Narrowband Personal Communications Services

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 24

[GEN Docket No. 90-314 and ET Docket No. 92-100; FCC 94-218]

Narrowband Personal Communications Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This Second Memorandum Opinion and Order (2nd MO&O) finalizes

the service rules for the narrowband personal communications service

(PCS). This action is taken in part on the Commission's own motion and

in part in response to a petition for reconsideration of the Memorandum

Opinion and Order. The changes adopted herein are intended to improve

the fairness of the licensing process for narrowband PCS and provide

for more effective use of the narrowband PCS spectrum.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Mooring, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 653-8114.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 2nd

MO&O in GEN Docket No. 90-314 and ET Docket No. 92-100, adopted August

16, 1994, and released August 25, 1994. The complete 2nd MO&O is

available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in

the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,

D.C., and also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication

contractor, International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M

Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.

Summary of 2nd MO&O

Introduction

1. By this action, we are amending the rules concerning the

licensing of ``response channels'' in the narrowband personal

communications services (PCS). Response channels are channels that are

set aside to provide existing paging systems with two-way capability,

including acknowledgement of a page or advanced messaging capability.

Specifically, we are modifying the definition of an existing paging

licensee, the requirement that an existing paging licensee operate a

base station in the area for which it is applying for a response

channel and the rule limiting existing paging licensees to two response

channels in any given geographic area. These changes are in response to

a Petition for Reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in

this matter that was filed by the National Association of Business and

Educational Radio, Inc. (NABER).\1\ We are also modifying the

attribution standards with regard to narrowband PCS channels and

revising the Basic Trading Area (BTA) service area definition to

provide two local service areas in Puerto Rico. We believe these

changes will improve the fairness of the licensing process for

narrowband PCS and provide for more effective use of the narrowband PCS

spectrum.

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

\1\See Memorandum Opinion and Order, 59 FR 14115 (March 25,

1994). The Memorandum Opinion and Order was issued in response to

petitions for reconsideration and clarification of the First Report

and Order, 58 FR 42681 (August 11, 1993).

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

Background

2. In the First Report and Order, we allocated three megahertz of

spectrum at 900 MHz for the narrowband PCS service and adopted rules to

govern narrowband PCS operation. As part of this action, we allotted

eight 12.5 kHz wide response channels exclusively for use by existing

common carrier and private paging licensees. In the Memorandum Opinion

and Order, we designated four of the eight response channels for

licensing at the Major Trading Area (MTA) level and four for licensing

at the BTA level.\2\ We also defined an existing paging licensee as a

paging licensee authorized under Part 22 or Part 90, as of June 24,

1993, the adoption date of the First Report and Order. Additionally, we

stated that to be eligible for a response channel license, an existing

paging licensee must operate at least one base station in the MTA or

BTA for which it requests a license. Finally, we limited each licensee

to two paging response channels per geographic area.

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

\2\See Rand McNally, 1992 Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, at

pages 38-39. Rand McNally organizes the 50 States and the District

of Columbia into 47 MTAs and 487 BTAs. For PCS licensing purposes,

we adopted service areas based on the Rand McNally MTA and BTA

definitions with certain exceptions. In particular, we separated

Alaska from the Seattle MTA and added five insular areas: Puerto

Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and

American Samoa. In our rules, the insular areas are treated as five

BTA service areas and three MTA service areas, see Section 24.102 of

the Commission's Rules.

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

3. On April 25, 1994, NABER submitted a Petition for

Reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Order requesting

reconsideration and clarification of certain aspects of the eligibility

and multiple ownership rules that apply to the response channels.

Comments were filed by Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet);\3\ no reply

comments were filed.

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

\3\PageNet's comments were filed 33 days late. In a petition for

acceptance of late-filed comments, PageNet states that it did not

focus on NABER's petition until it was reviewing the proposed

auction rules for the response channels. In the interest of

considering a full record in this matter, we are accepting PageNet's

comments.

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

Discussion

Eligibility for Response Channel Licenses

4. As indicated above, we limited eligibility for acquiring

narrowband PCS response channels to existing paging licensees and

defined an existing paging licensee to be a paging licensee authorized

under Part 22 or Part 90 of our rules as of June 24, 1993. We also

required that the existing paging licensee operate at least one base

station in any MTA or BTA for which it requests a response channel.

5. In its petition, NABER requests that the eligibility requirement

to operate a base station in the service or trading area for which a

response channel is sought be changed to a requirement that the

applicant merely provide coverage within the trading area. NABER argues

that basing eligibility on the location of a transmitter instead of

coverage area could prevent operators from obtaining response channels.

It states that the coverage provided by a single base station may

include more than one BTA and that thus, under the adopted rules, the

operator would not be eligible for response channels in all of the BTAs

in which it provides conventional one-way paging services. NABER

recommends that we allow paging licensees to apply for response

channels in trading areas that are within 25 miles of the geographic

coordinates of any base station licensed as of May 10, 1994, the

release date of the Third Report and Order in PP Docket No. 93-253 59

FR 26741, May 24, 1994.\4\

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

\4\This recommendation was submitted by NABER in an ex parte

presentation to the Commission's staff on June 29, 1994.

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

6. NABER also requests that we clarify whether the June 24, 1993,

date for determining whether an entity is an existing paging licensee

is applicable in determining the area of operation for license

eligibility purposes. It notes that an existing carrier, initially

licensed as of June 24, 1993, may have expanded or constructed its

system into adjacent areas after June 24, 1993. NABER contends that

such a carrier should be able to include its current coverage area for

purposes of obtaining response channels so as to make its entire system

compatible and competitive even though parts of it were constructed or

put into operation after June 24, 1993.

7. PageNet, in its comments, generally supports the rule

modifications suggested by NABER. In addition, PageNet requests that

the rule limiting applicants to only Part 22 and Part 90 licensees as

of June 24, 1993, be eliminated or modified. It argues that this

restriction is not needed to prevent speculative or frivolous

applications under an auction regime and that the ability to improve

service should not be arbitrarily restricted to those that were

licensees on a certain date. PageNet requests that the rules be

modified to permit applications for response channels by any licensee

operating a system serving at least some portion of the market on the

date the application is filed.

8. Our decision to license the response channels on an MTA and BTA

basis and to require operation of a base station transmitter in the

service area was intended to facilitate our licensing process and

provide a simple method for determining mutually exclusive

applications. Existing paging stations are currently licensed on a

mileage separation basis rather than an MTA and BTA basis. We concur

with the parties that there are advantages to basing eligibility on the

coverage area of existing base stations. As noted by NABER, a single

base station may often cover more than one BTA. We therefore find that

a coverage area standard for response channel eligibility would better

conform with the service needs of existing paging operations.

Accordingly, we are amending our rules to permit licensees to obtain

response channels sufficient to upgrade existing paging systems over

their entire coverage area.

9. We also believe that a simple ``brightline'' test is needed for

determining the coverage area of existing paging systems in order to

facilitate the licensing of response channels. In considering this

issue, we note that while existing paging operations include several

classes of operations with varying service radii, a 20-mile (32.2

kilometer) radius of reliable service is typical of paging operations.

We therefore believe that a 20-mile service radius would better reflect

the service areas of most existing paging operations than the 25-mile

standard suggested by NABER. At the same time, we recognize that, as

specified in our rules, some paging operations have service areas

larger than 20 or 25 miles. Accordingly, we will consider the service

radius of a paging transmitter to be 20 miles for purposes of

determining eligibility for response channel licenses, except that for

certain classes of high-powered paging stations we will use a graduated

series of wider service radii specified in our paging rules.\5\ This

standard will establish a clear and concise test for all applicants and

minimize the administrative burden on our resources. Existing paging

licensees will be eligible for response channels in any BTA or MTA that

encompasses an authorized base station or which is partly or wholly

overlapped by the paging system's service area as defined above.

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

\5\In the case of ``F,'' ``G,'' ``H,'' or ``K'' class paging

stations under both Sections 22.502(c) and 90.495(b)(1) of our

rules, the service area for purposes of response channel eligibility

will be defined by the service area radius specified in Section

22.504(b)(2).

