**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | ) | WT Docket No. 96-86          |
|                                  |   |                              |
| The Development of Operational,  | ) |                              |
| Technical and Spectrum           |   |                              |
| Requirements for Meeting         | ) |                              |
| Federal, State and Local Public  |   |                              |
| Safety Communication             | ) |                              |
| Requirements Through the Year    |   |                              |
| 2010                             | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Establishment of Rules and       | ) |                              |
| Requirements for Priority Access |   |                              |
| Service                          | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**FOURTH NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

**Adopted:** July 25, 2000 **Released:** August 2, 2000

**Comment Date**: Thirty days after Publication in the Federal Register

**Reply Comment Date**: Forty five days after Publication in the Federal
Register

By the Commission:

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[Paragraph No.]{.underline}

I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

II\. BACKGROUND 3

III\. DISCUSSION 6

A. Trunking on Interoperability Spectrum 6

B. Administration of the Interoperability Channels
[10](#administration-of-the-interoperability-channels)

C. Channel Designation and Access Priority 33

D. Technical Standards 40

E. Other Issues 59

IV\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 63

V. ORDERING CLAUSES 73

Appendix A---Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Appendix B---Proposed Rules

# INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.  In this *Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Fourth Notice*), we
    consider various technical and operational issues regarding the use
    of interoperability frequencies in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz
    frequency bands (the 700 MHz band). We charged the Public Safety
    National Coordination Committee (NCC) to prepare a report on the
    technical and operational standards for interoperability frequencies
    in this new public safety band. The NCC issued this report to the
    Federal Communications Commission (the Commission) on February 25,
    2000.[^1] We seek comment on the recommendations contained in the
    NCC Report. Given that we are seeking comment on the NCC's
    recommendations, we will defer resolution at this time of the
    reconsideration request concerning guard channels in the context of
    our interoperability plan.[^2]

2.  We have defined the term "interoperability" as "an essential
    communications link within public safety and public service wireless
    communications systems which permits units from two or more
    different entities to interact with one another and to exchange
    information according to a prescribed method in order to achieve
    predictable results."[^3] A primary goal of interoperability in the
    new 700 MHz public safety band is seamless interaction on a
    nationwide basis.[^4] We believe that the proposed rules provide a
    flexible regulatory framework that satisfies this goal in both a
    technology-neutral and cost effective manner. Accordingly, we take
    the following actions:

-   Propose that the Commission not impose a mandatory trunking
    requirement on all thirty-two interoperability channel sets under
    the current band plan.

-   Propose a permissive trunking scheme covering up to twelve
    interoperability channel sets on a secondary, non-interference
    basis.

-   Propose to allow applicants to aggregate four contiguous 6.25 kHz
    channels to form 25 kHz channels.

-   Tentatively conclude that states should administer the
    interoperability channels.

-   Propose to have Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) administer the
    interoperability channels if the states are unwilling to do so.

-   Seek comment on requiring that each state form a State
    Interoperability Executive Committee (SIEC) to administer the
    interoperability channels.

-   Propose to blanket license mobile and portable units operating on
    the 700 MHz interoperability spectrum.

-   Solicit comment on requiring the RPCs to review the technical
    parameters of applications for interoperability channels and verify
    that such applications are in accordance with a state-approved plan,
    as recommended in the NCC Report.

-   Solicit comment on whether, and to what extent, the RPCs or similar
    entities should assume responsibility to develop interoperability
    operational plans in the absence of state action on the matter.

-   Seek comment on how an applicant will secure approval from the state
    before operating a base or control station on interoperability
    channels, and specifically seek comment on the use of Memoranda of
    Understanding (MOUs) and sharing.

-   Seek comment on designating channels for a particular purpose and
    naming each interoperability channel set (12.5 kHz consisting of two
    contiguous 6.25 kHz narrowband channels).

-   Propose to designate two channels as nationwide calling channels.

-   Solicit comment on the effect of channel labeling and whether
    channel labeling would affect centralized trunking operations and 25
    kHz operation.

-   Propose to reject codifying a priority scheme for resolving
    conflicts when the demand for interoperability channels exceeds the
    supply of such channels.

-   Seek comment on the appropriate digital voice standard for the
    interoperability channels.

-   Tentatively conclude to adopt the Project 25 Phase I standard at
    this time and that we should develop and implement a "migration
    path" to 6.25 kHz technology.

-   Propose to retain our present 4.8 kilobytes per second (kbps) per
    6.25 kHz standard rather than require one voice channel per 6.25 kHz
    bandwidth.

-   Invite comment on the appropriate data interoperability standard for
    the interoperability channels.

-   Propose to reserve two interoperability channels for data
    transmission.

-   Tentatively decline to require that subscriber units designed for
    data-only applications have voice capability.

-   Tentatively decline to require subscriber units designed for
    voice-only applications have data transmission capability.

-   Solicit comment on the establishment of a single standard for
    encrypted communications, specifically, the current Federal
    government standard.

-   Solicit comment on whether to mandate receiver standards to address
    interference issues raised by the public safety radio community.

-   Decline to establish additional rules to require Federal sharing of
    the interoperability spectrum.

-   Decline to require RPCs to use a "pre-coordination database"
    developed for the 700 MHz band, but seek comment on whether RPCs
    should include a coordination process between interoperability and
    general use channels.

# BACKGROUND

3.  The Commission initiated this proceeding in 1996 to develop a
    framework to ensure that public safety communications needs are met
    through the year 2010.[^5] In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997,
    Congress directed the Commission to reallocate 24 megahertz of
    spectrum recovered from television Channels 60-69 as a result of the
    digital television (DTV) proceeding for public safety services.[^6]
    In 1998, the Commission reallocated 24 megahertz of spectrum located
    in the 700 MHz band for public safety services.[^7] At the same
    time, the Commission sought comment on the best use of this 24
    megahertz of spectrum.[^8] This record led to the adoption of the
    700 MHz band plan and service rules contained in the *First Report
    and Order*.[^9] Part of the band plan designated 2.6 megahertz, or
    10.8% of the band, to nationwide public safety interoperability
    use.[^10]

4.  In the *First Report and Order*, the Commission found strong support
    for national planning for both the interoperability spectrum and the
    general use spectrum in the 700 MHz band.[^11] Accordingly, the
    Commission chartered the NCC as an advisory committee for the
    purpose of addressing and advising the Commission on certain public
    safety communications matters. The NCC performs its functions in
    accordance with the procedural steps contained in the Federal
    Advisory Committee Act.[^12] The *First Report and Order* described
    the major responsibilities of the NCC as follows: (1) formulate and
    submit for Commission review and approval an operational plan to
    achieve national interoperability that includes a shared or priority
    system among users of the interoperability spectrum, for both
    day-to-day and emergency operations, and recommendations regarding
    Federal users\' access to the interoperability spectrum;
    (2) recommend interoperability digital modulation, trunking, and
    receiver standards for Commission review and approval; (3) provide
    voluntary assistance in the development of coordinated regional
    plans; and (4) provide general recommendations to the Commission on
    operational plans of the public safety community.[^13]

5.  We stated that we intended to provide formality to the NCC and to
    ensure participation by representatives of all elements of the
    public safety community.[^14] We also explained that the operational
    recommendations (*e.g.*, protocols for prioritizing user access) of
    the NCC would be subject to Commission approval. The NCC Report
    describes the participants in the NCC's decision--making process,
    the meetings that the NCC conducted, and the exchanges of
    information that occurred in preparation for the publication of the
    NCC's recommendations on February 25, 2000.[^15] We discuss and
    consider those recommendations in this *Fourth Notice*.

# DISCUSSION 

## Trunking on Interoperability Spectrum 

6.  *[Mandatory Trunking]{.underline}***.** In the *Second Notice*, we
    recognized the spectrum efficiency benefits associated with
    trunking, and tentatively concluded that a trunked system[^16] is
    the best method to achieve---in a large scale emergency---the rapid
    coordination of communications among many personnel from different
    agencies and regions.[^17] At the same time, however, we noted that
    we had not heretofore required the use of a specific trunking
    standard and asked for comments as to whether we should mandate a
    single nationwide trunking standard for interoperability
    spectrum.[^18] Many of the commenters addressing this issue
    vigorously opposed the adoption of a requirement to use trunking
    technology on the interoperability channels.[^19] They argued that
    conventional, repeated, or direct unit-to-unit communications are
    better suited for most types of interoperability communications
    needs. As a result, in the *First Report and Order,* we asserted
    that our tentative conclusion that trunking is the only practicable
    technology for interoperability may have been overstated and
    declined to adopt a requirement mandating trunking on
    interoperability channels.[^20] Instead, we directed the NCC to make
    a timely recommendation concerning whether we should require
    trunking on nationwide interoperability spectrum.[^21]

7.  After considering the advantages and disadvantages of requiring the
    use of trunking on the interoperability channels, the NCC recommends
    that we not mandate trunking. The NCC's conclusion stems mainly from
    operational considerations. Trunking can occur only when
    communications take place through a system infrastructure. The NCC
    believes, however, that most interoperability communications will
    occur at the scene of an incident on a unit-to-unit basis, not
    through an infrastructure.[^22] Accordingly, only a few
    infrastructure interoperability channels are required in most
    cases.[^23] The NCC therefore contends that the cost of configuring
    a small number of infrastructure channels for trunked operations
    would not be justified by the slight increase in spectrum efficiency
    that would result with trunking.[^24]

8.  The NCC also notes that if we mandate trunking, then all mobile
    units nationwide must have trunking capability.[^25] This capability
    would provide a small benefit at the expense of added cost, weight,
    and complexity to the units. As noted, most interoperable
    communications will be on a unit-to-unit basis and not employ
    trunking. Moreover, only large metropolitan areas would employ a
    sufficient number of interoperability channels to justify trunking
    from a cost standpoint. The NCC also notes that if trunking is used
    on the interoperability channels, the ability of foreign units to
    respond to an emergency would be compromised because those units
    would be required to be registered with the trunked system before
    they could be used. According to the NCC, registration is a manual
    and somewhat time-consuming task, and this process could cause
    unacceptable delays in an emergency situation.[^26]

9.  We agree with the NCC's recommendation and tentatively conclude not
    to require trunking on the thirty-two interoperability channel
    sets.[^27] We are not convinced that the additional costs associated
    with trunking justify the efficiencies gained.[^28] Moreover, it
    appears that in the majority of situations where emergency and
    disaster response interoperability communications are required, the
    ability to conduct direct unit-to-unit communications at the site is
    more critical than a wide area trunked system. Furthermore, as we
    discussed in the *First Report and Order*, a decision to mandate
    trunking would require a government entity to create and maintain a
    nationwide database of radio ID numbers.[^29] We seek comments on
    our tentative conclusions.

10. *[Permissive Trunking]{.underline}***.** The NCC recommends that we
    permit, rather than mandate, trunking on ten of the interoperability
    channel sets on a secondary basis.[^30] The NCC believes that
    jurisdictions would likely implement trunked interoperability
    channel systems if they could use the interoperability channel sets
    as part of their general use systems during the majority of the time
    when the channels are not needed for interoperability purposes.[^31]
    Thus, the NCC recommends that we permit routine (day-to-day)
    communications on some of the interoperability channels when the
    channels are not being used for emergency communications.[^32]

11. The NCC notes, however, that secondary trunking raises the
    possibility that systems might fail to release the trunked channels
    immediately when the channels are required for unit-to-unit
    conventional interoperability communications. Accordingly, the NCC
    recommends that the Commission adopt a number of safeguards. First,
    to help ensure that interoperability channels are always available
    when necessary, the NCC recommends that we permit secondary trunking
    on only ten of the thirty-two interoperability channel sets that are
    designated for general interoperability use. Trunking would be
    prohibited on the remaining channel sets. Second, the NCC recommends
    that we permit secondary trunking only if a jurisdiction maintains a
    continuous (twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week) dispatch
    facility at which an operator can release the interoperability
    channels for conventional (*i.e.*, non-trunked) use on demand, with
    no discretion on the operator's part.[^33] The NCC further
    recognizes those instances where the secondarily-trunked channels
    might become so integral to the jurisdiction's trunked system that
    it becomes "politically impossible" to release them when necessary.
    To prevent this from occurring, the NCC recommends a third safeguard
    that would permit systems to use secondary trunking only as
    follows: (1) systems with ten or fewer general use channel sets
    could use secondary trunking on one interoperability channel set,
    and (2) systems with more than ten general use channel sets could
    use secondary trunking on two interoperability channel sets.[^34]
    Systems with twenty or more general use channel sets could request
    secondary trunking on more than two channel sets, decided on a
    case-by-case basis.[^35]

12. We observe that the members of the NCC's Steering Committee were not
    unanimous in recommending permissive trunking.[^36] One Steering
    Committee member, who represents the International Association of
    Fire Chiefs, dissented from this trunking recommendation, believing
    permissive trunking should not be permitted because of the
    likelihood of disputes arising in an emergency when it becomes
    necessary to disassociate an interoperability channel from a trunked
    system and revert it to conventional use. [^37]

13. We propose to allow trunking only on ten of the interoperability
    channel sets (pursuant to the NCC's recommendations),[^38] and then
    only on a strict secondary basis. To insure that the primary use of
    these general public safety channel sets is interoperability
    communications, we propose that trunked operation must immediately
    be discontinued whenever any channel sets are needed for
    interoperability communications or whenever a trunked system
    interferes with any interoperability communication, *e.g.*,
    communications conducted on a unit-to-unit basis or using
    conventional repeaters.[^39] Although we tentatively conclude that
    some limited trunking capability has merit, we are not convinced at
    this time that we should establish rules, other than the secondary
    restrictions, to safeguard conventional use. Rather, we believe that
    the states should be responsible for administering the
    interoperability spectrum and should set any additional restrictions
    for trunking interoperability spectrum in their areas.[^40]
    Nevertheless, we seek comment on all the NCC's recommendations
    regarding trunking. We invite specific comment on whether ten
    channels is the appropriate number of channels to designate for
    trunking.[^41]

14. *[Guard Channels]{.underline}*. The band plan for the public safety
    700 MHz band, as set forth in the *First Report and Order*,
    designates thirty-two 12.5 kHz interoperability channel sets.[^42]
    The spectrum on both sides (immediately adjacent) of the 12.5 kHz
    interoperability channels is part of the reserve spectrum. Ericsson
    sought reconsideration of our decision on the issue of our
    interoperability channel plan. Generally, Section 90.531(d)(1) of
    our Rules[^43] permits the combining of two or four narrowband
    channels. For interoperability, however, the channel plan provides
    only for a maximum combination of two 6.25 kHz narrowband channels
    (to form 12.5 kHz channel sets), instead of four contiguous 6.25 kHz
    narrowband channels (to form 25 kHz channels). Further, Section
    90.531(d) of our Rules states, in part, "channels designated for
    nationwide interoperability use must not be combined with channels
    that are not designated for nationwide interoperability use." [^44]

15. Ericsson indicated that although the *First Report and Order* and
    our Rules clearly allow aggregation of up to four narrowband
    channels, the interoperability plan permits only the aggregation of
    two 6.25 kHz channels.[^45] Ericsson proposes that we rearrange the
    interoperability channel plan from 32 pairs of two contiguous 6.25
    kHz channel sets (12.5 kHz) to 16 pairs of four contiguous 6.25 kHz
    channel sets (25 kHz).[^46] Ericsson asserts that while the channels
    still could be used for 6.25 kHz and 12.5 kHz operations, this
    grouping would permit public safety entities to use many promising
    technologies (*e.g.*, TETRA) that could not even be considered for
    application in the interoperability portion of the narrowband
    spectrum.[^47]

16. The NCC supports consideration of Ericsson's proposal[^48] and
    states that it "agrees with the need to preserve the possibility of
    converting specified two-channel groups in the interoperability band
    to four-channel groups, thereby to accommodate technologies that
    require more than a 12.5 kHz bandwidth."[^49] The NCC recommends
    that if we do not adopt Ericsson's proposal, that we should preserve
    as "guard channels" the two contiguous 6.25 kHz reserve channels
    immediately below the ten 12.5 kHz interoperability channel sets on
    which the NCC recommends we permit secondary trunking."[^50] This
    designation would allow users to combine the guard channels with
    certain interoperability channels to form 25 kHz channel blocks. The
    NCC proposes that the guard channels should not be available except
    for use in conjunction with secondary trunking on the
    interoperability channels. The NCC states that we also could use the
    guard channels to form 25 kHz channel blocks if we decide at some
    later date to increase the bandwidth of the interoperability
    channels to 25 kHz.[^51] The NCC further notes that if the Ericsson
    proposal is approved, then guard channels would no longer be
    necessary.[^52]

17. We believe that providing the public safety community with the
    flexible option of conducting 25 kHz operations on the
    interoperability channels has merit. Pursuant to the NCC
    recommendation, however, we propose herein to prohibit trunking on
    other interoperability channels because they are reserved for
    conventional operations, and we would not anticipate that entities
    would employ technologies requiring 25 kHz bandwidths---such as
    TETRA---on these channels. Additionally, we have concerns about the
    potential adjacent channel interference that may result from
    repositioning the interoperability channels into groups of four
    contiguous channel sets, as proposed by Ericsson.[^53] For example,
    would simultaneous use of both 12.5 kHz channel sets in a 25 kHz
    aggregated block be precluded in the same area? Rather than combine
    12.5 kHz interoperability channel sets (two contiguous 6.25 kHz
    channels) to form 25 kHz channels (four contiguous 6.25 kHz
    channels) as suggested by Ericsson, we believe that a better
    approach is to designate the two contiguous reserve pool 6.25 kHz
    channels (12.5 kHz), either immediately above or below each 12.5 kHz
    interoperability channel set, as temporary "guard channels" to form
    25 kHz channels. We solicit comments on the issue.

18. Accordingly, we seek comment on how best to accommodate 25 kHz
    operations on the interoperability channels. Specifically, we
    request comment on how we should allocate the temporary guard
    channels. Among the options for the temporary guard channels
    are: (1) to move the interoperability channels so that they are
    adjacent to each other, thereby eliminating the need for temporary
    guard channels (*i.e.*, Ericsson's proposal), or (2) to designate
    those channels immediately where trunking is permitted for
    interoperability use, thus permitting the aggregation of 25 kHz
    bandwidths on some interoperability channels, or (3) to allocate all
    of the channels for interoperability use, thereby doubling the total
    number of interoperability channels. In particular, we seek comments
    on the potential for adjacent channel interference if the
    interoperability channels are reallocated in groups of four, as
    suggested by Ericsson. Further, we seek comment on the need to
    provide 25 kHz aggregated blocks on all the interoperability
    channels, or only on the channels where secondary trunking is
    permitted. For instance, we understand the potential benefits
    associated with allowing 25 kHz aggregated block operations on those
    interoperability channels where trunking would be allowed on a
    secondary basis. This would provide entities with the option to
    include interoperability channels in a trunked system that employs
    25 kHz general use channels (*e.g.*, a TETRA system). We solicit
    comment on these points. Comments should indicate the recommended
    use of the interoperability channels as well as the temporary guard
    channels.

## Administration of the Interoperability Channels

19. *[Administrative Oversight]{.underline}*. In the *Third Notice*, we
    sought comment on how to administer the interoperability
    spectrum.[^54] Specifically, we sought comment on whether we should
    use the RPCs, the states, or some other entity to manage the
    interoperability channels.[^55] Some commenters contended that the
    RPCs should administer the interoperability channels and should have
    the option of assigning the channels directly to the states.[^56]
    Other commenters thought that the NCC should decide the issue in the
    first instance.[^57] With regard to state management of the
    interoperability channels, the State of Arizona (Arizona) does not
    wish to be responsible for administration of the interoperability
    spectrum.[^58] The State of California (California) noted that while
    it has a strong statewide communication organization, other states
    may have insufficient resources available to adequately manage the
    interoperability channels.[^59]

20. The NCC asserts that most large-scale events and disasters where
    interoperability will be used are governed by state statute.[^60]
    Further, the NCC notes that most wide-area mutual aid operations are
    managed and controlled by state-level organizations.[^61] In
    addition, the NCC contends that in states where there are multiple
    RPCs, or where one RPC covers multiple states, RPC administration of
    interoperability spectrum may be difficult.[^62] For these reasons,
    the NCC recommends that the states and RPCs work together at the
    state level. Specifically, under the NCC proposal, administration of
    the interoperability channels would be handled by the states, and
    oversight of the interoperability infrastructure would be handled by
    the RPCs.[^63] Under this framework, states would hold the license
    and be responsible for developing statewide interoperability
    plans.[^64] The states would administer the interoperability
    channels; whereas the RPCs will perform technical reviews of the
    applications. For example, the state could be responsible for
    creating and overseeing incident response protocols, creating chains
    of command for incident response and reporting, and other operating
    functions. If a state were unwilling to do so, however, then the NCC
    recommends that the RPCs would assume this responsibility.

21. We agree with the NCC that administration of the interoperability
    channels should occur at the state level. As noted by the NCC,
    state-level organizations[^65] are usually in charge in multi-agency
    incidents. Further, states are in a better position to deal with
    Federal Government emergency agencies.\
    Therefore, we propose to have the states administer the
    interoperability spectrum. Under this approach, applications for
    interoperability spectrum must be approved by a state-level agency
    or organization responsible for administering state emergency
    communications. The state (or state-level agency) can be the
    licensee for all stations operating on the interoperability channels
    or it could approve other eligible public safety entities---such as
    local governments---to be a licensee. A state may delegate this
    approval process for interoperability channels to another entity,
    such as an RPC.

22. In addition, the NCC recommends: (a) the formation of State
    Interoperability Executive Committees (SIECs); (b) that the
    Commission license "subscriber equipment" (mobile and portable
    units) operating on interoperability channels; (c) that RPCs oversee
    interoperability infrastructure; and (d) the adoption of
    standardized templates for Memoranda of Understanding between SIECs
    and sharing agreements between jurisdictions.[^66] These
    recommendations are discussed separately below.

