WPC}> 2BVXZ3|J (TT).7PC2XDXP\  P6QXP"5^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CCCCPCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdNdoNNF2ZdCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet 5Sim 4-C332itional)HPLAS5SI.WRSXj\  P6G;,,,o&^XP2 *4D Z43|J "5^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CCCCPCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdNdoNNF2ZdCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet 5Si(Additional)HPLAS5SI.WRSx  @,,,o&^X@2qH  Courier New (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold Italic) (TT) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&a\  PG;g!&P#X01Í ÍX0Í Í"5^.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc.====I=\\QQQQQzzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\f\\QQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\G\fGN@.S\=Q\\\\\39\7\7==QQ\==\\=Q=7N=eegIjg\\j.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc=\Q\\=f===QQ@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\g=\Ie77=jS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\\\"5^.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_.====I=\f\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\QQzQzQzQ\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\\fGN@.c\=\\\\\\7=\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7N=eeiIji\\j.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\i=\Ie77=jc.=7=\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\e\ffff\f2"5^*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ*8888C8SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS8S888SAxSx]AN:*KS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}288JJS88SS8J82N8\\^C`^SS`*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZv8SJSS8]888JJ:S8A8xx*8SSSS!S8.S^8SC\228`K*824S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff8888xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSSS"5^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic.====I=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\p\p\p\zQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\Q\z\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7N=ee|Ij|\\j.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic=\f\\=\===ff@\=G=zf.G\\\\2\=3\|=\Ie77=j`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\Q\"5^%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7bO=+N&27%177777"RR7!TT7R!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!N%<<>,?>77?%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!(!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2YH8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!N!778(:822:!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!:-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,2222222722222222}' ! $"5^*8FSS$88Sp*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88pppSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*8888C8SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS8S888SJxSoSAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}288]]S88SS8]82N8\\pC`pSS`*8FSS$88Sp*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88pppSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv8S]SS8S888]]:S8A8o]*ASSSS.S8.Sp8SC\228`W*824S}}}Sffffffoffff8888xoxxxxxpxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSJS"5^%.77\V%%7J%7777777777%%JJJ7eCCIOCCOO%1I=\IOCOC7=OC\C==++.7%77171771O7777++71I11+,,<%%%%,%77C7C7C7C7C7bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%I7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7=1C7O7O7O7=1O7C7C7C7C7I1I1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7,7%7%%%71O7hI7+N&:7+777777"RR7!TT7R!%%==7b%%77lb%=n%!N%<<J,?J77?%.77\V%%7J%7777777777%%JJJ7eCCIOCCOO%1I=\IOCOC7=OC\C==++.7%77171771O7777++71I11+,, ' m- +3`8"H^dM7Hddoooq!  !!!!d!!! !!z!!oooo7o!Pd!!!!!d  oooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  !!!!!!d!Ndn|,,x00,xxNdM7Hddoooq!  !!!!d!!! !!z!!oooo7o!Pd!!dP0n0xxdx|,,,!!!!!!d !!!!!!!!!!!!! oooo"H^dM7Vddop !!! M !!!Mooooo!o ndd  oooo !!!!!!!!!!!!  !!!!!!z Ndn|,,x00,xddxNdM7Vddop !!! M !!!Mooooo!o ndzd dn0n0xxdx|,,,d ! !!!!!!!!!! oooo"H^dModdot! !! 777 z!77! !!!! oooM!Xd!!!!!!!    oooo!7777!!!!!!!77!!!!!!!   777777!Ndx,,x++,xxNdModdot! !! 777 z!77! !!!! oooM!X!!dX+x+xxdx,,,!!!!!!!    !!777777!!!!!!oooo6?xxxXOXx6X@DQX@.2J=.Xg!&J\  P6Q&Pl2N=.X(&N4  pQ&.y.C8*X/C\  P6QP 0J=.XEa&J*f9 xQ&X .P,%XJ,\  P6QJP.I(!X,(\  P6Q,P{,C8*XEVC*f9 xQXQ,%XEJ,*f9 xQJX1K=.Xdj!&K9 xyQ&l y.G8*X(G4  pQ.#mdX\  P6QP !'idXEǫ*f9 xQXl#mdX(#4  pQ3333:xpxpww{ww{xwwwwwwwxwwxww w z2{> S'  Њ  G S'#&a\  PG;g!&P# Federal Communications Commission`(#[FCC 9968 ă   yx}dddy G#C\  P6Q/P#X0Í ÍX0Í Í#&J\  P6Qg!&P#Qb Before the Federal Communications Commission  S'&2Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter of )  S'Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise)PR Docket No. 92235 the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and) Modify the Policies Governing Them) ) and) ) Examination of Exclusivity and Frequency) Assignment Policies of the Private Land) Mobile Services)  S ' SECOND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  S'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:"  xZfrequencies may be coordinated by any other certified Industrial/Business Pool frequency coordinator,  S'provided that coordinator receives prior written concurrence from API, UTC or AAR, as appropriate.  yO5'ԍConcurrence from UTC, API or AAR will not be required on the frequencies allocated for fixed use in the 150174 MHz band because fixed operations only occur between known points. Therefore, it is easier for other coordinators to account for and protect these systems as compared to mobile operations that occur within a geographic area.  Sg' e  10. 12.5  ` ` In the First R&O, the Commission created new 12.5 kHzg {O'ԍId. Rules adopted in the First R&O created new channels 12.5 kHz removed from all existing primary channels on which only equipment designed to operate on 12.5 kHz channels or less may be used. and 6.25 kHz@Zg  {O 'ԍSee First R&O, 10 FCC Rcd at 10094. Rules adopted in the First R&O created new channels 6.25 kHz removed from all existing primary channels on which only equipment designed to operate on 6.25 kHz channels  yO 'or less may be used.@ channels in the  xZ450470 MHz bands. Some of these channels were allocated to a single, specific service; others were  S' xshared between services. The channels allocated to a certain specific service (i.e. Power, Petroleum or  xRailroad) must be coordinated by the frequency coordinator for that service; or, alternatively, may be  xkcoordinated by any certified Industrial/Business Pool frequency coordinator provided written concurrence  xxis obtained. However, the Commission will not impose this coordination or concurrence requirement  xMon those 12.5 kHz and 6.25 kHz channels that were shared between the Power, Petroleum or Railroad services and other radio services.  S ' e q  11. LOWBAND  ` ` The Commission is not affording the concurrence option for bands below 50 MHz. The  xCommission believes it is unnecessary to do so because there are 31 channels for which API is the only  S8 ' xauthorized coordinator and 64 channels for which UTC is the only authorized coordinator.P8 ,  {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  90.35.P The  xCommission considers this to be a sufficient number of channels to meet these industries' need for safetyrelated communications.   S9'g ii.` ` UTC/API Freeze Request  S'  S' e  g 12. FREEZER GAS ` ` UTC and API request a "freeze" on the acceptance of applications for any channel that,  S' xg"prior to the implementation of the Commission's Second R&O . . .  was allocated for shared use by  xthe power (IW) and/or petroleum (IP) Radio Services and for any channels less than 15 kHz removed from  S;' x@such channels.";  yO 'ԍEmergency Request for Limited Licensing Freeze filed by UTC and API (Emergency Request) at 1, 2 (footnotes omitted). UTC and API contend that the requested limited freeze should remain in effect until  xthe Commission evaluates a rulemaking petition that would propose "a longterm solution to the serious  S' xQproblems presented by the existing radio pool consolidation rules." ( {O$'ԍId. at 3. The referenced petition for rulemaking has been submitted by UTC, API and AAR. See  {OU%'Establishment of Public Service Radio Pool in the Private Mobile Radio Frequencies Below 800 MHz, Petition  {O&'for Rulemaking, RM9405 (August 14, 1998). The petitioners request the Commission to set aside a separate  {O&'pool for what the they characterize as the "Critical Infrastructure Industries." Id at 7. Consideration of this"&,l(l(&"  {O'petition is outside the scope of the instant Memorandum Opinion and Order.Ĺ In support, UTC and API cite a case"Z ,l(l(,,a"  xof cochannel interference which occurred when a new private carrier system was activated 25 miles from  xthe transmitter site of Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G), a New Jersey gas utility. According to  xUTC and API, as a consequence of the cochannel interference from the private carrier station, PSE&G  xgcrews, in 16 documented instances, "did not receive dispatch orders relating to instructions from local  S4' xpublic safety officials for the immediate disconnection of gas service (e.g., to scenes of fires)."@!4Z {O.'ԍId. at 5.@ UTC  S' xand API attribute the referenced interference to an "inherently defective coordination":" {O 'ԍId.: and forecast that  S'further incidents of lifethreatening interference will occur in the near future.:#~ {O 'ԍId.:  Si' e  13. ` ` The UTC/API freeze petition remains pending before the Commission and will be resolved  S6' xseparately because it is beyond the scope of matters contained in the Second Report and Order. The  xCommission notes, however, that by requiring UTC, API or AAR coordination, or concurrence, for  xchannels formerly assigned on either an exclusive or shared basis to the former Power Radio Service,  x3Petroleum Radio Service or Railroad Radio Service, the Commission has provided a significant degree  Sk 'of protection against interference of the kind that concerns UTC and API.$"k  yO'ԍWithin one day of making a coordination, each frequency coordinator must provide a notice to other coordinators certified to coordinate the selected frequency, providing relevant parameters related to the  {O'coordination. See 47 C.F.R.  90.176. #C\  P6Q/P#See also letter from the Hon. Walter B. Jones, et al. to William Kennard,  yOu'Chairman, FCC, dated December 4, 1998.hhC  S ' e z 14. ` ` UTC and API also request "freezing" assignments on all frequencies within 15 kHz of  S ' xformer power and petroleum channels (adjacent channels).R%  {Ol'ԍSee Emergency Request at 2.R The Commission declines to adopt a freeze  xon the acceptance of applications for adjacent channels for several reasons. First, the record before us  x does not justify an adjacent channel freeze. Neither UTC nor API has cited any instances of adjacent  x*channel interference. The Commission is reluctant to freeze acceptance of applications without evidence  xthat there is a serious problem that cannot be resolved under our current rules and procedures. Second,  x*adjacent channel interference can be controlled in many instances by the use of receiving equipment with  xadequately narrow selectivity. Finally, the Commission takes this opportunity to reiterate our expectation  xthat frequency coordinators will cooperate in the application of appropriate adjacent channel signal to  S:' xinterference ratios when coordinating adjacent channel operations.&:  {Of!'ԍSee Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them and Examination of Exclusivity and Frequency Assignment Policies of the Private  {O"'Land Mobile Radio Services, PR Docket No. 92-235, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule  {O#'Making 10 F.C.C.R. 10076, 1011415 (1995). See also Filing Freeze to be Lifted for Applications Under Part  {O$'90 for 12.5 kHz Offset Channels in the 421430 and 470512 MHz Bands, DA 972006, Public Notice 13 FCC Rcd 5942 (1997). As always, the Commission  x3encourages all parties potentially affected by interference under the new consolidation regime to work  xcooperatively, using the coordination process to identify and eliminate harmful interference before it" &,l(l(,,n"  xdevelops, with due consideration that it is shared spectrum and no party can be guaranteed exclusive  S'channels totally free of interference.@'Z {O5'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  90.173(a). ("Except as otherwise specifically provided in this part, frequencies assigned to land mobile stations are available on a shared basis only and will not be assigned for the exclusive use of any  yO'licensee.")