**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 98-100         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Forbearance from Applying        | ) |                              |
| Provisions of the Communications | * |                              |
| Act to Wireless                  | * |                              |
| Telecommunications Carriers      |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

> **FIRST REPORT AND ORDER**
>
> **Adopted: August 21, 2000 Released: September 8, 2000**
>
> By the Commission:
>
> **TABLE OF CONTENTS**
>
> Paragraph

I. INTRODUCTION [1](#introduction)

II\. background 3

A. Statutory Background. 3

B. Procedural History. 7

III\. DISCUSSION 12

A. Standard for Forbearance. 12

B. Provisions Applicable to CMRS Providers Generally. 15

C. SMR Providers. 16

D. Fixed Wireless Service Providers. 25

E. Carriage of Common Carrier Traffic by Private Operational Fixed
Licensees. 31

F. The PCIA Letters. 29

IV\. Conclusion 35

V. ORDERING CLAUSE 36

APPENDIX List of Commenters and Short-Form Names Used

# INTRODUCTION

1.  On July 2, 1998, in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this
    proceeding (*NPRM*),[^1] we requested comment regarding whether,
    pursuant to Sections 10 and 332(c)(1)(A) of the Communications Act
    of 1934, as amended (the Act),[^2] we should: (1) forbear from
    applying provisions of the Telephone Operator Consumer Services
    Improvement Act (TOCSIA)[^3] and our implementing regulations[^4]
    against commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) aggregators and
    operator service providers (OSPs) and (2) forbear from applying any
    provision of the Act or our regulations against any class of
    providers of wireless telecommunications services. On July 31, 1998,
    the Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) submitted to
    the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau a letter identifying
    approximately 71 regulatory requirements applicable to wireless
    licensees that PCIA believed were administratively unnecessary and
    should be eliminated or streamlined.[^5] PCIA submitted a follow-up
    letter to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau on May 18,
    1999.[^6]

2.  Today, we address the comments received in response to the *NPRM*
    and the July 31, 1998 and May 18, 1999 PCIA Letters (PCIA Letters),
    other than those comments addressing TOCSIA.[^7] We find that, since
    the *NPRM* was released, we have addressed in other proceedings
    several of the issues raised in both sets of comments, and have
    granted relief in the vast majority of instances. With respect to
    the remaining issues, we decline to grant forbearance with respect
    to any additional provision based on the record before us, and we
    will not take further action in response to the PCIA Letters at this
    time. Finally, we note that will be considering further streamlining
    of our regulations affecting wireless telecommunications carriers in
    the course of the 2000 biennial review.

# background

## Statutory Background.

3.  Pursuant to Section 10 of the Act, the Commission is directed to
    forbear from applying any regulation or provision of the Act to a
    telecommunications carrier or service, or class of
    telecommunications carriers or services, in any or some of its
    geographic markets, if a three-pronged test is met. Specifically,
    Section 10 requires forbearance if we determine that:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary to
    ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations
    by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or
    telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are not
    unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory;

(2) enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary for the
    protection of consumers; and

(3) forbearance from applying such provision or regulation is consistent
    with the public interest.[^8]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  In determining whether forbearance is consistent with the public
    interest, we are directed to consider whether forbearance will
    promote competitive market conditions, including whether it will
    enhance competition among existing telecommunications service
    providers, and a determination that forbearance will promote
    competition may be the basis for a finding that forbearance is in
    the public interest.[^9]

5.  Prior to Congressional enactment of Section 10 in 1996, Congress
    gave the Commission more limited authority to forbear from applying
    certain statutory provisions to CMRS providers and services. Under
    Section 332(c)(1)(A), a provider of CMRS is to be treated as a
    common carrier under the Act, except to the extent we may specify
    any provision of Title II of the Act, other than any provision of
    Section 201, 202, or 208, as inapplicable to any service or person.
    In determining whether to forbear from applying any provision of
    Title II under Section 332(c)(1)(A), we are directed to apply a
    three-pronged test that is substantially similar to the test set
    forth under Section 10.[^10]

6.  We have exercised our forbearance authority under both Section 10
    and Section 332(c)(1)(A) on several occasions. Prior to the
    enactment of Section 10, we forbore under Section 332(c)(1)(A) from
    requiring CMRS providers to comply with the tariff filing
    obligations of Section 203, the domestic market entry and market
    exit requirements of Section 214, and several other provisions of
    Title II.[^11] Since 1996, we have rendered numerous forbearance
    decisions under Section 10 that address specifically wireless
    telecommunications services. Thus, for example, we have: (1)
    forborne from applying international tariffing requirements against
    CMRS providers under most circumstances,[^12] (2) forborne from
    applying certain provisions of TOCSIA in the CMRS context,[^13] (3)
    extended the time for CMRS providers to comply with certain local
    number portability requirements,[^14] and (4) forborne in most
    circumstances from applying the requirements of Section 310(d) of
    the Act to *pro forma* assignments of licenses and transfers of
    control of wireless telecommunications licensees.[^15] Furthermore,
    wireless telecommunications service providers have benefited from
    our decision to forbear from applying mandatory tariffing
    requirements for interexchange access services against all carriers
    other than incumbent LECs.[^16]

## Procedural History.

7.  On May 22, 1997, PCIA filed a petition under Section 10(c) of the
    Act[^17] requesting that the Commission forbear from applying
    various statutory and regulatory provisions against providers of
    broadband personal communications service (PCS). We addressed this
    forbearance request in the *PCIA Forbearance Order.* Concurrently
    with our release of the *PCIA Forbearance Order*, we issued the
    *NPRM*, in which we sought comment on potential forbearance from the
    application of additional statutory and regulatory provisions to all
    providers of wireless telecommunications services, or any subset
    thereof. First, although we found in the *PCIA Forbearance Order*
    that the record was inadequate to support forbearance with respect
    to many provisions of TOCSIA, we recognized that PCIA had made
    arguments that could, if adequately supported, establish grounds for
    forbearance. We therefore sought specific information relevant to
    determining whether, and in what respects, we should forbear from
    applying or modify additional TOCSIA requirements in the CMRS
    context.[^18] Second, we requested comment generally on whether we
    should forbear from applying any regulation or provision of the Act
    to wireless telecommunications carriers licensed by the Commission,
    including both CMRS providers and wireless carriers that are not
    classified as CMRS, such as wireless competitive local exchange
    carriers (LECs).[^19] In doing so, we specifically sought comment on
    whether there were types of providers, such as smaller providers,
    for which application of a particular statutory or regulatory
    provision would either pose undue costs or yield no benefits to the
    public.[^20] We emphasized that in order to support forbearance,
    commenters should provide more than broad, unsupported allegations
    of why the statutory criteria for forbearance are met.[^21]

