**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | RM-10019                     |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Amendment of Part 95, Subpart B, | ** |                              |
| Family                           |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Radio Service Rules              | *) |                              |
| Establishment of Channel 1       | ** |                              |
| (462.5625 MHz) as a National     |    |                              |
| Calling Channel                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Petition to Better Facilitate    | ** |                              |
| Communications Involving         |    |                              |
| Personal Safety, Traveler's      | *  |                              |
| Assistance, and Emergency        | *) |                              |
| Communications, and to Enhance   | ** |                              |
| the Functionality of the Family  |    |                              |
| Radio Service                    | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
|                                  |    |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: December 5, 2001 Released: December 7, 2001**

By the Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  Number range level0Number range level1Number range level2Number
    range level3Number range level4Number range level5Number range
    level6Number range level7A petition requesting changes to the Family
    Radio Service (FRS) rules has been received from Alan Dixon and
    Robert K. Leef (Petitioners).[^1] The petitioners request that the
    Commission establish a single national calling channel in the FRS.
    Also, they request adoption of a requirement for manufacturers to
    include certain additional features in FRS units. For the reasons
    discussed below, we find that the petition does not warrant the
    issuance of a *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*. Therefore, we deny
    the petition.

# DISCUSSION

2.  *Background*. In 1996, the Commission established the FRS as a very
    short range, two-way voice personal radio service.[^2] The *Report
    and Order* established the FRS primarily on the basis that it would
    fill a market niche in very short-distance, personal communications
    needs.[^3] It was envisioned that the FRS would provide an
    affordable and convenient means of direct, very short-range two-way
    voice communications among small groups of persons, with minimal
    regulation.[^4] Because the FRS is intended to meet the needs of
    families and other small groups to communicate with each other while
    they are out of speaking distance or sight, but still within close
    range, non-voice emission types, except tones transmitted to
    establish or continue voice communications, were not authorized.[^5]
    FRS units were authorized to transmit one-way communications to send
    an emergency message because the communication needs of families and
    other small groups could reasonably be expected to include safety-
    or emergency-type messages, especially when group members find
    themselves inadvertently out of speaking distance or sight of other
    group members.[^6]

3.  The Commission noted that because the universe of potential users of
    the FRS is the American public, it believed administration of the
    FRS should be accomplished primarily through establishing
    transmitter technical standards rather than complex operating
    rules.[^7] It stated that its primary objectives in setting
    technical standards were to ensure (1) that FRS units do not cause
    interference to other services and (2) that large numbers of users
    can share the same channels in the same or adjoining neighborhoods
    or other areas.[^8] The Commission also considered whether, as a
    transmitter technical standard, it should require manufactures to
    include certain features in FRS units that are options on other
    consumer communication devices.[^9] Specifically, it decided that it
    would not require suppliers to incorporate selective calling
    capability in FRS units.[^10] It stated its belief that suppliers
    would incorporate features that FRS users demand as the market for
    FRS developed.[^11] The final rules, therefore, allowed a
    manufacturer the option to provide a selective calling capability
    feature if and when it desired, and to use the technology the
    manufacturer decided was most appropriate.[^12]

4.  On reconsideration, the Commission again considered a request that
    it require FRS units to include certain features, including a
    time-out timer that disables the transmitter after a certain number
    of consecutive seconds of transmitting, circuitry so that an FRS
    unit cannot transmit when the receiver is muted, and circuitry that
    prevents FRS units from being powered from anything other than an
    integral battery.[^13] The Commission noted that manufacturers had
    flexibility under the then-current rules to incorporate a time-out
    timer in their products if they wished,[^14] and that a rule
    prohibiting manufacturers from designing FRS units that can be
    powered from external power sources such as automobile batteries or
    household battery eliminator devices is unenforceable and
    inconsistent with the Commission's desire to allow manufacturers to
    incorporate features FRS users demand.[^15]

5.  On October 24, 2000, the Petitioners filed their petition requesting
    that the Commission establish FRS Channel 1 (462.5625 MHz)[^16] as a
    universally recognized common calling or distress channel for all
    areas within the jurisdiction of the FCC.[^17] The Petition also
    requests amendment of the FRS rules to specify default
    carrier-operated squelch[^18] as the proper operating technique for
    those stations wishing to monitor FRS Channel 1 for calls from any
    other FRS station,[^19] and standard Frequency Modulated (FM) F3E
    voice modulation,[^20] free of any digital vocoding,[^21]
    encryption, or speech scrambling technique, as the proper operating
    mode for those stations wishing to initiate contact on FRS Channel 1
    to other FRS stations.[^22]