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

10. We also find merit in NABER's request to allow existing

licensees that expand their service areas after June 24, 1993, to be

eligible for response channels in the expanded service areas. This

request is consistent with our decision to provide opportunities for

upgrading existing paging operations. We further agree with PageNet

that any licensee operating a system that serves some portion of a

market should be eligible to apply for response channels in that

market, regardless of whether the licensee was operating before June

24, 1993. In this regard, we see no reason why operators of existing

systems that have been expanded into adjacent trading areas after June

24, 1993, should be entitled to bid for response channels in newly

served areas while operators of new systems authorized after that date

should be barred from bidding for those channels. We therefore conclude

that, as a matter of equity, the eligibility criterion should be

modified to permit any paging licensee to apply for the response

channels in a market, so long as the licensee's system serves some

portion of that market on the date the application is filed. In

particular, we note that on October 21, 1993, we adopted amendments to

our private paging rules that resulted in the issuance of substantial

numbers of new licensees for conventional paging. We find that

licensees of both expanded systems and new systems authorized after

June 24, 1993, should have an opportunity to purchase the response

channels. Accordingly, we are amending the eligibility requirements for

holding narrowband PCS response channels as follows. Existing paging

licensees will be defined as paging licensees authorized under Part 22

or Part 90 of our Rules as of the deadline for filing applications to

participate in the competitive bidding for the paging response

channels.\6\ This application filing deadline will be established in a

public notice.

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

\6\Mercury Communications, Inc. (Mercury) filed a petition for

clarification of the Third Report and Order in the competitive

bidding proceeding (PP Docket No. 93-253) requesting that the June

24, 1993 date apply only to the initial auction and that this date

not apply should response channels remain available following the

initial auction. Mercury states that it is an applicant to provide

private carrier paging service at numerous locations in the New York

City metropolitan area, but was not authorized in that area as of

June 24, 1993. Mercury argues that it would not serve the public

interest to forever preclude companies not authorized as of June 24,

1993 because paging is a dynamic, evolving industry. We believe that

the revised rules we are adopting herein will remedy the inequity to

which Mercury refers.

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

Acquisition of Multiple Response Channels

11. In the Memorandum Opinion and Order, we limited existing paging

licensees to acquisition of two response channels in a given geographic

area. Our intent in imposing this limit was to allow an opportunity for

at least four existing paging licensees to upgrade their operations.

NABER agrees that the two channel limit is useful as it relates to the

initial auctioning of frequencies and that it should serve as a

protective measure against the hoarding of response channels by a few

carriers. NABER is concerned, however, that this rule could interfere

with the orderly operation of the marketplace if maintained on a long

term basis. It states that when paging licensees merge or are acquired,

the response channels used with their systems should be transferred as

an integral part of the new system. Such transfers would not be

permitted under the current rules if the acquiring operator would end

up with more than two response channels in a particular service area.

NABER recommends that we modify the two channel limit to provide that,

under certain conditions, existing paging licensees would not be

subject to a limit on the number of response channels they could

acquire at any time after the initial grants of the licenses for those

channels are final.\7\ Under NABER's proposal, aggregation of response

channels would be limited to parties that acquire the channels as part

of an existing system or to supplement their own existing system. It

suggests that approval for such acquisitions be conditioned on a review

by the Commission to ensure that the purpose of the rule would not be

violated and that this scrutiny be relaxed after one year.

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

\7\This description of NABER's recommendation includes

clarifications that were submitted in its ex parte presentation to

the Commission's staff on June 29, 1994. NABER had initially

suggested that this problem be resolved by providing for waivers of

the rule or by establishing a sunset date after which the rule would

be automatically eliminated.

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

12. Our purpose in adopting the two-channel limit was to ensure

that at least four existing paging licensees will have the opportunity

to upgrade their one-way services. We now believe that once the

existing paging licensees have had an opportunity to obtain response

channels and the competitive structure of narrowband PCS markets have

taken form, it will not be necessary to limit the number of response

channels a paging licensee may hold.\8\ We agree with NABER that in

cases where paging systems are merged or acquired, the seller should be

permitted to transfer the response channels as well. At that point, the

response channels would be integral to the individual systems that are

merged, and we see no reason to require that they be divested. We also

agree with NABER that eliminating the rule immediately after the

initial licensing auction could encourage frivolous bidding in the

auction process. We therefore find that NABER's initial suggestion for

providing a sunset period is reasonable, and believe that a period of

two years will be sufficient to discourage such speculation.

Accordingly, we are amending the rules to provide that the two response

channel per market limit will expire two years after the date of

initial license grant. We believe that this sunset provision addresses

NABER's concerns and that additional scrutiny by the Commission of

response channel acquisitions would impose an unnecessary

administrative burden.

