MSS

1) BROADCASTERS DO NOT HAVE TO MOVE FROM BAS CHANNEL ONE UNTIL ALL NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

2) The first MSS (Mobile Satellite Service) user (looks like I.C.O.) must pay for (negotiate with at this point) broadcasters (individually or collectively) in the top 30 markets to retune their 2 GHz equipment to operate from 2008 MHz to 2110 MHz, using a 14.5 MHz Bandwidth for each channel. Please be aware that if investors drop out, the deal is dead, and broadcasters can later request the return of these frequencies if they remain unused.

3) Four additional companies will then be allowed to use the old channel 1 before anyone can operate on BAS Channel 2 (PHASE 2). This may never happen!

PHILLIPS MICROTECHNOLOGY - Custom Engineered, Ultra-Selective LNAs and Upgrades for today's congested Microwave bands. Phone: 1-954-850-1016

PRESENT CHANNEL	New Service
1) 1990 - 2008 PHASE 1: Use until the top 30 markets are "retuned" for 14.5 MHz channel spacing by 1st MSS service!	Mobile Satellite Service MSS operators can start negotiating retuning of top 30 markets Jan 1, 2000
2) 2008 - 2025 PHASE 2: Use until the top 30 markets are "retuned" for 12.1 MHz channel spacing by 1st MSS service!	Mobile Satellite Service MSS operators can negotiate retuning top 30 markets Jan 1, 2005 (might never happen!)
3) 2023 -2042	Broadcast Auxiliary Service: Phase 1: 2008 - 2110 MHz (102 MHz) 7 channels, 14.5 MHz bandwidth each Phase 2: 2025 - 2110 MHz (85 MHz) 7 channels, 12.1 MHz bandwidth each
4) 2042 - 2059
5) 2059 - 2076
6) 2076 - 2093
7) 2093 - 2110
	2110-2150 to be auctioned for Land Mobile

1. By this action, the Commission disposes of two petitions for reconsideration and one

petition for clarification of the First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule

Making (First R&O/Further Notice) in this proceeding. In so doing, we affirm our allocation of

the 1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands to the Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS). In

accordance with the requirements of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (1997 Budget Act), we

propose to reallocate 40 megahertz of spectrum, at 2110-2150 MHz, to the Fixed and Mobile

Services, for eventual assignment of licenses by auction. In order to meet these requirements,

we propose to change the Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) allocations made earlier in this

proceeding from the 2025-2130 MHz band to the 2025-2110 MHz band, and add Government

space operations (Earth-to-space and space-to-space), Earth-exploration satellite (Earth-to-space

and space-to-space) and space Research (Earth-to-space and space-to-space) to this band. We

further propose policies to govern the relocation of BAS and Fixed Service (FS) microwave

licensees that are affected by these reallocations. Finally, we deny a request from the ICO

Service Group to require the submission by BAS licensees of detailed equipment and operational

international allocations of the 1930-1980 MHz (Earth-to-space or uplink) and 2120-2170 MHz

(space-to-Earth or downlink) bands in Region 2 and the 1980-2010 MHz (uplink) and 2170-2200

MHz (downlink) bands worldwide to MSS. Thus, as it affects the bands addressed in this

worldwide, and the 2165-2170 MHz band to MSS in Region 2. WARC-92 also adopted primary

allocations for the space operation, space research and Earth exploration-satellite services for

Earth-to-space and space-to-space transmissions in the 2025-2110 MHz band on a worldwide

reserved 220 megahertz of spectrum in the 2 GHz band, at 1850-1990 MHz, 2110-2150 MHz,

and 2160-2200 MHz, for reallocation to services using new and innovative technologies. The

Commission also provided that new technology licensees in these bands would be allowed to

clear their spectrum by relocating incumbent FS microwave licensees to bands above 5 GHz.

4. The Commission then allocated the 1850-1990 MHz band to terrestrial broadband

Personal Communications Services (PCS) in June of 1994. The Commission anticipated that

PCS would use spectrum intensively, thereby bringing into question the feasibility of MSS in

this band. The Commission concluded that it could not make a domestic allocation of 2 GHz

spectrum for MSS that would be consistent with the international allocations without

jeopardizing the availability of spectrum for PCS. The Commission acknowledged the potential

value of MSS in areas that may not be readily or economically served by PCS, such as sparsely-

populated rural areas, stating that it would investigate possibilities for allocating additional

frequencies for MSS at 2 GHz. Further, the Commission stated that it would attempt to

accommodate MSS within the internationally allocated bands remaining outside the PCS

allocation and would pursue additional international allocations for MSS at the 1995 World

Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-95). This proceeding was initiated in 1995 in

5. WRC-95 adopted additional international allocations for MSS. As a result of the

actions taken at WRC-95, effective January 1, 2000, the 1990-2010 MHz (uplink) and 2170-2200

MHz (downlink) bands will remain allocated to MSS worldwide, and the 2165-2170 MHz

(downlink) band will remain allocated to MSS in Region 2. Also effective January 1, 2000, the

2010-2025 MHz (uplink) band will be available for MSS in the United States and Canada.

Effective January 1, 2005, the 2010-2025 MHz (uplink) band will be allocated to MSS in all of

6. In the First R&O/Further Notice in this proceeding, the Commission reallocated

the 1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands to MSS, effective January 1, 2000. Because

this reallocation removed 35 megahertz from the total of 120 megahertz allocated to BAS, the

Commission reallocated for BAS use the 2110-2130 MHz band, currently used for FS

microwave service. This left BAS with 105 megahertz of spectrum at 2025-2130 MHz. In

making this reallocation, the Commission determined that it is technically feasible for BAS to

use channels of 15 megahertz width, as opposed to its current channels of 17 or 18 megahertz

width. The Commission also stated that new MSS licensees in the band are required to bear the

costs of relocation of BAS and FS licensees in the affected spectrum, in accordance with the

policies established in the Emerging Technologies proceeding. We received two petitions for

reconsideration of these decisions. The MSS Coalition asked us to reconsider requiring new

MSS licensees to bear the cost of relocating incumbent licensees in the new MSS bands, and to

reconsider our reallocation of the 2110-2130 MHz band to BAS. The MSS Coalition also

asked us to clarify that the standard by which we would judge interference between MSS systems

and incumbent systems would be the "harmful interference" standard defined in our rules.

