§ 27.1504 Mandatory relocation.

(a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, 900 MHz broadband licensees may require mandatory relocation of covered incumbents from the 897.5-900.5 MHz and 936.5-939.5 MHz bands as follows: remaining site-channels in a given county or within 70 miles of the county boundary, and geographically licensed channels where the license area completely or partially overlaps the county, that were not covered by § 27.1503(a)(1)(ii) or 27.1503(a)(2)(ii). (b) Complex systems are exempt from mandatory relocation. To qualify as exempt from mandatory relocation, a complex system must have at least one site (of its 45 or more functionally integrated sites) located within the county license area or within 70 miles of the county boundary. (c) A broadband licensee seeking to relocate a covered incumbent pursuant to this section is required to pay all reasonable relocation costs, including providing the relocated covered incumbent with comparable facilities. To be comparable, the replacement system provided to a covered incumbent during a mandatory relocation must be at least equivalent to the existing 900 MHz system with respect to the following four factors: (1) System; (2) Capacity; (3) Quality of service; and (4) Operating costs. (d) Having met the 90% success threshold referenced in § 27.1503, a 900 MHz broadband licensee seeking to trigger the mandatory relocation process shall serve notice on all applicable covered incumbents and file such notice in ULS as a pleading to the relevant call sign(s). (e) Following the service of notice, a 900 MHz broadband licensee may request information from the covered incumbent reasonably required to craft its offer of comparable facilities. (f) We expect all parties to negotiate with the utmost “good faith” in the negotiation process. Factors relevant to a “good-faith” determination include: (1) Whether the party responsible for paying the cost of band reconfiguration has made a bona fide offer to relocate the incumbent to comparable facilities; (2) The steps the parties have taken to determine the actual cost of relocation to comparable facilities; and (3) Whether either party has unreasonably withheld information, essential to the accurate estimation of relocation costs and procedures, requested by the other party. (g) A party seeking Commission resolution of a dispute must submit the request in writing to the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and file such notice in ULS as a pleading to the relevant call sign(s), including: (1) The name, address, telephone number, and email address of the 900 MHz broadband licensee or covered incumbent making the allegation; (2) The name of the 900 MHz broadband licensee or covered incumbent about which the allegation is made; (3) A complete statement of the facts supporting the broadband licensee's or incumbent's claim; and (4) The specific relief sought. (h) If an incumbent fails to negotiate in good faith, its facilities may be mandatorily relocated, and its license modified accordingly by the Commission pursuant to section 316 of the Act. If the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau finds bad faith on the part of the broadband licensee, the broadband licensee may lose the right to relocate the incumbent or the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may refer the matter to the Enforcement Bureau for action (which could include a range of sanctions, such as imposition of forfeitures).