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

\8\We do not believe that it is necessary to maintain the two

channel limit in order to ensure a competitive market for narrowband

PCS services in the long run. In this regard we note that our rules

provide for twenty-one 50 kHz based narrowband PCS licenses with

associated response channels at any geographic point. Nine of these

response channels are 50 kHz (five nationwide, two regional, and two

MTA channels) and twelve are 12.5 kHz (three nationwide, four

regional, three MTA, and two BTA channels). Thus, existing paging

licensees that operate narrowband PCS services using response

channels will compete with other narrowband PCS licensees in each

area.

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

Ownership Attribution

13. The narrowband PCS rules provide that licensees shall not have

an ownership interest in more than three narrowband PCS channels in any

geographic area. The rules further provide that, for the purpose of

this restriction, a licensee is any person or entity with an ownership

interest of five or more percent in an entity holding a narrowband PCS

license.\9\ On our own motion, we reconsider this attribution

requirement as it applies to indirect ownership of narrowband PCS

licenses. In cases where a party has indirect ownership, through an

interest in an intervening corporation or partnership that has less

than a controlling ownership in a narrowband PCS license, we consider

whether to apply a ``multiplier'' to determine the effective ownership

interest of that party. A multiplier is currently used in our

attribution rules for broadcast licenses, and has recently been adopted

for broadband PCS licenses, by multiplying together each non-majority,

non-controlling interest in a license to determine the effective

ownership interest of a party whose interest is held through

intervening entities. For example, if Party X owns a 25-percent non-

controlling interest in Corporation Y that holds a 10-percent non-

controlling interest in Licensee Z, Party X would be deemed to have a

2.5-percent effective ownership interest in Licensee Z. Use of a

multiplier allows the Commission to accurately take account of a

party's ``actual involvement with the ultimate licensee'' as well as

the party's ability to exert control over that licensee.

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

\9\As we have stated in addressing interests acquired at

auction, where common non-controlling ownership exists between two

or more bidders and such bidders cumulatively obtain more licenses

than permitted, we permit divestiture of non-controlling interests

to bring the entities into compliance if completed within 90 days of

license grant. Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking, PP Docket No. 93-253, GEN Docket No. 90-314,

and ET Docket No. 92-100, FCC 94-219 at 29 (adopted August 16,

1994). Further, both investors and corporate licensees have a

continuing obligation to be vigilant in monitoring relevant holdings

to ensure compliance.

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

14. In the Memorandum Opinion and Order, we adopted a flat five

percent attribution rule for any party that has any ownership interest

in an entity holding a narrowband PCS license to ensure that no person

or entity is able to exert undue market power through partial ownership

in multiple narrowband PCS licensees in a single service area. We did

not specify that both direct and indirect interests in a narrowband PCS

licensee were attributable. Compare Section 24.204 (a), (d)(2)(viii) of

the Commission's Rules. On reconsideration, we conclude that

consideration of indirect ownership interests, through the use of a

multiplier in future application proceedings,\10\ will better

facilitate a competitive narrowband PCS market. Under our prior rule, a

party that has an ownership interest in a company that has a non-

controlling ownership interest in a narrowband PCS licensee would be

permitted to acquire an attributable ownership interest in three

additional narrowband PCS licensees in the same area. For example, if

Party A has a 40-percent non-controlling ownership interest in Company

B, which in turn has a 40-percent non-controlling ownership interest in

Narrowband PCS Licensee C, Party A (having only an indirect interest in

Licensee C) would, under this rule, be permitted to acquire an

attributable ownership interest in Narrowband PCS Licensees D, E, and F

in the same area. By contrast, when considering its indirect ownership

interest under the multiplier approach, Party A would be deemed to have

a 16-percent effective ownership interest in Narrowband PCS Licensee C,

well in excess of our five percent limitation, and would therefore be

permitted to have an attributable ownership interest in only two

additional narrowband PCS licensees in the same area.

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

\10\The multiplier rule will not be applied to Mobile

Telecommunication Technologies Corporation's pioneer's preference

license for a nationwide channel, or to the other ten nationwide

channels that already have been auctioned. We do not believe that it

would be equitable to apply this new rule retroactively.

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

15. We also find that using a multiplier to calculate the effective

indirect ownership interest will better promote a competitive

narrowband PCS market than attributing to a party in full the ownership

interest of an intervening company in a narrowband PCS licensee. This

approach would likely exclude parties that pose no threat to

competition and prevent a party that has neither the ability to exert

control nor a substantial financial stake in a narrowband PCS licensee

from acquiring an attributable ownership interest in more than two

additional narrowband PCS licensees in the same area. In the example in

paragraph 13, supra, Corporation Y's 10 percent non-controlling

interest in Licensee Z would be deemed in excess of the five percent

threshold applicable to narrowband PCS ownership. Thus, Party X, which

has a 25-percent non-controlling interest in Corporation Y, would be

restricted to acquiring an attributable ownership interest in only two

additional narrowband PCS licensees in the same area despite its

inability to exert control or significant influence over the operations

of Licensee Z. By contrast, use of a multiplier produces an effective

ownership interest of only 2.5 percent by Party X in Licensee Z,

permitting Party X to acquire an attributable ownership interest in

three additional narrowband PCS licensees in the same area.

16. Considerations of true economic interest in, and ability to

control, a licensee are crucial in determining whether a particular

indirect ownership interest could affect the degree of competition in a

market and therefore should be attributed to the holder for purposes of

our multiple ownership rules. These considerations apply equally in the

broadband and narrowband PCS contexts. Accordingly, a multiplier

similar to that used in applying our attribution rules in broadband PCS

will be used to determine effective ownership interests in narrowband

PCS licensing. We therefore will amend Section 24.101 of our rules to

include the use of a multiplier to determine whether an entity holding

an indirect non-controlling interest in a narrowband PCS licensee has

an attributable interest for the purpose of our multiple ownership

rules. As in our broadcast and broadband PCS rules, where an entity's

ownership interest in any link in the ownership chain is greater than

50 percent or is controlling, the interest will be treated as if it

were 100 percent for the purposes of applying the multiplier.

Local Service Areas in Puerto Rico

17. In response to a suggestion by Pegasus Communications, Inc.

(Pegasus) in the recent broadband PCS proceeding, we are revisiting the

local service area adopted for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. We

currently treat Puerto Rico as a BTA for narrowband PCS licensing

purposes. In the broadband PCS proceeding, Pegasus requested that we

divide the Puerto Rico service area into two local service areas and

suggested that we likewise establish two BTA-like service areas in

Puerto Rico for the narrowband PCS service. Pegasus argued that due to

the size and mountainous terrain of the island, Puerto Rico essentially

is split in half, comprising two commercial centers: San Juan and

Mayaguez-Ponce. Pegasus stated that these mountains make travel to San

Juan difficult for Puerto Ricans located in the southern and western

portions of the island, and therefore they must conduct essentially all

commerce in the port cities of Mayaguez, Aguadilla, or Ponce. Pegasus

also stated that the population of its proposed Mayaguez/Aguadilla-

Ponce service area is more than one million and this area would be

larger in population than several of the existing BTAs. Pegasus

provided a list of municipios that it suggests constitute the Mayaguez/

Aguadilla-Ponce service area and suggested that the San Juan service

area consist of all municipios not listed for the Mayaguez/Aguadilla-

Ponce BTA-like service area.\11\ No party responded to this petition.

In our Memorandum Opinion and Order on broadband PCS, we adopted

Pegasus's suggestion and provided two separate service areas in Puerto

Rico, one for Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce and one for San Juan. This

change recognized the difficulties created by the mountain range

separating these two areas. We also stated that no parties opposed this

request\12\ and that we found this adjustment to be in the public

interest.

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

\11\The primary political divisions of Puerto Rico are termed

``municipios.''

\12\We note, however, that Puerto Rico Telephone Company has

filed a petition for reconsideration of the broadband PCS Memorandum

Opinion and Order, in which it requests that we reconsider our

decision to divide Puerto Rico into two BTAs.

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

18. We agree with Pegasus that it is desirable to modify the Puerto

Rico narrowband PCS service area to specify two BTA-like service areas

in the same manner as our action in the broadband PCS proceeding. The

1990 census for Puerto Rico is 3,522,037. The population of the new

Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce service area is 1,048,473 and the population

of the new San Juan service area is 2,473,564. Only 49 of the remaining

491 BTAs have a population of greater than 1,048,473 and only 18 BTAs

have a population greater than 2,473,564. We find that the population

of each of these service areas is sufficient to support advanced

narrowband PCS services.\13\ Additionally, we conclude that the

patterns of local trade caused by the mountainous terrain of the island

make the proposed division economically and geographically desirable.

Accordingly, we are providing two BTA-like service areas in Puerto Rico

for narrowband PCS service. This modification will apply to all BTA

channels in the narrowband PCS service, i.e., both the eight paging

response channels and the two 50 kHz paired with 12.5 kHz channels.

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

\13\We note that Puerto Rico is licensed as five Metropolitan

Statistical Areas (MSAs) and seven Rural Service Areas (RSAs) in the

Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service.

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

Ordering Clauses

19. Accordingly, it is ordered, That Part 24 of the Commission's

Rules is amended as specified below, effective 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register.

20. It is further ordered, That the Petition for Reconsideration

filed by the Association of Private Carrier Paging Section of the

National Association of Business and Educational Radio, Inc. is granted

to the extent discussed above. It is further ordered, That the Petition

for Acceptance of Late-filed Comments by Paging Network, Inc. is

granted.

21. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 302,

303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i) 157(a), 302, 303(c), 303(f),

303(g), and 303(r).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 24

Personal communications service, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Amendatory Text

Part 24 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 24--PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

1. The authority citation in Part 24 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 309, and 332, unless

otherwise noted.

2. Section 24.101 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 24.101 Multiple ownership restrictions.

(a) Narrowband PCS licensees shall not have an ownership interest

in more than three of the 26 channels listed in Section 24.129 in any

geographic area. For the purpose of this restriction, a narrowband PCS

licensee is any person or entity with an ownership interest of five or

more percent in a narrowband PCS license.

(b) In cases where a party applies for a license after August 16,

1994 or has a license transferred to it after that date, and the party

has indirect ownership, through an interest in an intervening entity

(or entities) that has ownership in the narrowband PCS license, that

indirect ownership shall be attributable if the percentages of

ownership at each level, multiplied together, equal five or more

percent ownership of the narrowband PCS license, except that if the

ownership percentage for an interest in any link in the chain exceeds

50 percent or represents actual control, it shall be treated as if it

were a 100 percent interest.

Example: Party X has a non-controlling ownership interest of 25

percent in Company Y, which in turn has a non-controlling ownership

interest of 10 percent in Company Z, the narrowband PCS licensee.

Party X's effective ownership interest in Company Z is Party X's

ownership interest in Company Y (25 percent) times Company Y's

ownership interest in Company Z (10 percent). Therefore, Party X's

effective ownership interest in Company Z is 2.5 percent, and is not

attributable.

3. Section 24.102 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as

follows:

Sec. 24.102 Service areas.

* * * * *

(d) The BTA service areas are based on the Rand McNally 1992

Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, 123rd Edition, at pages 38-39, with

the following additions licensed separately as BTA-like areas: American

Samoa; Guam; Northern Mariana Islands; Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce, Puerto

Rico; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and the United States Virgin Islands. The

Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce BTA-like service area consists of the

following municipios: Adjuntas, Aguada, Aguadilla, Anasco, Arroyo, Cabo

Rojo, Coamo, Guanica, Guayama, Guayanilla, Hormigueros, Isabela,

Jayuya, Juana Diaz, Lajas, Las Marias, Maricao, Maunabo, Mayaguez,

Moca, Patillas, Penuelas, Ponce, Quebradillas, Rincon, Sabana Grande,

Salinas, San German, Santa Isabel, Villalba, and Yauco. The San Juan

BTA-like service area consists of all other municipios in Puerto Rico.

4. Paragraph (a) of Section 24.130 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 24.130 Paging response channels.

(a) The channels listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section

are available to licensees of conventional one-way paging base stations

licensed pursuant to Part 22 or Part 90 of this chapter as of the

application filing deadline for the paging response channels.

Eligibility for response channels shall be based on the authorized

service area of each existing paging licensee. This service area is

defined as the area within a 32.2 kilometer radius of the licensee's

base stations or, in the case of ``F,'' ``G,'' ``H,'' or ``K'' class

stations under Sections 22.502(c) and 90.495(b)(1) of this chapter, as

the area that is within the service area radius specified in Section

22.504(b)(2) of this chapter. Existing paging licensees are eligible to

bid for any response channel in any BTA or MTA which encompasses an

authorized base station or which is partly or wholly overlapped by a

licensee's service area. These channels shall be used only in paired

communications with existing paging channels to provide mobile-to-base

station communications. Until two years after the date of initial

license grant, eligible paging licensees are limited to a maximum of

two response channels within the same geographic area. Licenses for

paging response channels are not counted toward the multiple ownership

restrictions of Section 24.101.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 94-21844 Filed 9-6-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M