\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

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.

In the Matter of )

)

The Development of Operational, )

Technical and Spectrum Requirements)

For Meeting Federal, State and Local) WT Docket No. 96-86

Public Safety Agency Communication)

Requirements Through the Year 2010)

)

Establishment of Rules and Requirements)

For Priority Access Service )

Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Adopted: October 9, 1997; Released: October 24, 1997

Comment Date: December 22, 1997

Reply Comment Date: January 12, 1998

By the Commission:

Table of Contents

Paragraph

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

II\. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

A. Overview; Goals for Public Safety Communications . . . .3

1\. Vision for Use of New Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . .3

2\. Public Safety Communications Goals . . . . . . . . . .8

a\. Defining Public Safety Communications Needs . . . 11

b\. Ensuring Efficient Spectrum Use . . . . . . . . . 17

c\. Promoting Affordability of Communications Capabilities 23

B. Interoperability Service Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

1\. Interoperability Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

a\. Location and Amount of Interoperability Spectrum . 37

b\. Types of Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

c\. Transmission Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

\(1\) Voice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

\(2\) Data, Image/hsd, and Video . . . . . . . . . . 57

d\. Channel Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

e\. Channel Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

f\. Equipment Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

2\. Eligibility, Use, and Licensing . . . . . . . . . . 74

a\. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

b\. National and Regional Planning . . . . . . . . . . 77

c\. Categories of Interoperability Uses . . . . . . . 83

d\. Eligibility and Use of Interoperability Channels . 85

3\. Trunking on Interoperability Spectrum . . . . . . . 96

4\. Technical Standards for Interoperability Spectrum .104

C. General Service Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108

1\. Regional Planning Committees . . . . . . . . . . . .109

2\. Eligibility and Licensing of General Use Channels .120

3\. Provision and Use of Public Safety Channels . . . .124

a\. Types of Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127

b\. Channel Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132

c\. Channel Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140

d\. Transmission Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . .153

e\. Equipment Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156

D. Technical Parameters for All Public Safety Channels and

Operations in 746-806 MHz Band . . . . . . . . . . . .159

1\. Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160

2\. Emission Mask; Frequency Stability; Power and Antenna Height 163

3\. Base Station Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166

E. Construction Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .167

F. Use of Television Channels 63, 64, 68, and 69 for Public Safety 170

III\. PRIORITY ACCESS SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172

A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172

B. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174

1\. NCS Petition for Rulemaking . . . . . . . . . . . .176

2\. PSWAC Final Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181

C. Discussion of NCS Proposed Rules and Related Issues . .185

1\. Priority Access and Public Safety Communications Generally 185

2\. Priority Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190

3\. Spectrum Capacity of Commercial Carrier Networks . .193

4\. Liability under Section 202 of Communications Act .196

a\. Adequacy of Current Provisions . . . . . . . . . .196

b\. Proposed Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200

c\. Exercise of Forbearance Authority . . . . . . . .203

5\. Voluntary or Mandatory Provision of Priority Access 208

6\. Potential Limitations of Priority Access Service . .212

a\. Technical Standards; Operational Limitations . . .214

b\. Equipment and Hardware Limitations . . . . . . . .218

c\. Security Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220

7\. Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221

a\. Types of Commercial Wireless Carriers Offering Priority Access 221

b\. Administration of Priority Access . . . . . . . .227

IV\. PROTECTION OF TELEVISION SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . .228

A. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228

B. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232

1\. Protection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232

a\. Geographic Spacing Requirements Based on 55-Mile

Reference Grade B Contour . . . . . . . . . . . .233

b\. Other Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .238

2\. Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241

A. Regulatory Flexibility Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . .241

B. Paperwork Reduction Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . .243

C. Ex Parte Presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .247

D. Pleading Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .248

E. Further Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .249

VI\. ORDERING CLAUSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250

APPENDIX A: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

APPENDIX B: List of Pleadings

I. INTRODUCTION

1\. In this Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) we make a
range of proposals

relating to public safety communications in the 746-806 MHz spectrum
band and in general.

First, we discuss goals for establishing a plan to ensure the efficient
and effective use of

spectrum to meet critical public safety communications needs. We then
propose and seek

comment on service rules for the 24 megahertz of spectrum that we have
proposed to allocate for

public safety needs, and that Congress, in the Balanced Budget Act of
1997, has committed to

public safety services. Second, in response to a Petition for Rulemaking
filed by the National

Communications System, we seek comment relating to the establishment of
wireless priority

access services on commercial systems for use in meeting communications
needs in emergency

and disaster situations. Finally, we propose technical requirements to
protect broadcast licensees

operating in the 746-806 MHz band from interference.

2\. Congress, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, committed 24 megahertz
of the radio

spectrum between 746 MHz and 806 MHz to public safety services, and the
remaining 36

megahertz to commercial use. The Commission, in its Allocation Notice,
proposed to reallocate

this spectrum in this manner. The proposals contained in the Notice we
adopt today will help us

formulate the service rules that are essential to make this spectrum
available for licensing. We

wish to emphasize that we do not in this Notice intend to indicate
prematurely our decisions

regarding the issues raised in the Allocation Notice. Whether the
allocation proposals are

adopted in their entirety or are modified in some manner, the inquiries
of this Notice will provide

necessary information for further action by the Commission. We note that
the Balanced Budget

Act of 1997 directs the Commission to complete the allocation of this
spectrum by December 31,

1997, and also to commence assignment of licenses for public safety
services by September 30,

1998\. We intend to have service rules for the public safety spectrum in
place by that date, so

that the Commission will be prepared to comply with this directive.

II\. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS

A. Overview; Goals for Public Safety Communications

1\. Vision for Use of New Spectrum

3\. In this Notice we continue the task of building a framework to
improve the Nation\'s

public safety wireless communications. Over the past decade, police,
fire, emergency medical,

and other public safety providers have been confronted by a number of
problems that threaten

their ability to fulfill their mission of protecting the public.
Frequencies have become congested

in many areas. Interoperability (the ability of different agencies to
communicate across

jurisdictions and with each other) has been difficult because of
multiple frequency bands and

incompatible equipment. In addition, public safety agencies have been
hampered in their

attempts to upgrade their equipment to take advantage of new
technologies by the lack of funds

for equipment. These problems must be solved quickly, if the public
safety community is to

meet the changing demands of the 21st century.

4\. We believe that the Nation\'s public safety agencies need additional
spectrum to meet

their immediate and future needs, and that dedicating this 24 megahertz
to public safety use will

allow agencies to develop the advanced capabilities, such as data and
video communications, that

will allow them to more effectively fulfill their missions. Every public
safety officer should have

access to a communications system that is reliable, of high quality, and
allows him or her to

communicate with colleagues in other jurisdictions or from other
agencies during emergencies as

well as on a day-to-day basis. Public safety agencies should be able to
procure advanced

technologies and equipment in a competitive market that promises
reasonable prices and

continual innovation over time.

5\. In order to realize this vision, which we believe we share with the
public safety

community, we must work with that community to define goals for the use
of this new spectrum,

and to begin crafting a framework to promote their achievement. In
general, we believe that

promoting technological innovation and a competitive market is critical
to ensure that this

spectrum is used efficiently. The proposals we make today are intended
to achieve these

objectives. The specific goals which we seek to pursue in cooperation
with the public safety

community, and which we discuss in greater detail in the following
paragraphs are sum-

marized as follows:

þ Define present and future public safety communications needs, such as
interoperable

communications.

þ Promote efficient and effective use of new public safety spectrum to
meet these needs

through the development of technical standards, and the provision of
operational flexibility

where appropriate.

þ Ensure that the communications capabilities made possible by this new
spectrum are

affordable for public safety agencies. Creating incentives for
competition and exploring

sources of funding are examples of ways that this may be accomplished.

6\. Establishing a framework for the use of this new public safety
spectrum is extremely

important. If we are not successful in working with the public safety
community to map an

appropriate and effective course, then we face the risk of perpetuating
difficulties that the public

safety community has faced in the past. Public safety communications
continue to be plagued by

inefficient spectrum use, by the absence of a competitive market for
public safety

communications equipment and services that meet public safety agency
needs, and by difficulties

in building a structure for interoperable communications among public
safety agencies. For

example, as the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) has
noted, the ability of

officials from different public safety agencies to communicate with each
other is limited in

today\'s environment \`\`\[i\]nteroperability is hampered by the use of
multiple frequency bands,

incompatible radio equipment, and a lack of standardization in repeater
spacing and transmission

formats.\'\'

7\. As we work with the public safety community in developing a
framework for the use

of the 24 megahertz of new public safety spectrum, we need to ensure
that this spectrum is used

effectively and that the necessary incentives exist to provide
nationwide public safety

interoperability. As we discuss in the following paragraphs, we
recognize that the success of the

framework we seek to build with the public safety community will also
depend on how the

public safety equipment market develops we need to foster competition in
order to spur

innovation and bring down costs faced by public safety agencies. The
success of the framework

will also depend on the availability of adequate public safety funding
to purchase upgraded

equipment. In order to work cooperatively with the public safety
community to build a

framework for public safety communications, we define our goals in this
Notice. In the

comments on our specific proposals and the responses to specific
questions raised in this Notice,

the public safety community and other interested parties are asked to
relate their suggestions and

arguments to the broad goals we seek to define here.

2\. Public Safety Communications Goals

8\. In the Budget Act of 1993, Congress required the Commission to
develop a

framework to ensure that public safety communications needs are met
through the year 2010.

We subsequently issued a report and also found a need for additional
information on the needs of

public safety agencies. Together with the National Telecommunications
and Information

Administration (NTIA), we sponsored PSWAC, to provide advice and
recommendations

regarding the specific needs of public safety agencies.

9\. We continued our efforts to examine and address these spectrum and
communications

needs of public safety agencies by adopting the Public Safety Notice. In
seeking to evaluate

public safety needs through 2010, we sought comment on a wide variety of
public safety

communications needs and options. PSWAC completed its Final Report in
September 1996,

and that report was submitted to the Commission as comments in response
to the Public Safety

Notice. We applaud the members of the public safety community for the
countless hours of

effort and commitment they put forth in the development of the PSWAC
Final Report, and for

the important role they played in helping us begin to explore public
safety communications needs

in the DTV Sixth Report and Order.

10\. Before turning to our discussion of goals that we seek to forge
with the public safety

community and other interested parties, we note that this Notice does
not intend to address all the

issues raised in the Public Safety Notice or the PSWAC Final Report. As
we have indicated,

this Notice takes the first step toward developing and implementing a
framework for public

safety communications. To the extent that important issues remain, they
will be addressed in

future proceedings.

a\. Defining Public Safety Communications Needs

11\. Our first goal is to arrive at a consensus with the public safety
community and other

interested parties regarding the nature of problems faced by public
safety agencies in their efforts

to use spectrum for public safety communications. What do public safety
agencies need in order

to achieve efficient and reliable communications, both in emergencies
and in connection with

day-to-day operations? Defining these needs is the starting point for
the development of a

communications framework for public safety. We believe there are three
principal public safety

communications needs:

þ Immediate spectrum shortages must be addressed.

þ A system for interoperable communications must be established.

þ Technologies that will enhance public safety communications
capabilities must be made

available in the public safety communications market.

12\. The PSWAC Final Report sounded an alarm regarding the extent to
which spectrum

shortages are hampering the mission of safety and rescue personnel. The
Final Report stressed

that public safety agencies are in critical need of more channels for
voice communications. The

new spectrum made available by Congress in the 746-806 MHz band provides
the opportunity to

ease this problem. Thus, a major component of the communications
framework must be to clear

the path for the provision and use of this spectrum as expeditiously as
possible.

13\. Public safety agencies commonly operate their own wireless systems,
using

frequencies, modes, and equipment incompatible with those used by other
public safety agencies,

with the result that public safety agencies often are unable to
communicate with one another by

radio. This inability to communicate across agency and jurisdictional
lines can hamper efforts to

provide mutual aid in emergencies, to conduct pre-planned task force or
emergency-preparedness

operations, and to maintain the normal day-to-day inter-agency
communications that form an

important part of the public safety community\'s mission to protect life
and property.

14\. In order to promote the safety of life and property in every part
of the Nation, we

need to join with the public safety community in working to achieve
seamless nationwide

communications interoperability among Federal, State, and local public
safety agencies. This

interoperability must be available for use in national or other
emergencies, in pre-planned task

force and emergency preparedness operations, and in routine, day-to-day
communications.

Moreover, interoperability must be available for transmission of voice,
data, and video

communications. We agree with PSWAC that \`\`present \[communications\]
limitations can be

eased by establishing bands of frequencies for interoperability
purposes, encouraging the

development and use of shared systems, and building gateways between
technically incompatible

systems.\'\' The framework developed in this rulemaking must determine
the amount of

spectrum necessary to meet these interoperability needs, and must take
the steps necessary to

ensure that public safety personnel can depend upon reliable,
affordable, and efficient

interoperable communications. One of the possible steps that we intend
to examine in this

proceeding is the use of commercial services as a source of spectrum to
meet public safety

communications needs.

15\. We note that PSWAC and others have suggested we make available 2.5
megahertz of

spectrum for interoperability purposes. We have serious concern about
whether this is sufficient

to ensure efficient communications between officials in various agencies
and jurisdictions. We

are concerned that designating only about 10 percent of the spectrum
that has been made

available for public safety purposes will tend to perpetuate the current
balkanization between

agencies and jurisdictions that exists today in public safety
communications. Thus, we intend to

work closely with the public safety community and other interested
parties to examine the issue

of the amount of spectrum that may be necessary to ensure effective and
efficient

interoperability.

16\. Finally, we must look to the future as we work with the public
safety community in

devising an overall framework for public safety communications. Public
safety agencies have a

critical, ongoing need to incorporate technological advances into their
communications networks

so that they are better equipped to accomplish their missions. Success
in providing help in

emergencies, saving lives, and protecting the Nation\'s citizens is
often measured in minutes and

seconds the use of enhanced wireless communications technologies can
reduce the number of

ticks of the clock before safety and rescue personnel can minister to
those most critically in need

of help. Our framework must ensure that public safety agencies are not
frozen in antiquated or

inefficient communications technology.

b\. Ensuring Efficient Spectrum Use

17\. We believe that public safety agencies currently are hampered by
inefficient use of

most of the spectrum allocated for public safety communications, in
part, because of a lack of the

proper incentives for its efficient use and the ad hoc manner in which
that spectrum originally

became available. An effective public safety framework will require
planning, cooperation, and

efficient administration of the public safety spectrum. With regard to
interoperable

communications, the goal of this proceeding must be to develop
operational standards, common

baseline technical standards, and eligibility ground rules that make
seamless nationwide

interoperability work. For example, certain technical standards may be
needed to ensure

effective interoperable communications. We also believe that current
inadequacies in

interoperable communications may be a product of the inability to reach
agreement on the

protocols that must be in place to enable agencies to talk across
jurisdictional lines. Thus, a key

goal for this proceeding is to solve this problem.

18\. Another key to efficient spectrum use is accommodating local,
State, and regional

needs in connection with the use of spectrum for general service public
safety communications.

The effectiveness of public safety agencies is tied to their ability to
communicate. Due to their

special obligations, public safety agencies often have unique
communication needs. In addition

to voice communications, public safety officials also have a need to
transmit video and data.

PSWAC has found that radio frequencies allocated for public safety use
are highly congested in

many areas and, therefore, public safety agencies are not able to meet
current requirements or to

plan for future advanced communication needs. PSWAC has also maintained
that, unless

immediate measures are taken to alleviate spectrum shortfalls, public
safety agencies will not be

able adequately to discharge their obligation to protect life and
property in a safe, efficient, and

cost effective manner.

19\. We believe that we can work with the public safety community to
promote efficient,

effective, and innovative use of spectrum by providing the maximum
flexibility possible, consis-

tent with the overall objectives and goals of this proceeding. This
technical, service, and

equipment flexibility will enable the emergence and implementation of
local, State, and regional

solutions to communications problems. We tentatively conclude that one
component of the

framework for efficient spectrum use should be reliance on regional
planning committees for the

development of plans to utilize available frequencies in ways that best
meet the needs of public

safety agencies in the respective regions.

20\. With respect to the general use public safety spectrum, we believe
that the com-

munications framework established in this proceeding should call for the
regional planning

committees to design plans to assist the Commission in assigning
licenses to meet regional

needs. The regional planning committees also may assist in deciding
certain technical issues

relating to operations on public safety spectrum. Regarding the
interoperability channels,

however, we must attempt to balance the advantages of regional planning
with the goal of

promoting interoperability nationwide. We recognize that, in order to
achieve nationwide

interoperability, it will be necessary to have uniform technical
standards. We may also choose to

consider, as part of the framework for public safety communications, the
appointment, on an

ongoing basis, of spectrum band coordinators or managers to coordinate
use of public safety

spectrum beyond the initial planning and authorization stages.

21\. Achieving the goal of efficient and effective spectrum use also
will depend upon a

determination of the proper mix of spectrum for interoperable and
general service communica-

tions. For example, the primary goal of this proceeding in providing
interoperability spectrum is

to ensure that public safety personnel are able to communicate with one
another, as necessary, on

a day-to-day basis or in times of emergency. To accomplish this, we will
have to dedicate a

sufficient amount of spectrum to enable the use of a variety of
different types of desired

communications (e.g., voice, data, video). On the other hand, in
providing the general service

spectrum, we must make sufficient spectrum available to enable public
safety agencies to employ

whatever technologies and types of communications are necessary to meet
their current and

future internal communications requirements. It will be necessary to
balance these needs as we

attempt appropriately to apportion the available public safety spectrum.

22\. Finally, efficient use of public safety spectrum, in our view, can
be fostered through

the operation of competitive forces in markets supplying public safety
communications

equipment and services. As we have noted, we believe that the
competitive provision of public

safety equipment and services will spur technological innovation,
leading to enhanced

capabilities for efficient spectrum use.

c\. Promoting Affordability of Communications Capabilities

23\. We recognize that a continuing problem faced by public safety
agencies is the lack of

adequate funding to carry out their functions. Although this obviously
is a problem that reaches

beyond the jurisdiction and authority of this agency, we believe that it
is an issue that cannot be

ignored as we seek to join with the public safety community in
developing a framework for the

use of public safety spectrum. Thus, we believe that one of the
principal goals of this

proceeding should be the establishment of policies and incentives that
will promote the ability of

public safety agencies to afford to take advantage of the latest
communications capabilities.

24\. Affordability depends in part on a competitive public safety
communications market.

As we noted earlier in this proceeding:

\[A\] contributing factor to the deficiencies in today\'s public safety

communications is the lack of a vigorous competitive market for

the purchase of communications equipment and services employed

by public safety agencies. Subsequent to initial procurement,

competition is virtually non-existent; therefore, maintenance,

upgrades, and expansion are often limited to one provider.

Consequently, not only must agencies pay higher prices, but also

technological innovation and expanded product choice are inhib-

ited.

25\. Thus, we believe that a key approach to achieving the goal of
affordable public safety

communications equipment and services must be the development of a
framework to ensure

competitive incentives and to ensure that our public safety
communications policies are neutral

with respect to technologies and manufacturers. In establishing this
goal, we reiterate the view

we expressed in the Public Safety Notice that we must create a
regulatory environment that fos-

ters competition we believe this goal can be achieved by developing a
framework that enables

a wide range of services and equipment to be provided using a variety of
technologies, that en-

sures that initial equipment acquisitions do not limit choices regarding
upgrades and expansion,

and that encourages \`\`manufacturers and service providers \[to\]
accept the competitive envi-

ronment.\'\' We request comment on this approach, and on specific
mechanisms we could

employ to ensure a competitive equipment market.

B. Interoperability Service Rules

26\. We begin by considering service rules for the public safety
spectrum in the 746-806

MHz band for interoperability. We will discuss the following issues that
arise in the context of

interoperability: location and amount of interoperability; types of
communication; transmission

technology; channel spacing; channel requirements; equipment standards;
eligibility, use, and

licensing; and trunking and technical standards. We then will discuss
similar issues for the

spectrum that is not reserved for interoperability.

27\. Public safety agencies usually operate their own wireless
communications systems,

using frequencies, modes, and equipment that are often incompatible with
the frequencies,

modes, and equipment used by other agencies. State and local agencies
operate systems in six

different radio services on frequencies scattered throughout the VHF and
UHF bands using

various and often incompatible technologies. Federal agencies,
authorized by NTIA, similarly

operate on non-contiguous frequencies throughout the VHF and UHF bands.
Consequently,

local, regional, and national public safety agencies have little or no
ability to communicate with

each other by radio. We found that this present inability of public
safety agencies to

communicate with each other is one of the most critical deficiencies in
today\'s public safety

communications.

28\. In the Public Safety Notice, we observed that agencies must be able
to exchange

information pertaining to their daily operations, as well as during
on-scene mutual aid or joint

operations, and that their needs extend beyond basic voice transmission
to include the trans-

mission of video and high-speed data. We also affirmed our belief that
developing the capa-

bility of public safety units to exchange information while using the
radio systems of two or

more different agencies is essential to our efforts to improve public
safety communications.

We recognized that the ability of public safety agencies to operate on
contiguous frequencies and

use similar, or at least compatible, technologies, enhances their
ability to communicate.

29\. As an initial matter, the Public Safety Notice proposed a formal
definition of

interoperability and related definitions as follows:

þ Interoperability: An essential communications link within public
safety and public service

wireless communications systems which permits units from two or more
different agencies

to interact with one another and to exchange information according to a
prescribed method

in order to achieve predictable results.

þ The communications link may be classified as either of the following
two types:

Infrastructure-independent: The communications link occurs between
subscriber units

over a direct RF \[radio frequency\] path. An example is
portable-to-portable tactical

communications at the scene of an incident.

Infrastructure-dependent: The communications link requires use of some
item(s) of

equipment, other than a subscriber unit, for the establishment of the
link and for com-

plete subscriber operation. Some examples include a communications link
for which a

repeater station is required; a communications link which provides full
system coverage

for a visiting subscriber unit within a host trunked radio system; and a
communications

link which provides interconnectivity between two or more otherwise
incompatible

radio systems by cross-connecting the audio signals and/or appropriate
signaling

functions at some central point.

þ The communications link, whether infrastructure dependent or
independent, must satisfy

one or both of the following requirements:

Multi-jurisdictional: Wireless communications involving two or more
similar agencies

having different areas of responsibility. Some examples include a fire
agency from one

city communicating with a fire agency from another city and the Federal
Bureau of

Investigation communicating with a County Sheriff.

Multi-disciplinary: Wireless communications involving two or more
different agencies.

One example is a police agency communicating with an emergency medical
services

agency.

þ The communications link may involve any combination of subscriber
units and fixed

equipment (e.g., repeaters, dispatch positions, data resources). The
points of communica-

tion are dependent upon the specific needs of the situation and any
operational procedures

and policies which might exist between the involved agencies.

30\. PSWAC adopts these definitions. In addition, the PSWAC
Interoperability Sub-

committee (PSWAC ISC) proposes a definition for \`\`mission critical\'\'
communications. The

PSWAC ISC states that a mission critical communication is that which
must be immediate,

ubiquitous, reliable and, in most cases, secure.

31\. Most parties commenting on the Public Safety Notice\'s proposed
definitions of

interoperability, including the mission critical definition, endorse
them, many without further

comment. MnDOT states the definitions \`\`capture the essence of the
interoperability issue.\'\'

Ohio-DAS also agrees with the definitions, and plans to incorporate them
in Ohio. PW County

and Texas-DPS support the definitions generally, and single out the
\`\`mission critical\'\' definition

for favorable comment. NASTD, however, expresses reluctance to support
the definitions

without knowing how they will be applied. Ericsson states that the PSWAC
ISC report

usefully distinguishes between infrastructure-independent solutions
(links directly between

radios using a direct radio path) and infrastructure-dependent solutions
(requiring equipment

other than the end users\' radios).

32\. Based on this general support among the commenters for these
definitions we

tentatively conclude that the above definitions, including the
definition of mission critical, should

be adopted. We seek further comment on these definitions and on any
proposals for different

definitions.

33\. The Public Safety Notice discussed the need for interoperability in
public safety

communications in three general contexts. One context is mutual aid
incidents. At disaster

sites, public safety agencies from different jurisdictions and
disciplines must communicate

among themselves and with other entities, such as public utilities or
transportation authorities.

The PSWAC Final Report notes that mutual aid interoperability must often
be established during

emergencies and under conditions that allow little opportunity for prior
planning; that

communications must often be established among numerous smaller groups,
each with its own

talk group; and that, once responders are on the scene, mutual aid
interoperability usually

involves the use of portable radios. We note that mutual aid in
emergencies is of such vital

importance to public safety that the terms \`\`mutual aid channels\'\'
and \`\`interoperability channels\'\'

have sometimes been used as though they were synonymous. It was
particularly common for

these terms to be used interchangeably prior to PSWAC identifying mutual
aid as one category

or context of interoperability.

34\. Another context is emergency preparedness and task force
operations. Emergency

preparedness, which involves planning for disaster relief, may include
many public safety

agencies from various jurisdictions. Task forces also typically involve
agencies from many

disciplines and jurisdictions, and thus require interoperable
communications systems. Task

forces frequently deploy emergency operations centers, establish
on-scene command posts, and

dispatch units throughout a wide area. The PSWAC ISC notes that, in
contrast to mutual aid,

such missions allow for prior planning, and that the covert nature of
some task force missions

can make long range transmission undesirable.

35\. A third context is day-to-day operations. Day-to-day operations are
those requiring

routine communications capabilities, as when personnel in adjoining
jurisdictions, or within

different disciplines in the same jurisdiction, need to exchange
information. Typically, these

requirements are local or regional, as when agencies with concurrent
jurisdiction need to monitor

each other\'s routine traffic. Day-to-day interoperability also
minimizes the need for interaction

among dispatchers in exchanging information in the field. Some
commenters maintain that, of

the three contexts, day-to-day interoperability touches the greatest
number of lives. In addition

to the PSWAC ISC and the PSWAC Steering Committee, many other commenters
discuss

interoperability needs in terms of these mutual aid, task force, and
day-to-day interoperability

contexts outlined in the Public Safety Notice.

36\. Based on the comments we received in response to the Public Safety
Notice, which

stress the critical need for interoperability, we believe that it is
appropriate to propose policies

and rules that will enable interoperability to be successfully
implemented among all local and

regional jurisdictions, as well as by Federal entities, throughout the
Nation. In that context, we

seek input from public safety users, manufacturers, and others regarding
the following issues to

assist us in developing appropriate policies and rules for achieving
interoperability among public

safety entities operating in the 746-806 MHz band.

1\. Interoperability Spectrum

a\. Location and Amount of Interoperability Spectrum

37\. The Public Safety Notice discussed several approaches for attaining
increased

interoperability among public safety agencies, including use of shared,
trunked systems; relo-

cating all public safety communications to a new band; designating
universal mutual aid chan-

nels; installing cross-band repeaters or gateways; and using commercial
services. In the

Public Safety Notice, we also discussed the approach of designating
certain channels for

interoperability, which we referred to as \`\`mutual aid channels.\'\'
We used the term \`\`mutual aid

channels\'\' for this approach, because that was the name given to the
channels that were set aside

for interoperability in the 1987 National Public Safety Planning
Advisory Committee (NPSPAC)

National Plan. The PSWAC Final Report uses the term \`\`interoperability
channels\'\' for the

same concept, and commenters appear to use the two terms
interchangeably. To avoid

confusion, we too will use the term \`\`interoperability channels\'\'
for this approach because, in the

years since the adoption of the NPSPAC National Plan, the term
\`\`mutual aid\'\' has come to stand

for a specific context or category within the broader concept of
interoperability.

38\. While we recognized that there were advantages and disadvantages to
each of these

approaches, we tentatively concluded that establishing new
interoperability channels would be an

effective first step in providing inter-agency communications, and we
sought comment on that

tentative conclusion. The Public Safety Notice suggested that
designating new interoperability

channels had the significant advantage of allowing agencies to continue
operating their existing

communications equipment while they acquire equipment, such as
multi-band or separate

dedicated radios, that will permit access to the new interoperability
channels. As an example,

we proposed that a number of frequencies be selected in one of the band
segments between 30

MHz and 800 MHz and designated for public safety communications, and
that new public safety

radio equipment be required, through our type acceptance process, to
operate on these desig-

nated frequencies. We also hoped that inexpensive software programming
could be used to

modify much of the mobile and portable equipment currently employed by
public safety agen-

cies, thus retro-fitting them for operation on the mutual aid channels.
We stated our belief that

this approach would require a common interoperability standard for all
equipment operating on

the interoperability channels.

39\. The PSWAC Steering Committee recommends the immediate
identification of 2.5

megahertz of spectrum for interoperability from new or existing
allocations. The PSWAC ISC

also supports the creation of a single common public safety
interoperability service in one central

band. The proposal in the Public Safety Notice to designate
interoperability channels has

received widespread support, with many commenters expressly supporting
the PSWAC proposal

that 2.5 megahertz of spectrum be set aside for interoperability. For
example, Richardson

supports the development of common interoperability channels, and cites
its favorable

experience with the use of the NPSPAC mutual aid channels in support of
this option.

FLEWUG supports the PSWAC concept of establishing channels dedicated to
interoperability,

and Powell states that the Commission has correctly identified the
advantages of such a system

and the need for a common standard for its implementation.

40\. Some commenters who believe designating interoperability channels
is a viable

option, nonetheless perceive some potential problems, asserting, for
example, that effective

interoperability can only be achieved on a shared system; that obtaining
new equipment

involves additional expense; and that difficulties exist in reconciling
the differing needs,

resources, and demographic and geographic characteristics of public
safety users. Commenters

suggest, however, that some of the perceived deficiencies with regard to
this option can be

overcome by allocating additional spectrum for this specific purpose.
APCO and Powell are

pessimistic about using \`\`inexpensive software programming\'\' to
modify current mobile and

portable equipment for operation on the interoperability channels.

41\. Other commenters raise questions about the application of the
interoperability

channels option. Kansas-EMC expresses concern that, during an actual
emergency, if too many

agencies have access to the same channel it could quickly be overloaded,
thus compromising its

utility. Texas-DPS calls the interoperability channels approach
unsatisfactory and cost-pro-

hibitive, and maintains that it would require stockpiling radios for use
in emergencies.

42\. The Public Safety Notice also raised the issue of the location of
the interoperability

channels. One approach to providing spectrum for interoperability,
favored by Ohio-DAS, is to

identify specific channels in each of the public safety bands for
interoperability. The PSWAC

ISC Report, however, suggests that the establishment of a \`\`Public
Safety Interoperability

Service\'\' dedicated exclusively to interoperability applications
within a single band would be

both possible and practical. It notes that this approach would provide
\`\`an absolute common

technical solution to the common operating requirements of a mutual aid
incident,\'\' and would

not require users\' \`\`home systems\'\' to be compatible.

43\. In order to provide for an appreciable amount of interoperability
spectrum in the

various existing public safety bands, it would be necessary to \`\`free
up\'\' sufficient channels in

those bands that would be available on a nationwide basis. Given the
extensive use of such

channels, this would be a difficult endeavor. Moreover, clearing
sufficient spectrum in these

bands to provide for high data rate and video communications would be
next to impossible. The

24 megahertz within the 746-806 MHz band provides, however, a large
amount of relatively

unencumbered spectrum that could be dedicated for nationwide
interoperability.

44\. We tentatively conclude that the establishment of nationwide
interoperability

channels will be in the public interest, and will significantly advance
our goal of facilitating

communication among public safety agencies. Some commenters have
indicated that the 800

MHz band is not as desirable as the 150 MHz and 450 MHz bands from a
propagation

standpoint. Others would prefer that the interoperability channels be
located in these lower

bands because of their proximity to current public safety operations.
Given the difficulty,

however, of clearing sufficient spectrum in the lower bands, and in
light of the proposal to make

available 24 megahertz of spectrum in the 746-806 MHz band, we propose
to dedicate a

significant amount of spectrum in the 746-806 MHz band solely for
interoperability

communications. The precise amount of spectrum we devote to
interoperability will reflect the

comments and suggestions we receive in regard to the spacing and number
of channels required.

45\. We seek comment on this proposal. If commenters believe that we
should attempt to

allocate spectrum for interoperability from other public safety bands or
elsewhere, we request

that their comments indicate which bands should be used to provide such
spectrum and how

channels within those bands might be cleared throughout the Nation in
order to realize our goal

of nationwide interoperable communications. If commenters believe that
interoperability

channels should be designated in more than one band, they should
indicate how nationwide

interoperability can be achieved using channels in different bands.

b\. Types of Communication

46\. It is difficult to categorize the types of communication that may
be transmitted over

interoperability channels, and the distinctions among the various types
may not always be clear.

We tentatively conclude, however, that it would be useful to categorize
public safety

communications into four separate types: voice, data, image/high speed
data (image/hsd), and

video. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. All four of these
categories could be

employed by public safety entities to communicate with one another in
any of the situations

requiring interoperability that we have described.

47\. For example, voice communications ordinarily involve communications
between the

field personnel of a particular public safety agency and that agency\'s
dispatch center. In a

situation requiring interoperability, however, voice communication could
involve:

þ Communications between field personnel of one agency and the
dispatcher of another

agency.

þ Communications between the field personnel of different agencies and
an emergency

operations center (EOC).

þ Communications between dispatchers of different agencies, or between
dispatchers and an

EOC.

þ Communications among field personnel of different agencies.

In this latter scenario, voice communications may be either direct
(mobile/portable-to-

mobile/portable), using only mobile transmit frequencies; or through a
repeater, which requires

the use of both base and mobile transmit frequencies.

48\. Data communications, as referred to in this proceeding, involve
communications to

and from field personnel using mobile/portable data terminals. The PSWAC
Operational

Requirements Subcommittee (ORSC) anticipates enormous growth in the
demand for data

applications. Situations involving the need for data communications
include:

þ The transmission of written instructions from the dispatcher of one
agency to the field per-

sonnel of another.

þ The transmission of written instructions between an EOC and the field
personnel of

different agencies.

þ The transmission and receipt of various forms of informational data
between field

personnel of different agencies and a dispatcher or EOC (e.g., license
plate and registration

information, or fingerprint identification).

The PSWAC ISC emphasizes certain advantages of using data networks, such
as field agents on

travel being able to access data from their home agency as well as from
national data sources;

field personnel responding to a large-scale mutual aid event being able
to be briefed and receive

field instructions before arrival on the scene; and the possibility of
\`\`Internet-like\'\'

communications between individual users and groups of users.

49\. Image/hsd communications, as referred to in this proceeding,
involve the trans-

mission of non-moving, visual media and the transmission of large
amounts of information at

high data rates. This category includes transmissions of:

þ Snapshots of an emergency scene from field personnel to a dispatcher.

þ Blueprints of burning buildings transmitted to fire-fighting
personnel.

þ Written documents (i.e., facsimiles) to and from field personnel.

þ On-line manuals, statutes, and enforcement regulations.

þ Fingerprints, mugshots, and, potentially, retinal prints.

þ Information from large data bases, such as NCIC 2000.

Another potential use of image/hsd communications between agencies might
involve the

transmission of a still picture taken from a videotape of a bank robbery
from one police

department to neighboring police departments.

50\. Video communications may be described in two formats: slow motion
video and full

motion video. Full motion video employs the transmission of 24 or more
frames/sec to

reproduce a moving scene accurately; slow motion video employs the
transmission of fewer

frames/sec (as few as 1 frame/sec) to reproduce the moving scene with
somewhat less accuracy.

Full motion video might be used by public safety entities when
transmitting video of a disaster,

wildfire, or emergency taken from a helicopter, or for video
surveillance of high crime areas or

accident sites. Slow motion video could be used to transmit images of
patient injuries directly

to a trauma specialist. In a possible scenario that would combine the
use of video and data

interoperability communications, video taken by police, fire, or EMS
personnel at the scene of an

emergency could be transmitted on a \`\`slow motion video
interoperability channel\'\' to a nearby

hospital; and then instructions regarding how to treat victims could be
transmitted to personnel at

the scene using a \`\`data interoperability channel.\'\' In addition,
video communications may also

be required by highway departments for mutual aid purposes e.g., to
share unit location and

weather conditions among transportation agencies of different
jurisdictions, and to connect with

the Emergency Management Command Centers during major incidents (e.g.,
hurricanes,

tornadoes, blizzards, and earthquakes).

51\. An important concern in this proceeding is whether and how each of
these types of

potential interoperability communications could or should be
accommodated in our designation

of interoperability spectrum. We propose to make spectrum available for
the four general types

of communication. We seek comment on this proposal and inquire whether
we should designate

interoperability spectrum for:

þ Voice channels only (with data capability on such channels).

þ Voice and data channels only.

þ Voice, data, image/hsd, slow motion video, and full motion video
channels.

þ Channels that would accommodate some other combination of uses.

52\. Commenters should indicate how each type of interoperability would
actually be

used. In particular, commenters advocating a channel allocation for full
motion video should

indicate their reasoning for reserving a relatively large amount of
spectrum for such use, as

opposed to providing for full motion video through alternative means. We
seek comment

below on the specific channel spacings and number of channels that
should be designated for

each type of communication.

c\. Transmission Technology

53\. In order to ensure interoperability among all public safety
agencies, an important

factor to consider is whether to specify the modulation technology for
interoperability channels.

Because our goal is to provide for nationwide interoperability, we
tentatively conclude that at a

minimum we must specify whether analog FM or digital modulation
technologies should be

used. We consider these issues in the context of the various types of
interoperability

communications we are considering. Issues relating to the development of
standards are more

fully discussed in Section II.B.4., infra.

\(1\) Voice

54\. By way of background, most public safety equipment in use today for
voice

transmission employs analog FM technology. In the future, however,
digital systems will be

implemented in the public safety services. Digital technology offers
certain advantages over

analog for voice communications. For example, voice encryption, an
important requirement for

public safety communications, is more easily accomplished using digital
technology, and

systems employing digital technology can be designed to operate
effectively in the mobile

environment. On the other hand, the quality and clarity of digital voice
systems for public

safety communications, especially on 12.5 kHz channels, has not been
subjected to the variety of

real world applications faced by the public safety community.

55\. Perhaps the most significant drawback of digital technology in the
context of

interoperable voice communications is that, while public safety
equipment in use today employs

the existing analog FM standard, in order for public safety users
operating in the 746-806 MHz

band to communicate on digital equipment, that equipment would have to
be built to a not-yet-

developed digital standard (i.e., a standard that would require the use
of a common voice coder,

digital modulation scheme, etc.). Developing and implementing digital
standards may be a

difficult task, and an important consideration in allocating spectrum
for voice interoperability is

whether the advantages of digital technology warrant our mandating
digital standards. The

PSWAC ISC recommends that the minimum baseline technology for voice
interoperability

should be analog FM, but that digital standards for interoperability
should be developed within

two years through \`\`open standards developed/adopted in an open and
fair process\'\' to allow

for the eventual migration to digital technology. The PSWAC ISC believes
that use of analog

FM for voice interoperability will \`\`suffice\'\' perhaps until 2010,
but that most users by then will

be employing digital technology on their authorized channels and will
want to operate in the

digital mode on interoperability channels.

56\. We seek comment regarding whether the achievement of
interoperability on analog

or digital modulation for voice interoperability channels should be
specified. In addition, we

seek comment regarding whether standards on these channels, whether
analog or digital, should

be adopted. We ask commenters how long it would take to develop digital
standards and

whether the time associated with the development process offsets the
advantages of digital

technology. We also seek comment regarding whether adopting a digital
standard would result

in all interoperability equipment being tied to today\'s digital
technology for many years, even if

that technology experiences great advances in the next century.

\(2\) Data, Image/hsd, and Video

57\. As with voice, the transmission of data using digital technology
has certain advan-

tages over the transmission of data using analog FM technology. In
particular, a greater data

throughput can be achieved using digital technology. For example, data
speeds for current

mobile data equipment using analog FM channels are on the order of 2400
to 4800 bits/sec on a

25 kilohertz channel, while the data rate for equipment using digital
technology is as high as 19.2

kb/sec. Also, unlike voice communications, where the use of standard
analog FM technology

would not require the adoption of additional technical standards (only
the adoption of a standard

channel spacing), achievement of interoperability on analog data
channels would require the

establishment of a set of standards similar to those necessary for
digital data channels. Thus,

given that technical standards will have to be developed regardless of
whether analog or digital

technology is used for data channels, we propose to adopt the use of
digital modulation on such

channels, in order to benefit from the throughput advantages of digital
technology.

58\. Image/hsd and video communications also involve the transmission of
digital

information. Both of these types of communications differ from data
communications only in

the sense that image/hsd and video transmissions would occur at much
higher bit rates. For

example, in its Report, the PSWAC TESC discusses various types of
image/hsd communications

(e.g., facsimiles, snapshots, and NCIC 2000) that would require the
transmission of large

numbers of data bits. The TESC Report also indicates that slow motion
video systems could

operate at 384 kb/sec, while full motion video systems would require a
data rate of

approximately 1.5 Mb/sec.

59\. Thus, the same considerations discussed above with regard to data
communications

would apply to image/hsd and video communications. Image/hsd or video
systems based on the

transmission of data using digital technology would be more spectrally
efficient than systems

using analog technology. Digital systems would enable faster
transmission of information on a

given amount of spectrum for image/hsd communications, and would enable
the transmission of

video communications on less spectrum. Additionally, both analog-based
and digital-based

image/hsd and video systems would require a certain degree of
standardization. To take

advantage of the benefits of digital technology, we propose to mandate
digital modulation for

image/hsd and video interoperability channels.

60\. We seek comment regarding our proposal to mandate the use of
digital modulation

for data, image/hsd, and video interoperability channels. As a related
issue, we seek comment

regarding whether technical standards should be mandated for data,
image/hsd, or video

equipment used for interoperability. If so, what technical standards
would be necessary on data,

image/hsd, and video channels to achieve interoperability if digital
systems, or analog-based

systems, are employed? In addition, commenters should indicate the data
rates they believe are

desirable or necessary for each type of digital communication (i.e.,
data, image/hsd, and video).

d\. Channel Spacing

61\. An important consideration in deciding how spectrum should be
designated for

different types of interoperable communications is the spacing of the
channels needed to support

such communications. We therefore explore this issue with respect to
each of the four categories

of interoperable communications discussed above, and request comment on
any other categories

that may be appropriate.

62\. Prior to the adoption of the Refarming Report and Order, public
safety spectrum in

the 150 MHz, 450 MHz, and 800 MHz bands was channelized based on a
maximum authorized

bandwidth of 20 kilohertz. This bandwidth limitation applied to channels
spaced 15 kilohertz

apart in the 150 MHz band, 25 kilohertz apart in the 450 MHz band and
800 MHz band, and 12.5

kilohertz apart in the 821-824/866-869 MHz band. Thus, most public
safety equipment in use

today employs technology based on a bandwidth limitation of 20
kilohertz. The Refarming

Report and Order required that land mobile equipment authorized for use
in the future on land

mobile frequencies below the 512 MHz band employ channels that are no
more than 12.5

kilohertz apart with a maximum authorized bandwidth of 11.25 kilohertz.

63\. There are various factors that we may consider in attempting to
determine the most

appropriate spacings for voice interoperability channels. The PSWAC
ORSC, in particular,

discusses the need for public safety communications to achieve a minimum
voice quality

standard. Although the PSWAC ORSC does not discuss this standard in the
context of

channel spacing, channel spacing may be a factor in attaining the level
of voice quality described

by the PSWAC ORSC. Another consideration is that the PSWAC ISC
recommends an emission

of 16K0F3E for voice interoperability channels. The PSWAC ISC, however,
does not propose

a particular channel spacing to accommodate that emission. In addition,
we may want to

consider that the 746-806 MHz band is adjacent to the 806-821 MHz band,
which has channels

spaced 25 kilohertz apart. Providing voice interoperability channels in
the 746-806 MHz band

with this channel spacing may enable licensees operating in the 806-821
MHz band to more

easily incorporate the 746-806 MHz interoperability channels into their
equipment.

64\. In determining the most appropriate spacing for data
interoperability channels, an

important consideration is that wider channels generally enable greater
amounts of information to

be transmitted in a given amount of time. Thus, we seek comment
regarding these related issues:

þ What channel spacing is needed to ensure appropriate voice quality and
clarity for voice

interoperability channels?

þ Should the interoperability channels be spaced 25 kilohertz apart to
more easily enable

these channels to be incorporated into equipment operating in the
806-821 MHz band?

Or should we consider a transition to 12.5 kHz channels for the 806-821
MHz band?

þ What channel spacing is needed to ensure appropriate data capacity for
data

interoperability channels?

þ To what extent might voice channels also be used by public safety
personnel to carry

data?

65\. APCO and Powell discuss the use of 125 kilohertz channels for
wideband data and

video transmissions. They indicate that, assuming a rate of 3
bits/sec/Hz, 125 kilohertz channels

could provide for such transmissions at 384 kb/sec. The PSWAC TESC
indicates that a digital

full motion video signal would require the transmission of approximately
1.5 Mb/sec. If such a

signal could be transmitted at a rate of 3 bits/sec/Hz, then it could be
delivered on a 500 kilohertz

channel.

