WPCzg 2BT 3|C)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)RomanTimes New Roman (TT)TXPT1HPLAS4.WRSSx  @,,G"kX@24@ ZP3@3|CApple LaserWriter II NTXPT1APLAIINT.WRSC\  P6Q"oUPxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777C7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSx]AN:*KS7JSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277JJS77SS7J72N7[[^C`^SS`*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZv7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7~.S^7~SC[227`K*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)C\  P6Q,,,0#"MP I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)2 RfvVvpB Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT))y.G8*XG4  pQ7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XxXU4  pQX77SS7S72N7[[_C`_SS`*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BVv7SSSS7]777SS:S7A7xx*7SSSS%S7|2S_7|SC[227`Z*727S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold Italic) (TT)a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2 k kO  v_ a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 2_t {   BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2y  = a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 2${TTa7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2Vda5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2_Sa4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2 3e- Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:wK@-H*G>FwE~wK\E 3/ 0 *  ׃  Right Par.n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\E!<12@    Subheadingn6bSubheading >8=(G>wK@/H*G>FwE~wK\E".3 4  2&#^a#$d#%#$&%FOOTNOTEK0n6bFootnote - AppearancewK@0H*G>FwE~wK\E#56HIGHLIGHT 1n6bItalics and Bold(G>wK@1H*G>FwE~wK\E$78 DRAFT ONK2n6bHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateH*G>FwE~wK\E%o9: X 8Q 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  PG;XP#`$ (#DDRAFTă `(#CD3 1, 4D  QDRAFT OFF6n6bTurn Draft Style offwK@6H*G>FwE~wK\E&D;<    29+'X&(c')cs(*c)HEADERwK7n6bHeader A - AppearancewK@7H*G>FwE~wK\E'=>LETTER LANDn6bLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5@8H*G>FwE~wK\E( ?@ '3   LEGAL LANDn6bLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5K@9H*G>FwE~wK\E) AB 'A   LETTER PORTn6bLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11K@:H*G>FwE~wK\E* CD 3'   2.+ck+,n,-X<-.-LEGAL PORTn6bLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14wK@;H*G>FwE~wK\E+ EF A'   TITLE~wK<n6bTitle of a DocumentwK@<H*G>FwE~wK\E,GH* ăFOOTERwK=n6bFooter A - AppearancewK@=H*G>FwE~wK\E-IJBLOCK QUOTEn6bSmall, single-spaced, indentedH*G>FwE~wK\E.KL 22/iG.0d.1j/2~/HEADING 3?n6b3rd Heading LevelG>wK@?H*G>FwE~wK\E/MN HIGHLIGHT 2n6bLarge and Bold=(G>wK@@H*G>FwE~wK\E0OP HIGHLIGHT 3n6bLarge, Italicized and UnderscoredH*G>FwE~wK\E1 Q RLETTERHEADn6bLetterhead - date/marginswK@BH*G>FwE~wK\E2!S T X  3'   * 3' Ѓ   273I324|35<46<5INVOICE FEEn6bFee Amount for Math Invoice@CH*G>FwE~wK\E3UV X, $0  MEMORANDUMn6bMemo Page Format(G>wK@DH*G>FwE~wK\E4WX  * M E M O R A N D U M ă y<N dddy INVOICE EXPn6bExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice*G>FwE~wK\E5YZ ,p, $0INVOICE TOTn6bTotals Invoice for Math MacroFH*G>FwE~wK\E6[\ p,p, $02<7778X;9[<:[k<INVOICE HEADn6bHeading Portion of Math InvoiceH*G>FwE~wK\E7]^   p,X 9 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  PG;XP# XX  *$HHީ  ӧ   XX  1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)Ҳ#Xj\  PG;XP# XX  *$HHީNORMALwKJn6bReturn to Normal TypestyleK@JH*G>FwE~wK\E8_`SMALL~wKKn6bSmall Typestyle=(G>wK@KH*G>FwE~wK\E9abFINEE~wKLn6bFine Typestyle=(G>wK@LH*G>FwE~wK\E:cd2?;[<<[S==[=> >LARGE~wKMn6bLarge Typestyle=(G>wK@MH*G>FwE~wK\E;efEXTRA LARGEn6bExtra Large TypestylewK@NH*G>FwE~wK\E<ghVERY LARGEn6bVery Large TypestylewK@OH*G>FwE~wK\E=ijENVELOPEKPn6bStandard Business Envelope with Header>FwE~wK\E>kl V,  X  , 8N#Xj\  PG;XP#   N `   2A?p'@@q@AeABemA2XwE~wKRn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@RH*G>FwE~wK\E?mn` ` ` 3XwE~wKSn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@SH*G>FwE~wK\E@o p . 4XwE~wKTn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@TH*G>FwE~wK\EA qr 5XwE~wKUn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@UH*G>FwE~wK\EB st 24DCBDpBECFC6XwE~wKVn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@VH*G>FwE~wK\EC*uv   7XwE~wKWn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@WH*G>FwE~wK\EDwx` ` ` 8XwE~wKXn6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EE8yz@   9XwE~wKYn6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EFA{|@` `  ` ` ` 2GGfDHDIEJLF10wE~wKZn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@ZH*G>FwE~wK\EG0} ~    11wE~wK[n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EHJ` ` @  ` `  12wE~wK\n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EIS` `  @  13wE~wK]n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EJ\` `  @hh# hhh 2FJK4GLGMHNI14wE~wK^n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EKe` `  hh#@( hh# 15wE~wK_n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\ELn` `  hh#(@- ( 16wE~wK`n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EMw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 17wE~wKan6bDocument Style=(G>wK@aH*G>FwE~wK\ENF D*  ׃  2LOxJPJQKRL18wE~wKbn6bTechnical Document StylewK@bH*G>FwE~wK\EO&  . 19wE~wKcn6bTechnical Document StylewK@cH*G>FwE~wK\EP&  . 20wE~wKdn6bTechnical Document StylewK@dH*G>FwE~wK\EQ*    21wE~wKen6bTechnical Document StylewK@eH*G>FwE~wK\ER'   23OSLTyMU)NVN22wE~wKfn6bTechnical Document StylewK@fH*G>FwE~wK\ES&   23wE~wKgn6bTechnical Document StylewK@gH*G>FwE~wK\ET4$     24wE~wKhn6bTechnical Document StylewK@hH*G>FwE~wK\EU&  . 25wE~wKin6bTechnical Document StylewK@iH*G>FwE~wK\EV&  . 2YWeOXVYjWZWMACNormaljn6b8 >8=(G>wK@jH*G>FwE~wK\EW'     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4PXP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a),X0Í Í,X0Í Í,0Í Í,0Í Í,XÍ.,XÍ.,Í.,Í. .,., US#:}D4PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4PXP# .,., US#:}D4P XP#footnote texn6b8 >8=(G>wK@mH*G>FwE~wK\EX'#FxX  P CXP#referenceon6b8 >8=(G>wK@oH*G>FwE~wK\EY;#FxX  P CXP#itemizewKpn6b 8 >8=(G>wK@pH*G>FwE~wK\EZ* F r#FxX  P CXP#2l][mY\[]-\^\header2wKqn6b.8 >8=(G>wK@qH*G>FwE~wK\E[ `    #FxX  P CXP# CitatorwKrn6bFormat Secretary's Citator Output File>FwE~wK\E\#d6X@7@# XX  FX b#d6X@7@# XX p*  bFormat Downln6bFormat Downloaded DocumentK@uH*G>FwE~wK\E]U XX    X\ #d6X@7@#a127\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F^8@   2@`_]`9^a^b_a227\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F_A@` `  ` ` ` a327\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F`J` ` @  ` `  a427\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FaS` `  @  a527\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fb\` `  @hh# hhh 2:ccr`d1aeafpba627\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fce` `  hh#@( hh# a727\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fdn` `  hh#(@- ( a827\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Few` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gf` ` ` 2:egqlchecieBdjdDocument[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gg  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gh  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gi  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gj*    2gkplelemnfn gDocument[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gk  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gl8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gmA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gn0     2jogpthq!iriRight Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O goJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gpS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gq\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gre` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2msjtkualvmRight Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gsn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gtw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O guF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gv&!"  . 2pwmxWnynzoTechnical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gw&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gx*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gy''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gz&)*   2r{Np|p}q~rTechnical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g{4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g|&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g}&/0  . Format DownloadFormat Downloaded Document~iޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2trrmsrsgqta2Agendaa1AgendaAgenda Items7D yP ) I. a3AgendaFM7V,,6%TriangleoF4=(g4O7V ,*g4çFM7VE/02n| u2u2 x2!(#` hp x (#toc 7M7V4,6%toc 7ToF4=(g4O7V 4*g4çFM7VE?@222$2V2toc 8M7V5,6%toc 8ToF4=(g4O7V 5*g4çFM7VEAB!(#` hp x (#toc 9M7V6,6%toc 9ToF4=(g4O7V 6*g4çFM7VECD!(#B` hp x (#index 17V7,6%index 1ToF4=(g4O7V 7*g4çFM7VEEF` !(# ` hp x (#index 27V8,6%index 2ToF4=(g4O7V 8*g4çFM7VEGH` !(#B` hp x (#2~2Đtoa heading,6%toa heading4=(g4O7V 9*g4çFM7VEIJ!(# ` hp x (#caption7V:,6%captionToF4=(g4O7V :*g4çFM7VEEK;L#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#_Equation Ca,6%_Equation Captiong4O7V ;*g4çFM7VE;M;N#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font11#Xx6X@DQX@##d6X@DQ@#2;j_Equation Caption_Equation Caption11#Xx6X@DQX@##d6X@DQ@#a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')8ij@   a21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Akl@` `  ` ` ` a31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Jmn` ` @  ` `  2WmЕa41I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Sop` `  @  a51I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')\qr` `  @hh# hhh a61I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')est` `  hh#@( hh# a71I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')nuv` `  hh#(@- ( 2Zqca81I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')wwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Chapter?I@6HChapter Heading=(')8?I *')'0 ?I.E9y z ` CHAPTER 3  Report Body@6HMain Text of Report8?I *')'0 ?I.E{|  1, 2, 3,teNumbersotation"H('0\F H rW?I 1.2}dy A, B,3,teUppercase LettersH('0\F H rW?I .TitleNotesTitle Page NotesH('0\F H rW?I ''#Z*f9 x$X# #Z*f9 x%X#Works CitedWorks Cited PageH('0\F H rW?I 99         Page TitlePage Title PageH('0\F H rW?I #  `  2aeoCfootnote reference# footnote text%endnote referenceendnote reference44#Xx6X@DQX@##Xv6X@CX@#toatoa` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#2Тl,_Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 a12:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O8mn@   a22:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OAop@` `  ` ` ` a32:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OJqr` ` @  ` `  2e$a42:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OSst` `  @  a52:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O\uv` `  @hh# hhh a62:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Oewx` `  hh#@( hh# a72:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Onyz` `  hh#(@- ( 2۩blQa82:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Ow{|` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp  ӎSMALL s†NSMALL s†NORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC ӆNORMAL¤ TNORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpв` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#2( $5$Y}bly remains several bly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awa` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (# Technical 4¸ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 4Technical 4` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#T 2 Ҷ TechnicaT 2 Ҷ Technical 7Ҳ Right Par 7z INV` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2-lͲj9lC:\mw3022.tmpC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\C :\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMP` hp x (#` hp x (## P7P# ރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOCރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: ~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#2׿_}:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#: , : , ,0` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#е ,  , ,0` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#:\mw3024.tmpt :\mw3024.tmpt C:\WINDOWS\MSAPPS\TEXTCONV\RTF_W` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#2 l'}wwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbwwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbbbwwwwbwwwwbwwwwbwbwwwbwbb` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#,,0kjH a1Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%F$ a2Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%F/ 2X]a3Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%F: a4Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FE a5Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FP   a6Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%F[   2I a7Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Ff  a8Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fq MACDocument[     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# ,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#27g/5vn66Default Paragraph Font85vH*'Fg/5\E;;#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@7@#2o28g/5wn66_Equation Caption'85wH*'Fg/5\E;;#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@7@#footnote refn66footnote reference85yH*'Fg/5\EDocument 8n66Document 8T8=('85zH*'Fg/5\EDocument 4n66Document 4T8=('85{H*'Fg/5\E  2DDDDocument 6n66Document 6T8=('85|H*'Fg/5\EDocument 5n66Document 5T8=('85}H*'Fg/5\EDocument 2n66Document 2T8=('85~H*'Fg/5\EDocument 7n66Document 7T8=('85H*'Fg/5\E22v22ZRight Par 1n66Right Par 18=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 2n66Right Par 28=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 3n66Document 3T8=('85H*'Fg/5\ERight Par 3n66Right Par 38=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` P hp x (#` hp x (#2222"2TRight Par 4n66Right Par 48=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 5n66Right Par 58=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6n66Right Par 68=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 7n66Right Par 78=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (#` hp x (#2288"ZRight Par 8n66Right Par 88=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (#0` hp x (#Technical 5n66Technical 58=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (# ` hp x (#Technical 6n66Technical 68=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (# ` hp x (#Technical 2n66Technical 28=('85H*'Fg/5\E2| 8 8DTechnical 3n66Technical 38=('85H*'Fg/5\ETechnical 1n66Technical 18=('85H*'Fg/5\ETechnical 7n66Technical 78=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (# ` hp x (#Technical 8n66Technical 88=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (# ` hp x (#2<pDocument 1n66Document 1T8=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (#` hp x (#endnote refen66endnote reference'85H*'Fg/5\Eheading 4n66heading 4gT8=('85H*'Fg/5\Eheading 5n66heading 5gT8=('85H*'Fg/5\E2(@Theading 6n66heading 6gT8=('85H*'Fg/5\Eheading 7n66heading 7gT8=('85H*'Fg/5\Eheading 8n66heading 8gT8=('85H*'Fg/5\EWP Heading 2n66WP Heading 28=('85H*'Fg/5\E>>#a\  PQP##Xj\  PG;XP#2Z.:WP Heading 1n66WP Heading 18=('85H*'Fg/5\E>>#y\  PQP# #Xj\  PG;XP#Document 8an66Document 8a8=('85H*'Fg/5\EDocument 4an66Document 4a8=('85H*'Fg/5\E  Document 6an66Document 6a8=('85H*'Fg/5\E2l2lDocument 5an66Document 5a8=('85H*'Fg/5\EDocument 2an66Document 2a8=('85H*'Fg/5\EDocument 7an66Document 7a8=('85H*'Fg/5\ERight Par 1an66Right Par 1a8=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (#` hp x (#2 222 Right Par 2an66Right Par 2a8=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 3an66Document 3a8=('85H*'Fg/5\ERight Par 3an66Right Par 3a8=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` P hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 4an66Right Par 4a8=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (#0` hp x (#22 2J2|2Right Par 5an66Right Par 5a8=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6an66Right Par 6a8=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 7an66Right Par 7a8=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 8an66Right Par 8a8=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (#0` hp x (#288JTechnical 5an66Technical 5a8=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (# ` hp x (#Technical 6an66Technical 6a8=('85H*'Fg/5\EX` hp x (# ` hp x (#Technical 2an66Technical 2a8=('85H*'Fg/5\ETechnical 3an66Technical 3a8=('85H*'Fg/5\E2t&|XZ #Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)RomanTimes New Roman (Italic) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold Italic) (TT)pQ7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XxXU4  pQX 2S=FX3RY&S\  P@Q&P2J=.X &J\  P6Q&P.2N=.X7&N4  pQ&88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`lBdYddBoBBBYYFdBNB2Bdddd(dB7dqBdPn<dYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddZy.C8*,gC\  P6QP.[y.G8*,.G4  pQ7PC2,W XP\  P6QXP.7UC2,PXU4  pQXBBddBdB%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777U7777%+77O77155;%%%%,%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7bO=+N&27%177777"RR7!SS7R!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!N%<<>,?>77?%-77[U%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777U7777%+77O77155;N%71n77%n=%b%%11&7n%l+%OO%77777%S7>%S7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!(!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2YH8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!N!778(98229!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!9-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,222222272222222"5^*7FSS$77Sp*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77pppSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*7777C7SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SJxSoSAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277]]S77SS7]72N7[[pC`pSS`*7FSS$77Sp*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77pppSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv7S]SS7S777]]:S7A7o]*ASSSS.S7~.Sp7~SC[227`W*724S}}}Sffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxpxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS292@5D8"5^.Gf\\3==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==hhh\zzzzzG\zppzfpzzpp=3=h\=\\Q\Q=\f33\3f\\\GG3fQz\QG@(@h.====I=\\z\z\z\z\z\zQzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffffpQz\\\\pQ\p\z\z\z\zQzQzQzQzQ\\\ffI\G\G=G\\\fGN@.\\G\\\\\\17\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7N=ddoIih\\i.Gf\\3==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==hhh\zzzzzG\zppzfpzzpp=3=h\=\\Q\Q=\f33\3f\\\GG3fQz\QG@(@h=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=p.G\\\\(\=1\o=\Id77=i\.=77\\zzzzzzzzzzzGGGGhpp\\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\d\ffffQ\"5@^*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ*7777BD7TTxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TAxTf/fDxTxTxTxo7oD\A\AN:*KT7JTTTTT.3}}T2T}277JJT77TT7J72t7[[[[^[e*B`^.wRTTn[Cfx`xWlRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ7TJTT7\777JJ:T7A7xx*7TTTT!T7.T^7TB[227`K*723T}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx\TJJJJJJoJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTTTl1K=.XRj &K9 xyQ&=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777U7777%+77O77155;%%%%,%77O1O1O1O1O1b1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1C1C1C1O7O2C@:@X=@@"5@^*7\TT/77T_*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77___TxoxxofAToxfx\oxxxxo7/7aT7T\J\J7T\/7\/\T\\JA7\TxTTJB%BW*7777BD7T\xTxTxTxTxTxxJoJoJoJoJA/A/A/A/x\TTTTx\x\x\x\xTxTx\TTxTxTf\xTxTxTxJxJxJoJoJoJTTTT\\B\A\A7A\T\o/oDx\x\TxxJxJ\A\AN:*ZT7TTTTTT27}}T2}}T}277TTT77TT7T72t7[[[[_[e*B`_.wRTTn[Cfx`xWlRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7\TT/77T_*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77___TxoxxofAToxfx\oxxxxo7/7aT7T\J\J7T\/7\/\T\\JA7\TxTTJB%BW7TTTT7\777TT:T7A7xx*7TTTT%T7}2T_7}TB[227`Z*727T}}}TxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf\TTTTTTxJJJJJ////T\TTTTT[T\\\\T\"5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Boddȧ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BB!BBPRBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNBNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldBdddddd%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,-%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7OO7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7CC-O7O7O7bOI%I-=+=+N&27%177777"SS7!TT7S!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!t%<<<<>l[O6Wls[77TTTH_%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5@^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888-\HCCH=7HH!'H=YHH7HC7=HH^HH=!!/2!-2-2-!222N2222!'22H22-006!!!!()!22H-H-H-H-H-YCC-=-=-=-=-!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H-H2H2H2H2H272H2H-H-C-C-C-=-=-=-H2H2HH2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2==)H2H2H2YHC!C)7'7'N#-2!-22222KK2LL2K!!--2d!!22bd!-d!t!77778c7 (#(Paragraphă  S-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:1  SX-II.rrnELIGIBILITY AND PERMISSIBLE USESZ!!>7  S-III.rrnOTHER ISSUES RAISED ON RECONSIDERATION  S-rrnA.Definition and Licensing of NonMultilateration Systems  Sh-rrn1.Antenna Heights and Power LimitationsZD!!818  S@-rrn2.Licensing IssuesZD!!824  S-rrnB.Accommodation of Secondary Users in the 902928 MHz BandZD!!828  S!-rrn1.Parameters of Safe HarborZD!!830  Sx"-rrn2.Safe Harbor and NonMultilateration SystemsZD!!839  SP#-rrn3.Administrative Procedure ActZD!!841  S%-rrnC.Spectrum Allocation PlanZD!!843  S&-rrnD.Geographic Areas for Exclusive LicensesZD!!851  S`(-rrnE.Multilateration System Operations Wideband Forward LinksZD!!856"`(,))ZZ*"Ԍ S-ԙrrnF.Petitions for Reconsideration of Order on ReconsiderationZD!!865  S-IV.rrnCOMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR MULTILATERATION LMS LICENSEESZD!!872  Sb-V. rrnCONCLUSIONZD!!879  S-VI.rrnADMINISTRATIVE MATTERSZD!!880  S-VII.rrnORDERING CLAUSESZD!!883 Appendix A Pleadings  SJ -Appendix B Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making)  S$ -Appendix C Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Report and Order) Appendix D Rule Changes  S - r !`X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:-emergency communications related to a vehicle or a passenger in a vehicle.K >  {O-ԍLMS Report and Order at 4710.K  S-x9. MobileVision is the only petitioner that supports unrestricted interconnection. It believes that interconnection with the PSTN must be provided on an unrestricted basis if multilateration LMS systems are to be viable and the goals of the Intelligent Vehicle Highway System are to be attained. In the alternative, MobileVision proposes that multilateration systems' interconnection capabilities only  SN -be restricted by requiring store and forward interconnection to the mobile unit from the PSTN, but  S& -permit unrestricted (i.e., real time) communication to the PSTN from the mobile unit. MobileVision submits that this is the minimum degree of interconnection necessary to serve the needs of the public and the Intelligent Vehicle Highway System and to provide the necessary foundation for a successful  S -spectrum auction.E Z  yO-ԍMobileVision Petition at 56.E  S`-x 10. Unlike MobileVision, the majority of parties addressing the issue support at least some restriction on LMS interconnection. For example, Pinpoint submits that allowing unlimited voice communications would be inappropriate because such traffic would increase interference levels throughout the band and would complicate sharing in the band. Pinpoint thus supports limiting  S-interconnection to data store and forward messages.G   yOJ-ԍPinpoint Opposition at 2122. G Similarly, Metricom/SCE, CellNet and the Part 15 Coalition argue that voice messaging is not an important component of LMS and that permitting it will eliminate the possibility of Part 15 devices coexisting with LMS operators in the 902928 MHz  SH-band.j XHz  yOb- x,ԍMetricom/SCE Opposition at 3; CellNet Opposition at 9; Part 15 Coalition Petition at 78. AT&T, UTC and  xthe Connectivity for Learning Coalition also oppose interconnection for voice communications. AT&T Reply at 3; UTC Petition at 2; Connectivity for Learning Coalition Petition at 1112.j Ad Hoc Gas and the Part 15 Coalition oppose use of LMS for interconnected voice  S -messaging, even on a limited, storeandforward basis.c   yOZ-ԍAd Hoc Gas Petition at 16; Part 15 Coalition Petition at 7.c The Part 15 Coalition suggests that if the Commission nevertheless decides to retain this exception, a minimum time delay of transmission  S-should be imposed such that a twoway, persontoperson conversation would be impossible (e.g., one  S-minute).z*  {Ot#-ԍPart 15 Coalition Petition at 12, contra AirTouch/Teletrac Opposition at 15.z  SZ-x 11. Further, some petitioners that oppose permitting any multilateration LMS interconnection to the PSTN submit that the restrictions adopted by the Commission present substantial enforcement"2 ,N(N(ZZ"  S-problems.  {Oh- xwԍSee, e.g., Ad Hoc Gas Petition at 1516; Metricom/SCE Petition at 1415; Connectivity for Learning Coalition Petition at 13; UTC Petition at 9; Symbol Technologies Comments at 11. They argue that by limiting transmission of messages to emergency communications related to the location and monitoring functions of the system, the Commission will place multilateration LMS operators in the position of having to become substantially involved with the content of their customers' communications. Further, UTC contends that carrier enforcement of this restriction could violate Section 705 of the Communications Act, which prohibits carriers from  S8-divulging the contents of their customers' communications.( 8"  yO-ԍUTC Petition at 7. Section 705 of the Communications Act reads, in pertinent part, as follows:  XxExcept as authorized by chapter 119, title 18 . . . no person receiving, assisting in receiving,  transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio  }shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof,  except through authorized channels of transmission or reception, (1) to any person other than the  addressee, his agent, or attorney, (2) to a person employed or authorized to forward such  communication to its destination, (3) to proper accounting or distributing officers of the various  ^communicating centers over which the communication may be passed, (4) to the master of a ship  under whom he is serving, (5) in response to a subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (6) on demand of other lawful authority . . . .  47 U.S.C.  705(a). UTC additionally argues that a rule requiring multilateration LMS providers to monitor, disclose and/or prevent customers from transmitting certain types of communications could be construed as a form of censorship in violation  S-of Section 326 of the Communications Act.6@  yOr-ԍUTC Petition at 8. Section 326 of the Communications Act reads as follows:  _XxNothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of  2censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no  regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communications.  47 U.S.C.  326.6 Similarly, Ad Hoc Gas submits that allowing interconnection for only limited purposes could be considered a contentbased speech restriction in  Sp-violation of the First Amendment.Ep  yO*-ԍAd Hoc Gas Petition at 1617.E  S -x 12. Nonetheless, some parties, even those that generally oppose interconnection, recognize that some interconnected service is needed in the event of an emergency. For example, CellNet contends that the use of any interconnected services should be limited to those of an emergency  S -nature, whether it is a realtime or a store and forward communication.E   yO$-ԍCellNet Petition at 12.E AirTouch/Teletrac and SBMS believe that it would be in the public interest to allow voice communications for emergency" :,N(N(ZZ["  S-situations.  yOh- xԍAirTouch/Teletrac Opposition at 1314; SBMS Opposition at 16. TIA also supports permitting interconnection for emergency purposes. TIA Comments at 11. On the other hand, Symbol Technologies would prohibit all interconnected voice messaging, even for emergency purposes, due to questions regarding the legality of monitoring  S-message content.K   yOp-ԍSymbol Technologies Comments at 11.K The Part 15 Coalition contends that there is no justification for emergency voice communications to be interconnected to the PSTN because other technologies are available for  S`-emergencies, such as emergency radio beacons.H`  yO -ԍPart 15 Coalition Petition at 9.H AirTouch/Teletrac responds that voice messages  S8-may be necessary to explain certain complex situations and could be time and life saving.<8@  yO -ԍTeletrac Reply at 6.< In any event, a number of petitioners request that the definitions of store and forward messaging and  S-emergency voice communications be clarified.  {OX-ԍSee, e.g., CellNet Petition at 12; Connectivity for Learning Petition at 13; Part 15 Coalition Petition at 812.  S- x 13.ؠDiscussion. As noted above, the LMS Report and Order specifically permitted "store and forward" interconnection, where either (1) transmissions from a vehicle or object being monitored are stored by the LMS provider for later transmission over the PSTN, or (2) transmissions received by the LMS provider from the PSTN are stored for later transmission to the vehicle or object being  S -monitored.K b  {O-ԍLMS Report and Order at 4710.K Realtime interconnection between vehicles or objects being monitored and the PSTN  S -was limited to emergency communications related to a vehicle or passenger in a vehicle. The LMS  S -Report and Order also stated that emergency communications may include information about a medical condition that requires immediate attention or the mechanical breakdown or failure of an  S^-automobile.:^  {O-ԍId. at n.61.:  S-x 14. After revisiting this issue and considering petitioners' concerns, we continue to believe that our decision regarding limitations on multilateration LMS interconnection reflects a necessary balancing of the interests of LMS providers and other users of the 902928 MHz band. Relaxing restrictions on interconnection could increase the potential for interference in the band by allowing for additional message traffic. We believe that requiring messages to be sent on a storeandforward basis will reduce message traffic in the band by making it difficult to conduct a realtime conversation using LMS spectrum. We therefore reject MobileVision's recommendation that multilateration LMS users be permitted unrestricted interconnection to the PSTN. We note that other services, such as personal communications services (PCS) and cellular telephone, are available for that type of use. At the same time, however, we conclude that realtime interconnection is necessary and appropriate in emergency situations. We therefore also reject the arguments of commenters asking that we forbid realtime interconnection in emergency situations. We believe that to do otherwise could impede the development of LMS, to the detriment of Intelligent Transportation Systems and, more importantly,". ,N(N(ZZ" would raise significant public safety concerns.  S-x15.ؠWe clarify that "store and forward" communications as described in the LMS Report and  S-Order refers to a storage of voice or data messages for subsequent delivery to the recipient. We decline to adopt a specific minimum delay, as requested by some petitioners. As a guideline, however, we adopt a "safe harbor" approach whereby a particular message will be considered an acceptable storeandforward message pursuant to our rules if the LMS service provider incorporates at least a thirtysecond delay between the time a message is stored and the time that message is forwarded. This is not to say that a delay of less than 30 seconds will be unacceptable in all cases, but use of a 30second delay will ensure that the communication will be deemed to fit within the definition of a store and forward message with respect to LMS. While we considered using a oneminute delay, as suggested by the Part 15 Coalition, we believe that a thirtysecond delay is sufficient to ensure that twoway conversation is impractical and will thereby discourage use of multilateration LMS for general messaging. We also clarify that emergency communications, for which realtime interconnection may be utilized, is equivalent to a 911 or 311 call. Such communication must have a direct relation to the immediate safety of life or for communications to render assistance to a  S -motorist.Z  yO- x;ԍA similar definition of "emergency communications" is used in the context of citizens band radio (CB) service.  {O- xySee In the Matter of Amendment of Section 95.41(d) of the Commission's Rules to Reserve a Citizen's Radio Frequency for Emergency Communications, Docket No. 18705, 22 FCC 2d 635 (1970). If no immediate action is necessary, it is not an emergency. All other communications should use "store and forward" technology.  S -x16.