8.  Twelve parties filed comments on the *NPRM*, and five parties filed
    reply comments.[^22] In addition to TOCSIA, commenters variously
    advocate forbearance from imposing: customer proprietary network
    information (CPNI), local number portability, universal service
    funding, and interexchange rate averaging requirements on all CMRS
    providers; all Title II regulation or "all but minimal" regulation
    on certain specialized mobile radio (SMR) providers; various
    requirements on local multipoint distribution service (LMDS) and
    other fixed wireless service providers; and our rule limiting
    sharing arrangements by private microwave licensees. Two comments
    were filed opposing potential forbearance in specific
    situations.[^23]

9.  Following the release of the *PCIA Forbearance Order and NPRM*, in
    its July 31, 1998 Letter, PCIA identified approximately 71
    regulations that PCIA contended were administratively unnecessary
    and the elimination or revision of which PCIA believed would not be
    controversial.[^24] PCIA divided these regulations into three
    categories: (1) rules that had previously been the subject of
    comment in the *Universal Licensing System* proceeding;[^25] (2)
    rules that PCIA believed the Commission could eliminate or modify
    without prior notice and comment; and (3) rules that may require
    notice and comment prior to final Commission action. PCIA asked the
    Commission to eliminate or modify these regulations as part of its
    biennial review of regulations affecting providers of
    telecommunications service pursuant to Section 11 of the Act.[^26]

10. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau sought public comment on the
    July 31, 1998 PCIA Letter, requesting that comments be filed in both
    the present proceeding and the *Universal Licensing System*
    docket.[^27] Eight parties filed comments in response to this Public
    Notice,[^28] mostly supporting PCIA's proposals and in some
    instances identifying additional regulations that commenters believe
    should be eliminated or streamlined.[^29] On May 18, 1999, PCIA
    submitted a follow-up letter in which it observed that we had
    already acted favorably on many of the requests in its previous
    letter and requested timely action on the remaining proposals. PCIA
    particularly noted that several of its requests had been
    substantially granted in the *Universal Licensing System Report and
    Order*.

11. In this item, we address the various proposals set forth in the
    comments on the *NPRM* and in the PCIA Letters, other than those
    dealing with TOCSIA. We will consider forbearance from enforcing
    additional provisions of TOCSIA in the wireless context at a later
    date.

# DISCUSSION

## Standard for Forbearance.

12. In order to forbear from applying a statutory or regulatory
    provision under Section 10, we must determine that each of three
    tests is satisfied: (1) enforcement is not necessary to ensure that
    charges, practices, classifications, or regulations are just and
    reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2)
    enforcement is not necessary for the protection of consumers;
    and (3) forbearance is consistent with the public interest.[^30] In
    determining whether forbearance is consistent with the public
    interest, we consider whether forbearance will promote competitive
    market conditions, including whether it will enhance competition
    among existing telecommunications service providers.[^31]

13. In determining when to forbear from applying specific statutory or
    regulatory provisions, our goal, consistent with sound public policy
    and Congressional intent, is to deregulate wherever the operation of
    competitive market forces is capable of rendering regulation

    unnecessary.[^32] At the same time, as we emphasized in the *NPRM*,
    "the decision to forbear from enforcing statutes or regulations is
    not a simple decision, and must be based upon a record that contains
    more than broad, unsupported allegations of why the statutory
    criteria are met."[^33] We therefore cannot forbear in the absence
    of a record that will permit us to determine that each of the tests
    set forth in Section 10 is satisfied for a specific statutory or
    regulatory provision.

14. In addition to Section 10, we also have authority under Section
    332(c)(1)(A) to forbear from applying most provisions of Title II to
    CMRS providers and services. As discussed above, the standards for
    forbearance under Sections 10 and 332(c)(1)(A) are substantially
    similar,[^34] and no commenter has pointed to any relevant
    differences between the standards. We conclude that, for purposes of
    this Report and Order, there is no decisionally significant
    distinction between the substantive standards for forbearance set
    out in Section 10 and in Section 332(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, we frame
    the discussion in the remainder of this Report and Order solely in
    terms of Section 10.

## Provisions Applicable to CMRS Providers Generally.

15. In the *NPRM*, the Commission requested that parties submit comments
    "regarding forbearance from applying any regulation or provision of
    the Act to wireless telecommunications carriers licensed by the
    Commission."[^35] In response to our request, parties submitted
    comments requesting forbearance from application of several sets of
    requirements to CMRS providers. All of these issues have been or are
    being addressed by the Commission in other proceedings.
    Specifically, we have considered or are considering elsewhere
    forbearance and other issues relevant to CMRS providers regarding
    Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI"),[^36] Local Number
    Portability ("LNP"),[^37] rate integration,[^38] and the Universal
    Service Fund.[^39] We therefore decline to revisit these issues in
    this proceeding.

## SMR Providers.

16. Several parties filed comments seeking forbearance from various
    statutory and regulatory provisions for "non-covered" SMR service
    providers. As a preliminary matter, it is important to clarify the
    various ways in which SMR providers are classified for regulatory
    purposes. "Covered" SMR providers have been defined to include
    providers that offer "real-time, two-way switched voice services
    that are interconnected with the public switched network . . .
    utiliz\[ing\] in-network switching facilities, enabling the provider
    to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber
    calls."[^40] Because of the technical capabilities of their systems
    and because they are able to compete significantly with traditional
    cellular and broadband PCS providers, covered SMR providers are
    subject to certain regulatory provisions that do not apply to other
    SMR providers, including obligations relating to E911 service,
    resale, and roaming.[^41] Covered SMRs are categorized as CMRS
    because they meet the criteria for CMRS set out in Section 332(d)(1)
    of the Act and our rules.[^42] And, because all CMRS providers are
    common carriers,[^43] all covered SMR providers are subject to the
    Title II obligations that apply to common carriers, except to the
    extent that the Commission has forborne from specific regulations.
    Non-covered SMRs consist primarily of dispatch services, some of
    which provide interconnection to the public switched network (though
    not in-network switching in their own system), while others do not.
    Those non-covered SMRs who provide interconnection are classified as
    CMRS providers, while SMRs who provide noninterconnected service are
    classified as private mobile radio service (PMRS) providers.[^44]
    Under Section 332(c)(2) of the Act, PMRS providers are not common
    carriers and are not generally subject to Title II's common carrier
    obligations. Finally, the Act as amended in 1996 defines
    "telecommunications carrier" to include "any provider of
    telecommunications services."[^45] The commenters argue that certain
    obligations triggered by these various regulatory classifications
    are onerous. After briefly summarizing the comments relating to this
    set of issues, we will address the commenters' substantive
    arguments.

17. AMTA, Motorola, and Russ Miller Rental filed relevant comments. AMTA
    asserts that the Commission should revisit its interpretation of how
    non-covered SMRs are classified under the Act. In the event we do
    not revise our interpretations, AMTA asks us to forbear from
    applying various provisions to non-covered SMR providers.
    Furthermore, AMTA asserts that Title II regulations, which apply to
    all CMRS providers, impose "significant burden\[s\] on the smaller
    operator."[^46]^6^ AMTA in particular cites difficulties in
    complying with time-consuming "form completion and fee
    calculations"[^47] and asserts that the \$100 annual fees for the
    Telecommunications Relay Service ("TRS") fund and the administration
    of the North American Numbering Plan ("NANP") are too burdensome.
    Also, AMTA notes that, even though many of its members fall within
    the *de minimis* exemption for contributing to the Universal Service
    Fund, the semiannual reporting obligations associated with this fund
    are onerous.[^48] Motorola supports many of the arguments made by
    AMTA.

18. Finally, Russ Miller Rental, a small interconnected SMR provider
    that operates a two-way radio system in Texas, requests that the
    Commission forbear, "in particular, when it places responsibilities
    on small wireless carriers that are substantially more difficult to
    comply with than for a larger carrier with resources dedicated to
    compliance issues."[^49]

19. [Interconnected SMR Providers as CMRS and Common
    Carriers:]{.underline} We first address AMTA's arguments that
    non-covered SMR providers should not be classified as either CMRS
    providers or common carriers. The Commission has long held that
    interconnected SMR service is CMRS and, thus, providers of this
    service are subject to regulations that are generally applicable to
    CMRS providers.[^50] Also, the Commission has recognized that CMRS
    providers are both common carriers and "telecommunications
    carriers"[^51] and, as a result, must comply with the requirements
    of Title II of the Act that apply to common carriers.[^52] AMTA
    fails to offer any rationale that would cause us to revisit either
    of these determinations.[^53]

20. [General Title II Obligations:]{.underline} We reject AMTA's
    contention that we should forbear generally from applying Title II
    requirements to interconnected non-covered SMR providers. First, we
    note that many Title II requirements already do not apply to these
    carriers. As noted above, we have exempted non-covered SMRs from
    numerous regulatory obligations (E911 service, resale, roaming) that
    are imposed on "covered" carriers. Moreover, we have previously
    forborne from applying several provisions of Title II to all CMRS
    providers, including non-covered as well as covered SMR
    providers.[^54] With respect to the remaining provisions of Title
    II, the record does not show that the statutory criteria for
    forbearance are satisfied. In particular, with respect to Sections
    201 and 202,[^55] we held in the *PCIA Forbearance Order* that these
    sections codify "the bedrock consumer protection obligations"[^56]
    and that their existence "gives the Commission the power to protect
    consumers by defining forbidden practices and enforcing
    compliance."[^57] Indeed, we noted in the *PCIA Forbearance Order*
    that we have "never previously refrained from enforcing sections 201
    and 202 against common carriers, even when competition exists in a
    market."[^58] Accordingly, we declined to forbear from applying
    these provisions against broadband PCS providers, and we similarly
    will not forbear with respect to SMR providers.

21. [Title II Funding Obligations:]{.underline} Since the filing of this
    record, we have streamlined and relaxed many of the specific
    requirements highlighted by AMTA and the other commenters here.
    Several Title II requirements relate to mandatory contributions to
    the funding mechanisms administered by the Commission.

22. AMTA, Motorola, and Russ Miller Rental unanimously object to the
    time-consuming nature and expense of the obligations associated with
    these funds. In the 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review, which we
    completed since the filing of this record, we adopted new,
    streamlined procedures for contributing to the various funds
    administered by the Commission.[^59] These changes addressed the
    type of complaints made by commenters here. These funds include the
    Telecommunications Relay Service ("TRS"), the Universal Service
    Fund, Local Number Portability ("LNP"), and the North American
    Numbering Plan ("NANP"). Specifically, we (1) replaced fund-specific
    forms with one form, called the Telecommunications Reporting
    Worksheet; (2) provided that a single copy of the worksheet will be
    filed annually in one place, rather than multiple forms filed at
    different times and in multiple locations;[^60] (3) made the basis
    for assessing contributions consistent for all funds, thus reducing
    the time necessary to prepare submissions to the Commission; (4)
    provided that carriers need not calculate their own contributions,
    but will be billed based on the information that they provide; (5)
    encouraged electronic filing of worksheets; and (6) reduced the
    minimum contributions to the TRS and NANP funds to \$25 from
    \$100.[^61] As we noted, these changes will serve "to harmonize . .
    . multiple contributor reporting requirements and to minimize the
    administrative burdens for carriers and service providers. Thus, in
    lieu of making four separate filings in the spring of 2000,
    reporting carriers will simply file one copy of the new worksheet on
    April 1, 2000."[^62]

23. [Other Reporting Obligations:]{.underline} AMTA and Motorola also
    argue that the Commission should forbear from applying other
    reporting obligations. Motorola, in particular, cites the onerous
    nature of reporting obligations relating to ownership and Equal
    Employment Opportunity.[^63]

24. We addressed many of the commenters' concerns through significant
    rule changes adopted in the Universal Licensing System ("ULS")
    proceeding.[^64] Several changes that relate to ownership reporting
    requirements include: (1) applicants for multiple licenses in an
    auction are required to file only one Form 602 (FCC Ownership
    Disclosure Information for the Wireless Telecommunications
    Services), as opposed to one form for each individual license; (2)
    after having filed the required form the first time, applicants no
    longer need to file additional forms with subsequent applications,
    provided the ownership information remains current; (3) should the
    information on a Form 602 need to be updated, an applicant need only
    update the information on the form that has changed, rather than
    resubmitting an entirely new form; and (4) the ownership reporting
    form and subsequent updates may be filed electronically.[^65] Also,
    in the ULS proceeding, we eliminated the requirement that 800 MHz
    SMRs provide the Commission "with information regarding the location
    and technical characteristics of individual transmitter sites."[^66]
    To the extent that any providers believe that these reporting
    obligations remain unnecessarily burdensome, they may raise these
    contentions in the context of our upcoming biennial review of
    telecommunications regulations.[^67]

## Fixed Wireless Service Providers.

25. PCIA, WCA, and RTG urge the Commission to forbear from applying
    various statutory provisions and Commission regulations to fixed
    wireless telecommunications carriers.[^68] In particular, WCA and
    RTG argue that the Commission should forbear from applying to fixed
    wireless service providers all of the provisions as to which it has
    exercised forbearance with respect to CMRS providers, including
    Sections 203, 204, 205, 211, 212, and 214 of the Act.[^69] In
    addition, WCA contends that the Commission should forbear from
    applying to these providers requirements relating to interexchange
    rate averaging and CPNI, and RTG seeks forbearance with respect to
    Section 251(b)(1)-(3).[^70] PCIA argues broadly that the Commission
    should consider forbearance from regulation for LMDS and similarly
    situated fixed wireless service providers, and in particular that it
    should forbear from applying resale obligations, TOCSIA provisions,
    and international Section 214 requirements to these providers.[^71]
    These commenters generally argue that forbearance would recognize
    fixed wireless service providers' lack of market power and promote
    regulatory symmetry between fixed and mobile carriers, and that it
    would help promote competition in a nascent industry. RTG further
    argues that the costs of regulation fall more heavily on rural fixed
    wireless service providers, and thus that the Commission should, at
    a minimum, forbear from applying numerous provisions of Title II
    against rural fixed wireless service providers.[^72]

26. Over the past few years, we have taken numerous actions to ensure
    that all carriers without market power, including fixed wireless
    service providers, are subject to a streamlined regulatory regime
    that is generally comparable to the regime applicable to CMRS
    providers. First, we have previously granted forbearance from
    several of the requirements that commenters identify. For example,
    we have forborne from requiring providers other than incumbent LECs
    to file tariffs for the provision of interstate exchange access
    services under Section 203,[^73] and we have forborne from applying
    the interlocking directorate provisions of Section 212 to all
    carriers.[^74] With respect to various other requirements, while we
    have not granted forbearance to non-CMRS providers, we have afforded
    substantial relief by other means. Thus, we have granted blanket
    entrance authorization to all carriers for domestic services under
    Section 214,[^75] provided for automatic grant of international
    entrance applications after 14 days in most instances,[^76]
    established automatic grant of domestic exit applications after 31
    days for non-dominant carriers,[^77] and provided that non-dominant
    carriers need not file contracts for domestic services under Section
    211.[^78] In other instances, after fully considering a relevant
    record in light of the forbearance standards set out in Section 10,
    we have specifically declined to forbear from applying certain
    provisions to either competitive LECs or CMRS providers.[^79] We
    further note that we will consider forbearance from applying TOCSIA
    requirements to fixed wireless service providers, as well as CMRS
    providers, in a subsequent order in this proceeding.

27. In light of the actions described above, we find that the record
    does not establish a basis for additional forbearance with respect
    to fixed wireless service providers. The crux of the arguments in
    favor of forbearance is that CMRS and fixed wireless services should
    be treated similarly for regulatory purposes. With respect to many
    of the provisions that the commenters identify, however, we have
    already granted forbearance or substantially similar relief to both
    wireless and wireline competitive LECs. In other instances, we have
    declined to forbear for CMRS providers and competitive LECs alike.
    Because the commenters do not identify any instance in which fixed
    wireless service providers without market power and CMRS providers
    remain subject to meaningfully different regulation, and because
    they make no other argument for forbearance that we have not
    previously considered and rejected, the record does not establish a
    basis for additional forbearance. For similar reasons, the record
    does not support forbearance from applying any provision
    specifically in the context of rural fixed wireless service
    providers. We also find no basis for issuing a Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking with respect to any specific provisions.
    [^80]^0^ We note, however, that our forthcoming biennial review
    under Section 11 of the Communications Act will provide another
    opportunity for parties to develop a specific and comprehensive case
    for forbearance from any particular requirement.

## Carriage of Common Carrier Traffic by Private Operational Fixed Licensees.

28. UTC urges the Commission to amend its rules governing private
    wireless microwave sharing to allow private microwave licensees to
    act as providers to other carriers.[^81]^1^ In the *Part 101
    Reconsideration Order and NPRM*, we recently rejected a similar
    argument by UTC on the ground that the record was insufficient to
    justify deleting the existing rule, and we requested comment on
    whether private operational fixed licensees should be permitted to
    carry common carrier traffic.[^82]^2^ We find that the record here
    is similarly insufficient, and we defer consideration of this issue
    to the pending Notice. In addition, we note that the three-prong
    forbearance test is inapplicable to UTC's request because the
    Commission lacks forbearance authority over non-common carriers such
    as UTC.[^83]^3^

## The PCIA Letters.

29. On July 31, 1998, PCIA submitted a letter identifying approximately
    71 regulatory requirements applicable to wireless licensees that it
    believed were administratively unnecessary and should be eliminated
    or streamlined.[^84] As PCIA acknowledged in its follow-up letter
    dated May 18, 1999, we subsequently granted many of these requests
    in the *Universal Licensing System Report and Order*. We have since
    addressed additional issues raised by PCIA, and streamlined
    additional wireless regulations, in several other orders, including
    the *Universal Licensing System* *Order on Reconsideration*, the
    *800 MHz Wide Area Licensing* *Memorandum Opinion and Order on
    Remand*, the *800 MHz Wide Area Licensing Memorandum Opinion and
    Order on Reconsideration*, the *Part 101* *Order on
    Reconsideration*, and the *Refarming Third Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*.[^85]

30. Given the substantial relief that has already been afforded in the
    multitude of areas raised by PCIA, we focus here on three specific
    issues that PCIA identified as priority issues in its May 18, 1999
    letter. We will be considering additional measures to streamline
    regulations affecting wireless telecommunications carriers in the
    course of our upcoming biennial review, and we encourage PCIA and
    other interested parties to participate actively in the biennial
    review process.[^86]

31. [Ownership Reporting:]{.underline} PCIA argues that "much of the
    ownership reporting information now required by Form 602 \[FCC
    Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless Telecommunications
    Services\] is burdensome and unnecessary."[^87] As discussed
    *supra*, Section C, we have streamlined many ownership reporting
    obligations in the ULS proceeding. PCIA fails to offer any
    additional rationale here that would cause us to reevaluate this
    issue in the current proceeding.

32. [Trafficking Review:]{.underline} Section 1.948(i)(1) of the
    Commission's rules defines trafficking as follows: "\[t\]rafficking
    consists of obtaining or attempting to obtain an authorization for
    the principal purpose of speculation or profitable resale of the
    authorization rather than for the provision of telecommunication
    services to the public or for the licensee's own

    private use."[^88] The Commission may review assignments or
    transfers of authorizations to determine whether trafficking has
    occurred.[^89] PCIA is concerned that, because the trafficking rule
    "still contains a procedure for FCC review of sales of unbuilt
    facilities sold for a profit,"[^90] this rule "does not reflect the
    situation whereby a licensee receives its authorization through
    auction . . . ."[^91] PCIA suggests that "\[t\]he Bureau should
    either recommend elimination of the rule or create an explicit
    exception for licenses assigned by auction . . . ."[^92]

33. We find that the current rule does not cause the difficulties with
    which PCIA is concerned. The rules at issue provide that Commission
    review for the purposes of determining whether trafficking has
    occurred is discretionary.[^93] We would expect that we would rarely
    need to exercise this discretionary authority to review assignments
    or transfers of authorizations that were assigned through auction
    because the auction process, by requiring initial licensees to pay
    market value for their authorizations, effectively safeguards
    against such speculation.[^94]

34. [Geographic Licensing:]{.underline} In addition, PCIA "urges the
    Bureau to take a second look at the station information requirements
    for microwave licensees who hold geographic licenses (like LMDS) to
    the extent that they may be read as to not permit a licensee to
    maintain information at a central location, rather than at each
    customer site that maintains a transmitter."[^95] PCIA's letter and
    accompanying Appendix do not provide any reference to the relevant
    regulations. We presume that PCIA meant to reference some or all of
    Sections 101.149, 101.215, and 101.217, all of which relate to
    station record keeping requirements.[^96] With respect to Sections
    101.149 and 101.215, we have required that information such as the
    station name, address, and telephone number be maintained on-site
    due to "the public interest in having an \[*sic*\] readily
    identifiable contact at each transmitter site . . . ."[^97] The
    requirement ensures that any member of the public or state or local
    authorities can easily contact the licensee in case problems arise
    at the transmitter site. However, Section 101.217 does not on its
    face direct the more detailed information required under that
    provision to be kept at any particular location, and the Commission
    has not previously interpreted the regulation in this manner. To the
    extent clarification is necessary, we therefore declare that
    information required under Section 101.217 may be kept at a central
    location consistent with the terms of Section 101.217.

# Conclusion

35. The Commission has provided significant and dramatic relief from the
    regulations that commenters identified as overly burdensome. To the
    extent that any providers believe that the now-existing regulatory
    regime continues to be overly burdensome, they may raise these
    contentions in the context of the Commission's upcoming biennial
    review of telecommunications regulations. As we have indicated, we
    will address forbearance from enforcing TOCSIA against wireless
    telecommunications service providers in a subsequent report and
    order.

# ORDERING CLAUSE

36. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 10
    and 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
    Sections 154(i), 154(j), 160, and 161, this First Report and Order
    IS ADOPTED.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Magalie Roman Salas

    Secretary

    **APPENDIX**

[Parties Filing Comments]{.underline}

1\. American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc. (AMTA)

2\. Bell Atlantic Mobile, Inc. (BAM)

3\. Comcast Cellular Communications, Inc. (Comcast)

4\. GTE Service Corporation (GTE)

5\. Motorola, Inc. (Motorola)

6\. Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (Omnipoint)

7\. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PaPUC)

8\. Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)

9\. The Rural Telecommunications Group (RTG)

10\. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc., and Pacific Bell Mobile
Services, filing jointly (SBMS)

11\. UTC

12\. Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (WCA)

[Parties Filing Reply Comments]{.underline}

1\. Comcast Cellular Communications, Inc. (Comcast)

2\. Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel)

3\. Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)

4\. Radiofone, Inc. (Radiofone)

5\. Russ Miller Rental (Russ Miller Rental)

[Parties Filing Comments to July 31, 1998 PCIA Letter]{.underline}

1\. American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc. (AMTA)

2.  AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (AT&T Wireless)

3.  Fixed Point-to-Point Communications Section, Wireless Communications
    Division, of the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)

4.  GTE Service Corporation (GTE)

5.  Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)

6.  UTC

7.  Winstar Communications, Inc. (Winstar)

[^1]: Personal Communications Industry Association's Broadband Personal
    Communications Services Alliance's Petition for Forbearance For
    Broadband Personal Communications Services, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 13 FCC Rcd 16857 (1998)
    (*PCIA Forbearance Order* and *NPRM*), *recon. denied*, FCC 99-250
    (rel. Sept. 27, 1999).

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 160, 332(c)(1)(A).

[^3]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 226.

[^4]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.703-64.709.

[^5]: ^?^ Letter from Mary McDermott, Senior Vice President and Chief of
    Staff for Government Relations, PCIA, to Daniel B. Phythyon, Chief,
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, dated July 31, 1998 (July 31,
    1998 PCIA Letter).

[^6]: ^?^ Letter from Brent Weingardt, Vice President for Government
    Relations, PCIA, to Diane Cornell, Associate Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, dated May 18, 1999 (May 18, 1999 PCIA
    Letter).

[^7]: We will consider forbearance from additional provisions of TOCSIA
    in the near future.

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 160(a).

[^9]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 160(b).

[^10]: ^?^ Specifically, we may forbear under Section 332(c)(1)(A) if we
    determine that:

    enforcement of \[a\] provision is not necessary in order to ensure
    that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations for or
    in connection with \[a\] service are just and reasonable and are not
    unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory;

    enforcement of \[a\] provision is not necessary for the protection
    of consumers; and

    specifying \[a\] provision \[as inapplicable to a service or
    person\] is consistent with the public interest.

    47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(1)(A).

[^11]: ^?^ Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications
    Act, GN Docket No. 93-252, *Second Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd
    1411, 1463-93, ¶¶ 124-219 (1994) (*CMRS Second Report and Order*),
    *recon. dismissed in part and denied in part*, 15 FCC Rcd 5231
    (2000)*; see also* 47 C.F.R. § 20.15.

[^12]: ^?^ *PCIA Forbearance Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 16884-89, ¶¶ 55-65.

[^13]: ^?^ *Id.* at 16894-98, ¶¶ 76-85.

[^14]: ^?^ Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association's Petition
    for Forbearance From Commercial Mobile Radio Services Number
    Portability Obligations, WT Docket No. 98-229, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 3092 (1999) (*LNP Forbearance Order*),
    *recon. denied*, 15 FCC Rcd 4727 (2000).

[^15]: Federal Communications Bar Association's Petition for Forbearance
    from Section 310(d) of the Communications Act Regarding
    Non-Substantial Assignments of Wireless Licenses and Transfers of
    Control Involving Telecommunications Carriers, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 6293 (1998) (*FCBA Forbearance Order*).

[^16]: ^?^ Hyperion Telecommunications, Inc. Petition Requesting
    Forbearance and Time Warner Communications Petition for Forbearance:
    Complete Detariffing for Competitive Access Providers and
    Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, CC Docket No. 97-146,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 12
    FCC Rcd 8596 (1997) (*Hyperion*); *see also* 1998 Biennial
    Regulatory Review -- Repeal of Part 62 of the Commission's Rules, CC
    Docket No. 98-195*, Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 16530 (1999)
    (*Interlocking Directorates Order*).

[^17]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 160(c).

[^18]: ^?^ *NPRM*, 13 FCC Rcd at 16900-10, ¶¶ 89-110.

[^19]: ^?^ *Id.* at 16910-14, ¶¶ 111-118.

[^20]: ^?^ *Id.* at 16913, ¶ 116.

[^21]: ^?^ *Id.* at 16912, ¶ 113.

[^22]: ^?^ The names of the commenters and the short forms by which they
    are referenced herein are listed in the Appendix. Citations herein
    to comments and reply comments, without further qualification, refer
    to comments on the *NPRM.*

[^23]: ^?^ *See* PaPUC Comments (opposing any forbearance that would
    reduce CMRS providers' contributions to state and federal universal
    service funds); Radiofone Reply Comments (opposing any forbearance
    from enforcing Sections 201 and 202 of the Act against CMRS
    providers).

[^24]: ^?^ July 31, 1998 PCIA Letter at 2.

[^25]: ^?^ *See* Biennial Regulatory Review *--* Amendment of Parts 0,
    1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 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, WT Docket No. 98-20*,* *Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd
    21027 (1998) (*Universal Licensing System Report and Order*), *on
    reconsideration*, *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration*,
    14 FCC Rcd 11476 (1999) (*Universal Licensing System Order on
    Reconsideration*).

[^26]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 161.

[^27]: ^?^ Wireless Bureau Seeks Comment on July 31, 1998 Letter from
    Personal Communications Industry Association Proposing Streamlining
    of Wireless Regulations, *Public Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd 25368 (1998).

[^28]: ^?^ The names of commenters and the short forms by which they are
    referenced herein are listed in the Appendix. Comments on the July
    31, 1998 PCIA Letter are cited hereafter as "\[Party\] Comments on
    PCIA Letter."

[^29]: ^?^ One commenter, RTG, opposes PCIA's proposal to eliminate
    Section 22.323 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.323, which establishes
    conditions on the provision of incidental services by Part 22
    licensees. We recently decided, in another proceeding in which RTG
    participated, to retain Section 22.323 at this time, but to
    eliminate the notification requirement contained in Section
    22.323(d), and to consider further modification or elimination of
    Section 22.323 as part of the biennial review. Amendment of the
    Commission\'s Rules to Permit Flexible Service Offerings in the
    Commercial Mobile Radio Services, WT Docket No. 96-6, *Second Report
    and Order and Order on Reconsideration*, FCC 00-246, ¶¶ 9-14 (rel.
    July 20, 2000).

[^30]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 160(a).

[^31]: 47 U.S.C. § 160(b).

[^32]: ^?^ *See* S. Conf. Rep. No. 104-230, 104^th^ Cong., 2d Sess. at 1
    (1996) (stating Congressional intent "to provide for a
    pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to
    accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced
    telecommunications and information technologies and services to all
    Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to
    competition").

[^33]: ^?^ *NPRM*, 13 FCC Rcd at 16912, ¶ 113.

[^34]: ^?^ *See* ¶ 5, *supra*.

[^35]: *NPRM*, 13 FCC Rcd at 16912, ¶ 112.

[^36]: *See* Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
    Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network
    Information and Other Customer Information and Implementation of the
    Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, As Amended*,* CC Docket No. 96-115,
    *Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,
    13 FCC Rcd 8061 (1998) (adopting CPNI rules), *Order on
    Reconsideration and Petitions for Forbearance*, 14 FCC Rcd 14409
    (1999) (declining to forbear due to strong public interest in
    maintaining CPNI rules in CMRS context) (*CPNI Reconsideration and
    Forbearance Order*), *vacated and remanded sub nom.* *U.S. West*
    *v.* *FCC*, 182 F.3d 1224 (10^th^ Cir. 1999) (vacating portions of
    first CPNI order; finding that opt-in rule for customer-specific
    CPNI violated First Amendment).

[^37]: *See LNP Forbearance Order,* 14 FCC Rcd 3092 (forbearing from
    requiring CMRS providers to offer LNP until November 24, 2002).