66\. We seek comment on what channel spacings should be adopted for
voice, data,

image/hsd, and video interoperability channels. We request that
commenters consider the issues

raised in Section II.B.1.c., supra e.g., the use of analog or digital
technology, the appropriate

data rates for different types of communications and discuss their
rationale in suggesting

appropriate channel spacings for voice, data, image/hsd, slow motion
video, and full motion

video channels. We also ask commenters to indicate whether the channel
spacings they suggest

are based on current or future state-of-the-art technology in digital
efficiency, as measured in

bits/sec/Hz.

e\. Channel Requirements

67\. We seek input from commenters regarding the number of
interoperability channels

that should be designated for each type of communication described
above, and with regard to

additional factors related to channelization, such as the number of
paired or unpaired channels

needed for the various types of communications. The PSWAC ISC suggests
that 31 paired

voice, 70 simplex voice, two independent high speed data, and two
independent full motion

video links should be provided for interoperability purposes from new
public safety spectrum.

But, given that there is not an unlimited amount of spectrum available
for interoperability, we

seek comment on whether the Commission should decide how many channels
are necessary to

satisfy the needs of the public safety community for each type of
interoperability

communications. In connection with examining whether the number of
channels necessary for

each type of interoperability communications should be specified, we
seek input from

commenters on the configuration and number of channels that should be
dedicated for

interoperability.

68\. With regard to voice channels, we seek input as to whether we
should provide for a

combination of one-way (mobile transmit-only) and two-way (base transmit
and mobile transmit)

voice channel pairs, as the PSWAC ISC suggests, or whether we should
propose the allocation of

strictly two-way channel pairs. In making this decision, we will
consider the likely

interoperability needs of public safety users. As indicated above, there
are a variety of voice

interoperability communications e.g., dispatcher-to-dispatcher,
dispatcher-to-field personnel,

field personnel-to-field personnel (through a repeater, or directly).
The latter, direct

communication between personnel in the field, would simply involve the
use of mobile transmit

channels. Therefore, in providing for voice interoperability channels,
we must consider whether

we should designate some number of mobile transmit-only channels, or
whether establishing the

maximum number of two-way channel pairs is advisable to enable maximum
support of mobile-

repeater-mobile operation (when a repeater is available).

69\. With regard to data, image/hsd, and video channels for
interoperability, we believe it

is also important to consider the anticipated nature of such
communications i.e., will these

types of communications originate from a base station or from the field.
Ultimately, we

must decide how many one-way and two-way data, image/hsd, and video
interoperability

channels are desirable, based upon the likely needs for interoperable
communications.

70\. We seek comment on the number of channels that commenters believe
should be

dedicated for interoperability uses for: voice transmissions
(mobile-only, or base and mobile

channel pairs); data transmissions (base-only, or base and mobile
channel pairs); image/hsd

transmissions (base-only, or base and mobile channel pairs); slow motion
video transmissions

(mobile-only, or base and mobile channel pairs); and full motion video
transmissions (mobile-

only, or base and mobile channel pairs). In commenting on the number of
interoperability

channels that should be designated, we ask that commenters also indicate
the channel spacing

they assume for each type of channel.

f\. Equipment Standards

71\. The Public Safety Notice raised the issue of whether the Commission
should adopt

\`\`receiver standards\'\' to ensure the quality of public safety radio
receivers. In the past we have

generally relied on the market to address receiver standards.
Nevertheless, we recognize that

poor quality receivers could impede communications on the
interoperability channels.

Accordingly, we invite comment as to whether the Commission should
establish receiver

standards for the interoperability channels. Commenters should address
the reasons for and

against adopting such standards. Those commenters recommending mandatory
standards should

indicate the technical parameters to be standardized. We observe that
the Commission\'s

authority to regulate receiver performance may be limited. We note, for
example, that Section

302 of the Communications Act grants the Commission specific authority
to regulate the

susceptibility to interference of home electronic equipment such as TV
receivers. We request

parties who favor mandatory receiver standards to address the
Commission\'s legal authority to

adopt such standards.

72\. In the NPSPAC Order, we decided that all mobile and portable radios
operating on

channels in the 821-824/866-869 MHz band must be capable of operating on
the five mutual aid

channels. We seek comment regarding whether we should require that all
public safety mobile

and portable radios operating in the 746-806 MHz band be capable of
operating on all voice and

data interoperability channels in that band. In addition, we could also
require that all public

safety mobile and portable radios operating in the adjacent
806-824/851-869 MHz band be

equipped for operation on these channels. We invite comment regarding
whether it is

technically feasible to incorporate the 746-806 MHz interoperability
channels into mobile and

portable radios operating in the 806-824/851-869 MHz band, and whether
doing so is dependent

on whether we employ television Channels 68 and 69 (i.e., frequencies in
the 794-806 MHz

band) for mobile-to-base transmissions (as proposed in Section II.F.,
infra) or whether we

decide instead to use television Channels 63 and 64 (i.e., frequencies
in the 764-776 MHz band)

for some or all mobile-to-base transmissions. If incorporating 746-806
MHz interoperability

channels into 806-824/851-869 MHz mobile and portable radios is
technically feasible,

commenters are asked to address whether we should require that all
public safety mobile and

portable radios operating in 806-824/851-869 MHz band manufactured or
imported beginning

one year after the effective date of the Report and Order adopted in
this proceeding, be capable of

operating on the interoperability channels in the 746-806 MHz band.

73\. On the other hand, the best and easiest way to provide for mobile
and portable radio

equipment on these channels might be for equipment manufacturers to
build \`\`interoperability

radios\'\' (i.e., radios that transmit and receive only on voice and
data interoperability channels).

Because all such radios would operate on the identical channels and have
the same features, it

might be better, from a technical or economic standpoint, for
manufacturers to invest their

resources in the production of these types of radios. If such radios
could be manufactured at

relatively low cost, then they could be made available to large numbers
of local, State, and

Federal public safety personnel throughout the Nation for use in both
emergency and day-to-day

interoperability. We seek comment on this option, and on the trade-offs
between this and the

previous option (of requiring all radios to operate on the
interoperability channels).

2\. Eligibility, Use, and Licensing

a\. Definitions

74\. In the Public Safety Notice, we tentatively concluded that we
should adopt formal

definitions relating to public safety. In its Final Report, PSWAC also
adopted these

definitions. We do not intend to take further action on the definitions
we proposed, however,

since in directing the Commission to assign 24 megahertz of spectrum in
the 746-806 MHz band

for public safety services, Congress defined \`\`public safety
services\'\' to mean services:

\`\`(A) the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety
of life, health, or

property;

\`\`(B) that are provided

\`\`(i) by State or local government entities; or

\`\`(ii) by nongovernmental organizations that are authorized by a
governmental entity

whose primary mission is the provision of such services; and

\`\`(C) that are not made commercially available to the public by the
provider.\'\'

75\. We tentatively conclude that a definition of a \`\`public safety
services provider\'\' can

be based upon the statutory definition of public safety services, and
that such a definition would

be helpful in developing service rules for the 746-806 MHz band. We
propose to define the term

as follows:

Public Safety Service Provider: (1) A State or local government

entity that provides public safety services; or (2) a non-

governmental organization that is authorized to provide public

safety services by a governmental entity pursuant to Section

337(f)(1)(B)(ii) of the Communications Act.

76\. We note that two broad groups fall within this definition
governmental public

safety services providers, and authorized non-governmental public safety
services providers. We

also note that many entities with public safety interests, and with
which public safety service

providers may from time to time need to communicate by radio, do not
fall within the statutory

definition. We believe that among these would be Federal agencies; those
State and local

entities, the sole or principal purpose of which is not to protect the
safety of life, health, or

property; and providers of commercially available public safety
services. The public safety

services definition has obvious bearing upon which groups may be
eligible to use the

interoperability channels, and which groups may be eligible to apply for
channels from the public

safety spectrum that is not reserved for interoperability. We discuss
these issues in later sections

of the Notice.

b\. National and Regional Planning

77\. We here address how interoperability spectrum may best be managed
for effective

interoperable communications. Commenters have stated that, in
emergencies, disciplined use of

the interoperability channels will be of vital importance, and some even
maintain that adequate

planning for inter-communication may be as important as providing
sufficient spectrum for the

channels. Whether portions of the interoperability spectrum should be
set aside for certain

kinds of use, such as mutual aid or task force, or for certain services,
such as firefighting or law

enforcement, and whether some providers\' use of these channels should
be limited to certain

circumstances, are examples of the questions we will ask commenters to
consider in the

paragraphs below.

78\. As a threshold question, however, we ask commenters to discuss
which policies we

should set at the national level, and which should be set by those in
closer proximity to State and

local public safety users. In the NPSPAC Proceeding, we established 55
regions within the

United States and its territories, and directed each to develop plans
for use of both the

interoperability and the non-interoperability channels. Among their
other responsibilities, the

regions were to establish procedures for interoperability that would
employ the channels in a way

that best suited their individual communications requirements. We could
adopt a similar

process for the interoperable channels in the 746-806 MHz band. A
disadvantage of this

approach may be that in the event of a large-scale emergency, such as a
flood or a hurricane, it

may be difficult rapidly to integrate public safety personnel from
multiple Federal, State, and

local agencies into a localized interoperability plan. We tentatively
conclude that our primary

goal with respect to interoperability should be seamless
interoperability on a nationwide basis.

79\. We therefore request comment regarding four alternative approaches
to managing the

interoperability channels in the 746-806 MHz band. First, we ask
commenters to consider

whether the individual NPSPAC regional planning committees should be
given oversight and

responsibility for developing and adopting plans for various aspects of
the operation and use of

the interoperability channels in the 746-806 MHz band, such as the
specific amounts of spectrum

for particular categories of interoperability or for making the
decisions governing access to the

interoperability channels.

80\. Second, as a variation on this approach, we ask commenters to
consider whether the

Commission should create parallel regional organizations devoted
entirely to developing plans

and procedures for use of the interoperability channels. For example,
the PSWAC ISC Report

suggests that the Commission and NTIA formally certify State or regional
interoperability

communications planning (ICP) organizations to develop operational
procedures for

interoperability channels. We note that while these two options would
give maximum

flexibility to the individual regions, neither provides for management
or oversight of the

interoperability channels at the national level. We therefore ask
commenters favoring either of

these two options to discuss how management of the interoperability
channels could be entrusted

to the individual regions without compromising our goal of seamless
nationwide interoperability.

81\. The PSWAC ISC suggests a third alternative, the establishment of a
national

planning process to develop \`\`a nationwide mutual aid plan, define
operational policies and

procedures, provide guidance and procedures for regional planning
processes, and define incident

command system requirements . . . .\'\' The PSWAC ISC envisions that all
levels of government

would participate in this effort, which would define guidelines which
the regions could then use

in addressing interoperability concerns and issues in their individual
regional plans. In this

way, regions would still develop their own interoperability procedures,
but would do so using a

common framework that would promote interoperability among both resident
and non-resident

public safety users. We seek comment as to whether the Commission should
adopt this third

approach, and initiate a national planning process to develop specific
nationwide plans and

procedures for the interoperability channels, as proposed by the PSWAC
ISC.

82\. Finally, we ask commenters to discuss a fourth option in which
specific nationwide

guidelines and procedures concerning the use of the interoperability
channels would be

developed. These approaches may not be mutually exclusive, and the best
solution to managing

the interoperability spectrum may combine elements from the four
approaches we have

suggested. For example, the 55 regions may fit within a nationwide
structure with four to six

subdivisions, such as, northeast, southeast, central, west, and
non-continental United States. We

request commenters to consider these options, or a combination of these
options, as well as any

other alternatives, regarding the management of the interoperability
channels in the context of

the following issues: (1) the categories of interoperability uses; and
(2) eligibility for use of

interoperability channels.

c\. Categories of Interoperability Uses

83\. In the Public Safety Notice, we discussed public safety
interoperability in three

general contexts: day-to-day, mutual aid, and emergency preparedness or
task force

operations. The PSWAC ISC and the PSWAC Steering Committee also discuss

interoperability needs in terms of these three contexts. Thus, we
consider whether it is

necessary or advisable to provide specific amounts of spectrum for each
of these categories of

uses, or whether we should instead provide spectrum for general
interoperability use. We invite

comment regarding this issue. If commenters believe that
interoperability channels should be

designated for specific uses i.e., day-to-day, task force, and mutual
aid we ask them to

suggest the appropriate number of channels for each. We ask commenters
to include in their

suggestions how many of each type of channel i.e., voice, data,
image/hsd, or video should

be designated for each category.

84\. We also ask commenters to consider whether, in the event of an
emergency, all

voice, data, image/hsd, and video interoperability channels should
become mutual aid channels,

so that all public safety users at the scene of an emergency would have
at their disposal the full

complement of interoperability channels. We also invite comment
regarding the alternative

approaches of allowing the regions, either individually or as
participants in a national planning

committee, to decide how many channels, and what kind of channels,
should be used for each

category of interoperability. If we permit the regions to decide these
questions, we ask

commenters to discuss whether the Commission should designate a minimum
number of the

interoperability channels for mutual aid and set their location. Our
tentative view is that such an

approach would ensure that immediately identifiable channels would be
available for mutual aid

in all regions of the Nation, and thus support our goal of achieving
seamless nationwide

interoperability.

d\. Eligibility and Use of Interoperability Channels

85\. We seek comment regarding which entities should be eligible to use
each of the

three proposed categories of interoperability channels. When the
Commission designated

spectrum in the 821-824/866-869 MHz band for public safety, it decided
that licensees eligible in

the Public Safety Radio Service and Special Emergency Radio Services
would be eligible to use

the mutual aid channels. Here, however, Congress has directed the
Commission to assign 24

megahertz of spectrum in the 746-806 MHz band for public safety
services, as defined by the

statute. We are considering devoting a substantial amount of that
spectrum for the sole

purpose of promoting interoperability. Our goal in dedicating this much
spectrum for

interoperability is to permit a broad range of public safety-related
entities to communicate with

each other.

86\. The PSWAC ISC states that interoperability among Federal, State,
and local public

safety agencies is essential for the protection of life and property,
and reports broad categories of

agencies and other entities with interoperability needs. Also, in
certain emergencies, such as

accidents involving railroads or the transportation of petroleum
products, public safety service

personnel may need to communicate with workers in industries that are
not primarily engaged in

public safety operations. In all, the PSWAC ISC identifies nine
comprehensive categories

Federal Government, general government, criminal justice, fire and EMS,
forestry-conservation,

highway, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), mass transportation,
and public services

that require interoperable communications.

87\. DOT states that it agrees with PSWAC that interoperability among
public safety

agencies is an absolute requirement for both day-to-day and coordinated
disaster-response

operations, and observes that the need for interoperability includes
both State and Federal enti-

ties, especially in emergencies. Kansas-EMC stresses that it is
necessary for different levels of

government, such as the FBI and the county sheriff, to have
interoperable wireless com-

munications. NYCT argues that the intensity of need may vary according
to location or the

type of activity, but at a minimum, the fire, police, and emergency
medical \`\`first responders\'\'

need constant access to direct communications. Texas-DPS calls
interoperability \`\`the key

issue\'\' regarding protection of life and property, and states that
interoperability \`\`remains a

concern for all agencies within public safety.\'\' Finally, we note that
many commenters agree

that commercial infrastructure providers such as utilities and railroads
may need access to the

interoperability channels during an emergency in which their facilities
are directly involved.

88\. We tentatively conclude that all public safety service providers
should be eligible

to use all of the interoperability channels. We also tentatively
conclude, however, that eligibility

alone will not guarantee an entity unlimited access to these channels,
but rather that use of

interoperability channels will only be permitted in accordance with the
plan for interoperability.

We also believe that it would be consistent with the new Section 337 of
the Communications Act

and the intent of Congress to consider broadening the eligibility for
interoperability channels in

order to promote public safety. In the course of their duties, public
safety service providers may

need to interact with other public safety related entities, which
provide services that do not fall

within the definition of public safety services established by Congress
in Section 337.

89\. For example, public safety agencies may need to communicate with
non-

governmental workers during an industrial disaster, and during the
aftermath of an incident such

as the Oklahoma City Federal building bombing, State and local officials
may need to maintain

contact with Federal officials. We therefore invite commenters to
consider whether entities

which are not public safety service providers should also be eligible to
use the interoperability

channels. If we decide that these other entities should be eligible to
use the interoperability

channels, we ask commenters to consider the circumstances under which
they should be

permitted to use them.

90\. As noted by the PSWAC ISC, there are no formal mechanisms currently
in place to

enable Federal users to operate on non-Federal Government spectrum. The
PSWAC ISC

therefore calls for regulations \`\`to provide for equal access by both
Federal and non-Federal

agencies for purposes of interoperability.\'\' As we discuss above, we
tentatively agree that

public safety service providers will need to communicate with their
Federal counterparts, and we

therefore seek comment regarding not only how the interoperability
channels should be made

available to Federal users, but also how the Table of Allocations may
need to be revised to

permit Federal use. Again, we also seek comment regarding whether rules
permitting such use

by Federal agencies would be consistent with congressional objectives in
amending Section 337

of the Communications Act.

91\. Unlike Federal agencies, and unlike those governmental agencies not
solely or

principally devoted to the protection of public safety, non-governmental
organizations, under the

terms of Section 337 of the Communications Act, may be considered to
provide public safety

services if they are so authorized by a government agency whose primary
mission is the

provision of such services. We propose, therefore, that authorized
non-governmental providers

should not be treated as guest entities on the interoperability
channels, but should instead be

treated as being among the public safety service providers for whom the
interoperability channels

are specifically intended.

92\. Nevertheless, we tentatively conclude that orderly and effective
use of these channels

would require that all users State, local and Federal; governmental and
non-governmental;

those entities that are eligible by definition and those entities that
may be eligible as guests

should be entitled to use the interoperability channels only in
accordance with the interoperability

plan. We further tentatively conclude that, in formulating such plans,
the planners should have

the latitude to restrict the use by any entity of any or all of the
interoperability channels as much

or as little as they judge necessary to ensure that these channels are
put to effective use. We seek

comment on these tentative conclusions.

93\. We further ask commenters to address the question of whether the
plans governing

access to the interoperability channels should be designed by the
individual regions, either

through the regional planning committees or through regional committees
established specifi-

cally to address interoperability, or whether at least some of these
rules should be prescribed at

the national level, either by the Commission or through a national
interoperability planning

committee. We ask commenters to consider the possibility that the rules
determining access to

some of the interoperability channels, such as the mutual aid channels
or the task force channels,

might be formulated by the Commission, while regional committees or
other regional groups

might formulate the rules governing access to the channels designated
for day-to-day use. We

also ask commenters to consider whether access by Federal agencies (if
we conclude that such

access is consistent with the terms of Section 337) should be regulated
at the national level, with

the rules governing access by other entities to be set at the regional
level. Finally, we invite

comment regarding whether standards and procedures should be adopted to
ensure that the

interoperability plans are reasonable, effective, and fair.

94\. We also solicit comment regarding whether we should dedicate
channels to specific

services. Some of the voice interoperability channels could be made
available solely for fire

department and EMS licensees, for example, or reserved for State
agencies, or placed at the

disposal of a federation or other association of user groups. We ask
commenters to discuss

whether at least some channels should be designated for particular
services on a nationwide

basis, or whether all eligible entities should have access to all the
channels within a given

category. We ask commenters to include in their discussion whether the
decisions regarding the

provision of certain channels for particular services should be made by
the regions individually,

either through the regional planning committees or through regional
committees established

specifically to address interoperability; by a national interoperability
planning committee; or by

the Commission. We also remind commenters to consider the option of the
Commission

deciding these issues for some, but not all, of the interoperability
channels.

95\. We also invite comment regarding how the voice, data, image/hsd,
and video

interoperability channels should be assigned to licensees. In the NPSPAC
Report and Order, we

decided that licensees would have to obtain authorizations for base and
control transmitters

operating on the five mutual aid channels, but that public safety
entities could operate mobile

units and portables on the mutual aid channels without separate
authorization as long as they

were operating in accordance with an approved regional plan for the
mutual aid channels. We

request comment regarding whether we should adopt this same approach for
the licensing of all

interoperability channels, or whether we should adopt an alternative
approach, such as giving the

regions more authority for the interoperability channels and allowing
each region to authorize

individual agencies to operate base stations without the need for
separate station

authorizations.

3\. Trunking on Interoperability Spectrum

96\. In the preceding paragraphs we have discussed interoperability
issues that could

involve both national and regional planning. We now turn to
interoperability issues of national

scope that we believe are appropriately resolved by the Commission. We
first discuss the issue

of trunking on interoperability spectrum. We then consider technical
standards for

interoperability spectrum. We tentatively conclude that any trunking and
technical standards for

this spectrum should be set by the Commission at the national level. If
each region were

permitted to adopt its own trunking or other technical standards, the
resulting incompatibility

could defeat the very purpose of setting aside this spectrum solely for
interoperability, which is

to make possible seamless wireless communication among all public safety
users, anywhere in

the Nation. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

97\. As stated above, we propose to designate a substantial amount of
the available 24

MHz of public safety spectrum in the 746-806 MHz band for
interoperability. This would be

far more spectrum than we have ever before furnished for this purpose.
Even if we require all

equipment operating on this spectrum to use identical analog or digital
standards, however, we

may not realize our goal of enabling users from different public safety
agencies or from different

parts of the Nation to communicate with one another in emergencies if we
do not provide a

means for effectively coordinating the use of the interoperability
channels. For example, if we

provide for 70 mobile channels and 31 base/mobile channel pairs for
interoperability, as PSWAC

ISC suggests, and a number of public safety personnel from different
agencies converge at the

scene of a burning building each equipped with a radio capable of
operating on these channels

a firefighter inside the building must know which channel to use to
communicate with a police

officer standing outside the building. Similarly, emergency responders
from different regions

must be able to select effectively from among the many possible
interoperability frequencies, or

our goal of viable nationwide interoperability will not be achieved.

98\. The matter of facilitating interoperable communications was
addressed in the

NPSPAC Plan, where we stipulated that the 5 channel pairs dedicated to
mutual aid would

operate in the conventional (non-trunked) mode. In a subsequent
reconsideration proceeding,

certain parties expressed the concern that mutual aid systems operating
in the conventional mode

would be operationally inferior to more sophisticated trunked systems.
They asserted that

\`\`computer-controlled trunked systems are capable of dynamic
regrouping of callers, positive

identification of caller, and other capabilities not available to the
dispatcher in a conventional

system.\'\' We agree that these features enhance interoperable
communications among local

public safety agencies sharing a common infrastructure. For example, a
shared, trunked system

employed by public safety agencies in a particular area could register
the radios used by all of

their field personnel, by ID number, in a database, and the system could
control and manage

communications among such users. In the event that non-resident
personnel entered the area

during an emergency, their radio units could be added to the database.

