# Before the

# Federal Communications Commission

# Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of: )

)

Amendment of the Commission's Rules ) WT Docket No. 97-81

Regarding Multiple Address Systems )

)

# MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

**Adopted: May 22, 2001 Released: May 29, 2001**

By the Commission:

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Paragraph No.

I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

II\. BACKGROUND [2](#ii.-background)

III\. DISCUSSION 6

A. Private Internal Service 7

B. Non-Profit Shared Use and Private Carrier Service 13

1\. Non-Profit Shared Use 14

2\. Private Carrier Service 16

C. Treatment of Incumbents 21

D. Service Areas 26

E. Operational Flexibility 29

F. Other Matters 34

1\. Frequency Assignments 34

2\. Suspension of the Acceptance and Processing of MAS Applications 36

IV\. CONCLUSION 39

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 41

VI\. ORDERING CLAUSES 44

APPENDIX A: lIST OF pETITIONERS/COMMENTERS

**APPENDIX B: FINAL RULES**

**APPENDIX C: SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT**

# I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.  In the Multiple Address Systems (MAS) *Report and Order*, WT Docket
    No. 97-81, we streamlined the licensing procedures, created a
    flexible regulatory framework, and restructured our Rules affecting
    the MAS service.[^1] This *Memorandum Opinion and Order* addresses
    four petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification of the *MAS
    R&O*. Generally, the petitioners applaud the Commission's efforts in
    this service and request reconsideration and/or clarification on
    issues relating to the types of services classified as private
    internal, grandfathering provisions as they relate to transfers and
    assignments, shared use and private carrier service in the private
    internal bands, operational flexibility, service area coverage of
    the Gulf of Mexico and other minor points that will help clarify our
    intentions for this service. In addition, we adopt minor changes on
    our own motion to certain technical requirements in Part 101, as
    well as, the current application freeze in certain MAS bands. In
    this *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, we grant two of the petitions
    and grant the third petition, in part. The fourth petition is
    dismissed as moot.

# II. BACKGROUND

2.  MAS is a radio communications service located in the 900 MHz band
    and licensed under Part 101 of our Rules. The service consists of a
    total of 3.2 MHz of spectrum and has primarily been used by the
    power, petroleum, and security industries for various alarm,
    control, interrogation, and status reporting requirements, and by
    the paging industry for control of multiple paging transmitters in
    the same general geographic area.[^2]

3.  On February 27, 1997, the Commission initiated a comprehensive
    examination of the MAS service exploring ways to streamline
    licensing procedures while increasing flexibility.[^3] Among other
    things, the Commission proposed to designate most of the spectrum in
    the 932/941 MHz bands and all of the spectrum in the 928/959 MHz
    bands for subscriber-based services, and to use competitive bidding
    to select among mutually exclusive applications for licenses in
    these bands.[^4] The Commission also proposed to designate the
    928/952/956 MHz bands exclusively for private internal use, and to
    forgo using competitive bidding to select among mutually exclusive
    applications in these bands.[^5] Additionally, the Commission
    temporarily suspended the acceptance and processing of MAS
    applications for new licenses, amendments, or modifications for the
    932/941 MHz bands, the 928/959 MHz bands, and applications to
    provide subscriber-based service in the 928/952/956 MHz bands
    pending the resolution of the issues in the proceeding.[^6]

4.  Subsequently, on March 6, 1998, the Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau concluded that certain users of MAS spectrum, specifically,
    GTECH Corporation (GTECH), CN WAN Corporation,[^7] Radscan of
    Detroit, Inc. (Radscan), Telebeeper of New Mexico, Inc.
    (Telebeeper), and Unicom Corporation (Unicom), do not provide
    subscriber-based services. Consequently, these entities could apply
    for the spectrum in the 928/952/956 MHz (private internal) MAS
    bands.[^8]

5.  On July 1, 1999, we released a *Further Notice*, seeking comment on
    the impact of the provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 on
    spectrum allocation and the licensing proposals initially introduced
    in the *Notice*.[^9] In addition, we expanded the application freeze
    by immediately suspending the acceptance and processing of
    applications in all of the MAS bands, regardless of the type of
    service proposed by the applicant.[^10] On January 19, 2000, we
    addressed the issues set forth in the *Notice* and *Further
    Notice*.[^11] In the *MAS R&O*, we (1) designated the 928/952/956
    MHz bands and twenty channels in the 932/941 MHz bands for public
    safety/Federal Government and private internal uses, to be licensed
    on a site-by-site basis; (2) established economic areas (EA) as the
    geographic area licensing boundaries for the 928/959 MHz bands and
    twenty channels in the 932/941 MHz bands; (3) grandfathered existing
    MAS operations while limiting expansion in the 928/959 MHz
    bands; (4) introduced flexibility to the MAS service by allowing
    mobile and fixed operations on a co-primary basis for, both,
    point-to-point and point-to-multipoint operations; and (5) modified
    the application freeze for the MAS bands.[^12]

# III. DISCUSSION

6.  We have before us four petitions for reconsideration and/or
    clarification (Petitions) filed by Schlumberger, Radscan, Critical
    Infrastructure Communications Coalition (CICC), a coalition of
    associations representing the interests of railroads, pipelines and
    utilities, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA).[^13] The Petitioners request reconsideration and/or
    clarification of the following decisions adopted in the *MAS
    R&O*: (1) designating the 928/952/956 MHz bands and twenty of the
    forty channel pairs in the 932/941 MHz bands for public
    safety/Federal Government and private internal services, and
    providing that these channels will be licensed on a first-come,
    first-served, site-by-site basis; (2) defining "private internal
    services" as "a service where licensees use their authorized
    frequencies purely for internal business purposes or public safety
    communications and not on a for-hire or for-profit basis;" (3)
    grandfathering existing MAS operations on the currently occupied
    bands and limiting system expansion in the 928/959 MHz bands; (4)
    establishing service areas based on EAs for geographic area
    licenses; and (5) introducing flexibility to the MAS technical rules
    by allowing MAS licensees to provide mobile and fixed operations on
    a co-primary basis for point-to-point and point-to-multipoint
    operations. The EPA filed a petition on behalf of the drinking water
    and wastewater treatment industries that use MAS spectrum for their
    Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems. Because
    the issues associated with the relief that is sought were addressed
    in the *MAS R&O*, we dismiss the EPA petition as moot.[^14]
    Additionally, throughout this *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, we
    initiate discussion of certain operational and grandfathering issues
    on our own motion in an effort to clarify our position with respect
    to certain policies and rules.

## A. Private Internal Service

7.  [Background]{.underline}*.* In the *MAS R&O*, we allotted spectrum
    for current and future MAS uses by examining the dominant use of the
    spectrum.[^15] We concluded that examining the dominant and/or
    historical use of the MAS bands is a practical approach to licensing
    the bands by which we could better accommodate particular service
    demands.[^16] In this connection, we determined that the dominant
    use[^17] of the 928/952/956 MHz bands would be by entities that
    provide services that were private internal in nature, and thus,
    designated the 928/952/956 MHz bands for private internal
    service.[^18] In an effort to alleviate the congestion in the highly
    encumbered 928/952/956 MHz bands, we provided access to additional
    spectrum by designating twenty channels in the 932/941 MHz bands for
    public safety/Federal Government and private internal services.[^19]
    Additionally, we defined "private internal" for purposes of MAS in
    Section 101.1305 of the Rules as "a service where entities utilize
    frequencies purely for internal business purposes or public safety
    communications and not on a for-hire or for-profit basis."[^20]

8.  Radscan provides security alarm monitoring services to control
    station alarm monitoring companies, such as ADT Security Systems and
    Security Link from Ameritech.[^21] Other entities may use MAS
    frequencies as internal "links" to control their paging base
    stations. We did not list entities that were included within the
    scope of the "private internal" definition in the *MAS R&O*. As a
    result, Radscan has expressed concern with respect to its
    eligibility for the private internal MAS bands, seeking
    clarification that the services it provides are in fact private
    internal.[^22] We will specifically address the eligibility status
    of the type of service provided by Radscan in an effort to clarify
    our intentions in this regard.

