Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Improving Public Safety Communications in the 
800 MHz Band
Consolidating the 800 and 900 MHz 
Industrial/Land Transportation and Business Pool 
Channels
Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to 
Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and 
Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New 
Advanced Wireless Services, including Third 
Generation Wireless Systems
Petition for Rule Making of the Wireless 
Information Networks Forum Concerning the 
Unlicensed Personal Communications Service
Petition for Rule Making of UT Starcom, Inc., 
Concerning the Unlicensed Personal 
Communications Service
Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission’s 
Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by 
the Mobile Satellite Service
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket 02-55
ET Docket No. 00-258
RM-9498
RM-10024
ET Docket No. 95-18
SECOND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  May 24, 2007 Released: May 30, 2007
By the Commission:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 3
III. DISCUSSION......................................................................................................................................... 4
A. Eligibility for Relocation to the ESMR Band .................................................................................. 4
1. Low-Density Cellular Systems.................................................................................................. 5
2. Relocation of Non-ESMR EA Licensees and Associated Site-Based Stations......................... 9
3. Site-based Licensees................................................................................................................ 14
4. Petition for Partial Waiver of Mobile Relay Associates.......................................................... 20
B. Process for Accommodating all Eligible Licensees in the ESMR Band........................................ 28
C. ESMR Band in Puerto Rico ........................................................................................................... 37
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
2
D. Reconfiguration of Areas With No Associated NPSPAC Regions................................................ 37
E. Effect of the Application Freeze on License Modifications .......................................................... 40
F. Post-Mediation Litigation Costs .................................................................................................... 43
G. NPSPAC Band Operational Restrictions (NPSPAC Region 8 Petition)........................................ 51
H. Charles Guskey Petition................................................................................................................. 53
I. BAS/MSS Issues............................................................................................................................ 55
J. Border Regions .............................................................................................................................. 67
K. Rule Clarifications ......................................................................................................................... 69
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS................................................................................................................ 72
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis............................................................................................... 72
B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis ............................................................................................... 73
V. ORDERING CLAUSES....................................................................................................................... 74
APPENDIX A - Procedural Matters
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification
APPENDIX B - Final Rules
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In the 800 MHz Report & Order, the Commission adopted technical and procedural 
measures to address the ongoing and growing problem of interference to public safety communications in 
the 800 MHz band.1 Specifically, the Commission addressed the ongoing interference problem over the 
short-term by adopting technical standards defining unacceptable interference in the 800 MHz band and 
detailing responsibility for interference abatement.2 The Commission further determined that solving the 
interference problem for the long-term necessitated reconfiguring the 800 MHz band to separate generally 
incompatible technologies whose current proximity to each other is the identified root cause of 
unacceptable interference.3 Accordingly, the Commission adopted a new band plan for the 800 MHz
band and established a transition mechanism for licensees in the band to relocate to their new spectrum 
assignments. The Commission subsequently issued a Supplemental Order making certain clarifications 
of, and changes to, the provisions of the 800 MHz Report and Order and its accompanying interference 
mitigation and band reconfiguration rules.4 In October 2005, the Commission released a Memorandum 
Opinion and Order (800 MHz MO&O) making certain further changes and clarifications to the 800 MHz 
interference mitigation and band reconfiguration rules.5  
2. In this Order, we address various petitions for reconsideration and clarification of the 
Commission’s 800 MHz MO&O, previously unaddressed portions of a petition for reconsideration of the 
800 MHz Report and Order and a petition for partial waiver of the rebanding rules, as well as several 
petitions dealing with clearing of the 1.9 GHz Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) band, including a joint 
  
1 See generally Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, WT Docket 02-55, Report and 
Order, Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 14969(2004) as 
amended by Erratum, 19 FCC Rcd 19651 (WTB PSCID 2004) and Erratum, 19 FCC Rcd 21818 (WTB PSCID 
2004) (800 MHz Report and Order).
2 See id. at 15021-15045 ¶¶ 88-141.
3 See id. at 15045-15079 ¶¶ 142-209.
4 See generally Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Supplemental Order and Order on 
Reconsideration, WT Docket No. 02-55, 19 FCC Rcd 25120 (2004) (800 MHz Supplemental Order).
5 See Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, WT Docket 02-55, Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, WT Docket No. 02-55, 20 FCC Rcd 16015 (2005), as amended by Erratum 20 FCC Rcd 18970 (PSCID, 
WTB 2005) (800 MHz MO&O).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
3
petition for declaratory ruling and several petitions for clarification or reconsideration.6 We defer 
consideration of the portion of Sprint’s petition for reconsideration addressing the eighteen-month 
rebanding benchmark established by the Commission in the 800 MHz Report and Order and modified in 
the 800 MHz Supplemental Order.7 We will address this portion of the petition, and Sprint’s compliance 
with the benchmark, at a later date.
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3. We take the following actions in this Order:
· We affirm the eligibility criteria established in the 800 MHz MO&O for relocation to the 
ESMR band.
· We clarify costs that must be paid by Sprint to non-ESMRs relocating to the ESMR band.
· We deny MRA’s Petition for Partial Waiver of Rebanding Rules.
· We clarify the procedures to be used in the event of a spectrum shortfall in the ESMR band.
· We provide for the development of a revised band plan and timetable for the Puerto Rico
market.
  
6 Specifically, we address the following petitions: Petition for Reconsideration, filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation 
on January 27, 2006 (Sprint Petition); Second Petition for Reconsideration, filed by Charles D. Guskey, on January 
27, 2006 (Guskey Petition); Petition for Clarification, filed by Chair of the NPSPAC Region 8 Regional Planning 
Committee on March 3, 2006 (NPSPAC Region 8 Petition); Request for Clarification, jointly filed by 
Communications & Industrial Electronics, Inc., North Sight Communications, Inc. and Ragan Communications, 
Inc., on January 27, 2006 at 5-8.  (C&I - North Sight - Ragan Clarification Request); Petition for Reconsideration of 
Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order, filed by Richard W. 
Duncan d/b/a Anderson Communications, filed Dec. 22, 2004 (Duncan Petition); See Petition for Partial Waiver of 
Rebanding Rules, filed by Mobile Relay Associates on January 24, 2006 (MRA Waiver Request); See Request for 
Declaratory ruling, filed jointly on June 20, 2005 by Nextel, The Association for Maximum Service Television, and 
National Association of Broadcasters (Nextel/MSTV/NAB Request); Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration, 
filed January 27, 2006 by Mohave County Bd. Of Supervisors, (Mohave Petition);  Petition for Clarification or 
Reconsideration, filed January 27, 2006 by Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co., Petition for Clarification or 
Reconsideration, filed January 27, 2006 by Meredith Corp., Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration, filed 
January 27, 2006 by, Multimedia Holdings Corp., Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration, filed January 27, 
2006 by Fox Television Stations, Inc., Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration, filed January 27, 2006 by 
KTVK, Inc, and Petition for Clarification, filed January 27, 2006 by Association for Maximum Service Television.   
We note that the Petitions for Reconsideration of the 800 MHz Report and Order, 800 MHz Supplemental Order and 
800 MHz Memorandum Opinion and Order were placed on Public Notice.  See Public Notice, Report No. 2687 (Jan. 
19, 2005), 70 Fed. Reg. 5449 (Feb. 2, 2005) (petitions for reconsideration of the 800 MHz Report and Order; Public 
Notice, Report No. 2697 (Mar. 23, 2005), 70 Fed. Reg. 17458 (Apr. 6, 2005) (petitions for reconsideration of the 
800 MHz Supplemental Order); Public Notice, Report No. 2761 (Feb. 16, 2006), 71 Fed. Reg. 11658 (Mar. 8, 2006) 
(petitions for reconsideration of the 800 MHz MO&O). The SAFE Coalition also filed a petition for reconsideration, 
but on December 15, 2006, it requested voluntary dismissal of the petition as part of a settlement agreement with 
Sprint.   See Letter, dated December 15, 2006 from Julian L. Shepard, Esq. Counsel to SAFE to Marlene Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC.  We grant the SAFE Coalition’s request for voluntary dismissal and do not consider its petition in 
this order.  In addition, as part of the same settlement agreement, Sprint has agreed to relocate SAFE Coalition 
licensees to the ESMR band, and requests that its reconsideration petition on the ESMR relocation issue be treated 
as moot with respect to the SAFE Coalition licensees.  See Letter, dated December 15, 2006 from James B. 
Goldstein, Director – Spectrum Reconfiguration, Sprint Nextel Corporation to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC.  We 
confirm that our decision in this order does not preclude Sprint and the SAFE Coalition from providing by 
negotiated agreement for relocation of the SAFE Coalition licensees to the ESMR band, provided that the terms of 
the agreement are approved by the TA and are otherwise consistent with our rules and orders in this proceeding.  
7 See Sprint Petition at 15-17.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
4
· We address rebanding in Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the 
Gulf of Mexico.
· We clarify the impact of the 800 MHz application freeze on modification applications.
· We deny petitions to require Sprint to pay other licensees’ post-mediation litigation costs.
· We define limits on Sprint operations in proximity to NPSPAC operations prior to the 
conclusion of rebanding.
· We dismiss the Charles Guskey petition as repetitive and untimely.
· We partially grant petitions to require Sprint to relocate BAS facilities associated with 
translator television stations or operated by full-power television stations on a short-term 
basis by permitting, but not requiring, Sprint to pay and claim credit for the costs incurred in 
relocating these BAS facilities. 
· We delegate specific authority to the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to propose 
and adopt new 800 MHz band plan rules for U.S. primary spectrum in the Canadian and 
Mexican border regions once the relevant agreements with Canada and Mexico are finalized.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Eligibility for Relocation to the ESMR Band
4. Sprint seeks reconsideration of the provisions of the 800 MHz MO&O that clarified and 
expanded the rights of certain licensees other than Sprint and SouthernLINC to relocate to the ESMR 
band.8 After careful analysis, we find no reason to upset the Commission’s balancing of interests that led 
to the revised eligibility criteria for the ESMR band contained in the 800 MHz MO&O.
1. Low-Density Cellular Systems
5. Background.  In the 800 MHz MO&O, the Commission clarified that “low-density” as 
well as “high-density” cellular systems could operate in the ESMR band.9 The Commission explained 
that its use of the term “high density cellular” was intended only to define the type of cellular system that 
is prohibited in the non-ESMR portion of the 800 MHz band, and was not intended to limit eligibility for 
the ESMR portion.10 To ensure that the rules accurately reflected the intent of the 800 MHz Report and
Order, the Commission amended the rules to state that all “cellular systems” may operate in the ESMR 
  
8 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd 16021-28 ¶¶ 10-28.  The ESMR band is the upper segment of the reconfigured 800 
MHz band that will be used by “Enhanced SMR” system.  ESMR is a term coined by industry to describe SMR 
systems, such as Nextel’s, that use cellular architecture, i.e., systems that use multiple, interconnected, multi-channel 
transmit/receive cells and employ frequency reuse to serve a larger number of subscribers than is possible using non-
cellular technology.  Although the term “ESMR” does not appear in the Commission’s rules, it has appeared in the 
Commission’s case law.  See Request of Fleet Call, Inc. Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 91-56, 6 FCC Rcd 
1533 ¶ 13(1991).  In most of the country the ESMR band extends from 816-824 MHz / 861-869 MHz.  However, 
the Commission may adjust the lower boundaries of the ESMR band, as need arises, as it did in the Southeastern 
United States.  See para. 28 infra.
9 See 800 MHz MO&O 20 FCC Rcd at 16021 ¶ 8. The Commission defines a “cellular system” as “a system that 
uses multiple, interconnected, multi-channel transmit/receive cells capable of frequency reuse and automatic handoff 
between cell sites to serve a larger number of subscribers than is possible using non-cellular technology.”   Id.  A 
high-density cellular system is a “cellular system which has more than five overlapping interactive sites featuring 
hand-off capability” and “any one of such sites has an antenna height of less than 30.4 meters (100 feet) above 
ground level with an antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) of less than 152.4 meters (500 feet) and twenty 
or more paired frequencies.”  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.7; 90.614.  A low-density cellular system is a cellular system that 
does not meet the high-density specifications.
10 See 800 MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd at 16021 ¶ 8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
5
band.11
6. Sprint contends that the Commission’s decision to allow low-density cellular systems 
into the ESMR band is a fundamental departure from the Commission’s original decision, is inconsistent 
with the Commission’s public interest objectives in this proceeding, and is therefore arbitrary and 
capricious.12 Specifically, Sprint argues that in the 800 MHz Report and Order, the Commission found 
low-density cellular systems to pose no significant interference risk to non-cellular systems, and that there 
is therefore no reason that they should be eligible to relocate to the ESMR band.
7. Discussion.  We are not persuaded by Sprint’s argument. As we explained in the 800 
MHz MO&O, the Commission’s decision to exclude high-density cellular systems from the non-ESMR 
band was never intended to exclude low-density cellular systems from the ESMR band.13 We further 
pointed out that interpreting our rules to prohibit relocation of low-density cellular systems to the ESMR 
band would have prevented relocation of large iDEN-based cellular systems such as SouthernLINC’s that 
did not meet the high-density criteria.14 Thus, the clarification to the rules in the 800 MHz MO&O was 
not a fundamental change, but was completely consistent with the Commission’s prior orders.
8. We also do not agree with Sprint’s argument that the lower interference risk posed by 
low-density cellular systems to non-cellular systems is a reason to keep them out of the ESMR band.  
Sprint suggests that the ESMR band should be reserved only for high-density systems that are required to 
relocate there.15 While it is true that the Commission did not require low-density cellular systems to 
relocate to the ESMR band, relocation of such systems has significant public interest benefits.  Even if 
low-density cellular systems pose a lower risk of interference to non-cellular systems than high-density 
cellular systems, spectral separation of cellular from non-cellular systems remains the preferred option 
and has been a fundamental goal of this proceeding from the outset.16 Moreover, relocation of low-
density systems to the ESMR band will make additional non-ESMR spectrum available for public safety 
and critical infrastructure use, another major goal of this proceeding.17 Thus, we have provided for 
relocation of commercial systems such as SouthernLINC to the ESMR band and we have limited 
introduction of new low-density cellular operations in the non-ESMR band solely to non-ESMR 
systems—and then only on a strict non-interference basis.18 Against this background, we believe it would 
be anomalous to allow Sprint and SouthernLINC to relocate their systems to the ESMR band and deny 
that option to other ESMR licensees.
2. Relocation of Non-ESMR EA Licensees and Associated Site-Based Stations 
9. Background.  In the 800 MHz Supplemental Order, the Commission gave non-ESMR 
Economic Area (EA) licensees the option of relocating their geographic licenses to the ESMR band and 
converting to ESMR operation, but did not allow them to relocate associated site-based licenses.19 In the 
800 MHz MO&O, the Commission permitted EA licensees to also relocate associated site-based licenses 
  
