********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************

                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                )
                                )
Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise) PR Docket No. 92-235
the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and)
Modify the Policies Governing Them)
                                )
and                             )
                                )
Examination of Exclusivity and Frequency)
Assignments Policies of the Private Land)
Mobile Services                 )


                    SECOND REPORT AND ORDER


   Adopted:  February 20, 1997          Released:  March 12, 1997

By the Commission:


                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title                                                   Paragraph

I.   INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
II.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
III. BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
IV.  DISCUSSION
     A.   Consolidation Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 11
          1.   Number of Pools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
          2.   Eligibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 22
               i.   Public Safety Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
               ii.  Industrial/Business Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
          3.   Interservice Sharing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     B.   Frequency Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
          1.   Coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 32
          2.   Technical Coordination Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 43
          3.   Data Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
          4.   Coordinator Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
     C.   Trunking in the PLMR Bands Below 800 MHz . . . . . . . . . . 56
     D.   Low Power Frequencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
          1.   Designated Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
          2.   Time Frame for Migration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
V.   CONCLUSION . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
VI.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS
     A.   Regulatory Flexibility Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
     B.   Ordering Clauses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 72
     C.   Contacts for Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

APPENDICES                                                  Page
     A.   List of Commenters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
     B.   Comment Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
     C.   Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . 47
     D.   List of Frequency Coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
     E.   Final Rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
     F.   Cross Reference Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .270


                         I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   Our primary goal in this proceeding has been to address the increasing
communications requirements of the private land mobile radio (PLMR) community by developing
a strategy for encouraging more efficient use of PLMR spectrum below 800 MHz -- i.e., those
PLMR Services within the 150-174 MHz, 421-430 MHz, 450-470 MHz, and 470-512 MHz bands. 
The Report and Order (R&O) in this docket served as a critical first step toward achieving this goal. 
In that decision, we adopted extensive rule changes to promote highly effective and efficient use of
the PLMR spectrum and to facilitate the introduction of advanced technologies into the private
mobile services.  We also concluded that the PLMR Services must be consolidated and that
competition should be introduced into the coordinator services for each service group.  We stated
that consolidation of the twenty PLMR service groups below 800 MHz would "provide for more
efficient allocation of the increased capacity created by the introduction of more efficient
technology." 

     2.   By this Second Report and Order, we consolidate the twenty PLMR Services into two
broad service pools, with appropriate provision for ensuring that the safety of the public will not be
compromised.  In addition, we resolve two other issues raised in conjunction with consolidation: 
(a) whether to permit centralized trunking, and (b) how to implement the decision in the R&O to
provide protection for current low power operations in the 450-470 MHz band.  Additionally, we
address a Request for Temporary Relief filed by several public safety coordinators.  We have,
generally, delayed the effective date of these rules until six months after publication in the Federal
Register in order to provide coordinators sufficient time to implement consolidation.  Today's action
is the next critical step toward providing a regulatory framework which promotes efficient use of
PLMR spectrum below 800 MHz.


                      II.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
     3.   The primary action taken today is the consolidation of the twenty PLMR Services into
two pools -- one for Public Safety (including the Special Emergency Radio Service) and one for
Industrial/Business.  By reducing the number of pools to two, we will, consistent with safety
considerations, ensure the most efficient distribution of the additional channels created as a result
of the transition to narrowband technology, permit licensees to better utilize technologically
innovative and efficient equipment, and reduce administrative burdens.  The steps we have taken to
guarantee that this consolidation does not jeopardize public safety are two-fold.  First, we have
established a separate Public Safety Pool as well as a structure within the new Public Safety Pool,
whereby each of the existing Public Safety frequency coordinators can continue to manage
frequencies that they were responsible for prior to consolidation, with one exception.  We will allow
any of the current certified coordinators in the Public Safety Radio Services to coordinate
frequencies allocated to the Local Government Radio Service.  Second, we have identified three
types of entities within the new Industrial/Business pool -- railroad, power, and petroleum companies
-- that routinely use PLMR frequencies for critical public safety-related communications.  To ensure
that the integrity of these communications is not impaired, we will require anyone who seeks to use
the frequencies previously allocated specifically for these types of operations to go through the same
frequency coordinators that have been responsible for coordinating these frequencies.  For example,
a non-railroad business that seeks to use a frequency previously allocated to the Railroad Radio
Service would be required to coordinate its request through the frequency coordinator for this service
(i.e.,  the  Association of American Railroads).

     4.   We are also taking action to ensure that the communications needs of public safety
entities can continue to be met during the six month period prior to the effective date of the rules. 
Therefore, effective upon publication in the Federal Register, we are expanding eligibility in the
Local Government Radio Service to include the non-governmental entities that are currently eligible
in the Fire and Forestry-Conservation Radio Services.

     5.   Our decision today will also facilitate the efficient use of the PLMR spectrum in the
following ways:

         The Industrial/Business frequency pool will be administered by multiple
          coordinators, each of whom will have the authority to coordinate use of any
          frequency within the pool (with the exception of railroad, power, and petroleum
          frequencies, as described above). Thus, users will have the opportunity to make
          marketplace decisions when seeking the services of a frequency coordinator.

         Licensees will be able to operate highly efficient trunked systems in the bands below
          800 MHz, with certain limitations designed to protect the interests of existing users
          sharing the same spectrum (i.e., with concurrence of affected licensees and
          compliance with frequency coordination requirements).

         We are adopting an approach for ensuring that the current low power use of
          frequencies will be accommodated without undue disruption of service.


                         III.  BACKGROUND

     6.   This proceeding concerns PLMR frequencies in the bands below 800 MHz
administered under Part 90 of the Commission's Rules (47 C.F.R. Part 90).  The bands, in general,
are:  150-174 MHz, 421-430 MHz, 450-470 MHz and 470-512 MHz.  Under our current rules, these
frequencies are divided into twenty separate radio services, grouped in four general categories as
shown in Table 1, below.  

Table 1:  Current Private Land Mobile Radio Services Grouped by General Categories


Public Safety Radio Services:  
Local Government, Police, Fire, Highway Maintenance, Forestry-Conservation, and
Emergency Medical Radio Services

Special Emergency Radio Service

Industrial Radio Services:  
Power, Petroleum, Forest Products, Film & Video Production, Relay Press, Special
Industrial, Business, Manufacturers, and Telephone Maintenance Radio Services

Land Transportation Radio Services:  
Motor Carrier, Railroad, Taxicab, and Automobile Emergency Radio Services


     7.   The Radiolocation Service (47 C.F.R. Part 90, Subpart F) is not listed in Table 1,
even though it has frequencies below 800 MHz, because it is not considered a PLMR Service.  While
frequencies in the 421-430 MHz and 470-512 MHz bands are available for PLMR use, these bands
are allotted and allocated differently than the other PLMR frequencies below 800 MHz.  Rather than
being available nationwide and allocated to one of the twenty radio services, they are available only
in certain cities and allocated to certain pools.  Specifically, the 421-430 MHz band is available only
in Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo, and frequencies in this band are divided into three pools:  Public
Safety, Business, and Industrial/Land Transportation.  The 470-512 MHz band is available for
PLMR use in only thirteen cities, and frequencies in this band were originally divided into seven
pools.  Later, however, the rules were changed to put the spectrum into one General Access Pool. 


     8.   In determining that consolidation of the twenty PLMR Services set out in Table 1
would best serve the public interest, we stressed that the intended purpose of consolidating radio
services "is to distribute assignments between low-use and high-use groups more evenly, to simplify
interservice sharing procedures, to organize channel allocations that will enable licensees to more
easily utilize advanced technologies, and to organize the services in such manner to achieve more
efficient and flexible spectrum use."  We also recognized the importance of different services,
particularly Public Safety, and encouraged commenters to develop a plan that included a Public
Safety pool.  We further recommended that such a plan contain clear guidelines regarding the
requirements for inclusion in such a Public Safety pool.  We considered these guidelines necessary
to prevent overcrowding and to maintain the integrity of critical functions of the users included
within this pool.   While we indicated that two to four broad categories, including one for Public
Safety licensees, appeared reasonable, we deferred a final decision on the precise contours of
consolidation to provide members of the PLMR community, including users, manufacturers, and
frequency coordinators, with an opportunity to negotiate and submit a consensus consolidation
proposal to the Commission.  In providing this opportunity, we stated that if a consensus could not
be reached, we would adopt a plan based on the record.  That contingency has come to pass; no
consensus was reached. 

     9.   We also recommended that the PLMR community address other related issues, such
as how to effectively introduce competition among frequency coordinators, whether a single
coordinator or multiple coordinators should be authorized for public safety users, how the existing
databases can be shared to ensure fair competition among all of the frequency coordinators, whether
a national real-time data base to reflect frequency assignments can be created and used, and what
approach should be taken to designate frequencies for low power use on a primary basis.  We
received twenty-eight comments, fourteen reply comments, and two supplemental comments
recommending or supporting a variety of consolidation plans and a number of ex partesubmissions.  In addition, the Industrial Telecommunications Association (ITA) submitted a
proposed technical blueprint for consolidation (Blueprint).  We placed this on Public Notice and
received forty comments and nine reply comments in response.

     10.  The Commission also received a number of petitions for reconsideration requesting
that we reconsider or clarify various rule changes adopted in the R&O.  Several of the petitions
raised issues related to consolidation.  In our recent Memorandum Opinion and Order addressing
these petitions, we stated that we would address the issues related to consolidation when we adopted
a specific consolidation plan.  Finally, the Commission received a Request for Temporary Relief
to permit the frequency coordinators for the Fire, Highway Maintenance, and Forestry-Conservation
Radio Services to continue to coordinate frequencies that were formerly assigned to their respective
pools as low power offset channels.


                         IV.  DISCUSSION
A.  Consolidation Plan

     1.   Number of Pools

     11.  As indicated above, we received a wide range of recommendations in response to our
call for a consensus plan on consolidation.  A number of commenters support consolidation.  Some
endorse the idea in general terms, while others advocate specific consolidation plans.  The plans
contain a range of choices, proposing consolidation of the PLMR Services into two to five pools. 
Those who propose specific plans all agree that there should be a separate pool for public safety (or
"emergency response") services.  The disagreement lies in how many additional pools there should
be.  Supporters of a two-pool approach (public safety and all others) argue that to increase efficiency
and more evenly distribute spectrum, the Commission must not segregate services into arbitrary and
needless classifications, and that advanced technologies make it unnecessary to distinguish different
types of communications.  Those that recommend more than two pools make two principal
arguments.  First, they contend that licensees who use their spectrum to provide safety-related
communications -- even if they do not operate within one of the public safety services -- should be
placed in a different pool than licensees who use the spectrum predominately for business-related
communications.   Second, proponents of a more-than-two pool approach argue that a need exists
to group services based on user compatibility as a function of the type of business conducted. 
Individual consolidation proposals, filed by both those who support and oppose consolidation, are
summarized in Appendix B.  

     12.  A number of commenters oppose consolidation in general, arguing that the current
system should be retained.  Several commenters suggest that the Commission change the
interservice sharing rules rather than consolidate the radio services.  Still others oppose
consolidation but, at the same time, offer specific suggestions on how consolidation should be
accomplished if the Commission should decide to do so.  For the most part, these suggestions
center on protecting safety-related communications.  For example, the Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) recommends that the present public safety
block allocation continue in order to preserve the ability of all public safety agencies to use the
spectrum to protect life and property.  

