WPC?" 2MBERKZ3|j X0#Xj\  P6G;+XP#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""0 bands and in response to the petitions for reconsideration we received, this MO&O clarifies our  X)0 `decisions in the R&O, and where necessary, makes appropriate modifications to the rules. We  also address several issues raised by petitioners that would have a major impact on the  X0implementation of the R&O. The significant decisions in this MO&O are as follows: X` hp x (#X hp x (#  X0 @XqWe maintain the adopted channel plan because we conclude that this plan provides the  @most flexibility for and least hardship to existing users, while still accomplishing our  @goal of increasing spectrum efficiency. We will, however, permit frequency  @pcoordinators to recommend frequencies for any technology with lesser bandwidth, including 5 kHz, provided that interference is not caused to other systems.(#  XG0 @XqWe extend the first transition date for the type acceptance of narrowband equipment  X00 @@from August 1, 1996, to the effective date of the rule amendments of this MO&O, and retain the second transition date of January 1, 2005.(#  X0 @XqWe clarify the rules regarding type acceptance to provide greater flexibility for  @manufacturers to support existing equipment and, where appropriate, to provide alternatives to our efficiency standards.(#  X#0 @XqWe clarify a variety of technical rules including, but not limited to, those pertaining  @0to new power/antenna height limits, the emission mask, and frequency stability requirements. (# X hp x (#X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: ԍqJoint Petitioners Petition for Reconsideration at 19-20. j Additionally, they  argue that the transition date for conversion to 6.25kHz equipment should be extended because  XQ0 P"... there is not an established or proven narrowband technology readily available...".jQ  yO ԍqJoint Petitioners Petition for Reconsideration at 13-14. j To  remedy this situation, the Joint Petitioners request that the first transition date be extended to  X#0  August 1, 1998, and that the second transition date be extended to January 1, 2014.g#.  yO ԍqJoint Petitioners Petition for Reconsideration at 21. g  Additionally, License Communication Services, Inc. (LCS) requests that the Commission not  make any rule changes to Part 90 regarding technical requirements until assurance that all  X0required equipment has been developed and thoroughly tested.W  yOM# ԍqLCS Petition for Reconsideration at 2.W  X0 ` q 14. ` ` NTT and Securicor oppose the Joint Petitioners' arguments. NTT states that the  X0 position of the Joint Petitioners "... reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the R&O, which  0 does not mandate the production or use of any particular type of technology according to a fixed"N ,-(-(ZZ@"  X0 @ timetable."d  yOy ԍqNTT Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration at 3.d Regarding narrowband technology, Securicor states that the current state-of-the-art  is defined by 5kHz systems operating in the 220-222MHz band. Securicor contends that "[t]he  psuggestion of the Joint Petitioners that very narrowband systems are unproven simply ignores  X0reality to the detriment of the public interest."j X  yO ԍqSecuricor Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration at 5.j  X0 ` q15.  DATES ` ` Discussion. We disagree with the Joint Petitioners. As noted by NTT, the  Xx0  transition dates established in the R&O do not require manufacturers to take any specific action.   While our transition plan sets standards that manufacturers must meet in order to type accept new   equipment, each manufacturer decides when it will actually introduce new narrowband equipment.  Consequently, we believe it is unnecessary to make extensive changes to the adopted transition  @ dates and, thus, deny the Joint Petitioners' request to do so. Additionally, we note that a number  X 0 `of manufacturers have already type accepted equipment that is compliant with the new rules.h!X   yO    ԍqAs of December 10, 1996, the following manufacturers have type accepted equipment which complies with  Pthe new rules: Kenwood, Motorola, Ericsson, Tait, Yaesu, E.F. Johnson, Maxon, Daniels, Philips, Standard, Midland, Scope, Icom, Hexagon, Pyramid, RELM, Transcrypt, and Hohe El.h  X 0 0However, in consideration of the time elapsed between the R&O and adoption of this MO&O,  X 0 Pand because this MO&O modifies rules which affect the type acceptance of equipment, we are  pextending the first transition date from August 1, 1996, to the effective date of the rule  X 0  amendments of this MO&O. Further, because users are not required to replace existing systems,  @we find no reason to require equipment that meets the new type acceptance standards to be in  place prior to the effective date of the rules. Therefore, we deny LCS's request. However, to   remove the uncertainty in trying to anticipate the amount of time necessary to attain a type  XU0 p acceptance grant,"U  yO   ԍqDue to factors such as the complexity and completeness of applications for type acceptance, the amount of time between when an application is filed and when type acceptance is actually granted can not reliably be predicted. we are amending Section 90.203 of our rules to clarify that the transition dates refer to type acceptance application filing deadlines, rather than type acceptance grants.  X0 q(2) ` ` Public Safety Users  X0 `  q16.TRANSITION-PS ` ` Petitions. APCO asks that we reconsider our decision not to adopt specific  X0 p deadlines for public safety users to transition from the current 25/30kHz channels.X#`  yO! ԍqAPCO Petition for Reconsideration at 3.X It states that  X0 the measures being considered in the FNPRM do not provide sufficient incentives for public   safety users to expeditiously transition to narrower equipment because the objectives, concerns,  X0  and economic status of public safety users are quite different from other private spectrum users.$  {O+&   @ԍqThe FNPRM seeks to explore issues regarding exclusivity with the right to lease excess capacity, the implementation of a user fee system, and the use of competitive bidding. " J $,-(-(ZZ"  `In order to relieve congestion in public safety spectrum allocations, APCO requests that we  X0implement the following schedule for public safety users:X%  yOb ԍqAPCO Petition for Reconsideration at 5.X  X0 X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: ԍqSee R&O at footnote 116.O Implied, but not stated explicitly, in Section 90.203(j)(7) of our rules is an  X 0 @exemption from the spectrum efficiency requirements imposed by the R&O. We are modifying our rules to state explicitly this exemption.  X 0 D. qPower/Antenna Height Limits  X 0 ` q27. HAAT  ` ` In the R&O, we adopted new power and antenna height limitations based on the   "safe harbor" tables submitted by the Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) in its  X0 Pcomments to the Refarming Notice.=( {O ԍqSee id. at para. 69; Comments of LMCC to Refarming Notice at 17. These new limits, as set forth in Section 90.205 of our   rules, allow various combinations of effective radiated power (ERP) and antenna height above  average terrain (HAAT) based upon the size of an applicant's desired service area and the  X<0 applicant's operating frequency.>Z<~( yOk   ԍq"Average terrain" is defined as the average elevation of the terrain between 3.2 and 16 km (2 and 10 miles)  `from the antenna site. HAAT is defined as the height of the center of the radiating element of the antenna above  {O the average terrain. See 47 C.F.R.  90.309(a)(4) (provides the HAAT calculation method). In general, the rules allow for a maximum ERP of 500 watts  and maximum service area radii of 40 km in the VHF band and 32km in the UHF band. The  rules state that larger areas, up to 80 km, will be authorized provided that the applicant  pdemonstrates that the requested station parameters will not produce coverage in excess of that  X0 @which is required.l?( {O1 ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  90.205(d)(1) and 90.205(g)(1).lLGE AREA JUSTIFY However, areas larger than 80 km will be authorized on a secondary basis.  Finally, these new rules only apply to new stations, which were defined as stations not  X0functionally integrated with an earlier-installed system.Q@2 ( {O# ԍqSee R&O at paras. 69 73.Q  X0 " @,-(-(ZZ"  X0q(1) ` ` Power/Antenna Height Tables   X0 `  q28.P/A-TABLES ` ` Petitions. APCO, Automobile Association of America (AAA), Alarm Industry  @ Communications Committee (AICC), Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA), and  UTC assert that the power/antenna height tables are based on the assumption of average terrain  X0  conditions and may not be accurate as they do not account for extreme terrain.+AX( yO   @ԍqAPCO Petition for Reconsideration at 7, AICC Petition for Reconsideration at 6, AAA Petition for  Reconsideration at 2-3, PCIA Petition for Reconsideration at 4, and UTC Comments on Petition for Reconsideration at 6-7.+ In this  connection, they argue that special separation criteria should be developed for systems that  Xa0 operate in the 150-174MHz and 421-512MHz bands under conditions of extreme terrain.Ba( {O ԍqSee, e.g., AICC Petition for Reconsideration at 6 and AAA Petition for Reconsideration at 2-3. Such  consideration would be similar to the special separation tables developed to prevent harmful  X30 interference between co-channel users who operate in extreme terrain in the 800MHz band.QC3z( {O^ ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  90.621.Q  Further, they, as well as LMCC, advocate that a streamlined process for deviating from the  @power/antenna height tables be considered for applicants that operate in areas of non-uniform  X 0  terrain.D ( {O ԍqSee, e.g., LMCC Petition for Reconsideration at 8 and APCO Petition for Reconsideration at 7. Additionally, they request that applicants be permitted to use any commonly accepted  propagation model to demonstrate radio system coverage, as long as the model is properly  @identified and the applicant explains why the model will provide more accurate results than the  X 0  !power/antenna height tables.E ( {O   ԍqSee, e.g., AAA Petition for Reconsideration at 23, AICC Petition for Reconsideration at 6, and UTC Comments to Petitions for Reconsideration at 7. Finally, to avoid needless expense and delay, and because requests  for service areas greater than 40 km in the VHF band and 32 km in the UHF band will be  reviewed by the frequency coordinators, the petitioners ask that a formal waiver not be required  Xd0for such requests.Fd ( {O  ԍqSee, e.g., PCIA Petition for Reconsideration at 4 and APCO Petition for Reconsideration at 7.  X60 ` pq29. ` ` In addition, LMCC seeks clarification regarding whether applicants may operate  at power levels in excess of the reference ERP in the tables set forth in Sections 90.205(d) and  X0 90.205(g) of our rules if the antenna height above average terrain is reduced.XG ( yOC" ԍqLMCC Petition for Reconsideration at 8.X LMCC also  requests clarification on whether the Commission will permit systems to be licensed for ERPs in  X0 `excess of 500 watts.XH( yO% ԍqLMCC Petition for Reconsideration at 9.X LMCC points out that while the R&O states that the maximum allowable  PERP is 500 watts, Sections 90.205(d)(2) and 90.205(g)(2) of our rules permit the frequency"H,-(-(ZZp"  X0 coordinators to recommend ERP levels in excess of those specified in the safe harbor tables.XI( yOy ԍqLMCC Petition for Reconsideration at 9.X  Finally, LCS contends that the power reduction rules do not take into account changing weather  X0and atmospheric conditions which can cause variable path fading.WJX( yO ԍqLCS Petition for Reconsideration at 5.W  X0 ` q30. ` ` Discussion. We agree that special consideration should be given to the  power/antenna heights in areas of extreme terrain. We recognize that in these areas, average  @ terrain calculations may not provide accurate depictions of the actual terrain over which a system  will operate and therefore our tables may not provide an appropriate antenna height/power  Pcombination for a desired service area size. Although Sections 90.205(d)(2) and 90.205(g)(2) of  X30  our rules provide a method by which applicants can deviate from the tables,qK3( yO   ԍqOur current rules permit an applicant who requests a higher ERP than permitted in the tables to submit to  Pthe frequency coordinator a technical analysis, based upon generally accepted engineering practices and standards,  0that demonstrates that the requested station parameters will not produce a signal strength in excess of 37 dBu in the  {O$  VHF band or 39 dBu in the UHF band at any point along the edge of the requested service area. See 47 C.F.R.  90.205(d)(2) and 90.205(g)(2).q they do not clearly  indicate that this option is applicable to systems operating in areas of extreme terrain. In this  0connection, we modify Sections 90.205(d)(2) and 90.205(g)(2) to reflect this policy.  Additionally, Sections 90.205(d)(2) and 90.205(g)(2) allow the use of generally accepted   engineering practices and standards, including models that are widely accepted by the engineering  pcommunity, as producing outputs representative of real world results. However, we will not   routinely accept analyses based on these propagation models. We believe that this option should  0be available only in isolated instances where applicants need to deviate from the tables due to special circumstances.  XM0 ` q31. NOWAIVER  ` ` Applicants who demonstrate special circumstances (e.g., extreme terrain conditions  @or need for a larger service area) will not be required to submit a waiver request to the  Commission. Rather, the required engineering analysis should be submitted to the frequency   coordinator and as an attachment to the license application, FCC Form 600. Additionally, a  pwaiver request will be unnecessary for applicants who request service areas greater than 40km   in the VHF band and 32 km in the UHF band. These applications, however, pursuant to footnote  p4 in Tables 1 and 2 of Section 90.205 of our rules, must be accompanied by a justification for  the larger service area and include a technical analysis demonstrating that the signal strength at  the edge of the service area is within the specified guidelines. We will rely heavily on the recommendations of the frequency coordinators in considering such requests.  