` ` @ ` `  Sg'` ` iii.Other Requests for Exclusive Coordination  S4'  S' e 15.15EXCLUSIVE` ` Another issue pertaining to frequency coordination is raised in a petition for  xreconsideration from the American Automobile Association (AAA). AAA the prior certified frequency  xQcoordinator for the former Automobile Emergency Radio Service (AERS) submits that it should be the  xtexclusive coordinator for frequencies previously allocated to the AERS. AAA, a nonprofit association  xproviding emergency road service to 39 million members, believes that its role of responding to over 29  xmillion emergency calls, yearly 8 million of which involve a threat to life or property justifies  xcategorizing AAA as a "quasipublic safety" entity that should be afforded frequency coordination  S ' xprotection comparable to that provided to the power, petroleum and railroad industries in the Second  Sj ' xR&O.\(j  yO'ԍAAA Petition for Reconsideration at 2, 15. \ Requests similar to that made by AAA are made in petitions or comments filed by the American  xTrucking Association (ATA), AICC, FIT, MRFAC and the International Taxicab and Livery Association  x(ITLA), all of which argue that their constituents' operations have some nexus with safety and that they  xxtherefore should be afforded the same coordination rights that the Commission has afforded to the power,  S 'petroleum and railroad industries in the Second R&O.)$ z {O'ԍSee AICC Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration at 3; FIT Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration at 67; MRFAC Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration at 23. ITLA Petition for  {OK'Reconsideration at 17. PCIA opposed these requests for separate coordination. See PCIA Opposition and Comments to Petitions for Reconsideration at 67.   S:' e 16.` ` After carefully evaluating the arguments advanced by those seeking coordination  xQprocedures comparable to those of the power, petroleum and railroad industries, the Commission believes  xthat only AAA has made a persuasive showing that it should be granted coordination parity with the  xpower, petroleum and railroad industries. Although the Commission does not contest the claims of the  xother petitioners that their constituents' communications are sometimes safetyrelated, the Commission does  xnot believe that the safetyrelated communications of these other petitioners are either as frequent, or as  xEpotentially serious from the standpoint of the overall public welfare, as emergency road service  S' xtcommunications.* f  yO'ԍAAA claims that it responds to an emergency road service call every 4.5 seconds and that thirty percent  yO 'of its service calls involve an immediate threat to life or property. Letter from Michele Farquhar, attorney for  {Ok!'AAA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC, dated June 12, 1998. See also, AAA White Paper, The Need for "Safety" Treatment of Frequencies in the Automobile Emergency Radio Service, transmitted under cover letter from Steven F. Morris, Attorney for AAA, to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, FCC, dated May 20, 1998, at 19. The Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, International, Inc. (APCO) notes that automobile  {O$'emergency services have an "important safetyrelated role" that warrants treatment similar to that given, e,g.,Ą utility and railroad services. Comments of APCO in Response to Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification at 2. To cite but one example, emergency road services are called upon several hundred  xtimes each day, often by law enforcement officials, to remove from the nation's highways, vehicles that" :*,l(l(,,1"  S' xconstitute road hazards because they have been involved in accidents or otherwise have become disabled.+ {Oh'ԍSee, e.g., Letter from Ricardo Martinez, M.D., Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC, dated June 17, 1998.  xDThe communications necessary to effect the prompt clearing of the highways must be clearly and rapidly  S' x^conveyed, because delay can result in serious injury or death to motorists if the vehicles remain in place.," {O\'ԍSee, e.g., Letter from Dennis A. Garrett, Police Chief, City of Phoenix, Arizona, to Reed Hundt,  {O&'Chairman, FCC, dated May 13, 1997. See also AAA Petition for Reconsideration at 16.  x7The Commission concludes, therefore, that automobile emergency road services have a significant quasi S4'public safety component involving safety on the nation's highways.-4~ {OR 'ԍSee, e.g. Letter from the Hon. Conrad Burns and the Hon. Byron L. Dorgan to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC, dated February 17, 1998.   S' e 17.` ` The Commission's conclusion concerning the quasipublic safety character of emergency  xroad service communications is reinforced by the importance that the Congress placed on emergency road  xservices in its deliberations leading to the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. In the 1997 Budget Act, Congress  xccreated a separate category for notforprofit organizations that offer emergency road services and  S' xexempted that category from spectrum auctions.W. {Oz'ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(2)(A).W As noted in the Conference Committee report: "The  xSenate included this particular exemption in recognition of the valuable public safety service provided by  S 'emergency road services."`/ j  yO'ԍ142 Cong. Rec. H602901, H6173 (July 29, 1997).`  S6 ' e 18.18 ` ` Thus, given the exceptionally large number of service calls handled by emergency road  xservice providers, the fact that a significant percentage of those calls 30 percent involves threats to  xperson or property, the imperative need for safety on the nation's highways and the importance that the  x"Congress has placed on the role of emergency road services in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, the  xCommission concludes that the public interest would be best served by requiring that frequencies in the  xformer AERS be coordinated only by AAA, the certified frequency coordinator responsible for  S' x@coordination of the AERS frequencies prior to adoption of the Second R&O. Alternatively, AAA in its  xdiscretion may determine that frequencies in the former AERS may be coordinated by any other certified  xIndustrial/Business Pool frequency coordinator, provided that such coordinator receives the prior written concurrence of AAA.  S' "19. The Commission  PROT REF does not agree with ATA that the new coordination procedures will  x^adversely affect the service environment in the PLMR bands. ATA contends that only those coordinators  x/who are most familiar with given frequencies and radio services should have primary coordination  Sm' x7authority over those frequencies and services.C0m  {O#'ԍId. at 4, 6.C Otherwise, ATA argues, the existing protection afforded  S:' xPLMR users will be lost, resulting in greater interference and impaired utility of the spectrum.@1:  {Of%'ԍId. at 5.@ To the  xcontrary, the Commission believes that the frequency coordination process, as enhanced by the protections  S' xDimplemented in the Second R&O, and expanded upon herein, is sufficient to safeguard the integrity of the" 1,l(l(,,"  xcommunications of PLMR licensees. The Commission holds this view for several reasons. First, there  xare few functional differences in the types of operations coordinated by each of the PLMR coordinators.  xFor example, each coordinator has experience coordinating a variety of radio systems, including mobile,  xportable, fixed, and mobile relay stations. Second, the certified coordinators have demonstrated  xproficiency in coordinating different types of entities on the same frequencies in the PLMR bands above  x&800 MHz. The Commission has not been presented with persuasive evidence that the same quality of  xcoordination cannot be achieved on the PLMR bands below 800 MHz. Third, the Commission directed  S' xthe coordinators to develop technical coordination guidelines.\2 {O'ԍSecond R&O, 12 FCC Rcd 1433031\ Fourth, the Commission believes that  xmarket forces will motivate each frequency coordinator to provide the best realizable protection for each  xuser, not only for those users who meet the eligibility criteria for their former radio services. Moreover,  xunlike the coordination process that existed preconsolidation, the new competitive coordination process  xwill encourage each coordinator to view every PLMR user as a potential customer, regardless of that user's  xprior service affiliation. The Commission believes, therefore, that to attract potential customers and ensure  xrepeat business from existing customers each coordinator will be motivated to provide the best possible interference protection when effecting a frequency coordination.  S ' giv.` ` The Frequency Coordination Process  Sj' e #20.COORD PROCESSנ` ` Smallg Business in Telecommunications (SBT) filed a petition for reconsideration dealing  S7' xin part with the frequency coordination process.`37Z yO1'ԍSBT Petition for Reconsideration, May 19, 1997.` SBT submits that the relationship between the frequency  xcoordinator and the applicant must be "redefined." SBT believes that: (1) stricter standards should be  xQimposed on frequency coordinators; (2) additional technical standards are required to assure more reliable  xcoordination; and (3) additional frequency coordinators are required and should be selected according to  Sk' xMnew standards.D4k {O'ԍ Id. at 417.D Further, in SBT's view, the Commission has established an "irrational relationship of  xtunnecessary tension between the coordinator and the applicant" by giving coordinators the authority to  xrequest additional information in connection with recommending the most appropriate frequency for a user.  xSBT also opposes placing the burden of proceeding and burden of proof on any applicant challenging the  S' xdetermination of a frequency coordinator.B5| {O'ԍ Id. at 4.B SBT believes that the Commission should designate the  xfrequency coordinator as the applicant's agent, charged with a fiduciary duty to advance the applicant's  S9' xbest interests.@69 {O'ԍId. at 5.@ SBT would have the Commission place the burden of proceeding and the burden of proof  xon the coordinator, not the applicant, in the event of a contested coordination and urges the Commission  S' xto extend its rules of practice and procedure to cover resolution of contested coordinations.@7 {O#'ԍId. at 6.@ In SBT's  xVview, applicants should be protected against "coordinator error or misbehavior." SBT believes that  xcoordinator services should be provided to applicants at a uniform charge and that coordinators' fees"m 2 7,l(l(,,+"  S' xshould be "capped."C8 {Oh'ԍId. at 910.C Finally, SBT argues that a coordinator should be prohibited from disclosing to any  S'third party, other than the Commission, the fact that a coordination has been unsuccessful.A9Z {O'ԍId. at 10.A   Sg' e `21.ؠ` ` As an initial matter, the Commission notes that, as PCIA has observed,t:g yO'ԍPCIA Opposition and Comments to Petitions for Reconsideration at 8.t many of the  xissues raised by SBT go beyond the scope of the instant proceeding. The Commission considers them  xnonetheless in the interest of completeness and because no issue raised by SBT has persuaded us that a  x7change in our existing rules or policies is required. SBT has submitted no examples of "coordinator error  xor misbehavior" that would warrant stricter additional technical standards. Rather, SBT's requested  xchanges appear grounded on speculation that the environment created by consolidation will somehow  x<undercut the traditional level of neutral, impartial service that coordinators have provided to PLMR  x*applicants and licensees. The Commission disagrees with SBT's contention that a coordinator should act  x7as the applicant's fiduciary when conducting the coordination process. Instead, the Commission believes  xIthat making coordinators the agents of applicants, in the manner SBT urges, would impinge on the  xindependence of coordinators to make coordination decisions based on the most effective and efficient use  xof the spectrum. The independence of coordinators has been, in large part, the reason that the coordination  S ' xDprocess has worked as well as it has in the nearly forty years it has been in existence.; | {O'ԍSee Frequency Coordination in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services, PR Docket No. 83737, Report  {O'and Order, 103 FCC 2d 1093, 1096 (1986) (Frequency Coordination R&O). The Commission is not persuaded that it would be in the public interest to compromise or undermine such independence.  Sj' e 22.ؠ` ` Further, SBT's request that the Commission require coordinators to charge a uniform fee  x+to all applicants is unnecessary. Consolidation has created a more competitive marketplace for  x7coordinators' services and the Commission sees no reason to impose regulation when marketplace forces  xQappear adequate to keep coordination fees at a reasonable level. Moreover, SBT has failed to demonstrate  xthat imposing a "cap" on coordinators' fees is warranted; thus, the Commission declines its suggestion to  xdo so. In any event, as the Affiliated American Railroads (AAR) points out, the Commission has  xIpreviously stated that the Commission will address complaints against any coordinator charging an  S'unreasonable fee.< {O}'ԍComments of Affiliated American Railroads on Petitions for Reconsideration, at 5. See also ITA Petition for Clarification and/or Reconsideration at 1314.  S' e 23.ؠ` ` The Commission also finds that SBT's argument concerning the need for additional  xcoordinators or changes in the criteria used for coordinator selection is unsupported at this time. SBT has  xnot shown that the current number of coordinators is inadequate or that the coordination process would  xbe improved by the addition of more coordinators or a change in selection standards. However, in light  xkof the broad changes effected in the PLMR bands as a result of this proceeding, the Commission reserves  xthe right to revisit this issue in the future. Moreover, the Commission disagrees with SBT's contention  x"that coordination information must be kept confidential. The free exchange of information among  xIcoordinators is an essential part of the coordination process and often results in spectrumefficient  xassignments. The Commission has no reason to believe that this situation would change with consolidation." 2 <,l(l(,,"Ԍ  S' "24. Our experience with the coordination process establishes no rationale for shifting the burden  x}of proceeding and the burden of proof from the applicant to the coordinator when a coordination is  xcontested, as SBT requests. SBT has not demonstrated that the current allocation of burdens is in any way  xpdeficient or unfair and the Commission therefore declines to accede to SBT's request to shift them.  xDFinally, the Commission also rejects SBT's request that the Commission's rules of practice and procedure  xgovern the resolution of contested coordinations. SBT has failed to show that there is any deficiency in  xxthe coordination resolution process that would be remedied by application of the Commission's procedural rules which, in any event, would be largely inapplicable to resolving a contested coordination.  S' e 25.ؠ` ` In its petition, ITA, in what it states is an effort to maintain coordination data base  xintegrity, proposes that socalled "asymmetrical systems" ! those whose bandwidths are not centered on  xthe center frequencies specified in the rules ! be treated as if they were employing the rulespecified center  Si ' xfrequencies.=i  yO 'ԍThe rules allow applicants to deviate from the channel plan provided that they are properly coordinated.  {O 'See 47 C.F.R.  90.173(a) and (j). The Commission sees no reason why ITA's proposal would not be workable provided all  xcoordinators follow the same procedure. Therefore, as the Commission did with other technical  xgcoordination procedures, the Commission will leave it to the coordinators to reach a consensus on this  S ' xmatter.> " {O'ԍIn the Second R&O, the Commission stated that the frequency coordinators should develop technical  {O\'guidelines for frequency coordination. See Second R&O, 12 FCC Rcd at 1433031. If the coordinators fail to reach a consensus on this issue and disputes regarding asymmetrical systems arise in the future, the Commission will resolve the issue at that time.  S7' e #26.COORDINATORSנ` ` ITA also notes, with approval, that the Commission has amended Section 90.175 of the  xRules, 47 C.F.R.  90.175, to explicitly recognize the coordinator's right to request additional data, as  S' xnecessary, in order to make an informed coordination decision.l?~ yO'ԍITA Petition for Clarification and/or Reconsideration at 9.l The Commission notes that in the  S' xSecond R&O, the Commission instructed the frequency coordinators to develop technical guidelines for  Sl' x@coordination.^@l {O'ԍSee Second R&O, 12 FCC Rcd at 1433031.^ ITA states that it intends to use the authority conferred by Section 90.175 to deter the  xgfiling of speculative applications and to identify authorizations that should be suspended or revoked for  S' xfailure to construct.mA yOF'ԍITA Petition for Clarification and/or Reconsideration at 11.m Although the Commission agrees with ITA that spectrum efficiency would be  xxgreatly compromised by the filing of speculative applications, the Commission wishes to make it clear that  xMthe Commission has not vested frequency coordinators with the authority to refuse coordination of an  xapplication because, in a coordinator's view, the application is "speculative." The Commission does,  xhowever, note that under the current Rules, matters such as verification of site availability, nature of the  xcommunications service to be provided and details concerning shareduse or multiple licensing are relevant  S' xto coordination.:B0  {O$'ԍId.: To the extent that such information also suggests that an application is less than bona  S' xfide, the Commission expects coordinators to apprise the Commission of that fact. Similarly, the  x/Commission expects coordinators to call to the Commission's attention stations that have not been  xtconstructed within the allotted time or which have ceased operation. Permitting such stations to retain"= B,l(l(,,"  xtheir authorizations without providing service severely detracts from the goals underlying this proceeding  x! to facilitate and promote efficient use of the spectrum. The Commission's experience with frequency  xcoordinators to date is that they have cooperated with the Commission in resolving difficult interference  x"problems and generally have operated in the interest of promoting more efficient use of the PLMR  S4'spectrum.C4 {O'ԍOn April 29, 1998, the Commission entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Commission's certified Frequency Advisory Committees (FAC) to streamline the Commission's compliance and enforcement process in the resolution of interference complaints from the land mobile communications industry.  {O'This MOU will facilitate interaction between the Commission's Compliance and Information Bureau and the  {O'FACs to protect the technical and regulatory integrity of the land mobile radio bands. See FCC Announces Joint  {O 'Agreement For The Resolution of Interference Complaints In The Land Mobile Communications Industry, News  {OT 'Release, Report No. CI 987. A similar MOU was concluded between the Commission and the Association of  {O 'Public Safety Communication Officials, International, Inc. (APCO) on July 7, 1998. The APCO MOU applies to  {O 'public safety channels. See FCC Announces Joint Agreement with the Association of Public Safety  {O 'Communication Officials (APCO) for the Resolution of Interference Complaints, News Release, Report No. CI 9812.  S' e 27.ؠ` ` Contrary to some petitioners' claims that failure to heed their requests for exclusive  xVcoordination will result in unacceptable interference, the Commission believes that the coordination  xprocedures and safeguards the Commission has established are entirely suitable for the consolidated PLMR  xQbands. The Commission is confident that the coordination process will continue to serve an essential role  xin facilitating the expeditious processing of applications which are in compliance with the Commission's  xytechnical rules in the PLMR bands. Indeed, the filings made in this proceeding by organizations  xresponsible for frequency coordination lead us to conclude that the frequency coordination process will  xbe enhanced as a result of this proceeding. Our opinion in this regard is heightened by the undertakings  S6 ' xof frequency coordinators to further automate the coordination process, inter alia by facilitating the  S 'electronic exchange of coordination information.D  8  {O'ԍSee, e.g., ITA Petition for Clarification and/or Reconsideration at 812. On July 15, 1997, the Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) representing all PLMR frequency coordinators, submitted a document detailing the methods and protocols proposed for coordination data exchange. Letter from Larry A. Miller, President, LMCC to Daniel B. Phythyon, Esq., Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, (dated July 15, 1997). As noted in the letter, the Commission sets general guidelines for data notification procedures among coordinators, but leaves the details of implementation to the coordinators. Accordingly, while the Commission takes no formal action with respect to this letter, the Commission acknowledges the procedures set forth therein, which apparently will promote the expeditious and efficient sharing of information among coordinators.  S '  S '4g.` ` Application Process  S8' e J28.APP PROCESSנ` ` ITA,g supported by UTC, The Telecommunications Association (UTC), requests that the  xCommission clarify that a coordinator may forward an application to the coordinator who has  S' xDcoordination responsibility for the frequency or frequencies associated with the application.E  yO|$'ԍITA Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification at 5; UTC Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration at 10. ITA argues  S' xMthat the alternative returning the application to the applicant would only foster inefficiency.lFb yO''ԍITA Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification at 5.l The"F,l(l(,,"  xgCommission agrees. Throughout this proceeding, the Commission has focused on ways of improving  x efficiency within the PLMR bands below 800 MHz. To require coordinators to return applications to  xapplicants who then would have to forward them to the proper coordinator would hamper achievement  xof such efficiency. Therefore, coordinators, at an applicant's request, may forward an application to a  xcoordinator who has sole coordination authority over the spectrum in question. The Commission notes,  xDhowever, that any Industrial/Business Pool coordinator, instead of forwarding an application as discussed  x above, may perform the coordination himself or herself provided written concurrence on the result is  xDobtained from the coordinator with responsibility for the frequency or frequencies in question. However,  Sh'this latter option is not available on certain VHF low band frequencies.aGh {O'ԍSee para. LOWBAND11 supra.a  S' e  29.29SUPPORTING REASONSנ` ` In a related matter, AAA seeks clarification, with support from UTC, of the responsibilities  xof the power, petroleum, and railroad frequency coordinators regarding the frequencies which only they  S ' xtcan coordinate.H Z {O 'ԍAAA Petition for Reconsideration at 17; see also UTC Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration at 10. AAA contends that it is unclear how much discretion these coordinators will have to  xdeny a request if the coordinator believes the proposed system will jeopardize an existing system. As a  x+safeguard against potential abuse, AAA recommends that the Commission apply evaluation and  S ' x^coordination standards comparable to those used under the former interservice sharing rules.{I|  {OW'ԍINTERSERVICE SHARINGId. The rules for interservice sharing were deleted by the Second R&O. See Second R&O 12 FCC Rcd at 14323. Those rules required that applicants for interservice sharing of frequencies provide: (1) a determination that no satisfactory frequencies were available in the applicant's own radio service in the area of desired operation; (2) a demonstration that the frequencies requested in another radio service were not assigned in the area of desired operation; (3) a statement of concurrence from the frequency coordinator in the other radio service; and (4) a statement or showing that the proposed use would not violate any of the technical limitations  {O 'applicable to the service to which the frequency was regularly allocated. See 47 C.F.R.  90.176 (1996).{ While the  xxCommission agrees with AAA and UTC that some clarification on this issue is necessary, the Commission  S ' xdeclines to implement the former interservice sharing rules in toto as suggested. Under AAA's proposal,  Sk' xapplicants would be required to demonstrate that there are no other satisfactory frequencies available.[Jk  yO'ԍAAA Petition for Reconsideration at 1718.[  xxImplementing such a requirement would be tantamount to reversing the main premise of our consolidation  S' xcdecision, i.e., that all applicants are eligible on all frequencies without special showings. Instead of  xadopting AAA's recommendation, the Commission will require the power, petroleum, railroad and  x automobile emergency road service coordinators to furnish a statement to an applicant setting out the  xZtechnical reasons for denial of requests to use any frequencies over which they have sole coordination  xauthority. The statement shall be in writing and in sufficient detail to permit discernment of the technical  xQbasis for declining concurrence. Finally, the Commission believes that this requirement would also benefit  xpcoordination of frequencies in the Public Safety Pool. Therefore, the Commission is extending this  xrequirement to public safety coordinators for frequencies over which they have sole coordination authority.  xThese procedures should promote sharing to the greatest degree possible and guard against unwarranted  S;'summary denials.K;  {Oc%'ԍFrequency coordinators were subject to a similar requirement under the interservice sharing rules. See  {O-&'Frequency Coordination R&O, 103 FCC 2d at 1111. "K,l(l(,,"Ԍ S' e 30.