*************************************************** NOTICE *************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, itallic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the orginal document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendment of ) Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80,) WT Docket No. 98-20 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission's Rules) to Facilitate the Development and Use of the) Universal Licensing System in the Wireless) Telecommunications Services ) ) Amendment of the Amateur Service Rules to) WT Docket No. 96-188 Authorize Visiting Foreign Amateur Operators) to Operate Stations in the United States) RM-8677 ) REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: September 17, 1998 Released: October 21, 1998 By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth issuing a statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph Number I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 III. DISCUSSION A. Electronic Filing and New Forms 1. Consolidation of Application Forms. . . . . . . . . . 11 2. Mandatory Electronic Filing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 a. Transition Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 b. Exempt Wireless Services . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 c. Computer Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3. Copy and Microfiche Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . 33 4. Electronic Filing of Pleadings Associated with Applications38 5. Letter Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 B. Standardization of Practices and Procedures for WTB Applications and Authorizations 1. Consolidation of Procedural Rules in Part 1 . . . . . 55 2. Standardization of Major and Minor Filing Rules . . . 58 3. Submission of Ownership Information . . . . . . . . . 74 4. Frequency Coordination: Amendments/Modification . . . 84 5. Returns and Dismissals of Incomplete or Defective Applications89 6. Discontinuation of "Reinstatement" Applications . . . 95 7. Construction and Coverage Verification. . . . . . . .102 8. Assignments of Authorization and Transfers of Control109 9. Change to North American Datum 83 Coordinate Data . .123 10. Use of Taxpayer Identification Numbers. . . . . . . .132 C. Collection of Licensing and Technical Data 1. Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 2. Notification or Certification in Lieu of Informational Filings151 3. Public Mobile Radio Service Data Requirements . . . .153 4. Fixed Microwave Service Data Requirements . . . . . .160 5. Maritime and Aviation Services Data Requirements. . .165 6. Commercial Radio Operator License Data Requirements .168 7. Amateur Radio Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172 8. General Mobile Radio Service a. Inclusion in the Proceeding. . . . . . . . . . .183 b. Regulatory Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185 c. Eligibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189 d. Channeling Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191 e. Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . .196 f. Antenna Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201 g. Permissible Communications . . . . . . . . . . .203 h. Rules Pertaining to Management of a GMRS System.205 IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Regulatory Flexibility Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . .208 B. Paperwork Reduction Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209 C. Further Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .210 V. ORDERING CLAUSES Appendix A: Names of Commenters and Reply Commenters Appendix B: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Appendix C: ULS Forms (Forms 601, 602, 603, and 605) Appendix D: NAD 83 Coordinate System Appendix E: ULS Rule Conversion Chart Appendix F: Comparison of Consolidated Part 1 (Subpart F) Rules and Former Service-Specific Procedural Rules Appendix G: Final Rules I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1. In this Report and Order, we consolidate, revise, and streamline the Commission's rules governing license application procedures for radio services licensed by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB or Wireless Bureau). These rule changes will enable us to fully implement the Universal Licensing System (ULS), the Commission's new automated licensing system and integrated database for wireless services. We also adopt new consolidated application forms, which will enable all wireless licensees and applicants to file applications electronically in ULS. Further, we also establish procedures to ensure a smooth transition from our pre-existing licensing processes to the processes developed for ULS. 2. The development of ULS represents a fundamental change to the manner in which we receive and process wireless applications. Previously, wireless applicants and licensees used a myriad of forms for various wireless services and types of requests, and the information provided on these applications has been collected in separate databases, each for a different group of services. Although in some instances, these forms could be filed electronically, many of these existing systems do not accommodate electronic filing, instead requiring information to be submitted on paper and then manually keyed into the database by FCC staff. This patchwork approach to application processing has caused a significant waste of time and resources on the part of applicants and licensees, who must often file duplicative information in different databases following varying procedures. The maintenance of multiple databases also impedes the Commission's ability to carry out its licensing responsibilities efficiently, and impedes the public's access to licensing information because the information is not centrally located and frequently not available in an easily usable form. 3. Over the past few months, the Wireless Bureau has begun an incremental deployment of ULS, which will ultimately provide a single technological platform for filing applications and information collection from all wireless licensees and applicants. The Wireless Bureau has used ULS for all post- auction licensing since December 1997, and will be using it in conjunction with post-auction licensing in all future auctions. In addition, the Wireless Bureau has begun the phased transition of licensing data for each of the existing wireless services from their present databases to ULS, after which all future licensing activity in each service will be in ULS. Thus, the database for common carrier paging was transferred to ULS in June 1998, and PCS and WCS were converted in September 1998. Other services, such as Cellular, Microwave, and Land Mobile, will be switched to ULS in subsequent stages later this year or early next year. We anticipate that ULS will be fully operational in all wireless services by April 1999. 4. Once fully deployed, ULS will eliminate the need for wireless carriers to file duplicative applications, and will increase the accuracy and reliability of licensing information. ULS will also enable all wireless applicants and licensees for the first time to file all licensing-related applications and other filings electronically, thus increasing the speed and efficiency of the application process. This will also benefit wireless applicants and licensees by reducing the cost of preparing applications, and will speed the licensing process, so that we can introduce new entrants more quickly into this already competitive industry. The enhanced information collection capabilities of ULS will, in turn, enable the Commission staff to easily monitor spectrum use and competitive conditions in the wireless marketplace and will promote effective implementation of our spectrum management policies. Finally, ULS will enhance the availability of licensing information to the public, which will for the first time have access to all publicly available wireless licensing information on-line, including maps depicting a licensee's geographic service area. 5. We have also taken steps throughout the ULS development process to protect both system integrity and the confidentiality of information pertaining to applicants and licensees. To ensure the integrity of the licensing process, we have initiated a registration process in which wireless applicants and licensees register their Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs), self-assign a password, and then associate all of their call signs with the registration. Thus, only registered users will have access to the electronic filing features of ULS with respect to their own licensing data. These safeguards are designed to protect the confidentiality of pre-filed applications and FCC forms before they are filed and become publicly available. Additionally, all electronic filing transactions will occur on the FCC's wide area network through a direct connection, so that application data will not be transmitted on the Internet, which is less secure. Once data has been entered into ULS, sensitive data such as TINs will not be accessible to the public. Finally, we have created redundant systems and backup procedures to safeguard against loss of data or system access should a system failure occur. 6. On February 19, 1998, we adopted the ULS Notice, in which we proposed to develop ULS for all wireless services and to implement a variety of changes to existing rules and procedures in order to facilitate the deployment of ULS. We noted that the implementation of ULS required conforming changes to our wireless licensing rules to reflect new electronic filing procedures, new electronic forms, and other technical changes in the licensing process. We also noted that the development of ULS provided us with an opportunity to simplify and streamline the Commission's rules in other ways as well. Thus, we proposed to consolidate our wireless radio services licensing rules in a single section of Part 1, to the extent practicable, and to eliminate dozens of corresponding duplicative rules in other service-specific rule parts. We also proposed to introduce new consolidated application forms and to require electronic filing of most forms. Finally, in addition to proposing rule changes needed to fully deploy ULS, we also proposed to streamline or eliminate technical data collection requirements in some services, and to streamline our licensing procedures in the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS). While many of these proposed changes were procedural in nature, we considered it important to seek comment on the full impact of these changes on licensees and the public. 7. In the ULS Notice, we also designated this proceeding as part of our 1998 biennial review of regulations pursuant to section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Communications Act). Section 11 requires us to review all of our regulations applicable to providers of telecommunications services and determine whether any rule is no longer in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between providers of telecommunications service. As part of our biennial review, we stated that our goal in this proceeding was to establish rules that (1) reduce filing requirements as much as possible; (2) eliminate redundant, inconsistent, or unnecessary submission requirements; and (3) assure ongoing collection of reliable licensing and ownership data. Accordingly, we proposed in the ULS Notice to revise our regulations to efficiently collect from wireless services applicants and licensees only the data necessary to effectuate our statutory spectrum management and compliance responsibilities. 8. We received 77 comments and 17 reply comments in response to the ULS Notice. In addition, we held several open forums on ULS for the public and for industry representatives, which yielded many insightful comments and suggestions. We have also worked closely with groups such as the FCBA to further refine our proposals. II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9. In this Report and Order, we substantially adopt the proposals set forth in the ULS Notice to consolidate our wireless services filing and processing rules, including transitioning to new filing forms compatible with ULS. We also eliminate a large number of unnecessary rules and duplicative forms that are not necessary in light of the development of ULS. In making these changes, we have implemented many of the suggestions made by commenters for further streamlining of the Commission's rules and refinement of our application forms. We also acknowledge the concern that many commenters have expressed regarding our proposed timetable for implementing ULS, including our proposals for mandatory electronic filing of applications. We agree with these commenters that modification of this timetable is appropriate to ensure that ULS is fully tested and that users have a reasonable transition period to become familiar with the system before we impose any mandatory requirements. 10. Specifically, we take the following actions in this Report and Order:  We adopt the following four consolidated ULS application forms for wireless services, which includes some modifications suggested by commenters, to replace approximately 41 application forms currently in use: (1) Form 601 (Long-Form or FCC Application for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Radio Service Authorization) -- This form is to be used by those filing an initial licensing application. It will also be used by licensees applying for license modifications, renewals, or grants of special temporary authority in the majority of wireless services. (2) Form 602 (FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless Telecommunications Services) -- This form is to be used by applicants or licensees to submit initial and updated ownership information in conjunction with license applications, license assignments, and transfers of control for wireless services that are licensed by auction only. (3) Form 603 (FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Application for Assignment of Authorization or Transfer of Control) -- This form is to be used by all wireless services, for approval of license assignments and transfers of control. It combines the separate forms proposed in the ULS Notice (Forms 603 and 604). (4) Form 605 (Quick-Form Application for Authorization in the Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and Commercial Operator, and General Mobile Radio Services) -- This form is to be used by applicants or licensees for wireless services that are not auctionable and are not required to provide technical data to obtain a license (i.e., General Mobile Radio Service, Amateur Radio Service, Ship, Aircraft, Restricted and Commercial Radio Operators).  We modify Forms 601 and 603 to collect information, on a voluntary basis, regarding ownership and control of wireless licensees by women and minorities. This information will be used for statistical and informational purposes only and will not affect the review or processing of applications.  We will allow continued use of existing (pre-ULS) forms for a transition period of six months after the effective date of these rules. This transition period will give applicants and licensees flexibility to plan an orderly transition from the use of old forms to the use of new ULS forms.  Electronic filing for applicants and licensees in services that are licensed by auction will be mandatory, but electronic filing will be optional for applicants and licensees in services that are not subject to licensing by auction. For each service that is subject to mandatory electronic filing, these requirements will take effect on July 1, 1999, or six months after we begin use of ULS in the particular service, whichever is later. This does not affect our prior decision to require applicants for auctions to file both FCC Form 175 and FCC Form 601 applications electronically as of January 1, 1999.  Electronic filing will be mandatory for applications filed by frequency coordinators and by volunteer examiner-coordinators (VECs) in the Amateur service. These requirements will take effect on July 1, 1999, or six months after we begin use of ULS in the particular service, whichever is later.  We will take steps to ensure that ULS electronic filing and data programs are accessible to persons with disabilities in compliance with our program accessibility rules and the new requirements of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.  We will no longer accept letter requests as a substitute for authorizations that can be requested on ULS forms. This change includes extension of time requests to meet our construction requirements or extend consummation periods, requests for license cancellations, requests for special temporary authority, and licensee's reporting of name and address changes. This decision will take effect six months from the effective date of the rules.  We consolidate all rules governing the filing and processing of applications for wireless services into a single set of rules in Part 1.  We adopt a consolidated rule for determining whether a change to a pending application or existing authorization is treated as a major or minor modification or amendment. We also clarify that under this rule, no license modification application is required for geographic licensees to move, add, or delete an internal site in their licensing areas, except in certain instances where specific sites require environmental approval or international coordination.  We eliminate reinstatement procedures in those wireless services that previously had them. ULS will provide for notification by mail to all wireless licensees ninety days prior to the expiration date of their licenses, and will allow them to file the renewal application at any time in that ninety day period. A licensee who fails to file a timely renewal application has no right to reinstatement, but must file a new application.  For transfer and assignment applications, we will enable both parties to a proposed transaction to sign the application form electronically and verify its contents before the form is filed. The combined transfer/assignment form (Form 603) may also be used to provide notification of consummation of a transfer or assignment transaction.  We will require the submission of a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) by applicants and licensees using ULS, consistent with the requirements of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. We will also collect TIN information of persons and entities that are attributable interestholders in licensees who must file Form 602. In all cases, TIN information will be kept confidential so that no unauthorized person will have access to the information. Applicants who use frequency coordinators to file their applications will not be required to disclose their TIN to the frequency coordinator. Applicants who use frequency coordinators to file their applications will not be required to disclose their TIN to the frequency coordinator, so long as the TIN has been registered by the applicant with the Commission.  We eliminate or modify certain technical data reporting requirements pertaining to specific services. This includes: (1) eliminating requirements that LMDS, 800 MHz SMR, and 220 MHz auction winners file site data with the Commission, so long as they maintain such data in their station records and make it available on request; (2) replacing certain informational filing requirements with simple notifications or certifications, (3) deleting certain technical data filing requirements applicable to licensees in the Public Mobile Services, Fixed Microwave Services, Maritime and Aviation Services, and to Commercial Radio Operators.  We adopt proposals made in WT Docket 96-188 to authorize reciprocal operation by foreign amateur radio licensees by rule pursuant to recent international reciprocal operating agreements.  We have identified numerous GMRS rules to be eliminated and streamlined as duplicative or unnecessary to our regulatory responsibilities, and these rule changes will also facilitate the conversion of our data collection procedures and databases to ULS. III. DISCUSSION A. Electronic Filing and New Forms 1. Consolidation of Application Forms 11. Background. In the ULS Notice, we proposed to reduce the number of FCC forms used in the WTB application and licensing process from forty-one to five. We noted that consolidating our forms would not only streamline the processing of applications but would reduce the filing burden for wireless applicants and licensees. We sought comment on the following proposed forms designed specifically for ULS use: FCC Forms 601 (Long-Form or FCC Application for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Radio Service Authorization), 602 (FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless Telecommunications Services), 603 (FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Application for Assignment of Authorization), 604 (FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Application for Transfer of Control) and 605 (Quick-Form Application for Authorization in the Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and Commercial Operator, and General Mobile Radio Services). While some of these forms have already received OMB approval and are being used on a limited basis, we sought comment on whether further modifications should be made to the proposed forms prior to the full deployment of ULS. We also tentatively concluded that the filing of separate long-form (FCC Form 601) applications for each geographic license won at auction was not expedient and created undue burdens on the public and the Commission. We sought comment on our tentative conclusion to require the filing of only one long-form application for all licenses won in a single auction. 12. Discussion. We adopt the proposed forms with some modifications. Most commenters agree with our overall proposal to simplify the application process by consolidating and unifying the forms used by wireless radio applicants and licensees. One commenter observes that "the computerized, paperless filing offered by ULS is a tremendous improvement over paper filings." In addition to the increased ease of filing afforded by ULS, we believe that applicants, licensees and the public will find discussing a particular application with the staff much easier and faster. The staff "will no longer have to rummage through reams of paper to find a particular filing, but instead the staff will be able to immediately access a filing merely by pointing and clicking onto the correct computer screen." We conclude that the record broadly supports our decision to use consolidated forms designed for ULS in support of all wireless services application and licensing functions. 13. However, a few commenters urge the Commission to retain existing service-specific forms instead of creating new consolidated forms. FIT, for example, suggests using Forms 601 and 605 for some wireless services, but proposes that we retain the current Form 600 for private land mobile, marine private coast, and aviation ground services, and that we continue to use Form 415 for all microwave services. Similarly, TIA proposes that fixed point-to-point microwave applicants use Form 415 for applications, transfers, and assignments, because this form was designed specifically for microwave services. 14. We disagree with the view that we should continue using existing service-specific forms for wireless services. The current array of over forty service-specific forms confuses the public and vastly increases the amount of time and staff resources needed to process applications. In addition, these forms were not designed for ULS, and in many instances cannot be electronically filed. While there may be instances where licensees are accustomed to using a particular service-specific form, the far greater benefits of ULS will not be fully realized if we were to continue using the existing forms. The new forms are not only consolidated, but are specifically designed for electronic filing in ULS. Moreover, applicants and licensees filing for multiple services will no longer need to submit duplicative information. Thus, while adoption of ULS forms will require wireless services applicants and licensees to make some adjustments initially, over time consolidation of the forms will increase the speed and accuracy of the application process and expedite service to the public. It is also consistent with our objective to eliminate unnecessary service-specific distinctions in our application and licensing procedures, and provide the public with a consistent set of procedures and rules applicable to all wireless services. 15. Some parties also commented on the length of Form 601 and the number of proposed schedules to the form. In fact, while the form and schedules in their totality appear substantial, they will be far less so in actual practice. Form 601 is structured much like the current Form 600, with a main form for basic applicant information and separate schedules for service-specific technical information. Generally, Form 601 filers will complete only the main form and the particular schedule(s) with information relevant to their particular wireless service. In addition, electronic filing of Form 601 will be faster and more efficient than filing Form 600, because the system will automatically "pre-fill" licensee information already in the system for Form 601 and will display only the portions of the form and schedules that require completion for the applicant's or licensee's indicated purpose. This feature of ULS will lessen the burden on applicants and licensees, and will reduce the staff's processing time for wireless applications, so that licensees may provide service to the public quickly. 16. Nevertheless, in light of the significant changes to our wireless services forms, we will allow continued use of all existing (pre-ULS) forms for a transition period of six months after the effective date of this Report and Order. This transition period is consistent with our past practice for introducing new forms. A six-month transition period will provide wireless services applicants and licensees with sufficient time to plan an orderly transition from using existing forms to using the new ULS forms. At the conclusion of this period, only ULS forms will be accepted. Of course, wireless services applicants and licensees may begin using ULS forms sooner if they prefer, and we encourage them to do so. It is in the applicant's or licensee's interest to use the ULS forms as they were created for ULS compatibility and will reduce processing time. In addition, an applicant or licensee electing to use an existing form must provide any new information now asked for on the ULS forms. 17. We received a variety of suggestions from commenters for modifying elements or particular questions on the proposed forms. We find that many of these suggestions have merit, and we will modify the forms accordingly. For example, as suggested by a number of commenters, we will combine Forms 603 and 604 into a single combined form for both assignments and transfers. We will also modify the questions on Form 601 relating to alien ownership to limit the scope of questions that must be answered by non-common carrier licensees who are not subject to section 310(b) ownership requirements, and to account for indirect ownership of licensees by investors from World Trade Organization (WTO) member countries. Additionally, pursuant to section 1.2110(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, we will modify Forms 601 and 603 to collect information on a voluntary basis regarding the race, ethnicity and gender of wireless licensees and applicants. 18. FCBA requests that we provide applicants with the ability to provide supplementary information which clarifies any question on a wireless application that calls for a "yes/no" response. ULS forms and the application database will allow any applicant to file attachments to its wireless services application to clarify or explain its answer to a question. Whether filed electronically or manually (i.e, filed on paper), such attachments will be entered into the system as text files and will become part of the application record in ULS. Thus, attachments will be viewable on-line by the applicant or licensee, the Commission, and the public. 