********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                )
                                )
Amendment of Parts 1, 21 and 74 to Enable)   MM Docket No. 97-217
Multipoint Distribution Service and)
Instructional Television Fixed Service) File No. RM-9060
Licensees to Engage in Fixed    )
Two-Way Transmissions           )
                                )
Request For Declaratory Ruling on the Use)
of Digital Modulation by Multipoint)
Distribution Service and Instructional)
Television Fixed Service Stations)


              REPORT AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION


   Adopted:  July 13, 1999             Released:  July 29, 1999

By the Commission:

                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                        Paragraph

I.  INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

II. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

III.     DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
    A.   Application Processing Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
    B.   Interference Complaints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
    C.   Interference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
         1.   Protection of ITFS Stations. . . . . . . . . . . 20
              a.   Registration of ITFS Receive Sites. . . . . 21
              b.   Point-to-Point ITFS Licensees . . . . . . . 22
         2.   Response Stations: Advance Notification and Professional Installation23
              a.   Response Stations Operating at +18 dBW EIRP or less, 
                   and/or on MDS Channels 1 or 2/2A. . . . . . 25
              b.   Effect of Timing of Construction of ITFS Registered Receive Sites35
              c.   Consent of ITFS Licensees . . . . . . . . . 36
              d.   Timing and Method of Advance Notification . 37
              e.   Content of Advance Notification . . . . . . 40
         3.   Technical Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
              a.   Spectral Mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
              b.   Frequency Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
              c.   Other Technical Considerations. . . . . . . 50
    D.   Proposals Specifically Regarding Use of 125 kHz Channels53
    E.   Issues Primarily Involving ITFS . . . . . . . . . . . 57
         1.   Channel Swapping and Shifting. . . . . . . . . . 57
         2.   Grandfathering of Excess Capacity Lease Provisions59
         3.   Assignment of Excess Capacity Leases . . . . . . 62
    F.   Booster Stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
         1.   High-Power Booster Operations. . . . . . . . . . 63
         2.   Treatment of Currently-Licensed Boosters . . . . 64
         3.   Booster Licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

IV. Digital Declaratory Ruling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
    A    Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
    B.   Limited Exception to the Protected Service Area Definition for Modifications69
    C.   Rights of Licensees Where Digital Operation Affects Use of Frequency Offset73
    D.   ITFS Recapture Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

V.  Other Related Pleadings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

VI. Procedural Matters and Ordering Clauses. . . . . . . . . . 78

Appendix A:   List of Petitioners
Appendix B:   Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Appendix C:   Rules
              Appendix D:   Methodology for Predicting Interference From Response Station Transmitters and To
              Response Station Hubs and For Supplying Data on Response Station Systems

                   I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

    
1.  In our order in Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and
Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, 13
FCC Rcd 19,112 (1998)("Two-Way Order"), we amended Parts 21 and 74 of our rules to provide
licensees in the Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS") and Instructional Television Fixed Service
("ITFS") with substantially increased operational and technical flexibility.  Specifically, the rule
changes were designed to allow these licensees, which had formerly provided primarily one-way video
services, to provide a wide range of high-speed, two-way services to a variety of users.  In this order
on reconsideration, we make some additional rule modifications which we believe will further
facilitate the provision of these services.  In this order, we also resolve petitions for clarification filed
in regard to our Declaratory Ruling and Order, In the Matter of the Request for Declaratory Ruling
on the Use of Digital Modulation by Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television
Fixed Service Stations, 11 FCC Rcd 18,839, 18,858 (1996)("Digital Declaratory Ruling").

                         II.  BACKGROUND

    1.   The MDS service historically has provided point-to-multipoint one-way video
transmission to subscribers that is often referred to as "wireless cable."  ITFS licensees traditionally
have utilized their spectrum to transmit educational and instructional material to students.  The two
services share spectrum in the 2500-2686 MHz band, which is divided into groups of 6 MHz
channels.  Although the ITFS/MDS spectrum is primarily used to provide either one-way video
service to students or wireless cable service to subscribers, some of the subject spectrum has been
used in recent years for the provision of two-way service.  

    2.   In order to subsidize their educational mission, ITFS entities may lease channel
capacity on their licensed spectrum, which they are not using, to MDS operators, subject to certain
technical limitations and programming requirements.  As a result, there is a history of cooperation
between ITFS licensees and MDS operators, with MDS operators providing funding used by ITFS
licensees for their educational mission in exchange for the extra channel capacity needed to make
most MDS systems viable.  In light of this history of cooperation, the Commission adopted a new
flexible deregulatory approach to both services, premised on cooperation between all the parties
involved rather than on close Commission involvement in every possible dispute that may arise,
especially in regard to interference problems.

    3.   The proceeding which resulted in the Two-Way Order was commenced in response
to a petition for rulemaking filed by a group of over one hundred participants in the wireless cable
industry,  including wireless cable system operators, MDS and ITFS licensees, equipment
manufacturers and consultants, who requested that the Commission amend its Rules to facilitate the
provision of two-way communication services by MDS and ITFS licensees.  Virtually all of the
comments received in response to that petition, as well as virtually all of the comments received in
response to the NPRM that we subsequently released, strongly supported amending our Rules to
enhance the ability of licensees to provide two-way service.  Although there was some disagreement
on the specifics of how best to proceed in a two-way digital environment, support for the basic two-
way concept was close to unanimous.  

                         III.  DISCUSSION

    4.   Following the release of the Two-Way Order, we received petitions for reconsideration
which primarily focused on requests that we: (1) expand our streamlined application processing to
cover all ITFS modification applications; (2) adopt a method for the Commission to resolve
interference complaints; and (3) make certain technical amendments to our rules.  We address each
of these and other issues in turn.

    A.   Application Processing Issues

    5.   In the Two-Way Order, we adopted a streamlined application processing system based
on applicant certifications of compliance with the technical and notice rules, timely notice to all
potentially affected parties and random audits of submitted applications.  We believed that failure
to adopt such a streamlined system would be "seriously detrimental to the provision of two-way
service."  We also concluded that failure to provide two-way service would jeopardize the survival
of the MDS industry. The majority of reconsideration petitioners advocate expanding the use of the
streamlined processing system to all ITFS major modification applications.  

    6.   BellSouth and other parties argue that it may be necessary to modify the main MDS
and ITFS stations as operators reconfigure their systems for cellularization, sectorization and two-
way services.  This could require major changes to ITFS stations that would be precluded under our
present rules without a filing window.  These parties contend that the delay and uncertainty that
would result from having to wait for such a window could prevent some systems from being built at
all and thereby deny service to the public.  In contrast, the greater certainty that would result from
simultaneous processing would enable business plans to be more reliable and operation timelines to
be more predictable.  The parties contend these factors would encourage investment in the MDS
industry, would increase the value of ITFS spectrum and would facilitate service to the public.  In
addition, as several reconsideration petitioners note, by placing ITFS major modifications in the
streamlined processing system, any ITFS major modification applications submitted during the initial
one-week filing window or any subsequent one-day rolling filing window that interfere with any
simultaneously filed applications would not be treated as mutually exclusive and would not be subject
to auction. Finally, adopting the streamlined procedures for ITFS major change applications would
be consistent with our streamlining goals.  We agree with these arguments of the various petitioners
and will implement the system as stated below.

    7.   The procedure we adopted in the Two-Way Order will utilize a rolling, one-day filing
window for MDS/ITFS applications for response station hubs and boosters.  That procedure will
now be extended to all ITFS modification applications.  Each applicant will have to provide
interference protection to all facilities existing or proposed prior to the filing of its application, but
its application will take precedence over all subsequently filed applications.  Applications filed in the
initial window or on the same day, in the case of the one-day rolling window, will not be treated as
mutually exclusive by the Commission, and it will be the responsibility of the parties to resolve any
conflicts.  Because parties will be unable to offer reliable service without resolving such conflicts, we
believe the incentive to reach a resolution will be so great that Commission involvement will be
unnecessary to resolve disputes. 

    8.   The applicant will be required to certify that it has met all requirements regarding
interference protection to existing and prior proposed facilities. The applicant will also be required
to certify that it has served all potentially affected parties with copies of its application and with its
engineering materials.  The engineering analysis for two-way systems must comply with the
methodology set out in Appendix D to the Two-Way Order, which is also Appendix D to this
document.  The applicant must also certify that it has obtained any necessary consent letters in lieu
of interference protection.  Any application that does not contain the proper certifications will be
dismissed with prejudice and will lose its priority over subsequently filed applications.

    9.   The Commission will rely on the applicant's certifications in issuing licenses and will
not conduct an independent engineering review of each application filed.  The applicant will only be
required to file the application form with the Commission.  However, in the interest of making sure
that engineering information is available to all present and future affected parties, applicants will be
required to provide copies of their applications, with all of their engineering materials, in both hard
copy and on disk, to the  Commission's contractor for public service records duplication,
International Transcription Services, Inc. ("ITS"), located in Portals II, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room
CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 20554 and to certify on their application they have done so.  Because
the ready availability of complete applications to interested parties is essential to the functioning of
the application processing system, failure to certify that the application and supporting material have
been provided to ITS will result in dismissal.  
    10.  In order to monitor applicant compliance with our Rules and to protect the integrity
of the certification process, the staff will conduct random audits, either prior to the expiration of the
60-day petition to deny period, described below, or after a license has been issued in reliance on a
certification.  In the event that an audit reveals that an applicant improperly certified or that an
application contains a material error, the application could be subject to dismissal or the license
subject to revocation.  In addition, if there is evidence that a certification was made in bad faith, we
delegate to the Mass Media Bureau the authority to impose a monetary forfeiture or it may refer the
matter to the Commission for designation for hearing.

    11.  The staff will review applications to make sure all required materials are included,
excluding all engineering showings submitted to ITS.  Complete applications filed with the proper
certifications will be placed on public notice without further review.  As we stated in the Two-Way
Order we believe placing the applications on public notice without prior staff interference analysis
will serve to speed the review process by making the relevant data available to all interested parties
as quickly as possible.  Parties will have 60 days from the date of the public notice to file petitions
to deny against the application.  Due to the complex nature of the engineering matters, we believe
a 60-day petition to deny period is more reasonable than the usual 30-day period.  If no petitions to
deny are received, the application shall be granted.  However, after a complete and properly certified
application is granted, if a new facility operated pursuant to that grant causes non-consensual
interference to any protected facility it must immediately cease operations, regardless of whether any
petitions to deny were filed against the application during the application process.  The burden of
proving that a facility is not causing non-consensual interference lies on the licensee following the
filing of a documented complaint of interference by an affected party.  

    12.  As discussed in the Two-Way Order, it is likely that a large number of applications will
be filed once the new rules become effective and that many of the applications submitted at that time
may conflict with others filed simultaneously.  In order to smooth the transition to the rolling one-day
filing window application processing system, we adopted a special one-week initial filing window,
the opening of which will be announced by public notice.  All applications filed during that week will
be deemed filed as of the same day.  Following the publication of a public notice announcing the
tendering for filing of applications submitted during that window, applicants would have a period of
60 days to amend their applications to resolve conflicts, provided such amendments do not result in
any increase in harmful interference to any previously proposed or authorized station (including
facilities proposed during the window), absent consent of the applicant for or licensee of the station
that would receive such interference.  During this 60-day period, no additional applications could be
filed, affording those who filed during the one-week window an opportunity to resolve any conflicts
without fear that, during the pendency of settlement discussions, third parties will propose facilities
that will have to be protected.

    13.  At the conclusion of that 60-day period, we will release a public notice of the
acceptance for filing of all applications submitted during the initial window, as amended during the
60-day period.  Interested parties will then have 60 days from the date of that public notice to file
petitions to deny.  Following the 60-day period, all properly certified, unopposed applications shall
be granted.  On the 61st day after the date of the second public notice, the rolling one-day filing
window will be in effect.

    14.  We note here that we will not tolerate frivolous petitions to deny which are intended
to delay the streamlined process.  Such petitions will be promptly dismissed and the parties subjected
to appropriate sanctions.  For example, a petition to deny based on the claim that an application is
mutually exclusive with a contemporaneously filed application will be frivolous and promptly
dismissed.  By contrast, a petition to deny that asserts non-consensual interference with a previously
applied-for facility will invoke staff review of the subject application and result in its removal from
the streamlined process.  If the petition to deny is granted, the application will be denied and the
applicant would have to re-file, losing its filing priority.  Therefore, it is essential for applicants to be
certain of the accuracy of their filings and to take every possible step to insure they will not create
unwanted interference before they even file their applications. Except during the 60-day period
following the initial filing window, the streamlined process does not allow for amendments to
applications.  To do so would throw the entire process into chaos because parties would be unable
to rely on the accuracy of previously filed applications whose proposed facilities they are required to
protect. An amendment to any one application could result in a cascade of amendments to
subsequently filed applications.  Therefore, we strongly urge parties to carefully review the accuracy
of their applications and to resolve any potential conflicts that would make their applications subject
to legitimate challenge.  Otherwise, they risk denial of their applications and the loss of filing priority.

    B.   Interference Complaints

    15.  Some petitioners have asked that the Commission adopt interference resolution
procedures, while other parties have asked us to abandon our decision to not treat any
simultaneously filed applications as mutually exclusive.  In addition, other petitioners, including
CTN, have asked that we clarify the term "documented complaint."  For the reasons stated below,
we decline to adopt the advocated interference resolution procedures and decline to change our
earlier decision regarding mutually exclusive applications.  We will clarify, however, the term
"documented complaint."

    16.  In the Two-Way Order and under our rules, we repeatedly emphasized that any two-
way facility that causes unauthorized that is, (non-consensual) interference to any protected facility
must immediately cease operations.  This rule applies regardless of whether any petitions to deny
were filed during the application process.  Furthermore, we stated:

        The burden of proving that a two-way facility is not causing unauthorized interference
    lies on the two-way licensee following the filing of a documented complaint of
    interference by an affected party.

Considering the severity of the penalty for interference, the placing of the burden of proof, and the
fact that a party cannot resume operation absent an appropriate determination authorizing such
operation, we believe that the incentives for the parties to act as fast as conceivably possible to
resolve such complaints already exist.  These incentives should result in complaints being resolved
much more quickly than would be the case if we adopted one of the proposed complaint resolution
procedures, such as the almost five-month process proposed by BellSouth.  These incentives should
also provide more than adequate protection to the interests of ITFS licensees.  Since in most cases
a simple on-off test will demonstrate whether a facility is causing harmful interference and since such
a test can be performed very quickly, we do not believe that MDS operators are seriously burdened
by this process.  In those very rare cases where Commission analysis is needed to resolve the
complaint, we believe our existing processes are sufficient.  Therefore, we will not adopt any new
formal complaint resolution procedure.

    17.  The Foundation has proposed that we abandon our decision to never treat
simultaneously filed ITFS and/or MDS modification applications as mutually exclusive.  The
Foundation contends that the system we adopted could result in three possible outcomes:  (1)  one
party builds, blocking service by the other, (2) both build, but are not able to offer reliable service,
and (3) no one builds and the two parties between them block other construction.  As we repeatedly
emphasized in the Two-Way Order, the system we have adopted is based in large part on the history
of mutual cooperation between MDS and ITFS licensees and the very real interdependence, both
technically and financially, of those entities.  In almost every instance, an MDS operator cannot be
competitive without access to ITFS channels.  Likewise, few ITFS entities can build their facilities
without income from MDS lessees.  Therefore, the three outcomes that the Foundation predicts are
improbable as between MDS and ITFS licensees.  In the case of conflicted MDS operators, failure
to resolve the conflict will create uncertainty in the ability of the operators to offer service and will
make it difficult for either party to finance system construction.  Failure to construct the relevant
systems will result in continuing lost revenue for all of the affected parties.  These results will compel
the parties to find a mutually satisfactory resolution as quickly as possible.

    18.  We do agree with CTN and other parties that we need to clarify what is meant by a
"documented complaint."  The bulk of our enforcement activities in this area will be based upon such
"documented complaints" and guidelines need to be established for the form of such complaints.  In
order to invoke Commission action and to compel shutdown of an MDS facility, a complaint must
contain a certification that the complainant has contacted the operator of the allegedly offending
facility and tried to resolve the situation before filing.  The complaint must then specify the nature of
the interference, whether the interference is constant or intermittent, when the interference began and
the site(s) most likely to be causing the interference.  Where possible, complainants should submit a
videotape or other evidence showing the effects of the interference.  The complaint must also contain
a motion for a temporary order to have the interfering station cease transmitting.  The complaint must
be filed with the Secretary's office and served on the allegedly offending party.  Service shall be in
accordance with  1.4 and 1.47 of our Rules.  Complained-against parties will have 2 business days
from the date of filing to respond to the complaint.  We emphasize again that the burden of proof lies
with the complained-against party.  If we find in favor of the complainant, we shall order immediate
shut-down of the facility.  The operator of the shut-down facility will be required to submit proof that
the interference has been cured before it is allowed to recommence operations.

    C.   Interference

         1.   Protection of ITFS Stations

    19.  In the Two-Way Order, we granted a protected service areas ("psa") to every ITFS
licensee and granted individual protection to all receive sites registered through the date of adoption 
of the Two-Way Order.  We explained that the psa protection "shall comprise an area within a 35
mile radius of the licensee's registered receive sites, [and] shall be in addition to the registered receive
site protection currently enjoyed by ITFS licensees."  Based on these actions, we halted registration
of ITFS receive sites.

              a.   Registration of ITFS Receive Sites

    20.  CTN asks us to clarify that the Commission will continue to register ITFS receive
sites.  Instead, we make clear that we will no longer do so.  Although CTN acknowledges that 47
C.F.R.  74.903(a)(5) states that receive sites more than 35 miles from the main transmitter are not
entitled to interference protection, it contends that this rule is designed to limit the ability of an ITFS
licensee to extend protection unfairly beyond its actual service area, and can be waived if a licensee
can demonstrate that a receive site farther from the main transmitter actually receives service.  This
position is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the rule.  Limiting protection to a 35 mile radius
provides certainty to cochannel and adjacent channel entities, especially now that booster stations can
originate signals.  Nevertheless, we affirm that receive sites registered as of the adoption date of the
Two-Way Order continue to receive protection of their specific parameters and that applicants for
new or modified MDS or ITFS stations are required to demonstrate protection of such sites. 
Furthermore, we emphasize that a receive site is entitled to protection as of the filing date of the
application listing it.

              b.   Point-to-Point ITFS Licensees
     
    21.  BellSouth urges the Commission to create an exception to Section 74.903(d) of the
new Rules, stating that point-to-point ITFS stations are not entitled to a psa, because psa protection
is irrelevant to their institutional needs, results in overprotection and spectral inefficiency, and causes
unintended adverse consequences.  BellSouth also states that the Commission has accorded secondary
protection to point-to-point ITFS stations and adds that a point-to-point ITFS licensee which seeks
to modify its facilities to provide point-to-multipoint services can do so subject to the interference
protection rights of incumbents. Although the Commission has licensed ITFS point-to-point studio
to transmitter links on a secondary basis, BellSouth's characterization of all ITFS point-to-point
operations as "secondary" is inaccurate.  Furthermore, adopting BellSouth's requested exception
would place an unacceptable burden on ITFS licensees who wish to convert from point-to-point to
point-to-multipoint transmission in the future, perhaps even precluding such a change.  Thus, we
decline to adopt the exception to automatic psa protection requested by BellSouth for point-to-point
operations.

         2.   Response Stations: Advance Notification and Professional Installation

    22.  In the Two-Way Order, we created a zone ("notification zone") with a radius of 1960
feet around each ITFS registered receive site, and required that the associated hub station licensee
notify the appropriate ITFS licensee by certified mail at least 20 days prior to the activation of any
response station within such a zone.  We stipulated that the notification must contain the street
address and geographic coordinates of the response station; a specification of the station's EIRP,
antenna pattern, orientation, polarization, height above mean sea level ("AMSL") and channels to be
used; and the name and telephone number of a contact person who will be responsible for
coordinating the resolution of any interference problems.  We also required that all response station
transmitters be installed professionally to minimize BFO, to help prevent cochannel and adjacent
channel interference, and to minimize the risk of human exposure to potentially hazardous radio-
frequency ("RF") emissions.

    23.  A number of the parties request that we modify these requirements.  Several parties
maintain that the advance notification and professional installation requirements pose a competitive
impediment because MDS operators will be alone in being unable to provide rapid installation or a
retail distribution channel, unlike other services including cable television or satellite antenna master
television ("SMATV"). CTN regards these arguments as "flawed," in that these other services do
not use radio-frequency transmissions for return paths, and thus interference issues are not a concern. 
Petitioners respond that "[p]rospective customers do not care about differences in technology or
whether a service provider is sharing spectrum with ITFS licensees - they want their service
immediately."

                                 a.   Response Stations Operating at +18 dBW EIRP or less, and/or on
                   MDS Channels 1 or 2/2A

    24.  Petitioners asked for reconsideration of our imposition of advance notification and
equipment installation requirements for response stations utilizing a transmit power of 18 dBW EIRP
or less.  Petitioners argue that, when no more than 18 dBW is used at a response station with digital
modulation operating as part of a two-way cellularized system in the 2500-2686 MHz band, no 20-
day notification requirement or professional equipment installation requirement should be imposed
for protection of ITFS receive sites.  In lieu of these requirements, Petitioners propose that
"improved" frequency downconverters be provided by hub station licensees to all ITFS receive sites
within 1960 feet of the hub station's response service area ("RSA").  The proposed downconverters
would be required to suppress non-cochannel and non-adjacent channel signals by an amount equal
to, or greater than, (4 - A - B) dB, where A represents the downconverter's maximum input power
capability (in dBm) and B represents the sum of the power (in dBm) of the desired signals at the input
of the  downconverter.  Petitioners additionally requested that the Commission reconsider, and
eliminate, the requirements for advance notification and professional installation of digital response
stations operating as part of a two-way cellularized system in the 2150-2162 MHz MDS band,
irrespective of EIRP utilized.  Petitioners argue that these requirements are unnecessary because
interference to ITFS stations operating in the 2500-2686 MHz band should not occur due to the
separation of over 300 MHz between these bands.

    25.  In response to Petitioners' proposal to install improved downconverters in
circumstances where interference could occur, CTN states that they would not oppose an exemption
from the notification and installation rules for stations utilizing 18 dBW or less EIRP, provided that
"the replacement downconverters meet an agreed-upon standard for resistance" to overload. 
Specifically, CTN recommends the following standards for such downconverters:  (1) a third-order
intercept point of 30 dBm; (2) a conversion gain of 32 dB, or the same gain as the existing
downconverter, whichever is less; and (3) a noise figure of no greater than 2.5 dB, or no more than
1 dB greater than the noise figure of the existing downconverter, whichever is greater.  Responding
to this proposal, Petitioners state that they do not object to CTN's specifications, and note that, if
downconverter interference occurred despite installation of such a replacement unit, then the hub
station operator would still be responsible for curing such interference by deploying an even better
downconverter and/or utilizing other interference mitigation techniques previously identified by
Petitioners.  Petitioners' request to exempt stations in the 2150-2162 MHz band from notification
and installation requirements is opposed by CTN, which argues that such stations still pose a threat
of downconverter overload to ITFS stations in the 2500-2686 MHz band.

    26.  We believe the proposal for the replacement of existing downconverters with newer,
more interference resistant, models in certain circumstances and modifying the notification rules
protects the interests of ITFS stations while removing the competitive disadvantage to MDS
operators.  We are therefore amending our rules to eliminate the notification and professional
installation requirements for digital response stations in two-way cellularized systems utilizing no
more than 18 dBW EIRP, contingent upon the operator of the associated hub station providing and
installing replacement downconverters at registered ITFS receive sites within the outer edge of the
RSA and beyond to a distance of 1960 feet.  The technical specifications of the replacement
downconverters shall, at a minimum, be consistent with those set out in  26, supra.  We are also
adopting Petitioners' suggested procedures for implementation of such arrangements, namely:  (1)
the proposal to upgrade downconverters should be made in writing and served on the affected ITFS
licensee, conditional licensee or applicant at the same time the application for the response station hub
license is served on cochannel and adjacent channel ITFS parties; (2) any objection by ITFS parties
would have to be made within the 60-day period allowed for petitions to deny the hub station
application, setting forth the specific reason(s) for the objection; (3) if no objection is filed, the offer
for downconverter replacement will be deemed to have been accepted; and (4) if an objection to
downconverter replacement is filed, the hub station application would nevertheless be granted, subject
to the Commission's requirements for notification and professional installation.  This arrangement
should facilitate the installation of very large numbers of response stations without the need for
notification or professional installation. 

    27.  We are not adopting Petitioners' request to totally exempt response stations in the
2150-2162 MHz MDS band from notification and professional installation requirements, although
such stations utilizing no more than 18 dBW EIRP are included in the provisions above.  We do not
find, and Petitioners did not provide, good cause for exempting stations in this band utilizing more
than 18 dBW from these requirements.  Despite the fact that this band is separated by over 300 MHz
from the ITFS channels, we agree with CTN that the potential for downconverter overload still exists,
although it should be significantly easier to eliminate, such as with the use of relatively inexpensive
filters.  Moreover, with respect to the equipment installation requirement, we are retaining this rule
provision for all MDS and ITFS stations using more than 18 dBW EIRP because of our concerns
relating to the potential for deleterious effects from human exposure to high-power microwave
emissions.  The Commission has adopted specific regulations relating to RF exposure and we
believe these provisions could be compromised if professional installation requirements were
eliminated for MDS and ITFS response stations operating at an EIRP in excess of 18 dBW.  For
stations operating up to and including 18 dBW EIRP, we believe that the probability of harmful
exposure is sufficiently limited that it should not be an impediment to implementing the exemption
from professional installation sought by the Petitioners.  

    28.  Our provisions for limiting RF exposure in the MDS and ITFS bands require a
routine environmental evaluation if:  (1) a non-building-mounted antenna less than 10 meters above
ground is used and the station EIRP is greater than 1640 watts; or (2) a building-mounted antenna
is used and the station EIRP is greater than 1640 watts.  The professional installation exemption we
are adopting is for response stations utilizing a maximum of 18 dBW EIRP, which corresponds to
a power of 63 watts EIRP.  Using the formulation 20 log(D1/D2) = 10 log(P1/P2), where D1 = 10
meters, P1 = 1640 Watts EIRP, and P2 = 63 Watts EIRP, the term D2 can be calculated to be
approximately 2 meters, which is the distance at which a 63 Watt EIRP signal would produce an RF
exposure level equivalent to that produced by a 1640 Watt EIRP signal at a distance of 10 meters. 
However, even this estimate for D2 is very conservative (i.e. too large) because, at that distance from
a response station dish antenna, any object would be in the "near field" of the antenna, i.e., within the
area where the lobe of the antenna is not yet fully formed and where the field of the antenna is
dispersed over a relatively wide area as a fraction of the distance from the reflecting surface of the
antenna.  Moreover, as the antennas in these systems will, of necessity, be mounted so as to have a
line-of-sight path to their associated booster and hub stations, it is reasonable to expect that they will
be mounted at roof level or above, where there is little probability of RF exposure to humans.  As an
additional safeguard, however, the current provisions of Sections 21.909(m) and 74.939(o) of our
Rules will be amended.  These sections now provide that response stations can be operated only when
engaged in communications with their associated hubs, boosters or primary stations, and radiation
of unmodulated carriers or other unnecessary transmissions are prohibited.  We are amending these
rules to also provide that response stations can only be initially activated, or reactivated if relocated,
by a signal from a booster or primary station, and that hub licensees have a means to remotely
deactivate any subscriber's response station transmitter within their RSA.  These provisions should
give an added measure of control to system licensees useful for conducting interference tests and
other system evaluations, and will result in a positive "interlock" feature that prevents inadvertent
activation of a newly installed response transmitter when the response antenna is not properly
installed so as to receive signals from the associated main or booster transmitters.

    29.  In its petition, Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm") requests that the Commission:
(1) amend the rules to eliminate (1) the notification and professional installation requirements for
MDS and ITFS response stations with EIRP no greater than -6 dBW; (2) the requirement that
response stations utilize directional receiving antennas; and (3) the requirement that response stations
utilize directional transmitting antennas.  Qualcomm argues that the notification/installation
regulations should not apply to stations with an EIRP no greater than -6 dBW (1/4 watt) because
such stations pose an extremely low potential threat for causing downconverter overload.  Virtually
all parties commenting on the issue support Qualcomm's request.
 
    30.  Qualcomm also argues that Section 21.906(d) of our Rules, which requires the use
(except at hub stations) of directional receiving antennas at MDS stations, has "outlived its regulatory
usefulness" and should be deleted.  Qualcomm states that this rule conflicts with 47 C.F.R. 
21.906(a), which provides for omnidirectional transmitting antennas at some MDS stations in certain
circumstances, and is in conflict with recently-adopted 47 C.F.R.  21.909(g)(4), which governs the
use of transmitting antennas at MDS response stations.  Qualcomm also wants 47 C.F.R.  74.937(b)
amended to eliminate what Qualcomm sees as an ambiguity within the rule and a possible
inconsistency with a portion of 47 C.F.R.  74.931.  These rules require the use of directive
transmitting antennas "whenever feasible" at certain ITFS stations, except that omnidirectional
transmitting antennas may be used when the stations are leased to provide a commercial service. 
Qualcomm asks that the provisions of 47 C.F.R.  74.939(g)(4), which governs the use of
transmitting antennas at ITFS stations, be referenced as an exception to the requirements of 47 C.F.R.
 74.937(b).  Qualcomm argues that the sections of both Part 21 and Part 74 of our Rules which it
wishes amended are not appropriate for response stations in two-way systems, as such stations "will
utilize a common antenna for transmissions and reception," and it would be impractical and
unnecessary for a response station to have one antenna for transmitting and a separate antenna for
receiving.  Additionally, such a requirement would not be compatible, Qualcomm argues, with their
low power response station, a small desktop unit with a short omnidirectional whip antenna, which
will be readily available for consumer purchase and installation.

    31.  We agree with Qualcomm, CTN and others who support elimination of the notification
and installation requirements for stations with EIRP no greater than -6 dBW, and we are amending
our rules accordingly.  The problems these requirements were meant to address, downconverter
overload and unsafe exposure to RF emissions, are very unlikely to be caused by such low power
stations, even those within 150 feet of an ITFS receive site.  Should such interference occur, it will
still be the responsibility of the hub station licensee to provide a remedy.   Therefore, response
stations with an EIRP no greater than -6 dBW do not need to comply with the advance notification
and professional installation requirements; stations with an EIRP between -6 dBW and 18 dBW are
subject to those requirements only within the notification zone subject to those exceptions set out
herein; and stations with an EIRP greater than 18 dBW are always subject to the professional
installation requirements and, subject to some exceptions, to the notification requirements when
within the notification zone.

    32.  With respect to Qualcomm's proposed amendments of the response station antenna
rules, we find the modifications as suggested would be contrary to the clear meaning of our proposals
and actions in this proceeding.  Specifically, with respect to MDS response stations, we proposed and
adopted 47 C.F.R.  21.906(d), which requires that directional receiving antennas be used.  This rule
is completely consistent with 47 C.F.R.  21.909(g)(4) which states that "each response station shall
employ a transmission antenna oriented towards the response station hub...."  The unambiguous
meaning of this language is that the MDS response station transmitting antenna must also be
directional, as the phrase "oriented towards" would otherwise be meaningless.  Qualcomm's reference
to omnidirectional antennas in 47 C.F.R  21.906(a) is inapposite, as this section applies only to
antennas at primary (and booster) MDS stations.  With respect to ITFS response stations, 47 C.F.R.
 74.937(a) calls for ITFS response stations to use directional receiving antennas and allows licensees
to install receiving antennas with performance superior to the specifications set forth at Figure I,
Section 74.937(a).  Also, 47 C.F.R.  74.939(g)(4) states that "each ITFS response station shall
employ a transmission antenna oriented towards the response station hub...."  Clearly, as with MDS
stations, the unambiguous meaning of this language is that the ITFS response station transmitting
antenna must be directional.  Qualcomm's reference to language in 47 C.F.R.  74.931(e)(7)
permitting omnidirectional ITFS transmitting antennas in certain circumstances is inapposite, as this
text applies only to antennas at primary (and booster) ITFS stations.

    33.  Although response stations in general are not permitted to use omnidirectional
antennas, stations operating at the very low EIRP proposed by Qualcomm will have little potential
to interfere with other systems irrespective of the type of antennas used.  Qualcomm's use of low
power transceivers which can be placed on a desk or other convenient indoor location to provide high
speed wireless internet access is, we believe, an appropriate and innovative use of this spectrum and
should be accommodated if at all possible.  In consideration of these facts, we have decided, to waive
our rules to the extent necessary to permit the use of omnidirectional transmitting and receiving
antennas at any ITFS or MDS response station with an EIRP no greater than -6 dBW.  This action,
we believe, is appropriate and warranted in these circumstances and is fully consistent with our
overall framework of encouraging expanding use of this spectrum while, at the same time, providing
adequate protection from harmful interference to all systems.  The use of omnidirectional antennas
under the provisions of this waiver does not exempt the licensee from our existing requirement that
interference calculations be based on the presumption that the response station utilizes a reference
receiving antenna with minimum performance characteristics conforming to Figure I of 47 C.F.R. 
74.937(a).  Users of omnidirectional response station receiving antennas will receive interference
protection as if they were using a receiving antenna with the reference pattern and will not be
protected from unwanted signal levels above those derived by use of this pattern. 

                                 b.   Effect of Timing of Construction of ITFS Registered 
                                      Receive Sites

    34.  Petitioners state that the advance notification and professional installation
requirements should not apply with respect to ITFS receive sites built after the filing of the associated
response station hub application.  They argue that ITFS licensees now are on notice of the risk of
BFO, and should be deploying downconverters better able to reject undesired signals.  We decline
to adopt Petitioners' proposed exception.  Interference protection rights within these services are
based on a "first in time, first in right" philosophy.  Because all ITFS registered receive sites will have
been registered before the filing of any response station hub applications, these sites are previously-
proposed and thus entitled to protection.  Our decision here is consistent with other provisions in the
new rules which require such protection.  We reiterate that the notification requirements will apply
only to registered receive sites and those for which registration was applied for as of the date of
adoption of the Two-Way Order.  

              c.   Consent of ITFS Licensees

    35.  No party objects to allowing ITFS licensees to consent to waive the advance
notification and professional installation requirements, and we grant Petitioners' proposal to permit
such consents. Indeed, the Two-Way Order specifically contemplates that consents will play a major
role in the licensing of two-way MDS and ITFS facilities.  However, while individual ITFS licensees
may forego their receipt of advance notification of response station activation, we agree with CTN
that the professional installation requirement may be nullified only where all potentially affected ITFS
licensees consent.  Specifically, response stations operating above -6 dBW EIRP and no greater than
+18 dBW EIRP need not be installed professionally so long as each and every ITFS licensee whose
notification zone encompasses such responses stations consents in writing to non-professional
installation of those response stations.  

              d.   Timing and Method of Advance Notification

    36.  Some parties propose shortening the notification period to enhance the competitive
position of MDS operators and the Bay Area Consortium urges the Commission to dispense with the
advance notification rules altogether.  CTN contends that the Bay Area Consortium's proposal, which
would simply require hub applications to be served on potentially affected ITFS licensees,  "is of little
use" given that the hub application may be filed months or years before a response station capable of
causing interference is activated and would not identify a specific, problematic response station. 
Dallas County opposes shortening the notification period, claiming that the benefits of retaining 20
days notice outweigh any perceived competitive disadvantage.  Relatedly, Petitioners suggest that
every response station hub application should be served on any ITFS licensee with a registered
receive site in, or within 1960 feet of, the proposed RSA to assure that the activation notice is not
the first time that an ITFS licensee learns of plans to deploy response stations in the vicinity of its
registered receive sites.

    37.  We will retain our advance notification requirement for response stations activated
within 1960 feet of ITFS registered receive sites, except for those activations which fall into any of
the above exceptions.  We also will limit the term of this notification to one business day in advance
of such activation.  The main purpose of the advance notification requirement is to jump-start the
BFO source identification process before BFO occurs, and we are persuaded that one business day
is sufficient notice to achieve this purpose, while at the same time allaying the concerns expressed by
some parties over the anti-competitive effects of a longer notification period.  We also adopt
Petitioners' suggestion for service of response station hub applications on non-co- and adjacent
channel ITFS licensees.

    38.  While the Two-Way Order requires that advance notification be performed by certified
mail, Petitioners request that an ITFS licensee be permitted to elect to receive it by electronic mail
(e-mail) or fax.  We will permit such notification provided that the ITFS licensee consents in writing. 
Regardless of the method used, notification should be timed so that it is received by the ITFS licensee
at least one day in advance of activation.
    
                                 e.   Content of Advance Notification

    39.  Petitioners propose that we limit the content of the notification to the ITFS receive
site(s) potentially affected by the new response station, the hub(s) with which the response station
may communicate, and the name and telephone number of a contact person.  Petitioners argue that
the required content of the advance notification contains far more information than the ITFS licensee
reasonably needs, and that this content thus should be reduced to protect proprietary and market
sensitive information.  However, CTN argues that it is unlikely that the location of response station
transmitters always could be hidden, and that no attempt has been made to show that a response
station's physical location or operating specifications are in any way confidential. 

    40.  We believe that the level of concern over predatory pricing by ITFS receiving notice,
or by their lessees is unfounded.  Reducing the advance notification period to one day minimizes any
the potential for a competitor to utilize the information in the notification to the detriment of an MDS
operator.  Therefore, the interest in providing the information called for by our advance notification
requirement to facilitate the identification of any BFO that may occur outweighs any of the concerns
expressed regarding possible anti-competitive effects.  

    41.  In addition, we are not persuaded by Petitioners' argument that it is impossible for
response station hub licensees to determine and supply in advance of response station activation
certain technical characteristics of the response station.  For one thing, some of those characteristics
should be predetermined by virtue of the applied-for parameters of the RSA, region and class
pertaining to the particular response station.  We believe the activation process will require extensive
coordination with the hub licensee or wireless cable operator, and from this the hub licensee will be
able to derive the information required on the notification.  Our adoption of rules requiring remote
activation of response stations to prevent inadvertent activation of an improperly installed response
transmitter also should facilitate recognition of the operating characteristics of the response station. 

    42.  The Bay Area Consortium depicts the existing advance notification requirements as
huge burdens for ITFS licensees on both sides of the notification.  Not only would the provider of
the notification be obligated to expend resources to prepare notifications, but the receiver also would
be obligated to review potentially thousands of notifications.  However, we agree with those other
parties who state that the need for interference protection outweighs the burdens.  The fact that the
notification zone extends only one-third of a mile from the registered receive site, coupled with the
exceptions to the notification requirement that we have carved out here, should greatly limit the
number of notifications.  Furthermore, we adopt the proposal by Dallas County, to require
identification of the potentially affected registered ITFS receive sites and the response station hub(s)
with which the newly activated response station may communicate because it will lessen the burden
on parties reviewing the notification. 

         3.   Technical Standards

              a.   Spectral Mask

    43.  Spike Technologies, Inc. ("Spike") asks the Commission to reconsider and amend the
rules relating to the definition of the spectral mask applicable to digital emissions used at MDS and
ITFS stations.  The spectral mask establishes the amount of attenuation which is required for the
portions of the transmitted signal which fall beyond the upper and lower edges of the channel in use. 
Specifically, Spike argues that there is an inconsistency between the emission limits given in 47 C.F.R.
 21.908(a), (b), (d) and the formulas in 47 C.F.R.  21.908(e) which, according to Spike, "could
be interpreted as being 18 dB more restrictive than intended...."  The text of Sections (a), (b) and
(d) sets out the specific attenuations for out-of-band emissions relative to the "licensed average 6
MHz channel power level."  Section 21.908(e) sets out two mathematical formulas that define two
alternative measurement methodologies which can be used for determining compliance with Sections
(a), (b) and (d).  Spike contends that the formulaic attenuation schema is inconsistent with the
relevant proposals in the NPRM and with the Commission's decisions in the Digital Declaratory
Ruling.  Spike argues that their understanding of our requirements for suppression of out-of-band
emissions in the Digital Declaratory Ruling and in the NPRM is that the magnitude of the out-of-
band emissions (as measured in the appropriate resolution bandwidth) is to be compared to the
magnitude of the total licensed average power within a 6 MHz channel, and that a ratio of these two
magnitudes would yield the requisite suppression.  Spike offers alternative formulas which, they say,
present the correct methodologies for calculating the required out-of-band attenuations.  In their
opposition, Petitioners state that Spike fundamentally misunderstands how the text and formulas of
the rule are to be correctly interpreted and that, in fact, there is no inconsistency between them and
they are both correct.  Petitioners argue that the rule text and formulas, as adopted, are completely
consistent with the procedures used in connection with the emission tests which formed the basis for
the Digital Declaratory Order; that Spike's alternative formulas are incorrect and inapplicable; and
that implementation of the spectral mask rules in conformance with Spike's interpretation would result
in a serious degradation of the MDS/ITFS band due to much greater levels of adjacent channel
interference.

    44.  The text of 47 C.F.R.  21.908 in both the NPRM and the Two-Way Order in this
proceeding is a direct carryover of the text in the Digital Declaratory Order, where we said
"Acceptable levels of out-of-band emissions shall reference the average transmitter output power." 
Referencing out- of-band emissions to the measured average power within a portion of a 6 MHz
channel (the resolution bandwidth) with uniform spectral density is an acceptable methodology and,
most significantly, is the method used by the Petitioners, for the emissions test in support of our
Digital Declaratory Ruling. We stated, by way of clarification, that "the relative power of out-of-
band emissions shall be measured with 100 kHz resolution bandwidth."  The purpose of this
statement was to highlight the fact that the resolution bandwidth of the measurement instrument must
be taken into account when comparing the magnitudes of in-channel and out-of-channel power.  In
the tests conducted by the Petitioners, the most common resolution bandwidth used was 100 kHz,
and, as the Digital Declaratory Order was based on these tests, that bandwidth was specified as the
measurement standard.  Subsequently, as a result of questions raised by comments to the NPRM,
Petitioners proposed two generalized mathematical formulas which could be used to evaluate the
relative levels of out-of-band emissions irrespective of the particular channel width and resolution
bandwidth(s) involved.  Those formulas were adopted by the Commission at 47 C.F.R.  21.908(e)
and they state, quantitatively, how the measurement of a spectral mask must be made in order to
comply with the requirements of 47 C.F.R.  21.908(a), (b) and (d).  We agree with Petitioners that
Spike is incorrect in their assertion that the text and formulas are inconsistent.  The purpose of the
text is as statement of what is to be measured, and the purpose of the formulas is to show the two
alternative means for how the measurement is to be taken in order to produce consistent and correct
results.  Spikes's proposed alternative formulas are meant to compare the total amount of power in
a 6 MHz wide channel against out-of-channel power measured within a 100 kHz bandwidth.  The
formulas which we adopted are meant to compare the power in a segment within the 6 MHz channel
(for example, a 100 kHz segment) against the out-of-channel power measured within a bandwidth
segment at the point of interest.  The difference in the results of these two approaches amounts to
approximately 18 dB for a resolution bandwidth of 100 kHz, i.e. 10 log(6 MHz/100 kHz), with
Spike's formulas permitting out-of-channel power to be 18 dB greater than that permitted by the rule
which we adopted.  Thus, the interpretation suggested by Spike would result in a degradation of the
emission mask by 18 dB and could result in unacceptably high levels of adjacent channel interference
in the MDS/ITFS band. 

    45.  Although we find Spike's interpretation of the formulas in 47 C.F.R.  21.908(e) to
be incorrect, we believe that Spike's misunderstanding of our measurement schema warrants a general
clarification of the applicability of these formulas to the digital emissions already approved for
MDS/ITFS and those that might be approved in the future.  Specifically, Spike states in their
petition for reconsideration that the formulas "mistakenly reference the [spectral] mask to the "flat
top" of the digital wave form."  In fact, this reference to the "flat top" of the digital emission's wave
form is correct and essential for establishing the correct portion of the signal to be measured when
using relative power measurements for determination of the shape of the spectral mask.  By "flat top,"
we are referring to that portion of the digital emission which falls at the center of the occupied
bandwidth of the emission, e.g. at the center of a 6 MHz channel, at which center point a
measurement of the power spectral density of the emission should yield, within a resolution
bandwidth such as 100 kHz, a value which is not exceeded at any other point within the emission
when measured within the same resolution bandwidth.  For emissions such as 64-QAM, which have
a relatively uniform power spectral density, a power measurement within a 100 kHz resolution
bandwidth taken at the "flat top" or within any other 100 kHz segment that is not located proximate
to the 6 MHz channel edge, should yield values which are essentially equal.  However, for emissions
such as QPSK and 4-QAM, this will not be true, as the "flat top" measurement value will exceed the
value found from measurements taken at points between the center of the emission and the channel
edges.  This is true because QPSK has a "Sin X/X" power spectral density configuration, i.e., the
emission is "dome shaped," with more power concentrated near the center of the channel and less
power concentrated towards the edges of the channel.

    46.  Thus, for emissions such as QPSK and 4-QAM, the "flat top" portion of the signal is
the only point within the channel at which a correct comparison of the relative levels of in-band and
out-of-band power can be taken.  We would also emphasize that such emissions are constrained in
terms of maximum permissible EIRP by the degree to which they are non-uniform.  The interference
protection rules which we proposed and adopted for digital emissions were premised on those
emissions having uniform power spectral density, and thus, at any measurement point inside the
occupied channel, presenting a uniform radiated power (EIRP) to which the 45 dB cochannel and 0
dB adjacent channel interference protection criteria could be applied.  In this way, the licensed EIRP
(e.g. 2000 watts) would be uniformly distributed across a 6 MHz channel (e.g. 333 watts/MHz) and
no more EIRP would be present within the measurement resolution bandwidth at the channel center
than would be present within the resolution bandwidth offset to a point removed from the center, e.g.
within 1 MHz of the edge of the channel.  For QPSK and similar emissions this will not be the case. 
For these emissions there will be, as discussed above, more power near the center of the emission
than near its edges.  The result of this concentration of power is that the center portion of the
emission presents a greater level of potentially interfering EIRP than do the portions away from the
center.  For equal EIRP's 64, a QPSK signal will have more interfering power near its channel center
than will a uniform emission, such as over a 6 MHz channel QAM, a result which would be contrary
to the premises of our interference protection standards especially with regard to subchanneling,
which is permitted on uniform spectral density.  We therefore caution applicants and licensees that
the transmitter power limits in 47 C.F.R.  21.904 and 74.935 are maximum values which, as applied
to digital emissions, are permissible only when those emissions have uniform power spectral density. 
For other emissions, such as QPSK and 4-QAM, the maximum permissible EIRP value will be lower,
dependant on the actual power spectral distribution of the signal.  Specifically, for non-uniform
emissions, the maximum permissible total channel power is that value which results in a "flat top"
power level no greater than the "flat top" power level which would be produced by a uniform digital
emission using the same channel width.  For purposes of measuring "flat top" power levels for non-
uniform emissions within a 6 MHz channel, we will assume the use of a 100 kHz resolution
bandwidth in a 6 MHz channel.  We have amended Sections 21.904 and 74.935 of our Rules to clarify
these power reduction requirements.

              b.   Frequency Tolerance

    47.  Spike and Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Cisco") object to the imposition of a +/- 1 kHz
frequency tolerance requirement on MDS and ITFS primary and high-power booster stations which
utilize digital modulations other than VSB.  These parties argue that frequency tolerance is not
relevant to non-VSB digital modulations because these emissions do not have a carrier frequency, and
that imposition of such a requirement will significantly increase the cost of transmitters at primary and
high-power booster stations because the frequency determining circuitry in these units will require
the use of an ovenized crystal oscillator, rather than a simpler and much less expensive temperature-
compensated crystal oscillator.  Cisco asserts that the required frequency tolerance cannot be justified
as a means of facilitating frequency-offset amelioration of cochannel interference because interference
caused by carrierless digital emissions is not amenable to such a remedy.  Spike argues that the
frequency tolerance requirement adopted in the Two-Way Order is inconsistent with our actions in
both the Digital Declaratory Ruling and the NPRM in this proceeding, and that "not a single
commenter in the proceeding advocated the imposition of frequency tolerance standards on non-VSB
digital transmissions."  Cisco suggests, as an alternative to the +/- 1 kHz requirement, that the
Commission amend its rules to require a tolerance of 0.001% for non-VSB digital emissions, arguing
that this looser standard will not adversely affect adjacent channel interference protection
requirements because all transmitters will still be required to comply with the Commission's spectral
mask regulations for digital emissions.  Petitioners responded to these parties, saying that frequency
tolerance is important for all digital emissions and arguing that Spike is incorrect in its assertion that
the +/- 1 kHz requirement was not supported in the comments to the NPRM, pointing out that
Petitioners themselves both recommended and supported this requirement consistently in their filings
in connection with the Digital Declaratory Ruling, the NPRM, and the Two-Way Order.  While
supporting retention of a tolerance requirement, Petitioners also stated that they would not be
opposed to a relaxation of the requirement "to levels that can be achieved without using ovenized
crystal oscillators."

    48.  With few exceptions, the Commission has routinely imposed frequency tolerance
requirements on transmitters used in all services, including MDS and ITFS.  This requirement has
been imposed as a means for assuring that the signal from the transmitter will stay within its assigned
channel or bandwidth and, using frequency offset techniques, as a means for ameliorating some
instances of cochannel interference between analog stations.  Frequency tolerance is specified in terms
of the stability of the "carrier" signal generated by the transmitter, and is typically expressed in
absolute terms, such as +/- 1 kHz, or in relative terms, such as 0.001%.  For emissions which do not
involve the transmission of a carrier as part of their modulated output, such as the digital emission
QAM, the relevance of frequency tolerance is significantly diminished.  In this proceeding, the
Commission proposed, and subsequently adopted, rules  applying the pre-existing +/- 1 kHz analog
emission tolerance requirement to all digital emissions, although low-power booster stations and all
response stations using digital emissions were exempted from the requirement, based on their limited
potential for causing interference which might result from a lack of frequency stability.  Our
rationale for continuing to apply a tolerance standard to digital emissions used at primary and high-
power booster stations was that "there is a much more significant potential interference impact and
we believe that requiring the emissions from these stations to be held steady within their assigned
channels is much more important."  Upon reconsideration, we find that this concern remains valid
and should continue to be a basis for imposing a tolerance requirement on these stations.  However,
we agree with Cisco that amending the requirement to 0.001% would be appropriate, as this would
not increase the potential for interference from these stations and would reduce the cost of
manufacturing the oscillators used in these transmitters very significantly.  In absolute terms, a
0.001% tolerance would amount to 26 kHz for a transmitter operating on a frequency of 2600 MHz. 
Within a 6 MHz wide MDS or ITFS channel, a variation of 26 kHz is insignificant and should have
no impact on the interference environment.  We are applying this rule amendment to all currently-
approved digital emissions for MDS and ITFS stations.

              c.   Other Technical Considerations

    49.  CTN requests that the Commission reconsider its references in the rules pertaining to
interference calculation requirements with respect to use of the terms "free space" and "unobstructed
path."  CTN notes, and we agree, that there is an inconsistent use of these terms in the rules adopted
in the Two-Way Order and in Appendix D attached thereto.  CTN suggests that these terms be
replaced by the term "terrain sensitive methodology," which would include both obstructed and
unobstructed paths.  We agree that this terminology is superior to that now used and we are therefore
amending 47 C.F.R.  21.902 and  74.903 accordingly.  This will reflect the fact that we have
permitted the inclusion of terrain factors in interference calculations for MDS and ITFS systems and
will continue to do so.  When prepackaged terrain-sensitive software is used in which keys can be set
for such factors as ground reflection and clutter environment, and/or when path-specific factors such
as ground conductivity or dielectric constant can be entered, this information must be clearly stated
within the interference calculation submission attached to the application(s) being filed so that it is
available for independent verification.  We are also amending our application processing procedures
for MDS and ITFS licenses to regard changes in antenna elevation pattern, as well as changes in
antenna azimuth pattern, as falling within the meaning of the phrase "in any direction" found in 47
C.F.R.  21.23(c)(1)(vi), 21.42(c)(8), and 74.911(a)(1). This recognizes the valid concern raised
by CTN that a modification to the elevation pattern of an MDS or ITFS antenna, as a result of
electrical (or mechanical) beam tilt or array reconfiguration, can be a potential source of interference
to neighboring stations even though the pattern of the antenna, as viewed in terms of its horizontal
directivity, may not have changed.

    50.  CTN also requests a clarification of 47 C.F.R.  21.909(o) and 74.939(q) with
respect to what signal propagation model(s) are permissible for use in connection with Appendix D. 
CTN argues that Appendix D, which sets out in detail the methodology for calculating interference
for response and hub stations, and which includes a lengthy discussion of the Epstein-Peterson signal
propagation model, is ambiguous as to whether propagation models other than Epstein-Peterson may
be used for Appendix D calculations.  CTN states that we "should resolve this ambiguity in a way that
does not favor a particular model."  The specific language which the Commission used in Appendix
D was as follows:  "When analyzing interference from response stations to other systems and from
other systems to response station hubs, a propagation model shall be used that takes into account the
effects of terrain and certain other factors."  The Commission then went on, at length, to describe
the propagation model (i.e. Epstein-Peterson) which is to be used.  Responding to concerns
paralleling those now raised by CTN, we stated our intention of requiring uniformity in response and
hub station interference calculations, saying "Nor do we agree that applicants should be free to
choose any methodology they wish for making interference calculations, as this would drastically slow
the evaluation of applications and almost certainly result in many Petitions to Deny, as licensees and
applicants struggled to understand the differing and potentially incompatible assumptions and
calculations incorporated into the various methodologies."  Inasmuch as the propagation
calculations are an integral and indispensable part of the interference calculation methodology of
Appendix D, we reject CTN's contention that there is any ambiguity in our position, and we remain
unable to discern any benefit to the flexibility sought by CTN which would offset the increased
complexity of requiring applicants and licensees to be conversant with multiple propagation
calculation schemes if they wished to be able to review the applications filed by neighboring systems
which could potentially be sources of interference.  It should be noted, however, that mandatory use
of the Epstein-Peterson model applies only to calculations performed in accordance with the
requirements of Appendix D, and does not apply to calculations not involving two-way cellularized
systems of response and hub stations.  Those calculations may continue to be performed using any
appropriate terrain-sensitive model.

    51.  With respect to another portion of Appendix D, which deals with the collection of
information to be submitted at the time of filing of an application, CTN requests modifications of and
additions to certain data fields.  Specifically, CTN asks that fields be added for electrical beam tilt
and for the direction (azimuth) of mechanical beam tilt of the station antenna, as well as replacing the
term "azimuth of main lobe" with the term "azimuth of main lobe or azimuth of symmetry."  CTN
also requests that the specification of antenna elevation patterns be from -90 degrees to +90 degrees,
rather than from 0 to 359 degrees as now required.  We agree that these modifications and additions
are justified and Appendix D is being amended appropriately.  The fields which CTN requests as
additions were inadvertently omitted in the drafting of Appendix D and are clearly necessary elements
in the specification of antenna characteristics at MDS and ITFS stations.  Adding the term "azimuth
of symmetry" will account for multi-lobed symmetrical antennas which do not have a single "azimuth
of main lobe."  Antenna elevation patterns are typically specified as suggested by CTN, with angles
below the horizon defined as positive numbers, e.g. a "depression angle of 2 degrees" would be
shown as +02.  With respect to Appendix D as a whole, CTN requests that the Commission provide
sample interference calculations which could be used for future reference for similar calculations
necessary in connection with the filing of applications and the evaluation of applications filed by
competing parties.  We believe this is unnecessary because, although the procedures set out in
Appendix D are complex, the complexity stems primarily from the number of calculations which must
be undertaken, rather than from any inherent complexity in the calculations themselves.

    D.   Proposals Specifically Regarding Use of 125 kHz Channels

    52.  In the Two-Way Order, we adopted rules in accordance with the most flexible
framework proposed in the NPRM for use of the 125 kHz channels, which included inter alia
redesignating these channels as the I Channels. On reconsideration, CTN requests that the
Commission permit applications for "traditional return-path use" of I channels to be filed under the
streamlined application processing rules, as are applications for downstream use of I channels.  We
grant this request as consistent with our decision to broaden the field of MDS and ITFS applications
subject to streamlined processing and specify that any application to use I channels for upstream
transmissions should be filed on FCC Form 331 and included in our new streamlined application
processing system.  

    53.  In addition, CTN contends that our rules may have the effect of limiting the flexibility
available to ITFS licensees to provide two-way analog services.  CTN explains that for ITFS
stations choosing to continue analog operations the I channels offer the only opportunity to provide
response transmissions in their networks.  CTN argues that allowing I channels to be used either for
upstream or downstream transmissions complicates the interference environment for any analog I
channel use and the ability of an ITFS licensee to use an I channel for analog response transmissions
may be lost.  Accordingly, CTN requests that the Commission modify 47 C.F.R.  74.939(l) to make
all downstream use of the I channels secondary to upstream use. 

    54.  In response, Petitioners counter that we should not adopt rules that would reduce
downstream operations on the I channels to secondary status. Petitioners contend that adoption
of CTN's current proposal would frustrate the deployment of downstream use of the I channels
because licensees would be reluctant to develop point-to-multipoint facilities if they could be required
to cease operations at a moment's notice in order to protect a newcomer using I channels for
upstream transmissions.  The result, Petitioners warn, would be to undermining the "more efficient
use of the spectrum" envisioned by the Two-Way Order.  

    55.  We disagree with CTN that upstream uses of I channels should be automatically
primary to point-to-multipoint uses.  Contrary to CTN's assertions, we believe that retaining the
flexibility that we established in the Two-Way Order for I channels usage actually will enhance the
value of the I channels, most of which have lain fallow in an analog environment.  In the digital two-
way environment, where channels of varying bandwidth will be utilized, we believe that the I channels
will provide valuable spectrum to an operator who uses them either for downstream or upstream
transmissions.  If anything, adopting CTN's proposal would undermine the value of the I Channels,
because it would detract from the certainty that licensees and operators enjoy in the interference
protection rights otherwise safeguarded by our rules.  MDS and ITFS licensees long have had the
ability to initiate response transmissions; we emphasize that those who do so before the initial one-
week window for two-way applications have rights as previous filers.  Moreover, ITFS licensees who
seek to establish new analog I channels response stations subsequent to our opening of the initial
window will have the same time-based rights as other contemporaneous applicants, and also may
swap channels with licensees employing digital transmissions, or lease to others employing digital
transmissions, to assist in avoiding interference conflicts.

    E.   Issues Primarily Involving ITFS

         1.   Channel Swapping and Shifting

    56.  In the Two-Way Order, we amended our rules to permit ITFS licensees to fulfill their
educational usage requirements on other channels within the same wireless cable system, regardless
of whether these channels are licensed to an MDS or ITFS entity ("channel shifting"), and to allow
ITFS licensees to trade some or all of their licensed spectrum for spectrum licensed to MDS entities
("channel swapping").  We found that these approaches would maximize flexibility by greatly
assisting operators in assembling the contiguous frequency blocks which are essential to a two-way
architecture.  While permitting any intra-ITFS channel swap, we specified that channel shifting and
channel swapping would be available only to licensees utilizing digital transmissions, leasing excess
capacity to an operator which utilizes digital transmissions, or swapping channels with a licensee
which utilizes digital transmissions.

    57.  Some parties have asked us to permit channel shifting by ITFS licensees that solely
utilize analog transmissions and do not lease to an operator employing digital technology, and to
permit channel swapping between ITFS and MDS licensees where both licensees only utilize analog
transmissions and do not lease to a lessee that employs digital technology.  Those parties claim
there is no reason to treat digital and analog systems differently in this respect.  We agree with these
parties and find that permitting such channel shifting and channel swapping will further maximize
flexibility of the services and thereby benefit the public.  Therefore, we will permit channel shifting
and channel swapping among MDS and ITFS licensees without regard to whether the entities at issue
employ digital technology or lease to a lessee using digital technology.

         2.   Grandfathering of Excess Capacity Lease Provisions

    58.  In the Two-Way Order, we generally grandfathered preexisting ITFS excess capacity
lease agreements for their duration in order to minimize disruptions to existing relationships caused
by the  need to comply with our new rules.  However, this protection did not apply to leases
entered into, renewed, or extended after March 31, 1997 because parties to such leases would have
had imputed notice of the impending rule changes following the release of our Public Notice
announcing the filing of the petition for rulemaking which initiated this proceeding.

    59.  CTN states that many excess capacity leases adopted under our former 10-year term
limitation contain a provision that automatically extends the initial term of the lease to the maximum
allowed in the event that the Commission permits longer terms, so that some of these leases were
extended automatically due to the new 15lyear lease term that we approved in the Two-Way Order. 
CTN is concerned that a literal reading of the Two-Way Order would treat these leases as extended
after March 31, 1997 and require them to be brought into compliance with all of the rule changes
governing excess capacity leases, even though they may have been negotiated years before the two-
way rules were proposed.  In the Two-Way Order, we did not intend to force a mass wave of lease
renegotiations where the parties had no notice of the forthcoming two-way rules at the time they
entered into the leases.  Because many of these leases may have been negotiated prior to March 31,
1997, the trigger date for when we impute parties to have had notice that two-way operations were
contemplated for ITFS and MDS, such leases should retain grandfathered status in the particular
circumstances depicted by CTN.  Extending the grandfathered status of leases in these circumstances
by five additional years allows the parties to continue to realize the benefits of the bargains that they
originally negotiated at a time when two-way operations were not factored into the equation, yet
ensures that successor leases will comply with the rules that we adopted in the Two-Way Order within
a reasonable time frame.  

    60.  Petitioners ask that the Commission clarify that a lease that is otherwise grandfathered
does not lose that status because it includes a provision under which the lease is renewed
automatically after March 31, 1997.  Petitioners' request theoretically could yield a result where
a lease may avoid compliance with the new rules into perpetuity.  Because Petitioners' request thus
controverts the intent of the Two-Way Order's admonition that leases renewed after March 31, 1997
be brought into compliance with the rules that we adopted in the Two-Way Order, we deny
Petitioners' requested clarification.

         3.   Assignment of Excess Capacity Leases

    61.  BellSouth and other parties have asked us to reconsider our decision not to permit
ITFS excess-capacity lease terms that would require assumption of the lease obligations by any
license assignee or transferee.  CTN, among others, opposes any change arguing that it would create
an undue burden on licensees.  We agree with CTN that any such lease provisions would place an
unreasonable impediment on the assignment or transfer of the ITFS facility.  We believe that this
rationale applies, because banning such provisions enhances the ITFS licensee's flexibility in finding
a buyer should it decide to sell.  We note that we do permit restrictions on excess-capacity leases that
would require ITFS licensees who are not seeking a buyer, but who simply wish to surrender their
licenses, to permit the lessee six months to locate an acceptable buyer. 

    F.   Booster Stations

         1.   High-Power Booster Operations

    62.  Petitioners state that the Commission should amend 47 C.F.R.  21.913(b) and 
74.985(b) of the new rules to eliminate the requirements that only a response station hub licensee,
conditional licensee or applicant may hold a high-power booster license, and that high-power boosters
may operate only utilizing digital modulation.  Petitioners maintain that there is no indication in the
Two-Way Order that these restrictions were intended and they appear to be contrary to the general
theme of licensee flexibility.  Furthermore, according to Petitioners, there still is a demand for high-
power analog booster stations to expand the coverage area of analog downstream video transmission
facilities.  We agree and we amend our Rules to make clear that high-power boosters may utilize
digital and/or analog modulation, and that two-way operations are not a prerequisite for licensing a
high-power booster.

         2.   Treatment of Currently-Licensed Boosters

    63.  C & W requests that the Commission clarify that it intended that currently licensed
booster stations will be able to operate pursuant to the new two-way rules upon their enactment.  C
& W reasons that to find differently would only result in creating the unnecessary administrative
burden of requiring booster licensees to re-file for their currently authorized stations under the new
rules, and may lead to an inequity to ongoing operations if they result in a mutual interference
situation with another station.  Petitioners, on the other hand, ask that the Commission make clear
that boosters licensed under the old regime are not entitled to protection within a booster service area
(BSA) at this juncture.  Instead, they propose that in order to secure a BSA, a booster licensee should
be required to submit a notification during the initial filing window which sets forth the information
specified in Sections 21.913(b)(4) - (6) or 74.985(b)(2), (3) and (6) of the new rules, relating to high-
power boosters, or Sections 21.913(e)(1) - (3) or 74.985(e)(1) - (3) of the new rules, relating to low-
power boosters, as appropriate.  Petitioners add that a BSA delineated during the initial window
would not be entitled to protection vis-…-vis applications proposed during the window, but would be
entitled to protection against subsequent proposals.

    64.  We generally support C & W's request, except we find some merit in Petitioners'
counter-request with respect to interference protection rights.  Specifically, we agree with Petitioners
that currently-licensed high-power boosters do not automatically receive BSA protection upon the
effective date of the high-power booster interference protection rules, and we concur with Petitioners'
proposed procedures for establishing high-power booster BSAs and with their recitation of the
relative interference protection rights accorded to such BSAs.  We disagree with Petitioners,
however, that these same procedures and rights apply to the establishment of low-power BSAs,
because our Rules, both current and impending, entail that notification of the construction of a low-
power booster is not relegated to a filing window nor subject to our new streamlined application
processing procedures.  Therefore, any notification of the construction of a low-power booster, that
is submitted following the effective date of new  21.913(e) and 74.985(e) of our rules, may
establish a BSA for the low-power booster station that is covered by the notification.

    65.  While we agree that currently-licensed high-power boosters may not establish BSAs
until the initial filing window, it does not follow that they are left completely unprotected against
subsequent applications, including those filed in the initial window; after all, most still will benefit at
least to some degree from the protection accorded the psa or Basic Trading Area ("BTA") in which
they are located.  Nevertheless, we anticipate that current licensees of high-power boosters will seek
to establish BSAs for these boosters, and the following procedures will apply when they attempt to
do so: The booster licensee should submit a notification of establishment of a BSA, on FCC Form
331, to the Commission in Washington, DC.  The licensee also should submit contemporaneously to
the Commission's duplication contractor the information called for in Sections 21.913(b)(4) - (6) or
74.985(b)(2), (3) and (6) of the new rules, as appropriate, along with a copy of the FCC Form 331
submitted to the Commission.  We further specify that current high-power booster station licensees
may seek to secure BSAs for their stations either during the initial filing window or in the subsequent
rolling, one-day filing window, and that these same procedures apply regardless of when the relevant
notifications are submitted.  Likewise, the same relative interference protection rights attach to newly-
established BSAs regardless of whether the relevant notifications are submitted during the initial
window or the subsequent rolling window, and these rights are consistent with Petitioners'
pronouncements on them.  Finally, we stress that while currently licensed high-power boosters may
not have BSAs established until the initial filing window at the earliest, licensees of these stations are
not responsible for demonstrating anew, during the process of attempting to secure BSAs,
interference protection to neighboring stations.

         3.   Booster Licensees

    66.  Several parties have objected to our decision to require that licenses for all
downstream booster stations and any associated return paths that employ ITFS licensed channels be
held by the ITFS licensee. These parties say that it would create greater system flexibility and
administrative efficiency to permit a single party to hold all booster station licenses throughout a
service area.  Other parties oppose any change in our decision because to do so would "undermine
the educational nature of the ITFS service and result in a de facto reallocation of spectrum for purely
commercial use."  We believe that we can address both of these concerns by permitting ITFS
excess-capacity lessees to apply for booster stations on ITFS frequencies with two conditions:  (1)
the lessee must obtain the written consent of the main station licensee before applying for such a
booster, and (2) the lease must contain provisions that require the lessee to offer to assign the booster
licenses to the main station licensee for purely nominal consideration upon termination of the lease. 
This will enable  ITFS excess-capacity lessees to benefit from the flexibility and efficiencies of having
all of the booster licenses for their systems held by a single entity, but not cause ITFS licensees to risk
permanently losing part of their licensed spectrum.

                IV.  DIGITAL DECLARATORY RULING

    A.   Introduction
    
    67.  The Commission also has before it petitions for clarification of the MDS and ITFS
Digital Declaratory Ruling.  In the Digital Declaratory Ruling, the Commission interpreted its rules
and policies to allow the utilization of digital transmissions by MDS and ITFS licensees on a non-
interference basis, adopting an interim approach to the use of QAM or VSB digital modulation upon
application by individual MDS or ITFS entities.  Petitions for clarification of the Digital Declaratory
Ruling were filed by WCA, BellSouth, and NIA.  A grouping of wireless cable operators and
investors (Commenters) and WCA separately submitted comments in support of BellSouth's
petition.  The Foundation filed comments which support BellSouth's petition and which support in
part and oppose in part Commenters' positions.  We will grant those aspects of the petitions and
comments related to clarification and expansion of the limited exception with respect to
grandfathering of interference within the protected service areas of ITFS stations and MDS incumbent
stations.  However, we refrain at this time from addressing the rights of licensees when digital
operation by them and/or neighboring cochannel licensees forcloses the opportunity to use frequency
offset techniques to enhance interference protection, and we deny as moot NIA's proposal regarding
recapture rights of ITFS licensees.

    B.   Limited Exception to the Protected Service Area Definition for Modifications

    68.  Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Digital Declaratory Ruling describe a limited exception
to the 56.33 km (35 mile) psas of MDS "incumbent" stations, and apply this exception to modification
applications of MDS incumbents and "ITFS incumbents" seeking use of digital technology.  This
limited exception was initially set out in the Second Wireless Cable Reconsideration Order, where
we expanded the psa of MDS stations.  Pursuant to the limited exception, a modifying applicant can
secure a waiver of the 35 mile psa definition and maintain "grandfathered" interference where six
conditions are met: (1) the modification application is filed after the effective date (September 18,
1995) of the expanded 35 mile psa; (2) the station being modified was authorized or proposed on or
before the effective date of the expanded psa; (3) the station being interfered with (the desired
station) was authorized or proposed on or before the effective date of the expanded psa; (4) the
predicted interference does not occur within the former 710 square mile psa of the desired station;
(5) the modification does not increase the size of the area suffering harmful interference; and (6) the
modification does not result in any new interference to the desired station's psa.  In describing this
limited exception in paragraph 23 of the Digital Declaratory Ruling, we stated that "there would be
situations in which two expanded service areas would overlap.  Accordingly, we adopted a limited
exception to the 35 mile psa definition to govern modification applications of MDS incumbents,
where two psas overlap."

    69.  As urged by petitioning parties, we clarify that the psa overlap stipulation in paragraph
23 of the Digital Declaratory Ruling was intended merely as an example of a situation where waivers
pursuant to the limited exception would be granted.  We also are persuaded that we may expand the
exception, for any modification not resulting in any new interference to the desired station's psa nor
increasing the size of the area suffering harmful interference to effectively nullify the fourth condition
of the exception and allow preexisting interference even within the former 710 square mile psa which
pertained prior to September 18, 1995.  Petitioning parties and the Commenters argue that this
extension is important because without it licensees would face business or operational impediments
when seeking to implement digital operations or to make changes to digital systems that do not have
an adverse impact on the existing interference environment.  Staking its position on the implicit or
explicit agreement of the non-modifying licensee to accept interference from a previously proposed
station, WCA adds that "[a]s a matter of course," the Commission's staff has authorized subsequent
modifications to previously proposed stations even if the modifications do not eliminate the
interference within the pre-expansion psa or at registered ITFS receive sites, so long as the
modifications did not increase interference.  In establishing the fourth condition of the exception,
we were primarily concerned that "[n]o modification will be allowed which would cause existing
stations to adapt to additional interference."  As discussed in the Second Wireless Cable
Reconsideration Order, the limited exception set out there was designed to be similar to the approach
which the Commission utilized in 1984 in adopting the former 710 square mile psa: that "it would not
be useful to disturb existing situations" where MDS operators had adapted to interference.

    70.  Like the Commenters, the Foundation seeks to expand the exception further, albeit
in a different way, to include applications for digital emission designators where the modifying station
or the desired station was proposed after the effective date of the expanded psa.  The Foundation
particularly discusses ITFS circumstances which, it argues, warrant expansion of the exception.  Now
that we have granted all ITFS licensees psas, expanding the exception per the Foundation's request
brings the policies and procedures for ITFS stations into conformance with those for incumbent
stations with similar interference protection requirements, thus enhancing the compatibility for
wireless cable operators who use ITFS and MDS channels.  Furthermore, as discussed above, the
exception is designed primarily to at least maintain the interference status quo, so retaining the
safeguards against interference in new areas will ensure that the modification does not harm the
desired station, no matter when the modifying station or the desired station was originally proposed. 
We believe that these rationales apply regardless of whether or not the proposed modification is for
digital transmissions.  Therefore, we further extend the exception in the manner prompted by the
Foundation, but as it relates to any modification application, not merely digital modification
applications.

    71.  Thus, the limited exception set out in paragraphs 24-25 of the Second Wireless Cable
Reconsideration Order and paragraphs 23-24 of the Digital Declaratory Ruling is modified
accordingly, to permit any MDS or ITFS station modification predicted to cause interference to any
portion of the desired station's 35 mile psa, or to any of its receive sites that are registered 
previously, no matter when the modifying station or the desired station was originally proposed,
so long as such station modification is filed after the effective date of the expanded psa and adheres
to the stricture that it would cause no new interference to the desired station.  We further clarify, on
our own motion, that the exception also applies to grandfathered adjacent channel interference,
defined with respect to the predicted 0 dB desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratio contour line, even
though the Second Wireless Cable Reconsideration Order only makes explicit reference to the
cochannel 45 dB D/U standard.  We reiterate that the limited exception applies only to interference
already existing between the modifying station and desired station as to each other.

    C.   Rights of Licensees Where Digital Operation Affects Use of Frequency Offset

    72.  Frequency offset is an interference amelioration technique in which the carrier
frequencies of two cochannel signals are adjusted so that they are not identical, thus reducing the
potential for interference to either signal caused by the other.  Frequency offset techniques are
generally of no utility in reducing interference caused by a station employing digital modulation,
though we expressed our belief in the Digital Declaratory Ruling that there may be some utility in
frequency offset operation involving "pilot" carriers in VSB digital transmissions to prevent
interference to analog stations on lower adjacent channels.

    73.  Petitioning parties argue that a station using frequency offset which seeks to convert to
digital modulation should only be required to seek consent from the other offset station when there
is a written, binding and bilateral agreement between the two stations to employ frequency offset. 
They state that currently, such an agreement is required prior to the grant of an application that fails
to meet the 45 dB D/U standard with respect to another station.  Petitioning parties add that
because the parties voluntarily surrendered their rights in the agreement, only in this instance,
pursuant to the agreement, is there a rational basis for allowing a licensee or applicant to bar another
station from converting to digital modulation.  Petitioning parties specify two scenarios where the
desired offset station should not be able to bar the digital modification of the applicant station,
because, they claim, the subsequently proposed desired station in effect accepted whatever cochannel
interference it might receive from the other station.  In the first scenario, ITFS stations were
authorized based upon interference protection ratios as low as 28 dB, coupled with the applicant's
unilateral representation that it would use frequency offset.  Petitioning parties contend that in this
instance, the stations were authorized on an offset basis to protect the reception of the offset
incumbent stations.  In the second scenario, MDS and ITFS stations unilaterally proposed offset in
order to protect their own reception.  Conversely, WCA additionally argues that the ITFS relative
newcomer who seeks to convert to digital modulation must either protect the previously proposed
offset station at the 45 dB D/U level, or obtain the consent of the previously proposed station's
licensee in order to modify.  The Foundation concludes that without Commission acceptance of the
agreement-only bar to a previously proposed station's digital modification application, "it will be
impossible to implement digital service in many major metropolitan areas."

    74.  Very few of the Commission's rules governing the MDS and ITFS services deal
directly with utilization of frequency offset techniques.  Those that do primarily concern situations
where one licensee seeks to have the Commission involuntarily impose frequency offset operations
on another cochannel licensee in order to avoid or minimize interference.  Thus, the treatment of
frequency offset in MDS and ITFS has been largely a matter of pronouncements in rulemaking
proceedings and cases, and has undergone several changes.  At first blush, clarification of the relative
rights of the parties using the techniques may seem appropriate.  However, apparently belying the
ardor with which petitioning parties sought such a clarification, in the nearly three years since the
period for filing petitions on the Digital Declaratory Ruling expired, we have not been made aware
of any actual offset-based conflicts which have precluded any licensee's efforts to modify its station
for digital operations.  Because of our experience, we believe that delineating here a solution to a
problem that we have not found to hamper the industry would not be the prudent course at this
juncture.  Nonetheless, should this issue make or break a licensee's attempt to convert to digital
transmissions in a market, we are prepared fully to analyze the merits on an individual-case basis. 
Notwithstanding our caution in addressing alleged past offset-based conflicts, we specify that all
future offset arrangements are to be governed by binding agreements between the parties, unless the
Commission explicitly grants a waiver or imposes involuntary frequency offset operations on a
licensee.  However, given the anticipated digital future of MDS and ITFS, requests for waiver of
interference standards through use of offset techniques for analog transmissions will be viewed with
the utmost scrutiny.  Likewise, in the spirit of the Second Wireless Cable Reconsideration Order,
while we will continue to evaluate involuntary frequency offset proposals on a case-by-case basis, we
will entertain such proposals only in the most compelling of circumstances.  Finally, we stated in
the Digital Declaratory Ruling, as an interim measure subject to the outcome of a future rulemaking
proceeding, that we will not mandate a particular frequency offset or tolerance for the pilot carrier
stations utilizing VSB digital modulation.

    D.   ITFS Recapture Rights

    75.  In the Digital Declaratory Ruling, we declined to impose any changes in ITFS
educational usage requirements and deferred consideration to a future rulemaking.  NIA filed a
petition seeking reconsideration of this decision.  In the Two-Way Order, we thoroughly reevaluated
our ITFS educational usage requirements.  In light of our decisions in the Two-Way Order, we need
not address the arguments advanced by NIA in its petition for reconsideration of the Digital
Declaratory Ruling.

                  V.  OTHER RELATED PLEADINGS

    76.  Shortly after release of the Digital Declaratory Ruling, the Mass Media Bureau
released a Public Notice interpreting the Digital Declaratory Ruling to allow MDS and leased ITFS
frequencies authorized for digital transmissions to carry point-to-multipoint data transmissions
without any additional authorization by or notification to the Commission.  However, the Bureau
specified at the time that the Digital Declaratory Ruling did not contemplate use of such frequencies
for upstream digital data transmissions.  On November 18, 1996, CAI filed an application for
review of the October 17 Public Notice, requesting that the Commission clarify that "wireless cable
operators retain the flexibility to provide two-way voice, data and video services" so that MDS and
leased ITFS frequencies may be used to provide those services on a permanent basis, without
entailing costly and time-consuming waivers.  In light of our actions in the Two-Way Order, we find
that CAI's application for review is moot, and we dismiss it.

          VI.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND ORDERING CLAUSES
                                
    77.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the above-referenced petitions for reconsideration
and/or clarification of the Order ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as described
above.

    78.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-referenced petitions for clarification of
the Digital Declaratory Ruling ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and that the
Declaratory Ruling on the Use of Digital Modulation by Multipoint Distribution Service and
Instructional Television Fixed Service Stations IS MODIFIED AND CLARIFIED to the extent
specified above.  These modifications and clarifications shall be effective upon the release of this
order.

    79.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application for review of the October 17 Public
Notice, filed November 18, 1996 by CAI Wireless Systems, Inc., IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.

    80.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i)
and (j), 301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(h), 303(j), 303(r), 308(b), 403, and 405 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), 301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(h), 303(j), 303(r), 308(b),
403, and 405, this Report and Order on Reconsideration IS ADOPTED, the Order IS MODIFIED
AND CLARIFIED to the extent specified above, and Parts 21, 74, and 101 of the Commission's
Rules, 47 C.F.R.  21, 74, and 101, ARE AMENDED as set forth in the attached Appendix C.

    81.  The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and found to impose new or modified reporting and recordkeeping
requirements or burdens on the public.  Implementation of these new or modified reporting and
recordkeeping requirements will be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) as prescribed by the Act.  The new or modified paperwork requirements contained in this
Report and Order on Reconsideration (which are subject to approval by OMB) will go into effect
upon OMB approval.  However, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule amendments set forth
in Appendix C not pertaining to new or modified reporting or recordkeeping requirements WILL
BECOME EFFECTIVE 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register.

    82.  As required by Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  604, the
Commission has prepared a Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the possible impact
on small entities of the rules and policies adopted in this document.  See Appendix B.  IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations
Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order on Reconsideration, including the
Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.

                             FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                             Magalie Rom n Salas
                             Secretary                            APPENDIX A
                             PARTIES

BellSouth Corp. and BellSouth Wireless Cable Inc.
Catholic Television Network
Cisco Systems
Dallas County Community College District, et. al.
Instructional Telecommunications Foundation
National ITFS Association
Petitioners (see supra)
Qualcomm
Region IV Educational Service Center, et. al.
San Francisco/San Jose Educator/Operator Consortium
Spike Technologies
C &W  Enterprises Inc.
UT Television
                                            
Petitioners:

ADC Telecommunications Corp.                George Mason University 
Aims Community College                           Instructional       
    Alamosa Public Schools                            Foundation, Inc.
Alda Wireless Holdings, Inc.                Humanities Instructional Television     
American Communications Services, Inc.           Hybrid Networks, Inc.
American Foundation for Instructional TV              Indiana Higher Education 
    American Telecasting, Inc.                             Telecommunication
System
Aquinas and St. Mary's Catholic Schools               Indio Wireless Partnership
Augustina College                           Instructional Media Center,   
    Barnesville Public School                              California State
University,
Broadband Networks, Inc.                              Chico                
    Broadcast Cable, Inc.                        ITS Corporation          
    Bruning Public School                        Ivy Tech State College
    
C.D.V. Incorporated                              Kessler and Gehman Associates,
CAI Wireless Systems, Inc.                            Inc. 
California Amplifier                             Lance Industries         
    California Human Development Corporation          Lucas County Educational Service
    
California State University, Stanislaus                    Center              
    Center for Economic & Social Justice              Magellan University 
         
Central Community College Foundation             Malcolm Public Schools   
    Central Oregon Community College             McConnell Communications, Inc.
CFW Cable, Inc.                             Microwave Filter Company, Inc.
Clarendon Foundation                        Milwaukee Regional Medical ITS,
Inc
    Communications & Energy Corp., Inc.                    .         
    Community School of Naples                   Missouri Baptist College, ITFS
    Comwave                                 Montrose School District
     Concord Community Schools                   Multimedia Development
         Concordia College                                 Corporation
    
Conifer Corporation                              National Digital Network,     
Cooperative Educational Services Agency #7            Inc.
Cornerstone Christian School System, Inc.             National Wireless Holdings, Inc.
    
Cross Country Wireless, Inc.                Northern Arizona University   
CS Wireless Systems, Inc.                        Oklahoma City University      
DeLawder Communications, Inc.                    Oklahoma Educational Television
    
Delta-Montrose Area Vocational Technical Center            Authority
Denver Public Schools                       Omni Microwave 
Digital & Wireless Television                    Oregon Public Broadcasting         
DiviCom Inc.                                Pacific Monolithics, Inc.     
Durand Community Unit School District #322       Pacific Telesis Group         
EMCEE Broadcast Products                         PCTV Gold, Inc.
First Assembly of God, Kahului, Maui, Inc.       Pecatonica Community School People's
Choice TV Corp.
Pikes Peak Community College 
Polk Community College  
Portland Community College
Preferred Entertainment, Inc.          
Pueblo Community College
Pueblo School District 60
Purdue University
Raymond Central School
School District of Oakfield
South Florida Television, Inc.
Specchio Developers Ltd.
Springfield Board of Education
St. Norbert College
Stanford Telecommunications, Inc.
Suncoast Wireless Communications Corporation
Superchannels of Las Vegas, Inc.
Tennessee Wireless
Teton Wireless Television
The Knowledge Network of Greater Omaha
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
University of Northern Colorado, Academic
    Technology Services
University of South Dakota
University of Southern Colorado/KTSC-TV
University of South Florida
Valley Lutheran High School
Views on Learning, Inc.                                         
Virginia Communications, Inc.
W.A.T.C.H. TV Company
Weld County School District RE-1
Winnebago Community Unit District 323
Wireless Cable Association International, Inc.
Wireless Cable Digital Alliance
Wireless Cable of Indianapolis
Wireless Holdings, Inc. (Videotron USA)
Wireless One, Inc.
Wireless One of North Carolina, LLC
Yellowstone Education Center
Yuba Community College
Zenith Digital Media Group
                                               APPENDIX B

        SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
                         Report and Order

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) was incorporated in Appendix B of the Report and Order (R&O) in this
proceeding.  The Commission's Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental
FRFA) in this Report and Order on Reconsideration (Reconsideration) reflects revised or
additional information to that contained in the FRFA.  This Supplemental FRFA is thus limited to
matters raised in response to the R&O and that are granted on reconsideration in the
Reconsideration.  The Supplemental FRFA conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract
With America Advancement Act of 1996.

I.  Need For and Objectives of Action: 

    The actions taken in this Reconsideration are in response to petitions for reconsideration
or clarification of the rules and policies adopted in the R&O, in which we amended Parts 21 and
74 of our rules to enhance the ability of Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS") and
Instructional Television Fixed Service ("ITFS") licensees to provide two-way communication
services.  The petitions have been granted in part and denied in part.  The Reconsideration grants
the petitions that sought to expand the R&O's streamlined application processing system for MDS
two-way applications to all ITFS major modification applications.  We also grant those petitions
that request clarification of the term "documented complaint," which was used in the R&O in the
discussion of interference complaints.  We further grant those petitions for reconsideration that
sought a waiver of our advance notification and professional installation rules in regard to very
low power response stations and other changes to our advance notification requirement.  Finally,
we grant those petitions seeking certain minor modifications to our engineering rules adopted in
the R&O and to certain other minor matters pertaining to ITFS. We believe these final rule
amendments will facilitate further two-way transmission and other improvements to the MDS and
ITFS services.

II.  Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response to the Initial Analysis:

     No comments were received specifically in response to the FRFA contained in the R&O. 
However, some commenters did raise arguments concerning the effect that certain of our
proposals may have on small entities.

     As to whether we should apply the streamlined application processing system, which does
not treat applications as mutually exclusive, to ITFS major modification applications, Region IV
argued that the existence of mutually exclusive ITFS major modification applications may invoke
the auction process, which would be unfair to smaller, local educators.

III.  Description and Number of Small Entities Involved:

     The RFA generally defines "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
business," "small organization," and "small business concern."  In addition, the term "small
business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business
Act.   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
SBA.

     MDS:  The Commission has defined "small entity" for the auction of MDS as an entity
that, together with its affiliates, has average gross annual revenues that are not more than $40
million for the preceding three calendar years.  This definition of a small entity in the context of
MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA.  The Commission completed its MDS auction in
March 1996 for authorizations in 493 basic trading areas (BTAs).  Of 67 winning bidders, 61
qualified as small entities.  

     MDS is also heavily encumbered with licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. 
The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for pay television services, which includes all
such companies generating $11 million or less in annual receipts.  This definition includes
multipoint distribution systems, and thus applies to MDS licensees and wireless cable operators
which did not participate in the MDS auction.   Information available to us indicates that there are
832 of these licensees and operators that do not generate revenue in excess of $11 million
annually.  Therefore, for purposes of this FRFA, we find there are approximately 892 small MDS
providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules, and some of these providers
may take advantage of our amended rules to provide two-way MDS.

     ITFS:  There are presently 2032 ITFS licensees.  All but 100 of these licenses are held by
educational institutions (these 100 fall in the MDS category, above).  Educational institutions may
be included in the definition of a small entity.  ITFS is a non-pay, non-commercial broadcast
service that, depending on SBA categorization, has, as small entities, entities generating either
$10.5 million or less, or $11.0 million or less, in annual receipts.  However, we do not collect,
nor are we aware of other collections of, annual revenue data for ITFS licensees.  Thus, we find
that up to 1932 of these educational institutions are small entities that may take advantage of our
amended rules to provide two-way ITFS.

IV.  Summary of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements:

     The R&O adopts the following proposals that include reporting, recordkeeping, and
compliance requirements:

     We required that response stations can only be initially activated, or reactivated if
relocated, by a signal from a booster or primary station, and that hub licensees have a means to
remotely deactivate any subscriber's response station transmitter within their RSA.  These
provisions are intended to give an added measure of control to system licensees useful for
conducting interference tests and other system evaluations, and will result in a positive "interlock"
feature that prevents inadvertent activation of a newly installed response transmitter when the
response antenna is not properly installed so as to receive signals from the associated main or
booster transmitters.
     
     We relaxed our notification and professional installation requirements as they pertain to
low power response stations. Specifically, neither notice nor professional installation is required
for stations operating below 6 dbW EIRP and is only required in other stations operating up to 18
dbW EIRP in certain circumstances.  Due to the low power at which these stations operate there
is a lessened risk of the kind of harmful RF exposure or of the potential for interference that
necessitate the notification and professional installation requirements for stations operating at
higher power.

     We extended our streamlined application processing system adopted in the R&O to major
modification applications by ITFS licensees.  We will accept applications for ITFS major
modifications  via a rolling, one-day filing window.  Each applicant will have to provide
interference protection to all facilities existing or proposed prior to the filing of its application, but
its application will take precedence over all subsequently filed applications.  Applicants will be
required to file their applications with all of their interference analyses, in both hard copy and on
disk.

     Applicants for two-way facilities will be required to certify that they have met all
requirements regarding interference protection to existing and prior proposed facilities. The
applicant will also be required to certify that it has served all potentially affected parties with
copies of its application and with its engineering analysis supporting its interference compliance
claim.
 
     We adopted a more complete definition of the "documented complaint" that will be the
basis for the resolution of complaints of unauthorized interference.
          
V.  Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
     and Significant Alternatives Considered:

     The following steps were taken in the R&O to minimize the significant economic impact
on small entities:

     Extending the streamlined application procession system to ITFS major modifications will
provide greater flexibility and reduce the filing burdens on ITFS licensees.    

     Defining the requirements of a "documented complaint" provides ITFS and other small
entities with greater certainty in complaining against unauthorized interference and serves to more
completely protect them from such interference.

     Relaxing the notification and professional installation requirements in certain
circumstances reduces the burden on smaller entities, encourages retail distribution of response
stations and still provides protection from harmful interference or harmful exposure to RF
emissions.

     The following significant alternatives were considered in the R&O:

     We declined to adopt Catholic Television Network's (CTN) and BellSouth's suggestions
for an interference dispute resolution procedure.  We found that the proposed procedures would
delay dispute resolution and cause longer potential service interruptions.

     We did not adopt National ITFS Foundations proposal that we abandon streamlined
processing.  To do so, would have resulted in using a slow, burdensome processing system that
would have jeopardized the future of the industry and the interests of ITFS licensees.

VI.  Report to Congress: 

     The Commission will send a copy of the Reconsideration, including this Supplemental
FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996.  See 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A).  In addition, the Commission will send a copy
of the Reconsideration, including the Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.  A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.  See 5 U.S.C.  604(b).









                                 APPENDIX C

Parts 1, 21, 74 and 101 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 1 -- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

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

Authority:  15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, and 303(r).
     
2.  In Section 1.1307, paragraph (b)(1), Table 1, right column is amended by adding the entry
regarding MDS licensees directly following the existing reference to Multipoint Distribution
Service building-mounted antennas, and by adding the entry regarding ITFS licensees directly
following the existing reference to part 74, subpart I stations, to read as follows:

 1.1307  Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, for which Environmental
Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.

* * * * *

     (b) * * *

          (1) * * *

TABLE 1 -- TRANSMITTERS, FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS SUBJECT TO ROUTINE
                    ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
                                
                Service (title 47 CFR rule part)
                     Evaluation required if
                                
                                
                           * * * * *
            Multipoint Distribution Service (subpart
                         K of part 21).
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                           * * * * *
              Experimental, auxiliary, and special
                  broadcast and other program
               distributional services (part 74).
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                           * * * * *
                           * * * * *
                             * * *
                             * * *
             MDS licensees are required to attach a
               label to subscriber transceiver or
                   transverter antennas that:
             (1) provides adequate notice regarding
            potential radiofrequency safety hazards,
              e.g., information regarding the safe
              minimum separation distance required
            between users and transceiver antennas;
                              and
               (2) references the applicable FCC-
               adopted limits for radiofrequency
                exposure specified in  1.1310.
                           * * * * *
                             * * *
                             * * *
            ITFS licensees are required to attach a
               label to subscriber transceiver or
                   transverter antennas that:
             (1) provides adequate notice regarding
            potential radiofrequency safety hazards,
              e.g., information regarding the safe
              minimum separation distance required
            between users and transceiver antennas;
                              and
               (2) references the applicable FCC-
               adopted limits for radiofrequency
                exposure specified in  1.1310.
                             * * *
                           * * * * *
                                

* * * * *
PART 21 -- DOMESTIC PUBLIC FIXED RADIO SERVICES
3.  The authority for part 21 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  Secs. 1, 2, 4, 201-205, 208, 215, 218, 303, 307, 313, 403, 404, 410, 602, 48 Stat. as
amended, 1064, 1066, 1070-1073, 1076, 1077, 1080, 1082, 1083, 1087, 1094, 1098, 1102; 47
U.S.C. 151, 154, 201-205, 208, 215, 218, 303, 307, 313, 314, 403, 404, 602; 47 U.S.C. 552, 554.

4.  In Section 21.2, the following definitions, in alphabetical order, are revised to read as follows: 

* * * * *

Documented Complaint.  A complaint that a party is suffering from non-consensual interference.  A
documented complaint must contain a certification that the complainant has contacted the operator
of the allegedly offending facility and tried to resolve the situation prior to filing.  The complaint must
then specify the nature of the interference, whether the interference is constant or intermittent, when
the interference began and the site(s) most likely to be causing the interference.  The complaint should
be accompanied by a videotape or other evidence showing the effects of the interference.  The
complaint must contain a motion for a temporary order to have the interfering station cease
transmitting.  The complaint must be filed with the Secretary's office and served on the allegedly
offending party.

* * * * * 

Multipoint Distribution Service response station.  A fixed station operated by an MDS licensee, the
lessee of MDS channel capacity or a subscriber of either to communicate with a response station hub
or associated MDS station.  A response station under this part may share facilities with other MDS
response stations and/or one or more Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) response stations
authorized pursuant to  74.939 of this chapter or  74.940 of this chapter.

* * * * *

5.  In Section 21.11, paragraphs (f) and (g) are redesignated as paragraphs (e) and (f), respectively,
and the section heading, paragraph (d), and newly redesignated paragraph (e) are revised, to read as
follows:

 21.11 Miscellaneous forms.

* * * * *

     (d)  Assignment of license.  FCC Form 305 ("Application for Consent to Assignment of Radio
Station Construction Authorization or License (for Stations in Services Other than Broadcast)") must
be submitted to assign voluntarily (as by, for example, contract or other agreement) or involuntarily
(as by, for example, death, bankruptcy, or legal disability) the station license or conditional license. 
In the case of involuntary assignment, the application must be filed within 30 days of the event
causing the assignment.  FCC Form 305 also must be used for nonsubstantial (pro forma)
assignments.  In addition, FCC Form 430 must be submitted by the proposed assignee unless such
assignee has a current and substantially accurate report on file with the Commission.  Whenever a
group of station licenses or conditional licenses in the same radio service is to be assigned to a single
assignee, a single "blanket" application may be filed to cover the entire group, if the application
identifies each station by call sign and station location and if two copies are provided for each station
affected.  The assignment must be completed within 45 days from the date of authorization.  Upon
consummation of an approved assignment, the Commission must be notified by letter of the date of
consummation within 10 days of its occurrence.

     (e)  Transfer of control of corporation holding a conditional license or license.  FCC Form 306
("Application for Consent to Transfer of Control") must be submitted in order to voluntarily or
involuntarily transfer control (de jure or de facto) of a corporation holding any conditional licenses
or licenses.  In the case of involuntary transfer of control, the application must be filed within 30 days
of the event causing the transfer of control.  FCC Form 306 also must be used for nonsubstantial (pro
forma) transfers of control.  In addition, FCC Form 430 must be submitted by the proposed transferee
unless such transferee has a current and substantially accurate report on file with the Commission. 
Whenever control of a corporation holding a group of station licenses or conditional licenses in the
same radio service is to be transferred to a single transferee, a single "blanket" application may be
filed to cover the entire transfer, if the application identifies each station by call sign and station
location and if two copies are provided for each station affected.  The transfer must be completed
within 45 days from the date of authorization.  Upon consummation of an approved transfer, the
Commission must be notified by letter of the date of consummation within 10 days of its occurrence.

* * * * *

6.  In Section 21.23, paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) and (c)(2) are revised to read as follows:

* * * * * 

     (c) * * *

          (1) * * * 

               * * * * * 

               (vi)  Any technical change which would increase the effective radiated power
in any horizontal or vertical direction by more than one and one-half (1.5) dB; or

* * * * *

          (2)  Except during the sixty (60) day amendment period provided for in  21.27(d),
any amendment to an application for a new or modified response station hub, booster station or point-
to-multipoint I channel(s) station or to an application for a modified main station that reflects any
change in the technical specifications of the proposed facility , includes any new or modified analysis
of potential interference to another facility or submits any interference consent from a neighboring
licensee.  Such an amendment shall result in the application being assigned a new file number and
being treated as newly filed. 

* * * * *

7.  In Section 21.27, paragraph (d) is added, to read as follows:

 21.27  Public notice period.

* * * * *

     (d) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, effective as of September 17, 1998,
there shall be a one-week window, at such time as the Commission shall announce by public notice,
for the filing of applications for high-power signal booster station, response station hub and I
channel(s) point-to-multipoint transmission licenses, during which all applications shall be deemed
to have been filed as of the same day for purposes of  21.909, 21.913 and 74.939(l) of this chapter. 
Following the publication of a public notice announcing the tendering for filing of applications
submitted during that window, applicants shall have a period of sixty (60) days to amend their
applications, provided such amendments do not result in any increase in interference to any
previously-proposed or authorized station, or to facilities proposed during the window, absent
consent of the applicant for or conditional licensee or licensee of the station that would receive such
interference.  At the conclusion of that sixty (60) day period, the Commission shall publish a public
notice announcing the acceptance for filing of all applications submitted during the initial window,
as amended during the sixty (60) day period.  All petitions to deny such applications must be filed
within sixty (60) days of such second public notice.  On the sixty-first (61st) day after the publication
of such second public notice, applications for new or modified response station hub, booster station
and I channel(s) point-to-multipoint transmission licenses may be filed and will be processed in
accordance with the provisions of  21.909, 21.913 and 74.939(l) of this chapter.  Notwithstanding
 21.31, each application submitted during the initial window shall be granted on the sixty-first (61st)
day after the Commission shall have given such public notice of its acceptance for filing, unless prior
to such date either a party in interest timely files a formal petition to deny or for other relief pursuant
to  21.30(a), or the Commission notifies the applicant that its application will not be granted.  Where
an application is granted pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph, the conditional licensee or
licensee shall maintain a copy of the application at the transmitter site or response station hub until
such time as the Commission issues a license.

8.  In Section 21.31, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows and pargraph (e)(6)(iv) is deleted in
its entirety and paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:.

     (a)  Except with respect to applications for new or modified response stations hubs, booster
stations, and point-to-multipoint I channel stations, and to applications for modified main stations,
filed on the same day or during the same window, he Commission will consider applications to be
mutually exclusive if their conflicts are such that grant of one application would effectively preclude
by reason of harmful electrical interference, or other practical reason, the grant of one or more of the
other applications.

9.  In Section 21.42, paragraph (b)(3) is revised, and paragraph (c)(8) is added, to read as follows:

 21.42  Certain modifications not requiring prior authorization.

* * * * *

     (b) * * *

          (3)  The Commission is notified of changes made to facilities by the submission of a
completed FCC Form 304 within thirty (30) days after the changes are made.

* * * * *

     (c)  * * *

          (8)  A change to a sectorized antenna system comprising an array of directional
antennas, provided that such system does not change polarization or result in an increase in radiated
power by more than one dB in any horizontal or vertical direction; provided, however, that notice of
such change is provided to the Commission on FCC Form 331 and to the Commission's copy
contractor within ten (10) days of installation.

* * * * *

10.  In Section 21.101 paragraph (a) Note 2 is amended to read as follows:

2Beginning [60 days following publication in the Federal Register] the equipment authorized to be
used at all MDS main stations, and at all MDS booster stations authorized pursuant to 21.913(b),
shall maintain a frequency tolerance of 0.001%.  MDS booster stations authorized pursuant to
21.913(e) and MDS response stations authorized pursuant to 21.909 shall employ transmitters with
sufficient frequency stability to ensure that the emission is, at all times, within the required emission
mask.

11.  Section 21.201 is revised to read as follows:

 21.201  Posting of station license.

     (a)  The instrument of authorization, a clearly legible photocopy thereof, or the name, address
and telephone number of the custodian of the instrument of authorization shall be available at each
station, booster station authorized pursuant to  21.913(b) and MDS response station hub.  Each
operator of an MDS booster station shall post at the booster station the name, address and telephone
number of the custodian of the notification filed pursuant to  21.913(e) if such notification is not
maintained at the booster station.

     (b)  If an MDS station, an MDS booster station or an MDS response station hub is operated
unattended, the call sign and name of the licensee shall be displayed such that it may be read within
the vicinity of the transmitter enclosure or antenna structure.

12.  In Section 21.900, the final paragraph is revised as follows:

 21.900 Eligibility

* * * * *

The applicant shall state whether service will be provided initially on a common carrier basis or on
a non-common carrier basis.  An applicant proposing to provide initially common carrier service shall
state whether there is any affiliation or relationship to any intended or likely subscriber or program
originator.

13.  In Section 21.901, paragraphs (b), and (d) are revised to read as follows:

 21.901  Frequencies.

* * * * * 

     (b)  * * * 

          (4)  At 2596-2602 MHz, 2608-2614 MHz, 2620-2626 MHz, and 2632-2638 MHz
(designated as Channels E1, E2, E3 and E4, respectively, with the four channels to be designated the
E-group channels), and Channels I5 and I13 listed in  74.939(j) of this chapter,1 or

          (5)  At 2602-2608 MHz, 2614-2620 MHz, 2626-2632 MHz and 2638-2644 MHz
(designated as Channels F1, F2, F3 and F4, respectively, with the four channels to be designated the
F-group channels), and Channels I6 and I14, listed in  74.939(j) of this chapter,1 or

          * * *

* * * * *

     (d)  An MDS licensee or conditional licensee may apply to exchange evenly one or more of
its assigned channels with another MDS licensee or conditional licensee in the same system, or with
an ITFS licensee or conditional licensee in the same system.  The licensees or conditional licensees
seeking to exchange channels shall file in tandem with the Commission separate pro forma assignment
of license applications, each attaching an exhibit which clearly specifies that the application is filed
pursuant to a channel exchange agreement.  The exchanged channel(s) shall be regulated according
to the requirements applicable to the assignee.

* * * * *

14.  In Section 21.902, the section heading, paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(7), (f)(1), (f)(2),
(i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(4) and (i)(6) are revised to read as follows:

 21.902  Interference.

* * * * *

     (b)  * * *

          (3)  Engineer the system to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection
within the 56.33 km (35 mile) protected service area of any authorized or previously-proposed ITFS
or incumbent MDS station, and at each previously-registered ITFS receive site registered as of
September 17, 1998 (or the appropriate value for bandwidths other than 6 MHz.  See below.)

          (4)  Engineer the station to provide at least 0 dB of adjacent channel interference
protection within the 56.33 km (35 mile) protected service area of any authorized or previously-
proposed ITFS or incumbent MDS station, and at each previously-registered ITFS receive site
registered as of September 17, 1998 (or the appropriate value for bandwidths other than 6 MHz.  See
below.)

          (5)  (i)  Engineer the station to limit the calculated free space power flux density
to -73 dBW/m2 (or the appropriate value for bandwidth other than 6 MHz, see below) at the
boundary of a 56.33 km (35 mile) protected service area, where there is an unobstructed signal path
from the transmitting antenna to the boundary; or alternatively, obtain the written consent of the
entity authorized for the adjoining area to exceed the -73 dBW/m2 limiting signal strength at the
common boundary.

     * * * 

          (7)  Notwithstanding the above, main, booster and response stations shall use the
following formulas, as applicable, for determining compliance with: (1) Radiated field contour limits
where bandwidths other than 6 MHz are employed at stations utilizing digital modulation with
uniform power spectral density; and (2) Cochannel and adjacent channel D/U ratios where the
bandwidths in use at the interfering and protected stations are unequal and both stations are utilizing
digital modulation with uniform power spectral density or one station is utilizing such modulation and
the other station is utilizing either 6 MHz NTSC analog modulation or 125 kHz analog modulation
(I channels only).

               (i)  Contour limit:  -73 dBW/m2 + 10 log(X/6) dBW/m2, where X is the
bandwidth in MHz of the digital channel.

               (ii)  Co-channel D/U:  45 dB + 10 log(X1/X2) dB, where X1 is the bandwidth
in MHz of the protected channel and X2 is the bandwidth in MHz of the interfering channel.

               (iii)  Adjacent channel D/U:  0 dB + 10 log(X1/X2), dB where X1 is the
bandwidth in MHz of the protected channel and X2 is the bandwidth in MHz of the interfering
channel.

* * * * *

     (f)  * * *

          (1)  Cochannel interference is defined as the ratio of the desired signal to the undesired
signal present in the desired channel, at the output of a reference receiving antenna oriented to receive
the maximum desired signal.  Harmful interference will be considered present when a calculation
using a terrain sensitive signal propagation model determines that this ratio is less than 45 dB (or the
appropriate value for bandwidths other than 6 MHz. See above.)

          (2)  Adjacent channel interference is defined as the ratio of the desired signal to
undesired signal present in an adjacent channel, at the output of a reference receiving antenna oriented
to receive the maximum desired signal level.

               (i)  Harmful interference will be considered present when a calculation using
a terrain sensitive model determines that this ratio is less than 0dB (or the appropriate value for
bandwidths other than 6 MHz. See above.)

               (ii)  In the alternative, harmful interference will be considered present for an
ITFS station constructed before May 26, 1983, when a calculation using a terrain-sensitive
propagation model determines that this ratio is less than 10 dB (or the appropriate value for
bandwidths other than 6 MHz, see above.) unless:

                    (A)  The individual receive site under consideration has been
subsequently upgraded with up-to-date reception equipment, in which case the ratio shall be less than
0 dB.  Absent information presented to the contrary, however, the Commission will assume that
reception equipment installation occurred simultaneously with original station equipment; or

                    (B)  The license for an MDS station is conditioned on the proffer to
the affected ITFS station licensee of equipment capable of providing a ratio of 0 dB or more at no
expense to the ITFS station licensee, and also conditioned, if necessary, on the proffer of installation
of such equipment; and there has been no showing by the affected ITFS station licensee
demonstrating good cause and demonstrating that the proposed equipment will not provide a ratio
of 0 dB or more, or that installation of such equipment, at no expense to the ITFS station licensee,
is not possible or has not been proffered.

* * * * *

     (i)  (1)  For each application for a new station, or amendment thereto, proposing MDS
facilities, filed on October 1, 1995, or thereafter, on or before the day the application or amendment
is filed, the applicant must prepare, but is not required to submit with its application or amendment,
an analysis demonstrating that operation of the MDS applicant's transmitter will not cause harmful
electrical interference to each receive site registered as of September 17, 1998, nor within a protected
service area as defined at paragraph (d)(1) of this section, of any cochannel or adjacent channel ITFS
station licensed, with a conditional license, or proposed in a pending application on the day such MDS
application is filed, with an ITFS transmitter site within 50 miles of the coordinates of the MDS
station's proposed transmitter site.

          (2)  For each application described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section, the applicant
must serve, by certified mail, return receipt requested, on or before the day the application or
amendment described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section is filed initially with the Commission, a copy
of the complete MDS application or amendment, including each exhibit and interference study,
described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section, on each ITFS licensee, conditional licensee, or applicant
described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.

          * * * * *

          (4)  For each application described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section, the applicant
must file with the Commission in Washington, DC, on or before the 30th day after the application or
amendment described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section is filed initially with the Commission, a
written notice which contains the following:

               * * *

               (iii)  A list of each ITFS licensee and conditional licensee described in
paragraph (i)(1) of this section;

               (iv)  The address used for service to each ITFS licensee and conditional
licensee described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section; and

               (v) A list of the date each ITFS licensee and conditional licensee described in
paragraph (i)(1) of this section received a copy of the complete application or amendment described
in paragraph (i)(1) of this section; or a notation of lack of receipt by the ITFS licensee or conditional
licensee of a copy of the complete application or amendment, on or before such 30th day, together
with a description of the applicant's efforts for receipt by each such licensee or conditional licensee
lacking receipt of the application.

          * * * * *

          (6)  (i) Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 1.824(c) and 21.30(a)(4), for
each application described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section, each ITFS licensee and each ITFS
conditional licensee described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section may file with the Commission, on or
before the 30th day after the public notice described in paragraph (i)(5) of this section, a petition to
deny the MDS application.  

               * * * * *

               (iii)  * * *

                    * * * * *

                    (E)  include a demonstration, in those cases in which the MDS
applicant's analysis is dependent upon modification(s) to the ITFS facility, that the harmful
interference cannot be avoided by the proposed substitution of new or modified equipment to be
supplied and installed by the MDS applicant, at no expense to the ITFS licensee or conditional
licensee; and

                    (F)  be limited to raising objections concerning the potential for harmful
interference to its ITFS station, or concerning a failure by the MDS applicant to serve the ITFS
licensee or conditional licensee with a copy of the complete application or amendment described in
paragraph (i)(1) of this section.

               (iv)  The Commission will presume an ITFS licensee or conditional licensee
described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section has no objection to operation of the MDS station, if the
ITFS licensee or conditional licensee fails to file a petition to deny by the deadline prescribed in
paragraph (i)(6)(i) of this section.

* * * * *


15.  In Section 21.903, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:

* * * * * 

     (d)  An MDS licensee also may alternate, without further authorization required, between
rendering service on a common carrier and non-common carrier basis, provided that the licensee
notifies the Commission of any service status changes at least 30 days in advance of such changes. 
The notification shall state whether there is any affiliation or relationship to any intended or likely
subscriber or program originator.

16.  Section 21.904, including its section heading, is revised to read as follows:

 21.904  Point-to-multipoint EIRP limitations.

     (a)  The maximum EIRP of a main or booster station shall not exceed 33 dBW + log10(X/6)
dBW, where X is the actual bandwidth if other than 6 MHz, except as provided in paragraph (b) of
this section.

     (b)  If a main or booster station sectorizes or otherwise uses one or more transmitting
antennas with a non-omnidirectional horizontal plane radiation pattern, the maximum EIRP in a given
direction shall be determined by the following formula:

EIRP = 33 dBW + 10 log(X/6) dBW + 10 log(360/beamwidth) dBW, where X is the channel width
in MHz and 10 log(360/beamwidth) < 6 dB.

Beamwidth is the total horizontal plane beamwidth of the individual transmitting antenna for the
station or any sector measured at the half-power points.  The first term of the equation above, 33
dBW, must be adjusted appropriately based upon the ratio of 6 MHz to the subchannel or
superchannel, or 125 kHz, bandwidth.

     (c) An increase in station EIRP, above currently-authorized or previously-proposed values,
to the maximum values provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section may be authorized, if the
requested increase would not cause harmful interference to any authorized or previously-proposed,
cochannel or adjacent channel station entitled to interference protection under the Commission's rules,
or if an applicant demonstrates that:

          (1)  A station that must be protected from interference could compensate for
interference by increasing its EIRP; and

          (2)  The interfered-with station may increase its own EIRP consistent with the rules
and without causing harmful interference to any cochannel or adjacent channel main or booster station
protected service area, response station hub or BTA/PSA, for which consent for the increased
interference has not been obtained; and

          (3)  The applicant requesting authorization of an EIRP increase agrees to pay all
expenses associated with the increase in EIRP by the interfered-with station.

     (d)  For television transmission if the authorized bandwidth is 4.0 MHz or more for the visual
and accompanying aural signal, the peak power of the accompanying aural signal must not exceed
10 percent of the peak visual power of the transmitter.  The Commission may order a reduction in
aural signal power to diminish the potential for harmful interference.

     (e)  For main, booster and response stations utilizing digital emissions with non-uniform
power spectral density (e.g. QPSK), the power measured within any 100 kHz resolution bandwidth
within the 6 MHz channel occupied by the non-uniform emission cannot exceed the power permitted
within any 100 kHz resolution bandwidth within the 6 MHz channel if it were occupied by an
emission with uniform power spectral density, e.g., if the maximum permissible power of a station
utilizing a perfectly uniform power spectral density across a 6 MHz channel were 2000 watts EIRP,
this would result in a maximum permissible power flux density for the station of 2000/60 = 33.3 watts
EIRP per 100 kHz bandwidth.  If a non-uniform emission were substituted at the station, station
power would still be limited to a maximum of 33.3 watts EIRP within any 100 kHz segment of the
6 MHz channel, irrespective of the fact that this would result in a total 6 MHz channel power of less
than 2000 watts EIRP. 

17.  In Section 21.905, paragraphs (b) and (d) are revised to read as follows:

 21.905  Emissions and bandwidth.

* * * * *

     (b)  Quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), digital vestigial sideband modulation (VSB),
quadrature phase shift key modulation (QPSK), code division multiple access (CDMA), and
orthogonal frequency division multiplex (OFDM) emissions may be employed, subject to compliance
with the policies set forth in the Declaratory Ruling and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 18839 (1996).  Use of
OFDM also is subject to the subsequent Declaratory Ruling and Order, DA 99-554 (Mass Med. Bur.
rel. Mar. 19, 1999).  Other digital emissions may be added to those authorized above, including
emissions with non-uniform power spectral density, if the applicant provides information in
accordance with the guidelines and procedures set forth in the Declaratory Ruling and Order which
clearly demonstrates the spectral occupancy and interference characteristics of the emission.  The
licensee may subchannelize its authorized bandwidth, provided that digital modulation is employed
and the aggregate power does not exceed the authorized power for the channel, and may utilize all
or a portion of its authorized bandwidth for MDS response stations authorized pursuant to  21.909. 
The licensee may also, jointly with affected adjacent channel licensees, transmit utilizing bandwidth
in excess of its authorized frequencies, provided that digital modulation is employed, all power
spectral density requirements set forth in this part are met and the out-of-band emissions restrictions
set forth in  21.908 are met at and beyond the edges of the channels employed.  The wider channels
thus created may be redivided to create narrower channels.

* * * * *

     (d)  Notwithstanding the above, any digital emission which complies with the out-of-band
emission restrictions of  21.908 may be used in the following circumstances: 

          (1) At any MDS main or booster station transmitter which is located more than 160.94
km (100 miles) from the nearest boundary of all cochannel and adjacent channel ITFS and MDS
protected service areas, including Basic Trading Areas and Partitioned Service Areas; and

          (2) At all MDS response station transmitters within a response service area if all points
along the response service area boundary line are more than 160.94 km (100 miles) from the nearest
boundary of all cochannel and adjacent channel ITFS and MDS protected service areas, including
Basic Trading Areas and Partitioned Service Areas; and

          (3) At any MDS transmitter where all parties entitled by this part to interference
protection from that transmitter have mutually consented to the use at that transmitter of such
emissions.

18.  In Section 21.906, paragraphs (a) and (d) are revised to read as follows:

21.906  Antennas.

     (a)  Main and booster station transmitting antennas shall be omnidirectional, except that a
directional antenna with a main beam sufficiently broad to provide adequate service may be used
either to avoid possible interference with other users in the frequency band, or to provide coverage
more consistent with distribution of potential receiving points.  In lieu of an omnidirectional antenna,
a station may employ an array of directional antennas in order to reuse spectrum efficiently.  When
an applicant proposes to employ a directional antenna, or a licensee notifies the Commission pursuant
to 21.42 of the installation of a sectorized antenna system, the applicant shall provide the
Commission with information regarding the orientation of the directional antenna(s), expressed in
degree of azimuth, with respect to true north, and the make and model of such antenna(s).

* * * * *

     (d)  Directive receiving antennas shall be used at all points other than response station hubs
and shall be elevated no higher than necessary to assure adequate service.  Receiving antenna height
shall not exceed the height criteria of part 17 of this chapter, unless authorization for use of a specific
maximum antenna height (above ground and above mean sea level) for each location has been
obtained from the Commission prior to the erection of the antenna.  (See part 17 of this chapter
concerning the construction, marking and lighting of antenna structures.)

19.  Section 21.909 is revised to read as follows:

 21.909 MDS response stations.

     (a)  An MDS response station is authorized to provide communication by voice, video and/or
data signals with its associated MDS response station hub or MDS station.  An MDS response station
may be operated only by the licensee of an MDS station, by any lessee of the MDS station or
response station hub, or by a subscriber of either.  The authorized channel may be divided to provide
distinct subchannels for each of more than one response station, provided that digital modulation is
employed and the aggregate power does not exceed the authorized power for the channel.  An MDS
response station may also, jointly with other licensees, transmit utilizing bandwidth in excess of that
authorized to the station, provided that digital modulation is employed, all power spectral density
requirements set forth in this part are met, and the out-of-band emissions restrictions set forth in 
21.908(b) or paragraph (j) of this section are complied with.  When a 125 kHz channel is employed,
the specific channel which may be used by the response station is determined in accordance with 
21.901 and 74.939(j) of this chapter.

     (b)  MDS response stations that utilize the 2150-2162 MHz band, the 2500-2686 MHz band,
and/or the 125 kHz channels may be installed and operated without an individual license, to
communicate with a response station hub authorized under a response station hub license, provided
that the conditions set forth in paragraph (g) of this section are complied with and that MDS response
stations operating in this manner employ only digital modulation with uniform power spectral density
in accordance with the Commission's Declaratory Ruling and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 18839 (1996).

     (c)  An applicant for a response station hub license, or for modification thereto where not
subject to  21.41 or  21.42, shall:

          (1)  File FCC Form 331 with Mellon Bank, and certify on that form that it has
complied with the requirements of paragraphs (c)(2) and (d) of this section and that the interference
data submitted under paragraph (d) of this section is complete and accurate.  Failure to certify
compliance and to comply completely with the requirements of paragraphs (c)(2) and (d) of this
section shall result in dismissal of the application or revocation of the response station hub license,
and may result in imposition of a monetary forfeiture; and

          (2)  Submit to the Commission's copy contractor, both in hard copy and on a 3.5"
DSHD computer diskette in ASCII, the following:

               (i)  Duplicates of the Form 331 filed with Mellon Bank; and

               (ii)  The data required by Appendix D to the Report and Order on
Reconsideration in MM Docket No. 97-217, FCC 99-178, "Methods for Predicting Interference from
Response Station Transmitters and to Response Station Hubs and for Supplying Data on Response
Station Systems"; and

               (iii)  The information, showings and certifications required by paragraph (d)
of this section; and

          (3)  Submit to the Commission, only upon Commission staff request, duplicates of the
submissions required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

     (d)  An applicant for a response station hub license shall, pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of
this section, submit to the Commission's copy contractor the following:

          (1)  The geographic coordinates, street address, and the height of the center line of
the reception antenna(s) above mean sea level for the proposed response station hub; and

          (2)  A specification of:

               (i)  the response service area in which the applicant or its lessee proposes to
install MDS response stations to communicate with the response station hub, any regions into which
the response service area will be subdivided for purposes of interference analysis, and any regional
classes of response station characteristics which will be used to define the operating parameters of
groups of response stations within each region for purposes of interference analysis, including:

                    (A)  the maximum height above ground level of the transmission
antenna that will be employed by any response station in the regional class and that will be used in
interference analyses; and

                    (B)  the maximum equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) that will
be employed by any response station in the regional class and that will be used in interference
analyses; and

                    (C)  any sectorization that will be employed, including the polarization
to be employed by response stations in each sector and the geographic orientation of the sector
boundaries, and that will be used in interference analyses; and

                    (D)  the combined worst-case outer envelope plot of the patterns of
all models of response station transmission antennas that will be employed by any response station
in the regional class to be used in interference analyses; and

                    (E)  the maximum number of response stations that will be operated
simultaneously in each region using the characteristics of each regional class applicable to each
region.

               (ii)  the channel plan (including any guardbands at the edges of the channel)
to be used by MDS response stations in communicating with each response station hub, including a
statement as to whether the applicant will employ the same frequencies on which response stations
will transmit to also transmit on a point-to-multipoint basis from an MDS station or MDS booster
station; and

          (3)  A demonstration that:

               (i)  The proposed response station hub is within a protected service area, as
defined in  21.902(d) or  21.933, to which the applicant is entitled either:

                    (A) by virtue of its being the licensee of an incumbent MDS station
whose channels are being converted for MDS response station use; or

                    (B) by virtue of its holding a Basic Trading Area or Partitioned Service
Area authorization.  In the case of an application for response stations to utilize one or more of the
125 kHz response channels, such demonstration shall establish that the response station hub is within
the protected service area of the station authorized to utilize the associated E-Group or F-Group
channel(s); and

               (ii)  The entire proposed response service area is within a protected service
area to which the applicant is entitled either (A) by virtue of its being the licensee of an incumbent
MDS station whose channels are being converted for MDS response station use; or (B) by virtue of
its holding a Basic Trading Area or Partitioned Service Area authorization.  In the alternative, the
applicant may demonstrate that the licensee entitled to any cochannel protected service area which
is overlapped by the proposed response service area has consented to such overlap.  In the case of
an application for response stations to utilize one or more of the 125 kHz response channels, such
demonstration shall establish that the response service area is entirely within the protected service
area of the station authorized to utilize the associated E-Group or F-Group channel(s), or, in the
alternative, that the licensee entitled to any cochannel protected service area which is overlapped by
the proposed response service area has consented to such overlap; and

               (iii)  The combined signals of all simultaneously operating MDS response
stations within all response service areas and oriented to transmit towards their respective response
station hubs, and all cochannel MDS stations and booster stations licensed to or applied for by the
applicant will not generate a power flux density in excess of -73 dBW/mý (or the appropriately
adjusted value based on the actual bandwidth used if other than 6 MHz, see  21.902(b)(7)(i)) outside
the boundaries of the applicant's protected service area, as measured at locations for which there is
an unobstructed signal path, except to the extent that consent of affected licensees has been obtained
or consents have been granted pursuant to paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section to an extension of the
response service area beyond the boundaries of the protected service area; and

               (iv)  The combined signals of all simultaneously operating MDS response
stations within all response service areas and oriented to transmit towards their respective response
station hubs, and all cochannel MDS stations and booster stations licensed to or applied for by the
applicant, will result in a desired to undesired signal ratio of at least 45 dB (or the appropriately
adjusted value based on the actual bandwidth used if other than 6 MHz, see  21.902(b)(7)(ii)):

                    (A) within the protected service area of any authorized or previously-
proposed cochannel MDS or ITFS station with a 56.33 km (35 mile) protected service area with
center coordinates located within 160.94 km (100 miles) of the proposed response station hub; and

                    (B) within the booster service area of any cochannel booster station
entitled to such protection pursuant to  21.913(f) or 74.985(f) of this chapter and located within
160.94 km (100 miles) of the proposed response station hub; and

                    (C) at any registered receive site of any authorized or previously-
proposed cochannel ITFS station or booster station located within 160.94 km (100 miles) of the
proposed response station hub, or, in the alternative, that the licensee of or applicant for such
cochannel station or hub consents to the application; and

               (v)  The combined signals of all simultaneously operating MDS response
stations within all response service areas and oriented to transmit towards their respective response
station hubs, and all cochannel MDS stations and booster stations licensed to or applied for by the
applicant, will result in a desired to undesired signal ratio of at least 0 dB (or the appropriately
adjusted value based on the actual bandwidth used if other than 6 MHz, see  21.902(b)(7)(iii)):

                    (A) within the protected service area of any authorized or previously-
proposed adjacent channel MDS or ITFS station with a 56.33 km (35 mile) protected service area
with center coordinates located within 160.94 km (100 miles) of the proposed response station hub;
and

                    (B) within the booster service area of any adjacent channel booster
station entitled to such protection pursuant to  21.913(f) or 74.985(f) of this chapter and located
within 160.94 km (100 miles) of the proposed response station hub; and

                    (C) at any registered receive site of any authorized or previously-
proposed adjacent channel ITFS station or booster station located within 160.94 km (100 miles) of
the proposed response station hub, or, in the alternative, that the licensee of or applicant for such
adjacent channel station or hub consents to the application; and

               (vi)  The combined signals of all simultaneously operating MDS response
stations within all response service areas and oriented to transmit towards their respective response
station hub and all cochannel MDS stations and booster stations licensed to or applied for by the
applicant will comply with the requirements of paragraph (i) of this section and  74.939(i) of this
chapter.

          (4)  A certification that the application has been served upon

               (i)  the holder of any cochannel or adjacent channel authorization with a
protected service area which is overlapped by the proposed response service area; 

               (ii)  the holder of any cochannel or adjacent channel authorization with a
protected service area that adjoins the applicant's protected service area;

               (iii)  the holder of a cochannel or adjacent channel authorization for any BTA
or PSA inside whose boundaries are locations for which there is an unobstructed signal path for
combined signals from within the response station hub applicant's protected service area; and

               (iv) every licensee of, or applicant for, any cochannel or adjacent channel,
authorized or previously-proposed, incumbent MDS station with a 56.33 km (35 mile) protected
service area with center coordinates located within 160.94 km (100 miles) of the proposed response
station hub;

               (v)  every licensee of, or applicant for, any cochannel or adjacent channel,
authorized or previously-proposed ITFS station (including any booster station or response station
hub) located within 160.94 km (100 miles) of the proposed response station hub; and

               (vi)  every licensee of any non-cochannel or non-adjacent channel ITFS station
(including any booster station) with one or more registered receive sites in, or within 1960 feet of the
proposed response station service area.

     (e)  Except as set forth in  21.27(d), applications for response station hub licenses may be
filed at any time.  Notwithstanding any other provision of part 21 (including 21.31), applications for
response station hub licenses meeting the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section shall cut-off
applications that are filed on a subsequent day for facilities that would cause harmful electromagnetic
interference to the proposed response station hubs.  A response station hub shall not be entitled to
protection from interference caused by facilities proposed on or prior to the day the application for
the response station hub license is filed.  Response stations shall not be required to protect from
interference facilities proposed on or after the day the application for the response station hub license
is filed.

     (f) Notwithstanding the provisions of  21.30(b)(4) and except as set forth in  21.27(d), any
petition to deny an application for a response station hub license shall be filed no later than the sixtieth
(60th) day after the date of public notice announcing the filing of such application or major
amendment thereto.  Notwithstanding  21.31 and except as provided in  21.27(d), an application
for a response station hub license that meets the requirements of this section shall be granted on the
sixty-first (61st) day after the Commission shall have given public notice of the acceptance for filing
of it, or of a major amendment to it if such major amendment has been filed, unless prior to such date
either a party in interest timely files a formal petition to deny or for other relief pursuant to 
21.30(a), or the Commission notifies the applicant that its application will not be granted.  Where an
application is granted pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph, the conditional licensee or licensee
shall maintain a copy of the application at the response station hub until such time as the Commission
issues a response station hub license.

     (g)  An MDS response station hub license shall be conditioned upon compliance with the
following:

          (1)  No MDS response station shall be located beyond the response service area of
the response station hub with which it communicates; and

          (2)  No MDS response station shall operate with a transmitter output power in excess
of 2 watts; and

          (3)  No response station shall operate with an EIRP in excess of that specified in the
application for the response station hub pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(i)(B) of this section for the
particular regional class of characteristics with which the response station is associated, and such
response station shall not operate at an excess of 33 dBW + 10 log(X/6) dBW, where X is the
channel width in MHz; and

          (4)  Each MDS response station shall employ a transmission antenna oriented towards
the response station hub with which the MDS response station communicates, and such antenna shall
be no less directional than the worst case outer envelope pattern specified in the application for the
response station hub pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(i)(D) of this section for the regional class of
characteristics with which the response station is associated; and

          (5)  The combined out-of-band emissions of all response stations using all or part of
one or multiple contiguous 6 MHz channels and employing digital modulation shall comply with 
21.908(d).  The combined out-of-band emissions of all response stations using all or part of one or
multiple contiguous 125 kHz channels shall comply with paragraph (j) of this section.  However,
should harmful interference occur as a result of emissions outside the assigned channel, additional
attenuation may be required; and

          (6)  The response stations transmitting simultaneously at any time within any given
region of the response service area utilized for purposes of analyzing the potential for interference
by response stations shall conform to the numerical limits for each class of response station proposed
in the application for the response station hub license.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the licensee
of a response station hub license may alter the number of response stations of any class operated
simultaneously in a given region, without prior Commission authorization, provided that the licensee:

               (i)  First notifies the Commission of the altered number of response stations
of such class(es) to be operated simultaneously in such region, and certifies in that notification that
it has complied with the requirements of paragraphs (g)(6)(ii) and (iii) of this section, and that the
interference data submitted under paragraph (g)(6)(ii) is complete and accurate; and

               (ii)  Provides the Commission's copy contractor with a copy of such
notification and with an analysis establishing that such alteration will not result in any increase in
interference to the protected service area or protected receive sites of any existing or previously-
proposed, cochannel or adjacent channel MDS or ITFS station or booster station, to the protected
service area of any MDS Basic Trading Area or Partitioned Service Area licensee entitled to
protection pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) of this section, or to any existing or previously-proposed,
cochannel or adjacent channel response station hub, or response station under  21.949 or  74.949
of this chapter; or that the applicant for or licensee of such facility has consented to such interference;
and

               (iii)  Serves a copy of such notification and analysis upon each party entitled
to be served pursuant to paragraph (d)(4) of this section; and

               (iv)  Submits to the Commission, only upon Commission staff request,
duplicates of the submissions required by paragraph (g)(6)(ii) of this section; and

          (7)  Where an application is granted under this section, if a facility operated pursuant
to that grant causes harmful, unauthorized interference to any cochannel or adjacent channel facility,
it must promptly remedy the interference or immediately cease operations of the interfering facility,
regardless of whether any petitions to deny or for other relief were filed against the application during
the application process.  The burden of proving that a facility operated under this section is not
causing harmful, unauthorized interference lies on the licensee of the alleged interfering facility,
following the filing of a documented complaint of interference by an affected party; and

          (8) In the event any MDS or ITFS receive site suffers interference due to block
downconverter overload, the licensee of each non-co/adjacent response station hub with a response
service area within five miles of such receive site shall cooperate in good faith to expeditiously
identify the source of the interference.  Each licensee of a response station hub with an associated
response station contributing to such interference shall bear the joint and several obligation to
promptly remedy all block downconverter interference overload at any ITFS registered receive site
or at any receive site within an MDS or ITFS protected service area applied for prior to the
submission of the application for the response station hub license, regardless of whether the receive
site suffering the interference was constructed prior to or after the construction of the response
station(s) causing the downconverter overload; provided, however, that the licensee of the registered
ITFS receive site or the MDS or ITFS protected service area must cooperate fully and in good faith
with efforts by the response station hub licensee to prevent interference before constructing response
stations and/or to remedy interference that may occur.  In the event that the associated response
station(s) of more than one response station hub licensee contribute(s) to block downconverter
interference at an MDS or ITFS receive site, such hub licensees shall cooperate in good faith to
remedy promptly the interference.

     (h)  Applicants must comply with part 17 of this chapter concerning notification to the Federal
Aviation Administration of proposed antenna construction or alteration for all hub stations and
associated response stations.

     (i)  Response station hubs shall be protected from cochannel and adjacent channel interference
in accordance with the following criteria:

          (1)  An applicant for any new or modified MDS or ITFS station (including any high-
power booster station or response station hub) shall be required to demonstrate interference
protection to a response station hub within 160.94 km (100 miles) of the proposed facilities.  In lieu
of the interference protection requirements set forth in  21.902(b)(3) through (b)(5), 21.938(b)(1)
and (2) and (c), and 74.903 of this chapter, such demonstration shall establish that the proposed
facility will not increase the effective power flux density of the undesired signals generated by the
proposed facility and any associated main stations, booster stations or response stations at the
response station hub antenna for any sector.  In lieu of the foregoing, an applicant for a new MDS
or ITFS main station license or for a new or modified response station hub or booster license may
demonstrate that the facility will not increase the noise floor at a reception antenna of the response
station hub by more than 1 dB for cochannel signals and 45 dB for adjacent channel signals, provided
that:

               (i)  the entity submitting the application may only invoke this alternative once
per response station hub reception sector; or

               (ii)  the licensee of the affected response station hub may consent to receive
a certain amount of interference at its hub.

          (2) Commencing upon the filing of an application for an MDS response station hub
license and until such time as the application is dismissed or denied or, if the application is granted,
a certification of completion of construction is filed, the MDS station whose channels are being
utilized shall be entitled both to interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(3) through (b)(5),
21.938(b)(1) and (2) and (c), and 74.903 of this chapter, and to protection of the response station
hub pursuant to the preceding paragraph.  Unless the application for the response station hub license
specifies that the same frequencies also will be employed for digital and/or analog point-to-multipoint
transmissions by MDS stations and/or MDS booster stations, upon the filing of a certification of
completion of construction of an MDS response station hub where the channels of an MDS station
are being utilized as response station transmit frequencies, the MDS station whose channels are being
utilized for response station transmissions shall no longer be entitled to interference protection
pursuant to  21.902(b)(3) through (b)(5), 21.938(b)(1) and (2) and (c), and 74.903 of this chapter
within the response service area with regard to any portion of any 6 MHz channel employed solely
for response station communications.  Upon the certification of completion of construction of an
MDS response station hub where the channels of an MDS station are being utilized for response
station transmissions and the application for the response station hub license specifies that the same
frequencies will be employed for point-to-multipoint transmissions, the MDS station whose channels
are being utilized shall be entitled both to interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(3) through
(b)(5), 21.938(b)(1) and (2) and (c), and 74.903 of this chapter, and to protection of the response
station hub pursuant to the preceding provisions of this paragraph.

     (j)  125 kHz wide response channels shall be subject to the following requirements: The 125
kHz wide channel shall be centered at the assigned frequency.  If amplitude modulation is used, the
carrier shall not be modulated in excess of 100%.  If frequency modulation is used, the deviation shall
not exceed ñ 25 kHz.  Any emissions outside the channel shall be attenuated at the channel edges at
least 35 dB below peak output power when analog modulation is employed or 35 dB below licensed
average output power when digital modulation is employed (or, when subchannels are used, the
appropriately adjusted value based upon the ratio of the channel-to-subchannel bandwidths).  Any
emissions more than 125 kHz from either channel edge, including harmonics, shall be attenuated at
least 60 dB below peak output power when analog modulation is employed, or at least 60 dB below
licensed average output power when digital modulation is employed (or, when subchannels are used,
the appropriately adjusted value based upon the ratio of the channel-to-subchannel bandwidths). 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in situations where adjacent channel licensees jointly transmit over
more than one contiguous channel utilizing digital modulation, the maximum out-of-band power shall
be attenuated at the edges of those combined channels at least 35 dB relative to the licensed average
power level of each channel.  Emissions more than 125 kHz from either edge of the combined
channels, including harmonics, shall be attenuated at least 60 dB below peak analog power or average
digital power of each channel, as appropriate.


     (k) A response station may be operated unattended.  The overall performance of the response
station transmitter shall be checked by the hub licensee as often as necessary to ensure that it is
functioning in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's rules.  The licensee of a
response station hub is responsible for the proper operation of all associated response station
transmitters.  Each response station hub licensee is responsible for maintaining, and making available
to the Commission upon request, a list containing all customer names and addresses, plus the
technical parameters (EIRP, emission, bandwidth, antenna pattern/ height/ orientation/ polarization)
pertinent to each class of response station within the response service area.

     (l) The transmitting apparatus employed at MDS response stations shall have received type
certification

     (m) An MDS response station shall be operated only when engaged in communications with
its associated MDS response station hub or MDS station or booster station, or for necessary
equipment or system tests and adjustments.  Upon initial installation, and upon relocation and
reinstallation, a response station transmitter shall be incapable of emitting radiation unless, and until,
it has been activated by reception of a signal from the associated MDS station or booster station.  A
hub station licensee shall be capable of remotely de-activating any and all response station transmitters
within its RSA by means of signals from the associated MDS station or booster station.  Radiation
of an unmodulated carrier and other unnecessary transmissions are forbidden.

     (n) All response stations utilizing an EIRP greater than 18 dBW shall be installed by the
associated hub licensee or by the licensee's employees or agents.  (Note: For the purposes of this
section, all EIRP dBW values assume the use of a 6 MHz channel.  For channel bandwidths other
than 6 MHz, the EIRP dBW should be adjusted by 10 log(X/6) dBW, where X is the actual
bandwidth in MHz)  For response stations located within 1960 feet of an ITFS receive site registered
and built prior to the filing of the application for the associated hub station license, the hub licensee
must notify the licensee of the ITFS receive site at least one business day prior to activation of the
response station, identifying both the specific ITFS receive site which is within 1960 feet of the
response station to be activated and the specific hub station or stations with which the response
station will communicate, and providing the name and telephone number of a contact person who will
be responsible for coordinating the resolution of any interference problems.  Such notice to the ITFS
licensee shall be given in writing by certified mail unless the ITFS licensee has requested delivery by
electronic mail or facsimile.  The ITFS licensee may waive the notification requirement on a site-
specific basis, or on a system-wide basis.  The notification provisions of this section shall not apply
if:

          (1) The response station will operate at an EIRP no greater than -6 dBW; or

          (2) The response station will operate at an EIRP greater than -6 dBW and no more
than 18 dBW and:

               (i) The channels being received at the ITFS site are neither the same as, nor
directly adjacent to, the channel(s) be transmitted from the response station; and

               (ii) The hub station licensee has replaced, at its expense, the frequency
downconverters used at all ITFS receive sites registered and constructed prior to the filing of the hub
station application which are within 1960 feet of the hub station's response service area; and

               (iii) The downconverters, at a minimum, conform to the following
specifications:

                    (A) A frequency of operation covering the 2150-2162 MHz band or
the 2500-2686 MHz band; and

                    (B) A third-order intercept point of 30 dBm; and

                    (C) A conversion gain of 32 dB, or the same conversion gain as the
existing ITFS downconverter, whichever is least; and

                    (D) A noise figure of no greater than 2.5 dB, or no more than 1 dB
greater than the noise figure of the existing ITFS downconverter, whichever is greater; and

               (iv) The proposal to upgrade the ITFS downconverter was made in writing
and served upon the affected ITFS licensee, conditional licensee or applicant at the same time the
application for the response station hub license was served on cochannel and adjacent channel ITFS
parties and no objection was made within the 60-day period allowed for petitions to deny the hub
station application.

     (o)  Interference calculations shall be performed in accordance with Appendix D to the Report
and Order on Reconsideration in MM Docket No. 97-217, FCC 99-178, "Methods For Predicting
Interference From Response Station Transmitters and To Response Station Hubs and For Supplying
Data on Response Station Systems."  Compliance with the out-of-band emissions limitations shall be
established in accordance with  21.908(e).

20.  In Section 21.910, the section heading and introductory text, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised,
and paragraphs (c) and (d) are deleted to read as follows:

 21.910  Special procedures for discontinuance, reduction or impairment of service by common
carrier licensees.

     (a)  Any licensee who has elected common carrier status and who seeks to discontinue service
on a common carrier basis and instead provide service on a non-common carrier basis, or who
otherwise intends to reduce or impair service the carrier shall notify all affected customers of the
planned discontinuance, reduction or impairment on or before the date that the licensee provides
notice to the Commission pursuant to  21.903(d).  

     (b)  Notice shall be in writing to each affected customer unless the Commission authorizes
in advance, for good cause shown, another form of notice.  Notice shall include the following:

     (1)  Name and address of carrier; and

     (2)  Date of planned service discontinuance, reduction or impairment; and

     (3)  Points or geographic areas of service affected; and

     (4)  How many and which channels are affected.

21.  Section 21.913 is revised to read as follows:

 21.913 Signal booster stations. 

     (a)  An MDS booster station may reuse channels to repeat the signals of MDS stations or to
originate signals on MDS channels.  The aggregate power flux density generated by an MDS station
and all associated signal booster stations and all simultaneously operating cochannel response stations
may not exceed -73 dBW/mý (or the appropriately adjusted value based on the actual bandwidth used
if other than 6 MHz, see  21.909(b)(7)(i)) at or beyond the boundary of the protected service area,
as defined in  21.902(d) and 21.933, of the main MDS station whose channels are being reused,
as measured at locations for which there is an unobstructed signal path, unless the consent of the
affected cochannel licensee is obtained.

     (b)  A licensee or conditional licensee may secure a license for a high power signal booster
station that has a maximum EIRP in excess of -9 dBW + 10 log(X/6) dBW where X is the channel
width in MHz, if it complies with the out-of-band emission requirements of  21.908.  The applicant
for a high-power station, or for modification thereto, where not subject to  21.41 or  21.42, shall
file FCC Form 331 with Mellon Bank, and certify on that form that the applicant has complied with
the additional requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, and that the interference data submitted
under this paragraph is complete and accurate.  Failure to certify compliance and to comply
completely with the following requirements of paragraph (b) of this section shall result in dismissal
of the application or revocation of the high-power MDS signal booster station license, and may result
in imposition of a monetary forfeiture.  The applicant additionally is required to submit to the
Commission's copy contractor, both in hard copy, and on a 3.5" DSHD computer diskette in ASCII,
and likewise to submit to the Commission, only upon Commission staff request, duplicates of the
Form 331 filed with Mellon Bank, and the following information:

          (1)  A demonstration that the proposed signal booster station site is within the
protected service area, as defined in  21.902(d) and 21.933, of the MDS station whose channels
are to be reused; and

          (2)  A study which demonstrates that the aggregate power flux density of the MDS
station and all associated booster stations and simultaneously operating cochannel response stations
licensed to or applied for by the applicant, measured at or beyond the boundary of the protected
service area of the MDS station whose channels are to be reused, does not exceed -73 dBW/mý (or
the appropriately adjusted value based on the actual bandwidth used if other than 6 MHz, see 
21.907(b)(7)(i)) at locations for which there is an unobstructed signal path, unless the consent of the
affected licensees has been obtained; and

          (3)  In lieu of the requirements of  21.902(c) and (i), a study which demonstrates that
the proposed booster station will cause no harmful interference (as defined in  21.902(f)) to
cochannel and adjacent channel, authorized or previously-proposed ITFS and MDS stations with
protected service area center coordinates as specified in  21.902(d), to any authorized or previously-
proposed response station hubs, booster stations or I channel stations associated with such ITFS and
MDS stations, or to any ITFS receive sites registered as of September 17, 1998, within 160.94
kilometers (100 miles) of the proposed booster station's transmitter site.  Such study shall consider
the undesired signal levels generated by the proposed signal booster station, the main station, all other
licensed or previously-proposed associated booster stations, and all simultaneously operating
cochannel response stations licensed to or applied for by the applicant.  In the alternative, a statement
from the affected MDS or ITFS licensee or conditional licensee stating that it does not object to
operation of the high-power MDS signal booster station may be submitted; and

          (4)  A description of the booster service area; and

          (5)  A demonstration either

               (i)  That the booster service area is entirely within the protected service area
to which the licensee of a station whose channels are being reused is entitled by virtue of its being the
licensee of an incumbent MDS station, or by virtue of its holding a Basic Trading Area or Partitioned
Service Area authorization; or

               (ii)  That the licensee entitled to any cochannel protected service area which
is overlapped by the proposed booster service area has consented to such overlap; and

          (6)  A demonstration that the proposed booster service area can be served by the
proposed booster without interference; and

          (7)  A certification that copies of the materials set forth in paragraph (b) of this section
have been served upon the licensee or conditional licensee of each station (including each response
station hub and booster station) required to be studied pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section,
and upon any affected holder of a Basic Trading Area or Partitioned Service Area authorization
pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

     (c)  Except as provided in  21.27(d), applications for high-power MDS signal booster station
licenses may be filed at any time.  Notwithstanding any other provision of part 21 (including  21.31),
applications for high-power MDS signal booster station licenses meeting the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section shall cut-off applications that are filed on a subsequent day for facilities
that would cause harmful electromagnetic interference to the proposed booster stations.

     (d)  Notwithstanding the provisions of  21.30(a)(4) and except as provided in  21.27(d),
any petition to deny an application for a high-power MDS signal booster station license shall be filed
no later than the sixtieth (60th) day after the date of public notice announcing the filing of such
application or major amendment thereto.  Notwithstanding  21.31 and except as provided in 
21.27(d), an application for a high-power MDS signal booster station license that meets the
requirements of paragraph (b) of this section shall be granted on the sixty-first (61st) day after the
Commission shall have given public notice of the acceptance for filing of it, or of a major amendment
to it if such major amendment has been filed, unless prior to such date either a party in interest timely
files a formal petition to deny or for other relief pursuant to  21.30(a), or the Commission notifies
the applicant that its application will not be granted.  Where an application is granted pursuant to the
provisions of this paragraph, the conditional licensee or licensee shall maintain a copy of the
application at the MDS booster station until such time as the Commission issues a high-power MDS
signal booster station license.

     (e)  Eligibility for a license for a low power signal booster station that has a maximum EIRP
of -9 dBW +log10(X/6) dBW, where X is the channel width in MHz, shall be restricted to a licensee
or conditional licensee.  A low-power MDS signal booster station may operate only on one or more
MDS channels that are licensed to the licensee of the MDS booster station, but may be operated by
a third party with a fully-executed lease or consent agreement with the MDS conditional licensee or
licensee.  An MDS licensee or conditional licensee may install and commence operation of a low-
power MDS signal booster station for the purpose of retransmitting the signals of the MDS station
or for originating signals.  Such installation and operation shall be subject to the condition that for
sixty (60) days after installation and commencement of operation, no objection or petition to deny
is filed by the licensee of a, or applicant for a previously-proposed, cochannel or adjacent channel
ITFS or MDS station with a transmitter within 8.0 kilometers (5 miles) of the coordinates of the low-
power MDS signal booster station.  An MDS licensee or conditional licensee seeking to install a low-
power MDS signal booster station under this rule must, within 48 hours after installation, submit FCC
Form 331 to the Commission in Washington, DC, and submit to the Commission's copy contractor,
both in hard copy, and on a 3.5" DSHD computer diskette in ASCII, duplicates of the Form 331 filed
with the Commission, and the following (which also shall be submitted to the Commission only upon
Commission staff request at any time):

          (1)  A description of the booster service area; and

          (2)  A demonstration either

               (i)  That the booster service area is entirely within the protected service area
to which each licensee of a station whose channels are being reused is entitled by virtue of its being
the licensee of an incumbent MDS station, or by virtue of its holding a Basic Trading Area or
Partitioned Service Area authorization; or

               (ii)  That the licensee entitled to any cochannel protected service area which
is overlapped by the proposed booster service area has consented to such overlap; and

          (3)  A demonstration that the proposed booster service area can be served by the
proposed booster without interference; and

          (4)  A certification that:

               (i)  The maximum power level of the signal booster transmitter does not
exceed -9 dBW + 10 log(X/6) dBW, where X is the channel width in MHz; and

               (ii)  Where the booster is operating on channel D4, E1, F1, E2, F2, E3, F3,
E4, F4 and/or G1, no registered receiver of an ITFS E or F channel station, constructed prior to May
26, 1983, is located within a 1.61 km (1 mile) radius of the coordinates of the booster, or in the
alternative, that a consent statement has been obtained from the affected ITFS licensee; and

               (iii)  The applicant has complied with  1.1307 of this chapter; and

               (iv)  Each MDS and/or ITFS station licensee (including the licensees of booster
stations and response station hubs) with protected service areas and/or registered receivers within a
8 km (5 mile) radius of the coordinates of the booster has been given notice of its installation; and

               (v)  The signal booster site is within the protected service area of the MDS
station whose channels are to be reused; and

               (vi)  The aggregate power flux density of the MDS station and all associated
booster stations and simultaneously operating cochannel response stations licensed to or applied for
by the applicant, measured at or beyond the boundary of the protected service areas of the MDS
stations whose channels are to be reused, does not exceed -73 dBW/mý (or the appropriately adjusted
value based on the actual bandwidth used if other than 6 MHz, see  21.907(b)(7)(i)) at locations for
which there is an unobstructed signal path, unless the consent of the affected licensees has been
obtained; and

               (vii)  The antenna structure will extend less than 6.10 meters (20 feet) above
the ground or natural formation or less than 6.10 meters (20 feet) above an existing manmade
structure (other than an antenna structure); and

               (viii)  The MDS conditional licensee or licensee understands and agrees that,
in the event harmful interference is claimed by the filing of an objection or petition to deny, the
conditional licensee or licensee must terminate operation within two (2) hours of notification by the
Commission, and must not recommence operation until receipt of written authorization to do so by
the Commission.

     (f)  Commencing upon the filing of an application for a high-power MDS signal booster
station license and until such time as the application is dismissed or denied or, if the application is
granted, a certification of completion of construction is filed, an applicant for any new or modified
MDS or ITFS station (including a response station hub, high-power booster station, or I Channels
station) shall demonstrate compliance with the interference protection requirements set forth in 
21.902(b)(3) through (b)(5), 21.938(b)(1) and (2) and (c), or 74.903 of this chapter with respect to
any previously-proposed or authorized booster service area both using the transmission parameters
of the high-power MDS signal booster station (e.g., EIRP, polarization(s) and antenna height) and
the transmission parameters of the MDS station whose channels are to be reused by the high-power
MDS signal booster station.  Upon the filing of a certification of completion of construction of an
MDS booster station applied for pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, or upon the submission
of an MDS booster station notification pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, the MDS station
whose channels are being reused by the MDS signal booster shall no longer be entitled to interference
protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(3) through (b)(5), 21.938(b)(1) and (2) and (c), and 74.903 of
this chapter within the booster service area based on the transmission parameters of the MDS station
whose channels are being reused.  A booster station shall not be entitled to protection from
interference caused by facilities proposed on or prior to the day the application or notification for the
booster station is filed.  A booster station shall not be required to protect from interference facilities
proposed on or after the day the application or notification for the booster station is filed.

     (g)  Where an application is granted under paragraph (d) of this section, if a facility operated
pursuant to that grant causes harmful, unauthorized interference to any cochannel or adjacent channel
facility, it must promptly remedy the interference or immediately cease operations of the interfering
facility, regardless of whether any petitions to deny or for other relief were filed against the
application during the application process.  The burden of proving that a high-power MDS signal
booster station is not causing harmful, unauthorized interference lies on the licensee of the alleged
interfering facility, following the filing of a documented complaint of interference by an affected party.

     (h)  In the event any MDS or ITFS receive site suffers interference due to block
downconverter overload, the licensee of each non-co/adjacent channel signal booster station within
five miles of such receive site shall cooperate in good faith to expeditiously identify the source of the
interference.  Each licensee of a signal booster station contributing to such interference shall bear the
joint and several obligation to remedy promptly all interference resulting from block downconverter
overload at any ITFS registered receive site or at any receive site within an MDS or ITFS protected
service area applied for prior to the submission of the application or notification for the signal booster
station, regardless of whether the receive site suffering the interference was constructed prior to or
after the construction of the signal booster station(s) causing the downconverter overload; provided,
however, that the licensee of the registered ITFS receive site or the MDS or ITFS protected service
area must cooperate fully and in good faith with efforts by signal booster station licensees to prevent
interference before constructing the signal booster station and/or to remedy interference that may
occur.  In the event that more than one signal booster station licensee contributes to block
downconverter interference at an MDS or ITFS receive site, such licensees shall cooperate in good
faith to remedy promptly the interference.

22.  In Section 21.925, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

 21.925  Applications for BTA authorizations and MDS station licenses.

* * * * *

     (b)  Separate long-form applications must be filed for each individual MDS station license
sought within the protected service area of a BTA or PSA, including:

          (1)  An application for each E-channel group, F-channel group, and single H, 1, and
2A channel station license sought;

          (2)  An application for each site where one or more MDS response station hub
license(s) is/are sought, provided that the technical parameters of each MDS response station hub are
the same;

          (3)  An application for each site where one or more MDS booster station(s) will
operate with an EIRP in excess of -9 dBW (or, when subchannels or superchannels, or 125 kHz
channels, are used, the appropriately adjusted value based upon the ratio of 6 MHz to the subchannel
or superchannel, or 125 kHz, bandwidth);

          (4)  An application for authority to operate at an MDS station in the area vacated by
an MDS station incumbent that has forfeited its station license; and

          (5)  An application for each ITFS-channel group station license sought in accordance
with  74.990 and 74.991 of this chapter.

* * * * *

23.  In Section 21.938, paragraph (b) introductory text, and paragraphs (c)(4), (e) and (f), are revised
to read as follows:

 21.938  BTA and PSA technical and interference provisions.

* * * * *

     (b)  Unless the affected parties have executed a written interference agreement in accordance
with  21.937, and subject to the provisions of  21.909, 21.913, 21.949, 74.939 of this chapter,
74.949 of this chapter and 74.985 of this chapter regarding the protection of response station hubs,
booster service areas and 125 kHz channels from harmful electromagnetic interference, stations
licensed to a BTA or PSA authorization holder must not cause harmful electromagnetic interference
to the following:

* * * * *

24.  New Section 21.949 is added, to read as follows:

 21.949  Individually licensed 125 kHz channel MDS response stations.

     (a)  The provisions of  21.909(a), (d)(4), (e), (h), (j), (l) and (m), and  74.939(j) of this
chapter, also shall apply with respect to authorization of a 125 kHz channel(s) MDS response station
not under a response station hub license.  The applicant shall comply with the requirements of 
21.902, and  21.938 where appropriate, including the provisions of  21.909, 21.913, 74.939 of
this chapter and 74.985 of this chapter regarding the protection of response station hubs and booster
service areas from harmful electromagnetic interference, using the appropriately adjusted interference
protection values based upon the ratio of the bandwidths in use, where the authorized or previously-
proposed cochannel or adjacent channel station is operated or to be operated in a system with one
or more response station hub(s).

PART 74 -- EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES

25.  The authority for part 74 continues to read as follows:

Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, and 554.


26.  The following definition is added to  74.901:

Documented Complaint.  A complaint that a party is suffering from non-consensual interference.  A
documented complaint must contain a certification that the complainant has contacted the operator
of the allegedly offending facility and tried to resolve the situation prior to filing.  The complaint must
then specify the nature of the interference, whether the interference is constant or intermittent, when
the interference began and the site(s) most likely to be causing the interference.  The complaint should
be accompanied by a videotape or other evidence showing the effects of the interference.  The
complaint must contain a motion for a temporary order to have the interfering station cease
transmitting.  The complaint must be filed with the Secretary's office and served on the allegedly
offending party.

27.  In Section 74.902, paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:

 74.902  Frequency assignments.

* * * * *

     (f)  An ITFS licensee or conditional licensee may apply to exchange evenly one or more of
its assigned channels with another ITFS licensee or conditional licensee in the same system, or with
an MDS licensee or conditional licensee in the same system, except that an ITFS licensee or
conditional licensee may not exchange one of its assigned channels for MDS channel 2A.  The
licensees or conditional licensees seeking to exchange channels shall file in tandem with the
Commission separate pro forma assignment of license applications, each attaching an exhibit which
clearly specifies that the application is filed pursuant to a channel exchange agreement.  The
exchanged channel(s) shall be regulated according to the requirements applicable to the assignee;
provided, however, that an ITFS licensee or conditional licensee which receives one or more E or F
Group channels through a channel exchange with an MDS licensee or conditional licensee shall not
be subject to the restrictions on ITFS licensees who were authorized to operate on the E or F Group
channels prior to May 26, 1983.

* * * * *

28.  In Section 74.903, paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3), paragraph (b) introductory text, paragraphs
(b)(1), (2), (4) and (5), paragraph (c) and paragraph (d) are revised, paragraphs (e) and (f) are
deleted, and new paragraph (a)(6) is added, to read as follows:

 74.903  Interference.

     (a)  * * *

          (1)  Cochannel interference is defined as the ratio of the desired signal to the undesired
signal, at the output of a reference receiving antenna oriented to receive the maximum desired signal
level.  Harmful interference will be considered present when a calculation using a terrain sensitive
signal propagation model determines that this ratio is less than 45 dB (or the appropriate value for
bandwidths other than 6 MHz.  See below.)

          (2)  Adjacent channel interference is defined as the ratio of the desired signal to
undesired signal present in an adjacent channel, at the output of a reference receiving antenna oriented
to receive the maximum desired signal level.

               (i)  Harmful interference will be considered present when a calculation using
a terrain sensitive signal propagation model determines that this ratio is less than 0 dB (or the
appropriate value for bandwidths other than 6 MHz.  See below.)

               (ii)  In the alternative, harmful interference will be considered present for an
ITFS station constructed before May 26, 1983, when a calculation using a terrain sensitive signal
propagation model determines that this ratio is less than 10 dB (or the appropriate value for
bandwidths other than 6 MHz, see below), unless:

                    (A)  The individual receive site under consideration has been
subsequently upgraded with up-to-date reception equipment, in which case the ratio shall be less than
0 dB.  Absent information presented to the contrary, however, the Commission will assume that
reception equipment installation occurred simultaneously with original station equipment; or

                    (B)  The license for an ITFS station is conditioned on the proffer to
the affected ITFS station licensee of equipment capable of providing a ratio of 0 dB or more at no
expense to the ITFS station licensee, and also conditioned, if necessary, on the proffer of installation
of such equipment; and there has been no showing by the affected ITFS station licensee
demonstrating good cause and that the proposed equipment will not provide a ratio of 0 dB or more,
or that installation of such equipment, at no expense to the ITFS station licensee, is not possible or
has not been proffered.

          (3)  For purposes of this section and except as set forth in  74.939 regarding the
protection of response station hubs, all interference calculations involving receive antenna
performance shall use the reference antenna characteristics shown in Figure I,  74.937(a) or, in the
alternative, utilize the actual pattern characteristics of the antenna in use at the receive site under
study.  If the actual receive antenna pattern is utilized, the applicant must submit complete details
including manufacturer, model number(s), co-polar and cross-polar gain patterns, and other pertinent
data.

* * * * *

          (6)  Notwithstanding the above, main, booster and response stations shall use the
following formulas, as applicable, for determining compliance with: (1) Radiated field contour limits
where bandwidths other than 6 MHz are employed at stations utilizing digital modulation with
uniform power spectral density; and (2) Cochannel and adjacent channel D/U ratios where the
bandwidths in use at the interfering and protected stations are unequal and both stations are utilizing
digital modulation with uniform power spectral density or one station is utilizing such modulation and
the other station is utilizing either 6 MHz NTSC analog modulation or 125 kHz analog modulation
(I channels only).

               (i)  Contour limit:  -73 dBW/m2 + 10 log(X/6) dBW/m2, where X is the
bandwidth in MHz of the digital channel.

               (ii)  Co-channel D/U:  45 dB + 10 log(X1/X2) dB, where X1 is the bandwidth
in MHz of the protected channel and X2 is the bandwidth in MHz of the interfering channel.

               (iii)  Adjacent channel D/U:  0 dB + 10 log(X1/X2), where X1 is the
bandwidth in MHz of the protected channel and X2 is the bandwidth in MHz of the interfering
channel.

     (b)  All applicants for instructional television fixed stations are expected to take full advantage
of such directive antenna techniques to prevent interference to the reception of any existing or
previously-proposed operational fixed, multipoint distribution, international control or instructional
television fixed station at authorized receiving locations.  Therefore, all applications for new stations
must include an analysis of potential interference to all existing and previously-proposed stations in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.  An applicant for a new instructional television fixed
station must include the following technical information with the application:

          (1)  An analysis of the potential for harmful interference with the receive sites
registered as of September 17, 1998, and with the protected service area, of any authorized or
previously-proposed cochannel station if:

               (i)  The proposed transmitting antenna has an unobstructed electrical path to
receive site(s) and/or the protected service area of any other station that utilizes, or would utilize, the
same frequency; or

               (ii)  The proposed transmitter is within 80.5 km (50 miles) of the coordinates
of any such station.

          (2)  An analysis of the potential for harmful adjacent channel interference with the
receive sites registered as of September 17, 1998, and with the protected service area, of any
authorized or previously-proposed station if the proposed transmitter is within 80.5 km (50 miles)
of the coordinates of any station that utilizes, or would utilize, an adjacent channel frequency.

* * * * *

          (4)  In lieu of the interference analyses required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this
section, an applicant may submit (a) statement(s) from the affected cochannel or adjacent channel
licensee(s) or conditional licensee(s) that any resulting interference is acceptable.

          (5)  Specific rules relating to response station hubs, booster stations, and 125 kHz
channels are set forth in  21.909 of this chapter, 21.913 of this chapter, 21.949 of this chapter,
74.939, 74.949 and 74.985.  To the extent those specific rules are inconsistent with any rules set forth
above, those specific rules shall control.

     (c)  Existing licensees, conditional licensees and prospective applicants, including those who
lease or propose to lease excess capacity pursuant to  74.931(c) or (d), are expected to cooperate
fully and in good faith in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference before bringing the
matter to the attention of the Commission.

     (d)  Each authorized or previously-proposed applicant, conditional licensee, or licensee must
be protected from harmful electrical interference at each of its receive sites registered previously as
of September 17, 1998, and within a protected service area as defined at  21.902(d) of this chapter
and in accordance with the reference receive antenna characteristics specified at  21.902(f) of this
chapter.  An ITFS entity which did not receive protected service area protection prior to September
17, 1998 shall be accorded such protection by a cochannel or adjacent channel applicant for a new
station or station modification, including a booster station, response station or response station hub,
where the applicant is required to prepare an analysis, study or demonstration of the potential for
harmful interference.

29.  Section 74.911 is revised to read as follows:

 74.911  Processing of ITFS station applications.

     (a)  Applications for ITFS stations are divided into three groups:

          (1)  In the first group are applications for new stations.  These applications are subject
to the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section.

          (2)  In the second groups are applications for major changes in the facilities of
authorized stations.  A major change for an ITFS station will be any proposal to add new channels,
change from one channel (or channel group) to another, except as provided for in  74.902(f), change
polarization, increase the EIRP in any direction by more than 1.5 dB, increase the transmitting
antenna height by 25 feet or more, or relocate a facility's transmitter site by 10 miles or more.  ITFS
applications submitted pursuant to  74.939 and 74.985(b) shall be considered major change
applications.  Major change applications are subject to paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.

          (3)  The third group consists of applications for all other licenses and all other changes
in the facilities of authorized changes.

     (b)  A new file number will be assigned to an application for a new station or for major
changes in the facilities of an authorized station, when it is amended so as to effect a major change,
as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or results in a situation where the original party or
parties to the application do not retain control of the applicant as originally filed.  An application for
change in the facilities of any existing station will continue to carry the same file number even though
(pursuant to Commission approval) an assignment of license or transfer of control of such licensee
or permittee has taken place if, upon consummation, the application is amended to reflect the new
ownership.

     (c)  (1)  The FCC will specify by Public Notice, pursuant to  73.5002, a period for filing
ITFS applications for a new station.  Such ITFS applicants shall be subject to the provisions of 
1.2105 and the ITFS competitive bidding procedures. See 47 C.F.R.  73.5000, et. seq.

          (2)  The requirements of this section apply to a wireless cable entity requesting to be
licensed on ITFS frequencies pursuant to  74.990.

     (d)  Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, effective as of September 17, 1998,
there shall be a one-week window, at such time as the Commission shall announce by public notice,
for the filing of applications for all major change applications, high-power signal booster station,
response station hub, and I channels point-to-multipoint transmissions licenses, during which all
applications shall be deemed to have been filed as of the same day for purposes of  74.939 and
74.985.  Following the publication of a public notice announcing the tendering for filing of
applications submitted during that window, applicants shall have a period of sixty (60) days to amend
their applications, provided such amendments do not result in any increase in interference to any
previously-proposed or authorized station, or to facilities proposed during the window, absent
consent of the applicant for or conditional licensee or licensee of the station that would receive such
additional interference.  At the conclusion of that sixty (60) day period, the Commission shall publish
a public notice announcing the acceptance for filing of all applications submitted during the initial
window, as amended during the sixty (60) day period.  All petitions to deny such applications must
be filed within sixty (60) days of such second public notice.  On the sixty-first (61st) day after the
publication of such second public notice, applications for major changes, new or modified response
station hub, high powered signal booster and booster station licenses may be filed and will be
processed in accordance with the provisions of  74.939 and 74.985.  Each application submitted
during the initial window shall be granted on the sixty-first (61st) day after the Commission shall have
given such public notice of its acceptance for filing, unless prior to such date either a party in interest
timely files a formal petition to deny or for other relief pursuant to  74.912, or the Commission
notifies the applicant that its application will not be granted.  Where an application is granted pursuant
to the provisions of this paragraph, the conditional licensee or licensee shall maintain a copy of the
application at the transmitter site or response station hub until such time as the Commission issues
a license.

     (e)  Except as provided in paragraph (d), major change applications may be filed at any time. 
Except during the sixty (60) day amendment period provided for in paragraph (d), any amendment
to a major change application that reflects any change in the technical specifications of the proposed
facility, includes any new or modified analysis of potential interference to another facility, or submits
any interference consent from a neighboring licensee, shall cause the applicatin to be considered
newly-filed.  Notwithstanding any other provision of part 74, major change applications meeting the
requirements of part 74 shall cut-off applications that are filed on a subsequent day for facilities that
would cause harmful electromagnetic interference to the facilities proposed in the major change
application.  A facility proposed in a major change application shall not be entitled to protection from
interference caused by any facilities proposed on or prior to the day the major change application is
filed.  A facility proposed in a major change application shall not be required to protect from
interference facilities proposed on or after the day the major change application is filed.  Except as
provided by paragraph (d), any petition to deny a major change application shall be filed no later than
the sixtieth (60th) day after the date of public notice announcing the filing such application.  Except
as provided in paragraph (d) a major change application that meets the requirements of part 74 shall
be granted on the sixty-first (61st) day after the Commission shall have given public notice of the
acceptance for filing of it, unless prior to such date either a party in interest files a timely petition to
deny or files for other relief pursuant to  74.912, or the Commission notifies the applicant that its
application will not be granted at such time.  Where an application is granted pursuant to the
provisions of this paragraph, the conditional licensee or licensee shall maintain a copy of the
application at the facility until such time as the Commission issues a license for that facility's
operations.

30.  New Section 74.912 is added to read as follows:

 74.912  Petitions to deny.

     (a)  Any party in interest may file with the Commission a petition to deny any application for
new facilities or major changes in the facilities of authorized stations, provided such petitions are filed
by the date established pursuant to the cut-off provisions of  74.911(c).  In the case of all other
applications, except those excluded under Section 309(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and except as provided in  74.939 and 74.985, petitions to deny must be filed not later
than 30 days after issuance of a public notice of the acceptance for filing of the applications.  In the
case of applications for renewal of license, petitions to deny may be filed after the issuance of a public
notice of acceptance for filing of the applications and up until the first day of the last full calendar
month of the expiring license term.  Any party in interest may file with the Commission a petition to
deny any notification regarding ITFS booster stations within the 60 day period provided for in 
74.985(e).

     (b)  The applicant may file an opposition to any petition to deny, and the petitioner a reply to
such opposition in which allegations of fact or denials thereof shall be supported by affidavit of a
person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.  The times for filing such oppositions and replies
shall be those provided in  1.45 of this chapter.

31.  In Section 74.931, paragraphs (c) and (d) are revised to read as follows:

 74.931  Purpose and permissible service.

* * * * *
     (c)  A licensee solely utilizing analog transmissions may use excess capacity on each channel
to transmit material other than the ITFS subject matter specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section, subject to the following conditions:

          (1)  Before leasing excess capacity on any one channel, the licensee must provide at
least 20 hours per week of ITFS educational usage on that channel, except as provided in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section.  An additional 20 hours per week per channel must be strictly reserved for ITFS
use and not used for non-ITFS purposes, or reserved for recapture by the ITFS licensee for its ITFS
educational usage, subject to one year's advance, written notification by the ITFS licensee to its lessee
and accounting for all recapture already exercised, with no economic or operational detriment to the
licensee.  These hours of recapture are not restricted as to time of day or day of the week, but may
be established by negotiations between the ITFS licensee and the lessee.  This 20 hours per channel
per week ITFS educational usage requirement and this recapture and/or reservation requirement of
an additional 20 hours per channel per week shall apply spectrally over the licensee's whole actual
service area.

          (2)  For the first two years of operation, an ITFS entity may lease excess capacity if
it provides ITFS educational usage for at least 12 hours per channel per week, provided that the
entity does not employ channel loading technology.

          (3)  The licensee may shift its requisite ITFS educational usage onto fewer than its
authorized number of channels, via channel mapping or channel loading technology, so that it can
lease full-time channel capacity on its ITFS station and/or associated ITFS booster stations, subject
to the condition that it provide a total average of at least 20 hours per channel per week of ITFS
educational usage on its authorized channels.  The use of channel mapping or channel loading
consistent with the Rules shall not be considered adversely to the ITFS licensee in seeking a license
renewal.  The licensee also retains the unabridgeable right to recapture, subject to six months' advance
written notification by the ITFS licensee to its lessee, an average of an additional 20 hours per channel
per week, accounting for all recapture already exercised.  The licensee may agree to the transmission
of this recapture time on channels not authorized to it, but which are included in the wireless system
of which it is a part.  A licensee under this paragraph which leases excess capacity to an operator
which utilizes digital transmissions on any one of the licensee's licensed channels may "channel shift"
pursuant to and under the conditions of paragraph (d)(2) of this section.

          (4)  An ITFS applicant, conditional licensee, or licensee may specify an
omnidirectional antenna for point-to-multipoint transmissions to facilitate the leasing of excess
capacity.

          (5)  Leasing activity may not cause unacceptable interference to cochannel or adjacent
channel operations.

          (6)  When an ITFS licensee makes capacity available on a common carrier basis, it will
be subject to common carrier regulation.

               (i)  A licensee operating as a common carrier is required to comply with all
policies and rules applicable to that service.  Responsibility for making the initial determination of
whether a particular activity is common carriage rests with the ITFS licensee.  Initial determinations
by the licensees are subject to Commission examination and may be reviewed at the Commission's
discretion.

               (ii)  An ITFS licensee also may alternate, without further authorization
required, between rendering service on a common carrier and non-common carrier basis, provided
that the licensee notifies the Commission of any service status changes at least 30 days in advance of
such changes.  The notification shall state whether there is any affiliation or relationship to any
intended or likely subscriber or program originator.

               (iii)  Licensees under paragraph (c)(6) of this section additionally shall comply
with the provisions of  21.304, 21.900(b), 21.903(b)(1) and (2) and (c), and 21.910 of this chapter.

     (d)  A licensee utilizing digital transmissions on any of its licensed channels may use excess
capacity on each channel to transmit material other than the ITFS subject matter specified in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, subject to the following conditions:

          (1)  The licensee must reserve a minimum of 5% of the capacity of its channels for
instructional purposes only, and may not lease this reserved capacity.  In addition, before leasing
excess capacity, the licensee must provide at least 20 hours per licensed channel per week of ITFS
educational usage.  This 5% reservation and this 20 hours per licensed channel per week ITFS
educational usage requirement shall apply spectrally over the licensee's whole actual service area.

          (2)  The licensee may shift its requisite ITFS educational usage onto fewer than its
authorized number of channels, via channel mapping or channel loading technology, and may shift
its requisite ITFS educational usage onto channels not authorized to it, but which are included in the
wireless system of which it is a part ("channel shifting"), so that it can lease full-time channel capacity
on its ITFS station, associated ITFS booster stations, and/or ITFS response stations and associated
response station hubs, subject to the condition that it provide a total average of at least 20 hours per
licensed channel per week of ITFS educational usage.  The use of channel mapping, channel loading,
and/or channel shifting consistent with the Rules shall not be considered adversely to the ITFS
licensee in seeking a license renewal.

          (3)  An ITFS applicant, conditional licensee, or licensee may specify an
omnidirectional antenna for point-to-multipoint transmissions to facilitate the leasing of excess
capacity.

          (4)  Leasing activity may not cause unacceptable interference to cochannel or adjacent
channel operations.

          (5)  A licensee leasing any of its licensed channels to be used as response channels
shall be required to maintain at least 25% of the capacity of its channels for point-to-multipoint
transmissions during the term of the lease and following termination of the leasing arrangement.  This
25% preservation may be over the licensee's own authorized channels or over channels not authorized
to it, but which are included in the wireless system of which it is a part.

          (6)  When an ITFS licensee makes capacity available on a common carrier basis, it will
be subject to common carrier regulation.

               (i)  A licensee operating as a common carrier is required to comply with all
policies and rules applicable to that service.  Responsibility for making the initial determination of
whether a particular activity is common carriage rests with the ITFS licensee.  Initial determinations
by the licensees are subject to Commission examination and may be reviewed at the Commission's
discretion.

               (ii)  An ITFS licensee also may alternate, without further authorization
required, between rendering service on a common carrier and non-common carrier basis, provided
that the licensee notifies the Commission of any service status changes at least 30 days in advance of
such changes.  The notification shall state whether there is any affiliation or relationship to any
intended or likely subscriber or program originator.

               (iii)  Licensees under paragraph (d)(6) of this section additionally shall comply
with the provisions of  21.304, 21.900(b), 21.903(b)(1) and (2) and (c), and 21.910 of this chapter.

* * * * *

33.  In Section 74.932, paragraph (a)(4) is revised to read as follows:

 74.932  Eligibility and licensing requirements.

     (a)  * * *

* * * * *

          (4)  Those applicant organizations whose eligibility is established by service to
accredited institutional or governmental organizations must submit documentation from proposed
receive sites demonstrating that they will receive and use the applicant's educational usage.  In place
of this documentation, a state educational television (ETV) commission may demonstrate that the
public schools it proposes to serve are required to use its proposed educational usage.

* * * * *

34.  In Section 74.935, the section heading and paragraphs (a) through (c) and (e) are revised to read
as follows:

 74.935  Point-to-multipoint EIRP limitations.

     (a)  The maximum EIRP of a main or booster station shall not exceed 33 dBW + log10(X/6)
dBW, where X is the actual bandwidth if other than 6 MHz, except as provided in paragraph (b) of
this section.

     (b)  If a main or booster station sectorizes or otherwise uses one or more transmitting
antennas with a non-omnidirectional horizontal plane radiation pattern, the maximum EIRP over a
6 MHz channel in dBW in a given direction shall be determined by the following formula:

EIRP = 33 dBW + 10 log(X/6) dBW + 10 log(360/beamwidth) dBW, where X is the channel width
in MHz and 10 log(360/beamwidth) < 6 dB.

Beamwidth is the total horizontal plane beamwidth of the individual transmitting antenna for the
station or any sector measured at the half-power points.  The first term of the equation above, 33
dBW, must be adjusted appropriately based upon the ratio of 6 MHz to the subchannel or
superchannel, or 125 kHz, bandwidth.

     (c) An increase in station EIRP, above currently-authorized or previously-proposed values,
to the maximum values provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section may be authorized, if an
applicant demonstrates that the requested EIRP increase would not cause harmful interference to any
authorized or previously-proposed, cochannel or adjacent channel station entitled to interference
protection under the Commission's rules, or if an applicant demonstrates that:

          (1)  A station that must be protected from interference could compensate for
interference by increasing its EIRP; and

          (2)  The interfered-with station may increase its own EIRP consistent with the rules
and without causing harmful interference to any cochannel or adjacent channel main or booster station
protected service area, response station hub or BTA/PSA, for which consent for the increased
interference has not been obtained ; and

          (3)  The applicant requesting authorization of an EIRP increase agrees to pay all
expenses associated with the increase in EIRP by the interfered-with station.

* * * * *

     (e)  For main, booster and response stations utilizing digital emissions with non-uniform
power spectral density (e.g. QPSK), the power measured within any 100 kHz resolution bandwidth
within the 6 MHz channel occupied by the non-uniform emission cannot exceed the power permitted
within any 100 kHz resolution bandwidth within the 6 MHz channel if it were occupied by an
emission with uniform power spectral density, e.g., if the maximum permissible power of a station
utilizing a perfectly uniform power spectral density across a 6 MHz channel were 2000 watts EIRP,
this would result in a maximum permissible power flux density for the station of 2000/60 = 33.3 watts
EIRP per 100 kHz bandwidth.  If a non-uniform emission were substituted at the station, station
power would still be limited to a maximum of 33.
3 watts EIRP within any 100 kHz segment of the 6 MHz channel, irrespective of the fact that this
would result in a total 6 MHz channel power of less than 2000 watts EIRP. 

35.  In Section 74.936 paragraphs (a), (b) and (d)(3) are revised to read as follows:

 74.936  Emissions and bandwidth.

     (a)  An ITFS station may employ amplitude modulation (C3F) for the transmission of the
visual signal and frequency modulation (F3E) or (G3E) for the transmission of the aural signal when
transmitting a standard analog television signal.  Quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), digital
vestigial sideband modulation (VSB), quadrature phase shift key modulation (QPSK), code division
multiple access (CDMA) and orthogonal frequency division multiplex (OFDM) emissions may be
employed, subject to compliance with the policies set forth in the Declaratory Ruling and Order, 11
FCC Rcd 18839 (1996).  Use of OFDM also is subject to the subsequently Digital Declaratory
Ruling and Order, DA 99-554 (Mass Med. Bur. rel. Mar. 19, 1999).  Other digital emissions may
be added to those authorized above, including emissions with non-uniform power spectral density,
if the applicant provides information in accordance with the guidelines and procedures set forth in the
Declaratory Ruling and Order which clearly demonstrates the spectral occupancy and interference
characteristics of the emission.  The licensee may subchannelize its authorized bandwidth, provided
that digital modulation is employed and the aggregate power does not exceed the authorized power
for the channel, and may utilize all or a portion of its authorized bandwidth for ITFS response stations
authorized pursuant to  74.939.  The licensee may also, jointly with affected adjacent channel
licensees, transmit utilizing bandwidth in excess of its authorized frequencies, provided that digital
modulation is employed, all power spectral density requirements set forth in this part are met and the
out-of-band emissions restrictions set forth in 74.936 are met at the edges of the channels employed. 
The wider channels thus created may be redivided to create narrower channels.

     (b)  Notwithstanding the above, any digital emission which complies with the out-of-band
emission restrictions of  21.908 may be used in the following circumstances: 

          (1) At any ITFS main or booster station transmitter which is located more than 160.94
km (100 miles) from the nearest boundary of all cochannel and adjacent channel ITFS and MDS
protected service areas, including Basic Trading Areas and Partitioned Service Areas; and

          (2) At all ITFS response station transmitters within a response service area if all points
along the response service area boundary line are more than 160.94 km (100 miles) from the nearest
boundary of all cochannel and adjacent channel ITFS and MDS protected service areas, including
Basic Trading Areas and Partitioned Service Areas; and

          (3) At any ITFS transmitter where all parties entitled by this part to interference
protection from that transmitter have mutually consented to the use at that transmitter of such
emissions.

     * * *

     (d) A booster transmitting on multiple contiguous or non-contiguous channels carrying
separate signals (a "broadband" booster) with an EIRP in excess of -9 dBW per 6 MHz channel and
employing analog, digital or a combination of these modulations shall have the following
characteristics:

          * * *

          (3)  Within unoccupied channels in the frequency range of 2.500-2.690 GHz, the
maximum out-of-band power shall be attenuated at the upper and lower channel edges of an
unoccupied channel by at least 25 dB relative to the licensed analog peak visual carrier power level
or digital average power level of the occupied channels (or, when subchannels or 125 kHz channels
are used, the appropriately adjusted value based upon the ratio of the channel-to-subchannel
bandwidths), then linearly sloping from that level to at least 40 dB of attenuation at 0.25 MHz above
and below the occupied channel edges, then linearly sloping from that level to at least 50 dB of
attenuation at 3.0 MHz above and below the occupied channel edges, and attenuated at least 50 dB
at all other unoccupied frequencies.

     * * * * * 

36.  In Section 74.937, paragraph (a) is revised by amending the text preceding figure 1, and
paragraph (b) is revised, to read as follows:

 74.937  Antennas.

     (a)  In order to minimize the hazard of harmful cohannel and adjacent channel interference
from other stations, directive receiving antennas should be used at all receiving locations other than
response station hubs.  The choice of receiving antennas is left to the discretion of the licensee. 
However, for the purpose of interference calculations, except as set forth in 74.939, the general
characteristics of the reference receiving antenna shown in Figure 1 of this section (i.e., a 0.6 meter
(2 foot) parabolic reflector antenna) are assumed to be used in accordance with the provisions of
74.903(a)(3) unless pertinent data is submitted of the actual antenna in use at the receive site. 
Licensees may install receiving antennas with general characteristics superior to those of the reference
receive antenna.  Nevertheless, should interference occur and it can be demonstrated by an applicant
that the existing antenna at the receive site is inappropriate, a more suitable yet practical receiving
antenna should be installed.  In such cases, the modification of the receive site will be in the
discretion, and will be the responsibility, of the licensee serving the site.   

     (b)  Except as set forth in  74.931(c)(4) and (d)(3), directive transmitting antennas shall be
used whenever feasible so as to minimize interference to other licensees.  The radiation pattern shall
be designed to minimize radiation in directions where no reception is intended.  When an ITFS station
is used for point-to-point service, an appropriate directional antenna must be used.

* * * * *

37.  Section 74.939 is revised to read as follows:

 74.939  ITFS response stations.

     (a)  An ITFS response station is authorized to provide communication by voice, video and/or
data signals with its associated ITFS response station hub or associated ITFS station.  An ITFS
response station may be operated only by the licensee of the ITFS station, by any person or entity
authorized by the ITFS licensee to receive point-to-multipoint transmissions over its channels, by any
lessee of excess capacity, or by a subscriber of any lessee of excess capacity.  The authorized channel
may be divided to provide distinct subchannels for each of more than one response station, provided
that digital modulation is employed and the aggregate power does not exceed the authorized power
for the channel.  An ITFS response station may also, jointly with other licensees, transmit utilizing
bandwidth in excess of that authorized to the station, provided that digital modulation is employed,
all power spectral density requirements set forth in this part are met, and the out-of-band emission
restrictions set forth in  74.936 or paragraph (k) of this section are complied with.
          
     (b)  ITFS response stations that utilize the 2150-2162 MHz band pursuant to  74.902(f), the
2500-2686 MHz band, and/or the 125 kHz channels identified in paragraph (j) of this section may be
installed and operated without an individual license, to communicate with a response station hub
authorized under a response station hub license, provided that the conditions set forth in paragraph
(g) of this section are complied with and that ITFS response stations operating in this manner employ
only digital modulation with uniform power spectral density in accordance with the Commission's
Declaratory Ruling and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 18839 (1996).

     (c)  An applicant for a response station hub license, or for modification thereto, shall:

          (1)  File FCC Form 331 with the Commission in Washington, DC, and certify on that
form that it has complied with the requirements of paragraphs (c)(2) and (d) of this section and that
the interference data submitted under paragraph (d) of this section is complete and accurate.  Failure
to certify compliance and to comply completely with the requirements of paragraphs (c)(2) and (d)
of this section shall result in dismissal of the application or revocation of the response station hub
license, and may result in imposition of a monetary forfeiture; and

            (2)  Submit to the Commission's copy contractor, both in hard copy and on a 3.5"
DSHD computer diskette in ASCII, the following:

               (i)  Duplicates of the Form 331 filed with the Commission; and

               (ii)  The data required by Appendix D to the Report and Order on
Reconsideration in MM Docket No. 97-217, FCC 99-178, "Methods for Predicting Interference from
Response Station Transmitters and to Response Station Hubs and for Supplying Data on Response
Station Systems"; and

               (iii)  The information, showings and certifications required by paragraph (d)
of this section; and

            (3)  Submit to the Commission, only upon Commission staff request, duplicates
of the submissions required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

          (d)  An applicant for a response station hub license shall, pursuant to paragraph
(c)(2)(iii) of this section, submit to the Commission's copy contractor the following:

            (1)  The geographic coordinates, street address, and the height of the center line
of the reception antenna(s) above mean sea level for the response station hub; and

            (2)  A specification of: 

               (i)  The response service area in which the applicant or its lessee proposes to
install ITFS response stations to communicate with the response station hub, any regions into which
the response service area will be subdivided for purposes of interference analysis, and any regional
classes of response station characteristics which will be used to define the operating parameters of
groups of response stations within each region for purposes of interference analysis, including: 

                    (A)  the maximum height above ground level of the transmission
antenna that will be employed by any response station in the regional class and that will be used in
interference analyses; and

                    (B)  the maximum equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) that will
be employed by any response station in the regional class and that will be used in interference
analyses; and

                    (C)  any sectorization that will be employed, including the polarization
to be employed by response stations in each sector and the geographic orientation of the sector
boundaries, and that will be used in interference analyses; and

                    (D)  the combined worst-case outer envelope plot of the patterns of
all models of response station transmission antennas that will be employed by any response station
in the regional class to be used in interference analyses; and

                    (E)  the maximum number of response stations that will be operated
simultaneously in each region using the characteristics of each regional class applicable to each
region.

               (ii)  The channel plan (including any guardbands at the edges of the channel)
to be used by ITFS response stations in communicating with the response station hub, including a
statement as to whether the applicant will employ the same frequencies on which response stations
will transmit to also transmit on a point-to-multipoint basis from an MDS station or MDS booster
station; and

            (3)  A demonstration that:

               (i)  The proposed response station hub is within the protected service area, as
defined in  21.902(d) of this chapter, of the ITFS station(s) whose channels will be used for
communications to the response station hub or, in the case of an application for response stations to
utilize one or more of the 125 kHz response channels, the response station hub is within the protected
service area of the station authorized to utilize the associated channel(s); and

               (ii)  The entire proposed response service area is within the protected service
area of the ITFS station(s) whose channels will be used for communications to the response station
hub or, in the alternative, the applicant may demonstrate that the licensee of any cochannel protected
service area which is overlapped by the proposed response service area has consented to such
overlap.  In the case of an application for response stations to utilize one or more of the 125 kHz
response channels, such demonstration shall establish that the response service area is entirely within
the protected service area of the station authorized to utilize the associated channel(s), or, in the
alternative, that the licensee entitled to any cochannel protected service area which is overlapped by
the proposed response service area has consented to such overlap; and

               (iii)  The combined signals of all simultaneously operating ITFS response
stations within all response service areas and oriented to transmit towards their respective response
station hubs and all cochannel ITFS stations and booster stations licensed to or applied for by the
applicant will not generate a power flux density in excess of -73 dBW/mý (or the appropriately
adjusted value based on the actual bandwidth used if other than 6 MHz, see  74.903(a)(6)(i)) outside
the boundaries of the applicant's protected service area, as measured at locations for which there is
an unobstructed signal path, except to the extent that consent of affected licensees has been obtained
or consents have been granted pursuant to paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section to an extension of the
response service area beyond the boundaries of the protected service area; and

               (iv)  The combined signals of all simultaneously operating ITFS response
stations within all response service areas and oriented to transmit towards their respective response
station hubs, and all cochannel ITFS stations and booster stations licensed to or applied for by the
applicant, will result in a desired to undesired signal ratio of at least 45 dB (or the appropriately
adjusted value based on the actual bandwidth used if other than 6 MHz, see  74.903(a)(6)(ii)):

                    (A) within the protected service area of any authorized or previously-
proposed cochannel MDS or ITFS station with a 56.33 km (35 mile) protected service area with
center coordinates located within 160.94 km (100 miles) of the proposed response station hub; and

                    (B) within the booster service area of any cochannel booster station
entitled to such protection pursuant to  21.913(f) of this chapter or 74.985(f) and located within
160.94 km (100 miles) of the proposed response station hub; and

                    (C) at any registered receive site of any authorized or previously-
proposed cochannel ITFS station or booster station located within 160.94 km (100 miles) of the
proposed response station hub, or, in the alternative, that the licensee or applicant for such cochannel
station or hub consents to the application; and

               (v)  The combined signals of all simultaneously operating ITFS response
stations within all response service areas and oriented to transmit towards their respective response
station hubs, and all cochannel ITFS stations and booster stations licensed to or applied for by the
applicant, will result in a desired to undesired signal ratio of at least 0 dB (or the appropriately
adjusted value based on the actual bandwidth used if other than 6 MHz, see  74.903(a)(6)(iii)):

                    (A) within the protected service area of any authorized or previously-
proposed adjacent channel MDS or ITFS station with a 56.33 km (35 mile) protected service area
with center coordinates located within 160.94 km (100 miles) of the proposed response station hub;
and

                    (B) within the booster service area of any adjacent channel booster
station entitled to such protection pursuant to  21.913(f) of this chapter or 74.985(f) and located
within 160.94 km (100 miles) of the proposed response station hub; and

                    (C) at any registered receive site of any authorized or previously-
proposed adjacent channel ITFS station or booster station located within 160.94 km (100 miles) of
the proposed response station hub, or, in the alternative, that the licensee of or applicant for such
adjacent channel station or hub consents to such application; and

               (vi)  The combined signals of all simultaneously operating ITFS response
stations within all response service areas and oriented to transmit towards their respective response
station hub and all cochannel ITFS stations and booster stations licensed to or applied for by the
applicant will comply with the requirements of  21.909(i) of this chapter and paragraph (i) of this
section.

            (4)  A certification that the application has been served upon

               (i)  the holder of any cochannel or adjacent channel authorization with a
protected service area which is overlapped by the proposed response service area;

               (ii)  the holder of any cochannel or adjacent channel authorization with a
protected service area that adjoins the applicant's protected service area;

               (iii)  the holder of a cochannel or adjacent channel authorization for any BTA
or PSA inside whose boundaries are locations for which there is an unobstructed signal path for
combined signals from within the response station hub applicant's protected service area; and

               (iv) every licensee of, or applicant for, any cochannel or adjacent channel,
authorized or previously-proposed, incumbent MDS station with a 56.33 km (35 mile) protected
service area with center coordinates located within 160.94 km (100 miles) of the proposed response
station hub; and

               (v)  every licensee of, or applicant for, any cochannel or adjacent channel,
authorized or previously-proposed ITFS station (including any booster station or response station
hub) located within 160.94 km (100 miles) of the proposed response station hub.

          (e)  Applications for response station hub licenses shall be deemed minor change
applications and, except as provided in  74.911(e), may be filed at any time.  Notwithstanding any
other provision of part 74, applications for response station hub licenses meeting the requirements
of paragraph (c) of this section shall cut-off applications that are filed on a subsequent day for
facilities that would cause harmful electromagnetic interference to the proposed response station
hubs.  A response station hub shall not be entitled to protection from interference caused by facilities
proposed on or prior to the day the application for the response station hub license is filed.  Response
stations shall not be required to protect from interference facilities proposed on or after the day the
application for the response station hub license is filed.

          (f)  Notwithstanding the provisions of  74.912 and except as provided by 
74.911(e), any petition to deny an application for a response station hub license shall be filed no later
than the sixtieth (60th) day after the date of public notice announcing the filing of such application
or major amendment thereto.  Except as provided in  74.911(e), an application for a response station
hub license that meets the requirements of this section shall be granted on the sixty-first (61st) day
after the Commission shall have given public notice of the acceptance for filing of it, or of a major
amendment to it if such major amendment has been filed, unless prior to such date either a party in
interest timely files a formal petition to deny or for other relief pursuant to  74.912, or the
Commission notifies the applicant that its application will not be granted.  Where an application is
granted pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph, the conditional licensee or licensee shall maintain
a copy of the application at the response station hub until such time as the Commission issues a
response station hub license.

          (g)  An ITFS response station hub license establishing a response service area shall
be conditioned upon compliance with the following:

            (1)  No ITFS response station shall be located beyond the response service area
of the response station hub with which it communicates; and

            (2)  No ITFS response station shall operate with a transmitter output power in
excess of 2 watts; and

            (3)  No response station shall operate with an EIRP in excess of that specified in
the application for the response station hub pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(i)(B) of this section for the
particular regional class of characteristics with which the response station is associated, and such
response station shall not operate at an excess of 33 dBW + 10 log(X/6) dBW, where X is the
channel width in MHz; and

            (4)  Each ITFS response station shall employ a transmission antenna oriented
towards the response station hub with which the ITFS response station communicates, and such
antenna shall be no less directional than the worst case outer envelope pattern specified in the
application for the response station hub pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(i)(D) of this section for the
regional class of characteristics with which the response station is associated; and

            (5)  The combined out-of-band emissions of all response stations using all or part
of one or multiple contiguous 6 MHz channels and employing digital modulation shall comply with
 74.936(e).  The combined out-of-band emissions of all response stations using all or part of one or
multiple contiguous 125 kHz channels shall comply with paragraph (k) of this section.  However,
should harmful interference occur as a result of emissions outside the assigned channel, additional
attenuation may be required; and

            (6)  The response stations transmitting simultaneously at any time within any
given region of the response service area utilized for purposes of analyzing the potential for
interference by response stations shall conform to the numerical limits for each class of response
station proposed in the application for the response station hub license.  Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the licensee of a response station hub license may alter the number of response stations
of any class operating simultaneously in a given region, without prior Commission authorization,
provided that the licensee:

               (i)  First notifies the Commission of the altered number of response stations
of such class(es) to be operated simultaneously in such region, and certifies in that notification that
it has complied with the requirements of paragraphs (g)(6)(ii) and (iii) of this section, and that the
interference data submitted under paragraph (g)(6)(ii) is complete and accurate; and

               (ii)  Provides the Commission's copy contractor with a copy of such
notification and with an analysis establishing that such alteration will not result in any increase in
interference to the protected service area or protected receive sites of any existing or previously-
proposed, cochannel or adjacent channel MDS or ITFS station or booster station, to the protected
service area of any MDS Basic Trading Area or Partitioned Service Area licensee entitled to
protection pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) of this section, or to any existing or previously-proposed,
cochannel or adjacent channel response station hub, or response station under  21.949 of this
chapter or  74.949; or that the applicant for or licensee of such facility has consented to such
interference; and

               (iii)  Serves a copy of such notification and analysis upon each party entitled
to be served pursuant to paragraph (d)(4) of this section; and

               (iv)  Submits to the Commission, only upon Commission staff request,
duplicates of the submissions required by paragraph (g)(6)(ii) of this section; and

            (7)  Where an application is granted under this section, if a facility operated
pursuant to that grant causes harmful, unauthorized interference to any cochannel or adjacent channel
facility, it must promptly remedy the interference or immediately cease operations of the interfering
facility, regardless of whether any petitions to deny or for other relief were filed against the
application during the application process.  The burden of proving that a facility operated under this
section is not causing harmful, unauthorized interference lies on the licensee of the alleged interfering
facility, following the filing of a documented complaint of interference by an affected party; and

            (8) In the event any MDS or ITFS receive site suffers interference due to block
downconverter overload, the licensee of each non-co/adjacent response station hub with a response
service area within five miles of such receive site shall cooperate in good faith to expeditiously
identify the source of the interference.  Each licensee of a response station hub with an associated
response station contributing to such interference shall bear the joint and several obligation to
promptly remedy all block downconverter interference overload at any ITFS registered receive site
or at any receive site within an MDS or ITFS protected service area applied for prior to the
submission of the application for the response station hub license, regardless of whether the receive
site suffering the interference was constructed prior to or after the construction of the response
station(s) causing the downconverter overload; provided, however, that the licensee of the registered
ITFS receive site or the MDS or ITFS protected service area must cooperate fully and in good faith
with efforts by the response station hub licensee to prevent interference before constructing response
stations and/or to remedy interference that may occur.  In the event that the associated response
station(s) of more than one response station hub licensee contribute(s) to block downconverter
interference at an MDS or ITFS receive site, such hub licensees shall cooperate in good faith to
remedy promptly the interference.

          (h)  Applicants must comply with part 17 of this chapter concerning notification to the
Federal Aviation Administration of proposed antenna construction or alteration for all hub stations
and associated response stations.

          (i)  Response station hubs shall be protected from cochannel and adjacent channel
interference in accordance with the following criteria: 

            (1)  An applicant for any new or modified MDS or ITFS station (including any
high-power booster station or response station hub) shall be required to demonstrate interference
protection to a response station hub within 160.94 km (100 miles) of the proposed facilities.  In lieu
of the interference protection requirements set forth in  21.902(i) of this chapter, 21.938(b)(3) of
this chapter and 74.903, such demonstration shall establish that the proposed facility will not increase
the effective power flux density of the undesired signals generated by the proposed facility and any
associated main stations, booster stations or response stations at the response station hub antenna for
any sector.  In lieu of the foregoing, an applicant for a new MDS or ITFS main station license or for
a new or modified response station hub or booster license may demonstrate that the facility will not
increase the noise floor at a reception antenna of the response station hub by more than 1 dB for
cochannel signals and 45 dB for adjacent channel signals, provided that:

               (i)  the entity submitting the application may only invoke this alternative once
per response station hub reception sector; or

               (ii)  the licensee of the affected response station hub may consent to receive
a certain amount of interference at its hub.

            (2)  Commencing upon the filing of an application for an ITFS response station
hub license and until such time as the application is dismissed or denied or, if the application is
granted, a certification of completion of construction is filed on FCC Form 330A, the ITFS station
whose channels are being utilized shall be entitled both to interference protection pursuant to 
21.902(i) of this chapter, 21.938(b)(3) of this chapter and 74.903, and to protection of the response
station hub pursuant to the preceding paragraph.  Unless the application for the response station hub
license specifies that the same frequencies also will be employed for digital and/or analog
point-to-multipoint transmissions by ITFS stations and/or ITFS booster stations, upon the submission
of a certification of completion of construction of an ITFS response station hub on FCC Form 330A
where the channels of an ITFS station are being utilized as response station transmit frequencies, the
ITFS station whose channels are being utilized for response station transmissions shall no longer be
entitled to interference protection pursuant to  21.902(i) of this chapter, 21.938(b)(3) of this
chapter and 74.903 within the response service area with regard to any portion of any 6 MHz channel
employed solely for response station communications.  Upon the submission of a certification of
completion of construction of an ITFS response station hub on FCC Form 330A where the channels
of an ITFS station are being utilized for response station transmissions and the application for the
response station hub license specifies that the same frequencies will be employed for
point-to-multipoint transmissions, the ITFS station whose channels are being utilized shall be entitled
both to interference protection pursuant to  21.902(i) of this chapter, 21.938(b)(3) of this chapter
and 74.903, and to protection of the response station hub pursuant to the preceding provisions of this
paragraph.

          (j)  ITFS response stations may operate on either all or part of a 6 MHz channel
assigned a licensee, on any 125 kHz channel assigned a licensee, or on adjacent frequencies
authorized to multiple licensees where such stations are operated jointly.  The 125 kHz channels listed
in the following table shall be assigned to the licensees of MDS and ITFS stations for use at response
stations, or for licensing for point-to-multipoint transmissions pursuant to paragraph (l) of this
section, in accordance with the table.  The specified 125 kHz frequency channel may be subdivided
to provide a distinct operating frequency for each of more than one station, or may be combined with
adjacent channels, provided that digital modulation is employed in accordance with paragraph (a) of
this section.  The specified 125 kHz frequency channels also may be exchanged with the licensee of
another MDS or ITFS station for use of another 125 kHz channel assigned to the other licensee.

Frequency (MHz)     Main Channel Designation 125 kHz Channel Designation
  2686.0625         A1                  I1
  2686.1875         B1                  I2
  2686.3125         C1                  I3
  2686.4375         D1                  I4
  2686.5625         E1                  I5
  2686.6875         F1                  I6
  2686.8125         G1                  I7
  2686.9375         H1                  I8
  2687.0625         A2                  I9
  2687.1875         B2                  I10
  2687.3125         C2                  I11
  2687.4375         D2                  I12
  2687.5625         E2                  I13
  2687.6875         F2                  I14
  2687.8125         G2                  I15
  2687.9375         H2                  I16
  2688.0625         A3                  I17
  2688.1875         B3                  I18
  2688.3125         C3                  I19
  2688.4375         D3                  I20
  2688.5625         E3                  I21
  2688.6875         F3                  I22
  2688.8125         G3                  I23
  2688.9375         H3                  I24
  2689.0625         A4                  I25
  2689.1875         B4                  I26
  2689.3125         C4                  I27
  2689.4375         D4                  I28
  2689.5625         E4                  I29
  2689.6875         F4                  I30
  2689.8125         G4                  I31

          (k)  125 kHz wide response channels shall be subject to the following requirements:
The 125 kHz wide channel shall be centered at the assigned frequency.  If amplitude modulation is
used, the carrier shall not be modulated in excess of 100%.  If frequency modulation is used, the
deviation shall not exceed ñ 25 kHz.  Any emissions outside the channel shall be attenuated at the
channel edges at least 35 dB below peak output power when analog modulation is employed or 35
dB below licensed average output power when digital modulation is employed (or, when subchannels
are used, the appropriately adjusted value based upon the ratio of the channel-to-subchannel
bandwidths).  Any emissions more than 125 kHz beyond either channel edge, including harmonics,
shall be attenuated at least 60 dB below peak output power when analog modulation is employed,
or at least 60 dB below licensed average output power when digital modulation is employed (or,
when subchannels are used, the appropriately adjusted value based upon the ratio of the
channel-to-subchannel bandwidths).  Notwithstanding the foregoing, in situations where adjacent
channel licensees jointly transmit over more than one contiguous channel utilizing digital modulation,
the maximum out-of-band power shall be attenuated at the edges of those combined channels at least
35 dB relative to the licensed average power level of each channel.  Emissions more than 125 kHz
from either edge of the combined channels, including harmonics, shall be attenuated at least 60 dB
below peak analog power or licensed average digital power of each channel, as appropriate.  Different
types of emissions may be authorized for use on 125 kHz wide channels if the applicant describes fully
the modulation and bandwidth desired, and demonstrates that the modulation selected will cause no
more interference than is permitted under this paragraph.  Greater attenuation may be required if
interference is caused by out-of-channel emissions.

          (l)  Any MDS or ITFS conditional licensee or licensee who wishes to use one or more
of its associated I channels for point-to-multipoint transmissions in a system with one or more
authorized, or previously- or simultaneously-proposed, response station hub(s) shall:

            (1)  File FCC Form 331 with the Commission, filing with Mellon Bank for I
channels associated with an MDS station, and filing with the Commission in Washington, DC for I
channels associated with an ITFS station.  The application shall specify which of the associated I
channels is/are intended for point-to-multipoint transmissions, or whether an I channels station
already authorized for point-to-multipoint transmissions is being modified.  The applicant also shall
certify that it has complied with the requirements of paragraph (l)(2) of this section.  Failure to certify
compliance and to comply completely with the requirements of paragraph (l)(2) of this section shall
result in dismissal of the application or revocation of the authorization for point-to-multipoint
transmissions on the relevant I channels, and may result in imposition of a monetary forfeiture.  These
applications shall be subject to the procedures set forth in  21.27(d) of this chapter or  74.911(e),
as appropriate; and

            (2)  Submit to the Commission's copy contractor, both in hard copy, and on a 3.5"
DSHD computer diskette in ASCII, and likewise submit to the Commission, only upon Commission
staff request:

               (i)  Duplicates of the Form 331 filed with Mellon Bank or with the
Commission, as appropriate; and

               (ii)  The interference analyses required to be performed under  21.902 of this
chapter, and  21.938 of this chapter where appropriate, including the provisions of  21.909 of this
chapter, 21.913 of this chapter, 74.939 and 74.985 regarding the protection of response station hubs
and booster service areas from harmful electromagnetic interference, and including protection of
stations authorized pursuant to  21.949 of this chapter and 74.949 from harmful electromagnetic
interference, using the appropriately adjusted interference protection values based upon the ratio of
the bandwidths in use; and

            (3)  Except as provided in  21.27(d) of this chapter or  74.911(e), as
appropriate, be permitted to file applications to convert associated I channels to point-to-multipoint
transmissions at any time.  I channels used for point-to-multipoint transmissions shall be afforded
interference protection in the same manner as other point-to-multipoint MDS and ITFS facilities, with
appropriate adjustment of the interference protection values for bandwidth.  Notwithstanding any
other provision of parts 21 and 74, applications to convert associated I channels to point-to-
multipoint transmissions, meeting the requirements of paragraphs (l)(1) and (2) of this section, shall
cut-off applications that are filed on a subsequent day for facilities that would cause harmful
electromagnetic interference to the proposed point-to-multipoint operations; and

            (4)  Notwithstanding the provisions of  21.30(a)(4) of this chapter and 74.912,
and except as provided in  21.27(d) of this chapter or  74.911(e), as appropriate, be subject to a
petition to deny an application to convert associated I channels to point-to-multipoint transmissions
that is filed no later than the sixtieth (60th) day after the date of public notice announcing the filing
of such application or major amendment thereto.  Notwithstanding  21.31 of this chapter, and except
as provided in  21.27(d) of this chapter or  74.911(e), as appropriate, an application to convert
associated I channels to point-to-multipoint transmissions that meets the requirements of this
paragraph shall be granted on the sixty-first (61st) day after the Commission shall have given public
notice of the acceptance for filing of it, or of a major amendment to it if such major amendment has
been filed, unless prior to such date either a party in interest timely files a formal petition to deny or
for other relief pursuant to  21.30(a) of this chapter or  74.912, or the Commission notifies the
applicant that its application will not be granted.  Where an application is granted pursuant to the
provisions of this paragraph, the conditional licensee or licensee shall maintain a copy of the
application at the I channels station until such time as the Commission issues an I channels station
license for point-to-multipoint transmissions; 

            (5)  Where an application is granted under this paragraph, and a facility operated
pursuant to that grant causes harmful, unauthorized interference to any cochannel or adjacent channel
facility, promptly remedy the interference or immediately cease operations of the interfering facility,
regardless of whether any petitions to deny or for other relief were filed against the application during
the application process.  The burden of proving that a facility operated under this paragraph is not
causing harmful, unauthorized interference lies on the licensee of the alleged interfering facility,
following the filing of a documented complaint of interference by an affected party; and

            (6)  A certification that copies of the materials set forth in paragraph (l)(2) of this
section have been served upon the licensee or conditional licensee of each station (including each
response station hub and booster station) required to be studied pursuant to paragraph (l)(3) of this
section, and upon any affected holder of a Basic Trading Area or Partitioned Service Area
authorization pursuant to paragraph (l)(2) of this section.

          (m)  A response station may be operated unattended.  The overall performance of the
response station transmitter shall be checked by the hub licensee as often as necessary to ensure that
it is functioning in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's rules.  The licensee of a
response station hub is responsible for the proper operation of all associated response station
transmitters.  Each response station hub licensee is responsible for maintaining, and making available
to the Commission upon request, a list containing all customer names and addresses, plus the
technical parameters (EIRP, emission, bandwidth, antenna pattern/ height/ orientation/ polarization)
pertinent to each class of response station within the response service area.

          (n) The transmitting apparatus employed at ITFS response stations shall have received
type certification

          (o) An ITFS response station shall be operated only when engaged in communications
with its associated ITFS response station hub or ITFS station or booster station, or for necessary
equipment or system tests and adjustments.  Upon initial installation, and upon relocation and
reinstallation, a response station transmitter shall be incapable of emitting radiation unless, and until,
it has been activated by reception of a signal from the associated ITFS station or booster station.  A
hub station licensee shall be capable of remotely de-activating any and all response station transmitters
within its RSA by means of signals from the associated ITFS station or booster station.  Radiation
of an unmodulated carrier and other unnecessary transmissions are forbidden.

          (p) All response stations utilizing an EIRP greater than 18 dBW shall be installed by
the associated hub licensee or by the licensee's employees or agents.  (Note: For the purposes of this
section, all EIRP dBW values assume the use of a 6 MHz channel.  For channel bandwidths other
than 6 MHz, the EIRP dBW should be adjusted by 10 log(X/6) dBW, where X is the actual
bandwidth in MHz.)  For response stations located within 1960 feet of an ITFS receive site registered
and built prior to the filing of the application for the associated hub station license, the hub licensee
must notify the licensee of the ITFS receive site at least one business day prior to activation of the
response station, identifying both the specific ITFS receive site which is within 1960 feet of the
response station to be activated and the specific hub station or stations with which the response
station will communicate, and providing the name and telephone number of a contact person who will
be responsible for coordinating the resolution of any interference problems.  Such notice to the ITFS
licensee shall be given in writing by certified mail unless the ITFS licensee has requested delivery by
electronic mail or facsimile.  The ITFS licensee may waive the notification requirement on a site-
specific basis, or on a system-wide basis.  The notification provisions of this section shall not apply
if:

            (1) The response station will operate at an EIRP no greater than -6 dBW; or

            (2) The response station will operate at an EIRP greater than -6 dBW and no
more than 18 dBW and:

               (i) The channels being received at the ITFS site are neither the same as, nor
directly adjacent to, the channel(s) be transmitted from the response station; and

               (ii) The hub station licensee has replaced, at its expense, the frequency
downconverters used at all ITFS receive sites registered and constructed prior to the filing of the hub
station application which are within 1960 feet of the hub station's response service area; and

               (iii) The downconverters, at a minimum, conform to the following
specifications:

                    (A) A frequency of operation covering the 2150-2162 MHz band or
the 2500-2686 MHz band; and

                    (B) A third-order intercept point of 30 dBm; and

                    (C) A conversion gain of 32 dB, or the same conversion gain as the
existing ITFS downconverter, whichever is least; and

                    (D) A noise figure of no greater than 2.5 dB, or no more than 1 dB
greater than the noise figure of the existing ITFS downconverter, whichever is greater; and

               (iv) The proposal to upgrade the ITFS downconverter was made in writing
and served upon the affected ITFS licensee, conditional licensee or applicant at the same time the
application for the response station hub license was served on cochannel and adjacent channel ITFS
parties and no objection was made within the 60-day period allowed for petitions to deny the hub
station application.

          (q)  A response station may be operated unattended.  The overall performance of the
response station transmitter shall be checked by the hub licensee as often as necessary to ensure that
it is functioning in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's rules.  The licensee of a
response station hub is responsible for the proper operation of all associated response stations and
must have reasonable and timely access to all associated response station transmitters.  Response
stations shall be installed and maintained by the licensee of the associated hub station, or the licensee's
employees or agents, and protected in such manner as to prevent tampering or operation by
unauthorized persons.  No response hub may lawfully communicate with any response station which
has not been installed by an authorized person, and each response station hub licensee is responsible
for maintaining, and making available to the Commission upon request, a list containing the customer
name and site location (street address and latitude/longitude to the nearest second) of each associated
response station, plus the technical parameters (e.g., EIRP, emission, bandwidth, and antenna pattern,
height, orientation and polarization) pertinent to each specific response station operating at greater
than -6 dBW EIRP.

          (r)  The transmitting apparatus employed at ITFS response stations shall have received
type certification.

          (s)  An ITFS response station shall be operated only when engaged in communication
with its associated ITFS response station hub or ITFS station, or for necessary equipment or system
tests and adjustments.  Radiation of an unmodulated carrier and other unnecessary transmissions are
forbidden.

          (t)  At least 20 days prior to the activation of a response station transmitter located
within a radius of 1960 feet of a registered ITFS receive site, the response station hub licensee must
notify, by certified mail, the licensee of the ITFS site of the intention to activate the response station. 
The notification must contain the street address and geographic coordinates (to the nearest second)
of the response station, a specification of the station's EIRP, antenna pattern/orientation/height
AMSL, channel(s) to be used, as well as the name and telephone number of a contact person who will
be responsible for coordinating the resolution of any interference problems.

          (u)  Interference calculations shall be performed in accordance with Appendix D to
the Report and Order on Reconsideration in MM Docket No. 97-217, FCC 99-178, "Methods For
Predicting Interference From Response Station Transmitters and To Response Station Hubs and For
Supplying Data on Response Station Systems."  Compliance with the out-of-band emission limitations
shall be established in accordance with  21.908(e) of this chapter.

38.  New Section 74.949 is added, to read as follows:

 74.949  Individually licensed 125 kHz channel ITFS response stations.

          (a)  The provisions of  74.939(a), (e), (h), (j), (k), (n) and (o), also shall apply with
respect to authorization of a 125 kHz channel(s) ITFS response station not under a response station
hub license.  The applicant shall comply with the requirements of  21.902 of this chapter, and 
21.938 of this chapter where appropriate, including the provisions of  21.909 of this chapter,
21.913 of this chapter, 74.939 and 74.985 regarding the protection of response station hubs and
booster service areas from harmful electromagnetic interference, using the appropriately adjusted
interference protection values based upon the ratio of the bandwidths in use, where the authorized
or previously-proposed cochannel or adjacent channel station is operated or to be operated in a
system with one or more response station hub(s).

          (b)  An application for a license to operate a new or modified 125 kHz channel(s)
ITFS response station not under a response station hub license shall be filed with the Commission in
Washington, DC, on FCC Form 331.  The applicant shall supply the following information on that
form for each response station:

            (1)  The geographic coordinates and street address of the ITFS response station
transmitting antenna; and

            (2)  The manufacturer's name, type number, operating frequency, and power
output of the proposed ITFS response station transmitter; and

            (3)  The type of transmitting antenna, power gain, azimuthal orientation and
polarization of the major lobe of radiation in degrees measured clockwise from True North; and

            (4)  A sketch giving pertinent details of the ITFS response station transmitting
antenna installation including ground elevation of the transmitter site above mean sea level; overall
height above ground, including appurtenances, of any ground-mounted tower or mast on which the
transmitting antenna will be mounted or, if the tower or mast is or will be located on an existing
building or other manmade structure, the separate heights above ground of the building and the tower
or mast including appurtenances; the location of the tower or mast on the building; the location of
the transmitting antenna on the tower or mast; and the overall height of the transmitting antenna
above ground.

            (5)  A certification that the application has been served upon

               (i)  the holder of any cochannel or adjacent channel authorization with a
protected service area which is overlapped by the proposed response service area; 

               (ii)  the holder of any cochannel or adjacent channel authorization with a
protected service area that adjoins the applicant's protected service area;

               (iii)  the holder of a cochannel or adjacent channel authorization for any BTA
or PSA inside whose boundaries are locations for which there is an unobstructed signal path for
combined signals from within the response station hub applicant's protected service area; and

               (iv) every licensee of, or applicant for, any cochannel or adjacent channel,
authorized or previously-proposed, incumbent MDS station with a 56.33 km (35 mile) protected
service area with center coordinates located within 160.94 km (100 miles) of the proposed response
station hub; and

               (v)  every licensee of, or applicant for, any cochannel or adjacent channel,
authorized or previously-proposed ITFS station (including any booster station or response station
hub) located within 160.94 km (100 miles) of the proposed response station hub.

* * * * *

39.  In Section 74.951, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

 74.951  Modification of transmission systems.

* * * * *

          (b)  Any change in the antenna system affecting the direction of radiation, directive
radiation pattern, antenna gain, or radiated power; provided, however, that a licensee may install a
sectorized antenna system without prior consent if such system does not change polarization or result
in an increase in radiated power by more than one dB in any direction, and notice of such installation
is provided to the Commission and the Commission's copy contractor on FCC Form 331 within ten
(10) days of installation.  When an applicant proposes to employ a directional antenna, or a licensee
notifies the Commission pursuant to this paragraph of the installation of a sectorized antenna system,
the applicant shall provide the Commission with information regarding the orientation of the
directional antenna(s), expressed in degree of azimuth, with respect to true north, and the make and
model of such antenna(s).

* * * * *


40. In Section 74.961, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

 74.961 Frequency tolerance

          (a)  Beginning [60 days following publication in the Federal Register], equipment
authorized to be used at all ITFS main stations, and at all ITFS booster stations authorized pursuant
to 74.985(b), shall maintain a frequency tolerance of 0.001%  ITFS booster stations authorized
pursuant to 74.985(e) and ITFS response stations authorized pursuant to 74.939 shall employ
transmitters with sufficient frequency stability to ensure that the emission is, at all times, within the
required emission mask.  A transmitter licensed prior to November 1, 1991 that remains at the station
site for which it was initially authorized and does not comply with the provisions of this paragraph
may continue to be used if it does not cause harmful interference to the operations of any other
licensee.  Any non-conforming transmitter replaced after November 1, 1991 must be replaced by a
transmitter meeting the requirements of this paragraph.

41.  Section 74.965 is revised to read as follows.

 74.965  Posting of station license.

          (a)  The instrument of authorization, a clearly legible photocopy thereof, or the name,
address and telephone number of the custodian of the instrument of authorization shall be available
at each station, booster station authorized pursuant to  74.985(b) and ITFS response station hub. 
Each operator of an ITFS booster station shall post at the booster station the name, address and
telephone number of the custodian of the notification filed pursuant to  74.985(e) if such notification
is not maintained at the booster station.

          (b)  If an ITFS station, an ITFS booster station or an ITFS response station hub is
operated unattended, the call sign and name of the licensee shall be displayed such that it may be read
within the vicinity of the transmitter enclosure or antenna structure.

42.  Section 74.985 is revised to read as follows:

 74.985  Signal booster stations.

          (a)  An ITFS booster station may reuse channels to repeat the signals of ITFS stations
or to originate signals on ITFS channels.  The aggregate power flux density generated by an ITFS
station and all associated signal booster stations and all simultaneously operating cochannel response
stations licensed to or applied for by the applicant may not exceed -73 dBW/mý (or the appropriately
adjusted value based on the actual bandwidth used if other than 6 MHz, see  74.903(a)(6)(i)) at or
beyond the boundary of the protected service area, as defined by  21.902(d) of this chapter, of the
main ITFS station whose channels are being reused, as measured at locations for which there is an
unobstructed signal path, unless the consent of the cochannel licensee is obtained.

