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 Notice, 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 Report and Order 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