**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| **In the Matter of**             | * | **WT Docket No. 01-319**     |
|                                  | * |                              |
| **Review of Quiet Zones          | ) |                              |
| Application**                    | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| **Procedures**                   |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**REPORT AND ORDER**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Adopted: February 4, 2004**       **Released: February 12, 2004**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**By the Commission:**

**[TABLE OF CONTENTS]{.underline}**

**[Para.]{.underline}**

**i. iNTRODUCTION 1**

**ii. BACKGROUND 2**

**III. DISCUSSION 5**

**A. Streamlining Quiet Zone application processing 5**

**B. Coordination in advance of application filing 7**

**C. Conditional operation of stations 11**

**D. Rules cross-referencing section 1.924 14**

**E. Matters raised by commenters in response to the *NPRM*. 17**

1\. Proposals to institute 30-day automatic consent period 18

**2. Proposal requesting greater Commission oversight of guidelines and
processes**

**used by Quiet Zone entities 22**

**3. Proposal to allow applicants to avoid coordination process if they
provide self-certification regarding operational parameters 27**

**4. Clarification of coordination obligations 33**

**F. Administrative corrections 35**

**IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 37**

**A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 37**

**B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 38**

**V. ORDERING CLAUSES 39**

**Appendix A: Rules**

**Appendix B: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

**Appendix C: Commenters**

# INTRODUCTION {#introduction .Outline-(.25)}

1.  By this action, we adopt changes to our rules governing areas known
    as "Quiet Zones."[^1] The amendments that we adopt today serve the
    dual purposes of streamlining requirements for applications
    affecting Quiet Zones, while protecting these sensitive areas from
    harmful interference. We believe that the record in this proceeding
    demonstrates that our rules have been largely successful in
    protecting Quiet Zones while facilitating the deployment of wireless
    services. Nevertheless, we believe there are certain modifications
    that will expedite the application process, reduce unnecessary or
    redundant requirements from Commission regulations, and promote the
    efficient use of spectrum within these protected areas. Accordingly,
    in this *Report and Order*, we:

-   Amend our rules to provide for immediate processing of applications
    that may implicate Quiet Zones, in the event that the applicant
    indicates that it has obtained consent, if required by section
    1.924, of the Quiet Zone entity.

-   Amend our rules to clarify that applicants may provide notification
    to and begin coordination with Quiet Zone entities, where required,
    in advance of filing an application with the Commission.

-   Amend section 101.31(b)(1)(v) to permit Part 101 applicants to
    initiate conditional operation, provided they have obtained prior
    consent of the Quiet Zone entity to the extent required, and are
    otherwise eligible to initiate conditional operations over the
    proposed facility; similarly, we clarify that, for services in which
    individual station licenses are not issued, licensees may initiate
    operations immediately upon receipt of the Quiet Zone entity's
    consent.

-   Clarify that either the applicant or the applicant's frequency
    coordinator may notify and initiate any required coordination
    proceedings with the Quiet Zone entity.

# BACKGROUND. {#background. .Outline-(.25)}

2.  Section 1.924 of our rules sets forth procedures regarding
    coordination of Wireless Telecommunications Services applications
    and operations within areas known as "Quiet Zones." [^2] Such zones
    are areas where "it is necessary to restrict radiation so as to
    minimize possible impact on the operations of radio astronomy or
    other facilities that are highly sensitive to interference."[^3] The
    facilities covered by section 1.924 are: (1) the National Radio
    Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) site in Green Bank, Pocahontas County,
    West Virginia, and the Naval Radio Research Observatory (NRRO) site
    in Sugar Grove, Pendleton County, West Virginia;[^4] (2) the Table
    Mountain Radio Receiving Zone of the Research Laboratories of the
    Department of Commerce (Table Mountain) in Boulder County,
    Colorado;[^5] (3) FCC field offices used for monitoring
    activities;[^6] and (4) the Arecibo Observatory (Arecibo) in Puerto
    Rico.[^7] The record confirms that such facilities are sensitive to
    interference. For example, commenters have explained that the
    emissions that radio astronomy facilities are designed to receive
    are extremely weak; a typical radio telescope receives approximately
    one-trillionth of a watt from even the strongest cosmic source and
    can receive sources one million times weaker still.[^8] Because
    radio astronomy receivers are designed to pick up such weak signals,
    these facilities are extremely vulnerable to interference from
    spurious and out-of-band emissions.

3.  In order to protect Quiet Zones from harmful interference, section
    1.924 sets forth a variety of required or recommended procedures for
    notifications to and/or coordination of proposed frequency use with
    an affected site. The facilities affected can be separated into two
    categories: areas in which applicants are required to provide
    notification of any proposed operations prior to authorization, and
    areas for which the Commission recommends advanced consultation.[^9]
    For facilities requiring notification, specifically NRAO, NRRO and
    Arecibo, section 1.924 provides that notification must occur
    concurrently with the filing of the application, and that the
    affected facility must be given an opportunity to comment on the
    application.[^10] For example, section 1.924(a) provides that an
    entity filing an application to operate a new or modified station in
    the NRAO or NRRO Quiet Zone areas must simultaneously provide
    notification to the applicable entity along with technical details
    of its proposed operation. The filing of the application triggers a
    20-day comment period during which the applicable Quiet Zone is
    given an opportunity to file comments or objections in response to
    the notifications.[^11] For other facilities, such as Table Mountain
    and FCC Field Monitoring Facilities, the Commission's rules do not
    require that notification and opportunity to object be afforded to
    the affected facility prior to grant of the application.[^12] Rather
    than require notification and a 20-day comment period for the latter
    areas, the Commission urges that advance consultation be made with
    the applicable entity in order to avoid interference.

4.  In January 2001, pursuant to the statutory mandate under section 11
    of the Communications Act, as amended, requiring the periodic review
    of Commission rules, Commission staff completed an evaluation of
    regulations affecting telecommunications service providers, and
    issued a report regarding recommendations made as a result of that
    review.[^13] In its comments to the 2000 Biennial Review, Alloy LLC,
    now Cingular Wireless LLP, argued that the Commission's rules add an
    excessive interval to the process of obtaining approval for wireless
    facilities located within Quiet Zone areas.[^14] As an example,
    Alloy/Cingular stated that, although the Arecibo Observatory is
    often willing to provide written approval for wireless
    modifications, the Commission's rules delay final approval.[^15]
    Alloy/Cingular asserted that the Commission's rules are burdensome
    and can be improved to address speed of service issues.[^16] In
    response to these comments, the staff recommended that we reexamine
    the application procedures for Quiet Zone areas and determine
    whether we could make these procedures more efficient.[^17] In the
    *2000 Biennial Review Report*, the Commission accepted the staff's
    recommendation to initiate a rulemaking to review the rules
    governing applications potentially affecting Quiet Zones.[^18]
    Accordingly, in November 2001, the Commission issued a *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking* (*NPRM*) seeking to identify and address ways
    of streamlining the processing of such applications, while
    simultaneously ensuring the continued protection of these sensitive
    areas.[^19]

# DISCUSSION {#discussion .Outline-(.25)}

# Streamlining Quiet Zone application processing. {#streamlining-quiet-zone-application-processing. .Outline-(.25)}

5.  *Background*. In the *NPRM*, the Commission inquired whether, in
    situations in which Quiet Zone issues are implicated, it is
    appropriate to expedite application processing if the application
    provides written consent, where required, from the applicable Quiet
    Zone entity.[^20] As noted, section 1.924(a) and 1.924(d) set out a
    20-day period[^21] during which the NRAO, NRRO or Arecibo may lodge
    a comment or objection in response to a notification regarding
    proposed operation.[^22] The Commission suggested that in such
    situations, if a wireless operator obtains written consent as
    necessary from the applicable entity following consultation, the
    Commission could process the application without awaiting the end of
    the 20-day period.[^23]

6.  *Discussion*. We conclude that, in situations where notification is
    required, it is appropriate to amend our rules to provide for the
    immediate processing of applications where the applicant has
    obtained the prior written consent of the relevant Quiet Zone
    entity. We find that waiting for the expiration of the 20-day
    waiting period in cases in which the applicant has consulted with,
    and obtained approval from, the Quiet Zone entity, unduly delays the
    processing of applications. The underlying basis of the waiting
    period was to provide affected Quiet Zone entities an interval
    within which to lodge comments or objections regarding interference
    concerns with the Commission. Delaying the processing of
    applications until the expiration of the waiting period serves no
    purpose in situations in which the Quiet Zone entity has indicated
    that it has no objections to the technical details of the proposed
    operation. Accordingly, we adopt this proposal. Most of the parties
    commenting on this issue agree that the waiting period need not be
    exhausted if the affected Quiet Zone entity has provided written
    consent.[^24] NRAO, however, argues that a reduction of the 20-day
    waiting period would place an undue administrative burden on the
    Quiet Zone entity and would jeopardize the thoroughness of an
    application evaluation.[^25] NRAO states that an applicant should
    not expect a completed evaluation in advance of the 20-day
    period.[^26] We note, however, that our decision to expedite
    application processing relates only to applicants that have obtained
    written consent from the applicable Quiet Zone entity. Where prior
    written consent is not obtained, Quiet Zone entities retain the full
    20-day period to file comments or objections regarding a proposed
    operation. Further, in order to avoid any confusion as to the scope
    of a Quiet Zone entity's consent, the written consent from the Quiet
    Zone entity must include the same technical parameters specified in
    the application.[^27]

# Coordination in advance of application filing. {#coordination-in-advance-of-application-filing. .Outline-(.25)}

7.  *Background*. In the *NPRM*, the Commission requested comment on
    whether to allow parties to provide notification to and begin
    coordination with affected entities, where required, in advance of
    filing an application with the Commission.[^28] As noted, sections
    1.924(a)(2) and 1.924(d)(2) require an applicant to notify NRAO,
    NRRO or the Arecibo Observatory at the same time it makes a filing
    with the Commission.[^29] In the *NPRM*, the Commission tentatively
    concluded that advance coordination with these Quiet Zone entities
    would help to expedite application processing and the initiation of
    operations, while also ensuring that Quiet Zones are protected.[^30]

8.  *Discussion.* We conclude that applicants and Quiet Zone entities
    alike will benefit from advance notification and coordination. We
    agree with commenters who state that the simultaneous notification
    currently specified in the Commission's rules may have discouraged
    applicants from planning ahead and obtaining the prior consent of
    the applicable Quiet Zone entity.[^31] We find that prior
    notification and coordination between applicants and Quiet Zone
    entities should be encouraged because such coordination would allow
    parties to directly address any interference concerns prior to
    filing, thereby avoiding the possibility that a Quiet Zone entity
    will object after an application has been filed. This in turn would
    facilitate the expeditious processing of applications by the
    Commission. The commenters strongly support the idea of prior
    coordination, noting that advance notification and coordination has
    already been occurring on an informal basis, and emphasizing that,
    based on previous experience, the earlier that coordination occurs
    between carriers and Quiet Zone entities, the better the result for
    all parties. Given these considerations, we modify sections
    1.924(a)(2) and 1.924(d)(2) to provide that notice may be provided
    to the affected Quiet Zone entity prior to, or simultaneously with,
    a Commission filing.

9.  In addition to seeking comment on whether advance notification and
    coordination should be permitted, the Commission sought comment on
    the appropriate length of time that should be prescribed for such
    notification and coordination.[^32] There was, however, little
    comment as to this issue. One commenter, the National Science
    Foundation (NSF), advocates early coordination with Quiet Zone
    entities, particularly within 30 to 60 days prior to a Commission
    filing, but feels that coordination between parties earlier than 60
    days prior to a filing would not be productive.[^33] Another
    commenter, NRAO, states that in light of the success of the
    "informal preliminary evaluations" it has provided to applicants in
    the past, the Commission should only encourage advance notification
    rather than mandating a specific time frame. NRAO believes that such
    coordination should remain informal.[^34]

10. We agree with NRAO that the timing of advance coordination should be
    left to the parties. To the extent that prior coordination has been
    occurring informally between applicants and Quiet Zone entities, it
    appears that applicants have successfully coordinated with Quiet
    Zone entities and subsequently filed applications without formal
    direction from or involvement of the Commission. Given this success,
    we conclude that it is unnecessary to prescribe a specific timeline
    for advance notification and coordination. We will, however,
    continue to require that applicants serve notice to the relevant
    Quiet Zone entity that the application has actually been filed and
    that such notification include technical details of the proposed
    operation as set out in sections 1.924(a)(1) and 1.924(d). We
    conclude that continuing to require applicants to provide notice
    when an application is filed is reasonable to ensure consistency
    between technical specifications agreed upon pursuant to the advance
    coordination and what is actually filed in the application.
    Moreover, for situations in which an applicant has given advance
    notice but does not reach agreement with the Quiet Zone entity
    regarding proposed operations, such notice signals the Quiet Zone
    entity that the 20-day waiting/comment period has begun.

# Conditional operation of stations. {#conditional-operation-of-stations. .Outline-(.25)}

11. *Background*. In its comments to the Commission's *2000 Biennial
    Review*, Alloy/Cingular argued that the Commission's rules imposed
    an excessive interval to the process of obtaining approval for
    wireless facilities within the vicinity of a Quiet Zone.[^35]
    Alloy/Cingular asserted that the Commission's rules with respect to
    microwave operations in Quiet Zones are burdensome and can be
    improved to address speed of service issues.[^36] Specifically,
    section 101.31(b) permits applicants for certain point-to-point
    microwave stations to operate on a conditional basis during the
    pendency of an associated application under certain conditions.[^37]
    However, subsection (v) of that rule forbids conditional operation
    of facilities located in areas identified in section 1.924 in
    general.[^38] Acknowledging this issue in the *NPRM*, the Commission
    sought comment on whether to allow Part 101 applicants to initiate
    conditional operation under section 101.31(b), notwithstanding the
    limitation contained in subsection (v), if they submit written
    consent from the applicable Quiet Zone entity, and otherwise are
    eligible to initiate conditional operations over the proposed
    facility.[^39]

12. *Discussion*. We conclude that it is in the public interest to allow
    Part 101 applicants to operate on a conditional basis in Quiet Zones
    pending application processing if they obtain prior consent from the
    applicable Quiet Zone entity. Section 101.31(b)(1)(v)'s ban on
    conditional operation in Quiet Zones was established to ensure that
    such areas are adequately protected from interference. However, we
    conclude that the underlying goal of the ban against conditional
    operation in Quiet Zones would be served where, prior to submitting
    an application, an applicant has resolved interference and other
    coordination issues with an affected entity and has obtained
    consent. The Commission has previously recognized that permitting
    conditional operation pending the approval of an application
    provides greater flexibility to Part 101 entities and enables them
    to operate more efficiently.[^40] In instances where applicants have
    obtained consent from the relevant entities and have satisfied other
    applicable conditions, we agree with commenters that precluding such
    Part 101 entities from operating on a conditional basis would unduly
    delay the construction and deployment of microwave networks. Indeed,
    all commenters responding to this issue indicate that we should
    permit conditional operation in such situations.[^41] Accordingly,
    we will modify section 101.31(b)(1)(v) to permit conditional
    operation in Quiet Zones if the applicant has obtained written
    consent from the applicable entity and otherwise satisfies the
    criteria for conditional authorization found in section 101.31(b).

13. Verizon Wireless suggests that, although the vast majority of
    applications that are delayed as a result of Quiet Zones procedures
    are microwave authorizations, any decision on our part to permit
    conditional operation in a Quiet Zone area should also apply to
    other wireless services such as the Personal Communications Service
    (PCS) or cellular service.[^42] We conclude that, for wireless
    services in which applicants are permitted to operate on a
    conditional basis prior to authorization, there is little basis to
    distinguish applicants of such services from Part 101 applicants so
    long as an applicant has coordinated with the applicable Quiet Zone
    entity and all other requirements for conditional operation have
    been met. As noted, once an applicant has coordinated with a Quiet
    Zone entity and has obtained consent, little benefit is gained from
    precluding conditional operation. However, we will not extend this
    to wireless services, such as cellular, which do not permit
    operation prior to authorization by the Commission.

# Rules cross-referencing section 1.924. {#rules-cross-referencing-section-1.924. .Outline-(.25)}

14. *Background*. There are a number of Commission rules that
    cross-reference section 1.924 or specify procedures that are
    contingent upon section 1.924.[^43] In the *NPRM,* the Commission
    referenced sections 90.655,[^44] 95.45(b),[^45] 101.1009,[^46] and
    101.1329[^47] as examples of rules that point out that certain sites
    may require individual station licenses or are the subject to other
    restrictions if they are located in Quiet Zones.[^48] The Commission
    requested comments on any possible modifications of these or other
    rules that implement the Commission's goals regarding protection of
    Quiet Zones from unacceptable interference.[^49] The commenters who
    addressed this issue advocate maintaining all references to section
    1.924 of our rules, as well as adding additional references to
    section 1.924 in service-specific rules, particularly for services
    that are licensed according to geographic area markets.[^50]
    Commenters argue that such cross-referencing is necessary because
    applicants are likely to read only those rules that refer to their
    own service, and may be unaware of the need to comply with Quiet
    Zone rules.[^51]

15. *Discussion*. We find that augmenting our service-specific rules to
    ensure that applicants and licensees are aware of their section
    1.924 obligations is not warranted. Applicants and licensees are
    required to be aware of and to comply with all applicable Commission
    rules.[^52] We note that in the *ULS Report and Order*, the
    Commission consolidated all wireless procedural rules, including
    service-specific Quiet Zone rules, into Part 1 in order to provide
    consistent standards for all wireless services, eliminate
    unnecessary or redundant rules, and retain service-specific rules
    only where such rules are necessary due to technical, operational or
    policy considerations of the particular wireless service.[^53] In
    consolidating all of the procedural rules in Part 1, the Commission
    established a single point of reference regarding our wireless
    licensing procedures.[^54] We find the argument that applicants are
    unlikely to read applicable Part 1 rules unpersuasive to undo the
    harmony and consistency achieved by the *ULS Report and Order*.
    Moreover, we are not aware that there is a current problem with
    carriers not complying with section 1.924 requirements specifically
    because they are not aware of the obligation to do so. Therefore, we
    will not place additional references to section 1.924 in our
    service-specific rules.[^55]

16. Although we will not amend our service-specific rules to include
    additional cross-reference to section 1.924, we nonetheless will
    take other measures to publicize section 1.924 requirements. For
    example, we will evaluate whether it is possible to modify the
    Commission's application forms to make reference to section 1.924
    obligations more explicit. We will also take outreach measures such
    as placing information on the Commission's website or issuing public
    notices to remind entities of their obligations.

# Matters raised by commenters in response to the *NPRM*.  {#matters-raised-by-commenters-in-response-to-the-nprm. .Outline-(.25)}

17. In the *NPRM,* the Commission requested comment on ways to improve
    the current procedures prescribed by section 1.924 that would
    streamline the applicable processes while continuing to ensure that
    areas are fully and adequately protected. In response, we received a
    number of proposals to modify the processes set out in section
    1.924.

# Proposals to institute 30-day automatic consent period. {#proposals-to-institute-30-day-automatic-consent-period. .Outline-(.25)}

18. *Background.* Two of the commenters in this proceeding advocate an
    advance 30-day notification period during which the failure of the
    Quiet Zone entity to comment or object will constitute approval of
    the terms of the proposed operation. First, Cingular suggests that
    the consent process regarding conditional authority for microwave
    services in Quiet Zones be combined with current frequency
    coordination procedures.[^56] Part 101 applicants are required to
    provide notification to other Part 101 licensees and applicants of
    proposed frequency use prior to filing an application with the
    Commission.[^57] If no comment or objection is received within 30
    days, the applicant is deemed to have made reasonable efforts to
    coordinate and may file its application without a response.[^58]
    Cingular proposes that this rule be extended to Quiet Zone
    situations so that the Quiet Zone entity would be required to
    respond in writing to an applicant's proposed operation within the
    same 30-day period. In Cingular's proposal, an applicant can satisfy
    the consent requirement by providing a statement that the Quiet Zone
    entity has been notified and no responses were received within 30
    days of notification.[^59] Cingular asserts that this change will
    reduce the need for Quiet Zone entities to formally respond in
    writing to every proposal while still providing operational
    flexibility to microwave applicants.[^60]

19. Spanish Broadcasting System (SBS) also proposes a 30-day
    notification period, but seeks to apply the 30-day notification
    period across services.[^61] In SBS's proposal, for situations in
    which notification is required prior to authorization, if a Quiet
    Zone entity does not respond to pre-application coordination efforts
    made by an applicant within 30 days of notification, then
    concurrence will be implied.[^62] No comment period would occur
    after filing. SBS proposes that the Commission require that
    applicants file an application within 60 days of the end of the
    30-day period to prevent the application from getting stale.[^63]

20. *Discussion.* We decline to adopt the proposals advanced by Cingular
    and SBS to establish a process in which consent by a Quiet Zone
    entity is assumed if no objections are raised by the end of a 30-day
    period. As emphasized in the *NPRM,* we consider protection of the
    Quiet Zone areas from radiofrequency interference to be critically
    important and that in instituting this proceeding, we do not intend
    to reduce or eliminate applicant requirements to coordinate with
    Quiet Zones.[^64] Our aim in this proceeding is to identify ways to
    streamline our application processes but only if the underlying
    objectives of the Quiet Zone rules are not compromised.[^65] We
    believe that the protections set out in section 1.924 will be
    undercut if carriers may assume that failure by a Quiet Zone entity
    to respond to a notification within 30 days may automatically be
    construed as consent.[^66] We continue to believe that actual
    coordination between applicants and Quiet Zone entities remains the
    most effective means for parties to ensure that Quiet Zone areas are
    protected from interference in the least burdensome manner to
    applicants.

21. While Cingular and SBS argue that allowing a 30-day automatic
    consent period is more desirable than the current coordination
    process,[^67] we do not believe that a departure from our current
    coordination processes is warranted. The Commission cannot know what
    is occurring with respect to interactions between applicants and
    Quiet Zone entities, for example, whether notification was adequate
    or whether applicants are taking appropriate measures to avoid
    interference to Quiet Zone areas. Without explicit prior approval by
    the Quiet Zone entity or a time period during which a Quiet Zone
    entity may lodge objections to operational parameters set out in an
    application, we cannot assume consent. Further, the record makes
    apparent that applicants and Quiet Zone entities have been largely
    successful in resolving notification and coordination issues under
    our current rules. Although certain commenters assert that our rules
    regarding coordination are burdensome,[^68] these commenters have
    not provided any specifics as to any difficulties or delays caused
    by our rules, nor are we aware that any applications have been
    unduly delayed as a result of our Quiet Zone rules. To the extent
    that there have been delays, we are confident that the rule changes
    that we are adopting in this proceeding will make the Quiet Zone
    application processes more efficient and will facilitate the rapid
    deployment of service.

# Proposal requesting greater Commission oversight of guidelines and processes used by Quiet Zone entities. {#proposal-requesting-greater-commission-oversight-of-guidelines-and-processes-used-by-quiet-zone-entities. .Outline-(.25)}

22. *Background.* RCC Consultants (RCC) requests that the Commission set
    out specific Quiet Zone interference standards that must be followed
    by Quiet Zone entities, specifically NRAO and NRRO.[^69] RCC states
    that, although pre-coordination with Quiet Zone facilities has been
    helpful in the past, pre-coordination is a trial and error process
    that is unnecessary and burdensome for applicants.[^70] Instead, RCC
    argues that the interference protection criteria used by these
    facilities should be set out in the Commission's rules, and a clear
    process for appeals regarding interference objections raised by NRAO
    and NRRO should be established to determine the reasonableness of
    existing criteria and any future changes.[^71] RCC asserts that
    these facilities can and have changed their interference parameters
    at will with no opportunity for public comment or appeal, and that
    the present method of determining acceptable effective radiated
    power (ERP) with respect to the NRAO and NRRO facilities is subject
    to error.[^72] RCC states that the interference criteria as
    presently established by NRAO generally makes use of the 700-800 MHz
    public safety frequency bands economically infeasible in several
    counties of Virginia, thereby denying public safety agencies in
    these areas the benefits of interoperability and mutual aid
    communications with other public safety agencies.[^73]

23. *Discussion*. In the *Arecibo Report and Order*, the Commission
    established coordination procedures that would apply to operations
    potentially affecting the Arecibo Radio Astronomy Observatory. In
    establishing these procedures, the Commission explained its
    rationale for not adopting specific interference criteria. The
    Commission concluded that the large number of services \-\-- each
    operating at differing power levels and frequencies \-\-- as well as
    other variables such as terrain and propagation characteristics made
    it prohibitively difficult and time-consuming to establish
    interference standards that would apply to all applicants.[^74]
    Given these considerations, the Commission did not establish
    interference limits, and instead directed Arecibo to establish
    technical guidelines to be used during coordination.[^75] Although
    that order was specific to the Arecibo facility, the same rationale
    holds true for NRAO and NRRO as well.

24. We conclude that RCC has not demonstrated that circumstances now
    exist that warrant a change to our policies regarding Quiet Zones
    interference standards. The factors that caused the Commission to
    find in the *Arecibo Report and Order* that establishing specific
    interference criteria would be inordinately difficult and
    time-consuming remain valid. Although we do not rule out the
    possibility that in the future we may reconsider our position on
    this issue, we have not been presented with facts or circumstances
    sufficient to persuade us that it is now necessary to develop and
    codify interference standards for NRAO and NRRO.

