Report No. DC 95-143       ACTION IN DOCKET CASE          December 13, 1995


            COMMISSION ADDRESSES PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
                  OF THE SECOND AND THIRD R&Os CONCERNING
                      THE PIONEER'S PREFERENCE RULES
                          (ET DOCKET NO. 93-266)

     The Commission has addressed petitions for reconsideration
of the Second and Third Reports and Orders (R&Os) concerning its
pioneer's preference rules.  Specifically, the Commission denied
Qualcomm Incorporated's petition for reconsideration of the
Second R&O and granted Celsat America, Inc.'s petition for
reconsideration of the Third R&O.

     The Second R&O provided pioneers with a discount on license
charges in services in which licenses are awarded by competitive
bidding, and modified several administrative rules.  In addition,
the Second R&O held that, where an innovative technology has
developed or enhanced more than one service, the grant of a
pioneer's preference in only one such service is sufficient
incentive to encourage pioneering proposals to be submitted.

     Legislation implementing domestically the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), enacted December 8, 1994, contained
an amendment to the Communications Act that specified new
requirements regarding criteria, peer review, and unjust
enrichment for pioneer's preference requests that were accepted
for filing after September 1, 1994.  In the Third R&O, the
Commission found that it was in the public interest and in
furtherance of its pioneer's preference policy in an auction
environment to extend these new requirements to pioneer's
preference requests filed on or before September 1, 1994 in
proceedings that have not reached the tentative decision stage.

     In its petition, Qualcomm asked the Commission to reconsider
its determination of what constituted innovative technology. 
Qualcomm contended that certain aspects of the Second R&O were
not clearly defined.  Denying reconsideration, the Commission 
stated that it found unpersuasive Qualcomm's argument that a
technology that is first used in an existing service 

                                  -more-


                                    -2-

independently of the pioneer's preference program should be
eligible for a preference in a new service.  The Commission
further stated that it did not intend to reward the same
technology with a preference in more than one service, and found
no need to clarify its rules regarding new services.

     In its petition, Celsat argued that Section 309(j)(13)(D) of
the Communications Act prohibited the Commission from applying
the new requirements regarding criteria, peer review, and unjust
enrichment to pioneer's preference requests that were accepted
for filing on or before September 1, 1994.  Celsat contended that
Section 4(i) of the Act does not provide the Commission with 
unlimited powers, but only with the authority to take action that
would not conflict with another provision of the Act. 
Accordingly, Celsat asked the Commission to limit the application
of the new pioneer's preference requirements specified in Section
309(j)(13)(D) to requests accepted for filing after September 1,
1994.  

     Upon review, the Commission reconsidered its decision to
apply the new regulations adopted pursuant to the GATT
legislation to applications accepted for filing on or before
September 1, 1994.  The Commission granted Celsat's petition for
reconsideration based on a finding that applying new requirements
regarding criteria, peer review, and unjust enrichment to
pioneer's preference applications that were accepted for filing
on or before September 1, 1994 is unnecessary to evaluate these
requests and would be administratively burdensome on the
Commission and on the applicants.  

     In making this finding, the Commission noted that all
pending pioneer's preference applicants except Celsat in
proceedings that have not reached the tentative decision stage
were required by the Third R&O to submit by September 20, 1995
amended filings pertaining to these and other new pioneer's
preference requirements adopted in the Second R&O and Third R&O. 
The Commission further noted, however, that even though a number
of pending applicants supplemented their preference requests by
that date, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet
approved a new information collection for pioneer's preference
requests pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Accordingly,
pursuant to that statute, the Commission ordered that subsequent
to approval by OMB of the new collection, the Chief, Office of
Engineering and Technology announce a new date for the submission
of amended pioneer's preference requests and publish that date in
the Federal Register.  Therefore, Celsat and other parties who
may wish to amend their pioneer's preference requests will not be
required to do so prior to the new filing date.  On that date, a
party that has not previously filed an amended pioneer's
preference request will be required to do so by submitting a
filing pertaining to the new requirements adopted in the Second
R&O and Third R&O.  
                                    -3- 

     Action by the Commission December 8, 1995, by Memorandum
Opinion and Order (FCC 95-493).  Chairman Hundt, Commissioners
Quello, Barrett, Ness, and Chong.

                                   -FCC-

     News Media contact: Patricia A. Chew at (202) 418-0500.
     Office of Engineering and Technology contact: Rodney Small
at (202) 418-2452.