********************************************************    
                         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                             )
                                   )
Reorganization and Revision of                    )    WT Docket No. 94-148
Parts 1, 2, 21, and 94 of                         )
the Rules to Establish a New                 )
Part 101 Governing Terrestrial                    )
Microwave Fixed Radio Services               )
                                   )
Amendment of Part 21 of the                  )    CC Docket No. 93-2
Commission's Rules for the Domestic               )
Public Fixed Radio Services                  )
                                   )
McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc.               )    RM-7861
Petition for Rule Making                )
                                        )
Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission's         )    WT Docket No. 00-19
Rules to Streamline Processing of Microwave       )
Applications in the Wireless Telecommunications   )
Services                           )
                                   )
Telecommunications Industry Association      )    RM-9418
Petition for Rulemaking                      )

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
                    AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

   Adopted:  February 2, 2000           Released:  February 14, 2000

Comment Date:  [30 days after publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date:  [45 days after publication in the Federal Register]
(Comments to be filed in WT Docket No. 00-19 and RM-9418 only.)

By the Commission:


                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

Subject                                                               Paragraph
I.  INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY         ..          ...3

II.  BACKGROUND                     ..            ..6
Subject                                                               Paragraph
III. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
     A.   Expanded Use of 10.7 - 11.7 GHz Frequencies. . . . . . . . . . 13
          B.                                                     Deletion of Thirty-Day Notice Period . . . . . .14
     C.   Common Carrier Traffic Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     D.   POFS Licensees' Carriage of Common Carrier Traffic . . . . . . 19
     E.   Continuity of Licensing for Displaced 2 GHz Microwave Licensees. . . . . 20
     F.   Finder's Preference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     G.   Electronic Filing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     H.   Conditional Licensing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
          I.                                                     Correct Definition of Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service. . . . . . .26
     J.   Reduction of Number of Remotes Required in a Multiple Address System . . . . .28
     K.   Loading Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     L.   Prior Coordination Notices with Use of ATPC. . . . . . . . . . 31
     M.   Transition Period to Clarify Applicable Grandfathering Provisions. . . . . . .32
     N.   Minor Clerical Errors and Editorial Changes in the Rules . . . . . . . . . . .33

IV.  NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
     A.   Streamlining Part 101. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
          1.   POFS licensees' carriage of common carrier traffic. . . . . . .35
          2.   Shared bands  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
          3.   Station authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
          4.   Temporary and conditional authorizations. . . . . . . . . 42
                                                                      5.   Transmitter frequency tolerance and power limitations. . . . . 45
          6.   Directional antennas below 932.5 MHz. . . . . . . . . . . 46
          7.   Antenna polarization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
          8.   Changes in regulatory status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
          9.   Frequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
                                                                      10.  Frequency tolerance. . . . . . . 50
          11.  Stations at temporary fixed locations . . . . . . . . . . 51
          12.  Use of 10.7 - 11.7 GHz frequencies for final link . . . . . . .52
          13.  Emission masks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
     B.   TIA Petition for Rulemaking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
          1.   Conditional authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
          2.   Technical standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
               a.   Channel plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
               b.   Frequency tolerance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
               c.   Spectrum efficiency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
               d.   Low power systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
          3.   Antenna standards for the 23 GHz and 10 GHz bands . . . . . . .70
     C.   Balanced Budget Act of 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
          1.   Above 2 GHz microwave licensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
          2.   Public safety exemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
          3.   Educational broadcaster exemption . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
     D.   Forbearance and Regulatory Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Subject                                                               Paragraph
V.   PROCEDURAL MATTERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
     A.   Regulatory Flexibility Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
     B.   Ex Parte Rules - Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding. . . . . . . . 86
     C.   Paperwork Reduction Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
     D.   Comment Dates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
     E.   Ordering Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
     F.   Contacts for Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Appendix A - List of Commenters to the TIA Petition
Appendix B - Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Appendix C - Final Rules
Appendix D - Proposed Rules

                  I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

     1.  In the Report and Order in WT Docket No. 94-148 and CC Docket No. 93-2, the Commission
consolidated the rules for the common carrier and private operational fixed (POFS) microwave services
contained in Parts 21 and 94, respectively, of the Commission's Rules to create a new Part 101 (Part 101
Order).  The Memorandum Opinion and Order portion of this action addresses the pending petitions for
reconsideration and clarification of the Part 101 Order.  Because the majority of the petitioners' suggested
clarifications contribute significantly to more readily understood rules, we have modified certain Part 101
provisions accordingly.  In addition, we, on our own motion, adopt other changes that improve the clarity
and completeness of our Part 101 rules.  We decline, however, to adopt several of the substantive changes
suggested, either because the suggested changes already were considered and rejected, or because they are
more appropriately raised in the context of a separate proceeding.  The significant decisions in this
Memorandum Opinion and Order are as follows:

              Until a more sufficient record can be developed, we decline to change the rule prohibiting
     POFS licensees from using the 11 GHz band as the "final link" for the delivery of video
     programming to cable television (CATV) systems, multipoint distribution systems (MDS), and
     master antenna television (MATV) systems.

              We decline to reinstate the requirement that POFS applications be placed on public notice
     thirty days prior to the date the application is granted, but will continue to release an informal
     listing of such applications.

              Until a more sufficient record can be developed, we retain the rule prohibiting POFS
     licensees from handling common carrier traffic.

              We modify Parts 24, 25, 74, and 78 to substitute references to the new Part 101 and to
     remove references therein to former Parts 21 and 94.

              We clarify and incorporate necessary clerical changes to certain rules. 

     2.  In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making portion of this document, we propose eliminating
regulations that are duplicative, outmoded, or otherwise unnecessary.  We seek to further the work begun
by the consolidation of Parts 21 and 94 into a single Part 101 in the Part 101 Order and in our
implementation of a Universal Licensing System (ULS) for wireless applications.  The new consolidated
Part 101 reduces or eliminates the differences in processing applications between common carriers and
private operational fixed microwave service licensees, and furthers regulatory parity between these
microwave services.  Once fully deployed, the ULS will eliminate the need for wireless carriers to file
duplicative applications, and will increase the accuracy and reliability of licensing information.  In
addition, we note that SBC Communications has similarly proposed that the Commission consolidate
and/or streamline rules concerning wireless radio services to remove duplication.  Applicants, licensees
and related industries are invited to examine these rules and procedures and offer their view and
explanations of ways to streamline them and to make sure that the regulations conform with the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).

     3.  Specifically, we seek comment on the following issues:

               grandfathering certain POFS licensees who formerly carried private traffic now classified
     as common carrier traffic, or eliminating the prohibition on POFS licensees offering common
     carrier services; 

          revising Parts 74, 78, 90, and 101 for shared use of certain frequency bands;

          deleting several unnecessary or redundant sections of the rules concerning forms,    
notifications, and technical standards;

          clarifying conditional operations in the four low power frequency pairs in the 23 GHz 
     band in Section 101.31(b)(vii);

               updating the transmitter frequency tolerance table in Section 101.107, and correcting and
     clarifying other minor technical rules;

                    allowing conditional operation in the 952.95-956.15 and 956.55-959.75 MHz bands. 

     4.  We note that some of the proposed rule changes are procedural in nature, and thus are exempt
from notice and comment requirements pursuant to Section 553(b)(3)(A) of the Administrative Procedure
Act.  However, as a result of the consolidation of Parts 21 and 94, we realize that the combination of
common carrier and private microwave rules and procedures requires a period of adjustment.  We believe
that this approach will afford the public an opportunity to provide feedback on how these adjustments are
succeeding or failing.

     5.  We also address a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Telecommunications Industry
Association (TIA).  The TIA Petition focuses on permitting conditional authorization in the 23 GHz band,
making the 23 GHz band more accessible to fixed service users, and modifying antenna standards for the
10 GHz and 23 GHz bands to allow for more hops and longer paths.  TIA also proposes rule changes to
Part 74, Television Broadcast Auxiliary Service, to permit transport of digital transmissions over point-to-
point microwave frequencies in that service.  We seek comment on the following proposals regarding the
23 GHz band:

               permitting conditional licensing;

               rechannelizing the band into 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5, and 2.5 MHz channels;

               permitting common carrier and POFS users to share the entire band;

                    changing the frequency tolerance to 0.001%;

               requiring spectrum efficiency of one bit-per-second per Hertz (1 bps/Hz);

               designating 200 MHz for low power, limited coverage systems;

               modifying the antenna standards.

We also seek comment regarding modifying the antenna standards in the 10 GHz band.

     6.  In addition, we seek comment regarding whether, and how, our licensing approach in Part 101
should be modified to implement the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Balanced Budget Act).  We seek input
on the best licensing structure to ensure that spectrum above the 2 GHz band is licensed efficiently and
used in the public interest, including the following issues regarding whether we should substantially alter
microwave licensing above 2 GHz in light of the Balanced Budget Act:

               We present several options for reinventing the licensing process for Part 101 spectrum
     consistent with our auction procedures.

               We request comment on how to segregate exempted spectrum from the auctions process. 

               We request comment on whether to require the licensees where we use geographic
     licensing to develop agreements between each other on how to utilize their spectrum, especially
     along the boundaries between areas and/or where there is line-of-sight into another area, to achieve
     the most efficient and effective use in each geographic area.

               We request comment about the possible technologies for terrestrial microwave users
     concerning a new proposal for frequency reuse  in the 12.2.-12.7 GHz band.

          We request comment on whether it is appropriate to forbear from enforcing any   
provision of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or the Commission's rules with   respect
to Part 101 services.

In addition, we issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making seeking comment on how to implement the
Balanced Budget Act generally, but we did not specifically address fixed microwave services in that
proceeding.  We will consider the record in both proceedings in deciding whether or how Part 101 should
be modified to conform to the Balanced Budget Act.  

