********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                     )
                                )
Amendment of Section 2.106 of the    )   ET Docket No. 95-18
Commission's Rules to Allocate            )   RM-7927
Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use                 )   PP-28
by the Mobile-Satellite Service           )


                   FIRST REPORT AND ORDER AND
             FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING


   Adopted: March 13, 1997              Released:  March 14, 1997  

Comment Date:  60 days from date of publication in the Federal Register
Reply Comment Date:  90 days from date of publication in the Federal Register  


                           INTRODUCTION

     1.  By this action, the Commission allocates 70 megahertz of spectrum at 1990-2025 MHz
and 2165-2200 MHz to the Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS), effective January 1, 2000.  In order to
make this spectrum available for MSS use, we are modifying the current Broadcast Auxiliary Service
(BAS), Cable Television Relay Service (CARS), and Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS)
allocation at 1990-2110 MHz by providing an allocation instead at 2025-2130 MHz and proposing
to rechannelize BAS at 2 GHz, from seven channels of 17- and 18-megahertz bandwidths to seven
channels of 15-megahertz bandwidth.  We are proposing reaccommodation of existing BAS and
Fixed Service (FS) operations in the 1990-2025 MHz, 2110-2130 MHz, and 2165-2200 MHz bands
in accordance with the policies we established in our Emerging Technologies proceeding.  We defer
action on technical parameters and licensing issues for MSS in the 2 GHz band.  Finally, we dispose
of a related pioneer's preference request filed by Celsat America, Inc. (Celsat).

                            BACKGROUND

     2.  The 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC-92) allocated the 1930-1980
MHz  (Earth-to-space or uplink) and 2120-2170 MHz (space-to-Earth or downlink) bands in Region
2 and the 1980-2010 MHz (uplink) and 2170-2200 MHz (downlink) bands worldwide to MSS.  In
the June 1994 Memorandum Opinion and Order in GEN Docket No. 90-314 (PCS Reconsideration
Order), we allocated the 1850-1990 MHz band to terrestrial broadband Personal Communications
Services (PCS).  We anticipated that PCS would use spectrum intensively, thereby bringing into
question the feasibility of MSS in this band.  Therefore, it did not appear to be practicable to make
a domestic allocation of 2 GHz spectrum for MSS that would be consistent with the international
allocations without jeopardizing the availability of spectrum for PCS.  Further, in the PCS
Reconsideration Order, we recognized the potential value of MSS in areas that may not be readily
or economically served by PCS, such as sparsely-populated rural areas.  We stated there that we
intended to initiate a proceeding to investigate possibilities for allocating additional frequencies for
MSS at 2 GHz in the near future, and that we would attempt to accommodate MSS within the
internationally allocated bands remaining outside the PCS allocation.  We also indicated that we
intended to pursue additional international allocations for MSS at the 1995 World
Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-95).

     3.  Three petitioners have requested allocations for MSS at 2 GHz.  In February 1992, Celsat
filed a petition for rule making that, as amended, requests allocation of 40 megahertz in the 1970-
1990 and 2160-2180 MHz bands for a hybrid satellite/terrestrial personal communications service. 
Celsat proposed an integrated satellite/terrestrial cellular and micro-cellular mobile service that
would use code division multiple access (CDMA) technology.  It maintained that this system would
have benefits and advantages in cost and overall spectrum efficiency relative to separate PCS and
MSS systems.  It stated that its hybrid MSS service could operate in either a portable (personal) or
mobile (vehicular) terrestrial mode, but would be primarily a satellite service.  In conjunction with
its petition, Celsat filed a request for a pioneer's preference, of which we dispose in section F of the
discussion infra.  In December 1993, TRW, Inc. (TRW) filed a petition for rule making requesting
that we allocate 80 megahertz of spectrum in the 1970-2010 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands for
provision of international MSS by satellites in non-geostationary orbits.  TRW argued that these
bands represent the only frequencies, suitable for global MSS voice-grade service via hand-held
transceivers, that are both allocated internationally for MSS and not already applied for in the United
States.  TRW asserted that there is a vast untapped market for services provided by global MSS
systems, and that the allocation it proposed would help ensure the preeminence of the United States
satellite industry.  TRW proposed a twelve-satellite constellation that would provide virtually global
coverage.  In April 1994, the Personal Communications Satellite Corporation (PCSAT), a subsidiary
of the American Mobile Satellite Corporation, filed a petition for rule making to allocate the 40
megahertz of spectrum in the 1970-1990 MHz and 2160-2180 MHz bands for a satellite service. 
PCSAT proposed to build and operate a system compatible with PCS that would provide service to
several classes of customers and users in the United States.  PCSAT observed that over the last ten
years there has been a tremendous growth in the availability and use of wireless services for mobile
voice and data communications, but that such services are not available everywhere.  It submitted
that satellite MSS can provide coverage between islands of terrestrially-based services, such as in
rural and remote areas, and can provide a nationwide communications system for law enforcement,
public safety, and interstate transportation.

     4.  On January 30, 1995, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making(Notice) in this proceeding.  In the Notice we tentatively concluded that there is a need for more
spectrum for MSS, which would provide the public, especially rural Americans, access to new and
competitive services and technologies.  In order to be as consistent as possible with the WARC-92
worldwide MSS allocation without impinging on the 1850-1990 MHz PCS allocation, we proposed
to allocate 70 megahertz in the 1990-2025 MHz (uplink) and 2165-2200 MHz (downlink) bands to
MSS.

     5.  The 1990-2025 MHz band is part of the 1990-2110 MHz band that is currently allocated
for and used heavily by BAS, and is also authorized for use by CARS and the LTTS.  For the
purposes of this proceeding, we will refer to all three of these services as "BAS." We proposed to
modify the allocation for BAS at 2 GHz and to relocate current licensees in the 1990-2025 MHz
band to the 2110-2145 MHz band.  Current BAS operations at 1990-2110 MHz are divided into
seven channels that are used for the transmission of television signals from fixed and mobile
locations.  Applications of BAS include electronic news gathering (ENG) mobile units, which
transmit television signals to studios; studio-transmitter links,  which carry television signals from
studios to broadcast antennas; and relay stations, which re-transmit television signals.  ENG
applications are the predominant use of the 1990-2110 MHz band.  We tentatively concluded that
MSS and BAS sharing of the 1990-2025 MHz band would not be feasible because of the potential
for interference between the two services.  Under our proposal in the Notice, the new BAS band
would be at 2025-2145 MHz, and the total amount of spectrum available to BAS at 2 GHz would
remain 120 megahertz.

     6.  Further, we proposed in the Notice to relocate FS licensees from both the 2110-2145 MHz
and the 2165-2200 MHz bands.  The 2165-2200 MHz band is currently allocated to the Fixed and
Mobile Services and is used by commercial and private FS microwave licensees, but has been
reserved for services that use emerging technologies.  In the Notice, we proposed to relocate the
existing FS licensees at 2110-2145 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz to bands above 5 GHz, in accordance
with our Emerging Technologies rules, which made five bands above 5 GHz available for FS
licensees.  According to these rules, the emerging technology service provider must guarantee
payment of all relocation expenses, build the new microwave facilities at the relocation frequencies,
and demonstrate that the new facilities are comparable to the relocated facilities.

     7.  We inquired whether we should make the new MSS spectrum available for use by both
geostationary (GSO) and non-geostationary or low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites.  We did not
propose any specific technical standards for MSS systems to operate in these bands, but requested
comment on whether such technical standards are needed, and if so, what they should be.  Finally,
we gave notice of our intention to allocate MSS licenses in these bands by competitive bidding.

     8.  As it affects the bands addressed in this Report and Order, WARC-92 allocated the 1990-
2010 MHz and 2170-2200 MHz bands to MSS worldwide, and the 2165-2170 MHz band to MSS
in Region 2.  WRC-95 adopted additional international allocations for MSS.  As a result of the
actions taken at WRC-95, effective January 1, 2000, the 1990-2010 MHz (uplink) and 2170-2200
MHz (downlink) bands will remain allocated to MSS worldwide, and the 2165-2170 MHz
(downlink) band will remain allocated to MSS in Region 2.  Also effective January 1, 2000, the
2010-2025 MHz (uplink) band will be available for MSS in the United States and Canada.  Effective
January 1, 2005, the 2010-2025 MHz (uplink) band will be allocated to MSS in all of Region 2.

     9.  We received twenty-three comments and twenty-three reply comments in response to the
Notice.  Because these comments and replies were filed before WRC-95, we allowed filing of
supplemental comments in order to reflect the actions of WRC-95 and the work done by industry
groups in the period subsequent to the closing date for reply comments in the Notice.  We received
twenty supplemental comments in response to our request for supplemental comments.


                      FIRST REPORT AND ORDER

A. Spectrum Allocation.

     10.  In the Notice, we proposed to allocate 70 megahertz of spectrum at 1990-2025 MHz and
2165-2200 MHz to MSS.  We sought comment on whether 70 megahertz of spectrum would be the
appropriate amount to reallocate to 2 GHz MSS, and requested comment on two alternatives for
satisfying 2 GHz MSS demand.  The first alternative called for immediately allocating 40 megahertz
of spectrum at 1990-2010 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz to MSS, and waiting until the outcome of
WRC-95 to decide on further allocations.  The second alternative called for allocating 60 megahertz
at 1990-2020 MHz and 2170-2200 MHz to MSS, as a compromise between the primary proposal
and the first alternative.

     11.  Comments.  The majority of commenters addressing the allocation issue support the
proposed allocation of 70 megahertz, stating that there is a need for more MSS spectrum than is
currently allocated.  In support of the 70 megahertz allocation, Motorola, Inc. (Motorola) and
PCSAT point out that the Industry Advisory Committee to WRC-95 estimated that between 150 and
300 megahertz will be needed for MSS by the year 2005.  The Loral/Qualcomm Partnership, L.P.
(LQP) agrees, stating that the Commission recognized the need for more MSS spectrum by
supporting MSS allocations at WRC-95 and at WARC-92, by allocating spectrum for LEO systems,
and by finding the need for more spectrum in the report of the Conference Preparatory Meeting for
WRC-95.  Several parties oppose the allocation of any spectrum in the 2 GHz range to MSS.  The
American Petroleum Institute (API) claims that demand for mobile communications is likely to be
filled by a combination of PCS, Specialized Mobile Radio, and currently authorized MSS.  The
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officers-International (APCO) asserts that the public
safety microwave services, such as police, fire, and emergency medical communications, are a more
important use of the 2110-2145 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands than more MSS communications. 
BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth) also states that the services currently occupying the subject
bands, commercial and private operational microwave communications, are a better use of this
spectrum than MSS.  Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems (Southwestern Bell) supports allocating
40 megahertz at 1990-2010 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz to MSS, but claims that reallocation of 2165-
2180 MHz to MSS and relocation of FS licensees to bands above 6 GHz would harm rural cellular
service.  Southwestern Bell uses the 2165-2180 MHz band for "backhaul" links, interconnecting cell
sites with each other and with mobile switching centers.  Because propagation above 6 GHz requires
shorter paths, Southwestern Bell claims that reallocation of the 2165-2180 MHz band would require
rural cellular providers to deploy additional facilities and antennas, impeding our stated goal of
providing communications access to rural and underserved areas.  

     12.  In reply comments, several parties express skepticism over the need for additional MSS
spectrum and argue that our allocation proposals are not justified.  Several other parties state that
we should wait until other mobile systems are more developed, and then study the need for MSS
spectrum again.  Alcatel Network Systems, Inc. (Alcatel) opposes allocation of 2 GHz spectrum
to MSS, stating that the Commission ignores the acute shortage of spectrum for FS operations. 
MSS interests generally reiterate their support for our proposed allocation, arguing that only one
commenter flatly opposed any allocation for MSS at 2 GHz, and that there remains a demonstrated
need for MSS spectrum.  TRW supports an allocation, but recommends that we delay concluding
this proceeding until a consensus emerges on how much spectrum to allocate to MSS.  Finally, in
supplementary comments, API reiterates its opposition to the allocation, pointing out that much of
the replacement spectrum for FS licensees identified in our Emerging Technologies proceeding has
been reallocated to other uses, leading to a critical shortage of replacement spectrum for FS
licensees.

     13.  Decision.  We find that it is in the public interest to allocate spectrum at 2 GHz to MSS. 
We note that the Radiocommunication Sector of the ITU estimates that up to 206 megahertz of
additional spectrum will be needed for MSS by the year 2005.  We believe that MSS would also
provide another option for mobile communications, and would provide communications to
underserved areas, such as rural and remote areas where PCS, cellular, and other mobile services are
less feasible.  There is clearly substantial interest in providing MSS communications in the 2 GHz
band, as demonstrated by the ten commenters who indicated they plan to provide mobile satellite
service in the 2 GHz band.

     14.  We further find that it is in the public interest to allocate the full 70 megahertz at 1990-
2025 MHz (uplink) and 2165-2200 MHz (downlink) to MSS as proposed, rather than a lesser
amount.  Because of the projected need for more MSS spectrum internationally, WRC-95 reallocated
the 2010-2025 MHz portion to MSS in Region 2, effective January 1, 2005.  As we stated in the
Notice, we believe that any 2 GHz MSS allocation should be as consistent as possible with the
WARC-92 and WRC-95 allocations.  This will help ensure truly universal service.  In making our
domestic allocation, therefore, we are supporting international plans for MSS in the 2 GHz band. 
We believe that this allocation will allow the United States to participate in global MSS systems and
realize the benefits to consumers of such systems.  A 70 megahertz will also provide sufficient
bandwidth for the operation of multiple service providers.  In this regard, we observe that only one
party, Southwestern Bell, supported allocation of less than 70 megahertz to MSS.  

     15.  Much of the spectrum for the proposed reallocation was identified as appropriate
spectrum for reallocation to emerging technologies, such as MSS, in our Emerging Technologies
proceeding.  Some parties complain of scarcity of replacement spectrum in the 6 and 11 GHz bands
for 2 GHz incumbents.  In our Emerging Technologies proceeding, however, we reallocated the
1850-1990, 2110-2150, and 2160-2200 MHz bands from FS to emerging technologies, a total of 220
megahertz.  We made a total of 2,480 megahertz of spectrum available for relocated FS licensees
in the 4, 6, 10, and 11 GHz bands.  Even though some of the higher-frequency spectrum is shared
with other services, we believe that there is enough spectrum in those bands to accommodate
relocation of the incumbents of 220 megahertz of spectrum, including the existing 2110-2130 MHz
and 2165-2200 MHz FS licensees.  

B.  Relocation of Existing 1990-2025 MHz Band Services.

     16.  As indicated above, the 1990-2025 MHz band is part of the 1990-2110 MHz band that
is currently allocated to BAS, CARS, and LTTS.  We reiterate that for this proceeding, we will
collectively term these services BAS, and any changes in our regulatory structure applicable to BAS
will be equally applicable to CARS and LTTS.  We will treat CARS and LTTS in the same manner
as BAS because both CARS and LTTS are authorized users of the 1990-2025 MHz band, and have
invested in equipment to use the band, as has BAS.  In the Notice, we observed that sharing between
MSS and BAS is not feasible.  We therefore proposed to add 35 megahertz of spectrum to the upper
end of the BAS band at 2110-2145 MHz and to relocate BAS incumbents currently occupying 1990-
2025 MHz to 2110-2145 MHz.  This proposal would provide BAS with the same amount of
spectrum it currently has.  As possible alternatives, we inquired into the feasibility of requiring BAS
incumbents to adopt more spectrally efficient technology to operate in the remaining 85 megahertz
at 2025-2110 MHz, or into the feasibility of moving all BAS operations to a higher frequency band. 
We further proposed requiring MSS providers to bear the cost of relocating the BAS incumbents.

     17.  Comments.  Broadcasting interests generally do not oppose the proposed relocation of
the BAS band, but insist that BAS should not suffer a net loss in total spectrum, and that MSS
should pay all costs of any relocation.  The Association for Maximum Service Television et al.,
filing jointly (MSTV) assert that BAS is vital to the health of the broadcasting industry and to the
information needs of the American public.  MSTV contends that demand for BAS spectrum already
exceeds capacity and that reducing BAS spectrum would therefore hurt broadcasting.  Further,
MSTV insists that BAS needs spectrum in the 2 GHz band because this band has favorable
propagation characteristics for transmission along non-engineered paths.  The 4, 6, and 12 GHz
bands that would be candidates for BAS use are less favorable, according to MSTV.  The Society
of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) agrees that BAS spectrum should not be reduced, because of the
heavy use of the spectrum, and that the excellent propagation characteristics of the band make it
important that BAS remain at 2 GHz.  SBE points out that broadcasters have already voluntarily
relocated their fixed links from 2 GHz to the 7 and 13 GHz bands in order to leave 2 GHz clear for
mobile ENG operations.  Further, SBE points out that the Commission had excluded the BAS band
from the Emerging Technologies proceeding, because of the heavy use of the band.  If it is necessary
to relocate BAS, SBE supports our proposal to reallocate the 2110-2145 MHz band, retaining a
contiguous 120-megahertz band for BAS at 2 GHz, namely the 2025-2145 MHz band.  As regards
reducing the total spectrum for BAS, SBE states that 17-megahertz wide channels are needed for
contribution quality signals, and that the advent of digital technology will require more, not less,
bandwidth.  

     18.  MSTV states that if BAS is to be relocated, the relocation should be in accordance with
the PCS relocation rules, which were adopted in our Emerging Technologies proceeding.  It argues
that we should allow a "reasonable" time, defined as at least through January 1, 2005, for the
voluntary relocation negotiations called for by the PCS relocation rules.  SBE agrees that MSS
should pay all relocation costs, including the cost of clearing current FS operations from the 2110-
2145 MHz band; it points out that most ENG operations use the same equipment for access to all
seven channels, so that in most cases, all ENG equipment will need to be replaced.

     19.  SBE states, however, that an acceptable alternative to relocation of BAS out of the 2
GHz band is to compress each of the seven affected BAS channels to a bandwidth of 15 megahertz. 
This would decrease the 2 GHz spectrum allocated to BAS from the current 120 megahertz to 105
megahertz, and would thus free 15 megahertz for MSS use.  In return for such rechannelization, SBE
claims that BAS licensees should receive new FM video equipment, at the expense of MSS.  SBE
states that this solution would be less costly than relocation.

     20.  The Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers (AFCCE) supports
our proposal for BAS relocation, agreeing with our conclusion that sharing between BAS and MSS
is not feasible.  Finally, Creative Broadcast Techniques, Inc. and the New Vision Group, Inc.
(CBT) note that LTTS also occupies the BAS band, and should be treated in the same manner as
BAS.  CBT asserts that LTTS cannot share spectrum with MSS or FS, and argues that if LTTS
loses access to the 1990-2025 MHz band, it should be compensated with spectrum at 2110-2145.

     21.  The positions of MSS interests disagree substantially with those of broadcasting
interests.  MSS interests oppose our proposal to require MSS to bear the cost of relocating BAS. 
COMSAT estimates the cost of relocating BAS in accordance with our proposal at approximately
$275 million.  Motorola estimates the cost of moving BAS channels A1 and A2 per our proposal
at approximately $90 million.  PCSAT states that MSS should not have to pay for BAS relocation,
which it estimates would cost approximately $39 million.  Rather, PCSAT would have the
Commission encourage BAS licensees to relocate voluntarily over time, and at most limit
compensation from MSS to, at most, the incremental cost of early retirement of equipment.  TRW
also argues that MSS should not have to pay for relocation of BAS.  According to TRW, the
Commission allocated to PCS spectrum at 1970-1990 MHz that was allocated internationally to
MSS; therefore, PCS displaced MSS from this spectrum, and PCS providers should have to pay the
cost of relocating BAS from 1990-2025 MHz, which is replacement spectrum for MSS.  Otherwise,
TRW states, the high cost of relocating BAS would discourage MSS from using the 2 GHz band. 
TRW also argues that if relocation costs are imposed on MSS, we should apportion costs equally
between foreign and domestic MSS systems, and that we should provide assistance in relocation
negotiations, such as tax certificates for the sale or exchange of property in connection with
relocation.  Most MSS commenters argue that BAS should be relocated with little or no cost to
MSS.  Celsat asserts that, if relocation of BAS is necessary, it should be accomplished in a manner
that diminishes unnecessary costs to MSS.    Iridium suggests that we adopt a sunset policy on
relocation compensation, under which BAS incumbents would be compensated for relocation costs
only until a certain date.  After that date, BAS licensees who had not relocated would be forced to
do so at their own expense.

     22.  Motorola argues that all BAS operations should be moved out of the 2 GHz band,
leaving the 1850-2200 MHz range for aggregation of mobile services.  Motorola states that moving
all BAS 2 GHz operations to the 6 or 12 GHz bands would save MSS the cost of relocating FS
licensees who would otherwise be displaced by BAS in the 2110-2145 MHz band.  LQP contends
that we should encourage migration of BAS to other bands by making the BAS allocation secondary
in the 1990-2025 MHz band on a particular date, and requiring that all license renewal applications
contain a plan for migration.  LQP urges us to impose a freeze on new applications for BAS licenses
at 2 GHz to minimize the relocation burden.  LQP also recommends establishing a Federal Advisory
Committee (FAC) to resolve transition issues.  Constellation believes that we should study
relocation and spectrum issues further before reaching a decision.  

     23.  Celsat advocates our alternative proposal of requiring BAS to rechannelize to fit its
operations into the 85 megahertz of spectrum remaining after the 1990-2025 MHz band is
reallocated.  Celsat claims that the Commission has the authority under 47 U.S.C. 303(g),(r) to
require licensees to use more spectrum-efficient equipment.  TRW agrees, advocating reducing BAS
spectrum to 85 megahertz by requiring current BAS 2 GHz operations to switch to digital
technology, and, at the same time, it advocates moving BAS out of the 2 GHz band.  COMSAT
advocates a two-stage plan whereby we would require an adjustment of BAS 2 GHz operations from
the current 17- or 18-megahertz channels to 16-megahertz channels, allowing MSS to operate in the
eight megahertz cleared by the rechannelization.  In the second stage, we would require BAS to
rechannelize again to 12-megahertz channels using digital equipment, which would allow BAS to
operate in the remaining 85 megahertz of BAS spectrum.  

     24.  One FS commenter, APCO, states that the 2110-2145 MHz band should not be allocated
to BAS, but rather to FS for advanced public safety microwave communications, to compensate FS
for its loss of the 2165-2200 MHz band.  APCO advocates requiring BAS to operate in the remaining
85 megahertz of the BAS band.  In support of this proposal, APCO points out that the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) reports that 50 megahertz of additional
spectrum is needed for public safety FS communications.

     25.  In its reply comments, MSTV argues that a channel width of 12 megahertz, as suggested
by COMSAT, is not feasible.  SBE states that a reduction of one megahertz per channel would be
tolerable when more spectrum-efficient hardware is available.  In response to Motorola's suggestion
that we move BAS out of the 2 GHz band entirely, MSTV asserts that the 7 and 13 GHz bands are
unsuitable for mobile ENG activity.  MSTV also states that Motorola significantly underestimates
the cost of relocating BAS, which MSTV and SBE place at approximately $171 million.  This
estimate includes the costs of replacing or retrofitting transceiver equipment and antennas for all
BAS licensees nationwide.  MSTV supports our proposal to reallocate the 2110-2145 MHz band to
BAS, which would then have available 120 megahertz of spectrum at 2025-2145 MHz.  SBE also
opposes the idea of freezing BAS license applications or establishing a date after which BAS
licensees would no longer be compensated for relocation, because such measures would give MSS
licensees incentive to avoid bargaining in good faith on relocation issues.

     26.  In its reply comments, COMSAT states that BAS should reduce its bandwidth
requirements in anticipation of digital technology, because the cost of relocating BAS to the 2110-
2145 MHz band, with the attendant cost of clearing that band, would make global MSS financially
infeasible.  LQP calls for a FAC to study and implement a transition plan.  PCSAT supports
voluntary negotiations on relocation for 70 days or until a solution is reached and, failing resolution,
supports LQP's proposal of a FAC.  PCSAT contends that relocation costs would cripple the nascent
MSS industry.

     27.  In supplemental comments, the MSS Coalition recommends a two-phase plan to
compress BAS spectrum.  In the first phase, the Commission would require licensees in BAS
channel A1 (1990-2008 MHz) to vacate by January 1, 2000, either retuning equipment for all BAS
channels to use channel bandwidths of 14 or 15 megahertz, or moving to other spectrum.  In the
second phase, the Commission would require licensees in BAS channel A2 (2008-2025 MHz) to
vacate by January 1, 2005, again either retuning all channels to bandwidths of 12 or 13 megahertz,
to take advantage of digital compression techniques, or relocating to another band.  Under this MSS
Coalition plan, BAS would bear the expense of its own relocation.  The MSS Coalition claims that
ordinary equipment replacement schedules will allow most BAS licensees to retune or replace
equipment, or to relocate with minimal additional expense above normal equipment replacement. 
To support this plan, the MSS Coalition urges us to freeze immediately all new BAS licensing in
channels A1 and A2.  LQP supports the MSS Coalition plan, but with three modifications.  LQP
urges that first, all BAS license applications and renewals should be frozen immediately, to avoid
further complications in the band clearing process.  Second, it argues that we should adopt an ending
date for BAS primary operations of January 1, 2005, in order to give BAS licensees incentive to seek
new spectrum and to allow MSS to plan on the basis of unrestricted use as of that date.  Third, it
urges us to allocate replacement BAS spectrum for the 1990-2025 MHz band, and suggests as a
possibility the 3650-3700 MHz band, which will be reassigned from Government to non-
Government use in 1999.

     28.  In response to the MSS Coalition proposal, MSTV states that the spectrum allocation
proposal of the Notice is sound and is the only plan that would be effective, given the heavy and still
growing use of BAS.  According to MSTV, the MSS Coalition plan is unrealistic, given the current
state of the art in BAS equipment; and we should not adopt a plan that relies on anticipated but
uncertain future advances in the state of the art.  SBE states that channels of 15 megahertz are
possible, but that narrowing BAS channels must be accompanied by new equipment capable of
tuning to the narrower channels and having narrower intermediate frequency bandpass to avoid
degradation in adjacent-channel rejection.

     29.  One MSS proponent, Iridium, objects to the MSS Coalition's two-phase plan, stating that
it is inconsistent with the international allocations of the bands.  Iridium claims that, globally, the
Coalition's Phase One uplink band of 1990-2008 MHz would be paired with two different downlink
bands:  2165-2185 MHz in Regions 1 and 3, and 2180-2198 MHz in Region 2.  Iridium states that
the MSS Coalition's proposal does not include a coherent plan for the downlink band.  Further,
Iridium claims that the MSS Coalition's plan would probably only allow operation of one MSS
system in the Phase One period, and that system would have an overwhelming competitive
advantage flowing from its five-year head start.

     30.  Decision.  Based on the record, we conclude that it is necessary to relocate BAS in order
to accommodate MSS in the 1990-2025 MHz band.  As we indicated in the Notice, and the
commenting parties agree, BAS and MSS cannot share the spectrum without unacceptable mutual
interference.  Therefore, to reallocate the 1990-2025 MHz band to MSS, it will be necessary to clear
this band of BAS.

     31.  We reject Motorola's suggestion that we remove BAS from the 2 GHz band entirely. 
We agree with commenters who point out that the 2 GHz band has ideal propagation characteristics
for mobile services including BAS, which must transmit along unengineered paths from
unpredictable locations.  

     32.  BAS currently operates with 17- and 18-megahertz wide channels.  Comments from both
MSS interests and broadcasting interests lead us to believe that BAS may not need channels this
wide, especially in light of the fact that advances in radio technology since the current channelization
of BAS was established could make it possible for BAS to transmit contribution-quality signals in
somewhat narrower channels.  On the other hand, we do not agree with the position of the MSS
community that we should reduce BAS to 12- and 13-megahertz channels and mandate a switch to
digital transmission.  We believe that a reduction of five megahertz per channel is too severe to
permit FM analog contribution-quality BAS signals, and we do not believe that this is the
appropriate proceeding to determine whether or when BAS should convert to digital format in
conjunction with the development of digital television.  Some representatives of both industries,
however, agree that BAS may be able to operate with 15-megahertz channels.  We conclude that
the best solution for BAS relocation is to reduce the BAS band at 2 GHz from 120 to 105 megahertz,
and relocate the band from 1990-2110 MHz to 2025-2130 MHz.  This would allow the resultant
BAS band to be divided into seven channels of 15 megahertz each, thus retaining the current
capacity of the BAS band.  This solution is more spectrum-efficient than our primary proposal in the
Notice of simply relocating the 120-megahertz BAS band upward by 35 megahertz, and also more
feasible than our alternate proposal of reducing the BAS band to 85 megahertz.  Further, this solution
will require the relocation of FS users from only 20 megahertz at 2110-2130 MHz, rather than 35
megahertz at 2110-2145 MHz, as in our primary proposal.  However, we merely note here that a
BAS band of 105 megahertz will allow seven BAS channels.  Rather than mandating channels in the
new band, we explore possible alternate channelizations in the Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (Further Notice), below.

     33.  Relocating BAS will require retuning of BAS equipment, and in many if not most cases
replacing equipment or retrofitting equipment to allow improved intermediate frequency bandpass
and adjacent-channel rejection, as pointed out by SBE.  Because the new BAS band is in the same
region of the spectrum as the current BAS band, we anticipate that no new facilities will need to be
constructed.  We do not foresee that there will be any need physically to relocate or rebuild any
facilities.  We are confident that the reaccommodation of BAS operations can be accomplished by
simply replacing or retrofitting current equipment.  The cost of all steps necessary for clearing the
1990-2025 MHz band for MSS operations will be borne by MSS operators.  The Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (Further Notice), below, proposes rules and policies for clearing the 1990-
2025 MHz band for MSS.

C.  Relocation of Existing 2165-2200 MHz Band Services.

     34.  The 2165-2200 MHz band is currently allocated to private and commercial FS, but has
been reserved for emerging technologies, such as MSS.  In the Notice, we stated that five higher
bands have already been allocated during our Emerging Technologies proceeding for
reaccommodation of the FS incumbents.  We inquired whether sharing between MSS and FS
would be feasible, and whether FS incumbents should be relocated.   Finally, we proposed to require
that MSS pay the costs of relocating FS incumbents, where necessary.   

     35.  Comments on MSS/FS Spectrum Sharing.  In general, the MSS community advocates
sharing between FS and MSS, at least in the early stages of MSS deployment.  COMSAT presents
studies which purport to demonstrate that sharing between FS and MSS downlinks in the 2165-2200
MHz band is feasible.  Based on these studies, COMSAT claims that relocation of FS incumbents
in the band is unnecessary.  Constellation states that the Commission should conduct technical
studies to determine the feasibility of sharing in the 2 GHz band, especially with respect to CDMA
systems which have low power levels.  LQP also asserts that it has conducted studies that
demonstrate that MSS/FS sharing is feasible, and urges us to convene a FAC to resolve transition
issues, including spectrum sharing.

     36.  Motorola, however, states that COMSAT's model has several shortcomings which must
be addressed before we can confidently conclude that MSS downlink/FS sharing is feasible, a
position which API and AAR share, arguing that COMSAT's sharing model does not demonstrate
the feasibility of sharing between MSS and FS, because it assumes too high a level of acceptable
interference and neglects a fading model and degradation criteria.  Motorola goes on to state that
it believes that sharing is not possible in the long term, and cites the conclusions of the Report of the
Conference Preparatory Meeting for WRC-95, which rates the feasibility of MSS downlink/FS
sharing as "Moderate-Poor."  Motorola therefore advocates immediate clearing of the 2165-2200
MHz band.  AFCCE and CBT also state that sharing between MSS and FS is not feasible, and that
relocation of FS licensees is necessary.

     37.  In supplemental comments, the MSS Coalition states that MSS and FS will be able to
share spectrum for several years, and therefore proposes that a gradual transition plan for FS
incumbent relocation be adopted.  Hughes favors the MSS Coalition MSS/FS sharing plan.

     38.  The majority of FS commenters argue that there are inadequacies in the MSS Coalition's
sharing study.  TIA states that WRC-95 only set out the criteria for MSS/FS sharing studies and
then encouraged others to conduct the studies.  API, Alcatel, and TIA contend that MSS/FS sharing
criteria should not be based on international standards.  TIA and Alcatel in particular point out that
there are differences between U.S. and international FS systems, and API states that U.S.
interference standards are stricter than international standards; therefore, they urge us to rely upon
U.S. criteria.  API, APCO, and Alcatel suggest that we rely on TIA's TR14.11 committee to do any
necessary MSS/FS sharing studies.  The State of California (California) points out that COMSAT's
proposal fails to take into account those highly populated areas where interference is likely to occur
sooner, and that the proposal fails to recognize interference from MSS space or earth stations.  UTC
states that the MSS Coalition fails to provide any details of how MSS and FS can share in the 2 GHz
band.  The Central Iowa Power Cooperative (CIPCO) states that some of its FS paths are over 18
miles in length.  If sharing were required then CIPCO would have to lower the operating power of
its equipment to accommodate MSS, increasing the chances that its FS operations would receive
unacceptable interference.

     39.  Comments on Relocation.  If sharing proves to be infeasible, MSS interests generally
advocate a gradual transition of FS incumbents to other spectrum, with FS incumbents paying all
or most of the costs of their relocation.  For example, PCSAT advocates relocation of FS over a
gradual transition period so as to require FS licensees to pay for their own relocation as they
amortize their equipment.  In the alternative, PCSAT states that we should limit the compensation
from MSS to FS to the incremental replacement costs of FS equipment.  LQP suggests creating
a FAC to resolve transition issues, such as the apportionment of FS relocation costs.  TRW notes
that part of the recently allocated PCS spectrum (1970-1990 MHz) had been internationally allocated
to MSS, and if MSS had received this allocation domestically instead of PCS, FS would not have
to be relocated because of MSS.  Therefore, TRW concludes, PCS operators should have to pay at
least part of the relocation costs of FS.  Iridium proposes that we adopt a sunset policy on
compensation for FS relocation similar to that used in our 1982 Digital Broadcasting Service
proceeding.  During the sunset period MSS would compensate FS licensees for relocation, but after
this period, FS licensees would have to pay their own relocation expenses.  Celsat suggests
allowing MSS to relocate FS incumbents in increments as MSS needs more spectrum.

     40.  API and APCO, on the other hand, recommend that FS not be relocated for fear of
disruption of safety-related services provided by private FS licensees, claiming that relocation is a
difficult and time-consuming process with inherent uncertainty and risk.  If relocation is necessary,
they recommend that provisions to effect the relocation be made without delay.   Southwestern
Bell stresses that reallocation of FS from the 2160-2180 MHz band to higher bands would harm
cellular service providers, because of the resultant need for shorter paths for cellular service backhaul
links and increased equipment costs.  All of the FS commenters agree with our proposal in the
Notice that our Emerging Technologies rules should be followed.  

     41.  In supplemental comments, the Corn Belt Power Cooperative (CBPC), APCO and the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MDOT) point out that the MSS Coalition's plan to relocate
FS over a ten-year period by allowing FS incumbents to amortize their equipment and replace it with
the appropriate equipment at their own expense is unrealistic.  MDOT states that it uses its
equipment for up to 30 years, and to amortize its current equipment will take 20 years.  APCO
states that the average life of microwave equipment is 15-20 years, and that some private FS
licensees have new equipment which would not be amortized until the decade of the 2010s. 
Ameritech points out that WRC-95 moved up the date MSS is to have primary access in the 2 GHz
spectrum from the year 2005 to the year 2000, making COMSAT's ten-year plan  unrealistic.  The
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (L.A. Sheriff) asserts that public safety FS incumbents
should not have to pay any direct or indirect cost associated with relocation, because otherwise this
burden would be passed on to taxpayers.  The majority of FS commenters and other commenters
advocate applying the Emerging Technologies rules adopted in ET Docket No. 92-9.

     42.  Decision.  We will provide for MSS sharing with, and any necessary relocation of, FS
incumbents in accordance with the policies set forth in our Emerging Technologies proceeding.  It
is our policy to encourage spectrum sharing between emerging technologies services and incumbent
2 GHz FS operations whenever technically feasible.  Our rules do not require relocation of
incumbents unless and until the incumbents will receive harmful interference from, or cause harmful
interference to, a new technology service.  COMSAT and LQP have provided studies indicating that
sharing is possible on at least a short-term basis.  At the same time, Motorola and some FS service
representatives have criticized these studies, claiming that they fail to account for important factors. 
MSS and FS industry groups are currently working under the auspices of TIA to resolve differences
over sharing models and adopt a set of mutually agreed sharing criteria.  We encourage these efforts,
and will consider the product of these efforts for inclusion in our rules as the standard for evaluating
the likelihood of unacceptable MSS/FS interference.  MSS cannot begin operations until its spectrum
is cleared of all FS licensees who would receive harmful interference from MSS, but MSS will not
be required to relocate any FS incumbent with whom it can successfully share spectrum.  If a
specific FS operation does not receive unacceptable levels of interference until several years after
the beginning of MSS operations, MSS will not be required to relocate the FS licensee until that
interference occurs.

     43.  Where sharing proves infeasible, however, we will allow the MSS operator to relocate
the incumbent FS operation to bands above 5 GHz.  We will address the precise mechanism for
relocation in the Further Notice, below.

D.  Technical Parameters for MSS Systems.

     44.  In the Notice, we proposed to make the newly-allocated MSS bands available for both
GSO and LEO use; otherwise, we did not propose specific technical parameters for MSS systems
in the 1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands.  We requested comment, however, on whether
these proposed new MSS bands should be limited to either exclusive GSO or LEO use; on whether
minimum geographic coverage requirements or a particular access method, such as CDMA, should
be mandated for all MSS licensees; on what power limits should be imposed; on Celsat's proposal
to share spectrum with PCS at 1970-1990 MHz in order to provide a hybrid PCS/MSS system; and
on whether there is a need to allocate spectrum for feeder links to support 2 GHz MSS.  These
issues were addressed primarily by commenters who are potential MSS service providers or MSS
equipment manufacturers.

     45.  Comments.  With regard to orbital geometries, Celsat advocates reservation of the
entire 70 megahertz of spectrum for GSO systems, because MSS spectrum in the 1.6/2.4 GHz band
is reserved exclusively for LEO systems and licensed to MSS providers using these systems. 
Reserving the spectrum at issue to GSO systems, according to Celsat, will ensure diversity of service
providers and encourage competition.  COMSAT and others disagree, stating that we should
mandate no orbital geometry now, and that we should either allow the market to decide what is the
best orbital geometry or wait until after an allocation plan is finished to decide this issue.  In its
reply comments, LQP asserts that we should reject Celsat's attempt to close this spectrum to current
MSS licensees employing LEO systems by mandating GSO, because the Commission can encourage
competition, as Celsat urges, by licensing multiple systems, and because current satellite providers
are in the best position to improve service.

     46.  With regard to access methods, Celsat states that we should mandate use of CDMA
technology, which it claims will allow many licensees to share the same spectrum and permit more
energy-efficient coding, greater tolerance for interference from incumbent licensees, greater
protection from interference to incumbent licensees, and greater frequency re-use, as well as avoid
mutual exclusivity in licensing.  Newcomb adds a recommendation that we either adopt CDMA,
or split the band into sub-bands of 17.5 megahertz in each direction, for separate assignment to GSO
and LEO systems.  LQP argues that we should wait until after we finish allocating spectrum to
MSS to take up technical issues.  Other commenters disagree with Celsat, stating that we should
remain technologically neutral and allow the market to decide the best access methodology.  In
its reply comments, LQP adds that CDMA is superior to time division multiple access (TDMA) in
terms of multiple entry, capacity, and spectrum efficiency, but continues to advocate waiting until
after the allocation is made to decide the issue.

     47.  With regard to geographic coverage requirements, COMSAT advocates the imposition
of the same requirements as those imposed on Big LEOs, i.e., coverage of the entire globe from 70 N
to 55 S for 75% of each day, stating that these would provide effective global coverage while
containing costs.  LQP, PCSAT, and TRW argue that imposing no coverage standard will allow
for more varied and flexible MSS system design.  Motorola states that LEO and GSO systems
should be assigned to separate bands, with GSO systems allowed to provide coverage only in regions
they choose to serve.  In its reply comments, Celsat argues that we should allow for GSO-based
domestic-only service in at least part of the band, stating that this will allow lower-cost domestic
systems that will not have to pay for the capacity needed for international coverage.

     48.  With regard to power limits, COMSAT argues that there is no reason to limit the power
from MSS handsets, except to the extent necessary to meet existing RF hazard guidelines for
handheld transmitters.  COMSAT further argues that coordination with other services in the
downlink band is preferable to setting absolute power limits.  Motorola states that no power limit
should be placed on the band, and LQP believes that the issue should be taken up later.  Only
TRW advocates a specific power limit, stating that in order to maximize capacity and minimize
interference, we should specify a maximum power flux density from each space station of -137
dB(W/m2/4 kHz).

     49.  With regard to feeder link spectrum, COMSAT asserts that 2 GHz MSS should be
allowed to use any Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) bands allocated by WRC-95 for MSS feeder
links.  PCSAT states that feeder link spectrum in the 11 GHz and 13 GHz bands, currently
allocated to FSS, should be authorized for MSS use, and points out that the American Mobile
Satellite Corporation's first generation MSS system already uses these bands for feeder links.

     50.  Finally, with regard to Celsat's proposal to allow these bands to be used to create a
hybrid PCS/MSS system, in which a single hand-held earth terminal could access either terrestrial
PCS or MSS, LQP argues that such a system would, in part, merely replicate terrestrial PCS, and
therefore would not be an efficient use of spectrum.  Celsat replies that its proposed system would
not be merely redundant, but would be more flexible than terrestrial PCS alone, and would
immediately cover areas where PCS is not available and marginal areas, such as sparsely-populated
rural regions.

     51.  Decision.  We are deferring consideration of these technical issues until after we have
accepted applications for system licenses in these bands.  We are not persuaded by arguments for
or against restricting use of the spectrum exclusively to either GSO or LEO systems.  Either system
can provide global coverage, and while a GSO system offers many advantages for domestic-only
systems, we do not wish to rule out innovative designs before they are submitted.  Further, as
Motorola pointed out, in our proceeding to license Big LEO systems, we concluded that there was
no support for a finding that CDMA is inherently superior to TDMA as an access method.  We
believe that the market will be the best judge of the relative desirability of different access methods. 
We also believe that we will be in a better position to determine whether and what power limits we
should adopt and to evaluate Celsat's proposal for a hybrid PCS/MSS system after we have received
license applications and supporting documentation.  Finally, we will address feeder link spectrum
in proceedings addressing those bands.

E.  Licensing by Competitive Bidding.

     52.  In the Notice, we notified the public of our intent to award licenses for MSS in these
bands by competitive bidding.  We stated our belief that, of the options for awarding MSS licenses,
competitive bidding best serves the public interest where mutual exclusivity exists among applicants. 
We sought comment on whether our proposal to award licenses by simultaneous multiple round
bidding was the most appropriate method of awarding MSS licenses.

     53.  Comments.  All commenters opposed the idea of awarding MSS licenses by competitive
bidding.  First, commenters argue that we are required to show mutual exclusivity in order to use
competitive bidding for licenses, and that we have not done so, because we have not yet accepted
applications for licenses.  Several state that engineering solutions such as the use of CDMA, or
negotiations, service rules, and financial qualification thresholds can be used to avoid mutual
exclusivity.  Noting that MSS is international in nature, commenters assert that licensing by
competitive bidding raises two international problems.  First, auctioning MSS spectrum in the United
States could "open the door" for other countries to require MSS providers to pay for the same
spectrum in each country.  Second, the international coordination process required before MSS
providers could begin service would make it uncertain exactly how much spectrum any MSS
provider would actually receive, which in turn would make it extremely difficult to assign an
appropriate value to the spectrum.  Several commenters state that the cost of spectrum auctions,
added to the costs of relocation of incumbent licensees and system costs, would make MSS
economically infeasible.  A number of commenters argue that auctions would also put MSS at a
competitive disadvantage with respect to foreign MSS systems and Big LEOs, and would not be
consistent with our stated goal of providing low-cost service to underserved and rural areas. 
Celsat asserts that if we assign this spectrum by competitive bidding, small businesses -- defined by
Celsat as businesses with annual revenues of less than $125 million and assets of less than $500
million -- should be given a 15 percent bidding credit and a favorable payment plan, in order to
promote competition.

     54.  Decision.  We will defer the decision on whether to license MSS in these bands by
competitive bidding until after we have accepted applications for licensing.  As many commenters
point out, we will not know if there is mutual exclusivity until we receive license applications.  At
that point, we will decide whether engineering solutions or other methods may solve mutual
exclusivity, and if not, precisely how we will structure auctions.

F.  Disposition of Celsat's Pioneer's Preference Request.

     55.  Our pioneer's preference rules were established to provide a means of extending
preferential treatment in our licensing processes to parties that demonstrate their responsibility for
developing new communications services and technologies.  A party awarded a pioneer's
preference receives the right to obtain a license to operate in the service that it has innovated, using
the design and technologies upon which its award is based.  The pioneer's preference rules ensure
that innovators have an opportunity to participate either in new services which they take a lead in
developing or in existing services which they substantially enhance.  A pioneer's preference
applicant must persuade us that its proposal is innovative, has merit, and that it is the original
developer of the innovation at issue.  

     56.  Under the pioneer's preference rules, a necessary condition for the award of a preference
is that the applicant demonstrate that it has developed the capabilities or possibilities of a new
technology or service, or demonstrate that it has brought the technology or service to a more
advanced or effective state.  A preference is granted only if the service rules adopted are a
reasonable outgrowth of the applicant's proposal and lend themselves to the grant of a preference. 
The applicant must also demonstrate that the new technology or service is technically feasible by
submitting either the summarized results of an experiment or a technical showing.  Finally,
preferences are not granted casually.  Rather, each applicant has a significant burden to persuade us
that its proposal is innovative.  
  
     57.  In conjunction with its February 1992 Petition for Rule Making (RM-7927), Celsat filed
a pioneer's preference request.  Celsat amended its petition in July 1993 and amended its pioneer's
preference request in December 1993.  As described in its amended petition, Celsat seeks a pioneer's
preference for an integrated GSO satellite/terrestrial cellular and micro-cellular mobile service that
would use code division multiple access (CDMA) technology.  Celsat maintains that this system
would have benefits and advantages in cost and overall spectrum efficiency relative to separate PCS
and MSS systems.  It states that its hybrid MSS service could operate in either a portable (personal)
or mobile (vehicular) terrestrial mode, but is primarily a satellite service.  Celsat submits that this
service will provide important new features, such as position determination, transmissions with data
speeds of up to 144 kilobits per second, and compressed video, in addition to conventional mobile
voice and messaging.  Celsat further states that because its system will cover only the United States,
coordination with other nations will be relatively simple.  Celsat contends that its proposed service
would allow direct access to satellite communications through personal handsets and that it will be
able to share spectrum with terrestrial PCS without interference. 

     58.  In April 1992, AMSC Subsidiary Corporation (AMSC), GTE  Service Corporation
(GTE), Loral Qualcomm Satellite Services, Inc. (LQSS), and TRW each filed oppositions to Celsat's
pioneer's preference request.  AMSC argues that the concept of a single mobile system using
terrestrial and satellite elements in different geographic areas on the same frequencies is not novel,
and that Celsat has not developed and tested the technology necessary to create such a system.  GTE
concurs, contending that Celsat was not the first party to propose integrating mobile satellites with
terrestrial-based mobile systems, and that Celsat has failed to make a technical feasibility showing. 
GTE also argues that the time delay inherent in a GSO personal communications system may render
it undesirable to consumers, and that Celsat should have employed market surveys or tests to
demonstrate consumer acceptance of such delays.  LQSS asserts that Celsat has not developed any
new or innovative technology, and states that CDMA was developed by Qualcomm, Inc.  LQSS also
contends that Celsat has not demonstrated the technical feasibility of its system.  TRW maintains
that Celsat is requesting a pioneer's preference for technologies developed by other parties, and states
that Celsat has failed to show that its proposed system is technically feasible.  AMSC, LQSS, and
TRW also raise procedural objections to Celsat's pioneer's preference request, as do Constellation
Communications, Inc. and Ellipsat Corporation, which each filed motions to dismiss both Celsat's
original petition and pioneer's preference request.

     59.  In the Notice, we stated that we would defer action on Celsat's pioneer's preference
request until final action had been taken in the pioneer's preference review proceeding, ET Docket
No. 93-266.  Action has now been completed in that proceeding; accordingly, we herein take
action on Celsat's pioneer's preference request.

     60.  Decision.  We find that Celsat's pioneer's preference request fails to meet the pioneer's
preference criteria.  We find Celsat's proposal insufficiently innovative to warrant a pioneer's
preference, and we find that Celsat has not demonstrated the technical feasibility of its proposal.  

     61.  Celsat claims as the innovative features of its system the use of CDMA, GSO satellites
with large multibeam antennas, operation in the 2 GHz band, and hybrid space and terrestrial
operation of its proposed system.  We note, however, that CDMA is used in many
communications systems, and, as LQSS points out, CDMA was not developed or improved by
Celsat.  We further note that the use of GSO satellites for continuous service to a given area is also
a technique already heavily used in satellite communications, and the fact that the 2 GHz band is
useful for satellite services is reflected in the fact that there are satellite allocations in the 2 GHz
band.  In addition, hybrid space and ground operation of a communications system has also been
proposed by others before Celsat's request.  We thus find that Celsat's combination of these current
techniques is not sufficiently innovative to warrant a pioneer's preference.

     62.  Celsat also has not presented a demonstration of the technical feasibility of its proposal. 
Our rules require that a pioneer's preference applicant present either summarized results of an
experiment or a technical showing of feasibility.  Celsat has not performed an experiment to
demonstrate the technical feasibility of its proposal, and while Celsat's pioneer's preference request
presents a large amount of technical data on its proposed system's coverage pattern, frequency plan,
and marketing figures, this data does not constitute a technical showing of feasibility.

     63.  As indicated above, the burden is on the pioneer's preference applicant to demonstrate
that its proposal is both innovative and technically feasible.  For the foregoing reasons, we conclude
that Celsat has failed to meet this burden, and we therefore deny its pioneer's preference request.


              FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

     64.  In the First Report and Order, above, we modified the BAS allocation from 120
megahertz at 1990-2110 MHz to 105 megahertz at 2025-2130 MHz, and stated that we will require
MSS operators to pay the costs of relocating BAS incumbents into the new BAS band, including the
costs of clearing FS incumbents from the 2110-2130 MHz portion of the new BAS band.  We further
provided for MSS/FS sharing of the 2165-2200 MHz band where such sharing is possible without
unacceptable mutual interference.  In cases where sharing is not possible, we allowed MSS operators
to relocate FS incumbents to frequencies above 5 GHz in accordance with our Emerging
Technologies policies.  In this Further Notice, we propose specific details of relocation, and request
comment on our proposals.

     65.  Relocation of Existing 1990-2025 MHz Band Services.  In the Notice, we proposed to
accomplish relocation of BAS incumbents in accordance with our Emerging Technologies policies,
with modifications necessitated by the differences between FS, for which our Emerging
Technologies policies were formulated, and BAS.  We continue to adhere to that principle, but also
propose details of the relocation process for BAS.  We propose to channelize the new BAS band into
seven channels of 15 megahertz bandwidth, with the new channelization plan to become primary on
January 1, 2000, or the day after the last FS licensee in the 2110-2130 MHz band has been relocated
in accordance with Sections 101.69-101.81 of the Commission's rules, whichever date is later.  We
further propose to allow MSS operators to negotiate with BAS licensees for relocation.

     66.  The current BAS band is divided into seven channels.  Commenters in this proceeding
stated that BAS at 2 GHz is currently heavily used.  For this reason, we propose to retain the
seven-channel plan for the BAS band.  Each channel of the new BAS band will be 15 megahertz
wide.  We believe that replacement of current BAS equipment with equipment having narrower
intermediate frequency bandpass to avoid degradation in adjacent-channel rejection will be all that
is necessary to relocate BAS incumbents.  In the case of newer equipment, simply retuning the
equipment to the new frequencies may suffice for relocation of BAS incumbents.

     67.  Rechannelizing BAS raises a problem not encountered in our Emerging Technologies
proceeding.  A BAS transceiver operating in any channel of the new channel plan except the new
channel A1 (2025-2040 MHz) will overlap two channels of the current BAS band.  Similarly, a BAS
transceiver operating on the current channel plan will overlap two channels of the new BAS band. 
We propose to allow BAS licensees to operate under the new channel plan on a secondary basis, so
long as operations under the new channel plan do not interfere with BAS operations under the
current channel plan.  After the new channel plan becomes primary, we propose to allow BAS
licensees to operate under the current channel plan on a secondary basis.  This scenario would allow
for testing and operation of new equipment, provided these operations do not interfere with other
users of the band.

     68.  We note that BAS tends to be both local in nature and highly directional in its emissions. 
For this reason, we inquire whether we should allow a more flexible channelization of the new BAS
band.  For example, it is possible that in some markets not all of the seven BAS channels will be
needed, and BAS licensees in these markets may prefer to adhere to the current BAS channel plan,
simply forgoing the use of channels A1 and A2 (1990-2025 MHz) and thus using only the five
remaining channels, rather than changing to the proposed channelization plan for the new BAS band. 
It is also possible that by switching to digital equipment, BAS licensees may be able to operate with
narrower channels, thus allowing for more than seven channels within the new BAS band.  We thus
request comment on whether we should allow for flexible channelization of the new BAS band.   If
so, should we designate one channelization plan as primary and any others as secondary, as proposed
above, in order to resolve any cases of interference that may arise?  Further, we note that it is
possible that the broadcast industry may convert to digital BAS in the future.  We request comment
on likely scenarios for conversion from analog to digital BAS, and the implications such a
conversion may have for BAS spectrum requirements.

     69.  Because BAS and FS generally cannot share spectrum, the relocation and
rechannelization of the BAS band in any specific geographic area must be coordinated with the
clearing of FS licensees in that area from the 2110-2130 MHz band.  We propose to set a specific
date by which all relocation and rechannelization of BAS, and the accompanying relocation of
incumbent FS licenses in the 2110-2130 MHz band, will be expected to be completed nationally. 
That is, we propose to make the new BAS channelization plan above primary on January 1, 2000,
or the day after the last FS licensee in the 2110-2130 MHz band has been relocated in accordance
with Sections 101.69-101.81 of the Commission's rules, whichever date is later.  The primary status
of the new BAS channelization plan, however, would be subject to the rights of the relocated FS
incumbents to be returned to their original facilities within one year if their relocated facilities or
equipment prove not to be equivalent to their original facilities, in accordance with the Emerging
Technologies rules.  In that event, we tentatively believe that we should maintain the primary
status of the current BAS spectrum and channelization for one year after the relocation of the last
FS licensee from the 2110-2130 MHz band.  We request comment on this proposal.  For example,
is the January 1, 2000 date appropriate?  Can BAS equipment tuned to the new channelization plan
be manufactured in sufficient quantity by that date?  In addition, we seek comment on whether it is
necessary to clear completely fixed services from the 2110-2130 MHz band before relocated BAS
operations can begin in that band.  For example, depending on the geographic deployment of
incumbent fixed services, are there circumstances under which it would be possible for BAS
operations to begin within the 2110-2130 MHz without immediately clearing existing fixed services? 
Parties are invited to comment on the feasibility of such an arrangement, giving specific cases of
how this alternative might be carried out in practice.  We also encourage the MSS, BAS, and FS
industries to study the feasibility of band sharing between any two or all three of these services, on
a short term or permanent basis.  We would carefully consider any complete or partial solutions to
sharing problems agreed upon by the industries involved.

     70.  In our Emerging Technologies proceeding, we encouraged the parties involved in
relocation to negotiate relocation agreements voluntarily, and stated that we would accommodate
any agreement which is consistent with our rules.  In order to ensure that the transition of current
services and introduction of new services cannot be stymied by parties unwilling to negotiate, we
established a two-year voluntary negotiation period, commencing with our acceptance of
applications for licensing of new technology services.  After that period, we established that a new
technology provider could invoke a one-year mandatory negotiation period by a written request to
the current licensee to negotiate relocation terms.  During the mandatory period, the parties would
be required to negotiate in good faith, but again the parameters of the negotiation are left to the
parties.  We determined that this two-phase negotiation period best balanced the needs of the parties
involved.  After this negotiation period, the new technology provider may involuntarily relocate
the current licensee.  We propose to apply the same policy here for MSS negotiations with all
pertinent BAS and FS licensees, including FS licensees who must be relocated from the 2110-2130
MHz band, in order to clear that band for BAS relocation.  In order for a MSS provider to
involuntarily relocate a BAS licensee:

         All relocation expenses would be paid entirely by the displacing MSS
          provider.  These expenses would include all engineering, equipment, and site
          costs and FCC fees, as well as any reasonable additional costs.

         Relocation facilities or equipment would be required to be fully comparable to those
          being replaced.

         All activities necessary for placing the new facilities or equipment into operation,
          including clearing incumbents from the 2110-2130 MHz band into which BAS will
          be relocated, engineering, and frequency coordination, would be completed before
          relocation.

         The new facilities or equipment would be fully built and tested before the relocation
          may commence.

         Should the new facilities or equipment, within one year, prove not to be equivalent
          in every respect to the relocated facilities, the displacing MSS provider would be
          required to move the relocated operation to its original facilities or equipment until
          complete equivalency is attained.

We request comment on whether this is the appropriate plan for relocation of BAS incumbents. 
Particularly, we inquire whether the starting date for voluntary negotiations should be later, given
that we have proposed to require FS licensees to be cleared from the 2110-2130 MHz band before
BAS relocation can commence.  We further seek comment on relocation procedures. Should we
follow the procedures of our Emerging Technologies rules?  If so, should we modify those
procedures for the BAS band as we propose below to modify the procedures for FS relocation? 
Should we make other modifications to the Emerging Technologies rules, such as taking the value
and age of BAS equipment into account in deciding appropriate costs in the case of involuntary
relocation?  Finally, should we establish a "sunset" date, i.e., a reasonable time for relocation after
which any BAS licensees who have not been relocated will be required to vacate the spectrum
without compensation?  We applied such a provision to FS licensees in our Microwave Cost-Sharing
proceeding.  If we apply a similar sunset date in the case of BAS relocation, what should that date
be?

     71.  As we noted above, however, negotiating relocation with BAS incumbents individually
could lead to interference between licensees on the current BAS channel plan and licensees on the
new BAS channel plan.  We inquire further as to whether we should require BAS incumbents to
negotiate on a collective basis with MSS operators, with the results to be binding upon all BAS
licensees.  If so, should we require all BAS incumbents in each market, or all incumbents
nationwide, to be represented in negotiations by a single organization?  We also seek comment on
whether we should freeze new BAS license applications during the negotiation period.  If we do not
freeze new applications, given that new BAS license applicants would be on notice of the pending
relocation of BAS, should we subject new BAS licenses issued after the release of this Further
Notice to a condition requiring relocation to be at their licensees' own expense?

     72.  In order to encourage early, voluntary negotiations, we should discourage MSS operators
from waiting for another MSS operator to clear the spectrum at its own expense, allowing "free
riders" to begin operations later without having borne any of the costs of clearing the spectrum. 
Ideally, all initial MSS licensees in the band will divide the tasks and costs of early clearing of the
band, but this may not be the case.  For this reason, we propose to require subsequently entering
MSS licensees in the 1990-2025 MHz band to compensate earlier MSS operators for the reasonable
costs incurred in clearing the spectrum.  Under this proposal, subsequently entering MSS licensees
would be required to compensate earlier entrants in proportion to the amount of spectrum the
subsequent entrant would be authorized to use.  We seek comment on this proposal.

     73.  Relocation of Existing 2110-2130 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz Band Services.  As we
stated in the First Report and Order, we encourage sharing of the 2165-2200 MHz band between
MSS and FS licensees.  Wherever such sharing is possible, we will not mandate the relocation of the
FS incumbent.  Where sharing is not possible however, we intend to require relocation of the
incumbent FS licensee to bands above 5 GHz.

     74.  In general, we propose to follow our Emerging Technologies policies in providing for
the relocation of FS incumbents from the 2110-2130 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands, as codified
at 47 C.F.R.  101.69-101.81.  Incumbents will be relocated from the 2110-2130 MHz band to clear
that band for relocated BAS operations.  In our Emerging Technologies proceeding, we established
two periods for negotiation between new emerging technology licensees and incumbent FS licensees. 
The first period is for voluntary negotiations, in which the parties may arrive at any mutually
agreeable solution.  Negotiations during this period are strictly voluntary, and we established no
parameters for these negotiations.  The voluntary period begins with our acceptance of license
applications for the emerging technology service, and lasts for two years, or, in the case of public
safety FS, three years.  The voluntary period is followed by a mandatory negotiation period, which
begins at any time after expiration of the voluntary period when the emerging technologies licensee
informs the FS incumbent in writing of the emerging technology licensee's desire to negotiate
relocation.  During the mandatory period, the parties would be required to negotiate in good faith,
but again the parameters of the negotiation are left to the parties.  The mandatory period lasts for one
year, or two years for public safety FS incumbents.  Should the parties fail to reach an agreement
during the mandatory negotiation period, the emerging technology provider would be able to request
involuntary relocation of the existing facility.  Involuntary relocation requires that the emerging
technology provider (1) guarantee payment of all costs of relocating the incumbent to a comparable
facility; (2) complete all activities necessary for placing the new facilities into operation, including
engineering and frequency coordination; and (3) build and test the new FS or alternative system. 
Once comparable facilities are made available to the incumbent microwave operator, the
Commission will amend the 2 GHz license of the incumbent to secondary status.  After relocation,
the FS incumbent is entitled to a one-year trial period to determine whether the facilities are indeed
comparable, and if they are not, the emerging technologies licensee is required to remedy the defects
or pay to relocate the FS incumbent back to its former or an equivalent 2 GHz frequency.

     75.  We propose to modify our Emerging Technologies policies to some extent.  In our
Microwave Cost-Sharing proceeding, we decided that a fair balance between emerging technologies
and FS incumbents is struck by allowing an FS incumbent to retain primary status unless and until
an emerging technology licensee requires use of the spectrum, while providing that the emerging
technology licensee will no longer be obligated to pay relocation costs ten years after the voluntary
negotiation period begins for the first emerging technology licensees in the service.  We stated that
once the relocation rules "sunset," an emerging technology licensee may require the incumbent to
either cease operations or relocate itself to alternate facilities at its own expense, provided the
emerging technology licensee intends to start operation of a system within interference range of the
incumbent, as determined by TIA Bulletin 10-F or any standard successor document.  We provided
that the new technology licensee must notify the FS incumbent in writing, and must provide the
incumbent with no less than six months to vacate the spectrum.  After the six-month period has
expired, the incumbent must surrender its 2 GHz license to the Commission, unless the parties
agreed to allow the incumbent to operate.  

     76.  In our Microwave Cost-Sharing proceeding, we also provided guidelines for negotiation
in good faith during the mandatory negotiation period.  These guidelines stated that we expect
incumbent FS licensees to allow inspection of their facilities by the emerging technologies (there,
PCS) licensee and to provide any other information that the PCS licensee needs in order to evaluate
the cost of relocating the incumbent to comparable facilities.  We stated that we would consider
claims that a party has not negotiated in good faith on a case-by-case basis, and that we will
consider, inter alia, the following factors:  (1) whether the PCS licensee has made a bona fide offer
to relocate the incumbent to comparable facilities; (2) if the microwave (FS) incumbent has
demanded a premium, the type of premium requested (e.g., whether the premium is directly related
to relocation, such as system-wide relocations and analog-to-digital conversions, versus other types
of premiums) and whether the value of the premium as compared to the cost of providing
comparable facilities is disproportionate (i.e., whether there is a lack of proportion or relation
between the two); (3) what steps the parties have taken to determine the actual cost of relocation to
comparable facilities; and (4) whether either party has withheld information requested by the other
party that is necessary to estimate relocation costs or to facilitate the relocation process.  Finally, to
ensure that parties do not bring frivolous bad faith claims, we also required any party alleging a
violation of our good faith requirement to provide an independent estimate of the relocation costs
of the facilities in question.  We provided that independent estimates must include specifications for
the comparable facility and statements of the costs associated with providing those facilities to the
incumbent licensees.

     77.  We propose to provide for FS relocation in this case using the same sunset period and
good faith guidelines as those established in the Microwave Cost-Sharing proceeding.  Ten years
after the beginning of the voluntary negotiation period for the first MSS licensees, MSS operators
would no longer be required to pay the costs of relocating FS incumbents, and would be able to
require the incumbents to cease operating or relocate at their own expense upon six months written
notice.  The MSS and FS industries are currently developing interference standards under the good
offices of TIA.  We propose to adopt these standards, or their successors, in determining whether our
sunset rules would apply to a given FS incumbent.  At the end of the six-month notice period, the
incumbent FS licensees would be required to surrender their 2 GHz licenses to the Commission,
unless the incumbent FS licensees arrived at an agreement with the MSS operators to allow the
incumbent FS licensee to continue operations.  During mandatory negotiations, we propose to adhere
to the guidelines enumerated above.  We request comment on whether we should apply the sunset
rule of 47 C.F.R.  101.81 and the good faith guidelines of 47 C.F.R.  101.75 for the 2110-2130
MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands.  If so, we inquire whether the sunset date should be ten years after
the beginning of the voluntary negotiation period for relocation, as in 47 C.F.R.  101.81, or some
other date.

     78.  In our Microwave Cost-Sharing proceeding, we also proposed to adjust the voluntary
and mandatory negotiation periods for FS relocation in the case of the D, E, and F spectrum blocks
of PCS.  Specifically, we proposed to reduce the voluntary period to one year, or two years in the
case of public safety FS incumbents.  We proposed to increase the mandatory negotiation period to
two years, or three years in the case of public safety FS.  Thus, the total negotiation period would
remain the same, but the division into voluntary and mandatory periods would be altered.  We
request comment on whether we should adjust the negotiation periods for the MSS band.  If so,
should we follow the proposal in our Microwave Cost-Sharing proceeding, or should we establish
some other negotiation periods?  Also, should we begin the voluntary negotiation period when we
accept applications for MSS licensing, or at some later date?

     79.  In addition to addressing FS in the 2110-2130 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands, we
inquire into procedures for relocation of FS licensees in the 2130-2150 MHz band.  This band is not
directly reallocated by this proceeding, but FS links in the 2130-2150 MHz band are paired with
links in the 2180-2200 MHz band, which is being reallocated to MSS.  We propose to allow parties
to negotiate the relocation of links in the 2130-2150 MHz band during negotiations for the relocation
of FS licensees in the 2180-2200 MHz band.  We inquire, however, whether we should assume that
the involuntary relocation of FS links in the 2180-2200 MHz band necessitates relocation of the
paired links in the 2130-2150 MHz band, or whether we should require relocation only of links in
the 2180-2200 MHz band, leaving situate the paired links in the 2130-2150 MHz band, unless the
FS licensees involved demonstrate the need to have the paired links in the 2130-2150 MHz band
included in involuntary relocation.  Commenters are urged to address the feasibility of paired links
in widely separated frequency bands, as well as any other aspects of this question.

     80.  Finally, as in  72 above, we propose to require subsequently entering MSS operators
to compensate earlier MSS operators for the costs of relocating incumbent FS licensees.  We propose
that the subsequently entering MSS operators will pay a proportionate share of the costs of clearing
the spectrum band that the subsequently entering MSS operator is authorized to use.  Further, in any
case where the earlier MSS operator was able to share spectrum with FS incumbents, but the entry
of another MSS operator necessitates relocation, we propose to require the earlier MSS operator to
compensate the subsequently entering MSS operator in the same manner.  We also inquire, as in 
70 above, whether we should consider the age and value of FS equipment in determining costs issues
in the case of involuntary relocation.

     81.  We request comment on all these proposals.  Commenters are encouraged to present
possible alternatives to any of the proposals we present here.  We also specifically inquire whether
there are sound reasons to establish different relocation procedures for the BAS band than those we
establish for FS relocation.


                        PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

     82.  A Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement relating to the First Report and Order and
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement relating to the Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making are contained in Appendix E of this First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rule Making.

Ex Parte Rules - Non-Restricted Proceeding

     83.  This is a non-restricted notice and comment rule making proceeding.  Ex partepresentations are permitted except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed
as provided in the Commission's rules.

Comment Period

     84.  Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments on or before [60 days from date of
publication in the Federal Register] and reply comments on or before [90 days from date of
publication in the Federal Register].  To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original
and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments.  If you want each
Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original plus nine
copies.  You should send comments and reply comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.  A copy
of all comments should also be filed with the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., 2100 M
Street, N.W., Suite 14, (202) 857-3800.

Contact  Persons

     85.  For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Sean White at (202) 418-
2453, swhite@fcc.gov, Office of Engineering and Technology.

                         ORDERING CLAUSES

     86.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Part 2 of the Commission's Rules IS AMENDED
as specified in Appendix C, effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.  IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that Celsat's request for a pioneer's preference, PP-28, IS DENIED. 
Authority for issuance of this First Report and Order is contained in Sections 4(i), 302, 303(g),
303(r), 309(j), 332(a), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
 154(i), 302, 303(g), 303(r), 309(j), 332(a), 403; and Section 115(a) of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act, 47 U.S.C.  925(a).

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                              William F. Caton
                              Acting Secretary                              APPENDIX B

                        List of Commenters

American Petroleum Institute
Association of American Railroads
Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers
Association for Maximum Service Television, et al.
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials -- International
BellSouth Corporation
Celsat America, Inc.
COMSAT Corporation
Constellation Communications, Inc.
Creative Broadcast Techniques, Inc. & New Vision Group, Inc.
Ericsson Corporation
GE American Communications, Inc.
Hughes Telecommunications and Space Company
Iridium, Inc.
Loral/QUALCOMM Partnership, L.P.
Motorola, Inc.
Newcomb Communications, Inc.
Personal Communications Satellite Corporation
Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc.
Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems
Teledesic Corporation
TRW, Inc.
UTC (formerly the Utilities Telecommunications Council)

                     List of Reply Commenters

Alcatel Network Systems, Inc.
American Petroleum Institute
Apple Computer, Inc.
Association of AmerIcan Railroads
Association for Maximum Service Television, et al.
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials -- International
Celsat America, Inc.
CEPT Joint Project Team
COMSAT Corporation
Constellation Communications, Inc.
I-CO Global Communications Ltd.
Loral/QUALCOMM Partnership, L.P.
Motorola, Inc.
Newcomb Communications, Inc.
Personal Communications Industry Association
Personal Communications Satellite Corporation
Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc.
Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems
Telecommunications Industry Association
TRW, Inc.
United States Sugar Corporation and Wackenhut Corporation
UTC
WCXP License Partnership

                 List of Supplemental Commenters

Alcatel Network Systems, Inc.
American Petroleum Institute
Ameritech, Inc.
Association of American Railroads
Association for Maximum Service Television, et al.
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials -- International
Dr. John Bellamy
BellSouth Corporation
The State of California
Central Iowa Power Cooperative
Corn Belt Power Cooperative
Hughes Telecommunications and Space Company
Iridium, Inc.
Loral/QUALCOMM Partnership, L.P.
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Minnesota Department of Transportation
The MSS Coalition
Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc.
Telecommunications Industry Association
UTC

                            APPENDIX C

                           Final Rules


Part 2 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

     PART 2 -- FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY
     MATTERS; GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

 1.           The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

 AUTHORITY:  Sec.  4, 302, 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303 and 307, unless otherwise noted.

 2.           Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as follows:

 a.           Remove the existing entries for 1990-2200 MHz.

 b.           Add entries in numerical order for 1990-2200 MHz.
   

 c.           In the International Footnotes under heading I, add footnotes S5.388, S5.389A, S5.389B,
S5.389C, S5.389D, S5.389E, S5.389F, S5.391, and S5.392.

 d.           In the International Footnotes under heading II, remove footnotes 747A and 750A.

 e.           Revise non-Government footnotes NG118 and NG153. 
 
 The revisions and additions read as follows:


 2.106  Table of Frequency Allocations.

*  *  *  *  *





International table
United States table
FCC use designators


Region 1 -- allocation
MHz
Region 2 -- allocation
MHz
Region 3 -- allocation
MHz
Government
Non-Government
Rule part(s)
Special-use
frequencies



(1)

(2)

 (3)
Allocation MHz
(4)
Allocation MHz
(5)

(6)

(7)


*
*
*
*
*
*
*


1980   1990
                                                                      
FIXED
                                                                                               MOBILE
                                                                                               
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
  (Earth-to-space)
                                                                      

S5.388  S5.389A
S5.389F
1980   1990
                                                                       
                                                                      
FIXED
                                                                                               
MOBILE
                                                                                               
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
  (Earth-to-space)
                                                                      

S5.388  S5.389A 
S5.389B  
1980   1990
                                                                           
FIXED
                                                                           
MOBILE
                                                                                               
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
  (Earth-to-space)
                                                                      


S5.388  S5.389A  
1980   1990
                                                                      






1980   1990
                                                                      
FIXED
MOBILE 





FIXED MICRO-
  WAVE (101)
PERSONAL COM-
  MUNICATIONS 
  (24)




1990   2010
                                                                      
FIXED
                                                                                               MOBILE
                                                                                               
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
  (Earth-to-space)
                                                                      

S5.388  S5.389A 
S5.389F
1990   2010
                                                                      
FIXED
                                                                                               
MOBILE
                                                                                               
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
  (Earth-to-space)
                                                                      


S5.388  S5.389A  
1990   2010
                                                                      
FIXED
                                                                           
MOBILE
                                                                                               
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
  (Earth-to-space)
                                                                      


S5.388  S5.389A  
1990   2010






US111  
1990   2010
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
  (Earth-to-space) 




US111  

AUXILIARY BROAD-
  CASTING (74)
CABLE 
  TELEVISION (78)
SATELLITE COM-
  MUNICATIONS 
  (25)



2010   2025 
FIXED
MOBILE




S5.388
                                                                      
2010   2025
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE
                                                                      
  (Earth-to-space)

S5.388  S5.389C 
S5.389D  S5.389E
                                                                      
2010   2025
FIXED
MOBILE




S5.388
2010   2025






US111 
2010   2025
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
  (Earth-to-space)




US111   
AUXILIARY BROAD-
  CASTING (74)
CABLE 
  TELEVISION (78)
SATELLITE COM-
  MUNICATIONS 
  (25)

International table
United States table
FCC use designators


Region 1 -- allocation
MHz
Region 2 -- allocation
MHz
Region 3 -- allocation
MHz
Government
Non-Government
Rule part(s)
Special-use
frequencies



(1)

(2)

 (3)
Allocation MHz
(4)
Allocation MHz
(5)

(6)

(7)


2025   2110
                                                                      
SPACE OPERATION 
  (Earth-to-space) 
  (space-to-space)
                                                                      
EARTH EXPLORA-
  TION-SATELLITE 
  (Earth-to-space) 
  (space-to-space)
FIXED
MOBILE S5.391
                                                                      
SPACE RESEARCH 
  (Earth-to-space) 
  (space-to-space)
                                                                      

S5.392
2025   2110
                                                                      
SPACE OPERATION  
  (Earth-to-space) 
  (space-to-space)
                                                                           
EARTH EXPLORA-
  TION-SATELLITE 
  (Earth-to-space) 
  (space-to-space)
FIXED
MOBILE S5.391
                                                                           
SPACE RESEARCH 
  (Earth-to-space) 
  (space-to-space)
                                                                      

S5.392
2025   2110
                                                                           
SPACE OPERATION 
  (Earth-to-space) 
  (space-to-space)
                                                                      
EARTH EXPLORA-
  TION-SATELLITE 
  (Earth-to-space) 
  (space-to-space)
FIXED
MOBILE S5.391
                                                                           
SPACE RESEARCH 
  (Earth-to-space) 
  (space-to-space)
                                                                      

S5.392
2025   2110












US90  US111  US219 
US222
2025   2110
FIXED
MOBILE










US90  US111  US219 
US222 NG23  NG118

AUXILIARY BROAD-
  CASTING (74)
CABLE 
  TELEVISION (78)




2110   2120
                                                                      
FIXED
MOBILE
                                                                           
SPACE RESEARCH 
  (deep space) 
  (Earth-to-space)


S5.388
2110   2120
                                                                      
FIXED
MOBILE
                                                                           
SPACE RESEARCH  
  (deep space) 
  (Earth-to-space)


S5.388
2110   2120
                                                                      
FIXED
MOBILE
                                                                           
SPACE RESEARCH  
  (deep space) 
  (Earth-to-space)


S5.388
2110   2120







US111  US252
2110   2120
FIXED
MOBILE




US111  US252  NG23 
NG118 

AUXILIARY BROAD-
  CASTING (74)
CABLE 
  TELEVISION (78)
FIXED MICRO-
  WAVE (101)
PUBLIC MOBILE 
  (22)



2120   2130
FIXED
MOBILE





S5.388
2120   2130
FIXED
MOBILE
Mobile-Satellite
                                                                      
  (space-to-Earth)



S5.388
2120   2130
FIXED
MOBILE





S5.388
2120   2130
2120   2130
FIXED
MOBILE





NG23  NG118  

AUXILIARY BROAD-
  CASTING (74)
CABLE 
  TELEVISION (78)
FIXED MICRO-
  WAVE (101)
PUBLIC MOBILE  
  (22)

International table
United States table
FCC use designators


Region 1 -- allocation
MHz
Region 2 -- allocation
MHz
Region 3 -- allocation
MHz
Government
Non-Government
Rule part(s)
Special-use
frequencies



(1)

(2)

 (3)
Allocation MHz
(4)
Allocation MHz
(5)

(6)

(7)


2130   2150
FIXED
MOBILE



S5.388
2130   2150
FIXED
MOBILE
Mobile-Satellite
                                                                      
  (space-to-Earth)

S5.388
2130   2150
FIXED
MOBILE



S5.388
2130   2150
2130   2150
FIXED
MOBILE



NG23  NG153

FIXED MICRO-
  WAVE (101)
PUBLIC MOBILE 
  (22)

EMERGING 
  TECHNOL-
  OGIES


2150   2160
FIXED
MOBILE



S5.388
2150   2160
FIXED
MOBILE
Mobile-Satellite
                                                                      
  (space-to-Earth)

S5.388
2150   2160
FIXED
MOBILE



S5.388
2150   2160
2150   2160
FIXED




NG23

DOMESTIC PUBLIC
  FIXED (21)
FIXED MICRO-
  WAVE (101)



2160   2165
FIXED
MOBILE




S5.388  S5.392A
2160   2165
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE
                                                                      
  (space-to-Earth) 

S5.388  S5.389C 
S5.389D  S5.389E
2160   2165
FIXED
MOBILE




S5.388
2160   2165
2160   2165
FIXED
MOBILE




NG23  NG153

DOMESTIC PUBLIC
  FIXED (21)
FIXED MICRO-
  WAVE (101)
PUBLIC MOBILE 
  (22)

EMERGING 
  TECHNOL-
  OGIES


2165   2170
FIXED
MOBILE




S5.388  S5.392A
2165   2170
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE
                                                                      
  (space-to-Earth) 

S5.388  S5.389C 
S5.389D  S5.389E
2165   2170
FIXED
MOBILE




S5.388
2165   2170
2165   2170
MOBILE-SATELLITE
  (space-to-Earth)




NG23   

FIXED MICRO-
  WAVE (101)
PUBLIC MOBILE 
  (22)
SATELLITE COM-
  MUNICATIONS 
  (25)

International table
United States table
FCC use designators


Region 1 -- allocation
MHz
Region 2 -- allocation
MHz
Region 3 -- allocation
MHz
Government
Non-Government
Rule part(s)
Special-use
frequencies



(1)

(2)

 (3)
Allocation MHz
(4)
Allocation MHz
(5)

(6)

(7)


2170   2200
                                                                      
FIXED
MOBILE
                                                                           
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
  (space-to-Earth)

S5.388  S5.389A 
S5.389F  S5.392A 
2170   2200
                                                                      
FIXED
MOBILE
                                                                           
MOBILE-SATELLITE   
  (space-to-Earth)


S5.388  S5.389A  
2170   2200
                                                                      
FIXED
MOBILE
                                                                           MOBILE-SATELLITE   
  (space-to-Earth)


S5.388  S5.389A  
2170   2200
2170   2200
MOBILE-SATELLITE
  (space-to-Earth)




NG23  

FIXED MICRO-
  WAVE (101)
PUBLIC MOBILE 
  (22)
SATELLITE COM-
  MUNICATIONS 
  (25)



*
*
*
*
*
*
*

                     INTERNATIONAL FOOTNOTES
                                 
* * * * *

I.  "S" Numbering Scheme

* * * * *

 S5.388                                                               The bands 1885-2025 MHz and 2110-2200 MHz are intended for use, on a worldwide
basis, by administrations wishing to implement the future public land mobile telecommunication
systems (FPLMTS). Such use does not preclude the use of these bands by other services to which
these bands are allocated. The bands should be made available for FPLMTS in accordance with
Resolution 212 (Rev.WRC-95).

 S5.389A                                                              The use of the bands 1980-2010 MHz and 2170-2200 MHz by the mobile-satellite
service is subject to coordination under Resolution 46 (Rev.WRC-95)/No. S9.11A and to the
provisions of Resolution 716 (WRC-95). The use of these bands shall not commence before
1 January 2000; however the use of the band 1980-1990 MHz in Region 2 shall not commence
before 1 January 2005.

 S5.389B                                                              The use of the band 1980-1990 MHz by the mobile-satellite service shall not cause
harmful interference to or constrain the development of the fixed and mobile services in Argentina,
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, the United States, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Peru, Suriname,
Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela.

 S5.389C                                                              The use of the bands 2010-2025 MHz and 2160-2170 MHz in Region 2 by the
mobile-satellite service shall not commence before 1 January 2005 and is subject to coordination
under Resolution 46 (Rev.WRC-95)/No. S9.11A and to the provisions of Resolution 716 (WRC-95).

 S5.389D                                                              In Canada and the United States the use of the bands 2010-2025 MHz and 2160-2170
MHz by the mobile-satellite service shall not commence before 1 January 2000.

 S5.389E                                                              The use of the bands 2010-2025 MHz and 2160-2170 MHz by the mobile-satellite
service in Region 2 shall not cause harmful interference to or constrain the development of the fixed
and mobile services in Regions 1 and 3.

 S5.389F                                                              In Algeria, Benin, Cape Verde, Egypt, Mali, Syria and Tunisia, the use of the bands
1980-2010 MHz and 2170-2200 MHz by the mobile-satellite service shall neither cause harmful
interference to the fixed and mobile services, nor hamper the development of those services prior
to 1 January 2005, nor shall the former service request protection from the latter services.
 

 S5.391                                                               In making assignments to the mobile service in the bands 2025-2110 MHz and
2200-2290 MHz, administrations shall take into account Resolution 211 (WARC-92).

 S5.392                                                               Administrations are urged to take all practicable measures to ensure that space-to-space
transmissions between two or more non-geostationary satellites, in the space research, space
operations and Earth exploration-satellite services in the bands 2025-2110 MHz and 2200-2290
MHz, shall not impose any constraints on Earth-to-space, space-to-Earth and other space-to-space
transmissions of those services and in those bands between geostationary and non-geostationary
satellites. 

 S5.392A                                                              Additional allocation: in Russia, the band 2160-2200 MHz is also allocated to the space
research service (space-to-Earth) on a primary basis until 1 January 2005. Stations in the space
research service shall not cause harmful interference to, or claim protection from, stations in the
fixed and mobile services operating in this frequency band.

* * * * *
                  NON-GOVERNMENT (NG) FOOTNOTES

* * * * *

 NG118 Television translator relay stations may be authorized to use frequencies in the 2025-2130
MHz band on a secondary basis to stations operating in accordance with the Table of Frequency
Allocations.

* * * * * 

 NG153 The 2145-2150 MHz and 2160-2165 MHz bands are reserved for future emerging
technologies on a co-primary basis with the fixed and mobile services. Allocations to specific
services will be made in future proceedings.

* * * * *
                            APPENDIX D

                          Proposed Rules


Parts 2, 74, and 78 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as
follows:

 PART 2 -- FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS;
 GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

 1.           The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

 AUTHORITY:  Sec.  4, 302, 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303 and 307, unless otherwise noted.

 2.           Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as follows:

 a.           Remove the existing entries for 1990-2025 and 2165-2200 MHz.

 b.           Add entries in numerical order for 1990-2025 and 2165-2200 MHz.
   

 c.           Add non-Government footnotes NG156 and NG157 in numerical order.

 The revisions and additions read as follows:


 2.106  Table of Frequency Allocations.

*  *  *  *  *





International table
United States table
FCC use designators


Region 1 -- allocation
MHz
Region 2 -- allocation
MHz
Region 3 -- allocation
MHz
Government
Non-Government
Rule part(s)
Special-use
frequencies



(1)

(2)

 (3)
Allocation MHz
(4)
Allocation MHz
(5)

(6)

(7)


*
*
*
*
*
*
*


1990   2010
                                                                      
FIXED
                                                                                               MOBILE
                                                                                               
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
  (Earth-to-space)
                                                                      

S5.388  S5.389A 
S5.389F
1990   2010
                                                                      
FIXED
                                                                                               
MOBILE
                                                                                               
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
  (Earth-to-space)
                                                                      


S5.388  S5.389A  
1990   2010
                                                                      
FIXED
                                                                           
MOBILE
                                                                                               
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
  (Earth-to-space)
                                                                      


S5.388  S5.389A  
1990   2010






US111  
1990   2010
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
  (Earth-to-space) 




US111  NG156

AUXILIARY BROAD-
  CASTING (74)
CABLE 
  TELEVISION (78)
SATELLITE COM-
  MUNICATIONS 
  (25)



2010   2025 
FIXED
MOBILE




S5.388
                                                                      
2010   2025
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE
                                                                      
  (Earth-to-space)

S5.388  S5.389C 
S5.389D  S5.389E
                                                                      
2010   2025
FIXED
MOBILE




S5.388
2010   2025






US111 
2010   2025
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
  (Earth-to-space)




US111  NG156 
AUXILIARY BROAD-
  CASTING (74)
CABLE 
  TELEVISION (78)
SATELLITE COM-
  MUNICATIONS 
  (25)



*
*
*
*
*
*
*


2165   2170
FIXED
MOBILE




S5.388  S5.392A
2165   2170
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE
                                                                      
  (space-to-Earth) 

S5.388  S5.389C 
S5.389D  S5.389E
2165   2170
FIXED
MOBILE




S5.388
2165   2170
2165   2170
MOBILE-SATELLITE
  (space-to-Earth)




NG23  NG157  

FIXED MICRO-
  WAVE (101)
PUBLIC MOBILE 
  (22)
SATELLITE COM-
  MUNICATIONS 
  (25)



2170   2200
                                                                      
FIXED
MOBILE
                                                                           
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
  (space-to-Earth)

S5.388  S5.389A 
S5.389F  S5.392A 
2170   2200
                                                                      
FIXED
MOBILE
                                                                           
MOBILE-SATELLITE   
  (space-to-Earth)


S5.388  S5.389A  
2170   2200
                                                                      
FIXED
MOBILE
                                                                           MOBILE-SATELLITE   
  (space-to-Earth)


S5.388  S5.389A  
2170   2200
2170   2200
MOBILE-SATELLITE
  (space-to-Earth)




NG23  NG157  

FIXED MICRO-
  WAVE (101)
PUBLIC MOBILE 
  (22)
SATELLITE COM-
  MUNICATIONS 
  (25)

International table
United States table
FCC use designators


Region 1 -- allocation
MHz
Region 2 -- allocation
MHz
Region 3 -- allocation
MHz
Government
Non-Government
Rule part(s)
Special-use
frequencies



(1)

(2)

 (3)
Allocation MHz
(4)
Allocation MHz
(5)

(6)

(7)


*
*
*
*
*
*
*

                  NON-GOVERNMENT (NG) FOOTNOTES

*    *    *    *    *

     NG156     In the 1990-2025 MHz band, incumbent Fixed and Mobile Service operations
(Television Broadcast Auxiliary and Cable Television Relay) may continue to use the band on a
primary basis until a Mobile Satellite Service applicant(s) or licensee(s) relocates all affected
operations according to the transition plan found at 47 C.F.R.  74.690 and 101.69. 

     NG157     In the 2110-2130 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands, incumbent Fixed and
Mobile Service operations may continue to use the band on a primary basis until a Mobile Satellite
Service applicant(s) or licensee(s) relocates the affected operations according to the transition plan
found at 47 C.F.R.  101.69.  

*    *    *    *    * 
I.  Part 74 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 74 -- EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND
OTHER PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION SERVICES

1.  The authority citation for Part 74 is revised to read as follows:

  AUTHORITY:  Sec. 4, 302, 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303 and 307, unless otherwise noted.

2.  Section 74.602 is amended as follows:

  a.  Add the following subparagraph (a)(3)

*    *    *    *    *

(3)  Effective January 1, 2000, or the day after the last Fixed Service microwave incumbent is
relocated from the 2110-2130 MHz band, whichever is later, the first seven channels of Band A will
be as follows:

2025-2040 MHz
2040-2055 MHz
2055-2070 MHz
2070-2085 MHz
2085-2100 MHz
2100-2115 MHz
2115-2130 MHz

Broadcast Auxiliary Service, Cable Television Remote Pickup Service, and Local Television
Transmission Service licensees will be required to use this Band A channel plan after completion
of relocation by an Emerging Technologies licensee in accordance with  74.690.


3.  Add the new Section 74.690 as follows:

 74.690  Transition of the 1.990-2.025 GHz band from the Broadcast Auxiliary Service to
emerging technologies.

  (a)  Licensees proposing to implement services using emerging technologies (ET Licensees) may
negotiate with Broadcast Auxiliary Service licensees (Existing Licensees) in these bands for the
purpose of agreeing to terms under which the Existing Licensees would relocate their operations to
other authorized bands or to other media, or alternatively, would accept a sharing arrangement with
the ET Licensee that may result in an otherwise impermissible level of interference to the Existing
Licensee's operations.  ET Licensees may also negotiate agreements for relocation of the Existing
Licensees' facilities within the 2 GHz band in which all interested parties agree to the relocation of
the Existing Licensee's facilities elsewhere within these bands.  "All interested parties" includes the
incumbent licensee, the emerging technology provider or representative requesting and paying for
the relocation, and any existing or emerging technology licensee of the spectrum to which the
incumbent's facilities are to be relocated.
  (b)  Existing Licensees in the 1.99-2.025 GHz band allocated for licensed emerging technology
services will maintain primary status in these bands until an ET Licensee completes relocation of
the Existing Licensee's operations.
  (c)  The Commission will amend the operating license of the Existing Licensee to secondary status
only if the following requirements are met:
  (1)  The service applicant, provider, licensee, or representative using an emerging technology
guarantees payment of all relocation costs, including all engineering, equipment, site and FCC fees,
as well as any reasonable additional costs that the relocated Existing Licensee might incur as a result
of operation in another authorized band or migration to another medium.
  (2)  The emerging technology service entity completes all activities necessary for implementing
the replacement facilities, including engineering and cost analysis of the relocation procedure and,
if radio facilities are used, identifying and obtaining, on the incumbents' behalf, new microwave or
Local Television Transmission frequencies and frequency coordination; and
  (3)  The emerging technology service entity builds the replacement system and tests it for
comparability with the existing system.
  (d)  The Existing Licensee is not required to relocate until the alternative facilities are available to
it for a reasonable time to make adjustments, determine comparability, and ensure a seamless
handoff.
  (e)  If within one year after the relocation to new facilities the Existing Licensee demonstrates that
the new facilities are not comparable to the former facilities, the emerging technology service entity
must remedy the defects or pay to relocate the Existing Licensee back to its former or equivalent
frequencies.

II.  Part 78 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 78 -- CABLE TELEVISION RELAY SERVICE

1.  The authority citation for Part 78 continues to read as follows:

  AUTHORITY:  Secs. 2, 3, 4, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 48 Stat., as amended, 1064, 1066, 1081,
1082, 1083, 1084, 1085; 47 U.S.C. 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309.

2.  Section 78.11(f) is amended by replacing the text "1990-2110 MHz" with the text "2025-2130
MHz."

3.  Section 78.18 is amended as follows:

  a.  Add the following to the end of subparagraph (a)(7)

*    *    *    *    *

(3)  After a licensee has been relocated in accordance with the provisions of  78.40, operations will
be in the band 2025-2130 MHz.  The following channel plan will apply, subject to the provisions
of  74.604.

                       Frequency Band (MHz)

2025-2040 
2040-2055 
2055-2070 
2070-2085 
2085-2100 
2100-2115 
2115-2130 

4.  Add the new Section 78.40 as follows:

 78.40  Transition of the 1.990-2.025 GHz band from the Cable Television Relay Service to
Emerging Technologies.

  (a)  Licensees proposing to implement services using emerging technologies (ET Licensees) may
negotiate with Cable Television Relay Service licensees (Existing Licensees) in these bands for the
purpose of agreeing to terms under which the Existing Licensees would relocate their operations to
other authorized bands or to other media, or alternatively, would accept a sharing arrangement with
the ET Licensee that may result in an otherwise impermissible level of interference to the Existing
Licensee's operations.  ET Licensees may also negotiate agreements for relocation of the Existing
Licensees' facilities within the 2 GHz band in which all interested parties agree to the relocation of
the Existing Licensee's facilities elsewhere within these bands.  "All interested parties" includes the
incumbent licensee, the emerging technology provider or representative requesting and paying for
the relocation, and any existing or emerging technology licensee of the spectrum to which the
incumbent's facilities are to be relocated.
  (b)  Existing Licensees in the 1.99-2.11 GHz band allocated for licensed emerging technology
services will maintain primary status in these bands until an ET Licensee completes relocation of
the Existing Licensee's operations.
  (c)  The Commission will amend the operating license of the Existing Licensee to secondary status
only if the following requirements are met:
  (1)  The service applicant, provider, licensee, or representative using an emerging technology
guarantees payment of all relocation costs, including all engineering, equipment, site and FCC fees,
as well as any reasonable additional costs that the relocated Existing Licensee might incur as a result
of operation in another authorized band or migration to another medium.
  (2)  The emerging technology service entity completes all activities necessary for implementing
the replacement facilities, including engineering and cost analysis of the relocation procedure and,
if radio facilities are used, identifying and obtaining, on the incumbents' behalf, new microwave or
Local Television Transmission frequencies and frequency coordination; and
  (3)  The emerging technology service entity builds the replacement system and tests it for
comparability with the existing system.
  (d)  The Existing Licensee is not required to relocate until the alternative facilities are available to
it for a reasonable time to make adjustments, determine comparability, and ensure a seamless
handoff.
  (e)  If within one year after the relocation to new facilities the Existing Licensee demonstrates that
the new facilities are not comparable to the former facilities, the emerging technology service entity
must remedy the defects or pay to relocate the Existing Licensee back to its former or equivalent
frequencies.