11 47 C.F.R. § 90.7.
12 See Sprint Petition at 8-10.
13 See 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd at 16021 ¶ 8.
14 Id.
15 Opposition of Sprint Nextel Corporation, filed March 23, 2006 (Sprint Opposition) at 3-4.
16 See 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 14973 ¶ 3.
17 Id. at 14972-73 ¶ 2.
18 Id., at 15060-61 ¶¶ 172-174.
19 See 800 MHz Supplemental Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 25155 ¶ 79; 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd at 16026 ¶ 23.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
6
if they were part of their “integrated communications system” as of November 22, 2004, the 800 MHz 
Report and Order Federal Register publication date.20  Sprint argues that the Commission has failed to 
provide a reasoned basis for this latter decision and that there is no “rational connection” to the 
Commission’s public interest objective of remedying interference in the 800 MHz band.21
10. Discussion.  Contrary to Sprint’s claims, the Commission’s decision furthers both the 
goal of ensuring equitable treatment of all 800 MHz licensees and alleviating unacceptable interference to 
public safety licensees.22 After the 800 MHz Supplemental Order, some non-ESMR EA licensees argued 
that the Commission had unnecessarily constrained their ability to implement ESMR systems on their 
combined EA and site-based spectrum.23  In providing relief to these licensees in the 800 MHz MO&O,
the Commission acknowledged the importance of “evaluating their systems as a whole (even if portions 
thereof are licensed on a non-EA basis),” so as to place them “in a position comparable to that they 
currently occupy.”24  Moreover, we believe that allowing EA licensees to relocate site-based licenses to 
the ESMR band makes it substantially less likely that the site-based portions of their systems would 
interfere with public safety and other high-site systems.  We note that we did not prohibit SouthernLINC 
from relocating its site-based licenses to the ESMR band and see no reason to treat other ESMR licensees 
differently.  We also note that since the inception of this proceeding, Sprint has urged recognition that the 
mixing of incompatible technologies in the 800 MHz band is the “root cause” of interference to public 
safety and other 800 MHz high-site systems.25 A consensus of commenting parties supported Sprint’s 
analysis.  Spectral separation of incompatible technologies being the essence of 800 MHz band 
reconfiguration, allowing EA licensees to relocate their site-based systems to the ESMR band 
unquestionably furthers the spectral separation goal.
11. These strong public safety considerations outweigh Sprint’s concern that migrating the 
site-based portions of EA licensees’ systems to the ESMR band could affect Sprint’s private interests.  
Sprint’s argument that the value of its spectrum rights will be significantly compromised as a result of our 
action in is entirely speculative. Sprint has not shown that a reduction in value, if it did occur, would be 
other than minimal or of such magnitude that it would have significant public interest consequences, e.g.,
that it would affect the availability to the public of competitive wireless communications service. 
Accordingly, we deny Sprint’s request for reconsideration of the 800 MHz Supplemental Order’s 
provisions concerning relocation of site-based licenses to the ESMR band.26
12. Sprint also objects to the Commission’s decision to allow EA licensees relocating to the 
ESMR band to also relocate associated site-based stations even if the service contour of such stations does 
not overlap another portion of the system.27 The Commission’s determination in that regard was 
informed by Airpeak’s filing, in which Airpeak reported that its existing systems had site-based licenses 
“that are integrated into its network switch and are able to carry communications among its subscribers 
even though they do not have contours that overlap with other portions of the network” and that “this is a 
common feature of systems that serve rural areas, particularly in the earlier phases of system 
  
20 See 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd at 16026-27 ¶ 25.  
21 See Sprint Petition at 8.
22 See 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd at 16028 ¶ 28. 
23 Id. at 16026 ¶ 24.
24 Id. at 16026-27 ¶ 25.
25 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 14973 ¶ 3.  
26 See paragraphs 18-19, infra.
27 See Sprint Petition at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
7
deployment.”28 Based on this representation, which Sprint has not challenged, the Commission 
reasonably concluded that it would not be in the public interest to require a licensee to discontinue 
existing service to subscribers, particularly in small rural areas, merely because they received service 
from a cell whose coverage contour did not overlap other cells in the system.  Moreover, the Commission 
provided protection against abuse of this provision by requiring the licensee to establish to the satisfaction 
of the TA that any non-overlapping cell is, in fact, part of its integrated system.29 Sprint contends that it 
will be difficult for the TA to make this assessment, and that a bright-line exclusion of non-overlapping 
sites would be preferable.30 We do not find this argument persuasive: the criteria established by the 
Commission are clear and the TA has the technical expertise to apply them.
13. Identical considerations cause us to reject Sprint’s claim that a cell operating pursuant to 
a spectrum lease, or cells that had been acquired but not yet integrated into a licensee’s system, should be 
ineligible to relocate to the ESMR band with the “parent” system.  We note that Airpeak showed to the 
Commission’s satisfaction that a waiver to permit it to relocate cells acquired after the cutoff date would 
not frustrate the underlying purpose of the cutoff rule—foreclosing speculative acquisition of licenses.31  
The facts attendant on Airpeak’s acquisition of stations after the cutoff date do not suggest speculative 
intent and Sprint has provided no countervailing facts that would justify our revisiting the Commission’s 
determination in the 800 MHz MO&O.
3. Site-based Licensees
14. We dismiss the previously unresolved issue raised on reconsideration of the 800 MHz 
Report and Order by Richard W. Duncan (Duncan).  Duncan, who operates a conventional site-based 
SMR system in Charlotte, North Carolina, and has no EA license in the area, argues that he should be 
allowed to relocate his system to the ESMR band so that he can deploy cellular technology.32 Duncan 
submits that otherwise, he will be barred from deploying cellular technology, and that, as a consequence, 
his license “will have virtually no market value.”  Duncan argues that the diminution in value to his 
license resulting from band reconfiguration represents an unlawful taking.33 As discussed below, we deny 
Duncan’s petition.
15. The fundamental purpose of band reconfiguration is to remove systems from the non-
ESMR portion of the 800 MHz band that have the potential to cause interference to public safety systems.  
Unlike an ESMR system, Duncan’s conventional high-site system does not pose such an interference 
threat.  Moreover, requiring conventional site-based high-site systems such as Duncan’s to remain in the 
non-ESMR band is not inequitable because site-based licensees with high-site systems will have the same 
ability to operate in the post-rebanding environment as they had before.  Moreover site-based licensees 
such as Duncan are readily distinguishable from non-ESMR EA licensees that have sufficient spectrum 
and geographic coverage to provide EA-wide ESMR service, even if they currently do not operate ESMR 
systems.  Conversely, site-based, high-site licensees such as Duncan are constrained by limited 
geographic coverage and channel capacity, making it highly unlikely that they could implement a viable 
  
28 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd at 16023 ¶ 15, citing Petition for Reconsideration, filed Mar. 10, 2005 by 
AIRPEAK Communications LLC (Airpeak Petition of Supplemental Order) at 5-9.
29 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd at 16023 ¶ 15.
30 Sprint Petition at 3-4.
31 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd at 16025 ¶¶ 20-22.
32 Duncan Petition at 4.  In the 800 MHz MO&O, the Commission addressed certain issues raised in Duncan’s 
petition, but deferred consideration of this issue.  See 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd 16052 n.227.
33 Id. at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
8
ESMR service.34 The probability of such a venture being competitive is so slight that it is more likely that 
the licensee’s ESMR spectrum would remain fallow unless it was acquired by a larger ESMR operator.
16. We also reject Duncan’s contention that the impact of band reconfiguration on the value 
of his license constitutes an unlawful taking.  First, as noted above, courts have held that under the 
Communications Act, licensees have no property rights in radio licenses.35 Second, it is well established 
that the Commission has the authority to alter the terms of an existing license by rulemaking.36 Thus, 
even assuming that Duncan’s license might be more attractive to potential buyers if it were relocated to 
the ESMR band, that is a matter of private, not public, interest.  Here, the public interest lies in the 
abatement of unacceptable interference to public safety systems and the provision of additional public 
safety spectrum.  Allowing Duncan and similarly situated non-EA, non-ESMR licensees to relocate to the 
ESMR band would meet neither of those public interest goals.
17. Duncan also argues that the Commission has unreasonably discriminated against him by 
providing Nextel and SouthernLINC with “value for value” compensation in the form of spectrum in the 
ESMR band, while providing Duncan with only “megahertz for megahertz” compensation, i.e., the ability 
to relocate to comparable facilities in the non-ESMR portion of the 800 MHz band.37 We find this 
argument without merit.  As an initial matter, contrary to Duncan’s belief, the 800 MHz Report and Order
makes it clear that the value for value analysis related only to Sprint, not SouthernLINC.  That analysis 
was necessary in Sprint’s case because it was the sole licensee that assumed uncapped liability for 
relocating incumbents in the 800 MHz and 1.9 GHz band and the only licensee that is obliged to provide 
public safety with additional spectrum by surrendering all of its 800 MHz channels below the ESMR 
band.  Duncan has not proposed to assume such liability or to surrender a portion of his spectrum 
holdings for public safety use.  Thus, Duncan has not shown that application of “value for value” analysis 
is even possible in his case, or that it would yield a different result in his case than the “megahertz for 
megahertz” approach.  We reject Duncan’s claim of unreasonably discriminatory treatment.  Duncan’s 
arguments also cannot be reconciled with the fundamental technical premise of this proceeding:  that 
incompatible technologies in the 800 MHz band—in this case, Duncan’s high-site operations and Sprint 
and SouthernLINC’s ESMR operations—must be spectrally separated if unacceptable interference is to be 
avoided.  Accordingly, Duncan’s attempt to equate his circumstances with those of Sprint and 
SouthernLINC is unavailing and we deny his petition for reconsideration.
18. Sprint Petition.  As noted above, Sprint seeks to reverse the modifications to the ESMR 
band relocation rules adopted in the 800 MHz MO&O that enable relocating site-based ESMR licensees to 
obtain EA-wide licenses in the ESMR band based on a fifty-percent population coverage showing.  Sprint 
contends that expanding the rights of licensees in this manner diminishes the spectrum available to Sprint, 
thereby lowering the value of Sprint’s ESMR licenses.38  However, we find Sprint’s claim deficient on at 
  
34 Duncan’s license for station WPXQ626 authorizes only five frequency pairs.  While it is theoretically possible to 
operate a cellular architecture system with as few as two channels—a two-cell system in which a single subscriber 
could be “handed off” from one cell to another, the cost of the equipment and infrastructure necessary to operate a 
cellular architecture system make it unlikely that Duncan (or any other conventional SMR licensee operating from a 
single site) could serve sufficient subscribers to support an economically-viable cellular architecture system given 
his limited number of channels and the fact that he cannot add facilities that would extend the coverage of their base 
stations.  See 47 C.F.R. § 90.693(b).
35 See, e.g. Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327, 331(1945) (stating that “[n]o licensee obtains any vested 
interest in any frequency.”).  See also 47 U.S.C. § 301.  See generally, FCC v. National Citizens Committee for 
Broadcasting, 436 U.S. 775, 805-06 n.25 (1978).
36 See e.g. United States v. Storer Broadcasting, 351 U.S. 192, 205 (1956); Committee for Effective Cellular Rules v.
FCC, 53 F.3d 1309, 1319-20 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
37 See Duncan Petition at 4-5.
38 Sprint Petition at 6-7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
9
least two grounds.  First, Sprint has failed to show, or even estimate, the amount of its spectrum holdings 
that would be affected by application of the rule.  Second, it has not quantified the effect, if any, that 
application of the rule would have on the value of that spectrum.  If we were to reconsider the rule based 
on such a speculative and insubstantial claim, we would upset the balancing of interests that the 
Commission achieved by determining, in its expert judgment and analysis of the record, that a licensee 
whose pre-relocation coverage contours encompass fifty percent or more of the population of an EA will 
likely expand the benefits of ESMR service to the remainder of the EA.  Accordingly, we decline to 
reconsider the rule as Sprint requests.
19. We also reject Sprint’s argument that the Commission’s adjustments to ESMR eligibility 
in the 800 MHz MO&O compromised the “value for value” economic analysis that the Commission used 
in the 800 MHz Report and Order to assess the worth of 800 MHz spectrum surrendered by Sprint and the 
800 MHz ESMR and 1.9 GHz spectrum it acquired.39 Sprint has not quantified its claims or otherwise 
shown that the ESMR eligibility adjustments it complains of would result in more than a de minimis
change to the amount of ESMR spectrum that Sprint will hold at the conclusion of rebanding.  Moreover, 
as the Commission noted in the 800 MHz Report and Order, its valuations of 800 MHz spectrum 
surrendered and acquired by Sprint were nationwide estimates that relied on numerous “approximations 
and limitations.”40 Thus, minor changes in the amount of spectrum held in particular EAs would be 
unlikely to affect the Commission’s spectrum valuation in any event.
4. Petition for Partial Waiver of Mobile Relay Associates
20. Background.  Mobile Relay Associates (MRA) seeks a waiver of the requirement that 
only holders of 800 MHz EA licenses may relocate their systems to the ESMR band.41 MRA operates 
twelve site-based non-ESMR stations that cover a small part of the Denver-Boulder-Greeley, Colorado 
EA, but does not hold an EA license or operate ESMR facilities.  Specifically, MRA asks us to declare 
that its site-specific stations should be eligible for relocation to the ESMR portion of the 800 MHz band 
instead of remaining on their current non-ESMR spectrum.  MRA acknowledges that the rules do not 
permit licensees that hold only site-based licenses to relocate to the ESMR band, but submits that a 
waiver is warranted in its specific case. As discussed below, we find that MRA has failed to meet the 
waiver standard set out in Section 1.925 of the Commission’s rules and we deny its waiver request.42
21. In support of its waiver request, MRA claims that it has sufficient channel capacity to 
develop a viable ESMR system even though it does not hold an EA license.43 MRA also claims that it 
developed its business plan in reliance on a 1997 Commission order giving 800 MHz EA and site-based 
licensees the same rights to develop new technologies.  Finally, MRA contends that denial of the waiver 
would disserve the public interest by removing a competitor to Sprint in the Denver market.44
22. Sprint alleges that MRA’s waiver request is procedurally defective because it seeks the 
same relief that MRA was seeking contemporaneously before the D.C. Circuit.  Further, Sprint contends 
that granting MRA’s waiver request would undermine the public interest and frustrate the purpose of the 
Commission’s reconfiguration plan.45 Sprint also argues that MRA’s limited site-based spectrum 
  
39 Id. at 5-6.
40 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15107 ¶ 283.
41 See MRA Waiver Request.
42 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3).
43 MRA Waiver Request at 4.
44 Id.
45 Opposition of Sprint Nextel Corporation to MRA Petition for Partial Waiver, filed February 3, 2006 (Sprint MRA 
Opposition) at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
10
holdings are inadequate to sustain a viable ESMR system.46 If MRA were allowed in the ESMR band, 
Sprint contends, it would have to continue high-site operation, thereby perpetuating the incompatible mix 
of high-site and low-site systems that gave rise to the 800 MHz interference problem in the first place.47
23. Discussion.  As an initial matter, we reject Sprint’s claim that MRA’s then-pending 
judicial appeal bars our consideration of MRA’s waiver request.48 Sprint has cited no authority for this 
estoppel theory and we are unaware of any precedent that prevents a party from seeking judicial review of 
a rule of general applicability and, in the alternative, seeking waiver of the rule in its particular case.  
Moreover, since the D.C. Circuit has now ruled on the underlying case in Mobile Relay Associates and 
Skitronics vs. FCC49, Sprint’s request that we summarily dismiss MRA’s waiver request based on the 
pendency of the judicial appeal is moot and we dismiss it as such.  We also find that Sprint has not 
supported its claim that MRA’s simultaneous pursuit of its judicial appeal and its waiver request is 
“litigation posturing” or an abuse of process.50
24. We reject MRA’s waiver request for the reasons discussed below.  In reviewing MRA’s 
waiver request, we have applied the waiver criteria set forth in Section 1.925 of the Commission’s rules, 
and the case law interpreting application of those criteria.51 Specifically, we must determine whether 
MRA has shown that absent a waiver, the underlying purpose of the rules allowing only EA licensees to 
relocate to the ESMR band will be frustrated or that the public interest will be harmed, or that MRA has 
demonstrated unique circumstances that would cause strict application of the rule to MRA to be 
inequitable, unduly burdensome, and contrary to the public interest.52
25. MRA claims that its system has as much channel capacity as most EA licensees in the 
United States, and therefore that the underlying purpose of the rule that only EA licensees may relocate to 
the ESMR band would be frustrated if applied to MRA.53 We note, however, that while MRA may have 
the ability to operate on a similar number of channels as an EA licensee, MRA’s ability to use its channels 
does not extend to the entire EA and, in fact, is limited to a much smaller geographic area in metropolitan 
Denver.54 The difference is significant:  MRA’s coverage contours encompass a population of 550,000 
people out of an EA population of close to four million that can be served by an EA licensee.55  
Moreover, while MRA claims to have two megahertz of channel capacity in Denver, due to the presence 
of other licensees in the Denver market, there is no location within MRA’s coverage area where it can use 
  
46 Id. at 4.
47 Id. at 2.
48 Id.
49 Mobile Relay Associates v. FCC, 457 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (MRA).
50 Sprint MRA Opposition at 3.
51 47 C.F.R. § 1.925.
52 Id.
53 MRA excepts Sprint Nextel and SouthernLINC.  See MRA Waiver Request at 3.
54 BEA 141 consists of forty Colorado counties (Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Chaffee, Clear Creek, Custer, Delta, 
Denver, Douglas, Eagle, Elbert, El Paso, Fremont, Garfield, Gilpin, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Jackson, Jefferson, 
Kit Carson, Lake, Larimer, Lincoln, Logan, Mesa, Moffat, Montrose, Morgan, Ouray, Park, Phillips, Pitkin, Rio 
Blanco, Routt, San Miguel, Summit, Teller, Washington, Weld and Yuma), seven counties in Kansas (Cheyenne, 
Gove, Logan, Sheridan, Sherman, Thomas, Wallace) and Dundy County, Nebraska. See 
http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/crossreferences/beacnty1990.xls
55 See http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08/0820000.html (Denver population) and 
http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/maps/cntysv2000_census.xls (EA population).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
11
all, or even most, of this capacity.56 This significantly limits MRA’s ability to deploy a high-density 
cellularized system that reuses frequencies to enhance capacity.  Because an EA-licensee can reuse its 
channels anywhere in the EA whereas MRA’s channels are limited to a portion of the Denver market, and 
even there, cannot be used throughout the market, we find that MRA has not succeeded in showing that it 
should be treated similarly to an EA licensee for rebanding purposes.
26. MRA cites a 1997 Commission order for the proposition that site-based incumbents 
would have future rights to develop cellular technologies.57 MRA contends that in reliance on this order, 
it developed a business plan that did not include obtaining an EA license in Denver but instead 
contemplated first building a site-based high-site dispatch system and then, at some undefined future date, 
converting to ESMR technology.  MRA claims that when the Commission changed the rules to allow 
only ESMR operators and EA licensees to migrate to the ESMR band, MRA lacked an EA license 
“through no fault of its own” and unfairly was denied access to the ESMR band.  We find this argument 
to be merely an attempt to shift responsibility to the Commission for the consequences of MRA’s own 
business decisions.  We agree with MRA that it had the right in 1997 to convert its site-based facilities to 
cellular technology—indeed, all site-based SMR licensees had this flexibility well before 1997, and some 
incumbents did implement ESMR systems on site-based channels, the most notable example being 
Sprint.58 But when the Commission established EA-based licensing of 800 MHz SMR spectrum to give 
SMR licensees greater access to spectrum to deploy cellular technology and to expand their existing 
systems,59 MRA chose neither to deploy an ESMR system nor to acquire an EA license in Denver to 
expand its spectrum capacity.  Having made that choice, MRA now complains that the Commission’s 
rebanding decision seven years later limits its options to relocate to the ESMR band.  However, MRA 
cannot insulate itself from regulatory change, nor does the fact that it now dislikes the consequences of its 
business decision entitle it to a waiver.
27. MRA also contends that denying the waiver frustrates the underlying purpose of the rule 
because MRA will not be left in a “comparable position” after rebanding to the position it occupied 
before rebanding was implemented.60 In fact, MRA is guaranteed that it will receive comparable 
facilities, at Sprint’s expense, on the same number of channels it was licensed for previously.  Finally, we 
reject MRA’s speculative argument that denial of the waiver will disserve the public interest by removing 
a competitor to Sprint in the Denver market.  MRA hypothesizes that its presence in Denver constrains 
Sprint’s ability to exert market power in the Denver fleet dispatch market and that absent that constraint, 
the pricing and service quality of Sprint’s service would change to the public’s detriment.61 However, 
rebanding will not it any way constrain MRA’s ability to continue to provide fleet dispatch service as a 
competitive alternative to Sprint’s service.
B. Process for Accommodating all Eligible Licensees in the ESMR Band
28. Background.  Sprint argues that in any market where a “shortfall” of ESMR spectrum 
occurs, i.e., where the ESMR band is not large enough to accommodate all ESMR and ESMR-eligible 
  
56 See Sprint MRA Opposition at 6-7.
57 MRA Waiver Request at 5 citing Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate Future 
Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MH Frequency Band, PR Docket 93-44, Second Report and Order, 12 
FCC Rcd 19079 (1997) (SMR Second Report and Order) at 19105 ¶67. 
58 See Request of Fleet Call, Inc. for Waiver and Other Relief to Permit Creation of Enhanced Specialized Mobile 
Radio Systems in Six Markets, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 91-56, 6 FCC Rcd 1533 (1991); recon. den. 
6 FCC Rcd 6989 (no waiver required for the use of cellular architecture in the 800 MHz band).
59 SMR Second Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19082 ¶ 2.
60 MRA Waiver Request at 4.
61 Id. at 5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
12
licensees, the Commission should expand the size of the ESMR band and/or reduce each licensee’s share 
of ESMR spectrum on a pro rata basis.62 This was the approach adopted in the 800 MHz Report and 
Order for the area of the Southeast United States served by SouthernLINC as well as Sprint.  However, 
Sprint requests clarification that by creating an expanded ESMR band in the Southeast, the Commission 
did not intend to preclude adoption of this approach in other markets.  Sprint contends that the 800 MHz 
Report and Order “adopted two remedies in the event there is insufficient spectrum in the ESMR segment 
to accommodate all eligible licensees in a market: (1) expanding the ESMR segment and, in the event a 
channel shortfall remained (2) distributing the available channels on a pro rata basis among licensees.” 
Sprint also contends that these remedies may be invoked in any market so long as the affected licensees 
agree.63 Sprint contends that it should not be required to accept the full burden of a shortage of ESMR 
spectrum in any market.   To do so, Sprint argues, would contravene the “value for value” concept that 
underlies the Commission’s orders.64
29. Discussion.  We disagree with Sprint’s interpretation of the 800 MHz Report and Order
with respect to expansion of the ESMR band. Although we agree with Sprint that the Commission has 
the discretion to apportion ESMR spectrum, we find no support for Sprint’s contention that licensees 
themselves have similar discretion.  In that order, the Commission expanded the ESMR band only in 
SouthernLINC’s territory, and did so because the presence of two major ESMR providers caused the 
distribution of cellular and non-cellular systems in that area to be atypical.65 The Commission made no 
comparable finding for other areas and did not say it envisioned doing so in the future, much less that it 
was giving licensees discretion to determine whether and to what extent the ESMR band could be 
expanded in the event of an ESMR channel shortfall.  Accordingly, we reaffirm that the ESMR band in all 
markets other than the Southeast, except as specifically discussed with respect to Puerto Rico in Section C
infra, is limited to the 817-824/862-869 MHz band as specified in Section 90.614(b) of the Commission’s 
rules.66
30. We also clarify that under limited circumstances, the Commission may apportion the 
ESMR band pro rata to licensees eligible to operate there.  Sprint points to language in the 800 MHz 
Report and Order stating that “disputed matters concerning ESMR channels in any area of the country
including [SouthernLINC markets] may be resolved by the Commission making a pro rata distribution of 
ESMR channels.”67 While the Commission did reserve the ability to resolve disputes in this way, we 
emphasize that the presumption is that licensees other than Sprint who relocate to the ESMR band should 
be able to replicate their existing channel capacity to the degree specified in the Commission’s orders, and 
will not be required to reduce their capacity on a pro rata basis.  We recognize that in some cases, this 
may result in diminishing the amount of ESMR spectrum available to Sprint.  However, Sprint is 
uniquely positioned to address such shortfalls in most markets because 1) it will receive credit for 
construction of additional 800 MHz capacity sites, and 2) its existing system is configured to operate in 
the 900 MHz band as well as the 800 MHz band.68 We will consider further pro rata apportionment of 
the ESMR band only in unusual cases where parties can demonstrate that the above mechanisms are 
insufficient to address shortfall issues.
  
62 Sprint Petition at 12-14.
63 Id. at 12-13.
64 Id. at 13.
65 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15057-58 ¶ 164.
66 47 C.F.R. § 90.614(b).
67 Sprint Petition at 12-13 quoting 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15058-59 ¶ 168. 
68 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15127 ¶ 336.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
13
C. ESMR Band in Puerto Rico
31. Background.  Two Puerto Rico licensees, C&I Electronics and North Sight 
Communications, request that the Commission modify the band plan and relocation timetable for the 
Puerto Rico/US Virgin Islands EA (Puerto Rico/USVI).69  Specifically, they argue that in Puerto Rico, 
Sprint does not hold enough spectrum to accommodate relocation of existing ESMRs and entities that are 
eligible to convert to ESMR operation.  North Sight identifies itself as an ESMR system that holds 120 
channels of “Upper 200” EA spectrum in the ESMR block,70 as well as associated site-based licenses on 
lower channels that it is entitled to relocate.  In light of these factors, North Sight and C&I request that the 
Commission:  (1) clarify that in the event of a pro rata apportionment of ESMR spectrum in Puerto 
Rico/USVI, North Sight is entitled to retain all of its EA spectrum in the ESMR block, because unlike 
Sprint, it will not receive compensation for giving up spectrum to support rebanding; (2) expand the 
ESMR band in Puerto Rico/USVI to accommodate ESMR relocation by other licensees; and (3) delay 
rebanding in Puerto Rico/USVI (currently a Wave 3 market) until these band plan issues have been 
resolved and relocation channels identified for all Puerto Rico/USVI licensees.71
32. Discussion.  We agree with petitioners that the nature of incumbency in the Puerto Rico 
market presents a unique situation that is distinct from other markets.72  Sprint holds considerably less 
spectrum in Puerto Rico than it does elsewhere, and there are several other licensees that have acquired 
significant EA license holdings in Puerto Rico at auction and seek to operate as ESMRs.73 In addition, 
Puerto Rico has numerous site-based incumbents (including C&I, other non-public safety licensees, and 
some public safety licensees) that will need to be relocated to the non-ESMR block.  Thus, it appears that 
an alternative band plan is appropriate here.
33. Rather than specify a band plan for Puerto Rico in this Order, we direct the TA to 
propose an alternative band plan and negotiation timetable for Puerto Rico within sixty days from the 
effective date of the Order.  We further delegate authority to the Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau to approve or modify the proposed band plan and timetable, subject to the guidance provided 
below.  In the interim, we will suspend the rebanding timetable for Puerto Rico until a new band plan is 
adopted.  The revised band plan must comply with the following criteria:
§ First, while we do not specify the size of the non-ESMR band for Puerto Rico, the revised band 
plan must ensure that the non-ESMR band fully accommodates all non-ESMR licensees, 
including those such as C&I that need to be relocated from the Upper 200 channels.  The 
remaining spectrum will be allocated for the ESMR band. The TA’s band plan shall include a 
  
69 C&I-North Sight-Ragan Petition at 5-8.  Ragan Communications is also a party to this reconsideration petition on 
other issues, but it has no license holdings in Puerto Rico or USVI.  
70 The “Upper 200” channels are the 200 800 MHz SMR channel pairs at 816-821 MHz/861-866 MHz, the 
Commission designated for geographic area licensing in December 1995. See Amendment of Part 90 of the 
Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, PR 
Docket No. 93-144, First Report and Order, Eighth Report and Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making, 11 FCC Rcd 1463 (1995).
71 C&I-North Sight-Ragan Petition at 5-8.
72 No party has identified any comparable ESMR channel shortage in the Virgin Islands.  Accordingly, we confine 
our discussion here to Puerto Rico.  The 800 MHz band plan in the Virgin Islands and the reconfiguration schedule 
there is not affected by this Order.
73 In Puerto Rico Sprint holds 60 channels (EA Block B), High Tech holds 20 channels, (EA Block A) and North 
Sight holds 120 channels (EA Block C) in the ESMR band for a total of 200 channels.  Additionally, Preferred 
Communications holds 125 channels (EA Blocks D through F) in the former General Category while Sprint holds 25 
channels in the former General Category (EA Block FF) and 80 channels (EA Blocks G through V) in the 
interleaved portion of the band.  See C&I-North Sight-Ragan Petition at 6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
14
guard band between the ESMR and non-ESMR bands; however, if there is insufficient spectrum 
to accommodate a guard band, the TA shall take such measures as are necessary to protect public 
safety systems from interference, e.g., by separating mission-critical public safety systems as far 
as feasible from the ESMR band.
§ Replacement spectrum in the ESMR band is to be assigned to ESMR licensees and ESMR-
eligibles in accordance with the Commission’s rules governing EA and site-based licensees.  
Because of the relatively small amount of spectrum that Sprint holds in Puerto Rico, Sprint is to 
be assigned replacement spectrum on the same basis as other ESMR licensees, i.e., Sprint will 
receive no more spectrum in the ESMR band than it holds currently.
§ If there is insufficient spectrum in the ESMR band to accommodate all ESMRs and ESMR-
eligibles, Sprint must surrender spectrum on a pro rata basis to the other licensees to meet the 
shortfall.  If insufficient spectrum remains after Sprint has surrendered spectrum, pro rata 
apportionment may be used to determine each licensee’s share of the ESMR band.  All ESMR 
and ESMR-eligible licensees must participate in such apportionment.
34. We reject North Sight’s petition to be exempted from pro rata apportionment should that 
be required.  North Sight suggests that it should not be required to reduce its spectrum holdings because 
its EA licenses are in the Upper 200 EA blocks that will form part of the ESMR band, and therefore will 
not need to be relocated.74 We find this to be a distinction without a difference.  North Sight has cited no 
case or Commission decision for the proposition that licensees in the Upper 200 channel portion of the 
band, such as North Sight, have rights superior to those of licensees in other 800 MHz band segments, 
including rights that would exempt Upper 200 channel licensees from having their ESMR band spectrum 
apportioned, if necessary, when the 800 MHz band is reconfigured.  Indeed, it would be inequitable to 
relocating licensees if the Commission gave North Sight undeserved primacy and required relocating 
licensees to accept less ESMR spectrum on that account.
35. We disagree with North Sight’s claim that the Commission may not apportion the North 
Sight spectrum currently in the ESMR band because “to do so would deprive North Sight of spectrum, 
purchased at auction, with absolutely no reimbursement to North Sight for the value of that spectrum.”75
Neither North Sight nor any other Commission licensee has a property interest in the market value of a 
spectrum license.76 The MRA court rejected similar claims that the Commission had engaged in an 
unconstitutional taking by reducing the value of petitioners’ auctioned licenses.77 The court held that 
licenses granted by the Commission “confer the right to use the spectrum for a duration expressly limited 
by statute subject to the Commission's considerable regulatory power and authority.  This right does not 
constitute a property interest protected by the Fifth Amendment.”78  Moreover, North Sight has failed to 
show that if its spectrum were apportioned, there would be a consequent public interest detriment, e.g. 
that it would so affect North Sight’s ability to offer a viable service or that competition in the market for 
ESMR services in Puerto Rico would be compromised.  We note that reductions in ESMR spectrum 
availability can be accommodated when a licensee engages in more extensive frequency reuse, 
implements smaller cell sites, uses sectored antennas, and other capacity enhancing measures inherent in 
  
74 Id. at 7.
75 Id. at 7-8.
76 See 47 U.S.C. § 301 (“It is the purpose of this Act, among other things, to maintain the control of the United 
States over all the channels of radio transmission; and to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership 
thereof,…under licenses granted by Federal authority, and no such license shall be construed to create any right, 
beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license”).
77 See MRA, 457 F.3d at 12.
78 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
15
cellular-architecture technology.  To the extent that North Sight asserts that a reduction in spectrum 
inherently has adverse financial effects, experience shows otherwise.  For example, the BAS licensees 
relocating from the 1.9 GHz band to make it available for use by Sprint, the Mobile Satellite Service and 
Advanced Wireless Service will have less spectrum post-relocation but will accommodate the reduction 
by employing more spectrum-efficient and higher-quality digital technologies.79 Finally, we note that 
North Sight’s arguments about spectrum value ignore that its spectrum value could be enhanced as a 
consequence of 800 MHz band reconfiguration because it will be able to relocate EA and site-based 
facilities to the ESMR band that are currently located below the ESMR band.  If these facilities are 
relocated and integrated into a North Sight ESMR band system, North Sight will be relieved of the cost 
and limitations associated with abating interference created by ESMR stations being interleaved with 
high-site systems used by public safety and others in the non-ESMR portion of the band, while taking 
advantage of spectrally efficient technologies.
36. We also note that nothing in this Order precludes licensees from agreeing voluntarily on 
the disposition of ESMR spectrum in Puerto Rico.  We would consider such an agreement provided it is 
consistent with the Commission’s orders and rules in this proceeding and does not encroach on the non-
ESMR band as defined in the revised band plan to be submitted by the TA and approved by the Public 
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.  Specifically, all licensees eligible to remain in, or eligible to 
relocate to, the ESMR band may recommend a channel distribution that equitably reflects the interests of 
all 800 MHz licensees in Puerto Rico.  The agreement shall also include a proposed band reconfiguration 
schedule consistent with Sprint’s obligation to complete band reconfiguration within thirty-six months.  
We delegate authority to the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to review any such agreement 
for consistency with the terms of this Order.  Any such agreement must be completed and submitted to 
the Bureau for review no later than sixty days from the effective date of the Order.
D. Reconfiguration of Areas With No Associated NPSPAC Regions
37. Background.  Sprint asks that we reconsider the Commission’s decision in the 800 MHz 
MO&O to require band reconfiguration in areas that have no associated NPSPAC region.80 These areas 
include American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Gulf of Mexico.81 Sprint 
contends that the Commission failed to consider the full facts and circumstances regarding these 
territories.82 Specifically, Sprint notes that because the Commission never conducted an SMR auction for 
the Gulf of Mexico, Sprint holds no spectrum rights in the Gulf.83 Furthermore, Sprint states that it 
believes few, if any, public safety licensees operate in the Gulf of Mexico.84 Choice Phone, LLC 
(Choice) opposes Sprint’s petition with respect to Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.85 Choice 
points out that Sprint holds SMR licenses for the Guam/Northern Mariana market that it obtained at 
  
79 See Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for use by the Mobile 
Satellite Service, ET Docket No. 95-18, First Report and Order an Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC 
Rcd 7388, 7402 Para. 32 (1997); Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC 
Rcd. 12315, 12324 Para. 20-21 (2000) (concluding that the best solution for BAS relocation is to reduce the BAS 
band at 2 GHz from 120 to 85 megahertz, (from 1990-2110 MHz to 2025-2110 MHz).  The Commission determined 
that BAS, under the reduced spectrum, would migrate to digital technologies.  Id.
80 Sprint Petition at 20.  See 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd 16070 ¶¶ 122-123.
81 See 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd 16070 ¶¶ 122-123.
82 Sprint Petition at 20.
83 Id.
84 Id.
85 See Opposition of Choice Phone LLC to Petition for Reconsideration of Sprint Nextel Corporation, filed February 
10, 2006 at 1-2 (Choice Phone Opposition).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
16
auction.86 Furthermore, Choice notes that there are a number of 800 MHz public safety licensees 
operating in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.87 In addition, the Resident Representative of the 
United States Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands has asked that we deny Sprint’s request in 
part because it fears granting the request could result in a lack of interoperability between public safety 
equipment in the Commonwealth and equipment used in the rest of the United States.88
38. Discussion.  We agree with Sprint’s argument that it should not be required to 
reconfigure the 800 MHz band in the Gulf of Mexico.  Sprint holds no spectrum rights in the Gulf of 
Mexico and our licensing records indicate that no public safety licenses operate there.  We therefore see 
no risk in the Gulf of the type of interference to public safety systems that would require rebanding.
39. However, we deny Sprint’s request as it relates to Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands,
and American Samoa.  We believe that funding band reconfiguration in these markets does not pose an 
inequitable burden on Sprint.  Sprint holds SMR spectrum in all three markets that it obtained at auction, 
and has also received 1.9 GHz spectrum rights in these markets as a result of the 800 MHz Report and 
Order.  Moreover, we find that rebanding in these markets will benefit public safety.  Although there are 
no NSPAC licensees in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, there are non-NPSPAC 800 MHz public 
safety licensees operating in these markets who will benefit by being spectrally separated from ESMR 
operations.89  Similarly, while there currently are no public safety licensees operating in the 800 MHz 
band in American Samoa, America Samoa, unlike the Gulf of Mexico region, has public safety agencies 
that are eligible to operate on 800 MHz public safety spectrum and that may require facilities in the 
future. We anticipate such public safety facilities would operate in the non-ESMR band and thus would 
require spectral separation from ESMR operations. We therefore will preserve the benefits that band 
reconfiguration could confer on the residents of American Samoa in the future and hold that the Sprint 
must reconfigure the 800 MHz band there.90
E. Effect of the Application Freeze on License Modifications
40. Background.  In the 800 MHz Report and Order, the Commission imposed a freeze on 
the acceptance of 800 MHz applications in order to maintain a stable spectral landscape during the band 
relocation process.91  The Commission stated, however, that de minimis modifications to a currently 
authorized system are not subject to the application freeze so long as the modifications are necessary to 
effectuate band reconfiguration.92 Sprint requests that we broaden this exception to the freeze to “permit 
certain license modifications . . . provided they do not materially diminish public safety’s spectral or 
operational expectancies.”93
41. Discussion.  We grant Sprint’s request in part and dismiss it in part. We agree with 
Sprint that an overly restrictive freeze could deprive it and incumbent licensees of the flexibility 
  
86 Id. at 2-3.
87 Id. at 3.
88 Letter, dated August 30, 2006, from Pedro A. Tenorio, Resident Representative, United States Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC.
89 See licenses WPCG201, WPDA554 and WPTY944.
90 In American Samoa, reconfiguration may merely entail Sprint vacating the non-ESMR portion of the 800 MHz 
band.
91 See 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15078 ¶ 204; see also 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd 16057 ¶ 97.
92 See 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15078 ¶ 204.  See also Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
Outlines Applications Freeze Process For Implementation of 800 MHz Band Reconfiguration, Public Notice, 20 
FCC Rcd 8905 (2005); 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd 16015.
93 See Sprint Petition at 19-20.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
17
necessary to make marginal changes in their coverage areas in order to reach mutually acceptable 
relocation agreements.94 Given the importance of band reconfiguration and the dispatch with which it 
must be accomplished, we will consider waiving the freeze when to do so will not undercut the purpose 
for which it was established.95 However, we decline Sprint’s request that we direct the TA to “permit 
certain license modifications . . . provided they do not materially diminish public safety’s spectral or 
operational expectancies.”  Sprint has not specified what the “spectral or operational expectancies” of 
public safety might be, and we are concerned that our use of such general and subjective language could 
be misinterpreted to allow license modifications that would impede the TA in the prompt implementation 
of band reconfiguration.  Moreover, the language could be construed to permit licensees to “fix” errors in 
their licenses in a manner that would substantially affect their coverage and interference contours, e.g. 
significant errors in geographical coordinates, effective radiated power, or height above average terrain of 
their base station transmitting antennas.
42. We believe that this approach strikes the proper balance between allowing de minimis 
modifications and ensuring that rebanding moves forward.  The Commission placed all licensees on 
notice that they should validate the data in their licenses and correct any errors before the freeze took 
effect.96 Modifications to correct errors involving substantial change of coverage contours or frequency 
could delay and increase the cost of the TA’s implementation of band reconfiguration in a given NPSPAC 
region and burden the Commission’s resources.  Accordingly, licensees must await the end of the freeze 
to file modification applications to correct errors if, post-reconfiguration, those modifications can be 
accomplished consistent with the rules governing interference to other stations.  In the exceptional case, 
the Commission will evaluate requests for waiver when a licensee can show good cause why correcting 
errors or other substantial license modifications should be permitted before the end of the freeze.
F. Post-Mediation Litigation Costs
43. Background.  We consider a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Schwaninger & 
Associates, P.C.97 and a Petition for Clarification filed jointly by Communications and Industrial 
Electronics, Inc., North Sight Communications, Inc., and Ragan Communications Inc. (collectively, 
Petitioners).98 The petitions address a Public Notice released by the Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau (Wireless Bureau) on December 30, 2005 (Wave 1 Reminder PN),99 concerning procedures for 
mediation of rebanding disputes between Sprint and other 800 MHz licensees, and the de novo review of 
disputed issues by the Commission if they are not resolved by mediation.
44. In the Wave 1 Reminder PN, the Wireless Bureau reiterated that licensees are responsible 
for their own costs of filing and prosecuting requests for de novo review of disputed issues and the costs 
of pursuing any subsequent administrative or judicial review.100 Specifically, the Wave 1 Reminder PN 
stated:  “Licensees that enter mediation with Sprint Nextel are entitled to reimbursement of ‘reasonable, 
prudent and necessary costs and expenses’ associated with reaching a mediated frequency reconfiguration 
agreement.  However, licensees who fail to reach a mediated agreement must bear their own costs 
  
94 Id.
95 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.925.
96 See 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd at 16057-8 ¶ 98.
97 Petition for Reconsideration, filed January 3, 2006, by Schwaninger & Associates, P.C. (Schwaninger Petition).
98 C&I-North Sight-Ragan Petition at 9-11.
99 See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Reminds 800 MHz “Wave One” Channel 1-120 Licensees of Band 
Reconfiguration and Mediation Obligations, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 20561 (WTB 2005) (Wave 1 Reminder 
PN).
100 Id. at 20562. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
18
associated [with] all further administrative or judicial appeals of band reconfiguration issues, including de 
novo review…and appeal of any such review before an A[dministrative] L[aw] J[udge].”101  Petitioners 
challenge this aspect of the Wave 1 Reminder PN, contending that the 800 MHz Report and Order and 
subsequent orders in this proceeding require Sprint to pay all costs incurred by licensees when they 
litigate rebanding disputes before the Commission and in subsequent appeals.
45. Petitioners argue that this statement in the Wave 1 Reminder PN conflicts with the 
Commission’s orders stating that Sprint must pay all reasonable and prudent relocation costs incurred by 
licensees.102 Petitioners claim that the 800 MHz Report and Order and the 800 MHz Supplemental Order 
required Sprint Nextel to pay all licensees’ costs including those incurred in the course of any 
administrative or judicial action related to 800 MHz rebanding disputes.103 They also contend that 
requiring licensees to bear their own costs in bringing disputed issues before the Commission gives Sprint 
unfair leverage to force unfavorable terms in negotiation or mediation with licensees who have limited 
resources to pursue litigation.104 The Enterprise Wireless Association supports the petitioners’ position in 
reply comments.105
46. Sprint opposes the petitions, arguing that requiring it to bear all the legal costs of post-
mediation litigation is unfair because Sprint is already bearing the legal and other costs that licensees 
incur through the course of the mediation.106 Furthermore, Sprint contends that requiring it to pay 
licensees’ post-mediation litigation costs would remove an incentive for licensees to reach agreement 
during the mediation period, an effect that could frustrate and retard the relocation process.107
47. Discussion.  We deny Petitioners’ requests and find that the Wireless Bureau correctly 
interpreted the Commission’s orders on this issue.  In addition, to the extent that Petitioners ask us to 
change the rules to require Sprint to pay licensees’ post-mediation litigation costs, we decline to do so, 
both because the Commission is statutorily barred from granting such relief and on policy grounds.  In the 
800 MHz Report and Order, the Commission required Sprint to pay the “full cost of relocation of all 800 
MHz band . . . incumbents to their new spectrum assignments with comparable facilities.”108 The 
Commission specified that this included the obligation to pay licensees’ reasonable transactional costs in 
connection with band reconfiguration, as well as the services of the Transition Administrator and staff in 
connection with band reconfiguration.109  These transactional costs include the costs of mediation.  
However, these provisions do not entitle licensees to recovery of their post-mediation litigation expenses 
in the event that parties choose to bring unresolved issues before the Commission.  To the contrary, the 
Commission distinguished between mediation and post-mediation expenses in identifying the cost burden 
on licensees.  First, it stated that parties could elect to enter non-binding arbitration after mediation, but 
that such arbitration costs would be shared by the parties.110 Second, it warned licensees of the potential 
  
101 Id., citing 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15071-72 ¶194.
102 Schwaninger Petition at 2-3; C&I-North Sight-Ragan Petition at 9-11.
103 Schwaninger Petition at 3, citing 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15071-72 ¶194; and 800 MHz 
Supplemental Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 25129 ¶ 15.
104 C&I-North Sight-Ragan Petition at 11.
105 See Reply Comments of the Enterprise Wireless Association to the Opposition of Sprint Nextel Corporation, 
filed April 3, 2006.
106 Sprint Opposition at 7.
107 Id.
108 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 14977 ¶ 11.
109 Id. at 19 FCC Rcd 15070-71 ¶ 191.
110 Id. at 19 FCC Rcd 15071-72 ¶ 194.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
19
cost of litigating rebanding disputes before the Commission, and therefore recommended that parties 
“consider possibly less burdensome and expensive resolution of their disputes through means of 
alternative dispute resolution.”111
48. Petitioners place particular reliance on language in the 800 MHz Supplemental Order 
stating that “incumbents should incur no costs for band reconfiguration, and that the sole responsibility 
for paying all band reconfiguration costs—including the costs of preparing the estimate, negotiating the 
retuning agreement, and resolving any disputes—lies with Nextel . . .”112 We find Petitioners’ reliance on 
this language to be misplaced. This particular statement was made in support of the principle that 
licensees are entitled to payment of their relocation costs in advance, i.e., they are not required to pay the 
expense and then seek reimbursement from Sprint.  We also clarify that the language regarding “resolving 
any disputes” refers to private resolution of disputes by the parties through negotiation and TA-sponsored 
mediation.  The Commission did not intend by this language to create an unlimited right to recovery of 
litigation costs.
49. We also decline to change the rules to require Sprint to pay licensees’ post-mediation 
litigation costs, to the extent that Petitioners ask us to do so.113 As a threshold matter, we lack the 
statutory authority to impose such a requirement.  The Commission has consistently held that in the 
absence of specific statutory authorization, it lacks the authority to require one party to pay another 
party’s costs in litigation before it.114 The Commission has specifically found such authority to be lacking 
in the context of Section 208 complaints, and we find that no greater authority exists here.115
50. Even if we had the statutory authority to grant Petitioners’ request, we conclude that the 
Commission’s prior orders strike the appropriate balance between licensee rebanding costs that must be 
borne by Sprint and licensee litigation costs that must be borne by the licensee.  The Commission’s intent 
was to enable 800 MHz licensees to take full advantage of the negotiation and mediation mechanisms 
established in the 800 MHz Report and Order at no cost to themselves, thereby encouraging resolution of 
issues by negotiated agreement rather than litigation.  In addition, we have recently clarified that Sprint’s 
obligation to pay the “minimum necessary” cost for licensee relocation allows “reasonable and prudent” 
  
111 Id.
112 See Schwaninger Petition at 3, citing Supplemental Order, 19 FCC Rcd 25129 ¶ 15.
113 Petitioners have not sought formal reconsideration of the Commission’s rules regarding the cost responsibility 
provisions established in this proceeding.  The Schwaninger Petition is directed to the Wireless Bureau, and solely 
seeks reconsideration of the Wave I Reminder PN on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the Commission’s rules.  
The Joint Petition is styled as a request for clarification of the rules, not a request to reconsider the rules.  We note 
that any request at this stage to reconsider rules adopted in the 800 MHz Report and Order or the 800 MHz 
Supplemental Order would be time-barred because the thirty-day period for seeking reconsideration of these orders 
has long since elapsed.    See 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.  Nevertheless, we have discretion to consider the Petitioners’ 
pleadings as informal requests for Commission action pursuant to Section 1.4 of our rules.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.4.
114 Multimedia Cablevision, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., Memorandum Opinion and Hearing 
Designation Order, 11 FCC Rcd 11202, 11208 ¶ 16.(1996); Allnet Communications Services, Inc., Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 3087, 3095 ¶ 36 (1993). This is consistent with the “American Rule” whereby 
litigants must bear their own costs of litigation.  It is well established that an agency may not deviate from this rule 
without explicit statutory authorization.  See Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 
(1975); Turner v. FCC, 514 F.2d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1975); and Greene County Planning Board v. FPC, 455 F.2d 412 
(2d Cir. 1972).
115 Allnet Communications Services, Inc., supra; Turner v. FCC, supra. We note that the Commission does not face 
a similar issue of statutory authority when requiring Sprint to pay the costs of the negotiation and mediation process.  
Here, however, mediation is not being conducted before the Commission, and, in any event, mediation is not 
“litigation,” but rather a vehicle for reaching a negotiated settlement with assistance of a third party whose opinion is 
not controlling.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
20
expenditures above the minimum to achieve the overall goals of this proceeding, including timely and 
efficient completion of rebanding and minimizing the burden rebanding imposes on public safety 
licensees.116 We expect this clarification to result in more agreements being reached through negotiation 
and mediation, and to reduce the likelihood of litigation.  However, requiring Sprint to pay the costs of 
post-mediation litigation before the Commission and beyond would only increase the likelihood of 
litigation and add cost and delay to the rebanding process.  Moreover, because Sprint is entitled to credit 
its relocation expenditures against its potential obligation to the U.S. Treasury, Petitioners’ position 
would in essence result in the U.S. taxpayer paying their litigation costs, a result we regard as contrary to 
public policy.117 We also disagree with Petitioners’ contention that requiring licensees to pay their own 
litigation costs tips the balance in favor of Sprint.  Sprint is already responsible for the costs of all 
negotiation and TA-sponsored mediation, regardless of the outcome.118 Furthermore, to the extent that 
rebanding disputes are brought before the Commission or the courts, Sprint bears the unique burden of 
litigating multiple cases.
G. NPSPAC Band Operational Restrictions (NPSPAC Region 8 Petition)
51. Background.  The Tri-State Radio Planning Committee, FCC Region 8, serving Northern 
New Jersey, Southern New York, and Southwestern Connecticut (Region 8) asks us to impose operational 
restrictions on Sprint in two distinct situations:  (1) when a NPSPAC licensee has moved one or more of 
its channels to the new NPSPAC frequencies and Sprint has not yet completely vacated the former 
General Category channels and (2) when Sprint wishes to commence operations in the ESMR band, but 
has not fully cleared the ESMR band of NPSPAC incumbents.119 Region 8 is concerned that these 
situations, though temporary, could create the very risk of harmful interference through interleaving of 
incompatible technologies that was the genesis of this proceeding.  To address this risk, Region 8 requests 
that: (a) we require Sprint to cease current operation on any channel 1-120 frequency within 25 kHz of 
relocated NPSPAC stations within 88 kilometers (km), and (b) Sprint not be allowed to begin operations 
on any former NPSPAC channel within 88 kilometers of the site of any current NPSPAC station which 
has not been relocated to the new NPSPAC frequencies.120 Region 8 asks that we maintain these 
limitations in place until the entire NPSPAC band has been relocated and all relocated licensees have 
finalized the relocation process.121
52. Discussion.  Given that NPSPAC communications primarily involve the safety of life and 
property and because interference with these communications could have tragic results, we agree with 
Region 8’s concerns.  We further note that no party opposed Region 8’s request.  Therefore, we grant 
Region 8’s petition.
H. Charles Guskey Petition
53. Background.  Charles Guskey, a principal of Preferred Communications, contends that 
the 800 MHz MO&O failed to adequately address his prior petition for reconsideration of the 800 MHz 
Supplemental Order.  Guskey contends that: (1) the Commission undervalued the 1.9 GHz spectrum by at 
least a billion dollars, giving Nextel a windfall; (2) Preferred be allowed to relocate its General Category 
  
116 See Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 
07-92 ¶ 10 (rel. May 18, 2007).
117 See 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15124 ¶ 330. We note that, for the same reason, Sprint will not 
receive credit for its own post-mediation litigation costs.
118 This includes the reasonable costs of mediation when the time period for mediation is extended.
119 Region 8 Petition at 1-2.
120 Id. at 3.
121 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
21
EA channels (encumbered or not) to clean spectrum in the ESMR band; and (3) Puerto Rico needs to be 
treated as a unique market, and Preferred awarded the 1.9 GHz spectrum in Puerto Rico in exchange for 
relocating public safety systems in that market.122 Sprint opposes the Guskey petition as untimely, 
because it raises issues that have already been fully addressed by the Commission.123
54. Discussion.  We dismiss the Guskey Petition.124  The petition raises no new facts or 
issues and is repetitive of his earlier filing.  The petition, by its own terms, requests the Commission to 
“carefully re-examine each of the items in [Guskey’s August, 2004] petition for reconsideration,” which 
items Guskey alleges “prove inequitable treatment of non-Nextel licensees . . .”125 These issues were 
fully addressed in the 800 MHz MO&O, in which the Commission declined to revisit the valuation of the 
1.9 GHz spectrum,126 gave non-ESMR EA licensees, such as Preferred, the ability to relocate their “white 
areas” to the ESMR band,127 and declined to open access to the 1.9 GHz band to all EA licensees.128  It is 
well established that the Commission does not grant reconsideration for the purpose of allowing a 
petitioner to reargue matters already presented, considered, and disposed of by the Commission.129  
Otherwise, the Commission “would be involved in a never-ending process of review that would frustrate 
the Commission’s ability to conduct its business in an orderly fashion.”130
I. BAS/MSS Issues
55. Background.  In the 800 MHz Report and Order the Commission granted Sprint the use 
of spectrum at 1990-1995 GHz (1.9 GHz) and established provisions for Sprint’s clearing the 1990-2025 
MHz band segment of Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) incumbents by September, 2007.131  
  
122 Guskey Petition at 2-4.
123 Sprint Opposition at 7-8.
124 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(i).  Section 1.429(i) reflects a policy of favoring administrative finality in the rulemaking 
process.   See In the Matter of MTS and WATS Market Structure, CC Docket No. 78-72, Phase I, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 5 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 785, 97 F.C.C.2d 834 ¶ 140 (1984).
125 See Petition for Reconsideration of Charles D. Guskey, filed Dec. 22, 2004.
126 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd 16051 ¶ 79.
127 800 MHz Supplemental Order, 19 FCC Rcd 25155-56 ¶¶ 79-80.
128 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd 16047-49 ¶¶ 73-74.
129 See Policies Regarding Detrimental Effects of Proposed New Broadcasting Stations on Existing Stations, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 2276, 2277 (WTB 1989); Simplification of the Licensing and Call 
Sign Assignment Systems for Stations in the Amateur Radio Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 87 FCC 2d 
50, 505 (1981) (citing WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685 (1964)).  In order to bring finality to our decision making process 
and to eliminate uncertainty, the Commission adopted Section 1.429(i) of our rules.  47 C.F.R. §1.429(i) (“any order 
disposing of a petition for reconsideration which modifies rules adopted by the original order is, to the extent of such 
modification, subject to reconsideration in the same manner as the original order. Except in such circumstances, a 
second petition for reconsideration may be dismissed by the staff as repetitious.”). 
130 See Applications of Warren Price Communications, Inc. Bay Shore, New York et al., For a Construction Permit 
for a new FM Station on Channel 276 at Bay Shore, New York, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 6850 
(1992) (stating that a second petition for reconsideration is not contemplated by the rules and may be dismissed as 
repetitious) (citing VHF Drop-Ins, 3 Rad. Reg. 2d 1549, 1551 n.3 (1964)).  
131 See 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 14969, 15095-15100 ¶¶ 251-263.  BAS includes mobile TV pickup 
(TVPU)  stations—land mobile stations used for  the transmission of TV program material and related 
communications, including electronic newsgathering (ENG)  operations, from scenes of events back to the TV 
station or studio—and fixed BAS operations such as studio-to-transmitter link (STL) stations, TV relay stations, and 
TV translator relay stations.  The majority of these fixed operations are in higher frequency bands allocated to the 
BAS.  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.601(a),(b) (listing classes of TV broadcast auxiliary stations).  See generally 47 C.F.R. § 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
22
Specifically, the Commission conditioned Sprint’s licenses on Sprint following a relocation procedure 
that was based on a plan submitted to the Commission by Sprint, the Association for Maximum Service 
Television (MSTV), and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB).132
56. Prior to the effective date of the 800 MHz Report and Order rules, the Commission had 
established a plan based on relocation policies adopted in the earlier Emerging Technologies
proceeding133 by which 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) licensees would relocate incumbent BAS 
operations in the 1990-2025 MHz band.134 Subsequently, the Commission reallocated fifteen megahertz 
of this spectrum to support advanced wireless services,135 and as part of the 800 MHz Report and Order
assigned a five-megahertz block from 1990-1995 MHz to Sprint.136 In the 800 MHz Report and Order, 
the Commission found that the best way to ensure the continuity of BAS during the transition was to 
retain the relocation rules already established for MSS relocation of BAS incumbents but also to provide 
similar procedures by which Sprint may relocate BAS incumbents.137 As a result, Sprint’s obligation 
(Continued from previous page)    
74.600 (Eligibility for license).  In addition, BAS spectrum in the 2 GHz band is authorized for use by the Cable 
Television Relay Service (CARS) and the Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS).  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.602, 
78.18(a)(6) and § 101.803(b).  For convenience, we refer to these services herein under the collective term “BAS.”  
Thus, decisions herein that refer to BAS also apply to CARS and LTTS operations in the band.  The original 2 GHz 
BAS channel plan, which is still in use, is as follows:  Channel 1 (1990-2008 MHz), Channel 2 (2008-2025 MHz), 
Channel 3 (2025-2042 MHz), Channel 4 (2042-2059 MHz), Channel 5 (2059-2076 MHz), Channel 6 (2076-2093 
MHz), and Channel 7 (2093-2110  MHz).
132 See 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15095-96, 15131-32 ¶¶ 251-52, 353.
133 See Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications Technologies, 
ET Docket No. 92-9, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 7 FCC Rcd 6886 (1992);
Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6495 (1993); Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 
8 FCC Rcd 6589 (1993); Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1943 (1994); Second Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7797 (1994); aff’d Association of Public Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. 
v. FCC, 76 F.3d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (collectively, “Emerging Technologies proceeding”).  
134 See Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for use by the 
Mobile-Satellite Service, ET Docket 95-18, Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 15 FCC Rcd 12315, 12326-27 ¶¶ 27-35 (2000) (MSS Second Report and Order).  
135 Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed 
Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless 
Systems, ET Docket 00-258, Third Report and Order, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Second 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 2223, 2225, 2238 ¶¶ 3, 28 (2003) (AWS Third Report and Order, 
Third NPRM, and Second MO&O).  The fifteen megahertz of spectrum consists of ten megahertz in the 1990-2000 
MHz band and five megahertz in the 2020-2025 MHz band.  Given the need to provide for the rapid introduction of 
advanced wireless services (AWS) in the 2 GHz BAS band, the Commission modified the plan that 2 GHz MSS 
licensees were to follow when relocating incumbent BAS licensees in the 1990-2025 MHz band.  See Amendment 
of Section 2.106 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the Mobile-Satellite Service, 
ET Docket   95-18, Third Report and Order and Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 23638, 
23653-61 ¶¶ 29-44 (2003) (MSS Third Report and Order).
136 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15085 ¶ 223.
137 See id. at 15094-95 ¶ 250; 47 C.F.R. § 74.690(a).  The existing MSS relocation rules were amended to allow 
either MSS entrants or Sprint to relocate BAS incumbents.  In addition, the Commission further modified the MSS-
BAS relocation plan to no longer require BAS licensees in TV markets 31-210 to cease operations on channels 1 and 
2 (1990-2008 MHz and 2008-2025 MHz, respectively) until they have been relocated to the new band plan at 2025-
2110 MHz.  The Commission found that this modification was appropriate to accommodate Sprint’s entry into the 
band under the adopted Sprint-BAS plan, which did not require BAS incumbents in markets 31 and above to cease 
operations on these two channels without receiving compensation prior to vacating the spectrum.  See id. at 15102 ¶ 
269.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
23
extends to the entire 1990-2025 MHz band even though Sprint will ultimately operate in only a five 
megahertz portion of the band.138 The 800 MHz Report and Order provided Sprint with the opportunity, 
under certain circumstances, to recover a pro rata share of the relocation cost from MSS licensees that 
subsequently enter the 1990-2025 MHz band.139 The plan adopted by the Commission requires Sprint to 
relocate licensees from the 1990-2025 MHz band to comparable facilities within thirty months of the 
effective date of the 800 MHz Report and Order.140 The Commission also concluded that Sprint should 
be compensated for the 800 MHz band spectrum rights that it is surrendering, and the costs it incurs in 
reconfiguration of both the 800 MHz band and the BAS bands. Thus, the 800 MHz Report and Order
established a financial reconciliation process in which the Commission will subtract the combined value 
of Sprint’s surrendered 800 MHz spectrum rights and 800 MHz and 1.9 GHz band reconfiguration costs 
from the relative market value of the 1.9 GHz band segment in which Sprint will acquire spectrum rights.
To avoid an unintended "windfall," Sprint will be required to pay the difference to the U.S. Treasury.141
57. In June 2005, Sprint, MSTV, and NAB filed a petition seeking a declaratory ruling, or 
alternately, a clarification that Sprint will receive credit in the 800 MHz financial reconciliation process 
for the costs it incurs to relocate BAS operations licensed after June 27, 2000, but before November 22, 
2004.142 By way of background, the Commission decided in the MSS Second Report and Order that BAS 
facilities could continue to operate on a primary basis until relocated by MSS licensees provided that the 
initial BAS application was received before June 27, 2000, the adoption date of the MSS Second Report 
and Order.143 Initial BAS applications filed after June 27, 2000 have been licensed on a secondary basis 
and this condition has been noted on the authorization issued by the Commission to the BAS licensee.  
Subsequently, Sprint and the broadcasters agreed that that the cost of relocating these secondary BAS 
licensees should be paid by Sprint and requested the Commission allow Sprint to receive credit for 
relocating these secondary BAS facilities in the “true-up” that follows completion of band 
reconfiguration.  In the 800 MHz MO&O, the Commission granted the petition filed by Sprint and the 
broadcasters and stated that Sprint would receive credit for voluntarily reimbursing the relocation costs of 
BAS licensees licensed after June 27, 2000 but before November 22, 2004.144  The Commission allowed, 
rather than required, Sprint to relocate the facilities of these secondary BAS licensees and explicitly noted 
that its ruling on the BAS licensing matter did not alter the well established principle that secondary 
licensees are not entitled to relocation reimbursement, a principle which applied to the relocation 
procedures for the 1.9 GHz band.145 The Commission took this action because “the public interest is best 
  
138 See 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15095-96 ¶¶ 251-52.
139 See id. at 15099 ¶ 261.
140 See id. at 15096, 15131-32 ¶¶ 253, 353.  The Commission subsequently extended this deadline by forty-five days 
to September 7, 2007.  See Commission Seeks Comment on Ex Parte Presentations and Extends Certain Deadlines 
Regarding the 800 MHz Public Safety Interference Proceeding, WT Docket No. 02-55, Public Notice (rel. Oct. 22, 
2004) (October 2004 Public Notice).
141 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15123-24 ¶¶ 329-330.
142 See Nextel/MSTV/NAB Request.  November 22, 2004 is the date that the 800 MHz Report and Order was 
published in the Federal Register.
143 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 Footnote NG 156.  See also MSS Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 12335 ¶ 59.  This 
relocation process also applies to those BAS licenses meeting the cut-off date for which licensees filed subsequent 
facilities modification applications.
144 See generally 800 MHz MO&O.
145 The relocation procedures for the 1.9 GHz band were based on the Emerging Technologies relocation policies 
which do not require relocation reimbursement for secondary licensees. As noted above, the underlying MSS BAS 
relocation procedure was based on the relocation policies of the Emerging Technologies proceeding. The 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
24
served by Sprint’s timely clearing of all incumbent operations in the 1990-2025 MHz band, which in turn 
will facilitate the timely transition of the 800 MHz band as well.  Furthermore, the costs associated with 
relocating these secondary BAS licenses do not significantly alter the total cost associated with 
implementing the 800 MHz relocation plan.”146
58. The Mohave County Board of Supervisors (Mohave), which operates a number of 
television translators, has filed a petition asking the Commission to clarify or reconsider the 800 MHz 
MO&O in a manner that would require Sprint to pay all 2 GHz BAS licensees for relocating their BAS 
facilities including those BAS facilities that are associated with Mohave’s translator stations.147 Mohave 
alleges that Sprint has refused to relocate Mohave’s BAS facilities because they have secondary status 
and thus are not eligible for relocation.  Mohave states that it had no notice before the 800 MHz MO&O 
was issued that reimbursement of translator BAS licensees was a disputed issue, and therefore lacked the 
opportunity to comment before that order was issued.148
59. Additionally, Mohave argues that if the Commission fails to clarify the secondary BAS 
issue in Mohave’s favor, the Commission would be acting arbitrarily and capriciously.  Specifically it 
observes that Sprint was allowed reimbursement credit for relocating some secondary BAS licensees even 
though the licensees were on notice that they were subject to relocation without reimbursement (i.e., the 
BAS licenses issued after the MSS Second Report and Order in 2000 specifically stated, in the license 
documents, that the licenses were secondary and therefore not eligible for relocation payment.).  
However, no credit would be allowed for relocating secondary BAS licensees who received no such 
notice (such as Mohave).149 Mohave also argues that denying it compensation for relocation would be 
inconsistent with the Commission’s statement in the 800 MHz Report and Order concerning avoidance of 
disruption to BAS incumbents.  If we elect not to clarify the 800 MHz MO&O in the manner urged by 
Mohave, it submits that we should reconsider the 800 MHz MO&O BAS provisions as a matter of policy.  
In support of that request, Mohave notes that its translator stations provide service to a remote area served 
by only a single broadcast television station, and therefore that that there are strong public interest 
considerations for requiring Sprint to compensate Mohave for relocating its BAS facilities.150  
60. A number of Phoenix area broadcasters whose signals are retransmitted by Mohave’s 
BAS translator facilities have also filed petitions for clarification or reconsideration on the same grounds 
as Mohave.151 Additional comments in support of Mohave’s petition were filed by broadcast groups and 
(Continued from previous page)    
Commission subsequently amended its MSS BAS relocation procedure to allow Sprint to relocate BAS incumbents 
as part of Sprint's entry into a portion of the 1.9 GHz band.
146 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd at 16063 ¶ 107.
147 Mohave County Bd. Of Supervisors, Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration, WT Docket 02-55, dated 
January 27, 2006 (Mohave Petition). There are four different types of television stations:  television broadcast 
stations, translator stations, low-power television stations (LPTV), and Class A stations.  Television broadcast 
stations are full-power television stations.  Translator stations retransmit the programs of a television broadcast 
station without significant alteration. 47 C.F.R. § 74.701(a).  LPTV stations may either retransmit the programs of a 
television broadcast station or originate programming. 47 C.R.R. § 74.701(f).  Class A stations are LPTV stations 
that have been granted interference protection rights similar, but not identical to, a television broadcast station. 47 
C.F.R. § 74.708; Establishment of a Class A Television Service, Report and Order, MM Docket 00-10, 15 FCC Rcd 
6355, 6370-71 ¶¶ 37-38 (2000).  The broadcast auxiliary service (BAS) is used by all four types of television 
stations for transmitting point-to-point signals.  47 C.F.R. § 74.600.
148 Mohave Petition at 9.
149 Id. at 11-12.
150 Id. at 12-14.
151 Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration, filed January 27, 2006 by Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co., 
Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration, filed January 27, 2006 by Meredith Corp., Petition for Clarification or 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
25
public officials.152 Independently of Mohave’s filing, the Association for Maximum Service Television 
(MSTV) filed a petition for clarification in which it claims that the plan jointly proposed by Sprint, 
MSTV, and NAB, on which the 800 MHz Report and Order BAS relocation plan was based, clearly 
contemplated that no category of affected BAS equipment -- including BAS equipment used by television 
translators --would be excluded from reimbursement.153
61. More recently, Fox Television Stations, Inc. (Fox) and Gray Television Licensee, Inc. 
(Gray) have filed a similar petition for clarification asking that Sprint be required to relocate and receive 
credit for relocating BAS licensees operating under Section 74.24 of the Commission’s rules.154 Section 
74.24 allows full-power television station licensees to operate BAS facilities on a short-term basis for up 
to 720 hours a year without obtaining a separate BAS license.  Fox and Gray argue that the 800 MHz 
Report and Order and 800 MHz MO&O clearly require that Sprint relocate “all BAS operations” and that 
such a reading is necessary to ensure that the Commission’s goal of minimizing disruption to BAS 
operations is satisfied.  Fox and Gray note that relocating short-term BAS would minimize the number of 
BAS operations that could interfere with or delay deployment of Sprint’s future 1.9 GHz services since 
some broadcasters may be disinclined to cease short-term BAS operations.155 Entravision Holdings has 
filed comments in support of Fox and Gray noting that there is no indication that the Commission 
intended to exclude short-term BAS operations from relocation reimbursement.156
62. In its opposition to Mohave’s petition, Sprint asserts that the Commission’s 2 GHz BAS 
relocation rule excludes secondary BAS licensees from relocation reimbursement and that the 800 MHz 
MO&O did not alter this rule or address the relocation requirements for BAS facilities associated with 
translator stations.157 Similarly, in an opposition to Fox/Gray’s petition, Sprint argues that “short-term” 
BAS are secondary and hence not eligible for relocation reimbursement and that in the 800 MHz MO&O
the Commission reiterated the “well-established principle” that secondary operations are not entitled to 
relocation reimbursement.158  
63. Discussion.  We will grant the petitions of Mohave, MSTV, Fox and Gray, and the 
(Continued from previous page)    
Reconsideration, filed January 27, 2006 by, Multimedia Holdings Corp., Petition for Clarification or 
Reconsideration, filed January 27, 2006 by Fox Television Stations, Inc., and Petition for Clarification or 
Reconsideration, filed January 27, 2006 by KTVK, Inc.
152 By joint letter, dated March 22, 2006, which they requested be included in the docket of this proceeding, 
Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl filed comments in support of the Mohave petition.  See Letter from Senators 
John McCain and Jon Kyl to Kevin A. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, WT Dkt. No. 02-
55 (dated Mar. 22, 2006).  A number of other parties have filed comments supporting Mohave.  The Arizona 
Broadcasters Association.  Two non-commercial BAS licensees whose facilities share similar status to Mohave have 
filed comments in support of Mohave (Dutchess Community College and Oregon Public Television).  Hubbard 
Broadcasting has filed reply comments supporting Mohave.  The Community Broadcasters Association and 
Congressman Franks have filed ex parte comments supporting Mohave.
153 Petition for Clarification, filed January 27, 2006 by Association for Maximum Service Television (AMST 
Petition), at 3-4.  Reply to Opposition of Sprint Nextel Corporation, filed April 5, 2006 by Association for 
Maximum Service Television at 4-5.
154 Petition for Clarification, filed March 20, 2007 by Fox Television Stations, Inc. and Gray Television Licensee, 
Inc.  47 C.F.R. § 74.24.
155 Petition for Clarification, filed March 20, 2007 by Fox Television Stations, Inc. and Gray Television Licensee, 
Inc., 4-5.
156 Comments in Support of Petition for Clarification, filed March 29, 2007 by Entravision Holdings, LLC.
157 Opposition of Sprint Nextel Corp., filed March 23, 2006, 8-9.  
158 Opposition of Sprint Nextel Corporation, filed March 30, 2007, 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
26
Phoenix area broadcasters in part.  Specifically, we will permit, but not require, Sprint to pay and claim 
credit for the cost of relocation of BAS facilities associated with translator television stations and short-
term BAS facilities operating under Section 74.24.  We see no basis for treating these BAS licensees 
differently than the secondary BAS licensees in the 800 MHz MO&O where we permitted Sprint to obtain 
credit for relocation of such secondary BAS licensees to facilitate the timely clearing of all incumbent 
operations in the 2 GHz BAS band.159  We believe that allowing Sprint this flexibility will further the 
goals of this proceeding by helping to ensure that the BAS relocation proceeds in a timely fashion with 
minimal disruption to BAS operations.  If there are few (or no) BAS incumbents left in a particular 
market that could interfere with or otherwise complicate the deployment of Nextel’s operations in the 
band, it would help ensure that the BAS relocation is completed without complication, will minimize 
disruption to BAS operations, and will simplify negotiations with BAS incumbents.160 Accordingly we 
find that it is appropriate to allow Sprint to claim credit at the final “true-up” if it elects to pay the 
reasonable relocation costs of secondary BAS facilities associated with translator or LPTV stations or the 
secondary short-term BAS facilities operating under Section 74.24.161  
64. While we will permit Sprint to claim credit for the cost of relocating BAS facilities 
associated with translator stations and short-term BAS facilities, we will not require that Sprint pay such 
BAS relocation cost, and the petitions are denied in that respect.  The Commission’s rules state that BAS 
operations associated with translator and LPTV stations are secondary to BAS operations associated with 
television broadcasting stations.162 Similarly, BAS facilities operating under Section 74.24 are secondary 
to licensed BAS stations.163 A licensee with a secondary authorization may not cause interference to 
primary operations or claim protection from harmful interference from primary operations.164 Because 
secondary BAS operations can be displaced at any time by primary operations, under well-established 
Commission policy the licensees of such facilities are not eligible for mandatory relocation 
reimbursement.  The Commission’s rules for BAS relocation, as amended by the 800 MHz Report and 
Order, require new entrants to the 2 GHz BAS band, such as Sprint, to negotiate the relocation of BAS 
stations “operating on a primary basis” but confer no comparable obligations for secondary BAS 
  
159 See 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd at 16063 ¶ 107.
160 We also recognize that television translators and LPTV stations interconnected with BAS facilities can bring 
needed service to rural communities that are unserved or underserved by television broadcast stations and that 
licensees of translator and LPTV stations, such as Mohave, may lack the resources to relocate their BAS facilities 
and therefore could be forced to discontinue this valuable service.  For example, Mohave’s translator stations 
rebroadcast Phoenix area television stations to a remote area.  The cost of replacing the BAS point-to-point links 
used to relay the signals from Phoenix to Mohave County is estimated at $353,000.  Mohave Petition at 14 n. 28.  
Oregon Public Television would have to spend $900,000 to replace BAS facilities used to relay public television 
signals to translators in remote areas of Oregon.  Comments of Oregon Public Television, filed March 3, 2006, 3.  
Local governments and non-profit corporations may have difficulty finding money to replace these BAS facilities.  
LPTV stations air “niche” programming, often locally produced, to residents of specific ethnic, racial, and interest 
communities and may sometimes be the only television station in an area providing local news, weather, and public 
affairs programming.  Establishment of a Class A Television Service, MM Docket No. 00-10, Report and Order, 15 
FCC Rcd 6355, 6357-58 ¶ 2 (2000).  
161 This action is consistent with the Commission’s advancement of the BAS relocation process when it allowed 
Sprint to claim credit for relocating certain BAS facilities that were licensed before November 22, 2004. See 800 
MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd 16063 ¶ 107.  Sprint may claim credit for the relocation of only those BAS facilities 
associated with translator and LPTV stations or short-term BAS facilities which where in operation before 
November 22, 2004.
162 47 C.F.R. § 74.602(f); 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 NG118.  Translator and LPTV television broadcast stations are 
similarly prohibited from causing interference to full-power television stations.  47 C.F.R. § 74.703(b).
163 47 C.F.R. § 74.24(c).
164 47 C.F.R. § 2.105(c)(2); 47 C.F.R. § 74.602(f).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
27
stations.165 The 800 MHz MO&O did not change how our rules treat the relocation status of BAS 
operations associated with translator and LPTV stations or short-term BAS facilities, but instead only 
addressed BAS licenses issued after June 27, 2000 but before November 22, 2004.166 To the extent that 
the petitioners seek a change in the Commission’s BAS relocation rules as amended by the 800 MHz 
Report and Order, such a request is untimely.167 Consequently, our rules do not require us to grant the 
petitions of Mohave, MSTV, the Phoenix area broadcasters, or Fox and Gray.
65. We find no merit in the argument that MSTV has made to support requiring Sprint to pay 
the costs of retuning all BAS facilities including those BAS facilities used with television translators.  
MSTV argues that the 2 GHz BAS relocation plan jointly proposed by Sprint, MSTV, and NAB made no 
distinction between secondary and primary BAS licensees and that the Commission, in adopting the plan, 
agreed that it would make no such distinctions.168 MSTV is incorrect to the extent it claims that the 
Commission is bound by the Sprint/MSTV/NAB plan.  The Commission did not adopt the plan or 
otherwise approve its provisions.  Although the Commission drew heavily on the filings of Nextel, MSTV 
and NAB when it established BAS relocation procedures for Sprint in the 800 MHz Report and Order, it 
adopted specific relocation rules instead of codifying the industries’ relocation plan or any related 
agreements made between the parties.169 Because the text of the 800 MHz Report and Order does not 
explicitly discuss the primary/secondary distinction for BAS facilities, MSTV looks to other language in 
the decision to support its claim that Sprint is required to pay for the relocation of all BAS facilities, 
whether primary or secondary.170 Thus, it points to the statements in the 800 MHz Report and Order that 
Sprint must “relocate all BAS licensees in the 1990-2025 MHz band” and that the Commission’s 
definition of BAS includes TV translator relay stations.171 MSTV’s claim ignores the fact that the BAS 
relocation compensation rules adopted in the 800 MHz Report and Order explicitly state they apply only 
to BAS operations “operating on a primary basis[.]”172 It is the Commission’s rules that govern Sprint’s 
obligation to the BAS licenses and not MSTV’s interpretation of the Commission’s intent.  Accordingly, 
considering all of the foregoing factors we will not require Sprint to compensate licensees to relocate their 
secondary BAS facilities.
66. We emphasize that our decision to allow Sprint to claim credit for the relocation of such 
  
165 47 C.F.R. § 74.690(a).
166 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd at 16061-63 ¶¶ 105-107.
167 47 U.S.C. § 405(a);  Petitions for reconsideration must be filed within 30 days from the date of public notice of 
the final Commission action.  47 C.F.R. § 1.106(f).
168 AMST Petition at 3-4 (discussing the joint proposed BAS relocation plan of MSTV/NAB/Nextel, Ex Parte filing 
of May 3, 2004 in WT Docket 02-55).
169 47 C.F.R. § 74.690.  The 800 MHz Report and Order stated that “[w]e will require Nextel, as a condition on 
Nextel’s 1.9 GHz licenses, to follow a relocation procedure based on its proposed BAS relocation plan.” 800 MHz 
Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd, at 15095-96 ¶ 252 (emphasis added).  For example, the 800 MHz Report and Order 
recognized and retained procedures by which 2 GHz MSS entrants – who are not required to relocate secondary 
BAS licensees – could enter the band and, under certain circumstances, participate in relocation cost sharing with 
Sprint Nextel.  See 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15099 ¶ 261-62 (discussing cost sharing); see also
Nextel/MSTV/NAB Request at 3 (acknowledging that the 800 MHz Report and Order generally retained the BAS 
relocation rules of the MSS proceeding).
170 AMST Petition at 3-4.  See also 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15095-96 ¶ 252.
171 AMST Petition at 3; 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15499 ¶ 55 n.144, 15096 ¶ 252.
172 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15155-57 Appx C, §§ 74.690, 78.40; 47 C.F.R. § 74.690(a); 47 
C.F.R. § 78.40(a).  Fox and Gray have made a similar argument regarding short-term BAS facilities, noting that the 
800 MHz Report and Order and 800 MHz MO&O require relocation of “all BAS licensees”.  We find this argument 
unconvincing for the same reason.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
28
BAS facilities confers no right on the licensees of these facilities to require Sprint to pay their relocation 
expenses -- such payments are discretionary with Sprint.  Moreover, our narrow decision to permit Sprint 
to pay for relocation of secondary BAS facilities associated with translator and LPTV stations and short-
term BAS facilities operating under Section 74.24 is limited to the facts present here and may not be 
construed in other contexts as a revision of Commission rules and policies affecting stations operating 
pursuant to secondary authorizations.  Also, allowing Sprint to pay for relocation of these secondary BAS 
facilities does not in any way alter MSS licensees’ obligations concerning the relocation of BAS 
incumbents with primary authorizations.  MSS licensees will not be required to reimburse Sprint for any 
BAS relocation expenses that Sprint incurs when it voluntarily pays for the relocation of secondary BAS 
facilities associated with translator or LPTV stations or short-term BAS facilities.  Finally, we are 
confident that permitting Sprint to pay for the relocation of BAS facilities associated with translator and 
LPTV stations and short-term BAS facilities will give Sprint the flexibility necessary to tailor its BAS 
relocation plans to ensure that it meets its important obligation to ensure that BAS relocation is complete 
by September 7, 2007.173
J. Border Regions
67. On our own motion, we address several procedural issues relating to the implementation 
of specific 800 MHz band plan rules for the Canadian and Mexican border regions.  In the 800 MHz 
NPRM, the Commission sought comment on “how any relocation plan would be implemented consistent 
with international agreements, in those areas of the United States that are adjacent to the Canadian and 
Mexican borders.”174 In the 800 MHz Report and Order, the Commission deferred consideration of the 
border area band plan issue, noting that “implementing the band plan in areas of the United States 
bordering Mexico and Canada will require modifications to international agreements for use of the 800 
MHz band in the border areas.”175  The Commission stated that “the details of the border plans will be 
determined in our ongoing discussions with the Mexican and Canadian governments.”176 Those 
international discussions are currently ongoing.  Once those discussions are completed, and any necessary 
modifications to our international agreements have been made, we will need to amend our rules to 
implement the agreements and identify the portions of the 800 MHz band that will be available to U.S. 
licensees on a primary basis. In addition, we will need to adopt a band plan for the border regions that 
specifies the ESMR and non-ESMR portions of the band and the distribution of channels to public safety, 
B/ILT, and SMR licensees.177 In order to expedite the completion of the band reconfiguration process, 
pursuant to Section 5(c)(1) of the Communications Act, we delegate authority to the Public Safety & 
Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) to take these steps once agreements are finalized with Canada and 
Mexico.
68. First, as a general matter, we amend our rules to provide a mechanism for PSHSB to 
implement ministerial rule changes to conform our rules to international agreements. This is similar to 
authority that has been previously delegated to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, which 
authorizes the Chief of the Wireless Bureau to issue “orders involving ministerial conforming 
amendments to rule parts, or orders conforming any of the applicable rules to formally adopted 
  
173 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd, at 15131-32 ¶ 353; Commission Seeks Comment on Ex Parte
Presentations and Extends Certain Deadlines Regarding the 800 MHz Public Safety Interference Proceeding, WT 
Docket No. 02-55, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 21492 (2004). 
174 800 MHz NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 4892-93 ¶ 33.
175 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 14895-96 ¶ 25.
176 Id. at 15063 ¶ 176.
177 47 C.F.R. § 90.617(d).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
29
international conventions or agreements where novel questions of fact, law, or policy are not involved.”178  
We amend Section 0.392(e) of our rules to provide the Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau with the same delegated authority.179  The amendments adopted herein relative to Section 0.392 
pertain to agency organization, procedure and practice.  Consequently, the notice and comment provisions 
of the Administrative Procedure Act contained in 5 U.S.C. § 553(b) are inapplicable.180  In addition, to 
promote the timely completion of the 800 MHz band reconfiguration process, we delegate specific 
authority to PSHSB to propose and adopt new 800 MHz band rules consistent with the Commission’s 
orders in this proceeding for U.S. primary spectrum in the Canadian and Mexican border regions once the 
relevant agreements with Canada and Mexico are finalized.
K. Rule Clarifications
69. Background.  In the 800 MHz MO&O, the Commission updated Sections 90.617(a), (b) 
and (d) to reflect the distribution of channels between the various pool categories in the 
SouthernLINC/Sprint markets.181 Specifically, the Commission modified the band plan for the 
SouthernLINC/Sprint markets to reflect a reduced Expansion Band of one-half megahertz for those 
locations within a seventy mile radius of Atlanta, Georgia.182 As a result of this change, there are now 
two different band plans for the SouthernLINC/Sprint markets—one band plan for locations outside the 
seventy mile radius and one band plan for locations within a seventy mile radius of Atlanta, Georgia.183  
70. Discussion.  In making these changes, the Commission inadvertently failed to update 
Sections 90.617(g) and (h) to reflect that as in all other markets, vacated spectrum in these 
SouthernLINC/Sprint markets will be reserved for exclusive use by public safety licensees for 3 years and 
public safety and CII licensees for an additional 2 years. Therefore, on our own motion, we revise 
Section 90.617(g) and (h) to add a reference to vacated spectrum in the SouthernLINC/Sprint markets, 
identifying the particular spectrum that will be available within a 70-mile radius of Atlanta and the 
spectrum that will be available outside that radius. We also remove all language from Section 90.617 
which indicates that the agreement between SouthernLINC and Sprint still needs to be approved by the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
71. In addition, on our own motion, we modify Section 90.203(i)—pertaining to equipment 
certification—to reflect the location of the NPSPAC band after band reconfiguration.  The Commission 
inadvertently failed to update this section in the 800 MHz Report and Order.  Finally, we correct the base 
frequency for one of the frequencies listed in the table in Section 90.613.184
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
72. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification with respect to the Second Memorandum 
Opinion and Order has been prepared and is included in Appendix A.  
B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
73. The actions taken in the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order have been analyzed 
  
178 47 C.F.R. § 0.331(d)
179 See 47 C.F.R. § 0.392(e)
180 5 U.S.C. § 553(b).
181 See 800 MHz MO&O, 20 FCC Rcd 16036 ¶ 48.
182 Id.
183 Id., 20 FCC Rcd 16082-16088.
184 47 C.F.R. § 90.613.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
30
with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13, and found to impose no new or 
modified recordkeeping requirements or burdens on the public.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
74. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(f), 332, 337 and 405 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(f), 332, 337 and 405, this 
Second Memorandum Opinion and Order IS HEREBY ADOPTED.
75. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 303(f) and (r), 332, and 
405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 1, 154(i), 303(f) and (r), 332, and 
405, the Request for Clarification of Communications & Industrial Electronics, Inc., North Sight 
Communications, Inc. and Ragan Communications, Inc. on January 27, 2006 IS GRANTED to the extent 
described herein and DENIED in all other respects.
76. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration of Report and Order, 
Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order, filed by Richard W. 
Duncan d/b/a Anderson Communications, filed Dec. 22, 2004 IS DENIED to the extent described herein.
77. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Charles D. 
Guskey on January 27, 2006, the Petition for Partial Reconsideration and Clarification filed by the Safety 
and Frequency Equity Competition Coalition on January 27, 2006; and the Petition for Reconsideration 
filed by Schwaninger & Associates ARE DISMISSED.
78. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Clarification filed by Chair of the 
NPSPAC Region 8 Regional Planning Committee on March 3, 2006 IS GRANTED.
79. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Sprint Nextel 
Corporation, on January 27, 2006 IS GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART 
and DEFERRED IN PART to the extent described herein.
80. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions for Clarification and/or Reconsideration 
filed by the Mohave County Board of Supervisors, the Association for Maximum Service Television, Fox 
Television Stations Inc., KTVK Inc., Multimedia Holdings Corporation, Meredith Corporation, and 
Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company on January 27, 2006 ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 
IN PART to the extent described herein.
81. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Clarification filed by Fox Television 
Stations Inc. and Gray Television Licensee Inc. on March 20, 2007 IS GRANTED IN PART AND 
DENIED IN PART to the extent described herein.
82. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to the authority of Section 4(i) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and sections 1.925 of the Commission’s 
Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.925 that the Request for Waiver submitted by Mobile Relay Associates in the above-
captioned proceeding on January 24, 2006 IS DENIED.
83. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendments of the Commission’s Rules as set 
forth in Appendix B ARE ADOPTED, effective thirty days from the date of publication in the Federal 
Register.
84. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, required by 
Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 604, and as set forth in Appendix A herein is 
ADOPTED.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
31
85. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Second Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  
 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch 
Secretary  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
32
Appendix A
Procedural Matters
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification
86. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),185 requires that a regulatory 
flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency 
certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.”186 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same 
meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”187  
In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under 
the Small Business Act.188 A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and 
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established 
by the Small Business Administration (SBA).189 In sum, we certify that the rule changes and actions in 
this Second Memorandum Opinion and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
87. ESMR Band Eligibility.  In this proceeding the Commission divided the 800 MHz band 
into a cellular portion (ESMR band) and non-cellular portion to create spectral separation between 
incompatible technologies. Section 90.614 provides that the cellular portion would be reserved for 
licensees that operate cellular high density systems. Several parties sought reconsideration of the 
eligibility and operating requirements applicable to the cellular band arguing that these requirements are 
overly restrictive.  In the 800 MHz Memorandum Opinion and Order, we clarified eligibility of licensees 
to relocate to the ESMR band to include low-density cellular operations and deferred consideration of a 
petition for reconsideration filed by Richard M. Duncan seeking to permit site-based Specialized Mobile 
Radio (SMR) licensees to relocate to the ESMR band.  Sprint Nextel Corporation sought reconsideration 
of the provisions of the 800 MHz MO&O that clarified and expanded the rights of certain licensees other 
than Sprint and SouthernLINC to relocate to the ESMR band. After careful analysis, we find no reason to 
upset the Commission’s balancing of interests that led to the revised eligibility criteria for the ESMR 
band contained in the 800 MHz MO&O.  Those criteria are designed to eliminate potential interference 
between incompatible technologies and to provide ESMR licensees flexibility in managing their systems.  
Here, we affirm the eligibility criteria established in the 800 MHz MO&O for relocation to the ESMR 
band and are taking no action with respect to any entity.  Therefore, we certify that our decision to deny 
the Sprint and Duncan petitions will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.   
88. ESMR Band Plan.  In some Southeastern markets where both Southern LINC and Sprint 
offer ESMR service, insufficient spectrum exists in the 816-824/861-869 MHz band segment to 
accommodate existing ESMR systems.  To accommodate Sprint and SouthernLINC, the Commission 
created an expanded ESMR band in the Southeast.  Sprint sought clarification that the 800 MHz Report 
  
185 The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601 – 612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
186 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
187 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
188 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small 
Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies 
“unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after 
opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the 
activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
189 15 U.S.C. § 632.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
33
and Order “adopted two remedies in the event there is insufficient spectrum in the ESMR segment to 
accommodate all eligible licensees in a market: (1) expanding the ESMR segment and, in the event a 
channel shortfall remained (2) distributing the available channels on a pro rata basis among licensees.”  
Although we agree with Sprint that the Commission has the discretion to apportion ESMR spectrum, we 
find no support for Sprint’s contention that licensees themselves have similar discretion.  We also clarify 
that under limited circumstances, the Commission may apportion the ESMR band pro rata to licensees 
eligible to operate there.  Because our decision merely clarifies pre-existing rules applicable to the ESMR 
Band, we have adopted no new rule and have taken no other action that affects any entity.  Therefore, we 
certify that our decision will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.  
89. Puerto Rico.  The Puerto Rico market presents a unique situation that is distinct from 
other markets.  Sprint holds considerably less spectrum in Puerto Rico than it does elsewhere, and there 
are several other licensees who have acquired significant EA license holdings in Puerto Rico at auction 
and seek to operate as ESMRs.  In addition, Puerto Rico has numerous site-based incumbents that will 
need to be relocated to the non-ESMR block.  Thus, an alternative band plan is appropriate here. 
Accordingly we provide the 800 MHz Transition Administrator (TA) with specific criteria and direct the TA 
to propose an alternative band plan within 60 days of the release of this order, including, if necessary, a pro 
rata distribution of ESMR spectrum. At this time, we have no basis for anticipating that any future decision 
by the TA in either proposing an alternative band plan or proposing a pro rata distribution would adversely 
affect any small entities.  Accordingly, at this time, we certify that our decision will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  
90. Furthermore, to the extent that any action taken in the future might impose an adverse 
economic impact in Puerto Rico, that impact will be borne by Sprint because Sprint must pay the costs of 
800 MHz band reconfiguration.  Under Small Business Administration criteria, Sprint is a large entity.190  
Further, there is no evidence in the record that non-Sprint licensees in the Puerto Rico market, including 
small wireless cellular, public safety, governmental entities or other wireless entities, would suffer 
adverse economic consequences.
91. Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the Gulf of Mexico.  Sprint 
asks that we reconsider the Commission’s decision in the 800 MHz MO&O to require band 
reconfiguration in areas that have no associated NPSPAC region.  These areas include American Samoa, 
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Gulf of Mexico.  Because there are no public safety entities 
in the Gulf of Mexico and Sprint does not hold spectrum rights in the Gulf of Mexico, we see no risk in 
the Gulf of the type of interference to public safety systems that would require rebanding.  However, we 
deny Sprint’s request as it relates to Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.  We 
believe that funding band reconfiguration in these markets does not pose an inequitable burden on Sprint.  
We take this position because Sprint alone will bear the cost of band reconfiguration in Guam, the 
Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.  Therefore, we certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
92. Application Freeze.  In the 800 MHz Report and Order, the Commission imposed a 
freeze on the acceptance of 800 MHz applications in order to maintain a stable spectral landscape during 
the band relocation process.  The Commission stated, however, that de minimis modifications to a 
currently authorized system are not subject to the application freeze so long as the modifications are 
necessary to effectuate band reconfiguration. Sprint requests that we broaden this exception to the freeze 
to “permit certain license modifications . . . provided they do not materially diminish public safety’s 
spectral or operational expectancies.”  While Sprint fails to define “spectral or operational expectancies” 
we agree that some flexibility may be appropriate.  In this connection, we clarify that licensees may seek 
  
190 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NICS Code 517212 (the standard for determining whether a wireless telecommunications 
entity qualifies as a large entity depends on whether it has more than 1500 employees).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
34
a waiver of the application freeze.  Because grant of such a waiver would provide benefits to public safety 
service providers and to the public through improved public safety communications, we believe that only 
benefits will result.  Therefore, we certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. 
93. Post-litigation costs.  Under the 800 MHz Report and Order, Sprint is required to pay the 
costs of mediation to resolve disputes associated with a frequency reconfiguration agreement.  The 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued a Public Notice that stated:  “Licensees that enter mediation 
with Sprint Nextel are entitled to reimbursement of ‘reasonable, prudent and necessary costs and 
expenses’ associated with reaching a mediated frequency reconfiguration agreement.  However, licensees 
who fail to reach a mediated agreement must bear their own costs associated [with] all further 
administrative or judicial appeals of band reconfiguration issues, including de novo review…and appeal 
of any such review before an A[dministrative] L[aw] J[udge].”  Some parties have filed petitions for 
reconsideration suggesting that the Commission require Sprint to pay opposing parties’ litigation costs 
when they seek de novo review before the Commission of issues that have not been resolved by 
negotiation or TA-sponsored mediation.  We deny those petitions.  Under the Commission’s orders in this 
proceeding, Sprint must pay all licensees’ reasonable costs of negotiation and TA-sponsored mediation, 
regardless of outcome.  This ensures that licensees can take full advantage of these mechanisms at no cost 
to themselves, while at the same time encouraging resolution of issues by negotiated agreement and 
mediation rather than litigation.  However, requiring Sprint to pay its opponents’ litigation costs before 
the Commission and beyond would increase the likelihood of litigation and add cost and delay to the 
rebanding process.  Moreover, the Commission lacks statutory authority to award such costs in cases that 
come before it. While parties that pursue administrative or judicial appeals may incur some cost, such 
cost would be undertaken voluntarily.  Further, there is no evidence in the record that a substantial 
number of parties will pursue such legal challenges. Therefore, we certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  
94. NPSPAC Band Operational Restrictions.  The Tri-State Radio Planning Committee, FCC 
Region 8 (Region 8) asks us to impose operational restrictions on Sprint in two distinct situations:  (1) 
when a NPSPAC licensee has moved one or more of its channels to the new NPSPAC frequencies and 
Sprint has not yet completely vacated the former General Category channels and (2) when Sprint wishes 
to commence operations in the ESMR band, but has not fully cleared the ESMR band of NPSPAC 
incumbents.  Region 8 is concerned that these situations, though temporary, could create the risk of 
harmful interference through the interleaving of incompatible technologies that was the genesis of this 
proceeding.  To address this risk, Region 8 requests that: (a) we require Sprint to cease current operation 
on any channel 1-120 frequency within 25 kHz of relocated NPSPAC stations within 88 kilometers (km), 
and (b) Sprint not be allowed to begin operations on any former NPSPAC channel within 88 kilometers of 
the site of any current NPSPAC station which has not been relocated to the new NPSPAC frequencies.  
Region 8 asks that we maintain these limitations in place until the entire NPSPAC band has been 
relocated and all relocated licensees have finalized the relocation process.  Given that NPSPAC 
communications primarily involve the safety of life and property and because interference with these 
communications could have tragic results, we agree with Region 8’s concerns.  Because these operational 
restrictions apply only to Sprint, a large entity,191 we certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
95. Charles Guskey Petition.  Charles Guskey, a principal of Preferred Communications, 
contends that the 800 MHz MO&O failed to adequately address his prior petition for reconsideration of 
the 800 MHz Supplemental Order.  Guskey contends that: (1) the Commission undervalued the 1.9 GHz 
spectrum by at least a billion dollars, giving Nextel a windfall; (2) Preferred be allowed to relocate its 
General Category EA channels (encumbered or not) to clean spectrum in the ESMR band; and (3) Puerto 
  
191 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
35
Rico needs to be treated as a unique market, and Preferred awarded the 1.9 GHz spectrum in Puerto Rico 
in exchange for relocating public safety systems in that market.  Because we dismiss the Petition as 
repetitive and untimely, we certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
96. Broadcast Auxiliary Service Facilities.  We partially grant petitions to require Sprint to 
relocate BAS facilities associated with translator television stations or operated by full-power television 
stations on a short-term basis by permitting, but not requiring, Sprint to pay and claim credit for the costs 
incurred in relocating these BAS facilities. Some parties have filed petitions for reconsideration and 
clarification urging the Commission to require Sprint to relocate secondary BAS translator facilities.  We 
instead permit, but not require, Sprint to relocate such facilities and to receive credit for such relocations 
at the “true-up,” consistent with Commission precedent regarding other secondary BAS stations.  Because 
secondary BAS operations can be displaced at any time by primary operations, under well-established 
Commission policy the licensees of such facilities are not eligible for mandatory relocation 
reimbursement.  Further, our narrow decision to permit Sprint to pay for relocation of secondary BAS 
facilities associated with translator and LPTV stations and short-term BAS facilities operating under 
Section 74.24 is limited to the facts present here and may not be construed in other contexts as a revision 
of Commission rules and policies affecting stations operating pursuant to secondary authorizations.  Also, 
allowing Sprint to pay for relocation of these secondary BAS facilities does not in any way alter Mobile 
Satellite Service licensees’ obligations concerning the relocation of BAS incumbents with primary 
authorizations. Therefore, because our decision to permit such relocation affects only Sprint, a large 
entity, we certify that our decision to provide Sprint flexibility in managing BAS relocation will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
97. Southeast Band Plan.  In the 800 MHz MO&O, the Commission updated Sections 
90.617(a), (b) and (d) to reflect the distribution of channels between the various categories in the 
SouthernLINC/Sprint markets located in the Southeastern part of the United States.  Specifically, the 
Commission modified the band plan for the SouthernLINC/Sprint markets to reflect a reduced Expansion 
Band of one-half megahertz for those locations within a seventy mile radius of Atlanta, Georgia.  As a 
result of this change, there are now two different band plans for the SouthernLINC/Sprint markets—one 
band plan for locations outside the seventy mile radius and one band plan for locations within a seventy 
mile radius of Atlanta, Georgia.  The Commission inadvertently omitted this rule change.  In this Second 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission on its own motion revises Section 90.617(g) and (h) 
to add a reference to vacated spectrum in the Atlanta market.  This rule change is necessary to identify the 
particular spectrum that will be available for public safety and critical infrastructure industry use within a 
70-mile radius of Atlanta and the spectrum that will be available outside that radius.  We also remove all 
language from Section 90.617 which indicates that the agreement between SouthernLINC and Sprint still 
needs to be approved by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.  Responsibility over the 800 MHz 
band reconfiguration proceeding has been delegated to the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. 
Because these rule changes are procedural in nature and are intended to correct an inadvertent omission 
and reflect organizational changes, we certify that these changes will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
98. Band Plan.  On our own motion, we modify Section 90.203(i)—pertaining to equipment 
certification—to reflect the location of the NPSPAC band after band reconfiguration.  We also correct the 
base frequency for one of the frequencies listed in the table in Section 90.613.  The Commission 
inadvertently failed to update these sections in the 800 MHz Report and Order. Therefore, we correct 
these inadvertent omissions and certify that these changes will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
99. Border Area.  Finally, on our own motion, we address implementation of 800 MHz band 
plan rules for the Canadian and Mexican border regions.   We delegate specific authority to the Public 
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to propose and adopt new 800 MHz band plan rules for U.S. 
primary spectrum in the Canadian and Mexican border regions once the relevant agreements with Canada 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
36
and Mexico are finalized. This is similar to authority that has been previously delegated to the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau.  We amend therefore Section 0.392(e) of our rules to provide the Chief of 
the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau with the same delegated authority.  Thus this rule 
change is purely procedural in nature and therefore we certify that these changes will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we certify that the 
requirements of the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.   
100. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 
including a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act. 192 In addition, the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and this final 
certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, and will be published in the 
Federal Register.193  
  
192 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
193 See 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
37
Appendix B
Final Rules
PART 0 – COMMISSION ORGANIZATION
The authority citation for Part 0 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless otherwise 
noted.
Section 0.392(e) is amended to read as follows:
PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU
§ 0.392 Authority delegated.
* * * * * 
(e) The Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau shall not have authority to issue 
notices of proposed rulemaking, notices of inquiry, or reports or orders arising from either of the 
foregoing except such orders involving ministerial conforming amendments to rule parts, or 
orders conforming any of the applicable rules to formally adopted international conventions or 
agreements where novel questions of fact, law, or policy are not involved.
* * * * * 
PART 90 – PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:  4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 302(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).
Section 90.203(i) is modified to specify the new location of the NPSPAC band.
§ 90.203 Certification Required.
* * * * *
(i)  Equipment certificated after February 16, 1988 and marketed for public safety operation in the 
806–809/851–854 MHz bands must have the capability to be programmed for operation on the 
mutual aid channels as designated in §90.617(a)(1) of the rules.
The frequency table in Section 90.613 is amended to correct a typo to the base frequency listed 
for channel 169.  The frequency should be listed as 853.2250 MHz.  
 § 90.613 Frequencies available.
* * * * *
Channel No. Base Frequency 
(MHz)
* * * * * * * * * * 
169 ……..…………………………………………………………… .2250
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-102
38
The text below the heading to Section 90.617 is amended to remove any statement which infers 
that the agreement between Southern LINC and Nextel is still pending before the Wireless Bureau. In 
addition, paragraphs (g) and (h) of Section 90.617 are updated to clarify which channels vacated in the 
counties listed in Section 90.614(c) will be available for exclusive use for licensing to entities in the 
public safety and CII categories.
 § 90.617 Frequencies in the 809.750–824/854.750–869 MHz, and 896–901/935–940 MHz 
bands available for trunked, conventional or cellular system use in non-border areas.
The following channels will be available at locations farther then 110 km (68.4 miles) from the 
U.S./Mexico border and 140 km (87 miles) from the U.S./Canadian border (“non-border areas”).
* * * * *
(g) In a given NPSPAC region, channels below 471 listed in Tables 2 and 4B which are vacated 
by licensees relocating to channels 551–830 and which remain vacant after band reconfiguration will be 
available as indicated below.  The only exception will be for the counties listed in § 90.614(c).  At 
locations greater then 113 km (70 mi) from the center city coordinates of Atlanta, GA within the counties 
listed in § 90.614(c), the channels listed in Tables 2A and 4C which are vacated by licensees relocating to 
channels 411–830 and which remain vacant after band reconfiguration will be available as indicated 
below. At locations within 113 km (70 mi) of the center city coordinates of Atlanta, GA, the channels 
listed in Tables 2B and 4D which are vacated by licensees relocating to channels 411–830 and which 
remain vacant after band reconfiguration will be available as indicated below.  
(1) Only to eligible applicants in the Public Safety Category until three years after the release of a 
public notice announcing the completion of band reconfiguration in that region;
(2) Only to eligible applicants in the Public Safety or Critical Infrastructure Industry Categories 
from three to five years after the release of a public notice announcing the completion of band 
reconfiguration in that region;
(3) Five years after the release of a public notice announcing the completion of band 
reconfiguration in that region, these channels revert back to their original pool categories.
(h) In a given 800 MHz NPSPAC region – except for the counties listed in § 90.614(c) – channels 
below 471 listed in Tables 2 and 4B which are vacated by a licensee relocating to channels 511–550 and 
remain vacant after band reconfiguration will be available as indicated below.  
(1) Only to eligible applicants in the Public Safety Category until three years after the release of a 
public notice announcing the completion of band reconfiguration in that region;
(2) Only to eligible applicants in the Public Safety or Critical Infrastructure Industry Categories 
from three to five years after the release of a public notice announcing the completion of band 
reconfiguration in that region;
(3) Five years after the release of a public notice announcing the completion of band 
reconfiguration in that region, these channels revert back to their original pool categories.