     13.  Entities other than public safety organizations also argue that they use radio for
critical safety communications and that these communications should be protected.  For example,
the Association of American Railroads (AAR) states that the railroads must be guaranteed clear
channels in a dedicated block of spectrum due to safety concerns and must retain the right to
determine who has access to railroad frequencies.  It recommends that the Railroad Radio Service
not be consolidated with any other radio service or that the Commission create a separate rule part
for railroad radio.  Similarly, API argues for separate treatment for spectrum used by the petroleum
companies, given the use of the Petroleum Radio Service in protecting employee safety during such
operations as exploration, drilling, and maintaining refineries.  Several commenters support the
notion that some types of entities should receive special treatment.

     14.  In general, those that oppose consolidation argue that the Commission's reasons for
consolidation are flawed.  They contend that: (1) it is important in radio services where licensees use
radio for safety-related communications that the current frequency coordinator maintain control over
how the channels in that radio service are used; (2) the current pool system works and that service
specific allocations are necessary because the disparate nature of the radio services does not lend
itself to a "one size fits all" approach; and (3) consolidation will increase the complexity of radio
equipment as well as the coordination process.

     15.  After careful analysis, we have determined that a modified two-pool approach will
best achieve the benefits of consolidation without compromising safety of the general public.  Our
primary goal in this proceeding has been to increase spectrum efficiency in the PLMR bands below
800 MHz.  A consolidation of all twenty PLMR services will significantly increase licensee
flexibility to manage the spectrum more efficiently through access to additional spectrum and
accommodation of advanced technologies.  An additional benefit of PLMR service consolidation
is that it should reduce administrative burdens on users as well as the Commission.  As explained
below, a single pool, while maximizing certain efficiencies, poses too great a risk to the integrity of
the communications operations of law enforcement, fire, and other public safety providers.  On the
other side of the equation, three or more pools appear unnecessary and ultimately will not foster
more efficient spectrum use.  We believe that the safeguards we are adopting for safety-related
communications combined with the modifications to the frequency coordination process will
adequately address the concerns raised by the proponents of three or more service pools.

     16.  Our reasons for establishing a separate public safety pool stem from the fact that a
majority of the communications required by the public safety community are used to protect life and
property and because public safety operations can affect the lives of hundreds, thousands or even
tens of thousands of people.  We recognize that competing demands for and use of spectrum from
entities with a different mission and less critical set of needs than this community could place an
unacceptable strain on the integrity of public safety spectrum use.  We can limit such a strain by
creating a separate pool limited to public safety communications.  Moreover, this approach is
consistent with our goal to foster a regulatory environment in which agencies involved in the
protection of life and property have the communications resources they need to carry out their
mission and an opportunity to select from a wide range of advanced wireless communications
services. 

     17.  With respect to those licensees that are not, strictly speaking, public safety entities
but nevertheless use radio communications to serve critical safety functions, we believe that it is
unnecessary to segregate channels on a nationwide basis (e.g., separate pools) to protect such
communications, as suggested by some commenters.  Rather, this protection can be provided by the
frequency coordination process in the particular service area where the channel is being used for
safety-related communications.  To ensure that such communications are protected, we will require,
as suggested by AAR, applicants for frequencies that are currently allocated to certain radio services
where radio is often used for critical public safety communications to go through the current
recognized coordinator.  In this way, critical communications capabilities can be protected by the
coordinator who is intimately familiar with the use of these frequencies while still allowing the
channel to be used by other entities in other parts of the country.  For example, electric companies
routinely use PLMR to coordinate power restoration efforts during an outage.  Under the current
radio service structure, frequencies used by electric companies are licensed under the Power Radio
Service, and only available to eligibles in that service.  Under a combined non-Public Safety Radio
Service Pool structure, the channel used by an electric company to coordinate repair efforts can be
protected through the frequency coordination process in the area where the channel is used for
critical communications and still be readily available to others, such as manufacturers or taxicabs,
in other areas.  

     18.  This two-pool structure is also best in terms of increasing flexibility and spectrum
efficiency by giving users access to a larger pool of frequencies.  Under a consolidated non-public
safety pool, for example, frequencies initially set aside for tree logging and tree farming (Forest
Products Radio Service) can be used in cities by taxicabs, service companies or other businesses
operated in an urban environment without invoking the interservice sharing rules.  Similarly, 
frequencies initially set aside for taxicabs (Taxicab Radio Service) could be used in rural areas by
farmers or in the operation of mines.  Also, a farmer who uses radio predominantly during the
daytime hours can readily share a frequency with a delivery company or security firm that works
primarily during the night.  Further, the increased flexibility provided by a two-pool structure
enhances the use of advanced technologies, such as trunking.  For example, making additional
spectrum available to licensees will allow public safety entities to more easily implement and use
trunked systems to perform a number of their public safety functions.  We believe that such a result
is in the public interest because it will help improve public safety communication capabilities and
reduce the costs of building and operating public safety communication systems.  

     19.  A two-pool structure also reduces administrative and financial burdens on applicants. 
For example, this consolidation approach will eliminate the need to go through interservice sharing
procedures in order to obtain authorization to operate on frequencies available in other radio
services.  This in turn allows users to get on the air sooner as well as saves them from having to pay
more than one coordination fee.

     20.  Accordingly, we are adopting two pools -- Public Safety and Industrial/Business --
as the basic framework for the PLMR bands below 800 MHz.  Frequencies that were in any of the
Public Safety Radio Services will be combined in the new Public Safety Pool.  Similarly, frequencies
that were in any of the Industrial or Land Transportation Radio Services will be combined in the new
Industrial/Business Pool.  Further, we put frequencies in the 421-430 MHz band allocated for
public safety use in three cities in the Public Safety Pool and those frequencies allocated for business
and industrial/land transportation use in three cities in the Industrial/Business Pool.  Frequencies in
each of the two pools will be available to all eligibles in that pool, unless reserved for a specific
function.  The relationship of the current radio services to the new consolidated pools is shown in
Table 2.  We have listed the 470-512 MHz band in each pool rather than divide up the frequencies
between the two pools.  The Commission already consolidated the various pools in this band into
one pool -- the General Access Pool.  Further, unlike our current approach to the other bands, where
frequencies are allocated to a specific service or group of services, frequencies in the 470-512 MHz
band are available to all eligibles on a first come, first served basis.  Thus, it would be impossible
to divide these frequencies into different pools.

Table 2:  Private Land Mobile Radio Services in each of the two Pools 
                                

Public Safety
Industrial/Business


Local Government
Police
Fire
Highway Maintenance
Forestry-Conservation
Emergency Medical
Special Emergency
Power
Petroleum
Forest Products
Film and Video Production
Relay Press
Special Industrial
Business
Manufacturers
Telephone Maintenance
Motor Carrier
Railroad
Taxicab
Automobile Emergency


     21.  Finally, we recognize that the fundamental changes to the PLMR Services below
800 MHz adopted herein cannot be implemented without a reasonable transition time. In this regard,
the IAFC/IMSA and the Public Safety Communications Council (PSCC) suggest that the
Commission should allow a six-month transition period before the new service pools become
operative, to allow for upgrading of databases and the establishment of technical standards and
operating procedures.  We agree.  Accordingly, we will delay the effective date of the new pools
and associated rules adopted in this proceeding until six months after publication in the Federal
Register.

     2.   Eligibility

     i.   Public Safety Pool

     22.  Although commenters agreed that there should be a public safety pool, there was
some disagreement as to which radio services should be included in the pool.  For example, UTC
recommended that the public safety pool consist of what it referred to as "emergency response"
services -- the Police, Fire, Emergency Medical (EMS) and Special Emergency Radio Services
(SERS).  IAFC/IMSA states that fire and EMS services could co-exist with SERS in a generic
public safety pool.  Other commenters suggest that SERS not be included in such a pool.  They
contend that SERS licensees are not governmental entities and are not true public safety services;
thus, they do not belong in the Public Safety Pool.

     23.  We believe that all of the six current Public Safety Radio Services, as well as the
Special Emergency Radio Service, should be included in the Public Safety Pool.  Any
governmental entity will be eligible to use any Public Safety Pool frequency.  Additionally, non-
governmental entities that apply for frequencies that were previously available solely for public
safety services shall obtain a statement of support from the governmental entity having legal
jurisdiction over the area to be served.  Including all the Public Safety Radio Services and the
Special Emergency Radio Service in one pool will promote the development of wide-area (state and
regional) trunked systems that, in turn, will save scarce resources.  Further, it will promote
interoperability by allowing all governmental entities as well as non-governmental entities involved
in ensuring the safety of life (e.g., hospitals, ambulance companies) to communicate with one
another.  To further promote interoperability, we suggest coordinators in this pool examine the
benefits of using the consensus plan approach discussed herein for low power operations as a way
to reserve channels for universal mutual aid.  Finally, defining eligibility in this way is consistent
with (1) the Commission's definition of public safety services in GEN Docket No. 87-112, which
established the Public Safety National Plan in the 821-824/866-869 MHz bands, and (2) the
PSWAC's definition of  public safety as specified in its Final Report as well as the Commission's
proposals in the Public Safety Notice.

     24.  An additional issue was raised by several public safety frequency coordinators with
respect to entities in the Public Safety Pool.  These coordinators are concerned that the reallocation
of former low power offset channels in the Refarming Report and Order from the Fire, Forestry-
Conservation, and Highway Maintenance Radio services to the Local Government Radio Service
adversely affects the ability of users to access these channels and restricts the coordinators' abilities
to recommend suitable channels.  Specifically, non-governmental entities, such as volunteer fire
departments and nature conservatories, who are currently eligible in the Fire and Forestry-
Conservation Radio Services respectively, are not eligible in the Local Government Radio Service
and may suffer harm due to this reduction in available channels.

     25.  To remedy this situation, these petitioners request that the Commission allow
coordination of new licenses for non-governmental entities, that are eligible in the Fire and Forestry-
Conservation Radio Services, on the frequencies that they had access to prior to the Refarming
Report and Order.  Pursuant to the rules adopted herein concerning consolidation, these
non-governmental entities will be eligible for all frequencies in the public safety pool, including the
low power offsets transferred from the Fire and Forestry-Conservation Radio Services to the Local
Government Radio Service, provided they obtain a statement of support from the governmental
entity having legal jurisdiction over the area served.  However, since the rule amendments being
adopted in this Second Report and Order will not take effect for six months, we are concerned that
the identified entities could suffer harm if the Commission does not take more immediate action. 
Therefore, effective upon publication of this Second Report and Order in the Federal Register, we
are amending the eligibility requirements of the Local Government Radio Service to include non-
governmental entities who are currently eligible in the Fire and Forestry-Conservation Radio
Services.  As under the previous rules, these non-government entities must obtain a statement of
support from the governmental entity having legal jurisdiction over the area to be served.  Such
action will provide these non-governmental entities access to the spectrum they need to ensure the
integrity of their communications systems.

     26.  This action is taken pursuant to Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act
which permits an agency to implement a rule prior to thirty days after publication when the rule "...
relieves a restriction."  Here, we find that this rule amendment will provide certain non-
governmental entities the ability to access spectrum that they were able to prior to the effectiveness
of the rules adopted in the Refarming Report and Order.  Additionally, we note that pursuant to
the consolidation rules being adopted herein, these non-governmental entities will be eligible for
licensing on any frequency in the Public Safety Pool, upon the effective date of the consolidation
rules (i.e., six months after publication of this Second Report and Order in the Federal Register),
subject to a statement of support from the governmental entity having legal jurisdiction over the area
to be served.  At that time, the amendment to the Local Government Radio Service will be
superseded by the new Subpart B (consolidation rules) being adopted herein.

     ii.  Industrial/Business Pool

     27.  As indicated in Table 2, supra, the Industrial/Business Pool will be comprised of
frequencies that were previously allotted to any of the Industrial or Land Transportation Radio
Services, including the Business Radio Service.  Anyone eligible in one of these radio services will
be eligible in the new Industrial/Business Pool for any frequency in that pool unless specifically
precluded.  In this regard, we have adopted the eligibility criteria from the old Business Radio
Service.  Accordingly, anyone engaged in a commercial activity is eligible.  Also, educational,
philanthropic and ecclesiastical institutions are eligible. 

     28.  We note that our consolidation of the Industrial and Land Transportation Services,
including the Business Radio Service, into one pool -- the Industrial/Business Pool, potentially may
affect the current regulatory classification of the licensees in this pool.  In the Second Report and
Order in GN Docket No. 93-252, we examined the regulatory status of all existing mobile services
to determine whether they were commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) or private mobile radio
services (PMRS) under Section 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). 
In the CMRS Second Report and Order, we concluded that with the exception of the Business Radio
Service, all Industrial and Land Transportation Services would be classified as PMRS under Section
332 (d)(3) of the Act.  In the case of the Business Radio Service, however, we determined that the
eligibility rules are sufficiently broad to render this service effectively available to a substantial
portion of the public.  Consequently, classification of Business Radio Service licensees depends on
whether they meet the other two elements of the CMRS definition - operating a for-profit service and
interconnected with the public switched network.  As a result, we are concerned that by defining
the eligibility for this consolidated pool in the same fashion as we did for the Business Radio
Service,  licensees (both current and future) on the old Industrial and Land Transportation
frequencies (Industrial/Business Pool frequencies under consolidation) may now be deemed to offer
service to a substantial portion of the public.  Consequently, such licensees offering for-profit,
interconnected service arguably could be classified as CMRS.  Given that the rules we adopt today
will not be effective for six months, we believe that the most prudent course of action is to defer
resolution of this issue and fully address it in a future proceeding.  In the context of this future
proceeding, we will also examine the negative impact, if any, of such regulatory classification on
the availability of frequencies to satisfy the communications needs of PLMR users.  

     3.   Interservice Sharing

     29.  Under the existing rules, there are provisions that allow entities establishing eligibility
under one radio service to obtain a license for a frequency in another radio service under certain
conditions (interservice sharing).  Because we are eliminating the individual radio service
categories and consolidating the PLMR Services into two pools, interservice sharing rules will no
longer be necessary.  Under consolidation, applicants will have the opportunity to apply directly for
in-pool frequencies that were previously allocated to radio services other than their own. 
Accordingly, we will delete Section 90.176 of our Rules.

     30.  The existing interservice sharing rules allow for sharing between radio services in the
Public Safety Radio Services (group 1).  The rules also permit sharing between the Special
Emergency Radio Service and radio services in the Industrial and Land Transportation Radio
Services (group 2).  Sharing has not been permitted, however, between radio services in group 1 and
group 2.  While we believe that such sharing could increase flexibility, we do not think that it is
appropriate to introduce interpool sharing at this time.  Given the difficult logistics of consolidating
twenty radio services into two pools, introducing additional requirements on the frequency
coordinators could put undue pressures on the new two-pool system.  Therefore, we will prohibit
sharing between the Public Safety Pool and the Industrial/Business Pool, at least for the present time. 
We may revisit this issue once the consolidated system is running smoothly.

B.  Frequency Coordination

     31.  In stating our intention to consolidate the PLMR Services, the Commission
recognized that changes may have to be made in the current frequency coordination process.  For
example, we specifically raised the possibility of implementing a real-time common database for
data exchange and introducing competition between frequency coordinators by allowing users to use
the services of any certified coordinator in the consolidated pools.  In addition, several entities
requested in their comments on consolidation and in their petitions for reconsideration that the
Commission clarify the role and responsibility of frequency coordinators.  In the paragraphs below,
we discuss changes in the coordination process in light of our decision to consolidate the PLMR
Services into two pools.  We recognize that additional changes may be necessary as we gain more
experience with consolidation or if additional responsibilities are given to coordinators.

     1.   Coordinators

     32.  Currently, each of the twenty PLMR Services (except SERS) has one certified
coordinator that is authorized to make frequency recommendations in that Radio Service.  The
coordinators are listed below.


Radio Service
Frequency Coordinator


Local Government and Police
APCO


Fire and Emergency Medical
IAFC/IMSA


Forestry-Conservation
FCCA


Highway Maintenance
AASHTO


Special Emergency
PCIA and IAFC/IMSA


Power
UTC


Petroleum
API


Forest Products
Forest Industries Telecommunications


Film and Video Production
Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers


Relay Press
Newspaper Association of America


Special Industrial
Industrial Telecommunications Association


Business
PCIA


Manufacturers
Manufacturers Radio Frequency Advisory Committee


Telephone Maintenance
Telephone Maintenance Frequency Advisory Committee


Motor Carrier
American Trucking Association


Railroad
AAR


Taxicab
International Taxicab and Livery Association


Automobile Emergency
AAA



     33.  In consolidating these twenty radio services into two pools, we must determine the
appropriate role for these coordinators.  The commenters generally recommend that the Commission
certify the current coordinators in the pool in which the radio service where they currently coordinate
is placed.  We agree with this approach.  The consolidation of twenty different radio services into
two pools is a very complex undertaking.  Allowing existing certified coordinators to continue their
coordination functions will reduce confusion and help ensure that the public continues to receive
access to vital services.  Therefore, we certify current coordinators for the Public Safety Radio
Services and the Special Emergency Radio Service as coordinators in the new Public Safety Pool. 
Similarly, we certify current coordinators in the Industrial and Land Transportation Radio Services
as coordinators in the new Industrial/Business Pool.

     34.  In 1986, when the Commission certified a frequency coordinator in each of the PLMR
Services, special emphasis was placed on the need for each coordinator to be representative of the
users of the radio service in which it was certified.  Our decision to permit each of the current
certified coordinators to provide coordination service in a consolidated pool is not a rejection of this
concept.  Rather, we are recognizing that in many cases similarities exist in the types of systems
PLMR licensees utilize.  Where systems are virtually identical and user needs are similar, we believe
that any of the recognized in-pool frequency coordinators, with their extensive experience and
technical expertise in engineering systems and selecting frequencies, possess the ability to provide
frequency coordination recommendations.  Additionally, allowing frequency coordinators to serve
all eligible users in their respective pool rather than only serving users that meet each radio service's
eligibility requirements should minimize, if not eliminate, market entry barriers for small businesses
pursuant to Section 257 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

     35.  We now turn to the question of whether to allow those coordinators to coordinate all
frequencies in the pool.  Public Safety entities oppose this open-ended approach for a Public Safety
Pool.  APCO and the PSWAC Transition Subcommittee, for example, recommend that the current
method of frequency coordination, where each coordinator is responsible for specific frequencies,
be retained.  APCO states that the present block allocations and individual public safety
coordinators in the existing bands below 470 MHz provide the best method for managing frequency
assignments to ensure that the vital needs of each public safety organization are satisfied.  The
FCCA also supports this position, citing potential problems with abolishing the current public safety
coordinator system and asserting that protection to wide-area systems and logical system planning
will no longer be possible.

     36.  In the non-public safety context, we received comments both opposed to and in
support of allowing in-pool coordinators to coordinate all frequencies in the pool.  Those opposed
argue that a number of radio services have unique features and safety concerns that can only be
accomplished through the expertise of a sole coordinator who is representative of the users and
intimately familiar with each group.  Those in favor contend that there is no reason that a
coordinator for one radio service could not become as quickly familiar with specialized uses of
spectrum for another service, and that competition among frequency coordinators would minimize
the Commission's need to monitor and evaluate the performance of each certified coordinating
committee.

     37.  With respect to the Public Safety Pool, we generally agree with the commenters that
at the present time, except as indicated below, applicants for a frequency in the new Public Safety
Pool should be required to obtain coordination from the current recognized frequency coordinator
for the specified frequencies.

     38.  We are taking a slightly different approach regarding frequencies that are currently
assigned to the Local Government Radio Service.  We will allow any certified coordinator in the
Public Safety Radio Services to coordinate frequencies in the Local Government Radio Service. 
This action is taken for several reasons.  Frequencies in the Local Government Radio service are
used routinely by Police, Fire, Highway Maintenance, Forestry Conservation and Emergency
Medical (governmental entities) eligibles for both non-emergency and emergency communications. 
For example, in many communities Local Government frequencies may be the principal fire or
highway maintenance frequencies and part of a public safety communications plan for these services. 
Therefore, it would seem appropriate for the fire or highway maintenance coordinator (or other
public safety coordinator if those frequencies are being used in another context) to be able to provide
coordination for these frequencies if they are being used in a fire or highway maintenance
communications system.  Further, there are a large number of 450-470 MHz frequencies allocated
to all the Public Safety Radio Services.  Since these frequencies are available to all public safety
entities (just like Local Government frequencies) any of the certified public safety coordinators may
provide coordination.  Thus, there is a coordination mechanism already in place to accommodate
multiple coordinators where public safety frequencies are shared between public safety eligibles. 
Finally, this will introduce competition, to the extent possible, into this pool which, in turn, should
result in lower coordination costs and better service to the public.
     
     39.  As we indicated above, the integrity of the public safety services must be maintained
without fail.  Having each public safety coordinator continue to manage the same frequencies and
have access to all of the current Local Government frequencies, will preserve much of the status quo,
provide coordinators access to a greater number of frequencies with which to accommodate
applicants, and permit applicants to apply directly for frequencies that were previously available only
through interservice sharing procedures.  Also, preserving the jurisdiction of the individual
coordinators over their current spectrum, while expanding access to Local Government frequencies,
will help ensure consistency with local, regional, and state public safety communications plans. 
This issue could be revisited in the future if a more integrated coordination system could be designed
that would not impair public safety interests.

     40.  The Industrial/Business Pool does not present the same concerns as the Public Safety
Pool.  We acknowledge that eligibles in this pool use radio for safety related communications such
as in the case of an accident or working in potentially hazardous situations.  For the most part,
however, radio is used to support business operations.  Although each organization may have slightly
different requirements based on the type of business they conduct, the majority of communications
systems are used in a similar fashion -- for support of day-to-day business activities, such as
dispatching and diverting personnel or work vehicles, coordinating the activities of workers and
machines on location, or remotely monitoring and controlling equipment.  In these contexts, we do
not believe that radio is generally employed to respond to emergencies involving large segments of
the general public.  Moreover, to the extent that businesses occasionally use their radios for
emergencies, we believe that such emergencies are fundamentally similar and, thus can easily be
accommodated by any frequency coordinator.  Therefore, except as discussed below, we will allow
any in-pool coordinator to coordinate any frequency in the pool.  As a direct result of this action,
we believe that further competition will be introduced into the frequency coordination process.  This,
in turn, should result in lower coordination costs and better service to the public.  For example, we
believe market forces will reduce the time it takes to obtain a coordination thereby allowing users
to get on-the-air quicker.  Further, the concept of allowing applicants the opportunity to select among
multiple coordinators is not unique among Part 90 users.  Before the band was reallocated, applicants
for conventional and trunked systems on General Category frequencies had the option of seeking
frequency coordination from any of three frequency coordinators certified to recommend 800 MHz
frequencies: ITA, PCIA, and APCO.

     41.  We recognize that within the Industrial/Business Pool, some types of radio users
employ radio not just for day-to-day business needs but also to respond to emergencies that could
be extremely dangerous to the general public.  Oftentimes these communications systems are
employed to meet Federal regulations.  As stated supra, we believe maintaining the integrity of
spectrum used for such public safety purposes is extremely important and using coordinators who
are knowledgeable with such special communication needs is the best way to protect these systems. 
In this regard, there is broad support in the comments to protect operations in several radio services
(Railroad, Power, and Petroleum) where radio is used as a critical tool for responding  to
emergencies that could impact hundreds or even thousands of people.  Although the primary
function of these organizations is not necessarily to provide safety services, the nature of their day-
to-day operations provides little or no margin for error and in emergencies they can take on an
almost quasi-public safety function.  Any failure in their ability to communicate by radio could have
severe consequences on the public welfare.  For example, the failure or inability of trains to
communicate with each other or a central dispatcher could result in unsafe conditions and an
increased risk of derailment.  Also, utility companies need to possess the ability to coordinate
critical activities during or following storms or other natural disasters that disrupt the delivery of
vital services to the public such as provision of electric, gas, and water supplies.  Because
interruptions in the ability of these entities to communicate could detrimentally affect the public
welfare, we believe that it is important to maintain the integrity of communications on radio
spectrum used for  railroad, power, and petroleum operations.

     42.  Therefore, for the time being, entities who apply for frequencies which are currently
allocated solely to the Railroad, Power, or Petroleum Radio Services must obtain coordination
from the current certified frequency coordinator for the respective service.  We expect, however,
that these coordinators will make every effort to accommodate all applicants on these frequencies,
regardless of the type of business they conduct.   We believe that using coordinators who are
knowledgeable with such special communication needs is the best way to protect these operations,
which involve safety-related communications, and outweighs any potential benefits that may be
gained through a competitive frequency coordination process.  For frequencies in the Railroad,
Power, or Petroleum Radio Services that are also allocated to another radio service, however, entities
may utilize the services of any certified frequency coordinator in the Industrial/Business Pool. 
The alternative would be to require entities in the radio services where the frequencies are shared to
go through a different coordinator than they do now.

     2.   Technical Coordination Procedures

     43.  The consolidation of the PLMR services and the introduction of multiple coordinators
raise concerns of unfair coordinations and coordinator shopping.  AICC and AAA contend that users
will be motivated to seek out the recommendations of as many frequency coordinators as necessary
to achieve the desired final outcome.  UTC shares this belief and recommends the adoption of
sufficiently narrow frequency coordination procedures.  Additionally, commenters emphasize that
standardized coordination procedures are necessary so that each coordinator does not need to review
every application.  We agree that standard coordination procedures are needed.  We believe that
a minimum set of technical coordination procedures to which all frequency coordinators must adhere
is the least burdensome method of providing all members of the PLMR community with confidence
that all new and existing radio systems will be adequately protected from interference.  A minimum
set of coordination procedures will also alleviate concerns of coordinator shopping.  Rather than
establish specific procedures at this time, however, we believe that the coordinators should attempt
to reach consensus themselves on the applicable coordination procedures.  We understand that this
process takes time.  In this regard, we note the efforts of Telecommunications Industry Associations
(TIA) Working Group 8.8 (WG 8.8), which has been developing technical procedures for the
frequency coordination process.  Participants in the TIA project represent all facets of PLMR,
including radio manufacturers, frequency coordinators, and users.  At this time, a draft report titled,
"Report on Technology Independent Methodology for the Modeling, Simulation, and Empirical
Verification of Wireless Communications System Performance in Noise and Interference Limited
Systems Operating on Frequencies Between 30 and 1500 MHz" is undergoing the review and
approval process.  It is expected that this report will be approved by TIA in the near future.  Given
the progress of the TIA WG 8.8 and the potential harm that could befall clients' systems from a lack
of technical coordination procedures we are confident that the frequency coordinators will reach an
agreement on such procedures quickly.  Nevertheless, as stated supra, we will postpone the
implementation of the consolidated pools until six months after publication in the Federal
Register.

     3.   Data Exchange

     44.  When we concluded in the R&O that consolidation was necessary, we also expressed
our intent to foster competition in the frequency coordination process.  We asked users and
frequency coordinators to provide guidance on how existing databases could be shared to ensure fair
competition among all frequency coordinators.  We also asked the PLMR industry to explore
creating and implementing a real-time common database to reflect frequency assignments as
expeditiously as possible.

     45.  Under the current PLMR Service structure, there has been little need for frequency
coordinators to share detailed information about applicants' systems with other coordinators. 
Under the consolidated pool approach we are adopting today, however, commenters have indicated
a need to establish a system for information exchange, but disagree on how this should best be
achieved.  For example, UTC recommends that coordinators in each pool devise a means of
exchanging data either through a real-time method, using a shared database, or by providing notice,
by facsimile or E-Mail, with a limited opportunity for response provided.  Other coordinators state
that a common database has to be established and maintained to ensure that applications, once
submitted, are not in conflict with other applications being submitted at the same time.  The Joint
Pool, however, also expresses opposition to developing a national database noting that the
complexity of such an undertaking would involve coordinating a substantial number of parties in
order to include information that is necessary and relevant to the coordination process. It contends
that electronic transmitting and receiving of frequency notifications is preferable to establishing a
national coordinators' database.

     46.  We agree with the commenters that a real-time common coordinator database may
be desirable.  Such a resource could be an ideal method for coordinators to share data and maintain
up-to-date records of all frequency recommendations so that they can avoid coordinating multiple
applications for the same channel, in the same area, at approximately the same time.  We also
recognize, however, that implementing a real-time common database would require extensive time,
expense, and testing to perfect and that there may be other less costly and less complex methods to
ensure that all necessary data is exchanged in a timely manner.  Therefore, at this time, we will
leave the issue of whether to use a real-time common database to perform their coordination duties
to the coordinators' discretion.  We believe that they are in the better position of determining what
will allow them to perform such duties in an efficient effective, and expeditious manner. 
Coordinators may select to develop their own common database to make frequency
recommendations, use the Commission's data base, or use the services of a third party.  We note that
copies of the Commission's database are available through the National Technical Information
Service.  Further, the Commission provides on-line access to its PLMR Service database through
a third party contractor and puts license grant information on the Internet.  Any disputes that
arise due to inconsistencies or discrepancies in the records of different coordinators, however, will
be resolved using the Commission's database. 


     47.  Although we are not requiring that a common database be implemented at this time,
the need to share accurate and timely coordination information with all in-pool coordinators still
exists.  Without such information, frequency coordinators would not know what other in-pool
coordinators are doing and could make conflicting coordinations.  Therefore, coordinators must
provide notification of all frequency recommendations within one business day of making such
recommendations to every certified in-pool coordinator that is also certified to coordinate that
frequency.  Additionally, on frequencies that are shared between both the Public Safety and
Industrial/Business Pools, coordinators must notify all coordinators of frequency
recommendations.  We believe this notification requirement is extremely important to the
consolidation process.  Notification will not only improve the speed and quality of
recommendations, but it will also encourage and facilitate the cooperation between in-pool
coordinators that is so important to the success of the overall coordination process.  We believe a
one-day notification period is a good compromise between the need to provide information to
coordinators quickly to minimize the chance of conflicting coordinations and the need to minimize
burdens on the coordinators.  Additionally, notification must be made to all in-pool coordinators at
approximately the same time.  At a minimum, each notification must include:  name of applicant,
frequency or frequencies recommended, antenna height, antenna locations, type of emissions,
effective radiated power, a description of the service area, and the time the recommendation was
made.  To safeguard this system, we will require that each coordinator communicate at least once
each business day with each other in-pool coordinator.  Therefore, on days in which no coordinations
are made, notification is still required.  Coordinators, if they desire, are free to include additional
information such as more data or a list of rejected coordination requests with their notifications.  

     48.  We are establishing general guidelines for the one-day notification, but leaving the
implementation details up to each frequency coordinator.  There are a number of different ways to
transfer information quickly today and each coordinator is free to choose whichever method best
meets its needs.  For example, coordinators may use E-Mail or facsimile.  We believe that they are
in the best position to determine how to fulfill this notification requirement within the one-day time
frame.

     49.  In addition to notification of basic information on frequency recommendations,
coordinators, in certain cases, may need more detailed information in order to perform engineering
analyses.  PCIA notes that each coordinator should have access to all relevant information.  We
agree.  However, rather than require coordinators to routinely include all information on proposed
systems, we believe a better approach is to require coordinators to provide this additional
information only upon request.  Therefore, each coordinator must supply, upon request, within one
business day, any additional information requested regarding a pending coordination that it
processed.  Of course, coordinators are free to provide this information in their routine notifications
if they so desire.

     50.  Another issue raised in the comments was the question of concurrence.  Several
commenters recommend that we prescribe some minimum period of time (e.g., ten to twenty
business days) during which other coordinators in the pool may object to a proposed coordination. 
They argue that requiring coordinators only to notify other in-pool coordinators without allowing
a corresponding period to object could result in interference to incumbents and unnecessary burdens
on the Commission to resolve such problems.  Others oppose any  concurrence requirement.  In
general, they contend that a common set of coordination procedures negates the need for
concurrence.  Further, they argue that the concurrence would be detrimental to the benefits gained
by introducing competition because other coordinators would be encouraged to delay their
responses.  ITA, while opposing establishing a concurrence period, notes that there may be a need
for a mandatory waiting period because of the conditional licensing procedures set forth in Section
90.159 of the Commission's rules.  It contends that in cases where applicants choose to take
advantage of these provisions, the Commission will not have had time for formal review.  To
alleviate such concerns, ITA recommends instituting a mandatory waiting period of ten business
days.  This time frame will give coordinators a chance to express any disagreements to the
Commission.

     51.  Given the requirement to establish standard coordination procedures, we believe
requiring concurrence would be redundant.  Further, it could have a negative impact on our  efforts
to increase the quality of customer service through competition.  Nevertheless, we are concerned that
under the approach described herein applicants could start transmitting prior to other in-pool
coordinators being notified.  While we want the licensing process to be as quick as possible and
believe that such situations will rarely occur, we believe all affected coordinators should be aware
of a proposed operation before the entity can start transmitting.  Therefore, we will amend Section
90.159 of the Commission's Rules to institute a mandatory waiting period of ten business days
before applicants can begin transmitting pursuant to temporary and conditional authorization. 

     52.  We believe that the procedures outlined above will prevent the filing of conflicting
applications.  However,  we realize that the one-day period between when a frequency 
recommendation is made and other coordinators are notified could still result in a small number of
conflicting applications.  In these instances, it is the joint responsibility of the applicable
coordinators to take action necessary to resolve the conflict, up to and including notifying the
Commission that an application may need to be returned.  The coordinators are in the best position
to recognize and expediently resolve such conflicts.  Additionally, we believe that each coordinator
should have some responsibility to help resolve problems related to their recommendations.  The
Commission will become involved only if the coordinators cannot agree to a solution.

     53.  As discussed above, coordinators will be responsible for providing other coordinators
certain information within a specified time frame.  We are confident, based on past experience, that
coordinators will meet these requirements.  However, as we have noted in the past when giving
responsibility to coordinators, the Commission may, on its own motion, or at the public's request
conduct an inquiry into a particular coordinator's performance.  After any such investigation we
will determine whether decertification or other action is warranted.

     4.    Coordinator Authority

     54.  Currently, frequency coordinators have the authority to request additional information
from applicants requesting coordination if they believe that such information is needed to make
proper frequency recommendations.  The Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) in
its petition for reconsideration recommends that the Commission expand and codify this authority. 
Specifically, LMCC requests that we amend Section 90.175 of our rules to provide specific authority
for coordinators to request all appropriate technical information, system requirements, and
justification for requested station parameters from applicants.  LMCC further requests that we
indicate that applicants bear the burden of proof in overturning the recommendations of a certified
frequency coordinator.  Additionally, LMCC requests that the Commission state that frequency
coordinators may recommend appropriate changes to the parameters of previously licensed stations,
or take other appropriate measures that will help to minimize harmful interference or remedy
incompatible adjacent channel or co-channel operations.  It argues that this expansion of
responsibility is necessary because the frequency coordinators will have to play a central role in the
effort to protect existing systems and resolve interference complaints arising from the technical
changes adopted in the R&O.  We stated in the MO&O that we would address this issue in the item
dealing with consolidation.

     55.  In the R&O, the Commission stated that coordinators may request additional
information from the applicant when such information is needed for the coordinator to make a proper
frequency recommendation.  The Commission also noted in that same proceeding that, in the event
of a dispute between the coordinator and an applicant, the applicant will have the burden of proof
and persuasion in overturning the coordinator's recommendation.  While we consider this to be
our present policy, in order to eliminate any confusion we will amend Section 90.175 of the
Commission's Rules to specify this authority.  With respect to LMCC's other suggestion,
coordinators, as well as anyone else for that matter, can always make recommendations concerning
minimizing interference.  We see no reason to state this explicitly in our rules.

C.   Trunking in the PLMR Bands Below 800 MHz

     56.    In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding we proposed to allow
centralized trunking ("trunking") in the 150-174 MHz and 421-512 MHz bands in those areas where
exclusivity is recognized by the Commission, or where all co-channel licensees concur.  A
centralized trunked system uses multiple channel pairs in conjunction with a computer which
automatically assigns a user the first available channel or places the user in a queue to be served in
turn.  By permitting idle channels to be assigned on an as-needed basis, a trunked system can
increase the utilization of radio channels over that obtainable by a conventional system.  Although
the comments on this issue supported allowing centralized trunking, we did not adopt rules since the
Further Notice addressed the issue of exclusivity.  In its comments to consolidation, UTC notes
the benefits of trunking and requests that we provide clarification as to whether frequency
coordinators have the authority to designate channel pairs for use by trunked systems.  

     57.  Trunked systems will allow PLMR licensees to construct systems which are more
efficient than conventional systems, thereby allowing licensees to use fewer channels to provide the
same communications capability.  Therefore, rather than defer the issue until we reach a decision on
exclusivity, we believe the public will benefit by allowing trunking on frequencies below 800 MHz
now, provided certain conditions are met.

     58.  To allow trunking to work effectively and efficiently in the PLMR shared bands, we
are adopting rules similar to those adopted for interconnection of PLMR stations with the Public
Switched Network.  We will permit licensees to implement centralized trunked systems in the 150-
174 MHz, 421-430 MHz, 450-470 MHz, and 470-512 MHz bands, provided that they (1) obtain the
consent of all licensees whose service areas overlap a circle with a radius of 113 km (70 mi) from
the trunked system's base station and whose operating frequency is 15 kHz or less removed from the
operating frequency of a trunked system designed to operate on 25 kHz channels or 7.5 kHz or less
removed from a 12.5 kHz trunked system or 3.75 kHz or less removed from a 6.25 kHz trunked
system; and (2) comply with all frequency coordination requirements.  Statements stipulating the
terms of such agreements must be forwarded to the applicable frequency coordinator and the
Commission as an attachment to the license application or modification.  In the Further Notice,
we proposed that PLMR licensees be able to obtain some form of exclusivity in their respective
service areas.  If such rules are adopted, licensees would be able to implement trunked systems
in these exclusive areas, provided that they modify their license to show such operation.

     59.  In areas where licensees implement trunking, new licensees can be assigned the same
channel(s) as the trunked system if the new licensee reaches a mutual agreement with the licensee(s)
operating the trunked system.  If a licensee who previously consented or agreed to participate in a
trunked system later decides against this use, and that licensee is unable to negotiate a mutual
agreement with the operator(s) of the trunked system, that licensee may request that the Commission
reassign it to another channel.  This approach provides licensees with maximum flexibility in the
operation of their systems while assuring that the use of centralized trunking will not detrimentally
impact the operation of another licensee's system.

D.   Low Power Frequencies

     60.  To encourage more efficient use of the available spectrum, the Commission permitted
all eligible users in the 450-470 MHz band to be licensed for low power operations (i.e., not to
exceed 2 watts) on a secondary non-interference basis on frequencies offset 12.5 kHz from regularly
assignable frequencies ("offset channels").  Since that time, these channels have been heavily used
for certain low power operations such as medical telemetry and remote operation of heavy
machinery.  Under the new channel plan adopted in the R&O, these channels are no longer
considered offset channels.  Rather, they are regularly assignable channels available for high power
operations on a primary basis.  We have previously recognized, however, that there is a continuing
need for low power operation and provided frequency coordinators with the authority to designate
specific channels for low power use.  Additionally, we suggested that frequency coordinators
exercise this authority in conjunction with the formulation of a consolidation plan.  Finally, the
Commission provided low power licensees with the option of staying on their currently licensed
channel or moving to a coordinator-designated low power frequency and obtaining primary status. 
Due to the uncertainty surrounding consolidation of the PLMR Services, coordinators have been
reluctant to designate any channels specifically for low power use before a Commission decision on
consolidation.  On August 11, 1995, at the request of HP, the Commission froze applications
requesting power in excess of that previously permitted on the offsets until such time as the issues
relative to consolidation and/or the designation of low power frequencies are resolved.

     61.  A number of parties address the issue of low power frequencies in their comments
on consolidation and other issues raised in the Further Notice.  These comments are best
summarized by LMCC, which recommends that we give the coordinators a period of time after a
decision is made on consolidation to develop a plan to meet PLMR low power needs.  LMCC also
recommends that we give licensees of offset channels an additional period of time to either migrate
to the new low power channels or convert to primary status by registering their coordinates before
lifting the current licensing freeze in the 450-570 MHz band.  HP supports giving licensees a time
to migrate to new channels.

     62.  In addition to the comments noted above, we received several petitions for
reconsideration of the framework we had established for resolving low power issues.  Specifically,
the petitioners urge the Commission to establish blocks of contiguous spectrum based on functional
requirements and technical compatibility, for the exclusive use of low power systems.  HP and
SpaceLabs suggest that a 2.5 megahertz contiguous block of low power channels should be created,
and a one-for-one swap of existing low power channels for channels in this dedicated block should
be instituted.  Also, HP contends that adjacent channel restrictions need to be established to protect
low power operations.  HP further recommends that the Commission take an active role and
establish a minimum set of rules for low power channels.  In the MO&O, we deferred action on
these petitions until such time as we addressed consolidation.

     1.   Designated Channels

     63.  We understand the reluctance, to date, of coordinators to designate specific channels
for low power use.  At the same time, however, we believe it is vitally important for the PLMR
community to address the issue of low power channels as soon as possible.  Would-be licensees of
offset channels cannot apply to use these channels for high power operations because of the current
licensing freeze, and low power users want assurance that they will be protected from interference
by high powered operations before switching channels.  Accommodating these competing interests
while establishing a workable low power frequency plan is not a trivial matter.  In major
metropolitan areas, the demand for both high power and low power operations exceeds the number
of frequencies available.  Moreover, it is highly likely that such high power and low power needs
will vary based on geographic location.  In this connection, we believe that the coordinators will
need some time to analyze the current use patterns of these offset channels and determine a
compromise solution between the two types of operations.  Therefore, in accordance with the
recommendation of LMCC, we will give the coordinators in each of the two pools six months from
publication of this Second Report and Order in the Federal Register to develop a consensus plan for
low power operations in their respective pools.  

     64.  HP recommended that we codify the basic aspects of the plan fashioned by the
coordinators (e.g., by setting forth in our rules the frequencies designated for low power operation). 
In the R&O, we delegated to the frequency coordinators the authority to designate low power
frequencies; our decision was not to specify such frequencies in the rules. We continue to believe
that this approach provides the frequency coordinators, who have knowledge of user requirements
and local conditions, with maximum flexibility in the management of the PLMR spectrum.  Further,
this allows frequencies to be easily added or subtracted from the designated list as may be warranted. 
We find nothing in the record at this time that persuades us to change this approach.   Further,
consistent with this approach, we will leave it up to the coordinators whether to designate contiguous
spectrum or to specify individual channels (non-contiguous spectrum) for low power operations. 
Low power operation on the designated channels will be protected through coordination and the
Commission's licensing process.  As specified in the R&O, frequency coordinators will be required
to maintain a list of low power channels and make it available to the public upon request.  We
encourage the frequency coordinators to periodically review the low power channel plan and modify
it when appropriate.  If a consensus regarding the establishment of a low power channel plan cannot
be reached, we will revisit this issue.

     2.   Time Frame for Migration
 
     65.  In addition to its recommendation that the frequency coordinators be given six months
to determine which channels should be designated for low power use, LMCC recommends several
steps to ensure that the migration of low power users from their current channels to these new
designated channels occurs smoothly.  These suggested measures include (1) low power offset
licensees being given six months to declare their intent to convert to primary status by either
registering their coordinates or by modifying their license to operate on the designated low power
channels; and (2) providing seven months for offset licensees to migrate to the designated
channels.  We agree with LMCC that low power users should be able to attain primary status on
these offset channels if they so desire by modifying their licenses to specify transmitter coordinates
so that frequency coordinators know the location of such systems and can take them into account
when making frequency recommendations.  In this connection, we will confer primary status on
licensees operating on the former low power offset channels that already have provided their
coordinates to the Commission.  These licensees should notify the Commission at the time of their
license renewal that they are operating in this manner.  This will give offset licensees the flexibility
to remain on their current licensed frequency or change to a new low power frequency.  Because
these channels are available for high power operation, however, licensees that remain on their current
licensed frequency may have to share it with a new high power user.  Therefore, we expect that the
majority of low power users will be inclined to migrate to the new low power channels once they
are identified in order to reduce the chance of interference from co-channel high powered operations.

     66.  Further, contrary to LMCC's contention, we do not believe that low power users
should be required to declare their intent to migrate to low power channels or modify their license
to obtain primary status within a certain time frame.   We believe the decision whether or not to
migrate or obtain primary status is a business decision and best left up to individual licensees to
make within their own time frame according to their individual requirements.  Additionally, because
the designated channels, in some cases, may be the same channels that many low power users are
already using, licensees would not be able to make informed decisions regarding migration until
channels are designated.    Therefore, we decline to require current low power users to declare their
intent to migrate to dedicated low power channels or modify their license to obtain primary status
by a certain date.

     67.  We do agree, however, with LMCC's suggestion to give licensees on the low power
channels a chance to migrate before licensing high power operations on these channels.  The PLMR
community believes seven months is a reasonable amount of time for offset licensees to decide
whether to switch to new low power channels.  Therefore, in this connection, we will provide a
period of seven months for low power users to migrate to new low power frequencies.  Additionally,
concurrent with the end of this migration period we note our intention to lift the current licensing
freeze in the 450-470 MHz band and allow new high power systems to be licensed on any former
12.5 kHz offset channel not specifically designated for low power use.  We will not lift the freeze,
however, if a consensus plan has not been established.  In the interim, we will grant partial relief and
permit the licensing of high power systems on these channels, provided that the license applications
are accompanied by a statement from the frequency coordinator attesting that operation of a new
high powered system will not impact any currently operating co-channel low power system.  If
interference to a low power system from a high power operator using the offset frequencies does
occur prior to the end of the migration period, the high power licensee will be expected to remedy
the situation through any means possible, including shutting its system down.

     68.  In a related matter, PCIA, in its petition for reconsideration, recommends that we
allow a six-month transition period for low power licensees to migrate to new low power channels
before accepting any new low power applications on the designated channels.  We will not adopt
such a policy.  We believe that it is not in the public interest to keep applicants, especially those who
propose to operate in a highly efficient manner (i.e., with low power), from obtaining licenses on
designated low power channels.  Additionally, because low power systems have small operating
areas, we believe that there should be enough frequencies to accommodate all current and
prospective low power licensees.

     69.  Finally, in its petition for reconsideration, Florida predicts a windfall for frequency
coordinators and asks the Commission to reconsider the financial impact of this migration on
existing licensees.  We acknowledge that coordinators will collect fees from low power licensees
when they apply to modify their systems to operate on the dedicated low power frequencies.  In light
of this, we encourage the coordinators to develop a reasonable fee schedule to reflect the relative
ease of this type of coordination as compared to coordinating new high power stations. 


                         V.  CONCLUSION
     70.       This Second Report and Order represents a significant step in the evolution of the
private land mobile radio services.  With its adoption, we are consolidating the PLMR services into
two service pools - Public Safety and Industrial/Business - while protecting critical safety related
communications and providing benefits that are not realizable under the current system.  We are also
incorporating regulatory changes to the frequency coordination process to provide PLMR users with
increased choices and flexibility.  These changes reflect a comprehensive restructuring of the PLMR
regulatory environment and will promote the highly effective and efficient use of PLMR spectrum
and contribute to an environment in which advanced technologies will thrive.


                     VI.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A.   Regulatory Flexibility Act

     71.  Appendix B contains a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with respect to the 
Second Report and Order.

B.  Ordering Clauses

     72.  In view of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 302,
303(g), 303(r), 332(a), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
154(i), 302, 303(g), 303(r), 332(a), and 405 and Section 1.429(i) of the Commission's Rules, 47
C.F.R.  1.429(i), IT IS ORDERED that Part 90 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations IS
AMENDED as specified in Appendix E.

     73.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule changes made herein WILL BECOME
EFFECTIVE [6 months after publication in the Federal Register], except for  90.17 which
WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE [upon publication in the Federal Register].

     74.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Request for Temporary Relief filed
February 4, 1997, by International Municipal Signal Association, International Association of Fire
Chiefs, Inc., American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and  Forestry-
Conservation Communications Association IS GRANTED in accordance with the discussion in
paragraphs 24-26, supra, of this Second Report and Order.

C.  Contacts for Information

     75.  For further information, contact Ira Keltz of the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, Private Wireless Division, at (202) 418-0680 or via E-Mail to "mayday@fcc.gov".


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              William F. Caton
                              Acting Secretary

                           APPENDIX A
                                
              List of Commenters and Comment Summary
List of Commenters on Consolidation:
1.   Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC)
2.   American Automobile Association  (AAA)
3.   American Petroleum Institute (API), Supplemental Comments
4.   Association of Public-Safety Communication Officials-International, Inc. (APCO)
5.   Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation  (BNSF)
6.   Canadian Pacific Railway System (CPRS)
7.   Coalition of Industrial and Land Transportation Radio Users (Coalition)
     Includes: American Automobile Association, American Trucking Associations, Inc.,
               Forest Industries Telecommunications, International Taxicab and Livery
               Association, and Manufacturers Radio Frequency Advisory Committee, Inc.
8.   CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX)
9.   Hewlett-Packard Company (HP)
10.  International Association of Fire Chief, Inc., and International Municipal Signal Association
     (IAFC/IMSA)    
11.  Joint Comments of Specialized Land Mobile Communications Users (Joint Commenters)
     Includes: American Automobile Association, American Trucking Associations,
               Association of American Railroads, Central Alarm Station Association,
               Forest Industries Telecommunications, International Taxicab and Livery
               Association, and Manufacturers Radio Frequency Advisory Committee
12.  Joint Pool Consolidation Proposal (Joint Pool)
     Includes: Personal Communications Industry Association, Industrial
               Telecommunications Association, Alliance of Motion Picture and Television
               Producers, Newspaper Association of America, and Telephone Maintenance
               Frequency Advisory Committee
13.  Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC)
14.  Potlatch Corporation (Potlatch)
15.  Public Safety Communications Council (PSCC)
16.  Schlumberger Meter Communication System
17.  SpaceLabs Medical, Inc. (SpaceLabs)

Reply Comments

1.   Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc.
2.   Forestry Conservation Communications Association (FCCA)
3.   International Association of Fire Chief, Inc., and International Municipal Signal Association
     (IAFC/IMSA)    
Supplemental Comments

1.   Association of American Railroads (February 21, 1996)
2.   Association of American Railroads (April 12, 1996)


List of Commenters on Consolidation and Further Notice:
1.   Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC)
2.   American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)    
3.   American Gas Association (AGA)
4.   Association of American Railroads (AAR)
5.   Boeing Company
6.   City of Covington, Virginia (Covington)
7.   Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
8.   PacifiCorp
9.   City of Tucson, Arizona (Tucson)
10.  Union Pacific Railroad Co. and Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. (Union Pacific)
11.  UTC, The Telecommunications Association (UTC)
12.  Weyerhaeuser Company (Weyerhaeuser)


Reply Comments

1.   Association of American Railroads  
2.   Boeing Company
3.   Forest Industries Telecommunications (FIT)
4.   Hewlett-Packard Company
5.   International Taxicab and Livery Association (ITLA) 
6.   Manufacturers Radio Frequency Advisory Committee, Inc. (MRFAC)
7.   Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV)
8.   Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
9.   Pacific Bell (PacBell)
10.  Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)
11.  Securicor Radiocoms Limited (Securicor)


List of Commenters to Industrial Telecommunications Association Proposed Technical
Blueprint for Consolidation:

1.   Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC)
2.   Affiliated American Railroads (AARR)
3.   Alarm Industry Communications Council (AICC)
4.   Alliance Communications (Alliance)
5.   Automobile Association of America (AAA)
6.   American Electric Power (AEP)
7.   American Petroleum Institute (API)
8.   Associated Oregon Loggers, Inc. (Loggers)
9.   Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L)
10.  Cass County Electric Cooperative (Cass)
11.  City of Austin, Texas (Austin)
12.  City Public Service of San Antonio, Texas (CPS)
13.  Coalition of Industrial and Land Transportation Radio Users (Coalition)
     Includes -     Automobile Association of America, American Trucking Association, Forest
                    Industries Telecommunications, International Taxicab and Livery
                    Association, and Manufacturer's Radio Frequency Advisory Committee
14.  Columbia Helicopters, Inc. (Columbia)
15.  Consumers Energy Company (Consumers)
16.  Detroit Edison Company (DetroitEd)
17.  E.F. Johnson Company
18.  Fruit Growers Supply Company (FGS)
19.  GKL Construction Company (GKL)
20.  Hewlett-Packard Company (HP)
21.  Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL)
22.  Industrial Telecommunications Association (ITA)
23.  Kentucky Utilities Company (KUC)
24.  Motorola
25.  National Fuel Gas (NFG)
26.  National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)
27.  Ohio Edison (OHED)
28.  Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGE)
29.  Pope & Talbot, Inc. (P&T)
30.  Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO)
31.  Public Safety Communications Council (PSCC)
     Includes:  American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Association
     of Public Safety Communications Officials International, Inc., International Association of
     Fish and Wildlife Agencies, International Municipal Signal Association, Forestry
     Conservation Communications Association, and National Association  of State Foresters
32.  Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G)
33.  Simpson Timber Company (Simpson)
34.  SpaceLabs, Inc. (SpaceLabs)
35.  Tenneco Packaging (Tenneco)
36.  Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State)
37.  UTC, The Telecommunications Association (UTC)
38.  Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC)
39.  Westvaco Corporation Timberlands Division (Westvaco)
40.  Willamette Industries, Inc. (Willamette)


Reply Comments

1.   Affiliated American Railroads (AARR)
2.   Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC)
3.   American Automobile Association (AAA)
4.   The Boeing Company (Boeing)
5.   Champion Communication Services, Inc. (Champion)
6.   Coalition of Industrial and Land Transportation Radio Users (Coalition)
7.   Industrial Telecommunications Association (ITA)
8.   Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)
9.   UTC, The Telecommunications Association (UTC)
                                                           APPENDIX B
                                
     Summary of Industry Submitted Consolidation Proposals


                          AICC and AAA
                            Option 1
(comments refer only to pools which would affect AICC and AAA members)
                                
                                
                         Public Safety
      Local Government, Police, Fire, Highway Maintenance,
           Forestry-Conservation, Emergency Medical 
                         Private Safety
    Functions that warrant treatment as quasi-public safety
      operations. (e.g., central station alarm operations,
      emergency road service, special emergency services,
                             etc.)
                                
                                
                            Option 2
                                
                                
                              AICC
                              AAA
                                
                                
                      Quasi-Public Safety
     Includes Public and Private Safety entities as defined
                             above.
                      Land Transportation
     Automobile Emergency, Motor Carrier, Railroad,1Taxicab
           1  Not opposed to a separate Railroad pool
                                
                                
                              API
                                
                                
                       Industrial Safety
                     systems essential for
                      safety and required
                       by  regulation or
                       industry standards
                       (e.g., pipelines,
                      refineries, oil and
                        gas production,
                       hazmat transport,
                     utilities, railroads) 
                       Emergency Response
                             Safety
                       Local Government,
                     Police, Fire, Highway
                          Maintenance,
                           Forestry-
                         Conservation,
                       Emergency Medical
                         Non-commercial
                             Radio
                       All other private
                             users
                       Specialized Mobile
                             Radio
                          Existing SMR
                        allocations pool
                        General Category
                          Frequencies
                       accessible to all
                           PLMR users
                                
                                
       Coalition (Supported by ITLA, MRFAC, Weyerhaeuser)
                                
                                
                         Public Safety
                   Local Government, Police,
                         Fire, Highway
                          Maintenance,
                     Forestry-Conservation,
                       Emergency Medical
                            Business
                   Business, Private Carrier
                        Paging, Special
                       Emergency, Special
                  Industrial, Motion Picture,
                          Relay Press
                      Industrial/Utilities
                       Power, Petroleum,
                     Manufacturers, Forest
                      Products, Telephone
                          Maintenance
                      Land Transportation
                    Motor Carrier, Railroad,
                      Taxicab, Automobile
                           Emergency
                                
                                
                           Covington
                                
                                
                         Public Safety
                Local Government, Police, Fire,
                 Highway Maintenance, Forestry-
                Conservation, Emergency Medical,
                       Special Emergency
                    Commercial Radio Service
                 Frequencies on which resale is
                            allowed
                    Industrial Radio Service
                  Business and internal needs
                                
Table 2:  Summary of Industry Submitted Consolidation Proposals (contd.)
                                

                           Joint Pool
                                
                                
                         Public Safety
      Local Government, Police, Fire, Highway Maintenance,
       Forestry-Conservation, Emergency Medical, Special
                           Emergency
                         Public Service
     All others.  Set aside specific frequencies for unique
                         requirements.
                                
                                
               UTC, (supported by AGA, PacBell 1)
                                
                                
                       Emergency Response
                Police, Fire, Emergency Medical,
                       Special Emergency
                         Public Service
                   Local Government, Highway
              Maintenance, Forestry-Conservation,
              Power, Petroleum, Railroad; services
               which provide critical logistical
              functions in support of the general
                             public
               1  Includes Telephone Maintenance
                      Business/Commercial
                Forest Products, Film and Video
                Production, Relay Press, Special
              Industrial, Business, Manufacturers,
                  Telephone Maintenance, Motor
                  Carrier, Taxicab, Automobile
                           Emergency
                                
                                
AAR, BNSF, CPRS, CSX, Joint Commenters, NSC, Potlatch, Union Pacific 
                                
                                
                        No Consolidation
                                
                                
                              APCO
                                
                                
             No consolidation in Public Safety Pool
                                
                                
                        FCCA, IAFC/IMSA
                                
                                
    Base consolidation of Public Safety on the PSWAC report
                                








                  THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK                           APPENDIX C
                                
              Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
     1.   As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  603 (RFA), Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFA) were incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rule Makingand the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in PR Docket 92-235.  The Commission sought
written public comments on the proposals in the Refarming Notice and Further Notice, including
on the IRFA.  The Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this Second
Report and Order (Second R&O) conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract With America
Advancement Act of 1996.


I.   Need For and Objective of the Proposed Rule

     2.   Our objective is to increase spectrum efficiency and facilitate the introduction of
advanced technologies into the 150-174 MHz, 421-430 MHz, 450-470 MHz, and 470-512 MHz
private land mobile radio (PLMR) bands.  The Report and Order in this proceeding modified the
Commission's rules to resolve many of the technical issues which inhibited the use of spectrally
efficient technologies in these frequency bands.  It also stated the Commission's intent to consolidate
the twenty existing radio service pools.  The Further Notice in this proceeding proposed several
methods of introducing market based incentives into the PLMR bands, including exclusivity.  This
Second R&O consolidates the radio service frequency pools, and addresses related issues such as
frequency coordination, trunking, and low power frequencies.

     3.   We find that the potential benefits to the PLMR community exceed any negative
effects that may result from the promulgation of rules for this purpose.  Thus, we conclude that the
public interest is served by modifying our rules to consolidate the PLMR services and increase the
spectral efficiency of the PLMR bands.


II.  Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the
     Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

     4.   No comments were submitted in direct response to the IRFA.  We have, however,
reviewed general comments that may impact small businesses.  

     5.   Much of the impact on small businesses arises from the central decision in this
proceeding -- the number of frequency pools.  Commenters submitted proposals which ranged from
keeping the current system in place to consolidating to two pools.  This affects small businesses in
the following way.  A smaller number of pools provides a greater number of frequencies available
for small business to use to meet their coordination needs.  Additionally, by creating fewer pools,
frequency coordinators will now have to compete, thus small business that use PLMR systems could
expect to pay lower prices for frequency coordination and receive better service.  Finally,
consolidating the PLMR services provides each frequency coordinator, who currently only provides
service for a narrowly defined type of user, with the ability to expand its business base.


III. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Subject to which the Rules
     Apply

     6.   The rules adopted in this Second Report and Order will apply to small businesses that
choose to use radios that operate in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz and to small businesses that
are designated as certified frequency coordinators in these bands.  The are no Commission imposed
requirements, however, for any entity to use these products. 

                   Estimates for PLMR Licensees
     7.   Private land mobile radio system serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial,
business, land transportation, and public safety activities.  These radios are used by companies of
all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories.  Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the
Commission has not developed nor would it be possible to develop a definition of small entities
specifically applicable to PLMR users.  For the purpose of determining whether a licensee is a small
business as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA), each licensee would need to be
evaluated within its own business area.

     8.   Because the Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments were not in effect until the record
in this proceeding was closed, the Commission was unable to request information regarding the
number of small entities that are private land mobile radio licensees.  Therefore, the Commission
is unable at this time to determine the number of small businesses which could be impacted by the
rules.  However, the Commission's fiscal year 1994 annual report indicates that at the end of fiscal
year 1994 there were 1,101,711 licensees operating 12,882,623 transmitters in the PLMR bands
below 512 MHz.  Further, because any entity engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold
a PLMR license, these rules could potentially impact every small business in the U.S.

     9.   The RFA also includes small governmental entities as a part of the regulatory
flexibility analysis.  The definition of a small governmental entity is one with a population of less
than 50,000.  There are 85,006 governmental entities in the nation.  This number includes such
entities as states, counties, cities, utility districts, and school districts.  There are no figures available
on what portion of this number has populations of fewer than 50,000.  However, this number
includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns, and of those, 37,566, or 96 percent, have populations
of fewer than 50,000.  The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all
governmental entities.  Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 96 percent, or
81,600 are small entities that may be affected by our rules.

               Estimates for Frequency Coordinators
     10.  Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a definition of small entities
specifically applicable to spectrum frequency coordinators.  Therefore, we conclude that the closest
applicable definition under SBA rules is Business Associations (SIC 8611).  The SBA defines a
small business association as an entity with $5.0 million or less in annual receipts.  There are 18
entities certified to perform frequency coordination functions under Part 90 of our rules.  However,
we are unable to ascertain how many of these frequency coordinators are classified as small entities
under the SBA definition.  The Census Bureau indicates that 97% of business associations have
annual receipts of $4.999 million or less and would be classified as small entities.  The Census
Bureau category is very broad, and does not include specific figures for firms that are engaged in the
coordination of spectrum frequencies.  Therefore, for the purposes of this regulatory flexibility
analysis, we estimate that almost all of the 18 spectrum frequency coordinators are small as defined
by the SBA.


IV.  Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
     Requirements of the Rules

     11.  The rules adopted in this Second R&O do not have any general reporting or
recordkeeping requirements for PLMR licensees.  There is, however, one compliance requirement. 
Applicants for new or modified PLMR stations will be required to wait ten days prior to
commencing operation pursuant to conditional authority.  Such a waiting period is necessary to
ensure that all in-pool frequency coordinators are notified regarding the proposed system before the
applicant starts transmitting.  While we want the licensing process to be as quick as possible, we
believe all affected coordinators should be aware of a proposed operation before an applicant
commences transmitting.  Regarding this issue, many commenters identify a need for a mandatory
concurrence period.  Other commenters argue that a mandatory concurrence period is
unnecessary.  Rather than a mandatory concurrence period, which we believe could prolong the
licensing process, thereby affecting small businesses, we believe the adopted waiting period will
accomplish the same goal of providing a method for coordinators to ensure that existing radio
systems will not suffer harmful interference from new or modified systems.

     12.  Additionally, in the specific instances where licensees want to construct a centralized
trunking rather than a traditional system, they must obtain concurrence from nearby affected users
and forward such agreements to the applicable frequency coordinator and the Commission as an
attachment to the license application form, FCC Form 600.  Because of the fundamental differences
between trunked and traditional systems, such action is necessary in order to avoid a licensee from
causing harmful interference to other nearby licensees, many of which may be small businesses.

     13.  There are several reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements applicable
to the Commission certified PLMR frequency coordinators.  These new requirements are necessary
to ensure that each frequency coordinator has access to the information necessary to perform
competent frequency coordinations for their customers. 

     (1)  Because several frequency coordinators will now be able to recommend frequencies
          within a common frequency pool, each needs to know the recommendations of each
          of the other frequency coordinators.  Such information is necessary to avoid
          situations where harmful interference is created because two or more coordinators
          recommend the same frequency in the same area at approximately the same time to
          different applicants.  Therefore, we are requiring each frequency coordinator to
          provide, within one business day, a listing of their frequency recommendations to all
          other frequency coordinators in their respective pool.  In this connection, we believe
          that the importance and need for a current and accurate accounting of frequency
          recommendations outweighs the burden, if any, on small coordinators.  Because
          coordinators are already required to share information when invoking the interservice
          sharing rules of our current rules, each should already have a system in place for
          such data exchange.  Additionally, we believe that the greater harm could occur to
          small business that are PLMR licensees.  Without such data exchange, these
          licensees' systems could be in danger of receiving harmful interference which would
          endanger their business operations.  The Commission did not receive any specific
          comments regarding the one-day notification requirement.  However, the
          Commission did receive comments regarding the need for notification.

     (2)  In some instances, frequency coordinators need to perform engineering analyses to
          determine if an applicant's proposed radio system is feasible.  A coordinator may
          need detailed information on systems coordinated by other coordinators in order to
          perform such an analysis.  Therefore, we are requiring that each coordinator provide,
          upon request, within one business day, information requested by another coordinator
          regarding a pending coordination.

     (3)  To ensure that applicants have access to reliable and competent frequency
          coordination services regardless of which coordinator they choose to use, we have
          determined that some minimum technical standards to which each coordinator must
          adhere need to be established.  We are requiring the coordinators to achieve a
          consensus on such standards within six months of the publication of this Second
          R&O in the Federal Register.

     (4)  In the Report and Order, the Commission provided frequency coordinators with the
          authority to designate channels for the exclusive use of low power systems. 
          Coordinators have been reluctant to designate such channels due to uncertainty
          regarding consolidation.  Now that the framework for the frequency pools has been
          established, we are providing six months from the publication of this Second R&Oin the Federal Register for the frequency coordinators to achieve a consensus plan for
          low power channels.


V.   Steps Taken By Agency to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
     Consistent with Stated Objectives

     14.       The Commission provided the PLMR community with an opportunity to meet and
develop a consensus position on this issue as an alternative to the Commission's  adoption of final
rules for consolidation of the PLMR radio services.  Unfortunately, a consensus was not reached,
therefore this Report and Order balances the competing interests.   

     15.  The Commission, in this Second R&O, has considered comments regarding its plans
to consolidate the PLMR radio services below 512 MHz and those related comments filed pursuant
to proposals discussed in the Further Notice.  In doing so, the Commission has adopted several
proposals which minimize burdens placed on small entities.  First, the Commission has adopted a
two pool consolidation plan which will provide more frequency options to entities than the current
frequency pool structure and structures based on more than two pools.  The increase in frequency
choices will provide a greater likelihood that licensees, including small entities, will share
frequencies with fewer systems enabling them to achieve more efficiency in their radio systems. 
Second, by adopting a two pool approach, we are able to eliminate the interservice sharing rules in
Section 90.176 of our rules.  Currently, entities who want to use frequencies in a pool other than the
one in which they are eligible must invoke these rules and usually are required to pay a frequency
coordination fee to the coordinator for their pool and a fee to the coordinator for the pool in which
they want to share a frequency.  Because entities will now have direct access to all frequencies in
their respective pool, this Second R&O eliminates the need for an entity to pay more than one
frequency coordination fee for any radio system.  Third, because this Second R&O provides for
competitive frequency coordination in the Industrial/Business Pool, license applicants should expect
a reduction in frequency coordination fees and/or an increase in the level of service.  Fourth, under
the adopted frequency pool structure, all frequency coordinators will be certified to coordinate
frequencies in the pool in which the pool that they previously coordinated is placed.  This will
minimize confusion and ease the transition process from the current radio service structure to the
new consolidated frequency pool structure.  Fifth, in order to ensure a smooth transition to the
consolidated frequency pools, we are providing a period of six months for entities to implement the
rule changes adopted in the Second R&O.  Sixth, rather than requiring the frequency coordinators
to establish and maintain a common real-time database, we are only requiring that they share certain
information among themselves.  Requiring the development of a common database would be a
complex, costly, and time consuming endeavor.  Seventh, while we are requiring the sharing of
certain data, we are not specifying the method by which this data should be shared.  Each frequency
coordinator may choose any method that fulfills its requirements with respect to speed, cost, and
quality.  Eighth, we are providing a method by which licensees can implement a centralized
trunking system.  Because such systems are more efficient than traditional systems, licensees who
implement centralized trunking may be able to achieve the same amount of communications as they
currently do with fewer channels.


VI.  Report to Congress

     16.  The Commission shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
along with the Second Report and Order, in a report to Congress pursuant to the SBREFA.  A copy
of this FRFA will also be published in the Federal Register.APPENDIX D
                                
           List of Frequency Coordinators Below 512 MHz
For frequencies in the 470-512 MHz band, applicants may use any frequency coordinator.  For all
other frequencies below 470 MHz, applicants must use the designated frequency coordinator.

           Public Safety Pool Frequency Coordinators

For frequencies designated with a "PP" or a "PX" in Section 90.20 of the Commission's rules:

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc.
Attn:  Frequency Coordination Department
2040 South Ridgewood Avenue
South Daytona, Florida  32119
Phone:  (904) 322-2500
Fax:  (904) 322-2502


For frequencies designated with a "PF", "PM", or a "PX" in Section 90.20 of the Commission's rules:

International Association of Fire Chiefs/International Municipal Signal Association
Attn:  Al Mello
P.O. Box 1513
Providence, Rhode Island  02901
Phone:  (401) 738-2220


For frequencies designated with a "PO" or a "PX" in Section 90.20 of the Commission's rules:

Forestry Conservation Communications Association
Attn:  Joe Friend
Hall of the States
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC  20001
Phone:  (202) 624-5416


For frequencies designated with a "PH" or a "PX" in Section 90.20 of the Commission's rules:

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Attn:  Larry Miller
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249
Washington, DC  20001
Phone:  (202) 624-5800 or (202) 624-5448


For frequencies designated with a "PS" in Section 90.20 of the Commission's rules:

PCIA/IAFC/IMSA
Attn:  Frequency Coordination Department
500 Montgomery Street, Suite 700
Alexandria, Virginia  22314
Phone:  (703) 739-0300 or 1-800-759-0300


        Industrial/Business Pool Frequency Coordinators

For frequencies designated with an "IW" in Section 90.35 of the Commission's rules:

UTC, The Telecommunications Association
Attn:  Frequency Coordination Department
1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW,  Suite 1140
Washington, DC  20036
Phone:  (202) 872-1279
Fax:  (202) 872-1331


For frequencies designated with an "IP" in Section 90.35 of the Commission's rules:

Petroleum Frequency Coordinating Committee
c/o Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc.
Attn:  Spectrum Management Department
1110 North Glebe Road, Suite 500
Arlington, Virginia  22201
Phone:  (703) 528-5115


For frequencies designated with an "LR" in Section 90.35 of the Commission's rules:

Association of American Railroads
Communications and Signal Division
Attn:  Chris Allman
50 F Street, NW
Washington, DC  20001
Phone:  (202) 639-2217


For all other frequencies, applicants may use any of the coordinators listed above or one of the
following:

American Automobile Association
Attn:  Gary M. Ruark
1000 AAA Drive, Mailspace 15
Heathrow, Florida  32746-5063
Phone:  (407) 444-7786
Fax:  (407) 444-7380

Personal Communications Industry Association
Attn:  Frequency Coordination Department
500 Montgomery Street, Suite 700
Alexandria, Virginia  22314
Phone:  (703) 739-0300 or 1-800-759-0300

Central Station Alarm Association
Attn:  Robert Bitton, President
P.O. Box 5859
140 Hillside Avenue
Hillside, New Jersey  07205-5859
Phone:  (201) 923-4600
Fax:  (201) 923-4535

Forest Industries Telecommunications
Attn:  Kenton E. Sturdevant
871 Country Club Road, Suite A
Eugene, Oregon  97401
Phone:  (541) 485-8441

Manufacturers Radio Frequency Advisory Committee, Inc.
Attn:  Frequency Coordination Department
1041 Sterling Road, #106
Herndon, Virginia  22070
Phone:  (703) 318-9206
Fax:  (703) 318-9209

Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers
c/o Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc.
Attn:  Spectrum Management Department
1110 North Glebe Road, Suite 500
Arlington, Virginia  22201
Phone:  (703) 528-5115

American Trucking Association, Inc.
Attn:  Gus Gyllenhoff
2200 Mill Road
Alexandria, Virginia  22314
Phone:  (703) 838-1730 or (703) 838-1731

Newspaper Association of America
c/o Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc.
Attn:  Spectrum Management Department
1110 North Glebe Road, Suite 500
Arlington, Virginia  22201
Phone:  (703) 528-5115

Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc.
Attn:  Spectrum Management Department
1110 North Glebe Road, Suite 500
Arlington, Virginia  22201
Phone:  (703) 528-5115

International Taxicab and Livery Association
Attn:  Cecelia M. Hayes
3849 Farragut Avenue
Kensington, Maryland  20895
Phone:  (301) 946-5702

Telephone Maintenance Frequency Advisory Committee
c/o Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc.
Attn:  Spectrum Management Department
1110 North Glebe Road, Suite 500
Arlington, Virginia  22201
Phone:  (703) 528-5115

Frequencies available under Section 90.265(a) of the Commission's rules must be coordinated
through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at the following address:

Hydrological Federal Frequency
NOAA National Weather Service
Attn:  Eugene A. Stallings
Office of Hydrology, W/OH22
1325 East-West Highway, Room 8140
Silver Spring, Maryland  20910
Phone:  (301) 713-0006
                           APPENDIX E
                                
                           Final Rules
Parts 1, 20, 74, 90, and 101 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 1 - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

     1.  The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

     AUTHORITY:  47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 303, and 309(j) unless otherwise noted.


     2.  Section 1.952 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

      1.952  How file numbers are assigned.

                           * * * * *

     (b)  File number symbols and service or class of station designators:

                 Amateur and Disaster Services

          Y - Amateur
          D - Disaster
          R - Races


                       Aviation Services

          A - Aeronautical and fixed group
          AA - Aviation auxiliary group
          AR - Aviation radionavigation land
          AC - Civil Air Patrol


                     Personal Radio Service

          CA - General Mobile Radio Service
          ZA - General Mobile Radio Service
          ZV -  Interactive Video and Data Service


                        Marine Services

          MK - Alaskan group
          M - Coastal group
          MA - Marine auxiliary group
          MR - Marine radiodetermination land


                       Microwave Services

          OF - Private Operational-Fixed Microwave


                     Radiolocation Service

          RS - Radiolocation


               Land Mobile Services below 800 MHz

          IG - Conventional Industrial/Business Pool
          PW - Conventional Public Safety Pool
          YG - Trunked Industrial/Business Pool
          YW - Trunked Public Safety Pool


                        800 MHz Services

          GB - Conventional Business
          GO - Conventional Industrial/Land Transportation
          GP - Conventional Public Safety/Special Emergency
          GX - Conventional Commercial (SMRS)
          YB - Trunked Business
          YO - Trunked Industrial/Land Transportation
          YP - Trunked Public Safety/Special Emergency
          YX - Trunked Commercial (SMRS)


                    900 MHz Paging Services

          GS - Private carrier paging systems

                           * * * * *


PART 20 - COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

     1.  The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

     AUTHORITY:  Secs. 4, 303, and 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C.
154, 303, and 332, unless otherwise noted.


     2.  Section 20.3 is amended by revising paragraph (b) of the definition for Private Mobile
Radio Service to read as follows:

      20.3  Definitions.

                           * * * * *

     Private Mobile Radio Service.  * * *

     (b)  Mobile radio service offered to restricted classes of eligible users.  This includes
entities eligible in the Public Safety Radio Pool and Radiolocation service.

                           * * * * *


     3.  Section 20.9 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

      20.9  Commercial mobile radio service.

     (a)  * * *

     (2)  Stations that offer Industrial/Business Pool ( 90.35 of this chapter) eligibles for-
profit, interconnected service.
      
                           * * * * *


PART 74 - EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND
OTHER PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES

     4.  The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:

     AUTHORITY:  Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended, 1082 as amended; 47 U.S.C.
154, 303, 554.


     5.  Section 74.402 is amended by revising the last sentence of footnotes 3 and 5 of
paragraph (a) and the Note following paragraph (b) to read as follows:

      74.402 Frequency assignment.

     (a)  * * *

     3  * * *  Applications for licenses to use frequencies in this group must include statements
showing what procedures will be taken to insure that interference will not be caused to stations in
the Industrial/Business Pool.

                           * * * * *

     5  * * *  In other areas, certain existing stations in the Public Safety Pool and
Industrial/Business Pool have been permitted to continue operation on these frequencies on
condition that no harmful interference is caused to remote pickup broadcast stations.

                           * * * * *

     (b)  * * *

     Note:  These frequencies are shared with the Industrial/Business Pool.

                           * * * * *


PART 90 - PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

     6.  The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:

     AUTHORITY:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, AND 332, unless otherwise noted.


     7.  Section 90.7 is amended by adding definitions for Automobile emergency licensee,
Emergency Medical Licensee, Film and video licensee, Fire Licensee, Forest products licensee,
Frequency coordination, Manufacturers licensee, Motor carrier licensee, Police licensee, Power
licensee, Petroleum licensee, Railroad licensee, Relay press licensee, Special Industrial licensee,
Taxicab licensee, and Telephone maintenance licensee to read as follows:
                                
      90.7  Definitions.

                           * * * * *

     Automobile emergency licensee.  Persons regularly engaged in any of the following
activities who operate radio stations for transmission of communications required for dispatching
repair trucks, tow trucks, or other road service vehicles to disabled vehicles.

     (1)  The operation of a private emergency road service for disabled vehicles by
associations of owners of private automobiles.

     (2) The business of providing to the general public an emergency road service for
disabled vehicles.

                           * * * * *

     Emergency Medical Licensee.  Persons or entities engaged in the provision of basic or
advanced life support services on an ongoing basis that operate radio stations for transmission of
communications essential for the delivery or rendition of emergency medical services for the
provision of basic or advanced life support.

     Film and video production licensee.  Persons primarily engaged in or providing direct
technical support to the production, videotaping, or filming of motion pictures or television
programs, such as movies, programs, news programs, special events, educational programs, or
training films, regardless of whether the productions are prepared primarily for final exhibition at
theatrical outlets or on television or for distribution through other mass communications outlets.

     Fire licensee.  Any territory, possession, state, city, county, town, or similar
governmental entity, and persons or organizations charged with specific fire protection activities
that operate radio stations for transmission of communications essential to official fire activities.

                           * * * * *

     Forest products licensee.  Persons primarily engaged in tree logging, tree farming, or
related woods operations, including related hauling activities, if the hauling activities are
performed under contract to, and exclusively for, persons engaged in woods operations or
engaged in manufacturing lumber, plywood, hardboard, or pulp and paper products from wood
fiber.

                           * * * * *

     Frequency coordination.  The process of obtaining the recommendation of a frequency
coordinator for a frequency(ies) that will most effectively meet the applicant's needs while
minimizing interference t licensees already operating within a given frequency band.

                           * * * * *

     Manufacturers licensee.  Persons primarily engaged in any of the following
manufacturing activities:

     (1)  The mechanical or chemical transformation of substances into new products within
such establishments as plants, factories, shipyards, or mills which employ, in that process,
powerdriven machines and materials-handling equipment.

     (2)  The assembly of components of manufactured products within such establishments as
plants, factories, shipyards, or mills where the new product is neither a new structure nor other
fixed improvement. Establishments primarily engaged in the wholesale or retail trade, or in
service activities, even though they fabricate or assemble any or all the products or commodities
handled, are not included in this category.

     (3)  The providing of supporting services or materials by a corporation to its parent
corporation, to another subsidiary of its parent or to its own subsidiary, where such supporting
services or materials are directly related to those regular activities of such parent or subsidiary
which are eligible under subparagraph (1) or (2) of this paragraph.

                           * * * * *

     Motor carrier licensee.  Persons primarily engaged in providing a common or contract
motor carrier transportation service in any of the following activities:  Provided, however, that
motor vehicles used as taxicabs, livery vehicles, or school buses, and motor vehicles used for
sightseeing or special charter purposes, shall not be included within the meaning of this term. 
For purposes of this definition, an urban area is defined as being one or more contiguous,
incorporated or unincorporated cities, boroughs, towns, or villages, having an aggregate
population of 2,500 or more persons.

     (1)  The transportation of passengers between urban areas.

     (2)  The transportation of property between urban areas.

     (3)  The transportation of passengers within a single urban area.

     (4)  The transportation, local distribution or collection of property within a single urban
area.

                           * * * * *

     Petroleum licensee.  Persons primarily engaged in prospecting for, producing, collecting,
refining, or transporting by means of pipeline, petroleum or petroleum products (including
natural gas).

     Police licensee.  Any territory, possession, state, city, county, town, or similar
governmental entity including a governmental institution authorized by law to provide its own
p