Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the ) GN Docket No. 93-252

Communications Act )

)

Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services )

)

Amendment of Part 90 of the ) PR Docket No. 93-144

Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future )

Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz )

Frequency Band )

)

Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the ) PR Docket No. 89-553

Commission's Rules to Provide for the )

Use of 200 Channels Outside the )

Designated Filing Areas in the 896-901 MHz and )

935-940 MHz Band Allotted to the )

Specialized Mobile Radio Pool )

# Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration

**Adopted: March 17, 2000 Released: April 7, 2000**

By the Commission:

####  {#section .unnumbered}

##### **INTRODUCTION**

1.  The Commission has before it petitions for reconsideration of the
    *CMRS Third Report and Order*.[^1] In the *CMRS Third Report and
    Order*, the Commission continued its initial implementation of
    Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934,[^2] as
    amended by Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
    of 1993.[^3] Pursuant to Congressional mandate, the Commission
    adopted changes to its technical, operational, and licensing rules
    for common carrier and private mobile radio services that were
    necessary to implement the statute and to establish regulatory
    symmetry among similar mobile services. The regulatory framework
    established in the *CMRS Third Report and Order* also set the stage
    for the future evolution of mobile services. The *CMRS Third Report
    and Order* was an important step in our continuing effort to enhance
    competition among mobile services providers, promote the development
    of new and technologically innovative service offerings, and ensure
    that consumer demand, not regulatory decree, dictates the course of
    the mobile services marketplace. With this Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, we address all remaining relevant issues presented to the
    Commission by petitioners.

## BACKGROUND

2.  In the *CMRS Second Report and Order*, the Commission initiated the
    process of implementing the 1993 Budget Act amendments to Sections
    3(n) and 332 of the Act by interpreting the statutory definitions of
    commercial mobile service (CMRS) and private mobile service
    (PMRS).[^4] The Commission determined that Congress intended the
    CMRS classification to apply to all mobile services that are offered
    for profit and that provide interconnected service to the public or
    to such classes of users as to be effectively available to a
    substantial portion of the public, as well as to all services that
    are the functional equivalent of such services. Applying this
    definition to existing mobile services, the Commission found that
    all common carrier mobile licensees and certain private radio
    licensees in the Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR), Business Radio,
    220-222 MHz, and private paging services, regulated under Part 90 of
    the Commission\'s Rules, fell within the CMRS classification.[^5]

3.  In the *CMRS Third Report and Order*, the Commission took four
    additional steps to implement both the broad goals of the 1993
    Budget Act and the more narrowly focused requirements generated by
    the one-year deadline established by Congress for implementing the
    1993 Budget Act.[^6] First, the Commission determined which
    reclassified private services were "substantially similar" to
    existing common carrier mobile services in order to implement the
    1993 Budget Act requirement that such services be subject to
    "comparable" regulation. Second, the Commission revised Part 90 and
    Part 22 technical and operational rules governing those services to
    ensure that the rules are, indeed, "comparable." Third, the
    Commission adopted the 45 MHz CMRS spectrum cap, which limited the
    total amount of combined broadband personal communications services
    (PCS), cellular, and SMR spectrum in which an entity may have an
    attributable interest in any geographic area.[^7] Fourth, to carry
    out 1993 Budget Act requirements concerning the licensing of CMRS
    services, the Commission adopted uniform rules for licensing CMRS
    services, including reclassified services. The Commission also
    modified the licensing rules for Part 22 CMRS and Part 90 commercial
    services, where appropriate. These modifications included the
    adoption of filing windows for the filing of competing initial
    applications and competitive bidding procedures to select from among
    mutually exclusive applications.

4.  In response to the *CMRS Third Report and Order*, fifteen parties
    filed petitions for reconsideration.[^8] Eight parties filed
    comments/oppositions to the petitions for reconsideration and four
    parties filed reply comments.[^9] We have previously dismissed as
    moot the petition for reconsideration filed by SMR WON to the extent
    it addresses spectrum cap issues.[^10] In this Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, we consider the remaining issues raised in the petitions
    for reconsideration.

## DISCUSSION

5.  The primary goal of the *CMRS Third Report and Order* was to
    establish the regulatory framework for implementing the mandate of
    the Budget Act to treat "substantially similar" CMRS providers in a
    similar regulatory manner. In the five years since the release of
    the *CMRS Third Report and Order*, this task has been accomplished
    through the revision of scores of Commission rule sections in
    several Commission proceedings. In fact, the majority of the issues
    raised in the petitions for reconsideration have been addressed in
    or rendered moot by Commission action taken in the *800 MHz Report
    and Order*,[^11] the *ULS Report and Order*,[^12] and other
    Commission orders subsequent to the release of the *CMRS Third
    Report and Order*. Other issues raised in the petitions are being
    considered in ongoing Commission proceedings. For these reasons,
    with one exception, we dismiss or deny all of the pending petitions
    for reconsideration. We do, however, amend Sections 90.425 and
    90.647 of our rules to clarify the station identification
    requirements applicable to CMRS providers licensed under Part 90.

**A. Comparison of "Substantially Similar" Services**

6.  In the *CMRS Third Report and Order,* the Commission concluded that
    all commercial mobile radio services compete with one another, or
    have the potential to compete with one another, to meet the needs of
    consumers while on the move.[^13] Thus, the Commission endeavored to
    conform the rules governing these services to the extent reasonable.

7.  Most petitioners support the Congressionally-mandated concept of
    regulatory symmetry, including the establishment of comparable
    regulatory schemes for those services that are deemed to be
    "substantially similar."[^14] However, some petitioners question
    whether all of the Commission's decisions regarding the regulatory
    changes needed to implement the Budget Act were actually mandated by
    the statute.[^15] In particular, AMTA and other commenters argue
    that treating all commercial mobile service providers as
    substantially similar may have a significant impact on traditional
    "local" SMR licensees.[^16] AMTA therefore argues that CMRS should
    be defined so as not to include these SMR service providers.[^17]

8.  In the *CMRS Second Report and Order*, the Commission found that SMR
    providers that offer interconnected services fall within the
    statutory definition of CMRS.[^18] This finding has subsequently
    been reaffirmed in other orders.[^19] AMTA makes no new arguments
    that have not already been addressed in these orders, and we
    therefore reject its contention that interconnected local SMR
    licensees should not be classified as CMRS.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Mutually Exclusive Applications; Competitive Bidding**

> **1. 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR Competitive Bidding**

9.  The arguments of several petitioners[^20] against the auctioning of
    800 MHz SMR spectrum have been rendered moot by release of the *800
    MHz Report and Order*, which fully addressed these issues, and the
    subsequent auction of 800 MHz SMR spectrum commencing on October 28,
    1997 and ending December 8, 1997.[^21] Similarly, the arguments in
    support of the "expeditious completion of the 900 MHz wide area
    licensing process"[^22] have been rendered moot by release of the
    *900 MHz Order*[^23] and *900 MHz Reconsideration Order*[^24] and
    the subsequent auction of 900 MHz SMR spectrum.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  **Geographic Area Licensing for Paging Services**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
10. In its petition, ProNet urges the Commission to issue a Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing rules to license Part 22 and
    Part 90 paging carriers on a market-defined service area basis as
    determined by the Commission.[^25] ProNet's argument has been
    rendered moot by the release of the *Paging Second Report and
    Order*,[^26] which established geographic area licensing procedures
    for all exclusive use channels in the paging services.[^27]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  **Filing Window for Mutually Exclusive Applications**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
11. In the *CMRS Third Report and Order*, the Commission adopted rule
    changes that generally resulted in using 30-day notice and cut-off
    procedures and competitive bidding to select among mutually
    exclusive initial CMRS applications in Part 22 services (except for
    Phase I cellular unserved area applications), 900 MHz SMR service,
    and 800 MHz SMR service. G&M and McCaw argue that use of a 30-day
    notice and cut-off procedure for Phase II cellular unserved area
    applications will increase the likelihood that speculative
    applications will be filed, and they therefore urge the Commission
    to return to the first-come, first-served procedures that were in
    effect before the *CMRS Third Report and Order*. G&M and McCaw raise
    no new arguments that were not addressed in the *CMRS Third Report
    and Order*. Moreover, our experience over the past five years
    supports our earlier conclusion that "\[u\]nlike random selection
    procedures, which tend to increase the likelihood of speculative or
    frivolous applications because all competitors have an equal
    opportunity to receive an authorization, the use of competitive
    bidding procedures should not have the same result,"[^28] even if a
    30-day notice and cut-off period is used. In addition, we reject the
    argument of MA-CT Radiofone that the 30-day cut-off period is too
    short, especially in light of our recent streamlining of procedures
    under the Universal Licensing System (ULS). We therefore retain the
    cut-off periods adopted in the *CMRS Third Report and Order*.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
C.  **Application Forms and Procedures**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
12. In the *CMRS Third Report and Order*, the Commission adopted a
    single unified application form (Form 600) for all CMRS and PMRS
    applicants in terrestrial wireless services. On reconsideration,
    AirTouch and US West object to various information requirements on
    Form 600, and ITA argues that insufficient consideration was given
    to the regulatory burden imposed by Form 600 on PMRS operators.
    Since the petitions were filed, the Commission has replaced Form 600
    with Form 601 as part of its deployment of the Universal Licensing
    System (ULS). Indeed, the new ULS rules, forms, and processes have
    eliminated many unnecessary information requirements and regulatory
    burdens that characterized the old system. Therefore, petitioners'
    arguments are moot.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
D.  **Station Identification**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
13. In the *CMRS Third Report and Order*, we streamlined and conformed
    our rules concerning transmission of station identification
    information by CMRS licensees.[^29] We concluded that CMRS licensees
    operating on an exclusive basis in Commission-defined service areas
    should generally not be required to transmit station identification
    information. In the case of all other CMRS licensees, whether
    licensed exclusively on a site-specific basis or licensed on shared
    channels, we continued to require transmission of station
    identification information on a regular basis in accordance with the
    standards set forth in our rules. AMTA requests that the Commission
    reconsider or clarify the rules as they apply to CMRS licensees in
    Part 90 services.[^30] Specifically, AMTA contends that it is
    unclear whether the Commission intended for Part 90 CMRS licensees
    (other than those specifically exempted from station identification
    requirements) to continue to comply with the specific transmission
    requirements of Sections 90.425(a) through 90.425(d) that apply
    generally to Part 90 services, or whether they should "station
    identify" as provided for in the new Section 90.425(e) applicable to
    CMRS.

14. We concur with AMTA that Section 90.425 should be clarified to
    properly reflect our decision in the *CMRS Third Report and Order.*
    For example, Section 90.425(a) generally requires Part 90 licensees
    to transmit station identification once every 15 minutes, while
    Section 90.425(e) requires CMRS licensees to transmit only once an
    hour.[^31] We will therefore amend the rule to clarify that CMRS
    licensees in Part 90 services that are required to provide station
    identification information are subject to the requirements of
    Section 90.425(e), not Sections 90.425(a) through (d). Consistent
    with this change, we also amend Section 90.647 to clarify that CMRS
    providers operating trunked systems are also subject only to the
    streamlined requirements of Section 90.425(e).[^32]

######## Amendment of Applications and License Modification

1.  **Distance Threshold for New Applications**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
15. In the case of Part 22 and Part 90 services that are licensed on a
    station-by-station basis, the *CMRS Third Report and Order* adopted
    the same definition of initial application that the Commission
    adopted for 931 MHz paging services in Part 22. Specifically,
    applications proposing the location of a facility more than 2
    kilometers from any existing facility licensed to the applicant and
    operating on the same frequency are considered "initial
    applications," not modifications. MA-CT Radiofone contends that the
    *CMRS Third Report and Order* rule changes create unnecessary
    burdens for Part 22 and Part 90 licensees, including paging
    licensees, which will hinder their ability to provide service to the
    public. We find that the Petitioners' argument has been rendered
    moot by the Commission's freeze on accepting both new site-by-site
    initial applications and major modifications in the paging
    services.[^33]

> **2. Developmental Applications as Minor Modifications**

16. AirTouch and US West request clarification whether developmental
    applications not filed pursuant to then new rule Section 22.409 will
    be deemed "minor." Petitioners also seek modification of Form 600,
    which classified all such authorizations as "major." Since the
    petitions were filed, we have further addressed the identification
    of changes as major or minor in the ULS proceeding.[^34] Section
    1.929(k) of the Commission's rules as amended by the ULS proceeding
    provides that "\[a\]ny change not specifically listed . . . as major
    is considered minor."[^35] Nothing in petitioners' arguments
    persuades us to revisit our categorization of major and minor
    modifications in the *ULS Report and Order*.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
E.  **Conditional and Special Temporary Authority (Pre-Grant
    Authority)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
17. Section 309(f) of the Act allows the Commission in extraordinary
    circumstances to grant a license applicant special temporary
    authority (STA) to operate a station while its application for
    permanent operating authority is pending.[^36] PageNet argues that
    extraordinary circumstances exist under which the Commission should
    provide for pre-grant conditional operation for paging applicants
    generally under Section 309(f).[^37] Specifically, PageNet argues
    that it is an extraordinary circumstance that the Commission would
    license some CMRS carriers on a wide-area geographic basis, while
    not providing the same opportunity to paging carriers.[^38] PageNet
    contends that unless paging carriers are provided the opportunity to
    rapidly bring wide-area service to the public, parity cannot exist
    between paging carriers and other CMRS carriers. We believe the
    Commission's freeze on the acceptance of new site-by-site paging
    applications,[^39] the conclusion of the geographic-area paging
    auctions for the upper frequency bands,[^40] and the upcoming
    geographic-area auctions for the remaining paging frequencies have
    rendered PageNet's argument substantially moot. Moreover, to the
    extent the argument is not moot, we have consistently held that
    Congress intended that the Commission would use its Section 309(f)
    authority to abridge the normal process of public notice and comment
    only in "rare" cases.[^41] PageNet has not established that this
    standard is met for paging applications generally. Consequently, we
    will continue to evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether any CMRS
    license applicant establishes that there are "extraordinary
    circumstances" where a delay in operations would seriously prejudice
    the public interest, such as to justify an STA.

######### G. 900 MHz Paging Build-Out Requirement

18. PageNet also contends that while cellular, SMR and PCS operators can
    license their systems on a wide-area basis upon grant of one initial
    application, 900 MHz paging operators must build-out their systems
    by separately licensing each and every transmitter of their
    system.[^42] Since the *CMRS Third Report and Order* was released,
    the Commission has eased the burden on paging operators by allowing
    them to consolidate their existing site-by-site licenses into one
    wide-area license.[^43] Moreover, the Commission has established
    geographic area licensing procedures for all exclusive use paging
    channels. In light of the Commission's actions, petitioner's
    arguments are moot.

######### H. License Term; Renewal Expectancy

19. In the *CMRS Third Report and Order*, the Commission provided for
    renewal expectancies for all CMRS services, including Part 22
    paging. PageNet contends, however, that the renewal expectancy
    language for Part 22 carriers other than cellular was not
    incorporated into the Part 22 rules. Since the petitions were filed,
    we have consolidated our renewal rules for all wireless carriers
    into Part 1 as part of the ULS proceeding. Because the Part 1 rule
    applies to all wireless services, including Part 22 paging,
    petitioner's arguments are moot.

    **I. Conformation of Power Levels**

20. In the *CMRS Third Report and Order,* we retained different maximum
    power limitations for specific wireless services. We concluded that
    the general goal of regulatory parity did not require changing
    service-specific technical rules that responded to different
    conditions in each service, and that tinkering with these limits
    would not significantly benefit competition.[^44] McCaw argues that
    this "lack of parity" must be removed because cellular licensees
    face constraints on their system design that are more extreme than
    those imposed on SMR and PCS operators. McCaw does not state
    anything in its petition that leads us to change the conclusions
    that we reached in the *CMRS Third Report and Order*.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
I.  **FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
21. *Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification*. In this *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order on Reconsideration*, we amend Sections 90.425 and
    90.647(d) of the Commission's rules as set forth in the Appendix.
    The amended rules clarify that all Part 90 CMRS providers licensed
    by geographic area are exempt from station identification
    requirements, and that other Part 90 CMRS providers need comply only
    with the streamlined station identification requirements of Section
    90.425(e). Specifically, the amendments clarify that station
    identification need only occur once an hour instead of once every 15
    minutes and that the affected CMRS providers need not comply with
    other detailed technical requirements. We therefore certify,
    pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act,[^45] that the rules
    adopted in this Order will not have a significant economic impact on
    a substantial number of small entities.

22. The Commission will send a copy of this *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order on Reconsideration*, including specifically a copy of this
    final certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small
    Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, *see* 5 U.S.C.
    § 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the *Memorandum Opinion and Order on
    Reconsideration* and this certification will be sent to the Chief
    Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and will
    be published in the Federal Register. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

####### ORDERING CLAUSES

23. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r),
    309(j), 332, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 309(j), 332, and 405, and Section
    1.429(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(i), that the
    petition for reconsideration or clarification filed by American
    Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc. IS GRANTED to the extent
    that American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc. seeks
    clarification of Section 90.425 of the Commission's rules.

24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects, the petitions for
    reconsideration and/or clarification of the *CMRS Third Report and
    Order* in GN Docket No. 93-252 discussed herein ARE DISMISSED to the
    extent they are identified herein as moot, and otherwise ARE DENIED.

25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule changes specified in the
    Appendix, ARE ADOPTED.

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

> Secretary

APPENDIX

Rule Amendments

47 CFR Part 90 is amended as follows:

# Part 90 -- Private Land Mobile Radio Services

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

Authority: Secs. 4, 251-2, 303, 309, and 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as
amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 251-2, 303, 309 and 332, unless otherwise noted.

2.  Section 90.425 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (e)(1) to
    read as follows:

**§ 90.425 Station identification.**

\*\*\*\*\*

\(a\) *Identification procedure.* Except as provided for in paragraphs
(d) and (e) of this section, each station or system shall be identified
by the transmission of the assigned call sign during each transmission
or exchange of transmissions, or once each 15 minutes (30 minutes in the
Public Safety Pool) during periods of continuous operation. The call
sign shall be transmitted by voice in the English language or by
International Morse Code in accordance with paragraph (b) of this
section. If the station is employing either analog or digital voice
scrambling, or non-voice emission, transmission of the required
identification shall be in the unscrambled mode using A3E, F3E or G3E
emission, or International Morse, with all encoding disabled.
Permissible alternative identification procedures are as follows:

\*\*\*\*\*

(e) \*\*\*

\(1\) Station identification will not be required for 929-930 MHz
nationwide paging licensees or MTA or EA**-**based SMR licensees. All
other CMRS stations will be required to comply with the station
identification requirements of this paragraph.

3.  Section 90.647 is amended by adding a paragraph (d) to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.647 Station identification.**

\*\*\*\*\*

\(d\) Notwithstanding the requirements set forth in this paragraph,
systems operated by geographic area CMRS licensees are subject only to
the station identification requirements of Section 90.425(e).

[^1]: Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act,
    Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, GN Docket No. 93-252,
    *Third Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 7988 (1994) (*CMRS Third Report
    and Order*).

[^2]: Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-713 ("Communications
    Act" or "Act").

[^3]: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-66,
    Title VI § 6002(b), 107 Stat. 312, 392 (1993) (1993 Budget Act).

[^4]: Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act,
    Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, GN Docket No. 93-252,
    *Second Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 1411 (1994) (*CMRS Second
    Report and Order*), Erratum, 9 FCC Rcd 2156 (1994). In place of the
    statutory terminology, the Commission uses the terms "commercial
    mobile radio service" and "private mobile radio service,"
    respectively.

[^5]: *Id.* at 1448-58 (paras. 82-109).

[^6]: The 1993 Budget Act established a one-year period from the date of
    enactment, *i.e.*, until August 9, 1994, for the Commission to make
    such changes to its existing service rules as were necessary to
    implement the amendments to Section 332 and to provide for an
    orderly transition. 1993 Budget Act, § 6002(d)(3). The statute also
    provided that for three years from the date of enactment, *i.e.,*
    until August 9, 1996, existing private land mobile licensees that
    were reclassified as CMRS providers would continue to be regulated
    for most purposes as private service providers. *Id.,* §
    6002(c)(2)(B).

[^7]: We recently amended the spectrum cap to permit entities to hold
    attributable interests in up to 55 MHz of covered spectrum in rural
    areas, and stated that we will consider requests for waiver of the
    spectrum cap to the extent that a carrier can credibly demonstrate
    that in a particular area the spectrum cap is having an adverse
    effect on its ability to provide advanced services. *See* 1998
    Biennial Regulatory Review - - Spectrum Aggregation Limits for
    Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, WT Docket No. 98-205, *Report
    and Order*, FCC 99-244 (released September 22, 1999) (*Spectrum Cap
    Order*).

[^8]: Petitions were filed by AirTouch Communications, Inc. / US West
    NewVector Group, Inc. (AirTouch/US West), American Mobile
    Telecommunications Associations, Inc. (AMTA), Chadmoore
    Communications, Inc. (Chadmoore), E.F. Johnson Company (E.F.
    Johnson), G & M Wireless Communications, Inc. (G&M Wireless), Geotek
    Communications, Inc. (Geotek), Industrial Telecommunications
    Association, Inc. (ITA), Massachusetts -- Connecticut Mobile
    Telephone Company / Mobile Radio Communications, Inc. / Radiofone,
    Inc. (MA-CT/ Radiofone), McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc.
    (McCaw), Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet), Personal Communications
    Industry Association (PCIA), ProNet, Inc. (ProNet), RAM Mobile Data
    USA Limited Partnership (RAM Mobile), SMR WON and SunCom Mobile &
    Data, Inc. (SunCom).

[^9]: Comments and oppositions were filed by AirTouch Paging, American
    Personal Communications, Linear Modulation Technology Limited,
    McCaw, Motorola, Nextel Communications, Inc., Pacific Bell Mobile
    Services and PCIA. Reply comments were filed by AirTouch Paging,
    AMTA, E.F. Johnson and PCIA. We have considered all of the arguments
    raised in the comments, oppositions, and reply comments to the
    extent that they remain relevant, whether or not they are
    specifically cited in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

[^10]: *Spectrum Cap Order* at 59, ¶ 140.

[^11]: Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate
    Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, PR
    Docket No. 93-144, Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 322 of the
    Communications Act -- Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, GN
    Docket No. 93-252, Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253,
    *First Report and Order, Eighth Report and Order and Second Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd. 1463 (1995) *(800 MHz
    Report and Order*).

[^12]: Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80,87, 90, 95, 97,
    and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Development and
    Use of the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless
    Telecommunications Service, WT Docket No. 98-20, *Report and Order*,
    13 FCC Rcd. 21,027 (1998) (*ULS Report and Order*), *recon*., 14 FCC
    Rcd. 9305 (1999).

[^13]: *CMRS Third Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd. at 8012, ¶ 43.

[^14]: *See*, *e.g.*, petitions of AMTA, McCaw and PCIA.

[^15]: AMTA Petition at 4.

[^16]: AMTA Petition at 4; *see also* E. F. Johnson Petition at 2.

[^17]: AMTA Petition at 4.

[^18]: *CMRS Second Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd. at 1450-51, ¶¶ 88-93.

[^19]: *E.g.*, In the Matter of Communications Assistance for Law
    Enforcement Act, CC Docket No. 97-213, *Third Report and Order*, 17
    Communications Reg. (P&F) 470 (1999).

[^20]: *See* petitions of AMTA, Chadmoore, E.F. Johnson, RAM and SMR
    WON.

[^21]: *See* Auction of 800 MHz SMR Upper 10 MHz Band ; Minimum Opening
    Bids or Reserve Prices, *Order*, DA 97-2147 (released October 6,
    1997) and *800 MHz SMR Auction Closes, Public Notice*, DA 97-2583
    (released December 9, 1997).

[^22]: AMTA Petition at 5.

[^23]: Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    for the Use of 200 Channels Outside the Designated Filing Areas in
    the 896-901 MHz and 935-940 MHz Bands Allotted to the Specialized
    Mobile Radio Pool, *Second Report and Order and Second Further
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, PR Docket No. 89-553, PP Docket No.
    93-253, GN Docket No. 93-252, 10 FCC Rcd 6884 (1995) (*900 MHz
    Order*).

[^24]: Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    for the Use of 200 Channels Outside the Designated Filing Areas in
    the 896-901 MHz and 935-940 MHz Bands Allotted to the Specialized
    Mobile Radio Pool, *Second Order on Reconsideration and Seventh
    Report and Order*, PR Docket No. 89-553, PP Docket No. 93-253, GN
    Docket No. 93-252, 11FCC Rcd 2639 (1995) (*900 MHz Reconsideration
    Order*).

[^25]: ProNet Petition at 1-2.

[^26]: Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to
    Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems, *Second Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd. 2732
    (1997) (*Paging Second Report and Order*), *recon*., 14 FCC Rcd
    10030 (1999).

[^27]: *Id*. Shared Part 90 paging channels are not subject to
    geographic area licensing or competitive bidding.

[^28]: *CMRS Third Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 8138, ¶ 334.

[^29]: *Id*. at 8092-93, ¶¶ 216-219. *See* 47 CFR §§ 22.313, 90.425.

[^30]: AMTA Petition at 15-16.

[^31]: 47 CFR §§ 90.425(a), (e)(2). The requirement that Part 90 CMRS
    licensees transmit once an hour is consistent with the equivalent
    rule for Part 22 CMRS licensees. *See* 47 CFR § 22.313(b).

[^32]: We also amend the reference in Section 90.425(e) to "MTA-based"
    SMR licensees to include 800 MHz geographic licensees, who are
    licensed on an Economic Area (EA) basis. The specific rule
    amendments that we adopt are set forth in the Appendix.

[^33]: *See* Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules
    to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems, WT Docket No.
    96-18, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd. 3108, 3136-37,
    ¶¶ 139-143 (1996) (*Paging Notice*).

[^34]: *ULS Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd. at 21055-21061, ¶¶ 58-73.

[^35]: 47 CFR § 1.929(k). Minor changes include but are not limited
    to 1) any pro forma assignment or transfer of control; 2) any name
    change not involving change in ownership or control of license; and
    3) any address and/or telephone number changes.

[^36]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(f). *See* 47 CFR § 22.125(b): "The FCC may grant
    STAs valid for a period not to exceed 180 days under the provisions
    of § 309(f) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (47
    U.S.C. § 309(f)) if extraordinary circumstances so require, and
    pending the filing of an application for regular operation. The FCC
    may grant extensions of STAs for a period of 180 days, but the
    applicant must show that extraordinary circumstances warrant such an
    extension."

[^37]: PageNet Petition at 8-9.

[^38]: *Id*. at 8.

[^39]: *See* *Paging Notice* and *Paging Second Report and Order*.

[^40]: *See* 929 and 931 MHz Paging Auction Closes: Winning Bidders of
    985 Licenses Announced, *Public Notice*, DA 00-508 (March 6, 2000).

[^41]: *See* Tender Offers and Proxy Contests, MM Docket No. 85-218,
    *Policy Statement*, FCC 86-67, 59 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F) 1536, 1572
    (1986), *citing* S. Rep. No. 690, 86^th^ Cong., 1^st^ Sess. 4
    (1959); H.R. Rep. No. 1800, 2d Sess. 13 (1960). *See also* Revision
    of Part 21 of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 86-128, *Report
    and Order*, 2 FCC Rcd 5713, 5721 (1987).

[^42]: PageNet Petition at 3-4.

[^43]: *See* *Paging Second Report and Order* and *Paging Notice*.

[^44]: *CMRS Third Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 8012, ¶¶ 152-154.

[^45]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq.*,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).