**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | ) | ET Docket No. 00-258         |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Amendment of Part 2 of the       | ) | WT Docket No. 02-353         |
| Commission's Rules to Allocate   |   |                              |
| Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile  | ) |                              |
| and Fixed Services to Support    |   |                              |
| the Introduction of New Advanced | ) |                              |
| Wireless Services, including     |   |                              |
| Third Generation Wireless        | ) |                              |
| Systems                          |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
| Service Rules for Advanced       |   |                              |
| Wireless Services                | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| In the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**Adopted: November 14, 2007 Released: November 15, 2007**

By the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

#  introduction

1.  This order resolves two petitions for reconsideration of the
    *Clearinghouse* *Order,* which set forth the details of the duties
    and responsibilities of the clearinghouses that were selected to
    administer the Commission\'s cost-sharing plan under the incumbent
    relocation procedures for the 2110-2200 MHz band (2.1 GHz band)
    adopted in the above-captioned proceedings.[^1] The *Clearinghouse*
    *Order* announced the first date of clearinghouse operations,
    thereby formally selecting PCIA---The Wireless Infrastructure
    Association (PCIA) and CTIA---The Wireless Association® (CTIA) for
    the purposes of Sections 27.1162, 27.1166(a), and 27.1178 of the
    Commission's rules.[^2] Petitions for reconsideration were filed by
    M2Z Networks, Inc. (M2Z) and the Society of Broadcast Engineers,
    Incorporated (SBE). In this Order, we deny and dismiss,
    respectively, these petitions for reconsideration.

# background

2.  In the *AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order*,[^3] the
    Commission established procedures for the relocation of Broadband
    Radio Service (BRS) operations from the 2150-2160/62 MHz band and
    Fixed Microwave Service (FS) operations in the 2.1 GHz band, and
    adopted cost sharing rules to identify the reimbursement obligations
    for Advanced Wireless Service (AWS) and Mobile Satellite Service
    (MSS) entrants benefiting from the relocation of incumbent FS and/or
    BRS operations.[^4] The Commission also delegated authority to the
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB or Bureau) to select one or
    more entities for the creation and management of a neutral,
    not-for-profit clearinghouse that would facilitate cost sharing
    among AWS and MSS[^5] entrants benefiting from the relocation of FS
    incumbents in the 2110-2150 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands and AWS
    entrants benefiting from the relocation of BRS incumbents in the
    2150-60/62 MHz bands.[^6] The Commission stated that a
    clearinghouse(s) would be selected on the basis of criteria
    established by the Bureau, and that the Bureau would publicly
    announce the criteria and solicit proposals from qualified
    parties.[^7] The Commission also instructed the Bureau to solicit
    public comment on all proposals submitted and, after selecting the
    clearinghouse administrator(s), to announce the effective date of
    the cost sharing rules, including the filing requirements for
    reimbursement claims and relocation cost estimates.[^8] In doing so,
    the Commission noted that the Bureau could select more than one
    clearinghouse.[^9]

3.  By *Public Notice* released on June 15, 2006, the Bureau invited
    proposals from entities interested in serving as a neutral,
    not-for-profit clearinghouse responsible for facilitating cost
    sharing among entrants benefiting from the relocation of incumbent
    licensees in the 2.1 GHz bands.[^10] The Bureau also sought comment
    on whether more than one clearinghouse would be feasible, and
    required certifications that the entity would be able and willing to
    work with other clearinghouses if WTB selected more than one, as
    well as a certification that the entity is a not-for-profit
    organization and will retain its not-for-profit status during the
    term of its operations. In addition, the Bureau sought comment on
    whether proposals that offer to administer cost sharing for both FS
    and BRS relocations are preferable to proposals that seek to
    administer cost sharing for only one of these relocation processes.
    The Bureau received two proposals and each proposed to administer
    cost sharing for both FS and BRS relocations.[^11] On October 4,
    2006, the Bureau concluded that the public interest was best served
    by selecting more than one clearinghouse in order to benefit the
    consumers of these services.[^12] Accordingly, the Bureau found CTIA
    and PCIA, the two entities that filed proposals, qualified to serve
    as clearinghouse administrators, and the Bureau advised them to
    begin preparing their clearinghouse operations.[^13] As part of
    establishing the criteria for clearinghouses, the Bureau also stated
    that it would issue a subsequent Order setting forth details of the
    clearinghouses' duties and responsibilities.[^14]

4.  On March 8, 2007, the Bureau released the *Clearinghouse Order,*
    formally selecting PCIA and CTIA to serve as neutral, not-for-profit
    clearinghouses to administer the Commission's cost-sharing plan
    under the incumbent relocation procedures for the 2.1 GHz band and
    detailing their duties and responsibilities as clearinghouses.
    Petitions for Reconsideration of the *Clearinghouse Order* were
    filed by SBE on April 4, 2007, and M2Z on April 9, 2007. An
    opposition to SBE's Petition was filed by T-Mobile on April
    16, 2007. SBE filed a reply to T-Mobile's opposition on April 27,
    2007.

# petitions for RECONSIDERATION

## M2Z Petition

5.  On April 9, 2007, M2Z Networks, Inc. (M2Z) filed a Petition for
    Reconsideration (M2Z Petition) of the *Clearinghouse Order* pursuant
    to Section 1.429 of the Commission's rules.[^15] M2Z, which claims
    standing as an applicant and potential 2.1 GHz band licensee,[^16]
    asks the Bureau to remove CTIA's designation as a clearinghouse. M2Z
    alleges that CTIA has expressed a significant bias against M2Z,
    which suggests that CTIA would be incapable of serving as a neutral
    clearinghouse with respect to relocation matters involving M2Z.[^17]
    Specifically, M2Z bases its allegations on the fact that CTIA filed
    a Petition to Deny and other pleadings opposing M2Z's Application
    and Forbearance Petition.[^18] M2Z further alleges that some of
    CTIA's members individually opposed M2Z's Application and
    Forbearance Petition, thus making CTIA's opposition
    unnecessary.[^19] M2Z claims that by filing these oppositions, CTIA
    has demonstrated a bias against M2Z (which is itself a member of
    CTIA) in favor of other CTIA members,[^20] and that if CTIA's
    filings were influenced by some of its other members, the Commission
    should be concerned about broader bias when CTIA performs its duties
    as a clearinghouse administrator.[^21] M2Z also points out that CTIA
    has stated that it will provide legal and regulatory personnel to
    assist the clearinghouse, raising concerns by M2Z that these people
    "will likely be the same personnel who are responsible for the
    adverse filings CTIA made against M2Z."[^22] M2Z asserts that the
    2.1 GHz transition could be accomplished with only one
    clearinghouse, arguing that a single clearinghouse was able to
    handle the transition for microwave facilities in the 1.9 GHz band
    to vacate the band for PCS licensees.[^23] Therefore, M2Z argues,
    PCIA should be able to handle the cost-sharing responsibilities as
    the sole clearinghouse.[^24] M2Z asserts that, to avoid the
    possibility of discriminatory treatment against a potential 2.1 GHz
    licensee, the Bureau should remove CTIA's designation as a
    clearinghouse in the 2.1 GHz band.[^25]

6.  *Discussion*. As a preliminary matter, we note two procedural issues
    for the record. First, although pled under Section 1.429, we observe
    that M2Z's Petition exclusively seeks reconsideration of the
    *Clearinghouse Order*\'s selection of CTIA as one of two
    organizations to serve as clearinghouses. The Bureau\'s selection of
    CTIA and PCIA as clearinghouses in the *Clearinghouse Order* is
    adjudicatory, and not the product of notice and comment rulemaking,
    as it essentially granted their "applications."[^26] Thus, M2Z\'s
    petition for reconsideration is governed by Section 1.106 of the
    Commission\'s rules.[^27] Second, M2Z's claim as an interested party
    with standing to seek reconsideration of the *Clearinghouse Order*
    is tenuous at best because only licensees---not applicants or
    potential licensees---participate in relocation and cost sharing. As
    an applicant or potential licensee,[^28] M2Z has no cause for
    interaction with the AWS clearinghouses at present and any need for
    future interactions is purely speculative.[^29] Thus, we find that
    M2Z has not established standing to petition for reconsideration of
    the Bureau's adjudicatory selection of CTIA in the *Clearinghouse
    Order*. Nonetheless, because we do not take allegations of
    clearinghouse misconduct lightly, we are deeming M2Z Petition to be
    an informal request for Commission action to remove CTIA's
    clearinghouse designation, and are reviewing M2Z's allegations under
    Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules.[^30]

7.  Turning to the merits of M2Z's allegations, the Bureau stated in the
    *Clearinghouse Order* that "CTIA and PCIA must provide clearinghouse
    services on a non-discriminatory, impartial basis."[^31] M2Z's
    Petition claims that CTIA's recent actions "undermine any claim it
    may have had that it could be considered a 'neutral' clearinghouse
    for the 2.1 GHz band" as to any dealings it may have with M2Z.[^32]
    We find, however, that M2Z has failed to present any evidence that
    would warrant either reconsideration of our decision to select CTIA
    or removal of CTIA as one of the clearinghouse administrators. We
    note that clearinghouses carry out the largely administrative task
    of applying the Commission's cost-sharing formula and M2Z has not
    alleged or demonstrated any particular misconduct that would compel
    us to question CTIA's ability to act as a neutral arbiter in
    operating the clearinghouse. As discussed in the *Clearinghouse
    Order*, CTIA has stated that it will act impartially on all requests
    and will establish safeguards to ensure that "all actions taken by
    the clearinghouse are fair and impartial."[^33] Filing comments with
    which M2Z disagrees in proceedings before the Commission provides no
    evidence that CTIA would be biased against M2Z when carrying out its
    clearinghouse functions. Further, we find M2Z's allegations of bias
    even less persuasive given that CTIA's filings were unrelated to AWS
    cost sharing and considering that M2Z is a member of CTIA.[^34]

8.  Though not controlling in addressing M2Z's allegation of bias
    against a third party, we can look to the test the Commission has
    previously used in deciding whether recusal of an FCC decisionmaker
    is appropriate in a particular situation on the grounds of bias or
    the appearance of bias; namely, whether "a disinterested observer
    may conclude that the \[decisionmaker\] has in some measure adjudged
    the facts as well as the law of a case in advance of hearing
    it."[^35] In the *Mobex* proceeding, the WTB applied this test when
    it rejected the petitioner's assertion that division staff might not
    be impartial and objective in deciding an order based on the
    petitioner's belief that the staff had made errors in the past with
    respect to the petitioner's position and, upon those errors being
    pointed out and acting as an interested party, had defended its
    clear error resulting in harm to the petitioner.[^36]

9.  In this case, M2Z has not proffered any evidence that CTIA or its
    staff has prejudged a particular issue that may come before it. Nor
    has M2Z produced any evidence that CTIA will express any alleged
    bias through its operation of the clearinghouse. It is not even
    certain that M2Z will ever need to work with CTIA as a clearinghouse
    -- even if it ultimately becomes a licensee subject to cost-sharing
    in the relevant spectrum bands. Because the Bureau granted authority
    to multiple clearinghouses, M2Z can choose to work with the other
    clearinghouse, operated by PCIA.

10. M2Z also argues that one clearinghouse administrator could handle
    all of the clearinghouse responsibilities.[^37] Simply because it is
    possible to have only one clearinghouse administrator does not mean
    that it is the best outcome for competition or customers. In the
    *Clearinghouse PN,* the Bureau concluded that the benefits of having
    two or more clearinghouses outweigh any disadvantages because
    offering participants a choice increases the incentive for all
    clearinghouses to operate in an efficient manner, thus benefiting
    the consumers of these services.[^38] We continue to believe that
    offering participants a choice of clearinghouse administrators is in
    the public interest and we therefore affirm our decision to select
    both CTIA and PCIA as clearinghouse administrators. Further, because
    M2Z has not demonstrated any misconduct by CTIA in its role as an
    AWS clearinghouse, or any bias against M2Z, we find no basis for
    revoking CTIA's designation as a clearinghouse administrator.[^39]

11. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we deny M2Z's petition for
    reconsideration.

## SBE Petition

12. We next consider SBE's petition. In its petition, SBE asserts that
    the FCC's out of band emission (OOBE) suppression requirements for
    AWS base station transmitters present an interference threat to TV
    Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) operations in the 2025-2110 MHz
    band. SBE asks that the Commission adopt more stringent OOBE
    suppression requirements and also impose restrictions on how closely
    an AWS base station can be built to electronic news gathering
    receive-only (ENG-RO) sites.

13. SBE notes that it had previously filed comments and reply comments
    to the AWS 2 rulemaking, WT docket number 04-356, and that the
    *AWS-2 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, released on September 24,
    2004, bore a caption listing two WT docket numbers, 04-356 and
    02-353.[^40] SBE stated that it believed that these comments would
    be addressed in the *Clearinghouse Order* because the Order
    addressed the issue of AWS interference into TV BAS operations at
    2025-2110 MHz.[^41] SBE asks that its comments be addressed on
    reconsideration of the *Clearinghouse Order*, or in the alternative,
    that the Commission clarify that the order resolving the *AWS-2
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* "will fully address the SBE comments,
    and that the \[*Clearinghouse Order*\] does not constitute a
    decision that a tighter OOBE mask for AWS base stations won't be
    required, or that there will be no restriction on how closely an AWS
    base station can be situated to an ENG-RO site."[^42]

14. T-Mobile urges the Commission to dismiss SBE's petition because it
    is procedurally deficient, arguing specifically that the SBE
    petition is not relevant to the *Clearinghouse Order*.[^43] T-Mobile
    points out that in its petition, SBE is seeking to have the
    Commission change the AWS service rules for the 1.7/2.1 GHz bands.
    These service rules were adopted on November 25, 2003,[^44] and SBE
    did not challenge that order by filing a petition for
    reconsideration of the issue.

15. In its reply to T-Mobile's opposition, SBE states that its petition
    was timely filed. SBE argues that "when the Commission chose to
    combine the WT Docket 02-353 rulemaking into the WT Docket 04-356
    NPRM, it provided a new opportunity for all interested parties to
    file comments regarding AWS stations in all of the AWS bands from
    1.7 to 2.1 GHz."[^45]

16. *Discussion*. We find that the issues raised by SBE in its petition
    for reconsideration are unrelated to, and not within the scope of,
    any of the substantive decisions made on delegated authority in the
    *Clearinghouse Order* issued on March 8, 2007. Furthermore, the
    *Clearinghouse Order* was released by the Bureau under delegated
    authority and SBE's request for rule changes exceeds the Bureau's
    delegated authority.[^46] To the extent that SBE's comments raise
    issues concerning the AWS 1 spectrum, the right to request review of
    decisions made in the *AWS-1 Service Rules Order* has expired. The
    filing of petitions for reconsideration in rulemaking proceedings is
    governed by Section 1.429 of the Commission's Rules,[^47] which
    requires a petition for reconsideration to "filed within 30 days
    from the date of public notice of such action."[^48] Petitions for
    reconsideration of the *AWS-1 Service Rules Order* were due on March
    8, 2004**,** and resolved on August 15, 2005, with the release of
    the *Order on Reconsideration*.[^49] Thus, to the extent that SBE
    raises issues that were decided in the *AWS-1 Service Rules Order*,
    SBE's petition will be considered an untimely petition for
    reconsideration of the 2003 *AWS-1 Service Rules Order* and,
    therefore, must be denied. In addition, as the Commission has
    previously decided, "indirect challenges to Commission decisions
    that were adopted in proceedings in which the right to review has
    expired are considered impermissible collateral attacks and are
    properly denied."[^50]

17. We note that SBE's comments that are the subject of its petition for
    reconsideration were filed in the AWS-2 proceeding, WT Docket Number
    04-356.[^51] To the extent that SBE's comments pertain to issues
    raised in the AWS-2 proceeding and relate to the AWS-2 spectrum,
    SBE's comments will be addressed in that proceeding.[^52]

18. We thus dismiss SBE's petition because it is not a proper petition
    for reconsideration of the *Clearinghouse Order*.

#  ORDERING CLAUSES

19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration
    filed by M2Z Networks, Inc., on April 9, 2007, IS DENIED.

20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by
    the Society of Broadcast Engineers, Incorporated, on April 4, 2007,
    IS DISMISSED.

21. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections
    0.131, 0.331, 27.1162, and 27.1178 of the Commission\'s rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331, 27.1162, 27.1178.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Fred B. Campbell, Jr.

Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

**APPENDIX A: LIST OF COMMENTERS**

[Petitions for Reconsideration]{.underline}

M2Z Networks, Inc. (M2Z)

Society of Broadcast Engineers, Incorporated (SBE)

[Oppositions/Replies]{.underline}

T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile)

Society of Broadcast Engineers, Incorporated (SBE)

[*Ex Parte* Communications]{.underline}

T-Mobile (August 24, 2007)

[^1]: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum
    Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
    Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third
    Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, Service Rules for
    Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT
    Docket No. 02-353, *Order*, 22 FCC Rcd 4680 (2007) (*Clearinghouse
    Order*). *See also* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Finds CTIA
    and PCIA Qualified to Administer the Relocation Cost-Sharing Plan
    For Licensees in the 2.1 GHz Bands, *Public Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd
    11265 (2006) (*Qualification PN*).

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.1162, 27.1166(a), and 27.1178.

[^3]: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum
    Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Service to Support the Introduction
    of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation
    Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, Service Rules for Advances
    Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No.
    02-353, *Ninth Report and Order and Order*, 21 FCC Rcd 4473 (2006)
    (*recon. pending*) (*AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and
    Order*).

[^4]: *Id.*

[^5]: MSS operators are required to participate in the clearinghouse for
    Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) base stations, *see, e.g*., 47
    C.F.R. § 101.82(d), and may elect to submit claims for reimbursement
    to the AWS clearinghouse for FS links relocated due to interference
    from the MSS space-to-Earth operations. *See AWS Relocation and Cost
    Sharing Report and Order* at 21 FCC Rcd at 4522-4523 ¶¶ 93-96.

[^6]: *See AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order* at 21 FCC
    Rcd at 4527 ¶¶ 106-107.

[^7]: *See AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order* at 21 FCC
    Rcd at 4518, 4527 ¶¶ 83, 107.

[^8]: *Id*.

[^9]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 27.1178. *See also* *AWS Relocation and Cost
    Sharing Report and Order* at 21 FCC Rcd at 4527 ¶ 107 ("we delegate
    to WTB the authority to select one or more entities to create and
    administer a neutral, not-for-profit clearinghouse").

[^10]: *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Opens Filing Window for
    Proposals to Develop and Manage the Clearinghouse that will
    Administer the Relocation Cost Sharing Plan for Licensees in the 2.1
    GHz Bands, *Public Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd 6616 (2006) (*Clearinghouse
    PN*).

[^11]: *See* CTIA -- The Wireless Association® Clearinghouse Plan, filed
    July 17, 2006 (CTIA Plan); Clearinghouse Proposal of PCIA -- The
    Wireless Infrastructure Association, filed July 17, 2006 (PCIA
    Plan).

[^12]: *See Qualification PN* at 21 FCC Rcd at 11266.

[^13]: *Id*.

[^14]: *Id*.

[^15]: M2Z Petition at 1 *citing* 47 C.F.R. § 1.429. M2Z avers that any
    interested person may petition for reconsideration of a final action
    in a rulemaking proceeding. *See* M2Z Petition at 3 citing 47 C.F.R.
    § 1.429(a).

[^16]: M2Z Petition at 3-4. On May 5, 2006, M2Z filed an application
    (Application) seeking an exclusive, nationwide 15-year license in
    the 2155-2175 MHz band for its National Broadband Radio Service
    (NBRS). *See* WT Docket No. 07-16, Application of M2Z Networks, Inc.
    for License and Authority to Provide a National Broadband Radio
    Service in the 2155-2175 MHz Band, filed May 5, 2006
    (*Application*). *See also* WT Docket No. 07-30, Petition of M2Z
    Networks, Inc. for Forbearance under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) Concerning
    Application of Sections 1.945(b) and (c) of the Commission's Rules
    and Other Regulatory and Statutory Provisions, filed Sept. 1, 2006
    (*Forbearance Petition*). M2Z's *Application* -- along with all
    pending applications for license in the 2155-2175 MHz band -- and
    its *Forbearance Petition* were dismissed (without prejudice) and
    denied, respectively, in a subsequent order. *See* Applications for
    License and Authority to Operate in the 2155-2175 MHz Band, WT
    Docket No. 07-16;, and Petitions for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C.
    § 160, WT Docket No. 07-30, *Order*, 22 FCC Rcd 16563 (2007) (*AWS-3
    Applications and Forbearance Petitions Order*) (appeal pending
    before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit).

[^17]: M2Z Petition at 1-2.

[^18]: M2Z Petition at 5, *citing* CTIA Petition to Deny and CTIA Reply
    to M2Z's Consolidated Opposition to Petitions to Deny (WT Docket No.
    07-16). CTIA's Petition to Deny was dismissed as moot in the *AWS-3
    Applications and Forbearance Petitions Order.*

[^19]: M2Z Petition at 6.

[^20]: M2Z Petition at 6-7.

[^21]: M2Z Petition at 7.

[^22]: M2Z Petition at 7.

[^23]: M2Z Petition at 8-9.

[^24]: M2Z Petition at 9.

[^25]: M2Z Petition at 2.

[^26]: *See, e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. 0.331(a), (d).

[^27]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(a)(1). The applicable 30-day period for
    filing Section 1.106 petitions began on March 8, 2007 (the release
    date of the *Clearinghouse Order*), and ended on April 9, 2007.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106(f), 1.4(b)(2), (j).

[^28]: M2Z Petition at 3-4 (stating that M2Z, "as a potential licensee
    of spectrum covered under the 2.1 GHz relocation requirements, has a
    significant interest in the designation of clearinghouse providers
    for the 2.1 GHz band and is an 'interested person' for purposes of
    section 1.429(a)").

[^29]: As explained in note Error: Reference source not found, *supra*,
    on August 31, 2007, the Commission dismissed M2Z's Application and
    denied M2Z's Forbearance Petition. *See AWS-3 Applications and
    Forbearance Petitions Order.* Nonetheless, our analysis today is
    based on the facts pled in the Petition because the *Order* is
    subject to review, and the Commission dismissed M2Z's Application
    without prejudice.

[^30]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 (Informal requests for Commission action).

[^31]: *See Clearinghouse Order* at 22 FCC Rcd at 4684 ¶ 9.

[^32]: M2Z Petition at 5.

[^33]: CTIA Proposal at 14.

[^34]: The fact that CTIA has taken an action unrelated to AWS cost
    sharing that is favored by some of its members and opposed by others
    is not evidence that CTIA has prejudged any cost-sharing matter in
    which, *arguendo*, M2Z has a cognizable interest.

[^35]: In re Applications of Liberty Productions, MM Docket No. 88-577,
    *Order,* 16 FCC Rcd 18966, 18973 ¶ 19 (2001), *citing* *Metropolitan
    Council of NAACP Branches v. FCC*, 46 F.3d 1154, 1164-65 (D.C. Cir.
    1998).

[^36]: In the matter of Applications of Mobex Network Services, LLC,
    *Order on Reconsideration*, 22 FCC Rcd 665, 671-72 ¶ 15 (WTB 2007).
    *See also*, In the matter of Application of Maritime
    Communications/Land Mobile LLC, *Order on Reconsideration*, 22 FCC
    Rcd 4780, 4687 ¶ 12 n.58 (WTB 2007), stating that "\[p\]ast adverse
    decisions against a party are not evidence of bias." *Id.*

[^37]: M2Z Petition at 8-9.

[^38]: *See Qualification PN* at 21 FCC Rcd at 11266.

[^39]: We note that in the *Clearinghouse Order* the Commission reserved
    the discretion to add or delete clearinghouse selections at a later
    date if circumstances indicate that such action is warranted.
    Specifically, we stated that our "selection of CTIA or PCIA may be
    terminated by the Commission for cause at any time, upon sixty (60)
    days written notice, or suspended for up to 90 days, upon ten (10)
    days written notice." *See* 22 FCC Rcd at 4690 ¶ 26. We will act
    accordingly if there is any evidence that the clearinghouse
    administrator has failed "to perform its duties and responsibilities
    in accordance with the Commission's rules and policies and/or the
    instant Order." *Id.*

[^40]: SBE Petition at 2. *See* Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
    Services in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and
    2175-2180 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 04-356, Services Rules for
    Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT
    Docket No. 02-353, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 19 FCC Rcd 19263
    (2004) (*AWS-2 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking)*.

[^41]: SBE Petition at 2.

[^42]: SBE Petition at 3.

[^43]: T-Mobile Opposition at 2.

[^44]: Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and
    2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, *Report and* Order, 18 FCC Rcd
    25162 (2003) (*AWS-1 Service Rules Order*); *Order on
    Reconsideration*, 20 FCC Rcd 14058 (2005).

[^45]: SBE Reply at 2.

[^46]: *See AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and Order* at 21 FCC
    Rcd at 4527 ¶¶ 106-107; *see also*, 47 C.F.R. § 0.331(d).

[^47]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.429.

[^48]: 47 C.F.R. 1.429(d).

[^49]: *See AWS-1 Service Rules Order on Reconsideration.*

[^50]: Motions for Declaratory Ruling Regarding Commission Rules and
    Policies for Frequency Coordination in the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Services, 14 FCC Rcd 12752, 12757 ¶ 11 (1999), *citing* MCI
    Telecommunications Corp. v. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co.,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 5 FCC Rcd 216, ¶ 41 n.38 (1990),
    *recon. denied*, 5 FCC Rcd 3462 (1990), *appeal dismissed sub nom.
    Mountain States Tel. and Tel. Co. v. FCC,* 951 F.2d 1259 (10^th^
    Cir. 1991) (*per curiam*).

[^51]: *See* SBE's Petition, Attachments 5 and 6.

[^52]: We further note that SBE's Petition and Reply and T-Mobile's
    Opposition to SBE's Petition have also been filed in WT Docket No.
    04-356.