*************************************************** 
                         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, itallic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the orginal 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     )
                                )
Amendment of the Amateur Service Rules to)        WT Docket No. 96-188
Authorize Visiting Foreign Amateur Operators)
to Operate Stations in the United States)         RM-8677
                                )


                        REPORT AND ORDER
                                
                                
Adopted:  September 17, 1998                                               Released:  October 21, 1998


By the Commission:  Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth issuing a statement.

                                
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                
                                                 Paragraph Number

I.   INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

II.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

III. DISCUSSION

A.   Electronic Filing and New Forms
     1.  Consolidation of Application Forms. . . . . . . . . . 11
     2.  Mandatory Electronic Filing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
          a.  Transition Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
          b.  Exempt Wireless Services . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
          c.  Computer Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     3.  Copy and Microfiche Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . 33
     4.  Electronic Filing of Pleadings Associated with Applications38
     5.  Letter Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

B.   Standardization of Practices and Procedures for WTB Applications and Authorizations
     1.  Consolidation of Procedural Rules in Part 1 . . . . . 55
     2.  Standardization of Major and Minor Filing Rules . . . 58
     3.  Submission of Ownership Information . . . . . . . . . 74
          4.  Frequency Coordination: Amendments/Modification . . . 84
     5.  Returns and Dismissals of Incomplete or Defective Applications89
     6.  Discontinuation of "Reinstatement" Applications . . . 95
     7.  Construction and Coverage Verification. . . . . . . .102
     8.  Assignments of Authorization and Transfers of Control109
     9.  Change to North American Datum 83 Coordinate Data . .123
          10. Use of Taxpayer Identification Numbers. . . . . . . .132

C.   Collection of Licensing and Technical Data
     1.  Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143
     2.  Notification or Certification in Lieu of Informational Filings151
     3.  Public Mobile Radio Service Data Requirements . . . .153
     4.  Fixed Microwave Service Data Requirements . . . . . .160
     5.  Maritime and Aviation Services Data Requirements. . .165
     6.  Commercial Radio Operator License Data Requirements .168
     7.  Amateur Radio Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172
     8.  General Mobile Radio Service
          a.  Inclusion in the Proceeding. . . . . . . . . . .183
          b.  Regulatory Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185
          c.  Eligibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189
          d.  Channeling Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191
          e.  Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . .196
          f.  Antenna Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201
          g.  Permissible Communications . . . . . . . . . . .203
          h.  Rules Pertaining to Management of a GMRS System.205

IV.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS
     A.  Regulatory Flexibility Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . .208
     B.  Paperwork Reduction Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209
     C.  Further Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .210



V.   ORDERING CLAUSES    

Appendix A:    Names of Commenters and Reply Commenters
Appendix B:    Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis        
Appendix C:    ULS Forms (Forms 601, 602, 603, and 605)
Appendix D:    NAD 83 Coordinate System
Appendix E:    ULS Rule Conversion Chart          
Appendix F:    Comparison of Consolidated Part 1 (Subpart F) Rules and Former Service-Specific 
          Procedural Rules
Appendix G:    Final Rules

                I.  INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
 
     1.  In this Report and Order, we consolidate, revise, and streamline the Commission's rules
governing license application procedures for radio services licensed by the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau (WTB or Wireless Bureau).  These rule changes will enable us to fully implement the Universal
Licensing System (ULS), the Commission's new automated licensing system and integrated database for
wireless services.  We also adopt new consolidated application forms, which will enable all wireless
licensees and applicants to file applications electronically in ULS.  Further, we also establish procedures to
ensure a smooth transition from our pre-existing licensing processes to the processes developed for ULS.  

     2.  The development of ULS represents a fundamental change to the manner in which we receive
and process wireless applications.  Previously, wireless applicants and licensees used a myriad of forms for
various wireless services and types of requests, and the information provided on these applications has been
collected in separate databases, each for a different group of services.  Although in some instances, these
forms could be filed electronically, many of these existing systems do not accommodate electronic filing,
instead requiring information to be submitted on paper and then manually keyed into the database by FCC
staff.  This patchwork approach to application processing has caused 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, and impedes the public's access to
licensing information because the information is not centrally located and frequently not available in an
easily usable form. 

     3.  Over the past few months, the Wireless Bureau has begun an incremental deployment of ULS,
which will ultimately provide a single technological platform for filing applications and information
collection from all wireless licensees and applicants.  The Wireless Bureau has used ULS for all post-
auction licensing since December 1997, and will be using it in conjunction with post-auction licensing in all
future auctions.  In addition, the Wireless Bureau has begun the phased transition of licensing data for each
of the existing wireless services from their present databases to ULS, after which all future licensing
activity in each service will be in ULS.  Thus, the database for common carrier paging was transferred to
ULS in June 1998, and PCS and WCS were converted in September 1998.  Other services, such as
Cellular, Microwave, and Land Mobile, will be switched to ULS in subsequent stages later this year or
early next year.  We anticipate that ULS will be fully operational in all wireless services by April 1999.

     4.  Once fully deployed, ULS will eliminate the need for wireless carriers to file duplicative
applications, and will increase 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.  This will also
benefit wireless applicants and licensees by reducing the cost of preparing applications, and will speed the
licensing process, so that we can introduce new entrants more quickly into this already competitive
industry.  The enhanced information collection capabilities of ULS will, in turn, enable the Commission
staff to easily monitor spectrum use and competitive conditions in the wireless marketplace and will
promote effective implementation of our spectrum management policies.  Finally, ULS will enhance the
availability of licensing information to the public, which will for the first time have access to all publicly
available wireless licensing information on-line, including maps depicting a licensee's geographic service
area. 

     5.  We have also taken steps throughout the ULS development process to protect both system
integrity and the confidentiality of information pertaining to applicants and licensees.  To ensure the
integrity of the licensing process, we have initiated a registration process in which wireless applicants and
licensees register their Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs), self-assign a password, and then associate
all of their call signs with the registration.  Thus, only registered users will have access to the electronic
filing features of ULS with respect to their own licensing data.  These safeguards are designed to protect
the confidentiality of pre-filed applications and FCC forms before they are filed and become publicly
available.  Additionally, all electronic filing transactions will occur on the FCC's wide area network
through a direct connection, so that application data will not be transmitted on the Internet, which is less
secure.  Once data has been entered into ULS, sensitive data such as TINs will not be accessible to the
public.  Finally, we have created redundant systems and backup procedures to safeguard against loss of
data or system access should a system failure occur.

     6.  On February 19, 1998, we adopted the ULS Notice, in which we proposed to develop ULS for
all wireless services and to implement a variety of changes to existing rules and procedures in order to
facilitate the deployment of ULS.  We noted that the implementation of ULS required conforming changes
to our wireless licensing rules to reflect new electronic filing procedures, new electronic forms, and other
technical changes in the licensing process.  We also noted that the development of ULS provided us with an
opportunity to simplify and streamline the Commission's rules in other ways as well.  Thus, we proposed 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.  We also
proposed to introduce new consolidated application forms and to require electronic filing of most forms. 
Finally, in addition to proposing rule changes needed to fully deploy ULS, we also proposed to streamline
or eliminate technical data collection requirements in some services, and to streamline our licensing
procedures in the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS).  While many of these proposed changes were
procedural in nature, we considered it important to seek comment on the full impact of these changes on
licensees and the public.

     7.  In the ULS Notice, we also designated 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,
we stated that our goal in this proceeding was to establish rules that (1) reduce filing requirements as much
as possible; (2) eliminate redundant, inconsistent, or unnecessary submission requirements; and (3) assure
ongoing collection of reliable licensing and ownership data.  Accordingly, we proposed in the ULS Notice
to revise our regulations to efficiently collect from wireless services applicants and licensees only the data
necessary to effectuate our statutory spectrum management and compliance responsibilities.  

     8.  We received 77 comments and 17 reply comments in response to the ULS Notice.  In addition,
we held several open forums on ULS for the public and for industry representatives, which yielded many
insightful comments and suggestions.  We have also worked closely with groups such as the FCBA to
further refine our proposals.  

                      II.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
     9.  In this Report and Order, we substantially adopt the proposals set forth in the ULS Notice to
consolidate our wireless services filing and processing rules, including transitioning to new filing forms
compatible with ULS.  We also eliminate a large number of unnecessary rules and duplicative forms that
are not necessary in light of the development of ULS.  In making these changes, we have implemented
many of the suggestions made by commenters for further streamlining of the Commission's rules and
refinement of our application forms.  We also acknowledge the concern that many commenters have
expressed regarding our proposed timetable for implementing ULS, including our proposals for mandatory
electronic filing of applications.  We agree with these commenters that modification of this timetable is
appropriate to ensure that ULS is fully tested and that users have a reasonable transition period to become
familiar with the system before we impose any mandatory requirements.  

     10.  Specifically, we take the following actions in this Report and Order: 

       We adopt the following four consolidated ULS application forms for wireless services, which
includes some modifications suggested by commenters, to replace approximately 41 application forms
currently in use: 

          (1) Form 601 (Long-Form or FCC Application for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Radio
     Service Authorization) -- This form is to be used by those filing an initial licensing application.  It
     will also be used by licensees applying for license modifications, renewals, or grants of special
     temporary authority in the majority of wireless services.

          (2) Form 602 (FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless Telecommunications
     Services) -- This form is to be used by applicants or licensees to submit initial and updated
     ownership information in conjunction with license applications, license assignments, and transfers
     of control for wireless services that are licensed by auction only.  

          (3) Form 603 (FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Application for Assignment of
     Authorization or Transfer of Control) -- This form is to be used by all wireless services, for
     approval of license assignments and transfers of control.  It combines the separate forms proposed
     in the ULS Notice (Forms 603 and 604).

          (4)  Form 605 (Quick-Form Application for Authorization in the Ship, Aircraft, Amateur,
     Restricted and Commercial Operator, and General Mobile Radio Services) -- This form is to be
     used by applicants or licensees for wireless services that are not auctionable and are not required to
     provide technical data to obtain a license (i.e., General Mobile Radio Service, Amateur Radio
     Service, Ship, Aircraft, Restricted and Commercial Radio Operators).

       We modify Forms 601 and 603 to collect information, on a voluntary basis, regarding
ownership and control of wireless licensees by women and minorities.  This information will be used for
statistical and informational purposes only and will not affect the review or processing of applications.
  
       We will allow continued use of existing (pre-ULS) forms for a transition period of six months
after the effective date of these rules.  This transition period will give applicants and licensees flexibility to
plan an orderly transition from the use of old forms to the use of new ULS forms.  

       Electronic filing for applicants and licensees in services that are licensed by auction will be
mandatory, but electronic filing will be optional for applicants and licensees in services that are not subject
to licensing by auction.  For each service that is subject to mandatory electronic filing, these requirements
will take effect on July 1, 1999, or six months after we begin use of ULS in the particular service,
whichever is later.  This does not affect our prior decision to require applicants for auctions to file both
FCC Form 175 and FCC Form 601 applications electronically as of January 1, 1999.
  
       Electronic filing will be mandatory for applications filed by frequency coordinators and by
volunteer examiner-coordinators (VECs) in the Amateur service.  These requirements will take effect on
July 1, 1999, or six months after we begin use of ULS in the particular service, whichever is later. 

