**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 98-182         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review  | ) | RM-9222                      |
| \--                              | * |                              |
|                                  | * | PR Docket No. 92-235         |
| 47 C.F.R. Part 90 - Private Land |   |                              |
| Mobile                           | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Radio Services                   | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Replacement of Part 90 by Part   | * |                              |
| 88 to Revise                     |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| 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                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

**Adopted:** June 28, 2000 **Released:** July 12, 2000

**Comment Date:** \[60 days after Federal Register Publication\]

**Reply Comment Date:** \[90 days after Federal Register Publication\]

By the Commission:

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**Title Paragraph No.**

I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

II\. BACKGROUND 3

III\. REPORT AND ORDER

A. *Notice* Proposals

§ 90.35 Industrial/Business Pool 4

§ 90.149 License term 9

§ 90.155 Time in which station must be placed in operation 11

§ 90.175 Frequency coordination requirements 13

§ 90.179 Shared use of radio stations 18

§ 90.187 Trunking in the bands between 150 and 512 MHz 22

§ 90.421 Operation of mobile units in vehicles not under the control of
the licensee 29

§ 1.903 Station authorization 30

§ 90.210 Emission masks 33

§ 90.242 Travelers\' information stations 35

General Update of Part 90 Rules 36

B. Suggested Additional Rule Changes

§§ 90.617, 90.619 Frequencies available 38

§ 90.725 Construction requirements for Phase I 220 MHz licensees 40

§ 90.203 Section 90.203 Type acceptance required 41

C. Additional Rule Changes

Correction of Part 90 Rules relating to the Private Land Mobile Radio
Services 42

IV\. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

§ 90.20 Public Safety Pool: School and Park Districts 43

§ 90.20 Public Safety Pool: Highway maintenance frequencies 47

§ 90.35 Industrial/Business Pool 49

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 51

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 52

C. Alternative Formats 53

D. Pleading Dates 54

E. Ordering Clauses 57

F. Contact for Information 60

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

# iNTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.  In this *Report and Order*, we adopt changes to Part 90 of the
    Commission\'s Rules that were either proposed in or suggested in
    response to the *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* (*Notice*) in this
    proceeding. The *Notice*, adopted on September 30, 1998, proposed
    rule changes that were intended to further consolidate and
    streamline the Part 90 rules. In this *Report and Order*, we adopt
    the proposals outlined in the *Notice* and address requests for
    additional rule changes.

2.  The significant decisions made in this *Report and Order* are as
    follows: (1) eliminate the distinction between cargo handling and
    other uses of certain frequencies in the 450-470 MHz band;
    (2) change the duration of the license term for stations authorized
    under Part 90 from five years to ten years from the date of initial
    issuance or renewal; (3) change the time in which a station must be
    placed in operation from eight months to twelve months; (4) require
    applicants for any of the fifteen 220 MHz public safety channels set
    forth in Sections 90.719(c) and 90.720 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    submit their applications to a public safety frequency coordinator
    for frequency coordination prior to submission of the applications
    to the Commission; (5) provide that a radio facility authorized to a
    public safety licensee may be shared with a Federal government
    entity on a cost-shared, non-profit basis; (6) clarify definitions
    for centralized and decentralized trunking and establishment of a
    new process for licensing trunked systems; and (7) reassign five low
    power VHF frequencies identified in the *Notice* from the Part 90
    Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) Services to the Part 95 Citizens
    Band Radio Service, and eliminate the licensing requirement for
    these frequencies.

# BACKGROUND

3.  Traditionally, the PLMR services have provided for the private,
    internal communications needs of public safety entities, state and
    local government entities, large and small businesses,
    transportation providers, the medical community, and other diverse
    users of two-way radio systems. The Commission initiated this
    proceeding in conjunction with its 1998 biennial review of
    regulations pursuant to Section 11 of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended (the Communications Act).[^1] On September 30,
    1998, the Commission adopted a *Notice* proposing a comprehensive
    review of the rules applicable to the PLMR services to determine
    which regulations were not in the public interest, obsolete, overly
    complex, required editorial change, or redundant in nature.[^2] The
    *Notice* proposed rule changes regarding the use of thirty
    frequencies in the Industrial/Business Pool that would (1) clarify
    provisions for obtaining special temporary authority to operate a
    Part 90 radio station, (2) extend the length of license term for all
    Part 90 licensees from five to ten years, (3) allow further shared
    use of Part 90 stations with the Federal government, (4) require
    frequency coordination in the 220-222 MHz band, and (5) make minor
    miscellaneous editorial changes to the Part 90 rules. Additionally,
    the *Notice* addressed a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the
    Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
    Inc. (APCO) urging the Commission to extend implementation periods
    for public safety licensees[^3] and an *ex parte* filing by the Land
    Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) in the Commission\'s
    \"Refarming Proceeding,\" PR Docket No. 92-235,[^4] regarding
    trunking on frequencies in the bands between 150 and 512 MHz.

# REPORT AND ORDER

**A. *Notice* Proposals**

4.  **§ 90.35 Industrial/Business Pool.** In 1973, eight frequencies in
    the 450-470 MHz band[^5] were designated for shared use for
    shore-to-vessel communications related to cargo handling by stations
    in the Business Radio Service (now the Industrial/Business Pool)[^6]
    and in the Maritime Services.[^7] As a result of channel splitting
    in the *Refarming Proceeding*, the number of
    shore-to-vessel/dockside frequencies available to
    Industrial/Business Pool licensees increased from eight to
    thirty.[^8] These thirty frequencies currently are subject to
    several limitations under Section 90.35(c) of the Commission\'s
    Rules.[^9] For example, the frequencies must be used for
    \"communications concerned with cargo handling from a dock, or a
    cargo handling facility, to a vessel alongside.\"[^10] When the
    frequencies were established in 1973, however, this restriction did
    not exist; the frequencies could be used by Industrial/Business Pool
    users for general, low power use, in addition to shared use with the
    Maritime Services for cargo handling.[^11]

5.  In the *Notice*, we stated that there was confusion regarding the
    limitations applicable to the use of these frequencies and that
    there were many requests to use the frequencies in locations other
    than dock and cargo handling areas.[^12] Accordingly, we proposed to
    amend Section 90.35(c)(60) to indicate that, in addition to using
    the thirty frequencies at any location for low power, non-voice
    operation, licensees could also use the frequencies for voice
    operation when the frequencies were used specifically for cargo
    handling purposes. We solicited comment on our proposal to eliminate
    the distinction between cargo handling and other uses and to
    generally allow any low power use.

6.  The majority of the commenters support expanding the use of these
    frequencies.[^13] As Motorola points out, there is a demand for
    these frequencies beyond the limited purposes identified in Section
    90.35(c)(60)(i).[^14] Moreover, we agree with Day, Catalano & Plache
    (Day Catalano) that the need for these frequencies to be available
    at dockside for cargo handling does not preclude their availability
    for other purposes away from dockside locations, and that to
    prohibit such use would create a regulatory regime whereby spectrum
    would be underutilized.[^15] We also concur with Day Catalano that
    making these frequencies generally available comports with the
    elimination of separate frequencies for distinct radio services and
    the creation of a consolidated Industrial/Business Pool below 512
    MHz.[^16] Finally, based on our review of the record in this
    proceeding, we believe that the frequencies originally could be used
    by Industrial/Business Pool users anywhere (not just at dockside)
    for non-voice digital remote control, data, and telemetry operations
    and for voice communications. Thus, we will eliminate the current
    distinction between cargo handling and other uses of these
    frequencies in the 450-470 MHz band and permit their use for low
    power voice and non-voice operations.

7.  We nonetheless want to ensure that our actions do not result in any
    unintended adverse public safety consequences. In this connection,
    we note that while LMCC and Personal Communications Industry
    Association, Inc. (PCIA) do not oppose permitting low power
    licensing for non-cargo operations, they request that non-cargo
    operations be put on a secondary basis to cargo operations.[^17]
    They also state that the Commission should not permit licensing of
    the frequencies without specification of location[^18] because there
    remain users for cargo operations on these channels for which the
    frequencies have an important use, including safety at the dockside,
    and it is vital that there be a means to determine the source of any
    interference.[^19] Motorola, on the other hand, disagrees and states
    that numerous technical limitations which apply to the listed
    frequencies would protect against any risk of increased interference
    associated with greater flexibility in the permissible
    operation.[^20]

8.  We conclude that adoption of the suggestions made by LMCC and PCIA
    is warranted and would further the public interest. In this
    connection, we believe that making non-cargo operations secondary to
    cargo operations is a minimal limitation that would not
    significantly detract from our efforts to expand the use of these
    frequencies. In addition, we note that while the frequencies are
    licensed as mobile units, requiring licensees to specify their
    locations (and restricting the use of the frequencies to a certain
    radius around that location) also is a minimal limitation and has
    been imposed on other frequencies in the Industrial/Business Pool.
    In sum, our approach would adequately address the interference
    concerns raised by LMCC and PCIA regarding vital dockside
    communications. Accordingly, we amend Section 90.35(c)(60)(i) to
    allow use of these frequencies for low power voice and non-voice
    communications, both for cargo and non-cargo operations, but make
    those communications related to non-cargo operations secondary to
    those concerning cargo operations. We also will require licensees
    engaging in communications regarding non-cargo operations to specify
    permanent sites of operation to promote effective and efficient
    frequency coordination and to minimize the likelihood of harmful
    interference to communications related to cargo operations.

9.  **§ 90.149 License term**. Part 90 authorizations generally are
    granted for a period not to exceed five years; however, certain Part
    90 authorizations for commercial mobile radio service (CMRS)
    providers on the 220-222 MHz, 929-930 MHz paging, 800/900 MHz
    Industrial/Land Transportation and Business Radio Services, and
    800/900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service Pool are for ten
    years.[^21] In the *Notice*, we proposed to amend Section 90.149(a)
    of the Commission\'s Rules to provide that licenses for all stations
    authorized under Part 90 will be issued for a term not to exceed ten
    years from the date of initial issuance or renewal. We argued that
    providing a ten-year period would provide economic benefits for
    licensees: under the Commission\'s current fee schedule, the
    application fee for a ten-year license is same as that for a
    five-year license.[^22] By having to renew licenses only every ten
    years, licensees would effectively have their application fees and
    their costs of processing the renewals halved. We also stated that
    standardizing the license term for all Part 90 licensees would
    reduce our costs of processing renewal applications.[^23]

10. We adopt our proposal to extend the licensing term to ten years for
    all Part 90 licenses. A majority of the commenters agree that
    extending the licensing term provides significant benefits by
    reducing both costs and administrative burdens for licensees and
    significantly reducing the administrative burden on the
    Commission.[^24] APCO and American Petroleum Institute (API),
    however, suggest retention of the current license term on the basis
    that it is a cost-effective method of maintaining an accurate
    license database. These commenters contend that a shorter license
    term requires users to modify their licenses and provide necessary
    updates more often[^25] and effectively clears valuable, unused
    spectrum by necessitating a rolling review of the license
    database.[^26] In addition, while API agrees with PCIA that
    increased enforcement would have a positive impact on maintenance of
    an accurate database, it doubts that we have the resources to devote
    to such an increased enforcement effort.[^27] While we recognize
    APCO\'s and API\'s concerns regarding the accuracy of the license
    database, we believe they are outweighed by the benefits obtained by
    reducing cost and administrative burdens for licensees and the
    Commission, including, but not limited to, the standardization of
    the license term for all Part 90 licensees. Furthermore, we are
    confident that our recent adoption of the Universal Licensing System
    (ULS) rules and implementation of a comprehensive electronic filing
    system for wireless applications will make it easier for users to
    provide necessary updates and thus encourage users to notify us of
    any changes (as currently required). We remind licensees of their
    obligations under Section 90.135 of the Commission\'s Rules[^28] and
    we will take appropriate action against licensees that do not comply
    with that rule. We therefore adopt our proposal to amend Section
    90.149(a) to provide that licenses for stations authorized under
    Part 90 will be issued for a term not to exceed ten years from the
    date of initial issuance or renewal. Accordingly, upon grant of a
    current licensee's renewal application, the current licensee will
    receive a license for ten years.

11. **§ 90.155 Time in which station must be placed in operation.**
    Sections 90.155(a) and (b) of the Commission\'s Rules generally
    require that stations authorized under Part 90 be placed in
    operation within eight months of the date of grant. Licensees of
    certain stations, however, have twelve months to implement their
    stations.[^29] We also note that the Part 90 Rules include
    provisions for requesting extended implementation for up to five
    years for certain types of licenses.[^30] In the *Notice*, we
    proposed to amend Sections 90.155(a) and (b) to provide that
    generally, except for stations seeking an extended implementation
    period, all Part 90 stations be constructed and placed in operation
    within twelve months.[^31] We stated that there was merit in having
    a uniform period, and that having a longer implementation period
    would simplify the regulatory requirements for PLMR stations by
    reducing the number of requests for extensions of time to construct
    a station. We asked for comments on this proposal, including
    comments on whether some other length of time would be more
    appropriate.

12. Eight comments were filed supporting the proposal, and no opposing
    comments were filed.[^32] We agree with the commenters that it would
    be in the public interest to increase the time in which a station
    must be placed in operation. In this connection, we reiterate our
    belief that extending the time in which stations must be placed in
    operation to twelve months will reduce the filing of extension
    requests, simplify the regulatory requirements applicable to PLMR
    licensees and decrease administrative burdens placed on licensees
    and the Commission.[^33] We also agree with LMCC\'s statement that
    this rule modification will eliminate confusion that has
    occasionally occurred when applicants were unsure as to their
    required construction date because of the different implementation
    periods for various part 90 licenses.[^34] We, therefore, adopt our
    proposal to amend Sections 90.155(a) and (b) to increase the time in
    which a station must be placed in operation from eight months to
    twelve months.