19. BAM interprets the ULS Notice as requiring a wireless services licensee to file a Form 601 every time a licensee makes any type of change to an existing license, even if it is a minor change. We clarify that the purpose of creating a single database for wireless services is to eliminate the traditional practice of wireless applicants or licensees submitting duplicative and overlapping applications. Any time a wireless services applicant or licensee logs onto ULS to file an application, information previously entered into ULS will "pre-fill" or appear on the screen for inspection. If any information concerning the applicant or licensee has changed, it is the responsibility of the filer to update the information on its application as required by the Commission's rules. 2. Mandatory Electronic Filing 20. Background. In the ULS Notice, we proposed requiring applicants, licensees, and frequency coordinators filing applications on behalf of applicants and licensees in all of the wireless services to file electronically beginning on January 1, 1999. We stated our belief that beginning mandatory electronic filing on this date would be in the public interest because it would help to accomplish our goals of: (a) a rapid transition to ULS; (b) streamlining our wireless services application processing; (c) affording parties a quick and economical process to file wireless services applications; and (d) making all licensing information quickly and easily available to interested parties and the public. Although we believe these benefits warrant mandatory electronic filing, we recognized that some wireless services applicants or licensees might lack access not only to high quality telephone lines but also computers capable of submitting their applications electronically. For these reasons, we solicited comments on whether certain wireless radio services, or classes of applicants or licensees, should be exempt from our proposed requirement to file electronically. We also requested comment on whether supplying Commission maintained computer facilities for public use would facilitate electronic filing. a. Transition Period 21. Most commenters agree that the use of electronic filing for wireless applications should be expanded and encouraged. AAR, for example, notes that electronic filing will allow quicker and less costly filing by applicants or licensees, quicker and more accurate processing by Commission staff, and speedier access to wireless services application and licensing information by the public. This view is echoed by a broad range of commenters, such as AMTA, PCIA, AT&T, and Motorola. Nevertheless, many of these same commenters urge the Commission to proceed cautiously before making electronic filing mandatory. While our proposed January 1, 1999 deadline is not without support, the majority of commenters argue that this date is too soon to impose mandatory electronic filing. Many of the commenters cite the need for more time to work out technical glitches that are inevitably found in new software packages. Several commenters also argue that the wireless industry will need a longer transition period than was proposed in the ULS Notice to obtain experience using ULS. Some commenters urge the Commission to provide more time for licensees to verify the accuracy of existing Commission records before ULS becomes operational. A number of alternative dates are suggested for the implementation of mandatory electronic filing. Finally, several commenters oppose mandatory electronic filing for the foreseeable future. 22. We conclude that the record supports requiring electronic filing for all services that are licensed by auction. This approach is consistent with our prior decision in the Part 1 Third Report and Order to require electronic filing for FCC Form 175 applications filed prior to auction and for FCC Form 601 applications filed after the auction by winning bidders. Our decision today will expand mandatory electronic filing to include other types of applications in auctionable wireless services, including transfer and assignment applications, renewals, license modifications, waiver requests, and notifications. We note that mandatory electronic filing will apply to licensees in services subject to auction even if the particular license was not acquired by auction, e.g., cellular and paging licensees who obtained their licenses by lottery will be required to file license-related applications and notifications electronically when these mandatory filing requirements take effect. We also require mandatory electronic filing of common carrier services which are not subject to auction because they operate on shared spectrum (e.g., CMRS licenses operating on shared 929 MHz paging channels or Business Radio frequencies below 800 MHz). We believe that common carriers generally have the resources and technical capacity to support electronic filing. 23. While we conclude that mandatory electronic filing should be implemented to the extent discussed above, we will adopt a longer transition period than was proposed in the ULS Notice. Since the adoption of the Notice, development of ULS has proceeded quickly, and the deployment that has occurred so far has demonstrated the ease and efficiency of electronic filing in ULS. Nevertheless, the new rules, forms, and procedures adopted in this order will not go into effect until late 1998, and full implementation of the system is still a number of months away for some services. We agree with commenters that electronic filing will ultimately be more successful if a reasonable transition period is provided for applicants and licensees to use ULS voluntarily before we implement mandatory electronic filing. 24. Therefore, we will not impose the mandatory filing requirements adopted in this order for services that are subject to licensing by auction and for common carrier services subject to auction until (1) July 1, 1999, or (2) six months after application processing in ULS begins for that service, whichever is later. Previously, we have announced the commencement of use of ULS in a particular service by public notice. The Wireless Bureau will continue to release service-specific public notices announcing the relevant commencement date for the processing of applications in ULS. This transition period will provide a reasonable time for wireless services applicants and licensees to make the transition to electronic filing. 25. In taking this action, we are not disturbing our prior decision in the Part 1 Third Report and Order to require electronic filing as of January 1, 1999 of FCC Form 175s filed prior to an auction and FCC Form 601s filed by winning bidders. Electronic filing has been successfully used in the 800 MHz SMR auction and the LMDS auction. The latter auction was conducted after the adoption of the Part 1 Third Report and Order. In light of this experience, we see no reason to adjust our timetable with respect to mandatory electronic filing for auction-related short-form and long-form applications. b. Exempt Wireless Services 26. Commenters also urge the Commission to exempt certain services or classes of users from mandatory electronic filing. These commenters argue that mandatory electronic filing would impose an undue burden on persons and entities who have limited resources or technical expertise, or who lack access to the necessary computer hardware and software. APCO, for example, contends that many public safety agencies do not have the ability to connect with the FCC via modem. SBT argues that mandatory filing would disproportionately impact small businesses, minorities, and others who do not have and cannot afford access to computer technology. ARRL contends that mandatory electronic filing would stand as a barrier to access for many Amateur licensees. GMRS licensees and licensee groups contend that mandating electronic filing would stifle their service. We are aware that certain, limited impediments that might make it difficult for all licensees and applicants to communicate with the Commission electronically. For example, some persons still use party lines that may be inadequate to transmit the signals from modern telecommunications devices like modems. Accordingly, we conclude that the record broadly supports moving to mandatory electronic filing for certain wireless services, but that electronic filing should remain optional in other services for the time being. 27. For the time being, we will not extend mandatory electronic filing requirements to services that are not subject to licensing by auction. We agree with commenters who noted that in many of these services, licensees consist primarily of individuals, small businesses, or public agencies that may lack resources to convert quickly to electronic filing. Therefore, manual filing will continue to be an option for applicants and licensees in the following categories: (1) the Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio services for shared spectrum, spectrum in the public safety pool below 746 MHz, and spectrum in the public safety allocation above 746 MHz (however, Commission-certified frequency coordinators must file electronically; see the following paragraph); (2) the Part 97 Amateur Radio Service (however, Volunteer Examination Coordinators must file electronically; see the following paragraph); (3) the Part 95 General Mobile Radio Service and Personal Radio Service (excluding 218-219 MHz Service licenses); (4) the Part 80 Maritime Services (excluding the VHF 156-162 MHz Public Coast Stations); (5) the Part 87 Aviation Services; (6) Part 13 Commercial Radio Operators; and (7) Part 101 licensees who are also members of any of the foregoing classes. We note, however, that this decision could be subject to future modification. As computer and modem equipment becomes less costly and more available, we anticipate that electronic filing will become feasible for most if not all wireless applicants and licensees. We will review this issue in the future and may extend mandatory electronic filing to any wireless service where we find that electronic filing is both operationally feasible and cost-effective for licensees and applicants in the service. Adoption of mandatory electronic filing requirements for such services will not require further notice and comment, but we will provide at least six months public notice before such a requirement will take effect. 28. We also note that in a number of the above services, wireless applications must be coordinated prior to being filed with the Commission, and are often filed by the frequency coordinator on the applicant's behalf. We conclude that where wireless services applications are filed by frequency coordinators or other Commission-certified entities such as Amateur Radio volunteer examiner-coordinators (VECs), such applications must be filed electronically. This requirement was proposed by several commenters, including some coordinators. Requiring frequency coordinators and VECs to file electronically will not impose a hardship on these entities, because they have the incentive and the resources to develop electronic filing capability as a service to their customers. Indeed, many of the frequency coordinators for private land mobile services already have electronic filing capability, and the Wireless Bureau has been working extensively with the frequency coordinators to convert their electronic filing protocols for use in ULS. Electronic filing by coordinators will also provide an alternative for wireless services applicants and licensees who are reluctant to file electronically themselves, and will increase the Commission's processing efficiency because a large percentage of applications will be filed by frequency coordinators. c. Computer Facilities 29. Winstar supports our proposal to maintain computer facilities to allow members of the public to file forms and pleadings electronically because supplying these facilities will allow applicants without computer access to make use of ULS. Additionally, Winstar advocates that the Commission maintain public computer facilities to allow ULS to be accessed for the purpose of conducting license and application searches. On the other hand, W5YI argues that public computer facilities would go unused due to the wide availability of independent filing services. W5YI asserts that privatization of government functions conserves the federal budget, and transfers the cost of the service to those who reap the benefits. We believe that, pursuant to section 309(j)(3)(B) of the Act, we have an obligation to facilitate access to ULS for members of the public that lack computer access or have other technological problems that hinder access to ULS. We will provide computer terminals in our Public Reference Room. Users of the Commission's public computer facilities will be permitted to view ULS publicly available information or file wireless services applications. 30. We also are committed to making electronic filing and other electronic applications of ULS accessible to persons with disabilities to the fullest extent possible. Although we did not receive specific comments on this issue, we note that ULS is subject to the program accessibility requirements of section 1.850 of the Commission's rules. In addition, since the adoption of the ULS Notice, Congress has revised the requirements for access by persons with disabilities to federal information technology programs in the Workforce Improvement Act of 1998. Section 508 of the Act provides that persons with disabilities and non-disabled persons must have comparable access and ability to use electronic technology and information, and federal agencies must take steps to ensure such comparable access for persons with disabilities unless an undue burden would be imposed. If an undue burden would be imposed, the agency must provide an alternative means of access that allows persons with disabilities to access and use the information. 31. In comparison to our current licensing systems, we anticipate that ULS will provide greater access to the Commission's application and licensing databases for persons with disabilities. Most fundamentally, ULS benefits many persons with disabilities because it enhances the ability of the public to file applications and access licensing data remotely. In addition, as we pointed out in the ULS Notice, ULS has some specific features that will make it easier for persons with particular disabilities to use the electronic filing and public access functions. For example, the ULS technical support hotline will have text telephone capabilities (TTY) for persons with hearing or speech disabilities, and ULS will allow individuals who are blind or who have low vision to determine the status of pending license applications through a touch tone phone using Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology. 32. While it is our goal to maximize access to ULS for persons with disabilities, we recognize that in some instances, it may be difficult for persons with some disabilities to use the electronic access components of the system as currently configured. In particular, the accessibility of ULS forms and certain types of electronic files raises complex technical issues. We will continue to work on these issues and fully expect that with advances in technology, we will be able to enhance the accessibility of ULS for persons with disabilities. In the interim, we will provide accommodations to individuals with disabilities who are unable to fully use ULS on a case-by-case basis. 3. Copy and Microfiche Requirements 33. Background. In 1985, the Commission required that cellular applicants in the top-90 and above markets file initial cellular applications on microfiche. Subsequently, the Commission expanded its use of microfiche. The Commission adopted an order in 1988 requiring that all non-cellular and non-initial cellular Mobile Services Division applications be submitted on microfiche. The Commission stated its belief that the use of microfiche would enable the Commission to serve the public in a more efficient, secure, and expeditious manner and would result in more efficient use of Commission space. 34. In the ULS Notice, we proposed to amend the Commission's rules so that applicants or licensees that file applications electronically would not be required to provide paper copies, diskettes, or microfiche. We tentatively concluded that these requirements are unnecessary under ULS because all information will be available on-line to interested parties. In addition, we stated that data filed on paper will be entered or scanned, as necessary, to allow access to it in the same fashion as electronically filed information. We sought comment on our proposal, and on whether it would impose a significant burden on paper filers to require them to file a diskette containing an electronic copy of all attachments and exhibits. 35. Discussion. AASHTO supports our proposal to enter or scan manually filed data so that it will be available in the same manner as electronically-filed information. To the extent that paper filing will be permitted under the Commission's rules, we will enter or scan data filed on paper as necessary to make it available in ULS in the same fashion as electronically filed information. In light of our decision to enter or scan manually filed data, we will no longer require the submission of microfiche by applicants or licensees, whether filing manually or electronically. We required the submission of microfiche to enable us to permanently store application records without the necessity of storing bulky paper files. The ULS system makes this requirement obsolete because all applications will be stored electronically. 36. AT&T Wireless, BAM, and Nextel support our proposal to eliminate the filing of supplemental paper copies or diskettes for electronic filers. They agree that such requirements would be unnecessary under ULS. We conclude that the filing of paper copies or diskettes is unnecessary when filing electronically because all information will be available to interested parties on-line. We therefore adopt our proposal to eliminate the requirement that electronic filers submit paper copies or diskettes. 37. BAM and Nextel support a requirement that paper applications be accompanied by a diskette containing the complete application and any exhibits. Nextel states that requiring paper filers to submit a diskette would not impose a significant burden, and that the requirement would likely ease the administrative burden on the Commission. While we encourage the submission of a diskette when filing a paper application, we find that our decision to enter or scan data makes such a requirement unnecessary. 4. Electronic Filing of Pleadings Associated with Applications 38. Background. Section 1.49 of the Commission's rules requires that pleadings and documents filed in any Commission proceeding be filed on paper. In the ULS Notice, we proposed modifying our Part 1 rules to allow electronic filing in ULS of pleadings associated with wireless applications, including petitions to deny, petitions for reconsideration, applications for review, motions for extension of time, and opposition and reply pleadings related to such filings. Since the adoption of the ULS Notice, we modified the Commission's rules to allow electronic filing of comments in all rulemaking proceedings. 39. We anticipated that our proposal to allow electronic filing of pleadings in ULS would allow the system to quickly and easily associate pleadings with applications and make such pleadings readily available to the public efficiently. Initially, we determined that parties filing pleadings electronically should continue to serve paper copies on all interested parties. We also sought comment on whether to allow electronic filing of other WTB pleadings that were not associated with a particular application or a docketed proceeding (e.g. requests to stay filing deadlines). Finally, we sought comment on whether to require parties filing paper pleadings to submit a copy of the pleading on diskette. 40. Discussion. Virtually all commenters agree that we should permit electronic filing of pleadings associated with applications. Motorola observes that electronic filing of pleadings is consistent with our goal of "making all licensing information available to interested parties and the public [because] electronic filing of pleadings would make it convenient for interested parties and the public to download all of the comments in a given proceeding." AAR and Nextel believe electronic filing of pleadings associated with applications will result in speedier, less costly filings and timely public access. BAM notes immediate and full access to pleadings is critical given that responsive pleadings are time sensitive and current service rules do not require formal service for all informal objections or comments on specific applications. Only one commenter, FIT, argues that the need for electronic filing is not compelling because these pleadings relate to specific applications, and are normally of interest only to the parties involved and paper copies can be distributed easily to interested parties and Commission personnel. 41. We agree with the majority of commenters that we should encourage electronic filing in ULS of pleadings associated with applications. Electronic filing of pleadings will reduce parties' filing and research costs, make it easier for parties to find and review filed pleadings, and will allow the public greater access to our proceedings. Implementing electronic filing of pleadings in ULS is also consistent with our recent decision establishing the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) for electronic submission of comments in rulemaking proceedings. In both instances, we are fulfilling our commitment to use new information technologies to provide access to our processes and to serve the public. 42. Although we believe it is in the public interest to allow electronic filing of pleadings associated with applications, we must consider a number of issues raised by the commenters that may affect the ability of the parties to obtain electronically filed pleadings. The commenters asserted that lack of access to equipment and software, validity of electronic signatures, proper service of copies of pleadings, and filing of diskette copies of the pleadings could affect the ability of a party to file pleadings associated with applications. 43. First, while supporting electronic filing of pleadings, FCBA cautions that we should consider the interests of parties who have standing to file pleadings but may lack the correct computers and appropriate software. We agree, and emphasize that electronic filing of pleadings in ULS is optional, not mandatory. However, it is also important to note that, as in the case of ECFS, we have designed ULS to accept filings generated in most of the commonly used electronic document formats, including Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, Adobe Acrobat, and ASCII text, as well as Microsoft Excel for spreadsheets. For viewing and printing, ULS will automatically convert these files into Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) so that users can access the formatted files even if they do not have the word processor used to create the document. Over time, as users' needs change and technology advances, we will add additional file formats if technically feasible. 44. Second, other commenters express concern that they may lack access to scanning equipment needed to make legible digital copies of paper documents. We will allow parties who file pleadings electronically to file a paper copy of exhibits and other attachments that cannot be converted to electronic form. The electronic filer should submit the paper filing on the same day as the electronic filing and reference the paper filing in attachments to the pleading. 45. Third, a few commenters question whether electronic filing is consistent with our signature requirements for pleadings or suitable for filing documents that are signed under penalty of perjury. As we discussed in the ECFS R&O, our signature requirements do not pose an obstacle to electronic filing of pleadings. The Commission's rules already provide for electronic signatures on applications, and we similarly amend our pleading rules to allow electronic signatures on pleadings. 46. Fourth, with respect to service of electronically filed pleadings, most commenters agree with our proposal to require filers to serve paper copies on any interested parties. As in the ECFS R&O, however, we will allow electronic service where the party to be served consents to electronic service in advance. We are exploring adding a field in ULS to allow parties to check whether they will accept electronic service. In the meantime, parties should indicate their willingness to accept electronic filing in their pleadings. Additionally, we believe that when a party has agreed to electronic service of a document, the three-day mailing rule for computation of time purposes is inappropriate. As we decided in the ECFS R&O, when parties agree to electronic service, service will be considered the same as facsimile service. 47. Finally, some commenters believe we should allow paper-filed pleadings but require the submission of a diskette copy of the pleading, perhaps containing files in several word processing formats as well as in ASCII format. As in the case of paper filed applications, we conclude that it is better at this point to encourage, rather than require, parties filing paper pleadings to include a diskette. 5. Letter Requests 48. Background. Currently, in some wireless services, the Commission's rules permit letter requests instead of formal applications for certain actions. These rules result in thousands of letter requests annually that are not in a suitable format for entry into database fields. Letter requests, which cannot be entered into ULS, require separate processing tracks, rather than the uniform licensing process we seek to establish here. Under ULS, Form 601 is the designated form for filing applications, modifications, renewals, amendments, extensions, cancellations, requests for special temporary authority, and name and address changes for all wireless services, except Maritime, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and Commercial Operator, and General Mobile Radio Services. The Form 605 will be used in the named services to file new applications, modifications, amendments, renewals, cancellations, withdrawals, or requests for duplicate copies of licenses. We did not propose to amend the fee schedule in the ULS Notice, so that matters heretofore filed by letter request and not subject to a fee would continue not to require a fee under our universal filing system. 49. In the ULS Notice, we requested comments on whether requiring the filing of ULS forms for wireless licenses or applications rather than continuing to accept and process letter requests serves the public interest. Additionally, we invited comments concerning whether letter filings for applications, modifications, renewals, amendments, extensions, cancellations, special temporary authorizations, and name and address changes, except for the Special Situations set forth in section 308(a) of the Communications Act, should be eliminated. 50. Discussion. Replacement of letter requests with forms received support from commenters. For example, the FCBA ". . . applauds the Commission's proposal to streamline and simplify the application process and the forms used in connection with wireless authorizations. . . " Nextel agrees that letter requests should be eliminated and replaced by forms. We conclude that using form filing, in certain circumstances, instead of letter requests will facilitate implementation of ULS, reduce applicant and licensee burdens, increase efficiency and better serve the public interest. Form 601 shall be used to file applications, modifications, renewals, amendments, extensions, cancellations, special temporary authorizations, and name and address changes. Where there is a need for Commission action regarding license application which cannot be addressed by Forms 601, 603 or 605, letter requests may continue to be submitted to the Commission for further resolution. 51. Another reservation concerned the use of forms for special temporary authorizations (STAs) because commenters feared FCC staff would not be alerted to the fact that the applicant is making an STA filing that needed immediate attention. We recognize the need for prompt identification and resolution of STA requests. Typically, where an immediate STA is required because of an emergency or natural disaster, the Commission will accept requests by telephone or fax, and such requests can be granted orally. In these circumstances, the rules require that an application be submitted as soon as possible after the initial request. Under the rules we adopt in this proceeding, the procedures for requesting an emergency STA by telephone or fax remain unchanged. The subsequent application will now be submitted on Form 601 or Form 605 with an exhibit to provide an explanation of the emergency circumstances. For instance, a small paging operator, who needs an emergency STA, will be able to call the Commission and speak with a knowledgeable employee who can approve the STA while on the telephone. This applicant would subsequently submit Form 601 or Form 605 and an exhibit explaining the emergency. In circumstances where applicants or licensees submit requests for STAs using only the Forms 601 or 605, they can be easily identified by the staff for expedited processing; Forms 601 and 605 ask all applicants or licensees to identify if the request is for an STA. Moreover, applicants or licensees continue to be able to consult with the staff about the status of an STA request by telephone or in person, as is now the practice. 52. Comments by SBC Communications, Inc. and Nextel Communications, Inc. expressed opposition to form filing if new fees would be assessed. Nextel qualified its support of forms instead of letter requests when it noted, ". . . Provided no filing fee is imposed, use of forms for such requests under ULS should be less burdensome for the filer and should enable the Commission to improve its speed in processing such minor requests . . . " SBC suggests that letter requests should remain an option if form filing would trigger filing fees for an otherwise non-feeable event. We did not propose to amend the fee schedule in the ULS Notice; therefore, matters heretofore filed by letter request and not subject to a fee will continue to be free from any fee under ULS. Additionally, we will provide a link to the Commission's homepage for the public to examine our fee filing schedule. 53. FCBA anticipates a negative effect on small business licensees if letter requests are replaced with forms. Because manual filing would continue to be acceptable, the only "new" factor when converting to forms is accessing the forms. The forms would be available through the FCC website, by a toll-free telephone call, toll-free TTY call, and by fax-on-demand service. The easy accessibility of the forms, we believe, will facilitate this less burdensome method of making requests to the Commission. Once parties have obtained one copy of Form 601, they may simply make as many copies of the form as they need. This is an added benefit of combining most application purposes on one form and should virtually eliminate any inconvenience to parties once they have obtained a copy of Form 601. Because forms quickly identify a purpose, we believe that such requests will be more accurately and promptly processed. This benefit is three-fold; it helps Commission staff perform their duties more efficiently and facilitates a more prompt response to the applicant, which makes information more readily available to the public. In order to have a universal licensing system, we must require standardized data fields and have access to the correct and complete data to enter into those fields. Letter requests simply do not provide information in a format that is suitable for ULS. We have taken this action to simplify the process for licensees, reduce time-consuming, resource-intensive review by FCC staff to determine the purpose of STAs and letter requests, and increase the public's assess to information. 54. Furthermore, FCBA opposes mandatory electronic filing of letter requests and suggests that each applicant would use forms voluntarily if using forms benefits its organization. We are requiring that a form be used rather than a letter because of the overall benefit to the public which ULS will produce. In contrast to letter requests, requests filed on standardized forms are more quickly and easily processed, are less likely to be misrouted or lost, and are more likely to contain all of the necessary information for the staff to analyze the request, resulting in fewer delays. We will provide a six month implementation period that allows licensees time to prepare to access, review and use the forms. The six month implementation period will begin following the effective date of this order. As mentioned earlier, easy access makes form use convenient for all licensees, large and small. B. Standardization of Practices and Procedures for WTB Applications and Authorizations 1. Consolidation of Procedural Rules in Part 1 55. Background. In the ULS Notice, we proposed to consolidate all wireless services procedural rules into Part 1. Until now our practice has been to adopt service-specific rules for processing applications in each particular service. As a result, the public must familiarize itself with procedural rules for each service prior to filing an application. This biennial review and the implementation of ULS provide a unique opportunity for us to consolidate the wireless services procedural rules under Part 1. We proposed to unify these disparate service rules, and sought comment on eliminating outdated or unnecessary procedural rules and conforming inconsistencies in the Commission's rules where feasible. However, we also recognized that certain service-specific rules must be retained to further technical, operational or policy considerations for that service. We sought comment on which of our proposed rules may be unnecessary or inconsistent, and whether retaining certain service-specific rules was warranted. 56. Discussion. We adopt our consolidation proposals set forth in the ULS Notice and will streamline our wireless services procedural rules under Part 1, with the exception of those service-specific rules that require retention. Only one commenter, CenturyTel, opposes this proposal, contending that consolidating the procedural rules for all wireless services would increase the regulatory burden on private wireless licensees. We conclude that CenturyTel's concerns are misplaced. By consolidating our procedural rules in Part 1, we improve the consistency of the Commission's rules across wireless services and provide a single point of reference for applicants, licensees, and the public seeking information regarding our licensing procedures. This consolidation will reduce confusion among applicants or licensees, increase the probability that filings will be done correctly, accelerate the application process, and speed wireless service to the public. 57. Commenters make a wide variety of specific suggestions for modifying particular procedural rules in Part 1. We have adopted many of these suggestions, which we discuss in greater detail in the following sections. In addition, some commenters propose that we consolidate additional service-specific rules into Part 1. SBC, for example, identifies eleven rules currently in Parts 22, 24 and 101 that it recommends be moved to Part 1. SBC also suggests that developmental authorizations and incidental communication services also be addressed in Part 24 to create regulatory parity. Because we believe that these proposals are beyond the scope of the proceeding, we will consider them when we undertake further streamlining and consolidation of these rules in subsequent proceedings. Likewise, the Wireless Bureau has recently released a public notice seeking comment on PCIA's letter to the Commission proposing that wireless regulations be further streamlined. To the extent they are not addressed herein, we will address PCIA's proposals in further proceedings in this docket and other dockets as appropriate. 2. Standardization of Rules Regarding Major and Minor Amendments a. Consolidated Rule 58. Background The implementation of ULS provides a unique opportunity to replace our service-specific rules with a single set of uniform standards for defining major and minor amendments and modifications in all wireless services. In the ULS Notice, we therefore proposed to adopt a single rule in Part 1 for purposes of defining whether an amendment to a wireless application or a request for a wireless license modification is a major or minor change. We proposed that these major and minor categories should uniformly govern the filing date of applications in all wireless services. As stated in the ULS Notice, the distinction between major and minor application filings has significant procedural consequences in the application process, because a major amendment to an application causes the application to be considered newly filed, while a minor amendment generally has no impact on the filed date. We did not propose revising the types of applications which require public notice or frequency coordination. 59. In proposing a single consolidated rule, however, we noted that some differentiation between wireless services remains necessary. First, we noted that where wireless services are licensed on a geographic area basis, there are far fewer types of potential modifications than where licensing is site- specific, because a geographic licensee can make technical modifications to its system without modifying its license, provided it complies with basic operational and technical rules. Where the license is site- specific, by contrast, technical changes to the licensed facility (e.g., a change of coordinates, antenna height, or power) require the Commission to modify the license. Second, we noted that among site-specific services, some differentiation is required in defining major and minor changes due to the differing technical parameters governing site-based mobile and fixed services. Within our proposed consolidated rule, therefore, we proposed specific classifications of major and minor changes based on these different classes of licenses. 60. Discussion. Commenters generally support our proposal to consolidate the Commission's rules regarding major and minor modifications. However, AirTouch and FCBA caution that we should not overlook genuine differences between the wireless services in this regard, and express concern that our consolidation not result in the imposition of new filing requirements on licensees and applicants. Several commenters also express concern that the proposed Part 1 rule could result in some changes that have been traditionally classified as minor being reclassified as major changes. These commenters oppose any such reclassification and seek clarification of our tentative conclusions and proposed consolidated rule. As FCBA notes, this could have significant consequences because major and minor filings follow very different procedural paths in the application process. 61. We conclude that a single rule in Part 1 that defines categories of major and minor changes for all wireless services is consistent with our goals in this proceeding. We agree with commenters, however, that some modification and clarification of the rule is appropriate. By creating a consolidated rule, it is not our intent to change the substance of our existing definitions of major and minor changes, or to impose new filing requirements on licensees and applicants. Instead, our purpose is to adopt a consistent standard for all wireless services, eliminate unnecessary or redundant rules, and retain service-specific rules where only such rules are necessary because of the unique characteristics of the wireless service. We therefore modify our proposed rule in certain respects and offer the following clarifications. b. Major Changes for All Wireless Services 62. Background. In the ULS Notice, we tentatively concluded that the following changes should be considered major changes for all wireless services whether licensed geographically or on a site-specific basis: any substantial change in ownership or control; any addition or change in frequency, excluding removing a frequency; any request for partitioning or disaggregation; any modification or amendment requiring an environmental assessment; any request requiring frequency coordination (non-CMRS private land mobile only); or any modification or amendment requiring notification to the Federal Aviation Administration as defined in 47 C.F.R. Part 17 Subpart B. 63. Discussion. We adopt our tentative conclusions and define certain actions as major changes for all wireless services, regardless of whether the service is licensed geographically or on a site-specific basis. We also clarify our consolidated rule to maintain consistency with our current service-specific rules for major and minor changes. These actions include initial and renewal applications, non-pro forma transfers and assignments (include partitioning and disaggregation requests), applications that have significant environmental effect, applications requiring frequency coordination, and applications requesting an additional frequency or a frequency block that is not currently licensed to the applicant. With respect to this last category, we note that some commenters read our proposed rule as requiring geographic licensees to file a major modification application every time they make internal system changes (e.g., frequency changes, adding or moving an internal site, changing transmitter power) within their licensing area. This outcome was not our intent in the ULS Notice. We agree with these commenters that in geographically licensed services, internal site and frequency changes within the licensing area and on spectrum covered by the license do not require Commission approval or notification except in very limited circumstances (e.g., a site that requires approval under NEPA). Similarly, in most site-based mobile services (e.g., paging, SMR), licensees may make changes to internal sites without Commission notice or approval provided that they do not expand the service area or interference contour of the system as a whole. We have modified the language of the final rule to avoid potential confusion on this issue. 64. Some commenters also expressed concern regarding our proposal to classify as major any application or amendment that requires notification to the FAA under Part 17 of the Commission's rules. They point out that licensees must often obtain FAA clearance for internal sites in their systems, but contend that this requirement should not require the filing of a major modification application with the Commission. We agree. The purpose of FAA registration and notification is to maintain safety in air navigation. These purposes are accomplished by filing FAA Form 7460-1 with the FAA and obtaining clearance for the facility in question. However, not all actions that require FAA clearance have licensing implications for the Commission. In the case of an internal site that does not otherwise require Commission notification or approval, the fact that FAA clearance is required does not give rise to such a requirement. Therefore, so long as the licensee complies with the FAA's requirements, there is no need for the licensee to file a modification application or notification with the Commission. Accordingly, we have deleted this element of our proposed rule. Tower owners continue to be responsible for notifying the FAA and registering any FAA-approved towers with the Commission by using FCC Form 854. 65. In the ULS Notice, we stated that any request requiring frequency coordination would be considered a major modification, but limited this provision to non-CMRS private land mobile services. AMTA seeks clarification of this proposal, noting that under Part 90 of the Commission's rules, certain frequencies that are subject to frequency coordination requirements may be licensed to both CMRS and PMRS systems. As AMTA suggests, we will delete the exclusion of CMRS licensees from this provision. Most frequencies that are subject to frequency coordination are not available to CMRS providers. However, there are some instances in which CMRS providers may operate on coordinated frequencies and, therefore, must comply with coordination requirements. We see no reason to treat an application that requires coordination as major in one instance and minor in another instance based on the regulatory classification of the applicant. 66. Motorola requests that we limit our proposed definitions for major modifications so that the definitions will not apply to shared frequencies. Motorola contends that this limitation will ensure that approval of applications for shared frequencies is not unnecessarily delayed by use of procedures for major filings that only have relevance to licensing on an exclusive basis. We agree that classifying an application as major may have different procedural consequences depending on whether the license is for shared or exclusive spectrum. However, we do not agree that our major modification definitions should not apply to shared frequencies. There are numerous instances in which an application could significantly affect other licensees on a shared frequency, and should therefore be considered major. We will therefore apply our major change rule to both exclusive and shared frequencies as proposed. 67. A number of commenters expressed concern regarding our proposed rule with respect to changes of coordinates and increases in antenna height or power level for wireless services licensed on a site-specific basis. Commenters also sought clarification whether our rule would require site-based licensees to file modification applications for changes to internal sites. As noted above, we have modified the language in our rule to make clear that a change in coordinates or an increase in antenna height or power level for a site-specific license is not a major modification if it does not affect the composite interference contour or defined service area of the system. However, because we use different technical criteria to define these parameters in particular services, we have determined that some service- specific elements of our existing rules should be retained in the consolidated rule. We have also retained certain other service-specific criteria that were inadvertently deleted from our proposed rule. For example, our current rules regulating the use of fixed transmitters under Parts 22 and 90 were omitted from proposed section 1.929 but are now incorporated in our consolidated rule. c. Fixed Microwave Services 68. Background. Regarding stations licensed to provide exclusively fixed point-to-point, multipoint-to-point, or point-to-multipoint, communications on a site-specific basis, we proposed additional actions which we would consider a major change. Specifically, we proposed the following actions in the ULS Notice: any change in transmit antenna location by more than 5 seconds in latitude or longitude (e.g., a 5 second change in either latitude or longitude would be minor); any increase in frequency tolerance (Fixed Microwave only); any increase in bandwidth; any change in emission type; any increase in EIRP greater than 3 dB; any increase in EIRP greater than 1.5 dB (DEMS only); any increase in transmit antenna height (above mean sea level) more than 3 meters; any increase in transmit antenna beamwidth; any change in transmit antenna polarization (fixed microwave only); any change in transmit antenna azimuth greater than 1 degree; any change in latitude or longitude that requires special aeronautical study; or any change which together with all minor modifications or amendments since the last major modification or amendment produces a cumulative effect greater than any of the above major criteria. 69. Discussion. With respect to fixed point-to-point, point-to-multipoint, and multipoint-to- multipoint services licensed on a site-specific basis, we adopt additional criteria for distinguishing major and minor changes that are based on the distinctive technical characteristics of these wireless services. We also adopt our proposal to treat multiple minor modifications as major if the cumulative effect of these modifications would be a major change to the system. We note that some commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule was too imprecise for applicants and licensees to comprehend easily, and we have endeavored to address these concerns with the rule we adopt today. We conclude that the rule is consistent with our existing policies for licensing microwave services. Therefore, we will require microwave licensees filing minor modifications to certify on Form 601 that the minor modifications do not give rise to a cumulative major modification. 70. We proposed to combine the two categories of minor filings in Part 101 into one category that we would not place on public notice. CellNet agrees with the NSMA opposition to the proposed elimination of public notices for actions taken on fixed microwave applications. CellNet states that it uses the public notices to track the progress of applications and correct any errors that occur, and that public notices help frequency coordinators ensure the accuracy of their databases. We agree with CellNet and NSMA that the release of public notices by fixed microwave licensees should continue, because it allows frequency coordinators to ensure the accuracy of their databases. d. Minor Changes 71. Background. We proposed to allow licensees to implement all minor changes, as defined in the consolidated rule, without prior Commission approval. Instead, licensees would be required only to electronically notify the Commission within thirty days of implementing the change. We noted the possibility, however, that an applicant or licensee could submit multiple amendments or modifications each of which would be individually considered minor but which would cumulatively constitute a major change. We proposed to treat such cumulative changes as major, and sought comment on how to apply this standard to applicants and licensees. 72. Discussion. As proposed, we will define as minor changes all amendments to applications and license modifications that are not specifically defined in our rule as major. These minor changes include but are not limited to: (1) any pro forma transfer or assignment; (2) any name change not involving a change in ownership or control of the license; (3) changes to administrative information, e.g., address, telephone number, or contact person; or (4) conversion of multiple site-specific licenses into a single wide- area license, where there is no change in the licensee's composite interference contour or service area. We also adopt our proposal to allow licensees to make most minor modifications to their licenses without prior Commission approval, provided they notify the Commission within thirty days after implementing the change. We clarify that prior approval continues to be required, however, for pro forma assignments and transfers that are not subject to the Commission's forbearance policy, and for conversion of multiple site- specific licenses into a single wide-area license. 73. We also clarify that the notification requirement for minor changes only applies to changes to the licensing or technical information contained on the license or that may be the subject of specific notification requirements in the Commission's rules. In general, minor system changes that do not affect licensing information (e.g., internal sites in geographically licensed systems or internal sites within the composite interference contour or service area) require no notification to the Commission, and we will not collect such data in ULS. 3. Submission of Ownership Information 74. Background. We currently have various service-specific requirements for wireless applicants and licensees to provide ownership information to confirm that these licensees are in compliance with ownership restrictions imposed by the Communications Act as well as certain Commission rules. In the ULS Notice, we proposed to adopt a consolidated rule governing the submission of ownership information by wireless applicants and licensees, and to create a ULS form for collection of such information. We noted that in the Part 1 Third Report and Order, the Commission had adopted a uniform set of ownership reporting requirements in section 1.2112 of the rules for applicants and licensees in services subject to auction. We proposed to use the new ULS Form 602 to collect this information, which would enable licensees in services subject to our competitive bidding rules to provide ownership information for all of their licenses on a single form. In accordance with section 1.2112, applicants or licensees would then be required to update the form only as necessary when filing an additional license application or an application for license assignment or transfer of control. 75. To further the streamlining objectives of both ULS and the Part 1 proceeding, we also proposed to eliminate all duplicative or inconsistent ownership reporting requirements in our service- specific rules associated with wireless services subject to our competitive bidding requirements. For example, we noted that section 22.108 of the Commission's rules requires Part 22 applicants to report all persons or entities who hold a five percent or greater ownership interest in the applicant, while section 1.2112 requires reporting only of parties with a ten percent or greater interest. Accordingly, we proposed to delete section 22.108 in order to remove this inconsistency and carry out the intent of the Part 1 Third Report and Order and to conform our reporting requirements for such services. In so doing, however, we noted that we were not precluding the possibility of requiring certain applicants or licensees to provide more specific information where necessary (e.g., to verify eligibility for small business status in an auction). 76. Finally, we sought comment on whether to use the ULS system to collect ownership information from licensees and applicants in wireless services for which our competitive bidding rules do not apply. Although we did not propose to collect ownership information in these services, we did propose to require applicants and licensees in these services to disclose real-party in interest information and certify that it is not a representative of a foreign government, as is currently required for all microwave applicants or licensees in sections 101.7(a) and 101.19(a)(1). We also sought comment on whether we should expand the current ownership reporting requirements for applicants and licensees in these services. For example, we asked commenters to address whether commercial entities holding private wireless licenses, i.e., railroads or utilities, should be required to submit ownership information for all of their licenses regardless of whether the service was subject to our competitive bidding rules. We tentatively concluded that licenses held by governmental entities should not be subject to any ownership reporting requirements. We also tentatively concluded that due to the personal nature of the Amateur Radio Service, General Mobile Radio Services and Commercial Radio Operators, extension of ownership reporting requirements to these services was unnecessary. We sought comment on these tentative conclusions. 