XR0 ` q32. ERPDEMO  ` ` Regarding the maximum allowable ERP and antenna height, we will allow   applicants to exceed the reference antenna height limits if they correspondingly lower their power.  In these cases, applicants must demonstrate that their signal strength at the edge of the service   area is within the specified guidelines. This approach is consistent with the requirements we have" K,-(-(ZZP"  X0 adopted for systems operating above 800 MHz.QL( {Oy ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  90.635.Q However, we affirm that the maximum  allowable ERP is 500 watts as specified in footnote 2 of the tables provided in Sections 90.205(d)  and 90.205(g) of our rules. This power limitation is intended to reduce the incidence of  X0over-powered stations and promote frequency reuse.QMZ( {O ԍqSee R&O at para. 73.Q  X0 ` @q 33. ` ` UTC requests clarification that the load shedding frequency, 154.46375MHz, is  Xv0  not subject to the power/antenna height tables of Section 90.205 of our rules.WNv( yO ԍqUTC Petition for Reconsideration at 6.W We note that the  tables in Section 90.205 only apply in instances when a power level is not otherwise specifically  XH0 @ provided in the rules.QOH|( {Ou ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  90.205.Q Thus, pursuant to Section 90.63(d)(6) of our rules, operations on the load  X10shedding frequency may continue to be authorized with up to 300 watts output power.VP1( {O ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  90.63(d)(6).V  X 0 ` q!34. ` ` We are not persuaded by LCS's argument that changes in the power/antenna height  tables are necessary to account for changing weather and atmospheric conditions. As an initial  X 0 matter, we note that the power/antenna height tables adopted in the R&O only apply to new  X 0 stations. Thus, contrary to LCS's contentions,WQ ( yO ԍqLCS Petition for Reconsideration at 5.W the operation of existing stations will not be  0affected by our adoption of these power/antenna height restrictions. We further note that the  @tables are based on F(50,50) curves which estimate the field strength exceeded at 50 percent of  0 the potential receiver locations for at least 50 percent of the time. These parameters are sufficient  for most systems to provide adequate signal levels to most receiver locations. Additionally,  weather effects, such as those due to water vapor, are negligible below microwave frequencies.  We recognize, however, that vegetation effects, such as those associated with forests, are very  real below microwave frequencies and may dictate more power. When conditions dictate that  a station require more power than the tables allow, remedies already exist under our rules, as discussed above.  X0 q(2) ` ` Classification of Base Stations   X0 `  q"35. P/A-BASE  ` ` Petitions. UTC and LMCC seek clarification of the rules that would classify all  X0 0base stations with service areas greater than 80 km as secondary.R0 ( yOa% ԍqUTC Petition for Reconsideration at 5; LMCC Petition for Reconsideration at 8-9. Both petitioners note that  certain geographic areas, particularly in western regions, warrant special consideration because  0the terrain in those areas provide few suitable transmitter sites. UTC further adds that, "[i]t"R R,-(-(ZZ"  would ill-serve the public interest if, for example, a public service utility were forced to accept   secondary status for its PLMR base station facilities simply because the utility optimized the use  of available transmitter sites ...". UTC suggests changing Sections 90.205(d)(3) and 90.205(g)(3)  of our rules to confer primary status on stations where there is a demonstration that a greater  X0service area is needed and that the use of additional transmitter sites is not practicable.WS( yO ԍqUTC Petition for Reconsideration at 6.W  Xv0 ` q#36. ` ` Discussion. We find merit in UTC's argument, and believe that some clarification   of our rules is necessary. We note that licensees who need to communicate over large distances  XJ0 generally employ systems that make extensive use of mobile relay stations,kTZJX( yOS   ԍqA "mobile relay station" is a base station in the mobile service authorized to retransmit automatically on  {O  a mobile service frequency, communications which originate on the transmitting frequency of the mobile station.   {O See 47 C.F.R.  90.7.k which are afforded  the protection of primary status under our rules. Thus, because mobile relay stations would  0 typically be within 80 km of another base station, primary status would be conferred on the entire  area that a licensee needs to cover. We believe that coverage areas up to 80 km around a single  base station will serve the vast majority of licensees. Further, we do not believe it unreasonable  @to expect that suitable base station sites can be found within 80 km of another base station.  Therefore, we will modify Sections 90.205(d)(3) and 90.205(g)(3) of our rules to confer primary  status for communications within 80 km from a base station. We also recognize that some  `licensees' operations may require primary status within a region larger than 80 km. Because we  anticipate that a limited number of licensees will have such needs, we will entertain waiver  requests for those instances where a licensee requests coverage by one base station for an area  greater that 80 km. If the licensee makes a sufficient showing, including but not limited to the  pability to provide coverage with the proposed facilities, we will grant the waiver request and make that base station primary over the entire coverage area.  X0 q(3) ` ` New Stations   X0 ` q$37. P/A-NEW  ` ` Petitions. Many petitioners, including AICC, LMCC, Page Hawaii, Inc. (Page  Hawaii), AzCOM Paging, Inc. (AzCOM), AAA, and UTC, seek clarification on what constitutes  X0 a new station.XUXz( yO   ԍqAICC Petition for Reconsideration at 5-6; LMCC Petition for Reconsideration at 10; Page Hawaii Petition   for Reconsideration at 6; AzCOM Petition for Reconsideration at 5-6; AAA Petition for Reconsideration at 4; UTC Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration at 8.X AICC states that our definition is ambiguous and, based on its plain language,  permits existing licensees to modify and expand their systems without being subject to the new  Xi0 power/antenna height rules.ZVi( yO$ ԍqAICC Petition for Reconsideration at 56.Z LMCC contends that "new stations" should not include existing  stations that modify their authorizations to change parameters such as location, frequency, or"R* V,-(-(ZZ"  X0 pemissions.YW( yOy ԍqLMCC Petition for Reconsideration at 10.Y Further, AAA urges the Commission to treat currently operating facilities that are  being converted for use on narrower channels as existing stations. In this connection, AAA  argues that existing licensees who elect to use more spectrally efficient equipment should not  X0have to add stations in order to maintain their current coverage.WXX( yO ԍqAAA Petition for Reconsideration at 4.W  X0 ` q%38. ` ` Page Hawaii and AzCOM request that additional transmitters and relocations not  Xv0 be considered "new stations."Yv( yO ԍqPage Hawaii Petition for Reconsideration at 6; AzCOM Petition for Reconsideration at 5. They request that the Commission allow full power operation,  as defined under the previous rules, if applicants indicate that proposed sites expand an existing  poperation. In addition, AAA and LMCC ask the Commission to confirm that grandfathering  X10 rights will be extended to stations whose ownership changes through transfer or assignment.Z1x( yOZ ԍqLMCC Petition for Reconsideration at 10; AAA Petition for Reconsideration at 4.  @Finally, LMCC and UTC request that the term "new stations" not include base stations and  mobile relay stations that are added to an existing system even if they are authorized to operate  X 0on different frequencies.[ ( yO ԍqLMCC Petition for Reconsideration at 10; UTC Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration at 8.  X 0 ` @q&39. ` ` Discussion. As a general matter, we elected to exempt existing stations from  X 0  complying with the power/antenna height tables adopted in the R&O in order to afford licensees  Pflexibility to modify, expand, or upgrade their facilities without adversely affecting their current  operations. Section 90.135 of our rules provides examples of permissible modifications to  pauthorized stations. Stations that modify their existing authorization in accordance with one of  the listed modifications will not be subject to the new power/antenna height rules. Thus,  modifications to frequency, emissions, power, antenna height, location and number of  X!0 transmitters, class of station, ownership, control, or corporate structure will be permitted.k\!( yOj ԍqApproval of modifications is made on a casebycase basis.k We  0decline to grant the request of UTC and LMCC to characterize the addition of base and mobile  P relay facilities that operate on different frequencies from an existing system as an existing system.  We believe that such an approach would allow a licensee to effectively create a new system by  adding new facilities on frequencies not previously authorized and not be subject to the new  power/antenna height tables. This result would be contrary to the underlying purpose of our exemption for existing stations.  Xi0 ` @q'40.NARROWNOTE ` ` Because Section 90.135(a) of the Commission's rules allows licensees to modify  Ptheir authorizations due to a change in emissions, the new power/antenna height limits will not  0apply to systems that are modified by converting to equipment designed for narrower channel";( \,-(-(ZZ"   bandwidths. Furthermore, if the only modification that a licensee makes to a system is a  Pnarrowing of its emission, a formal application for modification need not be filed with the  Commission. However, the licensee will be required to notify the Commission of this change  immediately, either by filing FCC Form 405-A or submitting a letter in accordance with Section  90.135(d) of the Commission's rules. We have modified Sections 90.135(a)(2) and 90.135(b) of our rules accordingly.  X_0 q(4) ` ` Paging Channels   X10 ` q(41.P/A-PAGING ` ` Petitions. Page Hawaii, AzCOM, and PCIA seek reconsideration of the  X 0 power/antenna height tables as they relate to private carrier paging channels.] ( yO   `ԍqPage Hawaii Petition for Reconsideration at 2-5; AzCOM Petition for Reconsideration at 2-4; PCIA Petition for Reconsideration at 5. Page Hawaii  X 0 0contends that rules promulgated in the R&O did not contain the proposed exception to the  X 0 antenna height/power limits for operators on certain private carrier paging frequencies._^ ( yO ԍqPage Hawaii Petition for Reconsideration at 2._ PCIA   states that "[s]ince paging systems are not required to specify area of operation ... it would appear  X 0  that the safe harbor table does not apply to such systems ..."X_ ( yO# ԍqPCIA Petition for Reconsideration at 5.X Further, PCIA originally suggested  that the Commission not change any of the technical rules for the paging channels and allow  `these systems to operate with up to 350 watts. Finally, Page Hawaii and AzCOM state that the  Pantenna height/power tables are based on the propagation of signal levels necessary for  communication with mobiles in average terrain (not within buildings) and are not appropriate to  XO0 0determine signal levels for paging systems.`O@( yO@ ԍqPage Hawaii Petition for Reconsideration at 3; AzCOM Petition for Reconsideration at2. APCO opposes the request by Page Hawaii and   AzCOM to raise the power levels for paging channels and states that "[p]aging systems operating  @ from the same (or nearby) high-level sites as public safety and other land mobile operations often  cause desensitizations and intermodulation. Increasing the power of the paging systems would  X0 greatly exacerbate the problem."va( yOt ԍqAPCO Opposition and Comments to Petitions for Reconsideration at 3-4.v In response, Page Hawaii and AzCOM acknowledge that a  higher potential for interference exists at higher power levels, but assert that it can be controlled  X0through the frequency coordination process.b` ( yO!   PԍqPage Hawaii Response to APCO Opposition to Petitions for Reconsideration at 2; AzCOM Response to APCO Opposition to Petitions for Reconsideration at 2.  X0 ` q)42. ` ` Discussion. We find the arguments of the paging companies persuasive. We  believe that our rules should reflect the differences between paging systems and the majority of  two-way mobile systems in the PLMR bands. In this connection, we will allow new one-way  @paging operations to operate at the same power levels that applied prior to the adoption of the"T b,-(-(ZZ"  X0 R&O, i.e., for most stations, 350 watts output power with no limit on ERP, on the frequencies  X0 specifically reserved for oneway paging.c( yOd   ԍqThe frequencies available for one-way paging are: 150.830MHz, 150.920MHz, 151.070MHz,  151.190MHz, 151.310MHz, 152.480MHz, 154.625MHz, 157.740MHz, 158.460MHz, 462.750MHz,  p462.775MHz, 462.800MHz, 462.825MHz, 462.850MHz, 462.875MHz, 462.900MHz, and 462.925MHz in the   Business Radio Service and 152.0075MHz, 157.450MHz, and 163.250MHz in the Special Emergency Radio Service. We have amended our rules to allow this type of  operation. Lower power limits will continue to apply in the Special Emergency Radio Service  X0 on 157.450MHz, which is limited to an output power of 30 watts,Wdx( {O ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  90.53(b)(11).W and in the Business Radio  X0 Service on 154.625 MHz and 158.460, which are limited to an output power of 20 watts,We ( {Oa ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  90.75(c)(15).W and  X0 465.000 MHz, which is limited to an output power of 35 watts.Wf( {O ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  90.75(c)(30).W Further, in the Business Radio  Service, 462.9375MHz, 464.9875 MHz, and 465.0125 MHz will be available only for low power  operations in order to prevent incidences of harmful interference between paging channels and  @ channels on which traditional two-way communications are permitted. Additionally, we note that  X30the Commission is considering changes to the paging rules in a separate proceeding.g\3. ( {O   `ԍqSee Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging  Systems and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding), WT Docket No.  {O 9618, PP Docket No. 93253, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 3108.  X 0  X 0E. qType Acceptance Requirements  X 0 ` q*43.TA REQMNTS ` ` The R&O allows manufacturers to continue producing and supporting 25kHz  X 0 equipment through upgrades and permissive changes.h R ( {O   pԍqSee R&O at para. 40. In general, permissive changes are those changes which result in equipment which  Pis electrically and mechanically interchangeable and do not change equipment beyond the rated limits established by  the manufacturer and accepted by the Commission when type acceptance is granted or which bring the performance  0of equipment beyond the rated limits as originally filed by the manufacturer but not below the minimum requirements  {O of the applicable rules. See 47 C.F.R.  2.1001. To this end, Section 90.203(j)(6) of our   rules permits permissive changes to transmitters designed to operate on channel bandwidths wider  X0 than 12.5kHz until August 1, 1996,i( {OK" ԍqSee para.  DATES15 , supra. for a discussion regarding a change to this transition date. except for transmitters that have the inherent capability  X}0for multi-mode or narrowband operation.Lj}( {O$ ԍqSee R&O at para. 102.L "f*j,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X0 ` q+44. ` ` Petitions. The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), Motorola, APCO,  X0 and UTC request that we reconsider our decision. k( yOd   ԍqTIA Petition for Reconsideration at 1-2; Motorola Petition for Reconsideration at 3-5; UTC Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration at 9; APCO Opposition and Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration at 4.  TIA and Motorola argue that it is  unnecessary to prohibit manufacturers from making minor design changes to existing 25kHz  X0  equipment because our rules already ensure a transition to more narrowband equipment.l ( yO ԍqTIA Petition for Reconsideration at 12; Motorola Petition for Reconsideration at 35.  `Motorola adds that "... it is important to maintain our flexibility to modify and improve these   radios in response to customer requirements, from changes in manufacturing technique, as a result  Pof efforts to reduce costs and from the necessity of making changes in components in order to  Xa0accommodate the availability of parts and subcomponents."\ma( yO ԍqMotorola Petition for Reconsideration at 4.\  X30 ` pq,45. ` ` Securicor, however, opposes this request.ln3@( yO$ ԍqSecuricor Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration at 3-4.l It asserts that the Commission has  Pprovided flexibility to manufacturers by allowing them to continue manufacturing spectrally  inefficient equipment as it is currently configured, or allowing upgrades and modifications  provided that a multi-mode feature is added. Securicor contends that granting this request is  Pinconsistent with the primary goal in this proceeding since it would excuse "...in perpetuity  X 0 compliance with the multi-mode requirement."]o ( yOA ԍqSecuricor Petition for Reconsideration at 4.] Finally, Securicor argues that if we grant this  request, we should "sunset" or extend any exception to no more than five years from the date of  X0 adoption of the R&O so that the availability of inefficient wideband equipment will not be facilitated indefinitely.  XO0 ` q-46.PERMISSIVE ` ` Discussion. Our intent is to allow only those modifications which would provide  pa multi-mode capability or a narrowband mode to existing equipment. In these instances,  manufacturers must obtain a new FCC Identifier for their equipment. Modifications which entail  the redesign of existing equipment will not be allowed. Our intention, however, is not to prevent  Pmanufacturers from supporting their existing equipment. Therefore, we are revising Section  90.203(j)(6) of our rules to clarify that we will continue to allow permissive changes to existing  equipment. We recognize that the life of some inefficient wideband equipment may be extended  through the use of permissive changes. However, we believe most users, especially those in  congested urban areas, will have a strong incentive to transition to narrowband equipment, thus  shrinking the market for wideband equipment. Therefore, because the number of permissive  changes will decline as a result of market forces, there is no need for specific action by the Commission.  X&0 "&` o,-(-(ZZ"  X0F. qFrequency Stability Limits  X0 `  q.47.STABILITY ` ` When compared to wideband channels, i.e., 25 kHz channels, the rules adopted in  X0  the R&O allow emissions on narrowband channels to occupy a larger percentage of the channel.p( yO6   0ԍqThe authorized bandwidth on a 25 kHz channel is 20 kHz, on a 12.5 kHz channel is 11.25 kHz, and on a  {O 6.25 kHz channel is 6 kHz. See 47 C.F.R. 90.209.  This combination of increased channel occupancy and narrower channel spacing increases the  importance of frequency stability to reduce adjacent channel interference. Therefore, the  Xz0Commission adopted stringent frequency stability requirements as recommended by TIA.Qqz"( {OM ԍqSee R&O at para. 93.Q  XL0 ` Pq/48. ` ` Petitions. SEA contends that the frequency stability limits for mobile radios  X70 @designed to operate with channel bandwidths of 6.25kHz are too restrictive.Wr7( yO ԍqSEA Petition for Reconsideration at 3.W It states that in  the 421-512MHz band, the emission masks adopted for 6.25kHz and 12.5kHz channels overlap  when placed 6.25kHz apart. Therefore, "[t]ight stability limits ... achieve nothing with regard  X 0 p to adjacent channel protection, since adjacent channels cannot coexist in the same area."Ws D( yO ԍqSEA Petition for Reconsideration at 6.W In the  150-174MHz band, SEA states that emission mask will allow same-area adjacent channel use,  but the frequency stability limits need not be as tight as those adopted. Motorola, in support of  SEA, states that the stability requirements can be eased because adjacent channels will be   protected through the frequency coordination process. Further, Motorola states that the TIA  0projections on which the adopted standards are based have "...proven to be overly ambitious  Xh0 ..."th( yO   ԍqEx parte presentation of Motorola on December 12, 1995; Letter from Motorola to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, dated January 25, 1996. Securicor recommends a "brickwall" approach at the channel edge, i.e., the Commission  should not impose any in-band restrictions, but should instead focus on out-of-band emissions.  Securicor contends that this approach would result in greater bandwidth utilization, would be  X%0technology neutral, and would sufficiently address problems cited by SEA.lu%, ( yO ԍqSecuricor Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration at 4-5.l  X0 ` q049. ` ` Additionally, SEA requests that the Commission allow mobile radios in the  150-174MHz and 421-512MHz bands to use the signal from associated base stations to achieve  X0 @ the specified frequency stability.Wv ( yO6$ ԍqSEA Petition for Reconsideration at 7.W SEA notes that such a provision would be similar to the rules  X0for the 220-222MHz band.WwL ( yO& ԍqSEA Petition for Reconsideration at 7.W"w,-(-(ZZ@"Ԍ X0 ` ԙq150.EASE STABILITY ` ` Discussion. We find the arguments of SEA and Motorola for easing the frequency  `stability requirements to be persuasive. We agree that, in the VHF band, a less stringent  requirement can be tolerated because of the presence of a small guard band created by our rules  X0 which limits emissions on the 7.5 kHz channels to an authorized bandwidth of 6kHz.Lx( {O6 ԍqSee 47 C.F.R. 90.209.L Further,   we believe that the frequency coordination process can compensate for less stringent requirements  in the UHF band. Therefore, as suggested by SEA, we modify Section 90.213 of our rules to  permit mobile radios that operate on narrowband channels to achieve minimum frequency  stabilities of 2 parts per million (ppm) in the VHF band and 1 ppm in the UHF band. We also  amend Section 90.213 of our rules to correct two minor errors in the frequency stability  X30 requirements for the 150174 MHz, 421512 MHz, and 800 MHz band allocations.yZ3Z( {O>   pԍqIn the R&O, the frequency stability for wideband, low power equipment operating in the 150174 MHz band  was listed as 5 ppm, rather than 50 ppm, the stability for wideband base stations operating in the 421512 MHz band was listed as 5 ppm, rather than 2.5 ppm, and Footnote 11 was inadvertently removed from the 800 MHz allocations. We,  however, reject the recommendation of Securicor to adopt a "brickwall" approach at the channel  X 0 0edge. This issue was addressed in the R&Oz |( {O2   ԍqSee R&O at para. 89. This approach was rejected in the R&O because the emission mask shape would be  0determined not only by the transmitters frequency stability but also by the authorized bandwidth of an adjacent  channel, which may vary depending on the needs of an adjacent channel user. This would lead to separate type  acceptance for each transmitter having different filtering to achieve the necessary mask shape and more complex  licensing procedures because determination of an adjacent channels bandwidth would require adjacent channel coordination. and Securicor has not provided any new substantive information.  X 0 ` q251. ` ` In the 220-222MHz band, mobiles may use the signal from the associated base  X 0  station to attain the specified frequency stability.^{ ( {OR ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  90.213, Footnote 12.^ However, in contrast to the Refarming bands,  0licensees in the 220-222MHz band have exclusivity and operate with duplex transmissions.  `Therefore, we believe that the rules pertaining to the 220-222MHz band are not appropriate for   comparison to the refarming bands which have a radio environment characterized by sharing and  many simplex systems. Because it is not apparent if these shared simplex channels can support  this function, we will not, at this time, permit mobiles to use the signal from the associated base  station to attain the specified frequency stability. If, in fact, it can be shown that these channels can support such a function, we will reconsider our decision.  X0 G. qEmission Mask  X0 q(1) ` ` Authorized Bandwidth  X0 `  q352. MASK-BW  ` ` In order to accommodate our new channel plan, we adopted new guidelines for  authorized bandwidth. For equipment designed to operate on 7.5kHz or 6.25kHz channels, the"i {,-(-(ZZ"  authorized bandwidth is 6kHz and for equipment designed to operate on 12.5kHz channels the  X0authorized bandwidth is 11.25kHz.U|( {Ob ԍqSee R&O at paras. 79-80.U  X0 ` pq453. ` ` Petitions. SEA requests that the authorized bandwidth for 6.25kHz channels in  X0 @the UHF and VHF bands be reduced to 5kHz.W}Z( yO ԍqSEA Petition for Reconsideration at 8.W It states that our emission mask makes the   benefit of a 6kHz authorized bandwidth "... illusory, since same-area operation is simultaneously  Xx0 @made impossible."r~Zx( yO   ԍqSEA Petition for Reconsideration at 9. SEA asserts that the emission mask for 6.25 kHz channels will  overlap the emission mask on the adjacent channel 6.25 kHz away, thereby precluding the use of that adjacent  {O channel. See SEA Petition for Reconsideration at 4.r Further, SEA argues that a 5kHz authorized bandwidth "... will not   jeopardize the successful development of data and digital modulation technologies on narrowband  XJ0channels."WJ ( yO ԍqSEA Petition for Reconsideration at 9.W  X 0 ` q554. ` ` Discussion. We decline to reduce the authorized bandwidth from 6kHz to 5kHz.   The 6 kHz authorized bandwidth was chosen to provide manufacturers with flexibility to  implement a wide range of modulation techniques. We note, however, that the emission mask   only serves as an upper limit and thus, manufacturers can employ any emission they desire as  `long as they do not exceed the specified limits. Therefore, if a manufacturer determines that  samearea operations cannot be achieved on adjacent narrowband channels, it can design its equipment with narrower emissions.  Xf0 q(2) ` ` Measurement Technique   X80 ` q655.MASK-MEASURE ` ` When determining the shape of a frequency mask, it is essential that  `instrumentation requirements and measurement procedures are defined. In general, transmitter  `emissions are measured using established industry standards. In this connection, EIA/TIA  X0 Standard 603 instructs radio manufacturers to use a resolution bandwidth of 300 Hz or less.( {O@ ԍqSee EIA/TIA Standard 603, Section 2.2.11 Methods of Measurement for Transmitters, Sideband Spectrum.  X0  Consistent with this standard, in the R&O, we determined that emissions of equipment designed  Pto operate in the Refarming bands should be measured using a resolution bandwidth of 100 Hz  X0with the measuring instrument in a peak hold mode.x. ( {O# ԍqSee 47C.F.R.  90.210(d)(4), 90.210(e)(4), and 90.210(m).x " ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X0 ` q756. ` ` Petitions. Motorola and SEA seek reconsideration of the measurement  X0  requirements.( yOd ԍqMotorola Petition for Reconsideration at 5-6; SEA Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration at 3-4. Motorola contends that using a resolution bandwidth of 100 Hz, rather than the  X0 300 Hz recommended by TIA, adds 5 dB of energy to the adjacent channel.^X( yO ԍqMotorola Petition for Reconsideration at 56.^ As a result,   Motorola argues that spectrum efficiency will be reduced by requiring greater separation distances  X0 p between systems operating on adjacent channels.^( yO? ԍqMotorola Petition for Reconsideration at 56.^ SEA agrees with Motorola, but recommends  0that the resolution bandwidth be left at 100 Hz, and that the attenuation of the emission masks  Xx0be adjusted 5 dB.Yxx( yO ԍqSEA Petition for Reconsideration at 34.Y  XJ0 ` q857. ` ` Discussion. We decline to adjust the measurement technique adopted in the R&O.  X50 PThe current industry trend for measuring digital emissions just outside the channel, i.e., the  0 adjacent channel, is to use measuring instrumentation having a resolution capability of 1% of the  bandwidth of the carrier emission. This is evidenced by measurement procedures and  interpretations that have been developed in our rules for the licensed Personal Communications  X 0 @Services (PCS) and unlicensed PCS devices.f ( {O ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  15.321(d) and 15.323(d).f A resolution bandwidth of 1% of the carrier   emission bandwidth provides a reasonable compromise where the emission's interference potential  @can be measured and the instrumentation will not detrimentally affect the measurement. Using  a 100 Hz resolution bandwidth for equipment in the Refarming bands approximates the 1%  X0 standard that has been accepted by the affected industries in other rule makings.( {O   ԍqSee, e.g., Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal Communicating Services, GEN  {O Docket No. 90314, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6908 (1994). Finally, we  `believe the claim of a 5dB increase in energy to the adjacent channel to be overstated because  P it assumes a uniform level of energy across the measurement window without taking into account  the roll-off of energy at the band edges that results from the emission mask. Therefore, we conclude that any effects on the adjacent channel will be less than 5 dB.  X0 H. qFM Modulation Requirements  X0 ` q958. FM MOD  ` ` In order to promote flexibility for manufacturers to introduce new and innovative  modulation techniques in the PLMR bands below 512MHz, we revised Section 90.211 of our  rules to eliminate those requirements that were primarily applicable to radios that use frequency  X0modulation (FM).L ( {O)& ԍqSee R&O at para. 105.L "k ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X0 ` q:59.MODULATION-FM ` ` Petitions. While TIA supports our objective, it disagrees with our decision to  X0 0remove specified deviation limits for FM.Y( yOd ԍqTIA Petition for Reconsideration at 3-4.Y It states that compatibility among different FM  technologies is ensured by maintaining FM modulation deviation limits and filter  X0 characteristics.WX( yO ԍqTIA Petition for Reconsideration at 4.W Therefore, TIA recommends that the modulation limits for F3E( yOV ԍqF3E is the emission designator used for analog telephony using frequency modulation. emissions  @be reinserted into the rules with their respective low pass post limiter transmitter filter  X0characteristics.Wx( yO ԍqTIA Petition for Reconsideration at 4.W  Xa0 ` q;60. ` ` Discussion. We disagree with TIA's contention. In the R&O, we revised Section  90.211 of the Commission's rules to remove specifications for filter characteristics and to require  that equipment meet the emission masks specified in Section 90.210. Additionally, we eliminated  @FM deviation requirements from Section 90.209 of our rules. Our rationale for each of these  decisions was to provide manufacturers flexibility in designing and implementing radio  specifications. In this connection, we believe that setting specifications for FM would be  @inconsistent with such rationale. In response to TIA's desire for compatibility, we believe that  if users place a high value on compatibility, then the marketplace will dictate that manufacturers  include it in their product specifications. Further, we believe that it is more appropriate for compatibility to be achieved as a result of marketplace forces rather than regulatory requirements.  Xf0 I. qFormer Low Power Offset Channels  X80 ` q<61.FORMER LP ` ` With the adoption of a new channel plan, many frequency allocations and  assignments were altered, particularly those of the former low power offset channels. Our   method for assigning new narrowband frequency assignments in the 421-512MHz band consisted  pof creating three new narrowband channels at frequencies above each existing wideband   assignment. These narrowband channels were given the same limitation restrictions as the  X0 0channel immediately below them in frequency.Q( {O~ ԍqSee R&O at para. 60.QNEW CHNL ASSIGN One result of the new channel plan is that   channels formally available as low power offset channels under Section 90.267 of our rules are   now available as regularly assignable channels for high power operations. Additionally, the new  channel plan resulted in a reallocation of some of these channels from one radio service to  another by allocating channels that were between allocations for two different radio services to  `the radio service or services where the lower of the channels was allocated. For example, since  0452.100MHz is allocated to the Forest Products and Taxicab Radio Services, the channel at  0452.1125MHz, previously available as a low power offset channel in the Special Industrial and  Taxicab Radio Services, was reallocated by the new channel plan to the Forest Products and" ,-(-(ZZp"   Taxicab Radio Services. In this connection, we grandfathered licensees on their existing channel  0if, due to this reallocation, the channel for which they were licensed was no longer available in  `the radio service for which they were eligible. These grandfathered channels were identified in  the frequency listing of each radio service with a limitation that prevents future licensing, but allows renewal and modification of existing systems.  Xv0 q(1) ` ` New Limitations  XH0 ` `q=62.FORMER LP-LIMITATIONS ` ` Petitions. The Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) states that several new high power  channels in the Business Radio Service which were previously available as low power offset   channels under former Section 90.267 of our rules have new restrictions that appear to have been  X 0 added to protect operations on adjacent channels.V ( yO~ ԍqHP Petition for Reconsideration at 6.V Specifically, HP asks that we reexamine  permissible uses for former offset channels that, under the new channel plan, are now subject to  X 0 Limitation 25.! X( {O   ԍqSee HP Petition for Reconsideration at 6, Footnote 7. The former low power offset channels that are now  0subject to Limitation 25 are: 460.6625MHz, 460.6875MHz, 460.7125MHz, 460.7375MHz, 460.7625MHz,   460.7875MHz, 460.8125MHz, 460.8375MHz, 460.8625MHz, 460.8875MHz, 465.6625MHz, 465.6875MHz,   465.7125MHz, 465.7375MHz, 465.7625MHz, 465.7875MHz, 465.8125MHz, 465.8375MHz, 465.8625MHz, and 465.8875MHz.! Limitation 25 specifies certain frequencies for use on a primary basis only in  X 0 0 and around specific airports, and allows on a secondary basis, low power, i.e., 2 watt, use at least  16 km removed from each airport. HP also requests that we reconsider permissible uses of   former low power offset channels that, under the new channel plan, are now subject to Limitation  046, which freezes licensing until August 18, 1996, and limits the authorized bandwidth to  Xf0 6kHz.QZf ( {O!   ԍqSee HP Petition for Reconsideration at 6, Footnote 7. The former low power offset channels that are now  subject to limitation 46 are: 464.4875MHz, 464.5125MHz, 464.5375MHz, 464.5625MHz, 469.4875MHz, 469.5125MHz, 469.5375MHz, and 469.5625MHz.Q Finally, HP questions whether 466.0125MHz, which was previously available as a low  Ppower offset to all eligibles in the Business Radio Service, should now be subject to Limitation  X80 28.l8, ( {O ԍqSee HP Petition for Reconsideration at 6, Footnote 8.l Limitation 28 restricts licensees to central station commercial protection systems.W8 ( {O ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  90.75(c)(28).W HP  !believes that these new restrictions are neither necessary, nor intended to restrict uses, such as low  X 0power medical telemetry, which were authorized under former Section 90.267 of our rules.` P ( {O # ԍqSee HP Petition for Reconsideration at 6.`  X0 ` q>63. ` ` Several other petitioners express concern regarding the allocation and use of certain  `former low power offset frequencies. APCO requests clarification as to why certain "mobile   only" channels in the 450-470MHz band have a limitation which prohibits licensing new stations",-(-(ZZ"  X0 after August 18, 1995.X( yOy ԍqAPCO Petition for Reconsideration at 8.X PCIA contends that the former Business Radio Service offset  pfrequencies 462.0125MHz through 462.1875MHz, which are now allocated to the Special  X0 Emergency Radio Service (SERS), should be allocated to the Business Radio Service.XX( yO ԍqPCIA Petition for Reconsideration at 6.X The  Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Health (Virginia) states that the Special Emergency  Radio Service frequency table in Section 90.53(a) of our rules lists 467.9625MHz and  X0 P467.9875MHz, but fails to include their associated 462MHz frequencies.\( yO& ԍqVirginia Petition for Reconsideration at 4.\ Finally, Virginia  expresses concern that the elimination of Section 90.555 of our rules, which contained a  comprehensive list of frequencies assignable under Part 90, has obscured the reallocation of  XH0existing and new frequencies.\Hx( yOq ԍqVirginia Petition for Reconsideration at 5.\  X 0 ` pq?64. ` ` Discussion. In the R&O, we imposed restrictions on some former low power offset  channels in order to protect primary users on the same and adjacent channels from harmful  interference. Because communications on the grounds of an airport could affect the safety of  p aircraft, crew members, passengers, and ground personnel, and the specified separation distances  of Limitation 25 protect against harmful interference, we will not alter such restrictions.  @However, we do agree with HP regarding the use of medical telemetry devices on certain  frequencies. Due to the low operating power of medical telemetry devices, we believe that their  interference potential to airport operations is minimal. Therefore, we will allow their use on a  @ secondary, non-interference basis on former low power offset channels now subject to Limitation  25, provided that their output powers do not exceed 20 milliwatts. Additionally, we will allow  low power medical telemetry on a secondary, non-interference basis on 466.0125MHz, which  @under the new channel plan is reserved for central station commercial protection systems. We are revising the frequency table in Section 90.75(b) of our rules to reflect these changes.  X0 ` q@65. ` ` In the Business Radio Service, channels adjacent to the "color dot""( yO   `ԍqCertain low power and itinerant frequencies in the Business Radio Service that are used for very low tier,  low cost, entry level communications are commonly referred to as color dot frequencies because their operating  frequencies are designated by a colored dot or star attached to the radio. These channels were not narrowed beyond  {O 12.5kHz. See R&O at para. 101. channels were  restricted to 6.25 kHz channels by Limitation 46 in order to minimize adjacent channel   interference from new high power users. Upon reexamination of the channel plan, we find this  restriction to be unnecessary. If emissions on these adjacent channels are permitted to occupy  a 12.5 kHz channel, users will avoid adjacent channel interference because emissions within the  0 authorized bandwidth of the "color dot" channel and its adjacent channel will not overlap. Thus,   adequate protection exists between the "color dot" channel and an adjacent 12.5 kHz channel. "P ,-(-(ZZ"   Accordingly, these channels, similar to the bandwidth restrictions imposed on most other former  X0low power offset channels, will be subject to limitation 24,u( yOb ԍqLimitation 24 specifies a maximum authorized bandwidth of 11.25kHz.u rather than Limitation 46.  X0 ` qA66. ` ` In response to requests for clarification regarding specific channels, we reexamined   all channels that were reallocated from one radio service to another and made several changes  to the frequency tables to correct errors. Additionally, in the Police Radio Service, eligibility for  Xv0  use of 460.0125MHz, which is currently restricted to current licensees only,PvX( {O ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  90.19.P has been modified  X_0 @to allow use by new low power licensees._( yO ԍqThis channel was a low power offset channel under the former 47 C.F.R.  90.267. New high power stations on 460.0125MHz will  continue to be prohibited in order to protect adjacent Domestic Public Radio users who operate  under Part 22 of our rules. Finally, we have added 467.9375MHz to the Business Radio Service  X 0 but restricted it to low power use in order to protect an adjacent 12.5kHz color dot channel. z( yOE ԍqThis channel was a low power offset channel under the former 47 C.F.R.  90.267. Appendix B is a table of the reallocated channels in each radio service.  X 0 q(2) ` ` Operation and Licensing Requirements  X 0 ` `qB67.FORMER LP-OPERATION ` ` The R&O provided several operational alternatives for licensees authorized on the   former low power offset channels. One option is to remain on their current channels and achieve   primary status by providing sufficient justification to raise power. A second option is to migrate   to designated low power channels and achieve primary status on those channels. A third option  XM0is to remain on their current channel at low power and continue to have secondary status.UM ( {O ԍqSee R&O at paras. 