9.  [Discussion]{.underline}*.* As stated previously, we defined
    "private internal" service for purposes of MAS as "a service where
    licensees use their authorized frequencies purely for internal
    business purposes or public safety communications and not on a
    for-hire or for-profit basis."[^23] Thus, an entity may use MAS
    spectrum designated for internal use if the entity satisfies a
    two-prong test. First, the spectrum must be used for either (1)
    internal business purposes or (2) public safety communications. We
    note that in the Part 90 (Private Land Mobile Radio Services)
    context, we described "internal systems" as systems in which all
    messages are transmitted between the fixed operating positions
    located on premises controlled by the licensee and the associated
    mobile stations or paging receivers of the licensee.[^24] If the
    entity satisfies the first prong of the test, then we must determine
    whether the use of the spectrum is for-hire or for-profit. We have
    previously stated that a system is neither subscriber-based nor
    for-profit where a system (1) is only used for internal
    communications; and (2) is not offered to other entities for
    compensation.[^25] In addition, we stated that one of the most
    common characteristics of private internal radio systems is that
    "the systems are not operated as a direct source of revenue, but
    rather as a means of internal communications to support the
    licensees' business operations . . ."[^26]

10. In its petition, Radscan, a company that offers alarm monitoring
    services, requests confirmation that its use of MAS frequencies
    falls within our "private internal" definition contained in Section
    101.1305 of our Rules.[^27] According to Radscan, its frequencies
    are used purely for internal business purposes and points out that
    neither subscribers to its security service nor its central station
    customers have access to any transmission capacity on its MAS
    frequencies.[^28] Furthermore, Radscan asserts that all information
    transmitted on its MAS frequencies is selected and formatted by
    Radscan and that its end-users have no choice regarding the form or
    content of the messages transmitted by the remote unit.[^29]

11. Upon reviewing the record in this proceeding, we believe that
    Radscan uses the MAS frequencies for internal purposes. Radscan
    constructs a network of master stations with overlapping service
    contours.[^30] Its master stations are free-standing,
    multi-microprocessor systems capable of responding to buffering and
    screening classes of messages, transmitting to remotes,
    communicating with other master stations, and communicating by
    back-up telephone modem with central stations.[^31] Remote units in
    this instance are passive telemetry devices capable only of
    reporting the status of various sensors such as the door and window
    monitors or fire prevention systems to which they are
    connected.[^32] Additionally, the remote units, which are installed
    at end-users premises, are either two-way transceivers polled by
    master stations, or one-way transmitters that are programmed to send
    messages to master stations at certain intervals.[^33] The master
    stations in this instance are, arguably, located on premises
    controlled by Radscan and are thus consistent with the requirements
    for "internal" use.

12. Moreover, we believe that Radscan's use of the MAS frequencies is
    not on a for-hire or for-profit basis because the system is not
    offered to others for a profit. A utility uses MAS frequencies for
    private internal uses, such as monitoring and information
    collection. The end-product is not delivered over the MAS
    frequencies to be sold for a profit like the provision of a
    telecommunications service[^34] which is an end-product that is sold
    for a profit. Radscan's use of the MAS frequencies is virtually
    indistinguishable from that of utilities in that information
    transmitted over the frequencies is used in conjunction with selling
    alarm monitoring services as an end-product, rather than a
    telecommunications service. In this connection, we agree with
    Radscan's assertion that the MAS frequencies are a tool which
    facilitates the provision of the end-product.[^35] Accordingly, we
    conclude that MAS frequencies in this instance are not used as a
    "direct source of revenue," but rather as a means of internal
    communications to support a business. Therefore, Radscan's use of
    the MAS frequencies is private internal and its operations are
    eligible for those MAS bands designated for private internal
    use.[^36]

## B. Non-Profit Shared Use and Private Carrier Service

13. [Background]{.underline}. As stated earlier, in the *MAS R&O*, we
    determined that the dominant use of the 928/952/956 MHz bands is for
    private internal and public safety services and thus, reserved these
    bands and twenty channels in the 932/941 MHz bands for such
    use.[^37] Additionally, we defined "private internal service" as "a
    service where licensees use their authorized frequencies purely for
    internal business purposes or public safety communications and not
    on a for-hire or for-profit basis."[^38] In this connection, we
    prohibited all non-private internal use by future licensees.
    Specifically, our revised Section 101.135(e) prohibited the
    provision of service on a non-profit, cost-shared basis or on a
    for-profit private carrier basis in the 928/952/956 MHz and twenty
    channels in the 932/941 MHz MAS bands which are designated for
    private internal services.[^39]

### *1. Non-Profit Shared Use*

14. [Discussion]{.underline}. CICC objects to our decision prohibiting
    service that is provided on a non-profit, cost-shared basis.[^40]
    Specifically, CICC states that we should continue to permit the
    licensing of non-profit, cost-shared systems in the private MAS
    bands by parties that are otherwise eligible for individual
    licensing for the private MAS bands.[^41] CICC adds that industries
    that need access to the spectrum for private systems could assist
    the Commission in policing the use of this spectrum and protecting
    against "sham" private applications to abate any Commission concerns
    about the possibility of licensees seeking to use this spectrum to
    deploy for-profit systems.[^42] Upon reviewing the record, we
    believe that reinstating the provision allowing non-profit,
    cost-shared use is in the public interest.

15. We have often encouraged employing not-for-profit, cost-sharing
    methodologies to promote efficient spectrum use. For instance, in a
    previous rule making proceeding relating to the multiple licensing
    of facilities and the cooperative sharing of systems in the private
    mobile radio service, the Commission recognized several benefits of
    non-profit, cost-shared systems, including better utilization of
    spectral resources and a less costly option than individual
    systems.[^43] We have also noted that cost-shared systems may
    facilitate communications among public service entities, such as
    utilities and public safety entities, citing that shared systems
    will promote effective public safety communications.[^44] Thus, we
    agree with CICC's assertion that restricting cost-shared systems is
    contrary to established Commission policies. In addition, we believe
    that reinstating such methodology to the 928/952/956 MHz bands and
    the twenty channels designated for private internal services in the
    932/941 MHz MAS bands would best serve the public interest and would
    afford a viable option for securing spectrum in the highly
    encumbered private internal bands. Accordingly, we will revise our
    Rules consistent with the decision stated in this discussion.

### *2. Private Carrier Service*

16. [Discussion]{.underline}. Schlumberger disagrees with our decision
    to prohibit service that is provided on a for-profit private carrier
    basis in the private internal MAS bands, stating that we neglected
    to provide an adequate explanation as to why the restriction was
    beneficial or in the public interest in the *MAS R&O*. [^45]
    Moreover, Schlumberger indicates that permitting the leasing of
    excess capacity encourages efficient spectrum use, permits licensees
    to help defray the costs of providing private internal radio
    services, and would be consistent with the operational flexibility
    provided under the new MAS rules.[^46]

17. While we agree that there are certain benefits derived from allowing
    licensees to lease excess capacity, we have an obligation to balance
    these benefits with the capacity demands for radio spectrum. We
    recognize that leasing excess capacity facilitates spectrum
    efficiency and helps to lower the costs associated with using
    wireless services in connection with private business operations,
    however, we believe that in this particular instance, such benefits
    can be achieved from non-profit, cost-shared use of the private
    internal bands. Thus, we will deny the Petitioner's request to
    permit for-profit private carrier operations in the private internal
    MAS bands.

18. Although both uses, non-profit shared and private carriage, are
    extensions of spectrum sharing that offer similar advantages, we
    believe that a synergy exists between private internal use and
    non-profit use of spectrum that would support permitting
    cost-shared, non-profit use in the MAS bands designated for private
    internal use. In the context of private carrier service, however,
    such use is more akin to non-private internal spectrum needs
    because 1) it is not designed to meet a licensee's internal needs
    and 2) such use of spectrum is on a for-profit basis. Thus, we
    believe that private carrier service is a broader use of the
    spectrum that would, in this instance, be more appropriate in a band
    that supports a broader category of uses. In this connection, the
    MAS bands designated for non-private internal service would be a
    more suitable venue for private carrier service.

19. Despite our decision to reinstate non-profit, cost sharing to the
    private internal MAS bands, we will not reverse our previous
    decision to prohibit private carrier use in such bands. We note that
    we are not prohibiting licensees from providing private carrier
    service in all of the MAS bands. We are merely barring future
    licensees in the MAS bands that are designated for private internal
    service from providing private carrier service. In this regard, we
    deny Petitioner's request to allow private carrier service on the
    MAS bands designated for private internal use.

20. Additionally, we will, on our own motion, modify our Rules to
    emphasize that grandfathered operations cannot be modified in a
    manner that is inconsistent with our current Rules. In this
    connection, operators in the private internal bands are prohibited
    from acquiring new frequencies for the purpose of expanding private
    carrier service in the private internal bands and from changing the
    use of their frequencies in any manner that violates our Rules.

## C. Treatment of Incumbents

21. [Background]{.underline}. In the *MAS R&O*, we added Section
    101.1331 to our Rules which, among other things, discusses incumbent
    operators in the 928/952/956 MHz bands. Specifically, we permit
    incumbent operators in the 928/952/956 MHz bands to operate and
    expand their systems in accordance with the interference protection
    and co-channel spacing criteria set forth in Section 101.105 of our
    Rules.[^47] In addition, we define "incumbent" as any station
    licensed by the Commission prior to July 1, 1999, as well as, any
    assignments or transfers of such station as of January 19,
    2000.[^48]

22. Although our Rules allow operators in the 928/952/956 MHz bands to
    assign their licenses to anyone (subject to the Commission's
    approval), Section 101.1331 creates the possibility that the new
    licensee will no longer qualify as an incumbent if the transfer
    occurs after January 19, 2000. Therefore, if the new operator is not
    an incumbent, then its operations will not be grandfathered and the
    operator would have to comply with our current eligibility
    requirements for the 928/952/956 MHz bands, *i.e.*, private internal
    service.

23. [Discussion]{.underline}. Both Schlumberger and Radscan urge us to
    reconsider our Rules with respect to transfers and assignments to
    ensure that the transfer of licenses and the systems associated with
    them, does not alter the availability of such networks for continued
    use, regardless of the eligibility of the transferee or assignee to
    apply for new 928/952 MHz licenses.[^49] Specifically, Schlumberger
    states that we should extend grandfathering protections in the
    928/952 MHz bands to all licenses that are subject to transfers of
    control or assignments if the original use of the license will
    remain unchanged because the current rules bar the sale of a
    grandfathered business that relies on MAS licensed facilities with
    incumbency status.[^50]

24. We agree with Schlumberger's assertion that the effect of Section
    101.1331(b) may preclude the eligibility of certain subsequent
    transferees and/or assignees for the 928/952/956 MHz private
    internal MAS bands if such transfer did not occur as of January
    19, 2000. Additionally, we realize that the effect of our Rules may
    inhibit the future business plans and transactions of some MAS
    licensees. In an effort to alleviate this result, we will modify our
    Rules by extending the privileges of grandfathered incumbents in the
    928/952/956 MHz bands to transferees and/or assignees of incumbents
    and their successors whose MAS operations remain unchanged. In this
    connection, we will not prohibit the transfer and/or assignment of
    licenses held by incumbents in the private internal MAS bands to
    entities seeking to employ non-private internal uses. Our purpose
    for grandfathering operations in the 928/952/956 MHz bands in the
    *MAS R&O* was to restrict the extent to which our policies may
    adversely affect non-private internal operations and the business
    plans of those licensees. Thus, our intention was to protect the
    operations of the existing licensees. However, upon reviewing the
    record, we believe that modifying our current regulations to
    accommodate and protect the operations of transferees and/or
    assignees of the incumbent operators and their successors in the
    928/952/956 MHz band would be more equitable and less onerous to
    existing users. In addition, this approach ensures that all existing
    MAS operations are better protected and is thus, in the public
    interest. We emphasize that new licensees outside the
    transfer/assignment context as set forth herein will be required to
    satisfy the eligibility requirements of the MAS bands for which they
    are applying.

25. Moreover, on our own motion, we will take this opportunity to
    clarify Section 101.1331(a) of our Rules. Section 101.1331(a) reads
    as follows: "Any station licensed by the Commission prior to July 1,
    1999, as well as any assignments or transfers of such station as of
    January 19, 2000, shall be considered incumbent."[^51] In this
    regard, we clarify that assignments of the subject stations or
    transfers of control must have been approved by the Commission and
    consummated as of January 19, 2000 to be eligible for incumbency
    status. *Pro forma* transactions involving non-substantial changes
    will not affect the eligibility status of an MAS operator. We
    believe that these revisions are in the public interest as they will
    foster a better understanding of our intentions for incumbents and
    will provide a clearer standard by which the public can easily
    discern incumbents from non-incumbents.

## D. Service Areas 

26. [Background]{.underline}. In the *MAS R&O*, we determined that EAs
    constitute the most appropriate geographic area licensing boundaries
    for the portions of the MAS bands that were designated for
    geographic area licensing.[^52] We stated that EAs are large enough
    to permit wide-area service, small enough to provide an opportunity
    for small businesses to obtain a license, and mirror the size and
    development of existing MAS systems.[^53] In this connection, we
    adopted the proposal to use a total of 175 service areas -- 172 EAs
    specified by the Department of Commerce and three EA-like areas for
    Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico and the United
    States Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.[^54] CICC believes we
    should add an "EA-like" area to comprise the Gulf of Mexico.[^55]
    CICC believes that all MAS channels should be available for
    licensing in the Gulf of Mexico.[^56]

27. [Discussion]{.underline}*.* Upon further review of this issue, we
    believe that adding an EA-like area comprised of the Gulf of Mexico
    for MAS would serve the public interest. CICC avers that adding one
    EA-like area comprised of the Gulf of Mexico would maximize the
    range of communications options available to the Gulf population and
    would promote consistency with the service areas available for
    private internal MAS use.[^57]

28. We agree. The Gulf area has experienced increased demand for voice,
    data and video telecommunications services.[^58] As a result of this
    growth, we have in other wireless services recognized the benefits
    of creating an EA-like area. [^59] Because creating a separate
    service area covering the Gulf of Mexico region is consistent with
    our approach in other wireless services,[^60] we will revise our
    Rules to designate a separate EA covering the Gulf of Mexico for
    MAS. In this connection, we will license the 928/959 MHz bands and
    twenty channels in the 932/941 MHz bands that will be licensed on a
    geographic area basis using a total of 176 service areas-the 172 EAs
    specified by the Department of Commerce and four EA-like areas for
    Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico and the United
    States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Gulf of Mexico. We
    note that an agreement exists between the United States and Mexico
    which includes the twenty channels in the 932/941 MHz bands that we
    will make available for licensing on a geographic area basis in the
    Gulf of Mexico region.[^61] In this regard, Mexico has primary use
    of these frequencies and use by the United States is secondary
    within a distance of 113 kilometers of its side of the common
    border.[^62]

## E. Operational Flexibility

29. [Background.]{.underline} Previously, the rules governing MAS
    permitted uses of certain MAS channels other than standard
    point-to-multipoint transmissions on a limited basis.[^63] For
    instance, the Commission permitted the operation of mobile master
    stations in the 956 MHz MAS band on a primary basis and in the 952
    MHz MAS band on a case-by-case basis.[^64] In addition, mobile
    operation in the 952 MHz band was allowed on a secondary basis to
    fixed operations.[^65] In the *MAS R&O*, we changed the Rules by
    affording additional operational flexibility to foster the
    introduction of more varied uses of the MAS bands.[^66]
    Specifically, we revised Section 101.105(c)(5) of our Rules to
    permit mobile operation on any of the MAS frequency bands on a
    primary basis.[^67]

30. [Discussion.]{.underline} CICC requests that we reconsider our
    decision to allow two-way mobile dispatch operations in the private
    internal bands, averring that we should not expand the permissible
    mobile operations in the site-based MAS bands.[^68] CICC is
    concerned that the co-channel separation requirements are not
    sufficient to protect point-to-multipoint MAS operations from
    interference from two-way mobile systems.[^69] In addition, CICC
    states that two-way dispatch mobile type system transmitters are
    more likely to be operated outside of their coordinated areas and,
    as a result, may cause co-channel or adjacent-channel interference
    to critical point-to-multipoint MAS operations.[^70]

31. All of the comments received addressing mobile operations in the MAS
    service opposed the Commission's modifications with respect to this
    issue.[^71] Thus, upon further examination of this issue, we believe
    that the current regulatory regime for mobile operations in the
    private internal MAS bands may actually increase the potential for
    interference to nearby operations. We agree with CICC's assertion
    that a mobile master MAS station typically communicates with fixed,
    low power, remote units employing directional antennas, while,
    two-way dispatch operations generally entail numerous mobile units
    operating at full power and employing omni-directional antennas,
    thus, creating a greater risk of interference to neighboring
    operations.[^72] In addition, we concede that regulating mobile
    remote units is challenging because identifying and rectifying
    interference to point-to-multipoint MAS systems by these units can
    be extremely difficult.[^73] Mobile remote units are often
    controlled by customers who may be less familiar with Commission
    rules and their authorized service areas rather than the licensees
    of the master stations. In light of these concerns about the
    heightened potential for interference created by relaxed policies
    for operating mobile remote units, we will grant CICC's petition by
    retracting the policies that created the additional flexibility.

