[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8478-8483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4723]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 90

[PR Docket No. 93-35; FCC 96-53]


Channel Exclusivity to Qualified Private Paging Systems at 929-
930 MHz

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final Rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission reviews 
six petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification of the PCP 
Exclusivity Order in this docket establishing channel exclusivity for 
qualified local, regional, and nationwide paging systems in the 929-930 
MHz band, and grants the petitions in part and denies them in part. The 
petitions requesting exclusivity to regional 929 MHz systems in regions 
defined by state borders, rather than based on their actual service 
areas, are denied. The petitions that seek to increase the maximum 
transmitter power for local and regional systems are granted. 
Additionally, the Commission partially grants certain pending waiver 
requests of incumbent licensees seeking additional time to comply with 
multi-frequency transmitter specifications. The intended effect of this 
order is to affirm that exclusivity to regional 929 MHz systems is 
granted based on the service area as set forth in the PCP Exclusivity 
Order and to amend the rules to facilitate the rapid and efficient 
licensing of paging in the 929-930 MHz band. These amendments to the 
regional channel exclusivity scheme established in the PCP Exclusivity 
Order will facilitate the development of seamless, wide-area 900 MHz 
paging systems.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mika Savir, Commercial Wireless 
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-0620.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Memorandum Opinion and Order in PR 
Docket No. 93-35; RM Docket 7986, adopted February 8, 1996, and 
released February 13, 1996, is available for inspection and copying 
during normal business hours in the FCC Dockets Branch, Room 230, 1919 
M Street N.W., Washington D.C. The complete text may be purchased from 
the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 
Inc., 2100 M Street N.E., Suite 140, Washington D.C. 20037 (202) 857-
3800.

Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and Order

I. Introduction

    Before the Commission are six petitions for reconsideration and/or 
clarification of our PCP Exclusivity Order, Amendment of the 
Commission's Rules to Provide Channel Exclusivity to Qualified Private 
Paging Systems at 929-930 MHz, Report and Order, PR Docket No. 93-35, 
58 FR 62289 (November 26, 1993) (PCP Exclusivity Order), establishing 
channel exclusivity for qualified local, regional, and nationwide 
paging systems in the 929-930 MHz band. After reviewing the issues 
involved, the Commission grants the petitions in part and denies them 
in part. In particular, the Commission denies petitions requesting that 
exclusivity be granted to regional 929 MHz systems in regions defined 
by state borders, rather than based on their actual service areas. The 
Commission partially grants those petitions that seek to increase the 
maximum transmitter power for local and regional systems. The 
Commission also partially grants certain pending waiver requests of 
incumbent licensees seeking additional time to comply with the multi-
frequency transmitter specifications. The Commission otherwise affirms 
the rules governing 929 MHz private paging as adopted in the PCP 
Exclusivity Order.
    Additionally, the Commission is adopting a Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making in WT Docket No. 96-18, 61 FR 6199 (February 16, 1996) to 
examine ways to promote continued growth of the paging industry. In the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposes to adopt new 
rules providing that future licensing of all exclusive paging channels, 
including 929 MHz channels, will be based on market-defined service 
areas, with mutually exclusive applications to be resolved by 
competitive bidding. Therefore, the conclusions reached in this 
Memorandum Opinion and Order are subject to future modification based 
on 

[[Page 8479]]
the outcome of the comprehensive paging rulemaking.

II. Background

    PCP Exclusivity Order. In the PCP Exclusivity Order, the Commission 
implemented a system of exclusive licensing for qualified local, 
regional, and nationwide 929 MHz private paging systems on 35 of 40 
available channels. Prior to this action, all private paging 
frequencies, including those at 929 MHz, were assigned on a non-
exclusive basis. The PCP Exclusivity Order concluded that enabling 929 
MHz paging systems to operate on an exclusive basis is in the public 
interest, due to the efficiencies and incentives such an approach 
encourages in the marketplace. Specifically, the Commission indicated 
that continued sharing of frequencies would undermine efficient use of 
929 MHz paging channels as demand for paging services expands in the 
future. The Commission observed that, while sharing is technically 
feasible, dividing air time among multiple licensees imposes 
significant constraints on the efficiency and quality of service in 
crowded markets. The Commission also indicated that in a shared 
environment, licensees are reluctant to invest in advanced paging 
technology because of the risk that others will be assigned to the same 
frequency in the future. The Commission concluded that exclusivity 
would create a stable, predictable environment necessary for the 
industry to attract investment in wide-area, high capacity paging 
systems in the 929-930 MHz band.
    The PCP Exclusivity Order established the requirements for 
licensees to obtain channel exclusivity in the 929 MHz band. In 
particular, the Commission established minimum standards for the 
configuration of protected systems, including the number of 
transmitters required for local, regional, and nationwide systems, and 
the treatment of multi-frequency transmitters. The Commission also 
implemented geographic separation standards for placement of co-channel 
stations, to protect qualified local or regional systems, and 
established effective radiated power (ERP) limits for all such systems.
    The PCP Exclusivity Order also set forth other prerequisites to 
obtaining exclusivity. Most notably, the Commission conditioned 
exclusivity on construction of a qualified system within eight months 
of licensing. For larger systems, the Commission indicated that a new 
applicant may request an extension of up to three years, based on its 
showing of need, a construction timetable, and its establishment of an 
escrow account or securing of a performance bond to cover construction 
costs. Other matters addressed in the PCP Exclusivity Order include 
issues associated with application of exclusivity to existing systems 
and to future licensing, and certain transitional procedures. In 
particular, the Commission grandfathered all existing systems and 
indicated that it would grant immediate exclusivity to existing systems 
that satisfied the new exclusivity criteria.
    Petitions for Reconsideration/Waivers. The Commission received 
petitions for reconsideration of the PCP Exclusivity Order from the 
following businesses and organizations: (1) the National Association of 
Business and Educational Radio and its Association for Private Carrier 
Paging Section (NABER); (2) First American National Paging (First 
National); (3) Afro-American Paging, Inc. (AAP); (4) American 
Mobilephone, Inc. (AMI); (5) Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet); MAP Mobile 
Communications, Inc. (MAP); and (6) Metrocall, Inc. The Commission has 
sought and received comment on the issues raised by these petitions. 
Some parties also have filed petitions asking that various provisions 
of the new exclusivity rules be waived to accommodate specific hardship 
situations. These requests generally involve waiver of the construction 
requirements, ERP limits, or system configuration rules. For the most 
part, the Commission will decide these waiver requests in other 
proceedings. The Commission partially grants the waiver requests of 
certain grandfathered licensees seeking time to convert their systems 
from multi-frequency transmitter to single-frequency transmitter 
operations for exclusivity purposes.

III. Discussion

A. Configuration of Local Systems
    Background. To qualify for channel exclusivity under the 929 MHz 
paging rules, the PCP Exclusivity Order provided that a local system 
must consist of at least six contiguous transmitters, except in the New 
York, Los Angeles, and Chicago markets, where 18 contiguous 
transmitters are required. The Commission also provided that 
transmitters will be considered contiguous if (1) each transmitter is 
located within 25 miles of at least one other transmitter in the 
system; (2) the combined area defined by a 12.5 mile radius around each 
transmitter forms a single contiguous area; and (3) no transmitter is 
co-located with any other transmitter being counted as part of the 
local system.
    Petitions for Reconsideration/Comments. On reconsideration, AAP 
challenges Section 90.495 (a)(1)(ii) of the rules, as adopted in the 
PCP Exclusivity Order, which requires that a 12.5 mile radius 
surrounding each transmitter form a single contiguous area. AAP argues 
that there was no notice of this rule change, because the restriction 
was not part of our original proposal and is not a logical outgrowth of 
the PCP Exclusivity Notice, Amendment of the Commission's Rules to 
Provide Channel Exclusivity to Qualified Private Paging Systems at 929-
930 MHz, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, PR Docket No. 93-35, 58 FR 
17819 (April 6, 1993) (PCP Exclusivity Notice). AAP claims that as a 
result of the added 12.5 mile radius requirement, one of its systems 
now is disqualified from obtaining exclusivity. AAP contends that if it 
is the Commission's goal to confine systems to smaller geographic 
areas, a 15 mile radius standard is more equitable. The Commission has 
received no comments on AAP's reconsideration proposal.
    Decision. The Commission will not eliminate or alter the 
requirement for local exclusivity that requires that a 12.5 mile radius 
surrounding each transmitter form a single contiguous area. The 12.5 
mile rule is a necessary component of the exclusivity rules, because it 
ensures that a local system will serve a contiguous geographic area. 
Without such a requirement, licensees could obtain local exclusivity 
based on non-contiguous placement of transmitters, undermining the 
Commission's effort to establish truly local systems serving an 
indigenous locale or community. Proportionately, the 12.5 mile distance 
is one-half the distance of the 25 mile rule, and thereby works well to 
ensure that transmitters are located to serve a single contiguous 
geographic territory.
    While the 12.5 mile rule was not expressly included in the PCP 
Exclusivity Notice, the Commission believes that this restriction 
nonetheless is a ``sufficiently minor'' difference from the rule 
proposed to be a ``logical outgrowth'' of the Commission's efforts to 
establish a system of local exclusivity. The PCP Exclusivity Notice 
sought comment on the configuration of locally protected systems. 
Specifically, the Commission proposed that each transmitter in a 
qualified system would have to be within 25 miles of another 
transmitter to count toward the number required for exclusivity. 
Incorporation of the 12.5 mile restriction in the final rules 
constitutes a minor, technical 

[[Page 8480]]
change to the original proposal, which is necessary to ensure that 
local exclusivity is awarded to operators that locate transmitters in 
close proximity to one another within a system. The 12.5 mile rule 
effectively closes a loophole in the original proposal, and comports 
with the Commission's intent to create local paging systems in the 929-
930 MHz band. Only AAP has objected to the change, apparently based on 
its own unique situation, that one of its transmitters is 13.2 miles 
from the nearest other transmitter, which is best resolved by a request 
for waiver.
B. Configuration of Regional Systems
    Background. The PCP Exclusivity Order provided protection for 
exclusive regional systems based on the location of stations comprising 
the system. To qualify for exclusivity, a regional system must consist 
of 70 or more transmitters, not necessarily contiguous, located in no 
more than twelve adjacent states in the continental United States. The 
rules provide regional systems with exclusivity based on a prescribed 
separation distance around each of the regional licensee's stations, 
ranging from 112 to 187 kilometers (70 to 116 miles) depending on the 
class of the station. Also, in each of the top thirty markets, 
specified in Section 90.741 of the Commission's rules, no transmitter 
may be counted as part of a regional system unless it also meets the 
requirements for local exclusivity in that market. Petitions for 
Reconsideration/Comments. NABER and PageNet argue that the geographic 
scope of exclusivity granted to 929 MHz regional systems should be 
based on state borders, rather than the location of the system's 
stations. According to NABER, allowing regional paging systems 
statewide exclusivity in each state in which the system provides 
service is needed to promote the development of regional systems. NABER 
and PageNet also express concern that under the current rules, 
speculators can file applications in strategic locations designed 
solely to extract payment from regional systems seeking to expand their 
coverage. NABER therefore recommends that the Commission grant regional 
applicants (i.e., applicants proposing a system of 70 or more 
transmitters) exclusivity extending to the borders of any state in 
which the applicant constructs at least one transmitter, except that in 
states having markets listed among the top 30, the applicant must 
construct six or 18 transmitters, depending on the size of the market. 
NABER also requests that the Commission permit regional licensees to 
locate transmitters anywhere within any state included in the system, 
as long as they maintain the required geographic separation from 
facilities in adjoining regions.
    AMI and ADC express concern about the application of NABER's 
proposal to licensees who are entitled to regional exclusivity under 
our existing rules. In general, these commenters are opposed to any 
change that would result in divesting licensees of existing exclusivity 
rights. ADC suggests that the Commission not apply statewide 
exclusivity to licensees whose applications (including those for local 
exclusivity) were received by NABER for coordination on or before March 
31, 1994, at least where a portion of the involved local system was 
constructed and in operation before October 14, 1993.
    ARCH, API, and Airtouch, on the other hand, favor statewide 
exclusivity for licensing as proposed by NABER and PageNet. According 
to these commenters, permitting licensees to achieve exclusivity on a 
statewide basis is essential to the development of truly regional 
systems. Airtouch and ARCH believe AMI and ADC's opposition to 
statewide exclusivity stems from the unique market situation of these 
licensees, and contend that the appropriate remedy for AMI and ADC is a 
waiver, not a decision to retain the status quo.
    Decision. The Commission declines to reconsider the rules defining 
regional exclusivity for 929 MHz regional systems in this proceeding. 
The Commission is considering the issue of revising the paging 
licensing area definitions in a separate Notice of Proposed Rule Making 
on market-area licensing. Under the market-area licensing proposal, 
paging systems in general, including 929 MHz systems, no longer would 
be licensed on a station-by-station basis. Instead, licensees would be 
licensed within Commission-defined service areas, and would be afforded 
the same flexibility, to the extent feasible, as cellular and PCS 
licensees to locate, design, construct, and modify system facilities 
throughout those areas. Because the Commission is addressing this issue 
in a broader context than 929 MHz paging alone, it is premature to 
modify the rules for this single category of paging service in response 
to NABER's reconsideration petition.
    Moreover, the Commission is not persuaded that paging licensing 
areas should be based on state borders, as NABER proposes. In all other 
services where Commission-defined licensing areas have been adopted, as 
opposed to station-by-station licensing, the Commission has used 
licensing area definitions based on economic markets or trading areas 
(e.g., MSAs/RSAs for cellular, and MTAs/BTAs for PCS and 900 MHz SMR). 
By contrast, using state borders would create licensing areas with 
political boundary lines which do not necessarily correspond to 
economic markets or trading areas and, in some instances, which may cut 
across them. The Commission therefore concludes that the status quo 
should prevail while alternative licensing area definitions more 
consistent with our approach in other services are considered.
C. Effective Radiated Power
    Background. In the PCP Exclusivity Order, the Commission 
established effective radiated power (ERP) limits of 1000 watts for 
local and regional 929 MHz systems and 3500 watts for nationwide 
systems. The Commission noted that the 3500 watt limit for nationwide 
systems was the same as the limit for nationwide common carrier paging 
systems in the 931 MHz band. The Commission declined to adopt a 3500 
watt limit for non-nationwide systems, notwithstanding the fact that 
the Part 22 rules then in effect allowed 931 MHz non-nationwide common 
carrier licensees to operate internal system sites at 3500 watts. The 
Commission reasoned that higher power limits for 931 MHz licensees were 
justified because demand for 931 MHz licenses largely was confined to 
expansion by existing systems. The Commission concluded that a 1000 
watt maximum for 929 MHz non-nationwide systems was appropriate to 
preserve opportunities for entry by new systems.
    Petitions for Reconsideration/ Comments. NABER and PageNet request 
that the Commission increase the maximum ERP for 929 MHz regional 
systems from 1000 watts to 3500 watts, provided that adjacent co-
channel systems remain protected. NABER claims that, in the context of 
the statewide regional licensing scheme it has proposed, a 3500 watt 
power limit would not restrict opportunities for the entry of new 
systems into the market, which was the reason the Commission rejected a 
3500 watt ERP previously. According to NABER and PageNet, use of high-
power transmitters within the boundaries of a regional system will 
enable licensees to offer superior service at a lower cost. Celpage, 
ARCH, Airtouch, and API support NABER's proposal.
    MAP seeks clarification on whether the 1000 watt ERP restriction 
applies only to facilities that define the exterior of the licensee's 
service area, and whether higher power facilities are 

[[Page 8481]]
permitted at internal sites within existing service areas. MAP observes 
that 931 MHz common carrier paging licensees are permitted to operate 
at 3500 watts ERP at internal sites within their service areas. MAP 
asserts that principles of regulatory parity require us to apply the 
same rule to private paging systems. The Commission received no 
comments on MAP's request for clarification.
    Decision. Except in certain limited circumstances discussed below, 
the Commission declines to raise the maximum ERP for non-nationwide 929 
MHz systems at this time. NABER's proposal to raise the ERP limit is 
premised on the Commission adopting its proposal to base regional 
exclusivity on state borders, rather than site location. The Commission 
has declined to reconsider the definition of regional exclusivity, 
therefore NABER's rationale for raising the ERP limit does not apply. 
The Commission's decision on this issue does not preclude future 
changes to the rules if the Commission adopts some form of market-based 
licensing for 929 MHz channels. The Commission seeks further comment on 
height and power limits for common carrier and private carrier paging 
in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
    The Commission agrees with commenters that under certain 
circumstances, allowing local and regional 929 MHz licensees to operate 
at greater than 1000 watts ERP may be appropriate. Specifically, if 
operation of sites at a higher power would not expand a licensee's 
existing service-area contour, there is no reason to prohibit operation 
at such higher power. The Commission will modify the rules to allow 
non-nationwide licensees to operate sites within their existing service 
area at up to 3500 watts ERP, provided that such operation does not 
increase the minimum geographic separation applicable to co-channel 
systems under Section 90.495(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. This will 
give licensees greater flexibility to build technically and 
economically efficient systems, without compromising opportunities for 
co-channel entry in areas adjacent to those systems.
D. Slow Growth Eligibility
    Background. In the PCP Exclusivity Order, the Commission adopted 
rules allowing for so-called ``slow growth'' extensions of the eight-
month construction requirement for larger system applicants. 
Specifically, for applications filed after October 14, 1993, a period 
of up to three years may be authorized for construction and 
commencement of operations if the proposed system is composed of more 
than 30 transmitters and the applicant submits specific justification 
for an extended implementation period. Applicants must provide a 
detailed construction timetable and evidence of the ability to fund 
construction, either in the form of a construction escrow account or a 
performance bond covering construction costs.
    Petitions for Reconsideration/Comments. NABER, PageNet, Metrocall, 
First National Paging, and AMI challenge the Commission's decision to 
make the three-year slow-growth option available only to post-October 
14, 1993 paging applicants. NABER contends that the Commission did not 
provide adequate notice of the rule, because the PCP Exclusivity Notice 
did not expressly propose to limit the slow growth option to new 
applicants. According to NABER, the restriction has a detrimental 
impact on existing licensees because of the added construction demands 
posed by the Commission's treatment of multi-frequency transmitters 
under the exclusivity rules. AMI suggests that slow-growth eligibility 
be extended to licensees who filed for exclusivity after the March 31, 
1993 release date of the PCP Exclusivity Notice, rather than limited to 
applicants filing after the October 14, 1993 date established in the 
PCP Exclusivity Order. According to AMI, there is no link between the 
October 14, 1993 date and the decision by any affected licensee to 
rebuild its facilities.
    Commenters generally support extending the slow growth option to 
grandfathered licensees on the grounds that additional construction 
time is needed for incumbents to transition to our new system of 
channel exclusivity. Celpage, however, is concerned about the treatment 
of licensees who relied on single-frequency, as opposed to multi-
frequency, transmitters. Celpage does not want operators that decided 
to build dedicated facilities at each licensed site, rather than to 
rely on inter-carrier agreements allowing them to utilize other 
licensees' dual-frequency transmitters, to be penalized under an 
extended transition period. Celpage therefore seeks reinstatement of 
certain ``single use'' transmitter licenses, whose authorizations 
expired while the exclusivity rules were under consideration. Arch and 
Airtouch support a slow growth period for existing licensees, but argue 
that the bond and escrow requirements for new construction should not 
apply in such cases.
    Decision. The Commission will not change the rules to make pre-
October 14, 1993 applicants automatically eligible for the extended 
implementation construction schedule. October 14, 1993, the date of the 
Sunshine Notice on the PCP Exclusivity Order, is the cutoff date for 
slow growth eligibility. The Commission will deny slow growth 
extensions to grandfathered licensees generally. As of our Sunshine 
Notice on October 14, 1993, applicants reasonably could anticipate that 
the Commission was going to adopt channel exclusivity rules for 929-930 
MHz paging licensees. To deter speculative filings, therefore, the 
Commission decided not to grandfather anyone that filed after October 
14, 1993. The date for dividing ``old'' from ``new'' applicants also is 
the appropriate date for triggering slow growth eligibility. Moreover, 
the Commission never suggested that slow growth extensions would apply 
to grandfathered licensees. Indeed, in an April 6, 1993 Order, 
Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Provide Channel Exclusivity to 
Qualified Private Paging Systems at 929-930 MHz, Order, PR Docket No. 
93-35, 58 FR 21111 (April 19, 1993) (Order), the Commission indicated 
that all parties in the application and coordination process were 
expected to comply with existing eight-month construction requirements 
while the rule making was underway. Consequently, applicants falling 
into the grandfathered category cannot legitimately claim that they 
expected to be eligible for slow growth extensions.
E. Multi-Frequency Transmitters
    Background. In the PCP Exclusivity Order, the Commission considered 
the issue of whether licensees should be allowed to count multi-
frequency transmitters for exclusivity purposes on more than one 
channel. The Commission concluded that licensees should not be barred 
from using multi-frequency transmitters, but that each such transmitter 
would be counted only once for exclusivity purposes. This requirement 
was to ensure that licensees would not claim exclusivity on multiple 
channels by repeatedly counting the same transmitter. The Commission 
noted that a licensee using multi-frequency transmitters could qualify 
for exclusivity on two frequencies by constructing twice the number of 
transmitters required to obtain one channel.
    Petitions for Reconsideration/Comments. Several parties urge the 
Commission to relax the ``single-count'' rule to accommodate incumbent 
licensees who had constructed systems based on multi-frequency 
transmitters prior to the adoption of the PCP Exclusivity Order. NABER 
argues that these licensees need time to construct 

[[Page 8482]]
sufficient single-frequency transmitters to comply with the exclusivity 
requirements on a single-count basis. PageNet suggests that existing 
licensees be given two years from the time they qualify for earned 
exclusivity to make this conversion. First National Paging suggests 
establishing a reasonable transition period for incumbent licensees, 
beyond the existing eight-month construction requirement.
    In addition to reconsideration petitions on this issue, the 
Commission has received waiver requests from Arch, Comtech, First 
National Paging, Metrocall, Airtouch, and Message Center Beepers. At 
the time the PCP Exclusivity Order became effective, each of these 
petitioners was operating systems on dual channels using multi-channel 
transmitters. The number of transmitters in place in each system is 
sufficient to qualify for regional or nationwide exclusivity on one 
channel, but under the single-count rule petitioners would be required 
to construct additional sites to obtain protection for their operations 
on the second channel. Because their construction plans prior to the 
PCP Exclusivity Order relied on use of dual-channel transmitters, 
petitioners request twenty-four months rather than eight months to 
reconfigure their systems and construct additional sites to meet the 
requirements of the single-count rule.
    Decision. The Commission declines to modify the general rule that 
no transmitter may be counted more than once for exclusivity purposes. 
This rule prevents the potential hoarding of multiple frequencies, by 
requiring paging licensees seeking more than one exclusive frequency to 
meet a higher construction threshold. Licensees may continue to use 
multi-frequency transmitters in their systems, but exclusivity will be 
conferred on multiple channels only if the total number of transmitters 
is sufficient to qualify for exclusivity on each channel on a single-
count basis.
    The Commission will grant some additional time to those 
grandfathered licensees who have filed waiver requests to bring 
existing systems into compliance with the single-count rule. Prior to 
the adoption of the PCP Exclusivity Order, these licensees had embarked 
on construction and operation of substantial systems relying on dual-
frequency transmitters. The adoption of the single-count rule required 
these licensees to modify their plans to add additional transmitters in 
order to gain full exclusivity protection for their existing systems. 
The Commission believes that a reasonable time should be afforded to 
petitioners to make this adjustment. The Commission notes that the risk 
of allowing hoarding of frequencies is not present here, because the 
systems at issue already are grandfathered on both channels, 
petitioners substantially have constructed their systems and are 
providing service to the public on a dual-channel basis, and the 
additional construction needed will promote increased coverage and 
better quality service.
    The petitioners filed their initial requests for a twenty-four 
month construction period in early 1994. Since that time, petitioners 
have had substantial opportunity to construct additional facilities on 
a single-frequency transmitter basis to bring their systems into 
compliance. The Commission concludes that because of this elapsed time, 
petitioners should be granted an amount of time consistent with their 
original estimate of the time required to bring their systems into 
compliance. The Commission grants Arch, Comtech, First National Paging, 
Metrocall, Airtouch, and Message Center Beepers until six months after 
the publication date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order in the 
Federal Register to demonstrate that their grandfathered systems 
qualify for exclusivity on a single-count basis.
F. Modification of Existing Systems
    Background. In the PCP Exclusivity Order, the Commission concluded 
that all existing 929 MHz licensees should be grandfathered under the 
new rules whether or not they qualified for exclusivity. Thus, 
incumbent systems that did not qualify for exclusivity would be allowed 
to continue operating their existing facilities, and any licensee 
granted exclusivity on the same channel in the same area would be 
required to share the channel with the grandfathered system. 
Grandfathered systems would not be allowed to add new facilities to 
their systems, however, if such expansion conflicted with exclusivity 
rights granted to another licensee.
    Petitions for Reconsideration/ Comments. MAP contends that the 
Commission should allow grandfathered licensees who do not qualify for 
exclusivity to modify their existing systems in order to continue 
service to subscribers. MAP argues that allowable modifications should 
include changes in the number of paging receivers, type of emission, 
antenna height, power, class of station, ownership or corporate 
structure, and location of existing facilities. API opposes MAP's 
proposal. API believes that minor and reasonable modifications to 
existing facilities should be allowed, but that other changes should 
not be permitted, particularly if the effect is to diminish or impair 
the development of a co-channel system which already has qualified for 
exclusivity in the same area. MAP replies that it is not asking to 
expand the rights of grandfathered licensees, but only is seeking a 
clarification of the types of ``minor'' modifications that the FCC will 
allow. MAP does not want the rules interpreted in a manner that hampers 
the ability of existing licensees to improve service, respond to 
customer needs, and adjust to business changes.
    Decision. The rules provide that grandfathered licensees who do not 
qualify for exclusivity may make modifications to existing facilities 
that do not impair the exclusivity rights of co-channel licensees or 
otherwise violate our rules. There is no reason to change this rule, 
based on MAP's petition. This issue is raised more broadly in the 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making in WT Docket No. 96-18. Therefore, the 
Commission will defer additional consideration of the issues raised by 
MAP to that proceeding.
G. Miscellaneous
    In the PCP Exclusivity Order, the Commission addressed the issue of 
conditional operation of 929-930 MHz stations located above ``Line A,'' 
i.e., within 250 miles of the Canadian border. Noting that a 1992 
agreement between the Commission and Canada's Department of 
Communications had eliminated the need for international coordination 
of these channels, the Commission stated that it would allow operation 
of 929 MHz stations above Line A, provided all other requirements of 
the rules are met. Some licensees have misconstrued this language in 
the PCP Exclusivity Order to open all channels in the 929-930 MHz band 
to operation by U.S. licensees above Line A. In fact, the 1992 U.S.-
Canada agreement provides that only channels between 929.5 and 930 MHz 
may be used by U.S. licensees above Line A. To eliminate any possible 
confusion, the Commission clarifies that operation above Line A (which 
is now within 75 miles of the Canadian border) is allowed only on these 
channels. In accordance with the 1992 agreement, no U.S. licensee may 
operate conditionally or otherwise on channels from 929.0 MHz to 929.5 
MHz.

IV. Conclusion

    The Commission is amending the rules as described above to 
facilitate the rapid and efficient licensing of paging in the 929-930 
MHz band. The limited 

[[Page 8483]]
amendments to the regional channel exclusivity scheme established in 
the PCP Exclusivity Order will facilitate the development of seamless, 
wide-area 900 MHz paging systems. Otherwise, the Commission affirms the 
rules as adopted in the PCP Exclusivity Order.

V. Procedural Information

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the 
Commission's final analysis is as follows:
A. Need for and Purpose of This Action
    This Memorandum Opinion and Order makes amendments to Part 90 of 
the Commission's rules relating to channel exclusivity for qualified 
local, regional, and nationwide private paging systems on certain 
channels at 929-930 MHz. The amendments will promote the efficient use 
of paging channels by encouraging investment in new paging technology. 
They also will foster the development of more efficient paging systems 
on a local, regional, and nationwide basis.
B. Summary of Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    Only one party, Radiofone, filed comments responding to the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). Radiofone argued that the 
Commission has not adequately addressed the impact of the proposal on 
small paging systems and that exclusive licensing will preclude small 
business entry at 900 MHz. The Commission reviewed Radiofone's concerns 
in the context of PCP Exclusivity Order. No additional comments have 
been submitted.
C. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected
    As the Commission determined in the PCP Exclusivity Order and 
affirms in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, this action is fully 
consistent with the Commission's small business policy objectives. The 
Commission noted in the IRFA that this action imposes certain 
conditions on the licensing of smaller 929-930 MHz paging systems, but 
these requirements are not unduly burdensome. The new rules contain 
significant benefits for small businesses by protecting dozens of small 
existing systems in place, allowing many such systems to obtain 
exclusivity, and creating opportunities for expansion and new entry by 
small business licensees.
Ordering Clauses
    It is ordered that pursuant to the authority of Sections 4(i), 
303(g) 303(r), and 332(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(i), 303(g), 303(r) and 332(a), 47 CFR Part 
90, is amended as set forth below, effective April 4, 1996.
    It is further ordered that the petitions for reconsideration filed 
by National Association of Business and Educational Radio/ Association 
for Private Carrier Paging Section, First National Paging Company, 
Inc., Afro-American Paging, American Mobilephone, Inc., Paging Network, 
Inc., MAP Mobile Communications, Inc. and Metrocall, Inc. are granted 
to the extent described above and are denied in all other respects.
    It is further ordered that the waiver requests filed by American 
Mobilephone, Inc., Arch Communications Group, Inc., Comtech, Inc., 
First National Paging Company, Inc., Message Center Beepers, Inc., 
Metrocall, Inc. and PacTel Paging (now ``Airtouch Paging'') are granted 
to the extent described above.
    It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority of Section 
0.331 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, we delegate to the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau the authority to address any request 
for waiver of our exclusivity rules, which shall be evaluated based on 
criteria set forth above.
    It is further ordered that this proceeding is terminated.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 90

    Common carriers.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.

Rule Amendments

    Part 90 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
is amended as follows:

PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

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

    Authority: Sections 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 
U.S.C. 154, 303, and 332, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 90.494 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 90.494  One-way paging operations in the 929-930 MHz band.

* * * * *
    (g) Stations operating as part of regional or local systems under 
Sec. 90.495(a)(1) or (a)(2) may also operate sites within their 
existing service area at a maximum effective radiated power of 3500 
watts, provided that such an increase in power does not expand the 
licensee's service-area contour, and the requirements of 
Sec. 90.495(b)(2) are met as to any co-channel system that has 
preexisting exclusivity rights.

[FR Doc. 96-4723 Filed 3-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P