          (b)  A licensee or conditional licensee may secure a license for a high power signal
booster station that has a maximum EIRP in excess of -9 dBW + 10 log(X/6) dBW where X is the
channel width in MHz, if it complies with the out-of-band emission requirements of  21.908.  The
applicant for a high-power station, or for modification thereto, shall file FCC Form 331 with the
Commission in Washington, DC, and certify on that form that the applicant has complied with the
additional requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, and that the interference data submitted
under this paragraph is complete and accurate.  Failure to certify compliance and to comply
completely with the following requirements of paragraph (b) of this section shall result in dismissal
of the application or revocation of the high-power ITFS signal booster station license, and may result
in imposition of a monetary forfeiture.  The applicant additionally is required to submit to the
Commission's copy contractor, both in hard copy, and on a 3.5" DSHD computer diskette in ASCII,
and likewise to submit to the Commission, only upon Commission staff request, duplicates of the
Form 331 filed with the Commission, and the following information:

            (1)  A demonstration that the proposed signal booster station site is within the
protected service area, as defined in  21.902(d) of this chapter, of the main ITFS station whose
channels are to be reused; and

            (2)  A demonstration that the booster service area is entirely within the protected
service area of the ITFS station whose channels are being reused, or in the alternative, that the
licensee entitled to any cochannel protected service area which is overlapped by the proposed booster
service area has consented to such overlap; and

            (3)  A demonstration that the proposed booster service area can be served by the
proposed booster without interference; and

            (4)  A study which demonstrates that the aggregate power flux density of the
ITFS station and all associated booster stations and simultaneously operating cochannel response
stations licensed to or applied for by the applicant does not exceed -73 dBW/m2 (or the appropriately
adjusted value based on the actual bandwidth used if other than 6 MHz, see  74.903(a)(6)(i)) at or
beyond the boundary of the protected service area of the main ITFS station whose channels are to
be reused, as measured at locations for which there is an unobstructed signal path, unless the consent
of affected licensees has been obtained; and

            (5)  In lieu of the requirements of  74.903, a study which demonstrates that the
proposed signal booster station will cause no harmful interference (as defined in  74.903(a)(1) and
(2)) to cochannel and adjacent channel, authorized or previously-proposed ITFS and MDS stations
with protected service area center coordinates as specified in  21.902(d) of this chapter, to any
authorized or previously-proposed response station hubs, booster service areas, or I channel stations
associated with such ITFS and MDS stations, or to any ITFS receive sites registered as of September
17, 1998, within 160.94 kilometers (100 miles) of the proposed booster station's transmitter site. 
Such study shall consider the undesired signal levels generated by the proposed signal booster station,
the main station, all other licensed or previously-proposed associated booster stations, and all
simultaneously operating cochannel response stations licensed to or applied for by the applicant.  In
the alternative, a statement from the affected MDS or ITFS licensee or conditional licensee stating
that it does not object to operation of the high-power ITFS signal booster station may be submitted;
and

            (6)  A description of the booster service area; and

            (7)  A certification that copies of the materials set forth in paragraph (b) of this
section have been served upon the licensee or conditional licensee of each station (including each
response station hub and booster station) required to be studied pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this
section, and upon any affected holder of a BTA or PSA authorization pursuant to paragraph (b)(4)
of this section.

          (c)  Applications for high-power ITFS signal booster station licenses shall be deemed
minor change applications and, except as provided in  74.911(e), may be filed at any time. 
Notwithstanding any other provision of part 74, applications for high-power ITFS signal booster
station licenses meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section shall cut-off applications
that are filed on a subsequent day for facilities that would cause harmful electromagnetic interference
to the proposed booster stations.

          (d)  Notwithstanding the provisions of  74.912 and except as provided in  74.911(e),
any petition to deny an application for a high-power ITFS signal booster station license shall be filed
no later than the sixtieth (60th) day after the date of public notice announcing the filing of such
application or major amendment thereto.  Except as provided in  74.911(e), an application for a
high-power ITFS signal booster station license that meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section shall be granted on the sixty-first (61st) day after the Commission shall have given public
notice of the acceptance for filing of it, or of a major amendment to it if such major amendment has
been filed, unless prior to such date either a party in interest timely files a formal petition to deny or
for other relief pursuant to  74.912, or the Commission notifies the applicant that its application will
not be granted.  Where an application is granted pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph, the
conditional licensee or licensee shall maintain a copy of the application at the ITFS booster station
until such time as the Commission issues a high-power ITFS signal booster station license.

          (e)  Eligibility for a license for a low power signal booster station that has a maximum
EIRP of -9 dBW +log10(X/6) dBW, where X is the channel width in MHz, shall be restricted to a
licensee or conditional licensee.  A low-power ITFS signal booster station may operate only on one
or more ITFS channels that are licensed to the licensee of the ITFS booster station, but may be
operated by a third party with a fully-executed lease or consent agreement with the ITFS conditional
licensee or licensee.  An ITFS licensee or conditional licensee may install and commence operation
of a low-power ITFS signal booster station for the purpose of retransmitting the signals of the ITFS
station or for originating signals.  Such installation and operation shall be subject to the condition that
for sixty (60) days after installation and commencement of operation, no objection or petition to deny
is filed by the licensee of a, or applicant for a previously-proposed, cochannel or adjacent channel
ITFS or MDS station with a transmitter within 8.0 kilometers (5 miles) of the coordinates of the low-
power ITFS signal booster station.  An ITFS licensee or conditional licensee seeking to install a low-
power ITFS signal booster station under this rule must, within 48 hours after installation, submit FCC
Form 331 to the Commission in Washington, DC, and submit to the Commission's copy contractor,
both in hard copy, and on a 3.5" DSHD computer diskette in ASCII, duplicates of the Form 331 filed
with the Commission, and the following (which also shall be submitted to the Commission only upon
Commission staff request at any time):

            (1)  A description of the booster service area; and

            (2)  A demonstration that the booster service area is entirely within the protected
service area of the station whose channels are being reused, or, in the alternative, that the licensee
entitled to any protected service area which is overlapped by the proposed booster service area has
consented to such overlap; and

            (3)  A demonstration that the proposed booster service area can be served by the
proposed booster without interference; and

            (4)  A certification that

               (i)  The maximum power level of the signal booster transmitter does not
exceed -9 dBW + 10 log(X/6) dBW, where X is the channel width in MHz; and

               (ii)  Where the booster is operating on channel D4, E1, F1, E2, F2, E3, F3,
E4, F4 and/or G1, no registered receiver of an ITFS E or F channel station, constructed prior to May
26, 1983, is located within a 1 mile (1.61 km) radius of the coordinates of the booster, or in the
alternative, that a consent statement has been obtained from the affected ITFS licensee; and

               (iii)  The applicant has complied with  1.1307 of this chapter; and

               (iv)  Each MDS and/or ITFS station licensee (including the licensees of booster
stations and response station hubs) with protected service areas and/or registered receivers within a
8 km (5 mile) radius of the coordinates of the booster has been given notice of its installation; and

               (v)  The signal booster site is within the protected service area of the ITFS
station whose channels are to be reused; and

               (vi)  The aggregate power flux density of the ITFS station and all associated
booster stations and simultaneously operating cochannel response stations licensed to or applied for
by the applicant does not exceed -73 dBW/m2 (or the appropriately adjusted value based on the actual
bandwidth used if other than 6 MHz, see  74.903(a)(6)(i)) at or beyond the boundary of the
protected service area of the main ITFS station whose channels are to be reused, as measured at
locations for which there is an unobstructed signal path, unless the consent of affected licensees has
been obtained; and

               (vii)  The antenna structure will extend less than 6.10 meters (20 feet) above
the ground or natural formation or less than 6.10 meters (20 feet) above an existing manmade
structure (other than an antenna structure); and

               (viii)  The ITFS conditional licensee or licensee understands and agrees that
in the event harmful interference is claimed by the filing of an objection or petition to deny, the
conditional licensee or licensee must terminate operation within two (2) hours of notification by the
Commission, and must not recommence operation until receipt of written authorization to do so by
the Commission.

          (f)  Commencing upon the filing of an application for a high-power ITFS signal
booster station license and until such time as the application is dismissed or denied or, if the
application is granted, a certification of completion of construction on FCC Form 330A is submitted,
an applicant for any new or modified MDS or ITFS station (including any response station hub, high-
power booster station, or I channels station) shall demonstrate compliance with the interference
protection requirements set forth in  21.902(i) of this chapter, 21.938(b)(3) of this chapter or
74.903 with respect to any previously-proposed or authorized booster service area both using the
transmission parameters of the high-power ITFS signal booster station (e.g., EIRP, polarization(s)
and antenna height) and the transmission parameters of the ITFS station whose channels are to be
reused by the high-power ITFS signal booster station.  Upon the submission of a certification of
completion of construction on FCC Form 330A of an ITFS booster station applied for pursuant to
paragraph (b) of this section, or upon the submission of an ITFS booster station notification pursuant
to paragraph (e) of this section, the ITFS station whose channels are being reused by the ITFS signal
booster shall no longer be entitled to interference protection pursuant to  21.902(i) of this chapter,
21.938(b)(3) of this chapter and 74.903 within the booster service area based on the transmission
parameters of the ITFS station whose channels are being reused.  A booster station shall not be
entitled to protection from interference caused by facilities proposed on or prior to the day the
application or notification for the booster station is filed.  A booster station shall not be required to
protect from interference facilities proposed on or after the day the application or notification for the
booster station is filed.

          (g)  Where an application is granted under paragraph (d) of this section, if a facility
operated pursuant to that grant causes harmful, unauthorized interference to any cochannel or
adjacent channel facility, it must promptly remedy the interference or immediately cease operations
of the interfering facility, regardless of whether any petitions to deny or for other relief were filed
against the application during the application process.  The burden of proving that a high-power ITFS
signal booster station is not causing harmful, unauthorized interference lies on the licensee of the
alleged interfering facility, following the filing of a documented complaint of interference by an
affected party.

          (h)  In the event any MDS or ITFS receive site suffers interference due to block
downconverter overload, the licensee of each non-co/adjacent channel signal booster station within
five miles of such receive site shall cooperate in good faith to expeditiously identify the source of the
interference.  Each licensee of a signal booster station contributing to such interference shall bear the
joint and several obligation to remedy promptly all interference resulting from block downconverter
overload at any ITFS registered receive site or at any receive site within an MDS or ITFS protected
service area applied for prior to the submission of the application or notification for the signal booster
station, regardless of whether the receive site suffering the interference was constructed prior to or
after the construction of the signal booster station(s) causing the downconverter overload; provided,
however, that the licensee of the registered ITFS receive site or the MDS or ITFS protected service
area must cooperate fully and in good faith with efforts by signal booster station licensees to prevent
interference before constructing the signal booster station and/or to remedy interference that may
occur.  In the event that more than one signal booster station licensee contributes to block
downconverter interference at an MDS or ITFS receive site, such licensees shall cooperate in good
faith to remedy promptly the interference.

50.  The alphabetical index to part 74 is amended by adding "ITFS" as the last entry under the
"Changes of Equipment" heading; removing the "ITFS" entry from under the "Equipment and
installation" heading; removing the "ITFS" entry from under the "Equipment Performance" heading;
revising the entries under the "ITFS" heading; removing the "ITFS" entry from under the "Remote
control operation" heading; revising the "Signal boosters, UHF translator (LPTV/TV Translators)"
heading to read "Signal boosters", and adding entries under the "Signal boosters" heading; removing
the "Mutually exclusive applications, selection procedure (ITFS)" heading; revising the "Response
stations (ITFS)" heading; and adding in alphabetical order a "Response station hubs (ITFS)" heading
and a "Wireless cable usage of ITFS" heading, to read as follows:

                 ALPHABETICAL INDEX -- PART 74
                                
* * * * *
Changes of Equipment --
* * * * *
          ITFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.951
* * * * *
ITFS--
          Application processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.911
          Application requirements from part 73. . . . . . 74.910
          Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.903
          Petition to deny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.912
          Purpose and permissible service. . . . . . . . . 74.931
          Response station hubs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.939
          Response stations (individually licensed). . . . 74.949
          Signal booster stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.985
          Transmission standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.938
          Wireless cable use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.990
* * * * *
Response station hubs (ITFS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.939
Response stations (ITFS; individually licensed). . . . . . 74.949
* * * * *
Signal boosters--
          UHF translator (LPTV/TV Translators) . . . . . . 74.733
          ITFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.985
* * * * *

                               W
                                
Wireless cable usage of ITFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.990
* * * * *

PART 101 -- FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES

The authority for part 101 continues to read as follows:

Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303.

43.  In Section 101.147,  Note 22 is deleted in its entirety,


































                    METHODS FOR PREDICTING INTERFERENCE FROM RESPONSE STATION
TRANSMITTERS AND TO RESPONSE STATION HUBS AND FOR SUPPLYING DATA
ON RESPONSE STATION SYSTEMS.
This document sets out the methodology to be used in carrying out three requirements with respect
to response stations used as part of two-way cellularized MDS and ITFS systems.  It details the
methods for conducting interference studies from response stations to other systems; it details the
methods for calculating interference protection for response station hubs; and it defines a file format
to be used in submitting data in response station hub applications.  It also describes the propagation
analysis techniques to be used in these studies. 

Four Major Steps for Response Station Interference Analysis
In carrying out the studies of interference from response station transmitters, the aggregate power
of the interfering signals to be expected from the response station transmitters shall be determined
using a process comprising four major steps, as described below.  First, a grid of points shall be
defined that is statistically representative of the distribution of transmitters to be expected within the
response service area, and the elevations to be associated with each of them shall be determined. 
Second, any regions and any classes of response stations to be used shall be defined.  Third, the
appropriate transmitter configuration to be used in each interference study shall be determined. 
Fourth, the equivalent power of each of the representative transmitters shall be determined and used
in the various required interference studies.  The parameters used in the studies shall be provided in
a prescribed electronic form as described later in this document.

Defining Grid of Points for Analysis
Since it is impossible to know a priori where response stations will be located, a grid of points is used
to represent statistically, in a relatively small number of locations, the potentially much larger number
of response stations that are likely to be installed in the areas surrounding each of the points.  Once
defined, the same grid of points shall be used by all parties conducting interference analyses involving
the subject response station system.

Defining the representative grid of points to use in all the interference studies required in Rule
Sections 21.909 and 74.939 begins by geographically defining the response service area (RSA) of the
response station hub (RSH).  This may be done using either a list of coordinates or a radius from the
response station hub location.  When coordinates are used, straight lines shall interconnect one
location with the next in the order given in the list, and the last location described shall be connected
to the first location by a straight line.  When a radius from the response station hub location is used,
the value shall be expressed in miles, with any fractional part expressed as a decimal value to three
places.  The boundaries described are administrative and serve to circumscribe the area in which
response station transmitters may be located.The characteristics of any sectors in the RSH receiving antenna also must be described in two ways:
geographically, so as to limit the locations from which response stations will transmit to each sector,
and electrically, by providing data on the electrical field response of the antenna pattern in each
sector.  Sectors may overlap one another geographically.  The geographic boundaries of a sector shall
be defined using either a list of coordinates or a list of bearings.  Electrical field response data shall
be relative to the direction of maximum response of the sector antenna and shall be provided every
one (1) degree completely around the antenna.  Both azimuth and elevation field patterns shall be
supplied for each polarization to be used with a given antenna type.  The geographic orientation of
each sector to the nearest degree and the polarization in each sector also shall be specified. When
response stations share channels or sub-channels by transmitting simultaneously on them, the
maximum number of response stations that will be permitted to transmit simultaneously within each
sector must be specified.

The RSA may be subdivided into regions to allow different characteristics to be used for response
stations in different portions of the RSA.  (For details on regions and their use, see the section below
on Defining Regions and Classes for Analysis.)  Any regions to be used when analyzing interference
must also be described in a manner similar to that used to describe the RSA itself.  Analysis of the
regions involves use of one or more classes of response station characteristics.  For each such class,
a combination must be specified of the maximum antenna height, the maximum equivalent isotropic
radiated power (EIRP), and the worst case antenna pattern that will be used in practice in installations
of response stations associated with that class within the respective regions.  (For details on classes
and their use, see the section below on Defining Regions and Classes for Analysis.)  When response
stations share channels or sub-channels by transmitting simultaneously on them, the maximum number
of response stations associated with each class that will be permitted to transmit simultaneously within
each region and each sector must be specified.

To define the grid of points, a line is first established surrounding the RSA, following the shape of
the RSA boundary, « mile outside the RSA, and never more than « mile from the RSA boundary
at any point. This is termed the "analysis line" and will be used in determining that an adequate
number of grid points representing transmitters is being used in the interference analyses.  A starting
point is defined on the analysis line due north (true) of the response station hub.  A series of analysis
points is then spaced along the analysis line with the starting point being one of those points.  The
analysis points must occur with a spacing no greater than every « mile along the analysis line or every
5 degrees (as seen from the response station hub), whichever yields the largest number of analysis
points.  When an RSA has a non-circular shape, the choice of distance along the analysis line or angle
from the response station hub must be made for each portion of the line so as to maximize the number
of analysis points in that portion.  The analysis points are to be described by their geographic
coordinates.  (The results of this method are that, for a circular RSA, a minimum of 72 analysis points
will be used, and that, for portions of the analysis line of any RSA more than 5.73 miles from the
response station hub, the distance method will be used.)

Next, the grid of points is defined within the RSA to statistically represent the response stations.  The
grid uses uniform, square spacing of the points, as measured in integer seconds of latitude and
longitude, with the first square surrounding the RSH and with its points equidistant from it.  The lines
connecting the points on one side of any grid square point true north, east, south, or west.  The grid
is defined so as to include all points within or on the boundary of the RSA, with the exceptions noted
below.  The result is that the grid can be defined by only two values   the coordinates of the hub and
the separation between adjacent grid points in seconds   combined with the description of the RSA
boundary.

Any points falling at locations at which it would be physically impossible to install a response station
(such as in the middle of a lake, but not the middle of a forest) are removed from the grid.  The points
of the grid so removed are to be described by their geographic coordinates.

The grid of points is then divided into two groups.  The division is to be done using a checkerboard
pattern so that alternating points along the east-west and north-south axes belong to opposite groups
and points along any diagonal line belong to the same group.

The combination of the grid of points within the RSA and the points on the analysis line is next used
to determine that the number of grid points is truly representative of a uniform distribution of
response station transmitters within the RSA.  This is done by conducting a power flux density
analysis from each grid point within the RSA to each point on the analysis line.  For this analysis, a
single response station should be assumed to be located at each grid point, that response station
having the combined worst case antenna pattern without regard to polarization of all response station
classes assigned to that grid point and the maximum EIRP of any response station class assigned to
that grid point.  (For details on the method for determining the combined worst case antenna pattern,
see the section below on Defining Regions and Classes for Analysis.)  The response station antennas
all should be oriented toward the response station hub.

The analysis of grid point adequacy should be done using free space path loss over flat earth only and
should not include the effects of terrain in the calculation of received signal levels.  At each point on
the analysis line, the power flux density from all grid points in each group of the checkerboard pattern
should be aggregated.  This is done by converting power received from each assumed transmitter
from dBW/m2 to W/m2, summing the power in W/m2 from all transmitters in each group, and then
converting the sum back to dBW/m2.

After the aggregated power flux density from each of the two groups has been calculated, the
received power flux densities from the two groups are compared at each of the points on the analysis
line.  The power flux densities from the two groups must be within 3 dB of one another at each of
the points on the analysis line.  In addition, there must be no closer spacing of grid points that allows
a difference of greater than 3 dB between the groups.  If the power flux densities of both groups are
within 3 dB at every analysis point, a sufficient number of grid points is included for use in further
analyses.  If they are not within 3 dB at every analysis point, a larger number of grid points (i.e.,
closer spacing of grid points) must be used so that the 3 dB criterion is met.

In cases in which sectorized response station hubs are used, a further test is required to assure that
an adequate number of grid points is used.  In addition to meeting the requirements of the preceding
paragraph, each sector must contain a number of grid points equal to or greater than the distance
from the hub to the furthest point in the sector, expressed in miles, divided by two, with a minimum
of five grid points per sector.  Should an insufficient number of grid points fall within any sector after
meeting the 3 dB criterion, the point spacing for the entire RSA must be decreased until this
additional requirement is satisfied.

Once the geographic locations of the grid points are determined, the elevations to be attributed to
each must be decided.  This is done by creating a geographic square uniformly spaced around each
grid point having a width and a height equal to the spacing between grid points and oriented in the
same directions as the lines between grid points used to lay out the grid structure.  Each such square
is then examined with respect to all of the data points of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 3-
second database falling within the square to find the elevation of the highest such data point,
expressed in feet.  That elevation is ascribed to the associated grid point and shall be used for the
elevation of that grid point in all further and future analyses of the response station system.

Defining Regions and Classes for Analysis
To provide flexibility in system design, regions may optionally be created within response service
areas.  Regions may be of arbitrary size, shape, and location.  The territory within a region must be
contiguous.  Regions within a single RSA may not overlap one another.  Within regions, response
stations are apt to be randomly distributed and for analysis purposes are to be assumed to be
uniformly distributed.  Regions are to be defined by their boundaries in the same manner as are
response service areas.  (For details on describing boundaries, see the section above on Defining Grid
of Points for Analysis.)
Within each region, at least one class of response station with defined characteristics must be
specified to match the interference predicted to be caused with the types of installations to be made. 
The classes are to be used in interference analyses and to provide limitations on the installations that
may be made in the related region.  The characteristics of each such class of response stations shall
include the maximum height above ground level (AGL) for antennas, the maximum equivalent
isotropic radiated power (EIRP), and the combined worst-case antenna radiation pattern   for each
polarization when both are used   for all response stations of that class to be installed.  When
response stations share a channel by transmitting simultaneously (see section below on Determining
Transmitter Configuration), for each class of response stations within each region, the maximum
number of such response stations that may transmit simultaneously on any channel or sub-channel
shall be specified.
The combined worst-case antenna azimuth radiation pattern is required to be specified collectively
for all of the classes of response stations located at each grid point (in the procedure above, in the
section on Defining Grid of Points for Analysis, for confirming that the required number of grid points
is specified) and individually for each of the classes defined for each region of the RSA.  In the case
of the collective pattern used to determine adequacy of the number of grid points, if both
polarizations are used in the system, the horizontally- and vertically-polarized azimuth patterns of
each antenna should be treated as deriving from separate antennas and should be combined with one
another and with the patterns from all the other antennas at that grid point.  In the cases of the
individual patterns for each class used for interference analyses, if both polarizations are used in the
system, the horizontally- and vertically-polarized combined worst-case azimuth patterns should be
determined separately for all classes defined.  Similarly, the cross-polarized worst-case patterns
should be determined for each polarization.
These combined worst-case patterns are derived by setting the maximum forward signal power of all
antenna types to be used within the class or classes to the same value and then using the highest level
of radiation in each direction from any of the antennas as the value in that direction for the combined
antenna pattern.  The same method is used to determine both plane- and cross-polarized patterns,
which are used separately in interference analyses.  The combined worst-case plane- and cross-
polarized patterns for each class will be used in all of the interference studies and are not to be
exceeded in actual installations of response stations within a class to which the pattern applies.
Determining System Configuration
Several factors in the configuration of a system determine whether or not transmitters located at
specific grid points could cause interference to particular neighboring systems.  In order to simplify
the study of interference to those neighbors, the system configuration is taken into account so as to
reduce the number of calculations required by eliminating the study of interference from specific grid
points when possible.  The main factor that determines whether to eliminate certain grid points from
consideration is terrain blockage.
When grid points are completely blocked from line-of-sight to any part of a neighboring system, they
can be eliminated from the aggregation of power used in calculating interference to that system.  To
determine whether to eliminate a grid point for this reason, a shadow study can be conducted from
each grid point in the direction of the neighboring system.  Separate studies can be conducted for
classes of response stations that have different maximum elevations above ground.  If there is no area
within the protected service area or at any of the registered receiving locations of the neighboring
system to which a particular class of station at a grid point has line-of-sight, it can be eliminated from
the calculations that determine the power of interfering signals at the neighbor's location. 
Alternatively, lack of line-of-sight can be evaluated from each class at each grid point to each location
analyzed within the neighboring system (see section below on Calculating Aggregated Power from
Transmitters), and grid points can be eliminated on a location-by-location basis, if that process is
more easily implemented.
There are two ways in which a large number of response stations can share channels:  They can take
turns using the channels so that only one transmitter will be turned on at any particular instant on each
channel or sub-channel being received by a separate receiver in the system, or they can transmit at
the same time and use special filtering techniques at the receiver to separate the signals they are
sending simultaneously to that receiver.  These two cases will result in different levels of power being
radiated into neighboring systems, and therefore they must be analyzed slightly differently.
In the case of response stations that take turns using a channel or sub-channel, the grid point and class
of station that produces the worst case of interference to each analyzed location in the neighboring
system must be determined for each group of response stations that share a channel (e.g., within a
response station hub receiving antenna sector).  In this case, the interfering signal source can be
treated as a single transmitter occupying the full bandwidth of the channel or sub-channels used from
that location and having a power level equal to the aggregate of the power transmitted on all of the
sub-channels, if sub-channels are used.
In the case of response stations that simultaneously share a channel or sub-channel, the grid point and
class of station that produces the worst case of interference to each analyzed location in the
neighboring system must be determined for each group of response stations that share a channel (e.g.,
within a response station hub receiving antenna sector).  In this case, the interfering signal source can
be treated as a single grid point at which are located all of the simultaneously operating transmitters,
occupying the full bandwidth of the channel or sub-channels used from that location, and having a
power level equal to the aggregate of the power transmitted by all of the response stations operating
simultaneously on all of the sub-channels, if sub-channels are used.
In cases of shared-channel operation in which the number of simultaneously operating response
stations of a class is limited by a region that crosses sector boundaries, the number of such response
stations considered within some sectors may be limited so that the total included in the analysis in all
sectors does not exceed the total permitted for the region.  The objective in analyzing these cases is
to find the worst case situation with regard to the maximum number of simultaneously operating
transmitters, assigning them collectively to the locations at which they cause the most interference
to each location analyzed within neighboring systems, while respecting the limits imposed on the
number of such transmitters by sector and by region.  A statement describing in detail the process or
algorithm followed in selecting the number and classes of response stations analyzed at each grid
point shall be appended to the application and distributed as a standard ASCII text file along with the
data file described below in the section on the File Format.
An example of the case just described of shared-channel operation with the number of simultaneously
operating transmitters limited both by region and by sector is one in which a region comprises an
annular ring that stretches from half the radius to the full radius of a circular RSA.  The region has
a limit of 200 simultaneously operating transmitters of a particular class, and each of 20 sectors is
limited to 20 simultaneously operating transmitters.  If the worst case interference from each sector
were caused by the subject class and all were used in analyzing interference to a neighboring system,
the result would be the use of 400 such response stations (20 x 20) in the analysis, while the region
is limited to 200.  Consequently, the 10 regions (10 x 20 meets the limit of 200) causing the most
interference to the neighbor would be selected, and, in the other 10 sectors, the classes of station
causing the second largest amount of interference to the neighbor would be selected for use in the
analysis.  In choosing the secondary interfering response station classes, the same type of limitations
would have to be observed.  The process for making these selections based on the appropriate
limitations would have to be followed for each analyzed point in the neighboring system.
Calculating Aggregated Power from Transmitters
The final major step in calculating interference from response station transmitters is the calculation
of the equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) to be attributed to each of the selected grid points
in the various interference studies so as to be representative of the number of response stations that
are expected to be in operation simultaneously within the RSA.  When analyzing systems in which
the response stations take turns using a channel or sub-channels, this means, for each location
analyzed in the system to be protected, selecting the grid point and class of station within each sector
that radiates the strongest signal to that location and aggregating the power from all such selected
grid points and classes, using the maximum EIRP (for all sub-channels taken together), the maximum
antenna height, and the worst case antenna pattern for a single station of that class at each selected
grid point.  For systems in which response stations simultaneously share the channel or sub-channels
to each receiver at each hub, substantially the same analysis is performed.  The difference is that the
maximum number of simultaneously operating response stations within each sector is placed at each
selected grid point, in turn.  The maximum EIRP (for all sub-channels taken together) for each
regional class at each grid point or additional point, expressed in dBW, is converted to Watts.  The
power is then multiplied by the number of simultaneously operating transmitters in the regional class
assigned to that grid point or additional point, and the resulting power in Watts is converted back to
dBW.  When the number of simultaneously operating transmitters within a sector in the class and at
the grid point that causes the most signal to be propagated to a location in the neighboring system
does not equal the number of simultaneously operating transmitters permitted in that sector, the grid
point and class of station that cause the next largest amount of signal to be so propagated shall be
used to account for the remaining number of simultaneously operating transmitters permitted in the
sector, and so on as necessary.  At each location analyzed within the neighboring system, the power
received from the selected grid points within each sector is aggregated through conversion from dBW
to Watts, addition of power levels, and conversion back to dBW.  In each case, the values so
calculated are the aggregated powers of all the simultaneously operating response station transmitters
sharing the same channel(s) or sub-channel(s), from all sectors, for use as the undesired signal levels
in interference analyses  .In a system using both polarizations, the response stations represented by
each grid point are to be assumed to use the polarization of the response station hub antenna sector
in which they are located.  The appropriate horizontal or vertical combined worst-case antenna
pattern is to be used in interference studies depending upon the polarization of the sector in which
each grid point is located.  In a system using only one polarization, the effect of antenna sectors can
be ignored and the choice between horizontal and vertical polarization patterns made identically for
all grid points.
Finally, the aggregate power of each active regional class at each active grid point is used in
conducting the required interference studies described in the relevant Rules.  For example, to
determine that the -73 dBW/m2 limitation is met, a field strength contour is calculated by first
calculating a matrix of field strengths from each regional class at each grid point in the RSA into the
region of the PSA or other boundary to be protected using the terrain-based propagation analysis tool
specified below (i.e., free space path loss plus reflection and multiple diffractions   see section below
on Propagation Analysis Tool).  The matrix represents an array of locations on a square grid
separated by a short distance (no more than 1 mile).  Once the protected area matrix is calculated
from signals originating at each regional class at each grid point or additional point, the matrices are
summed by first converting from dBW/m2 to W/m2, adding the field strength values from all regional
classes at all grid points at each matrix point, and converting from W/m2 back to dBW/m2.  The
summed matrix is then used to route a protection contour by interpolating between matrix points. 
The contour so determined should not cross the boundary under consideration.  When response
stations partially or completely share channels, subchannels or superchannels with booster and/or
primary stations within the same system, the interference contributions of these stations must be
added to those of the response stations in order to determine the overall interference impact of the
system and its conformance with applicable interference protection criteria.  
Similar methods should be used in conducting the other interference studies required in this section. 
These include the desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratio studies for co-channel and adjacent channel
interference.  In all of these studies, the analysis should use the aggregate power of each regional class
at each grid point or additional point, the worst case plane- or cross-polarized antenna pattern, as
appropriate, for each regional class, with the antennas at each grid point aimed toward the response
station hub, and the maximum antenna height above ground specified for each regional class at each
grid point or additional point.
Protection to Response Station Hubs
Protection to response station hubs is required from two types of neighboring systems: those applied
for or licensed prior to the licensing of the subject response station hub and those applied for or
licensed subsequent to the licensing of the subject response station hub.  In cases in which the
neighboring system was licensed first, the protection to be provided to the response station hub after
any modifications of the neighboring system shall be no less than that provided prior to the
modifications.  In cases in which the neighboring system is licensed later, the protection to be
provided to the response station hub after construction of the neighboring system shall be such as not
to degrade the noise floor of hub receivers by more that 1 dB for co-channel signals and 45 dB for
adjacent channel signals.  The methods to be used to determine the amount of protection provided
or the amount of degradation follow.
For purposes of interference protection calculations, an applicant for a response station hub shall
specify the geographic coordinates of the hub location and, for each sector, (1) the height of the
antenna above ground (AGL) and above mean sea level (AMSL), (2) the hub receiving antenna
pattern (both in azimuth and elevation, both co- and cross-polarized in the main vertical lobe), (3) the
hub receiving antenna gain in the main lobe (in dBi), (4) the azimuth of the main lobe, (5) any
mechanical tilt to be utilitized, and (6) the polarization of the receiving antenna.
The level of interference caused to a response station hub by either an existing or a new MDS or
ITFS station shall be independently determined for each sector.  In making such a determination, the
power from all sources (main, booster, and response stations) related to a particular primary license
of an individual licensee shall be aggregated to yield an effective power flux density of the interfering
signal(s).  The resulting summation can then be used for comparisons between old and new values
when existing stations are modified or for comparison against the specified receiver degradation
threshold for new stations that are proposed.
In calculating the effective power flux density value, the effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP)
radiated in the direction of the response station hub from each main, booster, and/or response station
(as represented by the selected grid points described earlier in the section Four Major Steps for
Response Station Interference Analysis) of the neighboring system shall first be determined.  The
power arriving at the response station hub shall be analyzed using the propagation analysis tool
described in the following section on that subject.  The aggregation of power from all related sources
shall take account of the angular displacement of each particular source from the peak of the main
lobe of the receiving antenna and the relative polarization of each interfering signal source.
To determine the effective power flux density, the following formula shall be used:

PFD sub EFF = 10log sub 10 ``stack {n#sum#1} 10 sup {{ISi+G sub REL i}over 10}
                                   (1)

Where:    PFDEFF=Effective Power Flux Density (dBW/m2)
          n    =Number of Interfering Signal Sources (units)
          ISi  =Interfering Signal Power Flux Density of ith Source (dBW/m2)
          GRELi     = Relative Gain of Hub Sector in Direction of ith Source (dB)
                  (includes antenna discrimination & polarization effects)

For neighboring systems licensed first, it is necessary to ascertain that the value of the effective power
flux density after a modification, as predicted for each response station hub antenna sector, does not
exceed the value predicted for the same sector prior to the modification.  For new neighboring
systems, an additional step is required to ascertain that the predicted value of the effective power flux
density does not exceed the allowed threshold values for both co-channel and adjacent channel
signals.
To calculate the relationship of the effective power flux density to the threshold values for co-channel
and adjacent channel signals, the level of the noise floor of the hub receiver first must be figured.  It
is given by the formula:
P sub THERMAL = 10 log ``LEFT [`  k ` `  sup  5 `/ sub 9 ` (T-32)  +  273 ` `  `  BW RIGHT  ] 
                              (2)

Where:    PTHERMAL= Noise Power from Thermal Sources (dBW)
          k    = Boltzmann's Constant (1.380662 x 10-23)
          T    = Noise Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit)
          BW   = Bandwidth (Hz)

With a typical noise temperature of 63 deg. F and a bandwidth of 6 MHz, Equation 2 yields a thermal
noise power of -136.2 dBW.  The equivalent total power flux density of the thermal noise power plus
the effective power flux density of the interfering signal(s) is given by:
PFD sub \EQUIV` = ` 10log sub 10
 `LEFT (`10 sup {{ PFD sub EFF} over 10} +
10 sup {{P sub THERMAL - L sub c + NF + G sub ANT}over 10}`RIGHT )
          
            (3)


Where:    PFDEQUIV = Equivalent Total Power Flux Density (dBW / m2 )
          LC      = Cable Losses (dB)
          NF      = Noise Figure of First Amplifier (dB)
          GANT    = Antenna Gain (dBi)

Compliance with the limits for co-channel and adjacent channel interference from new stations to
response station hubs can be determined by first calculating the equivalent total power flux density
with the effective power flux density of the interference set to zero and then re-computing with the
true effective power flux density.  The two values found should not differ by more than 1 dB for co-
channel interference nor by more than 45 dB for adjacent channel interference.
                        Propagation Model