77. Discussion. As proposed, we will require applicants and licensees in wireless auctionable services, subject to section 1.2112, to file or update Form 602 in connection with any initial license application, renewal application, or application for assignment or transfer. This decision, which we codify in new section 1.919(e), merely implements the information collection requirements of section 1.2112(a) of the Commission's rules as adopted in the Part 1 Third Report and Order. These requirements apply to all applicants or licensees in wireless services subject to our competitive bidding rules which are defined in section 309 of the Act, as amended by the 1997 Budget Act. We note that this requirement includes all licensees in such services, regardless of whether the particular license in question was originally acquired by auction, except the services listed as exempt in paragraph 24, supra. For example, because all common carrier licenses are subject to auction under section 309(j) of the Act where mutual exclusivity exists, we treat them as subject to the reporting requirements of Part 1 even though some common carrier licensees obtained their licenses before we had auction authority or can obtain licenses without going to auction because they do not face mutually exclusive applications. Thus, common carrier licensees who acquired their licenses by lottery or by other means besides auction are subject to these ownership reporting requirements when they apply for assignment, transfer, or renewal of a license. 78. We emphasize that Form 602 is specific to the applicant or licensee rather than the particular application. Thus, an applicant for multiple licenses in an auction is required to file only one Form 602. Moreover, once the applicant or licensee files the form for the first time, it has no need to file the form with subsequent applications, regardless of service, so long as the ownership information on the previous form remains current. Instead, ULS will associate all future applications filed by the same applicant with its Form 602 already on file. Moreover, if the Form 602 requires updating when a subsequent application is filed, the applicant need not resubmit the entire form but can simply access the portions of the form that require updating and submit the updated information electronically. ULS will then replace the existing information with the updated information. These streamlined requirements made possible by ULS are broadly supported by commenters. 79. We also will not extend Form 602 filing obligations beyond those services that are subject to our competitive bidding rules, except for common carrier licensees operating on spectrum that is not subject to auctions (e.g., shared spectrum). Numerous commenters interpreted our proposed section 1.919 as requiring applicants and licensees in private, non-auctioned services to file Form 602. In fact, while we did seek comment on whether ownership reporting requirements should be applied to these services, we did not propose an expansion of these requirements beyond existing rules. As commenters note, existing rules do not require applicants or licensees in these services to report detailed ownership information. Instead, an applicant must typically identify the real party in interest to the application (if different from the applicant), and certify that it is not a foreign government or a representative of a foreign government. Because these questions are contained on Form 601, we agree that there is no need for filing a separate Form 602 by applicants or licensees in these services. 80. We also emphasize that Form 602 need only be filed or updated when the applicant is filing a license application (either an initial application or a renewal application) or when the license is the subject of an assignment or transfer of control. Some commenters incorrectly interpreted the ULS Notice as proposing that licensees be required to update Form 602 every time there is a minor change in the licensee's ownership or management, e.g.,when a non-controlling investor changes or a new director is elected. In fact, it was not our intent to require applicants or licensees to update their ownership information when such minor changes occur. This submission is not required by section 1.2112, nor do we impose such a requirement here. We also decline to impose a requirement that Form 602 be updated annually, as was suggested by FCBA. Although such a requirement might improve the accuracy of ownership information on file with the Commission, we have concluded that it is sufficient to require updates only in connection with significant licensing events. We decline to revisit that decision in this proceeding. However, we note that licensees may voluntarily update their Form 602 information at any time, whether or not the update is required. 81. A number of commenters object to the level of detail about ownership that we are requiring on Form 602. AT&T, BAM, and FCBA, for example, argue that our proposed requirement to identify direct and indirect owners with at least a ten-percent interest in the licensee is excessive and burdensome, because in most instances, a ten-percent owner does not control the licensee. However, the elements of Form 602 to which these commenters object simply track the ownership reporting requirements that we adopted in the Part 1 proceeding. Thus, to the extent that commenters object to these reporting requirements, their arguments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Moreover, we note that in the case of PCS and Part 22 licensees, the Part 1 Third Report and Order actually narrowed the scope of applicable ownership reporting requirements, which previously required reporting of all interestholders down to the five-percent level. In furtherance of the streamlining goals of the Part 1 Third Report and Order, we also eliminate the more stringent service-specific reporting requirements of sections 22.108 and 24.813, which are inconsistent with section 1.2112. 82. After review of the comments, we also conclude that there is no basis in the record for expanding ownership reporting requirements designed for auctioned services to non-auctioned services. We have revised proposed section 1.919 to remove any possible ambiguity on this issue. As commenters uniformly pointed out, these operations do not affect the competitive balance in the marketplace. Moreover, we will not extend ownership reporting requirements to entities, such as railroads or utilities, that hold only private wireless licenses in non-auctioned services. Due to the fact that these operations are for internal communications, ownership information for the purpose of monitoring the competitive marketplace is not necessary. 83. While we do not extend ownership reporting requirements to exempt services as discussed supra, we will continue to require all applicants and licensees who use Form 601, including those in non- auctioned services, to provide real-party-in-interest information and to certify that they are not representatives of foreign governments. We also clarify the real-party-in-interest definition in the instructions to Form 601, as requested by FCBA, and revise Form 601 to allow identification of multiple real-parties-in-interest where control of the license is shared by more than one person or entity. 4. Frequency Coordination of Amendment and Modification Applications 84. Background. In the ULS Notice, we noted that the Commission's rules in Parts 90 and 101 differ with regard to coordination requirements for major technical amendments and modifications; our goal is to make rules as consistent as possible among the wireless services. Section 90.175 of the Commission's rules identifies numerous changes that do not require frequency coordination, including minor technical changes. Section 101.103(d), on the other hand, requires a new coordination statement for minor technical changes. Accordingly, in the ULS Notice, we proposed to amend section 101.103 by requiring frequency coordination only for those applicants or licensees filing amendments and modifications that involve changes to technical parameters that are classified as major in accordance with the new unified standards of section 1.929 of the Commission's rules. Thus, licensees making minor changes to technical parameters would only be required to notify the Commission, as well as the entity(ies) with which they normally engage in frequency coordination, of the minor change. In seeking comment on this proposal, we noted that the proposed change to section 101.103 will provide uniformity among the rules for all of the affected services. 85. Discussion. The majority of commenters addressing this issue support the proposed amendment to section 101.103 because it will provide uniformity in the rules and support their consistent application. APCO recommends that the FCC Form 601 Instructions direct applicants to send all applications which contain one or more "major" items or request a new frequency directly to the appropriate frequency coordinator. FCBA, while supporting this proposal, urges the Commission to be consistent in defining "major" and "minor" throughout its rules. PCIA recommends that the notification provision specifically requires that the appropriate frequency advisory committee be furnished with an exact copy of the form or document filed with the Commission which indicates the change, in order to facilitate its frequency recommendations. 86. NSMA and Comsearch, on the other hand, both argue that the Commission should not amend the Part 101 procedures to allow notification for minor technical amendments and modifications. NSMA states that the reporting of all changes, whether minor or major, will allow coordinators to maintain accurate databases and enhance their ability to make interference decisions. Comsearch argues that this standard should be maintained separate and apart from the definition of major and minor changes for filing purposes. Comsearch and FCBA believe that differences in Part 90 and Part 101 coordination mechanisms may justify different treatment under the rules. Under Part 101, explains Comsearch, all potentially-affected parties are notified of any changes, no matter how minor, and this procedure has proved very successful in helping to identify and avoid potential interference problems. Along these lines, NSMA contends that should the Commission adopt this proposal, the phrase "entity(ies) with which it normally engages in frequency coordination" should be clarified to indicate that notice of an amendment or modification of coordinates be sent to all parties involved in the original coordination, and not simply the original coordinator. Comsearch responds to other commenters who contend that coordination of minor changes is unnecessary, stating its belief that it is inappropriate to equate application filing requirements (major versus minor) with coordination requirements, because, it argues, "minor" changes can significantly increase the potential for interference. As for claims that coordination of minor changes increases financial burdens, Comsearch notes that Part 101 has a "notification only" mechanism that is routinely completed in one day, and, further, rectifying interference conflicts after they have occurred is significantly more expensive and time consuming for all involved parties. 87. We conclude that we will modify section 101.103 as proposed in the ULS Notice because our concern was the same as the FCBA's, namely that we need to make the Commission's rules consistent. This modification serves that goal by making Parts 90 and 101 consistent on the issue of when a new coordination is necessary, building on our establishment, in new section 1.929 of the Commission's rules, of "major" and "minor" categories that are as uniform as possible. Because a central component of the criteria in section 1.929 is whether an amendment or modification will materially alter the original engineering and technical information of an application or license, we are confident that only those changes considered major have the potential to impact an original coordination enough to merit a new coordination. In other words, coordinators seldom, if ever, should need to alter substantially frequency and/or site recommendations based on a minor amendment to an application or modification of a license. As a result, we believe that there is insufficient justification to continue to require licensees and applicants to obtain a new coordination analysis for minor amendments and modifications. 88. We are confident that requiring the licensee or applicant to notify the Commission and the entity(ies) with which it normally engages in coordination is sufficient to allow coordinators, and other interested parties, to remain aware of such changes and keep their databases up-to-date. We find it unnecessary to broaden our proposed language to include "all parties involved in the original coordination." Should the licensee notify only the coordinator of a minor change, other "interested" parties can obtain the information from the coordinator. We do not believe that the universe of parties affected by, or interested in, minor changes, as defined in new section 1.929, will be significant. 5. Returns and Dismissals of Incomplete or Defective Applications 89. Background. Our current regulations contain a variety of service-specific rules and procedures for dismissal or return of incomplete or facially defective applications. In the ULS Notice, we proposed to unify our filing rules so that all wireless applicants and licensees would be subject to consistent rules regarding dismissals and returns. We noted, however, that in the case of interactively filed electronic applications, ULS would be able to identify and alert the applicant to certain types of application errors in real time, thus enabling the applicant to make immediate corrections before submitting the application. However, in the case of batch-filed electronic applications and manual filed applications, the same errors would not be detected until after the application was filed. We therefore proposed to establish procedures so that batch, interactive, and manual filers would be treated similarly with respect to application errors. In the case of minor defects or missing information, we proposed that an applicant who filed a paper application that was accepted by ULS be notified of the defect and given thirty days to file a corrected application. We also proposed several exceptions to the thirty-day right to refile. First, if the applicant submitted a major amendment, the applicant's ability to refile would depend on whether major amendments were allowed under the circumstances. Second, we proposed that certain defects in an application would result in immediate dismissal. These defects included filing the application without a sufficient fee, filing outside of an applicable filing window, or filing an application without a valid signature. Finally, we proposed to establish procedures for handling and protecting filings in ULS for which the applicant seeks confidential treatment. 90. Discussion. We adopt a consolidated rule in Part 1 governing the filing of incomplete or otherwise defective applications in all wireless services, and we modify the proposal in the ULS Notice to further limit the circumstances under which defective applications will be returned for correction. Under the consolidated rule, as under existing rules, the Commission has the discretion to return applications for correction of minor filing errors, but it also has the authority to dismiss any incomplete or defective application without prejudice. Pursuant to this rule, and as proposed in the ULS Notice, we will automatically dismiss any application that is defective because the applicant failed to sign the application, failed to pay the required filing fee, or filed outside of the applicable filing window. These defects are fatal to the consideration of the application. This policy ensures equal treatment regardless of the manner in which the application is filed. In the case of an interactive electronic filing, submitting the application with any of these defects would be impossible, because ULS will automatically reject the application as defective on its face. To ensure equivalent treatment of electronically batch-filed or manually filed applications that are unsigned, untimely, or not fee-compliant, such applications will be automatically dismissed by ULS after they are initially entered into the system. Accordingly, we remove those sections of the rules that provided for return and correction of applications with errors." 91. We will also dismiss batch-filed and manually filed applications with other types of defects that are automatically screened by ULS when an application is interactively filed, e.g., missing technical data or technical parameters that are inconsistent with the rules (where no waiver request is filed). In the ULS Notice, we proposed that aside from unsigned, untimely, and non-fee-compliant applications, we would return batch-filed and manually filed applications that are entered into the system and subsequently discovered to have errors, even if those errors were of the type that would have prevented the application from being filed interactively because they would have been automatically screened by ULS. On further consideration, we conclude that in some circumstances, this approach could inadvertently cause manual and batch-filers to have an advantage over interactive filers. For example, if we returned the application of a manual filer who omitted necessary technical data, the filer would have additional time to obtain the data and amend the application without losing its filing priority based on the initial filing date. However, an applicant who files an electronic application interactively would not have the same opportunity, because the system would identify the defect while the application was being filled out by the applicant. The system would then prompt the applicant to correct the application, and if the necessary information could not be obtained before the filing window closed, the applicant could miss its filing deadline. To avoid this disparity, which might otherwise discourage electronic filing, we will dismiss manual and batch-filed applications with screenable errors of this type after they are initially entered into the system. Such dismissal will be without prejudice to the right of the applicant to refile, provided the relevant application window remains open. 92. While we will generally dismiss defective or incomplete applications, we retain the discretion to return an application for correction if circumstances warrant. In such cases, we will adopt the return procedures proposed in the ULS Notice, i.e., the application will be returned to the applicant, and the applicant will have thirty days from the date the notification is sent to file an amended application correcting the defect. Although some commenters supported a longer period to amend, such as sixty or 120 days, we agree with FCBA that thirty days is ample time for an applicant to submit corrections. Moreover, in some instances, we believe it is appropriate to require an applicant to submit an amended application in less than thirty days. Therefore, we provide that applicants may be required to amend in less than thirty days, so long as the return notice clearly specifies the amount of time the applicant has to file the amendment. We also delete those service-specific rules that provided a longer period for applicants to submit corrections. 93. When an application is returned for correction, we will hold the application for the designated period so that a corrected application may be filed. If the applicant files a timely corrected application, it will ordinarily be processed as a minor amendment in accordance with the Commission's rules. Thus, it will have no effect on the initial filing date of the application or the applicant's filing priority. If, however, the amendment made by the applicant is not a simple correction but constitutes a major amendment to the application, it will be governed by the rules and procedures applicable to major amendments, i.e., it will be treated as a new application with a new filing date. Finally, if the applicant fails to submit an amended application within the period specified in the notification, the application will be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute. 94. Finally, we adopt the proposal set forth in the ULS Notice regarding the protection of confidential information filed in ULS, which was supported by the FCBA. The basic elements of that proposal entailed putting the following security measures in place: (1) any attachment designated as confidential will not be accessible from publicly available query utilities; and (2) a special user name and password will be required for Commission employees to view confidential attachments. Should the Commission decide not to grant a request for confidential treatment, the applicant will be so informed so that it may determine whether to maintain the applications as filed, to amend the application by deleting the attachments, or to withdraw the application or filing. The FCBA also urges the Commission to take other measures to protect confidential information against inadvertent or accidental disclosure, such as maintaining it in a secure database or file separate from other application information. We believe that the safeguards we have identified will be sufficient to protect against inadvertent disclosure of confidential information. However, we will continue to explore other safeguards to increase the level of protection afforded to applicants and licensees. 6. Discontinuation of "Reinstatement" Applications 95. Background. Under current rules, licensees in the Commercial Radio Operator Service, PLMRS, Amateur Radio Service, and Fixed Microwave Radio Services, who fail to file timely renewal applications are afforded a thirty-day period following the expiration of their licenses in which to request reinstatement. Although this practice was instituted due to the large number of late-filed applications in these services, we observed in the ULS Notice that it is inconsistent with other wireless service licensing rules where reinstatement is not permitted. With the implementation of ULS presenting a unique opportunity to establish regulatory symmetry among all wireless services, the ULS Notice proposed to use ULS for automatic license pre-expiration notification to all licenses, explaining that this notification would eliminate the reinstatement period and instead automatically cancel the license following expiration. 96. Discussion. We will adopt our proposal to eliminate reinstatement procedures in those wireless services that currently allow such applications, and instead use ULS to provide all licensees with pre-expiration notification ninety days prior to the expiration of their licenses. Such notification will be sent by mail to the point of contact listed in the ULS database for each callsign. We conclude that notifying wireless radio licensees of the expiration of their licenses at least ninety days prior to the relevant deadline is reasonable. Our decision to use this reminder letter as a convenience to licensees does not in any way absolve licensees from timely filing their renewal applications. Failure to file for license renewal before the end of the license term will result in automatic cancellation of the license. Our proposal received support from several commenters and is consistent with the purpose of this proceeding of implementing consistent licensing procedures wherever feasible. All licensees are responsible for knowing the terms of their licenses and for filing a timely renewal application if they seek to operate beyond that term. We clarify, however, that our decision to eliminate reinstatement procedures does not affect the renewal process for for Commercial Radio Operators Licenses or Amateur licensees Unlike licensees in other services, Commercial Radio Operators and Amateurs obtain their authorizations by taking and passing an examination. Our current rules provide that Commercial Radio Operators may renew their its authorizations up to five years after expiration and that Amateurs may renew their licenses up to two years after license expiration without having to retake the required examinations. We see no reason to modify these rules, which recognize that a licensee that has previously passed an examination does not need to demonstrate again his or her knowledge of the required material. 97. Among the commenters that urge the Commission to retain reinstatement procedures, the majority are licensees, or are involved with licensees, in services which currently have such mechanisms. Some commenters suggest extending such procedures to other services, such as the Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS). Commenters' reasons for supporting reinstatement vary, from arguing its importance to licensees in services subject to filing freezes or relicensing on only a secondary basis, to discussing the potential for many private wireless licensees to file their renewal applications late since use of their authorizations is secondary to their primary business operations. We are not persuaded by arguments that removing these reinstatement procedures will result in too severe a punishment for inadvertent failures to file renewal applications. Elimination of the reinstatement period will benefit all licensees and entities interested in acquiring abandoned spectrum. Our action herein will also facilitate the Commission's ability to efficiently and quickly perform its licensing responsibilities by reducing the amount of late-filed renewal applications and eliminating the processing of reinstatement applications. We believe that eliminating reinstatement applications is appropriate because licensees will have direct notification that their licenses are about to expire and, therefore, the responsibility to file a timely renewal application will lie where it belongs, namely in the hands of the licensee. Finally, we believe that interactive electronic filing will make it easier for all licensees to timely file renewal applications. Further, licensees should be able to obtain the necessary renewal form more easily than ever before as Commission forms are widely available to the public through the FCC world wide web page, via a toll free telephone number, via a toll free TTY number, and through a fax-on-demand service. We will not implement this decision to eliminate reinstatement applications for any wireless service until (1) July 1, 1999, or (2) six months after the commencement of application processing in ULS for that service, whichever is later. This transition period will provide a reasonable time for applicants and licensees to familiarize themselves with this procedure. 98. We note that FCBA argues that these changes will result in an increase, rather than a decrease, in the filing of pleadings and petitions. In response, we clarify that the correct procedure for a licensee that has allowed its license to lapse is to file a new application, and if necessary, a request for special temporary operating authority. We are confident that the ULS notification procedure will prompt licensees to file their renewal applications on time. We also anticipate that ULS will produce staffing efficiencies that will streamline the consideration of any requests for special temporary authority. We conclude that this action serves the public interest because it will improve the efficiency with which the Commission makes spectrum available for reuse after a license has lapsed. Finally, the ULS notification procedure does not replace the license renewal provisions set forth in the Commission's rules. Accordingly, even if a licensee does not receive a renewal reminder notice, the licensee still must timely file its renewal application. Also, not receiving a renewal reminder notice does not excuse the licensee's failure to seek a timely renewal. 