*Pages 1--11 from  Microsoft Word - 9774.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1411 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 

 In  the  Matter  of 
 American  Mobile  Telecommunications 
 Association,  Inc.  and 
 American  Trucking  Associations,  Inc. 

 Petition  for  Transfer  of  Frequency  Advisory 
 Committee  Certification 

 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 

 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  June  8,  2001  Released:  June  11,  2001 
 By  the  Chief,  Public  Safety  and  Private  Wireless  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau: 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  On  July  13,  2000,  the  American  Mobile  Telecommunications  Association,  Inc.  (AMTA)  and 
 the  American  Trucking  Associations,  Inc.  (ATA)  jointly  filed  an  informal  Transfer  Petition  seeking  to 
 transfer  ATAs  certification  as  a  frequency  advisory  committee  (FAC)  or  frequency  coordinator  for  private 
 land  mobile  radio  (PLMR)  spectrum  below  512  MHz  to  AMTA.  1  ATA  currently  is  certified  as  a 
 frequency  coordinator  for  the  Industrial/  Business  (I/  B)  Pool  of  PLMR  frequencies  below  512  MHz.  The 
 request  to  transfer  the  certification  was  placed  on  public  notice  on  August  3,  2000.  2  For  the  reasons  set 
 forth  below,  we  grant  both  AMTAs  request  for  FAC  certification  and  ATAs  request  for  removal  from  the 
 list  of  certified  FACs.  We  do  not  believe,  however,  that  it  is  either  appropriate  or  necessary  to  transfer 
 FAC  certification  from  one  entity  to  another  to  achieve  the  ends  sought  by  AMTA  and  ATA. 

 1  Petition  for  Transfer  of  American  Trucking  Associations,  Inc.  Frequency  Advisory  Committee  Certification 
 filed  by  AMTA  and  ATA  on  July  13,  2000  (Transfer  Petition). 
 2  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  Seeks  Comment  on  Petition  By  American  Trucking  Associations,  Inc.,  to 

 Transfer  Frequency  Advisory  Committee  Certification  to  American  Mobile  Telecommunications  Association, 
 Inc.,  Public  Notice,  15  FCC  Rcd  13333  (WTB  PSPWD  2000).  We  received  five  comments  and  five  reply 
 comments.  Comments  were  submitted  by  the  Association  of  Public-  Safety  Communications  Officials-International, 
 Inc.  (APCO),  Electrocom,  Inc.,  Industrial  Telecommunications  Association,  Inc.  (ITA),  MRFAC, 
 Inc.  (MRFAC),  and  Personal  Communications  Industry  Association,  Inc.  (PCIA).  Reply  comments  were 
 submitted  by  Fisher  Wireless  Services,  Inc.  (FWS),  Forest  Industries  Telecommunications  (FIT),  FleetTalk 
 Partners,  Ltd.  (FleetTalk),  the  United  Telecom  Council  (UTC),  and  jointly  by  AMTA  and  ATA  (AMTA/  ATA). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1411 
 2 
 II.  BACKGROUND 
 2.  A  PLMR  frequency  coordinator  is  a  private-  sector  entity  or  organization  that  has  been  certified 
 by  the  Commission  to  recommend  the  most  appropriate  frequencies  for  use  by  licensees  in  the  PLMR 
 services.  3  The  Commission  has  recognized  the  role  of  frequency  coordinators  in  the  process  of  selecting 
 available  frequencies  since  1958,  4  but  it  was  not  until  1986  that  the  Commission  formally  certified 
 frequency  coordinators.  5  The  Commission  examined  the  facets  of  the  frequency  coordination  process  in  an 
 effort  to  maximize  service  to  the  public  by  assuring  that  the  assignment  and  management  of  the  PLMR 
 spectrum  was  performed  in  an  efficient  and  effective  manner.  6  In  almost  all  of  the  Industrial  and  Land 
 Transportation  Radio  Services  the  Commission  received  only  one  request  per  radio  service  for  frequency 
 coordination  certification.  7  The  Commission  recognized  that  certifying  multiple  coordinators  per  service 
 could  lower  coordination  fees  for  applicants,  8  but  decided  to  certify  a  single  coordinator  in  each  service  in 
 order  to  reduce  the  potential  for  confusion  and  avoid  inconsistent  coordination  standards.  9  The 
 Commission  believed  that  competition  in  the  recommendation  of  frequencies  should  not  be  necessary  to 
 assure  the  lowest  price  or  best  service.  10 

 3.  The  primary  factor  in  the  selection  of  each  frequency  coordinator  was  whether  the  applicant 
 represented  a  class  of  users  eligible  for  licenses  in  the  service  the  applicant  proposed  to  coordinate.  11 
 Special  emphasis  was  placed  on  representativeness  since  the  Commission  decided  to  certify  only  one 
 coordinator  per  service.  12  Additional  factors  considered  were  the  applicants  overall  plan  to  coordinate  the 

 3  For  the  Part  90  definition  of  a  frequency  coordinator,  see  47  C.  F.  R.    90.7.  See  also  Frequency  Coordination  in 
 the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services,  Report  and  Order,  PR  Docket  No.  83-  737,  103  FCC  2d  1093,  1094    1 
 (1986)  (Frequency  Coordination  Report  and  Order).  I/  B  frequencies  are  listed  in  47  C.  F.  R.    90.35,  and 
 Business  and  I/  LT  frequencies  are  listed  in  47  C.  F.  R.    90.613,  90.617,  90.619. 

 4  Frequency  Coordination  Report  and  Order,  103  FCC  2d  at  1096    4  (citing  Amendment  of  Part  11,  Rules 

 Governing  the  Industrial  Radio  Services,  to  Delete,  Modify  and  Create  Services  and  to  Effect  Changes  in  the 
 Availability  of  Frequencies,  First  Report  and  Order,  Docket  No.  11991,  FCC  58-  602,  23  Fed.  Reg.  4784  (1958)). 

 5  See  Frequency  Coordination  Report  and  Order,  103  FCC  2d  at  1126-  47    70-  108. 

 6  Id.  at  1095    2. 
 7  Id.  at  1127-  46    71-  108. 
 8  Frequency  Coordination  in  the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  PR 
 Docket  No.  83-  737,  49  Fed.  Reg.  45454,  45456    14  (1986). 
 9  Frequency  Coordination  Report  and  Order,  103  FCC  Rcd  at  1121-  22    57-  59.  The  Commission  permitted  the 

 continued  use  of  three  coordinators  for  recommending  800  MHz  General  Category  frequencies  because  this 
 procedure  had  evolved  into  a  workable,  manageable  system.  The  Commission  recognized  that  there  was  no 
 reason  to  deviate  from  the  then-  current  situation  even  though  it  was  different  from  its  approach  in  other  PLMR 
 spectrum.  Id.  at  1146    108. 

 10  Id.  at  1123    61. 

 11  Id.  at  1126    70. 
 12  Id.  at  1126  n.  17. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1411 
 3 
 service,  13  whether  the  entity  had  any  experience  coordinating  frequencies  in  that  service  or  any  technical 
 expertise  in  engineering  land  mobile  radio  stations,  and  whether  the  applicant  was  capable  of  nationwide 
 coordination.  14  ATA  was  certified  as  the  frequency  coordinator  for  the  Motor  Carrier  Radio  Service,  15  i.  e., 
 radio  communications  by  persons  or  entities  providing  a  motor  carrier  service  for  distribution,  collection 
 and  transportation  of  property  within  and  between  urban  areas,  and  transportation  of  passengers  within  and 
 between  urban  areas.  16  According  to  the  AMTA,  it  has  been  a  trade  association  representing  many 
 segments  of  the  PLMR  community  for  more  than  fifteen  years.  17  AMTA  states  that  a  significant  number  of 
 its  members  provide  system  licensing,  management,  maintenance  and  similar  services  for  licenses  to  which 
 they  sell  private  systems.  18 

 4.  In  1997,  the  Commission  consolidated  the  twenty  PLMR  services  below  512  MHz  19  into  two 
 pools,  Public  Safety  and  I/  B.  20  The  Commission,  in  general,  ended  exclusivity  of  frequency  coordination  in 
 non-  Public  Safety  Pool  frequencies,  and,  with  certain  exceptions,  certified  the  existing  coordinators  to 
 coordinate  all  of  the  frequencies  in  the  pool  into  which  their  service  was  consolidated.  21  Consequently, 
 ATA  currently  is  able  to  coordinate  all  I/  B  Pool  frequencies  below  512  MHz,  which  formerly  were 
 allocated  to  various  Industrial,  Land  Transportation,  and  Business  Radio  Services,  including  the  Motor 
 Carrier  Radio  Service.  22  The  Commission  took  this  action  to  provide  users  with  the  opportunity  to  make 
 marketplace  decisions  when  seeking  the  services  of  a  frequency  coordinator.  23 

 5.  In  this  regard,  the  Commission  stated  that  certifying  multiple  coordinators  for  the  same 
 frequencies  was  not  a  rejection  of  its  1986  requirement  that  each  coordinator  be  representative  of  the  users 

 13  For  example,  how  frequency  recommendations  would  be  made  and  whether  all  applicants  would  be  treated 
 equally.  Id.  at  1126    70. 
 14  Id. 

 15  Id.  at  1138    92. 
 16  47  C.  F.  R.    90.89  (1986). 
 17  Transfer  Petition  at  5. 
 18  AMTA/  ATA  Reply  Comments  at  5-  6. 
 19  The  PLMR  spectrum  below  512  MHz  comprises  PLMR  services  within  the  150-  174  MHz,  421-  430  MHz,  450- 
 470  MHz,  and  470-  512  MHz  bands. 
 20  Replacement  of  Part  90  by  Part  88  to  Revise  the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services  and  Modify  the  Policies 

 Governing  Them,  Second  Report  and  Order,  PR  Docket  No.  92-  235,  12  FCC  Rcd  14307,  14318    20  (1997) 
 (Refarming  Second  Report  and  Order). 

 21  Id.  at  14325    33,  14328    40. 

 22  Id.  at  14322    27.  The  I/  B  Pool  frequency  coordinators  are  as  follows:  United  Telecom  Council,  Petroleum 
 Frequency  Coordinating  Committee,  Association  of  American  Railroads,  American  Automobile  Association, 
 PCIA,  Central  Station  Alarm  Association,  Forest  Industries  Telecommunications,  MRFAC,  Alliance  of  Motion 
 Picture  and  Television  Producers,  ATA,  Newspaper  Association  of  America,  ITA,  International  Taxicab  and 
 Livery  Association,  Telephone  Maintenance  Frequency  Advisory  Committee. 

 23  Id.  at  14310    5. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1411 
 4 
 of  the  radio  service  in  which  it  was  certified.  24  Instead,  the  Commission  concluded  that  licensees  and 
 systems  within  the  consolidated  pools  were  sufficiently  similar  that  in-  pool  frequency  coordinators 
 possessed  the  ability  to  provide  frequency  coordination  recommendations  for  all  applicants  within  their 
 pool.  25  We  recognize  that  radio  communications  in  the  I/  B  Pool  generally  are  used  to  support  business 
 operations.  The  Commission  found  that  although  each  licensee  may  have  slightly  different  requirements 
 based  on  the  particular  business  it  operated,  the  majority  of  PLMR  communications  systems  are  used  for 
 support  of  day-  to-  day  business  activities.  26  Further,  it  noted  that  even  when  businesses  use  their  radio 
 stations  for  emergencies,  such  emergencies  are  fundamentally  similar  and  can  be  easily  accommodated  by 
 any  frequency  coordinator.  27 

 6.  In  the  Refarming  Second  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  also  stated  that  as  a  direct  result 
 of  permitting  any  in-  pool  coordinators  to  coordinate  any  frequency  in  the  I/  B  Pool,  further  competition 
 would  be  introduced  into  the  frequency  coordination  process.  28  The  Commission  believed  that  this  action 
 would  result  in  lower  frequency  coordination  costs  and  better  service  to  the  public.  29  It  concluded  that 
 market  forces  would  reduce  the  time  it  takes  to  obtain  frequency  coordination,  thereby  permitting  users  to 
 commence  their  communications  operations  more  rapidly.  30  In  addition,  the  Commission  anticipated  that 
 competing  frequency  coordinators  in  the  bands  below  512  MHz  would  minimize,  if  not  eliminate,  market 
 entry  barriers  for  small  businesses.  31 

 III.  DISCUSSION 
 7.  Procedural  issues.  Before  we  reach  the  merits  of  the  request  filed  by  AMTA  and  ATA,  we 
 must  address  certain  procedural  issues  raised  in  this  proceeding.  Initially,  we  must  determine  whether  the 
 matter  of  transferring  a  FAC  certification  is  a  matter  that  can  be  resolved  on  a  delegated  basis  or  must  be 
 referred  to  the  Commission.  If  we  decide  that  the  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  (WTB  or  Bureau) 
 is  the  proper  forum  for  these  issues,  we  must  then  determine  whether  transfer  of  a  FAC  certification  is  an 
 appropriate  procedure  for  the  AMTA/  ATA  request. 

 8.  The  majority  of  commenters  favor  referring  the  matter  to  the  Commission  for  resolution  in  a 
 rulemaking  proceeding  because  PLMR  frequency  coordinator  certifications  have  always  been  done  by 
 rulemaking,  32  and  because  this  matter  involves  broad  policy  implications.  33  These  parties  suggest  that  a 

 24  Id.  at  14325-  26    34. 

 25  Id. 
 26  Id.  at  14328    40. 
 27  Id. 
 28  Id. 
 29  Id. 
 30  Id. 
 31  Id. 
 32  MRFAC  Comments  at  2,  PCIA  Comments  at  2-  3,  ITA  Comments  at  3-  4,  FIT  Reply  Comments  at  2. 
 33  UTC  Reply  Comments  at  1-  2,  FIT  Reply  Comments  at  1. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1411 
 5 
 rulemaking  proceeding  will  permit  the  development  of  a  full  record  in  the  determination  of  whether  AMTA 
 should  be  certified  as  a  FAC.  34  AMTA  and  ATA,  on  the  other  hand,  argue  that  the  language  of  Section 
 0.131(  m)  permits  the  Bureau  to  proceed  in  this  matter  under  delegated  authority.  35 

 9.  We  agree  with  AMTA  and  ATA  36  that  the  Commission  has  delegated  to  the  Bureau  authority 
 to  certify  frequency  coordinators,  and  handle  related  matters,  under  Sections  0.131(  m)  and  0.331  of  the 
 Commissions  Rules.  Specifically,  Section  0.131(  m)  lists  Certifies  frequency  coordinators;  considers 
 petitions  seeking  review  of  coordinator  actions;  and  engages  in  oversight  of  coordinator  actions  and 
 practices  as  Bureau  functions.  37  In  this  regard,  we  note  that  Section  0.331  delegates  authority  to  perform 
 all  Bureau  functions,  described  in    0.131,  subject  to  certain  exceptions  and  limitations.  38  The  exceptions 
 and  limitations  include  new  or  novel  questions  of  law  or  policy  which  cannot  be  resolved  under 
 outstanding  Commission  precedents  or  guidelines.  39  Given  the  history  described  above  regarding 
 certification  of  PLMR  frequency  coordinators,  we  do  not  believe  that  the  instant  matter  constitutes  a  new 
 or  novel  question  of  law  or  policy  that  cannot  be  resolved  under  outstanding  Commission  precedents  and 
 guidelines.  The  Commission  recently  stated  that  the  Bureau  has  delegated  authority  to  select  FACs  in  the 
 services  it  administers.  40  Further,  during  the  past  few  months,  the  Bureau  certified  a  FAC  for  the  Wireless 
 Medical  Telemetry  Service  41  and  certified  UTC,  PCIA  and  MRFAC  as  FACs  for  the  800  MHz  and  900 
 MHz  Business  and  I/  LT  frequencies.  42 

 10.  With  respect  to  the  second  procedural  issue,  i.  e.,  whether  a  FAC  certification  can  be 
 transferred,  we  disagree  with  AMTA  and  ATA  43  that  the  Commissions  rules  permit  the  transfer  of  a  FAC. 
 We  note,  as  an  initial  matter,  that  there  is  no  authorization  in  the  Commission's  rules  and  regulations  for 
 such  a  transfer.  44  Notably,  neither  ATA  nor  AMTA  cite  any  Commission  precedent  that  contemplates  or 
 authorizes  the  transfer  of  an  existing  coordinator  certification.  Moreover,  since  each  entity  must  show  that 

 34  MRFAC  Comments  at  2,  PCIA  Comments  at  2-  3,  ITA  Comments  at  3-  4,  FIT  Reply  Comments  at  2. 
 35  Id. 
 36  Transfer  Petition  at  4-  5,  AMTA/  ATA  Reply  Comments  at  1-  2,  11. 
 37  47  C.  F.  R.    0.131(  m). 
 38  47  C.  F.  R.    0.331. 
 39  47  C.  F.  R.    0.331(  a)(  2). 
 40  Amendment  of  Parts  2  and  95  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Create  a  Wireless  Medical  Telemetry  Service, 
 Report  and  Order,  ET  Docket  No.  99-  255,  15  FCC  Rcd  11206,  11218    36  (2000). 
 41  Amendment  of  Parts  2  and  95  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Create  a  Wireless  Medical  Telemetry  Service, 

 Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  4543  (WTB  PSPWD  2001). 
 42  In  the  Matter  of  United  Telecom  Council,  Informal  Request  for  Certifications  as  a  Frequency  Coordinator  in 

 the  PLMR  800  MHz  and  900  MHz  Bands,  Order,  DA  01-  944,  (WTB  PSPWD,  released  April  18,  2001)  (UTC 
 Order). 

 43  AMTA/  ATA  Reply  Comments  at  1-  2. 

 44  See  47  CFR    90.175. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1411 
 6 
 it  meets  the  Commissions  qualifications  for  frequency  coordinators  before  it  is  certified,  we  do  not  believe 
 it  would  be  appropriate  to  allow  a  certification  to  be  transferred.  Further,  in  light  of  the  Commissions 
 consolidation  of  the  PLMR  services  below  512  MHz,  there  is  no  longer  a  de  facto  limit  on  the  number  of 
 entities  that  can  be  certified  as  frequency  coordinators,  based  on  representation  of  certain  types  of  users, 
 there  is  no  need  to  transfer  an  existing  certification.  We  agree  with  ITA  that  if  a  FAC  is  no  longer 
 interested  in  providing  frequency  coordination,  the  appropriate  course  of  action  for  the  FAC  is  to  request 
 that  the  Commission  terminate  its  certification.  45  If  another  entity  is  interested  in  providing  frequency 
 coordination  and  wishes  to  be  certified,  that  entity  should  independently  request  certification  as  a  frequency 
 coordinator.  46  While  we  agree  with  commenters  who  submit  that  that  transfer  of  a  frequency  coordinator 
 certification  is  unauthorized,  47  we  disagree  with  ITAs  suggestion  that  (1)  the  Transfer  Petition  be 
 dismissed,  (2)  the  ATA  certification  be  terminated  and  (3)  AMTA  be  required  to  file  a  new  petition  for 
 certification.  48  We  believe  that  such  course  of  action  would  cause  a  needless  expenditure  of  time  and  the 
 Commissions  resources  with  no  resulting  significant  benefit.  Rather,  we  will  consider  the  Transfer 
 Petition  as  a  consolidated  request  seeking  both  the  cancellation  of  ATAs  certification  and  the  certification 
 of  AMTA  as  a  frequency  coordinator  for  the  I/  B  Pool  of  PLMR  frequencies  below  512  MHz.  49 

 11.  Merits  of  the  Requests.  As  indicated  above,  in  1997,  as  part  of  a  broad  review  of  the  PLMR 
 services  below  512  MHz,  the  Commission  concluded  that  it  would  be  in  the  public  interest  to  permit  more 
 than  one  entity  to  coordinate  frequencies  in  the  I/  B  Pool.  50  Our  experience  since  then  indicates  that  the 
 introduction  of  competitive  PLMR  coordination  generally  has  been  successful.  Frequency  coordinator 
 competition  in  this  spectrum  continues  to  be  both  desirable  and  feasible.  In  fact,  promotion  of  such 
 competition  was  extended  to  the  800  MHz  and  900  MHz  Business  and  Industrial/  Land  Transportation 
 categories.  51  Therefore,  in  furtherance  of  a  competitive  marketplace  in  frequency  coordinations,  we  find 
 that  it  is  in  the  public  interest  to  consider  whether  AMTA  is  qualified  to  be  a  certified  frequency 
 coordinator  for  the  I/  B  Pool  of  PLMR  frequencies  below  512  MHz. 

 12.  The  criteria  the  Commission  established  in  1986  for  PLMR  frequency  coordination 
 certification  were  (a)  representativeness  of  the  users  of  the  frequencies  to  be  coordinated,  (b)  the  entitys 
 overall  coordination  plan  (including  how  recommendations  would  be  made  and  equality  of  applicant 
 treatment),  (c)  the  entitys  experience  coordinating  frequencies  in  the  service  or  technical  expertise,  and  (d) 
 its  nationwide  coordination  capability.  52  For  the  reasons  stated  below,  we  conclude  that,  based  upon  our 

 45  ITA  Comments  at  2. 

 46  Id. 
 47  PCIA  Comments  at  3,  ITA  Comments  at  2. 
 48  ITA  Comments  at  3. 
 49  We  decline  to  expand  the  scope  of  this  proceeding  to  revisit  the  question  of  FAC  certification  qualifications,  as 
 requested  by  ITA.  See  ITA  Comments  at  1.  We  believe  that  this  issue  goes  beyond  the  question  of  whether 
 AMTA  meets  the  established  requirements  to  be  a  certified  FAC  for  the  PLMR  frequencies  below  512  MHz  and, 
 thus,  we  will  not  consider  it  in  the  instant  action. 

 50  Refarming  Second  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  14328    40. 

 51  See  supra  note  43. 
 52  Frequency  Coordination  Report  and  Order,  103  FCC  2d  at  1126    70. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1411 
 7 
 evaluation  of  each  of  those  factors,  AMTA  has  demonstrated  that  it  is  qualified  to  act  as  a  frequency 
 coordinator  for  the  PLMR  frequencies  below  512  MHz. 

 13.  With  respect  to  the  first  factor,  our  evaluation  of  AMTAs  qualifications  takes  place  in  a 
 milieu  of  competitive  coordination,  rather  than  in  the  1986,  when  only  a  single  FAC  was  certified  for  each 
 radio  service.  At  that  time,  when  competing  coordinators  were  compared  with  each  other,  only  one  could 
 be  selected  as  the  certified  FAC.  Currently,  we  believe  that  an  entity  seeking  certification  needs  only  to  be 
 qualified  as  a  frequency  coordinator  without  needing  to  be  compared  with  other  candidates.  AMTA  has 
 been  a  trade  association  representing  Part  90  PLMR  eligibles  for  fifteen  years.  53  Many  of  its  members  use 
 the  services  of  frequency  coordinators  in  order  to  obtain  the  spectrum  they  utilize  to  operate  their 
 communications  systems.  54  Other  AMTA  members  provide  licensing,  system  management,  and  similar 
 services  to  PLMR  users  operating  internal  communications  systems,  while  additional  members  act  as  the 
 interface  between  coordinators  and  licensees.  55  Contrary  to  the  views  of  APCO,  ITA  and  UTC,  56  we  do 
 not  believe  that  each  certified  frequency  coordinator  should  be  required  to  represent  a  specific  segment  of 
 eligible  licensees  in  the  PLMR  service.  As  Electrocom  indicates,  a  FAC  need  not  be  representative  of  a 
 discrete  and  insular  minority,  but  ideally  should  be  representative  of  all  eligible  users.  57  Indeed,  PCIA,  a 
 current  frequency  coordinator,  describes  itself  as  an  international  trade  organization  representing  the 
 interests  of  both  commercial  and  private  users  and  businesses  involved  in  all  facets  of  the  personal 
 communications  industry.  58  We  believe  the  argument  that  each  frequency  coordinator  must  represent  a 
 specific  subset  of  licensees  is  particularly  inappropriate  in  the  context  of  the  current  regulatory  regime 
 because  the  twenty  specific  PLMR  services  (including  the  Motor  Carrier  Radio  Service)  have  been 
 consolidated  into  two  pools  -  -  Public  Safety  and  I/  B.  Thus,  we  conclude  that  an  entity  seeking  certification 
 as  a  frequency  coordinator  for  the  I/  B  Pool  of  PLMR  frequencies  below  512  MHz  must  show  that  it  is 
 generally  representative  of  users  eligible  to  be  licensed  for  that  spectrum.  Based  on  our  review  of  the 
 record  in  this  proceeding,  we  find  that  AMTA  meets  this  criterion. 

 14.  AMTA  has  also  demonstrated  that  it  has  a  satisfactory  coordination  plan.  In  the  context  of 
 this  proceeding  AMTA  has  represented  that  it  plans  to  have  an  experienced  engineering  firm  perform  the 
 technical  analyses  needed  to  provide  state-  of-  the-  art  frequency  recommendations.  59  Contrary  to  PCIAs 
 and  FITs  assertion,  we  do  not  believe  that  the  decision  to  contract  out  certain  engineering  services  to  an 
 outside  firm  is  an  abrogation  of  a  FACs  responsibilities.  60  In  this  connection,  we  note  that  the 
 Commission  has  not  expressly  required  certified  frequency  coordinators  to  perform  all  aspects  of  the 
 coordination  function  employing  in-  house  resources.  Indeed,  we  note  that  some  existing  certified  frequency 

 53  Id.  at  5. 
 54  AMTA/  ATA  Reply  Comments  at  ii. 
 55  Id. 
 56  APCO  Comments  at  2,  ITA  Comments  at  1,  UTC  Reply  Comments  at  1. 
 57  Electrocom  Comments  at  4. 
 58  PCIA  Comments  at  1  n.  1. 
 59  AMTA/  ATA  Reply  Comments  at  8. 
 60  PCIA  Comments  at  4-  5,  FIT  Reply  Comments  at  4. 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1411 
 8 
 coordinators  use  outside  engineering  firms  to  perform  technical  analyses.  61  While  PCIA  argues  that  the 
 Commission  must  analyze  the  relationship  between  AMTA  and  its  engineering  contractor,  62  we  do  not  feel 
 that  such  examination  is  required  at  this  juncture.  In  this  regard,  we  note  that  the  Commission  has  not 
 investigated  the  relationship  between  other  FACs  and  the  engineering  consultants  they  use.  PCIA  has  also 
 failed  to  provide  any  specific  evidence  that  the  engineering  contractor,  as  opposed  to  AMTA,  will  have 
 ultimate  control  over  the  frequency  coordination  process.  We  agree  with  AMTA  that  it  is  more  appropriate 
 for  a  FAC  to  use  contractors  to  perform  the  sophisticated  technical  analysis  that  is  often  required  with  Part 
 90  coordination  recommendations  than  to  approve  applications  without  adequate  technical  review.  63 

 15.  We  also  conclude  that  AMTA  has  shown  that  it  will  utilize  sufficient  technical  experience  to 
 ensure  that  it  performs  accurate  frequency  coordinations.  To  ensure  technical  expertise,  AMTA  proposes 
 to  utilize  experienced  engineers  who  will  use  software  and  personnel  adept  in  the  frequency  coordination 
 process.  64  AMTAs  initial  coordinating  staff  collectively  has  approximately  forty  years  of  coordination 
 experience,  and  one  staff  member  will  be  a  person  that  was  primarily  involved  in  ATAs  frequency 
 coordination  operations.  65  AMTA  states  that  Part  90  coordination  recommendations  require  sophisticated 
 analyses  to  permit  more  intensive  spectrum  utilization  while  protecting  incumbents  from  harmful 
 interference.  66  AMTA  states  that  these  analyses  are  technically  and  economically  possible  through 
 improvements  in  database  availability  and  automated  engineering  techniques.  67  In  AMTAs  opinion,  the 
 most  significant  change  in  the  performance  of  frequency  coordination  is  the  Commissions  creation  of  a 
 publicly  available  database  of  licensee  and  applicant  information.  68  In  view  of  the  consolidation  of  the 
 radio  services  into  pools  and  the  readily  available  online  application  and  licensing  information,  AMTA 
 asserts,  engineering  and  technical  expertise  has  assumed  the  predominant  role  in  providing  top-  quality 
 frequency  coordination  services.  69  AMTA  believes  that  its  arrangement  will  provide  an  enviable  level  of 
 expertise.  70  We  note  that  none  of  the  commenting  parties  has  argued  that  AMTA  will  have  insufficient 
 technical  expertise  available  to  it. 

 16.  Finally,  we  conclude  that  AMTA  will  have  nationwide  coordination  capability.  In  evaluating 
 this  factor,  the  Commission  has  looked  at  the  availability  of  a  nationwide  database  of  users  and  whether 
 that  database  was  automated.  71  Since  the  Commission  now  has  a  publicly  available  licensing  database,  and 

 61  PCIA  Comments  at  5  n.  14,  AMTA/  ATA  Reply  Comments  at  8-  9  n.  16. 

 62  PCIA  Comments  at  4-  5. 
 63  AMTA/  ATA  Reply  Comments  at  9. 
 64  Id. 
 65  Id. 
 66  Transfer  Petition  at  5. 
 67  Id. 
 68  Id. 
 69  Id.  at  6. 
 70  AMTA/  ATA  Reply  Comments  at  9. 
 71  Frequency  Coordination  Report  and  Order,  103  FCC  2d  at  1126    70. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1411 
 9 
 since  AMTA  intends  to  use  that  database,  we  see  no  reason  to  question  AMTAs  ability  to  provide 
 coordination  services  throughout  the  nation.  We  again  note  that  none  of  the  commenting  parties  has 
 presented  evidence  to  the  contrary. 

 17.  MRFAC,  however,  argues  that  AMTA  is  not  qualified  to  be  a  FAC  because  of  various 
 positions  AMTA  has  taken  in  proceedings  before  the  Commission.  72  Contrary  to  MRFACs  contention,  we 
 do  not  believe  that  AMTAs  positions  on  various  land  mobile  radio  matters  should  disqualify  AMTA  from 
 becoming  certified  FAC.  73  We  agree  with  AMTA  that  such  disagreements  are  not  germane  to  the  question 
 of  certification.  74  We  also  note  that  Coordinators  often  differ  on  the  regulatory  positions  they  advance. 
 Further,  we  have  not  found  such  disagreements  to  be  determinative  of  whether  an  entity  is  qualified  to  meet 
 the  responsibilities  of  making  frequency  recommendations.  In  its  request,  AMTA  emphasizes  that  as  a  FAC 
 it  will  cooperate  with  other  frequency  coordinators  and  will  abide  by  consensus  policies  and  procedures 
 governing  coordination.  75  As  a  frequency  coordinator,  AMTA  will  be  required  to  comply  with  the  rules 
 governing  FACs  and  the  consensus  policies  and  procedures  adopted  by  the  current  coordinators.  We  agree 
 with  Electrocom  that  AMTA  has  proved  its  qualifications,  76  as  well  as  its  bona  fides,  to  be  a  certified 
 coordinator.  Its  coordination  plan,  experience  in  land  mobile  matters,  provisions  for  attaining  technical 
 expertise,  and  current  capabilities  to  function  as  a  competent  nationwide  coordinator,  as  well  as  its 
 representativeness,  warrant  AMTAs  certification  as  a  FAC.  We  have  every  expectation  that  AMTAs 
 introduction  into  the  FAC  community  will  enhance  competition. 

 18.  In  addition,  we  grant  ATAs  request  to  discontinue  its  frequency  coordination  services  to 
 eligibles  in  the  I/  B  Pool  of  PLMR  frequencies  below  512  MHz.  77  When  a  frequency  coordinator  no  longer 
 wishes  to  function  as  such,  or  is  not  performing  its  duties  in  a  manner  consistent  with  the  public  interest 
 obligations  set  by  the  Commission,  it  is  appropriate  to  seek  decertification  of  that  entity.  78  We  find  that 
 ATAs  request  fits  into  the  first  category;  it  wishes  to  discontinue  its  services  as  a  frequency  coordinator. 
 ATA  has  not  pursued  coordination  business  actively  for  some  time.  79  As  its  members  are  not  seeking 
 PLMR  licensing,  ATA  wishes  to  eliminate  the  legal  responsibilities  of  certification.  80  These  responsibilities 
 include,  but  are  not  limited  to,  providing  coordination  of  frequencies  on  a  non-  discriminatory  basis, 
 reviewing  the  license  application  form  for  completeness  and  correctness,  filing  coordinated  applications 
 with  the  Commission,  handling  post-  licensing  conflicts  involving  frequency  selection,  recommending  the 
 most  appropriate  frequency,  establishing  a  single  point  of  contact  nationally,  and  facilitating  the  use  of  new 

 72  MRFAC  Comments  at  2-  3. 
 73  See  MRFAC  Comments  at  2. 
 74  AMTA/  ATA  Reply  Comments  at  7. 
 75  Transfer  Petition  at  6. 
 76  Electrocom  Comments  at  2-  3. 
 77  Transfer  Petition  at  1. 
 78  Frequency  Coordination  Report  and  Order,  103  FCC  Rcd  at  1155-  56    127. 
 79  Transfer  Petition  at  6. 
 80  Id. 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1411 
 10 
 technologies.  81  Since  seeking  FAC  certification  was  a  voluntary  undertaking,  and  ATA  has  properly 
 sought  decertification,  we  grant  its  request.  We  believe  that  ATAs  removal  from  these  fundamental 
 obligations  will  not  unduly  hamper  the  competitive  offerings  of  frequency  coordination  services,  especially 
 in  light  of  our  grant  of  AMTAs  request  for  FAC  certification.  In  order  to  provide  a  transition  to  ATAs 
 customers,  we  will  accept  for  filing  applications  coordinated  by  ATA  within  ten  days  after  the  release  date 
 of  this  order,  and  ATA  will  remain  responsible  for  performing  the  coordination  functions  with  respect  to 
 those  applications  while  they  remain  pending  at  the  Commission. 

 IV.  CONCLUSION 
 19.  After  careful  consideration  of  the  information  before  us,  we  are  persuaded  that  AMTA  has  the 
 qualifications  necessary  to  follow  the  rules  and  regulations  in  performing  frequency  coordination  for  the  I/  B 
 Pool  of  PLMR  frequencies  below  512  MHz.  82  We  are  hereby  certifying  AMTA  as  a  FAC  for  the  subject 
 frequencies.  We  believe  that  this  action  will  further  enhance  competition  within  the  PLMR  frequency 
 coordination  process  and  thus  serve  the  public  interest.  Finally,  as  ATA  no  longer  considers  itself 
 representative  of  the  PLMR  community  and  wishes  to  cease  its  FAC  functions,  we  will  grant  its 
 decertification  request. 

 V.  ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 20.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Section  4  (i)  of  the  Communications  Act  of 
 1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  and  Section  1.41  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    1.41,  the 
 Request  for  Transfer  filed  by  the  American  Mobile  Telecommunications  Association,  Inc.,  and  the 
 American  Trucking  Associations,  Inc.,  on  July  13,  2000  IS  GRANTED  to  the  extent  indicated  above  and 
 DENIED  in  all  other  respects. 

 21.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  American  Mobile  Telecommunications  Association, 
 Inc.  IS  CERTIFIED  to  provide  frequency  coordination  services  for  the  I/  B  Pool  of  private  land  mobile 
 radio  frequencies  below  512  MHz. 

 22.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  American  Trucking  Associations,  Inc.,  IS 
 DECERTIFIED  as  a  frequency  coordinator  for  the  I/  B  Pool  of  private  land  mobile  radio  frequencies  below 
 512  MHz. 

 81  Frequency  Coordination  Report  and  Order,  103  FCC  Rcd  at  1119    53. 
 82  We  remind  AMTA  that  it  must  obtain  prior  written  consent  from  another  coordinator  if  it  proposes  to 
 coordinate  an  application  for  the  frequencies  described  in  47  C.  F.  R.    90.35(  b)(  2)(  i).  AMTA  must  also  obtain 
 concurrence  from  the  appropriate  industry-  specific  coordinator  if  the  stations  proposed  interference  contour 
 would  overlap  the  service  contour  of  a  station  on  a  frequency  formerly  shared  prior  to  radio  service  consolidation 
 by  licensees  in  the  Manufacturers  Radio  Service,  the  Forest  Products  Radio  Service,  the  Power  Radio  Service,  the 
 Petroleum  Radio  Service,  the  Motor  Carrier  Radio  Service,  the  Railroad  Radio  Service  or  the  Automobile 
 Emergency  Radio  Service.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    90.35(  b)(  2)(  ii). 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1411 
 11 
 23.  This  action  is  taken  under  delegated  authority  pursuant  to  Sections  0.131  and  0.331  of  the 
 Commissions  Rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    0.131,  0.331. 

 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 

 D'wana  R.  Terry  Chief,  Public  Safety  and  Private  Wireless  Division 
 Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau 
11