**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 05-62          |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Amendment of Part 90 of the      | ) | WT Docket No. 02-55          |
| Commission's Rules To Provide    | * |                              |
| for Flexible Use of the 896-901  | * |                              |
| MHz and 935-940 MHz Band         |   |                              |
| Allotted to the Business and     | * |                              |
| Industrial Land Transportation   | * |                              |
| Pool                             | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Improving Public Safety          | * |                              |
| Communications in the 800 MHz    |   |                              |
| Band                             | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Consolidating the 800 MHz and    | ) |                              |
| 900 MHz Industrial/Land          | * |                              |
| Transportation and Business Pool | * |                              |
| Channels                         |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted: October 9, 2008 Released: October 22, 2008**

By the Commission:

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph \#

I. introduction 1

II\. background 2

III\. DISCUSSION 6

A. Retention of Site-Based Licensing for 900 MHz B/ILT Channels 6

B. Interference Protection in the 900 MHz B/ILT Band 16

C. Lifting the Freeze Placed on Applications for New 900 MHz B/ILT
Licenses 27

IV\. conclusion 32

V. procedural matters 33

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 33

B. Congressional Review Act 34

C. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 35

D. Accessible Formats 36

VI\. ordering clauses 37

APPENDIX A -- List of Commenters

APPENDIX B -- Final Rules

APPENDIX C -- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

# introduction {#introduction .Style-Heading-1-+-11-pt}

1.  In this Report and Order, we retain the current site-based licensing
    paradigm for the 199 channels allocated to the Business and
    Industrial Land Transportation (B/ILT) Pool in the 896-901
    MHz/935-940 MHz (900 MHz) band[^1] and decline to adopt the
    geographic area/channel block licensing and competitive bidding
    rules proposed in the *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in WT Docket
    05-62.[^2] In addition, we define certain interference protection
    rights and obligations of all licensees operating in the 900 MHz
    B/ILT band. Finally, we announce that we will lift the freeze placed
    on applications for new 900 MHz B/ILT licenses in September 2004 on
    a rolling basis, tied to the completion of rebanding in each 800 MHz
    National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC)
    region.[^3] In light of the record compiled in response to the
    *Notice*, our action today recognizes the important needs of 900 MHz
    B/ILT licensees for spectrum to expand or establish radio systems
    used by private wireless licensees, including many critical
    infrastructure industries, to provide services essential to the
    economic well-being and safety of our citizens and industries. We
    remain committed to the goal, as stated in the *Notice*,[^4] of
    promoting flexible use of the electromagnetic radio spectrum, and
    our action today does not diminish our belief that flexible use in
    general remains the best policy for spectrum allocation.
    Nevertheless, we acknowledge the scarcity of frequencies dedicated
    solely to B/ILT licensees, and believe our action today will both
    help ensure the communications viability of incumbent and
    prospective 900 MHz B/ILT licensees, and provide for the orderly
    modification and growth of their communications systems.

# background {#background .Style-Heading-1-+-11-pt}

2.  The Commission in 1986 established a pool structure for the 900 MHz
    private land mobile radio (PLMR) spectrum and allocated 10 MHz of
    spectrum in the 896-901 MHz and 935-940 MHz bands into different
    pools: 5 MHz (200 channels) for the Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
    Pool; 2.5 MHz for the Industrial/Land Transportation Pool (99
    channels); and 2.5 MHz for the Business Pool (100 channels).[^5] The
    consolidated 900 MHz B/ILT Pool was established for the private
    internal communication needs of site-by-site licensees engaged in
    clerical or commercial activities, the operation of educational,
    philanthropic, or ecclesiastical institutions, or the operation of
    hospitals, clinics, or medical associations,[^6] as well as any
    corporation furnishing nonprofit radio communication service to its
    parent corporation or subsidiary.[^7] Examples of 900 MHz B/ILT
    licensees include entities engaged in land transportation,
    utilities, manufacturing, and the petro-chemical industry.[^8]
    Applications for new facilities on 900 MHz B/ILT frequencies are
    limited to private, internal use systems.[^9]

3.  In an effort to address the problem of commercial wireless
    interference to public safety communications in the 800 MHz band,
    the Commission adopted significant technical and procedural measures
    in July 2004 that implicated B/ILT licensees.[^10] In reconfiguring
    the 800 MHz band, the Commission consolidated the B/ILT Pools in the
    800 MHz and 900 MHz bands, and allowed any eligible B/ILT licensee
    to be licensed on the consolidated channels.[^11] The Commission
    believed that consolidation of the B/ILT Pools would increase
    operational flexibility and spectrum efficiency, while rendering
    moot inter-category sharing and associated resource burdens.[^12] Of
    particular relevance here, the Commission provided for additional
    flexibility in the 900 MHz band by allowing 900 MHz B/ILT licensees
    to initiate commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) operations on
    their authorized spectrum once a license is granted, or to assign
    their authorizations to others for CMRS use.[^13] The Commission
    reasoned that, since it permitted CMRS use of private frequencies in
    the 800 MHz land mobile band, similarly flexible rules should apply
    in the 900 MHz land mobile spectrum, in the interest of regulatory
    symmetry.[^14] The Commission also noted that in order to provide
    the "green space" necessary to effect reconfiguration of the 800 MHz
    band, Nextel might need to shift some of its operations from the 800
    MHz to the 900 MHz band -- a factor that further merited
    complementary CMRS rules in both bands.[^15]

4.  In September 2004, the Bureau issued a Public Notice freezing
    acceptance of applications for new 900 MHz B/ILT licenses until
    further notice.[^16] The Bureau indicated that an exceptionally
    large number of applications for 900 MHz authorizations had been
    filed subsequent to the release of the *800 MHz R&O*, which allowed
    900 MHz B/ILT licensees to initiate commercial operations on their
    licensed spectrum or to assign their authorizations to others for
    commercial use.[^17] The Bureau noted its concern that additional
    such filings might compromise the ability to accommodate displaced
    systems while the 800 MHz band is reconfigured to abate unacceptable
    interference to public safety, critical infrastructure, and other
    "high site" 800 MHz systems.[^18] The Bureau determined that
    applications for modification of existing facilities, assignment of
    license, or transfer of control of a licensee would continue to be
    accepted, subject to applicable rules regarding eligibility,
    loading, and other requirements.[^19] In addition, applicants were
    advised that they might have recourse via the Commission's waiver
    provisions to request an exception to the freeze.[^20]

5.  On February 10, 2005, the Commission adopted the *Notice* in WT
    Docket 05-62. The *Notice* proposed amendments to the Commission's
    rules to facilitate more flexible use of the 900 MHz B/ILT band and
    to license any remaining spectrum in the band using a geographic
    area licensing scheme.[^21] The Commission also proposed to license
    the subject spectrum in 19 blocks of ten contiguous channels each,
    and one block of nine contiguous channels.[^22] The Commission asked
    whether it should reserve the proposed upper four channel blocks
    (QQ, RR, SS, and TT) for traditional B/ILT use.[^23] The *Notice*
    also sought comment on defining the rights of B/ILT licensees
    already operating on the 900 MHz B/ILT frequencies,[^24] and on
    using competitive bidding rules, in the event mutually exclusive
    applications were filed for the proposed 900 MHz geographic
    licenses.[^25] The Commission also reaffirmed the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau's freeze on new applications for 900 MHz
    B/ILT licenses.[^26] The Commission noted the fundamental changes it
    was proposing in the service areas and channel blocks for future
    licensees in the 900 MHz B/ILT service, and found it appropriate to
    suspend new 900 MHz applications in the B/ILT Pool. The Commission
    concluded that allowing the continued filing of applications for new
    900 MHz B/ILT licenses during the rulemaking period might limit the
    effectiveness of the decisions ultimately made in this
    proceeding.[^27] In response to the *Notice*, the Commission
    received 20 comments, ten reply comments, and numerous *ex parte*
    filings.[^28]

# DISCUSSION {#discussion .Style-Heading-1-+-11-pt}

## Retention of Site-Based Licensing for 900 MHz B/ILT Channels {#retention-of-site-based-licensing-for-900-mhz-bilt-channels .Style-Heading-2-+-11-pt}

In this Report and Order, we retain the current site-based licensing
paradigm for new applications for 900 MHz B/ILT licenses. In doing so,
we decline to adopt at this time the geographic area and competitive
bidding licensing rules and policies proposed in the *Notice*. We
conclude, based on the record in this proceeding, that such action on
balance best serves the public interest.

In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed service rules for 900 MHz B/ILT
channels to provide licensees with the flexibility to employ the
spectrum for any use permitted by the United States Table of Frequency
Allocations contained in Part 2 of our rules (*i.e.*, fixed or mobile
services).[^29] The Commission tentatively concluded to adopt a
geographic area licensing scheme for the 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum because
such an approach would be consistent with flexible use management
principles, and requested comment on that tentative conclusion.[^30] The
Commission also proposed licensing 19 blocks of ten contiguous channels,
and one block of nine contiguous channels.[^31] In conjunction with
those proposals, the *Notice* also addressed issues regarding size of
the geographic service areas,[^32] rights and obligations of geographic
area licensees, including the protection to be afforded incumbent
systems,[^33] emission and field strength limits,[^34] performance
requirements,[^35] and competitive bidding rules.[^36]

Commenters are divided on whether to utilize competitive bidding to
resolve mutually exclusive competing applications for geographic area
licenses. Some commenters enthusiastically support competitive bidding
and flexible use rules (including geographic area licensing) for all
unlicensed 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum.[^37] For example, Nextel asserts that
the existing 900 MHz B/ILT access rules are limiting, inefficient, and a
gross underutilization of spectrum that, if unchanged, will impede the
ability of the marketplace to respond to consumer demand.[^38] While
conceding that there may be circumstances under which the Commission may
need to "set aside" spectrum for particular uses in order to achieve
important public interest goals, Nextel notes the Commission has in the
past decade adopted flexible and competitive licensing policies to
promote an innovative marketplace, and that auctioning all unused 900
MHz B/ILT spectrum will facilitate successful 800 MHz
reconfiguration.[^39] SouthernLINC also applauds the Commission's
tentative conclusion to auction the 900 MHz B/ILT white space on a
geographic area basis, and generally supports the other proposals
contained in the *Notice*, particularly adopting a band plan of 19
blocks of ten contiguous channels and one block of nine contiguous
channels.[^40]

The majority of commenters oppose using competitive bidding to license
the remaining 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum using geographic service
areas,[^41] many of whom urge the Commission, if it were to conduct an
auction, to set aside some portion of currently unlicensed 900 MHz B/ILT
white space for traditional B/ILT use. For example, the Joint Commenters
contend that auctioning all 900 MHz B/ILT white space is tantamount to a
"complete loss" of the 900 MHz band for incumbent B/ILT licensees.[^42]
Further, they allege that the *Notice* gives insufficient consideration
to incumbents' spectrum needs, is excessively skewed in favor of
commercial operations and spectrum auctions, and, if adopted, would
"strand" incumbents at their existing capacity levels and service
areas.[^43] The Joint Commenters question whether the public interest
truly is best served by allocating all unencumbered spectrum for cell
phones and utilizing spectrum auctions in light of the growth needs of
traditional B/ILT licensees.[^44] In the event the Commission were to
decide to auction and license all available 900 MHz B/ILT white space,
the Joint Commenters urge the Commission to reserve the upper four
channel blocks for continued site-based licensing under current
eligibility requirements.[^45]

Other commenters express similar concerns about auctioning all available
900 MHz B/ILT white space. Recognizing that the Commission may conduct
some type of auction of unencumbered 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum, these
commenters also urge the Commission to set aside a portion of currently
unlicensed 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum for traditional B/ILT use. For
example, ARINC argues that, because many B/ILT licensees perform
critical public safety-related functions, the Commission should set
aside an unspecified portion of the spectrum for traditional B/ILT
use.[^46] Blooston alleges that, if the Commission were to proceed with
the proposed licensing scheme (without first setting aside channels
dedicated to traditional B/ILT use), critical infrastructure industry
users would be forced to rely on often-undependable commercial providers
and would not be able to control their own communications in the event
of emergency.[^47]

Other commenters oppose licensing by auction because of its potentially
negative impact on incumbent 900 MHz B/ILT licensees. FPL notes that it
has invested roughly \$40 million in its 900 MHz communications system,
and suggests that an auction of all remaining unencumbered 900 MHz B/ILT
spectrum would jeopardize both that investment and its ability to
provide vital communications.[^48] PSEG strongly opposes an auction,
noting that such an action would effectively preclude "normal system
growth" and could limit the necessary, socially beneficial expansion of
existing 900 MHz B/ILT systems.[^49] South Carolina asserts that
reallocating 900 MHz B/ILT channels for CMRS use would "strand"
incumbent operators at existing capacity levels, and would frustrate its
ability to expand its 900 MHz trunked system to geographic areas within
its electrical grid, but as yet outside its existing trunked
system.[^50] In addition to affiliating itself with the Joint
Commenters, UPS urges that any rules the Commission adopts to increase
flexible use in the 900 MHz band must not adversely affect incumbent
operations.[^51] UPS expresses concern that licensing the spectrum in
this band on other than a site-based basis would require UPS and those
similarly situated to acquire far more spectrum than needed.[^52]

We find that the record supports retention of the current site-based
licensing formula for the 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum, and therefore we
decline to adopt competitive bidding rules or geographic service areas
to license 900 MHz B/ILT "white space." We are persuaded that the
dedicated spectrum allotted to B/ILT licensees at 900 MHz represents one
of the few remaining opportunities for such licensees to obtain
much-needed spectrum.[^53] We concur with those commenters who point out
that transitioning to the licensing paradigm proposed in the *Notice*
could in many cases frustrate beneficial system growth. In the 900 MHz
B/ILT spectrum, geographic-based service area licensing in lieu of
site-based licensing would do little in terms of meeting the needs of
current and future 900 MHz B/ILT licensees, many of whom would be forced
to acquire at auction more spectrum than what they actually need, or can
afford, to ensure that they have adequate spectrum necessary for
wireless telecommunications systems to support their operations.[^54]
Even if a traditional 900 MHz B/ILT licensee determined that it was
fiscally responsible to acquire a geographic-based license, we are
concerned that portions of the spectrum would remain unused and
undervalued, precisely the result the Commission sought to avoid when it
opened this proceeding.[^55]

We acknowledge the vital communications role that 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum
plays in enabling traditional B/ILT licensees to safeguard our nation's
critical infrastructure industries. Such licensees must ensure that they
have access to communications pathways to meet the essential
communications needs of such varied and critical industries as
utilities, land transportation, manufacturers/industry, and
petro-chemical. We note, for example, that 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum is
used by CII licensees to protect industrial facilities from tampering or
attack, and to respond to emergency situations and outages.[^56] The 900
MHz B/ILT spectrum is also used by a range of licensees in a variety of
ways to facilitate their efficient operations, to enable the
cost-effective production of goods and services offered to the public,
and to promote the safety of employees.[^57] Because of the nature of
their operations, 900 MHz B/ILT incumbents demand substantial control
over their own communications systems, and require greater certainty for
their vital communications needs than some commercial carriers are
currently willing to provide.[^58] Commenters have pointed out that, in
some locations, commercial service offerings simply are not available to
meet their needs. Where commercial service is available, in times of
crisis and emergency, the public switched telephone network (PSTN) and
commercial wireless services in an affected area can become overloaded
and unreliable.[^59] FPL explained that, in 1985, it "had piloted the
use of a CMRS system for utility restoration communications. . . . The
CMRS system failed, was congested, and did not provide coverage to all
the remote rural areas required for utility operations."[^60] Similarly,
NIPSCO, a provider of electric power and gas in northern Indiana, states
that, "\[i\]n times of emergency, commercial wireless systems are often
unable to handle the large volume of calls, and call-blocking occurs. .
. . NIPSCO depends upon its internal wireless infrastructure to ensure
that it has reliable and readily available radio communications so that
it can quickly respond not only to emergencies, but also to other vital
matters that affect its power network and customers."[^61] For these
reasons, we conclude that the public interest is furthered by continuing
to make the 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum available to these entities, to be
licensed on a site-by-site basis so as to meet the actual service area
needs of each licensee and eligible applicant.[^62]

One of the underlying rationales for proposing geographic service areas
and competitive bidding rules to license 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum white
space was the need to facilitate 800 MHz rebanding, on the theory that
800 MHz commercial licensees would need to relocate to a band with
similar spectral characteristics.[^63] Nextel has indicated that it has
acquired hundreds of 900 MHz B/ILT site-based licenses, and will
continue to acquire such licenses, in order to support 800 MHz
rebanding.[^64] In addition, Nextel has obtained special temporary
authority (STA) from the Commission to operate on a temporary basis on
900 MHz B/ILT spectrum in order to support its 800 MHz rebanding
efforts.[^65] Finally, EWA has pointed out that Nextel is also using
spectrum leasing arrangements as a means for obtaining 900 MHz B/ILT
spectrum to be used on a time-limited basis to facilitate 800 MHz
rebanding.[^66] Those options remain open to Nextel under the action we
take in this Report and Order. We conclude that, in light of the
opportunities Nextel has for obtaining 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum to support
its 800 MHz rebanding activities, adoption of geographic area licensing
and competitive bidding rules for 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum is not
essential to the success of the 800 MHz rebanding process. As discussed
above, adoption of such policies would impede the effective use of this
spectrum by many other incumbents and potential licensees in the 900 MHz
B/ILT band. We determine that the approach adopted in this Report and
Order will best balance the competing demands for 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum
at this time.

Finally, we received comments urging us to reallocate spectrum in the
900 MHz B/ILT band to public safety operations; *i.e*., that the
Commission assign for public safety use at least ten channels for
two-way digital paging.[^67] We conclude that this proceeding is not the
appropriate forum for addressing this request. As noted by Blooston, the
request to reallocate 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum is beyond the scope of this
proceeding.[^68] EWA also has pointed out that "a nationwide
reallocation is not possible given the level of existing use by
enterprise and commercial licensees."[^69] The Commission has directed
the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau to consider the issue of permitting "the use
of 900 MHz B/ILT pool of spectrum for two-way paging systems either
owned by public safety users or dedicated to the provision of emergency
communications," and to determine what action, if any, should be
implemented.[^70] We expect that the two Bureaus will give appropriate
consideration to this issue in due course.

## Interference Protection in the 900 MHz B/ILT Band {#interference-protection-in-the-900-mhz-bilt-band .Style-Heading-2-+-11-pt}

While we decline to adopt rules to conduct an auction of 900 MHz B/ILT
"white space" spectrum, we note that issues of interference protection
in the 900 MHz B/ILT band remain outstanding. The Commission, in both
the *Notice* and the *800 MHz MO&O*,[^71] indicated that WT Docket 05-62
is the appropriate forum in which to address whether the interference
protection and abatement requirements adopted for the 800 MHz band
should likewise be applied to 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum.[^72] For the
reasons stated below, we adopt modified interference protection
standards for the 900 MHz B/ILT frequencies based on those previously
implemented in the 800 MHz band.[^73] In addition, we will not at this
time mandate an interference resolution process, but the B/ILT community
and its representatives, including authorized frequency coordinators,
are free to establish a system for resolving any interference situations
that may arise.

In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed requiring geographic area
licensees to afford the same protection to incumbent 900 MHz B/ILT
systems that 900 MHz SMR MTA licensees must currently provide to
incumbents.[^74] Specifically, the *Notice* proposed to require
geographic area licensees to protect incumbent B/ILT systems either: (1)
by locating their stations at least 113 km (70 miles) from any
incumbent's facilities; (2) by complying with the co-channel separation
standards of the "short-spacing" rule if they seek to operate stations
located less than 113 km (70 miles) from an incumbent licensee's
facilities; or (3) by negotiating an even shorter distance with the
incumbent licensee.[^75] The Commission also asked commenters to
consider whether additional interference protection requirements were
necessary and, if so, what additional rules should apply and why.[^76]
The Commission noted that the architecture of incumbent systems within
the band may be significantly different than that of new entrants and
could lead to interference mechanisms, such as receiver overload or
intermodulation, that may not be fully addressed by the interference
protection proposal or co-channel spacing requirements.[^77] The
Commission specifically asked whether the overall approach to
interference protection should be modified to include the interference
abatement requirements mandated in the *800 MHz R&O*,[^78] or an
enhanced or voluntary Best Practices[^79] approach to address potential
interference in this band.[^80]

A number of commenters urge adoption of the same or similar interference
abatement requirements for the 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum as those
previously established for a post-rebanded 800 MHz environment in the
*800 MHz R&O*. In initial comments in this proceeding, for example, the
Joint Commenters assert that it is imperative that incumbents be
adequately protected from interference caused by new entrants.[^81] In
particular, they state the Commission must not reduce the standard
co-channel separation requirements to provide (cellularized) geographic
area licensees with greater flexibility because to do so would result in
unacceptable interference to incumbent high-site, high-power CII
networks.[^82] They also assert there is reason to believe the
introduction of commercial cellular networks into the 900 MHz bands will
cause harmful interference to incumbents in the bands.[^83] AAR also
urges adoption of the 800 MHz interference abatement rules. It states
that by permitting CMRS providers to operate on channels immediately
adjacent to incumbents, without geographic or spectral separation, the
Commission will have created a *de facto* interleaving of channels
occupied by incompatible system architectures.[^84] Blooston encourages
the Commission to adopt the 800 MHz interference requirements now for
the 900 MHz B/ILT environment in anticipation of the introduction of
cellular operations in the 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum that may increase the
risk of harmful interference.[^85]

In a subsequent *ex parte* presentation, the Joint Commenters, joined by
EWA and UPS, provided a more detailed explanation of their position
regarding interference protection.[^86] They urge that section 90.672(a)
of the Commission's rules[^87] regarding unacceptable interference to
non-cellular 800 MHz licensees from 800 MHz cellular systems or Part 22
cellular systems be amended to include 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum. Section
90.672(a) defines "unacceptable interference" as occurring when a fully
operational transceiver receives minimum median desired signal strengths
of -104/-101 dBm, as measured at the radio frequency (RF) input of the
receiver of a mobile/portable unit,[^88] and when a voice transceiver
receives an undesired signal or signals that cause the measured Carrier
to Noise plus Interference (C/(I+N)) ratio of a receiver to be less than
20 dB.[^89] The Joint Commenters also ask us to amend section 90.672(b)
of the Commission's rules regarding minimum receiver requirements[^90]
for 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum as follows: for voice units intended for
mobile/portable use: 60 dB intermodulation rejection ratio; 60 dB
adjacent channel rejection; and -116 dBm reference sensitivity.[^91]
Finally, they ask that section 90.674 of the Commission's rules,[^92]
which prescribes interference resolution procedures, including the
establishment of an electronic means for transmitting interference
notifications, for non-cellular licensees operating in the
806-824/851-869 MHz band, 800 MHz Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio
(ESMR) licensees, and Part 22 Cellular Radiotelephone licensees, be
extended to the 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum, with the expectation that the
900 MHz land mobile user community will eventually develop and maintain
an independent notification system.[^93]

Nextel opposes implementing the same standards in 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum
as the Commission adopted for post-rebanded 800 MHz spectrum. Initially,
in responding to the proposals set out in the *Notice*, Nextel asserts
that new 900 MHz B/ILT geographic area licensees should provide the same
level of protection to co-channel 900 MHz B/ILT incumbents that 900 MHz
SMR licensees must provide,[^94] and that incumbents are entitled to
protection within their originally-licensed 40 dBµV/m field strength
contours.[^95] Further, it urges voluntary "Best Practices" and a
commitment by 900 MHz CMRS licensees to cooperate on a case-by-case
basis with incumbent 900 MHz B/ILT licensees.[^96] Nextel cautions
strongly against adopting the interference abatement requirements
adopted in the *800 MHz R&O*, on the grounds, *inter alia*, that there
are no public safety channels allocated at 900 MHz; that incumbents can
finance robust, interference-resistant systems; that there have been no
complaints regarding Nextel's dual band 800 MHz/900 MHz ESMR system
(operating since 2002); and that to adopt the 800 MHz interference
measures for the 900 MHz white space would impose substantial
operational burdens on geographic licensees, and would be contrary to
the FCC's flexible use policies.[^97]

In a subsequent *ex parte* presentation, Nextel suggested that, to the
extent the Commission looks to the 800 MHz rebanding proceeding for
guidance regarding interference protection standards and practices for
the 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum, the interference protection standards that
apply to the 800 MHz band\'s interleaved spectrum during the transition
to spectral segregation would be more appropriate than the standards to
be applied when the rebanding is completed.[^98] Nextel avers that the
interference abatement protection it (Nextel) has to extend in an
interleaved environment, during the rebanding transition, while lower
than the protection afforded post-rebanding, is a more comparable
standard in light of the nature of operations in the 900 MHz B/ILT
band.[^99]

We note that in the *800 MHz Supplemental R&O*, the Commission
acknowledged that the rules adopted for a post-rebanded environment
could impose substantial operational restrictions on ESMR carriers
operating in the interleaved channels prior to completion of band
reconfiguration, and that field experience had shown that a lesser
standard, while less \"complete,\" could nevertheless provide meaningful
interference protection during transition.[^100] The Commission
therefore waived sections 22.970(a) and 90.672(a) of the rules until
band reconfiguration is complete in a particular NPSPAC region.[^101] In
waiving the rules, the Commission determined that, during the interim
transition period, non-cellular systems would enjoy interference
protection for signal strengths of -85 dBm for portables and -88 dBm for
mobiles.[^102] While noting that these levels were not universally
applauded, the Commission observed that they were supported by Nextel
and several commercial, private, and public safety members of the 800
MHz community.[^103] The Commission found a direct relationship between
these interim interference protection levels and the ability of ESMR and
cellular carriers to serve their subscribers adequately, a factor
affecting both the public's access to wireless services and the
viability of a carrier's business.[^104]

We observe that the record indicates that a spectrally interleaved
environment, where technically different systems operate on a co-channel
and/or adjacent channel basis, is developing within the 900 MHz band.
For example, Nextel has pointed out that it has acquired numerous 900
MHz B/ILT site-based licenses, and will continue to acquire such
licenses to support its dual-band 800 MHz/900 MHz iDEN network.[^105] We
have amended our rules to permit PLMR licensees to convert their
operations in the 900 MHz B/ILT band to CMRS or to assign their
authorizations to another entity to use for CMRS operations.[^106]
Incumbent 900 MHz B/ILT licensees have indicated that some of them are
adopting new technologies, such as the Motorola Harmony iDEN system,
whose operations differ from traditional B/ILT operations and more
closely resemble the operations of CMRS carriers.[^107] Based on the
record before us, we conclude that it is appropriate to adopt an
interference protection standard that accommodates the interleaved
nature of operations in the 900 MHz B/ILT band and that will guard
against harmful interference to duly authorized licensees in the band.

Accordingly, we adopt standards in this Report and Order based on the
standards we have implemented for the rebanding transition period in the
800 MHz band. Specifically, all licensees operating in the 900 MHz B/ILT
frequencies are entitled to interference protection for
portable/hand-held units with a minimum median desired signal strength
of -85 dBm and for mobile/vehicular units with a minimum median desired
signal strength of -88 dBm. Similar to the Commission's observation in
the context of 800 MHz rebanding, we conclude that these values likewise
are "within the range of reason" for providing meaningful interference
protection for all licensees operating on 900 MHz B/ILT
frequencies.[^108] We further adopt a revision to section 90.672 of the
Commission's rules that provides that unacceptable interference will be
deemed to occur to operations in the 900 MHz B/ILT band where, assuming
all other conditions as provided in the amended rule section are met, a
voice transceiver is receiving an undesired signal or signals that cause
the measured Carrier to Noise plus Interference (C/(I+N)) ratio of the
transceiver's received to be less than 17 dB. As with the median desired
signal, the value we are adopting for this ratio is consistent with the
value that is applicable to the 800 MHz band during the rebanding
transition. Finally, we adopt the proposal put forth by the Joint
Commenters for establishing minimum receiver standards for mobile and
portable units used in the 900 MHz B/ILT band: 60 dB intermodulation
rejection ratio; 60 dB adjacent channel rejection; and -116 dBm
reference sensitivity. These minimum receiver standards are part of the
package of rule provisions designed to guard against unacceptable
interference in the 900 MHz B/ILT band.[^109]

We are not persuaded that the -101/-104 dBm interference protection
standard offered by the Joint Commenters is appropriate at this time.
The levels we adopt in this Report and Order represent a reasonable
balance between the recommendations for a more stringent interference
protection standard offered by the Joint Commenters and Nextel's
position that no additional interference protection requirements are
warranted beyond those already contained in the Commission's rules.
These rule amendments recognize that the 800 MHz rebanding transition
period --- when technically different systems are spectrally interleaved
--- may provide more comparable guidance for establishing interference
standards in the 900 MHz B/ILT band than the post-rebanding 800 MHz
environment when different uses will be spectrally separated. In
addition, Nextel indicates that, to date, there has only been one
reported case of interference in the 900 MHz B/ILT band from a CMRS
licensee (not Nextel) to a B/ILT licensee.[^110] Based on the record in
this proceeding, we anticipate that the standards we adopt here will
provide interference-free communication for all licensees operating in
900 MHz B/ILT spectrum. Nevertheless, should we be presented in the
future with data indicating that harmful interference in the 900 MHz
B/ILT band is occurring under these standards, we will not hesitate to
revisit this issue.

As noted above, the Joint Commenters urged the Commission to apply to
the 900 MHz B/ILT band the same interference resolution procedures
specified in section 90.674 of the rules[^111] for the 800 MHz band,
specifically including the establishment of a common electronic
notification system for interference occurring at 900 MHz.[^112] We
decline at this time to mandate establishment and operation of such a
system for the 900 MHz B/ILT band, given the fact that licensees
operating in this band are not currently experiencing significant levels
of harmful interference. It is apparent from the filings made by the
Joint Commenters and EWA that 900 MHz B/ILT licensees and their
representatives are interested in and are in a position, if they so
choose, to establish an electronic notification system without a
Commission mandate.[^113] Such a system can be established as an
industry-driven tool. Moreover, operation in the 900 MHz B/ILT band
requires frequency coordination, and these coordinators -- like UTC and
EWA -- have a significant role to play in minimizing and preventing
unacceptable interference.[^114] While we do not mandate adoption of
such a process, we do encourage 900 MHz B/ILT licensees and their
representatives to establish an electronic notification system in the
event they consider such a step to be an appropriate method for
addressing any future unacceptable interference.[^115]

## Lifting the Freeze Placed on Applications for New 900 MHz B/ILT Licenses {#lifting-the-freeze-placed-on-applications-for-new-900-mhz-bilt-licenses .Style-Heading-2-+-11-pt}

6.  As discussed above, the Bureau imposed a freeze on the acceptance of
    applications for new 900 MHz B/ILT licenses in September 2004, and
    the Commission affirmed that freeze[^116] Because we are now
    concluding WT Docket 05-62, and in light of the actions we are
    taking in this Report and Order, we will lift the freeze placed on
    the filing of applications for new 900 MHz B/ILT authorizations.
    Specifically, the freeze will be lifted in a NPSPAC region six
    months after rebanding is complete in that particular NPSPAC
    region.[^117]

7.  We believe that this approach best balances the demands for 900 MHz
    B/ILT spectrum, including the ongoing needs of Nextel for access to
    this spectrum to support its rebanding efforts. As noted previously,
    the Commission has granted STAs to Nextel to operate temporarily on
    900 MHz B/ILT spectrum in 101 markets in order to provide "green
    space" necessary to enable the relocation of 800 MHz incumbents
    during the reconfiguration of this band.[^118] We are concerned that
    lifting the 900 MHz B/ILT application freeze in its entirety at this
    time could jeopardize Nextel's 800 MHz rebanding efforts.
    Accordingly, we will not lift the freeze in a particular NPSPAC
    region until six months after the date that rebanding is completed
    in that particular region. We believe that this timeframe will
    provide Nextel a reasonable opportunity to relocate its facilities
    off the 900 MHz B/ILT frequencies it is now using under special
    temporary authority.

8.  We note that, at this time, rebanding has not yet been completed in
    any NPSPAC region.[^119] In order to avoid any confusion regarding
    the date when the 900 MHz B/ILT application freeze is lifted in any
    particular NPSPAC region, we direct the Bureau, in coordination with
    the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, to provide public
    notice as to when the freeze will end within 60 days of rebanding
    being completed within a specific NPSPAC region.[^120]

9.  In addition, we note there may be situations in which an applicant
    seeks a 900 MHz B/ILT authorization for spectrum in a NPSPAC region
    where the freeze has been lifted that could extend the applicant's
    service contour into an adjacent NPSPAC region where the freeze has
    not been lifted. In such a case, the applicant may file a waiver
    request to allow its coverage to extend into the NPSPAC region in
    which the freeze remains in effect, provided the overlapping
    coverage area is limited and would not disrupt Nextel's rebanding
    efforts in the region. Further, we remind potential 900 MHz B/ILT
    applicants that, under the applicable rules, co-channel frequency
    usage in a NPSPAC region where the freeze has not yet been lifted
    may limit the geographic area in which applications can be
    permissibly filed in a NPSPAC region where the freeze is no longer
    in effect.

10. We advise potential applicants that, upon lifting the freeze in each
    NPSPAC region, we will be particularly vigilant in assessing an
    applicant's basic minimum qualifications to hold a 900 MHz B/ILT
    license and in monitoring the filing of applications for new
    authorizations in this band. We undertake this scrutiny in order to
    avoid re-creating the situation that necessitated the imposition of
    a freeze on the filing of applications for new 900 MHz B/ILT
    authorizations in the first place. Should we ascertain abuse in the
    application process, we will not hesitate to take appropriate
    enforcement or other remedial action.

# conclusion {#conclusion .Style-Heading-1-+-11-pt}

11. In this Report and Order, we decide to retain site-based licensing
    for the 900 MHz B/ILT band. This action will help ensure the
    continued viability of 900 MHz B/ILT communications operations,
    which play an essential role in emergencies, critical infrastructure
    operations, homeland security, and the U.S. economy. At the same
    time, Nextel will retain a number of mechanisms to access 900 MHz
    B/ILT spectrum to be used as "green space" during the course of the
    800 MHz rebanding process. Further, we have adopted interference
    standards that will help to facilitate interference-free operation
    in this band and accommodate the range of licensees operating in
    this band. Finally, we lift the freeze on the filing of applications
    for new 900 MHz B/ILT licenses in each 800 MHz NPSPAC region six
    months after 800 MHz rebanding is completed in that region. We
    believe that our actions in this proceeding achieve a balance of
    competing interests that will best serve the needs of the public.

# procedural matters {#procedural-matters .Style-Heading-1-+-11-pt}

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis {#final-regulatory-flexibility-analysis .Style-Heading-2-+-11-pt}

12. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),[^121]
    the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities
    of the policies and rules adopted in this Report and Order. The
    analysis is found in Appendix C. The Commission**'**s Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send
    a copy of this Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief
    Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

## Congressional Review Act {#congressional-review-act .Style-Heading-2-+-11-pt}

13. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress
    and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the
    Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

## Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis {#paperwork-reduction-act-of-1995-analysis .Style-Heading-2-+-11-pt}

14. This document does not contain new or modified information
    collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
    1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13.   In addition, therefore, it does not
    contain any new or modified "information collection burden for small
    business concerns with fewer than 25 employees," pursuant to the
    Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
    *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

## Accessible Formats {#accessible-formats .Style-Heading-2-+-11-pt}

Accessible formats of this Report and Order (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), are available to persons with
disabilities by sending an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice),
202-418-0432 (TTY). This Report and Order can also be downloaded at
http://www.fcc.gov.

# ordering clauses {#ordering-clauses .Style-Heading-1-+-11-pt}

15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 303, 309,
    316, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
    U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 303, 309, 316, and 332, that this Report and
    Order IS hereby ADOPTED.

16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 90 of the Commission's rules IS
    AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B and that these rules shall be
    effective \[30 days after publication in the Federal Register\].

17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed
    by the Association of American Railroads on December 17, 2004, by
    the National Association of Manufacturers and MRFAC, Inc. on
    December 22, 2004, and by Exelon Corporation on December 22, 2004,
    in WT Docket No. 02-55 *et al*. ARE GRANTED to the extent described
    herein.

18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the freeze placed on applications for new
    900 MHz Business/Industrial Land Transportation licenses by Public
    Notice, September 17, 2004, IS HEREBY LIFTED, at such time and under
    the conditions set forth in this Report and Order.

19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, 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.

> Federal Communications Commission
>
> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**List of Commenting Parties**

**[Comments:]{.underline}**

1\. Aeronautical Radio, Inc. ("ARINC")

2\. Association of American Railroads ("AAR")

3\. Association of American Railroads, American Petroleum Institute,
MRFAC, Inc., National Association of Manufacturers, United Telecom
Council ("Joint Commenters")

4\. BellSouth Corporation and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
("BellSouth")

5\. Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy & Prendergast (on behalf of
Automobile Club of Southern California, California State Automobile
Association, and Telecris Biotherapeutics, Inc.) ("Blooston")

6\. Cleco Corporation

7\. Electrocom, Inc. ("Electrocom")

8\. Florida Power & Light Company ("FPL")

9\. Kenwood USA Corporation

10\. M/A-COM, Inc. ("M/A-COM")

11\. National Public Safety Telecommunications Council ("NPSTC")

12\. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (late-filed)

13\. Nextel Communications, Inc. ("Nextel")

14\. PCIA - The Wireless Infrastructure Association ("PCIA")

15\. Progeny LMS, LLC

16\. Public Service Electric and Gas (PSEG) Company, PSEG Power LLC
(PSEG Power), PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC (PSEG ER&T), and PSEG
Services Corporation (PSEG Services) ("PSEG")

17\. Railway Assoc. of Canada, Canadian National Railway, and Canadian
Pacific Railway ("Canadian Railway Interests")

18\. South Carolina Public Service Authority ("South Carolina")

19\. Southern Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a SouthernLINC Wireless
("SouthernLINC")

20\. United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS")

**[Reply Comments:]{.underline}**

1\. Blooston

2\. Enterprise Wireless Alliance ("EWA")

3\. FPL

4\. Monroe County, NY ("Monroe County") (late-filed)

5\. Motorola, Inc. ("Motorola")

6\. Nextel

7\. Northern Indiana Public Service Company ("NIPSCO")

8\. PCIA

9\. PSEG Companies

10\. SouthernLINC

**[*Ex parte* Submissions:]{.underline}**

1\. American Association of Paging Carriers

2\. American Petroleum Institute

3\. Coors Brewing Co.

4\. Critical Response Systems

5\. EWA

6\. FPL

7\. Joint Commenters

8\. Monroe County, New York Department of Public Safety

9\. National Association of Manufacturers

10 NPSTC

11\. Nextel

12\. Utilities Telecom Council ("UTC")

**APPENDIX B**

**Final Rules**

**PART 90 -- PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES**

1\. The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 302(c)(7) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g),
303(r), 332(c)(7).

2\. Amend § 90.672 to read as follows:

**[§ 90.672   Unacceptable interference to non-cellular 800 MHz
licensees from 800 MHz cellular systems or Part 22 Cellular
Radiotelephone systems, and within the 900 MHz Business/Industrial Land
Transportation Pool.]{.underline}**

\(a\) [Definition]{.underline}. Except as provided in 47 CFR 90.617(k),
unacceptable interference to non-cellular licensees in the 800 MHz band
from 800 MHz cellular systems or part 22 of this chapter, Cellular
Radiotelephone systems and within the 900 MHz Business/Industrial Land
Transportation (B/ILT) Pool will be deemed to occur when the below
conditions are met:

\* \* \* \* \*

\(1\) \* \* \*

\(A\) A median desired signal strength of -104 dBm or higher if
operating in the 800 MHz band, or a median desired signal strength of
-88 dBm if operating in the 900 MHz B/ILT Pool, as measured at the R.F.
input of the receiver of a mobile unit; or

\(B\) A median desired signal strength of -101 dBm or higher if
operating in the 800 MHz band, or a median desired signal strength of
-85 dBm if operating in the 900 MHz B/ILT Pool, as measured at the R.F.
input of the receiver of a portable [i.e]{.underline}., hand-held unit;
and either

\* \* \* \* \*

\(ii\) \* \* \* \* \*

\(B\) Receiving an undesired signal or signals which cause the measured
Carrier to Noise plus Interference (C/(I+N)) ratio of the receiver
section of said transceiver to be less than 20 dB if operating in the
800 MHz band, or less than 17 dB if operating in the 900 MHz B/ILT Pool,
or;

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) [Minimum Receiver Requirements]{.underline}. Voice transceivers
capable of operating in the 806--824 MHz portion of the 800 MHz band, or
in the 900 MHz Business/Industrial Land Transportation Pool, shall have
the following minimum performance specifications in order for the system
in which such transceivers are used to claim entitlement to full
protection against unacceptable interference. (See paragraph (a)(2) of
this section.)

\* \* \* \* \*

\(3\) Voice units intended for mobile or portable use in the 900 MHz
Business/Industrial Land Transportation Pool: 60 dB intermodulation
rejection ratio; 60 dB adjacent channel rejection ratio; -116 dBm
reference sensitivity.

**APPENDIX C**

**Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA),[^122] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
    incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (*Notice*).[^123]
    The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the
    *Notice*, including comment on the IRFA. This present Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^124]

## Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules

In this *Report and Order,* the Commission takes three actions: first,
it retains the current site-based licensing paradigm for the 199
channels allocated to the Business and Industrial Land Transportation
(B/ILT Pool) in the 896-901/935-940 MHz (900 MHz) band[^125] (900 MHz
B/ILT Pool) and declines to adopt competitive bidding rules or
geographic service areas for the 900 MHz B/ILT "white space;" second, it
amends Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to establish interference
protection rules for licensees operating in the 900 MHz B/ILT Pool; and
third, it lifts, on a rolling basis, the freeze on applications for new
licenses in the 900 MHz B/ILT Pool.

Regarding retention of the current site-based licensing paradigm, the
spectrum allotted to 900 MHz B/ILT licensees is one of the few remaining
area where such licensees can obtain spectrum essential to their safe
and efficient operation; transitioning to geographic area licensing
could in many cases frustrate normal B/ILT system growth. Traditional
B/ILT licensees have a vital communications role in safeguarding
critical infrastructure (CI) industries, including such varied and
critical industries as utilities, land transportation,
manufacturers/industry, and petro-chemical. Finally, an important
rationale for originally proposing to adopt geographic service areas and
competitive bidding processes was to facilitate rebanding at 800 MHz by
allowing Sprint Nextel to relocate to spectrally-similar 900 MHz B/ILT
spectrum. Through a combination of acquisition of site-based licenses,
special temporary authorizations, and spectrum leasing at 900 MHz,
Sprint Nextel appears to have acquired sufficient spectrum at 900 MHz to
allow it to proceed with the 800 MHz rebanding, and the Commission
concludes that geographic licensing and competitive bidding rules are
not now essential to the success of 800 MHz rebanding.

Regarding amending Part 90 of the Commission's rules to establish
interference protection standards, the environment at 900 MHz is similar
to the spectrally interleaved environment that exists today at 800 MHz
during the current rebanding transition period. In the 800 MHz
Supplemental Report and Order, WT Docket No. 02-55, the Commission
adopted an "interim" interference protection standard that cellular
licensees need to afford non-cellularized systems prior to the
completion of rebanding. Because the 900 MHz band has and will continue
to include systems employing different technologies and with different
operational characteristics that are spectrally interleaved, the 800 MHz
"interim" environment is sufficiently similar to the 900 MHz spectrum
environment that the rules the Commission adopted for use during the 800
MHz rebanding transition are appropriate for the 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum.

Regarding lifting the freeze on applications for new licenses in the 900
MHz B/ILT Pool, the freeze placed on applications for new 900 MHz B/ILT
licenses in September 2004 will be lifted on a rolling basis, tied to
the completion of rebanding in each 800 MHz National Public Safety
Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) region. Specifically, the freeze
will be lifted in a NPSPAC region six months after rebanding is complete
in that particular NPSPAC region. The Commission will provide notice to
the public regarding the date on which the freeze will be lifted in each
NPSPAC region after rebanding concludes in that region. Accepting
applications for new authorizations on a rolling basis best balances the
demands for 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum, including the ongoing needs of
Sprint Nextel for access to this spectrum to support its rebanding
efforts. Lifting the freeze on a rolling basis, with a six-month "grace
period," will provide Sprint Nextel a reasonable opportunity to relocate
its facilities off the 900 MHz B/ILT frequencies it is now using under
special temporary authority.

## Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

No comments or reply comments were filed in direct response to the IRFA.

## Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Rules Will Apply

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 and policies, if adopted.[^126] The RFA
generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as
the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
governmental jurisdiction."[^127] In addition, the term "small business"
has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the
Small Business Act.[^128] A "small business concern" is one which: (1)
is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.[^129]

20. *[Small Businesses]{.underline}*. Nationwide, there are a total of
    approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA
    data.[^130]

21. *[Small Organizations]{.underline}.* Nationwide, there are
    approximately 1.6 million small organizations.[^131]

22. *[Small Governmental Jurisdictions]{.underline}.* The term "small
    governmental jurisdiction" is defined as "governments of cities,
    towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts,
    with a population of less than fifty thousand."[^132] As of 2002,
    there were approximately 87,525 governmental jurisdictions in the
    United States.[^133] This number includes 38,967 county governments,
    municipalities, and townships, of which 37,373 (approximately 95.9%)
    have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of which 1,594 have
    populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate the number of small
    governmental jurisdictions overall to be 85,931 or fewer. In
    completing this FRFA, we recognize that small governmental
    jurisdictions are, in fact, likely to be 900 MHz B/ILT licensees.

23. *[Wireless Telecommunications Carriers]{.underline}*. The SBA has
    developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within
    the broad economic census category of \"Wireless Telecommunications
    Carriers (except Satellite)"[^134] Under this category, the SBA
    deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees. For the census category of wireless telecommunications
    carrier, Census Bureau data for 2002[^135] show that there were
    11,156 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^136] Of this, 9,770 had fewer than 100 (one hundred)
    employees.[^137] Thus, under this category and size standard, the
    great majority of firms can be considered small.

24. Licensees in the 900 MHz B/ILT band generally fall into one of two
    categories: wireless telecommunications carrier (except satellite)
    that provide service to other parties, and entities that use the
    spectrum solely for internal purposes, not to provide
    telecommunications services to other, but rather to support their
    primary operations. The first category of licensees, those that
    provide telecommunications service to others, are typically
    incumbent B/ILT licensees that have either converted their
    operations to commercial use, as is allowed under Commission rules,
    or assigned their licenses to a commercial operator for commercial
    use. Others in this category include commercial entities operating
    in this band under special temporary authority, or through a leasing
    arrangement with an incumbent B/ILT licensee. In the second category
    are more traditional B/ILT licensees, "traditional" in that
    provision of telecommunications services is not their primary
    operation. Rather, these licensees hold authorizations to operate in
    the 900 MHz B/ILT only to the extent that holding such
    authorizations, and providing communication, further their primary
    operations. Examples include public utilities, small, mid-size, and
    large manufacturers, parcel delivery companies, etc.

25. *Estimates for Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) Licensees, including
    900 MHz B/ILT Licensees*. As a preliminary matter, we note that 900
    MHz B/ILT licensees fall under the SBA designation of wireless
    telecommunications carriers (except satellite). Private land mobile
    radio systems serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial,
    business, land transportation, and public safety activities. These
    radios are used by companies of all sizes operating in all U.S.
    business categories. Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the
    Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
    specifically applicable to PLMR users, nor has the SBA developed so
    specific a definition. As noted above,[^138] under this category and
    size standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small.
    For the purpose of determining whether a licensee is a small
    business as defined by the SBA, each licensee would need to be
    evaluated within its own business area. The Commission's fiscal year
    1994 annual report indicates that, at the end of fiscal year 1994,
    there were 1,101,711 licensees operating 12,882,623 transmitters in
    the PLMR bands below 512 MHz.[^139] For purposes of FRFA analysis,
    we assume the vast majority of all PLMR licensees are small.

26. The Commission has determined that there are approximately 1,000
    licensees in the 896-901 MHz and 935-940 MHz B/ILT MHz bands, as of
    October 9, 2008; the Commission does not know how many licensees in
    these bands are small entities, as the Commission does not collect
    that information for these types of entities. The Commission notes
    that, under the action it takes in this Order, entities, including
    small businesses, may resume filing for authorizations in this
    service. The Commission does not know how many entities that will
    file for authorization will be small entities. Thus, the Commission
    assumes, for purposes of this FRFA, that all prospective licensees
    are small entities as that term is defined by the SBA or by our
    proposed small business definitions for these bands.

## Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and other Compliance Requirements

27. There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements adopted in
    this *Report and Order* that impose new compliance requirements on
    affected entities.

## Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof for small entities.[^140]

Regarding retention of the current site-based licensing formula, the
Commission considered adopting competitive bidding rules and
geographic-area licensing, but found that the adverse effects of
changing the licensing system on all current and future licensees in
this service, and particularly including small businesses, were too
great. The Commission is in particular concerned that traditional 900
MHz B/ILT licensees, whose primary business is something other than
provision of communications services, would have to acquire far more
spectrum at auction than they would need, causing the type of spectrum
hoarding and warehousing the Commission has worked against. The
Commission therefore decided to retain the current licensing system.

Regarding amending Part 90 of the Commission's rules to account for, and
limit harmful interference within, the interleaved environment of the
900 MHz B/ILT spectrum, the Commission considered three options: to
adopt the same rules as will be applied in the post-rebanded 800 MHz
environment; to retain the current 900 MHz B/ILT interference protection
rules; and to adopt the rules currently in effect at 800 MHz during the
rebanding transition period. The first option could have been too
burdensome for Sprint Nextel and possibly other 900 MHz B/ILT licensees;
complying with 800 MHz-type interference protection would have been so
costly as to prevent Sprint Nextel from even considering use of the 900
MHz B/ILT band. The second option, based as it is on the assumption of
little interference, may not provide sufficient protection for a number
of 900 MHz B/ILT licensees from powerful commercial carrier such as
Sprint Nextel, which in turn would impede their (*i.e*., incumbent and
"traditional" 900 MHz B/ILT licensees) ability to operate effectively.
Adversely affected entities under either option could include small
businesses. The Commission adopted the third option as an appropriate
balancing of burdens and achievement of suitable interference
protection. The Commission has acknowledged that the interference
protection standard adopted here is the most appropriate for all parties
for an interleaved spectral environment such as the 900 MHz B/ILT band.

In the Commission's view, establishing a generally-applicable
interference protection standard for the 900 MHz B/ILT Pool will
effectively eliminate costs that all licensees, including small
entities, would incur to resolve an interference complaint. The
Commission believes that any up-front costs associated with initial
compliance with the amended rule outweigh the costs associated with
addressing and resolving an interference issue. Finally, the Commission
believes that among the alternative rules proposed in the *Notice*, the
one it adopts in this *Report and Order* (*i.e*., holding all 900 MHz
B/ILT Pool licensees to the same interference protection rights and
obligations, as opposed to adopting two or more interference protection
standards) is the least onerous to, and most effective for, all parties,
including small entities, in that adopting a generally-applicable
standard puts all licensees in an equal position.

Regarding lifting the freeze placed on applications for new
authorizations for 900 MHz B/ILT licenses, with adoption of the Report
and Order, there is no compelling reason to maintain the freeze; the
Commission's action will only benefit small businesses, as it will allow
them to apply for new or additional 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum.

**[Report to Congress:]{.underline}** The Commission will send a copy of
the *Report and Order*, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.[^141] In addition,
the Commission will send a copy of the *Report and Order,* including
this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the
*Report and Order* and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be
published in the Federal Register.[^142]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, 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.

[^1]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.617(c), Table C -- Business/Industrial/Land
    Transportation Category 896-901/935-940 MHz Band Channels (199
    Channels) (2006).

[^2]: *See* Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules To Provide
    for Flexible Use of the 896-901 MHz and 935-940 MHz Bands Allotted
    to the Business and Industrial Land Transportation Pool, WT Docket
    No. 05-62; Oppositions and Petitions for Reconsideration of the 900
    MHz Band Freeze Notice, DA 04-3013, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd 3814 (2005)
    (*Notice*).

[^3]: *See* "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Freezes Applications in
    the 900 MHz Band," *Public Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd 18277 (2004) (*Freeze
    Public Notice*); *see also Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 3835-36 ¶¶ 64-68;
    *see also* Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz
    Band, *et al*., WT Docket No. 02-55, *et al*., *Report and Order*,
    19 FCC Rcd 14969, 15075-78 ¶¶ 201-03, 15217-18, App. F (2004)
    (*800 MHz R&O*)*.*

[^4]: *See, e.g*., *Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 3815-16 ¶¶ 1-3; 3819-20 ¶¶
    12-14.

[^5]: *See* Amendment of Parts 2 and 22 of the Commission's Rules
    Relative to Cellular Communications Systems, Amendment of Parts 2,
    15, and 90 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to Allocate
    Frequencies in the 900 MHz Reserve Band for Private Land Mobile Use,
    Amendment of Parts 2, 22 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum for, and to Establish Other Rules and Policies
    Pertaining to the Use of Radio Frequencies in a Land Mobile
    Satellite Service for the Provision of Various Common Carrier
    Services, GEN Docket No. 84-1231 RM-4812, GEN Docket No. 84-1233
    RM-4829, GEN Docket No. 84-1234 RM-4247, *Report and Order*, 2 FCC
    Rcd 1825, 1830-31 ¶¶ 45-46, 50 (1986) (*Allocation R&O*). The
    Commission also adopted "inter-pool" sharing to permit sharing of
    frequencies by those entities eligible in other service pools. *Id*.
    at 1831 ¶¶ 51-52.

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.603, 90.31, 90.35.

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.33.

[^8]: We note that many, though not all, 900 MHz B/ILT licensees may be
    further characterized as critical infrastructure industries (CII)
    licensees. *See, e.g.,* *800 MHz R&O,* 19 FCC Rcd at 14973 ¶ 4
    n.11*.* There, the Commission noted that for purposes of the *800
    MHz R&O* only, it defined CII licensees as non-public safety
    entities that nevertheless operate "public safety" radio services
    within the scope of Section 309(j)(2) of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended. 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2) defines "public safety radio
    services" as including private internal radio services used by State
    and 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. Examples of CII operations include communications systems
    that provide private internal radio services used by utilities,
    railroads, metropolitan transit systems, pipelines, private
    ambulances, volunteer fire departments, and not-for-profit
    organizations that offer emergency road services, such as the
    American Automobile Association (AAA). *800 MHz R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at
    14973 ¶ 4 n.11.

[^9]: Applications for frequencies in the B/ILT Category 900 MHz Band
    Pools are coordinated by frequency coordinators certified in the
    B/ILT Pools. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.35. As discussed below, subsequent
    to grant of a 900 MHz B/ILT license, a licensee may apply to modify
    the license to permit commercial operation on the license or to
    assign the license to another entity for commercial use. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 90.621(f).

[^10]: *See* *800 MHz R&O;* Improving Public Safety Communications in
    the 800 MHz Band, *et al*., WT Docket No. 02-55, *et al*.,
    *Supplemental Report and Order on Reconsideration*, 19 FCC Rcd 25120
    (2004) (*800 MHz Supplemental R&O*); Improving Public Safety
    Communications in the 800 MHz Band, *et al*., WT Docket 02-55, *et
    al*., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd 16015 (2005) (*800
    MHz MO&O*); Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz
    Band, *et al*., WT Docket No. 02-55, *et al*., *Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 22 FCC Rcd 10467 (2007).

[^11]: *800 MHz R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15126 ¶ 334.

[^12]: *Id*.

[^13]: *Id*. at 15127-28 ¶ 337. *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(f).

[^14]: *800 MHz R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15127 ¶ 335. In 2000, the Commission
    had amended its rules to permit CMRS use of B/ILT frequencies in the
    800 MHz land mobile band and allowed B/ILT licensees to transfer
    their licenses to CMRS entities. *See* Implementation of Sections
    309(j) and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, WT
    Docket No. 99-87, *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 15 FCC Rcd 22709, 22761 ¶¶ 110-11 (2000).

[^15]: *800 MHz R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15127 ¶¶ 335-36.

[^16]: *See* *Freeze Public Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 18277.

[^17]: *See id.; see also 800 MHz R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15127-28 ¶ 337.

[^18]: *See Freeze Public Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 18278, *citing* *800
    MHz R&O*.

[^19]: *See Freeze Public Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 18278 n.7.

[^20]: *See* *id*. at 18278 n.7, *citing* 47 C.F.R. § 1.925.

[^21]: *Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 3815-16 ¶¶ 1-3; 3819-20 ¶¶ 12-14.

[^22]: *Id*. at 3823 ¶26.

[^23]: *Id*. at 3824 ¶ 30.

[^24]: *Id*. at 3825-27 ¶¶ 34-35.

[^25]: *Id*. at 3832-34 ¶¶ 57-63.

[^26]: *Id*. at 3835-36 ¶¶ 64-68.

[^27]: *Id*. at 3836 ¶ 66.

[^28]: *See* Appendix A *infra* for a list of parties submitting
    comments, reply comments, and/or *ex parte* filings in response to
    the *Notice*, as well as the abbreviations or acronyms by which they
    are referred to in the text.

[^29]: *Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 3819-20 ¶¶ 12-14.

[^30]: *Id*. at 3820-21 ¶¶ 16-19.

[^31]: *Id*. at 3823-24 ¶¶ 26-30.

[^32]: *Id*. at 3821-22 ¶¶ 21-25.

[^33]: *Id*. at 3825-26 ¶¶ 32-36.

[^34]: *Id*. at 3828-29 ¶¶ 41-44.

[^35]: *Id*. at 3829-30 ¶¶ 45-52.

[^36]: *Id*. at 3831-34 ¶¶ 56-63.

[^37]: *See generally* Comments of BellSouth Corporation and BellSouth
    Telecommunications Incorporated (BellSouth Comments) (filed May 18,
    2005**);** Comments of Electrocom, Inc. (filed May 18, 2005)
    (suggesting that the Commission ascertain whether Nextel can move
    its 800 MHz commercial operation into newly-acquired Sprint
    spectrum, pursuant to the Sprint-Nextel merger, thereby obviating
    the need to use 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum); Comments of National Public
    Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC Comments) (filed May 17,
    2005); Comments of Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel Comments)
    (filed May 18, 2005) (subsequent to the release of the *Notice*,
    Nextel Communications, Inc. and Sprint Corporation completed their
    merger, with the resulting company being called Sprint Nextel
    Corporation; in this Report and Order, we refer to comments from
    Nextel and its successor, Sprint Nextel Corporation, collectively as
    Nextel Comments); Comments of PCIA -- The Wireless Infrastructure
    Association (PCIA Comments) (filed May 18, 2005) (expressing
    "general support" for an auction of most unused 900 MHz B/ILT
    spectrum, while also urging the Commission to set aside 40 existing
    B/ILT channels for the future growth needs of incumbents); Comments
    of Southern Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a SouthernLINC
    Wireless (SouthernLINC Comments) (filed May 18, 2005).

[^38]: Nextel Comments at 1.

[^39]: *Id*. at 3-4. Nextel also notes that the Commission, in the *800
    MHz R&O,* recognized that Nextel will have to shift some of its
    operations from the 800 MHz band to the 900 MHz band in order to
    provide the "green space" necessary to effect reconfiguration of the
    800 MHz band. Nextel states that an auction of all unused 900 MHz
    B/ILT white space would give it the opportunity to bid for
    additional 900 MHz spectrum to complete the reconfiguration. *Id*.
    at 5-7. *See also Ex Parte* Letter from James B. Goldstein, Director
    -- Spectrum, Sprint Nextel Corporation, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (filed May 4, 2007) at
    2 ("Sprint Nextel stressed that access to additional 900 MHz
    spectrum via an auction was critical to achieving the Commission's
    public safety objectives in adopting the 800 MHz band
    reconfiguration") (Nextel May 4 *Ex Parte* Letter).

[^40]: SouthernLINC Comments at 3, 6-8.

[^41]: *See generally* Comments of Association of American Railroads
    (AAR), American Petroleum Institute, MRFAC, Inc., National
    Association of Manufacturers, and United Telecom Council (Joint
    Comments) (filed May 18, 2005) (subsequent to release of the
    *Notice*, United Telecom Council changed its name to Utilities
    Telecom Council); Comments of Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC
    Comments) (filed May 18, 2005); Comments of the Association of
    American Railroads (AAR Comments) (filed May 18, 2005); Comments of
    Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy & Prendergast (on behalf of
    Automobile Club of Southern California, California State Automobile
    Association, and Telecris Biotherapeutics, Inc.) (Blooston Comments)
    (filed May 18, 2005); Comments of Cleco Corporation (Cleco Comments)
    (filed May 18, 2005); Comments of Florida Power & Light (FPL
    Comments) (filed May 18, 2005); Comments of Public Service Electric
    and Gas (PSEG) Company, PSEG Power LLC, PSEG Energy Resources &
    Trade LLC, and PSEG Services Corporation (PSEG Comments) (filed May
    18, 2005); Comments of South Carolina Public Service Authority
    (South Carolina Comments) (filed May 18, 2005); Comments of United
    Parcel Service (UPS Comments) (filed May 18, 2005). *See also* Reply
    Comments of the Enterprise Wireless Alliance (EWA Reply Comments)
    (filed Jun. 2, 2005) (stating that an auction of all unencumbered
    900 MHz B/ILT channels nationwide goes beyond the relief needed to
    facilitate 800 MHz rebanding); Reply Comments of Northern Indiana
    Public Service Company (filed Jun. 2, 2005) (supporting positions
    taken by Joint Commenters); Letter from Wallace F. Tillman,
    Vice-President, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission
    (filed May 23, 2005) (supporting positions taken by Joint
    Commenters).

[^42]: Joint Comments at 3-4.

[^43]: *Id*. at 3.

[^44]: *Id*. at 5.

[^45]: *Id*. at 3, 22. The upper four channel blocks as proposed in the
    *Notice* consisted of three blocks of ten contiguous channels and
    one block of nine contiguous channels, for a total of 39
    channels**.** *See* *Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 3824 ¶ 30.

[^46]: ARINC Comments at 4.

[^47]: Blooston Comments at 4. *See also* FPL Comments at 4-7
    (suggesting that the 99 channels (2.5 MHz) originally allocated in
    1986 to the Industrial/Land Transportation Pool be excluded from any
    900 MHz auction and that it be reserved for private, internal use,
    to be assigned on a frequency-coordinated, "first come, first
    served" site-by-site basis; an auction of all the 900 MHz B/ILT
    white space would have CII entities competing against commercial
    wireless providers); PCIA Comments at 3-6 (recommending that, for
    the sake of future growth of present 900 MHz B/ILT systems, the
    Commission set aside 40 channels; because the greatest demand has
    been for trunked business use, PCIA suggests that the 40 channels be
    extracted from the former Business Pool); EWA Reply Comments at 6
    (proposing that an overlay auction should occur only in markets with
    a need to facilitate the 800 MHz reconfiguration process (*i.e.*,
    where Nextel operates an iDEN network, where there are operational
    800 MHz public safety systems that will be deployed before 800 MHz
    reconfiguration in the area is completed, and where Nextel has
    inadequate 800 MHz and 900 MHz spectrum to accommodate
    reconfiguration). *See also* Comments of M/A-COM, Inc. (M/A-COM
    Comments) (filed May 18, 2005) at 5, 6-7, 13 (urging "caution"
    before proceeding with any auction, and suggesting that the
    Commission separate (spectrally or geographically) the systems of
    private users and commercial users, as it did in the 800 MHZ band;
    to do any less would be to invite harmful interference. In
    particular, M/A-COM suggests "transitioning" B/ILT and non-B/ILT
    systems to separate segments of the band, with the proposed upper
    four channel blocks (QQ, RR, SS, and TT -- which amounts to 39
    channels) dedicated to traditional B/ILT use).

[^48]: FPL Comments at 2-3.

[^49]: PSEG Comments at 9.

[^50]: South Carolina Comments at 3.

[^51]: UPS Comments at 1.

[^52]: *Id*. at 4-5.

[^53]: *See, e.g.,* Joint Comments at 3-5.

[^54]: *See* South Carolina Comments at 3-4 (noting that it has only
    ever sought a license for spectrum it actually and immediately
    needs); UPS Comments at 4-5 (requiring traditional 900 MHz B/ILT
    licensees to purchase spectrum rights far exceeding their needs is
    grossly inefficient); PCIA Comments at 4 (noting that traditional
    900 MHz B/ILT licensees seeking spectrum at auction for private,
    internal use cannot value the spectrum itself as highly as an entity
    building a business model on revenue generated directly from the
    spectrum; a 900 MHz B/ILT licensee would be hard-pressed to justify
    acquisition of a spectrum "market" (either MEA or even BEA), as any
    such "market" would be well in excess of the legitimate needs of a
    traditional 900 MHz B/ILT licensee). *See also* EWA Reply Comments
    at 4 (stating that an auction of all 900 MHz B/ILT channels in all
    markets substantially exceeds the relief needed to facilitate 800
    MHz rebanding).

[^55]: *See* UPS Comments at 4-5; PCIA Comments at 4.

[^56]: *See, e.g.,* ARINC Comments at 2-3; Joint Comments at 5-7 (noting
    that 900 MHz B/ILT licensees often permit municipal agency use of
    their systems, including military installations, school districts,
    ground and air ambulance services, American Red Cross, etc.), 8-9
    (noting the role of 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum during the removal of
    hazardous materials, by employees working in confined spaces, and to
    support responsive action in emergency situations).

[^57]: *See, e.g.,* Joint Comments at 5-11; ARINC Comments at 1-2; PSEG
    Comments at 9.

[^58]: *See, e.g*., Blooston Comments at 3-4.

[^59]: *See* i*d*. at 3-4; FPL comments at 8-9.

[^60]: FPL Comments at 8. FPL pointed out that during the 2004 hurricane
    season, when south Florida was hit by three major hurricanes, it
    observed that "the local CMRS systems were heavily damaged and very
    congested. During these emergency periods, FPL extensively used its
    900 MHz system for the continued power restoration efforts." *Id*.

[^61]: Reply Comments of Northern Indiana Public Service Company at 2-3.

[^62]: We note that our action here does not adversely affect the right
    of PLMR licensees in the 900 MHz B/ILT band either to assign or
    convert their licenses to CMRS use. CMRS licensees operating in the
    900 MHz B/ILT spectrum, as well as PLMR licensees, will be subject
    to the interference protection rules we adopt in this *Order*. *See*
    Section III.B *infra*.

[^63]: *800 MHz R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15127 ¶ 335.

[^64]: *See* Nextel May 4 *Ex Parte* Letter at 1 ("Sprint Nextel
    explained that over the past several years its \[*sic*\] has
    acquired and continues to acquire *hundreds* of Business/Industrial
    Land Transportation ('B/ILT') 'site-based' licenses and wide-area
    Specialized Mobile Radio ('SMR') licenses in the 900 MHz band . . .
    making it the largest holder of licensed 900 MHz spectrum")
    (emphasis in original).

[^65]: *See, e.g*., FCC File Nos. 0002725012 (Melbourne-Titusville,
    Florida; Call Sign WQFZ889); 0002472303 (Boston, Massachusetts; Call
    Sign WQFZ884); 0002780344 (Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton; Call
    Sign WQFZ895); 0002954496 (Chicago; Call Sign WQGV603). To date,
    Nextel has been granted STAs to operate on multiple 900 MHz B/ILT
    frequencies in 101 markets.

[^66]: *See Ex Parte* Letter from Mark E. Crosby, President, Enterprise
    Wireless Alliance, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission (filed May 14, 2007) at 3 (EWA May 14 *Ex
    Parte* Letter).

[^67]: *See* NPSTC Comments at 3 (urging the Commission to allocate
    channels within the 900 MHz B/ILT Pool for public safety digital
    paging); *Ex Parte* Letter from Vincent R. Stile, Chair, NPSTC, to
    Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communication Commission (filed
    May 3, 2007) at 2 (elaborating that the Commission should designate
    at least ten channels (to provide five 25 kHz paired channels) for
    digital two-way paging); *see also* Reply Comments of Monroe County,
    NY (filed Jun. 10, 2005) at 5-6 (endorsing NPSTC's suggestion
    regarding reallocation of 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum to public safety);
    *Ex Parte* Letter from James M. Dabbs III, Critical Response
    Systems, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch (filed Apr. 24, 2007) at 2
    (urging that 900 MHz B/ILT spectrum be available for public safety
    two-way paging use on co-primary basis with B/ILT licensees); *Ex
    Parte* Letter from Richard J. Verdouw, Director of Communications,
    Monroe County, NY Department of Public Safety, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (filed May 29, 2007)
    (urging that 900 MHz spectrum be available to public safety for
    advanced alerting systems).

[^68]: Blooston Comments at 3.

[^69]: EWA May 14 *Ex Parte* Letter at 2. EWA further stated: "NPSTC did
    not and would be hard pressed to demonstrate that their emergency
    response digital paging requirements can be satisfied only on 900
    MHz B/ILT channels. Absent such a demonstration, the FCC should
    reject NPSTC's request for a 'specific commitment' as overreaching,
    unsubstantiated and spectrally inefficient for all concerned." *Id.*

[^70]: Recommendations of the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of
    Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks, EB Docket No. 06-119,
    WC Docket No. 06-63, *Order*, 22 FCC Rcd 10541, 10572 ¶ 101 (2007);
    *see also Ex Parte* Letter from Vincent R. Stile, Chair, NPSTC, to
    Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communication Commission (filed
    Aug. 3, 2007) at 1 (noting the Independent Panel's positive view of
    paging systems in certain emergency situations); *Ex Parte* Letter
    from Kenneth E. Hardman, Counsel for American Association of Paging
    Carriers, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission (filed Nov. 19, 2007) at 1 (explaining comments submitted
    in EB Docket No. 06-119, and urging lifting of the freeze on the
    filing of new 900 MHz B/ILT applications).

[^71]: *See* *800 MHz MO&O*, 20 FCC Rcd at 16070-71 ¶ 124.

[^72]: *Id*.; *see also* note 115 *infra*.

[^73]: *See 800 MHz Supplemental R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 25136-41 ¶¶ 37-45;
    *see also* paras. 24-26 *infra*.

[^74]: *Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 3825-26 ¶ 34, *citing* 47 C.F.R. §
    90.621(b).

[^75]: *See generally* 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(b).

[^76]: *Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 3826 ¶ 35.

[^77]: *Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 3826 ¶ 35.

[^78]: *Id., citing 800 MHz R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15021-41 ¶¶ 88-132; *see
    also* Petition of the Association of American Railroads for
    Reconsideration, WT Docket No. 02-55 *et al.,* filed Dec. 17, 2004
    (requesting the Commission to adopt interference abatement
    procedures for incumbents in the 900 MHz B/ILT band equivalent to
    those adopted in the *800 MHz R&O*); Petition of the National
    Association of Manufacturers and MRFAC, Inc. (NAM/MRFAC) for
    Reconsideration, WT Docket No. 02-55 *et al.,* filed Dec. 22, 2004
    (seeking adoption of Enhanced Best Practices and stringent
    interference protection for 900 MHz B/ILT incumbents against CMRS
    operations); Petition of Exelon Corporation for Reconsideration, WT
    Docket No. 02-55 *et al.,* filed Dec. 22, 2004 (urging the
    Commission to extend the interference abatement requirements of the
    *800 MHz R&O* to incumbent 900 MHz licensees).

[^79]: *See, e.g., 800 MHz R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15034-37 ¶¶ 115-123.

[^80]: *Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 3826 ¶ 35.

[^81]: Joint Comments at 13.

[^82]: *Id*. at 13-14.

[^83]: *Id*. at 14-15.

[^84]: AAR Comments at 12, 17.

[^85]: Blooston Comments at 8. *See also generally* ARINC Comments at 7;
    Cleco Comments at 2; FPL Comments at 10; Comments of Kenwood USA
    Corporation (filed May 18, 2005) at 3-4; M/A-COM Comments at 7-9;
    PSEG Comments at 15-16; South Carolina Comments at 6-7; UPS Comments
    at 6; EWA Reply Comments at 11-12 (suggesting adoption of 800
    MHz-like rules may be a solution to potential interference); Reply
    Comments of Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) at 5-6
    (filed Jun. 2, 2005).

[^86]: *See Ex Parte* Letter from Tracy P. Marshall, Keller and Heckman
    LLP, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission (filed Apr. 13, 2007) (Joint Commenters April 13 *Ex
    Parte* Letter).

[^87]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.672(a).

[^88]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.672(a)(1)(i)(A), (B).

[^89]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.672(a)(1)(ii)(B); Attachment to Joint
    Commenters April 13 *Ex Parte* Letter.

[^90]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.672(b).

[^91]: *See* Attachment to Joint Commenters April 13 *Ex Parte* Letter.
    Currently, section 90.672(b) sets the minimum performance
    specifications for voice units intended for mobile/portable use,
    respectively, at 75/70 dB intermodulation rejection ratio, 75/70 dB
    adjacent channel rejection ration, and -116 dBm reference
    sensitivity. 47 C.F.R. § 90.672(b).

[^92]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.674.

[^93]: *See* Attachment to Joint Commenters April 13 *Ex Parte* Letter.

[^94]: *See* 47 CFR § 90.621(b).

[^95]: Nextel Comments at 15.

[^96]: *Id*. at 16-17.

[^97]: Nextel Comments at 16-17. *See also* BellSouth Comments at 4, 6
    (urging the Commission to consider allowing incumbents to adjust
    their 40 dBµV/m contour if needed to prevent interference).

[^98]: Nextel May 4 *Ex Parte* Letter at 3.

[^99]: *Id*., *citing* *800 MHz Supplemental R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 25137 ¶
    38. Broadly speaking, there are two time periods, with two distinct
    sets of rules, for the 800 MHz reconfiguration: (1) during the
    transition to rebanding within each of the 55 NPSPAC regions; and
    (2) after rebanding has been completed in a NPSPAC region. In the
    *800 MHz Supplemental R&O*, the Commission held that, because the
    spectral environment at 800 MHz during the transition is interleaved
    (*i.e*., where public safety licensees operate on channels adjacent
    to commercial carriers), a lower interference protection standard
    than will be applicable after completion of rebanding is
    appropriate. *See* *800 MHz Supplemental R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 25137 ¶
    38.

[^100]: *800 MHz Supplemental R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 25137 ¶ 38.

[^101]: *Id*. Under the "interim standards" waiver, non-cellular systems
    meeting a -85 dBm (portable) or -88 dBm (mobile) signal strength
    threshold receive the full protection measures adopted in the *800
    MHz R&O*. While the Commission was not ready to say that the -85
    dBm/-88 dBm interim values struck \"an exact balance between\" the
    competing interests of public safety providers and cellular
    telephone carriers, it believed the interim interference protection
    rules were \"within the range of reason.\" Also, the Commission did
    not believe that the interim levels, alone, would provide sufficient
    interference protection for public safety communications, and
    cautioned CMRS licensees to exercise the utmost diligence in
    addressing reports of interference even in cases in which the
    interim levels are not met. *Id*. at 25137-41 ¶¶ 39-45.

[^102]: *Id*. at 25137-38 ¶ 39.

[^103]: *Id*. at 25137-38 ¶ 39.

[^104]: *Id*. at 25139 ¶ 41.

[^105]: *See* Nextel May 4 *Ex Parte* Letter at 1.

[^106]: *800 MHz R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15127-28 ¶ 337.

[^107]: *See* *Ex Parte* Letter from Jill M. Lyon, Vice President &
    General Counsel, Utilities Telecom Council, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (filed May 24, 2007) at
    2.

[^108]: *See 800 MHz Supplemental R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 25139 ¶ 41.

[^109]: It is our understanding that these standards were developed in
    conjunction with leading manufacturers of radio equipment used in
    the 900 MHz B/ILT band. The standards we adopt in this proceeding
    are less stringent than those imposed in the 800 MHz band.

[^110]: *See* Nextel May 4 *Ex Parte* Letter at 2.

[^111]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.674.

[^112]: *See* Attachment to Joint Commenters April 13 *Ex Parte* Letter.
    In the *800 MHz R&O*, the Commission required that 800 MHz cellular
    licensees establish a common electronic means of receiving initial
    notification of interference complaints from non-cellular licensees.
    *See* *800 MHz R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15042 ¶ 133; 47 C.F.R.
    § 90.674(a)(2). The Joint Commenters proposed to take part in that
    system until such time as the 900 MHz land mobile user community
    could develop and maintain a notification system dedicated to 900
    MHz.

[^113]: *See* EWA May 14 *Ex Parte* Letter at 4; Attachment to Joint
    Commenters April 13 *Ex Parte* Letter.

[^114]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.175; *see also* In the Matter of Frequency
    Coordination in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services, *Report and
    Order*, 103 FCC 2d 1093 (1986).

[^115]: The action that we take in this Report and Order regarding
    interference protection standards and abatement procedures also
    resolves the petitions for reconsideration filed by AAR, NAM/MRFAC,
    and Exelon Corporation in WT Docket No. 02-55 regarding the
    appropriate interference standards to be applied to the 900 MHz
    B/ILT bands. *See* note 78 *supra*.

[^116]: *See* paras. 4-5 *supra*.

[^117]: A map showing the NPSPAC regions is available at
    http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/spectrum/800mhz/regional-map.html. Retuning
    in each of the 55 NPSPAC regions is on a region-by-region basis; the
    sequence of region reconfiguration completion, as determined by the
    800 MHz Transition Administrator, depends on, *inter alia*, degree
    of reported interference, population, border-region status, and
    impact on adjacent regions.

[^118]: *See* para. 14 and note 65 *supra*.

[^119]: Although the 36-month period originally established for
    rebanding ended on June 26, 2008, the Public Safety and Homeland
    Security Bureau has granted waivers of the deadline to approximately
    500 public safety licensees that have requested more time to
    complete the rebanding process. *See* Improving Public Safety
    Communications in the 800 MHz Band, WT Docket 02-55, *Order*, 23 FCC
    Rcd 9421 (PSHSB 2008); *Order*, 23 FCC Rcd 9430 (PSHSB 2008);
    *Order*, 23 FCC Rcd 9443 (PSHSB 2008); *Order*, 23 FCC Rcd 9454
    (PSHSB 2008); *Order*, 23 FCC Rcd 9464 (PSHSB 2008); *Order*, 23 FCC
    Rcd 9476 (PSHSB 2008); *Order*, 23 FCC Rcd 9485 (PSHSB 2008);
    *Order*, 23 FCC Rcd 9491 (PSHSB 2008); *Order*, 23 FCC Rcd 10911
    (PSHSB 2008). *See also* *id., Order*, 23 FCC Rcd 9558 (PSHSB 2008)
    (granting Sprint Nextel's request to remain temporarily on certain
    800 MHz channels not required by rebanding public safety licensees
    until after the June 26, 2008, deadline for completion of 800 MHz
    rebanding).

[^120]: The completion of 800 MHz rebanding in each NPSPAC region will
    be announced by public notice. *800 MHz MO&O*, 20 FCC Rcd at 16055 ¶
    92.

[^121]: 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^122]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601--612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^123]: *See* Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    for Flexible Use of the 896-901 MHz and 935-940 MHz Bands Allotted
    to the Business and Industrial Land Transportation Pool, WT Docket
    No. 05-62; Oppositions and Petitions for Reconsideration of the 900
    MHz Band Freeze Notice, DA 04-3013, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd 3814, 3848 (2005).

[^124]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^125]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.617(b), Table 2B -- Industrial/Land
    Transportation Category 896-901/935-940 MHz Band Channels (99
    Channels); § 90.617(c), Table 3B -- Business Category
    896-901/935-940 MHz Band Channels (100 Channels) (2003).

[^126]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^127]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^128]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in the Small Business Act, 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."

[^129]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^130]: *See* SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at
    page 40 (July 2002).

[^131]: Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference
    (2002).

[^132]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^133]: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
    2006, Section 8, pages 272-273, Tables 415 and 417.

[^134]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.

[^135]: We note that 2007 Economic Census forms were sent to more than
    four million businesses in December 2007, asking for information
    about business activity during calendar 2007. The U.S. Census Bureau
    expects the results of the information request to be made available
    in 2009 or 2010. *See* "Economic Census,"
    http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/. For purposes of completing
    this FRFA, we note that the data we use is from 2002. We note
    further that, in the absence of more recent and complete data, we
    continue to use statistics from 2002.

[^136]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 2, NAICS code 51721 (issued November 2005).
    Prior to March 2008, the Commission used two NAICS code
    (517211/Paging and 517212/Cellular and other wireless
    telecommunications) when completed wireless-related FRFAs. The March
    2008 amendment appears to combine "paging" and "cellular and other
    wireless telecommunications" into the larger, single category of
    "Wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite)." In the
    2005 Census economic report cited above, this single category is
    cited as "51721." The March 2008 amendment cites it as "517210."

[^137]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 2, NAICS code 51721 (issued November 2005).

[^138]: *See supra* paragraph 11.

[^139]: *See* Federal Communications Commission, 60th Annual Report,
    Fiscal Year 1994 at 120-121.

[^140]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^141]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^142]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).