**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In re Application of )

)

HENNEPIN COUNTY ) File No. D120698 )

For a Public Safety License )

Pursuant to Section 337 of the )

Communications Act of 1934, as Amended )

**ORDER**

**Adopted: November 18, 1999 Released: November 18, 1999**

By the Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1\. We have before us an Application for License Pursuant to Section 337
of the Communications Act of 1934 (\"Petition\") filed by Hennepin
County, Minnesota (\"Hennepin\" or the \"County\"), and associated
application for a mobile radio service authorization. Hennepin seeks a
waiver, pursuant to Section 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the \"Act\"),[^1] of certain provisions of Parts 1 and 90 of
the Commission\'s Rules to permit it to obtain a multilateration
Location and Monitoring Service (\"LMS\") license for public safety
purposes. For the reasons stated below, we deny Hennepin\'s Petition,
and dismiss the associated application.

**II. BACKGROUND**

2\. LMS is a service that uses advanced radio technologies operating in
the 902-928 MHz frequency band.[^2] In the *LMS Second Report and
Order*, the Commission determined that, pursuant to its auction
authority under Section 309(j) of the Act, as amended by the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 (\"Balanced Budget Act\"),[^3] it was required to
assign licenses for multilateration LMS by competitive

bidding.[^4] On August 31, 1998, Hennepin filed a Petition for Partial
Reconsideration of the *LMS Second Report and Order* (\"Reconsideration
Petition\"), requesting that the Commission amend its rules to grant an
exemption from the competitive bidding process to applicants intending
to use LMS frequencies for public safety purposes. The Commission
subsequently denied Hennepin\'s Reconsideration Petition.[^5]

3\. On January 11, 1999, Hennepin filed its Petition, seeking waiver of
the Commission\'s competitive bidding rules for LMS[^6] and frequency
coordination rules,[^7] as necessary, to obtain an LMS license in
Economic Area 107 (\"EA 107\") at 921.750-927.250 MHz, without taking
part in the LMS auction.[^8] The 921.750-927.250 MHz band corresponds to
the spectrum range for the \"C Block\" LMS licenses that have been
offered for bidding in the LMS auction.[^9] On February 3, 1999, we
released a public notice, soliciting comment on the County\'s
Petition.[^10] The Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials-International, Inc. (\"APCO\") filed comments generally
supporting Hennepin\'s Petition.[^11] On February 22, 1999, Hennepin
filed reply comments (\"Reply Comments\"). The LMS auction commenced on
February 23, 1999 and closed on March 5, 1999. At the conclusion of the
LMS auction, a commercial entity had placed a high bid for the \"C\"
Block license for EA 107.[^12]

**III. DISCUSSION**

4\. *Eligibility for relief*. When considering requests filed under
Section 337, we must make an initial determination as to whether the
applicant is eligible for consideration of its waiver request pursuant
to Section 337.[^13] The Commission is required to apply the subsection
337(c) criteria to all requests for \"licensing of unused frequencies\"
submitted by \"an entity seeking to provide public safety
services.\"[^14] As an initial matter, eligibility for consideration
hinges on whether the proposed use constitutes \"public safety
services.\"[^15]

5\. We, therefore, first turn to the issue of whether Hennepin intends
to use the frequencies for public safety services. Hennepin asserts that
its proposed use of the prospective LMS license conforms to the
definition of a public safety service under Section 337, because it
seeks the use of the subject frequencies to operate a public safety
communications system that will be used to \"track emergency vehicles
and to help enforce location restrictions on domestic abuse and other
offenders.\"[^16] Specifically, Hennepin proposes to use the subject
frequencies to: 1) enable police, fire, ambulance, and snowplow
dispatchers to locate available vehicles and coordinate mutual aid
responses to emergencies; and 2) help police, probation officers, and
other officials enforce court-ordered location restrictions on criminal
offenders and provide early warnings to identified victims when such
offenders pose a threat by \"encroach\[ing\] restricted areas.\"[^17]
Hennepin also states that it will not offer its LMS services
commercially to the public, and that its \"goal in pursuing an LMS
license is to augment the services and capabilities of its core public
safety entities.\"[^18] Based on the record herein, we agree that the
\"sole or principal purpose\" of the services proposed by Hennepin is to
protect the safety of life, health or property, and conclude that
Hennepin meets the requirements of subsection 337(f).

6\. *Statutory criteria.* We find that Hennepin has not met the
statutory criteria for grant of a waiver under subsection 337(c) of the
Act.[^19] Hennepin contends that the five criteria set forth in
subsection 337(c)(1) are satisfied and therefore the statute compels us
to grant its Petition.[^20] We conclude, based on the plain language of
subsection 337(c), that grant of a waiver request under this statute is
required only upon a finding that all five conditions are met.[^21] We
further conclude that in a case where any one of the five conditions is
not met, the subject waiver will not be granted.[^22] In the present
case, we cannot make the finding required by subsection 337(c)(1)(A)
that \"no other spectrum allocated to public safety services is
immediately available to satisfy the requested public safety service
use.\"[^23]

7\. Hennepin asserts that its proposed system, a broadband
multilateration system, requires approximately four megahertz of
contiguous spectrum,[^24] and acknowledges that \"the higher frequencies
allocated to public safety use could accommodate the system\'s broadband
requirements.\"[^25] Hennepin argues that although those higher band
public safety frequencies have adequate bandwidth for its purposes, they
do not adequately penetrate foliage or buildings which Hennepin states
is necessary for locating and communicating with mobile units in urban
areas.[^26] Hennepin also asserts that it must operate its system in the
902-928 MHz band because this band \"permit\[s\] widespread coverage of
a market area without the use of an inordinate number of base stations .
. . .\"[^27] and concludes that operations within this band \"provide
Hennepin with the services it desires at a cost that is acceptable to
the County.\"[^28]

8\. We find that Hennepin fails to make an adequate showing that no
other spectrum is immediately available to meet its public safety
communications needs. We do not believe that less than optimal
propagation characteristics is a sufficient reason to render available
public safety frequencies \"unavailable\" within the meaning of Section
337. We do not believe that the need to obtain more sites and the
greater cost of construction of a different type of system, without any
other showing, are sufficient grounds for determining that no other
public safety spectrum is immediately available for the proposed use.
Additionally, Hennepin does not provide any objective documentation,
such as a detailed engineering analysis, to support its conclusion that
available public safety frequencies cannot be used for its proposed
system. Finally, we note that there are many alternative frequencies
that have been reserved for public safety use,[^29] including the 24 MHz
of spectrum in the band between 746 and 806 MHz.[^30] Accordingly, we
find that Hennepin has failed to meet the requirements of subsection
337(c)(1)(A).

9\. Additionally, we find that Hennepin has not met its burden of
showing, as required by subsection 337(c)(1)(E), that grant of its
Section 337 request is consistent with the public interest.[^31]
Hennepin argues that it has met this requirement because of the services
it will provide by its proposed public safety communications
system.[^32] Similarly, APCO urges that the Commission, in evaluating
Section 337 waiver requests, make the applicant\'s need to protect the
safety of life, health and property its primary consideration.[^33]
While we are committed to ensuring that public service providers have
sufficient spectrum to meet their requirements, we believe that it is
possible for Hennepin County to achieve its public safety goals in a
manner not necessitating a waiver pursuant to Section 337. In addition
to the higher band public safety frequencies,[^34] we note that other
bands are available for Hennepin\'s use. For example, Section 90.355 of
the Commission\'s Rules permits public safety frequencies in the 150-170
MHz and 450-470 bands to be used for LMS.[^35] In addition, as discussed
above, Hennepin could potentially utilize public safety frequencies
above 928 MHz or in the band between 746 and 806 MHz.[^36]
Alternatively, Hennepin may purchase Global Service Satellite equipment
to help track its vehicles or rely on commercial LMS service providers.
On all the facts of this case, we do not find that the public interest
in ensuring adequate availability of spectrum for public safety services
has been shown to outweigh the public interest in assigning LMS
frequencies for their allocated purpose and in maintaining orderly
licensing processes.

10\. We disagree with Hennepin\'s argument that granting its waiver
request would comport with Congressional intent regarding Section 337.
The Conference Report to the Balanced Budget Act states that the
Commission, in assigning unused spectrum by means of Section 337
waivers, must be given \"ample time to assign licenses for recently
allocated spectrum before that spectrum can be assigned to public safety
radio services.\"[^37] Hennepin submitted its waiver request a mere five
weeks before the commencement of the LMS auction, shortly after the
Commission adopted final rules and procedures for the auctioning of
multilateration LMS frequencies.[^38] We also note that we had begun
accepting short-form applications (FCC Form 175) for participation in
the LMS auction when Hennepin filed its petition.[^39] In this instance,
we believe that the accurate characterization of the status of the
Commission\'s LMS licensing process is that the Commission had commenced
the assignment process for the subject frequencies before Hennepin filed
its Petition, and therefore grant of Hennepin\'s waiver request would
not be consistent with the legislative intent of Section 337.

11\. We also disagree with Hennepin\'s contention that the lack of
opposition comments by qualified LMS bidders to Hennepin\'s Petition
indicates that the public interest in auctioning the subject frequencies
should be outweighed by Hennepin\'s waiver request.[^40] First, it
should be noted that the Commission, after allocating the subject
frequencies for multilateration LMS, conducted a rule making and
determined, based on the record, that the public interest would be
served by utilizing competitive bidding to resolve mutually exclusive
applications for the subject frequencies.[^41] Second, there were
bidders who were interested in the frequencies at issue, as illustrated
by the fact that a high bid was placed by a commercial entity for the
\"C\" Block license for the subject EA.[^42] We do not believe that the
mere fact that no opposition comments, whether by qualified high bidders
or others, were filed, necessarily indicates that the public interest
would be served by grant of Hennepin\'s Petition.

12\. *Entire EA is not required for Hennepin\'s proposed use.* We note
that Hennepin has applied for authorization to serve the entire EA
107.[^43] EA 107 includes fifty-eight counties in Minnesota and twelve
counties in Wisconsin.[^44] As discussed below, Hennepin has no use or
need for this spectrum in the other fifty-seven counties in Minnesota or
twelve counties in Wisconsin. It is not in the public interest to grant
requests made pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 337 for spectrum covering
sixty-nine counties in two states where it is not needed and the
applicant does not propose to use it in these areas. Hennepin\'s only
basis for requesting this spectrum on a relatively large area where
admittedly it does not need it is to avoid interference. Specifically,
it contends that it needed to apply for a license covering the entire EA
107 because, although its proposed operations would be restricted to one
county in Minnesota, it contends that if the EA license were
\"partition\[ed\] between Hennepin and the rest of EA 107, the two
license holders would have to mitigate likely interference at the
periphery of the County,\" which Hennepin claims would hinder its
ability to provide LMS services in the county, and would hamper the
other licensee\'s ability to provide its services in the other areas of
EA 107.[^45] We are not persuaded by Hennepin\'s argument that
\"partitioning\" EA 107 would subject operations therein to
interference. Hennepin provides no proof that such \"partitioning\"
would cause harmful interference, and we note that the Commission has
determined, through the course of a number of rule makings, that
partitioning is an efficient tool for licensees to provide service to
core areas and/or to deliver services outside of major market
areas.[^46] Accordingly, partitioning is not only permitted in the LMS
service, it is, along with disaggregation, a favorable method of
accommodating provision of a variety of competitive service offerings,
encouraging new market entrants, and ensuring quality service to the
public.[^47]

13\. As stated above, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, it was required to assign licenses for
multilateration LMS frequencies by competitive bidding, and chose not to
allocate any portion of the 902-928 MHz band to public safety
entities.[^48] Because the subject frequencies were not allocated for
public safety, they are to be auctioned, unless a waiver is granted.
Because the County has not met the requirements for its requested
Section 337 waiver, Hennepin\'s proposed *de facto* reallocation of the
subject spectrum in all of EA 107 for public purposes must be denied.

**V. CONCLUSION**

14\. As stated above, we conclude that Hennepin did not sufficiently
establish the

unavailability of other suitable spectrum, as required by subsection 337
(c)(1)(A).[^49] We also find that Hennepin has failed to meet the public
interest requirements of subsection 337(c)(1)(E). Because we believe
that a party involving Section 337 must demonstrate the existence of all
five factors required under the statute, we deny Hennepin\'s Petition
and decline to analyze fully the remainder of the merits of its 337
waiver request in its Petition and Reply Comments. Accordingly, although
Hennepin\'s proposed use of the subject spectrum, to augment the
services of public safety entities, may be laudable, Hennepin has not
met the statutory requirements for its requested Section 337 waiver, and
therefore the waiver must be denied.

######### VI. ORDERING CLAUSE

15\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), and
5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i),
155(c) and Section 1.934 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.934,
Hennepin County\'s Application for License Pursuant to Section 337 of
the Communications Act of 1934 is DENIED, and that its associated
application for private mobile radio service authorization for public
safety services is DISMISSED. This action is taken under delegated
authority pursuant Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission\'s rules,
47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Kathleen O'Brien-Ham

Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]:     ^?^47 U.S.C. § 337.

[^2]:     ^?^Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to adopt
    Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems, *Second Report
    and Order*, PR Docket No. 93-61, 13 FCC Rcd. 15182, 15185-86. (1998)
    (\"*LMS Second Report and Order*\"). The definition of LMS also
    includes existing Automatic Vehicle Monitoring operations below 512
    MHz. *Id.* at 15185, n.7.

[^3]:     ^?^Pub. L. No. 105-33, Title III Stat. 251, § 3002 (1997).

[^4]:     ^?^*LMS Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 15187-88. The
    Balanced Budget Act revised the Commission\'s auction authority by
    amending Section 309(j) of the Act to require the Commission to
    award mutually exclusive licenses or permits using competitive
    bidding procedures. 47 U.S.C. § 390(j)(1), as amended. Section
    309(j)(2) of the Act exempts from the competitive bidding process
    licenses and construction permits for, *inter alia*, public safety
    radio services. 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2), as amended.

[^5]:     ^?^Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to Adopt
    Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems, *Order on
    Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order*, PR Docket No.
    93-61, ¶¶ 6, 14, FCC 99-3 (rel. January 21, 1999) (\"*Order on
    Reconsideration*\").

[^6]:     ^?^Hennepin requests waiver of the LMS competitive bidding
    rules, 47 C.F.R. § 90.1101 *et seq*., and the generic competitive
    bidding rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2101 *et seq.*

[^7]:     ^?^47 C.F.R. § 90.175.

[^8]:     ^?^Petition at 8-9.

[^9]:     ^?^*See* Auction Notice and Filing Requirements for 528
    Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service Licenses, *Public
    Notice*, DA 98-1879 (rel. Sep. 23, 1998).

[^10]:     ^?^Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on
    Request for Waiver by Hennepin County, Minnesota, to Obtain a
    Location and Monitoring Service License Outside the Competitive
    Bidding Process, *Public Notice*, DA 99-218 (rel. Feb. 3, 1999)
    (\"*Hennepin County Public Notice*\").

[^11]:     ^?^The APCO Comments also addressed a public notice wherein
    we sought comments on a request for a Section 337 waiver by the New
    Hampshire Department of Transportation, Request for Waiver by the
    New Hampshire Department of Transportation to Permit the Use of
    Certain Public and Mobile Radio Service Channels, *Public Notice*,
    DA 99-282 (Rel. Feb. 3, 1999) (\"*New Hampshire Public Notice*\").

[^12]:     ^?^Winning Bidders in the Auction of Multilateration Licenses
    in the Location and Vehicle Monitoring Service, *Public Notice*, DA
    99-405 (rel. Mar. 8, 1999), at Attachment A. We indicated that the
    subject license would not be awarded until the instant proceeding is
    concluded.

[^13]:     ^?^*See* License Communications Services, Inc., Application
    for Modification of Business Radio Station WIE 694, South Bay
    Regional Public Communications Authority Application and Waiver
    Request for Use of Certain Public Mobile Channels, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 23781, 23795 (1998) (\"*South
    Bay*\").

[^14]:     ^?^Subsection (c) of Section 337 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §
    337(c), provides as follows:

    \(c\) Licensing of Unused Frequencies for Public Safety Services. ‑‑

    \(1\) Use of unused channels for public safety services. ‑‑ Upon

    application by an entity seeking to provide public safety services,
    the

    Commission shall waive any requirement of this Act or its
    regulations

    implementing this Act (other than its regulations regarding harmful

    interference) to the extent necessary to permit the use of
    unassigned

    frequencies for the provision of public safety services by such
    entity.

    An application shall be granted under this subsection if the
    Commission

    finds that‑‑

    \(A\) no other spectrum allocated to public safety services is

    immediately available to satisfy the requested public safety service

    use;

    \(B\) the requested use is technically feasible without causing

    harmful interference to other spectrum users entitled to protection

    from such interference under the Commission\'s regulations;

    \(C\) the use of the unassigned frequency for the provision of

    public safety services is consistent with other allocations for the

    provision of such services in the geographic area for which the

    application is made;

    \(D\) the unassigned frequency was allocated for its present use

    not less than 2 years prior to the date on which the application is

    granted; and

    \(E\) granting such application is consistent with the public

    interest.

[^15]:     ^?^ Subsection 337(f) defines the term \"public safety
    services\" as services \--

    \(A\) the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the
    safety of life, health, or property;

    \(B\) that are provided‑‑

    \(i\) by State or local government entities; or

    \(ii\) by nongovernmental organizations that are authorized by

    a governmental entity whose primary mission is the provision of

    such services; and

    \(C\) that are not made commercially available to the public by

    the provider.

[^16]:     ^?^Petition at 4-5.

[^17]:     ^?^*Id.* at 5-7.

[^18]:     ^?^*Id*. at 7-8.

[^19]:     ^?^47 U.S.C. § 337(c).

[^20]:     ^?^Petition at 9.

[^21]:     ^?^*See* 47 U.S.C. § 337(c) (with specific reference to §
    337(c)(1)(D)).

[^22]:     ^?^*See* H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 217, 105th Cong., 1st Sess., 579
    (1997); *see also South Bay*, 13 FCC Rcd at 23796 (\"In a case where
    any one of the five conditions is not met, the subject waiver will
    not be granted.\").

[^23]:     ^?^47 U.S.C. § 337(c)(1)(A).

[^24]:     ^?^Petition at 10; Reply Comments at 5-6.

[^25]:     ^?^Petition at 10, *citing* the Public Safety Pool Frequency
    Table listed at 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(c)(3).

[^26]:     ^?^Petition at 10; Reply Comments at 4-5.

[^27]:     ^?^Reply Comments at 4, *citing LMS Report and Order*, 10 FCC
    Rcd at 4705-06.

[^28]:     ^?^Reply Comments at 5.

[^29]:     ^?^47 C.F.R. §§ 90.20, 90.355.

[^30]:     ^?^*See* The Development of Operational, Technical and
    Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public
    Safety Agency Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010 and
    Establishment of Rules and Requirements for Priority Access Service,
    *First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making*,
    WT Docket No. 96-86, FCC 98-191 (1998). APCO contends that this
    reallocated public safety spectrum may not be adequate to meet
    certain public safety requirements, because, it claims, incumbent
    television broadcast operations could \"block access\" to portions
    of that spectrum in various areas of the U.S. APCO comments at 2-3.
    Hennepin argues that spectrum in this band may not be suitable for
    its proposed broadband service because \"the Commission is
    considering allocating spectrum on a narrowband basis, with a
    preference for applications that can also be shared.\" Reply
    Comments at 6. Hennepin has submitted no proof that it cannot use
    the spectrum in this frequency band. In any event, Hennepin was
    welcome to participate in this rule making, and to submit comments
    concerning the allocation of frequencies, when appropriate.

[^31]:     ^?^47 U.S.C. § 337(c)(1)(E).

[^32]:     ^?^Petition at 11; Reply Comments at 8-9.

[^33]:     ^?^APCO comments at 3. It should be noted that APCO does not
    address the specifics of either the instant proceeding or the New
    Hampshire proceeding. *Id.* Instead, APCO requests that the
    Commission expeditiously consider 337(c) requests, and to \"give
    special consideration to public safety requests to waive allocation
    rules.\" *Id.* at 3-4.

[^34]:     ^?^*See* supra para. 7.

[^35]:     ^?^47 U.S.C. § 90.355.

[^36]:     ^?^*See* supra paras. 7-8.

[^37]:     ^?^H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 217, 105 Cong., 1st Sess, 579 (1997).

[^38]:     ^?^*LMS Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 15183-84.

[^39]:     ^?^*See* Auction Notice and Filing Requirements for 528
    Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service Licenses Scheduled
    for December 15, 1998, *Public Notice*, DA No. 98-1879 (rel. Sep.
    23, 1998). The LMS auction was subsequently postponed, and did not
    commence until February 23, 1999. *See* Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau Postpones December 15, 1998 Auction Date for 528 Location and
    Monitoring Licenses, *Public Notice*, DA No. 98-2246 (rel. Nov. 10,
    1998).

[^40]:     ^?^Reply Comments at 11.

[^41]:     ^?^*See* Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems, *Report
    and Order*, PR Docket No. 93-61, 10 FCC Rcd 4695, 4725-27 (1995)
    (\"*LMS Report and Order*\"). Specifically, the Commission
    determined that its proposal to license frequencies allocated for
    multilateration LMS by competitive bidding met the statutory
    criteria for auctioning licenses set forth in Section 309(j) of the
    Act, as it was then written. *Id.* Subsequent to the release of the
    *LMS Report and Order*, Congress enacted the Balanced Budget Act,
    which amended some of the provisions of Section 309(j). As noted in
    para. 2 *supra*, the Commission determined, as stated in the *LMS
    Second Report and Order*, that the Balanced Budget Act\'s amendments
    to Section 309(j) required it to assign licenses for multilateration
    LMS by competitive bidding.

[^42]:     ^?^*See* para. 2, *supra.*

[^43]:     ^?^Petition at 3.

[^44]:     ^?^*See* *Hennepin County Public Notice* at n.2.

[^45]:     ^?^Reply Comments at 7-8.

[^46]:     ^?^*See, e.g.* Rule Making to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of
    the Commission\'s Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency
    Band, to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish
    Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for
    Fixed Satellite Services, *Fourth Report and Order*, CC Docket No.
    92-297 13 FCC Rcd 11655, 11657, n.4 (1998).

[^47]:     ^?^*See, e.g.,* *LMS Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    15200-03. It should be noted that partitioning is permitted along
    any service area defined by the parties (*LMS Second Report and
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 15201). Because Hennepin County seeks to
    provide public safety services within Hennepin County, which
    constitutes a small section of EA 107, partitioning would permit
    Hennepin to utilize only the portion of EA 107 that it requires,
    while allowing LMS service to be provided by the auction winner to
    other sections of EA 107.

[^48]:     ^?^No public safety entity suggested designating any LMS
    frequencies during the initial stages of the LMS rule making
    proceeding. As noted in para. 2, *supra*, however, the Commission
    denied Hennepin County\'s Petition for Partial Reconsideration of
    the *LMS Second Report and Order*, which sought public safety
    exemption from competitive bidding on LMS spectrum.

[^49]:     ^?^*See* para. 7 *supra.*