25. Similarly, we do not find that it is desirable for the Commission to
    mandate a method of performing interference studies. We believe that
    specifying the precise method of conducting interference studies
    could actually run counter to the interests of applicants by taking
    flexibility out of the coordination process. For example, the
    Commission could prescribe a method that, depending on the
    particular circumstance, results in a more restrictive outcome to
    the applicant than that which may have occurred had the applicant
    and the Quiet Zone entity had an opportunity to work out a technical
    solution. Instead, we continue to believe that applicants and Quiet
    Zone entities should be given the flexibility to work out a solution
    as to how best to safeguard the affected entity's operations while
    minimizing burdens on the applicant. Although RCC argues that the
    parameters needed to perform the interference analyses should be
    published and should be replicable by a competent engineer, it
    appears that much of the information that RCC seeks is already being
    provided to the public. For example, NRAO specifies on its website
    how it evaluates proposed operations.[^76] We note that, although
    RCC argues that NRAO can and has changed its interference parameters
    at will, it does not provide specific details[^77] nor does the
    record reflect that other entities have had difficulties in
    coordinating with NRAO or other Quiet Zone entities.

26. We also find it unnecessary to establish a process for applicants to
    appeal interference objections raised by Quiet Zone entities.
    Although Quiet Zone entities are tasked with establishing technical
    guidelines regarding operations in Quiet Zone areas and are
    permitted to object to an applicant's proposed operations, the
    Commission remains the sole entity with authority to resolve service
    licensing issues.[^78] We emphasize that the interference guidelines
    set by Quiet Zone entities are starting points from which the
    applicant and the applicable entity can begin discussions. If an
    applicant believes that a Quiet Zone entity's guidelines are
    incorrect or overly-stringent, it has the ability to raise the issue
    with the Commission for final resolution.[^79]

# Proposal to allow applicants to avoid coordination process if they provide self-certification regarding operational parameters. {#proposal-to-allow-applicants-to-avoid-coordination-process-if-they-provide-self-certification-regarding-operational-parameters. .Outline-(.25)}

27. *Background*. Similar to RCC, SBS also requests the Commission to
    establish specific Quiet Zone interference criteria. However, unlike
    RCC, which seeks technical standards that Quiet Zone entities would
    be required to follow during coordination, SBS seeks specific
    interference criteria as part of a safe harbor approach by which
    applicants could self-certify that they are operating below
    established interference limits.[^80] SBS's proposal provides that
    no Quiet Zone coordination would be necessary for applicants that
    certify that their proposed facility produces a predicted field
    strength that is less than those established by the Commission.[^81]

28. Further, SBS suggests that, in the event that the applicant's
    proposed operation produces a predicted field strength that exceeds
    the established limit, the applicant can still self-certify and
    avoid the coordination process if it submits a showing of terrain
    shadowing or other local propagation anomaly which results in a
    diminished field strength at the Quiet Zone location.[^82]
    Alternatively, SBS proposes that, if the Commission determines that
    there must be actual coordination between applicants and Quiet Zone
    entities, the Commission should find that no Quiet Zone consent is
    required where the applicant proposes a modified facility which is
    technically equivalent to an existing facility.[^83]

29. *Discussion*. We find that SBS's proposals to permit
    self-certification would increase the risk of harmful interference
    to Quiet Zone operations. As an initial matter, we note that,
    similar to its 30-day coordination period proposal, the purpose of
    SBS's self-certification proposals is to bypass the requirement to
    coordinate with Quiet Zone entities, a proposal that we have
    rejected as running counter to the goals of this proceeding. This
    notwithstanding, even if we conclude that it is feasible and
    desirable for the Commission to establish appropriate interference
    criteria, there is still a risk that applicants may make errors in
    calculation, as one commenter asserts,[^84] or that the established
    criteria is not appropriate for a given facility. For example, RCC
    describes a situation relating to an application for UHF facilities
    in Augusta County, Virginia in which RCC and NRAO both performed
    point-to-point propagation predictions over the same paths and
    arrived at different results. Both results also differed from actual
    measurements that were later conducted.[^85] Although RCC cited this
    incidence as evidence that specific processes and criteria regarding
    interference should be codified, we believe that it is more aptly
    viewed as an example that there must be actual coordination between
    applicant and Quiet Zone entity where required in order to ensure
    that harmful interference to the operations of the Quiet Zone entity
    is avoided.

30. The likelihood that interference may occur is further enhanced if we
    were to adopt SBS's proposal to allow an applicant to avoid actual
    coordination even where its proposed operation produces a predicted
    field strength greater than the established limit. Under SBS's
    proposal, an applicant would be allowed to demonstrate that terrain
    shadowing results in a diminished filed strength in a Quiet Zone
    area. Although accounting for terrain shadowing may in certain cases
    yield a more accurate prediction of the level of interference to
    facilities, SBS does not provide any specifics on how such terrain
    shadowing would be calculated. As Cornell University (Cornell)
    notes, current terrain shadowing programs may be of use in
    calculating the reduction of interference to broadcast facilities,
    but are not designed to predict the impact on the extremely
    sensitive receivers used by radio astronomy observatories.[^86]
    Rather than streamlining the application process, it appears that
    this proposal would in actuality impose an extra level of complexity
    by requiring the Commission to determine whether or not such a
    showing is accurate and a proposed facility is indeed operating
    below interference limits.

31. Similarly, SBS's proposal that coordination need not be required for
    modifications that are technically equivalent to current facilities
    is equally problematic. This proposal poses the problem of how to
    define technical equivalency. Under one scenario, the Commission
    could be required to establish a list of operating parameters that a
    service provider would be required to follow in order for the
    modified facility to be considered technically equivalent to its
    existing facility.[^87] In such a situation, any deviation from the
    established parameters would negate technical equivalency. In
    another scenario, the Commission would be required to determine if a
    service provider's change in one operating parameter sufficiently
    accounts for a change made to a different parameter. For example, to
    account for a change in antenna height, a provider might make a
    change to its radiated power. The Commission would be required to
    determine if a modification to one parameter is adequately negated
    by a change to a different parameter.

32. We conclude that the difficulties that SBS's proposals create far
    outweigh any benefits that would be gained. While SBS argues that
    its proposals will streamline the application process, we find that
    implementation of its proposals would bring complexities to the
    process that would delay application processing or increase the risk
    of harmful interference in Quiet Zone areas. As we have emphasized
    before, while we have a general goal of streamlining our rules and
    processes, we will not do so if the potential for harmful
    interference to Quiet Zones is increased.[^88] Moreover, because it
    appears that, for the most part, applicants and Quiet Zone entities
    have been successful in timely resolving interference issues, we
    find little reason to allow applicants to bypass actual coordination
    with Quiet Zone entities.

#  Clarification of coordination obligations. {#clarification-of-coordination-obligations. .Outline-(.25)}

33. *Background*. Certain wireless services require frequency
    coordination prior to the filing of an application.[^89] A few of
    the commenters request that for applications in these services, the
    Commission identify the entity that is responsible for Quiet Zone
    coordination, *i.e.* the applicant or the applicant's frequency
    coordinator.[^90] The commenters state that, although they believe
    that frequency coordinators are better qualified to deal with
    coordination issues, they primarily wish to have certainty as to
    which entity is obligated.[^91]

34. *Discussion*. Because we seek to provide for flexibility in the
    coordination process, we decline to specify an entity to perform the
    notifications required in section 1.924. The *Arecibo Report and
    Order* provided that an applicant is permitted to make its
    notification through a frequency coordinator, but is responsible for
    ensuring that any interference concerns of the Quiet Zone entity are
    accommodated.[^92] To the extent that the Commission's decision in
    that proceeding was unclear, we clarify that an applicant has the
    option of notifying/coordinating with a Quiet Zone entity itself or
    satisfying the requirement through the use of a frequency
    coordinator. In the event that a frequency coordinator is used and
    the Quiet Zone entity has interference concerns, the frequency
    coordinator may continue to act on behalf of the applicant in order
    to resolve interference issues. However, the applicant retains the
    ultimate responsibility of ensuring that coordination has occurred
    and that the concerns of the Quiet Zone entity are addressed.

# Administrative corrections.  {#administrative-corrections. .Outline-(.25)}

35. The *NPRM* provided that the Commission's rules would be amended to
    correct certain ministerial errors.[^93] First, we reinstate a
    limitation on the Arecibo Observatory coordination obligations that
    was inadvertently omitted when the Commission consolidated many of
    its wireless rules into Part 1 in the ULS proceeding. To correct
    this omission, we add a new section 1.924(d)(4) that states: "The
    provisions of this paragraph do not apply to operations that
    transmit on frequencies above 15 GHz." Similarly, the version of
    section 1.924(e) contained in the current volume of the Code of
    Federal Regulations includes two typographical errors from the rule
    adopted in 1997. Specifically, in section 1.924(e)(1), the first set
    of coordinates listed under Denver, CO Area, Rectangle 1 should be
    41º 30\' 00\" North Latitude instead of 1º31'00\" North. In section
    1.924(e)(2), the longitude coordinates should read 76º 52\' 00\"
    instead of 78º 52\' 00\". Further, we change the Quiet Zones
    reference in sections 27.601(c)(iii) and 90.159(b)(5) from section
    90.177 to section 1.924, to reflect the consolidation of wireless
    rules we adopted in the ULS proceeding.[^94]

36. In addition to the errors identified in the *NPRM*, further review
    of the Quiet Zones rules reveals that other corrections are
    necessary. First, some of the power flux density values identified
    in the table entitled "Field Strength Limits for Table Mountain" in
    section 1.924(b)(1) are not listed correctly. All power flux density
    limits specified in the table and its accompanying footnote should
    have negative values.[^95] For example, the power flux density value
    for signals in the 470 to 890 MHz range should read "-56.2" rather
    than the "56.2" currently listed in the table. Further, the
    coordinates in rule section 1.924(f)(1)(i) should be 41º 45\' 00.2\"
    North, 70º 30\' 58.3\" West, and coordinates in section
    1.924(f)(4)(iii) should read 34º 08\' 59.6\" North, 119º 11\' 03.8\"
    West. Finally, section 1.924 currently lists both the former and
    current versions of section 1.924(g), and should be corrected to
    remove the former version. We therefore revise section 1.924 to
    reflect these corrections.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS {#procedural-matters .Outline-(.25)}

# Final Regulatory Flexibility Act {#final-regulatory-flexibility-act .Outline-(.25)}

37. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this *Report and
    Order,* as required by Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    of 1980, 5 U.S.C. § 604, is set forth in Appendix B.

# Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis  {#paperwork-reduction-act-analysis .Outline-(.25)}

38. The actions taken in the *Report and Order* have been analyzed with
    respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Pub. L. No.
    104-13, and found to impose new or modified reporting and
    recordkeeping requirements or burdens on the public. Implementation
    of these new or modified reporting and recordkeeping requirements
    will be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB) as prescribed by the PRA, and will go into effect upon
    announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval.

# ORDERING CLAUSES {#ordering-clauses .Outline-(.25)}

39. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i),
    303(r), and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
    U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 303(r), and 309(j), the REPORT AND ORDER is
    ADOPTED.

40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of Sections
    4(i), 7, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 332 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(c),
    303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 332, the rule changes specified in
    Appendix A ARE ADOPTED.

41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule changes set forth in Appendix A
    WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 60 days after publication in the *Federal
    Register.*

42. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this *Report and Order*, including the Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
    of the Small Business Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary 

**APPENDIX A**

**RULES**

PART 1 -- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

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

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, 303(r), 309 and
325(e).