99. We conclude that we will not adopt a separate and distinct procedure for public safety and local government licensees. We agree with APCO that the consequences of the cancellation of a public safety license potentially fall not only on the licensee but on the public which relies on the licensee to protect the safety of life and property. Nonetheless, for the same reasons that other licensees must file their renewal applications on time, so must public safety licensees. Public safety entities are acutely aware of the value of their licenses, and we believe that with the benefit of their own systems for taking responsibility for their licenses, and with the help of the Commission's notification procedures, such entities should be able to file their renewal applications in a timely fashion. We therefore reject APCO's suggestion that we not only retain the reinstatement period, but also send a notification both ninety and thirty days in advance of license expiration. We note that where in fact continued operations are immediately critical to essential safety operations, the public safety entity that has allowed its license authority to lapse is likely to file a request for special temporary authority. 100. Although a license expires automatically on the date specified on the individual license, ULS will not show a license expiration as final until approximately thirty days after the renewal deadline. We note that the purpose of this delay is not so that the licensee may seek reinstatement of the license that has now expired, but to ensure that the Commission does not inadvertently fail to recognize that a timely renewal application has been submitted. After the license expiration the previous licensee may file a new application for use of those frequencies subject to any service specific rules. Once that thirty-day period has elapsed, or the prior holder of the license files a new application for that spectrum, the license will then be available for the Commission to reassign by competitive bidding or other means according to the rules of the particular service. 101. Finally, based on commenters' concerns, we will not adopt our proposal to allow licensees and applicants to decide whether they want to continue to be notified of Commission actions in writing via regular mail or instead be notified of Commission actions concerning applications contained in ULS via electronic mail. Applicants and licensees will continue to be notified of official Commission action by regular mail only. Parties should note that pursuant to the the Commission's rules there is only one official point of contact per license. Licensees and applicants should keep all mailing and contact information current. While the Commission is optimistic that a system of electronic communication at some time in the future may offer a substantial increase in efficiency and paper reduction, we are sympathetic to commenters' concerns about the use of an electronic notification process at this time. We note, however, that in this era of tremendous technological advancement, we may revisit this issue at a later time should circumstances so warrant. 7. Construction and Coverage Verification 102. Background. In the ULS Notice, we recognized that in many wireless services, licensees are subject to construction and, in some instances, coverage requirements, and are subject to automatic license cancellation if these requirements are not met. We noted that different procedures have evolved in different services for verifying whether licensees have in fact met these requirements. In some wireless services subject to construction requirements, the Commission's rules provide that licenses cancel if the licensee fails to notify the Commission that it has met its construction or coverage requirement. In other wireless services, licenses cancel automatically if a licensee fails to construct by its construction deadline. In some, but not all, of the latter services, the Commission staff sends letters to determine compliance and then notifies licensees that their licenses are cancelled when licensees fail to certify compliance or state that they did not meet the construction or coverage requirements. In some services that are licensed by geographic area, licensees may forfeit their license by failing to meet coverage requirements, but no procedures have been established for notifying licensees of approaching deadlines or confirming that these deadlines have been met. 103. We proposed to establish uniform procedures for using ULS to notify all wireless radio licensees of upcoming construction or coverage deadlines. We thought that such a consolidation would conform the rules for all wireless services licensees so that similarly situated applicants and licensees would be treated equally. In addition, we thought that such an action would lessen the burden on applicants and would ensure that deadlines are met or that the public receives timely notification of terminations. We also proposed requiring notifications filed by wireless services licensees to be filed electronically. In addition, we proposed to require wireless licensees to certify compliance with construction requirements relating to modification applications that involve additional frequencies. Also, we proposed to require fixed microwave licenses awarded on a site-by-site basis to certify compliance with construction requirements for additional or increased service area coverage (e.g., a new station, a change in antenna height or EIRP). We also proposed to amend our microwave rules to require fixed microwave licensees to file a further modification application if the licensee fails to construct a granted modification. 104. Discussion. Commenters generally support our proposal to use ULS to notify wireless licensees in advance of applicable construction or coverage deadlines. Commenters suggest that such notice be given to licensees between sixty to 120 days prior to the relevant deadlines. We conclude that notifying wireless radio licensees of impending construction and coverage deadlines at least ninety days prior to the relevant deadline is reasonable. We will send these notices to the relevant licensees by mail. We emphasize, however, that the notification procedure adopted here is not intended to replace the basic construction and coverage requirements set forth in the Commission's rules. That means that even if a licensee does not receive a reminder letter, it remains obligated to meet its construction and coverage benchmarks and cannot cite the lack of notification as an excuse for non-compliance. The licensee is solely responsible for complying with its construction and coverage requirements. 105. Some commenters oppose our proposal to require all wireless licensees to notify the Commission that they have met their construction or coverage requirements, and to terminate the license if such notice is not received by the Commission. These commenters express concern that this procedure could result in termination of licenses for facilities that are in fact operational, simply because the licensee failed to provide notice. FCBA also suggests that this procedure could jeopardize a licensee who reports that it has met its construction requirement early and therefore assumes there is no need to respond to a subsequent reminder letter sent by the FCC. Finally, AirTouch and BellSouth note that the Commission recently eliminated the requirement for common carrier microwave licensees to file FCC Form 494A certifying completion of construction, and argue that reinstating a certification requirement is inconsistent with the deregulatory objectives of this proceeding. 106. We agree with FCBA and other commenters that the purpose of our construction notification procedure should be to verify whether licensees have in fact met their construction and coverage obligations, not to terminate licenses for legitimately operating facilities based on a failure to notify by the licensee that could be the result of a mailing error. This policy is reflected in the fact that our proposed rule provides for automatic license termination not based on whether the Commission has received confirmation of construction, but based on actual failure by the licensee to meet its construction or coverage deadline. Nevertheless, if a licensee fails to confirm timely construction, we believe it is reasonable to initiate the license termination process as proposed. First, we are enhancing our procedures by using ULS to send construction reminder notices to licensees in all wireless services that have construction performance requirements, which was not possible previously. Second, ULS simplifies the confirmation process for the licensee by allowing for instantaneous electronic filing of the notification. Finally, as proposed in the ULS Notice, we provide that when the Commission fails to receive timely confirmation of construction from the licensee, ULS will generate a letter to the licensee and issue a public notice thirty days before the termination becomes final. This period provides a licensee that has timely met its construction or coverage obligations with additional notice and the opportunity to prevent termination of its license by submitting documentation that is has timely constructed. Once that thirty-day period has elapsed, without notification from the licensee, the license will then be available for the Commission to reassign by competitive bidding or other means according to the rules of the particular service. 107. We also conclude that it is reasonable to require microwave licensees to comply with the same construction notification procedures as other wireless licensees, notwithstanding our prior elimination of the Form 494A filing requirement. As noted above, notification in ULS is simpler and faster than filing the old form, which could not be filed electronically. Notification also provides significant benefits for the public, the Commission, and licensees themselves by increasing the accuracy of the ULS database and promoting more efficient spectrum use. On balance, we conclude that these benefits outweigh the small burden on licensees of filing a notification. We will also modify our proposal to require construction notifications to be filed electronically, which elicited the same reservations from commenters as our general electronic filing proposals. Accordingly, only those services that are subject to mandatory electronic filing will be required to file construction notifications electronically. We will not implement this decision on construction notification procedures for any wireless service until (1) July 1, 1999, or (2) six months after the commencement of application processing in ULS for that service, whichever is later. This transition period will provide a reasonable time for applicants and licensees to familiarize themselves with this procedure. 108. Finally, we will require licensees to certify compliance with construction requirements relating to modification applications that involve additional frequencies. Many microwave commenters oppose these proposals out of concern that they would result in a licensee losing its pre-existing authorization if it fails to complete construction of the granted modification. They object to our proposal that in such a situation, the licensee must file a modification application deleting the additional frequencies. Instead, they argue that ULS should automatically return the relevant license to its "pre-modification grant" status. We have reviewed this option, and have determined that programming this logic into ULS would be so complex as to be unworkable. In addition, our original proposal does not put pre-existing licenses in jeopardy as these commenters fear; it merely provides a mechanism in ULS for the licensee to meet its obligation to provide accurate information regarding what it has constructed and what it has not. We also clarify that ULS will not cancel the pre-existing license of a licensee that fails to construct a new site or frequency so long as the modification was a request to add the site or frequency, rather than to replace the original site or frequency. This enables a licensee to test the viability of a new site or operations on a new frequency without losing pre-existing rights if it fails to commence permanent operations on the new site or frequency. 8. Assignments of Authorization and Transfers of Control 109. Background. In the ULS Notice, we proposed to consolidate our transfer and assignment rules for all wireless services in Part 1, and to eliminate inconsistencies between the procedures that currently govern CMRS and microwave licenses. First, we proposed to replace the multiple existing forms for transfers and assignments in the various services with two ULS forms, FCC Form 603 for assignment of licenses and FCC Form 604 for transfers of control. Our proposal to use a separate form for each type of transaction rather than a single consolidated form for all assignments and transfers was based on the fact that transfers and assignments do not require identical types of information from the applicant. In addition, the two types of transactions have different processing results: in an assignment transaction, a new license is issued to the assignee, while in a transfer of control, the identity of the licensee generally remains the same. We therefore proposed using two different forms tailored to the two categories of transactions. 110. We also proposed to conform the Commission's rules for all wireless services to require post-transaction notification that a Commission-approved transfer or assignment has been consummated. We acknowledged that the current Part 90 rules for private mobile radio service (PMRS) and the Part 101 rules for microwave services do not require such notification, but noted that problems occur when an assignment or transfer approved by the Commission is entered into the licensing database under this streamlined procedure and is not subsequently consummated. With the advent of ULS, we tentatively concluded that a uniform post-consummation notification process could be established that would be efficient and easy to use for all wireless licensees. Using the electronic filing capabilities of the system, licensees would be able to provide such notification by accessing their previously filed transfer or assignment application and entering updated information regarding its consummation. We therefore proposed to require post-consummation notification under ULS using procedures similar to those currently applicable to CMRS transfers and assignments. We also tentatively concluded that these notification procedures should be reinstated for transfers and assignments of microwave licenses, notwithstanding our prior elimination of the post- consummation notification requirement in the microwave services. 111. Finally, we proposed to apply these same post-consummation procedures to pro forma transactions for which we have recently adopted streamlined procedures in response to the FCBA forbearance petition. Thus, in the case of pro forma transfers and assignments involving telecommunications carriers, for which prior Commission approval is no longer required, we tentatively concluded that licensees should provide the required post-consummation notification and related information regarding the transaction on Form 603 or 604. 112. Discussion. In general, our proposals for adopting uniform transfer and assignment procedures and forms in ULS were supported by commenters. ADT supports use of ULS for filing and processing of license assignment and transfer of control applications. Nextel supports the proposal to replace the multiple forms currently used for assignments and transfers with Form 603 for assignments and Form 604 for transfers of control. CenturyTel and Radiofone support the use of ULS for the filing and processing of license assignment and transfer of control applications, but urges that such transactional applications be processed separately from facilities applications to expedite processing. FIT, however, comments that while the Commission's proposal to replace some current forms used for transfers and assignments has merit, it should retain Forms 1046 and 703, now used in the private services, because they are easy to use and provide the Commission with all necessary information. 113. We believe that consolidating our assignment/transfer rules and replacing service-specific forms with consolidated forms will provide the public with a consistent set of procedures and filing requirements and will increase the speed and accuracy of the assignment/transfer process. Continuing to use existing service-specific forms for some services, as FIT suggests, would impede these objectives and create public confusion. We also agree that assignments and transfers need to be processed in a quick, efficient manner. The electronic filing and automated processing capabilities of ULS will enable us to meet this requirement. For example, in the case of transfer and assignment applications that must be placed on thirty days public notice under section 310(d) of the Act, ULS has the ability to automatically generate a weekly public notice of applications received during the previous week. Prompt placement of these applications on public notice will facilitate swifter processing, and will ultimately lead to more expeditious grants of assignments and transfers in most cases. 114. Several commenters proposed that we combine Form 603 and 604 into a consolidated transfer/assignment form, rather than using separate forms as proposed in the ULS Notice. SBC comments that the proposed forms are largely duplicative, and that with a minimum of revision one form could be used for both transfers of control and assignments of license, as is currently the case with Form 490. SBC says that consolidation of these forms would shorten waiting and approval times and would mitigate the paperwork burden on the carrier as well as the administrative burden on the Commission. 115. After review, we agree with the commenters that the transfer and assignment forms can and should be combined. Although there are some differences in the information requirements for transfers and assignments, as we noted in the ULS Notice, we find that there is a sufficient degree of overlap in the questions that must be answered by both types of applicants that the forms can be combined. In addition, to the extent that there are differences in the informational requirements for transfers and assignments, we have designed the revised form (which we designate as Form 603) so that the applicant will only be required to answer the questions pertinent to the type of transaction involved. Thus, in a transfer of control, no new licensee information will be required because the licensee remains the same and a new license is not issued. In an assignment, on the other hand, information regarding the new licensee will be required. Applicants who file Form 603 electrically will only have to complete those fields applicable to the type of transaction indicated. For manual filers, the instructions to the form will explain which questions must be answered based on whether a transfer or assignment is involved. 116. We will make certain other changes to Form 603, some of which have been suggested by commenters. For example, one commenter noted that the proposed form did not contain a schedule for notification of consummation of a transaction, but that such notification was instead provided on a proposed schedule to Form 601. We agree that Form 603 should include a mechanism for filing consummation notifications, and have added a notification schedule to the form for this purpose. We have also modified Form 603 so that it can be used by telecommunications carriers to notify the Commission of pro forma assignments and transfers that do not require prior Commission approval under our streamlined forbearance procedures. Telecommunications carriers will be able to file notifications and provide the required licensing information directly into ULS on Form 603 so that ULS can update its licensing records to reflect the pro forma transaction. 117. We have also updated the instructions on Form 603 regarding indirect alien ownership under section 310(b)(4) of the Act to elicit information regarding whether such ownership is held by aliens from countries making commitments to the WTO Basic Telecommuncations Agreement (WTO Agreement). Accordingly, we also revised the questions on Form 603 regarding alien ownership under section 310(b)(4) of the Act to elicit information regarding indirect ownership by aliens from countries making commitments under the WTO Agreement. The revised Form 603 also requires the transferee or assignee to certify that is in compliance with all pertinent cross- ownership, attribution, and spectrum cap rules, or has sought a waiver of such rules. Finally, in accordance with our new ownership reporting requirements for auctioned services, Form 603 will ask assignees/transferees in such services to certify that a current Form 602 is on file or that one is being filed simultaneously with the Form 603. 118. In the ULS Notice, we proposed to reinstate the consummation notification requirement for all PMRS licensees and microwave licensees which we had previously eliminated. In the absence of a notification procedure, no efficient mechanism exists for correcting the database under these circumstances. Instead, we have generally required the filing of a second transfer application that reflects the "return" of the license from the putative transferee to the original licensee. AirTouch opposes extending notification procedures to services such as PMRS or microwave that currently do not have them. Airtouch argues that this notification constitutes unnecessary reregulation of these services. The FCBA, AAR, and API support establishing a uniform notification procedure for all wireless services including services such as PMRS and microwave. 119. Our experience with assignments and transfers in those services that do not require post-consummation notification is that confusion and database errors have resulted when an approved transaction is not consummated. Restoring the notification requirement will ensure the integrity of the database and enable the Commission, licensees, and the public to accurately track ownership. Furthermore, licensees will no longer have to refile assignment or transfer applications with the required fee when a transaction has not been consummated. We also disagree with AirTouch that this notification constitutes unnecessary reregulation. The rationale for eliminating the notification requirement is no longer applicable under ULS. Licensees may provide notification in ULS almost instantly for electronic filers completing FCC Form 603. Moreover, in the case of pro forma transfers and assignments that require no prior Commission approval under our forbearance order, notification will be the only filing that is required. Thus, we find that imposing this requirement will not constitute a significant burden on licensees. 120. While commenters generally expressed support for use of ULS to electronically file transfer and assignment applications, FCBA and API questioned how both parties to a transaction would be able to enter information and electronically sign the form. These commenters express concern that electronic filing could inadvertently enable a party to file a fraudulent assignment or transfer application without the knowledge of the current licensee. They point out that fraudulent applications have not been an issue in the past because transfer and assignment applications were filed manually, enabling both parties to certify their respective sections and sign the application before filing it with the Commission. To address the issue, API proposes that the Commission require a "comparison" electronic filing which could only be made by the assignor using the TIN and related password or through the submission of an original executed paper version of the electronic filing. The FCBA opposes API's proposal, but states that the Commission must address the issue if it intends to allow electronic filing of transfer and assignment applications. 121. We agree with FCBA and API that safeguards are necessary to ensure that both parties to a transfer or assignment application can ensure the accuracy of information on electronically submitted forms. We also agree that neither party should be able to file a transfer or assignment form electronically without the knowledge and consent of the other. Assignment and transfer applications raise unique concerns in this respect because they are two-party in nature and require the signature of both parties to the transaction. We are also aware that as a practical matter, one party (usually the assignee or transferee) often prepares the application for the other party to review and sign. In ULS, we have instituted several safeguards to protect against inaccurate or unauthorized filings. First, ULS will allow the assignee or transferee to access the portions of the application that contain information regarding itself. However, ULS will not allow the assignee or transferee to enter information into the assignor/transferor's section of the application, nor will it allow the assignee/transferee to designate the call signs that are the subject of the proposed transaction. ULS will also enable each party to sign the application electronically, but will not allow either party access to the signature block of the other party. ULS will safeguard against modifications (by either party) after the application has been signed by either party. Finally, ULS will safeguard against any party making modifications to the application after it has been signed by either party. 122. We believe that the above safeguards will provide both parties with the same comfort and security afforded in the paper filing of transfer and assignment applications, and will ensure compliance with the Commission's rules. In addition, as in the case of other types of applications, ULS will allow assignment and transfer applicants to print preview their applications in draft, so that both parties can review and verify their responses before filing, and without the draft applications being viewable by the Commission staff or the public. Thus, while electronic filing of transfer and assignment applications may require some adjustment by the parties to such transactions, we believe that electronic filing will prove to be easy and efficient. We will issue a public notice describing in greater detail the procedures for using ULS when filing an assignment or transfer application. We also intend to conduct demonstrations for the public and the communications bar. 9. Change to North American Datum 83 Coordinate Data 123. Background. To perform its licensing role, the Wireless Bureau requires that certain applicants and licensees submit site coordinate data (latitude and longitude) with their applications. Presently, applicants and licensees are required by the Commission's rules to submit coordinate data referenced to the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27). The more recent North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) was defined using modern surveying technology and in many cases provides a more accurate method of specifying coordinates. As a result, many applicants and licensees, at their option, provide NAD83 coordinate data with their applications today. On September 1, 1992, we issued a public notice noting the change and stating that we would be converting our databases to NAD83. On September 15, 1992, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology held a tutorial on converting from NAD27 to NAD83. However, we allowed applicants and licensees to continue submitting data in NAD27 until the Commission's databases could be converted. 124. On October 15, 1992, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) converted all coordinate data associated with the National Airspace System to NAD83. At the same time, it began requiring applicants and licensees notifying the FAA of proposed constructions (over 200 feet above ground or near an airport) to submit data in NAD83. For years, tower owners have been required to submit NAD83 data to the FAA and NAD27 data to the Commission. Because of this inconsistency and the benefits of using the more accurate NAD83 data, we proposed in the ULS Notice to require applicants and licensees in all wireless services to submit NAD83 data. We sought comment on this proposal. 