. x 24.1 cm.). * * * * * * * (e). . . . . . . . . . [Removed] . #. Section 1.50 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 1.50 . . . . . . Specifications as to briefs. The Commission's preference is for briefs that are either typewritten, prepared by other mechanical processing methods, or, in the case of application and licensing matters in the Wireless Radio Services, composed electronically and sent via ULS. Printed briefs will be accepted only if specifically requested by the Commission. Typewritten, mechanically produced, or electronically transmitted briefs must conform to all of the applicable specifications for pleadings and documents set forth in Sec. 1.49. . #. Section 1.51 is amended by adding new paragraph (f) to read as follows: Sec. 1.51. . . . . . . Number of copies of pleadings, briefs and other papers. * * * * (f) For application and licensing matters involving the Wireless Radio Services, only one copy of a pleading, brief or other document must be filed. . #. Section 1.52 is amended by revising the third and fourth sentences to read as follows: Sec. 1.52. . . . . . . Subscription and verification. * * * Either the original document, the electronic reproduction of such original document containing the facsimile signature of the attorney or represented party, or, in the case of application and licensing matters in the Wireless Radio Services, an electronic filing via ULS is acceptable for filing. If a facsimile or electronic document is filed, the signatory shall retain the original until the Commission's decision is final and no longer subject to judicial review. * * * Sec. 1.83. . . . . . . Applications for radio operator licenses. . * * * * * . . . . . . . . . . (b) * * * This bulletin is available from the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 1270 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325-7245. . #. Section 1.85 is revised to read as follows:: Sec. 1.85. . . . . . . Suspension of operator licenses. Whenever grounds exist for suspension of an operator license, as provided in section 303(m) of the Communications Act, the Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, with respect to amateur and commercial radio operator licenses, may issue an order suspending the operator license. No order of suspension of any operator's license shall take effect until 15 days' notice in writing of the cause for the proposed suspension has been given to the operator licensee, who may make written application to the Commission at any time within the said 15 days for a hearing upon such order. The notice to the operator licensee shall not be e