ؠ` ` Although some of the commenting parties have expressed concern that consolidation will  S' xresult in widespread intractable disputes between coordinators, or between applicants and coordinators,pL {O5'ԍSee, e.g., SBT Petition for Reconsideration passim.p  xDthe Commission does not share that concern and believes that such disputes will be rare. Our conclusion  xin that regard is based on years of experience with the coordination process, in which there have been few  xsuch disputes. The Commission is confident, therefore, that with the advent of consolidation, coordinators  xwill continue to bring their considerable skills to bear on resolution of any disputes that may arise. In the  xunlikely event that a dispute arises that cannot be resolved by good faith efforts among the coordinators  xDand the parties involved, the relevant application can be submitted to the Commission with documentation  xfrom the coordinator as to why the application could not be coordinated, as well as documentation from  xIthe applicant showing error in the coordination determination. Upon completion of our review and analysis of these showings, the Commission will resolve the matter.   S ' e 31. ` ` It should be noted, however, that the Commission intends to exercise its authority  xsparingly with respect to the resolution of coordination disputes. An applicant's burden of showing that  xkthe recommendation of a coordinator is in error will be met only by the submission of complete, clear and  xconvincing documentary evidence supporting the applicant's position. Applicants therefore are well  xRadvised to exhaust all other possible solutions before bringing disputed coordinations before the  S 'Commission.  Sj'  S7' gB.Low Power Frequencies  S' e [32.ؠ` ` OFFSET DEFThereg are a number of incumbent licensees operating low power stations (i.e., stations with  x2 watts or less output power) on a secondary, noninterference basis on channels offset by 12.5 kHz from  Sl' x}regularly assignable high power channels in the 450470 MHz band.wMlZ yOf'ԍThese channels are commonly referred to as "12.5 kHz offset channels."w This offset type of operation  xafforded licensees a degree of protection from high power operations. However, with adoption of the new  xchannel plan, high power stations gain access to the channels previously assigned exclusively for low  S' x3power use.ZN {O]'ԍSee First R&O, 10 FCC Rcd at 10111.Z Accordingly, absent special provisions being made for low power licensees, it would be  xexpected that new high power stations operating in the same area would create such severe interference  xto low power operations that many low power stations would be rendered unusable. Interference, albeit  S:'to a much lesser degree, also could occur to high power operations from the low power stations.JO:| {OV'ԍId. at 10110.J  S' e   33.ؠ` ` In the First R&O, the Commission, recognizing the value of low power systems, provided  S' xauthority to the frequency coordinators to designate channels for low power use.:P {OP"'ԍId.: Because the  xCommission concurrently decided that the PLMR services should be consolidated but deferred a final  S<' xdecision on the details of consolidation, the frequency coordinators were reluctant to act on this authority.QZ< {O|%'ԍSee Joint Pool Consolidation Proposal filed on Nov. 20, 1996 at 12. The Joint Pool consists of the Personal Communications Industry Association, the Industrial Telecommunications Association, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, the Newspaper Association of America, and the Telephone"'P,l(l('" Maintenance Frequency Advisory Committee. "<XQ,l(l(,,"  x3In addition, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, in response to industry concerns that new high  xpower stations operating on the 12.5 kHz offset frequencies would render many low power systems  xinoperable without low power licensees having an ample opportunity to migrate to designated low power  Sg' xchannels, froze the licensing of new high power stations on these channels in the 450470 MHz band.RgX {O_' FREEZE ׍See Freeze on the Filing of High Power Applications for 12.5 kHz Offset Channels in the 450470 MHz  {O)'Band, Public Notice, DA 951771, 10 FCC Rcd 9995 (1995).  S4' x7At the time the PLMR services were consolidated in the Second R&O, the Commission again emphasized  xthe need for designated low power channels and directed the frequency coordinators to develop a  S' xconsensus plan for low power operations by October 17, 1997.^S {O# 'ԍSee Second R&O, 12 FCC Rcd at 1434041.^ In the Second R&O, the Commission  xalso stated that it would not lift the licensing freeze for a period of seven months after a low power plan  xhad been approved in order to provide sufficient time for existing low power licensees to migrate to the  S7'new low power channels.CT7F {O'ԍId at 14343.C  S'  S' "p!34.LP DECISIONS On June 4, 1997, the frequency coordinators, through LMCC, submitted a plan in which they  xrecommended that 104 former 12.5 kHz offset channel pairs (14 channel pairs in the Public Safety Pool  Sk ' xand 90 channel pairs in the Industrial/Business Pool) be set aside for low power operations.hUk  {O'ԍSee Letter from Larry A. Miller, President, LMCC, to Daniel B. Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (dated June 4, 1997). In addition to the 104 former offset channels, LMCC recommended that the 6.25 kHz channel directly above and below these channel pairs be designated for low power use. When the Commission has satisfied itself that the plan is viable, and consistent with the Commission's Rules, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will issue a Public Notice stating that the plan has been accepted.h Effective  xseven months after issuance of a Public Notice stating the LMCC plan has been accepted, the Commission  xwill begin accepting applications for new high power stations on offset frequencies not designated for low  S ' x&power. Additionally, the Commission will accept applications from low power licensees who wish to  xincrease power and obtain primary status on their existing offset channels, provided the channel is not one  xspecified in the LMCC plan. Both existing licensees who want to remove their low power classification  xand new high power licensees must operate in accordance with the technical rules for the specific channel,  S' xVi.e., within a 12.5 kHz channel bandwidth.ZVR  {O'ԍSee First R&O, 10 FCC Rcd at 10097.Z The grandfathering afforded licensees on these offset  S' xchannels in the First R&O allows low power stations to continue operating on a wide band basis under  S' xptheir current authorizations even though the station does not meet the current technical rules for its  So' x&operating frequency.DW\o {O"'ԍId. Licensees operating on the former 12.5 kHz offset frequencies are allowed to operate with 25 kHz  {O#'equipment, even though the rule amendments of the First R&O require stations operating on these frequencies to operate on 12.5 kHz channels.D If any existing low power licensee does not wish to migrate to designated low  xpower channels and wishes to remain at low power using its current wideband equipment, it may do so.  xxHowever, such operation will be on a secondary basis and such licensees will not be afforded interference  xprotection from other stations and may not cause interference to other stations. Existing low power"W,l(l(,,{"  xIlicensees that relocate to the designated low power channels will be afforded primary status on the  S' xIdesignated channel and may continue wideband (25 kHz) operation.X yO5'ԍThis also applies to existing low power users currently operating on frequencies designated for low power under the LMCC plan. However, if using wideband  xequipment, these stations will continue to have secondary status with respect to adjacent channel  Sg'operations.YZg  {O''ԍThis is consistent with LMCC's position. See Letter from Larry A. Miller, President, LMCC to Daniel B. Phythyon, Esq., Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (dated Nov. 24, 1997).  S' ""35. Finally, because the current rules would limit new licensees on any of the designated low  xpower channels to 12.5 kHz operation, several entities have asked that the Commission allow a mechanism  S' xfor the continued licensing of new wideband low power systems.ZB {O} 'ԍSee, e.g., MRFAC Petition for Clarification, or in the Alternative, for Declaratory Ruling, May 27, 1997. Analysis of the Industrial/Business  xtPool reveals that there are twelve frequencies available for low power operations on a nationwide basis  S5' x that can be used with wideband (25 kHz) equipment[5 yO'ԍThese are 457.525 MHz, 457.550 MHz, 457.575 MHz, 457.600 MHz, 467.750 MHz, 467.775 MHz, 467.800MHz, 467.825 MHz, 467.850 MHz, 467.875 MHz, 467.900 MHz, and 467.925 MHz. and an additional ten channel pairs available for  S'such use at distances greater than 16 km (10 mi) from any airport listed in 47 C.F.R  90.35(b)(61).A\X,  yO'ԍThese are 460.650MHz, 460.675MHz, 460.700MHz, 460.725MHz, 460.750MHz, 460.775MHz, 460.800MHz, 460.825MHz, 460.850MHz, 460.875MHz 465.650MHz, 465.675MHz, 465.700MHz, 465.725MHz, 465.750MHz, 465.775MHz, 465.800MHz, 465.825MHz, 465.850MHz, and 465.875MHz.A  S ' e 0#36. ` ` Because of the widespread use and large installed base of relatively lowcost low power  Si ' x@wideband equipment for a variety of specialized uses,]i L  yOU'ԍFor example, low power systems are used for twoway voice communication, telemetry, remote operation of heavy machinery, alarm systems, and inventory control systems. the limited number of frequencies available for  xwideband low power operations, and the limited interference potential of such equipment, the Commission  xwill license new low power wideband stations on the low power channels contained in the LMCC plan.  xtHowever, such licensing will be on a secondary basis with respect to operations on the designated low  S ' xpower channel and the adjacent channels. The Commission anticipates that the proposed operations of a  xlimited number of applicants will necessitate a requirement for a new 25 kHz system to have primary  xstatus with respect to cochannel and adjacent channel licensees. Therefore, the Commission will entertain  x@waiver requests for those instances where an applicant makes a sufficient showing, including, but not  S' xZlimited to, the use of spectrally efficient equipment.^ yO"'ԍSpectral efficiency is defined to mean that the equipment complies with the type acceptance guidelines of 47 C.F.R.  90.203(j). The Commission believes that this policy strikes  xVa balance between our goal of promoting more efficient use of radio spectrum, which, in turn, will  xaccommodate an ever increasing user base, and the needs and requirements of the business community  xto continue to use wide band equipment for a variety of specialized uses. Additionally, to reduce the"8^,l(l(,,"  xpotential for harmful interference and provide for more accuracy in the frequency coordination process,ń  xQthe Commission removes the requirement in 47 C.F.R.  90.267 that all stations on designated low power  S'channels be licensed as mobile.W_ {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  90.267(a)(3).W  S4' e $37.ؠ` ` The HewlettPackard Corporation (HP) filed a Petition for Reconsideration and  S' xtClarification`Z yO'ԍHP Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification, May 19, 1997. The HP Petition was supported in comments submitted by another manufacturer, SpaceLabs Medical Products Inc. (SpaceLabs). SpaceLabs Comments on Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification of HewlettPackard Company, Jun. 16, 1997. Comments were also filed by ITA, Aeronautical Radio, Inc. and PCIA. HP filed Reply Comments on July 2, 1997.  in which it raised the issue of potential interference to medical telemetry equipment from  xPLMR stations operating on 12.5 kHz offset channels in the 450 470 MHz band. Medical telemetry is  xcused principally to monitor cardiac parameters of ambulatory patients in hospitals. Historically, the  xtelemetry transmitters which are unlicensed devices typically were placed on frequencies between the  S5' xgchannels used by high power stations, e.g. offset by plus or minus 12.5 kHz from high power stations  S' xoperating with 25 kHz channel spacing in the 450 470 MHz band. As noted supra, seven months after  xthe LMCC low power plan is accepted by the Commission, applications for high power stations,  x&employing 12.5 kHz channel spacing will be accepted on frequencies in the 450 470 MHz band that  xare not designated for low power use in the LMCC plan. Activation of stations on such channels could  xresult in high power stations being operated on some of the same frequencies currently used for medical  x^telemetry. Thus, in recognition of this fact and in response to a request from HP, the Commission placed  xa "freeze" on the acceptance of high power stations operated with 12.5 kHz channel spacing in the 450  S ' x 470 Mhz band.a  yOI'ԍFreeze on the Filing of High Power Applications for 12.5 kHz Offset Channels in the 450 470 MHz  {O'Band, PR Docket No. 92235, Public Notice, 10 FCC Rcd 9995 (1995). Subsequently, the Commission commenced a study of the technical characteristics of  Sl' xmedical telemetry equipment to determine, inter alia, the interference susceptibility of medical telemetry  x*receivers and whether and to what extent protection of medical telemetry installations could be taken into  xaccount in and accommodated by the frequency coordination process. The Commission's study of medical  xtelemetry equipment characteristics is not yet complete. Given that the study's results may implicate the  xLMCC low power plan, the Commission, to date, has deferred its acceptance of the LMCC low power  xplan and the associated commencement of the sevenmonth migration period, and maintained the freeze  xof the filing of applications for highpower operations on frequencies in the 450470 MHz band. We  xbelieve that it would be imprudent to proceed further on this matter until the aforementioned study is  x7completed. In the interim, we will defer consideration of the issue raised by HP, and hold the HP petition  S' x*and the LMCC consensus plan in abeyance, pending the development of additional data on, inter alia, the interference susceptibility of medical telemetry equipment.   S' C.  Concurrence Requirement for Trunked Operations  Sq' e  %38.TRUNK - CONCUR CLAR ` ` The Commission received several petitions for reconsideration concerning our trunking  xrules. As noted previously, the Commission will address these petitions in a separate item. At this time,  xMhowever, the Commission believes that one matter regarding the concurrence requirement for trunked  x7systems requires clarification. Under the current rules, applicants who do not have exclusive use of their  xfrequencies in their service area must obtain concurrence from all cochannel licensees whose service areas"d a,l(l(,,D"  S' x"overlap a circle with a 70mile radius from the proposed trunked base station.Qb {Oh'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  90.187.Q In addition to this  xrequirement, applicants for trunked systems may also have to obtain concurrence from adjacent channel  xxlicensees. In this regard, the Rules state that if a proposed trunked base station will operate with a 25 kHz  xpchannel bandwidth, then concurrence must be obtained from all adjacent channel stations that have  xDoperating frequencies 15 kHz or less removed from the proposed base station's operating frequency. For  xproposed trunked systems that will operate with channel bandwidths of 12.5 kHz or 6.25 kHz, the Rules  xrequire concurrence from all adjacent channel stations that have operating frequencies removed from the  xproposed base station's operating frequency by 7.5 kHz or 3.75 kHz, respectively. Our staff's informal  Sh' xgdiscussions with industry representatives after the Second R&O was released reveal that there is some  xconfusion concerning the meaning of "operating frequency" as that term is used in amended Section  x90.187 of the Rules. To dispel this confusion, the Commission is amending Section 90.187 of the Rules  S' xherein by replacing "operating frequency" with "assigned frequency."cZ {O 'ԍThe "assigned frequency" is the center frequency of the spectrum assigned to a station. See 47 C.F.R.  2.1. Thus, applicants of proposed  xtrunked systems must obtain concurrence from all cochannel stations and only those adjacent channel  xstations that have assigned frequencies within the stated boundaries. For example, if a licensee proposes  xto operate a trunked radio system that is designed to operate on 12.5 kHz channels in the 450470 MHz  S ' xEband on one of the former 12.5 kHz offset channels,d  {OX'ԍSee para. OFFSET DEF32 supra, for a description of 12.5 kHz offset channels. the Rules require the applicant to obtain  xconcurrence from all cochannel stations and all adjacent stations that have assigned frequencies within  S ' x7.5 kHz of the trunked system's assigned frequency, e.g., concurrence must be obtained from an adjacent  x6.25 kHz system, but not an adjacent 25 kHz system. In addition, concurrence is not required from stations that have secondary status.  S' D.Classification of Industrial/Business Pool Licensees Providing  Sm'Interconnected ForProfit Service  S' e &39.` ` In the Second R&O, the Commission established the Industrial/Business Pool and adopted,  xas eligibility criteria for the new Pool, the eligibility criteria for the former Business Radio Service.  xSpecifically, anyone engaged in a commercial activity is eligible, as are educational, philanthropic and  So' xecclesiastical institutions. In the Second R&O, the Commission observed that, because the  x^Industrial/Business Pool frequencies were being made available to a substantial portion of the public, there  xlikely were regulatory implications for those Industrial/Business Pool licensees which provide forprofit  xservice and which are authorized to provide interconnection with the Public Switched Network (PSN). The  xCommission stated that such licensees probably should be classified as CMRS providers and that we would resolve the issue of classifying them as CMRS in a subsequent proceeding.  S ' e '40. ` ` By way of background, in the Second Report and Order in GN Docket No. 93252, which  S' xwas prior to the Commission's adoption of the Second R&O, the Commission concluded that, "with the  x<exception of the Business Radio Service, all Industrial and Land Transportation Services should be  xclassified as private mobile radio services (PMRS) under Section 332(d)(3) of the [Communications]"tFd,l(l(,,!"  S' xAct."e {Oh'ԍ NOTE Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act, GN Docket No. 93252, Second  {O2'Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1411, para.86 (1994) (CMRS Second R&O).  The Commission based its conclusion regarding the regulatory treatment of Industrial and Land  xQTransportation Radio Services on two factors: (1) because the Commission's rules limited such services  xto "highly specialized uses for restricted classes of users" the services should be treated as not being  xavailable to a substantial portion of the public for purposes of Section 332(d)(1) of the Communications  xkAct; and (2) its acknowledgement that many of the licensees in these services operated systems solely for  x/internal use and thus did not meet the "forprofit" element of the commercial mobile radio services  S' x(CMRS) definition provided in the Communications Act.:f$ {O 'ԍId.: The Commission nonetheless noted that with  x7respect to the sale of excess capacity activities, the Industrial and Land Transportation Services licensees  Sh' xwould be treated as forprofit to the extent of any forprofit activity.Dgh {O 'ԍId. at n.181.D With respect to the Business Radio  S5' xService, however, the Commission determined in the CMRS Second R&O that the eligibility criteria were  S' x*sufficiently broad to render such service effectively available to a substantial of the public.GhH {O'ԍId. at para. 87.G As a result,  xthe regulatory classification of the Business Radio Services licensees depends upon whether the other  S ' xkelements of the CMRS definition are met.:i  {O'ԍId.: Specifically, Business Radio Service licensees who offer for x@profit interconnected service are classified as CMRS providers. Business Radio Service licensees who  xoperate internal use systems or do not offer interconnected service to system users are classified as PMRS  S 'unless it is demonstrated that they are providing the functional equivalent to CMRS.:j l  {O'ԍId.:  S ' "(41. After further review of this issue, we have determined that another proceeding is not  xnecessary because Section 332(d)(1) of the Act requires us to classify as CMRS providers, all  xIndustrial/Business Pool licensees who offer forprofit, interconnected service. As noted above, the  xCommission previously determined that broad eligibility criteria for a radio service could render such  xxservice as effectively available to a substantial portion of the public for purposes of determining regulatory  S' xtreatment under Section 332 of the Act. Consequently, because the Commission's action in the Second  Sm' xR&O made the eligibility criteria for the Industrial/Business Pool exceptionally broad, we conclude that  xthe frequencies included in the pool are effectively available to a substantial portion of the public. Thus,  xthe regulatory treatment of Industrial/Business Pool licensees will depend upon whether the systems  xDoperated by such licensees meet the other elements of the Act's CMRS definition. In this connection, we  x&note that a forprofit, interconnected mobile service that is available "to such classes of users as to be  xeffectively available to a substantial portion of the public," is, by definition under the Communications  x*Act, CMRS. Thus, Industrial/Business Pool licensees who offer forprofit interconnected service will be  xpclassified as CMRS providers. Further, Industrial/Business Pool licensees who operate internal use  xsystems or do not offer forprofit interconnected service to system users will be classified as PMRS unless  xMit is demonstrated that they are providing service that is functionally equivalent to CMRS. Pursuant to  Sp' x7Section 332(c)(1) of the Act: "A person engaged in the provision of a service that is a commercial mobile  xservice shall, insofar as such person is so engaged, be treated as a common carrier . . . " Hence, all CMRS  xlicensees are subject to Part 20 of our Rules, 47 C.F.R.  20.1 et seq., governing the CMRS and the"  j,l(l(,,"  x@provisions of Title II of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  201276, governing common carriers, except for those  S'portions from which the Commission has decided to forbear.\k {O5'ԍSee n.  NOTE101  supra.\  Sg' E.` ` Miscellaneous Issues  S' e `)42. MISC  ` ` The Commission now turns to several miscellaneous issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration and clarification.  Sh' e  *43. ` ` Entities which obtained their licenses pursuant to the former interservice sharing rules.  x*AAA is concerned that, with elimination of the interservice sharing rules, licensees currently operating on  S' xchannels acquired through interservice sharing%lXZ yO 'ԍ Licenses issued pursuant to interservice sharing contain the number 13 in the "special conditions" column of the license document, indicating that the station was authorized pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  90.176, 90.621(g), 90.621(h) (1996).% would be required to vacate those channels if such  xfrequencies are included in the Public Safety Pool. No implication to that effect was intended in our  xprevious orders and the Commission wishes to make it clear that stations which have acquired their  xchannels through the old interservice sharing rules may continue to operate on those channels and, if  x^necessary, seek renewal and modifications of their authorizations in the future. If frequency coordination  S ' xQis required in connection with a modification, and the channel is one managed by a specific coordinator, ê S ' xԩ e.g., a coordinator having management responsibility for a channel that previously was assigned to the  xgformer Power, Petroleum, Railroad or Automobile Emergency Radio Services the applicant may: (a)  xsubmit the coordination request and application to the coordinator responsible for managing the channel;  x(b) submit the coordination request and application to the coordinator of the applicant's choice who would  xthen forward the application to the coordinator responsible for managing the channel; or (c) perform the  S'coordination and obtain written concurrence from UTC, API, AAR or AAA, as appropriate.emz {O'ԍSee para. APP PROCESS28 supra.e  Sl' e +44.ؠ` ` Paired VHF taxicab radio service channels. ITLA asserts that its constituents received  xunexplained disparate treatment when the Commission abolished the geographical separation of taxi and  S' x*nontaxi users in certain areas.Xn  yO'ԍITLA Petition for Reconsideration at 6.X Additionally, it argues that assigning single channel simplexoB yOB'ԍTAXI PAIREDPAIRED TAXISimplex operation is an operating method in which transmission is made possible alternatively in each direction of a telecommunication channel. Ordinarily, frequencies in the 150174 MHz band are assigned as single simplex channels, except for certain frequencies available in the former Taxicab Radio Service, which  {O 'were assigned in pairs in some metropolitan areas. See 47 C.F.R.  90.173(i), 90.93(c)(1), and 90.93(c)(2) (1996). Taxicab companies have typically used two simplex channels for dispatching. In such a system, the dispatcher transmits only on frequency 1 and receives on frequency 2 and the individual taxicabs transmit only on frequency 2 and receive on frequency 1. Using this type of operation, individual taxicabs are able to communicate only with the dispatcher and not with other taxicabs. operation  S'in areas where taxicab companies currently use twofrequency simplex operation will invite interference.Yp yO&'ԍITLA Petition for Reconsideration at 14.Y "6p,l(l(,,>"Ԍ S' e m X ,45. TAXI נ` ` As explained in note PAIRED TAXI111 supra, taxicabs using twofrequency operation are unable to  xmonitor their transmit frequency prior to transmitting. If other users in the same geographic area were  xoperating in the single frequency simplex mode, excessive interference could result. Therefore, the  xgCommission finds merit in ITLA's contention that compatibility problems could be encountered if both  xsingle frequency simplex and twofrequency simplex operations are permitted in the same general area.  xAccordingly, in those areas in which the former Taxicab Radio Service was afforded geographic separation  xfrom the former Business Radio Service on VHF frequencies, the Commission will require any  xIndustrial/Business Pool user of these VHF frequencies to employ halfduplex operation with the base  xkstation transmit frequency 5.28 MHz below the mobile transmit frequency in order to ensure compatibility with existing stations operating on those VHF frequencies.  S' e -46.ؠ` ` Specific frequency limitations. In the Second R&O, the Commission provided the current  xtPetroleum Radio Service frequency coordinator with exclusive authority to coordinate frequencies that  Sk ' xEwere listed solely within that radio service.[qk nx {O 'ԍSee Second R&O, 12 FCC Rcd at 14330.[ API asserts that several Petroleum Radio Service  xfrequencies were not labeled in accordance with this provision. Additionally it claims that limitations on  S ' xseveral frequencies were omitted and should be reinstated.Irz Znx yO'ԍAPI Petition for Reconsideration at 89. The frequencies in question are: 1628 kHz, 1652 kHz, 1676 kHz, 1700 kHz, 2292 kHz, 2398 kHz, 4637.5kHz, and 25.14 MHz. Additionally, API asks that limitation 4 be added to 2292 kHz, limitations 4, 7, and 9 be added to 30.66 MHz and 30.82 MHz, and limitations 4 and 7 be  {OW'added to 30.74 MHz. Specific frequency limitations are listed in new rule section 90.35(b). See Second R&O at para. 196. Limitation 4 allows geophysical stations to use tone or impulse signalling on a secondary basis for purposes other than indicating failure of equipment. Limitation 7 allows assignment of geophysical stations on a secondary basis. Limitation 9 states that operation is secondary to stations in the maritime mobile service.I Upon analysis of the frequency table, the  xCommission agrees, in part, with API's contentions. Specifically, the Commission found that of all the  S ' xfrequencies in question, only 25.14 MHz was allocated exclusively to the Petroleum Radio Service.s nx {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R. Part 90 (1996). 1628 kHz and 1652 kHz were shared with the Film and Video Production Radio Service; 1676 kHz and 1700 kHz were shared with the Forest Products Radio Service; 2292 kHz and 4637.5kHz were shared with the Power, Film and Video Production, and Special Industrial Radio Services; and 2398kHz was shared with the Power, Forest Products, Film and Video Production, and Special Industrial Radio Services.  x Thus, the Commission will revise the frequency table accordingly. Further, the Commission will add  xlimitations 4 and 7 to 2292 kHz, 30.66 MHz, 30.74 MHz, and 30.82 MHz. The Commission declines to  xadd limitation 9 to these frequencies. That limitation, corresponding to limitation 7 in the former  S' xMPetroleum Radio Service, was not applicable to the listed frequencies.ZtN nx {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  90.65(b) (1996).Z Finally, to correct an error in  xthe Industrial/Business Pool frequency table, the Commission is amending the rules to remove limitation 30 from 469.500 MHz and 469.550 MHz.  S' e 9.47.MEDנ` ` MED Channels. On our own motion, the Commission addresses a matter relating to  xDchannels used for emergency medical communications (MED channels). Prior to commencement of this  xproceeding, ten MED channels were assigned, each with a 25 kHz channel bandwidth. These MED"t0*&&,,$"  xchannels were divided into two groups with MED9 and MED10 comprising one group and MED1  S' xkthrough MED8 comprising the second group.zunx {O5'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  90.27(c)(11) (1996) and 90.27(c)(13) (1996).z Subsequently, the MED channels were subdivided, with  S' x6.25 kHz spacing, to derive a total of 32 channel pairs between MED1 and MED8.avZnx {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  90.27(c)(13)(i) (1996).a Under our Rules,  xwith exceptions not relevant here, equipment used on MED channels 18 must be capable of transmitting  xand receiving on each of the MED channel pairs. At present, there is no type accepted equipment  xQavailable that will permit licensees to conform to the transmitting and receiving requirements of 47 C.F.R.  S' x 90.27(c)(13)(ii), i.e. manufacturers have not yet submitted for type acceptance, equipment capable of  xtuning 6.25 kHzspaced MED channels. Accordingly, for one year following the effective date of rules  Si' x&adopted pursuant to this Second MO&O, the Commission will permit new licensees to continue using  xequipment only capable of transmitting and receiving on MED channels 18, as permitted by the prior  ximplementation of Section 90.27(c)(13)(ii) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R.  90.27(c)(13)(ii) (1994). Thereafter,  x/and until the year 2006, new licensees must employ MED transceivers capable of transmitting and  xreceiving on 12.5 kHz or 6.25 kHz spaced MED channels; after the year 2006, new licensees must  xQemploy MED transceivers capable of transmitting and receiving on 6.25 kHzspaced MED channels. The  xxCommission makes these provisions effective in 2006, rather than 2005 ! the year in which type accepted  xradios must comply with the 6.25 kHz channel plan. In doing so, the Commission provides an additional  xone year "lead time" for manufacturers to get radios into the marketplace well in advance of the date that  xlicensees must convert to 6.25 kHz operation. All licensees operating on the MED channels as of one year  Sl' xafter the effective date of the rules adopted in this Second MO&O will be grandfathered and permitted to continue operating with radios capable of operation only on MED channels 1 through 8.  S' e d/48. ` ` Change to Narrower Emission Type. Also on our own motion, the Commission amends  xSections 90.135(a)(2), 90.135(b)(5) and 90.135(d) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R.  90.135(a)(2), 90.135(b)(5),  x90.135(d). These rule sections permit licensees to change emission type without filing for modification  xof license provided the change is to an emission type narrower than the currently authorized emission type.  xUnder the current rules, the licensee must notify the Commission of a change to a narrower emission type,  xbut there is no mechanism in place, such as issuance of a public notice, that insures that information  xconcerning the change will be timely and reliably conveyed to frequency coordinators. Accordingly, and  xbecause the Commission believes that the cited rule sections are seldom invoked, the Commission  xeliminates this exception to the requirement that licensees must file an application for modification of license when they change emission type.   S' e 049.ؠ` ` Premature Classification of Offset Channels. The International Municipal Signal  xAssociation (IMSA), the International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. (IAFC), the American Association  xof State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the ForestryConservation Communications  S ' xAssociation (FCCA) filed a Joint Petition for Partial Reconsideration.|w nx {O!'ԍIMSA et al. Joint Petition for Partial Reconsideration, Feb. 4, 1997.| Therein they opposed what they  x<characterized as "premature reclassification of the low power offset channels in the Fire, Highway  S' xMaintenance and ForestryConservation Services to the Local   Government Service."Bx~nx {O$'ԍId. at 12.B IMSA et al."x0*&&,,7"  S' xclaimed that this asserted "premature reclassification" occurred in the Memorandum Opinion and Order  S' xreleased December 30, 1996.ynx {O6'ԍMemorandum Opinion and Order, PR Docket No. 92235, 11 FCC Rcd 17676 (1997). Subsequently, however, in the Second R&O, the Commission consolidated  xMthe Fire, Highway Maintenance ForestryConversation and Local Government Services into the Public  xSafety Pool, thereby making any prior "reclassification" immaterial. Accordingly, the Commission hereby  S6'dismisses the IMSA et al. Joint Petition for Partial Reconsideration as moot.  S' e 150. ` ` Petition for Clarification and Petition for Stay. On January 14, 1998, IMSA and IAFC  S' xfiled a petition for clarification and a motion to stay.KzXZnx yO 'ԍPetition for Clarification of International Municipal Signal Association and International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. (Clarification Petition); Motion for Stay of the International Municipal Signal Association and International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. (Stay Motion).K IMSA and IAFC ask the Commission to stay  xlicensing on certain channels in the 453 MHz and 458 MHz bands unless applications therefor have been  S8' xcoordinated by the recognized coordinator for the former Emergency Medical Radio Service (EMRS).B{8znx yOR'ԍStay Motion at 7.B  S' xThe bases for the Clarification Petition and Stay Motion are that, in the frequency table in the Second  S' x@R&O,| nx {O}'ЍSecond R&O, 12 FCC Rcd at 1437414431. coordinators other than IMSA were listed for certain EMRS frequencies.O}nx yO'ԍClarification Petition at 45.O IMSA and IAFC  xassert that this listing of coordinators might be interpreted as an intent by the Commission to "change the  Sn ' xprimary use designation of these channels"@~n , nx {O:'ԍId. at 5.@ to other than EMRS use. Thus, they contend that a stay is  S; 'necessary to prevent use of the EMRS frequencies by others.J; nx {O'ԍStay Motion passim.J  S ' e i251. ` ` The Commission notes, as an initial matter, that the frequency coordinator listing,  S ' x*described supra, was an inadvertent error in the Second R&O which the Commission intended to correct  Sp' xin this Second MO&O.^pP nx {O`'ԍSee para.  TYPO3  supra. ^ A corrected table is contained in Appendix C hereto. The Petition for  xgClarification therefore is unnecessary and is dismissed as moot. IMSA and IAFC have not shown that  S ' xany specific party has been "misled into thinking that these frequencies may be used for any purpose,"X nx yO 'ԍStay Motion at 5, emphasis in original.X  xMmuch less that coordination requests or applications actually have been filed for EMRS frequencies by  xnonEMRS entities. Accordingly, the Commission denies the Stay Motion. Because the Commission is  x denying the IMSA and IAFC Clarification Petition and Stay Motion, the Commission is dismissing, as"sr0*&&,,"  S' xmoot, the opposition to the Clarification Petition and Stay Motion filed by APCO^Xnx yOh'ԍOpposition of APCO to Motion for Stay and Petition for Clarification, February 3, 1998. Although the APCO pleading is untimely, the Commission accepts it nonetheless on APCO's representation that APCO was not properly served with the IMSA and IAFC pleading, and in the interest of a complete record.^ and the reply pleading  S'filed by IAFC/IMSA.nx yOU'ԍInternational Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. and International Municipal Signal Association Reply to Opposition.  Sg' e 352.` ` Petition for Issuance of Erratum or Petition for Reconsideration. On November 12, 1997,  x7Ericsson, Inc. filed a Petition for Issuance of Erratum or Petition for Reconsideration (Ericsson Petition).  xEricsson notes that revised Section 90.203(j)(3) of the Rules requires a spectrum efficiency of 4800 bits  xper second per 6.25 kHz for data transmission and believes that this data rate specification was erroneously included in the Rules.  S5' e r453. ` ` As an initial matter, Ericsson's Petition for Reconsideration is untimely and the  xCommission dismisses it on that ground. With regard to the alternative caption of Ericsson's filing ! the  xDPetition for Issuance of Erratum ! the Commission is treating this as an informal request for Commission  xaction pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. The Commission has reviewed Section  xt90.203(j)(3) of the Rules and find no error. Section 90.203(j)(3) accurately reflects the Commission's  S6 ' xQdecision in the Second R&O. Accordingly, considered as an informal request for Commission action, the Ericsson Petition is denied.  S 'Dg IV. CONCLUSION Đ\  S8' e 9554.CONCLUSION ` ` Wgith the adoption of this Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission  xreaffirms its commitment to consolidating the radio services below 800 MHz, clarifies certain aspects of  xZthe radio service consolidation, and incorporates certain modifications to rules for the PLMR services.  S' xThese decisions affirm the general framework for consolidation adopted in the Second R&O. Additionally,  xclarification regarding low power channels in the 450470 MHz band and licensing procedures for trunked  xsystems is provided. In sum, the rule amendments and clarifications adopted herein continue our efforts to promote effective and efficient use of the PLMR spectrum.  So'  V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Đ\  S ' A.Regulatory Flexibility Act  S' e 655. REG FLEX  ` ` Appendix B contains a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with respect to this Second  Sq'Memorandum Opinion and Order.  S ' gB.Ordering Clauses  S' e q756.ORDERING CLAUSES ` ` Ign view of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 303(r),  x and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303(r), and 405, and"s@0*&&,,."  S' x!Section 1.429(i) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.429(i), IT IS ORDERED that the Petitions for  S' xkReconsideration described herein ARE GRANTED in whole or in part and DENIED in whole or in part  S' xas discussed herein;h\nx {O'ԍAs indicated in para. NO TRUNK3 supra., those aspects of petitions for reconsideration regarding trunking rules and  {O'interference to medical telemetry equipment not addressed in this Second MO&O remain pending in this proceeding and will be addressed in a future order.h that the Petition for Clarification of International Municipal Signal Association and  Sg' xInternational Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. is DISMISSED as moot; that the Motion for Stay of the  S4' x*International Municipal Signal Association and International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. is DENIED ;  xthat the Opposition to Motion to Stay and Petition for Clarification filed by the Association of Public  S' xSafety Communications Officers International is DISMISSED as moot; that the International Association  S' xof Fire Chiefs, Inc. and International Municipal Signal Association Reply to Opposition is DISMISSED Ą  x as moot; that the Petition for Issuance of Erratum or Petition for Reconsideration of Ericsson, Inc. is  S5' x DISMISSED , when considered as a petition for reconsideration and DENIED , when considered as an  xinformal request for Commission action; and that the Emergency Request for Limited Licensing Freeze  S'filed by UTC The Telecommunications Association and the American Petroleum Institute is DENIED .  Si ' e 857. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i)  x^and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  4(i) and 303(r), Part 90 of the  S ' xCommission's Rules IS AMENDED as set forth below effective [30 days after publication in the  S 'Federal Register] .  Sj' e 958. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference  S7' xOperations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Second Memorandum Opinion and Order including  xthe Supplemental Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  Sl' i C.Contacts for Information  S' e :59. CONTACTS  ` ` For further information contact Ira Keltz or Michael Wilhelm of the Wireless  x@Telecommunications Bureau, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Policy and Rules Branch, at (202) 4180680 or via EMail to "mayday@fcc.gov". ` `  hhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCMagalie Roman Salas ` `  hhCSecretary i "0*&&,,3"  S' APP A Y APPENDIX A   S'G$List of Petitioners Đ Sg'\  S4'Petitions for Reconsideration or Clarification:  S'1.Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC)  S'2.American Automobile Association (AAA)  S'3.American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc. (AMTA)  Sh'4.American Petroleum Institute (API)  S5'5.American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA)  S'6.Ericsson, Inc. (Ericsson)  S'7.HewlettPackard Company (HP)  S '8.Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc. (ITA)  Si '9.International Taxicab and Livery Association (ITLA)  S6 '10.Kenwood Communications Corporation (Kenwood)  S ' "11.X\1.Manufacturers Radio Frequency Advisory Committee (MRFAC) Petition for Clarification, or in the Alternative, for Declaratory Ruling(#  S '12.Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)  Sj'13.Small Business in Telecommunications (SBT)  S7'14.UTC, the Telecommunications Association (UTC) Petition for Clarification  S'Oppositions and Comments to Petitions for Reconsideration:  S'1.Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC)  Sk'2.Affiliated American Railroads (AAR)  S8'3.Association of PublicSafety Communications Officials International (APCO)  S'4.Forest Industries Telecommunications (FIT)  S'5.Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc. (ITA)  S'6.INTEK, Inc.  Sl'7.Manufacturers Radio Frequency Advisory Committee (MRFAC)  S9'8.Motorola  S'9.Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)  S'10.SpaceLabs Medical Products, Inc. (Spacelabs)  S'11.UTC, the Telecommunications Association (UTC)pp  Sm'  S:'Reply Comments:  S'1.American Automobile Association (AAA)  S'2.Alarm Industry Communications Council (AICC)  S'3.American Petroleum Institute (API)  Sn'4.HewlettPackard (HP)  S;'5.International Taxicab and Livery Association (ITLA)  S '6.Kenwood  S '7.Small Business in Telecommunications (SBT)  S!'8.UTC, the Telecommunications Association (UTC)  S<#'Supplemental Comments:  S $'1.American Automobile Association (AAA) "$0*&&,,%"Ԍ S'Petition  S'1.International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA)  Sg' ` ` and International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)  S'Motion  S'1.International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA)  Sh' ` ` and International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)  S'Opposition  S '1.Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, International (APCO)xxX   S6 'Reply to Opposition  S '1.International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA)  S ' ` ` and International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)   S7'Letters:  xxNote: The following letters, addressed to the Commission's chairman are all substantively identical "form"  S'letters supporting the position taken by AAA in its petition for reconsideration, supra.:  S9'1.Township of Abington, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S'2.Borough of Aboca, Pennsylvania  S'3.Borough of Ashley, Pennsylvania  S'4.Borough of Berwick, Pennsylvania  Sm'5.Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S:'6.Brookhaven, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S'7.Dallas Borough, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S'8.Dallas Township, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S'9Danville, Pennsylvania, Police Department  Sn'10Borough of Dupont, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S;'11.Borough of Edwardsville, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S'12.The Association of Chiefs of Police, Essex County, New Jersey  S'13Evansville, Indiana, Police Department  S'14Exeter, Pennsylvania, Police Department  So'15.Forty Fort Borough, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S<'16.Office of the Sheriff, Hancock County, Ohio  S '17.Township of Hanover, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S '18.Township of Haverford Police Department  S!'19.Borough of Hughestown, Pennsylvania, Police Department  Sp"'20.Jenkins Township, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S=#'21Municipality of Kingston, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S $'B`nx  S'Letters (Cont.)B22.Kingston Township, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S$'23Lehman Township Police Department"$0*&&,,`%"Ԍ S'24Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, Emergency Services Department  S'25Borough of Marcus Cook, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S'26.Media, Pennsylvania, Police Department  Sg'27.Nanticoke, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S4'28.New Britain Borough, Pennsylvania, Department of Police  S'29.New Britain Borough, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S'30.New Jersey Police Traffic Officers' Association  S'31.City of Phoenix, Arizona, Police Department  Sh'32.City of Pittston, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S5'33.Plains Township, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S'34.Borough of Plymouth, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S'35.Plymouth Township, Pennsylvania, Police  S '36.Township of Springfield, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Department of Police  Si '37.Township of Springfield, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Department of Police  S6 '38.Tinicum, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S '39.Trainer Boro, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S '40.City of WilkesBarre, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S '41.WilkesBarre Township, Pennsylvania, Police Department  Sj'42.Willistown, Pennsylvania, Police Department  S7'43.Wright Township, Pennsylvania, Police Department"70*h$h$p"  S'` APP B  Z APPENDIX B   S' Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Đ\  S4' e  1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a); 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)1. REGFLEX  ` ` As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), see 5 U.S.C.  603, Initial  S' xDRegulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFA) were incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making and the  S' x*Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in PR Docket 92235.p nx yO8'ԍReplacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the  {O'Policies Governing Them, PR Docket 92235, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 7 FCC Rcd 8105, 8133 (1992)  {O'(Refarming Notice). Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them and Examination of Exclusivity and Frequency Assignments Policies of the  {O\ 'Private Land Mobile Radio Services, PR Docket No. 92235, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed  {O& 'Rule Making, 10 FCC Rcd 10076, 10177 (1995) (Report and Order or Further Notice). A Final Regulatory  {O 'Flexibility Analysis was provided in the first Memorandum Opinion and Order, Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them, PR Docket 92 {O '235, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 17676, 17718 (1996). An additional Final Regulatory  {OL'Flexibility Analysis was furnished in connection with the Second Report and Order, Replacement of Part 90 by  yO'Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them, PR Docket  {O'92235, Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 14307, 14353 (1997). The Commission sought written public  S' xcomment on the rule making proposals in the Refarming Notice and Further Notice, including on the  x*respective IRFAs. This present Supplemental Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental FRFA) in this  S9'Second Memorandum Opinion and Order (Second MO&O) conforms to the RFA.aZ9 nx {O'ԍSee 5 U.S.C.  603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).a  S 4 I.Need For, and Objectives of, the Second MO&O  S; ' e 2. FRFA_A  ` ` Our objective is to increase spectrum efficiency and facilitate the introduction of advanced  xtechnologies into the 150174 MHz, 421430 MHz, 450470 MHz, and 470-512MHz private land mobile  S ' x}radio (PLMR) bands. The Report and Order in this proceeding modified the Commission's rules to  xresolve many of the technical issues which inhibited the use of spectrally efficient technologies in these  xfrequency bands. It also stated the Commission's intent to consolidate the twenty existing radio service  S=' xpools. The Further Notice in this proceeding proposed several methods of introducing market based  S ' xxincentives into the PLMR bands, including exclusivity. In the Second R&O, the Commission consolidated  xthe radio service frequency pools and addressed related issues such as frequency coordination, trunking,  S' xand low power frequencies. This Second MO&O address petitions for reconsideration and clarification  St'received in response to the Second R&O.  S' e 3. ` ` The Commission finds that the potential benefits to the PLMR community from the  xpromulgation of rules for this purpose exceed any negative effects that may result. Thus, the Commission  xconcludes that the public interest is served by modifying our rules to consolidate the PLMR services and increase the spectral efficiency of the PLMR bands."v"0*&&,,"Ԍ  S' " II.XSummary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response to the Previous Final  S'Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (#  S4' e 4. FRFA_B  ` ` No reconsideration petitions were submitted in direct response to the previous FRFAs.  x7The Commission has, however, reviewed general comments that may impact small businesses. Much of  xthe impact on small businesses arises from the central decision in this proceeding determining the  xnumber of frequency pools and the eligibility criteria for each pool. This affects small businesses in the  xfollowing way. A smaller number of pools provides a greater number of frequencies available for small  xbusinesses that use PLMR systems to meet their coordination needs. Additionally, by creating fewer  xxpools, frequency coordinators will now be subject to competition. Thus, small businesses that use PLMR  xsystems can expect to pay lower prices for frequency coordination while receiving equivalent or better  xservice. Finally, consolidating the PLMR services provides each frequency coordinator, which currently provides service only for a narrowly defined type of user, with the ability to expand its business base.  S ' III.XDescription and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Subject to Which the Rules Apply (#  Sj' e W5. FRFA_C  ` ` The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of  xMthe number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted. The RFA generally defines the  xterm "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and  S' x@"small governmental jurisdiction."Pnx {O9'ԍSee 5 U.S.C.  601(6).P In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the  S' xgterm "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.=Znx yO'ԍ5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C.  632). Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C.  601(3).= A small business concern is one which:  x^(1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any  S8' x<additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).^8 nx yO'ԍSmall Business Act, 5 U.S.C.  632 (1996).^ A small organization is  xgenerally "any notforprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant  S' x in its field."Fnx yO 'ԍ5 U.S.C.  601(4).F Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.* nx yO 'ԍ1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6 (special tabulation of data under contract to the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration). "Small  xgovernmental jurisdiction" generally means "governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,  Sl' xschool districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000."Fl nx yO$'ԍ5 U.S.C.  601(5).F As of 1992, there were"l 0*&&,,"  S' x&approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United States.| nx yOh'ԍU.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "1992 Census of Governments."| This number includes 38,978 counties,  S' xcities and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000.: Xnx {O'ԍId.: The Census  xBureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, the Commission estimates that 81,600 (91 percent) are small entities.  R4 F Estimates for PLMR Licensees Đ\  S' e 96. ` ` Private land mobile radio systems serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial,  x^business, land transportation, and public safety activities. These radios are used by companies of all sizes  xoperating in all U.S. business categories. Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the Commission has  xnot developed, nor would it be possible to develop, a definition of small entities specifically applicable  xto PLMR users. For the purpose of determining whether a licensee is a small business as defined by the  xSmall Business Administration (SBA), each licensee would need to be evaluated within its own business  xkarea. The Commission's fiscal year 1994 annual report indicates that, at the end of fiscal year 1994, there  S6 ' xIwere 1,101,711 licensees operating 12,882,623 transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz. 6 nx {O'ԍSee Federal Communications Commission, 60th Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1994 at 120121.  xFurther, because any entity engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold a PLMR license, these  S 'rules could potentially impact every small business in the U.S.  |nx yO'ԍThe Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments were not in effect until the record in this proceeding was closed, hence the Commission did not request the level of information currently mandated under the RFA.  R74( Estimates for Frequency Coordinators Đ\  S' e 57. ` ` Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a definition of small entities  xspecifically applicable to spectrum frequency coordinators. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the  Sk' x&closest applicable definition under SBA rules is Business Associations (SIC 8611).O knx {O'ԍSee Second R&O at 14355.O The SBA defines  x*a small business association as an entity with $5.0 million or less in annual receipts. There are 18 entities  xcertified to perform frequency coordination functions under Part 90 of our Rules. However, the  xCommission is unable to ascertain how many of these frequency coordinators are classified as small  xentities under the SBA definition. The Census Bureau indicates that 97% of business associations have  x3annual receipts of $4.999 million or less and would be classified as small entities. The Census Bureau  xcategory is very broad, and does not include specific figures for firms that are engaged in the frequency  x@coordination. Therefore, for the purposes of this Supplemental FRFA, the Commission estimates that almost all of the 18 spectrum frequency coordinators are small as defined by the SBA. "m!f 0*&&,,+"Ԍ S' "2  IV.XDescription of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements  S'of the Rules (#  Sg' e X8. ` ` The rules adopted in this Second MO&O do not have any general reporting or  xrecordkeeping requirements for PLMR licensees. There are, however, a few compliance requirements.  x*First, frequency coordinators, when recommending frequencies that were formerly allocated on a shared  xxbasis to the Petroleum Radio Service, must obtain the concurrence of the former Petroleum Radio Service  xfrequency coordinator. While the Commission wants to remove as many requirements on the licensing  x^process as possible, the Commission believes that this requirement is necessary in order to protect critical  S6' xsafetyrelated communications systems.o6nx {O 'ԍSee Second MO&O at para. FORMER IP FREQS - 2?.o The American Petroleum Institute, supported by several  S' xcommenters, petitioned for protection of existing petroleum stations based upon coverage contours.GZnx {O 'ԍId. at para. 10.G  xRather than institute a complex requirement based on the computation of coverage contours, the  xCommission believes that the goals of protecting these systems can be achieved through a simple  Sj 'concurrence requirement.Gj nx {O'ԍId. at para. 11.G  S ' e 9. ` ` Second, the Commission is requiring each of the coordinators that have sole management  x^authority over a group of frequencies to supply supporting reasons for denying any request for frequency  S ' xcoordination on those frequencies.G ~nx {O'ԍId. at para. 24.G The American Automobile Association petitioned for a clarification  xthat would have held these coordinators to the same coordination procedures as previously were applicable  S8' xunder the former interservice sharing rules.D8nx {O'ԍId. at n. 80.D The Commission believes that such procedures would be  xexcessive under the new consolidated pool structure. Therefore, to guard against summary denials and  xto promote sharing to the greatest degree possible, the Commission believes that requiring the coordinators  xwith sole management authority over certain frequencies to justify any denials of coordination on those  Sl'frequencies will suffice.Glnx {O'ԍId. at para. 24.G  S' " V.XSteps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant  S'Alternatives Considered (#  Sm' e  10.` ` The Commission, in this Second MO&O, has considered petitions for reconsideration and  S;' xgclarification regarding its Second R&O in PR Docket No. 92235, which consolidated the PLMR radio  xtservices below 512 MHz. In doing so, the Commission has adopted several proposals which minimize  xburdens placed on small entities. First, the Commission adopted a concurrence requirement on frequencies  xVthat were allocated to the former Petroleum Radio Service on a shared basis. Based on the need to  xprovide additional protection to entities operating on these frequencies, concurrence is the simplest method"p"4 0*&&,,R"  xof providing this protection. The alternative would be to require applicants and frequency coordinators,  S' xQincluding those that are small businesses, to conduct complex and costly contour analyses.{nx {O5'ԍSee Second MO&O at para. FORMER IP FREQS - 2?.{ Second, the  xCommission did not expand the number of frequencies on which coordinators have sole management  xtauthority. This decision will ensure the continued benefits of consolidation. Namely, entities will have  xDmore frequency options than if more frequencies were restricted. The increase in frequency choices will  xprovide a greater likelihood that licensees, including small entities, will share frequencies with fewer  S' x}systems, enabling them to achieve more efficiency in their radio systems.VZnx {O'ԍSee Second MO&O at para. 1215.V Third, the Commission  x7clarifies that a coordinator, at an applicant's request, who determines that the most appropriate frequency  xDis one that is managed solely by another frequency coordinator can forward an application directly to that  xcoordinator. The alternative would be to return applications which would foster inefficiency, add delays  S' xkto the coordination process, and drive up costs.Gnx {O 'ԍId. at para. 23.G Fourth, the Commission clarifies and modifies the rules  xxregarding designated low power frequencies to (1) allow existing users of low power systems that are not  xcurrently operating on designated low power frequencies to modify their operating frequency to one of  xthe designated frequencies and obtain primary status while still using wideband equipment, and (2) allow  x"new licensees on the designated low power frequencies, all of which are restricted to narrowband  xoperations, to obtain authorizations for wideband equipment on a secondary basis. Many users and  x@manufacturers of low power systems are small businesses and these actions allow for such entities to  S ' xcontinue to use existing equipment and for manufacturers to deplete, rather than scrap, existing inventory.M ~nx {O'ԍId. at para. 29.M  xFifth, the Commission amends the Rules to require entities to operate in the semiduplex mode when using  xformer Taxicab Radio Service frequencies in metropolitan areas. Such action ensures that future  xauthorizations on these channels will be compatible with existing taxicab users, many of which are small  S' xpbusinesses.Gnx {O'ԍId. at para. 39.G Sixth, the Commission amends the rules to extend until 2006, the date by which new  x<licensees operating on the emergency medical (MED) channels must employ equipment capable of  x7operating on all the newly created MED channels. Existing licensees on these channels are grandfathered  xusing their existing radios. This provides relief to licensees, many of which are small businesses, which  S'could not readily comply with the originally proposed rule because of lack of available equipment.Gnx {OG'ԍId. at para. 41.G  S'  S' "M FRFA_G  Report to Congress : The Commission will send a copy of this Second Memorandum Opinion and  Sm' xOrder including this Supplemental FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small  S;' xMBusiness Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the  S ' xgCommission will send a copy of the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, including Supplemental  S' xFRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Second  S' xMemorandum Opinion and Order and Supplemental FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published  Ss'in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C.  604(b). "s#4 0*&&,,+"  S'Y  APP C APPENDIX C   S'_'Final Rules Đ\ Part 90 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:  S' PART 90 PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES  1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1.(1) 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)  Sh' 1.(1) 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. ` ` The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows:  S' AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, and 332, unless otherwise noted.  Si ' 2. ` ` Section 90.20 is amended by removing the entry for 156.2475 MHz, adding entries for 151.0625 MHz, 151.0775 MHz, 151.1825 MHz, 151.1975 MHz, 151.3025 MHz, and 151.3175 MHz to paragraph (c)(3), revising the entries for 35.02 MHz, 151.070 MHz, 151.190 MHz, 151.310 MHz, 453.025 MHz, 453.03125 MHz 453.075 MHz, 453.0125 MHz, 453.125 MHz, 453.175 MHz, 458.025 MHz, 458.075 MHz, 458.125 MHz, 458.175MHz, and 470 to 512 MHz of paragraph (c)(3), paragraphs (d)(66)(ii), (d)(66)(iii), and (d)(66)(iv) and adding new paragraphs (d)(66)(v), (d)(66)(vi) and (d)(77) to read as follows:  S'  90.20 Public Safety Pool. n* * * * * \ (c) * * * (3) * * *  S9'Frequency ` `  Class ofhhCLimitationsCoordinator  S'or Band` `  Stations(s) X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: