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

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

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

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

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

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

*****************************************************************

                           Before the
               FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                     Washington, D.C. 20554



In the Matter of                             )
                                   )
The 4.9 GHz Band Transferred from            )    WT Docket No. 00-32
Federal Government Use                  )

                 NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

    Adopted:  February 23, 2000Released:  February 29, 2000

Comment Date:  April 26, 2000
Reply Comment Date:  May 17, 2000

By the Commission:

                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                      Paragraph

I.  INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II.  BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
III.  DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
 A. Re-allocation of the Band 4940-4990 MHz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
 B. Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 C. Application, Licensing, and Processing Rules. . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   1.  Regulatory Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   2.  Eligibility; Spectrum Aggregation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   3.  Foreign Ownership Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   4.  Geographic Areas and Spectrum Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
   5.  License Term; Renewal Expectancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
   6.  Partitioning and Disaggregation of Licenses. . . . . . . . . . . 51
   7.  Performance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
   8.  Public Notice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
 D. Operating Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
   1.  General Common Carrier Obligations; Forbearance. . . . . . . . . 65
   2.  Equal Employment Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
 E. Technical Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
   1.  In-Band Interference Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
   2.  U.S. Navy Cooperative Engagement Capability System . . . . . . . 84
 F. Competitive Bidding Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
   1.  Statutory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
   2.  Incorporation by Reference of Part 1 Standardized Auction Rules. . . . . . .97
   3.  Provisions for Designated Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
    a.  Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
    b.  Small Business Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
IV.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
 A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
 B. Paperwork Reduction Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
 C. Ex Parte Presentations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108
 D. Pleading Dates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
 E. Further Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112
V.  ORDERING CLAUSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Appendix A:  Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Appendix B:  Proposed Rules
Appendix C:  CEC Operating Area Descriptions
Appendix D:  CEC Impacted EAs
                        I.  INTRODUCTION
1.   In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), we propose to allocate and establish licensing
and service rules for the band 4940-4990 MHz (4.9 GHz band) that has recently been transferred from
Federal Government to private sector use as substitute spectrum for the band 4635-4685 MHz reclaimed
for Federal Government use.  We believe this band can support a variety of new and advanced wireless
applications.  We propose to allocate the 4.9 GHz band for fixed and mobile services, except aeronautical
mobile service, on a primary basis and we seek comment on the geographic area and spectrum blocks that
should be used to license this spectrum.  We anticipate that this proposed action will benefit the public by
permitting and encouraging the introduction of new services and the enhancement of existing services.
2.   In addition, we propose to license the 4.9 GHz band under Part 27 of the Commission's Rules,
except to the extent that we propose to modify those rules in this Notice to reflect the particular
characteristics of this spectrum and the services that will be permitted to operate in this band.  We also
propose that initial licenses for the 4.9 GHz band be acquired through competitive bidding under Part 1 of
the Commission's Rules.  Furthermore, in a few instances, we propose to codify and conform certain rules
for the 2.3 GHz band to provide for consistent regulation of Part 27 services.  Finally, we grant in part a
Petition for Rulemaking filed by Global Frontiers, Inc. (Global) to revise, among other requests, the
Commission's rules relating to this band.
                        II.  BACKGROUND
3.   The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 required that the Secretary of Commerce
identify at least 200 megahertz of spectrum then allocated for use by Federal Government agencies to be
transferred to private sector use.  All of the 200 megahertz of spectrum recommended for reallocation was
required to be located below 5 gigahertz, with at least 100 megahertz of this spectrum below 3 gigahertz.
4.   OBRA also required the Secretary of Commerce to issue within six months of enactment a
Preliminary Report identifying bands of frequencies for potential reallocation and, furthermore, to issue
within 18 months a Final Report recommending the spectrum for reallocation.  In its report making a
preliminary identification of spectrum, the Department of Commerce was required to identify at least 50
megahertz of spectrum for immediate reallocation, to reserve a significant portion of the 200 megahertz of
spectrum until after a 10-year period,  and to make the remaining spectrum available over the intervening
10 years.
5.   In accordance with the requirements of OBRA, on February 10, 1994, the Department of
Commerce released its Preliminary Report.  The Preliminary Report identified 10 bands for reallocation,
with three of these bands identified for immediate reallocation.  One of the three frequency bands identified
in the Preliminary Report for immediate reallocation and private sector use was the band 4660-4685 MHz. 
In February 1995, the Department of Commerce released its Final Report on spectrum for reallocation.  In
pertinent part, the Final Report stated that for the band 4660-4685 MHz reallocation had already been
completed.  The Final Report also identified the band 4635-4660 MHz, the band adjacent to the band
4660-4685 MHz, for transfer from Federal Government use to private sector use as of January 1, 1997.
6.   OBRA also required that the Commission allocate and propose regulations for the assignment
of the immediately available 50 megahertz of spectrum no later than 18 months after enactment.  Thus, on
February 7, 1995, the Commission adopted the GWCS First Report and Order and Second Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.  The Commission, among other decisions there, allocated the band 4660-4685
MHz on a primary basis to fixed and mobile services and proposed to designate this band for a new service
entitled the General Wireless Communications Service (GWCS).
7.   On August 2, 1995, the Commission released the GWCS Second Report and Order that
established GWCS and adopted Part 26 of its rules setting out licensing and operating rules for the service
in the band 4660-4685 MHz.  The Commission found that GWCS should accommodate a wide variety of
potential fixed and mobile service uses, such as voice, video and data transmission, private microwave,
broadcast auxiliary, and ground-to-air voice and video.  The Commission also found that GWCS should
facilitate the availability of frequencies for new technologies and services, encourage research and
investment to invent, develop, and market new technologies, and spur their deployment to serve customers.
8.   On December 17, 1997, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau announced that the auction
for licenses in the band 4660-4685 MHz would commence on May 27, 1998.  In April 1998, however, the
Bureau postponed the commencement of the auction due to a demonstrated absence of demand for licenses
in the band 4660-4685 MHz.  This lack of interest may have been due in part to the relatively small size of
the spectrum block (i.e., 25 megahertz) and to potential interference problems in the band.  The U.S. Navy
uses the spectrum immediately above the 4685 MHz band, as well as the spectrum immediately below the
4635 MHz band, to operate its Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) system.  As a result, as
detailed in a General Accounting Office Report to Congress, the Navy believed that commercial use of the
band 4635-4685 MHz could adversely affect the CEC system.
9.   On March 30, 1999, pursuant to Section 6001(a)(3) of OBRA,  the Department of Commerce
notified the Commission that the Federal Government was reclaiming the band 4635-4685 MHz and
identifying, as substitute spectrum, the 4.9 GHz band.  As required by OBRA, the Department of
Commerce submitted a Statement of Reasons in support of its decision.  Among other justifications, the
Statement of Reasons provides that:  (1) the Department of Defense has concluded that the loss of the band
4635-4685 MHz would seriously jeopardize the national security interests of the United States by adversely
impacting the operational capabilities of the Navy's CEC program;  (2) reclaiming this spectrum and
substituting the 4.9 GHz band will avert this operational impact to the Navy and preserve the resources
already expended on the three billion dollar CEC program; (3) substitution of the 4.9 GHz spectrum will
not disrupt nor displace any private sector entities; and (4) given that the band 4635-4685 MHz has not
been auctioned and that no licenses for this band have been issued, there is no cost to the private sector
associated with this decision.  The Navy currently plans to use the band 4635-4685 MHz and adjacent
bands for its CEC system.
10.  Partially in response to the Department of Commerce's decision to reclaim the band 4635-
4685 MHz, the Offices of Engineering and Technology and Managing Director recently released a
Memorandum Opinion and Order revising Part 2 of the Commission's Rules making non-substantive
revisions to the Table of Frequency Allocations.   One of the changes made by this order was to return the
band 4660-4685 MHz to the status quo ante, i.e., to delete the allocation to non-Federal Government fixed
and mobile services, while retaining the prior allocation on a primary basis to fixed-satellite service. 
Because the band 4635-4660 MHz transferred from Federal Government to non-Federal Government use,
had never been reallocated, the order did not need to make any changes to the allocations for that band.
11.  On November 24, 1999, Global filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting that the
Commission:  (1) designate the 4.9 GHz band for GWCS in lieu of the reclaimed band 4660-4685 MHz;
(2) make the service more attractive to applicants that require broadband capability in order to serve the
public; (3) speed the process of licensing applicants that are not mutually exclusive; and (4) allow mutually
exclusive applicants to consult and negotiate solutions to their mutual exclusivity.  Global states that it is
an Internet Service Provider (ISP) located in Portland, Oregon and is interested in offering its customers in
the Portland area, and eventually customers in other areas, a simple, economical, and rapid means of
downloading large files from the Internet.  In order to achieve this objective, Global states that it has
entered into an agreement with a French manufacturer to market and distribute in this country a terrestrial
wireless transmission system that will permit consumers with a small horn-shaped antenna attached to their
modems, pointed toward the ISP transmitter, to download files at speeds that are substantially in excess of
those permitted by other competing technologies.  According to Global, the service, when authorized, will
operate in the band 4940-4990 MHz utilizing a transmission bandwidth of 39 megahertz.
12.  Global requests that the Commission make available for GWCS the entire 4.9 GHz band, that
the band be broken down into five 10 megahertz wide blocks, and, apparently, that the band be licensed
using Economic Areas (EAs).  Global also requests that the 15 megahertz aggregation limit contained in
Section 26.101(a) be increased and that GWCS licensees be able to partition their service territories to
entities other than just rural telephone companies.  In addition, Global requests that the Commission
clarify how applications are to be filed and that the Commission promptly process GWCS applications. 
Finally, Global requests that the Commission encourage the avoidance of mutual exclusivity through
negotiated engineering solutions.  We here grant Global's Petition to the extent indicated below.
                        III.  DISCUSSION
A.   Re-allocation of the Band 4940-4990 MHz
13.  Internationally, the band 4940-4990 MHz is part of the band 4800-4990 MHz, which is
allocated to the fixed and mobile services on a co-primary, worldwide basis, except in the sub-band 4950-
4990 MHz, where the allocation to the mobile service is restricted by international footnote S5.442 to the
mobile, except aeronautical mobile, service.  The band 4800-4990 MHz is also allocated to the radio
astronomy service on a secondary, worldwide basis.  Furthermore, in making assignments to stations of
other services to which the sub-band 4950-4990 MHz is allocated, international footnote S5.149 states, in
pertinent part, that "administrations are urged to take all practicable steps to protect the radio astronomy
service from harmful interference" and that "emissions from spaceborne or airborne stations can be
particularly serious sources of interference to the radio astronomy service."  Finally, the sub-band 4950-
4990 MHz is allocated to the space research (passive) and earth exploration-satellite (passive) services on a
secondary, worldwide basis.
14.  In the United States, the band 4940-4990 MHz (i.e., the 4.9 GHz band) is Federal Government
transfer spectrum that became available for exclusive non-Federal Government use in March 1999.  The
purpose of this instant proceeding is to develop the guidelines for non-Federal Government use of this
spectrum.  Currently, the band 4940-4990 MHz is part of a much larger Federal Government band that
extends from 4400 MHz to 4990 MHz.  The band 4800-4990 MHz is allocated to the Federal Government
fixed and mobile services on a co-primary basis.   In its Reallocation Letter, NTIA states that the Federal
Government uses the band 4940-4990 MHz for such fixed services as conventional point-to-point
microwave, tactical radio relay, and high power tropospheric scatter systems, and such mobile services as
control of remote piloted vehicles, video and data telemetry links, target drone control links, and fleet
defense systems.  In addition, the Federal Government uses the band for aerostat systems, tethered at an
altitude of approximately 15,000 feet above mean sea level, along the U.S. southern borders.
15.  The sub-band 4950-4990 MHz is also allocated to the Federal Government and non-Federal
Government space research (passive) and earth exploration-satellite (passive) services on a secondary
basis.  Radio astronomy observations may be made in the sub-band 4950-4990 MHz at certain Federal
Government/non-Federal Government observatories that are listed in footnote US257.  In addition,
international footnote S5.149 has previously been added to both the Federal Government and non-Federal
Government Tables.  Thus, the only authorized non-Federal Government use of the band 4940-4990 MHz
is currently passive.
16.  In initially establishing GWCS in August 1995, the Commission concluded that authorizing a
wide variety of fixed and mobile services bounded only by international allocations comported with the
Commission's statutory authority and served the public interest by fostering the provision and mix of
services most desired by the public.  In keeping with this conclusion, we propose to allocate the band
4940-4990 MHz to the non-Federal Government fixed and mobile services, except aeronautical mobile
service, on a co-primary basis.  This allocation will permit the provision of a broad range of fixed and
mobile services, except aeronautical mobile service.  In keeping with this broad allocation, we propose to
permit licensees to utilize this spectrum for any service permitted within any of the allocation categories of
fixed and mobile, except aeronautical mobile uses, subject to international requirements and coordination. 
Finally, since the band 4940-4990 MHz is being transferred as a non-Federal Government exclusive band,
we also propose to delete the Federal Government fixed and mobile service allocations from the band 4940-
4990 MHz.
17.  We note that the sub-band 4950-4990 MHz, together with the adjacent band 4990-5000 MHz,
is extremely useful in studying the brightness distributions of both galactic and extra-galactic objects such
as ionized hydrogen clouds and supernova remnants.  We also note that radio astronomy is particularly
vulnerable to potential interference from other services because it is a passive service that involves the
reception of exceptionally weak cosmic radio waves emanating from a great distance from the Earth. 
Therefore, consistent with international footnote S5.442, we proposed above to prohibit aeronautical
mobile service use of the sub-band 4950-4990 MHz.  Moreover, we proposed above to prohibit
aeronautical mobile service use of the adjacent sub-band 4940-4950 MHz in order to provide additional
protection for adjacent band radio astronomy observations.  These proposals are consistent with footnote
US257 and the Department of Commerce's request that we protect radio astronomy operations.
18.  The National Science Foundation (NSF) has requested that we update the list of radio
astronomy observatories identified in footnote US257 to accurately reflect radio astronomy use of the sub-
band 4950-4990 MHz.  The NSF states that the observatories currently observing in the sub-band 4950-
4990 MHz are listed in footnote US311 and recommends that we update the Table of Frequency
Allocations by adding the sub-band 4950-4990 MHz to footnote US311 and by deleting footnote US257. 
Accordingly, we propose to delete footnote US257 and to revise footnote US311 to read as follows:US311     Radio astronomy observations may be made in the bands 1350-1400 MHz and 4950-4990 MHz on an
unprotected basis at certain radio astronomy observatories indicated below:

National Astronomy and Ionosphere
Center, Arecibo, Puerto Rico                 
Rectangle between latitudes 17  30' N and 19  00' N and
between longitudes 65  10' W and 68  00' W.


National Radio Astronomy
Observatory, Socorro, New  Mexico
Rectangle between latitudes 32  30' N and 35  30' N and
between longitudes 106  00' W and 109  00' W.


National Radio Astronomy Obser-
vatory, Green Bank, West Virginia
 
Rectangle between latitudes 37  30' N and 39  15' N and
between longitudes 78  30' W and 80  30' W.


National Radio Astronomy
Observatory, Very Long Baseline
Array Stations
80 kilometers (50 mile) radius centered on:



Latitude (North)
Longitude (West)


Pie Town, NM
34  18'
108   07'


Kitt Peak, AZ
31  57'
111  37'


Los Alamos, NM
35  47'
106  15'


Fort Davis, TX
30  38'
103  57'


North Liberty, IA
41  46'
91  34'


Brewster, WA
48  08'
119  41'


Owens Valley, CA
37  14'
118  17'


Saint Croix, VI
17  46'
  64  35'


Mauna Kea, HI
19  48'
155  27'


Hancock, NH
42  56'
  71  59'


     Every practicable effort will be made to avoid the assignment of frequencies in the bands 1350-
1400 MHz and 4950-4990 MHz to stations in the fixed and mobile services which could interfere with
radio astronomy observations within the geographic areas given above.  In addition, every practicable effort
will be made to avoid assignment of frequencies in these bands to stations in the aeronautical mobile service
which operate outside of those geographic areas, but which may cause harmful interference to the listed
observatories.  Should such assignments result in harmful interference to these observatories, the situation
will be remedied to the extent practicable.
We request comment on these proposals.
19.  In summary, we propose that licensees in the 4.9 GHz band will be authorized to provide any
fixed, land mobile, or maritime mobile service, but not aeronautical mobile service.  In proposing this broad
allocation, we seek to ensure that the spectrum is put to its best and most valued use and that the greatest
benefit to the public is attained.  We believe that a broad and general allocation is most likely to achieve
this objective.  Such an approach will allow flexible use of these bands so that licensees will be able to
offer a wide range of services employing varying technologies.  We therefore request comment on our
proposal to allocate the band 4940-4990 MHz to the fixed and mobile services, except aeronautical mobile
service, and to permit any fixed or non-aeronautical mobile service use in this spectrum, rather than specify
this band for particular uses.
20.  Upon completion of this rulemaking, the Department of Commerce will require all current
Federal Government assignments, except those for radio astronomy observatories, to be withdrawn or
limited in the band 4940-4990 MHz.  Federal Government licensees are expected to retune their equipment
to operate in the remaining portion of the 4 GHz band (i.e., 4400-4940 MHz).  Because the band 4940-
4990 MHz is transferred from Federal Government to non-Federal Government use as a replacement for
the band 4635-4685 MHz, which was transferred pursuant to the provisions of OBRA, the Department of
Commerce concluded that the new non-Federal Government licensees will not be required to pay Federal
Government agencies vacating the band for the marginal cost of their relocation, as is required in spectrum
transferred pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA-97), according to the provisions of the
Defense Authorization Act of 1998.
21.  We also tentatively conclude that allocating the band 4940-4990 MHz to the non-Federal
Government fixed and mobile services, except aeronautical mobile service, is consistent with Section
303(y)(2) of the Communications Act (Act), as amended by the BBA-97.  We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion.  Section 303(y)(2) grants the Commission authority to allocate spectrum for flexible
use if the Commission finds that such an allocation:  (1) is in the public interest; (2) would not deter
investment in communications services and systems, or technology development; and (3) would not result in
harmful interference among users.  We tentatively find that allocating the spectrum for fixed and mobile,
except aeronautical mobile, use and making the spectrum available for commercial use under the Part 27
Rules is in the public interest because it will contribute to technological and service innovation, create new
jobs for the American workforce, foster national economic growth, and enhance opportunities for all
Americans to utilize, and realize the benefits of, the national telecommunications infrastructure.  We seek
comment on this tentative finding.
22.  To satisfy the requirements of Section 303(y)(2)(B) of the Act, we seek comment on whether a
flexible spectrum allocation in this band would deter investment in communications services and systems,
or technology development.
23.  To the extent commenters believe such flexibility will deter investment, they should also
suggest specific restrictions on how spectrum should be used by a licensee, and detailed analyses of the
economic trade-offs between flexibility and investment that justify the recommended use restriction.  We
seek to develop a record to help quantify any trade-offs between flexibility and investment in technology
and new services.  Such a record will assist us in structuring these rules so as to avoid deterring investment
in new technology and communications services.  We also seek comment regarding the extent to which
significant flexibility in service rules may encourage such investments.
24.  Finally, we tentatively find that the technical rules that we are proposing in this Notice for the
band 4940-4990 MHz satisfy the requirements of Section 303(y)(2)(C).  These rules provide licensees
with a framework to provide a wide variety of services with a minimum of interference.  As the
Commission stated in the GWCS Second Report and Order, any interference issues that may arise among
licensees can be satisfactorily resolved by general non-interference standards and technical rules.  We
believe that this conclusion applies for licensees in the 4.9 GHz band.  We seek comment on this tentative
finding.
B.      Public Safety
25.  In response to the GWCS Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Association of Public-
Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) filed comments proposing that the
Commission should designate at least a portion of the band 4660-4685 MHz for public safety mobile and
aeronautical video operations.  The Commission found, however, that the record did not provide a sound
basis for concluding that any or all of the band 4660-4685 MHz should be assigned as APCO suggested. 
In denying APCO's request, the Commission noted that the Commission and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) had recently formed a Public Safety Wireless
Advisory Committee (PSWAC) to prepare a report on operational, technical, and spectrum requirements of
Federal, State, and local public safety entities through the year 2010.  On September 11, 1996, PSWAC
submitted to the Commission and NTIA its Final Report on public safety wireless frequency and related
requirements through the year 2010.  As part of this report, PSWAC recommended that "[t]he 4635-4685
MHz band should be allocated for Public Safety systems . . . ."  In support of its recommendation
PSWAC stated that this spectrum was needed to ensure sufficient public safety spectrum allocations
through the year 2010.
26.  Recently, however, the Commission has acted pursuant to BBA-97 to allocate 24 megahertz
of spectrum solely for public safety use.  Specifically, the Commission allocated the band 764-776 MHz
and the band 794-806 MHz on a primary basis to fixed and mobile services, and designated this spectrum
solely for public safety use.  In addition, the Commission has adopted rules to govern  licensing and
operations for public safety in those bands.  Because of this recent public safety allocation, we do not
propose designating the 4.9 GHz band, or any portion of the band, for public safety use.  We tentatively
conclude that the action taken by the Commission in the Public Safety Reallocation Order constitutes a
significant commitment of spectrum to serve public safety needs into the next century, making it
unnecessary to set aside spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band for public safety use.  We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion.
C.      Application, Licensing, and Processing Rules
27.  Except as discussed below, we propose that the 4.9 GHz band should be governed by Part 27
of the Commission's Rules.  When the Commission adopted Part 26 of its Rules for the band 4660-4685
MHz, it sought to ensure that those rules would accommodate a wide variety of potential fixed and mobile
service uses, such as voice, video and data transmission, private microwave, broadcast auxiliary, and
ground-to-air voice and video.  We believe that the rules contained in Part 27 will preserve and enhance
that flexibility.  The Commission adopted Part 27 after the promulgation of Part 26, and, in doing so,
updated its rules, eliminated unnecessary burdens, and provided for additional licensing flexibility than had
been established in Part 26.  We tentatively conclude that potential 4.9 GHz licensees will benefit from
these reduced burdens and additional flexibility and that, by making the 4.9 GHz  rules more flexible,
public demand for this spectrum will increase.
28.  In keeping with our proposal to regulate the 4.9 GHz band under Part 27 of the Commission's
Rules, we also propose to delete Part 26 of the Commission's Rules.  With the return of the band 4660-
4685 MHz to exclusive Federal Government use, Part 26 of the Commission's Rules serves no specific
purpose.  As part of our continuing effort to eliminate redundancy and to streamline our rules, we propose
to delete Part 26.  Because there are no Part 26 licensees, this proposal should not have any adverse
impact.  We seek comment on our tentative conclusion to delete Part 26 of the Commission's Rules.
29.  As discussed above, other than aeronautical mobile, we do not propose to restrict the types of
fixed and mobile services that can be provided in the 4.9 GHz band.  Consistent with this approach, we
note that licensees may be required to comply with rules contained in other Parts of the Commission's
Rules.  For example, to the extent a licensee provides a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), such
service will also be subject to the provisions of Part 20 of the Commission's Rules.  Part 20 applies to all
CMRS providers, even though the stations may be licensed under other Parts of the Rules.  We seek
comment generally on any provisions in existing, service-specific rules that may require specific recognition
or adjustment to comport with the supervening application of Part 27, as well as any provisions that may
be necessary in Part 27 to fully describe the scope of covered services and technologies.  For instance, if a
4.9 GHz licensee provides a fixed service, we seek comment on whether there are any specific provisions in
Part 101 of the Commission's Rules that the licensee should be subject to even though the licensee's
stations will be licensed under Part 27.
30.  We also note that the 4.9 GHz service will be subject to the Universal Licensing System
(ULS).  ULS is the Commission's new automated licensing system and integrated database for wireless
services.  ULS includes new consolidated applications forms, which will enable 4.9 GHz licensees and
applicants to file applications electronically, thus increasing the speed and efficiency of the application
process.  All 4.9 GHz licensees filing applications and other filings using FCC Forms 601 through 605 or
associated schedules must make these filings electronically in accordance with the electronic filing
instructions provided by ULS.  Use of ULS will permit Commission staff to process filings more
efficiently and will enhance the availability of 4.9 GHz licensing information to the public.
    1.  Regulatory Status
31.  To fulfill its enforcement obligations and ensure compliance with the statutory requirements of
Titles II and III of the Communications Act, the Commission has often required applicants to identify
whether or not they seek to provide common carrier services.  The Commission's current mobile service
license application, for example, requires an applicant for mobile services to indicate whether the service it
intends to offer will be CMRS, Private Mobile Radio Service (PMRS), or both.  In the LMDS Second
Report and Order, the Commission required applicants for fixed services to indicate if they planned to
offer services as a common carrier, a non-common carrier, or both, and to notify the Commission of any
changes in status without prior authorization.  In adopting a similar licensing framework for Part 27, the
Commission has permitted applicants to request common carrier status as well as non-common carrier
status for authorization in a single license, rather than require the applicant to choose between common
carrier and non-common services.  We propose to adopt the same procedure for licensing services in the
4.9 GHz band and to codify this procedure for the 2.3 GHz band.  The licensee will be able to provide all
allowable services anywhere within its licensed area at any time, consistent with its regulatory status.  We
tentatively conclude that, in the case of services offered in the 4.9 GHz band, this approach is likely to
achieve efficiencies in the licensing and administrative process.
32.  In adopting Part 27, the Commission stated that, apart from this designation of regulatory
status, the Commission would not require applicants to describe the services they seek to provide.  The
Commission stated that it is sufficient that an applicant indicate its choice for regulatory status in a
streamlined application process.  In providing guidance on this issue to applicants, the Commission
pointed out that an election to provide service on a common carrier basis requires that the elements of
common carriage be present; otherwise, the applicant must choose non-common carrier status.  The
Commission advised potential applicants that, if they are unsure of the nature of their services and their
classification as common carrier services, they may submit a petition with their applications, or at any
time, requesting clarification and including service descriptions for that purpose.
33.  We propose that applicants and licensees with respect to services in the 4.9 GHz band also not
be required to describe their proposed services, but be required to indicate a regulatory status based on any
services they choose to provide.  We also propose that if licensees change the service or services they offer,
such that it would change their regulatory status, they must notify the Commission, although such change
would not require prior Commission authorization.  We propose that licensees be require to notify the
Commission within 30 days of the change, unless the change results in the discontinuance, reduction, or
impairment of the existing service, in which case a different time period may apply.  In addition to making
these procedures applicable to the 4.9 GHz band, we propose to codify these procedures for the 2.3 GHz
band.  In summary, under our proposal, a 4.9 GHz licensee would be authorized to provide a variety or
combination of fixed, mobile (except aeronautical mobile), common carrier, and non-common carrier
services.  We seek comment on these proposals.
    2.  Eligibility; Spectrum Aggregation
34.  Sections 27.12 and 27.302 of the Commission's Rules impose no restrictions on eligibility,
other than the foreign ownership restrictions set forth in Section 310 of the Communications Act, and
discussed below.  Consistent with these sections of the existing rules in Part 27, we propose that there will
be no additional restrictions on eligibility for a license in the 4.9 GHz band.  We believe that opening the
4.9 GHz market to a wide range of applicants will permit and encourage entrepreneurial efforts to develop
new technologies and services, while helping to ensure the highest and best use of this spectrum.  We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
35.  Part 27 of the Commission's Rules does not contain a limitation on the amount of spectrum a
licensee may aggregate for each geographic area.  Consistent with the existing Part 27 Rules, we
tentatively conclude that we will permit licensees in the 4.9 GHz band to obtain all of the 4.9 GHz licenses
in a given geographic area.  This tentative conclusion is consistent with the proposal put forth by Global. 
We believe that the flexibility this approach permits will help licensees operating in the 4.9 GHz band to
offer regional and national services, and will therefore create interest in the commercial development of the
4.9 GHz band.  By permitting licensees to acquire all of the spectrum in a given geographic area, licensees
will be able to offer a wider variety of services and this flexibility in turn should create more consumer
interest in these services.  The more consumer interest there is in a service, the more likely a licensee will
offer this service on a regional or national basis.
36.  In addition, we believe that a spectrum cap is not necessary to prevent a 4.9 GHz licensee from
exercising market power.  The Commission has made available ample spectrum in other bands for licensees
to offer services that likely will compete with those offered by 4.9 GHz licensees.  We seek comment on
our tentative conclusion not to impose a geographic area spectrum aggregation limit on 4.9 GHz licensees. 
Commenters that oppose our proposal should provide a rationale for whatever limit they deem appropriate,
considering the varying bandwidth requirements of the different types of services that could be offered over
the 4.9 GHz band.  In addition, commenters who advocate a spectrum cap should discuss why the
availability of spectrum in other bands does not eliminate the need for a spectrum cap.
37.  The current spectrum cap applicable to CMRS licensees covers broadband Personal
Communications Service (PCS), cellular, and certain covered Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) services,
and, therefore, by its terms does not apply to licensees in the 4.9 GHz band.   We tentatively conclude not
to extend this cap with respect to those licensees in the 4.9 GHz band who may be operating as CMRS
providers.  This approach is consistent with the decision the Commission reached in the GWCS Second
Report and Order and the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz First Report and Order.  We seek comment on
this tentative conclusion.
    3.  Foreign Ownership Restrictions
38.  Sections 310(a) and 310(b) of the Communications Act impose foreign ownership and
citizenship requirements that restrict the issuance of licenses to certain applicants.  Section 27.12 of the
Commission's Rules, which implements Section 310 of the Act, would by its terms apply to applicants for
licenses in the 4.9 GHz band.  An applicant requesting authorization only for non-common carrier services
would be subject to Section 310(a) but not to the additional prohibitions of Section 310(b).  An applicant
requesting authorization for common carrier services (or for both common carrier and non-common carrier
services) would be subject to both Section 310 (a) and 310(b).
39.  In the filing of an application under the Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS), satellite, and
Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) rules, the Commission requires any applicant electing non-
common carrier status to submit the same information that common carrier applicants submit to address
the alien ownership restrictions under Section 310(b) of the Act.  We propose to follow the same approach
in the case of applicants for the 4.9 GHz spectrum.  Under our proposal to permit licensees to change
status with a minimum of regulatory oversight, updated information can be used whenever the licensee
changes to common carrier status without imposing an additional filing requirement when the licensee
makes the change.  We seek comment on this proposal.
40.  Like common carriers, non-common carriers would be required under our proposal to file the
information whenever there are changes to their foreign ownership information.  Under our proposed rules,
however, we would not disqualify an applicant requesting authorization exclusively to provide non-common
carrier services if its citizenship information reflects that it would be disqualified from a common carrier
license or required to file a waiver.  As the Commission stated in the Satellite Rules Report and Order and
in the LMDS Second Report and Order, the Commission is requiring non-common carriers to address all
the alien ownership prohibitions to better enable the Commission to monitor all of the licensed providers in
light of their ability to provide both common and non-common carrier services.  We request comment on
this proposal.
    4.  Geographic Areas and Spectrum Blocks
41.  The band 4660-4685 MHz was to be licensed using Economic Areas (EAs) and EA-like areas.
  There are 172 EAs, as defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce, and three additional Commission-
defined EA-like areas.  In addition, for the band 4660-4685 MHz each EA and EA-like area was to be
composed of five channel blocks,  and each channel block was to be 5 megahertz wide.  As a result, for
the band 4660-4685 MHz, the Commission's rules provided for 875 licenses.
42.  The Commission has licensed or proposed to license other spectrum using EAs, and EA-like
areas.  Specifically, the Commission has licensed the bands 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz using EAs
and has proposed to use EAs to license the 24 GHz band.  The Commission has also used larger
geographic areas to license spectrum.  For instance, the Commission licensed the 2.3 GHz band using the
twelve Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAs) and the 52 Major Economic Areas (MEAs).  REAs
and MEAs are also based on the 172 EAs, as modified by the Commission.  More recently, the
Commission has chosen to license the bands 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz using the even larger
Economic Area Groupings (EAGs).   There are six EAGs and these are as well based on EAs.
43.  We seek comment on the appropriate geographic area to use for licensing the 4.9 GHz band. 
We are mindful of the competing need to provide large enough service areas for those wishing to provide
national services in the 4.9 GHz band and the need to chose a geographic licensing area that will permit the
dissemination of 4.9 GHz licenses among the largest number of entities.  We also wish to ensure service to
rural areas and to promote investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and services.  If
commenters support licensing based on service territories other than those discussed above, they should
discuss why other types of service areas are more appropriate.
44.  We note that whatever service area is used to license the 4.9 GHz band some of those service
areas will be substantially affected by the radio astronomy geographic areas identified in revised footnote
US311 to the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, and addressed in the section on allocation above.  In
recognition of this issue, we seek comment on whether we should adjust the licensing areas to take into
account the radio astronomy geographic areas.  We also seek comment on whether we should license the
Gulf of Mexico as part of larger service areas, as we did for the upper 700 MHz bands, or whether we
should separately license a service area or service areas to cover the Gulf of Mexico.  Commenters who
advocate a service area or areas to cover the Gulf of Mexico should discuss what boundaries should be
used and whether a special interference protection criteria or performance requirements are necessary due
to the unique radio propagation characteristic and antenna siting challenges that exist for Gulf licensees.
45.  We also seek comment on the appropriate size spectrum block or blocks that should be used to
license the 4.9 GHz band.  In keeping with the Commission's original approach to the band 4660-4685
MHz, the 4.9 GHz band could be divided into ten 5 megahertz wide channel blocks.  Global has requested
that the spectrum be divided into five 10 megahertz wide spectrum blocks.  Alternatively, we seek
comment on whether this spectrum should be auctioned in two 25 MHz licenses. We seek comment on
whether larger or smaller blocks would provide more options for services provided by licensees in the band. 
For instance, larger spectrum blocks might better facilitate provision of broadband services by licensees. 
We also request comment on whether we should adopt a channelization plan that provides for different
sized blocks.  We further request comment on what impact a variety of blocks of different sizes would have
on the diversity of the types of service offered to consumers, the adequacy of spectrum for flexible uses, the
time necessary to implement the grants, and the ability of small business to provide niche services.
46.  We request comment on whether the spectrum should be auctioned in paired spectrum blocks. 
For instance, under one approach, we could pair 5 MHz spectrum blocks into licenses of 10 MHz. 
Alternatively, we could pair two 12.5 MHz channel blocks into 25 MHz licenses.  This licensing approach
would provide each licensee with a separate transmit and receive channel and would, therefore, work with
traditional wireless network architectures.
47.  We also seek comment on whether we should license unpaired spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band. 
This alternative approach could save time and resources, and also could expedite the development and
offering of services.  While paired spectrum is ideal for such services as frequency division duplex (FDD)
services, it is unnecessary for one-way or time division duplex (TDD) communications.  By allocating
spectrum in unpaired blocks, licensees planning to offer these types of services would not be required to
acquire more spectrum than they need for their operations.  We also seek comment on whether we should
make any changes to our bidding rules to promote bidder flexibility.
    5.  License Term; Renewal Expectancy
48.  Section 27.13 of the Commission's Rules provides for authorizations for license terms not to
exceed 10 years from the date of original issuance or renewal.  Section 27.14 of the Commission's Rules
establishes a right to a renewal expectancy.  We seek comment on whether to apply these license term and
renewal expectancy provisions in the case of licensees in the 4.9 GHz band.  We seek comment on whether
a 10-year license term, combined with a renewal expectancy, will help to provide a stable regulatory
environment that will be attractive to investors and thereby encourage development of this spectrum.  We
also seek comment on whether a license term longer than 10 years is appropriate to achieve these goals and
better serve the public interest.  Commenters who favor a license term in excess of ten years should specify
the appropriate license term and include a basis for the period proposed. 
49.  Consistent with Part 27, we propose that in the event that a license is partitioned or
disaggregated, any partitionee or disaggregatee shall be authorized to hold its license for the remainder of
the original licensee's 10-year term, and the partitionee or disaggregatee may obtain a renewal expectancy
on the same basis as other licensees in the 4.9 GHz band.  We further propose that all licensees meeting
the substantial service requirement will be deemed to have met this part of the renewal expectancy
requirement regardless of which of the construction options the licensees have chosen.  We tentatively
conclude that this approach is appropriate because a licensee, through partitioning, should not be able to
confer greater rights than it was awarded under the terms of its license grant.  We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion.
50.  In addition, in order to claim a renewal expectancy, we seek comment on our tentative
conclusion that a 4.9 GHz licensee involved in a comparative renewal proceeding must include at a
minimum the following showing required by Section 27.14(c) of the Commission's Rules:
         A description of current service in terms of geographic coverage and population served or links
      installed.
         An explanation of the licensee's record of expansion, including a timetable for the construction of
      new base sites or links to meet changes in demand for service.
   A description of the licensee's investments in its system.
         Copies of any Commission Orders finding the licensee to have violated the Communications Act
      or any Commission rule or policy, and a list of any pending proceedings that relate to any matter
      described by the requirements for the renewal expectancy.
    6.  Partitioning and Disaggregation of Licenses
51.  On December 20, 1996, the Commission released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
proposing, among other actions, to revise the partitioning rules for the band 4660-4685 MHz and to
establish disaggregation rules for this band.  The proposals contained in that notice are superseded by the
proposals below and that proceeding is terminated to the extent that it addressed partitioning and
disaggregation rules for the band 4660-4685 MHz.
52.  We hereby tentatively conclude to allow all 4.9 GHz licensees the flexibility to partition their
service areas without any restriction, and to disaggregate their spectrum.  This approach is consistent with
Global's request and we tentatively conclude that geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation can
result in efficient spectrum use and economic opportunity for a wide variety of applicants, including small
business, rural telephone, minority-owned, and women-owned applicants, as required by Section
309(j)(4)(C) of the Communications Act.  We also tentatively conclude that our proposed approach will
provide a means to overcome entry barriers through the creation of smaller licenses that require less capital,
thereby facilitating greater participation by rural telephone companies and other smaller entities, many of
which are owned by minorities and women.
53.  Section 27.15 of the Commission's Rules permits licensees seeking approval for partitioning
and disaggregation arrangements to request authorization from the Commission for partial assignment of a
license, and provides that licensees may apply to partition their licensed geographic service areas or
disaggregate their licensed spectrum at any time following the grant of their licenses.  In adopting the rule,
the Commission decided to permit geographic partitioning of any service area defined by the partitioner and
partitionee, to permit spectrum disaggregation without restriction on the amount of spectrum to be
disaggregated, and to permit combined partitioning and disaggregation.  The Commission concluded that
allowing parties to decide without restriction the exact amount of spectrum to be disaggregated will
encourage more efficient use of the spectrum and permit the deployment of a broader mix of service
offerings, both of which will lead to a more competitive wireless marketplace.  We request comment on
our proposal that licensees in the 4.9 GHz band be eligible to the same extent to partition service areas and
disaggregate spectrum.  We also request comment on what limits, if any, should be placed on the ability of
licensees to partition service areas and disaggregate spectrum.
54.  Section 27.15(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules provides that, in the case of partitioning,
applicants and licensees must file FCC Form 603 and list the partitioned service area on a schedule to the
application.  Section 27.15(c) contains provisions against unjust enrichment in order to address situations
where a licensee under Part 27 who received a bidding credit partitions a section of its service area or
disaggregates a portion of its spectrum to an entity that would not qualify for a similar bidding credit.  We
propose to apply these provisions, as well as the remaining provisions governing partitioning and
disaggregation in Section 27.15 of the Commission's Rules, to 4.9 GHz licensees.
55.  We also seek comment on our proposal to apply the methods that the Commission adopted in
the Part 27 Report and Order for parties to partitioning, disaggregation, or combined partitioning and
disaggregation agreements to meet construction requirements, and to codify these methods for 2.3 GHz
licensees.  Specifically, we propose to allow parties to partitioning agreements to choose between two
options for satisfying the construction requirements.  Under the first option, the partitioner and partitionee
would each certify that it will independently satisfy the substantial service requirement for its respective
partitioned area.  If a licensee fails to meet its substantial service requirement during the relevant license
term, the non-performing licensee's authorization would be subject to cancellation at the end of the license
term.  Under the second option, the partitioner certifies that it has met or will meet the substantial service
requirement for the entire market.  If the partitioner fails to meet the substantial service standard during the
relevant license term, however, only its license would be subject to cancellation at the end of the license
term.  The partitionee's license would not be affected by that failure.
56.  Our proposal to offer two options to partitioning parties is based on our tentative conclusion
that licensees in the 4.9 GHz band may be motivated to enter into partitioning arrangements for different
reasons and under various circumstances.  For example, a 4.9 GHz licensee might be motivated to partition
its license in order to reduce its construction costs.  In that case, the original licensee would have less
population to cover in order to meet its substantial service requirement.  Thus, it may find the first option
more attractive for its purposes.  Under another scenario, a 4.9 GHz licensee who has met or is close to
meeting its substantial service requirement may be approached by another entity interested in serving a 
niche  market in a portion of the service area.  Under these circumstances, the second option may seem
more attractive to the parties.  In either instance, the public interest is advanced by permitting that
flexibility, in terms of service areas and niche markets, conducive to optimizing the viability and value of
the licenses partitioned, while precluding circumvention of our construction requirements.
57.  Finally, we propose to allow parties to disaggregation agreements to choose between two
options for satisfying the construction requirements.  Under the first option, the disaggregator and
disaggregatee would certify that they each will share responsibility for meeting the substantial service
requirement for the geographic service area.  If parties choose this option, both parties' performance will be
evaluated at the end of the relevant license term and both licenses could be subject to cancellation.  The
second option would allow the parties to agree that either the disaggregator or the disaggregatee would be
responsible for meeting the substantial service requirement for the geographic service area.  If parties
choose this option, and the party responsible for meeting the construction requirement fails to do so, only
the license of the non-performing party would be subject to cancellation.  As with partitioned licenses,
providing these options preserves the public interest in developing the spectrum to the same degree as that
required had the disaggregation (or partitioning) not occurred.
    7.  Performance Requirements
58.  Section 27.14(a) of the Commission's Rules requires 2.3 GHz licensees to provide
"substantial service" in their service areas within 10 years of being licensed, and also states that a failure to
meet this requirement will result in forfeiture of the license and the licensee's ineligibility to regain it.  This
section defines substantial service "as service which is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of
mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal."  The Part 27 Report and Order provided
several examples of safe harbors that would demonstrate substantial service.  Later, for LMDS, the
Commission adopted the same build-out requirement and safe harbor provisions.  Recently, the
Commission adopted these same safe harbor provisions for the bands 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz. 
We propose that licensees in the 4.9 GHz band be governed by the same construction standards, including
the same safe harbor provisions.
59.  Our construction proposal includes the requirement that licensees submit an acceptable
showing to the Commission at the end of the license period demonstrating that they have provided
substantial service during the license term or are providing substantial service at the end of the term.  We
propose to amend Part 27 to adopt the following safe harbors that would be applicable to 2.3 GHz
licensees, as well as 4.9 GHz licensees: 
         For a licensee who chooses to offer fixed, point-to-point services, the construction of four
      permanent links per one million people in its licensed service area during its license term or at the
      license-renewal mark would constitute substantial service.
         For a licensee who chooses to offer mobile services or point-to-multipoint services, a
      demonstration of coverage to 20 percent of the population of its licensed service area during its
      licensed term or at the license-renewal mark would constitute substantial service.
We recognize that the second safe harbor proposal for licensees who choose to offer mobile or point-to-
multipoint services is different from our safe harbor proposal for licensees who choose to offer these kinds
of services at 24 GHz.  Unlike at 24 GHz, however, there are no commercial licensees already offering
services at 4.9 GHz.  For 4.9 GHz licensees, therefore, there might be equipment availability issues that do
not exist for 24 GHz licensees.
60.  Our safe harbor proposals are intended to provide licensees an opportunity to achieve certainty
as to compliance with the substantial service requirement during or by the end of the initial license term.  If
they comply with the safe harbors, they will have met the substantial service requirement.  In addition, the
substantial service requirement could be met in other ways, and we propose to review licensees' showings
on a case-by-case basis.  In reviewing licensees' showings, we propose to consider such factors as whether
the licensee is offering a specialized or technologically sophisticated service that does not require wide
coverage to be of benefit to customers, and whether the licensee's operations serve niche markets or focus
on serving populations outside of areas served by other licensees.  Although licensees will have incentives
to construct facilities to meet the service demands in their licensed service areas, we tentatively conclude
that the minimum requirements we propose for the 4.9 GHz band will promote efficient use of the
spectrum, encourage the provision of service to rural, remote, and insular areas, and prevent the
warehousing of spectrum.
61.  We tentatively conclude that these build-out provisions fulfill our obligations under Section
309(j)(4)(B) of the Act.  We also tentatively conclude that the auction rules that we propose to apply to
these services, together with the service rules that we are proposing and our overall competition and
universal service policies, constitute effective safeguards and performance requirements for licensing this
spectrum.  Because a license would be assigned in the first instance through competitive bidding, it will be
assigned efficiently to a licensee that has shown by its willingness to pay market value its intention to put
the spectrum to use.  We also believe that, combined with the universal service policies of the 1996 Act,
service to rural areas will be promoted by our proposal to allow partitioning of service areas and
disaggregation of spectrum and by our proposal, as outlined below, to permit parties to disaggregation and
partitioning agreements to negotiate between themselves the responsibility for meeting the applicable
construction requirements.
62.  Finally, under this proposed approach, we intend to reserve the right to review our construction
requirements in the future if we receive complaints related to Section 309(j)(4)(B), or if a reassessment is
warranted because spectrum is being warehoused or is otherwise not being used despite demand.  We will
also reserve the right to impose additional, more stringent construction requirements on licenses in the
future in the event that actual anticompetitive or universal service problems develop.  We solicit comment
on these proposals and views regarding performance requirements.
    8.  Public Notice
63.  Section 309(b) and Section 309(d) of the Communications Act require public notice for initial
applications and substantial amendments thereto filed by radio common carriers.   These requirements
state that no such application shall be granted earlier than 30 days following the issuance of public notice
by the Commission, and that the Commission may not require petitions to deny such applications to be filed
earlier than 30 days following the public notice.  The same provisions also grant the Commission the
authority to impose public notice requirements for other licenses, even though public notice is not required
by the statute.  However, the administrative procedures for spectrum auctions adopted by Section 3008 of
the BBA-97 permit the Commission to shorten notice periods in the auction context to a five-day petition
to deny period and a  seven-day public notice period, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 309(b) of
the Communications Act.
64.  In the Part 1 Third Report and Order the Commission exercised this statutory authority, and
amended Section 1.2108(b) and Section 1.2108(c) of the Commission's Rules to provide for a five-day
period for filing petitions to deny and a seven-day public notice period for all auctionable services.  We
tentatively conclude below that services in the 4.9 GHz  band will be auctionable services, so that the
seven-day public notice period is applicable.  We therefore seek comment on our tentative conclusion that
the seven-day public notice period is applicable for applicants for spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band seeking to
provide common carrier or non-common carrier services.  We note, however, that in the Part 1 Second
Further Notice the Commission has sought comment regarding whether longer periods should be applicable
for some services.
D.   Operating Rules
    1.  General Common Carrier Obligations; Forbearance
65.  Title II of the Communications Act imposes a variety of obligations on the operations of
common carriers that are not otherwise imposed on wireless communications services.  In addition to the
alien ownership restrictions and the licensing requirements for public notice in Title III of the
Communications Act, discussed above, there are a number of operational requirements that apply to
common carriers, including the filing of tariffs, maintaining of records, liabilities, and discontinuance of
service.  While Section 332(c)(1)(A) of the Communications Act mandates common carrier treatment for
CMRS, this same Section provides that the Commission may specify by regulation that certain of the Title
II provisions setting forth such requirements for common carriers will be inapplicable to CMRS.  In the
CMRS Second Report and Order, the Commission, pursuant to Section 332(c)(1)(A), promulgated Section
20.15 of its Rules, specifying those Title II requirements that would apply to CMRS, and those that would
not.  Common carriers that are providing mobile service under the Commission's rules applicable to
services in the 4.9 GHz band would be classified as CMRS, and therefore these Section 20.15 requirements
and exemptions would apply to such 4.9 GHz licensees.  Under the exemptions for CMRS providers
specified in Section 20.15, CMRS providers (including those who would operate in the 4.9 GHz band) are
not required to file contracts of service, seek authority for interlocking directors, submit applications for
new facilities or discontinuance of existing facilities, or file tariffs.
66.  While common carriers that offer fixed services in the 4.9 GHz band would not be exempt
from those specific provisions pursuant to Section 20.15, they are exempt, like all common carriers, from
having to seek authority for interlocking directorates.  Furthermore, the Commission has forborne from
enforcing certain requirements on nondominant common carriers that would apply to wireless nondominant
fixed common carriers using this spectrum.  For instance, the Commission has granted permissive
detariffing for provision of interstate exchange access services by providers other than the incumbent local
exchange carrier.  We have also recently amended Section 63.71 of the Commission's Rules to provide for
the automatic grant of a nondominant carrier's application for discontinuance after 31 days.
67.   The 1996 Act provides the Commission with the authority to forbear from Title II
requirements.  The Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment regarding
forbearance from applying any regulation or provision of the Communications Act to wireless
telecommunications carriers licensed by the Commission.  This proceeding covers regulations and
provisions of the Communications Act that affect wireless common carriers offering fixed services. 
Decisions we take in that proceeding would accordingly apply to common carriers offering fixed services
under Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, including 4.9 GHz licensees and 2.3 GHz licensees.
68.  We seek comment in this proceeding on whether we should exercise our authority to forbear
from enforcing the same Title II requirements that the Commission has determined not to apply to CMRS
licensees for 4.9 GHz and 2.3 GHz licensees that provide common carrier fixed services.  The statute
requires that, before forbearing from applying any section of Title II, the Commission must find that each
of the following applies:
         (1)   Enforcement of such regulation or provision is not
        necessary in order 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.  
In applying the last criteria, the Commission is directed to consider
whether forbearance from enforcing the provision or regulation will
promote competitive market conditions, including the extent to which
such forbearance will enhance competition among providers of
telecommunications services.  If the Commission determines that such
forbearance will promote competition among providers, that
determination may be the basis for finding that forbearance is in the
public interest.
69.  We seek comment on application of each of these three criteria in the context of fixed services
that may be offered in the 4.9 GHz band and in the context of fixed services in the 2.3 GHz band.  Under
the first two parts of the test, we request comment on the definition of consumer, what information we
should consider when performing these evaluations, and examples of applying these tests in evaluating
whether forbearance is appropriate.  With respect to the third criteria, we seek comment on the appropriate
market that would apply to fixed, common carrier licensees in the 4.9 GHz band and in the 2.3 GHz band. 
Commenters should also address whether the level of competition in the marketplace for fixed common
carrier services is sufficient to permit us to forbear.
    2.  Equal Employment Opportunity
70.  Part 27 does not include an explicit Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) provision.  Nor
does Part 24.  We note that there are specific EEO provisions for fixed service providers in Parts 21 and
101, including both common carrier and non-common carrier LMDS licensees; and for common carrier
mobile service providers in Parts 22 and 90 of the Commission's Rules, though these latter provisions do
not apply to PMRS providers because they are not common carriers.  
71.  We seek comment regarding whether to include an EEO provision in the Commission's rules
applicable to services in the 4.9 GHz band and, if so, which of the Commission's EEO rules we should
adopt.  Commenters should address the advisability of having different EEO requirements depending on the
service a licensee provides.  Commenters supporting the adoption of EEO requirements should address
what statutory authority should be invoked to support these requirements and how these rules should be
tailored to withstand judicial review.  We also solicit comment on whether the Commission's EEO rules
should apply to licensees at 2.3 GHz.
E.   Technical Rules
72.  The application of general provisions of Part 27 would include technical standards relating to
power limits, equipment authorization, Radiofrequency (RF) safety standards, emission limits,
frequency stability, antenna structures and air navigation safety, international coordination, and
disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns.  In addition, other technical standards contained in
other sections of the Commission's rules would apply to 4.9 GHz licensees.  These standards would
include, among others, Part 17 (antenna registration), Section 1.924 (quiet zones), and 1.1307
(environmental requirements).  We tentatively conclude that all of these technical rules and the technical
rules discussed below would apply to all 4.9 GHz licensees, regardless of the actual service provided or
technology used, including those licensees who acquire licenses through partitioning of service areas or
disaggregation of spectrum.  We seek comment on these proposals.
    1.  In-Band Interference Control
73.  Section 27.55 of the Commission's Rules provides that the field strength at any location on the
border of  a 2.3 GHz licensee's service area shall not exceed 47 dBuV/m unless licensees operating in
adjacent areas agree to a higher field strength along their mutual borders.   In addition to Part 27, we note
that the Commission has permitted flexibility in services and technologies in other frequency bands, such as
cellular service and PCS.  In these cases, as with Part 27 services, the Commission generally has addressed
the control of co-channel interference between licensees in adjacent geographic regions by establishing field
strength limits at the edge of the service areas and encouraging the licensees to resolve interference
problems on their own before coming to the Commission.
74.  Because development of services and technologies that will use the 4.9 GHz band is just
beginning, we do not have reliable information at this time regarding the technical parameters for services
that will be offered.  We recognize that licensees will be permitted to implement a broad range of services
and technologies in this spectrum, and that the implementation of these services and technologies must take
into account the potential for interference between licensees using the same spectrum in adjacent service
areas.
75.  We also note that the Commission has recently concluded two rulemaking proceedings
concerning fixed services at 28 GHz and 39 GHz.  In those two proceedings, the Commission relied
principally upon the use of coordination procedures to avoid harmful interference between the operations of
licensees in adjacent service areas.  Specifically, licensees are required to follow the appropriate provisions
of Section 101.103 of the Commission's Rules when they construct new facilities or modify existing
facilities within a certain distance of the edge of their licensed service areas.  In the case of 28 GHz LMDS
licensees, this distance is 20 kilometers; for 39 GHz licensees the distance is 16 kilometers.  In deciding to
use a coordination requirement instead of a field strength limit in the 39 GHz  proceeding, the Commission
noted a lack of consensus regarding the appropriate power flux density or field strength limit, and
expressed concern about adopting a limit without such information.
76.  The situation for licensees in the 4.9 GHz band differs somewhat from both of these situations. 
Under our proposed rules, 4.9 GHz licensees will have the flexibility to provide mobile, except aeronautical
mobile, and fixed services.  In this respect they have operational flexibility similar to 2.3 GHz licensees,
who are subject to a field strength limit at the service area boundary.  On the other hand, the principal use
for the 4.9 GHz band might be for fixed services, as in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, which are subject to
a general coordination procedure.
77.  We believe that either method, when properly applied, can provide a satisfactory means of
controlling harmful interference between systems, although, on balance, there may be reasons to prefer one
over the other in the 4.9 GHz band.  For example, a general coordination requirement may minimize the
potential for interference to coordinated facilities but may also impose unnecessary coordination costs for
facilities with a low potential for interference, and increase the potential for undesirable strategic or anti-
competitive behavior.  A field strength limit, on the other hand, may reduce the need for coordination by
giving licensees the ability unilaterally to deploy facilities in boundary areas as long as the limit is met, but
by itself may provide insufficient assurance against interference to such facilities.  Even with a boundary
field strength limit, some degree of coordination and joint planning between bordering licensees appears
likely to be needed to ensure efficient spectrum use on each side of the boundary.
78.  Parties are therefore asked to provide their analyses of the advantages and disadvantages of
both approaches or, possibly, other approaches that combine the elements of both a boundary field strength
limit and a coordination requirement.  Comments should address the advantages of different approaches in
controlling interference across geographic boundaries in the 4.9 GHz band, the kinds of incentives each
may create for undesirable strategic or anti-competitive behavior, and the effect on licensee costs.
79.  If we do adopt a general coordination approach, we tentatively conclude that such coordination
would be required with co-channel 4.9 GHz licensees in adjacent geographic service areas and with
adjacent channel 4.9 GHz licensees in adjacent geographic service areas, as well as the same or overlapping
area.  We propose to have each licensee coordinate with licensees in other relevant areas and develop
agreements.  We note that for 28 GHz LMDS and 39 GHz licensees, the need for coordination is triggered
based on the distance that the station will be from the licensees' service area boundary.  Instead of
specifying a fixed distance, we propose that licensees coordinate their facilities whenever their facilities
have line-of-sight into co-channel and adjacent channel licensee facilities.  Under our proposal, both types
of coordination must be successfully completed before operation is permitted.  In the event that there is no
4.9 GHz licensee immediately available in an adjacent, same or overlapping area, the licensee must be
prepared to coordinate its stations in the future in order to accommodate other licensees to ensure
cooperative and effective use of the spectrum in each area.  We solicit comment on these coordination
procedures and criteria.
80.  We also seek comment on what, if any, power limits (in terms of equivalent isotropically
radiated power (EIRP) or effective radiated power (ERP)) are necessary or appropriate under either a
coordination or field strength limit approach.  We observe that transmitters used in the private land mobile
service, cellular radio service, and point-to-point microwave services typically employ substantially
different output powers.  Accordingly, if commenters believe that power limits are necessary, we invite
comments as to what those limits should be and the basis for the suggested limits.  We also solicit views as
to whether we should establish limits on output power for all transmitters, or just mobile equipment.  We
note that it is often more difficult to control interference from mobile equipment, which can operate
anywhere throughout an area.
81.  If commenters believe that the Commission should apply a field strength limit at service area
boundaries for the 4.9 GHz band as a means to control interference to neighboring systems, then an
analysis should be presented to justify the use of any proposed value.  Various maximum field strengths
have been prescribed by the Commission for other services.  These include 47 dBuV/m for PCS and 55
dBuV/m for 4660-4685 MHz licenses.  In Section 27.55 of the Commission's Rules, the Commission
adopted a field strength limit of 47 dBuV/m for licensees in the 2.3 GHz band.  Therefore, commenters
who support a boundary limit should propose a specific value and explain the method they have used in
deriving it.
82.  Section 27.64 of the Commission's Rules states generally that Part 27 stations operating in
full accordance with applicable Commission rules and the terms and conditions of their authorizations are
normally considered to be non-interfering, and provides for Commission action, after notice and hearing, to
require modifications to eliminate significant interference.  In view of the variety of services that might be
provided by Part 27 licensees, including 4.9 GHz licensees, we seek comment on whether we should modify
or delete this rule.  Commenters should address whether interference protection can be guaranteed and
whether this rule, if retained, should be changed to direct adjacent service area licensees to cooperate to
eliminate or ameliorate interference.  This alternative would require each licensee ultimately to assume
responsibility for protecting its own receiving system from interference from transmitters in adjoining areas
that meet our standards.  We also seek comment on whether we should apply any changes with respect to
Section 27.64 to the 2.3 GHz band.
83.  Finally, in order to protect radio astronomy operations, we are seeking comment on whether
power limits and coordination procedures should be imposed on 4.9 GHz licensees operating in those
geographic areas defined in revised footnote US311 to the Table of Frequency Allocations.  We request
comment on whether restrictions on operations should be imposed in order to adequately protect radio
astronomy operations.  Commenters who believe that we should allow fixed or mobile operations, except
aeronautical mobile, in the designated geographic areas should present specific recommendations for
ensuring that interference to radio astronomy operations does not occur. 
    2.  U.S. Navy Cooperative Engagement Capability System
84.  The Cooperative Engagement Capability ("CEC") system  is a major new networking system
being developed by the military to provide connectivity between air, land, and sea units for Theater Air
Defense.  The system will operate in the band immediately below the 4.9 GHz band.  In order to minimize
mutual interference between the CEC system and prospective licensees operating in the 4.9 GHz band,
certain CEC technical characteristics have been released so that 4.9 GHz equipment can be designed to
reduce susceptibility to interference.
85.  The CEC operates on multiple frequencies in the bands below the 4.9 GHz band.  The
authorized bandwidth of the transmitted signal on a specific frequency is 22 MHz.  In order to comply with
NTIA regulations, the CEC-authorized bandwidth will be contained wholly within the adjacent Federal
band so that it does not interfere with the 4.9 GHz band.  To achieve this objective, the center frequency of
any CEC transmitted signal will not fall above the frequency 4929 MHz.
86.  The CEC system employs high power transmitters with directional antennas to achieve a
maximum EIRP of 58 dBW (630 Kw).  Under most deployment scenarios, this maximum EIRP level will
be directed towards the operational areas or out to sea.  Under certain conditions, however, this maximum
EIRP value may be directed at the horizon and inland from aircraft operating in the operational areas.  The
CEC emission characteristic was designed to be spectrally efficient to exceed NTIA requirements for
unwanted emissions.  Specific spectral parameters as identified by NTIA are as follows:
     CEC Out-of-Band Emissions
     1.  At +/- 7.65 MHz from the transmitter center frequency   -3 dBc
     2.  At +/- 12.1 MHz from the transmitter center frequency   -30 dBc
     Transmitter Noise at greater than +/- 25.6 MHz from the transmitter center frequency Less
     than  145 dBc/Hz
     Harmonics and Spurious   Less than  80 dBc
87.  The locations in which large numbers of CEC nodes will be operating include a number of
Naval and joint military exercise areas.  CEC units will be located on ships and aircraft, and at land based
sites.  The normal operating areas are coastal waters and the contiguous land mass that extends 30 nautical
miles inland.  The operating altitude of CEC-equipped aircraft will typically extend to 35,000 feet.
88.  The Department of Commerce identified ten areas as essential to support training with a large
number of cooperating units in a CEC network.  The technical parameters and operational areas on
adjacent band Federal spectrum use were provided for information so that potential auction bidders could
make informed decisions.  The significance of these areas is that airborne CEC units with high power
transmitters are expected to be flown directly overhead and extend out to sea in and around existing
military operational areas.  These ten areas will affect 91 EAs.
89.  We seek comment on what measures should be taken to protect the 4.9 GHz licensees from
interference from Federal Government use of the adjacent band.  While we seek to protect 4.9 GHz
licensees from interference, we also wish to provide 4.9 GHz licensees operating in the affected EAs with
as much flexibility as possible in terms of the types of services they can offer and the types of systems they
can install.  We seek comment on whether certain technical standards should be imposed on 4.9 GHz
licensees to meet these goals.
     F.   Competitive Bidding Procedures
7.   In 1998 we revised most of the auction rules for the band 4660-4685 MHz, which was
previously allocated to the service that is now proposed for the 4.9 GHz band.  Specifically, we replaced
most of the Part 26 auction rules with streamlined Part 1 rules.  With regard to auction provisions for
designated entities, we simplified the definition of small business, eliminated installment payments, and
increased the bidding credit.  Furthermore, we directed the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to
determine the competitive bidding mechanisms, upfront payments, and minimum opening bids that will
apply to the band 4660-4685 MHz. 
8.   Below we propose to use the Part 1 auction rules to initially license the 4.9 GHz band.  In
addition, under our proposal, the remaining Part 26 auction rules for the band 4660-4685 MHz would be
moved to Part 27 and made applicable to the 4.9 GHz band.
    1.  Statutory Requirements
9.   The BBA-97 amended Section 309(j) of the Act to require the Commission to award mutually
exclusive applications for initial licenses or permits using competitive bidding procedures, with very limited
exceptions.  Thus, if not exempted by the statute, a service will be auctionable if we implement a licensing
process that permits the filing and acceptance of mutually exclusive applications.  In establishing particular
licensing schemes or methodologies, the Commission is required to consider the public interest objectives
described in section 309(j)(3).
10.  Pursuant to Section 309(j)(6)(E) of the Act, the Commission has an "obligation in the public
interest to continue to use engineering solutions, negotiation, threshold qualifications, service regulations,
and other means in order to avoid mutual exclusivity in application and licensing proceedings."  In the
BBA-97, Congress highlighted the Commission's obligation under Section 309(j)(6)(E) by referencing that
obligation in the general auction authority provision.  Global argues in its Petition for Rulemaking that the
Commission should fulfill its obligation under Section 309(j)(6)(E) by seeking to avoid mutual exclusivity
through engineering solutions achieved by negotiation among applicants after the filing of short-form
auction applications.  The Commission recently sought comment on the scope and content of the
Commission's obligation under Section 309(j)(6)(E).   In determining whether to assign licenses in the 4.9
GHz band through competitive bidding, we intend to adhere to any conclusions we reach in the Balanced
Budget Act proceeding regarding the scope of our auction authority, in light of our conclusions concerning
our obligations under Section 309(j)(6)(E).
11.  As discussed above, we propose to license the 4.9 GHz band using a licensing system based on
geographic areas.  Because we have tentatively concluded that it would serve the public interest to
implement a geographic area licensing scheme under which mutual exclusivity is possible, we also
tentatively conclude that mutually exclusive initial applications for the 4.9 GHz band must be resolved
through competitive bidding.  We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.   We also note that the
Commission previously concluded that GWCS spectrum, originally allocated at 4660-4685 MHz, should
be assigned by auction in case of mutually exclusive applications.  In the BBA NPRM, we reiterated our
conclusion that the Commission will not re-examine previous determinations that specific services or
frequency bands were auctionable under the 1993 Budget Act.  Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that
our previous determination of auctionability is dispositive here with regard to the substituted spectrum. 
12.  Section 3002 of the BBA-97 also directs the Commission to provide for the "design and
conduct  (for purposes of testing) of competitive bidding using a contingent combinatorial bidding system
that permits prospective bidders to bid on combinations or groups of licenses in single bid and to enter
multiple alternative bids within a single bidding round."  The Commission has contracted for the
development and testing of a means to employ combinatorial bidding in a spectrum auction environment. 
Should the combinatorial bidding tests produce a feasible and appropriate auction methodology, we seek
comment on whether the 4.9 GHz auction may present a suitable opportunity for the use of such
combinatorial procedures.
13.  Section 113(g) of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Organization Act generally does not require commercial licensees to reimburse the relocation costs of
federal entities that used frequencies reallocated to commercial uses pursuant to OBRA 1993.  Moreover,
the Department of Commerce has determined that successful bidders will not be required to compensate
Federal agencies required to relocate from the band 4940-4990 MHz.
    2.  Incorporation by Reference of Part 1 Standardized Auction Rules
14.  In the Part 1 Third Report and Order, the Commission streamlined its auction procedures by
adopting general competitive bidding rules applicable to all auctionable services, and, in the same
proceeding, issued a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making concerning designated entities and
attribution rules, among other issues.  We propose to conduct the auction for initial licenses in the 4.9
GHz band in conformity with the general competitive bidding rules set forth in Part 1, subpart Q of the
Commission's rules, and consistent with the bidding procedures that have been employed in previous
Commission auctions.  Specifically, we propose to employ the Part 1 rules governing designated entities,
application issues, payment issues, competitive bidding design, procedure and timing issues, and anti-
collusion.  These rules would be subject to any modifications that the Commission adopts in relation to the
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making.  We seek comment on this proposal and on whether any
of our Part 1 rules would be inappropriate in an auction for this service.
    3.  Provisions for Designated Entities
          a.  Background
15.  The Communications Act provides that, in developing competitive bidding procedures, the
Commission shall consider various statutory objectives and consider several alternative methods for
achieving them.  Specifically, the statute provides that, in establishing eligibility criteria and bidding
methodologies, the Commission shall:
     promot[e] economic opportunity and competition and ensur[e] that new and innovative technologies
     are readily accessible to the American people by avoiding excessive concentration of licenses and
     by disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including small businesses, rural
     telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women[.]
          b.  Small Business Definitions
16.  In the Competitive Bidding Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission stated
that it would define eligibility requirements for small businesses on a service-specific basis, taking into
account the capital requirements and other characteristics of each particular service in establishing the
appropriate threshold.  While the Part 1 Third Report and Order standardizes many auction rules, it
provides that the Commission will continue a service-by-service approach to defining small businesses. 
For the 4.9 GHz band, we propose to adopt the definitions the Commission adopted for broadband PCS for
"small" and "very small" businesses, which the Commission also adopted for 2.3 GHz and 39 GHz
applicants.  The Commission previously adopted the same definition for the band 4660-4685 MHz, which
is presently contained in Section 26.4 of the Commission rules.  We tentatively conclude that the capital
requirements are likely to be similar to the capital requirements in those services.  Specifically, we propose
to define a small business as any firm with average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not
in excess of $40 million. For entities that qualify as small businesses, we propose to provide a bidding
credit of 15 percent.
17.  We also seek to adopt small business size standards that afford licensees substantial flexibility. 
Thus, in addition to our proposal to adopt the general small business standard the Commission used in the
case of broadband PCS, 2.3 GHz, and 39 GHz licenses, we propose to adopt the definition for very small
businesses used for 39 GHz licenses and for the PCS C and F block licenses:  businesses with average
annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in excess of $15 million.  For entities that qualify as
very small businesses, we propose to provide a bidding credit of 25 percent.
18.  We seek comment on the use of these standards for services licensed in the 4.9 GHz band, with
particular focus on the appropriate definitions of small and very small businesses as they relate to the size
of the geographic area to be covered and the spectrum allocated to each license.  In discussing these issues,
commenters are requested to provide data demonstrating the build-out and other capital requirements for
services in the 4.9 GHz band, as well as the anticipated start-up costs for providing service, and how these
costs compare with costs for other services.  Commenters are invited to use comparisons with other
services for which the Commission has already established auction procedures as a basis for their
comments regarding the appropriate definitions for small and very small businesses.  Commenters also
should address to what extent, if any, the proposed size standards, with the applicable bidding credits,
would impact the ability of small businesses to acquire financing.  We also seek comment on the
advantages of a two-tiered standard, as opposed to a single size standard.
19.  Furthermore, we seek comment on whether the proposed designated entity provisions, if
adopted and applied to this service, would be sufficient to promote participation by businesses owned by
minorities and by women, and participation by rural telephone companies.  To the extent that commenters
propose additional provisions to ensure participation by minority-owned and women-owned businesses, we
also invite them to address how such provisions should be crafted to meet the relevant standards of judicial
review.
20.  In calculating gross revenues for purposes of small business eligibility in the 4.9 GHz auction,
we propose to attribute the gross revenues of the applicant, its controlling interests and its affiliates.  This
approach is consistent with our proposal in the Part 1 Second Further Notice, and is similar to the
attribution rules we have employed for the recent LMDS, 800 MHz SMR, and LMS auction proceedings. 
As we noted in the Part 1 Second Further Notice, under this proposed controlling interest standard we
would apply our comprehensive affiliation rule to all investors in the applicant.  Thus, passive interests
that were otherwise non-attributable would be attributable if they are affiliates under this rule.
                    IV.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A.   Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
21.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities of the policies and rules proposed in the Notice.  We request written public comment on the
analysis.  In order to fulfill the mandate of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 regarding
the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we ask a number of questions in our IRFA regarding the
prevalence of small businesses in the affected industries.
22.  Comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in this
rulemaking proceeding, but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to
the IRFA.  The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a
copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
B.   Paperwork Reduction Analysis
23.    This Notice contains either a proposed or modified information collection.  As part of our
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in this
Notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.  Public and agency comments are due at the
same time as other comments on this Notice; OMB comments are due 60 days from the date of publication
of this Notice in the Federal Register.  Comments should address:
         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.
         The accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates.
         Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected.
         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.
2.     Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information collections are
due April 26, 2000.  Written comments must be submitted by the OMB on the proposed and/or modified
information collections on or before 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.  In
addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections
contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804,
445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and to Virginia
Huth, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 New Executive Office Building, 725 Seventeenth Street, N. W.,
Washington, D.C. 20503, or via the Internet to vhuth@omb.eop.gov.
C.     Ex Parte Presentations
3.   For purposes of this permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding, members
of the public are advised that ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda
period, provided they are disclosed under the Commission's Rules.
D.     Pleading Dates
4.   Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
Rules, interested parties may file comments on or before April 26, 2000 and reply comments on or before
May 17, 2000.  Comments and reply comments should be filed in WT Docket No. 00-32.  All relevant and
timely comments will be considered by the Commission before final action is taken in this proceeding.  To
file formally in this proceeding, interested parties must file an original and four copies of all comments,
reply comments, and supporting comments.  If interested parties want each Commissioner to receive a
personal copy of their comments, they must file an original plus nine copies.  Interested parties should send
comments and reply comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Room
TW-A325, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, with a copy to Eli Johnson, Policy
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
5.   Comments may also be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS).  Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>.  Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. 
In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing
address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number.  Parties may also submit an electronic comment
by Internet E-Mail.  To obtain filing instructions for E-Mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail
to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, "get form <your E-
Mail address>."  A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.
6.   Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business
hours at the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, at the Federal Communications Commission, 445
Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.  Copies of comments and reply comments are available
through the Commission's duplicating contractor:  International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS, Inc.),
1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037, (202) 857-3800.
E.     Further Information
7.   For further information concerning this rulemaking proceeding, contact Eli Johnson at (202)
418-1310, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington,
D.C. 20554.
                      V.  ORDERING CLAUSES
8.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that these actions ARE TAKEN pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i),
7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 303, 308, 309(j), and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 303, 308, 309(j), 310.
9.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the proposed regulatory
changes described above and in Appendix B, and that comment is sought on these proposals.
10.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Rulemaking of Global Frontiers, Inc. To
Revise Title 47, Chapter I, Parts 2 and 26, Code of Federal Regulations, in Order To Reallocate
Frequencies to GWCS and Make Related Changes, is GRANTED TO THE EXTENT  INDICATED
HERE IN.
11.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(I) and 332 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(I) and 332, the rulemaking proceeding
captioned Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation by Commercial Mobile Radio Services
Licensees, WT Docket No. 96-148, IS TERMINATED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HERE IN.
12.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau,
Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                    Magalie Roman Salas
                    Secretary                           Appendix A
            Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and
rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), WT Docket No. 00-32.  Written public
comments are requested on this IRFA.  Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice as provided above in paragraph 109.  The Commission
will send a copy of the Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.  In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
Federal Register.
A.   Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
In this Notice, we propose to allocate and establish licensing and service rules for the band 4940-4990
MHz (4.9 GHz band) that has recently been transferred from Federal Government to private sector use as
substitute spectrum for the band 4635-4685 MHz that has been reclaimed for Federal Government use. 
Specifically, we propose to allocate the 4.9 GHz band to fixed and mobile services, except aeronautical
mobile service, on a primary basis and we seek comment on the geographic area and spectrum blocks that
should be used to license this spectrum.  We also propose to delete Part 26 of the Commission's Rules
containing the General Wireless Communications Service (GWCS) rules and to regulate the 4.9 GHz band
under Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, except to the extent we propose to modify those rules in this
Notice to reflect the particular characteristics of this spectrum and the services that will be permitted to use
this spectrum.  We also propose that initial licenses for the 4.9 GHz band be acquired through competitive
bidding under Part 1 of the Commission's Rules.  Furthermore, in a few instances, we propose to codify
and conform certain rules for the 2.3 GHz band to provide for consistent regulation of Part 27 services.
Our objectives for the Notice are to:  (1) accommodate the introduction of new uses of spectrum and the
enhancement of existing uses; (2) encourage commercial development of equipment that can operate in the
4.9 GHz band; (3) facilitate the awarding of licenses to entities who value them the most; and (4) create
new jobs, foster economic growth and improve access to communications by industry and the American
public.  The Commission also seeks to ensure a regulatory plan for the 4.9 GHz band that will allow for the
efficient licensing and use of the band, eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens, enhance the competitive
potential of the band, and provide a wide variety of radio services to the public.
B.   Legal Basis for Proposed Rules
The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 303, 308, 309(j),
and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214,
301, 303, 308, 309(j), 310.
     C.   Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will
     Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.  The RFA generally defines the term
"small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
governmental jurisdiction."  In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term "small
business concern" under Section 3 of the Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or
more definitions that are appropriate for its activities.  Under the Small business Act, a "small business
concern" is one that:  (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).  A small
organization is generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is
not dominant in its field."  Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small
organizations.
The definition of "small governmental entity" is one with populations of fewer than 50,000.  There are
85,006 governmental entities in the nation.  This number includes such entities as states, counties, cities,
utility districts and school districts.  There are no figures available on what portion of this number has
populations of fewer than 50,00.  However, this number includes 38,978 counties, cities and towns, and of
those, 37,556, or ninety-six percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000.  The Census Bureau estimates
that this ratio is approximately accurate for all government entities.  Thus, of the 85,006 governmental
entities, we estimate that ninety-six percent, or about 81,600, are small entities that may be affected by our
rules.
The proposals in the Notice affect applicants who wish to provide services in the 4.9 GHz band.  We note
that pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  24.720(b), the Commission has previously defined "small entity" for Blocks C
and F broadband PCS licensees as firms that had average gross revenues of less that $40 million in the
three previous calendar years.  This regulation defining "small entity" in the context of broadband PCS
auctions has been approved by the SBA.  We also note that the Commission has adopted this same
definition for 2.3 GHz and 39 GHz applicants, as well as for the band 4660-4685 MHz.  With respect to
prospective 4.9 GHz license applicants, we propose to use the small entity definition adopted in the
Broadband PCS proceeding.
In addition, we note that if the above-proposed special small business definition were not to be used, the
applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone
(wireless) companies.  This provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing no more
than 1,500 persons.  According to the Bureau of the Census, only twelve radiotelephone firms from a total
of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.
The Notice observes that the capital costs of operational facilities in the 4.9 GHz band are likely to vary
widely.  Accordingly, the Notice seeks to adopt small business size standards that afford licensees
substantial flexibility.  Thus, in addition to its proposal to adopt the general small business standard the
Commission used in the case of broadband PCS, 2.3 GHz, 39 GHz, and 4660-4685 MHz licenses, the
Notice also proposes to adopt the definition for very small businesses used for 39 GHz licenses and for the
PCS C and F block licenses:  businesses with average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years
not in excess of $15 million.
While the Notice proposes to use these definitions, the Commission has not yet determined or proposed how
many licenses will be awarded, nor will it know how many licensees will be small businesses until the
auction, if required, is held.  In addition, at this point in the proceeding, the Commission does not know
how many licensees will partition their license areas or disaggregate their spectrum blocks, if partitioning
and disaggregation are allowed.  We therefore assume that, for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions
in the IRFA, all of the prospective licensees are small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA or our
proposed definitions for the 4.9 GHz band.
We invite comment on this analysis.
     D.   Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
Entities interested in acquiring spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band will be required to submit license applications
and high bidders will be required to apply for their individual licenses.  The proposals under consideration
in this item also include requiring commercial licensees to make showings that they are in compliance with
construction requirements, file applications for license renewals and make certain other filings as
required by the Communications Act.  We request comment on how these requirements can be modified to
reduce the burden on small entities and still meet the objectives of the proceeding.
     E.   Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant
     Alternatives Considered
In the Notice, we seek data demonstrating build-out and other capital requirements for services in the 4.9
GHz band, as well as the anticipated start-up costs for providing service, and how these costs compare with
costs for other services.  Commenters are invited to use comparisons with other services for which the
Commission has already established auction procedures as a basis for their comments regarding the
appropriate definitions for small and very small businesses.  Commenters are ask to address to what extent
the proposed size standards will impact the ability of small businesses to acquire financing.  In addition, we
seek comment on whether the proposed designated entity provisions would be sufficient to promote
participation by businesses owned by minorities and by women, and participation by rural telephone
companies.
We have reduced burdens wherever possible.  To minimize any negative impact, however, we propose
certain incentives for small entities which will redound to their benefit.  These special provisions include
partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.  We have also sought comment on different approaches to
minimizing the burdens of interference management.  In addition, we have sought comment on
combinatorial auction procedures, which may enable small entities to participate in the licensing process
with more flexibility.
The regulatory burdens we have retained, such as filing applications on appropriate forms, are necessary in
order to ensure that the public receives the benefits of innovative new services in a prompt and efficient
manner.  We will continue to examine alternatives in the future with the objectives of eliminating
unnecessary regulations and minimizing any significant economic impact on small entities.  We seek
comment on significant alternatives commenters believe we should adopt.
F.   Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
None.
                                                           Appendix B
                         Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, parts 2, 26, and 27 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 2 -- FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS;
     GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
1.         The authority citation for part 2 continues to read:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 307, 336, and 337 unless otherwise noted.
  2.      Page 55 of  Table of Frequency Allocations, 47 CFR  2.106, is revised to read as follows.
  3.      In the list of United States footnotes, footnote US257 is removed and footnote US311 is revised.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.

                                             3700-5650 MHz (SHF)
Page 55


International Table
United States Table
 FCC Rule Part(s)


Region 1
 Region 2
 Region 3
 Federal Government
 Non-Federal Government



See previous page for
3600-4200 MHz
 3700-4200
 FIXED
 FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
 MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
 3700-4200
 3700-4200
 FIXED NG41
 FIXED-SATELLITE
  (space-to-Earth)

 International Fixed (23)
 Satellite
  Communications (25)
 Fixed Microwave (101)


4200-4400
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION S5.438

S5.437 S5.439 S5.440
 4200-4400  
 AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION

 S5.440 US261

 Aviation (87)


4400-4500
FIXED
MOBILE
 4400-4500  
 FIXED
 MOBILE
 4400-4500  



4500-4800
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) S5.441
MOBILE
 4500-4800  
 FIXED
 MOBILE

 US245
 4500-4800
 FIXED-SATELLITE 
  (space-to-Earth) 792A
  US245



4800-4990
FIXED
MOBILE S5.442
Radio astronomy
 4800-4940  
 FIXED
 MOBILE

 S5.149 US203
 4800-4940  



 S5.149 US203








S5.149 S5.339 S5.443
 4940-4990




 S5.149 S5.339 US311
 4940-4990
 FIXED
 MOBILE except aeronautical 
  mobile

 S5.149 S5.339 US311

 Wireless
  Communications (27)


4990-5000
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
RADIO ASTRONOMY
Space research (passive)

S5.149
 4990-5000
 RADIO ASTRONOMY US74
 Space research (passive)



 US246



5000-5150
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION

S5.367 S5.444 S5.444A
 5000-5250  
 AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION US260


 Satellite 
  Communications (25)
 Aviation (87)






* * * * *
                  UNITED STATES (US) FOOTNOTES
* * * * *
US311  Radio astronomy observations may be made in the bands 1350-1400 MHz and 4950-4990
MHz on an unprotected basis at certain radio astronomy observatories indicated below:

National Astronomy and
Ionosphere Center, Arecibo,
Puerto Rico    
Rectangle between latitudes 17  30' N and 19  00' N and
between longitudes 65  10' W and 68  00' W.


National Radio Astronomy
Observatory, Socorro, New
Mexico
Rectangle between latitudes 32  30' N and 35  30' N and
between longitudes 106  00' W and 109  00' W.


National Radio Astronomy
Obser-vatory, Green Bank, West
Virginia  
Rectangle between latitudes 37  30' N and 39  15' N and
between longitudes 78  30' W and 80  30' W.


National Radio Astronomy
Observatory, Very Long
Baseline Array Stations
80 kilometers (50 mile) radius centered on:



Latitude (North)
Longitude (West)


Pie Town, NM
34  18'
108   07'


Kitt Peak, AZ
31  57'
111  37'


Los Alamos, NM
35  47'
106  15'


Fort Davis, TX
30  38'
103  57'


North Liberty, IA
41  46'
91  34'


Brewster, WA
48  08'
119  41'


Owens Valley, CA
37  14'
118  17'


Saint Croix, VI
17  46'
  64  35'


Mauna Kea, HI
19  48'
155  27'


Hancock, NH
42  56'
  71  59'


          Every practicable effort will be made to avoid the assignment of frequencies in
the bands 1350-1400 MHz and 4950-4990 MHz to stations in the fixed and mobile services
which could interfere with radio astronomy observations within the geographic areas given
above. In addition, every practicable effort will be made to avoid assignment of frequencies in
these bands to stations in the aeronautical mobile service which operate outside of those
geographic areas, but which may cause harmful interference to the listed observatories.
Should such assignments result in harmful interference to these observatories, the situation
will be remedied to the extent practicable.
* * * * *
PART 26 -- GENERAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
4. Part 26 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is removed in its entirety.
PART 27   WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
5.  The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, and 332.
6.  Section 27.1 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
 27.1  Basis and purpose.
(b)   * * *
 (3) 4940-4990 MHz.
* * * * *
7.  Section 27.14 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) to read as follows:
 27.14  Construction requirements; Criteria for comparative renewal proceedings.
(a)  * * *
     (1)  As examples of "safe-harbors," for a WCS licensee that chooses to offer fixed
services or point-to-point services, the construction of four permanent links per one million
people in its licensed service area at the 10-year renewal mark would constitute substantial
service.  For a WCS licensee that chooses to offer mobile services or point-to-multipoint
services, a demonstration of coverage to 20 percent of the population of its licensed service
area at the 10-year renewal mark would constitute substantial service.
     (2)  In addition, the Commission may consider such factors as whether the licensee is
offering a specialized or technologically sophisticated service that does not require wide
coverage to be of benefit to customers, and whether the licensee's operations serve niche
markets or focus on serving populations outside of areas served by other licensees.  These
safe-harbor examples are intended to provide WCS licensees a degree of certainty as to
compliance with the substantial service requirement by the end of the initial license term. 
Licensees can meet this requirement in other ways, and licensees' showings will be reviewed
on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * *
8.  Section 27.53 is amended by adding new paragraph (f) as follows:
 27.53  Emission limits.
* * * * *
(f)  For the band 4940-4990 MHz:  The peak power of any emission outside the licensee's
authorized band, either measured in, or referred to a 1 MHz instrument bandwidth, shall be
attenuated below the maximum peak spectral density by at least 43 + 10 log (p) dB or 80 dB,
whichever is less.
9.  Section 27.57 is revised to read as follows:
 27.57  International coordination.
WCS licensees shall comply with the appropriate coordination agreements between the United
States and Canada and the United States and Mexico concerning cross-border sharing and
use of WCS bands. Operations in the border areas shall be subject to coordination with
bordering countries and provide protection to non-U.S. operations in the appropriate frequency
bands.  In addition, satellite operations in WCS spectrum shall be subject to international
satellite coordination procedures.
10.  Section 27.65 is added to read as follows:
 27.65  Interference protection criteria.
(a)  All harmful interference to other users and blocking of adjacent channel use in the same or adjacent
geographical area is prohibited.  In areas where EAs are in close proximity, careful consideration should be
given to minimum power requirements and to the location, height, and radiation pattern of the transmitting
antenna.  Licensees are expected to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential
interference before bringing the matter to the attention of the Commission.
(b)  As a condition for use of frequencies in this service each licensee is required to:
     (1) Engineer the system to be reasonably compatible with adjacent and co-channel operations in      
  the same or adjacent areas; and
     (2) Cooperate fully and in good faith to resolve whatever potential interference and transmission      
security problems may be present in adjacent and co-channel operations.
(c)  Licensee shall coordinate their facilities whenever the facilities have line-of-sight into co-channel and
adjacent channel licensee facilities.  Licensees are encouraged to develop operational agreements with
relevant licensees in the same or adjacent areas.
                           Appendix C
                CEC Operating Area Descriptions

  (1)     The area extending 30 nautical miles (nm) inland from the Atlantic Ocean between
  Wilmington, North Carolina (NC) and Lewes, Delaware (DE) facilitate Atlantic Fleet
  exercises.  The land based CEC terminals at Wallops Island, Virginia (VA), Eastville, VA,
  and Dam Neck, VA are within the boundaries established for the Atlantic Fleet exercises. 
  The Cherry Point and Onslow Bay NC areas are also included.  The Naval Air Warfare
  Center at Patuxent River, Maryland (MD) and facilities at Greenville, South Carolina (SC),
  Jacksonville, Florida (FL), and St. Petersburg, FL are not included in the inland areas.  The
  exclusion of the four sites does not preclude CEC Radio Frequency (RF) emissions at
  these sites.
  (2)     The area extending 30 nm inland from the Gulf of Mexico between the Louisiana (LA)-
  Mississippi (MS) state border and Panama City, FL, to support Gulf of Mexico exercises. 
  The area includes Gulfport and Biloxi, MS, and Pensacola and Eglin AFL, FL.
  (3)     The area extending 30 nm inland from the Pacific Ocean between Vandenberg Air Force Base,
  California (CA) and Point Mugu Naval Air Station, CA, to support Pacific Fleet exercises.
  (4)     The area extending 30 nm inland from the Pacific Ocean between Newport Beach, CA, and the CA-
  Mexico international border to support Pacific Fleet exercises.  The area includes Camp Pendleton,
  CA.
  (5)     The area that includes the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico (NM) and the Fort Bliss Military
  Reservation, Texas (TX) and NM to support the joint Chiefs of Staff Roving Sands Exercise.
  (6)     The area that includes the China Lake Naval Weapons Center and the Fort Irwin Military Reservation,
  CA.
  (7)     All of Hawaii, including the Pacific Missile Range Facility.
  (8)     All of Puerto Rico, including the Armed Forces Weapons Test Facility.
  (9)     The area extending 30 nm inland and 30 nm south of the Georgia-South Carolina state line.
  (10)     The area within 5 nm of Wright Army Field and Hunter Army Air Field near Savannah, Georgia.
                           Appendix D
                        CEC Impacted EAs


EA
Name
MEA
REA


3
Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH-RI-VT
1
1


5
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY
2
1


6
Syracuse, NY-PA
2
1


7
Rochester, NY-PA
2
1


8
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY-PA
3
1


9
State College, PA
12
3


10
New York-No. New Jer.-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA-MA-VT
2
1


11
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA
4
1


12
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atl. City, PA-NJ-DE-MD
4
1


13
Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA
5
2


14
Salisbury, MD-DE-VA
5
2


15
Richmond-Petersburg, VA
6
2


16
Staunton, VA-WV
6
2


17
Roanoke, VA-NC-WV
6
2


18
Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC-VA
7
2


19
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
7
2


20
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC
6
2


21
Greenville, NC
7
2


22
Fayetteville, NC
7
2


23
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC
7
2


24
Columbia, SC
7
2


EA
Name
MEA
REA


25
Wilmington, NC-SC
7
2


26
Charleston-North Charleston, SC
7
2


27
Augusta-Aiken, GA-SC
8
2


28
Savannah, GA-SC
8
2


29
Jacksonville, FL-GA
9
2


30
Orlando, FL
10
2


33
Sarasota-Bradenton, FL
10
2


34
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
10
2


35
Tallahassee, FL-GA
9
2


36
Dothan, AL-FL-GA
24
4


37
Albany, GA
8
2


38
Macon, GA
8
2


39
Columbus, GA-AL
8
2


40
Atlanta, GA-AL-NC
8
2


41
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC-NC
7
2


42
Asheville, NC
7
2


43
Chattanooga, TN-GA
8
2


44
Knoxville, TN
220
4


45
Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA
22
4


46
Hickory-Morganton, NC-TN
7
2


47
Lexington, KY-TN-VA-WV
23
4


48
Charleston, WV-KY-OH
13
3


53
Pittsburgh, PA-WV
12
3


EA
Name
MEA
REA


54
Erie, PA
15
3


73
Memphis, TN-AR-MS-KY
26
4


74
Huntsville, AL-TN
24
4


75
Tupelo, MS-AL-TN
26
4


76
Greenville, MS
26
4


77
Jackson, MS-AL-LA
26
4


78
Birmingham, AL
24
4


79
Montgomery, AL
24
4


80
Mobile, AL
27
4


81
Pensacola, FL
27
4


82
Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula, MS
27
4


83
New Orleans, LA-MS
27
4


84
Baton Rouge, LA-MS
27
4


85
Lafayette, LA
27
4


86
Lake Charles, LA
31
5


87
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
31
5


88
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA-AR
32
5


89
Monroe, LA
32
5


90
Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR
28
4


122
Wichita, KS-OK
35
5


126
Western Oklahoma, OK
37
5


127
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-AR-OK
32
5


128
Abilene, TX
32
5


EA
Name
MEA
REA


129
San Angelo, TX
32
5


131
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX
31
5


135
Odessa-Midland, TX
32
5


136
Hobbs, NM-TX
39
5


137
Lubbock, TX
32
5


138
Amarillo, TX-NM
32
5


139
Santa Fe, NM
39
5


140
Pueblo, CO-NM
33
5


141
Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO-KS-NE
33
5


151
Reno, NV-CA
43
6


152
Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT-ID
42
6


153
Las Vegas, NV-AZ-UT
44
6


154
Flagstaff, AZ-UT
40
5


155
Farmington, NM-CO
39
5


156
Albuquerque, NM-AZ
39
5


157
El Paso, TX-NM
39
5


158
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ-NM
40
5


159
Tucson, AZ
40
5


160
Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA-AZ
44
6


161
San Diego, CA
44
6


162
Fresno, CA
43
6


163
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA
43
6


164
Sacramento-Yolo, CA
43
6


EA
NAME
MEA
REA


172
Honolulu, HI
48
8


174
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
50
10


176
Gulf of Mexico
52
12