5.  In Section 78.101(a), the table is amended by replacing "1,990 to 2,110" in the first line with
"1,990 to 2,130"   

6.  In Section 78.103(e), replace the table with the following:

     Frequency band (MHz)     |    Maximum authorized band-
                                                                             |                      width (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,990 to 2,110.................................   |  17 or 18.1
6,425 to 6,525.................................   |  8 or 25.
6,875 to 7,125.................................   |  25.
12,700 to 13,250.............................     |  25.
17,700 to 19,700.............................     |  80.
31,000 to 31,300.............................     |  25 or 50.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1  After a licensee has been relocated in accordance with  78.40, the maximum authorized
bandwidth in the frequency band 2,025 to 2,130 MHz will be 15 MHz.

*    *    *    *    *

7.  In Section 78.111, the table is amended by replacing the first line with the following:

                         |Frequency tolerance
     Frequency Band (MHz)     |   Fixed    |   Mobile
                         |(percent)| (percent)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,990 to 2,130 ..................................................  | ..............  |    0.005

*    *    *    *    *
                            APPENDIX E

              Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
                         Report and Order

     As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C.  603, an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (Notice) in ET Docket No. 95-18.  The Commission sought written public comment on
the proposals in the Notice, including the IRFA.  The Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) in this Report and Order conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract with
America Advancement Act of 1996.

A.  Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rule.

     In this Report and Order the Commission allocates 70 megahertz of spectrum for use by the
Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS).  The proposals adopted herein comport with international actions
at the 1995 World Radiocommunications Conference and provide needed spectrum for mobile
satellite communications.

B.  Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the IRFA.

     No comments were submitted in direct response to the IRFA.  The Association for Maximum
Service Television, et al (MSTV) and Creative Broadcast Techniques, Inc. and the New Vision
Group, Inc. (CBT) assert that licensees in the Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) and the Local
Transmission Television Service (LTTS), many of whom may be small entities, must be
compensated for the costs of relocation, if they are required to relocate from spectrum being
reallocated to MSS.  Similarly, The American Petroleum Institute (API), the Association of
American Railroads (AAR), BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth), and UTC insist that Fixed Service
(FS) licensees, many of whom may be small entities, must be compensated for the costs of
relocation, if they are required to relocate from spectrum being reallocated to MSS.


C.  Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Subject to Which the Rules Will
Apply.

     For the purposes of this Report and Order, the RFA defines a small business as identical to
a small business concern under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632, unless the Commission has
developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities.  Under the Small Business
Act, a small business concern is one that:  (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not
dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small
Business Administration (SBA).  The rules adopted in this Report and Order will apply to BAS,
LTTS, Cable Television Relay Service (CARS), and FS licensees, and satellite communications
companies.

     (a)  BAS, LTTS, and Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) Licensees:  
This service involves a variety of transmitters, generally used to relay broadcast programming to the
public (through translator and booster stations) or within the program distribution chain (from a
remote news gathering unit back to the station).  It also includes Instructional Television Fixed
Service stations, which are used to relay programming to the home or office, similar to that provided
by the cable television systems.  The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to Broadcast Auxiliary Service, Local Television Transmission Service or Cable
Television Relay Service.  Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the definition under
the Small Business Administration (SBA) rules applicable to radiotelephone companies.  SBA has
defined a small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) category 4812 (Radiotelephone
Communications) to be small entities when they have fewer than 1500 employees.

     (b)  Fixed Service Licensees:  This Report and Order pertains to fixed service microwave
licensees.  The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to Fixed
Service microwave licensees.  Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the definition
under the Small Business Administration (SBA) rules applicable to radiotelephone companies.  This
definition provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing fewer than 1,500
persons.  Census Bureau data indicates that there are 1,164 radiotelephone companies with fewer
than 1500 employees, that might qualify as small entities if they are independently owned and
operated.  Since the Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments were not in effect until the record in this
proceeding was closed, the Commission was unable to request information regarding the number of
small businesses that would be affected by this action.   

     (c)  Satellite Communications Services:  The Commission has not developed a definition
of small entities applicable to satellite communications licensees.  Therefore, the applicable
definition of small entity is the definition under the Small Business Administration (SBA) rules
applicable to Communications Services "Not Elsewhere Classified."  This definition provides that
a small entity is one with $11.0 million or less in annual receipts.  According to Census Bureau
data, there are 848 firms that fall under the category of Communications Services, Not Elsewhere
Classified.  Of those, approximately 775 reported annual receipts of $11 million or less and qualify
as small entities.

     Describing and estimating the number of small entities these rules will impact is made
difficult by a number of factors.  First of all, information from the Satellite Industry Association and
financial analysts who specialize in this market indicate that there are few firms that could be
traditionally thought of as small businesses.  They point to to the fact that this is a capital intensive
industry that requires "significant partner funding and/or contract commitments prior to approaching
commercial financing sources."

     There are however, a number of firms who identify themselves as small entities including: 
Columbia Corp., CTA, Mobile Communications Holdings, Inc. (MCHI), Orion, TelQuest Ventures,
L.L.C., and possibly others.  Several of these companies have submitted comments to the
Commission's Section 257 proceeding to identify and eliminate market entry barriers for small
businesses.

D.  Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirement.

     The rules adopted in this Report and Order do not specify details of the process by which
BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS licensees will be relocated.  Therefore, the rules impose no additional
reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements.

E.  Significant Alternatives and Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on a
Substantial Number of Small Entities Consistent with Stated Objectives.

     As proposed in the Notice, MSS licensees in the 2 GHz band will be required to bear the cost
of relocating and rechannelizing BAS, LTTS, and CARS licensees in the 2 GHz band.  Further, as
proposed in the Notice, any MSS licensee in the 2 GHz band will be required to bear the cost of
relocating any FS licensee with which it cannot share spectrum or which must be relocated to clear
spectrum for BAS.  The Commission considered the alternative of requiring BAS, LTTS, CARS,
and FS licensees to bear the cost of relocating themselves, but rejected this alternative as unfairly
burdensome on BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS licensees.

F.  Report to Congress.

     The Commission will send a copy of this FRFA, along with this Report and Order, in a
report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A).  A copy of this FRFA will also be published in the Federal Register.

             Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
                                 
     As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has
prepared an IRFA of the expected significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and
rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Further Notice).  Written public
comments are requested on the IRFA.  Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further Notice provided above in paragraph 83. 
The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

A.  Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules.

     The Further Notice proposes rules to govern the relocation of Broadcast Auxiliary Service
(BAS), Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS), Cable Television Relay Service (CARS),
and Fixed Service (FS) licensees from the 2 GHz spectrum reallocated to the MSS.  These rules are
designed to ensure an orderly transition of these licensees from the spectrum so that MSS operations
may be conducted in the spectrum.  At the same time, the rules are designed to ensure that incumbent
BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS licensees suffer no harm from relocation.

B.  Legal Basis.

     The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, gives the Commission authority to "make
such regulations as it may deem necessary to prevent interference between stations and to carry out
the provisions of [the Communications Act]."  47 U.S.C.  303(f).

C.  Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules
Will Apply.

     (a)  BAS, LTTS, and CARS Licensees:  This service involves a variety of transmitters,
generally used to relay broadcast programming to the public (through translator and booster stations)
or within the program distribution chain (from a remote news gathering unit back to the station). 
It also includes Instructional Television Fixed Service stations, which are used to relay programming
to the home or office, similar to that provided by the cable television systems.  The Commission has
not developed a definition of small entities applicable to Broadcast Auxiliary Service, Local
Television Transmission Service or Cable Television Relay Service.  Therefore, the applicable
definition of small entity is the definition under the Small Business Administration (SBA) rules
applicable to radiotelephone companies.  SBA has defined a small business for Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) category 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications) to be small entities when they
have fewer than 1500 employees.

      There are currently 2,663 FM translators and boosters, 4, 926 TV translators, and 1,921 Low
Power TV stations which will be affected by the new requirements.  The FCC does not collect
financial information on any broadcast facility and the Department of Commerce does not collect
financial information on these auxiliary broadcast facilities.  We believe that most, if not all, of these
auxiliary facilities could be classified as small businesses by themselves.  We recognize that most
translators and boosters are owned by a parent station which, in some cases, would be covered by
the revenue definition of small business entity discussed above.  These stations would likely have
annual revenues that exceed the SBA maximum to be designated as a small business (either $5
million for a radio station or $10.5 million for a TV station).  As we indicated earlier, 96% of radio
stations and 78% of TV stations are designated as small businesses.

      There are currently 2,000 licensed cable television relay stations, which will probably be
affected by the new requirement.  The Commission receives approximately 1,000 CARS applications
on an annual basis.  The FCC is not required to collect financial information on these facilities. 

     (b)  Fixed Service Licensees:  This Further Notice pertains to fixed service microwave
licensees.  The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to Fixed
Service microwave licensees.  Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the definition
under the Small Business Administration (SBA) rules applicable to radiotelephone companies.  This
definition provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing fewer than 1,500
persons.  Census Bureau data indicates that there are 1,164 radiotelephone companies with fewer
than 1500 employees, that might qualify as small entities if they are independently owned and
operated.  Since the Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments were not in effect until the record in this
proceeding was closed, the Commission was unable to request information regarding the number of
small businesses that would be affected by this action.   

     (c)  Satellite Communications Services:  The Commission has not developed a definition
of small entities applicable to satellite communications licensees.  Therefore, the applicable
definition of small entity is the definition under the Small Business Administration (SBA) rules
applicable to Communications Services "Not Elsewhere Classified."  This definition provides that
a small entity is one with $11.0 million or less in annual receipts.  According to Census Bureau
data, there are 848 firms that fall under the category of Communications Services, Not Elsewhere
Classified.  Of those, approximately 775 reported annual receipts of $11 million or less and qualify
as small entities.

     Satellite systems authorized by the Commission can be divided into the following categories:
Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) non-geostationary satellite orbit (LEO) (low or medium orbit
satellites); MSS geostationary; MSS stations; and Fixed-Satellite Service.
     
D.  Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements.

     The proposed rules would require all BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS licensees, as well as MSS
operators, to negotiate for relocation or rechannelization or both, including negotiating timetables
and costs.  These negotiations are likely to require the skills of accountants and engineers to evaluate
the economic and technical requirements of relocation.

E.  Significant Alternatives to Proposed Rules which Minimize Significant Economic Impact
on Small Entities and Accomplish Stated Objectives.

     The Commission considered the alternative of requiring current BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS
licensees in the 2 GHz band to relocate or rechannelize or both at their own expense.  The
Commission rejected this alternative as excessively burdensome on these incumbent licensees, and
not in the public interest.

     MSS commenters advocate requiring BAS band licensees to finance their own relocation as
their equipment depreciates and they purchase new equipment, claiming that the total costs of
relocation, added to the high cost of launching satellites, would cripple the nascent MSS industry. 
This assertion, however, contradicts the position of MSS commenters that there is a huge,
underserved demand for MSS.  We believe that MSS licensees will build the cost of relocating BAS
band licensees into their financial plans, and still will be able to provide service at a profit.  We
propose to rechannelize the BAS band to seven channels of 15 megahertz width each, as opposed
to the current 17- and 18-megahertz channel widths, in order to maintain seven channels in the 2
GHz BAS band, but we also request comment on whether allowing flexibility in channelization
would better serve the needs of the BAS, CARS, and LTTS industries.  Because the current and new
BAS bands overlap, BAS, CARS, and LTTS licensees are likely to interfere with each other if both
the current and proposed new channel plans are used simultaneously.  To address this problem, we
would propose to make the new channel plan primary on January 1, 2000, or after the 2110-2130
MHz band is cleared of incumbent FS licensees, whichever is later.  We would also inquire whether
a later date would be more appropriate, and whether we may allow switchover on a market-by-
market basis, rather than a nationwide basis.  We inquire whether we should allow BAS, CARS, and
LTTS licensees to negotiate with MSS individually, or whether we should impose marketwide or
nationwide negotiators whose agreements would be binding on all licensees.  We propose the same
negotiation periods as those established in the Emerging Technologies proceeding:  a two-year
voluntary negotiation period, followed by a one-year mandatory negotiation period, followed by
involuntary relocation.  In the case of involuntary relocation, we propose to apply the requirements
of our Emerging Technologies policies:  (1) payment of all relocation expenses by the MSS operator,
(2) full comparability of replacement facilities, and (3) the right of the incumbents to return to their
original spectrum at MSS expense, should the replacement facilities prove not to be fully comparable
within one year after relocation.  Finally, we would propose to require subsequently entering MSS
operators to compensate earlier operators for a portion of the expenses incurred in clearing the BAS
band.

F.  Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules.

     None.