Before the
Federal Communications Commission
In the Matter of )
)
Amendment of Subparts A and ) PR Docket No. 87-265
E of Part 95 to Improve the ) (FCC 88-318)
General Mobile Radio Service )
(GMRS). )
REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted: October 13, 1988; Released: November 10, 1988
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On July 16, 1987, we adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice) [1]
in the above-captioned proceeding. In the Notice we proposed to modify the
General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) Rules to increase the flexibility of the
GMRS for personal communications. Our objective was to make the service more
efficient and effective for personal users.
[1] NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING, 2 FCC Rcd 4490 (1987).
2. The keystone of our proposal was to limit eligibility for obtaining a new
GMRS system license to individuals in order to encourage personal uses and
discourage large commercial operations. [2] We also proposed (1) to provide
for greater transient use of mobile relay stations (repeaters) by broadening
station operator eligibility; (2) to eliminate the need to re-license a GMRS
system in order to change the transmitting channel; (3) to define and provide
for the small base station, a new class of land station in GMRS systems; and
(4) to authorize new interstitial channels. In response to the <MI>Notice<D>,
we received fifty-two comments [3] and fourteen reply comments. [4] The
comments were generally supportive but varied widely on specific details.
Most of the comments were filed by individuals and organizations representing
personal users and volunteer public service groups. They generally supported
our goal of enhancing the GMRS for the personal user, although most public
service groups sought different types of alternative eligibility options in
addition to eligibility for individuals. The few comments we received from
individuals and organizations representing commercial users were generally
opposed to this rule making on the basis that it would have an adverse impact
on the Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio Services. [5]
[2] We use the term "individual" throughout to refer to a human being -- that
is, one man or woman. (Children under the age of eighteen are not eligible in
the GMRS, and would continue to be ineligible for a GMRS system license under
the rules we are adopting in this document. They can, however, be station
operators in a GMRS system.)
[3] For a complete list of commenters, see Appendix B.
[4] For a complete list of those who filed reply comments, see Appendix C.
[5] The Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio Services include the Public Safety
Radio Services, the Special Emergency Radio Service, the Industrial Radio
Services, the Land Transportation Radio Services, the Radiolocation Service,
as well as regulations governing licensing and use of frequencies in the
806-821, 851-866, 896-901 and 935-940 MHz frequency bands. See 47 C.F.R. Part
90.
II. BACKGROUND
3. The GMRS is one of the three personal radio services contained in Part 95
of the Rules. The GMRS rules, however, permit both personal and business
communications. The GMRS, originally the Citizens Class A Radio Service, was
created some 40 years ago for use by individuals and entities who were not
eligible for licenses in the public safety, industrial and transportation
services. The regulatory structure of the GMRS was patterned after a
traditional view of a land mobile system: a base-to-mobile dispatch operation
transmitting on an assigned shared channel in a specific geographic location.
Later, as repeater stations were incorporated into Part 90 private land mobile
systems, so too were they incorporated into GMRS systems. This has resulted
in a very broad mix of GMRS system licensees: personal users, volunteer public
service groups and small and large commercial organizations. The diverse
operating patterns of these users often result in major incompatibilities,
particularly between large commercial organizations and personal users. In
areas of large population density use of the eight available GMRS channel
pairs by high-traffic-volume commercial dispatch operations often effectively
precludes personal use. [6]
[6] See Comments of the Personal Radio Steering Group, Inc. at 8-9.
4. Further, as presently structured, the GMRS rules limit the flexibility of
users to take advantage of new technology and equipment. For example, under
the present rules GMRS users cannot use the repeaters of other GMRS systems
without first obtaining a modification of their licenses. Under the proposed
rule changes, GMRS users could utilize hand-held transceivers to communicate
with family members and associates, not only throughout their own GMRS system
coverage area, but also while they are traveling throughout the coverage areas
of other GMRS systems.
5. When family members who are station operators in one GMRS system travel to
another city, they often want to enjoy the same intercommunication capability
they have in their home area. Such communication is known as transient
operation. Current rules permit station operators from one GMRS system to
intercommunicate anywhere the Commission regulates communications. They must,
however, confine their intercommunication to the channel assigned to their
home GMRS system and may only use simplex (non-repeated) transmissions. They
can communicate with station operators in other GMRS systems that share their
home GMRS system channel, including repeater transmissions, but they are
prohibited from using repeaters in other GMRS systems to intercommunicate with
station operators from their own GMRS system unless they have obtained a
modification of the licenses. These requirements are unwieldy and, for all
practical purposes, preclude effective transient operation.
6. We have expressed a continuing concern that personal communications needs
be adequately met. The Citizens Band (CB) Radio Service provides short-range
communications capability, with low power and low antenna height. Because of
its propagation characteristics, however, CB radio is not suited to many
traditional communications options desirable for personal users, such as
repeaters. We have sought alternatives for personal users who seek a more
complete communications package. In General Docket No. 83-26, we terminated a
proceeding that proposed to provide directed communications at 900 MHz for
personal users after deciding to use that spectrum to address other
communications needs. [7] In PR Docket No. 86-38, we terminated an inquiry to
determine whether to restructure the GMRS into a new Consumer Radio Service
after concluding this re- structuring would unduly disturb the existing
service. [8] We indicated our intention, however, to initiate a proceeding at
a later date to determine whether specific improvements to augment personal
use in the GMRS would be desirable. This proceeding is the fulfillment of
that commitment. In the paragraphs below, we will discuss each major issue
raised in the Notice and the comments received in response.
[7] Report and Order, General Docket No. 83-26, 57 RR2d 559 (1985).
[8] Report and Order, PR Docket No. 86-38, 2 FCC Rcd 2383 (1987).
III. DISCUSSION
A. License Eligibility
7. Proposal. In the Notice we proposed to limit the eligibility for new GMRS
system licenses to individuals in order to focus the usage of the very limited
number of GMRS channels (8 channel pairs) toward the needs of the personal
user. We stated that, unlike the restrictive eligibility requirements of the
Part 90 radio services, the eligibility requirements for personal radio
services are virtually unrestricted except for requirements of minimum age and
the statutory requirement that the licensee not be a representative of a
foreign government. Commercial organizations are eligible for systems in other
private land mobile radio services having comparable communications
performance capability (repeaters, FM quieting and capture, freedom from
"skip," etc.). Personal users, on the other hand, generally are not eligible
in the other private land mobile services. [9] There are no comparable
alternatives to the GMRS for the personal user.
[9] In PR Docket No. 86-404, however, we have expanded the eligibility of SMR
end users to include individuals and federal government agencies in an effort
to increase their communications options. Report and Order, PR Docket No.
86-404. 3 FCC Rcd 1838 (1988).
8. We did not propose to terminate business communications in the GMRS. While
the proposed licensing requirements would discourage large business users,
small businesses with few employees could still find the GMRS attractive.
