*Pages 1--63 from  Microsoft Word - 21390.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554
 In  the  Matter  of
 1998  Biennial  Regulatory  Review    47  C.  F.  R.  Part  90    Private  Land  Mobile
 Radio  Services
 )  )
 )  )
 )  WT  Docket  No.  98-  182  RM-  9222
 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER  AND
 SECOND  REPORT  AND  ORDER
 Adopted:  May  2,  2002  Released:  May  23,  2002
 By  the  Commission:
 TABLE  OF  CONTENTS
 Heading  Paragraph
 I.  INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................  1  II.  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY....................................................................................................................  2
 A.  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  ...................................................................................................  2  B.  Second  Report  and  Order  ................................................................................................................  3
 III.  BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................................  4  IV.  MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER  ........................................................................................  8
 A.  Multi-  use  radio  service  (MURS)  .....................................................................................................  8  1.  Scope  of  license  by  rule.............................................................................................................  8
 2.  General  technical  and  operating  rules  .....................................................................................  19  a.  Maximum  operating  power...............................................................................................  22
 b.  Antenna  height..................................................................................................................  24  c.  Repeater  operations...........................................................................................................  26
 d.  Interconnection  with  the  public  switched  network  ...........................................................  27  e.  Continuous  carrier  mode...................................................................................................  30
 f.  Permissible  communications.............................................................................................  31  g.  Bandwidth.........................................................................................................................  33
 h.  Implementation  matters  (equipment  certification,  treatment  of  incumbent  licensees)...........................................................................................................................  36
 B.  Public  safety  and  industrial/  business  radio  station  sharing  under  Section  90.179.........................  41  C.  Frequency  coordination  for  220  MHz  public  safety  frequencies...................................................  43
 D.  Update  of  airport  terminal  use  list..................................................................................................  48  V.  SECOND  REPORT  AND  ORDER......................................................................................................  50
 A.  Public  Safety  Pool:  schools  and  parks  eligibility...........................................................................  50  B.  State  highway  maintenance  eligibility  ...........................................................................................  53
 C.  Dockside  channels  .........................................................................................................................  55  VI.  CONCLUSION  ....................................................................................................................................  58
 VII.  PROCEDURAL  MATTERS................................................................................................................  59  A.  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act  .............................................................................................................  59
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 2
 B.  Paperwork  Reduction  Act  ..............................................................................................................  60  C.  Alternative  Formats  .......................................................................................................................  62
 D.  Contact  for  Information  .................................................................................................................  63  VIII.  ORDERING  CLAUSES................................................................................................................  64
 APPENDIX  A.........................................................................................  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  for  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order
 APPENDIX  B.........................................................................................  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  for  Second  Report  and  Order
 APPENDIX  C..............................................................  List  of  Parties  for  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  APPENDIX  D..................................................................  List  of  Commenters  for  Second  Report  and  Order
 APPENDIX  E  ...............................................................................................................................  Final  Rules
 I.  INTRODUCTION
 1.  On  June  29,  2000,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  1  in  the  captioned  proceeding.  The  Commission  received  six  petitions  for
 reconsideration  or  clarification  (  Petition(  s))  of  the  Report  and  Order,  which  we  address  in  the  instant  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order.  2  We  are  also  adopting  additional  revisions  to  Parts  90  and  95  on  our
 own  motion.  In  the  Second  Report  and  Order,  we  address  the  comments  filed  in  response  to  the  proposals  and  issues  raised  in  the  Further  Notice.  3
 II.  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY
 A.  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order
 2.  The  major  decisions  we  adopt  in  the  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  today  include:
   MURS:  We  affirm  the  decision  to  license  by  rule  (i.  e.,  eliminate  individual  licensing  for,  and  instead  license  by  rule)  five  VHF  frequencies  that  were  formerly  licensed  under  Part
 90  for  low-  power,  industrial/  business  use,  by  placing  frequencies  in  a  new  Part  95  Citizens  Band  Radio  Service  named  the  Multi-  Use  Radio  Service  (MURS).
   eligibility:  We  decline  to  restrict  the  use  of  MURS  to  Part  90  Industrial/  Business  Pool  eligibles.  The  general  public  is  licensed  by  rule  to  use  MURS  for
 communications  related  to  personal  or  business  activities.
   technical  provisions:  We  revise  the  MURS  technical  rules  to  balance  the  benefits  of  adding  technical  flexibility  against  the  disadvantages  of  potential  degradation  of  the
 existing  operations  of  business  and  industrial  users.  As  with  other  services  licensed  by  rule,  the  rules  we  adopt  for  MURS  focus  on  technical  equipment  certification
 requirements.  We  also  clarify  that  MURS  is  a  two-  way,  short-  distance,  voice  or  data
 1  1998  Biennial  Regulatory  Review    47  C.  F.  R.  Part  90  -  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services,  WT  Docket  No.
 98-  182,  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  15  FCC  Rcd  16,673  (2000)  (referred  to  herein  as  Report  and  Order  or  Further  Notice,  as  applicable).
 2  The  petitioners  and  other  parties  are  listed  in  Appendix  C.
 3  These  commenters  are  listed  in  Appendix  D.
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 3
 communication  service  intended  for  transmissions  that  do  not  typically  require  long  duty  cycles.
 Under  the  revised  rules,  MURS  units  are:
   Permitted  to  have  detachable  antennas;
   Permitted  to  have  external  antennas  up  to  6.1  meters  (20  feet)  above  a  structure  or  18.3  meters  (60  feet)  above  the  ground,  whichever  is  higher;
   Permitted  to  have  a  total  power  output  (TPO)  of  up  to  two  (2)  watts  (instead  of  two  (2)  watts  effective  radiated  power);
   Not  permitted  to  be  used  as  cordless  telephones,  radiofacsimile  (imaging),  or  for  continuous  carrier  mode  operations;  and
   Not  permitted  to  be  used  for  repeater  operations.
   ATU  list:  We  update  the  Airport  Terminal  Use  (ATU)  list  4  found  in  Section  90.35(  c)(  61)  of  the  Rules.  5  The  ATU  list  identifies,  by  name  and  reference  coordinates,  the  airports  at
 which  certain  450  MHz  band  frequencies  are  reserved  for  stations  located  on  or  near  the  airports  and  used  in  connection  with  the  servicing  and  supplying  of  aircraft.  6
 B.  Second  Report  and  Order
 3.  The  major  decisions  we  adopt  in  the  Second  Report  and  Order  include:
   Dockside  frequencies  for  high-  power:  We  also  address  the  comments  and  other  filings  in  response  to  the  Further  Notice  in  this  proceeding.  Specifically,  we  adopt  the  proposal
 of  the  American  Automobile  Association  (AAA)  to  revise  the  power  limit  on  certain  frequencies  currently  reserved  for  low  power  operations  on  a  primary  basis  for  cargo
 handling  purposes  at  docksides.  We  are  not,  however,  adopting  AAAs  proposal  to  require  all  applicants  to  obtain  AAAs  concurrence  to  use  these  frequencies.
   Public  Safety  Pool  eligibility:  We  adopt  our  proposal  to  eliminate  the  eligibility  restriction  on  school  and  park  operations  in  the  Public  Safety  Pool  under  Section  90.20  of
 our  Rules.  7  We  also  eliminate  the  restriction  prohibiting  State  highway  maintenance  systems  from  operating  on  certain  Public  Safety  Pool  channels.
 III.  BACKGROUND
 4.  Traditionally,  the  private  land  mobile  radio  (PLMR)  services  have  provided  for  the  private,  internal  communications  needs  of  public  safety  entities,  state  and  local  government  entities,  large  and
 4  The  ATU  list  has  not  been  significantly  updated  since  the  Commission  first  adopted  it  in  1986.
 5  47  C.  F.  R.    90.35(  c)(  61).
 6  47  C.  F.  R.    90.35(  c)(  61)(  iv).
 7  47  C.  F.  R.    90.20(  a)(  1)(  i),  90.242(  a)(  1).
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 4
 small  businesses,  transportation  providers,  the  medical  community,  and  other  diverse  users  of  two-  way  radio  systems.  The  rules  for  the  PLMR  services  are  contained  in  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules.  8
 5.  On  September  30,  1998,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  proposing  a  comprehensive  review  of  the  Part  90  rules  applicable  to  the  PLMR  services  to  determine
 which  regulations  were  obsolete,  not  in  the  public  interest,  overly  complex,  required  editorial  change,  or  were  redundant  in  nature.  9  The  Commission  undertook  this  endeavor  in  conjunction  with  its  1998
 biennial  review  of  regulations  pursuant  to  Section  11  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (the  Communications  Act).  10
 6.  The  Report  and  Order  adopted  on  June  29,  2000,  revised  the  Commissions  Rules  to,  among  other  things:  expand  the  availability  of  thirty-  one  dockside  frequencies,  double  the  PLMR  license  term
 from  five  years  to  ten  years,  and  increase  the  time  period  in  which  certain  PLMR  stations  must  be  placed  in  operation.  The  Report  and  Order  also  clarified  the  frequency  coordination  process  for  Public  Safety
 Pool  channels  in  the  220-  222  MHz  band  and  authorized  Public  Safety  Pool  licensees  to  share  their  licensed  radio  facilities  with  Federal  public  safety  providers.  In  addition,  the  Report  and  Order  clarified
 the  definitions  of  centralized  and  decentralized  trunking  and  established  a  new  process  for  licensing  trunked  systems.  Finally,  the  Commission  licensed  by  rule,  i.  e.,  eliminated  the  individual  licensing
 requirements  for,  five  VHF  frequencies  that  were  allocated  to  the  Part  90  Industrial/  Business  Pool  for  low  power  (1-  or  2-  watt)  operations.  Under  this  decision,  the  Commission  reallocated  the  five  VHF
 frequencies  to  the  Part  95  Personal  Radio  Services  and  established  a  new  Multi-  Use  Radio  Service  (MURS)  under  the  Citizens  Band  Radio  Services.  11
 7.  The  Commission  received  six  petitions  for  reconsideration  of  various  portions  of  the  Report  and  Order,  and  we  consider  these  petitions,  along  with  the  responsive  pleadings,  in  the  instant
 Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order.  In  the  Second  Report  and  Order  portion  of  this  combined  item,  we  address  the  comments  filed  in  response  to  the  proposals  and  issues  raised  in  the  Further  Notice.
 IV.  MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER
 A.  Multi-  use  radio  service  (MURS)
 1.  Scope  of  license  by  rule
 8.  Background.  In  the  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  removed  five  Industrial/  Business  Pool  VHF  frequencies,  known  in  the  PLMR  community  as  the  VHF  color  dot  frequencies,  from  Part  90
 8  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  90.
 9  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).
 10  Section  11  of  the  Communications  Act  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.
 11  Instead  of  requiring  radio  stations  to  be  licensed,  the  Commission  may  by  rule  authorize  operation  in  certain  radio
 services  without  individual  licenses.  See  47  U.  S.  C.    307(  e)(  1).
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 5
 and  placed  them  in  Part  95.  12  These  frequencies  13  became  a  new  Citizens  Band  Radio  Service  (CB)  named  the  Multi-  Use  Radio  Service  (MURS).  14  The  Commission  defined  MURS  as  a  two-  way,  short-distance,
 voice,  data  or  image  communication  service  for  the  personal  or  business  activities  of  the  general  public.  15
 9.  Motorola  and  RadioShack  seek  reconsideration  of  the  rules  and  policies  adopted  in  the  Report  and  Order  that  established  MURS.  16  Both  parties,  as  well  as  the  Industrial  Telecommunications
 Association,  Inc.  (ITA)  and  MRFAC,  Inc.  (MRFAC),  disagree  with  the  Commissions  decision  to  include  individual,  general  consumers  within  the  class  of  users  that  are  licensed  by  rule.  Motorola  contends  that
 the  Commissions  action  expanding  access  to  consumers  violates  the  Administrative  Procedure  Act  (APA),  17  because  the  Notice  proposed  only  to  eliminate  the  licensing  requirement  for  eligible  business
 and  industrial  users.  18
 10.  Motorola,  RadioShack,  ITA  and  MRFAC  claim  that  the  record  does  not  support  including  the  general  public  within  the  license  granted  by  rule  in  the  Report  and  Order.  19  While  generally  supportive  of
 the  Commissions  proposal  to  license  the  subject  frequencies  by  rule  by  reallocating  them  to  one  of  the  CB  services,  petitioners  believe  that  the  Commission  should  have  adopted  operational  and  eligibility
 rules  to  ensure  that  the  frequencies  are  used  primarily  for  business  and  industrial  applications.  20  Specifically,  these  petitioners  contend  that  the  expanded  use  of  these  frequencies  by  the  general  public
 will  result  in  increased  congestion  and  interference  that  is  incompatible  with  effective  business  communications.  21  Moreover,  taken  with  the  licensing  of  the  general  public  by  rule,  Motorola  contends
 12  Certain  low  power  and  itinerant  frequencies  that  are  used  for  very  low  tier,  low  cost,  entry  level  communications
 are  commonly  referred  to  as  color  dot  frequencies  because  their  operating  frequencies  are  designated  by  a  colored  dot  or  star  on  the  radio.  This  frequency  identification  code  was  developed  and  apparently  is  uniformly  used  by  the
 manufacturers  of  these  radios.  See,  e.  g.,  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  21,143    31  n.  55.
 13  The  frequencies  are  154.570  MHz,  154.600  MHz,  151.820  MHz,  151.880  MHz,  and  151.940  MHz.  There  are
 also  color  dot/  star  frequencies  in  the  450-  470  MHz  PLMR  band.  The  Commission,  however,  declined  suggestions  by  Motorola  and  Tandy  to  license  these  UHF  color  dot/  star  frequencies  by  rule.  Report  and  Order,
 15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,688-  89    32.
 14  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  95,  Subpart  J.
 15  Id.  at    95.401(  f).
 16  RadioShack  filed  a  pleading  styled  as  a  Petition  for  Reconsideration  after  the  deadline  for  such  petitions.
 Accordingly,  we  refer  to  RadioShacks  filing  as  a  Petition  for  Reconsideration  merely  for  ease  of  identification  and  include  it  in  the  record  as  comments  to  petitions  for  reconsideration,  because  RadioShack  filed  it  within  the  time
 period  for  filing  oppositions  to  petitions  for  reconsideration.
 17  Motorola  Reply  at  3.  See  generally  47  U.  S.  C.    553(  b),  (c).
 18  Motorola  Reply  at  7.
 19  Motorola  Comments  at  2;  RadioShack  Petition  at  2;  ITA  Reply  at  2-  3;  MRFAC  Comments  at  2.  But  see
 Motorola  Supplemental  Comments  at  4,  filed  July  2,  2001  (stating  that  the  license  by  rule  granted  in  the  Report  and  Order  can  remain  unchanged  if  the  Commission  adopts  revisions  to  the  technical  rules).
 20  Motorola  Petition  at  3;  Motorola  Reply  at  2.
 21  See  Motorola  Petition  at  3-  6  (permitting  general  public  to  use  MURS  poses  a  likelihood  of  irreparable  harm  to
 business  and  industrial  users);  Motorola  Comments  (to  Easterday  and  PRSG  Petitions)  at  5;  RadioShack  Petition  (continued.)
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 6
 that  the  MURS  technical  rules  will  irreparably  injure  industrial/  business  users  by  facilitating  the  development  of  new  consumer  devices  operating  on  these  channels  that  will  be  incompatible  with  the
 push-  to-  talk  operations  that  are  the  primary  mode  of  communication  on  these  channels,  to  date.  22  In  this  connection,  Motorola  avers  that  the  Report  and  Order  does  not  address  the  shared  use  of  the  frequencies
 by  business  and  personal  users  and  thus  does  not  provide  the  type  of  reasoned  decision  making  required  by  the  APA.  23
 11.  In  view  of  these  concerns,  Motorola  and  ITA  request  that  we  return  the  frequencies  to  the  Part  90  PLMR  Services,  24  which  would  re-  impose  the  individual  licensing  and  industrial/  business
 eligibility  requirements,  whereas  RadioShack  and  MRFAC  would  have  us  add  eligibility  restrictions  to  Part  95  so  that  only  Part  90  Industrial/  Business  Pool  eligibles  would  be  licensed  by  rule  to  use  MURS.  25
 12.  Discussion.  Previously,  under  Part  90,  personal  non-  business  operation  on  the  subject  frequencies  was  not  allowed  and  industrial/  business  operation  required  an  individual  license.  26  In  the
 Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  decided  to  license  these  frequencies  by  rule  because  the  manner  in  which  manufacturers  had  chosen  to  market  radios  that  operate  on  these  frequencies  resulted  in  the  radios
 being  increasingly  sold  to  the  general  public  by  mass  merchandisers  and  mail  order  and  Internet  companies.  27  The  Commission  noted  that  these  marketing  and  sales  practices,  as  well  as  an  earlier
 Commission  decision  that  eliminated  the  PLMR  frequency  coordination  requirement  for  these  five  channels,  contributed  to  customer  confusion  regarding  the  licensing  requirement.  In  this  connection,  the
 Commission  acknowledged  the  low  licensing  rate  prevalent  among  users  of  radios  on  these  channels,  which  in-  turn  meant  that  the  business-  only  licensing  restriction  was  not  being  followed.  28  Based  on  the
 circumstances  presented,  the  Commission  concluded  that  the  public  interest  was  best  served  by
 (Continued  from  previous  page)  at  2  (stating  concerns  regarding  the  degradation  of  the  quality  of  service  to  business  and  industrial  users).  Id.  See
 also  MRFAC  Comments  at  2;  ITA  Reply  at  2  (echoing  concerns  raised  by  Motorola  and  RadioShack).
 22  See  Motorola  Comments  at  4;  Motorola  Reply  at  2-  5.
 23  Motorola  Reply  at  7  (citing  Citizens  to  Preserve  Overton  Park,  Inc.  v.  Volpe,  401  U.  S.  402,  416  (1971);  Motor
 Vehicle  Mfrs.  Assn.  v.  State  Farm  Mut.  Auto.  Ins.  Co.,  463  U.  S.  29,  77  (1983);  and  Committee  for  Effective  Cellular  Rules  v.  FCC,  53  F.  3d  1309,  1317  (D.  C.  Cir.  1995).
 24  Motorola  Petition  at  7.  See  ITA  Comments  at  3.
 25  RadioShack  Petition  at  2-  3;  MRFAC  Comments  at  3.  MRFAC  states  that  if  the  subject  frequencies  are  to  be  left
 in  Part  95,  they  should  include  eligibility  restrictions  limiting  use  to  industrial/  business  eligibles.  Otherwise,  the  frequencies  should  be  placed  back  in  Part  90.  Id.
 26  See,  e.  g.,  47  C.  F.  R.    90.35  (1999).
 27  See  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,688    31  n.  98.
 28  Id.  at  16,688    31;  see  also  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  21,144    32.  The  Commission  noted  that  the  manner  in  which
 manufacturers  have  chosen  to  market  radios  that  operate  on  these  frequencies  partially  resulted  in  customer  confusion  regarding  the  licensing  requirement.  We  note  that,  before  the  five  frequencies  became  licensed  by  rule,
 the  Commission's  Part  90  licensing  records  reflected  an  average  of  35  licenses  on  each  of  three  151  MHZ  frequencies,  and  an  average  of  13,000  licenses  on  each  of  the  two  154  MHZ  frequencies.  The  151  MHZ
 frequencies  became  available  in  1995,  as  a  result  of  decisions  in  the  Refarming  proceeding,  whereas  the  154  MHZ  frequencies  were  available  under  Part  90  for  many  years.  Although  attributable  to  more  than  one  factor,  the
 disparate  licensing  totals  are  an  indication  of  the  low  licensing  rate  among  consumers  who  purchased  mass  marketed  radios  after  1995.
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 7
 eliminating  the  individual  licensing  requirements  for  these  channels,  and  allowing  both  personal  and  business  use  of  these  channels.  29
 13.  The  Commissions  decision  to  license  MURS  by  rule  for  the  personal  or  business  activities  of  the  general  public  did  not  violate  the  notice  and  comment  requirements  of  Section  553(  b)  of  the  APA.  30
 Section  553(  b)  generally  requires  notice  and  an  opportunity  to  comment  before  promulgation  of  a  final  agency  rule.  31  In  this  regard,  it  is  well  established  that  a  notice  of  rulemaking  is  sufficient  if  it  provides  a
 description  of  the  subjects  and  issues  involved.  32  Further,  the  APA  does  not  require  an  agency  to  publish  in  advance  every  precise  proposal  which  it  may  ultimately  adopt  as  a  rule.  33  Indeed,  a  final  rule  may  be
 a  logical  outgrowth  of  an  agency  proposal.  34  For  a  rule  to  constitute  a  logical  outgrowth  of  an  agency  proposal,  the  rule  must  be  sufficiently  related  to  the  notice  given  so  that  interested  parties  should  have
 anticipated  that  such  a  requirement  might  be  imposed.  35
 14.  It  is  undisputed  that  the  Notice  specifically  proposed  and  sought  comment  on  whether  to  license  the  VHF  color  dot  frequencies  by  rule  by  reallocating  them  from  Part  90  to  a  radio  service  that
 does  not  require  individual  licensing,  such  as  the  Citizens  Band,  Low  Power  Radio,  or  Family  Radio  Services.  36  As  Motorola  itself  pointed  out,  37  all  three  of  the  radio  services  given  as  examples  are  Part  95
 (Personal  Radio  Services)  that  are  licensed  by  rule  for  personal  and  other  uses.  38  Furthermore,  the  Notice  went  on  to  invite  comments  on  the  effect  such  a  reallocation  would  have  on  existing  Part  90  licensees  of
 these  frequencies.  39  Therefore,  it  is  apparent  that  the  Notice  described  the  subjects  and  issues  involved  in  this  proceeding.  Moreover,  based  on  the  record,  we  believe  that  the  final  rules  constitute  a  logical
 29  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,688    31  (citing  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules
 Concerning  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services,  WT  Docket  No.  97-  153,  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  3023,  3024-  25  (1999)).
 30  5  U.  S.  C.    553(  b).
 31  Id.
 32  See,  e.  g.,  Deregulation  of  Part  97  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Simplify  the  Licensing  and  Operation  of
 Complex  Systems  of  Stations  and  Modify  Repeater  Subbands  in  the  Amateur  Radio  Service,  Docket  No.  21033,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  67  FCC  2d  1107,  1113-  14    26  (1978)  (referring  to  California  Citizens  Band
 Assn  v.  United  States,  375  F.  2d  43,  49  (9  th  Cir.  1967),  cert.  denied,  389  U.  S.  844  (U.  S.  Cal.  Oct.  9,  1967)  (No.  396).
 33  Id.  (referring  to  California  Citizens  Band  Assn,  375  F.  2d  at  48).
 34  See,  e.  g.,  1998  Biennial  Regulatory  Review  --  Annual  Report  of  the  Cable  Television  Systems,  Form  325,  Filed
 Pursuant  to  76.403  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CS  Docket  No.  98-  61,  15  FCC  Rcd  9707,  9710    7  (2000)  (referring  to  Small  Refiner  Lead  Phase  Down  Task  Force  v.  EPA,  705  F.  2d  506,  547  (D.  C.  Cir.  1983)  and  Shell  Oil  Co.  v.
 EPA,  950  F.  2d  741,  759  (D.  C.  Cir.  1991)).
 35  Id.
 36  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  21,144    32.
 37  See  Motorola  Comments  to  Notice  at  9-  10,  filed  January  19,  1999  (WT  Docket  No.  98-  182).
 38  See,  e.  g.,  47  C.  F.  R.    95.191  (FRS  is  available  to  anyone  who  is  not  a  representative  of  a  foreign  government),
 95.401  (CB  is  a  communication  service  for  the  personal  or  business  activities  of  the  general  public).
 39  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  21,144    32.
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 8
 outgrowth  of  the  Notices  proposal  to  eliminate  the  individual  licensing  requirements.  In  this  connection,  interested  parties  should  have  anticipated  that  reallocating  the  subject  frequencies  to  a  service  that  allows
 personal  use  (like  the  Citizens  Band,  Low  Power  Radio,  or  Family  Radio  Services),  would  make  the  frequencies  available  for  personal  use.  Finally,  the  Notice  recognized  that  the  marketing  of  these  radios
 led  to  the  perception  that  the  frequencies  were  available  for  general  non-  business  use  and  proposed  an  action  licensing  the  frequencies  by  rule  as  a  Part  95  service.  This  would  plainly  make  it  more  difficult  for
 the  Commission  to  maintain  an  enforceable  business  use  distinction.  Accordingly,  Motorolas  claim  that  the  Commission  failed  to  provide  adequate  notice  is  incorrect.
 15.  In  addition,  we  continue  to  believe  that  our  decision  to  license  the  subject  frequencies  by  rule  and  allow  personal  operations  promotes  the  public  interest.  In  this  connection,  the  comments
 overwhelmingly  supported  the  proposal  to  license  by  rule  and  the  reasoning  and  assumptions  for  this  action  as  it  was  proposed  in  the  Notice.  40  Also,  we  disagree  with  the  petitioners  claims  that  the  record
 does  not  support  including  the  general  public  within  the  scope  of  the  license  granted  by  rule.  41  To  the  contrary,  the  record  developed  in  response  to  the  Notice  established  that  a  large  number  of  unlicensed,
 non-  industrial/  business  users  existed  on  these  frequencies  before  the  Commission  lifted  the  eligibility  restrictions  that  limited  licensing  to  Industrial/  Business  Pool  eligibles.  For  example,  the  Personal  Radio
 Steering  Group,  Inc.  (PRSG),  Dr.  Michael  C.  Trahos  (Trahos),  and  other  parties  confirm  that  non-industrial/  business  operations  on  the  color  dot  frequencies  were  prolific  prior  to  the  rules  adopted  in  the
 Report  and  Order.  42  Therefore,  as  several  parties  observe,  authorizing  operation  by  rule  on  these  frequencies,  pursuant  to  the  Report  and  Order,  did  not  necessarily  drastically  alter  the  user  landscape.  43
 16.  On  the  other  hand,  we  find  on  reconsideration  that  Motorola  and  others  have  presented  important  questions  concerning  potentially  new  types  of  operations  that  might  develop  as  a  result  of  the
 Commissions  decision  to  create  MURS,  as  well  as  how  such  new  operations  could  affect  existing  (i.  e.,  pre-  MURS)  users.  44  In  this  connection,  Motorolas  status  as  a  principal  manufacturer  for  the  products
 used  on  the  relevant  frequencies  provides  strong  support  for  its  statement  that  virtually  all  pre-  MURS  operations,  whether  licensed  or  unlicensed,  were  push-  to-  talk.  45  Accordingly,  we  agree  that  the  technical
 40  See  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,688    31  n.  98  (noting  that  there  is  customer  confusion  regarding
 licensing  requirements);  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  21,143-  44    31  (Commission  noted:  (1)  its  receipt  of  significant  number  of  inquiries  from  the  public  concerning  use  of  color  dot  radios;  (2)  that  some  advertisements  imply  that
 radios  may  be  used  by  anyone  for  any  purpose,  whether  commercial  or  recreational;  and  (3)  informal  indications  by  manufactures  that  only  a  small  percentage  of  persons  buying  radios  actually  apply  for  a  license).  See  also
 Comments  of  the  Personal  Communications  Industry  Association,  Inc.  to  Notice  at  7,  filed  January  19,  1999  (WT  Docket  No.  98-  182)  (stating  that  the  Commission  should  make  clear  that  it  will  not  permit  other  frequencies  in  these
 bands  to  become  a  haven  for  manufacturers  to  promote  unlicensed  consumer  radios).
 41  See,  e.  g.,  Motorola  Petition  at  2.
 42  See  PRSG  Comments  at  2-  3;  Dr.  Michael  C.  Trahos  Comments  at  4,  filed  January  2,  2001  (Trahos  Comments).
 43  In  this  connection,  we  find  Motorolas  reply  that  pre-  MURS  unlicensed  operations  were  conducted  primarily  by
 industrial  and  business  eligibles  to  be  unsubstantiated  and  thus  entitled  to  little  weight.  See  Motorola  Reply  at  6.  Moreover,  we  note  the  high  probability  that  many  unlicensed  operators  did  not  file  an  application  for  a  license
 precisely  because  they  were  not  eligible  for  licensing  in  the  Part  90  Industrial/  Business  Pool.
 44  See,  e.  g.,  Personal  Radio  Steering  Group,  Inc.  Petition  for  Reconsideration  at    29,  filed  November  13,  2000
 (PRSG  Petition);  Motorola  Petition  at  6;  MRFAC  Comments  at  2-  3.  See  also  Motorola  Supplement  at  3-  4.
 45  Motorola  reply  at  6.
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 9
 rules  adopted  in  the  Report  and  Order,  which  allow  unlicensed,  consumer  applications,  including  long-duration  operations  that  are  significantly  different  than  push-  to-  talk,  do  not  adequately  address  or
 appropriately  balance  the  sharing  issues  raised  on  reconsideration.  46
 17.  These  concerns,  however,  do  not  justify  abolishing  MURS.  47  Instead,  today  we  adopt  technical  restrictions  that  are  designed  to  address  these  concerns.  In  this  connection,  we  note  that  claims
 of  irreparable  injury  relative  to  an  increase  in  the  utilization  of  the  channels  arising  from  the  rules  adopted  in  the  Report  and  Order  are  unavailing,  because  Part  90  industrial/  business  licenses  for  the  five  channels
 were  issued  on  a  shared  basis  only  and  not  assigned  for  the  exclusive  use  of  any  licensee.  48  Thus,  such  concerns  raised  by  petitioners  are  overstated.  Indeed,  although  its  Petition  opposed  MURS,  Motorola
 subsequently  suggests  that  we  implement  certain  technical  limitations  on  the  manufacturing  and  marketing  of  MURS  devices,  either  on  a  temporary  or  permanent  basis,  49  and  recommends  a  transition
 period  to  give  current  business  users  a  chance  to  migrate  to  spectrum  in  the  450-  470  MHz  band  that  is  the  subject  of  another  pending  rule  making  proceeding.  50  We  decline  to  consider  the  transition  plan,  in
 toto,  because  we  do  not  want  to  prejudice,  much  less  speculate  on  the  outcome  of  a  pending  rule  making.  Nonetheless,  we  consider  each  of  Motorolas  suggested  technical  limitations  in  the  next  section.
 18.  As  noted  above,  the  former  industrial/  business  licensing  limitation  was  not  effective  in  limiting  the  use  of  the  subject  frequencies  to  industrial/  business  eligibles.  51  On  reconsideration,  we  find
 no  basis  for  concluding  that  these  circumstances  would  change  significantly  by  reinstating  the  individual  licensing  eligibility  rules.  Thus,  reinstating  the  rule  would  be  contrary  to  the  public  interest.  In  this
 connection,  we  note  that  the  decision  to  license  by  rule  relieved  Industrial/  Business  Pool  eligibles,  including  small  businesses,  of  the  information  collection,  paperwork,  and  financial  burdens,  including
 46  Id.  Motorola  points  to  cordless  phones,  baby  monitors,  and  an  entire  range  of  voice,  data,  and  imaging  services
 that  are  not  characterized  by  push-  to-  talk  messages  of  short-  duration.  Id.  at  n.  14.
 47  We  note  that  pleadings  filed  in  response  to  the  petitions  for  reconsideration  confirm  the  Commissions  conclusion
 that  there  is  substantial  need  for  mobile,  two-  watt,  personal-  use  communications  capabilities.  See,  e.  g.,  Personal  Radio  Steering  Group,  Inc.  Opposition  to  Petition  for  Reconsideration  at    9-  10,  filed  January  3,  2001  (PRSG
 Opposition);  Albert  Verdecia  Comments  at  1-  2,  filed  January  3,  2001;  SAFETENET  Comments  at  2,  filed  December  11,  2000;  Trahos  Comments  at  4;  John  R.  Scheuchenzuber  Comments  at  6,  filed  January  3,  2001.
 48  See  47  C.  F.  R.    90.173(  a).  In  addition,  we  note  that  these  frequencies  are  considered  to  be  for  low-  tier  types  of
 business  operations,  as  opposed  to  critical  business  communications.  See  note  12,  supra.
 49  Motorola  Supplemental  Comments  at  3.  Motorola  continues  to  believe  that  the  FCCs  decision  failed  to
 adequately  protect  incumbent  business  and  industrial  users  of  the  VHF  color  dot  frequencies  that  now  comprise  the  MURS  spectrum  allocation.  After  careful  consideration  of  the  record  developed  in  this  proceeding,  Motorola
 now  recommends  a  transitional  plan  to  better  accommodate  all  potential  users  of  this  spectrum.  Id.  at  1-  2  (note  omitted).  As  one  of  the  leading  manufacturers  of  consumer-  oriented  Family  Radio  Service  units,  Motorola  is  not,
 of  course,  anti-  MURS.  Id.  at  3.
 50  Id.  at  5.  Motorola  states  that  the  necessary  spectrum  would  be  provided  if  the  Commission  were  to  issue  an  Order
 adopting  the  proposal  of  the  Land  Mobile  Communications  Council  to,  inter  alia,  create  twenty-  five  channel  pairs  for  low  power,  uncoordinated  use.  See  Id.  at  3;  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  and  Policies  for
 Applications  and  Licensing  of  Low  Power  Operations  in  the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  450-  470  MHz  Band,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  WT  Docket  No.  01-  146,  16  FCC  Rcd  14,946,  14,957    21  (rel.  July  24,  2001).
 51  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,688    31  n.  98;  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  21,143-  44    31-  32.
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 10
 statutory  application  and  regulatory  fees,  associated  with  applications  and  licensing.  52  Accordingly,  based  on  the  totality  of  the  record,  we  find  no  basis  for  returning  these  frequencies  to  Part  90  and
 reinstating  individual  licensing  for  these  frequencies.  For  the  same  reasons,  we  decline  to  adopt  RadioShacks  suggestion  to  restrict  eligibility  for  MURS  to  only  industrial  and  business  users.  53
 2.  General  technical  and  operating  rules
 19.  In  the  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  established  technical  and  operational  rules  for  MURS  including  a  maximum  operating  power,  emission  types,  and  equipment  certification  procedures.
 Several  parties  request  reconsideration  or  clarification  of  these  MURS  rules.  Motorola  contends  that  the  rules  adopted  in  the  Report  and  Order  do  not  balance  the  benefits  of  technical  flexibility  against  the
 potential  for  new  non-  business  MURS  operations  to  degrade  the  ongoing  operations  of  previously-licensed  business  and  industrial  users.  54  To  address  its  concerns,  Motorola  recommends  several
 transitional  or  permanent  rule  changes  to  restrict  MURS.  55  In  its  petition,  PRSG  requests  that  the  Commission  add  technical  rules  or  amend  several  of  the  restrictions  adopted  in  the  Report  and  Order.  56
 William  C.  Easterday  (Easterday)  requests  that  those  operators  formerly  licensed  under  Part  90  be  given  grandfathered  operating  privileges  so  that  they  need  not  abandon  or  significantly  modify  their  radios.  57
 In  a  letter  filed  September  7,  2000,  RadioShack  requests  that  the  Commission  clarify  how  some  of  the  technical  restrictions  should  be  applied  to  MURS.  58  To  address  expressed  concerns  that  the  rules  adopted
 in  the  Report  and  Order  do  not  adequately  balance  certain  sharing  issues,  we  are  adopting  technical  restrictions  that  consider  the  shared  use  of  these  frequencies  by  previously-  licensed  industrial/  business
 users  and  new  personal  MURS  users  that  are  licensed  by  rule.
 20.  In  response  to  Motorolas  petition  for  reconsideration,  SAFETENET  and  the  Family  Security  Company  (Family  Security)  filed  comments  supporting  the  creation  of  MURS.  59  In  particular,
 52  Accordingly,  while  we  agree  with  Motorola  that  the  Commission  viewed  its  proposal  as  generally  beneficial  to
 Industrial/  Business  Pool  users,  see  note  41  supra,  the  proposal  was  not  so  defined  or  limited  to  preclude  the  adoption  of  rules  that  are  also  beneficial  to  the  general  public.  Moreover,  the  decision  to  license  by  rule  and  other
 proposals  in  the  Notice  were  the  result  of  the  Commissions  review  of  PLMR  rules  to  determine  which  regulations  were  either  not  in  the  public  interest,  obsolete,  overly  complex,  required  editorial  change,  or  were  redundant  in
 nature.  Notice  13  FCC  Rcd  at  21,134    2.
 53  We  note  that  adopting  RadioShacks  approach  could  run  counter  to  Section  9  of  the  Communications  Act,  which
 requires  the  Commission  to  assess  and  collect  regulatory  fees  on  a  per  license  basis  from,  among  others,  licensees  of  private  radio  services  including  the  Industrial/  Business  Pool.  See  47  U.  S.  C.    159(  g);  see  also  47  C.  F.  R.    1.1152.
 54  See  Motorola  Petition  at  5.
 55  See  Motorola  Supplemental  Comments  at  3,  filed  July  2,  2001  (Motorola  Supplemental  Comments).
 56  PRSG  Petition  at    30.
 57  William  C.  Easterday  Petition  for  Reconsideration  at  1-  2,  filed  November  13,  2000  (Easterday  Petition).
 58  Letter  from  Dwayne  Campbell,  Senior  Manager  Regulatory  Affairs,  RadioShack  to  Herbert  Zeiler,  Deputy  Chief,
 Public  Safety  and  Private  Wireless  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau,  dated  Sept.  7,  2000  (RadioShack  Letter).
 59  See  Letter  from  Ken  Klassen  to  Ramona  Melson,  Deputy  Chief,  Public  Safety  and  Private  Wireless  Division,
 Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau,  dated  December  11,  2000  (SAFETENET  Letter);  Family  Security  Company  Comments,  filed  March  20,  2001  (Family  Security  Comments).
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 11
 SAFETENET  and  Family  Security  disagree  with  Motorolas  suggestion  to  restrict  non-  business  use  of  the  subject  frequencies,  stating  that  such  a  rule  would  impede  their  plan  to  use  MURS  frequencies  for  a  low-cost
 electronic  tracking  system  that  could  be  used  to  locate  missing  or  abducted  children.  60  On  the  other  hand,  Family  Security  shares  Motorolas  concern  regarding  totally  unregulated  use  of  MURS,  61
 suggesting  that  the  Commission  restrict  traffic  on  one  or  two  of  the  MURS  channels  to  accommodate  its  proposed  tracking  system.  Alternatively,  Family  Security  asks  us  to  allocate  one  or  two  additional
 channels  to  MURS  for  public  safety  use  only,  i.  e.,  for  electronic  tracking  systems  used  to  locate  abducted  or  missing  children.  62  In  addition,  SAFETENET  requests  that  we  retain  certain  technical
 flexibility  for  the  MURS  channels  in  the  event  that  the  Commission  re-  evaluates  MURS.  63
 21.  Although  Family  Security  and  SAFETENET  did  not  file  petitions  for  reconsideration  in  this  proceeding,  we  will  discuss  their  specific  requests  for  technical  flexibility  below.  The  proposals  to
 reserve  one  or  two  MURS  channels  or  to  allocate  additional  channels  for  public  safety  use,  however,  are  beyond  the  scope  of  the  issues  raised  in  the  petitions  for  reconsideration  in  this  proceeding.  64
 Consequently,  it  would  be  inappropriate  to  consider  such  allocation  proposals  herein,  rather  than  in  the  context  of  a  petition  to  commence  a  notice  and  comment  rule-  making  proceeding.
 a.  Maximum  operating  power
 22.  In  the  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  limited  the  operating  power  of  MURS  frequencies  to  2  watts  effective  radiated  power  (ERP).  65  Prior  to  MURS,  the  operating  power  of  these  frequencies
 was  measured  in  terms  of  transmitter  power  output  (TPO).  66  In  its  Petition,  PRSG  requests  that  the  power  limit  be  described  in  terms  of  TPO  rather  than  ERP,  because  ERP  is  difficult  for  the  typical  user  to
 understand  or  calculate  and  is  nearly  impossible  to  measure  directly.  67  The  confusion  arises,  according  to
 60  See  SAFTENET  Letter  at  2;  Family  Security  Comments  at  1-  2.  Family  Security  states  that  its  planned  proposed
 system  would  consist  of  subscriber  devices  (scanner/  transceivers)  that  would  scan  MURS  frequencies  for  an  open  channel  and  transmit  an  identifying  data  signal  at  programmed  intervals  to  receiving  devices  (base  station
 installations).  The  receiving  device/  base  station  installation  would  transmit  data  on  MURS  frequencies  to  query  the  location  of  a  subscriber  device  or  to  issue  a  command  to  the  subscriber  device.  See  Family  Securitys  Notice  of  Oral
 Ex  Parte  at  2,  filed  June  22,  2001  (Family  Security  Oral  Ex  Parte).
 61  Family  Security  Comments  at  3.
 62  See  Family  Security  Oral  ex  parte  at  1.  We  note  that  it  is  not  clear  at  this  juncture  whether  Family  Security  or
 SAFETENET  would  be  public  safety  eligibles  under  our  Rules.  See  generally  47  C.  F.  R.    90.20(  a);  See  also  Implementation  of  Section  309(  j)  and  337  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  Report  and  Order  and
 Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  15  FCC  Rcd  22,709,  22,740-  41  \  63-  64  (2000).
 63  SAFTENET  Letter  at  3.
 64  We  note  Family  Securitys  observation  that  the  UHF  band  would  be  better  suited  for  the  type  of  operation  it
 proposes,  see  Family  Security  Comments  at  4,  whereas  MURS  frequencies  are  within  the  VHF  band.
 65  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,709    31  (Appendix  B);  47  C.  F.  R.    95.639(  h).
 66  Under  Part  90,  154.570  MHz  and  154.600  MHz  were  limited  to  two  watts  TPO  while  151.820  MHz,  151.880
 MHz,  and  151.940  MHz  were  limited  to  one  watt  TPO.  47  C.  F.  R.    90.35(  b)(  3),  (c)(  11),  and  (c)(  14)  (2000).  For  consistency  and  ease  of  use  and  administration,  all  five  MURS  frequencies  are  now  allowed  to  operate  at  2  watts.
 67  PRSG  Petition  at  7.  In  addition,  RadioShack  questions  whether  the  Commission,  by  specifying  ERP  in  the
 Report  and  Order,  intended  to  ban  the  use  of  external  antennas  and  require  that  any  antenna  for  a  MURS  device  be  integral  to  the  product.  RadioShack  Letter  at  1.
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 12
 PRSG,  because  ERP  measures  the  power  of  the  transmitting  device  plus  antenna  gain  minus  any  loss  factors.  68  Antenna  manufacturers,  however,  do  not  always  provide  accurate  antenna  gain  information,  so
 a  consumer  who  adds  an  external  antenna  to  a  2  watt  MURS  radio,  a  practice  that  has  been  and  continues  to  be  allowed,  may  not  be  able  to  calculate  the  ERP.  69  Several  commenters  support  PRSGs  proposal.  70
 Motorola  agrees  that  an  ERP  calculation  would  be  confusing  to  users  that  choose  to  attach  aftermarket  antennas.  71  Nonetheless,  Motorola  suggests  that  we  keep  the  ERP  standard  and  adopt  a  new  rule  to
 require  non-  detachable  antennas  for  MURS  units.  Motorola  states  that  requiring  integrated  antennas  would  minimize  the  use  of  high  gain  antennas  and  linear  amplifiers  or  other  devices  that  spread
 interfering  signals.  72  Conversely,  SAFETENET  states  that  remote  antennas  are  necessary  for  its  electronic  tracking  system.  73
 23.  We  agree  with  PRSG  and  the  commenters  that  retaining  the  long-  standing  TPO  standard  established  for  these  frequencies  in  Part  90  is  warranted.  The  MURS  rules  essentially  govern  an  existing
 service  with  many  mobile  units  already  in  service.  Converting  the  limit  to  ERP  would  be  either  unenforceable,  or  overly  burdensome,  because  end  users  would  have  to  procure  ERP  calculations  each
 time  an  antenna  is  replaced.  TPO,  on  the  other  hand,  is  verified  during  the  equipment  certification  process.  Although  the  Commission  generally  favors  ERP  limits  over  TPO  limits  because  ERP  more
 accurately  defines  the  actual  operating  power  of  the  radio,  ERP  is  more  suitable  for  a  coordinated/  licensed  service  or  for  a  service  where  detachable  antennas  are  prohibited.  In  a  coordinated/  licensed  service,  like
 the  broadcast  service,  engineering  studies  are  performed  at  each  transmitter  site  to  determine  the  ERP.  In  a  service  where  detachable  antennas  are  prohibited,  like  the  Family  Radio  Service,  the  manufacturer
 determines  the  ERP  of  the  radio  equipment.  Because  MURS  is  neither  a  coordinated/  licensed  service  nor  a  service  that  prohibits  detachable  antennas,  we  believe  that  TPO  is  the  better  standard.  Accordingly,  we
 will  modify  Section  95.639  of  our  rules  so  as  to  authorize  MURS  operations  at  2  watts  transmitter  power  output.  Regarding  Motorolas  suggestion  that  we  prohibit  detachable  antennas  on  new  MURS  units  in
 order  to  protect  industrial  and  business  users,  we  decline  to  adopt  such  a  restriction.  Allowing  detachable  antennas  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  push-  to-  talk  type  of  operations  of  MURS.  In  fact,  detachable
 antennas  were  allowed  and  prevalent  for  industrial  and  business  users  when  the  subject  frequencies  were  governed  by  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  and  we  are  adopting  other  technical  limits  to  address
 industrial  and  business  concerns,  e.  g.,  interconnection,  repeater,  and  continuous  carrier  restrictions.  In  addition,  banning  detachable  antennas  would  be  administratively  burdensome  for  equipment  makers,
 users,  and  the  Commission  and  would  limit  operational  flexibility  for  MURS  users  including  new  industrial  and  business  users.
 68  TPO  measures  the  power  only  of  the  transmitting  device.
 69  By  comparison,  ERP  limits  are  suitable  for  the  Family  Radio  Service  (FRS)  because  detachable  antennas  are  not
 permitted  on  FRS  units.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    95.194(  c).  Consequently,  ERP  measurements  are  accurate  in  the  FRS  because  they  are  set  by  the  manufacturer  of  these  radios.
 70  See,  e.  g.,  Thomas  Currie  comments  at  2,  filed  November  15,  2000  (Currie  Comments);  William  Morgan
 comments  at  1,  filed  November  26,  2000  (Morgan  Comments);  Scott  Havens  comments  at  9,  filed  December  31,  2000  (Havens  Comments);  Albert  Verdecia  comments  at  2,  filed  January  3,  2001  (Verdecia  Comments);  Thomas
 Gruis  comments  at  1,  filed  January  3,  2001  (Gruis  Comments).
 71  See  Motorola  Supplemental  Comments  at  5-  6.
 72  Id.
 73  SAFETENET  Letter  at  3.
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 13
 b.  Antenna  height
 24.  In  the  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  did  not  specify  any  antenna  height  limits  for  MURS  stations.  PRSG  states,  however,  that  such  limits  are  necessary  in  order  to  maintain  the  mobile-oriented
 nature  of  MURS  by  preventing  the  proliferation  of  point-  to-  point  communications.  74  PRSG  therefore  requests  that  an  antenna  height  restriction  of  20  feet  above  structure  or  60  feet  above  ground,
 whichever  is  higher,  be  added  to  the  MURS  rules.  75  In  its  reply  comments,  MRFAC  states  that  the  absence  of  technical  restrictions  such  as  antenna  height  limits  compounds  the  potential  for  interference.  76
 Of  the  other  commenters  that  mention  it,  most  support  at  least  some  sort  of  antenna  height  restrictions,  77  although  one  commenter  states  that  the  2  watt  limitation  on  TPO  renders  antenna  height  restrictions
 unnecessary.  78
 25.  We  find  that  the  imposition  of  antenna  height  restrictions  for  MURS  is  warranted.  In  this  connection,  we  believe  that  antenna  height  restrictions  will  facilitate  spectrum  sharing  and  re-  use  of  these
 frequencies.  Consequently,  as  PRSG  suggests,  we  are  revising  our  rules  to  require  that  MURS  radios  employ  antennas  no  greater  than  20  feet  above  structure  or  60  feet  above  ground,  whichever  is  higher.
 Because  there  are  only  five  available  channels,  allowing  antenna  heights  higher  than  this  would  limit  the  number  of  users  that  could  operate  at  the  same  time  on  these  channels.  We  also  note  that  these  limits
 promote  aviation  safety  and  are  the  same  limits  that  govern  the  antenna  height  of  the  CB  radio  service.  79
 c.  Repeater  operations
 26.  Repeater  operations  were  not  prohibited  under  Part  90  for  these  five  VHF  frequencies,  and  the  Report  and  Order  did  not  specifically  address  whether  such  operations  would  be  permitted  under
 MURS.  PRSG  requests  that  MURS  stations  be  prohibited  from  engaging  in  repeater-  type  functions  80  because  they  would  be  incompatible  with  the  intent  of  the  service.  81  Most  of  the  commenters  that
 mention  the  issue  support  PRSGs  position.  82  We  agree  that  repeater  use  would  be  generally
 74  PRSG  Petition  at    18.  PRSG  notes  that  an  antenna  height  limit  is  necessary  to  discourage  the  proliferation  of
 point-  to-  point  and  purely  recreational  communications  because  base  stations  offer  superior  coverage  that  would  reduce  the  utility  of  this  service  for  mobile  communications,  absent  an  antenna  height  limit.  Id.  at    19-  21.
