11.

For further information concerning this proceeding, contact R. Barthen Gorman, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. For purposes of this restricted notice and comment rule making proceeding, members of the public are advised that no ex parte presentations are permitted from the time the Commission adopts a Notice of Proposed Rule Making until the proceeding has been decided and such decision is no longer subject to reconsideration by the Commission or review by any court. An ex parte presentation is not prohibited if specifically requested by the Commission or staff for the clarification or adduction of evidence or resolution of issues in the proceeding. However, any new written information elicited from such a request or a summary of any new oral information shall be served by the person making the presentation upon the other parties to the proceeding unless the Commission specifically waives this service requirement. Any comment, which has not been served on the petitioner, constitutes an ex parte presentation and shall not be considered in the proceeding. Any reply comment that has not been served on the person(s) who filed the comment, to which the reply is directed, constitutes an ex parte presentation and shall not be considered in the proceeding.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Attachment: Appendix

John A. Karousos

Chief, Allocations Branch
Policy and Rules Division
Mass Media Bureau

APPENDIX

1. Pursuant to authority contained in Sections 4(i), 5(c)(1), 303(g) and (r), and 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.204(b) and 0.283 of the Commission's Rules, IT IS PROPOSED TO AMEND the FM Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, as set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making to which this Appendix is attached.

2. Showings Required. Comments are invited on the proposal discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making to which this Appendix is attached. Proponent will be expected to answer whatever questions are presented in initial comments. The proponent of a proposed allotment is also expected to file comments even if it only resubmits or incorporates by reference its former pleadings. It should also restate its present intention to apply for the channel if it is allotted and, if authorized, to build a station promptly. Failure to file may lead to denial of the request.

3. Cut-off Procedures. The following procedures will govern the consideration of filings in this proceeding.

(a) Counterproposals advanced in this proceeding itself will be considered, if advanced in initial comments, so that parties may comment on them in reply comments. They will not be considered if advanced in reply comments. (See Section 1.420(d) of the Commission's Rules.)

(b) With respect to petitions for rule making which conflict with the proposal in this Notice, they will be considered as comments in the proceeding, and Public Notice to this effect will be given as long as they are filed before the date for filing initial comments herein. If they are filed later than that, they will not be considered in connection with the decision in this docket.

(c) The filing of a counterproposal may lead the Commission to allot a different channel than was requested for any of the communities involved.

4. Comments and Reply Comments: Service. Pursuant to applicable procedures set out in Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making to which this Appendix is attached. All submissions by parties to this proceeding or by persons acting on behalf of such parties must be made in written comments, reply comments, or other appropriate pleadings. Comments shall be served on the petitioner by the person filing the comments. Reply comments shall be served on the person who filed comments to which the reply is directed. Such comments and reply comments shall be accompanied by a certificate of service. (See Section 1.420(a), (b) and

(c) of the Commission's Rules.) Comments should be filed with the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

5. Number of Copies. In accordance with the provisions of Section 1.420 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments, pleadings, briefs, or other documents shall be furnished the Commission.

6. Public Inspection of Filings. All filings made in this proceeding will be available for examination by interested parties during regular business hours in the Commission's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), at its headquarters, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, D.C.

By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

1. Introduction. On January 8, 2001, Corn Belt Power Cooperative (Corn Belt) filed a petition for reconsideration of a December 6, 2000 action by the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch (Branch) of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Public Safety and Private Wireless Division granting license modifications, but changing the status of Stations WAP578, KAY54, KAY53, WJI81, and WJI80' from primary to secondary. In the alternative, Corn Belt requests a waiver of the Commission's Rules that would otherwise result in the reauthorization of the licenses on a secondary basis. For the reasons set forth below, we grant Corn Belt's petition.

2.

3

Background. The Commission has reallocated portions of the 2 GHz band from FMS to emerging technology (ET) services, including the personal communications services. To this end, the Commission has adopted certain transition rules. In doing so, the Commission balanced the needs of incumbent FMS licensees to continue to operate their systems with the need to conserve vacant 2 GHz spectrum for use by ET licensees, to provide ET licensees with a stable environment in which to plan and implement new services, and to prevent ET licensees from bearing additional costs in connection with relocating FMS licensees.' Thus, rather than immediately clearing the 2 GHz band of the incumbent

'The locations for these stations are as follows: WAP578 (Irvington, Iowa); KAY54 (Klemme, Iowa); KAY53 (Hampton, Iowa); WJI81 (Dumont, Iowa); and, WJI80 (Plainfield, Iowa).

2Corn Belt Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jan. 8, 2001) (Reconsideration Petition).

'Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications Technologies, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 92-9, 7 FCC Rcd 6886 (1992) (ET First Report and Order).

*47 C.F.R. §§ 101.69-101.81. The rules are intended to reaccommodate the FMS licensees in a manner that would be most advantageous for the incumbent users, least disruptive to the public, and most conducive to the introduction of new services. ET First Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 6886-87 ¶ 5.

'ET First Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 6886 ¶ 5, 6891 ¶ 30; Amendment to the Commission's Rules Regarding a Plan for Sharing the Costs of Microwave Relocation, First Report and Order and Further Notice of (continued....)

8

FMS users, FMS incumbents have been permitted to continue to occupy the band on a co-primary basis with the ET licensees for a significant length of time, by the end of which it is anticipated that the incumbents would relocate to other spectrum. ET licensees have the option, however, of requiring the FMS incumbents to relocate sooner if they pay the additional costs caused by the earlier relocation. In addition, we authorize new FMS stations, extensions of existing FMS systems, and major modifications of existing FMS stations only on a secondary basis to ET systems. Primary status is granted for a limited number of technical changes including inter alia, data corrections which do not involve a change in the location of an existing facility. All other minor modifications are authorized on a secondary basis unless the licensee can demonstrate that it needs primary status and that the modifications will not add to the relocation costs to be paid by the ET licensee.10 The result is that while incumbent FMS licensees are able to continue operating their systems with primary status - as those systems currently exist - any expansions and most modifications to the systems result in secondary status.

3. On September 29, 2000, Corn Belt filed applications seeking modifications of its licenses to operate Stations WAP578, KAY54, KAY53, WлI81, Wл80.11 In the modification applications, Corn Belt proposed changes in the coordinates of the station sites. It states that the purpose of the changes was to reflect more accurate and updated location information that Corn Belt had obtained as a result of more accurate mapping techniques. On December 6, 2000, the Branch granted the modification applications, but changed the license status of the stations from primary to secondary. On January 8, 2000, Corn Belt filed its reconsideration petition, requesting that the Commission reconsider the Branch's change of license status for the respective stations.

12

13

4. Discussion. In its Reconsideration Petition, Corn Belt asserts that its license modification applications should have been granted with primary status, pursuant to Section 101.81 of the Commission's

(Continued from previous page)

Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 95-157, 11 FCC Rcd 8825, 8867-69 ¶¶ 86-88 (1996) (Cost Sharing First Report and Order).

8

47 C.F.R. §§ 101.69(b), 101.79(a). See also ET First Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 6886 ¶ 5.

'See 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.69(a), 101.71-101.77.

$47 C.F.R. § 101.81. Secondary operations may not cause interference to operations authorized on a primary basis (e.g., the new ET licensees) and they are not protected from interference from primary operations. Cost Sharing First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 8869 ¶ 89. Thus, an incumbent operating under a secondary authorization must cease operations if it causes interference to an ET licensee. Id.

"Cost Sharing First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 8868 ¶ 88; 47 C.F.R. § 101.81(d).

1047 C.F.R. § 101.81.

"Reconsideration Petition at 1.

12Reconsideration Petition at 1-2. According to Corn Belt, the coordinates of the stations, all of which were constructed prior to 1974, were updated to reflect updated mapping information. Id. at 2. Corn Belt asserts that the original coordinates for these sites were established in 1959 and 1969 utilizing 1:250,000 topographical maps. Id. Corn Belt states that the corrections to the coordinates were made to reflect improved location information available to Corn Belt from newer 1:24,000 maps. Id.

13 Id. at 1.