******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. In the Matter of Amendment of Part 90 of the ) Commission's Rules To Provide ) for the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band ) PR Docket No. 89-552 by the Private Land Mobile ) Radio Service ) ) Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332) of the Communications Act ) GN Docket No. 93-252 ) Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services) ) Implementation of Section 309(j) of the) Communications Act Competitive ) PP Docket No. 93-253 Bidding ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: May 14, 1998; Released: May 21, 1998 By the Commission: Commissioner Ness issuing a statement. Table of Contents Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 II. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 A. 220 MHz Second Report and Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 B. 220 MHz Third Report and Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 III. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A. 220 MHz Third Report and Order Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1. Protection of Phase I Licensee Operations . . . . . . . . . 16 a. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 b. Adequacy of Current Protection Criteria . . . . . . . . . 18 c. Analysis of Technical Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 (1) Estimation of Propagation Characteristics . . . . . . . 28 (a) Performance of 220 MHz Signal . . . . . . . . . . . 28 (b) SMR Comments and Vega Report . . . . . . . . . . . 36 (c) TCG Report and PERS Comments. . . . . . . . . . . . 51 (2) Use of Single Sideband Technology . . . . . . . . . . . 56 (3) Minimum Co-Channel Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 (4) Provision of Greater Than 10 dB Protection . . . . . . 61 (5) Protection of Phase I Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 2. Calculation of Service Contour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 3. Emission Masks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 4. Antenna Height Above Average Terrain vs. Antenna Height Above Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 5. Allowable Power Limit for Mobile Channels . . . . . . . . . 81 6. Allowable Power Limit for Nationwide Licensees . . . . . . . 92 7. Modification of Phase I Non-Nationwide Licenses . . . . . . 95 8. Substantial Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 9. Spectrum Efficiency Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 10. Construction Requirements in Section 90.769 of Commission's Rules 150 11. Return of Pending Nationwide 220 MHz Service Applications .152 12. Acquisition of Multiple Nationwide Licenses . . . . . . . .155 13. Installment Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157 14. Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165 B. 220 MHz Second Report and Order Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . .167 1. Maximum Distance Relocation Limitations . . . . . . . . . .167 2. Non-Relocation Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175 3. Special Temporary Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185 4. Alternative Site Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196 5. Other Waiver Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 IV.PROCEDURAL MATTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .206 A. Regulatory Flexibility Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .206 B. Paperwork Reduction Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207 C.Further Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .208 V. ORDERING CLAUSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209 Appendix A List of Parties Filing Petitions for Reconsideration or Clarification and Comments Concerning Second Report and Order Appendix B List of Parties Filing Petitions, Comments, and Reply Comments Concerning Third Report and Order Appendix C Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Appendix D Revisions to Commission's Rules I. INTRODUCTION; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. In this Order we consider Petitions for Reconsideration or Clarification of two Orders concerning the 220-222 MHz radio service (220 MHz service). On January 26, 1996, the Commission adopted final rules in the 220 MHz Second Report and Order, which enabled 220 MHz licensees to modify their licenses to relocate their authorized base stations within Commission specified parameters. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, adopted on February 19, 1997, the Commission established rules to govern the future operation and licensing of the 220 MHz service. 2. The Commission has received five petitions for reconsideration or clarification of the 220 MHz Second Report and Order and one comment filed in response to those petitions. In response to these petitions, we reaffirm the decision in the 220 MHz Second Report and Order, with one clarification. We continue to believe that the procedures the Commission has adopted provide existing 220 MHz licensees flexibility to complete construction of their systems and provide service without unreasonably impairing the opportunity of potential competitors to obtain licenses in the 220 MHz service. 3. The petitions for reconsideration or clarification of the 220 MHz Second Report and Order address a range of issues. Based on our review of these petitions, we are taking the following actions with regard to these issues in this Order: þ We deny petitions of AMTA and SMR requesting that we permit moves up to a maximum distance of 25 kilometers (km) if the licensee is moving from a location within a Designated Filing Area (DFA) to a location outside that DFA. We also deny Incom's petition asking that we clarify our position to indicate that a licensee whose initially authorized site is located inside a DFA within 8 km of the perimeter and who seeks to modify its authorization in order to move to a location outside the DFA be permitted to move its site a maximum of 25 km. þ We grant in part petitions of AMTA and SMR requesting that we accept modifications of operating parameters other than relocation modifications to the extent that we clarify that licensees who seek to relocate may modify their antenna height above average terrain (HAAT). Otherwise, we deny these petitions with respect to this issue. þ We deny petitions of AMTA, Incom, PERS, and SMR requesting that we reconsider or clarify that if a licensee had taken delivery of its base station transceiver on or before January 26, 1996, and had filed an application for Special Temporary Authority (STA) on or before January 26, 1996, the licensee need not have been granted an STA by January 26, 1996, in order to be allowed to seek permanent authorization at its STA site. þ We deny petitions of AMTA and Incom requesting that we clarify the 220 MHz Second Report and Order to allow waiver requests to be accompanied by an alternative site proposal. þ We deny the petition filed by In Touch asking us to clarify that the Commission will accept waiver requests other than the specific type of waiver request discussed in the 220 MHz Second Report and Order because such clarification is unnecessary under the Commission's rules. 4. The Commission has also received 11 petitions for reconsideration or clarification of the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, seven comments filed in response to those petitions, and seven reply comments. In general, we affirm the rules for the 220 MHz service adopted in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, however, we adopt some changes and clarifications in response to the petitions for reconsideration or clarification. Specifically, we are taking the following action with regard to issues raised in these petitions: þ We deny the petitions of AMTA, INTEK, PCIA, and SMR that we modify the Commission's rules to require the protection of the 28 dBu, rather than the 38 dBu, service contour of Phase I licensees. þ We deny the petitions of SEA, PCIA, and INTEK that we modify the Commission's rules to calculate the service contour of 220 MHz Phase I base stations based on the maximum allowable power and antenna height for such stations. þ We grant in part the petitions of AMTA, INTEK, PCIA, and SMR that Phase I licensees be permitted to modify their authorizations to the extent that Phase I licensees will be permitted to make modifications to their authorizations which do not expand their 38 dBu service contour and also will be permitted to convert their site-by-site licenses to a single license. Otherwise, we deny these petitions with respect to this issue. þ At the request of Comtech, we clarify the Commission's decision to eliminate the emission mask requirement for a licensee's inner, contiguous channels, by indicating that the Commission intended the decision to apply to those inner, contiguous channels that a licensee might derive from multiple authorizations. þ We grant the petition of SEA that the antenna height limitation for stations operating in the 220 MHz band be associated with the HAAT of the station's transmitting antenna, rather than the antenna's height above ground. þ We deny the petitions of Comtech and Glenayre that we raise the power limit for fixed stations operating on mobile channels from 50 watts effective radiated power (ERP) to 500 watts ERP. þ We dismiss on procedural grounds the petitions of Comtech and Glenayre that we raise the power limit for the base stations of nationwide licensees from 500 watts ERP to 1400 watts ERP. þ We deny the request of Metricom that we specify the criteria used to determine whether licensees have provided substantial service. þ We remove the 220 MHz service spectrum efficiency standard, and thus grant the petition of Comtech that we eliminate the efficiency standard as applied to paging operations. Consequently, we deny the petitions of Rush and Glenayre that we amend the 220 MHz service spectrum efficiency standard. þ We dismiss on procedural grounds the petitions of Rush and Metricom that we revisit the construction requirements for Phase I licensees. þ We dismiss on procedural grounds the petitions of Global and Comtech that we revisit the requirement that nationwide, Phase I licensees construct all five channels at a minimum number of base stations at certain urban sites. þ We dismiss on procedural grounds the petitions of Global, Comtech, and Rush that we cease to require nationwide, Phase I licensees to obtain specific licenses for each base station. þ We grant the petitions of Comtech and Global seeking clarification of Section 90.769 of the Commission's Rules, by clarifying that Section 90.769 applies only to Phase II nationwide licensees and not to Phase I nationwide licensees. þ We grant the petition of National requesting that we reconsider or clarify language regarding the return of pending nationwide 220 MHz applications, by clarifying that the language ordering the return of pending nationwide applications does not apply to pending, commercial, nationwide 220 MHz applications. þ We dismiss as moot the petition of Comtech that the Commission amend its rules to permit entities to obtain more than one Phase I authorization in a geographic area. þ Consistent with the conclusions reached in the Part 1 Third Report and Order, we eliminate installment payment plans for small and very small businesses participating in the 220 MHz Service auction, and increase the level of bidding credits for such entities. We will also amend the Commission's rules to permit auction winners to make their final payments within ten (10) business days after the applicable deadline, provided that they also pay a late fee of five (5) percent of the amount due. II. BACKGROUND 5. The Commission established the 220 MHz service in the 220 MHz Report and Order in April 1991. The Commission adopted service rules for the assignment of 200 five kilohertz (kHz) channel pairs in the 220-222 MHz band to both Federal Government and private land mobile users. The Commission authorized 60 of the 200 channel pairs for nationwide licensing, with 10 of these designated for assignment to Federal Government entities. The remaining 50 nationwide channel pairs were reserved for non-Government users, with 20 channel pairs designated for commercial use and 30 channel pairs designated for non-commercial use. The 20 commercial channel pairs were divided into four five-channel blocks and the 30 non-commercial channel pairs were divided into two 10-channel and two five-channel blocks. The Commission designated the remaining 140 channel pairs for non- nationwide use by both Government and non-Government licensees. The Commission also decided that all applications for 220 MHz channels would be granted on a first-come, first- served basis and that mutually exclusive applications would be assigned through random selection procedures. 6. The Commission began accepting applications for 220 MHz licenses on May 1, 1991, and on May 24, 1991, after receiving over 59,000 applications, imposed a moratorium on the filing of all initial and modification applications for the 220 MHz service. Since then, the Commission has issued authorizations to approximately 3,800 licensees to operate non- nationwide 220 MHz stations. A. 220 MHz Second Report and Order 7. Shortly after the Commission began processing 220 MHz applications, a court case was brought challenging the Commission's 220 MHz licensing procedures. This effectively placed all of the more than 3,000 authorizations the Commission granted in doubt for nearly a two-year period, and the uncertainty with respect to the finality of the Commission's grant of their licenses caused many licensees to refrain from constructing their stations. Following the settlement of the case in March 1994, the deadline for licensees to construct their systems and place them in operation was extended on four separate occasions to allow licensees sufficient time to construct their systems. Because several years had passed since 220 MHz licensees filed their applications for which licenses were granted, many licensees found that, for various unforeseen reasons, they were unable to construct at their authorized locations. In response, the Commission issued the Fourth Notice, proposing a procedure to enable existing licensees in the 220 MHz service to seek modification of their authorizations to relocate their base stations. 8. Based on its review of the record following the release of the Fourth Notice, on January 26, 1996, the Commission adopted and released the 220 MHz Second Report and Order. In that Order, the Commission adopted a procedure that enabled 220 MHz licensees to modify their licenses to relocate their authorized base stations to previously unauthorized locations. Under this procedure, licensees with base stations authorized inside any DFA were permitted to relocate their base stations up to one-half the distance over 120 km toward any authorized co-channel base station, to a maximum distance of 8 km. Licensees with base stations authorized outside the boundaries of any DFA were permitted to relocate their base stations up to one-half the distance over 120 km toward any authorized co-channel base station, to a maximum distance of 25 km, so long as they did not locate their base station more than 8 km inside the boundaries of any DFA. A licensee was permitted to relocate its base station less than 120 km from the base station of a co-channel licensee or more than one-half the distance over 120 km toward the base station of a co-channel licensee only with the consent of that licensee. 9. The Commission also extended the February 2, 1996 construction deadline to March 11, 1996 for all non-nationwide 220 MHz licensees that elected to construct their base stations at their originally-authorized locations, and to August 15, 1996 for all licensees granted authority to modify their licenses to relocate their base stations. Licensees seeking authority to modify their authorizations to relocate their base stations were required to file, on or before March 11, 1996, a modification application or statement of their intention to file an application requesting such modification, and were required to file a modification application on or before May 1, 1996. B. 220 MHz Third Report and Order 10. On July 28, 1995, the Commission adopted the Third Notice, which proposed a new framework for the operation and licensing of the 220-222 MHz band. Based on its review of the comments in response to the Third Notice, the Commission adopted the 220 MHz Third Report and Order on February 19, 1997. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission decided to return pending, mutually exclusive applications for the four non-commercial, Phase I nationwide licenses and adopt a new licensing procedure for the 30 channels associated with these licenses. The Commission determined that the 30 channels would be licensed on a nationwide basis to all applicants, whether used for commercial services or for a licensee's private, internal use. The channels will be assigned, in the form of three 10-channel authorizations, through competitive bidding. 11. The Commission also decided to assign the non-nationwide licenses as five blocks (composed of 10 channels in each block) in 175 geographic areas defined as Economic Areas by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce ( EA licenses ) and five blocks (composed of 15 channels in each block) in geographic areas defined by six Regional Economic Area Groupings ( Regional licenses ). The Commission made these channels available to all eligible applicants, and decided to resolve mutually exclusive applications for these channels through competitive bidding. The Commission provided a 10-year license term for Phase II licensees, and required Phase II licensees to meet five- and ten-year construction benchmarks. 12. The Commission permitted EA and Regional licensees to operate stations anywhere within their geographic borders, provided that their transmissions did not exceed a predicted field strength of 38 dBuV/m at their border, and provided that they protect the base stations of Phase I licensees in accordance with the existing co-channel separation criteria for 220 MHz stations. 13. The Commission also decided to allow all Phase I and Phase II, nationwide and non-nationwide 220 MHz licensees to operate fixed and paging systems without the requirement that such use be on an ancillary basis to land mobile operations. The Commission further determined that it would be appropriate to permit Phase I and Phase II, nationwide and non-nationwide 220 MHz licensees, to aggregate any of their contiguous 5 kHz channels and operate on channels wider than 5 kHz, so long as they comply with a prescribed spectrum efficiency standard. 14. Finally, the Commission established rules and procedures governing the auction of the Phase II 220 MHz Service licenses. Among other things, the Commission established installment payment plans and bidding credits for small and very small businesses designed to assist such entities in overcoming economic barriers to their participation in the auction. III. DISCUSSION A. 220 MHz Third Report and Order Issues 15. Because one of the issues raised in connection with our reconsideration of the 220 MHz Second Report and Order will be affected by our resolution of an issue raised on reconsideration of the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, we will first consider the issues raised on reconsideration of the 220 MHz Third Report and Order. 1. Protection of Phase I Licensee Operations a. Background 16. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission decided that Phase II EA and Regional licensees would be required to locate their base stations at least 120 km from the base stations of co-channel Phase I licensees, except that Phase II licensees would be permitted to locate their base stations less than 120 km from the base stations of co- channel Phase I licensees if they provide 10 dB protection to the predicted 38 dBuV/m (dBu) service contour of the base stations of the Phase I licensees. This rule was derived from the rule adopted in the 220 MHz Report and Order, which established a 120 km separation between co-channel, Phase I base stations, with shorter separations considered where licensees provide 10 dB protection to the predicted 38 dBu service contour of co-channel base stations. 17. Six parties (AMTA, SMR, INTEK, PERS, PCIA, and SEA) seek reconsideration of this decision. AMTA, SMR, INTEK, and PERS argue that Phase II licensees should be required, in locating their base stations, to afford greater protection to co-channel Phase I licensees by providing 10 dB protection to the predicted 28 dBu service contour of all co- channel Phase I base stations, and SMR contends that the distance separation provided by Phase II licensees to co-channel Phase I licensees should be 170 km, rather than 120 km, except in instances where unique terrain or other features justify a lesser distance separation. PCIA and SEA do not oppose continued protection of the 38 dBu service contour, but assert that we should afford greater than 10 dB protection to that contour. b. Adequacy of Current Protection Criteria 18. AMTA, in expressing views that are generally representative of those of other petitioners, argues that the decision made by the Commission in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order to provide 10 dB protection to the 38 dBu contour of Phase I stations does not provide adequate protection between Phase I and Phase II licensees. AMTA contends that in their original comments on this issue, all interested parties indicated that the 28 dBu contour was the appropriate protected service contour for the 220 MHz service, claiming that 220 MHz systems were essentially outperforming the Commission's original coverage estimation by a significant degree in the real world. AMTA indicates in its petition that 220 MHz customers are currently operating throughout the 28 dBu reliable service areas, and that failure to adopt co-channel protection criteria based on a 28 dBu contour denies Phase I 220 MHz licensees a quality of service comparable to that of competitive wireless systems. 19. As a general matter, we would be concerned about taking any action that would have a negative impact on existing customers who are receiving service from a Commission licensee. We conclude, however, based upon our detailed analysis in the following sections, that retention of the existing 38 dBu protected contour will not adversely affect operations in the 220 MHz service. We base this conclusion on the lack of meaningful, valid evidence or justification in support of petitioners' claim that the 28 dBu contour is the field strength contour that should be protected in the 220 MHz service. 20. The matter of whether we should modify the Commission's protection criteria essentially turns on two issues. The first is whether we should protect the 28 dBu contour instead of the 38 dBu contour because the signal at the 28 dBu contour produces a quality of service deserving of protection. There are various references by petitioners, and by commenters in the previous proceeding, to the effect that reliable service is being provided at the 28 dBu contour. Yet, beyond this limited, and basically anecdotal information, petitioners provide no other evidence to justify this contention. The second issue is whether, as some petitioners appear to suggest, 220 MHz signals invariably propagate farther than predicted by the Commission's Section 73.699 curves. However, petitioners provide no data to adequately support such a claim. 21. Petitioners also argue that because the Grade B contour for high VHF television stations is 8 dB lower than the Grade B contour for UHF television stations, the protected service contour for the 220 MHz service should be 12 dB lower than the 40 dBu protected service contour used for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz land mobile bands. However, as we discuss in greater detail in the following sections, operating frequency is not the sole criteria used to determine service contours, and the discussion by commenters themselves of the use of a 32 dBu contour in the cellular service is evidence of this fact. Additionally, the mathematical relationship between the Grade B contours of the UHF and high VHF television bands and the corresponding mathematical relationship between the protected service contour for the 220 MHz band and the 800 MHz and 900 MHz land mobile bands were known to potential 220 MHz licensees and manufacturers alike when the 220 MHz service rules were adopted in 1991. Yet, none of these parties sought reconsideration of the Commission's decision to employ a 38 dBu service criteria at that time. 22. While we endeavor to provide appropriate protection for all licensees in all services licensed by the Commission, it is a fact that no protection criteria can guarantee that interference will not occur. In fact, in developing protection criteria between Phase II licensees the Commission recognized that interference is a possibility when it permitted co- channel Phase II licensees to place a 38 dBu signal at their common border. To address situations where interference subsequently occurs, the Commission indicated that Phase II licensees would have to resolve such occurrences between themselves. In the event that instances of interference do occur between Phase I and Phase II licensees, we are confident that these licensees, too, will be able to resolve their differences. 23. AMTA states that if interference occurs between Phase I licensees, they will be able to resolve whatever interference problems arise without FCC involvement. If this is the case and if, as AMTA suggests, interference will affect the operations of both Phase I and Phase II licensees, we see no reason why Phase I and Phase II licensees will not be similarly able to amicably resolve any interference matters that may arise. As AMTA points out, many of the Phase I licensees of today will be the Phase II licensees of tomorrow. And we believe that the unity that 220 MHz licensees have demonstrated in attempting to make the 220 MHz service successful over the years will carry over into any negotiations that they may undertake on interference issues and will lead to a successful resolution of such matters. 24. Additionally, AMTA makes the argument that we should modify the Commission's protection criteria because failure to do so denies Phase I 220 MHz licensees a quality of service comparable to that of competitive wireless systems. The matter of whether a 28 dBu or 38 dBu service contour provides the same quality of service as the 40 dBu service contour for 800 MHz and 900 MHz service aside, we have provided virtually the same service area for 220 MHz systems as the Commission did for 800 MHz and 900 MHz systems by our selection of operating parameters. Specifically, the maximum allowable power and antenna height for 800 MHz and 900 MHz stations is 1000 watts ERP and 305 meters HAAT, which produces a 40 dBu service contour at approximately 29 miles from the transmitter. The maximum allowable power and antenna height for 220 MHz stations is 500 watts ERP and 150 meters HAAT, which produces a 38 dBu service contour at approximately 28 miles from the transmitter. Thus, in defining the maximum allowable parameters in this manner for the 220 MHz service, the Commission provided 220 MHz licensees with about the same service area as 800 MHz and 900 MHz licensees. 25. When the 220 MHz service was established in 1991, the Phase I applicant, and subsequently the Phase I licensee, expected, when it obtained its license and constructed its system, to have a system that provided service to its 38 dBu contour. If a particular 220 MHz licensee's system performs better than anticipated by providing quality signals beyond its 38 dBu contour, then this would be a benefit for that licensee not anticipated in 1991. We do not believe, however, that the possibility of enhanced system performance in certain unique areas of the country is a basis for providing Phase I 220 MHz licensees with protection to a service area that is larger than the service area they had originally expected to obtain. The Commission's current rules provide 220 MHz licensees with exactly the protection they had expected to receive when they applied for their licenses i.e., protection to a service area that is equivalent to the service area provided for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz land mobile radio services. 26. In the 220 MHz service, we believe that we have provided appropriate protection for Phase I licensees and that it is not necessary to require Phase II licensees to provide the additional protection sought by petitioners. We conclude that to do so would force Phase II licensees to provide unnecessary protection to Phase I licensees, thereby diminishing Phase II licensees' coverage capabilities and their ability to provide service to the public. We are confident that our existing protection criteria will permit us to license future, Phase II 220 MHz licensees and will enable these and Phase I licensees to operate in harmony. 27. Having presented this overview of the arguments regarding the adequacy of the current protection criteria, as well as our conclusions and rationale, we now turn to a more detailed discussion of technical information and arguments submitted by the petitioners. c. Analysis of Technical Arguments (1) Estimation of Propagation Characteristics (a) Performance of 220 MHz Signal 28. AMTA claims that the Commission may have underestimated the propagation characteristics of the band[,] stating that 220 MHz signals simply talk considerably farther than those in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands from which the 220 MHz protection criteria seemingly were extrapolated, and that this difference is not reflected adequately in the 2 dB difference between the benchmark 40 dBu contour at 800 MHz and 900 MHz and the 38 dBu contour adopted at 220 MHz. AMTA notes that commenters have observed that in the real world, 220 MHz systems perform better than originally estimated by the Commission, that 220 MHz systems operating at 500 watts ERP and 500 feet HAAT will provide a high quality signal to about 50 percent of the locations, 50 percent of the time throughout a 28 dBu contour, and that members of the 220 MHz service industry will provide data that will confirm that the actual reliable service area of a 220 MHz system is represented by a 28 dBu, not a 38 dBu, contour. 29. In the following sections, we discuss the showings provided by various commenters. With regard to its statement that the Commission may have underestimated the propagation characteristics of the 220 MHz band, AMTA appears to be suggesting that 220 MHz signals propagate farther than the Commission's R-6602 curves predict. However, as we discuss in later sections, neither AMTA nor any other commenters provide evidence to adequately support such a claim. 30. Furthermore, AMTA's observation that in the real world, 220 MHz signals perform better than originally expected, and its claim that high quality 220 MHz signals are present at about 50 percent of the locations, 50 percent of the time throughout a 28 dBu contour, are similarly unsupported by any study, analysis, measurements, or data that associate the sound produced by 220 MHz receivers operating at the 28 dBu contour, or any other contour for that matter, to any particular service quality e.g., high quality, reliable, or otherwise. AMTA merely states that customers are operating throughout the 28 dBu reliable service areas. 31. The fact that customers may be operating throughout the area encompassed by a 28 dBu contour, however, is not particularly meaningful for two reasons. First, the fact that customers are capable of operating in particular areas could simply mean that they are receiving transmissions in those areas that are minimally acceptable for communication. In establishing protection criteria for the land mobile radio services, our goal in the past has been to protect quality signals from interference. To protect minimally acceptable or minimally intelligible signals from interference would result in extremely, and unnecessarily large distances between co-channel stations, and we have not nor would not provide this type of interference protection. Second, in the real world, terrain can vary from flat, to hilly, to mountainous. As a result, it is quite possible to receive signals of varying field strengths at a given distance from a transmitter (e.g., a mobile station situated at the top of a hill would receive a much stronger signal than a nearby mobile station at the bottom of a hill); and we have no way of knowing what type of terrain may have produced the reliable service claimed by AMTA. 32. Moreover, AMTA does not provide any details as to how many customers made these observations, how frequently the observations were made, what percentage of the estimated number of 20,000 existing 220 MHz customers made these observations, whether the customers making these observations might be operating in an area of unusual and favorable terrain that might cause received signal strengths to differ markedly from predicted signal strengths, or what method was used to gather the data cited by AMTA. Finally, AMTA claims that 220 MHz signals simply talk considerably farther than those in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands . . . . However, AMTA does not explain or elaborate upon this statement; and it is therefore difficult, if not impossible, for us to address the merits of its assertion. 33. INTEK contends that in the Third Notice proceeding, the 38 dBu protection standard was universally opposed by the land mobile industry. It supports AMTA's position, indicating that, based on real-world operational data for Phase I 220 MHz systems that is now available, the Commission should adopt the 28 dBu service contour. INTEK also claims that the use of the 38 dBu service contour will result in harmful interference between Phase I and Phase II licensees, a loss of existing service area for Phase I systems, and resulting `dead spots' between Phase I and Phase II operations. It therefore concludes that, if left unchanged, the Commission's protection standards will lead to harmful interference between Phase I and Phase II licensees, diminishing the potential use of the band and devaluating its worth in the marketplace. 34. In support of its position, INTEK provides an engineering analysis, based on the operation of an existing 220 MHz system located in the Los Angeles, California area, in an attempt to show that reliable service . . . is available up to the system's 24 dBuV/m contour. Specifically, INTEK provides computer-generated maps indicating the expected locations of 38 dBu, 28 dBu, and 24 dBu signals transmitted from a base station situated at the top of Mount Lukens (overlooking Los Angeles). INTEK claims that the actual coverage areas wherein no less than 50% of the mobile units can access the control channel at least 50% of the time is known to us and our customers as that depicted by the 24 dBuV/m map. We do not believe that this statement by INTEK represents sufficient engineering analysis to justify re-evaluation of the existing 38 dBu protected service contour. At a minimum, the circumstance of accessing a control channel is not a condition that we would use to help us determine an appropriate signal contour to be protected because it does not correlate to any particular service quality. Moreover, we are uncertain as to the relationship between accessing a control channel and INTEK's concept of reliable service. Thus, we do not believe that INTEK's pictorial representations of the Los Angeles areas where various signal levels are predicted to be received constitute a sufficient showing to justify its claim that we should modify the existing 38 dBu service contour for the 220 MHz service. 35. SMR claims that the Commission's initial selection of the 38 dBu contour as the best indicator of actual signal strength in the 220 MHz service appears to have been only a best guess estimate with no substantiating technical analysis or actual operating data, and that we should change this factor now after having the benefit of actual data accumulated by operating systems and adopt a 28 dBu protected contour. In response to this argument, we note that although the Commission has licensed 3,800 Phase I, non-nationwide base stations, we have little data in the record attempting to justify the adoption of a 28 dBu service contour for the 220 MHz service. And, as discussed herein, we do not believe this limited amount of data has successfully justified the adoption of a 28 dBu service contour. (b) SMR Comments and Vega Report 36. As part of its reply comments, SMR submits what it describes as an independent technical analysis by The Richard L. Vega Group, Inc. in order to provide the Commission with even more technical data to ensure that its decision is as informed as possible. The Vega Report agrees with others who claim that we should use a 28 dBu, rather than a 38 dBu, protected service contour for the 220 MHz band, and contends that a mere 2 dB reduction between the 40 dBu service contour used for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands and the 38 dBu service contour for the 220 MHz band is insufficient because of the distinct frequency trends and the propagation differences between the two services. The Report argues that the Commission's use of a 64 dBu protected contour for the UHF television band (Channels 14-69), and a 56 dBu protected signal for the high VHF television band (Channels 7-13) establishes a benchmark 8 dB reduction to the contour protection for stations operating in frequencies up to 600 MHz lower than in the UHF band to account for the superior propagation characteristics in the lower bands. 37. We do not agree with this argument for the following reasons. First, when the Commission determined the Grade B contour for UHF and VHF stations the 64 dBu and 56 dBu figures referenced by the Vega Report in the 1951 rulemaking in Docket Nos. 8736, 8975, 8976, and 9175 (Television Broadcast Service), these calculations were based on a variety of factors. Specifically, the Grade A and Grade B contours for television are the locations at which an acceptable television picture quality would be expected to be received at a given percentage of locations and time. When the contours were developed in 1951, the Grade A contour was meant to define the location in an urban environment where a picture of acceptable quality would be expected to be received at 70 percent of locations and 90 percent of the time, and the Grade B contour was meant to define the location in a rural environment where a picture of acceptable quality would be expected to be received at 50 percent of locations and 90 percent of the time. 38. In determining the Grade A and Grade B contour, several factors had to be taken into consideration. For example, it was determined that a signal-to-noise ratio of 30 dB was needed to produce a picture of acceptable quality, and this applied to televisions operating in all three frequency bands Channels 14-83 (UHF), Channels 7-13 (high VHF), and Channels 2-6 (low VHF). In addition, there were other factors that contributed to the level of the signal received, such as the antenna dipole factor, the gain of the television receive antenna, and the transmission line loss between the antenna (presumed to be 30 feet above ground) and the television. It was also necessary to take into consideration factors contributing to noise experienced at the receiver, including receiver noise i.e., thermal noise plus the receiver noise figure and man-made noise. In addition, it was necessary to take into account the fact that the Grade A and Grade B contours were meant to indicate the existence of the signal level 90 percent of the time and either 50 percent of the locations (for Grade B) or 70 percent of the locations (for Grade A), with adjustments having to be made for these factors. 39. Thus, certain factors contributing to the determination of the Grade A and Grade B contours were based on known electromagnetic principles (e.g., the antenna dipole factor), others were based on the quality of television receivers at the time (e.g., the determination of the signal level needed to produce a picture of acceptable quality, the noise figure of the television receiver), others were based on mathematical models (e.g., time fading and location variability ), and still others were based on assumptions about the configuration of the television receiver and antenna (e.g., antenna gain and line loss) and the electromagnetic environment surrounding the television receiver and antenna (e.g., the man-made noise factor). By deciding on what it considered to be the appropriate values for each of these factors, the Commission was able to determine the strength of a television signal that would produce picture of acceptable quality, for all three frequency bands. 40. The Vega Report points to the 8 dB difference in field strength of the Grade B contour for Channels 7-13 and Channels 14-69, and suggests that this is evidence that because Channel 14-69 and Channel 7-13 frequencies parallel the 800 MHz and 900 MHz and 220 MHz frequencies, the protected service contour for 220 MHz should similarly be much more than 2 dB below the protected service contour for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz band. As indicated above, however, the determination of the television contours for Channels 14-69 and Channels 7-13 is a function of a variety of factors, some of which were unique to the television systems of the early 1950s. Thus, we would not consider the existence of different Grade B television field strength contours for different television bands to be the sole grounds for the adoption of similar field strength differences for land mobile system service contours. 41. Further, even if we were to assume arguendo that the fairly substantial difference between the Grade B contour for Channels 14-69 versus Channels 7-13 is evidence that we should employ a similar field strength difference for 220 MHz versus 800 MHz and 900 MHz, it is not entirely clear why we would choose to employ the Grade B, rather than the Grade A contour, for this purpose. And significantly, the difference between the Grade A contour for television Channels 14-69 versus Channels 7-13 is only 3 dB, which is very close to the 2 dB difference between the 40 dBu service contour for the 800 and 900 MHz bands, and the 38 dBu service contour of the 220 MHz band. 42. Thus, given the fact that: (1) the simple, mathematical difference in frequency between the different TV bands was not the only factor used to determine the Grade A and Grade B contours for the different TV bands; (2) the factors that went into determining these contours were, for the most part, unique to television receivers and the television receiver system and environment; and (3) even if we were to consider the television contours as a basis for determining appropriate service contours for land mobile systems, it is not clear that the Grade B contours should be used for this purpose, we conclude that it would not be appropriate to adopt a 28 dBu protected service contour for the 220 MHz service solely because the Grade B contour for Channels 7-13 is 8 dB below the Grade B contour for Channels 14-69. 43. The Vega Report also argues that the Commission's development of a protected service contour in the cellular service provides additional support for a modification to the 220 MHz protected contour. The Report observes that the `outer bounds' of [cellular] service was being provided at the 32 dBu contour, which was significantly lower than the 40 dBu protected contour employed in the 800/900 MHz services, even though systems in the 800/900 MHz service operate in virtually the same frequency band as cellular. The Vega Report claims that a more appropriate and consistent accounting for the differences between the [800/900 MHz and 220 MHz] frequency bands support [sic] a reduction from the 32 dBu protected cellular contour of at least 4 dB, resulting in a 28 dBu protected contour for the 220 MHz service with a corresponding minimum 10 dB C/I ratio to account for the frequency difference. 44. The references in the Vega Report and by SMR to recent actions in the cellular service and their argument that the determination of protected service contours is frequency- dependent are difficult to reconcile. For example, the Vega Report states that, because we are employing a 32 dBu contour for cellular, we should provide a reduction from the 32 dBu protected cellular contour of at least 4 dB, resulting in a 28 dBu protected contour for the 220 MHz service . . . . But the Vega Report provides no calculations that produce such a 4 dB figure. The Report also acknowledges that the 32 dBu contour used for cellular is significantly lower than the 40 dBu protected contour employed for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz land mobile services services that are in the same part of the spectrum as cellular. SMR's argument, based upon the Vega Report, that we should expand the protected service contour for the 220 MHz band from 38 dBu to 28 dBu because the determination of this contour is frequency-dependent and its argument that the Commission employs a 32 dBu contour for cellular while employing a 40 dBu contour for the land mobile services operating essentially in the same frequency band would appear to be inconsistent. 45. In support of the contention that we should provide for what the Vega Report claims is a more realistic protected service area, the Report provides signal strength measurements produced by an existing 220 MHz facility. The station transmitter operates at 5 watts ERP, at a height of 981 meters above mean sea level (AMSL). Data was collected in four different azimuths (00, 2250, 2700, and 3150) and at three distances from the transmitter (16, 32, and 48 miles). The following data was collected: Miles Measurements Directions 16 -83 dBm, -80 dBm, -80 dBm, -85 dBm 00, 2250, 2700, 3150 32 -90 dBm, -85 dBm, -85 dBm, -95 dBm 00, 2250, 2700, 3150 48 -100 dBm, -93 dBm, -88 dBm 00, 2250, 2700 In referring to the data provided in the Vega Report, SMR states that as can be seen by the tabulated results . . . the readings at the 28 dBu contour point consistently showed reliable service. 46. We have the following observations with regard to this data. First, we note that the particular transmitter site chosen for the Vega Report's study is situated at Tiger Mountain, which is located about 20 miles southeast of Seattle, Washington. In Section 90.621(b)(1) and (b)(3) of the Commission's Rules, the Commission identifies 19 mountains in the Seattle area, including Tiger Mountain, and four mountains in the Los Angeles area, and indicates that co-channel base stations located in the vicinity of base stations transmitting from these mountaintops are deserving of special protection. This special protection is necessary because signals from base stations at these locations will propagate farther than predicted by the Section 73.699 curves. Based on our knowledge of the particular terrain surrounding Tiger Mountain, we can state with confidence that any signal measurements taken in the low-lying areas to the north and west of the mountain would be greater than predicted by the Section 73.699 curves. As indicated in the table above, the only data shown in the Vega Report are measurements taken in the northerly and westerly directions from Tiger Mountain (i.e., at the 0o, 315o, 270o, and 225o azimuths). 47. Another concern in evaluating this data is that the Vega Report does not indicate whether each data element represents a single measurement taken at a single location (e.g., one measurement taken at one location to represent the 0o azimuth data element at 16 miles, one measurement taken at one location to represent the 225o azimuth data element at 32 miles, etc.) or whether each data element represents an average of several measurements taken in the same general area. If it is the former, the measurements may not provide an accurate representation of the median field strengths received at those locations. 48. The presumed purpose of the data provided by the Vega Report is to demonstrate that signals transmitted from this base station site propagate farther that predicted by our Section 73.699 curves. However, the Vega Report does not provide an analysis of the data to support such a claim. Nor does SMR explain its statement, in referring to the data provided in the Vega Report, that as can be seen by the tabulated results . . . the readings at the 28 dBu contour point consistently showed reliable service. In the absence of such analysis or explanation, and because of our concerns about the data that was collected (see paras. 46-47, supra) we could not consider use of this data to support any recalculation or reevaluation of the 220 MHz service contour. 49. SMR also asserts that Commission's decision in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order to protect the 38 dBu contour of incumbent licensees is inconsistent with actions taken with respect to incumbent licensees in substantially similar radio services. In support of this contention, SMR discusses previous Commission actions such as the decision to employ a 32 dBu contour in determining a cellular licensee's Cellular Geographic Service Area, and the decision to modify the protection criteria for Multipoint Distribution Service stations and claims that because of the Commission's actions in these decisions, we must take similar actions in the 220 MHz service. 50. We do not disagree with SMR's observation that the Commission has in the past made adjustments to the contours that it has employed in other services. The Commission has done so in instances where it believed such adjustments were appropriate and justified. As we indicate throughout this discussion, however, we do not believe that the petitioners and commenters in this proceeding have provided adequate support for their various requests to modify the service contour for the 220 MHz service. (c) TCG Report and PERS Comments 51. INTEK, in its reply comments, furnishes a report by the Trott Communications Group (TCG Report) designed to analyze the effects of both the FCC's existing co-channel protection rules and those proposed by INTEK and other parties. The TCG Report, in attempting to justify the use of the 28 dBu protected service contour for the 220 MHz service, observes that the receiver input power for a 28 dBu field strength at 220 MHz is roughly equivalent to the receiver input power for a 40 dBu field strength at 855 MHz, and therefore concludes that at the service area boundary of 40 dBu at 855 MHz, the same level of performance can be expected as at a service area boundary of 28 dBu at 220 MHz. The TCG Report also provides a pictorial view of the predicted 28 dBu signal of a Roamer One, Inc. base station in the St. Louis, Missouri, area, calculated using the station's operating parameters and the Section 73.699 curves (Figure 10), and overlays a propagation plot using the same operating parameters and the Okumura/Hata Extended propagation model. The TCG Report observes that the 28 dBu service contour closely approximates the actual coverage area expected from this site at these operational parameters. Based on these showings, the TCG Report concludes that the protected service area for 220 MHz stations should be defined at the 28 dBu contour. 52. The mathematical calculations in the TCG Report indicate a similarity between the received power of a 28 dBu signal at 220 MHz and a 40 dBu signal at 855 MHz. However, as we have discussed in connection with the Grade A and Grade B contours, there are a number of factors, in addition to operating frequency, that must be taken into account in determining a system's appropriate service contour. It is also interesting to note that when the 120 km separation distance, along with the 38 dBu protection criteria, were developed by the Commission in 1991 in the 220 MHz Report and Order, petitioners could have sought reconsideration of those decisions based on this plausible mathematical argument (as presented in the TCG Report). In the absence of real world data from 220 MHz systems (because such systems were not yet in use at that time) petitioners could have used this argument as being an appropriate criterion for distinguishing the 220 MHz band from the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. Yet, they did not. 53. As to the claim in the TCG Report that the 28 dBu service contour closely approximates the actual coverage area expected at the St. Louis base station site, we observe that the predicted 28 dBu contour based on the Section 73.699 curves is approximately 27 miles in radius. The predicted plot shown of the 28 dBu signal using the Okumura/Hata model, which takes into account the terrain surrounding the base station, indicates a non- circular coverage area that, on average, extends about 27 miles from the base station site. We do not see the connection between this showing, which indicates that the predicted coverage of the station based on the actual terrain surrounding the station is similar to the predicted coverage of the station based on the Section 73.699 curves, and the TCG Report's call for the adoption of a 28 dBu protected service contour. In our view, the showing only confirms the validity of the field strength curves in Section 73.699 and does not provide justification for modifying the Commission's existing 38 dBu service contour for the 220 MHz service. 54. PERS asks that we adopt co-channel separation that properly protects the performance of all [Phase I and Phase II] systems based on the real-world operation of these systems, and provides a showing to support its argument that we revisit our Phase I/Phase II separation criteria. Specifically, PERS provides three figures that show predicted field strength values in the areas surrounding three different base station sites in the New England area using an unspecified terrain model. Additional figures show the predicted 38 dBu and 28 dBu service contours in the vicinity of these stations, calculated using the Section 73.699 curves. 55. PERS states that the 28 dBu contour comes the closest to the actual real-world coverage in the actual propagation study . . . . However, PERS's showings only demonstrate that in areas surrounding a base station where the terrain lends itself to greater signal propagation, the 28 dBu signal level as shown by PERS extends beyond the predicted 28 dBu contour as determined by the Section 73.699 curves; while in areas where the terrain lends itself to weaker signal propagation, the 28 dBu signal level as shown by PERS extends less than the distance of the predicted 28 dBu contour as determined by the Section 73.699 curves. As we previously concluded with regard to the TCG Report, we do not see how this type of showing justifies modification of the existing 38 dBu service contour for the 220 MHz service. (2) Use of Single Sideband Technology 56. AMTA contends that the 220 MHz protection criteria should be changed because of the use by Phase I licensees of single sideband (SSB), rather than FM technology. In particular, AMTA asserts that mobile stations are more likely to suffer from interference due to their use of SSB instead of FM, because FM, with its capture effect, enables mobile stations to hear only the desired signal as long as the undesired signal is at least 10 dB down, while mobile stations using SSB hear both signals in areas of overlap, irrespective of the relative signal strength of the signals. Petitioners, however, beyond making these observations, do not explain why the use of SSB technology by licensees in the 220 MHz band is reason for changing the 220 MHz service contour from 38 dBu to 28 dBu. In the absence of such explanations, we conclude that petitioners' observations do not provide a sufficient basis for modification of the Commission's protection criteria. (3) Minimum Co-Channel Distance 57. In its reply comments, SMR asserts that in order to provide 10 dBu [sic] interference protection to the Phase I licensee's 28 dBu contour we should provide a minimum co-channel distance of 170 km unless unique terrain or other features justify a lesser distance separation, in which case the Phase II licensee should be permitted to demonstrate that it could provide 10 dB protection to the 28 dBu contour of the Phase I licensee at the lesser distance. 58. The Commission's rules call for a standard 120 km distance separation between co-channel 220 MHz stations, but allow Phase II licensees to afford less than 120 km protection to Phase I stations if they provide 10 dB protection to the 38 dBu contour of the Phase I stations. The 120 km distance results when both the Phase I and Phase II stations are operating at maximum facilities (i.e., 500 watts ERP and 150 meters HAAT). The provision that allows Phase II licensees to provide 10 dB protection to the 38 dBu contour of the Phase I station enables Phase II licensees to take into consideration the fact that their station or the Phase I station (or both) may be operating at less than maximum facilities, and therefore enables these licensees to locate their stations at a distance less than 120 km from the Phase I station. 59. AMTA, INTEK, SMR, and PERS, in their petitions, call for a change to this rule to require Phase II licensees to provide 10 dB protection to the 28 dBu contour of the Phase I licensee. If such a rule were adopted, the 120 km distance separation, which was based on the provision of 10 dB protection to a 38 dBu contour using the maximum allowable power and antenna height for the 220 MHz service, would have to be recalculated to reflect a separation based on 10 dB protection to a 28 dBu contour. Assuming use of the same maximum allowable power and antenna height, this separation would be the 170 km distance that SMR proposes. It is not clear, however, from SMR's reply comments whether it is simply proposing that, in conjunction with a change of the protected contour from 38 dBu to 28 dBu, we should: (1) concurrently change the standard separation distance from 120 km to 170 km; or (2) provide for a uniform 170 km separation (regardless of either licensee's power level or antenna height) with distances of less than 170 km allowed only in areas that contain unique terrain or other features. 60. The former interpretation of SMR's petition, i.e., changing the standard separation distance, would be a logical consequence if we decided to change the protected contour for Phase I stations from 38 dBu to 28 dBu. The latter interpretation would require a Phase II licensee operating at somewhat less than maximum allowable power and antenna height to protect a Phase I licensee as if both licensees were operating at the maximum allowable parameters. If SMR is proposing that Phase II licensees uniformly provide 170 km protection to Phase I licensees, except in areas of unique terrain or other features, it does not provide an explanation for requesting this degree of protection. (4) Provision of Greater Than 10 dB Protection 61. PCIA and SEA contend that in order to adequately protect Phase I stations, we should provide greater than 10 dB protection to the existing service contour. PCIA states that, for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz services, the Commission agreed that there needed to be a minimum of 18 dB signal difference between the desired and undesired signals for `routine' short-spacing in order to prevent co-channel interference, but that in this proceeding the Commission has decided to go back to the 10 dB signal difference, thereby going back to a rule which the previously found did not adequately protect co-channel licensees. PCIA asserts that there is no valid rationale to treat incumbent 220 MHz licensees differently from incumbent 800 MHz licensees. PCIA also argues that our decision was adopted even though licensees and manufacturers have demonstrated that 220 MHz systems `in the real world' cover areas in excess of the Commission's initial prediction. 62. At the outset, we emphasize that since the initiation of this proceeding with the Third Notice, neither the Commission nor any commenters had, until now, suggested that the current 10 dB protection criteria be increased. Regarding the merits of PCIA's arguments, we first question PCIA's claim that the Commission made its decision to employ a 10 dB protection for 220 MHz licensees in the face of demonstrations that 220 MHz systems cover areas beyond the Commission's initial prediction. At the time the Commission made that decision in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, there were, in fact, claims of coverage beyond what was predicted, but no evidence or demonstrations of such coverage were provided; and as discussed elsewhere in this Order, we do not believe that petitioners have provided adequate justification in this proceeding for claims of greater coverage. Additionally, we note that PCIA provides no discussion or technical analysis in support of its contention that we provide greater than 10 dB protection for Phase I licensees. In the absence of such discussion, we cannot reasonably consider the adoption of PCIA's proposal, and we reject its recommendation to increase the protection criteria for 220 MHz stations. 63. SEA, in its comments, notes that employing an 18 dB protection ratio to a 38 dBu service contour would increase the nominal Phase I-to-Phase II co-channel separation distance to about 140 km. It therefore recommends that 140 km be the minimum geographic separation between co-channel stations. SEA, however, does not provide any discussion or rationale in support of its position, and we thus reject its recommendation, as well. (5) Protection of Phase I Systems 64. With regard to the general issue of co-channel interference, AMTA believes that such interference affects the operation of both Phase I and Phase II stations, and therefore believes that there is a commonality of interest between Phase I and Phase II operators in seeing that the FCC adopts co-channel separation criteria that properly protect the performance of all systems. 65. With regard to co-channel interference between Phase I systems, AMTA notes that, while it believes that technical considerations support an improved co-channel separation standard between such systems, because Phase I stations are operating pursuant to the existing protection criteria, it does not recommend any change to the Phase I to Phase I protection requirements. Rather, it states that the industry hopes to resolve whatever [Phase I to Phase I] interference problems [that] arise without FCC involvement. 66. AMTA also observes that the likelihood of [resolving Phase I to Phase I interference problems] is significantly increased because both parties will be subject to identical regulatory obligations and entitled to identical regulatory protection, remarking that unlike the Phase I/II separation criteria adopted in the Order, neither party will have superior regulatory rights. 67. AMTA, however, does not provide an explanation as to why it believes that Phase II licensees have superior regulatory rights, nor does it explain how the rules we have adopted for Phase I and Phase II operations might affect the resolution of interference disputes between Phase I and Phase II licensees. We therefore do not believe that AMTA's observations lend support to its claim that Phase I/Phase II separation criteria should be modified. 2. Calculation of Service Contour 68. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission determined that Phase II EA and Regional licensees should be required to locate their base stations at least 120 km from the base stations of co-channel Phase I licensees, except that such licensees should be permitted to locate their base stations less than 120 km from the base stations of co-channel Phase I licensees if they provide 10 dB protection to the predicted 38 dBu service contour of the base stations of co-channel Phase I licensees. The Commission also decided that the predicted 38 dBu contour of the Phase I licensees would be calculated based on the licensee's authorized ERP and HAAT not on the maximum allowable ERP and HAAT provided in the Commission's rules for the 220-222 MHz band. The Commission required licensees to operate at their initially authorized ERP and HAAT, and did not permit licensees to seek modification of their authorization to operate at a higher ERP or HAAT. The Commission further determined that licensees operating at power levels lower than their initially authorized ERP would be required to seek modification of their authorization to reflect the lower ERP. 69. SEA, PCIA, INTEK, and SMR disagree with the Commission's decision to require Phase I licensees to modify their authorizations to reflect the system's actual ERP, and to define the service area based upon actual ERP. PCIA contends that this is a departure from previous Commission policy for Part 90. PCIA and SEA argue that these requirements will result in a significant reduction in the protection afforded to Phase I licensees. Several parties contend that a Phase I licensee's service area should be defined based on maximum authorized power and height levels. INTEK claims that using maximum facility values will strike the appropriate balance between the interests of Phase I and Phase II licensees. 70. We disagree with petitioners. As indicated in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission's goal was to provide service to the public. In authorizing Phase II licensees to serve a particular geographic area, the Commission sought to allow them to serve any portion of that area, except for portions of the area already being served by co-channel Phase I licensees. The area already being served by co-channel Phase I licensees plainly cannot be calculated based on an assumption of the use by such licensees of maximum allowable operating parameters. Nor should this area be calculated based on the licensee's authorized ERP, if the licensee is not operating at its authorized ERP. Rather, it is the area the licensee was serving at the time the decisions adopted in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order became effective, and must therefore be calculated based on the licensee's ERP and HAAT at that time. 71. In asserting that the 220 MHz Third Report and Order is inconsistent with previous Part 90 policy, PCIA points to the Commission's actions in protecting Part 90, Subpart S systems from co-channel interference based on maximum allowable ERP. Specifically, PCIA cites the use of the Table in Section 90.621(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules that identifies appropriate co-channel separation distances between existing stations and proposed short-spaced stations based on the operating parameters of such stations. While it is true that the Table assumes that existing stations are considered to be operating at maximum allowable ERP, it is important to note that the Table was designed to provide licensees seeking to short-space with a simple, uncomplicated method for doing so that did not require the submission of a technical showing. 72. In developing the Table, the Commission decided that the distance separations would be based on the more conservative approach of providing 18 dB of protection to the 40 dBu contour of an existing station, and of assuming that existing stations were operating at maximum allowable ERP. However, the Commission indicated that an entity providing a technical showing as part of a request to short-space to an existing station by waiver could base that showing on the existing station's actual power and antenna height. We therefore disagree with PCIA's assertion that our use of the Table in Section 90.621(b)(4) for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz services demands that we protect Phase I 220 MHz licensees based on the maximum allowable ERP for the 220 MHz band. Rather, we believe that the Commission's decision in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order to protect Phase I licensees in accordance with their actual facilities is not inconsistent with Commission practices in those services. 73. We continue to believe that our goal should be to facilitate the provision of 220 MHz service to the public. In accomplishing this, we must attempt to ensure that such service is not denied to any geographic areas in the Nation. If we were to assume that all 220 MHz Phase I licensees are operating at the maximum power and antenna height for the 220 MHz service 500 watts ERP and 150 meters HAAT, respectively when many are not operating at such parameters and may never operate at such parameters, we could force Phase II licensees to provide considerably greater protection to co-channel Phase I licensees than necessary, and thereby potentially deny service to the public in areas beyond the Phase I licensee's actual 38 dBu service contour. 74. A 220 MHz Phase I license was granted by the Commission based on a specific location and operating parameters. There was no guarantee that the licensee would be allowed to alter its operating parameters without the possibility of competing applications from others wishing to serve this territory. Similarly, we cannot assume that Phase I licensees that were operating at a particular ERP at the time of the decisions adopted in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order became effective will some day increase that ERP to their authorized power level. And again, to protect a Phase I licensee's base station in accordance with a power level that the licensee might employ at some time in the future could deny service to the public. 75. We thus conclude that the decision made by the Commission in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order regarding the method to be used to calculate the 38 dBu service contour of Phase I base stations is appropriate, and requests for the adoption of alternative methods made by petitioners are therefore denied. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will issue a Public Notice following the adoption of this Order announcing when applications must be filed by Phase I, non-nationwide licensees in order to enable such licensees to comply with the requirement that they modify their authorization to reflect the ERP at which they were operating at the time the decisions adopted in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order became effective. 3. Emission Masks 76. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission decided to eliminate the emission mask at the edge of inside channels for Phase I and Phase II licensees authorized on contiguous channel assignments. The Commission concluded that, because licensees constructing base stations must adhere to the required co-channel separation criteria with respect to all co-channel licensees in their areas, the increased strength of out-of-band signals would not result in any increased likelihood of harmful interference to co-channel licensees. This decision met with a generally favorable response. Both Glenayre and PCIA remark that the Commission's action will permit licensees to use the most efficient technology for the service they offer. Comtech, however, raises a concern that the revised rule section 90.733(d) and (e) only address instances in which licensees use channels that are wider than 5 kHz [and that the] regulations do not clearly address circumstances in which licensees combine multiple authorizations to use channels wider than 5 kHz, and petitions us to clarify this matter. 77. Under the revised rule Section 90.733, the emission limits in Section 90.212(f) must be met only at the outermost edges of contiguous channels. The rule does not address contiguous channels under only one authorization Section 90.733 simply uses the term authorized contiguous channels. Therefore, we clarify that emission limits must be met only at the outermost edges of contiguous channels, including those cases in which licensees combine multiple authorizations that result in contiguous channels. As the Commission indicated in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, because licensees operating on contiguous channels will be providing required protection to all co-channel licensees in their area, interference will not occur to those licensees as a result of the elimination of the emission mask on all inside channels. Thus, so long as licensees combining multiple authorizations to create a contiguous channel block maintain the required co-channel protection on all of the channels that comprise the channel block, we clarify that such licensees will be permitted to eliminate the emission mask on all inside channels. 4. Antenna Height Above Average Terrain vs. Antenna Height Above Ground 78. In the 220 MHz service, the Commission's rules specify maximum allowable power, both for stations operating on base station frequencies (i.e., channels in the 220-221 MHz band) and for stations operating on mobile station frequencies (i.e., channels in the 221- 222 MHz band). In both instances, the maximum allowable power is related to the height of the transmitting antenna. The maximum allowable ERP of a base station, or of a fixed station operating on base station frequencies, is provided in a Table in Section 90.729(a) of the Commission's Rules, and is a function of HAAT. The maximum allowable ERP of stations operating on mobile frequencies is provided in a formula in Section 90.729(b) of the Commission's Rules as a function of the height of the antenna above ground. SEA petitions the Commission to calculate the maximum allowable ERP of stations operating on mobile frequencies based on HAAT, and INTEK also comments in favor of using the HAAT standard. 79. SEA advocates restricting antenna height to 7 meters above average terrain rather than 7 meters above ground, and characterizes the above-ground standard as a weakening of the rule. SEA believes that measuring antenna height above ground could lead to violations of the intent of the rule, and could cause disruptive interference. According to SEA, allowing construction of fixed and paging antennas in the 221-222 MHz band at 7 meters above ground could permit greater ERP from a paging station operating at a high site than would be allowed by a standard 220-221 MHz repeater transmitter, because the ERP of the standard 220-221 MHz repeater transmitter is a function of HAAT. SEA therefore requests that Sections 90.729(b) and 90.729(c) be modified to reference HAAT instead of height above ground. 80. We agree with SEA and grant its request to modify Sections 90.729(b) and 90.729(c). We believe that it is appropriate to require the height limitation for stations operating on the 221-222 MHz frequencies to be associated with the HAAT of the station's transmitting antenna, rather than the antenna's height above ground. This rule was adopted to minimize interference to adjacent channel operations on the 221-222 MHz channels. By requiring licensees operating stations in this band to limit the height of their transmitting antenna to 7 meters HAAT, we will eliminate instances of licensees inadvertently causing interference to adjacent channel operations by transmitting at an antenna height of 7 meters above ground at a particularly high elevation. We also agree with SEA that Section 90.729(c), too, should be modified to indicate that the height restriction of base stations operating on channels 196-200 must be associated with such station's transmitting antenna HAAT, rather than the antenna's height above ground. Modification of this rule in this manner will similarly eliminate instances of inadvertent interference to adjacent channel operations in the 221-222 MHz band from transmissions on these channels. 5. Allowable Power Limit for Mobile Channels 81. For the 220 MHz service, the maximum allowable power for transmissions on mobile channels (channels in the 221-222 MHz band) is 50 watts ERP. As the Commission explained in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, this restriction is necessary to ensure that such transmissions, including transmissions on mobile channels by licensees operating two- way paging systems, do not cause adjacent channel interference. 82. Comtech and Glenayre petition the Commission to revise the 50 watt ERP limit. Comtech first notes that, with respect to nationwide licensees, there is no danger of interference to co-channel licensees, because no other licensee will be authorized to use their mobile side channels, anywhere in the Nation. Comtech acknowledges, however, that it is adjacent channel users, and not co-channel licensees, that the height and power limitations are intended primarily to protect. Comtech claims that the Commission's approach for the 220 MHz service differs from the Commission's regulations governing similar services. Comtech contends that the potential for interference is no greater in the VHF band than it is for 220-222 MHz systems, and that comparable transmissions in the VHF band are permitted up to 500 watts ERP. Therefore, Comtech argues, the Commission should revise its rule to reflect the same height-power limits and adjacent-channel interference restrictions it provides for the VHF band in Section 22.535 of the Commission's Rules. Glenayre states that limiting the mobile frequency ERP for fixed operations will preclude efficient one-way paging operations, especially for nationwide licensees. 83. We do not believe it would be appropriate to grant petitioners' request. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission decided that fixed stations operating on mobile channels would be limited to 50 watts ERP, with an antenna height of 7 meters above ground, but provided that this height could be exceeded if the power level is decreased below 50 watts ERP in accordance with a formula provided in Section 90.729(b) of the Commission's Rules. The Commission imposed this antenna height limit for fixed stations operating on the 221-222 MHz frequencies because of its concern about the possibility of interference to traditional, two-way land mobile operations if adjacent channel licensees transmitting on these frequencies operated fixed paging stations at high elevations. That is, if a licensee operates a fixed paging station at a high elevation, its signal could interfere with the signal of an adjacent channel mobile station attempting to transmit to its base station receive site. 84. If 220 MHz licensees were to be permitted, as petitioners propose, to operate fixed stations in the 221-222 MHz band at a power level of 500 watts ERP ten times higher than the current limit we would have a similar concern about the possibility of interference to adjacent channel 220 MHz land mobile operations. In its comments in this proceeding, SEA which petitioned the Commission to strengthen the current rule with regard to mobile channel operations argues against petitioners' request to allow an increase in the power limit on the mobile channels, stating that it vigorously oppose[s] any weakening of [the] rule relating to operations on such channels. We conclude that permitting 500 watt ERP fixed station transmissions on the mobile channels in the 220 MHz band could cause interference to adjacent channel operations, and therefore reject the adoption of a rule that would allow for such transmissions. 85. Petitioners further argue that, because the Commission permits a 500 watt ERP power level for paging base stations operating on Part 22 VHF channels that are adjacent to channels used for mobile transmissions, we should similarly provide for such power limits in the 220 MHz band. In support of this argument, they contend that the existence of 500 watt ERP stations presents no more potential for interference in the 220-222 MHz band than currently exists in the Part 22 VHF band. We reject petitioners' argument because it assumes a commonality between the technical characteristics of VHF land mobile equipment operating under Part 22 of the Commission's Rules and equipment used in the 220-222 MHz band. The technical characteristics of VHF equipment operating under Part 22 and equipment operating in the 220 MHz band are, of course, not identical. Thus, we cannot accept petitioners' contention that the same rules that apply to Part 22 paging operations on channels adjacent to channels used for mobile transmissions should be applied to the 220 MHz band. 86. To illustrate how the Commission's rules currently address similar operations in the 220 MHz band, we turn to Section 90.723(d)-(f) of the Commission's Rules. These rules provide the procedures that 220 MHz licensees must follow to ensure that interference is not caused by base station transmitters operating on channels adjacent to channels used for mobile transmissions. In the 220-222 MHz band, where the base station transmit frequencies are situated immediately below the mobile station transmit frequencies, the possibility exists for interference to the reception of signals at base stations receiving on the lower channels in 221-222 MHz band from transmissions from nearby base stations transmitting on the upper channels in the 220-221 MHz band. 87. The Commission, in developing the original 220 MHz service rules, recognized this possibility for interference, and adopted rules that require geographic separation between Phase I base stations transmitting on the upper 40 channels in the 220-221 MHz band (i.e., channels 161-200, referred to in the Commission's rules as Sub-band B ) and Phase I base stations receiving on the lower 40 channels in the 221-222 MHz band (i.e., channels 1-40, referred to in the Commission's rules as Sub-band A ). Specifically, the rules require a separation of at least 6 km between Phase I base stations transmitting at 500 watts ERP on Sub-band B channels and base stations receiving on Sub-band A channels if the transmitting channel is within 200 kHz of the receive channel. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission continued to demonstrate its concern about this type of interference by requiring Phase II licensees transmitting on Sub-band B channels to provide protection to existing Phase I licensees operating on Sub-band A channels in accordance with the provisions of Section 90.723(d); and by requiring Phase II licensees operating on Sub-band B and Sub-band A channels to coordinate the location of their base stations with one another to avoid interference. 88. Because the Commission adopted these requirements to ensure that base stations in the 220-221 MHz band do not cause interference to the reception of signals by base station receivers in the adjoining 221-222 MHz band, if we were to allow 500 watt ERP operation by fixed stations transmitting on any and all of the channels in the 221-222 MHz band, we would similarly have to ensure that interference would not be caused to base station receivers attempting to receive signals in that band. To accomplish this in a manner similar to the way we currently protect base station receivers operating on the Sub-band A channels, we would have to require 500 watt ERP fixed stations transmitting on channels in the 221-222 MHz band to afford protection to any base station receive sites up to 200 kHz removed in accordance with provisions similar to those prescribed in Section 90.723. Thus, for example, if a Phase II, nationwide licensee authorized on channels 81-90 sought to operate a 500 watt ERP fixed station on its mobile channels, then it would have to ensure that all licensees operating up to 200 kHz below channel 81 (i.e., channels 41-80) and all licensees operating up to 200 kHz above channel 90 (i.e., channels 91-130) would be protected. 89. For the licensee seeking to operate a fixed station at a power level of 500 watts ERP, protecting a multitude of Phase I, non-nationwide base stations in its geographic area would be a difficult, but not impossible task. This is because all Phase I licensees were initially authorized to construct only one base station, and have now generally completed the construction of their stations. However, protecting all affected Phase II licensees and all affected Phase I nationwide licensees would, realistically, be impossible. This is because, unlike Phase I non-nationwide licensees, who have constructed a single base station that must be protected, Phase II licensees and Phase I nationwide licensees will be continually adding, relocating, and modifying stations as they develop and implement their systems over the course of their initial ten-year license period and possibly beyond that period. In order not to restrict the development of such licensees' systems, a licensee seeking to operate a fixed station in the 221-222 MHz band at a power level of 500 watts ERP would have to protect all possible sites in an EA or Region where a given EA or Regional licensee might seek to locate a base station, and all possible sites in the Nation where a nationwide licensee might seek to locate a base station. Moreover, we could not simply allow a licensee seeking to operate a 500 watt ERP fixed station to only protect the already-constructed base stations of affected licensees. To do so would deny affected licensees the ability to locate future base stations at any and all available sites. 90. We conclude that the only manner in which a licensee could operate a fixed station in the 221-222 MHz band at a power level of 500 watts ERP without disrupting the operations of other 220 MHz licensees would be for that licensee to gain the consent of all affected 220 MHz licensees to operate such a station. We will therefore permit a licensee seeking to operate fixed stations in the 221-222 MHz band at a power level of 500 watts ERP to seek a waiver of Section 90.729(b) of the Commission's rules if the licensee obtains the consent for such operation from the following licensees authorized on channels up to 200 kHz removed from the channels of the licensee: (1) all nationwide licensees; (2) all Phase II non- nationwide licensees that are authorized in an EA or Region that is located within 6 km of the licensee's proposed fixed station; (3) all Government nationwide users; and (4) all Phase I non-nationwide licensees with a base station that is located within 6 km of the licensee's proposed fixed station. 91. Finally, in addressing petitioners' request to permit operations on the 220 MHz mobile channels at a power level of 500 watt ERP, we note Glenayre's contention that limiting the mobile frequency power will preclude efficient one-way paging, especially for nationwide licensees. SEA, in response, suggests that the obvious application for the mobile transmit frequency is as a response or `talk-back' channel for two-way paging. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order the Commission did not specify how the mobile channels in the 220 MHz band would be used. They could be used as a response channel (as part of a two-way paging system), or they could be utilized to provide 220 MHz licensees with a second one-way paging channel. We believe the Commission's rules for operation on the mobile channels (i.e., limiting power to 50 watts ERP and antenna height to 7 meters HAAT), will enable 220 MHz licensees who intend to operate paging systems to use these channels to best meet their needs and the needs of their customers whether this is to implement one-way or two-way paging systems and will ensure that they do so without causing interference to other licensees in the 220 MHz band. 6. Allowable Power Limit for Nationwide Licensees 92. Comtech and Glenayre petition the Commission to raise the allowable power limit for the base stations of nationwide licensees. Glenayre requests that the Commission permit nationwide licensees to operate their base stations up to a limit of 1400 watts ERP, provided that the transmitter is at least 5 km from a fixed adjacent channel system, with systems within 5 km to be restricted to 500 watts ERP or less, depending on distance, as provided in the Commission's existing rules. Glenayre suggests the Commission could create a sliding scale, similar to the sliding scale established in Section 90.729(a) of the Commission's Rules, for reducing ERP to account for antenna height. Comtech also requests that the maximum ERP be raised to the 1400 watts permitted paging stations in the VHF band. 93. Comtech asks that power limitations imposed by Section 90.729 be modified to reflect that nationwide licensees operate without co-channel interference concerns. Both Glenayre and Comtech stress that raising the permitted ERP is necessary for the competitive operation of 220 MHz service paging systems. Arch and PCIA support Glenayre's and Comtech's proposal to increase the maximum ERP for 220 MHz service nationwide paging base stations to VHF paging levels. Metricom agrees, calling the ERP limit artificial, and stating that the limit requires the construction of more base stations, thus placing additional and unnecessary costs on nationwide licensees. 94. In the 220 MHz Report and Order, which established the 220 MHz service, the Commission adopted technical rules for the 220 MHz service, including a rule providing height-power restrictions for stations operating in the 220 MHz band. In the 220 MHz Third Notice, the Commission did not seek comment with regard to the appropriateness of this rule. Commenters in that proceeding, however, sought modification of the rule with regard to height-power limitations for stations operating in the 221-222 MHz band. Therefore, in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission modified the rule based upon these comments. Commenters, however, did not seek modification of the rule with regard to height-power limitations for stations operating in the 220-221 MHz band, and the Commission did not address or modify these height-power limitations. We therefore view this matter, as raised by petitioners herein, as being beyond the scope of this reconsideration proceeding. We do, however, believe that an increase in the allowable power for nationwide licensees would be acceptable provided that appropriate technical criteria are established to ensure that interference does not occur to adjacent channel systems. We therefore invite those parties seeking modification of the Commission's rules regarding this matter to submit a petition for rulemaking in order to change the allowable power limit and to develop such criteria. 7. Modification of Phase I Non-Nationwide Licenses 95. Phase I non-nationwide licensees were granted site-specific authorizations. These licensees are authorized to transmit on specific frequencies at a specific set of coordinates. Petitioners point out that neither the 220 MHz Third Report and Order nor the 220 MHz Second Report and Order provides a mechanism by which Phase I licensees may modify their authorizations. Petitioners note that in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission stated that Phase I non-nationwide licensees will not be permitted to seek modification of their authorizations to operate at a higher ERP or HAAT. SBT contends that the Commission's position on modifications expresses far more concern for future licensees than for incumbent licensees who are currently providing service to the public. Petitioners also assert that licensees must be permitted to make operational changes that are necessary to maintain the viability of a station and are required in order to compete successfully in the marketplace. Petitioners therefore urge the Commission to adopt procedures for ongoing modifications for Phase I licensees. 96. Several petitioners also urge us to permit Phase I licensees to modify their systems as long as such modifications do not expand their service contour. They note that this flexibility has been granted to incumbents in other Part 90 services. SMR also asks that licensees be permitted to modify their system configurations without prior Commission approval, arguing that a similar rule has been approved in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz services. In addition, AMTA requests that we permit Phase I licensees to convert overlapping incumbent systems into a geographic license, as is currently allowed for incumbent 800 MHz and 900 MHz authorizations. 97. We recognize that licensed sites may become unusable for a variety of reasons. We are also persuaded by petitioners' arguments that, in order to maintain the economic and technical viability of a licensee's 220 MHz service, Phase I incumbent licensees should be permitted to modify their authorizations (e.g., to relocate their base station, to change the ERP or HAAT of their base station) as long as doing so does not expand their service contour, as we have defined that contour in this proceeding. Such licensees will therefore be permitted to make those modifications to their authorizations that do not expand their 38 dBu service contour. Phase I licensees will also be able to add additional transmitters within their 38 dBu service contour without prior authorization from the Commission, e.g., to fill in dead spots in coverage or to reconfigure their systems to increase capacity within their service area, so long as signals from such transmitters do not expand their 38 dBu service contour. 98. We note that a Phase I licensee who relocates under the criteria set forth in the 220 MHz Second Report and Order (and as further considered below in this Order) must first establish its 38 dBu service contour at its new base station site in accordance with the Commission's rules for relocation before it can take advantage of the flexibility provided in this section. Phase I licensees, however, will be required to notify the Commission of any changes in technical parameters or additional stations constructed through a minor modification of their license. These modification applications will not be subject to public notice and petition to deny provisions in the Commission's rules, or mutually exclusive applications. 99. As discussed in paras. 81-91, supra, the Commission's Rules require geographic separation between Phase I base stations transmitting on the upper 40 channels in the 220-221 MHz band (i.e., channels 161-200, referred to in the Commission's rules as Sub-band B ) and Phase I base stations receiving on the lower 40 channels in the 221-222 MHz band (i.e., channels 1-40, referred to in the Commission's rules as Sub-band A ). Also, as indicated supra, in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission's Rules require Phase II licensees transmitting on Sub-band B channels to provide geographic protection to Phase I licensees operating on Sub-band A channels; and require Phase II licensees operating on Sub-band B and Sub-band A channels to coordinate the location of their base stations with one another to avoid interference. Our decision herein to permit Phase I, non-nationwide licensees to modify their authorizations to add additional transmitter sites or change the operating parameters or location of their base station, however, raises interference concerns if such stations are authorized to licensees operating in Sub-bands A and B. 100. First, with respect to potential interference among Phase I licensees, we believe that Phase I licensees authorized on Sub-bands A or B channels that may seek to add additional transmitter sites or change the operating parameters or location of their base station should be required to coordinate such actions in a manner similar to the way that Phase II licensees authorized on Sub-bands A and B channels must coordinate the location of their base stations under Section 90.723(f) of the Commission's Rules. Thus, to ensure that appropriate geographic separations are maintained if licensees authorized on Sub-bands A or B channels seek modifications to add additional transmitter sites or change the operating parameters or location of their base station, we will require licensees authorized on Sub-bands A or B channels to coordinate such actions with one another to avoid interference. These licensees must include with their application for a minor modification of their authorization, a certification that the station has been appropriately coordinated. 101. Second, under Section 90.723(e) we currently require Phase II licensees authorized on Sub-band B channels, in locating their base stations, to provide geographic protection to the base stations of Phase I licensees authorized on Sub-band A channels. However, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to require a Phase II licensee authorized on Sub-band B, as it constructs its EA or Regional systems, to have to protect receivers associated with additional transmitter sites that a Phase I licensee authorized on Sub- band A might add within its service contour at any time in the future. We conclude, therefore, that a Phase II licensee authorized on Sub-band B channels should continue to provide geographic protection to Phase I licensees authorized on Sub-band A, but only to the base station of such licensees, as authorized at the time the Phase II, Sub-band B licensee seeks to construct its station. 102. Third, under our existing rules, there are no protection or coordination requirements among Phase I licensees authorized on Sub-band B and Phase II licensees authorized on Sub-band A. This is because Phase II licensees authorized on Sub-band A, in constructing their systems, would be aware of the location of the base stations of Phase I licensees on Sub-band B and would, in all likelihood, avoid placing their base stations in locations where such Phase I, Sub-band B stations might cause interference. However, if Phase I, Sub-band B licensees are permitted to add additional transmitter sites or modify the operating parameters or location of their base station at any time in the future, such actions could cause unforeseen interference to the base stations of Phase II, Sub-band A licensees. We will therefore require Phase I, Sub-band B licensees, in adding additional transmitter sites or modifying the operating parameters or location of their base station, to coordinate such actions with Phase II licensees authorized on Sub-band A. Phase I, Sub-band B licensees must include with their application for a minor modification of their authorization, a certification that the station has been appropriately coordinated. 103. In addition, we will allow Phase I 220 MHz licensees to convert their site-by- site licenses to a single license authorizing operations throughout the incumbents' contiguous and overlapping 38 dBu service contours of their constructed multiple sites. Phase I licensees seeking such reissued licenses must make a one-time filing of specific information for each of their external base station sites to assist the Commission staff in updating the Commission's database. We also will require evidence that such facilities are constructed and placed in operation and that, by operation of the Commission's rules, no other licensee would be able to use these channels within this geographic area. We note that facilities added or modified that do not extend the 38 dBu service contour will not require prior approval under this procedure. 104. We believe this decision strikes a fair balance between the interests of incumbents and Phase II licensees. Under our ruling, a Phase I licensee will be free to maintain full operational flexibility in providing service within its own service contour, while ensuring that the licensee's use of the spectrum does not negatively impact other 220 MHz operations. 105. Finally, we note that SMR contends that Section 309(j)(6)(D) of the Communications Act prohibits the Commission from permitting Phase II licensees to modify their systems unless Phase I licensees are given the same right. SMR asserts that we are therefore compelled to permit Phase I licensees full flexibility to modify their licenses so long as they remain within their contour. 106. Because we have decided to permit Phase I licensees to modify their authorizations it is unnecessary for us to reach a decision on the merits of this issue in the present proceeding. 8. Substantial Service 107. To promote operational flexibility for 220 MHz licensees, and because the Commission recognizes that certain 220 MHz service offerings, such as fixed, point-to-point operations, might not lend themselves to compliance with a construction requirement based on the traditional design of private land mobile radio systems (i.e., the construction and operation of single, high-powered base stations providing signal coverage over an extended area), the 220 MHz Third Report and Order provides Phase II nationwide 220 MHz licensees with the alternative of meeting their construction requirements by demonstrating the provision of appropriate levels of substantial service to the public at the prescribed 5-year and 10-year construction benchmarks. The option of meeting the substantial service requirement is also available to EA and Regional licensees. The Commission decided not to adopt a particular measure of substantial service for such licensees, but rather to consider such showings on a case-by-case basis. In the Commission's rules, substantial service is defined as service that is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service that just might minimally warrant renewal. 108. Metricom requests that the Commission specify the criteria that will be used to determine whether licensees have provided substantial service, and reminds the Commission that licensees would risk the loss of their licenses if their understanding of the definition of substantial service differs from that of the Commission. Metricom argues that the imprecision of the substantial service requirement makes it difficult for licensees to determine whether they meet the substantial service requirement, and that elementary fairness requires clarity in such an important a matter. Comtech calls the substantial service requirement vague, and joins Metricom in seeking clarification. 109. We disagree with the view of the substantial service requirement advanced by Comtech and Metricom that more precision is necessary in the definition. The Commission has found the substantial service standard useful in several contexts, including paging, Personal Communications Services, General Wireless Communications Service, Wireless Communications Service, and Local Multipoint Distribution Service. In the case of Private Land Mobile Radio Service, the Commission has used the substantial service standard in regulations governing the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR bands as well as the 220 MHz band. 110. We refer parties who seek clarification of the standard beyond the definition in the Commission's rules to the Commission's stated purpose in applying the standard to 220 MHz service (recognizing the needs of licensees with service offerings such as fixed, point- to-point operations), and to previous examples the Commission has given of substantial service. Any further elaboration of the standard at this time would, we believe, only limit its flexibility and usefulness to licensees and their customers. 9. Spectrum Efficiency Standard 111. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission concluded that Phase I and Phase II licensees who combine contiguous 5 kHz channels in order to operate on channels wider than 5 kHz would be required to meet the following spectrum efficiency standard: for voice communications, a licensee is required to employ equipment that provides at least one voice channel per 5 kHz of channel bandwidth; for data communications, a licensee is required to employ equipment that operates at a data rate of at least 4,800 bits per second per 5 kHz of channel bandwidth. The standard is implemented through the Commission's equipment type acceptance process. 112. To avoid inadvertently discouraging new, innovative, and efficient technologies, the Commission provided manufacturers with an extra measure of flexibility: type acceptance for equipment not meeting the voice or data efficiency standard could be obtained if (1) the manufacturer submitted a technical analysis with its application for type acceptance demonstrating that the equipment would provide more spectral efficiency than is required by the spectrum efficiency rule; and (2) this technical analysis was deemed satisfactory by the Commission's Equipment Authorization Division. Licensees would be permitted to employ equipment that failed to meet the spectrum efficiency standard only if such equipment had been thus type accepted. 113. The Commission explained that the efficiency standard furthered one of the Commission's principal goals in establishing the 220-222 MHz service, which was to encourage the development of spectrally efficient technologies. While the Commission did not disagree with the suggestion that the market would supply licensees with the incentive to use their spectrum efficiently, the Commission nevertheless believed that adoption of a mandatory efficiency standard was an appropriate and effective means of ensuring that licensees aggregating contiguous channels would operate efficiently. In response to the claim that the standard could prevent the provision of certain services in the 220-222 MHz band, the Commission emphasized that its purpose was not to prevent the offering of services, but rather to spur, through the adoption of the standard, the development of spectrally- efficient technologies in any number of other wireless communications services that might eventually be provided in the band. 114. The Commission further decided to retain the standard only through December 31, 2001. By allowing the standard to then expire, the Commission intended to balance its goal of stimulating the development of spectrally efficient technology against its desire to grant licensees flexibility and to rely on market forces. The Commission also expressed its confidence that by the time the standard expired, the technology of wireless equipment would have surpassed the requirements of the standard, and that there would no longer be a need to mandate such a standard for the 220-222 MHz band. 115. Comtech petitions the Commission to exempt paging from the 220 MHz efficiency standard. Comtech states that it is unaware of any manufacturer investigating one-way paging transmitters capable of meeting the efficiency standard, and that the necessary research and development to meet the standard would prevent the commercial availability of such equipment before the standard sunsets in 2002. Arch and PCIA concur with Comtech that the efficiency standard is so stringent that it effectively negates the Commission's decision to allow paging in the 220 MHz band. Comtech, in arguing for removal of the spectrum efficiency standard, contends that Comtech itself, rather than the Commission, can best ensure the most intensive use of Comtech's 25 kHz of nationwide spectrum. Arch states that 6,400 bits per second in a 25 kHz channel pushes the limits of practical radio frequency network design for paging using presently available technology. 116. Glenayre agrees that no equipment now exists that meets the Commission's 220 MHz efficiency standard for data. Predicting that equipment meeting the standard will only become available at about the time the standard is eliminated, Glenayre cautions that the current lack of acceptable data equipment leaves 220 MHz licensees with three choices: to forego data, and implement voice equipment only; to construct voice equipment to meet construction deadlines, and construct data equipment separately when data equipment that meets the standard becomes available; or to delay all construction until acceptable data equipment is on the market. Rather than exempting paging operations, as Comtech requests, Glenayre proposes that the Commission resolve the contradiction by introducing an achievable standard now that would become progressively more strict. Specifically, Glenayre advocates the adoption, through the Commission's type acceptance process, of a standard of 0.256 bps/Hz immediately; 1 bps/Hz by December 31, 2001, and 2 bps/Hz by December 31, 2006. Glenayre suggests the standard could be eliminated by December 31, 2011. 117. PERS agrees with Glenayre that strengthening the standard over time, and thus requiring more efficient technologies as they became available, would better serve the public interest. Metricom, however, views Glenayre's proposal as unnecessary and burdensome to licensees, and argues that licensees would have to replace their equipment to keep up with the standard's increasing stringency. In opposing the imposition of any efficiency standard, Metricom argues that the market should dictate the type of equipment to be employed. Arch agrees with Metricom that Glenayre's proposal would artificially require paging operators to upgrade their equipment. 118. Glenayre also petitions the Commission to conform the 220 MHz band spectrum efficiency standard to the 4,800 bits per second per 6.25 kHz channel standard the Commission adopted in the Refarming proceeding. Glenayre argues that this step would offer the benefit of allowing the same equipment to be used in both bands. In a slight variation of this proposal, Rush compares the 220 MHz efficiency standard (4,800 bps per 5 kHz channel) to the Refarming efficiency standard (4,800 bps in a 6.25 kHz channel), and requests that the 220 MHz standard be reduced to 3,840 bits per second, which would produce a consistent .768 b/s/Hz rate between the bands. Such an adjustment, according to Rush, could enhance the potential for equipment development in both bands. 119. INTEK, arguing in favor of the spectrum efficiency standard, reminds the Commission that, from its inception, the 220 MHz band has been especially dedicated to fostering spectrally-efficient narrowband technologies, and that prior to the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, only narrowband equipment operating on 5 kHz channels was permitted in the 220 MHz band. INTEK considers that in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission struck a careful balancing of equities which permits the aggregation of contiguous 5 kHz channels, and allows licensees to conduct paging and fixed operations on a primary basis, but also imposes a temporary efficiency standard on licensees using non- narrowband systems on their aggregated channels. 120. This balance, according to INTEK, accommodates the licensees' desire for flexibility, and yet remains true to the narrowband character of the band, and to the equipment manufacturers who responded to the Commission's creation of a unique test-bed for narrowband technologies. INTEK also maintains that Phase I licensees, including Rush and Comtech, applied for licenses in the expectation that they would be restricted to the use of 5 kHz narrowband equipment. 121. INTEK and SEA dispute the argument that paging operations should be made exempt from the efficiency standard because no suitable equipment is available. INTEK points out that, until the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, paging was restricted in the 220 MHz band. Therefore, INTEK maintains, any claim that manufacturers will be unable to satisfy 220 MHz band licensees' equipment needs cannot be other than premature and speculative, the more so in light of the prodigious increases in data-rate efficiency over the past five years. SEA views Inflexion technology as indicative of this trend, and argues that application of the standard will encourage further development. SEA suggests that parties opposed to applying the standard to paging do not sufficiently appreciate the flexibility provided by Section 90.203(k)(2) of the Commission's Rules, by which the Commission retains the flexibility to type-accept equipment that does not meet the letter of the standard. 122. Comtech maintains that any reliance on Motorola's Inflexion system is misplaced because Inflexion is a two-way technology, and the Commission's rules specifically permit only one-way paging on 220 MHz channels. Moreover, Comtech maintains, Inflexion requires a minimum of 50 kHz of spectrum, which very few 220 MHz licensees will possess. Comtech further states that INTEK's own 220 MHz band data equipment is too large and heavy to be commercially acceptable for paging, and that, in contrast to one-way paging receivers, INTEK's two-way equipment can request re-transmission of information received with errors. 123. We agree with petitioners who argue that our goal of making the 220 MHz service rules more flexible by permitting paging on a primary basis, and by permitting the aggregation of contiguous channels, is threatened by evidence presented in the record of this reconsideration proceeding that paging equipment is not presently capable of meeting the efficiency standard for the band. This concern, coupled with our view that, since adoption of the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, circumstances have developed in a manner that suggests that 220 MHz spectrum will be used efficiently by service providers regardless of whether we impose any spectrum efficiency standard, has led us to revise the Commission's rules to eliminate the spectrum efficiency standard for the 220 MHz service. 124. While we are convinced by the showings in the record that carriers seeking to offer one-way paging services would be impaired in their ability to take advantage of the licensing flexibility introduced in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order because of the requirements of the spectrum efficiency standard, there are two reasons why we are not persuaded by the claim of some petitioners that the best solution to this problem is to exempt paging carriers from the standard. 125. First, these petitioners offer what is, at best, a partial cure for the problem illuminated in the record, which is tailored to address their particular interests but which ignores our overall policy objectives. The Commission indicated in the 220 MHz Third Report and Order that a spectrum efficiency standard would not prevent the offering of services, but would spur the development of spectrum-efficient technologies. The difficulty with the approach proposed by the petitioners is that, in singling out paging services for special treatment while leaving the standard in place, their solution would have the potential effect of impeding the introduction and deployment of other services demanded by consumers that use available equipment that does not comply with the strictures of the efficiency standard. 126. The Metricom case illustrates the anomalous consequences of pursuing the solution posed by the petitioners. Metricom, a relatively new entrant in the wireless service marketplace, indicates that it is interested in employing 220 MHz frequencies to provide innovative non-voice services to the public. Although Metricom does not petition for removal of the efficiency standard, it does observe in arguing against the Glenayre proposal for a sliding scale efficiency standard that would be made more lenient now but more stringent in future years that it disagrees with the imposition of any efficiency standard because Metricom believes that the marketplace should dictate the type of equipment to be employed, and the Commission should not foreclose new technological advances that may, in fact, yield greater efficiencies. 127. We agree with Metricom. We do not believe it is prudent to leave the spectrum efficiency standard in place in the face of evidence that it could impair technological advances while also making it more difficult for carriers to take advantage of licensing flexibility to meet consumer demand. We also conclude that there is not a rational basis for avoiding this problem for carriers choosing to offer one type of service while permitting the problem to stand as a barrier to carriers offering other services. 128. Second, our elimination of the efficiency standard, while avoiding the policy deficiencies that are inherent in an exemption limited to one class of carriers, grants the relief sought by the petitioners. The fact that we have not chosen petitioners' specific solution for the reasons we have presented in no way diminishes the fact that the petitioners are aided by our decision. 129. As we discussed above, the Commission neither foresaw nor intended that the efficiency standard would effectively bar the offering of paging or other services on the 220 MHz band. The record before us, however, has convinced us that the spectrum efficiency standard impedes those licensees desiring to take advantage of the flexibility that we intended to establish with the 220 MHz Third Report and Order. Retaining the efficiency standard could also block near-term entry into the 220 MHz market by equipment manufacturers not currently in this market, as well as the entry of different types of service providers, including small businesses. We also continue to believe that market pressures will encourage efficient use of spectrum, and that technological innovation in the coming years will surpass the efficiency level of the adopted standard. These twin engines of progress seem to us a more reliable and reasonable method of promoting spectrum efficiency in the 220 MHz band than an efficiency standard that will soon expire in any case. 130. In this regard, we believe it is instructive to view the efficiency standard in the historical context of the Commission's development of licensing rules for the 220 MHz service and, in doing so, to illustrate why the standard is not necessary to ensure realization of the goals originally established by the Commission in its design of the licensing parameters for the service. One of [the Commission's] principal goals in establishing the 220-222 MHz band was to encourage the development of spectrally efficient technologies. In 1991, the Commission chose to pursue this goal, in the 220 MHz Report and Order, by adopting service rules for the assignment of 200 five kHz channel pairs in the 220-222 MHz band, with mutually exclusive applications assigned through random selection procedures. 131. The Commission's objective was to foster the development of efficient technology through a channelization plan that required equipment capable of utilizing extremely small slices of spectrum. The Commission's decision to promote spectrum efficiency through its channelization plan was, in part, the product of the Commission's awareness that the method of awarding licenses the random selection process could not serve as an effective tool for advancing this goal. The Commission, of course, did not at this time have statutory authority to employ competitive bidding as a means of awarding 220 MHz licenses. 132. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission sought to combine the objectives of spectrum efficiency and flexible licensing by allowing paging to be offered in the 220 MHz band on a primary basis, by permitting the aggregation of contiguous 5 kHz channels in the band, and also by imposing spectrum efficiency standards intended to replicate the efficiencies demanded by 5 kHz operations. However, as the discussion above suggests, we are now convinced that assigning licenses based on competitive bidding creates incentives for the promotion of spectrum efficiency. In view of the incentives for spectrum efficiency produced by competitive bidding, evidence presented in the record and discussed above that paging cannot be provided consistent with the efficiency standard, and developments that have occurred since the release of the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, we now believe it is appropriate to rely on the competitive bidding process and marketplace forces to ensure that 220 MHz spectrum will be employed efficiently, even where contiguous 5 kHz channels are aggregated. 133. Unlike the comparative hearing and random selection processes that were the only means by which the Commission could award licenses at the time it established its licensing framework for the 220 MHz service, the Commission has found the competitive bidding process to be an effective tool for promoting efficient spectrum use. The Commission has determined that the auction process tends: to reinforce the desire of licensees to make efficient and intensive use of . . . spectrum. Auctions make explicit what others are willing to pay to use the spectrum, and the licensees' need to recoup the out-of-pocket expenditure for a license should provide additional motivation to get the most value out of the spectrum. In fact, the Commission has found that the system of competitive bidding . . . will lead to the issuance of licenses to those parties who value the licenses most highly and who thus can be expected to make efficient and intensive use of the spectrum, as contemplated by Section 309(j)(3)(D) [of the Communications Act]. 134. Moreover, in services where the Commission has used competitive bidding to award licenses, there is evidence that licensees are using spectrally efficient technologies, despite the decision of the Commission not to impose spectrum efficiency standards. Since 1994, for example, the Commission has granted more than 2,000 licenses for new PCS services, which has contributed to the nationwide deployment of new technologies. Although no efficiency standards were imposed by the Commission in connection with the licensing and operation of PCS services, two widely used digital broadband PCS technologies are achieving spectrum efficiencies that surpass analog cellular technology. Both Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) are significantly more efficient than analog cellular. 135. In addition, in services (such as cellular services) that were not subject to auctions but that compete with broadband PCS, many licensees are replacing older, less efficient analog technologies with these digital technologies. For example, AT&T has started to switch its cellular analog services to TDMA digital technology. 136. A further reason for our decision to eliminate the spectrum efficiency standard is the fact that, since our adoption of the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, circumstances relating to the development and utilization of the band have continued to change in a manner that suggests that 220 MHz spectrum will be used efficiently by service providers, regardless of whether we impose a spectrum efficiency standard. These circumstances have manifested themselves in two respects. First, subscribership growth, which is driving construction of facilities and deployment of equipment in the band, has continued at a pace that leads us to conclude that the efficient utilization of 5 kHz channels in the band is now well-established. To take one example, an INTEK subsidiary operating 220 MHz business radio systems recorded a major increase in subscribers during the second fiscal quarter ended March 31, 1998. The widespread use of spectrally efficient equipment, which has gained momentum since the adoption of the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, suggests that the Commission's original objectives in promoting efficient utilization of spectrum in the band have been largely successful. 137. Second, the Commission has acted in a related rulemaking proceeding to spur flexible use of the band in a manner that promotes further growth in the utilization of spectrally efficient 5 kHz channels. In the Forty-Mile Rule Order, the Commission eliminated the requirement that a licensee could not hold more than one channel or channel group within a 64-kilometer (40-mile) area unless that licensee could demonstrate that its communications needs warranted additional channels or channel groups. In taking this action, the Commission concluded that our service rules will foster efficient spectrum use and discourage uneconomic warehousing by providing licensees with the opportunity to provide a variety of fixed, mobile, and paging services in response to changing market conditions. The Commission also determined that: Under the existing 40-mile rule, a Phase I licensee would have to forego the pursuit of additional customer markets until its initial system was fully loaded, even if the additional channels themselves were partially or fully loaded. Removing the 40-mile rule will allow Phase I licensees to acquire additional licenses with which to implement future service plans. Keeping the 40-mile rule with respect to Phase I licensees could unnecessarily interfere with the ability of licensees possessing both Phase I and Phase II licenses to utilize their licenses in a unified fashion. Thus, we conclude that, subsequent to our adoption of the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, we have acted to ensure efficient use of 220 MHz spectrum. In particular, we believe our decision in the Forty-Mile Rule Order has stimulated deployment of spectrally efficient 5 kHz equipment, a process which was already well under way at the time we made that decision. 138. We therefore conclude that the best public policy (from both a spectrum management and competitive point of view) is to allow 220 MHz service providers to make their own decisions about whether they will build the narrowband systems that are marketed by certain equipment manufacturers, or whether their business plans would be better served through the purchase of alternative equipment with other functionalities. Elimination of the standard preserves the Commission policy of maximizing flexible use of spectrum carriers planning to offer one-way paging or other services on aggregated channels would not be stymied by the current lack of equipment that meets the standard. 139. This policy is particularly important for 220 MHz spectrum because small businesses may be prominent players in developing this spectrum, and these businesses would directly benefit from a flexible spectrum use policy that enables them to respond efficiently to marketplace demand. Given the relatively small amount of spectrum assigned in a 220 MHz license, we think it is reasonable to expect that acquisition of the 220 MHz Phase II licenses may be relatively affordable, and therefore this service may be particularly attractive to small businesses. Since the Commission has chosen to extend service flexibility to licensees acquiring licenses in other spectrum auctions, we see no sound policy basis for retaining a spectrum efficiency standard that will restrict such flexibility in the 220 MHz band. 140. Although we note that no party has petitioned directly for this result, we do not believe that any 220 MHz licensee or applicant will be harmed by this grant of additional flexibility. If we were to grant petitioners' requests to exempt paging from the spectrum efficiency standard, the resulting change in the Commission's existing rules would, we believe, hardly be less extensive than elimination of the standard. Either change would have implications for the business decisions of parties interested in obtaining 220