*Pages 1--91 from  Microsoft Word - 15723*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554
 In  the  Matter  of  )  )
 Amendment  of  the  Commission's  Rules  )  WT  Docket  No.  97-  81  Regarding  Multiple  Address  Systems  )
 REPORT  AND  ORDER
 Adopted:  December  30,  1999  Released:  January  19,  2000
 By  the  Commission:
 TABLE  OF  CONTENTS
 Paragraph
 I.  INTRODUCTION  1
 II.  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY  2
 III.  BACKGROUND  4
 IV.  DISCUSSION  8
 A.  Commissions  Authority  to  Employ  Competitive  Bidding  Procedures  8  B.  Spectrum  Allotment  16
 1.  Treatment  of  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  Bands  18  2.  Treatment  of  the  928/  959  MHz  Bands  24
 3.  Treatment  of  the  932/  941  MHz  Bands  28  A.  Frequency  Set-  Aside  for  Government  and  Public  Safety  32
 Entities  B.  Channeling  Plan  39
 C.  MAS  Licensing  Approach  44  1.  The  928/  952/  956  MHz  Bands  44
 2.  The  928/  959  MHz  Bands  46  3.  The  932/  941  MHz  Bands  49
 D.  Treatment  of  Incumbent  Licensees  54  E.  Service  Area  63
 F.  Geographic  Area  Licensing  69  G.  Spectrum  Cap  and  Aggregation  72
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 2
 H.  Partitioning  and  Disaggregation  78  1.  Partitioning  and  Disaggregation  Framework  78
 2.  Combined  Partitioning  and  Disaggregation  87  I.  Mexican  and  Canadian  Border  Areas  89
 J.  Construction/  Coverage  Requirements  91  K.  Technical  Flexibility  97
 L.  Operational  Flexibility  101  M.  Regulatory  Status  106
 N.  Suspension  of  Acceptance  and  Processing  of  Applications  109  O.  Competitive  Bidding  Provisions  116
 V.  PROCEDURAL  MATTERS  128  A.  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act  128
 B.  Final  Paperwork  Reduction  Act  of  1995  Analysis  129  C.  Further  Information  130
 VI.  ORDERING  CLAUSES  131
 Appendix  A:  Commenters  and  Reply  Commenters  Appendix  B:  Final  Rules
 Appendix  C:  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  Appendix  D:  Recovered  Channels
 Appendix  E:  Pending  MAS  Applications  Appendix  F:  Pending  MAS  Petitions  and  Waiver  Requests
 I.  INTRODUCTION
 1.  In  this  Report  and  Order,  we  adopt  rules  to  maximize  the  use  of  spectrum  designated  for  Multiple  Address  Systems  (MAS)  in  the  Fixed  Microwave  Services.  MAS  is  a  point-  to-  multipoint,
 multipoint-  to-  point  radio  communications  service  that  consists  of  3.  2  megahertz  (MHz)  of  electromagnetic  spectrum  in  the  900  MHz  band  and  is  licensed  under  Parts  22  and  101  of  our  Rules.
 We  believe  that  our  decisions  will:  (1)  establish  a  flexible  regulatory  framework  for  MAS  spectrum  that  provides  opportunities  for  continued  development  of  competitive  service  offerings  by  allowing  a
 variety  of  services;  (2)  expedite  market  entry  through  modified  licensing  procedures;  and  (3)  promote  technological  innovation  by  eliminating  unnecessary  regulatory  burdens.  We  further  believe  that  the
 rules  we  adopt  herein  will  facilitate  the  further  development  and  implementation  of  MAS.  Our  decision  today  will  ensure  that  MAS  spectrum  is  utilized  to  its  fullest  potential  by  providing  licensees
 with  additional  flexibility  to  support  current  uses  and  foster  the  development  of  future  MAS  applications.  We  also  lift  the  suspension  on  the  acceptance  of  applications  for  certain  MAS
 frequencies,  consistent  with  our  decision  herein.
 II.  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY
 2.  The  following  is  a  summary  of  the  major  actions  taken  with  respect  to  MAS.  In  this  Report  and  Order,  we:
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 3
   Designate  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  exclusively  for  private  internal  services,  licensed  on  a  site-  by-  site  basis.
   License  the  928/  959  MHz  bands  on  a  geographic  area  basis.
   License  twenty  of  the  forty  paired  channels  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  on  a  geographic  area  basis.
   Reserve  twenty  of  the  forty  channel  pairs  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  for  public  safety/  Federal  Government  and  private  internal  services,  licensed  on  a  first-  come,  first-served,
 site-  by-  site  basis.  Designate  five  of  the  twenty  channels  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  set-  aside  exclusively  for  public  safety/  Federal  Government  services.
   Grandfather  existing  operations  on  the  MAS  bands  and  restrict  expansion  in  the  928/  959  MHz  bands.
   Establish  service  areas  based  on  the  Federal  Communications  Commission's  definition  of  Economic  Areas  (EAs)  and  on  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Commerce's  definition  of  EAs.
   Establish  construction/  coverage  requirements  for  EA  licensees  --  specifically,  coverage  to  at  least  one-  fifth  of  the  population  in  their  service  areas  or  substantial  service  within  five
 years  of  the  license  grant  --  and  a  showing  of  substantial  service  within  ten  years  of  being  licensed.
   Introduce  flexibility  to  the  MAS  technical  rules.
   Allow  licensees  to  provide  mobile  and  fixed  operations  on  a  co-  primary  basis  for  point-to-  point  and  point-  to-  multipoint  operations.
   Adopt  a  flexible  approach  for  defining  the  regulatory  status  of  MAS  licensees  by  allowing  the  licensee  to  indicate  its  regulatory  status.
   Lift  the  suspension  on  the  acceptance  of  applications  for  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  and  the  twenty  channels  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  designated  for  public  safety/  Federal
 Government  and/  or  private  internal  services  upon  the  release  of  this  Report  and  Order.
   Adopt  Part  1  competitive  bidding  rules  for  MAS  spectrum.
 3.  While  our  conclusions  are  designed  to  foster  MAS  service,  we  make  no  representations  or  warranties  about  the  use  of  this  spectrum  for  particular  services.  Applicants  should  be  aware  that  a
 Commission  auction  represents  an  opportunity  to  become  an  FCC  licensee  in  this  service,  subject  to  certain  conditions  and  regulations.  An  FCC  auction  does  not  constitute  an  endorsement  by  the
 Commission  of  any  particular  services,  technologies,  or  products,  nor  does  an  FCC  license  constitute  a  guarantee  of  business  success.
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 4
 III.  BACKGROUND
 4.  Historically,  MAS  spectrum  has  primarily  been  used  by  the  power,  petroleum,  and  security  industries  for  various  alarm,  control,  interrogation,  and  status  reporting  requirements,  and  by
 the  paging  industry  for  control  of  multiple  paging  transmitters  in  the  same  general  geographic  area.  1  In  a  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  released  on  February  27,  1997,  the  Commission  initiated  a
 comprehensive  examination  of  the  MAS  service.  2  The  Commission  sought  comment  in  assessing  the  current  and  potential  uses  to  which  MAS  spectrum  will  be  applied,  and  proposed  a  variety  of
 modifications  designed  to  streamline  MAS  licensing  procedures  to  better  accommodate  such  uses.  3  Additionally,  the  Commission  solicited  comment  on  spectrum  allotment  and  licensing  for  this  service.
 1  See  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  Multiple  Address  Systems,  WT  Docket  No.
 97-  81,  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  10744,  10746  (1999)  (Further  Notice);  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  Multiple  Address  Systems,  WT  Docket  No.  97-  81,
 Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  7973,  7976  (1997)  (Notice).  A  total  of  3.  2  MHz  of  spectrum  is  currently  designated  for  MAS.  This  spectrum  is  divided  into  three  general  categories:  (1)  the
 928/  952/  956  MHz  bands;  (2)  the  928/  959  MHz  bands;  and  (3)  the  932/  941  MHz  bands.
 By  way  of  background,  in  1981,  the  Commission  initially  designated  spectrum  for  MAS  by  allotting  twenty  25-  kilohertz  (kHz)  channel  pairs  in  the  928-  928.  85  MHz  and  952-  952.85  MHz  bands  (a  total  of  1  MHz).
 Subsequently,  the  Commission  designated  an  additional  fourteen  25  kHz  channel  pairs  in  these  bands  (a  total  of  700  kHz),  in  addition  to  eight  unpaired  25  kHz  channels  in  the  956.25-  956.45  MHz  bands  (a  total  of  200  kHz).
 Thus,  there  now  exists  1.  7  MHz  of  paired  spectrum  in  the  928/  952  MHz  bands  and  200  kHz  of  unpaired  spectrum  in  the  956  MHz  band.  This  spectrum,  which  contains  incumbent  licensees,  is  designated  for  private
 MAS  operations  and  may  be  used  for  common  carrier  operations  pursuant  to  certain  sharing  criteria.
 Additionally,  the  Commission  designated  six  25  kHz  channel  pairs  in  the  928.  85-  929  MHz  and  959.85-  960  MHz  bands  (928/  959  MHz  bands),  for  a  total  of  300  kHz.  These  channels  are  designated  for,  and
 used  primarily  by,  common  carrier  operations  under  Part  22  of  our  Rules  and  are  authorized  for  private  radio  use  on  a  co-  primary  basis,  pursuant  to  certain  sharing  criteria.  Later,  at  the  request  of  the  MAS  community,  the
 Commission  further  modified  the  rules  governing  MAS  operations  by  establishing  a  minimum  mileage  separation  between  co-  channel  master  stations  and  by  reducing  the  channel  spacing  from  25  kHz  to  12.  5  kHz,
 thereby,  increasing  spectrum  efficiency  and  reducing  regulatory  burdens  for  MAS  users.  These  bands  also  contain  incumbent  licensees.
 In  1989,  the  Commission  designated  one  MHz  of  paired  spectrum--  forty  12.  5  kHz  channels  pairs--  in  the  932.  0-  932.  5  MHz  and  941.0-  941.  5  MHz  bands  (932/  941  MHz  bands)  for  both  Federal  Government  and  non-Government
 point-  to-  multipoint  use.  The  Interdepartment  Radio  Advisory  Committee  (IRAC)  and  the  National  Telecommunications  and  Information  Administration  (NTIA)  coordinate  Government  and  non-  Government  use.
 See  Amendment  of  Parts  1,  21,  22,  74,  and  94  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Establish  Service  and  Technical  Rules  for  Government  and  Non-  Government  Fixed  Service  Usage  of  the  Frequency  Bands  932-  935  MHz  and
 941-  944  MHz,  GN  Docket  No.  82-  243,  Second  Report  and  Order,  4  FCC  Rcd  2012  (1989)  (932/  941  MHz  Second  Report  and  Order).  These  channels  can  be  used  by  common  carrier  and  private  radio  licensees  on  a  co-primary
 basis.  2
 See  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  7973.
 3  Id.
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 5
 It  also  sought  comment  on  proposals  that  would  increase  the  technical  and  operational  flexibility  of  MAS  licensees.  4
 5.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  proposed  to  designate  most  of  the  spectrum  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  and  all  of  the  spectrum  in  the  928/  959  MHz  bands  for  subscriber-  based  services,
 and  to  use  auctions  to  choose  among  mutually  exclusive  applications  for  licenses  in  these  bands.  5  The  Commission  also  proposed  to  designate  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  exclusively  for  private  internal
 use,  and  not  to  use  auctions  to  select  among  mutually  exclusive  applications  in  these  bands.  6  Additionally,  the  Commission  temporarily  suspended  the  acceptance  and  processing  of  MAS
 applications  for  new  licenses,  amendments,  or  modifications  for  the  932/  941  MHz  bands,  the  928/  959  MHz  bands,  and  applications  to  provide  subscriber-  based  service  in  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands
 pending  the  resolution  of  the  issues  in  the  proceeding.  7
 6.  On  August  5,  1997,  the  President  signed  the  Balanced  Budget  Act,  which,  inter  alia,  eliminated  the  Commissions  authority  to  issue  licenses  by  lottery  after  July  1,  1997,  with  the
 exception  of  licenses  or  permits  for  noncommercial  educational  radio  and  television  stations.  8  In  addition  to  eliminating  the  Commissions  lottery  authority,  Congress,  in  the  Balanced  Budget  Act,
 amended  Section  309(  j)  of  the  Communications  Act,  as  amended  (the  Communications  Act)  to  require  the  Commission,  with  limited  exceptions,  to  award  mutually  exclusive  licenses  using  competitive
 bidding  procedures.  9  Congress  highlighted  the  Commissions  responsibility  in  the  public  interest  to  utilize  among  other  things,  engineering  solutions,  negotiations,  threshold  qualifications  and  service
 regulations  to  avoid  mutual  exclusivity  among  applicants.  10
 7.  On  July  1,  1999,  we  released  a  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  11  and  sought  comment  on  the  impact  of  the  provisions  of  the  Balanced  Budget  Act  of  1997  on  spectrum  allocation
 and  the  licensing  proposals  initially  introduced  in  the  Notice.  12  Among  other  things,  the  Further
 4  Id.
 5  Id.  at  7997.
 6  Id.  at  7980.
 7  Id.  at  8003-  04.
 8  Pub.  L.  No.  105-  33,  Title  III  Stat.  251  (1997)  (Balanced  Budget  Act).
 9  Balanced  Budget  Act    3002(  a)(  1)(  A)(  1)-(  2);  47  U.  S.  C.    309(  j).  In  the  Conference  Report  that
 accompanies  this  legislation,  these  changes  are  characterized  as  providing  for  expanded  auction  authority.  H.  R.  Conf.  Rep.  No.  105-  217,  105  th  Cong.,  1  st  Sess.,  at  572  (Conference  Report).
 10  47  U.  S.  C.    309(  j)(  6)(  E).
 11  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  10744.
 12  We  have  initiated  a  proceeding  to  assess  the  impact  of  the  Balanced  Budget  Act  on  the
 (footnote  continued  on  next  page)
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 6
 Notice  examined  the  effect  of  the  Balanced  Budget  Act  on  the  proposals  in  the  Notice  to  allocate  the  932/  941  MHz  and  928/  959  MHz  bands  for  subscriber-  based  services  and  to  award  initial  licenses  for
 these  bands  through  competitive  bidding;  13  to  reserve  five  channel  pairs  in  the  932/  941  MHz  MAS  bands  for  Federal  Government/  public  safety  use;  14  and  to  reserve  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands
 exclusively  for  private,  internal  use  and  to  continue  to  issue  licenses  for  these  bands  on  a  site-  by-  site  basis.  15  The  Further  Notice  also  immediately  suspended  the  acceptance  and  processing  of  applications
 in  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands,  regardless  of  the  type  of  service  proposed  by  the  applicant,  with  certain  exceptions,  during  the  pendency  of  this  rule  making  proceeding.  16  By  providing  the  public  an
 opportunity  to  comment  on  the  changes  to  the  regulatory  framework  for  awarding  licenses  in  this  service,  we  were  able  to  develop  a  complete  record  in  order  to  resolve  all  of  the  outstanding  issues
 affecting  this  service.
 IV.  DISCUSSION
 A.  Commissions  Authority  to  Employ  Competitive  Bidding  Procedures
 8.  Background.  When  the  Commission  issued  the  Notice,  it  was  authorized  under  Section  309(  j)  of  the  Communications  Act  to  use  either  lotteries  or  auctions  to  resolve  mutually  exclusive
 applications.  As  a  result,  the  Commission  received  several  responses  commenting  on  the  issue  of  whether  the  Commission  should  award  licenses  for  MAS  spectrum  by  auction  or  lotteries.  However,
 as  a  result  of  the  Balanced  Budget  Act,  any  arguments  that  support  the  utilization  of  lotteries  to  award  mutually  exclusive  license  applications  are  now  moot.  17
 9.  Additionally,  the  Balanced  Budget  Act  amended  our  auction  authority  by  altering  the  criteria  for  determining  whether  or  not  applications  for  a  particular  service  or  class  of  frequencies  are
 subject  to  competitive  bidding.  Our  prior  auction  authority  was  limited  to  services  that  were  subscriber-  based.  The  current  language  of  Section  309(  j)(  1)  of  the  Communications  Act  provides:
 (1)  General  Authority.--  If,  consistent  with  the  obligations  described  in  paragraph  (6)(  E),  mutually  exclusive  applications  are  accepted  for  any  initial
 ___________________________________________________________________________________________  Commissions  determinations  of  which  services  are  now  auctionable.  Implementation  of  Sections  309(  j)  and
 337  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934  as  Amended,  Promotion  of  Spectrum  Efficient  Technologies  on  Certain  Part  90  Frequencies,  Establishment  of  Public  Service  Radio  Pool  in  the  Private  Mobile  Frequencies
 Below  800  MHz,  WT  Docket  99-  87,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  14  FCC  Rcd  5206  (1999)  (BBA  NPRM).
 13  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10746.
 14  Id.  Currently,  the  Commissions  licensing  database  indicates  that  these  bands  support  two  Federal
 Government  licensees  and  one  non-  Federal  Government  licensee.
 15  Id.
 16  Id.  at  10761.
 17  See  47  U.  S.  C.    309(  i)(  5).
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 7
 license  .  .  .  then,  except  as  provided  in  paragraph  (2),  the  Commission  shall  grant  the  license  .  .  .  to  a  qualified  applicant  through  a  system  of  competitive
 bidding.  18
 Paragraph  (2)  exempts  from  competitive  bidding  certain  classes  of  licenses,  including  licenses  for  public  safety  radio  services.  19
 10.  In  the  BBA  NPRM,  we  noted  our  obligation  to  resolve  mutually  exclusive  applications  to  provide  non-  exempt  services  via  competitive  bidding.  20  However,  we  also  recognized  our
 obligation  under  Section  309(  j)(  6)(  E)  of  the  Communications  Act  to  use  various  licensing  methods,  when  consistent  with  the  public  interest,  to  avoid  mutual  exclusivity.  21  Section  309(  j)(  6)(  E)  of  the
 Communications  Act  provides  that  the  competitive  bidding  language  of  Section  309(  j)(  1)  should  not  be  construed  to  relieve  the  Commission  of  the  obligation  in  the  public  interest  to  continue  to  use
 engineering  solutions,  negotiation,  threshold  qualifications,  service  regulations,  and  other  means  in  order  to  avoid  mutual  exclusivity  in  application  and  licensing  proceedings.  22
 11.  Discussion.  Because  of  these  significant  changes  in  our  auction  authority,  we  revisited  issues  relating  to  using  competitive  bidding  procedures  for  MAS  spectrum  in  the  Further  Notice.
 Consequently,  we  examined  how  the  Balanced  Budget  Act  affects  our  obligation  under  Section  309(  j)(  6)(  E).  Specifically,  we  sought  comment  on  whether  the  new  reference  to  this  section  in  the
 general  auction  authority  provision  affects  the  Commissions  tentative  conclusion  in  the  Notice  that  using  competitive  bidding  to  resolve  mutually  exclusive  applications  for  initial  MAS  licenses  is  in  the
 public  interest.
 12.  In  general,  the  commenters  assert  that  the  Commission  has  an  obligation  to  use  methods  that  would  mitigate  or  eliminate  the  possibility  of  mutual  exclusivity  among  applicants  before
 implementing  competitive  bidding  procedures.  23  Section  309(  j)(  6)(  E)  has  been  construed  to  give  the  Commission  broad  authority  to  create  or  avoid  mutual  exclusivity  in  licensing,  based  on  the
 18  47  U.  S.  C.    309(  j)(  1).
 19  47  U.  S.  C.    309(  j)(  2).  Public  Safety  Radio  Services  includes  private  internal  radio  services  used
 by  State  or  local  governments  and  non-  government  entities  and  including  emergency  road  services  provided  by  not-  for-  profit  organizations,  that    (i)  are  used  to  protect  the  safety  of  life,  health,  or  property;  and  (ii)  are  not
 made  commercially  available  to  the  public.
 20  BBA  NPRM,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  5220.
 21  See  id.
 22  47  U.  S.  C.    309(  j)(  6)(  E).
 23  See,  e.  g.,  CellNet  Comments  at  7-  8;  Commonwealth  Edison  Comments  at  4-  6;  Consolidated  Edison
 Comments  at  4-  6;  Northern  States  Power  Comments  at  4-  6;  Radscan  Comments  at  4;  South  Carolina  E&  G  Comments  at  4-  6;  Southern  Operating  Companies  Comments  at  4-  6;  CellNet  Reply  Comments  at  2;  GTECH
 Reply  Comments  at  5-  7;  PCIA  Reply  Comments  at  4-  6;  UTC  Reply  Comments  at  2.
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 8
 Commissions  assessment  of  the  public  interest.  In  DirecTV,  the  D.  C.  Circuit  stated  that  [  there  is]  nothing  in  309(  j)(  6)(  E)  that  requires  the  FCC  to  adhere  to  a  policy  it  deems  outmoded  in  order  to  avoid
 mutual  exclusivity  in  .  .  .  licensing  proceedings.  24  Thus,  we  believe  that  Section  309(  j)(  6)(  E)  allows  us  to  determine  the  licensing  approach  that  is  most  appropriate  for  the  services  being  offered,  taking
 into  account  the  dominant  use  of  the  spectrum,  administrative  efficiency  and  other  related  licensing  issues.
 13.  Although  Radscan  and  API  add  that  removing  or  altering  measures  that  currently  exist  to  avoid  mutual  exclusivity  to  ultimately  create  mutual  exclusivity  would  be  an  egregious  violation  of
 Section  309(  j),  25  we  have  the  discretion  to  balance  the  equities  involved  when  determining  licensing  approaches  for  the  various  MAS  bands.  Therefore,  we  continue  to  believe  that  our  approach  in  the
 Further  Notice,  where  we  examine  the  current  dominant  use  of  the  bands  to  make  a  determination  of  how  to  best  accommodate  future  licensees  and  current  licensees  with  minimum  disruption  to  their
 current  operations,  is  in  the  public  interest.  Accordingly,  we  will  utilize  this  approach  as  we  analyze  the  treatment  of  MAS  spectrum.
 14.  We  recognize  that  some  commenters  criticize  our  approach  to  devising  a  licensing  scheme  for  the  MAS  bands.  For  instance,  Adaptive  specifically  opposes  the  use  of  auctions  and
 geographic  area  licensing  and  states  that  our  efforts  to  examine  and  characterize  the  various  MAS  bands  according  to  the  current  dominant  use  of  the  bands  is  misguided.  26  However,  in  our
 experience,  we  have  found  that  examining  the  current  dominant  and/  or  historical  use  of  the  MAS  bands  to  be  in  the  public  interest  because  it  is  a  practical  approach  to  licensing  these  bands  and  enables
 us  to  designate  channels  to  accommodate  specific  purposes  and/  or  service  demands.  27  In  this  connection,  if  we  find  that  a  licensing  approach  based  on  geographic  area  licensing  serves  the  public
 interest,  we  have  the  authority  to  adopt  such  licensing  approach  even  though  it  could  generally  result  in  the  filing  of  mutually  exclusive  applications.  This  approach  to  licensing  is  consistent  with  other
 Commission  decisions  made  since  the  enactment  of  the  Balanced  Budget  Act.  28  Conversely,  we  may  find,  in  some  instances,  that  a  different  licensing  and  application  processing  approach  that  tends  to
 avoid  mutual  exclusivity    e.  g.,  site-  based,  first-  come,  first-  served  licensing    best  serves  the  public  interest.
 24  DIRECTV,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  110  F.  3d  816,  828  (D.  C.  Cir.  1997).
 25  Radscan  Comments  at  5;  API  Reply  Comments  at  3.
 26  Adaptive  Comments  at  2-  3;  Adaptive  Reply  Comments  at  2.
 27  It  is  important  to  note  that  MAS  spectrum  is  unique  because  both  private  internal  and  operations
 that  are  for-  profit  are  licensed  in  the  same  frequency  bands.  28
 See,  e.  g.,  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  the  37.  0-  38.6  GHz  and  38.  6-  40.0  GHz  Bands  and  Implementation  of  Section  309(  j)  of  the  Communications  Act    Competitive  Bidding,  37.  0-  38.  6
 GHz  and  38.  6-  40.  0  GHz  Bands,  PP  Docket  No.  93-  253,  14  FCC  Rcd  12428,  12441-  12445  (1999)  (39  GHz  MO&  O).  In  the  39  GHz  MO&  O,  we  determined  that  the  public  interest  would  be  better  served  by  using
 competitive  bidding  procedures  to  license  mutually  exclusive  applications  in  the  39  GHz  band.  Id.
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 9
 15.  As  a  result,  the  public  interest  is  furthered  by  licensing  MAS  spectrum  as  outlined  herein.  We  note,  however,  that  we  are  not  addressing  the  issue  of  which  services  are  auctionable  or
 contained  within  the  public  safety  radio  services  exemption  and  will  defer  this  discussion  to  the  BBA  NPRM  proceeding.  29
 B.  Spectrum  Allotment
 16.  Since  the  initial  allocation  of  MAS  spectrum,  the  Commission  has  recognized  that  various  industry  sectors  use  the  spectrum  to  meet  their  communications  needs.  For  instance,  licensees
 use  MAS  systems  to  satisfy  alarm,  control,  interrogation  and  status  reporting  requirements  for  various  industries.  In  addition,  the  paging  industry  uses  these  systems  to  control  multiple  paging  transmitters
 in  the  same  general  area.  The  Commissions  tentative  conclusions  in  the  Notice  attempted  to  continue  to  accommodate  the  varied  uses  of  MAS  spectrum.  In  the  context  of  this  proceeding,  we  have
 considered  the  past,  current  and  future  demands  for  MAS  spectrum  in  determining  the  most  efficient  and  effective  licensing  approach  for  the  spectrum.
 17.  Based  on  the  record  in  this  proceeding,  we  conclude  that  the  public  interest  would  be  furthered  by  a  licensing  approach  that  both  accommodates  past  and  present  uses  of  MAS  spectrum  and
 promotes  innovative  future  uses.  We  believe  that  our  decisions  herein  reflect  the  appropriate  balance  in  realizing  both  of  these  goals.  In  striking  this  balance,  we  considered  the  dominant  use  of  the
 spectrum  in  the  MAS  bands  that  have  already  been  licensed.  With  respect  to  the  932/  941  MHz  Band,  which  is  currently  unlicensed,  30  we  believe  that  the  public  interest  would  be  furthered  by  apportioning
 the  spectrum  between  the  uses  that  have  developed  in  the  other  two  MAS  bands.
 1.  Treatment  of  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  Bands
 18.  Background.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  indicated  that  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  are  used  overwhelmingly  for  private  systems  to  satisfy  internal  communications  needs.  31  At  that  time,
 the  Commission  estimated  that  about  seventy  percent  of  the  approximately  7,700  licenses  granted  use  of  this  spectrum  had  been  awarded  to  public  safety,  business,  or  industrial  entities  to  satisfy  internal
 communications  needs.  32  Hence,  the  Commission  tentatively  concluded  that  these  bands  should  be  designated  exclusively  for  private  internal  use.  33  The  Commission  indicated  that  under  this  approach,
 further  subscriber-  based  use  of  these  channels  by  future  licensees  would  be  prohibited.  34
 29  BBA  NPRM,  14  FCC  Rcd  5206.
 30  See  supra  at  note  14.
 31  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7980.
 32  Id.
 33  Id.
 34  Id.
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 10
 19.  Because  the  current  use  in  these  bands  may  have  shifted  since  our  last  assessment,  and  because  of  a  change  in  the  law,  35  we  sought  additional  comment  in  the  Further  Notice  on  the  level  of
 representation  of  public  safety  radio  services  as  defined  by  the  Balanced  Budget  Act  in  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands.  We  also  sought  comment  on  whether  to  allocate  these  bands  exclusively  for
 public  safety  radio  services.  36
 20.  Discussion.  We  find  that  private  internal  use  and  public  safety  constitute  the  dominant  use  of  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands.  37  Because  of  the  historical  use  for  these  bands  and  the  apparent
 need  for  some  site-  based  licensing  in  these  bands,  we  will  reserve  portions  of  the  MAS  spectrum  for  particular  uses  that  will  allow  the  immediate  licensing  of  spectrum.  Specifically,  we  will  reserve  the
 928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  for  private  internal  services.  We  define  private  internal  service  38  as  a  service  where  licensees  use  their  authorized  frequencies  purely  for  internal  business  purposes  or  public  safety
 communications  and  not  on  a  for-  hire  or  for-  profit  basis.  39
 21.  Several  commenters  indicate  that  the  majority  of  users  in  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  are  private  internal  users  40  and  therefore  request  that  we  reserve  a  substantial  amount  of  spectrum  for
 private  internal  use.  However,  other  commenters,  such  as  Commonwealth  Edison,  Comsearch,  Consolidated  Edison,  Corn  Belt  Power,  Northern  States  Power,  South  Carolina  E&  G  and  the  Southern
 Operating  Companies,  state  that  we  should  allocate  the  entire  928/  952/  956  MHz  Band  for  licensing  by  public  safety  radio  services,  and  exempt  these  services  from  auction  as  a  result  of  the  high  growth  rate
 of  MAS.  41  Although  some  commenters  argue  that  we  should  restrict  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  to
 35  Balanced  Budget  Act    3002(  a).
 36  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10756.
 37  See,  e.  g.,  API  Comments  at  7-  8;  Comsearch  Comments  at  2;  Corn  Belt  Power  Comments  at  3-  4;
 UTC  Comments  at  7;  APPA  Reply  Comments  at  4.
 38  In  other  rule  making  proceedings,  the  Commission  defined  private  internal  in  a  manner  that  may
 be  instructive  for  our  purposes.  See,  e.  g.,  Biennial  Regulatory  Review    Amendment  of  Parts  0,  1,  13,  22,  24,  26,  27,  80,  87,  90,  95,  97,  and  101  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Facilitate  the  Development  and  Use  of  the
 Universal  Licensing  System  in  the  Wireless  Telecommunications  Services,  Amendment  of  the  Amateur  Service  Rules  to  Authorize  Visiting  Foreign  Amateur  Operators  to  Operate  Stations  in  the  United  States,  WT  Docket
 Nos.  98-  20,  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  21027,  Appendix  C  (1998)  (Biennial  Regulatory  Review  Report  and  Order).
 39  Each  application  for  authorization  in  the  bands  designated  for  private  internal  use  must  include  a
 certification  stating  why  the  application  satisfies  the  definition  of  private  internal  use.
 40  See,  e.  g.,  API  Comments  at  7-  8;  Comsearch  Comments  at  2;  Corn  Belt  Power  Comments  at  3-  4;
 UTC  Comments  at  7;  APPA  Reply  Comments  at  4.
 41  Commonwealth  Edison  Comments  at  18;  Comsearch  Comments  at  2;  Consolidated  Edison
 Comments  at  18-  19;  Corn  Belt  Power  Cooperative  Comments  at  3-  4;  Northern  States  Power  Comments  at  18-  19;  South  Carolina  E&  G  Comments  at  18-  19;  Southern  Operating  Companies  Comments  at  18-  19.
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 11
 public  safety,  other  commenters  believe  that  such  a  restriction  may  create  a  significant  burden  on  incumbent  42  licensees  that  will  from  now  on  not  be  public  safety  users.  43  Because  we  intend  to
 grandfather  all  existing  operations  in  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands,  we  do  not  believe  that  our  actions  would  burden  incumbents  that  are  not  eligible  for  future  licensing  in  these  bands.
 22.  We  agree  that  the  demand  for  MAS  spectrum  has  evolved  over  the  past  decade  and  it  is  apparent  that  these  bands,  particularly  the  928/  952  MHz  bands,  have  become  increasingly  congested.  44
 We  recognize  that  in  the  39  GHz  and  Paging  proceedings,  45  we  implemented  geographic  area  licensing  schemes  for  this  spectrum.  We  note  that  these  services  are  different  from  MAS.  In  the  39  GHz
 context,  we  explicitly  defined  geographic  service  areas  instead  of  continuing  to  allow  the  licensee  to  define  its  geographic  area.  In  the  Paging  arena,  we  implemented  geographic  area  licensing  for  a
 mobile  service.  In  addition  to  MAS  being  a  fixed  service,  all  licensees  do  not  require  wide  area  coverage.  Accordingly,  we  designate  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  for  private  internal  services.  In  this
 connection,  all  non-  private  internal  use  applications  of  future  licensees  will  be  prohibited.  46  Additionally,  we  will  not  permit  licensees  in  these  bands  to  provide  service  to  others  on  a  non-  profit,
 cost-  shared  basis.
 23.  The  primary  current  channel  size  for  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  is  12.5  kHz.  In  light  of  our  decision  to  designate  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  for  private  internal  services,  and  the  fact  that
 this  band  is  highly  encumbered,  we  will  retain  our  current  channeling  plan,  awarding  licenses  on  a  first-  come,  first-  served,  site-  by-  site  licensing  approach.  We  believe  that  this  channel  licensing  plan  is
 particularly  well  suited  for  the  types  of  services  currently  offered  here,  as  well  as  for  new  applicants.
 2.  Treatment  of  the  928/  959  MHz  Bands
 42  Stations  that  were  licensed  in  the  MAS  bands  by  the  Commission  prior  to  July  1,  1999,  including
 any  transfers  and  assignments  of  these  stations  as  of  this  Report  and  Order  release  date,  shall  be  deemed  incumbent  operations.  See  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10761-  62.
 43  See,  e.  g.,  CellNet  Reply  Comments  at  11;  Radscan  Comments  at  3-  7;  Radscan  Reply  Comments  at
 1-  2.
 44  Commonwealth  Edison  Comments  at  18;  Comsearch  Comments  at  2;  Consolidated  Edison
 Comments  at  18-  19;  Corn  Belt  Power  Cooperative  Comments  at  3-  4;  Northern  States  Power  Comments  at  18-  19;  South  Carolina  E&  G  Comments  at  18-  19;  Southern  Operating  Companies  Comments  at  18-  19.
 45  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  the  37.0    38.  6  GHz  and  38.  6    40.0  GHz
 Bands,  ET  Docket  No.  95-  183,  Implementation  of  Section  309(  j)  of  the  Communications  Act    Competitive  Bidding,  37.  0    38.6  GHz  and  38.  6    40.  0  GHz  Bands,  PP  Docket  No.  93-  253,  Memorandum  Opinion  and
 Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  12428  (1999)  (39  GHz  Order);  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  22.
 46  Incumbent  operations  in  these  bands  will  be  grandfathered.  See  infra  at  paras.  55-  62  for  a  detailed
 discussion.
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 12
 24.  Background.  In  the  Notice,  we  tentatively  concluded  that  the  928/  959  MHz  bands  should  be  designated  for  subscriber-  based  services.  47  The  Part  22  commercial  mobile  radio  service
 (CMRS)  licensees  are  the  principal  users  of  the  928/  959  MHz  bands  to  control  their  wide-  area  paging  networks.  48
 25.  Discussion.  Currently,  the  primary  use  of  these  bands  appears  to  be  for-  profit  uses  that  have  wide-  area  applications.  Moreover,  we  are  confident  that  the  rules  in  this  Report  and  Order,
 introducing  increased  technical  and  operational  flexibility  in  the  MAS  bands,  would  further  heighten  interest,  including  fostering  the  resale  of  spectrum  to  subscribers.
 26.  We  agree  that  we  should  not  prohibit  licensees  from  using  this  spectrum  where  they  were  previously  allowed  to  do  so.  49  Additionally,  we  are  concerned  that  limiting  these  bands  to  a
 particular  type  of  service  could  unnecessarily  disrupt  incumbent  operations.  Therefore,  we  will  not  restrict  the  permissible  uses  or  eligibility  for  the  twelve  12.5  kHz  channels  in  the  928/  959  MHz
 bands.  50  However,  all  future  applicants  for  these  bands  will  be  subject  to  the  licensing  scheme  51  implemented  for  these  bands.
 27.  The  primary  current  channel  size  for  the  928/  959  MHz  bands  also  is  12.5  kHz,  although  a  small  number  of  channels  are  25  kHz.  We  will  award  licenses  on  the  basis  of  12.5  kHz  channels  for
 the  928/  959  MHz  bands.  Such  an  approach  follows  our  traditional  MAS  channeling  plans,  will  cause  the  least  disruption  to  incumbents,  and  will  allow  for  protection  of  new  geographic  area  licensees.
 3.  Treatment  of  the  932/  941  MHz  Bands
 28.  Background.  Previously,  we  noted  that  a  substantial  majority  of  the  dismissed  applications  proposed  to  use  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  for  subscriber-  based  services.  52  We  indicated
 that  the  Commission  has  never  allocated  these  932/  941  MHz  bands  specifically  for  any  one  particular  type  of  service,  53  and  tentatively  concluded  that  the  Commission  would  use  competitive  bidding
 procedures  to  award  licenses  in  these  bands.  54
 47  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7979.
 48  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10755-  56;  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7979.
 49  See  Commonwealth  Edison  Comments  at  13-  16;  Consolidated  Edison  Comments  at  13-  16;  Northern
 States  Power  Comments  at  13-  16;  South  Carolina  E&  G  Comments  at  13-  16;  Southern  Operating  Companies  Comments  at  13-  16.
 50  We  note  that  all  incumbent  operations  will  be  grandfathered  upon  the  release  of  this  Report  and
 Order.  See  infra  at  paras.  55-  62.
 51  See  infra  at  paras.  47-  48.
 52  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10755-  56;  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7979-  80.
 53  We  discuss  our  proposal  to  set  aside  five  channel  pairs  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  for  public
 (footnote  continued  on  next  page)
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 13
 29.  Discussion.  Upon  reviewing  the  record  to  this  proceeding,  we  believe  that  the  scope  of  the  MAS  service  is  evolving.  Although  many  commenters  criticize  our  approach  for  determining
 the  most  probable  future  use  to  which  these  bands  will  be  placed,  55  we  cannot  ignore  the  fact  that  a  substantial  number  of  the  previously  filed  applications  for  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  proposed  to
 provide  subscriber-  based  services.  56  API,  Adaptive,  and  AWWA  assert  that  our  premise,  in  this  instance,  is  misplaced  because  many  of  the  1992  applicants  were  speculators  and  the  applications  did
 not  reflect  the  intentions  of  applicants  that  had  a  genuine  need  for  this  additional  spectrum.  57
 30.  Additionally,  some  commenters  express  a  general  concern  about  the  congestion  in  the  other  MAS  bands  as  a  result  of  the  growth  in  private  internal  use,  particularly  in  the  928/  952  MHz
 bands,  and  emphasize  the  original  intended  use  for  the  932/  941  MHz  bands.  58  Other  commenters,  such  as  Commonwealth  Edison,  Consolidated  Edison,  Northern  States  Power,  South  Carolina  E&  G,  and  the
 Southern  Operating  Companies,  support  a  set-  aside  for  public  safety  radio  services,  averring  that  we  should  reserve  portions  of  these  bands  for  public  safety  radio  services,  including  utilities  because  these
 services  are  exempt  from  auctions.  59
 31.  We  realize  that  relieving  the  congestion  present  in  the  other  MAS  bands  was  part  of  our  objective  when  we  originally  designated  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  for  MAS.  Given  the  substantial
 interest  in  the  MAS  bands  from  current  and  potential  operators  that  provide  services  on  a  for-  profit  basis,  it  appears  that  as  licensees,  these  providers  intend  to  make  efficient  and  innovative  use  of  this
 spectrum.  In  this  connection,  we  find  that  the  record  also  supports  a  separate  allotment  for  private  internal  operations  in  these  bands.  Allowing  licensees  to  develop  this  available  spectrum  for
 ___________________________________________________________________________________________  safety/  Federal  Government  use,  infra  at  paras.  33-  38.
 54  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10755-  56.
 55  See,  e.  g.,  Adaptive  Comments  at  2,  4;  API  Comments  at  14-  16;  AWWA  Comments  at  4;  Coalition
 Comments  at  4  n.  10;  Data  Address  Systems  Comments  at  4-  8;  GPM  Comments  at  6;  GTECH  Comments  at  4;  PNM  Comments  at  2;  WSSC  Comments  at  5;  Adaptive  Reply  Comments  at  3;  Metrocall  Reply  Comments  at
 10;  Southern  Company  Reply  Comments  at  3-  4.
 56  See  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7996.
 57  Adaptive  Comments  at  2,  4;  API  Comments  at  14-  16;  AWWA  Comments  at  4;  Adaptive  Reply
 Comments  at  3.
 58  See,  e.  g.,  AWWA  Comments  at  8;  Corn  Belt  Power  Comments  at  4-  7;  Itron  Comments  at  5;  WSSC
 Comments  at  5  (commenters  stating  that  the  Commission  allocated  the  channels  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  to  MAS  because  of  the  increased  demand  for  private  spectrum  in  the  congested  928/  952  MHz  channels).  See  also
 932/  941  MHz  Second  Report  and  Order,  4  FCC  Rcd  at  2013  (MAS  frequencies  are  becoming  saturated).
 59  Commonwealth  Edison  Comments  at  13-  16;  Consolidated  Edison  Comments  at  13-  16;  Northern
 States  Power  Comments  at  13-  16;  South  Carolina  E&  G  Comments  at  13-  16;  Southern  Operating  Companies  Comments  at  13-  16.
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 14
 whichever  purpose  meets  their  needs  is  likely  to  result  in  its  efficient  use.  In  our  efforts  to  balance  the  interests  of  all  MAS  users,  we  designate  twenty  of  the  forty  12.5  kHz  channel  pairs  specifically  for
 public  safety/  Federal  Government  and  private  internal  use.  Consequently,  we  will  not  restrict  the  permissible  uses  or  eligibility  for  the  remaining  twenty  channels;  however,  such  users  will  be  subject
 to  the  licensing  approach  implemented  for  these  channels.  We  believe  that  this  segmentation  approach  is  the  best  method  to  accommodate  all  users  of  MAS  spectrum  and  is,  therefore,  in  the  public  interest.
 A.  Frequency  Set-  Aside  in  the  932/  941  MHz  Bands  for  Government  and  Public  Safety  Entities
 32.  Background.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  proposed  to  set  aside  five  of  the  forty  channel  pairs  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  for  public  safety  and  Federal  Government  uses  to  help
 alleviate  congestion  in  other  bands  for  these  services.  60  We  received  general  support  for  this  proposal.  61  In  the  Further  Notice,  we  sought  further  comment  on  this  proposal  and  on  how  to
 determine  eligibility  for  such  a  set-  aside.  62  Specifically,  we  sought  comment  on  whether  we  should,  for  instance,  use  the  traditional  public  safety  service  categories  outlined  in  our  Rules  to  determine
 eligibility  or  the  expanded  definition  provided  by  the  Balanced  Budget  Act.  63  It  is  generally  understood  that  public  safety  services  are  services  in  which  the  sole  or  principal  purpose  is  to  protect
 the  safety  of  life,  health,  or  property,  provided  by  State  or  local  government  entities  or  eligible  non-governmental  organizations,  that  are  not  made  commercially  available  to  the  public  by  the  provider.  64
 The  Balanced  Budget  Act  expands  the  definition  to  include  private  internal  radio  services  used  by  State  and  local  governments,  non-  government  entities,  and  emergency  road  services  provided  by  not-for-
 profit  organizations  that  must  meet  certain  criteria.  The  services  must  be  used  to  protect  the  safety  of  life,  health,  or  property,  and  cannot  be  commercially  available  to  the  public.  65
 33.  Discussion.  Most  commenters  to  the  Further  Notice  generally  support  setting  aside  additional  channel  pairs  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  for  public  safety  radio  service  use,  as  defined  by
 the  Balanced  Budget  Act.  66  However,  some  commenters  believe  that  we  should  allocate  more  than
 60  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  8002-  03.
 61  See,  e.  g.,  APCO  Comments  at  1-  2;  AWWA  Comments  at  23;  MDS  Comments  at  15;  WSSC
 Comments  at  13.
 62  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10757.
 63  Id.
 64  See,  e.  g.,  The  Development  of  Operational,  Technical,  and  Spectrum  Requirements  for  Meeting
 Federal,  State  and  Local  Public  Safety  Agency  Communication  Requirements  Through  the  Year  2010,  WT  Docket  96-  86,  First  Report  and  Order  and  Third  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  14  FCC  Rcd  152,  177-  188
 (1998).
 65  See  Conference  Report  at  572.
 66  See,  e.  g.,  Adaptive  Comments  at  6;  API  Comments  at  13-  17;  AWWA  Comments  at  1,  6;  Blue
 (footnote  continued  on  next  page)
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 15
 five  channel  pairs  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  for  public  safety  radio  service  use  as  defined  by  the  Balanced  Budget  Act.  67
 34.  As  discussed  previously,  we  believe  that  designating  twenty  of  the  forty  channel  pairs  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  for  traditional  public  safety/  Federal  Government  and  private  internal
 services  is  in  the  public  interest.  68  However,  we  also  agree  with  the  commenters  69  who  express  concern  about  the  adequacy  of  spectral  resources  available  for  public  safety  use.
 35.  We  have  long  recognized  that  the  public  safety  community  has  certain  unique  characteristics  that  distinguish  it  from  other  users  of  the  radio  spectrum.  70  Similarly,  the  Final  Report
 of  the  Public  Safety  Wireless  Advisory  Committee  (PSWAC)  stated  that  "wireless  communications  systems  are  critical  to  Public  Safety  agencies'  ability  to  protect  lives  and  property  and  the  welfare  of
 Public  Safety  officials  [and  that]  unless  immediate  measures  are  taken  to  alleviate  spectrum  shortfalls  and  promote  interoperability,  Public  Safety  agencies  will  not  be  able  to  adequately  discharge  their
 obligation  to  protect  life  and  property  in  a  safe,  efficient,  and  cost  effective  manner."  71  PSWACs
 ___________________________________________________________________________________________  Ridge  Electric  Comments  at  1-  2;  Commonwealth  Edison  Comments  at  19;  Comsearch  Comments  at  3;
 Consolidated  Edison  Comments  at  19;  Corn  Belt  Power  Comments  at  4-  7;  East  Bay  Municipal  Comments  at  11-  12;  Roger  Gembala  Comments  at  1;  Gila  Electronics  Comments  at  1;  Hornfeck  Engineering  Comments  at  1;
 Idaho  Power  Comments  at  1;  Jackson  Electric  Comments  at  1;  JEA  Comments  at  1;  Johnson  City  Power  Comments  at  1;  Little  Ocmulgee  Electric  Comments  at  1;  Mark  Norman  Comments  at  1;  MMWD  Comments  at
 1;  Despina  Metakos  Comments  at  1;  Northern  States  Power  Comments  at  19;  Pacific  Gas  &  Electric  Comments  at  2;  Salt  River  Project  Comments  at  1;  South  Carolina  E&  G  Comments  at  19;  Southern  Operating  Companies
 Comments  at  19;  UTC  Comments  at  8-  9;  Williams  Energy  Comments  at  1;  Adaptive  Reply  Comments  at  3-  4;  API  Reply  Comments  at  8-  9;  APPA  Reply  Comments  at  9;  UTC  Reply  Comments  at  6.
 67  See,  e.  g.,  Adaptive  Comments  at  6;  API  Comments  at  16;  Commonwealth  Edison  Comments  at  19,
 Consolidated  Edison  Comments  at  19;  East  Bay  Municipal  Comments  at  11-  12;  Northern  States  Power  Comments  at  19;  Pacific  G&  E  Comments  at  2;  South  Carolina  E&  G  Comments  at  19;  Southern  Operating
 Companies  Comments  at  19;  UTC  Comments  at  8-  9;  Adaptive  Reply  Comments  at  3-  4;  API  Reply  Comments  at  8-  9.
 68  See  supra  at  para.  31.
 69  See,  e.  g.,  East  Bay  Municipal  Comments  at  11-  12.  East  Bay  Municipal  suggests  that  we  develop  a
 procedure  for  granting  preference/  priority  to  public  safety  licensees  that  are  considered  traditional  public  safety  eligibles  under  the  Commissions  past  proceedings.
 70  See,  e.  g.,  Report  and  Plan  for  Meeting  State  and  Local  Government  Public  Safety  Agency  Needs
 Through  the  Year  2010,  FCC  95-  55,  Report  and  Plan,  10  FCC  Rcd  5207  (1995).  See  also  Development  of  Operational,  Technical,  and  Spectrum  Requirements  for  Meeting  Federal,  State  and  Local  Public  Safety  Agency
 Communication  Requirements  Through  the  Year  2010,  WT  Docket  No.  96-  86,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  11  FCC  Rcd  12460  (1996),  Second  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  12  FCC  Rcd  17706  (1997),  First
 Report  and  Order  and  Third  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  14  FCC  Rcd  152  (1998).
 71  In  1995,  at  the  direction  of  Congress,  the  Commission  and  the  NTIA  created  PSWAC,  directing  it  to
 evaluate  the  wireless  communications  needs  of  Federal,  State,  and  local  public  safety  agencies  through  the  year  2010,  and  to  make  recommendations  regarding  those  needs.  See  Final  Report  of  the  Public  Safety  Wireless
 (footnote  continued  on  next  page)
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 16
 Steering  Committee  indicated  that  more  flexible  licensing  policies  are  desirable  as  part  of  its  recommendations  and  observations  with  regard  to  fulfilling  the  public  safety  communitys  immediate
 and  future  needs.  72
 36.  Although  the  PSWAC  Final  Report  did  not  specify  MAS  spectrum  for  a  potential  new  public  safety  allocation,  we  believe  that  it  is  possible  to  use  this  spectrum  to  satisfy  the  public  safety
 community's  growing  demand  for  narrowband  data  and  paging  applications.  73  We  also  consider  this  public  safety  and  Federal  Government  set  aside  proposal  to  be  a  first  step  towards  establishing  a  policy
 of  streamlining  cooperative  use  of  Federal  and  non-  Federal  spectrum.
 37.  In  an  effort  to  alleviate  the  concern  about  spectrum  availability  for  public  safety  use,  we  designate  five  of  the  twenty  channel  pairs  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  for  public  safety/  Federal
 Government  and  private  internal  use,  specifically  for  public  safety  services  as  defined  by  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules.  74  In  this  connection,  we  will  designate  fifteen  of  the  twenty  channels  for  both
 private  internal  and  traditional  public  safety  services.  We  have  recognized  that  both  public  safety  and  private  internal  users  would  provide  important  services.  75  Further  segmentation  between  public
 safety/  Federal  Government  and  other  private  internal  use  would  alleviate  concerns  about  spectrum  availability  for  any  particular  use.
 38.  In  this  Report  and  Order,  consistent  with  our  statutory  obligations  and  the  public  interest,  we  have  licensed  this  spectrum  in  order  to  avoid  mutual  exclusivity.  Thus  we  need  not
 address  the  auction-  related  issue  of  which  licensees  are  exempt  from  auctions  as  public  safety  radio  service  licensees.  We  note  that  in  March  1999,  the  Commission  initiated  a  proceeding  to  assess  the
 impact  of  the  Balanced  Budget  Act  on  the  Commissions  determinations  of  which  services  are  now  auctionable.  76  As  stated  earlier,  we  will  defer  resolution  of  which  services  are  auctionable  or
 contained  within  the  public  safety  radio  services  exemption  to  the  BBA  NPRM  proceeding.
 B.  Channeling  Plan  932/  941  MHz  Bands
 ___________________________________________________________________________________________  Advisory  Committee  to  the  Federal  Communications  Commission  and  The  National  Telecommunications  and
 Information  Administration,  Vol.  1,  at  1-  2  (Sept.  11,  1996)  (PSWAC  Final  Report).
 72  PSWAC  Final  Report  at  3.
 73  Id.  at  42-  43,  56.
 74  See  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  90,  Subpart  B.
 75  See,  e.  g.,  Replacement  of  Part  90  by  Part  88  to  Revise  the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services  and
 Modify  the  Policies  of  the  Private  Land  Mobile  Services,  PR  Docket  No.  92-  235,  Second  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  14307  (1997).  The  Commission  maintained  exclusive  coordinator  jurisdiction  for  the  Railroad,
 Power,  and  Petroleum  Radio  Services  because  the  nature  of  the  day-  to-  day  operations  of  licensees  in  these  services  can  take  on  an  almost  quasi-  public  safety  function.
 76  See  BBA  NPRM,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  5206.
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 17
 39.  Background.  The  current  basic  channelization  in  the  MAS  bands  is  12.5  kHz.  However,  entities  may  be  licensed  for  25  kHz  and  50  kHz  operations  upon  a  showing  of  need.  77  In  the
 Notice,  the  Commission  sought  comment  as  to  whether  the  channel  bandwidth  should  be  increased  by  combining  two  or  more  MAS  channel  pairs  to  assign  larger  frequency  blocks.  78  While  commenters
 did  not  specifically  address  this  approach,  they  generally  support  the  greater  flexibility  that  results  from  our  proposal  to  allow  contiguous  channel  aggregation  up  to  50  kHz.  79
 40.  Discussion.  Although  we  proposed  to  award  all  MAS  licenses  in  12.5  kHz  blocks,  we  have  decided  that  awarding  a  single  50  kHz  license  in  each  geographic  area  is  consistent  with  our
 proposal  to  increase  operational  flexibility.  Thus,  of  the  twenty  channel  pairs  where  user  restrictions  are  not  imposed,  we  will  combine  four  of  the  channel  pairs  and  award  a  single  paired  50  kHz  license
 by  competitive  bidding.  The  sixteen  remaining  channel  pairs  will  be  awarded  as  paired  12.5  kHz  blocks.  We  believe  that  offering  a  50  kHz  channel  pair  will  provide  successful  applicants  with  more
 flexibility  in  developing,  implementing,  and  expanding  business  plans  and  operations,  and  will  facilitate  non-  traditional  MAS  services  like,  for  example,  Narrowband  Personal  Communications
 Service  (narrowband  PCS).  80
 41.  We  believe  that  MAS  licensees  should  be  given  the  opportunity  to  compete  with  the  service  offerings  of  licensees  in  comparable  bands.  By  distributing  a  50  kHz  license  for  each
 geographic  service  area,  we  are  confident  that  this  spectrum  can  be  put  to  efficient  use  and  that  service  offerings  will  be  competitive  with  other  narrowband  services,  such  as  narrowband  paging  and  SMR.
 We  believe  that  affording  licensees  the  flexibility  associated  with  larger  spectrum  blocks  should  help  to  promote  technical  innovation  by  providing  them  with  additional  flexibility  to  take  advantage  of  new
 technology.
 42.  Nonetheless,  we  are  aware  that  some  traditional  MAS  systems  and  other  systems  that  may  be  established  do  not  need  50  kHz  channel  blocks.  For  this  reason,  we  will  award  sixteen  paired
 12.5  kHz  licenses  for  each  geographic  service  area.  By  doing  so,  we  seek  to  fulfill  our  duty  of  encouraging  the  dissemination  of  MAS  licensees  to  a  diverse  pool  of  applicants.  Licensees  are  in  the
 best  position  to  determine  whether  their  needs  require  a  50  kHz  channel  block  or  a  12.5  kHz  block  and  what  size  service  area  is  appropriate.  By  creating  this  channeling  plan,  and  by  allowing  licensees  to
 77  See  47  C.  F.  R.    101.  109,  101.147(  b).
 78  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7992.
 79  See,  e.  g.,  CellNet  Comments  at  31-  32.
 80  In  fact,  narrowband  PCS  licenses  are  also  based  on  paired  50  kHz  blocks.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    24.  129.
 See  also  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Establish  New  Narrowband  Personal  Communications  Services,  GEN  Docket  No.  90-  314,  First  Report  and  Order,  8  FCC  Rcd  7162,  7165    20  (1993)  (Narrowband
 PCS  Report  and  Order).
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 18
 aggregate  contiguous  channels,  81  we  believe  that  we  have  afforded  these  applicants  appropriate  flexibility  to  facilitate  their  business  plans  and  decisions.
 43.  As  stated  earlier,  we  leave  unchanged  our  proposal  to  allocate  five  paired  12.5  kHz  channels  for  public  safety/  Federal  Government  use.  We  also  designate  fifteen  paired  12.5  kHz
 channels  for  public  safety  82  and  private  internal  services.
 C.  MAS  Licensing  Approach
 1.  The  928/  952/  956  MHz  Bands
 44.  Background.  As  noted  earlier,  in  the  Further  Notice  we  sought  comment  on  our  licensing  approach  for  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands.  We  tentatively  concluded  that  we  should  retain
 site-  by-  site  licensing  if  we  reserve  these  bands  exclusively  for  public  safety  radio  services.  83
 45.  Discussion.  We  believe  that  a  site-  by-  site  licensing  scheme  with  frequency  coordination  is  the  best  approach  to  licensing  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  because  we  are  reserving
 these  bands  for  private  internal  use.  84  Generally,  when  spectrum  is  used  for  private  internal  services,  it  is  not  necessary  to  develop  geographic  area  licensing  to  ensure  that  service  is  widely  available  to  the
 general  public.  The  majority  of  the  commenters  support  a  site-  by-  site  licensing  scheme  in  order  to  avoid  mutually  exclusive  applications.  85  We  agree  that  retaining  first-  come,  first-  served,  site-  by-  site
 licensing  in  these  spectrum  bands  is  in  the  public  interest.  86  Site-  by-  site  licensing  will  be  the  least  disruptive  licensing  mechanism  to  current  MAS  operations,  and  will  allow  immediate  licensing  of  this
 spectrum  to  private  internal  users,  as  well  as  public  safety  operations,  thereby  alleviating  concerns  of  regulatory  delay.  87  We  note  that  an  urgent  need  for  this  spectrum  has  been  demonstrated,  88  and  in  this
 81  See  infra  at  para.  99.
 82  See  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  90,  Subpart  B.
 83  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10756.
 84  See  supra  at  paras.  18-  23.
 85  See,  e.  g.,  AAR  Comments  at  3;  API  Comments  at  9-  11;  AWWA  Comments  at  1  and  6;  CellNet
 Comments  at  2  and  8;  Commonwealth  Edison  Comments  at  9;  Comsearch  Comments  at  2;  Consolidated  Edison  Comments  at  9,  Corn  Belt  Power  Comments  at  7;  Itron  Comments  at  4;  Northern  States  Power  Comments  at  9;
 PSSC  Comments  at  5;  Radscan  Comments  at  3-  7;  South  Carolina  E&  G  Comments  at  9;  Southern  Operating  Companies  Comments  at  9;  UTC  Comments  at  10;  Western  Resources  Comments  at  4;  API  Reply  Comments  at
 2-  3;  CellNet  Data  Reply  Comments  at  2;  East  Bay  Municipal  Reply  Comments  at  5;  GTECH  Reply  Comments  at  9-  10;  PCIA  Reply  Comments  at  2,  6-  7;  Radscan  Reply  Comments  at  1;  UTC  Reply  Comments  at  2.
 86  UTC  Comments  at  10.
 87  We  note  that  similar  public  interest  benefits  were  not  apparent  for  39  GHz,  900  MHz  SMR,  800
 MHz  SMR,  218-  219  MHz  Service,  Paging,  and  LMDS.
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 19
 instance,  site-  based  licensing  is  not  only  less  disruptive,  but  also  more  expeditious.  We  should  also  note,  however,  that  if  the  public  interest  warrants  it,  we  may  employ  other  licensing  approaches  in
 other  bands  designated  for  private  internal  services.  For  example,  some  private  internal  uses  may  warrant  wide  area  systems  and  therefore  demand  geographic  area  licensing.  We  have  the  discretion  to
 alter  our  approach,  consistent  with  the  public  interest,  in  future  licensing  decisions.
 2.  The  928/  959  MHz  Bands
 46.  Background.  In  the  Notice  and  Further  Notice,  we  also  tentatively  concluded  that  the  928/  959  MHz  bands  are  primarily  being  used  to  provide  subscriber-  based  services.  89  Additionally,  in
 the  Further  Notice,  we  tentatively  concluded  that  the  Balanced  Budget  Act  now  requires  us  to  resolve  mutually  exclusive  applications  for  this  spectrum  through  competitive  bidding.  90  We  also  requested
 comments  concerning  whether  the  private  point-  to-  multipoint  rules  in  Part  22  should  be  contained  in  Part  101.  91
 47.  Discussion.  Commenters  express  general  concern  about  the  availability  of  spectrum  for  private  radio  use.  92  After  carefully  reviewing  the  record,  we  conclude  that  entities  seeking  to  provide
 for-  profit  services  have  a  strong  interest  in  obtaining  MAS  channels  within  the  928/  959  MHz  bands.  Because  we  have  found  that  the  dominant  use  of  these  bands  is  not  private  internal  as  defined  herein,  93
 we  believe  that  it  is  appropriate  to  license  these  bands  by  geographic  area  and  through  a  system  of  competitive  bidding.  In  this  connection,  we  note  that  with  respect  to  for-  profit  services,  licensees  tend
 to  desire  and  need  the  capability  to  provide  coverage  over  a  wide  geographic  area,  which  bears  upon  the  licensees  ability  to  provide  service  to  a  wide  range  of  the  public.  Thus,  for  these  types  of  services,
 we  believe  that  there  is  a  public  interest  need  for  wide  area  licenses.  Moreover,  we  believe  that
 ___________________________________________________________________________________________  88
 See,  e.  g.,  CII  Petitioners  Emergency  Request  for  Limited  Exception  to  the  Application  Freeze  for  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  Multiple  Address  Systems  Bands  (Corrected  Public  Notice  DA  99-  2002,  rel.  Sept.  28,
 1999);  CellNet  Data  Systems,  Inc.  s  Request  for  Limited  Exception  to  the  Application  Freeze  for  the  928/  952  MHz  Multiple  Address  Systems  Bands  (Corrected  Public  Notice  DA  99-  2003,  rel.  Sept.  28,  1999);  Itron,  Inc.  s
 Request  for  Emergency  Relief  from  the  Multiple  Address  Systems  Application  Freeze  (Corrected  Public  Notice  DA  99-  2004,  rel.  Sept.  28,  1999);  Kansas  Electric  Power  Cooperatives  Request  for  Waiver  from  the
 Application  Freeze  for  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  Multiple  Address  Systems  Bands;  City  of  Middleton,  Wisconsins  Request  for  Waiver  of  Freeze  on  MAS  Applications  for  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  Bands;  and  City  of  Maryville,
 Tennessees  Request  for  Waiver  of  Freeze  on  MAS  Applications  for  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  Bands.
 89  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10755-  56;  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7979.
 90  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10755-  56.
 91  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7979.
 92  See,  e.  g.,  Commonwealth  Edison  Comments  at  13-  16;  Consolidated  Edison  Comments  at  13-  16;
 Northern  States  Power  Comments  at  13-  16;  South  Carolina  E&  G  Comments  at  13-  16;  the  Southern  Operating  Companies  Comments  at  13-  16.
 93  See  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7997.
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 20
 geographic  area  licensing  for  MAS  spectrum  designated  primarily  for  such  services  would  encourage  efficient  spectrum  use,  expeditious  licensing,  and  the  rapid  delivery  of  new  technologies  to  the  public.
 48.  With  regard  to  whether  private  point-  to-  multipoint  rules  in  Part  22  should  be  located  in  Part  101,  MDS  supports  this  proposal.  94  We  note  that  we  are  consolidating  some  of  the  MAS  Service
 rules  within  Part  101,  as  well  as  referencing  other  parts  of  the  Commissions  Rules  that  are  pertinent  to  MAS  applicants  and  licensees.  In  addition,  we  require  applications  for  new  MAS  licenses  to  comply
 with  the  Part  101  Rules.  Incumbents  under  Part  22  are  now  subject  to  the  restrictions  of  Part  101,  Subpart  O,  but  may  make  permissible  modifications,  transfers,  assignments,  or  renew  their  licenses
 using  procedures,  forms,  fees,  and  filing  requirements  of  Part  22.  We  believe  this  action  to  be  in  the  public  interest  because  it  will  simplify  and  reduce  efforts  to  locate  rules  pertaining  to  MAS.
 3.  The  932/  941  MHz  Bands
 49.  Background.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  proposed  to  use  competitive  bidding  procedures  to  award  licenses  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  because  of  the  Commissions  belief  that  these
 bands  would  be  used  for  subscriber-  based  services.  95  In  the  Further  Notice,  we  tentatively  concluded  that  the  Balanced  Budget  Act  now  requires  the  use  of  competitive  bidding  procedures  to  resolve
 mutually  exclusive  applications  for  licenses  in  these  bands.
 50.  Discussion.  Generally,  the  commenters  do  not  support  geographic  area  licensing  for  these  bands  and  prefer  that  we  retain  first-  come,  first-  served,  site-  by-  site  licensing.  96  In  addition,  Corn
 Belt  Power  asks  that  we  confine  auctions  to  major  urban  markets  or  auction  urban  licenses  first  if  we  decide  to  employ  competitive  bidding  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands.  97  In  contrast,  Commonwealth
 Edison,  Consolidated  Edison,  Northern  States  Power,  South  Carolina  E&  G,  and  the  Southern  Operating  Companies  stress  that  we  should  not  close  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  to  utilities  by  making
 these  bands  subject  to  auction  for  all  users.  98
 51.  We  believe  that  geographic  area  licensing  for  the  twenty  channels,  that  are  not  reserved  for  public  safety  and  private  internal  use  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands,  is  in  the  public  interest  because
 this  licensing  scheme  poses  significant  advantages  over  site-  based  licensing  for  entities  providing  wide  area  services.  In  our  experience,  we  have  found  that,  with  respect  to  bands  that  are  likely  to  be  used  to
 support  services  offered  on  a  wide-  area  basis,  licensing  bands  based  on  pre-  defined  service  areas,  such
 94  MDS  Comments  at  9-  10.
 95  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10755-  56;  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7979.
 96  See,  e.  g.,  Jackson  Electric  Comments  at  1;  Radscan  Reply  Comments  at  3.
 97  Corn  Belt  Power  Comments  at  4-  7.
 98  Commonwealth  Edison  Comments  at  13-  16;  Consolidated  Edison  Comments  at  13-  16;  Northern
 States  Power  Comments  at  13-  16;  South  Carolina  E&  G  Comments  at  13-  16;  Southern  Operating  Companies  Comments  at  13-  16.
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 21
 as  geographic  areas,  promotes  greater  operational  flexibility.  99  Hence,  MAS  operators  seeking  to  construct  wide-  area  systems  would  be  able  to  effectively  compete  with  other  similar  services,  such  as
 narrowband  PCS  or  Specialized  Mobile  Radio  Service  (SMR).  Under  the  Commissions  current  rules,  these  MAS  applicants  must  obtain  authorizations  on  a  station-  by-  station  basis  and  must  apply  to  the
 Commission  for  permission  to  make  even  relatively  minor  modifications  to  their  systems,  thereby  having  to  overcome  many  more  regulatory  obstacles  than  narrowband  PCS  and  SMR  providers.
 Adopting  a  flexible  licensing  scheme  for  MAS  will  not  only  improve  the  ability  of  current  and  future  MAS  licensees  to  compete  with  comparable  services,  but  it  would  also  further  the  goal  of  ensuring
 analogous  regulation  for  substantially  similar  services.  100
 52.  In  addition,  we  believe  that  licenses  based  on  geographic  areas  would  provide  licensees  and  the  public  with  greater  certainty  about  what  area  is  covered  by  each  authorization,  thereby  making
 it  easier  to  resolve  conflicts  between  applicants  seeking  to  provide  service  to  a  common  area.  In  this  connection,  a  reduction  of  the  various  administrative  burdens  placed  on  the  Commission  and  licensees
 would  result,  partly  because  MAS  licensees  would  no  longer  have  to  seek  Commission  approval  before  minor  system  modifications.  Accordingly,  we  conclude  that  licensing  by  geographic  area  and
 employing  a  system  of  competitive  bidding  to  award  licenses  for  those  channels  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  that  are  not  designated  for  private  internal  use  in  this  Report  and  Order  would  best  serve  the
 public  interest.
 53.  After  taking  note  of  PSWAC's  request  for  flexible  licensing  policies  in  the  public  safety  context  and  our  desire  to  foster  flexibility  in  the  MAS  Service,  we  have  decided  to  license  the  twenty
 channels  set  aside  for  public  safety/  Federal  Government  and  private  internal  services,  on  a  first-  come,  first-  served,  site-  by-  site  basis  with  frequency  coordination.  We  also  conclude  that  coordination  of
 operations  on  these  frequencies  will  be  accomplished  through  the  IRAC  of  the  NTIA,  using  the  mileage  separation  criteria  in  Part  101  of  our  Rules.
 D.  Treatment  of  Incumbent  Licensees
 54.  Background.  In  the  Notice  and  the  Further  Notice,  we  sought  comment  on  whether  to  grandfather  all  existing  services  in  the  928/  959  MHz  and  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  that  do  not  meet
 the  eligibility  criteria  for  these  bands.  101  Specifically,  in  the  Notice,  the  Commission  proposed  that  geographic  area  licensees  would  be  required  to  provide  protection  102  to  all  co-  channel  systems  103  that
 99  See,  e.  g.,  Implementation  of  Sections  3(  n)  and  332  of  the  Communications  Act,  Regulatory
 Treatment  of  Mobile  Services,  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Facilitate  Future  Development  of  SMR  Systems  in  the  800  MHz  Frequency  Band,  Amendment  of  Parts  2  and  90  of  the
 Commissions  Rules  to  Provide  for  the  Use  of  200  Channels  Outside  the  Designated  Filing  Areas  in  the  896-  901  MHz  and  935-  940  MHz  Band  Allotted  to  the  Specialized  Radio  Pool,  GN  Docket  No.  93-  252,  Third  Report
 and  Order,  9  FCC  Rcd  7988,  8044  (1994)  (CMRS  Third  Report  and  Order).
 100  See  id.
 101  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10756;  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7983.
 102  Protection  would  be  accomplished  by  satisfying  the  MAS  mileage  separation  requirements  or  the
 (footnote  continued  on  next  page)
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 22
 are  constructed  and  operating  within  their  geographic  service  area.  104  It  was  further  proposed  that  incumbents  would  have  to  seek  consent  from  the  geographic  area  licensee  before  expanding  their
 systems  beyond  this  contour.  105  The  Commission  also  stated  that  providing  incumbents  with  the  flexibility  to  modify  or  augment  their  systems  would  be  in  the  public  interest  to  the  extent  that  they  do
 not  encroach  on  co-  channel  operations  of  the  geographic  area  licensee.  106  Hence,  the  Commission  proposed  to  define  a  service  area  for  the  protection  of  incumbents  operations.  107
 55.  Discussion.  We  believe  that  allowing  incumbent  MAS  operators  on  the  928/  959  MHz  and  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  to  continue  operations  on  these  bands  is  in  the  public  interest.  Many
 commenters  support  this  proposal.  108  Commenters  also  suggest  alternative  approaches  to  the  grandfathering  issue.  For  example,  AWWA  believes  that  our  logic  for  grandfathering  existing
 subscriber-  based  users  in  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  is  unclear  and  inappropriate  because  we  plan  to  make  most  of  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  available  for  auction.  109  AWWA  adds  that  for  subscriber-  based
 service  licensees  with  existing  investments  in  facilities  in  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands,  grandfathering  provisions  with  a  sunset  provision,  such  as  five  years  from  final  Report  and  Order  promulgation,
 would  be  more  appropriate.  110
 56.  In  this  instance,  we  do  not  believe  that  AWWAs  proposal  for  grandfathering  with  a  sunset  provision  is  in  the  public  interest.  This  action  would  neither  preserve  current  operations  nor
 minimize  the  amount  of  disruption  that  existing  operations  would  experience.  We  conclude  that  the  public  interest  would  be  best  served  by  allowing  these  incumbent  licensees  to  continue  existing
 operations  under  their  current  authorizations.  111  Additionally,  many  users  in  these  bands  may  not  have
 ___________________________________________________________________________________________  short  spacing  criteria.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    22.  625,  101.105(  c)(  3).  In  addition,  an  EA  licensee  could  negotiate
 alternative  operational  arrangements  with  the  incumbent  licensee.
 103  Because  we  permit  12.5  kHz,  25  kHz  and  50  kHz  operation  in  MAS  bands,  we  consider  a  channel
 to  be  co-  channel  if  it  falls  within  the  bandwidth  of  the  channel.
 104  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7983.
 105  Id.  at  7984.
 106  Id.
 107  Id.
 108  See,  e.  g.,  API  Comments  at  18;  CellNet  Comments  at  17;  East  Bay  Municipal  Comments  at  14;
 UTC  Comments  at  11-  12;  PCIA  Reply  Comments  at  7.
 109  AWWA  Comments  at  5.
 110  Id.
 111  See,  e.  g.,  Revision  of  Part  22  and  Part  90  of  the  Commission's  Rules  to  Facilitate  Future
 Development  of  Paging  Systems,  WT  Docket  No.  96-  18,  Second  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  12  FCC  Rcd  2732,  2769  (1997)  (Paging  Systems  Second  Report  and  Order);
 (footnote  continued  on  next  page)
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 23
 the  resources  to  relocate  their  operations  to  other  spectrum,  which  would  compromise  the  important  functions  that  they  provide.
 57.  With  regard  to  the  928/  959  MHz  bands,  we  realize  that  some  of  these  licensed  service  areas  will  be  occupied  by  incumbent  MAS  licensees.  While  we  recognize  the  importance  of
 protecting  future  geographic  area  MAS  licensees  from  co-  channel  interference  from  those  licensees  that  are  already  constructed  and  operating,  and  of  affording  them  the  opportunity  to  build-  out  their
 systems  within  the  geographic  area  for  which  they  will  pay,  we  decline  to  force  these  incumbents  to  relocate.  We  believe  that  interference  will  likely  be  minimal  given  the  current  operational  rules  and
 the  additional  proposals  designed  to  protect  incumbents  that  are  set  forth  herein.  Therefore,  we  agree  with  UTC,  that  existing  MAS  entities  should  be  grandfathered  indefinitely  regardless  of  eligibility
 restrictions  that  may  preclude  the  licensees  from  applying  for  additional  MAS  licenses  in  the  bands.  112  Grandfathering  current  operations  is  the  best  approach  to  minimizing  any  disruption  that  may  result
 from  the  new  assignments.
 58.  Commenters,  however,  provide  mixed  responses  to  the  issue  of  expansion  with  respect  to  incumbent  operations.  113  We  believe  that  the  public  interest  will  be  best  served  by  permitting  MAS
 incumbents  in  the  928/  959  MHz  and  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  to  continue  operations  on  these  bands.  However,  we  do  not  believe  that  all  incumbents  should  inherit  unfettered  expansion  privileges.
 Specifically,  entities  on  the  928/  959  MHz  bands  will  not  be  allowed  to  obtain  new  licenses  or  expand  beyond  their  current  contours  except  through  participation  in  the  competitive  bidding  licensing
 process.  We  will  conduct  an  auction  overlay  in  these  bands,  and  all  available  areas  will  be  licensed  to  the  geographic  area  licensee.  Therefore,  incumbents  on  the  928/  959  MHz  bands  will  not  be  permitted
 to  expand  beyond  a  defined  service  area  based  on  their  current  contours,  unless  the  incumbents  and  the  geographic  licensee  reach  an  alternative  agreement  regarding  such  modification.  114  We  will  permit
 incumbents  on  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  to  expand  their  systems  because  these  bands  will  be
 ___________________________________________________________________________________________  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Provide  for  the  Use  of  the  220-  222  MHz  Band  by  the
 Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Service,  Implementation  of  Sections  3(  n)  and  332  of  the  Communications  Act,  Regulatory  treatment  of  Mobile  Services,  Implementation  of  Section  309(  j)  of  the  Communications  Act  
 Competitive  Bidding,  PR  Docket  No.  89-  552,  GN  Docket  No.  93-  252,  PP  Docket  No.  93-  253,  Third  Report  and  Order  and  Fifth  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  12  FCC  Rcd  10943  (1997)  (220-  222  MHz  Third  Report  and
 Order).
 112  UTC  Comments  at  5.
 113  See  CellNet  Comments  at  17  (incumbents  should  be  allowed  to  expand  existing  operations  if  not
 mutually  exclusive);  Radscan  Reply  Comments  at  4-  5  (grandfathering  should  be  allowed  only  if  grandfathered  licensees  are  allowed  to  expand  and  fill  in  existing  systems).  See  also  GTECH  Reply  Comments  at  9;  PCIA
 Reply  Comments  at  7;  UTC  Comments  at  11.
 114  See,  e.  g.,  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Facilitate  Future  Development  of
 SMR  Systems  in  the  800  Megahertz  Frequency  Band,  PR  Docket  No.  93-  144,  First  Report  and  Order,  Eighth  Report  and  Order,  and  Second  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  11  FCC  Rcd  1463  (1995)  (800  MHz
 First  Report  and  Order);  Paging  Systems  Second  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  2764;  220-  222  MHz  Third  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  11026.
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 24
 licensed  on  a  site-  by-  site  basis,  and  incumbents  will  remain  subject  to  the  Commission's  current  rules  on  interference  protection  and  co-  channel  spacing.
 59.  We  also  adopt  our  proposal  to  define  a  protected  service  area  for  incumbents.  Currently,  incumbents  must  abide  by  a  co-  channel  115  mileage  separation  based  on  an  assumed  25-  mile
 service  area.  116  Some  commenters  stated  that  a  25-  mile  protection  area  against  interference  would  not  be  sufficient  117  and  suggested  alternative  approaches  for  defining  a  protected  service  area.  118
 60.  We  are  not  convinced  that  any  of  the  alternatives  proposed  by  commenters  strikes  a  sound  balance  between  protecting  incumbents  and  protecting  future  licensees.  Therefore,  we  will  use
 a  designation,  based  on  twenty-  five  miles  from  the  radius  of  each  master  station  transmitter  site  and  the  resulting  composite  contour,  as  a  basis  for  defining  an  incumbent's  protected  service  area.  When
 the  Commission  decided  on  the  assumed  25-  mile  service  area  and  the  specific  mileage  separation  between  master  stations,  we  considered  both  communications  quality  and  spectrum  efficiency.  119  As
 always,  it  is  our  goal  to  allow  for  the  maintenance  of  a  high  quality  signal  through  the  service  area,  while  still  maximizing  spectrum  re-  use.
 61.  Some  commenters  claim  that  efficient  use  of  their  spectrum  allows  them  to  transmit  in  excess  of  twenty-  five  miles  from  their  master  stations.  Nonetheless,  we  decline  to  adopt  a  protected
 service  area  greater  than  twenty-  five  miles.  It  is  unnecessary  to  extend  the  protected  service  area  to  the  most  remote  locations  that  could  theoretically  receive  service,  especially  because  ideal  propagation
 conditions  do  not  always  exist  and  the  highest  quality  reception  equipment  is  not  always  used.  Besides  the  fact  that  the  rules  require  incumbent  operations  to  abide  by  a  co-  channel  mileage
 separation  based  on  an  assumed  25-  mile  service  area,  this  service  area  designation  seems  to  be  consistent  with  the  technical  parameters  of  typical  MAS  operations.  120  We  conclude  that  geographic
 115  See  supra  at  note  103.  Because  12.  5  kHz,  25  kHz,  and  50  kHz  operation  is  permitted,  we  consider
 a  channel  to  be  co-  channel  if  it  falls  within  the  bandwidth  of  the  channel.
 116  47  C.  F.  R.    101.105(  c)(  3).
 117  See,  e.  g.,  AAR  Comments  at  6;  PCIA  Comments  at  3-  4;  ProNet  Comments  at  8.  Because  some
 railroad  MAS  systems  provide  coverage  to  train  operation  locations  as  far  as  40  miles  away  from  the  MAS  transmitter,  AAR  recommended  a  40-  mile  protection  area.  AAR  Comments  at  6.
 118  See  ProNet  Comments  at  9-  10  (allow  incumbents  to  make  any  modifications  to  existing  MAS
 facilities  that  do  not  increase  the  signal  level  at  the  outer  perimeter  of  the  incumbent's  protected  area,  i.  e.,  90  miles  with  respect  to  co-  channel  fixed  stations,  and  70  miles  with  respect  to  mobile  systems);  GTECH
 Comments  at  7  (define  the  protected  service  area  either  in  terms  of  the  current  mileage  separation  criteria  set  forth  in  our  existing  rules  or  in  terms  of  a  specific  field  strength  measured  from  the  most  distant  remote  site).
 119  See  Amendment  of  Part  94  of  the  Rules  to  Permit  Intrasystem  Communications  Among  Multiple
 Address  System  Master  Stations,  PR  Docket  No.  87-  5,  Report  and  Order,  3  FCC  Rcd  1564,  1569  (1988)  (MAS  Intrasystem  Communications  Report  and  Order).
 120  The  Commission  historically  has  determined  that  25-  mile  service  areas  are  typical  for  MAS.  See,
 (footnote  continued  on  next  page)
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 25
 area  licensees  must  protect  incumbents  to  a  signal  strength  of  40  dBV/  m  or  less  at  the  incumbents  service  area  boundaries,  unless  a  higher  signal  strength  is  agreed  to  by  all  affected  co-  channel,
 adjacent  area  licensees.  121
 62.  Incumbents  may  make  modifications  to  existing  systems  and  add  new  transmitters  (e.  g.,  fill  in  "dead  spots")  as  long  as  the  signal  level  is  not  increased  beyond  the  incumbent's  25-  mile  service
 area.  122  These  licensees  will  be  able  to  make  these  modifications  without  filing  site  specific  applications.  123  As  we  proposed,  however,  incumbent  licensees  may  not  further  expand  their  systems
 unless  the  incumbents  and  the  geographic  licensee  have  reached  an  alternative  agreement  regarding  such  modification.  This  approach  is  consistent  with  our  rules  for  800  and  900  MHz  SMRs  124  and  for
 paging  systems.  125  While  we  are  confident  that  incumbent  operations  will  be  adequately  protected  by  the  rules  adopted  in  this  Report  and  Order,  we  are  equally  as  confident  that  the  ability  of  geographic
 area  licensees  to  construct  stations  throughout  their  authorized  service  areas  will  not  be  hindered.
 E.  Service  Area
 ___________________________________________________________________________________________  e.  g.,  Amendment  of  Parts  1,  21,  22,  74  and  94  of  the  Commission's  Rules  to  Establish  Service  and  Technical
 Rules  for  Government  and  Non-  Government  Fixed  Service  Usage  of  the  Frequency  Bands  932-  935  MHz  and  941-  944  MHz,  GN  Docket  No.  82-  243,  Third  Report  and  Order  and  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order
 (Proceeding  Terminated),  6  FCC  Rcd  4320  (1991)  ("  The  technical  parameters  associated  with  the  multiple  address  system  design  are  expected  to  provide  licensees  with  a  25-  mile  radius  service  area  centered  on  the
 master  station.").
 121  For  example,  47  C.  F.  R.    101.105(  c)(  3)  provides  that  MAS  applicants  must  make  a  showing  that
 protection  criteria  have  been  met  over  the  entire  service  area  of  existing  systems.  Such  showings  may  be  made  by  the  applicant  or  may  be  satisfied  by  a  statement  from  the  frequency  coordinator.  See  also  47  C.  F.  R.  
 22.  625(  a)  (stating  that  the  required  minimum  distance  separation  between  co-  channel  fixed  transmitters  is  113  kilometers  (70  miles).  However,  the  requirement  may  be  waived  with  an  engineering  analysis  showing  that  no
 interference  would  be  caused  to  either  system).
 122  The  public  interest  is  not  served  in  allowing  incumbents  to  expand  their  systems  without
 restrictions.  See,  e.  g.,  800  MHz  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  1513-  14.
 123  In  general,  licensees  may  add  or  modify  sites  without  filing  site  specific  applications  under  this
 Report  and  Order  and  Commission  rules  and  policies;  however,  licensees  must  file  applications  with  the  Commission  if  such  filing  is  necessary  for  coordination  with  Mexico  or  Canada,  or  is  required  by  47  C.  F.  R.  
 1.  923,  1.924,  or  1.  1301  et  seq.
 124  See  800  MHz  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  1514;  Amendment  of  Parts  2  and  90  of  the
 Commissions  Rules  to  Provide  for  the  Use  of  200  Channels  Outside  the  Designated  Filing  Areas  in  the  896-  901  MHz  and  the  935-  940  MHz  Bands  Allotted  to  the  Specialized  Mobile  Radio  Pool,  PR  Docket  No.  89-  553,
 Second  Report  and  Order  and  Second  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  10  FCC  Rcd  6884,  6901  (1995)  (900  MHz  Second  Report  and  Order).
 125  Paging  Systems  Second  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  2764.
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 26
 63.  Background.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  noted  the  growing  demand  for  regional  and  nationwide  licenses,  as  evidenced  by  the  success  of  the  narrowband  PCS  auction,  and  accordingly,
 sought  comment  on  whether  to  set  aside  a  certain  number  of  channel  pairs  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  for  regional  or  nationwide  use.  126  In  addition,  the  Commission  sought  comment  on  the  use  of  smaller
 geographic  licensing  areas,  all  of  which  have  been  implemented  in  the  context  of  other  services.  127  Specifically,  the  Commission  proposed  to  use  EAs  as  the  service  area  for  MAS  geographic  area
 licenses.  128
 64.  Discussion.  Most  commenters  do  not  believe  that  we  should  establish  a  regional  or  national  set-  aside  of  selected  932/  941  MHz  channels.  Some  commenters  believe  that  designating
 channels  exclusively  for  regional  or  nationwide  use  is  inappropriate  and  contrary  to  the  intended  uses  for  MAS  spectrum.  129  MDS  argues  that  having  regional  or  nationwide  channels  will  result  in  areas
 remaining  unused  and  unlicensable  to  others.  130  Finally,  Black  &  Associates  suggests  that  although  nationwide  and  regional  frequency  pairs  would  be  an  advantage  to  paging  licensees  that  simulcast  and
 for  mobile  service,  there  has  been  a  trend  in  the  paging  industry  to  use  satellite  control  frequencies  instead  of  frequencies  in  the  928/  959  MHz  bands  for  economy  and  flexibility.  131
 65.  While  many  commenters  support  retention  of  site-  by-  site  licensing  for  MAS  spectrum,  several  commenters  support  the  use  of  EAs,  particularly  for  subscriber-  based  operations  in  the
 932/  941  MHz  and  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands,  should  we  adopt  a  geographic  licensing  approach.  132  Other  commenters  argue  that  the  typical  geographic  area  served  by  MAS  licensees  is  smaller  than  the
 EAs  tentatively  selected  by  the  Commission.  133  Thus,  they  recommend  the  adoption  of  service  areas  the  size  of  MSAs  and  RSAs  because  service  areas  of  this  size  would  permit  viable  MAS  service
 without  a  significant  increase  over  EAs  in  terms  of  the  Commissions  administrative  burden.
 126  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7982.
 127  For  example,  the  service  areas  for  Cellular  Radiotelephone  Service  and  218-  219  MHz  Service  are
 based  on  Metropolitan  Statistical  Areas  (MSAs)  and  Rural  Service  Areas  (RSAs).  In  addition,  we  have  used  EAs  developed  by  the  Bureau  of  Economic  Analysis  of  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Commerce  for  the  220-  222
 MHz  Service,  the  General  Wireless  Communications  Service  (GWCS),  and  for  800  MHz  SMR  Service  licensing.
 128  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7982-  83.
 129  AWWA  Comments  at  14;  WSSC  Comments  at  8.
 130  MDS  Comments  at  10.
 131  Black  &  Associates  Comments  at  5.
 132  AWWA  Comments  at  14;  CellNet  Comments  at  24;  Radscan  Comments  at  18;  WSSC  Comments
 at  8.
 133  See,  e.  g.,  AWWA  Comments  at  6;  CellNet  Comments  at  24;  GTECH  Comments  at  6;  WSSC
 Comments  at  8.
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 27
 66.  While  commenters  generally  agree  that  geographic  area  licensing  based  on  EAs  is  appropriate  for  subscriber-  based  licensees,  the  majority  of  commenters  argue  that  EAs  are  not
 appropriate  for  incumbents  in  the  MAS  bands.  For  example,  some  commenters  argue  that  EAs  are  not  a  suitable  alternative  for  existing  private  MAS  systems  because  private  systems  have  a  size  and  shape
 tailored  to  the  particular  internal  business  objectives  of  the  licensee.  134  Another  argument  is  that  EAs  do  not  provide  an  appropriate  licensing  mechanism  in  those  MAS  bands  in  which  there  are  incumbent
 systems  because  most  MAS  systems  are  limited  in  area  (primarily  by  the  ninety-  mile  co-  channel  protection  distance)  to  a  service  area  much  smaller  than  the  EAs  delineated  by  the  Department  of
 Commerce.  135  Therefore,  CellNet  argues  that  smaller  license  areas,  such  as  Component  Economic  Areas  (CEAs),  should  be  used  to  license  any  MAS  bands  in  which  there  are  incumbent  licensees.  136
 67.  We  agree  with  most  commenters  that  a  channel  set-  aside  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  for  regional  or  nationwide  use  would  not  be  appropriate  for  this  service.  We  believe  that  other  spectrum,
 such  as  narrowband  PCS,  is  available  and  can  accommodate  those  operations  that  would  potentially  benefit  from  such  a  licensing  approach.
 68.  Furthermore,  we  conclude  that  EAs  constitute  the  most  appropriate  geographic  area  licensing  boundaries  for  those  portions  of  the  MAS  bands  that  we  have  designated  for  geographic  area
 licensing  in  this  Report  and  Order.  As  the  Commission  stated  in  the  Notice,  MSAs  and  RSAs  are  too  small  to  create  a  viable  wide-  area  service  and  these  geographic  definitions  would  result  in  an
 administrative  burden  for  the  Commission.  137  We  believe  that  EAs  are  service  areas  large  enough  to  permit  viable  wide-  area  service  and  would  reduce  our  administrative  burden.  Further,  EAs  appear  to
 mirror  the  size  and  development  of  existing  MAS  systems  and  are  small  enough  to  provide  an  opportunity  for  small  businesses  to  obtain  a  license.  138  We  believe  that  licensing  the  MAS  bands  by
 EAs  will  provide  ample  population  coverage  and  allow  licensees  the  flexibility  to  provide  many  different  types  of  services,  which  will  promote  an  equitable  distribution  of  licenses  and  services
 among  geographic  areas,  encourage  economic  opportunities  among  a  variety  of  applicants,  and  foster  investment  in  the  rapid  deployment  of  new  technologies  and  services.  As  in  other  services  where  we
 have  used  EA-  based  licenses,  we  propose  to  use  a  total  of  175  service  areas    the  172  EAs  specified  by  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  three  EA-  like  areas  for  Guam  and  the  Northern  Marianas
 Islands,  Puerto  Rico  and  the  United  States  Virgin  Islands,  and  American  Samoa.  Finally,  for  entities
 134  AWWA  Comments  at  14;  WSSC  Comments  at  8.
 135  CellNet  Comments  at  24.
 136  Id.  at  24-  25.
 137  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7982-  83.
 138  The  Commission  must  seek  to  promote  the  dissemination  of  licenses  to  small  businesses,  rural
 telephone  companies,  and  minority-  and  women-  owned  businesses,  as  well  as  identify  and  eliminate  market  entry  barriers  for  entrepreneurs  and  other  small  businesses  seeking  to  enter  the  communications  field.  See  47
 U.  S.  C.    257  and  309(  j).
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 28
 desiring  service  areas  smaller  than  EAs,  we  note  that  in  this  Report  and  Order  we  are  permitting  partitioning  and  disaggregation  in  the  MAS  bands.  139  We  believe  that  the  availability  of  these  options,
 as  well  as  allowing  licensees  to  aggregate  contiguous  channels,  140  will  enhance  MAS  licensees  flexibility  regarding  system  design  and  service  offerings,  which  will  promote  the  efficient  and  diverse
 use  of  the  MAS  bands.
 F.  Geographic  Area  Licensing
 69.  Background.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  proposed  to  allow  EA  licensees  to  construct  master  stations  at  any  available  site  within  the  licensed  area  and  on  any  channel  for  which
 they  are  licensed,  provided  the  operation  does  not  require  individual  Commission  review.  141  The  Commission  also  stated  that  all  remote  stations  would  be  blanket  licensed  under  the  EA  license.
 Under  this  proposal,  EA  licensees  would  still  be  required  to  individually  license  any  master  station  that:  (1)  requires  the  submission  of  an  Environmental  Assessment  under  47  C.  F.  R.    1.1307;  (2)
 requires  international  coordination;  or  (3)  would  affect  the  radio  frequency  quiet  zones  described  in  47  C.  F.  R.    22.  369  and  101.123.  142  In  addition,  any  MAS  antenna  structure  that  requires  notification  to
 the  Federal  Aviation  Administration  (FAA)  has  to  be  registered  with  the  Commission  prior  to  construction.  143  The  Commission  indicated  that  it  would  be  the  EA  licensee's  responsibility  to  decide
 whether  to  apply  for  an  individual  license  for  any  given  master  station.  The  Notice  also  proposed  to  allow  EA  licensees  to  make  system  modifications  within  their  service  areas,  without  prior  Commission
 consent,  provided  that  individual  Commission  review  is  not  required.  144
 70.  In  addition,  in  order  to  assist  EA  licensees  in  consolidating  MAS  spectrum,  the  Notice  proposed  that:  (1)  if  an  incumbent  has  its  license  terminated  by  the  Commission  or  cancels  its
 license,  the  spectrum  covered  by  the  incumbents  authorization  will  automatically  revert  to  the  relevant  EA  licensee,  and  (2)  if  an  EA  licensee  negotiates  to  acquire  an  incumbent  system  by
 assignment  or  transfer,  the  assignment  or  transfer  will  presumptively  be  considered  in  the  public  interest.  145
 71.  Discussion.  We  note,  as  an  initial  matter,  that  only  a  few  commenters  addressed  issues  regarding  geographic  area  licensing.  Although  those  parties  offered  a  mixed  reaction  to  our
 139  See  infra  at  paras.  78-  88.
 140  See  infra  at  para.  99.
 141  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7984-  85.
 142  Id.
 143  See  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  17.
 144  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7984-  85.
 145  Id.  at  7985-  86.
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 29
 proposals,  we  believe  that  our  simplified  approach  toward  the  initial  licensing  and  subsequent  system  modifications  will  increase  operational  flexibility,  thereby  resulting  in  faster,  more  responsive  service
 to  the  public,  and  it  will  substantially  reduce  administrative  burdens  on  both  MAS  licensees  and  the  Commission.  146  As  a  result,  we  will  allow  EA  licensees  to  construct  master  stations  at  any  available
 site  within  their  licensed  area  and  on  any  channel  for  which  they  are  licensed,  provided  the  operation  does  not  require  individual  Commission  review.  147  In  this  regard,  we  disagree  with  MDSs  comments
 that  we  should  retain  the  current  requirement  that  all  master  station  sites  be  coordinated  and  licensed.  148  We  adopt  our  proposal  that  all  remote  stations  will  be  blanket  licensed  under  their
 respective  EA  licenses.  EA  licensees  also  will  be  able  to  make  system  modifications  within  their  service  areas  (i.  e.,  to  add,  subtract,  move  and  otherwise  modify  their  master  station  facilities),  without
 Commission  consent  provided  that  individual  Commission  review  is  not  required.  As  previously  noted,  this  approach  is  consistent  with  how  we  license  systems  in  other  services  on  a  geographic  area
 basis.  149  Finally,  as  we  have  in  other  services,  we  are  implementing  a  policy  that  if  we  terminate  or  cancel  an  incumbents  license,  the  spectrum  covered  by  the  incumbents  authorization  will
 automatically  revert  to  the  applicable  EA  licensee.  150
 G.  Spectrum  Cap  and  Aggregation
 146  We  want  to  clarify  that  all  licenses  granted  after  the  release  of  this  Report  and  Order  will  be
 subject  to  ten-  year  terms.  A  ten-  year  license  term  is  consistent  with  the  license  terms  in  other  Part  101  services  and  will  provide  licensees  additional  flexibility  in  promoting  more  efficient  uses  of  spectrum.  It  also  serves  our
 goal  of  providing  licensees  with  flexibility  to  develop  this  spectrum  as  the  market  demands  and  to  employ  innovative  technologies  that  may  not  be  available  immediately  upon  initial  licensing.
 147  It  is  the  EA  licensee's  responsibility  to  decide  whether  to  apply  for  an  individual  license  for  any
 given  master  station.  For  example,  as  noted  earlier,  licensees  are  still  required  to  individually  license  certain  master  stations.  See  supra  at  para.  71.  Additionally,  we  reiterate  that  any  MAS  antenna  structure  that  requires
 notification  to  the  FAA  must  be  registered  with  the  Commission  prior  to  construction.  See  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  17.  Antenna  structures  more  than  200  feet  above  ground  or  located  near  or  on  specified  airports  must  be  notified  to
 the  FAA  and  registered  with  the  Commission  prior  to  construction.  This  requirement  applies  to  all  non-government  antenna  structures,  regardless  of  the  radio  service  licensees  involved.
 148  MDS  Comments  at  11-  12.  On  the  other  hand,  MDS  supports  our  view  that  remote  sites  should  not
 require  a  license.
 149  See,  e.  g.,  800  MHz  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  1498;  47  C.  F.  R.    27.  11  (Wireless
 Communications  Service);  47  C.  F.  R.    24.  11  (PCS).
 150  See  800  MHz  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  1501;  Amendment  of  the  Commissions
 Rules  Regarding  the  37.  0-  38.6  GHz  and  38.6-  40.  0  GHz  Bands,  ET  Docket  No.  95-  183,  Report  and  Order  and  Second  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  12  FCC  Rcd  18600,  18636    74  (1997)  (39  GHz  Report  and  Order  and
 Second  NPRM);  800  MHz  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  1501    59.  See  infra  at  para.  93  for  the  treatment  of  recovered  channels  in  a  site-  by-  site  licensing  scheme.
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 30
 72.  Background.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  proposed  to  assign  geographic  area  licenses  on  a  channel-  by-  channel  basis  for  non-  subscriber  based  operations.  151  The  Commission
 tentatively  concluded  that  allowing  licensees  to  aggregate  MAS  spectrum  would  not  pose  a  risk  of  competitive  harm  and  that,  therefore,  a  spectrum  aggregation  limit  was  unnecessary.  152  In  making  that
 determination,  the  Commission  noted  that  where  licenses  are  subject  to  competitive  bidding,  the  risk  of  channel  warehousing  appears  limited  because  the  licensees  are  unlikely  to  bid  for  more  channels
 than  they  actually  need  or  can  use.  153  The  Commission  also  sought  comment  on  whether  it  may  be  appropriate  to  establish  a  spectrum  aggregation  limit  if  it  ultimately  decided  to  allow  mobile
 operations  on  a  primary  basis.  154
 73.  Discussion.  Earlier  in  this  Report  and  Order,  we  adopted  our  proposal  to  award  licenses  on  a  channel-  by-  channel  basis  in  the  bands  designated  for  private  internal  use.  155  CellNet
 proposes  that  we  impose  a  100  kHz  spectrum  cap  for  the  932/  941  MHz  bands.  156  CellNet  states  that  for  the  encumbered  bands,  we  should  retain  our  de  facto  limit  of  fifty  kHz.  157  According  to  CellNet,
 allowing  any  entity  to  obtain  more  than  fifty  kHz  in  these  bands  may  encourage  spectrum  warehousing.  158
 74.  After  considering  the  record  in  this  proceeding,  we  have  decided  not  to  adopt  a  limit  on  the  amount  of  MAS  spectrum  that  a  single  entity  may  obtain.  In  this  connection,  entities  providing
 or  proposing  to  provide  service  under  a  geographic  area  license  may  aggregate  unlimited  spectrum  in  their  designated  bands,  and  site-  based  licensees  may  aggregate  unlimited  spectrum  in  any  MAS  band.
 We  continue  to  believe,  as  indicated  in  the  Notice,  that  allowing  licensees  to  aggregate  MAS  spectrum  will  not  present  a  risk  of  competitive  harm.  159  In  services  where  we  have  imposed  a  spectrum  cap,  the
 risk  of  anticompetitive  behavior  and  warehousing  existed  due  to  a  limited  number  of  available  channels.  160  Given  the  number  of  MAS  licenses  that  we  are  making  available  and  the  fact  that
 151  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7986.
 152  Id.
 153  Id.
 154  Id.
 155  See  supra  at  Section  IV(  B),  (C)  (discussing  spectrum  allotment  and  licensing  approach).
 156  CellNet  Comments  at  29.
 157  Id.
 158  Id.  at  29,  n.  30.
 159  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7986.
 160  See  Narrowband  PCS  Report  and  Order,  8  FCC  Rcd  at  7168;  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  6  (  CMRS  spectrum
 aggregation  limit).
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 31
 numerous  licensees  are  operating  currently,  we  conclude  that  not  adopting  a  spectrum  cap  is  unlikely  to  result  in  a  risk  of  competitive  harm.  Similarly,  we  believe  that  loading  requirements  are
 unnecessary.
 75.  In  addition,  we  are  not  persuaded  by  those  commenters  that  suggest  that  an  aggregation  limit  is  necessary  to  ensure  efficient  and  effective  utilization  of  MAS  spectrum  reserved  for  non-subscriber
 based  services.  161  CellNet  believes  that  in  order  to  ensure  the  efficient  use  of  MAS  spectrum,  reasonable  limits  should  be  imposed.  162  AWWA  maintains  that  the  reliability  of  service  and
 accountability  needed  to  ensure  uninterrupted  service  to  the  public  (i.  e.,  water,  gas,  electricity,  etc.)  mean  little  to  subscriber-  based  service  providers  because  the  return  on  investment  typically  is  much
 higher  when  their  systems  are  designed  and  operated  for  non-  critical  user  populations.  163  We  find  that  our  decision  to  set  aside  certain  channels  and  bands--  devoted  to  private  internal  use--  adequately
 addresses  the  commenters  concerns.  Within  the  channels  allocated  for  private  internal  use,  licensees  (such  as  those  that  employ  SCADA  MAS  systems)  will  have  the  option  of  aggregating  spectrum  when
 necessary  to  protect  their  critical  systems.
 76.  Anticompetitive  channel  warehousing  is  also  unlikely.  Because  the  twenty  channels  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands,  as  well  as  the  channels  in  928/  959  MHz  bands,  will  be  assigned  initially
 through  competitive  bidding,  they  will  be  assigned  efficiently  to  firms  that  have  shown  by  their  willingness  to  pay  market  value,  their  intention  to  put  the  licenses  to  the  highest  valued  uses.
 77.  We  further  conclude  that  MAS  holdings  will  not  be  subject  to  the  CMRS  spectrum  cap  of  forty-  five  MHz.  164  The  record  indicates  that  there  will  be  an  adequate  number  of  licenses  available
 to  meet  the  needs  of  the  MAS  licensees  and  other  competitors  in  the  marketplace,  and  we  find  it  unlikely  that  one  entity  will  wield  undue  market  power  by  aggregating  MAS  spectrum.  Moreover,  we
 do  not  find  that  an  aggregation  limit  is  necessary  to  foster  competition.  Indeed,  an  MAS  spectrum  aggregation  limit  that  was  applicable  to  MAS  licensees  might  limit  the  ability  of  such  licensees  to
 bring  efficient  competition  to  the  marketplace.  165  Additionally,  we  conclude  that  there  may  be  benefits
 161  See,  e.  g.,  AWWA  Comments  at  16;  CellNet  Comments  at  29;  WSSC  Comments  at  9.
 162  CellNet  Comments  at  29.  See  also  AWWA  Comments  at  17.
 163  AWWA  Comments  at  16-  17.  AWWA  claims  that  its  members  essentially  are  in  the  same  critical
 environment  as  public  safety  agencies.  To  illustrate,  AWWA  states  that  few,  if  any,  public  safety  agencies  in  the  nation  rely  on  commercial  radio  services  for  their  primary  wireless  communications  needs.  Public  utilities
 cannot  rely  on  spectrum  re-  sellers  either  and  must  have  reliable  systems  to  meet  their  public  service  obligations.  Id.
 164  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  6  (  CMRS  spectrum  aggregation  limit).  See  Biennial  Regulatory  Review  Report
 and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  21027.
 165  See  39  GHz  Report  and  Order  and  Second  NPRM,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  18626-  27.
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 32
 to  the  public  in  terms  of  efficiencies  and  types  of  services  provided  if  we  permit  unlimited  aggregation  of  MAS  spectrum.  166
 H.  Partitioning  and  Disaggregation
 1.  Partitioning  and  Disaggregation  Framework
 78.  Background.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  proposed  a  framework  for  geographic  partitioning  and  spectrum  disaggregation  based  upon  the  model  developed  for  broadband  PCS.  167  The
 Commission  proposed  to  allow  all  MAS  licensees  to  partition  at  any  time  to  any  entity  eligible  for  an  MAS  license.  168  The  Commission  also  proposed  to  permit  partitioning  of  MAS  licenses  based  on  any
 geographic  area  defined  by  the  parties  to  a  partitioning  arrangement.  169  With  respect  to  construction  requirements,  the  Commission  sought  comment  regarding  which  party  should  be  held  responsible  for
 satisfying  outstanding  construction  requirements.  170  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  suggested  two  construction  options  that  would  afford  the  parties  the  flexibility  to  choose  how  to  apportion  the
 responsibility  to  build  out  the  partitioned  license  areas.  171  The  Commission  also  proposed  to  require  that  the  parties  to  such  partitioning  arrangements  file  supporting  documentation  showing  compliance
 with  the  applicable  construction  requirements.  172
 79.  Furthermore,  in  the  Notice  the  Commission  proposed  to  permit  disaggregation  of  MAS  spectrum.  173  Under  this  approach,  an  MAS  licensee  would  be  allowed  to  transfer  a  portion  of  its
 spectrum  in  its  EA  to  another  entity.  The  Commission  invited  comment  on  whether  minimum  disaggregation  standards  are  necessary  if  we  permit  disaggregation  of  MAS  spectrum.  174  With  respect
 to  construction  requirements,  the  Commission  proposed  to  retain  the  underlying  five-  and  ten-  year
 166  See  id.
 167  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7987;  see  Geographic  Partitioning  and  Spectrum  Disaggregation  by
 Commercial  Mobile  Radio  Services  Licensees,  WT  Docket  No.  96-  148,  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  11  FCC  Rcd  21831  (1996)  (PCS  Order).  Partitioning  is  the  assignment  of
 geographic  portions  of  a  license  along  geopolitical  or  other  boundaries.  Disaggregation  is  the  assignment  of  discrete  portions  or  blocks  of  spectrum  licensed  to  a  geographic  licensee  or  qualifying  entity.  Id.  at  21833.
 168  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7987.
 169  Id.  at  7988.
 170  Id.
 171  Id.
 172  Id.
 173  Id.  at  7987.
 174  Id.
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 33
 construction  requirements  for  the  MAS  license  as  a  whole,  but  suggested  allowing  either  party  to  the  disaggregation  agreement  to  meet  the  construction  requirements  with  respect  to  the  disaggregated
 portion  of  the  license.  175  The  Commission  also  proposed  mandating  that  the  parties  seeking  Commission  approval  of  the  disaggregation  agreement  certify  which  party  will  assume  responsibility
 for  complying  with  the  applicable  construction  requirements,  including  the  option  of  sharing  responsibility  for  meeting  such  requirements.  176  In  the  context  of  both  partitioning  and  disaggregation,
 the  Commission  proposed  that  the  party  obtaining  the  partitioned  licenses  or  disaggregated  spectrum  should  hold  its  license  for  the  remainder  of  the  original  licensees  license  term.  177
 80.  Discussion.  Consistent  with  our  approach  in  other  services,  178  we  conclude  that  MAS  EA  licensees  should  be  permitted  to  partition  any  portion  of  their  EAs,  and  to  disaggregate  any  amount
 of  spectrum  at  any  time  to  any  entity  eligible  for  an  MAS  license.  179  In  this  connection,  we  note  that  several  commenters  support  this  approach.  180
 175  Id.  at  7988-  89.
 176  Id.  at  7989.
 177  Id.  at  7988.
 178  See  PCS  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21839-  66;  218-  219  MHz  Report  and  Order,  64  Fed.  Reg.  59656  at
   92-  94;  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  the  37.  0    38.  6  GHz  and  38.  6    40.  0  GHz  Bands,  ET  Docket  No.  95-  183,  Implementation  of  Section  309(  j)  of  the  Communications  Act    Competitive  Bidding,
 37.  0    38.  6  GHz  and  38.  6    40.0  GHz  Bands,  PP  Docket  No.  93-  253,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  12428  (1999)  (39  GHz  Order);  Revision  of  Part  22  and  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to
 Facilitate  Future  Development  of  Paging  Systems,  PR  Docket  No.  93-  253,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  on  Reconsideration  and  Third  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  10030,  10101  (1999)  (Paging  Systems  Third  Report
 and  Order);  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Provide  for  the  Use  of  the  220-  222  MHz  Band  by  the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Service,  PR  Docket  No.  89-  552,  Fifth  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd
 24615  (1998)  (220  MHz  Fifth  Report  and  Order);  Rule  Making  to  Amend  Parts  1,  2,  21,  and  25  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Redesignate  the  27.  5  -  29.  5  GHz  Frequency  Band,  To  Reallocate  the  29.  5  -  30.  0  GHz
 Frequency  Band,  To  Establish  Rules  and  Policies  for  Local  Multipoint  Distribution  Service  and  for  Fixed  Satellite  Services,  CC  Docket  No.  92-  297,  Fourth  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  11655  (1998)  (LMDS  Fourth
 Report  and  Order);  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Establish  Part  27,  the  Wireless  Communications  Service  (  WCS),  GN  Docket  No.  96-  228,  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  10785,  10836  (1997)  (WCS  Report
 and  Order).
 179  Nonetheless,  as  discussed  supra  in  Section  IV(  G),  there  are  limited  restrictions  based  upon  band
 designations.  Geographic  area  licensees  may  aggregate  unlimited  spectrum  in  their  designated  bands,  yet  they  may  not  be  licensed  as  partitionees  or  disaggregatees  in  those  portions  of  the  MAS  spectrum  allocated  for
 public  safety  and  private  internal  use.  However,  entities  using  or  proposing  to  use  MAS  spectrum  for  public  safety  or  private  internal  use  may  be  licensed  as  partitionees  or  disaggregatees  in  any  MAS  bands.
 180  See,  e.  g.,  API  Comments  at  32,  AWWA  Comments  at  17;  MDS  Comments  at  13;  Radscan
 Comments  at  13-  14.
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 34
 81.  While  AWWA  and  MDS  question  our  reliance  on  our  approach  in  broadband  PCS  as  a  model  for  MAS,  181  we  note  that  such  approach  also  has  been  used  in  other  contexts,  such  as  39  GHz,
 VHF  public  coast,  220  MHz,  and  paging,  and  we  believe  it  is  appropriate  for  the  MAS  context  as  well.  Further,  we  concur  with  Radscans  suggestion  that  partitioning  and  disaggregation  would  possibly
 provide  an  additional  mechanism  by  which  small  businesses  or  entities  with  specialized  communications  needs  (either  due  to  limited  and/  or  geography  spectrum  requirements)  would  gain
 access  to  spectrum.  182
 82.  Furthermore,  we  conclude  that  the  parties  to  a  partitioning  agreement  should  be  given  two  options  to  apportion  the  responsibility  for  meeting  minimum  construction  requirements.  183  Under
 the  first  option,  each  party  to  the  partitioning  agreement  would  be  subject  to  the  same  construction  requirements  for  its  respective  areas  regardless  of  when  the  partitionee  acquired  its  license.  184  If  a
 licensee  fails  to  meet  its  construction  requirements  during  the  relevant  license  term,  the  non-performing  licensees  authorization  would  be  subject  to  cancellation  at  the  end  of  the  license  term.  185
 Under  the  second  option,  the  original  licensee  (partitionor)  would  certify  that  it  has  already  met  or  will  meet  its  five-  year  construction  requirement  and  that  it  will  meet  its  ten-  year  construction  requirement
 for  the  entire  market.  186  If  the  original  licensee,  for  example,  fails  to  meet  its  requirements  during  the  relevant  license  term,  however,  only  its  license  would  be  subject  to  cancellation  at  the  end  of  the
 license  term.  The  partitionees  license  would  not  be  affected  by  that  failure,  and  the  partitionee  would  be  permitted  to  satisfy  the  substantial  service  requirement  for  its  partitioned  license  area  at  the  end  of
 the  ten-  year  license  term.  187  A  licensee  whose  license  was  cancelled  for  failure  to  meet  its  construction  requirement  must  return  the  license  to  the  Commission  pursuant  to  Section  101.  63  of  our  Rules.  188
 83.  We  concur  with  AWWAs  suggestion  that  permitting  disaggregation  for  EA  licensees  may  promote  efficient  utilization  of  the  MAS  spectrum.  189  AWWA  adds  that  the  parties  to  a
 181  AWWA  Comments  at  17;  MDS  Comments  at  12-  13.
 182  Radscan  Comments  at  13-  14.
 183  See  PCS  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21857;  LMDS  Fourth  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  11664-  65;
 Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Concerning  Maritime  Communications,  PR  Docket  No.  92-  257,  Third  Report  and  Order  and  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  19853,  19873  (1998)  (Maritime  Third
 Report  and  Order).
 184  See  PCS  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21855.
 185  See  LMDS  Fourth  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  11664-  65.
 186  See  PCS  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21857.
 187  See  LMDS  Fourth  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  11664-  65.
 188  See  infra  at  para.  93.
 189  AWWA  Comments  at  18.
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 35
 disaggregation  agreement  should  be  jointly  and  separately  responsible  for  meeting  construction  requirements,  substantial  service  requirements,  and  the  other  terms  of  the  original  authorization.  190  We
 find  that  once  an  initial  geographic  area  MAS  license  is  assigned,  the  licensee  ordinarily  should  be  free  to  disaggregate  its  spectrum  in  order  to  operate  in  a  manner  that  it  determines  to  be  efficient,  so  long
 as  such  plans  provide  the  necessary  out-  of-  band  emission  protections  to  third  party  licensees  as  required  by  our  Rules.  191  The  parties  to  a  disaggregation  agreement  just  as  the  parties  to  a
 partitioning  agreement  must  file  an  application  for  assignment  of  authorization.
 84.  Similar  to  the  model  developed  for  broadband  PCS,  we  decline  to  restrict  the  amount  of  MAS  spectrum  that  can  be  disaggregated.  192  Additionally,  we  will  not  require  the  disaggregator  to
 retain  a  minimum  amount  of  spectrum.  193  Market  forces  and  available  technology,  rather  than  regulation,  should  determine  how  much  spectrum  parties  decide  to  disaggregate.  194
 85.  With  respect  to  construction  requirements,  we  find  no  sufficient  reason  to  depart  from  the  proposal  in  the  Notice  regarding  the  obligations  of  each  party  to  a  disaggregation  agreement.  195
 Therefore,  we  will  retain  the  underlying  five-  and  ten-  year  construction  requirements  for  the  MAS  license  as  a  whole,  but  allow  either  party  to  the  disaggregation  agreement  to  meet  the  construction
 requirements  with  respect  to  the  disaggregated  portion  of  the  license.  Parties  seeking  our  approval  of  a  disaggregation  agreement  must  certify  which  party  will  assume  responsibility  for  complying  with  the
 applicable  construction  requirements,  including  the  option  of  sharing  responsibility  for  meeting  such  requirements.  We  no  longer  need  to  establish  a  separate  unjust  enrichment  requirement  for  approving
 partitioning  and  disaggregation  in  the  MAS  service,  because  we  have  adopted  a  uniform  requirement  in  Part  1  of  our  Rules  for  all  services.  196  The  unjust  enrichment  provisions  adopted  therein  will  also
 apply  to  MAS  licensees  that  are  afforded  bidding  credits  and  later  elect  to  partition  or  disaggregate  their  licenses.  197
 86.  We  will  allow  partitionees  and  disaggregatees  to  hold  their  licenses  for  the  remainder  of  the  original  licensees  ten-  year  license  term  and  be  able  to  qualify  for  a  renewal  expectancy,  provided
 190  Id.
 191  See  47  C.  F.  R.    101.  105,  101.107,  101.145.
 192  See  LMDS  Fourth  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  11611;  WCS  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd
 at  10837;  PCS  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21860.
 193  See  PCS  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21860.
 194  See  id.
 195  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7988.
 196  See  47  C.  F.  R.    1.  2111(  e);  Part  1  Third  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  405.
 197  See  infra  at  para.  127.
35
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 36
 that  they  provide  substantial  service  and  comply  with  our  Rules  and  policies  and  the  Communications  Act.  198  This  approach  is  relatively  simple  to  administer,  it  prevents  an  MAS  licensee  from  obtaining
 greater  license  rights  than  were  originally  granted  under  the  terms  of  the  original  license,  and  it  allows  existing  MAS  licensees  flexibility  to  manage  their  spectrum  rights.  199
 2.  Combined  Partitioning  and  Disaggregation
 87.  Background.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  tentatively  concluded  that  it  should  permit  combined  partitioning  and  disaggregation  200  arrangements  in  order  to  provide  parties  with  the
 optimal  flexibility  to  respond  to  market  forces  and  demands  for  services  relevant  to  their  particular  locations  and  service  offerings.  201  In  the  context  of  both  partitioning  and  disaggregation,  the
 Commission  proposed  that  the  party  obtaining  the  partitioned  licenses  or  disaggregated  spectrum  should  hold  its  license  for  the  remainder  of  the  original  licensees  license  term.  202  The  Commission
 tentatively  concluded  that  permitting  partitioning  and  disaggregation  in  the  manner  described  above  would  allow  the  MAS  spectrum  to  be  used  most  efficiently,  speed  service  to  unserved  or  underserved
 areas,  and  facilitate  competition.  203
 88.  Discussion.  After  reviewing  the  comments,  we  will  permit  EA  licensees  to  employ  combined  partitioning  and  disaggregation.  We  note  that  this  decision  is  consistent  with  our  approach
 in  other  services.  204  We  believe  that  affording  EA  licensees  this  option  may  promote  spectral  efficiency.  205  We  also  believe  that  the  option  of  combined  partitioning  and  disaggregation  will
 enhance  competition  and  encourage  new  market  entrants.
 198  See  PCS  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21870;  220  MHz  Fifth  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  24634-
 35;  LMDS  Fourth  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  11667-  68.
 199  See  PCS  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21870.
 200  By  combined  partitioning  and  disaggregation,  we  refer  to  circumstances  in  which  an  entity  would
 receive  authorization  for  a  portion  of  an  MAS  licensees  service  area  on  a  portion  of  the  spectrum  authorized  to  that  licensee.
 201  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7989.
 202  Id.  at  7988.
 203  Id.
 204  See,  e.  g.,  218-  219  MHz  Report  and  Order    93;  39  GHz  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  2460;  WCS  Report
 and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  10839;  Paging  Systems  Third  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10110;  220  MHz  Fifth  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  24628;  800  MHz  SMR  Second  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at
 19150;  PCS  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21866.
 205  See,  e.  g.,  218-  219  MHz  Report  and  Order    93;  39  GHz  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  2460;  WCS  Report
 and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  10839;  Paging  Systems  Third  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10110;  220  MHz  Fifth  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  24628;  800  MHz  SMR  Second  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at
 19150;  PCS  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21866.
36
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 37
 I.  Mexican  and  Canadian  Border  Areas
 89.  Background.  In  the  Mexican  and  Canadian  border  areas,  MAS  channel  availability  may  be  restricted  by  existing  agreements  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico  or  Canada,  and  limitations
 may  be  imposed  on  Effective  Radiated  Power  (ERP)  and  antenna  height.  206  In  other  services  where  we  have  converted  to  geographic  area  licensing,  we  have  decided  not  to  distinguish  between  border  areas
 and  non-  border  areas  for  licensing  purposes.  207  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  proposed  to  allow  geographic  area  licensees  to  use  any  available  border-  area  channels  without  regard  to  whether  all  or
 part  of  the  EA  is  in  a  border  area,  subject  only  to  the  relevant  rules  regarding  international  assignment  and  coordination  of  such  channels.  208
 90.  Discussion.  We  will  license  all  EAs  on  a  uniform  basis  without  regard  to  whether  all  or  part  of  the  EA  is  in  a  border  area  or  a  channel  is  restricted  in  some  fashion.  Although  AWWA
 believes  that  not  distinguishing  between  border  and  non-  border  areas  for  EA  licensing  in  MAS  will  promote  confusion,  interference,  and  ineffective  spectrum  use,  209  we  find  that  altering  the  size  of
 particular  market  areas  because  they  are  located  near  international  borders  is  likely  to  be  unworkable  administratively.  Furthermore,  our  approach  here  is  consistent  with  that  in  other  services.  210  We  agree
 with  MDS  that  we  should  retain  our  current  rules  and  sharing  agreements  in  existence  and  that  new  licensees  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  must  comply  with  the  requirements  as  they  are  written  for  the
 current  band.  211  Consequently,  EA  licensees  will  be  entitled  to  use  any  authorized  channels  subject  to  the  relevant  existing  or  future  agreements  regarding  international  assignments  and  coordination  of
 such  channels.  We  believe  that  applicants  are  in  the  best  position  to  assess  the  effects  of  any  limitations  on  the  use  of  channels  when  evaluating  those  geographic  areas  for  competitive  bidding
 purposes.  Our  decision  does  not  preclude  EA  licensees  from  obtaining  the  rights  to  additional  MAS  spectrum  in  the  border  areas  through  private  negotiation  and  agreement  with  other  licensees.  We  note
 206  See  47  C.  F.  R.    1.  955,  22.  169,  90.175(  e);  see  also  Arrangement  Between  the  Department  of
 Communications  of  Canada  and  the  Federal  Communications  Commission  of  the  United  States  of  America  Concerning  the  Use  of  the  Bands  928  to  929  MHz  and  952  to  953  MHz  Along  the  United  States  -  Canada  Border,  Public  Notice,  DA
 91-  999  (rel.  Aug.  13,  1991);  Arrangement  between  the  Federal  Communications  Commission  and  the  National  Telecommunications  and  Information  Administration  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  Industry  Canada  Concerning
 the  Use  of  the  Bands  932  to  935  MHz  and  941  to  944  MHz  Along  the  United  States-  Canada  Border  (1994);  Agreement  Between  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Government  of  the  United  Mexican  States  Concerning
 the  Allocation  and  Use  of  Frequency  Bands  by  Terrestrial  Non-  Broadcasting  Radiocommunication  Services  Along  the  Common  Border,  Protocol  #6  Concerning  the  Allotment  and  Use  of  Channels  in  the  932-  932.5  and  941-  941.  5  MHz
 Bands  for  Fixed  Point-  to-  Multipoint  Services  Along  the  Common  Border  (June  16,  1994).  207
 See,  e.  g.,  900  MHz  Second  Report  and  Order,  10  FCC  Rcd  at  6908.
 208  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7990.
 209  AWWA  Comments  at  18.
 210  See  800  MHz  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  1496    48.
 211  MDS  Comments  at  13.
37
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 38
 that  the  geographic  area  licensees  will  be  responsible  for  advising  the  Commission  of  any  transmitter  site  changes  or  additions  if  site-  by-  site  coordination  is  required  by  agreements  with  Canada  or  Mexico
 and  in  certain  circumstances  may  be  required  to  file  appropriate  applications  to  ensure  proper  coordination  with  other  administrations,  especially  in  circumstances  where  the  frequencies  are  shared
 and  on  a  first-  in-  time  basis.
 J.  Construction  and  Coverage  Requirements
 91.  Background.  Currently,  each  MAS  master  station  licensed  under  Part  101  of  our  Rules  must  be  placed  in  operation  within  eighteen  months  from  the  initial  date  of  grant.  212  In  order  to
 be  considered  in  operation,  MAS  stations  must  be  serving  at  least  four  separate  active  remote  stations.  213  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  concluded  that  we  should  retain  this  requirement  for
 incumbent  licensees.  214  However,  the  Commission  proposed  requiring  geographic  area  MAS  licensees  to  provide  coverage  to  at  least  one-  fifth  of  the  population  in  their  service  areas  or  substantial  service
 within  five  years  of  the  license  grant.  215  In  addition,  the  Commission  proposed  to  require  geographic  area  MAS  licensees  to  make  a  showing  of  substantial  service  within  ten  years  of  being  licensed.  216
 The  Commission  also  proposed  that  failure  to  meet  these  coverage  requirements  would  result  in  automatic  termination  of  the  geographic  MAS  license.  217  The  Commission  sought  comment  on  these
 proposals.
 92.  Discussion.  Most  commenters  generally  support  the  proposal  to  maintain  a  strict  construction  requirement  for  incumbents  and  to  adopt  a  flexible  approach  with  respect  to  geographic
 area  MAS  licensees.  However,  some  of  the  commenters  disagree  with  respect  to  the  implementation  of  the  proposed  rules.  GTECH,  for  example,  believes  that  we  should  reduce  the  construction  period
 for  MAS  systems  from  eighteen  to  twelve  months  in  order  to  assure  that  vital  MAS  spectrum  does  not  lie  fallow.  218  CellNet  believes  that  construction  requirements  for  geographic  area  licensees  should
 reflect  consumer  demand,  rather  than  an  artificially  quick  deadline.  219  In  addition,  CellNet  states  that  in  lieu  of  relying  solely  on  a  subjective  substantial  service  test  at  the  ten-  year  benchmark,  licensees
 should  be  able  to  satisfy  the  standard  if  they  have  constructed  a  system  that  provides  coverage  to  at
 212  See  47  C.  F.  R.    101.63(  a).
 213  See  47  C.  F.  R.    101.147(  b).
 214  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7990.
 215  Id.  at  7991.
 216  Id.
 217  Id.
 218  GTECH  Comments  at  10.
 219  CellNet  Comments  at  31.
38
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 39
 least  three-  fifths  of  the  population  of  the  licensed  service  area.  220  Other  commenters  note  that,  unlike  cellular  and  PCS,  universal  demand  for  MAS  service  does  not  exist  and,  therefore,  determining
 substantial  service  to  the  public  may  not  necessarily  be  meaningful.  221
 93.  We  agree  that  we  should  keep  a  strict  construction  requirement  with  respect  to  incumbent  and  new  site-  by-  site  licensees.  This  requirement  will  provide  some  assurance  that  site-  by-site
 licensees  are  using  spectrum  effectively  and  are  implementing  service  in  a  prompt  manner.  Therefore,  we  will  retain  our  current  rules  with  regards  to  construction  requirements  for  incumbent
 and  new  site-  by-  site  licensees,  as  set  forth  in  Section  101.63  of  our  Rules.  222  Specifically,  the  failure  of  a  licensee  to  timely  begin  operation  means  the  authorization  cancels  automatically.  223  Additionally,
 frequencies  associated  with  all  point-  to-  multipoint  authorizations  which  have  cancelled  automatically  or  otherwise  been  recovered  by  the  Commission  will  again  be  made  available  for  reassignment  on  a
 date  and  under  terms  set  forth  by  Public  Notice.  224  As  previously  stated,  however,  the  cancellation  or  expiration  of  incumbent  authorizations  in  a  geographic  area  that  has  been  licensed  will  revert  to  the
 geographic  area  licensee.  225
 94.  We  find,  however,  that  different  treatment  is  appropriate  for  MAS  spectrum  licensed  under  a  geographic  area  licensing  approach.  Section  309(  j)(  3)  of  the  Communications  Act  mandates
 that  for  each  class  of  licenses  that  we  grant  through  the  use  of  a  competitive  bidding  system,  we  must  include  safeguards  to  protect  the  public  interest  in  the  use  of  the  spectrum.  226  Therefore,  as  proposed
 in  the  Notice,  we  will  require  geographic  area  MAS  licensees  to  provide  coverage  to  at  least  one-  fifth  of  the  population  in  their  service  areas  or  substantial  service  within  five  years  of  the  license  grant.  We
 note  that  in  the  past  we  have  defined  substantial  service  as  service  which  is  sound,  favorable,  and  substantially  above  a  level  of  mediocre  service  which  just  might  minimally  warrant  renewal.  227  In
 addition,  geographic  area  MAS  licensees  must  make  a  showing  of  continued  substantial  service  within  ten  years  of  being  licensed.  We  find  that  these  coverage  requirements  are  not  only  consistent  with  our
 rules  for  other  services,  228  but  will  also  effectively  hinder  warehousing,  promote  the  rapid  development  of  new  technologies  and  services,  and  promote  service  to  rural  areas.
 220  Id.
 221  AWWA  Comments  at  19;  WSSC  Comments  at  10.
 222  47  C.  F.  R.    101.63.
 223  47  C.  F.  R.    101.63(  b).
 224  47  C.  F.  R.    101.63(  c).  See  Appendix  D  for  a  current  list  of  recovered  channels.
 225  See  supra  at  para.  71.
 226  47  U.  S.  C.    309(  j)(  3).
 227  See  47  C.  F.  R.    22.  940(  a)(  1)(  i).
 228  See,  e.  g.,  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Establish  New  Personal  Communications
 (footnote  continued  on  next  page)
39
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 40
 95.  Finally,  we  establish  a  renewal  expectancy  as  a  comparative  factor  for  consideration  by  the  Commission  in  MAS  license  renewals.  229  It  is  our  view  that  this  renewal  expectancy,  coupled  with
 the  ten-  year  license  term,  will  contribute  toward  the  establishment  of  a  stable  regulatory  environment  that  will  serve  to  attract  investment  capital  that,  in  turn,  will  promote  the  development  and  deployment
 of  services  utilizing  the  MAS  spectrum  bands.  Under  the  rules  we  adopt  today,  an  MAS  licensee  seeking  renewal  of  its  license  is  entitled  to  a  renewal  expectancy  at  the  end  of  the  license  period  as
 long  as  the  applicant:  (1)  demonstrates  that  it  has  provided  substantial  service  230  during  its  past  license  term;  (2)  demonstrates  that  it  has  substantially  complied  with  applicable  Commission  rules,
 policies,  and  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended;  (3)  provides  an  explanation  of  the  licensees  record  of  expansion,  including  a  timetable  of  the  construction  of  new  facilities  to  meet
 changes  in  demand  for  services  provided  by  the  licensee;  and  (4)  provides  a  description  of  investments  made  by  the  licensee  in  its  system.
 96.  In  determining  whether  a  renewal  applicant  has  complied  with  the  substantial  service  requirement  by  the  end  of  the  ten-  year  initial  license  term,  we  may  consider  factors  such  as  (i)  whether
 the  licensee  is  offering  a  specialized  or  technologically  sophisticated  service  that  does  not  require  a  high  level  of  coverage  to  be  of  benefit  to  customers,  231  and  (ii)  whether  the  licensees  operations
 ___________________________________________________________________________________________  Service,  GEN  Docket  No.  90-  314,  Second  Report  and  Order,  8  FCC  Rcd  7700,  7755    134  (1993);  Competitive
 Bidding  Second  Report  and  Order,  10  FCC  Rcd  at  6899    43;  Amendment  of  Parts  21  and  74  of  the  Commissions  Rules  with  Regard  to  Filing  Procedures  in  the  Multipoint  Distribution  Service  and  in  the
 Instructional  Television  Fixed  Service,  MM  Docket  No.  94-  131,  Report  and  Order,  10  FCC  Rcd  9589,  9613    43  (1995).
 229  Our  renewal  expectancy  for  MAS  is  consistent  with  the  renewal  expectancy  rules  we  have  adopted
 for  other  services,  including  cellular,  SMR  and  LMDS.  See,  e.  g.,  47  C.  F.  R.    22.  940.
 230  Once  again,  the  Commission  has  consistently  defined  substantial  service  as  service  which  is
 sound,  favorable,  and  substantially  above  a  level  of  mediocre  service  which  just  might  minimally  warrant  renewal.  47  C.  F.  R.    22.  940(  a)(  1)(  i).  See  also  LMDS  Second  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  12660;  WCS
 Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  10843-  44;  Revision  of  Part  22  and  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Facilitate  Future  Development  of  Paging  Systems,  WT  Docket  No.  96-  18,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  on
 Reconsideration  and  Third  Report  and  Order,  WT  Docket  No.  96-  18  (1999);  39  GHz  Report  and  Order  and  Second  NPRM,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  18621-  25;  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Provide  for  the
 Use  of  the  220-  222  MHz  Band  by  the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Service,  Third  Report  and  Order  and  Fifth  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  12  FCC  Rcd  10943,  11015-  21  (1997);  SMR  Third  Order  on  Reconsideration,
 11  FCC  Rcd  at  1171.
 231  We  have  taken  this  approach  with  respect  to  other  services.  See,  e.  g.,  Rulemaking  to  Amend  Parts
 1,  2,  21,  and  25  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Redesignate  the  27.  5-  29.  5  GHz  Frequency  Band,  to  Reallocate  the  29.  5-  30.  0  GHz  Frequency  Band,  to  Establish  Rules  and  Policies  for  Local  Multipoint  Distribution  Service
 and  for  Fixed  Satellite  Services,  CC  Docket  No.  92-  297,  Second  Report  and  Order,  Order  on  Reconsideration,  and  Fifth  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  12  FCC  Rcd  12545  (1997)  (LMDS  Second  Report  and  Order);
 Amendment  of  Parts  2  and  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Provide  for  the  Use  of  200  Channels  Outside  the  Designated  Filing  Areas  in  the  896-  901  MHz  and  the  935-  940  MHz  Bands  Allotted  to  the  Specialized  Mobile
 Radio  Pool    Implementation  of  Section  309(  j)  of  the  Communications  Act    Competitive  Bidding  and  Implementation  of  Sections  3(  n)  and  322  of  the  Communications  Act,  PR  Docket  No.  89-  553,  Second  Report
 (footnote  continued  on  next  page)
40
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 41
 service  niche  markets  or  focus  on  serving  populations  outside  of  areas  served  by  other  licensees.  232  These  safe-  harbor  examples  are  intended  to  provide  MAS  licensees  a  degree  of  certainty  as  to  how  to
 comply  with  the  substantial  service  requirement  by  the  end  of  the  ten-  year  initial  license  term.  This  requirement  can  be  met  in  other  ways,  and  we  will  review  each  licensees  showing  on  a  case-  by-  case
 basis.  However,  failure  to  meet  these  coverage  requirements  will  result  in  automatic  termination  of  the  geographic  MAS  license.  233
 K.  Technical  Flexibility
 97.  Background.  Although  the  normal  channel  bandwidth  assigned  to  the  MAS  frequencies  is  12.5  kHz,  our  current  Rules  allow  the  authorization,  upon  adequate  justification,  of  channels  with
 bandwidths  up  to  50  kHz.  234  Thus,  any  MAS  licensee  requesting  spectrum  in  excess  of  12.5  kHz  is  required  to  justify  its  need  for  greater  bandwidth.  While  there  are  no  specific  criteria  for  such
 requests,  235  the  Commissions  analysis  considers  all  characteristics  set  forth  in  each  justification  on  a  case-  by-  case  basis.  236  The  burden  is  on  the  applicant  to  provide  a  sufficient  showing  of  need
 supporting  the  additional  bandwidth.  237  MAS  licensees  who  successfully  justify  their  need  for  additional  bandwidth  would  receive  licenses  at  that  requested  bandwidth.
 98.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  proposed  to  allow  geographic  area  licensees  to  combine  contiguous  channels  resulting  in  bandwidths  up  to  50  kHz  without  a  showing  of  need.  238  The
 ___________________________________________________________________________________________  and  Order  and  Second  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  10  FCC  Rcd  6884,  6887    4  (1995)
 (Competitive  Bidding  Second  Report  and  Order).
 232  See  Amendment  of  Parts  2  and  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Provide  for  the  Use  of  200
 Channels  Outside  the  Designated  Filing  Areas  in  the  896-  901  MHz  and  the  935-  940  MHz  Bands  Allotted  to  the  Specialized  Mobile  Radio  Pool    Implementation  of  Sections  3(  n)  and  332  of  the  Communications  Act,  GN
 Docket  No.  93-  252,  Third  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC  Rcd  1170    2  (1995)  (SMR  Third  Order  on  Reconsideration).
 233  Licensees  must  return  terminated  authorizations  to  the  Commission  in  accordance  with  47  C.  F.  R.  
 101.63.
 234  47  C.  F.  R.    101.147(  b).
 235  See  Amendment  of  Rules  to  Eliminate  Grandfathering  Provisions  Applicable  to  Licensees  on  MAS
 Frequencies,  PR  Docket  No.  90-  260,  Report  and  Order,  6  FCC  Rcd  3721,  3723  (1991).  Relevant  information  for  justifying  additional  bandwidth  could  include  the  required  data  rate,  the  minimum  polling  interval  for
 remotes,  the  anticipated  number  of  remotes,  the  polling  cycle  for  the  master  station,  a  description  of  the  types  of  data  to  the  transmitted,  a  breakdown  of  overhead  time  and  actual  transmission  time,  and  any  other  information
 (including  terrain)  that  justifies  the  request.  Id.
 236  MAS  Intrasystem  Communications  Report  and  Order,  3  FCC  Rcd  at  1566.
 237  Id.
 238  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7991-  92.
41
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 42
 Commission  also  sought  comment  as  to  whether  it  would  be  in  the  public  interest  to  increase  the  maximum  authorized  bandwidth  beyond  the  current  maximums.  239  Geographic  licensees  would  also
 be  able  to  subdivide  their  12.5  kHz  channels.  240  With  regard  to  the  issue  of  co-  channel  interference  protection  obligations  of  geographic  area  licensees  with  respect  to  other  geographic  area  licensees,  the
 Notice  proposed  to  establish  interference  protection  criteria  between  different  service  areas  at  service  area  borders  so  that  the  out-  of-  band  emission  rules  would  apply  only  to  the  extent  necessary  to  protect
 operations  outside  of  the  EA  licensees  service  area  and  to  spectrum  inside  only  if  used  by  incumbents.  241  Specifically,  the  Commission  proposed  to  prohibit  EA  licensees  from  exceeding  a
 signal  level  of  40  dBV/  m  242  at  their  service  area  boundaries,  unless  the  bordering  EA  licensee  agrees  to  a  higher  field  strength  (EA  licensees  would  be  free  to  negotiate  with  adjacent  EA  licensees
 concerning  interference  rights).  243  The  Notice  also  proposed  to  require  coordination  of  frequency  use  between  co-  channel  adjacent  geographic  area  licensees  and  all  other  affected  parties,  and  the
 Commission  tentatively  concluded  that  it  is  appropriate  to  extend  the  same  technical  flexibility  adopted  for  EA  licensees  to  incumbent  licensees.  244
 99.  Discussion.  We  will  allow  EA  licensees  to  combine  contiguous  channels  without  a  showing  of  need.  This  policy  will  apply  to  all  the  EA  licensees  in  the  932/  941  MHz  and  the  928/  959
 MHz  bands,  and  there  will  be  no  limit  on  how  many  contiguous  channels  licensees  or  applicants  may  combine.  After  careful  consideration,  we  do  not  believe,  as  asserted  by  AWWA  and  WSSC,  that  the
 failure  to  require  a  showing  of  need  encourages  warehousing  and  resale  of  spectrum  in  these  bands,  and  is  not  necessarily  in  the  public  interest.  245  We  believe  that  this  proposal  has  been  made  even  more
 appropriate  in  light  of  our  decision  to  award  a  single  paired  50  kHz  license  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands.  Permitting  licensees  to  combine  channels  without  a  showing  of  need  will  enable  them  to  employ  the
 widest  variety  of  technologies  to  best  meet  the  communications  requirements  of  consumers  and  reduce  regulatory  burdens.  Also,  MAS  licensees  will  be  able  to  subdivide  their  channels.  On  the  other  hand,
 licensees  in  the  private  internal  portion  of  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  and  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  will  be  required  to  offer  adequate  justification  if  they  want  to  increase  their  channel  bandwidth  beyond
 50  kHz.  That  is,  these  licensees  may  combine  contiguous  channels  without  adequate  justification,  up  to  50  kHz.  If  wider  bandwidth  is  desired,  they  must  make  a  showing  of  need.  246  We  believe  that  in
 239  Id.
 240  See  47  C.  F.  R.    101.147(  b).
 241  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7985;  see  900  MHz  Second  Report  and  Order,  10  FCC  Rcd  at  6907-  08    61.
 242  The  Commission  noted  that  this  signal  strength  level  is  the  same  signal  strength  level  used  for  800
 MHz  SMR  operations  at  EA  borders.  See  800  MHz  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  1518.
 243  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7991-  92.
 244  Id.
 245  AWWA  Comments  at  19;  WSSC  Comments  at  10.
 246  See  47  C.  F.  R.    101.147(  b).
42
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 43
 light  of  the  shortage  of  available  spectrum  on  these  bands  and  our  continued  use  of  site-  by-  site  licensing,  a  showing  of  need  is  necessary  to  reduce  the  risk  of  channel  warehousing,  speculative
 licensing,  and  spectrum  resale,  and  will  insure  that  entities  can  provide  the  benefits  that  impact  the  safety  of  the  public.
 100.  As  for  the  issue  of  co-  channel  interference  protection  obligations  of  geographic  area  licensees  with  respect  to  other  geographic  area  licensees,  CellNet  supports  the  Commission's  proposal
 to  apply  out-  of-  band  emission  limits  only  at  the  band  edge  of  the  licensee's  service  area  and  at  the  edge  of  the  service  area  of  any  incumbent  licensees.  247  Within  the  service  area,  however,  CellNet  states  that
 there  should  be  no  limit  on  emissions  unless  such  emissions  would  cause  co-  channel  or  adjacent  channel  interference.  248  We  agree  with  CellNet,  and  as  proposed  in  the  Notice,  we  will  establish
 interference  protection  criteria  between  different  service  areas  at  the  service  area  borders.  More  specifically,  we  will  prohibit  such  licensees  from  exceeding  a  signal  strength  of  40  dBV/  m  at  their
 service  area  boundaries,  unless  the  affected  bordering  geographic  area  licensee(  s)  agree(  s)  to  a  higher  signal  strength  area,  249  and  we  are  requiring  the  equivalent  signal  strength  protection  of  any  incumbent
 licensees  at  the  edge  of  their  service  area.  250  EA  licensees  will  be  free  to  negotiate  with  adjacent  licensees  concerning  interference  rights.  This  approach  provides  licensees  with  a  signal  strength
 sufficient  to  operate  their  systems  up  to  the  borders  of  their  geographic  service  areas,  while  also  providing  protection  to  adjacent  operations.  In  addition,  this  restriction  will  further  the  Commission's
 goal  of  avoiding  harmful  interference  without  imposing  an  overly  burdensome  requirement.  251  Comsearch  agrees  with  the  Commission  that  prior  coordination  and  a  detailed  interference  analysis  are
 the  only  means  of  ensuring  operational  compatibility  between  adjacent  area  co-  channel  systems.  252  We  will,  therefore,  require  coordination  of  frequency  use  between  co-  channel  adjacent  EA  licensees  and
 all  other  effected  parties.  As  an  exception  to  this  requirement,  to  the  extent  that  a  single  entity  obtains
 247  CellNet  Comments  at  n.  33.
 248  Id.
 249  We  emphasize  that  this  rule  applies  only  to  resolving  interference  issues  between  geographic  area
 licensees.  Thus,  an  EA  licensee  who  complies  with  this  rule  may  nevertheless  be  required  to  limit  its  operations  further  in  order  to  comply  with  the  rules  governing  protection  of  incumbents.  See  supra  at  paras.  59-  62.
 250  Requiring  new  geographic  area  licensees  to  protect  incumbents  is  consistent  with  Commission
 action  in  various  proceedings.  See,  e.  g.,  800  MHz  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  1513-  15;  Paging  Systems  Second  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  2769.
 251  Instead  of  specifying  a  minimum  distance  a  geographic  licensee's  transmission  site  must  be  from
 the  geographic  border,  which  could  result  in  unserved  areas,  we  think  it  is  appropriate  to  allow  geographic  area  licensees  to  negotiate  mutually  acceptable  agreements  with  all  adjacent  geographic  area  licensees  if  the
 interfering  contour  of  one  geographic  area  licensee  will  extend  into  the  adjacent  geographic  area  or  areas.  Adjacent  licensees  have  a  duty  to  negotiate  with  each  other  in  good  faith  regarding  co-  channel  interference
 protection.  Informal  negotiations  between  parties  in  determining  mutually  agreeable  arrangements  between  adjacent  EAs  will  achieve  the  most  expeditious  and  effective  resolution  of  co-  channel  interference.
 252  Comsearch  Comments  at  7.
43
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 44
 licenses  for  adjacent  geographic  area  licenses  on  the  same  channel  block,  it  will  not  be  required  to  coordinate  its  operations  in  this  manner.  We  note  that  this  approach  is  consistent  with  the
 Commission's  decisions  in  the  800  MHz  SMR  253  and  900  MHz  SMR  contexts.  254
 L.  Operational  Flexibility
 101.  Background.  Our  current  rules  governing  MAS  allow  licensees  to  use  certain  MAS  channels  for  other  types  of  operations  besides  point-  to-  multipoint  transmissions.  The  rules,  for
 instance,  allow  mobile  operations  on  certain  paired  channels  on  a  secondary  basis.  255  Certain  point-  to-point  operations  are  also  permitted  on  a  secondary  basis.  256  Likewise,  MAS  licensees  may  transmit
 ancillary  one-  way  communications  on  certain  paired  channels  on  a  case-  by-  case  basis.  257  The  Commissions  original  purpose  in  adopting  limitations  on  these  uses  was  to  ensure  that  the  spectrum
 would  be  used  primarily  to  satisfy  bona  fide  point-  to-  multipoint  requirements.
 102.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  proposed  to  allow  MAS  geographic  area  licensees  to  utilize  both  point-  to-  point  and  point-  to-  multipoint  operations  and  to  provide  fixed  258  and  mobile
 service  on  a  co-  primary  basis.  259  The  Commission  also  tentatively  concluded  that  it  is  appropriate  to  extend  the  same  operational  flexibility  proposed  for  EA  licensees  to  incumbent  licensees.  260
 103.  Discussion.  We  will  allow  MAS  licensees  to  establish  both  point-  to-  point  and  point-to-  multipoint  operations  and  to  provide  fixed  and  mobile  service  on  a  co-  primary  basis.  While  the
 comments  received  regarding  this  issue  were  varied,  we  believe  that  affording  MAS  licensees  additional  operational  flexibility  will  offer  a  number  of  benefits.  We  also  believe  that  to  compete
 effectively  in  todays  changing  communications  marketplace,  licensees  should  be  able  to  provide  consumers  a  wide  array  of  services  and  to  have  the  ability  to  respond  quickly  to  changing  consumer
 demands.
 104.  We  recognize  that  permitting  point-  to-  point  operations  will  be  a  departure  from  our  previous  decisions,  where  we  stated  that  MAS  spectrum  should  be  reserved  for  point-  to-  multipoint
 253  See  800  MHz  Second  Report  and  Order  12  FCC  Rcd  at  19108    78  (for  the  lower  230  channels);
 800  MHz  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  1518    96  (for  the  upper  200  channels).
 254  800  MHz  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  1518    96.
 255  47  C.  F.  R.    101.105(  c)(  3).
 256  47  C.  F.  R.    101.147(  b).
 257  Id.
 258  Fixed  service  includes  both  point-  to-  point  and  one-  way  communications.
 259  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7993-  94.
 260  Id.
44
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 45
 operations.  We  believe,  however,  that  permitting  this  additional  flexibility,  along  with  the  flexibility  afforded  by  the  option  to  provide  mobile  service,  is  in  the  public  interest.  Our  approach  is  consistent
 with  current  proposals  as  well  as  the  Communications  Act.  261
 105.  We  respectfully  disagree  with  commenters  who  have  expressed  concern  that  the  rules  we  are  adopting  today,  granting  MAS  licensees  greater  operational  flexibility,  will  lead  to  greater
 intra-  service  interference.  For  example,  AWWA  and  WSSC  predict  that  the  result  of  this  excessive  flexibility  will  be  interference  and  universal  chaos  at  the  expense  of  all  licensees,  including  those
 responsible  for  maintenance,  protection,  and  operation  of  the  nation's  critical  infrastructure.  262  Our  decisions  in  this  Report  and  Order,  however,  are  in  accordance  with  established  co-  channel  separation
 requirements  set  forth  in  the  Commission's  Rules.  In  addition,  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  point-  to-  point  and  point-  to-  multipoint  operations  are  inherently  incompatible  in  the  same  band  or
 licensing  area.  In  fact,  such  operations  are  permitted  and  coexist  in  other  fixed  microwave  bands.  263  In  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  conclude  that  affording  MAS  licensees  flexibility  in
 designing  their  systems  to  respond  readily  to  consumer  demand  for  their  services  would  further  the  public  interest  by  allowing  the  marketplace  to  dictate  the  best  uses  for  these  bands.
 M.  Regulatory  Status
 106.  Background.  As  stated  previously,  the  Commission  proposed  to  allow  MAS  geographic  area  licensees  to  provide  both  fixed  and  mobile  service.  264  The  Commission
 acknowledged,  however,  that  while  this  proposal  would  increase  operational  flexibility,  it  would  also  make  it  difficult  to  determine  the  regulatory  status  of  each  licensee.  265  Therefore,  the  Commission
 proposed  an  approach  for  determining  regulatory  status  similar  to  that  adopted  for  the  General  Wireless  Communications  Service.  266  Under  this  approach,  the  Commission  relies  on  the  applicants  to
 specifically  identify  the  type  of  service  or  services  they  intend  to  provide.  267  The  applicants  must  include  sufficient  detail  to  enable  the  Commission  to  determine  whether  the  service  will  be  offered  as
 a  commercial  mobile  radio  service  (CMRS),  268  a  private  land  mobile  radio  service  (PLMRS),  a
 261  47  U.  S.  C    332(  a).
 262  AWWA  Comments  at  20;  WSSC  Comments  at  11.
 263  See,  e.  g.,  Amendment  of  the  Commission's  Rules  Regarding  the  37.  0-  38.  6  GHz  And  38.  6-  40.0  GHz
 Bands,  ET  Docket  No.  95-  183,  Report  and  Order  and  Second  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  12  FCC  Rcd  18600,  18613  (1997).
 264  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7994;  see  also  supra  at  para.  103.
 265  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7994.
 266  Id.
 267  Id.
 268  A  commercial  mobile  service  is  any  mobile  service  that  is  provided  for  profit  and  makes
 (footnote  continued  on  next  page)
45
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 46
 common  carrier  fixed  service,  or  a  private  fixed  service.  269  To  simplify  this  process,  the  Commission  proposed  to  establish  a  presumption  that  MAS  geographic  area  licensees  be  telecommunications
 carriers  regulated  as  common  carriers.  270  The  Commission  also  proposed  that,  depending  upon  the  final  decision  in  regard  to  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands,  the  Commission  may  establish  a  presumption
 that  those  bands  are  private.  271  Under  the  Commissions  proposal,  any  interested  party  would  be  able  to  challenge  the  regulatory  status  granted  an  MAS  geographic  area  licensee.  272
 107.  Discussion.  Some  commenters  argue  that  the  determination  of  regulatory  status  should  be  defined  by  the  presence  or  absence  of  a  fee-  for-  service  relationship  between  the  licensee  and
 any  subscribers  of  the  licensees  services.  273  These  commenters  state  that  licensees  who  provide  a  service  to  subscribers  using  the  radio  spectrum,  even  though  the  communications  service  itself  may
 not  constitute  the  end  product,  should  be  subject  to  telecommunications  carrier  regulations.  274  Typical  of  such  a  relationship  would  be  central  alarm  and  vending  monitoring  services  that  use  MAS  radio  to
 provide  the  subscriber  alarm  or  status  information.  In  addition,  these  commenters  state  that  the  Commissions  proposal  to  establish  a  presumption  that  all  MAS  geographic  area  licensees  are
 telecommunications  carriers  is  inaccurate  and  will  particularly  be  flawed  if  private  systems  are  mandated  to  become  geographic  area  licensees.  275  However,  these  two  commenters  believe  that  the
 Commissions  determination  that  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  are  private  and  the  ability  for  interested  parties  to  challenge  the  regulatory  status  of  any  MAS  licensee  would  stimulate  operation  of  bona  fide
 applicants  and  reduce  speculation.  276
 108.  We  reject  the  proposal  that  the  determination  of  regulatory  status  should  be  defined  by  the  presence  or  absence  of  a  fee-  for-  service  relationship  between  the  licensee  and  its  subscribers.
 We  believe  that  the  presence  or  absence  of  a  fee-  for-  service  relationship  may  not  always  accurately  reflect  the  regulatory  status  of  an  FCC  licensee.  Instead,  we  adopt  the  more  flexible  approach
 proposed  in  the  Notice.  Under  this  approach,  we  will  rely  on  applicants  to  identify  the  type  of  service
 ___________________________________________________________________________________________  interconnected  service  available  to  the  public  or  to  such  classes  of  eligible  users  as  to  be  effectively  available  to
 a  substantial  portion  of  the  public.  47  U.  S.  C.    332(  d)(  1).
 269  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7994.
 270  Id.
 271  Id.
 272  Id.
 273  AWWA  Comments  at  20;  WSSC  Comments  at  11.
 274  AWWA  Comments  at  20;  WSSC  Comments  at  11.
 275  AWWA  Comments  at  20;  WSSC  Comments  at  11.
 276  AWWA  Comments  at  20-  21;  WSSC  Comments  at  11.
46
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 47
 or  services  they  intend  to  provide.  277  Applicants  will  be  required  to  include  sufficient  detail  to  enable  us  to  determine  whether  the  particular  service  will  be  offered  as  CMRS,  PMRS,  a  common  carrier
 fixed  service,  or  a  private  fixed  service.  Any  interested  party  will  be  able  to  challenge  the  regulatory  status  granted  an  MAS  licensee.  278  We  believe  that  this  approach  will  provide  licensees  with  an
 incentive  to  provide  accurate  and  complete  information  regarding  their  proposed  operations.  279  Therefore,  we  believe  that  adopting  this  approach  will  enable  us  to  carry  out  our  regulatory
 responsibilities  without  imposing  undue  hardship  upon  licensees.
 N.  Suspension  of  Acceptance  and  Processing  of  Applications
 109.  Background.  In  the  Further  Notice,  we  maintained  the  existing  suspension  of  the  acceptance  (freeze)  of  MAS  applications  for  new  licenses,  amendments,  or  modifications  for  the
 932/  941  and  928/  959  MHz  bands.  280  Notwithstanding  the  freeze,  we  continued  to  accept  and  process  all  MAS  applications  for  minor  modifications  or  for  license  assignment  or  transfer  of  control  under
 existing  procedures.  281  This  exception  also  applied  to  amendments  to  applications  for  minor  modifications.  282  We  stated  that  the  exception  would  permit  modifications  that  could  improve  the
 efficiency  of  incumbent  MAS  operations  without  affecting  the  effective  and  orderly  resolution  of  the  issues  in  this  proceeding.  283  Additionally,  the  exception  extended  to  certain  applications  that  were
 pending  at  the  time  of  the  imposition  of  the  freeze.  284  We  also  extended  the  same  freeze  to  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands.  We  concluded  that  the  extension  of  the  freeze  was  in  the  public  interest
 because  of  the  uncertainty  regarding  whether  we  would  employ  geographic  area  licensing  and  competitive  bidding  for  these  bands.  285  Further,  we  noted  that  this  action  was  consistent  with  the
 277  We  have  taken  this  approach  with  respect  to  other  services.  See  Amendment  of  Part  95  of  the
 Commissions  Rules  to  Provide  Regulatory  Flexibility  in  the  218-  219  MHz  Service,  WT  Docket  No.  98-  169,  Report  and  Order  and  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,    91  (rel.  Sept.  10,  1999).
 278  We  recognize  that  there  is  no  formal  petition  to  deny  process  for  parties  to  challenge  the  regulatory
 status  of  entities  engaged  in  private  internal  operations.  However,  formal  challenges  to  regulatory  status  may  be  made  at  the  reconsideration  stage.
 279  MAS  geographic-  area  licensees  will  be  able  to  provide  this  information  by  electronic  filing  through
 the  Commissions  Universal  Licensing  System.  See  Biennial  Regulatory  Review  Report  and  Order,  supra,  at  note  164.
 280  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10761.
 281  Id.
 282  Id.
 283  Id.
 284  Id.  at  10761-  62.
 285  Id.
47
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 48
 approach  taken  in  other  contexts  where  we  proposed  to  adopt  geographic  area  licensing  and  auction  rules.  286
 110.  During  the  pendency  of  these  proceedings,  we  received  emergency  petitions  requesting  that  we  immediately  lift  the  freeze  in  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  in  addition  to  specific
 requests  to  waive  the  freeze  in  these  bands.  These  petitions  and  requests  were  filed  by  various  organizations,  including:  (1)  the  United  Telecom  Council,  the  American  Petroleum  Institute,  and  the
 Association  of  American  Railroads  (collectively  referred  to  as  CII  Petitioners);  287  (2)  Itron,  Inc.;  288  and  (3)  CellNet  Data  Systems,  Inc.  289  We  received  numerous  comments  and  reply  comments  in
 response  to  these  petitions  and  requests.  290
 111.  Discussion.  Commenters  are  unanimous  in  their  requests  that  we  immediately  lift  the  application  freeze.  Most  commenters  specifically  request  that  we  remove  the  freeze  for  the
 928/  952/  956  MHz  bands.  291  Commenters  argue  that,  at  the  very  least,  we  should  remove  the  freeze  for  public  safety  licensees,  including  constituencies  represented  by  the  CII  petitioners.  292  Other
 commenters  urge  us  to  lift  the  suspension  of  applications  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands.  293
 286  Id.  at  10761  n.  95,  citing  Revision  of  Part  22  and  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Facilitate
 Future  Development  of  Paging  Systems,  Implementation  of  Section  309(  j)  of  the  Communications  Act  Competitive  Bidding,  WT  Docket  No.  96-  18,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  11  FCC  Rcd  3108,  3136  &
 n.  270  (1996).
 287  See  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  Seeks  Comment  on  Emergency  Request  for  Limited
 Exception  to  the  Application  Freeze  for  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  Multiple  Address  Systems  Bands,  Corrected  Public  Notice,  DA  99-  2002  (rel.  Sept.  28,  1999)  (petition  filed  on  July  23,  1999).
 288  See  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  Seeks  Comment  on  Itron,  Inc.  Request  for  Emergency
 Relief  from  the  Multiple  Address  Systems  Application  Freeze,  Corrected  Public  Notice,  DA  99-  2004  (rel.  Sept.  28,  1999)  (petition  filed  on  Aug.  13,  1999).
 289  See  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  Seeks  Comment  on  CellNet  Data  Systems,  Inc.  Request
 for  Limited  Exception  to  the  Application  Freeze  for  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  Multiple  Address  Systems  Bands,  Corrected  Public  Notice,  DA  99-  2003  (rel.  Sept.  28,  1999)  (petition  filed  on  August  17,  1999).  CellNets
 petition  was  accompanied  by  five  applications  for  authorization.
 290  Appendix  A  contains  a  list  of  commenters.
 291  See,  e.  g.,  API  Comments  at  12;  AAR  Comments  at  4;  AWWA  Comments  at  8;  CellNet  Comments
 at  20;  Commonwealth  Edison  Comments  at  19;  Roger  Gembala  Comments  at  1;  Gila  Electronics  Comments  at  1;  Hornfeck  Engineering  Comments  at  1;  Idaho  Power  Comments  at  1;  Itron  Comments  at  2;  Jackson  Electric
 Comments  at  1;  JEA  Comments  at  1;  Johnson  City  Comments  at  1;  LOEMC  Comments  at  1;  Despina  Metakos  Comments  at  1;  Mark  Norman  Comments  at  1;  MMWD  Comments  at  1;  MTI  Comments  at  1;  Pacific  G&  E
 Comments  at  2-  3;  PSSC  Comments  at  4;  Salt  River  Comments  at  1;  South  Carolina  E&  G  Comments  at  19-  21;  Southwest  Gas  Comments  at  14;  Chris  J.  Wanner  Comments  at  1;  Williams  Energy  Comments  at  1;  CellNet
 Reply  Comments  at  14.
 292  See,  e.  g.,  Adaptive  Comments  at  2;  API  Comments  at  iii,  11-  12;  APPA  Comments  at  6;  Blue  Ridge
 (footnote  continued  on  next  page)
48
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 49
 112.  Many  commenters  fear  that  the  short-  term  freeze  will  turn  into  a  much  longer  freeze  and  that  the  freeze  serves  no  purpose  for  public  safety  radio  service  licensees,  which  will  not  be
 subject  to  auctions  once  we  remove  the  freeze.  294  Similarly,  East  Bay  Municipal  alleges  several  harmful  effects  of  the  freeze.  295
 113.  Some  commenters  contend  that  the  freezes  effects  are  felt  by  certain  industry  sectors  with  potentially  devastating  consequences  to  public  safety.  296  For  example,  API  states  that  one  oil
 company  had  to  postpone  the  filing  of  an  application  for  a  proposed  MAS  system  that  would  be  used  to  prevent  spills  and  leaks  and  to  improve  its  ability  to  detect  and  respond  to  emergencies.  297
 Similarly,  APPA  contends  that  the  freeze  has  impeded  the  ability  of  state  and  local  government  utilities  to  provide  service,  implement  critical  systems,  and  to  continue  with  planned  construction
 efforts.  298  APPA  asserts  that  because  of  the  specialized  nature  of  MAS  systems,  there  are  very  few  commercially  available  substitutes  (especially  in  rural  areas).  299  Similarly,  AAR  argues  that  the  freeze
 is  particularly  harmful  to  the  railroad  industry,  which  has  suspended  ongoing  projects  to  upgrade  switching  and  signaling  systems  that  control  long  segments  of  railways.  300  Several  commenters  allege
 that  they  have  been  prevented  from  fulfilling  contractual  obligations  on  several  pending  contracts  with  customers  to  expand  or  modify  existing  MAS  systems.  301  Itron  comments  that  the  freeze  should  be
 lifted  for  entities  that  operate  automatic  meter  reading  (AMR)  systems  used  by  utility  companies.  302
 114.  Earlier  in  this  Report  and  Order,  we  set  forth  our  conclusions  resolving  issues  of  spectrum  allocation,  licensing,  treatment  of  incumbent  licensees,  competitive  bidding  provisions,  and
 ___________________________________________________________________________________________  Comments  at  1-  2;  Commonwealth  Edison  Comments  at  20;  Consolidated  Edison  Comments  at  19-  21;  MTI
 Comments  at  1;  PSCC  Comments  at  2,  4;  Southern  Operating  Companies  Comments  at  20-  23;  UTC  Comments  at  12;  East  Bay  Municipal  Reply  Comments  at  3;  UTC  Reply  Comments  at  7.
 293  See,  e.  g.,  Roger  Gembala  Comments  at  1;  MTI  Comments  at  2;  Salt  River  Comments  at  1;
 Williams  Energy  Comments  at  1.
 294  Consolidated  Edison  Comments  at  19-  21;  South  Carolina  E&  G  Comments  at  19-  21;  Southern
 Operating  Companies  Comments  at  20-  23;  East  Bay  Municipal  Reply  Comments  at  4.
 295  East  Bay  Municipal  Reply  Comments  at  3-  4.
 296  See,  e.  g.,  API  Comments  at  12;  AWWA  Comments  at  8.
 297  API  Comments  at  12-  13.
 298  APPA  Reply  Comments  at  7.
 299  Id.  at  8.
 300  AAR  Comments  at  5.
 301  CellNet  Comments  at  20;  Hornfeck  Engineering  Comments  at  1.
 302  Itron  Comments  at  2;  Itron  Reply  Comments  at  3.
49
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 50
 other  issues  necessary  for  us  to  proceed  with  MAS  licensing  generally.  In  light  of  these  actions,  and  in  consideration  of  the  comments  described  above,  we  will  lift  the  current  freeze  imposed  on  the
 928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  and  the  portions  of  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  designated  for  public  safety  and  private  internal  use.  The  freeze  will  be  lifted  for  these  entities  as  of  the  date  of  the  release  of  this
 Report  and  Order.  303  We  acknowledge  the  possibility  that  mutual  exclusivity  among  applicants  may  occur  in  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  and  portions  of  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  due  to  the  repressed  demand
 for  MAS  spectrum  as  a  result  of  the  application  freeze.  If  an  instance  of  mutual  exclusivity  should  occur,  we  will  proceed  in  accordance  with  the  Balanced  Budget  Act.  We  defer  to  the  ongoing  BBA
 NPRM  proceeding  a  decision  on  the  treatment  of  mutually  exclusive  applications  filed  for  frequencies  in  those  bands  allocated  solely  for  public  safety  and  private  internal  use.  304
 115.  The  freeze  on  the  acceptance  of  applications  to  provide  service  in  the  928/  959  MHz  bands,  and  the  twenty  channels  in  the  932/  941  MHz  bands  not  allocated  for  public  safety  or  private
 internal  use,  shall  remain  in  effect  until  such  time  as  the  Bureau  begins  to  accept  applications  for  MAS  auctions  in  accordance  with  Part  1  of  our  Rules.  305  We  maintain  this  portion  of  the  freeze  to  allow  for
 the  orderly  and  effective  implementation  of  the  decisions  made  in  this  proceeding  and  for  the  opportunity  for  the  Bureau  to  implement  MAS  auction  procedures.  This  approach  is  also  consistent
 with  our  approach  in  other  services  where  we  have  transitioned  to  geographic  area  licensing  and  competitive  bidding  procedures.  306
 O.  Competitive  Bidding  Provisions
 116.  Background.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  stated  that  it  anticipated  conducting  the  auction  for  MAS  frequencies  in  conformity  with  the  general  competitive  bidding  rules  in  Part  1,
 Subpart  Q  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  and  substantially  consistent  with  the  auctions  that  have  been
 303  In  light  of  our  decision  to  remove  the  freeze  (as  of  the  release  date  of  this  Report  and  Order)  on  the
 acceptance  of  applications  for  new  licenses,  amendments,  or  modifications  for  authorization  in  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands,  we  dismiss  as  moot  any  petitions  to  lift  the  application  freeze  in  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  listed
 in  Appendix  F  of  this  Report  and  Order,  filed  between  July  1,  1999  and  the  release  date  of  this  Report  and  Order.  Additionally,  any  waiver  requests  listed  in  Appendix  F  of  this  Report  and  Order,  filed  in  conjunction
 with  applications  for  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  between  July  1,  1999  and  the  release  date  of  this  Report  and  Order,  are  dismissed  as  moot,  and  any  associated  applications  are  dismissed  without  prejudice.
 304  See  supra  at  note  12.
 305  See  47  C.  F.  R.    1.2105  (  Bidding  application  and  certification  procedures;  prohibition  of
 collusion),  1.  2107  (  Submission  of  down  payment  and  filing  of  long-  form  applications),  1.2109  (  License  grant,  denial,  default,  and  disqualification).
 306  See,  e.  g.,  Maritime  Third  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  19889;  800  MHz  Second  Report  and
 Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  19096;  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  the  37.  0    38.  6  GHz  and  38.  6    40.  0  GHz  Bands,  ET  Docket  No.  95-  183,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  4930,
 4988-  89  (1995).
50
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 51
 employed  in  other  wireless  services.  307  The  Commission  sought  comment  on  its  proposal  to  employ  a  simultaneous  multiple  round  competitive  bidding  design.  308
 117.  Additionally,  in  the  Notice  the  Commission  sought  comment  regarding  the  establishment  of  a  small  business  definition  for  MAS.  309  The  Commission  invited  commenters  to
 discuss  the  level  of  capital  commitment  that  is  likely  to  be  required  to  purchase  an  MAS  license  at  auction  and  to  create  a  viable  business.  310  The  Commission  also  invited  comments  on  the  issue  of
 using  installment  payments,  bidding  credits,  or  other  provisions  that  could  be  employed  to  enable  the  participation  of  small  businesses  in  the  auction  and  the  provision  of  service.  311  Finally,  the
 Commission  sought  comments  on  whether  small  business  provisions  are  sufficient  to  promote  participation  by  businesses  owned  by  minorities,  women,  or  rural  telephone  companies  and  how  any
 such  provisions  would  meet  the  standards  of  judicial  review.  312
 118.  The  Commission  also  expressed  its  interest  in  receiving  comments  regarding  what  type  of  unjust  enrichment  requirements  should  be  placed  on  an  application  for  a  partial  transfer  (either
 by  partitioning  or  disaggregation)  of  a  license  from,  for  example,  a  qualified  small  business  to  a  non-small  business.  313  The  Commission  then  set  forth  a  number  of  specific  tentative  proposals  regarding
 unjust  enrichment  and  invited  comment  thereon.  314
 119.  In  the  Further  Notice,  we  sought  comment  on  the  specific  size  standards  that  we  should  apply  to  any  small  business  definition  adopted  for  the  MAS  service.  315  We  recognized  that  in
 307  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  7999-  8000.  We  reiterate  that  we  make  no  representations  or  warranties
 about  the  use  of  this  spectrum  for  particular  services.  Applicants  should  be  aware  that  a  Commission  auction  represents  an  opportunity  to  become  an  FCC  licensee  in  this  service,  subject  to  certain  conditions  and
 regulations.  A  Commission  auction  does  not  constitute  an  endorsement  by  the  Commission  of  any  particular  services,  technologies  or  products,  nor  does  an  FCC  license  constitute  a  guarantee  of  business  success.  See
 supra  at  para.  3.
 308  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  8000.
 309  Id.
 310  Id.
 311  Id.
 312  Id.
 313  Id.  at  8000-  01.  Unjust  enrichment  requirements  are  those  mechanisms  designed  to  prevent  a
 licensee  from  benefiting  from  special  bidding  provisions  and  becoming  unjustly  enriched  by  immediately  selling  its  license  to  a  party  that  does  not  qualify  for  such  benefits.  These  requirements  are  set  forth  at  47
 C.  F.  R.    1.  2111.  See  PCS  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21849,  n.  88.
 314  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  8001.
 315  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10758-  59.
51
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 52
 the  Part  1  Third  Report  and  Order,  we  amended  our  general  competitive  bidding  rules  to  establish  a  uniform  set  of  provisions  for  all  auctionable  services,  which  allows  us  to  conduct  auctions  in  a
 consistent,  efficient,  and  effective  manner.  316  We  also  decided  in  that  proceeding  to  continue  our  practice  of  defining  small  business  size  standards  on  a  service-  specific  basis.  317  We  invited  comments
 on  our  proposed  definitions  of  small  business  and  very  small  business,  as  well  as  our  proposal  to  establish  two  levels  of  bidding  credits.  318
 120.  Discussion.  We  note,  as  an  initial  matter,  that  we  received  very  few  comments  regarding  the  proposed  bidding  procedures.  319  While  MTI  suggests  that  the  use  of  competitive  bidding
 procedures  to  resolve  mutually  exclusive  applications  is  the  least  desirable  licensing  method,  320  it  nonetheless  supports  adoption  of  the  definitions  of  small  business  and  very  small  business  set
 forth  in  the  Further  Notice  should  we  use  competitive  bidding  for  MAS  spectrum.  321  East  Bay  Municipal  offers  no  criticism  of  our  proposal  to  use  tiered  bidding  credits  for  small  and  very
 small  businesses,  nor  does  it  find  fault  in  the  definition  of  these  businesses.  322
 121.  In  the  Part  1  Third  Report  and  Order,  we  amended  our  uniform  set  of  competitive  bidding  rules  for  all  auctionable  services,  which  applied  generally  to  the  MAS  service,  incorporating
 our  experience  to  date  and  allowing  us  to  conduct  future  auctions  in  a  more  consistent,  efficient,  and  effective  manner.  323  These  amended  procedures,  set  forth  in  Part  1,  Subpart  Q  of  the  Commissions
 316  Id.,  citing  Amendment  of  Part  1  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Competitive  Bidding  Procedures,
 WT  Docket  No.  97-  82,  Third  Report  and  Order  and  Second  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  13  FCC  Rcd  374  (1997),  modified  by  Erratum,  DA  98-  419  (rel.  Mar.  2,  1998)  (Part  1  Third  Report  and  Order).
 317  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10758-  59,  citing  Part  1  Third  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at
 388.
 318  Further  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  10759-  60.
 319  The  commenters  that  submitted  comments  in  1997  were  virtually  unanimous  in  their  opposition  to
 the  Commissions  proposal  to  conduct  an  auction  for  MAS  spectrum  instead  of  using  our  lottery  authority.  As  noted  above,  since  the  time  that  the  comments  were  due  in  response  to  the  Notice,  on  August  5,  1997,  the
 President  signed  the  Balanced  Budget  Act,  which  eliminated  our  authority  to  use  lotteries  and,  with  certain  exceptions,  mandated  the  use  of  auctions.  We  decline  to  adopt  this  proposal  because  we  do  not  have  the
 authority  to  conduct  lotteries  for  MAS  spectrum  and  will  not  address  the  comments  received  in  this  regard.
 320  MTI  Comments  at  3.
 321  Id.
 322  East  Bay  Municipal  Reply  Comments  at  6.
 323  Part  1  Third  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  374;  see  218-  219  MHz  Report  and  Order    116.
52
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 53
 Rules,  superseded  previously  adopted  service-  specific  rules,  unless  the  Commission  determines  that  with  regard  to  particular  matters,  the  retention  or  adoption  of  service-  specific  rules  is  warranted.  324
 122.  We  believe  that  application  of  the  Part  1,  Subpart  Q  procedures  will  allow  MAS  auction  participants  to  realize  the  benefits  enjoyed  by  participants  in  other  spectrum  auctions  of  a
 streamlined,  efficient  licensing  process.  325  Therefore,  we  will  follow  the  competitive  bidding  rules  set  out  in  Part  1,  Subpart  Q  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  to  conduct  all  future  auctions  for  MAS  licenses.
 Specifically,  we  conclude  that  the  Part  1  Rules  will  govern  competitive  bidding  issues  for  MAS  licenses,  including  issues  concerning  designated  entities,  application  issues,  payment  issues,
 competitive  bidding  design,  procedure  and  timing  issues,  and  anti-  collusion.
 123.  We  will  adopt  our  proposal  to  define  a  small  business  as  an  entity  that,  together  with  its  affiliates  and  persons  or  entities  that  hold  interests  in  such  entity  and  their  affiliates,  has  average
 gross  revenues  for  the  preceding  three  years  not  to  exceed  $15  million.  We  will  define  a  very  small  business  as  an  entity  that,  together  with  its  affiliates  and  persons  or  entities  that  hold  interests  in  such
 entity  and  their  affiliates,  has  average  gross  revenues  for  the  preceding  three  years  not  to  exceed  $3  million.  These  tiers  are  consistent  with  those  set  forth  in  Part  1,  Subpart  Q.  326  Moreover,  the  Small
 Business  Administration  approved  the  proposed  definitions  in  the  Further  Notice.  327  Our  goal  in  adopting  these  definitions  and  associated  special  provisions  for  small  businesses  is  to  promote  the
 participation  of  small  businesses  in  the  auction  and  provision  of  MAS  services.
 124.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  tentatively  concluded  that  for  the  MAS  service  the  Commission  would  attribute  the  gross  revenues  of  all  controlling  principals  in  the  small  business
 applicant  as  well  as  its  affiliates.  328  We  conclude  that  for  purposes  of  determining  whether  an  entity  meets  the  definitions  of  small  or  very  small  business,  we  shall  consider  the  gross  revenues  of  the
 entity,  its  affiliates,  and  its  controlling  interests  on  a  cumulative  basis  and  aggregated.  329
 125.  We  also  will  establish  two  levels  of  bidding  credits,  consistent  with  the  levels  adopted  in  the  Part  1  proceeding.  330  Small  businesses  will  receive  a  twenty-  five  percent  bidding  credit,
 324  Part  1  Third  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  374.
 325  See  218-  219  MHz  Report  and  Order,  64  Fed.  Reg.  59656  at    118.
 326  47  C.  F.  R.    1.2110(  e)(  2).
 327  Letter  from  Aida  Alvarez,  Administrator,  Small  Business  Administration  to  Thomas  J.  Sugrue,
 Chief,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau,  Federal  Communications  Commission  (June  4,  1999).
 328  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  8000.
 329  See  47  C.  F.  R.    80.  1252  (making  the  same  provision  for  designated  entities  in  the  maritime
 communications  services).  See  generally  Part  1  Third  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  476-  78.
 330  See  Part  1  Third  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  403-  04;  see  also  47  C.  F.  R.    1.2110(  e).  We
 reject  GTECHs  proposal  that  if  we  place  private  and  commercial  applicants  in  the  same  bidding  pool,  we  (footnote  continued  on  next  page)
53
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 54
 and  very  small  businesses  will  receive  a  thirty-  five  percent  bidding  credit.  Bidding  credits  for  small  and  very  small  businesses  are  not  cumulative.  331  We  believe  that  bidding  credits  help  achieve  our
 statutory  objective  under  Section  309(  j)(  3)(  B)  of  the  Communications  Act  by  providing  varying  sizes  of  small  businesses  with  the  opportunity  to  participate  in  the  auction  of  MAS  spectrum.  332
 126.  We  received  no  substantive  comments  on  whether  the  proposed  small  business  provisions  are  sufficient  to  ensure  the  opportunity  for  businesses  owned  by  minorities  and  women  and
 rural  telephone  companies  to  participate  in  the  provision  of  spectrum-  based  services.  We  remain  committed  to  meeting  the  statutory  objectives  of  promoting  economic  opportunity  and  competition,
 avoiding  excessive  concentration  of  licenses,  and  ensuring  access  to  new  and  innovative  technologies  by  disseminating  licenses  among  a  wide  variety  of  applicants,  including  small  businesses,  rural
 telephone  companies,  and  businesses  owned  by  members  of  minority  groups.  333  Commenters  submitted  no  evidence  or  data  to  support  race-  or  gender-  based  auction  provisions.  We  therefore
 conclude  that  we  have  an  insufficient  record  to  support  such  special  provisions  at  this  time  under  the  current  standard  of  judicial  review.  334  We  believe  that  the  standardization  through  the  Part  1  Third
 Report  and  Order,  of  our  Rules  regarding  eligible  entities,  unjust  enrichment,  and  bidding  credits,  will  assist  small,  minority-  and  women-  owned  businesses  because  the  resulting  predictability  will  facilitate
 the  business  planning  and  capital  fundraising  process.  335
 127.  We  furthermore  believe  that  effective  unjust  enrichment  rules  are  necessary  to  ensure  that  meaningful  small  business  participation  in  spectrum-  based  services  is  not  thwarted  by  transfers  of
 licenses  to  non-  designated  entities.  336  We  will  adopt  for  MAS  spectrum  the  uniform  procedures  set  forth  in  Sections  1.2111(  d)  and  (e)  337  of  our  Rules.  338  As  a  result,  we  will  calculate  unjust  enrichment
 payments  using  population  to  determine  the  relative  value  of  the  partitioned  area  and  the  amount  of  ___________________________________________________________________________________________
 should  afford  bidding  credits  and  payment  terms  to  applicants  proposing  to  use  the  spectrum  for  private,  internal  use,  regardless  of  the  applicants  business  size.  GTECH  Reply  Comments  at  4,  10.
 331  See  218-  219  MHz  Report  and  Order,  64  Fed.  Reg.  59656  at    121.
 332  See  Part  1  Third  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  403-  04.  East  Bay  Municipal  commends  our
 efforts  to  meet  our  statutory  obligations  and  to  develop  mechanisms  permitting  a  full  range  of  small  businesses  to  potentially  provide  service  in  the  MAS  spectrum.  East  Bay  Municipal  Reply  Comments  at  7.
 333  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Adopt  Regulations  for  Automatic  Vehicle
 Monitoring  Systems,  PR  Docket  No.  93-  61,  Second  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  15182,  15198  (1998)  (LMS  Second  Report  and  Order).
 334  See  LMS  Second  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  15198.
 335  See  id.  at  15198-  99.
 336  See  Part  1  Third  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  406.
 337  47  C.  F.  R.    1.2111(  d),  (e).
 338  See  39  GHz  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  12461-  62  (discussing  47  C.  F.  R.    1.  2111(  d),  (e)).
54
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 55
 spectrum  disaggregated  to  determine  the  relative  value  of  the  disaggregated  spectrum.  339  Population  will  be  calculated  based  upon  the  latest  available  census  data,  which  is  the  approach  adopted  in  the  39
 GHz  service.  340  For  purposes  of  applying  our  unjust  enrichment  payments  when  combined  partitioning  and  disaggregation  is  proposed,  we  will  use  a  combination  of  both  the  population  of  the
 partitioned  area  and  amount  of  spectrum  disaggregated  to  makes  these  pro  rata  calculations.  341
 V.  PROCEDURAL  MATTERS
 A.  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act
 128.  A  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  analysis,  pursuant  to  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act,  5  U.  S.  C.    604,  is  contained  in  Appendix  C.
 B.  Final  Paperwork  Reduction  Act  of  1995  Analysis
 129.  This  Report  and  Order  contains  either  a  new  or  modified  information  collection.  As  part  of  our  continuing  effort  to  reduce  paperwork  burdens,  we  invite  the  public  and  other  government
 agencies  to  take  this  opportunity  to  comment  on  the  information  collection  contained  in  this  Report  and  Order,  as  required  by  the  Paperwork  Reduction  Act  of  1995,  Pub.  L.  No.  104-  13.  Public  and
 agency  comments  are  due  sixty  days  from  publication  of  this  Report  and  Order  in  the  Federal  Register.  Comments  should  address  the  following:  (a)  whether  the  proposed  collection  of  information
 is  necessary  for  the  proper  performance  of  the  functions  of  the  Commission,  including  whether  the  information  shall  have  practical  utility;  (b)  the  accuracy  of  the  Commissions  burden  estimates;  (c)
 ways  to  enhance  the  quality,  utility,  and  clarity  of  the  information  collected;  and  (d)  ways  to  minimize  the  burden  of  the  collection  of  information  on  the  respondents,  including  the  use  of  automated
 collection  techniques  or  other  forms  of  information  technology.  A  copy  of  any  comments  on  the  information  collections  contained  herein  should  be  submitted  to:  Judy  Boley,  Federal
 Communications  Commission,  Room  1-  C804,  445  12  th  Street,  S.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C.  20554  and  Virginia  Huth,  OMB  Desk  Officer,  10236  NEOB,  725  17  th  Street,  N.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C.  20503.
 C.  Further  Information
 130.  For  further  information  concerning  this  Report  and  Order,  contact  Shellie  Blakeney,  Michael  Sozan,  Guy  Benson,  or  Edgar  Class  of  the  Policy  and  Rules  Branch,  Public  Safety  and  Private
 Wireless  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  at  (202)  418-  0680  (voice),  (202)  418-  7233  (TTY).
 339  As  provided  in  our  Rules,  the  unjust  enrichment  payment  will  be  reduced  over  time.  47  C.  F.  R.  
 1.  2111(  d)(  2).
 340  See  39  GHz  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  12461-  62.
 341  See  id.  For  example,  if  an  MAS  licensee  that  availed  itself  of  a  bidding  credit  and  a  non-  qualifying
 partitionee/  disaggregatee  were  to  agree  on  a  20%  disaggregation  of  spectrum  over  30%  of  the  population  of  the  licensed  service  area,  an  unjust  enrichment  payment  of  six  percent  (.  20  x  .30)  of  the  bidding  credit  would  be
 required.  LMS  Second  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  15203  n.  99.
55
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 56
 VI.  ORDERING  CLAUSES
 131.  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  the  actions  of  the  Commission  herein  ARE  TAKEN  pursuant  to  Sections  4(  i),  257,  303,  309(  j),  and  332  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.
   154(  I),  257,  303,  309(  j),  332.
 132.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  Parts  22  and  101  of  the  Commissions  Rules  ARE  AMENDED  as  set  forth  in  Appendix  B,  effective  sixty  days  after  their  publication  in  the  Federal
 Register,  following  OMB  approval.  If  OMB  approval  is  not  issued  within  sixty  days  after  publication  of  a  summary  of  this  Report  and  Order  in  the  Federal  Register,  a  notice  shall  be  published  in  the
 Federal  Register  specifying  a  revised  effective  date.
 133.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  Commissions  Consumer  Information  Bureau,  the  Reference  Information  Center,  SHALL  SEND  a  copy  of  this  Report  and  Order,  including  the  Final
 Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  for  Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration.
 134.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Section  5(  c)(  1)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    155(  c),  the  Chief  of  the  Wireless
 Telecommunications  Bureau  IS  GRANTED  DELEGATED  AUTHORITY  to  prescribe  and  set  forth  procedures  for  the  implementation  of  the  provisions  adopted  herein.
 135.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Section  4(  i)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  that  the  application  freeze  in  the  Notice  of  Proposed
 Rule  Making  and  the  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  in  this  docket,  is  modified  as  set  forth  herein.
 136.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Section  4(  i)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  effective  upon  the  release  date  of  this  Report  and  Order,
 APPLICATIONS  to  use  MAS  frequencies  in  the  928-  928.85/  952-  952.85  MHz  bands  and  956.25-  956.45  MHz  bands  WILL  BE  ACCEPTED  FOR  FILING  provided  that  these  applications  are  for
 private  internal  services  as  set  forth  herein.
 137.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Section  4(  i)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  effective  upon  the  release  date  of  this  Report  and  Order,
 APPLICATIONS  to  use  MAS  frequencies  in  the  twenty  channels  in  the  932.25625-  932.49375/  941.25625-  941.49375  MHz  bands  designated  for  public  safety  and  private  internal  services
 by  this  Report  and  Order  WILL  BE  ACCEPTED  FOR  FILING  provided  that  these  applications  are  for  public  safety  and/  or  private  internal  services  as  set  forth  herein.
 138.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Section  4(  i)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  any  petitions  to  lift  the  application  freeze  in  the
 928/  952/  956  MHz  MAS  bands  listed  in  Appendix  F  of  this  Report  and  Order,  filed  between  July  1,  1999  and  the  release  date  of  this  Report  and  Order,  are  DISMISSED  AS  MOOT.
56
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 57
 139.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Section  4(  i)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  and  Section  1.925  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  47  C.  F.  R.
   1.925,  that  any  WAIVER  REQUESTS  listed  in  Appendix  F  of  this  Report  and  Order,  filed  in  conjunction  with  applications  for  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  MAS  bands  between  July  1,  1999  and  the
 release  date  of  this  Report  and  Order,  are  DISMISSED  AS  MOOT  and  any  associated  applications  ARE  DISMISSED  without  prejudice.
 140.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  as  of  the  adopted  date  of  this  Report  and  Order,  pursuant  to  Sections  4(  i)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  as  amended  by  the
 Balanced  Budget  Act  of  1997,  the  fifty-  eight  pending  applications  for  use  of  the  MAS  bands  as  set  forth  in  Appendix  E  of  this  Report  and  Order  ARE  DISMISSED  without  prejudice.
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION
 Magalie  Roman  Salas  Secretary
57
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 58
 APPENDIX  A--  COMMENTERS  AND  REPLY  COMMENTERS
 I.  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making
 Parties  Filing  Formal  Comments:
 AirTouch  Paging  and  Arch  Communications  Group,  Joint  Comments  (AirTouch  &  Arch)  Alarm  Industry  Communications  Committee  (AICC)
 Alligator  Communications,  Inc.  (Alligator  Communications)  American  Petroleum  Institute  (API)
 American  Water  Works  Association  (AWWA)  Association  of  Public-  Safety  Communications  Officials  International,  Inc.  (APCO)
 Baltimore  Gas  and  Electric  Company  (BG&  E)  Black  &  Associates
 Bristol  Babcock,  Inc.  (Bristol  Babcock)  Burlington  Northern  &  Santa  Fe  Railway  Co.  and  Norfolk  Southern  Co.  (BNSF  &  NS)
 CellNet  Data  Systems,  Inc.  (CellNet)  Coalition  for  Equitable  MAS  Licensing  (Coalition)
 Stanley  I.  Cohn  Colorado  Interstate  Gas  Co.  (Colorado  Interstate)
 Compu-  Dawn,  Inc.  (Compu-  Dawn)  Comsearch
 Cooperative  Power  Association  (Cooperative  Power)  Data  Address  Systems  Partnership  (Data  Address  Systems)
 Delmarva  Power  &  Light  Co.  (Delmarva)  East  Bay  Municipal  Utility  District  (East  Bay  Municipal)
 Fisher,  Wayland,  Cooper,  Leader  &  Zaragoza,  L.  L.  P.  (Fisher,  Wayland)  GPM  Gas  Corp.  (GPM  Gas)
 GTECH  Corp.  (GTECH)  Itron,  Inc.  (Itron)
 JMP  Telecom  Systems,  Inc.  (JMP)  Kupelian,  Ormand  &  Magy,  P.  C.
 Microwave  Data  Systems  (MDS)  Mind  Communications
 Personal  Communications  Industry  Association  (PCIA)  ProNet,  Inc.  (ProNet)
 Public  Service  Company  of  New  Mexico  (PNM)  Puget  Sound  Energy,  Inc.  (Puget  Sound)
 Radscan,  Inc.  (Radscan)  Rural  Telecommunications  Group  (RTG)
 S  and  K  Enterprises  (S&  K)  Sensus  Technologies,  Inc.  (Sensus)
 Southern  California  Edison  Co.  (SCE)  UTC,  The  Telecommunications  Association  (UTC)
 The  Richard  L.  Vega  Group  (Vega  Group)  Washington  Suburban  Sanitary  Commission  (WSSC)
58
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 59
 Wells  Rural  Electric  Co.  (Wells)
 Parties  Filing  Informal  Comments/  Letters:  342
 James  Arch  Norman  M.  Brady
 William  Braun  Capp  Systems,  Inc.
 Geoffrey  D.  Commons  Jack  DeBruin
 Arthur  Dittman  Fair  Winds,  Inc.  (Fair  Winds)
 Joseph  W.  Fordham  Harold  D.  Garter
 Casimir  C.  Gawron  Allan  C.  Gordon
 Mark  A.  Gordon  Matthew  G.  Gordon
 Charles  and  Lisa  Hooper  Helga  S.  James
 Joint  Supplemental  Commenters  Edna  A.  Keene
 James  W.  Majerik  Fred  G.  McKee,  III
 Mind  Communications  George  Nagrodsky,  Sr.
 Robert  H.  Ohlwiler  Sunny  Pedigo
 Radio  Data  One  Partnership  (Radio  Data)  Cletus  E.  Reitz
 Helen  H.  Renner  Carolyn  Richards  Special  Enterprises  (Carolyn  Richards)
 Jay  R.  Schmeider  Christopher  M.  Shaw
 Colleen  T.  Sheahan  Daniel  M.  Slane
 Jeffrey  Steffens  Tim  Swaim
 Gladys  M.  Thomas  Judith  A.  Van  Etten
 W.  Thomas  Veal,  Jr.
 342  We  include  in  this  category:  (a)  informal  comments,  (b)  letters,  and  (c)  submissions  that  failed  to
 meet  the  Reply  Comments  deadline  of  May  16,  1997.
59
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 60
 Wiley  Communications  Partnership  (Wiley  Communications)  Raymond  W.  Witt
 Leon  and  Charlene  Wittman  Jerry  D.  Wolf
 Youngstown  MAS,  Inc.  Kenneth  E.  Zelt  Co.
 Parties  Filing  Reply  Comments:  343
 Affiliated  American  Railroads  (AAR)  American  Petroleum  Institute  (API)
 Arch  Communications  Burlington  Northern  &  Santa  Fe  Railway  Co.  and  Norfolk  Southern  Co.  (BNSF  &  NS)
 Quentin  L.  Breen  CellNet  Data  Systems,  Inc.  (CellNet)
 DDI  Radio  Data  Transmissions  (DDI)  Thomas  Domencich,  Paula  Malone,  George  Schrenk,  and  Dennis  Sheahan
 GTECH  Corp.  (GTECH)  Lincoln  Square
 Microwave  Data  Systems  (MDS)  Metrocall,  Inc.  (Metrocall)
 Motorola  Paging  Network,  Inc.  (PageNet)
 Personal  Communications  Industry  Association  (PCIA)  ProNet,  Inc.  (ProNet)
 Radscan,  Inc.  (Radscan)  Karl  Sanders
 Sensus  Technologies,  Inc.  (Sensus)  Southern  Company
 Susan  Tarwater  UTC,  The  Telecommunications  Association  (UTC)
 Jerry  D.  Wolf
 II.  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making
 Parties  Filing  Formal  Comments:
 Adaptive  Broadband  Corporation  (Adaptive)  American  Petroleum  Institute  (API)
 American  Water  Works  Association  (AWWA)  Association  of  American  Railroads  (AAR)
 343  We  include  in  this  category:  (a)  formal  Reply  Comments  and  (b)  formal,  late-  filed  Comments  that
 failed  to  meet  the  Comments  deadline  of  May  6,  1997.
60
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 61
 Blue  Ridge  Electric  Cooperative  (Blue  Ridge  Electric)  CellNet  Data  Systems,  Inc.  (CellNet)
 Commonwealth  Edison  Comsearch
 Consolidated  Edison  Company  of  New  York,  Inc.  (Consolidated  Edison)  Corn  Belt  Power  Cooperative  (Corn  Belt)
 East  Bay  Municipal  Utility  District  (East  Bay  Municipal)  Georgia  Power,  Alabama  Power,  Mississippi  Power,  Gulf  Power,
 Savannah  Electric  and  Power  Company  (Southern  Operating  Companies)  Idaho  Power  Company  (Idaho  Power)
 Itron,  Inc.  (Itron)  Jackson  Electric  Membership  Corporation  (Jackson  Electric)
 Microwave  Telecommunications,  Inc.  (MTI)  Northern  States  Power  Company  (Northern  States  Power)
 Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  (Pacific  G&  E)  Radscan,  Inc.  (Radscan)
 South  Carolina  Electric  and  Gas  Company  (South  Carolina  E&  G)  Southwest  Gas  Corporation  (Southwest  Gas)
 United  Telecom  Council  (UTC)  Western  Resources
 Williams  Energy  Services  (Williams  Energy)
 Parties  Filing  Informal  Comments/  Letters:  344
 Adaptive  Broadband  Corporation  (Adaptive)  American  Petroleum  Institute  (API)
 Senator  John  Ashcroft  Senator  Sam  Brownback
 Senator  Conrad  Burns  East  Bay  Municipal  Utility  District  (East  Bay  Municipal)
 Senator  Russell  Feingold  Roger  Gembala
 Gila  Electronics  Senator  Slade  Gorton
 Senator  Rod  Grams  Senator  Charles  E.  Grassley
 Hornfeck  Engineering,  Inc.  (Hornfeck  Engineering)  JEA
 Johnson  City  Power  Board  (Johnson  City)  Senator  John  F.  Kerry
 Senator  Herb  Kohl
 344  We  include  in  this  category:  (a)  informal  comments,  (b)  letters,  and  (c)  submissions  that  failed  to
 meet  the  Reply  Comments  deadline  of  October  19,  1999.
61
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 62
 Little  Ocmulgee  Electric  Membership  Corporation  (LOEMC)  Senator  Trent  Lott
 Marin  Municipal  Water  District  (MMWD)  Mark  Norman
 Despina  Metakos  Midwest  Energy,  Inc.  (Midwest  Energy)
 Minnesota  High  Tech  Association  (MHTA)  Senator  Patty  Murray
 Northern  Iowa  Power  Cooperative  (Northern  Iowa  Power)  NSTAR
 Public  Service  Company  of  Colorado  (PSCC)  Public  Service  Company  of  New  Mexico  (PNM)
 Congressman  Jim  Ramstad  Senator  Pat  Roberts
 Salt  River  Agricultural  Improvement  and  Power  District  (Salt  River)  Senator  Olympia  J.  Snowe
 Senator  Ted  Stevens  United  States  Environmental  Protection  Agency
 United  Telecom  Council  (UTC)  Chris  J.  Wanner
 Water,  Gas  &  Light  Commission  of  Albany,  Georgia  (Albany)  Senator  Paul  D.  Wellstone
 Parties  Filing  Reply  Comments:  345
 Adaptive  Broadband,  Corp.  (Adaptive)  American  Petroleum  Institute  (API)
 American  Public  Power  Association  (APPA)  CellNet  Data  Systems,  Inc.  (CellNet)
 Comsearch  GTECH  Corp.  (GTECH)
 Itron,  Inc.  (Itron)  Personal  Communications  Industry  Association  (PCIA)
 Radscan,  Inc.  (Radscan)  United  Telecom  Council  (UTC)
 III.  Petitions  Filed  in  Response  to  the  MAS  Application  Freeze
 Comments  Regarding  Petition  Filed  by  CII  Petitioners:
 American  Public  Power  Association  (APPA)
 345  We  include  in  this  category:  (a)  formal  Reply  Comments  and  (b)  formal,  late-  filed  comments  that
 failed  to  meet  the  Comments  deadline  of  September  17,  1999.
62
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 63
 American  Petroleum  Institute  (API)  Association  of  American  Railroads  (AAR)
 Commonwealth  Edison  Consolidated  Edison  of  New  York,  Inc.  (Consolidated  Edison)
 Georgia  Power,  Alabama  Power,  Mississippi  Power,  Gulf  Power,  Savannah  Electric  and  Power  (Southern  Operating  Companies)
 GTECH  Corp.  (GTECH)  LaFollette  Utilities  Board  (LaFollette)
 Midwest  Energy,  Inc.  (Midwest  Energy)  South  Carolina  Electric  and  Gas  (South  Carolina  E&  G)
 United  Telecom  Council  (UTC)
 Reply  Comments  Regarding  Petition  Filed  by  CII  Petitioners:
 American  Petroleum  Institute  (API)  American  Public  Power  Association  (APPA)
 El  Paso  Energy  (El  Paso)  GTECH  Corp.  (GTECH)
 Comments  Regarding  Petition  Filed  by  CellNet  Data  Systems,  Inc.:
 Black  and  Associates  GTECH  Corp.  (GTECH)
 United  Telecom  Council  (UTC)  Congresswoman  Anna  G.  Eshoo
 Reply  Comments  Regarding  Petition  Filed  by  CellNet  Data  Systems,  Inc.:
 CellNet  Data  Systems,  Inc.  (CellNet)  GTECH  Corp.  (GTECH)
 Comments  Regarding  Petition  Filed  by  Itron,  Inc.:
 Badger  Meter,  Inc.  (Badger  Meter)  GTECH  Corp.  (GTECH)
 Sensus  Technologies,  Inc.  (Sensus)  United  Telecom  Council  (UTC)
 Reply  Comments  Regarding  Petition  Filed  by  Itron,  Inc.:
 GTECH  Corp.  (GTECH)
 General  Comments  Regarding  Petitions:
 Adaptive  Broadband  Corp.  (Adaptive)  El  Paso  Energy  (El  Paso)
63
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 64
 Gila  Electronics  Hornfeck  Engineering,  Inc.  (Hornfeck  Engineering)
 Itron,  Inc.  (Itron)  Jeff  Davis  Electric  Cooperative  (Jeff  Davis)
 Johnson  City  Power  Board  (Johnson  City)  Little  Ocmulgee  Electric  Membership  Corp.  (LOEMC)
 Marin  Municipal  Water  District  (MMWD)  Mark  Norman
 Despina  Metakos  Midwest  Energy,  Inc.  (Midwest  Energy)
 Montana  Power  Salt  River  Agricultural  Improvement  and  Power  District  (Salt  River)
 USi-  Power  Chris  J.  Wanner
 General  Comments  Regarding  Freeze:
 Anadarko  Petroleum  Corp.  (Anadarko  Petroleum)  ARCO  Pipeline  Co.  (ARCO)
 Arkansas  Oklahoma  Gas  Corp.  (AOGC)  Automatic  Meter  Reading  Association  (AMRA)
 Berkeley  Electric  Cooperative,  Inc.  (Berkeley  Electric)  Blue  Ridge  Electric  Membership  Corp.  (Blue  Ridge)
 Board  of  Public  Utilities  (Public  Utilities)  Broomfield,  City  of  (Broomfield)
 CAC  CH2MHill
 Cobb  EMC  Du  Page  Water  Commission  (Du  Page  Water)
 Electric  Laboratories  and  Sales  Corp.  (Electric  Labs)  Environmental  Systems  Corp.  (ESC)
 Fort  Smith,  City  of,  Utility  Department  (Fort  Smith)  KNS  Communications,  Ltd.  (KNS)
 LaFollette  Utilities  Board  (LaFollette)  Lodi,  City  of,  Electric  Utility  Department  (Lodi)
 Lord  and  Company,  Inc.  (Lord)  NITECH,  Inc.  (NITECH)
 Reliant  Energy-  Arkla  (Reliant  Energy)  Snapping  Shoals  Electric  Membership  Corp.  (Snapping  Shoals)
 Sola  Communications,  Inc.  (Sola  Communications)  South  Mississippi  Electric  Power  Association  (SMEPA)
 Talley  Communications  Tampa  Electric  Company  (TECO)
 TECO  Telecommunications  Joe  Wheeler  EMC  (Joe  Wheeler)
64
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 65
 APPENDIX  B    FINAL  RULES
 Part  22  of  Chapter  I  of  Title  47  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  is  amended  as  follows:
 A.  PART  22    PUBLIC  MOBILE  SERVICES
 1.  The  authority  citation  for  Part  22  is  amended  to  read  as  follows:
 AUTHORITY:  Secs.  4,  303,  309,  and  332,  48  Stat.  1066,  1082,  as  amended;  47  U.  S.  C.  154,  303,  309,  and  332,  unless  otherwise  noted.
 2.  Section  22.  621  is  amended  by  changing  the  first  paragraph  to  read  as  follows  and  by  deleting  subparagraphs  (a)  and  (b):
 Subpart  E    Paging  and  Radiotelephone  Service
 *  *  *  *  *
 POINT  TO  MULTIPOINT  OPERATION
   22.621  Channels  for  point-  to-  multipoint  operation.
 The  following  channels  are  allocated  for  assignment  to  transmitters  utilized  within  point-  to-  multipoint  systems  that  support  transmitters  that  provide  public  mobile  service.  Unless  otherwise  indicated,  all  channels
 have  a  bandwidth  of  20  kHz  and  are  designated  by  their  center  frequencies  in  MegaHertz.  No  new  licenses  will  be  issued  for  any  900  MHz  frequencies  in  this  section.  See  Part  101,  Subpart  O  of  this  chapter  for
 treatment  of  incumbents  and  for  new  licensing  procedures.  Incumbents  under  Part  22  are  subject  to  the  restrictions  of  Part  101,  Subpart  O,  but  may  make  permissible  modifications,  transfers,  assignments,  or  renew
 their  licenses  using  procedures,  forms,  fees,  and  filing  requirements  of  Part  22.  *  *  *
 (a)  [removed]
 (b)  [removed]
 Part  101  of  Chapter  I  of  Title  47  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  is  amended  as  follows:
 B.  PART  101    FIXED  MICROWAVE  SERVICES
 1.  The  authority  citation  for  Part  101  is  amended  to  read  as  follows:
 AUTHORITY:  Secs.  4,  303,  48  Stat.  1066,  as  amended;  47  U.  S.  C.  154,  303,  unless  otherwise  noted.
 2.  Section  101.3  is  amended  by  adding  the  definitions  of  928/  952/  956  MHz  Service,  932/  941  MHz  Service,  and  928/  959  MHz  Service  to  read  as  follows:
65
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 66
   101.3  Definitions
 *  *  *  *  *
 928/  952/  956  MHz  Service.  A  flexible  radio  service  using  frequencies  in  the  928.0  -  928.85  MHz  band  paired  with  frequencies  in  the  952.  0  -  952.85  MHz  band  or  using  unpaired  frequencies  in  the  956.25  -  956.45  MHz
 band  licensed  on  a  site-  by-  site  basis  and  used  for  terrestrial  point-  to-  point  and  point-  to-  multipoint  fixed  and  mobile  operations.
 932/  941  MHz  Service.  A  flexible  radio  service  using  frequencies  in  the  932.0  -  932.  5  MHz  band  paired  with  frequencies  in  the  941.0  -  941.5  MHz  band  used  for  terrestrial  point-  to-  point  and  point-  to-  multipoint  fixed
 and  mobile  operations.  The  frequencies  from  932.00625/  941.00625  MHz  to  932.24375/  941.24375  MHz  are  licensed  by  Economic  Area.  The  frequencies  from  932.25625/  941.25625  MHz  to  932.49375/  941.49375  MHz
 are  licensed  on  a  site-  by-  site  basis.
 928/  959  MHz  Service.  A  flexible  radio  service  using  frequencies  in  the  928.85  -  929.0  MHz  band  paired  with  frequencies  in  the  959.85  -  960.0  MHz  band  licensed  by  Economic  Area  and  used  for  terrestrial  point-  to-  point
 and  point-  to-  multipoint  fixed  and  mobile  operations.
 *  *  *  *  *
 3.  Paragraph  (c)  of  Section  101.  63  is  amended  by  adding  the  following  to  the  end  of  the  paragraph:
 Subpart  B    Applications  and  Licenses
 *  *  *  *  *
   101.63  Period  of  construction;  certification  of  completion  of  construction.
 *  *  *  *  *
 (c)  *  *  *  See    101.1331(  d)  of  this  part  for  treatment  of  MAS  incumbent  site-  by-  site  licenses  recovered  in  EAs.
 *  *  *  *  *
 4.  The  first  six  rows  below  the  heading  of  the  table  in  Section  101.101  are  replaced  with  the  following  seven  rows:
 Subpart  C  -  Technical  Standards
   101.101  Frequency  availability.
66
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 67
 FREQUENCY
 BAND  (MHz)
 RADIO  SERVICE
 COMMON
 CARRIER
 (Part  101)
 PRIVATE
 RADIO
 (Part  101)
 BROADCAST
 AUXILIARY
 (Part  74)
 OTHER
 (Parts  15,  21,
 24,  25,  74,  78,
 &  100)
 NOTES
 928    929  D.  MAS  MAS
 932.0  -  932.  5  MAS  MAS
 932.5  -  935.  0  CC  OFS  (1)
 941.0  -  941.  5  MAS  MAS
 941.5  -  944.  0  CC  OFS  Aural  BAS  (1)
 952    958  E.  OFS/  MA  S
 958    960  MAS  OFS
 5.  Section  101.105(  c)(  3)  is  amended  to  add  the  words  site-  based  after  Applicants  for  in  the  first  paragraph,  to  add  the  words  site-  based  between  for  and  multiple  in  subsection  (c)(  3)(  i),  to  delete
 subsection  (c)(  3)(  ii),  to  renumber  subsection  (c)(  3)(  iii)  as  (c)(  3)(  ii),  to  delete  and  (c)(  3)(  ii)  from  the  new  subsection  (c)(  3)(  ii)  and  to  replace  are  with  is,  and  to  add  subsection  (c)(  3)(  iii),  to  read  as  follows:
   101.105  Interference  protection  criteria.
 *  *  *  *  *
 (c)(  3)  Applicants  for  site-  based  frequencies  listed  in  *  *  *  .
 (c)(  3)(  i)  For  site-  based  multiple  address  stations  in  *  *  *  .
67
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 68
 (c)(  3)(  ii)  In  cases  where  the  geographic  separation  standard  in  paragraphs  (c)(  3)(  i)  is  not  followed,  *  *  *  .
 (c)(  3)(  iii)  MAS  EA  licensees  shall  provide  protection  in  accordance  with    101.1333  of  this  Part.
 *  *  *  *  *
 6.  Section  101.147  is  amended  by  changing  the  frequency  listing  in  paragraph  (a),  changing  footnote  27,  adding  footnote  28,  changing  the  first  paragraphs  of  (b)(  1-  3)  by  deleting  footnote  1  in  Table  1  and  Table  2
 in  subsection  (b)(  1),  and  by  changing  the  titles  of  Tables  5  and  6,  to  read  as  follows:
   101.147  Frequency  assignments.
 (a)  *  *  *  *  *
 928.0  -  929.0  MHz  /28/  932.0  -  932.5  MHz  /27/
 932.5  -  935  MHz  /17/  941.0  -  941.5  MHz  /27/
 941.5  -  944  MHz  /27/  952.0  -  960.0  MHz  /28/
 *  *  *  *  *
 Notes
 *  *  *  *  *
 /27/  Frequencies  in  the  932  to  932.5  MHz  and  941  to  941.5  MHz  bands  are  shared  with  Government  fixed  point-  to-  multipoint  stations  and  point-  to-  multipoint  stations  in  the  Public  Land  Mobile  Service.  Frequencies
 in  these  bands  are  paired  with  one  another  and  are  available  for  flexible  use  for  transmission  of  the  licensees  products  and  information  services,  excluding  video  entertainment  material.  932.00625/  941.00625  MHz  to
 932.24375/  941.  24375  MHz  is  licensed  by  Economic  Area.  932.25625/  941.25625  MHz  to  932.49375/  941.  49375  MHz  is  licensed  on  a  site-  by-  site  basis.
 /28/  Subsequent  to  July  1,  1999,  incumbent  MAS  operations,  as  defined  in    101.1331(  a),  in  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  are  reserved  for  private  internal  use.  The  928.85  -  929.0  MHz  and  959.85  -  960.0  MHz  bands  are
 licensed  on  a  geographic  area  basis  with  no  eligibility  restrictions.  The  928.0  -  928.85  MHz  band  paired  with  the  952.0  -  952.85  MHz  band,  in  additional  to  unpaired  frequencies  in  the  956.25  -  956.45  MHz  band,  are
 licensed  on  a  site-  by-  site  basis  and  used  for  terrestrial  point-  to-  point  and  point-  to-  multipoint  fixed  and  mobile  operations.  The  928.85  -  929.0  MHz  band  paired  with  the  959.85  -  960.0  MHz  band  is  licensed  by  Economic
 Area  and  used  for  terrestrial  point-  to-  point  and  point-  to-  multipoint  fixed  and  mobile  operations.
 (b)  Frequencies  normally  available  for  assignment  in  this  service  are  set  forth  with  applicable  limitations  in  the  following  tables:  928-  960  MHz  Multiple  address  system  (MAS)  frequencies  are
 available  for  the  point-  to-  multipoint  and  point-  to-  point  transmission  of  a  licensees  products  or
68
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 69
 services,  excluding  video  entertainment  material,  to  a  licensee's  customer  or  for  its  own  internal  communications.  The  paired  frequencies  listed  in  this  section  are  used  for  two-  way
 interrogate/  response  communications  between  a  master  station  and  remote  stations.  Each  master  station  operating  on  these  frequencies  is  required  to  serve  a  minimum  of  four  separate  active  remote
 stations.  Ancillary  one-  way  communications  on  paired  frequencies  are  permitted  on  a  case-  by-  case  basis.  Ancillary  communications  between  interrelated  master  stations  are  permitted  on  a  secondary
 basis.  The  normal  channel  bandwidth  assigned  will  be  12.5  kHz.  EA  licensees,  however,  may  combine  contiguous  channels  without  limit  or  justification.  Site-  based  licensees  may  combine
 contiguous  channels  up  to  50  kHz,  and  more  than  50  kHz  only  upon  a  showing  of  adequate  justification.  When  licensed  for  a  larger  bandwidth,  the  system  still  is  required  to  use  equipment  that
 meets  the  +  0.00015  percent  tolerance  requirement.  (See    101.107).  Any  bandwidth  (12.5  kHz,  25  kHz  or  greater)  authorized  in  accordance  with  this  section  may  be  subdivided  into  narrower
 bandwidths  to  create  additional  (or  sub)  frequencies  without  the  need  to  specify  each  discreet  frequency  within  the  specific  bandwidth.  Equipment  that  is  used  to  create  additional  frequencies  by
 narrowing  bandwidth  (whether  authorized  for  a  12.  5  kHz,  25  kHz  or  greater  bandwidth)  will  be  required  to  meet,  at  a  minimum,  the  +  0.00015  percent  tolerance  requirement  so  that  all
 subfrequencies  will  be  within  the  emission  mask.  When  using  subfrequencies,  licensees  are  subject  to  the  construction  requirement  of  one  master  and  four  remotes  per  authorized  bandwidth  (12.5  kHz,
 25  kHz  or  greater).  Systems  licensed  for  frequencies  in  these  MAS  bands  prior  to  August  1,  1975,  may  continue  to  operate  as  authorized  until  June  11,  1996,  at  which  time  they  must  comply  with
 current  MAS  operations  based  on  the  12.5  kHz  channelization  set  forth  in  this  paragraph.  Systems  licensed  between  August  1,  1975,  and  January  1,  1981,  inclusive,  are  required  to  comply  with  the
 grandfathered  25  kHz  standard  bandwidth  and  channelization  requirements  set  forth  in  this  paragraph.  Systems  originally  licensed  after  January  1,  1981,  and  on  or  before  May  11,  1988,  with  bandwidths  of
 25  kHz  and  above,  will  be  grandfathered  indefinitely.
 (1)  Frequencies  listed  in  this  paragraph  are  designated  for  private  internal  use  and  are  subject  to  site-  based  licensing.
 Table  1.--  Paired  Frequencies  (MHz)  *  *  *
 Table  2.--  Paired  Frequencies  (MHz)  *  *  *
 (2)  Frequencies  listed  in  this  paragraph  are  designated  for  private  internal  use  and  are  subject  to  site-  based  licensing.
 Table  3.--  Paired  Frequencies  (MHz)  *  *  *
 Table  4.--  Paired  Frequencies  (MHz)  *  *  *
 (3)  Frequencies  listed  in  this  paragraph  are  not  restricted  to  private  internal  use  and  are  licensed  by  geographic  area.  Incumbent  facilities  must  be  protected.  *  *  *
 Table  5.--  Paired  Frequencies  (MHz)  *  *  *
 Table  6.--  Paired  Frequencies  (MHz)  *  *  *
69
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 70
 (4)  *  *  *
 Table  7.--  Paired  Frequencies
 __________________________________________________
 Remote  transmit  Master  transmit  __________________________________________________
 Licensed  by  Economic  Area
 (12.5  kHz  bandwidth)
 932.00625  ..................................  941.00625  932.01875  ..................................  941.01875
 932.03125  ..................................  941.03125  932.04375  ..................................  941.04375
 932.05625  ..................................  941.05625  932.06875  ..................................  941.06875
 932.08125  ..................................  941.08125  932.09375  ..................................  941.09375
 (50  kHz  bandwidth)
 932.12500  ..................................  941.12500
 (12.5  kHz  bandwidth)
 932.15625  ..................................  941.15625  932.16875  ..................................  941.16875
 932.18125  ..................................  941.18125  932.19375  ..................................  941.19375
 932.20625  ..................................  941.20625  932.21875  ..................................  941.21875
 932.23125  ..................................  941.23125  932.24375  ..................................  941.24375
 Reserved  for  public  safety  and  private  internal  use.  Licensed  on  site-  by-  site  basis.
 (12.5  kHz  bandwidth)
 932.25625  ..................................  941.25625  932.26875  ..................................  941.26875
 932.28125  ..................................  941.28125  932.29375  ..................................  941.29375
 932.30625  ..................................  941.30625
70
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 71
 932.31875  ..................................  941.31875  932.33125  ..................................  941.33125
 932.34375  ..................................  941.34375  932.35625  ..................................  941.35625
 932.36875  ..................................  941.36875  932.38125  ..................................  941.38125
 932.39375  ..................................  941.39375  932.40625  ..................................  941.40625
 932.41875  ..................................  941.41875  932.43125  ..................................  941.43125
 Reserved  for  Public  Safety  and  Federal  Government  Use.  Licensed  on  site-  by-  site  basis.
 (12.5  kHz  bandwidth)
 932.44375  ..................................  941.44375  932.45625  ..................................  941.45625
 932.46875  ..................................  941.46875  932.48125  ..................................  941.48125
 932.49375  ..................................  941.49375
 (5)  *  *  *
 (6)  *  *  *
 *  *  *  *  *
 7.  Subpart  O  is  added  to  read  as  follows:
 Subpart  O    Multiple  Address  Systems
 GENERAL  PROVISIONS
   101.1301  Scope.
 This  subpart  sets  out  the  regulations  governing  the  licensing  and  operation  of  Multiple  Address  Systems  (MAS).  The  Rules  in  this  subpart  are  to  be  used  in  conjunction  with  applicable  requirements
 contained  elsewhere  in  the  Commissions  Rules,  such  as  those  requirements  contained  in  Parts  1  and  22  of  this  chapter.
   101.1303  Eligibility.
 Authorizations  for  stations  in  this  service  will  be  granted  in  cases  where  it  is  shown  that:
 (a)  The  applicant  is  legally,  financially,  technically  and  otherwise  qualified  to  render  the  proposed  service;
 (b)  There  are  frequencies  available  to  enable  the  applicant  to  render  a  satisfactory  service;  and
71
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 72
 (c)  The  public  interest,  convenience  or  necessity  would  be  served  by  a  grant  thereof.
   101.1305  Private  internal.
 A  private  internal  service  is  a  service  where  entities  utilize  telecommunications  services  purely  for  internal  business  purposes  or  public  safety  communications  and  not  on  a  for  hire  or  for  profit  basis.
   101.1307  Permissible  communications.
 MAS  users  may  engage  in  terrestrial  point-  to-  point  and  point-  to-  multi-  point  fixed  and  mobile  operations.
   101.1309  Regulatory  status.
 (a)  The  Commission  will  rely  on  each  applicant  to  specify  on  FCC  Form  601  the  type  of  service  or  services  it  intends  to  provide.  Each  application  for  authorization  in  the  bands  designated  for  private  internal  use
 must  include  a  certification  stating  why  the  application  satisfies  the  definition  of  private  internal  use.
 (b)  Any  interested  party  may  challenge  the  regulatory  status  granted  an  MAS  licensee.
 SYSTEM  LICENSE  REQUIREMENTS
   101.1311  Initial  EA  license  authorization.
 (a)  Winning  bidders  must  file  an  application  (FCC  Form  601)  for  an  initial  authorization  in  each  market  and  frequency  block.
 (b)  Blanket  licenses  are  granted  for  each  market  and  frequency  block.  Applications  for  individual  sites  are  not  required  and  will  not  be  accepted,  except  as  specified  in    101.1329.
   101.1313  License  term.
 The  license  term  for  stations  authorized  under  this  subpart  is  ten  years  from  the  date  of  original  issuance  or  renewal.
   101.1315  Service  areas.
 In  the  frequency  bands  not  licensed  on  a  site-  by-  site  basis,  the  geographic  service  areas  for  MAS  are  Economic  Areas  (EAs).  EAs  are  175  areas,  including  U.  S.  territories  and  possessions,  defined  by  the
 Department  of  Commerces  Bureau  of  Economic  Analysis,  as  modified  by  the  Commission.
   101.1317  Competitive  bidding  procedures  for  mutually  exclusive  MAS  EA  applications.
72
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 73
 Mutually  exclusive  initial  applications  for  licenses  in  the  portions  of  the  MAS  bands  licensed  on  a  geographic  area  basis  are  subject  to  competitive  bidding  procedures.  The  procedures  set  forth  in  Part  1,
 Subpart  Q  of  this  chapter  will  apply  unless  otherwise  provided  in  this  part.
   101.1319  Competitive  bidding  provisions.
 (a)  For  the  purpose  of  establishing  eligibility  requirements  and  bidding  credits  for  competitive  bidding  for  MAS  licenses,  pursuant  to    1.2110  of  this  chapter,  the  following  definitions  apply:
 (1)  Eligibility  for  small  business  provisions.
 (a)  A  small  business  is  an  entity  that,  together  with  its  affiliates  and  persons  or  entities  that  hold  interests  in  such  entity  and  their  affiliates,  has  average  gross  revenues  for  the  preceding  three
 years  not  to  exceed  $15  million,  as  determined  pursuant  to    1.2110  of  this  chapter.
 (b)  A  very  small  business  is  an  entity  that,  together  with  its  affiliates  and  persons  or  entities  that  hold  interests  in  such  entity  and  their  affiliates,  has  average  gross  revenues  for  the  preceding  three
 years  not  to  exceed  $3  million,  as  determined  pursuant  to    1.2110  of  this  chapter.
 (2)  Bidding  Credits.  A  winning  bidder  that  qualifies  as  a  small  business,  as  defined  in  this  section,  or  a  consortium  of  small  businesses,  may  use  the  bidding  credit  specified  in    1.2110(  e)(  2)(  ii)  of  this  chapter.
 A  winning  bidder  that  qualifies  as  a  very  small  business,  as  defined  in  this  section,  or  a  consortium  of  very  small  businesses,  may  use  the  bidding  credit  specified  in    1.2110(  e)(  2)(  i)  of  this  chapter.
 (3)  Unjust  enrichment.  See    1.2111  of  this  chapter.
   101.1321  License  transfers.
 (a)  An  MAS  system  license  acquired  through  competitive  bidding  procedures  (including  licenses  obtained  in  cases  of  no  mutual  exclusivity),  together  with  all  appurtenances  may  be  transferred,  assigned,  sold,  or
 given  away  only  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  and  procedures  set  forth  in    1.2111  of  this  chapter.
 (b)  An  MAS  system  license  obtained  through  site-  based  licensing  procedures,  together  with  all  appurtenances  may  be  transferred,  assigned,  sold,  or  given  away,  to  any  other  entity  in  accordance  with  the  provisions
 and  procedures  set  forth  in    1.948  of  this  chapter.
   101.1323  Spectrum  aggregation,  disaggregation,  and  partitioning.
 (a)  Eligibility.
 (1)  Parties  seeking  approval  for  partitioning  and  disaggregation  shall  request  from  the  Commission  an  authorization  for  partial  assignment  of  license.  Geographic  area  licensees  may  participate  in  aggregation,
 disaggregation,  and  partitioning  within  the  bands  licensed  on  a  geographic  area  basis.  Site-  based  licensees  may  aggregate  spectrum  in  any  MAS  bands,  but  may  not  disaggregate  their  licensed  spectrum  or
 partition  their  licensed  sites.
73
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 74
 (2)  Eligible  MAS  licensees  may  apply  to  the  Commission  to  partition  their  licensed  geographic  service  areas  to  eligible  entities  and  are  free  to  determine  the  portion  of  their  service  areas  to  be  partitioned.
 Eligible  MAS  licensees  may  aggregate  or  disaggregate  their  licensed  spectrum  at  any  time  following  the  grant  of  a  license.
 (b)  Technical  Standards.
 (1)  Aggregation.
 (a)  There  is  no  limitation  on  the  amount  of  spectrum  that  an  MAS  licensee  may  aggregate.
 (b)  Spectrum  licensed  to  MAS  licensees  does  not  count  toward  the  CMRS  spectrum  cap  discussed  in    20.6  of  this  chapter.
 (2)  Disaggregation.  Spectrum  may  be  disaggregated  in  any  amount.  A  licensee  need  not  retain  a  minimum  amount  of  spectrum.
 (3)  Partitioning.  In  the  case  of  partitioning,  applicants  and  licensees  must  file  FCC  Form  603  pursuant  to    1.948  of  this  chapter  and  list  the  partitioned  service  area  on  a  schedule  to  the  application.  The
 geographic  coordinates  must  be  specified  in  degrees,  minutes,  and  seconds  to  the  nearest  second  of  latitude  and  longitude,  and  must  be  based  upon  the  1983  North  American  Datum  (NAD83).
 (4)  Combined  Partitioning  and  Disaggregation.  The  Commission  will  consider  requests  from  geographic  area  licensees  for  partial  assignment  of  licenses  that  propose  combinations  of  partitioning  and
 disaggregation.
 (c)  Unjust  enrichment.  See    1.2111(  e)  of  this  chapter.
 (d)  Construction  requirements.
 (1)  Disaggregation.  Partial  assignors  and  assignees  for  license  disaggregation  have  two  options  to  meet  construction  requirements.  Under  the  first  option,  the  disaggregator  and  disaggregatee  would  certify  that
 they  each  will  share  responsibility  for  meeting  the  applicable  construction  requirements  set  forth  in    101.1325  of  this  subpart  for  the  geographic  service  area.  If  parties  choose  this  option  and  either  party
 fails  to  meet  the  applicable  construction  requirements,  both  licenses  would  be  subject  to  forfeiture  at  renewal.  The  second  option  allows  the  parties  to  agree  that  either  the  disaggregator  or  disaggregatee
 would  be  responsible  for  meeting  the  requirements  in    101.1325  of  this  subpart  for  the  geographic  service  area.  If  parties  choose  this  option,  and  the  party  responsible  for  meeting  the  construction
 requirement  fails  to  do  so,  only  the  license  of  the  non-  performing  party  would  be  subject  to  forfeiture  at  renewal.
 (2)  Partitioning.  Partial  assignors  and  assignees  for  license  partitioning  have  two  options  to  meet  construction  requirements.  Under  the  first  option,  the  partitionor  and  partitionee  would  each  certify  that
 they  will  independently  satisfy  the  applicable  construction  requirements  set  forth  in    101.1325  of  this  subpart  for  their  respective  partitioned  areas.  If  either  licensee  fails  to  meet  its  requirement  in    101.1325
 of  this  subpart,  only  the  non-  performing  licensees  renewal  application  would  be  subject  to  dismissal.  Under  the  second  option,  the  partitionor  certifies  that  it  has  met  or  will  meet  the  requirement  in  
74
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 75
 101.1325  of  this  subpart  for  the  entire  market.  If  the  partitionor  fails  to  meet  the  requirement  in    101.1325  of  this  subpart,  however,  only  its  license  would  be  subject  to  forfeiture  at  renewal.
 (3)  All  applications  requesting  partial  assignments  of  license  for  partitioning  or  disaggregation  must  certify  in  the  appropriate  portion  of  the  application  which  construction  option  is  selected.
 (4)  Responsible  parties  must  submit  supporting  documents  showing  compliance  with  the  respective  construction  requirements  within  the  appropriate  construction  benchmarks  set  forth  in    101.1325  of  this
 subpart.
 (e)  License  Term.  The  license  term  for  a  partitioned  license  area  and  for  disaggregated  spectrum  shall  be  the  remainder  of  the  original  licensees  license  term  as  provided  for  in    101.1313  of  this  subpart.
 SYSTEM  REQUIREMENTS
   101.1325  Construction  requirements.
 (a)  Incumbent  site-  based  licensees  are  subject  to  the  construction  requirements  set  forth  in    101.63  of  subpart  B  (Applications  and  Licenses).
 (b)  Each  MAS  EA  licensee  must  provide  service  to  at  least  one-  fifth  of  the  population  in  its  service  area  or  substantial  service  within  five  years  of  the  license  grant.  In  addition,  MAS  EA  licensees  must  make  a
 showing  of  continued  substantial  service  within  ten  years  of  the  license  grant.  Licensees  must  file  maps  and  other  supporting  documents  showing  compliance  with  the  respective  construction  requirements
 within  the  appropriate  five-  and  ten-  year  benchmarks  of  the  date  of  their  initial  licenses.
 (c)  Failure  by  any  licensee  to  meet  these  requirements  will  result  in  forfeiture  or  non-  renewal  of  the  initial  license,  and  the  licensee  will  be  ineligible  to  regain  it.
   101.1327  Renewal  expectancy  for  EA  licensees.
 (a)  A  renewal  applicant  shall  receive  a  renewal  expectancy  at  the  end  of  the  license  period  as  long  as  the  applicant:
 (1)  Demonstrates  that  the  licensee  has  provided  continued  substantial  service,  i.  e.,  service  which  is  sound,  favorable,  and  substantially  above  a  level  of  mediocre  service  which  just  might  minimally  warrant
 renewal,  during  its  past  license  term;
 (2)  Demonstrates  that  the  licensee  has  substantially  complied  with  applicable  Commission  Rules,  policies,  and  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended;
 (3)  Provides  an  explanation  of  the  licensees  record  of  expansion,  including  a  timetable  of  the  construction  of  new  facilities  to  meet  changes  in  demand  for  services  provided  by  the  licensee;  and
 (4)  Provides  a  description  of  investments  made  by  the  licensee  in  its  system.
75
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 76
 (b)  In  determining  whether  a  renewal  applicant  has  complied  with  the  substantial  service  requirement  by  the  end  of  the  ten-  year  initial  license  term,  the  Commission  may  consider  factors  such  as  (i)  whether  the
 licensee  is  offering  a  specialized  or  technologically  sophisticated  service  that  does  not  require  a  high  level  of  coverage  to  be  of  benefit  to  customers,  and  (ii)  whether  the  licensees  operations  service  niche  markets
 or  focus  on  serving  populations  outside  of  areas  served  by  other  licensees.  The  substantial  service  requirement  can,  however,  be  met  in  other  ways,  and  the  Commission  will  review  each  licensees
 showing  on  a  case-  by-  case  basis.
 (c)  A  substantial  service  assessment  will  be  made  at  renewal  pursuant  to  the  procedures  contained  in    1.949  of  this  chapter.
   101.1329  EA  Station  license,  location,  modifications.
 (a)  EA  licensees  may  construct  master  and  remote  stations  anywhere  inside  the  area  authorized  in  their  licenses,  without  prior  approval,  so  long  as  the  Commissions  technical  and  other  Rules  are  complied
 with,  except  that  individual  licenses  are  required  for  any  master  station  that:
 (1)  Requires  the  submission  of  an  Environmental  Assessment  under    1.1307  of  this  chapter;
 (2)  Requires  international  coordination;  or
 (3)  Would  affect  the  radio  frequency  quiet  zones  described  in    1.924  of  this  chapter.
   101.1331  Treatment  of  incumbents.
 (a)  Any  station  licensed  by  the  Commission  prior  to  July  1,  1999,  as  well  as  any  assignments  or  transfers  of  such  station  as  of  January  19,  2000,  shall  be  considered  incumbent.
 (b)  Incumbent  operators  in  the  928.0-  928.  85/  952.0-  952.85/  956.  25-  956.  45  MHz  bands  are  grandfathered  as  of  January  19,  2000,  and  may  continue  to  operate  and  expand  their  systems  pursuant  to  the  interference
 protection  and  co-  channel  spacing  criteria  contained  in    101.105  of  this  part.
 (c)  Incumbent  operators  in  the  928.85-  929.0/  959.85-  960.0  MHz  bands  are  grandfathered  as  of  January  19,  2000,  and  may  expand  their  systems  provided  that  the  signal  level  of  the  additional  transmitter(  s)  does  not
 increase  the  composite  contour  that  occurs  at  a  40.2  kilometer  (25-  mile)  radius  from  the  center  of  each  master  station  transmitter  site.  Incumbent  operators  and  geographic  area  licensees  may  negotiate
 alternative  criteria.
 (d)  The  frequencies  associated  with  incumbent  authorizations  in  the  928/  959  MHz  bands  that  have  cancelled  automatically  or  otherwise  been  recovered  by  the  Commission  will  automatically  revert  to  the  applicable
 EA  licensee.
 (e)  The  frequencies  associated  with  incumbent  authorizations  in  the  928/  952/  956  MHz  bands  that  have  cancelled  automatically  will  revert  to  the  Commission.
76
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 77
   101.1333  Interference  protection  criteria.
 (a)  Frequency  coordination.  All  EA  licensees  are  required  to  coordinate  their  frequency  usage  with  co-channel  adjacent  area  licensees  and  all  other  affected  parties.
 (b)  EA  licensees  are  prohibited  from  exceeding  a  signal  strength  of  40  dBV/  m  at  their  service  area  boundaries,  unless  a  higher  signal  strength  is  agreed  to  by  all  affected  co-  channel,  adjacent  area  licensees.
 (c)  EA  licensees  are  prohibited  from  exceeding  a  signal  strength  of  40  dBV/  m  at  incumbent  licensees  40.2  kilometer  (25-  mile)  radius  composite  contour  specified  in    101.1329(  b)  of  this  subpart.
 (d)  In  general,  licensees  shall  comply  with  the  appropriate  coordination  agreements  between  the  United  States  and  Canada  and  the  United  States  and  Mexico  concerning  cross-  border  sharing  and  use  of  the
 applicable  MAS  frequencies.
 (1)  Canada  -  932.  0-  932.  25  MHz  and  941.0-  941.25  MHz:
 Within  Lines  A,  B,  C,  and  D  along  the  U.  S./  Canada  border,  U.  S.  stations  operating  in  the  932.  0-  932.25  MHz  and  941.0-  941.25  MHz  bands  are  on  a  secondary  basis  and  may  operate  provided
 that  they  shall  not  transmit  a  power  flux  density  (PFD)  at  the  border  greater  than  100  dBW/  m  2  nor  94  dBW/  m  2  ,  respectively.  The  U.  S.  has  full  use  of  the  frequencies  in  these  regions  up  to  the
 border  in  the  bands  932.  25-  932.50  MHz  and  941.25-  941.50  MHz,  and  Canadian  stations  may  operate  on  a  secondary  basis  provided  they  do  not  exceed  the  respective  PFDs  shown  above.
 PFD  can  be  determined  using  the  following  formula:  PFD  (dBW/  m  2  )  =  10  log  [EIRP/  4D  2  ],  where  EIRP  is  in  watts,  D  is  in  meters,  and  the  power  is  relative  to  an  isotropic  radiator.  The
 technical  parameters  are  also  limited  by  the  following  tables:
 Table  1.  Maximum  radiated  power
 Band  Maximum  EIRP  Maximum  ERP  Class  of  Station
 MHz  watts  dBW  watts  dBW
 Master  941.0-  941.  5  1000  30  600  27.  8
 Fixed  Remote  and  Master  932.0-  932.  5  50  17  30  14.  8
 Where  ERP  =  EIRP/  1.64
 Table  2.  Maximum  antenna  height  above  average  terrain  for  master  stations  operating  at  a  maximum  power  shall  not  exceed  150  meters.  Above  150  meters,  the  power  of  master  stations
 shall  be  in  accordance  with  following:
 Antenna  Height  Above  EIRP  ERP
77
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 78
 Average  Terrain  (meters)  watts  dBW  watts  dBW
 Above  305  200  23  120  20.  8
 Above  275  to  305  250  24  150  21.  8
 Above  245  to  275  315  25  190  22.  8
 Above  215  to  245  400  26  240  23.  8
 Above  180  to  215  500  27  300  24.  8
 Above  150  to  180  630  28  380  25.  8
 This  information  is  from  the  Arrangement  between  the  Federal  Communications  Commission  and  the  National  Telecommunications  and  Information  Administration  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  Industry
 Canada  concerning  the  use  of  the  bands  932  to  935  MHz  and  941  to  944  MHz  along  the  United  States-  Canada  border  signed  in  1994.  This  agreement  also  lists  grandfathered  stations  that  must  be  protected.
 (2)  Canada    928-  929  MHz  and  952-  960  MHz:
 Between  Lines  A  and  B  and  between  Lines  C  and  D  along  the  U.  S./  Canada  border,  U.  S.  stations  operating  in  the  928.50-  928.  75  MHz  and  952.50-  952.  75  MHz  bands  are  on  an  unprotected  basis
 and  may  operate  provided  that  they  shall  not  transmit  a  power  flux  density  (PFD)  at  or  beyond  the  border  greater  than  100  dBW/  m  2  .  The  U.  S.  has  full  use  of  the  frequencies  in  these  regions
 up  to  the  border  in  the  bands  928.25-  928.  50  MHz  and  952.25-  952.50  MHz,  and  Canadian  stations  may  operate  on  an  unprotected  basis  provided  they  do  not  exceed  the  PFD  above.  Frequencies  in
 the  bands  928.  00-  928.25  MHz,  928.75-  929.00  MHz,  952.00-  952.  25  MHz,  and  952.75-  952.85  MHz  are  available  for  use  on  a  coordinated,  first-  in-  time,  shared  basis  subject  to  protecting
 grandfathered  stations.  New  stations  must  provide  a  minimum  of  145  km  (90  miles)  separation  or  alternatively  limit  the  actual  PFD  of  the  proposed  station  to  100  dBW/  m  2  ,  at  the  existing  co-channel
 master  stations  of  the  other  country,  or  as  mutually  agreed  upon  on  a  case-  by-  case  basis.  Coordination  is  not  required  if  the  PFD  at  the  border  is  lower  than  100  dBW/  m  2  .  The  technical
 criteria  are  also  limited  by  the  following:
 Maximum  EIRP  for  master  stations  in  the  --  1000  watts  (30  dBW)  952-  953  MHz  band
 Maximum  EIRP  for  fixed  remote  stations  or  --  50  watts  (17  dBW)  master  stations  in  the  928-  929  MHz  band
 Maximum  EIRP  for  mobile  master  stations  --  25  watts  (14  dBW)
78
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 79
 Maximum  antenna  height  above  average  --  152  m  at  1000  watts  terrain  for  master  or  control  stations  EIRP,  power  derated  in
 accordance  with  the  following  table:
 EIRP  Antenna  Height  Above  Average  Terrain  (m)
 watts  dBm
 Above  305  200  53
 Above  275  to  305  250  54
 Above  244  to  274  315  55
 Above  214  to  243  400  56
 Above  183  to  213  500  57
 Above  153  to  182  630  58
 Below  152  1000  60
 This  information  is  from  the  Arrangement  between  the  Department  of  Communications  of  Canada  and  the  Federal  Communications  Commission  of  the  United  States  of  America  Concerning  the  Use  of  the  Bands  928
 to  929  MHz  and  952  to  953  MHz  along  the  United  States-  Canada  Border  signed  in  1991.  This  agreement  also  lists  grandfathered  stations  that  must  be  protected.
 (3)  Mexico:
 Within  113  kilometers  of  the  U.  S./  Mexico  border,  U.  S.  stations  operating  in  the  932.0-  932.25  MHz  and  941.  0-  941.  25  MHz  bands  are  on  a  secondary  basis  (non-  interference  to  Mexican
 primary  licensees)  and  may  operate  provided  that  they  shall  not  transmit  a  power  flux  density  (PFD)  at  or  beyond  the  border  greater  than  -100  dBW/  m  2  .  Upon  notification  from  the
 Commission,  U.  S.  licensees  must  take  proper  measures  to  eliminate  any  harmful  interference  caused  to  Mexican  primary  assignments.  The  U.  S.  has  full  use  of  the  frequencies  in  these  regions
 up  to  the  border  in  the  bands  932.25-  932.  50  MHz  and  941.25-  941.50  MHz,  and  Mexican  stations  may  operate  on  a  secondary  basis  (non-  interference  to  U.  S.  primary  licensees)  provided  they  do
 not  exceed  the  PFD  shown  above.  Stations  using  the  932-  932.5  MHz  band  shall  be  limited  to  the  maximum  effective  isotropic  radiated  power  of  50  watts  (17  dBW).  Stations  using  the  941-  941.  5
 MHz  band  shall  meet  the  limits  in  the  following  table:
79
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 80
 EIRP  Antenna  Height  Above  Average  Mean  Sea  Level
 (meters)  watts  dBW
 Above  305  200  23
 Above  274  to  305  250  24
 Above  243  to  274  315  25
 Above  213  to  243  400  26
 Above  182  to  213  500  27
 Above  152  to  182  630  28
 Up  to  152  1000  30
 This  information  is  from  the  Agreement  between  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Government  of  the  United  Mexican  States  Concerning  the  Allocation  and  Use
 of  Frequency  Bands  by  Terrestrial  Non-  Broadcasting  Radiocommunication  Services  Along  the  Common  Border,  Protocol  #6  Concerning  the  Allotment  and  Use  of  Channels  in  the  932-  932.5
 and  941-  941.5  MHz  Bands  for  Fixed  Point-  to-  Multipoint  Services  Along  the  Common  Border  signed  in  1994.
80
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 81
 APPENDIX  C  -  FINAL  REGULATORY  FLEXIBILITY  ANALYSIS
 Report  and  Order
 1.  As  required  by  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act  (RFA),  346  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analyses  (IRFA)  were  incorporated  in  the  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  Multiple
 Address  Systems,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making.  347  The  Commission  sought  written  public  comment  on  the  proposals  in  the  Notice  and  Further  Notice,
 including  comment  on  the  IRFA.  This  present  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  (FRFA)  conforms  to  the  RFA.  348
 I.  Reason  for,  and  Objectives  of,  the  Report  and  Order.
 2.  These  proceedings  were  initiated  to  secure  public  comment  on  proposals  to  maximize  the  efficient  and  effective  use  of  spectrum  allocated  to  Multiple  Address  Systems  (MAS)  in  the
 Microwave  Services  and  to  analyze  the  impact  of  the  Balanced  Budget  Act  on  these  proposals.  In  attempting  to  maximize  the  use  of  MAS  spectrum,  we  continue  our  efforts  to  improve  the  efficiency  of
 spectrum  use,  reduce  the  regulatory  burden  on  spectrum  users,  facilitate  technological  innovation,  and  provide  opportunities  for  development  of  competitive  new  service  offerings.  The  rules  adopted  in  this
 Report  and  Order  are  also  designed  to  implement  Congress  goal  of  giving  small  businesses  the  opportunity  to  participate  in  the  provision  of  spectrum-  based  services  in  accordance  with  Section  309(  j)
 of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended.  349
 II.  Summary  of  Significant  Issues  Raised  by  Public  Comments  in  Response  to  the  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analyses.
 3.  No  petitions/  comments  were  filed  in  direct  response  to  the  IRFA.  In  general,  commenters  and  reply  commenters  supported  our  proposals  to  provide  additional  flexibility  in  the  MAS
 Service.  Moreover,  many  of  the  commenters  and  reply  commenters  were  existing  MAS  licensees  many  of  whom  qualify  as  small  businesses.  These  commenters  overwhelmingly  supported  proposals  that
 would  permit  (1)  acquisitions  by  partitioning  or  disaggregation;  and  (2)  MAS  licensees  and  applicants  to  choose  their  regulatory  status.  Commenters  generally  supported  our  proposed  definitions  for  small
 business  and  very  small  business  and  did  not  oppose  our  proposal  to  use  tiered  bidding  credits  for
 346  See  5  U.  S.  C.    603.  The  RFA,  see  5  U.  S.  C.    601  et.  seq.,  has  been  amended  by  the  Contract  With
 America  Advancement  Act  of  1996,  Pub.  L.  No.  104-  121,  110  Stat.  847  (1996)  (CWAAA).  Title  II  of  the  CWAAA  is  the  Small  Business  Regulatory  Enforcement  Fairness  Act  of  1996  (SBREFA).
 347  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  Multiple  Address  Systems,  Further  Notice  of
 Proposed  Rule  Making,  14  FCC  Rcd  10744  (1999)  (Further  Notice);  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  12  FCC  Rcd  7973  (1997)  (Notice).
 348  See  5  U.  S.  C.    604.
 349  47  U.  S.  C.    257,  309(  j)  (Communications  Act).
81
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 82
 these  entities.  One  commenter  specifically  suggested  that  the  Commission  recognize  rural  phone  companies  in  the  category  of  designated  entities  and  create  for  rural  telephone  companies  specific
 preferences  that  would  enable  them  to  participate  in  the  provision  of  MAS  services  to  rural  parts  of  the  country.
 III.  Description  and  Estimate  of  the  Number  of  Small  Entities  to  which  the  Rules  Will  Apply.
 4.  The  RFA  directs  agencies  to  provide  a  description  of  and,  where  feasible,  an  estimate  of  the  number  of  small  entities  that  may  be  affected  by  the  proposed  rules,  if  adopted.  The  RFA  generally
 defines  the  term  small  entity  as  having  the  same  meaning  as  the  terms  small  business,  small  organization,  and  small  governmental  jurisdiction.  In  addition,  the  term  small  business  has  the
 same  meaning  as  the  term  small  business  concern  under  the  Small  Business  Act,  unless  the  Commission  has  developed  one  or  more  definitions  that  are  appropriate  for  its  activities.  350  Under  the
 Small  Business  Act,  a  small  business  concern  is  one  that:  (1)  is  independently  owned  and  operated;  (2)  is  not  dominant  in  its  field  of  operation;  and  (3)  satisfies  any  additional  criteria  established  by  the
 Small  Business  Administration  (SBA).  351  A  small  organization  is  generally  any  not-  for-  profit  enterprise  which  is  independently  owned  and  operated  and  is  not  dominant  in  its  field.  352
 5.  Last,  the  definition  of  small  governmental  entity  is  one  with  populations  of  fewer  than  50,000.  353  There  are  85,006  governmental  entities  in  the  nation.  354  This  number  includes  such  entities
 as  states,  counties,  cities,  utility  districts  and  school  districts.  There  are  no  figures  available  on  what  portion  of  this  number  has  populations  of  fewer  than  50,000.  However,  this  number  includes  38,978
 counties,  cities  and  towns,  and  of  those,  37,556,  or  ninety-  six  percent,  have  populations  of  fewer  than  50,000.  355  The  Census  Bureau  estimates  that  this  ratio  is  approximately  accurate  for  all  government
 entities.  Thus,  of  the  85,006  governmental  entities,  we  estimate  that  ninety-  six  percent,  or  about  81,600,  are  small  entities  that  may  be  affected  by  our  rules.  Below,  we  further  describe  and  estimate
 the  number  of  small  business  licensees  and  regulatees  that  may  be  affected  by  the  rules.
 350  See  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  3)  (incorporating  by  reference  the  definition  of  small  business  concern  in  15
 U.  S.  C.    632).  Pursuant  to  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  3),  the  statutory  definition  of  a  small  business  applies  unless  an  agency  after  consultation  with  the  Office  of  Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration  and  after
 opportunity  for  public  comment,  establishes  one  or  more  definitions  of  such  term  which  are  appropriate  to  the  activities  of  the  agency  and  publishes  such  definition(  s)  in  the  Federal  Register.
 351  Small  Business  Act,  15  U.  S.  C.    632  (1996).  See,  e.  g.,  Brown  Transport  Truckload,  Inc.  v.
 Southern  Wipers,  Inc.,  176  B.  R.  82,  89  (N.  D.  Ga.  1994).
 352  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  4).
 353  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  5).
 354  1992  Census  of  Governments,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  the  Census,  U.  S.  Department  of  Commerce.
 355  Id.
82
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 83
 6.  The  rules  adopted  in  this  Report  and  Order  affect  a  number  of  small  entities  who  are  either  licensees,  or  may  choose  to  become  applicants  for  licenses,  in  the  MAS  Service.  Such  entities,
 in  general,  fall  into  two  categories:  (1)  those  using  MAS  spectrum  for  profit  based  uses  and  (2)  those  using  MAS  spectrum  for  private  internal  uses.
 7.  With  respect  to  the  first  category,  the  Commission  has  developed  and  received  approval  from  the  Small  Business  Administration  for  two  definitions  of  small  entities  applicable  to  MAS
 licensees  that  do  not  provide  private  internal  service.  356  The  Commission  defines  a  small  business  as  an  entity  that,  together  with  its  affiliates  and  persons  or  entities  that  hold  interests  in  such  entity  and
 their  affiliates,  has  average  gross  revenues  for  the  preceding  three  years  not  to  exceed  $15  million.  We  define  a  very  small  business  as  an  entity  that,  together  with  its  affiliates  and  persons  or  entities  that
 hold  interests  in  such  entity  and  their  affiliates,  has  average  gross  revenues  for  the  preceding  three  years  not  to  exceed  $3  million.  These  tiers  are  consistent  with  those  set  forth  in  Part  1,  Subpart  Q.  357
 The  majority  of  these  entities  will  most  likely  be  licensed  in  bands  where  the  Commission  has  implemented  a  geographic  area  licensing  approach  that  would  require  the  use  of  competitive  bidding
 procedures  to  resolve  mutually  exclusive  applications.  The  Commissions  licensing  database  indicates  that,  as  of  January  20,  1999,  there  were  a  total  of  8,670  MAS  station  authorizations.  Of  these,  260
 authorizations  were  associated  with  common  carrier  service.
 8.  With  respect  to  the  second  category,  which  consists  of  entities  that  use,  or  seek  to  use,  MAS  spectrum  to  accommodate  their  own  internal  communications  needs,  we  note  that  MAS  serves
 an  essential  role  in  a  range  of  industrial,  safety,  business,  and  land  transportation  activities.  MAS  radios  are  used  by  companies  of  all  sizes,  operating  in  virtually  all  U.  S.  business  categories,  and  by  all
 types  of  public  safety  entities.  We  note  that  some  of  these  entities  may  seek  to  use  spectrum  in  which  geographic  area  licensing  is  implemented  to  satisfy  their  internal  purposes,  in  which  case  they  will  be
 subject  to  the  definitions  for  small  business  described  herein.  358  For  the  majority  of  private  internal  users,  the  definitions  developed  by  the  SBA  would  be  more  appropriate.  The  applicable  definition  of
 small  entity  in  this  instance  appears  to  be  the  definition  under  the  SBA  rules  applicable  to  establishments  engaged  in  radiotelephone  communications.  This  definition  provides  that  a  small  entity
 is  any  entity  employing  no  more  than  1,500  persons.  359  The  Commissions  licensing  database  indicates  that,  as  of  January  20,  1999,  of  the  8,670  total  MAS  station  authorizations,  8,410
 authorizations  were  for  private  radio  service,  and  of  these,  1,433  were  for  private  land  mobile  radio  service.
 IV.  Reporting,  Recordkeeping,  and  Other  Compliance  Requirements.
 356  Letter  from  Aida  Alvarez,  Administrator,  Small  Business  Administration  to  Thomas  J.  Sugrue,
 Chief,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau,  Federal  Communications  Commission  (June  4,  1999).
 357  See  47  C.  F.  R.    1.  2110.
 358  See  supra  at  para  7.
 359  See  13  C.  F.  R.    121.  201,  Standard  Industrial  Classification  (SIC)  Code  4812.
83
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 84
 9.  Given  that  we  are  using  competitive  bidding  to  award  certain  MAS  licenses  and  have  established  a  small  business  definition  for  competitive  bidding  purposes,  then  all  small  businesses  that
 choose  to  participate  in  these  services  will  be  required  to  demonstrate  that  they  meet  the  criteria  set  forth  to  qualify  as  small  businesses.  360  Any  small  business  applicant  wishing  to  avail  itself  of  small
 business  provisions  will  need  to  make  the  general  financial  disclosures  necessary  to  establish  that  the  small  business  is  in  fact  small.
 10.  Prior  to  auction,  each  small  business  applicant  will  be  required  to  submit  an  FCC  Form  175,  OMB  Clearance  Number  3060-  0600.  The  estimated  time  for  completing  an  FCC  Form  175  is
 forty-  five  minutes.  In  addition  to  filing  an  FCC  Form  175,  each  applicant  must  submit  information  regarding  the  ownership  of  the  applicant,  any  joint  venture  arrangements  or  bidding  consortia  that  the
 applicant  has  entered  into,  and  financial  information  which  demonstrates  that  a  business  wishing  to  qualify  for  bidding  credits  is  a  small  business.  Applicants  that  do  not  have  audited  financial  statements
 available  will  be  permitted  to  certify  to  the  validity  of  their  showings.  While  many  small  businesses  have  chosen  to  employ  attorneys  prior  to  filing  an  application  to  participate  in  an  auction,  the  rules  are
 proposed  so  that  a  small  business  working  with  the  information  in  a  bidder  information  package  can  file  an  application  on  its  own.  When  an  applicant  wins  a  license,  it  will  be  required  to  submit  an  FCC  Form
 601  (Long-  form  Application  for  Authorization),  which  will  require  technical  information  regarding  the  applicants  proposals  for  providing  service.  This  application,  and  any  appropriate  schedules  and
 attachments,  will  require  information  provided  by  an  engineer  who  will  have  knowledge  of  the  systems  design.  MAS  applicants  and/  or  licensees  will  be  required  to  submit  certain  showings  to  indicate
 compliance  with  the  Commissions  Rules.  361
 V.  Steps  Taken  to  Minimize  Significant  Economic  Impact  on  Small  Entities,  and  Significant  Alternatives  Considered.
 11.  We  have  reduced  the  economic  burden  placed  on  small  business  where  possible.  In  response  to  general  comments  filed  in  this  proceeding,  we  have  adopted  final  rules  designed  to  maximize
 opportunities  for  participation  by,  and  growth  of,  small  businesses  in  providing  wireless  services.  Specifically,  we  expect  that  allowing  partitioning  and  disaggregation  of  licenses  and  bidding  credits  will
 specifically  assist  small  businesses.
 12.  There  were  some  entities  that  opposed  our  proposals  related  to  implementing  geographic  area  licensing  in  certain  MAS  bands  because  the  filing  of  any  mutually  exclusive  applications  would  require
 them  to  participate  in  auctions.  However,  we  determined  that  the  public  interest  would  be  best  served  by  adopting  our  proposal.  Many  of  the  potentially  affected  entities  would  have  an  opportunity  to  secure
 spectrum  in  other  MAS  bands  where  we  retain  first-  come,  first-  served,  site-  based  licensing  with  frequency  coordination.  However,  as  stated  earlier,  many  commenters  expressed  general  support  for  our  proposals  in
 360  See  generally  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  1,  Subpart  Q  (competitive  bidding  procedures).
 361  See,  e.  g.,  MAS  Report  and  Order  at  paras.  95,  99  and  note  39.
84
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 85
 the  MAS  proceeding  because  these  new  procedures  streamline  our  licensing  requirements,  administrative  burdens  for  both  applicants  and/  or  licensees,  and  the  Commission,  which  would  ultimately  result  in  less
 economic  burden  to  the  applicants  and/  or  licensees.
 Report  to  Congress:  The  Commission  will  send  a  copy  of  the  MAS  Report  and  Order,  including  this  FRFA,  in  a  report  to  be  sent  to  Congress  pursuant  to  the  Small  Business
 Regulatory  Enforcement  Fairness  Act  of  1996.  362  In  addition,  the  Commission  will  send  a  copy  of  the  MAS  Report  and  Order,  including  FRFA,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  for
 Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration.  A  copy  of  the  MAS  Report  and  Order  and  FRFA  (or  summaries  thereof)  will  also  be  published  in  the  Federal  Register.  363
 362  See  5  U.  S.  C.    801(  a)(  1)(  A).
 363  See  5  U.  S.  C.    604(  b).
85
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 86
 APPENDIX  D    RECOVERED  CHANNELS
 The  frequencies  listed  in  this  Appendix  have  been  recovered  through  the  cancellation  of  licenses  and  will  be  available  for  reassignment  to  Multiple  Address  System  applicants.  These  frequencies  were  previously
 licensed  at  the  coordinates  indicated  below.  Applicants  must  comply  with  the  interference  protection  criteria  listed  in  Section  101.105  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    101.105,  with  respect  to  all  other  existing
 and  previously  applied  for  systems.  All  current  FCC  Rules,  including  those  adopted  in  this  Report  and  Order,  are  in  effect  and  fully  govern  the  application  for  and  use  of  this  spectrum.
 MAS  FREQUENCIES  RECOVERED  THROUGH  CANCELLATION
 MARKET  ST  LAT  LONG  FREQ1  FREQ2  FREQ3  FREQ4  (dd.  mmss)  (dd.  mmss)  (MHz)  (MHz)  (MHz)  (MHz)
 (NAD27)  (NAD27)
 Birmingham  AL  33.2900  86.4834  952.66875  928.66875  Brewton  AL  31.0722  87.0405  952.40625  928.40625
 Bucks  AL  31.0011  88.0105  952.83125  928.83125  Sylacauga  AL  33.1224  86.1354  952.54375  928.54375
 Little  Rock  AR  34.3602  92.1332  952.21875  928.21875  Flagstaff  AZ  35.1124  111.3917  952.03125  928.03125
 Healdsburg  CA  38.5226  122.4231  952.63125  928.63125  Lakeport  CA  39.0750  123.0432  952.63125  928.63125
 Long  Beach  CA  33.5129  118.1322  952.0125  928.0125  San  Diego  CA  32.4220  117.0910  952.44375  928.44375
 San  Diego  CA  32.4349  117.0501  952.46875  928.46875  Santa  Barbara  CA  34.2507  119.4224  952.0625  928.0625
 Rifle  CO  39.2050  107.1700  952.26875  928.26875  Sedalia  CO  39.2306  105.0251  952.10625  928.10625
 Spring  Creek  CO  37.1134  107.2822  952.25625  928.25625  Wilmington  DE  39.4442  75.3255  952.1375  928.1375  952.2875  928.2875
 Boca  Raton  FL  26.2214  80.1021  952.1875  928.1875  Daytona  Beach  FL  29.1028  81.0928  956.38125
 Fort  Lauderdale  FL  26.0654  80.0830  952.1875  928.1875  Fort  Myers  FL  26.3857  81.5206  956.35625
 Fort  Pierce  FL  27.2605  80.2142  956.40625  Fort  Pierce  FL  27.2626  80.2313  956.38125
 Ft  Walton  Beach  FL  30.2526  86.3917  956.30625  Ft  Walton  Beach  FL  30.2451  86.3740  952.26875  928.26875
 Jacksonville  FL  30.1623  81.3313  956.35625  Jacksonville  FL  30.1636  81.3347  952.58125  928.58125
 Jacksonville  FL  30.1636  81.3347  952.59375  928.59375  Miami  FL  25.4625  80.1118  952.2625  928.2625
 Miami  FL  25.4624  80.1141  952.1125  928.1125  952.1875  928.1875  Miami  FL  25.4106  80.1851  952.1875  928.1875
 Miramar  FL  25.5759  80.1233  956.33125  North  Ft  Myers  FL  26.4130  81.5256  952.08125  928.08125
 Orlando  FL  28.3222  81.2246  956.33125  Orlando  FL  28.3222  81.2246  956.30625
 Panama  City  FL  30.1312  85.3542  952.33125  928.33125  Pensacola  FL  30.2636  87.1402  952.21875  928.21875
 Pompano  Beach  FL  26.1350  80.0525  952.1875  928.1875  952.1125  928.1125
86
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 87
 Tallahassee  FL  30.2915  84.1648  952.03125  928.03125  Tallahassee  FL  30.2630  84.1604  956.40625
 Tampa  FL  27.5756  82.3038  956.43125  956.28125  Atlanta  GA  33.4545  84.2314  956.36875
 Augusta  GA  33.2515  81.5019  952.28125  928.28125  Cartersville  GA  34.1322  84.4747  952.05625  928.05625
 Conyers  GA  33.4156  84.0238  952.55625  928.55625  Gulf  of  Mexico  GM  29.3053  94.0149  952.2875  928.2875
 Gulf  of  Mexico  GM  27.5853  93.0204  952.8375  928.8375  Offshore  GM  29.0901  94.0251  952.13125  928.13125
 Offshore  GM  29.1535  93.1952  952.01875  928.01875  Offshore  GM  28.2508  92.3742  952.6875  928.6875
 Offshore  GM  28.3525  92.2759  952.6375  928.6375  Offshore  GM  28.1049  91.5816  952.59375  928.59375
 Offshore  GM  29.3310  88.3936  952.08125  928.08125  Offshore  GM  29.1839  91.3211  952.73125  928.73125
 Offshore  GM  28.5126  90.2733  952.84375  928.84375  Offshore  GM  28.1002  91.2939  952.48125  928.48125
 Honolulu  HI  21.1739  157.5018  952.11875  928.11875  Rockwell  IA  42.5904  93.0502  952.0875  928.0875
 Stanwood  IA  41.5335  91.0852  952.0875  928.0875  Chicago  IL  41.5244  87.3810  956.26875
 Fort  Wayne  IN  41.0535  85.1042  952.24375  928.24375  Indianapolis  IN  39.4635  86.0846  956.28125
 Indianapolis  IN  39.4603  86.0012  952.34375  928.34375  Lansing  KS  39.1509  94.5232  952.0375  928.0375
 Wichita  KS  37.4143  97.1905  952.24375  928.24375  Wichita  KS  37.4306  97.1906  952.08125  928.08125
 Cave  KY  37.0639  85.5841  952.3125  928.3125  Covington  KY  39.0446  84.3209  952.36875  928.36875
 Hopkinsville  KY  36.5157  87.2918  952.0375  928.0375  952.1375  928.1375  Louisville  KY  38.1522  85.4525  952.49375  928.49375
 Paducah  KY  37.0445  88.3645  952.18125  928.18125  Alexandria  LA  31.1604  92.2624  952.2875  928.2875
 Arnaudville  LA  30.2157  91.5840  952.5875  928.5875  Gretna  LA  29.5539  90.0246  952.59375  928.59375
 Hineston  LA  31.1121  92.4443  952.3875  928.3875  Holly  Beach  LA  29.4548  93.3608  952.50625  928.50625
 New  Orleans  LA  29.5922  90.0405  952.0625  928.0625  Saint  Landry  LA  30.5037  92.1535  952.6125  928.6125
 Shreveport  LA  32.2825  93.4610  952.75625  928.75625  Sulphur  LA  30.0724  93.2410  952.68125  928.68125
 Adams  MA  42.3807  73.0957  952.41875  928.41875  Boston  MA  42.2055  71.0435  952.81875  928.81875
 Boxford  MA  42.4043  70.5857  952.40625  928.40625  Foxboro  MA  42.0544  71.1349  952.49375  928.49375
 Monson  MA  42.0831  72.2054  952.43125  928.43125  Washington  MA  42.2225  73.0852  952.51875  928.51875
 Westminster  MA  42.3500  71.5300  952.78125  Hagerstown  MD  39.3807  77.4650  956.2875
 Laurel  MD  39.0548  76.5128  952.0125  928.0125  Oxon  Hill  MD  38.4819  76.5848  952.1125  928.1125
 Silver  Spring  MD  39.0101  76.5829  952.2875  928.2875
87
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 88
 Ludington  MI  43.5517  86.2617  952.03125  928.03125  Turner  MI  44.0639  84.4400  952.05625  928.05625
 Saint  Paul  MN  45.0344  93.0821  952.79375  928.79375  Cabool  MO  37.0928  92.0845  952.0875  928.0875
 Olden  MO  36.4836  91.5509  952.0375  928.0375  Burlington  NC  35.5626  79.2540  956.38125
 Gastonia  NC  35.1401  81.1636  956.25625  Greensboro  NC  36.0509  79.4538  952.71875  928.71875
 Raleigh  NC  35.4715  78.4339  952.15625  928.15625  Omaha  NE  41.1528  96.0155  952.08125  928.08125
 Hudson  NH  42.4406  71.2337  952.31875  928.31875  Morristown  NJ  40.4920  74.3324  959.86875
 Alamogordo  NM  32.5313  105.5704  952.01875  928.01875  Carlsbad  NM  32.2609  104.1114  952.14375  928.14375
 Farmington  NM  36.3949  108.1255  952.18125  928.18125  Las  Cruces  NM  32.1847  106.4514  952.13125  928.13125
 Los  Alamos  NM  35.5308  106.2314  952.54375  928.54375  Zuni  NM  35.0518  108.4722  952.04375  928.04375
 Henderson  NV  35.5644  115.0235  956.30625  Las  Vegas  NV  36.0744  115.1121  952.34375  928.34375
 Las  Vegas  NV  36.0744  115.1121  952.13125  928.13125  Las  Vegas  NV  36.0748  115.0604  952.3875  928.3875
 Buffalo  NY  42.5247  78.5236  952.46875  928.46875  Buffalo  NY  42.5714  78.5237  952.80625  928.80625
 Byersville  NY  42.3501  77.5003  952.3125  928.3125  Clifton  Park  NY  42.5033  73.4858  952.54375  928.54375
 New  Scottland  NY  42.3739  74.0043  952.1125  928.1125  New  York  NY  40.4530  73.5815  956.3375
 North  Greenbush  NY  42.4114  73.4222  952.00625  928.00625  Omro  NY  42.4757  76.2603  952.0375  928.0375
 Staten  Island  NY  40.3734  74.0530  952.0875  928.0875  Tonawanda  NY  42.5836  78.5413  952.4375  928.4375
 Cincinnati  OH  39.0648  84.3048  952.53125  928.53125  Cincinnati  OH  39.0648  84.3048  952.56875  928.56875
 Cleves  OH  39.0847  84.4605  952.70625  928.70625  Columbus  OH  40.0102  83.0111  952.60625  928.60625
 Columbus  OH  39.5740  83.0004  952.09375  928.09375  Defiance  OH  41.1323  84.2236  952.2625  928.2625
 Bengal  OK  34.4840  95.1025  952.19375  928.19375  Blanchard  OK  35.1249  97.4448  952.3375  928.3375
 Lindsay  OK  34.4454  97.3558  952.60625  928.60625  Oklahoma  City  OK  35.2412  97.2916  952.3125  928.3125
 Woodward  OK  36.2418  99.2835  952.76875  928.76875  Canyonville  OR  42.5406  123.1707  952.69375  928.69375
 Gold  Hill  OR  42.2711  123.0320  952.79375  928.79375  Grants  Pass  OR  42.2255  123.1630  952.49375  928.49375
 Klamath  Falls  OR  42.0557  121.3803  952.78125  928.78125  Malin  OR  42.0436  121.2952  952.48125  928.48125
 Portland  OR  45.3121  122.4446  952.36875  928.36875  Old  Forge  PA  41.2206  75.4433  952.4375  928.4375
 Pittsburgh  PA  40.2825  79.5937  952.31875  928.31875  Pittsburgh  PA  40.2825  79.5937  952.06875  928.06875
 Charleston  SC  32.5422  79.5511  952.13125  928.13125
88
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 89
 Charleston  SC  32.4715  79.5100  952.25625  928.25625  Greenville  SC  34.4951  82.2655  952.03125  928.03125
 Greenville  SC  34.5629  82.2442  952.21875  928.21875  952.30625  928.30625  Greenville  SC  34.5629  82.2441  956.26875
 Memphis  TN  35.0645  89.5332  952.08125  928.08125  Memphis  TN  35.0853  90.0305  952.15625  928.15625
 Nashville  TN  36.0924  86.4615  952.06875  928.06875  Nashville  TN  36.0849  86.4759  952.6375  928.6375
 Ackerly  TX  32.3122  101.4251  952.26875  928.26875  Beaumont  TX  30.0741  94.1011  928.95625
 Charlotte  TX  28.5119  98.4128  952.26875  928.26875  Dallas  TX  32.4755  96.4648  952.0125  928.0125
 Gerulla  TX  26.2245  98.3645  952.28125  928.28125  Littlefield  TX  33.5408  102.2012  952.28125  928.28125
 Lubbock  TX  33.2810  101.4725  952.18125  928.18125  Lubbock  TX  33.2810  101.4725  952.44375  928.44375
 Oak  Hill  TX  30.1458  97.5408  952.04375  928.04375  Plainview  TX  34.1305  101.4202  952.25625  928.25625  952.05625  928.05625
 San  Antonio  TX  29.2521  98.2926  952.66875  928.66875  Sanderson  TX  30.3311  102.2627  952.14375  928.14375
 Tuscola  TX  32.1235  99.4750  952.11875  928.11875  Waco  TX  31.3203  97.1055  952.01875  928.01875
 Wichita  Falls  TX  33.5655  98.3420  952.25625  928.25625  Wink  TX  31.4459  103.0930  956.3125  956.3875
 Chesapeake  VA  36.4838  76.1657  952.24375  928.24375  McLean  VA  38.5532  77.1357  952.1125  928.1125
 Skippers  VA  36.3700  77.3545  952.13125  928.13125  Springfield  VA  38.4653  77.1053  952.1375  928.1375
 Virginia  Beach  VA  36.5049  76.0123  952.84375  928.84375  Virginia  Beach  VA  36.4944  76.1226  952.06875  928.06875
 Somerset  VT  42.5733  72.5524  952.1875  928.1875  Bremerton  WA  47.3546  122.3725  952.76875  928.76875
 Cle  Elum  WA  47.0906  120.4722  952.54375  928.54375  Little  Rock  WA  46.5824  123.0816  952.00625  928.00625
 Monroe  WA  47.5110  121.5818  952.71875  928.71875  Seattle  WA  47.4606  122.2107  952.31875  928.31875
 Spokane  WA  47.3659  117.2155  952.04375  928.04375  Tacoma  WA  47.1641  122.3042  952.69375  928.69375
 Green  Bay  WI  44.2130  87.5848  952.26875  928.26875  Green  Bay  WI  44.2130  87.5848  952.33125  928.33125
 Marlowe  WV  39.3535  77.5005  956.2875
89
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 90
 APPENDIX  E  PENDING  MAS  APPLICATIONS
 NAME:  FILE  NUMBERS:
 Advanced  MAS  Partners  701420  ANR  Pipeline  Company  796543
 CN  Wan  Corporation  712640,  727672,  731525  Coastal  Product  Service,  Inc.  796552
 Colorado  Interstate  Gas  Co.  712649,  796538,  796539  William  Corthwein  796549,  796550
 Detroit  Edison  Co.  796555,  796556  GTECH  Corp.  731528,  796541
 Warren  Havens  796545  Interactive  MAS  Partners  798792,  798793
 Island  MAS  Partners  798783,  798784,  798787  John  N.  Kyle  II  796565,  798802
 Livingston  Parish  School  Board  796444  Robert  G.  Mounger  796546
 Nationwide  MAS  Partners  796572,  796573  Nexcom,  Inc.  798843,  798844,  798846,  798847
 Northern  Colorado  Water  Conservancy  District  712557  Omnicron  Telecommunications,  Inc.  796553
 Page  Tel  Corp.  796607,  796608,  796613,  796614  Royal  Communications,  Inc.  796522,  796523
 Skyline  MAS  Partners  796530,  796536,  796537  SLJ  Communication,  Inc.  796524,  796525,  796526,  796527
 Soo  System  Radio  Communications  Corp.  701441  Spectrum  MAS  Partners  798826,  798830,  798831,  798837,  798838
 Texas  Utilities  Electric  Co.  726018  United  MAS  Partners  796583,  796586
 Universal  MAS  Partners  796593,  796598,  796599
90
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  99-  415
 91
 APPENDIX  F  PENDING  MAS  PETITIONS  AND  WAIVER  REQUESTS
 928/  952/  956  MHz  Bands:
 United  Telecom  Council,  American  Petroleum  Institute,  Association  of  American  Railroads  (CII  Petitioners)
 Itron,  Inc.  CellNet  Data  Systems,  Inc.
 City  of  Maryville,  Tennessee  City  of  Middleton,  Wisconsin
 Kansas  Electric  Power  Cooperative
91