**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 )

####### REPORT AND ORDER

**Adopted:** December 30, 1999 **Released:** January 19, 2000

By the Commission:

######## TABLE OF CONTENTS

[Paragraph]{.underline}

I.  INTRODUCTION 1

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

III. BACKGROUND 4

IV\. DISCUSSION 8

> A. Commission's Authority to Employ Competitive Bidding Procedures 8
>
> B. Spectrum Allotment 16

1\. Treatment of the 928/952/956 MHz Bands 18

D.  2\. Treatment of the 928/959 MHz Bands 24

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  3\. Treatment of the 932/941 MHz Bands 28

A. Frequency Set-Aside for Government and Public Safety 32

Entities

B. Channeling Plan 39

E.  C. MAS Licensing Approach 44

    1\. The 928/952/956 MHz Bands 44

    2\. The 928/959 MHz Bands 46

    3\. The 932/941 MHz Bands 49

    D. Treatment of Incumbent Licensees 54

E. Service Area 63

3.  F. Geographic Area Licensing 69

G. Spectrum Cap and Aggregation 72

H. Partitioning and Disaggregation 78

1\. Partitioning and Disaggregation Framework 78

2\. Combined Partitioning and Disaggregation 87

> I. Mexican and Canadian Border Areas 89

J. Construction/Coverage Requirements 91

K. Technical Flexibility 97

4.  L. Operational Flexibility 101

M. Regulatory Status 106

N. Suspension of Acceptance and Processing of Applications 109

5.  O. Competitive Bidding Provisions 116

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
V.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS 128

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 128

B.  Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 129

C.  Further Information 130

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 131

Appendix A: Commenters and Reply Commenters

Appendix B: Final Rules

Appendix C: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Appendix D: Recovered Channels

Appendix E: Pending MAS Applications

Appendix F: Pending MAS Petitions and Waiver Requests

######### I. INTRODUCTION {#i.-introduction .unnumbered}

1.  In this *Report and Order*, we adopt rules to maximize the use of
    spectrum designated for Multiple Address Systems (MAS) in the Fixed
    Microwave Services. MAS is a point-to-multipoint,
    multipoint-to-point radio communications service that consists of
    3.2 megahertz (MHz) of electromagnetic spectrum in the 900 MHz band
    and is licensed under Parts 22 and 101 of our Rules. We believe that
    our decisions will: (1) establish a flexible regulatory framework
    for MAS spectrum that provides opportunities for continued
    development of competitive service offerings by allowing a variety
    of services; (2) expedite market entry through modified licensing
    procedures; and (3) promote technological innovation by eliminating
    unnecessary regulatory burdens. We further believe that the rules we
    adopt herein will facilitate the further development and
    implementation of MAS. Our decision today will ensure that MAS
    spectrum is utilized to its fullest potential by providing licensees
    with additional flexibility to support current uses and foster the
    development of future MAS applications. We also lift the suspension
    on the acceptance of applications for certain MAS frequencies,
    consistent with our decision herein.

######### II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY {#ii.-executive-summary .unnumbered}

2.  The following is a summary of the major actions taken with respect
    to MAS. In this *Report and Order*, we:

-   Designate the 928/952/956 MHz bands exclusively for private internal
    services, licensed on a site-by-site basis.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   License the 928/959 MHz bands on a geographic area basis.

-   License twenty of the forty paired channels in the 932/941 MHz bands
    on a geographic area basis.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Reserve twenty of the forty channel pairs in the 932/941 MHz bands
    for public safety/Federal Government and private internal services,
    licensed on a first-come, first-served, site-by-site basis.
    Designate five of the twenty channels in the 932/941 MHz bands'
    set-aside exclusively for public safety/Federal Government services.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Grandfather existing operations on the MAS bands and restrict
    expansion in the 928/959 MHz bands.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Establish service areas based on the Federal Communications
    Commission\'s definition of Economic Areas (EAs) and on the U.S.
    Department of Commerce\'s definition of EAs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Establish construction/coverage requirements for EA licensees \--
    specifically, coverage to at least one-fifth of the population in
    their service areas or substantial service within five years of the
    license grant \-- and a showing of substantial service within ten
    years of being licensed.

-   Introduce flexibility to the MAS technical rules.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Allow licensees to provide mobile and fixed operations on a
    co-primary basis for point-to-point and point-to-multipoint
    operations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Adopt a flexible approach for defining the regulatory status of MAS
    licensees by allowing the licensee to indicate its regulatory
    status.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Lift the suspension on the acceptance of applications for the
    928/952/956 MHz bands and the twenty channels in the 932/941 MHz
    bands designated for public safety/Federal Government and/or private
    internal services upon the release of this *Report and Order*.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Adopt Part 1 competitive bidding rules for MAS spectrum.

3.  While our conclusions are designed to foster MAS service, we make no
    representations or warranties about the use of this spectrum for
    particular services. Applicants should be aware that a Commission
    auction represents an opportunity to become an FCC licensee in this
    service, subject to certain conditions and regulations. An FCC
    auction does not constitute an endorsement by the Commission of any
    particular services, technologies, or products, nor does an FCC
    license constitute a guarantee of business success.

######### III. BACKGROUND {#iii.-background .unnumbered}

# Historically, MAS spectrum 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.[^1] In a *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, released on February 27, 1997, the Commission initiated a comprehensive examination of the MAS service.[^2] The Commission sought comment in assessing the current and potential uses to which MAS spectrum will be applied, and proposed a variety of modifications designed to streamline MAS licensing procedures to better accommodate such uses.[^3] Additionally, the Commission solicited comment on spectrum allotment and licensing for this service. It also sought comment on proposals that would increase the technical and operational flexibility of MAS licensees.[^4]

4.  In the *Notice*, 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 auctions
    to choose among mutually exclusive applications for licenses in
    these bands.[^5] The Commission also proposed to designate the
    928/952/956 MHz bands exclusively for private internal use, and not
    to use auctions to select among mutually exclusive applications in
    these bands.[^6] 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.[^7]

5.  On August 5, 1997, the President signed the Balanced Budget Act,
    which, *inter alia*, eliminated the Commission's authority to issue
    licenses by lottery after July 1, 1997, with the exception of
    licenses or permits for noncommercial educational radio and
    television stations.[^8] In addition to eliminating the Commission's
    lottery authority, Congress, in the Balanced Budget Act, 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.[^9] Congress highlighted the Commission's
    responsibility in the public interest to utilize among other things,
    engineering solutions, negotiations, threshold qualifications and
    service regulations to avoid mutual exclusivity among
    applicants.[^10]

6.  On July 1, 1999, we released a *Further Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making*[^11] and sought 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*.[^12] Among
    other things, the *Further Notice* examined the effect of the
    Balanced Budget Act on the proposals in the *Notice* to allocate the
    932/941 MHz and 928/959 MHz bands for subscriber-based services and
    to award initial licenses for these bands through competitive
    bidding;[^13] to reserve five channel pairs in the 932/941 MHz MAS
    bands for Federal Government/public safety use;[^14] and to reserve
    the 928/952/956 MHz bands exclusively for private, internal use and
    to continue to issue licenses for these bands on a site-by-site
    basis.[^15] The *Further Notice* also immediately suspended the
    acceptance and processing of applications in the 928/952/956 MHz
    bands, regardless of the type of service proposed by the applicant,
    with certain exceptions, during the pendency of this rule making
    proceeding.[^16] By providing the public an opportunity to comment
    on the changes to the regulatory framework for awarding licenses in
    this service, we were able to develop a complete record in order to
    resolve all of the outstanding issues affecting this service.

######### IV. DISCUSSION {#iv.-discussion .unnumbered}

**A. Commission's Authority to Employ Competitive Bidding Procedures**

7.  [Background]{.underline}. When the Commission issued the *Notice*,
    it was authorized under Section 309(j) of the Communications Act to
    use either lotteries or auctions to resolve mutually exclusive
    applications. As a result, the Commission received several responses
    commenting on the issue of whether the Commission should award
    licenses for MAS spectrum by auction or lotteries. However, as a
    result of the Balanced Budget Act, any arguments that support the
    utilization of lotteries to award mutually exclusive license
    applications are now moot.[^17]

8.  Additionally, the Balanced Budget Act amended our auction authority
    by altering the criteria for determining whether or not applications
    for a particular service or class of frequencies are subject to
    competitive bidding. Our prior auction authority was limited to
    services that were subscriber-based. The current language of Section
    309(j)(1) of the Communications Act provides:

> \(1\) General Authority.\--If, consistent with the obligations
> described in paragraph (6)(E), mutually exclusive applications are
> accepted for any initial license . . . then, except as provided in
> paragraph (2), the Commission shall grant the license . . . to a
> qualified applicant through a system of competitive bidding.[^18]

Paragraph (2) exempts from competitive bidding certain classes of
licenses, including licenses for "public safety radio services."[^19]

9.  In the *BBA NPRM*, we noted our obligation to resolve mutually
    exclusive applications to provide non-exempt services via
    competitive bidding.[^20] However, we also recognized our obligation
    under Section 309(j)(6)(E) of the Communications Act to use various
    licensing methods, when consistent with the public interest, to
    avoid mutual exclusivity.[^21] Section 309(j)(6)(E) of the
    Communications Act provides that the competitive bidding language of
    Section 309(j)(1) should not "be construed to relieve the Commission
    of the obligation in the public interest to continue to use
    engineering solutions, negotiation, threshold qualifications,
    service regulations, and other means in order to avoid mutual
    exclusivity in application and licensing proceedings."[^22]

10. [Discussion]{.underline}. Because of these significant changes in
    our auction authority, we revisited issues relating to using
    competitive bidding procedures for MAS spectrum in the *Further
    Notice*. Consequently, we examined how the Balanced Budget Act
    affects our obligation under Section 309(j)(6)(E). Specifically, we
    sought comment on whether the new reference to this section in the
    general auction authority provision affects the Commission's
    tentative conclusion in the *Notice* that using competitive bidding
    to resolve mutually exclusive applications for initial MAS licenses
    is in the public interest.

11. In general, the commenters assert that the Commission has an
    obligation to use methods that would mitigate or eliminate the
    possibility of mutual exclusivity among applicants before
    implementing competitive bidding procedures.[^23] Section
    309(j)(6)(E) has been construed to give the Commission broad
    authority to create or avoid mutual exclusivity in licensing, based
    on the Commission's assessment of the public interest. In *DirecTV*,
    the D.C. Circuit stated that "\[there is\] nothing in 309(j)(6)(E)
    that requires the FCC to adhere to a policy it deems outmoded in
    order to avoid mutual exclusivity in . . . licensing
    proceedings."[^24] Thus, we believe that Section 309(j)(6)(E) allows
    us to determine the licensing approach that is most appropriate for
    the services being offered, taking into account the dominant use of
    the spectrum, administrative efficiency and other related licensing
    issues.

12. Although Radscan and API add that removing or altering measures that
    currently exist to avoid mutual exclusivity to ultimately create
    mutual exclusivity would be an egregious violation of Section
    309(j),[^25] we have the discretion to balance the equities involved
    when determining licensing approaches for the various MAS bands.
    Therefore, we continue to believe that our approach in the *Further
    Notice*, where we examine the current dominant use of the bands to
    make a determination of how to best accommodate future licensees and
    current licensees with minimum disruption to their current
    operations, is in the public interest. Accordingly, we will utilize
    this approach as we analyze the treatment of MAS spectrum.

13. We recognize that some commenters criticize our approach to devising
    a licensing scheme for the MAS bands. For instance, Adaptive
    specifically opposes the use of auctions and geographic area
    licensing and states that our efforts to examine and characterize
    the various MAS bands according to the "current dominant use" of the
    bands is misguided.[^26] However, in our experience, we have found
    that examining the current dominant and/or historical use of the MAS
    bands to be in the public interest because it is a practical
    approach to licensing these bands and enables us to designate
    channels to accommodate specific purposes and/or service
    demands.[^27] In this connection, if we find that a licensing
    approach based on geographic area licensing serves the public
    interest, we have the authority to adopt such licensing approach
    even though it could generally result in the filing of mutually
    exclusive applications. This approach to licensing is consistent
    with other Commission decisions made since the enactment of the
    Balanced Budget Act.[^28] Conversely, we may find, in some
    instances, that a different licensing and application processing
    approach that tends to avoid mutual exclusivity -- *e.g.,*
    site-based, first-come, first-served licensing -- best serves the
    public interest.

14. As a result, the public interest is furthered by licensing MAS
    spectrum as outlined herein. We note, however, that we are not
    addressing the issue of which services are auctionable or contained
    within the "public safety radio services" exemption and will defer
    this discussion to the *BBA NPRM* proceeding.[^29]

**B. Spectrum Allotment**

15. Since the initial allocation of MAS spectrum, the Commission has
    recognized that various industry sectors use the spectrum to meet
    their communications needs. For instance, licensees use MAS systems
    to satisfy alarm, control, interrogation and status reporting
    requirements for various industries. In addition, the paging
    industry uses these systems to control multiple paging transmitters
    in the same general area. The Commission's tentative conclusions in
    the *Notice* attempted to continue to accommodate the varied uses of
    MAS spectrum. In the context of this proceeding, we have considered
    the past, current and future demands for MAS spectrum in determining
    the most efficient and effective licensing approach for the
    spectrum.

16. Based on the record in this proceeding, we conclude that the public
    interest would be furthered by a licensing approach that both
    accommodates past and present uses of MAS spectrum and promotes
    innovative future uses. We believe that our decisions herein reflect
    the appropriate balance in realizing both of these goals. In
    striking this balance, we considered the dominant use of the
    spectrum in the MAS bands that have already been licensed. With
    respect to the 932/941 MHz Band, which is currently unlicensed,[^30]
    we believe that the public interest would be furthered by
    apportioning the spectrum between the uses that have developed in
    the other two MAS bands.

**1. Treatment of the 928/952/956 MHz Bands**

17. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, the Commission indicated
    that the 928/952/956 MHz bands are used overwhelmingly for private
    systems to satisfy internal communications needs.[^31] At that time,
    the Commission estimated that about seventy percent of the
    approximately 7,700 licenses granted use of this spectrum had been
    awarded to public safety, business, or industrial entities to
    satisfy internal communications needs.[^32] Hence, the Commission
    tentatively concluded that these bands should be designated
    exclusively for private internal use.[^33] The Commission indicated
    that under this approach, further subscriber-based use of these
    channels by future licensees would be prohibited.[^34]

18. Because the current use in these bands may have shifted since our
    last assessment, and because of a change in the law,[^35] we sought
    additional comment in the *Further Notice* on the level of
    representation of "public safety radio services" as defined by the
    Balanced Budget Act in the 928/952/956 MHz bands. We also sought
    comment on whether to allocate these bands exclusively for "public
    safety radio services."[^36]

19. [Discussion]{.underline}. We find that private internal use and
    public safety constitute the dominant use of the 928/952/956 MHz
    bands.[^37] Because of the historical use for these bands and the
    apparent need for some site-based licensing in these bands, we will
    reserve portions of the MAS spectrum for particular uses that will
    allow the immediate licensing of spectrum. Specifically, we will
    reserve the 928/952/956 MHz bands for private internal services. We
    define private internal service[^38] 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.[^39]

20. Several commenters indicate that the majority of users in the
    928/952/956 MHz bands are private internal users[^40] and therefore
    request that we reserve a substantial amount of spectrum for private
    internal use. However, other commenters, such as Commonwealth
    Edison, Comsearch, Consolidated Edison, Corn Belt Power, Northern
    States Power, South Carolina E&G and the Southern Operating
    Companies, state that we should allocate the entire 928/952/956 MHz
    Band for licensing by public safety radio services, and exempt these
    services from auction as a result of the high growth rate of
    MAS.[^41] Although some commenters argue that we should restrict the
    928/952/956 MHz bands to public safety, other commenters believe
    that such a restriction may create a significant burden on
    incumbent[^42] licensees that will from now on not be public safety
    users.[^43] Because we intend to grandfather all existing operations
    in the 928/952/956 MHz bands, we do not believe that our actions
    would burden incumbents that are not eligible for future licensing
    in these bands.

21. We agree that the demand for MAS spectrum has evolved over the past
    decade and it is apparent that these bands, particularly the 928/952
    MHz bands, have become increasingly congested.[^44] We recognize
    that in the 39 GHz and Paging proceedings,[^45] we implemented
    geographic area licensing schemes for this spectrum. We note that
    these services are different from MAS. In the 39 GHz context, we
    explicitly defined geographic service areas instead of continuing to
    allow the licensee to define its geographic area. In the Paging
    arena, we implemented geographic area licensing for a mobile
    service. In addition to MAS being a fixed service, all licensees do
    not require wide area coverage. Accordingly, we designate the
    928/952/956 MHz bands for private internal services. In this
    connection, all non-private internal use applications of future
    licensees will be prohibited.[^46] Additionally, we will not permit
    licensees in these bands to provide service to others on a
    non-profit, cost-shared basis.

22. The primary current channel size for the 928/952/956 MHz bands is
    12.5 kHz. In light of our decision to designate the 928/952/956 MHz
    bands for private internal services, and the fact that this band is
    highly encumbered, we will retain our current channeling plan,
    awarding licenses on a first-come, first-served, site-by-site
    licensing approach. We believe that this channel licensing plan is
    particularly well suited for the types of services currently offered
    here, as well as for new applicants.

**2. Treatment of the 928/959 MHz Bands**

23. [Background]{.underline}*.* In the *Notice*, we tentatively
    concluded that the 928/959 MHz bands should be designated for
    subscriber-based services.[^47] The Part 22 commercial mobile radio
    service (CMRS) licensees are the principal users of the 928/959 MHz
    bands to control their wide-area paging networks.[^48]

24. [Discussion]{.underline}*.* Currently, the primary use of these
    bands appears to be for-profit uses that have wide-area
    applications. Moreover, we are confident that the rules in this
    *Report and Order*, introducing increased technical and operational
    flexibility in the MAS bands, would further heighten interest,
    including fostering the resale of spectrum to subscribers.

25. We agree that we should not prohibit licensees from using this
    spectrum where they were previously allowed to do so.[^49]
    Additionally, we are concerned that limiting these bands to a
    particular type of service could unnecessarily disrupt incumbent
    operations. Therefore, we will not restrict the permissible uses or
    eligibility for the twelve 12.5 kHz channels in the 928/959 MHz
    bands.[^50] However, all future applicants for these bands will be
    subject to the licensing scheme[^51] implemented for these bands.

26. The primary current channel size for the 928/959 MHz bands also is
    12.5 kHz, although a small number of channels are 25 kHz. We will
    award licenses on the basis of 12.5 kHz channels for the 928/959 MHz
    bands. Such an approach follows our traditional MAS channeling
    plans, will cause the least disruption to incumbents, and will allow
    for protection of new geographic area licensees.

**3. Treatment of the 932/941 MHz Bands**

27. [Background]{.underline}*.* Previously, we noted that a substantial
    majority of the dismissed applications proposed to use the 932/941
    MHz bands for subscriber-based services.[^52] We indicated that the
    Commission has never allocated these 932/941 MHz bands specifically
    for any one particular type of service,[^53] and tentatively
    concluded that the Commission would use competitive bidding
    procedures to award licenses in these bands.[^54]

28. [Discussion]{.underline}. Upon reviewing the record to this
    proceeding, we believe that the scope of the MAS service is
    evolving. Although many commenters criticize our approach for
    determining the most probable future use to which these bands will
    be placed,[^55] we cannot ignore the fact that a substantial number
    of the previously filed applications for the 932/941 MHz bands
    proposed to provide subscriber-based services.[^56] API, Adaptive,
    and AWWA assert that our premise, in this instance, is misplaced
    because many of the 1992 applicants were speculators and the
    applications did not reflect the intentions of applicants that had a
    genuine need for this additional spectrum.[^57]

29. Additionally, some commenters express a general concern about the
    congestion in the other MAS bands as a result of the growth in
    private internal use, particularly in the 928/952 MHz bands, and
    emphasize the original intended use for the 932/941 MHz bands.[^58]
    Other commenters, such as Commonwealth Edison, Consolidated Edison,
    Northern States Power, South Carolina E&G, and the Southern
    Operating Companies, support a set-aside for public safety radio
    services, averring that we should reserve portions of these bands
    for public safety radio services, including utilities because these
    services are exempt from auctions.[^59]

30. We realize that relieving the congestion present in the other MAS
    bands was part of our objective when we originally designated the
    932/941 MHz bands for MAS. Given the substantial interest in the MAS
    bands from current and potential operators that provide services on
    a for-profit basis, it appears that as licensees, these providers
    intend to make efficient and innovative use of this spectrum. In
    this connection, we find that the record also supports a separate
    allotment for private internal operations in these bands. Allowing
    licensees to develop this available spectrum for whichever purpose
    meets their needs is likely to result in its efficient use. In our
    efforts to balance the interests of all MAS users, we designate
    twenty of the forty 12.5 kHz channel pairs specifically for public
    safety/Federal Government and private internal use. Consequently, we
    will not restrict the permissible uses or eligibility for the
    remaining twenty channels; however, such users will be subject to
    the licensing approach implemented for these channels. We believe
    that this segmentation approach is the best method to accommodate
    all users of MAS spectrum and is, therefore, in the public interest.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  **Frequency Set-Aside in the 932/941 MHz Bands for Government and
    Public Safety Entities**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
31. [Background]{.underline}*.* In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed
    to set aside five of the forty channel pairs in the 932/941 MHz
    bands for public safety and Federal Government uses to help
    alleviate congestion in other bands for these services.[^60] We
    received general support for this proposal.[^61] In the *Further
    Notice*, we sought further comment on this proposal and on how to
    determine eligibility for such a set-aside.[^62] Specifically, we
    sought comment on whether we should, for instance, use the
    traditional public safety service categories outlined in our Rules
    to determine eligibility or the expanded definition provided by the
    Balanced Budget Act.[^63] It is generally understood that public
    safety services are services in which the sole or principal purpose
    is to protect the safety of life, health, or property, provided by
    State or local government entities or eligible non-governmental
    organizations, that are not made commercially available to the
    public by the provider.[^64] The Balanced Budget Act expands the
    definition to include private internal radio services used by State
    and local governments, non-government entities, and emergency road
    services provided by not-for-profit organizations that must meet
    certain criteria. The services must be used to protect the safety of
    life, health, or property, and cannot be "commercially" available to
    the public.[^65]

32. [Discussion]{.underline}*.* Most commenters to the *Further Notice*
    generally support setting aside additional channel pairs in the
    932/941 MHz bands for public safety radio service use, as defined by
    the Balanced Budget Act.[^66] However, some commenters believe that
    we should allocate more than five channel pairs in the 932/941 MHz
    bands for public safety radio service use as defined by the Balanced
    Budget Act.[^67]

33. As discussed previously, we believe that designating twenty of the
    forty channel pairs in the 932/941 MHz bands for traditional public
    safety/Federal Government and private internal services is in the
    public interest.[^68] However, we also agree with the
    commenters[^69] who express concern about the adequacy of spectral
    resources available for public safety use.

34. We have long recognized that the public safety community has certain
    unique characteristics that distinguish it from other users of the
    radio spectrum.[^70] Similarly, the Final Report of the Public
    Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) stated that \"wireless
    communications systems are critical to Public Safety agencies\'
    ability to protect lives and property and the welfare of Public
    Safety officials \[and that\] unless immediate measures are taken to
    alleviate spectrum shortfalls and promote interoperability, Public
    Safety agencies will not be able to adequately discharge their
    obligation to protect life and property in a safe, efficient, and
    cost effective manner.\"[^71] PSWAC's Steering Committee indicated
    that more flexible licensing policies are desirable as part of its
    recommendations and observations with regard to fulfilling the
    public safety community's immediate and future needs.[^72]

35. Although the *PSWAC Final Report* did not specify MAS spectrum for a
    potential new public safety allocation, we believe that it is
    possible to use this spectrum to satisfy the public safety
    community\'s growing demand for narrowband data and paging
    applications.[^73] We also consider this public safety and Federal
    Government set aside proposal to be a first step towards
    establishing a policy of streamlining cooperative use of Federal and
    non-Federal spectrum.

36. In an effort to alleviate the concern about spectrum availability
    for public safety use, we designate five of the twenty channel pairs
    in the 932/941 MHz bands for public safety/Federal Government and
    private internal use, specifically for public safety services as
    defined by Part 90 of the Commission's Rules.[^74] In this
    connection, we will designate fifteen of the twenty channels for
    both private internal and traditional public safety services. We
    have recognized that both public safety and private internal users
    would provide important services.[^75] Further segmentation between
    public safety/Federal Government and other private internal use
    would alleviate concerns about spectrum availability for any
    particular use.

