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

In the Matter of                     )
                                )
Amendment of the Commission's Rules to    )   GN Docket No. 96-228
Establish Part 27, the Wireless )
Communications Service ("WCS")  )  


                         REPORT AND ORDER

     Adopted: February 19, 1997         Released: February 19, 1997



By the Commission:  Commissioners Ness and Chong issuing separate statements.

  
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                        Paragraph
            I.                 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1

         II.                   BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . 10
                               A.                           Appropriations Act10
                               B.                           Existing Spectrum Allocations and Use11
                                                            1.   International11
                                                            2.   Domestic12

        III.                   DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . 13
                               A.                           Licensing Plan for WCS13
                                                            1.   Permitted Services13
                                                            2.   Spectrum for Each License37
                                                            3.   Licensed Service Areas47
                               B.                           Use of Competitive Bidding61
                               C.                           Consideration of Public Safety Needs66
                               D.                           Service and Technical Rules80
                                                            1.   Eligibility80
                                                            2.   CMRS Spectrum Cap84
                                                            3.   Disaggregation and Partitioning92
                                                            4.   License Term104
                                                            5.   Performance Requirements108
                                                            6.   Regulatory Status116
                                                            7.   Out-of-Band Emission Limits123
                                                            8.   International Coordination145
                                                            9.  RF Safety151
                                                            10  WCS Interference to MDS/ITFS155
                                                            11. Field Strength Between Service Areas158
                                                            12. Additional Technical Issues160
                               E.                           Auction Procedures162
                                                            1.   Competitive Bidding Design163
                                                            2.   Bidding Procedures167
                                                            3.   Procedural and Payment Issues171
                                                            4.   Anti-Collusion Rules180
                                                            5.   Treatment of Designated Entities181

         IV.                   PROCEDURAL MATTERS. . . . . . .202

List of Parties Filing Comments and Reply Comments . . Appendix A
Final Rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B
Major Economic Areas (MEAs) and Their Constituent Economic Areas (EAs)Appendix C
Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs) and Their Constituent MEAsAppendix D



              I.  INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

     1.  In this Report and Order, we fulfill the Congressional mandate expressed in Section
3001 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 ("Appropriations Act") to reallocate
and assign the use of the frequencies at 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 megahertz.  We consider the
proposals set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making ("NPRM") in GN Docket No. 96-228
concerning amendment of the Commission's rules to establish the Wireless Communications
Service ("WCS").  We received 55 comments and 38 reply comments in this proceeding.  Upon
consideration of the extensive record in this proceeding, we take the following actions to
implement the directives of the Appropriations Act.

     2.  We reallocate 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz (2.3 GHz band) and give WCS
licensees flexibility to provide wireless services that are consistent with the allocation table and
associated international agreements.  Any service contained in Part 2 of the Commission's Rules
for the subject band will be permitted within a licensee's assigned spectrum and geographic
area(s).  

     3.  However, because the reallocated WCS spectrum is located on both sides of the
spectrum allocated for the satellite Digital Audio Radio Service ("satellite DARS"), we believe
that there is a substantial risk that the out-of-band emission limits we are adopting -- which we
believe are necessary to protect prospective satellite DARS licensees from interference from WCS
operations -- will, at least in the foreseeable future, make mobile operations in the WCS spectrum
technologically infeasible.  We will require that all emissions from fixed transmitters be attenuated
below the maximum spectral power density (p) by at least 80 + 10 log (p) dBW, and that all
emissions from mobile transmitters be attenuated below p by at least 110 + 10 log (p) dBW within
the 2320-2345 MHz band.  In addition, we will require certain WCS transmitters and devices to
routinely perform  environmental evaluations with respect to our RF safety limits.

     4.  We will award two 10 MHz WCS licenses for each of 52 Major Economic Areas
(MEAs), and two 5 MHz WCS license for each of 12 Regional Economic Area Groupings
(REAGs).  All WCS licenses will be awarded by means of a simultaneous, multiple-round,
electronic auction.  In addition, with respect to public safety communications needs, we note here
our expectation that additional spectrum will be made available for public safety use as a result of
other proceedings.  We also note that new sources of funding for public safety are needed, and
believe that approaches such as that taken in recent legislation introduced in Congress would
substantially aid public safety agencies.
     
     5.  We impose no eligibility restrictions for WCS spectrum, with the exception of the
foreign ownership restrictions set forth in Section 310 of the Communications Act, to the extent
the restrictions are applicable to the particular service in question.  We will not consider WCS
spectrum holdings for purposes of the CMRS spectrum cap.  Consistent with the Commission's
recent decision concerning partitioning and disaggregation by CMRS licensees, we will permit
WCS licensees to partition their service areas into smaller geographic service areas and to
disaggregate their spectrum into smaller blocks without limitation. 

     6.  We will grant WCS licenses for a term of 10 years; and, they will carry a renewal
expectancy similar to that afforded PCS and cellular licensees.  Each WCS licensee will be
required to provide substantial service in its service area within 10 years.

     7.  Winning bidders for WCS licenses will designate in their long-form applications the
type(s) of WCS service(s) they will provide.  Their regulatory treatment will depend on these
designations.  WCS licensees that provide satellite Digital Audio Radio Service ("satellite
DARS") services will be governed by the rules to be adopted in IB Docket No. 95-91.

     8.  With some exceptions, we adopt the competitive bidding rules set forth in Part 1 of the
Commission's Rules for the WCS auction.  We will make available on all WCS licenses bidding
credits of 25 percent and 35 percent for bidders that qualify as small businesses and very small
businesses, respectively, using the revenue standards employed in broadband PCS.  We also adopt
unjust enrichment restrictions on the transfer of licenses acquired by small businesses similar to
those set forth in 47 C.F.R.  24.839(d).

     9.  The Commission makes no representations or warranties about the use of this spectrum
for particular services.  Applicants should be aware that an FCC auction represents an opportunity
to become an FCC licensee in this service, subject to certain conditions and regulations.  An FCC
auction does not constitute an endorsement by the FCC of any particular services, technologies or
products, nor does an FCC license constitute a guarantee of business success.  Applicants should
perform their individual due diligence before proceeding as they would with any new business
venture.


                         II.  BACKGROUND

A.  Appropriations Act

     10.  The Appropriations Act directed the Commission to "reallocate the use of frequencies
at 2305-2320 megahertz and 2345-2360 megahertz to wireless services that are consistent with
international agreements concerning spectrum allocations," to "assign the use of such frequencies
by competitive bidding pursuant to Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934."  In
making these bands of frequencies available for competitive bidding, we were directed to "seek to
promote the most efficient use of the spectrum" and "take into account the needs of public safety
radio services."  The Appropriations Act also requires the Commission to commence the
competitive bidding for the assignment of the frequencies made available by this action no later
than April 15, 1997, and to conduct the competitive bidding for these frequencies in a manner that
ensures that all proceeds of the bidding are deposited in accordance with Section 309(j)(8) of the
Communications Act not later than September 30, 1997.  In order to make this spectrum
available for licensing quickly, the Appropriations Act grants the Commission permission to use
expedited administrative procedures.  Specifically, the Appropriations Act states that rules
governing the frequencies made available by this proceeding will be effective immediately upon
publication in the Federal Register.  The Appropriations Act further provides that 5 U.S.C.
Chapter 6 (regulatory flexibility analysis requirements) and 44 U.S.C.  3507 and 3512
(information collection requirements) will not apply to the rules and competitive bidding
procedures governing the frequencies at issue here.  Further, the statute provides that the
Commission may grant a license application for these frequencies no earlier than seven days
following issuance of a public notice of the acceptance for filing of the application or major
amendment thereto, despite the 30-day public notice provisions of 47 U.S.C.  309(b).  Finally,
the statute provides that the Commission may specify a period that is not less than five days
following issuance of such public notice for the filing of petitions to deny a license application for
these frequencies, despite the 30-day public notice provisions of 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1).


B.  Existing Spectrum Allocations and Use

     1.  International

     11.  We note, as a general matter, that the member nations of the International
Telecommunication Union ("ITU") have adopted radio service allocations that apply to use of the
frequencies under consideration in this proceeding in the United States.  The 2300-2450 MHz
band is allocated to fixed, mobile, and radiolocation services on a primary basis.  In addition, the
2310-2360 MHz band is allocated to broadcasting-satellite service (sound) and complementary
terrestrial sound broadcasting service on a primary basis in the United States, with this use being
limited to digital audio broadcasting.  The 2300-2450 MHz band is also allocated to the
Amateur Radio Service on a secondary basis.  

     2.  Domestic

     12.  In the United States, the 2300-2310 MHz band was made available for exclusive non-Government use as of August 10, 1995.  Currently, the only non-Government use of this band is
by the Amateur Radio Service, which is on a secondary basis.  The 2310-2360 MHz band was
recently reallocated to non-Government broadcasting-satellite service on a primary basis.  The
only broadcasting-satellite service permitted in the United States under this allocation is digital
audio broadcasting delivered by satellite, commonly known as satellite DARS.  In the action
allocating this spectrum to satellite DARS, we stated that it would be necessary to accommodate
the aeronautical telemetry services now operating in the 2310-2360 MHz band in the 2360-2390
MHz band.  The aeronautical telemetry community supported this re-accommodation. 
Continued use of the 2310-2360 MHz band by aeronautical telemetry and radiolocation users is
on a secondary basis.  The 2320-2345 MHz band will continue to be available for the Government
and non-Government mobile service and Government radiolocation service on a primary basis
until such time as a broadcasting-satellite (sound) service has been brought into use in such a
manner as to affect or be affected by the mobile and radiolocation services.    


                        III.  DISCUSSION

A.  Licensing Plan for WCS

     1.  Permitted Services 

     13.  Background.  In the NPRM, we concluded that the Appropriations Act's reallocation
directive means that the Commission may allocate the 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands to
any or all radio services contained in the International Table of Frequency Allocations applicable
to the United States.  We proposed to allocate this spectrum to the fixed, mobile, and
radiolocation services on a primary basis, which are all the services authorized on a primary basis
for these entire bands in the International Table.  We also proposed to retain the current primary
audio broadcasting-satellite allocation that exists in 45 of the 50 MHz of these bands (2310-2320
and 2345-2360 MHz).  We did not propose to change the Amateur Radio Service secondary
allocation of the 2300-2310 MHz band, nor the authorization for the 2310-2360 MHz band to be
used on a secondary basis by aeronautical telemetry operations.  

     14.  We noted that in our Satellite DARS NPRM we had requested comment on whether
we should delay issuing licenses for DARS in the 2310-2320 MHz portion of the DARS allocated
spectrum due to the number and type of Canadian fixed service facilities in that band.  We also
noted that in February 1996, we had informed DARS applicants that previously unknown
additional Canadian operations existed in the 2310-2360 MHz band that particularly impacted
potential use of the 2345-2360 MHz portion of the band for DARS.  Accordingly, we requested
comment on the feasibility of satellite DARS in parts of the 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz
bands.

     15.  Comments.  We received extensive comment on permitting WCS licensees, subject to
proposed specific technical rules, to provide any of the fixed, mobile, radiolocation, or satellite
audio services permitted by the International Table.  Those commenters who supported this
generally argue that: (1) a market-based allocation will enlarge the universe of potential bidders
and permit the spectrum to be valued on the basis of the various services; (2) limiting the scope
of services that could be provided in the WCS spectrum might unduly limit the number and type
of services that could be provided; (3) such an approach is consistent with our treatment of
CMRS providers; and (4) there is no compelling record support for any single use.

     16.  Several of the commenters supporting our proposal also contend that an allocation
that permits flexible domestic use of this spectrum will help to ensure that new technologies are
developed and deployed.  For example, Bellcore states that it is technologically and economically
feasible to design and deploy on this band a wireless system tailored to provide portable Internet
access over wide areas at data rates comparable to ISDN-type connection.  Because the
technical characteristics of such a system would differ significantly from those for some other
systems that might utilize this band (e.g., PCS), Bellcore urges the Commission to neither restrict
the services provided in this band nor dictate technical standards for operation beyond those
required to avoid interference and protect the public health.  Similarly, Vanguard contends that
because the Commission has proposed not to specify any particular use for this spectrum, WCS
licensees should be permitted to provide any technically feasible service, rather than only those
proposed services enumerated in the NPRM.  

     17.  A majority of commenters oppose our flexible use proposal.  These commenters
generally argue that: (1) unrestricted spectrum flexibility will harm the public interest because it
would restrict competition, discourage innovation, and delay the provision of new services; (2)
lack of concrete guidance from the Commission as to the service offerings permitted on WCS
spectrum will inhibit manufacturers' production of equipment necessary for new services and
adversely affect the associated costs and arrival of such equipment to the marketplace; (3)
flexible use of this spectrum cuts against the growing need for worldwide standardized equipment
allocations and would hinder manufacturers' efforts to look to the international marketplace for
added demand for WCS-appropriate devices; (4) uncertainty over the types of services to be
offered by adjacent WCS licensees will adversely affect development of efficient spectrum
utilization plans and make coordination between adjacent markets costly and complex, which
ultimately may require extensive Commission adjudication where adjacent systems are
incompatible; and (5) the Commission must allocate the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands only to services that will not impede the
implementation of satellite DARS or impair its usefulness or quality.   

     18.  In addition, six commenters contend that our proposal to permit WCS licensees to
provide any fixed, mobile, radiolocation services, or satellite DARS is contrary to the
Commission's statutory mandate, under Section 303 of the Communications Act, to allocate
frequencies in the public interest.  These commenters argue that by permitting winning bidders
to determine which type of service will be offered using the WCS spectrum, the Commission has
impermissibly delegated to third parties the task of spectrum allocation.

     19.  In this connection, many commenters recommend that the Commission specify
particular services for the WCS spectrum.  Lucent cites the General Wireless Communications
Service ("GWCS") as an example of a failed past attempt by the Commission to rely on the
market to specify the initial use of a spectrum band, contending that, lacking a service definition,
the development of GWCS has been neither rapid nor efficient.  CTIA asserts that the
Commission should, at a minimum, provide a preliminary allocation for the band and permit
flexibility after use of the band develops.  CTIA states that, subsequent to adequate initial
allocation, flexible use has the benefits of minimizing government intervention in a fully
competitive market and promoting the objectives of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act. 
AirTouch states that the Commission should divide the WCS spectrum into bands and assign an
exclusive use to each band.  
     
     20.  Some commenters argue that the WCS spectrum should be allocated for "specialized
services," such as wireless cable and wireless and mobile data, including Internet access and e-mail (both for commercial use and for schools, libraries, and hospitals), for which there is
developing consumer demand but little access to sufficient spectrum.  For example, PCIA, TIA
and USIPA recommend that the Commission allocate the WCS spectrum for interactive, high
speed, broadband data services, such as wireless Internet access.  Similarly, CTIA suggests
designating a portion of the WCS spectrum to provide schools and libraries with access to a
wireless information network.  BellSouth states that such an approach would increase the overall
competitive value and availability of wireless cable services as an alternative to incumbent wireline
cable operations (the spectrum already allocated for this purpose being limited for technological
reasons).  
  
     21.  Similarly, ADC recommends allocating the 2345-2360 MHz band solely for satellite
DARS, and the 2305-2320 MHz band for fixed terrestrial use.  Specifically, ADC believes that
allocating the 2345-2360 MHz band for satellite DARS will ensure the realization of DARS. 
ADC also states that preclusion of DARS from the 2305-2320 MHz band will avoid concerns
about potential interference with Canadian terrestrial facilities.  With regard to the 2305-2320
MHz band, ADC asserts that this portion of the spectrum would provide a necessary and effective
wireless return path for interactive services provided by over-the-air video service providers such
as broadcast and wireless cable system operators.  While ADC does not propose that the 2305-2320 MHz band be restricted to those applications, it does advocate that the allocation for the
band be only for fixed terrestrial use.

     22.  Some commenters argue that the WCS spectrum should be used only to offer new
services.  For example, 21st Century states that the Commission should not permit fixed and
mobile services to be provided using the WCS spectrum because sufficient spectrum already exists
for the provision of these services.  Rather, 21st Century believes that WCS spectrum should be
used to offer "new" services, in particular radiolocation services and/or satellite DARS. 
Primosphere recommends that the Commission seek additional comment on the suggestions for
services for which there may be a public need, including interactive video, wireless fixed local
loop, wireless Internet access, high-speed broadband data, and wireless cable.  
     
     23.  Other commenters argue that WCS licensees should not be permitted to provide
CMRS, contending that use of WCS spectrum to provide CMRS would be unfair to existing
CMRS licensees because it will result in the devaluation of their licenses when they need
additional capital to complete construction of their systems, resulting in a shortage of operating
capital and added difficulties in obtaining financing.  One commenter argues that these
difficulties are more likely given that many current PCS licensees (particularly small businesses)
are seen as having overpaid for their PCS licenses.  Similarly, some commenters argue that
permitting flexible use of spectrum licensed on a nationwide basis would put existing CMRS
providers at a competitive disadvantage.  Two commenters assert that the Federal Government
previously has determined CMRS to already have been allocated sufficient spectrum and that,
accordingly, no reasoned basis exists for making the 2.3 GHz band available to CMRS.  PCIA
believes that permitting WCS licensees to offer CMRS represents an inefficient use of this
spectrum.  

     24.  Finally, Primosphere and DSBC oppose our proposal to permit aeronautical telemetry
operations to continue in the 2310-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands on a secondary basis.  They
argue that spectrum sharing between satellite DARS and aeronautical telemetry is not technically
feasible.  AFTRCC, on the other hand, states that there is no basis for precluding secondary
flight test use of the 2310-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands.  In addition, ARRL supports our
proposal for continued secondary amateur use of the 2305-2310 MHz band, but suggests that the
Commission afford amateurs "the interference protection and stability afforded by a primary
allocation at 2300-2305 MHz."
  
     25.  Decision.  We conclude that under the totality of circumstances presented, the 2310-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands will be allocated on a primary basis for fixed, mobile,
radiolocation, and broadcasting-satellite (sound) services without further designations.  The 2305-2310 MHz band will be allocated on a primary basis for fixed, mobile except aeronautical mobile,
and radiolocation services.  WCS licensees themselves will determine the specific services they
will provide within their assigned spectrum and geographic areas.  The services that can be
provided, however, will be subject to specific technical rules we adopt infra to prevent
interference to other services.  We emphasize that with the current state of technology there is a
substantial risk that these rules will severely limit, if not preclude, most mobile and mobile
radiolocation uses.  Fixed uses will be less severely affected, but still will require equipment that
will meet technical standards higher than those used for similar purposes on comparable bands,
and therefore may be more costly.

     26.  We believe that in this instance a flexible use allocation serves the public interest.
Permitting a broad range of services to be provided on this spectrum will permit the development
and deployment of new telecommunications services and products to consumers.  Moreover,
WCS licensees will not be constrained to a single use of this spectrum and, therefore, may offer a
mix of services and technologies to their customers.  

     27.  We recognize the concerns raised by commenters about the general application of
flexible allocations, and it is our intent to address those concerns fully in future proceedings.  In
this regard, we emphasize that our decision in this instance to adopt a broadly defined service for
this spectrum should not be interpreted as a finding on the merits of flexibility as general
allocation policy or prejudging the merits of flexibility in any other proceeding before us.  Rather,
our decision here is based on the totality of the circumstances and facts particular to this
proceeding, not the least of which is the short time mandated by Congress to bring this spectrum
to auction.  Importantly, in this particular instance the record does not convincingly demonstrate
how this spectrum should be distributed among particular uses in a manner that would provide
maximum benefit to the public.  Specific services advocated by commenters span a wide range of
potential uses, including interactive, high-speed, broadband data services, such as wireless
Internet access; return links for interactive cable and broadcasting service; mobile data; satellite
DARS; fixed terrestrial use; new and innovative services; radiolocation; educational applications;
and wireless local loop.  While individual commenters advocate specific allocations for one or
more of these uses, we have no clear basis in the current record to prefer some uses over others. 
Thus, limiting the use as some have suggested would risk precluding potentially beneficial
services.
       
     28.  We find that allocating this spectrum for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and audio
broadcasting-satellite services is consistent with the international agreements governing this
spectrum, the Appropriations Act, the Communications Act, and Commission precedent.  We
note that the Appropriations Act specifically directs the Commission to reallocate the WCS
frequencies to "wireless services that are consistent with international agreements concerning
spectrum allocations."  Nothing in this provision or its legislative history restricts the
Commission's authority to assign or allocate this spectrum to more than one permissible use. 
Additionally, our allocation to more than one service is consistent with the Commission's
obligations under the Communications Act.  Section 303 of the Communications Act does not
restrict the Commission's discretion to prescribe the nature of the service to be rendered over
radio frequencies or its authority to allocate frequencies to the various classes of stations or assign
spectrum to stations for more than one permissible use.  With respect to allocation decisions, the
courts have accorded "substantial deference" to Commission determinations.                

     29.  Commission precedent also supports the permissibility of allocating spectrum in a
manner that allows for a broad range of uses.  We noted in the NPRM that the Commission took
this approach in establishing GWCS in August of 1995, where we concluded that authorizing a
wide variety of services bounded only by international allocations comported with our statutory
authority and served the public interest by fostering the provision of a mix of services.   Because
GWCS licenses have yet to be auctioned, the evidence regarding the benefits of having allocated
that spectrum to all uses permitted by our international obligations is inconclusive.  

     30.  We continue to believe that such broad allocations are permitted under the
Communications Act, and we note that we also recently permitted CMRS licensees to provide
fixed and mobile services.  The action we take here is consistent with this precedent.  We note
also that our service designation decision is not so broad as to allow use of the WCS frequencies
for any purpose whatsoever.  For example, the international allocation for part of this spectrum is
for audio broadcast satellite services, and therefore satellite services will be limited to this type of
satellite services.   

     31.   We disagree specifically with those commenters who assert that allocating these
frequencies for fixed, mobile, radiolocation and audio broadcasting-satellite services is an
impermissible allocation by auction or otherwise inconsistent with Section 309(j).  The
allocation decision we make herein is based on our finding that under the circumstances
presented, including the statutory deadline and the lack of a record that supports a specific
allocation, this allocation to fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and audio broadcasting-satellite services
comports with the public interest and with our statutory authority.  Thus, our decision to allocate
this spectrum in this manner is unrelated to our decision to award WCS licenses through
competitive bidding.  
     
     32.  In addition, we disagree with those commenters' arguments that by adopting our
proposal we are impermissibly delegating our authority to allocate spectrum and set technical
rules to other parties.  The allocation we make here is not entirely open-ended, and auction
winners will be subject to strict technical rules that are necessary to prevent interference to other
services and which also will likely limit the actual services they may be able to offer.  As discussed
infra, these technical rules are necessary to prevent interference.  Therefore, we have not
delegated to private parties our responsibility to allocate spectrum and adopt appropriate technical
standards.      

     33.  We also agree with commenters such as Lucent, Motorola, Nortel and CTIA who
argue that economies of scale in equipment supply are important and recognize that our decision
to adopt a flexible allocation may make achieving those economies of scale more difficult. 
However, we have taken several steps that we hope will assist licensees in achieving economies of
scale.  For example, we have established relatively large geographic service areas and spectrum
block sizes.  We also are adopting licensing and auction rules designed to facilitate geographic
area and spectrum aggregations that may foster economies of scale and, in developing their
bidding and aggregation strategies, bidders can consider the benefits of such economies.  We
believe that our allocation and service rules adopted herein comply with all legal requirements
and, considering the totality of the circumstances, serve the public interest.

     34.  We do not believe that the public interest will be served by prohibiting use of this
spectrum for CMRS.  It has been our consistent policy to actively seek to increase competition in
telecommunications markets, and our decision here is consistent with that policy.  Indeed, in the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Congress ordered the transfer of a large amount of
government spectrum to our jurisdiction for nongovernmental use.  CMRS licensees have no
reasonable basis to expect that we would limit the possibility of further entry by withholding
spectrum or by unnecessarily restricting the permissible uses of newly allocated spectrum. 
However, we note that, given the out-of-band emission limits we adopt for WCS, technology will
likely severely limit, if not preclude, most mobile services on this spectrum, at least in the near
term.

     35.  Some commenters express concern with difficulties in controlling interference. We are
responding to this concern by setting specific limits on field strength at the geographic boundaries
between licensees and on emissions outside the assigned spectrum blocks.  While we recognize
that different system designs have different sensitivities to interference and cause different types
and degrees of interference, we believe that these limits provide a reasonable degree of
predictability as to the magnitude of interfering signals one can expect from adjacent areas and
spectrum blocks.  However, we recognize that these out-of-band and out-of-area power limits do
not by themselves ensure interference-free operation.  They control primary factors that determine
the amount of interference a licensee can expect from neighboring areas and blocks, but there are
many other factors that affect interference that they do not control and that are not under the
receiver owner's direct control.  For example, the level of interference caused to a licensee's
receivers from transmitters in an adjacent spectrum block may also depend on the number of such
transmitters, their location relative to the receivers, their antenna directivity and polarization, their
duty cycle, and other factors.  Since these factors are not regulated by the Commission, they
create uncertainty about the amount of interference a licensee may receive.  Licensees can reduce
this uncertainty by coordinating with their neighbors, and we encourage them to do so.  They also
can reduce the risk of interference by properly designing and engineering their receiving systems
and by using technologies that reduce their receivers' susceptibility to unwanted signals.  Also,
bidders can reduce their exposure to interfering signals from neighboring spectrum blocks or areas
by aggregating adjoining licenses in the auction or through post-auction transactions.  But again
we emphasize that interference-free operation is not assured by our limits.  Each WCS licensee
must ultimately assume responsibility for protecting its own receiving system from interference
from transmitters in adjoining blocks and areas that meet our limits, and applicants should
understand this before they bid for these licenses. 

     36.  Finally, in the NPRM, we proposed to permit amateurs to continue to use the 2305-2310 MHz band on a secondary basis.  We also proposed to permit continued flight test and
vehicle launch use of the 2310-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands on a secondary basis.  We are
adopting these proposals.  The effect of this action is that amateurs and aeronautical telemetry
operations will be able to continue to use these bands so long as these operations do not interfere
with WCS service.   In addition, we update and clarify the frequency sharing requirements for
amateur use of the 2300-2310 MHz and adjacent bands.  We also clarify that footnotes US276
and US339 permit the use of various frequencies for telemetering and associated telecommand
operations of launch vehicles "on a co-equal basis by Government and non-Government
stations."  With respect to Primosphere's request that all flight test operations be precluded from
the WCS bands, we find no basis for precluding such operations on a secondary basis.  We make
clear that if secondary flight test operations cause harmful interference to WCS operations, they
must immediately either correct the problem or cease operations.  If such operations prove to be a
problem, however, we may re-evaluate this issue in the future. 

     2.  Spectrum for Each License 

     37.  Background.  In the NPRM, we requested comment on the appropriate amount of
spectrum to be provided for each WCS license at 2.3 GHz.  We specifically requested comment
on whether 5, 10, 15 or 30 MHz is the most suitable amount.  We noted that 5 MHz bandwidths
would be sufficient for paging, radiolocation, dispatch, or point-to-point backbone operations. 
We also observed that larger bandwidths, such as 10 to 15 MHz, would allow more direct
competition with existing fixed and mobile service providers and may also better support some
multi-channel satellite DARS.  We also asked for comment on whether a single 30 MHz license
would offer the most effective approach for providing new two-way fixed or point-to-multipoint
uses, such as interconnection with the Internet and other digital network services.  Finally, we
requested comment on what size spectrum block could best support, in part or fully, the provision
of fixed local loop services.

     38.  We also sought comment on whether the WCS spectrum should be assigned on a
paired or unpaired basis.  Alternatively, we requested comment on an approach where spectrum
bandwidths or pairing of the spectrum are determined through the competitive bidding process. 
We noted that the 30 MHz of spectrum could be divided into 5 MHz blocks and the amount of
spectrum and the location of the spectrum (i.e., contiguous or paired) for each WCS licensee
could be determined through the auction process.  We further invited commenting parties to
suggest additional alternatives for both the amount of spectrum and the size of service areas for
WCS licensees.  We noted that the Appropriations Act requires that we conclude initial licensing
of this spectrum and the collection of all bidding proceeds no later than September 30, 1997.  We
stated our belief that licensing the WCS spectrum for service to large areas, with relatively few
licenses to be awarded, would speed the WCS licensing process and the collection of bidding
proceeds, consistent with the requirements of the Appropriations Act.  Whatever initial licensing
approach is chosen for WCS, we proposed to permit spectrum and service area aggregation
through the auction process, e.g., we would permit parties to bid for more than one license in
each geographic area and for multiple areas.

     39.  Comments.  We received extensive comments addressing how this spectrum should be
licensed for WCS services.  The commenting parties suggest a broad range of options for
licensing WCS, from a single 30 MHz license to licenses as small as 1 MHz.  Of these options, the
proposal to divide the spectrum into three 10 MHz (two 5 MHz paired) channels received a
significant amount of support from the commenting parties.  These commenters support a 10
MHz channeling plan because: (1) it would allow for the widest range of spectrum use; and (2)
10 MHz is the minimum amount of spectrum needed to compete effectively and provide certain
types of services, such as portable Internet access.  Pocket supports a 10 MHz channeling plan
on the basis that small blocks of spectrum of no more than 10 MHz would be the most flexible
channeling approach, permitting operators to bid for no more than the amount of spectrum they
need.  Some of these commenters also explicitly support use of paired channels.  They contend
that pairing would accommodate both the provision of two-way data services and of wireless
local loop and other voice applications over WCS spectrum.  In addition, PPF argues that the
use of paired frequency bands generally will increase the range, reduce the cost and improve the
outdoor service quality of terrestrial WCS systems. 

     40.  A number of other commenters support licensing WCS spectrum as six 5 MHz
unpaired channels.  ALLTEL, for example, states that a band plan based on 5 MHz unpaired
channels would facilitate the ability of entities to acquire the amount of spectrum most
appropriate for their service offerings.  Under a flexible use approach, DSBC contends that the
best course for ensuring efficient use of WCS spectrum is to distribute the spectrum in small
blocks, thereby allowing licensees maximum flexibility to determine the best use of the spectrum. 
Similarly, Sprint PCS/Sprint states that, to ensure that the market can effectively determine
efficient usage for WCS spectrum, WCS should be licensed in 5 MHz blocks.  Sprint PCS/Sprint
argues that initial licensing of larger spectrum blocks would discourage service innovation and
efficient utilization, and would undercut the significant strides the Commission has made in
encouraging a robust, competitive CMRS industry.  NABOB states that it is much easier to
"cure" an underassignment of spectrum than an overassignment in the auction.  Further, NABOB
argues that 5 MHz channels can be aggregated to create larger frequency blocks if desired, but
that the allocation of channels larger than 5 MHz will preclude many minority-owned small
businesses from participating in the competitive bidding process and possibly from the provision
of WCS.  PrimeCo asserts that 5 MHz channels would allow a greater number of potential
licensees to participate in WCS than any of the other amounts proposed in the NPRM.  In this
regard, PrimeCo states that, in the PCS docket, it was noted that a 5 MHz block and the use of
digital technology could provide twice the capacity of current analog cellular systems.  It further
states that 5 MHz is more than twice the total amount of spectrum available for the entire
narrowband PCS service and is equal to the amount of spectrum currently available for the entire
900 MHz SMR service.  

     41.  Several commenters support the initial licensing of the WCS spectrum in a single 30
MHz block.  APT and Markle support earmarking the WCS spectrum for a nationwide wireless
data service and state that WCS licenses should either be for the entire 30 MHz of spectrum or
that there should be two 15 MHz unpaired licenses, with the market determining whether they are
paired or unpaired.  MCI and SOSCO state that a single 30 MHz license is the minimum
bandwidth capable of delivering a wide range of digital services, from "wireline" quality voice to
high-speed Internet access services.  MCI notes that 30 MHz would provide rough parity with
the Block A, B, and C broadband PCS licensees and with cellular licensees.  MCI and DSC
contend that, in order to maximize the potential value of WCS for wireless services, as well as to
stimulate direct competition to existing fixed and mobile services, the Commission should avoid
dividing the spectrum into smaller frequency blocks.  In addition, Markle argues that dividing
the spectrum into small slivers would violate Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
which requires the Commission to encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications
capabilities to all Americans, and that small spectrum blocks would improperly pose a large
barrier to investment and competition.  SOSCO also states that in the Gulf of Mexico, where the
target population is almost entirely industrial, potential WCS licensees may decide not to make
the enormous investment necessary to provide service unless there is sufficient bandwidth to
provide the full array of advanced services required by the large, sophisticated businesses present
in the Gulf.

     42.  In addition, there is limited support for various other bandplans.  For example,
Comcast and Vanguard recommend that the WCS spectrum be assigned in two 15 MHz blocks in
order to maximize the potential services that can be offered by licensees.  Four parties propose
their own bandplans: (1) BellSouth -- one 3 + 3 MHz block and two 6 + 6 MHz blocks; (2)
ADC -- three 5 MHz and one 15 MHz unpaired blocks; (3) Omnipoint -- two 5 MHz, two 4
MHz, two 3 MHz, two 2 MHz, and two 1 MHz unpaired blocks; and (4)  Sun Microsystems --
five 1 + 1 MHz blocks and two 5 + 5 MHz blocks. 

     43.  Finally, Motorola and ROC raise additional issues concerning channelization of the
WCS spectrum.  Specifically, Motorola recommends that we allocate 8 + 8 MHz of the WCS
band for public safety fixed point-to-point operations, which would provide ten 800 + 800 kHz
channels for use in a frequency coordinated manner.  ROC requests that two 500 kHz
nationwide licenses in the 2345-2360 MHz band be allocated for DARS interactive response
links. 