                               II.  BACKGROUND

     7.  Regulatory Framework.  Communications services that use the microwave spectrum for fixed
services include common carriers (formerly regulated by Part 21); common carrier Multiple Address
Systems (MAS) (Part 22); international point-to-point operators (Part 23); space station and satellite
earth station operators such as Digital Audio Radio Service (DARS) (Part 25); AM, FM, and TV
broadcasters for studio-to-transmitter links (STL) or inter-city relays (ICR)  (Part 74); CATV operators
(Part 78); MDS operators (Part 21); and POFS users (formerly Part 94).  Fixed microwave spectrum is
primarily used to deliver video (such as Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS)), audio, data, and
control functions for other specific communications services such as Local Multipoint Distribution Service
(LMDS) and Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS) from one point and/or hub to other points and/or
subscribers for distribution.  A convergence of common carrier and POFS technical standards has occurred
over the last decade as a result of several rule making proceedings.  In addition, the reallocation of five
bands above 3 GHz, on a co-primary basis, to common carrier and POFS microwave licensees relocating
from the 1850-1990, 2110-2150, and 2160-2200 MHz bands (2 GHz bands) has significantly impacted
fixed microwave services.  As a result of the reallocation of spectrum for emerging technologies and the
associated increase in frequency band-sharing, common carrier and private microwave industry members
united to develop joint interference standards and coordination procedures.  TIA's Fixed Point-to-Point
Microwave Engineering Committee collaborated with the National Spectrum Managers Association, Inc.
(NSMA), a group of frequency coordinators for microwave applicants, to determine interference criteria
for microwave spectrum users, resulting in 1994 in a revised TIA Telecommunications Systems Bulletin
TSB 10-F, "Interference Criteria for Microwave Systems."  The industry's collaboration and coordination
agreements greatly assisted the Commission in consolidating Parts 21 and 94 of the Rules, and signaled the
industry's desire to have common carrier and POFS microwave services treated in the same fashion when
appropriate.

     8.   On December 28, 1994, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in
WT Docket No. 94-148 (Part 101 Notice).  The Part 101 Notice proposed simplifying the rules for the
Part 21 common carrier and Part 94 POFS microwave services, and consolidating them into a new Part
101.  In a separate Notice of Proposed Rule Making in CC Docket No. 93-2 (Point-to-Point Notice), the
Commission proposed revising Part 21 to eliminate certain reporting requirements and to allow common
carrier microwave applicants to begin constructing facilities prior to the grant of authorizations.  The
Commission consolidated the two proceedings, and, on February 8, 1996, adopted most of the proposals in
the Part 101 Order.

     9.  The Part 101 Order created one comprehensive rule part setting forth application processing
rules, technical standards, and operational requirements for microwave spectrum, including DEMS (a two-
way end-to-end fixed radio service utilizing digital termination systems for the exchange of digital
information), the Private Operational Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service (a private radio service
rendered on microwave frequencies on fixed and temporary fixed stations between points within the United
States or between points in the United States and points in Canada or Mexico), the Common Carrier Fixed
Point-to-Point Microwave Service (a common carrier public radio service rendered on microwave
frequencies on fixed and temporary fixed stations between such points), and LTTS (a public radio
communication service for the transmission of television material and related communications).  Soon
thereafter, the Commission adopted rules for LMDS (a fixed one-way or two-way point-to-point or point-
to-multipoint radio service that may be interconnected with the public switched telephone network), and
added them to Part 101.  Each of these services shares at least some frequencies with at least one other
Part 101 service, and some frequencies are shared with government users.  Most Part 101 application
processing rules, technical standards, and operational requirements apply to all Part 101 services, but
others apply only to specific services, or to common carrier services but not private services (or vice
versa).

     10.  Auctionability of Fixed Microwave Bands.  Section 309(j)(2) of the Communications Act
formerly stated that mutually exclusive applications for initial licenses or construction permits were
auctionable if the principal use of the spectrum was for subscriber-based services, and competitive bidding
would promote the expressed objectives of the Act.  Based on this standard, the Commission found all
Part 94 spectrum to be non-auctionable because the principal use of the POFS was not subscriber-based,
and found all Part 21 common carrier point-to-point microwave frequencies to be non-auctionable because
using auctions to award licenses for intermediate links would not promote the Act's objectives.  LMDS,
on the other hand, was determined to be an auctionable service.  In addition, the Commission tentatively
concluded that two of the three frequency bands allocated to MAS also were auctionable under former
Section 309(j)(2). 

     11.  In 1997, the Balanced Budget Act amended Section 309(j) to provide that all mutually
exclusive applications for initial licenses or construction permits shall be auctioned, except licenses and
construction permits for public safety radio services, digital television service for existing analog television
licensees, and noncommercial educational radio and television stations. Additionally, Section 309(j)(6)(E)
of the Communications Act states that, in determining the auctionability of applications, the Commission
has the "obligation in the public interest to continue to use engineering solutions, negotiation, threshold
qualifications, service regulations, and other means to avoid mutual exclusivity in application and licensing
proceedings."  We have issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making seeking comment on how to implement
the Balanced Budget Act.  We sought comment on, inter alia, how the Balanced Budget Act's revision of
our statutory auction authority affects our determination of which wireless services are potentially
auctionable and our determinations of the appropriate licensing schemes for new and existing services. 
We also requested comment on the scope of the exemption from competitive bidding for public safety radio
services, and on what regulatory provisions could be established to ensure that frequencies assigned
without auctions meet the statutory requirements for exemption.  In the context of another proceeding, the
Commission determined spectrum in the 38.6-40.0 GHz ("39 GHz") band, demand for which was
increasing dramatically due to the projected need for point-to-point spectrum by Personal Communications
Service (PCS) and cellular licensee and by providers requiring or furnishing other types of point-to-point
services, to be auctionable under the Balanced Budget Act.  Under the new statutory standards for
choosing among mutually exclusive applications, our previous reasons for not promulgating auction rules
for other Part 101 spectrum now must be reconsidered.

                    III.  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

     12.  We have before us petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification of the Part 101 Order
filed by the Association of American Railroads (AAR), CAI Wireless Systems, Inc. (CAI), Cox & Smith
Inc. (C&S), Multipoint Networks (Multipoint), TIA's Network Equipment Division and NSMA
(TIA/NSMA), and UTC, The Telecommunications Association (UTC).  For the most part, the parties
support the Commission's efforts to streamline, update, and simplify the rules for the common carrier and
POFS services.  Some petitioners take issue with the substantive context of certain Part 101 rules.  Other
petitioners have requested minor clarifications of certain rules or have indicated the need for correction of
clerical errors.  Below, we address the pending petitions, set forth our reasons for granting or denying
particular requests, and make necessary modifications and additions to the Part 101 rules.

     A.  Expanded Use of 10.7 - 11.7 GHz Frequencies

     13.   Section 101.603(b)(3) of our Rules incorporates the prohibition, formerly found in Section
94.9(b)(3), against using POFS frequencies (except 6,425-6,525 MHz, 18,142-18,580 MHz, or above
21,200 MHz) for the final radio frequency link in the chain of transmission of program material to CATV,
MDS, or MATV systems.  OpTel, Inc. seeks clarification concerning whether the Commission intended to
retain the "final link" restriction when it established Section 101.603, and CAI requests that the
Commission either delete the restriction or add the 10.7-11.7 GHz band (11 GHz band) to the bands
excepted from the restriction.  The Part 101 Order, Part 101 Notice, and Point-to-Point Notice do not
address directly the final link restriction raised by OpTel and CAI.  The Part 101 Order was primarily
aimed at consolidating the Part 21 and 94 rules into a single Part 101.  The "final link" restriction,
however, was expressly included in the proposed and final language for Section 101.603(b)(3).   Because
there has been no prior discussion of the idea, we conclude that it is important to develop a record on CAI's
proposal.  Thus, we plan to address the matter in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making.

     B.  Deletion of Thirty-Day Notice Period

     14.  After the comment period for the Part 101 Notice closed, Congress removed fixed point-to-
point microwave applications from the classes of applications that trigger a thirty-day public notice and
comment period, during which interested parties could file petitions to deny.  Congress took this action to
expedite licensing in the private fixed point-to-point microwave service by deleting the former
subparagraph (A) that required public notice.  Accordingly, the Part 101 Order amended Section
1.962(a) of the Rules to eliminate the public notice and comment requirement for such applications.

     15.  TIA/NSMA claim that the Commission should have provided notice and the opportunity to
comment before amending Section 1.962(a).  They argue that deleting the thirty-day public notice period
effectively denies opposing parties the opportunity to file petitions to deny, which amounts to denial of a
substantive right.  Thus, they contend, the rule change was beyond the scope of the exception to the notice
and comment requirement for a "rule of agency organization, procedure or practice."  However, we find
that our action reflected the self-execution of the will of Congress and was appropriate.  We believe that
eliminating the thirty-day public notice period for private fixed point-to-point microwave service
applications changed neither the substantive standards under which we evaluate those applications nor
removed the right to oppose those applications.  Entities will still have an opportunity to protest following
the public notice announcing the Commission's action on the applications.  Therefore, we believe that
amendment of the rule to abolish the thirty-day public notice period falls comfortably within the exception
for procedural rules.  Accordingly, we reject TIA/NSMA's argument that removal of private fixed point-
to-point microwave service from Section 1.962 of our Rules required notice and comment.

     16.  Although we reject TIA/NSMA's legal argument, we agree that data related to POFS
applications may be useful for interested parties to ensure that proper frequency coordination has been
conducted.  In that connection, we note that our Office of Media Relations regularly issues informal
public notices prepared by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Public Safety and Private Wireless
Division, Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch that contain information on POFS applications. 
Though the informal public notices are informational only and do not confer the right to file petitions to
deny,  Alcatel and UTC acknowledge that these periodic notices will suffice to furnish the information
previously contained in the formal public notices.  The Commission will continue to issue the informal
notices as resources permit; however, we see no need for a rule mandating the release of such public notices
as TIA/NSMA request.  We also note that the period covered by informal public notice of the filing of
applications will necessarily decrease with implementation of the ULS.  With electronic filing and
processing of applications via ULS, the time required to grant a properly prepared and filed application
may be reduced to hours, not days.  In that instance, awaiting public notice before grant would undercut the
Commission's objective of establishing an efficient and rapid electronic licensing system. 