13. **§ 90.175 Frequency coordination requirements.** In the *Notice*,
    we noted that because traditional public safety frequencies are
    exempt from auction, and the Commission no longer has authority to
    conduct lotteries,[^35] we currently lack a procedure for handling
    mutually exclusive applications for the 220 MHz public safety
    channels.[^36] We also noted that when the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau released a Pubic Notice announcing that it
    would resume accepting applications for the 220 MHz public safety
    channels, it stated that, while it believed that the probability of
    receiving mutually exclusive[^37] 220 MHz public safety applications
    would be low, it would hold any such applications in abeyance
    pending a decision in this proceeding as to how we would resolve
    such mutual exclusivity.[^38] To resolve potential mutual
    exclusivity problems, we proposed amending Section 90.175(i)(14) of
    the Commission\'s Rules to require that applicants for any of the
    fifteen 220 MHz public safety channels set forth in Sections
    90.719(c) and 90.720 of the Commission\'s Rules submit their
    applications to a certified public safety frequency coordinator for
    frequency coordination prior to submission of the applications to
    the Commission.[^39]

14. We adopt our proposal to require frequency coordination for
    applications seeking licenses for the 220 MHz public safety
    channels. Only two comments were received regarding this
    proposal.[^40] APCO agrees that frequency coordination of public
    safety channels in the 220 MHz band is necessary, and is prepared to
    assume the coordination responsibility.[^41] INTEK Global
    Corporation (Intek) also agrees that frequency coordination makes
    sense for the five shared public safety channels, but not the ten
    exclusive use channels.

15. As a general matter, shared frequencies that are licensed under Part
    90 are subject to a frequency coordination requirement. The 220 MHz
    public safety channels have been an exception. Without coordination,
    users eligible to use shared channels might not choose the most
    appropriate frequency, which could needlessly lead to interference
    and avoidable frequency congestion problems.[^42] Frequency
    coordinators recommend the best available frequency on shared
    spectrum in a particular geographic area on a case-by-case basis for
    each applicant. The benefits of frequency coordination and the
    Commission\'s reliance on frequency coordinators are recognized in
    the Communications Act and the Commission\'s past experience
    regarding PLMR licensing.[^43] No commenter opposed our proposal
    with respect to required frequency coordination for shared 220 MHz
    public safety channels. Accordingly, we will require frequency
    coordination for the five shared public safety channels.

16. We will also require frequency coordination for the ten exclusive
    use channels. While APCO agrees with our proposal,[^44] Intek states
    that it does not necessarily see the value in using a frequency
    coordinator to process applications for the exclusive use
    channels.[^45] Intek expresses concern about delays in licensing,
    notes that the majority of applications will not be mutually
    exclusive, and states that the Commission, at a minimum, must
    continue to process applications for the public safety channels on a
    first-come first-served basis.[^46] We note, as an initial matter,
    that applications for the public safety channels will be considered
    mutually exclusive only if they are filed on the same day for the
    same channels and in the same geographic area. We further note that
    this definition does not affect our processing of these applications
    on a first-come, first-served basis. Rather, it provides a
    pre-application filing mechanism to avoid mutual exclusivity in this
    context. We also note that Intek has not suggested another method
    for resolving potential mutual exclusivity. Further, we believe that
    any delays resulting from requiring frequency coordination will be
    minimal. Moreover, because we must have a procedure for resolving
    mutually exclusive applications, we conclude that the most
    expeditious, efficient, and effective means to do so would be to
    require frequency coordination for the ten exclusive use public
    safety channels.

17. There are currently pending a small number of mutually exclusive
    applications for the 220 MHz public safety channels. In the 1998
    *Public Notice* resuming the acceptance of applications for the 220
    MHz public safety channels, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
    stated that in the event it received mutually exclusive
    applications, it would hold the applications in abeyance pending our
    decision on how to resolve the mutual exclusivity.[^47] We have now
    made that decision by adopting rules requiring frequency
    coordination for these channels. We therefore dismiss without
    prejudice the pending mutually exclusive applications so that they
    may be refiled with frequency coordination under our new rules. We
    find that this is the best and fairest approach for resolving these
    applications.[^48] It may allow all of the pending applications to
    be granted and we believe that the minimal benefits to the public
    that might result from comparative hearings, the only alternative
    method for resolving mutual exclusivity, are far outweighed by the
    costs and delays connected with the hearing process. We also note
    that the *Public Notice* provided applicants with notice that their
    applications, if mutually exclusive, would likely be processed under
    the new rules we adopted.[^49]

18. **§ 90.179 Shared use of radio stations.** Section 90.179 of the
    Commission\'s Rules permits Part 90 licensees to share the use of
    their facilities on a nonprofit, cost shared basis.[^50] A facility
    (station) is considered shared when a non-licensed user of a station
    utilizes the station for its own communications under an arrangement
    with the station licensee. However, Section 90.179(a) limits
    licensees\' authority to share their stations as follows: public
    safety radio service licensees can only share their stations with
    other state or local public safety entities, and Industrial/Business
    service licensees can only share their stations with other
    Industrial/Business eligibles. The *Notice* requested comments on
    several proposals to extend sharing privileges.

19. *Public safety licensees sharing with Federal entities*. Federal
    public safety entities are not eligible for Part 90 authorizations,
    and thus Part 90 licensees are precluded from entering into sharing
    arrangements with Federal government entities pursuant to Section
    90.179(a). In this connection, we observed in the *Notice* that many
    local government, police and fire entities, are licensees of
    multi-channel radio systems while at the same time, there may be
    Federal government agencies that require communications in the same
    geographical area, but, because of circumstances unique to Federal
    agencies, lack access or the capability to obtain such
    communications.[^51] We also noted that the Commission has received
    inquiries over the years from public safety licensees interested in
    sharing their stations with Federal agencies and asked whether
    extending this sharing privilege by rule would eliminate an obsolete
    or unnecessary restriction.[^52] The commenters unanimously
    confirmed our observations in this regard and agreed with our
    proposal to amend Section 90.179 to allow public safety radio
    service licensees to enter sharing agreements with their Federal
    counterparts on a non-profit, cost-shared basis. We continue to
    believe that eliminating this restriction serves the public interest
    by fostering the realization of interoperability amongst state and
    local public safety entities and Federal government agencies. We
    further note that such sharing may benefit Part 90 licensees because
    they could be compensated for a portion of the total system costs
    under the sharing arrangement. Moreover, established National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) policies
    provide that the Federal government typically should not use Federal
    government frequencies to provide communications for federal
    agencies unless commercial services are either unavailable, are not
    suitable, or are significantly more expensive.[^53] Considering the
    factors discussed above, we now amend Section 90.179 of the
    Commission\'s Rules to provide that a radio facility authorized to a
    public safety licensee may be shared with a Federal government
    entity on a cost-shared, non-profit basis.

20. *Public safety licensees sharing with Industrial/Business entities*.
    We also asked for comments on whether to extend the sharing
    arrangement for public safety licensees to include sharing with
    other Part 90 eligibles, such as those in the Industrial/Business
    Pool. Day Catalano and UTC support the proposal,[^54] while API
    opposes it.[^55] Day Catalano argues that public safety licensees
    can benefit by being permitted to share the cost of their systems
    with other users, and that the public safety licensees are the best
    determiners of whether their systems can be shared with non-public
    safety users without jeopardizing critical safety and emergency
    communications.[^56] API contends, however, that extending sharing
    beyond Federal Government entities should not be encouraged on the
    ground that further extending sharing opportunities would likely
    intensify exhaustion of the already congested PLMR spectrum.[^57] We
    decline to permit, by rule, public safety licensees to share public
    safety spectrum with other Part 90 eligibles. We are concerned that
    allowing sharing of public safety spectrum by other non-public
    safety Part 90 eligibles could compromise or undermine our efforts
    to ensure that public safety communications requirements are met.
    Ensuring that adequate spectrum is available to meet the present and
    future need of the public safety community is one of the
    Commission\'s highest priorities.[^58] Consequently, any proposal
    whereby a non-public safety eligible would use public safety
    spectrum must be subject to close scrutiny to ensure that the
    arrangement does not result in a net loss of public safety spectrum;
    this can best assured by permitting such sharing only pursuant to
    individual rule waivers.[^59]

21. *Industrial/Business licensees sharing with public safety*. We also
    asked whether Industrial/Business Pool licensees should be
    permitted, by rule, to share their stations with public safety and
    Federal government entities. We noted in this connection that the
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) has granted waivers of
    Section 90.179 of the Rules to permit the sharing of a 900 MHz
    Industrial/Land Transportation system with public safety and Federal
    government users and asked whether permitting such sharing by rule
    would eliminate an unnecessary restriction. Most commenters support
    this proposal. API expressed concern that a general sharing by
    Industrial/Business Pool licensees and public safety and Federal
    agencies would intensify already-congested PLMR spectrum.[^60]
    However, we believe that extending the sharing proposal to all Part
    90 eligibles would allow for additional cost-savings, and would also
    provide high-quality land mobile communications over a large
    geographical territory and provide benefits to public safety and
    Federal entities that might not otherwise have access to
    contemporary wireless communications. In addition, as previously
    stated, the Bureau has granted waivers of the eligibility
    restriction contained in Section 90.179 based on the grounds that
    the action would serve the public interest by encouraging more
    efficient use of the spectrum, and by providing improved opportunity
    for communication by the public safety community and the federal
    government. Unlike the proposal to allow public safety licensees to
    share with Industrial/Business entities, we believe that this
    proposal would result in a net increase in the availability of
    spectrum to public safety entities. There has been no evidence to
    the contrary presented in this proceeding. Accordingly, we will
    allow Industrial/Business licensees sharing with public safety and
    Federal Government entities. We will amend Section 90.179
    accordingly.

22. **§ 90.187 Trunking in the bands between 150 and 512 MHz.** In 1997
    the Commission amended the rules in the *Refarming Proceeding* by
    adding a new rule section, Section 90.187, to allow centralized
    trunking[^61] in the PLMR bands between 150 MHz and 512 MHz.[^62]
    The new rules allowed PLMR licensees to make more efficient use of
    the spectrum. Several petitions for reconsideration were filed
    concerning the trunking rules adopted.[^63] Later, the Commission
    started to receive informal inquiries concerning the applicability
    of Section 90.187 for decentralized trunked systems.[^64] On March
    17, 1998, LMCC filed a letter with the Commission that concerned
    both centralized and decentralized trunking issues.[^65] To address
    LMCC\'s concerns, we raised the issue of trunking in the
    *Notice*.[^66] We sought comment on LMCC\'s proposal that
    decentralized trunked systems be designated as such on the
    licensees\' authorizations, and that two separate authorizations be
    used for \"hybrid\" trunked systems.[^67] We also asked for further
    information and comment on the intended use of what LMCC refers to
    as a \"protected\" channel in the trunking context, *e.g.* whether
    it is designed to function only as a voice channel or whether it is
    intended as a control channel and, if so, what control functions are
    contemplated.[^68]

23. A number of parties commented on the definitions of centralized and
    decentralized trunking we set forth in the *Notice*.[^69] American
    Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc. (AMTA) urges the
    Commission to adopt technology-neutral definitions of centralized
    and decentralized trunking.[^70] AMTA also proposes that centralized
    trunking immediately be explicitly permitted where exclusivity is
    recognized by the Commission or when all co-channel licensees within
    50 miles concur.[^71] Motorola recommends that the Commission change
    its definition of centralized trunking, with more emphasis placed on
    the fact that the user is assigned an open channel potentially
    regardless of any co-channel use outside the system on that
    channel.[^72] Motorola also states that the definition of a
    decentralized trunked system in the *Notice* fails to take into
    account other decentralized trunked systems that operate via a
    controller installed into a base station repeater.[^73] LMCC
    comments that the Commission\'s definitions of centralized and
    decentralized trunking in the *Notice* do not appear to address
    trunking systems where monitoring for co-channel emissions is not
    performed by the mobile unit, but rather by a computerized monitor
    employed at the repeater transmitter.[^74]

24. With regard to LMCC\'s proposal, API states that it believes that
    the distinction in trunking modes is critical and that information
    should appear on the face of the station license designating whether
    a channel is monitored by a mobile unit or automatically at the
    repeater site. API suggests that this may be accomplished by
    creating another field on the license or by using a specific station
    class code (*e.g.*, FB8 or FB9).[^75] UTC supports LMCC\'s proposal
    and also supports the utilization of a station class code to
    designate on a single license those frequencies that may be
    monitored by automatic means in the form of a monitor attached to a
    repeater transmitter.[^76] UTC further states that it is vital that
    frequency coordinators and other users be able to determine the
    operational mode of the system in order to recommend appropriate
    frequencies and determine potential sources of interference.[^77]
    LMCC, in a letter filed on October 14, 1998 suggested that trunked
    systems apply for two authorizations to be granted concurrently, an
    authorization for the protected channel (YG) and authorizations for
    the remaining channels in the trunked system (IG).[^78] However, in
    its comments LMCC suggests that the Commission utilize a station
    class code in addition to designating on a single license those
    frequencies that are monitored and those that are not monitored.
    LMCC states that it is seeking to identify on a license three
    different frequency usage situations that would be readily apparent
    in a frequency-specific database search: (1) a frequency where the
    licensee employs a manual means of monitoring the channel prior to
    transmission or the mobile radio itself performs the channel
    selection (FB2);[^79] (2) a frequency where the licensee employs a
    monitor at the transmitter repeater which automatically locks out a
    channel when there are co-channel emissions (FB2M); and (3) a
    frequency where the licensee does not employ any form of monitoring,
    as the licensee has obtained co-channel consent to non-monitoring or
    there is sufficient contour clearance to co-channel licensees
    (FB2P).[^80] PCIA supports the proposal set forth in the LMCC
    comments.[^81]

25. When the Commission adopted rules in the *Refarming Proceeding* to
    allow for trunking, it did not discuss the development of \"hybrid\"
    trunking systems. A hybrid trunked system is one where at least one
    of the frequencies being trunked but not all the frequencies being
    trunked meet the criteria specified in Section 90.187(b) of the
    Rules.[^82] Nevertheless, we have learned that such systems have
    developed. LMCC contends that such systems allow users, especially
    users located in spectrum congested areas, to make more efficient
    use of the spectrum. Based on the record developed in this
    proceeding, as well as our findings and decisions in the *Refarming
    Proceeding*, we agree. Therefore, we are amending the rules to make
    it clear that such hybrid systems are permitted and we adopt rules
    governing their use. We are also taking this opportunity to revise
    the definition of trunked systems in Section 90.7 so that Section
    90.187 now governs all trunking systems (centralized, decentralized
    and hybrid) in the PLMR bands between 150 MHz and 512 MHz. We
    believe that this action will eliminate any confusion between what
    modes of trunked operation are covered by Section 90.187. Further,
    the new rules make it clear that except under certain conditions,
    trunked systems must monitor prior to transmitting. Moreover, the
    level of monitoring must be sufficient to prevent trunked systems
    from causing interference. We will rely on the frequency
    coordinators to specify a \"level\" of monitoring. In this regard,
    we would expect coordinators to specify whether monitoring has to be
    done at the base station (repeater) and what transmissions have to
    be monitored (*i.e.*, the transmissions coming from another
    licensee\'s mobiles/portables or another licensee\'s base station).
    Frequency coordinators must develop and employ uniform procedures
    concerning the certification of applications proposing trunked
    systems that require monitoring.