125. Discussion. Commenters addressing this issue overwhelmingly support our proposal to transition from NAD27 to NAD83 site data. As the commenters point out, this action unifies FAA and the Commission's requirements for the submission of site data, while taking advantage of the more accurate NAD83 reference datum. Thus, we will adopt a policy implementing NAD83 for all wireless services in a uniform manner. Beginning six months from the effective date of this Report and Order, we will require coordinates submitted to the Wireless Bureau regarding sites located in the continental United States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, and offshore sites adjacent to these areas (e.g., the Gulf of Mexico) to be expressed in terms of latitude and longitude referenced to NAD83. Sites located in the Northern Mariana Islands, Midway Island, and Wake Island should continue to be referenced to the applicable local datums. This exception for the Pacific insular areas is necessary because NAD83 is not applicable to these areas. 126. Appendix D explains how licensees may use the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geodetic Survey's (NOAA/NGS) "NADCON" software to convert coordinates from NAD27 and other local datums to NAD83. NADCON is available free of charge via the Internet. The NADCON software allows for the conversion of coordinates interactively one at a time, as well as the conversion of entire databases of coordinates by using an input data file. As an added measure of convenience for our licensees, the Wireless Bureau is in the process of providing a web browser-based NADCON interface and investigating the possibility of including the NADCON conversion as part of ULS functionality. The Wireless Bureau will announce the release of these conversion tools by future public notices as they become available. 127. When implementing the transition to NAD83, FCBA urges the Commission to deal carefully with the rounding of converted data. We agree with FCBA and have devised a conversion approach that will not result in discrepancies due to rounding errors. Presently, site data is stored in the Wireless Bureau's databases referenced to NAD27 and rounded to the nearest second. The NADCON software will convert NAD27 data and provide results in terms of several decimal places. To avoid further rounding errors, we will convert existing databases using NADCON and store the resulting seconds of latitude and longitude in terms of two decimal places. Coordinates will be viewable online up to one decimal place. We take this opportunity to clarify that we are not requiring applicants or licensees to re-survey sites or conduct initial sites surveys in order to submit data accurate to the first or second decimal place. As in the past, applicants and licensees should determine site coordinates to the accuracy required by the applicable radio service rules and round the seconds of latitude and longitude consistent with the particular method of measurement being used (e.g., 7.5 = map, hand- held GPS receiver, GPS receive with differential corrections). 128. We also agree with suggestions by CenturyTel, Comsearch, and Radiofone to provide a transition period during which applicants and licensees may submit data referenced either to NAD27 or NAD83. We believe, however, that a six-month transition period is more appropriate than the one-year transition suggested by some of the commenters. As a threshold matter, many licensees already submit coordinates on FCC Form 600 referenced to both NAD27 and NAD83. As the commenters point out, the FAA already requires submission of coordinates on FAA Form 7460-1 (notification of FAA for air safety purposes) in NAD83. Thus, structures over 200 feet above ground or located near a commercial use airport are already converted by applicants and licensees in order to meet FAA filing requirements. Further, the NAD83 conversion is not a difficult process. As described above and in Appendix D, the conversion of site data to NAD83 can be achieved by using the NADCON software and can be easily applied on a case by case basis, or to large databases. Prolonging the transition period would only serve to delay implementation of the more accurate datum and the benefits of unifying our requirements with those of the FAA. Applicants and licensees submitting NAD27 coordinates during the six-month transition can only do so manually using non-ULS forms. Consequently, the Commission's staff entering the non-ULS forms and converting from NAD27 to NAD83 may result in processing delays. For this reason, we urge applicants and licensees to convert their licensing records to NAD83 as soon as possible. 129. At the same time the Wireless Bureau is requiring applicants and licensees to convert to NAD83, the Wireless Bureau must convert all site coordinates in each of its databases from NAD27 (or local datums) to NAD83. We disagree with the commenters' recommendation to convert all of the Wireless Bureau's databases at the same time. We have chosen to implement ULS on a service-by-service basis and have already implemented the Paging and Radiotelephone Service and Offshore Radiotelephone Service with others to follow in the coming months. In this connection, we are converting to NAD83 at the same time we are converting each of our databases to ULS. This approach minimizes the number of programming resources necessary for conversion to ULS. Further, because we are providing a six-month transition period, licensees have the option to continue filing in NAD27 until all radio services have been converted to ULS. During the transition period, the Commission will convert data submitted in NAD27 to NAD83. 130. Although the conversion to NAD83 does not involve the physical relocation of any tower sites, there may be instances when the distance between neighboring sites may appear to change when NAD83 is used. Several commenters ask that we grandfather licensees that may appear to be short-spaced as a result of the mathematical conversion, and that the conversion should not initiate finder's preference or license revocation proceedings. Over a small geographic area, the conversion to NAD83 will affect neighboring sites in the same way, so the calculated distances between these sites will effectively remain constant. When sites are separated by large distances, however, site coordinates will be "shifted" by different amounts based on local geography, and thus, the calculated distances between these sites may appear to decrease. This effect will be most prominent in the western United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean. Again, this is not a result of the relocation of tower sites, but rather the more precise determination of site coordinates. We agree with the commenters that, in cases where stations appear to be "short-spaced" under the rules as a result of the conversion, licensees may continue to operate under their existing authorizations indefinitely. This approach minimizes the number of programming resources while permitting the continued operation of existing stations. Further, we clarify that we do not intend to take any form of enforcement action in this regard based solely on the NAD83 conversion. 131. As a final matter, we agree with FCBA that the NAD83 conversion policies developed for our licensing databases should also apply to our Antenna Registration database. Presently, FCC Form 854 "Application for Antenna Structure Registration" permits tower owners to specify site coordinates referenced to NAD27 or NAD83 and stores the data in NAD27. Upon implementation of ULS, we will require tower owners applying for registrations to submit site data in NAD83. This approach provides for the consistent treatment of all applicants and licensees submitting site data to the Wireless Bureau. 10. Use of Taxpayer Identification Numbers 132. Background. In 1996, Congress enacted the Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA), as part of an effort to increase the government's effectiveness in collecting debt from private entities. The DCIA requires, inter alia, that each federal agency collect the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) of any person doing business with that agency. The TIN for an individual is generally that person's Social Security Number, while entities use a Tax Identification Number or Employer Identification Number. This information is shared with the U.S. Department of Treasury, as required by the DCIA. 133. Pursuant to its responsibility under the DCIA, the Commission has already begun to collect TIN information from Commission licensees. We also require auction applicants to provide their TINs with their short-form applications. In the ULS Notice, we further proposed to require that all applicants and licensees filing applications in ULS be required to register their TINs as a prerequisite to using the system. We also sought comment on the suitability of the TIN as a unique system identifier for each applicant and licensee in ULS. In addition we proposed steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure or misuse of TIN information. We sought comment on these proposals. 134. Discussion. We received comments regarding a variety of issues relating to the use of TINs in ULS. Some commenters question whether the TIN can serve effectively as a unique system identifier. They note that some governmental and private entities have a single TIN that is used by multiple sub-agencies or subsidiaries which may hold licenses in their own name. Thus, use of the "parent" TIN could generate confusion and processing complications due to several entities using the same number. These commenters propose that we program ULS so that additional numbers or letters could be added to the basic TIN to identify sub-agencies or subsidiaries. We agree that a need for more discrete identification of government agency and large private entity filers exists. We are therefore developing a protocol in ULS that will allow an applicant or licensee to obtain a unique "sub-group" identifying number as an extension of its TIN. Thus, entities with a common TIN belonging to the parent agency or entity will be uniquely identified in ULS by different sub-group identifiers. 135. Some commenters, particularly Amateur radio operators, argue that being required to disclose their TINs raises privacy concerns and assert that collecting TINs is unnecessary to our regulatory goals. Commenters also question whether ULS will contain sufficient security measures to protect against disclosure of TIN information. Conversely, some commenters note that there is no reason to protect the TINs of publicly-held corporations, which must disclose this information in any event for compliance with tax collecting requirements. NSMA is concerned with providing any party outside the Commission with TINs, including frequency coordinators and test examiners. 136. With regard to the general security of TIN information in our database, we have already initiated steps to ensure security in access to ULS. Access to ULS for drafting, filing, or amending applications or pleadings is obtained using a secure wide-area network (WAN) site. Each applicant or licensee's pre-filed draft applications, forms, or pleadings will be protected by two levels of security: the applicant's or licensee's TIN and a unique self-assigned password. TIN information is not available to either the public or Commission staff through ULS. Instead, only a small number of Commission staff will have access to such data in order to effect necessary compliance with the DCIA. For public access purposes, ULS will issue each licensee a "masking" number that identifies it in the publicly available database. The "masking" or public ID number will be used for querying and for other purposes where revelation of the TIN could affect the applicant's or licensee's security concerns. 137. With regard to use of or access to the TIN by frequency coordinators and VECs, we are aware that these entities are not comfortable with the responsibility of maintaining security for their individual clients' TINs. We agree this concern has merit. Accordingly, we are developing the capability for VECs and frequency coordinators to submit applicant information into ULS without having access to the applicant's TIN. Because the coordinators and VECs are Commission-certified and carry out quasi- public responsibilities, we will provide each VEC and frequency coordinator with its own secure code giving it access to the relevant portions of the database. The coordinator will then be able to use its own access code, in combination with the public identification number of the applicant, to electronically file on the applicant's behalf. We emphasize, however, that in order for the coordinator or VEC to file on behalf of an applicant, the applicant must previously have registered its TIN in ULS. 138. Certain commenters question our authority to collect TIN information at all, particularly from applicants and licensees who do not pay fees. The DCIA subjects all those "doing business" before a Federal agency to provide a TIN as a condition to receiving governmental benefits, regardless of whether fees are collected. The DCIA defines a person "doing business with a Federal Agency" as "an applicant for, or recipient of, a Federal license, permit, right-of-way, grant, or benefit payment administered by the agency. . .." Thus, the statute makes plain that all applicants and licensees are "doing business with a Federal agency" and thus must provide their TINs. The statute does not distinguish between licensees and applicants who pay fees and those who do not, or otherwise exclude applicants and licensees who do not pay fees from the definition of "doing business" and the accompanying obligation to provide their TINs. Therefore, non-feeable services such as most amateur and other public safety entities are still required to register their TINs with the Commission. 139. Bennet maintains that those "doing business" with the Commission, as defined in the DCIA, does not include minority interest holders. Further, FCBA contends that the DCIA requires only applicants and licensees to provide TINs, and not those entities with a 10 percent or greater interest. FCBA argues that applicants and licensees are the ones enjoying the government benefits of a Commission license, and not attributable interest holders. We disagree with these contentions. One of the overarching purposes behind the DCIA is to improve the cash and debt collection management of the Federal Government. In order to identify debtors, Congress decided to use TINs, a ubiquitous identifier. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure compliance with the DCIA. In order for the Commission to comply, we must collect TINs from all individuals or entities "doing business" with us. Under the DCIA, "doing business" before an agency is defined as "...an applicant for or recipient of a Federal license, ..." Therefore, we consider those with attributable interests under section 1.2112 of the Commission's Rules as being "applicant[s] for, or recipient[s] of, a Federal license. . . " for purposes of the DCIA. We believe that entities subject to the disclosure requirements of section 1.2112 -- entities from whom we require submission of ownership information regarding their relationship with the applicant of record -- are components of the applicant and thus constitute "an applicant for, or recipient of, a Federal license . . . ." In short, if an entity holds an interest level that necessitates disclosure under section 1.2112, we believe that entity holds a level of interest that justifies recognition as an "applicant" for purposes of the DCIA. Moreover, considering such an interest holder as an applicant for purposes of the DCIA is consistent with our decision in the Part 1 Third Report and Order that any interest holder subject to the disclosure requirements of section 1.2112 must be treated as akin to an "applicant." 140. Moreover, an entity with an attributable interest in a Commission license undoubtedly enjoys a public benefit and thus constitutes an "applicant for, or recipient of," the license. In fact, the Treasury Department clearly states "providing a TIN has now become a condition of receiving a [Federal] benefit." We disagree with those commenters who argue that only the named applicant or licensee reaps the benefits of a license. In reality, all those investing in an applicant's business plan enjoy the financial and public interest benefits of a license. To that end, we treat all individuals or entities with a 10 percent or greater interest in an applicant or licensee as component members of the "applicant." 141. Therefore, for the purposes of implementing the ULS system, based upon the foregoing discussion and applicable statutes and regulations, the requirement for the TIN will operate as follows:  All applicants for licenses and all licensees must register their TIN with this Commission through ULS.  The real party in interest and/or the entity having actual/de facto control of any applicant or licensee, however such control may manifested or styled, must supply its TIN.  Applicants and licensees who must identify officers, directors, and holders of ownership interests in the license of 10 percent or greater pursuant to section 1.2112(a) must supply the TINs of such officers, directors, interest holders. 142. Finally, we note that members of the general public seeking access to the ULS system for queries or research, as contemplated in the ULS Notice, will not be required to provide a TIN to obtain access to ULS. Third parties seeking to file pleadings in a pending matter need not provide a TIN to file the pleading, but such parties at their option, will be able to utilize a password or identifier chosen by them. C. Collection of Licensing and Technical Data 1. Overview 143. Background. In conjunction with the development of the ULS, we have conducted a thorough review of our current data collection and licensing functions to identify those requirements which can be streamlined. As a general matter, in the ULS Notice we tentatively concluded that it would serve the public interest to equalize, as much as possible, the reporting burden on geographic area licensees in order to treat similarly situated licensees in a consistent manner and to allow us to more effectively collect the data we need to fulfill our statutory mandates. We sought comment on what reporting requirements, both technical and non-technical, should be established for geographic area licensees. 144. Several commenters argue that the Commission should collect additional technical information from geographic licensees for coordination purposes. FCBA argues that technical data reporting requirements for geographic area licensees will aid coordination with adjacent market licensees and are needed to facilitate licensing in services that are licensed both on a geographic and a site-by-site basis. FIT supports the continued collection of technical information from licensees in the VHF bands in order to allow the forest products industry to obtain sufficient information to coordinate mobile and fixed relay stations, and suggests that required information should include the location of fixed or base stations, ERP, antenna height, and emission strength. Other parties who commented on this issue argue that certain reporting requirements applicable to geographic licensees should be eliminated or modified to make reporting requirements consistent across services. For example, some LMDS commenters specifically supported our proposed elimination of requirements that they report type acceptance number, line loss, channel capacity, and baseband signal type under Part 101. 145. Discussion. We remain convinced that it serves the public interest to streamline our rules to minimize and standardize the technical reporting requirements for geographic area licensees as much as possible. For example, as several commenters point out, our rules contain inconsistent requirements with respect to the obligation of geographic area licensees to provide the Commission with information regarding the location and technical characteristics of individual transmitter sites. WNP Communications and Winstar Communications point out that LMDS licensees must notify the Commission of the "addition, removal, or relocation of" all facilities within their geographic service areas. Similar provisions are also contained in our 800 MHz SMR and 220 MHz geographic licensing rules. By contrast, commenters point out that in other geographically licensed services, such as 39 GHz, geographic licensees are not required to provide this type of site information to the Commission. 146. We agree that our notification requirements for LMDS, 800 MHz, and 220 MHz geographic licensees are inconsistent with our rules for other geographically licensed services. The notification requirements in these services were intended to facilitate coordination and prevent interference between geographic licensees and site-based incumbents operating on the same frequencies in the same licensing areas who had been grandfathered prior to geographic licensing. However, requiring geographic licensees to file notifications of every new, relocated, or removed site in a multi-site system imposes a significant filing burden of the very type that geographic licensing was designed to mitigate. In addition, we have not adopted this approach in other geographically licensed services that also have site-based incumbent licensees, such as paging, 900 MHz SMR, and 39 GHz. 147. We also conclude that for the Commission to collect site data from geographic licensees through a notification process is not necessary to achieve the public interest goals we have identified, and that less burdensome requirements will serve the same purpose as effectively. First, in all of these services, our rules impose technical limitations on the operations of geographic licensees in order to afford interference protection to incumbent facilities. Second, while collecting site information may be helpful to coordination between geographic licensees and incumbents to prevent interference, it is not a substitute for actual coordination between the licensees themselves. Even without such technical information, the Commission's database will contain sufficient information to ensure that neighboring operators can identify the licensees with whom they must coordinate, rather than requiring all operators to maintain updated, detailed information with the FCC for full coordination analysis. This places the primary responsibility for coordination in geographically licensed services on the licensees themselves, where we believe it should be. It also reduces the regulatory burden on licensees. Standardizing the information required across all services which license by geographic service area will allow consistent treatment of licensees in similar situations. 148. Accordingly, we will remove the site notification requirement from Part 101 for LMDS geographic licensees, as well as from the Part 90 rules pertaining to auctioned 220 MHz and 800 MHz geographic licenses. Our conclusion here is in accord with our treatment of PCS, 900 MHz SMR, paging, 39 GHz,and other microwave services that are we have auctioned or plan to auction based on geographic areas. We will instead require geographic licensees to maintain site information as part of their station records and to provide it to incumbents and the public on request. Moreover, if an interference issue arises between a geographic licensee and a site-based incumbent, we have the authority under section 308 of the Act to compel production of site location information by the geographic licensee as needed. While we eliminate the above notification requirements, however, we emphasize that there continue to be circumstances where collecting individual site data is necessary. Therefore, we continue to require all licensees, including geographic service area licensees, to comply with existing procedures for environmental, quiet zone, and FAA approval of specific antenna sites where required by our service rules. 149. In the ULS Notice we tentatively concluded that, at a minimum, applicants for geographic area licenses in the wireless telecommunications services should provide technical information when proposed antenna structures are more than 200 feet above ground or are located near an airport. FCBA objects to this proposal to the extent that it proposes anything greater than the Commission's current antenna structure registration requirements. We did not propose to increase our antenna structure registration requirements. Instead, we proposed to retain FCC Form 854 in its current format, and moreover, we did not propose to amend Part 17 of our Rules. Our current Part 17 requirements ensure that Commission-registered structures do not create safety hazards. Consistent, with the goals of this proceeding, we will not require applicants or licensees to provide technical data for FAA-approved sites, except for major modifications, as described in section 1.929. We also note commenters' suggestion that we not consider the location of a facility in a floodplain to be a major action requiring an environmental assessment. Because this proceeding does not affect our statutory requirements under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), we believe that it is necessary for geographic area licenses to continue to comply with all aspects of our NEPA rules, and we will not adopt this suggestion. 150. Once ULS is fully implemented, we will further review our data collection requirements to identify other aspects that may be unnecessary. For example, BellSouth questions the need for cellular licensees to continue to file maps in light of the mapping feature of ULS. Eventually, the mapping utility included with ULS may eliminate the need to collect maps of cellular geographic service areas (CGSAs) and display service areas of site-based licensees. Implementation of the mapping utility for the cellular service, however, requires the integration of licensee-submitted System Information Update (SIU) maps into ULS. At such time as the SIU maps are fully integrated into ULS, we will revisit this issue with the intention of eliminating the requirement to file maps. For now, we will continue to collect this information from cellular licensees. We delegate authority to the Wireless Bureau to determine the proper time for the elimination of this requirement. 2. Use of Notification or Certification in Lieu of Informational Filings 151. Background. We proposed to replace informational filings with notification or certification to best utilize the electronic filing system, reduce applicant and licensee burdens and increase efficiency within the Wireless Bureau. In some cases where there is an informational or other data requirement, we proposed to use certifications or notifications by the applicant or licensee instead. The proposed rule sections in the ULS Notice appendices contained the new certification or notification procedures, as do the proposed forms and schedules. An example of a new certification requirement in lieu of an information filing requirement is in proposed section 101.701, which requires common carrier fixed microwave licensees to certify that substantial non-private use is being made of facilities used to relay broadcast television signals. An example of a new notification requirement in lieu of an informational filing is in proposed section 101.305, where non-dominant common carriers planning to discontinue service must give electronic notification of discontinuance to the Commission. We requested comments on these proposals. 152. Discussion. Four parties commented on our proposals. Of the four comments received, each supports the Commission's conclusion that electronic filings via notification or certification would reduce licensee burdens and enable more efficient operations. We conclude that use of the notification and certification processes will substantially reduce the administrative burdens on the Commission and the filing burdens on applicants and licensees. However, we caution applicants and licensees that they must be prepared to provide the underlying information upon which their notification or certification depends, upon Commission request. Accordingly, we find that the proposed rules dispensing with informational filings, and replacing them with certifications or notifications, are in the public interest. 