Further, recognizing that roughly one-half of all GMRS system licensees [10]
are commercial organizations, we proposed to grandfather those commercial user
GMRS systems that were licensed before July 31, 1987. These systems, however,
would have to remain configured as currently licensed. No changes would be
authorized to such grandfathered systems. We advanced this proposal to
encourage the large commercial organizations to relocate their systems to the
Business Radio Service.
[10] There were 36,424 licenses in the GMRS as of May 31, 1988.
9. Comments. The largest number of comments were received from personal users
and personal user groups. They supported the proposal to license new GMRS
systems only to individuals. Their position is best summed up by the
following statement of the Personal Radio Steering Group, Inc. (PRSG):
Commercial and organizational entities should license not in the limited
amount of spectrum which remains for personal, private radio
communications, but rather in that 96% of the original spectrum which was
set aside specifically for business operations in Part 90. The GMRS must be
preserved for personal licensing by citizens who have no other comparable
communications alternative. [11]
[11] Comments of PRSG at 8.
10. Commercial users and organizations representing business users opposed the
proposal. Carl J. Schlueter (Schlueter), a business radio system
entrepreneur, summed up a general lack of regard for the personal radio
services that permeated business user comments, stating that personal
communications are only for people unwilling to join an amateur radio club.
[12]
The National Association of Business and Educational Radio, Inc. (NABER), saw
our proposal as a restructuring of the GMRS into a form virtually identical to
that proposed for the Consumer Radio Service by the Commission in PR Docket
No. 86-38. [13] NABER went on to state its specific concerns:
NABER believes the result of the Commission's actions will be to increase
the spectrum demand in the Business Radio Services as the unavailability of
GMRS will cause certain of those users to become licensed in the Business
Radio Service. This will not only increase congestion on such frequencies
but also could result in less radio system discipline as users engage in
personal conversation on such frequencies.
... The Commission's decision will therefore have a significant spectrum
impact on users of frequencies which have a much higher priority than a
mere "consumer service." [14]
[12] Comments of Carl J. Schlueter at 1.
[13] Comments of NABER at 6. See Notice of Inquiry, PR Docket No. 86-38, 51
Fed. Reg. 5212 (1986); see also Report and Order, PR Docket No. 86-38, 2 FCC
Rcd 2383 (1987).
[14] Comments of NABER at 8.
11. Business users also exhibited concern about the sufficiency of the
proposed grandfathering provisions for existing non-individual licensees. The
Land Mobile Radio Section, Information and Telecommunications Technologies
Group, of the Electronic Industries Association (EIA-Land Mobile), expressed
these concerns:
Under proposed Section 95.5(b) grandfathered licensees could not make any
changes to power, antenna height, station location, or any additions of
base stations or mobile units. The Section believes these limitations are
overly restrictive.
[15] Comments of EIA-Land Mobile at 3.
EIA-Land Mobile pointed to inability to relocate transmitter sites and
inability to increase the number of mobile units as restrictions that were
contrary to the public interest.
12. Volunteer public service groups and organizations that currently use the
GMRS in their activities expressed concern about their licensing and
communications options if this proposal were adopted. EIA-Land Mobile,
speaking for such organizations, stated:
The Commission apparently has overlooked the multitude of users who are not
classified as individuals but whose operation on GMRS serve the public
interest. For example, volunteer community service organizations such as
neighborhood watch groups or volunteer fire and rescue groups in less
urbanized areas use GMRS to communicate. As a practical matter, to license
such activities under the organization rather than the individual is often
the only sensible solution, because the volunteer activities will continue
even after a given individual leaves the organization. [16]
[16] Comments of EIA-Land Mobile at 3.
Most public service organizations generally supported the reduction of
business use of the GMRS. They did not oppose the concept of eliminating the
licensing of commercial entities. They sought instead to obtain exemption
from the general rule that non-individuals could not be licensed. Some
comments proposed that public service organizations should be allowed to
obtain GMRS system licenses in addition to individuals. Others proposed that
501(c)(3) organizations under the Internal Revenue Code should be allowed to
obtain GMRS system licenses in addition to individuals. [17]
[17] See Comments of REACT International at 1.
Still others recommended expanding the concept of station operator to
accommodate the operation of public service organizations. [18]
[18] Comments of the Personal Communications Section, Mobile Communications
Division, Information and Telecommunications Technologies Group, of the
Electronic Industries Association at 1-2.
On the other hand, PRSG stated:
This change would not significantly impact public-service-team operations.
Members of public-service teams would continue, just as present, to be
eligible to license for GMRS communications, and to operate under their
individual licenses for team activities. [19]
[19] Comments of PRSG at 10.
13. Discussion. We concur with the majority of commenters that supported the
proposal to limit licensing of GMRS systems to individuals. As a personal
radio service, GMRS should not be compromised for the benefit of commercial
users at the expense of personal users. Business communication needs,
particularly the needs of large-volume dispatch operations, should be
satisfied through the use of communications alternatives other than GMRS.
Licensing new GMRS systems to individuals will encourage personal and small
business use while discouraging large commercial operations. We emphasize
again that this change will not preclude or otherwise limit business
communications from being transmitted by GMRS licensees.
14. We specifically reject a content regulation approach to enhancing personal
use in the GMRS. Discontinuing business communications would unnecessarily
disrupt the GMRS. It would not be in the public interest to prescribe in
detail the types of communications that could be conducted by GMRS users.
Indeed, some personal users may find that the GMRS suits their needs to
accomplish infrequent communications for a small business. Those individuals
eligible for a new GMRS system license may find the service entirely suitable
for both their personal and small business communications. We do not want to
discourage these uses.
15. Under the existing rules, individual licensees of GMRS systems could allow
employees to be station operators without obtaining their own GMRS system
licenses. This is consistent with a commercial dispatch regulatory approach,
and grandfathered commercial GMRS systems may continue to permit employees to
be station operators consistent with our former rules. Under the new rules
that apply to GMRS systems licensed to individuals, however, such an approach
would frustrate the new regulatory framework based upon responsibility for
one's own communications as an individual GMRS system licensee. Therefore,
employees may not be station operators of GMRS systems licensed to individuals
unless they have their own GMRS system licenses.
16. We seek to discourage the proliferation of what are typically Part 90 uses
of the GMRS. The GMRS is not and should not become the "other" Business Radio
Service. Many commenters point out that adoption of our proposal will
eventually cause certain GMRS systems of commercial organizations to become
licensed instead under Part 90. This is our intention; however, as proposed
we will grandfather all existing GMRS systems licensed to entities other than
individuals. No system would have to move. Growth, however, would have to be
accommodated elsewhere. We believe this is a fair compromise between the
needs of present licensees and the objectives of the GMRS.
17. Schlueter contended that the personal user communications we seek to
address more fully in the GMRS should instead be reaccommodated in the Part 97
Amateur Radio Service. We do not agree. Many types of personal
communications permitted in the GMRS are prohibited in the amateur service.