62-65.U  X0 ` qC68. ` ` Petitions. AICC contends that licensees should be able to attain primary status  without raising power because "[m]aking licensees increase power for the sole purpose of  achieving primary status on the channel runs counter to the Commission's desire to obtain  X0 maximum use of the channels ...".X( yO) ԍqAICC Petition for Reconsideration at 5.X Additionally, AICC asks whether stations wishing to  X0 increase power need to file a letter notification or an application to provide coordinates.X, ( yO" ԍqAICC Petition for Reconsideration at 3.X  `Finally, AICC suggests that the Commission continue to allow the current practice for alarm  Ptransmitters of providing coordinates for the center of an operating area and the radius around" ,-(-(ZZ0"  Pthese coordinates in which transmitters will operate rather than requiring each fixed transmitter  X0to be individually licensed.X( yOb ԍqAICC Petition for Reconsideration at 3.X  X0 ` `qD69. ` ` Decision. As an initial matter, recognizing that any decision regarding changes  in power requirements on former low power offset channels will be affected by our resolution  X0 pof the exclusivity issues raised in the FNPRM in this proceeding, we defer decisions on this  Xz0 matter to a future Order. Regarding the requirement to furnish coordinates, we note that  Psituations exist where it is neither feasible nor desirable for a licensee to furnish coordinates of  Pall transmitters in their system. For example, central station alarm systems have a very large  P subscriber base which is continually changing. Moreover, because the Commission's records are  open to public inspection, disclosure of coordinates for alarm system subscribers could provide  X 0 @burglars with a list of attractive properties.Z X( yO ԍqAICC Petition for Reconsideration at 3-4.Z Therefore, we will allow licensees to supply only   coordinates of the center of an operating area and a radius when all stations are fixed, low power,  X 0i.e., not to exceed 2 watts, stations.  X 0 J. qNew Low Power Offset Channels  X0 ` @qE70.LP-NEW OFFSETS ` ` When we eliminated the low power offset channels in the R&O, we established   new low power offset channels because low power operations have been beneficial to private land  XU0 mobile radio operations.mU( {O ԍqSee, e.g., Comments of HP to Refarming Notice 2.m These new low power offset channels are 3.125kHz removed from  X>0regularly assignable channels and are authorized only on a secondary, non-interference basis.Q>z( {Oi ԍqSee R&O at para. 66.Q  X0 `  qF71. ` ` Petitions. PCIA opposes our creation of these channels.X ( yO ԍqPCIA Petition for Reconsideration at 2.X First, PCIA contends   that low power users will be accommodated through coordinator designated exclusive low power  channels and the color dot channels. Second, PCIA argues that these new low power offset  channels will recreate difficulties which existed with the former low power offset channels due  to the lack of a requirement for licensees to furnish the geographic coordinates of their systems.  P And third, PCIA states that these new low power offset channels may have the unintended effect   of preventing the use of primary channels by wideband, spectrally efficient systems. There were no oppositions to PCIA's petition.  XC0 ` qG72. ` ` Discussion. We agree with PCIA that these low power offset channels could  Ppotentially have a detrimental effect on the operations on primary channels. Therefore, we will  Premove the new low power offset channels from Section 90.267(b) of our rules. However, in",-(-(ZZ"   light of technological advances and usage patterns in these bands, we reserve the right to revisit this issue in the future.  X0  X0K. qEmergency Medical Radio Service/Special Emergency Radio Service  X0 ` 0qH73.EMRS/SERS ` ` In the Report and Order in PR Docket 9172, where we established the Emergency  Xx0 pMedical Radio Service (EMRS),x( {O   `ԍqAmendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Create the Emergency Medical Radio Service, Report  {O and Order, PR Docket No. 91-72, 8 FCC Rcd 1454 (1993). we assigned the 453MHz and 458MHz frequencies used for  medical paging systems in the SERS to the Emergency Medical Radio Service. SERS users were  XJ0 permitted to continue operating on these channels as primary users for a period of five years.\J$( yO ԍqThe fiveyear period ends January 14, 1998.\  X30 In the R&O, the SERS frequencies reassigned to the EMRS were rechannelized at the new narrowband spacings.  X 0q (1) ` ` Paging Channels   X 0 ` PqI74.EMRS/SERS-PAGING ` ` Petitions. The International Municipal Signal Association and International  Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. (IMSA/IAFC) and Virginia request removal of the new channels  X0 pthat arose from splitting the 453MHz and 458MHz channels from the SERS.( yO ԍqIMSA/IAFC Petition for Reconsideration at 3; Virginia Petition for Reconsideration at 4. IMSA/IAFC  contends that "there is no reason to expand SERS use of these frequencies by designating split  Xh0channels in the SERS."]hD( yO] ԍqIMSA/IAFC Petition for Reconsideration at 3.] q  X:0 ` 0qJ75. ` ` Discussion. We agree with IAFC/IMSA and Virginia and will remove the  453MHz narrowband channels from the SERS frequency table in Section 90.53(a) of our rules.  X0 The 453MHz channels, by rule, are not available for new licensees in the SERS.n( {O ԍqSee paragraph NEW CHNL ASSIGN61, supra.n Similar   action is not necessary on the 458MHz channels because they were removed from Section 90.53 of our rules when the EMRS was created. " f ,-(-(ZZ"  X0q (2) ` ` MED Channels   X0 ` qK76.EMRS/SERS-MED ` ` In the EMRS, MED channels are used for emergency medical communications.<$( yOK   ԍqMED channels 18 are assigned in a block to all new EMRS radio systems for shared operation among  {O  persons or entities engaged in the provision of basic or advanced life support services on an ongoing basis. See 47  C.F.R.  90.27(c)(13). MED channels 9 10 are primarily authorized for the dispatch of medical care vehicles and  {O personnel for the rendition or delivery of medical services. See 47 C.F.R.  90.27(c)(11).<  X0 Prior to adoption of the R&O, there were 10 MED channels, designated as MED-1 through  MED-10. The new channel plan created 3 new MED channels higher in frequency than each  existing MED channel. These new channels, designated as MED-A through MED-X, were  passigned as follows: MED-A, MED-B, and MED-C were assigned between MED-1 and MED-2,  MED-D, MED-E, and MED-F were assigned between MED-2 and MED-3. The new MED channels higher in frequency than MED-9 and MED-10 were not labeled.  X 0 ` qL77. ` ` Petitions. Virginia and The State of Florida Division of Communications (Florida)  propose changing our approach to labeling the MED channels to one that is entirely numeric.  Under Virginia's proposal, the channel 12.5kHz above MED-1 would be denoted as MED-11,  @the channel 6.25kHz above MED-1 as MED-21, and the channel 18.75kHz above MED-1 as  X 0 MED-31.g ( yO' ԍqVirginia Petition for Reconsideration at Attachment A.g Virginia states that their plan "would show solid relationships between new  assignments and existing users, allow an orderly assignment of the channels, and allow similarly  X0  numbered channels to be aggregated for equivalent efficiencies."\D( yO ԍqVirginia Petition for Reconsideration at 3.\ Virginia further states that  !since alphabetic characters are already used to denote sites, regions, and subaudible tones, its plan  Xf0 @would minimize confusion.\f( yO ԍqVirginia Petition for Reconsideration at 3.\ Florida's plan would denote the channels 6.25kHz, 12.5kHz, and  XO018.75kHz above MED-1 as MED-11, MED-21, and MED-31, respectively.fOd ( yOd ԍqFlorida Petition for Reconsideration at Attachment A.f  X!0 ` qM78. ` ` Discussion. We agree with Virginia and Florida that a different labeling approach  pis needed for the new MED channels because any confusion regarding their designation could   potentially interfere with the communication of messages necessary to ensure public safety. We  0believe, however, that both the plans proposed by Virginia and Florida also have the potential  0to create confusion if implemented. For example, the channel 12.5kHz above MED-3 would be  @denoted as MED-13 under Virginia s plan and as MED-23 under Florida s plan. We believe  X0 `that these channel designations could easily be interpreted as the third new channel, i.e., 18.75  pkHz, above MED1 or the third new channel above MED-2, respectively. We believe a more   logical labeling approach would be to use a trailing 1, 2, or 3 to designate the position of the new   MED channels in relation to the existing MED channels. For example, the channel 6.25kHz  above MED-3 will be designated as MED-31, the channel 12.5kHz above MED-3 as MED-32,"?! ,-(-(ZZ"  and the channel 18.25kHz above MED-3 as MED-33. Thus, we will adopt this labeling  approach for designating the channel positions accorded to each of the 10 MED channels. We  are revising Sections 90.27(c)(11) and 90.27(c)(13) of our rules consistent with this new labeling approach.  X0 L. qExemption From Technical Standards  X_0 ` `qN79.TECH EXEMPTION ` ` Currently, Section 90.217 of our rules exempts transmitters used in the Business   Radio Service that have an output power not exceeding 120 milliwatts from the technical  X10requirements imposed by our rules, provided that they meet minimum emission limitations.Q1( {O ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  90.217.Q  X 0 ` qO80. ` ` Petitions. HP, AMRT, and Schlumberger, supported by UTC, request that the  X 0 current exemption be expanded to include all private land mobile radio services. Z( yO   ԍqHP Petition for Reconsideration at 4; AMRT Petition for Reconsideration at 3; Schlumberger Petition for Reconsideration at 6; UTC Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration at 6. Schlumberger   states that this rule "ceases to have relevance in view of the Commission's decision to consolidate  X 0 the separate radio services."` ( yO# ԍqSchlumberger Petition for Reconsideration at 6.` AMRT asserts that an expansion of the current exemption to  include all transmitters operating under 120 milliwatts would "provide manufacturers with  X0additional design flexibility without increasing potential interference."XB( yO ԍqAMRT Petition for Reconsideration at 3.X  Xd0 ` qP81. ` ` Discussion. We agree that limiting this technical exemption to one class of users  no longer seems reasonable nor practical. Accordingly, we are expanding the current exemption to include all private land mobile radio services.  X!0  X 0M. qTransient Frequency Response  X0 ` PqQ82.TRANSIENT ` ` In order to assure that transient frequencies( yO_   0ԍq"Transient frequencies" are abrupt off-frequency emissions of short duration caused by the operation of a switch, such as the keying on or off of a radio transmitter. do not cause excessive interference  to land mobile licensees and television receivers in adjacent bands, the Commission adopted   standards for transient frequency behavior. These standards are based on EIA/TIA standard 603,  which sets allowable transient response for radios that operate in three frequency bands:  X030-300MHz, 300-500MHz, and 500-1000MHz.R* ( {O[% ԍqSee R&O at para. 107.R "i" ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X0 ` @qR83. ` ` Petitions. TIA and Motorola request that we clarify the new rules by declaring  X0 that they are only applicable to equipment type accepted after a specific date.( yOd ԍqTIA Petition for Reconsideration at 3; Motorola Petition for Reconsideration at 7. TIA states that  @"[t]his will help insure that existing and operational radios are grandfathered under the rules in  X0which they were authorized."WX( yO ԍqTIA Petition for Reconsideration at 3.W  X0 ` qS84. ` ` Also, Motorola notes that our rules for radios operating with a 25kHz channel  bandwidth are inconsistent with EIA/TIA standard 603 because the rules provide one standard  Xa0 for base and portable radios and a different standard for mobile radios.ea( yO ԍqMotorola Petition for Reconsideration at 7, Note 12.e Additionally, TIA  states that we inadvertently omitted standards for transmitters designed to operate in the  X30421-430MHz band._3x( yO\ ԍqTIA Petition for Reconsideration at 3, note 7._  X 0 ` qT85. ` ` Finally, Motorola recommends that the three frequency band columns ( yO   ԍqSection 90.214 of our rules, consistent with EIA/TIA Standard 603, provides separate standards for radios operating in the 150-174MHz, 450-500MHz, and 500-512MHz bands. listed in  section 90.214 of our rules be replaced by two frequency band columns, one for 150-174MHz  and one for 421-512MHz. In this connection, Motorola argues that "[t]here is no need to  distinguish between radios operating at 470-500MHz and 500-512MHz as the Commission's  X 0adopted rules provide."e ` ( yO ԍqMotorola Petition for Reconsideration at 7, note 12.e  X{0 ` 0qU86. ` ` Discussion. We decline to modify the implementation date of Section 90.214 of  @our rules. Since the new rules took effect on August 18, 1995, the Commission's Equipment  pAuthorization Division has been granting type acceptance based on transmitters meeting all of   the new technical requirements. Therefore, because there have been no objections to the transient   frequency requirements of Section 90.214, we see no reason to grant type acceptance to  ` transmitters that do not meet the new requirements. Further, given that we are not rescinding any  type acceptance grants, radios type accepted prior to August 18, 1995 are grandfathered for use   in the refarming bands. Additionally, granting type acceptance to radios that do not meet the new  Prequirements would be administratively burdensome because it would create two categories of  transmitters which would be difficult to track and identify in the future. We are, however,  modifying the rules by rectifying the error noted by Motorola and by correcting the omission of standards for radios that operate in the 421-430MHz band.  XR0 ` qV87. ` ` In addition, we adopt Motorola's recommendation to apply the standards for radios  that operate in the 421-500MHz band to radios that operate in the 500-512MHz band. Given";# ,-(-(ZZ"  that the standard for the 421-500MHz band is the more stringent one and radios are not type  P accepted for operation in just the 500512 MHz band, we conclude that separate standards for the 500512 MHz band are not necessary.  X0 N. qSection 90.271 Narrowband Operations  Xv0 ` qW88. 90.271  ` ` In accordance with our proposal in the Refarming Notice, we eliminated Section  Xa0  90.271 of our rules.Qa( {O ԍqSee R&O at para. 59.Q This rule section provided for 5kHz narrowband channels that were offset  @either 2.5kHz or 7.5kHz from regularly assignable channels in the 150-170MHz band.  X30 Additionally, the R&O provides that licensees on these channels will be permitted to remain on   their currently authorized frequency until August 1, 2001 if interference is not experienced. After such date, licensees will be required to move to one of the new VHF channels.  X 0 ` qX89. ` ` Petitions. Securicor asserts that users of these 5kHz channels, who operate the  most spectrally-efficient equipment in the PLMR bands, are being treated unfairly because they  Pmust modify their systems to comply with the new channel plan even if they do not experience  X0or cause interference.^Z( yO ԍqSecuricor Petition for Reconsideration at 12.^  Xh0 ` qY90.90.271 CONCERN ` ` Discussion. We share Securicor's concern about unnecessarily causing disruption   to existing operations. Therefore, to accommodate the needs of our licensees and to prevent the  Ppremature obsolescence of narrowband systems that are already operating in the 150-174MHz  band, we will extend by two years, until August 1, 2003, the date by which these licensees must  X0 migrate to one of the new VHF channels.( yO   ԍqLicensees who chose to offset their operating frequency 7.5kHz from a regularly assignable channel under Section 90.271 are already in compliance with the new channelization plan. Additionally, licensees may remain on their   currently assigned channels after August 1, 2003, on a secondary, non-interference basis. Because  Pthe number of licensees operating these narrowband systems is small and many of them are  already compatible with the new channel plan, only a limited number of licensees will be  impacted by these changes. We believe that this course of action will minimize disruption to existing systems in the 150174 MHz band during migration to narrowband channels.  Xm0  P!  O.XqShared Use of Industrial/Land Transportation and Maritime Public Correspondence  XV0Frequencies (#  X(0 ` 0qZ91. ITLA  ` ` We recently adopted rules in PR Docket No. 92257 to allow industrial and land   transportation entities to use nine VHF maritime public correspondence channel pairs for standard"$B,-(-(ZZP"  X0 ptwo-way base/mobile operations.( {Oy    ԍqSee Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime Communications, First Report and Order, PR Docket No. 92-257, FCC 95-178, 10 FCC Rcd 8419 (1995). Section 90.283 of our rules provides that eligible industrial   and land transportation entities can only be assigned VHF maritime public correspondence  frequencies when VHF frequencies available under Part 90 are unavailable due to congestion.   Section 90.283 also imposes power/antenna height restrictions on these frequencies and requires  minimum separation distances from the following protected entities: co-channel public coast   stations licensed under Part 80; the coastline of any navigable waterway; and grandfathered public safety licensees operating on 157.35MHz or 161.85MHz frequencies.  XH0 q(1) ` ` Integration with Refarming  X 0 ` q[92.MARINE SHARED-INTEG ` ` Petitions. LMCC requests that the 25kHz wide channels listed in Section 90.283  X 0of our rules be integrated into the new 6.25kHz narrowband channel plan.\ "( yO ԍqLMCC Petition for Reconsideration at 13-14.\  X 0 ` q\93. ` ` Discussion. As an initial matter, we note that new 25kHz Part 90 radios will no   longer be type accepted in the 150-174MHz band after the effective date of the rule amendments  X 0 @ of this MO&O;f ( {O ԍqSee para.  DATES15 , supra.f thus, we find it unreasonable to require their use. Additionally, we believe that  the current restrictions are sufficient to ensure that PLMR licensees operating on narrowband  Pchannels will not cause harmful interference to the protected entities. Therefore, we modify  PSection 90.283 of our rules to provide narrowband channel spacings for PLMR users on the  XQ0 shared maritime public correspondence frequencies similar to those adopted in the R&O for the  X<0 @UHF bands, i.e., 6.25kHz channels spaced 6.25kHz apart.<D( yO1   ԍqUnder Part 80 of our rules, the maritime public correspondence frequencies, similar to PLMR UHF band  {O prior to the R&O, have channel spacings of 25kHz. As a result, these narrowband  ` channels will be subject to the following restrictions: (1) only equipment designed to operate with  a channel bandwidth of 6.25kHz or less may be used on channels 6.25kHz removed from a  @maritime public correspondence frequency; and (2) only equipment designed to operate with a  pchannel bandwidth of 12.5kHz or less may be used on channels 12.5kHz removed from a  maritime public correspondence frequency. Additionally, for the purpose of resolving  pinterference to a protected entity, channels separated 12.5kHz or less from a maritime public   correspondence frequency will be considered co-channel to that maritime public correspondence  X0 frequency.( {O#   ԍqThis clarifies Footnote 33 of the First Report and Order in PR Docket No. 92-257, FCC 95-178, 10 FCC Rcd 8419 (1995). Finally, in order to protect users in adjacent bands, such as the Government"% ,-(-(ZZ"  X0 maritime mobile service,( yOy ԍqThe Government maritime mobile service has a frequency allocation in the 157.0375 157.1875 MHz band. we will only provide narrowband channel spacings between currently listed frequencies in Section 90.283.  X0 q(2) ` ` Power/Antenna Height Limits   X0 ` q]94.ITAMARINE SHARED-P/A  ` ` Petitions. ITA, in a Petition for Reconsideration filed in PR Docket No. 92-257,  requests that we adopt changes in the power/antenna height tables of Sections 90.283(c) and  90.283(d) of our rules to accommodate users that need to exceed the imposed limits due to  XJ0circumstances such as terrain effects or coverage requirements.qJX( yOS ԍqITA Petition for Reconsideration in PR Docket No. 92-257 at 3-4.q  X 0 ` q^95. ` ` Discussion. We are not persuaded that the circumstances described by ITA warrant  a change to the general rule. Rather, we believe that these are more appropriately characterized  pas the exceptional cases. As a result, for these instances we will require a request for waiver of  0the power/antenna height limits of Section 90.283 of our rules. These waiver requests must  include a justification for exceeding the table limits and be accompanied by an interference  `!analysis based upon generally-accepted terrain-based propagation models, showing that co-channel  protected entities would receive the same or greater interference protection than provided in the table. We will review these waiver requests on a casebycase basis.  XO0 P. qMiscellaneous Issues.  X!0 ` q_96. MISC  ` ` Effective Date of new VHF Channels. LMCC requests clarification regarding the  X 0 effective date of the new VHF channels.Y ( yO ԍqLMCC Petition for Reconsideration at 11.Y As stated in the R&O and as indicated by the  @ limitations in each radio service's frequency list, no license applications for any VHF channel that  is 7.5kHz removed from a channel that was available prior to August 18, 1995 will be accepted  X0until August 18, 1996.Qx( {O ԍqSee R&O at para. 41.Q  X0 ` q`97. ` ` Measurement Requirements.MODULATION-MEASURE In Section 90.211 of our rules, we require analog  equipment to meet the emission limitations under all possible conditions. Motorola and TIA  request that this requirement be amended to refer to the type acceptance procedures under Part  XT0 2 of our rules.T ( yO$ ԍqMotorola Petition for Reconsideration at 8; TIA Petition for Reconsideration at 4. Otherwise, Motorola states that the current rule "places a nearly impossible  X=0  measurement on both manufacturers and on the Commission."f=( {O& ԍqSee Motorola Petition for Reconsideration at 8.f Motorola alternatively suggests"=&, ,-(-(ZZ"  X0  that the phrase, "under all possible conditions", be deleted.f( {Oy ԍqSee Motorola Petition for Reconsideration at 8.f We agree with Motorola and TIA  pand thus amend Section 90.211(a) to refer to the type acceptance procedures specified in Part 2 of the rules.  X0 ` Pqa98. ` ` Frequency Coordinator Responsibilities. Several entities request that the  ` Commission clarify the role and responsibilities of frequency coordinators in light of the technical  Xv0 Pchanges adopted in the R&O and our decision to consolidate the frequency pools of the radio  Xa0 services.aZ( {Ol   ԍqSee, e.g., UTC Petition for Reconsideration at 6-8; Alarm Industry Communications Committee Petition for Reconsideration at 6-7. Others request that we consider allowing frequency coordinators more authority  XJ0 0 regarding the expansion of low power operations.J( {O   ԍqSee, e.g., Spacelabs Medical, Inc. (Spacelabs) Petition for Reconsideration at 7-8; HP Petition for Reconsideration at 3-4. We will defer action on these requests until a later date.  X 0 ` qb99. ` ` Migration of Low Power Stations.LP-MIGRATION PCIA recommends that the Commission allow  a sixmonth transition period for licensees to convert their systems before accepting any new  X 0 applications on these designated channels.~ ( yO ԍqHP Petition for Reconsideration at 5; PCIA Petition for Reconsideration at 7.~ Schlumberger and HP state that the Commission  X 0  needs to impose adjacent channel protection criteria for low power channels. ( yO ԍqSchlumberger Petition for Reconsideration at 4; HP Petition for Reconsideration at4. HP and Spacelabs   urge the Commission to establish blocks of contiguous spectrum based on functional requirements  X0 and technical compatibility for the exclusive use of low power systems.. ( yOq ԍqHP Petition for Reconsideration at 34; Spacelabs Petition for Reconsideration at 78. The issues regarding  `low power stations and the migration to designated low power channels will be affected by the   outcome of the effort to consolidate the radio services. Therefore, resolution of these issues will  be the subject of a future Order. Additionally, we note that several blocks of low power  X60  spectrum already exist in the Business Radio Service6 ( {O   @ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  90.75. The following frequencies are limited to 2 watts output power: 457.525 MHz 457.61875 MHz, 465.650 MHz 465.89375 MHz, and 467.750 MHz 467.925 MHz. and there is a proposal in OET Docket  No. 95177 to permit the operation of low power unlicensed biomedical telemetry devices on TV  X0channels 7 13 and on UHF TV channels.PZ( yO#   ԍqAmendment of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Operation of Biomedical Telemetry Devices  {O$  0on VHF TV Channels 7-13 and on UHF TV Channels, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, OET Docket No. 95177, FCC 95488, 11 FCC Rcd 1063 (1996).P "':,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X0 ` qc100. ` ` Emission Designators.EMISSION DESIGNATORS Since the designator W7W has been authorized for  ptechnology designed to provide data, voice, and facsimile, Motorola and Securicor recommend  that Sections 90.207(a) and 90.207(c) of our rules be modified to include the symbol "W" as a  X0 valid emission designator under Part 90.( yO4 ԍqMotorola Petition for Reconsideration at 8; Securicor Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration at 4. The list of the most common emission designator  0 symbols provided in Section 90.207 of our rules was intended as an informal guide for applicants,  many of whom do not have a copy of Part 2 of our rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 2. The complete list  of valid symbols for all rule parts continues to remain in Section 2.201 of our rules. We are  modifying the introductory text in Section 90.207 of our rules to clarify this point. Additionally,   since radios that deliver multiple types of information are becoming more common, we add the symbol W to the list of designators in Sections 90.207(a) and 90.207(c) of our rules.  X 0 ` @qd101. ` ` WideArea Systems. The Forestry Conservation Communications Association   (FCCA) requests that certain VHF high-band channels in the Forestry-Conservation Radio Service  @be designated for statewide use and have the same protection as similar channels in the Police  X 0 Radio Service.X X( yO ԍqFCCA Petition for Reconsideration at 2.X APCO supports this recommendation, stating that many state public safety  X 0 agencies need widearea channels to cover their entire area of jurisdiction.t ( yO@ ԍqAPCO Opposition and Comments to Petitions for Reconsideration at 5.t In light of the work  of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee and the Commission's overall evaluation and  assessment of public safety wireless communications in WT Docket No. 9686, it would be  premature at this time to make decisions regarding the designation of channels for widearea  XK0operation.kKx( {Ot ԍqSee Public Safety Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12460.k Thus, we decline to act on the requests of FCCA and APCO at this time.  X0 ` qe102. ` ` Interference Protection Standards. FCCA expresses the need for interference  protection standards that are common to public safety entities. It stresses, however, that these  X0 Pstandards should be set by manufacturers and users.X ( yO ԍqFCCA Petition for Reconsideration at 3.X To that end, LMCC states that it is  X0 @ working to develop tables and standards which could be used by frequency coordinators.Y( yO# ԍqLMCC Petition for Reconsideration at 13.Y We   agree with FCCA that the user community would benefit from a common set of interference   protection standards. We also encourage industry efforts in the PLMR community, such as those described by LMCC, aimed at the development of such standards.  Xe0 ` qf103. ` ` New Channels. FCCA requests that we allow licensees to use a new channel when  XN0 they are already licensed for both of its adjacent channels.XN* ( yO)' ԍqFCCA Petition for Reconsideration at 3.X This issue was discussed in the"N( ,-(-(ZZ"  X0  outstanding FNPRM in this proceeding. Therefore, we defer the decision on the treatment of new  X0channels until a future Report and Order responding to the FNPRM.  X0 `  qg104. ` ` Fixed Operational Use. APCO requests clarification regarding whether fixed  operational use will be permitted for new stations on the former 25kHz primary channels and  X0 `the former 12.5kHz offset channels.X( yO  ԍqAPCO Petition for Reconsideration at 8.X Fixed operational use is permitted on a secondary basis  `pursuant to Sections 90.261 and 90.419 of our rules. This type of use, unless specifically  prohibited, will continue to be permitted in accordance with the referenced rule sections and applicable channel bandwidth limitations.  X 0 ` @qh105. ` ` 470-512MHz Band. LCS states that the new rules in this band are unnecessary  in the Los Angeles area because 12.5kHz channel spacing already exists in many cases and the  X 0  new rules add extreme expense and hardship to existing users.W X( yO ԍqLCS Petition for Reconsideration at 5.W Florida requests clarification  X 0 pthat the portion of this band available in Miami, Florida is channelized at 6.25kHz.[ ( yOr ԍqFlorida Petition for Reconsideration at 1.[ We  disagree with LCS and decline to make any changes in the 470-512MHz band or to provide rules  specific to Los Angeles. By providing licensees that migrate to narrowband technology relief  from current congestion, they will benefit, not suffer, from narrowband channels. Further,  pbecause there is no mandate for licensees to replace their systems now, or at any time in the  future, there is no expense or hardship forced on existing users. We clarify Section 90.311(b)  @of our rules to state explicitly that the portions of the 470-512MHz band available in Miami, Florida, Dallas, Texas, and Houston, Texas are channelized with 6.25kHz channel spacings.  X 0 ` qi106. ` ` Spectrum Comparison. Florida requests that the Commission ensure that each  @radio service has the same amount of spectrum available now as they did prior to the adoption  X0 of the R&O. Florida requests that we show a comparison of the PLMR spectrum allocations  X0 0 before and after the channel splits.[x( yO ԍqFlorida Petition for Reconsideration at 2.[ A comparison of the total number of channels available for  licensing in each service before and after implementation of the new channel plan is provided in  Appendix C. This comparison shows that each radio service's share of the total number of  X0available channels closely approximates its share prior to the adoption of the R&O.  XX0 ` qj107. ` ` Technician Certification. Florida notes that the R&O gives manufacturers or their  representatives the authority to retrofit existing equipment with conversion kits to make them  compatible with narrower channel bandwidths. In the absence of mandated certification, Florida  asserts that there is no assurance that the equipment will be modified correctly and therefore"),-(-(ZZp"  X0 requests that the Commission revisit technician certification mandates.[( yOy ԍqFlorida Petition for Reconsideration at 2.[ We conclude that the  subject of technician certification is beyond the scope of this proceeding, and thus, we will not address Florida's request.  X0 ` @qk108. ` ` Station Identification. LMCC requests that the Commission modify Section 90.425  pof our rules to allow licensees transmitting in digital format to transmit a station identifier by  Xv0 digital transmission of the call sign.XvX( yO ԍqLMCC Petition for Reconsideration at 7.X In its request, LMCC notes that the rules allow digital  transmission of station identification on frequencies above 800MHz when licensees have  XH0 0exclusive use of a channel.TH( {O ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  90.647(c).T Because the radio environment of the Refarming bands is  characterized by sharing, the rules pertaining to exclusive use channels above 800MHz are not appropriate for comparison. Therefore, we decline, at this time, to grant LMCC's request.  X 0 ` ql109. ` ` Stolen Vehicle Recovery. LoJack Corporation requests clarification that the type  acceptance requirements of Section 90.203 of our rules do not apply to equipment operating on  X 0 173.075MHz.s z( {O ԍqEx parte filing of LoJack Corporation of September 21, 1995.s This frequency is used in the Police Radio Service for Stolen Vehicle Recovery  X 0  on a shared basis with the Federal Government.V ( {Od ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  90.19(f)(7).V The type acceptance requirements of Section  X0 90.203 of our rules apply in the absence of frequency specific technical requirements.T( {O ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  90.203(j).T  Therefore, the relevant technical specifications for equipment used in stolen vehicle recovery  systems on 173.075MHz are listed in Section 90.19(f)(7) of our rules. We are amending Section 90.203(j) of our rules to clarify this point.  X0} IV. CONCLUSION Đ?K  X0 ` qm110.CONCLUSION ` ` With the adoption of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we finalize the new   channel plan and incorporate certain modifications to our regulatory and technical framework for  the PLMR services in Part 90 of the Commission's Rules. These new rules will provide greater  technical flexibility for PLMR licensees and equipment manufacturers, promote the highly  effective and efficient use of the PLMR spectrum, and create an environment which will provide  users the opportunity to introduce advanced technologies into the private land mobile radio services. "9*0 ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X0ԙ a V. FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ă ?  X0 ` qn111. REGFLEX  ` ` As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  603  X0 (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of  X0 Proposed Rule Making in PR Docket 92235.S\( yO   ԍqReplacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the  {O  Policies Governing Them, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, PR Docket 92235, 7 FCC Rcd 8105 (1992) (Refarming  {O Notice).S The Commission sought written public  X0 comments on the proposals in the Refarming Notice, including on the IRFA. The Commission's  X|0 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this Memorandum Opinion and Order conforms  Xg0to the RFA, as amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996.g( yO   pԍqPub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Subtitle II of the CWAAA is "The Small Business  {O Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996" (SBREFA), codified at 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq.  X90 A.qNeed For and Objective of the Proposed Rule  X 0 ` qo112. FRFA_A  ` ` Our objective is to increase spectrum efficiency and facilitate the introduction of  advanced technologies into the 150174 MHz, 421430 MHz, 450470 MHz, and 470-512MHz  X 0 `PLMR bands. The Report and Order in this proceeding modified the Commission's rules to  resolve many of the technical issues which inhibited the use of spectrally efficient technologies  X 0  in these frequency bands. This MO&O address petitions for reconsideration and clarification  X0received in response to the Report and Order.  Xp0 ` qp113. ` ` We find that the potential benefits to the PLMR community exceed any negative  effects that may result from the promulgation of rules for this purpose. Thus, we conclude that  `the public interest is served by modifying our rules to increase the spectral efficiency of the PLMR bands.  X0    B.XqSummary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the  X0Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (#  X0 ` qq114. FRFA_B  ` ` No comments were submitted in direct response to the IRFA. We have, however, reviewed general comments that may impact small businesses.  Xs0  !  C.XqDescription and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Subject to which the Rules  X\0Apply (#  X.0 ` qr115. FRFA_C  ` ` The rules adopted in this Memorandum Opinion and Order will apply to small   business that choose to use, manufacture, or design radios that operate in the PLMR bands below  512 MHz. The are no Commission imposed requirements, however, for any entity to use or produce these products. " +F,-(-(ZZ""Ԍ W@  Estimates for PLMR Manufacturers Đ?K  X0 ` 0qs116. ` ` The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities specifically  papplicable to PLMR manufacturers. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the applicable  @definition of small entity is the definition under the Small Business Administration (SBA) rules  papplicable to radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment manufacturers.  The SBA defines a small entity in this category as one in which less than 750 persons are  X_0employed._( {O ԍqSee 13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 3663.  X10 ` qt117. ` ` Because the Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments were not in effect until the  `record in this proceeding was closed, the Commission was unable to request information  0regarding the number of small entities that manufacture PLMR equipment and is unable at this  Ptime to determine the number of manufacturers which are small businesses. However, the 1992  P Census of Manufacturers, conducted by the Bureau of Census, which is the most comprehensive  0and recent information available, shows that approximately 925 out of the 948 entities  manufacturing radio and television transmitting equipment in 1992 employed less than 750  X0 ppersons.Z( {O   ԍqSee 1992 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series, Communication Equipment, Including Radio and  @Television, Industries 3651, 3652, 3661, 3663, and 3669, Issued March 1995, Table 4. This table shows a total of  23 manufacturers with an average of 1,000 employees or more and 908 with an average of 499 employees or less.  It lists a total of 17 manufacturers with an average of 500999 employees. Because we could not determine the  Pnumber of manufacturers in 500999 category with an average of 750 employees or less, we assume all 17 are small businesses for the purpose of this evaluation. We are unable to discern from the Census data precisely how many of these   manufacturers produce private land mobile radios. Further, any entity may choose to manufacture  such radio equipment. Therefore, for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in this Final  PRegulatory Flexibility Analysis, we estimate that there are at least 925 manufacturers and  potential manufacturers of PLMR equipment which are small businesses, as that term is defined by the SBA.  W@ Estimates for PLMR Licensees Đ?K  X0 ` @qu118. ` ` Private land mobile radio system serve an essential role in a vast range of  industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities. These radios are used by  companies of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories. Because of the vast array of   PLMR users, the Commission has not developed nor would it be possible to develop a definition  of small entities specifically applicable to PLMR users. For the purpose of determining whether  a licensee is a small business as defined by the SBA, each licensee would need to be evaluated within its own business area.  X 0 ` qv119. ` ` Because the Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments were not in effect until the  `record in this proceeding was closed, the Commission was unable to request information",,-(-(ZZ@ "  regarding the number of small entities that are private land mobile radio licensees. Therefore,  the Commission is unable at this time to determine the number of small businesses which could  be impacted by the rules. However, the Commission's fiscal year 1994 annual report indicates  that at the end of fiscal year 1994 there were 1,101,711 licensees operating 12,882,623  X0 transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz.( {O ԍqSee Federal Communications Commission, 60th Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1994 at 120121. Further, because any entity engaged in a  commercial activity is eligible to hold a PLMR license, these rules could potentially impact every small business in the U.S.  X10    D.XqDescription of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance  X 0Requirements of the Rules (#  X 0 ` @qw120. FRFA_D  ` ` There are no general reporting or recordkeeping requirements. However, for  certain requests we have substituted a new, less burdensome reporting requirement in place of a requirement for applicants to file applications for waiver or modification.  X0 ` q(1)` ` In order to obtain a type acceptance grant, PLMR radios that transmit data must  ` meet a specified spectrum efficiency standard measured in bits per second per  ` Hertz. For radios that transmit bit rates slower than the specified standard, our  ` `rules permit manufacturers an alternative to requesting a waiver of the technical  ` @rules. Type acceptance grants may be obtained, provided that the applicant  ` submits a technical analysis which demonstrates that the slower data rate will  X0provide more spectral efficiency than the standard data rate.aZ( {O ԍqSee para. TADEMO22, supra.a(#`  X0 ` @q(2)` ` Our rules provide allowable combinations of antenna height and effective radiated  ` power (ERP) based on the size of the area an applicant intends to serve and a  ` certain signal strength at the edge of this service area. Rather than filing a waiver  ` request, we are allowing applicants to exceed the reference antenna height,  ` Pprovided they correspondingly lower their ERP and demonstrate that the signal  ` strength of their system at the edges of their service area meets the general  XN0limits.bN( {O ԍqSee para. ERPDEMO32, supra.b(#`  X 0 ` q(3)` ` Licensees, when making changes to their radio systems, are normally required to  ` `file an application for modification. However, in instances where the only  ` modification to a radio system is a narrowing of its operating bandwidth, we will"-~,-(-(ZZ@ "  ` not require an application for modification. Instead, we are only requiring that  X0licensees notify the Commission of the change.e( {Ob ԍqSee para. NARROWNOTE40, supra.e(#`  X0  0!  