     C.  Common Carrier Traffic Requirements

     17.  Based on comments responding to the Part 101 Notice, the Commission revised former
Section 21.119 (now Section 101.133) of the Rules, removing the restriction that prohibited the use of
common carrier transmitters to carry non-common carrier communications, except in the MDS.  The
Commission removed the restriction to promote economic efficiencies by obviating the need for a common
carrier wishing to provide non-common carrier service to construct separate facilities.  On the other hand,
the Commission carried over, unchanged, former Section 21.705 (now Section 101.703), which provides
that a common carrier may render any kind of communication service provided for in its tariffs so long as
the kinds of communications carried do not violate the terms of the licensee's authorization or Sections
101.111 (emission limitations), 101.113 (transmitter power limitations), or 101.147 (frequency
assignments) of the Rules.  The Part 101 Order also replicated, without change or discussion, subsection
(c) of former Section 21.700 (now Section 101.701), which provides that common carrier applicants for
facilities that will be used primarily to relay television broadcast signals must demonstrate (1) that at least
fifty percent of the customers using the microwave facility will not be affiliated in any way with the
applicant; and (2) that at least fifty percent of the usage hours of the microwave facility will be dedicated to
service for unaffiliated customers.

     18.  UTC asserts that it is not clear whether common carriers must use at least fifty percent of their
available capacity for common carrier traffic.  Although UTC was not specific as to which rule it was
referring, we believe the intended reference was to Section 101.701(c).  We note that the rule applies only
to "stations or frequencies that will be used primarily to relay broadcast television signals," and requires
that at least fifty percent of the capacity of such stations or frequencies be devoted to the carriage of traffic
of customers who are not related to the licensee in any way.  Accordingly, in response to UTC's request, we
clarify that common carriers may carry any traffic described in Section 101.703 of our Rules, and that the
fifty percent limitation in Section 101.701 applies only to common carrier microwave stations that are used
"primarily to relay broadcast television signals."
 
     D.  POFS Licensees' Carriage of Common Carrier Traffic

     19.  In the Part 101 Order, the Commission declined to implement the suggestion of some
commenters to delete proposed Section 101.603(b)(1) of the Rules, which would allow POFS licensees to
employ their excess capacity to carry common carrier traffic.  The Commission concluded that it lacked a
sufficient record to justify deleting the proposed rule, the substance of which was carried forward from
certain Part 94 provisions, but it stated that it would be receptive to a request to amend the Rules to permit
POFS carriage of common carrier traffic if any party wished to pursue it, although further inquiry would
be required.  UTC again urges us to eliminate Section 101.603(b)(1), and we again decline to do so.  We
do not believe that the Commission intended for the necessary inquiry to be conducted in the context of a
petition for reconsideration, particularly given that such a petition usually does not stimulate   and has not
here stimulated   the responsive comments necessary to create a record sufficient to justify deleting the
provision.  Instead, we seek comment on the issue in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making portion of this
document.

     E.  Continuity of Licensing for Displaced 2 GHz Microwave Licensees  

     20.  Our Rules provide that a Part 101 license will be forfeited automatically upon the voluntary
removal or alteration of station facilities that renders the station non-operational for thirty days or longer. 
In addition, a station that is inoperative for one year will be deemed to have permanently discontinued
service, and the license must be surrendered.  C&S filed a Petition for Clarification and/or
Reconsideration in which it proposed changes to these rules to exempt displaced 2 GHz incumbent
licensees who relocate to another frequency band, find that frequency band unsuitable, and then wish to
reactivate their original 2 GHz facilities.  The C&S Petition was endorsed by UTC.

     21.  We wish to alleviate any concern on the part of incumbent 2 GHz microwave licensees that
relocation of their facilities could result in premature license termination, but we do not believe that the
suggested amendments are necessary.  In the normal course, an incumbent 2 GHz licensee will file an
application for modification of its license to specify a different frequency band.  Thereafter, the new
facilities will be constructed and tested while the licensee maintains its operations in the 2 GHz band. 
When the new facilities are placed in operation and the 2 GHz facility is discontinued, the licensee will be
operating pursuant to its modified license.  Under normal circumstances, at no time during the described
period will the licensee be deemed to have forfeited its license, because there will have been no
discontinuation of operations that would trigger invocation of the referenced rule sections.  However, C&S
suggests that there may be instances in which a period of time elapses between discontinuance of 2 GHz
operations and inauguration of operations in a new frequency band.  We believe that such instances will
be rare; however, should they arise, we will look favorably upon requests for rule waivers in order to
accommodate affected licensees.  In sum, it is not our intent to invoke the automatic forfeiture provisions in
a manner which would hamper an incumbent licensee's legitimate efforts to relocate its 2 GHz facilities.

       F. Finder's Preference 

       22.  Notwithstanding the fact that the matter was not raised in the Part 101 Notice or the Part 101
Order, Multipoint requests that we establish a finder's preference program for MAS frequencies licensed
under Part 101 of our Rules similar to the program formerly established under Part 90 of the Rules. 
Multipoint argues that a finder's preference program   under which an applicant receives a preference when
applying for a frequency if the applicant demonstrates that the frequency is not being used by its current
licensee   would supplement the Part 101 automatic forfeiture provisions, thereby reducing "spectrum
warehousing."  UTC agrees, but submits that this is not the proper forum for this proposal.  We agree
with UTC that Multipoint has raised a rule making proposal in the context of a petition for reconsideration
which is procedurally improper because interested parties have not been given sufficient notice to comment
on the issue.  We are aware of the current scarcity of available MAS channels in many areas, and we
recognize the importance of ensuring that frequencies are licensed to parties with an actual and immediate
requirement for them.  However, Multipoint's proposal exceeds scope of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order, so we dismiss the petition.

       G.  Electronic Filing  

       23.  The Part 101 Order noted that the proposal in the Part 101 Notice to allow electronic filing for all
fixed microwave services authorized under Part 101 had been rendered moot by rule changes in another
proceeding implementing the proposal, and stated that procedures for electronic filing in the Part 101
services would be implemented by Public Notice.  Also, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau began
use of ULS for licensing activity for microwave services on August 30, 1999.  Although TIA/NSMA and
Alcatel endorse our commitment to electronic filing, they urge us to go further by establishing specific
timetable benchmarks for implementation of electronic filing, and convening an Industry Advisory
Committee to advise the Commission on the electronic filing process.  We deem such action to be
unnecessary at this time given the actions we have taken in the context of the ULS proceeding.  Electronic
filing and online access are integral components of the ULS, and we recently adopted rule changes
involving all aspects of the ULS filing and licensing process.  We will continue to keep the industry
informed of significant developments in the ULS by issuing periodic Public Notices, and will be attentive to
any informal comments or other communications furnished in response thereto.

       H.  Conditional Licensing

       24.  Based on comments responding to the Part 101 Notice, the Commission amended the Rules to
permit operation prior to final license grant, subject to certain conditions, on the 4, 6, 10, 11, 18, and 23
GHz bands, except for the 10.6-10.68 GHz band; the 17.8-19.7 GHz band in Colorado, Maryland,
Virginia, and the District of Columbia; and the 21.2-23.6 GHz band for operations with an effective
radiated power greater than 55 dBm.  The Commission excluded those bands from conditional licensing
because they are allocated to both government and non-government users.  Thus, licensing on these
frequencies must be coordinated by the Commission with the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), and the two agencies did not have an agreement concerning
conditional licensing on those frequencies.  After such an agreement was reached regarding the 10.6-
10.68 GHz band, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology,
pursuant to delegated authority, amended Section 101.31(e) of the Commission's Rules to provide for
conditional licensing in that band except in certain areas of the country where NTIA requested continued
pre-operation coordination.  This action has mooted TIA/NSMA's request that we allow conditional
licensing in that band except for specified areas of the country where government radio astronomy services
are operated.

       25.  TIA/NSMA also request that conditional licensing be authorized in the 932-941, 952-960, and
2110-2200 MHz frequency bands, but did not discuss the merits of expanding conditional licensing to those
bands.  Because we have no record concerning the potential effect of conditional licensing in the lower
microwave bands, we decline the request at this time.

          I.   Correct Definition of Operational Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service
     
     26.  The Part 101 Notice proposed only minor editorial changes in the definitions to be provided in
the Part 101 rules.  Former Section 94.3 of the Commission's Rules defined "Operational-fixed Station"
as "[a] fixed station not open to public correspondence, operated by and for the sole use of those persons or
agencies operating their own radio communication facilities.  This term includes all stations licensed to the
fixed service under this part."  The underlined material supra sets out an important and distinguishing
characteristic of the POFS which the Commission inadvertently omitted when it created the new Section
101.3.  In addition, this section defined "Private line service" as "[a] service whereby facilities for
communication between two or more designated points are set aside for the exclusive use or availability for
use of a particular customer and authorized users during stated periods of time."

     27.  We agree with AAR and Alcatel that the definitions of "Private operational fixed point-to-
point microwave service" and "Private line service" in the new Section 101.3 lack the concept of "self-
service"   a licensee's use of the POFS facility for its own internal communications   which was contained
in the prior definition of "Operational-fixed Station" in former Section 94.3.  We likewise agree with
UTC's recommendation that the definition of "Private operational fixed point-to-point microwave service"
(a) incorporate the concept of "self-service," and (b) should not refer to private line service, which UTC
contends is essentially a common carrier construct with little application to private operational fixed
services.  Therefore, we delete the term "Private line service," and adopt UTC's suggested change to the
definition of "Private operational fixed point-to-point microwave service," with minor revisions, as follows:

          Private operational fixed point-to-point microwave service.  A private radio service rendered by
     fixed and temporary fixed stations on microwave frequencies for the exclusive use or availability
     for use of the licensee or other eligible entities[] for communication between two or more
     designated points.  Service may be provided between points within the United States, points within
     United States' possessions, or between the United States and points in Canada or Mexico.
 
     J.  Reduction of the Number of Remotes Required in a Multiple Address System

     28.  In the Part 101 Order, the Commission carried over the Part 94 definition of MAS into Part
101, despite some commenters' request that the requirement that MAS facilities serve at least four remotes
be replaced with a provision that would require MAS systems to serve "multiple" remotes.  That proposal
was deemed inconsistent with the Commission's determination in a prior proceeding that MAS is to be
used to satisfy point-to-multipoint needs, not for communication requirements that can be met using
frequencies allocated for point-to-point use.  AAR seeks reconsideration of our decision, but presents no
new data or arguments in support of its position.  Further, we note that we considered the substance of
AAR's request in another rulemaking proceeding examining our MAS licensing approach. For these
reasons, we deny AAR's petition for reconsideration.

     K.  Loading Requirements

     29.  The Part 101 Order retained the existing transmitter capacity and loading requirements for
point-to-point microwave radio systems operating in 3,700-4,200 MHz, 5,925-6,425 MHz, 6,525-6,875
MHz, 10,550-10,680 MHz, and 10,700-11,700 MHz bands.  The Commission declined requests to lower
the standards, because weakening loading requirements likely would lead to a significant amount of
licensed, but unused, spectrum, which, in turn, would reduce the availability of spectrum for displaced 2
GHz licensees.  However, the Commission stated that it would give liberal consideration to requests for
waiver of the loading requirements filed by displaced 2 GHz licensees seeking to relocate in the bands
above 3 GHz.  

     30.  We deny the requests of AAR, TIA/NSMA, or UTC to reconsider the loading requirements. 
These parties have failed to provide any additional justifications for their requested relief other than those
rejected in the Part 101 Order.  Similarly, we reject UTC's request that we "liberally waive loading
requirements" for all POFS systems.  UTC has failed to provide sufficient justification that would
warrant our affording the same treatment to all POFS users as we are affording to displaced 2 GHz
licensees.

     L.  Prior Coordination Notices with Use of ATPC

     31.  In the Part 101 Order, the Commission authorized Automatic Transmitter Power Control
(ATPC) for common carrier and POFS licensees.  However, in response to concerns expressed by
some commenting parties, the Commission required applicants to notify potentially affected licensees that
ATPC transmitters will be used, and to include a value for each of the following parameters on the
coordination notice:  (1) maximum transmit power, (2) coordinated transmit power, and (3) nominal
transmit power.  TIA/NSMA and Alcatel note, however, that this requirement was not carried forward
into the final rules.  We hereby remedy that inadvertent oversight by amending Section 101.103(d) in the
manner suggested by TIA/NSMA.  

     M.  Clarification of Grandfathering Provisions

     32.  In the Part 101 Order, the Commission stated that systems authorized and applications filed
prior to the effective date of the Part 101 Order would be afforded co-primary status relative to all systems
authorized subsequently pursuant to the provisions of the new Part 101, and that these previously
authorized stations and pending applications would be "grandfathered" in that status indefinitely.  The
implementing rule provides, "All systems subject to Parts 21 and 94 of the Rules, which are licensed or
which are proposed in an application on file, as of the effective date of this part, are subject to the
requirements under Part 21 or Part 94, as applicable."  We agree with TIA/NSMA that adding the word
"indefinitely" to the end of the sentence will more clearly convey that the "grandfathering" afforded to the
subject systems will continue indefinitely, so we amend the rule accordingly.

     N.  Minor Clerical Errors and Editorial Changes in the Rules

     33.  Below, we treat various requests by TIA/NSMA for correction or clarification.  Where the
reason for a rule change is self-evident and clerical in nature, an appropriate revision to the rule has been
incorporated into Appendix A hereto and is not treated in the body of this Memorandum Opinion & Order. 
In addition, on our own motion, we have made certain minor and non-substantive editorial changes to the
rules, which we likewise believe do not require explanation.  Those requested changes that merit comment
are set forth infra.
     
          1.  Requested Changes Adopted

          Section 101.31(a)   We change the title of this subsection from "Temporary authorizations" to
     "Operation at temporary locations," to more accurately describe its content.  However, we deny
     TIA/NSMA's request to reduce the time in which to file an application to convert a temporary
     authorization into a permanent authorization from ninety days before the temporary authorization
     expires to sixty days, for the record does not support their assertion that ninety days is too long.

          Section 101.101   We correct various errors in the chart listing frequency bands and the services
     permitted on each.

          Section 101.105(c)(3)   We correct the reference to the frequencies for which MAS applicants
     must make an interference showing to include those in Section 101.147(b)(2)-(4) of the Rules.

          Section 101.113(a)   We move footnote 5 of the table listing maximum Equivalent Isotropically
     Radiated Power (EIRP) by frequency band from the 21,200-23,600 MHz band to the 18,800-
     19,700 MHz band, we change the reference in footnote 10 from Section 101.147(t) of the Rules to
     Section 101.147(s), and correct the maximum power listing for the bands between 31,000 MHz
     and 31,300 MHz.
 
          Section 101.115(c)   We change the reference in footnote 11 of the table for Antenna Standards
     from Section 101.147(t) of the Rules to Section 101.147(s).

          Section 101.145(a)   The references to subsections (a) and (b) of this rule are corrected to
     reference subsections (b) and (c).

          Section 101.147(a)   We revise the table of frequency assignments in this rule to more accurately
     reflect the services using particular frequency bands.  Other corrections to the rule already were
     made in another proceeding.

          Section 101.147(j)   We delete the obsolete reference to Part 21.

          Section 101.803(a)   Most of footnote 5 applies to frequencies in the 21-23.6 GHz band, but the
     last sentence applies to the 14.2-14.4 GHz band.  To improve clarity, we make the last sentence a
     separate footnote.

     Section 101.803(d)   We add an entry for 11.7-12.2 GHz to ensure that the appropriate     
requirements apply to that band.

          Section 101.815(a)(5)   We change the reference to the requirement for applications from Section
     101.713 to Section 101.21(f).

          2.  Requested Changes Rendered Moot

          Former Section 101.31(a)   TIA/NSMA's proposals regarding requests for Special Temporary
     Authorization (STA) have been superseded by the ULS Proceeding's changes to the STA rules.

          Section 101.31(a)(3)(vii)   The ULS Proceeding corrected the reference for operations to be
     conducted within the coordination distance contours of a fixed earth station from Section 101.21(e)
     to Section 101.21(f).

          Section 101.63(b)   The Commission stated in the Part 101 Order that a station would be
     regarded as being "'in operation' when construction is completed and the station is capable of
     providing service," but the rule set forth a stricter standard.  We recognized the discrepancy, and
     deleted the inconsistent language before the rule went into effect.

                    IV.  NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

     A.  Streamlining Part 101

     34.  We have reviewed the rules and application procedures for all microwave radio services
licensed by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.  We propose eliminating regulations that are
duplicative, outmoded, or otherwise unnecessary.  This will further the work begun by the consolidation of
Parts 21 and 94 into a single Part 101 and the implementation of the ULS.

     1.  POFS licensees' carriage of common carrier traffic

     35.  The Part 101 Order eliminated the restriction on the use of common carrier transmitters for
non-common carrier purposes.  Licensees operating common carrier stations now may provide private
services at the same location without having to construct duplicative facilities.  However, the
Commission declined to eliminate the rule prohibiting stations licensed as private systems from offering
common carrier communications services or leasing reserve capacity to common carriers for their common
carrier traffic.  The Commission pointed to the increased flexibility that it had given common carriers,
and suggested that private licensees desiring to carry common carrier traffic as well as internal
communications become common carrier licensees.

     36.  We also declined to eliminate this restriction in the Memorandum Opinion and Order portion
of this document, on the grounds that we lacked a sufficient record.  UTC argues that requiring POFS
licensees to become common carriers in order to carry common carrier traffic unnecessarily subjects them
to onerous common carrier obligations, and that the Act, which states that "[a] telecommunications carrier
shall be treated as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent that it is engaged in providing
telecommunications services," dictates that POFS licensees be permitted to carry common carrier traffic
without becoming common carriers.  We seek comment on whether we should eliminate the rule
prohibiting stations licensed as private systems from offering common carrier communications services. 
Among the issues that commenters should address are the extent to which improved transmission
techniques and increased transmission rates have created excess capacity in private systems; and whether
POFS carriage of common carrier traffic should be permitted only on a secondary basis, or whether
limitations should be placed on what types of common carrier traffic (e.g., voice and data, but not video)
could be carried on POFS systems.

     37.  Alternatively, we note that many land mobile radio licensees with wide area communication
systems use operational fixed microwave systems to transmit communications between base stations in
their systems.  In some cases, the land mobile radio licensee is also the licensee of the microwave facilities. 
In other cases, land mobile radio licensees lease excess capacity from existing microwave systems.  If,
however, the communications (including any land mobile communications) being carried on the microwave
system is common carrier traffic, our Rules require that the microwave system be licensed as a common
carrier.  When the Commission reclassified many land mobile radio licensees as Commercial Mobile
Radio Services (CMRS), i.e., common carriers, there was an unanticipated effect on some private
microwave licensees.  For example, the reclassification of some Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
licensees made them no longer eligible to use a POFS facility under the plain language of our Rules.  Many
of these private microwave systems supporting SMR and other private operations are owned by petroleum
companies, utility companies, or government entities that do not want to become, or, in some cases, may be
prohibited by law from becoming, common carriers.  

     38.  It is unreasonable, unduly burdensome, and unnecessary to require SMRs and other former
private operators to either duplicate their supporting facilities or seek service from a possibly unavailable
common carrier.  Consequently, in the event we retain the general prohibition against POFS carriage of
common carrier traffic, we propose an exception to the rule to permit grandfathering of private operational
fixed microwave systems providing common carrier service for their connecting facilities, or for CMRS
providers that were formerly private land mobile radio service providers.  We do not believe that such an
exception would conflict with any other decisions the Commission has made concerning the differences
between common carriers and non-common carriers.  We seek comment on this proposal and any
alternatives thereto.

     2.  Shared bands

     39.  Several frequency bands are used for TV Broadcast Auxiliary Services, Cable Relay Service
(CARS), Private Land Mobile Radio Service, and Fixed Microwave Services.  For example, Sections
74.644, 78.108, 101.143, and 101.803(b) set out minimum path lengths and appropriate power reductions
for many of the same bands.  However, Section 101.803(b), which regulates LTTS, requires compliance
with the technical rules provided in Parts 74 and 78 of our Rules, which are different from those contained
in the Part 101 rules.  In addition, we understand that some confusion exists concerning which technical
standards govern LTTS when the Part 74 and 78 standards differ from or, in certain instances, conflict
with Part 101.  For instance, frequency tolerance or EIRP conflicts appear at 2450-2483.5 MHz,
12700-13250 MHz, and 38600-40000 MHz.  We believe that these situations can be addressed by either
modifying Section 101.803(b) to state that where conflicts arise, the more restrictive rule will apply, or
conforming the technical standards for all the rule parts.  We seek comment on which approach would
provide the most clarity for affected licensees.

     40.  Also, the 2450-2483.5 MHz band is shared by Parts 74, 78, 90, and 101 services, and is
subject to differing limitations on antenna requirements, channelization, bandwidth, and type acceptance. 
For example, fixed microwave users under Part 101 must coordinate their use with other fixed microwave
users, while broadcast auxiliary users must use local coordinators who do not coordinate with Part 101
users, and Part 90 users are allowed uncoordinated use.  We seek comment on such inconsistencies
regarding technical standards in shared bands, and on whether and how to resolve them.

     3.  Station authorization

     41.  Section 101.5(b) of the Commission's Rules provides information about which transmitters
require authorizations.  It notes that a separate application must be filed for each DEMS Nodal Station,
but no separate license is required for a DEMS User Station.  Similarly, we require a separate
authorization for each MAS master station, but not for an MAS remote or mobile station.  Because the
Rules do not clearly state this, however, we propose to amend Section 101.5(b) to state that MAS remote
and mobile stations also do not require a separate authorization.  We seek comment on this proposed
change, and on whether any other rules need to be changed to effect this clarification.  

     4.  Temporary and conditional authorizations

     42.  Section 101.31(a)(3)-(5) of the Commission's Rules requires licensees to provide certain
technical information to the Commission regarding their conditional operations.  We propose to eliminate
this requirement because we are not convinced that it continues to serve a regulatory purpose.
We also propose to insert language in paragraph (b) of this section to specify that an application for
authority to operate a fixed station at temporary locations must specify the precise geographic area within
which the operation will be confined.  The area specified must be defined as a radius of operation about a
given state or states, latitude/longitude, or as a rectangular area bounded by upper and lower lines of
latitude and longitude.  This language was formerly in Section 101.13 of the Rules and should have been
moved to another section when Section 101.13 was removed. 

     43.  Section 101.31(b)(1)(vii) provides that conditional authorization is granted only if the filed
application does not "propose to operate . . . in the 21.2-23.6 GHz band with an [effective radiated power
(ERP)] greater than 55 dBm pursuant to  101.147(s)."  Our experience has shown that it is sometimes
unclear to applicants whether conditional operation is allowed anywhere in the 21.2-23.6 GHz band, or
only on the four frequencies listed in Section 101.147(s).  We propose to amend Section 101.31(b)(vii) to
clarify that only the four frequencies listed in Section 101.147(s) are allocated for conditional operation. 
With regard to other frequencies in the band, applicants must follow normal processing and await the
Commission obtaining clearance from NTIA before operating.

     44.  Finally, we propose to make frequency bands 952.95-956.15 MHz and 956.55-959.75 MHz,
which are designated for point-to-point use in Tables 9 through 11 of Section 101.147(b)(6), available
for conditional authorization under Section 101.31(b).  We are not proposing any other frequencies listed
in these tables because they require Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) coordination with
NTIA.  We seek comment on these proposed changes. 

     5.  Transmitter frequency tolerance and power limitations

     45.  We propose to clarify and correct the frequency tolerance table in Section 101.107(a) by: 
1) consolidating the separate columns for all fixed and base stations, mobile stations over three watts, and
mobile stations three watts or less, because the frequency tolerances for these three categories are the same;
2) deleting footnote 2 because it applies to equipment which is over forty years old; 3) deleting footnote 5
because the same information is contained in footnote 7; and 4) correcting certain errors in the listing of
bands and tolerances.  We also propose to amend the EIRP table in Section 101.113(a) to divide the
10,550-10,680 MHz band into two separate bands:  10,550-10,600 MHz with a maximum power of 55
dBW and 10,600-10,680 MHz with a maximum power of 40 dBW, to be consistent with US footnote 265
of the Table of Frequency Allocations in Section 2.106.  We seek comment on the accuracy of these
proposed changes, their compliance with the Act, and their effect on licensees.

     6.  Directional antennas below 932.5 MHz

     46.  Section 101.115(b), the substance of which was carried over from Part 21, sets forth
technical requirements for stations operating below 932.5 MHz that are required to use directional
antennas.  However, the only Part 101 frequencies below 932.5 MHz are MAS frequencies, and these
stations are not required to use directional antennas.  Because it appears that Section 101.115(b) no
longer applies to identifiable frequencies, we conclude that this provision no longer serves a regulatory
purpose and propose to delete it on that basis.

     7.  Antenna polarization

     47.  The last sentence of Section 101.117 states, "Unless otherwise allowed, only linear
polarization (horizontal or vertical) shall be used."   We propose to limit this restriction to LMDS
operators within 20 kilometers of their service area boundary.  We also propose to delete the words
"horizontal or vertical," because strict horizontal or vertical polarization is improbable for most of the
billboard passive reflectors that we authorize.  Due to reflections in the non-vertical/horizontal planes of
incidence, we propose to clarify our rules to allow systems with rotated linear polarization.  Rotated linear
polarization is usually expressed at an angle up to +/- 89.9 degrees from vertical.  We seek comment on
these proposed changes.

     8.  Changes in regulatory status

     48.   In the Part 101 Order, the Commission stated that a private operational fixed licensee can
change to a common carrier by filing appropriate tariff information as required by Part 61 and a license
application form (FCC Form 601), and that no filing fee will be required.  We believe it would be helpful
to codify this procedure for effecting a status change.  We seek comment on this conclusion. 

     9.  Frequencies

     49.  We propose minor clarifications and streamlining of Section 101.147, which sets out the
frequencies available for fixed microwave services.  It is our understanding that some applicants have been
confused by which parts of the section cover MAS and which cover point-to-point operations.  Thus, we
propose to amend the introductory paragraph of Section 101.147(b) to clarify that it covers both, and to
clarify which subsections and tables pertain to each category.  We also propose to update the references
throughout the Section 101.147(b) from "Domestic Public Land Mobile Radio Service" to "Public Mobile
Services."  Sections 101.147(k) and 101.803(e) list the 6525-6575 MHz frequency band with a
grandfathered provision which expired in 1968.  We no longer see any reason to retain this language. 
We seek comment on these proposed changes.

     10.  Frequency tolerance

     50.  We propose to amend Section 101.507 to provide the frequency tolerance of +0.0001% for
DEMS Nodal Stations and +0.0003% for DEMS User Stations in the 10,550-10,680 MHz band.  It
appears that this was inadvertently omitted in prior rule changes.  We seek comment on this proposal. 

     11.  Stations at temporary fixed locations

     51.  Section 101.815(a)(1) permits temporary operation of LTTS stations for six months, but
prohibits temporary operation of stations for services that are initially known to be of longer than six
months' duration.  The rule allows for short-term needs or for testing purposes, but prevents applicants
from using the temporary provisions to avoid having to wait for regular processing of their application for
permanent authority.  We propose to eliminate the prohibition of temporary operation of stations for
services known to be of longer than six months' duration, and thus allow applicants to use the temporary
fixed locations without restrictions provided they still file for permanent authority for stations that remain
longer than six months.  We believe that our processing time is sufficiently expeditious that applicants will
not seek any benefit from using a temporary location to avoid regular processing delays.  We further
believe that broadening the scope of use of temporary fixed locations could result in a reduction of requests
for special temporary authority which might otherwise be needed.  We seek comment on this proposal.

     12.  Use of 10.7 - 11.7 GHz frequencies for final link

     52.  Section 101.603(b)(3) of our Rules incorporates the prohibition, formerly found in Section
94.9(b)(3), against using POFS frequencies (except 6,425-6,525 MHz, 18,142-18,580 MHz, or above
21,200 MHz) for the final radio frequency link in the chain of transmission of program material to CATV,
MDS, or MATV systems.  CAI requests that we eliminate this restriction.  It posits that we have
created an "unnecessary burden" on wireless cable operators by prohibiting them from "using the 11 GHz
band to connect programming headends or satellite receive facilities with their main transmitters." 
Alcatel argues that using bands other than 11 GHz, or using alternative transmission media, for "final link"
video transmission would be excessively expensive.   CAI and Alcatel argue that the limitation is at odds
with our goal of regulatory symmetry between POFS licensees and common carriers.  AAR opposes
CAI's request, on the grounds that video transmission   particularly multi-channel video transmission   is
highly spectrum-intensive, and allowing "final link" use of the 11 GHz band would seriously reduce the
amount of 11 GHz spectrum available to incumbent licensees in the 2 GHz band that must relocate to
accommodate emerging technologies.  We also note that, since CAI filed its petition, a petition for rule
making was filed that proposes to make 12 GHz frequencies available for the delivery of video
programming, including "final link" use.  The Commission assigned a rulemaking number to this petition,
RM-9257, and released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on July 14, 1999.

     53.  We seek comment on whether the CAI proposal is in the public interest.  Commenters should
address whether granting CAI's request would adversely affect the Commission's efforts to ensure that
spectrum is made available for the essential services offered by displaced 2 GHz licensees.  Commenters
are encouraged to provide specific quantitative data regarding the impact of the removal of the final link
restriction on spectrum availability for displaced 2 GHz licensees, and the relative cost of using other bands
or transmission media for the final link of  video transmission.

     13.  LMDS technical rules

     54.  With the advent of commencement of LMDS operations, we are concerned that some Part 101
technical rules may not be fully consistent with the types of services permitted and envisioned by our
LMDS rules.  Specifically, we seek comment on whether the Part 101 emission mask requirement in certain
circumstances may be too severe for LMDS.  Section 101.111 sets forth the required attenuation;
subsections (a)(2)(ii) and (iii) provide as follows for operating frequencies above 15 GHz:

               (ii)  For operating frequencies above 15 GHz, in any 1 MHz band, the center
     frequency of which is removed from the assigned frequency by more than 50 percent up to
     and including 250 percent of the authorized bandwidth:  As specified by the following
     equation but in no event less than 11 decibels:

               A = 11 + 0.4(P - 50) + 10 Log10 B. 
               (Attenuation greater than 56 decibels is not required.)

               (iii)  In any 4 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed from the
     assigned frequency by more than 250 percent of the authorized bandwidth:  At least 43 +
     10 Log10 (mean output power in watts) decibels, or 80 decibels, whichever is the lesser
     attenuation.

We understand that LMDS transmitters may be being manufactured for a spectrum block rather than for
discrete frequencies as point-to-point microwave systems are, and LMDS transmitters are filtered as wide
as the spectrum block.  We are concerned that attempting to mask each discrete frequency in accordance
with Part 101 may present insurmountable logistical problems for LMDS licensees.  In this connection, we
seek comment on how to eliminate or mitigate such problems if they exist.  

     55.  In order to provide LMDS operators maximum flexibility, the Commission's technical
standards allow using a bandwidth up to 850 MHz in the 27.50-28.35 GHz band.  If a manufacturer
designs a transmitter to operate with a bandwidth of 10 MHz, and the maximum bandwidth (850 MHz)
from the table in Section 101.109 of the Commission's Rules is used in the equation above, this
interpretation may create an unreasonable emission mask.  We seek comment on whether the table in
Section 101.109 or the approach in Section 101.111 of the Commission's Rules should be changed to
indicate that LMDS equipment manufacturers can specify and use the actual bandwidth of the designed
transmitter. 

     56.  The method of calculating an emission mask in Section 101.111 as a function of power
works well for high powered transmitters.  However, the same method of calculation for low powered
transmitters can result in out-of-band emissions that may be unnecessarily low.  For instance, Bosch
Telecom, Inc. (Bosch), a manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, suggests adopting a minimum
limit for out-of-band emissions of -13 dBm.  We seek comment on this suggestion.  We also seek
comment on whether there are other technical rules applicable to LMDS which should be changed and the
reasons therefor.  Further, we ask commenters whether other Part 101 services require unique technical
rules.  If so, commenters should discuss the substance of such rules and the reasons therefor.

     57.  In addition, we note that Section 101.139 indicates that point-to-multipoint transmitters in
the 39 GHz, LMDS and DEMS services must be of a type that has been certificated by the Commission,
but most other fixed point-to-point microwave transmitters are subject to the less burdensome
verification procedure.  Digital Microwave Corporation (Digital), a manufacturer of fixed microwave
equipment, contends that LMDS and DEMS transmitters are comparable to other fixed point-to-point
microwave transmitters, and proposes that they also be subject to verification rather than certification. 
We tentatively agree that the equipment is sufficiently similar to permit the marketing of fixed point-to-
point and point-to-multipoint transmitters for the 39 GHz, LMDS, and DEMS bands that have been
verified by the manufacturer or importer, rather than certificated by the Commission.  We seek comment on
this proposal.

     B.  TIA Petition for Rulemaking

     58.  On March 6, 1998, TIA filed a Petition for Rulemaking which focuses on permitting
conditional authorization in the 21.2-23.6 GHz band (the 23 GHz band), making the 23 GHz band more
accessible to fixed service users, and modifying antenna standards for the 10 GHz and 23 GHz bands to
allow for more hops and longer paths.  TIA argues that such revisions will make the 23 GHz band more
attractive to fixed microwave users, which in turn will help alleviate overcrowding in other bands.  TIA
also proposes minor corrections to the Table of Maximum Authorized Bandwidth in Part 101, Subparts C
and J.  The petition was placed on Public Notice on February 5, 1999.  Eight comments and two reply
comments were received, primarily from microwave equipment manufacturers and service providers, and
generally in support of TIA's proposals.

     1.  Conditional authorization

     59.  TIA proposes that we permit conditional licensing in the 23 GHz band.  The band is allocated
to both government and non-government users, so licensing on these frequencies must be coordinated with
NTIA.  TIA argues that the current coordination process takes too long, discouraging licensees from using
the 23 GHz band.  It proposes to protect government operations by means of the same procedure used for
coordination among non-government users.  Specifically, a commercial frequency coordinator would
send a prior coordination notice (PCN) to IRAC.  The federal government agencies, through IRAC,
would have thirty days to examine the application and notify the commercial coordinator of potential
interference problems.  If no response is made, coordination would be deemed to have been completed,
and an application could be submitted to the Commission and operation could commence.  If interference
problems were identified, but were resolved between the commercial and government frequency
coordinators during the thirty-day period, then the operator could submit a license application to the
Commission and begin operation.  If the identified interference problems remain after the thirty-day
period, then conditional licensing would not be permitted and an operator would have to select alternative
frequencies, or it would have to request resolution of the problem through the formal licensing process. 
TIA recognizes that its plan can be adopted only if the Commission and NTIA reach an agreement
consistent with the proposals.  

     60.  Alcatel supports the proposal, arguing that permitting more rapid delivery of services would
encourage greater use of the 23 GHz band.  Digital and Harris Corporation (Harris) would support the
proposal if the Commission and NTIA reached an agreement regarding conditional licensing in the 23 GHz
band.  On the other hand, Teledesic LLC (Teledesic), a satellite operator, questions whether expanding
conditional licensing in the 23 GHz band -- or otherwise encouraging rapid development of the band -- is
appropriate, given that it is not clear whether replacement spectrum will be required for the relocation of
incumbent fixed microwave users in the 18 GHz band.  TIA replies that making the 23 GHz band more
attractive will reduce the use of the 18 GHz band, and make the 23 GHz band a more viable relocation
band.

     61.  As we noted in the Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission concluded in the Part
101 Order that conditional licensing should not be permitted in the 23 GHz band because use of these
frequencies must be coordinated by the Commission with NTIA, and the two agencies did not have an
agreement concerning conditional licensing on those frequencies.  The agencies have reached agreements
concerning conditional licensing in other bands, but not regarding the 23 GHz band.  We agree with TIA
that permitting conditional licensing absent such an agreement is inappropriate, and we will continue to
work toward an agreement.  Until such time, however, we decline to propose any rules changes for
conditional licensing in the 23 GHz band.  We seek comment on our approach.

     2.  Technical standards

     62.  When the 23 GHz rules were adopted, the Commission did not incorporate complete technical
standards in order to afford the industry opportunity to develop.  TIA proposes several changes to the 23
GHz technical rules that it contends will facilitate greater exploitation of the band.  We believe that the
industry is now mature enough to incorporate complete standards, such as TIA has proposed.

     a.  Channel plan

     63.  Our rules do not specify a channel plan for the 23 GHz band.  TIA argues that a channel
plan will make the band more efficient, and thus more attractive for short-haul fixed microwave service
users.  TIA's proposed plan, as a general matter, is based upon the current industry standard 50 MHz
channel plan, but, given the availability of more spectrally efficient digital fixed microwave service radios,
it also includes narrow and wideband channels to provide flexibility and to increase the number of potential
users.  Specifically, the plan consists of twenty-four pairs of 50 MHz channels, each subdivided into
wideband channels (i.e., one 40 MHz channel, one 30 MHz channel, two 20 MHz channels and five
10 MHz channels) and into narrowband channels (i.e., ten 5 MHz channels and twenty 2.5 MHz
channels).  The center 10 MHz channel in each 50 MHz block would have the same frequency as the
associated 50 MHz channel, which would permit upgrades in channel capacity without a frequency
change.  TIA states that no overlap would be created between the existing 50 MHz channels and the new
channels, allowing for an orderly transition to the new plan without causing interference to existing
systems; and that the plan would enhance flexibility and spectrum efficiency by avoiding the need to use 50
MHz channels for all needs above 20 MHz.  TIA also recommends reserving several portions of the
23 GHz band for narrowband channels, which could be used for wideband traffic only if all other wideband
channels are blocked.  Finally, TIA proposes making the entire band available to common carrier and
POFS users, instead of the current system of reserving half of the band for each.  

     64.  Alcatel supports these proposals, on the basis that implementation of a channel plan would
promote efficiency, while flexibility would attract a broad range of users to the band.  Digital and Harris
agree, and state that a standardized channel plan will facilitate the design and manufacture of 23 GHz
equipment.  They also note that giving common carrier and POFS users access to the entire band is
consistent with the consolidation of the rules into a single Part 101.

     65.  We seek comment on TIA's proposals, their compliance with the Act, and their effect on
licensees.  We also note that the Commission routinely licenses duplex point-to-point private systems which
use one channel for video and one channel for control where the control frequency is separated from the
video frequency by 50 MHz.  These systems are typically used for surveillance or security systems.  We
seek comment on whether to continue to license these systems, and how TIA's proposed channel plan would
affect these users.

     b.  Frequency tolerance

     66.  Our current rules specify the frequency tolerance for the 23 GHz band at 0.03%.  TIA
contends that when this standard was adopted most 23 GHz band radios used analog modulation techniques
and were coordinated for the full 50 MHz channel bandwidth, but today most licensed radios are digital and
occupy 75% or more of the channel bandwidth.  TIA states that, for these digital radios, the 0.03%
frequency tolerance specification would allow excessive frequency drift into adjacent channels if the band is
divided into 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5, and 2.5 MHz channels, and that this would cause spectrum
inefficiency.  TIA recommends applying to the 23 GHz band the same 0.001% frequency tolerance
standard that is used for the 18 GHz band (which is divided into narrowband channels comparable to those
proposed for the 23 GHz band).  Alcatel, Digital, and Harris support this proposal.  No one opposed
TIA's proposal.  We seek comment on TIA's proposal, its compliance with the Act, and its effect on
licensees.

     c.  Spectrum efficiency

     67.  TIA argues that the current lack of a spectrum efficiency requirement for the 23 GHz band
impedes efficient utilization.  Our rules require a 1 bps/Hz spectrum efficiency rate for all frequency
bands below 19.7 GHz and for DEMS.  TIA contends that this standard also is appropriate for the 23
GHz band (and for all bands below 25.25 GHz), because it would ensure that all proposed bandwidths are
fully utilized and because the digital 18 GHz band radio models that likely would be retrofitted for 23 GHz
band operation are designed to this standard.  Alcatel, Digital, and Harris agree. No one opposed
TIA's proposal.  We seek comment on TIA's proposal.

     d.  Low power systems

     68.  TIA claims that the 23 GHz frequencies set aside for low power, limited coverage systems,
such as perimeter surveillance applications and remote video monitoring, are severely congested. 
Accordingly, TIA proposes designating an additional 200 MHz in the band for such operations, adjacent to
the current low power band in the 21.8-22.0 GHz and 23.0-23.2 GHz band segments.  Digital, Harris,
and Teledesic support this proposal.  No one opposed TIA's proposal.

     69.  In addition, TIA states that the Part 101 requirements for these low power, limited coverage
systems are not congruent with their operations and should be revised as follows:

                   Maximum Power Definition -- Change the maximum power from 55 dBm ERP
          to 55 dBm EIRP, because the maximum power for fixed microwave service
          systems is expressed as EIRP, and ERP is appropriate for mobile, not fixed,
          services.

                   Frequency Tolerance -- Apply the proposed 0.001% frequency tolerance standard
          to all systems, including low power, limited systems, rather than the current 0.05%
          standard for such systems.

                   Special Showings -- Delete as no longer necessary the requirement that an
          applicant make a showing of need in order to be authorized to operate with a
          50 MHz bandwidth or to have more than five hops in tandem.

                   Interference Criteria -- Use a uniform frequency coordination procedure for all
          services in the 23 GHz band, and thus delete the specific additional interference
          criteria for low power, limited coverage systems, which, according to TIA, typical
          radios already meet, anyway.

Alcatel supports making the standards uniform for all 23 GHz band systems, because this will ensure more
efficient use.  No one opposed TIA's proposal.  We seek comment on TIA's proposals.

     3.  Antenna standards for the 23 GHz and 10 GHz bands

     70.  TIA states that many fixed microwave users need or prefer to employ small antennas because
most potential antenna sites, such as rooftops, monopoles, and electrical transmission towers, cannot
support large microwave dishes, due to either space limitations or aesthetic objections of homeowner
associations or zoning boards.  Our rules, however, do not permit antennas smaller than 0.61 meters (2
feet) in diameter in the 23 GHz band, or 1.22 meters (4 feet) in diameter in the 10 GHz band.  TIA
believes that the existing antenna size restrictions deter fixed microwave service use of these bands.  It
recommends permitting 0.46-meter (18-inch) or 0.30 meter (1-foot) high performance antennas in the
23 GHz band, and 0.61-meter (2-foot) or 1.22-meter (4-foot) antennas in the 10 GHz band. 

     71.  To permit 0.46-meter (18-inch) or 0.30-meter (1-foot) diameter antennas in the 23 GHz band,
which will accommodate what TIA expects will be an increased need for short (i.e., one-to-two miles)
microcell interconnect and LMDS infrastructure link point-to-point microwave paths, TIA recommends
that the Commission take the following actions:

                   Change the minimum antenna gain from 38 dBi to 33.5 dBi.

                   Change the maximum beamwidth from 2.2 to 3.3 degrees.

                   Retain the same front-to-back ratios as the current Category A and Category B
          radiation standards, tighten the Category B front-to-back ratio, and reduce the
          sidelobe suppression requirements.

     72.  To permit 0.61 kilometer (2-foot) antennas in the 10 GHz band, which would accommodate
paths longer than 2.3 miles, TIA proposes that the Commission take the following actions:

                   Change the minimum antenna gain from 38 dBi to 33.5 dBi.

                   Change the maximum beamwidth from 3.4 to 3.5 degrees so that there would be a
          uniform beamwidth for all 10 GHz Band systems.

                   Change the radiation standards for Category A and Category B to the same
          standards that applied for the 10.55-10.68 GHz band before June 1, 1997,
          tighten the front-to-back ratio for Category B channels, and reduce the sidelobe
          suppression requirements.

     73.  Alcatel, Andrew Corporation, Digital, and Harris support these proposals, because permitting
smaller antennas will encourage greater use of the 23 GHz band.  AirTouch Communications, Inc.
believes that the proposals strike a fair balance between spectrum efficiency and the practical problems of
antenna deployment.  To the extent that implementation of TIA's suggestions would result in greater
spectrum efficiency and effective use of the 23 GHz band, we believe that adoption of TIA's proposals
which have the effect of allowing smaller antennas would further the public interest.  We seek comment on
TIA's proposals and their effect on licensees.  

     C.  Balanced Budget Act of 1997

     74.  In addition to the foregoing technical issues, we also seek comment on the impact of the Balanced
Budget Act on Part 101.  In paragraph 11, supra, we discussed the Balanced Budget Act amendment to
Section 309(j) which provides that all mutually exclusive applications for initial licenses or construction
permits shall be auctioned, except licenses and construction permits for public safety radio services, digital
television service for existing analog television licensees, and noncommercial educational radio and television
stations.  We also discussed Section 309(j)(6)(E) of the Communications Act which states that, in determining
the auctionability of applications, the Commission has the "obligation in the public interest to continue to use
engineering solutions, negotiation, threshold qualifications, service regulations, and other means to avoid
mutual exclusivity in application and licensing proceedings."  In another proceeding, we requested comment
on how to implement the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 generally.  We sought comment on, inter alia, how
the Balanced Budget Act's revision of our statutory auction authority affects our determination of which
wireless services are potentially auctionable and our determinations of the appropriate licensing schemes for
new and existing services.  We also requested comment on the scope of the exemption from competitive
bidding for public safety radio services, and on what regulatory provisions could be established to ensure that
frequencies assigned without auctions meet the statutory requirements for exemption.  We also stated,
however, that we would continue to establish licensing schemes on a service-specific basis, in order to take
into account the particular characteristics, purposes, and technologies of each service.

     1.  Above 2 GHz microwave licensing

     75.  We believe that the microwave spectrum above 2 GHz which is not already licensed pursuant
to auction procedures presents a special challenge to our reinvention efforts to find spectrum for emerging
technologies because it is used for a wide variety of services ranging from the earliest and most traditional
to the latest fixed microwave technologies.  Currently, we license this spectrum by channel or channels and
site-by-site.  Applicants are responsible for coordinating interference issues prior to filing a license
application.  Therefore, under the current licensing scheme, mutually exclusive situations rarely, if ever,
occur.  In Part 101 licensing generally there are no discrete services as, for example, LMDS, MAS, or the
39 GHz band, but instead licensing is based on the specific use of specific frequencies.  The lower
frequency bands are significantly encumbered, particularly in urban areas, and the relocation of 2 GHz
microwave licensees into the 6 GHz and 11 GHz bands has further burdened this spectrum.  Satellite
interests also are allocated some of the spectrum above 2 GHz, and with the expansion of satellite services,
options for those needing terrestrial microwave spectrum are shrinking.  

     76.  While spectrum above 2 GHz is becoming scarcer, demand for it is growing.  Microwave is
used as the backbone infrastructure for cellular, PCS, and other CMRS providers, which are expanding
rapidly.  Microwave spectrum may also be used for fixed point-to-multipoint service backbone support,
such as for LMDS.  Finally, the spectrum above 2 GHz is fertile ground for advanced telecommunications
applications.  These competing forces must be addressed in our effort to comply with the Congressional
intent to ensure that spectrum is used for the purposes the public interest requires.

     77.  Accordingly, we seek comment on how we might modify Part 101 general licensing to ensure
that it is consistent with our implementation of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 in other proceedings.  We
seek comment on several options, discussed below, and we also seek additional options from commenters.

          Option I:  Similar to the Commission's approach in the 39 GHz band proceeding, we could
license microwave spectrum subject to Part 101 based on an appropriate channelization plan and
geographic service area through the use of competitive bidding procedures to choose among mutually
exclusive applications.  Under this approach, incumbent licensees would retain primary status for their
current licenses but could not expand their service areas without the consent of the appropriate geographic
area licensee.  Also, where spectrum is licensed on a geographic basis, prior coordination in the traditional
manner outlined in Section 101.103(d) is not always necessary.  Instead, coordination between or among
geographic licensees will require the licensees in each geographic area to develop agreements with each
other on how to utilize their spectrum, especially along the boundaries between areas and/or where there is
line-of-sight into another area, to achieve the most efficient and effective use in each geographic area.

          Option II:  Similar to the Commission's approach regarding PCS and incumbent 2 GHz
microwave licensees, we could relocate licensees so that spectrum is free and clear for licensing by
competitive bidding, using an appropriate channelization plan and geographic service area.  Under this
approach, a spectrum "home" for the relocated licensees would have to be identified.

          Option III:  Similar to our action in the LMDS proceeding regarding 31 GHz band incumbent
licensees, we could identify certain bands in which incumbents could retain co-primary status; and other bands
in which incumbents would have secondary status vis-a-vis new licensees authorized pursuant to a licensing
scheme based on a channelization plan and geographic service area, and assigned by competitive bidding
procedures.  These types of usage raise questions about how spectrum can be shared and whether two co-
primary users can successfully share spectrum.  We will not address specific sharing issues in this proceeding
that are already under consideration elsewhere.  However, we invite comment generally as to changes to our
rules that could facilitate the technology to better enable sharing of the spectrum between terrestrial fixed and
satellite services.  Also, should we establish restrictions on whether the satellite earth stations should be
located outside of major cities where microwave routes are most valuable, and whether auctions should
determine which service is primary and which is secondary? The following are some examples of proposed
sharing:

    One proposed reuse of existing Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) spectrum in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band
  is for terrestrial video use as outlined in the Broadwave Albany, L.L.C. waiver requests.  Broadwave
  seeks co-primary status authority to provide multichannel video programming, including the
  retransmission of local television broadcast signals, to approximately 212 markets throughout the
  United States.  Broadwave also proposes to provide internet services to consumers in these various
  markets.  We note that the 12.2-12.7 GHz band is the subject of an ongoing rulemaking proceeding
  and was one of the bands listed in the International Bureau's Public Notice No. SPB-141, released on
  November 2, 1998, establishing a final cut-off date to file applications for non-geostationary satellite
  orbit fixed satellite service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz frequency band that may be mutually exclusive with
  previously filed applications of Skybridge, L.L.C. (Skybridge).

    Another situation is the proposed sharing of frequency bands between satellite users and fixed
  terrestrial systems.  The Commission has several requests before it concerning the sharing of terrestrial
  spectrum with mobile satellite service (MSS) offerings for feeder links (e.g., applications have been
  received from Constellation II in the 5091-5250 MHz and 6700-7075 MHz bands, from ICO in the
  5150-5250 MHz band, from Iridium Macrocell in the 19.3-19.7 GHz and 29.1-29.5 GHz bands, and
  from Boeing in the 11.597-11.7 GHz band).

        Option IV:  We could retain the current licensing approach utilizing a variety of channelization
plans and site-by-site licensing, but establish new competitive bidding procedures to resolve mutually
exclusive applications.