       We will take steps to ensure that ULS electronic filing and data programs are accessible to
persons with disabilities in compliance with our program accessibility rules and the new requirements of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998.   

       We will no longer accept letter requests as a substitute for authorizations that can be requested
on ULS forms.  This change includes extension of time requests to meet our construction requirements or
extend consummation periods, requests for license cancellations, requests for special temporary authority,
and licensee's reporting of name and address changes.  This decision will take effect six months from the
effective date of the rules. 

       We consolidate all rules governing the filing and processing of applications for wireless services
into a single set of rules in Part 1.

       We adopt a consolidated rule for determining whether a change to a pending application or
existing authorization is treated as a major or minor modification or amendment.  We also clarify that
under this rule, no license modification application is required for geographic licensees to move, add, or
delete an internal site in their licensing areas, except in certain instances where specific sites require
environmental approval or international coordination.

       We eliminate reinstatement procedures in those wireless services that previously had them. 
ULS will provide for notification by mail to all wireless licensees ninety days prior to the expiration date of
their licenses, and will allow them to file the renewal application at any time in that ninety day period.  A
licensee who fails to file a timely renewal application has no right to reinstatement, but must file a new
application. 

       For transfer and assignment applications, we will enable both parties to a proposed transaction
to sign the application form electronically and verify its contents before the form is filed.  The combined
transfer/assignment form (Form 603) may also be used to provide notification of consummation of a
transfer or assignment transaction.  

       We will require the submission of a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) by applicants and
licensees using ULS, consistent with the requirements of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. 
We will also collect TIN information of persons and entities that are attributable interestholders in licensees
who must file Form 602.  In all cases, TIN information will be kept confidential so that no unauthorized
person will have access to the information.  Applicants who use frequency coordinators to file their
applications will not be required to disclose their TIN to the frequency coordinator.  Applicants who use
frequency coordinators to file their applications will not be required to disclose their TIN to the frequency
coordinator, so long as the TIN  has been registered by the applicant with the Commission.  

       We eliminate or modify certain technical data reporting requirements pertaining to specific
services.  This includes: (1) eliminating requirements that LMDS, 800 MHz SMR, and 220 MHz auction
winners file site data with the Commission, so long as they maintain such data in their station records and
make it available on request; (2) replacing certain informational filing requirements with simple
notifications or certifications, (3) deleting certain technical data filing requirements applicable to licensees
in the Public Mobile Services, Fixed Microwave Services, Maritime and Aviation Services, and to
Commercial Radio Operators.    

       We adopt proposals made in WT Docket 96-188 to authorize reciprocal operation by foreign
amateur radio licensees by rule pursuant to recent international reciprocal operating agreements.  

       We have identified numerous GMRS rules to be eliminated and streamlined as duplicative or
unnecessary to our regulatory responsibilities, and these rule changes will also facilitate the conversion of
our data collection procedures and databases to ULS.  
                        III. DISCUSSION


A.  Electronic Filing and New Forms

     1.  Consolidation of Application Forms

     11.  Background.  In the ULS Notice, we proposed to reduce the number of FCC forms used in the
WTB application and licensing process from forty-one to five.  We noted that consolidating our forms
would not only streamline the processing of applications but would reduce the filing burden for wireless
applicants and licensees.  We sought comment on the following proposed forms designed specifically for
ULS use: FCC Forms 601 (Long-Form or FCC Application for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Radio Service Authorization), 602 (FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless
Telecommunications Services), 603 (FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Application for
Assignment of Authorization), 604 (FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Application for Transfer
of Control) and 605 (Quick-Form Application for Authorization in the Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted
and Commercial Operator, and General Mobile Radio Services).  While some of these forms have already
received OMB approval and are being used on a limited basis, we sought comment on whether further
modifications should be made to the proposed forms prior to the full deployment of ULS.  We also
tentatively concluded that the filing of separate long-form (FCC Form 601) applications for each
geographic license won at auction was not expedient and created undue burdens on the public and the
Commission.  We sought comment on our tentative conclusion to require the filing of only one long-form
application for all licenses won in a single auction.

     12.   Discussion.  We adopt the proposed forms with some modifications.  Most commenters agree
with our overall proposal to simplify the application process by consolidating and unifying the forms used
by wireless radio applicants and licensees.  One commenter observes that "the computerized, paperless
filing offered by ULS is a tremendous improvement over paper filings."  In addition to the increased ease
of filing afforded by ULS, we believe that applicants, licensees and the public will find discussing a
particular application with the staff much easier and faster.  The staff "will no longer have to rummage
through reams of paper to find a particular filing, but instead the staff will be able to immediately access a
filing merely by pointing and clicking onto the correct computer screen."  We conclude that the record
broadly supports our decision to use consolidated forms designed for ULS in support of all wireless
services application and licensing functions.   

     13.  However, a few commenters urge the Commission to retain existing service-specific forms
instead of creating new consolidated forms.  FIT, for example, suggests using Forms 601 and 605 for
some wireless services, but proposes that we retain the current Form 600 for private land mobile, marine
private coast, and aviation ground services, and that we continue to use Form 415 for all microwave
services.  Similarly, TIA proposes that fixed point-to-point microwave applicants use Form 415 for
applications, transfers, and assignments, because this form was designed specifically for microwave
services. 

     14.  We disagree with the view that we should continue using existing service-specific forms for
wireless services.  The current array of over forty service-specific forms confuses the public and vastly
increases the amount of time and staff resources needed to process applications.  In addition, these forms
were not designed for ULS, and in many instances cannot be electronically filed.  While there may be
instances where licensees are accustomed to using a particular service-specific form, the far greater benefits
of ULS will not be fully realized if we were to continue using the existing forms.  The new forms are not
only consolidated, but are specifically designed for electronic filing in ULS.  Moreover, applicants and
licensees filing for multiple services will no longer need to submit duplicative information. Thus, while
adoption of ULS forms will require wireless services applicants and licensees to make some adjustments
initially, over time consolidation of the forms will increase the speed and accuracy of the application
process and expedite service to the public.  It is also consistent with our objective to eliminate unnecessary
service-specific distinctions in our application and licensing procedures, and provide the public with a
consistent set of procedures and rules applicable to all wireless services.

     15.  Some parties also commented on the length of Form 601 and the number of proposed
schedules to the form.  In fact, while the form and schedules in their totality appear substantial, they will
be far less so in actual practice.  Form 601 is structured much like the current Form 600, with a main form
for basic applicant information and separate schedules for service-specific technical information. 
Generally, Form 601 filers will complete only the main form and the particular schedule(s) with
information relevant to their particular wireless service.  In addition, electronic filing of Form 601 will be
faster and more efficient than filing Form 600, because the system will automatically "pre-fill" licensee
information already in the system for Form 601 and will display only the portions of the form and
schedules that require completion for the applicant's or licensee's indicated purpose.  This feature of ULS
will lessen the burden on applicants and licensees, and will reduce the staff's processing time for wireless
applications, so that licensees may provide service to the public quickly.

     16.  Nevertheless, in light of the significant changes to our wireless services forms, we will allow
continued use of all existing (pre-ULS) forms for a transition period of six months after the effective date
of this Report and Order.  This transition period is consistent with our past practice for introducing new
forms.  A six-month transition period will provide wireless services applicants and licensees with
sufficient time to plan an orderly transition from using existing forms to using the new ULS forms.  At the
conclusion of this period, only ULS forms will be accepted.  Of course, wireless services applicants and
licensees may begin using ULS forms sooner if they prefer, and we encourage them to do so.  It is in the
applicant's or licensee's interest to use the ULS forms as they were created for ULS compatibility and will
reduce processing time.  In addition, an applicant or licensee electing to use an existing form must provide
any new information now asked for on the ULS forms.

     17.  We received a variety of suggestions from commenters for modifying elements or particular
questions on the proposed forms.  We find that many of these suggestions have merit, and we will modify
the forms accordingly.  For example, as suggested by a number of commenters, we will combine Forms
603 and 604 into a single combined form for both assignments and transfers.  We will also modify the
questions on Form 601 relating to alien ownership to limit the scope of questions that must be answered by
non-common carrier licensees who are not subject to section 310(b) ownership requirements, and to
account for indirect ownership of licensees by investors from World Trade Organization (WTO) member
countries.  Additionally, pursuant to section 1.2110(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, we will  modify Forms
601 and 603 to collect information on a voluntary basis regarding the race, ethnicity and gender of wireless
licensees and applicants.

     18.  FCBA requests that we provide applicants with the ability to provide supplementary
information which clarifies any question on a wireless application that calls for a "yes/no" response.  ULS
forms and the application database will allow any applicant to file attachments to its wireless services
application to clarify or explain its answer to a question.  Whether filed electronically or manually (i.e, filed
on paper), such attachments will be entered into the system as text files and will become part of the
application record in ULS.  Thus, attachments will be viewable on-line by the applicant or licensee, the
Commission, and the public.  

     19.  BAM interprets the ULS Notice as requiring a wireless services licensee to file a Form 601
every time a licensee makes any type of change to an existing license, even if it is a minor change.  We
clarify that the purpose of creating a single database for wireless services is to eliminate the traditional
practice of wireless applicants or licensees submitting duplicative and overlapping applications.  Any time
a wireless services applicant or licensee logs onto ULS to file an application, information previously
entered into ULS will "pre-fill" or appear on the screen for inspection.  If any information concerning the
applicant or licensee has changed, it is the responsibility of the filer to update the information on its
application as required by the Commission's rules.


     2.  Mandatory Electronic Filing

     20.  Background.  In the ULS Notice, we proposed requiring applicants, licensees, and frequency
coordinators filing applications on behalf of applicants and licensees in all of the wireless services to file
electronically beginning on January 1, 1999.  We stated our belief that beginning mandatory electronic
filing on this date would be in the public interest because it would help to accomplish our goals of: (a) a
rapid transition to ULS; (b) streamlining our wireless services application processing; (c) affording parties
a quick and economical process to file wireless services applications; and (d) making all licensing
information quickly and easily available to interested parties and the public.  Although we believe these
benefits warrant mandatory electronic filing, we recognized that some wireless services applicants or
licensees might lack access not only to high quality telephone lines but also computers capable of
submitting their applications electronically.  For these reasons, we solicited comments on whether certain
wireless radio services, or classes of applicants or licensees, should be exempt from our proposed
requirement to file electronically.  We also requested comment on whether supplying Commission
maintained computer facilities for public use would facilitate electronic filing.

          a.  Transition Period

     21.  Most commenters agree that the use of electronic filing for wireless applications should be
expanded and encouraged.  AAR, for example, notes that electronic filing will allow quicker and less costly
filing by applicants or licensees, quicker and more accurate processing by Commission staff, and speedier
access to wireless services application and licensing information by the public.  This view is echoed by a
broad range of commenters, such as AMTA, PCIA, AT&T, and Motorola.  Nevertheless, many of these
same commenters urge the Commission to proceed cautiously before making electronic filing mandatory. 
While our proposed January 1, 1999 deadline is not without support, the majority of commenters argue
that this date is too soon to impose mandatory electronic filing.  Many of the commenters cite the need for
more time to work out technical glitches that are inevitably found in new software packages.  Several
commenters also argue that the wireless industry will need a longer transition period than was proposed in
the ULS Notice to obtain experience using ULS.  Some commenters urge the Commission to provide more
time for licensees to verify the accuracy of existing Commission records before ULS becomes operational. 
A number of alternative dates are suggested for the implementation of mandatory electronic filing.
Finally, several commenters oppose mandatory electronic filing for the foreseeable future.  