99\. In the NPSPAC reconsideration proceedings, the Commission decided
not to require

a trunking standard for equipment operating in the 821-824/866-869 MHz
band. The

Commission affirmed the NPSPAC decision that the five mutual aid
channels could operate in

the conventional mode, and that there would be no barrier to
identification by the regional

planning committees of additional mutual aid channels in their regions
and provision of

operational guidelines for their use. The Commission believed that
effective regional

interoperability could be achieved through the use of the five
conventional-mode mutual aid

channels, and that adopting trunking standards for the entire 6
megahertz would entail an

unacceptable delay in making the spectrum available for public safety
use.

100\. In this proceeding, as we consider an amount of spectrum for
interoperability that

may greatly exceed the five NPSPAC mutual aid channels, it is
appropriate to again weigh the

desirability of mandating a trunking standard for equipment operating on
this spectrum. In the

NPSPAC proceeding, we considered the adoption of trunking standards on
all of the channels in

the 821-824/866-869 MHz band i.e., both the interoperability and
non-interoperability

channels. In this proceeding, however, we are considering a designation
of a substantial

amount of spectrum solely for interoperable communications, and our
paramount concern

regarding rules for this spectrum must be the effective use of the
spectrum for that purpose. We

therefore consider, and seek comment on, the specific question of
adopting a trunking standard

for the channels devoted to interoperability.

101\. In a large-scale emergency, wireless communication among many
personnel from

different agencies and regions must be rapidly coordinated. We
tentatively conclude that a

trunked system is the best, and possibly the only practicable, method by
which this goal can be

achieved. A trunking standard would allow all radios to communicate with
one another in the

trunked mode, and would permit the quick and flexible establishment of
talk groups that could

include the radios of different local public safety agencies or of
extra-regional agencies. Such

capability appears essential to managing emergency communications among
users from many

public safety agencies and jurisdictions. Further, trunking can offer
additional capabilities and

features, such as automatic identification of the caller, that could be
of great benefit to public

safety users, especially in emergency response situations, where the
need to act quickly and with

minimum confusion may be of the essence. Also, while the amount of
spectrum we propose

for interoperability is substantial, it is not inexhaustible. Thus,
because trunking technology

makes for efficient use of the spectrum, requiring trunking would
maximize the capacity

available for interoperability.

102\. We have not heretofore required use of specific trunking standards
for public safety

communications services, and we note that we have not specified such
standards for private or

commercial mobile radio services either. However, interoperability among
public safety users

could be thwarted absent a trunking standard. It also is vitally
important that the public safety

spectrum be used in the most efficient way feasible. For these reasons,
as well as the

operational benefits that trunking technology can provide, we ask
whether we should adopt a

trunking standard for communications on the interoperability channels.
Because our goal is to

promote the ability of public safety users to communicate across
regional as well as across

agency lines, we ask whether we should mandate a single nationwide
trunking standard, rather

than leave to the individual regions the decision of whether to employ
conventional or trunked

operations, or of selecting regional trunking standards.

103\. We seek comment on the various advantages and disadvantages of
requiring use of

trunking technology on the interoperability channels and our adoption of
a standard.

Commenters who believe it would be sufficient to require only use of
conventional analog

technology on the interoperable channels, as we require for the five
mutual aid channels in the

821-824/866-869 MHz band, should suggest viable alternatives by which
the large number of

designated interoperability channels anticipated for this spectrum could
be managed in

emergencies. In addition, we invite such commenters to address the
impact that lack of a

trunking standard may have on the amount of spectrum that could be
dedicated to

interoperability.

4\. Technical Standards for Interoperability Spectrum

104\. We recognize that adoption of technical standards poses formidable
challenges.

With regard to trunking standards, multiple standards are currently in
use. Thus, selecting a

trunking standard may exacerbate the problem of \`\`backward
compatibility\'\' with existing

systems. Further, the various manufacturers use proprietary trunking
technology. As a result,

prior efforts to achieve industry and user consensus on a trunking
standard have been largely

unsuccessful. Further, such efforts to establish standards have led to
strong disagreements over

complex matters such as intellectual property rights and technical
barriers to trade. With regard

to digital standards, APCO Project 25 has been involved in a lengthy
process to develop such

standards for public safety equipment in the 800 MHz band a process that
has not been without

controversy.

105\. Accordingly, we request comment regarding how technical standards
should be

developed for interoperability channels. Our preference would be to rely
on equipment

manufacturers to develop standards through an appropriate standards
association such as the

Mobile and Personal Communications Division of the Telecommunications
Industry Association

(TIA). TIA, which is accredited by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), would,

through a fair and open process, produce standards which could then be
adopted by the

Commission. Alternatively, the Commission could adopt standards
developed by a public

safety organization such as APCO Project 25. If standards to be adopted
by the Commission

were developed by a group not accredited by ANSI, we would propose to
require that group to

use open and fair processes similar to those identified in Section
273(d)(4) of the

Communications Act in the development of such standards. Another option
would be for

the Commission to adopt existing standards, such as the European TETRA
standard, with any

necessary modifications for the 746-806 MHz band. Another approach would
be for the

Commission to create an industry advisory committee, and require that it
develop standards

within a certain period of time.

106\. We invite comment regarding the advantages and disadvantages of
these various

approaches to development of digital or trunking standards for
interoperability channels. We are

particularly interested in views concerning the option that would have
the most likelihood of

successfully meeting the needs of the public safety community. Further,
we seek to underscore

that it is our intent to initiate licensing of the public safety
spectrum as soon as practicable.

Therefore, we request comments as to the approach to development of
standards for

interoperability spectrum that is likely to be the most expeditious.

107\. We appreciate that in addition to a basic trunking standard for
interoperability

channels, related technical standards e.g., standards that would enable
priority access to be

established on all radios, and allow radios to be configured into talk
groups may be required to

enable effective interoperability. In addition, common encryption
standards may be desirable

for public safety communications on all types of interoperability
channels. We therefore invite

comments as to the scope of any such additional standards that may be
needed to ensure effective

interoperability and how such standards should be developed. We also
invite comment regarding

what elements these standards should encompass.

C. General Service Rules

108\. We turn now from the service rules for the portion of the public
safety spectrum

designed to promote interoperability to similar issues related to
service rules for the remainder of

the public safety spectrum in the 746-806 MHz band. For these general
service rules, our

primary concerns are to alleviate the shortage of channels available to
public safety agencies for

their internal use and to provide spectrum for new types of
communications, such as image and

video. We begin by reviewing the approach the Commission took when it
adopted the NPSPAC

Report and Order and allocated six megahertz of spectrum for public
safety in the

821-824/866-869 MHz bands. We then discuss and seek comment regarding
the role of the

regional planning committees, and finally turn to issues dealing with
the provision and use of the

public safety spectrum in the 746-806 MHz band.

1\. Regional Planning Committees

109\. In 1986, the Commission allocated six megahertz of spectrum in the

821-824/866-869 MHz bands nationwide for public safety use. In the
NPSPAC Report and

Order, the Commission indicated that this spectrum was to be utilized in
the context of a

National Plan and that the spectrum would not be made available for
assignment until the Na-

tional Plan was developed. Active public safety involvement in the
design of such a plan was

deemed essential, and to that end the Commission, in December 1986,
established NPSPAC to

coordinate the involvement of public safety agencies in these planning
efforts. In November

1987, when we adopted service rules and technical standards for the
821-824/866-869 MHz

bands, the Commission employed, with modifications, recommendations made
by NPSPAC in a

plan (National Plan) that comprised both national and regional elements.
The Commission

explained that, while certain technical concerns had to be addressed at
the national level, the

great diversity of needs in different areas of the Nation required the
development of regional

plans closer to the State and local levels.

110\. Within the framework of the National Plan, the United States was
divided into

regions that would have as much autonomy as possible to develop plans
that met their different

communications needs. The Commission, according to the National Plan,
would address cer-

tain common national requirements, such as those pertaining to
channeling, trunking, and

technical standards to control interference. Once the national
requirements were adopted,

committees made up of members of the public safety community were to
develop regional plans

that would focus on the spectrum requirements of all eligible entities,
and determine how the

available spectrum could best be used to satisfy these requirements. The
Commission\'s role in

relation to the regional planning committees was limited to: (1)
defining the regional

boundaries; (2) requiring fair and open procedures; (3) specifying the
elements that all regional

plans were to include; (4) reviewing and accepting the plans, or
rejecting them with an

explanation; and (5) reviewing and accepting requests for modification
of the plans, or rejecting

them with an explanation. Thus, the Commission established nationwide
rules where

appropriate, while still providing sufficient flexibility to allow
regional planners to tailor

solutions to local public safety problems.

111\. We tentatively conclude that this dichotomy between national and
regional elements

has achieved its stated purpose of balancing our primary regulatory
objectives of maximizing

spectrum efficiency, and ensuring that the system has sufficient
flexibility to accommodate the

wide variety of communications requirements in different areas of the
Nation. We propose,

therefore, to use the regional planning approach again to provide for
the most appropriate use of

that portion of the public safety spectrum that is not devoted to
interoperability. We seek

comment regarding this proposal, as well as any other alternatives for
the administration of the

spectrum.

112\. Although we believe this regional planning approach has been
satisfactory with

regard to the 821-824/866-869 MHz bands, we take this opportunity to
encourage commenters

to suggest refinements and improvements to the organization and
operation of the regions and the

regional planning committees. For example, should we designate one or
more frequency

coordinators to have a formal role in the regional planning process? And
if so, what should that

role be, and which frequency coordinators should be so designated? In
formulating their

comments, we ask parties to consider our regulatory goals of ensuring
equitable distribution of

frequencies, promoting efficient use of spectrum, and minimizing the
burden on both the public

safety service providers and the regional planning committees. We also
note that there may be

areas of the Nation that may have an acute need for spectrum for public
safety communications.

We ask for comment as to whether, in such areas of the Nation, we should
reserve a small

amount of spectrum from the 746-806 MHz band and assign that spectrum
prior to the

completion of the area\'s regional plan. We also seek comment regarding
what specific rules

would be necessary for the Commission to assign licenses apart from a
regional planning

process.

113\. NPSPAC recommended fifty-four regions in it Final Plan, and the
Commission

adopted the regions largely as proposed. There are currently fifty-five
regions, the

boundaries of which are generally contiguous with the boundaries of a
State. In drawing

regional boundaries, the Commission considered the possibility that
fewer regions might offer

the benefits of greater uniformity and broader coordination. The
Commission concluded,

however, that larger regions would necessarily entail a more complex
planning process, and that

the process could be further slowed if the number of political
jurisdictions in a region were

increased. The Commission also concluded that larger regions might be
less responsive to

local needs and characteristics, which could in turn lead to an increase
in waiver requests. Such

requests might involve the Commission in purely local matters to an
undesirable extent.

114\. We continue to believe that evaluation to be correct, and
therefore propose to retain

the boundaries of current regions. Minor modifications may be needed
depending upon the

comments we receive. We seek comment regarding our proposal. We
recognize, however, that

the experience gained over the past decade may indicate the need for
adjustments of a region\'s

boundaries. In particular, we invite comment regarding whether the
boundaries of the multi-state

regions that serve metropolitan areas are at present drawn along optimal
lines, and whether any

other such multi-state metropolitan regions should be created.

115\. We seek comment regarding whether we should retain the existing
regional

planning committees, and adopt a requirement that the regional planning
committees must

incorporate the 746-806 MHz bands into their regional plans. We also
seek comment regarding

whether we should follow an alternative approach, under which we would
dissolve the present

regional committees and convene new regional committees in their place.
We tentatively

conclude that the benefits of continuity, of expertise, and of
minimizing the administrative

burden on both planners and users outweigh any benefit that would accrue
from disbanding the

current regional planning committees and formulating new ones. We
therefore propose to retain

the existing committees, with at most minor modifications to their
boundaries, and to add the

746-806 MHz band to the 821-824/866-869 MHz bands that the planning
committees have been

using to create regional plans. We seek comment regarding this proposal.

116\. We propose that the chairpersons of the regional planning
committees, or their

designated substitute conveners, would be required to publicize a
meeting to begin the process of

incorporating the 746-806 MHz bands into new regional plans, allowing at
least 60 days for

appropriate public notifications. We further propose that public safety
service providers and

other parties interested in participating in the regional planning
process should contact the

appropriate chairperson or convener, and that, as was provided in the
1987 National Plan,

officials responsible for national security and emergency preparedness
within the region should

be notified of the initial planning meeting and invited to participate.
We invite commenters to

suggest other specific groups or officials that should be invited, such
as State telecommunication

officials, and specific notification or outreach measures that should be
required to publicize the

initial planning meeting or subsequent planning meetings. The NPSPAC
Report and Order

instructed committees to adopt operating procedures to govern their
operations to ensure that all

entities would be treated fairly in the planning process. We invite
commenters to address the

adequacy of these procedures in ensuring the equitable distribution of
frequencies among eligible

entities, and to evaluate any need for instituting procedural guidelines
for the committees.

117\. The NPSPAC Report and Order required regional plans to include, at
a minimum,

the following elements:

þ A cover page that clearly identified the document as the regional plan
for the defined

region.

þ The name of the regional planning chairperson, including mailing
address and telephone

number.

þ The names of the members of the regional planning committee, including
organizational

affiliations, mailing addresses, and telephone numbers.

þ A summary of the major elements of the plan.

þ A general description of how the spectrum would be allotted among the
various eligible

users within the region.

þ An explanation of how the requirements of all eligible entities within
the region were

considered and, to the degree possible, met.

þ An explanation as to how needs were assigned priorities in areas where
not all eligible

entities could receive licenses.

þ An explanation of how the plan had been coordinated with adjacent
regions.

þ A detailed description of how the plan put the spectrum to the best
possible use by

requiring system design with minimum coverage areas, by assigning
frequencies so that

maximum frequency reuse and offset channel use may be made, by using
trunking, and by

requiring small entities with minimal requirements to join together in
using a single system

where possible.

þ The signature of the regional planning chairperson.

We propose to continue to require the inclusion of these elements in any
regional plan, to the

extent that the elements are consistent with the rules adopted in this
proceeding. We also

invite comment regarding whether these listed elements should be amended
to include any

additional provisions, or whether the current elements require
clarification or reformulation.

118\. Under the National Plan, after the Commission received a plan from
a regional

planning committee, we solicited public comment on the plan for 30 days,
with 15 days to reply

to any comments filed, and then either approved the plan as submitted,
or returned the plan to the

regional planning committee with reasons for its rejection. During the
review process, the

Commission considered the plans and the comments and replies, giving due
deference to the

need to allow the regional plans to accommodate regional differences.
The Commission

examined the plans to ensure that public safety needs were fully
addressed and met to the

greatest degree possible, that the spectrum had been used efficiently,
that coordination with

adjacent regions had occurred, and that all requirements of the National
Plan were met. The

Commission either accepted the regional plan by issuing an order to that
effect, or returned the

plan to the regional planning chairperson with reasons for its
rejection. We tentatively

conclude that this procedure appropriately balanced the requirements of
fairness and efficiency in

review of the regional plans, and we propose that the new plans
incorporating the 746-806 MHz

bands continue to be thus reviewed, and set forth for public comment,
before being adopted or

returned with an explanation to the regional planning committee. We seek
comment regarding

this proposal.

119\. The regional plans typically require modification from time to
time. At present

APCO, acting in its frequency coordination role, or the regional
planning chairperson may

recommend, in writing, changes to a regional plan. The Commission gives
public notice

soliciting comment on any such proposals, and issues appropriate orders
upon review. We

tentatively conclude that this process has been satisfactory, and
propose to adopt it again as the

mechanism by which future regional plans incorporating the 746-806 MHz
bands may be

modified. We seek comment regarding this proposal. We recognize,
however, that, as with

other aspects of the regional planning process, this proceeding presents
an opportunity to make

appropriate revisions to the process, and we invite comment regarding
ways that the modification

procedures could be improved. Specifically, we invite commenters to
address the requirement

that regions wishing to modify their plans must obtain the express
concurrence of adjacent

regional planning committees to the proposed modifications prior to
submitting them for our

approval.

2\. Eligibility and Licensing of General Use Channels

120\. Regarding the channels in the public safety spectrum that are not
reserved for

interoperability, we tentatively conclude that the Commission should
limit eligibility to entities

that provide public safety services, as defined for this spectrum in the
Communications Act.

We have proposed a definition of public safety service provider to
facilitate this determination.

We further tentatively conclude that the regional planning committees
should, as an element of

their regional plans, specify precisely which groups within the broad
categories of the statutory

definition they suggest should receive frequencies within their regions.
Allowing the regions to

adopt plans for assigning frequencies for the non-interoperability
channels would advance our

goal of extending to the individual regions the flexibility to design
plans tailored to their local

needs.

121\. As with the present regional planning process, in some regions it
may be impossible

to grant the requests for assignments of everyone who is eligible to use
the new public safety

spectrum. We continue to believe, however, that the regional planning
committees are in the best

position to determine which services and entities are of the greatest
importance to public safety

in their regions. We tentatively conclude that our review of the
regional plans, and the

opportunity for public comment during the review process, will
sufficiently ensure the adoption

of fair and reasonable assignments. We invite comment regarding these
tentative conclusions.

122\. We also seek comment regarding whether the Commission should
prescribe rules or

guidelines for determining if a service meets the statutory definition
of a public safety service,

i.e., that its sole or principal purpose is to protect the safety of
life, health, or property. We

seek comment as well regarding whether the Commission should prescribe
substantive or

procedural rules for the authorization of non-governmental organizations
by governmental public

safety service providers, as provided in Section 337(f)(1)(B)(ii) of the
Communications Act.

123\. In the preceding paragraphs we have discussed how regional
planning committees

could develop plans that would enable the Commission to assign licenses
to applicants in a way

that would best meet regional needs. Such planning for the orderly and
optimal assignment of

licenses would continue the role that the regional planning committees
have played in developing

plans for the assignment of licenses in the 821-824/866-869 MHz band. In
the sections that

follow, by contrast, when we speak of the regional planning committees,
we ask commenters to

consider whether the role of these committees should be enlarged to
include some of the more

technical matters that up to now have been decided by the Commission.

3\. Provision and Use of Public Safety Channels

124\. The following is a discussion of various issues relating to the
provision and use of

the general public safety spectrum. Earlier in this Notice we discussed
these same issues in the

context of the interoperability spectrum. With respect to
interoperability, our goal is to develop

rules that will enable spectrum to be used to facilitate effective
interoperability communications.

To achieve interoperability, it is necessary for users to operate under
the same parameters. For

example, we propose to provide for common transmission technologies and
common channel

spacing among users of the interoperability spectrum. With the
assignment of the general use

spectrum, however, our goal is to provide a regulatory framework that
will enable a variety of

types of communications, and to facilitate utilization of an array of
innovative technologies for

the public safety community. In this Section we therefore seek comment
on various matters that

will assist us in developing such a framework.

125\. One important matter that we invite commenters to explore will be
the nature of the

Commission\'s role in developing a band plan for the assignment of the
746-806 MHz public

safety spectrum. When we developed service rules for the 821-824/866-869
MHz spectrum in

1987, the Commission decided matters such as: (1) the spacing for the
channels (i.e., we chose

12.5 kHz spacing); (2) the total number of channels to be assigned
(i.e., we provided 230

channels for general assignment and 5 channels for mutual aid); and (3)
how the channels would

be used (i.e., we permitted voice and data communications). We left it
to the individual regions

to decide which applicants would obtain authorizations, where their base
stations would be

located, and under what technical parameters their stations would
operate (e.g., power and

antenna height).

126\. We now consider whether the Commission, in providing for the use
of the 746-806

MHz spectrum, should follow the approach we took in 1987 regarding the
development of

service rules, or whether we should alter this approach in some
respects. Specifically, we must

determine, in the context of the 746-806 MHz spectrum, what technical
and operational issues

will be decided at the national level (i.e., by the Commission) and what
issues can and should be

decided at the local level (e.g., by the regions). We examine this broad
question in the context of

the following discussion dealing with the provision and use of the
general public safety channels.

a\. Types of Communication

127\. In this Section, we address the issue of which types of
communications should be

made available to public safety users operating in the 746-806 MHz band.
While we recognize

that different regions of the Nation will have particular needs for
different types of public safety

communications, we believe that it is appropriate for the Commission to
decide, at the national

level, what types of communications e.g., voice, data, image/hsd, or
video should be made

available for assignment by the regions to public safety entities.
Whether and how that spectrum

is ultimately assigned by the regions is an issue that we will more
fully explore in the context of

discussions below regarding Channel Spacings and Channel Requirements.

128\. When we allocated spectrum for public safety in 1987, we
acknowledged a need for

both voice and data communications. The comments in response to the
Public Safety Notice,

however, suggest a vital need on the part of the public safety community
for more advanced

forms of public safety communications, and also maintain that this need
extends beyond the

context of interoperability. For example, the PSWAC Final Report
describes numerous examples

of new applications based on newly-developed technologies to serve the
public safety

community. The PSWAC Steering Committee uses as examples broadband data
systems to

provide access to databases for the police officer on patrol, the use of
video systems for

surveillance purposes, and robotics control of toxic or hazardous
environments.

129\. Even if these new applications had been identified in 1987, there
may not have been

sufficient spectrum to accommodate them within the 6 megahertz of
spectrum allocated at that

time (the 821-824 MHz band, paired with the 866-869 MHz band). In the
746-806 MHz band,

we anticipate having a much larger amount of spectrum available for
public safety. Therefore,

we believe that we should consider whether this spectrum should be used
simply for basic voice

and data communication, or whether there is a need to dedicate
particular amounts of spectrum

for image/hsd, slow motion video, and full motion video communications.

130\. Therefore, we seek comment regarding what types of public safety
communications

should be reserved for the new band:

þ Voice channels only (with data capability on such channels).

þ Voice channels and data channels only.

þ Voice, data, image/hsd, slow motion video, and full motion video
channels.

þ Channels that would accommodate some other combination of uses.

131\. Commenters advocating a channel allocation for full motion video,
in particular,

should indicate their reasoning for providing a separate spectrum
allocation for such use, and

whether an option exists of providing for full motion video through
alternative means (e.g.,

commercial video services; spectrum made available through a Federal,
State, and local

network).

b\. Channel Spacing

132\. As indicated above, when we developed rules for the assignment of
the 821-

824/866-869 MHz channels, we decided that the channels would be spaced
12.5 kHz apart. This

decision was made based on the recommendation of NPSPAC and the comments
received in the

NPSPAC Proceeding. A matter to be addressed in this proceeding is
whether the Commission

should decide on appropriate spacings for the channels designated in the
746-806 MHz band, or

whether we should employ a different approach to channelizing the band.
One such approach

might be to allow the regions to have a role in determining the spacings
for channel assignments.

133\. Since we adopted our procedures for the licensing of the
821-824/866-869 MHz

bands in 1987, manufacturers have developed equipment using transmission
technologies that

were not readily available at that time, such as Time Division Multiple
Access (TDMA) and

Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA). In recent years, the Commission
has chosen, in

adopting rules for other wireless services, to assign large blocks of
spectrum, and allow

individual licensees to decide how to channelize their spectrum in order
to best accommodate

these technologies. While we are not proposing the assignment of large
blocks of spectrum to

individual public safety licensees, our tentative conclusion to use the
regional planning process

anticipates making available to each region a rather sizable amount of
spectrum for assignment to

users in the respective regions.

134\. One approach to the matter of determining channel spacing for the
spectrum (herein

Option 1) might be to give each region complete latitude to decide the
size of channels to be

licensed in the region so as to accommodate the different types of
communications and different

types of technologies desired by licensees in the region. For example, a
particular region could

decide that the voice channels it assigns to its licensees should
operate on 12.5 kHz channels or

25 kHz channels, to take advantage of a particular technology that
requires the use of one of

these channel spacings. A possible disadvantage to channelizing the
spectrum in this way could

be that individual licensees who wish to employ equipment that operates
on a particular channel

size may not be able to do so if the licensee\'s region decides that
channels of that particular size

will not be assigned in the region.

135\. An approach to determining channel spacing that addresses this
concern (herein

Option 2) would be for the Commission to specify an assortment of
channels of different sizes to

accommodate various types of communications and technologies, and to
require that the regions

make these various channel sizes available for assignment. For example,
we could designate

both 125 kHz channels and 250 kHz channels for image/hsd communications
in an effort to

accommodate different existing and future image or high speed data
technologies. In this way,

individual licensees would have at their disposal the particular channel
size needed to

accommodate their desired system.

136\. We note that under both Option 1 and Option 2, it is likely that
the same channel

spacings would not be used by all regions and all licensees throughout
the Nation. As a result,

manufacturers developing equipment using a particular channel spacing
would not have the

assurance of a nationwide market for that equipment. We therefore seek
comment as to the

possible impact of these options on the development and production of
equipment, and whether

any such impact would have negative consequences for licensees. A third
approach to

determining channel spacing and one that addresses this possible concern
(herein Option 3)

would be for the Commission to decide, as it did in 1987, on a single,
specific channel spacing

for each type of communication and require that all regions assign
licenses using such channels.

We therefore seek comment on the best approach for determining spacings
for the channels in the

746-806 MHz band.

137\. If we decide that the Commission will have a role in determining
the spacing of

channels in the band, we seek input from commenters regarding what those
channel spacings

should be. At the outset, we believe that the considerations identified
in Section II.B.1.d.,

supra, with regard to channel spacings for interoperability channels
apply to the channel

spacings for the regularly assigned public safety channels in the
746-806 MHz band. We seek

comment regarding whether different factors should be considered when
determining channel

spacings for non-interoperability channels and the potential impact of
specifying different

channel spacings for these channels. Factors we have already identified
include:

þ That ensuring voice quality and clarity is an important consideration
in public safety

communications.

þ That wider data channels will enable greater data throughput for
mobile/portable data and

image/hsd transmissions than will narrower channels.

þ That slow motion and full motion video transmissions will ostensibly
require 384 kb/sec

and 1.5 Mb/sec data rates, respectively.

138\. We seek specific comments on what channel spacings should be used
for voice,

data, image/hsd, slow motion video, and full motion video channels. We
request that

commenters discuss their rationale in suggesting an appropriate channel
spacing for each use.

139\. We also note that public safety spectrum is not subject to the
market forces which

promote spectral efficiency in the commercial sector. We therefore seek
comment regarding

Commission policies and regulations that would result in the most
efficient use of spectrum for

public safety communications, and would optimize the use of new,
increasingly efficient

technologies.

c\. Channel Requirements

140\. In Section II.C.3.a., supra, we seek comment on which types of
general service

communications should be provided for public safety users, and in
Section II.C.3.b., supra, we

propose various methods for deciding on the appropriate channel spacings
for channels

associated with these types of communications. We now explore the issue
of how many of each

type of channel e.g., voice, data, image/hsd, or video should be
designated for assignment.

141\. One approach to this issue (herein Approach 1) would be to give
the regions the

flexibility to decide how many of each type of channel should be made
available for assignment

in the respective regions. If we decide that the regions will determine
the channel spacings for

the channels to be assigned in each region, then the regions, under
Approach 1, would

essentially be given complete authority to develop their own \`\`band
plans\'\' for the assignment of

the 746-806 MHz general use public safety spectrum. The only requirement
that we would

propose to place on regions in developing their band plans would be that
they provide what we

would consider to be a reasonable amount of spectrum for each of the
types of communication

that we decide should be made available for public safety use. This will
ensure that no type of

communication will be precluded in any region and individual licensees
in each region will have

a reasonable opportunity to obtain licenses to provide such
communications.

142\. For example, if we decide, based on the comments received in this
proceeding,

that we should provide for some quantity of image/hsd spectrum for
public safety users, then we

would expect each region to provide a reasonable amount of such spectrum
for its licensees from

among the available spectrum. The advantage to affording regions this
extensive flexibility in

assigning the spectrum is that they could develop a band plan that is
best suited to the needs of

their communities. In this way, a region that might have a particular
need for voice

communications could minimize the assignment of video channels and use
that spectrum for

voice channels; while a region that has less of a requirement for voice
communications but needs

spectrum for video transmissions could create several full motion video
or slow motion video

channels from the available spectrum.

143\. If we decide in Section II.C.3.b., supra, that we (and not the
regions) should

determine the appropriate channel spacings for all of the types of
communications (either under

Option 3, where we would designate the specific channel spacing for each
type of

communication, or Option 2, where we would designate an assortment of
channel spacings for

each type of communication), we propose to require each region to
designate some reasonable

number of channels for each type of communication using all designated
channel spacings. This

would, once again, ensure that even if the majority of licensees in a
particular region wish to

operate a particular type of communication or employ a particular
technology, there would be

sufficient spectrum available for those individual licensees in the
region who wish to operate a

different type of communication or employ a different technology.

144\. Under Approach 1, the regions would make the determination as to
how many of

each type of communications channel should be designated for assignment
in the respective

regions. In developing their band plans, regions would have the
flexibility to locate particular

channels anywhere within the available spectrum (except that, if
adopted, regions would be

constrained by our proposals to require all channels for base-to-mobile
communications to be

placed in television Channels 63 and 64 and all channels for
mobile-to-base communications to

be placed in television Channels 68 and 69, and to require that when
providing for paired

base/mobile communications, base frequencies in Channel 63 must be
paired with mobile

frequencies in Channel 68 and base frequencies in Channel 64 must be
paired with mobile

frequencies in Channel 69).

145\. We tentatively conclude that such flexibility will not be
problematic from a

technical standpoint. That is, it is our tentative view that
manufacturers will be able to produce

equipment that will be capable of operating anywhere within the required
spectrum bands, and

that it will not be necessary for all regions to locate particular
channels in the same location in

the spectrum. We also believe that if we adopt our proposal to require
base frequencies in

Channels 63 and 64 to be paired with mobile frequencies in Channels 68
and 69, respectively,

then regions providing for such paired base/mobile communications will
have adequate

separation between base transmit and mobile transmit frequencies.
However, to ensure that

equipment manufactured in accordance with a region\'s band plan will be
available to the region\'s

licensees, we tentatively conclude that we should require regions
developing their own band

plans to include in their regional plans affidavits from any interested
equipment manufacturers

attesting to the fact that equipment can be designed and produced in
accordance with the band

plan. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.

146\. A second, more conventional approach (herein Approach 2) for
determining how

the general spectrum should be designated for assignment would be for
the Commission to adopt

a common band plan that would be used uniformly by all regions. This
band plan would: (1)

provide for all of the various types of communication that we decide are
appropriate and

necessary for public safety; (2) employ the channel spacings that we
believe are best for the

operation of each of these types of communication; and (3) provide the
number of channels for

each type of communication that we believe should be designated for
licensing in each region.

This approach would not give regions any flexibility in deciding how
many of each type of

channel will be available for assignment. We seek comment on this
approach.

147\. To retain the basic thrust of Approach 2, but still afford regions
some degree of

flexibility to adjust the Commission-designed band plan to meet their
particular needs, we seek

comment on a third approach (herein Approach 3), which would allow each
of the regions to

\`\`aggregate\'\' and \`\`disaggregate\'\' the various channels in the
Commission band plan to formulate

a band plan that contains the type and number of channels it requires.
For example, if the

Commission band plan contains a single 500 kilohertz video channel,
regions would have the

flexibility to divide that channel into 40 12.5 kilohertz voice
channels; or if our band plan

provides for five contiguous 25 kilohertz voice channels, regions would
have the flexibility to

combine those channels into a single 125 kilohertz image/hsd channel. In
affording the regions

this flexibility, however, we would continue to require that they
designate a reasonable amount

of spectrum for each of the required types of communication. We seek
comment on these

different approaches to determining how many channels will be made
available for assignment to

public safety licensees.

148\. Whether it is decided that we or the regions determine the number
and configuration

of voice, data, image/hsd, and video channels to be assigned, we believe
that certain factors must

be taken into consideration. For instance, the actual spectrum we
designate as the 24 megahertz

of 746-806 MHz spectrum for public safety use will be an important
factor in determining how

the spectrum will be made available for the various different types of
public safety

communications. Also, as discussed in a previous section, there may be a
particular need

only for certain \`\`one-way\'\' forms of public safety communications.
And if this is the case, then

paired channels could result in various amounts of base-transmit or
mobile-transmit spectrum

that may be assigned, but not effectively utilized. For example, if
there is a need for a mobile-to-

base channel for full motion video communication, but no corresponding
need for a base-to-

mobile video channel, and we assign the 24 megahertz in pairs with the
lower pairs used for

base-mobile communication and the higher pairs for mobile-base
communications then the

higher video channels would be actively used, but the corresponding
portions of the lower

spectrum would lie fallow.

149\. On the other hand, if there is a need for a particular amount of
spectrum for one-

way, base-to-mobile communications of one type (e.g., image/hsd
communications), and there is

a need for an approximately equal amount of spectrum for one-way,
mobile-to-base

communications of a different type (e.g., full motion video), the public
safety spectrum could be

used efficiently by assigning blocks of base-transmit-only and
mobile-transmit-only spectrum for

such types of uses. Thus, the asymmetry of one use might be compensated
for by the asymmetry

of a different use.

150\. If it is decided that regions will have the flexibility to
identify and locate channels

for assignment, they will have to take these factors into consideration
in devising their band

plans. If it is decided that we will devise the band plan to be used by
all regions, we seek

comment regarding the number of channels that should be designated for
each of the following

proposed uses:

þ Voice transmissions (mobile-only, or base and mobile channel pairs).

þ Data transmissions (base-only, or base and mobile channel pairs).

þ Image/hsd transmissions (base-only, or base and mobile channel pairs).

þ Slow motion video transmissions (mobile-only, or base and mobile
channel pairs).

þ Full motion video transmissions (mobile-only, or base and mobile
channel pairs).

Recommendations made by commenters should: (1) take into account their
recommendations for

the amount of spectrum to be dedicated for interoperability
communications (i.e., if commenters

suggest 4 megahertz of spectrum for interoperability, they should
suggest no more than 20

megahertz for general public safety spectrum); and (2) reflect their
view of our proposal to

dedicate no more than 12 megahertz for base-to-mobile communications and
no more than 12

megahertz for mobile-to-base communications (i.e., recommendations made
by commenters for

the number of channels to be dedicated for the various types of public
safety transmissions

should reflect the particular base-to-mobile/mobile-to-base channel
distribution that they favor).

151\. Another factor that we must consider in deciding on appropriate
channelization

plans for the four different types of public safety communications is
whether there is sufficient

demand for each to warrant the exclusive assignment of channels for this
purpose. Because of

the unquestioned need for voice and data communication by public safety
users, and given the

rather large amount of public safety spectrum that will be available in
the 746-806 MHz band,

we will almost certainly want to dedicate sufficient voice and data
channels to enable all such

channels to be assigned on an exclusive basis. We also note that
exclusivity readily permits use

of trunking, and encourages investment in spectrum-efficient technology
and in efficient use

generally.

152\. There may not be sufficient ongoing demand, however, for
wider-band data

channels for imaging or video to justify exclusive assignments of this
amount of spectrum to a

single user within a particular area. Spectrum for video transmissions,
in particular, might be

easily shared among multiple licensees in a given area, so long as there
is some type of sharing

mechanism in place for use of such channels. Another possible means of
limiting the portion of

the spectrum that may have to be designated for video communication
would be for public safety

licensees to obtain access to video spectrum from commercial providers.
In this context, we

invite comment as to whether voice, data, image/hsd, or video channels
could or should be

shared among public safety entities within a given area, or whether all
assignments should be

made on an exclusive basis.

d\. Transmission Technology

153\. In Section II.B.1.c., supra, we discuss the issue of whether
digital or analog FM

modulation should be used on public safety interoperability spectrum in
the 746-806 MHz band.

We emphasize the important need for public safety users to communicate
with one another on

the interoperability channels, and discuss how such communication might
be facilitated through

the use of common standards on those channels.

154\. A related issue is whether there is a need to mandate a particular
transmission

technology on the regularly assigned public safety channels. If we
allocate some number of

channels that would be used exclusively for interoperability
communications, then licensees

would presumably use their regularly assigned channels solely for
internal communications. We

believe it would be preferable to give public safety licensees the
ability to choose among

available analog or digital technologies on their own authorized
channels. In this way, public

safety licensees will be able to select the equipment and technology
that provide the features they

desire in the same way current commercial licensees select the type of
technology that meets

their needs.

155\. While we are not inclined to require any particular transmission
technology, e.g.,

analog or digital, to be mandated for voice, data, image/hsd, or video
transmissions in the

portion of the public safety spectrum in the 746-806 MHz band not used
for interoperability, we

seek comment on this approach. Also, we solicit views as to whether our
proposal to require

compliance with a trunking standard for the interoperable channels may
impede the availability

of alternative technologies for the remaining public safety spectrum.
For example, we invite

comment on the technical feasibility and cost impact of designing
equipment that can operate

using multiple transmission technologies.

e\. Equipment Standards

156\. In Section II.B.1.f., supra, we indicate the need to provide for
effective, high

quality voice and data communications on the interoperability channels,
and discuss the issue of

whether standards should therefore be adopted for receivers operating on
the interoperability

channels. We tentatively conclude that there is no correlative need to
mandate receiver standards

on the non-interoperability public safety channels. Equipment operating
on those channels will

be used by licensees for their internal communications. The quality of
the receivers will only

affect the licensee and not interoperability with other public safety
organizations.

157\. It is our tentative view that licensees are in the best position
to determine whether

the receiver performance satisfies their needs. Further, receiver
standards could unnecessarily

increase costs to small public safety facilities that may not have the
same requirements as

facilities in other locations. In this regard, we invite comment as to
whether standards governing

the performance of receivers on the interoperability channels would
become de facto standards

for all the channels that the radio receives, and as to whether this
factor should affect our

decisions regarding receiver standards for interoperability channels and
for general public safety

channels. We would expect the same receiver to be used for
communications on both the

interoperable and non-interoperable channels. We seek comment on this
issue. Those

commenters recommending mandatory standards should indicate the
technical parameters to be

standardized.

158\. We also have sought comment on various approaches for providing
for the

operation of interoperability channels in radio equipment. One such
option is to require all

public safety mobile and portable radios operating in the 746-806 MHz
band to be capable of

operating on all voice and data interoperability channels in the band.
We now seek comment on

the related issue of whether, if technically feasible, we should require
all public safety mobile

and portable radios operating in the 746-806 MHz band to be capable of
operating on all public

safety and commercial channels in the band. The use of equipment capable
of operating on the

entire 746-806 MHz band could enable public safety users to employ
commercial spectrum when

and where such spectrum is available from commercial providers.

D. Technical Parameters for All Public Safety

Channels and Operations in 746-806 MHz Band

159\. In this Section, we discuss various technical parameters that are
associated with the

operation and use of both the interoperable and general public safety
channels. These parameters

must be quantified in order to ensure the effective, efficient, and
interference-free operation of

these channels.

1\. Bandwidth

160\. As discussed in Sections II.B.1.d., supra, and II.C.3.b., supra,
there are various

different channel spacings that could be authorized for the public
safety channels designated for

voice, data, image/hsd, and video communications. Our rules specify the
maximum authorized

bandwidths for channels with different channel spacings. For example,
the maximum authorized

bandwidth for the 25 kilohertz channels in the 806-821 MHz band is 20
kilohertz, the maxi-

mum authorized bandwidth for the 12.5 kilohertz channels in the 821-824
MHz public safety

band is also 20 kilohertz, and the maximum authorized bandwidth for the
12.5 kilohertz channels

in the 896-901 MHz band is 13.6 kilohertz.

161\. We therefore seek comment as to the maximum authorized bandwidths
which

should be specified for different types of general and interoperability
communications. For

example, if voice or data channels are spaced 12.5 kilohertz apart,
should the maximum

authorized bandwidth be 13.6 kilohertz (as currently provided for 12.5
kilohertz channels in the

896-901 MHz band), or 11.25 kilohertz (as currently provided for 12.5
kilohertz channels in the

150-174 MHz and 421-512 MHz bands); and if voice or data channels are
spaced 25 kilohertz

apart, should the maximum authorized bandwidth be 20 kilohertz (as
currently provided for 25

kilohertz channels in the 806-821 MHz band)? In addition we invite
comment regarding the

maximum authorized bandwidth that should be specified for data,
image/hsd, or video channels

of various channel spacings e.g., 50 kilohertz data channels, and 125
kilohertz image/hsd or

video channels.

162\. We note also that we are seeking comment on an approach for
determining channel

spacings that would allow individual regions to decide the spacings for
the general use channels

assigned in their region. If we decide to permit regions to determine
the spacings of their

channels, we propose to require the regions to identify the maximum
authorized bandwidths that

would be associated with those channels. These bandwidths would be
identified in the regional

plan, and therefore subject to Commission approval. We also propose that
the regions, in

providing these bandwidths, include affidavits from any interested
equipment manufacturers,

attesting to the appropriateness of the bandwidths. We seek comment on
these proposals.

2\. Emission Mask; Frequency Stability; Power and Antenna Height

163\. Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules specifies the required
frequency stability, emis-

sion mask, and authorized power and antenna height for channels used in
the various private land

mobile bands. As with the authorization of maximum bandwidth, we seek
comment regarding

these parameters for the channels used for the four types of general and
interoperability public

safety communications.

164\. We seek comment regarding the particular emission masks that
should be specified

for voice or data channels that may be spaced 12.5 kilohertz and 25
kilohertz apart e.g., for

channels spaced 12.5 kilohertz apart, whether the masks used for the
150-174 MHz and 421-512

MHz band, the 821-824 MHz band, or the 896-901 MHz band should be
specified; and for

channels spaced 25 kilohertz apart, whether the emission mask used for
the 150-174 MHz and

421-512 MHz band, or the 806-821 MHz band should be specified. We also
seek comment

regarding whether the frequency stability parameters specified for
transmissions in the 806-821

MHz band should be used for transmissions on the public safety channels
in the 746-806 MHz

band, or if not, whether some other frequency stability parameters
should be specified.

165\. In addition, we seek comment regarding whether the power and
antenna height

limitations currently specified for operation in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz
bands should be

used for operations on the public safety channels in the 746-806 MHz
band, or if not, whether

some other power and antenna height limitations should be specified.
Finally, as we have

discussed, we may permit regions to determine the spacings of their
general use channels. If

we do so, we propose to require the regions to identify the emission
masks and frequency

stabilities that would be associated with those channels. These
parameters would be identified in

the regional plan, and therefore subject to Commission approval. We also
propose that the

regions, in providing these parameters, include affidavits from any
interested equipment

manufacturers, attesting to the appropriateness of the parameters. We
seek comment on these

proposals.

3\. Base Station Protection

166\. Section 90.621(b) of the Commission\'s Rules specifies the
co-channel protection to

be provided to base stations operating in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands.
However, when

we adopted the NPSPAC Report and Order, we decided that individual
regional planning

committees should determine base station assignments so as to achieve
maximum frequency re-

use. We therefore seek comment on whether the Commission should specify
the protection

criteria that would apply to all exclusively assigned base stations
operating on the public safety

channels in the 746-806 MHz band, or whether we should allow base
stations to be assigned in

accordance with protection criteria established in the regional plans.
Commenters supporting

the establishment of uniform protection criteria should indicate whether
they believe that the

existing protection criteria for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands are
appropriate, or whether

some other standards should be applied.

E. Construction Requirements

167\. Under Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules, licensees that are not
providing

Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) are generally required to
construct their authorized

stations and place them in operation within eight months of license
grant. There are, however,

exceptions to this rule. For example, licensees who are authorized
trunked systems in the 800

MHz and 900 MHz bands have 12 months to place their stations in
operation; all local

government entities may, on a case-by-case basis, be granted longer than
eight months to

complete the construction of their systems; and non-SMR licensees in the
800 MHz and 900

MHz bands may be permitted, under certain conditions, up to five years
to place their systems in

operation.

168\. We seek comment on the appropriate construction deadline for
licensees operating

on the public safety spectrum in the 746-806 MHz band, including comment
on factors that we

should consider in establishing construction deadlines that will best
promote the timely

deployment of public safety facilities. For example, comment is
requested on whether licensees

operating conventional or trunked systems should be required to
construct their stations within

eight months or 12 months, respectively, and whether all public safety
licensees operating in the

band should be afforded the extended implementation provisions currently
provided licensees

operating in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands.

169\. Alternatively, given that many public safety agencies will be able
to qualify for

extended implementation periods due to the fact that they follow a
multi-year cycle for the

planning, approval, funding, and purchasing of their systems, commenters
should address

whether we should uniformly provide for construction deadlines of two or
three years for all

public safety entities operating in the 746-806 MHz band, with up to
five years authorized for

licensees demonstrating a need for such additional time. Commenters
should address not only

the unique needs of public safety agencies, but also consider the
appropriate construction period

to ensure that licensees are actually using their authorized spectrum.

F. Use of Television Channels 63, 64, 68, and 69 for Public Safety

170\. In the Allocation Notice we proposed the use of television
Channels 63, 64, 68, and

69 for public safety. In that proceeding we indicated that public safety
systems typically require

some minimum separation between transmit and receive frequencies, and
that this proposed

allocation of television channels would provide adequate separation. If
we decide in that

proceeding to dedicate these particular television channels to public
safety, then, to facilitate

two-way, base/mobile communications, we propose that: (1) the
frequencies in Channels 63 and

64 (764-776 MHz) be used for all base-to-mobile transmissions; (2) the
frequencies in Channels

68 and 69 (794-806 MHz) be used for all mobile-to-base transmissions;
and (3) when

providing for paired base-to-mobile and mobile-to-base communications,
any base frequencies in

Channel 63 should be paired with mobile frequencies in Channel 68 and
any base frequencies in

Channel 64 should be paired with mobile frequencies in Channel 69.

171\. We favor this approach for two reasons. First, it will provide for
approximately 30

megahertz of separation between base and mobile frequencies. Second,
because Channels 68

and 69 are directly below the 806-824 MHz band, which contains the
transmit frequencies for

mobile and portable radios operating in the 806-824/851-869 MHz bands,
we believe that, from a

design standpoint, it may facilitate the rapid development of mobile and
portable 746-806 MHz

radios, at a reasonable cost, to be able to employ transmit frequencies
from the adjacent 794-806

MHz band. In advancing this proposal we note that the first harmonic of
transmissions on

Channels 68 and 69 will fall in the frequency band currently used by the
Global Orbital

Navigation Satellite System (glonass). Public safety mobile and portable
radios that would

operate on Channel 68 and Channel 69 frequencies could therefore cause
interference to devices

attempting to receive signals from the glonass satellites. We seek
comment on our proposals

and, in particular, we ask commenters who may utilize signals from the
glonass satellites to

discuss any concerns they may have about the possible use of Channels 68
and 69 for mobile-to-

base public safety communications.

III\. PRIORITY ACCESS SERVICE

A. Introduction

172\. Under Section 1 of the Communications Act, the Commission has a
statutory

mandate \`\`to make available a rapid, efficient Nation-wide . . .
communications service for the

purpose of the national defense, \[and\] for the purpose of promoting
safety of life and property . . .

. \'\' In view of the importance of this mandate, we believe that we
need to determine the most

efficient means of providing access to communications infrastructures in
order to deal with

emergency and disaster situations. We further believe that this course
should encourage the

telecommunications industry, in a continued, cooperative effort with
other Federal Government

agencies and public safety entities, and take advantage of rapidly
developing technology in order

to solve problems of access in such situations.

173\. As we consider the need for such cooperative efforts, we note that
certain Federal

Government entities are stressing that there is a growing need to use
commercial services rather

than dedicated systems, due to the potential for lower costs of
commercial services. These

entities also note that 75 percent of these entities\' needs can be met
by commercial systems. In

light of these considerations and in order to explore all possible means
of promoting efficient and

effective public safety communications, we have decided to begin, with
the adoption of this

Notice, a formal examination of the concept of priority access service
on commercial systems for

personnel responding to emergency and disaster situations.

B. Background

174\. The Department of Defense, as executive agent of the National
Communications

System (NCS), filed on October 19, 1995, a Petition for Rulemaking
(Petition) on behalf of

NCS, requesting the Commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to
implement Cellular

Priority Access Service (CPAS). According to NCS, the term \`\`priority
access\'\' means that in

emergencies, when cellular spectrum is congested, authorized priority
users would gain access to

the next available cellular channel before subscribers not engaged in
national security and

emergency preparedness (NSEP) functions.

175\. Following the Commission\'s issuance of the Public Safety Notice,
the Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau (Wireless Bureau) released a Public Notice
seeking comment on the

NCS Petition and asking interested parties to address the extent to
which the issues raised in the

NCS Petition are related to the public safety rulemaking proceeding. The
Commission

received 20 comments and five reply comments in response to the CPAS
Public Notice.

Subsequent to the receipt of those comments, the Defense Information
Systems Agency (DISA)

filed a letter on behalf of NCS, submitting additional information
concerning the CPAS

proposal.

1\. NCS Petition for Rulemaking

176\. NCS contends that cellular usage by the general public in
emergency situations

leads to congestion in the cellular network, severely curtailing usage
by those with NSEP

responsibilities. NCS asserts that priority access to cellular spectrum
is essential in conducting

response and recovery efforts of NSEP personnel at Federal, State, and
local levels. The NCS

petition, however, does not ask the Commission to make CPAS mandatory.
Instead, NCS

proposes that CPAS would be a voluntary offering of cellular carriers
who would then be subject

to mandatory CPAS rules should they elect to provide the service. Under
the NCS proposal,

cellular carriers would be permitted to charge for the service,
determine the amount of spectrum

available to CPAS, and discontinue the CPAS service offering at any
time.

177\. NCS identifies NSEP personnel at Federal, State, and local levels
as potential users

of CPAS, and also refers to the role of the Executive Office of the
President (EOP) and other

Federal agencies, along with representatives from State governments and
industry, in developing

and supporting the CPAS proposal. The Federal interests, as addressed by
NCS, stem from its

mandate to assist the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in
its responsibility for

directing the exercise of the war powers of the President. NCS further
asserts that, after estab-

lishment of a Federal Wireless Users Forum (FWUF), consisting of
representatives from

Government who seek to work with industry in addressing the requirements
of Federal wireless

users, and establishment of a Federal Wireless Policy Committee, the
need for priority access to

limited cellular spectrum in times of heavy demand was quickly
identified as a critical require-

ment of NSEP telecommunications.

178\. NCS states that if the Director of OSTP (which is responsible for
establishing

priority access for Federal users) and the Commission were to establish
incompatible priority

systems, NSEP communications service users would have to change systems
under conditions

when compatibility is most important. Further, in support of its CPAS
proposal, NCS

contends that it is important to have a priority access system that is
compatible with the

Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) rules with regard to
provisioning and restoration

priority of services and network elements by common carriers.

179\. NCS also submits that the proposed CPAS rules would be consistent
with the

priority access rules that EOP will adopt concurrently for situations in
which the President

invokes war emergency powers pursuant to Section 706 of the
Communications Act. For

implementation of CPAS, NCS submits that Priority Access Channel
Assignment (PACA)

technology, a cellular features description,should be used. Under the
PACA queuing

scheme, as proposed by NCS, there would be five levels of priority. CPAS
calls would not

preempt calls in progress.

180\. NCS proposes that State and local emergency providers would have
the same

priority level as Federal defense and law enforcement agencies, because
State and local

emergency response personnel will likely be first on the scene of
emergencies. With regard to

State interests, NCS expresses concern over State initiatives to
establish their own CPAS rules.

NCS urges a uniform, nationwide cellular priority access scheme for
effective implementation of

CPAS. The rules advocated by NCS would (1) authorize cellular service
providers to provide

priority access; (2) ensure that such providers, when doing so, are not
in violation of

Communications Act provisions barring unreasonable discrimination or
undue preference; and

\(3\) override any existing contractual provisions inconsistent with the
rules adopted.

2\. PSWAC Final Report

181\. The PSWAC Final Report also addresses the role of commercial
services in

supporting public safety communications. Among its recommendations,
PSWAC states that

\`\`\[t\]he use of commercial services and private contracts should be
facilitated, provided the

essential requirements for coverage, priority access and system
restoration, security, and

reliability are met.\'\' The PSWAC Steering Committee further finds
that, for commercial

systems to be available as a reasonable alternative to spectrum
dedicated for public safety

communications, one of the requirements is priority access to wireless
communications channels

during peak periods of traffic congestion in emergency and disaster
circumstances. The

PSWAC ISC also identifies the lack of priority access as a limitation of
current commercial

systems and as presenting an obstacle to interoperability. PSWAC asserts
that among the

operational requirements of public safety users necessary for these
users to meet their \`\`mission

critical\'\' obligations, are \`\`dedicated capacity and/or priority
access available at all times (and in

sufficient amounts) to handle unexpected emergencies . . . .\'\'

182\. The PSWAC ISC states that, although commercial systems could be
used to achieve

interoperability, they currently do not meet the requirements addressed
in the PSWAC Final

Report. Although the PSWAC ISC recommends that the Commission should
adopt rules to

make commercial systems more responsive to public safety needs,
including a requirement to

offer a priority access option, it contends that there are many
shortcomings to the NCS CPAS

proposal. For example, the PSWAC ISC finds that most users agree that
the recommendations

made by NCS regarding CPAS do not go far enough to satisfy public safety
communications

needs. Moreover, in identifying lack of priority access as one of the
current disadvantages of

commercial services, the PSWAC ISC concludes that those shortcomings
flow from market

forces and are not readily susceptible to regulatory cures.

183\. Further, the PSWAC ISC asserts that commercial priority access
compliance loses

significance if the commercial network fails to meet reliability
criteria. Lack of redundancy can

produce weak links even if traffic is carried on a \`\`first-in,
first-out\'\' basis. Concerning other

constraints of priority access, the PSWAC ISC finds that with cellular
systems based on

Advanced Mobile Phone Service (AMPS), cellular units can be programmed
through the handset

of the phone. As a result, subscribers not authorized for priority
access can program their

handsets to the higher priority values. A feature code approach to
provide access to a system of

priority levels (such as that in the CPAS arrangements proposed by NCS)
would be similarly

vulnerable to compromise, and thus there is limited assurance that only
authorized agencies

would obtain priority access.

184\. Finally, the PSWAC ISC recognizes that public safety organizations
will need to

establish procedures for the use of commercial systems that are being
designed to provide several

levels of priority access. This situation, the PSWAC ISC submits,
emphasizes a need for a

national focus on operational procedures, standards for systems,
training, and interoperability.

With the foregoing shortcomings, the PSWAC ISC views CPAS as a possible
vehicle to serve

the communications needs of the public safety community, and priority
access as one component

to be considered in the overall network availability to deliver
information.

C. Discussion of NCS Proposed Rules and Related Issues

1\. Priority Access and Public Safety Communications Generally

185\. A number of parties generally support the CPAS proposal advanced
by NCS, and

we believe, based upon the NCS Petition and the record, that this is an
appropriate time to

commence our more formal consideration of priority access issues. We are
cognizant, however,

of the fact that NCS and some commenters have questioned whether our
consideration of

these issues should be undertaken in the context of this broader public
safety communications

rulemaking proceeding.

186\. We conclude that it is advisable to consider the issues raised by
the NCS Petition in

the context of this proceeding and we therefore seek comment on those
issues. In our view,

based in part on the conclusions of the PSWAC Final Report, there may be
a substantial nexus

between considerations of priority access and the needs of the public
safety community. For

example, we may need to consider whether an increased allocation of
spectrum for public safety

communications and the choices made regarding utilization of this
spectrum would have any

impact on the need for, or the components of, a priority access system
for commercial spectrum.

Further, the extent to which interoperability arrangements, established
pursuant to this

rulemaking, are effective in accommodating public safety communications
needs in emergency

situations could also have a bearing on our evaluation of the need for
priority access systems.

187\. Moreover, although there was comment, in response to the CPAS
Public Notice,

that the various issues of the public safety rulemaking would delay
consideration of the NCS

CPAS proposal, we are in this Notice beginning an expeditious process to
consider a range of

issues regarding public safety communications. The need for expedition
regarding disposition of

these public safety issues mitigates any concern that linking our
consideration of these issues

with our assessment of the NCS priority access proposal will delay
resolution of the issues raised

by the NCS Petition.

188\. Based on the NCS Petition and the record thus far established, we
are seeking

further comment regarding whether enabling carriers to offer priority
access on a voluntary basis

may play a productive role in enhancing the communications tools
available to safety and rescue

personnel in emergencies. We specifically ask commenters to address the
NCS contention that,

although the public safety rulemaking might ultimately mitigate the need
for priority access,

there could be no harm in having rules to address the current situation.
We will also examine a

related issue regarding whether, as a general proposition, voluntary
CMRS offerings of priority

access service in emergency or disaster situations should be presumed to
comply with the

requirements of Section 202 of the Communications Act.

189\. We also believe that the record developed thus far regarding the
NCS Petition does

not furnish us with an adequate basis at this time for making more
comprehensive proposals on

issues relating to priority access. In our view, more comment is
required to consider various

issues relating to priority access. These include the following, which
are discussed in the

following sections: the priority levels for priority access; the
spectrum capacity of commercial

carriers and its relationship to the need for priority access; costs
that wireless carriers may face in

developing and offering priority access services; the existence of
technical limitations on

priority access, and related technical issues; and the question of the
classes of carriers to which

priority access should apply. Based on the comments we receive with
respect to these and other

related issues, we will determine how to proceed further in establishing
priority access rules.

2\. Priority Levels

190\. We recognize the significant effort of Federal entities and other
groups in the long-

term planning for priority access. This effort becomes particularly
noteworthy in the context of

the findings of the PSWAC Final Report. The record indicates that PACA,
and related

technology necessary to implement it, is not capable of being applied in
the current

marketplace. Estimates for the resolution of problems concerning the
implementation of

priority access appear indefinite. Consequently, we find that it is
premature to propose in this

Notice specific levels for priority based on the NCS proposal. We seek
more comment in this

section on the issue of priority levels that should be included in
priority access.

191\. We believe that in the context of issues and problems raised in
this Notice, there are

significant questions regarding how a priority access structure can best
be formulated and

applied. In this respect, we seek comment on how we should examine and
resolve this issue.

Interested parties may comment, for example, on whether it is better to
require a formal

prioritization structure or whether a less formal, more flexible
approach should evolve. The latter

approach might consist of various offerings of priority access based on
conforming to a general,

and ubiquitously applied, set of governing principles that would allow
greater flexibility as

priority access develops. In terms of what is the most effective means
to allow and encourage

the marketplace to respond to the kinds of demand for this service
offering, we seek comment

regarding whether the Commission should prescribe rules for priority
levels, rely on industry and

governmental agency groups to establish uniformly applied priority
levels, or leave to carriers the

decision to offer individual or customized priority levels, consistent
with a single set of

principles and criteria, to the subscribers who demand priority access.

192\. We also seek further comment on what priority access structure or
structures would

be most suitable to the commercial wireless environment as it continues
to develop. Commenters

should address what scheme of priority levels would provide the optimal
service to meet the

needs of NSEP users and associated public safety personnel while not
interfering with the needs

of citizens in emergencies. We also seek comment on what role should be
played by commercial

wireless providers, manufacturers of the equipment required, regional
planning committees,

Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) personnel, trade associations,
standard setting bodies

such as the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), and other
potential participants in

going forward in the development of priority access.

3\. Spectrum Capacity of Commercial Carrier Networks

193\. A number of parties contend that one of the key considerations
supporting the need

for priority access arrangements is the current lack of sufficient
capacity in the commercial

wireless network. With a shortage of capacity, the flooding of the
network by a high incidence

of attempted calls in emergency or disaster situations could lead to
increased blocking of a

portion of those calls. Consequently, factors that affect capacity are
also likely to affect the

ability and incentive of commercial wireless service providers to
furnish priority access services,

as well as the need of the public safety community to obtain and utilize
such services.

194\. The amount of spectrum available for dedicated public safety
communications uses

is being substantially increased by the availability of 24 megahertz of
spectrum in the 746-806

MHz band. One question in examining the NCS proposal is whether this
increased spectrum for

public safety communications lessens the need for priority access
arrangements regardless of the

status of capacity on commercial wireless networks. Commenters disagree
over whether such

additional spectrum will obviate the need for CPAS. Thus, we seek
comment regarding the

relationship between the availability of this new public safety spectrum
and the need for priority

access arrangements.

195\. Finally, we seek comment regarding whether other recent
developments in the

utilization of spectrum for public safety communications may diminish
the need for priority

access services. For example, public safety users continue to develop
and upgrade their own

wireless systems. State agencies are upgrading their own 800 MHz band
systems to provide

more capability and interoperability. In addition, some public safety
agencies are pursuing the

development of \`\`shared systems\'\' utilizing wide-area SMR service.
Further, some commercial

wireless providers are currently able to add mobile communications
capacity by transporting

trailers, carrying supplemental communications centers, to disaster
sites to assist public safety

personnel.

4\. Liability under Section 202 of Communications Act

a\. Adequacy of Current Provisions

196\. NCS asserts that in preliminary discussions with service providers
regarding its

proposed CPAS rules, several carriers raised the issue of potential
liability arising from

providing priority access. Section 202(a) of the Communications Act
makes it unlawful for

any common carrier to engage in any unreasonable discrimination or
preference in connection

with the provision of communications services. NCS has expressed its
view that the

Commission has already adequately addressed, in connection with our
adoption of TSP rules in a

previous Order, the issue of liability in circumstances like those posed
by priority access

offerings.

197\. Several commenters disagree with NCS, arguing that the Commission
should

explicitly state that offering CPAS will not result in any liability
under Section 202. These

commenters believe that uncertainty over potential liability would
discourage carriers from

voluntarily providing a CPAS service. GTEM adds that the Commission
should make an

affirmative finding that compliance with any CPAS rules is an absolute
defense to any liability

question arising from provision of a CPAS offering.

198\. In adopting the TSP rules, we declined to include any explicit
provisions limiting

carrier liability. We found that \`\`\[t\]he essential purpose of TSP is
to provide standards that

permit carriers responding to NSEP provisioning and restoration priority
requests to act lawfully

and avoid violation of the proscription of 47 U.S.C. § 202 . . . .\'\'
The standards established in

the TSP rules provided the basis for our determination that the TSP
rules, \`\`without a specific,

additional provision,\'\' offer the liability protection that carriers
sought because any claimant

asserting unreasonable discrimination or preference has a heavy burden
to show that the carrier

had violated Section 202 of the Act.

199\. BellSouth observes that \`\`\[t\]he . . . TSP rules require
priority treatment and, thus,

the Commission found that a claimant asserting a violation of Section
202 must show that a

carrier violated the TSP rules in order to prevail.\'\' On the other
hand, asserts BellSouth, the

proposed CPAS rules are voluntary, and, therefore, to ensure insulation
of carriers who provide

CPAS from liability, the Commission should make clear that the carriers
who elect to implement

CPAS will not incur liability.

b\. Proposed Rules

200\. We tentatively agree with BellSouth that, to the extent the
provision of priority

access service is a voluntary offering made by a carrier and to the
extent we refrain from

establishing detailed rules regarding various levels of priority access,
it would be prudent for the

Commission to provide specifically for limitations on liability under
Section 202. Thus, we

propose that it will be sufficient for a CMRS provider, in responding to
any complaint alleging

an unreasonable discrimination or undue preference under Section 202 of
the Communications

Act, to demonstrate that the service provided by the carrier is
exclusively designed to enable

authorized priority users, in emergency situations when spectrum used by
the carrier is

congested, to gain access to the next available channel on the service
network of the carrier,

before subscribers not engaged in public safety or NSEP functions. Such
a demonstration would

shift the burden of proof to the complainant. We seek comment on this
proposal.

201\. Further, we tentatively conclude that the types of priority access
services that will

qualify for limitation of liability under Section 202 should be limited
to CMRS services

providing priority access to NSEP personnel, including Federal
Government entities, in addition

to State and local governmental entities performing public safety
functions. Thus, we also

tentatively conclude that priority access services provided by
commercial carriers to corporate or

other business or private subscribers on a private contractual basis
would not constitute the type

of priority access service that would qualify for any limitation of
liability under Section 202. We

tentatively conclude that this approach is consistent with the objective
to serve the national

defense and to meet the needs of public safety entities to improve their
ability to respond to

emergencies and disasters. We seek comment on these tentative
conclusions.

202\. We also seek comment regarding types of actions and conduct by
carriers, in

providing priority access service to authorized priority users, that
would qualify for limitation of

liability under Section 202 of the Communications Act, as proposed in
this Notice. For example,

we seek comment regarding whether it should be permissible for carriers
to allocate a fixed

number of channels for priority access. Another example involves whether
carriers, in

providing priority access service, should be permitted to include the
capability to preempt non-

NSEP calls in progress that are excessive in duration.

c\. Exercise of Forbearance Authority

203\. In the previous section we have proposed to establish limitations
of liability under

Section 202 of the Communications Act by providing carriers with the
opportunity to shift the

burden of proof in the case of claims of unreasonable discrimination or
undue preference. We

also seek comment, however, on alternative measures that we could employ
to ensure providers

of priority access that they are excluded from potential liability under
Section 202. Such

measures might include, for example, the exercise of our forbearance
authority under Section 10

of the Communications Act.

204\. At the time NCS filed its Petition, Congress had not yet enacted
the

Telecommunications Act of 1996. The 1996 Act, in adding Section 10 to
the Communications

Act, gives the Commission authority to forbear from applying any
provision of the

Communications Act, including Section 202 and notwithstanding Section
332(c)(1)(A), to a

telecommunications service or class of telecommunications services,
provided that the

Commission makes certain determinations established in the statute.

205\. Section 10(a) of the Communications Act sets forth three
prerequisite

determinations for the Commission to make. The statute requires that,
before forbearing from

applying any section of Title II, we must find that each of the
following conditions applies:

\(1\) Enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary in
order to ensure that

the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in
connection with

that telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are just
and

reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory;

\(2\) Enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary for
the protection of

consumers; and

\(3\) Forbearance from applying such provision or regulation is
consistent with the public

interest.

206\. We seek comment regarding whether it would be appropriate to
forbear from

applying Section 202(a) of the Communications Act to the extent a
carrier offers priority access

service to NSEP personnel or to State or local governmental entities
performing public safety

functions. We also ask for comment on the definition of consumers, what
factors we should

consider, what problems may arise in making those determinations, and
examples of applying

these tests in evaluating whether forbearance is appropriate. For
example, with regard to Section

10(a)(2), do considerations concerning possible conflict between
priority access service and

consumers of 911 service raise the question of whether priority access
service may harm

consumers?

207\. Moreover, Section 10(b) of the Communications Act requires
weighing competitive

effects in determining whether forbearance is consistent with the public
interest under Section

10(a)(3). With regard to the requirement of Section 10(b), we ask what
the potential competitive

effects of commercially provided priority access service would be among
CMRS providers, what

the relevance of those competitive effects is regarding forbearance, and
what the impact of those

competitive effects would be on whether priority access is voluntary or
mandatory. With

respect to this issue, we note that the PSWAC Final Report concluded
that commercially

provided services should be provided on a competitive basis.

5\. Voluntary or Mandatory Provision of Priority Access

208\. The NCS Petition proposes that priority access rules would not be
mandatory.

Service providers could voluntarily elect to provide priority access,
but would then be required to

do so pursuant to the provisions of those rules. According to NCS,
service providers electing

to provide priority access would have to ensure that at all times a
reasonable portion of cellular

spectrum would be made available for public use. Such providers,
however, would have

discretion in implementing priority access, including the amount of
spectrum assigned and

service charges for the offering. The NCS proposal provides for the
option to discontinue, but

the carrier must provide notice that it is discontinuing the service.

209\. Several commenters strongly concur that the provision of priority
access service

should be voluntary. NENA asserts, however, that the NCS Petition does
not discuss why the

adoption of emergency call precedence should be at the discretion of
cellular carriers who hold

radio licenses in the public interest. NENA suggests that if carriers
are concerned that

implementation of PACA would be too costly to pay for itself
commercially, the answer would

be to limit the cellular carrier\'s ability to refuse the requests of
customers especially Federal,

State, and local government agencies who are ready, willing, and able to
pay for the PACA

handset and network costs, either through service rates or by other
funding mechanisms.

210\. We seek comment regarding whether CMRS providers should be
permitted to

provide priority access services on a voluntary basis. As a general
matter, we believe it is sound

public policy to pursue market solutions to communications needs
because, in our view, reliance

on market forces ensures that customer demands are met efficiently and
quickly through the

provision of cost-based services. We ask commenters to address whether,
in this case, it is

reasonable to expect that competitive forces will prompt CMRS providers
to respond to market

demand by developing and offering priority access services that meet the
needs of Federal, State,

and local government agencies.

211\. In addition, whether CPAS is voluntary or mandatory may dictate
the necessity for

cost recovery or funding mechanisms. Under the NCS proposal, the service
user, as the \`\`cost-

causative user\'\' is to be responsible for the charges of providing the
priority access service.

Some commenters submit, however, that with mandatory rules a funding
mechanism would have

to established. NENA observes that if priority access is mandatory,
there may have to be

considerations of prescribed cost recovery, whereas a voluntary scheme
is amenable to each

carrier\'s business judgment as to whether price will cover costs plus a
return on investment. In

this regard we seek further comment concerning the means of funding that
would result in the

most effective implementation of priority access. We also invite comment
on whether a flexible,

non-prescriptive approach to funding, as we concluded we should apply to
the deployment of

wireless E911 services, would be advisable in order to allow carriers
and government officials

the latitude to develop cost recovery solutions that address particular
needs for priority access.

6\. Potential Limitations of Priority Access Service

212\. NCS recognizes current technical constraints in the implementation
of CPAS,

because the standards for CPAS are still in the developmental stage.
Consequently, at the time

NCS filed its Petition, no service provider was in a position to provide
the priority access that

NCS proposed. The record also indicates that, although some progress
regarding standards has

been made, carriers may still not be in a position to offer an effective
form of priority access

based on the expressed needs of potential subscribers.

213\. We seek comment regarding the potential technical limitations we
summarize in

this section. In particular, we ask commenters to address the extent of
these potential limitations,

efforts underway to reduce or overcome the limitations, and the
implications of these potential

problems for the viability and effectiveness of priority access systems.

a\. Technical Standards; Operational Limitations

214\. The NCS Petition suggests that priority access should be
implemented using a

PACA queuing scheme. The record indicates that the standard for the PACA
feature, IS-53 A, is

applicable only to cellular systems that use a TDMA air interface.
BellSouth submits that

CPAS is premature due to this limitation and that the standard is not
capable of being applied to

analog systems. The PACA cellular Features Description has been recently
finalized as an

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard. Even with this
update, however,

current analog phones still will not work with the CPAS scheme, because
they have a five-

second \`\`timeout\'\' feature.

215\. In addition, implementation of the PACA standard requires the use
of a switch-to-

switch protocol, for intersystem interoperability (roaming). Our
understanding is that this

protocol, IS-41 Rev. C, is final for cellular service and available for
broadband PCS, and is

currently implemented throughout a substantial part of the wireless
industry. The protocol can

be used with TDMA-based systems and is available for CDMA systems,
although the digital air

interface for CDMA is not yet completed. The IS-41 Rev. C protocol,
however, is not

compatible with all digital systems. Thus, we seek comment regarding the
progress of the

development of priority access standards for digital cellular systems,
and for wireless systems in

general.

216\. A further potential problem is that, although current protocols
may provide

intersystem capability for newly initiated calls, there appears to be no
capability to provide for

roaming between different systems (i.e., when roaming into another area)
while there is a

pending request in the queue. The pending or \`\`queued\'\' call would
be dropped when moving to

another system and would have to be re-initiated by the user. We seek
comment regarding the

significance of this technical issue. In particular, we seek comment
regarding whether public

safety users intend to use priority access while moving from place to
place, or whether they

contemplate that priority access will more likely be used at relatively
confined emergency

scenes.

217\. Finally, we note that CPAS, as proposed in the NCS Petition, does
not have

dispatch capability, and several public safety commenters contend that
they cannot wait for a dial

tone in emergency situations, and need push-to-talk capability for
immediate communications

access. We seek comment regarding this issue, and regarding whether
priority access will meet

the needs of public safety personnel.

b\. Equipment and Hardware Limitations

218\. The record indicates that the PACA feature can be installed only
in new phones, and

thus is not \`\`backward compatible.\'\' Therefore, existing digital
cellular, PCS, and SMR phones

would not allow deployment of a CPAS service. DISA adds that carriers
are reluctant to discuss

implementation of priority access for analog handsets, due to the
industry trend toward digital

service for competitive and capacity reasons.

219\. Moreover, as DISA submits, the CPAS feature is designed for
implementation only

by NSEP users who will have to acquire a commercial off-the-shelf or
dual-mode handset built

in accordance with the digital interface standards necessary to allow
\`\`queuing\'\' operation.

DISA claims that for the CPAS proposal to work with analog handsets,
cellular providers would

have to implement the CPAS scheme differently than proposed, or
implement two different

CPAS schemes. We seek comment regarding these priority access
implementation issues.

c\. Security Limitations

220\. Consideration of the NCS CPAS proposal for NSEP users also entails
recognition

of the need for secure communications. Lack of security regarding
analog-based cellular

systems has been considered to be a problem, and digital communications
may not be as secure

as once thought, even with encryption codes. In light of the fact that
most operating cellular

systems are still analog, the existing record does not appear to focus
adequately on the issue of

secure communications in priority access offerings. There is comment
that the proposed 3-digit

code, \`\`\*xx,\'\' to acquire access into the queue could be easily
tampered with by computer

\`\`hackers.\'\' We seek comment regarding these security issues.

7\. Other Issues

a\. Types of Commercial Wireless Carriers Offering Priority Access

221\. In view of the proposal for additional dedicated spectrum for
public safety and in-

creased capacity of existing and new CMRS providers, we tentatively
conclude that all CMRS

carriers, including cellular carriers, should be considered as potential
providers of priority access

service. Although the NCS Petition focuses its proposal on priority
access for cellular

services, NCS also indicates that all wireless services could be
considered in its priority access

proposal.

222\. In further support of broadening the applicability of priority
access to CMRS

carriers in addition to cellular providers, commenters to the CPAS
Public Notice take two

approaches. First, priority access rules should apply to all CMRS
carriers, including broadband

PCS and SMR. Second, such rules should apply only to two-way CMRS
carriers, including

providers of new CMRS services, but excluding air-ground services. GTEM
asserts that

although most two-way CMRS traffic today is cellular, broadband PCS and
enhanced SMR are

entering the wireless telecommunications marketplace.

223\. The commenters base their positions for the most part on the issue
of regulatory

parity that all CMRS providers should be regulated consistently. GTEM
notes that

Congress adopted a model of regulatory parity for all CMRS in the
Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993 to ensure that all CMRS providers are subject
to the same rules, to

the extent practicable. Accordingly, SBMS submits that adopting specific
requirements of

priority access for cellular carriers would be contrary to the actions
by the Commission in

implementing the Congressional intent of this legislation, and there
should be regulatory

symmetry pertaining to priority access. Otherwise, SBMS asserts,
requiring cellular carriers

that elect to offer priority access to abide by rules and requirements
prescribed by the

Commission, while allowing other wireless providers the freedom to craft
customized solutions

without regard to those rules and requirements, would place cellular
carriers at a competitive

disadvantage.

224\. We generally agree with the contentions of these commenters and
thus we

tentatively conclude that priority access rules should apply to all CMRS
providers, including

cellular carriers. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. For
example, although priority

access could be provided by PCS and SMR carriers in the near term, it
may not be technically

feasible for carriers with GSM-based systems to offer priority access.
Such matters depend on

the progress of a standards process in developing a technical standard
that would accommodate

those systems under a priority access scheme.

225\. We also seek comment on whether priority access should be
applicable to Mobile

Satellite Systems (MSS) that are treated as CMRS under Part 20 of the
Commission\'s Rules.

DISA notes that many of the PCS providers and MSS providers have
suggested several types of

priority systems. Generally in this regard, we also seek comment on
whether the applicability

of priority access rules to CMRS carriers should parallel the same CMRS
services as are subject

to E911 requirements. We request comment on whether there is a technical
or operational basis

to apply priority access to the same CMRS services as those covered by
E911 requirements.

226\. In addition, NCS proposes in its Petition that priority access
service providers

would not include resellers and agents, because only licensees can
control the software with the

capability to offer CPAS. We request that commenters address the role of
resellers of CMRS

in offering priority access, particularly focussing on the issue of
non-discrimination in resale.

Finally, we seek comment on whether priority access should be applied in
the case of any newly

reallocated spectrum that is made available to CMRS providers who may
desire to provide

priority access as part of their new service offerings.

b\. Administration of Priority Access

227\. In view of the scope of our proposal concerning priority access,
we do not believe it

is necessary at this time to address issues concerning aspects of
administering priority access that

were raised by the commenters. Those issues include the assignment of
priority levels and

safeguarding against potential abuses of priority access systems.
Another issue we are deferring

is who should have or share responsibility in the administration of
priority access, e.g., whether

administrators of the regional planning committees and Public Safety
Answering Points should

have a role. While we have decided to defer consideration of these
issues, we encourage

government entities, public safety agencies, and commercial providers of
wireless service to

continue to work together to resolve them.

IV\. PROTECTION OF TELEVISION SERVICES

A. Background

228\. In this section of the Notice, we discuss technical requirements
for protecting

incumbent broadcast licensees and planned DTV allotments against
interference. In the DTV

Proceeding, we stated that all analog TV and DTV operations in the
746-806 MHz band would

be fully protected during the DTV transition period. In the Allocation
Notice we noted that

new licensees in the band will have to protect both analog TV and DTV
operations from

interference.

229\. We note that land mobile and TV stations have successfully shared
the 470-512

MHz band (TV Channels 14-20) in 11 major metropolitan areas of the
United States. In the

470-512 MHz band, we permit land mobile base stations or mobile relay
stations to be located

within 80 kilometers (km) (50 miles) of the geographic center of these
cities. We also permit

mobile units to operate within 48 km (30 miles) of any base station. We
protect TV stations

from interference by requiring land mobile licensees to observe a range
of specific geographical

separation, antenna height, and power limits. Geographical separations
between land mobile

base stations and protected co-channel TV stations range between 193 km
(120 miles) and 260

km (162 miles), depending on the power and height above average terrain
of the land mobile

base station.

230\. These spacing requirements were adopted in 1970 to assure the
maintenance of a

ratio of at least 50 dB between desired TV signals and undesired
co-channel land mobile signals

(the D/U signal ratio) at a Grade B contour 55 miles in radius from a
protected TV station. We

also adopted separations based on a 40 dB D/U signal ratio, which is
used currently only for

channel 15 frequencies in the New York metropolitan area. The 40 dB
ratio reduced the

separations to a distance range between 145 km (90 miles) and 209 km
(130 miles). For

protection of first adjacent channel TV operations, the spacing
requirements were based on a D/U

signal ratio of 0 dB, and result in geographical separations between 96
km (60 miles) and 108 km

(67 miles). We also provided that any land mobile base station with
associated mobiles must

have a geographic separation of at least 145 km (90 miles) from adjacent
channel TV stations.

231\. In 1985, the Commission proposed to change the D/U signal ratio
from 50 dB to 40

dB for all TV/land mobile sharing. In so doing, we stated that our
earlier 50 dB ratio was too

conservative, and that the 40 dB ratio would result in minimal impact on
co-channel TV service

due to additional interference reductions resulting from receiving
antenna and polarization

discrimination. We also solicited comment on whether we should change
the 0 dB D/U signal

ratio for adjacent channel TV stations, and on whether new land mobile
stations should be

allowed to operate inside the Grade B contour of adjacent channel TV
stations. This proposal

was held in abeyance pending completion of the DTV Proceeding.

B. Discussion

1\. Protection Criteria

232\. We recognize that our previous sharing criteria and analyses were
based upon use of

\`\`traditional\'\' private land mobile technology that typically
employed a high powered base station

to provide wide area coverage. We anticipate that public safety users
will employ such systems

to a significant degree. At this juncture, however, it is not clear what
types of services,

technologies, or system architectures may be used for new types of
public safety services.

Accordingly, we believe it is appropriate to consider in this proceeding
a variety of approaches

and criteria for protecting TV broadcasting from the services that will
occupy Channels 60-69.

a\. Geographic Spacing Requirements Based on 55-Mile

Reference Grade B Contour

233\. One approach would be to protect co-channel analog TV stations on
channels 60-69

during the DTV transition period by adopting geographical spacing
requirements based on a 40

dB D/U signal ratio at the 55-mile Grade B contour of the protected TV
station. We could

protect adjacent channel TV operations by adopting geographical spacing
requirements based on

a 0 dB D/U signal ratio. This approach would be based on experimental
data that resulted in

our earlier proposal to lower the D/U signal ratio to 40 dB and our use
of this standard to protect

TV service from interference in the New York metropolitan area.

234\. If we were to adopt this approach, we would favor development of a
table

permitting operation at distances based on particular powers and antenna
heights, similar to that

in the current geographic separation standards in Subpart L of Part 90
of the Commission\'s

Rules. We note that separation tables are clear and easily applied, and
we tentatively conclude

that use of such tables should simplify communications system planning
for new licensees,

including local government and other public safety entities. Moreover,
because the tables would

be based on the assumption that TV stations are operating near full
facilities, they would also

allow some flexibility for broadcasters operating at less than full
facilities to modify their

facilities during the DTV transition period without raising new
interference concerns.

235\. The above analysis is based on the protection necessary for analog
TV. We

recognize, however, that we must also address protection criteria for
DTV stations operating on

Channels 60-69 during the transition period. DTV transmissions could
exhibit a greater

resistance to interference than do analog TV transmissions. Therefore,
DTV stations may be able

to accept a lesser amount of protection from co-channel and adjacent
channel land mobile and

fixed stations than the 40 dB and 0 dB D/U ratios we propose for analog
TV stations. We seek

comment on the appropriate D/U ratios that should be applied for the
protection of DTV stations.

236\. We recognize that a table that permits operation at closer
distances based on

reduced power and antenna height may still be unnecessarily restrictive.
For example, public

safety systems could reduce interference through a variety of
engineering techniques such as use

of directional and down-tilt antennas. Also, certain modulation
technologies may be employed

to further reduce interference. In addition, we note that there is a
somewhat greater attenuation

of signal in the 746-806 MHz band as compared with the 470-512 MHz band,
and that it may be

possible to take advantage of the fact that TV receivers are less
sensitive to interfering signals in

some parts of the TV channel than others.

237\. In light of these considerations, we request comment on whether
adopting uniform

geographical spacings based on the use of separation tables would be
appropriate, and if so, what

separation distances should be used in such tables. We also invite
comment as to whether we

should establish different separation distances to protect TV operations
from interference from

fixed and mobile operations in the 746-806 MHz band. Further, we solicit
views as to whether

we should use different spacing requirements depending on the technology
employed, location in

the TV channel, or any other factor. Finally, we tentatively conclude
that, given the variables, it

would be appropriate to allow new licensees and TV licensees privately
to negotiate shorter

geographic separations than those we have proposed.

b\. Other Approaches

238\. We also request comment on whether approaches other than the use
of geographic

separation tables based on the assumption of a 55-mile reference Grade B
contour should be

employed for the protection of TV operations. For example, since TV
broadcast stations are

authorized with effective radiated power (ERP) levels up to 5 megawatts,
at an antenna HAAT of

610 meters (2,000 feet), we request comment on whether the size of the
reference contour

should be increased accordingly. We also seek comment on whether the use
of tables based on a

particular reference Grade B contour could unnecessarily inhibit
innovative or case-specific

solutions to potential interference problems.

239\. We therefore seek comment on whether protection criteria should
instead be based

on requiring that a predicted D/U signal ratio be met based on a TV
licensee\'s authorized

facilities, as proposed in the UHF Sharing Proceeding. For example, we
could require that

public safety and other new service operations ensure that a D/U signal
ratio of at least 40 dB is

maintained at a TV licensee\'s Grade B contour to protect analog
television operations. Thus, the

fundamental emissions from co-channel operations outside the Grade B
contour would be limited

to a predicted field strength of 24 dBæV/m (= 64 dBæV/m - 40dB) at the
Grade B contour.

For first adjacent analog TV channels, the fundamental emission of new
fixed or mobile stations

outside the Grade B contour would be limited to a predicted field
strength of 64 dBæV/m (= 64

dBæV/m - 0 dB) at the Grade B contour. For DTV stations, appropriate
co-channel and adjacent

channel D/U ratios could apply to either the Grade B contour of the
companion analog station or

to the DTV station\'s noise-limited service area. We request comment on
this alternative

approach.

2\. Other Issues

240\. In the DTV Proceeding, we raised the possibility that, in
negotiating among

themselves for changes in allotments and assignments, TV licensees could
include agreements

for compensation. We propose to permit new licensees in this spectrum
similarly to reach

agreements with licensees of protected TV stations, including holders of
construction permits,

compensating them for converting to DTV transmission only before the end
of the DTV

transition period, accepting higher levels of interference than those
allowed by the protection

standards, or otherwise accommodating new licensees in these bands. We
believe that these

measures would benefit the public by accelerating the transition to DTV
and clearing the 746-

806 MHz band for public safety services.

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

A. Regulatory Flexibility Analyses

241\. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as required by
Section 603 of the Regu-

latory Flexibility Act, is set forth in Appendix A. The Commission has
prepared the Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the expected impact on small entities
of the proposals sug-

gested in this Notice. Written public comments are requested on the
Initial Regulatory Flexibili-

ty Analysis. In order to fulfill the mandate of the Contract with
America Advancement Act of

1996 regarding the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we ask a
number of questions in our

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis regarding the prevalence of
small businesses in the

affected industries.

242\. Comments on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis must be
filed in accor-

dance with the same filing deadlines as comments on this Notice, but
they must have a separate

and distinct heading designating them as responses to the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Anal-

ysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in accordance

with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

B. Paperwork Reduction Analyses

243\. This Notice contains proposed information collection requirements
applicable to the

public. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we
invite the general

public to take this opportunity to comment on the information
collections contained in this

Notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

244\. Public and agency comments regarding the information collections
contained in this

Notice are due on or before 60 days after the publication of the Notice
in the Federal Register.

245\. Comments submitted on information collections contained in this
Notice should ad-

dress:

þ Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the

functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall
have practical utili-

ty.

þ The accuracy of the Commission\'s burden estimates.

þ Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected.

þ Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
respondents, includ-

ing the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

246\. In addition to filing these comments on information collections
contained in the

Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with the Secretary, a copy of any
such comments should

be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234,
1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov.
Furthermore, a copy of

any such comments should be submitted to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer,
10236 NEOB,

725 - 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the Internet at
fain_t@al.eop.gov. For

additional information regarding the information collections contained
herein, contact Judy

Boley.

C. Ex Parte Presentations

247\. This Notice is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding. Ex

parte presentations are permitted, provided they are disclosed as
provided in Commission

rules.

D. Pleading Dates

248\. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.1415 and
1.419 of the

Commission\'s Rules, interested parties may file comments to this Notice
on or before

December 22, 1997, and reply comments on or before January 12, 1998. All
relevant and time-

ly comments will be considered by the Commission before final action is
taken in this proceed-

ing. To file formally in this proceeding, participants must file an
original and five copies of all

comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If participants want
each Commissioner

to receive a personal copy of their comments, an original and nine
copies must be filed. Com-

ments and reply comments should be sent to the Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communi-

cations Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments
will be available

for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference
Center (Room 239) of

the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20554.

Copies of comments and reply comments are available through the
Commission\'s duplicating

contractor: International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS, Inc.), 1231
20th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.

E. Further Information

249\. For further information concerning this rulemaking proceeding,
contact the

following staff of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
Communications Commis-

sion, Washington, D.C. 20554: Marty Liebman, Mary Woytek, Ed Jacobs,
David Siehl, or Jon

Reel, Policy Division, at (202) 418-1310.

VI\. ORDERING CLAUSES

250\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 10, 201,
202, 303(b),

303(g), 303(j), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§
151, 154(i), 160, 201,

202, 303(b), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 403, that NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of
the proposed

regulatory changes described in this Second Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, and that

COMMENT IS SOUGHT on these proposals.

251\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Secretary shall send a copy of this
Second

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in
accordance with Section

603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

252\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Rulemaking filed on
October 19,

1995, on behalf of the National Communications System IS GRANTED IN PART
TO THE

EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William F. Caton

Acting Secretary

APPENDIX A

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has
prepared this

present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected
significant economic

impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this
Second Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (Notice). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be

identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines
for comments on the

Notice provided above in paragraph 248 of the Notice. The Commission
will send a copy of the

Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business

Administration (SBA). In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be

published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Action

This rulemaking proceeding was initiated to propose service rules for 24
megahertz of

spectrum in the 746-806 MHz band. The spectrum, which is currently used
by television (TV)

Channels 60-69, is being made available to meet various public safety
communications needs.

This rulemaking proceeding was also initiated to seek comment regarding
whether certain

commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers should be authorized to
offer priority access

service on a voluntary basis for purposes of enhancing national security
and emergency

preparedness (NSEP) functions. Priority access service will enable NSEP
personnel and other

public safety users to receive priority to available channels during
emergencies. The rulemaking

proceeding is also initiated to secure comment on other issues
concerning such priority access.

We endeavor to (1) provide for modern and innovative communications at
high levels of

efficiency and effectiveness required by the Nation\'s public safety
entities; (2) explore the

possibility of certain commercial services being used for public safety
applications; and (3)

protect TV stations on Channels 60-69 during the transition to digital
television (DTV).

B. Legal Basis

The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 10, 201, 202,
303(b), 303(g),

303(j), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,
154(i), 160, 201, 202,

303(b), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 403.

C. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

The Commission proposes the filing of regional plans drafted by planning
committees

made up of representatives of the public safety community. Applicants
for public safety licenses

may be required to make submissions to the planning committees
justifying their requests for

spectrum, and will be required to submit applications for spectrum
licenses on Form 601. The

proposals under consideration in the Notice include the possibility of
imposing recordkeeping

and reporting requirements on individuals or organizations involved in
establishing a national

planning process to develop a nationwide interoperability plan, on
individuals or organizations

that may assist us in developing technical standards, and on small
government agencies who may

request extended implementation. We request comment on how these
requirements can be

modified to reduce the burden on small entities and still meet the
objectives of this proceeding.

With respect to priority access service, the proposals of the Commission
in this Notice do

not entail reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
If, however, there are

matters pertaining to such requirements that relate to those issues on
which we also seek

comment in this Notice, we invite commenters to address how those
matters may affect small

entities who may be potential providers of priority access service.

D. Description and Number of Small Entities Involved

This Notice will affect TV station licenses on Channels 60-69, public
safety entities, and

commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers. Commenters are
requested to provide

information regarding how many entities (overall) and how many small
entities would be

affected by the proposed rules in the Notice.

