On Wednesday, October 21, 1998, the FCC released the Report and Order in the Universal Licensing System (ULS) docket. The FCC's NPRM in this docket had proposed major changes in the GMRS rules. In its comments and reply comments filed in response to the NPRM, the GMRS user community had unanimously opposed these changes.
The R&O discusses the proposed changes and the public comments, but adopts almost all of the changes which it had earlier proposed. A notable except: The FCC retains the current restrictions on the use of the GMRS 467 MHz frequencies. Following the prior rules, GMRS users may use these 467 MHz frequencies only for the access and control of mobile relay stations (repeaters).
The date of effect of these rules will be 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
SPECIAL NOTE: The R&O proposes language that would have a significant and negative impact on GMRS operations well beyond that caused by the changes proposed in the original NPRM. PRSG is still evaluating the impact of these new and unanticipated changes. We do expect to file a timely Petition for Reconsideration.
There will be more information about these unanticipated changes, and about our Petition, in our upcoming November PRE newsletter, and summarized in later postings here on our Web site.
Following is the text of those portions of the R&O,
paragraphs 183 through 207, which pertain to GMRS. A
ZIP-compressed version of the complete R&O, except for the
appendicies and without formatted tables and charts, is also
available here as 9820RNO.ZIP:
Another source for the complete R&O, including a ZIP-compressed WordPerfect version that does include the formatted tables and charts, is the "Headlines" page of the FCC's own web site: www.fcc.gov.
PRSG is currently preparing an annotated version of the new rules themselves. These rules and annotations will describe and discuss these unanticipated further changes, and will be posted soon (estimate: about November 5, 1998).
8. General Mobile Radio Service
a. Inclusion in this Proceeding
183. Background. GMRS, a Part 95 Personal Radio Service, was
originally established as the Citizens Class A Radio Service, and was
allocated for use by individuals and entities who were not eligible for
licensing in the public safety, industrial, and transportation services.
Although the Commission adopted changes to the GMRS in PR Docket No. 87-265
to make the service more efficient and effective for personal users, these
changes are now nearly ten years old. The current rulemaking complies with
our statutory directive to conduct a biennial review of wireless services,
and we take this opportunity to re-evaluate GMRS in order to identify and
eliminate regulations that have become unnecessary in the past decade, as
well as to ensure that our streamlined licensing process collects the
minimum information needed of GMRS licensees and applicants consistent with
our statutory responsibilities to license and regulate the use of this
service.
184. Discussion. Several parties question whether it was appropriate
to evaluate the current GMRS rules in this docket, and urge us to reserve
our inquiry into the GMRS for a separate rulemaking. For example, PRSG
claims that this proceeding should not be used to introduce rule changes
that do not exclusively relate to the development and implementation of
ULS, while SBT states that many of the proposed GMRS rule changes are
technical in nature and should be considered separately from ULS. We
believe that the GMRS rules we proposed and which we adopt herein are both
appropriate and necessary under the current docket. We stated at the
outset that ". . . as part of our 1998 biennial review of regulations, we
are initiating this proceeding to streamline our wireless licensing rules
by eliminating regulations that are duplicative, outmoded, or otherwise
unnecessary." The proposed changes to the GMRS rules likewise are
consistent with our announcement that "the scope of this first biennial
review will be broader than required by the 1996 [Telecommunications] Act,"
and the Chairman's statement that the biennial review "gives us an
opportunity to promote meaningful deregulation and streamlining where
competition or other considerations warrant such action." In the case of
GMRS, we have identified numerous rules to be eliminated and streamlined as
duplicative or unnecessary to our regulatory responsibilities. Moreover,
the requirements contained in the GMRS rules are inextricably linked to the
conversion of our data collection procedures and databases to ULS, so we
believe that streamlining our GMRS rules is properly included in this
proceeding. For these reasons, our ULS Notice outlined the broad scope of
our proceeding, specifically discussed our proposed changes to the GMRS,
and included a comprehensive list of proposed rule changes. Accordingly,
we believe that we have met the requirements outlined under the
Administrative Procedures Act, and we disagree with Kobb's suggestion to
the contrary.
b. Regulatory Policy
185. Background. Many commenters view the ULS Notice as an effort by
the Commission to fundamentally alter the purpose or form of the GMRS. We
disagree. Although we have not hesitated to streamline and consolidate
rule sections which request information unnecessary for ULS or other
regulatory purposes, we have not altered eligibility requirements,
permitted communication, the frequency allocation or other rules that could
fundamentally alter the purpose of GMRS. Further, we believe the effect of
these rule changes will actually increase users' flexibility in using GMRS
and will promote use of the service.
186. Discussion. A large number of the commenters view the proposed
changes as an initial step toward de-licensing the GMRS. Parrish objects
to any attempt to reduce or eliminate current Commission licensing
procedures with the goal of moving GMRS towards an unlicensed service, such
as the Citizens Band Radio Service, while FIT supports the proposed changes
and suggests that we consider authorizing the operation of GMRS stations by
rule. We reject both FIT's proposal and individual GMRS commenters'
suggestions. Under the authority granted by the Communications Act of 1934
(as amended), the Commission may authorize the operation of radio stations
by rule and without individual licenses only for specific services. The
Commission has never considered interpreting this authority to include
GMRS. Moreover, the ULS Notice did not propose to change the status of the
GMRS to a service which may be licensed by rule pursuant to the statute.
To the contrary, our goals in this proceeding are to comply with our
Biennial Review responsibilities and to amend the Commission's rules in a
way which facilitates electronic filing and automatic processing as much as
possible consistent with our statutory responsibilities. Accordingly, we
conclude that Parrish's (and other commenters') concerns in this regard are
not applicable to the rule amendments we adopt herein to meet our stated
goals and responsibilities.
187. Numerous parties also express concern that our proposed changes
will alter the nature of communications within the GMRS. Some of these
comments were broad in scope: that the changes would allow "unscrupulous
radio operators an opportunity to devastate the GMRS band;" would cause the
service to become "user unfriendly;" and would be "potentially disruptive."
To the extent that these fears are based on the mistaken belief that we are
eliminating licensing and the requirement that users share channels and
cooperate with each other, we reiterate that we retain and will continue to
enforce these rules. All GMRS users, whether longtime, new, or migrants
from another radio band, have always been expected to follow all service
rules, including those relating to the mitigation of interference, station
identification, and permissible communication. We will continue to hold
licensees to this standard.407 The rules we are eliminating are largely
unenforceable and hortatory, and serve to make the GMRS overly complicated
and less useful to existing and potential users. Accordingly, we cannot
agree that the licensing process for the GMRS serves an independent good by
making only the most serious users conduct the procedures necessary in
order to secure a license. We strive to adopt rules that serve their
stated purpose, and cannot support retention of a rule solely based on its
secondary effect.
188. Although PRSG is among the parties that question the scope of our
review of the GMRS, it proposes a new definition of GMRS that would
"establish a more definitive description of the basic purpose of GMRS from
which all authority for subsequent regulatory restrictions would derive"
(emphasis in original), as well as modifications to the description of a
GMRS "system." We will not adopt the proposed changes, as PRSG's proposed
definitions would fail to include some existing GMRS users and would
eliminate components of the service -- such as fixed station use.
c. Eligibility
189. Background. In our last major evaluation of the GMRS, we adopted
rules to "reorient the GMRS to accommodate more fully the needs of personal
users." Significantly, we limited eligibility for obtaining a new GMRS
system license to individuals in order to discourage large commercial
operations, "grandfathered" existing non-individual (i.e. business) GMRS
licenses, and prohibited those "grandfathered" licensees from making major
modifications. Under the proposed rules, we retain the ineligibility of
business entities to obtain GMRS system licenses and the prohibition
against business licensees making major modifications. We remove and
relocate to Part 1 the specific rules for applying for a new or modified
license.
190. Discussion. Burtner states that the proposed changes will allow
business users to encroach on what has traditionally been a personal- and
family-oriented service, while Bollschweiler suggests that the proposed
rules will allow GMRS to be overrun by business users, which will result in
greater interference and disrespect of the shared-nature of the band. We
believe these concerns are somewhat overstated because the rule on
permissible communications, section 95.181 of the Commission's rules, is
substantially unchanged, and a non-individual licensee who fails to abide
by the GMRS rules pertaining to mitigation of interference and station
identification is still subject to penalty for failure to abide by the
service rules. For the benefit of PRSG, which opposes any expansion for
non-personal licenses under the current rulemaking, we emphasize that we
are not changing the Commission's rules with respect to eligibility for
GMRS licenses, and we continue to prohibit non-individual licensees from
making major modifications to their systems.
d. Channeling Plan
191. Background. In the ULS Notice, we proposed to authorize stations
to transmit on any authorized channel from any geographical location where
the FCC regulates communication, eliminating the need for temporary
licensing. Currently, a GMRS licensee may use seven 462 MHz interstitial
channels, the 426.675 MHz/467.675 MHz nationwide channel pair for emergency
communications and traveler assistance, and up to two of seven other GMRS
channel pairs. The GMRS licensee is able to choose which channels will be
authorized on the license. Under the all-channel operation plan we adopt,
we make all seven channels pairs available to GMRS licensees who are
individuals (in addition to the already available interstitial channels and
nationwide channel pair), which in turn permits each GMRS system licensee
to use the best channel available for its stations at any given time or
place.
192. Discussion. Several commenters claim that all-channel operation
will increase interference and degrade use of their GMRS systems. We
disagree, and adopt an all-channel plan with the belief that it will
provide licensees with the flexibility to reduce interference and make
greater use of their GMRS systems. PRSG claims that such a policy could
encourage "chit-chat" and hobby-type communication, while Leef suggests
that all-channel operation will result in anonymous users who float from
one channel to another. Mendelson predicts interference and inefficient
spectrum use under an all-channel plan, and suggests that GMRS users will
no longer have the potential for a working relationship that comes from
licensing on specific channels. Under the current licensing plan where a
GMRS license is authorized to use up to ten of fifteen allocated channels,
users have the ability to communicate on different channels and do not have
to remain within a single channel "community" if they choose. An
all-channel plan will promote flexible use of GMRS by allowing users to
select the channel that provides the best operational environment without
having to predict during the licensing process which channels will be most
suitable, and represents a natural progression from the GMRS Report and
Order, where we authorized selection of up to two channels (versus one
channel), and authorized use of the seven interstitial channels and the
nationwide channel. We adopted those changes with the belief that the
additional channels would allow for "much of the flexibility we sought in
advancing the all-channel concept," but we decided that "elimination of
Commission assignment of channels and channel pairs would be too drastic a
step to take at this time," and that retention of channel authorizations
would "allow for a more gradual and user-acceptable application of existing
and new technologies in the GMRS." Tellingly, no commenter disputed our
ten-year-old prediction that licensing of multiple channels, the
interstitial channels, and the nationwide channel would promote more
efficient spectrum utilization. None identified any potential for misuse
or degradation of the GMRS that cannot take place under the current
multiple channel licensing plan.
193. All-channel operation will also relieve the public and the
Commission of unnecessary regulatory burdens. Currently, we routinely
grant channel requests without further evaluation or inquiry. Although
several commenters suggest that the proposed changes to the channel use
policy should not be undertaken because the current policy is not causing
harm to the GMRS, we believe it is appropriate for us to identify and
eliminate rules that no longer serve the service, even when those rules are
not actively harming use of the service. The all-channel operation plan we
adopt today allows for the types of communications that were proposed in
commenters' limited all- channel licensing suggestions. Because we have
decided to institute an all-channel use policy, we decline to adopt PRSG's
suggestions that we retain rule sections relating to the licensing of
specific channels and that we retain the restrictions on overlap of GMRS
systems under section 95.31 of the Commission's rules. Removal of these
regulations is consistent with streamlining the GMRS, and the ready
availability of an all-channel plan will give licensees additional
flexibility in selecting the channel that best meets their needs.
194. Rosenthal, Yordan, and Burtner fear that the proposed changes
will turn the GMRS into a CB-like band, filled with interruptions,
profanity, and casual communication. We do not agree, and note that we
will continue to require licenses of GMRS users, expect licensees to comply
with the GMRS rules, and will use the licensing information to locate and
impose sanctions against violators. We recognize that many GMRS users will
consider the use of tone-operated squelch or other techniques to limit the
use of a repeater to particular stations. While this may limit "the
possibility of other channel users from utilizing trained dispatchers to
report motorist advisories and emergencies," we note that users are not
presently prohibited from using these techniques. Additionally, we note
that because we are not modifying the rules limiting the nationwide channel
pair to emergency and traveler assistance communications, this channel pair
will suit those owners who have placed repeaters on public property under
the condition that they will be used solely for emergency and traveler
assistance communications.
195. In conjunction with the proposed all-channel use policy, we
proposed to eliminate the rule limiting the use of the 467 MHz channels for
transmissions through repeaters. We will retain this provision in our
revised rules. Numerous commenters sharply disagreed with the removal of
this limitation, and urged us to reconsider. Parrish suggests that
interference to repeater operation caused by removal of this limitation
would severely disrupt GMRS operations. This belief is echoed by Kobb,
Forrest, Silver, and Hilke, among others. We originally adopted this rule
after concluding that "significant interference to GMRS repeater operation
is virtually inevitable due to non-repeater operations conducted on 467 MHz
frequencies." We recognize that this type of interference could still
occur if these restrictions are not left in place, and we further note that
retention of this provision does not affect our general all-channel use
plan, nor does it lessen the administrative and licensing relief afforded
by not processing applications and issuing licenses for specific channels.
Finally, we take this opportunity to further clarify the section by
including and defining the term "repeater." We believe that this
clarification will aid licensees and potential GMRS users, and will help
the Commission's rules match commonly accepted GMRS terminology.
e. Information Collection
196. Background. In the ULS Notice, we tentatively concluded that by
collecting basic contact information (such as name, address and telephone
number) of individuals applying for licenses, we would be able to meet our
statutory duty to license and regulate the GMRS. Accordingly, we proposed
to consolidate the collection of license information into the new Part 1
rules, and to streamline the GMRS rules to eliminate technical information
requirements relating to system configuration and equipment. We also
proposed elimination of regulations on points of communications for
stations in a GMRS system (sections 95.53-95.61) as part of our evaluation
of our information collection needs and overall streamlining of the GMRS.
We concluded that points of communication restrictions are sufficiently
removed from our licensing function that they can be eliminated. As
Forrest observes, the sections' complex description of permissible and
non-permissible communication points discourages some individuals from
applying for GMRS licenses, creates a burden on the Commission, and stifles
innovation by manufacturers. Parrish, like many commenters, claims that by
no longer collecting this information, the Commission would leave GMRS
users with no readily available means for users to contact other stations
in order to foster frequency use, coordinate CTCSS Codes, and resolve
interference problems.
197. Discussion. We will adopt our basic information collection as
proposed. There is no legitimate government purpose to collect more than
basic information to perform our regulatory functions. Moreover, the
Commission's databases will continue to provide a point of contact for
licensees and because we are not eliminating the station identification
requirement, GMRS users will continue to have the basic information
necessary to locate other licensees. Nothing in the Commission's rules
prohibits groups of GMRS users (or other third parties) from collecting and
disseminating additional information about GMRS systems they have obtained
from GMRS licensees. Several commenters also suggest that our proposed
information collection for the GMRS will no longer allow us to sufficiently
regulate use of the band. We disagree. The Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau will continue to accept and investigate formal and informal
complaints of rule violations in GMRS. This agency has the capability to
monitor GMRS transmissions and, when necessary, to conduct field
investigations. We do not believe that we will jeopardize our GMRS
enforcement by discontinuing much of the current technical information
collection.
198. Because we are adopting streamlined information collection
requirements under Part 1 of the Commission's rules, we also reject PRSG's
suggestion that we employ a two-tiered information collection requirement.
Such a scheme would frustrate our efforts to streamline the GMRS rules, and
there is no legitimate governmental purpose served by collecting
information from certain GMRS licensees but not others. We disagree with
PRSG's objection to the consolidation of information collection
requirements into Part 1 of the Commission's rules. We continue to believe
that consolidation of our basic rules, when possible, will result in a
simple and uniform approach to licensing for our wireless services.
199. PRSG claims that deletion of the rule sections requiring
identification of the points of communication would compromise the purpose
of the GMRS to be a mobile-oriented radio service. We do not concur and
will remove these rules as proposed. The current points of communication
rules (and modifications proposed by some commenters) rest on somewhat
artificial distinctions on station types. With the advent of modern radio
equipment, the same piece of equipment can qualify as a different type of
station based on its location and usage. The Commission's rules, however,
maintain tight restrictions on permissible communication based on station
types. GMRS users are better served by rules that establish general
standards than rules that distinguish between how the equipment (fixed or
mobile) is used or where it is located.
200. By eliminating the rules on points of communications, we also
eliminate the rule that requires station operators of GMRS systems licensed
to individuals wishing to use repeaters in other GMRS systems to first
secure the repeater owner's permission. Region 20 claims that removal of
the prohibition would result in interference to public safety licensees and
would make it impossible for repeater station licensees to maintain control
over their equipment. Similarly, Parrish points to the significant
investment he has made in repeater stations, and expresses concern that our
proposed rule changes will lead to unauthorized access to and operation of
these privately owned facilities. The requirement that a licensee is
responsible for the proper operation of the GMRS system at all times does
not in itself justify retention of our points of communication rules.
Rather, it underscores the fact that the repeater operator is responsible
for the use of his station. In GMRS Report and Order, we noted that
"closing one's own repeater to prevent undesired use, such as by
tone-operated squelch or digital access codes, and limiting those to whom
these codes were available, would appear to be another means to establish
who has permission to use a licensee's repeater station. This mechanism
would avoid disputes regarding repeater operations. We consider this to be
the most efficient, most cost-effective and least burdensome approach to
improving transient GMRS operations, and encourage its use." These means
of control we identified a decade ago remain viable options for repeater
station owners who are concerned about maintaining control over their
systems.
f. Antenna Requirements
201. Background. Our examination of unnecessary and outdated rules
led us to propose the elimination of distinctions based on large urban
areas. Accordingly, we also proposed to eliminate power and
antenna-directivity requirements within and near urban areas, and instead
limit all fixed stations regardless of location of a maximum authorized
transmitting power of fifteen watts.
202. Discussion. Several parties -- most notably PRSG -- support the
retention of power and antenna-directivity requirements within and near
urban areas for other types of stations, and suggest that the restrictions
could be further expanded. We disagree. The pattern of suburban sprawl
and rural growth in the years since this rule was adopted blunts the
effectiveness of an urban area distinction. Additionally, the present rule
imposes restrictions based on undefined points, such as the "rim" of an
urban area. Under the modified maximum authorized transmitting power rule
(section 95.135), all fixed stations regardless of location will be limited
to fifteen watts output power, while small base stations will continue to
be restricted to five watts. We believe that these modifications will
further our goal of simplifying and streamlining the GMRS rules while
simultaneously protecting GMRS users by retaining limits on the maximum
authorized transmitting power. Because urban area distinctions are
unnecessary, we also eliminate Appendix B of our current GMRS rules, which
lists urban areas.
g. Permissible Communications
203. Background. In the ULS Notice, we proposed to retain the
regulations on permissible and prohibited communications, with minor
modifications, and to list permissible and prohibited communications under
separate rules.
204. Discussion. Although no commenters opposed this concept, PRSG
had specific reservations about our list of prohibited communications.
Because the elimination of duplicative and ambiguous rules serves the
public interest, we will adopt the proposed rules with minor modifications.
While we believe that the categories of prohibited communication are
discrete and do not need parenthetical explanation, we will maintain the
distinction that "10-codes" are not included in the prohibition against
coded messages because of the potential for confusion. We will also retain
a prohibition on advertisements for the sale of services. We decline to
alter our prohibition on profane speech, as suggested by PRSG. Many
commenters strongly support the GMRS because it is free of profane,
indecent and obscene speech, and many of their concerns are based on the
fear that the proposed changes to the GMRS will alter this quality.
Finally, we remove the prohibition on sounds only to attract attention.
This prohibition is ambiguous and largely unenforceable. Moreover, we
envision times -- such as emergency situations -- when the broadcast of
such sounds would be both necessary and proper.
h. Rules Pertaining to Management of a GMRS System
205. Background. We proposed significant changes to the rule sections
broadly titled "Managing a GMRS System" (sections 95.103 - 95.181 and app.
A and B of the Commission's rules). These changes further our efforts to
streamline the GMRS rules by eliminating duplicative rules, as well as
deleting those rule sections that offer general guidance but are ambiguous
in application or enforcement.
206. Discussion. We note that some commenters, including Parrish and
Vandercook, urge us to keep many of these explanatory rules because they
fear that users would lack the guidelines and structure necessary to
construct, operate, and maintain GMRS systems. We disagree and adopt the
changes as proposed. Although some users believe a useful contextual
function is served by the complex rules and numerous restrictions on system
construction, licensing, and operation contained in the current GMRS rules,
we are concerned that the current rules unnecessarily keep many parties
from considering and applying for licenses in the GMRS.
207. Many of the rules we eliminate are duplicative. A licensee must
have access to the station equipment and be able to disable it in order to
maintain the proper operation of the GMRS system at all times, so it is
unnecessary to retain specific access language in section 95.103(b).
Similarly, in order to maintain the overarching responsibility for proper
system operation, a GMRS licensee must regularly monitor and maintain his
or her equipment. Many of the rules we propose to delete are ambiguous and
unenforceable. For example, the specification that voice station
identification in section 95.119(d)(2) be made "with each letter and digit
separately and distinctly transmitted (letters may be said using a phonetic
alphabet)" does not add to a licensee's understanding of the basic
requirement that a station must be identified and may even raise
independent questions such as whether a user must engage in a separate
transmission for each letter and digit in a call sign and whether a
licensee with an accent unfamiliar to the listener is in violation of the
rule. Finally, the removal of other rule sections, such as those
pertaining to system records, station control point and controlling
stations from a remote point, and servicing and modifying station
transmitters, is wholly consistent with our efforts to institute
streamlined licensing and data collection requirements under ULS, and to
remove unnecessary rules. In light of our new information collection
requirements for GMRS, we also do not need to collect the detailed
information specified in section 95.103(c) when a licensee's information
changes or when a GMRS user moves or adds a small base station or small
control Station.