     22.  We conclude that the record supports requiring electronic filing for all services that are
licensed by auction.  This approach is consistent with our prior decision in the Part 1 Third Report and
Order to require electronic filing for FCC Form 175 applications filed prior to auction and for FCC Form
601 applications filed after the auction by winning bidders.  Our decision today will expand mandatory
electronic filing to include other types of applications in auctionable wireless services, including transfer
and assignment applications, renewals, license modifications, waiver requests, and notifications.  We note
that mandatory electronic filing will apply to licensees in services subject to auction even if the particular
license was not acquired by auction, e.g., cellular and paging licensees who obtained their licenses by
lottery will be required to file license-related applications and notifications electronically when these
mandatory filing requirements take effect.  We also require mandatory electronic filing of common carrier
services which are not subject to auction because they operate on shared spectrum (e.g., CMRS licenses
operating on shared 929 MHz paging channels or Business Radio frequencies below 800 MHz).  We
believe that common carriers generally have the resources and technical capacity to support electronic
filing.  

     23.  While we conclude that mandatory electronic filing should be implemented to the extent
discussed above, we will adopt a longer transition period than was proposed in the ULS Notice.  Since the
adoption of the Notice, development of ULS has proceeded quickly, and the deployment that has occurred
so far has demonstrated the ease and efficiency of electronic filing in ULS.  Nevertheless, the new rules,
forms, and procedures adopted in this order will not go into effect until late 1998, and full implementation
of the system is still a number of months away for some services.  We agree with commenters that
electronic filing will ultimately be more successful if a reasonable transition period is provided for
applicants and licensees to use ULS voluntarily before we implement mandatory electronic filing.  

     24.  Therefore, we will not impose the mandatory filing requirements adopted in this order for
services that are subject to licensing by auction and for common carrier services subject to auction until (1)
July 1, 1999, or (2) six months after application processing in ULS begins for that service, whichever is
later.  Previously, we have announced the commencement of use of ULS in a particular service by public
notice.  The Wireless Bureau will continue to release service-specific public notices announcing the
relevant commencement date for the processing of applications in ULS.  This transition period will provide
a reasonable time for wireless services applicants and licensees to make the transition to electronic filing.

     25.   In taking this action, we are not disturbing our prior decision in the Part 1 Third Report and
Order to require electronic filing as of January 1, 1999 of FCC Form 175s filed prior to an auction and
FCC Form 601s filed by winning bidders.  Electronic filing has been successfully used in the 800 MHz
SMR auction and the LMDS auction.  The latter auction was conducted after the adoption of the Part 1
Third Report and Order.  In light of this experience, we see no reason to adjust our timetable with respect
to mandatory electronic filing for auction-related short-form and long-form applications.

          b.  Exempt Wireless Services

     26.  Commenters also urge the Commission to exempt certain services or classes of users from
mandatory electronic filing.  These commenters argue that mandatory electronic filing would impose an
undue burden on persons and entities who have limited resources or technical expertise, or who lack access
to the necessary computer hardware and software.  APCO, for example, contends that many public safety
agencies do not have the ability to connect with the FCC via modem.  SBT argues that mandatory filing
would disproportionately impact small businesses, minorities, and others who do not have and cannot
afford access to computer technology.  ARRL contends that mandatory electronic filing would stand as a
barrier to access for many Amateur licensees.  GMRS licensees and licensee groups contend that
mandating electronic filing would stifle their service.  We are aware that certain, limited impediments that
might make it difficult for all licensees and applicants to communicate with the Commission electronically. 
For example, some persons still use party lines that may be inadequate to transmit the signals from modern
telecommunications devices like modems.
Accordingly, we conclude that the record broadly supports moving to mandatory electronic filing for
certain wireless services, but that electronic filing should remain optional in other services for the time
being.

     27.  For the time being, we will not extend mandatory electronic filing requirements to services that
are not subject to licensing by auction.  We agree with commenters who noted that in many of these
services, licensees consist primarily of individuals, small businesses, or public agencies that may lack
resources to convert quickly to electronic filing.  Therefore, manual filing will continue to be an option for
applicants and licensees in the following categories: (1) the Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio services for
shared spectrum, spectrum in the public safety pool below 746 MHz, and spectrum in the public safety
allocation above 746 MHz (however, Commission-certified frequency coordinators must file electronically;
see the following paragraph);  (2) the Part 97 Amateur Radio Service (however, Volunteer Examination
Coordinators must file electronically; see the following paragraph);  (3) the Part 95 General Mobile Radio
Service and Personal Radio Service (excluding 218-219 MHz Service licenses);  (4) the Part 80 Maritime
Services (excluding the VHF 156-162 MHz Public Coast Stations); (5) the Part 87 Aviation Services; (6)
Part 13 Commercial Radio Operators; and (7) Part 101 licensees who are also members of any of the
foregoing classes.  We note, however, that this decision could be subject to future modification.  As
computer and modem equipment becomes less costly and more available, we anticipate that electronic filing
will become feasible for most if not all wireless applicants and licensees.  We will review this issue in the
future and may extend mandatory electronic filing to any wireless service where we find that electronic
filing is both operationally feasible and cost-effective for licensees and applicants in the service.  Adoption
of mandatory electronic filing requirements for such services will not require further notice and comment,
but we will provide at least six months public notice before such a requirement will take effect.

     28.  We also note that in a number of the above services, wireless applications must be coordinated
prior to being filed with the Commission, and are often filed by the frequency coordinator on the applicant's
behalf.  We conclude that where wireless services applications are filed by frequency coordinators or other
Commission-certified entities such as Amateur Radio volunteer examiner-coordinators (VECs), such
applications must be filed electronically.  This requirement was proposed by several commenters, including
some coordinators.  Requiring frequency coordinators and VECs to file electronically will not impose a
hardship on these entities, because they have the incentive and the resources to develop electronic filing
capability as a service to their customers.  Indeed, many of the frequency coordinators for private land
mobile services already have electronic filing capability, and the Wireless Bureau has been working
extensively with the frequency coordinators to convert their electronic filing protocols for use in ULS. 
Electronic filing by coordinators will also provide an alternative for wireless services applicants and
licensees who are reluctant to file electronically themselves, and will increase the Commission's processing
efficiency because a large percentage of applications will be filed by frequency coordinators. 

          c.  Computer Facilities

     29.  Winstar supports our proposal to maintain computer facilities to allow members of the public
to file forms and pleadings electronically because supplying these facilities will allow applicants without
computer access to make use of ULS.  Additionally, Winstar advocates that the Commission maintain
public computer facilities to allow ULS to be accessed for the purpose of conducting license and
application searches.  On the other hand, W5YI argues that public computer facilities would go unused
due to the wide availability of independent filing services.  W5YI asserts that privatization of government
functions conserves the federal budget, and transfers the cost of the service to those who reap the benefits. 
We believe that, pursuant to section 309(j)(3)(B) of the Act, we have an obligation to facilitate access to
ULS for members of the public that lack computer access or have other technological problems that hinder
access to ULS.  We will provide computer terminals in our Public Reference Room.  Users of the
Commission's public computer facilities will be permitted to view ULS publicly available information or
file wireless services applications.  

     30.  We also are committed to making electronic filing and other electronic applications of ULS
accessible to persons with disabilities to the fullest extent possible.  Although we did not receive specific
comments on this issue, we note that ULS is subject to the program accessibility requirements of section
1.850 of the Commission's rules.  In addition, since the adoption of the ULS Notice, Congress has revised
the requirements for access by persons with disabilities to federal information technology programs in the
Workforce Improvement Act of 1998.  Section 508 of the Act provides that persons with disabilities and
non-disabled persons must have comparable access and ability to use electronic technology and
information, and federal agencies must take steps to ensure such comparable access for persons with
disabilities unless an undue burden would be imposed.  If an undue burden would be imposed, the agency
must provide an alternative means of access that allows persons with disabilities to access and use the
information.   

     31.  In comparison to our current licensing systems, we anticipate that ULS will provide greater
access to the Commission's application and licensing databases for persons with disabilities.  Most
fundamentally, ULS benefits many persons with disabilities because it enhances the ability of the public to
file applications and access licensing data remotely.  In addition, as we pointed out in the ULS Notice, ULS
has some specific features that will make it easier for persons with particular disabilities to use the
electronic filing and public access functions.  For example, the ULS technical support hotline will have
text telephone capabilities (TTY) for persons with hearing or speech disabilities, and ULS will allow
individuals who are blind or who have low vision to determine the status of pending license applications
through a touch tone phone using Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology.

     32.  While it is our goal to maximize access to ULS for persons with disabilities, we recognize that
in some instances, it may be difficult for persons with some disabilities to use the electronic access
components of the system as currently configured.  In particular, the accessibility of ULS forms and certain
types of electronic files raises complex technical issues.  We will continue to work on these issues and fully
expect that with advances in technology, we will be able to enhance the accessibility of ULS for persons
with disabilities.  In the interim, we will provide accommodations to individuals with disabilities who are
unable to fully use ULS on a case-by-case basis.


     3.  Copy and Microfiche Requirements

     33.  Background.  In 1985, the Commission required that cellular applicants in the top-90 and
above markets file initial cellular applications on microfiche.  Subsequently, the Commission expanded its
use of microfiche.  The Commission adopted an order in 1988 requiring that all non-cellular and non-initial
cellular Mobile Services Division applications be submitted on microfiche.  The Commission stated its
belief that the use of microfiche would enable the Commission to serve the public in a more efficient,
secure, and expeditious manner and would result in more efficient use of Commission space.

     34.  In the ULS Notice, we proposed to amend the Commission's rules so that applicants or
licensees that file applications electronically would not be required to provide paper copies, diskettes, or
microfiche.  We tentatively concluded that these requirements are unnecessary under ULS because all
information will be available on-line to interested parties.  In addition, we stated that data filed on paper
will be entered or scanned, as necessary, to allow access to it in the same fashion as electronically filed
information.  We sought comment on our proposal, and on whether it would impose a significant burden
on paper filers to require them to file a diskette containing an electronic copy of all attachments and
exhibits.

     35.  Discussion.  AASHTO supports our proposal to enter or scan manually filed data so that it
will be available in the same manner as electronically-filed information.  To the extent that paper filing
will be permitted under the Commission's rules, we will enter or scan data filed on paper as necessary to
make it available in ULS in the same fashion as electronically filed information.  In light of our decision to
enter or scan manually filed data, we will no longer require the submission of microfiche by applicants or
licensees, whether filing manually or electronically.  We required the submission of microfiche to enable us
to permanently store application records without the necessity of storing bulky paper files.  The ULS
system makes this requirement obsolete because all applications will be stored electronically.

     36.  AT&T Wireless, BAM, and Nextel support our proposal to eliminate the filing of
supplemental paper copies or diskettes for electronic filers.  They agree that such requirements would be
unnecessary under ULS.  We conclude that the filing of paper copies or diskettes is unnecessary when
filing electronically because all information will be available to interested parties on-line.  We therefore
adopt our proposal to eliminate the requirement that electronic filers submit paper copies or diskettes.