32. Thus, we will allow mobile master MAS stations in the 956.25-956.45
    MHz MAS band on a primary basis. We will permit primary mobile
    master MAS stations in the 952 MHz and on the site-based channels in
    the 941 MHz MAS bands on a case-by-case basis, if the 956.25-956.45
    MHz frequencies are unavailable. We will retain our decision to
    allow mobile operation on frequencies licensed by geographic area to
    the extent that such operation does not cause harmful interference
    to adjacent channel, site-based licensees and co-channel adjacent EA
    licensees. However, we will clarify our Rules to indicate that
    mobile operation for site-based licensees in the 959.85-960 MHz band
    will be prohibited. Hence, we will revise the Rules pursuant to the
    policy decisions described in this section.

33. Additionally, we are making editorial amendments to Section 101.107
    of our Rules to conform them with our decisions in the *MAS R&O*,
    thereby, clarifying the permissible frequency tolerance levels for
    MAS operations. Specifically, we will make appropriate changes to
    the frequency tolerance levels denoted in the table contained in
    Section 101.107(a), as well as, indicate that such levels are
    applicable to all (928/952/956 MHz, 928/959 MHz, 932/941 MHz) of the
    MAS bands. We consider these revisions to be non-substantive in
    nature and in the public interest as they will facilitate our
    efforts to address the concerns raised in the CICC petition with
    respect to mitigating instances of interference to MAS systems.

## F. Other Matters

### *1.* *Frequency Assignments*

34. Note 28 was added to Section 101.147 of our Rules to revise the
    frequency assignments listing so that it reflects the new
    eligibility criteria for the 928/952/956 MHz bands. Section
    101.1331(a) was added to our Rules to define "incumbent" licensee
    for the purposes of determining whether operations in the
    928/952/956 MHz and 928/959 MHz bands will be grandfathered. When
    the *MAS R&O* was initially released, the first sentence of Section
    101.147, Note 28 of the Commission's rules provided that "Subsequent
    to July 1, 1999, MAS operations, as defined in § 101.1331(a), in the
    928/952/956 MHz bands are reserved for private internal use."[^74]
    This reference may have been inappropriate and/or misleading because
    Section 101.1331(a) provides a definition of incumbent operations,
    for the purposes of determining which licensees are subject to
    grandfather rights, rather than a definition of which MAS licensees
    should be limited to private internal operations.

35. CICC requests that we clarify Section 101.147, Note 28 of the Rules
    to clearly indicate which licensees should be limited to private
    internal operations.[^75] We believe that CICC's suggestion to use
    the following language "Licensees that obtain authorizations in the
    928/952/956 MHz MAS bands subsequent to July 1, 1999 are limited to
    private internal services, as defined in Section 101.1305. Incumbent
    operations in the 928/952/956 MHz MAS bands, as defined in Section
    101.1331(a), are subject to grandfather rights pursuant to Section
    101.1331" would clarify our original intentions when we initially
    modified this notation.[^76] Hence, our Rules will be revised
    accordingly.

### *2. Suspension of the Acceptance and Processing of MAS Applications* 

36. As stated earlier, the Commission previously suspended the
    acceptance and processing of MAS applications for new licenses,
    amendments, or modifications in the 932/941 MHz bands, the 928/959
    MHz bands and applications to provide subscriber-based service in
    the 928/952/956 MHz bands pending resolution of the issues outlined
    in the *Notice*.[^77] In the *Further Notice*, the Commission
    extended this "application freeze" to include all MAS bands
    regardless of the type of service proposed.[^78]

37. In the subsequent *MAS R&O*, we modified the licensing approach for
    928/959 MHz MAS spectrum from site-based to geographic area,
    indicating that this new licensing approach would best accommodate
    the current and future uses of the band.[^79] We also grandfathered
    the existing MAS incumbents in the 928/959 MHz band,[^80] and
    decided that even after the transition to geographic area licensing,
    incumbents in the 928/959 MHz bands would be permitted to make
    certain modifications to existing systems as long as the signal
    level is not increased beyond the incumbent's 25-mile service
    area.[^81] We did not, however, modify the freeze on applications
    for new licenses or license modifications in the 928/959 MHz
    bands.[^82]

38. Hence, we are now taking this opportunity to modify the suspension
    of the acceptance and processing of MAS applications for the 928/959
    MHz bands to permit grandfathered licensees in these bands to modify
    their operations in accordance with our Rules without applying for a
    waiver of the application freeze. We intended to permit
    grandfathered licensees in this band to modify their systems in
    accordance with the criteria outlined in the Rules, previously.[^83]
    Thus, we believe that this action is non-substantive in nature and
    in the public interest because we are fostering consistency among
    the MAS service rules. Accordingly, we will create an exception to
    the application freeze for certain grandfathered licensees in the
    928/959 MHz bands and will accept for filing and process
    applications to modify operations in accordance with Section
    101.1331(c) of our Rules.[^84]

# IV. CONCLUSION

39. In the *MAS MO&O*, we conclude that the type of service provided by
    Radscan on MAS frequencies is a private internal use in the context
    of MAS. This clarification better explains our position with respect
    to the intended users of the private internal MAS bands and enhances
    the ability of current and future MAS licensees to acquire MAS
    spectrum. In addition, we reinstate non-profit, cost-shared use in
    the private internal bands. We believe that this type of spectrum
    use serves the public interest and affords a vital alternative for
    securing MAS spectrum in the highly encumbered private internal
    bands. Moreover, we create an EA-like area covering the Gulf of
    Mexico which will ensure that the wireless needs of this region are
    better met. With regard to the MAS operational policies, we retract
    some of the policies that were relaxed in the *MAS R&O* and
    introduce policies that may be described as less flexible. However,
    it is our belief that the changes to the operational policies
    mitigate potential instances of interference among MAS users and
    will ultimately benefit all MAS users.

40. Our action today will enable the MAS service to effectively
    accommodate the wireless communications needs of its various users.
    Overall, the proposals set forth herein will not only enable us to
    better serve current and future MAS licensees, but will help
    conserve scarce Commission resources, thereby, advancing our
    spectrum management goals, including fostering efficient and
    effective radio operations.

# V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

**A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act**

41. Appendix C contains a Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis with respect to the *MAS Memorandum Opinion and Order*.

**B. Information Contacts**

42. For further information concerning this *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, contact Shellie Blakeney, Policy and Rules Branch, Public
    Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, at (202) 418-0680, TTY (202) 418-7233, or via e-mail at
    <sblakene@fcc.gov>.

43. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by
    contacting Jenifer Simpson at (202) 418-0008, TTY (202) 418-2555.
    This *Memorandum Opinion and Order* can be downloaded at
    <http://www.fcc.gov/Wireless/Orders/2001>.

# VI. ORDERING CLAUSES

44. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained
    in Sections 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and 303, and Section 1.429 of the
    Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.429, the Petition for
    Reconsideration filed by CellNet Data Systems, Inc. on May 3, 2000,
    is GRANTED IN PART, consistent with the decisions set forth herein.

45. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in
    Sections 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and 303, and Section 1.429 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.429, the Petition for Clarification and
    Reconsideration filed by Radscan, Inc. on May 3, 2000 is GRANTED,
    consistent with the decisions set forth herein.

46. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in
    Sections 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and 303, and Section 1.429 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.429, the Petition for
    Reconsideration/Clarification filed by the Critical Infrastructure
    Communications Coalition on May 3, 2000, is GRANTED, consistent with
    the decisions set forth herein.

47. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in
    Sections 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and 303, and Section 1.429 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.429, the Petition for
    Reconsideration/Clarification filed by the United States
    Environmental Protection Agency on February 7, 2000, is DISMISSED,
    as moot.

48. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in
    Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
    U.S.C. § 154(i), the application freeze set forth in the *Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making* in WT Docket No. 97-81, is MODIFIED, as set
    forth herein.

49. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Part 101 of the Commission's rules is
    AMENDED, as set forth in Appendix B, effective sixty days after its
    publication in the Federal Register.

50. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, including the Supplemental Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
    of the Small Business Administration.

51. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned proceeding is
    TERMINATED.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATION
>
> Magalie Roman Salas
>
> Secretary
>
> **APPENDIX A -- PETITIONERS/COMMENTERS**

A[. petitions]{.smallcaps}

CellNet Data Systems, Inc. (Schlumberger) May 3, 2000

Critical Infrastructure Communications Coalition May 3, 2000

> American Gas Association
>
> American Petroleum Institute
>
> American Public Power Association
>
> American Water Works Association
>
> Association of American Railroads
>
> Association of Oil Pipe Lines
>
> Edison Electric Institute
>
> Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
>
> National Association of Water Companies
>
> United Telecom Council

Radscan, Inc. May 3, 2000

> United States Environmental Protection Agency February 7, 2000
>
> B[. exparte comments/presentations]{.smallcaps}
>
> American Petroleum Institute October 4, 2000
>
> American Petroleum Institute and United Telecom Council April 27, 2000
>
> American Petroleum Institute and United Telecom Council April 6, 2000
>
> GTECH Corporation October 3, 2000

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, March 8, 2000

> Public Service Electric & Gas Company,
>
> United Telecom Council,
>
> Wisconsin Public Service Corporation
>
> **APPENDIX B -- FINAL RULES**

**For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 101 as follows:**

**PART 101 -- FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES**

1\. Section 101.105 is amended by revising (c)(5) to read as follows:

§ 101.105 Interference protection criteria.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) \* \* \*

\* \* \* \* \*

\(5\) Multiple address frequencies in the 956.25-956.45 MHz bands may be
assigned for use by mobile master stations on a primary basis. Multiple
address frequencies in the 941.0-941.5 MHz bands that are licensed on a
site-by-site basis and the 952 MHz bands may be assigned for use by
primary mobile master stations on a case-by-case basis if the
956.25-956.45 MHz frequencies are unavailable. Multiple address mobile
(master and remote) operation is permitted on frequencies licensed by
geographic area subject to the interference protection criteria set
forth in Section 101.1333, *i.e.*, adjacent channel site-based licensees
and co-channel operations in adjacent EAs. Mobile operation in the
959.85-960 MHz band is not permitted.

\* \* \* \* \*

2\. Section 101.107(a) is amended by revising the first six rows and
footnotes (5) and (7) to read as follows:

**§ 101.107 Frequency tolerance.**

\(a\) \* \* \*

Frequency Tolerance (percent)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Frequency (MHz) All fixed Mobile Mobile

and base stations stations 3

stations over 3 watts or

watts less

928 to 929 (2)(5) 0.0005 ......... .........

932 to 932.5 (2) 0.00015 ......... .........

932.5 to 935 (2) 0.00025 ......... .........

941 to 941.5 0.00015 ......... .........

941.5 to 944 0.00025 ......... .........

952 to 960 (7) ......... ......... .........

\* \* \*

\* \* \*

\(5\) Used for remote stations. For remotes with 12.5 KHz bandwidth or
less, the tolerance is ±0.00015%.

> \* \* \*

\(7\) For private operational fixed point-to-point microwave systems,
with a channel greater than or equal to 50 KHz bandwidth, ±0.0005%; for
multiple address master stations, regardless of bandwidth, ±0.00015%;
for multiple address remote stations with 12.5 KHz bandwidths or less,
±0.00015%; for multiple address remote stations with channels greater
than 12.5 KHz bandwidth, ±0.0005%.

\* \* \* \* \*

3\. Section 101.113(a) is amended revising the first six rows as
follows:

**§ 101.113 Transmitter power limitations.**

\(a\) \* \* \*

Maximum allowable EIRP (1) (2)

Frequency Band (MHz)

Fixed Mobile

(dBW) (dBW)

928.0-929.0 (2) +17 \...\...\...\...\.....

932.0-932.5 (2) +17 \...\...\...\...\.....

932.5-935.0 +40 \...\...\...\...\.....

941.0-941.5 (2) +30 +14

941.5-944.0 +40 \...\...\...\...\.....

952.0-960.0 (2) +40 +14

\* \* \* \* \*

4\. Section 101.135 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

**§ 101.135 Shared use of radio stations and the offering of private
carrier service.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) Applicants licensed in the MAS frequencies after June 2, 2000,
shall not provide service to others on a for-profit private carrier
basis in the 928-928.85/952-952.85/956.25-956.45 MHz bands and the
932.25-932.5/941.25-941.5 MHz bands.

5\. Section 101.147 is amended by revising note (28) in paragraph (a)
and revising paragraph (b) to read as follows.

§ 101.147 Frequency assignments.

\(a\) \* \* \*

\* \* \* \* \*

\(28\) Licensees that obtain authorizations in the 928/952/956 MHz MAS
bands subsequent to July 1, 1999 are limited to private internal
services, as defined in Section 101.1305. Incumbent operations in the
928/952/956 MHz MAS bands, as defined in Section 101.1331(a), are
subject to grandfather rights pursuant to Section 101.1331. The 928.85 -
929.0 MHz and 959.85 -- 960.0 MHz bands are licensed on a geographic
area basis with no eligibility restrictions. The 928.0 -- 928.85 MHz
band paired with the 952.0 - 952.85 MHz band, in addition to unpaired
frequencies in the 956.25 - 956.45 MHz band, are licensed on a
site-by-site basis and used for terrestrial point-to-point and
point-to-multipoint fixed and limited mobile operations. The 928.85 -
929.0 MHz band paired with the 959.85 -- 960.0 MHz band is licensed by
Economic Area and used for terrestrial point-to-point and
point-to-multipoint fixed operations.

\(b\) Frequencies normally available for assignment in this service are
set forth with applicable limitations in the following tables: 928-960
MHz Multiple address system (MAS) frequencies are available for the
point-to-multipoint and point-to-point transmission of a licensee's
products or services, excluding video entertainment material, to a
licensee\'s customer or for its own internal communications. The paired
frequencies listed in this section are used for two-way communications
between a master station and remote stations. Ancillary one-way
communications on paired frequencies are permitted on a case-by-case
basis. Ancillary communications between interrelated master stations are
permitted on a secondary basis. The normal channel bandwidth assigned
will be 12.5 kHz. EA licensees, however, may combine contiguous channels
without limit or justification. Site-based licensees may combine
contiguous channels up to 50 kHz, and more than 50 kHz only upon a
showing of adequate justification. Any bandwidth (12.5 kHz, 25 kHz or
greater) authorized in accordance with this section may be subdivided
into narrower bandwidths to create additional (or sub) frequencies
without the need to specify each discrete frequency within the specific
bandwidth. Equipment that is used to create additional frequencies by
narrowing bandwidth (whether authorized for a 12.5 kHz, 25 kHz or
greater bandwidth) will be required to meet, at a minimum, the
[+]{.underline} 0.00015 percent tolerance requirement so that all
subfrequencies will be within the emission mask. Systems licensed for
frequencies in these MAS bands prior to August 1, 1975, may continue to
operate as authorized until June 11, 1996, at which time they must
comply with current MAS operations based on the 12.5 kHz channelization
set forth in this paragraph. Systems licensed between August 1, 1975,
and January 1, 1981, inclusive, are required to comply with the
grandfathered 25 kHz standard bandwidth and channelization requirements
set forth in this paragraph. Systems originally licensed after January
1, 1981, and on or before May 11, 1988, with bandwidths of 25 kHz and
above, will be grandfathered indefinitely.

\* \* \* \* \*

6\. Section 101.1307 is amended to read as follows:

§ 101.1307 Permissible communications.

MAS users may engage in terrestrial point-to-point and
point-to-multi-point fixed and limited mobile operations.

7\. Section 101.1315 is amended to read as follows:

**§ 101.1315 Service areas.**

In the frequency bands not licensed on a site-by-site basis, the
geographic service areas for MAS

are Economic Areas (EAs) which are defined by the Department of
Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, as modified by the Commission.
The EAs will consist of 176 areas, which includes Guam and the Northern
Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, and the Gulf of Mexico.

8\. Section 101.1331 is amended to read as follows:

**§ 101.1331 Treatment of incumbents.**

(a) Any MAS station licensed by the Commission prior to July 1, 1999 in
    the 928.0-928.85 MHz/952.0-952.85 MHz/956.25-956.45 MHz and
    928.85-929.0 MHz/959.85-960.0 MHz bands, as well as assignments or
    transfers of such stations approved by the Commission and
    consummated as of January 19, 2000, shall be considered incumbent.

(b) Incumbent operators in the 928.0-928.85 MHz/952.0-952.85 MHz
    /956.25-956.45 MHz bands are grandfathered as of January 19, 2000,
    and may continue to operate and expand their systems pursuant to the
    interference protection and co-channel spacing criteria contained in
    § 101.105.

> \(1\) MAS operators are prohibited from acquiring additional
> frequencies in the 928.0-928.85 MHz/952.0-952.85 MHz/956.25-956.45 MHz
> bands and the 932.25625-932.49375 MHz/ 941.25625-941.49375 MHz bands
> for the purpose of expanding private carrier service and from changing
> the use of their frequencies in any manner that is inconsistent with
> this part. Refer to § 101.147 of this part for designated uses.
>
> \(2\) Incumbent operators in the 928.0-928.85 MHz /952.0-952.85
> MHz/956.25-956.45 MHz bands will include incumbents as defined in
> subsection (a) of section 101.1331, as well as, their transferees
> and/or assignees and the successors of the transferees and/or
> assignees and retain their grandfathered status, provided that the use
> of the MAS frequencies remains unchanged from that of the transferor
> and/or assignor of the license.

**\* \* \* \* \***

**APPENDIX C -- SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

*Memorandum Opinion and Order*

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^85] Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFA) were incorporated in the
    Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Multiple Address
    Systems, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*.[^86] The Commission sought written public
    comment on the proposals in the *Notice* and *Further Notice*,
    including comment on the IRFA. This present Supplemental Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental FRFA) conforms to the
    RFA.[^87]

**I. Reason for, and Objectives of, the *Memorandum Opinion and
Order*.**

2.  These proceedings were initiated to secure public comment on
    proposals to maximize the efficient and effective use of spectrum
    allocated to Multiple Address Systems (MAS) in the Microwave
    Services and to analyze the impact of the Balanced Budget Act on
    these proposals. The rules adopted in this *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order* continue our efforts to promote effective radio operations,
    improve the efficiency of spectrum use and reduce the regulatory
    burden on spectrum users.

**II. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in
Response to the Previous Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.**

3.  No reconsideration petitions/comments were filed in direct response
    to the previous Final Regulatory Flexibility Act (FRFA). However,
    the Commission has reviewed general comments that may impact small
    businesses. In this instance, the petitioners are existing MAS
    licensees, many of whom qualify as small businesses. Generally, the
    petitioners applaud the Commission's efforts in this service. The
    requests for reconsideration and/or clarification involve issues
    relating to the types of services classified as private internal,
    grandfathering provisions as they relate to transfers and
    assignments, shared use and private carrier service in the private
    internal bands, operational flexibility, service area coverage of
    the Gulf of Mexico and other minor points that will help clarify our
    intentions for this service. In addition, this *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order* makes minor changes to certain technical requirements in
    Part 101, as well as, the current application freeze in certain MAS
    bands in an effort to promote effective radio operations and to
    reduce regulatory burdens on MAS licensees.

**III. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to which
the Rules Will Apply.**

4.  The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
    feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
    affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally
    defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the
    terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
    governmental jurisdiction." In addition, the term "small business"
    has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the
    Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more
    definitions that are appropriate for its activities.[^88] Under the
    Small Business Act, a "small business concern" is one that: (1) is
    independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
    of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established
    by the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^89] A small
    organization is generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which is
    independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
    field."[^90]

5.  Last, the definition of "small governmental entity" is one with
    populations of fewer than 50,000.[^91] There are 85,006 governmental
    entities in the nation.[^92] This number includes such entities as
    states, counties, cities, utility districts and school districts.
    There are no figures available on what portion of this number has
    populations of fewer than 50,000. However, this number includes
    38,978 counties, cities and towns, and of those, 37,556, or
    ninety-six percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000.[^93] The
    Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate
    for all government entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental
    entities, we estimate that ninety-six percent, or about 81,600, are
    small entities that may be affected by our rules. Below, we further
    describe and estimate the number of small business licensees and
    regulatees that may be affected by the rules.

6.  The rules adopted in this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* affect a
    number of small entities that are either licensees, or may choose to
    become applicants for licenses, in the MAS Service. Such entities,
    in general, fall into two categories: (1) those using MAS spectrum
    for profit-based uses and (2) those using MAS spectrum for private
    internal uses.

7.  With respect to the first category, we note that the Commission has
    developed and received approval from the Small Business
    Administration for two definitions of small entities applicable to
    MAS licensees that do not provide private internal service.[^94] The
    majority of these entities will most likely be licensed in bands
    where the Commission has implemented a geographic area licensing
    approach that would require the use of competitive bidding
    procedures to resolve mutually exclusive applications. The
    Commission's licensing database indicates that, as of January 20,
    1999, there were a total of 8,670 MAS station authorizations. Of
    these, 260 authorizations were associated with common carrier
    service.

8\. With respect to the second category, which consists of entities that
use, or seek to use, MAS spectrum to accommodate their own internal
communications needs, we note that MAS serves an essential role in a
range of industrial, safety, business, and land transportation
activities. MAS radios are used by companies of all sizes, operating in
virtually all U.S. business categories, and by all types of public
safety entities. For the majority of private internal users, the
definitions developed by the SBA would be more appropriate. The
applicable definition of small entity in this instance appears to be the
definition under the SBA rules applicable to establishments engaged in
radiotelephone communications. This definition provides that a small
entity is any entity employing no more than 1,500 persons**.**[^95] The
Commission's licensing database indicates that, as of January 20, 1999,
of the 8,670 total MAS station authorizations, 8,410 authorizations were
for private radio service, and of these, 1,433 were for private land
mobile radio service.

**IV. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements.**

9\. This *Memorandum Opinion and Order* requires MAS licensees that are
operating in the MAS spectrum designated for private internal use to
limit mobile operations to mobile master stations only, for the 952 MHz
and certain channels in the 941 MHz bands, if frequencies in the 956 MHz
band are unavailable. In addition, the *Memorandum Opinion and Order*
prohibits mobile operation for site-based licensees in the 959 MHz band
and modifies permissible frequency tolerance levels for MAS operations
to conform with the *MAS Report and Order*. Compliance with these
modifications to the Commission's rules, as well as the other
modifications described in the *MAS Memorandum Opinion and Order*, will
facilitate efficient radio operations by reducing opportunities for
radio interference.[^96]

**V. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered.**

11\. We have reduced the economic burden placed on small businesses
where possible. In response to petitions/comments filed in this
proceeding, we have adopted rule modifications that will, through more
effective radio operations and a reduction of regulatory burdens, foster
the growth of small businesses providing wireless services. For
instance, this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* eliminates the requirement
for licensees to submit waiver requests 1) to operate mobile master
stations in certain MAS bands and 2) to expand systems in the 928/959
MHz MAS bands as described in the Commission's rules.[^97] This action,
in turn, will reduce administrative burdens for MAS licensees, as well
as, the Commission, which will ultimately result in less economic burden
on MAS licensees. Additionally, we are providing specific parameters for
mobile operations in this service which will assist small businesses by
mitigating instances of potential interference, thus preserving valuable
resources.

> **[Report to Congress]{.underline}:** The Commission will send a copy
> of the *MAS Memorandum Opinion and Order*, including this Supplemental
> FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small
> Business Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.[^98] In addition, the
> Commission will send a copy of the *MAS Memorandum Opinion and Order*,
> including the Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
> the Small Business Administration. A copy of the *MAS Memorandum
> Opinion and Order* and Supplemental FRFA (or summaries thereof) will
> also be published in the Federal Register.[^99]

[^1]: Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Multiple Address
    Systems, WT Docket No. 97-81, *Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd 11956
    (2000) *(MAS R&O)*.

[^2]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Multiple
    Address Systems, WT Docket No. 97-81, *Further* *Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making and Order,* 14 FCC Rcd 10744, 10746 (1999) (*Further
    Notice);* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Multiple
    Address Systems, WT Docket No. 97-81, *Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 7973, 7976 (1997) (*Notice*). A total
    of 3.2 MHz of spectrum is currently designated for MAS. This
    spectrum is divided into three general categories: (1) the
    928/952/956 MHz bands (928/952 - 1.7 MHz paired, 956 -- 200 kHz
    unpaired); (2) the 928/959 MHz bands (300 kHz paired); and (3) the
    932/941 MHz bands (1 MHz paired).

[^3]: *See Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd 7973.

[^4]: ^?^ *Id.* at 7997.

[^5]: ^?^ *Id.* at 7980.

[^6]: ^?^ *Id.* at 8003-04.

[^7]: ^?^ CN Wan Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Schlumberger
    Resource Management Services, Inc., recently assigned several
    licenses to Schlumberger. Therefore, we will use Schlumberger in all
    future references to this entity in this *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*.

[^8]: GTECH Corporation, CN WAN Corporation, Radscan of Detroit, Inc.,
    Telebeeper of New Mexico, Inc. and Unicom Corporation Petitions for
    Reconsideration of Dismissal of Applications for Multiple Address
    System Authorization, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd
    4290 (WTB 1998) (*1998 WTB Order*).

[^9]: ^?^ *Further* *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 10744. On August 5, 1997, the
    Balanced Budget Act, *inter alia*, amended Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act, as amended (the Communications Act) to require
    the Commission, with limited exceptions, to award mutually exclusive
    licenses using competitive bidding procedures. The Conference Report
    for the Balanced Budget Act states that private internal radio
    services used by utilities, railroads, pipelines, etc. are within
    the scope of the exemption. In addition to amending Section 309(j),
    Congress eliminated the Commission's authority to issue licenses by
    lottery after July 1, 1997, with certain exceptions. The Commission
    recently released a *Report and Order* in a separate proceeding
    which provides guidelines on determining the auctionability of
    wireless services in light of the Balanced Budget Act. *See*
    Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of the Communications Act
    of 1934 as Amended, Promotion of Spectrum Efficient Technologies on
    Certain Part 90 Frequencies, Establishment of Public Service Radio
    Pool in the Private Mobile Frequencies Below 800 MHz, WT Docket No.
    99-87, *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 22709 (2000) (*BBA R&O*). *See
    also* H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 105-217, 105^th^ Cong., 1^st^ Sess., at
    572 (1997).

[^10]: ^?^ *Further Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10761.

[^11]: ^?^ *MAS R&O,* 15 FCC Rcd 11956. We note that we released an
    Erratum to the *MAS R&O* on March 3, 2000 and that the *MAS R&O*
    appeared in the Federal Register on April 3, 2000. *See also*
    Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Multiple Address
    Systems, WT Docket No. 97-81, *Erratum*, 15 FCC Rcd 16415 (2000).

[^12]: ^?^ *See MAS R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd 11956.

[^13]: ^?^ The comment period in response to these Petitions ended on
    July 17, 2000, without the Commission receiving any comments.

[^14]: In its petition, the EPA requests that the Commission ensure that
    its approach in the MAS proceeding is consistent with the scope of
    the "public safety radio services" exemption outlined in the BBA
    Conference Report and asks us to lift the freeze in the 928/952/956
    MHz bands while reserving a portion of the 932/941 MHz bands for
    utilities. We have complied with their request in the *MAS R&O* by
    lifting the MAS freeze in the 928/952/956 MHz bands and the portion
    of the 932/941 MHz bands designated for private internal use. *See
    MAS R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd 11956, 11965-66 ¶¶ 20-23, 11968-71 ¶¶ 29-38,
    12011 ¶¶ 136-137. Our approach in MAS is consistent with that taken
    in our proceeding implementing the BBA because utilities are
    eligible for the MAS bands designated for private internal use and
    are therefore exempt from auction. *See BBA R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd 22709.

[^15]: ^?^ *See MAS R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 11963 ¶ 13.

[^16]: ^?^ *See id*. at 11963 ¶ 14.

[^17]: ^?^ An examination of a band's "dominant use" for licensing
    purposes is the analysis of whether the majority of users within a
    band are qualified to obtain auction-exempt spectrum, in order to
    determine whether that band should be designated as auction-exempt.
    *See BBA R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd 22709 ¶ 73.

[^18]: ^?^ *Id.* at 11966 ¶ 22, 11968 ¶ 31.

[^19]: ^?^ *See id.* at 11968-11971 ¶¶ 31-38.

[^20]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 101.1305.

[^21]: ADT Security Systems and Link from Ameritech offer Radscan's
    alarm monitoring service to their customers in conjunction with, or
    as an alternative to, their traditional wireline service offerings.
    *See* Radscan Petition at 2.

[^22]: *See, e.g.*, Radscan Petition at 1, 2-7.

[^23]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 101.1305.

[^24]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.7. We believe that the Part 90 description
    is a useful starting point for our analysis, but concede that we may
    have to adapt the Part 90 description to better correspond to the
    types of systems used by MAS licensees.

[^25]: ^?^ Viking Dispatch Services, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 18814 ¶ 3 (1999), *citing*, Implementation of
    Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act, *Second Report and
    Order*, GN Docket No. 93-252, 9 FCC Rcd 1411, 1428 ¶ 44 (1994).

[^26]: *See* Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of the
    Communications Act of 1934 as Amended, Promotion of Spectrum
    Efficient Technologies on Certain Part 90 Frequencies, Establishment
    of Public Service Radio Pool in the Private Mobile Frequencies Below
    800 MHz, WT Docket No. 99-87, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* 14
    FCC Rcd at 5226 ¶ 33 (*BBA NPRM*). *See also BBA R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd
    22709 ¶¶ 64-66. The Commission determined that the statutory
    exemption for public safety radio services applies to traditional
    public safety services (*i.e.*, police, fire, and emergency medical
    services), as well as, services designated for non-commercial use by
    entities (*i.e.*, utilities, railroads, transit systems and others
    that provide essential services to the public at large and that need
    reliable internal communications in order to prevent or respond to
    disasters or crises affecting their service to the public). In
    addition, the exemption applies only to services in which these
    public safety uses comprise the dominant use of the spectrum.
    Moreover, with respect to assessing applicability to future
    situations, the Commission determined that the exemption would apply
    only to spectrum that it specifically allocates for the particular
    uses that Congress intended to benefit. In the *BBA R&O*, "private
    internal radio service" is defined as "a service in which the
    licensee does not make a profit, and all messages are transmitted
    between fixed operating positions located on premises controlled by
    the licensee and the associated fixed or mobile stations or other
    transmitting or receiving devices of the licensee, or between mobile
    stations or other transmitting or receiving devices of the
    licensee." The underlying principles of the BBA and MAS "private
    internal" definitions are the same. Generally, the private internal
    definition contained in the MAS proceeding was drafted to
    specifically deal with services offered under MAS while the
    definition in the BBA proceeding was drafted for any service. Thus,
    the uses that are deemed private internal in the context of MAS will
    also be deemed private internal with regard to examining the types
    of spectrum uses against the definition contained in the BBA
    proceeding.

[^27]: Radscan Petition at 1, 2-7.

[^28]: *Id.* at 2-3.

[^29]: *Id.* at 3-4.

[^30]: ^?^ *See id*.

[^31]: *Id*.

[^32]: *Id*.

[^33]: *Id*.

[^34]: 47 U.S.C. § 153. A "telecommunications service" is the offering
    of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public.

[^35]: *See* Radscan Petition at 6-7.

[^36]: Any use of the MAS spectrum that we find to be substantially
    similar to the type of service provided by Radscan (*i.e.*, use of
    frequencies to support an underlying business) will also be deemed a
    private internal service for purposes of MAS.

[^37]: *MAS R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 11965 ¶ 20.

[^38]: ^?^ *See supra* ¶ 7.

[^39]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.135(e) (2000). *See also MAS R&O* at 11966
    ¶ 22 and Appendix B.

[^40]: ^?^ CICC Petition at 6.

[^41]: ^?^ CICC Petition at 3-4, 6.

[^42]: ^?^ *Id.* at 6.

[^43]: ^?^ Amendment of Parts 89, 91, 93 and 95 of the Commission's
    Rules and Regulations to Adopt New Practices and Procedures for
    Cooperative Use and Multiple Licensing of Stations in the Private
    Land Mobile Radio Services, *Report and Order*, Docket No. 18921, 89
    FCC 2d 766 ¶¶ 36-48 (1982).

[^44]: ^?^ American Electric Power Service Corporation, *Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 15553 (2000).

[^45]: Schlumberger Petition at 3-4.

[^46]: ^?^ *Id*. at 4.

[^47]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.1331(b) (2000).

[^48]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.1331(a) (2000). January 19, 2000 is the release
    date of the *MAS R&O*.

[^49]: *See* Schlumberger Petition at 2, 4-7; Radscan Petition at 7-9.

[^50]: ^?^ Schlumberger Petition at 4-5. *See also* Radscan Petition at
    7-8. Radscan states that if its use of MAS frequencies is not
    considered a "private internal service," then it seeks
    reconsideration of Section 101.1331 to the extent that the rule may
    be interpreted as stripping Radscan of its grandfathered status by
    virtue of the recently consummated Honeywell/Pittway merger. Radscan
    further states that the Commission should clarify that a transfer of
    control of the parent company of a MAS incumbent licensee, (whether
    or not the transfer occurs after January 19, 2000), does not
    eliminate the licensee's grandfathered status under Section
    101.1331(b) as long as the underlying use of the MAS licensee's
    frequencies remains the same. *Id*. As indicated herein, we
    determined that Radscan's use of the MAS frequencies is private
    internal. *See supra* ¶ 12. In this regard, we do not believe that a
    detailed analysis of Radscan's assertions is warranted because they
    seek reconsideration in the instance that their use of the MAS
    frequencies is deemed something other than "private internal."

[^51]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. 101.1331(a).

[^52]: ^?^ *MAS R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 11982-83 ¶ 68. *See also* 47 C.F.R.
    § 101.1315 (2000).

[^53]: ^?^ *MAS R&O* at 11982-83 ¶ 68.

[^54]: ^?^ *Id. See also* 47 C.F.R. § 101.1315.

[^55]: ^?^ CICC Petition at 12-13.

[^56]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^57]: ^?^ *Id*. at 13.

[^58]: ^?^ *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part
    27, the Wireless Communications Service, *Report and Order*, GN
    Docket No. 96-228, 12 FCC Rcd 10785 (1997).

[^59]: ^?^ *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part
    27, the Wireless Communications Service, *Report and Order*, GN
    Docket No. 96-228, 12 FCC Rcd 10785 (1997); Amendment to Parts 1, 2,
    87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to License Fixed Services at 24
    GHz, WT Docket No. 99-327, *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 16934
    (2000).

[^60]: ^?^ *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part
    27, the Wireless Communications Service, *Report and Order*, GN
    Docket No. 96-228, 12 FCC Rcd 10785 (1997); Amendment to Parts 1, 2,
    87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to License Fixed Services at 24
    GHz, WT Docket No. 99-327, *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 16934
    (2000).

[^61]: *See* Agreement Between the Government of the United States of
    America and the Government of the United Mexican States Concerning
    the Allotment and Use of Channels in the 932-932.5 and 941-941.5 MHz
    bands for Fixed Point-to-Multipoint Services Along the Common Border
    (June 16, 1994).

[^62]: ^?^ *Id*. at 2, Appendix. Mexico has primary use of channels in
    the 932.00625/941.00625-932.24375/941.24375 MHz bands. The United
    States may use these frequencies on a secondary basis within a
    distance of 113 km of its side of the common border.

[^63]: ^?^ *See MAS R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 11999 ¶ 101. *See also* 47
    C.F.R. § 101.105(c)(5) (1999). We permitted mobile operations on
    certain paired channels, as well as, certain point--to-point
    operations on a secondary basis.

[^64]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.105(c)(5) (1999).

[^65]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^66]: ^?^ *See MAS R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 11999 ¶ 103.

[^67]: ^?^ *See id.*, 47 C.F.R. § 101.105(c)(5) (2000).

[^68]: ^?^ CICC Petition at 7, 12.

[^69]: ^?^ *Id.* at 9.

[^70]: ^?^ *Id.* at 10.

[^71]: ^?^ *See* CICC Petition at 9-12.

[^72]: ^?^ *Id.* at 10.

[^73]: ^?^ *See id.*

[^74]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 101.147 n.28. *See also MAS R&O* -- Appendix B,
    modified by, *Erratum*, 15 FCC Rcd 16415 (2000).

[^75]: ^?^ CICC Petition at 13.

[^76]: ^?^ *Id.* at 14.

[^77]: ^?^ *See supra* ¶ 3.

[^78]: ^?^ *Id*. ¶ ­­5. The suspension of the 928/959 MHz band was not
    affected by the *Further Notice*.

[^79]: *See* *MAS R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 11974 ¶ 47.

[^80]: ^?^ *Id.* at 11977 ¶ 55 ("allowing incumbent MAS operators on the
    928/959 MHz band . . . to continue operations on these bands is in
    the public interest").

[^81]: ^?^ *Id*. at 11980 ¶ 62.

[^82]: ^?^ *Id*. at 12005 ¶ 115.

[^83]: ^?^ *See supra* ¶ 37.

[^84]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.1331(c) (2000).

[^85]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq*.,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^86]: Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Multiple Address
    Systems, *Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 14 FCC Rcd 10744
    (1999) (*Further Notice*); *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 12 FCC
    Rcd 7973 (1997) (*Notice*).

[^87]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^88]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the
    definition of "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant
    to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business
    applies "unless an agency after consultation with the Office of
    Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity
    for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term
    which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes
    such definition(s) in the Federal Register."

[^89]: ^?^ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996). *See, e.g., Brown
    Transport Truckload, Inc. v. Southern Wipers, Inc.*, 176 B.R. 82, 89
    (N.D. Ga. 1994).

[^90]: ^?^ 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^91]: ^?^ 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^92]: ^?^ 1992 Census of Governments, U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce.

[^93]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^94]: Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business
    Administration to Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (June
    4, 1999).

[^95]: ^?^ *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification
    (SIC) Code 4812.

[^96]: ^?^ We note that in the *MAS Report and Order*, the Commission
    requires any small business applicant wishing to avail itself of
    small business provisions to make the general financial disclosures
    necessary to establish that the small business is in fact small.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart Q (competitive bidding procedures).
    For instance, prior to auction, each small business applicant will
    be required to submit an FCC Form 175, OMB Clearance Number
    3060-0600. In addition to filing an FCC Form 175, each applicant
    must submit information regarding the ownership of the applicant,
    any joint venture arrangements or bidding consortia that the
    applicant has entered into, and financial information which
    demonstrates that a business wishing to qualify for bidding credits
    is a small business. When an applicant wins a license, it will be
    required to submit an FCC Form 601 (Long-form Application for
    Authorization), which will require technical information regarding
    the applicant's proposals for providing service. MAS applicants
    and/or licensees will be required to submit certain showings to
    indicate compliance with the Commission's Rules. *See, e.g., MAS
    Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 11956, 11965 note 39, 11995 ¶ 95,
    11997 ¶ 99.

[^97]: *See MAS Memorandum Opinion and Order* at paras. 41, 45-47.

[^98]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^99]: ^?^ *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).