     44.  After the comment period in this proceeding closed, several commenters submitted
proposed band plans that they argue would mitigate the effects of the out-of-band emission limits
discussed in Section III.D.7, infra, required to protect satellite DARS reception in the 2320-2345
MHz band.  Specifically, in its January 10, 1997 filing, Primosphere points out the unique
circumstances of a satellite receive band "sandwiched" between two bands proposed for terrestrial
services, including possible mobile service.  Primosphere suggests that among the various
technical and operational feasible means by which WCS licensees could achieve the necessary
protection for satellite DARS reception is spectrum planning (such as prohibiting mobile
transmissions in the 5 MHz adjacent to the satellite DARS band).  Primosphere suggests that a
possible frequency plan is three 10 MHz paired channels with a uniform transmit and receive
separation.  Lucent agrees with Primosphere that the WCS spectrum with satellite DARS in the
middle of the band is unique to spectrum management and represents some extraordinary
technical challenges.  Lucent recommends that the WCS spectrum be initially offered as two 10
MHz paired channels (2305-2310 MHz paired with 2350-2355 MHz and 2310-2315 MHz paired
with 2355-2360 MHz) and two 5 MHz unpaired channels (2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350
MHz).

     45.  Decision.  We observe that the commenting parties generally support either 5 MHz
unpaired channel blocks or 10 MHz paired channel blocks, with the vast majority finding that at
least 10 MHz is needed to provide certain WCS services in an efficient and competitive manner. 
We note, however, that the potential uses of the WCS spectrum will be greatly affected by the
out-of-band emission limits, discussed in Section III.D.7 infra, needed to protect satellite DARS
reception in the 2320-2345 MHz band.  In particular, these limits will have the greatest impact on
the portion of the WCS spectrum immediately adjacent to the satellite DARS band, namely, the
WCS spectrum at 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz.  In order to account for this effect in
light of the overall record of this proceeding, and to minimize its impact on WCS operations
generally, we find that WCS should be licensed initially as two 10 MHz channel blocks (with 5
MHz of this spectrum from the lower band paired with 5 MHz from the upper band) plus two 5
MHz blocks (those immediately adjacent to the satellite DARS spectrum).  We believe that this
channelization will permit WCS licensees to offer a wide variety of services.  For example, the
record suggests that the 10 MHz channel blocks represent the minimum amount of spectrum
needed to support certain data and wireless local loop services, including wireless Internet
access.  In addition, we believe that providing for 10 MHz of spectrum on a paired basis would
allow for the introduction of both one-way and two-way services and would facilitate the
implementation of a variety of technologies.  In the spectrum adjacent to the satellite DARS band,
however, we believe that WCS mobile operations may be prohibitively expensive and
technologically infeasible for a substantial period of time.  Also, the narrow (i.e., 30 MHz)
transmit and receive separation between the 2315-2320 MHz and 2345-2350 MHz bands would
substantially increase the cost of equipment employing traditional frequency division duplex
technology if pairing of these blocks were required.  By making this spectrum available initially to
WCS licensees as two 5 MHz unpaired channel blocks, the spectrum may have increased utility
for satellite DARS and a variety of WCS fixed operations, especially those employing time
division duplex technology.  Also, we will not preclude WCS licensees from pairing this spectrum
on their own initiative, whether through submission of winning bids for each block at auction or
through spectrum aggregation in the aftermarket.  Another advantage of this overall initial
licensing approach is that the offering of only four licenses in each service area will allow the
WCS auction to be completed within the timetable contemplated by the Appropriations Act.  In
this respect, we believe that this licensing plan is superior to other options suggested by the
commenters that would involve greater licensing complexity and probably greater delay.  The
initial channel blocks we have selected are shown in the Table below. 


Channel Block
Frequency Range


A
2305-2310 and 2350-2355 MHz 


B
2310-2315 and 2355-2360 MHz


C
2315-2320 MHz 


D
2345-2350 MHz

      
     46.  As discussed in Section III.D.3., infra, we also are allowing for spectrum aggregation
and disaggregation, without restriction, so that parties, for example, desiring to employ
technology that requires unpaired spectrum or asymmetrically paired spectrum can either
disaggregate the channels initially offered or purchase additional needed amounts of spectrum in
the after-market.  In addition, applicants may bid on all four channel blocks in a service area and,
if successful, render the type of services addressed by those commenters supporting the licensing
of WCS spectrum in a single 30 MHz block.  Thus, the initial offering of WCS spectrum in 5
MHz or 10 MHz blocks does not preclude the offering of services which might require a greater
amount of spectrum.  Further, the disaggregation flexibility afforded licensees potentially allows
provision of WCS services which require less spectrum than contained in the initial blocks.  In
sum, initially licensing the WCS spectrum according to the channel block plan identified above
and allowing for spectrum aggregation and disaggregation will permit a wide variety of applicants
to provide services and satisfy the requirements of the Appropriations Act.  We also believe that
providing for four blocks, along with our spectrum disaggregation rules, will promote the
objectives of Section 309(j)(4)(C) of the Communications Act by providing for distribution of
licenses and services among geographic areas and providing greater opportunity for a wide variety
of applicants, including small businesses and other designated entities, than would be possible
under a single 30 MHz block plan.

     3.  Licensed Service Areas

     47.  Background.  In the NPRM, we stated our belief that licensing WCS spectrum on the
basis of large geographic service areas would facilitate operation of the broadest possible range of
new communications services in the spectrum and would promote their introduction in the most
rapid and efficient manner.  We noted that nationwide licensing would facilitate nationwide
roaming and interoperability and allow for maximum economies of scale, and requested comment
on the appropriate size for WCS licenses.  Specifically, we asked whether WCS should be
licensed on the basis of the 51 Major Trading Areas ("MTAs") defined for the narrowband and
broadband Personal Communications Services ("PCS"), regional service areas similar to the 5
regions adopted for narrowband PCS, or on a nationwide basis.

     48.  Comments.  The record reflects a wide variety of suggested service area definitions,
ranging from nationwide licensing to licensing on the basis of the Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs) and Rural Service Areas (RSAs) used for cellular licensing.  Some commenters base their
suggestions for the geographic scope of WCS licenses on what they perceive to be the likely use
of WCS spectrum.  For example, APT and Markle support licensing WCS on a nationwide basis
because doing so would facilitate creation of a nationwide wireless data network.  APT
suggests that such a network would further the national goal, expressed in Section 254(b)(2)(A)
of the Communications Act, as amended, of enhancing access to advanced telecommunications
and information services for all public and nonprofit elementary and secondary school classrooms,
health care providers, and libraries.  Markle argues that parcelling spectrum out in geographic
slivers would foreclose the opportunity for a nationwide system because of the high transaction
costs, and that although a nationwide license may be out of their reach, smaller entities will be
able to participate in WCS through the proposed disaggregation and partitioning provisions.  In
addition, MCI believes that nationwide licensing would facilitate construction of an efficient and
uniform WCS "infrastructure" that could be used by the licensee and others to provide services
and content.  ADC and SIA contend that the Commission should license a portion of WCS
spectrum, the 2345-2360 MHz band, on a nationwide basis because otherwise DARS proponents
will not have an opportunity to secure, at an auction, the national footprint necessary to develop
viable DARS service.

     49.  Commenters opposed to nationwide licensing generally argue that such a plan would
restrict the number of entities (especially small businesses) capable of bidding in the WCS auction
and providing WCS service.  In addition, some contend that nationwide licensing would leave
many areas unserved or result in delays in service to rural areas.  Others are concerned that
nationwide licensing of WCS would undermine the reasonable expectations of MTA- and BTA-based PCS licenses and their investors, making it more difficult for those licensees to obtain
financing and continue the build-out of their systems.  Finally, some commenters state that an
auction of nationwide licenses would decrease auction competition and raise less auction
revenue than an auction of smaller area licenses.

     50.  Use of service areas based on the Major Trading Areas (MTAs) and the Basic
Trading Areas (BTAs) designated by Rand McNally received the most support from
commenters.  For example, BANM states that MTAs and BTAs have proven to be efficient
market sizes for CMRS with respect to roaming and interoperability and that larger license areas
would not produce any greater efficiencies for WCS.  BANM believes that MTAs and BTAs
provide the most flexibility, permitting service area aggregation where economically efficient
while not forcing carriers to acquire (and potentially not serve) unwanted areas.  Supporters of
MTA licensing for WCS generally believe that this service area size will: (1) encourage the most
diverse group of service providers due to lower costs of participating in the auction and creating a
network to provide service; (2) facilitate interoperability and allow for economies of scale that
will encourage the development of low cost equipment; (3) result in the broadest flexibility in
terms of service offerings by WCS licensees; and (4) be fairer to existing service providers
and/or result in greater levels of competition between both new and existing providers. 
Commenters favoring BTA service areas for WCS contend that BTAs will: (1) promote efficiency
by allowing a bidder to acquire licenses for only as much area as required for its prospective
service; (2) increase the number of entities able to participate in the auction, particularly small
businesses and rural telephone companies ("rural telcos"); (3) improve opportunities for current
broadband PCS C and F Block licensees with overlapping BTA networks to lease infrastructure
and other support to independent WCS licensees; and (4) ensure the rapid build-out of WCS
systems.

     51.  Some commenters suggest that WCS service areas be based on the 172 Economic
Areas ("EAs") developed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of
Commerce.  These commenters raise arguments similar to those supporting MTAs or BTAs,
such as a larger number of entities being able to participate in the service, and use of EAs
resulting in increased competition in the industry, particularly from small businesses and rural
telcos.  One commenter notes, however, that defining WCS service areas based upon EAs
would contravene the interests of customers and carriers by confusing and disrupting an already-complex pattern of CMRS service areas (i.e., MSAs and RSAs for cellular, MTAs and BTAs for
broadband PCS, and aggregated MTAs for some narrowband PCS services).  Finally, one
commenter recommends the use of MSAs and RSAs to define service areas for the WCS, noting
that the use of these areas assured the rapid deployment of cellular services to rural areas, and
afforded smaller entities a realistic chance to participate in the cellular industry.

     52.  Two commenters propose that we create a WCS service area that will cover the Gulf
of Mexico.  SOSCO and PetroCom suggest that the increase in exploration and production
activity in the Gulf of Mexico has resulted in a growing demand for voice, data and video
telecommunications services which telecommunications providers in that area have been unable to
meet because the spectrum used to provide such services has not been made available for licensing
in the area.  Specifically, SOSCO contends that we should license WCS on the basis of MTAs,
and issue a single WCS license for the Gulf of Mexico. 

     53.  Decision.  In deciding on the appropriate service areas size for WCS licenses, we
must balance several factors.  We wish to encourage the rapid deployment of new
telecommunications technologies and services on WCS spectrum; thus, we must assess the use or
uses to which this spectrum is likely to be put and determine the geographic scope that would best
facilitate rapid deployment thereof.  In addition, we believe that because this spectrum has not
heretofore been used to provide commercial services and no equipment has yet been developed
for use in this band, consumers would benefit if the WCS band plan enables equipment
manufacturers to realize economies of scale that will translate to lower equipment costs to service
providers.  We also recognize that the Appropriations Act directed us to "assign the use of
[WCS] frequencies by competitive bidding pursuant to section 309(j)."  Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act includes as objectives for competitive bidding the avoidance of excessive
concentration of licenses and the dissemination of licenses among a wide variety of applicants. 
In addition, we are mindful of our statutory obligation to conduct the auction for WCS licenses to
ensure that all proceeds are deposited by September 30, 1997, and of our experience in previous
auctions, which has shown that simultaneous, multiple round auctions for a larger number of
licenses are more complex and take longer to complete than similar auctions involving fewer
licenses.  Finally, we note that aggregation of both spectrum and service areas through the auction
process has proven to be an effective method of allowing bidders to acquire the right amount of
spectrum for their business needs.

     54.  Balancing the various factors noted above, we conclude that WCS will be licensed in
two ways.  First, with respect to the C and D blocks, WCS will be licensed on the basis of
regional areas similar to those used in our narrowband PCS rules.  In WCS, however, we will
define the regions by aggregating EAs in the continental United States into 6 larger groupings. 
We will refer to these service areas as Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs).  In addition,
consistent with our approach in other services, we will create separate REAGs covering the five
U.S. possessions, as follows: Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands (REAG # 9), Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands (REAG # 10) and American Samoa (REAG # 11), as well as separate
service areas for Alaska (REAG # 7) and Hawaii (REAG # 8).  As discussed more fully infra,
we also will create a service area in the Gulf of Mexico (REAG # 12).  Second, the A and B
blocks will be licensed in smaller areas, by aggregating EAs into 46 areas (to be called Major
Economic Areas, or MEAs) in the continental United States and an additional 6 areas covering
Alaska (MEA # 47); Hawaii (MEA # 48); Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands (MEA # 49);
Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands (MEA # 50); American Samoa (MEA # 51); and the Gulf
of Mexico (MEA # 52).  We believe that this licensing scheme satisfies the various and often
conflicting positions raised by the commenters and will best accommodate our objectives under
309(j) of the Communications Act.

     55.  Specifically, the larger WCS license areas that we will provide for in the C and D
blocks will accommodate those commenters who argue that large areas will (1) encourage the
rapid development and deployment of innovative service; (2) facilitate interoperability and the
setting of standards; (3) allow for economies of scale that will encourage the development of low
cost equipment; and (4) facilitate provision of satellite DARS services.  Many commenters in this
proceeding point out that WCS spectrum can be used effectively to provide wireless local loop,
broadband data services and DARS services.  At least with respect to these services, there may be
significant economic efficiencies that could be realized -- to the ultimate benefit of consumers -- if
these services were to be provided with nationwide scope.  Licensing the C and D blocks in
WCS on a REAG basis may facilitate aggregation of service areas and speed implementation of
these new services.   

     56.  In addition, a number of commenters point out that ensuring technical coordination
and minimizing interference across geographic areas is very difficult when the exact nature of the
services to be provided is unknown and the spectrum may be used to provide a variety of service
offerings.  AirTouch, for example, argues that under a flexible spectrum use plan, adjacent
licensees will have difficulties developing efficient spectrum use plans because the adjacent
licensee's service offerings are unknown.  The larger service areas in the C and D blocks will
speed and simplify the process of interference coordination along geographic boundaries, as well
as minimize transaction costs and disputes arising from interference, and facilitate implementation
of services that would require roaming capabilities and easy interoperability.  In addition, because
equipment currently is not available for use in this band, the larger service areas in the C and D
blocks also should enable manufacturers to achieve greater economies of scale in production of
equipment, thus reducing its per-unit cost and allowing more rapid deployment of services to the
ultimate benefit of consumers. 

     57.  While we are mindful of the desire of some parties to have large licenses, we also
agree with commenters that contend that smaller businesses will have more difficulty competing in
the WCS auction for licenses in the large regions.  In this regard, we believe that the creation of
smaller MEAs in the A and B blocks (along with the large bidding credits provided for small
businesses, see Section III.E.5, infra), will provide greater opportunities for smaller businesses to
compete in an auction and participate in the provision of WCS services. We further note that,
consistent with views of some commenters, these smaller service areas will: (1) enable a larger
number of entities to participate in the provision of services and result in increased competition;
(2) encourage a more diverse group of service providers due to the lower costs of participating in
the auction; and (3) result in broader flexibility in service offerings by WCS licensees.  We also
believe that these smaller service areas will encourage efficiencies by making it easy for a bidder
to acquire licenses for only as much area as required for its prospective service. 

     58.  We note that some commenters support even smaller BTAs and MSAs/RSAs to
facilitate participation in the WCS service by small businesses.  We find that service areas based
on such smaller areas might compromise our ability to complete the WCS auction within the
statutorily mandated time frame.  In any event, we note that in addition to the large bidding
credits offered to small businesses, our provisions for partitioning and disaggregation (see Section
III.D.3, infra) should work to provide significant opportunities to smaller businesses to
participate in the provision of WCS services.  

     59.  As noted above, two commenters, SOSCO and PetroCom, advocate licensing the
Gulf of Mexico as a separate service area to help meet the growing communications needs of
petroleum and natural gas providers in the area.  In light of those requests, we designate a
separate REAG and MEA covering the Gulf of Mexico.  We determine that land-based license
regions abutting the Gulf of Mexico will extend to the limit of the territorial waters of the United
States in the Gulf, which is the maritime zone that extends approximately twelve nautical miles
from the U.S. baseline.  Beyond that line of demarcation, we will create the Gulf of Mexico
REAG and MEA, which will extend from that line outward to the broadest geographic limits
consistent with international agreements (see maps at Appendices C and D).  The limits and
coordination of signal strengths at the boundaries of the service areas meeting in the Gulf region
will be the same as those that will apply for all service areas.  

     60.  Finally, we note that several commenters argue that their suggested WCS licensed
service area sizes will increase auction revenues.  We wish to make clear that, consistent with
Section 309(j)(7)(A) of the Communications Act, we have considered the communications
needs of potential service providers and the American public in developing these service areas. 
We have not considered anticipated auction revenue.


B.  Use of Competitive Bidding

     61.  Background.  In the NPRM, we sought comment on our general assessment, based
upon the requirements of both the Appropriations Act and Section 309(j) of the Communications
Act, that WCS licenses should be awarded by means of competitive bidding. 
     62.  Comments.  We received no comments addressing our tentative conclusion that WCS
licenses should be awarded through competitive bidding pursuant to Section 309(j).

     63.  Decision.  We will adopt rules providing for the assignment of these frequencies
through the use of competitive bidding pursuant to Section 309(j).  As we noted in the NPRM,
the Appropriations Act directs the Commission to assign licenses to use the 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands through competitive bidding pursuant to Section 309(j) of the Communications
Act.  Section 309(j) provides that auctions may be used to award licenses among mutually
exclusive applicants where the principal use of such spectrum will involve, or is reasonably likely
to involve, a subscription-based service.  We continue to believe that it is reasonable to
conclude that the principal use of WCS spectrum will involve, or is reasonably likely to involve,
the transmission or reception of communications signals to subscribers for compensation.  While
we have decided to permit WCS licensees to provide a range of services, the uses of this spectrum
most mentioned by commenters appear to involve services that would be provided on a
subscription basis.  Fixed (and radiolocation) services that could be provided include services
similar to the Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service ("MMDS"), the Location and
Monitoring Service ("LMS"), Digital Termination Systems ("DTS"), Digital Electronic Messaging
Service ("DEMS"), wireless local loop, and certain of the services provided by Local Multipoint
Distribution Service ("LMDS").  Although it may be technologically infeasible to provide mobile
services as a WCS offering in the near future due to the necessity for strict technical standards
(see Section III.D.7, infra), services that may ultimately be provided include those similar to PCS,
cellular, Specialized Mobile Radio ("SMR") and paging.  All of these services currently are
provided to subscribers for compensation and we believe that it is reasonable to expect that WCS
offerings will be provided on a similar basis.  In this regard, even if a WCS licensee chooses to
offer a satellite DARS service on that portion of the spectrum available for such use, we believe it
is likely that such service also will be offered on a subscription basis.

     64.  Our decision today also advances the objectives contained in Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act.  Section 309(j)(3)(A) directs the Commission to seek to promote the
development and rapid deployment of new technologies, products, and services for the benefit of
the public, including those residing in rural areas, without administrative or judicial delays.  In this
regard, we believe that our service and licensing rules, in conjunction with our allocation plan, will
allow for and foster the development of a range of new services and technologies.  These policies
also will advance the objective, expressed in Section 309(j)(3)(B), of promoting economic
opportunity and competition and ensuring that new and innovative technologies are readily
accessible to the American people by avoiding excessive concentration of licenses and by
disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including small businesses, rural telcos,
and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women.  

     65.  The Appropriations Act states that in making these frequencies available for
competitive bidding, the Commission shall seek to promote the most efficient use of the
spectrum.  As we stated in the NPRM, we believe that our competitive bidding rules will ensure
that spectrum is made available to those who value it most highly and therefore are most likely to
put it to its most economically efficient use.  This outcome will be further assured by our use of a
simultaneous, multiple round auction that will allow applicants to aggregate spectrum and service
areas into parcels of efficient size and to realize economies of scale and scope without the need
for costly and time consuming post-auction transactions.  In addition, as indicated above, we have
decided to permit the WCS licensee to provide fixed, mobile, radiolocation or satellite DARS
services.  We believe there are significant competitive alternatives for each of these types of
services that will ensure that WCS licensees have incentives to operate in an efficient and effective
manner.  We therefore believe that there will be sufficient market incentives to promote the most
efficient use of the 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands, as required by the Appropriations Act
and Section 309(j)(3)(D) of the Communications Act.


C.  Consideration of Public Safety Needs

     66.  Background.  As we discussed in the NPRM, the Appropriations Act instructs the
Commission to take into account the needs of public safety radio services in making the WCS
spectrum available through competitive bidding.  Recognizing that the Appropriations Act marks
the first time that Congress has specifically directed us to consider the needs of public safety radio
services in connection with licensing a particular spectrum band, we sought comment generally on
how we can best effectuate Congressional intent with regard to public safety needs as related to
this spectrum.  In addition, we noted that in a post-enactment letter, the Chairman and Ranking
Member of the House Committee on Commerce suggest that the Commission, consistent with its
obligation to promote the public interest, "pay particular attention to how the needs of public
safety as well as commercial applicants may best be met in determining how to design this
auction."  We refered to the recommendations made by the Public Safety Wireless Advisory
Committee in its final report, and asked interested parties how our WCS rules should be
fashioned so as to benefit the public safety community consistent with those recommendations. 
Finally, we invited commenters to address a broad array of options, including making an
allocation of some portion of the WCS spectrum for public safety entities, assigning the WCS
spectrum with an obligation to contribute toward needs identified by the public safety community,
and taking steps to encourage the use of WCS spectrum for services useful to public safety
entities.

     67.  Comments.  We received wide-ranging comment from diverse sources addressing the
issue of public safety.  Several commenters assert that public safety entities are unlikely to obtain
spectrum through an auction because they lack sufficient resources to compete effectively with
interested commercial service providers.  APCO contends that state and local governments
should never be required to pay the federal government for the right to use radio spectrum for
basic governmental activities such as the protection of life and property.

     68.  Outside of the auction context, several commenters suggest that we consider
allocating a portion of the WCS spectrum for use by public safety radio services, or at least
afford them higher priority, and some argue that such an allocation would be within our
authority under Section 3001(b)(2) of the Appropriations Act.  For example, Sprint PCS/Sprint
suggests that the Commission set aside at least 10 MHz of spectrum in each licensing area for
public safety use.  Also, Sprint PCS/Sprint contends that it is not clear from the Appropriations
Act that Congress intended that all of the spectrum reallocated for WCS be auctioned.  Along
similar lines, Pocket suggests allocation of a significant (if not primary) portion of the WCS
spectrum for public safety users who have been displaced from other spectrum.  APCO
contends that any set-aside must include enough spectrum to permit sufficient channel capacity
and to stimulate equipment development.  APCO contends that any allocation less than 3 MHz
would be of not value.  In contrast, Vanguard believes that the Appropriations Act does not
permit the Commission to allocate a portion of the spectrum for assignment to public safety uses
without competitive bidding.  While Motorola and APCO believe that WCS spectrum could
help provide some important public safety applications (including fixed point-to-point capacity,
video and data), they also believe that Congressional clarification that auctions would not be
required for some portion of the band would be needed before we could allocate it for public
safety needs.  Moreover, APCO suggests that because the Appropriations Act requires that the
Commission both auction the WCS spectrum and take into account the needs of public safety, the
Commission should consult with Congress to determine the best means of achieving these
"conflicting statutory objectives."  ITA believes that the "revenue-generation objective" of the
Appropriations Act requires that any allocation made in this proceeding to accommodate public
safety needs would be inconsequential.

     69.  Other commenters also suggest allocation for both public safety and broader safety-related operational needs.  For example, API suggests that the Commission give consideration to
the spectrum needs of the petroleum and natural gas industries, classified as "public service
providers" in the PSWAC Final Report, in conjunction with the needs of other public safety
providers, because the communications infrastructures of those industrial users are similar to
those of traditional public safety entities in that they serve public safety needs pursuant to
government mandates (e.g., maintenance of redundant communications systems) and provide
traditional emergency response functions (e.g., environmental damage control).  API believes
that public service providers have insufficient spectrum for their needs, and that none of the
spectrum accommodations currently under consideration for public service providers offer the
favorable propagation characteristics available in the 2 GHz range.  AAR asserts that, since the
purpose of the fixed and mobile wireless networks operated by the railroad industry is to support
the safe and reliable operation of the Nation's freight and passenger rail systems, the needs of
those entities also should be included.  AAR stresses that, because private users are unable to
financially compete against commercial providers at auction, and commercial service providers
cannot or will not effectively meet railroads' nationwide operational needs, the railroad industry's
increasing spectrum needs can best be met by reserving a portion of the WCS bands for allocation
"in the traditional manner," similar to that employed in Parts 101 and 90 of the Commission's
Rules, for use on a coordinated, shared basis by and among entities which have safety-related
operational missions.  AWWA suggests an allocation for operators of public water supplies,
identifying several functions of such entities upon which public safety is directly dependent (e.g.,
fire-fighting, operations of health care facilities, and provision of healthy drinking water).

     70.  On the other hand, the record also reflects some doubt as to whether the 2.3 GHz
band is appropriate for most public safety communications operations.  In this connection,
Motorola and DigiVox express doubt as to whether the 2.3 GHz band holds significant promise to
solve public safety mobile communications needs because of the higher infrastructure costs and
greater interoperability problems as compared to the lower frequency bands that are adjacent to
those in which public safety entities now operate.  DigiVox notes in particular that the PSWAC
Final Report did not identify the WCS bands as useful in meeting the public safety community's
spectrum requirements.  ITA contends that, even if the Commission were to make a specific
public safety allocation at 2.3 GHz, it would not significantly assist public safety entities.  ITA
reasons that because public safety entities do not currently operate in spectrum in or near the 2.3
GHz band, manufacturers would be unable either to produce equipment for a larger customer
base or to maximize economies of scale as they are in a more typical spectrum allocation
proceeding in which the spectrum for public safety systems is intermingled with, or allocated
adjacent to, the bands for private radio services.  APCO asserts that the 2.3 GHz band is
inappropriate for most public safety communications needs because of the high costs involved in
constructing the very small cell sites needed to provide adequate coverage (including critical in-building penetration), and APCO concludes that the 2.3 GHz band is an unlikely home for public
safety mobile systems.  While expressing some interest in the 2.3 GHz spectrum for video, data
and fixed microwave, APCO states that "facilitating possible public safety use of a small portion
of the 2.3 GHz band for non-mission critical operations will have little or no impact on the
spectrum needs identified by PSWAC.  Accordingly, APCO requests that the Commission
move forward to allocate at least 24 MHz of spectrum from UHF channels 60-69 to public
safety and suggests that the Commission recommend to Congress that it take action to permit a
portion of the proceeds from the 2.3 GHz auction to be targeted for funding public safety
communications systems in other bands.

     71.  On the question of whether certain public safety needs might be met by commercial
services provided on WCS spectrum, commenters generally expressed the view that, to some
degree, commercial services can meet the needs of the public safety community and that the
Commission should fashion service rules that will encourage WCS licensees to offer services that
are consistent with the needs of public safety.  Some commenters support the use of bidding
credits for entities that propose a specific plan for satisfying public safety needs, or that make their
facilities available to the public safety community on a wholesale basis.  One commenter
suggests licensing WCS on the basis of service areas (such as EAs) that approximate the areas
and jurisdictions in which public safety entities operate, and licensing of the spectrum in blocks
that closely approximate the bandwidth requirements of public safety entities, so that bidders
looking to provide solely public safety services would not be required to purchase more spectrum
than needed for such purposes.  AT&T suggests that one 10 MHz block in each service area be
designated as a public safety block, for which any bidder may bid but which could be used only
for public safety services such as 911, E911 and communications between emergency service
personnel.  If the Commission declines to reserve a 10 MHz block for public safety uses, AT&T
suggests alternatively that the Commission condition the grant of each WCS authorization on the
licensee's pledge to meet the needs of the public safety community by dedicating access if the
licensee offers CMRS services using the WCS spectrum.  Specifically, AT&T's suggests that if the
licensee offers CMRS services in this spectrum, it would meet the needs of the public safety
community by providing a specified percentage of their capacity for public safety uses on a
primary basis.

     72.  Some commenters believe that it is difficult to determine at this time whether
commercial WCS licensees will offer services that will be beneficial to public safety.  APCO
asserts that, even if the specific commercial uses of the spectrum were known, commercial
offerings in the band would satisfy, at most, only a small portion of the public safety community's
needs because most of these needs require ubiquitous coverage, reliability, instantaneous access
and security that can be provided only by systems owned and operated by public safety
agencies.  Another commenter contends that permitting public safety users to lease spectrum
from commercial users cannot offer the same critical stability to public safety systems as a
permanent allocation, and that threat of regulatory sanctions, even financial penalties, would be
insufficient to ensure that commercial providers continue to make their services available for
public safety uses.    

     73.  In addition, Primosphere and BANM contend that to give full effect to the
Congressional mandate to take into account the needs of public safety, we must take action in
other pending proceedings.  Primosphere argues that award of its pending satellite DARS licenses
before licensing the WCS spectrum would address public safety needs because it has proposed a
national, unscrambled, free broadcast service that will provide the public with timely public safety
information during emergencies.  BANM argues that fully accommodating public safety
spectrum needs in connection with WCS will allow the Commission to terminate a separate on-going proceeding proposing the adoption of a "Cellular Priority Access System" (WT Docket No.
96-86, Public Notice, April 18, 1996) by obviating the need for priority cellular access.

     74.  Decision.  The Appropriations Act requires that we "take into account the needs of
public safety radio services."  Therefore, we must consider the communications needs of the
public safety community in assigning WCS frequencies.  The record compiled in this proceeding
and in our public safety proceeding demonstrates that spectrum currently allocated to public
safety spectrum is inadequate to meet the public safety community's voice and data needs.  In
addition, this record suggests that currently allocated spectrum will not permit deployment by
public safety agencies of needed advanced data and video systems.  The Appropriations Act
requires, however, that the use of 30 MHz of spectrum in the 2.3 GHz band be "assign[ed] . . . by
competitive bidding pursuant to Section 309(j) of the Communications Act . . . ."  We therefore
conclude that allocating a portion of the 2.3 GHz spectrum for public safety appears to be
inconsistent with the Appropriations Act because, pursuant to our auction authority, we are not
permitted to assign spectrum to public safety applicants by competitive bidding.   

     75.  In any case, even if spectrum were to be allocated for assignment only to public safety
entities, we do not believe that such an allocation would be the best way to meet those needs.  W
note that the WCS spectrum was not identified in the PSWAC Final Report as useful in meeting
the public safety community's spectrum requirements.  In this regard, we believe that it is
significant that APCO, the only public safety entity to comment in this proceeding, noted in its
recent ex parte filing that "facilitating possible public safety use of a small portion of the 2.3 GHz
band for non-mission critical operations will have little or no impact on the spectrum needs
identified by PSWAC."  In addition, we belive that it is significant that public safety entities do
not currently have operations in any spectrum in or near the 2.3 GHz band.  Thus, it may be more
difficult for public safety entities to avail themselves of equipment economies of scale or to
integrate this spectrum into their current communications systems.  In addition, even if WCS
spectrum were of some use to the public safety community, costly networks would still need to be
constructed in order for useful services to be provided.  In this regard, we find it significant that,
as noted above, several commenters (both public safety entities and others) questioned whether a
specific public safety allocation at 2.3 GHz would significantly assist public safety entities given
the technical configuration and the financial resources that a 2.3 GHz system would require. 

     76.  The record in this proceeding also demonstrates that public safety agencies require
additional funding to enable them to migrate to new spectrum and to upgrade and purchase new
equipment.  In addition, we note that the PSWAC Final Report found, "the radio systems used by
the Public Safety community are laboring under increasing burdens.  Equipment is old and funding
for new equipment is often scarce."  The PSWAC Final Report also found that "[f]unding for
acquisition of new spectrum-efficient technologies and/or relocation to different frequency bands
is likely to be a major impediment to improving Public Safety wireless systems."  The PSWAC
Final Report includes recommendations regarding the future operational requirements of public
safety agencies, methods for achieving greater interoperability among agencies, the technologies
that are and will be available to meet public safety requirements, and the amount of radio
spectrum that will be necessary to meet these requirements.  Many of these requirements can be
met by our allocation of additional spectrum to public safety agencies, and the report examined
alternative approaches for obtaining funding to assist public agencies in an orderly migration to
new spectrum allocations and advanced technologies.  With respect to the funding issue, the
Transition Subcommittee of PSWAC suggested that

     [the Commission] take action to assist federal, state, and local government
     public safety agencies acquire systems that will provide mechanisms for
     interoperability among both multi-jurisdictional boundaries and multi-echelons of government.  Taking into consideration that the Commission
     has raised considerable revenue from spectrum auctioning, an initiative
     should be launched to use some of that money to assist transition into new
     spectrum.  This may require Congressional action to allow the use of
     auction revenues for distribution to public safety agencies in the form of
     grants.

     77.  We believe that, in order for the future needs of public safety wireless
communications to be satisfied, new sources of funding will have to be devised.  This is true
regardless of the amount of spectrum made available for public safety.  In this proceeding, we
have considered whether funds from the WCS auction could provide a source of funding for
public safety agencies.  We note, however, that Section 309(j)(8)(A) requires that "all proceeds
from the use of a competitive bidding system under this subsection shall be deposited in the
Treasury . . . ."  The only exceptions to this general rule are contained in Sections 309(j)(8)(B)
(providing for retention of revenues as an offsetting collection for developing and implementing
the auction program) and 309(j)(8)(C) (providing for deposit of upfront payments in an interest-bearing account, with interest transferred to the Telecommunications Development Fund). 
Therefore, it appears that legislative action is required before auction revenues can be used to
provide a source of funding for public safety agencies to acquire new communications
technologies.  It is our belief that public safety agencies would benefit greatly from such action. 
We note that legislation recently introduced by Senator John McCain would provide for a portion
of the revenues raised from an auction of spectrum currently used by television broadcast stations
operating on channels 60-69 to be earmarked for "funding State and local law enforcement and
public safety agencies' mission-related radio communications capabilities."  We believe that
legislative approaches such as that taken in the McCain bill would substantially aid public safety
agencies in their communications needs and thereby improve the safety of all Americans.