     37.  BAM and Nextel support a requirement that paper applications be accompanied by a diskette
containing the complete application and any exhibits.  Nextel states that requiring paper filers to submit a
diskette would not impose a significant burden, and that the requirement would likely ease the
administrative burden on the Commission.  While we encourage the submission of a diskette when filing a
paper application, we find that our decision to enter or scan data makes such a requirement unnecessary.  


     4.  Electronic Filing of Pleadings Associated with Applications

     38.  Background.  Section 1.49 of the Commission's rules requires that pleadings and documents
filed in any Commission proceeding be filed on paper.  In the ULS Notice, we proposed modifying our
Part 1 rules to allow electronic filing in ULS of pleadings associated with wireless applications, including
petitions to deny, petitions for reconsideration, applications for review, motions for extension of time, and
opposition and reply pleadings related to such filings.  Since the adoption of the ULS Notice, we modified
the Commission's rules to allow electronic filing of comments in all rulemaking proceedings. 

     39.  We anticipated that our proposal to allow electronic filing of pleadings in ULS would allow
the system to quickly and easily associate pleadings with applications and make such pleadings readily
available to the public efficiently.  Initially, we determined that parties filing pleadings electronically should
continue to serve paper copies on all interested parties.  We also sought comment on whether to allow
electronic filing of other WTB pleadings that were not associated with a particular application or a
docketed proceeding (e.g. requests to stay filing deadlines).  Finally, we sought comment on whether to
require parties filing paper pleadings to submit a copy of the pleading on diskette.

     40.  Discussion.  Virtually all commenters agree that we should permit electronic filing of
pleadings associated with applications.  Motorola observes that electronic filing of pleadings is consistent
with our goal of "making all licensing information available to interested parties and the public [because]
electronic filing of pleadings would make it convenient for interested parties and the public to download all
of the comments in a given proceeding."  AAR and Nextel believe electronic filing of pleadings associated
with applications will result in speedier, less costly filings and timely public access.  BAM notes
immediate and full access to pleadings is critical given that responsive pleadings are time sensitive and
current service rules do not require formal service for all informal objections or comments on specific
applications.  Only one commenter, FIT, argues that the need for electronic filing is not compelling
because these pleadings relate to specific applications,  and are normally of interest only to the parties
involved and paper copies can be distributed easily to interested parties and Commission personnel. 

     41.  We agree with the majority of commenters that we should encourage electronic filing in ULS
of pleadings associated with applications.  Electronic filing of pleadings will reduce parties' filing and
research costs, make it easier for parties to find and review filed pleadings, and will allow the public greater
access to our proceedings.  Implementing electronic filing of pleadings in ULS is also consistent with our
recent decision establishing the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) for electronic submission of
comments in rulemaking proceedings.  In both instances, we are fulfilling our commitment to use new
information technologies to provide access to our processes and to serve the public.

     42.  Although we believe it is in the public interest to allow electronic filing of pleadings associated
with applications, we must consider a number of issues raised by the commenters that may affect the ability
of the parties to obtain electronically filed pleadings.  The commenters asserted that lack of access to
equipment and software, validity of electronic signatures, proper service of copies of pleadings, and filing
of diskette copies of the pleadings could affect the ability of a party to file pleadings associated with
applications.

     43.  First, while supporting electronic filing of pleadings, FCBA cautions that we should consider
the interests of parties who have standing to file pleadings but may lack the correct computers and
appropriate software.  We agree, and emphasize that electronic filing of pleadings in ULS is optional, not
mandatory.  However, it is also important to note that, as in the case of ECFS, we have designed ULS to
accept filings generated in most of the commonly used electronic document formats, including Microsoft
Word, WordPerfect, Adobe Acrobat, and ASCII text, as well as Microsoft Excel for spreadsheets.  For
viewing and printing, ULS will automatically convert these files into Adobe Acrobat Portable Document
Format (PDF) so that users can access the formatted files even if they do not have the word processor used
to create the document.  Over time, as users' needs change and technology advances, we will add
additional file formats if technically feasible.     

     44.  Second, other commenters express concern that they may lack access to scanning equipment
needed to make legible digital copies of paper documents.  We will allow parties who file pleadings
electronically to file a paper copy of exhibits and other attachments that cannot be converted to electronic
form.  The electronic filer should submit the paper filing on the same day as the electronic filing and
reference the paper filing in attachments to the pleading.  

     45.  Third, a few commenters question whether electronic filing is consistent with our signature
requirements for pleadings or suitable for filing documents that are signed under penalty of perjury.  As
we discussed in the ECFS R&O, our signature requirements do not pose an obstacle to electronic filing of
pleadings.  The Commission's rules already provide for electronic signatures on applications, and we
similarly amend our pleading rules to allow electronic signatures on pleadings.     

     46.  Fourth, with respect to service of electronically filed pleadings, most commenters agree with
our proposal to require filers to serve paper copies on any interested parties.  As in the ECFS R&O,
however, we will allow electronic service where the party to be served consents to electronic service in
advance.  We are exploring adding a field in ULS to allow parties to check whether they will accept
electronic service.  In the meantime, parties should indicate their willingness to accept electronic filing in
their pleadings.  Additionally, we believe that when a party has agreed to electronic service of a document,
the three-day mailing rule for computation of time purposes is inappropriate.  As we decided in the ECFS
R&O, when parties agree to electronic service, service will be considered the same as facsimile service.

     47.  Finally, some commenters believe we should allow paper-filed pleadings but require the
submission of a diskette copy of the pleading, perhaps containing files in several word processing formats
as well as in ASCII format.  As in the case of paper filed applications, we conclude that it is better at this
point to encourage, rather than require, parties filing paper pleadings to include a diskette.


     5.  Letter Requests

     48.   Background.  Currently, in some wireless services, the Commission's rules permit letter
requests instead of formal applications for certain actions.  These rules result in thousands of letter
requests annually that are not in a suitable format for entry into database fields.  Letter requests, which
cannot be entered into ULS, require separate processing tracks, rather than the uniform licensing process
we seek to establish here.  Under ULS, Form 601 is the designated form for filing applications,
modifications, renewals, amendments, extensions, cancellations, requests for special temporary authority,
and name and address changes for all wireless services, except Maritime, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and
Commercial Operator, and General Mobile Radio Services.  The Form 605 will be used in the named
services to file new applications, modifications, amendments, renewals, cancellations, withdrawals, or
requests for duplicate copies of licenses.  We did not propose to amend the fee schedule in the ULS Notice,
so that matters heretofore filed by letter request and not subject to a fee would continue not to require a fee
under our universal filing system.

     49.  In the ULS Notice, we requested comments on whether requiring the filing of ULS forms for
wireless licenses or applications rather than continuing to accept and process letter requests serves the
public interest.  Additionally, we invited comments concerning whether 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, should be eliminated.

     50.  Discussion.  Replacement of letter requests with forms received support from commenters. 
For example, the FCBA ". . . applauds the Commission's proposal to streamline and simplify the
application process and the forms used in connection with wireless authorizations. . . "  Nextel agrees
that letter requests should be eliminated and replaced by forms.  We conclude that using form filing, in
certain circumstances, instead of letter requests will facilitate implementation of ULS, reduce applicant and
licensee burdens, increase efficiency and better serve the public interest.  Form 601 shall be used to file
applications, modifications, renewals, amendments, extensions, cancellations, special temporary
authorizations, and name and address changes. Where there is a need for Commission action regarding
license application which cannot be addressed by Forms 601, 603 or 605, letter requests may continue to
be submitted to the Commission for further resolution.  

     51.  Another reservation concerned the use of forms for special temporary authorizations (STAs)
because commenters feared FCC staff would not be alerted to the fact that the applicant is making an STA
filing that needed immediate attention.  We recognize the need for prompt identification and resolution of
STA requests.  Typically, where an immediate STA is required because of an emergency or natural
disaster, the Commission will accept requests by telephone or fax, and such requests can be granted
orally.  In these circumstances, the rules require that an application be submitted as soon as possible
after the initial request. Under the rules we adopt in this proceeding, the procedures for requesting an
emergency STA by telephone or fax remain unchanged.  The subsequent application will now be submitted
on Form 601 or Form 605 with an exhibit to provide an explanation of the emergency circumstances.  For
instance, a small paging operator, who needs an emergency STA, will be able to call the Commission and
speak with a knowledgeable employee who can approve the STA while on the telephone.  This applicant
would subsequently submit Form 601 or Form 605 and an exhibit explaining the emergency.  In
circumstances where applicants or licensees submit requests for STAs using only the Forms 601 or 605,
they can be easily identified by the staff for expedited processing; Forms 601 and 605 ask all applicants or
licensees to identify if the request is for an STA.  Moreover, applicants or licensees continue to be able to
consult with the staff about the status of an STA request by telephone or in person, as is now the
practice. 

     52.  Comments by SBC Communications, Inc. and Nextel Communications, Inc. expressed
opposition to form filing if new fees would be assessed.  Nextel qualified its support of forms instead of
letter requests when it noted, ". . . Provided no filing fee is imposed, use of forms for such requests under
ULS should be less burdensome for the filer and should enable the Commission to improve its speed in
processing such minor requests . . . "  SBC suggests that letter requests should remain an option if form
filing would trigger filing fees for an otherwise non-feeable event.  We did not propose to amend the fee
schedule in the ULS Notice; therefore, matters heretofore filed by letter request and not subject to a fee will
continue to be free from any fee under ULS.  Additionally, we will provide a link to the Commission's
homepage for the public to examine our fee filing schedule.

     53.  FCBA anticipates a negative effect on small business licensees if letter requests are replaced
with forms.  Because manual filing would continue to be acceptable, the only "new" factor when
converting to forms is accessing the forms.  The forms would be available through the FCC website, by a
toll-free telephone call, toll-free TTY call, and by fax-on-demand service.  The easy accessibility of the
forms, we believe, will facilitate this less burdensome method of making requests to the Commission.  Once
parties have obtained one copy of Form 601, they may simply make as many copies of the form as they
need.  This is an added benefit of combining most application purposes on one form and should virtually
eliminate any inconvenience to parties once they have obtained a copy of Form 601.  Because forms
quickly identify a purpose, we believe that such requests will be more accurately and promptly processed. 
This benefit is three-fold; it helps Commission staff perform their duties more efficiently and facilitates a
more prompt response to the applicant, which makes information more readily available to the public.  In
order to have a universal licensing system, we must require standardized data fields and have access to the
correct and complete data to enter into those fields.  Letter requests simply do not provide information in a
format that is suitable for ULS.  We have taken this action to simplify the process for licensees, reduce
time-consuming, resource-intensive review by FCC staff to determine the purpose of STAs and letter
requests, and increase the public's assess to information.
 
      54.  Furthermore, FCBA opposes mandatory electronic filing of letter requests and suggests that
each applicant would use forms voluntarily if using forms benefits its organization.  We are requiring
that a form be used rather than a letter because of the overall benefit to the public which ULS will produce. 
In contrast to letter requests, requests filed on standardized forms are more quickly and easily processed,
are less likely to be misrouted or lost, and are more likely to contain all of the necessary information for the
staff to analyze the request, resulting in fewer delays.  We will provide a six month implementation period
that allows licensees time to prepare to access, review and use the forms.  The six month implementation
period will begin following the effective date of this order.  As mentioned earlier, easy access makes form
use convenient for all licensees, large and small.