37. In this *Report and Order*, consistent with our statutory
    obligations and the public interest, we have licensed this spectrum
    in order to avoid mutual exclusivity. Thus we need not address the
    auction‑related issue of which licensees are exempt from auctions as
    public safety radio service licensees. We note that in March 1999,
    the Commission initiated a proceeding to assess the impact of the
    Balanced Budget Act on the Commission's determinations of which
    services are now auctionable.[^76] As stated earlier, we will defer
    resolution of which services are auctionable or contained within the
    "public safety radio services" exemption to the *BBA NPRM*
    proceeding.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Channeling Plan---932/941 MHz Bands**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
38. [Background]{.underline}. The current basic channelization in the
    MAS bands is 12.5 kHz. However, entities may be licensed for 25 kHz
    and 50 kHz operations upon a showing of need.[^77] In the *Notice,*
    the Commission sought comment as to whether the channel bandwidth
    should be increased by combining two or more MAS channel pairs to
    assign larger frequency blocks.[^78] While commenters did not
    specifically address this approach, they generally support the
    greater flexibility that results from our proposal to allow
    contiguous channel aggregation up to 50 kHz.[^79]

39. [Discussion]{.underline}. Although we proposed to award all MAS
    licenses in 12.5 kHz blocks, we have decided that awarding a single
    50 kHz license in each geographic area is consistent with our
    proposal to increase operational flexibility. Thus, of the twenty
    channel pairs where user restrictions are not imposed, we will
    combine four of the channel pairs and award a single paired 50 kHz
    license by competitive bidding. The sixteen remaining channel pairs
    will be awarded as paired 12.5 kHz blocks. We believe that offering
    a 50 kHz channel pair will provide successful applicants with more
    flexibility in developing, implementing, and expanding business
    plans and operations, and will facilitate non-traditional MAS
    services like, for example, Narrowband Personal Communications
    Service (narrowband PCS).[^80]

40. We believe that MAS licensees should be given the opportunity to
    compete with the service offerings of licensees in comparable bands.
    By distributing a 50 kHz license for each geographic service area,
    we are confident that this spectrum can be put to efficient use and
    that service offerings will be competitive with other narrowband
    services, such as narrowband paging and SMR. We believe that
    affording licensees the flexibility associated with larger spectrum
    blocks should help to promote technical innovation by providing them
    with additional flexibility to take advantage of new technology.

41. Nonetheless, we are aware that some traditional MAS systems and
    other systems that may be established do not need 50 kHz channel
    blocks. For this reason, we will award sixteen paired 12.5 kHz
    licenses for each geographic service area. By doing so, we seek to
    fulfill our duty of encouraging the dissemination of MAS licensees
    to a diverse pool of applicants. Licensees are in the best position
    to determine whether their needs require a 50 kHz channel block or a
    12.5 kHz block and what size service area is appropriate. By
    creating this channeling plan, and by allowing licensees to
    aggregate contiguous channels,[^81] we believe that we have afforded
    these applicants appropriate flexibility to facilitate their
    business plans and decisions.

42. As stated earlier, we leave unchanged our proposal to allocate five
    paired 12.5 kHz channels for public safety/Federal Government use.
    We also designate fifteen paired 12.5 kHz channels for public
    safety[^82] and private internal services.

**C. MAS Licensing Approach**

> **1. The 928/952/956 MHz Bands**

43. [Background]{.underline}. As noted earlier, in the *Further Notice*
    we sought comment on our licensing approach for the 928/952/956 MHz
    bands. We tentatively concluded that we should retain site-by-site
    licensing if we reserve these bands exclusively for public safety
    radio services.[^83]

44. [Discussion]{.underline}. We believe that a site-by-site licensing
    scheme with frequency coordination is the best approach to licensing
    the 928/952/956 MHz bands because we are reserving these bands for
    private internal use.[^84] Generally, when spectrum is used for
    private internal services, it is not necessary to develop geographic
    area licensing to ensure that service is widely available to the
    general public. The majority of the commenters support a
    site-by-site licensing scheme in order to avoid mutually exclusive
    applications.[^85] We agree that retaining first-come, first-served,
    site-by-site licensing in these spectrum bands is in the public
    interest.[^86] Site-by-site licensing will be the least disruptive
    licensing mechanism to current MAS operations, and will allow
    immediate licensing of this spectrum to private internal users, as
    well as public safety operations, thereby alleviating concerns of
    regulatory delay.[^87] We note that an urgent need for this spectrum
    has been demonstrated, [^88] and in this instance, site-based
    licensing is not only less disruptive, but also more expeditious. We
    should also note, however, that if the public interest warrants it,
    we may employ other licensing approaches in other bands designated
    for private internal services. For example, some private internal
    uses may warrant wide area systems and therefore demand geographic
    area licensing. We have the discretion to alter our approach,
    consistent with the public interest, in future licensing decisions.

> **2. The 928/959 MHz Bands**

45. [Background]{.underline}*.* In the *Notice* and *Further Notice*, we
    also tentatively concluded that the 928/959 MHz bands are primarily
    being used to provide subscriber-based services.[^89] Additionally,
    in the *Further Notice*, we tentatively concluded that the Balanced
    Budget Act now requires us to resolve mutually exclusive
    applications for this spectrum through competitive bidding.[^90] We
    also requested comments concerning whether the private
    point-to-multipoint rules in Part 22 should be contained in Part
    101.[^91]

46. [Discussion]{.underline}*.* Commenters express general concern about
    the availability of spectrum for private radio use.[^92] After
    carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that entities seeking to
    provide for-profit services have a strong interest in obtaining MAS
    channels within the 928/959 MHz bands. Because we have found that
    the dominant use of these bands is not private internal as defined
    herein,[^93] we believe that it is appropriate to license these
    bands by geographic area and through a system of competitive
    bidding. In this connection, we note that with respect to for-profit
    services, licensees tend to desire and need the capability to
    provide coverage over a wide geographic area, which bears upon the
    licensees' ability to provide service to a wide range of the public.
    Thus, for these types of services, we believe that there is a public
    interest need for wide area licenses. Moreover, we believe that
    geographic area licensing for MAS spectrum designated primarily for
    such services would encourage efficient spectrum use, expeditious
    licensing, and the rapid delivery of new technologies to the public.

47. With regard to whether private point-to-multipoint rules in Part 22
    should be located in Part 101, MDS supports this proposal.[^94] We
    note that we are consolidating some of the MAS Service rules within
    Part 101, as well as referencing other parts of the Commission's
    Rules that are pertinent to MAS applicants and licensees. In
    addition, we require applications for new MAS licenses to comply
    with the Part 101 Rules. Incumbents under Part 22 are now subject to
    the restrictions of Part 101, Subpart O, but may make permissible
    modifications, transfers, assignments, or renew their licenses using
    procedures, forms, fees, and filing requirements of Part 22. We
    believe this action to be in the public interest because it will
    simplify and reduce efforts to locate rules pertaining to MAS.

**3. The 932/941 MHz Bands**

48. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed
    to use competitive bidding procedures to award licenses in the
    932/941 MHz bands because of the Commission's belief that these
    bands would be used for subscriber-based services.[^95] In the
    *Further Notice,* we tentatively concluded that the Balanced Budget
    Act now requires the use of competitive bidding procedures to
    resolve mutually exclusive applications for licenses in these bands.

49. [Discussion]{.underline}. Generally, the commenters do not support
    geographic area licensing for these bands and prefer that we retain
    first-come, first-served, site-by-site licensing.[^96] In addition,
    Corn Belt Power asks that we confine auctions to "major urban
    markets" or auction urban licenses first if we decide to employ
    competitive bidding in the 932/941 MHz bands.[^97] In contrast,
    Commonwealth Edison, Consolidated Edison, Northern States Power,
    South Carolina E&G, and the Southern Operating Companies stress that
    we should not close the 932/941 MHz bands to utilities by making
    these bands subject to auction for all users. [^98]

50. We believe that geographic area licensing for the twenty channels,
    that are not reserved for public safety and private internal use in
    the 932/941 MHz bands, is in the public interest because this
    licensing scheme poses significant advantages over site-based
    licensing for entities providing wide area services. In our
    experience, we have found that, with respect to bands that are
    likely to be used to support services offered on a wide-area basis,
    licensing bands based on pre-defined service areas, such as
    geographic areas, promotes greater operational flexibility.[^99]
    Hence, MAS operators seeking to construct wide-area systems would be
    able to effectively compete with other similar services, such as
    narrowband PCS or Specialized Mobile Radio Service (SMR). Under the
    Commission's current rules, these MAS applicants must obtain
    authorizations on a station-by-station basis and must apply to the
    Commission for permission to make even relatively minor
    modifications to their systems, thereby having to overcome many more
    regulatory obstacles than narrowband PCS and SMR providers. Adopting
    a flexible licensing scheme for MAS will not only improve the
    ability of current and future MAS licensees to compete with
    comparable services, but it would also further the goal of ensuring
    analogous regulation for substantially similar services.[^100]

51. In addition, we believe that licenses based on geographic areas
    would provide licensees and the public with greater certainty about
    what area is covered by each authorization, thereby making it easier
    to resolve conflicts between applicants seeking to provide service
    to a common area. In this connection, a reduction of the various
    administrative burdens placed on the Commission and licensees would
    result, partly because MAS licensees would no longer have to seek
    Commission approval before minor system modifications. Accordingly,
    we conclude that licensing by geographic area and employing a system
    of competitive bidding to award licenses for those channels in the
    932/941 MHz bands that are not designated for private internal use
    in this *Report and Order* would best serve the public interest.

52. After taking note of PSWAC\'s request for flexible licensing
    policies in the public safety context and our desire to foster
    flexibility in the MAS Service, we have decided to license the
    twenty channels set aside for public safety/Federal Government and
    private internal services, on a first-come, first-served,
    site-by-site basis with frequency coordination. We also conclude
    that coordination of operations on these frequencies will be
    accomplished through the IRAC of the NTIA, using the mileage
    separation criteria in Part 101 of our Rules.

**D. Treatment of Incumbent Licensees**

53. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice* and the *Further Notice*,
    we sought comment on whether to grandfather all existing services in
    the 928/959 MHz and the 928/952/956 MHz bands that do not meet the
    eligibility criteria for these bands.[^101] Specifically, in the
    *Notice*, the Commission proposed that geographic area licensees
    would be required to provide protection[^102] to all co-channel
    systems[^103] that are constructed and operating within their
    geographic service area.[^104] It was further proposed that
    incumbents would have to seek consent from the geographic area
    licensee before expanding their systems beyond this contour.[^105]
    The Commission also stated that providing incumbents with the
    flexibility to modify or augment their systems would be in the
    public interest to the extent that they do not encroach on
    co-channel operations of the geographic area licensee.[^106] Hence,
    the Commission proposed to define a service area for the protection
    of incumbents' operations.[^107]

54. [Discussion]{.underline}. We believe that allowing incumbent MAS
    operators on the 928/959 MHz and the 928/952/956 MHz bands to
    continue operations on these bands is in the public interest. Many
    commenters support this proposal.[^108] Commenters also suggest
    alternative approaches to the grandfathering issue. For example,
    AWWA believes that our logic for grandfathering existing
    subscriber-based users in the 928/952/956 MHz bands is unclear and
    inappropriate because we plan to make most of the 932/941 MHz bands
    available for auction.[^109] AWWA adds that for subscriber-based
    service licensees with existing investments in facilities in the
    928/952/956 MHz bands, grandfathering provisions with a sunset
    provision, such as five years from final *Report and Order*
    promulgation, would be more appropriate.[^110]

55. In this instance, we do not believe that AWWA's proposal for
    grandfathering with a sunset provision is in the public interest.
    This action would neither preserve current operations nor minimize
    the amount of disruption that existing operations would experience.
    We conclude that the public interest would be best served by
    allowing these incumbent licensees to continue existing operations
    under their current authorizations.[^111] Additionally, many users
    in these bands may not have the resources to relocate their
    operations to other spectrum, which would compromise the important
    functions that they provide.

56. With regard to the 928/959 MHz bands, we realize that some of these
    licensed service areas will be occupied by incumbent MAS licensees.
    While we recognize the importance of protecting future geographic
    area MAS licensees from co-channel interference from those licensees
    that are already constructed and operating, and of affording them
    the opportunity to build-out their systems within the geographic
    area for which they will pay, we decline to force these incumbents
    to relocate. We believe that interference will likely be minimal
    given the current operational rules and the additional proposals
    designed to protect incumbents that are set forth herein. Therefore,
    we agree with UTC, that existing MAS entities should be
    grandfathered indefinitely regardless of eligibility restrictions
    that may preclude the licensees from applying for additional MAS
    licenses in the bands.[^112] Grandfathering current operations is
    the best approach to minimizing any disruption that may result from
    the new assignments.

57. Commenters, however, provide mixed responses to the issue of
    expansion with respect to incumbent operations.[^113] We believe
    that the public interest will be best served by permitting MAS
    incumbents in the 928/959 MHz and the 928/952/956 MHz bands to
    continue operations on these bands. However, we do not believe that
    all incumbents should inherit unfettered expansion privileges.
    Specifically, entities on the 928/959 MHz bands will not be allowed
    to obtain new licenses or expand beyond their current contours
    except through participation in the competitive bidding licensing
    process. We will conduct an auction overlay in these bands, and all
    available areas will be licensed to the geographic area licensee.
    Therefore, incumbents on the 928/959 MHz bands will not be permitted
    to expand beyond a defined service area based on their current
    contours, unless the incumbents and the geographic licensee reach an
    alternative agreement regarding such modification.[^114] We will
    permit incumbents on the 928/952/956 MHz bands to expand their
    systems because these bands will be licensed on a site-by-site
    basis, and incumbents will remain subject to the Commission\'s
    current rules on interference protection and co-channel spacing.

58. We also adopt our proposal to define a protected service area for
    incumbents. Currently, incumbents must abide by a co-channel[^115]
    mileage separation based on an assumed 25-mile service area.[^116]
    Some commenters stated that a 25-mile protection area against
    interference would not be sufficient[^117] and suggested alternative
    approaches for defining a protected service area.[^118]

59. We are not convinced that any of the alternatives proposed by
    commenters strikes a sound balance between protecting incumbents and
    protecting future licensees. Therefore, we will use a designation,
    based on twenty-five miles from the radius of each master station
    transmitter site and the resulting composite contour, as a basis for
    defining an incumbent\'s protected service area. When the Commission
    decided on the assumed 25-mile service area and the specific mileage
    separation between master stations, we considered both
    communications quality and spectrum efficiency.[^119] As always, it
    is our goal to allow for the maintenance of a high quality signal
    through the service area, while still maximizing spectrum re-use.

60. Some commenters claim that efficient use of their spectrum allows
    them to transmit in excess of twenty-five miles from their master
    stations. Nonetheless, we decline to adopt a protected service area
    greater than twenty-five miles. It is unnecessary to extend the
    protected service area to the most remote locations that could
    theoretically receive service, especially because ideal propagation
    conditions do not always exist and the highest quality reception
    equipment is not always used. Besides the fact that the rules
    require incumbent operations to abide by a co-channel mileage
    separation based on an assumed 25-mile service area, this service
    area designation seems to be consistent with the technical
    parameters of typical MAS operations.[^120] We conclude that
    geographic area licensees must protect incumbents to a signal
    strength of 40 dBV/m or less at the incumbent's service area
    boundaries, unless a higher signal strength is agreed to by all
    affected co-channel, adjacent area licensees.[^121]

61. Incumbents may make modifications to existing systems and add new
    transmitters (*e.g.*, fill in \"dead spots\") as long as the signal
    level is not increased beyond the incumbent\'s 25-mile service
    area.[^122] These licensees will be able to make these modifications
    without filing site specific applications.[^123] As we proposed,
    however, incumbent licensees may not further expand their systems
    unless the incumbents and the geographic licensee have reached an
    alternative agreement regarding such modification. This approach is
    consistent with our rules for 800 and 900 MHz SMRs[^124] and for
    paging systems.[^125] While we are confident that incumbent
    operations will be adequately protected by the rules adopted in this
    *Report and Order*, we are equally as confident that the ability of
    geographic area licensees to construct stations throughout their
    authorized service areas will not be hindered.

**E. Service Area**

62. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, the Commission noted the
    growing demand for regional and nationwide licenses, as evidenced by
    the success of the narrowband PCS auction, and accordingly, sought
    comment on whether to set aside a certain number of channel pairs in
    the 932/941 MHz bands for regional or nationwide use.[^126] In
    addition, the Commission sought comment on the use of smaller
    geographic licensing areas, all of which have been implemented in
    the context of other services.[^127] Specifically, the Commission
    proposed to use EAs as the service area for MAS geographic area
    licenses.[^128]

63. [Discussion]{.underline}. Most commenters do not believe that we
    should establish a regional or national set-aside of selected
    932/941 MHz channels. Some commenters believe that designating
    channels exclusively for regional or nationwide use is inappropriate
    and contrary to the intended uses for MAS spectrum.[^129] MDS argues
    that having regional or nationwide channels will result in areas
    remaining unused and unlicensable to others.[^130] Finally, Black &
    Associates suggests that although nationwide and regional frequency
    pairs would be an advantage to paging licensees that simulcast and
    for mobile service, there has been a trend in the paging industry to
    use satellite control frequencies instead of frequencies in the
    928/959 MHz bands for economy and flexibility.[^131]

64. While many commenters support retention of site-by-site licensing
    for MAS spectrum, several commenters support the use of EAs,
    particularly for subscriber-based operations in the 932/941 MHz and
    the 928/952/956 MHz bands, should we adopt a geographic licensing
    approach.[^132] Other commenters argue that the typical geographic
    area served by MAS licensees is smaller than the EAs tentatively
    selected by the Commission.[^133] Thus, they recommend the adoption
    of service areas the size of MSAs and RSAs because service areas of
    this size would permit viable MAS service without a significant
    increase over EAs in terms of the Commission's administrative
    burden.

65. While commenters generally agree that geographic area licensing
    based on EAs is appropriate for subscriber-based licensees, the
    majority of commenters argue that EAs are not appropriate for
    incumbents in the MAS bands. For example, some commenters argue that
    EAs are not a suitable alternative for existing private MAS systems
    because private systems have a size and shape tailored to the
    particular internal business objectives of the licensee.[^134]
    Another argument is that EAs do not provide an appropriate licensing
    mechanism in those MAS bands in which there are incumbent systems
    because most MAS systems are limited in area (primarily by the
    ninety-mile co-channel protection distance) to a service area much
    smaller than the EAs delineated by the Department of Commerce.[^135]
    Therefore, CellNet argues that smaller license areas, such as
    Component Economic Areas (CEAs), should be used to license any MAS
    bands in which there are incumbent licensees.[^136]

66. We agree with most commenters that a channel set-aside in the
    932/941 MHz bands for regional or nationwide use would not be
    appropriate for this service. We believe that other spectrum, such
    as narrowband PCS, is available and can accommodate those operations
    that would potentially benefit from such a licensing approach.

67. Furthermore, we conclude that EAs constitute the most appropriate
    geographic area licensing boundaries for those portions of the MAS
    bands that we have designated for geographic area licensing in this
    *Report and Order*. As the Commission stated in the *Notice*, MSAs
    and RSAs are too small to create a viable wide-area service and
    these geographic definitions would result in an administrative
    burden for the Commission.[^137] We believe that EAs are service
    areas large enough to permit viable wide-area service and would
    reduce our administrative burden. Further, EAs appear to mirror the
    size and development of existing MAS systems and are small enough to
    provide an opportunity for small businesses to obtain a
    license.[^138] We believe that licensing the MAS bands by EAs will
    provide ample population coverage and allow licensees the
    flexibility to provide many different types of services, which will
    promote an equitable distribution of licenses and services among
    geographic areas, encourage economic opportunities among a variety
    of applicants, and foster investment in the rapid deployment of new
    technologies and services. As in other services where we have used
    EA-based licenses, we propose to use a total of 175 service areas --
    the 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.
    Finally, for entities desiring service areas smaller than EAs, we
    note that in this *Report and Order* we are permitting partitioning
    and disaggregation in the MAS bands.[^139] We believe that the
    availability of these options, as well as allowing licensees to
    aggregate contiguous channels,[^140] will enhance MAS licensees'
    flexibility regarding system design and service offerings, which
    will promote the efficient and diverse use of the MAS bands.

**F. Geographic Area Licensing**

68. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed
    to allow EA licensees to construct master stations at any available
    site within the licensed area and on any channel for which they are
    licensed, provided the operation does not require individual
    Commission review.[^141] The Commission also stated that all remote
    stations would be blanket licensed under the EA license. Under this
    proposal, EA licensees would still be required to individually
    license any master station that: (1) requires the submission of an
    Environmental Assessment under 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307; (2) requires
    international coordination; or (3) would affect the radio frequency
    quiet zones described in 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.369 and 101.123.[^142] In
    addition, any MAS antenna structure that requires notification to
    the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has to be registered with
    the Commission prior to construction.[^143] The Commission indicated
    that it would be the EA licensee\'s responsibility to decide whether
    to apply for an individual license for any given master station. The
    *Notice* also proposed to allow EA licensees to make system
    modifications within their service areas, without prior Commission
    consent, provided that individual Commission review is not
    required.[^144]

69. In addition, in order to assist EA licensees in consolidating MAS
    spectrum, the *Notice* proposed that: (1) if an incumbent has its
    license terminated by the Commission or cancels its license, the
    spectrum covered by the incumbent's authorization will automatically
    revert to the relevant EA licensee, and (2) if an EA licensee
    negotiates to acquire an incumbent system by assignment or transfer,
    the assignment or transfer will presumptively be considered in the
    public interest.[^145]

70. [Discussion]{.underline}. We note, as an initial matter, that only a
    few commenters addressed issues regarding geographic area licensing.
    Although those parties offered a mixed reaction to our proposals, we
    believe that our simplified approach toward the initial licensing
    and subsequent system modifications will increase operational
    flexibility, thereby resulting in faster, more responsive service to
    the public, and it will substantially reduce administrative burdens
    on both MAS licensees and the Commission.[^146] As a result, we will
    allow EA licensees to construct master stations at any available
    site within their licensed area and on any channel for which they
    are licensed, provided the operation does not require individual
    Commission review.[^147] In this regard, we disagree with MDS's
    comments that we should retain the current requirement that all
    master station sites be coordinated and licensed.[^148] We adopt our
    proposal that all remote stations will be blanket licensed under
    their respective EA licenses. EA licensees also will be able to make
    system modifications within their service areas (*i.e*., to add,
    subtract, move and otherwise modify their master station
    facilities), without Commission consent provided that individual
    Commission review is not required. As previously noted, this
    approach is consistent with how we license systems in other services
    on a geographic area basis.[^149] Finally, as we have in other
    services, we are implementing a policy that if we terminate or
    cancel an incumbent's license, the spectrum covered by the
    incumbent's authorization will automatically revert to the
    applicable EA licensee.[^150]

**G. Spectrum Cap and Aggregation**

71. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed
    to assign geographic area licenses on a channel-by-channel basis for
    non-subscriber based operations.[^151] The Commission tentatively
    concluded that allowing licensees to aggregate MAS spectrum would
    not pose a risk of competitive harm and that, therefore, a spectrum
    aggregation limit was unnecessary.[^152] In making that
    determination, the Commission noted that where licenses are subject
    to competitive bidding, the risk of channel warehousing appears
    limited because the licensees are unlikely to bid for more channels
    than they actually need or can use.[^153] The Commission also sought
    comment on whether it may be appropriate to establish a spectrum
    aggregation limit if it ultimately decided to allow mobile
    operations on a primary basis.[^154]

72. [Discussion]{.underline}. Earlier in this *Report and Order*, we
    adopted our proposal to award licenses on a channel-by-channel basis
    in the bands designated for private internal use.[^155] CellNet
    proposes that we impose a 100 kHz spectrum cap for the 932/941 MHz
    bands.[^156] CellNet states that for the encumbered bands, we should
    retain our *de facto* limit of fifty kHz.[^157] According to
    CellNet, allowing any entity to obtain more than fifty kHz in these
    bands may encourage spectrum warehousing.[^158]

73. After considering the record in this proceeding, we have decided not
    to adopt a limit on the amount of MAS spectrum that a single entity
    may obtain. In this connection, entities providing or proposing to
    provide service under a geographic area license may aggregate
    unlimited spectrum in their designated bands, and site-based
    licensees may aggregate unlimited spectrum in any MAS band. We
    continue to believe, as indicated in the *Notice*, that allowing
    licensees to aggregate MAS spectrum will not present a risk of
    competitive harm.[^159] In services where we have imposed a spectrum
    cap, the risk of anticompetitive behavior and warehousing existed
    due to a limited number of available channels.[^160] Given the
    number of MAS licenses that we are making available and the fact
    that numerous licensees are operating currently, we conclude that
    not adopting a spectrum cap is unlikely to result in a risk of
    competitive harm. Similarly, we believe that loading requirements
    are unnecessary.

74. In addition, we are not persuaded by those commenters that suggest
    that an aggregation limit is necessary to ensure efficient and
    effective utilization of MAS spectrum reserved for non-subscriber
    based services.[^161] CellNet believes that in order to ensure the
    efficient use of MAS spectrum, reasonable limits should be
    imposed.[^162] AWWA maintains that the reliability of service and
    accountability needed to ensure uninterrupted service to the public
    (i.e., water, gas, electricity, etc.) mean little to
    subscriber-based service providers because the return on investment
    typically is much higher when their systems are designed and
    operated for "non-critical" user populations.[^163] We find that our
    decision to set aside certain channels and bands\--devoted to
    private internal use\--adequately addresses the commenters'
    concerns. Within the channels allocated for private internal use,
    licensees (such as those that employ SCADA MAS systems) will have
    the option of aggregating spectrum when necessary to protect their
    "critical" systems.

75. Anticompetitive channel warehousing is also unlikely. Because the
    twenty channels in the 932/941 MHz bands, as well as the channels in
    928/959 MHz bands, will be assigned initially through competitive
    bidding, they will be assigned efficiently to firms that have shown
    by their willingness to pay market value, their intention to put the
    licenses to the highest valued uses.

76. We further conclude that MAS holdings will not be subject to the
    CMRS spectrum cap of forty-five MHz.[^164] The record indicates that
    there will be an adequate number of licenses available to meet the
    needs of the MAS licensees and other competitors in the marketplace,
    and we find it unlikely that one entity will wield undue market
    power by aggregating MAS spectrum. Moreover, we do not find that an
    aggregation limit is necessary to foster competition. Indeed, an MAS
    spectrum aggregation limit that was applicable to MAS licensees
    might limit the ability of such licensees to bring efficient
    competition to the marketplace.[^165] Additionally, we conclude that
    there may be benefits to the public in terms of efficiencies and
    types of services provided if we permit unlimited aggregation of MAS
    spectrum.[^166]

**H. Partitioning and Disaggregation**

**1. Partitioning and Disaggregation Framework**

77. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed a
    framework for geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation
    based upon the model developed for broadband PCS.[^167] The
    Commission proposed to allow all MAS licensees to partition at any
    time to any entity eligible for an MAS license.[^168] The Commission
    also proposed to permit partitioning of MAS licenses based on any
    geographic area defined by the parties to a partitioning
    arrangement.[^169] With respect to construction requirements, the
    Commission sought comment regarding which party should be held
    responsible for satisfying outstanding construction
    requirements.[^170] In the *Notice*, the Commission suggested two
    construction options that would afford the parties the flexibility
    to choose how to apportion the responsibility to build out the
    partitioned license areas.[^171] The Commission also proposed to
    require that the parties to such partitioning arrangements file
    supporting documentation showing compliance with the applicable
    construction requirements.[^172]

78. Furthermore, in the *Notice* the Commission proposed to permit
    disaggregation of MAS spectrum.[^173] Under this approach, an MAS
    licensee would be allowed to transfer a portion of its spectrum in
    its EA to another entity. The Commission invited comment on whether
    minimum disaggregation standards are necessary if we permit
    disaggregation of MAS spectrum.[^174] With respect to construction
    requirements, the Commission proposed to retain the underlying five-
    and ten-year construction requirements for the MAS license as a
    whole, but suggested allowing either party to the disaggregation
    agreement to meet the construction requirements with respect to the
    disaggregated portion of the license.[^175] The Commission also
    proposed mandating that the parties seeking Commission approval of
    the disaggregation agreement certify which party will assume
    responsibility for complying with the applicable construction
    requirements, including the option of sharing responsibility for
    meeting such requirements.[^176] In the context of both partitioning
    and disaggregation, the Commission proposed that the party obtaining
    the partitioned licenses or disaggregated spectrum should hold its
    license for the remainder of the original licensee's license
    term.[^177]

79. [Discussion]{.underline}. Consistent with our approach in other
    services,[^178] we conclude that MAS EA licensees should be
    permitted to partition any portion of their EAs, and to disaggregate
    any amount of spectrum at any time to any entity eligible for an MAS
    license.[^179] In this connection, we note that several commenters
    support this approach.[^180]

80. While AWWA and MDS question our reliance on our approach in
    broadband PCS as a model for MAS,[^181] we note that such approach
    also has been used in other contexts, such as 39 GHz, VHF public
    coast, 220 MHz, and paging, and we believe it is appropriate for the
    MAS context as well. Further, we concur with Radscan's suggestion
    that partitioning and disaggregation would possibly provide an
    additional mechanism by which small businesses or entities with
    specialized communications needs (either due to limited and/or
    geography spectrum requirements) would gain access to
    spectrum.[^182]

81. Furthermore, we conclude that the parties to a partitioning
    agreement should be given two options to apportion the
    responsibility for meeting minimum construction requirements.[^183]
    Under the first option, each party to the partitioning agreement
    would be subject to the same construction requirements for its
    respective areas regardless of when the partitionee acquired its
    license.[^184] If a licensee fails to meet its construction
    requirements during the relevant license term, the non-performing
    licensee's authorization would be subject to cancellation at the end
    of the license term.[^185] Under the second option, the original
    licensee (partitionor) would certify that it has already met or will
    meet its five-year construction requirement and that it will meet
    its ten-year construction requirement for the entire market.[^186]
    If the original licensee, for example, fails to meet its
    requirements during the relevant license term, however, only its
    license would be subject to cancellation at the end of the license
    term. The partitionee's license would not be affected by that
    failure, and the partitionee would be permitted to satisfy the
    substantial service requirement for its partitioned license area at
    the end of the ten-year license term.[^187] A licensee whose license
    was cancelled for failure to meet its construction requirement must
    return the license to the Commission pursuant to Section 101.63 of
    our Rules.[^188]

82. We concur with AWWA's suggestion that permitting disaggregation for
    EA licensees may promote efficient utilization of the MAS
    spectrum.[^189] AWWA adds that the parties to a disaggregation
    agreement should be jointly and separately responsible for meeting
    construction requirements, substantial service requirements, and the
    other terms of the original authorization.[^190] We find that once
    an initial geographic area MAS license is assigned, the licensee
    ordinarily should be free to disaggregate its spectrum in order to
    operate in a manner that it determines to be efficient, so long as
    such plans provide the necessary out-of-band emission protections to
    third party licensees as required by our Rules.[^191] The parties to
    a disaggregation agreement---just as the parties to a partitioning
    agreement---must file an application for assignment of
    authorization.

83. Similar to the model developed for broadband PCS, we decline to
    restrict the amount of MAS spectrum that can be disaggregated.[^192]
    Additionally, we will not require the disaggregator to retain a
    minimum amount of spectrum.[^193] Market forces and available
    technology, rather than regulation, should determine how much
    spectrum parties decide to disaggregate.[^194]

84. With respect to construction requirements, we find no sufficient
    reason to depart from the proposal in the *Notice* regarding the
    obligations of each party to a disaggregation agreement.[^195]
    Therefore, we will retain the underlying five- and ten-year
    construction requirements for the MAS license as a whole, but allow
    either party to the disaggregation agreement to meet the
    construction requirements with respect to the disaggregated portion
    of the license. Parties seeking our approval of a disaggregation
    agreement must certify which party will assume responsibility for
    complying with the applicable construction requirements, including
    the option of sharing responsibility for meeting such requirements.
    We no longer need to establish a separate unjust enrichment
    requirement for approving partitioning and disaggregation in the MAS
    service, because we have adopted a uniform requirement in Part 1 of
    our Rules for all services.[^196] The unjust enrichment provisions
    adopted therein will also apply to MAS licensees that are afforded
    bidding credits and later elect to partition or disaggregate their
    licenses.[^197]

85. We will allow partitionees and disaggregatees to hold their licenses
    for the remainder of the original licensee's ten-year license term
    and be able to qualify for a renewal expectancy, provided that they
    provide substantial service and comply with our Rules and policies
    and the Communications Act.[^198] This approach is relatively simple
    to administer, it prevents an MAS licensee from obtaining greater
    license rights than were originally granted under the terms of the
    original license, and it allows existing MAS licensees flexibility
    to manage their spectrum rights.[^199]

**2. Combined Partitioning and Disaggregation**

86. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, the Commission
    tentatively concluded that it should permit "combined" partitioning
    and disaggregation[^200] arrangements in order to provide parties
    with the optimal flexibility to respond to market forces and demands
    for services relevant to their particular locations and service
    offerings.[^201] In the context of both partitioning and
    disaggregation, the Commission proposed that the party obtaining the
    partitioned licenses or disaggregated spectrum should hold its
    license for the remainder of the original licensee's license
    term.[^202] The Commission tentatively concluded that permitting
    partitioning and disaggregation in the manner described above would
    allow the MAS spectrum to be used most efficiently, speed service to
    unserved or underserved areas, and facilitate competition.[^203]

87. [Discussion]{.underline}. After reviewing the comments, we will
    permit EA licensees to employ combined partitioning and
    disaggregation. We note that this decision is consistent with our
    approach in other services.[^204] We believe that affording EA
    licensees this option may promote spectral efficiency.[^205] We also
    believe that the option of combined partitioning and disaggregation
    will enhance competition and encourage new market entrants.

**I. Mexican and Canadian Border Areas**

88. [Background]{.underline}. In the Mexican and Canadian border areas,
    MAS channel availability may be restricted by existing agreements
    between the United States and Mexico or Canada, and limitations may
    be imposed on Effective Radiated Power (ERP) and antenna
    height.[^206] In other services where we have converted to
    geographic area licensing, we have decided not to distinguish
    between border areas and non-border areas for licensing
    purposes.[^207] In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed to allow
    geographic area licensees to use any available border-area channels
    without regard to whether all or part of the EA is in a border area,
    subject only to the relevant rules regarding international
    assignment and coordination of such channels.[^208]

89. [Discussion]{.underline}. We will license all EAs on a uniform basis
    without regard to whether all or part of the EA is in a border area
    or a channel is restricted in some fashion. Although AWWA believes
    that not distinguishing between border and non-border areas for EA
    licensing in MAS will promote confusion, interference, and
    ineffective spectrum use,[^209] we find that altering the size of
    particular market areas because they are located near international
    borders is likely to be unworkable administratively. Furthermore,
    our approach here is consistent with that in other services.[^210]
    We agree with MDS that we should retain our current rules and
    sharing agreements in existence and that new licensees in the
    932/941 MHz bands must comply with the requirements as they are
    written for the current band.[^211] Consequently, EA licensees will
    be entitled to use any authorized channels subject to the relevant
    existing or future agreements regarding international assignments
    and coordination of such channels. We believe that applicants are in
    the best position to assess the effects of any limitations on the
    use of channels when evaluating those geographic areas for
    competitive bidding purposes. Our decision does not preclude EA
    licensees from obtaining the rights to additional MAS spectrum in
    the border areas through private negotiation and agreement with
    other licensees. We note that the geographic area licensees will be
    responsible for advising the Commission of any transmitter site
    changes or additions if site-by-site coordination is required by
    agreements with Canada or Mexico and in certain circumstances may be
    required to file appropriate applications to ensure proper
    coordination with other administrations, especially in circumstances
    where the frequencies are shared and on a first-in-time basis.

**J. Construction and Coverage Requirements**

90. [Background]{.underline}. Currently, each MAS master station
    licensed under Part 101 of our Rules must be placed in operation
    within eighteen months from the initial date of grant.[^212] In
    order to be considered in operation, MAS stations must be serving at
    least four separate active remote stations.[^213] In the *Notice*,
    the Commission concluded that we should retain this requirement for
    incumbent licensees.[^214] However, the Commission proposed
    requiring geographic area MAS licensees to provide coverage to at
    least one-fifth of the population in their service areas or
    substantial service within five years of the license grant.[^215] In
    addition, the Commission proposed to require geographic area MAS
    licensees to make a showing of substantial service within ten years
    of being licensed.[^216] The Commission also proposed that failure
    to meet these coverage requirements would result in automatic
    termination of the geographic MAS license.[^217] The Commission
    sought comment on these proposals.

91. [Discussion]{.underline}. Most commenters generally support the
    proposal to maintain a strict construction requirement for
    incumbents and to adopt a flexible approach with respect to
    geographic area MAS licensees. However, some of the commenters
    disagree with respect to the implementation of the proposed rules.
    GTECH, for example, believes that we should reduce the construction
    period for MAS systems from eighteen to twelve months in order to
    assure that vital MAS spectrum does not lie fallow.[^218] CellNet
    believes that construction requirements for geographic area
    licensees should reflect consumer demand, rather than an
    artificially quick deadline.[^219] In addition, CellNet states that
    in lieu of relying solely on a subjective substantial service test
    at the ten-year benchmark, licensees should be able to satisfy the
    standard if they have constructed a system that provides coverage to
    at least three-fifths of the population of the licensed service
    area.[^220] Other commenters note that, unlike cellular and PCS,
    universal demand for MAS service does not exist and, therefore,
    determining substantial service to the public may not necessarily be
    meaningful.[^221]

92. We agree that we should keep a strict construction requirement with
    respect to incumbent and new site-by-site licensees. This
    requirement will provide some assurance that site-by-site licensees
    are using spectrum effectively and are implementing service in a
    prompt manner. Therefore, we will retain our current rules with
    regards to construction requirements for incumbent and new
    site-by-site licensees, as set forth in Section 101.63 of our
    Rules.[^222] Specifically, the failure of a licensee to timely begin
    operation means the authorization cancels automatically.[^223]
    Additionally, frequencies associated with all point-to-multipoint
    authorizations which have cancelled automatically or otherwise been
    recovered by the Commission will again be made available for
    reassignment on a date and under terms set forth by Public
    Notice.[^224] As previously stated, however, the cancellation or
    expiration of incumbent authorizations in a geographic area that has
    been licensed will revert to the geographic area licensee.[^225]

93. We find, however, that different treatment is appropriate for MAS
    spectrum licensed under a geographic area licensing approach.
    Section 309(j)(3) of the Communications Act mandates that for each
    class of licenses that we grant through the use of a competitive
    bidding system, we must include safeguards to protect the public
    interest in the use of the spectrum.[^226] Therefore, as proposed in
    the *Notice*, we will require geographic area MAS licensees to
    provide coverage to at least one-fifth of the population in their
    service areas or substantial service within five years of the
    license grant. We note that in the past we have defined substantial
    service as "service which is sound, favorable, and substantially
    above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant
    renewal."[^227] In addition, geographic area MAS licensees must make
    a showing of continued substantial service within ten years of being
    licensed. We find that these coverage requirements are not only
    consistent with our rules for other services, [^228] but will also
    effectively hinder warehousing, promote the rapid development of new
    technologies and services, and promote service to rural areas.

94. Finally, we establish a renewal expectancy as a comparative factor
    for consideration by the Commission in MAS license renewals.[^229]
    It is our view that this renewal expectancy, coupled with the
    ten-year license term, will contribute toward the establishment of a
    stable regulatory environment that will serve to attract investment
    capital that, in turn, will promote the development and deployment
    of services utilizing the MAS spectrum bands. Under the rules we
    adopt today, an MAS licensee seeking renewal of its license is
    entitled to a renewal expectancy at the end of the license period as
    long as the applicant: (1) demonstrates that it has provided
    "substantial service" [^230] during its past license term; (2)
    demonstrates that it has substantially complied with applicable
    Commission rules, policies, and the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended; (3) provides an explanation of the licensee's record of
    expansion, including a timetable of the construction of new
    facilities to meet changes in demand for services provided by the
    licensee; and (4) provides a description of investments made by the
    licensee in its system.

95. In determining whether a renewal applicant has complied with the
    "substantial service" requirement by the end of the ten-year initial
    license term, we may consider factors such as (i) whether the
    licensee is offering a specialized or technologically sophisticated
    service that does not require a high level of coverage to be of
    benefit to customers,[^231] and (ii) whether the licensee's
    operations service niche markets or focus on serving populations
    outside of areas served by other licensees.[^232] These safe-harbor
    examples are intended to provide MAS licensees a degree of certainty
    as to how to comply with the substantial service requirement by the
    end of the ten-year initial license term. This requirement can be
    met in other ways, and we will review each licensee's showing on a
    case-by-case basis. However, failure to meet these coverage
    requirements will result in automatic termination of the geographic
    MAS license.[^233]

**K. Technical Flexibility**

96. [Background]{.underline}. Although the normal channel bandwidth
    assigned to the MAS frequencies is 12.5 kHz, our current Rules allow
    the authorization, upon adequate justification, of channels with
    bandwidths up to 50 kHz.[^234] Thus, any MAS licensee requesting
    spectrum in excess of 12.5 kHz is required to justify its need for
    greater bandwidth. While there are no specific criteria for such
    requests,[^235] the Commission's analysis considers all
    characteristics set forth in each justification on a case-by-case
    basis.[^236] The burden is on the applicant to provide a sufficient
    showing of need supporting the additional bandwidth.[^237] MAS
    licensees who successfully justify their need for additional
    bandwidth would receive licenses at that requested bandwidth.

97. In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed to allow geographic area
    licensees to combine contiguous channels resulting in bandwidths up
    to 50 kHz without a showing of need.[^238] The Commission also
    sought comment as to whether it would be in the public interest to
    increase the maximum authorized bandwidth beyond the current
    maximums.[^239] Geographic licensees would also be able to subdivide
    their 12.5 kHz channels.[^240]^ ^ With regard to the issue of
    co-channel interference protection obligations of geographic area
    licensees with respect to other geographic area licensees, the
    *Notice* proposed to establish interference protection criteria
    between different service areas at service area borders so that the
    out-of-band emission rules would apply only to the extent necessary
    to protect operations outside of the EA licensee's service area and
    to spectrum inside only if used by incumbents.[^241] Specifically,
    the Commission proposed to prohibit EA licensees from exceeding a
    signal level of 40 dBV/m[^242] at their service area boundaries,
    unless the bordering EA licensee agrees to a higher field strength
    (EA licensees would be free to negotiate with adjacent EA licensees
    concerning interference rights).[^243] The *Notice* also proposed to
    require coordination of frequency use between co-channel adjacent
    geographic area licensees and all other affected parties, and the
    Commission tentatively concluded that it is appropriate to extend
    the same technical flexibility adopted for EA licensees to incumbent
    licensees.[^244]

98. [Discussion]{.underline}. We will allow EA licensees to combine
    contiguous channels without a showing of need. This policy will
    apply to all the EA licensees in the 932/941 MHz and the 928/959 MHz
    bands, and there will be no limit on how many contiguous channels
    licensees or applicants may combine. After careful consideration, we
    do not believe, as asserted by AWWA and WSSC, that the failure to
    require a showing of need encourages warehousing and resale of
    spectrum in these bands, and is not necessarily in the public
    interest.[^245] We believe that this proposal has been made even
    more appropriate in light of our decision to award a single paired
    50 kHz license in the 932/941 MHz bands. Permitting licensees to
    combine channels without a showing of need will enable them to
    employ the widest variety of technologies to best meet the
    communications requirements of consumers and reduce regulatory
    burdens. Also, MAS licensees will be able to subdivide their
    channels. On the other hand, licensees in the private internal
    portion of the 932/941 MHz bands and the 928/952/956 MHz bands will
    be required to offer adequate justification if they want to increase
    their channel bandwidth beyond 50 kHz. That is, these licensees may
    combine contiguous channels without adequate justification, up to 50
    kHz. If wider bandwidth is desired, they must make a showing of
    need.[^246] We believe that in light of the shortage of available
    spectrum on these bands and our continued use of site-by-site
    licensing, a showing of need is necessary to reduce the risk of
    channel warehousing, speculative licensing, and spectrum resale, and
    will insure that entities can provide the benefits that impact the
    safety of the public.

99. As for the issue of co-channel interference protection obligations
    of geographic area licensees with respect to other geographic area
    licensees, CellNet supports the Commission\'s proposal to apply
    out-of-band emission limits only at the band edge of the licensee\'s
    service area and at the edge of the service area of any incumbent
    licensees.[^247] Within the service area, however, CellNet states
    that there should be no limit on emissions unless such emissions
    would cause co-channel or adjacent channel interference.[^248] We
    agree with CellNet, and as proposed in the *Notice*, we will
    establish interference protection criteria between different service
    areas at the service area borders. More specifically, we will
    prohibit such licensees from exceeding a signal strength of 40 dBV/m
    at their service area boundaries, unless the affected bordering
    geographic area licensee(s) agree(s) to a higher signal strength
    area,[^249] and we are requiring the equivalent signal strength
    protection of any incumbent licensees at the edge of their service
    area.[^250] EA licensees will be free to negotiate with adjacent
    licensees concerning interference rights. This approach provides
    licensees with a signal strength sufficient to operate their systems
    up to the borders of their geographic service areas, while also
    providing protection to adjacent operations. In addition, this
    restriction will further the Commission\'s goal of avoiding harmful
    interference without imposing an overly burdensome
    requirement.[^251] Comsearch agrees with the Commission that prior
    coordination and a detailed interference analysis are the only means
    of ensuring operational compatibility between adjacent area
    co-channel systems.[^252] We will, therefore, require coordination
    of frequency use between co-channel adjacent EA licensees and all
    other effected parties. As an exception to this requirement, to the
    extent that a single entity obtains licenses for adjacent geographic
    area licenses on the same channel block, it will not be required to
    coordinate its operations in this manner. We note that this approach
    is consistent with the Commission\'s decisions in the 800 MHz
    SMR[^253] and 900 MHz SMR contexts.[^254]

**L. Operational Flexibility**

100. [Background]{.underline}. Our current rules governing MAS allow
     licensees to use certain MAS channels for other types of operations
     besides point-to-multipoint transmissions. The rules, for instance,
     allow mobile operations on certain paired channels on a secondary
     basis.[^255] Certain point-to-point operations are also permitted
     on a secondary basis.[^256] Likewise, MAS licensees may transmit
     ancillary one-way communications on certain paired channels on a
     case-by-case basis.[^257] The Commission's original purpose in
     adopting limitations on these uses was to ensure that the spectrum
     would be used primarily to satisfy bona fide point-to-multipoint
     requirements.

101. In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed to allow MAS geographic
     area licensees to utilize both point-to-point and
     point-to-multipoint operations and to provide fixed[^258] and
     mobile service on a co-primary basis.[^259] The Commission also
     tentatively concluded that it is appropriate to extend the same
     operational flexibility proposed for EA licensees to incumbent
     licensees.[^260]

102. [Discussion]{.underline}. We will allow MAS licensees to establish
     both point-to-point and point-to-multipoint operations and to
     provide fixed and mobile service on a co-primary basis. While the
     comments received regarding this issue were varied, we believe that
     affording MAS licensees additional operational flexibility will
     offer a number of benefits. We also believe that to compete
     effectively in today's changing communications marketplace,
     licensees should be able to provide consumers a wide array of
     services and to have the ability to respond quickly to changing
     consumer demands.

103. We recognize that permitting point-to-point operations will be a
     departure from our previous decisions, where we stated that MAS
     spectrum should be reserved for point-to-multipoint operations. We
     believe, however, that permitting this additional flexibility,
     along with the flexibility afforded by the option to provide mobile
     service, is in the public interest. Our approach is consistent with
     current proposals as well as the Communications Act.[^261]

104. We respectfully disagree with commenters who have expressed concern
     that the rules we are adopting today, granting MAS licensees
     greater operational flexibility, will lead to greater intra-service
     interference. For example, AWWA and WSSC predict that the result of
     this excessive flexibility will be interference and universal chaos
     at the expense of all licensees, including those responsible for
     maintenance, protection, and operation of the nation\'s critical
     infrastructure.[^262] Our decisions in this *Report and Order*,
     however, are in accordance with established co-channel separation
     requirements set forth in the Commission\'s Rules. In addition,
     there is no evidence in the record that point-to-point and
     point-to-multipoint operations are inherently incompatible in the
     same band or licensing area. In fact, such operations are permitted
     and coexist in other fixed microwave bands.[^263] In the absence of
     evidence to the contrary, we conclude that affording MAS licensees
     flexibility in designing their systems to respond readily to
     consumer demand for their services would further the public
     interest by allowing the marketplace to dictate the best uses for
     these bands.

**M. Regulatory Status**

105. [Background]{.underline}. As stated previously, the Commission
     proposed to allow MAS geographic area licensees to provide both
     fixed and mobile service.[^264] The Commission acknowledged,
     however, that while this proposal would increase operational
     flexibility, it would also make it difficult to determine the
     regulatory status of each licensee.[^265] Therefore, the Commission
     proposed an approach for determining regulatory status similar to
     that adopted for the General Wireless Communications Service.[^266]
     Under this approach, the Commission relies on the applicants to
     specifically identify the type of service or services they intend
     to provide.[^267] The applicants must include sufficient detail to
     enable the Commission to determine whether the service will be
     offered as a commercial mobile radio service (CMRS),[^268] a
     private land mobile radio service (PLMRS), a common carrier fixed
     service, or a private fixed service.[^269] To simplify this
     process, the Commission proposed to establish a presumption that
     MAS geographic area licensees be telecommunications carriers
     regulated as common carriers.[^270] The Commission also proposed
     that, depending upon the final decision in regard to the
     928/952/956 MHz bands, the Commission may establish a presumption
     that those bands are private.[^271] Under the Commission's
     proposal, any interested party would be able to challenge the
     regulatory status granted an MAS geographic area licensee.[^272]

106. [Discussion]{.underline}. Some commenters argue that the
     determination of regulatory status should be defined by the
     presence or absence of a fee-for-service relationship between the
     licensee and any subscribers of the licensee's services.[^273]
     These commenters state that licensees who provide a service to
     subscribers using the radio spectrum, even though the
     communications service itself may not constitute the end product,
     should be subject to telecommunications carrier regulations.[^274]
     Typical of such a relationship would be central alarm and vending
     monitoring services that use MAS radio to provide the subscriber
     alarm or status information. In addition, these commenters state
     that the Commission's proposal to establish a presumption that all
     MAS geographic area licensees are telecommunications carriers is
     inaccurate and will particularly be flawed if private systems are
     mandated to become geographic area licensees.[^275] However, these
     two commenters believe that the Commission's determination that the
     928/952/956 MHz bands are private and the ability for interested
     parties to challenge the regulatory status of any MAS licensee
     would stimulate operation of bona fide applicants and reduce
     speculation.[^276]

107. We reject the proposal that the determination of regulatory status
     should be defined by the presence or absence of a fee-for-service
     relationship between the licensee and its subscribers. We believe
     that the presence or absence of a fee-for-service relationship may
     not always accurately reflect the regulatory status of an FCC
     licensee. Instead, we adopt the more flexible approach proposed in
     the *Notice*. Under this approach, we will rely on applicants to
     identify the type of service or services they intend to
     provide.[^277] Applicants will be required to include sufficient
     detail to enable us to determine whether the particular service
     will be offered as CMRS, PMRS, a common carrier fixed service, or a
     private fixed service. Any interested party will be able to
     challenge the regulatory status granted an MAS licensee.[^278] We
     believe that this approach will provide licensees with an incentive
     to provide accurate and complete information regarding their
     proposed operations.[^279] Therefore, we believe that adopting this
     approach will enable us to carry out our regulatory
     responsibilities without imposing undue hardship upon licensees.

**N. Suspension of Acceptance and Processing of Applications**

108. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Further Notice*, we maintained
     the existing suspension of the acceptance (freeze) of MAS
     applications for new licenses, amendments, or modifications for the
     932/941 and 928/959 MHz bands.[^280] Notwithstanding the freeze, we
     continued to accept and process all MAS applications for minor
     modifications or for license assignment or transfer of control
     under existing procedures.[^281] This exception also applied to
     amendments to applications for minor modifications.[^282] We stated
     that the exception would permit modifications that could improve
     the efficiency of incumbent MAS operations without affecting the
     effective and orderly resolution of the issues in this
     proceeding.[^283] Additionally, the exception extended to certain
     applications that were pending at the time of the imposition of the
     freeze.[^284] We also extended the same freeze to the 928/952/956
     MHz bands. We concluded that the extension of the freeze was in the
     public interest because of the uncertainty regarding whether we
     would employ geographic area licensing and competitive bidding for
     these bands.[^285] Further, we noted that this action was
     consistent with the approach taken in other contexts where we
     proposed to adopt geographic area licensing and auction
     rules.[^286]

109. During the pendency of these proceedings, we received emergency
     petitions requesting that we immediately lift the freeze in the
     928/952/956 MHz bands in addition to specific requests to waive the
     freeze in these bands. These petitions and requests were filed by
     various organizations, including: (1) the United Telecom Council,
     the American Petroleum Institute, and the Association of American
     Railroads (collectively referred to as "CII
     Petitioners");[^287] (2) Itron, Inc.;[^288] and (3) CellNet Data
     Systems, Inc.[^289] We received numerous comments and reply
     comments in response to these petitions and requests.[^290]

110. [Discussion]{.underline}. Commenters are unanimous in their
     requests that we immediately lift the application freeze. Most
     commenters specifically request that we remove the freeze for the
     928/952/956 MHz bands.[^291] Commenters argue that, at the very
     least, we should remove the freeze for public safety licensees,
     including constituencies represented by the CII petitioners.[^292]
     Other commenters urge us to lift the suspension of applications in
     the 932/941 MHz bands.[^293]

111. Many commenters fear that the short-term freeze will turn into a
     much longer freeze and that the freeze serves no purpose for public
     safety radio service licensees, which will not be subject to
     auctions once we remove the freeze.[^294] Similarly, East Bay
     Municipal alleges several harmful effects of the freeze.[^295]

112. Some commenters contend that the freeze's effects are felt by
     certain industry sectors with potentially devastating consequences
     to public safety.[^296] For example, API states that one oil
     company had to postpone the filing of an application for a proposed
     MAS system that would be used to prevent spills and leaks and to
     improve its ability to detect and respond to emergencies.[^297]
     Similarly, APPA contends that the freeze has impeded the ability of
     state and local government utilities to provide service, implement
     critical systems, and to continue with planned construction
     efforts.[^298] APPA asserts that because of the specialized nature
     of MAS systems, there are very few commercially available
     substitutes (especially in rural areas).[^299] Similarly, AAR
     argues that the freeze is particularly harmful to the railroad
     industry, which has suspended ongoing projects to upgrade switching
     and signaling systems that control long segments of railways.[^300]
     Several commenters allege that they have been prevented from
     fulfilling contractual obligations on several pending contracts
     with customers to expand or modify existing MAS systems.[^301]
     Itron comments that the freeze should be lifted for entities that
     operate automatic meter reading (AMR) systems used by utility
     companies.[^302]

113. Earlier in this *Report and Order*, we set forth our conclusions
     resolving issues of spectrum allocation, licensing, treatment of
     incumbent licensees, competitive bidding provisions, and other
     issues necessary for us to proceed with MAS licensing generally. In
     light of these actions, and in consideration of the comments
     described above, we will lift the current freeze imposed on the
     928/952/956 MHz bands and the portions of the 932/941 MHz bands
     designated for public safety and private internal use. The freeze
     will be lifted for these entities as of the date of the release of
     this *Report and Order*.[^303] We acknowledge the possibility that
     mutual exclusivity among applicants may occur in the 928/952/956
     MHz and portions of the 932/941 MHz bands due to the repressed
     demand for MAS spectrum as a result of the application freeze. If
     an instance of mutual exclusivity should occur, we will proceed in
     accordance with the Balanced Budget Act. We defer to the ongoing
     *BBA NPRM* proceeding a decision on the treatment of mutually
     exclusive applications filed for frequencies in those bands
     allocated solely for public safety and private internal use.[^304]

114. The freeze on the acceptance of applications to provide service in
     the 928/959 MHz bands, and the twenty channels in the 932/941 MHz
     bands not allocated for public safety or private internal use,
     shall remain in effect until such time as the Bureau begins to
     accept applications for MAS auctions in accordance with Part 1 of
     our Rules.[^305] We maintain this portion of the freeze to allow
     for the orderly and effective implementation of the decisions made
     in this proceeding and for the opportunity for the Bureau to
     implement MAS auction procedures. This approach is also consistent
     with our approach in other services where we have transitioned to
     geographic area licensing and competitive bidding procedures.[^306]

**O. Competitive Bidding Provisions**

115. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, the Commission stated
     that it anticipated conducting the auction for MAS frequencies in
     conformity with the general competitive bidding rules in Part 1,
     Subpart Q of the Commission's Rules, and substantially consistent
     with the auctions that have been employed in other wireless
     services.[^307] The Commission sought comment on its proposal to
     employ a simultaneous multiple round competitive bidding
     design.[^308]

116. Additionally, in the *Notice* the Commission sought comment
     regarding the establishment of a "small business" definition for
     MAS.[^309] The Commission invited commenters to discuss the level
     of capital commitment that is likely to be required to purchase an
     MAS license at auction and to create a viable business.[^310] The
     Commission also invited comments on the issue of using installment
     payments, bidding credits, or other provisions that could be
     employed to enable the participation of small businesses in the
     auction and the provision of service.[^311] Finally, the Commission
     sought comments on whether small business provisions are sufficient
     to promote participation by businesses owned by minorities, women,
     or rural telephone companies and how any such provisions would meet
     the standards of judicial review.[^312]

117. The Commission also expressed its interest in receiving comments
     regarding what type of unjust enrichment requirements should be
     placed on an application for a partial transfer (either by
     partitioning or disaggregation) of a license from, for example, a
     qualified small business to a non-small business.[^313] The
     Commission then set forth a number of specific tentative proposals
     regarding unjust enrichment and invited comment thereon.[^314]

118. In the *Further Notice*, we sought comment on the specific size
     standards that we should apply to any small business definition
     adopted for the MAS service.[^315] We recognized that in the *Part
     1 Third Report and Order*, we amended our general competitive
     bidding rules to establish a uniform set of provisions for all
     auctionable services, which allows us to conduct auctions in a
     consistent, efficient, and effective manner.[^316] We also decided
     in that proceeding to continue our practice of defining small
     business size standards on a service-specific basis.[^317] We
     invited comments on our proposed definitions of "small business"
     and "very small business," as well as our proposal to establish two
     levels of bidding credits.[^318]

119. [Discussion]{.underline}. We note, as an initial matter, that we
     received very few comments regarding the proposed bidding
     procedures.[^319] While MTI suggests that the use of competitive
     bidding procedures to resolve mutually exclusive applications is
     the least desirable licensing method,[^320] it nonetheless supports
     adoption of the definitions of "small business" and "very small
     business" set forth in the *Further Notice* should we use
     competitive bidding for MAS spectrum.[^321] East Bay Municipal
     offers no criticism of our proposal to use "tiered" bidding credits
     for "small" and "very small" businesses, nor does it find fault in
     the definition of these businesses.[^322]

120. In the *Part 1* *Third Report and Order*, we amended our uniform
     set of competitive bidding rules for all auctionable services,
     which applied generally to the MAS service, incorporating our
     experience to date and allowing us to conduct future auctions in a
     more consistent, efficient, and effective manner.[^323] These
     amended procedures, set forth in Part 1, Subpart Q of the
     Commission's Rules, superseded previously adopted service-specific
     rules, unless the Commission determines that with regard to
     particular matters, the retention or adoption of service-specific
     rules is warranted.[^324]

121. We believe that application of the Part 1, Subpart Q procedures
     will allow MAS auction participants to realize the benefits enjoyed
     by participants in other spectrum auctions of a streamlined,
     efficient licensing process.[^325] Therefore, we will follow the
     competitive bidding rules set out in Part 1, Subpart Q of the
     Commission's Rules, to conduct all future auctions for MAS
     licenses. Specifically, we conclude that the Part 1 Rules will
     govern competitive bidding issues for MAS licenses, including
     issues concerning designated entities, application issues, payment
     issues, competitive bidding design, procedure and timing issues,
     and anti-collusion.

122. We will adopt our proposal to define a small business as an entity
     that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that
     hold interests in such entity and their affiliates, has average
     gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed \$15
     million. We will define a very small business as an entity that,
     together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold
     interests in such entity and their affiliates, has average gross
     revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed \$3 million.
     These tiers are consistent with those set forth in Part 1, Subpart
     Q.[^326] Moreover, the Small Business Administration approved the
     proposed definitions in the *Further Notice*.[^327] Our goal in
     adopting these definitions and associated special provisions for
     small businesses is to promote the participation of small
     businesses in the auction and provision of MAS services.

123. In the *Notice*, the Commission tentatively concluded that for the
     MAS service the Commission would attribute the gross revenues of
     all controlling principals in the small business applicant as well
     as its affiliates.[^328] We conclude that for purposes of
     determining whether an entity meets the definitions of small or
     very small business, we shall consider the gross revenues of the
     entity, its affiliates, and its controlling interests on a
     cumulative basis and aggregated.[^329]

124. We also will establish two levels of bidding credits, consistent
     with the levels adopted in the Part 1 proceeding.[^330] Small
     businesses will receive a twenty-five percent bidding credit, and
     very small businesses will receive a thirty-five percent bidding
     credit. Bidding credits for small and very small businesses are not
     cumulative.[^331] We believe that bidding credits help achieve our
     statutory objective under Section 309(j)(3)(B) of the
     Communications Act by providing varying sizes of small businesses
     with the opportunity to participate in the auction of MAS
     spectrum.[^332]

125. We received no substantive comments on whether the proposed small
     business provisions are sufficient to ensure the opportunity for
     businesses owned by minorities and women and rural telephone
     companies to participate in the provision of spectrum-based
     services. We remain committed to meeting the statutory objectives
     of promoting economic opportunity and competition, avoiding
     excessive concentration of licenses, and ensuring access to new and
     innovative technologies by disseminating licenses among a wide
     variety of applicants, including small businesses, rural telephone
     companies, and businesses owned by members of minority
     groups.[^333] Commenters submitted no evidence or data to support
     race- or gender-based auction provisions. We therefore conclude
     that we have an insufficient record to support such special
     provisions at this time under the current standard of judicial
     review.[^334] We believe that the standardization through the *Part
     1 Third Report and Order*, of our Rules regarding eligible
     entities, unjust enrichment, and bidding credits, will assist
     small, minority- and women-owned businesses because the resulting
     predictability will facilitate the business planning and capital
     fundraising process.[^335]

126. We furthermore believe that effective unjust enrichment rules are
     necessary to ensure that meaningful small business participation in
     spectrum-based services is not thwarted by transfers of licenses to
     non-designated entities.[^336] We will adopt for MAS spectrum the
     uniform procedures set forth in Sections 1.2111(d) and (e)[^337] of
     our Rules.[^338] As a result, we will calculate unjust enrichment
     payments using population to determine the relative value of the
     partitioned area and the amount of spectrum disaggregated to
     determine the relative value of the disaggregated spectrum.[^339]
     Population will be calculated based upon the latest available
     census data, which is the approach adopted in the 39 GHz
     service.[^340] For purposes of applying our unjust enrichment
     payments when combined partitioning and disaggregation is proposed,
     we will use a combination of both the population of the partitioned
     area and amount of spectrum disaggregated to makes these *pro rata*
     calculations.[^341]

######### V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS {#v.-procedural-matters .unnumbered}

#### Final Regulatory Flexibility Act

127. A Final Regulatory Flexibility analysis, pursuant to the Regulatory
     Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 604, is contained in Appendix C.

#### Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

128. This *Report and Order* contains either a new or modified
     information collection. As part of our continuing effort to reduce
     paperwork burdens, we invite the public and other government
     agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the information
     collection contained in this *Report and Order*, as required by the
     Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and
     agency comments are due sixty days from publication of this *Report
     and Order* in the Federal Register. Comments should address the
     following: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is
     necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
     Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
     utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
     ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
     information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
     collection of information on the respondents, including the use of
     automated collection techniques or other forms of information
     technology. A copy of any comments on the information collections
     contained herein should be submitted to: Judy Boley, Federal
     Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W.,
     Washington, D.C. 20554 and Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 10236
     NEOB, 725 17^th^ Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503.

#### Further Information

129. For further information concerning this *Report and Order*, contact
     Shellie Blakeney, Michael Sozan, Guy Benson, or Edgar Class of the
     Policy and Rules Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless
     Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at (202) 418-0680
     (voice), (202) 418-7233 (TTY).

######### ORDERING CLAUSES

130. IT IS ORDERED that the actions of the Commission herein ARE TAKEN
     pursuant to Sections 4(i), 257, 303, 309(j), and 332 of the
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(I), 257,
     303, 309(j), 332.

131. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Parts 22 and 101 of the
     Commission's Rules ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B,
     effective sixty days after their publication in the Federal
     Register, following OMB approval. If OMB approval is not issued
     within sixty days after publication of a summary of this *Report
     and Order* in the Federal Register, a notice shall be published in
     the Federal Register specifying a revised effective date.

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

133. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 5(c)(1) of the
     Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 155(c), the
     Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau IS GRANTED
     DELEGATED AUTHORITY to prescribe and set forth procedures for the
     implementation of the provisions adopted herein.

134. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), that
     the application freeze in the *Notice of Proposed* *Rule Making*
     and the *Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in this docket, is
     modified as set forth herein.

135. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i),
     effective upon the release date of this *Report and Order*,
     APPLICATIONS to use MAS frequencies in the 928-928.85/952-952.85
     MHz bands and 956.25-956.45 MHz bands WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR FILING
     provided that these applications are for private internal services
     as set forth herein.

136. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i),
     effective upon the release date of this *Report and Order*,
     APPLICATIONS to use MAS frequencies in the twenty channels in the
     932.25625-932.49375/941.25625-941.49375 MHz bands designated for
     public safety and private internal services by this *Report and
     Order* WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR FILING provided that these applications
     are for public safety and/or private internal services as set forth
     herein.

137. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), any
     petitions to lift the application freeze in the 928/952/956 MHz MAS
     bands listed in Appendix F of this *Report and Order*, filed
     between July 1, 1999 and the release date of this *Report and
     Order*, are DISMISSED AS MOOT.

138. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and
     Section 1.925 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.925, that
     any WAIVER REQUESTS listed in Appendix F of this *Report and
     Order,* filed in conjunction with applications for the 928/952/956
     MHz MAS bands between July 1, 1999 and the release date of this
     *Report and Order,* are DISMISSED AS MOOT and any associated
     applications ARE DISMISSED without prejudice.

139. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as of the adopted date of this *Report
     and Order,* pursuant to Sections 4(i) of the Communications Act of
     1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), as amended by the Balanced Budget Act of
     1997, the fifty-eight pending applications for use of the MAS bands
     as set forth in Appendix E of this *Report and Order* ARE DISMISSED
     without prejudice.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

Appendix A\--Commenters and Reply Commenters

#  {#section .unnumbered}

# **I. Notice of Proposed Rule Making** {#i.-notice-of-proposed-rule-making .unnumbered}

[Parties Filing Formal Comments]{.underline}:

AirTouch Paging and Arch Communications Group, Joint Comments (AirTouch
& Arch)

Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC)

Alligator Communications, Inc. (Alligator Communications)

American Petroleum Institute (API)

American Water Works Association (AWWA)

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International,
Inc. (APCO)

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E)

Black & Associates

Bristol Babcock, Inc. (Bristol Babcock)

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. and Norfolk Southern Co.
(BNSF & NS)

CellNet Data Systems, Inc. (CellNet)

Coalition for Equitable MAS Licensing (Coalition)

Stanley I. Cohn

Colorado Interstate Gas Co. (Colorado Interstate)

Compu-Dawn, Inc. (Compu-Dawn)

Comsearch

Cooperative Power Association (Cooperative Power)

Data Address Systems Partnership (Data Address Systems)

Delmarva Power & Light Co. (Delmarva)

East Bay Municipal Utility District (East Bay Municipal)

Fisher, Wayland, Cooper, Leader & Zaragoza, L.L.P. (Fisher, Wayland)

GPM Gas Corp. (GPM Gas)

GTECH Corp. (GTECH)

Itron, Inc. (Itron)

JMP Telecom Systems, Inc. (JMP)

Kupelian, Ormand & Magy, P.C.

Microwave Data Systems (MDS)

Mind Communications

Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)

ProNet, Inc. (ProNet)

Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM)

Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (Puget Sound)

Radscan, Inc. (Radscan)

Rural Telecommunications Group (RTG)

S and K Enterprises (S&K)

Sensus Technologies, Inc. (Sensus)

Southern California Edison Co. (SCE)

UTC, The Telecommunications Association (UTC)

The Richard L. Vega Group (Vega Group)

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC)

Wells Rural Electric Co. (Wells)

[Parties Filing Informal Comments/Letters]{.underline}:[^342]

James Arch

Norman M. Brady

William Braun

Capp Systems, Inc.

Geoffrey D. Commons

Jack DeBruin

Arthur Dittman

Fair Winds, Inc. (Fair Winds)

Joseph W. Fordham

Harold D. Garter

Casimir C. Gawron

Allan C. Gordon

Mark A. Gordon

Matthew G. Gordon

Charles and Lisa Hooper

Helga S. James

Joint Supplemental Commenters

Edna A. Keene

James W. Majerik

Fred G. McKee, III

Mind Communications

George Nagrodsky, Sr.

Robert H. Ohlwiler

Sunny Pedigo

Radio Data One Partnership (Radio Data)

Cletus E. Reitz

Helen H. Renner

Carolyn Richards Special Enterprises (Carolyn Richards)

Jay R. Schmeider

Christopher M. Shaw

Colleen T. Sheahan

Daniel M. Slane

Jeffrey Steffens

Tim Swaim

Gladys M. Thomas

Judith A. Van Etten

W. Thomas Veal, Jr.

Wiley Communications Partnership (Wiley Communications)

Raymond W. Witt

Leon and Charlene Wittman

Jerry D. Wolf

Youngstown MAS, Inc.

Kenneth E. Zelt Co.

## [Parties Filing Reply Comments]{.underline}:[^343] {#parties-filing-reply-comments .unnumbered}

Affiliated American Railroads (AAR)

American Petroleum Institute (API)

Arch Communications

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. and Norfolk Southern Co.
(BNSF & NS)

Quentin L. Breen

CellNet Data Systems, Inc. (CellNet)

DDI Radio Data Transmissions (DDI)

Thomas Domencich, Paula Malone, George Schrenk, and Dennis Sheahan

GTECH Corp. (GTECH)

Lincoln Square

Microwave Data Systems (MDS)

Metrocall, Inc. (Metrocall)

Motorola

Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet)

Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)

ProNet, Inc. (ProNet)

Radscan, Inc. (Radscan)

Karl Sanders

Sensus Technologies, Inc. (Sensus)

Southern Company

Susan Tarwater

UTC, The Telecommunications Association (UTC)

Jerry D. Wolf

##  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

**II. Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making**

[Parties Filing Formal Comments]{.underline}:

Adaptive Broadband Corporation (Adaptive)

American Petroleum Institute (API)

American Water Works Association (AWWA)

Association of American Railroads (AAR)

Blue Ridge Electric Cooperative (Blue Ridge Electric)

CellNet Data Systems, Inc. (CellNet)

Commonwealth Edison

Comsearch

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Consolidated Edison)

Corn Belt Power Cooperative (Corn Belt)

East Bay Municipal Utility District (East Bay Municipal)

Georgia Power, Alabama Power, Mississippi Power, Gulf Power,

Savannah Electric and Power Company (Southern Operating Companies)

Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power)

Itron, Inc. (Itron)

Jackson Electric Membership Corporation (Jackson Electric)

Microwave Telecommunications, Inc. (MTI)

Northern States Power Company (Northern States Power)

Pacific Gas and Electric (Pacific G&E)

Radscan, Inc. (Radscan)

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (South Carolina E&G)

Southwest Gas Corporation (Southwest Gas)

United Telecom Council (UTC)

Western Resources

Williams Energy Services (Williams Energy)

[Parties Filing Informal Comments/Letters]{.underline}:[^344]

Adaptive Broadband Corporation (Adaptive)

American Petroleum Institute (API)

Senator John Ashcroft

Senator Sam Brownback

Senator Conrad Burns

East Bay Municipal Utility District (East Bay Municipal)

Senator Russell Feingold

Roger Gembala

Gila Electronics

Senator Slade Gorton

Senator Rod Grams

Senator Charles E. Grassley

Hornfeck Engineering, Inc. (Hornfeck Engineering)

JEA

Johnson City Power Board (Johnson City)

Senator John F. Kerry

Senator Herb Kohl

Little Ocmulgee Electric Membership Corporation (LOEMC)

Senator Trent Lott

Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD)

Mark Norman

Despina Metakos

Midwest Energy, Inc. (Midwest Energy)

Minnesota High Tech Association (MHTA)

Senator Patty Murray

Northern Iowa Power Cooperative (Northern Iowa Power)

NSTAR

Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCC)

Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM)

Congressman Jim Ramstad

Senator Pat Roberts

Salt River Agricultural Improvement and Power District (Salt River)

Senator Olympia J. Snowe

Senator Ted Stevens

United States Environmental Protection Agency

United Telecom Council (UTC)

Chris J. Wanner

Water, Gas & Light Commission of Albany, Georgia (Albany)

Senator Paul D. Wellstone

[Parties Filing Reply Comments]{.underline}:[^345]

Adaptive Broadband, Corp. (Adaptive)

American Petroleum Institute (API)

American Public Power Association (APPA)

CellNet Data Systems, Inc. (CellNet)

Comsearch

GTECH Corp. (GTECH)

Itron, Inc. (Itron)

Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)

Radscan, Inc. (Radscan)

United Telecom Council (UTC)

**III. Petitions Filed in Response to the MAS Application Freeze**

[Comments Regarding Petition Filed by CII Petitioners]{.underline}:

American Public Power Association (APPA)

American Petroleum Institute (API)

Association of American Railroads (AAR)

Commonwealth Edison

Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. (Consolidated Edison)

Georgia Power, Alabama Power, Mississippi Power, Gulf Power, Savannah
Electric and Power

(Southern Operating Companies)

GTECH Corp. (GTECH)

LaFollette Utilities Board (LaFollette)

Midwest Energy, Inc. (Midwest Energy)

South Carolina Electric and Gas (South Carolina E&G)

United Telecom Council (UTC)

[Reply Comments Regarding Petition Filed by CII
Petitioners]{.underline}:

American Petroleum Institute (API)

American Public Power Association (APPA)

El Paso Energy (El Paso)

GTECH Corp. (GTECH)

[Comments Regarding Petition Filed by CellNet Data Systems,
Inc.]{.underline}:

Black and Associates

GTECH Corp. (GTECH)

United Telecom Council (UTC)

Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo

[Reply Comments Regarding Petition Filed by CellNet Data Systems,
Inc.]{.underline}:

CellNet Data Systems, Inc. (CellNet)

GTECH Corp. (GTECH)

[Comments Regarding Petition Filed by Itron, Inc.]{.underline}:

Badger Meter, Inc. (Badger Meter)

GTECH Corp. (GTECH)

Sensus Technologies, Inc. (Sensus)

United Telecom Council (UTC)

[Reply Comments Regarding Petition Filed by Itron, Inc.]{.underline}:

GTECH Corp. (GTECH)

## [General Comments Regarding Petitions]{.underline}: {#general-comments-regarding-petitions .unnumbered}

Adaptive Broadband Corp. (Adaptive)

El Paso Energy (El Paso)

Gila Electronics

Hornfeck Engineering, Inc. (Hornfeck Engineering)

Itron, Inc. (Itron)

Jeff Davis Electric Cooperative (Jeff Davis)

Johnson City Power Board (Johnson City)

Little Ocmulgee Electric Membership Corp. (LOEMC)

Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD)

Mark Norman

Despina Metakos

Midwest Energy, Inc. (Midwest Energy)

Montana Power

Salt River Agricultural Improvement and Power District (Salt River)

USi-Power

Chris J. Wanner

[General Comments Regarding Freeze]{.underline}:

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (Anadarko Petroleum)

ARCO Pipeline Co. (ARCO)

Arkansas Oklahoma Gas Corp. (AOGC)

Automatic Meter Reading Association (AMRA)

Berkeley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Berkeley Electric)

Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corp. (Blue Ridge)

Board of Public Utilities (Public Utilities)

Broomfield, City of (Broomfield)

CAC

CH2MHill

Cobb EMC

Du Page Water Commission (Du Page Water)

Electric Laboratories and Sales Corp. (Electric Labs)

Environmental Systems Corp. (ESC)

Fort Smith, City of, Utility Department (Fort Smith)

KNS Communications, Ltd. (KNS)

LaFollette Utilities Board (LaFollette)

Lodi, City of, Electric Utility Department (Lodi)

Lord and Company, Inc. (Lord)

NITECH, Inc. (NITECH)

Reliant Energy-Arkla (Reliant Energy)

Snapping Shoals Electric Membership Corp. (Snapping Shoals)

Sola Communications, Inc. (Sola Communications)

South Mississippi Electric Power Association (SMEPA)

Talley Communications

Tampa Electric Company (TECO)

TECO Telecommunications

Joe Wheeler EMC (Joe Wheeler)

# **APPENDIX B -- FINAL RULES** {#appendix-b-final-rules .unnumbered}

**Part 22 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:**

**A.** **PART 22 -- PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES**

1\. The authority citation for Part 22 is amended to read as follows:

**AUTHORITY:** Secs. 4, 303, 309, and 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as
amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 309, and 332, unless otherwise noted.

2\. Section 22.621 is amended by changing the first paragraph to read as
follows and by deleting subparagraphs (a) and (b):

**Subpart E -- Paging and Radiotelephone Service**

\* \* \* \* \*

POINT TO MULTIPOINT OPERATION

**§ 22.621 Channels for point-to-multipoint operation**.

The following channels are allocated for assignment to transmitters
utilized within point-to-multipoint systems that support transmitters
that provide public mobile service. Unless otherwise indicated, all
channels have a bandwidth of 20 kHz and are designated by their center
frequencies in MegaHertz. No new licenses will be issued for any 900 MHz
frequencies in this section. See Part 101, Subpart O of this chapter for
treatment of incumbents and for new licensing procedures. Incumbents
under Part 22 are subject to the restrictions of Part 101, Subpart O,
but may make permissible modifications, transfers, assignments, or renew
their licenses using procedures, forms, fees, and filing requirements of
Part 22. \* \* \*

\(a\) \[removed\]

\(b\) \[removed\]

**Part 101 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:**

## B. PART 101 -- FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES {#b.-part-101-fixed-microwave-services .unnumbered}

1.  The authority citation for Part 101 is amended to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303,
unless otherwise noted.

2.  Section 101.3 is amended by adding the definitions of "928/952/956
    MHz Service", "932/941 MHz Service", and "928/959 MHz Service" to
    read as follows:

**§ 101.3 Definitions**

\* \* \* \* \*

*928/952/956 MHz Service.* A flexible radio service using frequencies in
the 928.0 - 928.85 MHz band paired with frequencies in the 952.0 -
952.85 MHz band or using unpaired frequencies in the 956.25 - 956.45 MHz
band licensed on a site-by-site basis and used for terrestrial
point-to-point and point-to-multipoint fixed and mobile operations.

*932/941 MHz Service.* A flexible radio service using frequencies in the
932.0 - 932.5 MHz band paired with frequencies in the 941.0 - 941.5 MHz
band used for terrestrial point-to-point and point-to-multipoint fixed
and mobile operations. The frequencies from 932.00625/941.00625 MHz to
932.24375/941.24375 MHz are licensed by Economic Area. The frequencies
from 932.25625/941.25625 MHz to 932.49375/941.49375 MHz are licensed on
a site-by-site basis.

*928/959 MHz Service.* A flexible radio service using frequencies in the
928.85 - 929.0 MHz band paired with frequencies in the 959.85 - 960.0
MHz band licensed by Economic Area and used for terrestrial
point-to-point and point-to-multipoint fixed and mobile operations.

\* \* \* \* \*

3.  Paragraph (c) of Section 101.63 is amended by adding the following
    to the end of the paragraph:

**Subpart B -- Applications and Licenses**

\* \* \* \* \*

**§ 101.63 Period of construction; certification of completion of
construction.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) \* \* \* See § 101.1331(d) of this part for treatment of MAS
incumbent site-by-site licenses recovered in EAs.

\* \* \* \* \*

4.  The first six rows below the heading of the table in Section 101.101
    are replaced with the following seven rows:

**Subpart C - Technical Standards**

§ 101.101 Frequency availability.

+------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **F        | **RADIO  |          |           |           |           |
| REQUENCY** | S        |          |           |           |           |
|            | ERVICE** |          |           |           |           |
| **BAND     |          |          |           |           |           |
| (MHz)**    |          |          |           |           |           |
+============+==========+==========+===========+===========+===========+
|            | **       | **P      | **BR      | **OTHER** | **NOTES** |
|            | COMMON** | RIVATE** | OADCAST** |           |           |
|            |          |          |           | **(Parts  |           |
|            | **C      | *        | **AU      | 15, 21,   |           |
|            | ARRIER** | *RADIO** | XILIARY** | 24, 25,   |           |
|            |          |          |           | 74, 78, & |           |
|            | **(Part  | **(Part  | **(Part   | 100)**    |           |
|            | 101)**   | 101)**   | 74)**     |           |           |
+------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 928 -- 929 | #### MAS | MAS      |           |           |           |
+------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 932.0 -    | MAS      | MAS      |           |           |           |
| 932.5      |          |          |           |           |           |
+------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 932.5 -    | CC       | OFS      |           |           | \(1\)     |
| 935.0      |          |          |           |           |           |
+------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 941.0 -    | MAS      | MAS      |           |           | #####     |
| 941.5      |          |          |           |           |           |
+------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 941.5 -    | CC       | OFS      | Aural BAS |           | \(1\)     |
| 944.0      |          |          |           |           |           |
+------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 952 -- 958 |          | ####     |           |           |           |
|            |          |  OFS/MAS |           |           |           |
+------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 958 -- 960 | MAS      | OFS      |           |           |           |
+------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

5.  Section 101.105(c)(3) is amended to add the words "site-based" after
    "Applicants for" in the first paragraph, to add the words
    "site-based" between "for" and "multiple" in subsection (c)(3)(i),
    to delete subsection (c)(3)(ii), to renumber subsection (c)(3)(iii)
    as (c)(3)(ii), to delete "and (c)(3)(ii)" from the new subsection
    (c)(3)(ii) and to replace "are" with "is", and to add subsection
    (c)(3)(iii), to read as follows:

§ 101.105 Interference protection criteria.

\* \* \* \* \*

(c)(3) Applicants for site-based frequencies listed in \* \* \* .

(c)(3)(i) For site-based multiple address stations in \* \* \* .

(c)(3)(ii) In cases where the geographic separation standard in
paragraphs (c)(3)(i) is not followed, \* \* \* .

(c)(3)(iii) MAS EA licensees shall provide protection in accordance with
§ 101.1333 of this Part.

\* \* \* \* \*

6.  Section 101.147 is amended by changing the frequency listing in
    paragraph (a), changing footnote 27, adding footnote 28, changing
    the first paragraphs of (b)(1-3) by deleting footnote 1 in Table 1
    and Table 2 in subsection (b)(1), and by changing the titles of
    Tables 5 and 6, to read as follows:

§ 101.147 Frequency assignments.

\(a\) \* \* \* \* \*

928.0 - 929.0 MHz /28/

932.0 - 932.5 MHz /27/

932.5 - 935 MHz /17/

941.0 - 941.5 MHz /27/

941.5 - 944 MHz /27/

952.0 - 960.0 MHz /28/

\* \* \* \* \*

Notes

\* \* \* \* \*

/27/ Frequencies in the 932 to 932.5 MHz and 941 to 941.5 MHz bands are
shared with Government fixed point-to-multipoint stations and
point-to-multipoint stations in the Public Land Mobile Service.
Frequencies in these bands are paired with one another and are available
for flexible use for transmission of the licensee's products and
information services, excluding video entertainment material.
932.00625/941.00625 MHz to 932.24375/941.24375 MHz is licensed by
Economic Area. 932.25625/941.25625 MHz to 932.49375/941.49375 MHz is
licensed on a site-by-site basis.

/28/ Subsequent to July 1, 1999, incumbent MAS operations, as defined in
§ 101.1331(a), in the 928/952/956 MHz bands are reserved for private
internal use. 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
additional 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 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 and mobile 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
interrogate/response communications between a master station and remote
stations. Each master station operating on these frequencies is required
to serve a minimum of four separate active 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. When licensed for a larger
bandwidth, the system still is required to use equipment that meets the
[+]{.underline} 0.00015 percent tolerance requirement. (See § 101.107).
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
discreet 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.
When using subfrequencies, licensees are subject to the construction
requirement of one master and four remotes per authorized bandwidth
(12.5 kHz, 25 kHz or greater). 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.

\(1\) Frequencies listed in this paragraph are designated for private
internal use and are subject to site-based licensing.

Table 1.\--Paired Frequencies (MHz) \* \* \*

Table 2.\--Paired Frequencies (MHz) \* \* \*

\(2\) Frequencies listed in this paragraph are designated for private
internal use and are subject to site-based licensing.

Table 3.\--Paired Frequencies (MHz) \* \* \*

Table 4.\--Paired Frequencies (MHz) \* \* \*

\(3\) Frequencies listed in this paragraph are not restricted to private
internal use and are licensed by geographic area. Incumbent facilities
must be protected. \* \* \*

> Table 5.\--Paired Frequencies (MHz) \* \* \*
>
> Table 6.\--Paired Frequencies (MHz) \* \* \*

\(4\) \* \* \*

Table 7.\--Paired Frequencies

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

Remote transmit Master transmit
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Licensed by Economic Area

(12.5 kHz bandwidth)

932.00625 941.00625

932.01875 941.01875

932.03125 941.03125

932.04375 941.04375

932.05625 941.05625

932.06875 941.06875

932.08125 941.08125

932.09375 941.09375

(50 kHz bandwidth)

932.12500 941.12500

(12.5 kHz bandwidth)

932.15625 941.15625

932.16875 941.16875

932.18125 941.18125

932.19375 941.19375

932.20625 941.20625

932.21875 941.21875

932.23125 941.23125

932.24375 941.24375

> Reserved for public safety and private internal use. Licensed on
> site-by-site basis.

(12.5 kHz bandwidth)

932.25625 941.25625

932.26875 941.26875

932.28125 941.28125

932.29375 941.29375

932.30625 941.30625

932.31875 941.31875

932.33125 941.33125

932.34375 941.34375

932.35625 941.35625

932.36875 941.36875

932.38125 941.38125

932.39375 941.39375

932.40625 941.40625

932.41875 941.41875

932.43125 941.43125

> Reserved for Public Safety and Federal Government Use. Licensed on
> site-by-site basis.

(12.5 kHz bandwidth)

932.44375 941.44375

932.45625 941.45625

932.46875 941.46875

932.48125 941.48125

932.49375 941.49375

\(5\) \* \* \*

\(6\) \* \* \*

\* \* \* \* \*

7.  Subpart O is added to read as follows:

### Subpart O -- Multiple Address Systems

[General Provisions]{.smallcaps}

**§ 101.1301 Scope.**

This subpart sets out the regulations governing the licensing and
operation of Multiple Address Systems (MAS). The Rules in this subpart
are to be used in conjunction with applicable requirements contained
elsewhere in the Commission's Rules, such as those requirements
contained in Parts 1 and 22 of this chapter.

**§ 101.1303 Eligibility.**

Authorizations for stations in this service will be granted in cases
where it is shown that:

(a) The applicant is legally, financially, technically and otherwise
    qualified to render the proposed service;

(b) There are frequencies available to enable the applicant to render a
    satisfactory service; and

(c) The public interest, convenience or necessity would be served by a
    grant thereof.

**§ 101.1305 Private internal.**

A private internal service is a service where entities utilize
telecommunications services purely for internal business purposes or
public safety communications and not on a for hire or for profit basis.

§ 101.1307 Permissible communications.

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

**§ 101.1309 Regulatory status.**

(a) The Commission will rely on each applicant to specify on FCC Form
    601 the type of service or services it intends to provide. Each
    application for authorization in the bands designated for private
    internal use must include a certification stating why the
    application satisfies the definition of private internal use.

(b) Any interested party may challenge the regulatory status granted an
    MAS licensee.

[System License Requirements]{.smallcaps}

**§ 101.1311 Initial EA license authorization.**

(a) Winning bidders must file an application (FCC Form 601) for an
    initial authorization in each market and frequency block.

(b) Blanket licenses are granted for each market and frequency block.
    Applications for individual sites are not required and will not be
    accepted, except as specified in § 101.1329.

**§ 101.1313 License term.**

The license term for stations authorized under this subpart is ten years
from the date of original issuance or renewal.

**§ 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). EAs are 175
areas, including U.S. territories and possessions, defined by the
Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, as modified by the
Commission.

§ 101.1317 Competitive bidding procedures for mutually exclusive MAS EA
applications.

Mutually exclusive initial applications for licenses in the portions of
the MAS bands licensed on a geographic area basis are subject to
competitive bidding procedures. The procedures set forth in Part 1,
Subpart Q of this chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this
part.

**§ 101.1319** **Competitive bidding provisions.**

(a) For the purpose of establishing eligibility requirements and bidding
    credits for competitive bidding for MAS licenses, pursuant to §
    1.2110 of this chapter, the following definitions apply:

> \(1\) Eligibility for small business provisions.

(a) A small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and
    persons or entities that hold interests in such entity and their
    affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years
    not to exceed \$15 million, as determined pursuant to § 1.2110 of
    this chapter.

(b) A very small business is an entity that, together with its
    affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such
    entity and their affiliates, has average gross revenues for the
    preceding three years not to exceed \$3 million, as determined
    pursuant to § 1.2110 of this chapter.

> \(2\) *Bidding Credits*. A winning bidder that qualifies as a small
> business, as defined in this section, or a consortium of small
> businesses, may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(e)(2)(ii)
> of this chapter. A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small
> business, as defined in this section, or a consortium of very small
> businesses, may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(e)(2)(i)
> of this chapter.

\(3\) *Unjust enrichment*. See § 1.2111 of this chapter.

**§ 101.1321 License transfers.**

(a) An MAS system license acquired through competitive bidding
    procedures (including licenses obtained in cases of no mutual
    exclusivity), together with all appurtenances may be transferred,
    assigned, sold, or given away only in accordance with the provisions
    and procedures set forth in § 1.2111 of this chapter.

(b) An MAS system license obtained through site-based licensing
    procedures, together with all appurtenances may be transferred,
    assigned, sold, or given away, to any other entity in accordance
    with the provisions and procedures set forth in § 1.948 of this
    chapter.

**§ 101.1323 Spectrum aggregation, disaggregation, and partitioning.**

(a) *Eligibility*.

> \(1\) Parties seeking approval for partitioning and disaggregation
> shall request from the Commission an authorization for partial
> assignment of license. Geographic area licensees may participate in
> aggregation, disaggregation, and partitioning within the bands
> licensed on a geographic area basis. Site-based licensees may
> aggregate spectrum in any MAS bands, but may not disaggregate their
> licensed spectrum or partition their licensed sites.
>
> \(2\) Eligible MAS licensees may apply to the Commission to partition
> their licensed geographic service areas to eligible entities and are
> free to determine the portion of their service areas to be
> partitioned. Eligible MAS licensees may aggregate or disaggregate
> their licensed spectrum at any time following the grant of a license.

(b) *Technical Standards*.

> \(1\) *Aggregation*.

(a) There is no limitation on the amount of spectrum that an MAS
    licensee may aggregate.

(b) Spectrum licensed to MAS licensees does not count toward the CMRS
    spectrum cap discussed in § 20.6 of this chapter.

> \(2\) *Disaggregation*. Spectrum may be disaggregated in any amount. A
> licensee need not retain a minimum amount of spectrum.
>
> \(3\) *Partitioning*. In the case of partitioning, applicants and
> licensees must file FCC Form 603 pursuant to § 1.948 of this chapter
> and list the partitioned service area on a schedule to the
> application. The geographic coordinates must be specified in degrees,
> minutes, and seconds to the nearest second of latitude and longitude,
> and must be based upon the 1983 North American Datum (NAD83).
>
> \(4\) *Combined Partitioning and Disaggregation*. The Commission will
> consider requests from geographic area licensees for partial
> assignment of licenses that propose combinations of partitioning and
> disaggregation.

(c) *Unjust enrichment*. See § 1.2111(e) of this chapter.

(d) *Construction requirements*.

> \(1\) *Disaggregation*. Partial assignors and assignees for license
> disaggregation have two options to meet construction requirements.
> Under the first option, the disaggregator and disaggregatee would
> certify that they each will share responsibility for meeting the
> applicable construction requirements set forth in § 101.1325 of this
> subpart for the geographic service area. If parties choose this option
> and either party fails to meet the applicable construction
> requirements, both licenses would be subject to forfeiture at renewal.
> The second option allows the parties to agree that either the
> disaggregator or disaggregatee would be responsible for meeting the
> requirements in § 101.1325 of this subpart for the geographic service
> area. If parties choose this option, and the party responsible for
> meeting the construction requirement fails to do so, only the license
> of the non-performing party would be subject to forfeiture at renewal.
>
> \(2\) *Partitioning*. Partial assignors and assignees for license
> partitioning have two options to meet construction requirements. Under
> the first option, the partitionor and partitionee would each certify
> that they will independently satisfy the applicable construction
> requirements set forth in § 101.1325 of this subpart for their
> respective partitioned areas. If either licensee fails to meet its
> requirement in § 101.1325 of this subpart, only the non-performing
> licensee's renewal application would be subject to dismissal. Under
> the second option, the partitionor certifies that it has met or will
> meet the requirement in § 101.1325 of this subpart for the entire
> market. If the partitionor fails to meet the requirement in § 101.1325
> of this subpart, however, only its license would be subject to
> forfeiture at renewal.
>
> \(3\) All applications requesting partial assignments of license for
> partitioning or disaggregation must certify in the appropriate portion
> of the application which construction option is selected.
>
> \(4\) Responsible parties must submit supporting documents showing
> compliance with the respective construction requirements within the
> appropriate construction benchmarks set forth in § 101.1325 of this
> subpart.

(e) *License Term*. The license term for a partitioned license area and
    for disaggregated spectrum shall be the remainder of the original
    licensee's license term as provided for in § 101.1313 of this
    subpart.

[System Requirements]{.smallcaps}

**§ 101.1325 Construction requirements.**

(a) Incumbent site-based licensees are subject to the construction
    requirements set forth in § 101.63 of subpart B (Applications and
    Licenses).

(b) Each MAS EA licensee must provide service to at least one-fifth of
    the population in its service area or "substantial service" within
    five years of the license grant. In addition, MAS EA licensees must
    make a showing of continued "substantial service" within ten years
    of the license grant. Licensees must file maps and other supporting
    documents showing compliance with the respective construction
    requirements within the appropriate five- and ten-year benchmarks of
    the date of their initial licenses.

(c) Failure by any licensee to meet these requirements will result in
    forfeiture or non-renewal of the initial license, and the licensee
    will be ineligible to regain it.

**§ 101.1327 Renewal expectancy for EA licensees.**

(a) A renewal applicant shall receive a renewal expectancy at the end of
    the license period as long as the applicant:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) Demonstrates that the licensee has provided continued "substantial
    service," i.e., service which is sound, favorable, and substantially
    above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant
    renewal, during its past license term;

(2) Demonstrates that the licensee has substantially complied with
    applicable Commission Rules, policies, and the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended;

(3) Provides an explanation of the licensee's record of expansion,
    including a timetable of the construction of new facilities to meet
    changes in demand for services provided by the licensee; and

(4) Provides a description of investments made by the licensee in its
    system.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(b) In determining whether a renewal applicant has complied with the
    "substantial service" requirement by the end of the ten-year initial
    license term, the Commission may consider factors such as (i)
    whether the licensee is offering a specialized or technologically
    sophisticated service that does not require a high level of coverage
    to be of benefit to customers, and (ii) whether the licensee's
    operations service niche markets or focus on serving populations
    outside of areas served by other licensees. The "substantial
    service" requirement can, however, be met in other ways, and the
    Commission will review each licensee's showing on a case-by-case
    basis.

(c) A "substantial service" assessment will be made at renewal pursuant
    to the procedures contained in § 1.949 of this chapter.

**§ 101.1329 EA Station license, location, modifications.**

(a) EA licensees may construct master and remote stations anywhere
    inside the area authorized in their licenses, without prior
    approval, so long as the Commission's technical and other Rules are
    complied with, except that individual licenses are required for any
    master station that:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) Requires the submission of an Environmental Assessment under §
    1.1307 of this chapter;

(2) Requires international coordination; or

(3) Would affect the radio frequency quiet zones described in § 1.924 of
    this chapter.

**§ 101.1331 Treatment of incumbents.**

(a) 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.

(b) Incumbent operators in the 928.0-928.85/952.0-952.85/956.25-956.45
    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 of this part.

(c) Incumbent operators in the 928.85-929.0/959.85-960.0 MHz bands are
    grandfathered as of January 19, 2000, and may expand their systems
    provided that the signal level of the additional transmitter(s) does
    not increase the composite contour that occurs at a 40.2 kilometer
    (25-mile) radius from the center of each master station transmitter
    site. Incumbent operators and geographic area licensees may
    negotiate alternative criteria.

(d) The frequencies associated with incumbent authorizations in the
    928/959 MHz bands that have cancelled automatically or otherwise
    been recovered by the Commission will automatically revert to the
    applicable EA licensee.

(e) The frequencies associated with incumbent authorizations in the
    928/952/956 MHz bands that have cancelled automatically will revert
    to the Commission.

**§ 101.1333 Interference protection criteria.**

(a) *Frequency coordination*. All EA licensees are required to
    coordinate their frequency usage with co-channel adjacent area
    licensees and all other affected parties.

(b) EA licensees are prohibited from exceeding a signal strength of 40
    dBµV/m at their service area boundaries, unless a higher signal
    strength is agreed to by all affected co-channel, adjacent area
    licensees.

(c) EA licensees are prohibited from exceeding a signal strength of 40
    dBµV/m at incumbent licensees' 40.2 kilometer (25-mile) radius
    composite contour specified in § 101.1329(b) of this subpart.

(d) In general, licensees shall comply with the appropriate coordination
    agreements between the United States and Canada and the United
    States and Mexico concerning cross-border sharing and use of the
    applicable MAS frequencies.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) [Canada]{.underline} - *932.0-932.25 MHz and 941.0-941.25 MHz:*

> Within Lines A, B, C, and D along the U.S./Canada border, U.S.
> stations operating in the 932.0-932.25 MHz and 941.0-941.25 MHz bands
> are on a secondary basis and may operate provided that they shall not
> transmit a power flux density (PFD) at the border greater than --100
> dBW/m^2^ nor --94 dBW/m^2^, respectively. The U.S. has full use of the
> frequencies in these regions up to the border in the bands
> 932.25-932.50 MHz and 941.25-941.50 MHz, and Canadian stations may
> operate on a secondary basis provided they do not exceed the
> respective PFDs shown above. PFD can be determined using the following
> formula: PFD (dBW/m^2^) = 10 log \[EIRP/4D^2^\], where EIRP is in
> watts, D is in meters, and the power is relative to an isotropic
> radiator. The technical parameters are also limited by the following
> tables:
>
> Table 1. Maximum radiated power

  ----------- ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  Class of    Band          Maximum                 Maximum ERP 
  Station                   EIRP                                

              MHz           watts       dBW         watts       dBW

  Master      941.0-941.5   1000        30          600         27.8

  Fixed       932.0-932.5   50          17          30          14.8
  Remote and                                                    
  Master                                                        
  ----------- ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

> Where ERP = EIRP/1.64
>
> Table 2. Maximum antenna height above average terrain for master
> stations operating at a maximum power shall not exceed 150 meters.
> Above 150 meters, the power of master stations shall be in accordance
> with following:

  ----------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  Antenna Height Above    EIRP                    ERP         
  Average Terrain                                             
  (meters)                                                    

                          watts       dBW         watts       dBW

  Above 305               200         23          120         20.8

  Above 275 to 305        250         24          150         21.8

  Above 245 to 275        315         25          190         22.8

  Above 215 to 245        400         26          240         23.8

  Above 180 to 215        500         27          300         24.8

  Above 150 to 180        630         28          380         25.8
  ----------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

This information is from the [Arrangement between the Federal
Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration of the United States of America, and Industry
Canada concerning the use of the bands 932 to 935 MHz and 941 to 944 MHz
along the United States-Canada border]{.underline} signed in 1994. This
agreement also lists grandfathered stations that must be protected.

> \(2\) [Canada]{.underline} *-- 928-929 MHz and 952-960 MHz*:
>
> Between Lines A and B and between Lines C and D along the U.S./Canada
> border, U.S. stations operating in the 928.50-928.75 MHz and
> 952.50-952.75 MHz bands are on an unprotected basis and may operate
> provided that they shall not transmit a power flux density (PFD) at or
> beyond the border greater than --100 dBW/m^2^. The U.S. has full use
> of the frequencies in these regions up to the border in the bands
> 928.25-928.50 MHz and 952.25-952.50 MHz, and Canadian stations may
> operate on an unprotected basis provided they do not exceed the PFD
> above. Frequencies in the bands 928.00-928.25 MHz, 928.75-929.00 MHz,
> 952.00-952.25 MHz, and 952.75-952.85 MHz are available for use on a
> coordinated, first-in-time, shared basis subject to protecting
> grandfathered stations. New stations must provide a minimum of 145 km
> (90 miles) separation or alternatively limit the actual PFD of the
> proposed station to --100 dBW/m^2^, at the existing co-channel master
> stations of the other country, or as mutually agreed upon on a
> case-by-case basis. Coordination is not required if the PFD at the
> border is lower than --100 dBW/m^2^. The technical criteria are also
> limited by the following:
>
> Maximum EIRP for master stations in the \-- 1000 watts (30 dBW)
> 952-953 MHz band
>
> Maximum EIRP for fixed remote stations or \-- 50 watts (17 dBW) master
> stations in the 928-929 MHz band
>
> Maximum EIRP for mobile master stations \-- 25 watts (14 dBW)
>
> Maximum antenna height above average \-- 152 m at 1000 watts terrain
> for master or control stations EIRP, power derated in accordance with
> the following table:

  ----------------------------------- ----------------- -----------------
  Antenna Height Above Average        EIRP              
  Terrain (m)                                           

                                      watts             dBm

  Above 305                           200               53

  Above 275 to 305                    250               54

  Above 244 to 274                    315               55

  Above 214 to 243                    400               56

  Above 183 to 213                    500               57

  Above 153 to 182                    630               58

  Below 152                           1000              60
  ----------------------------------- ----------------- -----------------

This information is from the [Arrangement between the Department of
Communications of Canada and the Federal Communications Commission of
the United States of America Concerning the Use of the Bands 928 to 929
MHz and 952 to 953 MHz along the United States-Canada
Border]{.underline} signed in 1991. This agreement also lists
grandfathered stations that must be protected.

> \(3\) [Mexico]{.underline}:
>
> Within 113 kilometers of the U.S./Mexico border, U.S. stations
> operating in the 932.0-932.25 MHz and 941.0-941.25 MHz bands are on a
> secondary basis (non‑interference to Mexican primary licensees) and
> may operate provided that they shall not transmit a power flux density
> (PFD) at or beyond the border greater than ‑100 dBW/m^2^. Upon
> notification from the Commission, U.S. licensees must take proper
> measures to eliminate any harmful interference caused to Mexican
> primary assignments. The U.S. has full use of the frequencies in these
> regions up to the border in the bands 932.25-932.50 MHz and
> 941.25-941.50 MHz, and Mexican stations may operate on a secondary
> basis (non-interference to U.S. primary licensees) provided they do
> not exceed the PFD shown above. Stations using the 932-932.5 MHz band
> shall be limited to the maximum effective isotropic radiated power of
> 50 watts (17 dBW). Stations using the 941-941.5 MHz band shall meet
> the limits in the following table:

  ----------------------------------- ----------------- -----------------
  Antenna Height Above Average Mean   EIRP              
  Sea Level (meters)                                    

                                      watts             dBW

  Above 305                           200               23

  Above 274 to 305                    250               24

  Above 243 to 274                    315               25

  Above 213 to 243                    400               26

  Above 182 to 213                    500               27

  Above 152 to 182                    630               28

  Up to 152                           1000              30
  ----------------------------------- ----------------- -----------------

> This information is from the [Agreement between the Government of the
> United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican
> States Concerning the Allocation and Use of Frequency Bands by
> Terrestrial Non-Broadcasting Radiocommunication Services Along the
> Common Border, Protocol #6 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]{.underline}
> signed in 1994.

**APPENDIX C - FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

*Report and Order*

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^346] 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*.[^347] The Commission sought written public
    comment on the proposals in the *Notice* and *Further Notice*,
    including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^348]

**I. Reason for, and Objectives of, the *Report 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. In attempting to maximize the use of MAS spectrum,
    we continue our efforts to improve the efficiency of spectrum use,
    reduce the regulatory burden on spectrum users, facilitate
    technological innovation, and provide opportunities for development
    of competitive new service offerings. The rules adopted in this
    *Report and Order* are also designed to implement Congress' goal of
    giving small businesses the opportunity to participate in the
    provision of spectrum-based services in accordance with Section
    309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.[^349]

**II. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in
Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses.**

3.  No petitions/comments were filed in direct response to the IRFA. In
    general, commenters and reply commenters supported our proposals to
    provide additional flexibility in the MAS Service. Moreover, many of
    the commenters and reply commenters were existing MAS licensees many
    of whom qualify as small businesses. These commenters overwhelmingly
    supported proposals that would permit (1) acquisitions by
    partitioning or disaggregation; and (2) MAS licensees and applicants
    to choose their regulatory status. Commenters generally supported
    our proposed definitions for "small business" and "very small
    business" and did not oppose our proposal to use "tiered" bidding
    credits for these entities. One commenter specifically suggested
    that the Commission recognize rural phone companies in the category
    of "designated entities" and create for rural telephone companies
    specific preferences that would enable them to participate in the
    provision of MAS services to rural parts of the country.

**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.[^350] 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).[^351] A small
    organization is generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which is
    independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
    field."[^352]

5.  Last, the definition of "small governmental entity" is one with
    populations of fewer than 50,000.[^353] There are 85,006
    governmental entities in the nation.[^354] 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.[^355] 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 *Report and Order* affect a number of
    small entities who 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, 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.[^356] The Commission defines a
    small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and
    persons or entities that hold interests in such entity and their
    affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years
    not to exceed \$15 million. We define a very small business as an
    entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities
    that hold interests in such entity and their affiliates, has average
    gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed \$3
    million. These tiers are consistent with those set forth in Part 1,
    Subpart Q.[^357] 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. We note that some of these entities may seek to use
spectrum in which geographic area licensing is implemented to satisfy
their internal purposes, in which case they will be subject to the
definitions for small business described herein.[^358] 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**.**[^359] 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. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements.**

9\. Given that we are using competitive bidding to award certain MAS
licenses and have established a small business definition for
competitive bidding purposes, then all small businesses that choose to
participate in these services will be required to demonstrate that they
meet the criteria set forth to qualify as small businesses.[^360] Any
small business applicant wishing to avail itself of small business
provisions will need to make the general financial disclosures necessary
to establish that the small business is in fact small.

10\. Prior to auction, each small business applicant will be required to
submit an FCC Form 175, OMB Clearance Number 3060-0600. The estimated
time for completing an FCC Form 175 is forty-five minutes. 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. Applicants that do not have audited
financial statements available will be permitted to certify to the
validity of their showings. While many small businesses have chosen to
employ attorneys prior to filing an application to participate in an
auction, the rules are proposed so that a small business working with
the information in a bidder information package can file an application
on its own. 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. This application, and any appropriate schedules
and attachments, will require information provided by an engineer who
will have knowledge of the system's design. MAS applicants and/or
licensees will be required to submit certain showings to indicate
compliance with the Commission's Rules.[^361]

**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 business where
possible. In response to general comments filed in this proceeding, we
have adopted final rules designed to maximize opportunities for
participation by, and growth of, small businesses in providing wireless
services. Specifically, we expect that allowing partitioning and
disaggregation of licenses and bidding credits will specifically assist
small businesses.

12\. There were some entities that opposed our proposals related to
implementing geographic area licensing in certain MAS bands because the
filing of any mutually exclusive applications would require them to
participate in auctions. However, we determined that the public interest
would be best served by adopting our proposal. Many of the potentially
affected entities would have an opportunity to secure spectrum in other
MAS bands where we retain first-come, first-served, site-based licensing
with frequency coordination. However, as stated earlier, many commenters
expressed general support for our proposals in the MAS proceeding
because these new procedures streamline our licensing requirements,
administrative burdens for both applicants and/or licensees, and the
Commission, which would ultimately result in less economic burden to the
applicants and/or licensees.

> **[Report to Congress]{.underline}**: The Commission will send a copy
> of the *MAS Report and Order*, including this FRFA, in a report to be
> sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
> Fairness Act of 1996.[^362] In addition, the Commission will send a
> copy of the *MAS Report and Order,* including FRFA, to the Chief
> Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of
> the *MAS Report and Order* and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also
> be published in the Federal Register.[^363]

APPENDIX D -- RECOVERED CHANNELS

The frequencies listed in this Appendix have been recovered through the
cancellation of licenses and will be available for reassignment to
Multiple Address System applicants. These frequencies were previously
licensed at the coordinates indicated below. Applicants must comply with
the interference protection criteria listed in Section 101.105 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 101.105, with respect to all other
existing and previously applied for systems. All current FCC Rules,
including those adopted in this *Report and Order*, are in effect and
fully govern the application for and use of this spectrum.

> [MAS FREQUENCIES RECOVERED THROUGH CANCELLATION]{.underline}
>
> MARKET ST LAT LONG FREQ1 FREQ2 FREQ3 FREQ4
>
> (dd.mmss) (dd.mmss) (MHz) (MHz) (MHz) (MHz)
>
> [(NAD27) (NAD27)]{.underline}
>
> Birmingham AL 33.2900 86.4834 952.66875 928.66875
>
> Brewton AL 31.0722 87.0405 952.40625 928.40625
>
> Bucks AL 31.0011 88.0105 952.83125 928.83125
>
> Sylacauga AL 33.1224 86.1354 952.54375 928.54375
>
> Little Rock AR 34.3602 92.1332 952.21875 928.21875
>
> Flagstaff AZ 35.1124 111.3917 952.03125 928.03125
>
> Healdsburg CA 38.5226 122.4231 952.63125 928.63125
>
> Lakeport CA 39.0750 123.0432 952.63125 928.63125
>
> Long Beach CA 33.5129 118.1322 952.0125 928.0125
>
> San Diego CA 32.4220 117.0910 952.44375 928.44375
>
> San Diego CA 32.4349 117.0501 952.46875 928.46875
>
> Santa Barbara CA 34.2507 119.4224 952.0625 928.0625
>
> Rifle CO 39.2050 107.1700 952.26875 928.26875
>
> Sedalia CO 39.2306 105.0251 952.10625 928.10625
>
> Spring Creek CO 37.1134 107.2822 952.25625 928.25625
>
> Wilmington DE 39.4442 75.3255 952.1375 928.1375 952.2875 928.2875
>
> Boca Raton FL 26.2214 80.1021 952.1875 928.1875
>
> Daytona Beach FL 29.1028 81.0928 956.38125
>
> Fort Lauderdale FL 26.0654 80.0830 952.1875 928.1875
>
> Fort Myers FL 26.3857 81.5206 956.35625
>
> Fort Pierce FL 27.2605 80.2142 956.40625
>
> Fort Pierce FL 27.2626 80.2313 956.38125
>
> Ft Walton Beach FL 30.2526 86.3917 956.30625
>
> Ft Walton Beach FL 30.2451 86.3740 952.26875 928.26875
>
> Jacksonville FL 30.1623 81.3313 956.35625
>
> Jacksonville FL 30.1636 81.3347 952.58125 928.58125
>
> Jacksonville FL 30.1636 81.3347 952.59375 928.59375
>
> Miami FL 25.4625 80.1118 952.2625 928.2625
>
> Miami FL 25.4624 80.1141 952.1125 928.1125 952.1875 928.1875
>
> Miami FL 25.4106 80.1851 952.1875 928.1875
>
> Miramar FL 25.5759 80.1233 956.33125
>
> North Ft Myers FL 26.4130 81.5256 952.08125 928.08125
>
> Orlando FL 28.3222 81.2246 956.33125
>
> Orlando FL 28.3222 81.2246 956.30625
>
> Panama City FL 30.1312 85.3542 952.33125 928.33125
>
> Pensacola FL 30.2636 87.1402 952.21875 928.21875
>
> Pompano Beach FL 26.1350 80.0525 952.1875 928.1875 952.1125 928.1125
>
> Tallahassee FL 30.2915 84.1648 952.03125 928.03125
>
> Tallahassee FL 30.2630 84.1604 956.40625
>
> Tampa FL 27.5756 82.3038 956.43125 956.28125
>
> Atlanta GA 33.4545 84.2314 956.36875
>
> Augusta GA 33.2515 81.5019 952.28125 928.28125
>
> Cartersville GA 34.1322 84.4747 952.05625 928.05625
>
> Conyers GA 33.4156 84.0238 952.55625 928.55625
>
> Gulf of Mexico GM 29.3053 94.0149 952.2875 928.2875
>
> Gulf of Mexico GM 27.5853 93.0204 952.8375 928.8375
>
> Offshore GM 29.0901 94.0251 952.13125 928.13125
>
> Offshore GM 29.1535 93.1952 952.01875 928.01875
>
> Offshore GM 28.2508 92.3742 952.6875 928.6875
>
> Offshore GM 28.3525 92.2759 952.6375 928.6375
>
> Offshore GM 28.1049 91.5816 952.59375 928.59375

Offshore GM 29.3310 88.3936 952.08125 928.08125

Offshore GM 29.1839 91.3211 952.73125 928.73125

Offshore GM 28.5126 90.2733 952.84375 928.84375

Offshore GM 28.1002 91.2939 952.48125 928.48125

Honolulu HI 21.1739 157.5018 952.11875 928.11875

> Rockwell IA 42.5904 93.0502 952.0875 928.0875
>
> Stanwood IA 41.5335 91.0852 952.0875 928.0875
>
> Chicago IL 41.5244 87.3810 956.26875
>
> Fort Wayne IN 41.0535 85.1042 952.24375 928.24375
>
> Indianapolis IN 39.4635 86.0846 956.28125
>
> Indianapolis IN 39.4603 86.0012 952.34375 928.34375
>
> Lansing KS 39.1509 94.5232 952.0375 928.0375
>
> Wichita KS 37.4143 97.1905 952.24375 928.24375
>
> Wichita KS 37.4306 97.1906 952.08125 928.08125
>
> Cave KY 37.0639 85.5841 952.3125 928.3125
>
> Covington KY 39.0446 84.3209 952.36875 928.36875
>
> Hopkinsville KY 36.5157 87.2918 952.0375 928.0375 952.1375 928.1375
>
> Louisville KY 38.1522 85.4525 952.49375 928.49375
>
> Paducah KY 37.0445 88.3645 952.18125 928.18125
>
> Alexandria LA 31.1604 92.2624 952.2875 928.2875
>
> Arnaudville LA 30.2157 91.5840 952.5875 928.5875
>
> Gretna LA 29.5539 90.0246 952.59375 928.59375
>
> Hineston LA 31.1121 92.4443 952.3875 928.3875
>
> Holly Beach LA 29.4548 93.3608 952.50625 928.50625
>
> New Orleans LA 29.5922 90.0405 952.0625 928.0625
>
> Saint Landry LA 30.5037 92.1535 952.6125 928.6125
>
> Shreveport LA 32.2825 93.4610 952.75625 928.75625
>
> Sulphur LA 30.0724 93.2410 952.68125 928.68125
>
> Adams MA 42.3807 73.0957 952.41875 928.41875
>
> Boston MA 42.2055 71.0435 952.81875 928.81875
>
> Boxford MA 42.4043 70.5857 952.40625 928.40625
>
> Foxboro MA 42.0544 71.1349 952.49375 928.49375
>
> Monson MA 42.0831 72.2054 952.43125 928.43125
>
> Washington MA 42.2225 73.0852 952.51875 928.51875
>
> Westminster MA 42.3500 71.5300 952.78125
>
> Hagerstown MD 39.3807 77.4650 956.2875
>
> Laurel MD 39.0548 76.5128 952.0125 928.0125
>
> Oxon Hill MD 38.4819 76.5848 952.1125 928.1125
>
> Silver Spring MD 39.0101 76.5829 952.2875 928.2875
>
> Ludington MI 43.5517 86.2617 952.03125 928.03125
>
> Turner MI 44.0639 84.4400 952.05625 928.05625
>
> Saint Paul MN 45.0344 93.0821 952.79375 928.79375
>
> Cabool MO 37.0928 92.0845 952.0875 928.0875
>
> Olden MO 36.4836 91.5509 952.0375 928.0375
>
> Burlington NC 35.5626 79.2540 956.38125
>
> Gastonia NC 35.1401 81.1636 956.25625
>
> Greensboro NC 36.0509 79.4538 952.71875 928.71875
>
> Raleigh NC 35.4715 78.4339 952.15625 928.15625
>
> Omaha NE 41.1528 96.0155 952.08125 928.08125
>
> Hudson NH 42.4406 71.2337 952.31875 928.31875
>
> Morristown NJ 40.4920 74.3324 959.86875
>
> Alamogordo NM 32.5313 105.5704 952.01875 928.01875
>
> Carlsbad NM 32.2609 104.1114 952.14375 928.14375
>
> Farmington NM 36.3949 108.1255 952.18125 928.18125
>
> Las Cruces NM 32.1847 106.4514 952.13125 928.13125
>
> Los Alamos NM 35.5308 106.2314 952.54375 928.54375
>
> Zuni NM 35.0518 108.4722 952.04375 928.04375
>
> Henderson NV 35.5644 115.0235 956.30625
>
> Las Vegas NV 36.0744 115.1121 952.34375 928.34375
>
> Las Vegas NV 36.0744 115.1121 952.13125 928.13125
>
> Las Vegas NV 36.0748 115.0604 952.3875 928.3875
>
> Buffalo NY 42.5247 78.5236 952.46875 928.46875
>
> Buffalo NY 42.5714 78.5237 952.80625 928.80625
>
> Byersville NY 42.3501 77.5003 952.3125 928.3125
>
> Clifton Park NY 42.5033 73.4858 952.54375 928.54375
>
> New Scottland NY 42.3739 74.0043 952.1125 928.1125
>
> New York NY 40.4530 73.5815 956.3375
>
> North Greenbush NY 42.4114 73.4222 952.00625 928.00625
>
> Omro NY 42.4757 76.2603 952.0375 928.0375
>
> Staten Island NY 40.3734 74.0530 952.0875 928.0875
>
> Tonawanda NY 42.5836 78.5413 952.4375 928.4375
>
> Cincinnati OH 39.0648 84.3048 952.53125 928.53125
>
> Cincinnati OH 39.0648 84.3048 952.56875 928.56875
>
> Cleves OH 39.0847 84.4605 952.70625 928.70625
>
> Columbus OH 40.0102 83.0111 952.60625 928.60625
>
> Columbus OH 39.5740 83.0004 952.09375 928.09375
>
> Defiance OH 41.1323 84.2236 952.2625 928.2625
>
> Bengal OK 34.4840 95.1025 952.19375 928.19375
>
> Blanchard OK 35.1249 97.4448 952.3375 928.3375
>
> Lindsay OK 34.4454 97.3558 952.60625 928.60625
>
> Oklahoma City OK 35.2412 97.2916 952.3125 928.3125
>
> Woodward OK 36.2418 99.2835 952.76875 928.76875
>
> Canyonville OR 42.5406 123.1707 952.69375 928.69375
>
> Gold Hill OR 42.2711 123.0320 952.79375 928.79375
>
> Grants Pass OR 42.2255 123.1630 952.49375 928.49375
>
> Klamath Falls OR 42.0557 121.3803 952.78125 928.78125
>
> Malin OR 42.0436 121.2952 952.48125 928.48125
>
> Portland OR 45.3121 122.4446 952.36875 928.36875
>
> Old Forge PA 41.2206 75.4433 952.4375 928.4375
>
> Pittsburgh PA 40.2825 79.5937 952.31875 928.31875
>
> Pittsburgh PA 40.2825 79.5937 952.06875 928.06875
>
> Charleston SC 32.5422 79.5511 952.13125 928.13125
>
> Charleston SC 32.4715 79.5100 952.25625 928.25625
>
> Greenville SC 34.4951 82.2655 952.03125 928.03125
>
> Greenville SC 34.5629 82.2442 952.21875 928.21875 952.30625 928.30625
>
> Greenville SC 34.5629 82.2441 956.26875
>
> Memphis TN 35.0645 89.5332 952.08125 928.08125
>
> Memphis TN 35.0853 90.0305 952.15625 928.15625
>
> Nashville TN 36.0924 86.4615 952.06875 928.06875
>
> Nashville TN 36.0849 86.4759 952.6375 928.6375
>
> Ackerly TX 32.3122 101.4251 952.26875 928.26875
>
> Beaumont TX 30.0741 94.1011 928.95625
>
> Charlotte TX 28.5119 98.4128 952.26875 928.26875
>
> Dallas TX 32.4755 96.4648 952.0125 928.0125
>
> Gerulla TX 26.2245 98.3645 952.28125 928.28125
>
> Littlefield TX 33.5408 102.2012 952.28125 928.28125
>
> Lubbock TX 33.2810 101.4725 952.18125 928.18125
>
> Lubbock TX 33.2810 101.4725 952.44375 928.44375
>
> Oak Hill TX 30.1458 97.5408 952.04375 928.04375
>
> Plainview TX 34.1305 101.4202 952.25625 928.25625 952.05625 928.05625
>
> San Antonio TX 29.2521 98.2926 952.66875 928.66875
>
> Sanderson TX 30.3311 102.2627 952.14375 928.14375
>
> Tuscola TX 32.1235 99.4750 952.11875 928.11875
>
> Waco TX 31.3203 97.1055 952.01875 928.01875
>
> Wichita Falls TX 33.5655 98.3420 952.25625 928.25625
>
> Wink TX 31.4459 103.0930 956.3125 956.3875
>
> Chesapeake VA 36.4838 76.1657 952.24375 928.24375
>
> McLean VA 38.5532 77.1357 952.1125 928.1125
>
> Skippers VA 36.3700 77.3545 952.13125 928.13125
>
> Springfield VA 38.4653 77.1053 952.1375 928.1375
>
> Virginia Beach VA 36.5049 76.0123 952.84375 928.84375
>
> Virginia Beach VA 36.4944 76.1226 952.06875 928.06875
>
> Somerset VT 42.5733 72.5524 952.1875 928.1875
>
> Bremerton WA 47.3546 122.3725 952.76875 928.76875
>
> Cle Elum WA 47.0906 120.4722 952.54375 928.54375
>
> Little Rock WA 46.5824 123.0816 952.00625 928.00625
>
> Monroe WA 47.5110 121.5818 952.71875 928.71875
>
> Seattle WA 47.4606 122.2107 952.31875 928.31875
>
> Spokane WA 47.3659 117.2155 952.04375 928.04375
>
> Tacoma WA 47.1641 122.3042 952.69375 928.69375
>
> Green Bay WI 44.2130 87.5848 952.26875 928.26875
>
> Green Bay WI 44.2130 87.5848 952.33125 928.33125

Marlowe WV 39.3535 77.5005 956.2875

**APPENDIX E---PENDING MAS APPLICATIONS**

[NAME]{.underline}: [FILE NUMBERS]{.underline}:

Advanced MAS Partners 701420

ANR Pipeline Company 796543

CN Wan Corporation 712640, 727672, 731525

Coastal Product Service, Inc. 796552

Colorado Interstate Gas Co. 712649, 796538, 796539

William Corthwein 796549, 796550

Detroit Edison Co. 796555, 796556

GTECH Corp. 731528, 796541

Warren Havens 796545

Interactive MAS Partners 798792, 798793

Island MAS Partners 798783, 798784, 798787

John N. Kyle II 796565, 798802

Livingston Parish School Board 796444

Robert G. Mounger 796546

Nationwide MAS Partners 796572, 796573

Nexcom, Inc. 798843, 798844, 798846, 798847

Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District 712557

Omnicron Telecommunications, Inc. 796553

Page Tel Corp. 796607, 796608, 796613, 796614

Royal Communications, Inc. 796522, 796523

Skyline MAS Partners 796530, 796536, 796537

SLJ Communication, Inc. 796524, 796525, 796526, 796527

Soo System Radio Communications Corp. 701441

Spectrum MAS Partners 798826, 798830, 798831, 798837, 798838

Texas Utilities Electric Co. 726018

United MAS Partners 796583, 796586

Universal MAS Partners 796593, 796598, 796599

**APPENDIX F---PENDING MAS PETITIONS AND WAIVER REQUESTS**

[928/952/956 MHz Bands]{.underline}:

United Telecom Council, American Petroleum Institute, Association of
American Railroads

(CII Petitioners)

Itron, Inc.

CellNet Data Systems, Inc.

City of Maryville, Tennessee

City of Middleton, Wisconsin

Kansas Electric Power Cooperative

[^1]: ^?^ *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; (2) the 928/959 MHz bands; and (3) the
    932/941 MHz bands.

    By way of background, in 1981, the Commission initially designated
    spectrum for MAS by allotting twenty 25-kilohertz (kHz) channel
    pairs in the 928-928.85 MHz and 952-952.85 MHz bands (a total of 1
    MHz). Subsequently, the Commission designated an additional fourteen
    25 kHz channel pairs in these bands (a total of 700 kHz), in
    addition to eight unpaired 25 kHz channels in the 956.25-956.45 MHz
    bands (a total of 200 kHz). Thus, there now exists 1.7 MHz of paired
    spectrum in the 928/952 MHz bands and 200 kHz of unpaired spectrum
    in the 956 MHz band. This spectrum, which contains incumbent
    licensees, is designated for private MAS operations and may be used
    for common carrier operations pursuant to certain sharing criteria.

    Additionally, the Commission designated six 25 kHz channel pairs in
    the 928.85-929 MHz and 959.85-960 MHz bands (928/959 MHz bands), for
    a total of 300 kHz. These channels are designated for, and used
    primarily by, common carrier operations under Part 22 of our Rules
    and are authorized for private radio use on a co-primary basis,
    pursuant to certain sharing criteria. Later, at the request of the
    MAS community, the Commission further modified the rules governing
    MAS operations by establishing a minimum mileage separation between
    co-channel master stations and by reducing the channel spacing from
    25 kHz to 12.5 kHz, thereby, increasing spectrum efficiency and
    reducing regulatory burdens for MAS users. These bands also contain
    incumbent licensees.

    # In 1989, the Commission designated one MHz of paired spectrum\--forty 12.5 kHz channels pairs\--in the 932.0-932.5 MHz and 941.0-941.5 MHz bands (932/941 MHz bands) for both Federal Government and non-Government point-to-multipoint use. The Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) coordinate Government and non-Government use. *See* Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 22, 74, and 94 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Service and Technical Rules for Government and Non-Government Fixed Service Usage of the Frequency Bands 932-935 MHz and 941-944 MHz, GN Docket No. 82-243*, Second Report and Order,* 4 FCC Rcd 2012 (1989) (*932/941 MHz Second Report and Order*). These channels can be used by common carrier and private radio licensees on a co-primary basis. {#in-1989-the-commission-designated-one-mhz-of-paired-spectrum--forty-12.5-khz-channels-pairs--in-the-932.0-932.5-mhz-and-941.0-941.5-mhz-bands-932941-mhz-bands-for-both-federal-government-and-non-government-point-to-multipoint-use.-the-interdepartment-radio-advisory-committee-irac-and-the-national-telecommunications-and-information-administration-ntia-coordinate-government-and-non-government-use.-see-amendment-of-parts-1-21-22-74-and-94-of-the-commissions-rules-to-establish-service-and-technical-rules-for-government-and-non-government-fixed-service-usage-of-the-frequency-bands-932-935-mhz-and-941-944-mhz-gn-docket-no.-82-243-second-report-and-order-4-fcc-rcd-2012-1989-932941-mhz-second-report-and-order.-these-channels-can-be-used-by-common-carrier-and-private-radio-licensees-on-a-co-primary-basis. .unnumbered}

[^2]: ^?^ *See Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd 7973.

[^3]: ^?^ *Id*.

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

[^5]: ^?^ *Id.* at 7997.

[^6]: ^?^ *Id.* at 7980.

[^7]: ^?^ *Id.* at 8003-04.

[^8]: ^?^ Pub. L. No. 105-33, Title III Stat. 251 (1997) (Balanced
    Budget Act).

[^9]: ^?^ Balanced Budget Act § 3002(a)(1)(A)(1)-(2); 47 U.S.C. §
    309(j). In the Conference Report that accompanies this legislation,
    these changes are characterized as providing for "expanded" auction
    authority. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 105-217, 105^th^ Cong., 1^st^ Sess.,
    at 572 (Conference Report).

[^10]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(6)(E).

[^11]: ^?^ *Further* *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 10744.

[^12]: ^?^ We have initiated a proceeding to assess the impact of the
    Balanced Budget Act on the Commission's determinations of which
    services are now auctionable. 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 99-87, *Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making*, 14 FCC Rcd 5206 (1999) (*BBA NPRM*).

[^13]: ^?^ *Further Notice,* 14 FCC Rcd at 10746.

[^14]: ^?^ *Id.* Currently, the Commission's licensing database
    indicates that these bands support two Federal Government licensees
    and one non-Federal Government licensee.

[^15]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^16]: ^?^ *Id.* at 10761.

[^17]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(i)(5).

[^18]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(1).

[^19]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2). "Public Safety Radio Services"
    includes private internal radio services used by State or local
    governments and non-government entities and including emergency road
    services provided by not-for-profit organizations, that -- (i) are
    used to protect the safety of life, health, or property; and (ii)
    are not made commercially available to the public.

[^20]: ^?^ *BBA NPRM*, 14 FCC Rcd at 5220.

[^21]: ^?^ *See id*.

[^22]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(6)(E).

[^23]: ^?^ *See, e.g*., CellNet Comments at 7-8; Commonwealth Edison
    Comments at 4-6; Consolidated Edison Comments at 4-6; Northern
    States Power Comments at 4-6; Radscan Comments at 4; South Carolina
    E&G Comments at 4-6; Southern Operating Companies Comments at 4-6;
    CellNet Reply Comments at 2; GTECH Reply Comments at 5-7; PCIA Reply
    Comments at 4-6; UTC Reply Comments at 2.

[^24]: ^?^ *DIRECTV, Inc. v. FCC*, 110 F.3d 816, 828 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

[^25]: ^?^ Radscan Comments at 5; API Reply Comments at 3.

[^26]: ^?^ Adaptive Comments at 2-3; Adaptive Reply Comments at 2.

[^27]: It is important to note that MAS spectrum is unique because both
    private internal and operations that are for-profit are licensed in
    the same frequency bands.

[^28]: ^?^ *See, e*.*g.*, Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding
    the 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands and Implementation of
    Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding,
    37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands, PP Docket No. 93-253, 14 FCC
    Rcd 12428, 12441-12445 (1999) (*39 GHz MO&O*). In the *39 GHz MO&O*,
    we determined that the public interest would be better served by
    using competitive bidding procedures to license mutually exclusive
    applications in the 39 GHz band. *Id.*

[^29]: ^?^ *BBA NPRM*, 14 FCC Rcd 5206.

[^30]: ^?^ *See supra* at note 14.

[^31]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7980.

[^32]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^33]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^34]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^35]: ^?^ Balanced Budget Act § 3002(a).

[^36]: ^?^ *Further Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10756.

[^37]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* API Comments at 7-8; Comsearch Comments at 2;
    Corn Belt Power Comments at 3-4; UTC Comments at 7; APPA Reply
    Comments at 4.

[^38]: ^?^ In other rule making proceedings, the Commission defined
    "private internal" in a manner that may be instructive for our
    purposes. *See, e.g.,* Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendment of
    Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the
    Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Development and Use of the
    Universal Licensing System in the Wireless Telecommunications
    Services, Amendment of the Amateur Service Rules to Authorize
    Visiting Foreign Amateur Operators to Operate Stations in the United
    States, WT Docket Nos. 98-20, *Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 21027,
    Appendix C (1998) *(Biennial Regulatory Review Report and Order)*.

[^39]: ^?^ Each application for authorization in the bands designated
    for private internal use must include a certification stating why
    the application satisfies the definition of private internal use.

[^40]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* API Comments at 7-8; Comsearch Comments at 2;
    Corn Belt Power Comments at 3-4; UTC Comments at 7; APPA Reply
    Comments at 4.

[^41]: ^?^ Commonwealth Edison Comments at 18; Comsearch Comments at 2;
    Consolidated Edison Comments at 18-19; Corn Belt Power Cooperative
    Comments at 3-4; Northern States Power Comments at 18‑19; South
    Carolina E&G Comments at 18-19; Southern Operating Companies
    Comments at 18-19.

[^42]: ^?^ Stations that were licensed in the MAS bands by the
    Commission prior to July 1, 1999, including any transfers and
    assignments of these stations as of this *Report and Order* release
    date, shall be deemed "incumbent" operations. *See Further Notice*,
    14 FCC Rcd at 10761-62.

[^43]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* CellNet Reply Comments at 11; Radscan Comments
    at 3-7; Radscan Reply Comments at 1-2.

[^44]: ^?^ Commonwealth Edison Comments at 18; Comsearch Comments at 2;
    Consolidated Edison Comments at 18-19; Corn Belt Power Cooperative
    Comments at 3-4; Northern States Power Comments at 18‑19; South
    Carolina E&G Comments at 18-19; Southern Operating Companies
    Comments at 18-19.

[^45]: ^?^ Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.0 --
    38.6 GHz and 38.6 -- 40.0 GHz Bands, ET Docket No. 95-183,
    Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding, 37.0 -- 38.6 GHz and 38.6 -- 40.0 GHz Bands, PP
    Docket No. 93-253, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 12428
    (1999*) (39 GHz Order)*; 47 C.F.R. Part 22.

[^46]: ^?^ Incumbent operations in these bands will be grandfathered.
    *See infra* at paras. 55-62 for a detailed discussion.

[^47]: ^?^ *Notice,* 12 FCC Rcd at 7979.

[^48]: ^?^ *Further Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10755-56; *Notice,* 12 FCC
    Rcd at 7979.

[^49]: ^?^ *See* Commonwealth Edison Comments at 13-16; Consolidated
    Edison Comments at 13-16; Northern States Power Comments at 13-16;
    South Carolina E&G Comments at 13-16; Southern Operating Companies
    Comments at 13-16.

[^50]: ^?^ We note that all incumbent operations will be grandfathered
    upon the release of this *Report and Order*. *See infra* at paras.
    55-62.

[^51]: ^?^ *See infra* at paras. 47-48.

[^52]: ^?^ *Further Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10755-56; *Notice*, 12 FCC
    Rcd at 7979-80.

[^53]: ^?^ We discuss our proposal to set aside five channel pairs in
    the 932/941 MHz bands for public safety/Federal Government use*,
    infra* at paras. 33-38.

[^54]: ^?^ *Further Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10755-56.

[^55]: ^?^ *See, e.g*., Adaptive Comments at 2, 4; API Comments at
    14-16; AWWA Comments at 4; Coalition Comments at 4 n.10; Data
    Address Systems Comments at 4-8; GPM Comments at 6; GTECH Comments
    at 4; PNM Comments at 2; WSSC Comments at 5; Adaptive Reply Comments
    at 3; Metrocall Reply Comments at 10; Southern Company Reply
    Comments at 3-4.

[^56]: ^?^ *See Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7996.

[^57]: ^?^ Adaptive Comments at 2, 4; API Comments at 14-16; AWWA
    Comments at 4; Adaptive Reply Comments at 3.

[^58]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* AWWA Comments at 8; Corn Belt Power Comments at
    4-7; Itron Comments at 5; WSSC Comments at 5 (commenters stating
    that the Commission allocated the channels in the 932/941 MHz bands
    to MAS because of the increased demand for private spectrum in the
    congested 928/952 MHz channels). *See also* *932/941 MHz Second
    Report and Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 2013 (MAS frequencies are "becoming
    saturated").

[^59]: ^?^ Commonwealth Edison Comments at 13-16; Consolidated Edison
    Comments at 13-16; Northern States Power Comments at 13-16; South
    Carolina E&G Comments at 13-16; Southern Operating Companies
    Comments at 13-16.

[^60]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 8002-03.

[^61]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* APCO Comments at 1-2; AWWA Comments at 23; MDS
    Comments at 15; WSSC Comments at 13.

[^62]: ^?^ *Further Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10757.

[^63]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^64]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* The Development of Operational, Technical, and
    Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public
    Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT
    Docket 96-86, *First Report and* *Order and Third Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making*, 14 FCC Rcd 152, 177-188 (1998).

[^65]: ^?^ *See* Conference Report at 572.

[^66]: ^?^ *See, e.g*., Adaptive Comments at 6; API Comments at 13-17;
    AWWA Comments at 1, 6; Blue Ridge Electric Comments at 1-2;
    Commonwealth Edison Comments at 19; Comsearch Comments at 3;
    Consolidated Edison Comments at 19; Corn Belt Power Comments at 4-7;
    East Bay Municipal Comments at 11-12; Roger Gembala Comments at 1;
    Gila Electronics Comments at 1; Hornfeck Engineering Comments at 1;
    Idaho Power Comments at 1; Jackson Electric Comments at 1; JEA
    Comments at 1; Johnson City Power Comments at 1; Little Ocmulgee
    Electric Comments at 1; Mark Norman Comments at 1; MMWD Comments at
    1; Despina Metakos Comments at 1; Northern States Power Comments at
    19; Pacific Gas & Electric Comments at 2; Salt River Project
    Comments at 1; South Carolina E&G Comments at 19; Southern Operating
    Companies Comments at 19; UTC Comments at 8-9; Williams Energy
    Comments at 1; Adaptive Reply Comments at 3-4; API Reply Comments at
    8-9; APPA Reply Comments at 9; UTC Reply Comments at 6.

[^67]: ^?^ *See, e.g*., Adaptive Comments at 6; API Comments at 16;
    Commonwealth Edison Comments at 19, Consolidated Edison Comments at
    19; East Bay Municipal Comments at 11-12; Northern States Power
    Comments at 19; Pacific G&E Comments at 2; South Carolina E&G
    Comments at 19; Southern Operating Companies Comments at 19; UTC
    Comments at 8-9; Adaptive Reply Comments at 3-4; API Reply Comments
    at 8-9.

[^68]: ^?^ *See supra* at para. 31.

[^69]: ^?^ *See, e.g*., East Bay Municipal Comments at 11-12. East Bay
    Municipal suggests that we develop a procedure for granting
    preference/priority to public safety licensees that are considered
    traditional public safety eligibles under the Commission's past
    proceedings.

[^70]: ^?^ *See, e.g.*, Report and Plan for Meeting State and Local
    Government Public Safety Agency Needs Through the Year 2010, FCC
    95-55, *Report and Plan*, 10 FCC Rcd 5207 (1995). *See also*
    Development of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum Requirements for
    Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communication
    Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, *Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, 11 FCC Rcd 12460 (1996), *Second Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, 12 FCC Rcd 17706 (1997), *First Report and*
    *Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 14 FCC Rcd 152
    (1998).

[^71]: ^?^ In 1995, at the direction of Congress, the Commission and the
    NTIA created PSWAC, directing it to evaluate the wireless
    communications needs of Federal, State, and local public safety
    agencies through the year 2010, and to make recommendations
    regarding those needs. *See* Final Report of the Public Safety
    Wireless Advisory Committee to the Federal Communications Commission
    and The National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
    Vol. 1, at 1-2 (Sept. 11, 1996) (*PSWAC Final Report*).

[^72]: ^?^ *PSWAC Final Report* at 3.

[^73]: ^?^ *Id.* at 42-43, 56.

[^74]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 90, Subpart B.

[^75]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the
    Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies of the
    Private Land Mobile Services, PR Docket No. 92-235, *Second Report
    and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 14307 (1997). The Commission maintained
    exclusive coordinator jurisdiction for the Railroad, Power, and
    Petroleum Radio Services because the nature of the day-to-day
    operations of licensees in these services "can take on an almost
    quasi-public safety function."

[^76]: ^?^ *See BBA NPRM*, 14 FCC Rcd at 5206.

[^77]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.109, 101.147(b).

[^78]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7992.

[^79]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* CellNet Comments at 31-32.

[^80]: ^?^ In fact, narrowband PCS licenses are also based on paired 50
    kHz blocks. S*ee* 47 C.F.R. § 24.129. *See also* Amendment of the
    Commission's Rules to Establish New Narrowband Personal
    Communications Services, GEN Docket No. 90-314, *First Report and
    Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 7162, 7165 ¶ 20 (1993) (*Narrowband PCS Report and
    Order*).

[^81]: ^?^ *See infra* at para. 99*.*

[^82]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 90, Subpart B.

[^83]: ^?^ *Further Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10756.

[^84]: ^?^ *See supra* at paras. 18-23.

[^85]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* AAR Comments at 3; API Comments at 9-11; AWWA
    Comments at 1 and 6; CellNet Comments at 2 and 8; Commonwealth
    Edison Comments at 9; Comsearch Comments at 2; Consolidated Edison
    Comments at 9, Corn Belt Power Comments at 7; Itron Comments at 4;
    Northern States Power Comments at 9; PSSC Comments at 5; Radscan
    Comments at 3-7; South Carolina E&G Comments at 9; Southern
    Operating Companies Comments at 9; UTC Comments at 10; Western
    Resources Comments at 4; API Reply Comments at 2-3; CellNet Data
    Reply Comments at 2; East Bay Municipal Reply Comments at 5; GTECH
    Reply Comments at 9-10; PCIA Reply Comments at 2, 6-7; Radscan Reply
    Comments at 1; UTC Reply Comments at 2.

[^86]: ^?^ UTC Comments at 10.

[^87]: ^?^ We note that similar public interest benefits were not
    apparent for 39 GHz, 900 MHz SMR, 800 MHz SMR, 218-219 MHz Service,
    Paging, and LMDS.

[^88]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* CII Petitioners' Emergency Request for Limited
    Exception to the Application Freeze for the 928/952/956 MHz Multiple
    Address Systems Bands (Corrected Public Notice DA 99-2002, rel.
    Sept. 28, 1999); CellNet Data Systems, Inc.'s Request for Limited
    Exception to the Application Freeze for the 928/952 MHz Multiple
    Address Systems Bands (Corrected Public Notice DA 99-2003, rel.
    Sept. 28, 1999); Itron, Inc.'s Request for Emergency Relief from the
    Multiple Address Systems Application Freeze (Corrected Public Notice
    DA 99-2004, rel. Sept. 28, 1999); Kansas Electric Power
    Cooperative's Request for Waiver from the Application Freeze for the
    928/952/956 MHz Multiple Address Systems Bands; City of Middleton,
    Wisconsin's Request for Waiver of Freeze on MAS Applications for the
    928/952/956 MHz Bands; and City of Maryville, Tennessee's Request
    for Waiver of Freeze on MAS Applications for the 928/952/956 MHz
    Bands.

[^89]: ^?^ *Further Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10755-56; *Notice,* 12 FCC
    Rcd at 7979.

[^90]: ^?^ *Further Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10755-56.

[^91]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7979.

[^92]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* Commonwealth Edison Comments at 13-16;
    Consolidated Edison Comments at 13-16; Northern States Power
    Comments at 13-16; South Carolina E&G Comments at 13-16; the
    Southern Operating Companies Comments at 13-16.

[^93]: ^?^ *See Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7997.

[^94]: ^?^ MDS Comments at 9-10.

[^95]: ^?^ *Further Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10755-56*; Notice*, 12 FCC
    Rcd at 7979.

[^96]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* Jackson Electric Comments at 1; Radscan Reply
    Comments at 3.

[^97]: ^?^ Corn Belt Power Comments at 4-7.

[^98]: ^?^ Commonwealth Edison Comments at 13-16; Consolidated Edison
    Comments at 13-16; Northern States Power Comments at 13-16; South
    Carolina E&G Comments at 13-16; Southern Operating Companies
    Comments at 13-16.

[^99]: ^?^ *See, e.g.*, Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the
    Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services,
    Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future
    Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, Amendment
    of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use
    of 200 Channels Outside the Designated Filing Areas in the 896-901
    MHz and 935-940 MHz Band Allotted to the Specialized Radio Pool, GN
    Docket No. 93-252, *Third Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 7988, 8044
    (1994) (*CMRS Third Report and Order).*

[^100]: ^?^ *See* *id*.

[^101]: ^?^ *Further Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10756; *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd
    at 7983.

[^102]: ^?^ Protection would be accomplished by satisfying the MAS
    mileage separation requirements or the short spacing criteria. *See*
    47 C.F.R. §§ 22.625, 101.105(c)(3). In addition, an EA licensee
    could negotiate alternative operational arrangements with the
    incumbent licensee.

[^103]: ^?^ Because we permit 12.5 kHz, 25 kHz and 50 kHz operation in
    MAS bands, we consider a channel to be co-channel if it falls within
    the bandwidth of the channel.

[^104]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7983.

[^105]: ^?^ *Id.* at 7984.

[^106]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^107]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^108]: ^?^ *See, e.g*., API Comments at 18; CellNet Comments at 17;
    East Bay Municipal Comments at 14; UTC Comments at 11-12; PCIA Reply
    Comments at 7.

[^109]: ^?^ AWWA Comments at 5.

[^110]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^111]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the
    Commission\'s Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging
    Systems, WT Docket No. 96-18, *Second Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making,* 12 FCC Rcd 2732, 2769 (1997)
    (*Paging Systems Second Report and Order*); Amendment of Part 90 of
    the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of the 220-222 MHz
    Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio Service, Implementation of
    Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory
    treatment of Mobile Services, Implementation of Section 309(j) of
    the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding, PR Docket No. 89-552,
    GN Docket No. 93-252, PP Docket No. 93-253, *Third Report and Order
    and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd 10943 (1997)
    (*220-222 MHz Third Report and Order).*

[^112]: ^?^ UTC Comments at 5.

[^113]: ^?^ *See* CellNet Comments at 17 (incumbents should be allowed
    to expand existing operations if not mutually exclusive); Radscan
    Reply Comments at 4-5 (grandfathering should be allowed only if
    grandfathered licensees are allowed to expand and fill in existing
    systems). *See also* GTECH Reply Comments at 9; PCIA Reply Comments
    at 7; UTC Comments at 11.

[^114]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules
    to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 Megahertz
    Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93-144, *First Report and Order,
    Eighth Report and Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd 1463 (1995) *(800 MHz First Report and
    Order); Paging Systems Second Report and Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 2764;
    *220-222 MHz Third Report and Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 11026.

[^115]: ^?^ *See* *supra* at note 103. Because 12.5 kHz, 25 kHz, and 50
    kHz operation is permitted, we consider a channel to be co-channel
    if it falls within the bandwidth of the channel.

[^116]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 101.105(c)(3).

[^117]: ^?^ *See, e.g.*, AAR Comments at 6; PCIA Comments at 3-4; ProNet
    Comments at 8. Because some railroad MAS systems provide coverage to
    train operation locations as far as 40 miles away from the MAS
    transmitter, AAR recommended a 40-mile protection area. AAR Comments
    at 6.

[^118]: ^?^ *See* ProNet Comments at 9-10 (allow incumbents to make any
    modifications to existing MAS facilities that do not increase the
    signal level at the outer perimeter of the incumbent\'s protected
    area, i.e., 90 miles with respect to co-channel fixed stations, and
    70 miles with respect to mobile systems); GTECH Comments at 7
    (define the protected service area either in terms of the current
    mileage separation criteria set forth in our existing rules or in
    terms of a specific field strength measured from the most distant
    remote site).

[^119]: ^?^ *See* Amendment of Part 94 of the Rules to Permit
    Intrasystem Communications Among Multiple Address System Master
    Stations, PR Docket No. 87-5, *Report and Order*, 3 FCC Rcd 1564,
    1569 (1988) (*MAS Intrasystem Communications Report and Order)*.

[^120]: ^?^ The Commission historically has determined that 25-mile
    service areas are typical for MAS. *See, e.g.,* Amendment of Parts
    1, 21, 22, 74 and 94 of the Commission\'s Rules to Establish Service
    and Technical Rules for Government and Non-Government Fixed Service
    Usage of the Frequency Bands 932-935 MHz and 941-944 MHz, GN Docket
    No. 82-243, *Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order
    (Proceeding Terminated)*, 6 FCC Rcd 4320 (1991) (\"The technical
    parameters associated with the multiple address system design are
    expected to provide licensees with a 25-mile radius service area
    centered on the master station.\").

[^121]: ^?^ For example, 47 C.F.R. § 101.105(c)(3) provides that MAS
    applicants must make a showing that protection criteria have been
    met over the entire service area of existing systems. Such showings
    may be made by the applicant or may be satisfied by a statement from
    the frequency coordinator. *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 22.625(a) (stating
    that the required minimum distance separation between co-channel
    fixed transmitters is 113 kilometers (70 miles). However, the
    requirement may be waived with an engineering analysis showing that
    no interference would be caused to either system).

[^122]: ^?^ The public interest is not served in allowing incumbents to
    expand their systems without restrictions. *See, e.g., 800 MHz First
    Report and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 1513-14.

[^123]: ^?^ In general, licensees may add or modify sites without filing
    site specific applications under this *Report and Order* and
    Commission rules and policies; however, licensees must file
    applications with the Commission if such filing is necessary for
    coordination with Mexico or Canada, or is required by 47 C.F.R. §§
    1.923, 1.924, or 1.1301 *et seq*.

[^124]: ^?^ *See 800 MHz First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 1514;
    Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for
    the Use of 200 Channels Outside the Designated Filing Areas in the
    896-901 MHz and the 935-940 MHz Bands Allotted to the Specialized
    Mobile Radio Pool, PR Docket No. 89-553, *Second Report and Order
    and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 10 FCC Rcd 6884,
    6901 (1995) (*900 MHz Second Report and Order).*

[^125]: ^?^ *Paging Systems Second Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    2764.

[^126]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7982.

[^127]: ^?^ For example, the service areas for Cellular Radiotelephone
    Service and 218-219 MHz Service are based on Metropolitan
    Statistical Areas (MSAs) and Rural Service Areas (RSAs). In
    addition, we have used EAs developed by the Bureau of Economic
    Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce for the 220-222 MHz
    Service, the General Wireless Communications Service (GWCS), and for
    800 MHz SMR Service licensing.

[^128]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7982-83.

[^129]: ^?^ AWWA Comments at 14; WSSC Comments at 8.

[^130]: ^?^ MDS Comments at 10.

[^131]: ^?^ Black & Associates Comments at 5.

[^132]: ^?^ AWWA Comments at 14; CellNet Comments at 24; Radscan
    Comments at 18; WSSC Comments at 8.

[^133]: ^?^ *See, e.g*., AWWA Comments at 6; CellNet Comments at 24;
    GTECH Comments at 6; WSSC Comments at 8.

[^134]: ^?^ AWWA Comments at 14; WSSC Comments at 8.

[^135]: ^?^ CellNet Comments at 24.

[^136]: ^?^ *Id*. at 24-25.

[^137]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7982-83.

[^138]: ^?^ The Commission must seek to promote the dissemination of
    licenses to small businesses, rural telephone companies, and
    minority-and women-owned businesses, as well as identify and
    eliminate market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small
    businesses seeking to enter the communications field. *See* 47
    U.S.C. §§ 257 and 309(j).

[^139]: ^?^ *See infra* at paras. 78-88.

[^140]: ^?^ *See infra* at para. 99.

[^141]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7984-85.

[^142]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^143]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 17.

[^144]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7984-85.

[^145]: ^?^ *Id.* at 7985-86.

[^146]: ^?^ We want to clarify that all licenses granted after the
    release of this *Report and Order* will be subject to ten-year
    terms. A ten-year license term is consistent with the license terms
    in other Part 101 services and will provide licensees additional
    flexibility in promoting more efficient uses of spectrum. It also
    serves our goal of providing licensees with flexibility to develop
    this spectrum as the market demands and to employ innovative
    technologies that may not be available immediately upon initial
    licensing.

[^147]: ^?^ It is the EA licensee\'s responsibility to decide whether to
    apply for an individual license for any given master station. For
    example, as noted earlier, licensees are still required to
    individually license certain master stations. *See* *supra* at para.
    71. Additionally, we reiterate that any MAS antenna structure that
    requires notification to the FAA must be registered with the
    Commission prior to construction. *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 17. Antenna
    structures more than 200 feet above ground or located near or on
    specified airports must be notified to the FAA and registered with
    the Commission prior to construction. This requirement applies to
    all non-government antenna structures, regardless of the radio
    service licensees involved.

[^148]: ^?^ MDS Comments at 11-12. On the other hand, MDS supports our
    view that remote sites should not require a license.

[^149]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* *800 MHz First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    1498; 47 C.F.R. § 27.11 (Wireless Communications Service); 47 C.F.R.
    § 24.11 (PCS).

[^150]: ^?^ *See 800 MHz First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 1501;
    Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6 GHz and
    38.6-40.0 GHz Bands, ET Docket No. 95-183, *Report and Order and
    Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* 12 FCC Rcd 18600, 18636 ¶ 74
    (1997) (*39 GHz Report and Order and Second NPRM*); *800 MHz First
    Report and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 1501 ¶ 59. *See infra* at para. 93
    for the treatment of recovered channels in a site-by-site licensing
    scheme.

[^151]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7986.

[^152]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^153]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^154]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^155]: ^?^ *See supra* at Section IV(B), (C) (discussing spectrum
    allotment and licensing approach).

[^156]: ^?^ CellNet Comments at 29.

[^157]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^158]: ^?^ *Id.* at 29, n.30.

[^159]: ^?^ *Notice,* 12 FCC Rcd at 7986.

[^160]: ^?^ *See* *Narrowband PCS Report and Order*, 8 FCC Rcd at 7168;
    47 C.F.R. § 20.6 ("CMRS spectrum aggregation limit").

[^161]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* AWWA Comments at 16; CellNet Comments at 29;
    WSSC Comments at 9.