6.  In support of this request, Petitioners state that their proposed
    rule changes would impose no measurable burden on any party
    concerned[^23] and that the designation of a particular channel[^24]
    to be used as an FRS calling channel does not preempt other
    heretofore permissible uses of the channel.[^25] Petitioners also
    state that FRS has never had a universally recognized calling or
    distress channel,[^26] and that a single national FRS calling
    channel will enable FRS stations not in distress to quickly
    establish communications with other nearby FRS stations for ordinary
    communications.[^27] Petitioners believe that situations will occur
    in which an FRS user is in an emergency situation in which the
    user's only immediate means of communications is an FRS radio,[^28]
    and that designating a common calling channel and standard emissions
    would enable rapid emergency contact for all FRS users with no
    retrofit or obsolescence of existing multi-channel FRS radios.[^29]
    Petitioners also state that future design and manufacture of FRS
    radios with Channel 1 as a priority scan channel will open new
    equipment marketing opportunities. [^30]

7.  *Decision*. The fundamental requests in this petition are that the
    Commission (1) establish by rule a calling channel in the FRS so
    that FRS units can quickly establish ordinary communications with
    other nearby FRS units, and (2) require manufactures to include
    specific features, standards, or operational capabilities[^31] in
    the design of FRS units so that FRS Channel 1 would become a *de
    facto* universally recognized calling channel as new FRS units are
    purchased. As noted above, the Commission previously considered
    whether, as a transmitter technical standard, to require
    manufactures to include certain specific features in FRS units. We
    disagree with the petitioners that additional FRS transmitter
    technical or operational rules are needed.

8.  The petition has not established that the current technical rules
    are inadequate in some way or that the purpose of transmitter
    technical standards is not being met. In short, we do not believe
    that the petitioners have shown that FRS units have been causing
    interference to other services or that large numbers of users can
    not share the FRS channels. Likewise, the petition provides no
    evidence that users of FRS units have experienced any difficulty
    establishing communications with other FRS units with which the user
    desires to communicate. In this regard, it appears to us that
    consumers have readily accepted FRS, bought a significant number of
    FRS units, and found that FRS meets their very short-distance
    communication needs. We note that the sole basis for requesting a
    universally recognized calling channel is that FRS has never had
    such a channel. While this statement is true, we believe that such a
    channel in the FRS is unnecessary given that FRS is intended to be
    used by small groups of persons and that the transmissions from FRS
    units would be receivable only over a very small area. For these
    reasons, we do not believe that establishing FRS Channel 1 as a
    universally recognized common calling channel is necessary or
    consistent with the purpose of the FRS.

9.  With regard to specifying the use of default carrier-operated
    squelch as the proper operating technique for stations monitoring
    FRS Channel 1 for calls from any other FRS station, we decline to
    recognize any particular operating technique as the proper operating
    technique in the FRS. We believe that such a rule would be
    inconsistent with the Commission's previous decision that
    administration of the FRS should be accomplished primarily through
    establishing transmitter technical standards rather than complex
    operating rules. Rather, we believe that the decision not to specify
    detailed or complex operating rules given the type of communications
    for which FRS typically is used, *i.e.*, very short-range two-way
    voice personal communications among small groups of persons in
    reasonably close proximity to each other,[^32] is consistent with
    the public interest. With regard to the petitioner's claim that
    designating FRS Channel 1 as a calling channel would enable General
    Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) stations to monitor for and respond to
    FRS distress calls,[^33] we note that there is nothing in the
    petition or the record that indicates that lack of a designated FRS
    calling channel has hampered in any way communications between GMRS
    stations and FRS units.[^34] Moreover, as we understand it, one of
    the primary reasons an individual obtains a GMRS system license is
    that this license authorizes transmissions on GMRS channels[^35]
    that are input channels to repeater stations.[^36] We note that
    these GMRS channels are unavailable to the FRS and therefore, we do
    not believe that GMRS stations are likely to be monitoring FRS
    channels for distress calls.

10. Petitioners request that the Commission adopt channelization rules
    in the FRS for calling and distress communications that appear
    similar to the channelization rules and procedures in place for the
    Maritime Services[^37] and the Citizens Band (CB) Radio
    Service.[^38] Such a system is appropriate for the Maritime Services
    because the "core purpose" of the Maritime Services is to promote
    the safety of life and property at sea.[^39] Likewise, such a system
    is appropriate for the CB Radio Service because CB Radio Service
    Channel 9 routinely is monitored by police and other public safety
    agencies to provide assistance to motorists.[^40] As noted earlier,
    however, the purpose of the FRS is much narrower. It is intended
    only to fill a market niche in very short-distance, personal
    communications needs, *i.e.*, needs of families and other small
    groups to communicate with each other while they are out of speaking
    distance or sight, but still within close range. Because the
    purposes and use of these other services are so different from the
    FRS, we see no reason, and Petitioners have offered none, why the
    FRS should have channelization rules and procedures similar to the
    Maritime or CB Radio Services.

11. We also disagree with the Petitioners' claim that the proposed rule
    changes would impose no measurable burden on any party concerned. To
    the contrary, the proposed rule changes would impose a burden on
    manufacturers of FRS units because a manufacturer would have to
    design its FRS unit to include specific new features and
    capabilities that are not mandated by Commission rule today.
    Further, the proposed rule changes may impose a burden on FRS users
    because, if adopted, the rules would require that a user's unit to
    default to FRS Channel 1, a channel the user may not desire to
    monitor and a feature that the user may not be able to disable or
    override, depending on the design of the unit. We also note that a
    rule that requires a unit default to a particular channel is likely
    to result in more congestion and interference on the default
    channel, rather than facilitating users' communications. We see no
    beneficial purpose being served by such a rule.

12. We also believe that the Petitioners' claim that designating Channel
    1 as a priority scan channel will open new equipment marketing
    opportunities is not correct. In this regard, we note that the
    purpose of the rules is to authorize use of the radio spectrum and
    to minimize interference between different radio services.[^41] We
    disagree that more complex technical standards and operating rules
    in a service such as the FRS will open new equipment marketing
    opportunities, and we note that no manufacturer filed comments
    supporting this petition. To the contrary, we believe that complex
    operating rules and requiring that features that consumers may not
    want or need be build into FRS units is more likely to reduce the
    usefulness of FRS to consumers, thereby decreasing marketing
    opportunities for manufacturers. We also note that there is nothing
    in the FRS rules that prohibits manufacturers of FRS units from
    including the specific features the petitioners request if
    manufacturers determined that FRS users found utility in these
    features. In this regard, we note that manufacturers have
    incorporated features in FRS units marketed today, such as scanning
    capability and tone-operated squelch, as the market for FRS units
    has developed and without any Commission-imposed requirement. For
    this reason, we see no reason to change the policy of not requiring
    manufacturers to incorporate specific operational features in FRS
    units, but rather allowing manufacturers to include features they
    believe are desired in the market.

13. We also believe that a rule to dedicate a channel for establishing
    emergency communications is unnecessary. In this regard, we note
    that FRS Rule 3 requires that an FRS user must, at all times and on
    all channels, give priority to emergency communication messages
    concerning the immediate safety of life or the immediate protection
    of property.[^42] These messages can be transmitted on any of the
    fourteen channels FRS units are authorized. The current rules,
    therefore, already provide that emergency communications have
    priority over ordinary communications.

    **III. CONCLUSION**

14. On the basis of the above, we conclude that the requests in the
    above-captioned petition for rulemaking have been previously
    considered by the Commission or are unnecessary in light of the
    existing rules, and do not warrant further consideration at this
    time.

15. Alternative formats of this *Order* (computer diskette, large print,
    audiocassette, and Braille) are available from Brian Millin at (202)
    418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or at \<bmillin@fcc.gov\>. This
    *Order* can also be downloaded at http://www.fcc.gov.

    **IV. ORDERING CLAUSES**

16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and (j) and
    303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
    154(i), (j), 303(r), and Section 1.401(e) of the Commission\'s
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.401(e), that the petition for rulemaking filed
    by Alan Dixon and Robert K. Leef, RM-10019, on October 24, 2000, IS
    HEREBY DENIED.

17. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections
    0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131,
    0.331.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Kathleen O'Brien Ham Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau

[^1]: *See* Petition for Rulemaking, RM-10019 (filed Oct. 24, 2000)
    (Petition).

[^2]: *See* Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission\'s Rules to Establish
    a Very Short Distance Two-way Radio Service, *Report and Order*, WT
    Docket No. 95-102, 11 FCC Rcd 12977, 12983 ¶ 17 (1996) (*Report and
    Order*).

[^3]: *Id*. at 12977 ¶ 2, 12979 ¶ 5.

[^4]: *Id*. at 12977 ¶ 2, 12983 ¶ 17.

[^5]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 95.193(a), 95.629(d).

[^6]: *See* *Report and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 12979 ¶ 5.

[^7]: *Id*. at 12983 ¶ 17.

[^8]: *Id*. at 12982 ¶ 13.

[^9]: *Id*.

[^10]: *Id*.

[^11]: *Id*.

[^12]: *Id*.

[^13]: *See* Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Establish a Very Short Distance Two-way Radio Service, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, WT Docket No. 95-102, 13 FCC Rcd 22709, 22715 ¶
    15 (1998) (*Memorandum Opinion and Order*).

[^14]: *Id*. at 22714 ¶ 12.

[^15]: *Id*. at 22715 ¶ 15.

[^16]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 95.627(a). The FRS is authorized fourteen
    channels between 462 MHz and 467 MHz. The Commission sought comment
    on the Petition on December 8, 2000. *See* Public Notice, Report No.
    2456 (Dec. 8, 2000). We received one comment opposing the Petition.
    See Comments of Mr. Dale Reich (Reich). Reich opposes the Petition
    on the basis that the number of FRS units with tone squelch blocking
    that already are in the hands of consumers makes converting a
    present FRS channel to a calling channel unworkable.

[^17]: Petition at 1, 4.

[^18]: The petition does not define default carrier-operated squelch.

[^19]: Petition at 4.

[^20]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.201. Emissions are designated according to
    their classification and their necessary bandwidth. The first symbol
    designates the type of modulation of the main character, the second
    symbol designates the nature of signal(s) modulating the main
    carrier, and the third symbol designates type of information to be
    transmitted. F3E, therefore, is an emission in which the main
    carrier is angle-modulated using frequency modulation in a single
    channel containing analogue telephony information.

[^21]: The petition does not define digital vocoding.

[^22]: Petition at 4.

[^23]: *Id*.

[^24]: *Id*. at 3. Petitioners request FRS Channel 1 be established as a
    calling channel because Channel 1 is an easily remembered channel
    number.

[^25]: *Id*.

[^26]: Petition at 1.

[^27]: *Id.* at 4.

[^28]: *Id*. at 1.

[^29]: *Id.* at 2.

[^30]: *Id.* at 3.

[^31]: The specific features, standards or capabilities the petition
    requests the Commission to mandate for FRS units include (1)
    requiring standard, default carrier-operated squelch use; (2)
    requiring standard Frequency Modulated (FM) F3E emissions; (3)
    prohibiting any digital vocoding, encryption, or speech scrambling
    technique; (4) requiring that a FRS units that includes a scanning
    capability be designed so that FRS Channel 1 is the priority or
    default scan channel, and (5) requiring that these design and
    operating capabilities apply only to FRS Channel 1.

[^32]: FRS units appear to be used by individuals primarily for
    communications over distances of one-half mile or less. *See Report
    and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 12984 ¶ 18. Communications over longer
    distances are possible, depending on terrain characteristics and
    obstructions.

[^33]: Petition at 3.

[^34]: Seven of the 14 channels authorized FRS units also are authorized
    for GMRS stations, and both FRS units and GMRS stations are
    authorized to transmit FM voice emissions. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§
    95.29(f), 97.627(a), 97.631(a), (d). Because FRS and GMRS share
    common channels and an emission type, the Commission in the
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order* agreed it was very likely that GMRS
    stations and FRS units, when they hear each other, will communicate
    with each other. *See* *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    22719 ¶ 25.

[^35]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 95.29(f).

[^36]: Repeater station antennas generally are located at very high
    elevations above the average terrain, thereby allowing GMRS system
    operators to reliably communicate over much greater areas than are
    possible using FRS units.

[^37]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 80.311-80.326 (specifying frequencies and
    procedures for maritime distress calls).

[^38]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 95.407(b) (permitting only emergency
    communications or traveler assistance on CB Channel 9).

[^39]: Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning the Maritime
    Communications, *Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking*, PR Docket No. 92-257, 12 FCC Rcd 16949,
    16952 ¶ 1 (1997).

[^40]: *See* Amendment of Section 95.41(d) of the Commission's Rules to
    Reserve a Citizens Radio Frequency for Emergency Communications,
    *Report and Order*, 22 FCC 2d 635, 636 ¶ 5 (1970). Also, dedicating
    one of 40 CB Radio Service channels to emergency communications or
    traveler assistance has proved workable in this service because it
    was supported by local and State public safety agencies, and there
    are 39 other channels available for other permissible
    communications. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 95.407(a).

[^41]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 301.

[^42]: 47 C.F.R. § 95.193(d).