B.  Standardization of Practices and Procedures for WTB Applications and Authorizations

     1.  Consolidation of Procedural Rules in Part 1
          
     55.  Background.  In the ULS Notice, we proposed to consolidate all wireless services procedural
rules into Part 1.  Until now our practice has been to adopt service-specific rules for processing
applications in each particular service.  As a result, the public must familiarize itself with procedural rules
for each service prior to filing an application.  This biennial review and the implementation of ULS provide
a unique opportunity for us to consolidate the wireless services procedural rules under Part 1.  We
proposed to unify these disparate service rules, and sought comment on eliminating outdated or
unnecessary procedural rules and conforming inconsistencies in the Commission's rules where feasible. 
However, we also recognized that certain service-specific rules must be retained to further technical,
operational or policy considerations for that service.  We sought comment on which of our proposed rules
may be unnecessary or inconsistent, and whether retaining certain service-specific rules was warranted.

     56.  Discussion.  We adopt our consolidation proposals set forth in the ULS Notice and will
streamline our wireless services procedural rules under Part 1, with the exception of those service-specific
rules that require retention.  Only one commenter, CenturyTel, opposes this proposal, contending that
consolidating the procedural rules for all wireless services would increase the regulatory burden on private
wireless licensees.  We conclude that CenturyTel's concerns are misplaced.  By consolidating our
procedural rules in Part 1, we improve the consistency of the Commission's rules across wireless services
and provide a single point of reference for applicants, licensees, and the public seeking information
regarding our licensing procedures.  This consolidation will reduce confusion among applicants or
licensees, increase the probability that filings will be done correctly, accelerate the application process, and
speed wireless service to the public. 

     57.   Commenters make a wide variety of specific suggestions for modifying particular procedural
rules in Part 1.  We have adopted many of these suggestions, which we discuss in greater detail in the
following sections.  In addition, some commenters propose that we consolidate additional service-specific
rules into Part 1.  SBC, for example, identifies eleven rules currently in Parts 22, 24 and 101 that it
recommends be moved to Part 1.  SBC also suggests that developmental authorizations and incidental
communication services also be addressed in Part 24 to create regulatory parity.  Because we believe that
these proposals are beyond the scope of the proceeding, we will consider them when we undertake further
streamlining and consolidation of these rules in subsequent proceedings.  Likewise, the Wireless Bureau
has recently released a public notice seeking comment on PCIA's letter to the Commission proposing that
wireless regulations be further streamlined.  To the extent they are not addressed herein, we will address
PCIA's proposals in further proceedings in this docket and other dockets as appropriate.


     2.  Standardization of Rules Regarding Major and Minor Amendments

          a.  Consolidated Rule

     58.   Background  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 services.  In the ULS Notice, we therefore proposed to adopt a single rule in
Part 1 for purposes of defining whether an amendment to a wireless application or a request for a wireless
license modification is a major or minor change.  We proposed that these major and minor categories
should uniformly govern the filing date of applications in all wireless services.  As stated in the ULS
Notice, the distinction between major and minor application 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 filed date.  We did not
propose revising the types of applications which require public notice or frequency coordination.  

     59.   In proposing a single consolidated rule, however, we noted that some differentiation between
wireless services remains necessary.  First, we noted that where wireless services are licensed on a
geographic area basis, there are far fewer types of potential modifications than where licensing is site-
specific, because a geographic licensee can make technical modifications to its system without modifying
its license, provided it complies with basic operational and technical rules.  Where the license is site-
specific, by contrast, technical changes to the licensed facility (e.g., a change of coordinates, antenna
height, or power) require the Commission to modify the license.  Second, we noted that among site-specific
services, some differentiation is required in defining major and minor changes due to the differing technical
parameters governing site-based mobile and fixed services.  Within our proposed consolidated rule,
therefore, we proposed specific classifications of major and minor changes based on these different classes
of licenses.  

     60.  Discussion.  Commenters generally support our proposal to consolidate the Commission's
rules regarding major and minor modifications.  However, AirTouch and FCBA caution that we should
not overlook genuine differences between the wireless services in this regard, and express concern that our
consolidation not result in the imposition of new filing requirements on licensees and applicants.  Several
commenters also express concern that the proposed Part 1 rule could result in some changes that have been
traditionally classified as minor being reclassified as major changes.  These commenters oppose any such
reclassification and seek clarification of our tentative conclusions and proposed consolidated rule.  As
FCBA notes, this could have significant consequences because major and minor filings follow very
different procedural paths in the application process.

     61.  We conclude that a single rule in Part 1 that defines categories of major and minor changes for
all wireless services is consistent with our goals in this proceeding.  We agree with commenters, however,
that some modification and clarification of the rule is appropriate.  By creating a consolidated rule, it is not
our intent to change the substance of our existing definitions of major and minor changes, or to impose new
filing requirements on licensees and applicants.  Instead, our purpose is to adopt a consistent standard for
all wireless services, eliminate unnecessary or redundant rules, and retain service-specific rules where only
such rules are necessary because of the unique characteristics of the wireless service.  We therefore modify
our proposed rule in certain respects and offer the following clarifications.  

          b.  Major Changes for All Wireless Services

     62.  Background.  In the ULS Notice, we tentatively concluded that the following changes should
be considered major changes for all wireless 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;  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.

     63.   Discussion.  We adopt our tentative conclusions and define certain actions as major changes
for all wireless services, regardless of whether the service is licensed geographically or on a site-specific
basis.  We also clarify our consolidated rule to maintain consistency with our current service-specific rules
for major and minor changes.  These actions include initial and renewal applications, non-pro forma
transfers and assignments (include partitioning and disaggregation requests), applications that have
significant environmental effect, applications requiring frequency coordination, and applications requesting
an additional frequency or a frequency block that is not currently licensed to the applicant.  With respect to
this last category, we note that some commenters read our proposed rule as requiring geographic licensees
to file a major modification application every time they make internal system changes (e.g., frequency
changes, adding or moving an internal site, changing transmitter power) within their licensing area.  This
outcome was not our intent in the ULS Notice.  We agree with these commenters that in geographically
licensed services, internal site and frequency changes within the licensing area and on spectrum covered by
the license do not require Commission approval or notification except in very limited circumstances (e.g., a
site that requires approval under NEPA).  Similarly, in most site-based mobile services (e.g., paging,
SMR), licensees may make changes to internal sites without Commission notice or approval provided that
they do not expand the service area or interference contour of the system as a whole.  We have modified the
language of the final rule to avoid potential confusion on this issue.

     64.    Some commenters also expressed concern regarding our proposal to classify as major any
application or amendment that requires notification to the FAA under Part 17 of the Commission's rules. 
They point out that licensees must often obtain FAA clearance for internal sites in their systems, but
contend that this requirement should not require the filing of a major modification application with the
Commission.  We agree.  The purpose of FAA registration and notification is to maintain safety in air
navigation.  These purposes are accomplished by filing FAA Form 7460-1 with the FAA and obtaining
clearance for the facility in question.  However, not all actions that require FAA clearance have licensing
implications for the Commission.  In the case of an internal site that does not otherwise require Commission
notification or approval, the fact that FAA clearance is required does not give rise to such a requirement. 
Therefore, so long as the licensee complies with the FAA's requirements, there is no need for the licensee to
file a modification application or notification with the Commission.  Accordingly, we have deleted this
element of our proposed rule.  Tower owners continue to be responsible for notifying the FAA and
registering any FAA-approved towers with the Commission by using FCC Form 854.

     65.  In the ULS Notice, we stated that any request requiring frequency coordination would be
considered a major modification, but limited this provision to non-CMRS private land mobile services. 
AMTA seeks clarification of this proposal, noting that under Part 90 of the Commission's rules, certain
frequencies that are subject to frequency coordination requirements may be licensed to both CMRS and
PMRS systems.  As AMTA suggests, we will delete the exclusion of CMRS licensees from this
provision.  Most frequencies that are subject to frequency coordination are not available to CMRS
providers.  However, there are some instances in which CMRS providers may operate on coordinated
frequencies and, therefore, must comply with coordination requirements.  We see no reason to treat an
application that requires coordination as major in one instance and minor in another instance based on the
regulatory classification of the applicant.   

     66.  Motorola requests that we limit our proposed definitions for major modifications so that the
definitions will not apply to shared frequencies.  Motorola contends that this limitation will ensure that
approval of applications for shared frequencies is not unnecessarily delayed by use of procedures for major
filings that only have relevance to licensing on an exclusive basis.  We agree that classifying an
application as major may have different procedural consequences depending on whether the license is for
shared or exclusive spectrum.  However, we do not agree that our major modification definitions should not
apply to shared frequencies.  There are numerous instances in which an application could significantly
affect other licensees on a shared frequency, and should therefore be considered major.  We will therefore
apply our major change rule to both exclusive and shared frequencies as proposed.  

     67.  A number of commenters expressed concern regarding our proposed rule with respect to
changes of coordinates and increases in antenna height or power level for wireless services licensed on a
site-specific basis.  Commenters also sought clarification whether our rule would require site-based
licensees to file modification applications for changes to internal sites.  As noted above, we have
modified the language in our rule to make clear that a change in coordinates or an increase in antenna
height or power level for a site-specific license is not a major modification if it does not affect the
composite interference contour or defined service area of the system.  However, because we use different
technical criteria to define these parameters in particular services, we have determined that some service-
specific elements of our existing rules should be retained in the consolidated rule.  We have also retained
certain other service-specific criteria that were inadvertently deleted from our proposed rule.  For example,
our current rules regulating the use of fixed transmitters under Parts 22 and 90 were omitted from proposed
section 1.929 but are now incorporated in our consolidated rule.

          c.  Fixed Microwave Services

     68.  Background.  Regarding stations licensed to provide exclusively fixed point-to-point,
multipoint-to-point, or point-to-multipoint, communications on a site-specific basis, we proposed additional
actions which we would consider a major change.  Specifically, we proposed the following actions in the
ULS Notice: 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); 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.

     69.  Discussion.  With respect to fixed point-to-point, point-to-multipoint, and multipoint-to-
multipoint services licensed on a site-specific basis, we adopt additional criteria for distinguishing major
and minor changes that are based on the distinctive technical characteristics of these wireless services.  We
also adopt our proposal to treat multiple minor modifications as major if the cumulative effect of these
modifications would be a major change to the system.  We note that some commenters expressed concern
that the proposed rule was too imprecise for applicants and licensees to comprehend easily, and we have
endeavored to address these concerns with the rule we adopt today.  We conclude that the rule is
consistent with our existing policies for licensing microwave services.  Therefore, we will require
microwave licensees filing minor modifications to certify on Form 601 that the minor modifications do not
give rise to a cumulative major modification. 