[^38]: *See GTE Service Corp. v. FCC*, No. 97-1358 (D.C. Cir. July 14,
    2000) (holding that rate integration requirements in Section 254(g)
    of the Act do not unambiguously apply to CMRS); Policy and Rules
    Concerning the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace, CC Docket No.
    96-61, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, FCC 00-308 (rel. Aug. 23,
    2000) (dismissing petitions to forbear from applying rate
    integration requirements to CMRS as moot and premature, and stating
    that Commission will expeditiously reconsider application of Section
    254(g) to CMRS).

[^39]: *See* Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket
    No. 96-45, *Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 13 FCC Rcd 21252 (1998) (establishing interim
    safe harbor percentages of interstate revenues for use by wireless
    carriers in calculating contributions to Universal Service Fund).

[^40]: *LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3094, ¶ 4 n.10; *see also,
    e.g.,* Interconnection and Resale Obligations Pertaining to
    Commercial Mobile Radio Services, CC Docket No. 94-54, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order on Reconsideration*, 17 Communications Reg. (P&F)
    518, ¶ 44 (1999), *recon. denied*, FCC 00-307 (rel. Aug. 22, 2000);
    Interconnection and Resale Obligations Pertaining to Commercial
    Mobile Radio Services, CC Docket No. 94-54, *Third Report and Order
    and Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration*, FCC 00-251, ¶
    15 (rel. Aug. 28, 2000).

[^41]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18; 47 C.F.R. § 20.12. In addition, covered
    SMR providers will be subject to local number portability
    requirements after November 24, 2002. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 52.31.

[^42]: *See* *CMRS* *Second Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 1450-51, ¶¶
    88-93. Commercial mobile service is defined by statute to mean "any
    mobile service . . . that is provided for profit and makes
    interconnected service available (A) to the public or (B) to such
    classes of eligible users as to be effectively available to a
    substantial portion of the public . . . ." 47 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1);
    *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 20.3. In place of the statutory terminology,
    the Commission uses the term "commercial mobile radio service."

[^43]: ^?^ Section 332(c)(1) of the Act provides that all commercial
    mobile service providers "shall . . . be treated as . . . common
    carrier\[s\] for purposes of this Act\[.\] . . ."

[^44]: *CMRS Second Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 1451, ¶ 90 (noting
    that "\[l\]icensees who provide interconnected service will be
    classified as CMRS providers, while those who do not will be
    classified as PMRS providers"); *see* 47 U.S.C. § 332(d).

[^45]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(44).

[^46]: ^46^ AMTA Comments at 19.

[^47]: ^?^ *Id.* at 25.

[^48]: ^?^ *Id.* at 26.

[^49]: ^?^ Russ Miller Rental Comments at 1.

[^50]: ^?^ *CMRS Second Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 1450-51, ¶¶
    88-93.

[^51]: ^?^ As noted earlier, "\[t\]elecommunications carrier" is defined
    as follows: "any provider of telecommunications services, except
    that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications
    services . . . ." 47 U.S.C. § 153(44). Further, "telecommunications
    service" is defined as "the offering of telecommunications for a fee
    directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be
    effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the
    facilities used." 47 U.S.C. § 153(46).

[^52]: 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(1)(A); *see* Implementation of Sections 3(n)
    and 332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile
    Services, GN Docket No. 93-252, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 8
    FCC Rcd 7988, 7998, ¶ 49 (1993).

[^53]: We do not address here whether non-interconnected SMRs are
    "telecommunications carrier\[s\]" within the meaning of the Act.
    *See* 47 U.S.C. § 153(44).

[^54]: *CMRS* *Second Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 1463-93, ¶¶
    124-219.

[^55]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 202.

[^56]: ^?^ *PCIA Forbearance Order,* 13 FCC Rcd at 16865, ¶ 15.

[^57]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^58]: *Id.* at 16866, ¶ 17.

[^59]: ^?^ 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Streamlined Contributor
    Reporting Requirements Associated With Administration of
    Telecommunications Relay Services, North American Numbering Plan,
    Local Number Portability, and Universal Service Support Mechanisms,
    CC Docket No. 98-171*,* *Report and Order*, 16 Communications Reg.
    (P&F) 688 (1999).

[^60]: ^?^ Because the Universal Service rules "require that
    contributors file data twice a year so that the Commission can
    develop contribution factors using relatively current
    information\[,\]" the Commission kept in place the so-called
    September 1^st^ filing and simply streamlined the form. *Id.* at ¶¶
    33-34.

[^61]: ^?^ *Id.* at ¶¶ 1-5.

[^62]: ^?^ *Id.* at ¶ 1.

[^63]: ^?^ Motorola Comments at 3.

[^64]: ^?^ *See Universal Licensing System Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd
    21027; *Universal Licensing System Order on Reconsideration*, 14 FCC
    Rcd 11476.

[^65]: *Universal Licensing System Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    21063, ¶ 78.

[^66]: ^?^ *Id.* at 21092, ¶ 145.

[^67]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 161. Section 161(a) provides that "\[i\]n every
    even-numbered year\[,\] . . . the Commission (1) shall review all
    regulations issued under this Act in effect at the time of the
    review that apply to the operations or activities of any provider of
    telecommunications service; and (2) shall determine whether any such
    regulation is no longer necessary in the public interest as the
    result of meaningful economic competition between providers of such
    service." 47 U.S.C. § 161(a). Further, Section 161(b) provides that
    "\[t\]he Commission shall repeal or modify any regulation it
    determines to be no longer necessary in the public interest." 47
    U.S.C. § 161(b).

[^68]: ^?^ PCIA Comments at 18-29; RTG Comments at iii; WCA Comments at
    1-4.

[^69]: ^?^ WCA Comments at 1-4, 8; RTG Comments at iii.

[^70]: ^?^ RTG Comments at 4-9.

[^71]: ^?^ PCIA Comments at 18-19.

[^72]: ^?^ RTG Comments at 4, 9-11.

[^73]: ^?^ *Hyperion,* 12 FCC Rcd at 8607-11, ¶¶ 21-29. In so doing, we
    necessarily also forbore from applying Sections 204 and 205 against
    carriers that do not file tariffs, since those provisions apply only
    in the context of a tariff filing under Section 203. We have
    recently sought comment to refresh the record regarding complete
    detariffing of these services. *See* Commission Asks Parties to
    Update and Refresh Record on Mandatory Detariffing of CLEC
    Interstate Access Services, CC Docket Nos. 96-262 and 97-146,
    *Public Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd 10181 (2000).