With respect to what auction rules would be needed, we propose to adhere to our general Part 1 competitive
bidding rules, but to address auction design and methodology on a service-by-service basis.

   78.  The above options would require rules to address the statutory exemptions from auctionability,
for bidding credits, for appropriate eligibility, and for the appropriate channelization plan and geographic
service area or areas to meet the licensing needs of entities seeking microwave spectrum.  What size should
the geographic service areas be? Should there be more than one size of geographic service area, and if so,
what should they be? Should there be nationwide licenses available, or will combinatorial bidding, which
allows bidders to place single bids for groups of licenses, satisfy the need for nationwide backbone
systems?  What size should the channels subject to auction be?  Should the channel plan differ by
frequency band?  Should licensees have the freedom to combine such channels and to engage in unlimited
disaggregation?  Should the channels be structured for broadband use, or should licensees desiring
broadband spectrum be required to seek and combine two or more narrowband licenses? How should
eligibility be structured?  Should the Commission establish spectrum caps?  Should the channel plan
continue to provide separate spectrum blocks for private and common carrier licensees, or is this distinction
no longer necessary in light of the consolidation of the service rules into a single Part 101 (but see
discussion regarding exempt categories, infra)?  

   79.  We also seek comment on the economic impact that the licensing options would have on licensees,
on customers, and on the availability of communications services.  Our policy is to construct a licensing
scheme that permits the market to ensure that spectrum is used efficiently and effectively.  We seek
comment on how a new licensing scheme for general Part 101 spectrum might affect the current
distribution of microwave spectrum.  Would spectrum continue to be made available for advanced
telecommunications services? What would be the effect on PCS, LMDS, and other new services?  What
would be the effect on the 2 GHz microwave incumbents who are relocating pursuant to PCS licensing? 
Would the cost of providing other services now reliant on spectrum above the 2 GHz bands for backbone
support increase, and if so, what would be the effect of such a cost increase?  Are alternatives to
microwave links, such as satellite and fiber, able to accommodate any migration of demand from
microwave spectrum? What are the relative costs of these alternatives?

   2.  Public safety exemption

   80.  The Balanced Budget Act exempted from the Commission's competitive bidding authority licenses
and construction permits for "public safety radio services," which are defined in the statute to include
"private internal radio services used by State and local governments and non-government entities and
including emergency road services provided by not-for-profit organizations, that--(i) are used to protect the
safety of life, health, or property; and (ii) are not made commercially available to the public."

   81.  We invite comments on the following issues:

        Do any of the services licensed under Part 101 come within the Balanced Budget Act's
definition of "public safety radio services"?  Commenters are encouraged to submit quantitative information
regarding:  1) how much of the use is by Public Safety Pool eligibles; 2) how much is for services that
meet the Balanced Budget Act's definition of "public safety radio services," but are not included in the
Public Safety Pool; and 3) what future use will be.  Should these two classes of public safety radio services
be consolidated for purposes of allocating microwave spectrum, or kept separate?  We particularly seek
comment regarding the proper treatment of spectrum such as the frequencies between 2,450 MHz and
2,500 MHz, which currently are available for public safety use on a shared basis with other services. 

        In the general Balanced Budget Act proceeding, we sought comment on whether to designate
certain radio services or classes of frequencies within certain services as "public safety radio services." 
In this Notice, we specifically ask for comment on whether any Part 101 spectrum should be designated for
public safety radio services, and, if such designation is warranted, how much spectrum should be set aside. 
How many spectrum blocks should there be, and how large should they be?  Should separate blocks be set
aside for traditional public safety services and other entities falling within the exemption, or should all
auction-exempt services share spectrum?  How should mutually exclusive applications be avoided or
resolved?

        If spectrum is set aside, should incumbents be protected with primary status, allowed to remain
with secondary status, or relocated?  If incumbents are relocated, who should bear the cost?

   3.  Educational broadcaster exemption

   82.  The Balanced Budget Act exempted from the Commission's competitive bidding authority licenses
and construction permits for "stations described in section 397(6) of this Act," which defines
"noncommercial educational broadcast station" and "public broadcast station" to mean "a television or
radio broadcast station" that is "eligible to be licensed by the Commission as a noncommercial educational
radio or television broadcast station and which is owned and operated by a public agency or nonprofit
private foundation, corporation, or association," or "is owned and operated by a municipality and which
transmits only noncommercial programs for education purposes."  We seek comment on whether LTTS
or other Part 101 stations that are or may be used to transmit television material for noncommercial
educational broadcast stations fall within this auction exemption.  We previously have concluded, however,
that the exemption does not include stations in the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS), because
the exemption does not include nonbroadcast services.  ITFS is a point-to-point or point-to-multipoint
microwave service whose channels are allocated to educational organizations and are used primarily for the
transmission of instructional, cultural, and other types of educational material not intended to be received
by the general public.  Thus, any commenter advocating an exemption for any Part 101 services should
distinguish those services from ITFS.

   D.  Forbearance and Regulatory Flexibility

   83.  Section 10 of the Act provides the Commission with authority to forbear from applying sections of
the Act and its regulations to telecommunications carriers and services if the Commission determines that
enforcement of the regulation or provision is not necessary to ensure just and reasonable charges, practices,
classifications, and regulations; enforcement is not necessary for the protection of consumers; and
forbearance is consistent with the public interest.  In the case of commercial mobile radio service
(CMRS) providers, the Commission concluded that it was appropriate to forbear from Sections 203, 204,
205, 211, 212, and most applications of Section 214.  The Commission, however, declined to forbear
from enforcing other provisions, including Sections 201 and 202.  The Commission has also exercised its
forbearance authority in permitting competitive access providers (CAPs) and competitive local exchange
carriers (CLECs) to file permissive tariffs.  We seek comment regarding whether it is appropriate to
forbear from enforcing any provisions of the Act or the Commission's rules with respect to Part 101
services.

   84.  We also seek comment on whether the type of regulatory flexibility the Commission has permitted
in other services is appropriate for Part 101 licensing.  For example, 39 GHz band and MAS licensees
are permitted to conduct point-to-point, point-to-multipoint, or (upon the establishment of interference
criteria) mobile operations. In both instances, the Commission concluded that lifting the existing
operational restrictions would enable providers to broaden the array of services they offer in order to
respond to changing marketplace demands.  We seek comment on whether some or all other Part 101
licensees also should be permitted to provide such services.  Commenters also should address whether such
operational flexibility is permitted by Section 303(y) of the Act.  Section 303(y) of the Act requires the
Commission to make affirmative findings before permitting flexible use as part of the allocations process. 
Specifically, we are required to determine that such flexibility:  (1) is consistent with international
agreements; (2) would be in the public interest; (3) would not deter investment in communications services
or systems, or technology development; and (4) would not result in harmful interference among users.

                            V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

     A.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

     85.  Appendix B contains a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with respect to the Memorandum
Opinion and Order and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) with respect to the Notice of
Proposed Rule Making.  As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.
96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.  601, et seq., the Commission has prepared an IRFA of the expected
impact on small entities of the proposals set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making.  We request
written public comment on the IRFA.  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 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis regarding the prevalence of small businesses in the
affected industries.  Comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments
filed in this rule making proceeding, but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as
responses to the IRFA.  The Secretary shall send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the Final and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

     B.  Ex Parte Rules -- Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding

     86.  This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rule making proceeding.  Ex parte
presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as
provided in Commission rules.  See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206.

     C.  Paperwork Reduction Analysis

     87.  This Notice of Proposed Rule Making 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, Pub. L. No. 104-
13.  Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice of Proposed
Rule Making; OMB comments are due 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice of Proposed
Rule Making in the Federal Register.  Comments should address:

    n  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.

    n  The accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates.

    n  Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected.

    n  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.

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, 445 Twelfth
St., S.W., Room 1-C804, Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and to Virginia
Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 New Executive Office Building, 725 Seventeenth Street, N. W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20503, or via the Internet to vhuth@omb.eop.gov.

    D.  Comment Dates

  88.  Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, interested parties may file
comments on or before [30 days after publication in the Federal Register], and reply comments on or before
[45 days after publication in the Federal Register].  Comments may be filed using the Commission's
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.  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.  If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the
caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit an electronic copy of the comments to each
docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption.  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 get 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.  

  89.  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing.  If more
than one docket or rulemaking number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit
two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.  All filings must be sent to the
Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 Twelfth St., S.W., TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554.  Parties filing on paper are also
encouraged to submit a copy of all pleadings on a 3.5-inch diskette in an IBM compatible form using
Microsoft Word or compatible software. 

  90.  Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 Twelfth St., S.W., Room CY-A257, Washington, D.C. 20554. 
Copies of comments and reply comments are available through the Commission's duplicating contractor,
International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 857-
3800, FAX (202) 857-3805. 

    E.  Ordering Clauses

  91.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i) and 303(r)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 303(r), and Section 1.429 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.429, the Petitions for Reconsideration, Petitions for Clarification, and
other pleadings submitted in response to the Part 101 Order ARE GRANTED IN PART to the extent
indicated herein AND ARE DENIED IN PART in all other respects.

  92.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Parts 22, 24, 25, 74, 78, 90, and 101 of the Commission's Rules
ARE HEREBY AMENDED as specified in Appendix C.

  93.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the modifications to Part 101 of the Commission's Rules and
Regulations as shown in Appendix C will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal
Register.

  94.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 7, 301,
303, 308, and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 157, 161,
301, 303, 308, 332(a), and 332(c), this Notice of Proposed Rule Making in WT Docket No. 00-19 IS
ADOPTED.

  95.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference
Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, including the Final and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

  96.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proceedings in WT Docket No. 94-148, CC Docket No. 93-
2, and RM-7861 ARE HEREBY TERMINATED.

    F.  Contacts for Information
 
  97.  For further information on this matter contact Michael J. Pollak or Edgar Class, Policy and Rules
Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-
0680.  TTY (202) 418-7233.

  98.  Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available to
persons with disabilities by contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260, TTY (202) 418-2555, or via e-
mail to mcontee@fcc.gov.  This Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making
can be downloaded at http://www.fcc.gov/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc0033.txt.

          FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



          Magalie Roman Salas
          Secretary