 75  Id.  at    21.  Motorola  agrees  with  PRSGs  proposal.  See  Motorola  Supplemental  Comments  at  5.
 76  MRFAC  Comments  at  3.
 77  See  Raymond  Klatt  Comments  at  3,  filed  January  2,  2001;  Michael  Krumlauf  Comments  at  2,  filed  January  3,
 2001  (Krumlauf  Comments);  Morgan  Comments  at  1;  Currie  Comments  at  2;  Gruis  Comments  at  1;  Motorola  Supplemental  Comments  at  5.
 78  See  Havens  Comments  at  10.
 79  47  C.  F.  R.    95.408.  Accord  PRSG  Petition  at    21.
 80  Repeater  stations  automatically  retransmit  the  signal  of  another  station.  See  generally  47  C.  F.  R.    90.7
 (definition  of  mobile  relay  station).
 81  See  PRSG  Petition  at    24.
 82  See  Krumlauf  Comments  at  2;  Morgan  Comments  at  1;  Verdecia  Comments  at  2;  Currie  Comments  at  2;  Gruis
 Comments  at  2;  Havens  Comments  at  9;  Motorola  Supplemental  Comments  at  5.
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 14
 incompatible  with  the  intent  of  MURS,  which  is  defined  as  a  short-  distance  communications  service.  83  While  repeater  operation,  as  well  as  signal  boosters,  84  might  provide  greater  capabilities  for  in-  building
 and  RF  Hole  penetration,  85  we  do  not  believe  that  this  outweighs  the  need  to  limit  the  footprint  created  by  any  single  MURS  user  in  order  to  maximize  frequency  reuse.  Because  repeaters  utilize  two  channels
 at  once  (input  and  output)  and  extend  the  operating  range  of  a  single  user,  their  use  would  limit  the  number  of  users  able  to  share  these  frequencies  at  the  same  time.  In  this  connection,  some  commenters
 are  concerned  that  MURS  frequencies  will  be  congested  and  that  repeater  use  will  only  aggravate  this  problem.  86  We  agree.  Consequently,  we  will  prohibit  repeater  use  on  MURS  frequencies,  including
 store-  and-  forward  packet  operations  as  described  by  PRSG,  87  except  for  those  users  that  were  properly  licensed  to  do  so  under  Part  90  of  our  rules.  Thus,  former  Part  90  licensees  will  be  grandfathered  for
 repeater  operations  as  authorized  under  the  terms  on  their  last  Part  90  authorization  and  any  waiver  grants.
 d.  Interconnection  with  the  public  switched  network
 27.  Although  interconnection  with  the  public  switched  network  (PSN)  was  generally  permissible  under  Part  90  for  these  five  VHF  frequencies,  88  the  Part  95  MURS  rules  are  silent  on  this  point.  89  On
 reconsideration,  the  parties  are  split  on  this  issue.  PRSG  requests  that  MURS  frequencies  be  prohibited  from  interconnection  to  the  PSN  for  the  same  reasons  that  the  Family  Radio  Service  (FRS)  is  prohibited
 from  interconnection.  90  We  note  that  in  the  FRS,  PSN  interconnection  is  prohibited  because  the  Commission  believed  that  allowing  interconnection  would  (1)  change  the  basic  nature  of  the  service,  (2)
 83  47  C.  F.  R.    95.401(  f).
 84  Licensees  are  authorized  to  operate  signal  boosters  in  several  land  mobile  and  microwave  services.  See
 Amendment  of  Parts  22,  90,  and  94  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Permit  Routine  Use  of  Signal  Boosters,  WT  Docket  No.  95-  70,  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  16,621  (1996).  Signal  boosters  retransmit  weak  signals  only  on
 the  exact  frequency(  ies)  of  the  originating  base,  fixed,  mobile,  or  portable  station(  s)  and  cannot  extend  the  systems  normal  signal  coverage  area.  See,  e.  g.,  47  C.  F.  R.    90.219(  a).
 85  See  Trahos  Comments  at    12,  13.  The  term  RF  Hole  refers  to  locations  where  radio  reception  is  difficult  to
 achieve  due  to  attenuation  of  the  radio  signal  by  surrounding  terrain.  RF  Holes  are  often  found  inside  large  buildings  because  the  surrounding  structure  tends  to  attenuate  radio  signals  transmitted  from  outside  the  building.
 As  for  the  type  of  operation  which  Trahos  describes,  we  believe  that  Part  90  frequencies,  where  higher  power  operations  are  authorized,  are  better  suited  to  serve  this  need.
 86  See  Currie  Comments  at  2;  Havens  Comments  at  9.
 87  PRSG  Petition  at    24.  PRSG  describes  store-  and-  forward  packet  operations  as  directly  comparable  to  a  mobile
 relay  station.
 88  Under  Part  90,  interconnection  was  permitted  for  frequencies  154.570  MHz  and  154.600  MHz.  See  47  C.  F.  R.
   90.476(  a).  Interconnection  was  permitted  for  frequencies  151.820  MHz,  151.880  MHz  and  151.940  MHz  outside  the  twenty-  five  urban  areas  listed  in  Section  90.477(  d)(  3).  Interconnection  on  frequencies  151.820  MHz,  151.880
 MHz  and  151.940  MHz  was  permissible  inside  the  twenty-  five  urban  areas  listed  in  Section  90.477(  d)(  3)  only  if  the  consent  of  all  co-  channel  users  within  120  kilometers  was  obtained.  Id.  See  also  47  C.  F.  R    90.477(  d)(  3).
 89  47  C.  F.  R.    95.193(  e)  prohibits  interconnection  of  Family  Radio  Service  units  with  the  PSN  and  47  C.  F.  R.
   95.420  permits  interconnection  of  Citizens  Band  Radio  Service  stations.  Part  95  Subpart  J,  which  sets  forth  service  rules  for  MURS,  is  silent  as  to  interconnection.
 90  PRSG  Petition  at    28.  See  also  Havens  Comments  at  8;  MRFAC  Comments  at  3.
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 15
 reduce  the  number  of  usable  channels  by  half,  and  (3)  possibly  require  licensing  and  additional  regulatory  burdens.  91  Without  such  a  prohibition,  PRSG  anticipates  a  proliferation  of  cordless  telephones  on  MURS
 frequencies.  92  Motorola  and  MRFAC  also  believe  that  the  absence  of  a  prohibition  on  telephone  interconnection  could  invite  the  development  of  two-  watt  cordless  telephones  that  would  increase  channel
 usage  and  cause  significant  interference.  93
 28.  On  the  other  hand,  Currie  and  Gruis  state  that  the  Commission  should  not  ban  the  interconnection  of  MURS  with  the  PSN.  94  In  particular,  Currie  states  that  limited  frequency  availability
 and  increased  congestion  will  actually  prevent  the  proliferation  PRSG  predicts.  95  Gruis  supports  interconnection  provided  that  technical  abuses  do  not  occur.  96  In  addition,  while  SAFETENET  and
 Family  Security  initially  opposed  the  petitions,  stating  that  PSN  interconnection  is  essential  to  their  planned  tracking  systems,  97  they  later  clarified  that  PSN  interconnection  would  only  be  used  to  transfer
 data  between  base/  receiving  sites  and  a  manned  emergency  monitoring  station.  98  Based  on  this  clarification,  we  note  that  this  type  of  operation  is  not  interconnection  as  defined  in  Part  90,  because
 wireline  circuits  used  by  licensees  or  other  authorized  persons  as  an  integral  part  of  an  authorized,  private,  internal  system  of  communication  are  not  considered  to  be  interconnected  for  purposes  of  Part  90.  99
 Therefore,  SAFETENET  and  Family  Securitys  proposed  operations  would  not  be  proscribed  by  restrictions  on  traditional  Part  90  interconnection  to  the  PSN.  We  are  adding  a  definition  of
 interconnection  to  the  MURS  Rules,  based  on  the  Part  90  definition,  to  clarify  this  point.
 29.  In  light  of  the  limited  number  of  available  channels  and  the  importance  of  spectrum  sharing  and  re-  use  on  MURS  frequencies,  we  agree  with  PRSG  and  other  commenters  that  interconnection  to  the
 PSN  should  be  prohibited  at  this  time.  Interconnected  operation  (cordless  telephone)  is  typically  duplex,  which  means  that  one  telephone  call  would  occupy  forty  percent  of  MURS  channels  in  a  given  area.
 Moreover,  private  radio  communications  that  are  interconnected  to  the  PSN  tend  to  be  of  longer  duration  than  other  types  of  communication.  100  In  addition,  MURS  is  licensed  by  rule,  which  makes  allowing
 91  Amendment  of  Part  95  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Establish  a  Very  Short  Distance  Two-  Way  Voice  Radio
 Service,  WT  Docket  No.  95-  102,  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  12,977    18  (1996).
 92  PRSG  Petition  at    29.
 93  See  Motorola  Petition  at  6;  MRFAC  Comments  at  2-  3;  Motorola  Supplemental  Comments  at  2.
 94  See  Currie  Comments  at  3;  Gruis  Comments  at  2.
 95  See  Currie  Comments  at  3.
 96  See  Gruis  Comments  at  2.
 97  See  Letter  from  Ken  Klassen  to  Ramona  Melson,  Deputy  Chief,  Public  Safety  and  Private  Wireless  Division,
 Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  at  3,  dated  December  11,  2000  (ex  parte  or  late-  filed  on  April  11,  2001)  (SAFETENET  Letter);  Family  Security  Company  Comments  at  3,  filed  March  20,  2001  (Family  Security
 Comments).
 98  See  Letter  from  Ken  Klassen  to  Secretary  of  the  Federal  Communications  Commission  at  1-  2,  dated  January  8,
 2002.
 99  See  47  C.  F.  R.    90.7.
 100  See  Amendment  of  Part  95  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Establish  a  Very  Short  Distance  Two-  Way  Voice
 Radio  Service,  WT  Docket  No.  95-  102,  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  12,977,  12,984    18  (1996).
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 16
 interconnection  under  operating  restrictions  too  problematic.  Thus,  as  described  above,  for  the  same  reasons  that  interconnection  is  not  allowed  for  FRS,  we  conclude  that  interconnection  is  inappropriate  for
 MURS.  101  Former  Part  90  licensees  that  were  authorized  to  be  connected  with  the  PSN,  however,  will  continue  to  be  allowed  to  do  so  as  authorized  under  the  terms  on  their  last  Part  90  authorization  and  any
 waiver  grants.
 e.  Continuous  carrier  mode
 30.  Under  Part  90,  continuous  carrier  mode  was  permissible  on  four  of  the  five  VHF  frequencies  102  and  the  rules  adopted  in  the  Report  and  Order  carried  this  provision  over  to  the  Part  95
 MURS  rules  without  discussion.  103  Family  Security  indicates  that  the  duration  of  use  of  MURS  frequencies  could  become  a  detriment  to  their  proposed  low-  cost  electronic  tracking  system.  104  Family
 Security  suggests  that  all  voice  and  data  traffic  on  MURS  frequencies  be  time  limited  and  that  transmission  intervals  be  time  restricted.  105  In  his  comments,  Verdecia  states  that  MURS  has  so  few
 available  frequencies  that  the  continuous  carrier  mode  would  cause  an  unacceptable  loss  of  service  in  a  given  area.  106  We  agree.  As  discussed  above,  users  operating  on  a  channel  for  an  extended  period  would
 do  so  at  the  expense  of  existing  push-  to-  talk  voice  operations,  as  well  as  other  users  of  these  shared  channels.  Therefore,  because  MURS  channels  are  shared,  we  will  prohibit  MURS  users  from  operating  in
 the  continuous  carrier  mode  and  require  MURS  operators  to  monitor  the  transmitting  frequency  for  communications  in  progress  before  transmitting.  Former  Part  90  licensees  authorized  to  operate  in  the
 continuous  carrier  mode  prior  to  the  creation  of  MURS,  however,  will  continue  to  be  allowed  to  do  so  in  conformance  with  their  last  Part  90  authorization  and  any  waiver  grants.
 f.  Permissible  communications
 31.  The  Report  and  Order  specifies  that  MURS  stations  are  authorized  to  transmit  any  emission  specified  in  Section  90.207  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  107  which  allows  various  types  of  emissions  such
 as  voice,  telemetry,  non-  voice  paging,  and  radiofacsimile.  108  Although  the  Commission  defined  MURS  as  a  two-  way  short  distance  voice,  data  or  image  communication  service,  109  this  definition  was  based
 upon  an  incorrect  presumption  that  while  governed  by  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  these  frequencies  were  intended  for  voice,  data  and  imaging.  110  The  transmission  of  image  signals  such  as
 101  Moreover,  as  additional  support  for  our  decision  we  note  that  MURS  involves  fewer  channels  than  FRS.
 102  Continuous  carrier  mode  was  authorized  for  frequencies  151.820  MHz,  151.880  MHz,  151.940  MHz  and
 154.570  MHz.  Continuous  carrier  mode  for  frequency  154.600  MHz  was  only  authorized  for  stations  continuously  licensed  before  May  21,  1971.  47  C.  F.  R    90.35(  b)(  35),  (47).
 103  See  47  C.  F.  R.  95.1307(  c).
 104  Family  Security  Comments  at  3.
 105  Id.  at  2-  3.
 106  See  Verdecia  Comments  at  2.
 107  See  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,708    27;  see  also  47  C.  F.  R.    95.631.
 108  47  C.  F.  R  90.207(  b).
 109  Id.    95.401(  e).
 110  See  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,688    31.
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 17
 radiofacsimile,  however,  was  never  allowed  on  these  frequencies.  Rather,  under  Part  90,  licensees  were  authorized  to  transmit  only  voice,  telemetry  or  remote  control  signals  on  these  frequencies,  111  and  the
 Commission  never  intended  to  add  additional  emissions.  Moreover,  the  transmission  of  lengthy  data  signals  such  as  radiofacsimile  would  be  particularly  disruptive  to  voice  operations.  Consequently,  on  our
 own  motion  on  reconsideration,  we  are  amending  the  MURS  rules  to  allow  only  those  emissions  that  were  previously  authorized  under  Part  90:  voice,  telemetry  and  remote  control  signals.  We  believe  that
 this  change  addresses  the  interference  concerns  raised  by  the  industrial  and  business  users  currently  performing  push-  to-  talk  operations  on  these  frequencies.  112  In  this  regard,  we  are  amending  the  rules  to
 define  MURS  as  a  two-  way  short  distance  voice  or  data  communications  system.
 32.  PRSG  states  that  multi-  use  is  ambiguous,  and  it  suggests  that  we  re-  name  MURS  as  the  Mobile  Use  Radio  Service  in  order  to  emphasize  the  primary  intent  of  these  frequencies  as  mobile.  113
 PRSG  offers  this  suggestion  as  one  of  several  measures  to  discourage  the  proliferation  of  point-  to-  point  and  purely  recreational  communications.  114  In  establishing  MURS,  however,  the  Commission
 contemplated  multiple  types  of  uses  for  these  frequencies,  115  and  the  technical  rules  that  we  are  adopting  today  do  not  alter  this  concept.  116  Specifically,  MURS  is  not  restricted  to  mobile  use  and  fixed  operation
 is  allowed.  Thus,  even  if  mobile  communication  is  the  primary  mode  of  operation  on  these  frequencies,  we  see  no  reason  to  adopt  a  name  change  that  implies  that  the  service  is  limited  to  mobile  operation.
 g.  Bandwidth
 33.  In  his  petition,  Easterday  indicates  that  the  radios  used  by  his  employer  are  licensed  for  frequencies  154.570  MHz  and  154.600  MHz  117  and  operate  with  a  bandwidth  of  20  kHz.  118  Easterday
 notes  that  in  the  Report  and  Order  the  Commission  limited  the  bandwidth  of  these  two  channels  to  12.5  kHz  and  therefore,  his  employers  equipment  no  longer  meets  the  technical  operating  parameters  of  the
 new  MURS  service.  119  Easterday  requests  that  the  Commission  grandfather  the  equipment.
 34.  When  governed  by  Part  90,  the  bandwidth  for  154.570  MHz  and  154.600  MHz  was  20  kHz.  120  Although  the  final  rules  adopted  in  the  Report  and  Order  listed  the  bandwidth  as  12.5  kHz,  this
 111  See  47  C.  F.  R.    90.35(  c)(  35),  (45),  and  (47).
 112  See  DBH  Comments;  Earl  and  Brown  Comments;  ProMarketing  Comments;  Merchant  and  Merchant  Comments;
 and  Wireless  Solutions  Comments.
 113  PRSG  Petition  at    25.
 114  Id.    20.  PRSGs  other  suggestions  include  an  antenna  height  limit  and  a  prohibition  of  repeater  operations,
 which  we  discuss  and  adopt  above.
 115  See  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,688    31  (MURS  frequencies  are  intended  for  voice,  data,  and
 imaging);  see  also  47  C.  F.  R.    95.401(  f).
 116  See  Appendix  E  (Final  Rules)  and  47  C.  F.  R.    95.401(  f)  (MURS  frequencies  are  intended  for  voice  and  data).
 117  Easterday  Petition  at  1.
 118  Id.
 119  Id.
 120  47  C.  F.  R.    90.35(  c)(  45)  (2000).
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 18
 change  was  inadvertent.  Thus,  because  it  was  not  intended  to  alter  the  bandwidth  limitation  on  these  frequencies,  we  are  revising  our  rules  to  reflect  the  correct  bandwidth  for  154.570  MHz  and  154.600  MHz
 as  20  kHz.  As  a  result,  all  equipment  currently  in  use  will  satisfy  the  technical  operating  parameters  of  MURS,  and  Easterdays  petition  for  reconsideration  is  dismissed  as  moot.
 35.  PRSG  requests  that  we  increase  the  bandwidth  of  frequencies  151.820  MHz,  151.940  MHz,  and  151.940  MHz  from  11.25  kHz  to  12.5  kHz,  121  because  maintaining  separate  permissible  bandwidths
 is  confusing.  122  As  noted  above,  however,  the  bandwidth  of  the  154  MHz  frequencies  is  20  kHz,  not  12.5  kHz.  Therefore,  even  if  we  were  to  grant  PRSGs  request,  the  MURS  frequencies  would  still  have
 different  bandwidths,  and  PRSGs  underlying  objective  would  not  be  realized.  Therefore,  we  do  not  believe  that  raising  the  bandwidth  on  the  151  MHz  frequencies  is  warranted.  123
 h.  Implementation  matters  (equipment  certification,  treatment  of  incumbent  licensees)
 36.  Motorola  contends  that  the  technical  rules  for  MURS  are  unworkable  because  previously-licensed  operations  are  rendered  invalid.  124  Specifically,  Motorola  states  that  Easterdays  petition  is
 correct  that  the  bandwidth  requirements  under  MURS  are  in  conflict  with  Part  90.  125  Motorola  also  states  that  it  is  not  clear  as  to  whether  the  Refarming  provisions  as  implemented  by  Section  90.203  of  the
 Commissions  Rules  (regarding  the  transition  to  narrowband  on  PLMR  channels)  would  apply  to  MURS.  126  Regarding  the  bandwidth  issue,  as  noted  above,  Easterdays  concerns  are  moot  (and  here,
 Motorolas),  because  we  have  clarified  that  the  radios  continue  to  be  valid.  127  On  the  other  hand,  we  agree  with  Motorola  that  some  of  the  MURS  rules  could  be  made  clearer.  The  cause  of  confusion  is  that
 many  of  the  MURS  rules  reference  Part  90  regulations  that  do  not  apply  to  MURS.  Consequently,  on  reconsideration  we  are  eliminating  all  Part  90  references  in  the  MURS  rules  and  instead  transferring  the
 substance  of  any  pertinent  Part  90  regulations  to  Part  95.  128
 37.  We  also  clarify  that  all  MURS  transmitters  must  be  certified  under  Part  95  in  accordance  with  Subpart  J  of  Part  2  of  the  Commissions  Rules.  129  In  this  connection,  we  note  that  MURS  radios  will  not
 121  PRSG  Petition  at    26.
 122  Id.
 123  We  note  that  a  MURS  radio  which  operates  on  all  MURS  frequencies  may  limit  the  operating  bandwidth  of  the
 two  154  MHz  frequencies  to  11.25  kHz  in  order  to  create  continuity  with  the  three  151  MHz  frequencies.  In  other  words,  the  authorized  20  kHz  bandwidth  of  the  two  154  MHz  frequencies  is  a  maximum.  Therefore,  these
 frequencies  may  be  operated  using  a  smaller  bandwidth.
 124  See  Motorola  Comments  at  3-  4.
 125  Id.  at  3.
 126  Id.
 127  See  supra  para.  34.
 128  We  are  also  revising  Section  95.632(  b)  of  our  rules  to  state  the  154  frequencies  in  megahertz.  These  frequencies
 were  inadvertently  stated  in  kilohertz  in  Appendix  A  of  the  Report  and  Order.  Also,  we  are  revising  Section  90.210  of  our  rules  in  order  to  delete  an  obscure  cross  reference.
 129  See  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  2,  Subpart  J.
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 19
 be  subject  to  the  technical  requirements  adopted  in  the  Refarming  proceeding  (e.  g.,  minimum  data  rate  or  bandwidth  requirements).  In  addition,  in  answer  to  questions  raised  by  RadioShack,  130  the  temperature
 range  for  frequency  stability  tests  of  MURS  equipment  is  30  to  +50  centigrade.  131  RadioShack  also  asks  whether  devices  currently  operating  on  MURS  frequencies  will  need  to  be  re-  certified  under  Part
 95.  132  The  answer  is  that  all  equipment  currently  operating  exclusively  on  MURS  frequencies  will  be  grandfathered,  and  manufacturers  may  continue  to  manufacture  and  sell  such  equipment  without  re-certifying
 it  under  Part  95.  In  addition,  such  equipment  may  be  operated  without  a  license.  Users  that  operate  equipment  capable  of  transmitting  on  both  MURS  frequencies  and  other  Part  90  frequencies,
 however,  will  continue  to  be  required  to  be  licensed  for  the  Part  90  frequencies.  Furthermore,  all  new  equipment  manufactured  to  operate  exclusively  on  MURS  frequencies  must  be  certified  under  Part  95,
 and  no  new  equipment  will  be  authorized  which  operates  on  both  MURS  frequencies  and  Part  90  frequencies.  133
 38.  Motorola  also  suggests  that  the  Commission  prohibit  the  integration  of  MURS  frequencies  and  FRS  frequencies  into  a  single  radio  unit  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  frequencies  are  used  primarily  for
 business  applications  and  not  consumer  use.  134  On  the  other  hand,  Havens  points  out  that  integrated  radios  would  be  advantageous  in  terms  of  interoperability  and  for  emergency  communications,  and  Gruis
 states  that  there  is  no  apparent  reason  to  prohibit  combined  units.  135  We  believe  that  any  benefits  resulting  from  interoperability  are  outweighed  by  the  potential  for  abuse  and  consequently,  we  will  not
 permit  a  single  radio  unit  to  combine  both  MURS  frequencies  and  FRS  frequencies.  MURS  and  FRS  are  separate  services  with  differing  purposes.  FRS  is  a  narrowly  tailored  service  intended  strictly  for  private
 two-  way,  very  short-  distance  voice  communications  for  facilitating  family  and  group  activities.  136  MURS,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  more  flexible  service  intended  for  voice  or  data  communication.  137  We  believe  that
 the  combination  of  MURS  frequencies  and  FRS  frequencies  in  a  single  unit  could  lead  to  operations  on  FRS  frequencies  which  are  incompatible  with  the  intent  of  FRS.
 39.  In  its  Supplemental  Comments,  Motorola  suggests  that  the  Commission  defer  full  implementation  of  MURS  in  order  to  protect  business  and  industrial  users  from  potential  interference.  138
 Motorola  notes  that  any  adverse  impact  to  these  users  could  be  alleviated  by  providing  an  alternative  spectrum  home  and  time  to  move  there.  139  In  this  connection,  technical  restrictions  would  be  imposed
 130  See  RadioShack  letter  at  1.
 131  See  47  C.  F.  R.    2.1055.
 132  RadioShack  letter  at  1.
 133  See,  e.  g.,  Appendix  E    95.603(  g),  95.655(  d).
 134  See  Motorola  Petition  at  6.
 135  See  Havens  Comments  at  12;  Gruis  Comments  at  3.
 136  47  C.  F.  R    95.401(  b).
 137  47  C.  F.  R.    95.401(  f).
 138  Motorola  Supplemental  Comments  at  3.
 139  Id.  Motorola  suggests  that  the  twenty-  five  channel  pairs  in  the  450  MHz  band  being  considered  by  the
 Commission  for  non-  coordinated,  itinerant  use,  as  part  of  a  petition  for  rule  making  filed  by  the  Land  Mobile  Communications  Council  (WT  Docket  No  01-  146),  would  provide  the  necessary  spectrum  alternative  for  industrial
 and  business  incumbents  that  have  been  displaced  by  MURS.  See  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  (continued.)
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 20
 during  a  transition  period  so  as  to  protect  business  and  industrial  users  that  require  more  critical  low  power  uses  until  they  could  move  to  the  new  spectrum.  140  Motorola  suggests  that  during  this  transition
 period  the  Commission  prohibit  data  transmissions,  interconnection  to  the  PSN,  repeater  operations,  and  detachable  antennas.  141  We  have  already  addressed  three  of  the  four  Motorola  transition  suggestions.
 Specifically,  on  a  permanent  basis,  we  have  prohibited  interconnection  with  the  PSN,  142  prohibited  repeater  use,  143  and  declined  to  prohibit  detachable  antennas.  144  Moreover,  we  do  not  believe  that  the
 public  interest  would  be  served  by  delaying  the  implementation  of  MURS  by  establishing  a  migration  period.  As  noted  above,  Motorolas  migration  plan  is  too  speculative  as  it  relies  on  the  availability  of
 spectrum  that  is  the  subject  of  a  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making.  145  Accordingly,  we  decline  to  prohibit  data  operations  during  a  transition  period.
 40.  In  addition,  we  clarify  that  all  previously  licensed  operations  on  the  subject  frequencies,  including  any  waivers,  are  grandfathered.  While  we  have  added  technical  restrictions  to  MURS  that  will
 limit  congestion  and  interference  and  encourage  operations  of  the  type  that  these  frequencies  were  originally  intended  (and  for  which  still  may  be  used),  these  additional  technical  restrictions  will  not  apply
 to  former  licensees  on  these  frequencies.  Therefore,  entities  that  held  licenses  as  of  November  12,  2000,  for  the  former  Part  90  frequencies  that  were  redesignated  to  MURS  effective  November  13,  2000,  are
 granted  a  license  by  rule  that  authorizes  continued  operations  under  the  terms  of  such  nullified  Part  90  authorizations,  including  any  rule  waivers.
 B.  Public  safety  and  industrial/  business  radio  station  sharing  under  Section  90.179
 41.  In  the  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  revised  Section  90.179  to  allow  Public  Safety  Pool  licensees  to  share  the  use  of  their  radio  facilities  with  Federal  government  entities.  146  The  Commission,
 however,  declined  to  allow  public  safety  licensees  to  share  their  spectrum  with  industrial/  business  entities  in  order  to  ensure  that  public  safety  communications  requirements  are  not  compromised.  147  The
 American  Association  of  State  Highway  and  Transportation  Officials  (AASHTO)  filed  a  petition  in  which  it  asks  the  Commission  to  reconsider  this  decision  and  allow  public  safety  agencies  to  enter  into  sharing
 (Continued  from  previous  page)  Rules  and  Policies  for  Applications  and  Licensing  of  Low  power  Operations  in  the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  450-
 470  MHz  Band,  WT  Docket  No.  01-  146,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  FCC  01-  199  (rel.  July  21,  2001).
 140  Motorola  Supplemental  Comments  at  3-  4.
 141  Id.  at  5.
 142  See  supra,  para.  29.
 143  See  supra,  para.  26.
 144  See  supra,  para.  23.
 145  See  supra,  note  50  and  accompanying  text.
 146  Report  and  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,681-  82    19;  47  C.  F.  R.  90.179(  g).
 147  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,681-  83    19-  20.
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 21
 agreements  with  utility  companies.  148  AASHTO  states  that  such  sharing  agreements  will  result  in  interoperability  gains  and  improved  emergency  response  operations.  149
 42.  Discussion.  Nothing  in  the  record  persuades  us  that  the  Commissions  decision  declining  to  permit  public  safety  licensees  from  sharing  their  spectrum  with  industrial/  business  entities  should  be
 changed.  While  there  may  be  certain  benefits  to  allowing  public  safety  licensees  to  share  spectrum  with  utilities,  they  are  outweighed  by  the  need  to  assure  that  adequate  spectrum  is  available  to  meet  the  present
 and  future  need  of  the  public  safety  community.  In  unique  circumstances,  public  safety  licensees  may  share  their  spectrum  with  industrial/  business  entities  pursuant  to  individual  rule  waivers.  150
 C.  Frequency  coordination  for  220  MHz  public  safety  frequencies
 43.  Background.  In  the  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  adopted  its  proposal  to  require  frequency  coordination  for  applications  seeking  any  of  fifteen  frequency  pairs  in  the  220-  222  MHz  band
 designated  for  public  safety  or  emergency  medical  use.  151  In  its  petition,  AASHTO  requests  that  the  Commission  clarify  that  applicants  for  the  220  MHz  public  safety  frequencies  are  able  to  submit  their
 applications  to  any  of  the  certified  public  safety  frequency  coordinators.  152
 44.  Discussion.  The  Commission  stated  in  the  Report  and  Order  that  applicants  for  220-  222  MHz  band  public  safety  frequency  pairs  would  submit  their  applications  to  "a  certified  public  safety
 frequency  coordinator."  153  Section  90.175  of  the  Rules  sets  forth  frequency  coordination  requirements  for  Part  90  applications  and  paragraph  (i)  of  Section  90.175  lists  the  types  of  applications  that  are  exempt
 from  the  coordination  requirement.  154  In  the  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  implemented  its  decision  to  require  coordination  for  220  MHz  applications  by  deleting  paragraph  (i)(  14)  of  Section  90.175,  which
 148  American  Association  of  State  Highway  and  Transportation  Officials  Petition  for  Reconsideration,  filed
 November  13,  2000  (AASHTO  Petition).
 149  Id.  at  2.
 150  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,682-  83    20.  See  also  American  Electric  Power  Service  Corporation,
 Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  15,553  (2000),  Central  and  South  West  Services,  Inc.,  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  16,162  (1998),  and  Texas  Utilities  Services,  Inc.,  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  4258  (1997).
 151  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,680    14.  As  a  general  matter,  shared  frequencies  that  are  licensed  under
 Part  90  are  subject  to  a  frequency  coordination  requirement,  although  the  five  shared  220  MHz  public  safety  frequency  pairs  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.  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,680    15,  citing  Frequency  Coordination  in  the  Private
 Land  Mobile  Radio  Services,  Report  and  Order,  103  FCC  2d  at  1098.
 152  AASHTO  Petition  at  2  (emphasis  added).  By  way  of  explanation,  although  the  Report  and  Order  notes  that
 applicants  would  submit  their  applications  to  a  certified  public  safety  frequency  coordinator,  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,679-  80    13,  only  three  coordinators  appear  to  be  certified  under  the  current  Rules.  See  47
 C.  F.  R.    90.20(  c)(  3).
 153  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,679-  80    13.
 154  47  C.  F.  R.    90.175(  i).
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 22
 formerly  exempted  applications  for  frequencies  in  the  220-  222  MHz  band  from  the  coordination  requirement.  155
 45.  We  agree  to  make  the  clarification  suggested  by  AASHTO  to  the  extent  discussed  below.  To  do  so,  it  is  first  necessary  to  note  the  1997  Refarming  Second  Report  and  Order,  wherein  the  Commission
 consolidated  the  twenty  PLMR  services  into  two  frequency  pools  Public  Safety  and  Industrial/  Business.  156  The  Public  Safety  Pool  consists  of  all  the  frequencies  that  were  in  any  of  the
 Public  Safety  Radio  Services  and  the  Special  Emergency  Radio  Service.  157  Section  90.20(  c)(  3)  of  the  Rules  lists  each  frequency  within  the  Public  Safety  Pool  along  with  the  public  safety  coordinator(  s)
 certified  to  coordinate  applications  for  a  given  frequency.  158  As  adopted  and  released  by  the  Commission,  Section  90.20(  c)(  3)  certified  the  Emergency  Medical  Radio  Service  coordinator  to  coordinate  applications
 for  the  five  frequency  pairs  in  the  220-  222  MHz  band  that  are  designated  for  emergency  medical  use.  159  The  final  adopted  and  released  rule  also  listed  the  band  220-  222  MHz  without  specifying  any  coordinator.
 Under  our  rules,  frequencies  without  any  coordinator  specified  may  be  coordinated  by  any  coordinator  certified  in  the  Public  Safety  Pool.  160  In  this  connection,  we  note  that  the  final  adopted  and  released  rule
 did  not  separately  list  the  ten  public  safety  frequencies  in  the  220-  222  MHz  band.
 46.  The  final  rules  for  the  Refarming  Second  Report  and  Order  that  were  published  in  the  Federal  Register  included  the  provisions  just  described.  However,  due  to  an  administrative  error,  the  published
 rule  also  lists  each  of  the  ten  public  safety  frequencies  along  with  the  designators  for  the  Police  and  the  Special  Emergency  coordinators.  161  This  error  remains  uncorrected  in  the  current  version  of  Section
 90.20(  c)(  3),  presumably  because  it  remained  undetected,  if  not  irrelevant,  until  the  Commissions  decision  in  the  Report  and  Order  to  require  frequency  coordination  for  220-  222  MHz  public  safety
 frequencies,  which  are  available  to  any  eligible  public  safety  entity.  162  In  view  of  these  circumstances,  we
 155  Id.    90.175(  i)(  14)  (1999).
 156  Refarming  Second  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  14317-  8    20.
 157  These  services  consist  of  the  Local  Government  Radio  Service,  Police  Radio  Service,  Fire  Radio  Service,
 Highway  Maintenance  Radio  Service,  Forestry-  Conservation  Radio  Service,  Emergency  Medical  Radio  Service,  and  the  Special  Emergency  Radio  Service.
 158  47  C.  F.  R.    90.20(  c)(  3).
 159  See  Refarming  Second  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  14,307  at  Appendix  E.  The  Commission  created  the
 Emergency  Medical  Radio  Service  in  1993  by  designating  frequencies  for  EMRS  including  five  220-  222  MHz  frequency  pairs,  i.  e.  channels  181-  185.  See  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Create  the
 Emergency  Medical  Radio  Service,  PR  Docket  No.  91-  72,  Report  and  Order,  8  FCC  Rcd  1,454  at  1,459    28  (1993).  The  Commission  certified  the  International  Municipal  Signal  Association  and  the  International  Association
 of  Fire  Chiefs,  Inc.  (IMSA/  IAFC)  as  the  exclusive  coordinator  for  EMRS.  See  8  FCC  Rcd  at  1,460    33.  See  also  id.  at  n.  89  (noting  that  the  five  220  MHz  EMRS  frequency  pairs  are  not  subject  to  coordination).
 160  See  47  C.  F.  R.    90.20(  c)(  2).  In  this  connection,  the  Commission  has  stated  that  where  frequencies  are  available
 to  all  public  safety  entities,  any  of  the  certified  public  safety  coordinators  may  provide  coordination.  See  Refarming  Second  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  14,327    37-  8.  The  Commission  found  that  the  coordination  mechanism
 was  already  in  place  to  accommodate  multiple  coordinators  where  public  safety  frequencies  are  shared  between  public  safety  entities.  Id.
 161  62  FR  18834,  18847  (Apr.  17,  1997).  See  47  C.  F.  R.    90.20(  c)(  3)  (listing  coordinator  codes  PM,  PP,  and  PS  for
 the  fifteen  220  MHz  frequency  pairs  set  aside  for  Public  Safety  and  EMRS).
 162  47  C.  F.  R.    90.720  (eligibility  criteria).  See  12  FCC  Rcd  at  10973-  5    61-  3  (1997);  220  MHz  Notice,  13  FCC
 (continued.)
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 23
 grant  AASHTOs  request  as  to  the  ten  Public  Safety  frequency  pairs  by  revising  Section  90.20(  c)(  3)  to  correct  the  publication  error  so  that,  as  to  the  220-  222  MHz  band,  the  rule  will  read  as  adopted  and
 released  in  the  Refarming  Second  Report  and  Order.  We  decline  AASHTOs  request  with  respect  to  the  five  EMRS  frequency  pairs  because,  as  to  these  frequencies,  the  current  rule  accurately  reflects  the  rule
 that  the  Commission  adopted  in  1997.  Similarly,  on  our  own  motion,  we  are  adopting  corrections  to  Sections  90.35  and  90.175  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  more  accurately  reflect  the  Commissions
 decisions  in  the  Refarming  Fifth  MO&  O.  163
 47.  In  summary,  all  public  safety  coordinators  including  the  Special  Emergency  Coordinator  are  certified  to  coordinate  applications  for  the  ten  Public  Safety  frequency  pairs  in  the  220-  222  MHz  band.
 The  Emergency  Medical  Coordinator  is  the  only  coordinator  certified  to  coordinate  applications  for  the  five  Emergency  Medical  frequency  pairs  in  the  220-  222  MHz  band.  AASHTOs  request  for  clarification
 as  to  the  220-  222  MHz  Emergency  Medical  frequency  pairs  raises  competitive  coordination  issues  that  appear  to  be  within  the  scope  of  a  separately  pending  petition  for  rulemaking  to  introduce  competitive
 coordination  into  the  Public  Safety  Pool  below  470  MHz.  164
 D.  Update  of  airport  terminal  use  list
 48.  Background.  Currently,  40  channel  pairs  in  the  Business  Radio  Service  are  reserved  on  or  near  certain  airports  for  commercial  air  transportation  services.  165  These  airports  are  specifically
 identified  in  the  Commissions  Rules  on  what  is  known  as  the  airport  terminal  use  (ATU)  list.  166  In  the  Notice  in  this  proceeding,  noting  that  it  had  been  some  time  since  the  ATU  list  was  last  reviewed,  167  the
 Commission  requested  comment  as  to  whether  the  list  should  be  updated.  168  PCIA  filed  comments  169  that  incorporated  by  reference  a  1998  petition  for  rule  making  filed  by  PCIA,  ITA,  and  Aeronautical  Radio,
 Inc.  (ARINC)  (collectively,  Petitioners),  that  proposed  revisions  to  the  ATU  list.  170  Petitioners  state  that
 (Continued  from  previous  page)  Rcd  2758.
 163  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,  Fifth  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  416  (2001).  Specifically,  we  are  adding  the  Telephone  Maintenance  Radio  Service  to  the  former  radio  services  listed  in  47
 C.  F.  R.    90.35(  b)(  2)(  iii)  and  90.175(  b)(  1),  and  clarifying  that  these  provisions  apply  above  150  MHz.
 164  See  Public  Notice,  Request  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Permit  Use  of  Any  Certified  Public  Safety
 Coordinator  for  Channels  Below  470  MHz,  Report  No.  2469,  RM-  10077  (rel.  Mar.  1,  2001)  (APCO  Petition).
 165  There  are  40  frequencies  from  460.650  MHz  to  460.89375  MHz  and  40  frequencies  from  465.650  MHz  to
 465.89375  MHz  reserved  for  such  operations.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    90.35(  c)(  61).
 166  47  C.  F.  R.    90.35(  c)(  61)(  iv).
 167  The  ATU  list  was  adopted  in  1986.  Amendment  of  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Relax  Restrictions  on
 Certain  Frequencies  in  the  Business  Radio  Service,  PR  Docket  No.  85-  273,  Report  and  Order,  60  Rad.  Reg.  2d  (P  &  F)  379  (1986)  (ATU  Report  and  Order).
 168  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  21,136    8  and  n.  19.
 169  PCIA  Comments  at  9.
 170  Id.,  citing  Petition  for  Rulemaking,  Request  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  Airport  Terminal
 Use  Frequencies  in  450  MHz  Band,  Public  Notice,  RM  No.  9319  (rel.  July  16,  1998)  (ATU  Petition)).  PCIA,  (continued.)
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 24
 the  existing  list,  which  is  designed  to  protect  airport  terminal  operations  from  harmful  interference,  needs  to  be  updated.  Furthermore,  Petitioners  contend  that  updating  the  list  will  promote  the  deployment  of
 advanced  technologies  at  airports  and  have  a  minimal  impact  on  non-  airport  users.  171  Although  the  Commission  requested  comment  on  the  ATU  list  issue  in  the  Notice,  the  Commission  did  not  address  this
 matter  in  the  Report  and  Order.  172  PCIA  filed  a  petition  for  reconsideration  asking  that  the  Commission  reconsider  this  omission  and  update  the  ATU  list.  173  Comments  in  support  of  the  PCIA  Petition  were
 filed  by  the  Industrial  Telecommunications  Association  (ITA)  and  we  received  no  opposition  filings.  174
 49.  We  agree  with  Petitioners  that  updating  the  ATU  list  is  appropriate.  More  than  fifteen  years  have  passed  since  the  Commission  first  adopted  the  ATU  list,  and  due  to  changing  population  and  travel
 patterns,  airports  not  previously  contemplated  by  the  rule  merit  inclusion  on  the  list.  175  Accordingly,  we  are  revising  Section  90.35(  c)(  61)(  iv)  of  our  rules  to  include  the  list  of  airports  specified  by  Petitioners  in
 their  reconsideration  petition.  176  We  clarify  that  the  addition  of  these  airports  to  the  ATU  list  is  on  a  prospective  basis  only,  so  existing  non-  airport  terminal  business  radio  facilities  located  near  these  new
 airports  will  be  grandfathered  and  may  continue  to  operate  in  accordance  with  their  current  authorizations.  Such  licensees  may  assign  their  existing  licenses  without  losing  grandfathered  status,
 although  modifications  to  existing  facilities,  such  as  their  relocation  closer  to  a  protected  airport  or  an  increase  in  power,  must  comply  with  the  non-  interference  conditions  specified  in  our  rules.  177  Pending
 applications  will  be  subject  to  the  rule  changes  adopted  in  this  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order.  Finally,  we  correct  certain  coordinates  listed  on  the  ATU  list.  178  In  this  connection,  we  delegate  authority  to  the
 Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  to  revise  Section  90.35(  c)(  61)  of  our  Rules  from  time-  to-  time  as  the  Bureau  finds  appropriate  to  conform  our  Rules  to  FAA  corrections/  updates  to  airport  data  e.  g.,
 names,  codes,  or  coordinates.  This  delegation  to  the  Bureau  includes  authority  to  address  any
 (Continued  from  previous  page)  ARINC,  and  ITA  note  that  virtually  all  major  airlines  are  members/  owners  of  ARINC,  and  numerous  airlines  (or
 airport  support  services)  are  members  of  PCIA  and/  or  ITA.  Id.  at  2,  n.  4.  For  reference  purposes,  we  shall  refer  to  PCIA,  ARINC,  and  ITA  as  Petitioners.
 171  ATU  Petition  at  5.
 172  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  16,673.
 173  PCIA  Petition  for  Reconsideration  at  3  (filed  Nov.  13,  2000)  (PCIA  Petition).
 174  Letter  from  Mark  E.  Crosby,  President/  CEO,  ITA  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  FCC,  dated  Dec.  4,  2000.
 175  See  id.  at  4,  Exhibit  A  (proposing  82  additional  airports).
 176  See  PCIA  Petition  at  Exhibit  A  (incorporating  ATU  Petition  at  Exhibit  A).  We  decline,  however,  to  add  Robert
 Mueller  Municipal  Airport  as  suggested  by  Petitioners  since  that  airport  no  longer  exists  according  to  the  Federal  Aviation  Administrations  May  17,  2001  directory  of  Public  Use  Landing  Facilities.  See
 http://  www.  faa.  gov/  arp/  330home.  htm.
 177  47  C.  F.  R.    90.  35(  c)(  61)(  i-  iii).  See  ATU  Report  and  Order,  60  Rad.  Reg.  2d  (P&  F)  379,  381    8.
 178  We  correct  the  coordinates  for  the  Greater  Cincinnati  International  Airport  (CVG),  in  Covington,  KY,
 Cincinnati-  Blue  Ash  Airport  (ISZ),  and  the  Denver-  Jeffco  Airport  (BJC)  in  Denver,  CO,  as  suggested  by  Petitioners.  See  ATU  Petition  at  5-  6,  PCIA  Petition  at  4,  n.  8.  On  our  own  motion,  we  conform  the  airport  names,
 codes,  and  coordinates  listed  in  current  Section  90.  35(  c)(  61)(  iv),  47  C.  F.  R.    90.  35(  c)(  61)(  iv),  and  in  the  Petitioners  proposed  list  of  airports,  with  the  airport  data  listed  in  the  FAAs  February  21,  2002  directory  of  Public  Use
 Landing  Facilities.  See  http://  www.  faa.  gov/  arp/  330home.  htm.  Therefore,  the  ATU  list  adopted  in  Appendix  E  revises  the  current  ATU  list  and  combines  the  revised  list  with  Petitioners  proposed  list,  as  described  herein.
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 25
 implementation  matters  that  may  arise  from  such  rule  revisions.
 V.  SECOND  REPORT  AND  ORDER
 A.  Public  Safety  Pool:  schools  and  parks  eligibility
 50.  Background.  The  Commissions  Rules  currently  exclude  school  districts  and  authorities  and  park  districts  and  authorities  from  holding  licenses  in  the  Public  Safety  Pool  to  operate  radio  stations  for
 the  transmission  of  communications  essential  to  their  official  activities.  179  In  the  Further  Notice,  the  Commission  proposed  to  eliminate  this  restriction,  stating  that  it  believed  that  sufficient  frequencies  had
 become  available  in  the  Public  Safety  Pool  to  accommodate  schools  and  parks.  180  In  addition,  noting  that  school  districts  and  authorities  may  obtain  licenses  in  the  Industrial/  Business  Pool  and  that  adoption  of
 this  proposal  would  allow  them  to  be  licensed  in  the  Public  Safety  Pool,  the  Commission  proposed  to  eliminate  school  district  and  authorities  eligibility  from  the  Industrial/  Business  Pool.  181
 51.  Discussion.  We  agree  with  the  majority  of  commenters  that  adoption  of  our  proposal  to  eliminate  eligibility  restrictions  on  schools  and  parks  in  the  Public  Safety  Pool  is  warranted.  182  Although
 APCO  recommends  that  the  Commission  maintain  these  restrictions  until  additional  spectrum  is  made  available,  183  we  believe  that  such  concerns  are  outweighed  by  the  public  interest  benefits  obtained  by
 simplifying  eligibility  requirements  and  facilitating  interoperable  communications  between  school  or  park  personnel  and  other  public  safety  entities,  especially  during  disasters  and  emergencies.  184  In  addition,  our
 decision  here  will  help  streamline  the  licensing  process,  as  park  districts  and  authorities  will  no  longer  be  required  to  file  a  request  for  waiver  in  order  to  obtain  a  license  for  essential  communications  needs.  185
 Despite  our  conclusion  that  sufficient  frequencies  have  become  available  in  the  Public  Safety  Pool  to  accommodate  schools  and  parks,  we  acknowledge  APCOs  concerns  regarding  spectrum  scarcity  in  the
 Public  Safety  Pool.  186  Still,  in  light  of  the  important  public  interest  benefits  mentioned  above,  we  will
 179  47  C.  F.  R.    90.20(  a)(  1)(  i).
 180  Further  Notice,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,693    44.
 181  47  C.  F.  R.    90.35(  a)(  2).  Further  Notice,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,693-  4    45.
 182  See,  e.  g.,  PCIA  Comments  at  2;  MRFAC  Comments  at  2.  See  also  SBT  Comments  at  2  (filed  Nov.  14,  2000).
 183  APCO  Comments  at  4,  filed  Nov.  14,  2000  (APCO  notes  that  ongoing  TV  broadcast  operations  make  the  24
 MHz  spectrum  unavailable,  consolidation  of  the  PLMR  services  into  two  pools  did  not  add  new  spectrum,  and  technical  advances  have  not  kept  pace  with  increasing  demand  for  Public  Safety  Pool  channels);  Mayworm
 Comments  at  2.
 184  Further  Notice,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,693-  4    44-  5.
 185  Id.  Currently,  absent  a  waiver,  parks  are  ineligible  to  operate  radio  stations  in  the  Public  Safety  or
 Industrial/  Business  Pools.  47  C.  F.  R.    90.20(  a)(  2)(  ii),  90.35(  a)(  2).  Further  Notice,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,693-  4    45-  6.
 186  APCO  Comments  at  2.  Even  APCO,  however,  has  generally  supported  the  basic  principal  that  all  state  and
 local  government  entities  be  treated  as  public  safety,  which  avoids  the  extremely  difficult  task  of  distinguishing  between  users  based  on  their  function  rather  than  their  identity.  Id.
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 26
 amend  Section  90.20  of  the  Commissions  Rules  accordingly  187  and  make  conforming  changes  to  Section  90.242.  188
 52.  Regarding  the  removal  of  school  eligibility  from  the  Industrial/  Business  Pool,  the  majority  of  commenters  do  not  believe  that  existing  Industrial/  Business  Pool  school  operations  should  be  required  to
 relocate  to  the  Public  Safety  Pool.  189  In  this  connection,  we  want  to  ensure  that  our  decision  does  not  result  in  any  unintended  adverse  public  safety  consequences.  As  pointed  out  by  College  Station
 Independent  School  District,  the  costs  of  being  forced  to  relocate  from  the  Industrial/  Business  Pool  to  the  Public  Safety  Pool  could  be  substantial.  190  While  grandfathering  existing  school  operations  in  the
 Industrial/  Business  Pool  would  appear  to  alleviate  this  concern,  prohibiting  new  applicants  from  holding  authorizations  in  the  Industrial/  Business  Pool  could  have  an  unintended  adverse  impact  on  school
 eligibility  for  frequencies  above  800  MHz.  191  Because  the  record  is  not  developed  as  to  the  impact  such  a  change  could  have  to  existing  school  operations  in  the  800  and  900  MHz  bands,  particularly  as  to  school
 operations  in  the  900  MHz  band  where  there  is  no  Public  Safety  category,  we  will  not  delete  school  district  and  authority  eligibility  from  the  Industrial/  Business  Pool.  192  Finally,  pending  applications,
 including  waiver  requests  filed  by  Park  districts  and  authorities,  will  be  subject  to  the  rule  changes  adopted  in  this  Second  Report  and  Order.  193
 187  With  this  change,  schools  and  parks  are  also  eligible  to  be  licensed  for  frequencies  above  800  MHz  governed  by
 Section  90.617  (Subpart  S)  and  for  the  ten  220  MHz  channels  available  to  public  safety  entities  under  Section  90.720(  a)  (Subpart  T)  of  the  Commissions  Rules.  This  rule  change  does  not  impact  licensing  under  Sections
 90.103  (Subpart  F),  90.311  (Subpart  L),  or  90.523  (Subpart  R),  as  these  Subparts  all  contain  separate  eligibility  requirements.
 188  Section  90.242(  a)(  1)  of  the  Commissions  Rules  specifically  extends  eligibility  for  Travelers  information
 stations  to  park  districts  and  authorities.  Eliminating  the  Public  Safety  Pool  restrictions  on  parks,  however,  causes  Section  90.242(  a)(  1)  to  become  unnecessary.
 189  See  e.  g.,  PCIA  Comments  at  2  (supporting  dual  eligibility);  MRFAC  Comments  at  2,  n.  1  (suggesting  forced
 relocation  would  unduly  disrupt  existing  school  operations).  APCO  is  opposed  to  the  entire  proposal.  APCO  Comments  at  2-  4  (warning  of  a  mass  migration  of  school  districts  and  authorities  from  the  Industrial/  Business  Pool
 to  the  Public  Safety  Pool).  But  see  SBT  Comments  at  2-  3  (indicating  forced  relocation  would  free  up  much  needed  spectrum  for  I/  B  users).
 190  See  College  Station  Independent  School  District  Comments  at  1,  filed  Sept.  29,  2000  (estimating  it  would  cost
 the  district  more  than  $73,000  to  purchase  and  install  new  equipment).  See  also  Kay  Independent  School  District  Comments  at  1,  filed  Sept.  20,  2000  (asking  whether  the  Commission  will  grandfather  existing  school  operations  or
 whether  the  Commission  will  fund  the  conversion).  See  also  MRFAC  Comments  at  2,  n  1.
 191  See  47  C.  F.  R.    90.617(  c)  which  includes  as  eligible  for  Business  Radio  Category  channels  those  entities  eligible
 in  the  Industrial/  Business  Pool.
 192  Our  decision  here  makes  it  less  likely  that  APCOs  fears  of  a  mass  migration  of  schools  from  the
 Industrial/  Business  Pool  to  the  Public  Safety  Pool  will  be  realized.
 193  See  Further  Notice,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,693-  4    45-  6.
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 27
 B.  State  highway  maintenance  eligibility
 53.  Background.  Section  90.20(  d)(  43)  of  the  Commissions  Rules  reserves  certain  Public  Safety  Pool  frequencies  for  use  in  highway  maintenance  systems  operated  by  licensees  other  than  States.  194  In
 the  Further  Notice,  the  Commission  granted  AASHTOs  request  to  clarify  that  all  public  safety  users,  other  than  state  highway  systems,  are  permitted  to  use  these  frequencies.  195  Additionally,  the
 Commission  proposed  to  eliminate  the  current  restriction  in  its  entirety  in  order  to  make  State  highway  maintenance  systems  eligible  to  use  these  frequencies  on  the  same  basis  as  all  other  public  safety  users.  196
 54.  Discussion.  AASHTO  supports  the  proposal  and  no  commenters  oppose  it.  As  stated  in  the  Further  Notice,  we  believe  that  eliminating  the  state  highway  restriction  will  further  our  goal  of  making
 more  efficient  use  of  spectrum  by  facilitating  increased  sharing.  197  Consequently,  we  are  removing  the  note  43  restriction  from  Section  90.20(  d)  of  the  Commissions  Rules.
 C.  Dockside  channels
 55.  Background.  In  the  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  clarified  that  the  thirty-  one  Dockside  channels  are  available  to  Industrial/  Business  Pool  eligibles  for  use  on  a  secondary  basis  to  cargo
 handling  operations  at  docksides.  198  Currently,  the  Dockside  channels  are  restricted  to  a  maximum  power  of  2  watts.  199  In  supplemental  comments  submitted  in  response  to  the  Notice  in  this  proceeding,  AAA
 requests  that  the  Commission  eliminate  the  power  restriction  on  eight  of  these  Dockside  frequencies.  200  We  note  that  one  of  the  eight  channels  in  AAAs  original  proposal  (457.5375  MHz)  is  designated  for  low
 power  use  under  Section  90.267  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  201  and  that  AAAs  proposal  no  longer  includes  this  channel.  202  AAA  also  proposes  that  the  Commission  designate  AAA  as  the  sole  coordinator
 of  those  frequencies.  203  The  Further  Notice  sought  comment  on  these  proposals.
 194  47  C.  F.  R.    90.20(  d)(  43).  There  are  twenty-  nine  frequencies  between  156.165  MHz  and  159.1725  MHz  with
 the  note  43  limitation.  Id.    90.20(  c).
 195  Further  Notice,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,694    48.
 196  Id.  at  16,694-  95    48.
 197  See,  e.  g.,  Refarming  Second  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  14,  307,  14,317    18.
 198  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16,677    8.
 199  See  47  C.  F.  R.    90.35(  c)(  60).
 200  American  Automobile  Association  Supplemental  Comments  to  Notice  at  2,  filed  August  26,  1999  (WT  Docket
 No.  98-  182)  (AAA  Supplemental  Comments).  See  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  Accepts  LMCC  low  Power  Plan  for  Part  90  450-  470  MHz  Band,  Public  Notice,  DA  00-  1359  (rel.  June  29,  2000).
 201  47  C.  F.  R.    90.267.
 202  Letter  from  Michele  C.  Farquhar,  Counsel  for  American  Automobile  Association  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,
 Secretary,  FCC,  dated  May  7,  2001.  The  remaining  seven  frequencies  are:  457.525  MHz,  457.550  MHz,  457.5625  MHz,  457.575  MHz,  457.5875  MHz,  457.600  MHz,  and  457.6125  MHz.
 203  AAA  Supplemental  Comments  at  5.
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 28
 56.  Discussion.  AAA  states  that  eliminating  the  power  restriction  will  alleviate  private  radio  spectrum  shortage  by  opening  these  seven  channels  to  auto  clubs  and  other  Industrial/  Business  Pool
 eligibles  for  high-  power  paired  repeater  operations.  204  We  agree.  The  potential  to  pair  these  frequencies  with  seven  of  the  Auto  Emergency  Road  Service  (AERS)  or  other  Industrial/  Business  Pool  frequencies,
 where  one  channel  can  be  used  as  a  high-  powered  mobile  relay  (or  repeater)  station,  would  enable  licensees  to  overcome  terrain  obstacles  and  significantly  increase  coverage  of  signals  for  existing
 licensees  on  the  AERS  channels,  as  well  as  for  all  potential  users  in  the  Industrial/  Business  Pool.  In  this  connection,  we  find  that  PCIAs  concern  of  potential  interference  to  existing  low  power  stations  is
 outweighed  by  the  benefits  to  the  public  of  more  efficient  and  reliable  communications  that  eliminating  the  power  restrictions  on  these  seven  channels  will  provide.  205  Moreover,  frequency  coordinators  must
 take  into  account  existing  low  power  operations  when  conducting  a  frequency  coordination  analysis  on  the  subject  channels,  and  specifically,  must  continue  to  protect  dockside  operations,  which  remain
 primary.
 57.  On  the  other  hand,  regarding  AAAs  request  that  it  be  made  the  sole  frequency  coordinator  for  these  frequencies  or  that  applicants  for  AERS  channels  be  required  to  obtain  AAAs  express  written
 consent  or  concurrence,  we  do  not  agree  that  this  limitation  is  necessary  in  order  to  protect  incumbents  on  the  Dockside  channels  or  to  prevent  interference  on  the  corresponding  AERS  channels.  206  Instead,  we
 agree  with  the  MRFAC,  PCIA,  and  ITA  that  a  coordination  monopoly  is  unnecessary  to  protect  licensees  from  harmful  interference  and  that  competition  amongst  the  frequency  coordinators  is  generally
 preferable,  as  it  will  result  in  better  service  to  the  public.  207  Moreover,  the  fact  that  AAA  will  remain  as  the  sole  frequency  coordinator  for  the  AERS  channels  mitigates  AAAs  concerns  of  interference,  as  any
 applications  seeking  authorization  to  pair  an  AERS  channel  with  one  of  the  dockside  channels  will  have  to  be  first  cleared  by  AAA.  208  Similarly,  any  modification  applications  that  involve  an  AERS  frequency
 will  be  subject  to  AAAs  approval.
 VI.  CONCLUSION
 58.  With  the  adoption  of  this  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  on  Reconsideration  and  Second  Report  and  Order,  we  resolve  several  petitions  for  reconsideration  filed  in  this  proceeding.  Specifically,
 while  adopting  certain  technical  rules  in  order  to  prevent  abuse  and  degradation  of  service  in  MURS,  we  have  declined  to  impose  eligibility  restrictions  that  would  limit  personal  uses  of  these  frequencies.  In
 addition,  we  have  reiterated  our  commitment  to  ensuring  that  public  safety  spectrum  needs  are
 204  American  Automobile  Association  Reply  Comments  at  3,  filed  December  14,  2000.
 205  PCIA  Comments  at  3.  We  note  in  addition  that  since  the  filing  of  its  comments  PCIA  has  expressed  its
 willingness  to  accept  high  power  operation  on  the  subject  frequencies.  MRFAC,  PCIA,  and  ITA  Supplement  to  Ex  Parte  Notification  at  2,  filed  April  9,  2001  (Ex  Parte  Supplement).
 206  See  AAA  Ex  Parte  Notification  at  2,  filed  May  7,  2001.
 207  See  MRFAC  Comments  at  3;  Ex  Parte  Supplement  at  1;  MRFAC,  PCIA,  and  ITA  Ex  Parte  Notification  at  1-  2,
 filed  July  25,  2001.  See  also  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,  PR  Docket  No.  92-  235,  Second  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  14,307,  14,328    40  (1997).
 208  47  C.  F.  R.    90.35(  b)(  2)  and  (3).  See  also  Letter  from  Michele  Farquhar,  counsel  to  American  Automobile
 Association  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  FCC,  dated  August  17,  2001  (seeking  FCC  designation  as  frequency  coordinator  only  for  those  situations  where  AERS  and  high  power  dockside  frequencies  are  paired).
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 29
 uncompromised  and  updated  the  airport  terminal  use  list.  Also,  in  the  Second  Report  and  Order,  we  have  eliminated  unnecessary  eligibility  restrictions  in  the  Public  Safety  Pool  and  lifted  the  power  restrictions
 on  seven  of  the  thirty-  one  Dockside  channels.  Finally,  we  have  taken  this  opportunity,  on  our  own  motion,  to  make  several  rule  revisions  in  our  ongoing  effort  to  streamline  and  eliminate  rules  that  are  no
 longer  warranted.
 VII.  PROCEDURAL  MATTERS
 A.  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act
 59.  A  Supplemental  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  with  respect  to  this  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  has  been  prepared  and  is  included  in  Appendix  A.  A  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility
 Analysis  has  been  prepared  for  the  Second  Report  and  Order  and  is  included  in  Appendix  B.
 B.  Paperwork  Reduction  Act
 60.  This  Order  contains  a  new  information  collection.  As  part  of  our  continuing  effort  to  reduce  paperwork  burdens,  we  invite  the  general  public  and  the  Office  of  Management  and  Budget  (OMB)  to
 take  this  opportunity  to  comment  on  the  information  collections  contained  in  this  Order,  as  required  by  the  Paperwork  Reduction  Act  of  1995.  209  Public  and  agency  comments  are  due  60  days  from  publication
 of  the  summary  of  this  Order  in  the  Federal  Register,  and  OMB  comments  are  due  60  days  from  that  date.  Comments  should  address:
   Whether  the  proposed  collection  of  information  is  necessary  for  the  proper  performance  of  the  functions  of  the  Commission,  including  whether  the  information  shall  have  practical
 utility.
   The  accuracy  of  the  Commission's  burden  estimates.
   Ways  to  enhance  the  quality,  utility,  and  clarity  of  the  information  collected.
   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.
 61.  In  addition  to  filing  comments  with  the  Secretary,  a  copy  of  any  comments  on  the  labeling  contained  herein  should  be  submitted  to  Judith  B.  Herman,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  Room
 1-  C804,  445  Twelfth  Street,  S.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C.  20554,  or  via  the  Internet  to  JBoley@  fcc.  gov,  and  to  Jeanette  Thornton,  OMB  Desk  Officer,  Room  10236  New  Executive  Office  Building,  725  Seventeenth
 Street,  N.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C.  20503,  or  via  the  Internet  to  jthornto@  omb.  eop.  gov.
 C.  Alternative  Formats
 62.  Alternative  formats  (computer  diskette,  large  print,  audio  cassette  and  Braille)  are  available  from  Brian  Millin  at  (202)  418-  7426,  TTY  (202)  418-  7365,  or  at  <bmillin@  fcc.  gov>.  This  Memorandum
 Opinion  and  Order  and  Second  Report  and  Order  can  also  be  downloaded  at  http://  wireless.  fcc.  gov/  releases.  html.
 209  Pub.  L.  No.  104-  13.
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 30
 D.  Contact  for  Information
 63.  For  further  information,  contact  Guy  Benson,  Esquire  at  (202)  418-  2946  <gbenson@  fcc.  gov>,  Mr.  Brian  Marenco  at  418-  0838  <bmarenco@  fcc.  gov>,  or  John  Evanoff,  Esquire  at
 418-  0848  <jevanoff@  fcc.  gov>,  Policy  and  Rules  Branch,  Public  Safety  and  Private  Wireless  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau.
 VIII.  ORDERING  CLAUSES
 64.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Sections  1,  4(  i),  303(  f)  and  (r),  332,  and  405  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    1,  154(  i),  303(  f)  and  (r),  332,  and  405  the
 Petition  for  Reconsideration  filed  by  Motorola,  Inc.  on  November  13,  2000,  IS  DENIED.
 65.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Sections  1,  4(  i),  303(  f)  and  (r),  332,  and  405  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    1,  154(  i),  303(  f)  and  (r),  332,  and  405  the
 Petition  for  Reconsideration  filed  by  RadioShack  Corporation  on  January  3,  2001,  IS  DENIED.
 66.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Sections  1,  4(  i),  303(  f)  and  (r),  332,  and  405  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    1,  154(  i),  303(  f)  and  (r),  332,  and  405  the
 Petition  for  Reconsideration  filed  by  the  Personal  Radio  Steering  Group,  Inc.  on  November  13,  2000,  IS  GRANTED  to  the  extent  indicated  herein  and  otherwise  DENIED.
 67.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Sections  1,  4(  i),  303(  f)  and  (r),  332,  and  405  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    1,  154(  i),  303(  f)  and  (r),  332,  and  405  the
 Petition  for  Reconsideration  filed  by  William  C.  Easterday  on  November  13,  2000,  IS  DISMISSED  as  moot.
 68.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Sections  1,  4(  i),  303(  f)  and  (r),  332,  and  405  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    1,  154(  i),  303(  f)  and  (r),  332,  and  405  the
 Petition  for  Reconsideration  filed  by  the  Personal  Communications  Industry  Association,  Inc.  on  November  13,  2000,  is  GRANTED.
 69.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Sections  1,  4(  i),  303(  f)  and  (r),  332,  and  405  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    1,  154(  i),  303(  f)  and  (r),  332,  and  405  the
 Petition  for  Reconsideration  filed  by  the  American  Association  of  State  Highway  and  Transportation  Officials  on  November  13,  2000,  IS  GRANTED  to  the  extent  indicated  herein  and  otherwise  DENIED.
 70.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  amendments  of  the  Commissions  Rules  as  set  forth  in  Appendix  E  ARE  ADOPTED,  effective  thirty  days  from  the  date  of  publication  in  the  Federal  Register.
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 31
 71.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  Commission's  Consumer  and  Governmental  Affairs  Bureau,  Reference  Information  Center,  SHALL  SEND  a  copy  of  this  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order
 and  Second  Report  and  Order,  WT  Docket  No.  98-  182,  including  the  Supplemental  Final  and  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analyses,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  for  Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business
 Administration.
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION
 Marlene  H.  Dortch  Secretary
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 32
 APPENDIX  A
 SUPPLEMENTAL  FINAL  REGULATORY  FLEXIBILITY  ANALYSIS  (Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order)
 1.  As  required  by  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act  (RFA),  210  a  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  (FRFA)  was  incorporated  in  Appendix  D  of  the  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of
 Proposed  Rule  Making  (R&  O).  211  This  Supplemental  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  (SFRFA)  considers  the  current  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  and  Second  Report  and  Order  (MO&  O)  and
 updates  information  contained  in  the  FRFA.  The  present  SFRFA,  contained  in  the  MO&  O,  conforms  to  the  RFA.  212
 Need  For,  and  Objectives  of,  the  MO&  O
 2.  This  proceeding  was  initiated  in  conjunction  with  the  Commissions  1998  biennial  review  of  regulations  pursuant  to  Section  11  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (the
 Communications  Act).  213  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  were  redundant  in  nature.  214  In  the  R&  O  adopted  June  29,  2000,  the  Commission,  among  other  things:  expanded  the
 availability  of  thirty-  one  dockside  frequencies,  doubled  the  PLMR  license  term  from  five  years  to  ten  years,  and  increased  the  time  period  in  which  certain  PLMR  stations  must  be  placed  in  operation.  The
 Commission  also  clarified  the  frequency  coordination  process  for  Public  Safety  Pool  channels  in  the  220-  222  MHz  band  and  authorized  Public  Safety  Pool  licensees  to  share  their  licensed  radio  facilities  with
 federal  public  safety  providers.  In  addition,  the  Commission  clarified  the  definitions  of  centralized  and  decentralized  trunking  and  established  a  new  process  for  licensing  trunked  systems.  Finally,  the
 Commission  licensed  by  rule,  i.  e.,  eliminated  the  individual  licensing  requirements  for,  five  VHF  frequencies  that  were  allocated  to  the  Part  90  Industrial/  Business  Pool  for  low  power  (1-  or  2-  watt)
 operations.  Under  this  decision,  the  Commission  reallocated  the  five  VHF  frequencies  to  the  Part  95  Personal  Radio  Services  and  established  a  new  Multi-  Use  Radio  Service  (MURS)  under  the  Citizens
 Band  Radio  Services.
 210  See  5  U.  S.  C.    604.  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).
 211  1998  Biennial  Regulatory  Review  --  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  90  -  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services,  WT  Docket  No.
 98-  182,  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  15  FCC  Rcd  16,  673,  16,714  (2000),  Appendix  D.
 212  See  5  U.  S.  C.    604.
 213  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.
 214  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).
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 33
 3.  The  rules  adopted  in  this  MO&  O  continue  our  efforts  to  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.  In  particular,  we  affirm  the  decision  to  license  by  rule  (i.  e.,  eliminate  individual  licensing  for,  and  instead  license  by  rule)  five  VHF  frequencies  that  were
 formerly  licensed  under  Part  90  for  low-  power,  industrial/  business  use,  by  placing  frequencies  in  a  new  Part  95  Citizens  Band  Radio  Service  named  the  Multi-  Use  Radio  Service  (MURS).  In  addition,  we
 decline  to  restrict  the  use  of  MURS  to  Part  90  Industrial/  Business  Pool  eligibles.  The  general  public  is  licensed  by  rule  to  use  MURS  for  communications  related  to  personal  or  business  activities,  and  we  revise
 the  MURS  technical  rules  to  balance  the  benefits  of  adding  technical  flexibility  against  the  disadvantages  of  potential  degradation  of  the  existing  operations  of  business  and  industrial  users.
 Summary  of  Significant  Issues  Raised  by  the  Public  in  Response  to  the  FRFA
 4.  No  reconsideration  petitions  discussed  issues  directly  in  response  to  the  previous  FRFA.
 Description  and  Estimate  of  the  Number  of  Small  Entities  To  Which  Rules  Will  Apply
 5.  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.  215  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.  216  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.  217  Nationwide,  as  of  1992,  there  were
 approximately  275,801  small  organizations.  218  Small  governmental  jurisdiction  generally  means  governments  of  cities,  counties,  towns,  townships,  villages,  school  districts,  or  special  districts,  with  a
 population  of  less  than  50,000.  219  As  of  1992,  there  were  approximately  85,006  such  jurisdictions  in  the  United  States.  220  This  number  includes  38,978  counties,  cities,  and  towns;  of  these,  37,566,  or  ninety-  six
 percent,  have  populations  of  fewer  than  50,000.  221  The  Census  Bureau  estimates  that  this  ratio  is  approximately  accurate  for  all  governmental  entities.  Thus,  of  the  85,006  governmental  entities,  we  estimate
 that  81,600  (ninety-  one  percent)  are  small  entities.  Below,  we  further  describe  and  estimate  the  number  of  small  entity  licensees  and  regulatees  that  may  be  affected  by  the  proposed  rules,  if  adopted.
 6.  Public  Safety  radio  services  and  Governmental  entities.  As  a  general  matter,  Public  Safety  Radio  Pool  licensees  include  police,  fire,  local  government,  forestry  conservation,  highway  maintenance,
 215  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  b)(  3).
 216  Id.    601(  3).
 217  Id.    632.
 218  1992  Economic  Census,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  the  Census,  Table  6  (special  tabulation  of  data  under  contract  to  the  Office
 of  Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration).
 219  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  5).
 220  U.  S.  Dept  of  Commerce,  Bureau  of  the  Census,  1992  Census  of  Governments.
 221  Id.
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 34
 and  emergency  medical  services.  222  The  SBA  rules  contain  a  definition  for  small  radiotelephone  (wireless)  companies,  which  encompasses  business  entities  engaged  in  radiotelephone  communications  employing
 no  more  that  1,500  persons.  223  There  are  a  total  of  approximately  127,540  licensees  within  these  services.  Governmental  entities  as  well  as  private  businesses  comprise  the  licensees  for  these  services.  The  RFA
 also  includes  small  governmental  entities  as  a  part  of  the  regulatory  flexibility  analysis.  224  Small  governmental  jurisdiction  generally  means  governments  of  cities,  counties,  towns,  townships,  villages,
 school  districts,  or  special  districts,  with  a  population  of  less  than  50,000.  225  As  of  1992,  there  were  approximately  85,006  such  jurisdictions  in  the  United  States.  226  This  number  includes  38,978  counties,
 cities  and  towns;  of  these,  37,566,  or  96  percent,  have  populations  of  fewer  than  50,000.  227  The  Census  Bureau  estimates  that  this  ratio  is  approximately  accurate  for  all  governmental  entities.  Thus,  of  the  85,006
 governmental  entities,  the  Commission  estimates  that  81,600  (91  percent)  are  small  entities.