When analyzing interference from response stations to other systems and from other systems to
response station hubs, a propagation model shall be used that takes into account the effects of terrain
and certain other factors.  The model is derived from basic calculations described in NTIS Technical
Note 101.  It is intended as a tool for analysis of wide area coverage of microwave transmissions,
and it is available built into commercial propagation analysis software packages that are widely used
by the MDS/ITFS industry for coverage and interference prediction.
In the model described, two loss terms are computed   the free space path loss based solely on
distance and the excess path loss (XPL) that derives from terrain obstacles and other elements in the
environment.  Among the inputs required for some implementations of the model are location and
time variability factors.  Other factors for such items as clutter and foliage losses can be considered
by some software versions, but they will not be used in analyzing the systems considered herein.
The excess path loss portion of the calculation considers several conditions that impact signal
propagation.  These include whether the path is "line of sight" for the direct ray, whether there is 0.6
first Fresnel zone clearance, or whether the path is totally obstructed.  When the path is unobstructed,
a single ground reflection is added to the direct ray to determine path loss.  When the first Fresnel
zone is partially obstructed, an additional loss up to 6 dB is included by the model.  When the path
is totally obstructed, the path loss is calculated using the Epstein-Peterson method that considers the diffraction
losses over successive terrain obstacles.  In this case, each obstacle is treated separately, with the preceding obstacle (or the transmitter, in the first instance) considered
to be the transmitter and the succeeding obstacle (or the receiver, in the last instance) considered to be the receiver.
Some software implementations of the methods described herein may provide for setting parameters for both location and time variability in terms of the percentage of
the locations or of the time that signals meet or exceed studied levels.  For purposes of analyzing the interference from response stations and to response station hubs,
both the location and the time variability factors shall be set to 50 percent in all cases.  When available as a parameter, the confidence level shall be set to 50 percent.
In conducting analyses of interference from response stations, the minimum acceptable signal threshold shall be set to the noise floor for the bandwidth involved, as
calculated per Equation 2 above.  Thus for a 6 MHz channel, the minimum signal level considered would be -136.2 dBW or -106.2 dBm.  As a result of this setting,
when the desired signal falls below this level, the D/U ratio from any interfering signal source will be ignored.  These studies shall be conducted based exclusively upon
the levels of the desired and undesired signals without the addition of thermal noise.
Propagation Model Outline
For the purposes of these Rules, the propagation model has three basic elements that affect the predicted field strength at the receiver:
     1) Line-of-Sight (LOS) mode, using basic two-ray theory with constraints
     2) Non-line-of-sight (NLOS) mode, using multiple wedge diffraction 
     3) Partial first Fresnel zone obstruction losses applicable to either mode
The LOS and NLOS modes are mutually exclusive   a given path between a transmitter and a receiver is either LOS or not.  The fundamental decision as to whether
a path is LOS is based on the path geometry.  That decision is described in the next subsection, which also defines the LOS mode for the model. 
Line-of-Sight (LOS) Mode
The determination of whether a path between a transmitter and a receiver is LOS is made by comparing the depression angle of the path between the transmitter and
receiver with the depression angle to each terrain elevation point along the path.  The depression angle from transmitter to receiver is computed using an equation of the
form:
ital   sub {t-r} = {h sub r - h sub t}over d sub r - {d sub r over {2 a} }
                                    (4)

where:    
           t-r is the depression angle relative to horizontal from the transmitter to the receiver in radians
          ht is the elevation of the transmit antenna center of radiation above mean sea level in meters
          hr is the elevation of the receive antenna center of radiation above mean sea level in meters
          dr is the great circle distance from the transmitter to the receiver in meters
          a is the effective earth radius in meters taking into account atmospheric refractivity 
The atmospheric refractivity is usually called the K factor.  A typical value of K is 1.333, and using the actual earth radius of 6340 kilometers, a equals 8451 kilometers,
or 8,451,000 meters.  For the purpose of these Rules, K = 1.333 shall be used.
Using an equation of the same form, the depression angle from the transmitter to any terrain elevation point can be found as:
ital   sub {t-p} = {{h sub p - h sub t}over d sub p} - {d sub p over {2 a }}

                                             (5)

where:
           t-p is the depression angle relative to horizontal for the ray between the transmitter and the point on the terrain profile
          hp is the elevation of the terrain point above mean sea level in meters
          dp is the great circle path distance from the transmitter to the point on the terrain path in meters
          ht and a  are as defined above following Equation (4).
The variable  t-p is calculated at every point along the path between the transmitter and the receiver and compared to  t-r.  If the condition  t-p >  t-r is true at any
point, then the path is considered NLOS and the model formulations in the subsection on Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) Mode below are used.  If   t-p ó  t-r  is true at
every point, then the transmitter-receiver path is LOS and the formulations in this subsection apply.
For LOS paths, the field strength at the receiver is calculated as the vector combination of a directly received ray and a single reflected ray.  This calculation is presented
next.  If the geometry is such that a terrain elevation point along the path between the transmitter and receiver extends into the 0.6 first Fresnel zone, then an additional
loss ranging from 0 to 6 dB is included for partial Fresnel zone obstruction.  This is discussed in a subsequent subsection.
   Two-Ray Field Strength at the Receiver Using a Single Ground ReflectionFor an LOS path, the field at the receiver consists of the directly received
ray from the transmitter and a number of other rays received from a variety of reflecting and scattering sources.  For low antenna heights (on either the transmit or receive
end of the path) the field at the receiver is dominated by the direct ray and a single reflected ray which intersects the ground near the transmitter or receiver, whichever
is nearer to the ground.  The height-gain function in which a field at the antenna increases as the height of the antenna above ground increases is a direct result of the
direct and ground reflection rays adding vectorially so that the magnitude of the resultant manifests this effect.  The height-gain function is modeled here by considering
the actual ground reflected ray and the direct ray in vector addition.  The magnitude of the direct ray is given by:
E sub r = 1 over d sub r sqrt {{P sub t G sub t   }over {4 ã }}  
                              (6)

where Er is the field strength at the receive point, PT is the transmitter power delivered to the
terminals of the transmit antenna, GT is the transmit antenna gain in the direction of the receive point (or the ray departure direction),   is the plane wave free space
impedance (377 ohms), and dr is the path distance from the transmitter to the receive point in kilometers.
Written in dB terms, this reduces to:
E sub r = 76.92-20.0 log (d sub r) + P sub T 
dBæV/m                               (7)

In Equation (7), PT is effective radiated power (ERPd) in dBW.  The magnitude and phase of the
ground-reflected ray are found by first calculating the complex reflection coefficient as follows:
R``=``R sub s ```g
                                                 (8)

where Rs is the smooth surface reflection coefficient and g is the surface roughness attenuation factor (a scalar quantity).
For parallel and perpendicular polarizations, respectively, the smooth surface reflection coefficients are:
R sub {s  } = {  sin   sub 0 - {sqrt{  -cos sup 2   sub 0}}} over { sin   sub 0 + {sqrt{  -cos sup 2   sub 0}}} 
parallel polarization                   (9)

R sub {s   } = {sin   sub 0 - {sqrt{   -cos sup 2   sub 0}}} over {sin   sub 0 + {sqrt{  -cos sup 2   sub 0}}} 
perpendicular
polarization   
     
     (10)

where  0 is the angle of incidence and   is the complex permittivity given by:
  =   sub 1 - j60 å sub 1   
                                   (11)

where  1 is the relative dielectric constant of the reflecting surface, å1 is the conductivity of the reflecting surface in Siemens/m, and   is the (free space) wavelength
of the incident radiation.  For the case of ground reflection, verical polarization is parallel polarization and horizontal polarization is perpendicular polarization. 
For the model defined here, it is assumed that the local surface roughness is 0 (smooth surface) so that the term g in Equation (8) is one. Also, values of å1 = 0.008
Siemens/meter and  1= 15 are commonly used for ground constants and shall be employed unless specific values for the location being studied are available.

Since the lengths of the reflected path and the direct path are essentially the same (differing by only a few wavelengths or less), the amplitude of the two rays due to spatial
attenuation (path length) is assumed to be the same.  The reflected ray, however, is multiplied by the reflection coefficient as given above and then shifted (retarded) in
phase as a result of the longer path length compared to the direct ray.  The vector addition of the two rays at the receiver is thus:
E sub r ` = ` E sub d ` sin(   t)+E sub d ` R ` sin (   t+     )


where:
     Ed is the magnitude of the direct ray
        is the carrier frequency in radians  
      R is the complex reflection coefficient given above
         is the phase delay of reflected ray in radians
The carrier term is usually suppressed so that the magnitude of Equation (12) becomes
 `E sub r `` ~=~ E sub d`` ``1 + R ``e sup{i(   sub r +     )} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#
~~~~~=~E sub d ` SQRT  {(1+R ` ` cos ( varphi sub r + DELTA varphi ))^2+(R ` ` sin (varphi sub r + DELTA varphi))^2}

                         
          (13)

where  r is the phase angle of the reflection coefficient.  The term   
is found from the actual path length difference in meters.  For a two-ray path geometry over a curved earth, the path length difference is given by:
  r = {2h   sub t ```h   sub r}over d sub r 
                                        (14)

where:
     h't is the height of the transmit antenna above the reflecting plane in meters
     h'r is the height of the receive antenna above the reflecting plane in meters
so that
     = ` {2 ã   r}over   ~~~  (modulo ~2 ã~ radians)
                         (15)

The usual issue in using this approach is defining where the reflecting plane is for a complex terrain
profile between transmitter and receiver. The reflection point is found by evaluating the angle of
incidence and reflection at every terrain elevation point along the path. The angle of incidence at any point along the path profile (the evaluation point) is found from
simple geometry as follows:
  sub t ` ` = ` ` tan sup{-1}~ {[h sub t ` ` / ` ` d sub t]}  

                                        (16)
for the transmitter, and
   sub r ` ` = ` ` tan sup{-1}~ {[h sub r ` ` / ` ` d sub r]}  
                                        (17)

for the receiver. The terms ht, hr, dt, and dr are the transmit antenna height above the evaluation point, the receive antenna height above the evaluation point, and the
distances from the evaluation pointto the transmitter and receiver, respectively.  The evaluation point where  t =  ris considered the reflection point.  However, it is
unlikely that these angles will ever be exactly equal.  In such cases, at the two adjacent evaluation points where the angles inflect (i.e.  r becomes larger than  t), the
reflection point is considered to exist along the profile segment defined by the adjacent points.  The exact reflection point is then found along this profile segment using
linear interpolation since the profile segment is by definition a linear slope. With the distance and elevation of the reflection point established, the reflection angle of
incidence  0 is found using an equation of the form of Equation (16). This value of  0 is then used in Equation (9) or (10) to find the magnitude and phase of the
reflection coefficients.
The effect of the nearby ground reflection will be to reduce the amplitude of the directly received ray because, in general, the two rays will add out of phase.  The
amplitude of the reflected ray will be nearly equal to the direct ray because, at low reflection angles of incidence,  R  1.0 for most practical combinations of frequency,
conductivity, and permittivity.  For an antenna placed very near the ground, the cancellation calculated through use of these formulas will be almost perfect, so that the
directly received (free space) ray will be reduced by 40 dB or more.  It is unlikely, however, that such a perfect cancellation will occur in the real world.  It is therefore
appropriate to put some reasonable limits on the change in amplitude of the directly-received ray that can be caused by a reflection.  Based on measurement and theoretical
data, the limits placed on change in the free space amplitude due to reflections are -25 dB and + 6 dB.
Thus based on the preceding discussion, the path loss or attenuation term Areflection can be written as:
ital A sub reflection `` = `` -20 ` log`` ``1 + R ` TIMES `e sup{i(   sub r +    )}`` ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#
~~~~~~~~ = ` ` -20`log`` sqrt{{(1+R ` cos(   sub r +     ))sup 2 + (R ` sin(   sub r +     ))sup 2}}

       (18)

with the limits that  6.0 dB ó Areflection ó 25.0
dB.
   Attenuation Due to Partial Obstruction of the Fresnel ZoneWhen a path is LOS but terrain obstacles are close to obstructing the path, additional
attenuation will occur which cannot be accounted for using the ray approach just discussed.  The failure of the ray approach to account for attenuation due to a "near
miss" of obstacles on the path can be overcome to some extent by including a loss term in the LOS formulation which is based on the extent to which an obstacle
penetrates the first Fresnel zone. From diffraction theory, when the ray just grazes an obstacle, the field on the other side is reduced by 6 dB (half the wavefront is
obstructed).  When the clearance between the obstacle and the ray path is 0.6 of the first Fresnel zone, the change in the field strength at the receiver is 0 dB, and with
additional clearance a field strength increase of 6 dB can occur owing to the in-phase contribution from the ray diffracted from the obstacle.  For additional clearance,
an oscillatory pattern in the field strength occurs.
In the model described, if the ray path clears intervening obstacles by at least 0.6 of the first Fresnel zone, then no adjustment to the receiver field will occur.  For the
case when an obstacle extends into the 0.6 first Fresnel zone, a loss factor ranging from 0 to 6 dB is applied based on a linear proportion of how much of the 0.6 First
Fresnel zone is penetrated.  This Fresnel zone path loss or attenuation term can be written as:
A sub Fresnel  ` `=` ` 6.0` ` LEFT (1.0 - {{C sub obs `(d sub p`)} over {R sub {FR}` (d sub p`)}} RIGHT)~dB

                              (19)


where:
          Cobs(dp) is the height difference in meters between the ray path and the terrain
     elevation at distance dp along the path
          RFR(dp) is the 0.6 first Fresnel zone radius at distance dp along the path
The values Cobs(dp) and RFR(dp) are calculated taking into account the effective earth radius using the K factor.   The 0.6 first Fresnel zone radius is given by
R sub FR ``(d sub p `)`=`0.6``LEFT [ `549.367 `` sqrt {{  d sub p ``(d sub r ` - ` d sub p ` )} over {f d sub r}}`` right ]~~~meters

                    (20)



where f is the frequency in MHz and all distances are in kilometers.
The use of the partial Fresnel zone obstruction loss from 0 dB at 0.6 clearance to 6 dB at grazing also provides a smooth transition into the NLOS mode in which knife-
edge diffraction loss just below grazing will start at 6 dB and increase for steeper ray bending angles to receiving locations in the shadowed region.  Note that this
attenuation factor is found only for the terrain profile point that extends farthest into the 0.6 first Fresnel zone, not for every profile point which extends into the 0.6 first
Fresnel zone.
   Summary of Calculation of Field Strength at the Receiver Under LOS ConditionsAll of the formulations for computing the field strength at the
receiver under LOS conditions are now in place.  They can be summarized with the following simple equation:
E sub r `=`` 76.92``-``20`log``(d sub r``)`+``P sub T ` - ` A sub reflection ` - A sub Fresnel~~~~dB mu V/m
               (21)

where Areflection is the change due the
reflection in dB from Equation (18), and A Fresnel is the partial Fresnel zone obstruction loss from Equation (19).  The term PT is the effective radiated power (ERPd)
in dBW in the direction of the receiver.
In terms of path loss between two antennas with gains of 0 dBi in the path direction, Equation (21) can be written as:
L sub LOS `` = `` 32.45 `` + `` 20.0`log`f`+`20`log`d sub r`+`A sub reflection ` +` A sub Fresnel~~~dB
               (22)


Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) Mode
The mechanism for deciding when to use the LOS mode and when to use the NLOS mode is described at the beginning of the subsection on Line-of-Sight Mode above. 
When the model elects to use the NLOS formulations to follow, it means that one or more terrain or other features obstructs the ray path directly from the transmitter
to the receiver.  In this case, the free space field strength is further reduced for the attenuation caused by the obstacles.  For the model defined here, the calculation of
obstruction loss over an obstacle is done by assuming the obstacle is a perfect electrical conductor rounded obstacle with a height equal to the elevation of the obstruction
and a radius equal to 1 meter.  Diffraction loss in this model is calculated assuming individual obstacles on the path can be modeled as isolated rounded obstacles.  The
losses from multiple isolated obstacles are then combined.
   Diffraction LossThe loss over an individual rounded obstacle is primarily a function of the parameter v that is related to the path clearance over the obstacle. The
total diffraction loss, A(v, ), in dB, is the sum of three parts   A(v,0), A(0, ), and U(v, ). The equations to calculate the total and the three parts are given below: 
     A(v, )  = A(v,0) + A(0, ) + U(v, )                          (23)












     A(v,0)  = 6.02 + 9.0v + 1.65v2     for  -0.8 ó v ó 0                  (24)
     A(v,0)  = 6.02 + 9.11v + 1.27v2   for  0 ó v ó 2.4                    (25)

      A(v,0) = 12.593 + 20log10 (v)    for v > 2.4                         (26)
     A(v,0)  = 6.02 + 5.556  + 3.148 2 + 0.256 3                      (27)
     U(v, ) = 11.45v  + 2.19(v )2 - 0.206(v )3 - 6.02 for v  ó 3                (28)
     U(v, ) = 13.47v  + 1.058(v )2 - 0.048(v )3 - 6.02 for 3 < v  ó 5      (29)
     U(v, ) = 20v  - 18.2  for v > 5                                  (30)
where the curvature factor is
  =`0.676``R sup {0.333} ` f sup {-0.1667}``sqrt{{d over {d sub 1``d sub 2}}}

                                   (31)


The obstacle radius R is in kilometers, and the frequency f is in MHz.  The distance term d is the
path length from the transmitter (or preceding obstacle) to the receiver (or next obstacle), d1 is the
distance from the transmitter (or preceding obstacle) to the obstacle, and d2 is the distance from the obstacle to the receiver (or next obstacle). When the radius is zero,
the obstacle is a knife edge, and A(v, ) = A(v,0).
The parameter v in the equations above takes into account the geometry of the path and can be thought of as the bending
angle of the radio path over the obstacle.  It is computed as:
ital v ` ` = ` ` SQRT {{2  d ` ` tan ( alpha ) ` ` tan ( beta )}over lambda }

                                        (32)


where d is the path length from the transmitter (or preceding obstacle) to the receiver (or next obstacle), à is the angle relative to a line from the transmitter (or preceding
obstacle) to the receiver (or next obstacle), and   is the angle relative to a line from the receiver (or next obstacle) to the transmitter (or preceding obstacle).  The
definitions of à and   are shown in Figure 1.  For the multiple obstacle case, obstacles are treated successively as transmitter-obstacle-receiver triads to construct the path
geometry and bending angle v over each obstacle.  The value of v is then used to calculate the diffraction loss over each obstacle. The resulting obstacle losses are summed
to arrive at the total obstacle diffraction loss for the path.
   Summary of Calculation of Field Strength at the Receiver Under NLOS ConditionsThe field strength at the receiver in the NLOS mode can then
be written as:
E sub r``=`` 1`04.77`-`20`log`(d sub r)`+`P sub T`-`A sub diff~~~dB æ  V/m
                         (33)


where all the terms have the same definitions as given in the preceding
subsection and the term Adiff is defined as:
ital A sub diff = SUM FROM {n = 1} TO {n sub obs} {A sub n (v,rho)~~dB}

                                             (34)

where A(v, ) is defined in Equation (23) and nobs is the number of obstructions in the path.
The corresponding path loss between antennas with 0 dBi gain in the path direction can be written as:L sub NLOS``=``32.45``+``20.0 log``f``+``20`log`d sub r``+``A sub diff~~~dB

                    (35)

                                 



                                                                   File Format 

To facilitate the exchange of data on two-way MDS and ITFS systems permissible under Parts 21 and 74, a file format is herein described for the submission of requisite
technical data to be provided to the Commission's copy contractor and to all parties which must be served with notice of the applications and/or engineering studies.  The
media and basic formatting of that media are defined by ISO/EIC Standards 9293.5 9529-1.6 and 9529-2.7. 
The remainder of this document outlines the format of technical information regarding each Response Service Area (RSA) to be submitted with each MDS/ITFS two-way
application.  The data shall appear in a number of sections for the purpose of grouping similar items within the file.  Data shall be coded in an ASCII-formatted,
comma-delimited file.  Carriage return (0Dh) and line feed (0Ah) characters shall be placed at the end of each line in the file, as is normal when using standard text editors. 
To help in identifying data, where file sections are formatted as tables, the first entry in each row within a table shall be a sequence number indicating the position of the
row within the table.  To the extent possible, the sequence number shall be representative of the type of data contained on the row, such as the number of degrees of
azimuth or elevation.A generic example of the required file construction appears at the end of this section and may be used as a template for the submission of data.  As
shown there, section titles shall appear on a separate line in square brackets "[ ]" and shall be separated from the preceding sections and from the data within their own
sections by a blank line.  Headers shall appear on the top line of the data contained within a section.  Headers may contain data and may also help with both human and
machine readability.
     Units of measure that are to be utilized for all information supplied in the file are:
     Latitude   Degrees, Minutes, Seconds (DD,MM,SS)
     Longitude   Degrees, Minutes, Seconds (DDD,MM,SS)
     Azimuth or Bearing   Degrees (to 1 decimal place)
     Radius   Miles (to 2 decimal places)
     Ground Elevation   Feet AMSL (to 0 decimal places)
     Antenna Height   Feet AGL (to 2 decimal places)
     Electrical Antenna Tilt   Degrees (to 1 decimal place)
     Mechanical Antenna Tilt   Degrees (to 1 decimal place)
     Azimuth of Mechanical Antenna Tilt   Degrees (to 1 decimal place)
     Power (EIRP)   dBW (to 2 decimal places)
     Antenna Gain   dBi (to 2 decimal places)

1.  General Information
Section Title:      "General Info" 
Entries:       File Number (Assigned by Commission)
               Licensee name
               City/State of hub location 
               Coordinates of hub location
               Ground Elevation of hub location (feet)
               Call sign/file number of station being modified (if applicable)
               City/State of station being modified 
2.  Geographic Boundary Definitions   Circular Areas Only
Section Title:      "Circular Geographic Areas
                    Section Header:     RSA Circular (0 or 1), Regions Circular (00 or RR, where RR = total # of circular regions)
                              Entries:00, RSA Center Latitude, RSA Center Longitude, RSA Radius (omit entries other than leading 00 if RSA is non-circular)
                              01, Region 01 Center Latitude, Region 01 Center Longitude, Region 01 Radius
                              02, Region 02 Center Latitude, Region 02 Center Longitude, Region 02 Radius
                                   :
                                   :
                              RR, Region RR Center Latitude, Region RR Center Longitude, Region RR Radius
The geographic area of an RSA or region may be described by a circle having a defined center point location and a radius.  If the RSA is circular, then RSA Circular =
1, otherwise 0.
If there are circular regions, then Regions Circular = the number of such regions, RR.  Otherwise, Regions Circular = 00.
3.Geographic Boundary Definitions   Non-Circular Areas
Section Title:      "Non-Circular Areas"
                    Section Header:     RSA Non-Circular (0 or 1), Regions Non-Circular (00 or NN, where NN = total # of non-circular regions), # of points defining RSA (XXX),
                    # of points defining region RR+1 (AAA),  , # of points defining region RR+NN (ZZZ)
               Entries:       RSA Latitude (001), RSA Longitude (001), Region 01 Latitude (001), Region 01 Longitude (001),  , Region NN Latitude (001), Region NN
               Longitude (001)
                              RSA Latitude (002), RSA Longitude (002), Region 01 Latitude (002), Region 01 Longitude (002),  , Region NN Latitude (002),
               Region NN Longitude (002)
                                   :
                                   :
                              RSA Latitude (XXX), RSA Longitude (XXX), Region 01 Latitude (AAA), Region 01 Longitude (AAA),  , Region NN Latitude
               (ZZZ), Region NN Longitude (ZZZ)
The geographic descriptions of an RSA in the sections for Circular Areas Only (Section 2) and for Non-Circular Areas are mutually exclusive.  One of them shall have
the RSA indicator set to 1; the other shall be set to 0.  Any RSA data contained in the section with the RSA indicator set to 0 shall be ignored.
Regions of both types, i.e., circular and non-circular, are permitted within a single RSA.  Regions in this non-circular section shall be numbered sequentially continuing
from the last region number in the circular section, i.e., from RR+1 to RR+NN, so that all regions have unique region numbers. 
4.Hub Sectorization Data
Section Title:      "Sectorization"
Section Header:     # of sectors within RSA (SS)
               Entries:       "Sector 01," Hub Receive Antenna Pattern #, Gain, Azimuth of Main Lobe or Azimuth of Symmetry, Height AGL, Electrical Beam Tilt,
               Mechanical Beam Tilt, Azimuth of Mechanical Beam Tilt, Polarization, Max Simultaneous Transmitters 
                              "Sector 02," Hub Receive Antenna Pattern #, Gain, Azimuth of Main Lobe or Azimuth of Symmetry, Height AGL, Electrical
               Beam Tilt, Mechanical Beam Tilt, Azimuth of Mechanical Beam Tilt, Polarization, Max Simultaneous Transmitters
                                   :
                                   :
                              "Sector (SS)," Hub Receive Antenna Pattern #, Gain, Azimuth of Main Lobe or Azimuth of Symmetry, Height AGL, Electrical
               Beam Tilt, Mechanical Beam Tilt, Azimuth of Mechanical Beam Tilt, Polarization, Max Simultaneous Transmitters
Each sector is to be assigned a number beginning with the sector whose main lobe azimuth is pointing due north or the closest to due north when proceeding in a clockwise
direction from true north.
The receiving antenna pattern used in each sector is defined in the Antenna Pattern Data section, and the association of each sector with a specific antenna pattern is made
here.  This pattern shall be used in the calculation of potential interference to a hub from surrounding stations.
The geographic definition of each sector is found in the Sector Geographic Definitions section.
Mechanical beam tilt for each hub receiving antenna is specified in this section.  Tilting the antenna downward is defined using a positive number.
The polarization of each sector is defined as either horizontal or vertical.
The maximum number of transmitters that can operate simultaneously on the channel or any subchannel within each sector is specified in this section.
5.Grid Point Definitions
Section Title:      "Grid Points"
Table Header:  # of grid points (MMMM)
               Entries:       Point 0001: Latitude, Longitude, Elevation, Region # in which Located, Bearing to Hub, Polarization (H, V, or B), Number of associated
               Class(es) of Station(s), Class Designators
                              Point 0002: Latitude, Longitude, Elevation, Region # in which Located, Bearing to Hub, Polarization (H,V, or B), Number of
               associated Class(es) of Station(s), Class Designators
                                   :
                                   :
                              Point MMMM: Latitude, Longitude, Elevation, Region # in which Located, Bearing to Hub, Polarization (H,V, or B), Number
               of associated Class(es) of Station(s), Class Designators
The header specifies the total number of grid points (MMMM) defined in the Grid Point Definition Table.
The location of each grid point is defined by latitude and longitude.  The bearing from the grid point to the hub is specified.  The region in which the grid point is located
is indicated using the region number assigned in the sections above giving geographic boundary definitions.  Grid points not located in specifically defined regions shall
be indicated as being in Region 00, which describes the remainder of the RSA.
Polarization for each grid point must be specified as horizontal (H), vertical (V), or both (B).  In areas where sectors having opposite polarizations overlap, it may be
desirable to have the flexibility to utilize both polarizations.  If so, grid points in these overlapping areas must be specified as B, both polarizations.
Each grid point must be assigned at least one class of station.  Assignment of multiple classes to a single grid point is also permitted.
6. Sector Geographic Definitions
Section Title:      "Sector Definitions"
Table Header:  # of sectors (SS), Bearings or Coordinates (B or C)
               Entries:       "Sector 01," Start Bearing, Stop Bearing
(Bearings)          "Sector 02," Start Bearing, Stop Bearing
                         :
               "Sector SS," Start Bearing, Stop Bearing
                         OR
               Table Header:  # of sectors (SS), Bearings or Coordinates (B or C), # of Coordinates in sector 01 (CC1), # of Coordinates in Sector 02  (CC2),  , # of
               Coordinates in sector SS (CCC) 

               Entries:       Sector 01 Latitude (001), Sector 01 Longitude (001), Sector 02 Latitude (001), Sector 02 Longitude (001),  , Sector SS Latitude (001),
               Longitude Sector SS (001)

                              Sector 01 Latitude (002), Sector 01 Longitude (002), Sector 02 Latitude (002), Sector 02 Longitude (002),  , Sector SS Latitude
               (002), Sector SS Longitude (002)
                              :
                              :
                              Sector 01 Latitude (CC1), Sector 01 Longitude (CC1), Sector 02 Latitude (CC2), Sector 02 Longitude (CC2),  , Sector SS
               Latitude (CCC), Sector SS Longitude (CCC)

Sector geographic boundaries can be described in either of two ways: (1) as straight lines radiating out from the hub location at the specified bearings until they cross
the outer boundary of the RSA, or (2) as sets of coordinates between which straight boundary lines exist that describe closed geographic areas.  In either case, sectors
may overlap, and, when they do, grid points in the overlap areas must be analyzed as though they were included exclusively within each sector.  When sets of coordinates
are used, the last coordinate pair shall be assumed to connect to the first such pair.

7.Response Station Class Data

Section Title:      "Class Info"

Table Header:  # of classes (CL)

               Entries:       "Class 1," Worst Case Ant Pattern #, Max Height, Max Power, Number of Regions in Which Used, Region(s) in Which Used, Maximum
               Simultaneous Number within Each Region

                              "Class 2," Worst Case Ant Pattern #, Max Height, Max Power, Region(s) in Which Used, Maximum Simultaneous Number within
               Each Region
                         :
                         :
                              "Class CL," Worst Case Ant Pattern #, Max Height, Max Power, Region(s) in Which Used, Maximum Simultaneous Number
               within Each Region

Classes are defined by the combination of the worst case antenna pattern, the maximum height above ground level (AGL) at which the antennas may be mounted, and
the maximum power (EIRP) they may emit.

Associated with each class description is one or more pairs of values indicating the region numbers in which the class is used and the maximum number of transmitters
that may transmit simultaneously on the channel or on each subchannel within each region.  The two types of values alternate, and one pair is present for each region
in which the particular class is used.  The regions shall be listed in ascending numerical order.

8.Antenna Pattern Data (Hub Receive and Worst Case Response Transmit)
               Section Title:        "Antenna Patterns"
               
                                Table Header:    # hub antenna patterns (HP), # of worst case response station transmit antenna patterns (RP)
               
                                Entries:         000, Hub (1) Plane Azimuth, Hub (1) Cross Azimuth, Hub (1) Plane Elevation, Hub 1 Cross Elevation, Hub (2)
                                Plane Azimuth, Hub (2) Cross Azimuth, Hub (2) Plane Elevation, Hub (2) Cross Elevation,  , Hub (HP) Plane
                                Azimuth, Hub (HP) Cross Azimuth, Hub (HP) Plane Elevation, Hub (HP) Cross Elevation, Response (1) Plane
                                Azimuth, Response (1) Cross Azimuth, Response (2) Plane Azimuth, Response (2) Cross Azimuth,  , Response
                                (RP) Plane Azimuth, Response (RP) Cross Azimuth
                                       
                                       001, Hub (1) Plane Azimuth, Hub (1) Cross Azimuth, Hub (1)  Plane Elevation, Hub (1) Cross
                           Elevation, Hub (2) Plane Azimuth, Hub (2) Cross Azimuth, Hub (2) Plane Elevation, Hub (2) Cross
                           Elevation,  , Hub (HP) Plane Azimuth, Hub (HP) Cross Azimuth, Hub (HP) Plane Elevation, Hub
                           (HP) Cross Elevation, Response (1) Plane Azimuth, Response (1) Cross Azimuth, Response (2) Plane
                           Azimuth, Response (2) Cross Azimuth,  , Response (RP) Plane Azimuth, Response (RP) Cross
                           Azimuth
                                               :
                                               :
                                       359, Hub (1) Plane Azimuth, Hub (1) Cross Azimuth, Hub (1)  Plane Elevation, Hub (1) Cross
                           Elevation, Hub (2) Plane Azimuth, Hub (2) Cross Azimuth, Hub (2) Plane Elevation, Hub (2) Cross
                           Elevation,  , Hub (HP) Plane Azimuth, Hub (HP) Cross Azimuth, Hub (HP) Plane Elevation, Hub
                           (HP) Cross Elevation, Response (1) Plane Azimuth, Response (1) Cross Azimuth, Response (2) Plane
                           Azimuth, Response (2) Cross Azimuth,  , Response (RP) Plane Azimuth, Response (RP) Cross
                           Azimuth
               The hub receiving antenna patterns and response station transmitting antenna patterns shall be defined in 1 degree increments beginning with 0 degrees
               and ending at 359 degrees.  All entries shall be in dB relative to the peak response.  Azimuth patterns shall be entered from
               0 to 359 degrees and elevation patterns from -90 to +90 degrees, with positive (+) numbers indicating degrees below the
               horizon.  In cases where elevation data is known only over a limited range, just the known points should be entered.  For
               angles at which data is not available, a space (20h) shall be inserted as a place holder.
               Example File & Template
               In the example file and template below, formatting elements and descriptive terms to be included in the submitted file exactly as shown are in plain
               text.  Those items to be replaced by real data and shown here as place holders for purposes of example are shown in
               italicized text and CAPITAL LETTERS.
               [General Info]
               File FILE NUMBER
               Licensee LICENSEE NAME
               Hub Lat DDMMSS, Hub Lon DDDMMSS
               Hub City CITY, ST
               Elevation AMSL FEET
               Call CALL SIGN
               Stn City CITY, ST
               [Circular Geographic Areas]
               RSA 0/1, Regions 00/RR
               00,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,MI.MM
               01,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,MI.MM
               02,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,MI.MM
               :: :::::: ::::::: ::::::
               :: :::::: ::::::: ::::::
               RR,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,MI.MM
               [Non-Circular Areas]
               RSA 0/1, Regions 00/NN
               00,XXX,RR+1,AAA,RR+2,BBB,...,RR+NN,ZZZ
               001,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,...,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS
               002,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,...,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS
               :::,
               :::,
               ZZZ,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,...,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS
               [Sectorization]
               Sectors SS
               Sector, Hub Pat, Gain, Az, AGL, Tilt, Pol, Max # Trans
               01,HP,dB.dB,DDD.DD,FFFF,DD.D,H/V,TTTT
               02,HP,dB.dB,DDD.DD,FFFF,DD.D,H/V,TTTT
               03,HP,dB.dB,DDD.DD,FFFF,DD.D,H/V,TTTT
               :: :: :: :: ::: :::: :: : : : ::::
               :: :: :: :: ::: :::: :: : : : ::::
               SS,HP,dB.dB,DDD.DD,FFFF,DD.D,H/V,TTTT
               [Grid Points]
               Points MMMM
               Pnt, Lat, Lon, Elev, Regn, Bearing, Pol, # Classes, Class Designators...
               0001,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,FFFF,R#,DDD.DD,H/V/B,###,CC1,CC2,CC3,...CC###
               0002,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,FFFF,R#,DDD.DD,H/V/B,###,CC1,CC2,CC3,...CC###
               0003,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,FFFF,R#,DDD.DD,H/V/B,###,CC1,CC2,CC3,...CC###
               :::: :::::: ::::::: :: :: :::: : : : ::: ::: ::: :::    :::
               :::: :::::: ::::::: :: :: :::: : : : ::: ::: ::: :::    :::
               MMMM,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,FFFF,R#,DDD.DD,H/V/B,###,CC1,CC2,CC3,...CC###
               [Sector Definitions]
               Sectors SS, Type B
               01,DD.DD,DD.DD
               02,DD.DD,DD.DD
               03,DD.DD,DD.DD
               :: :: :: :: ::
               :: :: :: :: ::
               SS,DD.DD,DD.DD
               OR
               Sectors SS, Type C,01,CC1,02,CC2,03,CC3,...SS,CCC
               001,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,...DDMMSS,DDDMMSS
               002,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,...DDMMSS,DDDMMSS
               003,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,...DDMMSS,DDDMMSS
               ::: :::::: ::::::: :::::: ::::::: :::::: :::::::    :::::: :::::::
               ::: :::::: ::::::: :::::: ::::::: :::::: :::::::    :::::: :::::::
               CCC,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,DDMMSS,DDDMMSS,...DDMMSS,DDDMMSS
               [Class Info]
               Classes CL
               Class, Pattern, AGL, Max EIRP, # Reg, Reg, Max # Tx
               01,PAT,HHH,dB.dB,##,R1,##R1,R2,##R2,...RG,##RG
               02,PAT,HHH,dB.dB,##,R1,##R1,R2,##R2,...RG,##RG
               03,PAT,HHH,dB.dB,##,R1,##R1,R2,##R2,...RG,##RG
               :: ::: ::: :: :: :: :: :::: :: ::::    :: ::::
               :: ::: ::: :: :: :: :: :::: :: ::::    :: ::::
               CL,PAT,HHH,dB.dB,##,R1,##R1,R2,##R2,...RG,##RG
               [Antenna Patterns]
               Hub HP, Response RP
               Deg,H01PA,H01CA,H01PE,H01CE,H02PA,H02CA,H02PE,H02CE,...HHPPA,HHPCA,HHPPE,HHPCE,R01PA,R01CA,R01PE,R01CE,R02PA,R02CA,R02P
               E,R02CE,...RRPPA,RRPCA,RRPPE,RRPCE
               000,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,...dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.d
               B,dB.dB,...dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB
               001,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,...dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.d
               B,dB.dB,...dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB
               002,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,...dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.d
               B,dB.dB,...dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB
               ::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ...::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: :::::
               ::::: ...::::: ::::: ::::: :::::
               ::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ...::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: :::::
               ::::: ...::::: ::::: ::::: :::::
               358,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,...dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.d
               B,dB.dB,...dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB
               359,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,...dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.d
               B,dB.dB,...dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB,dB.dB