     78.  Though we have concluded that designating 2.3 GHz spectrum for use exclusively by
public safety entities is not advisable, we emphasize our continuing commitment to address public
safety needs.  Specifically, the Commission is considering the operational, technical and spectrum
requirements of the public safety community in our Public Safety proceeding.  That proceeding
examines what spectrum bands could be useful for meeting existing and future communications
requirements, including voice, data (such as transmission of fingerprints, building floor plans and
medical data), and video for surveillance monitoring.  We expect that additional spectrum will be
made available for public safety use as a result of that proceeding, and that our decision in that
proceeding will address the specific communications requirements and bands identified by
PSWAC.  In addition, we note that several commenters, including APCO and Motorola,
reiterated the public safety community's need for 24 MHz of spectrum at UHF channels 60-69. 
We believe that their proposal has merit and plan to give it serious consideration in our Digital
Television proceeding.  We note that legislation recently introduced by Senator McCain would
direct the Commission to allocate 24 MHz of the channel 60-69 spectrum to public safety use,
and that the Administration's 1998 budget also supports such a reallocation.

     79.  We decline to adopt special provisions to benefit petroleum and natural gas providers,
railway operators and operators of water supply systems.  Though we recognize that these entities
perform valuable public service functions, we do not believe that Congress intended that they be
included in the class of "public safety radio services" that the Appropriations Act directs us to
take into account in this proceeding.  The Commission's Rules define that term to include "Local
Government, Police, Fire, Highway Maintenance and Forestry-Conservation Radio Services." 
We decline to deviate from this established definition.


D.  Service and Technical Rules

     1.  Eligibility

     80.  Background.  In the NPRM, we proposed that there be no restrictions on eligibility
for WCS licensees, other than the foreign ownership restrictions set forth in Section 310 of the
Communications Act.  

     81.  Comments.  Only four commenters specifically addressed the issue of eligibility for
WCS.  Of these, three support open eligibility, subject to foreign ownership restrictions.  CTIA
specifically states that it is imperative that existing cellular, PCS and SMR service providers be
permitted to bid on WCS licenses to encourage immediate and efficient spectrum use, to provide
known, viable competition, and, within the existing service areas, to avoid imposing competitive
disadvantages on those entities.  In this regard, CTIA notes that excessive concentration of
licenses, which is the traditional rationale for excluding existing wireless carriers from auctions, is
not a problem in the wireless industry because it is fully competitive. 

     82.  CPI expresses a general concern that the lack of ownership limits (e.g., the CMRS
spectrum cap) could undermine the pro-competitive goals established by Congress and the
Commission.  CPI also is concerned that the only limits on eligibility proposed by the
Commission, foreign ownership limitations, appear to be unevenly distributed among the services
for which the WCS spectrum may be used.  Specifically, CPI questions the Commission's proposal
to maintain the restrictions set forth in Sections 310(a) and 310(b)(1) and (2) of the
Communications Act, but not 310(b)(3) and (4), "which limit the FCC's authority to grant a
license to any corporation with 20% or 25% foreign ownership."  CPI asserts that, although the
proposed rule Section 27.302 appears to resolve this issue by limiting foreign ownership
consistent with all subparts of Section 310(b), proposed Section 27.302 raises another issue by
appearing to prohibit foreign ownership of a WCS authorization only with respect to CMRS, and
not with respect to broadcast or other common carrier services.

     83.  Decision.  We conclude that, with the exception of the foreign ownership restrictions
set forth in Section 310 of the Communications Act, there will be no eligibility restrictions on
participation in WCS.  As we stated in the NPRM, opening the WCS market to a wide range of
applicants will permit and encourage entrepreneurial efforts to develop new technologies and
services.  We also believe that, given the relatively large amount of spectrum that is available to
provide services similar to those that can be operated on the WCS spectrum, providing open
eligibility in this instance will not lead to excessive concentration of market power.  We agree
with CPI that Section 27.302 should ensure that WCS licensees are subject to all of the foreign
ownership restrictions set forth in Section 310 of the Communications Act to the extent the
restrictions are applicable to the particular service in question.  Thus, for example, common
carrier services would be subject to the restrictions in Section 310(b).

     2.  CMRS Spectrum Cap

     84.  Background.  In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether WCS spectrum used to
provide commercial mobile radio service ("CMRS") should count against the 45 MHz spectrum
cap that applies to certain CMRS licensees.  We recognized that applying the spectrum cap could
exclude firms with the most experience and innovative technologies from participating in the
auction and having the opportunity to use this spectrum to serve the public.  At the same time, we
noted that if a CMRS provider with the maximum amount of spectrum permitted under our
current CMRS spectrum cap were to acquire WCS spectrum, that provider possibly could gain a
dominant position in the CMRS marketplace.  We therefore requested that commenters address
whether the WCS spectrum is likely to be used to provide CMRS services and, if so, whether the
current CMRS market is sufficiently competitive that the considerations that gave rise to adoption
of the CMRS spectrum cap are inapplicable to the WCS spectrum.  In addition, we asked that
commenters address the potential costs of applying the cap to the WCS spectrum in terms of lost
economies of scale and scope that might exist if CMRS licensees were allowed to acquire this
spectrum.  Finally, to the extent they believe that the WCS spectrum will be used for CMRS
services, we asked commenters to discuss any alternative mechanisms that would be appropriate
to protect against the concentration of control of licenses for CMRS spectrum, to ensure vigorous
competition in wireless services and to implement the Communications Act.

     85.  Comments.  Commenters addressing the issue of the CMRS spectrum cap fall
generally into three categories:  (1) those who believe the spectrum cap should apply to WCS;
(2) those who believe the spectrum cap should not apply to WCS; and (3) those who believe
that this issue requires further analysis by the Commission.  Of those who support application of
the spectrum cap, the primary argument made is that if WCS is used to provide CMRS, WCS
licensees must be placed on comparable footing with current CMRS providers.  For example,
PCIA states that all competitors in CMRS should be subject to the same service rules in order to
permit the marketplace to function equitably and effectively.  SNET Mobility states that the
spectrum cap is necessary to prevent excessive concentration of licenses.  Similarly, Omnipoint
contends that if WCS licensees are permitted to offer mobile services without being subject to the
spectrum cap, the utility of the cap will be undermined.  Omnipoint argues further that not
applying the spectrum cap would be unfair to PCS licensees and small businesses since the
wealthiest PCS licensees would be able to aggregate 2.3 GHz of spectrum to the detriment of
others who relied on the assumption that no new spectrum in the 2 GHz band would be
released.  Florida Cellular states that allowing WCS licensees to compete with existing cellular
and PCS providers without being subject to the same restrictions that now apply to CMRS
providers may cause spectrum users and financial backers to lose confidence in our spectrum
management process, making them less willing to invest in entities interested in obtaining
spectrum and developing services through auctions.  Finally, DigiVox contends that, despite
arguments to the contrary, the spectrum cap remains necessary at its current 45 MHz limit to
enable small businesses and other designated entities to effectively compete for spectrum and to
participate in the provision of service.

     86.  Commenters opposing application of the CMRS spectrum cap to WCS believe that
the goals of the spectrum cap -- promoting a vigorous and competitive market for the provision of
commercial mobile radio services and ensuring that no single provider is able to aggregate enough
spectrum to preclude or significantly reduce the provision of service by effective competitors --
have already been met.  Vanguard points to the existence of two cellular and up to six PCS
licensees per market, and the presence or anticipated presence of an enhanced SMR provider, and
expresses the view that an existing CMRS provider who acquires a WCS license would be in no
position to dominate the marketplace.  Commenters also state that, in the interest of ensuring
that the largest number of entities participate in the auction and in the provision of WCS, current
CMRS providers should not be excluded.  For example, AT&T states that application of the
spectrum cap to WCS may preclude efficient spectrum use by denying CMRS providers, who can
speed innovative service to the public, the opportunity to realize economies of scale and scope in
the development and deployment of services.  AT&T further asserts that application of the cap
will discourage participation by many CMRS providers, which would reduce auction revenues
through both lack of front-end participation and reduction of post-auction marketability.

     87.  Decision.  The decisional factor in whether to apply the CMRS spectrum cap to any
particular service is a balancing of the potential benefits and costs.  We believe that, in these
unique circumstances where we are allocating spectrum and licensing a wholly new service
pursuant to congressional directive, the potential benefits do not outweigh the potential costs. 
Thus we will not count holdings of WCS spectrum at 2.3 GHz against the CMRS spectrum cap.

     88.  As we noted in the NPRM, the CMRS spectrum cap was imposed out of concern that
"excessive aggregation [of spectrum] by any one of several CMRS licensees could reduce
competition by precluding entry by other service providers and might thus confer excessive
market power on incumbents."  The spectrum cap is intended to promote a vigorous
competitive market for the provision of commercial mobile radio services, and to ensure that each
mobile service provider (i.e., cellular, PCS or SMR licensee) has the opportunity to obtain
sufficient spectrum to compete effectively and that no single provider is able to preclude the
provision of service by effective competitors or significantly reduce the number of competitors by
aggregating spectrum.  

     89.  As discussed more fully in Section III.D.7, infra, because the spectrum allocated for
satellite DARS is situated between the two WCS bands, limitations on out-of-band emissions by
equipment operating on WCS spectrum are needed to protect against interference with sensitive
satellite DARS reception.  We believe that the out-of-band emission limits we are adopting likely
will, at least in the near term, make mobile operations in the WCS spectrum technologically
infeasible.  Hence, there is little likelihood that allowing an incumbent CMRS licensee to acquire
enough WCS spectrum that its total CMRS and WCS spectrum holdings exceed the 45 MHz cap
would have anticompetitive consequences for mobile services.  Application of the CMRS
spectrum cap to WCS spectrum is not necessary to guard against excessive concentration in the
CMRS market or the accumulation of undue market power.

     90.  Conversely, even if it is technically feasible to use this spectrum for CMRS-type
service, applying the cap and excluding many existing CMRS providers from acquiring WCS
licenses would, we believe, carry significant potential costs for consumers.  With their existing
base station infrastructures, CMRS licensees may be the most efficient users of WCS spectrum
because economies of scope may be large in the provision of new services combined with the
provision of conventional mobile voice CMRS.  For example, it may be that a current CMRS
licensee would be able to use its existing infrastructure to provide fixed services in the most cost
efficient manner.  Site acquisition and zoning approval for new facilities is both a major cost
component and a major delay factor in deploying wireless systems.  Facilities at existing cellular
or PCS sites might accommodate additional equipment for new services or be modified to do so
at a significantly lower cost than deploying a whole new cell infrastructure for the new service in a
crowded environment.  There may be other economies of scope in the provision of different
services as well.  Applying the CMRS spectrum cap to the WCS spectrum would interfere with
the realization of these savings by preventing the direct participation by those entities who own
the existing CMRS infrastructure, and consequently, prevent consumers from benefiting from these savings, with little
off-setting benefit in competition.

     91.  We recognize that not applying the cap to WCS spectrum may result in some CMRS
licensees acquiring spectrum and, provided that the technical obstacles noted infra can be
overcome, that at some point these licensees may use WCS spectrum to compete against other
CMRS licensees that have not acquired WCS spectrum.  We do not believe, however, that such a
circumstance substantially risks impairing competition in the CMRS marketplace.  When 30 MHz
PCS systems are fully deployed with the minimum number of cells needed for competitive
coverage, they will provide a large increase in capacity over what is currently available. 
According to a recent article, a 30 MHz PCS licensee is likely to use only a twentieth of its
startup capacity by the year 2000 and only a tenth by 2005.  As for the argument that regulatory
parity compels application of the CMRS spectrum cap to WCS spectrum, we disagree.  Whether
or not the cap is applied, all CMRS providers stand on equal footing with respect to the
acquisition of WCS licenses, and any entity using WCS spectrum to provide CMRS services will
be regulated in the same manner as all other CMRS providers.

     3.  Disaggregation and Partitioning

     92.  Background.  In the NPRM, we proposed disaggregation and partitioning rules for
WCS licenses to promote the most efficient use of the WCS spectrum and to overcome entry
barriers by allowing for the creation of smaller licenses that would require less capital, thereby
facilitating greater participation by smaller entities such as small businesses, rural telcos, and
businesses owned by minorities and women.  We requested comment on what limits, if any,
should be placed on a WCS licensee's ability to partition its service area and disaggregate its
spectrum.  We also noted the then-pending rule making proceeding in WT Docket No. 96-148,
which addressed geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation by CMRS licensees, and
asked for comment on whether the approach proposed in that proceeding should apply to the
WCS spectrum.  We have since adopted the partitioning and disaggregation approach proposed in
WT Docket No. 96-148 for broadband PCS.

     93.  Comments.  The majority of commenters addressing the issue support our proposal to
permit partitioning and disaggregation by WCS licensees and propose specific rules.  For
example, GTE agrees that partitioning and disaggregation should be permitted as long as the
technical rules preventing harmful interference are met.  Similarly, GTA and ALLTEL believe
that disaggregation should be permitted, but only in 5 MHz increments.  Finally, BellSouth
agrees with the Commission's proposals to the extent that the spectrum is exclusively allocated for
the "specialized services" that it recommends, such as wireless cable and wireless data, including
Internet access and e-mail (both for commercial use and for schools, libraries and hospitals). 

     94.  Some commenters believe that liberal partitioning and disaggregation rules are not
effective substitutes for direct participation in an auction by small businesses, rural telcos, and
other designated entities.  NextWave argues that if large service areas are employed,
disaggregation will not be a reliable means of promoting economic opportunity and competition
or avoiding excessive concentration of licenses.  Similarly, BellSouth and NextWave note that
the need for disaggregation and partitioning may be avoided altogether through the use of BTAs
as WCS service areas, the aggregation of which they believe to be more efficient than
disaggregation and partitioning of larger service areas.  Further, RTG believes that, in order for
our partitioning and disaggregation policies to ensure the participation of rural telcos, these
entities should be afforded a right of first refusal to partition and aggregate spectrum in areas
reasonably related to their wireline service areas.

     95.  Those commenters that addressed our proposal to permit WCS licensees to lease or
franchise portions of their spectrum are largely supportive.  For example, two commenters
suggest that there should be no minimum amount of spectrum or any particular geographic area
limitations for leasing or franchising.  BellSouth and SNET Mobility believe, however, that the
Commission's proposals for the leasing or franchising of spectrum should be subject to license
control requirements and, if CMRS is provided, that the attribution to lessees and franchisees of
such interests should be applied for purposes of the CMRS spectrum cap.  TDS advocates the
articulation of guidelines defining the "ultimate responsibility" of the licensee in the context of
proposed rule Section 27.16.  TDS regards such guidelines as essential in providing a workable
level of certainty for participants in leasing arrangements.  Finally, TDS requests the application of
such a franchising policy to other CMRS services. 

     96.  Decision.  Consistent with the weight of the comments and with the Commission's
recent decision to adopt the approach proposed in WT Docket No. 96-148 for broadband PCS,
we adopt our proposals for geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.  We will permit
WCS licensees to partition their service areas into smaller geographic service areas and to
disaggregate their spectrum into smaller blocks.  We also conclude that the specific rules
pertaining to partitioning and disaggregation in WT Docket No. 96-148 shall apply to WCS
licensees.  In addition, for the purposes of partitioning and disaggregation, we will require that
WCS systems be designed so as not to exceed a signal level of 47 dBuV/m at the licensee's
service area boundary, unless the affected adjacent service area licensees have agreed to a
different signal level.   

     97.  In WT Docket No. 96-148, we decided to permit geographic partitioning by
broadband PCS licensees along any service area defined by the partitioner and partitionee.  In
addition, we decided to permit spectrum disaggregation by broadband PCS licensees without
restriction on the amount of spectrum to be disaggregated.  We concluded that allowing parties
to decide without restriction the amount of spectrum to be disaggregated will encourage more
efficient use of the spectrum and permit the deployment of a broader mix of service offerings,
both of which will lead to a more competitive wireless marketplace.  We believe that this
reasoning applies with equal force to WCS.  Therefore, subject to the provisions discussed below
with respect to licensees who take advantage of bidding credits, once an initial WCS license is
granted, licensees will be free to partition their service areas and disaggregate their spectrum. 
Finally, consistent with PCS and other CMRS services, WCS licensees will be allowed to use
management and operational arrangements to permit others to use portions of their spectrum and
geographic service areas.  We wish to emphasize that the WCS licensee must retain ultimate
control over and responsibility for all operations under such arrangements. 
  
     98.  We conclude that any licensee will be permitted to partition its service area as long as
it submits sufficient information to the Commission to maintain our licensing records.  Partitioning
applicants will be required to submit, as separate attachments to the partial assignment
application, a description of the partitioned service area and a calculation of the population of the
partitioned service area and licensed market.  The partitioned service area must be defined by
coordinate points at every 3 degrees along the partitioned service area agreed to by both parties,
unless either (1) an FCC-recognized service area is utilized (i.e., Major Trading Area, Basic
Trading Area, Metropolitan Service Area, Rural Service or Economic Area) or (2) county lines
are followed.  These geographical coordinates must be specified in degrees, minutes and seconds
to the nearest second of latitude and longitude, and must be based upon the 1927 North American
Datum (NAD27).  Applicants also may supply geographical coordinates based on 1983 North
American Datum (NAD83) in addition to those required based on NAD27.  This coordinate data
should be supplied as an attachment to the partial assignment application, and maps need not be
supplied.   In cases where an FCC-recognized service area or county lines are being utilized,
applicants need only list the specific area(s) (through use of FCC designations) or counties that
make up the newly partitioned area.

     99.  Similarly, where WCS licensees seek to disaggregate their WCS spectrum, we will
not require the disaggregating party to retain a minimum amount of spectrum.  We will allow
disaggregating parties to negotiate channelization plans among themselves as part of their
disaggregation agreements, and we will continue to require that such plans provide the necessary
out-of-band emission protections to third party licensees as required by our rules.   We are not
adopting a limit on the maximum amount of spectrum that licensees may disaggregate.  We find
no evidence at this time that a maximum limitation for disaggregation is necessary.  WCS
licensees shall be permitted to disaggregate spectrum without limitation on the overall size of the
disaggregation as long as such disaggregation is otherwise consistent with our rules.

     100.  We decline to adopt RTG's proposal to provide rural telcos with a right of first
refusal.  Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that, in seeking to promote
its goal of universal service, the Commission should ensure that consumers from all parts of the
Nation, including rural areas, have access to telecommunications and information services that is
comparable to service in other, more urban areas and at rates that are comparable to the rates
available in urban areas.  Granting rural telcos a right of first refusal would be at odds with our
goals of ensuring that the largest number of entities participate in the WCS marketplace and
eliminating barriers to entry for small businesses.  As we concluded in WT Docket No. 96-148,
we also believe that a right of first refusal would be difficult to administer and could discourage
partitioning.  For example, an area proposed for partitioning to a non-rural telco may intersect
with an area for which a rural telco has a right of first refusal.  A further problem would be
uncertainty as to whether the rural telco's right of first refusal would continue after the auction
winner partitioned the license area to another party.  Additionally, a partitioning agreement may
be part of a larger assignment transaction.  If a rural telco were able to exercise a right of first
refusal with respect to a partitioned area, it may not be possible to separate out the partitioning
agreement to stand on its own and the entire assignment transaction could not be consummated. 

     101.  If a WCS licensee that received a bidding credit partitions a portion of its license to
an entity that would not meet the eligibility standards for a similar bidding credit, we will require
that the licensee reimburse the government for the amount of the bidding credit calculated on a
proportional basis based upon the ratio of population of the partitioned area to the overall
population of the licensed area.  If a licensee that received a bidding credit partitions to an
entity that would qualify for a lesser bidding credit, we will require that the licensee reimburse the
government for the difference between the amount of the bidding credit obtained by the licensee
and the bidding credit for which the partitionee is eligible, calculated on a proportional basis based
upon the ratio of population of the partitioned area.  Similar provisions shall apply where a
WCS licensee that receives a bidding credit seeks to disaggregate a portion of its spectrum to an
entity that would not have qualified for such a bidding credit.  All such unjust enrichment
payments will be calculated based upon the ratio of the amount of spectrum disaggregated to the
amount of spectrum retained by the original licensee.  With respect to disaggregation from one
licensee that qualified for a bidding credit to another licensee that would also qualify for a bidding
credit, we will adopt an approach similar to that adopted for partitioning. 

     102.  Finally, to allow WCS licensees flexibility to design the types of agreements they
desire, we will follow our decision in WT Docket No. 96-148 to permit combined partitioning and
disaggregation.  For example, a party may obtain a license for a single county with only 5 MHz of
WCS block A spectrum.  By allowing such combined partitioning and disaggregation, we believe
that the goals of providing competitive service offerings, encouraging new market entrants, and
ensuring quality service to the public will be advanced.  We further conclude that in the event that
there is a conflict in the application of the partitioning and disaggregation rules, the partitioning
rules should prevail.  For the purpose of applying our unjust enrichment provisions relating to
bidding credits, when a combined partitioning and disaggregation is proposed, we will use a
combination of both population of the partitioned area and amount of spectrum disaggregated to
make these pro rata calculations.  For example, if a WCS licensee that availed itself of a bidding
credit and a non-qualifying partitionee/disaggregatee were to agree on a 20 percent
disaggregation of spectrum over 30 percent of the population of the licensed service area, an
unjust enrichment payment of 6 percent (.20 x .30) of the bidding credit would be required.  

     103.  We also note that these geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation rules,
while not a substitute for licensing directly from the Commission, nevertheless will help to
eliminate market entry barriers, consistent with Section 257 of the Communications Act, by
providing smaller, less capital-intensive areas and spectrum blocks which are more accessible by
small business entities.    

     4.  License Term 

     104.  Background.  In the NPRM, we proposed to establish a license term of 10 years for
services in the 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands, with a renewal expectancy similar to that
of PCS and cellular licensees.  We also proposed that in the event that a WCS license is
partitioned or disaggregated, any partitionee/disaggregatee would be authorized to hold its license
for the remainder of the partitioner's/disaggregator's original ten-year license term.

     105.  Comments.  Few commenters addressed our proposals regarding the appropriate
license term for WCS.  SBC and GTE support our proposal that the WCS license term be the
same as for current CMRS licensees, and GTE further recommends that if a WCS licensee
disaggregates or partitions part of its original license, the party receiving the disaggregated or
partitioned portion should have a reasonable expectation of retaining the use of the spectrum for
the full term of the WCS licensee's original term.

     106.  Decision.  We will adopt our proposals regarding the term of WCS licenses and the
renewal expectancy for both original WCS licensees and potential WCS
partitionees/disaggregatees.  The WCS license term will be 10 years, with a renewal expectancy
similar to that afforded PCS and cellular licensees.  We believe that this relatively long license
term, combined with a renewal expectancy, will help to provide a stable regulatory environment
that will be attractive to investors and, thereby, encourage development of this new frequency
band.  In the event that a WCS license is partitioned or disaggregated, any
partitionee/disaggregatee will be authorized to hold its license for the remainder of the
partitioner's/disaggregator's original ten-year license term, and the partitionee/disaggregatee will
be required to submit the showings required at the five-year mark and with its renewal
application.  We believe that this approach, which is similar to the partitioning provisions we
recently adopted for the MDS and for current broadband PCS licensees, is appropriate
because a licensee, through partitioning, should not be able to confer greater rights than it was
awarded under the terms of its license grant.

     107.  We will require that a WCS licensee's renewal application include at a minimum the
following showing to claim a renewal expectancy: (1) a description of current service in terms of
geographic coverage and population served or links installed; (2) an explanation of the licensee's
record of expansion, including a timetable for the construction of new base sites or links to meet
changes in demand for service; (3) a description of the licensee's investments in its system; and (4)
copies of any FCC orders finding the licensee to have violated the Communications Act or any
FCC rule or policy, and a list of any pending proceedings that relate to any matter described by
the requirements for the renewal expectancy.  

     5.  Performance Requirements 

     108.  Background.  In the NPRM, we questioned whether, and if so, what type of
construction (or "build-out") requirements should be made applicable to WCS licensees.  We
recognized that in implementing auction procedures, the Commission is required under Section
309(j) of the Communications Act to include "safeguards to protect the public interest in the use
of the spectrum" and performance requirements "to ensure prompt delivery of service to rural
areas, to prevent stockpiling or warehousing of spectrum by licensees or permittees, and to
promote investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and services."   We stated
generally that although build-out requirements may help to achieve these goals, we were
somewhat uncertain as to whether applying such requirements to the licenses of the WCS
spectrum would be the best way to address Congress's concerns.

     109.  Comments.  We received mixed comments on whether build-out requirements
should be imposed on WCS licensees.  Some commenters feel that this determination should
depend upon whether WCS spectrum is used to provide services that also are provided by
licensees in other bands who are subject to build-out requirements.  If so, they believe that the
same regulatory treatment should apply.  Several commenters note this regulatory parity issue and
advocate applying build-out requirements for WCS to whatever extent they apply for competing
services (e.g., PCS or wireless cable) in other bands.  Other commenters advocate applying
them for reasons of regulatory parity with respect particularly to CMRS, or, more particularly,
to PCS.  Some commenters argue that build-out requirements should be established simply to
advance the traditional goals of performance requirements -- to ensure rapid deployment of
services and to prevent spectrum warehousing, to ensure that carriers provide progressively
greater and improved service, to assure provision of service to rural areas, and to prevent
large service providers and incumbent LECs from impeding competition by buying out all
competitors.  Two cellular companies believe that reasonable build-out requirements, such as
those used for PCS, would not be a significant burden on WCS licensees.  Omnipoint proposed
that, in lieu of specific build-out requirements, licensees be required to make a showing of
substantial service at a five-year benchmark.

     110.  In contrast, several commenters believe that performance requirements might not be
necessary for WCS or that they may even be potentially harmful.  PPF asserts that the use of
competitive bidding and the broad range of services that may be offered on WCS spectrum ensure
that the WCS spectrum will end up in the hands of parties that value it most highly and have the
most incentive to develop it.  DigiVox contends that build-out requirements would discourage
use of the spectrum by low-tier services whose physical infrastructure deployment to cover a
geographic area will require relatively long periods of time to build out.  PCIA urges the
Commission not to adopt performance requirements if the WCS spectrum is used to provide a
high-speed data service.  In this regard, AT&T contends that, if the Commission finds that
build-out requirements are unnecessary for WCS licensees, it should eliminate build-out
requirements for all CMRS licensees in the interests of regulatory parity.  BellSouth, though
generally supportive of build-out requirements, similarly believes that if they are not applied to WCS licensees they also should be eliminated in all
competing services.

     111.  Decision.  We have concluded that, considering the unique circumstances in which
WCS licenses are being awarded and the strict technical requirements necessary to prevent
interference, we will adopt very flexible build-out requirements for WCS.  Specifically, we will
require licensees to provide "substantial service" to their service area within 10 years.  Although
WCS licensees will have incentives to construct facilities to meet the service demands in their
licensed service area, we believe that minimum construction requirements can promote efficient
use of the spectrum, encourage the provision of service to rural, remote and insular areas and
prevent the warehousing of spectrum.

     112.  The build-out requirement that we adopt today is the most liberal construction
requirement adopted by the Commission to date.  We believe that this liberal build-out
requirement is appropriate in the case of WCS for a number of reasons.  First, we are providing
WCS licensees with the flexibility to offer a range of services using the WCS spectrum.  Given the
broad range of new and innovative services that the comments lead us to believe might be
provided over WCS spectrum, imposing strict construction requirements that would apply over
the license term would be neither practical nor desirable as a means of meeting Section 309(j)'s
objectives regarding warehousing and rapid deployment.  Without knowing the specific type of
service or services to be provided, it would be difficult to devise specific construction
benchmarks.  Further, given the undeveloped nature of equipment for use in this band and the
technical requirements we are adopting to prevent interference, we are concerned that strict
construction requirements might have the effect of discouraging participation in the provision of
services over the WCS spectrum.  It may be that a potential licensee could efficiently conduct
certain operations on WCS spectrum, but must await further technological developments to do so
affordably.  Adopting strict construction requirements here could effectively preclude efficient
uses of the spectrum.  Particularly in light of the technological uncertainties associated with use of
WCS spectrum to provide certain services consistent with the interference levels we adopt today,
we believe that stringent build-out requirements are not warranted.

     113.  At the ten year period, we will require all licensees to submit an acceptable showing
to the Commission demonstrating that they are providing substantial service.  Licensees failing to
demonstrate that they are providing substantial service will be subject to forfeiture of their
licenses.  We note that in the past we have defined substantial service as "service which is sound,
favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant
renewal."  For WCS, however, we believe that further elaboration on this standard in the form
of examples of what might constitute substantial service is useful.  Thus, for a WCS licensee that
chooses to offer fixed, point-to-point services, the construction of four permanent links per one
million people in its licensed service area at the ten-year renewal mark would constitute
substantial service.  In the alternative, for a WCS licensee that chooses to offer mobile services, a
demonstration of coverage to 20 percent of the population of its licensed service area at the ten-year mark would constitute substantial service.  In addition, the Commission may consider such
factors as whether the licensee is offering a specialized or technologically sophisticated service
that does not require a high level of coverage to be of benefit to customers, and whether the
licensee's operations serve niche markets or focus on serving populations outside of areas served
by other licensees.  These safe-harbor examples are intended to provide WCS licensees a degree
of certainty as to how to comply with the substantial service requirement by the end of the initial
license term.  This requirement can be met in other ways, and we will review licensees' showing
on a case-by-case basis.  

     114.  We believe that these build-out provisions fulfill our obligations under Section
309(j)(4)(B).  We also believe that the auction and service rules which we are adopting for WCS,
together with our overall competition and universal service policies, constitute effective
safeguards and performance requirements for WCS licensing.  Because a license will be assigned
in the first instance through competitive bidding, it will be assigned efficiently to a firm that has
shown by its willingness to pay market value its willingness to put the license to its best use.  We
also believe that service to rural areas will be promoted by our proposal to allow partitioning and
disaggregation of WCS spectrum.

     115.  Finally, we note that we reserve the right to review our liberal construction
requirements in the future if we receive complaints related to Section 309(j)(4)(B), or if our own
monitoring initiatives or investigations indicate that a reassessment is warranted.  We also reserve
the right to impose additional, more stringent construction requirements on WCS licenses in the
future in the event of actual anticompetitive or rural service problems and if more stringent
construction requirements can effectively ameliorate those problems.

     6.  Regulatory Status

     116.  Background.  As we noted in the NPRM, the Communications Act applies differing
requirements based on the type of service and the regulatory status of licensees.  Given our
proposal that a WCS operator be allowed to provide a variety or combination of fixed, mobile,
satellite DARS, and radiolocation services, we proposed to rely on the applicant to identify the
type of WCS service or services it will provide, with sufficient detail to enable the Commission to
determine the applicant's regulatory status.  

     117.  Comments.  A number of commenters addressed the issue of regulatory parity
between current CMRS licensees and WCS licensees in discussing whether the CMRS spectrum
cap should apply to WCS.  This issue has been addressed above.  With regard to the regulatory
status of WCS licensees in general, however, only GTE submitted comments concerning our
proposals.  GTE does not oppose the Commission's proposal to establish a presumption that
WCS providers will likely offer CMRS service.  GTE does urge the Commission, however, to
establish procedures to enable interested parties to rebut this presumption and show that the
service being provided is deserving of a different regulatory treatment.  

     118.  Decision.  We received a significant number of comments challenging our
presumption in the NPRM that CMRS would be the most likely use of the WCS spectrum and
suggesting that the spectrum would more likely be used to offer various other types of services. 
We therefore conclude that we will rely on each WCS applicant to identify in its long-form
application the type of WCS service or services it will provide, with no presumption favoring
status as a CMRS provider.  Although we will not presume at the outset that a WCS applicant
will provide CMRS service, we continue to believe, as we stated in the NPRM, that this approach
will allow us to carry out our responsibilities while imposing the least regulatory burden on the
licensee.  We also delegate to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and to the International
Bureau authority to develop forms appropriate to collect this data, and to monitor changes in
licensee status.  The predominant uses of WCS spectrum mentioned by commenters involved
personal communications such as broadband voice and data transmission, including wireless local
loop and wireless Internet access.  If WCS spectrum is used for satellite DARS services, those
services will be governed by the satellite DARS regulations currently under development in IB
Docket No. 95-91.

     119.  Our decision to permit WCS licensees to provide a variety or combination of
services requires that we adopt a licensing framework that authorizes WCS licensees to provide
non-common carrier services as well as common carrier services.  We have recently increased the
flexibility of licensees in other wireless services to provide both common carrier and non-common
carrier services.  In adopting a new application form for MDS, for example, we provided
applicants with the option on the new form to indicate their choice for common carrier or non-common carrier regulatory status.  For satellite services, we have decided to provide all U.S.-licensed fixed satellite service systems with a choice between offering common carrier and non-common carrier services and also the opportunity to elect their regulatory classification in their
applications.  In another proceeding, we have adopted streamlined rules in Part 25 for satellite
services to use a simplified procedure to change licenses from non-common carrier status to
common carrier status.  Finally, when we implemented DBS systems under interim rules we
adopted a policy to permit the dual provision of common and non-common carrier services,
which continues under the permanent rules.   The flexible licensing framework we adopt for
WCS is consistent with the treatment accorded these services.

     120.  We therefore will allow the service offering selected by a WCS licensee to determine
its regulatory status.  If a service offering falls within the statutory definition of common carrier,
the licensee will be subject to Title II and the licensing requirements of Title III of the
Communications Act and our Rules.  Otherwise, services provided on a non-common carriage
basis will be subject to Title III and certain other statutory and regulatory requirements,
depending on the specific characteristics of the service.  The Telecommunications Act of 1996
provides that a telecommunications carrier will "be treated as a common carrier under this Act
only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services."  A
telecommunications service is the "offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public,
or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the
facilities used."  Telecommunications means "the transmission, between or among points
specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content
of the information as sent and received."  We adopted these definitions in new Part 51, which
provides the rules governing interconnection of such carriers.  Thus, to the extent a WCS
licensee is providing a service that fits within these definitions, that licensee will be subject to Title
II and governed by the common carrier requirements pertinent to its services.  Those requirements
are set out in Part 1 and other parts of our Rules.  In addition, the regulatory treatment of WCS
licensees who choose to offer fixed or mobile telecommunications services will be addressed by
the Commission in WT Docket No. 96-6. 

     121.  Apart from this designation of regulatory status, we will not require WCS applicants
to describe the services they seek to provide.  It is sufficient that an applicant indicate its choice
for regulatory status in a streamlined application process.  In providing guidance on this issue to
MDS applicants, for example, we pointed out that an election to provide service on a common
carrier basis requires that the elements of common carriage be present; otherwise, the applicant
must choose non-common carrier status.  Of course, if an applicant is unsure of the nature of its
services and their classification as common carrier services, it may submit a petition with its
application or at any time request clarification and include service descriptions for that purpose. 

     122.  We also decline to require an applicant to choose between either common carrier or
non-common carrier status in providing services in instances where it proposes to provide services
that include elements of both common carrier and non-common carrier services.  Instead, we will
permit both common carrier and non-common carrier services in a single license.  An applicant
may request both common carrier and non-common carrier status in the same application, which
will result in the issuance of both authorizations in a single license.  The licensee will be able to
provide all WCS services anywhere within its licensed area at any time.  This approach achieves
efficiencies in the licensing and administrative process.  We note that we have allowed certain
mobile services in Part 24 and Part 90 to be authorized in a single license on both a common
carrier and private carrier basis in order to provide services in both categories of service.  

     7.  Out-of-Band Emission Limits 

     123.  Background.  In the NPRM, we stated that, because WCS will operate in the 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands, interference protection is required for the following adjacent
operations:  (1) satellite DARS at 2320-2345 MHz, (2) Government Deep Space Network
receivers at 2290-2300 MHz, and (3) Government and commercial telemetry above 2360 MHz.

     124.  In order to provide protection to these adjacent operations, we proposed that all
emissions outside of the WCS bands of operation be attenuated below the maximum spectral
power density (p) within the band of operation, as follows:

    1)  For fixed operations, including radiolocation: By a factor
        not less than 43 + 10 log (p) decibels ("dB") on all
        frequencies between 2300 and 2305 MHz and above 2360
        MHz; and not less than 70 + 10 log (p) dB on all
        frequencies below 2300 MHz and between 2320-2345 MHz
        band. 

    2)  For mobile operations, including radiolocation: By a factor
        not less than 43 + 10 log (p) dB on all frequencies between
        2300 and 2305 MHz, between 2320 and 2345 MHz, and
        above 2360 MHz; and not less than 70 + 10 log (p) dB on
        all frequencies below 2300 MHz.
  
    3)  For WCS satellite DARS operations:  The limits set forth in
        Section 25.202(f) of the Commission's Rules.  

For fixed and mobile operations, including radiolocation, we stated that the above requirements
are based on peak power measurements (watts) using a resolution bandwidth of at least 1 MHz. 
In addition, to further protect operations in adjacent bands, we proposed to require that the
frequency stability of transmission within the 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands be sufficient
to ensure that the fundamental emissions remain within the authorized frequency bands.  

    125.  Finally, in order to protect Government Deep Space Network receivers at 2290-2300 MHz, we proposed to prohibit use of the 2305-2310 MHz band for airborne or space-to-Earth links.  Further, we proposed that WCS operations within 50 kilometers (31 miles) of 35o 20'
North Latitude and 116o 53' West Longitude (coordinates of the Deep Space Network receive
site) be subject to coordination.  Alternatively, we requested comment on whether it would be
more appropriate to require less out-of-band attenuation in the case of mobile transmitters (i.e.,
such transmitters would be subject to only the 43 + 10 log (p) dB requirement) but require that
the coordination zone be extended to 120 kilometers (75 miles).  We specifically requested that
parties address the trade-offs with regard to lower mobile equipment costs and the additional
coordination constraints imposed by this alternative.

    126.  Comments.  A number of parties request that we substantially tighten the out-of-band emission limits proposed in the NPRM.  Most notably, the four pending applicants for
satellite DARS licenses -- AMRC, CD Radio, DSBC, and Primosphere -- state that the out-of-band emission limits proposed in the NPRM are insufficient to protect satellite DARS operations
in the 2320-2345 MHz band from WCS operations.  The satellite DARS applicants urge us to
adopt stricter out-of-band emission limits that they contend are needed to protect the sensitive
satellite DARS receivers in the 2320-2345 MHz band from harmful interference. 

    127.  Specifically, AMRC states that, assuming a 1 MHz measurement bandwidth, WCS
mobile transmitter out-of-band emissions need to be attenuated by 115 dB and that WCS fixed
transmitter out-of-band emissions need to be attenuated by 87 dB in order to protect satellite
DARS receivers.  In addition, AMRC proposes that a 10 kHz measurement bandwidth, instead
of 1 MHz bandwidth, be employed.  Using its proposed 10 kHz measurement bandwidth, AMRC
states that WCS mobile transmitter out-of-band emissions need to be attenuated by 135 dB and
that WCS fixed transmitter out-of-band emissions need to be attenuated by 107 dB.

    128.  CD Radio acknowledges our efforts to balance the goals of protecting adjacent
services and enabling low WCS equipment costs.  However, CD Radio argues that, if the
proposed limits are adopted, hand-held WCS transmitters could "drown out" satellite DARS
receivers whenever they are operated within a few feet of each other.  CD Radio states that
adequate protection can be achieved without imposing large additional expense on WCS
equipment, particularly since the major practical interference problems will occur near the edges
of the frequency bands.  DSBC's initial calculations suggest that mobile PCS-like transmitters
operating in the WCS bands would need to be separated by at least several miles from mobile
DARS receivers in order to avoid causing them harmful interference.  DSBC believes that the
degree of interference that mobile, PCS-like operations can cause to satellite DARS receivers
requires more than merely changing the out-of-band emission limits.  Specifically, DSBC argues
that because satellite DARS receivers will be susceptible to absolute interference levels, and not to
variable levels based on the power of an unrelated transmitter, the WCS out-of-band limits cannot
depend on the power level of the WCS transmitter.  DSBC has not developed any specific
recommendations at this time due to the short comment period and suggests that the
Commission's staff and the pending satellite DARS applicants work together to establish
appropriate interference measures without delaying the WCS auction.  Furthermore, DSBC
argues that since 12.5 MHz of spectrum is the minimum amount of spectrum needed by each
satellite DARS licensee for an economically viable satellite DARS system, alternative solutions,
such as the use of guardbands and/or filters in the WCS segments that are adjacent to the 2320-2345 MHz band, should be considered.  

    129.  Primosphere states that we should ensure that the WCS spectrum is allocated to a
service or services that are compatible with satellite DARS in the 2320-2345 MHz band and that
we should adopt WCS technical rules that will protect satellite DARS reception.  Specifically,
Primosphere requests that, using the proposed 1 MHz resolution bandwidth, the out-of-band
emission limits for WCS operations into the 2320-2345 MHz band be set at 92 + 10 log (p) dB
per 1 MHz for fixed services and at 123 + 10 log (p) dB per 1 MHz for mobile operations.  In
addition, Primosphere requests that out-of-band emissions not be permitted to exceed the above
limits by more than 24 dB in any 4 kHz portion of the 2320-2345 MHz band.  Primosphere argues
that these tightened out-of-band emission standards are feasible and can be met through the use of
affordable and available filters in the WCS transmitters and the establishment of guardbands, on
the order of 100 to 150 kHz, on the WCS spectrum immediately adjacent to the edges of the
2320-2345 MHz band.  In addition, Primosphere requests that WCS transmissions be required
to be circularly polarized in the opposite sense to satellite DARS transmissions, that WCS mobile
units be limited to 0.5 watts, and that fixed transmitters be limited to 100 watts.  

    130.  In addition, AFTRCC -- the non-Government advisory committee for coordination
of the flight test frequencies in the 2310-2390 MHz band -- states that the out-of-band emission
limits proposed in the NPRM are insufficient to protect flight test operations in the 2320-2345 and
2360-2390 MHz bands from WCS operations.  AFTRCC is concerned that the rules do not
provide for antenna gain or path loss and states that telemetry receivers require interference
protection down to a level of -177 dBW/m2/4 kHz.  AFTRCC states that the issue of WCS out-of-band emission attenuation needs further study so that flight testing in the 2320-2345 and 2360-2390 MHz bands is protected.  AFTRCC argues that Lucent's suggestion that the PCS out-of-band emission limit be applied provisionally for WCS operations (discussed infra) is inadequate. 
Specifically, AFTRCC notes that the PCS out-of-band emission limit is identical to that proposed
for WCS mobile operations.  

    131.  Cornell states that the proposed WCS out-of-band emission limits would be
insufficient to prevent harmful interference to planetary radar studies being conducted at the
Arecibo Observatory in the 2370-2390 MHz band.  Specifically, the planetary radar system is
used in a distinct transmit-receive mode of coded pulse train signals, and Cornell states that
sideband emissions from satellite DARS operations in the 2345-2360 MHz band could interfere
with the detection and decoding of the returning signal from the planetary object.  Cornell
recommends that the emission limits set forth in Section 25.202(f) apply, except that, above 2370
MHz, the attenuation must be 54 + 10 log (p) dB.  Alternatively, Cornell suggests that satellite
DARS operations be limited to a maximum spectral power flux density of -197 dBW/m2/4 kHz
above 2370 MHz.  For fixed and mobile WCS operations, Cornell recommends that out-of-band
emissions be limited by a factor not less than 43 + 10 (p) in the 2360-2370 MHz band and by not
less than 70 + 10 log (p) on all frequencies above 2370 MHz.  In addition, Cornell requests that
coordination of WCS equipment be required within Puerto Rico and surrounding islands and that
such coordination be added to the requirements the Commission currently is considering for the
Puerto Rico Coordination Zone in ET Docket 96-2. 

    132.  DigiVox states that the out-of-band emission limits proposed in the NPRM should be
adopted.  DigiVox argues that increasing the limit above 70 + 10 log (p) dB as proposed by
DSBC, or more particularly to 115 dB as proposed by AMRC, or even to 92 dB for the base and
123 dB for the mobile as proposed by Primosphere, would dramatically alter the equipment design
and increase the manufacturing cost of equipment, in some cases rendering the provision of such
competitive services cost-prohibitive.  
      
    133.  Lucent requests that the proposed out-of-band emission limits be relaxed.  Lucent
believes that the out-of-band emission guidelines applied to the PCS band should be used initially
in the WCS band, subject to revision once ANSI 2.3 GHz band-specific technical standards are
developed.  This suggestion means that the power of any emission would be attenuated below
the transmitter power (P) by at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB for both fixed and mobile.

    134.  A number of parties, such as AirTouch, Motorola and TIA, express concern over the
potential for in-band interference between the various WCS services.  AirTouch, for example,
argues that the lack of standards in GWCS has delayed the development of equipment for use in
that band.  Motorola contends that, given the wide range of technical parameters under which the
various services would operate, transmitters appropriate for a given application could nevertheless
cause harmful interference to the receivers of another application.  TIA states that, as
conceived, WCS will be plagued with interference problems caused by the operation of mutually
incompatible services.  TIA states that it is widely acknowledged that mobile operations are
incompatible with fixed and radiolocation systems; and, certainly, broadcast (and particularly
broadcast satellite) operations are incompatible with all of the other primary services unless very
carefully coordinated.  TIA states that it is the Commission's responsibility, not the responsibility
of third parties, to sort out the compatible from the incompatible uses so that the spectrum can be
used effectively in the public interest.   
    135.  AirTouch, Lucent and Vanguard also argue that WCS "in-band" emission limits are
needed to protect WCS operations on different channels from interfering with one another. 
AirTouch urges the adoption of standards to facilitate the development of WCS equipment and
minimize interference problems.  Lucent believes that minimal but necessary technical rules
should be adopted to prevent interference, particularly if multiple types of technologies and
systems are allowed to share the WCS bands.  Lucent states that the Commission should look
to recognized industry standards organizations to recommend appropriate guidelines that would
foster sound technical coexistence within the WCS bands.  Vanguard argues that if the
Commission is committed to a shared approach, then the Commission must take all technical steps
necessary to minimize potential problems from co-use and must ensure that spectrum sharing is
feasible.   

    136.  Decision.  Based on the record before us, we find that the WCS out-of-band limits
proposed in the NPRM would be insufficient to protect certain sensitive operations on adjacent
frequencies.  While it is our desire to provide WCS licensees with the maximum flexibility to
provide a wide range of services, we also must ensure that WCS operations do not cause harmful
interference or disruption to adjacent satellite DARS reception or the operations of the Arecibo
Observatory.   With regard to satellite DARS reception in the 2320-2345 MHz band, we concur
with those commenting parties that suggest that additional attenuation of WCS out-of-band
emissions is needed to protect such operations.  We are therefore modifying our original proposal
and will require that all emissions from WCS fixed transmitters be attenuated below the
transmitter power (p) by at least 80 + 10 log (p) dB and that all emissions from WCS mobile
transmitters be attenuated at least 110 + 10 log (p) dB within the 2320-2345 MHz band.  In
complying with these requirements, WCS equipment that uses circular polarization will be
permitted to assume an allowance of 10 dB where such WCS equipment operates with opposite sense circular polarization from that used by DARS
operators in the 2320-2345 MHz band.  

    137.  In addition, we clarify that (p) is the output power of the transmitter, in watts.  We
further clarify that out-of-band emissions in any 1 MHz bandwidth must be attenuated by X + 10
log (p) dB below the output power of the transmitter, where X is the attenuation required for a
one watt transmitter.  In addition, we believe that requiring the out-of-band emissions
measurement to be made by setting the measurement instrument resolution bandwidth to 1 MHz
would unfairly penalize WCS equipment due to the difficulty of eliminating energy outside of the
1 MHz resolution bandwidth.  Therefore, for out-of-band emissions measurements we believe it is
appropriate to permit use of a measurement instrument resolution bandwidth of less than the
reference bandwidth of 1 MHz, provided that the energy is integrated over a 1 MHz bandwidth.  

    138.  We believe that these changes will provide significantly improved interference
protection to DARS from WCS operations.  We are aware that these out-of-band emission limits
may have significant cost or service implications for WCS, especially for operations on the
channels immediately adjacent to the 2320-2345 MHz band.  In particular, we understand that
there is a substantial risk that the out-of-band emission limits we are adopting will, at least in the
foreseeable future, make mobile operations in the WCS spectrum technologically infeasible. 
Nonetheless, we find that this level of attenuation is required in order to adequately protect
satellite DARS reception from WCS transmissions.  We believe that WCS transmitters can meet
these limits through a variety of measures, including the use of linear amplifiers, filters distributed
throughout the transmitter, and spectrum shaping signal processing.  In this regard, we encourage
potential WCS bidders and WCS equipment manufacturers to consult with one another prior to
the commencement of the auction to determine what services and equipment can be economically
provided on these frequencies.  We believe that the limits we are adopting will allow both WCS
and DARS to successfully operate.  We also encourage and will allow WCS and DARS licensees
to coordinate their operations to provide for greater or lesser protection on a mutually agreed
basis.  We expect WCS and DARS licensees to cooperate fully to minimize the possibility of
harmful interference from one service to the other. 

    139.  With regard to satellite DARS operations in WCS spectrum and the Arecibo
Observatory, we find Cornell's comments persuasive.  Accordingly, satellite DARS operations will
be limited to a maximum power flux density of -197 dBW/m2/4 kHz in the 2370-2390 MHz band
at Arecibo, Puerto Rico.  The adoption of a power flux density limit has the advantages of
being readily measurable and of not needing to be adjusted if spectrum outside the 2320-2345
MHz band is employed for satellite DARS operations.  Thus, we do not believe that Cornell's
alternative out-of-band emission limit is necessary.  Instead, since the location of the satellite will
be known, it is a relatively simple matter for a satellite DARS licensee to meet this requirement.

    140.  With regard to fixed and mobile operations, we are adopting Cornell's proposed out-of-band emission limit of 70 + 10 log (p) dB for all frequencies above 2370 MHz.  We also
believe that this out-of-band emission limit will help to protect aeronautical telemetry and
associated telecommand operations in the 2360-2390 MHz band and the launch vehicle
frequencies at 2370.5 and 2382.5 MHz. 

    141.  In order to protect the Deep Space receiver site located on Fort Irwin at Goldstone,
California, we are prohibiting use of the 2305-2310 MHz band for airborne or space-to-Earth
links.  Additionally, in the 2305-2320 MHz band, we are requiring that all WCS equipment meet
an out-of-band emission limit of 70 + 10 log (p) on all frequencies below 2300 MHz.  Finally, all
WCS operations within 50 kilometers of 35o 20' North Latitude and 116o 53' West Longitude
must be coordinated with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
("NTIA").  
              
    142.  In summary, the revised WCS out-of-band emission limits require that all emissions
outside of WCS Blocks A, B, C and D ("the licensed bands of operation") be attenuated below
the output power (p) of each transmitter, measured in watts, as follows:

    1)  For fixed operations, including radiolocation:  By a factor not less than 80 + 10 log
        (p) dB on all frequencies between 2320 and 2345 MHz. 

        For mobile operations, including radiolocation:  By a factor not less than 110
        + 10 log (p) dB on all frequencies between 2320 and 2345 MHz.

        For fixed and mobile operations, including radiolocation:  By a factor not less than
        70 + 10 log (p) dB on all frequencies below 2300 MHz and on all frequencies above
        2370 MHz; and not less than 43 + 10 log (p) dB on all frequencies between 2300
        and  2320 MHz and on all frequencies between 2345 and 2370 MHz that are outside
        the licensed bands of operation.  In addition, WCS operations within 50 kilometers
        of Goldstone, California must be coordinated with NTIA.

    2)  For WCS satellite DARS operations:  The limits set forth in Section 25.202(f) of the
        Commission's Rules apply, except that satellite DARS operations are limited to a
        maximum power flux density of -197 dB(W/m2/4 kHz) in the 2370-2390 MHz band
        at Arecibo, Puerto Rico.

    143.  In addition, we believe it desirable to permit WCS and satellite DARS licensees to
voluntarily negotiate different limits if they so choose.  For example, a WCS licensee could
negotiate an agreement with a satellite DARS licensee that would permit the former greater out-of-band emissions in exchange for monetary compensation, or vice-versa.  If WCS and satellite
DARS licensees negotiate different limits, then we will require that the parties to the agreement
maintain this information as part of their station files and disclose it to prospective assignees or
transferees.   

    144.  We also agree with the commenting parties that some in-band technical limits are
needed between adjacent WCS channel block operations in order to facilitate spectrum sharing. 
Accordingly, we are adopting an in-band emission limit that will require WCS licensees to
attenuate their signals by at least 43 + 10 log (p) at the edge of their block, except between
commonly held channel blocks (which require no attenuation).  We note that an attenuation of 43
dB is commonly employed in other services and that it has been found there to adequately prevent
adjacent channel interference.  Furthermore, we believe that the adoption of a minimum
adjacent block attenuation value of 43 dB -- coupled with the median field strength of 47 dBuV/m
at any location on the border of a WCS service area -- is the least intrusive regulation possible
that will minimize harmful interference.  

    8.  International Coordination

    145.  Background.  In the NPRM we stated that until international agreements are
completed WCS operations will be required to protect existing non-U.S. operations in the 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands and WCS operations in the border areas would be subject to
coordination with those countries, as appropriate.  In addition, we noted that satellite DARS
operations on WCS spectrum would be subject to international satellite coordination procedures. 
We stated that parties should be aware that international coordination could be a complex and
lengthy process and could vary significantly depending upon the types of WCS services that are to
be provided.  We stressed therefore that international coordination requirements should be taken
into account in developing business plans for the provision of WCS and that international
coordination would be particularly important for parties contemplating the provision of WCS in
border areas or the provision of satellite DARS operations. 
    
    146.  Comments.  TIA, SIA, ADC, NAB, and DSBC are the only commenters to directly
discuss international coordination issues.  Specifically, TIA notes that the 2290-2360 and 2520-2590 MHz bands recently have been made available in Canada for low capacity point-to-point and
point-to-multipoint microwave systems.   

    147.  SIA states that competing for satellite DARS authorizations in the WCS auction will
be difficult because the bidders will not know at the time they are bidding the extent to which the
Commission will be able to successfully coordinate the use of this spectrum with foreign
administrations that may be affected.  ADC states that we can assure spectrum for DARS, while
avoiding the concerns regarding potential interference to Canadian terrestrial facilities, by
allocating the entire 2345-2360 MHz band for DARS, but precluding DARS from the 2305-2320
MHz band.  DSBC states that for satellite DARS licensees supplementing their 2320-2345
MHz systems with WCS spectrum (for terrestrial repeaters, for example), coordination with
Canadian systems in WCS spectrum likely would be less costly and time consuming for 5 MHz
and MTA licenses than for larger bandwidth blocks and service areas. 

    148.  In contrast, NAB requests that satellite DARS licensees be prohibited from
operating terrestrial repeater networks in the 2310-2330 MHz band for the purpose of mitigating
harmful interference to Canadian services.  NAB claims that terrestrial repeaters used along the
Canadian border would significantly differ from "gap fillers" used in urban canyons.  Specifically,
NAB argues that programming for gap fillers would be fed by satellites, whereas repeaters used
along the Canadian border would be terrestrially fed.  NAB argues that such use is not part of a
broadcast satellite system, but rather is a broadcast terrestrial radio service.  NAB objects to
DSBC's suggested use of terrestrial repeaters in order to facilitate frequency coordination of
satellite DARS service along the Canadian border, arguing that such use would not fall within the
domestic and international allocations for the WCS bands.  In addition, NAB states that the fact
that terrestrial "repeaters" would be operating at a different frequency than their associated
satellite DARS broadcasts suggests that these in fact would be translators, not repeaters.  NAB
states that this distinction is important because the rules that govern the use of each frequency
may differ, as in the case, for example, of the FM broadcast service.  DigiVox agrees with NAB
that the use of WCS spectrum by satellite DARS licensees for a complementary broadcast
terrestrial service is not an application for which the spectrum is proposed to be allocated and,
therefore, such use should be prohibited in the 2310-2320 MHz band.  

    149.  In its reply comments, Primosphere states that the service allocation as well as
technical standards should consider trans-border coordination.  Primosphere notes that satellite
DARS systems using the 2320-2345 MHz band will face coordination with Canadian terrestrial
and aeronautical telemetry systems regardless of what services are provided in the 2305-2320 and
2345-2360 MHz bands and that the WCS systems also must coordinate with Canada and Mexico. 
Primosphere states that Canada not only has terrestrial and aeronautical telemetry systems in the
WCS bands, but also has recently made the WCS bands available for low-capacity point-to-point
and point-to-multipoint microwave systems operating in 1 to 10 MHz of bandwidth.  Primosphere
concludes that the mobile and radiolocation services, as components of WCS, likely would be
very difficult to coordinate with the Canadian systems.  Primosphere argues that because of the
impact coordination may have on system design and operating parameters, the Commission must
ensure that satellite DARS licensees are permitted to coordinate as soon as they are licensed and,
in any event, prior to or contemporaneously with systems that may be licensed in the WCS bands. 
Primosphere argues that satellite DARS licensees must not be disadvantaged vis a vis U.S.
terrestrial systems in any cross-border coordinations.    

    150.  Decision.  We reiterate that international coordination will be required for WCS
operations near the United States' borders and, depending on the service and its interference
potential, may also be required for non-border areas.  This coordination requirement particularly
may affect the implementation of satellite DARS operations in the 25 MHz of WCS spectrum
being allocated to DARS on a co-primary basis with other services.  Potential satellite DARS
applicants should consult the February 16, 1996 letter from the FCC Satellite Engineering Branch
to representatives of the current four satellite DARS applicants and responses thereto that address
coordination in these bands for satellite DARS.  Use of the WCS spectrum for DARS services
will be governed by the rules and regulations that will apply to the exclusive DARS spectrum
between 2320-2345 MHz.  These rules are expected to be adopted shortly in a Report and Order
to be issued in IB Docket No. 95-91.  

    9.  RF Safety 

    151.  Background.  With regard to RF safety requirements, we proposed in the NPRM to
treat WCS services and devices, operating within the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz
bands, in a comparable manner to other services and devices that have similar operating
characteristics.  We noted that Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091 and 2.1093 of our Rules list the
services and devices for which an environmental evaluation must routinely be performed. 
Accordingly, we proposed that an environmental evaluation for RF exposure would be required
for the following WCS operations: (1) transmitting terrestrial stations in the satellite DARS
service, e.g., "gap fillers"; (2) fixed operations, including base stations and radiolocation, that
have an effective radiated power ("ERP") greater than 2000 watts; and (3) mobile and portable
devices.  We invited comment on this proposal and requested suggestions for alternatives that
would ensure public health with respect to exposure to RF radiation.

    152.  Comments.  Omnipoint believes that operations at the "proposed" maximum
effective radiated power limit of 2000 watts at 2.3 GHz would be a threat to human health. 
Omnipoint contends that because 2.3 GHz also is roughly the same frequency band used in
conventional microwave ovens to heat food, the proposed 2,000 watt limit could pose risk of
injury.  Omnipoint recommends that the power limit for 2.3 GHz transmitters used for terrestrially
delivered services be limited to no more than a few watts ERP.  No reply commenters discussed
RF safety issues.

    153.  Decision.  In the NPRM, we proposed not to limit the output power of any WCS
transmitter, but would require that WCS transmitters comply with our RF exposure limits.  We
recognize Omnipoint's concerns; however, we note that the Commission recently adopted new,
more stringent exposure limits in ET Docket No. 93-62 which apply to all frequencies between
300 kHz and 100 GHz.  When adopting these new exposure limits, the Commission considered
recommendations from, inter alia, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug
Administration, and other federal health and safety agencies.  Although Omnipoint has raised
questions about the power threshold below which WCS facilities would be excluded from
routinely determining compliance with the new exposure limits, we have not received information
in this proceeding indicating that the new exposure limits would not adequately protect public
health at WCS operating frequencies.  Because all fixed, mobile, and portable transmitters are
required to comply with our RF safety rules, as more specifically discussed below, we believe that
this decision will satisfactorily protect public health and should allay Omnipoint's concerns. 
      
    154.  Specific to this proceeding, we are requiring applicants desiring to use the following
types of transmitters to perform routine environmental evaluations: (1) transmitting terrestrial
stations in the satellite DARS service and fixed operations, including base stations and
radiolocation transmitters, when the ERP is greater than 1000 watts; (2) all portable devices;
and (3) mobile devices, if the EIRP of the station, in its normal configuration, will be 1.5 watts or
greater.  We have chosen the 1000 W ERP threshold, instead of the proposed 2000 watts,
because of the flexibility in this service with respect to use, power, location, and other factors, and
we believe that this power limit is appropriate for most exposure situations.  This approach is
consistent with our existing rules for transmitters and devices of comparable use and similar
operating frequencies.  We will be providing guidance on acceptable methods of evaluating
compliance with the Commission's exposure limits in OET Bulletin 65.

    10.  WCS Interference to MDS/ITFS

    155.  Background.  The Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS") and the Instructional
Television Fixed Service ("ITFS") operate in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz bands.  After
the comment period for this proceeding had closed, several parties filed ex parte statements
expressing their concern that WCS transmissions would interfere with MDS/ITFS receiving
installations.  Specifically, BellSouth states that the receiver/downconverter ("downconverter")
located at each MDS/ITFS customer's home is an inexpensive broadband device that receives all
frequencies between 2.1 GHz and 2.7 GHz.  Thus, BellSouth states that a MDS/ITFS
downconverter located sufficiently close to a WCS transmitter would directly receive WCS
signals that would prevent clear reception of MDS/ITFS signals.  Specifically, BellSouth
calculates that a WCS transmitter that radiates more than 80 watts EIRP and that is located within
300 feet (91.44 meters) of a MDS/ITFS  downconverter would overload the downconverter and
thus prevent the reception of MDS/ITFS programming and information services.  In order to
counteract this problem, BellSouth requests that we limit WCS radiated power to 20 watts EIRP,
unless the WCS licensee obtains an interference consent agreement from the existing MDS and
ITFS licensees.  BellSouth states that its proposed limit on WCS power would limit the maximum
input to MDS/ITFS receivers to 12 decibels below one milliwatt (or -12 dBm), thus providing
protection against receiver overload. 

    156.  The Wireless Cable Association asserts that there currently are one million analog
MDS/ITFS installations and that interference from WCS operations could cost $125,000,000 or
more to cure.  The National ITFS Association notes that the Commission has a long standing
policy of protecting existing operations from interference caused by newly authorized services and
requests that we address this issue in a manner that would allow existing ITFS licensees to use the
frequencies licensed to them as intended by the Commission.    

    157.  Decision.  At this time we will not impose any technical restrictions on WCS
licensees aimed at protecting the MDS/ITFS services.  We understand the concerns expressed by
the MDS/ITFS licensees, and we appreciate the value of the educational, entertainment and other
programming provided by these services, including competition in the MVPD market.   As we
have repeatedly stated, it is our desire that these services continue to flourish.  However, based on
the record before us, we are not persuaded that the operation of WCS facilities would irreparably
harm the MDS and ITFS services.  Without a clear sense of what particular services WCS
licensees will provide, and how soon these will be operational, the interference impact of WCS
operations on MDS/ITFS is unclear.  Therefore we believe it would be premature at this time to
consider specific interference protection for MDS/ITFS.  We also observe that the record on this
issue is incomplete in that concerns of the MDS/ITFS community were first raised in late filed ex
parte comments and thus no potential WCS applicants have had an opportunity to respond to
those comments.  We also note that traditional, analog MDS/ITFS downconverters have
employed an inexpensive design that has minimal frequency selectivity.  Thus, even though
MDS/ITFS is licensed in the 2150-2162 MHz and 2500-2690 MHz bands only, their
downconverters receive all signals throughout the entire 2.1-2.7 GHz band.  We are aware that
the MDS/ITFS industry is converting to newer, more robustly designed downconverters that have
vastly improved frequency selectivity and would not receive WCS signals.  Also, the digital
downconverters to which the MDS/ITFS industry is expected to convert over the next several
years are expected to be better designed and not subject to overloading from WCS signals.  We
applaud these developments and do not wish to impede them.  The public is served through the
efficient use of available spectrum which, in turn, is facilitated by the use of receiving technology
designed to provide protection from other spectrum users in the market.  Thus, to the extent that
we may in the future, based on actual WCS operations, find it necessary to adopt an interference
rule for WCS, we would protect only those MDS/ITFS downconverters installed within a year
from the adoption date of this Report and Order.  After that time, we would expect that only
more spectrally efficient downconverters would be installed by MDS/ITFS licensees.  In sum, we
conclude that it would be improvident to adopt a requirement for WCS licensees to protect
MDS/ITFS operations unless and until we have a more precise understanding about the nature
and extent of problems that may actually arise.

    11.  Field Strength Between Service Areas

    158.  Background.  In the NPRM, we proposed to permit WCS licensees to partition their
service areas.  Further, if partitioning is employed, we proposed to require that WCS systems be
designed not to exceed a signal level (i.e., a predicted or measured median field strength) of 47
dBV/m at the licensee's service area boundary, unless the affected adjacent service area licensees
agree to different signal level.  No comments were filed on this issue. 
    159.  Decision.  In order for licensees to share spectrum along a common border, each
licensee must decrease its signal level at the border so that, while it can provide acceptable
communications within its licensed service area, its signal level across the border is sufficiently
reduced to avoid causing interference to the neighboring system.  In broadband PCS, we adopted
a predicted or measured median field strength of 47 dBV/m at any location on the border of the
PCS service area unless the parties agree to a higher field strength.  In drafting the proposed rules
in the NPRM, we had to assume one of the service area options that were proposed in text.  We
assumed a nationwide license and thus did not specifically address the issue of median field
strength between initial service areas.  Nevertheless, we did specifically propose requiring a
maximum median field strength of 47 dBV/m between those service areas which would be
formed through geographic partitioning.  We shall adopt this same 47 dBV/m maximum median
field strength requirement between all service areas, unless the parties agree to a different field
strength.

    12.  Additional Technical Issues

    160.  In addition, Sun Microsystems requests that a minimum data rate of 5 bits per hertz
be required for the WCS bands.  Sun Microsystems argues that setting the minimum data rate at
this high level would stimulate new technologies.  Sun Microsystems proposes that analog
transmission on the WCS spectrum be prohibited.   Sun Microsystems states that each service
offering should be tiered in order to allow the largest possible number of people to afford its
benefits.  Sun Microsystems requests that high gain directional antenna systems (with
beamwidths no greater than 2o to 3o) be required for high power use and that any omnidirectional
antenna be required to use low power and 18 to 25 dB gain antennas.  Finally, Sun Microsystems
suggests that orthogonal coding and modulation schemes be permitted in order to allow more
than one licensee to use the same spectrum simultaneously.  No party commented on Sun
Microsystems' proposals. 

    161.  Decision.  We believe that the licensees will have a strong incentive to put the
spectrum to its best use.  There is nothing in the record of this proceeding that suggests that
prohibiting certain technologies or requiring specific technologies is appropriate for the WCS. 
Accordingly, we decline to adopt the technical regulations proposed by Sun Microsystems.


E.  Auction Procedures

    162.  In the NPRM, we proposed an auction design and pre-auction procedures for the
WCS service in accordance with the Appropriations Act and the expedited schedule which it
imposes.  Specifically, we proposed to award the WCS licenses through competitive bidding and
by means of a simultaneous multiple round electronic auction.  We based this proposal on the
need to auction the WCS licenses quickly and to promote the efficient use of the spectrum.  As
we noted, the Appropriations Act requires the Commission to commence the WCS auction no
later than April 15, 1997 and to conduct the auction in a manner that ensures that all proceeds are
deposited into the United States Treasury no later than September 30, 1997. 

    1.  Competitive Bidding Design

    163.  Background.  In the NPRM, we proposed to auction licenses to offer WCS service
in conformity with the general competitive bidding rules in Part 1, Subpart Q of the Commission's
Rules and substantially consistent with the auctions that have been employed in other wireless
services.  In addition, we proposed certain modifications, addressed infra, to help speed the
auction process given the deadlines imposed by the Appropriations Act.  

    164.  Comments.  Few commenters addressed our proposed competitive bidding design. 
Similarly, commenters expressed little opposition to our proposal to use a single, simultaneous
multiple round auction to award the WCS licenses.  One commenter simply expresses support for
a simultaneous multiple round auction.  Another endorses our proposal to use the competitive
bidding design used in the PCS auctions, because it is in place, tested, validated, known, and
understood.
 
    165.  Decision.  We adopt our proposal to employ a single simultaneous multiple round
auction design for the WCS auction similar to that used in the PCS auctions.  As we explained in
the NPRM, we believe that multiple round bidding will provide more information to bidders about
the values of the licenses during the auction than single round bidding.  With better information,
bidders will have less incentive to shade their bids downward in order to avoid the "winner's
curse", that is the tendency for the winner to be the bidder who most overestimates the value of
the item being auctioned.  We also believe that multiple round bidding is likely to be fairer than
single round bidding as every bidder will have the opportunity to win a license if it is willing to
pay the most for it.  Finally, as we stated in the NPRM, a single simultaneous auction will facilitate
any aggregation strategies that bidders may have and will provide the most information to bidders
about license values at a time that they can best put that information to use.  

    166.  In addition, we adopt our proposal to require bidding for WCS licenses by electronic
means only.  As we indicated in the NPRM, we base this decision on our belief that while oral
outcry auctions can be simple and rapid, it is not possible to auction multiple licenses
simultaneously in an oral auction.  We also note that because of the potentially large value of the
WCS licenses, an electronic multiple round auction will be preferable because it will permit
bidders time between rounds to confer with principals and reassess their valuation models and
bidding strategies.  We also adopt our proposal to require that bidders submit their bids
electronically, rather than by telephone.  Given the time constraints imposed by the
Appropriations Act, as well as the recent improvements in our electronic bidding software, we
believe that telephonic bidding should be permitted only under exceptional circumstances, to be
determined by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.  Finally, we delegate to the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau the discretion to determine whether bidding for the WCS auction
will be remote or on-site.

    2.  Bidding Procedures

    167.  Background.  In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that the WCS auction should
follow the general competitive bidding procedures of Part 1, Subpart Q of the Commission's
Rules.  In addition, we proposed to adopt specific provisions regarding certain bidding-related
issues.  Finally, we asked interested parties to suggest the appropriate level of a minimum opening
bid for the WCS license or licenses.

    168.  Comments.  Commenters that support spectrum block and service area sizes that
would result in large numbers of licenses generally recognize the difficulties involved in
completing the WCS auction within the statutorily-prescribed time period, but suggest auction
procedures alternative to a minimum opening bid to speed the auction.  For example, DigiVox
proposes that the Commission speed the auction process by prescribing minimum bids and higher
bidding increments in the early stages of the auction and by conducting multiple rounds of bidding
early in the auction.  BellSouth, a proponent of BTA service areas, believes that the
Commission should employ "a combination of activity rules, stopping rules, and multiple bidding
rounds per day, similar to what was done for the D, E, and F Block PCS auctions."  Another
proponent of BTA service areas believes that the Commission can complete the WCS auction
within the time constraints imposed by the Appropriations Act by adopting three rule revisions
that it believes would encourage bidders to bid early in the auction on the licenses in which they
are interested:  (1) a non-simultaneous "stopping" rule under which the Commission would stop
taking bids on a particular license if no bids have been submitted for that market after a specified
number of rounds; (2) submission of market- and frequency-specific upfront payments rather than
a blanket upfront payment that allows a bidder to remain eligible in each round for any
combination of markets covered by the entire payment; and (3) increasing the number of bidding
rounds per day, taking advantage of the experience that many participants will have acquired in
earlier auctions.  Another commenter also suggests that the Commission can conduct multiple
rounds per day.

    169.  ALLTEL supports the exclusive use of electronic bidding and filing procedures if
MTA service areas are used, which it believes will facilitate the administration of an auction for
306 licenses (six 5 MHz blocks over 51 MTAs).  AT&T, a proponent of 10 MHz blocks on an
MTA basis, believes that an efficient auction can be conducted by:  (1) conducting multiple
auction rounds per day; (2) setting minimum opening bids high enough to deter speculative
bidders; (3) raising the "activity rule" and reducing the number of waivers to the rule granted to
each bidder; and (4) imposing short deadlines for petitions to deny, responses thereto, and
payment of the balance of winning bids.  We received no comments suggesting the amount of
the minimum opening bid for the WCS auction.

    170.  Decision.  We adopt the bidding procedures that we proposed in the NPRM.  The
WCS auction will be conducted using the general bidding procedures set forth in Part 1, Subpart
Q of our Rules, with some minor modifications designed to speed the auction in order to comply
with the time constraints imposed by the Appropriations Act.  Specifically, we delegate to the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau the discretion to establish a minimum opening bid for the
WCS licenses and to announce the minimum opening bid by public notice.  As we stated in the
NPRM, a minimum opening bid will cause bidders to start bidding at a substantial fraction of the
final price of the license or licenses, thus ensuring that the auction proceeds quickly and increasing
the likelihood that the public receives fair market value for the license or licenses.  In keeping with
our obligation under the Appropriations Act to ensure that the auction proceed rapidly, we also
delegate to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau the discretion to establish, raise and lower
minimum bid increments in the course of the auction.  Finally, we conclude that where a tie bid
occurs, the high bidder will be determined by the order in which the bids were received by the
Commission.

    3.  Procedural and Payment Issues

    171.  In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that, with certain proposed modifications,
Subpart Q of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules establishing procedural and payment rules for FCC
auctions generally should apply to the WCS auction.  Only one commenter addressed these issues. 
DigiVox contends that to effectively compete in the auctions, many parties (especially small
businesses) will need 90 days from the release of the final rules before FCC Forms 175 are due in
order to finalize their business plans.  DigiVox proposes a schedule that includes commencing the
auction on May 2, 1997.  As we recognized in the NPRM, the Appropriations Act requires that
the Commission "shall commence the competitive bidding" for WCS licenses no later than April
15, 1997.  Although DigiVox urges an interpretation of this requirement that would allow
applicants to submit their short-form applications on that date, we conclude that the statute
clearly requires that "bidding" commence on April 15, 1997.  We therefore will commence the
WCS auction on April 15, 1997, and the auction will be conducted in substantial conformity with
Subpart Q of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules.  We also adopt general rules regarding
application and licensing procedures.            

    172.  Pre-Auction Application Procedures.  In the NPRM, we proposed that WCS
applicants be required to file a short-form application (FCC Form 175) prior to the auction.  In
addition, we tentatively concluded that we should require electronic filing of all applications for
this auction.  We received no comments addressing this issue.  We therefore will implement this
proposal.  Each bidder in the WCS auction must submit a short-form application (FCC Form 175)
by means of electronic filing.  As we stated in the NPRM, we believe that electronic filing of
applications will serve the best interests of auction participants as well as ensure that the WCS
auction will be completed within the time frame mandated under the Appropriations Act.  We
have developed user-friendly electronic filing software and Internet World Wide Web forms to
give applicants the ability to easily and inexpensively file and review applications.  In addition, we
believe that in light of the legislative deadline of April 15, 1997 for commencement of this
auction, requiring electronic filing will be helpful to applicants as well as the Commission.  By
shortening the time required for the Commission to process applications before the auction,
electronic filing will increase the lead time available to applicants to finalize their business plans
and arrange necessary financing before the short-form filing deadline.

    173.  We also proposed in the NPRM that an applicant's electronic submission of FCC
Form 175 include a certification that the applicant is not in default on any Commission licenses
and that it is not delinquent on any extension of credit from any federal agency.  No commenters
addressed this issue.  We therefore adopt this certification requirement for the WCS auction.  As
we stated in the NPRM, a certification regarding defaulted licenses and delinquent payments to
federal agencies will enable us to better evaluate the financial qualifications of potential bidders,
because it will allow us to determine whether any bidder may later be subject to a monetary
judgment or collection procedures that may impair its financial ability to provide service.  In the
Second Report and Order, we decided that we should require sufficient information on the short-form application to make a determination that "the application is not in violation of Commission
Rules and that applications not meeting those requirements may be dismissed prior to the
competitive bidding."  Part of this documentation necessarily includes certification that the
bidder has the legal, technical, financial, and other qualifications to bid in the auction.

    174.  Upfront Payment Amount.  The Part 1 Rules require the submission of an upfront
payment as a prerequisite to participation in spectrum auctions.  In the NPRM, we proposed to
set the amount of the WCS upfront payment based on the general formula we adopted in the
Second Report and Order of $.02 per megahertz per population.  In addition to seeking comment
on this proposal, we asked commenters to suggest alternative methods of establishing an upfront
payment, and in particular, how the Commission may estimate the value of the spectrum to be
auctioned.  We received no comments or alternative suggestions on this issue, so we will adopt
our proposed upfront payment for the WCS auction.  Given that a range of services may be
provided on WCS spectrum, it is difficult to estimate the value of this spectrum.  We believe,
however, that a $.02 per megahertz per population upfront payment will serve the twin purposes
of upfront payments -- to deter insincere bidding and to provide the Commission with a source of
funds to satisfy any bid withdrawal or default payments -- without being so high as to discourage
participation in the WCS auction.

    175.  Procedure For Upfront Payment.  We also proposed to require bidders to deposit
their upfront payments in our lock-box bank by wire transfer only by a date to be announced by
public notice.  No commenters addressed this issue.  We therefore adopt the requirement that
bidders in the WCS auction deposit their upfront payment by wire transfer only.  Although in the
past we have permitted payment by cashier's check, we believe that requiring payment by wire
transfer will benefit bidders by streamlining and expediting the administration of the auction.  As
we noted in the NPRM, our experience has shown that verification of payments remitted to us by
cashier's check is time-consuming and cumbersome, and requires the allotment of extra processing
time prior to the start of the auction.  Permitting payment by cashier's check would require that
upfront payments be made at an earlier point, which would decrease applicants' lead time to
pursue business plans and arrange necessary financing before the start of the auction.  In addition,
given the large number of financial institutions offering wire transfer services, a requirement that
bidders remit their upfront payments by wire transfer will result in minimal, if any, extra cost to
auction applicants.  Such a cost is far outweighed by the benefit of speeding the auction process
through quicker verification of payments.  

    176.  Down Payment and Full Payment.  In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that to
help ensure that auction winners are able to pay the full amount of their bids, every winning bidder
in the WCS auction would be required to tender a down payment sufficient to bring its total
amount on deposit with the Commission up to 20 percent of its winning bid.  No commenters
addressed this issue. We therefore conclude that a down payment equal to 20 percent of each high
bidder's total winning bids will be due within 10 business days after the issuance of a public notice
announcing the winning bidder for each WCS license. 

    177.  We also proposed that a winning bidder that makes its down payment in a timely
manner be required to file an FCC Form 600 long-form application and follow the long-form
application procedures in Section 1.2107.  We proposed that after reviewing the winning
bidder's long-form application, and after verifying receipt of the winning bidder's 20 percent down
payment, the Commission would announce the application's acceptance for filing, thus triggering
the filing window for petitions to deny.  We also noted that given the abbreviated auction
schedule contemplated by the Appropriations Act, a condensed schedule for the filing of petitions
to deny would apply for the WCS auction.  No commenters addressed this issue. We therefore
adopt our proposals governing long-form application procedures.  Winning bidders that have
made the necessary down payment will be required to file a modified FCC Form 600 that has been
updated to provide for our decision to permit flexibility in terms of permissible uses.  Finally, the
Appropriations Act provides that no application for a WCS authorization may be granted earlier
than seven (7) days following public notice of the acceptance for filing of such an application, and
that parties will have no less than five (5) days following such public notice to file a petition to
deny.  We will therefore afford parties five (5) days to file a response to any petition to deny. 
If, pursuant to Section 309(d) of the Communications Act, the Commission dismisses or denies
any and all petitions to deny, the Commission will announce by public notice that it is prepared to
award a license and the winning bidder will then have ten (10) business days to submit the balance
of its winning bid.  If the bidder does so, the license will be granted.  If the bidder fails to submit
the required down payment or the balance of the winning bid or the license is otherwise denied,
we will assess a default payment as discussed infra. 

    178.  Amendments and Modifications of Applications.  In the NPRM, we stated that to
encourage maximum bidder participation, applicants should be permitted to amend or modify their
short-form applications as provided in Section 1.2105.  We also noted that in the broadband
PCS context, we modified our rules to permit ownership changes that result when consortium
investors drop out of bidding consortia, even if control of the consortium changes due to this
restructuring.  No commenters addressed this issue.  We therefore adopt the same exception to
our rules prohibiting major amendments in the WCS auction.   

    179.  Bid Withdrawal, Default and Disqualification.  In the NPRM, we tentatively
concluded that the withdrawal, default, and disqualification rules for the WCS auction would be
based upon the procedures established in our general competitive bidding rules.  With regard to
bids which are submitted in error, we proposed to apply the guidelines which we recently
fashioned to provide for relief from the bid withdrawal payment requirements under certain
circumstances.  No commenters addressed this issue.  We therefore adopt these provisions
governing bid withdrawal, default and disqualification for the WCS auction. 

    4.  Anti-Collusion Rules
    
    180.  In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that the anti-collusion rules which we
adopted in the Second Report and Order, and which are codified at 47 C.F.R.  1.2105, should
apply to the WCS auction.  We received no comments addressing the issue of collusion.  We have
therefore determined that our rules prohibiting collusive conduct will apply to the WCS auction. 

    5.  Treatment of Designated Entities

    181.  Background.  Section 309(j) of the Communications Act requires that in
promulgating competitive bidding regulations, the Commission "ensure that small businesses, rural
telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women
[commonly referred to as 'designated entities'] are given the opportunity to participate in the
provision of spectrum-based services."  We stated in the NPRM that the allocation which we
adopt contemplates that a WCS licensee will have broad flexibility in determining the range of
services it will offer, and that licenses will be issued for broad geographic areas.  In addition, we
noted that our proposed partitioning and disaggregation rules for WCS licensing may provide
designated entities with additional opportunities to participate in the provision of WCS service. 
We therefore asked commenters to address the extent to which potentially high capital costs for
constructing WCS systems affect the advisability of adopting specific provisions for designated
entities in the WCS auction.  

    182.  We also recognized in the NPRM that the Appropriations Act requires that the
Commission conduct the WCS auction in a manner that ensures that all proceeds of the bidding
are deposited in the Treasury no later than September 30, 1997.  Because of the expedited
procedures imposed by the Appropriations Act, we noted that an entity acquiring a WCS
authorization must be prepared to make payment on its full bid amount quickly.  Thus, we
tentatively concluded that installment payment plans would be an inappropriate mechanism for
encouraging designated entity participation in the WCS auction.  We sought comment on this
tentative conclusion and, in particular, on how Congressional intent concerning designated entities
can be effectuated in connection with competitive bidding for WCS licenses.  With regard to
specific types of designated entities, we sought comment on:  (1) specific provisions to ensure the
participation of minority and women-owned businesses, including discussion of how such
provisions should be crafted to meet the relevant standards of judicial review (strict scrutiny for
minorities and intermediate scrutiny for women); (2) the appropriate definition for small
business to the extent commenters suggest special provisions for small businesses; and (3)
whether any special provisions should be afforded to rural telcos.

    183.  Comments.  Although we sought comment in the NPRM on how provisions to
ensure the participation of minority- and women-owned businesses should be crafted to meet
those relevant standards of judicial review, the comments that we received did not suggest the
institution of provisions specifically benefiting businesses owned by minorities and women, and
did not provide specific anecdotal or statistical evidence to develop a record supporting race-based or gender-based WCS auction rules.  We did receive several comments suggesting that
small business preferences frequently aid minority- and women-owned businesses, without raising
substantial constitutional implications.

    184.  Most commenters that discussed designated entities advocate bidding credits as a
means of ensuring their effective participation.  As for the size of bidding credits to be offered,
most commenters agree on a base of the levels offered for broadband PCS (15 percent for small
businesses and 25 percent for very small businesses), supplemented by an adjustment in lieu of an
installment payment program.  Along those lines, for small businesses and very small businesses,
CIRI suggests 20 percent and 35 percent, respectively; RTG suggests 15 percent and 25
percent; and DigiVox suggests 25 percent and 40 percent. Omnipoint suggests a 25 percent
bid discount plus an additional 20 percent off the net bid price "as a factor roughly equivalent to
the time value of money under the broadband PCS F block installment plan."  TTS suggests 15
percent for small businesses and rural telcos.  DigiVox also suggests that, to foster competition
and diversity of licensees as required by Section 309(j), an additional 5 percent bidding credit
should be awarded to any small business bidder that does not hold a CMRS license in the MTA
for which it is bidding.

    185.  With respect to eligibility for bidding credits, most commenters suggest that we
employ the definitions for small businesses and very small businesses applicable to broadband
PCS.  Vanguard, however, regards those definitions as overly restrictive because they exclude
many businesses that, though not "small," are dwarfed by the large entities that won most
broadband PCS block A and B licenses or that funded or had substantial equity interests in Block
C winners.  Vanguard suggests that the Commission expand its definition of small businesses to
include entities with up to $500 million in revenues and $1.5 billion in assets.

    186.  A number of other proposals are also advanced.  AT&T and CTIA suggest that
designated entities can best be accommodated through band plan determinations, and advocate a
band plan that uses 10 MHz blocks (5 MHz pairs) divided geographically into MTAs, believing
that this would encourage broad participation by designated entities, who might wish particularly
to develop niche or technically innovative services.  DSBC and SOSCO agree that the use of
MTAs will allow small businesses that have identified niche markets to focus their bidding
resources on those markets only and to introduce services in those markets relatively quickly. 
Other commenters also argue in favor of MTAs, BTAs, and EAs, asserting that designated
entities would be priced out of the bidding if nationwide or large regional licensing are used. 
DSBC generally supports smaller bandwidth and service area allocations, believing them likely to
improve the opportunities for designated entities to provide services in the proposed WCS
band.

    187.      To ensure that designated entities are able to participate in the provision of wireless
services in the WCS band, however, DSBC also proposes that the Commission set aside a 5 MHz
license in each MTA for designated entities or, alternatively, allow designated entities a
25 percent bidding credit.  Some commenters propose that bidding credits be awarded to
applicants accommodating and/or offering discounts to public safety users and schools.  CIRI
believes that set-asides of spectrum blocks and installment payments may no longer be effective
small business provisions and, instead, recommends that the Commission employ bidding credits
along with control group equity requirements (as set forth in 47 C.F.R.   24.709) and unjust
enrichment restrictions (as set forth in 47 C.F.R.  24.839(d)), and afford an exception from
affiliation for concerns owned by Alaska Native Corporations and Indian Tribes (as set forth in 47
C.F.R.  24.720(l)(11)(i)).  DigiVox contends that the Commission should limit to 98 the total
number of WCS licenses for which any party may take advantage of small business bidding credits
and other designated entity benefits, believing this limit would prevent any one entity from
accumulating too many licenses and would promote the diversity of licensees.  Finally, three
commenters believe that small businesses would benefit from liberal partitioning, disaggregation
and franchising rules, and one of those suggests that the Commission grant to rural telcos of
favorable partitioning and disaggregation rights as compared to other licensees.

    188.  Decision.

        A.  Meeting the Constitutional Standards

    189.  Race- and gender-based classifications must meet exacting standards of judicial
review.  In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all racial classifications, whether imposed at the
federal, state or local government level, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under a strict
scrutiny standard of review.  This standard requires such classifications to be narrowly tailored to
further a compelling governmental interest.  In VMI, the Supreme Court reviewed a state
program containing gender classification and held it was unconstitutional under an intermediate
scrutiny standard of review.  This standard requires that "[p]arties who seek to defend gender-based government action must demonstrate an  exceedingly persuasive justification' for that
action."  Under this test, the government must show "at least that the [challenged] classification
serves  important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed' are
 substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.'"  While the Supreme Court has
not directly addressed constitutional challenges to federal gender-based programs since Adarand
and VMI, our review of the relevant broad language in VMI indicates that the Court does not
differentiate between federal and state official actions in its equal protection analysis.  Similarly,
the Adarand decision definitively eliminated any distinction between federal and state race-based
programs in setting its strict scrutiny standard of judicial review.  Therefore, we conclude that
any gender-based preference maintained in the WCS auction rules would need to meet the VMI
intermediate scrutiny standard of review.

    190.  We believe that the record in this proceeding is insufficient to support race- and
gender-based provisions that would survive judicial scrutiny.  Moreover, adopting race- and
gender-based provisions unsupported by a substantial record would disserve the public interest
because it might result in litigation that could further delay the conduct of the auction and the
award of WCS licenses, and postpone the introduction of new competition to the marketplace. 
We therefore conclude that we should not adopt special auction provisions that are race- and
gender-based.

    191.  While we decline to establish race- and gender-based provisions for the WCS
auction rules, we will adopt provisions for small businesses, as suggested by several commenters. 
We note that nothing in the Adarand or VMI decisions calls our small business provisions into
question.  Moreover, by retaining small business preferences, we believe we will fulfill our
mandate under Section 309(j) to provide increased opportunities for minority- and women-owned
businesses, because many minority- and women-owned entities are small businesses who
therefore will qualify for the same special provisions that would have applied to them under the
previous rules.

    192.  We also have initiated a comprehensive rule making proceeding to gather evidence
regarding market barriers to entry faced by small businesses as well as minority- and women-owned firms.  If a sufficient record is adduced that will support race- and gender-based
provisions that will satisfy judicial scrutiny, we will consider race- and gender-based provisions
for future auctions.  Toward this end, we will continue to request bidder information on the WCS
short-form filings as to minority- or women-owned status.  In our analysis of the applicant pool
and the auction results, we will monitor whether we have accomplished substantial participation
by minorities and women through the broad provisions available to small businesses.  This will
also assist us in preparing our report to Congress on the success of designated entities in
auctions.

        B.  Special Provisions for Designated Entities

              i. Bidding Credits

    193.  We will adopt bidding credits for small businesses and will adopt a tiered bidding
credit approach, as supported by several commenters.  We agree with commenters that the
availability of bidding credits is consistent with our obligations under Section 309(j) to "promote
economic opportunity for a wide variety of applicants, including small businesses and businesses
owned by minorities and women."  We believe that a tiered approach, which enhances the
discounting effect of bidding credits because not all entities receive the same benefit, will
encourage smaller businesses to participate in the provision of WCS services.  As for the level of
the credits, we believe that bidding credits of 25 percent for small businesses and 35 percent for
very small businesses are appropriate.  These levels reflect the thresholds used in the broadband
PCS auctions with a reasonable adjustment for the unavailability of installment payment plans for
WCS licensees.  It is difficult to accurately calculate the net present value of an installment
program (which value would depend on several variables including future commercial interest
rates), and we therefore are adjusting the broadband PCS bidding credit levels upward by ten
percentage points.  We believe that this tiered bidding credit approach and 10 percent adjustment
are reasonable and consistent with the comments.  These credits are narrowly tailored to the
varying abilities of businesses to access capital and also take into account that different small
businesses will pursue different strategies.

              ii.            Definition of Small Business

    194.  Consistent with the suggestions of many of the commenters, we will generally
employ the small business definitions and standards used in broadband PCS, which we believe
have the advantages of ready availability and familiarity to many small businesses that might be
interested in this spectrum.  We will therefore define a "small business" as an entity with average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for each of the preceding three years, and a "very small
business" as an entity with average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million in each of the
preceding three years.  We decline to adopt the higher revenue standard suggested by Vanguard
because we do not believe that Congress, in enacting Section 309(j), intended for firms with $500
million in revenue to be regarded as "small".  Furthermore, adopting Vanguard's suggested
standard would create severe disparities between "small businesses" in terms of capitalization and
access to financing.

    195.  In determining whether an entity qualifies as a small business at either threshold, we
will consider the gross revenues of the applicant, its affiliates, and certain investors in the
applicant.  Specifically, we will attribute the gross revenues of all controlling principals in the
applicant as well as the gross revenues of affiliates of the applicant.  Consistent with broadband
PCS rules, we apply two notable exceptions to these attribution rules.  First, we determine that
personal net worth is not included in the determination of eligibility for bidding as a small
business.  Second, we agree with CIRI that entities owned by Alaska Native Corporations and
Indian Tribes are exempt from affiliation for purposes of determining eligibility of applicants for
bidding credits, because of the general lack of availability of revenues from such entities for
purposes of participation in WCS.  This exception is consistent with treatment afforded such
entities by the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program, and as we have previously
determined, we do not believe such a provision to be affected by Adarand.

    196.  We decline, however, to employ the specific control group equity requirements that
we adopted for broadband PCS, because the time frame for the conduct of the WCS auction is
likely to be too short to allow for the creation of the type of complex financial relationships as
arose in the broadband PCS context.  Instead, we will simply define the term "control" to include
both de jure and de facto control of the applicant.  However, we will still require that, in order
for an applicant to qualify as a small business, qualifying small business principals must maintain
"control" of the applicant.  We also note that while we are not imposing specific equity
requirements on the small business principals, the absence of significant equity could raise
questions about whether the applicant qualifies as a bona fide small business.
  
              iii.   Unjust Enrichment

    197.  We agree with CIRI on the employment of an unjust enrichment restriction on the
transfer of licenses acquired by small businesses, similar to that set forth in 47 C.F.R.  24.839(d),
which we believe necessary to ensure that meaningful small business participation is not thwarted
by transfers of licenses to non-designated entities.  To permit otherwise would severely impede
the meaningful participation of designated entities because bidders could participate as small
businesses with the intention not of providing service but only of profiting from the difference in
the discounted auction price and the worth of the license on the resale market.  To prevent unjust
enrichment by small businesses transferring licenses acquired through the use of bidding credits,
we impose a payment requirement on transfers of such licenses to entities that are not owned by
small businesses.  We believe it is appropriate to conform our unjust enrichment rules for WCS to
the broadband PCS unjust enrichment rules as they relate to bidding credits.  These rules provide
that, during the initial license term, licensees utilizing bidding credits and seeking to assign or
transfer control of a license to an entity that does not meet the eligibility criteria for bidding
credits will be required to reimburse the government for the amount of the bidding credit before
the transfer will be permitted.  Additionally, the rules which we now adopt provide that if,
within the original term, a licensee applies to assign or transfer control of a license to an entity
that is eligible for a lower bidding credit, the difference between the bidding credit obtained by the
assigning party and the bidding credit for which the acquiring party would qualify must be paid to
the United States Treasury as a condition of approval of the assignment or transfer.  These
provisions also will apply to WCS licensees who partition or disaggregate their licenses.    

    198.  If a licensee that utilizes bidding credits seeks to make any change in ownership
structure that would render the licensee ineligible for bidding credits, or eligible only for a lower
bidding credit, the licensee must first seek Commission approval and reimburse the government
for the amount of the bidding credit, or the difference between its original bidding credit and the
bidding credit for which it is eligible after the ownership change, plus interest based on the rate for
ten year U.S. Treasury obligations applicable on the date the license is granted.  Additionally, if an
investor subsequently purchases an interest in the business and, as a result, the gross revenues of
the business exceed the applicable financial caps, this unjust enrichment provision will apply.

    199.  The amount of this payment will be reduced over time as follows:  (1) a transfer in
the first five years of the license term will result in a forfeiture of 100 percent of the value of the
bidding credit (or, in the case of very small businesses transferring to small businesses, 100
percent of the difference between the bidding credit received by the former and the bidding credit
for which the latter is eligible); (2) in year six of the license term the payment will be 80 percent;
(3) in year seven the payment will be 60 percent; in year eight the payment will be 40 percent; and
in year nine the payment will be 20 percent, after which there will be no required payment.  These
assessments will have to be paid to the U.S. Treasury as a condition of approval of the
assignment, transfer, or ownership change. 

              iv.   Other Matters

    200.  Based upon the record in this proceeding, we have determined that special
provisions for rural telcos are not warranted.  However, rural telcos can take advantage of the
geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation provisions which we adopt, and those rural
telcos that qualify as small or very small businesses may take advantage of our tiered bidding
credits.  In addition, we decline to afford an additional bidding credit, as suggested by DigiVox, to
small businesses bidding in areas in which they hold no CMRS licenses.  We believe that such
preferences might discourage small businesses from acquiring WCS spectrum as supplemental for
CMRS services already offered in that geographic license area, which would run counter to our
goal of flexible use.  We also decline to adopt any limit on the total number of WCS licenses for
which an entity may take advantage of small business bidding credits.  We do not regard such
limitation as necessary and generally believe that, absent a strong justification to do otherwise, the
auction process should be permitted to work without constraint to allow all bidders to express
their valuations of the licenses up for bid.  Finally, we also decline to set aside a block of licenses
for auction only to designated entities because we do not believe such set-asides to be necessary
to ensure opportunities for participation by designated entities in light of the substantial bidding
credits, as well as the partitioning and disaggregation rules we are adopting.

    201.  We also note that our decision both to license WCS in two 10 MHz blocks and two
5 MHz blocks, and to designate MEA and REAG service areas should increase the
opportunities for participation in WCS by small businesses and other designated entities.  These
decisions will help to ensure that the cost of obtaining WCS spectrum remains within reach of a
larger number of prospective applicants than would be the case were we to offer only one or two
licenses in each area.  In addition, by offering licenses for smaller blocks of spectrum, we will
enable WCS applicants to acquire only the amount of spectrum necessary to implement their
particular service plans.  Such efficiencies directly benefit small businesses who may not be able to
afford to acquire larger blocks of spectrum.  For example, permitting bidders to acquire smaller
blocks of spectrum will enable small businesses that have identified niche markets to focus their
bidding and avoid paying for more spectrum than they actually need. 

 
                    IV.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS

    202.  Authority.  This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(c), 303(f),
303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i),
157(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) and the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act,
1997, P.L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996).

    203.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Commission's Rules are amended to
establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service (WCS), as set forth in Appendix B, and
that, in accordance with the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, P.L. 104-208, 110
Stat. 3009 (1996), these Rules shall be effective immediately upon publication in the Federal
Register.

    204.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  155(c), the Chief of the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau IS GRANTED DELEGATED AUTHORITY to implement
and modify auction procedures in the Wireless Communications Service, including the general
design and timing of the auction; the manner of submitting bids; the amount of any minimum
opening bids and bid increments; activity and stopping rules; and application and payment
requirements, including the amount of upfront payments; and to announce such procedures by
public notice. 


                             FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                             William F. Caton
                             Acting Secretary


                           APPENDIX A
LIST OF COMMENTS AND REPLY COMMENTS


Comments

1.    ADC Telecommunications, Inc.  (ADC)
2.    Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council  (AFTRCC)
3.    AirTouch Communications, Inc.  (AirTouch)
4.    Alcatel Network Systems, Inc.  (ANS)
5.    ALLTEL Mobile Communications, Inc.  (ALLTEL)
6.    American Mobile Radio Corp.  (AMRC)
7.    American Petroleum Institute  (API)
8.    American Radio Relay League, Inc.  (ARRL)
9.    American Water Works Association  (AWWA)
10.  Association of American Railroads  (AAR)
11.  Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc.  (APCO)
12.  AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.  (AT&T)
13.  Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile, Inc.  (BANM)
14.  Bell Communications Research, Inc.  (Bellcore)
15.  BellSouth Corp.  (BellSouth)
16.  Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association  (CTIA)
17.  Competition Policy Institute  (CPI)
18.  Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association  (CEMA)
19.  Cook Inlet Region, Inc.  (CIRI)
20.  Digital Satellite Broadcasting Corp.  (DSBC)
21.  DigiVox Corp.  (DigiVox)
22.  DSC Communications Corp.  (DSC)
23.  Florida Cellular RSA, L.P.  (Florida Cellular)
24.  GTE Service Corp.  (GTE)
25.  Guam Telephone Authority  (GTA)
26.  Harris Corp. - Farinon Division  (Harris)
27.  Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc.  (ITA)
28.  Interactive Services Association  (ISA)
29.  Lucent Technologies, Inc.  (Lucent)
30.  Markle Foundation  (Markle Foundation)
31.  Motorola Inc.  (Motorola)
32.  Multipoint Networks, Inc.  (Multipoint Networks)
33.  National Association of Broadcasters  (NAB)
34.  Omnipoint Corp.  (Omnipoint)
35.  Pacific Telesis Group  (Pacific)
36.  PACS Providers Forum  (PPF)
37.  Personal Communications Industry Association  (PCIA)
38.  Petroleum Communications, Inc.  (PetroCom)
39.  Pocket Communications, Inc.  (Pocket)
40.  PrimeCo Personal Communications, L.P.  (PrimeCo)
41.  Primosphere L.P.  (Primosphere)
42.  Puerto Rico Telephone Co.  (PRTC)
43.  Radio Order Corp.  (ROC)
44.  Rural Telecommunications Group  (RTG)
45.  Satellite Industry Association  (SIA)
46.  SBC Communications Inc.  (SBC)
47.  Shell Offshore Services Co.  (SOSCO)
48.  Sprint Spectrum L.P., d/b/a Sprint PCS and Sprint Corp.  (Sprint PCS/Sprint)
49.  Sun Microsystems, Inc.  (Sun Microsystems)
50.  Telecommunications Industry Association  (TIA)
51.  Telephone and Data Systems, Inc.  (TDS)
52.  21st Century Telesis, Inc.  (21st Century)
53.  UTC, The Telecommunications Association  (UTC)
54.  Vanderbilt University  (Vanderbilt)
55.  Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.  (Vanguard)


Reply Comments

1.    Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council  (AFTRCC)
2.    Alcatel Network Systems, Inc.  (ANS)
3.    Alliance for Public Technology  (APT)
4.    American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc.  (AMTA)
5.    Ameritech  (Ameritech)
6.    Association of American Railroads  (AAR)
7.    Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc.  (APCO)
8.    AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.  (AT&T)
9.    Bell Atlantic Corp.  (Bell Atlantic)
10.  Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association  (CTIA)
11.  Comcast Corp.  (Comcast)
12.  Cornell University  (Cornell)
13.  Digital Satellite Broadcasting Corp.  (DSBC)
14.  DigiVox Corp.  (DigiVox)
15.  GTE Service Corp.  (GTE)
16.  Mobile Communications Technologies, Inc.  (Mtel)
17.  National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters  (NABOB)
18.  National Association of Broadcasters  (NAB)
19.  Nextel Communications, Inc.  (Nextel)
20.  NextWave Telecom Inc.  (NextWave)
21.  Northern Telecom Inc.  (Nortel)
22.  Omnipoint Corp.  (Omnipoint)
23.  Personal Communications Industry Association  (PCIA)
24.  Petroleum Communications, Inc.  (PetroCom)
25.  PrimeCo Personal Communications, L.P.  (PrimeCo)
26.  Primosphere L.P.  (Primosphere)
27.  Puerto Rico Telephone Co.  (PRTC)
28.  Rural Telecommunications Group  (RTG)
29.  Satellite CD Radio, Inc.  (CD Radio)
30.  SBC Communications Inc.  (SBC)
31.  Shell Offshore Services Co.  (SOSCO)
32.  Springwich Cellular L.P., SNET Cellular, Inc. and SNET Mobility, Inc. (SNET Mobility)
33.  Sprint Spectrum L.P., d/b/a Sprint PCS and Sprint Corp.  (Sprint PCS/Sprint)
34.  Telecommunications Industry Association  (TIA)
35.  Telephone and Data Systems, Inc.  (TDS)
36.  Total Telecommunications Services, Inc.  (TTS)
37.  United States Internet Providers Association  (USIPA)
38.  UTC, The Telecommunications Association  (UTC)
                           Appendix B
                           Final Rules
Parts 1, 2, 27, and 97 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

                 PART 1 -- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

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

 AUTHORITY:  47 U.S.C. sections 151, 154, 303, and 309(j) unless otherwise noted.

2.       Paragraph (b)(1) and the first sentence of paragraph (b)(2) of section 1.1307 and the entries for
the Wireless Communications Service in the Table are revised to read as follows:

  1.1307     Actions which may have a significant environmental effect, for which
Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.

 * * * * *

 (b)          * * *

 (1)          The exposure limits in section 1.1310 are generally applicable to all facilities, operations and 
transmitters regulated by the Commission.  However, a determination of compliance with the
exposure limits in section 1.1310 (routine environmental evaluation), and preparation of an EA if the
limits are exceeded, is necessary only for facilities, operations and transmitters that fall into the
categories listed in Table 1, or those specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.  All other facilities,
operations and transmitters are categorically excluded from making such studies or preparing an EA,
except as indicated in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.  For purposes of Table 1, "rooftop"
means the roof or otherwise outside, topmost level or levels of a building structure that is occupied
as a workplace or residence and where either workers or the general public may have access.  The
term "power" in column 2 of Table 1 refers to total operating power of the transmitting operation in
question in terms of effective radiated power (ERP), equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP),
or peak envelope power (PEP), as defined in section 2.1 of this chapter.  For the case of the Cellular
Radiotelephone Service, subpart H of part 22 of this chapter; the Personal Communications Service,
part 24 of this chapter; the Wireless Communications Service, part 27 of this chapter; and covered
Specialized Mobile Radio Service operations, part 90 of this chapter; the phrase "total power of all
channels" in column 2 of Table 1 means the sum of the ERP or EIRP of all co-located simultaneously
operating transmitters of the facility.  When applying the criteria of Table 1, radiation in all directions
should be considered.  For the case of transmitting facilities using sectorized transmitting antennas,
applicants and licensees should apply the criteria to all transmitting channels in a given sector, noting
that for a highly directional antenna there is relatively little contribution to ERP or EIRP summation
for other directions. 

TABLE 1:  TRANSMITTERS, FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS SUBJECT TO ROUTINE
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION


SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART)
EVALUATION REQUIRED IF:



*
*


Wireless Communications Service (Part 27)
total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP
(1640 W EIRP)


*
*



*  Note: * * *  

 (2) Mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service,
the Personal Communications Services, the Satellite Communications Services, the Wireless
Communications Service, the Maritime Services (ship earth stations only), and covered Specialized
Mobile Radio Service providers authorized under subpart H of part 22, part 24, part 25, part 27, part
80, and part 90 of this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior
to equipment authorization or use, as specified in sections 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter. * * *

* * * * *

3.   Section 2.1091 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph (c) to read as follows:
 
  2.1091  Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation:  mobile and unlicensed devices. 

 * * * * *

 (c) Mobile devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal
Communications Services, the Satellite Communications Services, the Wireless Communications
Service, the Maritime Services and the Specialized Mobile Radio Service authorized under subpart
H of part 22 of this chapter, part 24 of this chapter, part 25 of this chapter, part 27 of this chapter,
part 80 of this chapter (ship earth station devices only) and part 90 of this chapter ("covered" SMR
devices only, as defined in the note to Table 1 of section 1.1307(b)(1) of this chapter), are subject to
routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use if their
effective radiated power (ERP) is 1.5 watts or more. * * *

* * * * *

4.  Section 2.1093 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (c) to read as follows:

    2.1093  Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation:  portable devices.

   * * * * *

   (c)        Portable devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal
Communications Services, the Satellite Communications services, the Wireless Communications
Service, the Maritime Services and the Specialized Mobile Radio Service authorized under subpart
H of part 22 of this chapter, part 24 of this chapter, part 25 of this chapter, part 27 of this chapter,
part 80 of this chapter (ship earth station devices only), part 90 of this chapter ("covered" SMR
devices only, as defined in the note to Table 1 of section 1.1307(b)(1) of this chapter), and portable
unlicensed personal communication service and millimeter wave devices authorized under section
15.253, section 15.255 or subpart D of part 15 of this chapter are subject to routine environmental
evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use. * * *

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

 a.           Remove the existing entries for 2300-2450 MHz.

 b.           Add entries in numerical order for 2300-2450 MHz.

 c.           In the International Footnotes under heading I., add footnotes S5.150, S5.282   , S5.393, S5.394, S5.395, and S5.396 in numerical order.

 d.           In the International Footnotes under heading II., remove footnotes              750B, 751, 751A, and 751B. 

 e.           Remove United States footnote US253. 

 f.           Add United States footnotes US338 and US339 in numerical order.

 g.           Revise United States footnotes US276 and US328.

 h.           Revise Government footnote G2.

 i.           Add Government footnotes G120, G123 and G124 in numerical order.

 The revisions and additions read as follows: 


 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.

* * * * *
International table
United States table
FCC use designators


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



(1)

(2)

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

(6)

(7)


*
*
*
*
*
*
*


2300   2305
FIXED
MOBILE
Amateur
Radiolocation


2300   2305   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       

S5.394  
2300   2305   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       


2300   2305





G123  
2300   2305
Amateur






Amateur (97)



2305   2310
FIXED
MOBILE
Amateur
Radiolocation


2305   2310   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       

S5.394  
2305   2310   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       


2305   2310





US338  G123
2305   2310
FIXED         
MOBILE         except aeronautical 
  mobile
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur

US338

WIRELESS
  COMMUNICATIONS (27)
Amateur (97)



2310   2320
FIXED
MOBILE
Amateur
Radiolocation


S5.395 
2310   2320   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       


S5.393  S5.394  S5.396
2310   2320   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       


S5.393  S5.396
2310   2320
Fixed
Mobile US339
Radiolocation G2 



S5.396  US327  US338  G120
2310   2320
BROADCASTING-
  SATELLITE US327
FIXED         
MOBILE         US339
RADIOLOCATION 

S5.396  US338  

WIRELESS
  COMMUNICATIONS (27)

Digital Audio Radio Services


2320   2345
FIXED
MOBILE
Amateur
Radiolocation

S5.395 
2320   2345   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       

S5.393  S5.394  S5.396
2320   2345
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       

S5.393  S5.396
2320   2345
Fixed
Mobile US276 
Radiolocation G2


S5.396  US327  US328  G120
2320   2345
BROADCASTING-
  SATELLITE US327
Mobile US276  US328


S5.396  


Digital Audio Radio Services


2345  2360
FIXED
MOBILE
Amateur
Radiolocation


S5.395 
2345   2360   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       


S5.393  S5.394  S5.396
2345   2360   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       


S5.393  S5.396
2345   2360
Fixed
Mobile US339
Radiolocation G2



S5.396  US327  G120
2345   2360
BROADCASTING-
  SATELLITE US327
FIXED         
MOBILE         US339
RADIOLOCATION 

S5.396  

WIRELESS
  COMMUNICATIONS (27)
Digital Audio Radio Services
International table
United States table
FCC use designators


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



(1)

(2)

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

(6)

(7)


2360   2390
FIXED
MOBILE
Amateur
Radiolocation


2360   2390   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       

S5.394  
2360   2390   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       


2360   2390
MOBILE US276
RADIOLOCATION G2
Fixed 


G120
2360   2390
MOBILE US276









2390   2400
FIXED
MOBILE
Amateur
Radiolocation
2390   2400   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur

S5.394  
2390   2400   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur
2390   2400





G122
2390   2400
AMATEUR
 

AMATEUR (97)
Radio Frequency Devices (15)



2400   2402
FIXED
MOBILE
Amateur
Radiolocation

S5.150  S5.282  
2400   2402   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       

S5.150  S5.282  S5.394    
2400   2402   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       

S5.150  S5.282  
2400   2402





S5.150  G123 
2400   2402
Amateur




S5.150  S5.282 

Amateur (97)







2402   2417
FIXED
MOBILE
Amateur
Radiolocation

S5.150  S5.282  
2402   2417   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       

S5.150  S5.282  S5.394    
2402   2417   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       

S5.150  S5.282  
2402   2417





S5.150  G122
2402   2417
AMATEUR




S5.150  S5.282

AMATEUR (97)
Radio Frequency Devices (15)






2417   2450
FIXED
MOBILE
Amateur
Radiolocation

S5.150  S5.282  
2417   2450   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       

S5.150  S5.282  S5.394    
2417   2450   
FIXED         
MOBILE        
RADIOLOCATION 
Amateur       

S5.150  S5.282  
2417   2450
Radiolocation G2




S5.150  S5.282  G124
2417   2450
Amateur




S5.150  S5.282

Amateur (97)







*
*
*
*
*
*
*

                     INTERNATIONAL FOOTNOTES
                                 
* * * * *

I.  New "S" Numbering Scheme.

* * * * *

      S5.150  The following bands: 
13533-13567 kHz              (centre frequency 13560 kHz), 
26957-27283 kHz              (centre frequency 27120 kHz), 
40.66-40.70 MHz              (centre frequency 40.68 MHz), 
902-928 MHz  in Region 2 (centre frequency 915 MHz), 
2400-2500 MHz                (centre frequency 2450 MHz), 
5725-5875 MHz                (centre frequency 5800 MHz), and 
24-24.25 GHz                 (centre frequency 24.125 GHz) 
are also designated for industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) applications.  Radiocommunication
services operating within these bands must accept harmful interference which may be caused by these
applications.  ISM equipment operating in these bands is subject to the provisions of No.
1815/S15.13.

      S5.282 In the bands 435-438 MHz, 1260-1270 MHz, 2400-2450 MHz, 3400-3410 MHz (in
Regions 2 and 3 only) and 5650-5670 MHz, the amateur-satellite service may operate subject to not
causing harmful interference to other services operating in accordance with the Table (see
No. S5.43). Administrations authorizing such use shall ensure that any harmful interference caused
by emissions from a station in the amateur-satellite service is immediately eliminated in accordance
with the provisions of No. 2741/S25.11.  The use of the bands 1260-1270 MHz and 5650-5670 MHz
by the amateur-satellite service is limited to the Earth-to-space direction.

* * * * *

      S5.393 Additional allocation:  in the United States and India, the band 2310-2360 MHz is also
allocated to the broadcasting-satellite service (sound) and complementary terrestrial sound
broadcasting service on a primary basis.  Such use is limited to digital audio broadcasting and is
subject to the provisions of Resolution 528 (WARC-92).

      S5.394 In the United States, the use of the band 2300-2390 MHz by the aeronautical mobile
service for telemetry has priority over other uses by the mobile services.  In Canada, the use of the
band 2300-2483.5 MHz by the aeronautical mobile service for telemetry has priority over other uses
by the mobile services.

      S5.395 In France, the use of the band 2310-2360 MHz by the aeronautical mobile service for
telemetry has priority over other uses by the mobile service.

      S5.396 Space stations of the broadcasting-satellite service in the band 2310-2360 MHz operating
in accordance with No. S5.393 that may affect the services to which this band is allocated in other
countries shall be coordinated and notified in accordance with Resolution 33.  Complementary
terrestrial broadcasting stations shall be subject to bilateral coordination with neighboring countries
prior to their bringing into use.

* * * * *

                  UNITED STATES (US) FOOTNOTES

* * * * *
      
      US276  Except as otherwise provided for herein, use of the bands 2320-2345 and 2360-2390 MHz
by the mobile service is limited to aeronautical telemetering and associated telecommand operations
for flight testing of manned or unmanned aircraft, missiles or major components thereof.  The
following four frequencies are shared on a co-equal basis by Government and non-Government
stations for telemetering and associated telecommand operations of expendable and reusable launch
vehicles whether or not such operations involve flight testing:  2332.5, 2364.5, 2370.5, and 2382.5
MHz.  All other mobile telemetering uses shall be secondary to the above uses.

* * * * *

      US328  In the band 2320-2345 MHz, the mobile and radiolocation services are allocated on a
primary basis until a broadcasting-satellite (sound) service has been brought into use in such a manner
as to affect or be affected by the mobile and radiolocation services in those service areas.  The
broadcasting-satellite (sound) service during implementation should also take cognizance of the
expendable and reusable launch vehicle frequency 2332.5 MHz, to minimize the impact on this mobile
service use to the extent possible.

* * * * *

      US338  In the 2305-2310 MHz band, space-to-Earth operations are prohibited.  Additionally, in
the 2305-2320 MHz band, all Wireless Communications Service (WCS) operations within 50
kilometers of 35o 20  North Latitude and 116o 53  West Longitude shall be coordinated through the
Frequency Assignment Subcommittee of the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee in order to
minimize harmful interference to NASA's Goldstone Deep Space facility. 

      US339  The bands 2310-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz are also available for aeronautical telemetering
and associated telecommand operations for flight testing of manned or unmanned aircraft, missiles
or major components thereof on a secondary basis to the Wireless Communications Service.  The
following two frequencies are shared on a co-equal basis by Government and non-Government
stations for telemetering and associated telecommand operations of expendable and re-usable launch
vehicles whether or not such operations involve flight testing:  2312.5 and 2352.5 MHz.  Other
mobile telemetering uses may be provided on a non-interference basis to the above uses.  The
broadcasting-satellite (sound) service during implementation should also take cognizance of the
expendable and reusable launch vehicle frequencies 2312.5 and 2352.5 MHz, to minimize the impact
on this mobile service use to the extent possible. 

* * * * *

                       GOVERNMENT FOOTNOTES

* * * * *

   G2         In the bands 216-225, 420-450 (except as provided by US217), 890-902, 928-942, 1300-1400,
2310-2390, 2417-2450, 2700-2900, 5650-5925, and 9000-9200 MHz, the Government radiolocation
is limited to the military services.

* * * * *

     G120     Development of airborne primary radars in the band 2310-2390 MHz with peak transmitter
power in excess of 250 watts for use in the United States is not permitted.

* * * * *

     G123     The bands 2300-2310 and 2400-2402 MHz were identified for reallocation, effective August
10, 1995, for exclusive non-Government use under Title VI of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993.  Effective August 10, 1995, any Government operations in these bands are on a non-interference basis to authorized non-Government operations and shall not hinder the implementation
of any non-Government operations.

     G124     The band 2417-2450 MHz was identified for reallocation, effective August 10, 1995, for
mixed Government and non-Government use under Title VI of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993.

3.   Section 2.1091 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph (c) to read as follows:

  2.1091  Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation:  mobile and unlicensed devices.


 * * * * *

   (c)        Mobile devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal
Communications Services, the Satellite Communications Services, the Wireless Communications
Service, the Maritime Services and the Specialized Mobile Radio Service authorized under
subpart H of part 22 of this chapter, part 24 of this chapter, part 25 of this chapter, part 27 of this
chapter, part 80 of this chapter (ship earth station devices only) and part 90 of this chapter
("covered" SMR devices only, as defined in the note to Table 1 of section 1.1307(b)(1) of this
chapter), are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment
authorization or use if their effective radiated power (ERP) is 1.5 watts or more. * * *

* * * * *

4.   Section 2.1093 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (c) to read as follows:

    2.1093  Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation:  portable devices.

   * * * * *

   (c)        Portable devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal
Communications Services, the Satellite Communications services, the Wireless Communications
Service, the Maritime Services and the Specialized Mobile Radio Service authorized under
subpart H of part 22 of this chapter, part 24 of this chapter, part 25 of this chapter, part 27 of this
chapter, part 80 of this chapter (ship earth station devices only), part 90 of this chapter ("covered"
SMR devices only, as defined in the note to Table 1 of section 1.1307(b)(1) of this chapter), and
portable unlicensed personal communication service and millimeter wave devices authorized
under section 15.253, section 15.255 or subpart D of part 15 of this chapter are subject to routine
environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use. * * *

* * * * *

5.  A new part 27 is added to read as follows:

            PART 27 -- WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
                 Subpart A -- General Information

Sec.
27.1     Basis and purpose.
27.2     Permissible communications.
27.3     Other applicable rule parts.
27.4     Terms and definitions.
27.5     Frequencies.
27.6     Service areas.

              Subpart B -- Applications and Licenses

27.11    Initial authorization.
27.12    Eligibility.
27.13    License period.
27.14    Construction requirements; Criteria for comparative renewal proceedings.
27.15    Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.

                 Subpart C -- Technical Standards
                                 
27.51    Equipment authorization.
27.52    RF safety.
27.53    Emission limits.
27.54    Frequency stability.
27.55    Field strength limits.
27.56    Antenna structures; air navigation safety.
27.57    International coordination.
27.59    Environmental requirements.
27.61    Quiet zones.
27.63    Disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns.
27.64    Protection from interference.

       Subpart D -- Competitive Bidding Procedures for WCS
27.201   WCS subject to competitive bidding.
27.202   Competitive bidding mechanisms.
27.203   Withdrawal, default and disqualification payments.
27.204   Bidding application and certification procedures; prohibition of collusion.
27.205   Submission of upfront payments.
27.206   Submission of down payment and filing of long-form applications.
27.207   Procedures for filing petitions to deny against long-form WCS applications.
27.208   License grant, denial, default, and disqualification.
27.209   Designated entities; bidding credits; unjust enrichment.
27.210   Definitions.

Subpart E -- Application, Licensing, and Processing Rules for WCS
                                 
27.301   Authorization required.
27.302   Eligibility.
27.303   Formal and informal applications.
27.304   Filing of WCS applications, fees, and numbers of copies.
27.305   Reserved.
27.306   Miscellaneous forms.
27.307   General application requirements.
27.308   Technical content of applications.
27.310   Waiver of rules.
27.311   Defective applications.
27.312   Inconsistent or conflicting applications.
27.313   Amendment of applications for Wireless Communications Service (other than applications
         filed on FCC Form 175).
27.314   Application for temporary authorizations.
27.315   Receipt of application; applications in the Wireless Communications Service filed on FCC
         Form 175 and other applications in the WCS Service.
27.316   Public notice period.
27.317   Dismissal and return of applications.
27.319   Ownership changes and agreements to amend or dismiss applications or pleadings.
27.320   Opposition to applications.
27.321   Mutually exclusive applications.
27.322   Consideration of applications.
27.323   Reserved.
27.324   Transfer of control or assignment of station authorization.
27.325   Termination of authorization.

  AUTHORITY:  47 U.S.C. sections 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332, unless otherwise noted.


                 Subpart A -- General Information
  27.1  Basis and purpose.  
    
 This section contains the statutory basis for this part of the rules and provides the purpose for
which this part is issued.

 (a)          Basis.  The rules for the Wireless Communications Service (WCS) in this part are
promulgated under the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, that vest
authority in the Federal Communications Commission to regulate radio transmission and to issue
licenses for radio stations.

 (b)          Purpose.  This part states the conditions under which the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360
MHz bands are made available and licensed for the provision of WCS. 

 (c)          Scope.  The rules in this part apply only to stations authorized under this part.

  27.2  Permissible communications.

 Subject to the rules contained herein, fixed, mobile and radiolocation services may be provided
using the 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands.  In addition, satellite digital audio radio service
(DARS) may be provided using the 2310-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands.  Satellite DARS service
shall be provided in manner consistent with part 25 of this chapter.  

  27.3  Other applicable rule parts.

 Other FCC rule parts applicable to the Wireless Communications Service include the following:
  
 (a)          Part 0.  This part describes the Commission's organization and delegations of authority.  Part
0 of this chapter also lists available Commission publications, standards and procedures for access
to Commission records, and location of Commission Field Offices.

 (b)          Part 1.  This part includes rules of practice and procedure for license applications,
adjudicatory proceedings, procedures for reconsideration and review of the Commission's actions;
provisions concerning violation notices and forfeiture proceedings; competitive bidding procedures;
and the environmental requirements that, if applicable, must be complied with prior to the initiation
of construction.

 (c)          Part 2.  This part contains the Table of Frequency Allocations and special requirements in
international regulations, recommendations, agreements, and treaties. This part also contains
standards and procedures concerning the marketing and importation of radio frequency devices, and
for obtaining equipment authorization.

 (d)          Part 5.  This part contains rules prescribing the manner in which parts of the radio frequency
spectrum may be made available for experimentation.

 (e)          Part 17.  This part contains requirements for construction, marking and lighting of antenna
towers.

 (f)          Part 25.  This part contains the requirements for satellite communications, including satellite
DARS.

 (g)          Part 51.  This part contains general duties of telecommunications carriers to provide for
interconnection with other telecommunications carriers.

 (h)          Part 68.  This part contains technical standards for connection of terminal equipment to the
telephone network.

  27.4  Terms and definitions.  

 Assigned Frequency.  The center of the frequency band assigned to a station.

 Authorized Bandwidth.  The maximum width of the band of frequencies permitted to be used by
a station.  This is normally considered to be the necessary or occupied bandwidth, whichever is
greater.

 Average Terrain.  The average elevation of terrain between 3 and 16 kilometers from the antenna
site.

 Effective Radiated Power (ERP) (in a given direction).  The product of the power supplied to the
antenna and its gain relative to a half-wave dipole in a given direction.

 Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP).  The product of the power supplied to the
antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna.

 Fixed Service.  A radio communication service between specified fixed points.

 Fixed Station.  A station in the fixed service.
 
 Land Mobile Service.  A mobile service between base stations and land mobile stations, or between
land mobile stations.

 Land Mobile Station.  A mobile station in the land mobile service capable of surface movement
within the geographic limits of a country or continent.

 Land Station.  A station in the mobile service not intended to be used while in motion.

 Mobile Service.  A radio communication service between mobile and land stations, or between
mobile stations.

 Mobile Station.  A station in the mobile service intended to be used while in motion or during halts
at unspecified points.

 National Geodetic Reference System (NGRS).  The name given to all geodetic control data
contained in the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) data base.  (Source:  National Geodetic Survey,
U.S. Department of Commerce)

 Radiodetermination.  The determination of the position, velocity and/or other characteristics of
an object, or the obtaining of information relating to these parameters, by means of the propagation
properties of radio waves.

 Radiolocation.  Radiodetermination used for purposes other than those of radionavigation.

 Radionavigation.  Radiodetermination used for the purpose of navigation, including obstruction
warning. 

 Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (satellite DARS).  A radiocommunication service in which
compact disc quality programming is digitally transmitted by one or more space stations.

 Wireless Communications Service.  A radiocommunication service that encompasses fixed, mobile,
satellite DARS, and radiolocation services.     

  27.5  Frequencies.

 The following frequencies are available for WCS. 

 (a)          Two paired channel blocks are available for assignment on a Major Economic Area basis as
follows:      

Block A:      2305-2310 and 2350-2355 MHz; and
Block B:      2310-2315 and 2355-2360 MHz.

  (b) Two unpaired channel blocks are available for assignment on a Regional Economic Area
Grouping basis as follows:

Block C:      2315-2320 MHz; and
Block D:      2345-2350 MHz.

   27.6  Service areas.

  WCS service areas are Major Economic Areas (MEAs) and Regional Economic Area Groupings
(REAGs) as defined below.  Both MEAs and REAGs are based on the U.S. Department of
Commerce's 172 Economic Areas (EAs).  See 60 Federal Register 13114 (March 10, 1995).  In
addition, the Commission shall separately license Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto
Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Gulf of Mexico, which have
been assigned Commission-created EA numbers 173-176, respectively.  Maps of the EAs, MEAs, and
REAGs and the Federal Register Notice that established the 172 EAs are available for public
inspection and copying at the Commercial Wireless Division Public Reference Room, Room 5608,
2025 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.  

  (a) The 52 MEAs are composed of one or more EAs and the 12 REAGs are composed of one
or more MEAs, as defined in the table below: 


REAGs
MEAs
EAs


1 (Northeast)
1 (Boston)
1-3



2 (New York City)
4-7, 10



3 (Buffalo)
8



4 (Philadelphia)
11-12


2 (Southeast)
5 (Washington)
13-14



6 (Richmond)
15-17, 20



7 (Charlotte-Greensboro-Greenville-Raleigh)
18-19, 21-26, 41-42, 46



8 (Atlanta)
27-28, 37-40, 43



9 (Jacksonville)
29, 35



10 (Tampa-St. Petersburg-Orlando)
30, 33-34



11 (Miami)
31-32


3 (Great Lakes)
12 (Pittsburgh)
9, 52-53



13 (Cincinnati-Dayton)
48-50



14 (Columbus)
51



15 (Cleveland)
54-55



16 (Detroit)
56-58, 61-62



17 (Milwaukee)
59-60, 63, 104-105, 108



18 (Chicago)
64-66, 68, 97, 101



19 (Indianapolis)
67



20 (Minneapolis-St. Paul)
106-107, 109-114, 116



21 (Des Moines-Quad Cities)
100, 102-103, 117


4 (Mississippi Valley)
22 (Knoxville)
44-45



23 (Louisville-Lexington-Evansville)
47, 69-70, 72



24 (Birmingham)
36, 74, 78-79



25 (Nashville)
71



26 (Memphis-Jackson)
73, 75-77



27 (New Orleans-Baton
Rouge)
80-85



28 (Little Rock)
90-92, 95



29 (Kansas City)
93, 99, 123



30 (St. Louis)
94, 96, 98


5 (Central)
31 (Houston)
86-87, 131



32 (Dallas-Fort Worth)
88-89, 127-130, 135, 137-138



33 (Denver)
115, 140-143



34 (Omaha)
118-121



35 (Wichita)
122



36 (Tulsa)
124



37 (Oklahoma City)
125-126



38 (San Antonio)
132-134



39 (El Paso-Albuquerque)
136, 139, 155-157



40 (Phoenix)
154, 158-159


6 (West)
41 (Spokane-Billings)
144-147, 168



42 (Salt Lake City)
148-150, 152



43 (San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose)
151, 162-165



44 (Los Angeles-San Diego)
153, 160-161



45 (Portland)
166-167



46 (Seattle)
169-170


7 (Alaska)
47 (Alaska)
171


8 (Hawaii)
48 (Hawaii)
172


9 (Guam and the Northern
Mariana Islands)
49 (Guam and the Northern
Mariana Islands)
173


10 (Puerto Rico and U.S.
Virgin Islands) 
50 (Puerto Rico and U.S.
Virgin Islands) 
174


11 (American Samoa)
51 (American Samoa)
175


12 (Gulf of Mexico)
52 (Gulf of Mexico)
176


  (b) The Gulf of Mexico EA extends from 12 nautical miles off the U.S. Gulf coast outward
into the Gulf.


              Subpart B -- Applications and Licenses
                                 
   27.11  Initial authorization. 

  (a) An applicant must file an application for an initial WCS authorization in each market and
channel block desired.  Applicants are permitted to list all markets and channel blocks in a single
application where all requisite exhibits and justifications are identical.

  (b) The initial WCS authorizations shall be granted for 10 megahertz of spectrum in
accordance with section 27.5.  Authorizations for Blocks A and B will be based on Major Economic
Areas (MEAs), as shown in section 27.6.  Authorizations for Block C will be based on Regional
Economic Area Groupings (REAGs), as shown in section 27.6.  Applications for individual sites are
not required and will not be accepted, except where required for environmental assessments, in
accordance with section 27.63.

   27.12  Eligibility.

  Any entity, other than those precluded by section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. section 310, is eligible to hold a license under this part.

       27.13  License period.

  Initial WCS authorizations will have a term not to exceed ten years from the date of original
issuance or renewal. 

       27.14  Construction requirements; Criteria for comparative renewal proceedings.

  (a) WCS licensees must make a showing of "substantial service" in their license area within
ten years of being licensed.  "Substantial" service is defined as service which is sound, favorable, and
substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal.  Failure
by any licensee to meet this requirement will result in forfeiture of the license and the licensee will be
ineligible to regain it.

  (b) A renewal applicant involved in a comparative renewal proceeding shall receive a
preference, commonly referred to as a renewal expectancy, which is the most important comparative
factor to be considered in the proceeding, if its past record for the relevant license period
demonstrates that:

  (1) The renewal applicant has provided "substantial" service during its past license term; and 

  (2) The renewal applicant has substantially complied with applicable FCC rules, policies and
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

  (c) In order to establish its right to a renewal expectancy, a WCS renewal applicant involved
in a comparative renewal proceeding must submit a showing explaining why it should receive a
renewal expectancy.  At a minimum, this showing must include: 

  (1) A description of its current service in terms of geographic coverage and population served;

  (2) An explanation of its record of expansion, including a timetable of new construction to
meet changes in demand for service;

  (3) A description of its investments in its WCS system; and

  (4) Copies of all FCC orders finding the licensee to have violated the Communications Act or
any FCC rule or policy; and a list of any pending proceedings that relate to any matter described in
this paragraph.

  (d) In making its showing of entitlement to a renewal expectancy, a renewal applicant may
claim credit for any system modification applications that were pending on the date it filed its renewal
application.  Such credit will not be allowed if the modification application is dismissed or denied.  

   27.15  Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.

  (a) Eligibility.

  (1) Parties seeking approval for partitioning and disaggregation shall request from the
Commission an authorization for partial assignment of a license pursuant to section 27.324.

  (2) WCS licensees may apply to partition their licensed geographic service area or disaggregate
their licensed spectrum at any time following the grant of their licenses.

  (b) Technical Standards.
  
  (1) Partitioning.  In the case of partitioning, requests for authorization for partial assignment
of a license must include, as attachments, a description of the partitioned service area and a
calculation of the population of the partitioned service area and the licensed geographic service area. 
The partitioned service area shall be defined by coordinate points at every 3 degrees along the
partitioned service area unless an FCC recognized service area is utilized (i.e., Major Trading Area,
Basic Trading Area, Metropolitan Service Area, Rural Service Area, Economic Area, or Major
Economic Area) or county lines are followed.  The geographic coordinates must be specified in
degrees, minutes, and seconds to the nearest second of latitude and longitude and must be based upon
the 1927 North American Datum (NAD27).  Applicants may supply geographical coordinates based
on 1983 North American Datum (NAD83) in addition to those required (NAD27).  In the case where
an FCC recognized service area or county lines are utilized, applicants need only list the specific
area(s) (through use of FCC designations or county names) that constitute the partitioned area.

  (2) Disaggregation.  Spectrum may be disaggregated in any amount. 

  (3) Combined Partitioning and Disaggregation.  The Commission will consider requests for
partial assignment of licenses that propose combinations of partitioning and disaggregation.

  (4) Signal Levels.  For purposes of partitioning and disaggregation, WCS systems must be
designed so as not to exceed a signal level of 47 dBV/m at the licensee's service area boundary,
unless the affected adjacent service area licensees have agreed to a different signal level.  See section
27.55. 

  (c) Unjust Enrichment.

  (1) Bidding Credits.  Licensees that received a bidding credit and partition their licenses or
disaggregate their spectrum to entities not meeting the eligibility standards for such a bidding credit,
will be subject to the provisions concerning unjust enrichment as set forth in section 27.209(c).

  (2) Apportioning Unjust Enrichment Payments.  Unjust enrichment payments for partitioned
license areas shall be calculated based upon the ratio of the population of the partitioned license area
to the overall population of the license area and by utilizing the most recent census data.  Unjust
enrichment payments for disaggregated spectrum shall be calculated based upon the ratio of the
amount of spectrum disaggregated to the amount of spectrum held by the licensee.  

  (d) License Term.  The license term for a partitioned license area and for disaggregated
spectrum shall be the remainder of the original licensee's license term as provided for in section 27.13.
 
  
                 Subpart C -- Technical Standards

        27.51  Equipment authorization. 

  (a) Each transmitter utilized for operation under this part and each transmitter marketed, as
set forth in section 2.803 of this chapter, must be of a type that has been authorized by the
Commission under its type acceptance procedure.

  (b) The Commission periodically publishes a list of type accepted equipment, entitled "Radio
Equipment List, Equipment Accepted for Licensing."  Copies of this list are available for public
reference at the Commission's offices in Washington, D.C., at each of its field offices, and may be
ordered from its copy contractor.

  (c) Any manufacturer of radio transmitting equipment to be used in these services may request
equipment authorization following the procedures set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. 
Equipment authorization for an individual transmitter may be requested by an applicant for a station
authorization by following the procedures set forth in part 2 of this chapter.  Such equipment if
approved or accepted will not normally be included in the Commission's Radio Equipment List but
will be individually enumerated on the station authorization.
  
       27.52  RF safety.  

  Licensees and manufacturers are subject to the radio frequency radiation exposure requirements
specified in sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.  Applications for
equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices operating under this section must contain a
statement confirming compliance with these requirements for both fundamental emissions and
unwanted emissions.  Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted
to the Commission upon request.

       27.53  Emission limits.

  (a) The power of any emission outside the licensee's bands of operation shall be attenuated
below the transmitter power (p) within the licensed bands of operation by the following amounts:  
  (1) For fixed operations, including radiolocation:  By a factor not less than 80 + 10 log (p) dB
on all frequencies between 2320 and 2345 MHz. 

  (2) For mobile operations, including radiolocation:  By a factor not less than 110 + 10 log (p)
dB on all frequencies between 2320 and 2345 MHz.

  (3) For fixed and mobile operations, including radiolocation:  By a factor not less than 70 +
10 log (p) dB on all frequencies below 2300 MHz and on all frequencies above 2370 MHz; and not
less than 43 + 10 log (p) dB on all frequencies between 2300 and 2320 MHz and on all frequencies
between 2345 and 2370 MHz that are outside the licensed bands of operation.

  (4) For the purposes of this section, radiolocation shall be classified as either a fixed or mobile
service, depending upon the application.

  (5) Compliance with these provisions is based on the use of measurement instrumentation
employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz or less, but at least one percent of the emission
bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter, provided the measured energy is integrated
over a 1 MHz bandwidth. 
 
  (6) In complying with the requirements in sections 27.53(a)(1) and 27.53(a)(2), WCS
equipment that uses opposite sense circular polarization from that used by satellite DARS systems
in the 2320-2345 MHz band shall be permitted an allowance of 10 dB.  

  (7) When measuring the emission limits, the nominal carrier frequency shall be adjusted as
close to the edges, both upper and lower, of the licensee's bands of operation as the design permits.

  (8) The measurements of emission power can be expressed in peak or average values, provided
they are expressed in the same parameters as the transmitter power.

  (9) The above out-of-band emissions limits may be modified by the private contractual
agreement of the affected licensees, who shall maintain a copy of the agreement in their station files
and disclose it to prospective assignees or transferees or, upon request, to the Commission. 

  (b) For WCS satellite DARS operations:  The limits set forth in section 25.202(f) of this
chapter apply, except that satellite DARS operations are limited to a maximum power flux density
of -197 dBW/m2/4 kHz in the 2370-2390 MHz band at Arecibo, Puerto Rico.  

  (c) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes harmful interference, the
Commission may, at its discretion, require greater attenuation than specified in this section.

        27.54  Frequency stability.

  The frequency stability shall be sufficient to ensure that the fundamental emissions stay within the
authorized bands of operation.

   27.55  Field strength limits.

   The predicted or measured median field strength at any location on the border of a WCS service
area shall not exceed 47 dBV/m unless the parties agree to a different field strength.  This value
applies to both the initially offered REAG service areas and to partitioned service areas. 

    27.56  Antenna structures; air navigation safety.

  A licensee that owns its antenna structure(s) must not allow such antenna structure(s) to become
a hazard to air navigation.  In general, antenna structure owners are responsible for registering
antenna structures with the FCC if required by part 17 of this chapter, and for installing and
maintaining any required marking and lighting.  However, in the event of default of this responsibility
by an antenna structure owner, the FCC permittee or licensee authorized to use an affected antenna
structure will be held responsible by the FCC for ensuring that the antenna structure continues to
meet the requirements of part 17 of this chapter.  See section 17.6 of this chapter.

  (a) Marking and lighting.  Antenna structures must be marked, lighted and maintained in
accordance with part 17 of this chapter and all applicable rules and requirements of the Federal
Aviation Administration.  For any construction or alteration that would exceed the requirements of
section 17.7 of this chapter, licensees must notify the appropriate Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA Form 7460-1) and file a request for antenna height clearance and
obstruction marking and lighting specifications (FCC Form 854) with the FCC, WTB, 1270 Fairfield
Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325.

  (b) Maintenance contracts.  Antenna structure owners (or licensees and permittees, in the event
of default by an antenna structure owner) may enter into contracts with other entities to monitor and
carry out necessary maintenance of antenna structures.  Antenna structure owners (or licensees and
permittees, in the event of default by an antenna structure owner) that make such contractual
arrangements continue to be responsible for the maintenance of antenna structures in regard to air
navigation safety.

   27.57  International coordination.  

    WCS operations in the border areas shall be subject to coordination with those countries and
provide protection to non-U.S. operations in the 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands as
appropriate.  In addition, satellite DARS operations in WCS spectrum shall be subject to international
satellite coordination procedures. 

   27.59  Environmental requirements.

  WCS operations that may have a significant environmental impact as defined by sections 1.1301
through 1.1319 of this chapter, must file an FCC Form 600 and supply specific technical information
about their proposed site prior to construction of such site as well as an environmental assessment
(EA) in accordance with sections 1.1301 through 1.1319 of this chapter.  Such application will be
placed on public notice in accordance with section 27.316 and may not be constructed or operated
prior to a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) being issued and placed on public notice by the
FCC.

    27.61  Quiet zones.

  Quiet zones are those areas where it is necessary to restrict radiation so as to minimize possible
impact on the operations of radio astronomy or other facilities that are highly sensitive to interference. 
The areas involved and procedures required are as follows:

  (a) NRAO, NRRO.  The requirements of this paragraph are intended to minimize possible
interference at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory site located at Green Bank, Pocahontas
County, West Virginia, and at the Naval Radio Research Observatory site at Sugar Grove, Pendleton
County, West Virginia.  WCS licensees planning to construct and operate a new or modified WCS
station at a permanent fixed location within the area bounded by N.3915  on the north, W.7830 
on the east, N.3730  on the south, and W.8030  on the west must notify the Director, National
Radio Astronomy Observatory, Post Office Box No. 2, Green Bank, WV 24944, in writing, of the
technical details of the proposed operation.  The notification must include the geographical
coordinates of the antenna location, the antenna height, antenna directivity (if any), the channel, the
emission type and power.

  (b) Table Mountain.  The requirements of this paragraph are intended to minimize possible
interference at the Table Mountain Radio Receiving Zone of the Research Laboratories of the U.S.
Department of Commerce located in Boulder County, Colorado.

  (1) WCS licensees planning to construct and operate a new or modified WCS station at a
permanent fixed location in the vicinity of Boulder County, Colorado are advised to give
consideration, prior to filing applications, to the need to protect the Table Mountain Radio Receiving
Zone from interference.  To prevent degradation of the present ambient radio signal level at the site,
the U.S. Department of Commerce seeks to ensure that the field strengths of any radiated signals
(excluding reflected signals) received on this 1800 acre site (in the vicinity of coordinates 4007 50 
North Latitude, 10514 40  West Longitude) resulting from new assignments (other than mobile
stations) or from the modification or relocation of existing facilities do not exceed the values given
in Table C-3.

Table C-3 - Field Strength Limits for Table Mountain

Frequency range
Field strength
Power flux density


890 to 3000 MHz
1 mV/m
-85.8 dBW/m2

Note:  Equivalent values of power flux density are calculated assuming free space characteristic impedance of 376.7  (120
).

  (2) Advance consultation is recommended, particularly for WCS licensees that have no reliable
data to indicate whether the field strength or power flux density figures in the above table would be
exceeded by their proposed radio facilities.  In general, coordination is recommended for:

  (i) Stations located within 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles);

  (ii)        Stations located within 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) transmitting with 50 watts or more
effective radiated power (ERP) in the primary plane of polarization in the azimuthal direction of the
Table Mountain Radio Receiving Zone;

  (iii)       Stations located within 16 kilometers (10 miles) transmitting with 1 kW or more ERP in
the primary plane of polarization in the azimuthal direction of Table Mountain Radio Receiving Zone;

  (iv)        Stations located within 80 kilometers (50 miles) transmitting with 25 kW or more ERP in
the primary plane of polarization in the azimuthal direction of Table Mountain Receiving Zone.

  (3) WCS licensees are urged to communicate with the Radio Frequency Management
Coordinator, U.S. Department of Commerce, Research Support Services NOAAR/E5X2, Boulder
Laboratories, Boulder, CO 80303; telephone (303) 497-6548, in advance of construction and
operation of such facilities.

  (c) Federal Communications Commission protected field offices.  The requirements of this
paragraph are intended to minimize possible interference to FCC monitoring activities.

  (1) WCS licensees planning to construct and operate a new or modified WCS station at a
permanent fixed location in the vicinity of an FCC protected field office are advised to give
consideration to the need to avoid interfering with the monitoring activities of that office.  FCC
protected field offices are listed in section 0.121 of this chapter.

  (2) Applications for stations (except mobile stations) that could produce on any channel a
direct wave fundamental field strength of greater than 10 mV/m (-65.8 dBW/m2 power flux density
assuming a free space characteristic impedance of 120 ) in the authorized bandwidth at the
protected field office must be examined by WCS licensees to determine the potential for interference
with monitoring activities.  

  (3) In the event that the calculated field strength exceeds 10 mV/m at the protected field office
site, or if there is any question whether field strength levels might exceed that level, advance
consultation with the FCC to discuss possible measures to avoid interference to monitoring activities
should be considered.  WCS licensees may communicate with:  Chief, Compliance and Information
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

  (4) Advance consultation is recommended for WCS licensees that have no reliable data to
indicate whether the field strength or power flux density figure indicated would be exceeded by their
proposed radio facilities.  In general, coordination is recommended for:

  (i) Stations located within 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles);

  (ii)        Stations located within 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) with 50 watts or more average effective
radiated power (ERP) in the primary plane of polarization in the azimuthal direction of the protected
field offices.

  (iii)       Stations located within 16 kilometers (10 miles) with 1 kW or more average ERP in the
primary plane of polarization in the azimuthal direction of the protected field office;

  (iv)        Stations located within 80 kilometers (50 miles) with 25 kW or more average ERP in the
primary plane of polarization in the azimuthal direction of the protected field office;

  (5) Advance coordination for stations transmitting on channels above 1000 MHz is
recommended only if the proposed station is in the vicinity of a protected field office designated as
a satellite monitoring facility in section 0.121 of this chapter.

  (6) The FCC will not screen applications to determine whether advance consultation has taken
place.  However, such consultation may serve to avoid the need for later modification of the
authorizations of stations that interfere with monitoring activities at protected field offices.

   27.63  Disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns.

  WCS licensees that construct or modify towers in the immediate vicinity of AM broadcast stations
are responsible for measures necessary to correct disturbance of the AM station antenna pattern
which causes operation outside of the radiation parameters specified by the FCC for the AM station,
if the disturbance occurred as a result of such construction or modification.

  (a) Non-directional AM stations.  If tower construction or modification is planned within
1 kilometer (0.6 mile) of a non-directional AM broadcast station tower, the WCS licensee must notify
the licensee of the AM broadcast station in advance of the planned construction or modification. 
Measurements must be made to determine whether the construction or modification would affect the
AM station antenna pattern.  The WCS licensee is responsible for the installation and continued
maintenance of any detuning apparatus necessary to restore proper non-directional performance of
the AM station tower.

  (b) Directional AM stations.  If tower construction or modification is planned within
3 kilometers (1.9 miles) of a directional AM broadcast station array, the WCS licensee must notify
the licensee of the AM broadcast station in advance of the planned construction or modification. 
Measurements must be made to determine whether the construction or modification would affect the
AM station antenna pattern.  The WCS licensee is responsible for the installation and continued
maintenance of any detuning apparatus necessary to restore proper performance of the AM station
array.

   27.64  Protection from interference.

    Wireless Communications Service (WCS) stations operating in full accordance with applicable
FCC rules and the terms and conditions of their authorizations are normally considered to be non-interfering.  If the FCC determines, however, that interference which significantly interrupts or
degrades a radio service is being caused, it may, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, require
modifications to any WCS station as necessary to eliminate such interference. 

  (a) Failure to operate as authorized.  Any licensee causing interference to the service of other
stations by failing to operate its station in full accordance with its authorization and applicable FCC
rules shall discontinue all transmissions, except those necessary for the immediate safety of life or
property, until it can bring its station into full compliance with the authorization and rules.

  (b) Intermodulation interference.  Licensees should attempt to resolve such interference by
technical means.

  (c) Situations in which no protection is afforded.  Except as provided elsewhere in this part,
no protection from interference is afforded in the following situations:

  (1) Interference to base receivers from base or fixed transmitters.  Licensees should attempt
to resolve such interference by technical means or operating arrangements. 

  (2) Interference to mobile receivers from mobile transmitters.  No protection is provided
against mobile-to-mobile interference.

  (3) Interference to base receivers from mobile transmitters.  No protection is provided against
mobile-to-base interference.

  (4) Interference to fixed stations.  Licensees should attempt to resolve such interference by
technical means or operating arrangements.

  (5) Anomalous or infrequent propagation modes.  No protection is provided against
interference caused by tropospheric and ionospheric propagation of signals.


       Subpart D -- Competitive Bidding Procedures for WCS
      
       27.201  WCS subject to competitive bidding.

  Mutually exclusive initial applications to provide WCS service are subject to competitive bidding
procedures.  The procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this chapter will apply unless otherwise
specified in this part.

       27.202  Competitive bidding mechanisms.

  In addition to the provisions of section 1.2104(a) through (f), (h) and (i), the following provision
will apply to WCS:  where a tie bid occurs, the high bidder will be determined by the order in which
the bids were received by the Commission.

   27.203 Withdrawal, default and disqualification payments.  

  When the Commission conducts a simultaneous multiple round auction pursuant to section
27.202, the Commission will impose payments on bidders who withdraw high bids during the course
of an auction, or who default on payments due after an auction closes or who are disqualified.  When
the amount of such a payment cannot be determined, a deposit of up to 20 percent of the amount bid
on the license will be required.

  (a) Bid withdrawal prior to close of auction.  A bidder who withdraws a high bid during the
course of an auction will be subject to a payment equal to the difference between the amount bid and
the amount of the winning bid the next time the license is offered by the Commission.  No withdrawal
payment would be assessed if the subsequent winning bid exceeds the withdrawn bid.  This payment
amount will be deducted from any upfront payments or down payments that the withdrawing bidder
has deposited with the Commission.  

  (b) Default or disqualification after close of auction.  If a high bidder defaults or is disqualified
after the close of such an auction, the defaulting bidder will be subject to the payment in paragraph
(a) of this section plus an additional payment equal to 3 percent of the subsequent winning bid.  If the
subsequent winning bid exceeds the defaulting bidder's bid amount, the 3 percent payment will be
calculated based on the defaulting bidder's bid amount.  These amounts will be deducted from any
upfront payments or down payments that the defaulting or disqualified bidder has deposited with the
Commission. 

   27.204  Bidding application and certification procedures; prohibition of collusion.

  (a) Submission of Short-Form Application (FCC Form 175).  In order to be eligible to bid, an
applicant must timely submit, by means of electronic filing, a short-form application (FCC Form 175). 
Unless otherwise provided by public notice, the Form 175 need not be accompanied by an upfront
payment (see section 27.205).

  (1) All Form 175s will be due on the date specified by public notice.

  (2) The Form 175 must contain the following information: 

  (i) Identification of each license on which the applicant wishes to bid; 

  (ii)        The applicant's name, if the applicant is an individual.  If the applicant is a corporation, then
the short-form application will require the name and address of the corporate office and the name and
title of an officer or director.  If the applicant is a partnership, then the application will require the
names, citizenship and addresses of all partners, and, if a partner is not a natural person, then the
name and title of a responsible person should be included as well.  If the applicant is a trust, then the
name and address of the trustee will be required.  If the applicant is none of the above, then it must
identify and describe itself and its principals or other responsible persons;

  (iii)       The identity of the person(s) authorized to make or withdraw a bid; 

  (iv)        If the applicant applies as a designated entity pursuant to section 27.210(b), a statement
to that effect and a declaration, under penalty of perjury, that the applicant is qualified as a designated
entity under section 27.210(b).

  (v) Certification that the applicant is legally, technically, financially and otherwise qualified
pursuant to section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.  The Commission will
accept applications certifying that a request for waiver or other relief from the requirements of section
310 is pending;

  (vi)        Certification that the applicant is in compliance with the foreign ownership provisions of
section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended;

  (vii)       Certification that the applicant is and will, during the pendency of its application(s), remain
in compliance with any service-specific qualifications applicable to the licenses on which the applicant
intends to bid including, but not limited to, financial qualifications. The Commission may require
certification in certain services that the applicant will, following grant of a license, come into
compliance with certain service-specific rules, including, but not limited to, ownership eligibility
limitations;

 (viii) An exhibit, certified as truthful under penalty of perjury, identifying all parties with whom the
applicant has entered into partnerships, joint ventures, consortia or other agreements, arrangements
or understandings of any kind relating to the licenses being auctioned, including any such agreements
relating to the post-auction market structure;

 (ix)  Certification under penalty of perjury that it has not entered and will not enter into any explicit
or implicit agreements, arrangements or understandings of any kind with any parties other than those
identified pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(viii) of this section regarding the amount of their bids, bidding
strategies or the particular licenses on which they will or will not bid; and 

 (x)   Certification under penalty of perjury that it is not in default on any Commission licenses and
that it is not delinquent on any extension of credit from any federal agency.

 Note to paragraph (a):  The Commission may also request applicants to submit additional
information for informational purposes to aid in its preparation of required reports to Congress.

 (b)   Modification and Amendment of Application.  Applicants will be permitted to amend their
Form 175 applications to make minor amendments to correct minor errors or defects such as
typographical errors.  Applicants will also be permitted to amend FCC Form 175 to make changes
to the information required by section 27.204(a) (such as ownership changes or changes in the
identification of parties to bidding consortia), provided such changes do not result in a change in
control of the applicant and do not involve another applicant (or parties in interest to an applicant)
who has applied for licenses in any of the same geographic license areas as the applicant. 
Amendments which change control of the applicant will be considered major amendments.  An FCC
Form 175 which is amended by a major amendment will be considered to be newly filed and cannot
be resubmitted after applicable filing deadlines.  See also section 1.2105 of this chapter. 

 (c)   Prohibition of collusion.  (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this
section, after the filing of short-form applications, all applicants are prohibited from cooperating,
collaborating, discussing or disclosing in any manner the substance of their bids or bidding  strategies,
or discussing or negotiating settlement agreements, with other applicants until after the high bidder
makes the required down payment, unless such applicants are members of a bidding consortium or
other joint bidding arrangement identified on the bidder's short-form application pursuant to section
27.204(a)(2)(viii).

 (2)   Applicants may modify their short-form applications to reflect formation of consortia or
changes in ownership at any time before or during an auction, provided such changes do not result
in a change in control of the applicant, and provided that the parties forming consortia or entering into
ownership agreements have not applied for licenses in any of the same geographic license areas.  Such
changes will not be considered major modifications of the application.

 (3)   After the filing of short-form applications, applicants may make agreements to bid jointly for
licenses, provided the parties to the agreement have not applied for licenses in any of the same
geographic license areas.

 (4)   After the filing of short-form applications, a holder of a non-controlling attributable interest
in an entity submitting a short-form application may acquire an ownership interest in, form a
consortium with, or enter into a joint bidding arrangement with, other applicants for licenses in the
same geographic license area, provided that:

 (i)   The attributable interest holder certifies to the Commission that it has not communicated and
will not communicate with any party concerning the bids or bidding strategies of more than one of
the applicants in which it holds an attributable interest, or with which it has a consortium or joint
bidding arrangement, and which have applied for licenses in the same geographic license area(s); and

 (ii)  The arrangements do not result in any change in control of an applicant.

 (5)   Applicants must modify their short-form applications to reflect any changes in ownership or
in the membership of consortia or joint bidding arrangements.

 (6)   For purposes of this paragraph:

 (i)   The term "applicant" shall include the entity submitting a short-form application to participate
in an auction (FCC Form 175), as well as all holders of partnership and other ownership interests and
any stock interest amounting to 5 percent or more of the entity, or outstanding stock, or outstanding
voting stock of the entity submitting a short-form application,
and all officers and directors of that entity; and

 (ii)  The term "bids or bidding strategies" shall include capital calls or requests for additional funds
in support of bids or bidding strategies.
  
     27.205  Submission of upfront payments.
  
 (a)   Each eligible bidder for WCS licenses subject to auction shall pay an upfront payment
pursuant to this chapter and procedures specified by public notice.   No interest will be paid on
upfront payments. 

 (b)   Upfront payments must be made by wire transfer.

 (c)   If the applicant does not submit at least the minimum upfront payment, it will be ineligible to
bid, its application will be dismissed and any upfront payment it has made will be returned.

 (d)   The upfront payment(s) of a bidder will be credited toward any down payment required for
licenses on which the bidder is the high bidder.  Where the upfront payment amount exceeds the
required deposit of a winning bidder, the Commission will refund the excess amount after determining
that no bid withdrawal payments are owed by that bidder.

 (e)   In accordance with the provisions of paragraph (d) of this section, in the event a payment is
assessed pursuant to section 27.203 for bid withdrawal or default, upfront payments or down
payments on deposit with the Commission will be used to satisfy the bid withdrawal or default
payment before being applied toward any additional payment obligations that the high bidder may
have. 

     27.206  Submission of down payment and filing of long-form applications.
  
 (a)   After bidding has ended, the Commission will identify and notify the high bidder and declare
the bidding closed.

 (b)   Within ten (10) business days after being notified that it is a high bidder on a particular
license(s), a high bidder must submit to the Commission's lockbox bank such additional funds (the
"down payment") as are necessary to bring its total deposits (not including upfront payments applied
to satisfy bid withdrawal or default payments) up to twenty (20) percent of its high bid(s).  This down
payment must be made by wire transfer or cashier's check drawn in U.S. dollars from a financial
institution whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and must be
made payable to the Federal Communications Commission. Down payments will be held by the
Commission until the high bidder has been awarded the license and has paid the remaining balance
due on the license, in which case it will not be returned, or until the winning bidder is found
unqualified to be a licensee or has defaulted, in which case it will be returned, less applicable
payments.  No interest will be paid on any down payment. 

 (c)   A high bidder that meets its down payment obligations in a timely manner must, within ten
(10) business days after being notified that it is a high bidder, submit an additional application (the
"long-form application") pursuant to the rules governing the service in which the applicant is the high
bidder.  Notwithstanding any other provision in title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations to the
contrary, high bidders need not submit an additional application filing fee with their long-form
applications.  Notwithstanding any other provision in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations to
the contrary, the high bidder's long-form application must be mailed or otherwise delivered to:  Office
of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Attention:  Auction Application Processing
Section, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 222, Washington, DC 20554.  An applicant that fails to submit
the required long-form application as required under this subsection, and fails to establish good cause
for any late-filed submission, shall be deemed to have defaulted and will be subject to the payments
set forth in section 27.203.

 (d)   As an exhibit to its long-form application, the applicant must provide a detailed explanation
of the terms and conditions and parties involved in any bidding consortia, joint venture, partnership
or other agreement or arrangement it had entered into relating to the competitive bidding process
prior to the time bidding was completed.  Such agreements must have been entered into prior to the
filing of short-form applications pursuant to section 27.204.

     27.207  Procedures for filing petitions to deny against WCS long-form applications.
  
 (a)   Within five (5) days after the Commission gives public notice that a long-form application has
been accepted for filing, petitions to deny that application may be filed.  Any such petitions must
contain allegations of fact supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge
thereof, and be served by hand upon the applicant or its representative.

 (b)   An applicant may file an opposition to any petition to deny within five (5) days after the
deadline for filing petitions to deny.  Allegations of fact or denials thereof must be supported by
affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof, and such opposition must be served
by hand upon the petitioner.
 
 (c)   If the Commission determines that:

 (1)   An applicant is qualified and there is no substantial and material issue of fact concerning that
determination, it will grant the application;

 (2)   An applicant is not qualified and that there is no substantial issue of fact concerning that
determination, the Commission need not hold a evidentiary hearing and will deny the application;  and

 (3)   Substantial and material issues of fact require a hearing, it will conduct a hearing.  The
Commission may permit all or part of the evidence to be submitted in written form and may permit
employees other than administrative law judges to preside at the taking of written evidence.  Such
hearing will be conducted on an expedited basis.

  27.208  License grant, denial, default, and disqualification.
  
    (a)     Unless otherwise specified in these rules, auction winners are required to pay the balance of
their winning bids in a lump sum within ten (10) business days following award of the license.  Grant
of the license will be conditioned on full and timely payment of the winning bid.  

 (b)   If a winning bidder withdraws its bid after the Commission has declared competitive bidding
closed or fails to remit the required down payment within ten (10) business days after the Commission
has declared competitive bidding closed, the bidder will be deemed to have defaulted, its application
will be dismissed, and it will be liable for the default penalty specified in section 27.203.  In such
event, the Commission may either re-auction the license to existing or new applicants or offer it to
the other highest bidders (in descending order) at their final bids.  The down payment obligations set
forth in section 27.206(b) will apply.

 (c)   A winning bidder who is found unqualified to be a licensee, fails to remit the balance of its
winning bid in a timely manner, or defaults or is disqualified for any reason after having made the
required down payment, will be deemed to have defaulted and will be liable for the payment set forth
in section 27.203.  In such event, the Commission will conduct another auction for the license,
affording new parties an opportunity to file applications for the license.

 (d)   Bidders who are found to have violated the antitrust laws or the Commission's rules in
connection with their participation in the competitive bidding process may be subject, in addition to
any other applicable sanctions, to forfeiture of their upfront payment, down payment or full bid
amount, and may be prohibited from participating in future auctions.

  27.209  Designated entities; bidding credits; unjust enrichment.

 (a)   Designated entities entitled to preferences in the WCS auction are small businesses and very
small businesses as defined in section 27.110(b).  Designated entities will be eligible for bidding
credits, as defined in parts (b) and (c) of this section.

 (b)   A winning bidder that qualifies as a small business may use a bidding credit of 25 percent to
lower the cost of its winning bid.

 (c)   A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business may use a bidding credit of 35 percent
to lower the cost of its winning bid.

 (d)   Unjust Enrichment:

 (1)   If a small business or very small business (as defined in section 27.210(b)) that utilizes a
bidding credit under this section seeks to transfer control or assign an authorization to an entity that
is not a small business or a very small business, or seeks to make any other change in ownership that
would result in the licensee losing eligibility as a small business or very small business, the small
business or very small business must seek Commission approval and reimburse the U.S. Government
for the amount of the bidding credit, plus interest based on the rate for ten year U.S. Treasury
obligations applicable on the date the license is granted, as a condition of approval of the assignment
or transfer of control.  

 (2)   If a very small business (as defined in section 27.210(b)) that utilizes a bidding credit under
this section seeks to transfer control or assign an authorization to a small business meeting the
eligibility standards for a lower bidding credit, or seeks to make any other change in ownership that
would result in the licensee qualifying for a lower bidding credit under this section, the licensee must
seek Commission approval and reimburse the U.S. Government for the difference between the
amount of the bidding credit obtained by the licensee and the bidding credit for which the assignee,
transferee, or licensee is eligible under this section, plus interest based on the rate for ten year U.S.
Treasury obligations applicable on the date the license is granted, as a condition of the approval of
such assignment, transfer, or other ownership change.

 (3)   The amount of payments made pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section will
be reduced over time as follows:  A transfer in the first five years of the license term will result in a
forfeiture of 100 percent of the value of the bidding credit (or the difference between the bidding
credit obtained by the original licensee and the bidding credit for which the post-transfer licensee is
eligible); in year 6 of the license term the payment will be 80 percent; in year 7 the payment will be
60 percent; in year 8 the payment will be 40 percent; and in year 9 the payment will be 20 percent. 
For a transfer occurring in year 10 and thereafter, there will be no assessment.

  27.210  Definitions.

 (a)   Scope.  The definitions in this section apply to section 27.209, unless otherwise specified in
those sections.

 (b)   Small Business; Very Small Business; Consortia.

 (1)   A small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average annual gross revenues that are not more than $40 million for the preceding three years.

 (2)   A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average annual gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.

 (3)   For purposes of determining whether an entity meets the $40 million average annual gross
revenues size standard set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or the $15 million average annual
gross revenues size standard set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the gross revenues of the
applicant and its affiliates shall be considered on a cumulative basis and aggregated subject to the
following exceptions:

 (i)   For purposes of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section, the personal net worth of an
applicant and its affiliates is not included in the applicant's gross revenues.

 (ii)  For purposes of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section, Indian tribes or Alaska Regional
or Village Corporations organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C.
1601 et seq.), or entities owned and controlled by such tribes or corporations, are not considered
affiliates of an applicant (or licensee) that is owned and controlled by such tribes, corporations or
entities, and that otherwise complies with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), except
that gross revenues derived from gaming activities conducted by affiliated entities pursuant to the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) will be counted in determining such
applicant's (or licensee's) compliance with the financial requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)
of this section, unless such applicant establishes that it will not receive a substantial unfair competitive
advantage because significant legal constraints restrict the applicant's ability to access such gross
revenues.

 (4)   A consortium of small businesses (or a consortium of very small businesses) is a conglomerate
organization formed as a joint venture between or among mutually independent business firms, each
of which individually satisfies the definition in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or each of which
satisfies the definition in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.  Where an applicant (or licensee) is a
consortium of small businesses, the gross revenues of each small business shall not be aggregated. 


 (c)   Gross Revenues.  Gross revenues shall mean all income received by an entity, whether earned
or passive, before any deductions are made for costs of doing business (e.g., cost of goods sold), as
evidenced by audited financial statements for the relevant number of most recently completed
calendar years, or, if audited financial statements were not prepared on a calendar-year basis, for the
most recently completed fiscal years preceding the filing of the applicant's short-form application
(Form 175).  If an entity was not in existence for all or part of the relevant period, gross revenues
shall be evidenced by the audited financial statements of the entity's predecessor-in-interest or, if there
is no identifiable predecessor-in-interest, unaudited financial statements certified by the applicant as
accurate.  When an applicant does not otherwise use audited financial statements, its gross revenues
may be certified by its chief financial officer or its equivalent.

 (d)   Affiliate.

 (1)   Basis for Affiliation.  An individual or entity is an affiliate of an applicant if such individual
or entity:

    (i)     Directly or indirectly controls or has the power to control the applicant, or

    (ii)    Is directly or indirectly controlled by the applicant, or

 (iii) Is directly or indirectly controlled by a third party or parties who also control or have the
power to control the applicant, or

    (iv)    Has an "identity of interest" with the applicant.

 (2)   Nature of control in determining affiliation.

 (i)   Every business concern is considered to have one or more parties who directly or indirectly
control or have the power to control it.  Control may be affirmative or negative and it is immaterial
whether it is exercised so long as the power to control exists.

 Example for paragraph (d)(2)(i).  An applicant owning 50 percent of the voting
 stock of another concern would have negative power to control such concern since
 such party can block any action of the other stockholders.  Also, the bylaws of a
 corporation may permit a stockholder with less than 50 percent of the voting stock
 to block any actions taken by the other stockholders in the other entity.  Affiliation
 exists when the applicant has the power to control a concern while at the same time
 another person, or persons, are in control of the concern at the will of the party or
 parties with the power of control.

 (ii)  Control can arise through stock ownership; occupancy of director, officer, or key employee
positions; contractual or other business relations; or combinations of these and other factors.  A key
employee is an employee who, because of his/her position in the concern, has a critical influence in
or substantive control over the operations or management of the concern.

 (iii) Control can arise through management positions if the voting stock is so widely distributed
that no effective control can be established.

 Example for paragraph (d)(2)(iii).  In a corporation where the officers and
 directors own various size blocks of stock totaling 40 percent of the corporation's
 voting stock, but no officer or director has a block sufficient to give him/her control
 or the power to control and the remaining 60 percent is widely distributed with no
 individual stockholder having a stock interest greater than 10 percent, management
 has the power to control.  If persons with such management control of the other
 entity are controlling principals of the applicant, the other entity will be deemed an
 affiliate of the applicant.

 (3)   Identity of interest between and among persons. 

 Affiliation can arise between or among two or more persons with an identity of interest, such as
members of the same family or persons with common investments.  In determining if the applicant
controls or is controlled by a concern, persons with an identity of interest will be treated as though
they were one person.

 (i)   Spousal Affiliation.  Both spouses are deemed to own or control or have the power to control
interests owned or controlled by either of them, unless they are subject to a legal separation
recognized by a court of competent jurisdiction in the United States.

 (ii)  Kinship Affiliation.  Immediate family members will be presumed to own or control or have
the power to control interests owned or controlled by other immediate family members.  In this
context "immediate family member" means father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, brother,
sister, father- or mother-in-law, son- or daughter-in-law, brother- or sister-in-law, step-father or
-mother, step-brother or -sister, step-son or -daughter, half-brother or -sister.  This presumption may
be rebutted by showing that:

 (A)   The family members are estranged,

 (B)   The family ties are remote, or

 (C)   The family members are not closely involved with each other in business matters.

 Example for paragraph (d)(3)(ii).  A owns a controlling interest in Corporation X. 
 A's sister-in-law, B, has a controlling interest in a WCS geographic area license
 application.  Because A and B have a presumptive kinship affiliation, A's interest in
 Corporation X is attributable to B, and thus to the applicant, unless B rebuts the
 presumption with the necessary showing.

 (4)   Affiliation through stock ownership.

 (i)   An applicant is presumed to control or have the power to control a concern if he/she owns
or controls or has the power to control 50 percent or more of its voting stock.

 (ii)  An applicant is presumed to control or have the power to control a concern even though
he/she owns, controls, or has the power to control less than 50 percent of the concern's voting stock,
if the block of stock he/she owns, controls, or has the power to control is large as compared with any
other outstanding block of stock.

 (iii) If two or more persons each owns, controls or has the power to control less than 50 percent
of the voting stock of a concern, such minority holdings are equal or approximately equal in size, and
the aggregate of these minority holdings is large as compared with any other stock holding, the
presumption arises that each one of these persons individually controls or has the power to control
the concern; however, such presumption may be rebutted by a showing that such control or power
to control, in fact, does not exist.

 (5)   Affiliation arising under stock options, convertible debentures, and agreements to merge. 
Stock options, convertible debentures, and agreements to merge (including agreements in principle)
are generally considered to have a present effect on the power to control the concern.  Therefore, in
making a size determination, such options, debentures, and agreements will generally be treated as
though the rights held thereunder had been exercised.  However, neither an affiliate nor an applicant
can use such options and debentures to appear to terminate its control over another concern before
it actually does so.

 Example 1 for paragraph (d)(5).  If company B holds an option to purchase a
 controlling interest in company A, who holds a controlling interest in a WCS
 geographic area license application, the situation is treated as though company B
 had exercised its rights and had become owner of a controlling interest in company
 A.  The gross revenues of company B must be taken into account in determining the
 size of the applicant.

