-----------------------
FCC 96-11 Federal Communications Commission Record 11 FCC Red No. 4 
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
PR Docket No. 91·72 
In the Matter of 
Amendment of Part 90 of the 
Commission's Rules to Create 
the Emergency Medical Radio 
Service 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
Adopted: January 18, 1996; Released: February 8, 1996 
By the Commission: 
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 
l. Before us are two petitions for reconsideration • of the 
Reporl and Order in PR Docket No. 91-72.2 and a related 
request for rule waiver. 3 In the Repon and Order, issued 
February 12. I 993. we established the Emergency Medical 
Radio Service (EMRS) as a new Public Safety Radio Ser­
vice (PSRS) under Subpart B of Part 90 of the Commis­
sion's Rules.J The EMRS was created to improve the com­
munications capabilities of entities engaged in providing 
life support activities.5 We reallocated 39 VHF, UHF and 
220-222 MHz frequencies for E MRS use/ • and limited eli­
gibility to persons or entities who provide basic or ad­
vanced life support services on an ongoing basis. 7 We also 
designated the International Municipal Signal Association 
and the International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. 
( IMSA/IAFC or Respondent) as the certified coordinator 
for the EMRS because of its previous experience coordinat­
ing emergency medical communications.~ 
2. Of the frequencies reallocated for EMRS use. four 
were in the 453 MHz band. These frequencies had been 
previously assigned for one-way paging operations by en­
tities eligible in the Special Emergency Radio Service 
(SERS)." The Reporl and Order provided a waiver process 
1 Petition for Reconsideration filed by ProNet. Inc. (ProNet) on 
April 2, l<N3 and Petition ror Reconsideration filed by Dr. 
Michael C. Trahos (Trahos) on April 2. 19<13. See Public Notice. 
Report No. llJ36. April 27. llJQ3. 
2 Report and Order, PR Docket No. IJl-72. 8 FCC Red 1-15-1 
~ 1993). 
Petition for Permanent Waiver (Waiver Petition) filed by 
ProNet on July 16, l<N3. 
J Report and Order a1 para. b . The effective date of the rules 
adopted in the Report and Order was April 2. 191J3. 
s Id. 
11 Report and Order at paras. 23-30. 
7 Report and Order at para. 12. 
8 Report and Order at para. 33. 
q The four freq uencies reallocated are: -153.0.?5!.0751. 125/. 175 
MHz. Report and Order at para. 16. 
1708 
for grandfathering existing one-way medical paging systems 
on these frequencies. to Pursuant to this approach, if a 
licensee currently operating on a one-way paging channel 
demonstrates that there is adequate spectrum for EMS 
transmissions in its area of operation, or that relocation of 
its medical paging system. would not serve the public inter­
est, or relocation would cause sign ificant disruption of 
public safety communications, its system would be 
grandfathered by waiver ." Otherwise, licensees operating 
on these 453 MHz frequencies are required to cease oper­
ations after January 14, 1998. 12 
II. DISCUSSION AND DECISION 
Reassignment of the 453 MHz frequencies to the EMRS 
3. ProNet Petition for Reconsideration. ProNet alleges that 
the reassignment of the four 453 MHz frequencies fro m the 
SERS to the EMRS was both procedurally and substan ­
tively defective. Specifically, ProNet asserts that (i) the 
reallocation deprives ProNet and others of their licenses 
without notice and o p portunity to be heard in violation of 
Section 316 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 316.13 
(ii) the allocation relies on obsolete data. ignores current 
information and, therefore, is arbitrary and capricious,14 
and (iii) the Commission wrongly failed to review ProNet's 
request for a limited exemption from the rule.•s 
4. ProNet submits that the reassignment decision was 
based on erroneous conclusions that (i) the spectrum al­
located for emergency medical services (EMS) is overbur­
dened, (ii) the remaining SERS spectrum can 
accommodate the paging systems that operated on the fre­
quencies reallocated to EMRS, (iii) SERS communications 
are not life-saving, and (iv) the reassignment would result 
in minimal disruption to the non-EMRS SERS entities.16 
To support its arguments. ProNet again offers its previously 
submitted 1991 data on the use of SERS paging and emer­
gency medical service channels in the Chicago metropoli­
tan area. 17 Alternatively, ProNet suggests that the -153 MHz 
reallocations should be addressed either on a case-by-case 
or region-by-region basis with the burden on EMRS ap­
plicants to prove that (i) its emergency medical commu­
nications require additional spectrum, (ii) the SERS 
paging-only channels in the region are underutilized, and 
(iii) sufficient paging-only spectrum in the SERS exists to 
accommodate the displaced systems. 1 ~ 
10 Report and Order at para. 25. We indicated that each situ­
ation would be addressed upon request by existing licensees on a 
case-by-ca.se basis. Report and Order at note ClX. 
11 Report and Order at para . .?5. 
12 Licensees o n these ~53 MHz frequencies (as well as on the 
corresponding -158 MHz frequencies) were provided a period of 
five years from adoption or the Report a11d Order (January 1-1, 
19113) to cease operations. Report and Order at para . .?5. 
13 ProNet Petition for Reco nsideration at X. 
IJ ProNet Petition for Reconsideration al -1 . 
is ProNet Petition for Reconsideration at 3--1. 
111 ProNet Petition for Reconsideration at i. 
17 ProNet Petition for Reconsideration at 5. The data was 
previously submiued in response to the Notice of Propm ed Rule 
Making (b FCC Red 2017 (1991)). adopted in the instant pro­
ceeding. See ProNet Comments at Exhibits 2--1. 
111 ProNet Petition for Reconsideration at IJ. 
11 FCC Red No. 4 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 96-11 
5. Comments. In opposing ProNet's request, 
IMSNIAFC 19 submits that the reallocation scheme re­
sponds to the continual need among emergency medical 
communications services for additional spectrum and that 
the record reflects a rational basis for the channel plan.20 
Respondent contends that ProNet's position in objecting to 
the reallocation of the 453 MHz frequencies is narrow and 
self-serving.21 IMSNIAFC notes that the Commission spe­
cifically addressed ProNet's concerns and provided a waiver 
procedure to accommodate displaced licensees unable to 
find alternative spectrum within the five-year grandfather 
period.22 
6. In regard to the procedural question, IMSNIAFC 
asserts that the reaJlocation of SERS frequencies is not a 
license modification and does not require an evidentiary 
hearing.23 The reallocation decision, IMSNIAFC notes, was 
made pursuant to a rule making proceeding and was not 
aimed at any particular licensee.2' Additionally, Respon­
dent submits that ProNet's waiver request is premature 
because, by establishing evaluation criteria for waivers. the 
Commission implied that a waiver would be appropriate 
towards the end of the five year grandfathering period.is 
7. In reply, ProNet largely repeats allegations made in its 
Petition for Reconsideration.26 It submits that the Commis­
sion overlooked the importance of the 453 MHz SERS 
paging service,27 and "brushed aside" the question of where 
in the crowded radio spectrum displaced SERS licensees 
could relocate.28 ProNet again recommends its alternative 
proposals,29 and asserts that our waiver remedy may. con­
trary to IMSNIAFC's supposition. prove inadequate. In 
this regard, ProNet asserts that "the indifference accorded 
ProNefs frequency utilization data bodes ill for any request 
for permanent waiver ... lasl such request will be predi­
cated on essentially the same data as that already submitted 
by ProNet."30 ProNet also argues that the legal burden on a 
petitioner seeking a rule waiver is too high a hurdle to 
overcome.31 Finally, ProNet submits that its earlier request 
for permanent grandfathering could have been evaluated 
and decided as early as 199t.3l ProNet takes issue with 
IMSNIAFC and submits that the 4uestion of "ripeness" is 
not relevant to this issue. 33 
19 Reply filed by IMSNIAFC (IMSA Reply) on June -1, IW3. In 
opposition to ProNet's Petition for Reconsideration as well as 
the Trahos Petition for Reconsideration. On May 7, l<N3. 
IMSA/IAFC requested an ex1ension of time until June -1, 1993 10 
respond to both Petitions of Reconsideration. Telephone grant 
of extension request on May 11. IW3. by Freda Lippert Thyden, 
Attorney-Advisor. Land Mobile and Microwave. Private Radio 
Bureau. 
lO IMSA Reply at -land 7. 
ll IMSA Reply at -l. 
u IMSA Reply at 7-8. 
Zl IMSA Reply at 9. 
~.t IMSA Reply at 10- 11. 
zs IMSA Reply at 12-13. Respondent notes that although 
ProNet appears to be making two separate requests • · one for a 
waiver on all -153 MHz channels and another for a waiver in the 
Chicago market. the evidence cited in support is only applicable 
to the Chicago market. IMSA Reply at 1-1. 
l 6 Reply Of ProNet (ProNet Reply) w:is filed on June 23. IW3. 
ProNet's request for :in extension of time un1il June 23, 1993. in 
which 10 reply to IMSNIAFC's opposition comments was gr:int· 
ed. Telephone grant or extension request on June Ill, IW3 by 
Edward Jacobs. Deputy Chief, Land Mobile :ind Microw:ive 
1709 
8. Discussion. We reaffirm our decision to establish the 
Emergency Medical Radio Service and reassign for its use 
those SERS frequencies primarily used for emergency 
medical communications. The record substantiates the need 
for this new radio service to ensure the reliability of emer­
gency medical communications. The record also supports 
the need for additional spectrum for emergency medical 
use because the substantial increase in the demand for 
EMS frequencies nationwide has significantly overburdened 
existing frequencies.3' To meet this increased demand 
numerous frequencies, besides the 453 MHz channels, were 
reassigned for EMRS use. These include ten paired UHF 
channels in the 460 MHz range known as the MED chan­
nels, five VHF simplex frequencies in the 155 MHz range, 
two low power SERS frequencies, two pairs of 460 MHz 
band channels and five pairs of 220 MHz narrowband 
frequencies also were reassigned to the EMRS.3s 
9. In addressing the frequency reallocation issue in the 
Repon and Order, we carefully balanced competing inter­
ests of the various parties involved. We concluded that the 
needs of emergency medical service providers warranted 
priority. As indicated by the comments to the Notice of 
Proposed Rule Jfaking,36 most interested parties supported 
the proposed reassignment - including the 453 MHz 
reassignment proposalY The 453 MHz channels are par­
ticularly appropriate for EMRS use because - paired with 
the corresponding 458 MHz channels - they create four 
full capacity UHF paired channels. Furthermore. the ~53 
and 458 MHz frequencies were chosen to minimize disrup­
tion to the remaining non-EMRS SERS entities.JS Addi­
tionally, these channel pairs are in the same band as the 
460 MHz MED channels, making them compatible with 
existing multi-channel mobile equipment already used for 
emergency medical communications. This compatibility 
will promote system expansion and enable existing mutual 
aid assignments to be retained.39 
10. We further concluded that ProNet's concerns were 
adequately addressed by our establishment of a waiver pro­
cedure for SERS systems that re4uest permanent 
grandfathering because of unique circumstances. ProNet is 
concerned that the waiver process sets too high a hurdle to 
Division. Private R:idio Bureau. 
l; ProNet Reply at S. 
!S ProNet Reply :it 7. 
z~ ProNet Reply :it 11. 
JO ProNet Reply at 11. 
31 ProNet Reply at 12. 
J! Pro:-.iet Reply at 1-1. 
.u Id. 
.I~ According to IMSA/IAFC in its Comments in response to 
1he Notice of Proposrd Rule .\faking in the instant docket. there 
has been a 2-lS percent increase in 1he dem:ind for EMS chan­
nels nationwide. See IMSA/IAFC Comments at -1. :ind the Re­
~rt and Order :it para. S. 
s Report and Order :it paras. 23-30. 
311 6 FCC Red 21117 (1991). 
i- Report a11d Order :it para. 19. 
J~ Report and Order :it para. 16. 
J" Cert:iin Part 90 licen..ees :ire :iuthori£ed pursu:int to -17 
C.F.R. § CJCl.7:?0 to use mobile and/or portable units on Mutual 
Aid Ch:innels 161-170 throughout the United States. its territor· 
ies, and possessions to transmit: (I) communica1ions relating to 
the immedi:ite safety of life. or (2) communic:itions to facilitate 
interoper:ibility between public safety entities. SC'e paras. 19-23. 
infra, for :i discussion or which SERS eligibles "'ill now be 
permi11ed to operate on Mutual Aid Ch:innels 1111-liO. 
·-------------------
FCC 96-11 Federal Communications Co~ion Record 11 FCC Red No. 4 
enable any system to be grandfathered."° However, had we 
not seriously contemplated waivers for current one-way 
paging systems operating on 453 MHz frequencies, we 
would not have established the standards in the Repon and 
Order.41 As the Repon and Order addressed the need for 
available spectrum to accommodate critical emergency 
medical communications in a general sense, it is appro­
priate to resolve ProNet's specific concerns through the 
waiver process. Placing the burden on all emergency medi­
cal pr9viders individually to prove that they require addi­
t ional spectrum for their communications and that the 
SERS paging-only channels in their region are 
underutilized, as suggested by ProNet, would fail to ensure, 
on a timely basis, provision of spectrum assignments for 
emergency medical communications throughout the na­
tion. We conclude that the waiver process for affected 
paging systems is a more efficient and effective method in 
those unique situations warranting relief. 
11. ProNet mistakenly believes it should be accorded a 
hearing pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications 
Act, before its radio license is modified. Under this statu­
tory provision, a license is not considered modified when 
the Commission - acting by rule making - affects the 
rights of all licensees of a particular class.42 Our 
reallocation scheme for the EMRS affected all currently 
licensed SERS users. Furthermore, we have not singled out 
ProNet for treatment different from other licensees operat­
ing on 453 MHz. Rather, we have devised a plan to meet 
the radio communication needs of the emergency medical 
community. Moreover, we provided a lengthy transition 
period for these licensees to locate spectrum alternatives 
and also provided grandfathering on a permanent basis for 
those cases warranting such an accommodation.43 
40 ProNet Reply at 12. 
41 For a discussion of ProNet's Petition for Permanent Waiver 
su paras. 12-18 infra. 
JZ See California Citizens Band Association v. United States, 375 
F.2d .U, 50-52 (9th Cir. 1%7). cert. denied 389 U.S. 844 ( 1%7). 
See also Upjohn Co. v. F.D.A., 811 F.2d 1583 (D.C. Cir. 1987). 
JJ Report and Order at para. 25. 
4J ProNet specifically requests waiver of 47 C.F.R. §§ 
90.27(c)( 19), 90.53(b)(26) and 90.55 for its st3tions KNGJ 788, 
WNKP 955, WNKR 7%ffl00, WNOD 424, WNUJ 459. and WPBK 
978 -- which constitute its existing Chicago system. Waiver 
Petition at l. 
JS ProNet's 453.125 MHz network in Chicago employs st:ne­
of-the-an transmitting facilities throughout the metropolitan 
area. By simulcasting over these facilities. paging messages can 
be received throughout a wide geographic footprint. as well as 
in the interior of solidly-constructed buildings. such as hos­
pitals. ProNet's Chicago system serves approximately 51 hos­
pitals. clinics. and Health Maintenance organizations, in 
addition 10 smaller medical institutions and private practice 
physicians. The doctors, nurses, technicians, and other health 
professionals associated with these institutions are ProNet sub­
scribers. These emergency personnel are alerted -- by hospi1als 
-- about crisis situations such as ambulance and medi-vac arri­
vals. When emergencies occur, such as cardiac arrests. within 
hospital premises, ProNet's system is the primary means of 
communicating with essential medical personnel (e.g .. code 
1710 
Grandfathering the Use of 453.125 MHz 
12. ProNet Petition for Permanent Waiver. ProNet re­
quests that we permanently grandfather its medical paging 
system operating on 453.125 MHz in the Chicago metro­
politan area." ProNet's wide-area, medical paging system 
provides vital emergency communications to hospitals, 
c linics and other health care facilities, as well as to the 
doctors, nurses, and technicians who staff these 
institutions.4s ProNet currently has 14,643 users,46 and is 
adding 2,000 net subscribers per year to its Chicago 
system.47 To accommodate its system's growth and expan­
sion, ProNet also requests authority to license transmitting 
facilittes on 453.125 MHz anywhere in Wisconsin, Illinois, 
and Indiana within a 100 mile radius of its existing site at 
the Standard Oil Building in Chicago.48 It asserts that its 
current operation meets the criteria established by the 
Commission for granting a permanent waiver. 
13. ProNet submits that its 453 MHz medical paging 
channel is heavily used and that compulsory migration to 
another channel will entail serious logistical challen~es and 
substantial expenditures of time, effort and dollars.4 Addi­
tionally, ProNet alleges that in Chicago remaining SERS 
medical paging frequencies, as well as Business Radio Ser­
vice (BRS) frequencies, demonstrate substantial congestion 
thus making relocation to a different shared frequency an 
impractical option for an existing medical paging system 
with thousands o,f users.so ProNet also asserts that existing 
emergency medical service channels in the Chicago area 
display virtually no congestion.51 
14. In support o f its assertions, ProNet offers the results 
of a study conducted by Raymond C. Trott Consulting 
Engineers whi~h provides an independent examination of 
frequency utilization on ProNet's medical paging channel, 
as well as on Business Radio Service (BRS) and Emergency 
Medical Service frequencies in the Chicago metropolitan 
area (Trott Study).52 This study indicates that the 453.125 
MHz frequency is transmitting paging messages 95 percent 
teams and trauma teams) needed to resolve the crisis. Waiver 
Petition a1 3 and Appendix I. 
41
' Waiver Petition at IS. 
J 7 Waiver Petition at 18. ProNet's Chicago system users gen­
erate over 40.000 paging messages daily over the 453.115 MHz 
network. including 3500 pages per hour during the system's 
peak usage period. Declaration of Jeff Owens. ProNet's Vice 
President of Engineering (Owens Declaration) a1 3. 
JS Waiver Petition at 1-2. 
Jq According to ProNet. replacing transmiuer equipment will 
cost an estimated $25.000 per site. Thus. 10 replicate a system 
comparable in coverage and quality to ProNet 's existing 453.125 
MHz network in Chicago will entail base station equipment 
costs totaling $750,000 to Sl,000,000. In addition, assuming per 
pager costs of S 100 to $200. subscriber equipment costs asso­
ciated with the reassignment will range from S IA6 10 $2.93 
million. If the replacement occurs in 1998, and net subscribers 
continue to grow at a rate of 2.(KJO per year. as~rts ProNet, the 
costs for new paging equipment will range from approximately 
$2.46 to $4.92 million. ProNet also submits that the five-year 
transition period provided in the Report and Order is inad­
equate 10 amortize the costs of existing 453 MHz transmission 
and subscriber equipment. Waiver Petition at 5-6, note 11, and 
Owens' Declaration at 7. 
so Waiver Petition at 6. 
SI Waiver Petition at 5. 
Sl The Troll Study was commissioned by ProNet. Waiver 
Petition at 7-8 and Appendix 2. The results of the Troll Study 
are not in dispute. See IMSA Reply at 14. 
11 FCC Red No. 4 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 96-11 
of the time from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., its daily usage 
peak.s3 Also, of 31 individual frequencies sampled in the 
greater metropolitan Chicago area, the Trott Study indi­
cates that the 453.125 MHz SERS wide-area paging channel 
is by far the most intensely uti lized. 
15. In regard to alternative spectrum, the Trott Study 
demonstrates that 152.0075 and 163.250 MHz, allegedly the 
only frequencies designated for SERS medical paging that 
can accommodate a wide-area simulcast s~stem like 
ProNet's Chicago system, were intensively used. 4 Addition­
ally, seven of eight monitored channels exhibit peak u.sage 
ranging from 55 percent to 95 percent demonstrating, ac­
cording to ProNet, that most paging channels in metropoli­
tan Chicago are severely constr icted by existing traffic.55 
Finally, the Trott Study indicates that the ten EMS channel 
pairs in the UHF band, referred to as MED channels. are 
essentially unused from 70 to 90 percent of the time in the 
Chicago metropolitan area.s6 In view of the above, ProNet 
concludes that relocating 453.125 MHz in the Chicago area 
to the EMRS will risk public safety and thus disserve the 
public interest.s7 
16. Discussion. ProNet has substantiated its request for 
permanently waiving mandatory reassignment of 453.125 
MHz in the greater Chicago metropolitan area to EMRS.s8 
It commissioned a study of spectrum usage in the Chicago 
area as well as submitted relevant affidavits. Although only 
required to meet one criterion, ProNet met all the estab­
lished criteria to justify grant of their waiver request. First, 
it appears from the above-mentioned data that ProNet's 
system is intensely utilized. The Trott Study indicates that 
453.125 MHz is in use transmitting paging messages 95 
percent of the available time from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 
on a daily basis. Further, according to the Trott Study, 
more than 40,000 paging messages are transmitted on a 
daily basis on this channel in Chicago. Migration to a 
channel other than 453.125 MHz would involve significant 
cost and disruption to ProNet's current medical paging 
operations. Such disruption could well impair ProNefs 
medical alert operations - such as summoning attending 
physicians and other "on-call" staff to the bedsides of acute 
and critical patients -- thus unnecessarily endangering the 
health and welfare of the public. Permanently· 
grandfathering Pr0Ne1·s paging system on -153.125 MHz 
would avoid a considerable expenditure of resources on the 
part of ProNet. and would prevent interruption of these 
important public safety communications. 
17. Second , relocation of ProNet's medical paging system 
would not serve the public interest because no reac;onable 
alternative for its paging system is available in the Chicago 
SJ Waiver Petition at 17. 
S4 Trott Exhibits RCT-5 and RCT-6. 
ss Waiver Petition at 11. 
Sb Waiver Petition at 16-17. MED Channels 1-8 comprise fre­
quency pairs -163.000/-INUIOO. -163.025/-INUl25. -163.050/-1~.050, 
-163.0751-168.075. -163. IOll/-1~. IUO. -103.125/-1~. 125. -ln.3.15111'~.150. 
and -163.175/-lt>R.175. MED channels 9 and 10 are the channel 
f;lirs -162.9501-167.950 and -lo2.975/-lo7.'l75 MHz. 
• Waiver Petition at IQ. 
SS Rtport and Ordtr at para. 25. 
s<i For the criteria justifying a waiver. set WAIT Radio v. FCC. 
-118 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. IQ6Q). The function of a waiver is 10 
justify an ad hoc exception to a general standard. Storer Rroad· 
casting Co., 1-1 RR 7-12 ( 1956): VHF Drop-In Procctding. Q(I FCC 
2d 160, 166 ( 1982), aff d sub nom. Springfield Television of l'1ah. 
Inc. 11. FCC, 710 F.2d 620 ( I01h Cir. 19113). 
1711 
area. Alternative Business Radio Service channels in the 
Chicago area appear to be severely congested and, thus, 
unavailable. Third, the Trott Study illustrates the continued 
availability of MED channel capacity in metropolitan Chi­
cago and, therefore, there appears to be adequate spectrum 
for EMS transmissions in the Chicago area. ProNet has 
successfully demonstrated that unique circumstances are 
involved in its case, and that there is no reasonable alter­
native solution within our existing rules_s9 Thus, we con­
clude that ProNet has met the requirements established in 
the Repon and Order for a waiver of Section 90.53(b)(26) 
as well as the requirements established by 47 C.F.R. § 
90.151 for more general waiver requests.60 
18. ProNet's request for authority to be licensed to op­
erate transmitting facilities on 453.125 MHz anywhere in 
Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana within a one hundred mile 
radius of its existing site is denied. This request involves 
future operations and was not contemplated by the waiver 
provisions contained in the Report and Order. The waiver 
criteria was established to grandfather operations where 
significant conversion costs are involved, not propo~ed fa­
cilities. 
Use of Channels 161-170 by Certain SERS eligibles 
19. Trahos Petition for Reconsiderauon (Trahos Petition). 
In the 1992 Memorandum Opinion and Order addressing 
narrowband operations in the 220-222 MHz band,6 t we 
delayed addressing the spectrum needs of SERS eligibles 
regularly engaged in safety-of-life services to the EMRS 
Report and Order.62 In the EMRS proceeding we assigned 
narrowband Channels 181-185 to the EMRS for use by 
entities providing life support scrvices,63 however, we in­
advertently fa iled to address the needs of those SERS 
eligibles providing safety-of-life, but not life support. ser­
vices. In view of this, Dr. Trahos requests that we now 
address the question of spectrum sufficiency for SERS 
eligibles. Specifically, Dr. Trahos asks that those licensees 
eligible under 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.35 (medical services), 90.37 
(rescue organizations), 90.41 (disaster relief organizations)64 
and 90.45 (beach patrols) be included as eligibles for 
220-222 MHz Mutual Aid Channels 161-170 under 47 
C.F.R. § 90.720. Dr. Trahos argues that this change is 
l\O -17 C.F.R. § 90.151 provides that waiver requests are to state 
the nature of the waiver or exception desired. and set forth 
reasons supporting the request including a showing that unique 
circumstances are involved and that there is no reasonable 
alternative solution within existing rules. 
hi .\femorandum Opinion and Order. PR Docket No. 89-552, 7 
FCC Red -1-11!-I (19<12). 
,.z Id. at para. 38. 
u Repor1 and Ordu at paras. 21!-30. 
n4 The American National Red Cross requests that the Com­
mission broaden the categories of users permitted to apply for 
Channels 161-170 to include disaster relief organizations as de­
fined by -17 C.F.R. § 90.-11. Letter from Christopher D. Imlay. 
Counsel. American National Red Cross. to Edward R. Jacobs. 
Deputy Chief. Land Mobile and Microwave Division. Private 
Radio Bureau (February 3. 1994). 