3. Public Mobile Radio Service Data Requirements 153. Background. In the ULS Notice, we proposed eliminating the requirement for certain Public Mobile Radio Service applicants and licensees to file antenna model, manufacturer, and type with the Commission. We stated that we could eliminate this information since we fundamentally altered the method for determining service contours and CGSAs in the paging and radio telephone service. 154. We also proposed to eliminate the requirement that unserved area applicants in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service submit paper copies of: (a) an application cover, (b) transmittal sheet, (c) table of contents, and (d) numerous engineering exhibits. We believed these paper copy requirements are inconsistent with our proposal to require electronic filing by cellular applicants and proposed to eliminate this requirement for cellular unserved applicants. We requested comments on these proposals. 155. Discussion. The FCBA supported the elimination of technical antenna information as well as the proposed elimination of certain formatting requirements for Cellular Radiotelephone Service unserved area applications. The FCBA agrees with the Commission's conclusion that such requirements are superfluous, inconsistent with an electronic filing environment, and should thus be eliminated when unserved area applications are filed electronically. 156. There was some opposition to our proposal to eliminate the requirement for applicants or licensees in the Part 22 mobile services to submit the make and model number of their antenna. Commenters contend that knowledge of the antenna model is critical in making the determination of how the interference contour is formed, i.e., without antenna model information, the Commission and the public will be unable to determine whether the effective radiated power (ERP) listed for the eight cardinal bearings on Schedule J emanate from calculations using an appropriate antenna pattern showing an acceptable front-to-back ratio. Commenters are concerned that without this information, carriers could mistakenly or unscrupulously encroach upon protected service areas, or render it impossible for Part 22 VHF/UHF paging licenses to comply with rule 22.537, which requires such licensees to provide contour protection to co-channel stations along the entire service contour, and not just at those points that coincide with the eight cardinal bearings. Commenters also contend that this information is particularly important in Part 22 VHF/UHF paging because these stations have been engineered to abut one another based upon contour protection. 157. Commenters also expressed concern that FCC Form 601 will not provide enough information for an incumbent licensee on the lower band frequencies to modify its station and be sure that it is fully protected by the co-channel licensee auction winner. Commenters believe the reduced antenna information may make it more difficult for the auction winner to ensure that an incumbent co-channel licensee is staying within its authorized contours. CenturyTel notes that Schedule J to Form 601 elicits information about the beam width of a directional antenna, as well as ERP and height above average terrain along the eight cardinal radials, but only for fixed stations and not base stations; this information should also be required for base stations. 158. AirTouch states that the proposed rules are unclear as to whether cellular applicants will continue to be required to file maps in connection with their applications. AirTouch states that the proposal retains section 22.929(c), which imposes a map filing requirement, but also proposes to eliminate section 22.953, which establishes the formatting requirements for such maps. AirTouch states that, because ULS is able to generate maps from licensee-provided information, it is unclear why the Commission would retain an additional requirement to submit maps. We agree with the commenters that the requirement for cellular licensees to file maps should be eliminated as soon as possible. As we discussed above, this requirement must be retained for a short time so that cellular map data already on file with the Commission may be fully integrated with the ULS's mapping utility. We will revisit this issue in the near future when integration with the ULS mapping utility is completed. 159. After evaluating our procedures and rules we find that we no longer need to collect and record technical antenna information nor do we need unserved area applicants in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service to submit the aforementioned paper exhibits. We therefore eliminate these requirements. However, we will require all licensees to maintain this information as part of their station records and to provide it to licensees and applicants upon request. Moreover, if an interference issue arises, we have the authority under section 308 of the Act to compel production of antenna information. 4. Fixed Microwave Service Data Requirements 160. Background. Effective August 1996, the Commission eliminated and combined many of the fixed microwave service rules of Parts 21 and 94 of the Commission's rules and consolidated the remaining rules into a single, new Part 101. In the ULS Notice, the Commission proposed to further streamline the rules by eliminating the requirement that fixed microwave service applicants and licensees submit type acceptance number, line loss, channel capacity, and baseband signal type for each application. We noted that as we place an increasing amount of responsibility for interference coordination on the parties themselves, this information is not critical nor does it provide useful data in support of the Wireless Bureau's licensing processes. 161. Discussion. Commenters that addressed this issue express near unanimous support for the Commission's proposal. Some of these commenters urge the Commission to go further and also eliminate other requirements. For example, the FCBA states that in light of the goal of collecting less data because licensees are increasingly responsible for interference coordination, the Commission should consider eliminating the filing of the following "extraneous" information: transmitter manufacturer name, digital modulation rate, digital modulation type, median receiver signal level, antenna manufacturer name, and antenna model number. For the same reason, Comsearch suggests the Commission eliminate the requirement of listing the digital modulation type, because it has no bearing on the technical merit of an application. NSMA, on the other hand, opposes the elimination of this technical data submission requirement for point-to-point microwave service applicants to the extent that this information is necessary to "evaluate the interference environment." NSMA also suggests that the Commission require submission of received signal level (RSL) data with these applications as it would be useful in interference studies. 162. We adopt our proposal in the ULS Notice to eliminate the requirement that applicants and licensees include type acceptance number, line loss, channel capacity, and baseband signal type for each application. The overwhelming majority of commenters agree with our tentative conclusion that this information is not necessary for licensing purposes. As we conclude that reducing the burden on applicants and licensees is in the public interest, we decline to adopt NSMA's suggestion that we require RSL data to be submitted with applications. We are not convinced at this time, however, that we should eliminate the filing of other technical information as proposed by the FCBA and Comsearch. 163. Teligent proposes that the Commission modify section 101.5(b) of the Commission's rules to eliminate the requirement that DEMS licensees file a separate application for each new DEMS nodal station they seek to add to their systems. Teligent states that this requirement is inconsistent with the requirements imposed on other similarly situated fixed wireless service licensees, such as 38 GHz and LMDS licensees, that are also licensed on a wide-area basis and have exclusive use of their licensed frequencies in their geographic areas. On the other hand, NSMA opposes Teligent's proposal on the grounds that because a DEMS licensee would not be able to conduct an interference evaluation for nodal stations in adjacent areas owned by another licensee, continued frequency coordination for new stations is necessary to prevent interference problems. Teligent also proposes that the Commission eliminate the corresponding requirements in sections 101.5(b) and 101.503 that a DEMS licensee apply for authority to serve a specific number of user stations for each separately licensed nodal station. We decline to adopt Teligent's proposals as part of this Report and Order. The Commission has consistently upheld the DEMS service rules, and granted waivers where appropriate, and should changes in those rules be justified they will be made in a future proceeding. 164. Winstar suggests that the Commission amend section 101.215 to exempt Part 101 geographic area licensees from information posting requirements for customer stations, and modify section 101.149(b) to eliminate the specific requirement that 39 GHz licensees post a service area authorization at each operating station. It argues that these requirements are unduly burdensome for geographic area licensees that ultimately will maintain facilities at hundreds of customer sites in each city in which they provide service. For similar reasons, Winstar recommends that the Commission amend its rules to exempt Part 101 geographic area licensees from the station recordkeeping requirements of section 101.217. This Commission consistently maintains rules requiring that transmitter sites be identified with either the station authorization or with information indicating where the station information can be found. The Part 101 rules on this matter are found at 47 C.F.R.  101.215 and 101.149. We believe that availability of this information is important to ensure accountability of the licensee to the public. For example, a transmitter causing interference due to poor maintenance or accident can be found with direction-finding equipment, but without information regarding the owner/operator available at the site, an aggrieved party will not know who to contact for relief from the interference. This on-site information becomes even more important because elsewhere in this Report and Order we relieve licensees of the requirement to file the location of each of its transmitters with this Commission. Accordingly, we believe that the public interest in having an readily identifiable contact at each transmitter site outweighs the inconvenience to licensees. With regard to station record information required under section 101.217, we believe for similar reasons that this information is as important for geographic licensees as it is for site-based licensees. It becomes even more important that licensees keep complete records of their transmitters because under ULS, this Commission will no longer collect that information unless it is necessary to review the information in connection with a complaint or other question regarding transmitter engineering. Accordingly, we decline to adopt Winstar's suggestions in this regard. 5. Maritime and Aviation Services Data Requirements 165. Background. In the ULS Notice, we requested comment on whether the proposal to eliminate various rules that require attachments of showings and coordination statements could negatively affect the quality of maritime or aviation communications. 166. Discussion. The sole commenter to the proposed Aviation Services rule raised one objection. The Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council (AFTRCC) opposes the elimination of the independent statement by a frequency coordinator for flight test station applicants. Currently, section 87.305 of our rules requires a flight test station applicant to secure a statement from a frequency advisory committee that comments on the station's probability of interference with an existing station. AFTRCC suggests that the proposal to replace the independent statement with a certification does not address the certainty required for aviation radio operations. While it is our intention to facilitate electronic filing and eliminate burdens upon applicants, we want to maintain maximum public safety. We have decided to continue to require the independent frequency coordinator statement for flight test station applicants. 167. Maritime Services parties did not comment on our proposal to delete various showings and attachments currently required to be provided with applications in these services. Some showings were replaced with the requirement that applicants certify that they meet the rule requirements, other showings were replaced with the requirement that relevant information be available upon Commission request. We continue to believe that these streamlined application requirements fulfill our statutory responsibilities and reduce the regulatory burden on applicants and licensees. Accordingly, we adopt our proposals for the streamlined rule provisions in Part 80 of the Commission's rules. 6. Commercial Radio Operator License Data Requirements 168. Background. Currently, applicants seeking commercial radio operator licenses must pass one or more written examinations administered by a Commission- certified Commercial Operator License Examination (COLE) Manager and obtain a proof of passing certificate (PPC). Once the PPC is obtained, the applicant must then provide the original PPC to the Commission upon application for a license. In order to electronically automate the licensing procedures, we proposed three options in the ULS Notice by which to electronically verify PPCs. We sought comments on whether COLE Managers should: (1) electronically file with the Commission data showing which examination elements an examinee has passed; (2) establish procedures that would allow COLE Managers issuing a PPC to verify the authenticity of that PPC, upon Commission request; or (3) require COLE Managers to submit applications on behalf of the applicants. 169. Discussion. We received little comment on the above-mentioned proposals. Although the comments regarding electronic filing were positive, no commenter specifically addressed the option proposed in the ULS Notice for electronically verifying PPCs. Further, no comments were received as to how the Commission should automate the application process. Therefore, we will adopt a rule that embodies our goals of electronic automation while best serving the public interest. With regard to a first filing, a renewal, or a modification application, the applicant may use the current procedures. Alternatively, the applicant may file electronically using FCC Form 605. For a new license, the applicant must file Form 605 and mail the PPC to the processing office in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. For renewals, the applicant need only file Form 605, since no attachments are required. With respect to PPC verification by COLE Managers, the current procedures will remain intact. We are committed to ULS and electronic filing believing that these new rules will gradually phase-in electronic filing while making the submission process less onerous for applicants and COLE Managers. 170. W5YI encouraged changes to the Temporary Operator Permit section in Schedule "D" of Form 605 by suggesting a perforated, tear-off part which the applicant could retain. We agree that this change will promote convenience and ease of use for the applicant and we will implement the proposed change in a future version of Form 605. 171. We want to make it clear that in announcing the above rules, we are not mandating electronic filing for Commercial Radio Operators, rather we are strongly encouraging it in the belief that the public interest is best served by this practice. In addition, we will consider in a future proceeding more efficient methods of verifying PPCs other than manual submission. 7. Amateur Radio Services 172. Background. In the ULS Notice, we requested comment on whether we should authorize reciprocal operation by foreign amateur radio operators by rule. Currently, in order to obtain an alien amateur reciprocal permit, the visitor must apply using FCC Form 610-A. No test or other standard is required of these applicants other than that they possess a license from their country of citizenship. There is no fee. Accordingly, the FCC-issued permit merely confirms that holders of such permits also hold a license from their country of citizenship and that the United States has a reciprocal treaty agreement with their country. Our proposal to authorize reciprocal operation by rule would eliminate the need for foreign citizens to file Form 610-A and receive an additional permit from the U.S. In addition, in the ULS Notice we sought comment on whether the Commission should accept the services of any organizations for the purpose of providing Club, Military Recreation and Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Services (RACES) station call signs that meet the minimum requirements set forth in section 4(g)(3)(B) of the Communications Act, and that complete a pilot electronic autogrant batch filing project similar to that completed by the 16 Volunteer-Examiner Coordinators (VECs). 173. In an earlier proceeding, we had proposed to amend the Amateur Service Rules in order to facilitate implementation of two international reciprocal operating arrangements -- the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) radio-amateur license, and the Inter-American Convention on an International Amateur Radio Permit (CITEL/Amateur Convention). Comments to the CEPT/CITEL NPRM indicate that these operating arrangements are desired by amateur operators who want to operate their stations during international travel without first obtaining a permit from each country visited. 174. Discussion After reviewing the comments we have received to both the CEPT/CITEL NPRM and the ULS Notice, we conclude that all alien amateur radio reciprocal operation should be authorized by rule. As we proposed, however, this decision does not permit any citizen of the United States to operate under this procedure on the authority of a second citizenship and an amateur license from another country. Our decision herein is supported by most commenters, who generally agree with the concept of authorization by rule of reciprocal operating privileges by persons holding a CEPT radio-amateur license issued by a participating CEPT country, or an International Amateur Radio Permit (IARP) issued under the authority of a participating CITEL country. Citizens of CEPT and CITEL countries that are visiting the United States as tourists, attendees at conferences, students and visiting professors, for example, would benefit from having a convenient procedure available whereby they could operate their amateur stations while here in the United States. Additionally, United States citizens who travel in Europe or in the Americas for short visits would similarly benefit. 175. In authorizing by rule CEPT licensees and CITEL licensees to operate from locations where the amateur service is regulated by the FCC, the Commission's rules also must specify the operating privileges granted and the station identification requirements. The operating privileges should be consistent with the two classes of CEPT radio-amateur licenses, and IARPs. Class 1 licenses requires knowledge of the international Morse code and carries all operating privileges. It is, therefore, similar to our Amateur Extra Class. Class 2 licenses do not require knowledge of telegraphy and carries all operating privileges above 30 MHz. A Class 2 license, therefore, is similar to our Technician Class operator license. Class 1 operators, therefore, are authorized the frequency privileges of Amateur Extra Class operators. Class 2 operators will receive the frequency privileges of Technician Class operators. For station identification purposes, when the station is transmitting under the authority of a CEPT radio-amateur license, or an IARP, an indicator consisting of the appropriate letter-numeral designating the station location must be included before, after, or both before and after, the call sign issued to the station by the licensing country. 176. For a United States citizens to operate an amateur station in a CEPT country, certain requirements of the CEPT European Radio Committee (ERC) must be met for participation by non-CEPT Administrations. Under the CEPT Agreement, to activate operating authority, a traveler would have to carry credentials in English, French and German that the person, if a U.S. Citizen, and if a Commission-authorized amateur operator, is entitled to certain amateur station operating privileges in the specific countries that have implemented the CEPT Agreement. For this purpose, we intend to rely upon: (1) a public notice containing the above information; (2) proof of Commission-authorization to operate; and, (3) proof of U. S. citizenship. 177. For a United States citizen to operate an amateur station in a CITEL country, an International Amateur Radio Permit (IARP) is necessary. According to the CITEL Agreement, the IARP may be issued by the home administration. Such issuance of the IARP by the home administration may also be delegated to a member-society of the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU). The ARRL has offered its services to the Department of State to issue the IARP document to U.S. citizens for their use when they travel to CITEL countries. The ARRL would provide this service on a non-discriminatory basis, at no cost, charge or expense to the United States Government. We have no objection to the mechanism that ARRL wishes to establish for the issuance of the IARP document to U.S. citizens. Details of this mechanism can be worked out between the AARL and the Department of State. In the future, the Commission may delegate to other entities the authority to issue the IARP. 178. We note that authorization by rule of CEPT and CITEL licensees merely follows our long-standing precedent permitting Canadian citizens, who hold a license from their home country, to operate an amateur station in the United States without any further authorization or documentation. We conclude that authorization by rule of CEPT and CITEL licensees would be in the public interest and would benefit foreign visitors to the United States. In accordance with the procedures discussed above, United States citizens who travel abroad to Europe and to countries in Latin America would benefit equally. 179. With respect to our specific proposal to authorize reciprocal operation by rule in the ULS Notice, the American Radio Relay League, Inc. (ARRL) is concerned about proposed section 97.25(b) of the Rules, which would eliminate the one-year term for an alien reciprocal permit. We note, however, that this limitation serves no regulatory purpose or benefit since our current rules permit alien amateur radio operators to reapply for new permits indefinitely. Further, we observe that most visitors with reciprocal permits operate only temporarily in the United States and that they are not authorized under the Commission's rules to use more permanent, sophisticated systems such as beacons repeaters, and auxiliary stations. Accordingly, we believe that retention of the one year limitation would perpetuate unnecessary regulation. Moreover, the rule we adopt here is similar to the one that governs operation by Canadian citizens. In that instance, we believe that reciprocal operation authorized by rule has not encouraged Canadian permitees to operate in the United States permanently. 180. ARRL also raised the issue of license documents. Currently, an amateur service license is granted when the licensing data is entered into the Commission's licensee data base, not when the applicant receives the paper document. The ARRL maintains, however, that the paper license is a non-replaceable necessity which establishes certain entitlements. While we appreciate ARRL's concerns, we are not willing to reassess this settled issue. In our Amateur Licensing MO&O, we reiterated that "operation is authorized when the grant of the license has occurred (emphasis added)." We believe that this procedure affords several benefits overlooked by the League. Most importantly, it provides authority to the licensee to undertake operations almost immediately. Once the applicant's license grant is posted on the web site, the licensee is authorized to start operating immediately, without having to wait for a paper document. This procedure will reduce the wait for a licensee from several months to a matter of days. Finally, we note that presently VECs and other entities have authority to acknowledge an entry in the Commission's database by issuing a paper document to the licensee, based on information downloaded from the Commission's database. 181. ARRL further opposes our proposal to use certain eligible private sector entities, on a volunteer, uncompensated and unreimbursed basis, for the issuance of Club and Military Recreation station call signs. It questions our reinstituting the administrators for these stations after vacating the rules in a previous Commission action. In that action, the Commission established call sign administrators for Club and Military Recreation Stations. Upon reconsideration, however, the Commission vacated that action based on procedural grounds, stating that the matter should have been a rule making proceeding rather than adoption of final rules by order. We continue to believe that the use of call sign administrators would alleviate the Commission's burden of processing applications for Club and Military Recreation stations. By including call sign administration within the ULS electronic filing we believe the licensing process will become more efficient and cost-effective. Therefore, we will accept the services of any organizations that meet the requirements of section 4(g)(3)(B) of the Communications Act. 182. A few commenters also suggest changes to the proposed amateur service application form, FCC Form 605.398 Both the W5YI Group and ARRL noted that there was no Physician's Certification of Disability (Physician's Certification) on the Form. We agree that this is necessary and it will be included as Part "2" of Schedule "D" of the Form 605. In the ULS Notice, the Alien Amateur Radio Request to Operate in the United States (Alien Operation) was formerly located in Part "3." However, as correctly noted by ARRL in its comments, reciprocal authorization by rule obviates this Part and will, therefore, be removed from the Form 605. We believe that the above changes promote ease of use and best serve the public interest. 8. General Mobile Radio Service a. Inclusion in this Proceeding 183. Background. GMRS, a Part 95 Personal Radio Service, was originally established as the Citizens Class A Radio Service, and was allocated for use by individuals and entities who were not eligible for licensing in the public safety, industrial, and transportation services. Although the Commission adopted changes to the GMRS in PR Docket No. 87-265 to make the service more efficient and effective for personal users, these changes are now nearly ten years old. The current rulemaking complies with our statutory directive to conduct a biennial review of wireless services, and we take this opportunity to re-evaluate GMRS in order to identify and eliminate regulations that have become unnecessary in the past decade, as well as to ensure that our streamlined licensing process collects the minimum information needed of GMRS licensees and applicants consistent with our statutory responsibilities to license and regulate the use of this service. 