ؠWe recognize petitioners' concerns that limiting interconnection based on the character of the message would be difficult to enforce and therefore raises the possibility of abuse. We believe, however, that setting forth specific examples of what is or is not an emergency would serve no useful purpose. While it may be desirable to have a fully descriptive definition of an emergency communication in the rules, such a rule could be unduly restrictive. The Commission does not intend to monitor the content of messages but expects that multilateration operators will be able to demonstrate compliance with the interconnection limitations if requested. Compliance may be accomplished by equipment that will permit voice calls in real time only to 311, 911, and an automobile road service provider. Of course, compliance might also be accomplished by multilateration LMS operators monitoring transmissions over their facilities and providing information regarding their transmissions to the Commission if requested. We believe that this type of monitoring will not violate Section 705 of the Communications Act as alleged by UTC, because it fits within the exception for providing information regarding a transmission "on demand of other lawful authority." We also note that the Commission will, on a casebycase basis, consider requests for confidential treatment of such information. Moreover, the interconnection limitations are not tantamount to a restriction on free speech, as alleged by UTC and Ad Hoc Gas. Rather, the interconnection limitations are necessary to define the parameters of multilateration LMS service pursuant to the Commission's authority under the Communications Act to prescribe the type of service to be offered by a particular  S<-class of radio stations.H<  {O$-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  303(b).H  S -x17. The interconnection issues raised by petitioners lead to the question of whether multilateration LMS is a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS). Pursuant to Section 332(d) of"!|,N(N(ZZF#" the Communications Act, a service is classified as CMRS if it is (1) provided for profit, (2) interconnected with the PSTN, and (3) available to the public or effectively available to a substantial  S-portion of the public. In the CMRS Second Report and Order, we classified LMS as a Private Mobile Radio Service (PMRS). We indicated, however, that should LMS systems offer interconnected service in the future, they would be subject to reclassification as a presumptively Commercial Mobile Radio  S:-Service (CMRS).U^:  {O- xԍ See Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile  {Ol- xServices, Second Report and Order, GN Docket No. 93252, 9 FCC Rcd 1411, 1453 (1994) (CMRS Second Report  {O6-and Order).U At this juncture, it is unclear to what extent multilateration LMS providers will offer any interconnected service, notwithstanding their ability to offer some limited interconnection capabilities as discussed above. To accommodate the specific service offerings anticipated by each multilateration LMS provider, we will use a casebycase approach in determining whether a particular service offering is CMRS or PMRS.  S" -  III. OTHER ISSUES RAISED ON RECONSIDERATION  S -A. Definition and Licensing of NonMultilateration Systems  S -x 1. Antenna Height and Power Limitations  S2-  x18. Background. In the LMS Report and Order, we limited the peak effective radiated power (ERP) of nonmultilateration systems to 30 watts over the licensee's authorized bandwidth. The  S-Commission also limited the antenna height above ground of these systems to 15 meters.K  {Or-ԍLMS Report and Order at 4742.K  S-x19. Pleadings. The Part 15 Coalition proposes that the Commission make the height and power restrictions more strict, while Amtech suggests that they be relaxed in certain circumstances.  SF- The Part 15 Coalition contends that the Commission's definition of nonmultilateration systems includes virtually any vehicular communications technology, including cellular and PCS. Further, it asserts that true "tagreader" technologies require at most a few watts of power. The Part 15 Coalition submits that such highpower operations might not pose a significant threat of interference to Part 15 technologies if confined to highway toll plazas and railroad sidings, but that highpower systems with no geographic limits will overwhelm Part 15 operations in their vicinity. The Part 15 Coalition therefore requests that the Commission either (1) reduce the applicable power limitation for nonmultilateration LMS systems to one watt, or (2) require that all such systems be operated within 50  S-meters of a highway toll plaza or rail siding.L   yO&"-ԍPart 15 Coalition Petition at 1718.L  S-x20. Most parties addressing the issue believe that the Part 15 Coalition's proposal would  S-unduly restrict nonmultilateration operators.!  {O>&- xԍSee, e.g., AAR Opposition at 4; Hughes Opposition at 57; Pinpoint Opposition at 46; SBMS Opposition at 2223; TI Opposition at 35. For example, Pinpoint and Texas Instruments argue" j !,N(N(ZZ" that granting the Part 15 Coalition's proposal would foreclose operation of non-multilateration systems that are not tag readers, such as might be used in parking facilities to monitor permissible incoming  S-and outgoing vehicles.]"  yO-ԍPinpoint Opposition at 24; TI Opposition at 4.] Hughes submits that the Part 15 Coalition's modification would limit non S-multilateration operators' ability to maintain current services and develop and implement new ones.A#X  yO-ԍHughes Opposition at 57.A  S8- x21. Unlike the Part 15 Coalition, Amtech contends that the height and power limits adopted  S-in the LMS Report and Order are too restrictive. For example, with respect to the height restriction, Amtech submits that readers used by airport authorities to monitor taxis and ground commercial transportation services sometimes are placed at locations less than 15 meters above the applicable arrival or departure ramp, but more than 15 meters above the ground. With respect to the power limitation, Amtech asserts that a railway company would need unconventional antennas in order to  SJ -monitor rail cars in high speed multiple track situations.@$J   yO-ԍAmtech Petition at 911.@ Amtech therefore suggests that antenna heights greater than 15 meters should be permitted if the ERP is limited to 30 watts, and if the energy radiated toward the horizon is reduced such that the resultant radiated electric field is no more than 90 dBuV/m at a distance of one mile from the site at a height of six feet. Amtech also suggests that a  S -system be permitted to exceed 30 watts ERP if the resultant radiated electric field is no more than 90 dBuV/m at a distance of one mile from the site and at a height of six feet (or 96 dBuV/m at one  SZ-kilometer and a receive height of two meters).;%Zx  {Or-ԍId. at 1113.;  S -x22. A number of parties oppose Amtech's suggestion. They contend that allowing nonmultilateration operators to exceed the height or power restrictions could significantly increase the  S-potential for interference to Part 15 users.&   {Od-ԍSee, e.g., Itron Opposition at 2; Metricom/SCE Opposition at 1718; SBMS Opposition at 22; TIA Comments at 13; UTC Comments at 12. The Ad Hoc Gas Distribution Utilities Coalition agrees with Amtech that allowing nonmultilateration systems flexibility to exceed the height limitations may be acceptable with appropriate safeguards, but would not permit nonmultilateration systems to exceed the power limits. Indeed, Ad Hoc Gas believes that 30 watts is too high a power limitation for a band designed to be shared and suggests that emissions from LMS base station and mobile transmitters operating from 903927.25 MHz be limited to 10 watts ERP, except where highly directional antenna  S-are employed._'d  yO!-ԍAd Hoc Gas Petition at 78; Ad Hoc Gas Comments at 67._  Sz- x23. Discussion. The LMS Report and Order concluded that the power and antenna height restrictions will allow nonmultilateration systems to share spectrum more easily with other nonmultilateration systems and with Part 15 users. It also concluded that the power and antenna height", ',N(N(ZZ"  S-limitations will permit greater frequency reuse.K(  {Oh-ԍLMS Report and Order at 4742.K We continue to believe that the definition and  S-technical specifications of nonmultilateration LMS systems adopted in the LMS Report and Order reflect a reasoned balancing of the interests of the various users of the 902928 MHz band, and no new information has been introduced into the record of this proceeding to persuade us otherwise. The restrictions advocated by the Part 15 Coalition and others would unduly limit nonmultilateration operations, jeopardizing future technological developments that could be crucial to the advancement of Intelligent Transportation Systems. On the other hand, the higher limitations suggested by Amtech could increase the potential for interference within the band. We believe that our requirements are most conducive to continued sharing of this band, and thus we decline to modify the power and  S-antenna height restrictions we adopted in the LMS Report and Order. We believe that the antenna height and transmitting power limits in the current rule accommodate most of the common nonmultilateration applications that would be appropriate for operation in this shared spectrum. However, in the event that unique practical considerations of a particular installation necessitate a higher antenna mounting height, such as the airport example cited by Amtech, we would consider waiving the rule on a casebycase basis to allow the higher antenna height (but not higher power), provided that other comparable technical tradeoffs, such as reduced power or confined antenna radiation patterns, are employed to limit the interference potential.  S4- x2. Licensing Issues  S-x24. Background. In the LMS Report and Order, we decided to license nonmultilateration LMS systems on a shared basis because these systems generally cover relatively short distances, and because of our belief that licensing based on a fixed mileage separation would limit reuse of spectrum and thereby limit the potential uses of nonmultilateration systems. The Commission declined to adopt a blanket licensing scheme for nonmultilateration systems whereby, for example, a licensee would be permitted to locate transmitter sites anywhere within a given geographic area. The Commission instead decided to require nonmultilateration systems to acquire licenses for each site, concluding that a blanket licensing approach would make it difficult for the Commission and the public to ascertain  S-the exact location of LMS transmitters.N)Z  {O-ԍLMS Report and Order at 473031.N  SV-x25. The Interagency Group reiterates its request that the Commission  devise a blanket  S.-authorization procedure for non-multilateration systems used in large scale public service projects (i.e., publiclyfunded public service nonmultilateration systems with multiple sites and multiple readers at  S-individual sites). It notes that the LMS Report and Order declined to do this, reasoning that applicants and co-users need to know exactly where systems are located in order to avoid interference. The Interagency Group submits that it does not advocate blanket licensing for all nonmultilateration systems, but only those used in largescale public service projects. Moreover, the Interagency Group argues, it is not seeking to obtain licensing for unidentified sites but seeks a streamlined, single application procedure for obtaining all licenses required to operate all necessary sites on a systemwide basis after such sites have been identified. In other words, instead of separately considering the applications of each member of the Interagency Group, which consists of eight different public transportation authorities, the Commission would receive and consider joint applications for purposes of deploying a single, regionwide toll collection system. The Interagency Group submits that this"z# ),N(N(ZZ%" would facilitate planning, promote administrative efficiency and ensure that necessary frequencies will  S-be available during a lengthy buildout period.J*  yO@-ԍInteragency Group Petition at 23.J     Amtech and Hughes support the Interagency Group's  S-suggestion.^+X  yO-ԍAmtech Opposition at 2223; Hughes Reply at 5. ^  S`-x26. In addition, Ad Hoc Gas urges the Commission to revise its rules to make clear that nonmultilateration systems are to limit their transmissions to a confined area and will not be licensed to  S-provide communications over an extended area.F,  yO -ԍAd Hoc Gas Petition at 8 n.11.F In opposition, Texas Instruments (TI) submits that not all nonmultilateration systems operate over a limited contiguous area, and argues that the future of the intelligent highway system requires that vehicles be able to interact with transponders that do not emit over one contiguous area. For example, TI posits that a commuter of the future on a typical trip home at the end of a workday may, via nonmultilateration LMS technology, enter his or her car without keys, exit a parking garage without stopping at the gate, pass through toll plazas uninterrupted and refuel without stopping to pay. TI asserts that this is only possible because the commuter's vehicle has interacted at various times with different transponders that do not emit over one  S -contiguous area.=- x  yO-ԍTI Opposition at 57.=  S -x27. Discussion. We are persuaded by the Interagency Group that it would be administratively expedient to establish a mechanism by which public agencies and other entities can file joint applications for nonmultilateration systems for purposes of deploying a single, regionwide system with multiple sites and multiple readers at individual sites. While we anticipate that this mechanism will be used primarily by municipalities and government agencies, we also believe that other entities seeking to establish multiplesite systems should also be able to use a streamlined application procedure. We will thus permit applicants to file a single application for a nonmultilateration license covering multiple sites within a given U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis Economic Area (EA). Such an application may also be filed jointly by multiple users of a single system. In order to avoid uncertainty for other users of the band, the application must identify all planned sites and, after receiving the license, the licensee must notify the Commission if sites are deleted or if new sites are added before those sites become operational. We will revise our rules accordingly. We decline, however, to revise our rules as requested by Ad Hoc Gas to specify that the transmissions of nonmultilateration systems are limited to a confined area. We believe that this could unnecessarily limit such systems' flexibility to configure their facilities for particular uses.  S- <B. Accommodation of Secondary Users in the 902928 MHz Band  S-x28. Background. To accommodate the concerns of Part 15 interests regarding their  S-secondary status visavis LMS, the LMS Report and Order adopted a "safe harbor" within which Part 15 devices may operate without fear of being deemed to cause interference to <LMS operators. Specifically, a Part 15 device will, by definition, not be considered to be causing interference to a multilateration LMS system if it is otherwise operating in accordance with the provisions of Part 15" -,N(N(ZZ!" and meets at least one of the following conditions: (a) it is a Part 15 field disturbance sensor operating in compliance with Section 15.245 of the rules and it is not operating in the 904909.750 or 919.750928.000 MHz subbands; or (b) it does not employ an outdoor antenna; or, (c) if it does employ an outdoor antenna, then if Xx(1) the directional gain of the antenna does not exceed 6 dBi, or if the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi, it reduces its transmitter output power below 1 watt by the proportional amount that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi; and,(# Xx(2) either(# Xx` ` (A) the antenna is 5 meters or less in height above ground; or,(# XxX` ` (B) the antenna is more than 5 meters in height above ground but less than or equal to 15 meters in height above ground and either:(#` XxX` ` X (i) adjusts its transmitter output power below 1 watt by 20 log (h/5) dB, where h is the height above ground of the antenna in meters; or,(# XxX` ` X (ii) is providing the final link for communications of entities (#  S@-XxX` ` X eligible under Subparts B or C of Part 90 of the rules.N.@  {O-ԍLMS Report and Order at 471516.Nxx(#x  S-x29. In its Order on Reconsideration in this proceeding, the Commission denied requests by  S-petitioners that the Part 15 safe harbor instead be treated as a rebuttable presumption, i.e., that LMS licensees be permitted to file complaints of interference regarding Part 15 devices operating within the safe harbor if the LMS licensees believe those Part 15 devices are causing harmful interference. The Commission concluded that the safe harbor approach represented an appropriate balancing of the  S,-interests of the various parties sharing the 902928 MHz band.T/\,Z  yO&- xZԍ Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring  {O- xSystems, Order on Reconsideration, PR Docket No. 9361, 11 FCC Rcd 16905 (1996) (LMS Order on  {O-Reconsideration).T In this Memorandum Opinion and  S-Order, we address petitioners' other contentions regarding the safe harbor. Specifically, petitioners also challenged the technical parameters of the safe harbor and argued that the Commission acted in  S-violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.  551, et seq. In addition, some petitioners ask that the safe harbor apply to nonmultilateration LMS operators as well as multilateration operators.  S -x 1. Parameters of Safe Harbor  S!-x30. Pleadings. A number of parties who support the concept of a safe harbor oppose the"! ~/,N(N(ZZF#" height and power restrictions adopted by the Commission. Some of them contend that the height limit should be eliminated, or at least raised to accommodate schools, libraries and other users that might  S-locate their antennas on top of buildings or street light poles.0"  {O- xLԍSee, e.g., Council of Chief State School Officers Petition at 2,4; Connectivity for Learning Reply at 2;  xMetricom/SCE Petition at 2, 56; Metricom/SCE Opposition at 7; Part 15 Coalition Petition at 14; Part 15 Coalition  xLReply at 6; Symbol Technologies Comments at 11; UTC Petition at 14; UTC Comments at 1012; Wireless Transactions Corp. Petition at 2. If the Commission does not eliminate or relax the height/power requirements, some parties suggest that it add educational users to the exemption of Section 90.361(c)(2)(ii)(B), which now permits public safety and special emergency  S8-users to employ full power with antennas up to 15 meters.18  yO -ԍCouncil of Chief State School Officers Petition at 34; Connectivity for Learning Reply at 4. Similarly, UTC suggests revising the rule  S-so that entities listed in Section 90.63 of the Commission's Rules (i.e., Power Radio Service entities  S-such as utilities) will not be subject to the height/power restriction.R2B  yO -ԍUTC Petition at 1617; UTC Comments at 12.R Metricom submits that the safe harbor limits should not apply to mobile and portable Part 15 devices. It posits that a cordless phone being operated off a 50th floor balcony as part of a wireless network should not be subject to  Sp-complaints of interference from LMS providers.V3p  yO-ԍMetricom Petition at 6; Metricom Reply at 56.V In addition, some parties contend that the height and power restrictions are arbitrary in that they would not necessarily achieve their intended purpose of minimizing interference to LMS operators. For example, the Part 15 Coalition argues that an antenna operation five meters above ground on a mountaintop could cause more interference than an  S -antenna 50 feet above ground located on average terrain.J4 b  yO-ԍPart 15 Coalition Petition at 13. J  S -x31. Other parties, most of whom oppose the idea of a Part 15 safe harbor, urge the  SX-Commission not to relax the height and power restrictions.|5X  {O-ԍSee, e.g., SBMS Opposition at 1415; SBMS Reply at 4; Uniplex Opposition at 2.|   Indeed, some of these parties would tighten the parameters of the safe harbor. For example, Uniplex believes that the safe harbor should not include Part 15 devices that are within a given distance of LMS operations, and would apply that  S-distance variable to indoor antennas.6  {O-ԍUniplex Petition at 8; accord Pinpoint Opposition at 13; contra EIA Reply at 3; ATA Opposition at 78. Pinpoint would limit the application of the safe harbor to Part 15 operations with antenna heights of five meters or less. Pinpoint contends that the height/power attenuation rule has the undesirable effect of allowing more powerful systems at 15 meters antenna  Sh-height than at 5 meters to be insulated from interference complaints.47Zh  {O#- xԍPinpoint Petition at 2223; Pinpoint Opposition at 57, 11; contra TIA Comments at 35. MobileVision  xMsubmits that TIA's response to Pinpoint misused the Hata model, an urban model, in a city environment. MobileVision Reply at 8.4 Further, Pinpoint argues that  S@-any interference tolerance standard should be measured at the base station site (i.e., the receiver of"@87,N(N(ZZ"  S-interference) and not based on height and power of Part 15 devices.<8  yOh-ԍPinpoint Reply at 4.< The American Radio Relay League contends that the safe harbor effectively places a power limit on amateur operators that does not exist in other bands and that the power limit is so severe that it precludes amateur operation in any segment of the 902928 MHz band used for multilateration LMS. It further contends that the safe  S`-harbor was designed with Part 15 devices in mind rather than amateur radio operators.U9`X  yOX-ԍAmerican Radio Relay League Petition at 610.U  S-x32. Discussion. We believe that the safe harbor rule, which was adopted after careful study  S-of the extensive re cord in this proceeding, appropriately balances the interests of the various parties  S-operating in the 902928 MHz band so as to limit the potential for harmful interference. In the LMS  S-Report and Order, the Commission affirmed that unlicensed Part 15 devices in the band, as in any other band, may not cause harmful interference to and must accept interference from all other  SN -operations in the band.k:N   {O-ԍLMS Report and Order at 4714 (citing 47 C.F.R.  15.5(b)).k It also reiterated that unlicensed Part 15 operations have no vested or  S& -recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency.R;& z  {O@-ԍId. (citing 47 C.F.R.  15.5(a)).R Nonetheless, the Commission recognized the concerns of Part 15 and amateur interests with respect to their secondary status. Accordingly, in order to alleviate such concerns and to provide all operators in the band with a greater degree of certainty in configuring their systems, thereby promoting competitive use of the band, the Commission adopted the safe harbor definition of noninterference.  S6-x 33. The safe harbor rule is intended to identify Part 15 and amateur operations that will, in all cases, be deemed not to cause harmful interference to LMS operators. The Commission emphasized  S-in the LMS Report and Order that Part 15 and amateur operations are not restricted from operating beyond the parameters of the safe harbor. Rather, the safe harbor specifications provide a threshold beyond which Part 15 and amateur operators will not be insulated from LMS operators' claims of  Sp-harmful interference.:<p   {O-ԍId. at 4716.: We therefore do not believe it necessary to add exemptions to the safe harbor as urged by some petitioners.  S-x!34. Moreover, the technical specifications of the rule were clearly explained in the LMS  S-Report and Order. In general, amateur operators or Part 15 devices using outdoor antennas that are between five and 15 meters above the ground must reduce their output power concomitant with the height of their antennas in order to fit within the safe harbor. The Commission observed that an antenna less than five meters in height driven by a transmitter with one watt or less of output power (the general power limitation for Part 15 devices) will only affect LMS operations that are geographically close. A higher antenna, however, has the potential to affect a larger number of LMS operations. The Commission concluded that the power adjustment assures that between 5 and 15 meters, an outdoor antenna has the equivalent effect on multilateration LMS operations of an antenna"<,N(N(ZZ-"  S-five meters high using no more than 1 watt transmitter output power.2=  {Oh-ԍId. 2 We continue to believe that these specifications appropriately balance the interests of all the parties in minimizing interference.  S-x"35. We do not believe, as Metricom suggests, that the term "final link" in Section  S`-90.361(c)(2)(ii)(B) of the Commission's rules requires clarification.C>`Z  yOZ-ԍMetricom Petition at 1012.C Metricom asserts that the meaning of "final link" is open to interpretation because the Commission does not define the term. Metricom proposes that it be read as encompassing the entire complement of Part 15 devices that carries, or is available to carry, communications ultimately intended for entities eligible under Subparts B or C of Part 90 of the Rules. However, what Metricom proposes would in fact expand the definition of "final link" beyond its intended scope. The term "final link" is that link in a communications system which terminates with the Part 15 device used by or within the control of the Subpart B or C eligible entity. The term does not apply to other links in the system used to support such communications, e.g., intermediate links or links used by nonSubpart B or C entities. Therefore, we decline to expand the list of operations included under "final link" as proposed by Metricom.  S - x#36. We are persuaded by petitioners, however, that we should expand Section 90.361(c)(2)(ii)(B) of the Commission's Rules to include schools, libraries and rural health care providers within the safe harbor, permitting them to employ full power with antennas up to 15 meters. It is apparent from the record that many such institutions, particularly schools, may wish to use Part 15 devices that operate in this band, as well as similar devices that operate in the 5 GHz National  S-Information Infrastructure (NII) band,?  yOj- xԍAmendment of the Commission's Rules to Provide for Operation of Unlicensed NII Devices in the 5 GHz  {O2-Frequency Range, Report & Order, ET Docket No. 96102, 12 FCC Rcd 1576 (1997). to connect to the Internet and other online resources. In addition to being invaluable research tools, such resources enhance the ability of students, teachers and parents to communicate with one another, as pointed out by the Connectivity for Higher Learning Coalition. We believe that inexpensive access to the national information infrastructure by our nation's educational institutions is of sufficiently significant benefit to the public to warrant special protection for this limited class of Part 15 devices. Further, the universal service provisions of Section 254 of the Communications Act, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, single out schools, libraries and public or nonprofit health care providers serving residents of rural areas as  S-deserving of special attention so as to enable them to satisfy their communications needs.(@D  yO- xԍ47 U.S.C.  254. Rules implementing the new universal service provisions of the Act were adopted in Federal {OL -State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 9645, 62 Fed. Reg. 32,862 (1997).( Accordingly, we will include within the safe harbor elementary and secondary schools, libraries and health care providers for rural areas as defined by Section 254.  S-x$37. Further, we recognize that unlike Part 15 devices, the vast majority of which could operate within the safe harbor, amateur radio operations typically would not fit within the safe harbor provisions. Nevertheless, to the extent that amateur operators wish to employ the 902928 MHz band and to operate within the safe harbor provisions, they should have the same protection as Part 15 devices. Further, we reiterate that failure to fit within the safe harbor provisions does not prevent"`@,N(N(ZZ" operations; such operations may continue exactly as before, but are not protected from LMS operators'  S-claims of interference.^A  {O@-ԍLMS Report and Order at 4717 (footnote omitted).^  S-x%38. In addition, AirTouch/Teletrac asks that the Commission clarify whether video links are included in the category of "unprotected" Part 15 devices for purposes of determining eligibility for  S8-the safe harbor.JB8Z  yO2-ԍAirTouch/Teletrac Petition at 8. J They are not. The LMS Report and Order specifically provided that longrange video links will not be permitted to take advantage of the safe harbor. We stated that "because multilateration entities concur that most Part 15 interference to multilateration LMS systems is likely to be from field disturbance sensors and long range video links, we will not make any presumption of  S-interferencefree operations for these devices when they operate in the exclusiveuse bands."^C  {O$ -ԍLMS Report and Order at 4717 (footnote omitted).^  SJ - x2. Extend Safe Harbor to NonMultilateration  S -x&39. Pleadings. Metricom suggests that the safe harbor should apply with respect to nonmultilateration operators as well as multilateration operators. It is concerned that nonmultilateration operators will have the same problems sharing the band as multilateration operators, and argues that it is illogical to create a rule whereby Part 15 devices are protected from claims of interference by multilateration LMS systems but may be deemed to cause interference to  S4-nonmultilateration LMS systems.CD4|  yOP-ԍMetricom Petition at 1718.C Other parties disagree, arguing that nonmultilateration LMS systems and Part 15 devices do not have interference conflicts similar to those of multilateration LMS  S-systems and Part 15 devices.E   yO-ԍAmtech Reply at 5; AAR Opposition at 57; Hughes Opposition at 25; TI Opposition at 10.  S-x'40. Discussion. The safe harbor was intended as a way to reduce interference conflicts between multilateration LMS operators and Part 15 devices and amateur operators in the 902928 MHz band. Specifically, it was designed to provide parameters within which a Part 15 device or amateur operator could operate without being subject to a claim that it was interfering with the signal of a multilateration LMS operator. Because nonmultilateration systems generally employ narrowband technology and operate at lower power levels, it is less likely that Part 15 devices and amateur operators will interfere with them, as compared with multilateration LMS systems, which use wider bandwidth emissions and operate at higher power levels. Because the range of nonmultilateration devices is relatively small, there is less chance of Part 15 and amateur radio devices being located within their area of operation. Moreover, the record does not reveal actual or potential interference between nonmultilateration and Part 15 devices. To the contrary, there appears to be substantial evidence that there is little likelihood of interference. For these reasons, we do not believe that it is either necessary or appropriate to extend the definition of the safe harbor so as to insulate Part 15 and amateur operators from claims of interference by nonmultilateration systems. "fE,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ S-x 3. Administrative Procedure Act  S-x(41. Pleadings.  Some petitioners contend that the Commission's adoption of a safe harbor was  S-a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), because it was not proposed in the Notice in this proceeding and was therefore adopted without the required notice and opportunity for public  S<-comment.F<  {O- xԍSee, e.g., MobileVision Petition at 2; Pinpoint Petition at 2223; Pinpoint Reply at 7; AirTouch/Teletrac Reply at 4. Other parties disagree, contending that the safe harbor was a logical outgrowth of the  S-issues raised in the Notice.G"  yO -ԍAd Hoc Gas Reply at 45; EIA Reply at 4; Symbol Technologies Comments at 3; UTC Comments at 89.  S-x)42. Discussion. We do not agree that the safe harbor setting forth conditions that will not be considered harmful interference from amateurs and Part 15 devices violated the APA. The APA requires an agency to provide the public with "either the terms or the substance of a proposed rule or  SP -a description of the subject and issues involved."@HP   yO-ԍ5 U.S.C.  553(B)(3).@ The APA, however, "does not require an agency to  S( -publish in advance every precise proposal which it may ultimately adopt as a rule."I( B  {O - xyԍCalifornia Citizens Band Association v. United States, 375 F.2d 43, 48 (9th Cir.1967); see also Spartan  {O-Radiocasting Co. v. FCC, 619 F.2d 314 (4th Cir.1980). Rather, the  S -notice is sufficient if the final rule is a "logical outgrowth" of the underlying proposal.tJ   {O>-ԍUnited Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1221 (D.C. Cir.1980).t We believe  S -that the safe harbor was a logical outgrowth of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding, which sought comment on ways to accommodate the various users of the 902928 MHz band and identified specifically the problems surrounding coexistence of Part 15 and licensed users of  Sb-the band.Kb0  yO2-ԍAmendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring  {O-Systems, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, PR Docket No. 9361, 8 FCC Rcd 2502, 2507 (1993). Moreover, the suggestion of a Part 15 safe harbor was discussed in publiclyfiled ex parte  S<-submissions.L<  {Of- xjԍSee, e.g., Letter from Kathleen Q. Abernathy (AirTouch Communications), David E. Hilliard (Pinpoint  xCommunications, Inc.), Max Bryan (Uniplex) and John J. McDonnell (MobileVision, L.P.) to Ralph Haller, Chief,  x<Private Radio Bureau, FCC, dated June 23, 1994 (proposes that "[t]he FCC would adopt a threshold interference  yO- x-level below which wideband AVM systems cannot complain about 'harmful interference' from Part 15 devices");  xLetter of Nancy Bukar (Wireless Information Networks Forum, Inc.) to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, dated August 15, 1994 (summarizes safe harbor proposal that had been verbally presented to industry).  S-  C. Spectrum Allocation Plan  S-x*43. Background. The LMS Report and Order allocated the entire 902928 MHz frequency band for LMS systems, generally separating multilateration and nonmultilateration operations, as follows: "&L,N(N(ZZb"Ԍ S-A:x902.000 904.000NonMultilateration  S-B:x904.000 909.750Multilateration  S-C:x909.750 919.750NonMultilateration  S-D:x919.750 921.750Multilateration and NonMultilateration  S`-E:x921.750 927.250Multilateration  S8-F:x927.250 927.500Narrow band associated with subband E  S-G:x927.500 927.750Narrow band associated with subband D  S-H:x927.750 928.000Narrow band associated with subband B Thus, we concluded that bands B and E will be assigned to multilateration systems. Bands A and C will be assigned to nonmultilateration systems. Band D will be subject to both multilateration and nonmultilateration use. Licensees of bands B, D and E will be assigned narrow bands H, G and F, respectively. Operators requiring additional spectrum will be permitted to aggregate bands to obtain up to eight MHz in a given region through the aggregation of bands D and G and bands E and F. We concluded that licensees may not otherwise be authorized to operate on more than one of the  S -multilateration bands in a given geographic area.NM  {O-ԍLMS Report and Order at 472223.N  SX-x+44. Pleadings. SBMS contends that the designation of Band D for sharing between multilateration and nonmultilateration systems is unworkable and will increase interference. It  S -submits that the Notice in this proceeding proposed separate allocations for multilateration and nonmultilateration systems and that designating Band D for sharing was in response to Amtech's argument  S-that additional contiguous spectrum was necessary for its nonmultilateration operations.XNZ  yO-ԍSBMS Petition at 4 & n.11; SBMS Opposition at 3.X SBMS reiterates its call for an allocation plan that offers reverse link spectrum in discrete two MHz increments, grants auction winners free alienability of bandwidth, and allows participants to acquire multiple two MHz blocks in any particular market. It asserts that an allocation plan with these characteristics will deter warehousing, promote competition, reward providers that employ spectrum S-saving technologies, and result in lower costs to consumers.CO  yO~-ԍSBMS Petition at 56.C Further, SBMS posits that auctioning of  S-smaller spectrum blocks would likely encourage participation by smaller entities.=Pz  yO-ԍSBMS Opposition at 8.=  S|-x,45. Amtech urges the Commission to reject the SBMS approach.Q|   yO&!- xJԍAmtech Opposition at 5. AT&T and Texas Instruments also disagree with the SBMS plan. AT&T Comments at 3; TI Reply at 9. It also requests that the Commission modify its spectrum allocation plan to allow nonmultilateration systems an additional 2 MHz of contiguous spectrum by permitting them to operate in subband E on a shared basis with  S-multilateration systems.YRb  yO&-ԍAmtech Petition at 1719; Amtech Opposition at 4.Y Amtech contends that the 12 MHz of contiguous spectrum available to nonmultilateration operators under the band plan is the absolute minimum amount of spectrum required" R,N(N(ZZ[" for new highrate data applications. It submits that nonmultilateration operators need more flexibility  S-to facilitate resolution of interference.>S  yO@-ԍAmtech Petition at 18.>  S-x-46. In addition, Pinpoint and Uniplex propose that the Commission designate a subband for multilateration LMS systems that are willing to share spectrum that would not be subject to competitive bidding. Uniplex contends that this would preserve and encourage small entrepreneurial companies in this service and increase the value of the spectrum available for bidding. Pinpoint details its own time sharing experiment with Uniplex to illustrate that sharing among multilateration  S-operators is feasible.TX  yO -ԍUniplex Petition at 9; Uniplex Opposition at 3; Pinpoint Petition at 710 & Appendix 1. A number of parties disagree with the Pinpoint/Uniplex proposal.U  {OH - xyԍSee, e.g., AirTouch/Teletrac Opposition at 18; AT&T Comments at 3; Metricom Opposition at 2224; MobileVision Opposition at 67; SBMS Opposition at 5. For example, MobileVision contends that time sharing among multilateration LMS systems would not work because there is no common ground for arriving at a set of specifications, essential emergency voice communications would be rendered unusable, and an LMS system's reliability, capacity and  S -integrity would be compromised.EV B  yO-ԍMobileVision Opposition at 7.E  S -x.47. Another change to the band plan supported by some parties is the reclassification of Part 15 devices as coprimary in parts of the band. These parties contend that this will eliminate their  S -interference concerns and will promote the development of valuable Part 15 technology.W   {O-ԍSee, e.g., CellNet Petition at 34; EIA/CEG Comments at 8; contra SBMS Reply at 2; TI Reply at 7. Similarly,  SX-Safetran is concerned that the adopted frequency allocation will result in congestion and interference that will render ineffective direct sequence modulation spread spectrum radio, which is a Part 15 type of radio service used by railway companies. It suggests that certain portions of the band be allocated  S-for this type of low power emission.?Xd  yO-ԍSafetran Petition at 4.?  S-x/48.  Discussion. As we stated in the LMS Report and Order, we believe that both multilateration and nonmultilateration LMS systems will play an important role in achieving a  SB-nationwide intelligent highway infrastructure.KYB  {O -ԍLMS Report and Order at 4721.K We accordingly devised a band plan that, for the most part, creates separate allocations for the two types of LMS systems and takes into consideration the interference concerns of nonLMS users of the 902928 MHz band. Upon review of parties' responses  S-to our Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding, however, we decided to allocate the 2 MHz of subband D to be shared by multilateration and nonmultilateration users so as to provide non" Y,N(N(ZZ"ԫ S-multilateration users with the possibility of obtaining additional contiguous spectrum.Z"  {Oh- x;ԍThe band plan adopted in the LMS Report and Order permits nonmultilateration operators a total of 14 MHz  xof spectrum. Twelve MHz is contiguous; the 10 MHz of subband C is available exclusively for nonmultilateration  xoperators and the 2 MHz of subband D is available on a shared basis with multilateration operators. An additional, noncontiguous 2 MHz of spectrum (subband A) is also available exclusively for nonmultilateration operators.  S-x049. We do not agree with SMBS that our band plan was illogical or that sharing between multilateration and nonmultilateration operators is not feasible. Because we agree that it is preferable that multilateration and nonmultilateration facilities do not operate in the same spectrum, we adopted a band plan that, for the most part, allocated separate blocks of spectrum for multilateration and nonmultilateration systems. Our modification to the proposed band plan represented an effort to respond to the concern that some nonmultilateration systems might need additional spectrum, without taking any spectrum away from multilateration users. We concluded that it would be appropriate to permit those few multilateration users the opportunity to obtain additional spectrum by permitting them to share the 2 MHz of subband D. We considered the SBMS band plan earlier in this proceeding and declined to adopt it. SMBS has raised no new issues or arguments that persuade us that their plan is  S -superior to the plan we adopted in the LMS Report and Order.  S -x150. In addition, we decline to adopt Amtech's suggestion that we allocate an additional 2 MHz of contiguous spectrum for nonmultilateration providers. We believe that the band plan adopted  S -in the LMS Report and Order appropriately balances the needs and interests of multilateration and nonmultilateration operators, as well as Part 15 and amateur users of the band. For this reason, we also decline to adopt exclusive subbands for parties willing to timeshare, or for Part 15 users. Doing so would upset the equilibrium among users of the band. Such an allocation would also ignore the  S-secondary status of Part 15 providers in that it would afford unlicensed devices coprimary status vis S-avis licensed operators.([  yO- xԍWe clarify, as requested by Amtech, that multilateration and nonmultilateration systems operating in the shared  {O-subband will share in accordance Section 90.173(b) of the Commission's Rules. See Amtech Petition at 22.(  Sp- D. Geographic Areas for Exclusive Licenses  S -x251. Background. Rand McNally organizes the 50 states and the District of Columbia into 47  S-Major Trading Areas (MTAs) and 487 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). In the LMS Report and Order,  S-the Commission concluded that MTAs and four additional MTAlike service areas provide a more suitable regulatory construct for multilateration licensing than the smaller BTAs. The Commission determined that use of MTAs, as defined in the Rand McNally Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide, will give systems greater capacity to accommodate large number of prospective users which, in turn, will promote competition and encourage advancement of new technologies. The rules adopted in  S -the LMS Report and Order provide for one exclusive multilateration system license in each MTA in  S-each of the subbands identified for exclusive assignments (B and H, D and G, E and F).K\   {O$-ԍLMS Report and Order at 4724.K  S-x352. Pleadings: Rand McNally submits that it is the copyright owner of the MTA/BTA Listings and the Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide and that it has not licensed use of its"p\,N(N(ZZ" MTA/BTA listings in connection with LMS. It asserts that the Commission should encourage prospective LMS licensees to contact Rand McNally to arrange licensing, and should explicitly acknowledge that the use of MTAs requires Rand McNally's consent, as it did in the 900 MHz SMR  S-proceeding.E]  yO-ԍRand McNally Petition at 25.E  S8-x453. In addition, SBMS notes that the rules require construction of a substantial portion of at least one BTA per MTA within 12 months after initial authorization. SBMS is concerned that licensing on an MTA basis will encourage warehousing in light of this BTAbased buildout requirement. It contends that an LMS operator could meet this minimum standard by constructing  S-and testing in a lowdemand rural BTA, and could warehouse the rest of the MTA.?^X  yO -ԍSBMS Petition at 1112.?  SH -x554. Discussion. After a thorough review of the record in this proceeding and upon further reflection regarding this issue, we conclude that the relevant geographic areas for multilateration LMS licenses should be based on U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis Economic Areas (EAs). There are 172 EAs covering the continental United States.  S -x655.` ` Because EAs have not been established for the five U.S. possessions (Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa), we will create additional licensing regions for systems operating in these territories as well as for the Gulf of Mexico. Specifically, we will designate the following additional licensing regions: (1) Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands (to be licensed as a single area); (2) Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (to be licensed as a single area); and (3) American Samoa. In addition, Alaska will be licensed as a single  S-area._   yO- xԍ The EA Listings and the EA map are available for public inspection at the Wireless Telecommunications  xBureau's Public Reference Room, 2025 M Street, N.W., Room 5608, Washington, DC, 20554, and the Bureau's  xZOffice of Operations, Gettysburg Reference Room, 1270 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, 173257245. EA maps are also available on the FCC's Internet website at http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/auctions/maps/maps.html. We believe that EAs are large enough to give systems sufficient capacity to accommodate large numbers of prospective users, which will promote competition, encourage new technologies and result in superior service to the public. At the same time, EAs are small enough to alleviate the BTA/MTA warehousing concerns posited by SMBS. Further, use of smaller geographic units could result in a more diverse group of prospective licensees because EAbased licenses may be more affordable for small and mediumsized businesses than would MTAbased licenses. We conclude that such an outcome not only is desirable but furthers the public interest and one of the goals enunciated  Sz-in Section 309(j) of the Communications Act.`~z  yO!- xԍ47 U.S.C.  309(j). We adopted EAs for licensing areas in both the Wireless Communications Service and  {O"- xK800 MHz SMR service for similar reasons. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the  {O|#- xWireless Communications Service ("WCS"), Report and Order, GN Docket No. 96228, FCC 9750,  5360,  x(released February 19, 1997); Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development  {O%- x;of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, Second Report and Order, PR Docket No. 93144, FCC 97223,  1315, (released July 10, 1997).  Moreover, EAs are better suited than MTAs to a service aimed at improving the nation's transportation infrastructure because EAs are based on urban,"R`,N(N(ZZ" suburban and rural traffic patterns. Further, use of EAs solves the copyright problem raised by Rand McNally, because EAs are published by the U.S. Department of Commerce.  S-: E. Multilateration System Operations Wideband Forward Links  S8-x756. Background. In the LMS Report and Order we allowed LMS multilateration systems to use wideband forward links. A forward link refers to the signal path from the LMS system's fixed base site to its mobile units. The Commission noted that unlike a :narrowband forward link, a wideband forward link can operate over a multilateration system's entire authorized subband. This concerned Part 15 interests, who, the Commission pointed out, opposed authorization of wideband forward links because they believed that wideband forward links are likely to cause interference to Part 15 devices. The Commission emphasized that grant of multilateration licenses will be conditioned on the applicant's ability to demonstrate through field testing that its system does not  S -cause unacceptable levels of interference to Part 15 devices.a&  {Ob - x;ԍLMS Report and Order at 473435, 473637. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission described the  xtesting requirement as a way to ensure "that LMS systems are not operated in such a manner as to degrade, obstruct  {O- xjor interrupt Part 15 devices to such an extent that Part 15 operations will be negatively affected." Order on  {O-Reconsideration at para. 15. It also limited the maximum power of  S -wideband forward links to 30 watts ERP.:b   {O(-ԍId. at 4742.:  S -x857. Pleadings. A number of parties reiterate the concern that wideband forward links will  S\-cause harmful interference to Part 15 devices and should therefore not be authorized.NcZ\H  {OD- xԍSee, e.g., Ad Hoc Gas Petition at 14;  CellNet Petition at 4; Metricom/SCE Petition at 78; Part 15 Coalition  x-Petition at 37; Symbol Technologies Comments at 12; TIA Comments at 56; UTC Comments at 3; Wireless Transaction Corp. Petition at 2.N They submit that multilateration LMS providers have not shown a compelling need for the links sufficient to  S -counterbalance the potentially severe detriment to Part 15 devices. In the alternative, the Part 15  S-Coalition calls for antenna height and duty cycle restrictions on such links.Hdj  yO-ԍPart 15 Coalition Petition at 7.H  S-  S-x958. Pinpoint and Uniplex, the original proponents of wideband forward links, continue to believe that authorization of such links is appropriate. Pinpoint submits that wideband forward links confer substantial cost and efficiency benefits for high capacity multilateration LMS systems and facilitate the sharing of spectrum by multilateration systems. It asserts, however, that the 30 watt ERP limit and the testing requirement will make the use of such links very difficult. It further contends that there is no evidence that wideband forward links cause the significant levels of interference  S-claimed.pe  {O>$-ԍPinpoint Opposition at 1718; contra Ad Hoc Gas Comments at 1011.p Uniplex enumerates a number of advantages to use of wideband forward links rather than narrowband forward links. For example, it submits that a narrowband system attempting to track a  ST-person (e.g., a prisoner or an Alzheimer's Disease patient) would have to periodically transmit a fairly highpowered signal from that person, which would require battery capacity beyond that which could", e,N(N(ZZ" be worn by a person, as a practical matter. In contrast, it asserts, a wideband system would only  S-transmit on request so that battery size is manageable.@f  yO@-ԍUniplex Petition at 23.@  S-x:59. Another difference highlighted by Uniplex is that narrowband forward links must constantly query mobiles and store their locations in a central database, while wideband systems allow for intelligence to be stored in the mobile itself. It asserts that this permits less use of airtime in some applications. For example, Uniplex posits a metropolitan transportation system with 500 buses that has a requirement that central dispatch be alerted if a bus is running two or more minutes off schedule. It submits that while a system with narrowband forward links would have to query all 500 buses every two minutes, wideband forward links would permit each bus to have its own onboard computer with its stored schedule and buses would only report back to dispatch when behind  SH -schedule.9gH X  {Oh -ԍId. at 34.9 For similar reasons, Uniplex submits that a wideband prisoner tracking system could accurately monitor the location of a prisoner, while narrowband links can only report when that  S -prisoner has gone out of permissible range.7h   {O-ԍId. at 4.7  S -x;60. Uniplex asserts that by adopting a stricter power limitation than was proposed in the  S -Notice in this proceeding, in combination with restrictions on grandfathered systems, the Commission has adopted a policy strongly favoring narrowband forward link technology. It argues that this will  S2-limit the potential for the emergence of diverse technologies in the band.7i2  {Ov-ԍId. at 1.7 Accordingly, Uniplex requests that the Commission adopt a 300watt power limitation with a duty cycle limitation in lieu of  S-the 30watt power limitation adopted in the LMS Report and Order._j6  {O-ԍId. at 6; contra Ad Hoc Gas Comments at 10._ It also urges the Commission to permit grandfathered systems to deploy additional sites within a 30mile radius of the primary site; it contends that this would enable a grandfathered system using a wideband forward link to offer service in an area similar to that of a typical grandfathered narrowband forward link licensee, whose  SD-service area would be bound by the range of its outermost 300watt narrowband forward link sites.FkD  yO-ԍUniplex Petition at 56.F  S-x<61. Discussion. We believe that elimination of wideband forward links would preclude certain LMS technology options from being developed, to the detriment of consumers. At the same time, we continue to believe that the power limitation of 30 watts ERP is necessary and appropriate to  S~-minimize interference to other operators sharing the 902928 MHz band. As we noted in the LMS  SX-Report and Order, limiting base and mobile stations' power levels will lessen the potential for interference between cochannel multilateration systems and will reduce the likelihood of interference  S -to other operations in the 902928 MHz band.Kl X  {O&-ԍLMS Report and Order at 4742.K Further, preauthorization testing will be a condition"  l,N(N(ZZz"  S-on the license of multilateration LMS operators seeking to employ wideband forward links.m  yOh- xԍIn addition, UTC requests that height and power limits be imposed on narrowband forward links operating  xin the 927.250928.000 band in order to afford protection to multiple address systems operating in the adjacent 928 xZ929 band. UTC Petition at 1718. Multiple address systems are licensed systems and are fairly powerful. Given  xthe nature of narrowband forward links, we do not believe that interference problems are likely and we accordingly  x-deny UTC's request. In the event isolated interference problems do arise, voluntary coordination between these services may be necessary. We do not agree with Uniplex that adoption of a duty cycle limitation would allow increased power for wideband forward links without increasing the interference potential. With wideband forward link technology, each vehicular unit to be located must be able to receive transmissions from at least four different forward link transmitters. These transmitters operate sequentially, passing a "token" packet. Consequently, although a duty cycle limitation could be applied to each individual forward link transmitter, considered collectively, there would almost always be at least one transmitter transmitting in an area at any given time. Taking into consideration the greater range of a base transmitter, as compared to a mobile transmitter, and the amount of spectrum occupied by the wideband forward link, we believe allowing higher power for wideband forward links would unacceptably increase band congestion.  S -x=62. Also, we decline to permit grandfathered systems to deploy additional transmitters on the basis of a 30-mile radius. Uniplex's reason for asking for this is essentially to allow comparable coverage for its particular technology as compared to technologies using narrowband forward links. We have found that, in the 902-928 MHz band, it is necessary to have a common set of technical limits in order to facilitate co-occupancy among the various band users. Each different technology operating within these limits, however, will likely have advantages and disadvantages as compared to the others, including the matter of coverage. We do not have sufficient experience with operating LMS systems to craft a rule that would be appropriate for all potential LMS technologies. To the extent that grandfathered systems seek to add fillin sites that do not increase their coverage footprint, we believe such requests should be handled on a casebycase basis.  Sh-x>63. Some of the examples posed by Uniplex raise the issue of whether LMS technology may be used to track individuals as well as vehicles. CellNet requests us to clarify that only vehicles or inanimate objects, and not individuals, may be monitored and located via LMS. CellNet is concerned that without this restriction, the possibility increases that paging and messaging services will become the primary offerings on LMS channels. It also suggests that the Commission impose a limit on the number of receivers a company uses for nonvehicular monitoring, rather than defining vehicular  Sx-location as a company's "primary" business.Cnx@  yOX -ԍCellNet Petition at 1011. C  S(-x?64. The rules adopted in the LMS Report and Order permit a multilateration LMS system to provide nonvehicular location services as long as the system's primary operations involve the  S-provision of vehicle location services.Do  yOJ%-ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.353(a)(7).D We do not share CellNet's concern that LMS will become a paging service. The rule clearly provides that such nonvehicular location functions may not be an LMS operation's primary function. To afford multilateration LMS operators maximum flexibility in"` o,N(N(ZZ" designing their systems, we also decline to adopt a specific cap on nonvehicular location services. Nonmultilateration LMS operators, on the other hand, are specifically prohibited from offering non S-vehicular location services.Dp  yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.353(a)(8).D The Commission adopted this restriction because the spectrum occupied by nonmultilateration LMS operators has a heavier concentration of amateur radio operators, Part 15  S`-devices and federal government radiolocation operations than do other portions of the band.Nq`X  {OX-ԍLMS Report and Order at 470809.N We continue to believe that this approach minimizes the potential for interference and we therefore decline to revise our rules.  S- F. Petitions for Reconsideration of Order on Reconsideration  Sp-x@65. On May 30, 1996, three parties filed petitions for reconsideration of the Order on  SJ -Reconsideration, which, as noted above, had resolved certain issues regarding grandfathering of  S$ -existing LMS systems that had been raised on reconsideration of the LMS Report and Order. Those petitioners, Amtech Corporation, Pinpoint Communication Networks, Inc., and Teletrac License, Inc.,  S -seek reconsideration of different aspects of the Order on Reconsideration.r   yO`- xԍOppositions to these petitions were filed on July 5, 1996 by the Consumer Electronic Manufacturers  xAssociation (opposes Pinpoint petition), Metricom (opposes Pinpoint and Teletrac petitions), the Part 15 Coalition  x(opposes all three petitions), SpectraLink Corporation (opposes Teletrac and Pinpoint petitions), and Symbol  xTechnologies (opposes Pinpoint petition). Amtech filed a Reply to the Part 15 Coalition Opposition on July 15, 1996. Pinpoint and Teletrac each filed a Reply to the relevant Oppositions on July 18, 1996. For the reasons detailed below, each of these petitions is denied, except that we will make a technical correction to the rules requested by Amtech.  S8-xA66. Amtech Petition. Amtech, a nonmultilateration LMS provider, asserts that the Commission should revise the emission mask specifications of Section 90.209 as applied to transmitters with less than two watts output power. Specifically, Amtech proposes that the attenuation for outofband emissions produced by nonmultilateration transmitters of two watts or less be specified as 43 + 10 Log(P) rather than 55 + 10 Log(P). Amtech contends that it has employed this limit for a number of years and that it is the same limit applied in other contexts for systems that can have greater height and power than nonmultilateration systems. Amtech argues that use of the stricter 55 + 10 Log(P) standard imposes significant costs and is not necessary due to the limited interference  S-potential of nonmultilateration systems.ws  {O4 -ԍAmtech Petition for Reconsideration of Order on Reconsideration at 24. w We are not persuaded that Amtech has presented sufficient  S-evidence to support its contention that the standard adopted in the LMS Report and Order is overly restrictive. We continue to believe that that standard is the most appropriate given the disparate users of the 902928 MHz band.  S4-xB67. Amtech also urges the Commission to revise the relevant emission mask rule (formerly  S -Section 90.209, now Section 90.210) to conform with the rule as originally adopted in the LMS Report  S-and Order, wherein the attenuation applied at the edge of the licensee's LMS subband rather than at", s,N(N(ZZ="  S-the edge of the "authorized bandwidth."9t  {Oh-ԍId. at 46.9 We did not intend in the Order on Reconsideration to revise the emission mask for nonmultilateration LMS licensees and we will make appropriate changes to Section 90.210 to make that clear.  Sb-xC68. Pinpoint Petition. Pinpoint, a multilateration LMS licensee, takes issue with the statement  S<-in the Order on Reconsideration that Xx[T]he Commission seeks to ensure not only that Part 15 operators refrain from causing harmful interference to LMS systems, but also that LMS systems are not operated in such a manner as to degrade, obstruct or interrupt Part 15 devices to such an extent  Sv-that Part 15 operations will be negatively affected.uvZ  {Op - xԍPinpoint Petition for Partial Reconsideration of Order on Reconsideration at 2 (quoting Order on  {O: -Reconsideration at para. 15).  Pinpoint contends that this language is inconsistent with Part 15 devices' secondary status in the LMS  S -band and that it constitutes a "new standard" with respect to LMS operators' obligations visavis Part  S -15 devices.7v   {O.-ԍId. at 2.7 Pinpoint argues that this "new standard" conflicts with the statement in the LMS Report  S -and Order that unlicensed Part 15 devices "may not cause harmful interference to and must accept  S -interference from all other operations in the band."ow H  {Ot-ԍId. at 3 (citing LMS Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 4717).o  S<-xD69. The language in the Order on Reconsideration cited by Pinpoint does not mean that Part 15 devices are entitled to protection from interference. They are not. Rather, we were explaining our decision to place a testing condition on multilateration LMS licenses. The purpose of the testing condition is to insure that multilateration LMS licensees, when designing and constructing their systems, take into consideration a goal of minimizing interference to existing deployments or systems of Part 15 devices in their area, and to verify through cooperative testing that this goal has been served.  S-xE70. Teletrac Petition. Teletrac seeks reconsideration of the restriction in Section 90.363(a) of  S-the Commission's Rules, originally adopted in the LMS Report and Order and affirmed in the Order  S-on Reconsideration, that limits site relocation for grandfathered LMS licensees to within two kilometers of their authorized site. Teletrac submits that removing this restriction would be in the public interest because it would permit grandfathered multilateration LMS operators to improve the  S:-efficiency of their systems.xx:  {O#-ԍTeletrac Petition for Reconsideration of Order on Reconsideration at 111.x We are not persuaded that Teletrac has raised any new arguments to justify our further reconsideration of this rule. We note that we have granted Teletrac waivers of"l x,N(N(ZZk"  S-this rule with respect to three specific sites.y\  {Oh- xJԍSee Teletrac License, Inc. Request for Waiver of Section 90.363(a) of the Commission's Rules, Order, 11 FCC  xRcd 13184 (WTB 1996) (re Orlando, Florida and Sacramento, California); Teletrac License, Inc. Request for Waiver  {O-of Section 90.363(a) of the Commission's Rules, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17499 (WTB 1996) (re New York, New York).  S-xF71. Teletrac also urges the Commission to clarify that the Part 15 safe harbor only applies to Part 15 operations authorized pursuant to the Part 15 rules in effect at the time the safe harbor rule was adopted. Teletrac submits that the presumption of noninterference in the safe harbor rule assumes that the Part 15 rules as they existed when the safe harbor rule was adopted will remain in  S-place. Teletrac notes that the Commission has proposed changes to the rules.z  {O - xԍId. at 1112 (citing Amendment of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Spread Spectrum  {Of -Transmitters, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 968, 11 FCC Rcd 3068 (1996)). Since the time Teletrac raised this point, the Commission has adopted changes to the Part 15 rules. We do not  S-believe that the modified rules conflict with the safe harbor.{H  {O- xKԍAmendment of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Spread Spectrum Transmitters, Report  {Or-and Order, ET Docket 968, FCC 97114 (released Apr. 10, 1997). To the extent Teletrac continues to have concerns that the new rules are incompatible with the safe harbor, it should detail those concerns with the Commission.  S - MmIV. COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR MULTILATERATION LMS LICENSEES ă  S - . FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING ă  S -xG72. In the LMS Report and Order, the Commission decided to use competitive bidding to  S -select from mutually exclusive applications for multilateration LMS licenses.T|   {O-ԍLMS Report and Order at 472526.T The Commission reached this decision based on its conclusion that the statutory criteria for auctioning licenses, which are set forth in Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  309(j), are satisfied. More specifically, the Commission found (1) that its decision to offer multilateration LMS licenses on an exclusive basis makes it likely that mutually exclusive applications for such licenses will be filed; (2) that multilateration LMS licenses will be used principally to offer forprofit, subscriberbased services; and, (3) that the use of competitive bidding for these licenses will promote the public interest  Sj-objectives set forth in Section 309(j)(3).}"j6  {O@- x,ԍId. As part of this determination, the Commission also decided that applications for nonmultilateration LMS  xlicenses would not be selected by competitive bidding because, unlike multilateration LMS licenses, non xxmultilateration LMS licenses will be offered on a shared basis a licensing scheme that does not allow for mutual exclusivity among applicants.   S-xH73. Under the spectrum plan we adopted in the LMS Report and Order and reaffirm here, three blocks of spectrum are allocated to multilateration LMS systems: (1) 904.000909.750 MHz and 927.750928.000 MHz; (2) 919.750921.750 MHz and 927.500927.750 MHz; and, (3) 921.750927.250 MHz and 927.250927.500 MHz. One license will be awarded for each of these spectrum blocks in each of 176 EAs. Thus, there are a total of 528 multilateration LMS licenses to be auctioned. "T },N(N(ZZ"Ԍ S-ԙxI74. We anticipate conducting the auction for multilateration LMS frequencies in conformity with the general competitive bidding rules proposed to be included in Part 1, Subpart Q of the Commission's Rules, and substantially consistent with the auctions that have been employed in other  S-wireless services.~  {O- xԍSee Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules Competitive Bidding, Order, Memorandum Opinion  {O-and Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 9782, 12 FCC Rcd 5686 (1997). We propose to adopt for the LMS auction the simultaneous multiple round competitive bidding design used in the PCS auctions. Multiple round bidding should provide more information to bidders than single round bidding during the auction about the values of the licenses. We seek comment on this proposal. We also tentatively conclude that the LMS auction will follow the general competitive bidding procedures of Part 1, Subpart Q. We seek comment on this tentative  S-conclusion.$  yO - xhԍThe Commission makes no representations or warranties about the use of this spectrum for particular services.  xjApplicants should be aware that an FCC auction represents an opportunity to become an FCC licensee in this  xservice, subject to certain conditions and regulations. An FCC auction does not constitute an endorsement by the  xFCC of any particular services, technologies or products, nor does an FCC license constitute a guarantee of business  xsuccess. Applicants should perform their individual due diligence before proceeding as they would with any new business venture.  Sp-xJ75. Small Businesses. Our auction rules for other services generally include special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments designed to fulfill our statutory mandate to ensure that small businesses have the opportunity to participate in the provision of  S -spectrumbased services.U   {O6-ԍSee, e.g., 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(4)(D).U In the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order in the competitive bidding docket, we indicated that we would establish definitions for "small business" on a serviceby S -service basis. .  {Oz-ԍSecond Memorandum Opinion and Order, PP Docket No. 93253, 9 FCC Rcd 7245, 726869 (1994). We therefore seek comment regarding the establishment of a small business definition for multilateration LMS. Commenters should discuss the level of capital commitment that is likely to be required to purchase a multilateration LMS license at auction and create a viable business. We also seek comment on what small business provisions should be offered to multilateration LMS small business entities. Our goal, should we adopt a special provision(s) for one or more categories of small businesses, will be to remove entry barriers so as to ensure the participation of small businesses in the auction and in the provision of service. If we adopt special provisions for small businesses, we  S-propose that our unjust enrichment rules apply as set forth in Part 1, SubpartQ.>  yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.2111.>  SD-xK76. In other services we also adopted attribution rules for purposes of determining small business status. We tentatively conclude that for LMS we should attribute the gross revenues of all controlling principals in the small business applicant as well as its affiliates. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on whether small business provisions are sufficient to promote participation by businesses owned by minorities, women, or rural telephone companies. To the extent that commenters propose additional provisions to ensure participation by minorityowned or womenowned businesses, we ask them to address how such provisions should be crafted to meet"TP ,N(N(ZZ"  S-the relevant standards of judicial review.  {Oh- xiԍSee Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pe9a, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995); United States v. Virginia, 116 S. Ct. 2264 (1996).  S-xL77. Partitioning and Disaggregation. We propose to allow multilateration LMS licensees to partition their geographic license area and disaggregate portions of their spectrum. We anticipate that this will, among other things, help to remove entry barriers for small businesses. We seek comment on this proposal.  S-xM78. If we determine that special provisions for small business are appropriate for LMS auctions, we tentatively conclude that a qualified small business that applies to partition or disaggregate its license to a nonsmall business entity should be required to repay any benefits it received from special small business provisions. We seek comment on the type of unjust enrichment requirements that should be placed as a condition for approval of an application to partition or disaggregate a license owned by a qualified small business licensee to a nonsmall business entity. This could include, for example, repayment of any bidding credit that we may adopt for small businesses, and would be applied on a proportional basis. Similarly, if a small business licensee partitions or disaggregates to another qualified small business that would not qualify for the same level of bidding credit, the transferring licensee should be required to repay a portion of the benefit it received. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should restrict the partitioning or disaggregation of such licenses when the partitionee or disaggregatee is not within the definition of an entity eligible for such special provisions, or whether,  S-at some point (e.g., a term of years), such restriction on partitioning and disaggregation be removed and the unjust enrichment provisions would apply. We also seek comment on how such unjust enrichment amounts should be calculated, especially in light of the difficulty of devising a methodology or formula that will differentiate the relative market value of the opportunities to provide service to various partitioned areas or to use the amount of spectrum disaggregated.  S- V. CONCLUSION ă  S|-xN79. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we have carefully considered petitioners' concerns and, for the most part, determined that our prior decisions in this proceeding remain appropriate. We believe that our LMS rules will facilitate the rapid deployment of LMS and will be instrumental in the development of "smart highway" technology. At the same time, we have endeavored to fairly balance the diverse interests of all parties operating in the 902928 MHz band. We have paid particular attention to the positions of Part 15 and amateur operators and we believe we have created a band plan and accompanying regulatory structure that will enable them to coexist with LMS systems without significant disruption to their operations.  S - b VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS  S!-  S"-xO80. Ex Parte Rules NonRestricted Proceeding. This is a nonrestricted notice and  Sx#-comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the bSunshine  SP$-Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in Commission Rules. See generally 47"P$",N(N(ZZ%" C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206.  S-xP81. Regulatory Flexibility. The Initial and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses for this  S-Memorandum Opinion and Order, as required by Sections 603 and 604, respectively, of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.  603604, is set forth in Appendix B and Appendix C.  S-xQ82. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Final and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub.  S-L. No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1164, 4 U.S.C.  601, et seq. (1981)).  SN -xR83. Comment Dates. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before November 5, 1997, and reply comments on or before November 20, 1997. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center of the Federal Communications Commission, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.    S-xS84. Paperwork Reduction. The FNPRM has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and was found to impose no new or modified information collection requirement on the public. Implementation of any new or modified requirement will be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget, as prescribed by the Act.  S-S VII. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S-  TPxT85. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of Sections 4(i), 302, 303(r), and 332(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 302, 303(r), and 332(a), the rule changes specified in Appendix D are adopted. x  S-xU86. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule changes set forth in Appendix D WILL  S-BECOME EFFECTIVE 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. ",N(N(ZZ"Ԍ S-xV87. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitions for reconsideration filed by the parties listed in Appendix A ARE GRANTED to the extent discussed herein, and ARE OTHERWISE DENIED.  S`-xW88. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitions for reconsideration of the Order on  S:-Reconsideration filed by Pinpoint Communication Networks, Inc. and Teletrac License, Inc. ARE DENIED.  S-xX89. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration of the Order on  S-Reconsideration filed by Amtech Corporation IS GRANTED to the extent specified herein and IS otherwise DENIED. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary  " ,N(N(ZZ"  S-, APPENDIX  A Đ S-T- PLEADINGS ĐTP  S`- Petitions for Reconsideration 1. Ad Hoc Gas Distribution Utilities Coalition (Ad Hoc Gas) 2. AirTouch/Teletrac 3. The American Radio Relay League, Inc. (ARRL) 4. AMTECH Corporation (Amtech) 5. CellNet Data Systems, Inc. (CellNet) 6. Connectivity for Learning Coalition 7. Hughes Transportation Management Systems (Hughes) 8. Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITSA) 9. Metricom, Inc. and Southern California Edison Company (Metricom/SCE) 10. MobileVision, L.P. (MobileVision) 11. The New Jersey Highway Authority, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, the New York State Thruway Authority, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Bridges and Tunnels, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the South Jersey Transportation Authority and the Delaware River Port Authority (The Interagency Group). 12. The Part 15 Coalition 13. Pinpoint Communications (Pinpoint) 14. Rand McNally & Company (Rand McNally) 15. Safetran Systems Corporation (Safetran) 16. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. (SBMS) 17. Texas Instruments, Inc. and MFS Network Technologies, Inc. (TI/MFS) 18. Uniplex Corporation (Uniplex) 19. UTC "&!,N(N(ZZn("Ԍ 20. Wireless Transactions Corporation (WTC)  S- Oppositions  1. AirTouch/Teletrac    2. American Telemedicine Association (ATA) 3. AMTECH Corporation 4. Association of American Railroads (AAR) 5. CellNet Data Systems 6. Connectivity for Learning Coalition 7. Hughes Transportation Management Systems 8. Itron Inc. (Itron) 9. Metricom, Inc. and Southern California Edison 10. Mobilevision, L.P. 11. Part 15 Coalition 12. Pinpoint Communications, Inc. 13. Southwestern Bell Mobile Services 14. Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI) 15. Uniplex Corporation  S8- Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration  1. Ad Hoc Gas Distribution Utilities Coalition 2. Alarm Industry Communications Committee (Alarm Industry) 3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 4. AT&T Corp. (AT&T)"%",N(N(ZZ'"Ԍ 5. Electronic Industries Association, Consumer Electronic Group (EIA) 6. Land Mobile Communications Council 7. Symbol Technologies, Inc. (Symbol Technologies)    8. Telecommunications Industry Association, User Premises Equipment Division, Wireless xConsumer Communications Section (TIA)    9. UTC     S - Replies   1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)Y 1. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. Ad Hoc Gas Distribution Utilities Coalition 2. AirTouch/Teletrac 3. Amtech Corporation 4. AT&T Corp. 5. CellNet Data Systems, Inc. 6. The Connectivity for Learning Coalition 7. Electronic Industries Association, Consumer Electronics Group 8. Hughes Transportation Management Systems 9. Itron, Inc. 10. Mark IV Industries, Lt., I.V.H.S. Division (Mark IV) 11. Metricom, Inc., and Southern California Edison Company 12. MobileVision, L.P. 13. Part 15 Coalition 14. Pinpoint Communications 15. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems    16. Telecommunications Industry Association, User Premises Equipment Division, Wireless xConsumer Communications Section "&#,N(N(ZZn("Ԍ   17. Texas Instruments, Inc. and MFS Network Technologies, Inc. (TI/MFS) 18. UTC     S8-   Other Correspondence  1. Fred Bagg 2. Marcia Davis 3. Peter Fiset 4. Chase Hughes 5. Reed W. Jones  SX-   6. Faisal Khan    7. Dr. Jim Lansford 8. Rex Osborn 9. Matt Owens 10. Tom Wessel "$,N(N(ZZ"  S- ,APPENDIX B   S-5 INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS  R-  Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ă  S8-xAs required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 3 U.S.C.  603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of  S-the policies and rules proposed and adopted in the Further Notice section of this Report and Order  S-and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on  S-the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Report and Order and Further  Sx-Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  S* - A. Reason for Action:   S -xThis FNPRM was initiated to secure comment on proposals for revising rules for the auction of multilateration Location and Monitoring Service (LMS) frequencies. Such changes to the rules for multilateration LMS would promote efficient licensing and enhance the service's competitive potential in the Commercial Mobile Radio Service marketplace. The adopted and proposed rules are based on the competitive bidding authority of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  309(j), which authorized the Commission to use auctions to select among mutually exclusive initial applications in certain services, including multilateration LMS.  S- B. Objectives of this Action:  xThe Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Budget Act), Pub. L. No. 10366, Title VI,  6002, and the subsequent Commission actions to implement it are intended to establish a system of competitive bidding for choosing among certain applications for initial licenses, and to carry out statutory mandates that certain designated entities, including small businesses, are afforded an opportunity to participate in the competitive bidding process and in the provision of multilateration LMS services.  S6- C. Legal Basis:  xThe proposed action is authorized under the Budget Act and in Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303(r) and 309(j).  So- D. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements: xThe Commission does not anticipate any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements  S -resulting from this FNPRM.  S"- E. Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules : xNone. "3%%,N(N(ZZ&"  S- F. Description, Potential Impact, and Number of Small Entities Involved:   S-xThe FNPRM would establish certain multilateration LMS spectrum blocks for bidding by smaller entities as well as larger entities, and would grant special provisions to certain eligible entities bidding within those blocks. The Commission is required to estimate in its Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis the number of small entities to which a rule will apply, provide a description of such entities, and assess the impact of the rule on such entities. To assist the Commission in this analysis, commenters are requested to provide information regarding how many total entities, existing  S-and potential, would be affected by the proposed rules in the FNPRM. In particular, the Commission seeks estimates of how many such entities will be considered small businesses.  SM -xGeographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation. The partitioning and disaggregation rule changes proposed in this proceeding will affect all small businesses which avail themselves of these rule changes, including small businesses currently holding multilateration LMS licenses who choose to partition and/or disaggregate and small businesses who may acquire licenses through partitioning and/or disaggregation. xThe Commission is required to estimate in its Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis the number of small entities to which a rule will apply, provide a description of such entities, and assess the impact of the rule on such entities. To assist the Commission in this analysis, commenters are requested to provide information regarding how many total entities, existing and potential, would be  S-affected by the proposed rules in the FNPRM. In particular, the Commission seeks estimates of how many such entities will be considered small businesses. As explained in the Final Regulatory  So-Flexibility Analysis for this Report and Order, the Commission is utilizing the SBA definition  SI-applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing less than 1,500 persons.oI  yO-ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification Code 4812.o The Commission seeks comment on whether this definition is appropriate for multilateration LMS licensees in this context. Additionally, the Commission requests each commenter to identify whether it is a small business under this definition. If a commenter is a subsidiary of another entity, this information should be provided for both the subsidiary and the parent corporation or entity. x The number of small entities that will be affected is unknown. New entrants could obtain multilateration LMS licenses through the competitive bidding procedure, and take the opportunity to partition and/or disaggregate a license or obtain an additional license through partitioning or disaggregation. Additionally, entities that are neither incumbent licensees nor geographic area licensees could enter the market by obtaining a multilateration LMS license through partitioning or disaggregation. The Commission cannot estimate how many licensees or potential licensees could take the opportunity to partition and/or disaggregate a license or obtain a license through partitioning and/or disaggregation, because it has not yet determined the size or number of multilateration LMS licenses that will be granted in the future. Given the fact that nearly all wireless communications companies have fewer than 1,000 employees, and that no reliable estimate of the number of future multilateration LMS licensees can be made, the Commission assumes for purposes of this IRFA that all of the licenses will be awarded to small businesses. It is possible that a significant number of the potential licensees who could take the opportunity to partition and/or disaggregate a license or who could obtain a license through partitioning and/or disaggregation will be small businesses."S$&X,N(N(ZZ%"Ԍ R-ԙ G. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities Consistent with the Stated  S-Objectives:  xWith respect to partitioning and disaggregation, the Commission tentatively concludes that unjust enrichment provisions should apply when a licensee has benefitted from the small business provisions in the auction rules and applies to partition or disaggregate a portion of the geographic license area to another entity that would not qualify for such benefits. The alternative to applying the unjust enrichment provisions would be to allow an entity who had benefitted from the special bidding provisions for small businesses to become unjustly enriched by partitioning or disaggregating a portion of their license area to parties that do not qualify for such benefits.  SI -xThe FNPRM proposes certain provisions for smaller entities designed to ensure that such entities have the opportunity to participate in the competitive bidding process and in the provision of multilateration LMS services. Any significant alternatives presented in the comments will be considered.  S -x IRFA Comments:  We request written public comment on the foregoing Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Comments must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as  S4-responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines provided in this Report and Order/Further  S-Notice of Proposed Rulemaking."',N(N(ZZ"  S-+ APPENDIX C  S-TP FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ă  S-K)Report and Orderă xAs required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  603 (RFA), the  S:-Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this Memorandum Opinion and  S-Order.  S- A. xNeed for and purpose of the action:  Sv-xThe revised rules adopted in this Memorandum Opinion and Order will enhance use of the 902928 MHz band for the Location and Monitoring Service. The revised rules will create a more stable environment for LMS licensees and will provide much needed flexibility for operators of such systems. The two changes made to the LMS rules in this item (1) change the basis for widearea licensing of LMS systems to EAs rather than MTAs, and (2) add schools, libraries and rural health care providers to the list of entities exempt from the antenna height and operating power requirements of the Part 15 safe harbor.  S8- B.xIssues raised in response to the IRFA: xNo comments were submitted in response to the IRFA.  S-   C.xDescription and number of small entities involved: xThe Commission has not adopted a definition of small business specific to LMS systems, which are defined in Section 90.7 of the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we will use the SBA's  S-definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing fewer than 1,500 persons. We anticipate that most LMS licensees will fit the definition of small business provided by the SBA. No auctions have been held for the LMS service. The Commission expects to award three licenses in each of 176 EAs or EAlike areas, for a total of 528 licenses.  S2-  D.xReporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements:  S-xThe rules adopted in this Memorandum Opinion and Order do not impose any additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.  Sl- E.xSteps taken to minimize burdens on small entities:  S -xThis Memorandum Opinion and Order concludes that the relevant geographic areas for multilateration LMS licenses should be based on U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis Economic Areas (EAs) rather than Major Trading Areas (MTAs). The record indicates that existing and planned multilateration systems better approximate an EA than the geographically larger MTA. Use of smaller geographic units could ultimately result in a more diverse group of prospective  SV$-bidders by creating more opportunities for small businesses. The Memorandum Opinion and Order also modifies the "Part 15 safe harbor" by expanding the list of entities exempt from applicable height and power restrictions, to include health care providers in rural areas, schools and libraries. In many instances, the rooftop antennas of these entities would not fit within the parameters of the safe harbor. "&(,N(N(ZZn(" The record of this proceeding indicates that such institutions use Part 15 technology as a lowcost means to connect to the Internet and other valuable online resources; this rule change would facilitate their ability to do so without raising concerns about interference to LMS providers in the same area.  S`- F.xSignificant alternatives considered and rejected:  S-xThe Memorandum Opinion and Order considers the remaining issues raised in petitions for  S-reconsideration of the Report and Order in PR Docket No. 9361 that established licensing and  S-operational rules for the Location and Monitoring Services (LMS). An Order on Reconsideration adopted in March 1996 resolved a limited set of issues relating to rights and obligations of existing  Sv-multilateration LMS licensees. This Memorandum Opinion and Order resolves the remaining issues  SP -raised by petitioners. The Memorandum Opinion and Order concludes that restrictions on the ability of multilateration LMS licensees to offer interconnected service should be maintained to minimize  S -interference between LMS and Part 15 and amateur operations. The Memorandum Opinion and Order also denies requests that antenna height and power limitations for nonmultilateration operators be either relaxed or further restricted, and denies a request that we adopt a blanket authorization procedure for extensive nonmultilateration LMS systems licensed to local government or public safety eligibles.  S-xIn addition, the Memorandum Opinion and Order denies requests to modify the "safe harbor" provisions for Part 15 devices and amateur operators, and denies requests to extend the definition of  S-the safe harbor to apply to claims of interference by nonmultilateration systems. The Memorandum  S-Opinion and Order does, however, adopt a rule provision specifically including schools, libraries and rural health care providers within the safe harbor regardless of their antenna height and operating power. The item also denies requests to change the band plan for LMS, but does conclude that multilateration LMS systems will be licensed on an EA basis rather than an MTA basis. Finally, the  S-Memorandum Opinion and Order denies requests that wideband forward links be prohibited.  S-     G.xReport to Congress: xThe Commission shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with this  S<-Memorandum Opinion and Order in a report to Congress pursuant to Section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this Regulatory Flexibility Analysis will also be published in the Federal Register.  S- "),N(N(ZZ"  S- +APPENDIX D  S-  RULE CHANGES ă Part 90 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:  S8- PART 90 PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES  S-x1. The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows: XxAUTHORITY: Secs. 4, 251-2, 303, 309, and 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 251- 2, 303, 309 and 332, unless otherwise noted.   S -x2. The heading for Subpart M of Part 90 is revised to read "Intelligent Transportation Systems Radio Service."  S-x3. Section 90.7 is amended by revising the definition for "EAbased or EA license" to read as follows:  S-  90.7 Definitions. n=* * * * * xEAbased or EA license. A license authorizing the right to use a specified block of SMR or LMS spectrum within one of the 175 Economic Areas (EAs) as defined by the Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. The EA Listings and the EA Map are available for public inspection at the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's public reference room, Room 5608, 2025 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554 and Office of OperationsGettysburg, 1270 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325. ?* * * * *  S8-x4. Section 90.155 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:  S -  90.155 Time in which station must be placed in operation. ?* * * * * x(d) Multilateration LMS systems authorized in accordance with Section 90.353 must be constructed and placed in operation within twelve (12) months from the date of grant or the authorization cancels automatically and must be returned to the Commission. EAlicensed multilateration LMS systems will be considered constructed and placed in operation if such systems"&*,N(N(ZZn(" construct a sufficient number of base stations that utilize multilateration technology (see paragraph (e) of this section) to provide multilateration location service to at least 1/3 of the counties in the EA. ?* * * * *  S-x` ` 5. Section 90.210 is amended by revising paragraph (k)(3) and adding paragraph (k)(6) to read as follows:  Sp-  90.210 Emission masks. ?* * * * * x(k) * * *  S -x(3) Other transmitters. For all other transmitters authorized under Subpart M, the peak power of any emission shall be attenuated below the power of the highest emission contained within the licensee's LMS subband in accordance with the following schedule: x(i) On any frequency within the authorized bandwidth: Zero dB; x(ii) On any frequency outside the licensee's LMS subband edges: 55+10log(P) dB where (P) is the highest emission (watts) of the transmitter inside the licensee's LMS subband. ?* * * * * x(6) The LMS subband edges for nonmultilateration systems for which emissions must be attenuated are 902.00, 904.00, 909.5 and 921.75 MHz. ?* * * * *  S*-  S-x6. Section 90.350 is revised by replacing the two occurrences of the phrase "Transportation Infrastructure Radio Service" with "Intelligent Transportation Systems Radio Service."  S -x7. Section 90.353 is amended by revising paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) and by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:  S"-  90.353 LMS operations in the 902928 MHz band. ?* * * * * x(d) Multilateration LMS systems will be authorized on a primary basis within the bands 904909.75 MHz and 921.75927.25 MHz. Additionally, multilateration and nonmultilateration systems"&+,N(N(ZZn(" will share the 919.75921.75 MHz band on a coequal basis. Licensing will be on the basis of Economic Areas (EAs) for multilateration systems, with one exclusive EA license being issued for each of these three subbands. Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, multilateration EA licensees may be authorized to operate on only one of the three multilateration bands within a given EA. Additionally, EA multilateration LMS licenses will be conditioned upon the licensee's ability to demonstrate through actual field tests that their systems do not cause unacceptable levels of interference to 47 CFR Part 15 devices. x(e) Multilateration EAlicensed systems and grandfathered AVM systems (see Section 90.363 of this Part) are authorized on a shared basis and must cooperate in the selection and use of frequencies in accordance with Section 90.173(b). x(f) Multilateration EA licensees may be authorized to operate on both the 919.75921.75 MHz and 921.75927.25 MHz bands within a given EA (see Section 90.209(b)(10) of this Part). ?* * * * * x(i) Nonmultilateration LMS licenses will be issued on a sitebysite basis, except that municipalities or other governmental operatives may file jointly for a nonmultilateration license covering a given U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis Economic Area (EA). Such an application must identify all planned sites. After receiving the license, the nonmultilateration EA licensee must notify the Commission if sites are deleted or if new sites are added, before those sites may be put into operation. ?* * * * *  S-x8. Section 90.359 is amended to read as follows:  S-  90.359 Field strength limits for EAlicensed LMS systems. xEAlicensed multilateration systems shall limit the field strength of signals transmitted from their base stations to 47 dBuV/m at their EA boundary.  S-x9. Section 90.361 is amended to read as follows:  S8-  90.361 Interference from Part 15 and Amateur operations. xOperations authorized under Parts 15 and 97 of this chapter may not cause harmful interference to LMS systems in the 902928 MHz band. These operations will not be considered to be causing harmful interference to a multilateration LMS system operating in one of the three EA subbands (see Section 90.357(a)) if they are nonvideo links operating in accordance with the provisions of Parts 15 or 97of this chapter and at least one of the following conditions are met: x(a) It is a field disturbance sensor operating under Section 15.245 of this chapter and it is not operating in the 904909.750 or 919.750928.000 MHz subbands; or"&,,N(N(ZZn("Ԍx(b) It does not employ an outdoor antenna; or x(c) If it does employ an outdoor antenna, then if: x(1) The directional gain of the antenna does not exceed 6dBi, or if the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi, it reduces its transmitter output power below 1 watt by the proportional amount that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi; and x(2) Either: x(i) The antenna is 5 meters or less in height above ground; or x(ii) The antenna is more than 5 meters in height above ground but less than or equal to 15 meters in height above ground and either: x(A) Adjusts its transmitter output power below 1 watt by 20 log (h/5) dB, where h is the height above ground of the antenna in meters; or x(B) Is providing the final link for communications of entities eligible under subpart B or C of this Part, or is providing the final link for communications of health care providers that serve rural areas, elementary schools, secondary schools or libraries.