Southwestern Bell Wireless Inc. and SouthWestern Bell Mobile System, Inc. (Southwestern

Bell) asked that we reconsider our reallocation of 70 megahertz of spectrum to MSS, and

requested that we instead reallocate the 40 megahertz at 1990-2010 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz to

MSS. We address these petitions in the Memorandum Opinion and Order portion of this

spectrum in the 2 GHz range for reassignment by auction. We are specifically directed to

reallocate the 40 megahertz at 2110-2150 MHz for reassignment by auction by September 30,

2002. Only if we determine that auction of other spectrum would better serve the public

interest and could reasonably be expected to produce greater receipts, may we reallocate an

alternate 40 megahertz. We are also directed to allocate an additional 15 megahertz from

spectrum at 1990-2110 MHz for reassignment by auction by September 30, 2002, unless the

President determines that such spectrum cannot be reallocated due to the need to protect Federal

Government systems and that reallocation of an alternate 15 megahertz better serves the public

interest and can be reasonably expected to produce comparable receipts. On November 17,

1998, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), on behalf of

the President, submitted a letter to the Commission, exercising the Presidential option to identify

an alternative 15 megahertz of spectrum to satisfy the requirements of the Budget Act. We will

applications and letters of intent for satellite service in the 2 GHz band. Upon initial review,

the Commission found nine applications and letters of intent from potential 2 GHz MSS

9. Southwestern Bell filed a petition requesting that we reconsider our decision to

reallocate 70 megahertz of spectrum to MSS. Southwestern Bell contends that we should

reallocate only 40 megahertz of spectrum, at 1990-2010 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz, to MSS. In

support of this contention, Southwestern Bell argues that the current use of the 2165-2180 MHz

band for interconnection of cell sites in rural areas is more in the public interest than the use of

the same spectrum for MSS, and that the reallocation of this spectrum would have a detrimental

effect upon rural mobile telephone customers. Southwestern Bell also argues that because only

the 1990-2010 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands are allocated internationally to MSS on a

worldwide basis, its suggested allocation is more consistent with WARC-92 and WRC-95

10. We continue to believe that the spectrum allocation for the MSS is appropriate

and best serves the public interest. The record contains ample evidence that MSS will need at

least 70 megahertz of spectrum to meet demand. Although it is true that only the 1990-2010

MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands are internationally allocated to MSS worldwide, it is also true

that the 2010-2025 MHz and 2165-2180 MHz bands are internationally allocated to MSS in

Region 2, which includes the United States. In addition, we note that at WRC-95 the United

States sought and obtained allocation of the 2010-2025 MHz band for MSS use as of January 1,

2000. Accordingly, this spectrum is usable consistent with WRC allocations by either MSS

regional systems, or by worldwide systems using these frequencies in Region 2 only.

Southwestern Bell states is used for interconnection of cell sites in rural areas, as part of the

emerging technologies band. Also in 1993, the Commission gave notice that it would consider

a reallocation of spectrum within the 2 GHz band for MSS, in part in recognition of the potential

value of MSS service in rural areas. When the Commission determined in 1997 to reallocate the

spectrum at 2165-2180 MHz to MSS it did so consistent with the general policies developed in

1994 for emerging technologies spectrum. Pursuant to these policies, should new MSS systems

interfere with Southwestern Bell's systems, or any other incumbent systems, the MSS licensees

will share the costs of relocating those incumbents to other spectrum. For these reasons, we

find that the reallocation of the 1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2180 MHz bands to MSS will not

operate to the detriment of rural American mobile communications customers. Quite the

contrary, the advent of ubiquitous MSS service will give those same customers another option

for mobile communications service, with the attendant benefits of robust competition among

service providers. We therefore decline to change our reallocation of the 1990-2025 MHz and

MSS Coalition requests reconsideration of the Commission's decision to require MSS licensees

in the 1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands to compensate FS and BAS licensees for

relocation costs. The MSS Coalition argues that, for various reasons, these MSS licensees

should not be required to bear any relocation costs. The MSS Coalition asserts that the

Commission would have had to relocate BAS to avoid causing interference to international MSS

systems in the 1990-2025 GHz band offering service outside the United States. Specifically, the

MSS Coalition states that relocation of BAS is necessary to satisfy Resolution 46 of the ITU

Radio Regulations, which specifies procedures for the coordination and notification of frequency

assignments of non-geostationary satellite networks in certain space services and the other

services to which the bands are allocated. The MSS Coalition further states that relocation

expenses are discriminatory against international MSS service providers because the anticipated

high relocation costs incurred by MSS providers will render them unable to provide a

competitive service in the US market. The MSS Coalition also contends that the Commission

does not have jurisdiction over non-U.S. licensed space segments and accordingly cannot create

impediments to such service by requiring compensation for relocation of incumbent services.

apply the Emerging Technologies relocation compensation policies in this proceeding. The 35

megahertz of spectrum at 2165-2200 MHz allocated for MSS downlinks in this proceeding and

affirmed here, was part of the spectrum specifically identified in the Emerging Technologies

proceeding for reallocation, and subject to the relocation compensation policies established in

that very proceeding. We therefore deny the MSS Coalition's attempt to collaterally attack the

policies' applicability to the downlink allocation. We further affirm the applicability of the

Emerging Technologies policies to all of the allocations and reallocations undertaken in this

have been required to relocate BAS to meet international obligations to avoid causing

interference to MSS systems providing service outside the United States. Resolution 46 states

that, in the case of difficulties, the administration responsible for the planned (non-U.S.) system

is to explore all possibilities for adjusting its systems to avoid the interference problem. Under

Resolution 46, the administration receiving the request for coordination of a MSS system must

merely explore possible means of meeting the requirements of the MSS system. If these

measures do not resolve the difficulties, the administrations concerned are to work jointly to

make adjustments to resolve the interference problems. An array of measures are typically

available for coordinating different services in order to avoid interference, such as geographic

separation, restrictions on signal strength, frequency sharing, etc. Neither Resolution 46 nor any

other provision of the International Radio Regulations requires relocation of incumbent services

to ensure against interference to MSS. Specifically, footnote S5.388 to the International Table of

Frequency Allocations stipulates that the MSS use of the band does not preclude the shared use

of the band by other services. Therefore, we find the MSS Coalition's argument that we should

reconsider requiring MSS licensees to compensate BAS licensees for relocation costs based on

systems. Our policy with regard to MSS systems operating in the spectrum at issue in this

proceeding applies equally to all licensees, whether foreign or domestic. We recognize that some

MSS systems may operate in other frequency bands where no relocation compensation has been

required. The fact that MSS providers in other bands have not been required to pay for

relocation of incumbent services is not the result of selective application of our Emerging

Technologies policies. Our Emerging Technologies policies require new service providers in the

2 GHz bands to compensate incumbents who are required to relocate. These policies apply

regardless of the nationality, service, or technology of the new entrant. MSS providers using the

33 MHz allocated for MSS in the 1.6 and 2.4 GHz bands were not required to pay relocation

costs because no incumbent service providers were required to relocate in order to accommodate

16. We also disagree with the MSS Coalition's assertion that the Commission cannot

impose a relocation compensation condition on the U.S. licensed space segments because we

lack jurisdiction over non-U.S. licensed space segments of such international systems. As an

initial matter we note that, pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, this

Commission has authority to impose on Commission licensees conditions and obligations

consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity, including monetary obligations.

In essence, the MSS Coalition is asking this Commission to deviate from the Emerging

Technologies policies based upon its belief that, as a matter of policy, no international satellite-

based commercial service ought incur the costs associated with relocating incumbent providers.

This proceeding, which is relatively narrowly focused, is not the proper forum for establishing a

policy with respect to satellite services generally. We note that trade press reports suggest an

ever increasing demand for spectrum for satellite-based commercial telecommunications

systems. Accommodating the desires and needs of new satellite-based systems for spectrum

would be easier if several hundred megahertz of fallow spectrum were available. However, most

of the spectrum in the lower bands in the United States is currently allocated and utilized by

either Government or non-Government operations. Were we to accept the MSS Coalition's

position that international satellite-based systems should not have to compensate displaced and

dislocated incumbent users of the spectrum, all incumbents arguably could be directly, adversely

impacted by such a decision. We therefore decline to deviate from established policy.

Accordingly, we affirm our decision to impose on MSS licensees authorized by this Commission

to operate in the 2 GHz emerging technologies band, whether foreign or domestic, the obligation

to relocate those licensees with whom they cannot share spectrum to comparable facilities

replace existing equipment as a result of the transition to digital television (DTV). The MSS

Coalition argues that MSS licensees should not have to pay for replacing equipment that would

be replaced even absent the allocation of BAS spectrum to MSS. The MSS Coalition states that

our DTV Proceeding recognizes the existence and prevalence of digital technology for

transmission of TV signals. According to the MSS Coalition, BAS incumbents will incur the

costs of replacing their current equipment with digital equipment when the TV industry converts

to a digital environment on the schedule mandated by our DTV Proceeding, regardless of the

presence of MSS operations. Further, the MSS Coalition argues that the Commission's

decision to provide additional spectrum to BAS as compensation for the loss of spectrum to MSS

was arbitrary, capricious, and premature because more efficient digital technology exists that can

There is nothing in our DTV Proceeding which requires the transition of BAS to a digital

format. Further, a digital TV distribution system does not necessitate digital contribution

signals from BAS remote units to the studio. Analog BAS contribution signals can be converted

to DTV distribution signals, just as digital satellite news gathering signals are currently

19. However, in view of the overall reduction of spectrum allocated to BAS in the 2

GHz band, existing BAS equipment will most likely need to be modified extensively or replaced

with new digital equipment. We acknowledge that when the Commission reallocated 220 MHz

for emerging technologies services, the BAS spectrum at 1990-2110 and 2150-2162 MHz was

excluded from reallocation for technical reasons of heavy band use and the lack of available

relocation bands. Nevertheless, the Commission has subsequently significantly reduced the

amount of spectrum allocated to BAS in the 2 GHz band. We find that the goals expressed in the

Emerging Technologies proceeding of providing for the fair and equitable sharing of 2 GHz

spectrum, preventing disruption to incumbent operations and minimizing the economic impact

on incumbent licensees are unchanged and apply with equal weight to the present situation facing

incumbent BAS licensees. We therefore affirm the decision to apply the cost recovery policies

established in the Emerging Technologies proceeding to BAS equipment, and seek comment in

20. Finally, the reallocations required by the 1997 Budget Act necessitate that we

revisit the BAS allocation. Accordingly, issues pertaining to accommodating BAS within 85

decision to require MSS licensees to compensate incumbent FS licensees for relocation costs was

inappropriately premised on the idea that MSS should be subject to the same requirements as was

PCS. The MSS Coalition claims that our decision was inappropriate for two reasons. First,

according to the MSS Coalition, PCS is inherently local in nature, where MSS is a national

service. Therefore, argues the MSS Coalition, where PCS could negotiate relocation of FS

microwave licensees on a link-by-link basis, MSS would be faced with the task of negotiating

with every licensee nationwide, which could render the process unworkable. Second, the MSS

Coalition states that sharing between MSS and FS microwave licensees may be possible for

some time in most areas. For these reasons, the MSS Coalition urges us to reconsider our

22. We disagree with the MSS Coalition's suggestion that the Commission based its

relocation policies on its policy in the PCS proceeding. As discussed above and in the First

R&O/Further Notice, our relocation policies were established in 1994 in the Emerging

Technologies proceeding. That proceeding was initiated to respond to advances in digital

technology and signal processing that enabled the development of a broad range of new radio

communications services. Among the emerging technologies services identified by the

Commission were PCS, data PCS, MSS and LEOs. Consistent with the determinations made

there, in the First R&O/Further Notice, the Commission applied the Emerging Technologies

policies to the relocation of incumbent FS microwave licensees in the 2 GHz bands reallocated to

MSS. Similar policies were applied in the PCS proceeding; these policies were intended to

importance of the functions performed by fixed microwave operations, such as public safety and

utility management communications, and indicated its intent to minimize the impact of spectrum

redevelopment on those services. Accordingly, the Commission developed a plan for the

orderly transition of FS microwave licensees out of the 2 GHz bands, and the expeditious

commencement of emerging technologies services. It stated that FS microwave licensees would

be permitted to negotiate voluntary relocation agreements at any time. After an initial transition

period, the Commission determined that all existing FS microwave licensees would retain co-

primary status. In cases where there was interference between FS microwave and emerging

technology licensees, the facility first licensed would be afforded protection from interference. If

an emerging technology provider needed an incumbent's frequency, the Commission encouraged

the parties to negotiate a voluntary relocation agreement. If the negotiations failed, the emerging

technology provider could request involuntary relocation. In such case, the emerging technology

provider would guarantee payment of all relocation expenses, including all engineering,

equipment, site and FCC fees, and reasonable additional costs the FS microwave licensee might

incur in operating in another band. The emerging technology provider would be required to

complete all activities necessary for implementing the new facilities, including engineering,

frequency coordination, and cost analysis of the complete relocation procedure. The emerging

technologies provider was to build the new microwave system or alternative and test it for

comparability to the FS microwave licensee's 2 GHz facility. The FS microwave licensee was

not required to relocate until the new facilities were available for enough time to ensure a

seamless transition. Finally, if within one year after the new facilities were in operation, they

were demonstrated by the FS microwave licensee to be not comparable to the former facilities,

the emerging technology provider was to remedy any deficiencies or pay to relocate the FS

and clarified certain general rules adopted in the Emerging Technologies proceeding. In

pertinent part, the Commission required that during mandatory negotiations an incumbent must

allow the new entrant access to its facilities to permit an independent third party to prepare

relocation cost estimates; clarified that new entrants are under no obligation to pay premiums to

relocate incumbents; clarified that during mandatory negotiations parties must share pertinent

information; placed time limits on compensation for increased recurring costs; limited

reimbursement of transaction costs to a percentage of hard costs; and placed a ten year time limit

on the requirement for new entrants to pay for an incumbents relocation. Pursuant to the

involuntary relocation procedures, emerging technologies licensees are also not required to pay

for a FS microwave licensee's internal resources devoted to the relocation process, are not

required to pay for transaction costs incurred by the FS microwave licensee during the voluntary

or mandatory periods once the involuntary period is initiated or for fees that cannot be

legitimately tied to the provision of comparable facilities. These changes and clarifications

were designed to facilitate achievement of the goals established in the Emerging Technologies

proceeding to provide new technology licensees with expeditious access to 2 GHz frequencies,

and at the same time prevent disruption to existing 2 GHz operations and minimize the economic

25. The Commission first applied the emerging technologies relocation rules when it

established PCS. PCS was allocated the 1850-1990 MHz band, the first segment of the bands

identified in the Emerging Technologies Proceeding to be allocated to an emerging technology

service. All new PCS licensees in this band were subject to the relocation rules of the

Emerging Technologies Proceeding. The Commission's experience in PCS relocation of

microwave incumbents led to refinements in the relocation rules in the Microwave Cost-Sharing

Proceeding, but the fundamental soundness of the relocation policies and the value of the goals

26. We recognize that the relocation of FS incumbents nationwide would be a large

undertaking, but find that this does not constitute a basis for abandoning our Emerging

Technologies policies. The PCS industry as a whole has been and will continue to be required to

negotiate with FS incumbents nationwide. MSS licensees may be able to deal with many

incumbents collectively, or use other techniques to minimize the difficulty of negotiating

relocation. We find that the scale of the contemplated relocation does not affect the goals of

providing for the fair and equitable sharing of 2 GHz spectrum, preventing disruption to

incumbent operations, and minimizing the economic impact on incumbent licensees.

27. The MSS Coalition also claims that our relocation policy is inappropriate because

MSS may be able to share spectrum with some FS licensees for a considerable time, although no

such sharing was possible between PCS and FS. In the First R&O/Further Notice, the

Commission stated that "MSS cannot begin operations until its spectrum is cleared of all FS

licensees who would receive harmful interference from MSS, but MSS will not be required to

relocate any FS incumbent with whom it can successfully share spectrum." We affirm this

statement and conclude that this prior decision to require relocation only where incumbent FS

licensees receive harmful interference, fully addresses the MSS Coalition's concerns on this

clarification that MSS and FS licensees may share spectrum so long as harmful interference does

not result. The MSS Coalition states that, although the Commission specified that new MSS

licensees will not be required to relocate incumbent FS licensees unless and until the incumbents

receive harmful interference from, or cause harmful interference to, MSS, we also referred to

"unacceptable interference" in the First R&O/Further Notice. The MSS Coalition points out that

"harmful interference" is defined in our rules but "unacceptable interference" is not. We

clarify that the "harmful interference" standard as defined in our rules applies in determining the

need to relocate any incumbent licensee in the frequency bands subject to our Emerging

29. For the reasons discussed, we grant the MSS Coalition's Petition for Clarification,

dismiss the MSS Coalition's Petition for Partial Reconsideration insofar as it is mooted by

subsequent events, and deny the petition on all other grounds. We also deny Southwestern Bell's

spectrum at 2110-2150 MHz band for assignment by competitive bidding. We may allocate an

alternate 40 megahertz of spectrum only if we determine that auction of such spectrum better

serves the public interest, convenience and necessity and can reasonably be expected to produce

greater receipts. The 40 megahertz specified by Congress for reallocation by auction in the

1997 Budget Act is currently allocated to FS microwave operations. This spectrum could,

however, be efficiently utilized for a number of services. For example, BAS operators could bid

for spectrum in the band to operate additional analog or digital BAS channels. Commercial

mobile service providers may wish to bid on this spectrum because of its proximity to PCS

spectrum and favorable propagation characteristics for mobile use. Others may seek the

spectrum for the provision of fixed wireless access telephone service. Potential providers of

International Mobile Telecommunication - 2000 (IMT-2000), a service conceived to provide

integrated global mobile communications, may wish to bid for the spectrum. Accordingly, we

propose to reallocate the 2110-2150 MHz band for Fixed and Mobile Services for assignment by

31. In the First R&O/Further Notice, the Commission found that it is necessary to

relocate BAS in order to accommodate MSS in the 1990-2025 MHz band, and that BAS and

MSS cannot share spectrum without unacceptable mutual interference. Accordingly, the

Commission reallocated 20 megahertz of spectrum to BAS, to partially replace the 35 megahertz

reallocated to MSS. As a result, the BAS band was reallocated from 120 megahertz at 1990-

2110 MHz to 105 megahertz at 2025-2130 MHz. The Commission noted that relocation of BAS

would require retuning or retrofitting of BAS equipment to allow improved intermediate

frequency bandpass and adjacent-channel rejection. The Commission anticipated that no new

facilities would need to be constructed, and that retrofitting or replacement of current equipment

would suffice to reduce BAS from seven channels of 17 or 18 megahertz to seven channels of 15

megahertz. The Commission concluded that the cost of this equipment replacement should be

Act was enacted. Consistent with the requirements imposed by the 1997 Budget Act, we herein

propose to reallocate the 2110-2150 MHz band for assignment by competitive bidding. As also

noted above, we herein affirm the Commission's previous allocation of 70 megahertz of spectrum

for MSS at 1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz. Together, these actions leave a total of 85

megahertz available for BAS in this region of the spectrum. We note that the current BAS

allocation of 120 megahertz of spectrum provides seven channels for analog technology. Studies

and information that have become available since the adoption of the First R&O/Further Notice

indicate that it is possible to transmit FM analog BAS signals in channels as narrow as 12

megahertz and digital BAS signals in channels as narrow as 10 MHz. An allocation of 85

megahertz for BAS could provide six channels of 12 megahertz, and one of 13 megahertz, for

BAS operations. This would appear to satisfy BAS needs for seven distinct channels. Given

the requirements of the 1997 Budget Act and other demands for allocations in this region of the

spectrum, we are proposing to reallocate 85 megahertz of spectrum for BAS at 2025-2110 MHz.

We invite comment on the feasibility of the proposed BAS allocation and on any other alternate

allocations or measures that would mitigate the impact to BAS of the reallocations of BAS

reflect a primary allocation for Government space operations, earth exploration satellites, and

space research in the 2025-2110 MHz band. Currently, these services are authorized by four

footnotes to the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations. NTIA points out that this band is

internationally allocated for these services, and that the 1997 World Radiocommunication

Conference modified international footnote S5.391 to protect these space services in the 2025-

2110 MHz band. NTIA states that this is an opportune time to modify the U.S. Table of

Frequency Allocations in the 2025-2110 MHz band, and to require terrestrial systems in the band

to conform with relevant ITU Radio Regulations and ITU-R Recommendations that protect

34. Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Government satellite systems have successfully

shared this band for over 30 years. We tentatively conclude that this highly successful sharing of

this band by BAS and Government satellites warrants formal confirmation. We therefore

propose to grant co-primary status to the Government space operation (Earth-to-space and space-

to-space), Earth-exploration satellite (Earth-to-space and space-to-space), and space research

(Earth-to-space and space-to-space) services in the 2025-2110 MHz band. Because of the

previous exclusive non-Government allocation of this band, we propose to limit Government use

of the band to ensure that Government satellite operations do not constrain deployment of BAS

licensees operating in conformance with our rules in the 2025-2110 MHz band. Implementation

of BAS operations would be effected consistent with coordination procedures specified in Parts

74, 78, and 101 of our rules. We propose to adopt domestically international footnote S5.391,

and thus to minimize the likelihood of interference to Government satellite communications from

non-Government terrestrial operations. We believe that our proposals for the band are consistent

with footnote S5.391, and will limit interference to Government satellite operations from current

BAS and any future non-Government operations in the band. We further propose to follow the

guidelines of Recommendations ITU-R SA.1154 and ITU-R F.1247 in dealing with future BAS

systems in the band. We seek comment on this proposal, particularly on whether the proposal

in the First R&O/Further Notice to apply the cost recovery policies established in our Emerging

Technologies proceeding to the 2 GHz allocations that are the subject of this proceeding. Given

the changes necessitated in the allocations in this region due to the 1997 Budget Act, we must,

however, now consider the details of how to apply these policies to the relocation of the BAS

spectrum. Under our previous allocation plan, where BAS was to be reaccommodated within

105 megahertz of spectrum, we anticipated that it would be possible to rechannelize the BAS

spectrum and retune existing equipment. Our revised allocation proposal contemplates an

allocation of 85 megahertz of spectrum for BAS based on seven channels of 12 or 13 megahertz.

36. As noted above, the record suggests that existing analog BAS equipment would

need to be modified extensively to operate within a 12 megahertz channel or would need to be

replaced with digital equipment. The record also suggests that more spectrally efficient digital

equipment may be necessary to meet demand for BAS operations within the reduced spectrum

band. There is little or no data in the record on whether analog and digital BAS signals could be

transmitted on adjacent channels without mutual interference. We further note that innovations

and changing technologies may render any decision we make now about appropriate transition

technologies outdated before the very first piece of existing BAS equipment is retrofitted or

replaced. Thus, we propose to defer to the business decisions made by the affected parties during

negotiations as to whether it is most economical and efficient to retune or replace existing BAS

37. The transition of BAS to new technology is also complicated by the nature of the

service. Most BAS uses in the 1990-2110 MHz band are mobile or temporary-fixed. Major

events will often draw multiple BAS units for news or sports coverage. BAS licensees would

have difficulty coordinating the use of new BAS equipment operating on 12- and 13-megahertz

channels with old BAS equipment operating on 17- and 18-megahertz channels within the same

spectrum and simultaneously satisfying the demand for channels. Because the new BAS band is

contained within a reduced portion of the former BAS band, each of the old BAS channels of 17

megahertz would overlap two or three of the new 12- and 13-megahertz channels if both

channelization plans were permitted to exist concurrently. As a result, for example, a BAS

licensee using the old BAS channel 1 (1990-2008 MHz) would interfere with a licensee using the

new BAS channel 2 (2003-2015 MHz) because of the overlap of channels. Accordingly we do

not propose to allow existing BAS systems to continue to operate on 17 megahertz channels

geographic limitations on licensees tend to be less rigid than in other regulated services. In the

past, the broadcasting industry has benefited from the flexible, mobile nature of BAS to provide

ad hoc-coordinated operations that facilitate the greatest possible coverage of major and breaking

news events. The imposition of rigid geographical boundaries could diminish the flexibility and

39. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that we should require simultaneous retuning

or replacement of all BAS equipment nationwide on a date certain. We recognize that such an

approach poses a number of potential problems. For example, simultaneous replacement of all

BAS equipment would require a substantial up-front capital outlay by MSS licensees. In

addition, this approach could prematurely lock in BAS to digital technology and equipment

before they have adequately matured. We also question whether a sufficient supply of equipment

would be available to satisfy the simultaneous conversion of all BAS operations.

40. In light of these considerations, we invite comment on a broad range of alternative

approaches. First, we invite comment as to whether it is feasible to allow the MSS and BAS

communities to negotiate an appropriate transition plan, or whether the nature and needs of BAS

and MSS will require us to mandate a transition plan. We also invite comment as to the

feasibility of allowing existing analog BAS equipment to continue to operate in some portion of

the old/reallocated BAS spectrum for a period of time. For example, could we take an interim

step of rechannelizing the former 120 megahertz BAS band to three 17-megahertz channels (old

style) and four 12-megahertz channels (new style)? This would free 21 megahertz of spectrum in

the 1990-2025 MHz band for the use of MSS on January 1, 2000, when the reallocation of the

band to MSS becomes effective, and may allow a phased transition to the new BAS channel plan.

We ask parties to also comment on geographic issues, including for example whether equipment

replacement could be done on a market-by-market basis or with a staged deployment within local

markets. We further solicit views on the timing of the transition of the BAS spectrum,

particularly taking into account MSS licensees' desire to expeditiously begin using the MSS

filings, and the MSS Coalition, in supplemental comments filed in response to the first NRPM

in this proceeding, recommended a proposal that would require BAS licensees to discontinue

use of BAS channel 1 (1990-2008 Mhz) when MSS systems begin service (in the year 2000), and

to discontinue use of BAS channel 2 (2008-2025 MHz) as MSS requires additional spectrum or

no later than either May 1, 2002, or January 1, 2005, with BAS bearing the expense of its

relocation. Under this proposal MSS would obtain expeditious access to and use of the 35

megahertz MSS uplink allocation without any obligation to bear BAS' relocation expenses. In

ex parte filings ICO suggests it would provide accommodations such as technical assistance,

product development support and operational constraints where required to allow a rapid and

inexpensive transition of incumbent users.As noted above, however, in the Memorandum

Opinion and Order we affirm the Commission's prior decision to apply the Emerging

Technologies relocation compensation policies to the MSS allocations in the 2 GHz band. MSS

licensees will be required to pay for the retuning or replacement of incumbent BAS systems if it

desires expeditious access to the spectrum. Parties are encouraged to submit innovative new

ideas, however, with respect to other transition mechanisms that may facilitate expeditious use of

necessary to implement our allocation plan, consistent with the policies established in the

Emerging Technologies proceeding and modified in the Microwave Relocation Cost-Sharing

proceeding. We invite comment on how costs should be apportioned among MSS licensees. We

seek comment on whether we should require each MSS licensee to bear this financial

responsibility in proportion to the amount of spectrum in the 1990-2025 MHz band for which it

is licensed. We also seek comment on whether costs should be shared among all the new MSS

licensees on the basis of a cost sharing formula similar to that adopted in the Microwave

Relocation Cost-Sharing proceeding, whereby the first entrant pays relocation expenses and

obtains reimbursement rights from subsequent entrants. In this context, we note that it may be

possible that some systems may employ technologies that would allow them to coexist with BAS

in the 1990-2025 MHz band. We seek comment on whether such systems should be exempted

43. We also solicit comment on whether we should establish criteria to gauge the

acceptability of replacement BAS equipment and, if so, what those criteria should be. We also

solicit information to help determine the approximate cost of modification or replacement of all

BAS equipment so that MSS licensees can better anticipate and plan for relocation costs. We

note that BAS operations are not licensed individually and individual operators may have

multiple sets of equipment. Accordingly, we request as complete information as possible on

existing BAS operations, including the number of existing BAS facilities, where they are located

or mobile/portable, and whether they communicate with a single or multiple receive site[s]. We

also request parties to provide any available information on the approximate costs of new digital

equipment, the extent to which 2 GHz ENG equipment currently deployed can be externally

tuned to new carrier frequencies and/or bandwidth, the extent to which BAS channels 1 and 2

(1990-2025) are currently used, the particulars of BAS operation with respect to fixed BAS

receive sites, the typical hours of operation of ENG systems during the day and night, the

average duration of ENG transmissions, and whether there will be any impact on equipment

other than the transmission equipment itself. We also seek views as to whether it may be

appropriate to identify a single industry organization to coordinate the BAS transition, and if so,

44. We generally propose to require replacement/retuning of BAS to be conducted in

accordance with our Emerging Technologies policies, as modified by the decisions in our

Microwave Cost-Sharing proceeding, as applied in Section E infra and as delineated in 47 C.F.R.

Part 101. We also solicit comment on the details of how we should apply these policies, such

as a time frame for negotiation and replacement, a "sunset" period, or a good-faith requirement.

In the Microwave Relocation Cost-Sharing proceeding, the Commission adjusted the voluntary

and mandatory negotiation periods for FS relocation. Specifically, the Commission reduced the

voluntary period to one year for non-public safety FS incumbents. Thus, the negotiation period

for relocation of non-public safety FS incumbents is now one year for voluntary negotiations and

one year for mandatory negotiations, for a total of two years. We propose to adjust the

negotiation periods for the 1990-2025 MHz band in the same manner. We began accepting

applications for MSS licenses in the affected bands, the usual starting point for negotiations, on

July 22, 1997. If we begin the negotiation period for relocation/retuning of BAS licensees on

this date, the voluntary negotiation period will have expired before the release of this document,

and the mandatory negotiation period may expire before we finalize the rules under which BAS

relocation/retuning will be conducted. At the same time, we note that the reallocation of the

1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands to MSS will be effective on January 1, 2000.

Because of these considerations, we seek comment on whether we should allow longer or shorter

negotiation periods for BAS relocation/retuning, and on dates for the start of the negotiation

periods should commence, we ask parties to also consider and comment on whether we should

apply the sunset rule of 47 C.F.R. 101.79, which states that new licensees are no longer

required to pay relocation expenses after ten years following the start of the voluntary negotiation

period for relocation. If so, should the sunset date commence after the beginning of the

46. Finally, we expect the parties involved in the replacement or retuning of BAS

equipment to negotiate in good faith. We therefore propose to apply the good faith guidelines of

E. Relocation of FS Microwave Licensees in the 2110-2150 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz Bands.

provide for MSS sharing with, and any necessary relocation of, FS incumbents in accordance

with our Emerging Technologies policies. The Commission stated that MSS is under no

obligation to relocate FS incumbents with whom sharing is possible, but that where sharing is not

feasible, we will allow the MSS operator to relocate the incumbent FS licensee. The

Commission also proposed to modify our Emerging Technologies relocation policies to some

extent. In the Commission's Microwave Relocation Cost-Sharing proceeding, we decided that a

fair balance between emerging technologies and FS incumbents is struck by allowing an FS

incumbent to retain primary status unless and until an emerging technology licensee who cannot

share spectrum with the incumbent without harmful interference requires use of the spectrum,

while providing that the emerging technology licensee will no longer be obligated to pay

relocation costs ten years after the voluntary negotiation period begins for the first emerging

technology licensees in the service. The Commission stated that once the relocation rules

"sunset," an emerging technology licensee may require the incumbent to either cease operations

or relocate itself to alternate facilities at its own expense, provided the emerging technology

licensee intends to start operation of a system within interference range of the incumbent, as

determined by TIA Bulletin 10-F or any standard successor document. The Commission

provided that the new technology licensee must notify the FS incumbent in writing, and must

provide the incumbent with no less than six months to vacate the spectrum. After the six-month

period has expired, the incumbent must surrender its 2 GHz license to the Commission, unless

guidelines for negotiation in good faith during the mandatory negotiation period. These

guidelines stated that the Commission expects incumbent FS licensees to allow inspection of

their facilities by the emerging technologies (there, PCS) licensee and to provide any other

information needed in order to evaluate the cost of relocating the incumbent to comparable

facilities. The Commission stated that it would consider claims that a party has not negotiated in

good faith on a case-by-case basis, and that it will consider, inter alia, the following factors: (1)

whether the new technology licensee has made a bona fide offer to relocate the incumbent to

comparable facilities; (2) if the microwave (FS) incumbent has demanded a premium, the type of

premium requested (e.g., whether the premium is directly related to relocation, such as system-

wide relocations and analog-to-digital conversions, versus other types of premiums) and whether

the value of the premium as compared to the cost of providing comparable facilities is

disproportionate (i.e., whether there is a lack of relation between the two); (3) what steps the

parties have taken to determine the actual cost of relocation to comparable facilities; and (4)

whether either party has withheld information requested by the other party that is necessary to

estimate relocation costs or to facilitate the relocation process. Finally, to ensure that parties do

not bring frivolous bad faith claims, the Commission also required any party alleging a violation

of our good faith requirement to provide an independent estimate of the relocation costs of the

facilities in question. The Commission provided that independent estimates must include

specifications for the comparable facility and statements of the costs associated with providing

bands using the same sunset period and good faith guidelines as those established in the

Microwave Relocation Cost-Sharing proceeding. Ten years after the beginning of the voluntary

negotiation period for the first new licensees, new licensees would no longer be required to pay

the costs of relocating FS incumbents, and would be able to require the incumbents to cease

operating or relocate at their own expense upon six months written notice. The MSS and FS

industries are currently developing interference standards under the auspices of the

Telecommunications Industry Association. We propose to adopt these standards, or their

successors, in determining whether our sunset rules would apply to a given FS incumbent. At

the end of the six-month notice period, the incumbent FS licensees would be required to

surrender their 2 GHz licenses to the Commission, unless the incumbent FS licensees arrived at

an agreement with the new licensees to allow the incumbent FS licensee to continue operations.

During mandatory negotiations, we propose to adhere to the guidelines enumerated above. We

request comment on whether we should apply the sunset rule of 47 C.F.R. 101.79, which states

that new licensees are no longer required to pay relocation expenses after ten years following the

start of the voluntary negotiation period for relocation. We also inquire whether we should apply

the good faith guidelines of 47 C.F.R. 101.73 for relocation negotiations in the 2110-2150

MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands. If so, we inquire whether the sunset date should be ten years

after the beginning of the voluntary negotiation period for relocation, as in 47 C.F.R. 101.79, or

adjusted the voluntary and mandatory negotiation periods for FS relocation in the case of the C,

D, E, and F spectrum blocks of PCS. Specifically, the Commission reduced the voluntary period

to one year, or two years in the case of public safety FS incumbents. Thus, the negotiation

period for relocation of FS incumbents is now one year for voluntary negotiations and one year

for mandatory negotiations, for a total of two years. For public safety FS incumbents, the

voluntary period is three years, and the mandatory period is two years, for a total of five years.

We propose to adjust the negotiation periods for the 2110-2150 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands

in the same manner. We request comment on whether this is appropriate, or whether we should

establish some other negotiation periods. We also request comment on the date upon which we

should begin the voluntary negotiation period for relocation of incumbent BAS and FS licensees.

MHz bands requires us to deal also with new licensees who are awarded their licenses at auction.

This is of importance because incumbent FS microwave links in the MSS downlink band at

2165-2200 MHz are paired with 35 MHz of spectrum in the 2110-2150 MHz band. It is usually

necessary to relocate both links of a two-way FS microwave system. Therefore, when a new

MSS or other licensee relocates a pair of FS links in these bands, another new licensee will

benefit by having its spectrum in the paired band cleared. We therefore propose to require that,

where an MSS or other new licensee (the "Initial Licensee") has relocated an incumbent FS link

pair, and an MSS or new licensee subsequently begins service in the paired band that previously

was cleared by the Initial Licensee, the subsequently-entering MSS or new licensee (Subsequent

Licensee) will be obligated to reimburse the Initial Licensee half of the Initial Licensee's costs

incurred in relocating the incumbent FS link pair, prior to the beginning of operations by the

Subsequent Licensee. We stress that this proposal applies only to MSS licensees and new

licensees in the 2165-2200 MHz band and the 2115-2150 MHz bands. As regards the 2110-2115

MHz portion of the auction band, which is paired with the 2160-2165 MHz band, any auction-

winning licensee in the 2110-2115 MHz segment will accomplish any necessary relocation in

accordance with our relocation rules in Part 101 of the Commission's rules, without participation

by MSS licensees. This proposal is a deviation from the reimbursement rule of the Microwave

Cost-Sharing proceeding, and we propose this deviation for two reasons. First, the reallocation

of the 2110-2150 MHz band for auction and the 2165-2200 MHz band for MSS is the first time

that we have applied our Emerging Technologies relocation policies in a situation where two

paired bands have been allocated to different services. Second, we anticipate that MSS will

begin service before the auction of the 2110-2150 MHz band. Therefore, we tentatively

conclude that discounting the reimbursement to account for the advantage of early entry to the

first licensee is not a relevant consideration in this case, where the licensees will be in different

services. We believe that in this situation an even division of the costs of relocation is

appropriate. We request comment on this proposal, and especially whether we should apply the

cost reimbursement formula of the Microwave Cost-Sharing proceeding, rather than an even

53. We request comment on all aspects of this reallocation plan. Specifically, we

request comment on the allocation of 85 megahertz to BAS, other possible allocation plans, and

discussion of the pros and cons of any other plan commenters devise. We also solicit comment

on the impact that these reallocations will have on BAS service, and on suggestions for measures

we could take to guarantee the continuity of high-quality BAS service to the public.

Commenters are requested to consider how to accommodate existing licensees and Government

satellite operations in any suggested alternative reallocation plans. We also seek comment on the

54. On July 30, 1998, ICO Services Ltd. and six other entities jointly filed a Request

for Mandatory Submission of Information. The petition requests that we require BAS, CARS,

LTTS, and FS microwave licensees to provide information on their facilities, including location,

equipment, and other technical and financial data. In support of the request, ICO et al. note that

the Commission has held that BAS licensees and FS microwave licensees with whom MSS could

not successfully share spectrum would be relocated in accordance with our Emerging

Technologies policies. In order for future MSS licensees to plan business and financial

strategies, ICO et al. contend that they must have precise information on the actual need for

upgrade of current BAS equipment or purchase of new BAS and FS microwave equipment.

Because the Commission lacks detailed information on equipment and some technical aspects of

licensees' operations, ICO et al. request that we gather this information in order to effectuate any

necessary relocations and to determine whether BAS and FS microwave operations can be

55. The information ICO requests in its petition is properly a part of the negotiation

process. We agree with ICO et al. that possession of accurate information is necessary both to us

in the formation of our regulatory policies, and to the parties to any relocation negotiation. We

have asked herein in the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the information we

believe is necessary to establish appropriate regulatory policies. We do not believe the formation

of regulatory policy requires the level of detail that petitioners request. We note that the

Commission is also in the process of gathering data from our licensees as a part of the

development and implemetation of the Universal Licensing System. The information we gather

in these processes should be sufficient to allow us to establish sound policies.

56. With regard to the contention of ICO et al. that the requested information will be

needed for negotiations on the accommodation and any necessary relocation/retuning of BAS

and FS microwave licensees, we find that we have adequately addressed this issue in the Third

Notice of Proposed Rule Making portion of this document. We noted there that the Microwave

Cost-Sharing proceeding provided guidelines for negotiation in good faith during the mandatory

relocation negotiation period. The Commission stated there that in disposing of claims that a

party had not negotiated in good faith, it would consider, inter alia, what steps the parties have

taken to determine the actual cost of relocation to comparable facilities, and whether either party

has withheld information requested by the other party that is necessary to estimate relocation

costs or to facilitate the relocation process. We propose to apply the same good faith

requirements to any relocation, equipment replacement or retuning negotiations between MSS

and BAS or FS microwave licensees. We find that these requirements, if adopted, will assure

ICO and other future MSS licensees of access to the information they need to plan and conduct

58. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603, the

Commission has prepared and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected

impact on small entities of the proposals suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth in

Appendix A. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be

filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the Notice of

Proposed Rule Making (Notice), but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating

them as responses to the IRFA. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice, including the

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance

parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are

disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and

1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before [insert date 30 dates from

date of publication in the Federal Register] and reply comments on or before [insert date 60

days from date of publication in the Federal Register]. Comments may be filed using the

Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See

Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 23,121 (1998).

61. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet

to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission

must be filed. If multiple docket or rule making numbers appear in the cation of this proceeding,

however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rule

making number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters

should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rule

making number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get

filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and

should including the following words in the body of the message, "get form <your e-mail

62. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each

filing. If more than one docket or rule making number appear in the caption of this proceeding,

commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rule making

number. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of

the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., TW-A325,

Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public

inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center of the Federal

Communications Commission, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

64. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 302, 303(g), 303(r), 309(j), 332(a), and

403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 302, 303(g), 303(r),

309(j), 332(a), 403; and Section 115(a) of the National Telecommunications and Information

Administration Organization Act, 47 U.S.C. 925(a), IT IS ORDERED that the petitions for

reconsideration filed by the MSS Coalition and Southwestern Bell ARE DENIED. IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED that this Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making is adopted. IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Mandatory Sumission of Information filed by ICO

Services Limited, et al., IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's

Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this

Memorandum Opinion and Order, Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, and Order, including

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this

present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic

impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Memorandum Opinion and

Order, Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, and Order. Written public comments are

requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be

filed by the deadlines for comments on the Memorandum Opinion and Order, Third Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, and Order provided above in paragraph 60. The Commission will send

a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, and

Order, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the Memorandum Opinion and Order, Third

Notice of Proposed Rule Making, and Order and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published

This Third Notice proposes rules to govern the relocation of Broadcast Auxiliary Service

(BAS), Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS), Cable Television Relay Service (CARS),

and Fixed Service (FS) licensees from the 2 GHz spectrum reallocated to the Mobile-Satellite

Service (MSS) and for reassignment by competitive bidding. These rules are designed to ensure

an orderly and expeditious transition of these licensees from the spectrum so that: (1) MSS

operations may be conducted in a designated segment of the spectrum; and (2) the requirements

of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act are satisfied in another designated segment of the spectrum. At

the same time, the rules are designed to ensure that incumbent BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, gives the Commission authority to "make

such regulations as it may deem necessary to prevent interference between stations and to carry

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules

(a) BAS, LTTS, and CARS Licensees: This service involves a variety of transmitters,

generally used to relay broadcast programming to the public (through translator and booster

stations) or within the program distribution chain (from a remote news gathering unit to the

studio). The CARS service includes transmitters generally used to relay cable programming

within cable television system distribution systems. The Commission has not developed a

definition of small entities applicable to Broadcast Auxiliary Service, Local Television

Transmission Service or Cable Television Relay Service. Therefore, the applicable definition of

small entity is the definition under the Small Business Administration (SBA) rules applicable to

radiotelephone companies. SBA has defined a small business for Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) category 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications) to be small entities when

licensees in the United States. The FCC does not collect financial information on any broadcast

facility and the Department of Commerce does not collect financial information on these

auxiliary broadcast facilities. We believe, however, that most, if not all, of these auxiliary

facilities could be classified as small businesses by themselves. We also recognize that most

auxiliary transmitters are owned by a parent station which, in some cases, would be covered by

the revenue definition of small business entity discussed below. These stations would likely

have annual revenues that exceed the SBA maximum to be designated as a small business ($10.5

million for a TV station). Furthermore, they do not meet the Small Business Act's definition of a

definition of small entities applicable to satellite communications licensees. Therefore, the

applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the Small Business Administration

(SBA) rules applicable to Communications Services "Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC)." This

definition provides that a small entity is one with $11.0 million or less in annual receipts.

According to the Census Bureau, there were a total of 848 communications services providers,

NEC, in operation in 1992, and a total of 775 had annual receipts of less than $9.999 million.

The Census report does not provide more precise data. We do not request nor collect annual

revenue information, and thus are unable to estimate the number of international satellite

Satellite systems authorized by the Commission can be divided into the following

categories: Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) non-geostationary satellite orbit (LEO) (low or

medium orbit satellites); MSS geostationary; MSS stations; and Fixed-Satellite Service.

entities applicable to Fixed Service microwave licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of

small entity is the definition under the Small Business Administration (SBA) rules applicable to

radiotelephone companies. This definition provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone

company employing fewer than 1,500 persons. Census Bureau data indicates that there are 1,164

radiotelephone companies with fewer than 1500 employees, that might qualify as small entities if

The proposed rules would require all BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS licensees, as well as

MSS operators, to negotiate for relocation (including replacement or retuning of equipment) or

rechannelization or both, including negotiating timetables and costs. These negotiations are

likely to require the skills of accountants and engineers to evaluate the economic and technical

The Commission considered the alternative of requiring current BAS, LTTS, CARS, and

FS licensees in the 2 GHz band to relocate or rechannelize or both at their own expense. The

Commission rejected this alternative as excessively burdensome on these incumbent licensees,

MSS commenters advocate requiring BAS band licensees to finance their own relocation

as their equipment depreciates and they purchase new equipment, claiming that the total costs of

relocation, added to the high cost of launching satellites, would cripple the nascent MSS

industry. MSS commenters also assert, however, that there is a huge, underserved demand for

MSS. We believe that MSS licensees will build the cost of relocating BAS band licensees into

their financial plans, and still will be able to provide service at a profit. In the alternative, MSS

may choose to defer expeditious access to the spectrum currently heavily used by BAS licensees

and defer deployment of MSS systems for ten years, in which case no relocation or

rechannelization would be required. We propose to rechannelize the BAS band to seven

channels of 12 or 13 megahertz width each, as opposed to the current 17- and 18-megahertz

channel widths, in order to maintain seven channels in the 2 GHz BAS band, but we also request

comment on whether allowing flexibility in channelization would better serve the needs of the

BAS, CARS, and LTTS industries. We propose the same negotiation periods as those

established in the Emerging Technologies proceeding: a two-year voluntary negotiation period,

followed by a one-year mandatory negotiation period, followed by involuntary relocation. In the

case of involuntary relocation, we propose to apply the requirements of our Emerging

Technologies policies: (1) payment of all relocation expenses by the MSS operator, (2) full

comparability of replacement facilities, and (3) the right of the incumbents to return to their

original spectrum at MSS expense, should the replacement facilities prove not to be fully

comparable within one year after relocation. Finally, we would propose to require subsequently

entering MSS operators to compensate earlier operators for a portion of the expenses incurred in

F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules.

Part 2 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

AUTHORITY: Sec. 4, 302, 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,

USXXX -- The use of the band 2025-2110 MHz by the Government space research (Earth-to-

space), space operations (Earth-to-space), and Earth-exploration-satellite services shall not

the deployment of Television Broadcast Auxiliary Service under Part 74F, the Cable Television

Relay Service under Part 78, and the Local Television Transmission Service under Part and 101J.

To facilitate compatible operations between non-Government terrestrial receiving stations

located at fixed sites and Government earth station transmitters coordination is required. To

facilitate compatible operations between non-government terrestrial transmitting stations and

Government spacecraft receivers, the terrestrial transmitters shall not be high-density systems

USYYY -- In the band 2025-2110 MHz, nonGovernment Earth-to-space and space-to-space

transmissions may be authorized in the space research and Earth exploration-satellite services

subject to such conditions as may be applied on a case-by-case basis. Such transmissions shall

not cause harmful interference to Government and non-Government stations operating in

II. Part 74 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

AUTHORITY: Sec. 4, 302, 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,

(3) Effective January 1, 2000, the first seven channels of Band A will be as follows:

Broadcast Auxiliary Service, Cable Television Remote Pickup Service, and Local Television

Transmission Service licensees will be required to use this Band A channel plan after completion

74.690 Transition of the 1990-2025 MHz band from the Broadcast Auxiliary Service to

(a) Licensees proposing to implement Mobile-Satellite Services using emerging technologies

(MSS Licensees) may negotiate with Broadcast Auxiliary Service licensees (Existing Licensees)

in the 1990-2110 MHz band for the purpose of agreeing to terms under which the Existing

Licensees would relocate their operations to the 2025-2110 MHz band, to other authorized

bands, or to other media; or alternatively, would accept a sharing arrangement with the MSS

Licensee that may result in an otherwise impermissible level of interference to the Existing

(b) Existing Licensees in the 1990-2025 MHz band allocated for licensed emerging technology

services will maintain primary status in these bands until an MSS Licensee completes relocation

(1) The service applicant, provider, licensee, or representative using an emerging technology

guarantees payment of all relocation costs, including all engineering, equipment, site and FCC

fees, as well as any reasonable additional costs that the relocated Existing Licensee might incur

as a result of operation in another authorized band or migration to another medium.

(2) The MSS Licensee completes all activities necessary for implementing the replacement

facilities, including engineering and cost analysis of the relocation procedure and, if radio

facilities are used, identifying and obtaining, on the incumbents' behalf, new microwave or Local

(3) The MSS Licensee builds the replacement system and tests it for comparability with the

(d) The Existing Licensee is not required to relocate until the alternative facilities are available

to it for a reasonable time to make adjustments, determine comparability, and ensure a seamless

(e) If within one year after the relocation to new facilities the Existing Licensee demonstrates

that the new facilities are not comparable to the former facilities, the MSS Licensee must remedy

the defects or pay to relocate the Existing Licensee back to its former or equivalent frequencies.

III. Part 78 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 2, 3, 4, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 48 Stat., as amended, 1064, 1066,

2. Section 78.11(f) is amended by replacing the text "1990-2110 MHz" with the text "2025-2110

(3) After a licensee has been relocated in accordance with the provisions of 78.40, operations

will be in the band 2025-2110 MHz. The following channel plan will apply, subject to the

78.40 Transition of the 1990-2025 MHz band from the Cable Television Relay Service to

(a) Licensees proposing to implement Mobile-Satellite Services using emerging technologies

(MSS Licensees) may negotiate with Cable Television Relay Service licensees (Existing

Licensees) in the 1990-2110 MHz band for the purpose of agreeing to terms under which the

Existing Licensees would relocate their operations to the 2025-2110 MHz band, to other

authorized bands, or to other media; or alternatively, would accept a sharing arrangement with

the MSS Licensee that may result in an otherwise impermissible level of interference to the