184. Discussion. Several parties question whether it was appropriate to evaluate the current GMRS rules in this docket, and urge us to reserve our inquiry into the GMRS for a separate rulemaking. For example, PRSG claims that this proceeding should not be used to introduce rule changes that do not exclusively relate to the development and implementation of ULS, while SBT states that many of the proposed GMRS rule changes are technical in nature and should be considered separately from ULS. We believe that the GMRS rules we proposed and which we adopt herein are both appropriate and necessary under the current docket. We stated at the outset that ". . . as part of our 1998 biennial review of regulations, we are initiating this proceeding to streamline our wireless licensing rules by eliminating regulations that are duplicative, outmoded, or otherwise unnecessary." The proposed changes to the GMRS rules likewise are consistent with our announcement that "the scope of this first biennial review will be broader than required by the 1996 [Telecommunications] Act," and the Chairman's statement that the biennial review "gives us an opportunity to promote meaningful deregulation and streamlining where competition or other considerations warrant such action." In the case of GMRS, we have identified numerous rules to be eliminated and streamlined as duplicative or unnecessary to our regulatory responsibilities. Moreover, the requirements contained in the GMRS rules are inextricably linked to the conversion of our data collection procedures and databases to ULS, so we believe that streamlining our GMRS rules is properly included in this proceeding. For these reasons, our ULS Notice outlined the broad scope of our proceeding, specifically discussed our proposed changes to the GMRS, and included a comprehensive list of proposed rule changes. Accordingly, we believe that we have met the requirements outlined under the Administrative Procedures Act, and we disagree with Kobb's suggestion to the contrary. b. Regulatory Policy 185. Background. Many commenters view the ULS Notice as an effort by the Commission to fundamentally alter the purpose or form of the GMRS. We disagree. Although we have not hesitated to streamline and consolidate rule sections which request information unnecessary for ULS or other regulatory purposes, we have not altered eligibility requirements, permitted communication, the frequency allocation or other rules that could fundamentally alter the purpose of GMRS. Further, we believe the effect of these rule changes will actually increase users' flexibility in using GMRS and will promote use of the service. 186. Discussion. A large number of the commenters view the proposed changes as an initial step toward de-licensing the GMRS. Parrish objects to any attempt to reduce or eliminate current Commission licensing procedures with the goal of moving GMRS towards an unlicensed service, such as the Citizens Band Radio Service, while FIT supports the proposed changes and suggests that we consider authorizing the operation of GMRS stations by rule. We reject both FIT's proposal and individual GMRS commenters' suggestions. Under the authority granted by the Communications Act of 1934 (as amended), the Commission may authorize the operation of radio stations by rule and without individual licenses only for specific services. The Commission has never considered interpreting this authority to include GMRS. Moreover, the ULS Notice did not propose to change the status of the GMRS to a service which may be licensed by rule pursuant to the statute. To the contrary, our goals in this proceeding are to comply with our Biennial Review responsibilities and to amend the Commission's rules in a way which facilitates electronic filing and automatic processing as much as possible consistent with our statutory responsibilities. Accordingly, we conclude that Parrish's (and other commenters') concerns in this regard are not applicable to the rule amendments we adopt herein to meet our stated goals and responsibilities. 187. Numerous parties also express concern that our proposed changes will alter the nature of communications within the GMRS. Some of these comments were broad in scope: that the changes would allow "unscrupulous radio operators an opportunity to devastate the GMRS band;" would cause the service to become "user unfriendly;" and would be "potentially disruptive." To the extent that these fears are based on the mistaken belief that we are eliminating licensing and the requirement that users share channels and cooperate with each other, we reiterate that we retain and will continue to enforce these rules. All GMRS users, whether longtime, new, or migrants from another radio band, have always been expected to follow all service rules, including those relating to the mitigation of interference, station identification, and permissible communication. We will continue to hold licensees to this standard.407 The rules we are eliminating are largely unenforceable and hortatory, and serve to make the GMRS overly complicated and less useful to existing and potential users. Accordingly, we cannot agree that the licensing process for the GMRS serves an independent good by making only the most serious users conduct the procedures necessary in order to secure a license. We strive to adopt rules that serve their stated purpose, and cannot support retention of a rule solely based on its secondary effect. 188. Although PRSG is among the parties that question the scope of our review of the GMRS, it proposes a new definition of GMRS that would "establish a more definitive description of the basic purpose of GMRS from which all authority for subsequent regulatory restrictions would derive" (emphasis in original), as well as modifications to the description of a GMRS "system." We will not adopt the proposed changes, as PRSG's proposed definitions would fail to include some existing GMRS users and would eliminate components of the service -- such as fixed station use. c. Eligibility 189. Background. In our last major evaluation of the GMRS, we adopted rules to "reorient the GMRS to accommodate more fully the needs of personal users." Significantly, we limited eligibility for obtaining a new GMRS system license to individuals in order to discourage large commercial operations, "grandfathered" existing non-individual (i.e. business) GMRS licenses, and prohibited those "grandfathered" licensees from making major modifications. Under the proposed rules, we retain the ineligibility of business entities to obtain GMRS system licenses and the prohibition against business licensees making major modifications. We remove and relocate to Part 1 the specific rules for applying for a new or modified license. 190. Discussion. Burtner states that the proposed changes will allow business users to encroach on what has traditionally been a personal- and family-oriented service, while Bollschweiler suggests that the proposed rules will allow GMRS to be overrun by business users, which will result in greater interference and disrespect of the shared-nature of the band. We believe these concerns are somewhat overstated because the rule on permissible communications, section 95.181 of the Commission's rules, is substantially unchanged, and a non-individual licensee who fails to abide by the GMRS rules pertaining to mitigation of interference and station identification is still subject to penalty for failure to abide by the service rules. For the benefit of PRSG, which opposes any expansion for non-personal licenses under the current rulemaking, we emphasize that we are not changing the Commission's rules with respect to eligibility for GMRS licenses, and we continue to prohibit non-individual licensees from making major modifications to their systems. d. Channeling Plan 191. Background. In the ULS Notice, we proposed to authorize stations to transmit on any authorized channel from any geographical location where the FCC regulates communication, eliminating the need for temporary licensing. Currently, a GMRS licensee may use seven 462 MHz interstitial channels, the 426.675 MHz/467.675 MHz nationwide channel pair for emergency communications and traveler assistance, and up to two of seven other GMRS channel pairs. The GMRS licensee is able to choose which channels will be authorized on the license. Under the all-channel operation plan we adopt, we make all seven channels pairs available to GMRS licensees who are individuals (in addition to the already available interstitial channels and nationwide channel pair), which in turn permits each GMRS system licensee to use the best channel available for its stations at any given time or place. 192. Discussion. Several commenters claim that all-channel operation will increase interference and degrade use of their GMRS systems. We disagree, and adopt an all-channel plan with the belief that it will provide licensees with the flexibility to reduce interference and make greater use of their GMRS systems. PRSG claims that such a policy could encourage "chit-chat" and hobby-type communication, while Leef suggests that all-channel operation will result in anonymous users who float from one channel to another. Mendelson predicts interference and inefficient spectrum use under an all-channel plan, and suggests that GMRS users will no longer have the potential for a working relationship that comes from licensing on specific channels. Under the current licensing plan where a GMRS license is authorized to use up to ten of fifteen allocated channels, users have the ability to communicate on different channels and do not have to remain within a single channel "community" if they choose. An all-channel plan will promote flexible use of GMRS by allowing users to select the channel that provides the best operational environment without having to predict during the licensing process which channels will be most suitable, and represents a natural progression from the GMRS Report and Order, where we authorized selection of up to two channels (versus one channel), and authorized use of the seven interstitial channels and the nationwide channel. We adopted those changes with the belief that the additional channels would allow for "much of the flexibility we sought in advancing the all-channel concept," but we decided that "elimination of Commission assignment of channels and channel pairs would be too drastic a step to take at this time," and that retention of channel authorizations would "allow for a more gradual and user-acceptable application of existing and new technologies in the GMRS." Tellingly, no commenter disputed our ten-year-old prediction that licensing of multiple channels, the interstitial channels, and the nationwide channel would promote more efficient spectrum utilization. None identified any potential for misuse or degradation of the GMRS that cannot take place under the current multiple channel licensing plan. 193. All-channel operation will also relieve the public and the Commission of unnecessary regulatory burdens. Currently, we routinely grant channel requests without further evaluation or inquiry. Although several commenters suggest that the proposed changes to the channel use policy should not be undertaken because the current policy is not causing harm to the GMRS, we believe it is appropriate for us to identify and eliminate rules that no longer serve the service, even when those rules are not actively harming use of the service. The all-channel operation plan we adopt today allows for the types of communications that were proposed in commenters' limited all- channel licensing suggestions. Because we have decided to institute an all-channel use policy, we decline to adopt PRSG's suggestions that we retain rule sections relating to the licensing of specific channels and that we retain the restrictions on overlap of GMRS systems under section 95.31 of the Commission's rules. Removal of these regulations is consistent with streamlining the GMRS, and the ready availability of an all-channel plan will give licensees additional flexibility in selecting the channel that best meets their needs. 194. Rosenthal, Yordan, and Burtner fear that the proposed changes will turn the GMRS into a CB-like band, filled with interruptions, profanity, and casual communication. We do not agree, and note that we will continue to require licenses of GMRS users, expect licensees to comply with the GMRS rules, and will use the licensing information to locate and impose sanctions against violators. We recognize that many GMRS users will consider the use of tone-operated squelch or other techniques to limit the use of a repeater to particular stations. While this may limit "the possibility of other channel users from utilizing trained dispatchers to report motorist advisories and emergencies," we note that users are not presently prohibited from using these techniques. Additionally, we note that because we are not modifying the rules limiting the nationwide channel pair to emergency and traveler assistance communications, this channel pair will suit those owners who have placed repeaters on public property under the condition that they will be used solely for emergency and traveler assistance communications. 195. In conjunction with the proposed all-channel use policy, we proposed to eliminate the rule limiting the use of the 467 MHz channels for transmissions through repeaters. We will retain this provision in our revised rules. Numerous commenters sharply disagreed with the removal of this limitation, and urged us to reconsider. Parrish suggests that interference to repeater operation caused by removal of this limitation would severely disrupt GMRS operations. This belief is echoed by Kobb, Forrest, Silver, and Hilke, among others. We originally adopted this rule after concluding that "significant interference to GMRS repeater operation is virtually inevitable due to non-repeater operations conducted on 467 MHz frequencies." We recognize that this type of interference could still occur if these restrictions are not left in place, and we further note that retention of this provision does not affect our general all-channel use plan, nor does it lessen the administrative and licensing relief afforded by not processing applications and issuing licenses for specific channels. Finally, we take this opportunity to further clarify the section by including and defining the term "repeater." We believe that this clarification will aid licensees and potential GMRS users, and will help the Commission's rules match commonly accepted GMRS terminology. e. Information Collection 196. Background. In the ULS Notice, we tentatively concluded that by collecting basic contact information (such as name, address and telephone number) of individuals applying for licenses, we would be able to meet our statutory duty to license and regulate the GMRS. Accordingly, we proposed to consolidate the collection of license information into the new Part 1 rules, and to streamline the GMRS rules to eliminate technical information requirements relating to system configuration and equipment. We also proposed elimination of regulations on points of communications for stations in a GMRS system (sections 95.53-95.61) as part of our evaluation of our information collection needs and overall streamlining of the GMRS. We concluded that points of communication restrictions are sufficiently removed from our licensing function that they can be eliminated. As Forrest observes, the sections' complex description of permissible and non-permissible communication points discourages some individuals from applying for GMRS licenses, creates a burden on the Commission, and stifles innovation by manufacturers. Parrish, like many commenters, claims that by no longer collecting this information, the Commission would leave GMRS users with no readily available means for users to contact other stations in order to foster frequency use, coordinate CTCSS Codes, and resolve interference problems. 197. Discussion. We will adopt our basic information collection as proposed. There is no legitimate government purpose to collect more than basic information to perform our regulatory functions. Moreover, the Commission's databases will continue to provide a point of contact for licensees and because we are not eliminating the station identification requirement, GMRS users will continue to have the basic information necessary to locate other licensees. Nothing in the Commission's rules prohibits groups of GMRS users (or other third parties) from collecting and disseminating additional information about GMRS systems they have obtained from GMRS licensees. Several commenters also suggest that our proposed information collection for the GMRS will no longer allow us to sufficiently regulate use of the band. We disagree. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will continue to accept and investigate formal and informal complaints of rule violations in GMRS. This agency has the capability to monitor GMRS transmissions and, when necessary, to conduct field investigations. We do not believe that we will jeopardize our GMRS enforcement by discontinuing much of the current technical information collection. 198. Because we are adopting streamlined information collection requirements under Part 1 of the Commission's rules, we also reject PRSG's suggestion that we employ a two-tiered information collection requirement. Such a scheme would frustrate our efforts to streamline the GMRS rules, and there is no legitimate governmental purpose served by collecting information from certain GMRS licensees but not others. We disagree with PRSG's objection to the consolidation of information collection requirements into Part 1 of the Commission's rules. We continue to believe that consolidation of our basic rules, when possible, will result in a simple and uniform approach to licensing for our wireless services. 199. PRSG claims that deletion of the rule sections requiring identification of the points of communication would compromise the purpose of the GMRS to be a mobile-oriented radio service. We do not concur and will remove these rules as proposed. The current points of communication rules (and modifications proposed by some commenters) rest on somewhat artificial distinctions on station types. With the advent of modern radio equipment, the same piece of equipment can qualify as a different type of station based on its location and usage. The Commission's rules, however, maintain tight restrictions on permissible communication based on station types. GMRS users are better served by rules that establish general standards than rules that distinguish between how the equipment (fixed or mobile) is used or where it is located. 200. By eliminating the rules on points of communications, we also eliminate the rule that requires station operators of GMRS systems licensed to individuals wishing to use repeaters in other GMRS systems to first secure the repeater owner's permission. Region 20 claims that removal of the prohibition would result in interference to public safety licensees and would make it impossible for repeater station licensees to maintain control over their equipment. Similarly, Parrish points to the significant investment he has made in repeater stations, and expresses concern that our proposed rule changes will lead to unauthorized access to and operation of these privately owned facilities. The requirement that a licensee is responsible for the proper operation of the GMRS system at all times does not in itself justify retention of our points of communication rules. Rather, it underscores the fact that the repeater operator is responsible for the use of his station. In GMRS Report and Order, we noted that "closing one's own repeater to prevent undesired use, such as by tone-operated squelch or digital access codes, and limiting those to whom these codes were available, would appear to be another means to establish who has permission to use a licensee's repeater station. This mechanism would avoid disputes regarding repeater operations. We consider this to be the most efficient, most cost-effective and least burdensome approach to improving transient GMRS operations, and encourage its use." These means of control we identified a decade ago remain viable options for repeater station owners who are concerned about maintaining control over their systems. f. Antenna Requirements 201. Background. Our examination of unnecessary and outdated rules led us to propose the elimination of distinctions based on large urban areas. Accordingly, we also proposed to eliminate power and antenna-directivity requirements within and near urban areas, and instead limit all fixed stations regardless of location of a maximum authorized transmitting power of fifteen watts. 202. Discussion. Several parties -- most notably PRSG -- support the retention of power and antenna-directivity requirements within and near urban areas for other types of stations, and suggest that the restrictions could be further expanded. We disagree. The pattern of suburban sprawl and rural growth in the years since this rule was adopted blunts the effectiveness of an urban area distinction. Additionally, the present rule imposes restrictions based on undefined points, such as the "rim" of an urban area. Under the modified maximum authorized transmitting power rule (section 95.135), all fixed stations regardless of location will be limited to fifteen watts output power, while small base stations will continue to be restricted to five watts. We believe that these modifications will further our goal of simplifying and streamlining the GMRS rules while simultaneously protecting GMRS users by retaining limits on the maximum authorized transmitting power. Because urban area distinctions are unnecessary, we also eliminate Appendix B of our current GMRS rules, which lists urban areas. g. Permissible Communications 203. Background. In the ULS Notice, we proposed to retain the regulations on permissible and prohibited communications, with minor modifications, and to list permissible and prohibited communications under separate rules. 204. Discussion. Although no commenters opposed this concept, PRSG had specific reservations about our list of prohibited communications. Because the elimination of duplicative and ambiguous rules serves the public interest, we will adopt the proposed rules with minor modifications. While we believe that the categories of prohibited communication are discrete and do not need parenthetical explanation, we will maintain the distinction that "10-codes" are not included in the prohibition against coded messages because of the potential for confusion. We will also retain a prohibition on advertisements for the sale of services. We decline to alter our prohibition on profane speech, as suggested by PRSG. Many commenters strongly support the GMRS because it is free of profane, indecent and obscene speech, and many of their concerns are based on the fear that the proposed changes to the GMRS will alter this quality. Finally, we remove the prohibition on sounds only to attract attention. This prohibition is ambiguous and largely unenforceable. Moreover, we envision times -- such as emergency situations -- when the broadcast of such sounds would be both necessary and proper. h. Rules Pertaining to Management of a GMRS System 205. Background. We proposed significant changes to the rule sections broadly titled "Managing a GMRS System" (sections 95.103 - 95.181 and app. A and B of the Commission's rules). These changes further our efforts to streamline the GMRS rules by eliminating duplicative rules, as well as deleting those rule sections that offer general guidance but are ambiguous in application or enforcement. 206. Discussion. We note that some commenters, including Parrish and Vandercook, urge us to keep many of these explanatory rules because they fear that users would lack the guidelines and structure necessary to construct, operate, and maintain GMRS systems. We disagree and adopt the changes as proposed. Although some users believe a useful contextual function is served by the complex rules and numerous restrictions on system construction, licensing, and operation contained in the current GMRS rules, we are concerned that the current rules unnecessarily keep many parties from considering and applying for licenses in the GMRS. 207. Many of the rules we eliminate are duplicative. A licensee must have access to the station equipment and be able to disable it in order to maintain the proper operation of the GMRS system at all times, so it is unnecessary to retain specific access language in section 95.103(b). Similarly, in order to maintain the overarching responsibility for proper system operation, a GMRS licensee must regularly monitor and maintain his or her equipment. Many of the rules we propose to delete are ambiguous and unenforceable. For example, the specification that voice station identification in section 95.119(d)(2) be made "with each letter and digit separately and distinctly transmitted (letters may be said using a phonetic alphabet)" does not add to a licensee's understanding of the basic requirement that a station must be identified and may even raise independent questions such as whether a user must engage in a separate transmission for each letter and digit in a call sign and whether a licensee with an accent unfamiliar to the listener is in violation of the rule. Finally, the removal of other rule sections, such as those pertaining to system records, station control point and controlling stations from a remote point, and servicing and modifying station transmitters, is wholly consistent with our efforts to institute streamlined licensing and data collection requirements under ULS, and to remove unnecessary rules. In light of our new information collection requirements for GMRS, we also do not need to collect the detailed information specified in section 95.103(c) when a licensee's information changes or when a GMRS user moves or adds a small base station or small control station. IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 208. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C.  604, is contained in Appendix B. B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 209. This Report and Order contains a modified information collection, which has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the information collection contained in this Report and Order, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public comments should be submitted to OMB and the Commission, and are due thirty days from date of publication of this Report and Order in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. C. Further Information 210. For further information concerning the Report and Order, contact Wilbert E. Nixon, Jr., Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-7240 (voice), (202) 418-7238 (TTY), or by electronic mail at wnixon@fcc.gov, or Susan Magnotti, Policy and Rules Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0871 (voice), (202) 418-7233 (TTY), or by electronic mail at smagnott@fcc.gov. For further information concerning the information collections contained in this Report and Order, contact Judy Boley at (202) 418-0214 (voice), (202) 418-2970 (TTY), or by electronic mail at jboley@fcc.gov. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 211. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7), 47 C.F.R. Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97 and 101 of the Commission's Rules are AMENDED as set forth in Appendix F, effective sixty days after publication in the Federal Register. The information collection in these rules becomes effective sixty days after publication in the Federal Register, following OMB approval, unless a notice is published in the Federal Register stating otherwise. 212. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq. 213. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to section 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, IS GRANTED DELEGATED AUTHORITY to develop, implement, modify rules and procedures for the Universal Licensing System to the extent stated herein. 214. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petition for Rule Making RM-8677 is granted as indicated herein and WT Docket No. 96-188 is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary