**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Reorganization and Revision of ) WT Docket No. 94-148

Parts 1, 2, 21, and 94 of )

the Rules to Establish a New )

Part 101 Governing Terrestrial )

Microwave Fixed Radio Services )

)

Amendment of Part 21 of the ) CC Docket No. 93-2

Commission\'s Rules for the Domestic )

Public Fixed Radio Services )

)

McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc. ) RM-7861

Petition for Rule Making )

)

Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission\'s ) WT Docket No. 00-19

Rules to Streamline Processing of Microwave )

Applications in the Wireless Telecommunications )

Services )

)

Telecommunications Industry Association ) RM-9418

Petition for Rulemaking )

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

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

**Comment Date:** \[30 days after publication in the Federal Register\]

**Reply Comment Date:** \[45 days after publication in the Federal
Register\]

(Comments to be filed in WT Docket No. 00-19 and RM-9418 only.)

By the Commission:

######### TABLE OF CONTENTS

[Subject]{.underline} [Paragraph]{.underline}

I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY...........................................................\...3

II\.
BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................6

[Subject]{.underline} [Paragraph]{.underline}

III\. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

A. Expanded Use of 10.7 - 11.7 GHz Frequencies 13

B. Deletion of Thirty-Day Notice Period 14

C. Common Carrier Traffic Requirements 17

D. POFS Licensees\' Carriage of Common Carrier Traffic 19

E. Continuity of Licensing for Displaced 2 GHz Microwave Licensees 20

F. Finder\'s Preference 22

G. Electronic Filing 23

H. Conditional Licensing 24

I. Correct Definition of Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service 26

J. Reduction of Number of Remotes Required in a Multiple Address System
28

K. Loading Requirements 29

L. Prior Coordination Notices with Use of ATPC 31

M. Transition Period to Clarify Applicable Grandfathering Provisions 32

N. Minor Clerical Errors and Editorial Changes in the Rules 33

IV\. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

A. Streamlining Part 101 34

1\. POFS licensees\' carriage of common carrier traffic 35

2\. Shared bands 39

3\. Station authorization 41

4\. Temporary and conditional authorizations 42

5\. Transmitter frequency tolerance and power limitations 45

6\. Directional antennas below 932.5 MHz 46

7\. Antenna polarization 47

8\. Changes in regulatory status 48

9\. Frequencies 49

10\. Frequency tolerance 50

11\. Stations at temporary fixed locations 51

12\. Use of 10.7 - 11.7 GHz frequencies for final link 52

13\. Emission masks 54

B. TIA Petition for Rulemaking 58

1\. Conditional authorization 59

2\. Technical standards 62

a\. Channel plan 63

b\. Frequency tolerance 66

c\. Spectrum efficiency 67

d\. Low power systems 68

3\. Antenna standards for the 23 GHz and 10 GHz bands 70

C. Balanced Budget Act of 1997 74

1\. Above 2 GHz microwave licensing 75

2\. Public safety exemption 80

3\. Educational broadcaster exemption 82

D. Forbearance and Regulatory Flexibility 83

[Subject]{.underline} [Paragraph]{.underline}

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 85

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 85

B. Ex Parte Rules - Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding 86

C. Paperwork Reduction Analysis 87

D. Comment Dates 88

E. Ordering Clauses 91

F. Contacts for Information 97

Appendix A - List of Commenters to the *TIA Petition*

Appendix B - Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Appendix C - Final Rules

Appendix D - Proposed Rules

**I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

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

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

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

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

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

· We clarify and incorporate necessary clerical changes to certain
rules.

2\. In the *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* portion of this document, we
propose eliminating regulations that are duplicative, outmoded, or
otherwise unnecessary. We seek to further the work begun by the
consolidation of Parts 21 and 94 into a single Part 101 in the *Part 101
Order* and in our implementation of a Universal Licensing System (ULS)
for wireless applications. The new consolidated Part 101 reduces or
eliminates the differences in processing applications between common
carriers and private operational fixed microwave service licensees, and
furthers regulatory parity between these microwave services.[^2] Once
fully deployed, the ULS will eliminate the need for wireless carriers to
file duplicative applications, and will increase the accuracy and
reliability of licensing information.[^3] In addition, we note that SBC
Communications has similarly proposed that the Commission consolidate
and/or streamline rules concerning wireless radio services to remove
duplication.[^4] Applicants, licensees and related industries are
invited to examine these rules and procedures and offer their view and
explanations of ways to streamline them and to make sure that the
regulations conform with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(Act).[^5]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4\. We note that some of the proposed rule changes are procedural in
nature, and thus are exempt from notice and comment requirements
pursuant to Section 553(b)(3)(A) of the Administrative Procedure
Act.[^6] However, as a result of the consolidation of Parts 21 and 94,
we realize that the combination of common carrier and private microwave
rules and procedures requires a period of adjustment. We believe that
this approach will afford the public an opportunity to provide feedback
on how these adjustments are succeeding or failing.

5\. We also address a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA).[^7] The *TIA Petition*
focuses on permitting conditional authorization in the 23 GHz band,
making the 23 GHz band more accessible to fixed service users, and
modifying antenna standards for the 10 GHz and 23 GHz bands to allow for
more hops and longer paths. TIA also proposes rule changes to Part 74,
Television Broadcast Auxiliary Service, to permit transport of digital
transmissions over point-to-point microwave frequencies in that
service.[^8] We seek comment on the following proposals regarding the 23
GHz band:

• permitting conditional licensing;

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

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

• changing the frequency tolerance to 0.001%;

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

• designating 200 MHz for low power, limited coverage systems;

• modifying the antenna standards.

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

6\. In addition, we seek comment regarding whether, and how, our
licensing approach in Part 101 should be modified to implement the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Balanced Budget Act).[^9] We seek input on
the best licensing structure to ensure that spectrum above the 2 GHz
band is licensed efficiently and used in the public interest, including
the following issues regarding whether we should substantially alter
microwave licensing above 2 GHz in light of the Balanced Budget Act:

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

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

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

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

• We request comment on whether it is appropriate to forbear from
enforcing any provision of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
or the Commission\'s rules with respect to Part 101 services.[^10]

In addition, we issued a *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* seeking
comment on how to implement the Balanced Budget Act generally, but we
did not specifically address fixed microwave services in that
proceeding.[^11] We will consider the record in both proceedings in
deciding whether or how Part 101 should be modified to conform to the
Balanced Budget Act.

**II. BACKGROUND**

7\. *Regulatory Framework*. Communications services that use the
microwave spectrum[^12] for fixed services include common carriers
(formerly regulated by Part 21); common carrier Multiple Address Systems
(MAS) (Part 22);[^13] international point-to-point operators (Part 23);
space station and satellite earth station operators such as Digital
Audio Radio Service (DARS) (Part 25); AM, FM, and TV broadcasters for
studio-to-transmitter links (STL) or inter-city relays (ICR) (Part 74);
CATV operators (Part 78); MDS operators (Part 21); and POFS users
(formerly Part 94).[^14] Fixed microwave spectrum is primarily used to
deliver video (such as Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS)),
audio, data, and control functions for other specific communications
services such as Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) and
Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS) from one point and/or hub to
other points and/or subscribers for distribution. A convergence of
common carrier and POFS technical standards has occurred over the last
decade as a result of several rule making proceedings.[^15] In addition,
the reallocation of five bands above 3 GHz, on a co-primary basis, to
common carrier and POFS microwave licensees relocating from the
1850-1990, 2110-2150, and 2160-2200 MHz bands (2 GHz bands) has
significantly impacted fixed microwave services.[^16] As a result of the
reallocation of spectrum for emerging technologies and the associated
increase in frequency band-sharing, common carrier and private microwave
industry members united to develop joint interference standards and
coordination procedures. TIA\'s Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave
Engineering Committee collaborated with the National Spectrum Managers
Association, Inc. (NSMA), a group of frequency coordinators for
microwave applicants, to determine interference criteria for microwave
spectrum users, resulting in 1994 in a revised TIA Telecommunications
Systems Bulletin TSB 10-F, \"Interference Criteria for Microwave
Systems.\" The industry\'s collaboration and coordination agreements
greatly assisted the Commission in consolidating Parts 21 and 94 of the
Rules, and signaled the industry\'s desire to have common carrier and
POFS microwave services treated in the same fashion when appropriate.

8\. On December 28, 1994, the Commission released a *Notice of Proposed
Rule Making* in WT Docket No. 94-148 (*Part 101 Notice*).[^17] The *Part
101 Notice* proposed simplifying the rules for the Part 21 common
carrier and Part 94 POFS microwave services, and consolidating them into
a new Part 101. In a separate *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in CC
Docket No. 93-2 (*Point-to-Point Notice*),[^18] the Commission proposed
revising Part 21 to eliminate certain reporting requirements and to
allow common carrier microwave applicants to begin constructing
facilities prior to the grant of authorizations.[^19] The Commission
consolidated the two proceedings, and, on February 8, 1996, adopted most
of the proposals in the *Part 101 Order*.[^20]

9.  The *Part 101 Order* created one comprehensive rule part setting
forth application processing rules, technical standards, and operational
requirements for microwave spectrum, including DEMS (a two-way
end-to-end fixed radio service utilizing digital termination systems for
the exchange of digital information), the Private Operational Fixed
Point-to-Point Microwave Service (a private radio service rendered on
microwave frequencies on fixed and temporary fixed stations between
points within the United States or between points in the United States
and points in Canada or Mexico), the Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point
Microwave Service (a common carrier public radio service rendered on
microwave frequencies on fixed and temporary fixed stations between such
points), and LTTS (a public radio communication service for the
transmission of television material and related communications).[^21]
Soon thereafter, the Commission adopted rules for LMDS (a fixed one-way
or two-way point-to-point or point-to-multipoint radio service that may
be interconnected with the public switched telephone network), and added
them to Part 101.[^22] Each of these services shares at least some
frequencies with at least one other Part 101 service, and some
frequencies are shared with government users.[^23] Most Part 101
application processing rules, technical standards, and operational
requirements apply to all Part 101 services, but others apply only to
specific services,[^24] or to common carrier services but not private
services (or *vice versa*).[^25]

10.  *Auctionability of Fixed Microwave Bands*. Section 309(j)(2) of the
Communications Act formerly stated that mutually exclusive applications
for initial licenses or construction permits were auctionable if the
principal use of the spectrum was for subscriber-based services, and
competitive bidding would promote the expressed objectives of the
Act.[^26] Based on this standard, the Commission found all Part 94
spectrum to be non-auctionable because the principal use of the POFS was
not subscriber-based,[^27] and found all Part 21 common carrier
point-to-point microwave frequencies to be non-auctionable because using
auctions to award licenses for intermediate links would not promote the
Act\'s objectives.[^28] LMDS, on the other hand, was determined to be an
auctionable service.[^29] In addition, the Commission tentatively
concluded that two of the three frequency bands allocated to MAS also
were auctionable under former Section 309(j)(2).[^30]

11.  In 1997, the Balanced Budget Act amended Section 309(j) to provide
that all mutually exclusive applications for initial licenses or
construction permits *shall* be auctioned, except licenses and
construction permits for public safety radio services, digital
television service for existing analog television licensees, and
noncommercial educational radio and television stations.[^31]
Additionally, Section 309(j)(6)(E) of the Communications Act states
that, in determining the auctionability of applications, the Commission
has the "obligation in the public interest to continue to use
engineering solutions, negotiation, threshold qualifications, service
regulations, and other means to avoid mutual exclusivity in application
and licensing proceedings."[^32] We have issued a *Notice of Proposed
Rule Making* seeking comment on how to implement the Balanced Budget
Act.[^33] We sought comment on, *inter alia*, how the Balanced Budget
Act\'s revision of our statutory auction authority affects our
determination of which wireless services are potentially auctionable and
our determinations of the appropriate licensing schemes for new and
existing services.[^34] We also requested comment on the scope of the
exemption from competitive bidding for public safety radio services, and
on what regulatory provisions could be established to ensure that
frequencies assigned without auctions meet the statutory requirements
for exemption.[^35] In the context of another proceeding, the Commission
determined spectrum in the 38.6-40.0 GHz (\"39 GHz\") band, demand for
which was increasing dramatically due to the projected need for
point-to-point spectrum by Personal Communications Service (PCS) and
cellular licensee and by providers requiring or furnishing other types
of point-to-point services, to be auctionable under the Balanced Budget
Act.[^36] Under the new statutory standards for choosing among mutually
exclusive applications, our previous reasons for not promulgating
auction rules for other Part 101 spectrum now must be reconsidered.

**III. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

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

**A. Expanded Use of 10.7 - 11.7 GHz Frequencies**

13\.  Section 101.603(b)(3) of our Rules incorporates the prohibition,
formerly found in Section 94.9(b)(3), against using POFS frequencies
(except 6,425-6,525 MHz, 18,142-18,580 MHz, or above 21,200 MHz) for the
final radio frequency link in the chain of transmission of program
material to CATV, MDS, or MATV systems.[^37] OpTel, Inc. seeks
clarification concerning whether the Commission intended to retain the
\"final link\" restriction when it established Section 101.603,[^38] and
CAI requests that the Commission either delete the restriction or add
the 10.7-11.7 GHz band (11 GHz band) to the bands excepted from the
restriction.[^39] The *Part 101 Order*, *Part 101 Notice*, and
*Point-to-Point Notice* do not address directly the final link
restriction raised by OpTel and CAI. The *Part 101 Order* was primarily
aimed at consolidating the Part 21 and 94 rules into a single Part 101.
The \"final link\" restriction, however, was expressly included in the
proposed and final language for Section 101.603(b)(3). [^40] Because
there has been no prior discussion of the idea, we conclude that it is
important to develop a record on CAI\'s proposal. Thus, we plan to
address the matter in the *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*.

**B. Deletion of Thirty-Day Notice Period**

14.  After the comment period for the *Part 101 Notice* closed, Congress
removed fixed point-to-point microwave applications from the classes of
applications that trigger a thirty-day public notice and comment period,
during which interested parties could file petitions to deny.[^41]
Congress took this action to expedite licensing in the private fixed
point-to-point microwave service by deleting the former subparagraph (A)
that required public notice.[^42] Accordingly, the *Part 101 Order*
amended Section 1.962(a) of the Rules[^43] to eliminate the public
notice and comment requirement for such applications.[^44]

15\. TIA/NSMA claim that the Commission should have provided notice and
the opportunity to comment before amending Section 1.962(a).[^45] They
argue that deleting the thirty-day public notice period effectively
denies opposing parties the opportunity to file petitions to deny, which
amounts to denial of a substantive right.[^46] Thus, they contend, the
rule change was beyond the scope of the exception to the notice and
comment requirement for a \"rule of agency organization, procedure or
practice.\"[^47] However, we find that our action reflected the
self-execution of the will of Congress and was appropriate. We believe
that eliminating the thirty-day public notice period for private fixed
point-to-point microwave service applications changed neither the
substantive standards under which we evaluate those applications nor
removed the right to oppose those applications.[^48] Entities will still
have an opportunity to protest following the public notice announcing
the Commission's action on the applications. Therefore, we believe that
amendment of the rule to abolish the thirty-day public notice period
falls comfortably within the exception for procedural rules.[^49]
Accordingly, we reject TIA/NSMA\'s argument that removal of private
fixed point-to-point microwave service from Section 1.962 of our Rules
required notice and comment.

16\. Although we reject TIA/NSMA\'s legal argument, we agree that data
related to POFS applications may be useful for interested parties to
ensure that proper frequency coordination has been conducted.[^50] In
that connection, we note that our Office of Media Relations regularly
issues informal public notices prepared by the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division,
Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch that contain information on POFS
applications. Though the informal public notices are informational only
and do not confer the right to file petitions to deny, Alcatel and UTC
acknowledge that these periodic notices will suffice to furnish the
information previously contained in the formal public notices.[^51] The
Commission will continue to issue the informal notices as resources
permit; however, we see no need for a rule mandating the release of such
public notices as TIA/NSMA request.[^52] We also note that the period
covered by informal public notice of the filing of applications will
necessarily decrease with implementation of the ULS.[^53] With
electronic filing and processing of applications via ULS, the time
required to grant a properly prepared and filed application may be
reduced to hours, not days. In that instance, awaiting public notice
before grant would undercut the Commission\'s objective of establishing
an efficient and rapid electronic licensing system.

**C. Common Carrier Traffic Requirements**

17.  Based on comments responding to the *Part 101 Notice*, the
Commission revised former Section 21.119 (now Section 101.133) of the
Rules, removing the restriction that prohibited the use of common
carrier transmitters to carry non-common carrier communications, except
in the MDS.[^54] The Commission removed the restriction to promote
economic efficiencies by obviating the need for a common carrier wishing
to provide non-common carrier service to construct separate
facilities.[^55] On the other hand, the Commission carried over,
unchanged, former Section 21.705 (now Section 101.703[^56]), which
provides that a common carrier may render any kind of communication
service provided for in its tariffs so long as the kinds of
communications carried do not violate the terms of the licensee\'s
authorization or Sections 101.111 (emission limitations), 101.113
(transmitter power limitations), or 101.147 (frequency assignments) of
the Rules.[^57] The *Part 101 Order* also replicated, without change or
discussion, subsection (c) of former Section 21.700 (now Section
101.701), which provides that common carrier applicants for facilities
that will be used primarily to relay television broadcast signals must
demonstrate (1) that at least fifty percent of the customers using the
microwave facility will not be affiliated in any way with the applicant;
and (2) that at least fifty percent of the usage hours of the microwave
facility will be dedicated to service for unaffiliated customers.[^58]

18\. UTC asserts that it is not clear whether common carriers must use
at least fifty percent of their available capacity for common carrier
traffic.[^59] Although UTC was not specific as to which rule it was
referring, we believe the intended reference was to Section 101.701(c).
We note that the rule applies only to \"stations or frequencies that
will be used primarily to relay broadcast television signals,\" and
requires that at least fifty percent of the capacity of such stations or
frequencies be devoted to the carriage of traffic of customers who are
not related to the licensee in any way. Accordingly, in response to
UTC\'s request, we clarify that common carriers may carry any traffic
described in Section 101.703 of our Rules, and that the fifty percent
limitation in Section 101.701 applies only to common carrier microwave
stations that are used \"primarily to relay broadcast television
signals.\"

**D. POFS Licensees\' Carriage of Common Carrier Traffic**

19\. In the *Part 101 Order,* the Commission declined to implement the
suggestion of some commenters to delete proposed Section 101.603(b)(1)
of the Rules,[^60] which would allow POFS licensees to employ their
excess capacity to carry common carrier traffic.[^61] The Commission
concluded that it lacked a sufficient record to justify deleting the
proposed rule, the substance of which was carried forward from certain
Part 94 provisions, but it stated that it would be receptive to a
request to amend the Rules to permit POFS carriage of common carrier
traffic if any party wished to pursue it, although further inquiry would
be required.[^62] UTC again urges us to eliminate Section 101.603(b)(1),
and we again decline to do so. We do not believe that the Commission
intended for the necessary inquiry to be conducted in the context of a
petition for reconsideration, particularly given that such a petition
usually does not stimulate -- and has not here stimulated -- the
responsive comments necessary to create a record sufficient to justify
deleting the provision. Instead, we seek comment on the issue in the
*Notice of Proposed Rule Making* portion of this document.

**E. Continuity of Licensing for Displaced 2 GHz Microwave Licensees**

20.  Our Rules provide that a Part 101 license will be forfeited
automatically upon the voluntary removal or alteration of station
facilities that renders the station non-operational for thirty days or
longer.[^63] In addition, a station that is inoperative for one year
will be deemed to have permanently discontinued service, and the license
must be surrendered.[^64] C&S filed a Petition for Clarification and/or
Reconsideration in which it proposed changes to these rules to exempt
displaced 2 GHz incumbent licensees who relocate to another frequency
band, find that frequency band unsuitable, and then wish to reactivate
their original 2 GHz facilities.[^65] The *C&S Petition* was endorsed by
UTC.[^66]

21.  We wish to alleviate any concern on the part of incumbent 2 GHz
microwave licensees that relocation of their facilities could result in
premature license termination, but we do not believe that the suggested
amendments are necessary. In the normal course, an incumbent 2 GHz
licensee will file an application for modification of its license to
specify a different frequency band. Thereafter, the new facilities will
be constructed and tested while the licensee maintains its operations in
the 2 GHz band. When the new facilities are placed in operation and the
2 GHz facility is discontinued, the licensee will be operating pursuant
to its modified license. Under normal circumstances, at no time during
the described period will the licensee be deemed to have forfeited its
license, because there will have been no discontinuation of operations
that would trigger invocation of the referenced rule sections. However,
C&S suggests that there may be instances in which a period of time
elapses between discontinuance of 2 GHz operations and inauguration of
operations in a new frequency band.[^67] We believe that such instances
will be rare; however, should they arise, we will look favorably upon
requests for rule waivers in order to accommodate affected licensees. In
sum, it is not our intent to invoke the automatic forfeiture provisions
in a manner which would hamper an incumbent licensee\'s legitimate
efforts to relocate its 2 GHz facilities.

F.  **Finder\'s Preference**

22\. Notwithstanding the fact that the matter was not raised in the
*Part 101 Notice* or the *Part 101 Order*, Multipoint requests[^68] that
we establish a finder\'s preference program for MAS frequencies licensed
under Part 101 of our Rules similar to the program formerly established
under Part 90 of the Rules.[^69] Multipoint argues that a finder\'s
preference program -- under which an applicant receives a preference
when applying for a frequency if the applicant demonstrates that the
frequency is not being used by its current licensee -- would supplement
the Part 101 automatic forfeiture provisions, thereby reducing
\"spectrum warehousing.\"[^70] UTC agrees, but submits that this is not
the proper forum for this proposal.[^71] We agree with UTC that
Multipoint has raised a rule making proposal in the context of a
petition for reconsideration which is procedurally improper because
interested parties have not been given sufficient notice to comment on
the issue.[^72] We are aware of the current scarcity of available MAS
channels in many areas, and we recognize the importance of ensuring that
frequencies are licensed to parties with an actual and immediate
requirement for them. However, Multipoint\'s proposal exceeds scope of
this *Memorandum Opinion and Order*,[^73] so we dismiss the
petition.[^74]

**G. Electronic Filing**

23\. The *Part 101 Order* noted that the proposal in the *Part 101
Notice* to allow electronic filing for all fixed microwave services
authorized under Part 101[^75] had been rendered moot by rule changes in
another proceeding implementing the proposal, and stated that procedures
for electronic filing in the Part 101 services would be implemented by
Public Notice.[^76] Also, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau began
use of ULS for licensing activity for microwave services on August 30,
1999.[^77] Although TIA/NSMA and Alcatel endorse our commitment to
electronic filing, they urge us to go further by establishing specific
timetable benchmarks for implementation of electronic filing, and
convening an Industry Advisory Committee to advise the Commission on the
electronic filing process.[^78] We deem such action to be unnecessary at
this time given the actions we have taken in the context of the ULS
proceeding. Electronic filing and online access are integral components
of the ULS, and we recently adopted rule changes involving all aspects
of the ULS filing and licensing process.[^79] We will continue to keep
the industry informed of significant developments in the ULS by issuing
periodic Public Notices, and will be attentive to any informal comments
or other communications furnished in response thereto.

**H. Conditional Licensing**

24.  Based on comments responding to the *Part 101 Notice*, the
Commission amended the Rules to permit operation prior to final license
grant, subject to certain conditions, on the 4, 6, 10, 11, 18, and 23
GHz bands, except for the 10.6-10.68 GHz band; the 17.8-19.7 GHz band in
Colorado, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia; and the
21.2-23.6 GHz band for operations with an effective radiated power
greater than 55 dBm.[^80] The Commission excluded those bands from
conditional licensing because they are allocated to both government and
non-government users. Thus, licensing on these frequencies must be
coordinated by the Commission with the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), and the two agencies did not have an
agreement concerning conditional licensing on those frequencies.[^81]
After such an agreement was reached regarding the 10.6-10.68 GHz band,
the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of Engineering and
Technology, pursuant to delegated authority,[^82] amended Section
101.31(e) of the Commission\'s Rules[^83] to provide for conditional
licensing in that band except in certain areas of the country where NTIA
requested continued pre-operation coordination.[^84] This action has
mooted TIA/NSMA\'s request that we allow conditional licensing in that
band except for specified areas of the country where government radio
astronomy services are operated.[^85]

25.  TIA/NSMA also request that conditional licensing be authorized in
the 932-941, 952-960, and 2110-2200 MHz frequency bands, but did not
discuss the merits of expanding conditional licensing to those
bands.[^86] Because we have no record concerning the potential effect of
conditional licensing in the lower microwave bands, we decline the
request at this time.[^87]

I.  **Correct Definition of Operational Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave
    Service**

26\.  The *Part 101 Notice* proposed only minor editorial changes in the
definitions to be provided in the Part 101 rules.[^88] Former Section
94.3 of the Commission\'s Rules defined \"Operational-fixed Station\" as
\"\[a\] fixed station not open to public correspondence, [operated by
and for the sole use of those persons or agencies operating their own
radio communication facilities.]{.underline} This term includes all
stations licensed to the fixed service under this part.\"[^89] The
underlined material *supra* sets out an important and distinguishing
characteristic of the POFS which the Commission inadvertently omitted
when it created the new Section 101.3. In addition, this section defined
\"Private line service\" as \"\[a\] service whereby facilities for
communication between two or more designated points are set aside for
the exclusive use or availability for use of a particular customer ­and
authorized users during stated periods of time.\"[^90]

27.  We agree with AAR and Alcatel that the definitions of \"Private
operational fixed point-to-point microwave service\" and \"Private line
service\" in the new Section 101.3 lack the concept of \"self-service\"
-- a licensee\'s use of the POFS facility for its own internal
communications -- which was contained in the prior definition of
\"Operational-fixed Station\" in former Section 94.3.[^91] We likewise
agree with UTC\'s recommendation that the definition of \"Private
operational fixed point-to-point microwave service\" (a) incorporate the
concept of \"self-service,\" and (b) should not refer to private line
service, which UTC contends is essentially a common carrier construct
with little application to private operational fixed services.[^92]
Therefore, we delete the term \"Private line service,\" and adopt UTC\'s
suggested change to the definition of \"Private operational fixed
point-to-point microwave service,\" with minor revisions, as follows:

*Private operational fixed point-to-point microwave service*. A private
radio service rendered by fixed and temporary fixed stations on
microwave frequencies for the exclusive use or availability for use of
the licensee or other eligible entities^\[^[^93]^\]^ for communication
between two or more designated points. Service may be provided between
points within the United States, points within United States\'
possessions, or between the United States and points in Canada or
Mexico.

**J. Reduction of the Number of Remotes Required in a Multiple Address
System**

28.  In the *Part 101 Order*, the Commission carried over the Part 94
definition of MAS into Part 101, despite some commenters\' request that
the requirement that MAS facilities serve at least four remotes be
replaced with a provision that would require MAS systems to serve
\"multiple\" remotes.[^94] That proposal was deemed inconsistent with
the Commission\'s determination in a prior proceeding[^95] that MAS is
to be used to satisfy point-to-multipoint needs, not for communication
requirements that can be met using frequencies allocated for
point-to-point use.[^96] AAR seeks reconsideration of our decision, but
presents no new data or arguments in support of its position.[^97]
Further, we note that we considered the substance of AAR\'s request in
another rulemaking proceeding examining our MAS licensing approach.[^98]
For these reasons, we deny AAR\'s petition for reconsideration.

**K. Loading Requirements**

29\.  The *Part 101 Order* retained the existing transmitter capacity
and loading requirements for point-to-point microwave radio systems
operating in 3,700-4,200 MHz, 5,925-6,425 MHz, 6,525-6,875 MHz,
10,550-10,680 MHz, and 10,700-11,700 MHz bands.[^99] The Commission
declined requests to lower the standards, because weakening loading
requirements likely would lead to a significant amount of licensed, but
unused, spectrum, which, in turn, would reduce the availability of
spectrum for displaced 2 GHz licensees.[^100] However, the Commission
stated that it would give liberal consideration to requests for waiver
of the loading requirements filed by displaced 2 GHz licensees seeking
to relocate in the bands above 3 GHz.[^101]

30.  We deny the requests of AAR, TIA/NSMA, or UTC to reconsider the
loading requirements.[^102] These parties have failed to provide any
additional justifications for their requested relief other than those
rejected in the *Part 101 Order.*[^103] Similarly, we reject UTC\'s
request that we \"liberally waive loading requirements\" for all POFS
systems.[^104] UTC has failed to provide sufficient justification that
would warrant our affording the same treatment to all POFS users as we
are affording to displaced 2 GHz licensees.

**L. Prior Coordination Notices with Use of ATPC**

31.  In the *Part 101 Order,* the Commission authorized Automatic
Transmitter Power Control (ATPC)[^105] for common carrier and POFS
licensees.[^106] However, in response to concerns expressed by some
commenting parties, the Commission required applicants to notify
potentially affected licensees that ATPC transmitters will be used, and
to include a value for each of the following parameters on the
coordination notice: (1) maximum transmit power, (2) coordinated
transmit power, and (3) nominal transmit power.[^107] TIA/NSMA and
Alcatel note, however, that this requirement was not carried forward
into the final rules*.*[^108] We hereby remedy that inadvertent
oversight by amending Section 101.103(d) in the manner suggested by
TIA/NSMA.[^109]

**M. Clarification of Grandfathering Provisions**

32.  In the *Part 101 Order*, the Commission stated that systems
authorized and applications filed prior to the effective date of the
*Part 101 Order* would be afforded co-primary status relative to all
systems authorized subsequently pursuant to the provisions of the new
Part 101, and that these previously authorized stations and pending
applications would be \"grandfathered\" in that status
indefinitely.[^110] The implementing rule provides, \"All systems
subject to Parts 21 and 94 of the Rules, which are licensed or which are
proposed in an application on file, as of the effective date of this
part, are subject to the requirements under Part 21 or Part 94, as
applicable.\"[^111] We agree with TIA/NSMA that adding the word
\"indefinitely\" to the end of the sentence will more clearly convey
that the \"grandfathering\" afforded to the subject systems will
continue indefinitely, so we amend the rule accordingly.[^112]

**N. Minor Clerical Errors and Editorial Changes in the Rules**

33.  Below, we treat various requests by TIA/NSMA for correction or
clarification.[^113] Where the reason for a rule change is self-evident
and clerical in nature, an appropriate revision to the rule has been
incorporated into Appendix A hereto and is not treated in the body of
this *Memorandum Opinion & Order.* In addition, on our own motion, we
have made certain minor and non-substantive editorial changes to the
rules, which we likewise believe do not require explanation. Those
requested changes that merit comment are set forth *infra*.

**1.** **Requested Changes Adopted**

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

**[Section 101.101]{.underline}** -- We correct various errors in the
chart listing frequency bands and the services permitted on each.

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

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

**[Section 101.115(c)]{.underline}** -- We change the reference in
footnote 11 of the table for Antenna Standards from Section 101.147(t)
of the Rules to Section 101.147(s).

**[Section 101.145(a)]{.underline}** -- The references to subsections
(a) and (b) of this rule are corrected to reference subsections (b) and
(c).

**[Section 101.147(a)]{.underline}** -- We revise the table of frequency
assignments in this rule to more accurately reflect the services using
particular frequency bands. Other corrections to the rule already were
made in another proceeding.[^114]

**[Section 101.147(j)]{.underline}** -- We delete the obsolete reference
to Part 21.

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

**[Section 101.803(d)]{.underline}** -- We add an entry for 11.7-12.2
GHz to ensure that the appropriate requirements apply to that band.

**[Section 101.815(a)(5)]{.underline}** -- We change the reference to
the requirement for applications from Section 101.713 to Section
101.21(f).

**2.** **Requested Changes Rendered Moot**

**[Former Section 101.31(a)]{.underline}** -- TIA/NSMA\'s proposals
regarding requests for Special Temporary Authorization (STA) have been
superseded by the *ULS Proceeding*\'s changes to the STA rules.[^115]

**[Section 101.31(a)(3)(vii)]{.underline}** -- The *ULS Proceeding*
corrected the reference for operations to be conducted within the
coordination distance contours of a fixed earth station from Section
101.21(e) to Section 101.21(f)*.*[^116]

**[Section 101.63(b)]{.underline}** -- The Commission stated in the
*Part 101 Order* that a station would be regarded as being \"\'in
operation\' when construction is completed and the station is capable of
providing service,\" but the rule set forth a stricter standard.[^117]
We recognized the discrepancy, and deleted the inconsistent language
before the rule went into effect.

**IV. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**A. Streamlining Part 101**

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

**1. POFS licensees\' carriage of common carrier traffic**

35\. The *Part 101 Order* eliminated the restriction on the use of
common carrier transmitters for non-common carrier purposes.[^118]
Licensees operating common carrier stations now may provide private
services at the same location without having to construct duplicative
facilities.[^119] However, the Commission declined to eliminate the rule
prohibiting stations licensed as private systems from offering common
carrier communications services or leasing reserve capacity to common
carriers for their common carrier traffic.[^120] The Commission pointed
to the increased flexibility that it had given common carriers, and
suggested that private licensees desiring to carry common carrier
traffic as well as internal communications become common carrier
licensees.[^121]

36\. We also declined to eliminate this restriction in the *Memorandum
Opinion and Order* portion of this document, on the grounds that we
lacked a sufficient record.[^122] UTC argues that requiring POFS
licensees to become common carriers in order to carry common carrier
traffic unnecessarily subjects them to onerous common carrier
obligations, and that the Act, which states that \"\[a\]
telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under
this Act only to the extent that it is engaged in providing
telecommunications services,\"[^123] dictates that POFS licensees be
permitted to carry common carrier traffic without becoming common
carriers.[^124] We seek comment on whether we should eliminate the rule
prohibiting stations licensed as private systems from offering common
carrier communications services. Among the issues that commenters should
address are the extent to which improved transmission techniques and
increased transmission rates have created excess capacity in private
systems; and whether POFS carriage of common carrier traffic should be
permitted only on a secondary basis, or whether limitations should be
placed on what types of common carrier traffic (*e.g.*, voice and data,
but not video) could be carried on POFS systems.

37\. Alternatively, we note that many land mobile radio licensees with
wide area communication systems use operational fixed microwave systems
to transmit communications between base stations in their systems. In
some cases, the land mobile radio licensee is also the licensee of the
microwave facilities. In other cases, land mobile radio licensees lease
excess capacity from existing microwave systems. If, however, the
communications (including any land mobile communications) being carried
on the microwave system is common carrier traffic, our Rules require
that the microwave system be licensed as a common carrier.[^125] When
the Commission reclassified many land mobile radio licensees as
Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS), *i.e.,* common carriers, there
was an unanticipated effect on some private microwave licensees.[^126]
For example, the reclassification of some Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
licensees made them no longer eligible to use a POFS facility under the
plain language of our Rules. Many of these private microwave systems
supporting SMR and other private operations are owned by petroleum
companies, utility companies, or government entities that do not want to
become, or, in some cases, may be prohibited by law from becoming,
common carriers.

38\. It is unreasonable, unduly burdensome, and unnecessary to require
SMRs and other former private operators to either duplicate their
supporting facilities or seek service from a possibly unavailable common
carrier. Consequently, in the event we retain the general prohibition
against POFS carriage of common carrier traffic, we propose an exception
to the rule to permit grandfathering of private operational fixed
microwave systems providing common carrier service for their connecting
facilities, or for CMRS providers that were formerly private land mobile
radio service providers. We do not believe that such an exception would
conflict with any other decisions the Commission has made concerning the
differences between common carriers and non-common carriers.[^127] We
seek comment on this proposal and any alternatives thereto.[^128]

**2. Shared bands**

39\. Several frequency bands are used for TV Broadcast Auxiliary
Services, Cable Relay Service (CARS), Private Land Mobile Radio Service,
and Fixed Microwave Services. For example, Sections 74.644, 78.108,
101.143, and 101.803(b) set out minimum path lengths and appropriate
power reductions for many of the same bands.[^129] However, Section
101.803(b), which regulates LTTS, requires compliance with the technical
rules provided in Parts 74 and 78 of our Rules, which are different from
those contained in the Part 101 rules. In addition, we understand that
some confusion exists concerning which technical standards govern LTTS
when the Part 74 and 78 standards differ from or, in certain instances,
conflict with Part 101. For instance, frequency tolerance[^130] or EIRP
conflicts appear at 2450‑2483.5 MHz, 12700‑13250 MHz, and 38600‑40000
MHz. We believe that these situations can be addressed by either
modifying Section 101.803(b) to state that where conflicts arise, the
more restrictive rule will apply, or conforming the technical standards
for all the rule parts.[^131] We seek comment on which approach would
provide the most clarity for affected licensees.

40\. Also, the 2450-2483.5 MHz band is shared by Parts 74, 78, 90, and
101 services, and is subject to differing limitations on antenna
requirements, channelization, bandwidth, and type acceptance. For
example, fixed microwave users under Part 101 must coordinate their use
with other fixed microwave users,[^132] while broadcast auxiliary users
must use local coordinators who do not coordinate with Part 101
users,[^133] and Part 90 users are allowed uncoordinated use.[^134] We
seek comment on such inconsistencies regarding technical standards in
shared bands, and on whether and how to resolve them.

**3. Station authorization**

41\. Section 101.5(b) of the Commission\'s Rules provides information
about which transmitters require authorizations.[^135] It notes that a
separate application must be filed for each DEMS Nodal Station, but no
separate license is required for a DEMS User Station.[^136] Similarly,
we require a separate authorization for each MAS master station, but not
for an MAS remote or mobile station.[^137] Because the Rules do not
clearly state this, however, we propose to amend Section 101.5(b) to
state that MAS remote and mobile stations also do not require a separate
authorization. We seek comment on this proposed change, and on whether
any other rules need to be changed to effect this clarification.

**4. Temporary and conditional authorizations**

42\. Section 101.31(a)(3)-(5) of the Commission\'s Rules requires
licensees to provide certain technical information to the Commission
regarding their conditional operations.[^138] We propose to eliminate
this requirement because we are not convinced that it continues to serve
a regulatory purpose.

We also propose to insert language in paragraph (b) of this section to
specify that an application for authority to operate a fixed station at
temporary locations must specify the precise geographic area within
which the operation will be confined. The area specified must be defined
as a radius of operation about a given state or states,
latitude/longitude, or as a rectangular area bounded by upper and lower
lines of latitude and longitude. This language was formerly in Section
101.13 of the Rules and should have been moved to another section when
Section 101.13 was removed.[^139]

43\. Section 101.31(b)(1)(vii) provides that conditional authorization
is granted only if the filed application does not \"propose to operate .
. . in the 21.2-23.6 GHz band with an \[effective radiated power (ERP)\]
greater than 55 dBm pursuant to § 101.147(s).\"[^140] Our experience has
shown that it is sometimes unclear to applicants whether conditional
operation is allowed anywhere in the 21.2-23.6 GHz band, or only on the
four frequencies listed in Section 101.147(s). We propose to amend
Section 101.31(b)(vii) to clarify that only the four frequencies listed
in Section 101.147(s) are allocated for conditional operation.[^141]
With regard to other frequencies in the band, applicants must follow
normal processing and await the Commission obtaining clearance from NTIA
before operating.

44\. Finally, we propose to make frequency bands 952.95‑956.15 MHz and
956.55‑959.75 MHz, which are designated for point-to-point use in Tables
9 through 11 of Section 101.147(b)(6),[^142] available for conditional
authorization under Section 101.31(b).[^143] We are not proposing any
other frequencies listed in these tables because they require
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) coordination with NTIA.
We seek comment on these proposed changes.

**5. Transmitter frequency tolerance and power limitations**

45\. We propose to clarify and correct the frequency tolerance table in
Section 101.107(a)[^144] by: 1) consolidating the separate columns for
all fixed and base stations, mobile stations over three watts, and
mobile stations three watts or less, because the frequency tolerances
for these three categories are the same; 2) deleting footnote 2 because
it applies to equipment which is over forty years old; 3) deleting
footnote 5 because the same information is contained in footnote 7; and
4) correcting certain errors in the listing of bands and tolerances. We
also propose to amend the EIRP table in Section 101.113(a)[^145] to
divide the 10,550-10,680 MHz band into two separate bands: 10,550-10,600
MHz with a maximum power of 55 dBW and 10,600-10,680 MHz with a maximum
power of 40 dBW, to be consistent with US footnote 265 of the Table of
Frequency Allocations in Section 2.106.[^146] We seek comment on the
accuracy of these proposed changes, their compliance with the Act, and
their effect on licensees.

**6. Directional antennas below 932.5 MHz**

46\. Section 101.115(b), the substance of which was carried over from
Part 21,[^147] sets forth technical requirements for stations operating
below 932.5 MHz that are required to use directional antennas.[^148]
However, the only Part 101 frequencies below 932.5 MHz are MAS
frequencies,[^149] and these stations are not required to use
directional antennas.[^150] Because it appears that Section 101.115(b)
no longer applies to identifiable frequencies, we conclude that this
provision no longer serves a regulatory purpose and propose to delete it
on that basis.

**7. Antenna polarization**

47\. The last sentence of Section 101.117 states, \"Unless otherwise
allowed, only linear polarization (horizontal or vertical) shall be
used.\"[^151] We propose to limit this restriction to LMDS operators
within 20 kilometers of their service area boundary.[^152] We also
propose to delete the words \"horizontal or vertical,\" because strict
horizontal or vertical polarization is improbable for most of the
billboard passive reflectors that we authorize. Due to reflections in
the non‑vertical/horizontal planes of incidence, we propose to clarify
our rules to allow systems with rotated linear polarization. Rotated
linear polarization is usually expressed at an angle up to +/‑ 89.9
degrees from vertical. We seek comment on these proposed changes.

**8. Changes in regulatory status**

48\. In the *Part 101 Order*, the Commission stated that a private
operational fixed licensee can change to a common carrier by filing
appropriate tariff information as required by Part 61 and a license
application form (FCC Form 601), and that no filing fee will be
required.[^153] We believe it would be helpful to codify this procedure
for effecting a status change. We seek comment on this conclusion.

**9. Frequencies**

49\. We propose minor clarifications and streamlining of Section
101.147, which sets out the frequencies available for fixed microwave
services. It is our understanding that some applicants have been
confused by which parts of the section cover MAS and which cover
point‑to‑point operations. Thus, we propose to amend the introductory
paragraph of Section 101.147(b) to clarify that it covers both, and to
clarify which subsections and tables pertain to each category. We also
propose to update the references throughout the Section 101.147(b) from
\"Domestic Public Land Mobile Radio Service\" to \"Public Mobile
Services.\"[^154] Sections 101.147(k) and 101.803(e) list the 6525‑6575
MHz frequency band with a grandfathered provision which expired in
1968.[^155] We no longer see any reason to retain this language. We seek
comment on these proposed changes.

**10. Frequency tolerance**

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

**11. Stations at temporary fixed locations**

51\. Section 101.815(a)(1) permits temporary operation of LTTS stations
for six months, but prohibits temporary operation of stations for
services that are initially known to be of longer than six months\'
duration.[^156] The rule allows for short-term needs or for testing
purposes, but prevents applicants from using the temporary provisions to
avoid having to wait for regular processing of their application for
permanent authority. We propose to eliminate the prohibition of
temporary operation of stations for services known to be of longer than
six months\' duration, and thus allow applicants to use the temporary
fixed locations without restrictions provided they still file for
permanent authority for stations that remain longer than six months. We
believe that our processing time is sufficiently expeditious that
applicants will not seek any benefit from using a temporary location to
avoid regular processing delays. We further believe that broadening the
scope of use of temporary fixed locations could result in a reduction of
requests for special temporary authority which might otherwise be
needed. We seek comment on this proposal.

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

52\. Section 101.603(b)(3) of our Rules incorporates the prohibition,
formerly found in Section 94.9(b)(3), against using POFS frequencies
(except 6,425-6,525 MHz, 18,142-18,580 MHz, or above 21,200 MHz) for the
final radio frequency link in the chain of transmission of program
material to CATV, MDS, or MATV systems.[^157] CAI requests that we
eliminate this restriction.[^158] It posits that we have created an
\"unnecessary burden\" on wireless cable operators by prohibiting them
from \"using the 11 GHz band to connect programming headends or
satellite receive facilities with their main transmitters.\"[^159]
Alcatel argues that using bands other than 11 GHz, or using alternative
transmission media, for \"final link\" video transmission would be
excessively expensive.[^160] CAI and Alcatel argue that the limitation
is at odds with our goal of regulatory symmetry between POFS licensees
and common carriers.[^161] AAR opposes CAI\'s request, on the grounds
that video transmission -- particularly multi-channel video transmission
-- is highly spectrum-intensive, and allowing \"final link\" use of the
11 GHz band would seriously reduce the amount of 11 GHz spectrum
available to incumbent licensees in the 2 GHz band that must relocate to
accommodate emerging technologies.[^162] We also note that, since CAI
filed its petition, a petition for rule making was filed that proposes
to make 12 GHz frequencies available for the delivery of video
programming, including \"final link\" use.[^163] The Commission assigned
a rulemaking number to this petition, RM-9257, and released a *Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking* on July 14, 1999.[^164]

53\. We seek comment on whether the CAI proposal is in the public
interest. Commenters should address whether granting CAI\'s request
would adversely affect the Commission\'s efforts to ensure that spectrum
is made available for the essential services offered by displaced 2 GHz
licensees. Commenters are encouraged to provide specific quantitative
data regarding the impact of the removal of the final link restriction
on spectrum availability for displaced 2 GHz licensees, and the relative
cost of using other bands or transmission media for the final link of
video transmission.[^165]

**13. LMDS technical rules**

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

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

A = 11 + 0.4(P - 50) + 10 Log~10~ B.

(Attenuation greater than 56 decibels is not required.)

\(iii\) In any 4 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed from
the assigned frequency by more than 250 percent of the authorized
bandwidth: At least 43 + 10 Log~10~ (mean output power in watts)
decibels, or 80 decibels, whichever is the lesser attenuation.[^166]

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

55\. In order to provide LMDS operators maximum flexibility, the
Commission\'s technical standards allow using a bandwidth up to 850 MHz
in the 27.50-28.35 GHz band.[^167] If a manufacturer designs a
transmitter to operate with a bandwidth of 10 MHz, and the maximum
bandwidth (850 MHz) from the table in Section 101.109 of the
Commission\'s Rules is used in the equation above, this interpretation
may create an unreasonable emission mask. We seek comment on whether the
table in Section 101.109 or the approach in Section 101.111 of the
Commission\'s Rules should be changed to indicate that LMDS equipment
manufacturers can specify and use the actual bandwidth of the designed
transmitter.

56\. The method of calculating an emission mask in Section 101.111 as a
function of power works well for high powered transmitters. However, the
same method of calculation for low powered transmitters can result in
out-of-band emissions that may be unnecessarily low. For instance, Bosch
Telecom, Inc. (Bosch), a manufacturer of telecommunications equipment,
suggests adopting a minimum limit for out-of-band emissions of -13
dBm.[^168] We seek comment on this suggestion. We also seek comment on
whether there are other technical rules applicable to LMDS which should
be changed and the reasons therefor. Further, we ask commenters whether
other Part 101 services require unique technical rules. If so,
commenters should discuss the substance of such rules and the reasons
therefor.

57\. In addition, we note that Section 101.139 indicates that
point-to-multipoint transmitters in the 39 GHz, LMDS and DEMS services
must be of a type that has been certificated by the Commission, but most
other fixed point-to-point microwave transmitters are subject to the
less burdensome[^169] verification procedure.[^170] Digital Microwave
Corporation (Digital), a manufacturer of fixed microwave equipment,
contends that LMDS and DEMS transmitters are comparable to other fixed
point-to-point microwave transmitters, and proposes that they also be
subject to verification rather than certification.[^171] We tentatively
agree that the equipment is sufficiently similar to permit the marketing
of fixed point-to-point and point-to-multipoint transmitters for the 39
GHz, LMDS, and DEMS bands that have been verified by the manufacturer or
importer, rather than certificated by the Commission. We seek comment on
this proposal.

**B. TIA Petition for Rulemaking**

58\. On March 6, 1998, TIA filed a Petition for Rulemaking which focuses
on permitting conditional authorization in the 21.2-23.6 GHz band (the
23 GHz band), making the 23 GHz band more accessible to fixed service
users, and modifying antenna standards for the 10 GHz and 23 GHz bands
to allow for more hops and longer paths.[^172] TIA argues that such
revisions will make the 23 GHz band more attractive to fixed microwave
users, which in turn will help alleviate overcrowding in other
bands.[^173] TIA also proposes minor corrections to the Table of Maximum
Authorized Bandwidth in Part 101, Subparts C and J.[^174] The petition
was placed on Public Notice on February 5, 1999.[^175] Eight comments
and two reply comments were received, primarily from microwave equipment
manufacturers and service providers, and generally in support of TIA\'s
proposals.[^176]

**1. Conditional authorization**

59\. TIA proposes that we permit conditional licensing in the 23 GHz
band. The band is allocated to both government and non-government users,
so licensing on these frequencies must be coordinated with NTIA. TIA
argues that the current coordination process takes too long,
discouraging licensees from using the 23 GHz band.[^177] It proposes to
protect government operations by means of the same procedure used for
coordination among non-government users.[^178] Specifically, a
commercial frequency coordinator would send a prior coordination notice
(PCN) to IRAC.[^179] The federal government agencies, through IRAC,
would have thirty days to examine the application and notify the
commercial coordinator of potential interference problems.[^180] If no
response is made, coordination would be deemed to have been completed,
and an application could be submitted to the Commission and operation
could commence.[^181] If interference problems were identified, but were
resolved between the commercial and government frequency coordinators
during the thirty-day period, then the operator could submit a license
application to the Commission and begin operation.[^182] If the
identified interference problems remain after the thirty‑day period,
then conditional licensing would not be permitted and an operator would
have to select alternative frequencies, or it would have to request
resolution of the problem through the formal licensing process.[^183]
TIA recognizes that its plan can be adopted only if the Commission and
NTIA reach an agreement consistent with the proposals.[^184]

60\. Alcatel supports the proposal, arguing that permitting more rapid
delivery of services would encourage greater use of the 23 GHz
band.[^185] Digital and Harris Corporation (Harris) would support the
proposal if the Commission and NTIA reached an agreement regarding
conditional licensing in the 23 GHz band.[^186] On the other hand,
Teledesic LLC (Teledesic), a satellite operator, questions whether
expanding conditional licensing in the 23 GHz band ‑‑ or otherwise
encouraging rapid development of the band ‑‑ is appropriate, given that
it is not clear whether replacement spectrum will be required for the
relocation of incumbent fixed microwave users in the 18 GHz band.[^187]
TIA replies that making the 23 GHz band more attractive will reduce the
use of the 18 GHz band, and make the 23 GHz band a more viable
relocation band.[^188]

61\. As we noted in the *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, the Commission
concluded in the *Part 101 Order* that conditional licensing should not
be permitted in the 23 GHz band because use of these frequencies must be
coordinated by the Commission with NTIA, and the two agencies did not
have an agreement concerning conditional licensing on those
frequencies.[^189] The agencies have reached agreements concerning
conditional licensing in other bands, but not regarding the 23 GHz
band.[^190] We agree with TIA that permitting conditional licensing
absent such an agreement is inappropriate, and we will continue to work
toward an agreement. Until such time, however, we decline to propose any
rules changes for conditional licensing in the 23 GHz band. We seek
comment on our approach.

**2. Technical standards**

62\. When the 23 GHz rules were adopted, the Commission did not
incorporate complete technical standards in order to afford the industry
opportunity to develop. TIA proposes several changes to the 23 GHz
technical rules that it contends will facilitate greater exploitation of
the band.[^191] We believe that the industry is now mature enough to
incorporate complete standards, such as TIA has proposed.

**a. Channel plan**

63\. Our rules do not specify a channel plan for the 23 GHz band.[^192]
TIA argues that a channel plan will make the band more efficient, and
thus more attractive for short-haul fixed microwave service users.[^193]
TIA\'s proposed plan, as a general matter, is based upon the current
industry standard 50 MHz channel plan, but, given the availability of
more spectrally efficient digital fixed microwave service radios, it
also includes narrow and wideband channels to provide flexibility and to
increase the number of potential users.[^194] Specifically, the plan
consists of twenty-four pairs of 50 MHz channels, each subdivided into
wideband channels (*i.e.*, one 40 MHz channel, one 30 MHz channel, two
20 MHz channels and five 10 MHz channels) and into narrowband channels
(*i.e.*, ten 5 MHz channels and twenty 2.5 MHz channels).[^195] The
center 10 MHz channel in each 50 MHz block would have the same frequency
as the associated 50 MHz channel, which would permit upgrades in channel
capacity without a frequency change.[^196] TIA states that no overlap
would be created between the existing 50 MHz channels and the new
channels, allowing for an orderly transition to the new plan without
causing interference to existing systems; and that the plan would
enhance flexibility and spectrum efficiency by avoiding the need to use
50 MHz channels for all needs above 20 MHz.[^197] TIA also recommends
reserving several portions of the 23 GHz band for narrowband channels,
which could be used for wideband traffic only if all other wideband
channels are blocked.[^198] Finally, TIA proposes making the entire band
available to common carrier and POFS users, instead of the current
system of reserving half of the band for each.[^199]

64\. Alcatel supports these proposals, on the basis that implementation
of a channel plan would promote efficiency, while flexibility would
attract a broad range of users to the band.[^200] Digital and Harris
agree, and state that a standardized channel plan will facilitate the
design and manufacture of 23 GHz equipment.[^201] They also note that
giving common carrier and POFS users access to the entire band is
consistent with the consolidation of the rules into a single Part
101.[^202]

65\. We seek comment on TIA\'s proposals, their compliance with the Act,
and their effect on licensees. We also note that the Commission
routinely licenses duplex point-to-point private systems which use one
channel for video and one channel for control where the control
frequency is separated from the video frequency by 50 MHz.[^203] These
systems are typically used for surveillance or security systems. We seek
comment on whether to continue to license these systems, and how TIA\'s
proposed channel plan would affect these users.

**b. Frequency tolerance**

66\. Our current rules specify the frequency tolerance for the 23 GHz
band at 0.03%.[^204] TIA contends that when this standard was adopted
most 23 GHz band radios used analog modulation techniques and were
coordinated for the full 50 MHz channel bandwidth, but today most
licensed radios are digital and occupy 75% or more of the channel
bandwidth.[^205] TIA states that, for these digital radios, the 0.03%
frequency tolerance specification would allow excessive frequency drift
into adjacent channels if the band is divided into 50, 40, 30, 20, 10,
5, and 2.5 MHz channels, and that this would cause spectrum
inefficiency.[^206] TIA recommends applying to the 23 GHz band the same
0.001% frequency tolerance standard that is used for the 18 GHz band
(which is divided into narrowband channels comparable to those proposed
for the 23 GHz band).[^207] Alcatel, Digital, and Harris support this
proposal.[^208] No one opposed TIA's proposal. We seek comment on TIA\'s
proposal, its compliance with the Act, and its effect on licensees.

**c. Spectrum efficiency**

67\. TIA argues that the current lack of a spectrum efficiency
requirement for the 23 GHz band impedes efficient utilization.[^209] Our
rules require a 1 bps/Hz spectrum efficiency rate for all frequency
bands below 19.7 GHz and for DEMS.[^210] TIA contends that this standard
also is appropriate for the 23 GHz band (and for all bands below 25.25
GHz), because it would ensure that all proposed bandwidths are fully
utilized and because the digital 18 GHz band radio models that likely
would be retrofitted for 23 GHz band operation are designed to this
standard.[^211] Alcatel, Digital, and Harris agree.[^212] No one opposed
TIA's proposal. We seek comment on TIA\'s proposal.

**d. Low power systems**

68\. TIA claims that the 23 GHz frequencies set aside for low power,
limited coverage systems, such as perimeter surveillance applications
and remote video monitoring, are severely congested.[^213] Accordingly,
TIA proposes designating an additional 200 MHz in the band for such
operations, adjacent to the current low power band in the 21.8-22.0 GHz
and 23.0-23.2 GHz band segments.[^214] Digital, Harris, and Teledesic
support this proposal.[^215] No one opposed TIA's proposal.

69\. In addition, TIA states that the Part 101 requirements for these
low power, limited coverage systems are not congruent with their
operations and should be revised as follows:[^216]

[Maximum Power Definition]{.underline} \-- Change the maximum power from
55 dBm ERP[^217] to 55 dBm EIRP, because the maximum power for fixed
microwave service systems is expressed as EIRP, and ERP is appropriate
for mobile, not fixed, services.[^218]

[Frequency Tolerance]{.underline} \-- Apply the proposed 0.001%
frequency tolerance standard to all systems, including low power,
limited systems, rather than the current 0.05% standard for such
systems.[^219]

[Special Showings]{.underline} \-- Delete as no longer necessary the
requirement that an applicant make a showing of need in order to be
authorized to operate with a 50 MHz bandwidth or to have more than five
hops in tandem.[^220]

[Interference Criteria]{.underline} \-- Use a uniform frequency
coordination procedure for all services in the 23 GHz band, and thus
delete the specific additional interference criteria for low power,
limited coverage systems, which, according to TIA, typical radios
already meet, anyway.[^221]

Alcatel supports making the standards uniform for all 23 GHz band
systems, because this will ensure more efficient use.[^222] No one
opposed TIA's proposal. We seek comment on TIA\'s proposals.

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

70\. TIA states that many fixed microwave users need or prefer to employ
small antennas because most potential antenna sites, such as rooftops,
monopoles, and electrical transmission towers, cannot support large
microwave dishes, due to either space limitations or aesthetic
objections of homeowner associations or zoning boards.[^223] Our rules,
however, do not permit antennas smaller than 0.61 meters (2 feet) in
diameter in the 23 GHz band, or 1.22 meters (4 feet) in diameter in the
10 GHz band.[^224] TIA believes that the existing antenna size
restrictions deter fixed microwave service use of these bands.[^225] It
recommends permitting 0.46-meter (18-inch) or 0.30 meter (1-foot) high
performance antennas in the 23 GHz band, and 0.61-meter (2-foot) or
1.22-meter (4-foot) antennas in the 10 GHz band.[^226]

71\. To permit 0.46-meter (18-inch) or 0.30-meter (1-foot) diameter
antennas in the 23 GHz band, which will accommodate what TIA expects
will be an increased need for short (*i.e.*, one-to-two miles) microcell
interconnect and LMDS infrastructure link point-to-point microwave
paths, TIA recommends that the Commission take the following
actions:[^227]

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

Change the maximum beamwidth from 2.2 to 3.3 degrees.

Retain the same front-to-back ratios as the current Category A and
Category B radiation standards, tighten the Category B front-to-back
ratio, and reduce the sidelobe suppression requirements.[^228]

72\. To permit 0.61 kilometer (2-foot) antennas in the 10 GHz band,
which would accommodate paths longer than 2.3 miles, TIA proposes that
the Commission take the following actions:[^229]

Change the minimum antenna gain from 38 dBi to 33.5 dBi.[^230]

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

Change the radiation standards for Category A and Category B to the same
standards that applied for the 10.55-10.68 GHz band before June 1,
1997,[^231] tighten the front-to-back ratio for Category B channels, and
reduce the sidelobe suppression requirements.[^232]

73\. Alcatel, Andrew Corporation, Digital, and Harris support these
proposals, because permitting smaller antennas will encourage greater
use of the 23 GHz band.[^233] AirTouch Communications, Inc. believes
that the proposals strike a fair balance between spectrum efficiency and
the practical problems of antenna deployment.[^234] To the extent that
implementation of TIA\'s suggestions would result in greater spectrum
efficiency and effective use of the 23 GHz band, we believe that
adoption of TIA\'s proposals which have the effect of allowing smaller
antennas would further the public interest. We seek comment on TIA\'s
proposals and their effect on licensees.

**C. Balanced Budget Act of 1997**

74\. In addition to the foregoing technical issues, we also seek comment
on the impact of the Balanced Budget Act on Part 101. In paragraph 11,
*supra*, we discussed the Balanced Budget Act amendment to Section
309(j) which provides that all mutually exclusive applications for
initial licenses or construction permits *shall* be auctioned, except
licenses and construction permits for public safety radio services,
digital television service for existing analog television licensees, and
noncommercial educational radio and television stations. We also
discussed Section 309(j)(6)(E) of the Communications Act which states
that, in determining the auctionability of applications, the Commission
has the "obligation in the public interest to continue to use
engineering solutions, negotiation, threshold qualifications, service
regulations, and other means to avoid mutual exclusivity in application
and licensing proceedings." In another proceeding, we requested comment
on how to implement the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 generally.[^235] We
sought comment on, *inter alia*, how the Balanced Budget Act\'s revision
of our statutory auction authority affects our determination of which
wireless services are potentially auctionable and our determinations of
the appropriate licensing schemes for new and existing services.[^236]
We also requested comment on the scope of the exemption from competitive
bidding for public safety radio services, and on what regulatory
provisions could be established to ensure that frequencies assigned
without auctions meet the statutory requirements for exemption.[^237] We
also stated, however, that we would continue to establish licensing
schemes on a service-specific basis, in order to take into account the
particular characteristics, purposes, and technologies of each
service.[^238]

**1. Above 2 GHz microwave licensing**

75.  We believe that the microwave spectrum above 2 GHz which is not
already licensed pursuant to auction procedures presents a special
challenge to our reinvention efforts to find spectrum for emerging
technologies because it is used for a wide variety of services ranging
from the earliest and most traditional to the latest fixed microwave
technologies. Currently, we license this spectrum by channel or channels
and site-by-site. Applicants are responsible for coordinating
interference issues prior to filing a license application. Therefore,
under the current licensing scheme, mutually exclusive situations
rarely, if ever, occur. In Part 101 licensing generally there are no
discrete services as, for example, LMDS, MAS, or the 39 GHz band, but
instead licensing is based on the specific use of specific
frequencies.[^239] The lower frequency bands are significantly
encumbered, particularly in urban areas, and the relocation of 2 GHz
microwave licensees into the 6 GHz and 11 GHz bands has further burdened
this spectrum. Satellite interests also are allocated some of the
spectrum above 2 GHz, and with the expansion of satellite services,
options for those needing terrestrial microwave spectrum are shrinking.

76.  While spectrum above 2 GHz is becoming scarcer, demand for it is
growing. Microwave is used as the backbone infrastructure for cellular,
PCS, and other CMRS providers, which are expanding rapidly. Microwave
spectrum may also be used for fixed point-to-multipoint service backbone
support, such as for LMDS. Finally, the spectrum above 2 GHz is fertile
ground for advanced telecommunications applications.[^240] These
competing forces must be addressed in our effort to comply with the
Congressional intent to ensure that spectrum is used for the purposes
the public interest requires.

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

• Option I: Similar to the Commission\'s approach in the 39 GHz band
proceeding, we could license microwave spectrum subject to Part 101
based on an appropriate channelization plan and geographic service area
through the use of competitive bidding procedures to choose among
mutually exclusive applications. Under this approach, incumbent
licensees would retain primary status for their current licenses but
could not expand their service areas without the consent of the
appropriate geographic area licensee. Also, where spectrum is licensed
on a geographic basis, prior coordination in the traditional manner
outlined in Section 101.103(d)[^241] is not always necessary. Instead,
coordination between or among geographic licensees will require the
licensees in each geographic area to develop agreements with each other
on how to utilize their spectrum, especially along the boundaries
between areas and/or where there is line-of-sight into another area, to
achieve the most efficient and effective use in each geographic area.

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

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

-   One proposed reuse of existing Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)
    spectrum in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band is for terrestrial video use as
    outlined in the Broadwave Albany, L.L.C. waiver requests.[^242]
    Broadwave seeks co-primary status authority to provide multichannel
    video programming, including the retransmission of local television
    broadcast signals, to approximately 212 markets throughout the
    United States. Broadwave also proposes to provide internet services
    to consumers in these various markets. We note that the 12.2-12.7
    GHz band is the subject of an ongoing rulemaking proceeding[^243]
    and was one of the bands listed in the International Bureau\'s
    Public Notice No. SPB-141, released on November 2, 1998,
    establishing a final cut-off date to file applications for
    non-geostationary satellite orbit fixed satellite service in the
    12.2-12.7 GHz frequency band that may be mutually exclusive with
    previously filed applications of Skybridge, L.L.C. (Skybridge).

-   Another situation is the proposed sharing of frequency bands between
    satellite users and fixed terrestrial systems. The Commission has
    several requests before it concerning the sharing of terrestrial
    spectrum with mobile satellite service (MSS) offerings for feeder
    links (*e.g*., applications have been received from Constellation II
    in the 5091-5250 MHz and 6700-7075 MHz bands, from ICO in the
    5150-5250 MHz band, from Iridium Macrocell in the 19.3-19.7 GHz and
    29.1-29.5 GHz bands, and from Boeing in the 11.597-11.7 GHz
    band).[^244]

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

With respect to what auction rules would be needed, we propose to adhere
to our general Part 1 competitive bidding rules,[^245] but to address
auction design and methodology on a service-by-service basis.[^246]

78.  The above options would require rules to address the statutory
exemptions from auctionability,[^247] for bidding credits, for
appropriate eligibility, and for the appropriate channelization plan and
geographic service area or areas to meet the licensing needs of entities
seeking microwave spectrum. What size should the geographic service
areas be? Should there be more than one size of geographic service area,
and if so, what should they be? Should there be nationwide licenses
available, or will combinatorial bidding, which allows bidders to place
single bids for groups of licenses, satisfy the need for nationwide
backbone systems?[^248] What size should the channels subject to auction
be? Should the channel plan differ by frequency band? Should licensees
have the freedom to combine such channels and to engage in unlimited
disaggregation? Should the channels be structured for broadband use, or
should licensees desiring broadband spectrum be required to seek and
combine two or more narrowband licenses? How should eligibility be
structured? Should the Commission establish spectrum caps? Should the
channel plan continue to provide separate spectrum blocks for private
and common carrier licensees, or is this distinction no longer necessary
in light of the consolidation of the service rules into a single Part
101 (*but see* discussion regarding exempt categories, *infra*)?

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

**2. Public safety exemption**

80.  The Balanced Budget Act exempted from the Commission\'s competitive
bidding authority licenses and construction permits for \"public safety
radio services,\" which are defined in the statute to include \"private
internal radio services used by State and local governments and
non-government entities and including emergency road services provided
by not-for-profit organizations, that‑-(i) are used to protect the
safety of life, health, or property; and (ii) are not made commercially
available to the public.\"[^249]

81\. We invite comments on the following issues:

• Do any of the services licensed under Part 101 come within the
Balanced Budget Act\'s definition of \"public safety radio services\"?
Commenters are encouraged to submit quantitative information
regarding: 1) how much of the use is by Public Safety Pool
eligibles[^250]; 2) how much is for services that meet the Balanced
Budget Act\'s definition of \"public safety radio services,\" but are
not included in the Public Safety Pool; and 3) what future use will be.
Should these two classes of public safety radio services be consolidated
for purposes of allocating microwave spectrum, or kept separate? We
particularly seek comment regarding the proper treatment of spectrum
such as the frequencies between 2,450 MHz and 2,500 MHz, which currently
are available for public safety use on a shared basis with other
services.[^251]

• In the general Balanced Budget Act proceeding, we sought comment on
whether to designate certain radio services or classes of frequencies
within certain services as \"public safety radio services.\"[^252] In
this *Notice*, we specifically ask for comment on whether any Part 101
spectrum should be designated for public safety radio services, and, if
such designation is warranted, how much spectrum should be set aside.
How many spectrum blocks should there be, and how large should they be?
Should separate blocks be set aside for traditional public safety
services and other entities falling within the exemption, or should all
auction-exempt services share spectrum? How should mutually exclusive
applications be avoided or resolved?

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

**3. Educational broadcaster exemption**

82.  The Balanced Budget Act exempted from the Commission\'s competitive
bidding authority licenses and construction permits for \"stations
described in section 397(6) of this Act,\"[^253] which defines
\"noncommercial educational broadcast station\" and \"public broadcast
station\" to mean \"a television or radio broadcast station\" that is
\"eligible to be licensed by the Commission as a noncommercial
educational radio or television broadcast station and which is owned and
operated by a public agency or nonprofit private foundation,
corporation, or association,\"[^254] or \"is owned and operated by a
municipality and which transmits only noncommercial programs for
education purposes.\"[^255] We seek comment on whether LTTS or other
Part 101 stations that are or may be used to transmit television
material for noncommercial educational broadcast stations fall within
this auction exemption. We previously have concluded, however, that the
exemption does not include stations in the Instructional Television
Fixed Service (ITFS), because the exemption does not include
nonbroadcast services.[^256] ITFS is a point-to-point or
point-to-multipoint microwave service whose channels are allocated to
educational organizations and are used primarily for the transmission of
instructional, cultural, and other types of educational material not
intended to be received by the general public.[^257] Thus, any commenter
advocating an exemption for any Part 101 services should distinguish
those services from ITFS.

**D. Forbearance and Regulatory Flexibility**

83.  Section 10 of the Act provides the Commission with authority to
forbear from applying sections of the Act and its regulations to
telecommunications carriers and services if the Commission determines
that enforcement of the regulation or provision is not necessary to
ensure just and reasonable charges, practices, classifications, and
regulations; enforcement is not necessary for the protection of
consumers; and forbearance is consistent with the public interest.[^258]
In the case of commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers, the
Commission concluded that it was appropriate to forbear from Sections
203, 204, 205, 211, 212, and most applications of Section 214.[^259] The
Commission, however, declined to forbear from enforcing other
provisions, including Sections 201 and 202.[^260] The Commission has
also exercised its forbearance authority in permitting competitive
access providers (CAPs) and competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs)
to file permissive tariffs.[^261] We seek comment regarding whether it
is appropriate to forbear from enforcing any provisions of the Act or
the Commission\'s rules with respect to Part 101 services.[^262]

84\. We also seek comment on whether the type of regulatory flexibility
the Commission has permitted in other services is appropriate for Part
101 licensing. For example, 39 GHz band and MAS[^263] licensees are
permitted to conduct point-to-point, point-to-multipoint, or (upon the
establishment of interference criteria) mobile operations.[^264] In both
instances, the Commission concluded that lifting the existing
operational restrictions would enable providers to broaden the array of
services they offer in order to respond to changing marketplace
demands.[^265] We seek comment on whether some or all other Part 101
licensees also should be permitted to provide such services. Commenters
also should address whether such operational flexibility is permitted by
Section 303(y) of the Act. Section 303(y) of the Act requires the
Commission to make affirmative findings before permitting flexible use
as part of the allocations process. Specifically, we are required to
determine that such flexibility: (1) is consistent with international
agreements; (2) would be in the public interest; (3) would not deter
investment in communications services or systems, or technology
development; and (4) would not result in harmful interference among
users.[^266]

**V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS**

**A. Regulatory Flexibility Act**

85\. Appendix B contains a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with
respect to the *Memorandum Opinion and Order* and an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) with respect to the *Notice of Proposed Rule
Making*. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601, *et seq.,* the
Commission has prepared an IRFA of the expected impact on small entities
of the proposals set forth in the *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*. We
request written public comment on the IRFA. In order to fulfill the
mandate of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 regarding
the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we ask a number of questions
in our Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis regarding the prevalence
of small businesses in the affected industries. Comments must be filed
in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in this
rule making proceeding, but they must have a separate and distinct
heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Secretary shall
send a copy of this *Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed
Rule Making*, including the Final and Initial Regulatory Flexi­bility
Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.

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

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

**C. Paperwork Reduction Analysis**

87\. This *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* contains either a proposed or
modified information collection. As part of our continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the
infor­mation collections contained in this Notice, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency
comments are due at the same time as other com­ments on this *Notice of
Proposed Rule Making*; OMB comments are due 60 days from the date of
publication of this *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in the Federal
Register. Comments should address:

Whether the proposed col­lec­tion of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the Com­mis­sion, including whether
the information shall have practi­cal utility.

The accuracy of the Commission\'s burden esti­mates.

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

Ways to mini­mize the bur­den of the col­lection of information on the
respondents, in­clud­ing the use of auto­mated collec­tion tech­niques or
other forms of information tech­nology.

In addition to filing com­ments with the Secretary, a copy of any
com­ments on the infor­mation collections contained herein should be
submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Commu­nica­tions Commis­sion, 445 Twelfth
St., S.W., Room 1-C804, Washing­ton, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to
jboley@fcc.gov, and to Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 New
Executive Office Building, 725 Seventeenth Street, N. W., Wash­ing­ton,
D.C. 20503, or via the Internet to vhuth@omb.eop.gov.

**D. Comment Dates**

88\. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission\'s Rules,
interested parties may file comments on or before \[30 days after
publication in the Federal Register\], and reply comments on or before
\[45 days after publication in the Federal Register\].[^267] Comments
may be filed using the Commission\'s Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS) or by filing paper copies.[^268] Comments filed through the ECFS
can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
\<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html\>. Generally, only one copy of an
electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking
numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters
must transmit an electronic copy of the comments to each docket or
rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the
transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal
Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number.
Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get
filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an
e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the
body of the message: \"get form \<your e-mail address.\" A sample form
and directions will be sent in reply.

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

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

**E. Ordering Clauses**

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

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

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

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

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

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

**F. Contacts for Information**

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

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

[^1]: Reorganization and Revision of Parts 1, 2, 21, and 94 of the Rules
    to Establish a New Part 101 Governing Terrestrial Microwave Fixed
    Radio Services, *Report and Order*, WT Docket No. 94-148, 11 FCC Rcd
    13449 (1996) (*Part 101 Order*).

[^2]: *Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13452‑53.

[^3]: 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, *Report and
    Order*, WT Docket No. 98-20, 13 FCC Rcd 21027, 21031, 63 Fed. Reg.
    68904 (1998) (*ULS Proceeding*); *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, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, WT Docket No. 98-20, 13 FCC Rcd 9672 (1998) (*ULS
    Notice*). Generally, issues relating to the consolidation of Part
    101 procedural rules were handled in the *ULS Proceeding,* while
    this item deals with technical and regulatory issues that are unique
    to microwave services. The *ULS Proceeding* replaced FCC Form 415
    with FCC Form 601, so substitute Form 601 wherever the *Part 101
    Order* referred to FCC Form 415. *ULS Proceeding*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    21037. *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*, WT Docket No. 98-20, FCC
    99-139, (rel. Jun. 28, 1999).

[^4]: *See* SBC Communications, Inc. Petition for Section 11 Biennial
    Review at vii, 35-36 (filed May 8, 1998) (SBC Petition).

[^5]: Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C § 151, *et seq*.

[^6]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(A).

[^7]: TIA Petition for Rulemaking (filed Mar. 5, 1998) (TIA Petition).

[^8]: This item will address this proposal only insofar as it overlaps
    with Part 101. The proposals for Part 74 are beyond the scope of
    this proceeding and will be handled in a separate proceeding.

[^9]: Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251.

[^10]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 160(a).

[^11]: *See* Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of the
    Communications Act of 1934 as Amended, *Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making*, WT Docket No. 99-87, 14 FCC Rcd 5206 (1999) (*BBA Notice*).

[^12]: Part 101 defines microwave frequencies as those of 890 MHz or
    above. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.3; *see also* Reorganization and
    Revision of Parts 1, 2, 21, and 94 of the Rules to Establish a New
    Part 101 Governing Terrestrial Microwave Fixed Radio Services,
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, WT Docket No. 94-148, 10 FCC Rcd
    2508, 2509 n.2 (1994) (*Part 101 Notice*).

[^13]: Common carrier MAS are point-to-multipoint systems governed by
    Part 22 of the Rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.621; *see also* Amendment
    of the Commission\'s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems,
    *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, WT Docket No. 97‑81, FCC
    99-101, n.2 (rel. July 1, 1999) (*MAS Further Notice*); Amendment of
    the Commission\'s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, *Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking*, WT Docket No. 97‑81, 12 FCC Rcd 7973, 7974
    n.1 (1997) (*MAS Notice*).

[^14]: *Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13451.

[^15]: *See* *e.g*., Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 22, 74 and 94 of the
    Commission\'s Rules to Establish Service and Technical Rules for
    Government and Non-government Fixed Service Usage of the Frequency
    Bands 932-935 MHz and 941-944 MHz, *First Report and Order*, Gen.
    Docket No. 82-243, 6 FCC Rcd 4320 (1991); Establishment of a
    Spectrum Utilization Policy for the Fixed and Mobile Services\' Use
    of Certain Bands Between 947 MHz and 40 GHz, *Third Report and
    Order*, Gen. Docket No. 82-334, 2 FCC Rcd 1050 (1987); Authorizing
    Private Carrier Systems in the Private Operational-Fixed Microwave
    Radio Service, *First Report and Order*, PR Docket No. 83-426, 50
    Fed. Reg. 13338 (1985); Use of Radio in Digital Termination Systems
    and in Point-to-Point Microwave Radio Systems for Provision of
    Digital Electronic Message and Other Specific Services, *Second
    Report and Order*, Gen. Docket No. 79-188, 48 Fed. Reg. 50322
    (1983); Amendment of Part 94 of the Commission\'s Rules and
    Regulations to Facilitate Operation of Low Power, Limited Coverage
    Systems in the 22.0-23.6 GHz Band, *First Report and Order*, PR
    Docket No. 79-337, 81 FCC 2d 140 (1980).

[^16]: *See* Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the
    Use of New Telecommunications Technologies, *Second Report and
    Order*, ET Docket No. 92-9, 8 FCC Rcd 6495 (1993) (*Emerging
    Technologies Second Report and Order*).

[^17]: *Part 101 Notice*, 10 FCC Rcd at 2508.

[^18]: Amendment of Part 21 of the Commission\'s Rules for the Domestic
    Public Fixed Radio Services, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, CC
    Docket No. 93-2*,* 8 FCC Rcd 1112 (1993) (*Point-to-Point Notice*).

[^19]: Herein we use \"authorization\" as a generic term which could
    refer to a license, special temporary authority, assignment of
    license, transfer of control, or any other order or instrument of
    authority that the Commission may grant.

[^20]: *Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13449.

[^21]: *Id.* at 13451, 13497-505; *see* 47 C.F.R. § 101.3. The
    Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS), included in Part 21 (Subpart
    K), was unaffected by this proceeding. Common carrier and non-common
    carrier MDS licensees and applicants continue to be subject to the
    current MDS rules and application filing procedures.

[^22]: Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission\'s
    Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate
    the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies
    for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite
    Services, *Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and
    Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, CC Docket No. 92-297, 12 FCC
    Rcd 12545, 12725-62 (1997) (*LMDS Second Report and Order*);
    Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission\'s
    Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate
    the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies
    for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite
    Services, *First Report and Order and Fourth Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, CC Docket No. 92-297, 11 FCC Rcd 19005, 19064-70
    (1996).

[^23]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.147(a).

[^24]: *See*, *e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.21(e), 101.61(c).

[^25]: *See*, *e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.13, 101.15.

[^26]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2) (1996).

[^27]: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act \--
    Competitive Bidding, *Second Report and Order*, PP Docket No.
    93-253, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2354 (1994).

[^28]: *Id.* at 2356.

[^29]: *LMDS Second Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 12673-74. The
    spectrum was divided into an 1,150 MHz block and a 150 MHz block,
    licensed based on 493 geographic areas known as Basic Trading Areas,
    *see* *Rand McNally Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide* 38-39
    (128th ed. 1997). Licensees are permitted to partition
    (\"partitioning\" is the assignment of geographic portions of a
    geographic service area along geopolitical or other boundaries) and
    disaggregate (\"disaggregation\" is the assignment of discrete
    portions of spectrum licensed to a geographic area licensee) their
    licenses.

[^30]: *MAS Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7996-97. MAS was proposed to be
    licensed by forty-seven 12.5 kHz channel pairs based on 175
    geographic areas known as Economic Areas, with partitioning and
    disaggregation permitted. *Id.* at 7982-83, 7987-88.

[^31]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j) (as amended by Balanced Budget Act, § 3002).
    This *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* does not seek comment on the
    digital television exemption. To the extent the Commission
    determines that it is necessary to clarify the exemption for digital
    television or adopt implementing regulations for that exemption, we
    intend to do so in a proceeding specifically addressing broadcast
    services. *BBA Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at n.104.

[^32]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(6)(E).

[^33]: *See BBA Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 5206.

[^34]: *Id.*, ¶ 1.

[^35]: *Id.*

[^36]: Amendment of the Commission\'s Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6 GHz
    and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands, *Report and Order and Second Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, ET Docket No. 95-183, 12 FCC Rcd 18600,
    18645-47 (1997) (*39 GHz Report and Order*). The spectrum, which
    consists of fourteen pairs of 50 MHz blocks, will be licensed by
    geographic areas, and licensees will be permitted to partition and
    disaggregate. *Id.* at 18610-12, 18635. *See also* Amendment of the
    Commission\'s Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz
    Bands, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, ET Docket No. 95-183, FCC
    99-179, 64 FR 45891 (Aug. 23, 1999).

[^37]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §101.603(b)(3).

[^38]: *See* Letter from Henry Goldberg, counsel for OpTel, Inc. to
    Michele Farquhar, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (March
    29, 1996).

[^39]: CAI Petition for Partial Reconsideration at 2-4 (CAI Petition).

[^40]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.603(b)(3).

[^41]: *See* Telecommunications Act of 1996, P.L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56,
    131 (amending 47 U.S.C. § 309(b)).

[^42]: *See* S. Conf. Rep. No. 230, 104th Cong. 2nd. Sess. 418 (1996);
    *see also Part 101 Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 13478.

[^43]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.962(a).

[^44]: *See Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13478.

[^45]: TIA/NSMA Petition for Reconsideration at 10-12 (TIA/NSMA
    Petition).

[^46]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.962(g) (petition to deny must be filed no
    later than 30 days following public notice of the acceptance for
    filing of an application or substantial amendment thereto).

[^47]: 5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(A). TIA/NSMA rely on *Batterton v. Marshall*,
    648 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In *Batterton*, the Department of
    Labor modified the guidelines under which states could receive
    funding for an employment program, which reduced Maryland\'s share
    of funds. Maryland argued that the modification affected a
    substantive right -- entitlement to the funds -- and the Court of
    Appeals agreed, stating that the modification was \"a conclusive
    agency action, governing the rights and interests of the parties,\"
    and therefore was not a rule of agency practice or procedure. *Id.*
    at 710. The court said, regarding the exception to notice and
    comment for procedural rules, \"\[A\]n articulation of the
    exemption\'s critical feature is that it covers agency actions that
    do not themselves alter the rights or interests of parties, although
    it may alter the manner in which the parties present themselves or
    their viewpoints to the agency.\" *Id.* at 707 (citing *Pincus vs.
    U.S. Board of Parole*, 507 F.2d 1107, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 1974)).

[^48]: *See, e.g., Jem Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC*, 22 F.3d 320, 322,
    326 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (the Commission, without notice and comment,
    adopted \"hard look\" rules which eliminated the ability of FM
    broadcast applicants to amend their applications to correct mistakes
    therein, and the Court of Appeals, citing *Batterton*, held that the
    rules were procedural in nature because they did not change the
    substantive standards by which the Commission evaluated license
    applications).

[^49]: *See id.* at 326 (citing *Neighborhood TV v. FCC,* 742 F.2d 629,
    637 (D.C. Cir. 1984); *Lamoille Valley R.R. Co. v. ICC*, 711 F.2d
    328 (D.C. Cir. 1983)) (not every interest \"qualifies\" for notice
    and comment).

[^50]: TIA/NSMA Petition at 9.

[^51]: Alcatel Comments on Petition for Reconsideration at 3-4 (Alcatel
    Comments); UTC Consolidated Comments on Petitions for
    Reconsideration at 3 (UTC Comments).

[^52]: TIA/NSMA Petition at 12. TIA/NSMA observe that several Part 101
    rules contain references to the 30-day public notice period and that
    such references are inappropriate given the elimination of the
    30-day public notice period. Appropriate revisions to the rules are
    contained in Appendix B.

[^53]: *See ULS Proceeding*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21031; *see also* 47 C.F.R. §
    1.933.

[^54]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.133.

[^55]: *See Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13465-66.

[^56]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.703.

[^57]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.111, 101.113, 101.147.

[^58]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.701(c).

[^59]: UTC Petition for Reconsideration/Clarification at 5 (UTC
    Petition).

[^60]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.603(b)(1).

[^61]: *Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13467.

[^62]: *Id.* at 13467-68.

[^63]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.65(a).

[^64]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.65(d), 101.305(d).

[^65]: Cox & Smith, Inc. Petition for Clarification and/or
    Reconsideration at 1 (C&S Petition).

[^66]: *See* UTC Petition at 9-10.

[^67]: C&S Petition at 1-3.

[^68]: Multipoint Petition for Reconsideration of Part 101 of the
    Commission\'s Rules at 3 (Multipoint Petition).

[^69]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.173(k) (1997).

[^70]: Multipoint Petition at 3.

[^71]: UTC Comments at 5.

[^72]: *Id.*

[^73]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.429; *see also* Amendment of Section
    73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, MM Docket No. 86-289, 4 FCC Rcd 7887 (1989).

[^74]: The Commission eliminated the Part 90 finder\'s preference
    program. *See* Amendment of Part 90 Concerning the Commission\'s
    Finder\'s Preference Rules, *Report and Order*, WT Docket No.
    96-199, 13 FCC Rcd 23816 (1998).

[^75]: *Part 101 Notice*, 10 FCC Rcd at 2512.

[^76]: *Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13460.

[^77]: *See* WTB to Begin Use of Universal Licensing System (ULS) for
    Microwave Services on August 30, 1999, DA 99-1543, *Public Notice*
    (rel. Aug. 6, 1999).

[^78]: *See* TIA/NSMA Petition at 7; Alcatel Comments at 4.

[^79]: *See ULS Proceeding*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21033-35.

[^80]: *Part 101 Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 13462-63.

[^81]: *Id*.

[^82]: *See id.* at 13463.

[^83]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.31(e).

[^84]: Reorganization and Revision of Parts 1, 2, 21 and 94 of the Rules
    to Establish a New Part 101 Governing Terrestrial Microwave Fixed
    Radio Services*, Order*, WT Docket No. 94-148, 13 FCC Rcd 4394
    (WTB/OET 1998). We also note that subsequent to the *Part 101 Order*
    the Commission permitted conditional licensing in the 18 GHz band
    outside certain prohibited zones. Amendment of the Commission\'s
    Rules to Relocate the Digital Electronic Message Service From the 18
    GHz Band to the 24 GHz Band and to Allocate the 24 GHz Band for
    Fixed Service, *Order*, ET Docket No. 97-99, 13 FCC Rcd 3581 (1997);
    *see* 47 C.F.R. § 101.31(b)(1)(v), (vi).

[^85]: *See* TIA/NSMA Petition at 18.

[^86]: *See id.* at 18 n.1.

[^87]: We also note that not all of these frequencies are available for
    point-to-point or point-to-multipoint operations. The Commission
    suspended acceptance of applications for the 932/941 MHz and 928/959
    MHz MAS in 1997. *MAS Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 8006-07. Also,
    frequencies in the 2100-2150 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands have been
    reallocated for emerging technology mobile services. *See Emerging
    Technologies Second Report and Order*, 8 FCC Rcd at 6496.

[^88]: *See Part 101 Notice*, 10 FCC Rcd at 2511.

[^89]: 47 C.F.R. § 94.3 (1995) (emphasis supplied).

[^90]: *Id.*

[^91]: AAR Opposition to Petition for Partial Reconsideration at 5-6
    (AAR Opposition); Alcatel Comments at 7.

[^92]: UTC Comments at 7.

[^93]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.61 for further explanation of eligible
    entities.

[^94]: *Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13468-69.

[^95]: Amendment of §§ 22.501(g)(2) and 94.65(a)(1) of the Rules and
    Regulations to Re‑Channel the 900 MHz Multiple Address Frequencies,
    *Report and Order*, PR Docket No. 87-5, 3 FCC Rcd 1564 (1988).

[^96]: *Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13469.

[^97]: *See* WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), *aff\'d sub nom. Lorain
    Journal Co. v. FCC,* 351 F 2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), *cert. denied*,
    383 U.S. 967 (1966).

[^98]: *See MAS Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7993; *see also MAS Further
    Notice*, FCC 99-101, ¶21; s*ee also* Amendment of the Commission\'s
    Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, WT Docket No. 97‑81,
    *Report and Order (MAS Report and Order)*, FCC No. 99‑415 (rel. Jan.
    19, 2000).

[^99]: *Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13476.

[^100]: *Id.*

[^101]: *Id.* (quoting *Emerging Technologies Second Report and Order*,
    8 FCC Rcd at 6514).

[^102]: AAR Petition for Partial Clarification and Reconsideration at
    9-10 (AAR Petition); TIA/NSMA Petition at 21; UTC Comments at 2-3.

[^103]: *See* WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), *aff\'d sub nom.
    Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC,* 351 F 2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), *cert.
    denied*, 383 U.S. 967 (1966).

[^104]: UTC Comments at 2-3.

[^105]: ATPC is a feature of radio transmitters which will automatically
    adjust the output power to keep the receive signal at a uniform
    level even though the path attenuation may change due to rain or
    atmospheric anomaly. *Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13469.

[^106]: *Id.* at 13470; *see* 47 C.F.R. § 101.113(b).

[^107]: *Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13471. These terms are defined
    in TIA Telecommunications Systems Bulletin TSB 10-F, \"Interference
    Criteria for Microwave Systems,\" at Section 4.3.

[^108]: TIA/NSMA Petition at 20; Alcatel Comments at 6.

[^109]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.103(d). We also clarify the terms in the formula
    in Section 101.143(b) for calculating maximum permissible EIRP for
    shorter path lengths and amend the note to read as follows: \"For
    transmitters using Automatic Transmitter Power Control, EIRP
    corresponds to the maximum transmitter power available, not the
    coordinated transmit power or the nominal transmit power.\"

[^110]: *Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13477-78.

[^111]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.4(a).

[^112]: TIA/NSMA Petition at 20.

[^113]: *See id.* at 22-23.

[^114]: *See* Amendment to the Commission\'s Rules Regarding a Plan for
    Sharing the Costs of Microwave Relocation, *First Report and Order
    and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, WT Docket No. 95-157,
    11 FCC Rcd 8825, 8917 (1996).

[^115]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.931; *see ULS Proceeding,* 13 FCC Rcd at 21052-53.

[^116]: *ULS Proceeding*, 63 Fed. Reg. at 63982.

[^117]: *Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13465.

[^118]: *Id.* at 13466.

[^119]: *Id.*

[^120]: *Id.* at 13467; *see* 47 C.F.R. § 101.603(b)(1).

[^121]: *Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13468.

[^122]: *See supra*, ¶ 19.

[^123]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 153(49).

[^124]: UTC Petition at 5-8.

[^125]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.603(b)(1).

[^126]: *See* Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the
    Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, *Second
    Report and Order*, GN Docket No. 93-252, 9 FCC Rcd 1411 (1994).

[^127]: *See generally id.*

[^128]: In addition, in the event we retain the general prohibition
    against POFS carriage of common carrier traffic, we propose to
    clarify Section 101.135(a), which states that entities may share
    their private systems with, or provide private carrier service to,
    \"any eligible for licensing under *this part*, regardless of
    individual eligibility restrictions, provided that the
    communications being carried are permissible under § 101.603.\" 47
    C.F.R. § 101.135(a) (emphasis added). This rule was incorporated
    directly from Part 94, so we believe that the reference to \"this
    part\" meant only POFS, and that the Commission did not intend to
    alter the distinction. *See Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13467. In
    Part 101, however, \"this part\" also encompasses common carriers,
    so, if the prohibition is retained, we propose to clarify the rule
    to apply only to sharing with POFS eligibles.

[^129]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.644, 78.108, 101.143, 101.803(b).

[^130]: Frequency tolerance is the maximum permissible departure by the
    center frequency of the frequency band occupied by an emission from
    the assigned frequency or, by the characteristic frequency of an
    emission from the reference frequency. 47 C.F.R. § 101.3.

[^131]: We believe that these changes may also allow us to delete 47
    C.F.R. § 101.807.

[^132]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.103.

[^133]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.604.

[^134]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.35.

[^135]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.5.

[^136]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.5(b).

[^137]: *See, e.g.,* Amendment of §§ 22.501(g)(2) and 94.65(a)(1) of the
    Rules and Regulations to Re-Channel the 900 MHz Multiple Address
    Frequencies, *Report and Order*, PR Docket No. 87-5, 3 FCC Rcd 1564,
    1565 (1988).

[^138]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.31(a)(3)-(5).

[^139]: C.F.R. § 101.13 (1998) was removed pursuant to the *ULS
    Proceeding*, 13 FCC Rcd.

[^140]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.31(b)(1)(vii) (formerly 47 C.F.R. §
    101.31(e)(1)(vii)).

[^141]: *See* Amendment of Part 94 of the Commission\'s Rules and
    Regulations to Facilitate Operation of Low Power, Limited Coverage
    Systems in the 22.0-23.6 GHz, *First Report and Order*, PR Docket
    No. 79-337, 81 FCC 2d 140 (1980); Amendment of Part 94 of the
    Commission\'s Rules and Regulations to Facilitate Operation of Low
    Power, Limited Coverage Systems in the 22.0-23.6 GHz, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, General Docket No. 79-337, 87 FCC 2d 1090
    (1981); Amendment of Part 94 of the Commission\'s Rules and
    Regulations to Facilitate Operation of Low Power, Limited Coverage
    Systems in the 22.0-23.6 GHz, *Second Report and Order*, General
    Docket No. 79-337, 94 FCC 2d 32 (1983).

[^142]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.147(b)(6).

[^143]: 47 C.F.R. 101.31(b) (formerly 47 C.F.R. § 101.31(e)).

[^144]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.107(a).

[^145]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.113(a).

[^146]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.

[^147]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 21.108(b) (1995).

[^148]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.115(b).

[^149]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.101.

[^150]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.115(c) n.2.

[^151]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.117.

[^152]: *See* Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the
    Commission\'s Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band,
    to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules
    and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed
    Satellite Services, CC Docket No. 92-297, *Second Report and Order,
    Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,*
    12 FCC Rcd 12545, 12666 (1997).

[^153]: *Part 101 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13468.

[^154]: *See* Revision and Update of Part 22 of the Public Mobile Radio
    Service Rules, *Report and Order*, CC Docket No. 80-57, 95 FCC 2d
    769 (1983).

[^155]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.147(k), 101.803(e).

[^156]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.815(a)(1).

[^157]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §101.603(b)(3).

[^158]: CAI Petition at 2-4.

[^159]: *Id.* at 2.

[^160]: Alcatel Comments at 7.

[^161]: CAI Petition at 4; Alcatel Comments at 7.

[^162]: *See* AAR Opposition at 5.

[^163]: Petition for Rulemaking of OpTel, Inc. (filed April 1, 1998).

[^164]: *See* Petition for Rulemaking to Amend Eligibility Requirements
    in Part 78 Regarding 12 GHz Cable Television Relay Service, *Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking,* FCC 99-166, Docket 99-250 (Jul. 14, 1999).

[^165]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 101.109. This section contains a table of
    frequency bands with allowable bandwidths. Above 3700 MHz, the table
    lists 20 frequency bands which allow bandwidths of 10 MHz or more
    other than the 11 GHz band.

[^166]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.111(a)(2)(ii), (iii). P = percent removed from
    the carrier frequency, and B = authorized bandwidth in MHz.

[^167]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 101.109(c).

[^168]: Letter from David E. Hilliard and Thomas S. Dombrowsky, Jr.
    (Engineering Advisor) of Wiley, Rein & Fielding, counsel for Bosch,
    to Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at
    3-5 (Jan. 27, 1999).

[^169]: *Compare* 47 C.F.R. § 2.952 *with* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1053.

[^170]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.139(a).

[^171]: Digital Request for Partial Waiver of Section 101.139(a) (filed
    May 28, 1999).

[^172]: TIA also proposes rule changes to Part 74, Television Broadcast
    Auxiliary Service, to permit transport of digital transmissions over
    point-to-point microwave frequencies in that service, but these
    proposals are beyond the scope of this proceeding and will be
    handled in a separate proceeding.

[^173]: TIA Petition at 2-3; *see also* Alcatel Comments at 1.

[^174]: TIA Petition at 25.

[^175]: Public Notice, Report No. 2309 (rel. Feb. 5, 1999).

[^176]: A list of commenters is provided in Appendix A.

[^177]: TIA Petition at 12-13.

[^178]: *Id.* at 12 n.18 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 101.103(d)). TIA also
    proposes establishing exclusion areas around sensitive Government
    operations, where conditional licensing would not be permitted.
    *Id.* at 13.

[^179]: *Id.* at 13. In the alternative, TIA suggests that the PCN could
    be sent to each affected Government agency directly, rather than to
    IRAC. *Id.* at 14 n.21. Digital Microwave Corporation and Harris
    Corporation suggest omitting use of PCNs, and having the Commission
    transmit the 23 GHz application itself to IRAC. Digital Microwave
    Corporation Comments at 5; Harris Corporation Comments at 6.

[^180]: TIA Petition at 13.

[^181]: *Id.* at 14.

[^182]: *Id.*

[^183]: *Id.*

[^184]: *See id.* at 15.

[^185]: Alcatel Comments at 4-5.

[^186]: Digital Comments at 5; Harris Comments at 5.

[^187]: Teledesic Comments at 3-4 (discussing Redesignation of the
    17.7-19.7 GHz Frequency Band, Blanket Licensing of Satellite Earth
    Stations in the 17.7-20.2 GHz and 27.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Bands, and
    the Allocation of Additional Spectrum in the 17.3-17.8 GHz and
    24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Bands for Broadcast Satellite-Service Use,
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, IB Docket No. 98-172, 13 FCC Rcd
    19923 (1998)).

[^188]: TIA Reply Comments at 8.

[^189]: *See supra*, ¶ 24 (citing *Part 101 Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at
    13462-63). Conditional licensing is permitted on four frequencies in
    the band, provided that the ERP does not exceed 55 dBm. 47 C.F.R. §§
    101.31(b)(vii) (formerly 47 C.F.R. § 101.31(e)(vii)), 101.147(s);
    *see supra*, ¶ 24.

[^190]: *See* Reorganization and Revision of Parts 1, 2, 21 and 94 of
    the Rules to Establish a New Part 101 Governing Terrestrial
    Microwave Fixed Radio Services*, Order*, WT Docket No. 94-148, 13
    FCC Rcd 4394 (WTB/OET 1998); Amendment of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Relocate the Digital Electronic Message Service From the 18 GHz Band
    to the 24 GHz Band and to Allocate the 24 GHz Band for Fixed
    Service, *Order*, ET Docket No. 97-99, 13 FCC Rcd 3581 (1997).

[^191]: TIA Petition at 15. In order to minimize any adverse impact that
    these new rules would have on licensees of existing systems and on
    equipment manufacturers, TIA proposes that the Commission establish
    an 18-month transition period before manufacturers would be required
    to meet the new standards, and a 24-month transition period before
    new installations would have to meet the new standards. *Id.* at 16
    n.23. Under TIA\'s proposal, fixed microwave service stations
    applied for or licensed by the end of the transition period would be
    grandfathered indefinitely under the current rules, provided that
    they do not cause harmful interference to other licensees. *Id.*

[^192]: *Id.* at 16.

[^193]: *Id.*

[^194]: *Id.* at 17.

[^195]: *Id.*

[^196]: *Id.*

[^197]: *Id*. at 17-18.

[^198]: *Id.* at 18. The frequencies selected for narrowband channels
    are the highest numbered channels in the common carrier and POFS
    segments of the 23 GHz band, which TIA states are the least
    congested frequencies in the band since frequency planners tend to
    select the lowest numbered frequencies first. *Id.* at 18 n.28.

[^199]: *Id.* at 18 n.27.

[^200]: Alcatel Comments at 6.

[^201]: Digital Comments at 3; Harris Comments at 3.

[^202]: Digital Comments at 4; Harris Comments at 4-5.

[^203]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.147(s).

[^204]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.107(a).

[^205]: TIA Petition at 18-19.

[^206]: *Id.* at 19.

[^207]: *Id.*

[^208]: Alcatel Comments at 6-7; Digital Comments at 3; Harris Comments
    at 3.

[^209]: TIA Petition at 19.

[^210]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.141(a).

[^211]: TIA Petition at 20.

[^212]: Alcatel Comments at 7; Digital Comments at 3; Harris Comments at
    3-4.

[^213]: TIA Petition at 20.

[^214]: *Id.* at 20-21. TIA would reserve these frequencies primarily
    for narrowband systems, but permit wideband systems also if no other
    appropriate frequencies are available. *Id*. at 21 & n.31.

[^215]: Digital Comments at 4-5; Harris Comments at 5; Teledesic
    Comments at 3.

[^216]: TIA Petition at 21-22.

[^217]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.147(s)(1).

[^218]: ERP is a term of reference to dipole, yagi, or other base and
    mobile antennas, while EIRP refers to isotropic radiators such as
    parabolic microwave antennas.

[^219]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.147(s)(3).

[^220]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.147(s)(5), (6).

[^221]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.147(s)(7).

[^222]: Alcatel Comments at 7; *see also* Digital Comments at 5; Harris
    Comments at 5.

[^223]: TIA Petition at 22.

[^224]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.115, 101.147(s).

[^225]: TIA Petition at 22.

[^226]: *Id*. at 23.

[^227]: *Id.* at 23-24; TIA Reply Comments at 7.

[^228]: The 0.46-meter (18-inch) diameter antenna would qualify under
    Category A and the 0.30-meter (1-foot) diameter antennas would
    qualify under Category B. TIA Petition at 24.

[^229]: *Id.* at 24-25; TIA Reply Comments at 7.

[^230]: This is consistent with the Commission's recent decision
    regarding directional antennas. *See* Amendment of Parts 74, 78, 101
    of the Commission's Rules to Adopt More Flexible Standards for
    Directional Microwave Antennas*, Report and Order,* ET Docket No.
    96-35, 12 FCC Rcd 1016, 1035 (1997).

[^231]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.115 (1996).

[^232]: These new radiation standards would permit use of a shrouded 3.7
    kilometer (2-foot) high performance antenna to meet Category A
    specifications and an unshrouded 1.22 meter (4‑foot) standard
    antenna to meet Category B specifications. TIA Petition at 25.

[^233]: Alcatel Comments at 7-8; Andrew Corporation Comments at 3;
    Digital Comments at 4; Harris Comments at 4.

[^234]: AirTouch Communications Comments at 2.

[^235]: *See BBA Notice*, FCC 99-52.

[^236]: *Id.*, ¶ 1.

[^237]: *Id.*

[^238]: *Id.*, ¶ 74.

[^239]: *See* Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced
    Telecommunications Capability to All Americans In a Reasonable and
    Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment
    Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
    *Notice of Inquiry*, CC Docket 98-146, 13 FCC Rcd 15280, 15308
    (1998).

[^240]: *See id.* at 15294-301.

[^241]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.103(d). This section specifies traditional
    coordination procedures for site-based facilities.

[^242]: *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on
    Broadwave Albany, L.L.C. *et al.* Requests for Waiver of Part 101
    Rules, *Corrected Public Notice*, DA 99-494 (WTB rel. Mar. 11,
    1999).

[^243]: *See* Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and
    Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency Range and Amendment of
    the Commission\'s Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of
    the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite Licensees and
    Their Affiliates, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, ET Docket No.
    98-206, 14 FCC Rcd 1131 (1998).

[^244]: *See* The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the
    Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band, IB Docket No. 99-81,
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd 4843 (1999).

[^245]: *See generally* Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission\'s Rules
    \-- Competitive Bidding Procedures, *Third Report and Order and
    Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 13 FCC Rcd 374
    (1997).

[^246]: *BBA Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 5243 ¶ 74.

[^247]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(1), (2) (as amended by Balanced Budget Act §
    3002).

[^248]: *See id.*, ¶ 78.

[^249]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2)(A). *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. Part 90,
    Subpart B; *see also* H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 105-217, 105th Cong., 1st
    Sess., 572 (1997) (*Conference Report*). In the *Conference Report*
    these changes are further elaborated.

[^250]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.20.

[^251]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(d)(73).

[^252]: *BBA Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 5224 ¶ 30.

[^253]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2)(C).

[^254]: 47 C.F.R. § 397(6)(A).

[^255]: 47 C.F.R. § 397(6)(B).

[^256]: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act ‑‑
    Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional
    Television Fixed Service Licenses, *First Report and Order*, MM
    Docket No. 97-234, 13 FCC Rcd 15920, 16001 (1998).

[^257]: *Id.* at 16000.

[^258]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 160(a)(1-3). Section 10 provides the
    Commission with authority to forbear from application of virtually
    any regulation or any provision of the Act to a telecommunications
    carrier or telecommunications service, or a class of carriers or
    services. However, the Commission may not forbear from applying the
    requirements of Sections 251(c) or 271 until it determines that
    those requirements have been fully implemented. *See* 47 U.S.C. §
    160(d).

[^259]: *See* Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the
    Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, *Second
    Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 1411, 1463-93, ¶¶ 124-219, 272.
    Although the Commission recently concluded that, pursuant to Section
    10(a)(3), forbearance from the international Section 214 application
    process would not be consistent with the public interest, we
    substantially streamlined the international 214 process, providing
    significant regulatory relief. *See* 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review
    \-- Review of International Common Carrier Regulations, *Report and
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 4909, 4917 ¶ 18 (1999). *See also* Personal
    Communications Industry Association\'s Broadband Personal
    Communications Services Alliance\'s Petition for Forbearance For
    Broadband Personal Communications Services, Forbearance from
    Applying Provisions of the Communications Act to Wireless
    Telecommunications Carriers, *Memorandum Opinion and Order and
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 13 FCC Rcd 16857, 16914 ¶ 119
    (released July 2, 1998) (*Forbearance Order*). *See also*
    Implementation of Section 402(b)(2)(A) of the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996; Petition for Forbearance of the Independent Telephone &
    Telecommunications Alliance, *Report and Order in CC Docket No.
    97-11, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order in AAD, File No. 98-43*,
    14 FCC Rcd 11364 (1999) (eliminating entry certification filing
    requirements under Section 214 and significantly streamlining exit
    certification requirements, granting the substance of the Section
    214 regulatory relief requested by the members of the Independent
    Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance in their petition for
    forbearance, and extending that relief to all other domestic
    carriers).

[^260]: *See Forbearance Order, supra*, 13 FCC Rcd at 16864-16872 ¶¶
    14-31. The Commission also declined to forbear from applying Section
    20.12(b) of the Commission\'s rules, which requires broadband
    personal communications service, cellular, and covered specialized
    mobile radio carriers, to permit unrestricted resale of their
    services until five years after the last group of initial licensees
    for broadband PCS is awarded. *Id*. at 44.

[^261]: *See* Hyperion Telecommunications, Inc. Petition Requesting
    Forbearance; Time Warner Communications Petition for Forbearance;
    Complete Detariffing for Competitive Access Providers and
    Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, *Memorandum Opinion and Order
    and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd 8596, 8608-10 ¶¶
    23-27 (1997).

[^262]: We note that we have sought comment on these same issues with
    respect to the 24 GHz band specifically. *See* Amendment to Parts 1,
    2 and 101 of the Commission\'s Rules To License Fixed Services at 24
    GHz, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, WT Docket No. 99-327, FCC
    99-333, ¶ 35, (rel. Nov. 10, 1999). In this proceeding, we seek to
    broaden the scope of our inquiry to Part 101 services generally.

[^263]: *See MAS Report and Order*, FCC No. 99‑415 (rel. Jan. 19, 2000).

[^264]: *39 GHz Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 18613-15.

[^265]: *39 GHz Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 18614; *MAS Report an
    Order*, FCC No. 99‑415 (rel. Jan. 19, 2000). at ¶ 101-105.

[^266]: 47 U.S.C. § 303(y).

[^267]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419.

[^268]: *See* Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
    *Report and Order*, GC Docket No. 97-113, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).