26. The *Notice* also addressed issues concerning the licensing of
    trunked systems. The commenters indicate the importance of frequency
    coordinators being able to determine the operational mode of the
    system in order to recommend appropriate frequencies and minimize
    interference.[^83] In this regard, commenters state that
    coordinators need to know if the system is operating in a
    conventional or trunked mode, and if trunked, whether it is a
    centralized, decentralized or hybrid system.[^84] We agree that such
    information is very important in the frequency assignment process
    and, therefore, should be specified on the license. Consequently, we
    are adopting the following process for licensing trunked systems
    operating in the PLMR bands between 150 MHz and 512 MHz. A radio
    service code indicating trunked operation, either YG and YW, must be
    used to show that the system is being operated in the trunked
    mode.[^85] To identify which, if any, frequencies in the trunked
    system are not subject to the monitoring requirement (*e.g*.,
    applicant/licensee has obtained necessary consent or, if operating
    in the 470-512 MHz band, has exclusive use) the class of station
    associated with the frequency must be replaced by an FB8 code.

27. Under this new licensing procedure, entities operating any type of
    trunked system, including a decentralized trunking system, must be
    specifically licensed to do so. As noted above, we believe it is
    very important from a spectrum management perspective to have this
    type of information on the license and included in the licensing
    database. At the same time, however, we recognize that there may be
    a substantial number of current licensees who would require a
    license modification under the new procedures. To minimize the
    impact on existing licensees, we will allow existing licensees six
    months from the release of this *Report and Order* to modify their
    licenses to show only a change to a trunked radio service code
    without frequency coordination or paying a fee.[^86] Such requests
    should be sent directly to Federal Communications Commission, 1270
    Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325-7245, Attention: Trunking
    License Correction, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division,
    Licensing & Technical Analysis Branch, Mobile Radio Services
    Section. Alternatively, licensees can request to have the radio
    service code changed if they apply to modify their license in other
    ways or when their licenses come up for renewal.

28. In the *Notice* we proposed to modify Section 90.187 to limit to ten
    the number of frequency pairs that may be assigned at any one
    time.[^87] APCO requests that this limitation not apply in the
    Public Safety Pool because some large cities, counties and states
    may have a need for more than ten channels for their trunked public
    safety systems.[^88] Subsequent to the release of the *Notice*, in
    another proceeding,[^89] we adopted rules permitting requests for
    more than ten channels where the applicant makes a showing of
    sufficient need.[^90] Thus, APCO's request in this proceeding is
    moot.

29. **§ 90.421 Operation of mobile units in vehicles not under the
    control of the licensee.** In the *Notice*, we proposed to amend
    Section 90.421 to remove redundant text and include text concerning
    hand-held radio units. Two supporting comments were received on this
    issue and no opposing comments were filed.[^91] API states that
    adopting this proposal will eliminate misunderstanding regarding
    mobile stations as it will be clear that mobile stations include
    both vehicular-mounted and hand-held transceivers. We agree with
    API. For the reasons stated in the *Notice* and by the commenters,
    we therefore adopt our proposal to amend Section 90.421 as set forth
    in Appendix B.

30. **§ 1.903 Authorization Required.**[^92] In the *Notice*, we invited
    comments on whether five \"color-dot\" frequencies[^93] should be
    reallocated from the Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio Services to
    one of the Citizens Band Radio (CB) Services in Part 95 (such as the
    Low Power Radio Service).[^94] Further, we invited comments on
    whether to eliminate individual licensing requirements in connection
    with such a reallocation of the frequencies.[^95] We also invited
    comments on the effect that such a reallocation would have on
    existing Part 90 licensees of these frequencies and on whether there
    are other frequencies in Part 90 for which we could eliminate the
    licensing requirement.[^96]

31. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the licensing
    requirement for the five low power VHF frequencies identified in the
    *Notice* should be eliminated and these frequencies reallocated from
    Part 90 to one of the CB services in Part 95. All comments support
    our proposal.[^97] We agree with the commenters that because of the
    manner in which manufacturers have chosen to market radios that
    operate on these frequencies[^98] and our elimination of the
    frequency coordination requirements on the low power
    frequencies,[^99] it would be in the public interest to eliminate
    the licensing requirement for them. Two of the three existing CB
    services,[^100] CB Radio and Family Radio, only allow voice
    communications.[^101] The third, LPRS, prohibits two-way voice
    communications.[^102] The color-dot frequencies, on the other hand,
    are intended for voice, data, and imaging. Therefore, we are
    following the suggestion of Motorola and Tandy[^103] by placing
    these frequencies in a new radio service category in the CB
    services, to be called the Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS). For
    consistency and ease of use and administration, we will also allow 2
    watt operations on all of the frequencies, including those for which
    operation only at 1 watt is currently permitted.

32. Motorola suggests that four UHF frequencies (467.850 MHz, 467.875
    MHz, 467.900 MHz and 467.925 MHz) also be relocated to low power
    industrial/business service for unlicensed, low power use. Motorola
    states that these four frequencies have been serving low-tier
    business needs for several decades.[^104] Tandy proposes adding yet
    four more frequencies (151.625 MHz, 151.955 MHz, 154.570 MHz and
    154.600 MHz) which it says are already commonly included on
    currently available business band radios.[^105] LMCC, however,
    states that while it does not object to the Commission\'s original
    proposal, the Commission should emphasize that the situation is an
    anomaly and should not serve as a precedent for turning other PLMR
    spectrum into unlicensed spectrum.[^106] PCIA concurs with the
    LMCC\'s position and requests that other frequencies in the
    Industrial/Business Pool not become a haven in which manufacturers
    are allowed to promote unlicensed consumer radios.[^107] Similarly,
    API states that while the adoption of the proposed rule change is
    the most prudent course of action to take under the circumstances,
    the further erosion of critical PLMR spectrum must be avoided in the
    future.[^108] We acknowledge the differing views presented
    concerning elimination of the licensing requirement for additional
    Part 90 frequencies. Against this backdrop, we are not persuaded
    that there is sufficient support in the record to justify
    reallocation of additional Part 90 frequencies at this time. We may,
    however, revisit this issue at a later date should additional
    support develop. We will therefore include in the new Multi-Use
    Radio Service only the five frequencies listed in our original
    proposal.

33. **§ 90.210 Emission masks.** Section 90.210 of the Commission\'s
    Rules specifies emission masks for the various frequency bands
    governed by our Part 90 rules.[^109] The emission mask is an
    important technical parameter that affects the efficient use of a
    frequency band by limiting emissions from one channel into adjacent
    channels. To maximize spectrum efficiency, the full extent of the
    channel must be utilized as much as possible to maximize information
    transfer. At the same time, out-of-band emission limits must be
    carefully selected to provide acceptable adjacent channel
    protection. Motorola has suggested an alternative approach to
    emission masks for limiting out-of-band emissions called Adjacent
    Channel Coupled Power (ACCP).[^110] Motorola contends that ACCP is a
    more flexible approach with minimum technical requirements.[^111]
    Under Motorola\'s suggested ACCP approach, the amount of energy
    directly inserted into the adjacent channel spectrum is calculated.
    Motorola states that direct measurements of interfering energy are
    more meaningful than relying on emission masks and eliminate the
    bias that traditional emission masks have in favor of analog
    transmissions versus digital modulation techniques.[^112] Ericsson
    also strongly supports the ACCP concept.[^113] In the *Notice*, we
    requested comments on both the approach and the technical parameters
    concerning implementation of the ACCP concept.

34. In its Reply Comments, Motorola suggests that the Commission defer
    adoption of specific ACCP protection requirements until the industry
    has an opportunity to develop recommendations on the necessary
    protection required by all types of receivers and measurement
    techniques to be used in the equipment authorization process.[^114]
    API also suggests the Commission defer any decision on this matter
    in this proceeding and seek further comments on this issue.[^115]
    Because of the diverse nature of the technologies and products
    manufactured for PLMR bands in questions, we believe that this issue
    is not yet ripe and that further debate and gathering of information
    is warranted. We therefore decline to adopt rules implementing the
    ACCP concept at this time, but we encourage the industry to continue
    to examine this issue and to develop a consensus, and we will
    revisit the issue if an industry consensus develops and is presented
    to the Commission, or the matter otherwise becomes ripe for
    decision.

35. **§ 90.242 Travelers\' information stations.** Section 90.242(a)(3)
    provides that Travelers\' Information Stations are authorized on a
    secondary basis to stations authorized on a primary basis in the
    510-535 and 1605-1715 kHz bands (AM radio stations). In 1991, the
    Commission authorized Travelers\' Information Stations to be
    licensed over the entire AM band, and the Commission stated that the
    stations would remain a secondary service.[^116] Section 2.106 of
    the Commission\'s Rules currently reflects that the Travelers\'
    Information Stations are a secondary service. However, while Section
    90.242(a) shows that Travelers\' Information Stations may be
    authorized over the entire AM band, Section 90.242(a)(3) was never
    updated to provide for authorization over the entire AM band.
    Accordingly, we now amend Section 90.242(a)(3) to provide that
    Travelers\' Information Stations are secondary to stations
    authorized on a primary basis in the bands 510-1715 kHz.

36. **General update of Part 90 Rules.** In the *Notice*, we proposed
    certain changes of a \"housekeeping\" nature to correct outdated
    information still contained in the Rules and to eliminate redundant
    rules. Specifically, we proposed to amend Section 90.1 to replace
    the radio service names with the appropriate \"pool\" names. Also,
    we proposed to delete the listed telephone number in Section
    90.177(d)(2) and to delete Section 90.449 of the Commission\'s rules
    because it unnecessarily duplicates Section 1.89 of the
    Commission\'s rules. No opposing comments were received. Thus, for
    the reasons stated in the *Notice* and herein, we are adopting our
    proposals to amend these sections of the Rules.

    **B. Suggested Additional Rule Changes**

37. In the Notice we asked for comments on any other rule changes that
    could be made to update, streamline, or clarify Part 90 of the
    Commission\'s Rules. What follows is our discussion of additional
    rule changes suggested by certain commenters.

38. **§§ 90.617, 619 Frequencies available.** Section 90.617 of the
    Commission\'s Rules designates frequencies in the 800 MHz and 900
    MHz bands for licensing and use by particular types of private land
    mobile radio licensees.[^117] The five categories are as
    follows: (1) Public Safety, (2) Industrial and Land Transportation
    (I/LT), (3) Business (B), (4) SMR, and (5) General.[^118] The Ad Hoc
    800/900 MHz Licensee Committee (Ad Hoc Committee) suggests that the
    Commission should allow \"incumbent\"[^119] licensees of I/LT and
    Business channels to reclassify their channels as SMR or to assign
    them voluntarily to SMR operators for SMR usage. To achieve this
    result, Ad Hoc Committee states that the Commission should either
    amend Sections 90.617 and 90.619 or act expeditiously and favorably
    on a pending waiver request filed by Nextel, Inc. (*Nextel Waiver
    Request*).[^120] Ad Hoc Committee asserts that the result it seeks
    would advance the current communications needs of existing,
    incumbent I/LT and Business licensees.[^121]

39. Ad Hoc Committee states that it participated by comments and reply
    comments in the Nextel Waiver request proceeding.[^122] Ad Hoc
    Committee also states in the *Nextel Waiver Request* proceeding,
    certain commenters argued that the relief sought by Nextel and the
    Ad Hoc Committee could appropriately be granted by the Commission
    only via a rulemaking proceeding. Ad Hoc Committee disagreed.[^123]
    We agree with Ad Hoc Committee that the Commission has discretion to
    proceed by means of rulemaking, waiver, declaratory ruling, or even
    adjudication in making policy, so long as all interested parties are
    afforded notice and an opportunity to present their position.[^124]
    On July 21, 1999, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau)
    issued an *Order* granting in part and denying in part Nextel\'s
    requests for waiver.[^125] The Bureau also stated that it would
    incorporate the comments compiled in the *Nextel Waiver Request*
    proceeding on the issue of using PLMR system channels in a
    Commercial Mobile Radio Service system into the docket in which we
    are examining licensing issues in light of the 1997 Balanced Budget
    Act.[^126] Because we will address the questions raised by the Ad
    Hoc Committee in the *Balanced Budget Act* proceeding, we will not
    consider those questions here.

40. **§ 90.725 Construction requirements for Phase I 220 MHz
    licensees**. Global Cellular Communications, Inc. (Global) submitted
    comments on the requirement that a nationwide Phase I 220 MHz
    licensee file an application with the Commission and receive
    approval before adding additional sites to its nationwide
    system.[^127] No reply comments regarding this issue were filed.
    After Global submitted its comments, we addressed this issue in
    another proceeding,[^128] which had been initiated by a petition for
    declaratory ruling filed by ComTech, Inc., another Phase I
    nationwide 220 MHz licensee.[^129] In that proceeding, we concluded,
    as a general matter and with certain restrictions, that we would
    forbear from requiring Phase I nationwide 220 MHz licensees to
    obtain separate authorizations for individual base stations.[^130]
    As we have resolved this issue, we will not further consider
    Global\'s comments in this proceeding.

41. **§ 90.203 Type acceptance required.** Finally, we received a
    request from Ericsson to change the spectrum efficiency standards
    for data equipment set forth in Section 90.203(j) of the
    Commission\'s Rules[^131] from 4800 bps per 6.25 kHz to 4800 bps per
    12.5 kHz.[^132] Ericsson claims that in the *Refarming* proceeding
    the Commission apparently \"inadvertently\" applied the 6.25 kHz
    standard to data equipment and asks that the standards for data
    transmissions (essentially one data channel per 6.25 kHz) be made
    consistent with those for voice transmissions (one voice channel per
    12.5 kHz). We note that Ericsson raised this argument in the
    *Refarming* proceeding in a Petition for Issuance of Erratum or
    Petition for Reconsideration.[^133] In a *Second Memorandum Opinion
    and Order* (released April 13, 1999), we rejected Ericsson\'s
    request stating both that the request was untimely and that Section
    90.203(j) accurately reflects the Commission\'s decision in the
    *Refarming Second Report and Order*.[^134] Ericsson\'s request was
    properly considered and rejected in the *Refarming* proceeding. We
    therefore decline to consider Ericsson\'s comments in this
    proceeding.

42. **Correction of Part 90 Rules relating to the Private Land Mobile
    Radio Services.** On April 13, 1999, the Commission released the
    *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order* in the *Refarming
    Proceeding*.[^135] There were several errors in the rule amendments
    concerning the Public Safety Pool Frequency Table and other sections
    of the Part 90 Rules contained in the released version of the text.
    We are now correcting those errors by replacing the rule amendments
    to Sections 90.20(c) and (d), 90.22, and 90.175 of the Commission\'s
    Rules released on April 13, 1999, with the amendments to those rules
    set forth in Appendix B. Similarly, we are removing the amendments
    to Section 90.135 of the Commission\'s Rules released on April
    13, 1999. A correction will also be published in the Federal
    Register to correct the Federal Register summary of the *Second
    Memorandum Opinion and Order*.[^136]

# FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

43. **§ 90.20 Public Safety Pool: School and Park Districts.** Section
    90.20(a)(i) of the Commission\'s Rules provides that, as a general
    matter, government entities are eligible to hold authorizations in
    the Public Safety Pool to operate radio stations for the
    transmission of communications essential to their official
    activities.[^137] While eligible government entities include \"\[a\]
    district and an authority,\" they specifically do not include a
    school district or authority or a park district or authority.[^138]
    We propose to delete this exclusion and to make conforming changes
    to Section 90.242 of the Rules. Because school districts will be
    eligible to hold authorizations in the Public Safety Pool with this
    change, we also propose to eliminate their eligibility to hold
    authorizations in the Industrial/Business Pool.[^139] We seek
    comment on these proposals.

44. In 1960, the Commission restricted school and park districts and
    authorities from holding licenses as government entities in order to
    relieve a shortage of available frequencies in the Local Government
    Radio Service.[^140] The Commission stated that it would reconsider
    the restriction if the frequency situation improved.[^141] We
    believe that with the recent reallocation of 24 megahertz of
    spectrum to the public safety services,[^142] the consolidation of
    the public safety radio services into one Public Safety Pool, and
    the technical advances that have occurred since 1960, there are now
    sufficient frequencies available in the Public Safety Pool to
    accommodate school and park districts. We also believe that our
    proposed change will eliminate an unnecessary restriction and
    simplify eligibility requirements for the Public Safety Pool, which
    will benefit both prospective public safety licensees and the
    Commission. Finally, we believe that eliminating the restriction
    will facilitate interoperable communications between school or park
    district personnel and other public safety entities, especially
    during disasters and emergencies.

45. Pending the completion of this rule making proceeding, we will
    routinely waive the provision of Section 90.20(a)(1)(i) of the Rules
    excluding park districts and authorities from eligibility for
    authorizations in the Public Safety Pool. Prior to the consolidation
    of the Public Safety Radio Services into the Public Safety Pool,
    park districts and authorities were eligible to hold authorizations
    in the Forestry-Conservation Radio Service.[^143] However,
    eligibility for licenses in the current Public Safety Pool for
    entities charged with forestry-conservation activities is limited to
    non-government entities.[^144] Therefore, park districts and
    authorities are not eligible to hold licenses in the Public Safety
    Pool. And, unlike school districts and authorities, park districts
    and authorities are not eligible to hold licenses in the
    Industrial/Business Pool.[^145] Therefore, in order to allow park
    districts and authorities to apply for authorizations to operate
    radio stations, we must waive the provision of Section
    90.20(a)(1)(i) of the Rules excluding park districts and authorities
    from eligibility.

46. We may grant a waiver of a rule when in view of the unique or
    unusual circumstances of the case, application of the rule would be
    inequitable, unduly burdensome or contrary to the public interest,
    or the applicant has no reasonable alternative.[^146] We find that
    such unusual circumstances exist here. In this connection, we note
    that absent the waiver, park districts and authorities have no
    reasonable alternative to acquire radio licenses and that preventing
    them from acquiring radio licenses would be contrary to the public
    interest. We therefore conclude that pending the resolution of this
    rule making proceeding, we should waive the restrictions contained
    in Section 90.20(a)(1)(i) in order to allow park districts and
    authorities to hold licenses in the Public Safety Pool.

47. **§ 90.20 Public Safety Pool: Highway maintenance frequencies.** The
    American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
    (AASHTO) has asked that we clarify the applicability of Section
    90.20(d)(43)'s restriction that certain Public Safety Pool
    frequencies are reserved for use in highway maintenance systems
    operated by licensees other than States.[^147] AASHTO notes that the
    Commission's current interpretation of the rule limits assignment of
    the frequencies to (non-State) highway maintenance systems[^148] and
    seeks a revised interpretation that would permit any public safety
    user, other than a state highway maintenance system, to use these
    frequencies.[^149]

48. One of the primary reasons we consolidated the various Public Safety
    services into a Public Safety Pool was to provide for more efficient
    use of the spectrum, *i.e.*, to increase spectrum sharing.[^150] We
    therefore agree with AASHTO and take this opportunity to clarify
    that public safety users other than state highway maintenance
    systems are permitted to use these thirty frequencies. We also
    believe, however, that if we allow all other public safety users to
    use these frequencies, then we should also permit state highway
    maintenance systems to use them. We therefore propose to eliminate
    the current restriction in its entirety. We seek comment on this
    proposal.

49. **§ 90.35 Industrial/Business Pool.** The American Automobile
    Association (AAA) generally agrees with our proposal, which we adopt
    today, to expand the use of the thirty shore-to-vessel/dockside
    frequencies listed in Section 90.35(c).[^151] It proposes, however,
    that we eliminate the power restriction for eight of the frequencies
    and make AAA the sole coordinator for those frequencies.[^152] AAA
    states that the channels potentially can be paired with Emergency
    Road Service channels enabling Emergency Road Service licensees to
    significantly expand the coverage of their signals.[^153] AAA
    contends that this will provide substantial benefit for the
    public.[^154] AAA notes that in many parts of the country many auto
    clubs are at full capacity using the Emergency Road Service
    channels.[^155] AAA states that its proposal would allow those
    channels to be used far more efficiently than they are used
    today.[^156] AAA contends that no party will be prejudiced by the
    assignment of eight of the dockside frequencies for Emergency Road
    Service as twenty-two dockside channels will remain for general
    low-power use.[^157]

50. AAA envisions that when the designated eight dockside frequencies
    are paired with the Emergency Road Service frequencies, the dockside
    frequencies would be used for mobile units and the Emergency Road
    Service frequencies would become the repeater frequencies.[^158] AAA
    states that to achieve this result, it is necessary to eliminate the
    current power restriction on the dockside frequencies.[^159] AAA
    states that the current 2-watt restriction may be necessary when the
    frequencies are used dockside but claims that it serves no useful
    purpose outside that setting.[^160] AAA also states that designating
    it the sole coordinator for these frequencies, as it proposes, will
    ensure that removing the power restriction will result in no harm to
    the incumbent users on the dockside channels.[^161] AAA also states
    that designating it the coordinator for these channels will prevent
    interference on the corresponding Emergency Road Service
    channels.[^162] Otherwise, states AAA, the existing users of the
    Emergency Road Service might be subject to substantial interference
    from the dockside channels when they are used as repeater
    frequencies, which are often not adequately monitored for co-channel
    traffic.[^163] AAA states the result of the interference would mean
    delays to AAA dispatching and providing assistance to stranded
    motorists.[^164] We seek comment on AAA\'s proposal.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

**A. Regulatory Flexibility Act**

51. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with respect to the *Report
    and Order* and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with
    respect to the *Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making* have been
    prepared and are included in Appendix D.

    **B. Paperwork Reduction Act**

52. This *Report and Order* contains either a new or modified
    information collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing
    effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public to
    comment on the information collection contained in this *Report and
    Order* as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L.
    No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due 60 days from date of
    publication of this *Report and Order* in the Federal Register.
    Comments should address: (a) whether the new or modified collection
    of information is necessary for the proper performance of the
    functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall
    have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission\'s burden
    estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
    the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of
    the collection of information on the respondents, including the use
    of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
    technology. These comments should be submitted to Judy Boley,
    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington,
    DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov. Furthermore, a copy
    of any such comments should be submitted to Virginia Huth, OMB Desk
    Officer, 725 17th Street, N.W., Room 10236 NEOB, Washington, D.C.
    20503 or via the Internet to VHuth@omb.eop.gov.

    **C. Alternative Formats**

53. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette
    and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by
    contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260, TTY (202) 418-2555, or
    at mcontee@fcc.gov. This *Report and Order* can also be downloaded
    at http://www.fcc.gov/dtf/.

    **D. Pleading Dates**

54. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on
    before \[60 days after publication in the Federal Register\], and
    reply comments on or before \[90 days after publication in the
    Federal Register\]. Comments may be filed using the Commission\'s
    Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
    *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*, 63
    Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998).

55. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to \<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html\>.
    Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.
    If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of
    this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic
    copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced
    in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters
    should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and
    the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
    an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions
    for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to
    ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of
    the message, \"get form \<your e-mail address.\" A sample form and
    directions will be sent in reply.

56. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
    copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number
    appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two
    additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
    All filings must be sent to the Commission\'s Secretary, Magalie
    Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., TW-A325, Washington, D.C.
    20554.

    **E. Ordering Clauses**

57. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of
    Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 332(a)(2) of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 332(a)(2), Parts 2,
    90 and 95 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. Parts 2, 90 and 95,
    ARE AMENDED as set forth in the attached Appendix B.

58. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule changes adopted herein will
    become effective \[thirty days after publication in the Federal
    Register\].

59. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, WT
    Docket No. 98-182, including both the Final and Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

    **F. Contact for Information**

60. For further information, contact Ghassan Khalek (202) 418-2771, or
    Guy Benson (202) 418‑2946, Policy and Rules Branch, Public Safety
    and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**Parties Submitting Comments and Reply Comments in WT Docket No.
98-182**

Ad Hoc 800/900 MHz Licensee Committee (Ad Hoc Committee)

Atlantic City Electric Company and Delmarva Power and Light Company
(Atlantic and Delmarva)

American Automobile Association (AAA)

American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc. (AMTA)

American Petroleum Institute (API)

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
Inc. (APCO)

Blooston, Mordkofsky, Jackson and Dickens (Blooston Mordkofsky)

Day, Catalano & Plache (Day Catalano)

Ericsson, Inc. (Ericsson)

Global Cellular Communications, Inc. (Global)

INTEK Global Corporation (Intek)

Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC)

Motorola, Inc. (Motorola)

Personal Communications Industry Association, Inc. (PCIA)

Tandy Corporation (Tandy)

UTC, The Telecommunications Association (UTC)

**APPENDIX** **B**

Part 2 of Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

1.  The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:

**AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302(a), 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.**

2.  Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as
    follows:

Add the new text shown in column 6 for the entries for 150.8-152 MHz and
154-156.2475 MHz.

**§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations**

\* \* \* \* \*

BLANK PAGE FOR TABLE

\* \* \* \* \*

Part 90 of Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

**PART 90 - PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES**

3.  The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows:

**AUTHORITY: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r) and 332(c)(7) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g),
303(r), 332(c)(7).**

4.  Section 90.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.1 Basis and purpose.**

   \* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) *Purpose.* This part states the conditions under which radio
communications systems may be licensed and used in the Public Safety
Radio Pool, Industrial/Business Radio Pool, and the Radiolocation
Service. These rules do not govern radio systems employed by agencies of
the Federal Government.

\* \* \* \* \*

5.  Section 90.7 is amended by revising the definition of Trunked Radio
    System to read as follows:

\* \* \* \* \*

*Trunked Radio System*. A radio system employing technology that
provides the ability to search two or more available channels and
automatically assign a user an open channel.

\* \* \* \* \*

6.  Section 90.20 is amended by revising the entries for 453.03125 MHz
    and 453.0125 MHz of paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:

**§ 90.20 Public Safety Pool.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) \* \* \*

\(3\) \* \* \*

Frequency Class of Limitations Coordinator

or Band stations(s)

Megahertz:

453.0125 Mobile 57, 78 PX

453.03125 Base or mobile 44, 59, 60, 61, 62 PM

\* \* \* \* \*

7.  Section 90.22 is amended by revising the introductory text to read
    as follows:

**§ 90.22 Paging Operations.**

Unless specified elsewhere in this part, paging operations may be
authorized in the Public Safety Pool on any frequency except those
assigned under the provisions of § 90.20(d)(78). Paging operations on
frequencies subject to § 90.20(d)(78) authorized before August 17, 1974,
may be continued only if they do not cause harmful interference to
regular operations on the same frequencies. Such paging operations may
be renewed indefinitely on a secondary basis to regular operations,
except within 125 km (75 mi) of the following urbanized areas:

\* \* \* \* \*

8.  Section 90.35 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) by deleting
    the following five lines from the Industrial/Business Pool Frequency
    Table:

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  Frequency or band Class of          Limitations       Coordinator
                    stations(s)                         

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

\* \* \* \* \*

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  151.820           Mobile            12, 14, 30, 35    

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

\* \* \* \* \*

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  151.880           Mobile            12, 14, 30, 35    

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

\* \* \* \* \*

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  151.940           Mobile            12, 14, 30, 35    

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

\* \* \* \* \*

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  154.570           Mobile            11, 12, 35, 45    

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

\* \* \* \* \*

  ----------------- ------------------------------- ----------------- -----------------
  154.600           \.....Do\...\...\...\...\....   11, 12, 45, 47    

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

\* \* \* \* \*

9.  Section 90.35 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) by revising
    the Industrial/Business Pool Frequency Table as follows:

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  Frequency or band Class of          Limitations       Coordinator
                    stations(s)                         

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

\* \* \* \* \*

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  153.560           do                80                IP,IW

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

\*\*\*

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  154.585           Mobile            8, 46             IP

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

\* \* \* \* \*

10. Section 90.35 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(60) to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.35 Industrial/Business Pool.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) \* \* \* \*

(60)(i) This frequency is available for voice or non-voice
communications concerned with cargo handling from a dock or cargo
handling facility, a vessel alongside the dock, or cargo handling
facility. The effective radiated power (ERP) shall not exceed 2 watts.
Mobile relay stations may be temporarily installed on vessels located at
or in the vicinity of a dock or cargo handling facility. The center of
the radiating system of the mobile relay shall be located no more than 3
meters (10 feet) above the vessel's highest working dock.

(ii)This frequency is also available for low power non-cargo handling
operations, both voice and non-voice, on a secondary basis to cargo
handling communications. This frequency will not be assigned for
non-cargo handling operations at temporary locations.

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Mobile

Mobile relay (MHz)^1^ (MHz)

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

457.525\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
467.750

457.53125\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
467.75625

457.5375\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
467.7625

457.54375\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
467.76875

457.550\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
467.775

457.55625\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
467.78125

457.5625\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
467.7875

457.56875\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
467.79375

457.575\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
467.800

457.58125\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
467.80625

457.5875\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
467.8125

457.59375\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
467.81875

457.600\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
467.825

457.60625\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
467.83125

457.6125

457.61875

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

^1^The mobile relay frequencies may also be used for single frequency
simplex.

\* \* \* \* \*

11. The Rule amendments to Section 90.135 of the Commission\'s Rules set
    forth in Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private
    Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them,
    PR Docket No. 92-235, *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, FCC
    99-68 (rel. Apr. 13, 1999) 64 Fed. Reg. 36269, July 6, 1999 are
    removed.

12. Section 90.149 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.149 License term.**

\(a\) Licenses for stations authorized under this part will be issued
for a term not to exceed ten (10) years from the date of the original
issuance or renewal.

\* \* \* \* \*

13. Section 90.155 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 90.155 Time in which station must be placed in operation.**

\(a\) All stations authorized under this part, except as provided in §§
90.629, 90.631(f), 90.665, and 90.685, must be placed in operation
within twelve (12) months from the date of grant or the authorization
cancels automatically and must be returned to the Commission.

\(b\) A local government entity in the Public Safety Pool, applying for
any frequency in this part, may also seek extended implementation
authorization pursuant to § 90.629.

\(c\) For purposes of this section, a base station is not considered to
be placed in operation unless at least one associated mobile station is
also placed in operation. See also §§ 90.633(d) and 90.631(f).

\(d\) Multilateration LMS systems authorized in accordance with § 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. MTA‑licensed multilateration LMS
systems will be considered constructed and placed in operation if such
systems construct a sufficient number of base stations that utilize
multilateration technology (see paragraph (e) of this section) to
provide multilateration location service to a substantial portion of at
least one BTA in the MTA.

\(e\) A multilateration LMS station will be considered constructed and
placed in operation if it is built in accordance with its authorized
parameters and is regularly interacting with one or more other stations
to provide location service, using multilateration technology, to one or
more mobile units. Specifically, LMS multilateration stations will only
be considered constructed and placed in operation if they are part of a
system that can interrogate a mobile, receive the response at 3 or more
sites, compute the location from the time of arrival of the responses
and transmit the location either back to the mobile or to a
subscriber\'s fixed site.

\(f\) For purposes of this section, a station licensed to provide
commercial mobile radio service is not considered to have commenced
service unless it provides service to at least one unaffiliated party.

\(g\) Application for extension of time to commence service may be made
on FCC Form 601. Extensions of time must be filed prior to the
expiration of the construction period. Extensions will be granted only
if the licensee shows that the failure to commence service is due to
causes beyond its control. No extensions will be granted for delays
caused by lack of financing, lack of site availability, for the
assignment or transfer of control of an authorization, or for failure to
timely order equipment. If the licensee orders equipment within 90 days
of the license grant, a presumption of due diligence is created.

\(h\) An application for modification of an authorization (under
construction) at the existing location does not extend the initial
construction period. If additional time to commence service is required,
a request for such additional time must be submitted on FCC Form 601,
either separately or in conjunction with the submission of the FCC Form
601 requesting modification.

14. Section 90.167 is removed.

15. Section 90.175 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(14) to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.175. Frequency coordination requirements.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(i\) \*\*\*

\(14\) Except for applications for the frequencies set forth in §§
90.719(c) and 90.720, applications for frequencies in the 220-222 MHz
band.

16. Section 90.179 is amended by adding new paragraphs (g) and (h) and
    redesignating current paragraph (g) as paragraph (i), to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.179 Shared use of radio stations.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(g\) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, licensees
authorized to operate radio systems on Public Safety Pool frequencies
designated in § 90.20 may share their facilities with Federal Government
entities on a non-profit, cost-shared basis. Such a sharing arrangement
is subject to the provisions of paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) of this
section.

\(h\) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, licensees
authorized to operate radio systems on Industrial/Business Pool
frequencies designated in § 90.35 may share their facilities with Public
Safety Pool entities designated in § 90.20 and with Federal Government
entities on a non-profit, cost-shared basis. Such a sharing arrangement
is subject to the provisions of paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) of this
section.

\(i\) The provisions of this section do not apply to licensees
authorized to provide commercial mobile radio service under this part.

17. Section 90.187 is amended by revising the section to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.187 Trunking in the bands between 150 and 512 MHz.**

\(a\) Applicants for trunked systems operating on frequencies between
150 and 512 MHz (except 220-222 MHz) must indicate on their applications
(class of station code, instructions for FCC Form 601) that their system
will be trunked. Licensees of stations that are not trunked, may trunk
their systems only after modifying their license (see s 1.927 of this
chapter).

\(b\) Trunked systems operating under this section must employ equipment
that prevents transmission on a trunked frequency if a signal from
another system is present on that frequency. The level of monitoring
must be sufficient to avoid causing harmful interference to other
systems. However, this monitoring requirement does not apply if the
conditions in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2), below, are met:

\(1\) Where applicants for or licensees operating in the 470-512 MHz
band meet the loading requirements of s 90.313 and have exclusive use of
their frequencies in their service area.

\(2\) On frequencies where an applicant or licensee does not have an
exclusive service area provided that all frequency coordination
requirements are complied with and written consent is obtained from
affected licensees using either the procedure set forth in (b)(2)(i) and
(b)(2)(ii) of this section (mileage separation) or the procedure set
forth in (b)(2)(iii)

(protected contours).

\(i\) Affected licensees for the purposes of this section are licensees
of stations that have assigned frequencies (base and mobile) that are 15
kHz or less removed from proposed stations that will operate with a 25
kHz channel bandwidth; stations that have assigned frequencies (base and
mobile) that are 7.5 kHz or less removed from proposed stations that
will operate with a 12.5 kHz bandwidth; or stations that have assigned
frequencies (base and mobile) 3.75 kHz or less removed from proposed
stations that will operate with a 6.25 kHz bandwidth; and

\(ii\) Where such stations' service areas (37 dBu contour for stations
in the 150-174 MHz band and 39 dBu contour for stations in the 421-512
MHz bands; see § 90.205) overlap a circle with radius 113 km (70 mi.)
from the proposed base station.

\(iii\) In lieu of the mileage separation procedure set forth in
(b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this section, applicants for trunked
facilities may obtain consent only from stations that would be subjected
to objectionable interference from the trunked facilities. Objectionable
interference will be considered to exist when the interference contour
(19 dBu for VHF stations, 21 dBu for UHF

stations) of a proposed trunked station would intersect the service
contour (37 dBu for VHF stations, 39 dBu for UHF stations) of an
existing station. The existing stations that must be considered in a
contour overlap analysis are a function of the channel bandwidth of the
proposed trunked station, as follows:

\(A\) For trunked stations proposing 25 kHz channel bandwidth: Existing
co- channel stations and existing stations that have an operating
frequency 15 kHz or less from the proposed trunked station.

\(B\) For trunked stations proposing 12.5 kHz channel bandwidth:
Existing co- channel stations and existing stations that have an
operating frequency 7.5 kHz or less from the proposed trunked station.

\(C\) For trunked stations proposing 6.25 kHz channel bandwidth:
Existing co- channel stations and existing stations that have an
operating frequency 3.75 kHz or less from the proposed trunked station.

\(iv\) The calculation of service and interference contours referenced
in paragraph (iii) of this section shall be done using generally
accepted engineering practices and standards which, for purposes of this
rule section, shall presumptively be the practices and standards agreed
to by a consensus of all certified frequency coordinators.

\(v\) The written consent from the licensees specified in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) or (b)(2)(iii)(A), (b)(2)(iii)(B) and
(b)(2)(iii)C of this section shall specifically state all terms agreed
to by the parties and shall be signed by the parties. The written
consent shall be maintained by the operator of the trunked station and
be made available to the Commission upon request.

The submission of a coordinated trunked application to the Commission
shall include a certification from the applicant that written consent
has been obtained from all licensees specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)
and (b)(2)(ii) or (b)(2)(iii)(A), (b)(2)(iii)(B) and (b)(2)(iii)(C) of
this section that the written consent documents encompass the complete
understandings and agreements of the parties as to such consent; and
that the terms and conditions thereof are consistent with the
Commission\'s rules. Should a potential applicant disagree with a
certified frequency coordinator\'s determination that objectionable
interference exists with respect to a given channel or channels, that
potential applicant may request the Commission to overturn the certified
frequency coordinator\'s determination. In that event, the burden of
proving by clear and convincing evidence that the certified frequency
coordinator\'s determination is incorrect shall rest with the potential
applicant. If a licensee has consented to the use of trunking, but later
decides against the use of trunking, that licensee may request that the
licensee(s) of the trunked system(s) cease the use of trunking. Should
the trunked station(s) decline the licensee\'s request, the licensee may
request a replacement channel from the Commission. A new applicant whose
interference contour overlaps the service contour of a trunked licensee
will be assigned the same channel as the trunked licensee only if the
trunked licensee consents in writing and a copy of the written consent
is submitted to the certified frequency coordinator responsible for
coordination of the application.

\(c\) Trunking of systems licensed on paging-only channels or licensed
in the Radiolocation Service (subpart F) is not permitted.

\(d\) Potential applicants proposing trunked operation may file written
notice with any certified frequency coordinator for the pool (Public
Safety or Industrial/Business) in which the applicant proposes to
operate. The notice shall specify the channels on which the potential
trunked applicant proposes to operate and the proposed effective
radiated power, antenna pattern, height above

ground, height above average terrain and proposed channel bandwidth. On
receipt of such a notice, the certified frequency coordinator shall
notify all other certified frequency coordinators in the relevant pool
within one business day. For a period of sixty days thereafter, no
application will be accepted for coordination which specifies parameters
that would result in objectionable interference to the channels
specified in the notice. Potential applicants shall not file another
notice for the same channels within 10 km (6.2 miles) of the same
location unless six months shall have elapsed since the filing of the
last such notice. Certified frequency coordinators shall return without
action, any coordination request which violates the terms of paragraph
(d) of this section.

\(e\) No more than 10 channels for trunked operation in the
Industrial/Business Pool may be applied for in a single application.
Subsequent applications, limited to an additional 10 channels or fewer,
must be accompanied by a certification, submitted to the certified
frequency coordinator coordinating the application, that all of the
applicant\'s existing channels authorized for trunked operation have
been constructed and placed in operation. Certified frequency
coordinators are authorized to require documentation in support of the
applicant\'s certification that existing channels have been constructed
and placed in operation. Applicants in the Public Safety Pool may
request more than 10 channels at a single location provided that any
application for more than 10 Public Safety Pool channels must be
accompanied by a showing of sufficient need. The requirement for such a
showing may be satisfied by submission of loading studies demonstrating
that requested channels in excess of 10 will be loaded with 50 mobiles
per channel within a five year period commencing with grant of the
application.

\(f\) If a licensee authorized for trunked operation discontinues
trunked operation for a period of 30 consecutive days, the licensee,
within 7 days of the expiration of said 30 day period, shall file a
conforming application for modification of license with the Commission.
Upon grant of that application, new applicants may file for the same
channel or channels notwithstanding the

interference contour of the new applicant\'s proposed channel or
channels overlaps the service contour of the station that was previously
engaged in trunked operation.

18. Section 90.242 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) as follows:

\* \* \* \* \*

(a)(3) Travelers Information Stations will be authorized on a secondary
basis to stations authorized on a primary basis in the bands 510\--1715
kHz.

\* \* \* \* \*

19. Section 90.421 is revised as follows:

**§ 90.421 Operation of mobile station units not under the control of
the licensee.**

Mobile stations, as defined in § 90.7, include vehicular-mounted and
hand-held units. Such units may be operated by persons other than the
licensee, as provided for below, when necessary for the licensee to meet
its requirements in connection with the activities for which it is
licensed. If the number of such units, together with units operated by
the licensee, exceeds the number of mobile units authorized to the
licensee, license modification is required. The licensee is responsible
for taking necessary precautions to prevent unauthorized operation of
such units not under its control.

\(a\) *Public Safety Pool.*

\(1\) Mobile units licensed in the Public Safety Pool may be installed
in any vehicle which in an emergency would require cooperation and
coordination with the licensee, and in any vehicle used in the
performance, under contract, of official activities of the licensee.
This provision does not permit the installation of radio units in
non‑emergency vehicles that are not performing governmental functions
under contract but with which the licensee might wish to communicate.

\(2\) Mobile units licensed under § 90.20(a)(2)(iii) may be installed in
a vehicle or be hand‑carried for use by any person with whom cooperation
or coordinations is required for medical services activities.

\(b\) *Industrial/Business Pool.* Mobile units licensed in the
Industrial/Business Pool may be installed in vehicles of persons
furnishing under contract to the licensee and for the duration of the
contract, a facility or service directly related to the activities of
the licensee.

\(c\) In addition to the above, frequencies assigned to licensees in the
Private Land Mobile Radio Services may be installed in the facilities of
those who assist the licensee in emergencies and with whom the licensee
must communicate in situations involving imminent safety to life or
property.

20. Section 90.449 is removed.

21. Section 90.629 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)
    and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

**§ 90.629 Extended implementation period.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(a\) \* \* \*

\(1\) The proposed system will require longer than twelve (12) months to
construct and place in operation because of its purpose, size, or
complexity; or

\(2\) The proposed system is to be part of a coordinated or integrated
wide‑area system which will require more than twelve (12) months to
plan, approve, fund, purchase, construct, and place in operation; or

\* \* \* \* \*

\(f\) Pursuant to § 90.155(b), the provisions of this section shall
apply to local government entities applying for any frequency in the
Public Safety Pool.

Part 95 of Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

**PART 95 - PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES**

22. The authority citation for Part 95 continues to read as follows:

    **AUTHORITY: Sections 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47
    U.S.C. 154, 303.**

23. Section 95.401 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f) as follows:

**§ 95.401 (CB Rule 1) What are the Citizens Band Radio Services?**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(f\) The Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS)\--a private, two-way,
short-distance voice, data or image communications service for personal
or business activities of the general public. The rules for this service
are contained in subpart J of this part.

24. Section 95.601 is amended by changing the last sentence to read as
    follows:

**§ 95.601 Basis and purpose**.

\* \* \* The Personal Radio Services are the GMRS (General Mobile Radio
Service)-subpart A, the Family Radio Service (FRS)-subpart B, the R/C
(Radio Control Radio Service)-subpart C, the CB (Citizens Band Radio
Service)-subpart D, the Low Power Radio Service (LPRS)-subpart G, the
Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS)-subpart H, the Medical
Implants Communication Service (MICS)-subpart I, and the Multi-Use Radio
Service (MURS)\--subpart J.

25. Section 95.603 is amended by adding a new paragraph (g) as follows:

**§ 95.603 Certification required**.

\(g\) Each Multi-Use Radio Service transmitter (a transmitter that
operates or is intended to operate in the MURS) must be certified in
accordance with § 90.203 of this chapter.

26. Section 95.605 is amended by changing the first sentence to read as
    follows:

**§ 95.605 Certification procedures.**

Any entity may request certification for its transmitter when the
transmitter is used in the GMRS, FRS, R/C, CB, IVDS, LPRS, MURS, or MICS
following the procedures in part 2 of this chapter. \* \* \* \* \*

27. Section 95.631 is amended by adding a new paragraph (j) as follows:

**§ 95.631 Emission types.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(j\) A MURS station may transmit any emission type as specified in §
90.207 of this Chapter.

28. A new section 95.632 is added as follows:

**§ 95.632 MURS transmitter frequencies.**

\(a\) The MURS transmitter channel frequencies are 151.820 MHz, 151.880
MHz, 151.940 MHz, 154.570 MHz, 154.600 MHz.

\(b\) The authorized bandwidth is 11.25 kHz on frequencies 151.820 MHz,
151.880 MHz and 151.940 MHz. The authorized bandwidth is 12.5 kHz on
frequencies 154.570 and 154.600 kHz.

\(c\) MURS transmitters must maintain a frequency stability of 5.0 ppm,
or 2.0 ppm if designed to operate with a 6.25 kHz bandwidth.

29. Section 95.633 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f) as follows:

**§ 95.633 Emission bandwidth.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(f\) The authorized bandwidth for any emission type transmitted by a
MURS transmitter is specified in § 90.209 of this Chapter.

30. Section 95.635 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as
    follows:

**§ 95.635 Unwanted radiation.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) For transmitters designed to operate in the MURS, transmitters
shall comply with § 90.210 of this chapter.

31. Section 95.639 is amended by adding a new paragraph (h) to read as
    follows:

**§ 95.639 Maximum transmitter power.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(h\) No MURS unit, under any condition of modulation, shall exceed 2 W
effective radiated power (ERP).

32. Section 95.649 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 95.649 Power capability**

No CB, R/C, LPRS, FRS, MICS, MURS or WMTS unit shall incorporate
provisions for increasing its transmitter power to any level in excess
of the limits specified in § 95.639.

33. Section 95.651 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 95.651 Crystal control required**

All transmitters used in the Personal Radio Services must be crystal
controlled, except an R/C station that transmits in the 26-27 MHz
frequency band, a FRS unit, a LPRS unit, a MURS unit, a MICS
transmitter, or a WMTS unit.

34. Appendix 1 to Subpart E to Part 95 - Glossary of Terms is revised to
    read as follows:

Appendix 1 to Subpart E to Part 95 --Glossary of Terms

The definitions used in part 95, Subpart E are:

*Authorized bandwidth.* Maximum permissible bandwidth of a transmission.

*Carrier power.* Average TP during one unmodulated RF cycle.

*CB.* Citizens Band Radio Service.

*CB transmitter.* A transmitter that operates or is intended to operate
at a station authorized in the CB.

*Channel frequencies.* Reference frequencies from which the carrier
frequency, suppressed or otherwise, may not deviate by more than the
specified frequency tolerance.

*Crystal.* Quartz piezo-electric element.

*Crystal controlled.* Use of a crystal to establish the transmitted
frequency.

*dB.* Decibels.

*EIRP.* Effective Isotropic Radiated Power. Antenna input power times
gain for free-space or in-tissue measurement configurations required by
MICS, expressed in watts, where the gain is referenced to an isotropic
radiator.

*FCC.* Federal Communications Commission.

*Filtering.* Refers to the requirement in § 95.633(b).

*FRS.* Family Radio Service.

*GMRS*. General Mobile Radio Service.

*GMRS transmitter.* A transmitter that operates or is intended to
operate at a station authorized in the GMRS.

*Harmful interference.* Any transmission, radiation or induction that
endangers the functioning of a radionavigation or other safety service
or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a
radiocommunication service operating in accordance with applicable laws,
treaties and regulations.

*Mean power.* TP averaged over at least 30 cycles of the lowest
modulating frequency, typically 0.1 seconds at maximum power.

*MICS.* Medical Implant Communications Service.

*Medical implant device.* Apparatus that is placed inside the human body
for the purpose of performing diagnostic or therapeutic functions.

*Medical implant event.* An occurrence or the lack of an occurrence
recognized by a medical implant device, or a duly authorized health care
professional, that requires the transmission of data from a medical
implant transmitter in order to protect the safety or well-being of the
person in whom the medical implant transmitter has been implanted.

*Medical Implant Communications Service* (MICS) *transmitter.* A
transmitter authorized to operated in the MICS.

*Medical implant programmer/control transmitter.* A MICS transmitter
that operates or is designed to operate outside of a human body for the
purpose of communicating with a receiver connected to a medical implant
device.

*Medical implant transmitter.* A MICS transmitter that operates or is
designed to operate within a human body for the purpose of facilitating
communications from a medical implant device.

*MURS*. Multi-Use Radio Service.

*Peak envelope power.* TP averaged during one RF cycle at the highest
crest of the modulation envelope.

*R/C.* Radio Control Radio Service.

*R/C transmitter.* A transmitter that operates or is intended to operate
at a station authorized in the R/C.

*RF.* Radio frequency.

*Transmitter.* Apparatus that converts electrical energy received from a
source into RF energy capable of being radiated.

*TP.* RF transmitter power expressed in W, either mean or peak envelope,
as measured at the transmitter output antenna terminals.

*W.* Watts.

35. A new Subpart J is added to Part 95 to read as follows:

    **Subpart J\--Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS)**

    Sec.

    95.1301 Eligibility.

    95.1303 Authorized locations.

    95.1305 Station identification.

    95.1307 Permissible communications.

    95.1309 Channel use policy.

\* \* \* \* \*

**Subpart J\--Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS)**

General Provisions

**§ 95.1301 Eligibility.**

An entity is authorized by rule to operate a MURS transmitter if it is
not a foreign government or a representative of a foreign government and
if it uses the transmitter in accordance with § 95.1309 and otherwise
operates in accordance with the rules contained in this subpart. No
license will be issued.

**§ 95.1303 Authorized locations.**

\(a\) MURS operation is authorized:

\(1\) Anywhere CB station operation is permitted under § 95.405; and

\(2\) Aboard any vessel of the United States, with the permission of the
captain, while the vessel is travelling either domestically or in
international waters.

\(b\) MURS operation is not authorized aboard aircraft in flight.

\(c\) Anyone intending to operate a MURS unit on the islands of Puerto
Rico, Desecheo, Mona, Vieques, and Culebra in a manner that could pose
an interference threat to the Arecibo Observatory shall notify the
Interference Office, Arecibo Observatory, Post Office Box 995, Arecibo,
Puerto Rico 00613, in writing or electronically, of the location of the
unit. Operators may wish to consult interference guidelines, which will
be provided by Cornell University. Operators who choose to transmit
information electronically should e‑mail to: prcz@naic.edu.

\(1\) The notification to the Interference Office, Arecibo Observatory
shall be made 45 days prior to commencing operation of the unit. The
notification shall state the geographical coordinates of the unit.

\(2\) After receipt of such notifications, the Commission will allow the
Arecibo Observatory a period of 20 days for comments or objections. The
operator will be required to make reasonable efforts in order to resolve
or mitigate any potential interference problem with the Arecibo
Observatory. If the Commission determines that an operator has satisfied
its responsibility to make reasonable efforts to protect the Observatory
from interference, the unit may be allowed to operate.

**§ 95.1305 Station identification.**

A MURS station is not required to transmit a station identification
announcement.

**§ 95.1307 Permissible communications.**

\(a\) MURS stations may transmit voice, data or image signals as
permitted in this subpart.

\(b\) A MURS station may transmit any emission type, subject to the
limitations contained in § 90.207 of this Chapter.

\(c\) MURS frequencies may be used for remote control and telemetering
functions. Emission types A1D, A2D, F1D, F2D are authorized and stations
used to control remote objects or devices may be operated on the
continuous carrier transmit mode, except on frequency 154.600 MHz.

**§ 95.1309 Channel use policy.**

\(a\) The channels authorized to MURS systems by this part are available
on a shared basis only and will not be assigned for the exclusive use of
any entity.

\(b\) Those using MURS transmitters must cooperate in the selection and
use of channels in order to reduce interference and make the most
effective use of authorized facilities. Channels must be selected in an
effort to avoid interference to other MURS transmissions.

**APPENDIX** **C**

Part 90 of Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
proposed to be amended as follows:

**PART 90 - PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES**

1.  The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows:

**AUTHORITY: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r) and 332(c)(7) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g),
303(r), 332(c)(7).**

2.  Section 90.20 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
    (a)(1)(i) to read as follows:

   \* \* \* \* \*

\(i\) A district and an authority;

\* \* \* \* \*

2a. Section 90.20 is proposed to be further amended by revising
paragraph (d)(43) to read as follows:

\(43\) Reserved.

3.  Section 90.20 is proposed to be further amended by revising the
    entries for 156.165 MHz, 156.1725 MHz, 156.180 MHz, 156.1875 MHz,
    156.195 MHz, 156.2025 MHz, 156.225 MHz, 156.2325 MHz, 156.240 MHz,
    158.985 MHz, 158.9925 MHz, 159.000 MHz, 159.0075 MHz, 159.015 MHz,
    159.0225 MHz, 159.045 MHz, 159.0525 MHz, 159.060 MHz, 159.0675 MHz,
    159.075 MHz, 159.0825 MHz, 159.105 MHz, 159.1125 MHz, 159.120 MHz,
    159.1275 MHz, 159.135 MHz, 159.1425 MHz, 159.165 MHz, and 159.1725
    MHz of paragraph (3) to read as follows:

**§ 90.20 Public Safety Pool.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) \* \* \*

\(3\) \* \* \*

Frequency Class of Limitations Coordinator

or Band stations(s)

Megahertz:

156.165 Base or Mobile 42 PH

156.1725 do 27, 42 PH

156.180 do 42 PH

156.1875 do 27, 42 PH

156.195 do PH

156.2025 do 27 PH

\*\*\*\*

156.225 do PH

156.2325 do 27 PH

156.240 do 79 PH

\*\*\*\*

158.985 \[Mobile\] PH

158.9925 do 27 PH

159.000 do PH

159.0075 do 27 PH

159.015 do PH

159.0225 do 27 PH

\*\*\*\*

159.045 do PH

159.0525 do 27 PH

159.060 do PH

159.0675 do 27 PH

159.075 do PH

156.0825 do 27 PH

\*\*\*\*

159.105 \[Base or Mobile\] PH

159.1125 do 27 PH

159.120 do PH

159.1275 do 27 PH

159.135 do PH

159.1425 do 27 PH

\*\*\*\*

159.165 do PH

159.1725 do 27 PH

4.  Section 90.242 is proposed to be amended by deleting paragraph
    (a)(1) and renumbering paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(7) as (a)(1)
    though (a)(6).

    **APPENDIX D**

    **I. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for *Report and Order***

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^165] an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
*Notice*.[^166] The Commission sought written public comment on the
proposals in the *Notice*, including comment on the IRFA. This present
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^167]

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Adopted Rules:

1.  To reduce regulatory requirements, the Commission has adopted rules
    to: (1) eliminate the distinction between cargo handling and other
    uses of the eight frequencies in the 450-470 MHz band; (2) change
    the license term for stations authorized under Part 90 from five
    years to ten years from the date of initial issuance or renewal; (3)
    amend Sections 90.155(a) and (b) of the Commission\'s Rules to
    change the time in which a station must be placed in operation from
    eight months to twelve months; (4) amend Section 90.175(i)(14) of
    the Rules to require that applicants for any of the fifteen 220 MHz
    public safety channels set forth in Sections 90.719(c) and 90.720 of
    the Rules submit their applications to a public safety frequency
    coordinator for frequency coordination prior to submission of the
    applications to the Commission; (5) amend Section 90.179 of the
    Commission\'s Rules to provide that a radio facility authorized to a
    public safety licensee may be shared with a Federal government
    entity on a cost-shared, non-profit basis; (6) clarify the
    definitions of centralized and decentralized trunking and amend
    Section 90.187 to reflect a new process for licensing trunked
    systems; and (7) amend Section 90.421 as set forth in Appendix B to
    remove redundant text and include text concerning hand-held radio
    units.

2.  We find that the rule changes adopted in this *Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making* will consolidate and
    streamline the Part 90 Rules, allow more efficient use of the
    spectrum, and provide Part 90 licensees with greater flexibility and
    clarity concerning their operations.

    **B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in
    Response to the IRFA.**

3.  No comments were submitted specifically in response to the IRFA. We
    have nonetheless considered the effect of these rule changes on
    small entities and considered other alternatives. We expect,
    however, that our actions will benefit all entities subject to these
    rule changes, including small businesses.

    **C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
    Which Rules Will Apply:**

4.  The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
    feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
    affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^168] The RFA generally
    defines the term \"small entity \" as having the same meaning as the
    terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
    governmental jurisdiction.\" In addition, the term \"small
    business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business
    concern\" under the Small Business Act.[^169] A small business
    concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2)
    is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
    additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
    (SBA).[^170]

5.  The adopted rules apply to businesses and local government entities
    that operate radio systems for their own internal use in the PLMR
    services. Traditionally, PLMR services have provided for the
    private, internal communications needs of public safety entities,
    state and local government entities, large and small businesses,
    transportation providers, the medical community, and other diverse
    users of two-way radio systems. PLMR systems currently serve an
    essential role in a vast range of industrial, business, land
    transportation, and public safety activities. These radios are used
    by companies of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories.
    Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the Commission has not
    developed nor would it be possible to develop a definition of small
    businesses specifically applicable to PLMR users. Therefore, for the
    purpose of determining whether a licensee is a small business as
    defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA), each licensee
    would need to be evaluated within its own business area. Therefore,
    the appropriate definition for PLMR small businesses is the SBA\'s
    definition for radiotelephone (wireless) companies. That definition
    provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing
    no more than 1,500 persons.

6.  We sought comment on the number of small businesses which could be
    impacted by the proposed rules. We noted that the Commission\'s 1994
    Annual Report indicates that at the end of fiscal year 1994 there
    were approximately 292,000 PLMR stations and 5.4 million
    transmitters operating in the 800, 900 MHz and 24 GHz bands.[^171]
    Further, because any entity engaged in a business activity is
    eligible to hold a PLMR license, the adopted rules could potentially
    impact every small business in the U.S. There are far fewer than
    292,000 licensees among the 292,000 PLMR stations. We do not have
    data specifying the number of these licensees that have 1,500
    employees or fewer and are not dominant in their field of operation,
    and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision
    the number of such entities that might qualify as small business
    concerns under the SBA\'s definition. In reality, however, the
    number of small businesses affected by the change in the
    construction period rule and the elimination of the frequency
    coordination requirement for five VHF low power frequencies, is
    expected to be very small.

7.  As noted, the RFA also includes small governmental entities as a
    part of the regulatory flexibility analysis.[^172] The definition of
    a small governmental entity is one with a population of less than
    50,000.[^173] There are 85,006 governmental entities in the
    nation.[^174] This number includes such entities as states,
    counties, cities, utility districts, and school districts. There are
    no figures available on what portion of this number has populations
    of fewer than 50,000. However, this number includes 38,978 counties,
    cities, and towns, and of those, 37,566, or 96 percent, have
    populations of fewer than 50,000.[^175] The Census Bureau estimates
    that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental
    entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate
    that 96 percent, or 81,600 are small entities that may be affected
    by our adopted rule to permit public safety licensees (local
    government entities) to use the frequency 24.1 GHz for transmitting
    traffic safety alerting signals. The decision whether or not to use
    this frequency would be made by each local governmental agency.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements:

8.  The Rules adopted in this Order have minimal additional reporting or
    recordkeeping requirements for PLMR licensees. In fact, our decision
    to increase the license term from five to ten years will result in a
    decrease in the amount of fees paid and paperwork required. On the
    other hand, applicants for certain channels are now required to
    coordinate their frequencies prior to submission of an application,
    which is achieved through the use of registered frequency
    coordinators.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
and Significant Alternatives Considered.

9.  In the IRFA, we indicated that many of our proposed rules will
    result in economic benefits to small business and local government
    entities. We believe that relaxing the restrictions on
    cargo/non-cargo operations will help to satisfy demand for
    communications on these frequencies. *See* paras. 4-8, *supra*.
    Continued exclusion of non-cargo operations is an alternative to our
    approach here, but that would result in the underutiliztion of
    important spectrum resources.

10. We also believe that there will be several public interest benefits
    gained by our decision to extend the license term for all Part 90
    licensees to ten years. *See* paras. 9, 10 *supra.* First, there
    will be an economic benefit to new applicants in that their
    licensing costs would effectively be lowered. Under the
    Commission\'s current license fee structure, a Part 90 licensee with
    a ten-year authorization has an economic advantage over a licensee
    with a five-year license in that it enjoys a longer license term at
    less cost. Second, existing five-year licenses will receive a
    ten-year renewal period upon expiration of the five-year license,
    thus halving the licensee\'s long-term renewal costs. One
    alternative to this action would be to leave the license term at
    five years. This alternative would not benefit small businesses. In
    addition, it would result in administrative inefficiencies for the
    agency.

11. Regarding our decision to increase the time in which a station must
    be placed in operation from eight to twelve months, *see* paras.
    11-12, *supra*, we envision that this change in the regulatory
    treatment of PLMR stations will reduce the necessity for a licensee
    to request an extension of the time to construct, and thus would
    eliminate the costs necessary to make such a request. It will also
    give licensees more flexibility in determining how and when to
    construct their stations. The alternative to this situation is to
    leave the requirement date at eight months and require licensees to
    continue requesting extensions of time. The changes we undertake
    herein, however, will benefit small businesses and enhance
    administrative efficiencies.

12. By requiring frequency coordination for the 220 MHz public safety
    channels, *see* paras. 13‑17, *supra*, we are benefiting small
    entities and other applicants in a number of ways. For example,
    requiring frequency coordination will prevent the filing of mutually
    exclusive applications and will result in applications for the most
    appropriate channels, thereby minimizing interference potential and
    congestion. The alternative would be to make no changes to these
    licensing procedures, but then the benefits of frequency
    coordination would not be realized.

13. Permitting a public safety licensee to share its station with a
    Federal government entity on a non-profit, cost-sharing basis, will
    be beneficial to both parties. *See* paras. 18-20, *supra*. It will
    lower the operational costs of the public safety system in that the
    public safety licensee would obtain cost-sharing benefits from the
    Federal agency, and it would enable the Federal agency to obtain
    needed communications at a lower cost than if the Federal agency had
    to implement its own communications system. An alternative to this
    change would be to continue prohibiting such sharing arrangements,
    but we believe that adopting these Rules and thereby lowering costs
    and increasing access to needed spectrum, will ease the regulatory
    burden on small businesses.

14. By requiring all trunked operations to be specifically licensed,
    *see* paras. 22-28, *supra*, we are promoting licensee flexibility,
    facilitating more efficient use of the spectrum, and minimizing
    interference concerns and congestion. The alternative, *i.e.*, to
    not require such licensing, would not achieve these benefits.

***Report to Congress***: The Commission will send a copy of this
*Report and Order*, WT Docket No. 97‑153, including this FRFA, in a
report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the SBREFA, *see* 5 U.S.C.
§ 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the
*Report and Order*, WT Docket No. 98-182, including the FRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A
summary of the *Report and Order*, WT Docket No. 98-182, including the
FRFA, will also be published in the Federal Register. *See* 5 U.S.C. §
604(b).

**II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for *Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making***

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^176] the
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities by the policies and rules proposed in this *Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (Further Notice*). Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on this *Further
Notice* provided above in para. 54, *supra*. The Commission will send a
copy of the *Further Notice*, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. *See* 5 U.S.C. §
603(a). In addition, the *Further Notice* and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. *See* *id*.

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules:**

1.  We initiated this proceeding in conjunction with the Commission\'s
    1998 biennial regulatory review under Section 11 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.§ 161. Section 11 requires us
    to review all our regulations applicable to providers of
    telecommunications service and determine whether any rule is no
    longer in the public interest as a result of meaningful economic
    competition between providers of telecommunications service, and
    whether such regulations should be deleted or modified. As part of
    our biennial review of regulations required under Section 11,
    however, we believe it is appropriate to review all of our
    regulations relating to administering wireless services, not just
    those pertaining to providers of a telecommunications service, to
    determine which regulations can be streamlined or eliminated.
    Therefore, to streamline Part 90 of the rules and reduce regulatory
    requirements, the Commission proposes to amend Part 90 of its rules
    to remove the current restriction contained in Section
    90.20(a)(1)(i) of the Commission\'s Rules preventing school
    districts and authorities and park districts and authorities from
    being eligible for licenses in the Public Safety Pool.

2.  This proposal is needed in order to give park districts and
    authorities and school districts and authorities access to spectrum
    needed for important communications functions. Additionally, we
    believe that allowing such entities to operate on the Public Safety
    Pool channels will facilitate interoperability between park or
    school district personnel and other public safety entities, which
    can be very important especially during emergencies.

    **B. Legal Basis:**

3.  Authority for the proposed rules included in this issuance of this
    *Further Notice* is contained in Sections 4(i), 303(r), and
    332(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
    §§ 154(i), 303(r), and 332(a)(2).

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply:

4.  The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
    feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
    affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^177] The RFA defines
    the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms
    "small business," "small organization," and "small business concern"
    under section 3 of the Small Business Act.[^178] A small business
    concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2)
    is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
    additional criteria established by the SBA.[^179]

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements:

5.  Reporting, record keeping, and compliance requirements under these
    proposed rules are nominal. No new reporting, recordkeeping, or
    other compliance requirements would be imposed on applicants or
    licensees as a result of the actions proposed in this rule making
    proceeding.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered:

6.  The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
    that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
    include the following four alternatives: (1) the establishment of
    differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that
    take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
    clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
    reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the
    use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
    exemption from coverage of the rule or any part thereof for small
    entities.

7.  Regarding our proposal to delete the exclusion of park districts and
    authorities and school districts and authorities from the Public
    Safety Pool channels, *see* paras. 43-46, *supra*, there should be
    no significant adverse impact on small entities. An alternative to
    this proposal would be to do nothing, which would be unsatisfactory
    because it would leave the parks without any possibility of
    operating radio stations for the transmission of communications
    essential to their official activities.

8.  Finally, we seek comment on how the changes proposed in the *Further
    Notice* will effect small entities.

    **F**. **Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with
    the Proposed Rules:**

9.  None.

[^1]: Section 11 requires us to review all our regulations applicable to
    providers of telecommunications service and determine whether any
    rule is no longer in the public interest as a result of meaningful
    economic competition between providers of telecommunications
    service, and whether such a regulation should be deleted or
    modified*. See* Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, 47 U.S.C. § 161.

[^2]: 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review \-- 47 C.F.R. Part 90 - Private
    Land Mobile Radio Services, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, WT
    Docket No. 98-182, 13 FCC Rcd 21,133 (1998) (*Notice*). Fifteen
    comments were received in response to the *Notice*. A list of
    commenters is included in Appendix A.

[^3]: Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules Relating to
    Implementation of Public Safety Radio Systems, RM-9222, Petition for
    Rulemaking, *Public Notice*, Report No. 2251 (January 28, 1998)
    (APCO Petition).

[^4]: *See* Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land
    Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them, PR
    Docket No. 92-235, *Report and Order,* 10 FCC Rcd 10,076 (1995);
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 17,676 (1996); *Second
    Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 14,307 (1997); *Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 8642 (1999); *Third Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 10,922 (1999) (*Refarming
    Proceeding*).

[^5]: The eight frequencies are listed in 47 C.F.R. § 80.373(g).

[^6]: *See* former 47 C.F.R. Part 91, currently codified at 47 C.F.R.
    Part 90. The *Refarming Proceeding* integrated the Business Radio
    Service into the Industrial/Business Pool for frequencies below 512
    MHz.

[^7]: *See* Amendment of Parts 2, 81, 83, and 91-To Provide Frequencies,
    Standards, and Procedures for On-Board Communications in the
    Industrial and Maritime Mobile Services, Docket No 19665, *First
    Report and Order*, 42 FCC 2d 746 (1973).

[^8]: *See* note 4, *supra*. These frequencies are listed in Section
    90.35(c)(60) of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 90.35(c)(60).
    The original eight frequencies are still designated for on-board
    communications use by stations in the Maritime Services. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 80.373(g).

[^9]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.35(c)(11), (c)(30), (c)(33), (c)(35),
    (c)(47), and (c)(60).

[^10]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.35(c)(60)(i).

[^11]: *See* note 10, *supra*.

[^12]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21,135-36.

[^13]: *See, e.g.,* Day Catalano Comments at 3; Motorola Comments at 4;
    Blooston Mordkofsky Comments at 2; UTC Comments at 4; PCIA Comments
    at 3.

[^14]: Motorola Comments at 4.

[^15]: Day Catalano Comments at 3.

[^16]: Day Catalano Comments at 3.

[^17]: LMCC Comments at 4; PCIA Comments at 3.

[^18]: LMCC Comments at 4.

[^19]: LMCC Comments at 4.

[^20]: Motorola Comments at 4.

[^21]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.149(a).

[^22]: *See* 47 C.F.R. 1.1102.

[^23]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21,137.

[^24]: *See* Motorola Comments at 5; Day Catalano Comments at 4;
    Blooston Mordkofsky Comments at 2; and UTC Comments at 3. *See also*
    PCIA Comments at 4-5.

[^25]: APCO Comments at 2.

[^26]: API Comments at 4.

[^27]: API Reply Comments at 4.

[^28]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.135.

[^29]: For example, Location and Monitoring Service stations (47 C.F.R.
    § 90.353), 800 MHz trunked radio systems (47 C.F.R. § 90.631), and
    220-222 MHz stations (47 C.F.R. § 90.757) are permitted a
    twelve-month implementation period.

[^30]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.629, 90.665 and 90.685.

[^31]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21,138.

[^32]: *See* Day Catalano Comments at 4; AMTA Comments at 2; Motorola
    Comments 6; API Comments 5; UTC Comments at 3; Blooston Mordkofsky
    Comments at 3; APCO Comments at 3; LMCC Comments at 4.

[^33]: Motorola Comments at 6; API Comments at 4.

[^34]: LMCC Comments at 4.

[^35]: *See* Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No 105-33, 47 U.S.C. §
    309(i)(5)(A).

[^36]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21139. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §
    90.175(i)(14), frequency coordination is not required for
    frequencies in the 220-222 MHz band. 220 MHz licensees on shared
    channels are expected to coordinate base station operations amongst
    themselves to minimize interference and ensure operational
    compatibility.

[^37]: Applications filed on the same day for the same frequencies for
    use in the same geographic area are considered to be mutually
    exclusive.

[^38]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21,139 (citing Filing Freeze to be Lifted
    for Applications Under Part 90 for the Fifteen Public Safety Channel
    Pairs in the 220-222 MHz Band, *Public Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd 2758,
    2759 (WTB 1998)).

[^39]: Frequency coordination is the process by which a private
    organization (a frequency coordinator) recommends to the Commission
    the most appropriate frequencies for these applicants. *See*
    Frequency Coordination in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services,
    *Report and Order*, 103 FCC 2d 1093, 1094-95 (1986). It involves
    balancing a variety of factors that depend on the applicant\'s
    specific needs, the complex environmental conditions in which the
    station will be operating, and the other users already on the
    available frequencies. *Id*.

[^40]: *See* APCO Comments at 3; Intek Comments at 2.

[^41]: APCO Comments at 3.

[^42]: Frequency Coordination in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services,
    *Report and Order*, 103 FCC 2d at 1098.

[^43]: *Id*., *citing* 47 U.S.C. § 332, as amended by The Communications
    Amendments Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-259, 96 Stat. 1087 (1982).

[^44]: *See* APCO Comments at 3.

[^45]: Intek Comments at 3

[^46]: *Id*.

[^47]: Filing Freeze to be Lifted for Applications Under Part 90 for the
    Fifteen Public Safety Channel Pairs in the 220-222 MHz Band, *Public
    Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd 2758, 2759 (WTB 1998).

[^48]: *Cf*. Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6
    GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands, ET Dkt. No. 95-183, *report and Order
    and Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd 18,600, 18,642
    (1997); Amendment of Parts 2 and 22 of the Commission's Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum in the 929-941 MHz Band and to Establish Other
    Rules, Policies and Procedures for One-Way Paging Stations in the
    Domestic Public Land Mobile Radio Service, Gen. Dkt. No. 80-183,
    *Third Report and Order*, 97 FCC 2d 900, 910-11 (1984).

[^49]: *See* *Public Notice*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not
    found.

[^50]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.179.

[^51]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21,140.

[^52]: *Id*.

[^53]: *See* National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
    U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA TELECOM 2000, p.376 (1988).

[^54]: Day Catalano Comments at 5; UTC Comments at 4-6.

[^55]: API Comments at 5.

[^56]: Day Catalano Comments at 5.

[^57]: API Comments at 5.

[^58]: *See, e.g.*, The Development of Operational, Technical and
    Spectrum Requirements For Meeting Federal, State and Local Public
    Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT
    Dkt. No. 96-86, *First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making*, 14 FCC Rcd 152 (1998).

[^59]: *See, e.g.,* *State of South Carolina*, 13 FCC Rcd 8787, 8793
    (1997).

[^60]: API Comments at 5.

[^61]: In a centralized trunked system, the base station controller
    provides dynamic channel assignments by automatically searching all
    channels in the system for and assigning to a user an open channel
    within that system.

[^62]: *Refarming Proceeding*, *Second Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    14,337-38.

[^63]: On June 10, 1999, in response to the petitions for
    reconsideration, the Commission adopted a *Third Memorandum Opinion
    and Order* (*Third MO&O*) in the *Refarming Proceeding*, modifying
    Section 90.187 of the Rules. *Refarming Proceeding*, *Third
    Memorandum Opinion and Order* 14 FCC Rcd 10,922. In the *Third
    MO&O*, the Commission adopted new rules regarding when licensees are
    permitted to employ trunking. The Commission did not, however,
    change what type of trunked systems are covered by Section 90.187
    \-- *i.e.*, centralized trunked systems. It is clear from the
    comments filed in this proceeding that additional changes to the
    trunking rules are needed.

[^64]: In a decentralized trunked system, which is also a system of
    dynamic channel assignment, the system continually monitors the
    assigned channels for activity both within the trunked system and
    outside the trunked system, and transmits only when an open channel
    is found.

[^65]: Letter from Larry A. Miller, President, LMCC to Daniel Phythyon,
    Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, dated March 17, 1998.
    This letter is an ex parte filing in the *Refarming Proceeding*.

[^66]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21,141-43.

[^67]: *Id*. at 21,142. A hybrid trunked system is one where at least
    one of the frequencies being trunked but not all the frequencies
    being trunked meet the criteria specified in 47 C.F.R. § 90.187(b).

[^68]: *Id*. at 21,142-43.

[^69]: Comments were filed by AMTA, Motorola, API, UTC, APCO, LMCC and
    PCIA.

[^70]: AMTA Comments at 5.

[^71]: AMTA Comments at 4 & 5.

[^72]: Motorola Comments at 12.

[^73]: Motorola Comments at 12.

[^74]: LMCC Comments at 5.

[^75]: API Comments at 6.

[^76]: UTC Comments at 6.

[^77]: *Id*.

[^78]: Letter from Larry A. Miller, President, LMCC to Daniel Phythyon,
    Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, dated March 17, 1998.
    This letter is an ex parte filing in the *Refarming Proceeding*.

[^79]: The station example being utilized here assumes a private,
    internal use system. If the station is a community repeater, the
    station class would be FB4M or FB4P, as the case may be, a private
    carrier would be FB6M or FB6P, and a non profit cooperative would be
    FB7M or FB7P.

[^80]: LMCC Comments at 8.

[^81]: PCIA Comments at 7.

[^82]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.187(b).

[^83]: LMCC Comments at 5; UTC Comments at 6.

[^84]: In a hybrid system, coordinators need to know which frequencies
    are subject to the monitoring requirements and which are not.

[^85]: These codes are specified in 47 C.F.R. § 1.952. YG is for
    operations on frequencies in the Industrial/Business Pool and YW is
    for operations on frequencies in the Public Safety Pool.

[^86]: *Cf*. Amendment of the Maritime Services Rules (Part 80) to
    Permit VHF Marine Channel Nine to be Used as a Second Calling
    Channel, *Report and Order*, 7 FCC Rcd 2618, 2621 (1992) (permitting
    licensees to apply for alternative frequency without paying fee for
    modification of licenses).

[^87]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21152.

[^88]: APCO Comments at 3 (citing Supplemental Comments of the Land
    Mobile Communications Council at 8 (July 22, 1998).

[^89]: *See Refarming Proceeding,* *Third Memorandum Opinion and Order*,
    14 FCC Rcd 10,922; 47 C.F.R. § 90.187(e).

[^90]: We limited requests for additional channels to a showing of need
    because of concerns of spectrum warehousing. *See id*. ¶ 18.

[^91]: Comments in support were filed by APCO and API.

[^92]: In the *Notice*, we titled this section "§ 90.113 Station
    Authorization Required." The provisions of former Section 90.113 are
    subsumed within new Section 1.903. *See* Biennial Regulatory Review
    \-- Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97,
    and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Development and
    Use of the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless
    Telecommunications Services, WT Docket No. 98-20, *Report and
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 21027, 21054 ¶ 56 (1998).

[^93]: These frequencies are 154.570 MHz, 154.600 MHz, 151.820 MHz,
    151.880 MHz, and 151.940 MHz.

[^94]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21144.

[^95]: *Id*.

[^96]: *Id*.

[^97]: Motorola Comments at 8; Blooston Mordkofsky Comments at 3; Tandy
    Comments at 3; PCIA Comments at 7.

[^98]: The radios that operate on these frequencies are sold to the
    general public by mass merchandisers and mail order and internet
    companies. Partially as a result, there is customer confusion
    regarding the licensing requirements for the radios. Tandy, which
    operates the Radio Shack stores, states that while it provides
    information regarding licensing information both in its catalogs and
    with the documents that come with the radios it manufactures, it
    does not believe that most other companies do so. Tandy also states
    that the licensing rate, even among its own customers, is very low.
    Tandy Comments at 2-3.

[^99]: In the *Part 90 Omnibus Report and Order* we eliminated the
    frequency coordination requirement for these five frequencies. See
    Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules Concerning Private
    Land Mobile Radio Services, WT Docket No. 97-153, *Report and
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 3023, 3024-25 (1999).

[^100]: The Citizens Band Radio Services are currently comprised of the
    Citizens Band (CB), the Family Radio Service (FRS), and the Low
    Power Radio Service (LPRS). 47 C.F.R. § 95.401.

[^101]: 47 C.F.R. § 95.412.

[^102]: *Id*. at § 95.401(c).

[^103]: Motorola Comments at 8; Tandy Comments at 3.

[^104]: Motorola Comments at 10.

[^105]: Tandy Comments at 3.

[^106]: LMCC Comments at 8-9.

[^107]: PCIA Comments at 7.

[^108]: API Comments at 7.

[^109]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.210.

[^110]: This approach was suggested by Motorola in its comments to the
    *Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making,* WT Docket No. 96-86.
    Motorola Comments at 16, and Appendix to Comments at 8. Motorola
    stated that ACCP is an industry-developed method to provide
    compatibility within the complex environment resulting from the
    *Refarming Proceeding,* and that this new approach should better
    accommodate future technologies as well as eliminate the
    interpretation problems associated with emission masks that depend
    on specific spectrum analyzer characteristics.

[^111]: *See* Comments of Motorola to the *Second Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making,* WT Docket No. 96-86 at 16, and Appendix to Comments at
    8.

[^112]: Motorola Comments at 13.

[^113]: Ericsson Comments at 11-14.

[^114]: Motorola Reply Comments at 9.

[^115]: API Reply Comments at 6.

[^116]: Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for The AM Broadcast
    Service, *Report and Order*, MM Docket No. 87-267, 6 FCC Rcd 6273,
    6335-36 (1991).

[^117]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.617.

[^118]: *See* *id*. There are only three categories in the 900 MHz band,
    Industrial and Land transportation, Business, and SMR. *Id.* Section
    90.619 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §90.619, specifies the
    800/900 MHz frequencies for these categories in border areas.

[^119]: The incumbent would be defined as a license applied for or
    issued prior to October 28, 1998 (which is the date the FCC released
    the *Nextel Waiver Request Notice*, *see* n., *infra*).

[^120]: *See* Ad Hoc Comments at 1-2, *citing* Request for Waiver by
    Nextel Corporation, *Public Notice*, DA 98-2206 (rel. October 28,
    1998).

[^121]: *Id.* at 6.

[^122]: *Id*. at 1.

[^123]: *Id*. at 2.

[^124]: *Id*.

[^125]: Nextel Communications, Inc. Requests for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. §§
    90.167(c) and 90.619(b), *Order*, DA 98-2206 (rel. July 21, 1999).

[^126]: *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on
    Licensing of PMRS Channels in the 800 MHz Band for Use in Commercial
    SMR Systems, *Public Notice*, WT Docket No. 99-87, DA 99-1431 (rel.
    July 21, 1999), *citing* Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337
    of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, *Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making*, WT Docket No. 99‑87, 14 FCC Rcd 5206 (1999).

[^127]: Global Comments at 2.

[^128]: ComTech Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Licensees of
    Nationwide 220 MHz Mobile Communications Systems Are Not Required to
    License Separately Each of the Systems\' Base Stations, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, FCC 99-196 (rel. Aug. 3, 1999) (*ComTech MO&O*).

[^129]: *See* Public Comment Invited, Commission Seeks Comment on
    ComTech Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Licensees of Nationwide
    220 MHz Mobile Communications Systems Are Not Required to License
    Separately Each of the Systems\' Base Stations, *Public Notice*, 11
    FCC Rcd. 1908 (1996).

[^130]: *ComTech MO&O*, FCC 99-196, ¶¶ 4-9.

[^131]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.203(j).

[^132]: Ericsson Comments at 4.

[^133]: *See* *Refarming Proceeding*, *Second Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 8667 ¶ 52.

[^134]: *Id*. at 8667 ¶ 53.

[^135]: *Refarming Proceeding*, *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*,
    FCC 99-68 (released Apr. 13, 1999). The changes to the introductory
    text and paragraph (b) of 47 C.F.R. § 1.175 are to correct errors in
    the *Refarming Proceeding*, *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*;
    the change to 47 C.F.R. § 1.175(i) is to effect our decision to
    require frequency coordination for the 220 MHz public safety
    frequencies; *see* paras. 13-16, *supra*. *See* Appendix B, *infra*.

[^136]: *Refarming Proceeding*, *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*,
    64 Fed. Reg. 36,258 (July 6, 1999).

[^137]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(a)(1).

[^138]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(a)(1)(i). Park districts and authorities are,
    however, eligible to operate travelers' information stations. 47
    C.F.R. § 90.242(a)(1).

[^139]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.35(a)(2).

[^140]: *See* Clarification of Eligibility in the Local Government Radio
    Service, FCC 60-1139, 25 Fed. Reg. 9179 (1960), *also set forth at*
    47 C.F.R. § 89.251 Note (1961).

[^141]: *Id*. *See also* Eligibility Criteria in Local Government Radio
    Service, Dkt. No. 15402, *Report and Order*, FCC 64-688, 29 Fed.
    Reg. 10,514, 10,514 (1964).

[^142]: *See* Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz
    Band, ET Docket No. 97-157, *Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22,953
    (1998).

[^143]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.25(a) (1997).

[^144]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(a)(2)(ii).

[^145]: School districts and authorities are eligible for authorizations
    in the Industrial/Business Radio Pool as entities operating
    educational institutions. 47 C.F.R. § 90.35(a)(2).

[^146]: 47 C.F.R. §1.925(b)(3).

[^147]: *See* Letter from Larry A. Miller, Frequency Coordination
    Manager, AASHTO to D'wana R. Terry, Chief, Public Safety and Private
    Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, dated
    September 15, 1999 (AASHTO Letter). The frequencies at issue, which
    total thirty, are set forth in the table at 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(c)
    with a note that they are subject to limitation 43.

[^148]: AASHTO notes that the restriction, as currently interpreted by
    the Commission, eliminates these frequencies from interservice
    coordination with other public safety users and discourages uniform
    spectrum allocation. *See* AASHTO Letter at 1.

[^149]: *Id*.

[^150]: *Refarming Proceeding*, *Second Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    14,309-10.

[^151]: AAA Supplemental Comments. On August 26, 1999, AAA filed a
    motion for leave to file supplemental comments to make its proposal.
    In the motion, AAA stated no party would be prejudiced if we
    accepted its comments and that it had served a copy of the
    Supplemental Comments on all parties to the proceeding. We hereby
    grant the motion and accept the Supplemental Comments.

[^152]: AAA Supplemental Comments at 2. The eight frequencies AAA
    proposes to use are: 457.525 MHz. 457.5375 MHz, 457.550 MHz,
    457.5625, 457.575 MHz, 457.5875 MHz, 457.600 MHz, 457.6125 MHz.

[^153]: *Id*. at 2-3.

[^154]: *Id*.

[^155]: *Id*.

[^156]: *Id*. at 3-4.

[^157]: *Id*. at 6-7.

[^158]: *Id*. at 5.

[^159]: *Id*. at 2-3.

[^160]: *Id*. at 4.

[^161]: *Id*. at 4, 5.

[^162]: *Id*. at 5-6.

[^163]: *Id*. at 6.

[^164]: *Id.*

[^165]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq*.,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^166]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21147, Appendix A.

[^167]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^168]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^169]: *Id*. § 601(3).

[^170]: *Id*. § 632.

[^171]: *See* Federal Communications Commission, 60th Annual Report,
    Fiscal Year 1994 at 120-121.

[^172]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 601(5) (including cities, counties, towns,
    townships, villages, school districts, or special districts).

[^173]: *Id.*

[^174]: 1992 Census of Governments, U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce.

[^175]: *Id*.

[^176]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq*.,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^177]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^178]: *Id*. § 601(3).

[^179]: *Id*. § 632.