[^162]: ^?^ CellNet Comments at 29. *See also* AWWA Comments at 17.

[^163]: ^?^ AWWA Comments at 16-17. AWWA claims that its members
    essentially are in the same critical environment as public safety
    agencies. To illustrate, AWWA states that few, if any, public safety
    agencies in the nation rely on commercial radio services for their
    primary wireless communications needs. Public utilities cannot rely
    on spectrum re-sellers either and must have reliable systems to meet
    their public service obligations. *Id.*

[^164]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 20.6 ("CMRS spectrum aggregation limit"). *See*
    *Biennial Regulatory Review Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 21027.

[^165]: ^?^ *See 39 GHz Report and Order and Second NPRM*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    18626-27.

[^166]: ^?^ *See id*.

[^167]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7987; *see* Geographic Partitioning
    and Spectrum Disaggregation by Commercial Mobile Radio Services
    Licensees, WT Docket No. 96-148, *Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd 21831 (1996) (*PCS
    Order*). "Partitioning" is the assignment of geographic portions of
    a license along geopolitical or other boundaries. "Disaggregation"
    is the assignment of discrete portions or "blocks" of spectrum
    licensed to a geographic licensee or qualifying entity. *Id.* at
    21833.

[^168]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7987.

[^169]: ^?^ *Id.* at 7988.

[^170]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^171]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^172]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^173]: ^?^ *Id.* at 7987.

[^174]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^175]: ^?^ *Id.* at 7988-89.

[^176]: ^?^ *Id.* at 7989.

[^177]: ^?^ *Id.* at 7988*.*

[^178]: ^?^ *See PCS Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21839-66; *218-219 MHz Report
    and Order*, 64 Fed. Reg. 59656 at ¶¶ 92-94; Amendment of the
    Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.0 -- 38.6 GHz and 38.6 -- 40.0
    GHz Bands, ET Docket No. 95-183, Implementation of Section 309(j) of
    the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding, 37.0 -- 38.6 GHz and
    38.6 -- 40.0 GHz Bands, PP Docket No. 93-253, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 12428 (1999*) (39 GHz Order)*; Revision of
    Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future
    Development of Paging Systems, PR Docket No. 93-253, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Third Report and Order*, 14
    FCC Rcd 10030, 10101 (1999) (*Paging Systems Third Report and
    Order*); Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    for the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Service, PR Docket No. 89-552, *Fifth Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd
    24615 (1998) (*220 MHz Fifth Report and Order)*; Rule Making to
    Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission's Rules to
    Redesignate the 27.5 - 29.5 GHz Frequency Band, To Reallocate the
    29.5 - 30.0 GHz Frequency Band, To Establish Rules and Policies for
    Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite
    Services, CC Docket No. 92-297, *Fourth Report and Order*, 13 FCC
    Rcd 11655 (1998) (*LMDS Fourth Report and Order*); Amendment of the
    Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications
    Service ("WCS"), GN Docket No. 96-228, *Report and Order*, 12 FCC
    Rcd 10785, 10836 (1997) (*WCS Report and Order*).

[^179]: ^?^ Nonetheless, as discussed *supra* in Section IV(G), there
    are limited restrictions based upon band designations. Geographic
    area licensees may aggregate unlimited spectrum in their designated
    bands, yet they may not be licensed as partitionees or
    disaggregatees in those portions of the MAS spectrum allocated for
    public safety and private internal use. However, entities using or
    proposing to use MAS spectrum for public safety or private internal
    use may be licensed as partitionees or disaggregatees in any MAS
    bands.

[^180]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* API Comments at 32, AWWA Comments at 17; MDS
    Comments at 13; Radscan Comments at 13-14.

[^181]: ^?^ AWWA Comments at 17; MDS Comments at 12-13.

[^182]: ^?^ Radscan Comments at 13-14.

[^183]: ^?^ *See PCS Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21857; *LMDS Fourth Report
    and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 11664-65; Amendment of the Commission's
    Rules Concerning Maritime Communications, PR Docket No. 92-257,
    *Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 13 FCC
    Rcd 19853, 19873 (1998) (*Maritime Third Report and Order*).

[^184]: ^?^ *See PCS Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21855.

[^185]: ^?^ *See LMDS Fourth Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 11664-65.

[^186]: ^?^ *See PCS Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21857.

[^187]: ^?^ *See LMDS Fourth Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 11664-65.

[^188]: ^?^ *See infra* at para. 93.

[^189]: ^?^ AWWA Comments at 18.

[^190]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^191]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.105, 101.107, 101.145.

[^192]: ^?^ *See LMDS Fourth Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 11611;
    *WCS Report and* Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10837; *PCS Order*, 11 FCC Rcd
    at 21860.

[^193]: ^?^ *See PCS Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21860.

[^194]: ^?^ *See id*.

[^195]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7988.

[^196]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.2111(e); *Part 1 Third Report and
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 405.

[^197]: ^?^ *See infra* at para. 127.

[^198]: ^?^ *See PCS Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21870; *220 MHz Fifth Report
    and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 24634-35; *LMDS Fourth Report and Order*,
    13 FCC Rcd at 11667-68.

[^199]: ^?^ *See PCS Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21870.

[^200]: ^?^ By combined partitioning and disaggregation, we refer to
    circumstances in which an entity would receive authorization for a
    portion of an MAS licensee's service area on a portion of the
    spectrum authorized to that licensee.

[^201]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7989.

[^202]: ^?^ *Id.* at 7988*.*

[^203]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^204]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* *218-219 MHz Report and Order* ¶ 93; *39 GHz
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 2460; *WCS Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    10839; *Paging Systems Third Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    10110*; 220 MHz Fifth Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 24628; *800
    MHz SMR Second Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 19150; *PCS Order*,
    11 FCC Rcd at 21866.

[^205]: ^?^ *See, e.g*., *218-219 MHz Report and Order* ¶ 93; *39 GHz
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 2460; *WCS Report and Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at
    10839; *Paging Systems Third Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10110;
    *220 MHz Fifth Report and Order,* 13 FCC Rcd at 24628; *800 MHz SMR
    Second Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 19150; *PCS Order*, 11 FCC
    Rcd at 21866.

[^206]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.955, 22.169, 90.175(e); *see also*
    Arrangement Between the Department of Communications of Canada and
    the Federal Communications Commission of the United States of
    America Concerning the Use of the Bands 928 to 929 MHz and 952 to
    953 MHz Along the United States - Canada Border, *Public Notice*, DA
    91-999 (rel. Aug. 13, 1991); Arrangement between the Federal
    Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration of the United States of America, and
    Industry Canada Concerning the Use of the Bands 932 to 935 MHz and
    941 to 944 MHz Along the United States-Canada Border (1994);
    Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and
    the Government of the United Mexican States Concerning the
    Allocation and Use of Frequency Bands by Terrestrial
    Non-Broadcasting Radiocommunication Services Along the Common
    Border, Protocol #6 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).

[^207]: ^?^ *See, e.g*., *900 MHz Second Report and Order*, 10 FCC Rcd
    at 6908.

[^208]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7990.

[^209]: ^?^ AWWA Comments at 18.

[^210]: ^?^ *See 800 MHz First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 1496 ¶
    48.

[^211]: ^?^ MDS Comments at 13.

[^212]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.63(a).

[^213]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.147(b).

[^214]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7990.

[^215]: ^?^ *Id.* at 7991.

[^216]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^217]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^218]: ^?^ GTECH Comments at 10.

[^219]: ^?^ CellNet Comments at 31.

[^220]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^221]: ^?^ AWWA Comments at 19; WSSC Comments at 10.

[^222]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 101.63.

[^223]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 101.63(b).

[^224]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 101.63(c). *See* Appendix D for a current list
    of recovered channels.

[^225]: ^?^ *See supra* at para. 71.

[^226]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3).

[^227]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.940(a)(1)(i).

[^228]: ^?^ *See, e.g*., Amendment of the Commission's Rules to
    Establish New Personal Communications Service, GEN Docket No.
    90-314, *Second Report and Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 7700, 7755 ¶ 134
    (1993); *Competitive Bidding Second Report and Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at
    6899 ¶ 43; Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules
    with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution
    Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service, MM Docket
    No. 94-131, *Report and Order*, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9613 ¶ 43 (1995).

[^229]: ^?^ Our renewal expectancy for MAS is consistent with the
    renewal expectancy rules we have adopted for other services,
    including cellular, SMR and LMDS. *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. § 22.940.

[^230]: ^?^ Once again, the Commission has consistently defined
    substantial service as "service which is sound, favorable, and
    substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might
    minimally warrant renewal." 47 C.F.R. § 22.940(a)(1)(i). *See also*
    *LMDS Second Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 12660; *WCS Report and
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 10843-44; Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of
    the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging
    Systems, WT Docket No. 96-18, *Memorandum Opinion and Order on
    Reconsideration and Third Report and Order*, WT Docket No. 96-18
    (1999); *39 GHz* *Report and Order and Second NPRM,* 12 FCC Rcd at
    18621-25; Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    for the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Service, *Third Report and Order and Fifth Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11015-21 (1997); *SMR Third Order on
    Reconsideration*, 11 FCC Rcd at 1171.

[^231]: ^?^ We have taken this approach with respect to other services*.
    See, e.g*., Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the
    Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band,
    to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules
    and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed
    Satellite Services, CC Docket No. 92-297*, Second Report and Order,
    Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,
    12 FCC Rcd 12545 (1997) (*LMDS Second Report and Order*); Amendment
    of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use
    of 200 Channels Outside the Designated Filing Areas in the 896-901
    MHz and the 935-940 MHz Bands Allotted to the Specialized Mobile
    Radio Pool -- Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications
    Act -- Competitive Bidding and Implementation of Sections 3(n) and
    322 of the Communications Act, PR Docket No. 89-553, *Second Report
    and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 10 FCC
    Rcd 6884, 6887 ¶ 4 (1995) (*Competitive Bidding Second Report and
    Order*).

[^232]: ^?^ *See* Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules
    to Provide for the Use of 200 Channels Outside the Designated Filing
    Areas in the 896-901 MHz and the 935-940 MHz Bands Allotted to the
    Specialized Mobile Radio Pool -- Implementation of Sections 3(n) and
    332 of the Communications Act, GN Docket No. 93-252, *Third Order on
    Reconsideration*, 11 FCC Rcd 1170 ¶ 2 (1995) (*SMR Third Order on
    Reconsideration*).

[^233]: ^?^ Licensees must return terminated authorizations to the
    Commission in accordance with 47 C.F.R. § 101.63.

[^234]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 101.147(b).

[^235]: ^?^ *See* Amendment of Rules to Eliminate Grandfathering
    Provisions Applicable to Licensees on MAS Frequencies, PR Docket No.
    90-260, *Report and Order*, 6 FCC Rcd 3721, 3723 (1991). Relevant
    information for justifying additional bandwidth could include the
    required data rate, the minimum polling interval for remotes, the
    anticipated number of remotes, the polling cycle for the master
    station, a description of the types of data to the transmitted, a
    breakdown of overhead time and actual transmission time, and any
    other information (including terrain) that justifies the request.
    *Id*.

[^236]: ^?^ *MAS Intrasystem Communications Report and Order*, 3 FCC Rcd
    at 1566.

[^237]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^238]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7991-92.

[^239]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^240]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.147(b).

[^241]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7985; s*ee* *900 MHz Second Report
    and Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at 6907-08 ¶ 61.

[^242]: ^?^ The Commission noted that this signal strength level is the
    same signal strength level used for 800 MHz SMR operations at EA
    borders. *See 800 MHz First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 1518.

[^243]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7991-92.

[^244]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^245]: ^?^ AWWA Comments at 19; WSSC Comments at 10.

[^246]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.147(b).

[^247]: ^?^ CellNet Comments at n.33.

[^248]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^249]: ^?^ We emphasize that this rule applies only to resolving
    interference issues between geographic area licensees. Thus, an EA
    licensee who complies with this rule may nevertheless be required to
    limit its operations further in order to comply with the rules
    governing protection of incumbents. *See supra* at paras. 59-62.

[^250]: ^?^ Requiring new geographic area licensees to protect
    incumbents is consistent with Commission action in various
    proceedings. *See, e.g.,* *800 MHz First Report and Order,* 11 FCC
    Rcd at 1513-15; *Paging Systems Second Report and Orde*r, 12 FCC Rcd
    at 2769.

[^251]: ^?^ Instead of specifying a minimum distance a geographic
    licensee\'s transmission site must be from the geographic border,
    which could result in unserved areas, we think it is appropriate to
    allow geographic area licensees to negotiate mutually acceptable
    agreements with all adjacent geographic area licensees if the
    interfering contour of one geographic area licensee will extend into
    the adjacent geographic area or areas. Adjacent licensees have a
    duty to negotiate with each other in good faith regarding co-channel
    interference protection. Informal negotiations between parties in
    determining mutually agreeable arrangements between adjacent EAs
    will achieve the most expeditious and effective resolution of
    co-channel interference.

[^252]: ^?^ Comsearch Comments at 7.

[^253]: ^?^ *See 800 MHz Second Report and Order* 12 FCC Rcd at 19108 ¶
    78 (for the lower 230 channels); *800 MHz First Report and Order*,
    11 FCC Rcd at 1518 ¶ 96 (for the upper 200 channels).

[^254]: ^?^ *800 MHz First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 1518 ¶ 96.

[^255]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 101.105(c)(3).

[^256]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 101.147(b).

[^257]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^258]: ^?^ Fixed service includes both point-to-point and one-way
    communications.

[^259]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7993-94.

[^260]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^261]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C § 332(a).

[^262]: ^?^ AWWA Comments at 20; WSSC Comments at 11.

[^263]: ^?^ *See, e.g.*, Amendment of the Commission\'s Rules Regarding
    the 37.0-38.6 GHz And 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands, ET Docket No. 95-183,
    *Report and Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 12 FCC
    Rcd 18600, 18613 (1997).

[^264]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7994; *see also supra* at para. 103.

[^265]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7994.

[^266]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^267]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^268]: ^?^ A commercial mobile service is any mobile service that is
    provided for profit and makes interconnected service available to
    the public or to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively
    available to a substantial portion of the public. 47 U.S.C. §
    332(d)(1).

[^269]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7994.

[^270]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^271]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^272]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^273]: ^?^ AWWA Comments at 20; WSSC Comments at 11.

[^274]: ^?^ AWWA Comments at 20; WSSC Comments at 11.

[^275]: ^?^ AWWA Comments at 20; WSSC Comments at 11.

[^276]: ^?^ AWWA Comments at 20-21; WSSC Comments at 11.

[^277]: ^?^ We have taken this approach with respect to other services.
    *See* Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service, WT Docket No.
    98-169, *Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, ¶ 91
    (rel. Sept. 10, 1999).

[^278]: ^?^ We recognize that there is no formal petition to deny
    process for parties to challenge the regulatory status of entities
    engaged in private internal operations. However, formal challenges
    to regulatory status may be made at the reconsideration stage.

[^279]: ^?^ MAS geographic-area licensees will be able to provide this
    information by electronic filing through the Commission's Universal
    Licensing System. *See* *Biennial Regulatory Review Report and
    Order*, *supra*, at note 164.

[^280]: ^?^ *Further Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10761.

[^281]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^282]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^283]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^284]: ^?^ *Id.* at 10761-62.

[^285]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^286]: ^?^ *Id.* at 10761 n.95, citing Revision of Part 22 and Part 90
    of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging
    Systems, Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications
    Act---Competitive Bidding, WT Docket No. 96-18, *Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making*, 11 FCC Rcd 3108, 3136 & n.270 (1996).

[^287]: ^?^ *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on
    Emergency Request for Limited Exception to the Application Freeze
    for the 928/952/956 MHz Multiple Address Systems Bands, *Corrected
    Public Notice*, DA 99-2002 (rel. Sept. 28, 1999) (petition filed on
    July 23, 1999).

[^288]: ^?^ *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on
    Itron, Inc. Request for Emergency Relief from the Multiple Address
    Systems Application Freeze, *Corrected Public Notice*, DA 99-2004
    (rel. Sept. 28, 1999) (petition filed on Aug. 13, 1999).

[^289]: ^?^ *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on
    CellNet Data Systems, Inc. Request for Limited Exception to the
    Application Freeze for the 928/952/956 MHz Multiple Address Systems
    Bands, *Corrected Public Notice*, DA 99-2003 (rel. Sept. 28, 1999)
    (petition filed on August 17, 1999). CellNet's petition was
    accompanied by five applications for authorization.

[^290]: ^?^ Appendix A contains a list of commenters.

[^291]: ^?^ *See, e.g.*, API Comments at 12; AAR Comments at 4; AWWA
    Comments at 8; CellNet Comments at 20; Commonwealth Edison Comments
    at 19; Roger Gembala Comments at 1; Gila Electronics Comments at 1;
    Hornfeck Engineering Comments at 1; Idaho Power Comments at 1; Itron
    Comments at 2; Jackson Electric Comments at 1; JEA Comments at 1;
    Johnson City Comments at 1; LOEMC Comments at 1; Despina Metakos
    Comments at 1; Mark Norman Comments at 1; MMWD Comments at 1; MTI
    Comments at 1; Pacific G&E Comments at 2-3; PSSC Comments at 4; Salt
    River Comments at 1; South Carolina E&G Comments at 19-21; Southwest
    Gas Comments at 14; Chris J. Wanner Comments at 1; Williams Energy
    Comments at 1; CellNet Reply Comments at 14.

[^292]: ^?^ *See, e.g.*, Adaptive Comments at 2; API Comments at iii,
    11-12; APPA Comments at 6; Blue Ridge Comments at 1-2; Commonwealth
    Edison Comments at 20; Consolidated Edison Comments at 19-21; MTI
    Comments at 1; PSCC Comments at 2, 4; Southern Operating Companies
    Comments at 20-23; UTC Comments at 12; East Bay Municipal Reply
    Comments at 3; UTC Reply Comments at 7.

[^293]: ^?^ *See, e.g.*, Roger Gembala Comments at 1; MTI Comments at 2;
    Salt River Comments at 1; Williams Energy Comments at 1.

[^294]: ^?^ Consolidated Edison Comments at 19-21; South Carolina E&G
    Comments at 19-21; Southern Operating Companies Comments at 20-23;
    East Bay Municipal Reply Comments at 4.

[^295]: ^?^ East Bay Municipal Reply Comments at 3-4.

[^296]: ^?^ *See, e.g.*, API Comments at 12; AWWA Comments at 8.

[^297]: ^?^ API Comments at 12-13.

[^298]: ^?^ APPA Reply Comments at 7.

[^299]: ^?^ *Id.* at 8.

[^300]: ^?^ AAR Comments at 5.

[^301]: ^?^ CellNet Comments at 20; Hornfeck Engineering Comments at 1.

[^302]: ^?^ Itron Comments at 2; Itron Reply Comments at 3.

[^303]: ^?^ In light of our decision to remove the freeze (as of the
    release date of this *Report and Order*) on the acceptance of
    applications for new licenses, amendments, or modifications for
    authorization in the 928/952/956 MHz bands, we dismiss as moot any
    petitions to lift the application freeze in the 928/952/956 MHz
    bands listed in Appendix F of this *Report and Order*, filed between
    July 1, 1999 and the release date of this *Report and Order*.
    Additionally, any waiver requests listed in Appendix F of this
    *Report and Order*, filed in conjunction with applications for the
    928/952/956 MHz bands between July 1, 1999 and the release date of
    this *Report and Order*, are dismissed as moot, and any associated
    applications are dismissed without prejudice.

[^304]: ^?^ *See supra* at note 12.

[^305]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2105 ("Bidding application and
    certification procedures; prohibition of collusion"), 1.2107
    ("Submission of down payment and filing of long-form applications"),
    1.2109 ("License grant, denial, default, and disqualification").

[^306]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* *Maritime Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd
    at 19889; *800 MHz Second Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 19096;
    Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.0 -- 38.6 GHz
    and 38.6 -- 40.0 GHz Bands, ET Docket No. 95-183, *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 4930, 4988-89 (1995).

[^307]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7999-8000. We reiterate that we make
    no representations or warranties about the use of this spectrum for
    particular services. Applicants should be aware that a Commission
    auction represents an opportunity to become an FCC licensee in this
    service, subject to certain conditions and regulations. A Commission
    auction does not constitute an endorsement by the Commission of any
    particular services, technologies or products, nor does an FCC
    license constitute a guarantee of business success**.** *See supra*
    at para. 3.

[^308]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 8000.

[^309]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^310]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^311]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^312]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^313]: ^?^ *Id.* at 8000-01. Unjust enrichment requirements are those
    mechanisms designed to prevent a licensee from benefiting from
    special bidding provisions and becoming unjustly enriched by
    immediately selling its license to a party that does not qualify for
    such benefits. These requirements are set forth at 47 C.F.R. §
    1.2111. *See* *PCS Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21849, n.88.

[^314]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 8001.

[^315]: ^?^ *Further Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10758-59.

[^316]: ^?^ *Id.*, citing Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's
    Rules---Competitive Bidding Procedures, WT Docket No. 97-82, *Third
    Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*,
    13 FCC Rcd 374 (1997), modified by *Erratum*, DA 98-419 (rel. Mar.
    2, 1998) (*Part 1 Third Report and Order*).

[^317]: ^?^ *Further Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10758-59, citing *Part 1
    Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 388.

[^318]: ^?^ *Further Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10759-60.

[^319]: ^?^ The commenters that submitted comments in 1997 were
    virtually unanimous in their opposition to the Commission's proposal
    to conduct an auction for MAS spectrum instead of using our lottery
    authority. As noted above, since the time that the comments were due
    in response to the *Notice*, on August 5, 1997, the President signed
    the Balanced Budget Act, which eliminated our authority to use
    lotteries and, with certain exceptions, mandated the use of
    auctions. We decline to adopt this proposal because we do not have
    the authority to conduct lotteries for MAS spectrum and will not
    address the comments received in this regard.

[^320]: ^?^ MTI Comments at 3.

[^321]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^322]: ^?^ East Bay Municipal Reply Comments at 6.

[^323]: ^?^ *Part 1 Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 374; *see
    218-219 MHz Report and Order* ¶ 116.

[^324]: ^?^ *Part 1 Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 374.

[^325]: ^?^ *See 218-219 MHz Report and Order,* 64 Fed. Reg. 59656 at ¶
    118.

[^326]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(e)(2).

[^327]: ^?^ Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business
    Administration to Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (June
    4, 1999).

[^328]: ^?^ *Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 8000.

[^329]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 80.1252 (making the same provision for
    designated entities in the maritime communications services). *See
    generally* *Part 1 Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 476-78.

[^330]: ^?^ *See Part 1 Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 403-04;
    *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(e). We reject GTECH's proposal that if
    we place private and commercial applicants in the same bidding pool,
    we should afford bidding credits and payment terms to applicants
    proposing to use the spectrum for private, internal use, regardless
    of the applicant's business size. GTECH Reply Comments at 4, 10.

[^331]: ^?^ *See 218-219 MHz Report and Order,* 64 Fed. Reg. 59656 at ¶
    121.

[^332]: ^?^ *See* *Part 1 Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 403-04.
    East Bay Municipal "commends" our efforts to meet our statutory
    obligations and to develop mechanisms permitting a full range of
    small businesses to potentially provide service in the MAS spectrum.
    East Bay Municipal Reply Comments at 7.

[^333]: ^?^ Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Adopt
    Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems, PR Docket No.
    93-61, *Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 15182, 15198 (1998)
    (*LMS Second Report and Order).*

[^334]: ^?^ *See LMS Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 15198.

[^335]: ^?^ *See id.* at 15198-99.

[^336]: ^?^ *See Part 1 Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 406.

[^337]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 1.2111(d), (e).

[^338]: ^?^ *See* *39 GHz Order,* 14 FCC Rcd at 12461-62 (discussing 47
    C.F.R. § 1.2111(d), (e)).

[^339]: ^?^ As provided in our Rules, the unjust enrichment payment will
    be reduced over time. 47 C.F.R. § 1.2111(d)(2).

[^340]: ^?^ *See 39 GHz Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 12461-62.

[^341]: ^?^ *See id.* For example, if an MAS licensee that availed
    itself of a bidding credit and a non-qualifying
    partitionee/disaggregatee were to agree on a 20% disaggregation of
    spectrum over 30% of the population of the licensed service area, an
    unjust enrichment payment of six percent (.20 x .30) of the bidding
    credit would be required. *LMS Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd
    at 15203 n.99.

[^342]: ^?^ We include in this category: (a) informal comments, (b)
    letters, and (c) submissions that failed to meet the Reply Comments
    deadline of May 16, 1997.

[^343]: ^?^ We include in this category: (a) formal Reply Comments and
    (b) formal, late-filed Comments that failed to meet the Comments
    deadline of May 6, 1997.

[^344]: ^?^ We include in this category: (a) informal comments, (b)
    letters, and (c) submissions that failed to meet the Reply Comments
    deadline of October 19, 1999.

[^345]: ^?^ We include in this category: (a) formal Reply Comments and
    (b) formal, late-filed comments that failed to meet the Comments
    deadline of September 17, 1999.

[^346]: ^?^ *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).

[^347]: ^?^ 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*).

[^348]: ^?^ *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^349]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. §§ 257, 309(j) (Communications Act).

[^350]: ^?^ *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."

[^351]: ^?^ 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).

[^352]: ^?^ 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^353]: ^?^ 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^354]: ^?^ 1992 Census of Governments, U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce.

[^355]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^356]: ^?^ Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business
    Administration to Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (June
    4, 1999).

[^357]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110.

[^358]: ^?^ *See supra* at para 7.

[^359]: ^?^ *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial
    Classification (SIC) Code 4812.

[^360]: ^?^ *See generally* 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart Q (competitive
    bidding procedures).

[^361]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* *MAS Report and Order* at paras. 95, 99 and
    note 39.

[^362]: ^?^ *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^363]: ^?^ *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).