      70.  We proposed to combine the two categories of minor filings in Part 101 into one category that
we would not place on public notice.  CellNet agrees with the NSMA opposition to the proposed
elimination of public notices for actions taken on fixed microwave applications.  CellNet states that it uses
the public notices to track the progress of applications and correct any errors that occur, and that public
notices help frequency coordinators ensure the accuracy of their databases.  We agree with CellNet and
NSMA that the release of public notices by fixed microwave licensees should continue, because it allows
frequency coordinators to ensure the accuracy of their databases. 

          d.  Minor Changes

     71.  Background.  We proposed to allow licensees to implement all minor changes, as defined in
the consolidated rule, without prior Commission approval.  Instead, licensees would be required only to
electronically notify the Commission within thirty days of implementing the change.  We noted the
possibility, however, that an applicant or licensee could submit multiple amendments or modifications each
of which would be individually considered minor but which would cumulatively constitute a major change. 
We proposed to treat such cumulative changes as major, and sought comment on how to apply this
standard to applicants and licensees.  

     72.  Discussion.  As proposed, we will define as minor changes all amendments to applications and
license modifications that are not specifically defined in our rule as major.  These minor changes include
but are not limited to:  (1) any pro forma transfer or assignment;  (2) any name change not involving a
change in ownership or control of the license; (3) changes to administrative information, e.g., address,
telephone number, or contact person; or (4) conversion of multiple site-specific licenses into a single wide-
area license, where there is no change in the licensee's composite interference contour or service area. 
We also adopt our proposal to allow licensees to make most minor modifications to their licenses without
prior Commission approval, provided they notify the Commission within thirty days after implementing the
change.  We clarify that prior approval continues to be required, however, for pro forma assignments and
transfers that are not subject to the Commission's forbearance policy, and for conversion of multiple site-
specific licenses into a single wide-area license.   

     73.  We also clarify that the notification requirement for minor changes only applies to changes to
the licensing or technical information contained on the license or that may be the subject of specific
notification requirements in the Commission's rules.  In general, minor system changes that do not affect
licensing information (e.g., internal sites in geographically licensed systems or internal sites within the
composite interference contour or service area) require no notification to the Commission, and we will not
collect such data in ULS.


     3.  Submission of Ownership Information 

     74.  Background.  We currently have various service-specific requirements for wireless applicants
and licensees to provide ownership information to confirm that these licensees are in compliance with
ownership restrictions imposed by the Communications Act as well as certain Commission rules.  In the
ULS Notice, we proposed to adopt a consolidated rule governing the submission of ownership information
by wireless applicants and licensees, and to create a ULS form for collection of such information.  We
noted that in the Part 1 Third Report and Order, the Commission had adopted a uniform set of ownership
reporting requirements in section 1.2112 of the rules for applicants and licensees in services subject to
auction.  We proposed to use the new ULS Form 602 to collect this information, which would enable
licensees in services subject to our competitive bidding rules to provide ownership information for all of
their licenses on a single form.  In accordance with section 1.2112, applicants or licensees would then be
required to update the form only as necessary when filing an additional license application or an application
for license assignment or transfer of control.  

     75.  To further the streamlining objectives of both ULS and the Part 1 proceeding, we also
proposed to eliminate all duplicative or inconsistent ownership reporting requirements in our service-
specific rules associated with wireless services subject to our competitive bidding requirements.  For
example, we noted that section 22.108 of the Commission's rules requires Part 22 applicants to report all
persons or entities who hold a five percent or greater ownership interest in the applicant, while section
1.2112  requires reporting only of parties with a ten percent or greater interest.  Accordingly, we proposed
to delete section 22.108 in order to remove this inconsistency and carry out the intent of the Part 1 Third
Report and Order and to conform our reporting requirements for such services.  In so doing, however, we
noted that we were not precluding the possibility of requiring certain applicants or licensees to provide
more specific information where necessary (e.g., to verify eligibility for small business status in an
auction).

     76.   Finally, we sought comment on whether to use the ULS system to collect ownership
information from licensees and applicants in wireless services for which our competitive bidding rules do
not apply.  Although we did not propose to collect ownership information in these services, we did
propose to require applicants and licensees in these services to disclose real-party in interest information
and certify that it is not a representative of a foreign government, as is currently required for all microwave
applicants or licensees in sections 101.7(a) and 101.19(a)(1).  We also sought comment on whether we
should expand the current ownership reporting requirements for applicants and licensees in these services. 
For example, we asked commenters to address whether commercial entities holding private wireless
licenses, i.e., railroads or utilities, should be required to submit ownership information for all of their
licenses regardless of whether the service was subject to our competitive bidding rules.  We tentatively
concluded that licenses held by governmental entities should not be subject to any ownership reporting
requirements.  We also tentatively concluded that due to the personal nature of the Amateur Radio Service,
General Mobile Radio Services and Commercial Radio Operators, extension of ownership reporting
requirements to these services was unnecessary.  We sought comment on these tentative conclusions.

     77.  Discussion.  As proposed, we will require applicants and licensees in wireless auctionable
services, subject to section 1.2112, to file or update Form 602 in connection with any initial license
application, renewal application, or application for assignment or transfer.  This decision, which we codify
in new section 1.919(e), merely implements the information collection requirements of section 1.2112(a) of
the Commission's rules as adopted in the Part 1 Third Report and Order.  These requirements apply to
all applicants or licensees in wireless services subject to our competitive bidding rules which are defined in
section 309 of the Act, as amended by the 1997 Budget Act.  We note that this requirement includes all
licensees in such services, regardless of whether the particular license in question was originally acquired
by auction, except the services listed as exempt in paragraph 24, supra.  For example, because all common
carrier licenses are subject to auction under section 309(j) of the Act where mutual exclusivity exists, we
treat them as subject to the reporting requirements of Part 1 even though some common carrier licensees
obtained their licenses before we had auction authority or can obtain licenses without going to auction
because they do not face mutually exclusive applications.  Thus, common carrier licensees who acquired
their licenses by lottery or by other means besides auction are subject to these ownership reporting
requirements when they apply for assignment, transfer, or renewal of a license.  

     78.  We emphasize that Form 602 is specific to the applicant or licensee rather than the particular
application.  Thus, an applicant for multiple licenses in an auction is required to file only one Form 602. 
Moreover, once the applicant or licensee files the form for the first time, it has no need to file the form with
subsequent applications, regardless of service, so long as the ownership information on the previous form
remains current.  Instead, ULS will associate all future applications filed by the same applicant with its
Form 602 already on file.  Moreover, if the Form 602 requires updating when a subsequent application is
filed, the applicant need not resubmit the entire form but can simply access the portions of the form that
require updating and submit the updated information electronically.  ULS will then replace the existing
information with the updated information.  These streamlined requirements made possible by ULS are
broadly supported by commenters.  

     79.  We also will not extend Form 602 filing obligations beyond those services that are subject to
our competitive bidding rules, except for common carrier licensees operating on spectrum that is not
subject to auctions (e.g., shared spectrum).  Numerous commenters interpreted our proposed section 1.919
as requiring applicants and licensees in private, non-auctioned services to file Form 602.  In fact, while we
did seek comment on whether ownership reporting requirements should be applied to these services, we did
not propose an expansion of these requirements beyond existing rules.  As commenters note, existing rules
do not require applicants or licensees in these services to report detailed ownership information.  Instead,
an applicant must typically identify the real party in interest to the application (if different from the
applicant), and certify that it is not a foreign government or a representative of a foreign government.
Because these questions are contained on Form 601, we agree that there is no need for filing a separate
Form 602 by applicants or licensees in these services.  

     80.  We also emphasize that Form 602 need only be filed or updated when the applicant is filing a
license application (either an initial application or a renewal application) or when the license is the subject
of an assignment or transfer of control.  Some commenters incorrectly interpreted the ULS Notice as
proposing that licensees be required to update Form 602 every time there is a minor change in the licensee's
ownership or management, e.g.,when a non-controlling investor changes or a new director is elected.  In
fact, it was not our intent to require applicants or licensees to update their ownership information when
such minor changes occur.  This submission is not required by section 1.2112, nor do we impose such a
requirement here.  We also decline to impose a requirement that Form 602 be updated annually, as was
suggested by FCBA.  Although such a requirement might improve the accuracy of ownership
information on file with the Commission, we have concluded that it is sufficient to require updates only in
connection with significant licensing events.  We decline to revisit that decision in this proceeding. 
However, we note that licensees may voluntarily update their Form 602 information at any time, whether or
not the update is required.  

     81.  A number of commenters object to the level of detail about ownership that we are requiring on
Form 602.  AT&T, BAM, and FCBA, for example, argue that our proposed requirement to identify direct
and indirect owners with at least a ten-percent interest in the licensee is excessive and burdensome, because
in most instances, a ten-percent owner does not control the licensee.  However, the elements of Form 602
to which  these commenters object simply track the ownership reporting requirements that we adopted in
the Part 1 proceeding.  Thus, to the extent that commenters object to these reporting requirements, their
arguments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.  Moreover, we note that in the case of PCS and Part
22 licensees, the Part 1 Third Report and Order actually narrowed the scope of applicable ownership
reporting requirements, which previously required reporting of all interestholders down to the five-percent
level.  In furtherance of the streamlining goals of the Part 1 Third Report and Order, we also eliminate
the more stringent service-specific reporting requirements of sections 22.108 and 24.813, which are
inconsistent with section 1.2112. 

     82.  After review of the comments, we also conclude that there is no basis in the record for
expanding ownership reporting requirements designed for auctioned services to non-auctioned services.  We
have revised proposed section 1.919 to remove any possible ambiguity on this issue.  As commenters
uniformly pointed out, these operations do not affect the competitive balance in the marketplace. 
Moreover, we will not extend ownership reporting requirements to entities, such as railroads or utilities,
that hold only private wireless licenses in non-auctioned services.  Due to the fact that these operations are
for internal communications, ownership information for the purpose of monitoring the competitive
marketplace is not necessary.  

     83.  While we do not extend ownership reporting requirements to exempt services as discussed
supra, we will continue to require all applicants and licensees who use Form 601, including those in non-
auctioned services, to provide real-party-in-interest information and to certify that they are not
representatives of foreign governments.  We also clarify the real-party-in-interest definition in the
instructions to Form 601, as requested by FCBA, and revise Form 601 to allow identification of multiple
real-parties-in-interest where control of the license is shared by more than one person or entity.  


     4.  Frequency Coordination of Amendment and Modification Applications

     84.  Background.  In the ULS Notice, we noted that the Commission's rules in  Parts 90 and 101
differ with regard to coordination requirements for major technical amendments and modifications; our goal
is to make rules as consistent as possible among the wireless services.  Section 90.175 of the Commission's
rules identifies numerous changes that do not require frequency coordination, including minor technical
changes.  Section 101.103(d), on the other hand, requires a new coordination statement for minor
technical changes.  Accordingly, in the ULS Notice, we proposed to amend section 101.103 by requiring
frequency coordination only for those applicants or licensees filing amendments and modifications that
involve changes to technical parameters that are classified as major in accordance with the new unified
standards of section 1.929 of the Commission's rules.  Thus, licensees making minor changes to technical
parameters would only be required to notify the Commission, as well as the entity(ies) with which they
normally engage in frequency coordination, of the minor change.  In seeking comment on this proposal, we
noted that the proposed change to section 101.103 will provide uniformity among the rules for all of the
affected services.

