\$//NPRM,Public Safety requirements,WT Dck No. 96-86,FCC 96-155//\$

FCC 96-155

Before the

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )

)

)

The Development of Operational, ) WT Docket No. 96-86

Technical, and Spectrum )

Requirements for Meeting )

Federal, State and Local Public )

Safety Agency Communication )

Requirements Through the )

Year 2010 )

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

Adopted: April 5, 1996 Released: April 10, 1996

Comments Due: September 20, 1996

Reply Comments Due: October 18, 1996

By the Commission: Commissioner Chong issuing a statement.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

III\. BACKGROUND 5

A. Overview and History of Public Safety Communications 5

B. Recent Legislative and Regulatory Developments 17

IV\. DISCUSSION 20

A. Interoperability Issues 21

1\. \"Public Safety\" Definition 23

2\. \"Interoperability\" Definition 26

3\. Interoperability Needs 28

4\. Interoperability Options 32

Paragraph

B. Operational Issues 43

1\. Service Features 47

2\. System Requirements 51

C. Technology Issues 56

D. Spectrum Allocation 69

1\. Overview of Spectrum Issues 69

2\. Spectrum Allocation Options 72

E. Transition 87

1\. Increased Use of Commercial Services 89

2\. Funding for Spectrum Migration 91

3\. Improving Public Safety Spectrum Administration 93

F. Competition in the Supply of Goods and Services 95

V. CONCLUSION 102

VI\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 103

APPENDIX A - INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT ANALYSIS

I. INTRODUCTION

1\. In this proceeding, the Commission seeks to address the present
deficiencies in public safety wireless communications as well as its
expanding spectrum needs. These deficiencies include lack of
interoperability, minimal access to emerging technologies, limited
service feature options, less than optimal transmission and reception
quality, and scarce available spectrum. This Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (Notice) proposes measures designed not only to address these
deficiencies but also to accommodate the future communications needs of
public safety agencies. We believe that the critical responsibilities of
the nation\'s public safety agencies require modern and innovative
communications at high levels of efficiency and effectiveness. This
Notice describes the history of public safety communications and
provides an overview of specific wireless communications deficiencies
identified by the Commission in consultation with public safety
agencies.

2\. The Notice also furthers the Commission\'s efforts to implement
Section 6002 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which
requires the Commission to study public safety spectrum needs and to
develop a plan that ensures that adequate frequencies are available for
public safety uses through the year 2010. In early 1995, the Commission
adopted a Report and Plan concerning the current and future spectrum
needs of state and local government public safety agencies through the
year 2010 and how to ensure that adequate frequencies are made available
to public safety licensees. In the 1995 FCC Public Safety Report, we
concluded that more information from public safety agencies and other
interested parties was necessary to define, with any precision, the
scope of the public safety community\'s spectrum needs. In this
connection, the Commission and the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) established the Public Safety Wireless
Advisory Committee (PSWAC) to provide advice and recommendations on the
various requirements of public safety agencies through the year 2010.
PSWAC has five subcommittees \-- Operational Requirements, Technology,
Interoperability, Spectrum, and Transition. This Notice tracks PSWAC\'s
organizational structure. In addition, we are initiating this proceeding
to develop the data necessary to evaluate the spectrum needs of public
safety agencies, to solicit comment on how best to meet these needs, and
to propose measures aimed at facilitating the transition to an
environment where public safety agencies have communications services of
higher quality, access to emerging technologies, and availability of
broader service offerings.

II\. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3\. By this action, the Commission initiates an overall evaluation and
assessment of public safety wireless communications, which builds upon
our findings and conclusions presented in the 1995 FCC Public Safety
Report. We believe that the critical responsibilities of public safety
agencies, such as protection of life and property, can be performed more
effectively by increasing the flexibility and opportunities that
wireless communications can offer. The goal of this proceeding is to
develop the data necessary to evaluate the spectrum needs of public
safety agencies, to solicit comment on how best to meet these needs, and
to facilitate a transition to a communications environment in which
public safety agencies have access to higher quality transmission,
emerging technologies, and broader services, including the ability to
communicate readily with one another (interoperability). We recognize
that such an environment can be achieved through a variety of regulatory
approaches, such as requiring more efficient use of current public
safety spectrum, reallocating additional spectrum for public safety
uses, and facilitating the use of commercial service providers for
increased communications capacity. We believe, however, that no one
approach will satisfy all public safety communications spectrum needs.
We further believe that the optimal approach should allow each of these
individual approaches to be strategically combined in a way that meets
the specific needs of individual public safety entities.

4\. As part of the Commission\'s evaluation of the current and future
spectrum needs of public safety agencies, this Notice seeks comment on:
(1) regulatory approaches that will facilitate the development of
interoperable equipment and technologies; (2) the service features and
system requirements essential to the effective performance of public
safety functions; (3) technological issues regarding the enhancement and
improvement of public safety wireless communications; (4) means of
allocating spectrum for public safety agencies to ensure that they have
adequate spectrum to perform their duties; (5) the measures that need to
be implemented in order to foster an environment which promotes public
safety wireless communications which are spectrally-efficient, of high
quality, and effective; and (6) the means to promote competition in the
supply of goods and services used by public safety agencies.

III\. BACKGROUND

A. Overview and History of Public Safety Communications

5\. Under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Commission has
authority to allocate and assign frequencies for use by entities other
than the Federal Government. In 1937, with the creation of the Police
Radio Service, the Commission began allocating spectrum to agencies
charged with protecting the public welfare. As the communications needs
of other public safety agencies surfaced, the Commission allocated
additional spectrum to them. As a result of this approach to public
safety spectrum allocation and administration, the Public Safety Radio
Services (PSRS) developed into a collection of services used by various
public safety agencies which have placed a priority on the use of radio
communications in the fulfillment of their respective missions.
Specifically, the PSRS consists of the Police, Fire, Highway
Maintenance, Forestry-Conservation, Local Government, and Emergency
Medical Radio Services. The Special Emergency Radio Service (SERS) also
is utilized by public safety agencies. Each of these services is
discussed separately below.

6\. Police Radio Service. This service governs the radio communications
associated with police operations (e.g., dispatching vehicular units and
coordinating tactical operations) and administrative matters (e.g.,
deployment of patrols and status of units). Eligibility in this service
is limited to any non-Federal governmental entity or institution
authorized by law to provide its own police protection, including state
police, county sheriffs, and local police departments.

7\. Fire Radio Service. This service governs the radio communications
associated with fire protection activities and related administrative
functions. In addition, where a fire department has responsibility for
providing rescue and ambulatory functions, the frequencies allocated to
this service can be used for dispatching ambulances, communicating
medical information to personnel at the site of an emergency, and
transmitting biomedical telemetry from the emergency site or the
ambulance to hospital emergency room personnel. Any non-Federal
governmental entity (typically a firefighting organization) is eligible
for this service with the permission of the local government having
jurisdiction over the area to be served.

8\. Highway Maintenance Radio Service. This service governs the radio
communications related to the highway activities of any non-Federal
government entity requiring communications essential to its official
highway activities. Licensees of this service use mobile communications
in performing a wide range of functions, including road maintenance and
paving operations, ice and snow removal, removal of disabled vehicles,
patrol of tunnels, bridges, and turnpikes, and recall or reroute of
highway crews and vehicles to meet changing priorities due to highway
and weather emergencies. Any non-Federal governmental entity with
official highway activities is eligible in this service.

9\. Forestry-Conservation Service. This service governs radio
communications for law enforcement (e.g., park police and rangers who
enforce fish, game, and environmental statutes), fire prevention
control, and emergency medical service in connection with
forestry-conservation activities. Licensees in this service provide fire
detection and control for one-half billion acres of non-Federal forest
lands. Any non-Federal governmental entity is eligible in this service,
including persons or organizations charged with specific
forestry-conservation activities with the support of the local
government having jurisdiction over the area to be served.

10\. Local Government Radio Service. This service governs the radio
communications involving the day-to-day operations of governmental
entities other than the Federal Government. Entities eligible to operate
in this service include states, U.S. territories and possessions,
counties, cities, towns, and many other types of specialized
governmental districts and authorities (e.g., flood control, water,
sanitation) for a variety of public safety and welfare uses. In
addition, all public safety entities are permitted to use frequencies
allocated to this service and often include law enforcement, fire
protection, highway maintenance, lifeguard and rescue service users.

11\. Emergency Medical Radio Service. This service governs the radio
communications for the actual emergency treatment including (1)
transmission between rescuers at the scene of an accident or disaster
and physicians at a hospital; and (2) the dispatch of emergency medical
providers transporting injured persons to hospitals and trauma centers.
Eligibility for this service is limited to persons or entities engaged
in the provision of basic or advanced life-support services on an
ongoing basis.

12\. Special Emergency Radio Service. This service governs radio
communications related to medical services, rescue organizations,
disabled persons, veterinarians, disaster relief organizations, school
buses, beach patrols, communications standby facilities, and emergency
repair of public communications facilities. Entities not meeting these
eligibility criteria may be licensed in this service solely to provide
service to SERS eligibles on one-way paging-only frequencies below 800
MHz.

13\. The Commission has allocated spectrum for use by entities licensed
in these services in five different frequency bands. Public safety
mobile service operations traditionally have consisted of two-way
communications between a base and mobile station or between two mobile
stations. The Commission\'s early public safety spectrum allocation was
primarily confined to the 30-50 MHz bands in an effort to accommodate
two-way communications.

14\. As public safety agencies\' communications needs increased, these
frequencies became increasingly congested. As a result of technological
advances such as the continuing advance of solid state electronics with
its attendant increasing miniaturization and precision, public safety
equipment became capable of transmitting at higher frequencies and,
thus, other spectrum could be used for two-way communications. This
opportunity for public safety agencies to migrate to higher frequencies
provided temporary and limited relief for public safety licensees
needing additional spectrum. These higher frequencies, however,
generally do not possess the long distance capability of lower
frequencies. Thus, migration has not been a viable option for those
public safety agencies operating in rural areas. Migration also has been
problematic for public safety licensees in urban and suburban areas
because the additional frequencies often are simply added to the
licensees\' existing systems. As a result, a public safety licensee\'s
system may need to be fragmented after migration because it utilizes
both high and low band frequencies and communications between
frequencies are, as a practical matter, precluded. For example, several
public safety agencies must use two or more frequency bands for their
systems, which requires individual users to carry multiple transceivers
in order to communicate on and interact with the systems. In addition,
the varying development rates of transmission technology for different
frequency bands have contributed to the fragmented allocation of public
safety spectrum. The result is a series of allocations that make it
difficult for different agencies to communicate across jurisdiction or
for different agencies in the same jurisdiction to communicate.

15\. The current spectrum allocated to public safety services consists
of 941 channels as indicated in the following chart:

CURRENTLY ALLOCATED PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SPECTRUM

Frequency Band

(MHz)

Number

of

Channels

MHz

(Approximate)

25-50

(VHF high band)

315

6.3

150-174

(VHF high band)

242

3.6

220-222

(220 band)

10

0.1

450-470

(UHF band)

74

3.7

806-821/851-866

(800 bands)

70

3.5

821-824/866-869

(800 public safety bands)

230

6

TOTAL

941

23.2

Public safety agencies also are eligible to operate on other shared
frequencies. For example, various frequencies from 2 to 25 MHz are
available for disaster communications. Public safety agencies are
eligible for licensing in the Private Operational-Fixed Microwave
Service.

16\. In an era characterized by progress, innovation and choice in the
telecommunications industry, the communications capability of the
nation\'s public safety agencies remains severely challenged. Moreover,
there is limited competition among equipment and service providers of
public safety communications. These challenges cause public safety
communications to be far more cumbersome than necessary, which
ultimately results in potential compromise to the critical operations
performed by public safety agencies.

B. Recent Legislative and Regulatory Developments

17\. Since 1980, the Commission has initiated over 40 general and
service-specific proceedings seeking to promote the efficiency,
effectiveness, and enhancement of public safety communications.
Moreover, in 1987, the Commission chartered the National Public Safety
Planning Advisory Committee. Subsequently, the Commission took
additional action to develop a National Plan, pursuant to the
recommendations of the National Public Safety Planning Advisory
Committee, to govern the use of six megahertz allocated to the PSRS in
the 800 MHz band (821-824/866-869 MHz) on a regional basis throughout
the United States. Recently, Senator Larry Pressler proposed a plan of
allocating a large block of spectrum to the states for public safety
purposes. Although we realize that most regions are still implementing
their plans, we seek comment on the extent to which these types of plans
will satisfy the spectrum needs of the public safety community.

18\. In the 1995 FCC Public Safety Report, we concluded that more
information from public safety agencies and other interested parties was
necessary. We believe that our assessment of the current and future
needs of public safety agencies, followed by our identification and
implementation of the best means of meeting these needs, will ensure
that the critical responsibilities of public safety agencies can be
carried out more effectively and efficiently. Our goal in this
proceeding is to foster a regulatory environment where agencies involved
in the protection of life and property have the communications resources
they need to carry out their mission and an opportunity to select from a
wide range of advanced wireless communications services.

19\. PSWAC, throughout its five subcommittees, is analyzing the
communications needs of public safety entities, the ability of emerging
technologies to meet these needs, and ways to enhance the competitive
opportunities in public safety agencies\' procurement of equipment and
services. PSWAC will develop specific recommendations for the Commission
and NTIA and submit a report later this year. This Notice is a formal
vehicle by which the Commission can receive PSWAC\'s report and general
public comment on public safety wireless communications, and act upon
PSWAC\'s recommendations. We believe that PSWAC\'s efforts play a
crucial role in our efforts to accommodate the needs of public safety
licensees in their implementation of state-of-the-art communications in
furtherance of their mission of protecting life and property. In this
connection, we anticipate that PSWAC\'s findings and conclusions will
comprise a significant part of the record in this proceeding. We further
expect that PSWAC\'s report, as well as all comments we receive, will
establish a sufficient record for developing rules to facilitate a
transition from the current state of public safety communications to an
environment in which public safety agencies\' communications are
conducted in an effective and efficient manner, particularly through
greater interoperability, access to emerging technologies, and greater
use of commercial services where appropriate.

IV\. DISCUSSION

20\. As mentioned supra, this Notice tracks the organizational structure
of PSWAC. First, we address issues concerning interoperability,
including proposed definitions for \"public safety\" and
\"interoperability\" and how to facilitate the emergence of
interoperability on a large scale within the public safety community.
Second, we discuss the operational challenges associated with public
safety wireless communications, including essential service features and
system requirements. Third, we address how technology affects the
quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of public safety wireless
communications. Fourth, we discuss the options of allocating additional
spectrum or reallocating spectrum in an effort to meet the current and
future spectrum needs of the public safety community. Fifth, we discuss
the transition to an environment in which the present deficiencies in
public safety wireless communications (e.g. lack of interoperability,
minimal access to emerging technologies, limited service feature
options, less than optimal transmission and reception quality, and
scarce available spectrum) are eliminated. Finally, we address the level
of competition in the supply of goods and services in the public safety
context and how to promote further competition.

A. Interoperability Issues

21\. Given the current state of public safety communications, each
agency most likely operates its own communications system on its own
channels, using technologies that are incompatible with the equipment
used by the other agencies. As an initial matter, we believe that an
essential component of our efforts to improve public safety
communications is to facilitate the development of communications links
within public safety and public service wireless communications systems
that permit units from two or more different agencies to exchange
information with one another, which we generally refer to as
\"interoperability.\" We also believe that it is crucial for these
agencies to be able to exchange all types of information pertaining to
their daily operations, in addition to information necessary for
on-scene mutual aid operations and joint operations (such as basic
voice, data, E911, images (including mugshots), fingerprints, video and
other high speed data). We tentatively conclude that to the degree that
public safety agencies operate on contiguous frequencies and use
similar, or at least compatible, technologies, this ability to
communicate is enhanced.

22\. As discussed supra, state and local agencies operate systems in six
different radio services on frequencies scattered throughout the VHF,
UHF, and 800 MHz bands using various technologies which often are
incompatible. Similarly, Federal agencies, licensed by NTIA, operate on
non-contiguous frequencies scattered throughout the VHF and UHF bands.
Consequently, local, regional, and national public safety agencies have
little or not ability to communicate with each other. This inability to
communicate hinders cooperation and coordination between public safety
agencies on a day-to-day basis as well as during emergencies. We believe
that the present inability of public safety agencies to communicate with
each other is one of the most critical deficiencies in today\'s public
safety communications.

1\. \"Public Safety\" Definition

23\. We believe that our assessment of the current and future needs for
public safety communications must begin with an evaluation of what
services and agencies should be classified as \"public safety.\" Under
the Commission\'s current rules, the scope of PSRS is defined as a
listing of services included within that classification. Although the
services included within the PSRS have eligibility requirements specific
to these particular services, we recognize that our classification of
certain types of service as PSRS and our decision not to include other
services may indirectly affect the ability of public safety agencies to
fulfill their missions. For example, numerous state and local
governments have responsibilities, many of which depend on wireless
communications, that do not involve the protection of life and property
on a daily basis but nonetheless are vital functions on which the public
depends.

24\. In this connection, PSWAC is considering several proposals
concerning whether \"public safety\" should be more strictly defined
under the Commission\'s rules. The following definitions are being
considered by PSWAC:

Public Safety: The public\'s right, exercised through Federal, State, or
local government as prescribed by law, to protect and preserve life,
property, and natural resources and to serve the public welfare.

Public Safety Services: Those services rendered by or through Federal,
State, or local government entities in support of public safety duties.

Public Safety Services Provider: Governmental and public entities or
those non-governmental, private organizations which are properly
authorized by the appropriate governmental authority whose primary
mission is providing public safety services.

Public Safety Support Provider: Governmental and public entities or
those non-governmental, private organizations which provide essential
public services that are properly authorized by the appropriate
governmental authority whose mission is to support public safety
services. This support may be provided either directly to the public or
in support of public safety service providers.

Public Services: Those services provided by non-public safety entities
that furnish, maintain, and protect the nation\'s basic infrastructures
which are required to promote the public\'s safety and welfare.

25\. We tentatively conclude that we should modify our approach of
defining \"public safety services\" by a listing a services falling
within that classification to a more precise definition of \"public
safety.\" Specifically, we propose to adopt PSWAC\'s definitions
presented supra, in an effort to encompass the broadest array of the
responsibilities and functions performed by public safety agencies. We
seek comment on our tentative conclusion and proposal. We ask commenters
to discuss whether these definitions are sufficiently broad to encompass
all the functions and responsibilities of various public safety
agencies. For instance, we note that the very nature of services such as
utility, pipeline, petroleum and railroad often involve potential
hazards where reliable radio communications is an essential tool in
either avoiding the occurrence of such hazards or responding to
emergency circumstances. Entities providing these services utilize radio
communications not only in performing their routine functions but also
in coordinating with local officials and other entities in maintaining
or restoring these critical services. In addition, we seek comment on
how the adoption of these definitions will impact both the provision of
public safety communications and the development of new technologies for
use by public safety licensees, including the provision of public safety
communications services by commercial entities.

2\. \"Interoperability\" Definition

26\. In order to promote the development of this communication
capability, we must first define what is meant by interoperability. In
this connection, the Interoperability Subcommittee of PSWAC is
considering the following definition of interoperability and related
definitions:

Interoperability: An essential communications link within public safety
and public service wireless communications systems which permits units
from two or more different agencies to interact with one another and to
exchange information according to a prescribed method in order to
achieve predictable results.

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

\- - Infrastructure-independent: The communications link occurs between
subscriber units over a direct RF path. An example is
portable-to-portable tactical communications at the scene of an
incident.

\- - Infrastructure-dependent: The communications link requires use of
some item(s) of equipment, other than a subscriber unit, for the
establishment of the link and for complete subscriber operation. Some
examples include a communications link for which a repeater station is
required; a communications link which provides full system coverage for
a visiting subscriber unit within a host trunked radio system; and a
communications link which provides interconnectivity between two or more
otherwise incompatible radio systems by cross-connecting the audio
signals and/or appropriate signaling functions at some central point.

The communications link, whether infrastructure dependent or
independent, must satisfy one or both of the following requirements:

\- - Multi-jurisdictional: Wireless communications involving two or more
similar agencies having different areas of responsibility. Some examples
include a fire agency from one city communicating with a fire agency
from another city and the Federal Bureau of Investigation communicating
with a County Sheriff.

\- - Multi-disciplinary: Wireless communications involving two or more
different agencies. One example is a police agency communicating with an
emergency medical services agency.

The communications link may involve any combination of subscriber units
and fixed equipment (e.g., repeaters, dispatch positions, data
resources). The points of communication are dependent upon the specific
needs of the situation and any operational procedures and policies which
might exist between the involved agencies.

27\. We seek comment on the above definitions being considered by PSWAC
and any proposals for different definitions. Specifically, we ask
commenters to discuss whether these definitions will facilitate the
expeditious development of interoperability for public safety agencies.

2\. Interoperability Needs

. 28. We believe that the need for interoperability in public safety
communications arises in three general contexts. One context is
day-to-day operations. The day-to-day operations of public safety
organizations require routine intercommunications capabilities. Police
officers in adjoining jurisdictions as well as firefighters and
emergency medical personnel in the same jurisdiction, for example,
routinely need to exchange information. Typically, day-to-day
interoperability requirements are local or regional in nature.

29\. A second context is mutual aid incidents. We believe that on-scene
mutual aid communications at the site of major fires, plane crashes,
chemical spills, and other disasters represent one of the more
challenging and critical needs for interoperability. In these
situations, coordination among numerous public safety agencies from
different jurisdictions, and sometimes even from different disciplines,
is imperative. For example, on the site of a major plane crash, there
could be representatives from law enforcement, fire, and emergency
medical personnel from Federal, state and local jurisdictions. These
various entities must communicate not only with each other but also with
other agencies, such as highway maintenance, public works, public
utilities and transportation authorities.

30\. The third category is emergency preparedness events or task force
operations. Emergency preparedness and task force operations involve
joint operations of local, regional, state and Federal agencies. The
number of public safety agencies involved in emergency preparedness is
usually substantial because the agencies\' responsibilities range from
planning for disaster relief to coordinating tactical operations
responding to threats to life or property. Task forces typically involve
deployment of emergency operations centers, establishment of on-scene
command posts, and dispatch of tactical units throughout a wide area. We
believe that interoperable communications systems greatly enhance
tactical operations among multi-jurisdictional and multi-discipline
agencies participating on the task force.

31\. We seek comment on these conclusions and on whether there are other
contexts in public safety communications in which interoperability is
needed. If so, we ask commenters to address the specific need for
interoperability and the benefits received from development of
interoperability in these other contexts.

3\. Interoperability Options

32\. We recognize that some public safety agencies already have made
efforts to address the problems associated with multi-jurisdictional and
multi-discipline interoperability. These initial efforts include
provision of compatible radio equipment to units on-the-scene at an
incident, use of dispatch centers through which messages are passed, and
use of cellular telephones. In fact, several state and regional
authorities have begun developing and deploying common user systems for
public safety and public service agencies. These systems meet a range of
operational requirements for a myriad of agencies and are premised on
compatible equipment operating in 800 MHz and are essentially shared
multi-site trunked systems. Some examples of these interoperability
efforts are described below.

o The California counties of San Diego and Imperial have commenced a
Regional Communications System (RCS) to replace the participating public
safety and public service agencies\' existing communications systems
with a modern trunked system. When completed, the RCS, a trunked,
simulcast, analog/digital 800 MHz radio system utilizing digital
encryption for authorized users, will have more than 60 frequencies in
use on separate voice and data radio infrastructures at more than 50
microwave repeater sites. Local agencies participating in the RCS
development have pooled their radio frequencies. The RCS will include a
separate voice backbone populated with a mixture of 25 kHz-spaced 806
MHz and 12.5 kHz frequencies, and a data backbone utilizing 25 kHz
bandwidth, 19.2 bits per second, 9.6 baud capable 806 MHz channels. It
is anticipated that the RCS will provide effective and reliable
communications for routine intra-agency operations as well as
interagency communications throughout the region during emergency and
mutual aid operations. Public safety agencies (defined as law
enforcement, fire service, emergency medical service, and disaster
preparedness agencies) and public service agencies (defined as the
California Department of Transportation, and those county agencies
responsible for providing citizens with services other than law
enforcement, fire and disaster preparedness) may join the RCS.

o The State of Colorado has commenced a six-phase schedule for
implementing a state-wide digital trunked radio system using the 800 MHz
public safety bands. The implementation model assumes several types of
users will seek to associate themselves with the State network, while
the State Patrol, Highway Maintenance, Natural Resources, and
Corrections agencies will be full members. Rather than building their
own radio systems, system members will contract with the state office
responsible for the project and will likely pay a monthly service fee.

o Other states, such as Nevada and South Carolina, are implementing
state-wide systems in conjunction with power utility companies. These
systems are designed to include interoperability capabilities with power
utility companies in an effort to address a critical need currently
unmet in disaster relief efforts.

We ask commenters to discuss the feasibility and effectiveness of these
initial interoperability efforts.

33\. We believe that there are additional means by which to satisfy the
interoperability requirements of public safety agencies. We recognize
that there are different advantages and challenges associated with each
of these options. The following is a brief overview of the various
options that we have identified to address interoperability concerns.

34\. Relocate all public safety communications to a new band. A
significant advantage associated with this option is that
interoperability could be accomplished directly because all public
safety radio equipment would operate in the same band. In fact, new
common radios could be programmed to scan and operate on any channel in
the band. We believe that this approach would necessitate a system of
prioritizing access to the channels. In addition, certain channels could
be designated exclusively for nationwide mutual aid use.

35\. We note, however, that migration to a new public safety band would
present several challenges. First, this approach would require a common
interoperability standard for all public safety radio equipment. It is
our understanding that the average life of existing public safety
systems is approximately 15 years, with many agencies using their
systems twice that long. If the purchase of new equipment compatible
with the new band is tied to this cycle, interoperability would not be
realized until the distant future. Second, additional public safety
spectrum would be needed. We believe that identifying contiguous
spectrum that is of the size and quality necessary and where incumbents
can be relocated would be problematic. Despite these challenges, we
nonetheless recognize that migration to a new band may present
opportunities for commercial systems to offer solutions to the
interoperability and capacity problems experienced by public safety
licensees.

36\. Designate Universal Mutual Aid Channels. We believe that access to
designated universal mutual aid channels could be accomplished by using
new multi-band radios or additional radio units. For example, a number
of frequencies could be selected in one of the band segments between 30
and 800 MHz and designated for public safety communications. In
addition, new public safety radio equipment could be required, through
our type acceptance process, to operate on these designated frequencies.
An advantage of this approach is that transition to universal mutual aid
channels through employment of multi-band or separate dedicated radios
would allow public safety agencies to continue operating existing
systems while implementing interoperable equipment as older equipment is
replaced. Moreover, inexpensive software programming could be used to
modify much of the mobile and portable equipment currently employed by
public safety agencies so that they could operate on the mutual aid
channels. We believe that this approach also would require a common
interoperability standard for all equipment operating on the mutual aid
channels.

37\. Install Cross-Band Repeaters. We recognize that installing
fixed-base or mobile, multi-channel, cross-band repeaters is an approach
which could address the interoperability needs of public safety agencies
expeditiously. Traditional repeaters receive on one channel and
retransmit voice or data on another channel. Under this approach,
repeaters would be used to allow simultaneous communications on
universally designated channels in each of the public safety bands.
Moreover, gateways could be used as an alternative to cross-band
repeaters. Providing interoperability by this approach would require
modification of existing dispatch facilities to interconnect the
existing bands with universal mutual aid channels and, thus, investment
in existing equipment. A disadvantage of this approach is that
interoperability would occur only where the required fixed-base or
mobile infrastructure is in place, thereby requiring jurisdictions to
acquire such repeaters.

38\. We seek comment on the various means of achieving interoperability
in public safety communications. Specifically, we ask commenters to
discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the approaches described
above as well as any alternative means which we have not identified and
provide any supporting data and information. We also ask commenters to
address the amount of time required for implementation, what would be
required for such implementation, and the effectiveness of each approach
in solving the communications difficulties experienced by public safety
agencies in day-to-day operations, mutual aid incidents, and emergency
preparedness and task force operations. Commenters should include
estimates of the costs associated with implementation as well as what
entities should bear these costs and discussion of any regulatory and
statutory requirements which operate to limit the flexibility or
efficiency of public safety communications. Commenters also should
discuss what solutions to public safety agencies\' interoperability
requirements can be provided by existing or planned commercial systems.

39\. We tentatively conclude that establishing new universal mutual aid
channels is an effective first step in providing for interoperability
among Federal, state and local public safety agencies. We consider the
ability of public safety agencies to continue operating their existing
communications equipment while achieving interoperability to be a
significant advantage as compared to the other approaches described
supra. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

40\. Assuming the designation of universal mutual aid channels, we
tentatively conclude that 10 simplex and 10 repeater pair channels in a
single band between 30 and 800 MHz should be designated for public
safety agencies mutual aid communications nationwide. In this
connection, we believe that channels selected from the existing public
safety bands could employ the simplest, least costly, and easiest to
implement technology. We request comments on our tentative conclusion
and any alternatives. Are ten simplex and ten repeater channel pairs
sufficient to meet the needs of Federal, state, and local public safety
agencies? What specific channels are optimum candidates for designation
as universal mutual aid channels? Should nationwide mutual aid channels
be subject to a system of priorities? If so, what should the priorities
be and how should the system be implemented? One system of priorities
would be to designate Priority 1 for disaster mutual aid operations,
Priority 2 for mutual aid operations involving imminent danger to the
safety of life or property, Priority 3 for day-to-day mutual aid
activities, and Priority 4 for single agency secondary communications.

