WPCY 2BVXZ3|J (TT).7PC2XXP\  P6QXP"5^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CCCCPCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdNdoNNF2ZdCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet 5Si 8010Additional)HPLAS5SI.WRSXj\  P6G;,,,j&Z`XP2 *4D Z43|J "5^*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ*8888C8SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS8S888SAxSx]AN:*KS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}288JJS88SS8J82N8\\^C`^SS`*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZv8SJSS8]888JJ:S8A8xx*8SSSS!S8.S^8SC\228`K*824S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff8888xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 5Si 8010Additional)HPLAS5SI.WRSC\  P6Q,,,j&Z`P2CRZS Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT) y_' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&J\  P6Qg!&P#.5y.C8*X/C\  P6QP.62J=.Xg!&J\  P6Q&Pl72N=.X&N4  pQ&.8P,%XJ,\  P6QJP.9I(!X,(\  P6Q,P:{,C8*X3VC*f9 xQX0J=.X3a&J*f9 xQ&X"5^.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc.====I=\\QQQQQzzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\f\\QQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\G\fGN@.S\=Q\\\\\39\7\7==QQ\==\\=Q=7N=eegIjg\\j.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc=\Q\\=f===QQ@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\g=\Ie77=jS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\\\25ueUE"5^.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_.====I=\f\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\QQzQzQzQ\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\\fGN@.c\=\\\\\\7=\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7N=eeiIji\\j.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\i=\Ie77=jc.=7=\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\e\ffff\f"5^%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7bO=+N&27%177777"RR7!TT7R!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!N%<<>,?>77?%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,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(:822:!)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!:-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,222222272222222"5^*8FSS$88Sp*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88pppSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*8888C8SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS8S888SJxSoSAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}288]]S88SS8]82N8\\pC`pSS`*8FSS$88Sp*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88pppSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv8S]SS8S888]]:S8A8o]*ASSSS.S8.Sp8SC\228`W*824S}}}Sffffffoffff8888xoxxxxxpxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSJS2gRW"5^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic.====I=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\p\p\p\zQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\Q\z\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7N=ee|Ij|\\j.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic=\f\\=\===ff@\=G=zf.G\\\\2\=3\|=\Ie77=j`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\Q\ S' X   ) S' #&J\  P6Qg!&P#Federal Communications Commission`j(#bFCC 99203 ă   yx}dddy )0ۄ S' 0Qb Before the Federal Communications Commission  S'&2Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S4'In the Matter of #&J\  P6Qg!&P#) )  S'Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise)PR Docket No. 92235  S'the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and)  Sh'Modify the Policies Governing Them)) ) and) ) Examination of Exclusivity and Frequency) Assignment Policies of the Private Land) Mobile Services)   S 'v  FOURTH MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER \  S'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:'concurrence). UTC and API filed joint oppositions to the stay requests.lX>0 yO"' x ԍUTC/API Opposition to Motion for Expedited Stay Filed by MRFAC, Inc. (filed July 14, 1999) (Opposition);  x UTC/API Opposition to Petition for Partial Stay Filed by Forest Industries Telecommunications (filed July 16, 1999) (incorporating by reference the arguments set forth in the Opposition).l MRFAC and FIT filed">>,l(l(,,"  S'replies.0 yOh' x ԍMRFAC Reply to Opposition to Motion for Expedited Partial Stay (filed July 20, 1999) (MRFAC Reply); FIT Reply to Opposition to Petition for Partial Stay (filed July 23, 1999) (FIT Reply). In addition, fourentitiesusing former Forest Products Radio Service frequencies submitted comments supporting  S'FIT's Petition for Partial Stay and Petition for Partial Reconsideration.VX 0 yOZ' x ԍAssociated Oregon Loggers, Inc. Comments (filed July 20, 1999); Britton Lumber Company Comments (filed  x July 19, 1999); Champion Pacific Timberlands Inc. (CPTI) Comments (filed July 19, 1999); Washington Contract Loggers Association (WCLA) Comments (filed July 19, 1999).V  S4'F III. DISCUSSION ă  S'7. Although the Commission has declined to adopt a single standard for requests for injunctive relief, we generally consider four criteria: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the threat of irreparable harm absent the grant of preliminary relief, (3) the degree of injury to other  S5'parties if relief is granted, and (4) that a stay will be in the public interest."5@0 yO' x3 ԍBiennial Regulatory Review Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the  xt Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Development and Use of the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless  {O' x Telecommunications Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 9820, FCC 99129,  4 (rel. June 9, 1999). These factors are balanced on a casebycase basis; a stay may be warranted if there is a particularly strong showing as  S'to at least one of the factors, even if there is no showing regarding another.1* 0 {O'ԍId.1 MRFAC and FIT argue that their petitions for reconsideration are likely to prevail on the merits, that they will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted, that other interested parties will not be harmed by a stay, and that the public interest favors grant of a stay. We find that they have made a showing that a stay is appropriate.  S '8. Success on the merits. MRFAC and FIT contend that the Second Memorandum Opinion  Sk'and Order was unlawful in that the Commission did not provide notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, the possibility that the exception for exclusive power, petroleum, and railroad frequencies  S'would be extended to shared frequencies,S 0 yOb'ԍMRFAC Motion at 1013; FIT Petition at 67.S as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.:L 0 yO'ԍ5 U.S.C.  553.: UTC and API argue that the amendment was permissible because it was a "logical outgrowth" of the actions  S'taken in the Second Report and Order.:0 yO"'ԍOpposition at 46.: MRFAC and FIT reply that nothing prior to the Second  Sn'Memorandum Opinion and Order gave adequate notice of the rule adopted therein.Knl0 yOz$'ԍMRFAC Reply at 2; FIT Reply at 34.K  S '9. MRFAC and FIT also contend that the new requirement is arbitrary and capricious,  S'because, inter alia, MRFAC and FIT have successfully coordinated those frequencies for years with no",l(l(,,"  S'interference complaints from API, UTC, or AAR.p0 yOh'ԍMRFAC Motion at 13; MRFAC Reply at 4; FIT Petition at 8; FIT Reply at 6.p UTC and API maintain that the Second Report  S'and Order, by allowing any inpool frequency coordinator to coordinate the shared frequencies,  S'increased the potential for the licensing of incompatible systems.8 X0 yO'ԍOpposition at 7.8  S6' 10. Irreparable harm. MRFAC and FIT contend that they will be irreparably harmed if a stay is denied, because a significant portion of their frequency coordination business relates to frequencies that formerly were allocated on a shared basis to the Power, Petroleum, or Railroad Radio  S'Services.!0 yO& ' x ԍMRFAC states that nearly onethird of its coordinations relate to the shared frequencies. MRFAC Petition at 14. FIT states that most of its coordinations involve these frequencies. FIT Petition at 10. They suggest that they will lose not only this business, but also other coordination  Sk'business, for licensees will use other frequency coordinators (i.e., API and UTC) ra!ther than try to  S9'keep track of which frequencies MRFAC and FIT may coordinate, and which ones they may not.!g"9@0 yO'ԍMRFAC Motion at 1415; MRFAC Reply at 5; FIT Petition at 1011.g They also state that their customers will be harmed because API, UTC, and AAR will not make the  S'same effort to find spectrum for them that MRFAC and FIT will.u#0 {OC'ԍMRFAC Motion at 1516; FIT Petition at 11; see also WCLA Comments at 1.u Associated Oregon Loggers notes that radio systems used by the forestry industry also protect safety, and argues that preempting FIT's  Sm 'ability to coordinate modifications to existing systems could impair their effectiveness.P$m b 0 yOo'ԍAssociated Oregon Loggers Comments at 1.P  S ' 11. UTC and API respond that allegations of lost business are speculative, because the rules provide that MRFAC and FIT may still coordinate these shared frequencies if they agree with UTC,  S 'API, and AAR regarding a concurrence procedure.% 0 yO3'ԍOpposition at 8. They do not, however, propose any procedure, or any course for agreeing on one. They also point out that, even after the Second  So'Memorandum Opinion and Order, MRFAC and FIT can coordinate more frequencies than they could  S='before the Second Report and Order was adopted; and that any confusion among coordination customers already exists, since there already are frequencies that can be coordinated by UTC, API, and  S'AAR, but not MRFAC or FIT.1& 0 {O'ԍId.1  Sr' 12. Injury to other parties. MRFAC contends that no other parties will be harmed by a stay, because it demonstrated for years that it can coordinate these frequencies so as to prevent interference  S 'to power, petroleum, and railroad operations.M' 0 yO#'ԍMRFAC Motion at 16; MRFAC Reply at 4.M FIT states that the current notification scheme is  S'sufficient to prevent the authorization of potentially incompatible systems.K(0 yO&'ԍFIT Petition at 12; FIT Reply at 5.K UTC and API agree that MRFAC and FIT have caused no problems, but contend that the notification requirement is"4(,l(l(,,r" nonetheless not sufficient, and has resulted in some instances of interference to existing power and  S'petroleum operations from licensees coordinated by other frequency coordinators.8)0 yO5'ԍOpposition at 7.8  Sg' 13. Public interest. Finally, MRFAC and FIT contend that a stay will be in the public interest, because it will preserve the procompetitive benefits the Commission desired when it decided to permit all Industrial/Business frequency coordinators to coordinate all Industrial/Business frequencies, except for the exclusive power, petroleum, and railroad frequencies, and that maintaining  S'this choice will spare coordination customers confusion, delays, and added costs.*X0 {O ' x ԍMRFAC Motion at 14; FIT Petition at 11 12; see also Associated Oregon Loggers Comments at 1; Britton Lumber Company Comments at 1; CPTI Comments at 1; WCLA Comments at 2. UTC and API argue that the public interest would not be served by a stay that could increase the potential for  S6'interference to power, petroleum, or railroad radio operations.8+60 yO 'ԍOpposition at 9.8  S'D IV. CONCLUSION ă  Sj ' 14. MRFAC and FIT have raised substantial issues regarding the propriety and utility of the  S7 'rule changes adopted in the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order. It is likely that they will incur much greater harm if the rules are permitted to take effect than might accrue to UTC and API if they are stayed. We conclude, therefore, on balance, that MRFAC and FIT have shown that it is in the public interest to grant the requested stay while the Commission examines these issues, in order to permit frequency coordinators to continue coordinating frequencies they have coordinated for years, and preserve coordination customers' options. We also find that limiting the stay to certain frequency coordinators or certain frequencies would engender greater confusion than it would avoid. Therefore, we shall stay in their entirety the changes to Sections 90.35 and 90.175 of the Commission's Rules requiring that frequencies formerly allocated on a shared basis to the Power, Petroleum, or Railroad Radio Services be coordinated by UTC, API, or AAR, respectively (or, at their discretion, with their written concurrence).  S'1 V. ORDERING CLAUSE  Sn' 15. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), and Section 1.429(k) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.429(k), the Motion for Expedited Partial Stay filed by MRFAC, Inc. on July 7, 1999 and the Petition for Partial Stay filed by Forest Industries Telecommunications on July 9, 1999 ARE GRANTED, and the stay will be in effect until the  So'Commission resolves their Petitions for Reconsideration of the Second Memorandum and Order in this proceeding. ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  S>'` `  hhCq (#(#` `  hhCqMagalie Roman Salas ` `  hhCqSecretary