FCC 96-11 Federal Communications Comm~ion Record 11 FCC Red No. 4 
necessary to enable these entities, which conduct commu­
nications relating to safety-of-life, to communicate with one 
another.6s 
20. Comments. IMSNIAFC opposes the Trahos request, 
arguing that the purpose of the EMRS proceeding was to 
"disentangle" emergency medical communications from 
other SERS eligibles and to provide "Public Safety" rec­
ognition to this user community.66 IMSNIAFC further 
asserts that to confer "Public Safety" co-equal status on 
other SERS eligibles would undermine the primary pur­
pose of the EMRS proceeding.67 In IMSA/IAFC's view, 
interoperability is available for SERS entities through con­
tinued EMRS eligibility.68 
21. In reply,69 Dr. Trahos asserts that the Commission's 
primary intent for Channels 161-170 were for National 
Mutual Aid use, whereas Channels 181-185 were intended 
for general pool use. 70 Therefore, only the latter should 
remain restricted to EMRS eligibles.71 Dr. Trahos submits 
that National Mutual Aid fr~uencies arc needed by SERS 
licensees for interoperability/ and cites Hurricane Andrew 
as a case in point. According to Dr. Trahos, in the imme­
diate aftermath of this hurricane, numerous non-EMRS 
eligible SERS entities performed hundreds of hours of 
basic and advanced life support.-1 Dr. Trahos contends that 
during emergency/disasters, SERS need for interoperable 
communications becomes equal to their EMRS counter­
parts.74 In response to IMSNIAFC's comments, Dr. Trahos 
argues that the reallocation of 155.340 MHz7s (the 
intersystem mutual assistance channel) from SERS to 
EMRS prevents SERS entities from communicating with 
EMRS entities via SERS frequencies. 76 
22. Discussion. As we deferred questions concerning the 
sufficiency of the amount of spectrum available to EMRS 
and SERS eligibles to the EMRS rule making proceeding, 
we believe it appropriate to now resolve this issue. While 
SERS eligibles may not be involved in ongoing basic o r 
advanced life support, we agree with Dr. Trahos' assertion 
that the four SERS service categories specified are engaged 
in safety-of-life services and need fre4uencies for Mutual 
Aid purposes. We also find merit in Dr. Trahos's analogy 
to our prior assignment of Mutual Aid channels to both 
Public Safety and SERS eligibles.7' In that action, we noted 
that the Public Safety Radio Service and SERS are both 
involved in public safety activities. 78 
23. Pursuant to the EMRS Report and Order, Channels 
181-185 will be available not o nly to EMRS eligibles. but 
to other Subpart B Public Safety Radio Service eligibles as 
well.-9 Public Safety (including EMRS) eligibles will thus 
have access to Channels 181-185 in addition to Channels 
161-170. In view of this. permitting SERS eligibles in the 
four specified categories access to Channels 161-170 should 
not negatively affect the use of narrowband systems by 
6S Trahos Petition at 3. 
66 IMSA Reply at 16. 
6
' Id. 
68 Id. 
6
" Reply Comments were filed by Dr. Mich:iel C. Tr:ihos 
(Trahos Reply) on June 14. IW3. 
0 Trahos Reply at 4. 71 Trahos Reply at 5. 
72 Trahos Reply at 6. 
73 Trahos Reply at S-6. 
i..t Trahos Reply at 6. 
-s Report and Order :it para. IS and note 35. 
76 Trahos Reply at 6. 
1712 
public safety eligibles. We conclude from the above that 
inclusion of entities eligible under Sections 90.35, 90.37, 
90.41 and 90.45 in the provisions of Section 90.720 will 
likely serve the public interest by enhancing 
interoperability between many types of emergency provid­
ers in safety-of-life situations. 
Resolution of Additional Matters 
24. A few minor matters relating to the new Emergency 
Medical Radio Service require clarification. First, pursuant 
to 47 C.F.R. § 90.243{a){l) and (2), all eligibles in the 
Public Safety Radio Services - Subpart B of Part 90 of the 
Commission 's Rules - are permitted to og,erate mobile 
relay stations on frequencies below 450 MHz. We inadver­
tently failed to include the EMRS in Section 90.243(a).8t 
Because we considered EMRS communications to be of a 
critical, safety-of-l ife nature, we placed the service in 
Subpart B. In choosing this placement, we intended to treat 
EMRS eligibles in the same manner as all other Subpart B 
eligibles -- including permitting them to operate mobile 
relay stations. Therefore, we amend Section 90.243(a){l) 
and (2) to reflect this intention. 
25. Additionally, a number of other Commission rule 
sections require clarification or correction due to minor 
errors in the Repofl and Order. In this regard, 47 C.F.R. § 
90.l 7(c)(l 1) is amended to reflect the action taken in the 
Report and Order permanently grandfathering Local Gov­
ernment radio call box operations on certain 453 and 458 
MHz frequenc ies.82 47 C.F.R. § 90.27(a) is amended to 
reflect that applications submitted by any person or or­
ganization (governmental or otherwise) other than the gov­
ernmental body having jurisdiction over the state's 
emergency medical services plan must be accompanied by 
a statement prepared by the governmental body having 
jurisdiction over the state 's emergency medical services 
plan supporting the application. 47 C.F.R. § 90.27(b) is 
amended to reflect that the class of statio n for Channels 
453.025, 453.075, 453.125 and 453.175 MHz is "base or 
mobile." 47 C.F.R. § 90.421 is amended to provide that 
mobile units in the EMRS. as in the medical services 
category of the SERS, may be used by any person with 
whom cooperation or coordination is required for medical 
services activities. 47 C.F.R. §§ 90. l 9(c)( 17), 90.2l(c)(8). 
and 90.238(h) are revised to reflect the reallocation of . 
specific frequencies from the Special Emergency Radio 
Service to the Emergency Medical Radio Service. 47 C.F.R. 
§§ 90.273(b). 90.477(d)(3), 90.483(d), 90.6l 7(a), 
90.619(a)(I). and 90.619(b)(7)(iii) are revised to indicate 
the distinction between the Public Safety and Special 
Emergency Radio Services and to define rad io services 
included in the Public Safety Category. 
77 Trahos Petition at 8. Set Report and Ordtr, Gen. Docket No. 
87-112. 3 FCC Red 905. para. 13 (1987), for the establishment of 
the National Plan for the Public Radio Safety Services. 
78 Id. 
-
9 Report and Ordu at para. 6. 
80 Eligibles in some services under Subpart D and E also 
under 1his rule section may operate mobile relay stations. 
St With the exception of a special provision in 47 C.F.R. § 
90.2·B(b)(l) for medical services. eligibles in SERS (Subpart C 
of Part QO of the Commission's Rules) are not permitted to 
o.rrate mobile relay stations. 
8 These frequencies are: 453.025/.0751.125 and .175 MHz and 
458.0251.075/.125 and .175 MHz. Set Report and Ordtr at note 38. 
11 FCC Red No. 4 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 96-11 
Ill. ORDERING CLAUSES 
26. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the au­
thority of Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 332(a)(2) of the Co~­
munications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(1), 
303(r), and 332(a), that Part 90 of the Commission's .Rules, 
47 C.F.R. Part 90, IS AMENDED as set forth tn the 
Appendix below, effective [thirty days after publication in 
the Federal Register!. 
27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 
4(i) of the Communications Act o~ 1934, as amen~~· 4,7 
U.S.C. § 154(i) and Section 1.429(1) of the Comm1ss1on s 
Rules, 47 C.F.R. § l.429(i), that the Petition for Reconsi­
.deration filed by Dr. Michael C. Trahos IS GRANTED and 
the Petition for Reconsideration filed by ProNet, Inc. IS 
DENIED. 
28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 
4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amen~e~, 4'f 
U.S.C. § 154(i) and Section 90.151 of the Comm1ss1on s 
Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 90.151, that the Petition for Permanent 
Waiver filed by ProNet, Inc. IS GRANTED in part and in 
all other respects IS DENIED. 
29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding IS 
TERMINATED. 
30. For further information concerning this Memoran· 
dum Opinion and Order contact Freda Lippert Thyden, 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0680. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
William F. Caton 
Acting Secretary 
APPENDIX 
Part 90 of Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is amended as follows: 
Part 90 - Private land mobile radio services 
1. The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as 
follows: 
AUTHORITY: Sections 4, 303, 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, 
as amended; 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, and 332, unless other­
wise noted. 
2. Section 90.17 is amended by revising paragraph 
(c)(l l) to read as follows: 
§ 90.17 Local Government Radio Service. 
* * * * * 
(c) * * * 
(11) This freque ncy is available for systems first licensed 
prior to March 31, 1980, for radio call box communica­
tions related to safety on highways in accordance with the 
provisions of § 90.24l(c). No new systems. will ~e au­
thorized of this nature, but systems authorized prior to 
March 31, 1980 may be modifie_d, expanded •. and renew:d. 
Also, effective April 2. 1993, this fre~uency is shared wtth 
EMRS systems in accordance with § 90.27. 
* * * * * 
3. Section 90.19 is amended by revising paragraph 
(e)(l7) to read as follows: 
§ 90.19 Police Radio Service. 
* * * * * 
(e) * * * 
( 17) This frequency is shared with the Fire and Emer­
gency Medical Radio Services. 
* * * * * 
4. Section 90.21 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(8) 
to read as follows: 
§ 90.21 Fire Radio Service. 
* * * *. 
(c) • • • 
(8) This frequency is shared with the Police and Emer­
gency Medical Radio Services. 
• *. *. 
5. Section 90.27 is amended by revising the second sen­
tence of paragraph (a), and by adding the words "or 
mobile" to the Class of station(s) for Frequencies 453 .. 025, 
453.075, 453.125 and 453.175 MHz in paragraph (b), to 
read as follows: 
§ 90.27 Emergency Medical Radio Service. 
(a) • • • Applications submitted by persons or organiza­
tions (governmental or otherwise) other than the govern­
mental body having jurisdiction over the state 's emergency 
medical service plans must be accompanied by a statement 
' prepared by the governmental body having jurisdiction 
over the state's emergency medical services plan indicating 
that the applicant is included in the state"s emergency plan 
or o therwise supporting the application. 
1713 
• *. *. 
6. Section 90.238 is amended by revising paragraph (h) 
to read as follows: 
§ 90.238 Telemetry operations. 
* • • * * 
(h) 458-468 MHz band (as available in the Emergency 
Medical Radio Service for bio-medical telemetry oper­
ations). 
*. * *. 
7. Section 90.243 is amended by revising paragraphs 
(a)( 1). (a)(2), and (b)(l) to read as follows: 
§ 90.243 Mobile relay stations. 
(a) • • • 
(1) On frequencies below 450 MHz. except for the 
220-222 MHz band, mobile relay stations may be autho­
rized within the contiguous 48 states to operate only in the 
Police, Fire, Local Government. Highway Maintenance, 
Forestry-Conservation, Emergency Medical. Power. Petro­
leum, Forest Products, Manufacturers. Telephone Main­
tenance. and Railroad Radio Services. 
(2) On frequencies below 450 MHz. except for the 
220-222 MHz band, mobile relay stations may be autho­
rized outside the contiguous 48 states to operate only in the 
-------------------
FCC 96-11 Federal Communications Commission Record 11 FCC Red No. 4 
Police, Fire, Local Government, Highway Maintenance, 
Forestry-Conservation, Emergency Medical, Power, Petro­
leum, Forest Products, Manufacturers, Telephone Main­
tenance, Railroad, Business, and Special Industrial Radio 
Services. 
* * * * • 
(b) ••• 
(1) In the Emergency Medical and Special Emergency 
Radio Services, medical services systems in the 150-160 
MHz band are permitted to be cross banded for mobile a nd 
control station operations with mobile relay stations au­
thorized to operate in the 450-470 MHz band. 
••••• 
8. Section 90.273 is amended by revising the first sen­
tence of paragraph (b) to read as follows: 
§ 90.273 Availability and use of frequencies in the 
421-430 MHz band. 
• ••• * 
(b} Channels in the public safety pool are available for 
assignment to eligibles in the Public Safety and Special 
Emergency Radio Services. * * • 
• • • • • 
9. Section 90.421 is amended by redesignating paragraph 
(k) as paragraph (1) and adding new paragraph (k) to read 
as follows: 
§ 90.421 Operation of mobile units in vehicles not under 
the control of the licensee. 
* •• • • 
(k) Mobile units licensed in the Emergency Medical 
Radio Service may be installed in a vehicle or be hand­
carried for use by any person with whom cooperation or 
coordination is required for medical services activities. 
* * * * . 
10. Section 90.477 is amended by revisrng the first sen­
tence of paragraph (d)(3) to read as fo llows: 
§ 90.477 Interconnected systems. 
* * * •• 
(d) * * * 
(3) In the Special Emergency. Business, Specia l Indus­
tr ial. Automobile. and Taxicab Radio Services, 
interconnection will be permitted only where the base 
station site or sites of proposed stations are located 120 km 
(75 mi) or more from the designated centers of the urban­
ized areas listed below. • * * 
* * •• * 
11. Section 90.483 is amended by revising the third 
sentence of paragraph (d) to read as follows: 
§ 90.483 Permissible methods a nd requirements of inter· 
connecting private and public systems of communications. 
• • * * * 
(d) • * * This provision does not apply to systems 
licensed in the Police, Fire , Local Government. Emergency 
Medical, Spec ial Emergency, Power. Petroleum and 
Railroad Radio Services, or above 800 MHz. • • • 
1714 
12. Section 90.617 is amended by revising the first sen­
tence of paragraph (a) to read as fo llows: 
§ 90.617 Frequencies in the 809.750-824/854.750-869 
MHz and 896-9011935-940 MHz bands available for trunked 
or conventional system use In non-border areas. 
(a) The channels listed in Table l and paragraph (a)(l) 
of this section for the Public Safety Category are available 
to applicants eligible in the Public Safety and Special 
Emergency Radio Se rvices. * * • 
• *. *. 
13. Section 90.6 19 is amended by revising the first sen­
tence of paragraph (a)( l) and the first sentence of para­
graph (b)(7)(iii) to read as follows: 
§ 90.619 Frequencies available for use in the USJMexlco 
and U.SJCanada border areas. 
(a)•• • 
(1) Table IA lists the channels in the 806-8211851-866 
MHz band Public Safety Category that are available for 
assignment to applicants eligible in the Public Safety and 
Special Emergency Radio Services. • * * 
• • •• • 
(b) * •• 
(7) • •• 
(iii) The Public Safety Category consists of the Public 
Safety and the Special Emergency Radio Services. • • • 
14. Section 90.631 is amended by revising the second 
sentence of paragraph (g) to read as fo llows: 
§ 90.631 Trunked systems loading, construction, and au­
thor ization requirements. 
• * * * * 
(g) • * * Remote or satellite stations of wide area systems 
in the Public Safety, Special Emergency. Telephone Main­
tenance. and Power Radio Services may be authorized o n a 
primary basis if such stations are the fi rst to be authorized 
in their area of operation on the frequency or group of 
frequencies. • * * 
• * * * * 
15. Section 90.720 is revised to read as follows: 
§ 90.720 Channels available for public safety/mutual aid. 
(a) Part 90 licensees whose licenses reflect a two-letter 
radio service code beginning wit h the letter "P" are au­
thorized by this rule to use mobile a nd/or portable units on 
Channels 161-170 throughout the United States, its territor­
ies. and possessions to transmit: 
( 1) Communications relating to the immediate safety 
of life or 
(2) Communications to facilitate interoperability 
among public safety entities. and 1>ublic safety entities 
and Special Emergency Radio Service eligibles in §§ 
90.35. 90.37, 90.41 and 90.45 . 
(b) Any entity eligible to obtain a license under subpart 
R of this part or eligible to obtain a license under Sections 
90.35, 90.37, 90.41 and 90.45 of subpart C of this part is 
also e ligihle to obtain a license for hase/mohile operations 
11 FCC Red No. 4 Federal Communications Commmion Record 
on Channels 161-170. Base/mobile or base/portable com­
munications on these channels that do not relate to the 
immediate safety of life or to communications 
interoperability among public safety entities, and public 
safety and the above specified special emergency entities 
may only be conducted on a secondary non-interference 
basis to such communications. 
,., 1 c 
FCC 96-11