[^74]: *Interlocking Directorates Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 16530*.*

[^75]: Implementation of Section 402(b)(2)(A) of the Telecommunications
    Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 97-11, *Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd
    11364, 11370-75, ¶¶ 8-18 (1999) (*Section 214 Streamlining Order*).

[^76]: 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of International Common
    Carrier Regulations, IB Docket No. 98-118, *Report and Order*, 14
    FCC Rcd 4909, 4912-27, ¶¶ 8-40 (1999) (*International Streamlining
    Order*).

[^77]: *Section 214 Streamlining Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 11378-81,¶¶
    26-32.

[^78]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 43.51.

[^79]: ^?^ *See, e.g., International Streamlining Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    4916-17, 4926-27, ¶¶ 17-18, 38-39 (declining to forbear from
    applying Section 214 entry requirements either in general or to CMRS
    providers in particular); *CPNI Reconsideration and Forbearance
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 14409 (declining to forbear from applying CPNI
    rules to CMRS providers); *see also* Interconnection and Resale
    Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio Services, CC
    Docket No. 94-54, *First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 18455 (1996)
    (applying to certain CMRS providers on a transitional basis resale
    obligations comparable to those imposed under Section 251(b)(1)),
    *aff'd sub nom. Cellnet Communications v. FCC*, 149 F.3d 429 (6^th^
    Cir. 1998), *recon.*, 17 Communications Reg. (P&F) 518 (1999),
    *further recon. denied*, FCC 00-307 (rel. Aug. 22, 2000).

[^80]: ^80^*See* RTG Comments at 13 (suggesting that the Commission
    issue a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).

[^81]: ^81^UTC Comments at 2.

[^82]: ^82^Reorganization and Revision of Parts 1, 2, 21, and 94 of the
    Rules to Establish a New Part 101 Governing Terrestrial Microwave
    Fixed Radio Services, WT Docket No. 94-148, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 15 FCC Rcd 3129, 3141,
    3149-51, ¶¶ 19, 35-38 (2000) (*Part 101 Reconsideration Order and
    NPRM*).

[^83]: ^83^*See FCBA Forbearance Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6306-07, ¶ 24.

[^84]: ^?^ *See* July 31, 1998 PCIA Letter at 2.

[^85]: ^?^ *Universal Licensing System Order on Reconsideration*, 14 FCC
    Rcd 11476; Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to
    Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz
    Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93-144, *Memorandum Opinion and Order
    on Remand*, 14 FCC Rcd 21679 (1999) (*800 MHz Wide Area Licensing
    Memorandum Opinion and Order on Remand*); Amendment of Part 90 of
    the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR
    Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93-144,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order on* *Reconsideration*, 14 FCC Rcd
    17556 (1999) (*800 MHz Wide Area Licensing Memorandum Opinion and
    Order on Reconsideration*); *Part 101 Reconsideration Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 3129; Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private
    Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them
    and Examination of Exclusivity and Frequency Assignments Policies of
    the Private Land Mobile Services, PR Docket No. 92-235, *Third
    Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 10922 (1999) (*Refarming
    Third Memorandum Opinion and Order*).

[^86]: ^?^ Pursuant to Section 161, in every even-numbered year, the
    Commission must review its regulations and "determine whether any .
    . . regulation is no longer necessary in the public interest as the
    result of meaningful economic competition\[,\]" and the Commission
    "shall repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer
    necessary in the public interest." 47 U.S.C. § 161(a&b).

[^87]: ^?^ May 18, 1999 PCIA Letter at 1.

[^88]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 1.948(i)(1).

[^89]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 1.948(i).

[^90]: ^?^ May 18, 1999 PCIA Letter at 1.

[^91]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^92]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^93]: Section 1.948(i) provides that "\[a\]pplications for approval of
    assignment or transfer *may* be reviewed by the Commission to
    determine if the transaction is for purposes of trafficking in
    service authorizations." 47 C.F.R. § 1.948(i) (emphasis added).
    Further, Section 1.948(i)(2) provides that "\[t\]he Commission *may*
    require submission of an affirmative, factual showing . . . to
    demonstrate that the assignor did not acquire the authorization for
    the principal purpose of speculation or profitable resale of the
    authorization." 47 C.F.R. § 1.948(i)(2).

[^94]: ^?^ In addition, the Commission's unjust enrichment rules ensure
    that parties that acquire auctioned licenses pursuant to set-asides,
    installment financing, or bidding credits do not obtain unjust
    enrichment upon an assignment or transfer of control. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 1.2111.

[^95]: ^?^ May 18, 1999 PCIA Letter at 2.

[^96]: ^?^ The relevant portions of the applicable regulations are as
    follows: Section 101.149(b) provides that "\[e\]ach operating
    station must have posted a copy of the service area authorization."
    47 C.F.R. § 101.149(b). Section 101.215(a) provides that "\[e\]ach
    licensee shall post at the station the name, address and telephone
    number of the custodian of the station license or other
    authorization if such license or authorization is not maintained at
    the station." 47 C.F.R. § 101.215(a). Finally, Section 101.217
    provides:

    Each licensee of a station subject to this part shall maintain
    records in accordance with the following:

    For all stations, the results and dates of transmitter measurements
    and the name of the person or persons making the measurements;

    For all stations, when service or maintenance duties are performed,
    which may affect their proper operation, the responsible operator
    shall sign and date an entry in the station record concerned,
    giving:

    Pertinent details of all transmitter adjustments performed by him or
    under his supervision; and

    His name and address, provided that this information, so long as it
    remains unchanged, is not required to be repeated in the case of a
    person who is regularly employed as operator on a full-time basis at
    the station.

    The records shall be kept in an orderly manner, and in such detail
    that the data required are readily available. Key letters or
    abbreviations may be used if proper meaning or explanation is set
    forth in the record.

    Each entry in the records of each station shall be signed by a
    person qualified to do so, having actual knowledge of the facts to
    be recorded.

    No record or portion thereof shall be erased, obliterated, or
    willfully destroyed within the required retention period. Any
    necessary correction may be made only by the person originating the
    entry, who shall strike out the erroneous portion, initial the
    correction made and indicate the date of correction.

    Records required by this part shall be retained by the licensee for
    a period of at least one year.

    47 C.F.R. § 101.217(a-f).

[^97]: ^?^ *Universal Licensing System Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    21100, ¶ 164.