     85.  Discussion.  The majority of commenters addressing this issue support the proposed
amendment to section 101.103 because it will provide uniformity in the rules and support their consistent
application.  APCO recommends that the FCC Form 601 Instructions direct applicants to send all
applications which contain one or more "major" items or request a new frequency directly to the
appropriate frequency coordinator.  FCBA, while supporting this proposal, urges the Commission to be
consistent in defining "major" and "minor" throughout its rules.  PCIA recommends that the notification
provision specifically requires that the appropriate frequency advisory committee be furnished with an
exact copy of the form or document filed with the Commission which indicates the change, in order to
facilitate its frequency recommendations. 

     86.  NSMA and Comsearch, on the other hand, both argue that the Commission should not amend
the Part 101 procedures to allow notification for minor technical amendments and modifications.  NSMA
states that the reporting of all changes, whether minor or major, will allow coordinators to maintain
accurate databases and enhance their ability to make interference decisions.  Comsearch argues that this
standard should be maintained separate and apart from the definition of major and minor changes for filing
purposes.  Comsearch and FCBA believe that differences in Part 90 and Part 101 coordination
mechanisms may justify different treatment under the rules.  Under Part 101, explains Comsearch, all
potentially-affected parties are notified of any changes, no matter how minor, and this procedure has
proved very successful in helping to identify and avoid potential interference problems.  Along these
lines, NSMA contends that should the Commission adopt this proposal, the phrase "entity(ies) with which it
normally engages in frequency coordination" should be clarified to indicate that notice of an amendment or
modification of coordinates be sent to all parties involved in the original coordination, and not simply the
original coordinator.  Comsearch responds to other commenters who contend that coordination of minor
changes is unnecessary, stating its belief that it is inappropriate to equate application filing requirements
(major versus minor) with coordination requirements, because, it argues, "minor" changes can significantly
increase the potential for interference.  As for claims that coordination of minor changes increases
financial burdens, Comsearch notes that Part 101 has a "notification only" mechanism that is routinely
completed in one day, and, further, rectifying interference conflicts after they have occurred is significantly
more expensive and time consuming for all involved parties.  

     87.  We conclude that we will modify section 101.103 as proposed in the ULS Notice because our
concern was the same as the FCBA's, namely that we need to make the Commission's rules consistent. 
This modification serves that goal by making Parts 90 and 101 consistent on the issue of when a new
coordination is necessary, building on our establishment, in new section 1.929 of the Commission's rules, of
"major" and "minor" categories that are as uniform as possible.  Because a central component of the
criteria in section 1.929 is whether an amendment or modification will materially alter the original
engineering and technical information of an application or license, we are confident that only those changes
considered major have the potential to impact an original coordination enough to merit a new coordination. 
In other words, coordinators seldom, if ever, should need to  alter substantially frequency and/or site
recommendations based on a minor amendment to an application or modification of a license.  As a result,
we believe that there is insufficient justification to continue to require licensees and applicants to obtain a
new coordination analysis for minor amendments and modifications.  

     88.  We are confident that requiring the licensee or applicant to notify the Commission and the
entity(ies) with which it normally engages in coordination is sufficient to allow coordinators, and other
interested parties, to remain aware of such changes and keep their databases up-to-date.  We find it
unnecessary to broaden our proposed language to include "all parties involved in the original coordination." 
Should the licensee notify only the coordinator of a minor change, other "interested" parties can obtain the
information from the coordinator.  We do not believe that the universe of parties affected by, or interested
in, minor changes, as defined in new section 1.929, will be significant.


     5.  Returns and Dismissals of Incomplete or Defective Applications

     89.  Background.  Our current regulations contain a variety of service-specific rules and
procedures for dismissal or return of incomplete or facially defective applications.  In the ULS Notice, we
proposed to unify our filing rules so that all wireless applicants and licensees would be subject to consistent
rules regarding dismissals and returns.  We noted, however, that in the case of interactively filed
electronic applications, ULS would be able to identify and alert the applicant to certain types of application
errors in real time, thus enabling the applicant to make immediate corrections before submitting the
application.  However, in the case of batch-filed electronic applications and manual filed applications, the
same errors would not be detected until after the application was filed.  We therefore proposed to establish
procedures so that batch, interactive, and manual filers would be treated similarly with respect to
application errors.  In the case of minor defects or missing information, we proposed that an applicant who
filed a paper application that was accepted by ULS be notified of the defect and given thirty days to file a
corrected application.  We also proposed several exceptions to the thirty-day right to refile.  First, if the
applicant submitted a major amendment, the applicant's ability to refile would depend on whether major
amendments were allowed under the circumstances.  Second, we proposed that certain defects in an
application would result in immediate dismissal.  These defects included filing the application without a
sufficient fee, filing outside of an applicable filing window, or filing an application without a valid
signature.  Finally, we proposed to establish procedures for handling and protecting filings in ULS for
which the applicant seeks confidential treatment. 

     90.  Discussion.  We adopt a consolidated rule in Part 1 governing the filing of incomplete or
otherwise defective applications in all wireless services, and we modify the proposal in the ULS Notice to
further limit the circumstances under which defective applications will be returned for correction.  Under
the consolidated rule, as under existing rules, the Commission has the discretion to return applications for
correction of minor filing errors, but it also has the authority to dismiss any incomplete or defective
application without prejudice.  Pursuant to this rule, and as proposed in the ULS Notice, we will
automatically dismiss any application that is defective because the applicant failed to sign the application,
failed to pay the required filing fee, or filed outside of the applicable filing window.  These  defects are fatal
to the consideration of the application.  This policy ensures equal treatment regardless of the manner in
which the application is filed.  In the case of an interactive electronic filing, submitting the application with
any of these defects would be impossible, because ULS will automatically reject the application as
defective on its face.  To ensure equivalent treatment of electronically batch-filed or manually filed
applications that are unsigned, untimely, or not fee-compliant, such applications will be automatically
dismissed by ULS after they are initially entered into the system.  Accordingly, we remove those sections of
the rules that provided for return and correction of applications with errors."

     91.  We will also dismiss batch-filed and manually filed applications with other types of defects
that are automatically screened by ULS when an application is interactively filed, e.g., missing technical
data or technical parameters that are inconsistent with the rules (where no waiver request is filed).  In the
ULS Notice, we proposed that aside from unsigned, untimely, and non-fee-compliant applications, we
would return batch-filed and manually filed applications that are entered into the system and subsequently
discovered to have errors, even if those errors were of the type that would have prevented the application
from being filed interactively because they would have been automatically screened by ULS.  On further
consideration, we conclude that in some circumstances,  this approach could inadvertently cause manual
and batch-filers to have an advantage over interactive filers.  For example, if we returned the application of
a manual filer who omitted necessary technical data, the filer would have additional time to obtain the data
and amend the application without losing its filing priority based on the initial filing date.  However, an
applicant who files an electronic application interactively would not have the same opportunity, because the
system would identify the defect while the application was being filled out by the applicant.  The system
would then prompt the applicant to correct the application, and if the necessary information could not be
obtained before the filing window closed, the applicant could miss its filing deadline.  To avoid this
disparity, which might otherwise discourage electronic filing, we will dismiss manual and batch-filed
applications with screenable errors of this type after they are initially entered into the system.  Such
dismissal will be without prejudice to the right of the applicant to refile, provided the relevant application
window remains open.
    
     92.  While we will generally dismiss defective or incomplete applications, we retain the discretion
to return an application for correction if circumstances warrant.  In such cases, we will adopt the return
procedures proposed in the ULS Notice, i.e., the application will be returned to the applicant, and the
applicant will have thirty days from the date the notification is sent to file an amended application
correcting the defect.  Although some commenters supported a longer period to amend, such as sixty or 120
days, we agree with FCBA that thirty days is ample time for an applicant to submit corrections. 
Moreover, in some instances, we believe it is appropriate to require an applicant to submit an amended
application in less than thirty days.  Therefore, we provide that applicants may be required to amend in less
than thirty days, so long as the return notice clearly specifies the amount of time the applicant has to file the
amendment.  We also delete those service-specific rules that provided a longer period for applicants to
submit corrections. 

     93.  When an application is returned for correction, we will hold the application for the designated
period so that a corrected application may be filed.  If the applicant files a timely corrected application, it
will ordinarily be processed as a minor amendment in accordance with the Commission's rules.  Thus, it
will have no effect on the initial filing date of the application or the applicant's filing priority.  If, however,
the amendment made by the applicant is not a simple correction but constitutes a major amendment to the
application, it will be governed by the rules and procedures applicable to major amendments, i.e., it will be
treated as a new application with a new filing date.  Finally, if the applicant fails to submit an amended
application within the period specified in the notification, the application will be subject to dismissal for
failure to prosecute.
      
     94.  Finally, we adopt the proposal set forth in the ULS Notice regarding the protection of
confidential information filed in ULS, which was supported by the FCBA.  The basic elements of that
proposal entailed putting 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.  Should the
Commission decide not to grant a request for confidential treatment, the applicant will be so informed so
that it may determine whether to maintain the applications as filed, to amend the application by deleting the
attachments, or to withdraw the application or filing.  The FCBA also urges the Commission to take
other measures to protect confidential information against inadvertent or accidental disclosure, such as
maintaining it in a secure database or file separate from other application information.  We believe that
the safeguards we have identified will be sufficient to protect against inadvertent disclosure of confidential
information.  However, we will continue to explore other safeguards to increase the level of protection
afforded to applicants and licensees.


     6.  Discontinuation of "Reinstatement" Applications

     95.  Background.  Under current rules, licensees in the Commercial Radio Operator Service,
PLMRS, Amateur Radio Service, and Fixed Microwave Radio Services, who fail to file timely renewal
applications are afforded a thirty-day period following the expiration of their licenses in which to request
reinstatement.  Although this practice was instituted due to the large number of late-filed applications in
these services, we observed in the ULS Notice that it is inconsistent with other wireless service licensing
rules where reinstatement is not permitted.  With the implementation of ULS presenting a unique
opportunity to establish regulatory symmetry among all wireless services, the ULS Notice proposed to use
ULS for automatic license pre-expiration notification to all licenses, explaining that this notification would
eliminate the reinstatement period and instead automatically cancel the license following expiration.    

     96.  Discussion.  We will adopt our proposal to eliminate reinstatement procedures in those
wireless services that currently allow such applications, and instead use ULS to provide all licensees with
pre-expiration notification ninety days prior to the expiration of their licenses.  Such notification will be
sent by mail to the point of contact listed in the ULS database for each callsign.
We conclude that notifying wireless radio licensees of the expiration of their licenses at least ninety days
prior to the relevant deadline is reasonable.  Our decision to use this reminder letter as a convenience to
licensees does not in any way absolve licensees from timely filing their renewal applications.  Failure to file
for license renewal before the end of the license term will result in automatic cancellation of the license. 
Our proposal received support from several commenters and is consistent with the purpose of this
proceeding of implementing consistent licensing procedures wherever feasible.  All licensees are responsible
for knowing the terms of their licenses and for filing a timely renewal application if they seek to operate
beyond that term.  We clarify, however, that our decision to eliminate reinstatement procedures does not
affect the renewal process for for Commercial Radio Operators Licenses or Amateur licensees   Unlike
licensees in other services, Commercial Radio Operators and Amateurs obtain their authorizations by
taking and passing an examination.  Our current rules provide that Commercial Radio Operators may
renew their its authorizations up to five years after expiration and that Amateurs may renew their licenses
up to two years after license expiration without having to retake the required examinations.  We see no
reason to modify these rules, which recognize that a licensee that  has previously passed an examination
does not need to demonstrate again his or her knowledge of the required material.  

     97.  Among the commenters that urge the Commission to retain reinstatement procedures,  the
majority are licensees, or are involved with licensees, in services which currently have such mechanisms. 
Some commenters suggest extending such procedures to other services, such as the Commercial Mobile
Radio Services (CMRS).  Commenters' reasons for supporting reinstatement vary, from arguing its
importance to licensees in services subject to filing freezes or relicensing on only a secondary basis, to
discussing the potential for many private wireless licensees to file their renewal applications late since use
of their authorizations is secondary to their primary business operations.  We are not persuaded by
arguments that removing these reinstatement procedures will result in too severe a punishment for
inadvertent failures to file renewal applications.  Elimination of the reinstatement period will benefit all
licensees and entities interested in acquiring abandoned spectrum.  Our action herein will also facilitate the
Commission's ability to efficiently and quickly perform its licensing responsibilities by reducing the amount
of late-filed renewal applications and eliminating the processing of reinstatement applications.  We believe
that eliminating reinstatement applications is appropriate because licensees will have direct notification that
their licenses are about to expire and, therefore, the responsibility to file a timely renewal application will
lie where it belongs, namely in the hands of the licensee.  Finally, we believe that interactive electronic
filing will make it easier for all licensees to timely file renewal applications.  Further, licensees should be
able to obtain the necessary renewal form more easily than ever before as Commission forms are widely
available to the public through the FCC world wide web page, via a toll free telephone number, via a
toll free TTY number, and through a fax-on-demand service.  We will not implement this decision to
eliminate reinstatement applications for any wireless service until (1) July 1, 1999, or (2) six months after
the commencement of application processing in ULS for that service, whichever is later.  This transition
period will provide a reasonable time for applicants and licensees to familiarize themselves with this
procedure.

     98.  We note that FCBA argues that these changes will result in an increase, rather than a decrease,
in the filing of pleadings and petitions.  In response, we clarify that the correct procedure for a licensee
that has allowed its license to lapse is to file a new application, and if necessary, a request for special
temporary operating authority.  We are confident that the ULS notification procedure will prompt licensees
to file their renewal applications on time.  We also anticipate that ULS will produce staffing efficiencies
that will streamline the consideration of any requests for special temporary authority.  We conclude that
this action serves the public interest because it will improve the efficiency with which the Commission
makes spectrum available for reuse after a license has lapsed.  Finally, the ULS notification procedure does
not replace the license renewal provisions set forth in the Commission's rules.  Accordingly, even if a
licensee does not receive a renewal reminder notice, the licensee still must timely file its renewal
application.  Also, not receiving a renewal reminder notice does not excuse the licensee's failure to seek a
timely renewal.

     99.  We conclude that we will not adopt a separate and distinct procedure for public safety and
local government licensees.  We agree with APCO that the consequences of the cancellation of a public
safety license potentially fall not only on the licensee but on the public which relies on the licensee to
protect the safety of life and property.  Nonetheless, for the same reasons that other licensees must file
their renewal applications on time, so must public safety licensees.  Public safety entities are acutely aware
of the value of their licenses, and we believe that with the benefit of their own systems for taking
responsibility for their licenses, and with the help of the Commission's notification procedures, such entities
should be able to file their renewal applications in a timely fashion.  We therefore reject APCO's suggestion
that we not only retain the reinstatement period, but also send a notification both ninety and thirty days in
advance of license expiration.  We note that where in fact continued operations are immediately critical
to essential safety operations, the public safety entity that has allowed its license authority to lapse is likely
to file a request for special temporary authority.
 
     100.  Although a license expires automatically on the date specified on the individual license, ULS
will not show a license expiration as final until approximately thirty days after the renewal deadline.  We
note that the purpose of this delay is not so that the licensee may seek reinstatement of the license that has
now expired, but to ensure that the Commission does not inadvertently fail to recognize that a timely
renewal application has been submitted.  After the license expiration the previous licensee may file a new
application for use of those frequencies subject to any service specific rules.  Once that thirty-day period
has elapsed, or the prior holder of the license files a new application for that spectrum, the license will then
be available for the Commission to reassign by competitive bidding or other means according to the rules of
the particular service.

     101.  Finally, based on commenters' concerns, we will not adopt our proposal to allow licensees
and applicants to decide whether they want to continue to be notified of Commission actions in writing via
regular mail or instead be notified of Commission actions concerning applications contained in ULS via
electronic mail.  Applicants and licensees will continue to be notified of official Commission action by
regular mail only.  Parties should note that pursuant to the the Commission's rules there is only one official
point of contact per license.  Licensees and applicants should keep all mailing and contact information
current.  While the Commission is optimistic that a system of electronic communication at some time in the
future may offer a substantial increase in efficiency and paper reduction, we are sympathetic to
commenters' concerns about the use of an electronic notification process at this time.  We note, however,
that in this era of tremendous technological advancement, we may revisit this issue at a later time should
circumstances so warrant.


     7.  Construction and Coverage Verification

     102.  Background.  In the ULS Notice, we recognized that in many wireless 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.  We noted that different procedures have evolved in different
services for verifying whether licensees have in fact met these requirements.  In some wireless services
subject to construction requirements, the Commission's rules provide that licenses cancel if the licensee
fails to notify the Commission that it has met its construction or coverage requirement.  In other wireless
services, licenses cancel 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.

     103.  We proposed to establish uniform procedures for using ULS to notify all wireless radio licensees of upcoming construction or coverage deadlines.  We
thought that such a consolidation would conform the rules for all wireless services licensees so that similarly situated applicants and licensees would be treated equally.  In
addition, we thought that such an action would lessen the burden on applicants and would ensure that deadlines are met or that the public receives timely notification of
terminations.  We also proposed requiring notifications filed by wireless services licensees to be filed electronically.  In addition, we proposed to require wireless
licensees to certify compliance with construction requirements relating to modification applications that involve additional frequencies.  Also, we proposed 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 proposed to amend our microwave rules to require fixed microwave licensees to file a further modification application if the
licensee fails to construct a granted modification.

     104.  Discussion.  Commenters generally support our proposal to use ULS to notify wireless licensees in advance of applicable construction or coverage
deadlines.  Commenters suggest that such notice be given to licensees between sixty to 120 days prior to the relevant deadlines.  We conclude that notifying wireless
radio licensees of impending construction and coverage deadlines at least ninety days prior to the relevant deadline is reasonable.  We will send these notices to the relevant
licensees by mail.  We emphasize, however, that the notification procedure adopted here is not intended to replace the basic construction and coverage requirements set forth in
the Commission's rules.  That means that 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.  The licensee is solely responsible for complying with its construction and coverage requirements.

     105.    Some commenters oppose our proposal to require all wireless licensees to notify the Commission that they have met their construction or coverage
requirements, and to terminate the license if such notice is not received by the Commission.  These commenters express concern that this procedure could result in
termination of licenses for facilities that are in fact operational, simply because the licensee failed to provide notice.  FCBA also suggests that this procedure could
jeopardize a licensee who reports that it has met its construction requirement early and therefore assumes there is no need to respond to a subsequent reminder letter sent by the
FCC.  Finally, AirTouch and BellSouth note that the Commission recently eliminated the requirement for common carrier microwave licensees to file FCC Form 494A
certifying completion of construction, and argue that reinstating a certification requirement is inconsistent with the deregulatory objectives of this proceeding.

     106.   We agree with FCBA and other commenters that the purpose of our construction notification procedure should be to verify whether licensees have in fact
met their construction and coverage obligations, not to terminate licenses for legitimately operating facilities based on a failure to notify by the licensee that could be the result
of a mailing error.  This policy is reflected in the fact that our proposed rule provides for automatic license termination not based on whether the Commission has received
confirmation of construction, but based on actual failure by the licensee to meet its construction or coverage deadline.  Nevertheless, if a licensee fails to confirm timely
construction, we believe it is reasonable to initiate the license termination process as proposed.  First, we are enhancing our procedures by using ULS to send construction
reminder notices to licensees in all wireless services that have construction performance requirements, which was not possible previously.  Second, ULS simplifies the
confirmation process for the licensee by allowing for instantaneous electronic filing of the notification.  Finally, as proposed in the ULS Notice, we provide that when the
Commission fails to receive timely confirmation of construction from the licensee, ULS will generate a letter to the licensee and issue a public notice thirty days before the
termination becomes final.  This period provides a licensee that has timely met its construction or coverage obligations with additional notice and the opportunity to prevent
termination of its license by submitting documentation that is has timely constructed.  Once that thirty-day period has elapsed, without notification from the licensee, the
license will then be available for the Commission to reassign by competitive bidding or other means according to the rules of the particular service.  

     107.  We also conclude that it is reasonable to require microwave licensees to comply with the same construction notification procedures as other wireless
licensees, notwithstanding our prior elimination of the Form 494A filing requirement.  As noted above, notification in ULS is simpler and faster than filing the old form, which
could not be filed electronically.  Notification also provides significant benefits for the public, the Commission, and licensees themselves by increasing the accuracy of the ULS
database and promoting more efficient spectrum use.  On balance, we conclude that these benefits outweigh the small burden on licensees of filing a notification.  We will also
modify our proposal to require construction notifications to be filed electronically, which elicited the same reservations from commenters as our general electronic filing
proposals.  Accordingly, only those services that are subject to mandatory electronic filing will be required to file construction notifications electronically.  We will not
implement this decision on construction notification procedures for any wireless service until (1) July 1, 1999, or (2) six months after the commencement of application
processing in ULS for that service, whichever is later.  This transition period will provide a reasonable time for applicants and licensees to familiarize themselves with this
procedure. 

     108.   Finally, we will require licensees to certify compliance with construction requirements relating to modification applications that involve additional
frequencies.  Many microwave commenters oppose these proposals out of concern that they would result in a licensee losing its pre-existing authorization if it fails to complete
construction of the granted modification.  They object to our proposal that in such a situation, the licensee must file a modification application deleting the additional
frequencies.  Instead, they argue that ULS should automatically return the relevant license to its "pre-modification grant" status.  We have reviewed this option, and have
determined that programming this logic into ULS would be so complex as to be unworkable.  In addition, our original proposal does not put pre-existing licenses in jeopardy as
these commenters fear; it merely provides a mechanism in ULS for the licensee to meet its obligation to provide accurate information regarding what it has constructed and what
it has not.  We also clarify that ULS will not cancel the pre-existing license of a licensee that fails to construct a new site or frequency so long as the modification was a request
to add the site or frequency, rather than to replace the original site or frequency.  This enables a licensee to test the viability of a new site or operations on a new frequency
without losing pre-existing rights if it fails to commence permanent operations on the new site or frequency. 


     8.  Assignments of Authorization and Transfers of Control

     109.  Background.  In the ULS Notice, we proposed 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 proposed 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 was based on the fact that transfers and assignments do not
require identical types of information fr