 7.  Estimates  for  PLMR  Licensees.  Private  land  mobile  radio  systems  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  a  definition  of  small  entities  specifically  applicable  to  PLMR
 users,  nor  has  the  SBA  developed  any  such  definition.  The  SBA  rules  do,  however,  contain  a  definition  for  small  radiotelephone  (wireless)  companies.  228  Included  in  this  definition  are  business  entities  engaged
 in  radiotelephone  communications  employing  no  more  that  1,500  persons.  229  According  to  the  Bureau  of  the  Census,  only  twelve  radiotelephone  firms  of  a  total  of  1,178  such  firms  which  operated  during  1992
 had  1,000  or  more  employees.  For  the  purpose  of  determining  whether  a  licensee  is  a  small  business  as  defined  by  the  SBA,  each  licensee  would  need  to  be  evaluated  within  its  own  business  area.  The
 222  See  subparts  A  and  B  of  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    90.1-  90.22.  Police  licensees  include
 26,608  licensees  that  serve  state,  county,  and  municipal  enforcement  through  telephony  (voice),  telegraphy  (code),  and  teletype  and  facsimile  (printed  material).  Fire  licensees  include  22,677  licensees  comprised  of  private  volunteer
 or  professional  fire  companies,  as  well  as  units  under  governmental  control.  Public  Safety  Radio  Pool  licensees  also  include  40,512  licensees  that  are  state,  county,  or  municipal  entities  that  use  radio  for  official  purposes.  There  are
 also  7,325  forestry  service  licensees  comprised  of  licensees  from  state  departments  of  conservation  and  private  forest  organizations  that  set  up  communications  networks  among  fire  lookout  towers  and  ground  crews.  The  9,480
 state  and  local  governments  are  highway  maintenance  licensees  that  provide  emergency  and  routine  communications  to  aid  other  public  safety  services  to  keep  main  roads  safe  for  vehicular  traffic.  Emergency
 medical  licensees  (1,460)  use  these  channels  for  emergency  medical  service  communications  related  to  the  delivery  of  emergency  medical  treatment.  Another  19,478  licensees  include  medical  services,  rescue  organizations,
 veterinarians,  handicapped  persons,  disaster  relief  organizations,  school  buses,  beach  patrols,  establishments  in  isolated  areas,  communications  standby  facilities,  and  emergency  repair  of  public  communications  facilities.
 223  See  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201  (NAICS  code  513322).
 224  See  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  5)  (including  cities,  counties,  towns,  townships,  villages,  school  districts,  or  special  districts).
 225  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  5).
 226  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Bureau  of  the  Census,  "1992  Census  of  Governments."
 227  Id.
 228  See  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201  (NAICS  code  51322).
 229  Id.
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 35
 Commission's  fiscal  year  1994  annual  report  indicates  that,  at  the  end  of  fiscal  year  1994,  there  were  1,101,711  licensees  operating  12,882,623  transmitters  in  the  PLMR  bands  below  512  MHz.  230
 8.  Equipment  Manufacturers.  We  anticipate  that  radio  equipment  manufacturers  will  be  affected  by  our  decisions  in  this  proceeding.  According  to  the  SBAs  regulations,  a  radio  and  television
 broadcasting  and  communications  equipment  manufacturer  must  have  750  or  fewer  employees  in  order  to  qualify  as  a  small  business  concern.  231  Census  Bureau  data  indicate  that  there  are  858  U.  S.  firms  that
 manufacture  radio  and  television  broadcasting  and  communications  equipment,  and  that  778  of  these  firms  have  fewer  than  750  employees  and  would  therefore  be  classified  as  small  entities.  232
 Description  of  Projected  Reporting,  Recordkeeping,  and  Other  Compliance  Requirements
 9.  We  expect  that,  at  most,  the  rules  adopted  herein  will  result  in  nominal  new  reporting,  recordkeeping,  or  other  compliance  requirements  imposed  on  entities  affected  in  this  proceeding.
 Steps  Taken  To  Minimize  Significant  Economic  Impact  on  Small  Entities,  and  Significant  Alternatives  Considered
 10.  The  RFA  requires  an  agency  to  describe  any  significant  alternative  that  it  has  considered  in  reaching  its  proposed  approach,  which  may  include  the  following  four  alternatives,  among  others:  (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)  and  exemption  from  coverage.  233
 11.  Regarding  our  decision  to  express  maximum  operating  power  in  terms  of  transmit  power  output  (TPO)  rather  than  effective  radiated  power  (ERP),  see  MO&  O  paras.  22-  23,  we  do  not  believe  that
 this  will  significantly  impact  small  entities.  Prior  to  the  creation  of  MURS,  the  subject  frequencies  were  restricted  in  terms  of  TPO,  and  our  decision  to  retain  this  standard  will  provide  continuity  as  well  as  the
 ability  for  users  to  utilize  detachable  gain-  adding  antennas  (which  would  not  be  feasible  were  we  to  use  the  ERP  standard).
 12.  Regarding  our  decision  to  restrict  antenna  height  to  20  feet  above  structure  or  60  feet  above  ground,  whichever  is  higher,  see  MO&  O  paras.  24-  25,  we  do  not  anticipate  any  significant  impact  on
 small  entities.  Prior  to  the  creation  of  MURS,  transmitting  antennas  using  the  subject  frequencies  were  limited  in  height  due  to  a  provision  that  restricted  the  distance  between  the  radio  control  point  and  the
 center  of  the  radiating  portion  of  the  antenna.  234  Consequently,  the  new  antenna  height  limits  should  not  affect  small  entities  that  continue  to  operate  on  the  subject  frequencies.  Moreover,  we  believe  that
 antenna  height  restrictions  will  benefit  small  entities  in  that  such  restrictions  promote  spectrum  sharing  and  re-  use  of  the  frequencies,  thus  enabling  more  small  entities  to  take  advantage  of  this  radio  service.
 230  See  Federal  Communications  Commission,  60th  Annual  Report,  Fiscal  Year  1994  at  120-  121.
 231  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201  (NAICS  code  33422).
 232  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Commerce,  1992  Census  of  Transportation,  Communications  and  Utilities  (issued  May  1995)
 (NAICS  code  33422).
 233  See  U.  S.  C.    603.
 234  See  47  C.  F.  R.    90.35(  c)(  11),  (14).
35
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 36
 13.  Regarding  our  decision  to  prohibit  repeater  operations,  see  MO&  O  para.  26,  small  (and  other)  entities  wishing  to  extend  the  range  of  communications  will  not  be  allowed  to  do  so.  On  balance,
 however,  this  restriction  should  benefit  small  entities  in  that  it  promotes  spectrum  sharing  and  frequency  re-  use,  thus  allowing  a  greater  number  of  users  to  take  advantage  of  this  radio  service.  Moreover,  any
 potential  negative  impact  on  small  entities  is  mitigated  due  to  our  decision  to  grandfather  existing  operations  on  the  subject  frequencies.  Consequently,  any  user  that  was  authorized  to  use  repeaters  on  the
 subject  frequencies  prior  to  the  creation  of  MURS  will  continue  to  be  allowed  to  do  so.  An  alternative  would  be  to  allow  repeater  operations,  but  we  believe  that  the  resulting  benefits  of  extended
 communications  capabilities  are  outweighed  by  accommodating  a  greater  number  of  users  on  these  channels.
 14.  Regarding  our  decision  to  prohibit  MURS  radios  from  interconnecting  with  the  Public  Switched  Network  (PSN),  see  MO&  O  paras.  27-  29,  small  (and  other)  entities  that  want  to  use  MURS
 frequencies  for  telephone  or  other  interconnected  types  of  service  will  not  be  allowed  to  do  so.  Allowing  interconnection,  however,  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  intent  of  this  radio  service,  which  is  a  two-  way,
 short  distance  voice  and  data  communications  service  of  short  duration.  Typically,  communications  over  the  PSN  last  longer  than  the  types  of  communications  envisioned  for  MURS.  An  alternative  would  be  to
 allow  interconnection,  but  because  PSN  interconnected  communications  are  typically  duplex  in  nature,  thus  occupying  two  of  five  channels  in  a  given  area,  this  would  severely  limit  the  number  of  available
 channels  at  one  time.  In  this  connection,  we  believe  that  the  prohibition  on  PSN  interconnection  will  likely  generally  benefit  small  entities  in  that  such  restrictions  promote  spectrum  sharing  and  re-  use  of  the
 frequencies,  thus  enabling  more  small  entities  to  take  advantage  of  this  radio  service.  Finally,  any  potential  negative  impact  on  small  entities  is  mitigated  due  to  our  decision  to  grandfather  existing
 operations  on  the  subject  frequencies.  Consequently,  any  user  that  was  authorized  to  interconnect  with  the  PSN  on  the  subject  frequencies  prior  to  the  creation  of  MURS  will  continue  to  be  allowed  to  do  so.
 15.  Our  decision  to  prohibit  MURS  users  from  operating  in  the  continuous  carrier  mode,  see  MO&  O  para.  30,  could  impact  small  (and  other)  entities  in  that  they  will  be  prevented  from  doing  so,  and
 the  alternative  would  be  to  allow  such  operations.  As  with  antenna  height  limits,  repeater  use,  and  PSN  interconnection,  however,  we  believe  that  the  benefits  of  increased  spectrum  sharing  and  frequency  re-  use
 far  outweigh  the  potential  negative  impact  on  small  entities.  Moreover,  the  potential  impact  on  small  entities  is  mitigated  due  to  our  decision  to  grandfather  existing  operations  on  the  subject  frequencies.
 Consequently,  any  user  that  was  authorized  to  operate  in  the  continuous  carrier  transmit  mode  on  the  subject  frequencies  prior  to  the  creation  of  MURS  will  continue  to  be  allowed  to  do  so.
 16.  Regarding  our  decision  to  prohibit  the  transmission  of  lengthy  data  image  signals  over  MURS,  see  MO&  O  para.  31,  we  do  not  anticipate  any  significant  impact  on  small  entities.  Transmissions
 of  this  type  of  communications  was  never  allowed  on  the  subject  frequencies  and  allowing  them  now  in  MURS  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  intent  of  the  service.
 17.  We  do  not  anticipate  that  our  decision  to  change  the  permissible  bandwidth  from  12.5  kHz  to  20  kHz  for  frequencies  154.570  MHz  and  154.600  MHz,  see  MO&  O  paras.  33-  35,  will  have  any
 significant  impact  on  small  entities.  Prior  to  the  creation  of  MURS,  the  permissible  bandwidth  for  these  frequencies  was  20  kHz,  and  changing  it  in  the  R&  O  to  12.5  kHz  was  an  inadvertent  error.
 18.  Our  decision  to  prohibit  the  integration  of  MURS  frequencies  and  FRS  frequencies  into  a  single  radio  unit,  see  MO&  O  para.  38,  should  not  have  a  significant  adverse  impact  on  small  entities.
 FRS  is  a  narrowly  tailored  service  intended  for  private  two-  way,  very  short  distance  voice  communications  for  facilitating  family  and  group  activities.  Small  (and  other)  businesses  are  currently
 not  eligible  to  operate  on  FRS  frequencies  and  therefore,  this  prohibition  should  not  have  any  adverse  impact.
36
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 37
 19.  We  also  decline  to  delay  the  implementation  of  MURS  by  declining  to  adopt  a  transition/  migration  period,  see  MO&  O  para.  39,  which  might  have  assisted  small  entities  that  might  face
 increased  congestion  and  potential  interference  from  the  introduction  of  non-  business  operations  on  the  subject  frequencies.  We  have,  however,  adopted  technical  restrictions  in  this  Memorandum  Opinion  and
 Order  to  mitigate  the  potential  for  harmful  interference  to  small  (and  other)  business  operations.  Furthermore,  as  noted  above,  as  the  subject  frequencies  are  shared,  business  users  were  never  insured  of
 interference-  or  congestion-  free  operations.  Finally,  Motorolas  suggested  migration  plan  is  too  speculative,  as  it  relies  on  the  outcome  of  a  pending  proceeding.  Consequently,  based  on  the  totality  of
 the  record,  we  believe  that  the  public  interest  would  not  be  served  were  we  to  delay  MURS,  and  the  impact,  if  any,  of  this  decision  on  small  entities  is  likely  to  be  minimal.
 20.  Regarding  our  decision  to  update  the  airport  terminal  use  (ATU)  list,  see  MO&  O  paras.  48-  49,  we  do  not  anticipate  any  significant  impact  on  small  entities.  Small  entities  that  wish  to  operate  on
 these  ATU  frequencies  will  have  expanded  opportunities  to  do  so.  Moreover,  this  decision  should  have  little  impact  on  small  entity  non-  airport  terminal  business  radio  users  located  near  these  airports,  because
 such  operations  will  continue  to  be  allowed.
 21.  Report  to  Congress:  The  Commission  will  send  a  copy  of  this  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  WT  Docket  No.  98-  182,  including  this  Supplemental  FRFA,  in  a  report  to  be  sent  to  Congress
 pursuant  to  the  Congressional  Review  Act,  see  5  U.  S.  C.    801(  a)(  1)(  A).  In  addition,  the  Commission  will  send  a  copy  of  the  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  WT  Docket  No.  98-  182,  including  this
 Supplemental  FRFA,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  for  Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration.  A  summary  of  the  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  WT  Docket  No.  98-  182,  including  the  Supplemental
 FRFA,  will  also  be  published  in  the  Federal  Register.  See  5  U.  S.  C.    604(  b).
37
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 38
 APPENDIX  B
 FINAL  REGULATORY  FLEXIBILITY  ANALYSIS  (Second  Report  and  Order)
 1.  As  required  by  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act  (RFA),  235  an  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  (IRFA)  was  incorporated  in  the  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making
 (Further  Notice).  236  The  Commission  sought  written  public  comment  on  the  proposals  in  the  Further  Notice,  including  comment  on  the  IRFA.  This  present  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  (FRFA)
 conforms  to  the  RFA.  237
 Need  for,  and  Objectives  of,  the  Adopted  Rules:
 2.  To  further  consolidate  and  streamline  the  Part  90  of  the  rules,  reduce  regulatory  requirements,  provide  Part  90  licensees  with  greater  flexibility  concerning  their  operations,  and  promote  increased
 spectrum  sharing,  the  Commission  amends  Part  90  of  its  rules  to  (1)  remove  the  restriction  preventing  school  districts  and  authorities  and  park  districts  and  authorities  from  being  eligible  for  licenses  in  the
 Public  Safety  Pool;  (2)  remove  the  restriction  preventing  State  highway  maintenance  systems  from  operating  on  certain  channels  in  the  Public  Safety  Pool;  and  (3)  remove  the  power  restriction  on  seven
 dockside  channels  in  the  Industrial/  Business  Pool.
 3.  These  rule  changes  are  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.  Similarly,  the  inclusion  of  State  highway  maintenance  systems  on  certain  Public  Safety  Pool  frequencies  should  give  such  systems  access  to
 spectrum  needed  for  important  communications  functions.  Finally,  removal  of  the  power  restriction  on  the  dockside  channels  will  facilitate  increased  range  and  more  reliable  communications  for
 Industrial/  Business  Pool  eligibles.
 Summary  of  Significant  Issues  Raised  by  Public  Comments  in  Response  to  the  IRFA.
 4.  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  entities.
 Description  and  Estimate  of  the  Number  of  Small  Entities  to  Which  Rules  Will  Apply:
 235  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).
 236  1998  Biennial  Regulatory  Review  --  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  90  -  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services,  WT  Docket  No.
 98-  182,  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  15  FCC  Rcd  16,  673,  16,714  (2000),  Appendix  D.
 237  See  5  U.  S.  C.    604.
38
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 39
 5.  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.  238  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.  239  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.  240  Nationwide,  as  of  1992,  there  were
 approximately  275,801  small  organizations.  241  Small  governmental  jurisdiction  generally  means  governments  of  cities,  counties,  towns,  townships,  villages,  school  districts,  or  special  districts,  with  a
 population  of  less  than  50,000.  242  As  of  1992,  there  were  approximately  85,006  such  jurisdictions  in  the  United  States.  243  This  number  includes  38,978  counties,  cities,  and  towns;  of  these,  37,566,  or  ninety-  six
 percent,  have  populations  of  fewer  than  50,000.  244  The  Census  Bureau  estimates  that  this  ratio  is  approximately  accurate  for  all  governmental  entities.  Thus,  of  the  85,006  governmental  entities,  we  estimate
 that  81,600  (ninety-  one  percent)  are  small  entities.  Below,  we  further  describe  and  estimate  the  number  of  small  entity  licensees  and  regulatees  that  may  be  affected  by  the  proposed  rules,  if  adopted.
 6.  Public  Safety  radio  services  and  Governmental  entities.  As  a  general  matter,  Public  Safety  Radio  Pool  licensees  include  police,  fire,  local  government,  forestry  conservation,  highway  maintenance,
 and  emergency  medical  services.  245  The  SBA  rules  contain  a  definition  for  small  radiotelephone  (wireless)  companies,  which  encompasses  business  entities  engaged  in  radiotelephone  communications  employing
 no  more  that  1,500  persons.  246  There  are  a  total  of  approximately  127,540  licensees  within  these  services.  Governmental  entities  as  well  as  private  businesses  comprise  the  licensees  for  these  services.  The  RFA
 238  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  b)(  3).
 239  Id.    601(  3).
 240  Id.    632.
 241  1992  Economic  Census,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  the  Census,  Table  6  (special  tabulation  of  data  under  contract  to  the  Office
 of  Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration).
 242  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  5).
 243  U.  S.  Dept  of  Commerce,  Bureau  of  the  Census,  1992  Census  of  Governments.
 244  Id.
 245  See  subparts  A  and  B  of  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    90.1-  90.22.  Police  licensees  include
 26,608  licensees  that  serve  state,  county,  and  municipal  enforcement  through  telephony  (voice),  telegraphy  (code),  and  teletype  and  facsimile  (printed  material).  Fire  licensees  include  22,677  licensees  comprised  of  private  volunteer
 or  professional  fire  companies,  as  well  as  units  under  governmental  control.  Public  Safety  Radio  Pool  licensees  also  include  40,512  licensees  that  are  state,  county,  or  municipal  entities  that  use  radio  for  official  purposes.  There  are
 also  7,325  forestry  service  licensees  comprised  of  licensees  from  state  departments  of  conservation  and  private  forest  organizations  that  set  up  communications  networks  among  fire  lookout  towers  and  ground  crews.  The  9,480
 state  and  local  governments  are  highway  maintenance  licensees  that  provide  emergency  and  routine  communications  to  aid  other  public  safety  services  to  keep  main  roads  safe  for  vehicular  traffic.  Emergency
 medical  licensees  (1,460)  use  these  channels  for  emergency  medical  service  communications  related  to  the  delivery  of  emergency  medical  treatment.  Another  19,478  licensees  include  medical  services,  rescue  organizations,
 veterinarians,  handicapped  persons,  disaster  relief  organizations,  school  buses,  beach  patrols,  establishments  in  isolated  areas,  communications  standby  facilities,  and  emergency  repair  of  public  communications  facilities.
 246  See  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201  (NAICS  code  513322).
39
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 40
 also  includes  small  governmental  entities  as  a  part  of  the  regulatory  flexibility  analysis.  247  Small  governmental  jurisdiction  generally  means  governments  of  cities,  counties,  towns,  townships,  villages,
 school  districts,  or  special  districts,  with  a  population  of  less  than  50,000.  248  As  of  1992,  there  were  approximately  85,006  such  jurisdictions  in  the  United  States.  249  This  number  includes  38,978  counties,
 cities  and  towns;  of  these,  37,566,  or  96  percent,  have  populations  of  fewer  than  50,000.  250  The  Census  Bureau  estimates  that  this  ratio  is  approximately  accurate  for  all  governmental  entities.  Thus,  of  the  85,006
 governmental  entities,  the  Commission  estimates  that  81,600  (91  percent)  are  small  entities.
 7.  Estimates  for  PLMR  Licensees.  Private  land  mobile  radio  systems  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  a  definition  of  small  entities  specifically  applicable  to  PLMR
 users,  nor  has  the  SBA  developed  any  such  definition.  The  SBA  rules  do,  however,  contain  a  definition  for  small  radiotelephone  (wireless)  companies.  251  Included  in  this  definition  are  business  entities  engaged
 in  radiotelephone  communications  employing  no  more  that  1,500  persons.  252  According  to  the  Bureau  of  the  Census,  only  twelve  radiotelephone  firms  of  a  total  of  1,178  such  firms  which  operated  during  1992
 had  1,000  or  more  employees.  For  the  purpose  of  determining  whether  a  licensee  is  a  small  business  as  defined  by  the  SBA,  each  licensee  would  need  to  be  evaluated  within  its  own  business  area.  The
 Commission's  fiscal  year  1994  annual  report  indicates  that,  at  the  end  of  fiscal  year  1994,  there  were  1,101,711  licensees  operating  12,882,623  transmitters  in  the  PLMR  bands  below  512  MHz.  253
 8.  Equipment  Manufacturers.  We  anticipate  that  radio  equipment  manufacturers  will  be  affected  by  our  decisions  in  this  proceeding.  According  to  the  SBAs  regulations,  a  radio  and  television
 broadcasting  and  communications  equipment  manufacturer  must  have  750  or  fewer  employees  in  order  to  qualify  as  a  small  business  concern.  254  Census  Bureau  data  indicate  that  there  are  858  U.  S.  firms  that
 manufacture  radio  and  television  broadcasting  and  communications  equipment,  and  that  778  of  these  firms  have  fewer  than  750  employees  and  would  therefore  be  classified  as  small  entities.  255
 Description  of  Projected  Reporting,  Recordkeeping  and  Other  Compliance  Requirements:
 9.  The  Rules  adopted  in  this  Second  Report  and  Order  (Second  R&  O)  have  minimal  additional  reporting  or  recordkeeping  requirements  for  PLMR  licensees.
 247  See  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  5)  (including  cities,  counties,  towns,  townships,  villages,  school  districts,  or  special  districts).
 248  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  5).
 249  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Bureau  of  the  Census,  "1992  Census  of  Governments."
 250  Id.
 251  See  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201  (NAICS  Code  51322).
 252  Id.
 253  See  Federal  Communications  Commission,  60th  Annual  Report,  Fiscal  Year  1994  at  120-  121.
 254  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  Standard  Industrial  Code  (SIC)  3663.
 255  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Commerce,  1992  Census  of  Transportation,  Communications  and  Utilities  (issued  May  1995),
 NAICS  code  33422).
40
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 41
 Steps  Taken  to  Minimize  Significant  Economic  Impact  on  Small  Entities  and  Significant  Alternatives  Considered.
 10.  The  RFA  requires  an  agency  to  describe  any  significant  alternative  that  it  has  considered  in  reaching  its  proposed  approach,  which  may  include  the  following  four  alternatives,  among  others:  (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)  and  exemption  from  coverage.  256
 11.  Regarding  our  decision  to  eliminate  eligibility  restrictions  on  park  districts  and  authorities  and  school  districts  and  authorities  so  that  these  entities  may  obtain  licenses  to  operate  on  Public  Safety
 Pool  channels,  see  Second  R&  O  paras.  50-  52,  there  should  be  no  significant  adverse  impact  on  small  entities.  Indeed,  small  entities  should  benefit  from  this  decision,  as  they  will  have  greater  opportunities
 for  licensing  now  that  they  will  be  allowed  to  operate  on  the  Public  Safety  Pool  frequencies.  An  alternative  to  this  proposal  would  be  to  retain  the  current  rule,  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.
 12.  Regarding  our  decision  to  eliminate  the  rule  restricting  State  highway  maintenance  systems  from  operating  on  certain  Public  Safety  Pool  frequencies,  see  Second  R&  O  paras.  53-  54,  we  do  anticipate
 any  adverse  impact  on  small  entities.  An  alternative  to  this  decision  would  be  to  continue  the  prohibition.  This  would,  however,  be  unsatisfactory,  as  allowing  State  highway  maintenance  systems  to  operate  on
 the  subject  frequencies  furthers  the  important  Commission  goals  of  increased  spectrum  sharing  and  interoperability  of  public  safety  communications.
 13.  Finally,  our  decision  to  eliminate  the  power  restriction  on  seven  of  the  thirty-  one  dockside  channels,  see  Second  R&  O  paras.  55-  57,  should  not  have  any  adverse  impact  on  small  entities.  The
 potential  to  pair  these  dockside  frequencies  with  the  AERS  or  other  Industrial/  Business  Pool  frequencies  will  result  in  greater  opportunities  for  small  (and  other)  business  due  to  increased  signal  coverage  and
 more  reliable  communications.  In  addition,  concerns  of  harmful  interference  to  existing  low  power  users  on  the  subject  frequencies  are  mitigated,  because  operation  on  these  frequencies  will  continue  to  require
 frequency  coordination  from  a  Commission-  certified  frequency  coordinator.
 14.  Report  to  Congress:  The  Commission  will  send  a  copy  of  this  Second  Report  and  Order,  WT  Docket  No.  98-  182,  including  this  FRFA,  in  a  report  to  be  sent  to  Congress  pursuant  to  the
 Congressional  Review  Act,  see  5  U.  S.  C.    801(  a)(  1)(  A).  In  addition,  the  Commission  will  send  a  copy  of  the  Second  Report  and  Order,  WT  Docket  No.  98-  182,  including  this  FRFA,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  for
 Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration.  A  summary  of  the  Second  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).
 256  5  U.  S.  C.    603.
41
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 42
 APPENDIX  C
 LIST  OF  PARTIES  (Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order)
 The  following  is  a  list  of  parties  filing  petitions  and  responsive  pleadings  in  response  to  the  Report  and  Order.  See  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  in  WT  Docket
 No.  98-  182,  15  FCC  Rcd  16,673  (2000).
 Petitions  for  Reconsideration  and/  or  Clarification  were  filed  by:
 Oppositions,  Comments,  and  Replies  to  Petitions  for  Reconsideration  were  filed  by:
 AAA  Auto  Club  South,  Inc.  ACS,  Inc.
 Albert  Verdecia  Allan  Schaefer
 American  Association  of  State  Highway  and  Transportation  Officials  (AASHTO)  American  Automobile  Association  (AAA)
 Andre  Ferchau  Association  of  Public  Safety-  Communications  Officials-  International  (APCO)
 Automobile  Club  of  Hartford,  Inc.  Automobile  Club  of  Southern  California  (ACSC)
 Bennett  Z.  Kobb  California  State  Automobile  Association  (CSAA)
 College  Station  Independent  School  District  Corwin  D.  Moore  Jr.
 David  H.  Brothers  Co.,  Inc.  David  F.  Reeder
 Doug  McLean  Dr.  Michael  C.  Trahos,  D.  O.,  NCE,  CET
 Dr.  Thomas  E.  H.  Gruis  Earl  &  Brown  Company,  Inc.
 The  Family  Security  Company  Globe  Wireless,  Inc.
 Harlan  L.  Cooley  Hexagram,  Inc.
 Industrial  Telecommunications  Association,  Inc.  (ITA)  John  R  Scheuchenzuber
 Katy  Transportation  Department  Land  Mobile  Communications  Council  (LMCC)
 Lengemann  of  Florida  Merchant  &  Merchant
 Michael  D.  Krumlauf  Motorola,  Inc.
 MRFAC,  Inc.  (MRFAC)  Personal  Communications  Industry  Assn.,  Inc.  (PCIA)
 Personal  Radio  Steering  Group  Inc.  (PRSG)  Peter  Shipley
 ProMarketing  Inc.  RadioShack  Corp.
42
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 43
 Raymond  A.  Klatt  RIC
 Ronald  G.  Mayworm  SAFETENET.  com
 Scott  R.  Havens  Small  Business  in  Telecommunications  (SBT)
 Telonics,  Inc.  Thomas  P.  Currie
 Thomas  Poff  Thomas  Love
 William  C.  Easterday  William  L.  Morgan
 Wireless  Solutions
43
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 44
 APPENDIX  D
 LIST  OF  COMMENTERS  (Second  Report  and  Order)
 The  following  is  a  list  of  parties  filing  comments  and  reply  comments  in  response  to  the  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making.  See  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,
 WT  Docket  No.  98-  182,  15  FCC  Rcd  16,673  (2000).
 Comments
 APCO  College  Independent  School  District
 Globe  Wireless,  Inc.  Katy  Independent  School  District
 MRFAC  PCIA
 Small  Business  in  Telecommunications
 Reply  Comments
 American  Automobile  Association  (AAA)  Automobile  Club  of  Hartford,  Inc.
 Automobile  Club  of  Southern  California  AAA  Auto  Club  South,  Inc.
 California  State  Automobile  Association  Ronald  G.  Mayworm
44
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 45
 APPENDIX  E
 FINAL  RULES
 Part  0  of  Chapter  1  of  Title  47  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  is  amended  as  follows:
 PART  0    COMMISSION  ORGANIZATION
 1.  The  authority  citation  for  Part  0  continues  to  read  as  follows:
 Authority:  Sec.  5,  48  Stat.  1068,  as  amended;  47  U.  S.  C.  155.
 2.  Section  0.331  is  amended  as  follows:
   0.331  Authority  delegated.
 *  *  *  *  *
 (d)  Authority  concerning  rulemaking  proceedings.  The  Chief,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  shall  not  have  the  authority  to  act  upon  notices  of  proposed  rulemaking  and  inquiry,  final
 orders  in  rulemaking  proceedings  and  inquiry  proceedings,  and  reports  arising  from  any  of  the  foregoing  except  such  orders  involving  ministerial  conforming  amendments  to  rule  parts,  or
 orders  conforming  any  of  the  applicable  rules  to  formally  adopted  international  conventions  or  agreements  where  novel  questions  of  fact,  law,  or  policy  are  not  involved.  In  addition,  revisions
 to  the  airport  terminal  use  list  in    90.35(  c)(  61)  of  this  chapter  need  not  be  referred  to  the  Commission.  Also,  the  addition  of  new  Marine  VHF  frequency  coordination  committee(  s)  to
   80.514  of  this  chapter  need  not  be  referred  to  the  Commission  if  they  do  not  involve  novel  questions  of  fact,  policy  or  law,  as  well  as  requests  by  the  United  States  Coast  Guard  to:
 *  *  *  *  *
 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  90.20  is  amended  to  revise  paragraph  (a)(  1)(  i)  to  read  as  follows:
   90.20  Public  Safety  Pool
 (a)  *  *  *
 (1)  *  *  *
 (i)  A  district  and  an  authority;
 5.  Section  90.20(  c)(  3)  is  amended  to  delete  the  coordinator  codes  for  the  following  frequencies:
45
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 46
   90.20  Public  Safety  Pool.
 *  *  *  *  *
 (c)  *  *  *
 (3)  Frequency  or
 band  Coordinator  220.8025
 220.8075  220.8125
 220.8175  220.8225
 220.8275  220.8325
 220.8375  220.8425
 220.8475  221.8025
 221.8075  221.8125
 221.8175  221.8225
 221.8275  221.8325
 221.8375  221.8425
 221.8475
 6.  Section  90.20  is  amended  to  remove  note  43  from  the  following  frequencies:
   90.20  Public  Safety  Pool
 *  *  *  *  *
 (c)  *  *  *
 (3)  *  *  *
 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
46
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 47
 *  *  *  158.985......................  ......  do...............  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  159.0825.....................  ......  do.......  27....  PH
 *  *  *  159.105......................  ......  do.......  ........  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
 *  *  *  *  *
 7.  Section  90.20  is  amended  to  remove  and  reserve  paragraph  (d)(  43),  to  read  as  follows:
   90.20  Public  Safety  Pool.
 *  *  *  *  *
 (d)  *  *  *
 (43)  [Reserved]
 *  *  *  *  *
 8.  Section  90.35(  b)(  2)(  iii)  is  amended  to  read  as  follows:
   90.35  Industrial/  Business  Pool
 *  *  *  *  *
 (b)  *  *  *
 (iii)  For  frequencies  above  150  MHz,  applications  for  new  or  modified  facilities  on  frequencies  shared  prior  to  radio  service  consolidation  by  the  former  Manufacturers  Radio  Service,  the  Forest
 Products  Radio  Service,  the  Power  Radio  Service,  the  Petroleum  Radio  Service,  the  Motor
47
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 48
 Carrier  Radio  Service,  the  Railroad  Radio  Service,  the  Telephone  Maintenance  Radio  Service  and  the  Automobile  Emergency  Radio  Service  may  be  coordinated  by  any  certified
 Industrial/  Business  Pool  coordinator.  However,  in  the  event  that  the  interference  contour  of  a  proposed  station  would  overlap  the  service  contour  of  an  existing  station  licensed  on  one  of  these
 previously  shared  frequencies,  the  written  concurrence  of  the  coordinator  associated  with  the  industry  for  which  the  existing  station  license  was  issued,  or  the  written  concurrence  of  the
 licensee  of  the  existing  station,  shall  be  obtained.  For  the  purposes  of  this    90.35,  the  service  contour  for  UHF  stations  is  the  39  dBu  contour;  and  the  interference  contour  for  UHF  stations  is
 the  21  dBu  contour;  the  service  contour  for  VHF  stations  is  the  37  dBu  contour;  and  the  interference  contour  for  VHF  stations  is  the  19  dBu  contour.
 *  *  *  *  *
 9.  Section  90.35  is  amended  by  removing  note  11  from  the  following  frequencies:
   90.35  Industrial/  Business  Pool.
 *  *  *  *  *
 (b)  *  *  *
 (3)  *  *  *
 457.525.....................  ......  do.......  12,  47,  60  *  *  *
 457.550.....................  ......  do.......  12,  47,  60  *  *  *
 457.5625.....................  ......  do.......  12,  30,  47,  60  *  *  *
 457.575.....................  ......  do.......  12,  47,  60  *  *  *
 457.5875.....................  ......  do.......  12,  30,  47,  60  *  *  *
 457.600.....................  ......  do.......  12,  47,  60  *  *  *
 457.6125.....................  ......  do.......  12,  30,  47,  60
 *  *  *  *  *
 10.  Sections  90.35(  c)(  60)(  ii)  and  (c)(  60)(  iii)  are  amended  as  follows:
   90.35  Industrial/  Business  Pool
 *  *  *  *  *
 (c)  *  *  *
 (60)(  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.  Such  operations  are  not
 subject  to  the  power  limitations  in  (c)(  60)(  i)  of  this  Section  on  the  following  frequencies:  457.525  MHz,  457.550  MHz,  457.5625  MHz,  457.575  MHz,  457.5875  MHz,  457.600  MHz,  and
48
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 49
 457.6125  MHz.  This  frequency  will  not  be  assigned  for  non-  cargo  handling  operations  at  temporary  locations.
 (iii)  For  mobile  relay  operations  under  (c)(  60)(  i),  frequency  pairing  is  as  follows:
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------  Mobile  relay  (MHz)\  1\  Mobile  (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
 *  *  *  *  *
   90.35  Industrial/  Business  Pool
 11.  Section  90.35  is  amended  to  revise  paragraph  (c)(  61)(  iii)  to  read  as  follows.
   90.35  Industrial/  Business  Pool
 *  *  *  *  *  (c)  *  *  *
 (61)  *  *  *
 (iii)  To  stations  in  the  Industrial/  Business  Pool  for  secondary  use  at  locations  16  km  (10  miles)  or  more  from  the  coordinates  of  the  listed  airports  at  a  maximum  transmitter  power  output  of  2  watts.  Use  of
 the  frequency  is  restricted  to  the  confines  of  an  industrial  complex  or  manufacturing  yard  area.  Stations  licensed  prior  to  [effective  date  of  Order]  may  continue  to  operate  with  facilities  authorized  as  of  that
 date.
 *  *  *  *  *
 12.  Section  90.35  is  amended  to  revise  paragraph  (c)(  61)(  iv)  to  read  as  follows:
49
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 50
   90.35  Industrial/  Business  Pool
 *  *  *  *  *
 (61)*  *  *
 (iv)
 Reference  coordinates  City  and  airport
 N.  Latitude  W.  Longitude  1
 Aberdeen,  SD:  Aberdeen  Regional  (ABR)  ...  45  2656.6  98  2518.6
 Agana,  GU:  Guam  International  (GUM)  ...  13  2900.4  144  4745.5  E
 Akron,  OH:  Akron-  Canton  Regional  (CAK)  .  40  5458.7  81  2632.9
 Alamosa,  CO:  San  Luis  Valley  Regional/  Bergman  Field  (ALS)  .  37  2605.7  105  5159.6
 Albany,  NY  :  Albany  Intl  (ALB)  ..............  42  44'53.2"  73  48'10.7"
 Albuquerque,  NM:  Albuquerque  International  Sunport  (ABQ)
 ..  35  02'24.8"  106  36'33.1"  Allentown-  Bethlehem,  PA:
 Lehigh  Valley  Intl  (ABE)    40  39'08.5"  75  26'25.5"
 Amarillo,  TX:  Amarillo  International  (AMA)
 .  35  1309.7  101  4221.3  Anchorage,  AK:
 Ted  Stevens  Anchorage  International  (ANC)  .......  61  10'27.6"  149  59'46.3"
 Appleton,  WI:  Outagamie  County  Regional  (ATW)    44  1526.7  88  3110.1
 Aspen,  CO:  Aspen-  Pitkin  County/  Sardy  Field  (ASE)
 ..  39  1323.4  106  5207.9  Atlanta,  GA:
 Atlanta  International  (ATL)  .......  Dekalb-  Peachtree  (PDK)  .............
 Fulton  County  (FTY)  .................
 33  38'25.6"  33  52'32.2"
 33  46'44.9"
 84  25'37.0"  84  18'07.1"
 84  31'16.9"  Austin,  TX:
 Austin  Bergstrom  International  (AUS)  ........  30  1140.3  97  4011.5  Bakersfield,  CA:
 1  Coordinates  followed  by  an  E  are  east  longitude.
50
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 51
 Meadows  Field  (BFL)  ....  35  2600.9  119  0324.4  Baltimore,  MD:
 Baltimore-  Washington  Int'l  (BWI)  .  39  10'31.5"  76  40'05.5"  Baton  Rouge,  LA:
 Baton  Rouge  Metropolitan  (BTR)  ....  30  3159.4  91  0858.7  Billings,  MT:
 Billings  Logan  International  (BIL)  .....  45  4827.6  108  3234.3
 Birmingham,  AL:  Birmingham  Intl  (BHM)  ............  33  33'46.6"  86  45'12.8"
 Bismarck,  ND:  Bismarck  Municipal  (BIS)  ..  46  4621.8  100  4444.7
 Boise,  ID:  Boise  Air  Terminal  (BOI)  ...  43  3352.0  116  1322.0
 Boston,  MA:  Logan  International  (BOS)  .........  42  21'51.7"  71  00'18.7"
 Bozeman,  MT:  Gallatin  Field  (BZN)  .......  45  4636.8  111  0910.8
 Bridgeport,  CT:  Sikorsky  Memorial  (BDR)  ............  41  09'48.5"  73  07'34.2"
 Buffalo,  NY:  Buffalo  Niagara  Int'l  (BUF)  .......  42  56'25.9"  78  43'55.8"
 Burlington,  VT:  Burlington  Intl  (BTV)
 ..  44  2818.7  73  0911.8  Cedar  Rapids,  IA:
 The  Eastern  Iowa  (CID)  ....  41  5304.5  91  4239.1  Charleston,  SC:
 Charleston  AFB/  International  (CHS)  ...  32  5355.1  80  0225.8  Charlotte,  NC:
 Charlotte-  Douglas  Int'l  (CLT)  .......  35  12'50.4"  80  56'35.3"  Chattanooga,  TN:
 Lovell  (CHA)  .......................  35  02'06.9"  85  12'13.6"  Chicago,  IL-  Northwest,  IN:
 Chicago-  Wheeling-  Palwaukee  (PWK)  ....  Meigs  (CGX)  .........................
 South  Bend  Regional  (SBN)  ............  Midway  (MDW)  .....................
 O'Hare  International  (ORD)  .........  West  Chicago-  Dupage  (DPE)  ........
 42  06'51.1"  41  51'31.8"
 41  42'32.2"  41  47'09.5"
 41  58'46.5"  41  54'24.8"
 87  54'05.3"  87  36'28.5"
 86  19'06.5"  87  45'08.7"
 87  54'16.1"  88  14'54.3"
 Cincinnati,  OH:  Cincinnati-  Blue  Ash  (ISZ)
 ..  Lunken  (LUK)  .......................  39  1448.1  39  06'12.0"  84  2320.3  84  25'07.0"
 Cleveland,  OH:  Burke  Lakefront  (BKL)  ..............
 Cuyahoga  County  (CGF)  .............  Hopkins  International  (CLE)  ........  41  31'03.0"  41  33'54.5"  41  24'39.2"  81  41'00.0"  81  29'10.9"  81  50'57.8"
 Columbia,  SC:  Columbia  Metropolitan  (CAE)  ..  33  5619.8  81  0710.3
 Columbus,  GA:  Columbus  Metropolitan  (CSG)  .  32  3058.8  84  5619.9
 Columbus,  OH:  Port  Columbus  Int'l  (CMH)  ...........  39  59'52.8"  82  53'30.8"
51
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 52
 Rickenbacker  International  (LCK)    39  4849.5  82  5540.3  Corpus  Christi,  TX:
 Corpus  Christi  International  (CRP)  ..  27  4613.3  97  3004.4  Covington/  Cincinnati,  KY:
 Cincinnati/  Northern  Kentucky  Intl  (CVG)  ...  39  0246.1  84  3943.8  Crescent  City,  CA:
 Jack  McNamara  Field  (CEC)  ..  41  4648.6  124  1411.5  Dallas,  TX:
 Addison  (ADS)  ......................  Dallas-  Ft.  Worth  Intl  (DFW)  .....
 Dallas-  Love  Field  (DAL)  ...........  Red  Bird  (RBD)  .....................
 32  58'06.8"  32  53'45.4"
 32  50'49.6"  32  40'51.1"
 96  50'11.2"  97  02'13.9"
 96  51'06.4"  96  52'05.5"
 Davenport,  IA  (Rock  Island,  Moline,  IL):  Davenport  Municipal  (DVN)  .........
 Quad  City  (MLI)  ....................  41  36'37.0"  41  26'54.7"  90  35'18.0"  90  30'27.1"  Dayton,  OH:
 Dayton  International  (DAY)  ..........  39  54'08.6"  84  13'09.8"  Denver,  CO:
 Centennial  (APA)  ..................  Colorado  Springs  Municipal  (COS)  .
 Jeffco  (BJC)  .
 Denver  International  (DEN)  ......
 39  34'12.5"  38  48'20.9
 39  5431.6  39  51'30.3"
 104  50'57.5"  104  42'00.9"
 105  0701.9  104  40'01.2"
 Des  Moines,  IA:  Des  Moines  Intl  (DSM)
 .........  41  32'05.8"  93  39'38.5"  Detroit,  MI:
 Detroit  City  (DET)  .................  Detroit  Metro-  Wayne  County  (DTW)  ...
 Oakland-  Pontiac  (PTK)  ............  Willow  Run  (YIP)  ..................
 42  24'33.1"  42  12'43.4"
 42  39'54.7"  42  14'16.5"
 83  00'35.5"  83  20'55.8"
 83  25'07.4"  83  31'49.5"
 Duluth,  MN:  Duluth  International  (DLH)    46  5031.5  92  1137.1
 Durango,  CO:  Durango-  La  Plata  County  (DRO)  ....  37  0905.5  107  4513.6
 Eagle,  CO:  Eagle  County  Regional  (EGE)  .....  39  3833.2  106  5503.7
 El  Paso,  TX:  El  Paso  International  (ELP)  ......  31  48'24.0"  106  22'40.1"
 Eugene,  OR:  Mahlon  Sweet  Field  (EUG)  ...  44  0723.7  123  1307.3
 Eureka,  CA:  Eureka  Municipal  (033)  .  40  4651.4  124  1244.2
 Fargo,  ND:  Hector  International  (FAR)
 ....  46  5509.7  96  4853.9  Flint,  MI:
 Bishop  (FNT)  .....................  42  57'55.8"  83  44'36.4"  Ft.  Lauderdale-  Hollywood,  FL:
 Ft.  Lauderdale  Executive  (FXE)  ...
 Ft.  Lauderdale-  Hollywd  Int'l  (FLL)  ............................
 26  11'50.2"  26  04'21.3"  80  10'14.6"  80  09'09.9"
 Ft.  Meyers,  FL:  Page  Field  (FMY)  ......  26  3511.8  81  5147.7
52
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 53
 Ft.  Meyers,  FL:  Southwest  Florida  International  (RSW)  ..  26  3210.2  81  4518.6
 Ft.  Wayne,  IN:  Fort  Wayne  International  (FWA)
 ......  40  5842.5  85  1142.5  Ft.  Worth,  TX:
 Fort  Worth  Alliance  (AFW)  ....
 Meacham  (FTW)  ......................
 32  5912.5  32  49'11.2"  97  1907.7  97  21'44.8"
 Fresno,  CA:  Fresno-  Chandler  Downtown  (FCH)
 ............  Fresno  Yosemite  Intl  (FAT)  ..........  36  43'56.5"  36  46'34.3"  119  49'11.6"  119  43'05.3"
 Gainesville,  FL:  Gainesville  Regional  (GNV)  .....  29  4124.2  82  1618.4
 Grand  Forks,  ND:  Grand  Forks  International  (GFK)  .....  47  5657.3  97  1034.0
 Grand  Rapids,  MI:  Gerald  R.  Ford  Int'l  (GRR)  ..........  42  52'51.0"  85  31'22.1"
 Great  Falls,  MT:  Great  Falls  International  (GTF)  ....  47  2855.2  111  2214.5
 Green  Bay,  WI:  Austin  Straubel  Intl  (GRB)  ...  44  2906.3  88  0746.5
 Greensboro,  NC:  Piedmont  Tirad  International  (GSO)    36  0551.9  79  5614.3
 Greer,  SC:  Greenville-  Spartanburg  Intl  (GSP)
 ..  34  5344.4  82  1307.9  Gunnison,  CO:
 Gunnison  County  (GUC)  ...  38  3202.2  106  5558.9  Hana,  HI:
 Hana  (HNM)  .........................  20  47'44.3"  156  00'52.0"  Harlingen,  TX:
 Valley  International  (HRL)  ....  26  1342.6  97  3915.8  Harrisburg,  PA:
 Capital  City  (CXY)  ................  Harrisburg  Int'l  (MDT)  ...........  40  13'01.7"  40  11'36.6"  76  51'05.3"  76  45'48.3"
 Hartford,  CT  (Windsor  Locks):  Bradley  Int'l  (BDL)  ................
 Hartford-  Brainard  (HFD)  ...........  41  56'20.0"  41  44'10.6"  72  40'59.6"  72  39'00.8"
 Hayden,  CO:  Yampa  Valley  (HDN)  .....  40  2852.2  107  1303.6
 Hilo,  HI:  Hilo  Intl  (ITO)  .........  19  43'12.9"  155  02'54.5"
 Honolulu,  HI:  Honolulu  International  (HNL)  .......  21  19'07.3"  157  55'20.7"
 Houston,  TX:  W.  P.  Hobby  (HOU)  ...................
 D.  W.  Hooks  Memorial  (DWH)  .........  George  Bush  Intercontinental  (IAH)  ....  29  38'43.5"  30  03'42.7"  29  58'49.7"  95  16'44.0"  95  33'10.0"  95  20'23.0"
 Indianapolis,  IN:  Indianapolis  Int'l  (IND)  ..........  39  43'02.4"  86  17'39.8"
 Jackson  Hole,  WY:
53
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 54
 Jackson  Hole  (JAC)  ...  43  3626.4  110  4415.9  Jacksonville,  FL:
 Craig  Municipal  (CRG)  .............  Jacksonville  Int'l  (JAX)  ..........  30  20'10.8"  30  29'38.6"  81  30'52.0"  81  41'16.3"
 Kalamazoo,  MI:  Kalamazoo/  Battle  Creek  International  (AZO)    42  1405.5  85  3307.4
 Kalispell,  MT:  Glacier  Park  International  (FCA)
 ..  48  1841.1  114  1518.2  Kansas  City,  MO-  KS:
 Kansas  City  Int'l  (MCI)  ..........  Kansas  City  Municipal  Dntn  (MKC)  .  39  17'51.4"  39  07'23.7"  94  42'50.1"  94  35'33.9"
 Kauna  Kakai,  HI:  Molokai  (MKK)  ......................  21  09'10.4"  157  05'46.5"
 Knoxville,  TN:  Mc  Ghee  Tyson  (TYS)
 ...  35  4844.9  83  5934.3  Lacrosse,  WI:
 Lacrosse  Municipal  (LSE)  ....  43  5246.5  91  1524.6  Lansing,  MI:
 Capital  City  (LAN)  ......  42  4643.3  84  3514.5  Las  Vegas,  NV:
 McCarran  Int'l  (LAS)  .............  36  04'49.3"  115  09'08.4"  Lihue,  HI:
 Lihue  (LIH)  ........................  21  58'33.5"  159  20'20.3"  Lincoln,  NE:
 Lincoln  Municipal  (LNK)  ....  40  5103.5  96  4533.3  Little  Rock,  AR:
 Adams  Field  (LIT)  ...  34  4348.8  92  1327.3
 Los  Angeles,  CA:  Burbank-  Glendale-  Pasadena  (BUR)
 ...  Catalina  (AVX)  ......................
 Long  Beach-  Daugherty  Field  (LGB)  ....
 Los  Angeles  Int'l  (LAX)  .............  Ontario  Int'l  (ONT)  ................
 Santa  Ana-  John  Wayne-  Orange  City  (SNA)  ..
 34  12'02.2"  33  24'17.8"
 33  49'03.8"  33  56'33.1"
 34  03'21.6"  33  40'32.4"
 118  21'30.6"  118  24'57.1"
 118  09'05.8"  118  24'29.1"
 117  36'04.3"  117  52'05.6"
 Louisville,  KY:  Louisville  Intl-  Standiford  Field  (SDF)  ............  38  10'27.8"  85  44'09.6"
 Lubbock,  TX:  Lubbock  International  (LBB)  ....  33  3949.1  101  4922.0
 Lynchburg,  VA:  Lynchburg  Regional-  Preston  Glen  Field  (LYH)
 .....  37  1936.1  79  1201.6  Madison,  WI:
 Dane  County  Regional-  Truax  Field  (MSN)  ....  43  0823.5  89  2015.1  Manchester,  NH:
 Manchester  (MHT)  .  42  5604.3  71  2613.4  Memphis,  TN:
 Memphis  Int'l  (MEM)  ................  35  02'32.7"  89  58'36.0"  Miami,  FLA:
54
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 55
 Miami  Int'l  (MIA)  ................  Opa  Locka  (OPF)  .....................
 Kendall-  Tamiami  Executive  (TMB)  ....................
 25  47'35.7"  25  54'25.2"
 25  38'52.4"
 80  17'26.0"  80  16'42.2"
 80  25'58.0"  Milwaukee,  WI:
 General  Mitchell  Intl  (MKE)  .............  42  56'50.0"  87  53'47.7"  Minneapolis-  St.  Paul,  MN:
 Minneapolis-  St.  Paul  Intl  (MSP)  .........  44  52'49.9"  93  13'00.9"  Minot,  ND:
 Minot  International  (MOT)  .  48  1533.8  101  1649.2  Missoula,  MT:
 Missoula  International  (MSO)  ..  46  5458.7  114  0526.0  Mobile,  AL:
 Mobile  Regional  (MOB)  ..................  30  41'29.1"  88  14'34.2"  Modesto,  CA:
 Modesto  City-  County  (MOD)  ...  37  3732.9  120  5715.9  Monterey,  CA:
 Monterey  Peninsula  (MRY)  ..  36  3513.1  121  5034.6  Montrose,  CO:
 Montrose  Regional  (MTJ)  ....  38  3031.9  107  5337.8  Nashville,  TN:
 Nashville  Intl  (BNA)  ......  36  07'28.1"  86  40'41.5"  New  Haven,  CT:
 Tweed-  New  Haven  Municipal  (HVN)  ......  41  15'50.0"  72  53'13.6"  New  Orleans,  LA:
 Lakefront  (NEW)  .  New  Orleans  Intl  (MYS)  ...  30  0232.7  29  5936.2  90  0141.7  90  1528.9
 Newburgh,  NY:  Stewart  International  (SWF)  .  41  3014.7  74  0617.4
 Newport  News-  Hampton,  VA:  Newport  News/  Williamsburg  (PHF)
 ..........  37  07'54.8"  76  29'34.8"  New  York-  Northeast,  NJ:
 Republic  (FRG)  ........  JFK  International  (JFK)  ............
 LaGuardia  (LGA)  ..................  Long  Island-  McArthur  (ISP)  .........
 Morristown  Municipal  (NJ)  (MMU)  ...  Newark  Int'l  (FWR)  ...............
 Teterboro  (NJ)  (TEB)  ............
 40  43'43.6"  40  38'23.1"
 40  46'38.1"  40  47'42.8"
 40  47'57.7"  40  41'32.9"
 40  51'00.4"
 73  24'48.3"  73  46'44.1"
 73  52'21.4"  73  06'00.8"
 74  24'53.5"  74  10'07.2"
 74  03'39.0"  Norfolk,  VA:
 Norfolk  Int'l  (ORF)  .............  36  53'40.6"  76  12'04.4"  Oklahoma  City,  OK:
 Wiley  Post  (PWA)  ...
 Will  Rogers  World  (OKC)  .............
 35  3204.4  35  23'35.1"  97  3849.9  97  36'02.6"
 Omaha,  NE:  Eppley  Airfield  (OMA)  ...............  41  18'09.1"  95  53'39.0"
 Orlando,  FL:  Orlando  Executive  (ORL)  ............
 Orlando  Int'l  (MCO)  ..............  28  32'43.7"  28  25'44.0"  81  19'58.6"  81  18'57.7"  Palm  Springs,  CA:
 Palm  Springs  International  (PSP)    33  4946.8  116  3024.1  Peoria,  IL:
 Greater  Peoria  Regional  (PIA)  .  40  3951.3  89  4135.9
55
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 56
 Philadelphia,  PA-  NJ:  Northeast  Philadelphia  (PNE)  ......
 Philadelphia  Int'l  (PHL)  .........  40  04'55.0"  39  52'19.0"  75  00'38.1"  75  14'28.1"  Phoenix,  AZ:
 Phoenix-  Sky  Habor  Int'l  (PHX)  ....  Scottsdale  (SDL)
 ........
 33  26'03.0"  33  37'22.3"  112  00'29.0"  111  54'37.9"
 Pittsburgh,  PA:  Allegheny  County  (AGC)  .............
 Pittsburgh  Int'l  (PIT)  .......  40  21'15.9"  40  29'29.3"  N  79  55'48.9"  80  13'58.3"  Portland,  ME:
 Portland  International  Jetport  (PWM)  ..  43  3846.2  70  1831.5
 Portland,  OR:  Portland-  Hillsboro  (HIO)  ...........
 Portland  International  (PDX)  ........  Portland-  Troutdale  (TTD)  .........  45  32'25.4"  45  35'19.4"  45  32'57.7"  122  56'59.4"  122  35'51.0"  122  24'04.5"
 Providence-  Pawtucket,  RI--  MA:  North  Central  State  (SFZ)  ........
 T.  F.  Green  State  (PVD)  ............  41  55'14.7"  41  43'26.4"  71  29'29.0"  71  25'41.6"  Pueblo,  CO:
 Pueblo  Memorial  (PUB)  .  38  1720.7  104  2947.7
 Raleigh/  Durham,  NC:  Raleigh-  Durham  International  (RDU)  ..  35  5239.5  78  4714.9
 Rapid  City,  SD:  Rapid  City  Regional  (RAP)  ...  44  0243.2  103  0326.5
 Reno,  NV:  Reno/  Tahoe  International  (RNO)
 ...........  39  29'54.8"  119  46'05.0"  Richmond,  VA:
 Richmond  International  (RIC)  ..........  37  30'18.6"  77  19'10.8"  Roanoke,  VA:
 Roanoke  Regional/  Woodrum  Field  (ROA)  .  37  1931.7  79  5831.5  Rochester,  MN:
 Rochester  International  (RST)  .  43  5426.0  92  29-  56.4  Rochester,  NY:
 Greater  Rochester  Intl  (ROC)  .....  43  07'07.9"  77  40'20.6"
 Sacramento,  CA:  Sacramento  Executive  (SAC)  .........
 Sacramento  Intl  (SMF)  .....  38  30'45.1"  38  41'43.5"  121  29'36.5"  121  35'26.8"  Saginaw,  MI:
 MBS  International  (MBS)  ..  43  3158.5  84  0446.7
 Saipan  Isl.,  CQ:  Saipan  International  (GSN)  ..  15  0708.4  145  4345.7  E
 St.  Louis,  MO--  IL:  Spirit  of  St.  Louis  (SUS)  ........
 St.  Louis-  Lambert  Int'l  (STC)  ....  38  39'42.7"  38  44'51.7"  90  39'04.4"  90  21'35.9"  St.  Petersburg,  FL:
 Albert  Whitted  Municipal  (SPG)  ...  St.  Petersburg  Clearwater  Int'l  (PIE)  ..............  27  45'54.4"  27  54'38.8"  82  37'37.1"  82  41'14.9"
 Salt  Lake  City,  UT:  Salt  Lake  City  Int'l  (SLC)  ..........  40  47'18.2"  111  58'39.9"
56
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 57
 San  Antonio,  TX:  San  Antonio  Int'l  (SAT)  .............  29  32'01.3"  98  28'11.2"
 San  Diego,  CA:  San  Diego  Lindbergh  Intl  (SAN)
 ..  32  4400.8  117  1122.8  San  Francisco-  Oakland,  CA:
 Metropolitan  Oakland  Int'l  (OAK)  .  San  Francisco  Int'l  (SFO)  .........  37  43'16.7"  37  37'08.4"  122  13'14.6"  122  22'29.4"
 San  Jose,  CA:  San  Jose  Int'l  (SJC)  ..............  37  21'42.7"  121  55'44.4"
 San  Juan,  PR:  Luis  Munoz  (SJU)  ..  18  2621.9  66  0006.6
 Santa  Barbara,  CA:  Santa  Barbara  Municipal  (SBA)  ..  34  2534.4  119  5025.3
 Santa  Fe,  NM:  Santa  Fe  Municipal  (SAF)  ....  35  3700.4  106  0517.3
 Sarasota,  FL:  Sarasota/  Bradenton  International  (SRQ)  ......  27  2343.2  82  3314.8
 Savannah,  GA:  Savannah  International  (SAV)
 .  32  0739.3  81  1207.7  Seattle,  WA:
 Boeing/  King  County  Int'l  (BFI)  ..........  Seattle-  Tacoma  Int'l  (SEA)  .......  47  26'47.9"  47  26'56.3"  122  18'33.5"  122  18'33.5"
 Shreveport,  LA:  Shreveport  Downtown  (DTN)  ..........
 Shreveport  Regional  (SHV)  .........  32  32'24.8"  32  26'47.9"  93  44'42.1"  93  49'32.2"  Sioux  City,  IA:
 Sioux  Gateway  (SUX)    42  2409.4  96  2303.7  Sioux  Falls,  SD:
 Joe  Foss  Field  (FSD)  .  43  3452.9  96  4430.1  South  Bend,  IN:
 South  Bend  Regional  (SBN)  ............  41  42'32.2"  86  19'06.5"  Spokane,  WA:
 Grant  County  Intl(  MWH)  .................  Spokane  Int'l  (GEG)  .............  47  12'27.5"  47  37'11.5"  119  19'12.7"  117  32'01.8"
 Springfield,  MA:  Barnes  Municipal  (BAF)  ...........
 Westover  ARB/  Metropolitan  (CEF)  ................  42  09'27.8"  42  11'53.8"  72  42'56.2"  72  32'03.3"  Springfield,  MO:
 Springfield-  Branson  Regional  (SGF)  ..  37  1439.6  93  2312.7  Syracuse,  NY:
 Syracuse-  Hancock  Int'l  (SYR)  .....  43  06'40.3"  76  06'22.7"  Tacoma,  WA:
 Tacoma  Narrows  (TIW)  ...............  47  16'04.6"  122  34'41.2"  Tallahassee,  FL:
 Tallahassee  Regional  (TLH)  .  30  2347.5  84  2101.2  Tampa,  FL:
 Tampa  Int'l  (TPA)  .................  27  58'31.7"  82  31'59.7"  Telluride,  CO:
 Telluride  Regional  (TEX)  ..  37  5713.5  107  5430.5  Toledo,  OH:
57
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 58
 Toledo  Express  (TOL)  ..............  41  35'12.5"  83  48'28.2"  Trenton,  NJ-  PA:
 Trenton  Mercer  (TTN)  ..............  40  16'36.1"  74  48'48.5"  Tucson,  AZ:
 Tucson  Int'l  (TUS)  .................  32  06'57.9"  110  56'27.7"  Tulsa,  OK:
 R.  L.  Jones,  Jr.  (RVS)  ............  Tulsa  Int'l  (TUL)  ................  36  02'22.7"  36  11'54.1"  95  59'04.7"  95  53'17.7"
 Washington,  DC:  Dulles  International  (IAD)  .........
 Ronald  Reagan  National  (DCA)  .....................  38  56'40.3"  38  51'07.5"  77  27'20.9"  77  02'15.8"  Waterloo,  IA:
 Waterloo  Municipal  (ALO)  .  42  3325.5  92  2401.2  West  Palm  Beach,  FL:
 Palm  Beach  International  (PBI)    26  4059.4  80  0544.1  White  Plains,  NY:
 Westchester  County  (HPN)  ..  41  0401.1  73  4227.3  Wichita,  KS:
 Mid-  Continent  (ICT)  ..............  37  38'59.9"  97  25'58.9"  Scranton,  PA:
 Wilkes-  Barre/  Scranton  Int'l  (AVP)    41  20'17.3"  75  43'27.4"  Wilmington,  DE:
 New  Castle  County  (ILG)  ..  39  40'43.4"  75  36'23.5"  Worcester,  MA:
 Worcester  Regional  (ORH)  ..........  42  16'02.4"  71  52'32.6"  Youngstown-  Warren,  OH-  PA:
 Youngstown-  Warren  Regional  (YNG)  ........  41  15'38.7"  80  40'44.8"
 13.  Section  90.175(  b)(  1)  is  amended  to  read  as  follows:
   90.175  Frequency  coordination  requirements.
 *  *  *  *  *
 (b)  For  frequencies  between  25  and  470  MHz:  (1)  A  statement  is  required  from  the  applicable  frequency  coordinator  as  specified  in    90.20(  c)(  2)  and  90.35(  b)  recommending  the  most
 appropriate  frequency.  In  addition,  for  frequencies  above  150  MHz,  if  the  interference  contour  of  a  proposed  station  would  overlap  the  service  contour  of  a  station  on  a  frequency  formerly  shared
 prior  to  radio  service  consolidation  by  licensees  in  the  Manufacturers  Radio  Service,  the  Forest  Products  Radio  Service,  the  Power  Radio  Service,  the  Petroleum  Radio  Service,  the  Motor
 Carrier  Radio  Service,  the  Railroad  Radio  Service,  the  Telephone  Maintenance  Radio  Service  or  the  Automobile  Emergency  Radio  Service,  the  written  concurrence  of  the  coordinator  for  the
 industry-  specific  service,  or  the  written  concurrence  of  the  licensee  itself,  must  be  obtained.  Requests  for  concurrence  must  be  responded  to  within  20  days  of  receipt  of  the  request.  The
 written  request  for  concurrence  shall  advise  the  receiving  party  of  the  maximum  20  day  response  period.  The  coordinator's  recommendation  may  include  comments  on  technical  factors  such  as
 power,  antenna  height  and  gain,  terrain  and  other  factors  which  may  serve  to  minimize  potential  interference.  In  addition:
 *  *  *  *  *
58
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 59
 14.  Section  90.210  is  amended  to  read  as  follows:
   90.210  Emission  masks.
 *  *  *  *  *
 (b)  Emission  Mask  B.  For  transmitters  that  are  equipped  with  an  audio  low-  pass  filter,  the  power  of  any  emission  must  be  attenuated  below  the  unmodulated  carrier  power  (P)  as  follows:
 *  *  *
 (c)  Emission  Mask  C.  For  transmitters  that  are  not  equipped  with  an  audio  low-  pass  filter,  the  power  of  any  emission  must  be  attenuated  below  the  unmodulated  carrier  output  power  (P)  as  follows:
 *  *  *
 (g)  Emission  Mask  G.  For  transmitters  that  are  not  equipped  with  an  audio  low-  pass  filter,  the  power  of  any  emission  must  be  attenuated  below  the  unmodulated  carrier  power  (P)  as  follows:
 *  *  *
 (h)  Emission  Mask  H.  For  transmitters  that  are  not  equipped  with  an  audio  low-  pass  filter,  the  power  of  any  emission  must  be  attenuated  below  the  unmodulated  carrier  power  (P)  as  follows:
 *  *  *
 (i)  Emission  Mask  I.  For  transmitters  that  are  equipped  with  an  audio  low  pass  filter,  the  power  of  any  emission  must  be  attenuated  below  the  unmodulated  carrier  power  of  the  transmitter  (P)  as  follows:
 *  *  *
 (j)  Emission  Mask  J.  For  transmitters  that  are  not  equipped  with  an  audio  low-  pass  filter,  the  power  of  any  emission  must  be  attenuated  below  the  unmodulated  carrier  power  of  the  transmitter  (P)  as
 follows:
 *  *  *  *  *
 15.  Section  90.242  is  amended  to  revise  paragraph  (a)(  1)  to  read  as  follows:
   90.242  Travelers'  information  stations.
 *  *  *  *  *
 (a)  *  *  *
 (1)  [Reserved]
 Part  95  of  Chapter  1  of  Title  47  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  is  amended  as  follows:
 PART  95  -  PERSONAL  RADIO  SERVICES
 16.  The  authority  citation  for  Part  95  continues  to  read  as  follows:
 Authority:  Secs.  4,  303,  48  Stat.  1066,  1082,  as  amended;  47  U.  S.  C.  154,  303.
59
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 60
 17.  Section  95.401  is  amended  by  revising  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  or  data  communications  service  for  personal  or  business  activities  of  the  general  public.  The  rules  for  this
 service  are  contained  in  subpart  J  of  this  part.
 18.  Section  95.603  is  amended  by  revising  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  certificated  in  accordance  with  Subpart  J  of  Part  2  of  this  chapter,  Provided
 however,  that  those  radio  units  certificated  as  of  [effective  date  of  Order]  need  not  be  recertificated.
 19.  Section  95.631  is  amended  by  revising  paragraph  (j)  as  follows:
   95.631  Emission  types.
 *  *  *  *  *
 (j)  A  MURS  transmitter  must  transmit  only  emission  types  A1D,  A2B,  A2D,  A3E,  F2B,  F1D,  F2D,  F3E,  G3E.  Emission  types  A3E,  F3E  and  G3E  include  selective  calling  or  tone-  operated  squelch
 tones  to  establish  or  continue  voice  communications.  MURS  transmitters  are  prohibited  from  transmitting  in  the  continuous  carrier  mode.
 20.  Section  95.632  is  amended  by  revising  paragraph  (b)  as  follows:
   95.632  MURS  transmitter  frequencies.
 *  *  *  *  *
 (b)  The  authorized  bandwidth  is  11.25  kHz  on  frequencies  151.820  MHz,  151.880  MHz  and  151.940  MHz.  The  authorized  bandwidth  is  20.0  kHz  on  frequencies  154.570  and  154.600  MHz.
 21.  Section  95.633  is  amended  by  revising  paragraph  (f)  and  adding  paragraphs  1,  2,  and  3,  to  read  as  follows:
   95.633  Emission  bandwidth.
 *  *  *  *  *
 (f)  The  authorized  bandwidth  for  any  emission  type  transmitted  by  a  MURS  transmitter  is  specified  as  follows:
 (1)  Emissions  on  frequencies  151.820  MHz,  151.880  MHz,  and  151.940  MHz  are  limited  to  11.25  kHz.
 (2)  Emissions  on  frequencies  154.570  and  154.600  MHz  are  limited  to  20.0  kHz.
60
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 61
 (3)  Provided,  however,  that  all  A3E  emissions  are  limited  to  8  kHz.
 22.  Section  95.635  is  amended  by  revising  paragraph  (e)  to  read  as  follows:
   95.635  Unwanted  radiation.
 (e)  For  transmitters  designed  to  operate  in  the  MURS,  transmitters  shall  comply  with  the  following:
 Frequency  Mask  with  audio  low  pass  filter  Mask  without  audio  low  pass  filter
 151.820  MHz,  151.880  MHz  and  151.940  MHz  (1)  (1)
 154.570  MHz  and  154.600  MHz  (2)  (3)
 (1)  Emission  Mask  1  --  For  transmitters  designed  to  operate  with  a  12.5  kHz  channel  bandwidth,  any  emission  must  be  attenuated  below  the  power  (P)  of  the  highest  emission  contained  within  the
 authorized  bandwidth  as  follows:
 (i)  On  any  frequency  from  the  center  of  the  authorized  bandwidth  f  to  5.625  kHz  removed  from  f:  Zero  dB.
 (ii)  On  any  frequency  removed  from  the  center  of  the  authorized  bandwidth  by  a  displacement  frequency  (fd  in  kHz)  of  more  than  5.625  kHz  but  no  more  than  12.5  kHz:  at  least  7.27(  fd  -2.88  kHz)  dB.
 (iii)  On  any  frequency  removed  from  the  center  of  the  authorized  bandwidth  by  a  displacement  frequency  (fd  in  kHz)  of  more  than  12.5  kHz:  at  least  50  +  10  log  (P)  dB  or  70  dB,  whichever  is  the  lesser
 attenuation.
 (2)  Emission  Mask  2  --  For  transmitters  designed  to  operate  with  a  25  kHz  channel  bandwidth  that  are  equipped  with  an  audio  low-  pass  filter,  the  power  of  any  emission  must  be  below  the  unmodulated
 carrier  power  (P)  as  follows:
 (i)  On  any  frequency  removed  from  the  assigned  frequency  by  more  than  50  percent,  but  not  more  than  100  percent  of  the  authorized  bandwidth:  at  least  25  dB.
 (ii)  On  any  frequency  removed  from  the  assigned  frequency  by  more  than  100  percent,  but  not  more  than  250  percent  of  the  authorized  bandwidth:  at  least  35  dB.
 (iii)  On  any  frequency  removed  from  the  assigned  frequency  by  more  than  250  percent  of  the  authorized  bandwidth:  at  least  43  +  10  log  (P)  dB.
 (3)  Emission  Mask  3  --  For  transmitters  designed  to  operate  with  a  25  kHz  channel  bandwidth  that  are  not  equipped  with  an  audio  low-  pass  filter,  the  power  of  any  emission  must  be  attenuated  below  the
 unmodulated  carrier  output  power  (P)  as  follows:
 (i)  On  any  frequency  removed  from  the  center  of  the  authorized  bandwidth  by  a  displacement  frequency  (fd  in  kHz)  of  more  than  5  kHz,  but  not  more  than  10  kHz:  at  least  83  log  (fd  /5)  dB.
61
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 62
 (ii)  On  any  frequency  removed  from  the  center  of  the  authorized  bandwidth  by  a  displacement  frequency  (fd  in  kHz)  of  more  than  10  kHz,  but  not  more  than  250  percent  of  the  authorized  bandwidth:  at
 least  29  log  (fd    /11)  dB  or  50  dB,  whichever  is  the  lesser  attenuation.
 (iii)  On  any  frequency  removed  from  the  center  of  the  authorized  bandwidth  by  more  than  250  percent  of  the  authorized  bandwidth:  at  least  43  +  10  log  (P)  dB.
 23.  Section  95.639(  h)  is  amended  by  revising  paragraph  (h)  as  follows:
   95.639  Maximum  transmitter  power.
 *  *  *  *  *
 (h)  No  MURS  unit,  under  any  condition  of  modulation,  shall  exceed  2  Watts  transmitter  power  output.
 24.  Section  95.655  is  amended  by  adding  paragraph  (d)  to  read  as  follows:
   95.655  Frequency  capability.
 *  *  *  *  *
 (d)  No  transmitter  will  be  certificated  for  use  in  MURS  if  it  is  equipped  with  a  frequency  capability  not  listed  in    95.632.
 25.  Section  95.1307  is  amended  to  read  as  follows:
   95.1307  Permissible  communications.
 (a)  MURS  stations  may  transmit  voice  or  data  signals  as  permitted  in  this  subpart.
 (b)  A  MURS  station  may  transmit  any  emission  type  listed  in    95.631(  j)  of  this  chapter.
 (c)  MURS  frequencies  may  be  used  for  remote  control  and  telemetering  functions.  MURS  transmitters  may  not  be  operated  in  the  continuous  carrier  transmit  mode.
 (d)  MURS  users  shall  take  reasonable  precautions  to  avoid  causing  harmful  interference.  This  includes  monitoring  the  transmitting  frequency  for  communications  in  progress  and  such  other  measures
 as  may  be  necessary  to  minimize  the  potential  for  causing  interference.
 26.  A  new  Section  95.1311  is  added  as  follows:
   95.1311  Repeater  operations  and  signal  boosters  prohibited.
 MURS  stations  are  prohibited  from  operating  as  a  repeater  station  or  as  a  signal  booster.  This  prohibition  includes  store-  and-  forward  packet  operation.
 27.  A  new  Section  95.1313  is  added  as  follows:
   95.1313  Interconnection  prohibited.
 MURS  stations  are  prohibited  from  interconnection  with  the  public  switched  network.
62
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  139
 63
 Interconnection  Defined.  Connection  through  automatic  or  manual  means  of  multi-  use  radio  stations  with  the  facilities  of  the  public  switched  telephone  network  to  permit  the  transmission  of  messages  or  signals
 between  points  in  the  wireline  or  radio  network  of  a  public  telephone  company  and  persons  served  by  multi-  use  radio  stations.  Wireline  or  radio  circuits  or  links  furnished  by  common  carriers,  which  are  used
 by  licensees  or  other  authorized  persons  for  transmitter  control  (including  dial-  up  transmitter  control  circuits)  or  as  an  integral  part  of  an  authorized,  private,  internal  system  of  communication  or  as  an
 integral  part  of  dispatch  point  circuits  in  a  multi-  use  radio  station  are  not  considered  to  be  interconnection  for  purposes  of  this  rule  part.
 28.  A  new  Section  95.1315  is  added  as  follows:
   95.1315  Antenna  height  restriction.
 The  highest  point  of  any  MURS  antenna  must  no  be  more  than  18.3  meters  (60  feet)  above  the  ground  or  6.10  meters  (20  feet)  above  the  highest  point  of  the  structure  on  which  it  is
 mounted.
 29.  A  new  Section  93.1317  is  added  as  follows:
   95.1317  Grandfathered  MURS  Stations.
 Stations  that  were  licensed  under  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  operate  on  MURS  frequencies  as  of  November  13,  2000,  are  granted  a  license  by  rule  that  authorizes  continued  operations
 under  the  terms  of  such  nullified  Part  90  authorizations,  including  any  rule  waivers.
63