 Example 2 for paragraph (d)(5).  If a large company, BigCo, holds 70% (70 of 100
 outstanding shares) of the voting stock of company A, who holds a controlling
 interest in a WCS geographic area license application, and gives a third party,
 SmallCo, an option to purchase 50 of the 70 shares owned by BigCo, BigCo will
 be deemed to be an affiliate of company A, and thus the applicant, until SmallCo
 actually exercises its options to purchase such shares.  In order to prevent BigCo
 from circumventing the intent of the rule, which requires such options to be
 considered on a fully diluted basis, the option is not considered to have present
 effect in this case.

 Example 3 for paragraph (d)(5).  If company A has entered into an agreement to
 merge with company B in the future, the situation is treated as though the merger
 has taken place.

 (6)   Affiliation under voting trusts.

 (i)   Stock interests held in trust shall be deemed controlled by any person who holds or shares the
power to vote such stock, to any person who has the sole power to sell such stock, and to any person
who has the right to revoke the trust at will or to replace the trustee at will.

 (ii)  If a trustee has a familial, personal or extra-trust business relationship to the grantor or the
beneficiary, the stock interests held in trust will be deemed controlled by the grantor or beneficiary,
as appropriate.

 (iii) If the primary purpose of a voting trust, or similar agreement, is to separate voting power
from beneficial ownership of voting stock for the purpose of shifting control of or the power to
control a concern in order that such concern or another concern may meet the Commission's size
standards, such voting trust shall not be considered valid for this purpose regardless of whether it is
or is not recognized within the appropriate jurisdiction.

 (7)   Affiliation through common management.  

 Affiliation generally arises where officers, directors, or key employees serve as the majority or
otherwise as the controlling element of the board of directors and/or the management of another
entity.

 (8)   Affiliation through common facilities.  

 Affiliation generally arises where one concern shares office space and/or employees and/or other
facilities with another concern, particularly where such concerns are in the same or related industry
or field of operations, or where such concerns were formerly affiliated, and through these sharing
arrangements one concern has control, or potential control, of the other concern.

 (9)   Affiliation through contractual relationships.  

 Affiliation generally arises where one concern is dependent upon another concern for contracts and
business to such a degree that one concern has control, or potential control, of the other concern.

 (10)  Affiliation under joint venture arrangements.

 (i)   A joint venture for size determination purposes is an association of concerns and/or
individuals, with interests in any degree or proportion, formed by contract, express or implied, to
engage in and carry out a single, specific business venture for joint profit for which purpose they
combine their efforts, property, money, skill and knowledge, but not on a continuing or permanent
basis for conducting business generally.  The determination whether an entity is a joint venture is
based upon the facts of the business operation, regardless of how the business operation may be
designated by the parties involved.  An agreement to share profits/losses proportionate to each party's
contribution to the business operation is a significant factor in determining whether the business
operation is a joint venture.

 (ii)  The parties to a joint venture are considered to be affiliated with each other.


Subpart E -- Application, Licensing, and Processing Rules for WCS
                                 
     27.301  Authorization required.

 No person shall use or operate any device for the transmission of energy or communications by
radio in the services authorized by this part except as provided in this part.

  27.302  Eligibility.
 
 (a)   General. Authorizations will be granted upon proper application if:

 (1)   The applicant is qualified under the applicable laws and the regulations, policies and decisions
issued under those laws, including section 27.12;

 (2)   There are frequencies available to provide satisfactory service; and

 (3)   The public interest, convenience or necessity would be served by a grant.

 (b)   Alien Ownership.  A WCS authorization may not be granted to or held by an entity not
meeting the requirements of Section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
section 310 insofar as applicable to the particular service in question.

     27.303  Formal and informal applications.

 (a)   Except for an authorization under any of the conditions stated in section 308(a) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 308(a)), the Commission may grant only upon written
application received by it, the following authorization: station licenses; modifications of licenses;
renewals of licenses; transfers and assignments of station licenses, or any right thereunder.

 (b)   Except as may be otherwise permitted by this part, a separate written application shall be filed
for each instrument of authorization requested. Applications may be:

 (1)   "Formal applications" where the Commission has prescribed in this part a standard form; or

 (2)   "Informal applications" (normally in letter form) where the Commission has not prescribed
a standard form.

 (c)   An informal application will be accepted for filing only if:

 (1)   A standard form is not prescribed or clearly applicable to the authorization requested;

 (2)   It is a document submitted, in duplicate, with a caption which indicates clearly the nature of
the request, radio service involved, location of the station, and the application file number (if known);
and

 (3)   It contains all the technical details and informational showings required by the rules and states
clearly and completely the facts involved and authorization desired.

  27.304  Filing of WCS applications, fees, and numbers of copies.

 (a)   As prescribed by section 27.307, standard formal application forms applicable to the WCS
may be obtained from either:

 (1)   Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554; or

 (2)   By calling the Commission's Forms Distribution Center, (202) 418-3676.

 (b)   Applications for the initial provision of WCS service must be filed on FCC Form 175 in
accordance with the rules in sections 27.204 and part 1, subpart Q of this chapter. In the event of
mutual exclusivity between applicants filing FCC Form 175, only auction winners will be eligible to
file subsequent long form applications on FCC Form 600 for initial WCS licenses. Mutually exclusive
applications filed on Form 175 are subject to competitive bidding under those rules.

 (c)   All applications for WCS radio station authorizations (other than applications for initial
provision of WCS service filed on FCC Form 175) shall be submitted for filing to: Federal
Communications Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 1270 Fairfield Road,
Gettysburg, PA  17325, Attention:  WCS Processing Section.

 (d)   All correspondence or amendments concerning a submitted application shall clearly identify
the name of the applicant, FCC Account Number or Commission file number (if known) or station
call sign of the application involved, and may be sent directly to the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, 1270 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325, Attention:  WCS Processing Section.

 (e)   Except as otherwise specified, all applications, amendments, correspondence, pleadings and
forms (with the exception of FCC Form 175, which is to be filed electronically pursuant to section
27.204) shall be submitted on one original paper copy and with a 3.5-inch floppy disk containing all
attachments, and any other supporting documentation in separate ASCII text (.TXT) file formats. 
Those filing any amendments, correspondence, pleadings, and forms must simultaneously submit the
original hard copy which must be stamped "original". In addition to the original hard copy, those
filing pleadings, including pleadings under section 1.2108 of this chapter shall also submit 2 paper
copies as provided in section 1.51 of this chapter.  Applicants who file electronically will not be
required to follow these procedures, but instead are required to follow all instructions for electronic
filing detailed by the FCC in any subsequent public notices.

 (f)   Subsequent application by auction winners or non-mutually exclusive applicants for WCS
radio station(s) under part 27.  FCC Form 600 shall be submitted by each auction winner for each
WCS license applied for on FCC Form 175.  In the event that mutual exclusivity does not exist
between applicants filing FCC Form 175, the Commission will so inform the applicant and the
applicant will also file FCC Form 600.  Blanket licenses are granted for each market frequency block. 
Applications for individual sites are not needed and will not be accepted. See section 27.11. 

  27.305  Reserved.

  27.306  Miscellaneous forms.

 (a)   Renewal of station licenses.  Except for renewal of special temporary authorizations, FCC
Form 405 ("Application for Renewal of Station License") must be filed in duplicate by the licensee
between thirty (30) and sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date of the license sought to be
renewed.

 (b)   Assignment of authorization or transfer of control.  Assignments of authorization or transfers
of control applications are to be filed on the FCC Form 490, "Application for Assignment of
Authorization or Consent to Transfer of Control of License".

  27.307  General application requirements.

 (a)   Each application (including applications filed on Forms 175 and 600) for a radio station
authorization or for consent to assignment or transfer of control in the WCS shall disclose fully the
real party or parties in interest and must include the following information:

 (1)   A list of its subsidiaries, if any. Subsidiary means any business five per cent or more whose
stock, warrants, options or debt securities are owned by the applicant or an officer, director,
stockholder or key management personnel of the applicant. This list must include a description of
each subsidiary's principal business and a description of each subsidiary's relationship to the applicant.

 (2)   A list of its affiliates, if any.  Affiliate is defined in section 27.210(d).

 (3)   A list of the names, addresses, citizenship and principal business of any person holding five
percent or more of each class of stock, warrants, options or debt securities together with the amount
and percentage held, and the name, address, citizenship and principal place of business of any person
on whose account, if other than the holder, such interest is held. If any of these persons are related
by blood or marriage, include such relationship in the statement.

 (4)   In the case of partnerships, the name and address of each partner, each partner's citizenship
and the share or interest participation in the partnership. This information must be provided for all
partners, regardless of their respective ownership interests in the partnership.  This information must
be included an exhibit to the application.

 (b)   Each application for a radio station authorization in the WCS must:

 (1)   Submit the information required by the Commission's rules, requests, and application forms;

 (2)   Be maintained by the applicant substantially accurate and complete in all significant respects
in accordance with the provisions of section 1.65 of this chapter; and

 (3)   Show compliance with and make all special showings that may be applicable.

 (c)   Where documents, exhibits, or other lengthy showings already on file with the Commission
contain information which is required by an application form, the application may specifically refer
to such information, if:

 (1)   The information previously filed is over one A4 (21 cm x 29.7 cm) or 8.5 x 11 inch (21.6 cm
x 27.9 cm) page in length, and all information referenced therein is current and accurate in all
significant respects under section 1.65 of this chapter; and

 (2)   The reference states specifically where the previously filed information can actually be found,
including mention of:

 (i)   The station call sign or application file number whenever the reference is to station files or
previously filed applications; and

 (ii)  The title of the proceeding, the docket number, and any legal citations, whenever the reference
is to a docketed proceeding. However, questions on an application form which call for specific
technical data, or which can be answered by a "yes" or "no" or other short answer shall be answered
as appropriate and shall not be cross-referenced to a previous filing.

 (d)   In addition to the general application requirements of subpart F of this part and section 27.204
of this chapter, applicants shall submit any additional documents, exhibits, or signed written
statements of fact:

 (1)   As may be required by these rules; and

 (2)   As the Commission, at any time after the filing of an application and during the term of any
authorization, may require from any applicant, permittee, or licensee to enable it to determine whether
a radio authorization should be granted, denied, or revoked.

 (e)   Except when the Commission has declared explicitly to the contrary, an informational
requirement does not in itself imply the processing treatment of decisional weight to be accorded the
response.

  27.308  Technical content of applications.

 All applications required by this part shall contain all technical information required by the
application forms or associated public notice(s). Applications other than initial applications for a WCS
license must also comply with all technical requirements of the rules governing the WCS (see subparts
C and D as appropriate).

 27.310  Waiver of rules.

 (a)   Request for waivers. 

 (1)   Waivers of these rules may be granted upon application or by the Commission on its own
motion. Requests for waivers shall contain a statement of reasons sufficient to justify a waiver.
Waivers will not be granted except upon an affirmative showing:

 (i)   That the underlying purpose of the rule will not be served, or would be frustrated, by its
application in a particular case, and that grant of the waiver is otherwise in the public interest; or

 (ii)  That the unique facts and circumstances of a particular case render application of the rule
inequitable, unduly burdensome or otherwise contrary to the public interest. Applicants must also
show the lack of a reasonable alternative.

 (2)   If the information necessary to support a waiver request is already on file, the applicant may
cross-reference to the specific filing where it may be found.

 (b)   Denial of waiver, alternate showing required. If a waiver is not granted, the application will
be dismissed as defective unless the applicant has also provided an alternative proposal which
complies with the Commission's rules (including any required showings).

  27.311  Defective applications.

 (a)   Unless the Commission shall otherwise permit, an application will be unacceptable for filing
and will be returned to the applicant with a brief statement as to the omissions or discrepancies if:

 (1)   The application is defective with respect to completeness of answers to questions,
informational showings, execution, or other matters of a formal character; or

 (2)   The application does not comply with the Commission's rules, regulations, specific
requirements for additional information or other requirements. See also section 27.204 of this chapter.

 (b)   Some examples of common deficiencies which result in defective applications under paragraph
(a) of this section are:

 (1)   The application is not filled out completely and signed; or

 (2)   The application (other than an application filed on FCC Form 175) does not include an
environmental assessment as required for an action that may have a significant impact upon the
environment, as defined in section 1.1307 of this chapter.

 (3)   The application is filed prior to the public notice issued under section 27.316 announcing the
application filing date for the relevant auction or after the cutoff date prescribed in that public notice;

 (c)   If an applicant is requested by the Commission to file any documents or any supplementary
or explanatory information not specifically required in the prescribed application form, a failure to
comply with such request within a specified time period will be deemed to render the application
defective and will subject it to dismissal.

  27.312  Inconsistent or conflicting applications.

 While an application is pending and undecided under part 27, no subsequent inconsistent or
conflicting application may be filed by the same applicant, his successor or assignee, or on behalf or
for the benefit of the same applicant, his successor or assignee.

  27.313 Amendment of applications for Wireless Communications Service (other than
applications filed on FCC Form 175).

 This section applies to all applications for Wireless Communications Service other than
applications filed on FCC Form 175.

 (a)   Amendments as of right. A pending application may be amended as a matter of right if the
application has not been designated for hearing.

 (1)   Amendments shall comply with section 27.319, as applicable; and

 (2)   Amendments which resolve interference conflicts or amendments under section 27.319 may
be filed at any time.

 (b)   The Commission or the presiding officer may grant requests to amend an application
designated for hearing only if a written petition demonstrating good cause is submitted and properly
served upon the parties of record.

 (c)   Major amendments, minor amendments. The Commission will classify all amendments as
minor, unless there is a substantial change in ownership or control.  Such an amendment shall be
deemed to be a major amendment subject to section 27.316.

 (d)   If a petition to deny (or other formal objection) has been filed, any amendment, requests for
waiver, (or other written communications) shall be served on the petitioner by hand, unless waiver
of this requirement is granted pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section. See also section 1.2108 of
this chapter.

 (e)   The Commission may waive the service requirements of paragraph (d) of this section and
prescribe such alternative procedures as may be appropriate under the circumstances to protect
petitioners' interests and to avoid undue delay in a proceeding, if an applicant submits a request for
waiver which demonstrates that the service requirement is unreasonably burdensome.

 (f)   Any amendment to an application shall be signed and shall be submitted in the same manner,
and with the same number of copies, as was the original application. Amendments may be made in
letter form if they comply in all other respects with the requirements of this chapter.

 (g)   An application will be considered to be a newly filed application if it is amended by a major
amendment (as defined in this section), except in the following circumstances:

 (1)   The amendment reflects only a change in ownership or control found by the Commission to
be in the public interest;

 (2)   The amendment corrects typographical transcription, or similar clerical errors which are
clearly demonstrated to be mistakes by reference to other parts of the application, and whose
discovery does not create new or increased frequency conflicts.

  27.314 Application for temporary authorizations.

 In circumstances requiring immediate or temporary use of facilities, request may be made for
special temporary authority (STA) to operate new or modified equipment.  Such requests may be
submitted as informal applications (see section 22.105) and must contain complete details about the
proposed operation and the circumstances that fully justify and necessitate the grant of STA.  Such
requests should be filed in time to be received by the FCC at least 10 days prior to the date of
proposed operation or, where an extension is sought, 10 days prior to the expiration date of the
existing STA.  Requests received less than 10 days prior to the desired date of operation may be given
expedited consideration only if compelling reasons are given, in writing, for the delay in submitting
the request.  Otherwise, such late-filed requests are considered in turn, but action might not be taken
prior to the desired date of operation.  Requests for STAs must be accompanied by the proper filing
fee.

 (a)   Grant without Public Notice.  STAs may be granted without being listed in a Public Notice,
or prior to 30 days after such listing, if:

 (1)   The STA is to be valid for 30 days or less and the applicant does not plan to file an application
for regular authorization of the subject operation;

 (2)   The STA is to be valid for 60 days or less, pending the filing of an application for regular
authorization of the subject operation;

 (3)   The STA is to allow interim operation to facilitate completion of authorized construction or
to provide substantially the same service as previously authorized; or

 (4)   The STA is made upon a finding that there are extraordinary circumstances requiring
operation in the public interest and that delay in the institution of such service would seriously
prejudice the public interest.

 (b)   Limit on STA term.  The FCC may grant STAs valid for a period not to exceed 180 days
under the provisions of Section 309(f) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
(47 U.S.C. section 309(f)) if extraordinary circumstances so require, and pending the filing of an
application for regular operation.  The FCC may grant extensions of STAs for a period of 180 days,
but the applicant must show that extraordinary circumstances warrant such an extension.

  27.315  Receipt of application; applications in the  Wireless Communications Service filed
on FCC Form 175 and other applications in the WCS Service.

 (a)   All applications for WCS filed pursuant to section 27.304 are given a file number. The
assignment of a file number to an application is merely for administrative convenience and does not
indicate the acceptance of the application for filing and processing. Such assignment of a file number
will not preclude the subsequent return or dismissal of the application if it is found to be defective or
not in accordance with the Commission's rules.

 (b)   Acceptance of an application for filing merely means that it has been the subject of a
preliminary review as to completeness. Such acceptance will not preclude the subsequent return or
dismissal of the application if it is found to be defective or not in accordance with the Commission's
rules.

  27.316  Public notice period.

 (a)   At regular intervals, the Commission may issue a public notice listing:

 (1)   The acceptance for filing of all applications and major amendments thereto;

 (2)   Significant Commission actions concerning applications listed as acceptable for filing;

 (3)   Information which the Commission in its discretion believes of public significance. Such
notices are solely for the purpose of informing the public and do not create any rights in an applicant
or any other person; or

 (4)   Special environmental considerations as required by part 1 of this chapter.

 (b)   The Commission will not grant any application until expiration of a period of seven (7) days
following the issuance date of a public notice listing the application, or any major amendments
thereto, as acceptable for filing. Provided, that the Commission will not grant an application filed on
Form 600 filed either by a winning bidder or by an applicant whose Form 175 application is not
mutually exclusive with other applicants, until the expiration of a period of forty (40) days following
the issuance of a public notice listing the application, or any major amendments thereto, as acceptable
for filing. See also section 27.207.

 (c)   As an exception to paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (b) of this section, the public notice
provisions are not applicable to applications:

 (1)   For authorization of a minor technical change in the facilities of an authorized station where
such a change would not be classified as a major amendment (as defined by Section 27.313) were
such a change to be submitted as an amendment to a pending application.

 (2)   For issuance of a license subsequent to a radio station authorization or, pending application
for a grant of such license, any special or temporary authorization to permit interim operation to
facilitate completion of authorized construction or to provide substantially the same service as would
be authorized by such license;

 (3)   For temporary authorization pursuant to section 27.314;

 (4)   For an authorization under any of the proviso clauses of section 308(a) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. section 308(a));

 (5)   For consent to an involuntary assignment or transfer of control of a radio authorization; or

 (6)   For consent to a voluntary assignment or transfer of control of a radio authorization, where
the assignment or transfer does not involve a substantial change in ownership or control.

     27.317  Dismissal and return of applications.

 (a)   Any application may be dismissed without prejudice as a matter of right if the applicant
requests its dismissal prior to designation for hearing or, in the case of applications filed on Forms
175 and 175-S, prior to auction. An applicant's request for the return of his application after it has
been accepted for filing will be considered to be a request for dismissal without prejudice. Applicants
requesting dismissal of their applications are also subject to section 27.203 of this chapter.

 (b)   A request to dismiss an application without prejudice will be considered after designation for
hearing only if:

 (1)   A written petition is submitted to the Commission and is properly served upon all parties of
record; and

 (2)   The petition complies with the provisions of this section and demonstrates good cause.

 (c)   The Commission will dismiss an application for failure to prosecute or for failure to respond
substantially within a specified time period to official correspondence or requests for additional
information. Dismissal shall be without prejudice if made prior to designation for hearing or prior to
auction, but dismissal may be made with prejudice for unsatisfactory compliance or after designation
for hearing or after the applicant is notified that it is the winning bidder under the auction process.

  27.319  Ownership changes and agreements to amend or to dismiss applications or
pleadings.

  (a) Applicability.  Subject to the provisions of section 27.204 of this chapter (Bidding Application
and Certification Procedures; Prohibition of Collusion), this section applies to applicants and all other
parties interested in pending applications who wish to resolve contested matters among themselves
with a formal or an informal agreement or understanding.  This section applies only when the
agreement or understanding will result in:

  (1) A major change in the ownership of an applicant to which sections 27.313(c) and 27.313(g)
apply or which would cause the applicant to lose its status as a designated entity under
section 27.210(b), or 

  (2) The individual or mutual withdrawal, amendment or dismissal of any pending application,
amendment, petition or other pleading.

  (b) The provisions of section 27.207 of the Commission's Rules will apply in the event of the filing
of petitions to deny or other pleadings or informal objections filed against WCS applications.  The
provisions of section 27.317 of the Commission's Rules will apply in the event of dismissal of WCS
applications.  

  27.320  Opposition to applications.

 (a)   Petitions to deny (including petitions for other forms of relief) and responsive pleadings for
Commission consideration must comply with section 27.207 and must:

 (1)   Identify the application or applications (including applicant's name, station location,
Commission file numbers and radio service involved) with which it is concerned;

 (2)   Be filed in accordance with the pleading limitations, filing periods, and other applicable
provisions of sections 1.41 through 1.52 of this chapter except where otherwise provided in section
27.207;

 (3)   Contain specific allegations of fact which, except for facts of which official notice may be
taken, shall be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof, and
which shall be sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner (or respondent) is a party in interest and
that a grant of, or other Commission action regarding, the application would be prima facie
inconsistent with the public interest;

 (4)   Be filed within five (5) days after the date of public notice announcing the acceptance for filing
of any such application or major amendment thereto (unless the Commission otherwise extends the
filing deadline); and

 (5)   Contain a certificate of service showing that it has been hand delivered to the applicant no
later than the date of filing thereof with the Commission.

 (b)   A petition to deny a major amendment to a previously filed application may only raise matters
directly related to the amendment which could not have been raised in connection with the underlying,
previously filed application. This does not apply to petitioners who gain standing because of the major
amendment.

 (c)   Parties who file frivolous petitions to deny may be subject to sanctions including monetary
forfeitures, license revocation, if they are FCC licensees, and may be prohibited from participating
in future auctions.

  27.321  Mutually exclusive applications.

 (a)   Two or more pending applications are mutually exclusive if the grant of one application would
effectively preclude the grant of one or more of the others under the Commission's rules governing
the Wireless Communications Services involved.  The Commission uses the general procedures in this
section for processing mutually exclusive applications in the Wireless Communications Services.

 (b)   An application will be entitled to comparative consideration with one or more conflicting
applications only if the Commission determines that such comparative consideration will serve the
public interest.

  27.322  Consideration of applications.

 (a)   Applications for an instrument of authorization will be granted if, upon examination of the
application and upon consideration of such other matters as it may officially notice, the Commission
finds that the grant will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. See also section 1.2108
of this chapter.

 (b)   The grant shall be without a formal hearing if, upon consideration of the application, any
pleadings or objections filed, or other matters which may be officially noticed, the Commission finds
that:

 (1)   The application is acceptable for filing, and is in accordance with the Commission's rules,
regulations, and other requirements;

 (2)   The application is not subject to a post-auction hearing or to comparative consideration
pursuant to section 27.322 with another application(s);

 (3)   The applicant certifies that the operation of the proposed facility would not cause harmful
electromagnetic interference to another authorized station;

 (4)   There are no substantial and material questions of fact presented; and

 (5)   The applicant is qualified under current FCC regulations and policies.

 (c)   If the Commission should grant without a formal hearing an application for an instrument of
authorization which is subject to a petition to deny filed in accordance with section 27.319, the
Commission will deny the petition by the issuance of a concise statement for the reason(s) for the
denial and dispose of all substantial issues raised by the petition.

 (d)   Whenever the Commission, without a formal hearing, grants any application in part, or subject
to any terms or conditions other than those normally applied to applications of the same type, it shall
inform the applicant of the reasons therefor, and the grant shall be considered final unless the
Commission should revise its action (either by granting the application as originally requested, or by
designating the application for a formal evidentiary hearing) in response to a petition for
reconsideration which:

 (1)   Is filed by the applicant within thirty (30) days from the date of the letter or order giving the
reasons for the partial or conditioned grant;

 (2)   Rejects the grant as made and explains the reasons why the application should be granted as
originally requested; and,

 (3)   Returns the instrument of authorization.

 (e)   The Commission will designate an application for a formal hearing, specifying with
particularity the matters and things in issue, if, upon consideration of the application, any pleadings
or objections filed, or other matters which may be officially noticed, the Commission determines that:

 (1)   A substantial and material question of fact is presented (see also section 1.2108 of this
chapter);

 (2)   The Commission is unable for any reason to make the findings specified in paragraph (a) of
this section and the application is acceptable for filing, complete, and in accordance with the
Commission's rules, regulations, and other requirements; or

 (3)   The application is entitled to concurrent consideration (under section 27.321) with another
application (or applications).

 (f)   The Commission may grant, deny or take other action with respect to an application
designated for a formal hearing pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section or part 1 of this chapter.

 (g)   Reconsideration or review of any final action taken by the Commission will be in accordance
with part 1, subpart A of this chapter.

     27.323  Reserved.

  27.324  Transfer of control or assignment of station authorization.

 (a)   Authorizations shall be transferred or assigned to another party, voluntarily (for example, by
contract) or involuntarily (for example, by death, bankruptcy, or legal disability), directly or indirectly
or by transfer of control of any corporation holding such authorization, only upon application and
approval by the Commission. A transfer of control or assignment of station authorization in the
Wireless Communications Service is also subject to section 27.209 of this chapter.

 (1)   A change from less than 50% ownership to 50% or more ownership shall always be
considered a transfer of control.

 (2)   In other situations a controlling interest shall be determined on a case- by-case basis
considering the distribution of ownership, and the relationships of the owners, including family
relationships.

 (b)   Form required:

 (1)   Assignment.

 (i)   FCC Form 490 shall be filed to assign a license or permit.

 (ii)  In the case of involuntary assignment, FCC Form 490 shall be filed within 30 days of the event
causing the assignment.

 (2)   Transfer of control.

 (i)   FCC Form 490 shall be submitted in order to transfer control of a corporation holding a
license or permit.

 (ii)  In the case of involuntary transfer of control, FCC Form 490 shall be filed within 30 days of
the event causing the transfer.

 (3)   Notification of completion.  The Commission shall be notified by letter of the date of
completion of the assignment or transfer of control.

 (4)   If the transfer of control of a license is approved, the new licensee is held to the original
renewal requirement of section 27.14.

 (c)   In acting upon applications for transfer of control or assignment, the Commission will not
consider whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity might be served by the transfer or
assignment of the authorization to a person other than the proposed transferee or assignee.

 (d)   Applicants seeking to transfer their licenses within three years after the initial license grant
date are required to file, together with their transfer application, the associated contracts for sale,
option agreements, management agreements, and all other documents disclosing the total
consideration to be received in return for the transfer of the license.

 (e)   Partial assignment of authorization.  If the authorization for some, but not all, of the facilities
of a Wireless Communications Service station is assigned to another party, voluntarily or
involuntarily, such action is a partial assignment of authorization.

 (1)   To request FCC approval of a partial assignment of authorization, the following must be filed
in addition to the forms required by paragraph (b) of this section:

 (i)   The assignee must apply for authority (FCC Form 600) to operate a new station including the
facilities for which authorization is assigned, or to modify the assignee's existing station to include
the facilities for which authorization was assigned.

  27.325  Termination of authorization.

 (a)   All authorizations shall terminate on the date specified on the authorization, unless a timely
application for renewal has been filed.

 (b)   If no application for renewal has been made before the authorization's expiration date, a late
application for renewal will only be considered if it is filed within 30 days of the expiration date and
shows that the failure to file a timely application was due to causes beyond the applicant's control. 
Service to subscribers need not be suspended while a late filed renewal application is pending, but
such service shall be without prejudice to Commission action on the renewal application and any
related sanctions. See also section 27.14 (Criteria for Comparative Renewal Proceedings).

 (c)   Special Temporary Authority. A special temporary authorization shall automatically terminate
upon failure to comply with the conditions in the authorization.


                 PART 97 -- AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE

 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

 AUTHORITY:  48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. sections 154, 303.  Interpret or apply
48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C. sections 151-155, 301-609, unless otherwise
noted.

 2. Section 97.303(j) is revised to read as follows:

  97.303  Frequency sharing requirements. 

* * * * *

 (j)          In the 13 cm band:

 (1)          The amateur service is allocated on a secondary basis in all ITU Regions. In ITU Region 1,
no amateur station shall cause harmful interference to, and shall be not protected from interference
due to the operation of, stations authorized by other nations in the fixed and mobile services. In ITU
Regions 2 and 3, no amateur station shall cause harmful interference to, and shall not be protected
from interference due to the operation of, stations authorized by other nations in the fixed, mobile and
radiolocation services.

 (2)          In the United States: 

 (i)          The 2300-2305 MHz segment is allocated to the amateur service on a secondary basis.
(Currently the 2300-2305 MHz segment is not allocated to any service on a primary basis.) 

 (ii)         The 2305-2310 MHz segment is allocated to the amateur service on a secondary basis to the
fixed, mobile, and radiolocation services. 

 (iii)        The 2390-2400 MHz segment is allocated to the amateur service on a primary basis.

 (iv)         The 2400-2402 MHz segment is allocated to the amateur service on a secondary basis.
(Currently the 2400-2402 MHz segment is not allocated to any service on a primary basis.) The 2402-2417 MHz segment is allocated to the amateur service on a primary basis.   The 2417-2450 MHz segment is allocated to the amateur service on a co-secondary basis with the
Government radiolocation service. Amateur stations operating within the 2400-2450 MHz segment
must accept harmful interference that may be caused by the proper operation of industrial, scientific,
and medical devices operating within the band.

                       Separate Statement
                               of
                    Commissioner Susan Ness


Re:  Wireless Communications Service (GN Docket No. 96-228)

I write separately to underscore my support for providing the public safety community with
adequate and appropriate spectrum to meet its advanced communications needs.  Public safety
organizations deserve a spectrum plan that will enable different entities -- federal, state and local
police, fire and rescue -- to communicate with each other on the same band, and to deploy the
most sophisticated communications technologies and services available.  

Pursuant to Congressional directive, we took a long and hard look at 2.3 GHz and found it was
not suitable for this purpose.  However, I am pleased to endorse our recommendation that
Congress permit a portion of our spectrum auction proceeds be used to meet public safety
communications needs.  I also intend to work with my colleagues to craft a comprehensive, long
term solution to public safety spectrum needs in our upcoming Report and Order in the Public
Safety proceeding (WT Docket No. 96-86).

A Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee convened by the FCC and NTIA to consider public
safety communications needs through the year 2010 issued its Final Report last September.  The
Report's recommendations and projections document the pressing need for substantial chunks of
spectrum for both mobile and fixed wireless communications uses.

Today, public safety uses a hodge-podge of bands across the radio spectrum -- derived by chance
rather than through coordinated planning.  As a result, police, fire, sheriff, and federal authorities
use different radios and frequencies.  Tragically, they cannot communicate directly with each
other in an emergency unless they maintain multiple radios in their vehicles.  This is both
inefficient and expensive.

Moreover, new technologies have spawned exciting wireless services to assist our emergency and
law enforcement teams.  Sufficient broad spectrum is needed to enable these agencies to use these
new tools.

Some of the spectrum that will be vacated in the television broadcasting conversion to digital
appears to be ideal for public safety mobile needs.  Additional microwave spectrum will also be
required to connect public safety networks and to link various sites.  

As we review our options in the upcoming Public Safety proceeding, we should take care to make
the spectrum blocks sufficiently large to foster low cost, spectrum-efficient equipment, and select
bands technically appropriate for their intended use.  

                     SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
                                
                 COMMISSIONER RACHELLE B. CHONG
                                
                                
Re:           Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless
              Communications Service ("WCS"), Report and Order, GN Docket 96-228

  In this decision, I support our determination not to apply the Commercial Mobile Radio
Services (CMRS) spectrum cap to the new Wireless Communications Service (WCS).    I write
separately to express my belief that the Commission ought to examine whether the CMRS
spectrum cap should be retained at all, given the increased competition in the wireless
marketplace.  I also write separately to reiterate my strong commitment to work with the public
safety community to meet its wireless telecommunications needs.

 In 1994, the CMRS spectrum cap was originally imposed by the Commission out of concern
that "excessive aggregation [of spectrum] by any one of several CMRS licensees could reduce
competition by precluding entry by other service providers and might thus confer excessive
market power on incumbents."  The spectrum cap was intended to promote a vigorous
competitive market for the provision of commercial mobile radio services, and to ensure that each
mobile service provider has the opportunity to obtain sufficient spectrum to compete
effectively.  While at the time I believed a CMRS spectrum cap constituted unnecessary
government regulation, I was persuaded by my colleagues to go along with the notion until
competition increased in the wireless industry.

 Three years later, it is my view that the CMRS market is now marked with vigorous and ever
increasing competition.  Since 1994, we have held auctions for six new PCS licenses in every
market and have issued three of those licenses.  These PCS entrants compete with the two
existing cellular providers in each market.  New PCS systems have been placed in operation in
twenty-six Major Trading Areas (MTA), and there are now five major cities with two PCS
licensees operating.  Moreover, the Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) industry has continued to
grow at a healthy rate.  SMR industry growth should be spurred on by our issuance of twenty
new 900 MHz SMR licensees in fifty-one MTAs in 1996.

 Thus, I believe that the state of competition in the CMRS market not only justifies our decision
today not to apply the cap to the WCS service, but may well justify abolishing the spectrum cap
entirely.  Accordingly, I would have granted the request of one party in this proceeding who
suggested that the Commission initiate a proceeding to look at whether the continued application
of the CMRS spectrum cap serves the public interest.

 In addition, although I believe that our decision today not to allocate any of the spectrum at 2.3
GHz to public safety was the correct decision for the reasons stated in the Order, I want to
reiterate my continuing commitment to address the wireless communications needs of the public
safety community.  I have made one of my priorities for 1997 to work with the public safety
community to find ways to meet its spectrum needs.  I believe that the FCC must work diligently
to help public safety personnel obtain the extremely reliable, state of the art telecommunications
systems that their jobs and -- often human lives -- depend on.  I look forward to comprehensively
examining the operational, technical and spectrum requirements of the public safety community in
our Public Safety proceeding.