Personal communications in the GMRS often include conducting personal
business. Business communications, however, are prohibited in the amateur
service. [20] The amateur service is for self-training, intercommunication and
technical investigation carried on by technically qualified persons solely
with a personal aim and without pecuniary or business interests. [21] Thus,
the amateur service is unsuitable for typical GMRS personal communications
that involve business matters, such as discussions of purchases. It would be
unreasonable and illogical to require all members of a family to pass amateur
operator license examinations in order to conduct only a portion of the
intercommunications they now conduct in the GMRS.
[20] See Section 97.110 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. para. 97.110.
[21] See Section 97.3(a) and (b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.
para. 97.3(a) and (b).
18. NABER expressed concern that our proposals could result in a restructuring
of the GMRS into the form envisioned for the Consumer Radio Service in PR
Docket No. 86-38. The purpose of the Consumer Radio Service was to allow for
one person to contact another person over a short distance and conduct a brief
voice conversation. Abolition of repeaters, reduction of maximum authorized
power, and the adoption of complex standardized algorithms and protocols in
the GMRS were all considered in PR Docket No. 86-38. That proceeding proposed
a complete technological restructuring of the GMRS. Its scope far exceeded
the scope of this proceeding.
19. Some commenters sought separate licensing eligibility for volunteer public
service teams such as REACT (providing CB Channel 9 response) and neighborhood
watch groups if we adopt general rules limiting GMRS systems to individuals.
We recognize and appreciate the additional communications assets these
organizations bring to bear in times of emergency. There is no way to create
an exemption for them, however, without serious risk of compromising the new
eligibility requirements.
20. Even strict applications screening cannot prevent licensing of
organizations with benevolent-sounding names purporting to have some apparent
public service function formed for the real purpose of providing
communications to commercial entities no longer eligible under the rules. [22]
Licensing only organizations with tax exempt status in addition to individuals
is not a solution, either. [23] There is nothing inherent in tax exempt status
that uniquely qualifies or recommends an entity with such status for special
licensing consideration in the GMRS. [24] Volunteer public service teams
related to CB and GMRS make up less than one-third of one percent of the
hundreds of thousands of tax exempt organizations. [25]
[22] See Reply Comments of PRSG at 25.
[23] See Reply Comments of Edward W. N. Smith at 2-3.
[24] See Reply Comments of Risa Yager, a former Internal Revenue Service Tax
Auditor, at 1-6.
[25] See Reply Comments of PRSG at 36.
21. Abolition of club and RACES (Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Services)
station licensing and requiring individual licensing in the Part 97 Amateur
Radio Service has not placed any inordinate burden on amateur radio team
contributions to community safety and welfare, especially in times of local
emergency. [26] Similarly, under the new GMRS rules, REACT and neighborhood
watch teams should be able to operate as they do now with each of their
individual members licensed for their own GMRS systems. We conclude that
members of volunteer public service groups that do not have individual GMRS
system licenses must obtain them, unless that particular group is
grandfathered.
[26] See Reply Comments of PRSG at 36, footnote 35.
B. Improved Transient Operation
22. Proposal. In line with our intention to make the GMRS more efficient and
effective for personal users, we proposed to model repeater usage in the GMRS
more closely after repeater usage in the amateur service. A salient
characteristic of amateur service repeater operation is extensive transient
use. We proposed, therefore, to permit use of a GMRS system repeater by
station operators of GMRS systems licensed to individuals who have the
permission of the GMRS system licensee whose repeater is being used. The
persons eligible to be station operators in a GMRS system would include the
members of the licensee's family for whom the licensee is willing to take
responsibility. We also proposed to construe as open and available for
transient use any GMRS system repeater that does not employ some technical
means to limit user access to the repeater, such as tone operated squelch or
digital access codes. We requested comment on the merits of this approach
versus the need to require GMRS system licensee permission for transient use
of repeaters.
23. Comments. Comments on this proposal were mixed. A large number of
commenters, including EIA-Personal, supported the proposal. EIA-Personal
stated that our proposal to allow transient use of any GMRS repeater follows
the spirit of improving the GMRS for personal users. [27] PRSG also agreed in
principle:
The current GMRS rules place unnecessarily burdensome restrictions on the
use of repeaters by travelers. A system for disciplined transient use of
repeaters outside a licensee's authorized "home" area of operation has long
been sought. [28]
PRSG did, however, recommend separate licensing for repeaters and addition of
the concept of a "repeater manager" to the rules in order to accomplish this
objective.
[27] Comments of EIA-Personal at 2.
[28] Comments of PRSG at 31.
24. Conversely, there were those who opposed any form of transient repeater
use other than within the framework of cooperative shared use or multiple
licensing arrangements. NABER was concerned that our proposal did not
consider the numerous alternatives for personal users, such as cellular
service, IMTS (Improved Mobile Telephone Service), pagers and pay telephones
along the highway. [29]
[29] Comments of NABER at 9.
25. PRSG and many commenters opposed presuming that open repeaters constitute
implied consent to transient use. PRSG stated:
We agree with the proposed rules (95.53(c) and 95.57(b)); that is, we think
a (GMRS) licensee should be able to use any repeater with the permission of
the manager of that repeater. We disagree with the FCC's own announced
interpretation of its proposed Rule that any repeater which just anyone can
bring up is automatically theirs to use. We believe the user must have
specific permission of the repeater manager to use it. [30]
[30] Comments of PRSG at 33.
All commenters focused on the issue of the method by which the GMRS system
licensee would give permission for use of the repeater. Written documentation
and oral permission were suggested. Some supported the notion that an open
repeater constituted tacit permission to use it. Still others recommended
technological solutions, such as a common transient-user CTCSS (Continuous
Tone Controlled Squelch System) encoding. [31] PRSG's primary concern was that
the Commission's expressed interpretation of the rules requiring permission to
use a GMRS system licensee's repeater would emasculate the ability of a GMRS
system licensee to revoke or deny permission to use that licensee's mobile
relay station. [32] In light of this, PRSG ultimately took the following
position:
The answer is not to mandate transient use, irrespective of the system
licensee/owner/manager's wishes, but to permit the system licensee/manager
to allow such use on a case-by-case basis by those persons and under those
conditions permissible under the rules. Clearly a written agreement
satisfies both the existing Rules and the principles above. We suggest
that oral permission over the air would facilitate desirable transient use
without compromising either the licensee/manager's control over the system
or any of the control Rules previously discussed. A system of oral
permission would automatically further permit a means later to rescind or
to restrict use of the system. Such capability is vital to true, actual
and effective control of a station. [33]
[31] See Comments of National Capital REACT at 3-4.
[32] See Comments of PRSG at 33.
[33] Reply Comments of PRSG at 61.
26. Discussion. Based on the comments, we conclude that the flexibility of
personal communications in the GMRS would be greatly improved through the
proposed relaxation of station operator eligibility requirements. This
relaxation of the rules would facilitate transient use of repeaters and
greatly increase the convenience and usefulness of the GMRS to individuals.
To that end we are adopting the rules we proposed.
27. We are adopting rules to liberalize station operator eligibility. The
purpose of these rules is to increase the convenience and usefulness of GMRS
systems licensed to individuals. Thus, the liberalized station operator
standards will not apply to grandfathered GMRS systems licensed to commercial
entities. See, infra, paragraphs 66-71. Also, the old GMRS rules placed
message content restrictions upon each station operator, depending upon the
station operator's relationship to the licensee. For example, employees of a
commercial entity licensed for a GMRS system could only use that entity's GMRS
system for messages related to that licensee's business. As proposed, we are
abolishing these message content regulations with respect to GMRS systems
licensed to individuals. Any individual station operator (i.e., GMRS licensee
or family member) may engage in any communication.
28. We are also adopting rules to allow the station operators of GMRS systems
licensed to individuals to use mobile relay stations in other GMRS systems
with the permission of the licensees of the other systems. Of course, both
systems must be authorized for the channel or channel pair used for such a
communication. In the Notice we took the position that we would prospectively
construe these rules to mean that any GMRS open repeater would be a repeater
for which the GMRS system licensee had given tacit permission for such
transient use. We are persuaded by the comments, however, that such a
construction does not allow a GMRS system licensee sufficient latitude to
restrict the users of that system to those operators the licensee desires.
This then impinges on the licensee's ability to adequately discharge required
control functions under the Rules.
29. Therefore, we are adopting rules requiring system licensee permission
before engaging in transient use of another system's mobile relay station;
however, we decline to implement our proposed construction of these rules to
allow transient use of any open GMRS repeater. Instead, we will construe
these rules as requiring the specific permission of the GMRS system licensee.
We are not adopting rules delineating the different types of possible specific
permission -- this would constitute unnecessary regulatory burden. As PRSG
stated in its reply comments, however, clearly both written agreements and
oral permission over the air would be acceptable methods of establishing that
such permission had been granted. Additionally, closing one's own repeater to
prevent undesired use, such as by tone-operated squelch or digital access
codes, and limiting those to whom these codes were available, would appear to
be another means to establish who has permission to use a licensee's repeater.
This mechanism would avoid disputes regarding repeater operations. We
consider this to be the most efficient, most cost-effective and least
burdensome approach to improving transient GMRS operations, and encourage its
use.
30. PRSG suggested that we institute a "repeater manager" concept. This would
constitute unnecessary and burdensome regulation in the form of an additional
licensing requirement. Additionally, we are not adopting rules suggested by
commenters for a common transient-user CTCSS tone because such a regulatory
mandate could impose unwarranted economic burdens by requiring the purchase
(of) additional equipment or modification of existing equipment to employ such
a tone in order to engage in transient use. A voluntary standard among
licensees, however, would be permissible.
C. All - Channel Operation
31. Proposal. We proposed rules to permit each GMRS system licensed to an
individual to use the best channel available for its stations at any given
time and place. Currently, each GMRS licensee normally receives authorization
for one specific shared channel or channel pair at one specific location. A
personal user is unable to communicate if the channel assigned to the GMRS
system is busy, even if other channels are clear. When traveling, the
personal user is confined to the channel of the home GMRS system. To use a
different channel, the GMRS system licensee has to obtain a license
modification. To do this, the GMRS system licensee must request another
specific channel on the application form. Such license modifications are
routinely granted. No coordination is required.
32. Under our proposed rules, no license modification would have been
necessary in order to change the channel. We proposed these rules to permit
more efficient and effective personal use of the GMRS spectrum by giving the
GMRS system licensee the ability to use immediately any available clear
channel or channel pair.
33. The rules as proposed would have limited the channel selection options to
one channel or channel pair for all stations in a GMRS system at any given
time. In other words, even though all channels were available, a single GMRS
system would not have been permitted to use two or more GMRS channels or
channel pairs simultaneously. In the text of the Notice we also sought
comment on whether we should consider trunking if we eliminate designation of
a specific channel on the license.
34. Comments. The comments on this subject were also mixed. EIA-Personal was
typical of those who commented favorably:
The Section believes the proposed expansion to use of "any available clear
channel or channel pair" is a significant step forward to easing both the
licensing burden of the system licensee as well as offering enhanced
flexibility to the transient system user. [34]
[34] Comments of EIA-Personal at 2.
On the other hand, EIA-Land Mobile expressed a concern shared by the Special
Industrial Radio Service Association, Inc. (SIRSA):
The Section is concerned that such action would encourage the proliferation
of user programmable transceivers, which could cause interference problems
on private land mobile 450-470 MHz channels. [35]
[35] Comments of EIA-Land Mobile at 4.
35. PRSG opposed all-channel operation, but advanced what it called the
"two-channel plus 675" concept as an interim solution "responding to today's
problems with today's technologies." [36] It recommended that all GMRS systems
licensed to individuals be assigned two requested channels or channel pairs,
and that an additional nationwide channel pair (462.675 MHz/467.675 MHz) be
made available for emergency and traveler assistance communications. PRSG
opposed eliminating Commission channel assignment in the GMRS because:
The NPRM's "all-channel" proposal would "CB-ize" the PMRS and lead to its
eventual degeneration into chaotic and trivial communications. [37]
Of those commenters requesting some sort of multi-channel allocation,
approximately 62 percent supported the two-channel plus 675 concept, and SIRSA
embraced it as a solution that made sense short of user-programmable
transceivers. The comments generally opposed trunking, even if we were to
abolish Commission assignment of channels.
[36] Reply Comments of PRSG at 69.
[37] Comments of PRSG at 36.
36. While most commenters addressed the elimination of Commission channel
assignment in the GMRS from the perspective of mobile station users, some did
address the question of repeater station operation. PRSG indicated its desire
for separate repeater licensing and greater Commission regulation of repeater
access, and, in this context, opposed the all-channel concept for repeaters:
At the most permissive end, repeaters themselves could be allowed to switch
frequencies. At this extreme, all reasonable efforts at repeater
coordinating, especially with regard to CTCSS selection and use, would
break down into chaos. [38]
[38] Comments of PRSG at 39.
37. Discussion. Upon further review of our proposal, we agree with PRSG and
other commenters that elimination of Commission assignment of channels and
channel pairs to GMRS systems would be too drastic a step to take at this
time. Instead, we are adopting in principle the two-channel plus 675 concept
advanced by PRSG as an alternative. This alternative provides much of the
flexibility we sought in advancing the all-channel concept, but at the same
time preserves the current nature of the GMRS primary channels and channel
pairs in order to allow for a more gradual and user-acceptable application of
existing and new technologies in the GMRS.
38. We are adopting rules that allow the mobile stations of any GMRS system
that is not specifically assigned the 462.675 MHz/467.675 MHz channel pair to
use this channel pair for emergency communications or traveler assistance.
This would allow each GMRS licensee to communicate on the frequency most
commonly used nationally in the GMRS by volunteer public service teams for
emergency and traveler assistance communications. [39]
[39] See Comments of PRSG at 37.
39. We are also adopting rules to permit two channels or channel pairs to be
assigned to a GMRS system licensed to an individual. Granting a second
channel or channel pair upon request provides each GMRS system with additional
flexibility without severely disrupting current rules or licensing policies.
40. We choose the two-channel plus 675 concept over the all-channel proposal
largely because the two channel plus 675 alternative, when combined with the
other actions we are taking, infra, is a less drastic means to achieve the
same objectives we focused upon in the Notice. A GMRS system licensed to an
individual may have two FCC-assigned channels or channel pairs, an additional
nationwide channel pair (462.675 MHz/467.675 MHz), and seven interstitial
channels. We expect this to result in manufacturers offering equipment having
these capabilities. The principal unit model we envision is that of a
hand-held transceiver for use in GMRS systems licensed to individuals. These
transceivers would transmit with an output power of less than 5 watts
effective radiated power. They would provide the station operator with the
ability to select by switch or keypad from the transmitting channels
authorized to the GMRS system, the seven 462 MHz interstitial channels, the
462.675 MHz/467.675 MHz nationwide channel pair and the primary channel(s) or
channel pair(s) assigned to the system. We expect that access to this number
of channels will promote more efficient spectrum utilization and minimize
current user inconvenience caused by our normally assigning only one channel
or channel pair.
41. While we are not adopting the all-channel rules we originally proposed, we
anticipate that taking the interim two-channel plus 675 approach may
ultimately foster the development of some sort of fully automated
user-transparent GMRS technology. Nonetheless, it would be premature to
launch a technically sophisticated attempt to allow frequency-agile repeaters
or trunking in the GMRS at this time.
42. We share the concerns of SIRSA, EIA-Land Mobile and others with respect to
possible proliferation of illegal user-programmable equipment in the private
land mobile services. These concerns are equally valid under the two-channel
plus 675 concept that we have embraced, particularly because seven
interstitial channels will also be available for mobile station and small base
station use. See paragraphs 56-64, infra. Therefore, we intend to take two
additional steps to assure against the proliferation of unauthorized
user-programmable equipment. [40] First, we will not type accept a GMRS
transmitter that can transmit in spectrum assigned to another service unless
it is also type-accepted in that other service. Second, we will require that
the mechanism for installing or programming the assigned channel frequencies
into all transmitters type accepted for use in GMRS systems be internal to the
transmitter and inaccessible to the station operators. Our intent is that the
GMRS system licensee will make, or cause to have made, the necessary internal
installation or programming of the assigned channels such that only the
channels authorized to the GMRS system are available to the station operators
for their selection.
[40] These additional steps are based upon similar rules that apply to type
acceptance of equipment for use in the Citizens Band Radio Service.
See 47 C.F.R. para. 95.661(a) and (b).
43. It should be noted as well that we have already adopted rules regarding
type acceptance in Part 90 to address this concern. [41] Also, the Technical
Rules in Subpart E of Part 95, 47 C.F.R. Part 95, Subpart E, specifically
provide:
No control, switch or other type of adjustment which, when manipulated, can
result in a violation of the rules shall be accessible from the transmitter
operating panel or from the exterior of the transmitter enclosure. [42]
Thus, a GMRS system licensee may not cause a GMRS transceiver to transmit if
the licensee may select channel(s) or channel pair(s) other than those
authorized by use of front panel controls or controls exterior to the
transmitter enclosure.
[41] Report and Order, PR Docket No. 86-37, 2 FCC Rcd 7221 (1987).
[42] 47 C.F.R. para. 95.641(a).
44. With respect to PRSG's comments seeking repeater regulation centered
around assignment or control of CTCSS tones, we note that we do not currently
require coordination of GMRS repeater stations before system licensing. Nor
are we aware of any unified effort on the part of GMRS licensees or the GMRS
industry to foster any voluntary repeater coordination. We encourage
voluntary efforts to assure that licensees of repeaters do not interfere with
one another. We also encourage the use of CTCSS tones or digital control
where a licensee desires to "close" a repeater. We again emphasize that we
encourage reliance on technical as opposed to regulatory means to achieve
spectrum harmony and efficiency in the GMRS, particularly in the area of
repeater stations.
D. Small Base Stations
45. Proposal. There are two different types of GMRS stations: mobile stations
and land stations. A mobile station is one or more units that transmit while
moving or during temporary stops at unspecified points. A land station is a
unit that transmits only from an exact point shown on the license or an
unspecified point within an operating area as shown on the license, for a
temporary period. There are four different land station classes: base
stations, mobile relay stations, control stations and fixed stations. [43]
[43] A GMRS base station is a land station that may transmit communications
directly to mobile station units in any GMRS system or to paging receivers in
the same GMRS system. A GMRS control station is a land station that may
transmit communications (1) as a radio control link to a remotely controlled
station, or (2) through a mobile relay station to mobile station units in any
GMRS system.
46. Many GMRS personal users only acquire and operate one or more mobile
units. The current rules place constraints upon a personal user who on
occasion wants to operate a mobile transmitter from a fixed location, such as
the home or office. We proposed to create a new type of base station called a
small base station to accommodate this requirement. Licensing requirements
for this type of base station would be considerably less detailed than those
or a typical base station.
47. The concept of the small base station is largely based upon the existing
small control station. [44] Nonetheless, we proposed a different maximum power
limitation for small base stations. Small base stations would be limited to a
maximum effective radiated power (ERP) of 5 watts. Small control stations may
employ up to 50 watts ERP unless they transmit north of Line A or east of Line
C, in which case they are also limited to 5 watts ERP. We proposed to limit
small base stations to a maximum of 5 waIts ERP regardless of geographic
location. This should be sufficient for the limited intended local use.
Moreover, allowing small base stations to transmit with high power at the
reduced frequency tolerance we proposed could greatly increase interference
potential if they are authorized to transmit on interstitial frequencies.
[44] A small control station is a control station that has an antenna no more
than 6.1 meters (20 feet) above the ground or above the building or tree on
which it is mounted and is either (1) south of Line A or west of Line C or (2)
north of Line A or east of Line C and transmitting with no more than five
watts effective radiated power. (Lines A and C are defined at 47 C.F.R.
<185>1.955(e).)
48. A small base station would employ an antenna no more than 20 feet above
the ground or above the building or tree on which it is mounted. To facilitate
use of low-power "mobile" equipment as small base stations, we proposed to
permit small base stations the frequency tolerance currently allowed for
mobile stations (0.0005%), rather than the frequency tolerance currently
required for base stations (0.00025%). We believed this was an acceptable
tradeoff to achieve personal user flexibility. Small base stations would
employ at a maximum no more than one tenth the power available to other land
stations, and therefore would not require as tight a frequency tolerance.
49. Comments. Virtually all of the comments that addressed the proposal
regarding small base stations supported the concept. For the most part, they
agreed with PRSG that the small base station proposal would meet
communications needs of many users and reduce paperwork burdens. [45] Focusing
on the difference in maximum power authorized for small base stations and
small control stations, PRSG recommended that we extend a 5 watt ERP power
limit to small control stations as well, regardless of geographic location.
PRSG also advocated that we rename small control stations as small access
stations.
[45] Comments of PRSG at 23.
50. Discussion. Small base stations are unlikely to cause significant
interference to other lawful uses and users. Allowing small base stations
will encourage GMRS users to utilize short range equipment so that more users
can be accommodated. Therefore, we are adopting rules to allow GMRS systems
licensed to individuals to use small base stations. We are not adopting rules
to modify the nature of small control stations. We will first study the
impact of small base stations and then evaluate the need for further rule
changes.
51. A small base station may operate on the primary 462 MHz channel(s)
assigned to the GMRS system for the small base station as requested. In
addition, a small base station may operate on any of the new interstitial
channels.
E. Simplex Channels
52. Proposal. We asked for comments regarding the need to minimize harmful
interference to repeater channels, and whether we should consider discouraging
or prohibiting simplex operation on repeater mobile input channels. We did
not, however, make any specific proposals on this subject.
53. Comments. Twenty eight comments and reply comments addressed this issue.
All but one requested the Commission to prohibit simplex operation on repeater
input frequencies in the GMRS. In order to accomplish this, PRSG recommended
that "the 467 MHz frequencies should be reserved solely for the activation and
control of repeaters." [46]
[46] Comments of PRSG at 18.
54. Discussion. Some GMRS systems are configured as two-frequency direct
operations involving a base station transmitting on 462 MHz and receiving on
467 MHz, and one or more mobile stations transmitting on 467 MHz and receiving
on 462 MHz. This configuration provides for dispatch systems in which the
mobile stations have no need for (or the licensee does not want the mobile
stations to have) communication with one another. Generally, such a system
does not include a second 462 MHz receiver at the base station for monitoring
purposes. Without such a receiver, a system so designed inherently prevents
the base station from monitoring the 462 MHz frequency before transmitting.
Certain GMRS systems that have repeater stations controlled by wireline, or
that have transceivers at one location serving both repeater and base station
functions, also often suffer from the same deficiency because the operator by
remote wireline control or at the on-site control point is not able to
effectively monitor the 462 MHz frequency of the channel pair.
55. Some GMRS systems also include mobile-to-mobile station operations on the
467 MHz frequencies. In this configuration all parties to a communications
exchange between mobile stations both transmit and receive on a 467 MHz
frequency. Unfortunately, that 467 MHz frequency can also be assigned to a
GMRS system as one of two frequencies forming a channel pair for repeater
(mobile relay) station operation. GMRS system applications that include
repeater operation generally request (and we normally assign) a 467 MHz
frequency for mobile station transmission for the purpose of repeater input
and a 462 MHz frequency for repeater output. Mobile stations engaged in
simplex operations on repeater input frequencies rarely monitor a repeater's
paired 462 MHz output channel. Moreover, mobile stations are far less capable
of receiving other cochannel transmissions than are more advantageously sited
repeaters. As a result, they are often unaware of any pre-existent or more
urgent ongoing communications being conducted through a repeater.
56. For all of the above reasons, we agree with the comments that significant
interference to GMRS repeater operation is virtually inevitable due to
non-repeater operations conducted on 467 MHz frequencies. [47] We further
agree that the best solution is to prohibit simplex operation on the input
frequencies of GMRS repeaters. We are, therefore, adopting new Section
95.29(a)(3) restricting 467 MHz channels to accessing and controlling mobile
relay stations. See Appendix A, infra. We have chosen, however, to postpone
the effective date of this particular action until December 31, 1993. This is
to give GMRS licensees involved in two-frequency direct operation or
mobile-to-mobile station operation on 467 MHz frequencies sufficient time to
reconfigure their GMRS systems or otherwise reaccommodate their communications
needs.
[47] Unlike the repeater input frequencies where mobile station transmissions
can interfere with other mobile station transmissions attempting to access a
repeater, on repeater output frequencies mobile station transmissions are
unlikely to impede transmissions by the repeater itself. Also, repeater
transmissions are likely to be heard by mobile stations monitoring repeater
output frequencies before they transmit. Therefore, we perceive no similar
problem on the 462 MHz channels.
F. Adding Interstitial Frequencies
57. Proposal. We proposed the addition of three interstitial (12.5 kHz offset)
GMRS channels in the 462 MHz frequency band to facilitate personal
communication. We proposed these channels to satisfy the need for short-range
GMRS communications that do not require use of a repeater.
58. The direct communications range of a UHF transceiver is roughly
line-of-sight. Thus, for other than line of sight operation, communications
need to be transmitted through a repeater to increase the range. Current GMRS
rules provide for such operation. Many short-range personal communications
exchanges, however, can be conducted without a repeater using low power
stations transmitting on interstitial GMRS channels.
59. We also proposed that four interstitial channels be established in the 467
MHz frequency band. We proposed to restrict transmissions on these channels
to low power one-way non-voice communications solely for repeater control.
60. Comments. Almost all the comments received on this subject supported the
concept of introducing interstitial frequencies in the GMRS. PRSG stated that
interstitial frequencies would be a welcome improvement to the GMRS for
low-power communications by mobiles (especially hand-held units) and small
base stations. The commenters expressed the view that the interstitial
frequencies would provide every personal licensee with new frequencies for
short-distance direct (non-repeater) communications without being interfered
with by repeaters or powerful base stations operating on the current primary
462 MHz frequencies. [48]
[48] Comments of PRSG at 20.
61. EIA-Personal and EIA-Land Mobile expressed concern regarding the
possibility of interference to and from stations operating on the proposed
interstitial frequencies. EIA-Personal stated:
Modulation products of such transmitters might be expected to produce
interference to primary channel operation, and the modulation products of
full power mobile, base, and repeater stations certainly have the potential
for interference with the interstitial receivers on the lower frequencies.
[49]
[49] Comments of EIA-Personal at 3-4.
EIA-Land Mobile concurred and advanced calculations in support of the
proposition that splatter interference from the proposed offset operations
would substantially reduce the usable service area of GMRS stations. [50]
PRSG in its reply comments discounted the validity of these statistics on the
basis that they assumed a worst case scenario -- namely, that all the
transceivers used in the calculations are operating at the nominal maximum
limits of both transmitter and receiver tolerance. [51]
[50] Comments of EIA-Land Mobile at Appendix.
[51] Reply Comments of PRSG at 73-75.
62. The balance of the comments discussed how many interstitial channels
should be authorized, and for what types of operation. PRSG supported release
of the three 462 MHz interstitial channels proposed but recommended that we
release only two of the four 467 MHz interstitial channels proposed. [52] The
rest of the comments were mixed, but generally supported the NPRM. [53] Many
of the comments specifically favored more interstitial frequencies than we
proposed for simplex operation and small base stations, and control. [54]
[52] See Reply Comments of PRSG at 71-72. PRSG did, however, recommend that
one of the three interstitial channels be located on a different frequency.
Id.
[53] See, e.g., Comments of REACT International, Inc., Palomar Communications,
Inc., I.W. Radio Club, Northern Utah Citizens Communication Association, San
Angelo REACT Association, Pinellas Public Radio, Suburban REACT Team 3410 of
Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, and Rocky Mountain Patrol, Inc.
[54] See Comments of Repeater Users Group of Riverside, California, Antelope
Valley REACT Team C-40, Southwestern REACT of San Diego County, Inc.,
Communications Center of Anaheim, California, and Orange County REACT.
63. Discussion. Because we are adopting rules to prohibit simplex operation
on the input frequencies of repeaters, effective in roughly five years, we
have decided not to release any of the 467 MHz interstitial channels at this
time. Premature release of the 467 MHz interstitial channels may compromise
the evolution of repeater technology in the GMRS. For example, currently
fallow interstitial channels at 467 MHz could allow for development of
narrow-band technology in the GMRS, such as the linear predictive coding
advanced by PRSG in RM-5058. Development of these interstitial channels
immediately would foreclose opportunity for users and manufacturers to build
upon our decision to change the nature of 467 MHz use in the GMRS in 1993. In
order to maximize the options of the GMRS community to present to us a
comprehensive plan for a new evolutionary step in GMRS repeater usage, we
decline at this time to release any of the 467 MHz interstitial frequencies.
64. On the other hand, the Notice sought to provide for direct (non-repeater-
assisted) communications that do not risk substantial interference from
repeater operation by proposing release of several 462 MHz interstitial
channels for low-power use by mobile stations and small base stations. The
comments indicate that it is desirable to provide additional channels for
personal communications exchanges that can be conducted without a repeater.
Moreover releasing all seven of the 462 MHz segment interstitial channels for
the use of mobile stations and small base stations in GMRS systems licensed to
individuals would provide any GMRS systems licensed to individuals that are
displaced by the prospective 1993 changes at 467 MHz with a GMRS alternative
for their communications needs.
65. Accordingly, we are releasing all seven 462 MHz interstitial channels for
use by mobile stations and small base stations in GMRS systems licensed to
individuals. We do not agree with EIA-Land Mobile's assessment that
interstitial channels will cause splatter interference and reduce area
coverage. We concur with PRSG that this assessment is based upon transceiver
operation at the nominal maximum limits of both transmitter and receiver
tolerance, and that this is an unlikely worst-case scenario.
G. Grandfathered GMRS Systems
66. On September 17, 1987, we released a Public Notice further explaining the
policies for GMRS systems that would be grandfathered under the proposed
rules. [55] In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, we proposed that GMRS
systems licensed to non-individuals on or before July 30, 1987, would be
grandfathered. The Public Notice clarified that pending adoption of the
proposed rules, we would continue to grant GMRS systems to non-individuals.
Should the proposed rules be adopted however, GMRS system licensees granted to
non-individuals on or after July 31, 1987, would become subject to the new
rules at the expiration of the license terms and, hence, would not be renewed.
We further stated that GMRS systems licensed to non-individuals that were
substantially modified after July 31, 1987, would be considered newly licensed
as of the date of grant of such modification by the Commission. The Public
Notice indicated that any modification to increase the power of any
transmitter, increase the number of mobile units, add any stations, increase
any antenna heights, change any land station location, or change any area of
operation would constitute a substantial modification. Any such modified GMRS
system license granted to a non-individual on or after July 31, 1987, would
not be grandfathered and would be subject to the new rules after expiration of
the license terms.
[55] Public Notice, Interim Policies for GMRS, No. 4872, September 17, 1987.>
67. Comments from the land mobile community generally were of the view that
the grandfathering procedures should be as liberal as possible. [56] On the
other hand, some personal users objected to the concept of grandfathering
entirely. [57] Many personal users opposed grandfathering high-volume dispatch
operations. [58] Many personal users also favored limiting any grandfathering
provisions to only one or two license terms. [59] Some personal user comments
sought assurance that grandfathered entities would be limited to their current
operating privileges. [60] This was especially true with respect to the
capability to change or add channels. [61]
[56] See, e.g., Comments of SIRSA at 6-8 and Dow Chemical Telecommunications
Corp. at 4-9.
[57] See Comments of Crystal Busters CB Club at 1, John Nixon at 2 and Suzanne
Nixon at 2.
[58] See Comments of REACT International at 1, Repeater Users Group at 2, Jess
L. Collier at 2 and William F. Ruck at 2-3.
[59] See Comments of Douglas A. Barker at 2, Southwestern REACT of San Diego
County, Inc. at 2-3, San Angelo REACT Association at 1, Communications Center
at 2, Orange County REACT at 2, David R. Long at 2-3, EMA Enterprises at 2, J.
Edward Marsden at 2, Kenneth Tangen at 1, John C. Thomas at 1, Richard H.
Westray at 2-3, Mark D. Withers at 2, and Reply Comments of Capital City
Communications, Inc. at 4.
[60] See, e.g., Comments of PRSG at S1-5, REACT International at 2,
Southwestern REACT of San Diego County, Inc. at 3 and Richard H. Westray at 3.
[61] See, e.g., Comments of PRSG at S1-5, REACT International at 2, Northern
Utah Citizens Communication Association at 3, Rocky Mountain Patrol, Inc. at
2, Southwestern REACT of San Diego County, Inc., at 3, Jess L. Collier at 2
and Richard H. Westray at 3.
68. In proposed Section 95.5(b) we had listed six substantial modifications
that we would not allow grandfathered entities. The new rule we are adopting,
Section 95.71(e), adds one more: changing or adding assigned frequencies.
This is consistent with traditional concepts of substantial modification as
well as with our decision to draw a distinction between GMRS systems licensed
to individuals and to non-individuals with respect to channel availability.
69. We intend to strictly adhere to the provisions we are adopting with
respect to grandfathering. [62] Only GMRS systems licensed to non-individuals
before July 31, 1987, will be grandfathered. The rules governing eligibility
will be applied prospectively to all other existing GMRS systems upon
expiration of their licenses. Any GMRS systems licensed to non-individuals
that made the substantial modifications described in Section 95.71(e) of the
new rules between July 31, 1987, and December 31, 1988, will be considered
newly licensed as of the date of grant of such modification(s) and will not be
grandfathered. [63] Their licenses, valid until the expiration of their terms,
will become subject to the new rules governing eligibility. Similarly, new
GMRS systems licensed to non-individuals on or after July 31, 1987, will not
be grandfathered. [64] Their licenses, valid until the expiration of their
terms, will not be renewed.
[62] Nonetheless, in cases of extreme hardship we will entertain applications
for waiver pursuant to Section 1.3 of our Rules, 47 C.F.R. para. 1.3.
[63] As of July 18, 1988, there were 115 entities in this category. There is
one exception to the July 31, 1987, deadline for modifications that result in
loss of grandfathered status. A grandfathered system that filed an
application to add or change assigned frequencies that was granted before the
date of adoption of this <MU>Report and Order<D> will not lose grandfathered
status. Any grandfathered systems whose applications to add or change
frequencies are still pending as of that date will be afforded the opportunity
to withdraw their applications so that they may retain grandfathered status.
[64] As of July 18, 1988, there were 575 entities in this category.
70. In addition, we have decided to permit non-individuals to file
applications for new or substantially modified GMRS system licenses through
December 31, 1988. Applications for new or substantially modified GMRS system
licenses by non-individuals will not be accepted for filing on or after
January 1, 1989. All applications for new or modified GMRS system licenses by
non-individuals filed on or before December 31, 1988, will be processed. New
or substantially modified GMRS system licenses granted to these
non-individuals, however, will not be grandfathered. Thus, their licenses,
valid until the expiration of their terms, will not be renewed.
71. It is currently our policy to routinely grant an application to reinstate
an expired GMRS system license filed within six months of the date of
expiration of that license, provided that it is accompanied by a GMRS system
renewal application. We intend to continue to follow this policy for both
grandfathered and individually licensed GMRS systems. For this reason we are
codifying this "grace period" at new Section 95.89(e). Applications for
reinstatement of a GMRS system license filed more than six months after the
expiration of that license must include an extraordinary showing to be
granted.
IV. CONCLUSION
72. In summary, we have decided to reorient the GMRS to accommodate more fully
the needs of personal users. We have adopted rules to give additional
operating privileges to GMRS systems licensed to individuals, and to cease
licensing GMRS systems to non-individuals. We will, however, continue to
permit both personal and business communications in the GMRS, and all GMRS
systems licensed to non-individuals that existed when we initiated this
proceeding are grandfathered. GMRS systems licensed to individuals will be
able to take immediate advantage of their increased privileges as of the date
these rules become effective.
73. We are adopting the rules proposed with respect to eligibility, transient
use and small base stations, with minor modifications, such as making it clear
that grandfathered GMRS systems may not change previously assigned
frequencies. We decline to adopt the proposed rules to eliminate Commission
assignment of frequencies. Instead, we are allowing all GMRS systems licensed
to individuals a maximum of two assigned channels or channel pairs. Mobile
stations in all GMRS systems will be permitted to transmit on the 462.675
MHz/467.675 MHz channel pair for emergency and traveler assistance
communications.
74. On the basis of comments responding to our questions in the Notice about
simplex operation on repeater input channels, we have concluded that we must
eventually prohibit this type of operation. We have adopted a lead-in period
of five years to give current 467 MHz simplex users adequate time to
accommodate their communications needs, and we encourage GMRS systems licensed
to individuals to consider the new 462 MHz interstitial frequencies for this
purpose.
75. The comments we received about release of interstitial frequencies,
coupled together with the action we are taking prohibiting simplex operation
on repeater input frequencies, have led us to revise our approach to the
question of release of these frequencies. We are adopting rules releasing all
of the 462 MHz interstitial frequencies. We are declining to release any of
the 467 MHz interstitial frequencies.
76. Although we are grandfathering existing GMRS systems licensed to entities
other than individuals, each of the enhanced operating privileges that we are
adopting for the purpose of furthering personal use will only apply to GMRS
systems licensed to individuals. Grandfathered GMRS systems will, of course,
have all previously authorized operating privileges. The new rules have been
structured to explicitly accommodate both types of operation.
77. Some commenters, including PRSG, suggested many substantive changes to the
GMRS in addition to those proposed in the Notice. We do not intend to address
each of them here. They are, for the most part, clearly beyond the intended
scope of this proceeding. To the extent they have an impact upon the
decisions in this proceeding, they have been considered and, where applicable,
discussed above. In addition, we have implemented the non-substantive and
editorial changes that we proposed.
V. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT
78. Pursuant to Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(Pub.L. 96-354) we certified that these rules will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although these
changes allow the personal radio community greater flexibility and
convenience, they will not cause a significant economic impact on any small
entities.
VI. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
79. The rules adopted herein have been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 and found to decrease the information collection burden
that the Commission imposes on the public. This proposed reduction in
information collection burden is subject to approval by the Office of
Management and Budget as prescribed by the Act.
VII. ORDERING CLAUSES
80. For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that effective January 1,
1989, Subparts A and E of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.
Subparts A and E, ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A below. Authority for
this action is found in Sections 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 303.
81. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Report and Order shall be sent
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
82. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding IS TERMINATED.
Donna R. Searcy
Secretary
APPENDIX A
Changes in Part 95, Subparts A and E (included in a separate file.)
APPENDIX B
List of Comments Filed
Helen E. Acuff
Antelope Valley REACT Team C-40
Douglas A. Barker
WilliamS. Cantwell
Jess L. Collier
Communications Center
Crystal Busters Citizens Band Club, Inc.
Timothy A. Culek
Dow Chemical Telecommunications Corporation
Edward M. Downey
Electronic Industries Association, Land Mobile Radio Section
Electronic Industries Association, Personal Communications Section
EMA Enterprises
Patrick J. Glancy
I. W. Radio Club
Kansas Council of REACT Teams
Daniel B. Kimball
Gayland Kitch
David R. Long
J. Edward Marsden
Miami Valley REACT
National Association of Business and Educational Radio, Inc.
National Capital REACT, Inc.
John Nixon
Suzanne Nixon
Northern Utah Citizens Communication Association
Orange County REACT
Palomar Communications, Inc.
William Pattee
Pennsylvania Emergency Communications Council, Inc.
Personal Radio Steering Group, Inc.
Eric Piee
Pinellas Public Radio
John S. Powell
REACT International, Inc.
Michael G. Redman
Repeater Users Group
Rocky Mountain Patrol, Inc.
William F. Ruck
Richard L. Ryan
San Angelo REACT Association
Carl J. Schlueter
Michael R. Schweizer
Roger D. Snyder
Southwestern REACT of San Diego County, Inc.
Special Industrial Radio Service Association, Inc.
Suburban REACT Team 3410 of Upper Darby, Pennsylvania
Kenneth Tangen
James D. Teague
John C. Thomas
Richard H. Westray
Mark D. Withers
APPENDIX C
List of Reply Comments Filed
Douglas A. Barker
Capital City Communications, Inc.
Tim Culek
Electronic Industries Association, Personal Communications Section
David R. Long
Personal Radio Steering Group, Inc.
David S. Powell
John S. Powell
Edward W. N. Smith
Special Industrial Radio Service Association, Inc.
Suburban REACT Team #3410 of Upper Darby, Pennsylvania
Robert C. Wallenburg
Michael J. Wooden
Risa Yager
<EOF>
TUCoPS is optimized to look best in Firefox® on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986-2024 AOH
