********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
 Before the
               Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of

Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise
)
PR Docket No. 92-235
the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and
)
Modify the Policies Governing Them
)

and
)
)
Examination of Exclusivity and Frequency
)
Assignment Policies of the Private Land
)
Mobile Services
)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)



PR Docket No. 92-235

                                
               SIXTH MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted:  May 22, 2001                            Released: May 25, 2001 

By the Commission

                      I.INTRODUCTION
1.     This Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses two substantially identical Further
Petitions for Clarification and/or Reconsideration filed by the Alarm Industry Communications Committee of
the Central Station Alarm Association (AICC) and by the law firm of Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy
and Prendergrast. (Blooston).  The two parties will be referred to collectively herein as Petitioners.  For the
reasons stated below, we dismiss that portion of the petitions seeking reconsideration but address the concerns
expressed by Petitioners by holding that Section 90.261 of the Commission's Rules is inapplicable to low
power central station alarm facilities operating under Section 90.267 of the Commission's Rules.
                       II.BACKGROUND
3.     In the Refarming Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission deleted that portion
of Section 90.267(a)(3) of its Rules which provided that: "[low power stations] will be licensed as mobile, but
may serve the functions of base, fixed or mobile relay stations."  In 1999, AICC and Blooston each filed a
Petition for Clarification and/or Reconsideration of the Refarming Second Memorandum Opinion and Order. 
The sole concern expressed in these 1999 petitions was that the removal of the quoted language could be
interpreted to require "alarm companies operating on exclusive alarm monitoring channels to furnish
geographical coordinates of all low power customer transmitters on their system . . ."  Subsequently, in the
Refarming Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission responded to these 1999 petitions by
disclaiming any intention to require the filing of such coordinates for low power facilities operating under
Section 90.267 of the Commission's Rules.  Furthermore, the Commission pointed out that the Rules already
exempted central alarm station applicants from supplying the geographical coordinates of all transmitters in
a system.  Instead, the Commission noted that such stations could "be licensed on an area basis whereby a
licensee need only specify the coordinates of the center of an operating area and a radius extending from that
center that defines a circle corresponding to the licensee's operating area."
4.     In the 1999 petitions, Petitioners did not express, as they do in the instant petitions, a concern
that, as a consequence of the deleted language supra, "these [alarm] stations would be demoted to secondary
status, and thus not protected from interference."  The express basis of Petitioners' new concern in that
regard is a June 26, 2000, letter from the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division (Division) of the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau concerning automatic meter reading systems. The Division said that
the transmitters of meter reading systems could be licensed on an area basis and that "such licensing now
would be classified as fixed rather than mobile."  Because of the letter's reference to automatic meter reading
stations as "fixed," the Petitioners assert that "it could be argued that [fixed alarm] stations fall under the
rubric of Section 90.261(a) of the Commission's Rules which states: 'Frequencies in the 450-470 MHz band
as listed in  90.20(c)(3) and  90.35(b)(3) may be assigned to all eligibles for fixed use on a secondary basis
to land mobile operations.'"
                       V.DISCUSSION
6.     As an initial matter, we note that Petitioners' arguments regarding the supposed secondary status
of central station alarm stations are untimely.  The arguments clearly rest on the content of the June 26, 2000,
Hexagram Letter appended to their instant petitions and not on the Refarming Fifth MO&O which said
nothing about the primary or secondary status of central station alarm facilities. Any petition for
reconsideration of the June 26, 2000, Hexagram Letter was due no later than 30 days from the date of the
letter, i.e. on July 26, 2000. Petitioners filed their instant petitions on March 7, 2001   eight months later  
and raised, for the first time, the issue of the primary or secondary status of fixed low power alarm stations.
Accordingly, the Petitioner's instant petitions, considered as petitions for reconsideration, are dismissed
herein.
7.     However, we will provide a clarification addressing the heart of Petitioners' concern that there has
been a regulatory change resulting in the classification of central station alarm stations operating under
Section 90.267 of the Commission's Rules.  In so doing, we are treating Petitioners' papers as what they are
in substance:  requests to clarify the applicability vel non of Section 90.261 of the Rules to low power central
station alarm stations.
8.     Section 90.261 is a separate rule section, distinct from Section 90.267, which allows fixed
operations in the 450-470 MHz band at power substantially greater than two watts under certain conditions. 
Entities operating in the fixed mode under Section 90.267 are not subject to the conditions specified under
Section 90.261 and vice-versa.  Moreover, central station alarm frequencies are inherently "primary" relative
to other services because they are limited to alarm-related use by Sections 90.35(c)(63), 90.35(c)(64) and
90.35(c)(66) of the Commission's Rules. Section 90.35(c)(64) provides, in pertinent part, that fixed use of the
central station alarm frequencies is secondary only to base/mobile operations of central station alarm stations. 
Hence, it is Section 90.35   which makes specific reference to fixed use of central station alarm frequencies
  and Section 90.267 which makes a similar reference   that determine the status of such central station
alarm stations.  Petitioners' concern that Section 90.261 of the Commission's Rules renders fixed central
station alarm stations secondary relative to stations other than central alarm station base/mobile operations is
therefore unwarranted. 
                       IX.Conclusion
10.    As noted supra, the AICC Further Petition and the Blooston Further Petition   to the extent they
sought reconsideration of the June 26, 2000, letter   were untimely and are appropriately dismissed.  Treating
the pleadings as requests for clarification, the precise relief sought by Blooston and AICC cannot logically be
granted because Petitioners seek a "clarification that the protection of the original rule is restored." As
explained supra, such "protection" was never lost because deletion of the phrase "and will be licensed as
mobile, but may serve the functions of base, fixed or mobile relay stations" never operated to render such
stations secondary.  However, we are here clarifying that Section 90.261 of the Commission's Rules does not
apply to central station alarm stations and trust that this clarification will relieve Petitioners' apprehension
that the Commission may have relegated such stations to secondary status. 
                   XI.PROCEDURAL MATTERS
          A.   ORDERING CLAUSES
1.     In view of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority conferred by Sections 4(i), 303(r) and 405
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303(r) and 405, and pursuant to
Section 1.429(i) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.429(i):
2.     IT IS ORDERED that the Further Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification filed by
Blooston, to the extent it constitutes a petition for reconsideration, IS DISMISSED.
3.     IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Further Petition for Clarification and/or Reconsideration
filed by AICC, to the extent it constitutes a petition for reconsideration, IS DISMISSED.
4.     IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Further Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification
filed by Blooston, to the extent it constitutes a request for clarification, IS GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS.
5.     IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Further Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification
filed by AICC, to the extent it constitutes a request for clarification, IS GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         
                         
                              Magalie Roman Salas
                         Secretary