\(a\) Television Stations

\(1\) Television Station Estimates Based on Census Data

The Notice will affect full service TV stations, TV translator
facilities, and low power TV

(LPTV) stations. The Small Business Administration defines a TV
broadcasting station that has

no more than \$10.5 million in annual receipts as a small business. TV
broadcasting stations

consist of establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual
programs by TV to the public,

except cable and other pay TV services. Included in this industry are
commercial, religious,

educational, and other TV stations. Also included are establishments
primarily engaged in TV

broadcasting and which produce taped TV program materials. Separate
establishments

primarily engaged in producing taped TV program materials are classified
under another SIC

number.

There were 1,509 TV stations operating in the Nation in 1992. That
number has

remained fairly constant as indicated by the approximately 1,551
operating TV broadcasting

stations in the Nation as of February 28, 1997. For 1992 the number of
TV stations that

produced less than \$10.0 million in revenue was 1,155 establishments,
or approximately 77

percent of the 1,509 establishments. There are currently 95 full service
analog TV stations,

either operating or with approved construction permits on channels
60-69. In the DTV

Proceeding, we adopted a DTV Table which provides only 15 allotments for
DTV stations on

channels 60-69 in the continental United States. There are seven DTV
allotments in channels

60-69 outside the continental United States. Thus, the rules will affect
approximately 117 TV

stations; approximately 90 of those stations may be considered small
businesses. These

estimates may overstate the number of small entities since the revenue
figures on which they are

based do not include or aggregate revenues from non-TV affiliated
companies. We recognize

that the rules may also impact minority-owned and women-owned stations,
some of which may

be small entities. In 1995, minorities owned and controlled 37 (3.0
percent) of 1,221 commercial

TV stations in the United States. According to the U.S. Bureau of the
Census, in 1987 women

owned and controlled 27 (1.9 percent) of 1,342 commercial and
non-commercial TV stations in

the United States.

There are currently 4,977 TV translator stations and 1,952 LPTV
stations.

Approximately 1,309 low power TV and TV translator stations are on
channels 60-69 which

could be affected by policies in this proceeding. The Commission does
not collect financial

information of any broadcast facility and the Department of Commerce
does not collect financial

information on these broadcast facilities. We will assume for present
purposes, however, that

most of these broadcast facilities, including LPTV stations, could be
classified as small

businesses. As indicated earlier, approximately 77 percent of TV
stations are designated under

this analysis as potentially small businesses. Given this, LPTV and TV
translator stations would

not likely have revenues that exceed the SBA maximum to be designated as
small businesses.

\(2\) Alternative Classification of Small TV Stations

An alternative way to classify small TV stations is by the number of
employees. The

Commission currently applies a standard based on the number of employees
in administering its

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) rule for broadcasting. Thus, radio or
TV stations with

fewer than five full-time employees are exempted from certain EEO
reporting and recordkeeping

requirements. We estimate that the total number of commercial TV
stations with four or fewer

employees is 132 and that the total number of non-commercial educational
TV stations with four

or fewer employees is 136. We do not know how many of these stations
operate on Channels

60-69.

\(b\) Public Safety Entities

The public safety entities that will be affected by this Notice are
governmental entities.

The definition of a small governmental entity is one with a population
of fewer than 50,000.

There are approximately 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 have 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 government entities. Thus, of the approximately 85,006
governmental entities,

we estimate that 96 percent, or 81,600, are small entities that may be
affected by our rules. We

solicit comment on this estimate.

\(c\) Entities with regard to Priority Access Service

Concerning the provision of priority access service, commenters are
requested to provide

information regarding how many providers of CMRS, existing and
potential, will be considered

small businesses. \`\`Small business\'\' is defined as having the same
meaning as the term \`\`small

business concern\'\' under the Small Business Act. A small business
concern is one which (1) is

independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies

any additional criteria established by SBA. We seek comment as to
whether this definition is

appropriate in this context. Additionally, we request each commenter to
identify whether it is a

small business under this definition. If the commenter is a subsidiary
of another entity, this

information should be provided for both the subsidiary and the parent
corporation or entity.

The Commission has not yet developed a definition of small entities
which respect to the

provision of a CMRS service offering of priority access. Therefore, for
entities not falling within

other established SBA categories, the applicable definition of small
entity is the definition under

the SBA applicable to the \`\`Communications Services, Not Elsewhere
Classified\'\' category. This

definition provides that a small entity is one with \$11.0 million or
less in annual receipts. The

Census Bureau estimates indicate that of the 848 firms in the
\`\`Communications Services, Not

Elsewhere Classified\'\' category, 775 are small businesses. While the
Commission anticipates

some CMRS providers would elect to provide priority access service, it
is not possible to predict

either how many, or what percentage, of these providers would be small
entities.

\(1\) Cellular Radio Telephone Service

The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to cellular

licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the
definition under the SBA

rules applicable to radiotelephone companies. This definition provides
that a small entity is a

radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons. The size
data provided by the

SBA does not enable us to make a meaningful estimate of the number of
cellular providers which

are small entities because it combines all radiotelephone companies with
500 or more

employees. We therefore used the 1992 Census of Transportation,
Communications, and

Utilities, conducted by the Bureau of the Census, which is the most
recent information available.

That census shows that only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of
1,178 such firms which

operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, even if all
12 of these large

firms were cellular telephone companies, all of the remainder were small
businesses under the

SBA\'s definition. We assume that, for purposes of our evaluations and
conclusions in this IRFA,

all of the current cellular licensees are small entities, as that term
is defined by the SBA.

Although there are 1,758 cellular licenses, we do not know the number of
cellular licensees,

since a cellular licensee may own several licenses.

\(2\) Broadband Personal Communications Service

The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks
designated A through

F. Pursuant to Section 24.720(b) of the Commission\'s Rules, the
Commission has defined

\`\`small entity\'\' for Block C and Block F licensees as firms that had
average gross revenues of less

than \$40 million in the three previous calendar years. This regulation
defining \`\`small entity\'\' in

the context of broadband PCS auctions has been approved by the SBA.

The Commission has auctioned broadband PCS licenses in all of its
spectrum blocks A

through F. We do not have sufficient data to determine how many small
businesses under the

Commission\'s definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and
B. As of now, there are

90 non-defaulting winning bidders that qualify as small entities in the
Block C auction and 93

non-defaulting winning bidders that qualify as small entities in the D,
E, and F Block auctions.

Based on this information, we conclude that the number of broadband PCS
licensees that would

be affected by the proposals in this Notice includes the 183
non-defaulting winning bidders that

qualify as small entities in the C, D, E, and F Block broadband PCS
auctions.

\(3\) Specialized Mobile Radio

Pursuant to Section 90.814(b)(1) of the Commission\'s Rules, the
Commission has

defined \`\`small entity\'\' for geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR
licenses as firms that

had average gross revenues of less than \$15 million in the three
previous calendar years. This

regulation defining \`\`small entity\'\' in the context of 800 MHz and
900 MHz SMR has been

approved by the SBA.

The proposals set forth in the Notice may apply to SMR providers in the
800 MHz and

900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz
geographic

area SMR service, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues
of less than \$15

million.

The Commission recently held auctions for geographic area licenses in
the 900 MHz

SMR band. There were 60 winning bidders who qualified as small entities
under the

Commission\'s definition in the 900 MHz auction. Based on this
information, we conclude that

the number of geographic area SMR licensees affected by the proposals
set forth in this Notice

includes these 60 small entities.

No auctions have been held for 800 MHz geographic area SMR licenses.
Therefore, no

small entities currently hold these licenses. A total of 525 licenses
will be awarded for the upper

200 channels in the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction. However, the
Commission has not

yet determined how many licenses will be awarded for the lower 230
channels in the 800 MHz

geographic area SMR auction. There is no basis to estimate, moreover,
how many small entities

within the SBA\'s definition will win these licenses. Given the facts
that nearly all radiotelephone

companies have fewer than 1,000 employees and that no reliable estimate
of the number of

prospective 800 MHz SMR licensees can be made, we assume, for purposes
of our evaluations

and conclusions in this IRFA, that all of the licenses will be awarded
to small entities, as that

term is defined by the SBA.

\(4\) 220 MHz Service

Licensees for 220 MHz services that meet the definition of CMRS may be
providers of

priority access service if there is a demand for these services during
emergencies and disasters.

The Commission has classified providers of 220 MHz service into Phase I
and Phase II licensees.

There are approximately 2,800 non-nationwide Phase I licensees and 4
nationwide licensees

currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has
estimated that there

are approximately 900 potential Phase II licensees.

At this time, however, there is no basis upon which to estimate
definitively the number of

220 MHz service licensees, either current or potential, that are small
businesses. To estimate the

number of such entities that are small businesses, we apply the
definition of a small entity under

SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone companies. This definition
provides that a small entity

is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons.
However, the size data

provided by the SBA do not allow us to make a meaningful estimate of the
number of 220 MHz

providers that are small entities because they combine all
radiotelephone companies with 500 or

more employees. We therefore use the 1992 Census of Transportation,
Communications, and

Utilities, conducted by the Bureau of the Census, which is the most
recent information available.

Data from the Bureau of the Census\' 1992 study indicate that only 12
out of a total 1,178

radiotelephone firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more
employees and these may

or may not be small entities, depending on whether they employed more or
less than 1,500

employees. But 1,166 radiotelephone firms had fewer than 1,000 employees
and therefore,

under the SBA definition, are small entities. However, we do not know
how many of these 1,166

firms are likely to be involved in the 220 MHz service.

To assist the Commission in this analysis, commenters are requested to
provide

information regarding how many total 220 MHz service entities, existing
and potential, may

offer a priority access service. In particular, we seek estimates of how
many 220 MHz service

entities, existing or potential, will be considered small businesses.

\(5\) Mobile Satellite Services (MSS)

The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to licensees

in the international services. Therefore, the applicable definition of
small entity is the definition

under the SBA rules applicable to Communications Services, Not Elsewhere
Classified (NEC).

This definition provides that a small entity is expressed as one with
\$11.0 million or less in

annual receipts. According to the Census Bureau, there were a total of
848 communications

services, NEC in operation in 1992, and a total of 775 had annual
receipts of less than \$9,999

million.

Mobile Satellite Services or Mobile Satellite Earth Stations are
intended to be used while

in motion or during halts at unspecified points. These stations operate
as part of a network that

includes a fixed hub or stations. The stations that are capable of
transmitting while a platform is

moving are included under Section 20.7(c) of the Commission\'s Rules as
mobile services

within the meaning of Sections 3(27) and 332 of the Communications Act.
Those MSS

services are treated as CMRS if they connect to the Public Switched
Network (PSN) and also

satisfy other criteria of Section 332. Facilities provided through a
transportable platform that

cannot move when the communications service is offered are excluded from
Section 20.7(c).

The MSS networks may provide a variety of land, maritime and
aeronautical voice and

data services. There are eight mobile satellite licensees. At this time,
we are unable to make a

precise estimate of the number of small businesses that are mobile
satellite earth station licensees

and could be considered CMRS providers of priority access service.

\(5\) Other Commercial Mobile Radio Services

Other CMRS services may potentially be providers of priority access
service if there is a

demand for the transmission of voice, data, or text messages during
emergencies and disasters.

a\. Paging and Radiotelephone Service, and Paging Operations

The Commission has proposed a two-tier definition of small businesses in
the context of

auctioning licenses in the paging service. Under the proposal, a small
business will be defined as

either (1) a entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross

revenues for the three preceding years of not more than \$3 million; or
(2) an entity that, together

with affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
for the three preceding

calendar years of not more than \$15 million. Since the SBA has not yet
approved this definition

for paging companies, we utilize the SBA\'s definition applicable to
radiotelephone companies,

i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.

The Commission estimates that the total current number of paging
carriers is

approximately 600. In addition, the Commission anticipates that a total
of 16,630 non-

nationwide geographic area licenses will be granted or auctioned. The
geographic area licenses

will consist of 2,550 Major Trading Area (MTA) licenses and 14,080
Economic Area (EA)

licenses. In addition to the 47 Rand McNally MTAs, the Commission is
licensing Alaska as a

separate MTA and adding three MTAs for the U.S. territories, for a total
of 51 MTAs. No

auctions of paging licenses have been held yet, and there is no basis to
determine the number of

licenses that will be awarded to small entities. Given the fact that
nearly all radiotelephone

companies have fewer than 1,000 employees, and that no reliable estimate
of the number of

paging licensees can be made, we assume, for purposes of this IRFA, that
all of the current

licensees and the 16,630 geographic area paging licensees either are or
will consist of small

entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.

Although the Notice requests comment concerning all CMRS providers, the
number of

paging licensees that elect to provide some form of priority access
service may depend on

whether there is a market for wireless data or message text
transmissions in emergency and

disaster environments. The number may also depend on whether two-way
paging providers,

rather than providers of traditionally one-way service, are eventually
included under any priority

access rules.

b\. Narrowband PCS

The Commission has auctioned nationwide and regional licenses for
narrowband PCS.

The Commission does not have sufficient information to determine whether
any of these

licensees are small businesses within the SBA-approved definition. At
present, there have been

no auctions held for the MTA and Basic Trading Area (BTA) narrowband PCS
licenses. The

Commission anticipates a total of 561 MTA licensees and 2,958 BTA
licensees will be awarded

in the auctions. Those auctions, however, have not yet been scheduled.
Given that nearly all

radiotelephone companies have fewer than 1,500 employees and that no
reliable estimate of the

number of prospective MTA and BTA narrowband licensees can be made, we
assume, that all of

the licensees will be awarded to small entities, as that term is defined
by the SBA.

c\. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service

The Commission has not adopted a definition of small business specific
to the Air-

Ground Radiotelephone Service, which is defined in Section 22.99 of the
Commission\'s rules.

Accordingly, we will use the SBA\'s definition applicable to
radiotelephone companies, i.e., an

entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 100
licensees in the

Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of
them qualify as small

under the SBA definition.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

We have reduced burdens wherever possible. To minimize any negative
impact,

however, we propose certain incentives for small entities, which will
redound to their benefit.

While public safety entities will be required to submit regional plans
(to enable the Commission

to accommodate regional needs and preferences), they will be able to
pool their resources in

developing such plans. The regulatory burdens we have retained, such as
filing applications on

appropriate forms, are necessary in order to ensure that the public
receives the benefits of

innovative new services in a prompt and efficient manner. We will
continue to examine

alternatives in the future with the objectives of eliminating
unnecessary regulations and

minimizing significant economic impact on small entities. We seek
comment on significant

alternatives commenters believe we should adopt.

With respect to priority access service, we are seeking comment
regarding whether the

provision of priority access service by wireless carriers should be on a
voluntary basis. Thus,

small entities at their option can elect to provide the service should
they determine that there is a

competitive market opportunity to do so. In addition, we are proposing
that in providing priority

access service, providers of certain CMRS services are to be insulated
from liability under

Section 202 of the Communications Act. We also seek comment on
alternatives regarding the

priority access issues raised in the Notice.

F. Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules

None.

APPENDIX B

List of Pleadings

Public Safety Communications

The following is a list of parties filing comments and reply comments in
response to the Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking in The Development of Operational, Technical, and
Spectrum

Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency
Communication

Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, 11 FCC Rcd
12460 (1996).

Comments

2GHz MSS Coalition (2GHz Coalition)

ADI Ltd. (ADI )

Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC)

Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC)

American Petroleum Institute (API)

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO)

American Automobile Association (AAA)

Ameritech Mobile Services, Inc. (Ameritech)

AMSC Subsidiary Corporation (AMSC)

APCO Project 25 (Project 25)

Association of American Railroads (AAR)

Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers (AFCCE)

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
Inc. (APCO)

Baldwin Fire District Operations (Baldwin)

California Department of General Services, Telecommunications Division
(Cal. Telecom.)

California Public Safety Radio Association (CPRA)

Clackamas County (Clackamas)

Dallas, City of (Dallas)

Digital Voice Systems, Inc. (DVSI)

E. F. Johnson Company (EFJohnson)

Elk Grove Village Fire Department (Elk Grove)

Ericsson Inc. (Ericsson)

Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG)

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Florida Department of Management Services (FDMS)

Fort Worth, City of (Fort Worth)

Garden City Fire Department (Garden City)

Gardena, City of (Gardena)

Glendale, City of (Glendale)

Hamilton, County of (Hamilton)

Hennepin County Sheriff, Office of the (Hennepin)

Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (Illinois Tollway)

Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc. (ITA)

Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITSA)

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)

International Municipal Signal Association and the International
Association of

Fire Chiefs (IMSA/IAFC)

Island County Emergency Services Communications Center (I-COM)

Johnson County Kansas (Johnson County)

Kansas Division of Emergency Management Committee (Kansas-EMC)

La Grande, City of (La Grande)

Long Beach, City of (Long Beach)

Los Angeles, County of (plus addendum) (LA County)

Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)

Maxon American, Inc. (Maxon)

Mesa, City of (Mesa)

Metro-North Police (MTA)

Mineola Fire Department (Mineola)

Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)

Motorola, Inc. (Motorola)

Nassau County

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)

National Association of State Telecommunications Directors (NASTD)

National League of Cities (NLC)

Nebraska Public Power District (Nebraska PPD)

Nebraska, State of (Nebraska)

New York, City of, Fire Department (NYFD)

New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA)

New Hampshire, State of (New Hampshire)

New York State Police (NYSP)

New York, City of, DoITT (NYDoITT)

New York City Transit Authority (NYCT)

Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel)

Newport Beach Police Department (Newport Beach)

Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (Nippon)

North Bellmore Fire District (N. Bellmore)

Northern California Chapter of the Association of Public/Safety
Officials (Nor. Cal. APCO)

Ohio Department of Administrative Services (Ohio-DAS)

Orange, County of, California (Orange County)

Orange, County of, Sheriff-Coroner Department, California (Orange County
S-C)

Oregon Chapter, Associated Public Safety Communications Officers, Inc.
(Oregon APCO)

Orlando, City of (Orlando)

Overland Park, City of (Overland Park)

Owensboro Kentucky, City of (Owensboro)

Powell, John S. (including Addendum (Powell)

Preble County 9-1-1 Advisory Board (Preble County)

Prince George\'s County (PG County)

Prince William, County of (PW County)

Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (Final Report) (PSWAC)

Quantum Radionics Corporation (Quantum)

Racal Communications (Racal)

Region-20 Public Safety Review Committee (Region-20)

Richardson, City of (Richardson)

Rural Cellular Association (RCA)

San Diego, City of (San Diego)

Securicor Radiocoms Limited (Securicor)

SNOPAC 9-1-1 Communications (SNOPAC)

South Bay Regional Public Communications Authority (South Bay)

South Nyack Grand View Police Department (SNGVPD)

Suffolk, County of, Police Department (Suffolk)

Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)

Texas Department of Public Safety (Texas-DPS)

Texas Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications
(Texas-ACSEC)

Thomas Jefferson Inc. (Jefferson)

Transcrypt International, Inc. (Transcrypt)

Tri-Com 911 Dispatch System (Tri-Com)

Union County, Sheriff of (Union County)

University of California, Irvine (UC Irvine)

US Dept of Transportation (DOT)

UTC, the Telecommunications Association (UTC)

Virginia, Commonwealth of, Dept of State Police (VA State Police)

Whatcom County Sheriff\'s Office (Whatcom)

Wisconsin State Patrol (WI State Patrol)

Yonkers, City of (Yonkers)

Reply Comments

Addison Fire Protection Dist #1 (Addison)

Airtouch Paging (Airtouch)

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO)

Ameritech Mobile Services, Inc. (Ameritech)

Arch Communications Group, Inc. (Arch)

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
Inc. (APCO)

Association of American Railroads (AAR)

Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA)

E.F. Johnson (EFJohnson)

East Rockaway Fire Department (East Rockaway)

Ericsson, Inc. (Ericsson)

Floral Park Fire Department (Floral Park)

Forestry-Conservation Communications Association (FCCA)

Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc. (ITA)

Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS)

International Taxicab and Livery Association (ITLA)

International Municipal Signal Association and the International
Association of

Fire Chiefs (IMSA/IAFC)

Lakeview Fire District (Lakeview)

Los Angeles, County of (LA County)

Lucas, County of (Lucas)

Manufacturers Radio Frequency Advisory Committee, Inc. (MRFAC)

Margate Fire Department (Margate)

Marin County, The Board of Supervisors of (Marin)

Massapequa Fire District (Massapequa)

Meadowmere Park Fire Department (Meadowmere)

Motorola, Inc. (Motorola)

National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)

National Communications System (NCS)

Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)

New York, the City of, Department of Correction (NYDC)

New Hyde Park Fire Department (New Hyde Park)

Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (Nippon)

Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio-DOT)

Plainview Fire Department (Plainview)

Project 25 Steering Committee (Project 25)

RELM Communications, Inc. (RELM)

Securicor Radiocoms Limited (Securicor)

Sherman County Communications and Emergency Management (Sherman)

Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. (SBE)

Special System Services (Special Systems)

Strategic Policy Research (SPR)

Uniondale Fire Department (Uniondale)

United States Department of Transportation (DOT)

UTC, the Telecommunications Association (UTC)

Valley Stream Fire Department (VSFD)

Westbury Fire Department (Westbury)

Westchester County Fire Training Center (Westchester)

Priority Access Service

The following is a list of parties filing comments and reply comments in
response to the Public

Notice, Petition for Rulemaking Filed, Commission Seeks Comment on
Petition for Rulemaking

filed by National Communications System, DA 96-604, WT Docket No. 96-86
(released Apr. 18,

1996).

Comments

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
Inc. (APCO)

AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (AT&T)

Bell Atlantic Nynex Mobile (BANM)

Bell Communications Research, Inc. (BellCore)

BellSouth Corp. and BellSouth Cellular Corp. (BellSouth)

Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA)

Dixon, Alan (Dixon)

Florida Department of Management Services (FDMS)

GTE Mobilnet (GTEM)

Los Angeles County Sheriff\'s Department and the County of Los Angeles,

Internal Services Department (LA County Sheriff)

National Association of State Telecommunications Directors (NASTD)

National Communications System (NCS)

National Emergency Number Association (NENA)

Oregon State Police (Oregon)

Southwestern Bell Mobile System, Inc. (SBMS)

Tennessee Emergency Management Agency (TEMA)

Texas Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications
(Texas-ACSEC)

UTC, the Telecommunications Association (UTC)

Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc. (Vanguard)

Virginia, Commonwealth of, Dept of Military Affairs,

Army National Guard (VA National Guard)

Virginia, Commonwealth of, Dept of State Police (VA State Police)

Washington State Emergency Management (WSEM)

Reply Comments

AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (AT&T)

National Communications System (NCS)

National Emergency Number Association (NENA)

Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. (SBMS)