23. *[State Interoperability Executive Committees]{.underline}*.
    Although we agree with the NCC that administration of the
    interoperability channels should be handled by the states, the NCC
    further suggests that each state form an SIEC to handle the
    administration of interoperability channels. Under this approach,
    entities desiring a license to operate on the interoperability
    channels would have to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding
    (MOU) with the pertinent SIEC. The SIEC would be charged with
    enforcement of the MOU's terms,[^67] with final authority vested
    with the Commission. The NCC notes that "it is difficult to see how
    the Commission would treat such a recommendation except to itself
    encourage the formation of SIECs; the Steering Committee does not
    foresee the Commission establishing a rule mandating the
    establishment of SIECs."[^68] The NCC recommends that among other
    duties, SIECs develop interoperability operational plans. If a SIEC
    or another state agency elects not to oversee development of such
    plans for a state, the NCC recommends that the RPC do so. Because we
    believe the benefits of SIECS are best determined by the states, the
    decision to form such groups or seek assistance from existing groups
    such as RPCs should be determined by the states as well. However, we
    are concerned that situations may arise in which a SIEC or other
    state agency would not oversee the development of an
    interoperability plan for a state. We invite comment on whether a
    RPC would oversee the development of an interoperability plan for a
    state in this situation.

24. *[Subscriber Equipment Licensing]{.underline}*. The NCC recommends
    that we license subscriber equipment (mobiles and portables).[^69]
    The NCC asserts that such licensing---coupled with the Commission's
    enforcement authority---would forestall abuse of the
    interoperability channels in the 700 MHz public safety band.[^70] In
    support of its request, the NCC contends that we should take
    measures to guard against abuses that allegedly have occurred in the
    five mutual aid channels in the 821-824 MHz and 866-869 MHz bands
    (800 MHz band).[^71]

25. Under our Rules, an entity must have a license to operate a base or
    control station on the five 800 MHz band mutual aid channels.[^72]
    Mobile operation, however, is permitted on these channels without an
    individual license by any entity operating in accordance with an
    approved 800 MHz regional plan (*i.e.*, a blanket licensing
    approach).[^73] Therefore, we presume that the NCC is recommending
    that we require entities that want to operate mobile units,
    including portables, on the 700 MHz interoperability channels to
    obtain a license.

26. We do not believe that the current record in this docket supports
    the NCC recommendation. The primary objective in setting aside
    interoperability spectrum and requiring all 700 MHz equipment to be
    capable of operating on these channels was to ensure that all public
    safety entities could communicate with one another, especially
    during disaster situations. Blanket licensing all public safety
    licensees so that they are authorized for mobile operation, rather
    than requiring an individual license, seems to better support this
    objective and achieves the same effect as end-user licensing.
    Further, blanket---rather than individual---licensing would
    eliminate many administrative burdens associated with licensing
    (*i.e.*, entities would not have to apply for a mobile license, and
    the Commission would not have to process the applications).

27. In addition, we are unsure what abuses the NCC believes have
    occurred in the 800 MHz public safety band because it has not
    identified any specific abuses in its Report. Accordingly, we seek
    comment on the types of abuses that have occurred allegedly as a
    result of not requiring subscriber equipment licensing.
    Additionally, because this *Fourth Notice* concerns the 700 MHz
    public safety band, we seek comment concerning whether these alleged
    abuses would be problematic in this band without subscriber
    equipment licensing.

28. Although we are seeking comment on these alleged abuses, we believe
    blanket---as opposed to individual---licensing does not diminish our
    enforcement authority. The Commission has the authority to penalize
    entities for abuse. Therefore, we propose to allow public safety
    entities to operate mobile units on the 700 MHz band
    interoperability channels without an individual license if (1) such
    entities are eligible to hold a 700 MHz band license, or (2) such
    entities otherwise are licensed under Part 90 of our Rules. As with
    the 800 MHz National Public Safety Planning Advisory Council
    (NPSPAC) mutual aid channels, base and control stations must be
    licensed individually.[^74] We seek comment on these proposals,
    including the NCC's recommendation for licensing subscriber
    equipment, as well as the issue of whether the NCC's suggestions
    would require amendments to Sections 90.179 and 90.421 of our
    Rules.[^75]

29. *[RPC Oversight of Interoperability Infrastructure]{.underline}*.
    The NCC recommends that (1) the oversight of the technical
    parameters of the interoperability infrastructure should rest with
    the RPCs; (2) the RPCs should urge the states to jointly develop
    interoperability operational plans---and failing that---to develop
    such plans independently; and (3) the RPCs should request the states
    to hold the licenses for infrastructure---and failing that---to have
    the licenses held by the next highest level of government.[^76]

30. We solicit comment on whether the RPCs should review the technical
    parameters of applications for interoperability channels. The RPCs
    already have the mechanism in place to review the technical
    parameters of the 700 MHz general use spectrum. Further, we seek
    comment on whether the RPCs should be responsible to verify that the
    application is in accordance with the state-approved plan for
    interoperability spectrum, or if there is no plan, to certify that
    the application has been approved by the appropriate state-level
    agency. Under this approach, RPCs would be free to advocate that the
    states develop interoperability plans or, with state approval,
    develop a plan on their own. In addition, as discussed above,[^77]
    states may hold the licenses for interoperability spectrum or
    approve others to hold licenses.[^78]

31. *[Memoranda of Understanding and Sharing Agreements]{.underline}.*
    The NCC has developed a model Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that
    would govern the use of the interoperability channels. The NCC
    proposes that we require an applicant and the relevant SIEC or other
    entity that is charged with administering the interoperability
    channels to sign an MOU before a license could be granted. The model
    MOU requires, *inter alia*, licensees to use plain (unencrypted)
    language on the interoperability channels; to monitor the calling
    channels and coordinate use of the tactical channels; to limit
    secondary trunking on the interoperability channels as described
    above; and to follow a set of priority levels when using the
    channels.[^79] The NCC notes that the SIECs and RPCs may adapt the
    model MOU to their own needs.[^80] The NCC also has developed a
    model sharing agreement for use of the interoperability
    channels.[^81] The NCC contemplates that when foreign users (*i.e.*,
    non-licensees, federal government agencies, or non-governmental
    organizations) respond to a particular incident, sharing of the
    interoperability channels would be done on the basis of an *ad hoc*
    "virtual sharing agreement" that would begin at the time of the
    response and end at the conclusion of the incident.[^82]

32. We have proposed that the states (or their designees) administer the
    interoperability spectrum.[^83] In order to receive a license to
    operate a base or control station on interoperability channels, the
    applicant must secure approval from the state. The exact procedures
    that a state may use to administer its channels were not clearly
    explained by the NCC. However, at any rate, we are not convinced
    that our Rules should dictate the specific details of this approval
    process. Further, we are unclear how the NCC's proposals actually
    would work in practice. Nevertheless, we seek comment on the NCC's
    proposals on the issues of MOUs and sharing agreements and how these
    proposals would work in practice.

## Channel Designation and Access Priority

33. *[Channel Designation]{.underline}*. The NCC recommends that we
    adopt a table of channel assignments for the interoperability
    channels.[^84] The table would assign a particular purpose and name
    to each interoperability channel set (two 6.25 kHz channels). For
    example, Channels 23 and 24 would be assigned for General Public
    Safety use and given the label "GTAC 5." We seek comment on the
    NCC's proposed table and assignments.[^85] We note that the NCC
    Report lists a specific use or description for each interoperability
    channel (*e.g.*, "Fire Services"). Although there are benefits to
    "reserving" channels for specific uses, the disadvantage is that it
    limits system flexibility. For example, a channel designated for
    Fire Services could not be used for Police Services, and vice-versa.
    One possible alternative would be to specify a particular use for a
    channel but allow other public safety entities to use the channel on
    a secondary basis. Further, the NCC recommends specific
    interoperability channel labels and proposes that we codify those
    channel labels in our Rules.[^86] We seek comment on these issues.
    Commenters in favor of the recommended approach of designating these
    channels in the Rules should address the difficulties regarding
    making changes to a channel label via the rulemaking or waiver
    process.

34. *[Display Labeling (Nomenclature)]{.underline}*. Generally,
    transmitters used under Part 90 of our Rules must be certificated
    for use.[^87] The NCC recommends that we require mobile units
    certificated for use under Part 90 of the Rules be capable of
    displaying interoperability channel labels alphanumerically if the
    radios are equipped with alphanumeric displays.[^88] Further, the
    NCC recommends that when a mobile radio is operating in the direct
    (simplex) mode,[^89] the letter "D" should be appended to the end of
    the displayed channel label.[^90] The NCC asserts that adoption of
    these rules would allow the Commission to establish a nationally
    standardized format to communicate on interoperability channels, as
    well as to eliminate guesswork during a multi-agency response.[^91]

35. We invite comments on these recommendations. Commenters should
    address the costs and benefits associated with these recommendations
    and the likelihood that standardized nomenclature (*e.g.*, police
    "ten codes") would be accomplished without specifying labels in our
    Rules. We additionally seek comment on the effect of channel
    labeling, if any, on centralized trunking operations and 25 kHz
    operation.

36. *[Access Priority]{.underline}*. The NCC recommends that we adopt a
    mandatory priority scheme for the use of the interoperability
    channels.[^92] The NCC recommends that users receive priority access
    only for "mission critical" communications, not for administrative
    or other non-mission critical communications.[^93] Under the NCC's
    scheme, a party wishing to use an interoperability channel in use by
    another party would declare its level of priority. The higher level
    of priority would gain use of the channel; the party with the lower
    priority level would be required to cease its communications
    immediately. Under the NCC's proposal, the highest level of
    priority, Level 1, would be for disaster and extreme emergency
    operations for mutual aid and interagency communications. The next
    level, Level 2, would be for emergency or urgent operations
    involving imminent danger to life or property. Level 3 would be for
    special event control, generally of a preplanned nature (including
    task force operations). Finally, Level 4, the lowest level (and the
    default when no higher priority level has been declared) would be
    for single agency secondary communications. As stated above,
    conventional use of the interoperability channels always would have
    precedence over secondary trunked use.[^94] Within the same level of
    priority, the NCC recommends giving access to the organization with
    the wider span of control or authority. The NCC states that the
    proposed priority levels are taken from the Public Safety Wireless
    Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report and represent the consensus
    opinion of experts in the field.[^95]

37. We find merit in a priority scheme for resolving conflicts when the
    demand for interoperability channels exceeds the supply of such
    channels. We are not convinced, however, that such scheme should be
    codified in our Rules, because we believe that the states (the
    entities proposed herein to administer the interoperability
    spectrum) are in a better position to determine priority use and
    resolve disputes. For example, agreement to a priority scheme could
    be tied to state approval of the application. While we do not
    propose at this time to add a priority access scheme to our Rules,
    we nevertheless, seek comment on the NCC recommendations regarding
    our adoption of a priority scheme. We ask commenters to address
    whether the definitions of the NCC's recommended priority levels are
    sufficiently clear so that they will be useful in the field.[^96]
    Parties also should address any administrative problems that may
    arise in implementing this priority scheme. For example, we note
    that the priority levels are declared by the user and that there are
    no ready means of resolving disputes except after the fact.

38. In addition, we note that the priority levels the NCC recommends are
    different from the Priority Access Service (PAS) levels we recently
    adopted to allow commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers to
    provide PAS for national and security and emergency preparedness
    (NSEP) personnel.[^97] The National Communications System (NCS)
    desired priority levels that would be compatible with the priority
    levels it had established for wartime use.[^98] These priority
    levels are framed in terms of users. The NCC's recommended priority
    levels for the interoperability channels are framed in terms of the
    type of emergency. We recognized that the underlying purposes for
    the PAS and the 700 MHz interoperability spectrum are different and
    that such difference may necessitate varying priority levels. As a
    result, we ask commenters to discuss whether the priority levels for
    the interoperability channels should be different from the priority
    levels adopted for CMRS providers. In addition, we seek comment as
    to whether the priority levels for the interoperability channels
    could be fashioned so that they are complementary with those
    established for PAS.

39. *[Calling Channels]{.underline}*. The NCC recommends that we
    designate two interoperability channels as calling channels to use
    as gateways to other channels.[^99] Public safety entities,
    particularly those from "outside the system," would use calling
    channels to access the public safety communications infrastructure
    in the area where they are located. For example, a fire department
    responding to an incident in another county could use the calling
    channels to find out the appropriate on-scene tactical channel or
    how to contact other public safety entities such as the police. The
    NCC recommends that we require licensees that use the associated
    interoperability channels to monitor the calling channels. In
    addition to normal calling channel use, the NCC recommends using the
    channels to declare emergencies and to request the immediate release
    of any channels being used for secondary trunking.[^100] Finally,
    the NCC recommends that we forbid the use of encryption on calling
    channels. We seek comment on the NCC's recommendations.

40. We agree that calling channels are a key part of any
    interoperability system.[^101] Therefore, we propose to specify two
    of the 700 MHz interoperability channels as nationwide calling
    channels. These channels are not intended for routine administration
    or day-to-day communications but are to be reserved for activities
    such as coordination of multiple public safety entities at the scene
    of an incident or entities "outside the system" requesting help or
    information. Although we propose to prohibit trunking and encryption
    on these two channels, we seek comment on whether we should adopt
    monitoring or coverage requirements for the calling channels.

## Technical Standards

41. *[Narrowband Digital Voice Standards for Interoperability
    Channels]{.underline}.* In the *First Report and Order*, we
    discussed digital modulation standards for the narrowband
    interoperability channels.[^102]\
    We noted that to achieve interoperability on these channels, a
    single standard would ensure equipment compatibility.[^103] We
    considered adopting the Project 25 Phase I standard (also referred
    to as the TIA/25 standard).[^104] However, the Project 25 Phase I
    standard requires a 12.5 kHz bandwidth. We anticipated the
    development of more spectrum-efficient equipment that would require
    only a 6.25 kHz bandwidth for one voice channel. Accordingly, we
    declined to adopt the Project 25 Phase I standard in the *First
    Report and Order* and instructed the NCC to recommend a set of
    voluntary technical standards for digital modulation for use on the
    interoperability spectrum in the 700 MHz band.[^105] We designed the
    700 MHz public safety band channel plan---based on 6.25 kHz channel
    spacing---to accommodate spectrum-efficient equipment.[^106] We
    recognized, however, that there might be a delay in the
    implementation of spectrum-efficient technology and, accordingly,
    provided that two adjacent 6.25 kHz channels could be combined to
    accommodate equipment that required a 12.5 kHz bandwidth, depending
    upon the standard chosen.[^107]

42. Numerous commenters requested reconsideration of our decision
    declining to adopt the TIA/25 standard.[^108] Specifically, they
    assert that immediate acceptance of the TIA/25 standards will avoid
    a substantial delay while the NCC proceeds with its work.[^109]
    Moreover, APCO contends that the TIA/25 Phase I standard permits
    equipment to exceed the channel efficiency requirement we adopted
    for the 700 MHz band.[^110] APCO states that because Project 25
    Phase II will be a 6.25 kHz standard, and will be backwards
    compatible to Phase I equipment, there is no reason to prohibit
    immediate use of digital equipment meeting the TIA/25 Phase I
    standard in the 700 MHz band.[^111]

43. On the other hand, some commenters agree with our approach in the
    *First Report and Order*. Both Ericsson and AASHTO oppose the
    immediate adoption of an interoperability digital standard.[^112]
    Ericsson argues that regardless of the presence or absence of a
    narrowband standard in this new spectrum, the 700 MHz band will not
    be available for public safety use in any appreciable amount, or in
    areas where it is truly needed, until 2006 at the earliest. Ericsson
    further asserts that the existence of a narrowband standard will not
    cause TV stations in congested areas to exit this spectrum any
    sooner than the DTV date.[^113] AASHTO maintains that we should wait
    for the forthcoming Project 25 Phase II 6.25 kHz standard because it
    will be compliant with the requirements and standards adopted in the
    *First Report and Order*.[^114]

44. The NCC considered three digital voice standards: Project 25 Phase
    I, Project 25 Phase II, and the European Technical Standards
    Institute (ETSI) 392 TETRA system (TETRA).[^115] The NCC recommends
    that we adopt Project 25 Phase I as the digital voice standard for
    interoperability channels.[^116] As discussed above, the Project 25
    Phase I standard is based on 12.5 kHz channels. It meets our minimum
    data rate of 4800 bps per 6.25 kHz bandwidth. It does not, however,
    meet the spirit of our 6.25 kHz band plan (*i.e.,* one voice channel
    per 6.25 kHz bandwidth). According to the NCC Report, the Project 25
    Phase I standard was preferred because it has been implemented
    successfully in other bands (*e.g.,* the 800 MHz public safety
    band), and radio equipment could be available in the very near
    future.[^117] The NCC did not recommend Project 25 Phase II, in
    part, because of perceived delays (approximately five years) in the
    availability of Phase II technology.[^118] The NCC did not recommend
    TETRA primarily because of the low power of its handheld units[^119]
    and the fact that it is not an ANSI standard.[^120] Moreover, the
    Project 25 Phase I standard is the only common denominator between
    several technologies in development, whereas the Project 25 Phase II
    standard may never provide such a benefit.[^121]

45. We observe that the members of the NCC's Steering Committee were not
    unanimous in recommending the Project 25 Phase I standard.[^122] One
    Steering Committee member, who represents the International
    Association of Fire Chiefs, disfavored the Project 25 Phase I
    standard because of perceived spectrum inefficiency and lack of
    competition.[^123] This Steering Committee member proposed the use
    of analog FM technology pending the development of a more
    spectrum-efficient digital technology.[^124] Additionally, we
    observe that the NCC reported that Nokia also opposed the Project 25
    Phase I standard.[^125]

46. We invite parties to comment on the issue of what digital voice
    standard should be adopted for usage on the interoperability
    channels in the 700 MHz public safety band. Although we still intend
    to require spectrum efficient 6.25 kHz technology on the 700 MHz
    interoperability channels, we recognize that a substantial delay in
    the use of this band could result if we have no alternative standard
    for the present use of the band. As a result, we tentatively
    conclude that we should adopt the NCC's recommendation of the
    Project 25 Phase I standard at this time and that we should develop
    and implement a "migration path" to 6.25 kHz technology. We solicit
    comment on our tentative conclusion. In seeking comment on this
    issue, parties should be cognizant of the dual goals of (1)
    encouraging the development and usage of the most spectrum-efficient
    technology, and (2) providing public safety entities access to the
    700 MHz interoperability channels on a near-term basis in a
    cost-effective manner.

47. We note that we anticipate the NCC's future recommendations for
    transitioning from a 12.5 kHz standard to a more spectrum-efficient
    6.25 kHz standard. To avoid even the specter of delay, we
    tentatively conclude that we should incorporate a "migration path"
    to a 6.25 kHz standard in our Rules while we continue to foster
    spectrum efficient 6.25 kHz technology. Commenters who advocate a
    specific technical standard should offer recommendations regarding a
    clear, timely and realistic migration path to spectrum efficient
    6.25 kHz technology in the future. Additionally, we request comments
    concerning what technical challenges must the industry overcome to
    migrate to a 6.25 kHz standard and how will these challenges affect
    the length of the migration. What equipment compatibility issues
    must the industry resolve? Furthermore, can the industry develop
    equipment that is both forward and backwards compatible?

48. In addition to comments concerning technology and equipment issues,
    we seek comment on the development of a specific migration path from
    the Project 25 Phase I standard to a 6.25 kHz standard.
    Specifically, what is an appropriate length of time to migrate to
    the 6.25 kHz standard.[^126] Commenters should address the
    advantages as well as the disadvantages of a particular migration
    path. Should we require a migration period that ends in the year
    2010, approximately ten years? This date corresponds to the date by
    which Congress directed the Commission to develop a framework to
    ensure that public safety communications needs are met.

49. As an adjunct to the length of the migration period, we seek comment
    on several additional migration issues. Primarily, should we limit
    the time period for the type acceptance of 12.5 kHz equipment? For
    example, in the *Refarming* proceeding, we require equipment
    certified after January 1, 2005 to meet the 6.25 kHz requirements in
    the 150-174 MHz and 421-512 MHz "refarmed" bands.[^127] Are there
    alternative approaches for migration other than type acceptance?
    Furthermore, some thought should also be given to whether the
    migration period should be completed in stages. If so, what time
    periods would be appropriate and what occurrences should mark the
    beginning and ending of the time periods? Should we have a date
    certain, or should we determine these time periods based upon the
    DTV transition? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of a
    date certain versus a less certain date. Commenters should also
    address the cost to public safety entities to migrate to the 6.25
    kHz standard from a 12.5 kHz standard.

50. *[Channel Efficiency Standards---Narrowband Channels]{.underline}*.
    We established a channel efficiency standard (data throughput) of
    4.8 kilobits per second (kbps) per 6.25 kHz for the narrowband
    channels.[^128] Ericsson requests that we modify the efficiency
    standard for narrowband channels (general use and interoperability)
    to include a requirement that transmitters for voice communications
    in the narrowband segment of the 700 MHz band meet a spectrum
    efficiency standard of one voice channel per 6.25 kHz of channel
    bandwidth, regardless of the data rate supplied.[^129] Ericsson
    contends that it is entirely possible that a digital voice
    transmitter, even though it meets the data requirement now specified
    in our Rules, would provide only one voice path in a 12.5 kHz
    channel.[^130] Therefore, Ericsson asserts that a requirement for
    voice efficiency, as currently exists for channels in the 150-174
    MHz and 421-512 MHz bands, is also needed.[^131] Furthermore,
    Ericsson contends that refusal to adopt complimentary voice spectrum
    efficiency requirements will seriously undermine the adequacy of the
    spectrum needs identified in the PSWAC Final Report.[^132]

51. APCO and Motorola oppose Ericsson\'s suggestion to require a voice
    channel efficiency standard of one voice channel per 6.25 kHz. APCO
    contends that Ericsson\'s proposal appears to favor its own
    proprietary TDMA 2-slot technology, which is not an ANSI
    standard.[^133] APCO further states that at this time there is no
    ANSI-approved technology that provides one voice channel per
    6.25 kHz of channel bandwidth, and that several technologies are
    under consideration as part of the Project 25 Phase II, 6.25 kHz
    standard now in development.[^134] APCO also argues that to mandate
    that equipment be capable of supporting one voice channel per 6.25
    kHz would unnecessarily and prematurely favor TDMA technology and
    undermine the public safety community's support for the existing
    TIA/25 standard.[^135] Motorola argues that adoption of the one
    voice channel per 6.25 kHz of channel bandwidth would accelerate
    public safety requirements ahead of those established for business
    and industrial applications, and would require public safety users
    to assume responsibility for funding the development of new
    technologies.[^136]

52. As stated above, we invite comment on the appropriate digital voice
    standard for the interoperability channels in the 700 MHz public
    safety band. Ericsson's recommendation would result in a negation of
    the NCC's recommendation to use the Project 25 Phase I (TIA/25)
    standard. Because we are reluctant to negate the NCC's
    recommendation, we will not, at this juncture, alter our present 4.8
    kbps per 6.25 kHz standard. We seek comment on this issue.

53. *[Narrowband Low Speed Data Transmission Standard and Channel
    Reservation]{.underline}*. The NCC recommends that we reserve two
    interoperability channels for data transmission.[^137] The NCC
    recognizes that although time-critical information, such as "safety
    of life messages," requires communication by voice radio, low speed
    data transmission also can be used to manage specific incident
    command system operations.[^138] For example, narrowband data
    transmission can facilitate the exchange of keyboard messages or the
    uploading and downloading of short files.[^139] Pursuant to the
    NCC's recommendation, we propose to reserve two interoperability
    channels for data transmission.

54. Just as an interoperability standard is needed for digital voice, a
    standard is also needed for narrowband data transmissions on
    interoperability channels. The NCC recommends that we adopt the data
    interoperability standard that is incorporated in the Project 25
    suite of standards and is defined by one ANSI standard and four
    TIA/EIA standards.[^140] This data interoperability standard
    requires use of a 12.5 kHz channel---the same channel size
    recommended by the NCC for voice transmission.[^141] The NCC asserts
    that using the same channel size for voice transmission will reduce
    the complexity and cost of equipment. The NCC notes that the data
    rate meets our spectrum efficiency requirement of 9600 bps for a
    12.5 kHz channel. We solicit comment on the appropriate standard for
    narrowband data transmissions on interoperability channels. As
    stated earlier, commenters who advocate a specific technical
    standard should offer recommendations regarding a clear, timely, and
    realistic "migration path" to more spectrum-efficient technology in
    the future.[^142]

55. Additionally, we propose that subscriber units designed for
    data-only applications not be required to have voice capability.
    Conversely, subscriber units designed for voice-only applications
    need not have data transmission capability. We tentatively support
    the NCC recommendations above and solicit comment on these issues,
    with particular regard to matters of spectrum efficiency and any
    changes necessary in our Rules.

56. *[Encryption]{.underline}*. The NCC notes that public safety
    entities increasingly are using encryption. The NCC recommends that
    we require a standard encryption algorithm if we decide to permit
    licensees to use encryption on the interoperability channels.[^143]
    Otherwise, the ability to use the channels for interoperability will
    be compromised. We agree with the NCC that there is an increasing
    use of encryption by public safety entities. Because we anticipate
    that the Federal government, which normally encrypts its
    communications, will be using the channels, the NCC recommends that
    we adopt the latest Federal standard.[^144] We believe that
    encryption should be permitted on the 700 MHz band public safety
    spectrum, except for the calling channels. Further, we invite
    comments on the NCC's recommendation that if encryption is permitted
    on the interoperability channels, a single standard is needed. We
    understand that the Federal government currently uses an encryption
    standard known as "2xDES" but soon will adopt a new, more secure
    standard---potentially FIPS 46-3, which operates on 12.5 kHz
    channels. We seek comment on whether this Federal standard should be
    adopted, and if so, the best method for updating the encryption
    standard in the future.

57. *[Receiver Standards and Interference]{.underline}*. In the *First
    Report and Order*, we observed that we traditionally have adopted
    rules only as necessary to limit interference between communications
    systems and have not specified performance or quality standards for
    receivers.[^145] We further recognized that while receiver standards
    may be appropriate in certain public safety circumstances, the
    balance between the quality and the cost of receivers is one best
    left to the market.[^146] Accordingly, for general use channels, we
    required RPCs to establish reference values for adjacent channel
    selectivity, spurious response attenuation, and intermodulation
    rejection in their plans.[^147] For interoperability, we charged the
    NCC with recommending the parameters (*e.g.,* sensitivity,
    selectivity, dynamic range, durability characteristics) to include
    in the receiver standards.[^148] The NCC has included this matter in
    its second year work-plan.

58. In the *Second MO&O*, we declined to adopt receiver standards absent
    additional information from the public safety community regarding
    the advantages, disadvantages, and feasibility of mandating receiver
    standards for the 700 MHz band.[^149] We noted that to the extent
    that receiver standards could improve the reliability of
    interoperability communications systems used in critical safety of
    life and property circumstances, such standards may be
    appropriate.[^150] Recently we have received an increasing number of
    interference complaints from public safety licensees in the 800 MHz
    public safety band. Many of these licensees note several instances
    where public safety mobile and portable radios operating on the 800
    MHz band either have failed to function properly, or have failed to
    function at all, especially in areas located near towers operated by
    commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) systems. There are
    indications that some incidents of interference may be caused---at
    least in part---by receivers that are too susceptible to
    interference from nearby public safety or commercial operations.
    These incidents of interference are difficult to resolve because the
    adjacent licensees may be operating within the terms of their
    licenses, while public safety operators may lack the resources to
    replace radio systems that are susceptible to interference with more
    robust equipment. We therefore seek comment on whether the interests
    of public safety and commercial licensees in the 700 MHz band would
    be served by establishing interference standards for receivers
    operating on public safety frequencies.

59. Specifically, we invite comment on whether we should mandate
    receiver standards to address interference issues raised by public
    safety radio operators.[^151] Furthermore, assuming that
    interference experienced by public safety radio operations is caused
    by CMRS systems, what is the specific cause of this interference?
    For example, can this interference be attributable to out-of-band
    emissions, the poor quality of some public safety radio receivers,
    or some other factor? Do we need to revisit our current rules on
    out-of-band emissions by radio transmitters? Could higher filtering
    standards solve most interference problems? Is interference caused
    primarily by transmissions from adjacent channels or non-adjacent
    channels? We also seek comment on whether we should require
    equipment manufacturers to label equipment to indicate the
    interference level that a customer might expect with a given
    receiver. We additionally invite comment on whether public safety
    operations in the 700 MHz band might be less susceptible to
    interference than public safety operations in the 800 MHz band due
    to the various differences in channelization plans and the use of
    guard channels in the 700 MHz band.

## Other Issues

60. *[Federal Use of the Interoperability Spectrum]{.underline}*. The
    NCC recommends sufficient flexibility in our Rules to allow state
    and local authorities to enter contractual agreements with Federal
    authorities.[^152] In these agreements, Federal users would have
    equal rights to the spectrum, and no user would have priority over
    another user unless otherwise specified in the contract. As the NCC
    observes, Section 2.103(b) of our Rules[^153] already offers
    flexibility in this regard. In the *Second MO&O*, we concluded that
    there is no impediment to federal use of the 700 MHz band through
    the use of sharing agreements.[^154] Thus, we tentatively conclude
    that an additional rule is not necessary to facilitate Federal
    sharing of the interoperability spectrum. We seek comment on our
    tentative conclusion.

61. *[Pre-coordination Database]{.underline}*. The NCC recommends that
    we require RPCs to use a regional planning "pre-coordination
    database," which will be developed for the 700 MHz public safety
    band. The NCC recommends requiring RPCs to choose interoperability
    channels from this pre-coordination database in order to avoid
    co-channel and adjacent channel interference.[^155] According to the
    NCC, the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center
    (NLETC) will provide and maintain a real-time database of
    interoperability assignments, including pre-application assignments.
    The National Institute of Justice will fund the database.[^156] RPCs
    would submit pre-application information to NLETC concerning
    anticipated use of interoperability channels. When planning systems,
    RPCs could check the database to see how adjacent regions were
    planning to use interoperability spectrum and thus eliminate
    potential interference problems in the early stages of system
    development.

62. We are aware of and support the benefits of a real-time common
    database for planning purposes and in minimizing interference.
    Nonetheless, just as we decline to micromanage frequency
    coordination in the 700 MHz regional planning spectrum in the
    *Second MO&O*,[^157] we similarly decline to micromanage
    pre-coordination of interoperability channels.[^158] We believe that
    it is unnecessary to require by rule the use of a pre-coordination
    database.

63. Based on the record before us, we tentatively conclude that the
    decision to require applicants for interoperability channels to use
    a common pre-coordination database is best left to the entities
    tasked with administering the interoperability spectrum. In any
    event, we solicit comment from parties favoring the NCC's
    recommendation for requiring the use of a pre-coordination database.
    We also solicit comment on whether the RPCs should include in their
    regional plans a coordination process between interoperability and
    general use channels. We also seek comment on what alternative
    systems of channel coordination RPCs could employ in their planning
    process. Do commenters envision the use of a pre-coordination
    database if the states or SIECs are the entities to manage the
    interoperability spectrum? Moreover, we invite commenters to propose
    how they envision coordination between various interoperability
    entities (*i.e.*, SIECs in different states, or SIECs or RPCs
    managing the interoperability channels for the same region). We also
    solicit comment on any other pertinent issues that would facilitate
    the successful implementation of the pre-coordination database.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

64. *[Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis]{.underline}*. As required
    by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980,[^159] we have
    prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
    possible significant economic impact on small entities of the
    policies and rules proposed by this *Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making*. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A. We request written
    public comment on the IRFA.

65. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines
    as comments filed in this rulemaking proceeding, they must have a
    separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the
    IRFA. The Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center,
    shall send a copy of this *Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making*,
    including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel of the Small Business
    Administration, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

66. *[Paperwork Reduction Analysis]{.underline}*. This *Fourth Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making* contains proposed information collections. As
    part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, the
    Commission invites the general public and the Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed
    revisions to the information collections contained in this *Fourth
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, which is required by the Paperwork
    Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13.

67. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other
    comments on this *Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making*. OMB
    comments are due sixty days from the date of publication of this
    *Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in the Federal Register. In
    addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
    comments on the information collections contained herein should be
    submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, 445
    Twelfth St., S.W., Room 1-C804, Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the
    Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and to Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer,
    10236 NEOB, 725 17th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, or via the
    Internet to vhuth@omb.eop.gov. Comments should address: (a) whether
    the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
    performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether
    the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
    the Commission\'s burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
    utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
    minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
    respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
    other forms of information technology.

68. *[Ex Parte Presentations]{.underline}*. For purposes of this
    permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding,
    members of the public are advised that *ex parte* presentations are
    permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they
    are disclosed under our Rules.[^160]

69. *[Comment Dates]{.underline}*. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419
    of our Rules,[^161] interested parties may **file comments on or
    before thirty days after publication of the *Fourth Notice* in the
    Federal Register; 2000, and reply comments on or before forty five
    days after publication of the *Fourth Notice* in the Federal
    Register.** Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
    Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.[^162] All
    relevant and timely comments will be considered by the Commission
    before final action is taken in this proceeding. To file formally,
    interested parties must file an original and four copies of all
    comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If interested
    parties want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their
    comments, they must file an original plus nine copies. Interested
    parties should send comments and reply comments to the Office of the
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
    Washington, DC 20544.

70. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to \<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html\>.
    Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.
    In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include
    their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable
    docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic
    comment by the Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for
    e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov,
    and should include the following words in the body of the message,
    "get form \<your e-mail address\>." A sample form and directions
    will be sent in reply.

71. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
    copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number
    appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit
    two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking
    number. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary,
    Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554.

72. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Nancy
    Zaczek, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau at (202) 418-0759 or nzaczek@fcc.gov.

73. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette,
    and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by
    contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260, TTY (202) 418-2555, or
    via e-mail to mcontee@fcc.gov. This *Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making* can be downloaded at
    http://www.fcc.gov/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00-271.txt.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

74. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that these actions ARE TAKEN pursuant to
    Sections 1, 4(i), 7, 301, 302, 303, and 337 of the Communications
    Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 157, 301, 302,
    303, 337.

75. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the proposed
    regulatory changes described above, and that comment is sought on
    these proposals.

76. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this *Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making* is hereby ADOPTED.

77. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    *Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, including the Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
    of the Small Business Administration.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Magalie Roman Salas

    Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^163] the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the policies and rules proposed in this *Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (Fourth Notice)*. Written public comments are requested regarding
this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must
be filed by the deadlines for comments on the *Fourth Notice* provided
in the item. The Commission will send a copy of the *Fourth Notice*,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.[^164] In addition, the *Fourth Notice* and IRFA
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.[^165]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules**

In the *Fourth Notice*, we continue our evaluation of rules applicable
to the use of public safety spectrum in the frequencies at 764-776 MHz
and 794-806 MHz (the 700 MHz band). Specifically, the *Fourth Notice*
summarizes and seeks comment on the recommendations of the Public Safety
National Coordination Committee (NCC) concerning technical and
operational standards for public safety interoperability frequencies in
the 700 MHz band. We seek comment on a number of issues including:
primary and secondary trunking on the interoperability channels;
establishment and role of Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) and State
Interoperability Executive Committees (SIECs); administration of the
interoperability channels by state or local entities; licensing of
end-users; standardized display labeling for interoperability units;
access priority scheme for the interoperability channels; designation
and use of calling channels; use of encryption on the interoperability
channels; digital voice standards and efficiency standards for the
interoperability channels; digital data standards and channel
reservation for the interoperability channels; federal use of the
interoperability spectrum; and use of a pre-coordination database to
assign the interoperability channels. The proposed rules and actions
should help achieve our goal of seamless interoperability on a
nationwide basis, thereby improving critical public safety
communications.[^166]

**B. Legal Basis**

Authority for issuance of this item is contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 7,
301, 302, 303, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 157, 301, 302, 303, 337.

**C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply**

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^167] The RFA defines the
term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
business," "small organization," and "small business concern" under
Section 3 of the Small Business Act.[^168] A small business concern is
one that: (1) is independently owned and operated, (2) is not dominant
in its field of operation, and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business Administration.[^169] Nationwide, as
of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.[^170]
"Small governmental jurisdiction" generally means "governments of
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of less than 50,000."[^171] As of
1992, there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United
States.[^172] This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns;
of these, 37,566, or ninety-six percent, have populations of fewer than
50,000.[^173] The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is
approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the
85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (ninety-one
percent) are small entities. Below, we further describe and estimate the
number of small entity licensees and regulatees that may be affected by
the proposed rules, if adopted.

*Public Safety Radio Pool Licensees*. As a general matter, Public Safety
Radio Pool licensees include police, fire, local government, forestry
conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical services.[^174]
Spectrum in the 700 MHz band for public safety services is governed by
47 U.S.C. § 337. Non-Federal governmental entities, as well as private
businesses, are licensees for these services. As indicated above, all
governmental entities with populations of less than 50,000 fall within
the definition of a small entity.[^175] Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a definition of small businesses directed specifically
toward public service licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of
small business is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to
radiotelephone (wireless) companies. This provides that a small business
is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^176]
According to the Bureau of the Census, only twelve radiotelephone firms
from a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or
more employees.[^177] Therefore, even if all twelve of these firms were
public safety licensees, nearly all would be small businesses under the
SBA\'s definition, if independently owned and operated.

*Radio and Television Equipment Manufacturers*. We anticipate that at
least six radio equipment manufacturers will be affected by our
decisions in this proceeding. According to the Small Business
Administration's regulations, a radio and television broadcasting and
communications equipment manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees
in order to qualify as a small business concern.[^178] Census Bureau
data indicate that there are 858 U.S. firms that manufacture radio and
television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 778 of
these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would therefore be
classified as small entities.[^179] We do not have information that
indicates how many of the six radio equipment manufacturers associated
with this proceeding are among these 778 firms. Motorola and Ericsson,
however, are major, nationwide radio equipment manufacturers, and thus,
we conclude that they would not qualify as small businesses.

**D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements**

The *Fourth Notice* proposes a number of rules and solicits comments
that will entail reporting, recordkeeping, and/or third-party
consultation. The Commission believes, however, that these requirements
are the minimum needed. The licensing methods under consideration in the
*Fourth Notice* include the possibility of imposing recordkeeping and
reporting requirements on applicants for public safety licenses that may
be required to make submissions to planning committees justifying their
request for spectrum. These entities will be required to submit
applications for spectrum licenses on Form 601.

The *Fourth Notice* also seeks comment on recommendations to employ
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and model sharing agreements to govern
use of interoperability channels. Entities would be responsible for
gathering the information necessary to complete an MOU or sharing
agreement. [^180]

**E.** **Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 5 U.S.C.
§603.

The NCC, comprised of representatives from government, the public safety
community, and the communications equipment manufacturing industry, was
chartered by the FCC as a Federal Advisory Committee, effective February
25, 1999. The NCC made recommendations concerning various issues
addressed in this *Fourth Notice*. We note that in several instances, to
benefit all entities, including small entities, we did not propose a
particular recommendation. For instance, see the discussion in
paragraphs 25-28 and 60-62, *supra*.

In formulating the proposals in the *Fourth Notice*, we have reduced
economic burdens wherever possible. The regulatory burdens that we have
proposed are necessary to ensure that the public receives the pubic
safety benefits of innovative new services in a prompt and efficient
manner. For example, we have proposed technical and operational rules
that should promote competition in the equipment market. We believe that
the rules we adopt must be as competitively and technologically neutral
as possible, in order to allow for competing equipment designs and to
avoid hindering future innovative technological developments. We note
that tighter technical specifications generally allow more intense
spectrum use, but may result in higher equipment costs. Conversely,
although wider tolerances may allow manufacturers to use less costly
component parts in transmitting equipment, they also may result in less
efficient spectrum use. With these considerations in mind, we believe
that the technical regulations we propose herein provide a reasonable
balance of these concerns.

Under the regional planning process, frequency coordination is
competitive. Frequency coordination is the process by which a private
organization recommends to the Commission the most appropriate
frequencies for private land mobile radio service applicants.[^181]
Frequency coordinators provide a valuable service to the Commission by
eliminating common application errors, thereby improving the quality of
the applications and resolving potential interference problems at the
source. We continue to believe that the encouragement of competition
among coordinators promotes cost-based pricing of coordination services
and provides incentives for enhancing service quality. Therefore, we
will continue to allow any of the certified public safety coordinators
to provide coordination in the 700 MHz band.

Recognizing the budgetary constraints that public safety entities face
as a matter of course, we have proposed rules that encourage broad-based
efforts, such as projects on the state and regional level, to coordinate
and consolidate operations that are critical to meeting the needs of
public safety with cost effective, spectrally-efficient radio systems.
For example, we have proposed trunking on certain public safety channels
in the 700 MHz band. Trunked systems would provide service to many
governmental entities in a specific geographic area and offer a higher
degree of efficiency than some smaller, non-trunked systems. A
difficulty in establishing these types of shared systems is that they
require individual agencies to surrender some autonomy in return for the
efficiencies and better coverage of a larger system. In addition, the
funding required to develop the infrastructure necessary to support some
of the newer technologies is often too great to permit small public
safety agencies to participate in new, sophisticated, spectrum
efficient, wireless radio systems. These same agencies, however, might
be able to participate in a county-wide or state-wide system. For these,
and other, reasons, we encourage the use of shared systems in the public
safety community.[^182]

We believe that flexible licensing policies are necessary to encourage
the use of the most spectrally efficient technology to meet user-defined
needs. Recognizing the budgetary constraints that small public safety
entities face, the *Fourth Notice* seeks comment on a variety of
proposals regarding the interoperability spectrum in the 700 MHz public
safety band. Any significant alternatives presented in comments will be
considered.

**F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules**

None.

**APPENDIX B**

**PROPOSED RULES**

Part 90 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

1\. The authority citation for Part 90 is revised to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 4, 251-52, 303, 309, 332 and 337, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 251-52, 303, 309, 332 and 337, unless
otherwise noted.

2\. A new Section 90.524 is added to read as follows:

**§ 90.524 Administration of interoperability channels.**

\(a\) States are responsible for administration of the interoperability
channels in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz frequency bands. Base and
control stations must be licensed individually. A public safety entity
may operate mobile or portable units on the interoperability channels in
the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz frequency bands without an individual
license if (1) the entity is eligible to hold a license in the 764-776
MHz and 794-806 MHz frequency bands, or (2) the entity otherwise is
licensed under part 90 of these Rules. All persons operating mobile or
portable units are responsible for compliance with part 90 of these
Rules and other applicable federal laws.

\(b\) License applications for interoperability channels in the 764-776
MHz and 794-806 MHz frequency bands must be approved by a state-level
agency or organization responsible for administering state emergency
communications. States may hold the licenses for interoperability
channels or approve other qualified entities to hold such licenses.
States may delegate the approval process for interoperability channels
to another entity, such as regional planning committees.

3\. Section 90.531 is amended by adding paragraphs (i) through (iv) in
subsection (b)(1), to read as follows:

**§ 90.531 Band plan.**

\* \* \* \* \*

(b)(1) *Narrowband nationwide interoperability channels*. The following
categories of narrowband channels are designated for nationwide
interoperability licensing and use:

> \(i\) *Primary narrowband interoperability channels*. The following
> channels are designated as primary narrowband interoperability
> channels. \[Note: channels dependent upon guard band decision\].
>
> \(ii\) *Narrowband data interoperability channels*. The following
> channels are dedicated for the express purpose of nationwide data
> transmission only. \[Note: channels dependent upon guard band
> decision\].
>
> \(iii\) *Narrowband calling interoperability channels.* The following
> channels are dedicated for the express purpose of nationwide
> interoperability calling only \[Note: channels dependent upon guard
> band decision\]. Trunking and encryption are prohibited on the two
> designated calling channel sets.
>
> \(iv\) *Narrowband trunking interoperability channels*. The following
> channels are available for nationwide interoperability trunking
> purposes. \[Note: channels dependent upon guard band decision\].

\* \* \* \* \*

4\. Section 90.537 is amended by adding the second, third, and fourth
sentences of the paragraph, to read as follows:

**§ 90.537 Trunking requirement.**

\(a\) *General use channels*. All systems using six or more narrowband
channels in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz frequency bands must be
trunked systems, except for those described in paragraph (b) of this
section.

\(b\) *Interoperability channels*. Trunking is permitted on ten of the
channels designated for nationwide interoperability use, as designated
in § 90.531(b)(1)(iv). The following requirements apply to
interoperability channels where trunking is permitted, but not required:
trunked use must be conducted on a strict secondary, non-interference
basis; 6.25 kHz, 12.5 kHz, and 25 kHz trunked operations are permitted;
and routine (day-to-day) communications are permitted if the channel(s)
are not needed for emergency communications. Trunking is prohibited on
the remainder of the interoperability channels, including any channels
reserved as calling channels, because such channels are reserved for
conventional operations.

5\. Section 90.547 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 90.547 Interoperability channel capability requirement.**

\(a\) Mobile and portable transmitters designed pursuant to standards
adopted by the National

Coordination Committee to operate in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz
frequency bands must be capable of operating on any of the designated
nationwide narrowband interoperability channels, approved by the
Commission. Subscriber units designed for data-only applications are not
required to have voice capability. Subscriber units designed for
voice-only applications are not required to have data transmission
capability.

\(b\) Transmitters operating on those narrowband channels in the 764-776
and 794-806 MHz band designated for interoperability (*See* 90.531 shall
conform to the following technical standards:

\(i\) Transmitters designed for voice operation within a 12.5 kHz or
6.25 kHz bandwidth shall conform to the following standards:
ANSI/TIA/EIA102.BAAA-1 (common air interface); ANSI/TIA/EIA102.BABA
(vocoder).

\(ii\) Transmitters designed for data transmission within a 12.5 kHz or
6.25 kHz bandwidth shall conform to the following standards, as
applicable: ANSI/TIA/EIA 102.BAEA (data overview); ANSI/TIA/EIA 102.BAEB
(packet data specification); ANSI/TIA/EIA102.BAEC (circuit data
description); ANSI/TIA/EIA 102.BAEA (radio control protocol); and
ANSI/TIA/EIA 102.BABA (vocoder).

\(c\) Copies of the standards listed in this Section 90.547 that are
incorporated by reference can be purchased from the American National
Standards Institute, Washington, DC Headquarters, 1819 L Street, NW, 6th
Floor, Washington, DC 20036.

\(d\) Copies of the standards listed in this Section 90.547 that are
incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC (Reference Information
Center) or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC.

[^1]: Public Safety National Coordination Committee's Recommendations to
    the Federal Communication Commission for Technical and Operational
    Standards for Use of the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz Public Safety
    Band Pending Development of Final Rules (Feb. 25, 2000) (NCC
    Report). The NCC provided detailed technical information in its
    Report, which the reader should consult as an adjunct to this
    *Fourth Notice*. A copy of the NCC Report can be obtained via the
    Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/publicsafety/ncc.html, or from
    International Transcription Services, Inc. (ITS), 1231 20th Street,
    N.W., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, TTY (202) 293-8810, or
    faxing ITS at (202) 857-3805.

[^2]: *See* Petition of Ericsson.

[^3]: Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements
    for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency
    Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No.
    96-86, *First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd 152, 189-90 ¶ 76 (1998) (referred to herein
    as \"*First Report and Order*\" or \"*Third Notice*\" as
    applicable).

[^4]: *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 189-90 ¶ 75.

[^5]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(10)(B)(iv), as added by the Omnibus
    Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103‑66, Title VI,
    § 6002, 107 Stat. 312 (1993); Development of Operational, Technical
    and Spectrum Requirements For Meeting Federal, State and Local
    Public Safety Agency Communications Requirements Through the
    Year 2010, Establishment of Rules and Requirements of Priority
    Access Service, WT Docket No. 96‑86, *Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making*, 11 FCC Rcd 12460 (1996) (*Notice*).

[^6]: *See* Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, § 3004, 111
    Stat. 251 (1997). *See also* Advanced Television Systems and Their
    Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No.
    87-268, *Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd
    10968 (1996).

[^7]: *See* Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz
    Band, ET Docket No. 97‑157, *Report and Order*,
    12 FCC Rcd 22953 (1997).

[^8]: *See* Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum
    Requirements For Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety
    Agency Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010,
    Establishment of Rules and Requirements of Priority Access Service,
    WT Docket No. 96‑86, *Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making*,
    12 FCC Rcd 17706 (1997) (*Second Notice*).

[^9]: ^?^ *See* *First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd 152, 162-64 ¶¶ 13-16. Petitions and comments
    that were filed in response to the *First Report and Order and Third
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* are available to the public
    electronically and on hard copy. We address pertinent petitions and
    comments throughout this *Fourth Notice*.

[^10]: *See id.* at 165 ¶ 20.

[^11]: *See First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 196 ¶ 90.

[^12]: *See id.* at 197 ¶ 92. *See also* Federal Advisory Committee Act,
    5 U.S.C. App. 2 (1988).

[^13]: *See First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 197 ¶ 92.

[^14]: *Id.*

[^15]: For a discussion of the NCC's activities from its inception, see
    NCC Report at 1-4.

[^16]: A trunked system utilizes multiple radio frequencies in a manner
    that provides greater spectrum efficiency than would be obtained
    from the same number of frequencies if used in a conventional
    manner. Computerized trunking technology provides the ability to
    search randomly for available frequencies and automatically
    establish a talk path between a caller and a called party. *See*
    *Notice*, WT Docket No. 96-86, 11 FCC Rcd at 12477 n.30.

[^17]: *Second Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 17752.

[^18]: *Id.*

[^19]: *See First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 206 ¶ 115.

[^20]: *Id.* at 207 ¶ 116.

[^21]: *Id.*

[^22]: NCC Report at 7 ¶ 17.

[^23]: *Id*.

[^24]: *Id*.

[^25]: *Id*. at 7 ¶ 18.

[^26]: Emergencies tend to be local in nature and are often difficult to
    predict. Thus, in many instances, an extensive trunking
    capability---built at considerable public cost---would lie dormant.

[^27]: In accord with the usage in the NCC Report, we use the term
    "channel set" to refer to a 12.5 kHz channel block, which actually
    consists of two contiguous 6.25 kHz narrowband channels.
    Accordingly, the current channel plan provides for 32
    interoperability channel sets for base stations, which are paired
    with 32 interoperability channel sets for mobile units.

[^28]: This approach is consistent with our approach to the mutual aid
    800 MHz National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC)
    channels where we decided not to require trunking.

[^29]: *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 206 ¶ 115, n.296 (citing
    comments by the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council
    (NPSTC)).

[^30]: NCC Report at 9 ¶ 24.

[^31]: *Id*. at 7 ¶ 20.

[^32]: *See id*. at 14 ¶ 44 (access priority number four).

[^33]: Such a request would be part of a larger priority scheme,
    discussed further below, which would govern communications on the
    interoperability channels. *See* *infra* at paras. 36-37.

[^34]: NCC Report at 8 ¶ 21.

[^35]: *Id.*

[^36]: *Id.* at 9 ¶ 25.

[^37]: *Id*.

[^38]: The ten channels are defined by GTAC 5 through GTAC 13 and GTAC
    35 through GTAC 43. *See* Table of Interoperability Channels for
    Specific Uses/Services, NCC Report at Appendix C.

[^39]: We would allow 6.25 kHz, 12.5 kHz, and 25 kHz trunked operations.
    Additionally, we would permit routine (day-to-day) communications if
    the channel(s) are not needed for emergency communications. *See
    supra* at paras. 10-11.

[^40]: *See infra* at paras. 19-21.

[^41]: We note that GTAC 31 and GTAC 61 also are designated for General
    Public Safety interoperability use. *See* NCC Report at Appendix D
    at 5. *See also* *infra* at paras. 14-18 (discussing guard channels
    and Ericsson's Petition for Reconsideration).

[^42]: *See* *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 175 ¶ 43.

[^43]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.531(d).

[^44]: *Id.*

[^45]: Ericsson Petition at 6.

[^46]: *See ex parte* Letter from Robert J. Speidal, Ericsson, to
    Magalie Salas, Secretary, FCC, dated Sept. 13, 1999 (*Ericsson
    Proposal*).

[^47]: Ericsson Petition at 6.

[^48]: *See ex parte* Letter from Kathleen Wallman, Chairperson, NCC, to
    William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC, dated Oct. 14, 1999.

[^49]: NCC Report at 11 ¶ 32.

[^50]: *Id.* at App. C at 2-3.

[^51]: *Id*.

[^52]: *Id.* at 11 ¶ 32.

[^53]: *See infra* at paras. 56-58 (discussing receiver standards and
    interference issues).

[^54]: *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 233.

[^55]: *Id*. at 234. We initially received 11 comments in response.

[^56]: *See* Association of Public-Safety Communications
    Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) Comments at 5; State of
    California (California) Comments at 7; NPSTC Comments at 7.

[^57]: *See* Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG)
    Comments at 18; Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) Comments at
    16.

[^58]: Arizona Reply Comments at 8.

[^59]: California Comments at 7.

[^60]: NCC Report at Appendix E at 1.

[^61]: *Id.*

[^62]: *Id.*

[^63]: *Id*.

[^64]: *Id.*

[^65]: State level entities may include the Governor of the state or his
    or her designee (including a state agency).

[^66]: NCC Report at 11 ¶ 33.

[^67]: *See infra* at paras. 31-32.

[^68]: NCC Report at 13 ¶ 38.

[^69]: *Id.* at 12 ¶ 35, Appendix E at 2.

[^70]: *Id.*

[^71]: *Id.* at 12 ¶ 35. *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.16, 90.617(a);
    Development and Implementation of a Public Safety National Plan and
    Amendment of Part 90 to Establish Service Rules and Technical
    Standards for Use of the 821-824/866-869 MHz Bands by the Public
    Safety Services, GEN Docket No. 87-112, *Report and Order*, 3 FCC
    Rcd 905, 908-09 (1987) (*800 MHz Band Report and Order*) (discussing
    "mutual aid channels"), as modified by *Memorandum Opinion and Order
    on Reconsideration*, 3 FCC Rcd 5391 (1988), *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 3 FCC Rcd 2113 (1988).

[^72]: *See* *800 MHz Band Report and Order*, 3 FCC Rcd at 909 ¶¶ 30,
    33-34; *see generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.16, 90.20, 90.603, 90.617,
    90.619(a)(2).

[^73]: *Id*.

[^74]: *See* *800 MHz Band Report and Order*, 3 FCC Rcd at 909 ¶ 34.

[^75]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.179 (Shared use of radio stations), 90.421
    (Operation of mobile units in vehicles not under the control of the
    licensee).

[^76]: NCC Report at 12 ¶ 36.

[^77]: *See supra* at paras. 20-21.

[^78]: The licenses referred to here are for base and control stations.

[^79]: NCC Report at Appendix E. *See infra* at paras. 36-37 (discussing
    access priority).

[^80]: NCC Report at 13 ¶ 41.

[^81]: *Id.* at 13 ¶ 37, Appendix E at 5-7.

[^82]: *Id.* at 13 ¶ 37.

[^83]: *See supra* at para. 21.

[^84]: NCC Report at 14 ¶ 42.

[^85]: *See* *id.* at Appendix D at 5; *supra* at note 1, paras. 17-18
    (discussing the NCC's Table).

[^86]: *Id.* at 14 ¶ 43, Appendix D.

[^87]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.203. *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart J.

[^88]: NCC Report at 14 ¶ 43, Appendix D.

[^89]: In this case, simplex operation is mobile to mobile
    communications on one-half of the channel pair. The communications
    do not go through an infrastructure. Simplex operation is often the
    dominant mode of communications between multiple public safety
    agencies at the scene of an accident.

[^90]: NCC Report at 14 ¶ 43, Appendix D.

[^91]: *Id.* at Appendix D at 1-2.

[^92]: *Id.* at 14 ¶ 44.

[^93]: *Id.* at Appendix D.

[^94]: *See* *supra* at para. 13.

[^95]: NCC Report at 15 ¶ 47.

[^96]: For example, we could define the levels of priority in the
    following manner: (1) a Level 1 event is one in which an entity is
    threatened by grave and imminent danger and in need of immediate
    assistance; (2) a Level 2 event is one in which there is a
    particular urgency regarding the safety of an entity; and (3) a
    Level 3 event is one in which a delay in a communication
    transmission could adversely affect the safety or property of an
    entity. *See generally* 47 C.F.R. § 80.5 (providing definitions for
    priorities in the Maritime Services).

[^97]: *See* 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, FCC 00-242, *Second Report and Order*, July 13, 2000.

[^98]: *Id*. ¶ 6

[^99]: NCC Report at 15 ¶ 47.

[^100]: *Id.* at 15 ¶ 45; *see supra* at paras. 10-13.

[^101]: *See* *800 MHz Band Report and Order*, 3 FCC Rcd at 908 ¶¶
    27-30.

[^102]: *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 205 ¶ 113.

[^103]: *Id.* at 204 ¶ 111. We also note at least one other instance
    where the Commission has mandated equipment compatibility standards
    to promote interoperability. For example, ships operating under the
    provisions of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS)
    must be equipped with VHF radios capable of operating on various
    prescribed frequencies that are dedicated for certain purposes. 47
    C.F.R. § 80.1085. Ship radios must have a dedicated channel capable
    of continually monitoring the transmission of distress alerts. 47
    C.F.R. § 80.1085(a).

[^104]: Project 25 Phase I is a 12.5 kHz Frequency Division Multiple
    Access (FDMA) standard that the public safety community developed
    and is an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard.
    Project 25 Phase II is a 6.25 kHz FDMA standard.

[^105]: *First Report and Order,* 14 FCC Rcd at 205 ¶ 113.

[^106]: *Id.*

[^107]: *Id.*

[^108]: Twenty filings were received on the issue of digital standards.
    Petitions and comments supporting the immediate adoption by the
    Commission of the TIA/25 digital standard were filed by APCO, NPSTC,
    New York State Technology Enterprise Corporation (NYSTEC), Union
    Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR), FLEWUG, Motorola, State of
    California, Project 25 Steering Committee (Project 25), State of
    Florida, APCO Canada, Daniels Electronic, Ltd. (Daniels), King
    Communications U.S.A., Inc., Illinois APCO, Northwest Central
    Dispatch System (NWCDS), DuPage Public Safety Communications, City
    of Chicago OEC, State of Nebraska, and Elk Grove Village Fire
    Department. While NPSTC did not specifically mention that it
    supported the existing TIA/25 standard, it requested reconsideration
    of our decision on digital standards, arguing that the decision will
    cause an unacceptable delay in the use of the 700 MHz band. Petition
    of NPSTC at 6. Comments opposing the immediate adoption of the
    TIA/25 standard were filed by Ericsson and American Association of
    State Highway and Transportation Officials, Forestry Conservation
    Communications Association, International Association of Fire
    Chiefs, Inc., International Association of Fish and Wildlife
    Agencies, International Municipal Signal Association, and National
    Association of State Foresters (collectively AASHTO).

[^109]: *See, e.g.,* APCO Petition at 5-13, Motorola Petition at 5-13,
    NPSTC Petition at 7, NYSTEC Petition at 3-9, UPRR Comments at 1-2.

[^110]: APCO Petition at 5-13. We allow 12.5 kHz operation in the 700
    MHz band if the 9.6 kbps/12.5 kHz channel efficiency requirement
    (*i.e.*, 4.8 kbps/6.25 kHz) is met. *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC
    Rcd at 173 ¶ 38; 47 C.F.R. § 90.535(b).

[^111]: APCO Petition at 11-12.

[^112]: Opposition by Ericsson to the Petitions for Reconsideration to
    the *First Report and Order* filed by UPRR, Daniels, APCO Canada,
    NYSTEC, California, Project 25, Motorola, APCO, and FLEWUG at 3-8.

[^113]: *Id*. at 3.

[^114]: AASHTO Joint Reply Comments at 3. Project 25 Phase II also is an
    official ANSI standard, however, it has not been implemented in
    commercially available equipment in any band.

[^115]: TETRA is a four-slot Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA)
    standard in which four voice channels are realized within a 25 kHz
    bandwidth. TETRA is currently not an ANSI standard.

[^116]: NCC Report at 17 ¶ 54.

[^117]: *Id.*

[^118]: According to the NCC, the technology readiness obstacles
    associated with Project 25 Phase II are battery size, weight and
    oscillator stability. NCC Report at 18 ¶¶ 55-56.

[^119]: The NCC notes that the lower power results in reduced coverage
    and building penetration relative to Project 25 Phase I radios. The
    inferior building penetration, in particular, was thought to be an
    important safety concern, especially for police and fire operations.
    NCC Report at 18-19 ¶¶ 57-58.

[^120]: NCC Report at 19 ¶ 58.

[^121]: *See id.* at Appendix G.

[^122]: *Id.* at 22 ¶ 69.

[^123]: *Id.*

[^124]: *Id.*

[^125]: *Id.* at Appendix B, Minutes of NCC's Sixth Meeting, Jan. 28,
    2000, at iii.

[^126]: In the *Refarming* proceeding, we adopted a conversion period of
    10 years. *See* Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the
    Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing
    Them and Examination of Exclusivity and Frequency Assignment
    Policies of the Private Land Mobile Radio Services, PR Docket No.
    92-235, *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making*, 10 FCC Rcd 10,076 (1995).

[^127]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.203(5).

[^128]: *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 173 ¶ 38 and Appendix E;
    *see* 47 C.F.R. § 90.535(b).

[^129]: Ericsson Petition at 8.

[^130]: *Id.*

[^131]: *Id.*

[^132]: Ericsson Reply to Motorola and APCO at 2.

[^133]: APCO Response to Petitions at 5-6.

[^134]: *Id*. at 6-7.

[^135]: *Id*. at 7.

[^136]: Motorola Comments to Petitions at 7.

[^137]: NCC Report at 20 ¶ 63, Appendix I.

[^138]: *Id.* at Appendix H at 1.

[^139]: *Id.* at 20 ¶ 62.

[^140]: *Id.* at 21 ¶ 64, Appendix I.

[^141]: *Id.* at 21 ¶ 65, Appendix I.

[^142]: *See supra* at para. 46.

[^143]: NCC Report at 15 ¶ 46.

[^144]: *Id.*

[^145]: *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 208 ¶ 118. *But see
    generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 80.1081 (prescribing the functional
    requirements for GMDSS ship stations), 80.874 (specifying technical
    parameters for marine VHF receiver sensitivity, audio output, and
    reception capability).

[^146]: *See First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 208 ¶ 118.

[^147]: *Id.* at 211-12 ¶ 132. We noted that this approach will allow
    public safety entities to avail themselves of competitive market
    choices while establishing a \"reference receiver,\" thereby
    assisting all parties, including the Commission, in resolving
    interference disputes. *Id.*

[^148]: *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 208 ¶ 121.

[^149]: Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements
    for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency
    Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No.
    96-86, *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, FCC 00-264, ¶ 23 (Aug.
    1, 2000) (*Second MO&O*).

[^150]: *Id.*

[^151]: *See, e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. §§ 80.257, 80.259, 80.269, 80.271
    (addressing equipment authorizations for compulsory ships using
    stations in the maritime services), 80.1101(c) (addressing equipment
    standards for the GMDSS).

[^152]: NCC Report at 22 ¶ 72, Appendix J.

[^153]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.103(b).

[^154]: *Second MO&O*, ¶¶ 46-53.

[^155]: NCC Report at 23-24 ¶ 74, Appendix K (Letter from Marilyn Ward,
    Chair, National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, to
    Kathleen Wallman, Chairperson, NCC, dated Apr. 22, 1999).

[^156]: NCC Report at 24 ¶ 74.

[^157]: *Second MO&O*, ¶ 80.

[^158]: *See Second MO&O*, ¶¶ 79-84.

[^159]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^160]: *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.202, 1.203, 1.206(a).

[^161]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419.

[^162]: *See* Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 21517 (1998), *Report and
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).

[^163]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et seq.*,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^164]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^165]: *See* *id.*

[^166]: *See supra* at paras. 31-32

[^167]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^168]: *Id.* § 601(b)(3).

[^169]: *Id.* § 632.

[^170]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^171]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^172]: U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, *1992 Census of
    Governments*.

[^173]: *Id.*

[^174]: *See* subparts A and B of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 90.1-90.22. Police licensees include 26,608 licensees that
    serve state, county, and municipal enforcement through telephony
    (voice), telegraphy (code), and teletype and facsimile (printed
    material). Fire licensees include 22,677 licensees comprised of
    private volunteer or professional fire companies, as well as units
    under governmental control. Public Safety Radio Pool licensees also
    include 40,512 licensees that are state, county, or municipal
    entities that use radio for official purposes. There are also 7,325
    forestry service licensees comprised of licensees from state
    departments of conservation and private forest organizations that
    set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground
    crews. The 9,480 state and local governments are highway maintenance
    licensees that provide emergency and routine communications to aid
    other public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular
    traffic. Emergency medical licensees (1,460) use these channels for
    emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of
    emergency medical treatment. Another 19,478 licensees include
    medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, handicapped
    persons, disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach patrols,
    establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities,
    and emergency repair of public communications facilities.

[^175]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^176]: 13 C.F.R. 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^177]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, *1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series
    UC92-S-1*, at Table 5, SIC code 4812.

[^178]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, (SIC) Code 3663.

[^179]: U.S. Dep't of Commerce, *1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications and Utilities* (issued May 1995), SIC category 3663.

[^180]: *See supra* at paras. 31-32.

[^181]: *See* Frequency Coordination in the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Services, PR Docket No. 83-737, *Report and Order*, 103 FCC 2d 1093
    (1986).

[^182]: Area-wide licenses often encourage the rapid development and
    deployment of innovative services and facilitate interoperability
    and operational standards, while allowing economies of scale that
    encourage the development of low cost equipment. *See, e.g.,*
    Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the
    Wireless Communications Service, GN Docket No. 96-228, *Report and
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 10785, 10814 (1997).