2\. Section 1.924 is amended by revising the title, the introductory
paragraph, paragraphs 1.924(a)(2), 1.924(b)(1), 1.924(b)(3),
1.924(d)(2)(ii), 1.924(e)(1), 1.924(e)(2), 1.924(f)(1)(i),
1.924(f)(4)(iii) and 1.924(g) and by adding paragraph 1.924(d)(4) to
read as follows:

**§ 1.924 Notifications concerning interference to quiet zones, radio
astronomy, research and receiving installations.**

Areas implicated by this paragraph are those in which it is necessary to
restrict radiation so as to minimize possible impact on the operations
of radio astronomy or other facilities that are highly sensitive to
interference. Consent throughout this paragraph means written consent
from the quiet zone, radio astronomy, research, and receiving
installation entity. The areas involved and procedures required are as
follows:

\(a\) \* \* \*

\(1\) \* \* \*

\(2\) When an application for authority to operate a station is filed
with the FCC, the notification required in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section may be made prior to, or simultaneously with the application.
The application must state the date that notification in accordance with
paragraph (a)(1) of this section was made. After receipt of such
applications, the FCC will allow a period of 20 days for comments or
objections in response to the notifications indicated. If an applicant
submits written consent from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory
for itself or on behalf of the Naval Radio Research Observatory, the FCC
will process the application without awaiting the conclusion of the
20-day period. For services that do not require individual station
authorization, entities that have obtained written consent from the
National Radio Astronomy Observatory for itself or on behalf of the
Naval Radio Research Observatory may begin to operate new or modified
facilities prior to the end of the 20-day period. In instances in which
notification has been made to the National Radio Astronomy Observatory
prior to application filing, the applicant must also provide notice to
the quiet zone entity upon actual filing of the application with the
FCC. Such notice will be made simultaneous with the filing of the
application and shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)
of this section.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) \* \* \*

\(1\) \* \* \*

**Field Strength Limits for Table Mountain** **\[superscript 1\]**

+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Frequency range      | Field strength        | Power flux density   |
|                      |                       |                      |
|                      | (mV/m)                | (dBW/m **superscript |
|                      |                       | 2** )                |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Below 540 kHz        | 10                    | -65.8                |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 540 to 1600 kHz      | 20                    | -59.8                |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1.6 to 470 MHz       | 10                    | -65.8                |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 470 to 890 MHz       | 30                    | -56.2                |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 890 MHz and above    | 1                     | -85.8                |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

**superscript 1** Note: Equivalent values of power flux density are
calculated assuming free space characteristic impedance of 376.7 Ω (120π
Ω).

\* \* \* \* \*

\(3\) Applicants concerned are urged to communicate with the Radio
Frequency Management Coordinator, Department of Commerce, NOAA R/OM62,
325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305; telephone 303-497-6548, in advance of
filing their applications with the Commission.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) \* \* \*

\* \* \* \* \*

\(2\) In services in which individual station licenses are issued by the
FCC, the notification required in paragraph (d) of this section may be
made prior to, or simultaneously with, the filing of the application
with the FCC, and at least 20 days in advance of the applicant\'s
planned operation. The application must state the date that notification
in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section was made. In services
in which individual station licenses are not issued by the FCC, the
notification required in paragraph (d) of this section should be sent at
least 45 days in advance of the applicant\'s planned operation. In the
latter services, the Interference Office must inform the FCC of a
notification by an applicant within 20 days if the Office plans to file
comments or objections to the notification. After the FCC receives an
application from a service applicant or is informed by the Interference
Office of a notification from a service applicant, the FCC will allow
the Interference Office a period of 20 days for comments or objections
in response to the application or notification. If an applicant submits
written consent from the Interference Office, the FCC will process the
application without awaiting the conclusion of the 20-day period. For
services that do not require individual station authorization, entities
that have obtained written consent from the Interference Office may
begin to operate new or modified facilities prior to the end of the
20-day period. In instances in which notification has been made to the
Interference Office prior to application filing, the applicant must also
provide notice to the Interference Office upon actual filing of the
application with the FCC. Such notice will be made simultaneous with the
filing of the application and shall comply with the requirements of
paragraph (d) of this section.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(4\) The provisions of paragraph (d) do not apply to operations that
transmit on frequencies above 15 GHz.

\(e\) \* \* \*

\(1\) \* \* \*

Denver, CO Area

Rectangle 1:

41º 30\' 00\" N. Lat. on the north

103° 10\' 00\" W. Long. on the east

38° 30\' 00\" N. Lat. on the south

106° 30\' 00\" W. Long. on the west

Rectangle 2:

38° 30\' 00\" N. Lat. on the north

105° 00\' 00\" W. Long. on the east

37° 30\' 00\" N. Lat. on the south

105° 50\' 00\" W. Long. on the west

Rectangle 3:

40° 08\' 00\" N. Lat. on the north

107° 00\' 00\" W. Long. on the east

39° 56\' 00\" N. Lat. on the south

107° 15\' 00\" W. Long. on the west

Washington, DC Area

Rectangle

38° 40\' 00\" N. Lat. on the north

78° 50\' 00\" W. Long. on the east

38° 10\' 00\" N. Lat. on the south

79° 20\' 00\" W. Long. on the west; or

\(2\) Within a radius of 178 km of 38° 48\' 00\" N. Lat./76° 52\' 00\"
W. Long.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(f\) \* \* \*

\(1\) \* \* \*

\(i\) 41º 45\' 00.2\" N, 70º 30\' 58.3\" W.,

\* \* \* \* \*

\(4\) \* \* \*

\(iii\) 34º 08\' 59.6\" N, 119º 11\' 03.8\" W;

\* \* \* \* \*

\(g\) GOES. The requirements of this paragraph are intended to minimize
harmful interference to Geostationary Operational Environmental
Satellite earth stations receiving in the band 1670-1675 MHz, which are
located at Wallops Island, Virginia; Fairbanks, Alaska; and Greenbelt,
Maryland.

\(1\) Applicants and licensees planning to construct and operate a new
or modified station within the area bounded by a circle with a radius of
100 kilometers (62.1 miles) that is centered on 3756\'47\" N, 7527\'37\"
W (Wallops Island) or 6458\'36\" N, 14731\'03\" W (Fairbanks) or within
the area bounded by a circle with a radius of 65 kilometers (40.4 miles)
that is centered on 3900\'02\" N, 7650\'31\" W (Greenbelt) must notify
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
proposed operation. For this purpose, NOAA maintains the GOES
coordination web page at http:// www.osd.noaa.gov/radio/frequency.htm,
which provides the technical parameters of the earth stations and the
point-of-contact for the notification. The notification shall include
the following information: requested frequency, geographical coordinates
of the antenna location, antenna height above mean sea level, antenna
directivity, emission type, equivalent isotropically radiated power,
antenna make and model, and transmitter make and model.

\(2\) Protection.

\(a\) Wallops Island and Fairbanks. Licensees are required to protect
the Wallops Island and Fairbanks sites at all times.

\(b\) Greenbelt. Licensees are required to protect the Greenbelt site
only when it is active. Licensees should coordinate appropriate
procedures directly with NOAA for receiving notification of times when
this site is active.

\(3\) When an application for authority to operate a station is filed
with the FCC, the notification required in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section should be sent at the same time. The application must state the
date that notification in accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of this
section was made. After receipt of such an application, the FCC will
allow a period of 20 days for comments or objections in response to the
notification.

\(4\) If an objection is received during the 20-day period from NOAA,
the FCC will, after consideration of the record, take whatever action is
deemed appropriate.

3\. Section 27.601 is amended by revising paragraph 27.601(c)(iii) as
follows:

**§ 27.601 Guard Band Manager authority and coordination requirements.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) \* \* \*

\(iii\) Would affect areas described in § 1.924 of this chapter.

\* \* \* \* \*

4\. Section 27.803 is amended by revising paragraph 27.803(b)(3) as
follows:

**§ 27.803 Coordination requirements.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) \* \* \*

\(3\) That operates in areas listed in part 1, § 1.924 of this chapter;
or

\* \* \* \* \*

5\. Section 27.903 is amended by revising paragraph 27.903(b)(3) as
follows:

**§ 27.903 Coordination requirements.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) \* \* \*

\(3\) That operates in areas listed under part 1, § 1.924 of this
chapter.

\* \* \* \* \*

6\. Section 27.1003 is amended by revising paragraph 27.903(b)(3) as
follows:

**§ 27.1003 Coordination requirements.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) \* \* \*

\(3\) That operates in areas listed in part 1, § 1.924 of this chapter;

\* \* \* \* \*

7\. Section 74.25 is amended by revising paragraph 74.25(a)(5) as
follows:

**§ 74.25 Temporary conditional operating authority**.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(a\) \* \* \*

\(5\) The station site does not lie within an area identified in § 1.924
of this chapter.

\* \* \* \* \*

8\. Section 90.159 is amended by revising paragraph 90.159(b)(5) as
follows:

**§ 90.159 Temporary and conditional permits.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) \* \* \*

\* \* \* \* \*

\(5\) The applicant has determined that the proposed station affords the
level of protection to radio quiet zones and radio receiving facilities
as specified in § 1.924.

\* \* \* \* \*

9\. Section 90.1207 is amended by revising paragraph 90.1207(b)(1)(iii)
as follows:

**§ 90.1207 Licensing.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) \* \* \*

\(1\) \* \* \*

\(iii\) The station would affect areas identified in § 1.924 of this
chapter.

\* \* \* \* \*

10\. Section 101.31 is amended by revising paragraph 101.31(b)(1)(v) as
follows:

**§ 101.31 Temporary and conditional authorizations.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) \* \* \*

\(1\) \* \* \*

\(v\) The station site does not lie within 56.3 kilometers of any
international border, within areas identified in §§ 1.924(a) through (d)
of this chapter unless the affected entity consents in writing to
conditional operation or, if operated on frequencies in the 17.8-19.7
GHz band, within any of the areas identified in § 1.924 of this chapter;

\* \* \* \* \*

11\. Section 101.525 is amended by revising paragraph 101.525(a)(1)(iii)
as follows:

**§ 101.525 24 GHz system operations.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(a\) \* \* \*

\(1\) \* \* \*

\(iii\) The station would affect areas identified in § 1.924 of this
chapter.

\* \* \* \* \*

12\. Section 101.1009 is amended by revising paragraph
101.1009(a)(1)(iii) as follows:

**§ 101.1009 System operations.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(a\) \* \* \*

\(1\) \* \* \*

\(iii\) The station would affect areas identified in § 1.924 of this
chapter.

\* \* \* \* \*

13\. Section 101.1009 is amended by revising paragraph 101.1329(c) as
follows:

**§ 101.1329 EA Station license, location, modifications.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) The station would affect areas identified in § 1.924 of this
chapter.

**APPENDIX B**

**FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA),[^96] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in WT Docket No.
01-319, released November 21, 2001 (*NPRM*).[^97] The Commission sought
written public comment on the proposals in the *NPRM*, including comment
on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
conforms to the RFA.[^98]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order.**

In January 2001, pursuant to the statutory mandate under section 11 of
the Communications Act, as amended, requiring the periodic review of
Commission rules, Commission staff completed an evaluation of
regulations affecting telecommunications service providers, and issued a
report regarding recommendations made as a result of that review.[^99]
In response to comments submitted by Alloy LLC, now Cingular Wireless
LLP,[^100] the staff recommended that the Commission reexamine the
application procedures for Quiet Zones and determine whether these
procedures could be made more efficient.[^101] In the *2000 Biennial
Review Report*, the Commission accepted the staff's recommendation to
initiate a rulemaking to review the rules governing applications
potentially affecting Quiet Zones.[^102] Accordingly, in November 2001,
the Commission issued a *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* (*NPRM*) seeking
to identify and address ways of streamlining the processing of such
applications, while simultaneously ensuring the continued protection of
these sensitive areas.[^103]

In the *Report and Order*, we adopt changes to our rules governing Quiet
Zone areas. The amendments serve the dual purposes of streamlining
requirements for applications affecting Quiet Zones, while protecting
these sensitive areas from harmful interference. While we believe that
the record in this proceeding demonstrates that our rules have been
largely successful in protecting Quiet Zones while facilitating the
deployment of wireless services, we believe there are certain
modifications that will expedite the application process, reduce
unnecessary or redundant requirements from Commission regulations, and
promote the efficient use of spectrum within these protected areas.
Accordingly, in this *Report and Order*, we: 1) amend our rules to
provide for immediate processing of applications that may implicate
Quiet Zones, in the event that the applicant indicates that it has
obtained the prior consent of the Quiet Zone entity; 2) amend our rules
to clarify that applicants may provide notification to and begin
coordination with Quiet Zone entities (where required) in advance of
filing an application with the Commission.; 3) amend section
101.31(b)(1)(v) to permit Part 101 applicants as well as applicants for
other services that allow operation prior to authorization, to initiate
conditional operation, provided they have obtained the prior consent of
the Quiet Zone entity and are otherwise eligible to initiate conditional
operations over the proposed facility; 4) clarify that either the
applicant or the applicant's frequency coordinator may notify and
initiate coordination proceedings with the Quiet Zone entity.

**B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA.**

Only one commenter submitted comments in response to the IRFA. RCC
argues that local governments and non-profit agencies that are located
in the NRQZ pay more to install and

operate radio communications systems.[^104] RCC asserts that more
antenna sites are needed to provide satisfactory radio coverage due to
the NRQZ restrictions, and in the worst case, public safety agencies are
forced to accept diminished radio system performance due to impractical
limits on ERP that are required by NRAO.[^105] In order to satisfy NRAO
and NRRO guidelines, RCC states that licensees are forced to: 1) reduce
operating power; 2) use directional antennas; and, 3) place their
transmitters in less than optimal locations. RCC argues that these steps
generally result in diminished radio system performance in the area
where coverage is required. RCC also argues that the Quiet Zone
requirements are, in effect, a de facto unfunded federal mandate because
local governments and small entities receive no reimbursement or federal
funds to compensate them for the additional expense that they incur in
the process of meeting the NRAO and NRRO criteria. RCC argues that the
federal government should compensate local governments and radio
communications systems operators for the costs associated with complying
with Quiet Zones requirements.[^106]

We note that RCC's IRFA comments appear to challenge the Commission's
existing notification and coordination procedures regarding Quiet Zone
areas rather than any issues or proposals raised in the *NPRM* or in the
IRFA. In the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in the *Arecibo
Report and Order*, the Commission noted that, while some parties argued
that the coordination requirements were an unnecessary burden that would
delay the provision of service and increase the costs of operation, the
Commission determined that complying with the coordination procedures
would be a minimal burden, and that the public benefit in protecting the
Arecibo Observatory's operations from harmful interference justifies the
minimal burden that may be created.[^107] Although the proceeding
related to the Arecibo Observatory, the same considerations are true for
Quiet Zones in general. Further, we believe that the rule changes
adopted in this *Report and Order* will benefit all carriers, including
small businesses, by expediting the application process, reducing
unnecessary or redundant requirements from Commission regulations, and
promoting the efficient use of spectrum within Quiet Zone areas.

**C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to which
the Rules Will Apply.**

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by proposed rules.[^108] The RFA generally defines the term
"small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business,"
"small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."[^109] In
addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term
"small business concern" under the Small Business Act.[^110] A "small
business concern" is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated;
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(SBA).[^111]

In the following paragraphs, we further describe and estimate the number
of small entity licensees that may be affected by the rules we adopt in
the *Report and Order*. Since this rulemaking proceeding applies to
multiple services, we will analyze the number of small entities affected
on a service-by-service basis. Because the *Report and Order* does not
revise any rules involving the Satellite Services, we do not provide an
assessment of satellite-related small businesses.

**Cellular Licensees.** The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for small businesses in the category "Cellular and Other
Wireless Telecommunications."[^112] Under that SBA category, a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^113] According to the
Bureau of the Census, only twelve firms out of a total of 1,238 cellular
and other wireless telecommunications firms operating during 1997 had
1,000 or more employees.[^114] Therefore, even if all twelve of these
firms were cellular telephone companies, nearly all cellular carriers
are small businesses under the SBA's definition.

**220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase I Licensees.** The 220 MHz service has
both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by
lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such
non‑nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently
authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to such
incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such
licensees that are small businesses, we apply the small business size
standard under the SBA rules applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications" companies. This category provides that a small
business is a wireless company employing no more than 1,500
persons.[^115] According to the Census Bureau data for 1997, only twelve
firms out of a total of 1,238 such firms that operated for the entire
year, had 1,000 or more employees.[^116] If this general ratio continues
in the context of Phase I 220 MHz licensees, the Commission estimates
that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's
small business standard.

**220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase II Licensees.** The 220 MHz service has
both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service is
subject to spectrum auctions. In the *220 MHz Third Report and Order*,
we adopted a small business size standard for defining "small" and "very
small" businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for
special provisions such as bidding credits and installment
payments.[^117] This small business standard indicates that a "small
business" is an entity that, together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding \$15
million for the preceding three years.[^118] A "very small business" is
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues that do not exceed \$3 million
for the preceding three years.[^119] The SBA has approved these small
size standards.[^120] Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on
September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998.[^121] In the first
auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in three different‑sized geographic
areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group (EAG)
Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses
auctioned, 693 were sold.[^122] Thirty-nine small businesses won 373
licenses in the first 220 MHz auction. A second auction included 225
licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses. Fourteen companies
claiming small business status won 158 licenses.[^123] A third auction
included four licenses: 2 BEA licenses and 2 EAG licenses in the 220 MHz
Service. No small or very small business won any of these
licenses.[^124]

**Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses.** We adopted criteria for defining three
groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility
for special provisions such as bidding credits.[^125] We have defined a
small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding \$40
million for the preceding three years.[^126] A very small business is
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than \$15
million for the preceding three years.[^127] Additionally, the lower 700
MHz Service has a third category of small business status that may be
claimed for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) licenses. The
third category is entrepreneur, which is defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than \$3 million for the preceding
three years.[^128] The SBA has approved these small size
standards.[^129] An auction of 740 licenses (one license in each of the
734 MSAs/RSAs and one license in each of the six Economic Area Groupings
(EAGs)) commenced on August 27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002.
Of the 740 licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were sold to 102
winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small
business, very small business or entrepreneur status and won a total of
329 licenses. [^130] A second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, and
closed on June 13, 2003, and included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and
476 CMA licenses.[^131] Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very
small business status and won sixty licenses, and nine winning bidders
claimed entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses.[^132]

**Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses.** The Commission released a *Report and
Order*, authorizing service in the upper 700 MHz band.[^133] In that
proceeding, the Commission defined a small business as any entity with
average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in
excess of \$40 million, and a very small business as an entity with
average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in
excess of \$15 million. The auction for Upper 700 MHz licenses,
previously scheduled for January 13, 2003, has been postponed.[^134]

**700 MHz Guard Band Licenses**. In the *700 MHz Guard Band Order*, we
adopted a small business size standard for "small businesses" and "very
small businesses" for purposes of determining their eligibility for
special provisions such as bidding credits and installment
payments.[^135] A "small business" is an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not
exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a
"very small business" is an entity that, together with its affiliates
and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more
than \$3 million for the preceding three years. An auction of 52 Major
Economic Area (MEA) licenses commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed
on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were
sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that
won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band
licenses commenced on February 13, 2001 and closed on February 21, 2001.
All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of
these bidders was a small business that won a total of two
licenses.[^136]

**Paging.** In the *Paging* *Second Report and Order*, we adopted a size
standard for "small businesses" for purposes of determining their
eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
installment payments.[^137] A small business is an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three years.[^138]
The SBA has approved this definition.[^139] An auction of Metropolitan
Economic Area (MEA) licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed
on March 2, 2000. Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were sold.[^140]
Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won 440
licenses.[^141] An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area (MEA) and
Economic Area (EA) licenses commenced on October 30, 2001, and closed on
December 5, 2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 5,323 were
sold.[^142] 132 companies claiming small business status purchased 3,724
licenses. A third auction, consisting of 8,874 licenses in each of 175
EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but three of the 51 MEAs commenced on May
13, 2003, and closed on May 28, 2003. Seventy-seven bidders claiming
small or very small business status won 2,093 licenses. [^143]
Currently, there are approximately 24,000 Private Paging site-specific
licenses and 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. According to the
most recent *Trends in Telephone Service,* 608 private and common
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either
paging or "other mobile" services.[^144] Of these, we estimate that 589
are small, under the SBA-approved small business size standard.[^145] We
estimate that the majority of private and common carrier paging
providers would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

**Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS).** The broadband PCS
spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F,
and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission has
created a small business size standard for Blocks C and F as an entity
that has average gross revenues of less than \$40 million in the three
previous calendar years.[^146] For Block F, an additional small business
size standard for "very small business" was added and is defined as an
entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of
not more than \$15 million for the preceding three calendar years.[^147]
These small business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS
auctions, have been approved by the SBA.[^148] No small businesses
within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully
for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that
qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93
"small" and "very small" business bidders won approximately 40 percent
of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F.[^149] On March 23, 1999,
the Commission reauctioned 155 C, D, E, and F Block licenses; there were
113 small business winning bidders.[^150]

**Narrowband PCS.** The Commission held an auction for Narrowband PCS
licenses that commenced on July 25, 1994, and closed on July 29, 1994. A
second commenced on October 26, 1994 and closed on November 8, 1994. For
purposes of the first two Narrowband PCS auctions, "small businesses"
were entities with average gross revenues for the prior three calendar
years of \$40 million or less.[^151] Through these auctions, the
Commission awarded a total of forty-one licenses, 11 of which were
obtained by four small businesses.[^152] To ensure meaningful
participation by small business entities in future auctions, the
Commission adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in the
*Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order*.[^153] A "small business" is an
entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has
average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than
\$40 million.[^154] A "very small business" is an entity that, together
with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues
for the three preceding years of not more than \$15 million.[^155] The
SBA has approved these small business size standards.[^156] A third
auction commenced on October 3, 2001 and closed on October 16, 2001.
Here, five bidders won 317 (MTA and nationwide) licenses.[^157] Three of
these claimed status as a small or very small entity and won 311
licenses.

**Rural Radiotelephone Service.** We use the SBA definition applicable
to cellular and other wireless telecommunication companies, *i.e.*, an
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^158] There are
approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and
the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity
licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by
the rules and policies adopted herein.

**Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.** We use the SBA definition
applicable to cellular and other wireless telecommunication companies,
*i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^159] There are
approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service,
and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as small
entities under the SBA definition.

**Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)**. The Commission awards "small entity"
bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that
had revenues of no more than \$15 million in each of the three previous
calendar years.[^160] The Commission awards "very small entity" bidding
credits to firms that had revenues of no more than \$3 million in each
of the three previous calendar years.[^161] The SBA has approved these
small business size standards for the 900 MHz Service.[^162] The
Commission has held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz
and 900 MHz bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction began on December 5, 1995,
and closed on April 15, 1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they qualified
as small businesses under the \$15 million size standard won 263
geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR
auction for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 1997, and was
completed on December 8, 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified
as small businesses under the \$15 million size standard won 38
geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR
band.[^163] A second auction for the 800 MHz band was held on January
10, 2002 and closed on January 17, 2002 and included 23 BEA licenses.
One bidder claiming small business status won five licenses.[^164]

The auction of the 1,050 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the
General Category channels began on August 16, 2000, and was completed on
September 1, 2000. Eleven bidders won 108 geographic area licenses for
the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small
businesses under the \$15 million size standard. In an auction completed
on December 5, 2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the
lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were sold. Of the 22
winning bidders, 19 claimed "small business" status and won 129
licenses. Thus, combining all three auctions, 40 winning bidders for
geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status as small
business.

In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees and
licensees with extended implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900
MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz
geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation authorizations,
nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than
\$15 million. One firm has over \$15 million in revenues. We assume, for
purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining existing extended
implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that small
business size standard is established by the SBA.

**Multipoint Distribution Service, Multichannel Multipoint Distribution
Service, and Instructional Television Fixed Service**. Multichannel
Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, often referred to as
"wireless cable," transmit video programming to subscribers using the
microwave frequencies of the Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and
Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS).[^165] In connection with
the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined "small business" as an
entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross annual
revenues that are not more than \$40 million for the preceding three
calendar years.[^166] The SBA has approved of this standard.[^167] The
MDS auction resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing
opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs).[^168] Of the 67
auction winners, 61 claimed status as a small business. At this time, we
estimate that of the 61 small business MDS auction winners, 48 remain
small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that
hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent MDS
licensees that have gross revenues that are not more than \$40 million
and are thus considered small entities.[^169] After adding the number of
small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees
not already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440
MDS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the
SBA's or the Commission's rules. Some of those 440 small business
licensees may be affected by the proposals in the Further Notice.

In addition, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for
Cable and Other Program Distribution,[^170] which includes all such
companies generating \$12.5 million or less in annual receipts.[^171]
According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of 1,311
firms in this category, total, that had operated for the entire
year.[^172] Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under \$10
million, and an additional 52 firms had receipts of \$10 million or more
but less than \$25 million.[^173] Consequently, we estimate that the
majority of providers in this service category are small businesses that
may be affected by the rules and policies proposed in the Further
Notice.

Finally, while SBA approval for a Commission-defined small business size
standard applicable to ITFS is pending, educational institutions are
included in this analysis as small entities.[^174] There are currently
2,032 ITFS licensees, and all but 100 of these licenses are held by
educational institutions. Thus, we tentatively conclude that at least
1,932 ITFS licensees are small businesses.

**Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR).** PLMR systems serve an essential
role in a range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public
safety activities. These radios are used by companies of all sizes
operating in all U.S. business categories, and are often used in support
of the licensee's primary (non-telecommunications) business operations.
For the purpose of determining whether a licensee of a PLMR system is a
small business as defined by the SBA, we could use the definition for
"Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications." This definition
provides that a small entity is any such entity employing no more than
1,500 persons.[^175] The Commission does not require PLMR licensees to
disclose information about number of employees, so the Commission does
not have information that could be used to determine how many PLMR
licensees constitute small entities under this definition. Moreover,
because PMLR licensees generally are not in the business of providing
cellular or other wireless telecommunications services but instead use
the licensed facilities in support of other business activities, we are
not certain that the Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications
category is appropriate for determining how many PLMR licensees are
small entities for this analysis. Rather, it may be more appropriate to
assess PLMR licensees under the standards applied to the particular
industry subsector to which the licensee belongs.[^176]

The Commission's 1994 Annual Report on PLMRs[^177] indicates that at the
end of fiscal year 1994, there were 1,087,267 licensees operating
12,481,989 transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz. Because any
entity engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold a PLMR
license, the revised rules in this context could potentially impact
every small business in the United States.

**Amateur Radio Service.** All Amateur Radio Service licenses are
presumed to be individuals. Accordingly, no small business definition
applies for this service.

**Aviation and Marine Radio Service.** Small businesses in the aviation
and marine radio services use a marine very high frequency (VHF) radio,
any type of emergency position indicating radio beacon and/or radar, a
VHF aircraft radio, and/or any type of emergency locator transmitter.
The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
specifically applicable to these small businesses. Therefore, the
applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA
rules for radiotelephone wireless communications.[^178]

Most applicants for recreational licenses are individuals. Approximately
581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft station licensees
operate domestically and are not subject to the radio carriage
requirements of any statute or treaty. Therefore, for purposes of our
evaluations and conclusions in this IRFA, we estimate that there may be
at least 712,000 potential licensees that are individuals or small
entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.

**Fixed Microwave Services.** Fixed microwave services include common
carrier,[^179] private-operational fixed,[^180] and broadcast auxiliary
radio services.[^181] Currently, there are approximately 22,015 common
carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private operational-fixed licensees
and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. The
Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to
microwave services. For purposes of this FRFA, we will use the SBA's
definition applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications" companies -- that is, an entity with no more than
1,500 persons.[^182] The Commission does not have data specifying the
number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus
is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of
fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business
concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that there are 22,015 or fewer small common carrier
fixed licensees and 61,670 or fewer small private operational-fixed
licensees and small broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave
services that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
The Commission notes, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed
licensee category includes some large entities.

**Public Safety Radio Services.** Public Safety radio services include
police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway
maintenance, and emergency medical services.[^183] There are a total of
approximately 127,540 licensees within these services. Governmental
entities[^184] as well as private businesses comprise the licensees for
these services. As indicated *supra* in paragraph four of this IRFA, all
governmental entities with populations of less than 50,000 fall within
the definition of a small entity.[^185]

**Personal Radio Services.** Personal radio services provide
short-range, low-power radio for personal communications, radio
signaling, and business communications not provided for in other
services. The services include the citizen\'s band (CB) radio service,
general mobile radio service (GMRS), radio control radio service, and
family radio service (FRS).[^186] Inasmuch as the CB, GMRS, and FRS
licensees are individuals, no small business definition applies for
these services. We are unable at this time to estimate the number of
other licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA\'s definition.

**Offshore Radiotelephone Service.** This service operates on several
ultra high frequency (UHF) TV broadcast channels that are not used for
TV broadcasting in the coastal area of the states bordering the Gulf of
Mexico. At present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this
service. We use the SBA definition applicable to cellular and other
wireless telecommunication companies, *i.e.*, an entity employing no
more than 1,500 persons.[^187] The Commission is unable at this time to
estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as small entities
under the SBA definition. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this
FRFA, that all of the 55 licensees are small entities, as that term is
defined by the SBA.

**Wireless Communications Services.** This service can be used for
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite
uses. The Commission defined "small business" for the wireless
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross
revenues of \$40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a
"very small business" as an entity with average gross revenues of \$15
million for each of the three preceding years.[^188] The SBA has
approved these definitions.[^189] The FCC auctioned geographic area
licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, which commenced on April
15, 1997 and closed on April 25, 1997, there were seven bidders that won
31 licenses that qualified as very small business entities, and one
bidder that won one license that qualified as a small business entity.
An auction for one license in the 1670-1674 MHz band commenced on April
30, 2003 and closed the same day. One license was awarded. The winning
bidder was not a small entity.

**Local Multipoint Distribution Service.** An auction of the 986 Local
Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) licenses began on February 18,
1998, and closed on March 25, 1998. The Commission defined "small
entity" for LMDS licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues
of less than \$40 million in the three previous calendar years.[^190] An
additional classification for "very small business" was added and is
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average
gross revenues of not more than \$15 million for the preceding three
calendar years.[^191] These regulations defining "small entity" in the
context of LMDS auctions have been approved by the SBA.[^192] There were
93 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the LMDS
auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won
approximately 277 A Block licenses and 387 B Block licenses. On March
27, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 161 licenses; there were 32 small
and very small business winning bidders that won 119 licenses.

**Incumbent 24 GHz Licensees.** The rules that we adopt could affect
incumbent licensees who were relocated to the 24 GHz band from the 18
GHz band, and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 GHz
band. The Commission did not develop a definition of small entities
applicable to existing licensees in the 24 GHz band. Therefore, the
applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA
rules for "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications." This
definition provides that a small entity is any entity employing no more
than 1,500 persons.[^193] The 1992 Census of Transportation,
Communications and Utilities, conducted by the Bureau of the Census,
which is the most recent information available, shows that only 12
radiotelephone (now Wireless) firms out of a total of 1,178 such firms
that operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.[^194] This
information notwithstanding, we believe that there are only two
licensees in the 24 GHz band that were relocated from the 18 GHz band,
Teligent[^195] and TRW, Inc. It is our understanding that Teligent and
its related companies have less than 1,500 employees, though this may
change in the future. TRW is not a small entity. Thus, only one
incumbent licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small business entity.

**Future 24 GHz Licensees.** With respect to new applicants in the
24 GHz band, we have defined "small business" as an entity that,
together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual
gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding \$15
million.[^196] "Very small business" in the 24 GHz band is defined as an
entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has
average gross revenues not exceeding \$3 million for the preceding three
years.[^197] The SBA has approved these definitions.[^198] The
Commission will not know how many licensees will be small or very small
businesses until the auction, if required, is held.

**39 GHz Service.** The Commission defines "small entity" for 39 GHz
licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than \$40
million in the three previous calendar years.[^199] "Very small
business" is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates,
has average gross revenues of not more than \$15 million for the
preceding three calendar years.[^200] The SBA has approved these
definitions.[^201] The auction of the 2,173 39 GHz licenses began on
April 12, 2000, and closed on May 8, 2000. The 18 bidders who claimed
small business status won 849 licenses.

**218-219 MHz Service.** The first auction of 218-219 MHz (previously
referred to as the Interactive and Video Data Service or IVDS) spectrum
resulted in 178 entities winning licenses for 594 Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSAs).[^202] Of the 594 licenses, 567 were won by 167
entities qualifying as a small business. For that auction, we defined a
small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has no
more than a \$6 million net worth and, after federal income taxes
(excluding any carry over losses), has no more than \$2 million in
annual profits each year for the previous two years.[^203] In the
*218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, we
defined a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates
and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and their
affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million
for the preceding three years.[^204] A very small business is defined as
an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities
that hold interests in such an entity and its affiliates, has average
annual gross revenues not exceeding \$3 million for the preceding three
years.[^205] The SBA has approved of these definitions.[^206] At this
time, we cannot estimate the number of licenses that will be won by
entities qualifying as small or very small businesses under our rules in
future auctions of 218-219 MHz spectrum. Given the success of small
businesses in the previous auction, and the prevalence of small
businesses in the subscription television services and message
communications industries, we assume for purposes of this FRFA that in
future auctions, many, and perhaps all, of the licenses may be awarded
to small businesses.

**Location and Monitoring Service (LMS).** Multilateration LMS systems
use non-voice radio techniques to determine the location and status of
mobile radio units. For purposes of auctioning LMS licenses, the
Commission has defined "small business" as an entity that, together with
controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues
for the preceding three years not exceeding \$15 million.[^207] A "very
small business" is defined as an entity that, together with controlling
interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the
preceding three years not exceeding \$3 million.[^208] These definitions
have been approved by the SBA.[^209] An auction for LMS licenses
commenced on February 23, 1999, and closed on March 5, 1999. Of the 528
licenses auctioned, 289 licenses were sold to four small businesses. We
cannot accurately predict the number of remaining licenses that could be
awarded to small entities in future LMS auctions.

**Multiple Address Systems (MAS).** Entities using MAS spectrum, in
general, fall into two categories: (1) those using the spectrum for
profit-based uses, and (2) those using the spectrum for private internal
uses. With respect to the first category, the Commission defines "small
entity" for MAS licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of
less than \$15 million in the three previous calendar years.[^210] "Very
small business" is defined as an entity that, together with its
affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than \$3 million for
the preceding three calendar years.[^211] The SBA has approved of these
definitions.[^212] The majority of these entities will most likely be
licensed in bands where the Commission has implemented a geographic area
licensing approach that would require the use of competitive bidding
procedures to resolve mutually exclusive applications. The Commission's
licensing database indicates that, as of January 20, 1999, there were a
total of 8,670 MAS station authorizations. Of these, 260 authorizations
were associated with common carrier service. In addition, an auction for
5,104 MAS licenses in 176 EAs began November 14, 2001, and closed on
November 27, 2001.[^213] Seven winning bidders claimed status as small
or very small businesses and won 611 licenses.

With respect to the second category, which consists of entities that
use, or seek to use, MAS spectrum to accommodate their own internal
communications needs, we note that MAS serves an essential role in a
range of industrial, safety, business, and land transportation
activities. MAS radios are used by companies of all sizes, operating in
virtually all U.S. business categories, and by all types of public
safety entities. For the majority of private internal users, the
definitions developed by the SBA would be more appropriate. The
applicable definition of small entity in this instance appears to be the
"Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications" definition under the
SBA rules. This definition provides that a small entity is any entity
employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^214] The Commission's licensing
database indicates that, as of January 20, 1999, of the 8,670 total MAS
station authorizations, 8,410 authorizations were for private radio
service, and of these, 1,433 were for private land mobile radio service

**D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements.**

In the *Report and Order*, the Commission concluded that advance
coordination between applicants and Quiet Zone entities would streamline
the processing of applications by allowing the Commission to begin
processing prior to the end of the 20-day waiting period set out in
section 1.924 of the Commission's rules.

**E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered.**

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives that it has considered in developing its
approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources
available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or
simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule
for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for small Entities.[^215]

In the *Report and* Order, the Commission adopts changes to its rules
governing Quiet Zone areas that will streamline requirements for
applications affecting Quiet Zones, while protecting these sensitive
areas from harmful interference. In the *Report and Order*, the
Commission: 1) provides for immediate processing of applications that
may implicate Quiet Zones, in the event that the applicant indicates
that it has obtained the prior consent of the Quiet Zone entity; 2)
clarifies that applicants may provide notification to and begin
coordination with Quiet Zone entities (where required) in advance of
filing an application with the Commission; 3) amends section
101.31(b)(1)(v) to permit applicants of Part 101 and other services that
permit operation prior to authorization to initiate conditional
operation, provided they have obtained the prior consent of the Quiet
Zone entity and are otherwise eligible to initiate conditional
operations over the proposed facility; and 4) clarifies that either the
applicant or the applicant's frequency coordinator may notify and
initiate coordination proceedings with the Quiet Zone entity.

While the Commission does not implement alternatives specific to small
entities, the purpose behind the rule modifications in the *Report and
Order* is to expedite the application process, reduce unnecessary or
redundant requirements from Commission regulations, and promote the
efficient use of spectrum within Quiet Zones by all carriers, including
small businesses.

[Report to Congress]{.underline}: The Commission will send a copy of the
*Report and Order*, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to
Congress pursuant to the *Congressional Review Act*.[^216] In addition,
the Commission will send a copy of the *Report and Order*, including
this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. A copy of the *Report and Order* and FRFA (or summaries
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.[^217]

**APPENDIX C**

**COMMENTERS**

[Comments]{.underline}

Cingular Wireless LLC (Cingular)

Cornell University (Cornell)

National Academy of Sciences/Committee on Radio Frequencies of the
National Research Council (NAS)

National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO)

National Science Foundation (NSF)

RCC Consultants, Inc. (RCC)

Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. (SBS)

[Reply Comments]{.underline}

Cornell University (Cornell)

National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO)

Verizon Wireless (Verizon)

[Comments to the 2000 Biennial Review]{.underline}[^218]

Alloy LLC (Alloy/Cingular)

[Comments to the 2002 Biennial Review]{.underline}[^219]

Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA)

Rural Cellular Association (RCA)

[^1]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.924. For purposes of simplicity, all areas
    implicated by section 1.924 will be referred to in this order as
    "Quiet Zones." We note that the only area with the formal
    designation of "Quiet Zone" is the National Radio Quiet Zone, which
    encompasses the National Radio Astronomy Observatory and the Naval
    Radio Research Observatory. *See* Amendment of Part 2 of the
    Commission's Rules and Regulations to Give Interference Protection
    to Frequencies Utilized for Radio Astronomy; Amendment of Parts 3,
    4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 20, and 21 of the Commission's Rules and
    Regulations to Give Interference Protection to Frequencies Utilized
    for Radio Astronomy, *Report and Order*, 17 Rad. Reg. 1738 (1958).
    *See* *also* Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio
    Frequency Management, U.S. Department of Commerce, National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration, May 2003 Edition,
    Section 8.3.9. In this regard, we clarify references in certain
    service specific rules to avoid confusion regarding the term "quiet
    zone." *See* Appendix A.

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.924.

[^3]: *Id*.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.924(a).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.924(b).

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.121, 1.924(c). These field offices are located in
    Allegan, Michigan; Anchorage, Alaska; Belfast, Maine; Canandaigua,
    New York; Douglas, Arizona; Ferndale, Washington; Grand Island,
    Nebraska; Kingsville, Texas; Laurel, Maryland; Livermore,
    California; Powder Springs, Georgia; Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico; Vero
    Beach, Florida; and Waipahu, Hawaii.

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.924(d). In the *NPRM,* the Commission noted that it
    was excluding section 1.924(e), 47 C.F.R. § 1.924(e), concerning
    Government Satellite Earth Stations located in the Denver, Colorado
    and Washington, D.C. areas, from consideration in this proceeding.
    This *Report and Order* likewise does not make any changes to
    section 1.924(f), 47 C.F.R. § 1.924(f), which limits operations in
    the 420-450 MHz band near certain military bases, or section
    1.924(g), which seeks to limit interference to Geostationary
    Operational Environmental Satellite earth stations located at
    Wallops Island, Virginia; Fairbanks, Alaska; and Greenbelt,
    Maryland.

[^8]: *See* National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Comments at 2.

[^9]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.924(b)(2), (c)(4).

[^10]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.924(a)(2), (d)(2).

[^11]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.924(a).

[^12]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.924 (b), (c).

[^13]: *2000 Biennial Regulatory Review Updated Staff Report* (rel. Jan.
    17, 2001) (*2000* *Biennial Review Staff Report*).

[^14]: Alloy LLC 2000 Biennial Review Comments, FCC 00-346, at 8 (filed
    Oct. 10, 2000).

[^15]: *Id.*

[^16]: *Id.*

[^17]: *2000 Biennial Regulatory Review Staff Report* at Appendix IV:
    Rule Part Analysis at 9.

[^18]: *See* *Biennial Regulatory Review*, CC Docket No. 00-175,
    *Report*, 16 FCC Rcd 1207, 1231-32 (2001) (*2000 Biennial Review
    Report*).

[^19]: Review of Quiet Zones Application Procedures, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 16 FCC Rcd 20690 (2001) (*NPRM*). Subsequently, the
    Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) filed a
    petition for rulemaking seeking amendment of rules relating to Quiet
    Zones as part of the Year 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review. *See*
    Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association's Petition for
    Rulemaking Concerning the Biennial Review of Regulations Affecting
    CMRS Carriers, filed July 25, 2002 (CTIA 2002 Biennial Review
    Comments). The Rural Cellular Association (RCA) similarly filed
    comments in the 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review proceeding
    suggesting that certain rules regarding Quiet Zones be modified. RCA
    2002 Biennial Review Comments at 3. The staff concluded that the
    rule changes proposed by CTIA and RCA are within the scope of review
    contemplated in the instant proceeding and recommended that the
    comments of CTIA and RCA be incorporated into this proceeding as
    well. *See* Federal Communications Commission 2002 Biennial
    Regulatory Review - Staff Report of the Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, 18 FCC Rcd 4243 (2003).

[^20]: *NPRM*, 16 FCC Rcd at 20693, para. 9.

[^21]: In its comments, NSF seeks clarification as to whether the 20-day
    period refers to calendar or business days. Section 1.4 of the
    Commission's rules provides that deadlines for filing periods of
    more than seven days are calculated according to calendar days. 47
    C.F.R. § 1.4.

[^22]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.924(a), (d).

[^23]: *NPRM*, 16 FCC Rcd at 20693, para. 9.

[^24]: *See* Cingular Comments at 5-6; Cornell Comments at 5; NAS
    Comments at 4; NSF Comments at 3; SBS Comments at 2; Verizon
    Wireless Comments at 2-3; CTIA 2002 Biennial Review Comments at 7;
    RCA 2002 Biennial Review Comments at 3.

[^25]: NRAO Comments at 1.

[^26]: *Id.*

[^27]: *See* NAS Comments at 4; Cornell Comments at 5-6.

[^28]: *NPRM*, 16 FCC Rcd at 20693, para. 10.

[^29]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.924(a)(2), 1.924(d)(2).

[^30]: *NPRM*, 16 FCC Rcd at 20693, para. 10.

[^31]: *See* Cingular Comments at 5; SBS Comments at 2.

[^32]: *NPRM*, 16 FCC Rcd at 20693, para. 10.

[^33]: NSF Comments at 4.

[^34]: NRAO Comments at 2.

[^35]: Alloy/Cingular 2000 Biennial Review Comments at 8.

[^36]: *Id.*

[^37]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.31(b)(v).

[^38]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.31(b)(v).

[^39]: *NPRM*, 16 FCC Rcd at 20693, para. 8.

[^40]: 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*, 11 FCC Rcd 13449,
    13461-13462, paras. 26-27.

[^41]: Cingular Comments at 3-4, Cornell Comments at 5; NAS Comments at
    4; NSF Comments at 3; NRAO Comments at 3; Cornell Reply Comments at
    2.

[^42]: Verizon Wireless Reply Comments at 2-3.

[^43]: *NPRM*, 16 FCC Rcd at 20693, para. 11.

[^44]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.655.

[^45]: 47 C.F.R. § 95.45(b).

[^46]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.1009.

[^47]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.1329.

[^48]: *NPRM*, 16 FCC Rcd at 20693, para. 11.

[^49]: *Id.*

[^50]: Cornell Comments at 5-6; NAS Comments at 4-5; NRAO Comments at 2;
    NSF Comments at 2-3.

[^51]: Cornell Comments at 5-6; NAS Comments at 4; NSF Comments at 3.

[^52]: *See e.g.* Sitka Broadcasting Company, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order,* 70 FCC 2d 2375, 2378 (1979), citing Lowndes County
    Broadcasting Company, *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 23 FCC 2d 91
    (1970) and Emporium Broadcasting Company, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order,* 23 FCC 2d 868 (1970).

[^53]: *See* Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 12, 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*, 13 FCC Rcd
    21027 (1998) (*ULS Report and Order*).

[^54]: *Id.* at 21054-21055, para. 56.

[^55]: We note that we are not removing any current references to
    section 1.924 in service-specific rules.

[^56]: Cingular Comments at 6.

[^57]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.103(d).

[^58]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.103(d)(2)(iv).

[^59]: Cingular Comments at 6-7.

[^60]: Cingular Comments at 7.

[^61]: While Cingular's proposal is specific to Part 101 applicants
    seeking conditional authority, SBS's proposal appears to apply to
    all situations implicating Quiet Zones.

[^62]: SBS Comments at 2.

[^63]: *Id.*

[^64]: *NPRM*, 16 FCC Rcd at 20692, para. 5.

[^65]: *Id*.

[^66]: For example, an applicant could send a pre-application
    notification to a Quiet Zone entity, stating that it will begin
    conditional operations. Once the 30-day period has run, the
    applicant can file an application with the Commission and begin
    conditional operations without ever hearing from the Quiet Zone
    entity or without having to notify the Quiet Zone entity that an
    application has actually been filed.

[^67]: SBS argues that the 30-day period is necessary to provide
    applicants with a finite period of time in which to obtain some
    certainty of response from the Quiet Zone entity and to allow for a
    more rational and expedited application processing system, while
    Cingular argues that the 30-day period permits flexibility in
    coordination. Cingular Comments at 7.

[^68]: Alloy 2000 Biennial Review Comments at 8 (the Commission's rules
    are burdensome and delay final approval); SBS Comments at 1
    (Commission's rules regarding Quiet Zones are time-consuming and
    burdensome).

[^69]: RCC Comments at 1.

[^70]: *Id.*

[^71]: *Id.*

[^72]: *Id.*

[^73]: *Id.*

[^74]: *Arecibo Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 16532. The Commission
    later affirmed its decision on reconsideration. *See* Amendment of
    the Commission's Rules to Establish a Radio Astronomy Coordination
    Zone in Puerto Rico, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd
    13683 (1998).

[^75]: *Arecibo Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 16532.

[^76]: *See* National Radio Quiet Zone webpage,
    \<[http://www.gb.nrao.edu/nrqz.html](http://www.gb.nrao.edu/nrqz.html.)\>.
    NRAO disputes RCC's assertion that NRAO changes its parameters,
    stating that NRAO's interference protection criteria has been
    employed for decades and has rarely changed.

[^77]: Both RCC and NRAO point to changes in parameters when the Robert
    C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope was constructed in 1999. However, other
    than this change, RCC does not provide details as to other
    instances.

[^78]: *See* *Arecibo Report and Order* at 16531-16533, paras. 31-33.

[^79]: *See Arecibo Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 16527, para. 14;
    *Arecibo MO&O*, 13 FCC Rcd at 13685, para. 6. RCC provides little
    detail as to how the current process makes the use of public safety
    frequency bands economically infeasible. Indeed, there was no
    comment in this proceeding from any public safety entity stating
    that the current process is unduly burdensome, or precludes or
    limits interoperability and mutual aid communications with other
    jurisdictions.

[^80]: SBS Comments at 3.

[^81]: SBS Comments at 4. SBS proposes that the Commission establish
    clear field strength limits for NRAO, NRRO and Arecibo such as that
    established in section 1.924(b)(1) for the Table Mountain Radio
    Receiving Zone.

[^82]: *Id.*

[^83]: SBS Comments at 5.

[^84]: Cornell Reply Comments at 4.

[^85]: *See* RCC Comments at 1.

[^86]: *See* Cornell Reply Comments at 4, fn. 2.

[^87]: The parameters that must be addressed would include location of
    the antenna, antenna height, direction or gain of the transmitter,
    frequency or radiated power.

[^88]: *See* *Arecibo Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 16526 ("Whenever
    possible, we attempt to streamline our processes and reduce the
    burden on licensees and license applicants, but in some instances a
    minimally increased burden must be imposed to allow the public the
    widest range of telecommunications benefits").

[^89]: Frequency coordination involves identifying the radio frequencies
    appropriate for the specific needs of each applicant and the
    environmental conditions in which the proposed station will be
    operating, while also minimizing interference to licensees already
    operating within a given frequency band.

[^90]: Cornell Comments at 6, NAS Comments at 5; NSF Comments at 3.

[^91]: *Id.*

[^92]: *Arecibo Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 16536, para. 46-47

[^93]: *NPRM*, 16 FCC Rcd at 20692, para. 6, fn 17.

[^94]: *See generally* *ULS Report and Order*; Amendment of Parts 0, 1,
    12, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission's
    Rules To Facilitate the Development and Use of the Universal
    Licensing System in the Wireless Telecommunications Services,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration*, 14 FCC Rcd 11476
    (1999).

[^95]: This error occurred when various service rules regarding field
    strength limits applicable to the Table Mountain Radio Receiving
    Zone were consolidated into Part 1 of the Commission's rules in the
    ULS proceeding.

[^96]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq*.,
    has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
    Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Title II, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110
    Stat. 857 (1996).

[^97]: Review of Quiet Zones Application Procedures, WT Docket No.
    99-266, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 16 FCC Rcd 20690 (2001).

[^98]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^99]: 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review Updated Staff Report (rel. Jan.
    17, 2001) (*2000* *Biennial Review Staff Report*).

[^100]: Biennial Review 2000 Comments of Alloy LLC, FCC 00-346, at 8
    (filed Oct. 10, 2000).

[^101]: *Id*. at Appendix IV: Rule Part Analysis at 9.

[^102]: *See* *Biennial Regulatory Review*, CC Docket No. 00-175,
    *Report*, 16 FCC Rcd 1207, 1231-32 (2001) (*2000 Biennial Review
    Report*).

[^103]: Review of Quiet Zones Application Procedures, *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 16 FCC Rcd 20690 (2001) (*NPRM*).
    Subsequently, the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association
    (CTIA) filed a petition for rulemaking seeking amendment of rules
    relating to Quiet Zones as part of the Year 2002 Biennial Regulatory
    Review. *See* Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association's
    Petition for Rulemaking Concerning the Biennial Review of
    Regulations Affecting CMRS Carriers, filed July 25, 2002 (CTIA 2002
    Biennial Review Comments). The Rural Cellular Association (RCA)
    similarly filed comments in the 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review
    proceeding suggesting that certain rules regarding Quiet Zones be
    modified. RCA 2002 Biennial Review Comments at 3. The staff
    concluded that the rule changes proposed by CTIA and RCA are within
    the scope of review contemplated in the instant proceeding and
    recommended that the comments of CTIA and RCA be incorporated into
    this proceeding as well. *See* Federal Communications Commission
    2002 Biennial Regulatory Review - Staff Report of the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, 18 FCC Rcd 4243 (2003).

[^104]: RCC Comments at 2.

[^105]: *Id.*

[^106]: RCC Comments at 2.

[^107]: *Arecibo Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 16560.

[^108]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^109]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^110]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^111]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^112]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) code 517212.

[^113]: *Id*.

[^114]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Information -- Subject
    Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5 (Employment Size of
    Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax), NAICS code 517212 (2002).

[^115]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^116]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form
    Organization), Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (2002).

[^117]: Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide For
    the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Service, *Third Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068‑70,
    paras. 291‑295 (1997).

[^118]: *Id.* at 11068 para. 291.

[^119]: *Id.*

[^120]: *See* Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    January 6, 1998.

[^121]: *See generally* "220 MHz Service Auction Closes," *Public
    Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 605 (WTB 1998).

[^122]: *See* "FCC Announces It is Prepared to Grant 654 Phase II 220
    MHz Licenses After Final Payment is Made," *Public Notice*, 14 FCC
    Rcd 1085 (WTB 1999).

[^123]: *See* "Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes,"
    *Public Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (WTB 1999).

[^124]: *See* "Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, 17
    FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).

[^125]: *See* Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz
    Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), *Report and Order*, 17
    FCC Rcd 1022 (2002).

[^126]: *Id.* at 1087-88, para. 172.

[^127]: *Id.*

[^128]: *Id.* at 1088, para. 173.

[^129]: *See* Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    August 10, 1999.

[^130]: *See* "Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, 17
    FCC Rcd 17272 (WTB 2002).

[^131]: *See* "Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, 18
    FCC Rcd 11873 (WTB 2003).

[^132]: *Id*.

[^133]: Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and
    Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No.
    99-168, *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 476 (2000).

[^134]: "Auction of Licenses for 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands (Auction
    No. 31) is Rescheduled," *Public Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 13079 (WTB
    2003).

[^135]: See Service Rules for the 746-764 MHz Bands, and Revisions to
    part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, Second
    Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (2000), 65 FR 17599 (Apr. 4,
    2000).

[^136]: Public Notice, "700 MHz Guard Band Auction Closes," DA 01-478
    (rel. Feb. 22, 2001).

[^137]: Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to
    Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems, *Second Report and
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 2732, 2811-2812, paras. 178-181 (*Paging Second
    Report and Order*); *see also* Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of
    the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging
    Systems, *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration*, 14 FCC
    Rcd 10030, 10085-10088, paras. 98-107 (1999).

[^138]: *Paging Second Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 281, para. 179.

[^139]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, from Aida
    Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    December 2, 1998.

[^140]: *See* "929 and 931 MHz Paging Auction Closes," *Public Notice*,
    15 FCC Rcd 4858 (WTB 2000).

[^141]: *See id*.

[^142]: *See* "Lower and Upper Paging Band Auction Closes," *Public
    Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 21821 (WTB 2002).

[^143]: *See* "Lower and Upper Paging Bands Auction Closes," *Public
    Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd 11154 (WTB 2003).

[^144]: *See Trends in Telephone Service,* Industry Analysis Division,
    Wireline Competition Bureau, Table 5.3 (Number of Telecommunications
    Service Providers that are Small Businesses) (May 2002).

[^145]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211.

[^146]: *See* Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules --
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap, *Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 7824,
    7850-7852, paras. 57-60 (1996); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b).

[^147]: *See* Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules --
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap, *Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7852,
    para. 60.

[^148]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small
    Business Administration, dated December 2, 1998.

[^149]: FCC News, "Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes," No.
    71744 (rel. January 14, 1997).

[^150]: *See* "C, D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes,"
    *Public Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 6688 (WTB 1999).

[^151]: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding Narrowband PCS, *Third Memorandum Opinion and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 10 FCC Rcd 175,
    196, para. 46 (1994).

[^152]: *See* "Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of ten
    Nationwide Narrowband PCS Licenses, Winning Bids Total
    \$617,006,674," *Public Notice*, PNWL 94-004 (rel. Aug. 2, 1994);
    "Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of 30 Regional
    Narrowband PCS Licenses; Winning Bids Total \$490,901,787," *Public
    Notice*, PNWL 94-27 (rel. Nov. 9, 1994).

[^153]: Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal
    Communications Services, Narrowband PCS, *Second Report and Order
    and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 15 FCC Rcd
    10456, 10476, para. 40 (2000).

[^154]: *Id*.

[^155]: *Id*.

[^156]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small
    Business Administration, dated December 2, 1998.

[^157]: *See* "Narrowband PCS Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, 16 FCC
    Rcd 18663 (WTB 2001).

[^158]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^159]: *Id.*

[^160]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.814(b)(1).

[^161]: *Id*.

[^162]: *See* Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    August 10, 1999. We note that, although a request was also sent to
    the SBA requesting approval for the small business size standard for
    800 MHz, approval is still pending.

[^163]: *See* "Correction to Public Notice DA 96-586 'FCC Announces
    Winning Bidders in the Auction of 1020 Licenses to Provide 900 MHz
    SMR in Major Trading Areas,'" *Public Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd 18367 (WTB
    1996).

[^164]: *See* "Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, 17
    FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).

[^165]: Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules with
    Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service
    and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation
    of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding,
    *Report and Order*, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9593, para. 7 (1995) (*MDS
    Auction R&O)*.

[^166]: 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).

[^167]: *See* Letter to Margaret W. Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
    Communications Bureau, from Gary M. Jackson, Assistant Administrator
    for Size Standards, Small Business Administration, dated March 20,
    2003 (noting approval of \$40 million size standard for MDS
    auction).

[^168]: Basic Trading Areas (BTAs) were designed by Rand McNally and are
    the geographic areas by which MDS was auctioned and authorized. *See
    MDS Auction R&O*, 10 FCC Rcd at 9608, para. 34.

[^169]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to
    incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of Section 309(j) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). For these
    pre-auction licenses, the applicable standard is SBA's small
    business size standard for "other telecommunications" (annual
    receipts of \$12.5 million or less). *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,
    NAICS code 517910.

[^170]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^171]: *Id.*

[^172]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4 (issued October 2000).

[^173]: *Id*.

[^174]: In addition, the term "small entity" under SBREFA applies to
    small organizations (nonprofits) and to small governmental
    jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
    districts, and special districts with populations of less than
    50,000). 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4)-(6). We do not collect annual revenue
    data on ITFS licensees.

[^175]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^176]: *See generally* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201.

[^177]: Federal Communications Commission, 60th Annual Report, Fiscal
    Year 1994, at para. 116.

[^178]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513321, 513322, and 51333.

[^179]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 101 *et seq.* (formerly, part 21 of the
    Commission's Rules).

[^180]: Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the Commission's rules
    can use Private Operational-Fixed Microwave services. *See*
    *generally* 47 C.F.R. parts 80 and 90. Stations in this service are
    called operational-fixed to distinguish them from common carrier and
    public fixed stations. Only the licensee may use the
    operational-fixed station, and only for communications related to
    the licensee's commercial, industrial, or safety operations.

[^181]: Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by part 74 of Title 47
    of the Commission's Rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 74. Available to
    licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network
    entities, broadcast auxiliary microwave stations are used for
    relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the
    transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an
    auxiliary studio. The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which
    relay signals from a remote location back to the studio.

[^182]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^183]: With the exception of the special emergency service, these
    services are governed by Subpart B of part 90 of the Commission\'s
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.15-90.27. The police service includes 26,608
    licensees that serve state, county, and municipal enforcement
    through telephony (voice), telegraphy (code) and teletype and
    facsimile (printed material). The fire radio service includes 22,677
    licensees comprised of private volunteer or professional fire
    companies as well as units under governmental control. The local
    government service is currently comprised of 40,512 licensees that
    are state, county, or municipal entities that use the radio for
    official purposes not covered by other public safety services. There
    are 7,325 licensees within the forestry service, which is comprised
    of licensees from state departments of conservation and private
    forest organizations that set up communications networks among fire
    lookout towers and ground crews. The 9,480 state and local
    governments are licensed to highway maintenance service provide
    emergency and routine communications to aid other public safety
    services to keep main roads safe for vehicular traffic. The 1,460
    licensees in the Emergency Medical Radio Service (EMRS) use the 39
    channels allocated to this service for emergency medical service
    communications related to the delivery of emergency medical
    treatment. 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.15-90.27. The 19,478 licensees in the
    special emergency service include medical services, rescue
    organizations, veterinarians, handicapped persons, disaster relief
    organizations, school buses, beach patrols, establishments in
    isolated areas, communications standby facilities, and emergency
    repair of public communications facilities. 47 C.F.R.
    §§ 90.33-90.55.

[^184]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1162.

[^185]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^186]: Licensees in the Citizens Band (CB) Radio Service, General
    Mobile Radio Service (GMRS), Radio Control (R/C) Radio Service and
    Family Radio Service (FRS) are governed by Subpart D, Subpart A,
    Subpart C, and Subpart B, respectively, of part 95 of the
    Commission\'s rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 95.401-95.428; §§ 95.1-95.181; §§
    95.201-95.225; §§ 95.191-95.194.

[^187]: *Id*.

[^188]: Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the
    Wireless Communications Service (WCS), *Report and Order*, 12 FCC
    Rcd 10785, 10879, para. 194 (1997).

[^189]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small
    Business Administration, dated December 2, 1998.

[^190]: *See* Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, 25, of the
    Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band,
    Reallocate the 29.5-30.5 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 Rule Making,* 12 FCC
    Rcd 12545, 12689-90, para. 348 (1997).

[^191]: *Id*.

[^192]: *See* Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    January 6, 1998.

[^193]: *See id.*

[^194]: *1992 Census, Series UC-92-S-1* at *Firm Size* 1-123.

[^195]: Teligent acquired the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS)
    licenses of FirstMark, the only licensee other than TRW in the
    24 GHz band whose license has been modified to require relocation to
    the 24 GHz band.

[^196]: Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules
    To License Fixed Services at 24 GHz, *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd
    16934, 16967, para. 77 (2000) (*24 GHz Report and Order*); *see
    also* 47 C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(2).

[^197]: *24 GHz Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16967, para. 77; *see
    also* 47 C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(1).

[^198]: *See* Letter to Margaret Wiener, Deputy Chief, Auctions and
    Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
    Federal Communications Commission, from Gary Jackson, Assistant
    Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated July 28, 2000.

[^199]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the
    37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Band, *Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd
    18600 (1997).

[^200]: *Id*.

[^201]: *See* Letter to Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, from Hector Barreto, Administrator, Small
    Business Administration, dated January 18, 2002.

[^202]: *See* "Interactive Video and Data Service (IVDS) Applications
    Accepted for Filing," *Public Notice*, 9 FCC Rcd 6227 (1994).

[^203]: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding, *Fourth* *Report* *and* [*Order*, 9 FCC Rcd
    2330
    (1994](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DocName=59FR24947&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=24947)).

[^204]: Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service, *Report and Order
    and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 1497 (1999).

[^205]: *Id*.

[^206]: *See* Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    January 6, 1998.

[^207]: Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Adopt
    Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems, *Second Report
    and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 15182, 15192 ¶ 20 (1998); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 90.1103.

[^208]: Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Adopt
    Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems, *Second Report
    and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 15192 ¶ 20; *see also* 47 C.F.R.
    § 90.1103.

[^209]: *See* Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    February 22, 1999.

[^210]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Multiple
    Address Systems, *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 11956, 12008 ¶ 123
    (2000).

[^211]: *Id*.

[^212]: *See* Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    June 4, 1999.

[^213]: *See* "Multiple Address Systems Spectrum Auction Closes,"
    *Public Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 21011 (2001).

[^214]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^215]: 5 U.S.C. § 603 (c).

[^216]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^217]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^218]: *See* Federal Communications Commission 2000 Biennial Regulatory
    Review - Updated Staff Report (rel. Jan. 17, 2001).

[^219]: *See* Federal Communications Commission 2002 Biennial Regulatory
    Review - Staff Report of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 18
    FCC Rcd 4243 (2003).