E.XqSteps Taken By Agency to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities  X0Consistent with Stated Objectives (#  X_0 ` qx121. FRFA_E  ` ` The Commission, in this MO&O, has considered petitions to reconsider the rules  XJ0 adopted in the R&O in this proceeding. In doing so, the Commission has adopted several  alternatives which minimize burdens placed on small entities. First, the Commission reaffirms  `its decision to implement the transition to narrowband equipment through the type acceptance  process. Users are not required to replace their existing systems, rather they are provided  pflexibility to choose a transition schedule that best fulfills their needs while balancing technical  X 0 capabilities and financial considerations.` Z( {O ԍqSee para.  DATES15 , supra.` Second, private paging systems, many of which are  @operated by small entities, will not be subject to many of the new rules. This approach, by not   imposing new requirements on private paging licensees, will lower the cost of expanding such  X0  systems.l( {O1 ԍqSee para. EFFICIENCY-PAGING26, supra.l Third, we provide applicants the ability to deviate from the new power/antenna height  restrictions, which only apply to new stations, without applying for a waiver. This approach  peliminates the need for small entities to remit waiver fees of $125 per rule section per station.  Additionally, it eliminates the need for small entities to expend clerical support to prepare these  X80 Pwaiver requests.c8~( {Og ԍqSee para. NOWAIVER31, supra.c Fourth, we allow manufacturers to make permissive changes to previously  type accepted equipment. This will allow small entities to continue supporting their existing  equipment and customer base in advance of changing their production facilities to manufacture  X0  radios compliant with the new spectrum efficiency rules.e( {O ԍqSee para. PERMISSIVE46, supra.e Fifth, we ease the frequency stability  `requirements for narrowband radios and extend the exemption from technical standards for low  power transmitters to all radio services. These changes will lower development and production  X0  costs for small entities.i( {O" ԍqSee para. EASE STABILITY50, supra.i Sixth, we will not require licensees operating on 5 kHz channels under  former Section 90.271 of our rules to comply with the new channel plan by August 1, 2001.  P Instead, these licensees can continue operating on their current frequency as long as they do not   cause interference to other users. This approach will lower costs to small entities by not requiring  XR0those who operate such systems to modify them sooner than necessary or at all.iR4 ( {O7' ԍqSee para. 90.271 CONCERN90, supra.i"R. ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X0    ԙ F.XqCommission's Outreach Efforts to Learn of and Respond to the Views of Small  X0Entities pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  609 (#  X0 `  qy122. FRFA_F  ` ` The Commission has, in this proceeding, taken several steps to learn and respond  X0 to the views of small entities. In response to the Refarming Notice, we held two public forums.   On November 14, 1991, the Private Radio Bureau, in cooperation with the Annenberg  Washington Program, Communications Policy Studies of Northwestern University, sponsored a  conference on Refarming and on May 16, 1993, the Private Radio Bureau held a Refarming  P!technology Roundtable. Additionally, throughout the course of this proceeding the representatives  0of the Private Wireless Division (PWD) of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau have had  X 0 ` numerous ex parte discussions with small entities or their representatives. For example, the PWD  X 0has met with many of the frequency coordinators for the nineteen PLMR services. ( yO   ԍqMany of the frequency coordinators are trade associations and represent their members, many of which are small entities, views on telecommunications matters.  X 0 G.qReport to Congress  X 0 ` qz123. FRFA_G  ` ` The Commission shall send a copy of this final Regulatory Flexibility analysis,  X0 along with the Memorandum Opinion and Order, in a report to Congress pursuant to the  X0SBREFA.W ( {OP ԍqSee 5. U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A).W A copy of this FRFA will also be published in the Federal Register.  X:0 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES ?K  X 0 ` q{124.PROCEDURAL ` ` In view of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i),  X0 P303(r), and 405 or the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303(r) ,  X0 and 405 , and Section 1.429(i) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.429(i), IT IS  X0 !ORDERED that the Petitions for Reconsideration described above ARE GRANTED as indicated  X0herein and ARE DENIED in all other respects.  X0 `  q|125. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections   4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  4(i) and 303(r),  XT0 Part 90 of the Commission's Rules IS AMENDED as set forth below effective [30 days after publication in the Federal Register]. "/,-(-(ZZ0"  X0 ` q}126. ` ` Contact. For further information concerning this Memorandum Opinion and  X0 POrder, contact Ira Keltz, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554, at (202) 418-0616. q` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION q` `  hh,William F. Caton q` `  hh,Acting Secretary " 0,-(-(ZZ@ "  X0 APPENDIX A ?  X0LIST OF PETITIONERS Đ?K APP_A   X0 Petitions for Reconsideration Advanced Meter Reading Technologies (AMRT) Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC) Association of PublicSafety Communications OfficialsInternational, Inc. (APCO) Automobile Association of America (AAA) AzCOM Paging, Inc. (AzCOM) Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Health (Virginia) E.F. Johnson Company (E.F. Johnson) Forestry Conservation Communications Association (FCCA) HewlettPackard Company (HP)  X0International Municipal Signal Association and International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. (#(#3(IMSA/IAFC) Kenwood Communications Corporation, Uniden America Corporation, Maxon America, Inc. ""(Joint Petitioners) Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) License Communication Services, Inc. (LCS) Midland International Corporation (Midland) Motorola, Inc. (Motorola) Page Hawaii, Inc. (Page Hawaii) Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) Schlumberger Meter Communication Systems (Schlumberger) SEA Inc. (SEA) Securicor Radiocoms Limited and Linear Modulation Technology Limited (Securicor) Spacelabs Medical, Inc. (Spacelabs) State of Florida, Division of Communications (Florida) Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) UTC, The Telecommunications Association (UTC)  X0 Oppositions and Comments to Petitions for Reconsideration Association of PublicSafety Communications OfficialsInternational, Inc. (APCO) Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Company (NTT) SEA, Inc. (SEA) Securicor Radiocoms Limited and Linear Modulation Technology Limited (Securicor) UTC, The Telecommunications Association (UTC)  X:&0 ":&1,-(-(ZZ`'"  X0Responses to Oppositions for Reconsideration AzCOM Paging, Inc. (AzCOM) Page Hawaii, Inc. (Page Hawaii) Securicor Radiocoms Limited and Linear Modulation Technology Limited (Securicor) "v2,-(-(ZZ"  X0 APPENDIX B ?  X0xkREALLOCATED FORMER LOW POWER OFFSET CHANNELS Đ?K APP_B   X0Symbol Definition PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES X` hp x (#Xr hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:m\zT 1   !   HManufacturers Radio Service!   0  20.20Allocation! A  0P Frequency (MHz)sPAllocation under 90.267sPafter RefarmingA 1   2 P@ ! 451.1625@IF, IP, IT, IW, IX@IW1   ! s @0 ! 451.21250IF, IP, IT, IW, IX0IW! ! ! 451.26250IF, IP, IT, IW, IX0IW! ! ! 451.36250IF, IP, IT, IW, IX0IT! ! ! 451.4125( 0IF, IP, IT, IW, IX( 0IT! ! ! 451.4625I 0IF, IP, IT, IW, IXI 0IT! ! ( ! 451.5125j 0IF, IP, IT, IW, IXj 0IT! ! I ! 451.5625 0IF, IP, IT, IW, IX 0YIF, IP! ! j ! 451.6125 0IF, IP, IT, IW, IX 0YIF, IP! ! ! 451.66250IF, IP, IT, IW, IX0YIF, IP! ! ! 456.16250IF, IP, IT, IW, IX0IW! ! ! 456.21250IF, IP, IT, IW, IX0IW! ! ! 456.262500IF, IP, IT, IW, IX00IW! ! ! 456.3625Q0IF, IP, IT, IW, IXQ0IT! ! 0! 456.4125r0IF, IP, IT, IW, IXr0IT! ! Q! 456.46250IF, IP, IT, IW, IX0IT! ! r! 456.51250IF, IP, IT, IW, IX0IT! ! ! 456.56250IF, IP, IT, IW, IX0YIF, IP! ! ! 456.61250IF, IP, IT, IW, IX0YIF, IP! ! ! 451.66250IF, IP, IT, IW, IX0YIF, IP! ! ! 462.187580IB, IX80IB! ! ! 467.1875Y0IB, IXY0IB! 8s0 T J(>m\z J(+>m\zT ! 8    Telephone Maintenance Radio Service! +  0  ] 0.] 0Allocation! A < 0P Frequency (MHz)!PAllocation under 90.267!Pafter RefarmingA 1   ]  P@ ! 451.1625"@IF, IP, IT, IW, IX"@IW1   ! ! @0 ! 451.2125#0IF, IP, IT, IW, IX#0IW! ! "! 451.2625%0IF, IP, IT, IW, IX%0IW! ! #! 451.56252&0IF, IP, IT, IW, IX2&0YIF, IP! ! %! 451.6125S'0IF, IP, IT, IW, IXS'0YIF, IP"Z&>,-(-(ZZP( ("! ! 2&! 451.6625!0IF, IP, IT, IW, IX!0YIF, IP! ! ! 456.1625B0IF, IP, IT, IW, IXB0IW! ! !! 456.2125c0IF, IP, IT, IW, IXc0IW! ! B! 456.26250IF, IP, IT, IW, IX0IW! ! c! 456.56250IF, IP, IT, IW, IX0YIF, IP! ! ! 456.61250IF, IP, IT, IW, IX0YIF, IP! ! ! 451.66250IF, IP, IT, IW, IX0YIF, IP! ! ! 462.4625 0IF, IP, IT, IW, IX 0IX! ! ! 462.5125) 0IF, IP, IT, IW, IX) 0IX! !  ! 467.4625J 0IF, IP, IT, IW, IXJ 0IX! ! ) ! 467.5125k 0IF, IP, IT, IW, IXk 0IX! J s0 T J(+>m\z J(=?m\zT ! J    WMotor Carrier Radio Service! =  0  o0.o0Allocation! A N 0P Frequency (MHz)PAllocation under 90.267Pafter RefarmingA 1   o P@ ! 452.3125@LM, LR, LX@LX1   !  @0 ! 452.36250LM, LR, LX0LX! ! ! 452.4125#0LM, LR, LX#0LX! ! ! 452.4625D0LM, LR, LXD0LX! ! #! 452.6125e0LA, LMe0LA! ! D! 457.31250LM, LR, LX0LX! ! e! 457.36250LM, LR, LX0-IF, LX! ! ! 457.41250LM, LR, LX0-IF, LX! ! ! 457.46250LM, LR, LX0-IF, LX! ! ! 457.6125 0IB, LM 0IB! s0 "?,$$ ` P" T J(=?m\z J(@m\zT !    6Railroad Radio Service!   0  20.20Allocation! A  0P Frequency (MHz)sPAllocation under 90.267sPafter RefarmingA 1   2 P@ ! 452.3125@LM, LR, LX@LX1   ! s @0 ! 452.36250LM, LR, LX0LX! ! ! 452.41250LM, LR, LX0LX! ! ! 452.46250LM, LR, LX0LX! ! ! 452.7625( 0LM, LR( 0LM! ! ! 452.8125I 0LM, LRI 0LM! ! ( ! 452.8625j 0LM, LRj 0LM! ! I ! 457.3125 0LM, LR, LX 0LX! ! j ! 457.3625 0LM, LR, LX 0-IF, LX! ! ! 457.41250LM, LR, LX0-IF, LX! ! ! 457.46250LM, LR, LX0-IF, LX! ! ! 457.76250LM, LR0LM! ! ! 457.812500LM, LR00LM! ! ! 457.8625Q0LM, LRQ0LM! 0s0 T J(@m\z !J(#@m\zT ! 0   LTaxicab Radio Service! #  0  U0.U0Allocation! A 4 0P Frequency (MHz)PAllocation under 90.267Pafter RefarmingA 1   U P@ ! 452.0375@IS, LX@IS1   !  @0 ! 452.08750IS, LX0IS! ! ! 452.1375 0IS, LX 0IS! ! ! 452.1875*0IS, LX*0IS! ! ! 452.3375K0LM, LR, LXK0LM, LR! ! *! 452.3875l0LM, LR, LXl0LM, LR! ! K! 452.4375 0LM, LR, LX 0LM, LR! ! l! 452.4875!0LM, LR, LX!0LM, LR! ! ! 457.0375"0IS, LX"0IS! ! !! 457.0875#0IS, LX#0IS! ! "! 457.1375%0IS, LX%0IS! ! #! 457.18752&0IS, LX2&0IS! ! %! 457.3375S'0LM, LR, LXS'0LM, LR"Z&@,-(-(ZZP( ("! ! 2&! 457.3875!0LM, LR, LX!0LM, LR! ! ! 457.4375B0LM, LR, LXB0LM, LR! ! !! 457.4875c0LM, LR, LXc0LM, LR! Bs0 T !J(#@m\z AJ(5Am\zT ! B    Automobile Emergency Radio Service! 5  0  g0.g0Allocation! A F 0P Frequency (MHz)PAllocation under 90.267Pafter RefarmingA 1   g P@ ! 452.5125 @LA, LX @LX1   @ " A,$$ @  "  X0X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:% Old )"%2      2 .   . ` Local Government3 ` 1303 /8.33 ]683 _8.03 2963 7.83   783 45#8.02       2 .  . ` Police3` 1343/8.63]673_7.9333738.93  86345#8.82        2` Fire3 f` 583 /3.73 ]303 _3.53 1973 5.23   493 45#5.02        2` Highway Maintenance3 f` 643 /4.13 ]353 _4.13 1523 4.03   383 45#3.92        2` ForestryConservation3 f` 873 /5.63 ]503 _5.93 1523 4.03   383 45#3.92        2` Emergency Medical3 f` 153 /1.03 c-73 _0.83 2703 7.13   703 45#7.22        2` Special Emergency3f` 193/1.23]113_1.33430.13!4345#0.42         2` Power3 f` 823 /5.33 ]503 _5.93 1583 4.23   403 45#4.12        2` Petroleum3` 1323/8.53]763_8.9313433.53  36345#3.72        2` Forest Products3$` 1323$/8.53$]793$_9.33$1963$5.23$  503$45#5.12        +2` Film and Video Production30f` 1730/1.130]1030_1.2300300.030!03045#0.02        72` Relay Press3< ` 43</0.33<c-43<_0.53<L163<0.43<!43<45#0.42        C2` Special Industrial3Hf` 903H/5.83H]543H_6.33H1203H3.23H  303H45#3.12        O2` Business3T` 1593T)10.23T]923T10.83T11233Tn29.63TK 2893T."29.62        [2` Manufacturers3`f` 743`/4.73`]343`_4.03`1883`5.03`  483`45#4.92        g2` Telephone Maintenance3l ` 43l/0.33lc-23l_0.23l1393l3.73l  363l45#3.72        s2` Motor Carrier3xf` 963x/6.23x]483x_5.63x1203x3.23x  303x45#3.12        2` Railroad3` 1813)11.63]92310.83L8132.13  21345#2.22        2` Taxicab3f` 543/3.53]283_3.33L9632.53  24345#2.52     2` Automobile Emergency3f` 263/1.73]153_1.83L1630.43!4345#0.42       2 .  . Totals3 15583 ##100.03 We8523 {100.03 37953  100.03 K 9753 (m"100.0#       # "B,-(-(ZZ00"  X0X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:p,^t3 is the time period from the instant when the transmitter is turned off until toff.(#  X'p,^toff is the instant when the 1kHz test signal starts to rise.(#  Xp2,^During the time from the end of t2 to the beginning of t3, the frequency difference must not exceed the limits specified in  90.213.(#  X!03,^Difference between the actual transmitter frequency and the assigned transmitter frequency.(#  Xo$04,^If the transmitter carrier output power rating is 6 watts or less, the frequency difference during this time period may exceed the maximum frequency difference for this time period.(# "*'],-(-(ZZ-"Ԍ X0` X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: