**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+
| In the matter of                 | * | ET Docket No. 01‑75             |
|                                  | * |                                 |
| Revisions to Broadcast Auxiliary | ) |                                 |
| Service Rules in Part 74 and     | * |                                 |
| Conforming Technical Rules for   | * |                                 |
| Broadcast Auxiliary Service,     |   |                                 |
| Cable Television Relay Service   | * |                                 |
| and Fixed Services in Parts 74,  | * |                                 |
| 78 and 101 of the Commission's   | ) |                                 |
| Rules                            | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
+----------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: April 21, 2004 Released: May 4, 2004**

By the Commission:

1.  By this Order, we deny the application for review (Application)[^1]
    filed by the Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. (SBE) responding
    to the denial of its request for a second stay of the rules for
    coordination of fixed aural and video stations in the Broadcast
    Auxiliary Service (BAS) adopted in the *Report and Order* in this
    proceeding.[^2] We affirm the Office of Engineering and Technology's
    (OET) *Order* (*Denial* *Order)*[^3] denying SBE's request (Second
    Request) seeking an additional six-month stay of the effective date
    of those rules.[^4] We agree with OET's determination that an
    additional stay of the BAS coordination rules is not in the public
    interest, and affirm that these rules are effective as of October
    16, 2003.

    **Background**

2.  In the *Report and Order*, the Commission adopted coordination
    procedures for fixed Aural BAS stations operating on frequencies
    above 944 MHz and fixed Television BAS (BAS) stations operating on
    frequencies above 2110 MHz under Part 74 of the rules.[^5] The
    Commission adopted these procedures to conform the coordination
    procedures for fixed BAS, and Cable Television Relay Service (CARS)
    under Parts 74 and 78, with those already in effect for Fixed
    Microwave Services (FS) under Section 101.103(d) of the rules. It
    found that the FS procedures were appropriate for fixed BAS and
    CARS, stating that uniform procedures for bands shared among these
    services are necessary to promote spectrum efficiency and to
    minimize the possibility of harmful interference.[^6] Because these
    procedures were already in effect for Aural and TV BAS stations in
    the bands 6425-6525 MHz and 17700-19700 MHz, the new rules only
    affected fixed BAS in the bands 944-952 MHz (950 MHz), 2450‑2583.5
    MHz (2.5 GHz), 6875-7125 MHz (7 GHz), and 12700-13250 MHz (13 GHz).

3.  In its initial Request for Temporary Stay (Initial Request), SBE
    requested a one-year stay to allow BAS licensees time to correct
    inaccurate receive site information on the FCC's licensing database,
    *i.e.,* the Universal Licensing System (ULS), noting that these
    errors are a legacy of licensing schemes previous to the ULS and
    occur in 29% of all fixed point-to-point BAS license records.[^7]
    SBE further noted that receive site information was not required
    prior to 1974 and that it remains missing on many old licenses.[^8]
    SBE explained that, compared to the informal coordination procedures
    then in effect, the new, more formal coordination procedures require
    a more accurate database. SBE acknowledged that the Commission in
    prior public notices warned broadcasters to examine and correct
    inaccuracies in the ULS, via informal correction procedures, but
    stated that with the adoption of formal coordination procedures, BAS
    licensees would have a greater incentive to ensure that their
    license records are up to date.[^9]

4.  On April 15, 2003, OET issued an Order (*Stay Order*) granting SBE's
    Initial Request to stay the coordination rules, but only for six
    months, agreeing with SBE that legacy database inaccuracies in the
    ULS could affect the efficacy of the coordination procedures, and
    that these inaccuracies were not anticipated when the *Report and
    Order* setting these procedures was adopted.[^10] OET concluded that
    a six-month period was a proper balance to provide BAS licensees and
    Commission staff sufficient time to address completion and
    correction of legacy database inaccuracies without unnecessarily
    delaying the efficiency and protection benefits offered by the new
    coordination procedures.[^11] OET also found that SBE had
    demonstrated that, absent a stay, BAS licensees might suffer harm
    because of an increased likelihood of interference to their receive
    facilities. Therefore, OET granted the *Stay Order* on delegated
    authority, delaying the effective date of the new coordination rules
    until October 16, 2003.[^12]

5.  During the six-month stay, SBE requested a blanket waiver of
    application fees for BAS applications filed to provide information
    missing from the ULS, in order to encourage the filing of such
    applications.[^13] On September 3, 2003, the FCC's Office of
    Managing Director (OMD) dismissed SBE's request for relief and
    denied the request for waiver, stating that the Commission may only
    consider such requests filed by individual applicants pertaining to
    their own applications in accordance with Section 1.1117, and,
    moreover, that SBE had not established good cause for a waiver of
    application fees.[^14]

6.  SBE sought a further stay of the Commission rules on October
    1, 2003. In its Second Request, SBE generally reiterated the reasons
    set forth in its Initial Request and argued for an additional
    six-month stay.[^15] SBE provided updated figures suggesting that
    approximately 50% of fixed stations in the 7 GHz and 13 GHz bands do
    not have receive site coordinates listed in the ULS.[^16] SBE noted
    that many BAS licensees had waited for a determination of the
    outcome of its fee waiver request before filing applications to
    provide the receive site information.[^17] SBE stated that it had
    publicized the September 3, 2003, denial of the waiver request and
    had taken more aggressive steps to urge BAS licensees to complete
    and correct the license record for their facilities, but that the
    initial six-month stay had proven insufficient. SBE requested the
    additional six months as a "final opportunity" for BAS licensees to
    supply the information.[^18] The National Spectrum Managers
    Association (NSMA), in its Opposition to the Request for Extension
    of Temporary Stay (Opposition), opposed an additional stay,
    asserting that the institution of new coordination procedures would
    best satisfy SBE's concerns about appropriate interference analysis,
    whereas delay would not address or satisfy SBE's concerns about
    database completeness and accuracy.[^19] NSMA argued that the
    opportunity for response in the coordination process would most
    effectively generate interaction and data sharing and address SBE's
    concerns.[^20] NSMA conceded that the database inaccuracies could
    lead to inaccurate interference analysis before the notification is
    initiated, but emphasized that the bilateral process would address
    the possibility of missing or inaccurate BAS path information.[^21]
    SBE, in its Reply to the Opposition, asserted that NSMA's experience
    with the more accurate databases used by the FS under Part 101 was
    not relevant in evaluating the additional time needed to address
    deficiencies with Aural and TV BAS information in the ULS. SBE
    objected to NSMA's suggestion that the coordination under the new
    rules could proceed by relying on responses from broadcasters
    contacted to address potential missing or inaccurate BAS information
    as suggested by NSMA.[^22] However, SBE stated in its reply that it
    would be reasonable to proceed with the new coordination rules if,
    after an additional six months, the database was still inaccurate.

7.  OET applied the Commission's four-part test for evaluating stay
    requests and issued its *Denial* *Order* denying SBE's Second
    Request for stay, finding it was not warranted, and ordering that
    the coordination rules would go into effect on October 16,
    2003.[^23] In applying the four-part test, OET considered whether:
    the stay would likely succeed on its merits; irreparable harm would
    be suffered if a stay was not granted; other interested parties
    would be harmed if the stay were granted; and the public interest
    would favor granting of the stay. OET concluded that while the
    database concerns raised again by SBE might remain a concern, there
    was no indication that additional time would cure these issues. OET
    noted that licensees had already had nearly one year since the rules
    were first adopted and released until the expiration of the first
    stay. Moreover, OET noted that licensees had six weeks from notice
    of the waiver denial to the end of the stay to file or correct
    information for the ULS. OET concluded that the database issues
    would not seriously affect the efficacy of the coordination process
    and harm licensees subject to these rules. Finally, OET found that
    further delay in the application of the coordination procedures
    would not be in the public interest, because it would unnecessarily
    delay the efficiency and protection benefits offered by these
    procedures

    **Discussion**

8.  We deny SBE's request to review and reverse the *Denial* *Order,*
    because any remaining concerns to resolve database inaccuracies do
    not warrant further delay of the benefit of the rules. In this
    application for review, SBE urges review of the *Denial* *Order*,
    arguing that a further stay of the coordination rules is warranted
    because, contrary to OET's conclusions in the *Denial* *Order*, an
    additional six-month extension would cure existing database issues,
    and prior coordination under the adopted rules cannot proceed until
    the database inaccuracies are corrected. SBE, while acknowledging
    that licensees were not required to wait for the resolution of the
    request for a blanket waiver of application fees for BAS
    applications, argues that licensees' delay in complying with the
    *Report and Order* until the resolution of the fee waiver request on
    September 3, 2003 was reasonable. SBE also argues that although OET
    pointed out in its *Denial* *Order* that the coordination rules
    adopted in the *Report and Order* were released to the public on
    November 13, 2002, the rules were not published in the Federal
    Register until March 17, 2003. Finally, SBE argues that the
    Commission cannot conclude that there is any benefit or efficiency
    to be gained from letting the coordination rules take effect under
    the present circumstances. No comments were filed in response to the
    application for review.

9.  We disagree with SBE and, thus, deny its Application to reverse the
    *Denial* *Order*. Commission rules require that applications for
    review concisely and plainly state the questions presented for
    review with reference, where appropriate, to the findings of fact or
    conclusions of law and which of the five factors identified by the
    rules warrant Commission consideration.[^24] SBE asserts that OET
    made various erroneous factual conclusions. However, we find no
    "erroneous finding as to any important or material question of
    fact," or other factor that warrants review.[^25] We agree with the
    substantive conclusions of OET stated in the *Denial* *Order*, and
    find that OET correctly determined that granting SBE's Second
    Request for stay was not warranted.[^26] OET correctly concluded
    that the request was not likely to prevail on the merits; that
    irreparable harm was not likely to result if the stay was denied;
    and that the public interest did not favor granting the stay, and it
    properly denied the request.[^27]

10. We believe that, while further improvements of the database are
    desirable, as raised by SBE in this Application, there is no
    indication that additional time would result in the resolution of
    the inaccuracies complained of, nor that a need is demonstrated by
    the likelihood of irreparable harm if these issues are not resolved
    prior to the coordination rules coming into effect. SBE acknowledges
    in its reply comments to its Second Request that even if the
    Commission should grant additional time, there is a possibility
    database inaccuracies would remain unresolved. It further agrees
    that at some point the coordination rules should enter into effect,
    irrespective of any remaining database inaccuracies.[^28] This
    admission is counter to SBE's arguments that additional time would
    cure the remaining database inaccuracies. Further, SBE's admission
    that the rules should go into effect even if the inaccuracies are
    not completely resolved (whether on October 16, 2003 or six months
    later) supports our conclusion that OET correctly found that the
    efficacy of the coordination rules need not be seriously impacted by
    possible database inaccuracies. Moreover, whereas OET found that the
    potential benefit of database corrections weighed favorably in the
    context of a brief delay in the implementation of our rules and an
    anticipated improvement in the database, we note that the grant of
    additional extensions would result in a lengthy period of time
    between the adoption and effectiveness of the new coordination
    procedures, with little apparent benefit to be derived, based on our
    experience with the last stay. Whereas OET may have considered the
    probable effect of the initial extension of time in a light most
    favorable to SBE, we are not obliged to do so, and activity during
    the six-month stay confirms that the case has not been made for any
    further delay.

11. SBE raises the issue of whether it was reasonable for licensees to
    wait on a determination of SBE's blanket fee waiver request before
    addressing database inaccuracies. We find this concern is not
    material and does not warrant review of the *Denial* *Order*. OET
    correctly states that licensees were not barred from taking steps to
    address the database inaccuracies during the initial six-month stay
    until the fee waiver request was resolved, because if the fee waiver
    was granted their application fees would have been refunded. In any
    event, the grant or denial of the blanket fee waiver would not have
    cured the issues that were argued to support the Initial Request, or
    relieved licensees from the need to prepare their applications.
    Whether or not licensees' application fees would have been refunded,
    those applications would presumably still have had to be prepared
    and filed to cure the database concerns. Moreover as OET indicated,
    even after the disposition of the blanket fee waiver, individual
    licensees could have filed their own requests for fee waivers, if a
    waiver of application fees was compelling.[^29] It seems prudent and
    reasonable that licensees electing to wait would have prepared for
    filing in anticipation of the resolution of the waiver request, and
    filed during the six week window remaining between the September 3,
    2003, determination of SBE's fee waiver request and the last day of
    the stay, October 15, 2003. In fact, as OET notes, Commission
    records indicate the modest increase in the filing of applications
    for Aural and TV BAS modifications during the stay, possibly
    attributable to filings for completion and correction of receive
    site information, primarily occurred in the last month of the stay.
    We infer from this that even parties who waited prepared to file
    during the stay period, and in fact did complete filings to complete
    or correct receive site information, and that our actions taken in
    this proceeding to address licensees' filings to database
    inaccuracies have been appropriate but do not warrant further delay.

12. Further, as discussed above, we agree with OET that the continued
    existence of incomplete and inaccurate records in the ULS, while
    undesirable, is not fatally detrimental to the efficacy of
    coordination procedures nor otherwise likely to result in
    irreparable harm due to interference to existing facilities, as
    stated in the *Stay Order*.[^30] We agree with OET that coordination
    procedures using appropriate conservative default criteria, as
    discussed in the *Stay Order,*[^31] can proceed successfully even
    with incomplete or inaccurate database information. The procedures
    provide a practicable opportunity for all potentially affected
    parties to respond to the proposed coordination request to address
    missing or corrective information where needed, before the
    facilities are formally subject to an application. As the *Denial*
    *Order* clarified, consistent with the coordination requirement for
    full cooperation and reasonable effort among all parties in
    resolving potential conflicts, existing licensees have a
    responsibility to respond whenever a notification contains any
    omissions or errors regarding their facilities that could lead to
    potential interference.[^32] It will be the initiating party's
    responsibility to provide existing licensees with the complete
    information used to characterize the notified party's facilities for
    the engineering studies and analyses upon which the coordination is
    based.[^33] Further, where data is missing or incorrect in the
    notification, and the complete or corrective data is brought to the
    initiating party's attention via response, it will be the initiating
    party's responsibility to conduct any engineering studies and
    analyses required to reassess the impact on the existing facilities,
    as newly documented, and reinitiate coordination, as needed.

13. Finally, in view of the above, we agree with OET that further delay
    in the application of the coordination procedures for Aural and TV
    BAS is not in the public interest, because it will unnecessarily
    delay the efficiency and protection benefits offered by these
    procedures. These new procedures afford all potentially affected
    existing licensees sufficient opportunity to respond to each
    proposal, and are sufficient to avert harmful interference to or
    from existing facilities. The effect of these rules will enable
    parties to identify complete and accurate information on existing
    facilities. Thus, while the initial stay was a reasonable response
    towards the goal of achieving a complete and accurate database, it
    now appears that further delay would not significantly advance that
    goal.

14. As the *Denial* *Order* discussed, under these coordination rules,
    licensees can be expected to act in their own self-interest to avoid
    interference. The coordination process provides an opportunity for a
    potentially affected licensee to respond or otherwise provide
    corrective information regarding the consideration of its
    facilities, or the effect of the applicant's new facilities on its
    facilities. However, in the absence of such a response, the
    applicant will be deemed to have made reasonable efforts to
    coordinate and may file the application.[^34] We recognize that if
    the licensee's receive information in the database is incomplete or
    incorrect and the licensee fails to provide corrective information
    during coordination, there could result a grant of new facilities
    that could ultimately cause interference to an existing licensee. As
    indicated above, however, we believe that licensees will act in
    their own self-interest and ensure that the licensee's receive
    information in the database is complete and correct or provide
    complete and correct information in response to the applicant's
    notification.

15. We, therefore, also affirm the action taken in the *Denial* *Order*
    to encourage BAS licensees to file applications for minor
    modification where needed to complete receive site data that is
    missing in the ULS. We will continue to allow the filing of such
    applications without frequency coordination, provided the
    application supplies only missing receive site data. Receive site
    data may include parameters such as site geographic coordinates,
    site elevation above mean sea level, and antenna height, beamwidth,
    gain, manufacturer, and model number. Further, the application must
    include a showing demonstrating that the station was licensed at a
    time when receive site information was not required, or documenting
    that the information now missing was previously licensed or provided
    under application to the FCC.[^35] The information provided must
    also be consistent with any data already in the database, such as
    transmit azimuth or receive site data.[^36] The filing of receive
    site information without coordination, where it is missing under
    circumstances as described above, is appropriate and will continue
    to be permitted.

    **Ordering Clause**

16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(c),
    303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 309(j) of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g),
    303(r) and 309(j)**,** that the Society of Broadcast Engineers'
    Application for Review IS DENIED.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

[^1]: Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc., Application for Review of
    Denial of Stay Extension, ET Docket No. 01-75 filed Oct 27, 2003
    (Application).

[^2]: *Revisions to Broadcast Auxiliary Service Rules in Part 74 and
    Conforming Technical Rules for Broadcast Auxiliary Service, Cable
    Television Relay Service and Fixed Services in Parts 74, 78 and 101
    of the Commission's Rules*, *Report and Order* in ET Docket No.
    01-75, 17 FCC Rcd 22979 (2002) (*Report and Order*).

[^3]: *Revisions to Broadcast Auxiliary Service Rules in Part 74 and
    Conforming Technical Rules for Broadcast Auxiliary Service, Cable
    Television Relay Service and Fixed Services in Parts 74, 78 and 101
    of the Commission's Rules*, *Order* in ET Docket No. 01-75, 18 FCC
    Rcd 21134 (2003) (*Denial* *Order*).

[^4]: Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc., Request for Extension of
    Temporary Stay, Revisions to Broadcast Auxiliary Service Rules in
    Part 74 and Conforming Technical Rules for Broadcast Auxiliary
    Service, Cable Television Relay Service and Fixed Services in Parts
    74, 78 and 101 of the Commission's Rules, ET Docket No. 01-75, filed
    Oct. 1, 2003 (Second Request).

[^5]: *See Report and Order* ¶¶ 53-65 and at Appendix A: Final Rules, §§
    74.502(d) and 74.638. In the *Report and Order*, the Commission also
    adopted the new coordination requirement for fixed stations in the
    Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) under Part 78. *See Report and
    Order* at Appendix A: Final Rules, § 78.36.

[^6]: *Id.* ¶¶ 2, 53, 61.

[^7]: *See* Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc., Request for Temporary
    Stay of the PCN Requirement, Revision of the Broadcast Auxiliary
    Service, ET Docket No. 01-75, Digital Modulation for all TV BAS
    Bands, RM-9418, and Low-Power Video Assist Devices, RM-9856, filed
    Apr. 4, 2003, at 2 (Initial Request).

[^8]: *Id.* at 1-2.

[^9]: *Id.* at 5*; see also* "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Makes
    Broadcast Auxiliary Radio Station License Databases Available for
    Review prior to ULS Implementation," *Public Notice*, May 7, 1999.

[^10]: *See Revisions to Broadcast Auxiliary Service Rules in Part 74
    and Conforming Technical Rules for Broadcast Auxiliary Service,
    Cable Television Relay Service and Fixed Services in Parts 74, 78
    and 101 of the Commission's Rules*, *Order* in ET Docket No. 01-75,
    18 FCC Rcd 7032 (2002), ¶ 4 (*Stay Order*).

[^11]: *Id.* ¶ 6.

[^12]: *Id.* ¶¶ 1, 8.

[^13]: *See* SBE Letter, Emergency Request for Waiver of Filing Fees for
    Certain Broadcast Auxiliary Modification Applications Submitted on
    Form 601, dated and filed Jun. 2, 2003.

[^14]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1117; *see also* OMD Letter, Emergency
    Request for Waiver of Filing Fees for Certain Broadcast Auxiliary
    Modification Applications Submitted on Form 601, Fee Control No.
    00000RROG-03-086, dated Sep. 3, 2003, at 3 (OMD Letter).

[^15]: *See* Second Request at 1-4.

[^16]: *Id.* at 2.

[^17]: *Id.* at 4.

[^18]: *Id.*

[^19]: *See* NSMA, Opposition to the Request for Extension of Temporary
    Stay, filed Oct. 9, 2003, at 2 (NSMA Opposition to Second Stay).

[^20]: *See* NSMA Opposition to Second Stay at 3-5. Under the
    coordination rules, in engineering a system, an applicant must, by
    appropriate studies and analyses, select sites, transmitters,
    antennas, and frequencies that will avoid interference in excess of
    permissible levels to other users. All parties must cooperate fully
    and make reasonable efforts to resolve technical problems and
    conflicts that may inhibit the most effective and efficient use of
    the radio spectrum. Coordination involves two separate elements: 1)
    notification by the applicant, to all licensees and other applicants
    whose facilities could affect or be affected by the proposed
    facilities, of the relevant technical details of the proposed
    facilities, and 2) response by affected parties within 30 days, with
    the provisions that: a) responses indicating potential interference
    must specify the technical details in writing, b) all parties must
    make every reasonable effort to eliminate all technical problems and
    conflicts, and c) if no response is received within the 30 day
    period, the applicant will be deemed to have made reasonable efforts
    to coordinate and may file its application. Further, all technical
    problems that come to light during coordination must be resolved
    unless a statement is included with the application regarding the
    conflict. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.103(d), 74.502(d), 74.638(b),
    78.36(d).

[^21]: For example, NSMA argued that coordinators could notify
    broadcasters in a given geographic area to account for any BAS
    facilities not already accounted for in an initial analysis.

[^22]: *See* SBE, Reply to Opposition to the Request for Extension of
    Temporary Stay, filed Oct. 8, 2003, at 2-3 (SBE Reply for Second
    Stay).

[^23]: *See Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. FPC,* 259 F.2d
    921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958), *modified in Washington Metropolitan Area
    Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours,* 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir.
    1977) (requiring petition likely to prevail on the merits; will
    suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted; other interested
    parties will not be harmed if the stay is granted; and the public
    interest favors grant of the stay).

[^24]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.115(b)(1), (b)(2)(i)-(v). Section
    1.115(b)(2) requires a petitioner support why the application for
    review warrants Commission review based on one of the following
    factors: (i) The action taken pursuant to delegated authority is in
    conflict with statute, regulation, case precedent, or established
    Commission policy; (ii) The action involves a question of law or
    policy which has not previously been resolved by the Commission;
    (iii) The action involves application of a precedent or policy which
    should be overturned or revised; (iv) An erroneous finding as to an
    important or material question of fact; (v) Prejudicial procedural
    error. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.115 (b)(2)(i)-(v).

[^25]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(b)(2)(iv). Commission rules require that
    applications for review must concisely and plainly state the
    questions presented and identify with particularity what factors
    warrant the Commission's review. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(b).

[^26]: *Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. FPC*, 259 F.2d 921,
    925 (D.C. Cir. 1958), *modified in Washington Metropolitan Area
    Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours*, 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir.
    1977).

[^27]: *See id*; *Denial Order* at 5-6.

[^28]: *See* SBE reply comments to Second Request at 4, ¶ 7; *see also*
    text and accompanying note *supra* at 3, ¶ 6.

[^29]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1117.

[^30]: *See Stay Order* ¶¶ 4, 6.

[^31]: *See Stay Order* ¶7 (discussing interference criteria in Sections
    74.638 and 101.105 as baseline for new interference criteria).

[^32]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.103(d), 74.502(d), 74.638(b), 78.36(d);
    *see also supra* note 19.

[^33]: The applicant may refer to available database information, where
    that provides the full basis for its analysis. Where that data
    underlying the analysis varies from the available database
    information, due to suspected omissions or variations, the applicant
    must advise the affected licensees of such variations.

[^34]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.502(d), 74.638(b), 78.36(d)(2)(iv),
    101.103(d)(2)(iv).

[^35]: We note that the FCC previously provided an opportunity for BAS
    licensees to correct database information before BAS licensing on
    the ULS was initiated. *See* "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
    Makes Broadcast Auxiliary Radio Station License Databases Available
    for Review prior to ULS Implementation", *Public Notice*, May 7,
    1999. Only facilities licensed on the basis of an application filed
    before August 30, 1999, the date on which processing of Aural and TV
    BAS applications was initiated on ULS, may now take advantage of
    this opportunity to provide ULS receive site data without undergoing
    frequency coordination. *See* "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to
    Begin Use of Universal Licensing System (ULS) For Microwave Services
    on August 30, 1999", *Public Notice*, DA 99-1543, August 6, 1999.

[^36]: For example, any modification to transmit azimuth required as a
    result of providing receive site geographic coordinates will not be
    eligible for relief from coordination and, if the change exceeds one
    degree, will require evidence of frequency coordination. Calculation
    of transmit azimuth may be checked on-line at
    http://wireless.fcc.gov/cgi‑bin/utilities/accudist.pl. *See* 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.929(d), 101.103(d), 74.502(d), 74.638(b), 78.36. *See
    also Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22,
    24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission's Rules to
    Facilitate the Development and Use of the Universal Licensing System
    in the Wireless Telecommunications Services*, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order on Reconsideration*, WT Docket No. 98‑20, 14 FCC Rcd 11476
    (1999) ¶¶ 15-16 (*ULS Reconsideration Order*).