41\. To provide for interoperability between public safety agencies, we
propose to adopt rules that require equipment for public safety use to
have a common communications mode and frequency band. We seek comment on
whether this approach has merit. If it does, should our rules specify
the type of emission (e.g., analog FM) that can be used in a specific
circumstance or location, or should this decision be left up to the
agencies responding to a particular incident? To meet the interoperable
needs of public safety agencies, are there any specific emissions we
should require to be included in public safety equipment? Should the
type acceptance rules be amended to require equipment to cover more than
one public safety frequency segment?

42\. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should require all
radios which are type accepted or sold for use on public safety
frequencies to be capable of operating on the designated mutual aid
channels. If so, what should be the effective date? We believe that
multi-band radios or special dedicated mutual aid radios could satisfy
this requirement. The amateur radio service community currently uses
inexpensive multi-band radios to provide communications over two or more
of the widely segmented amateur service bands. These radios generally
are very feature rich. We ask commenters to discuss whether use of
multi-band radios provides an expedient solution for addressing public
safety interoperability requirements.

B. Operational Issues

43\. Traditionally, public safety licensees have used a base station,
repeater, and vehicular and handheld portable stations in conducting
their two-way communications. Such communications have been conducted
using both conventional and trunked operations. With conventional voice
and data systems, a single channel or a pair of channels is used to
communicate in a dispatch/supervisory mode or in a one-to-one mode with
other users sometimes monitoring communications to determine whether
additional action is needed. Since communications typically are of
relatively short duration \-- usually less than a minute \-- channels
often are shared by several independent users. Specific audio
sub-audible tones may be used to permit any combination of mobile radios
to receive the radio transmission. With trunked systems, several channel
pairs are integrated into a single system which automatically selects a
currently unused channel pair and assigns it to the user desiring to
transmit a message.

44\. The VHF and UHF bands are used primarily for conventional, dispatch
voice communications. The VHF high band frequencies and the UHF band
have better noise and propagation properties than the VHF low band
frequencies. Also, most public safety users prefer VHF high band and UHF
band frequencies for their operations. The VHF-low band frequencies,
which offer wide-area coverage, continues to be used extensively by
certain public safety agencies, for example, state highway patrols. The
800 MHz band is used for both conventional and trunked systems. In the
UHF and 800 MHz bands, channels are paired to permit use of repeater
stations.

45\. Public safety agencies also use fixed services to provide radio
communications between specified fixed points. These radio
communications usually involve point-to-point systems operating in the
microwave bands consisting of transmissions from a single fixed
transmitting location to a single fixed receiving location. Some
agencies also utilize a point-to-multipoint service in which multiple
transmitting or receiving fixed stations are involved.

46\. Against this backdrop, we seek comment on the types of services
that public safety agencies will need to accomplish their missions and
the technical specifications required for implementation of such
services. We believe that this information will allow us to gauge the
needs of the public safety community and how these needs may change over
the next 15 years. We further believe that such an understanding will
improve planning for advanced requirements and new functional needs and
allow needs to be prioritized more effectively, leading to a more
efficient delivery of services to the public.

1\. Service Features

47\. Public safety spectrum is currently congested. There is no spectrum
controlled by the Commission that is both available for allocation and
adjacent to or quite close to existing PSRS frequency bands. Given this
difficulty in allocating new spectrum for public safety services, we
believe that it is crucial to consider what applications will be needed
to carry out important public safety functions over the next 15 years.
We are not persuaded that all of the communications needs identified by
the public safety community can be met solely through the spectrum
allocation process. Consequently, we believe that prioritizing needs is
an essential step to ensuring that spectrum is allocated and services
delivered in the most efficient and effective way possible.

48\. Today, most radio communications by public safety agencies are
conventional operations involving the transmission of voice and data.
The demands on public safety communication systems, however, are
expanding to include a host of high speed data applications such as
fingerprints, photographs, building diagrams, slow and full motion
video, and decisional data. We believe that public safety agencies
should have access to the full range of available information services.
We further believe that the following service features will be needed by
various public safety agencies in the future in order for them to
fulfill their missions:

Enhanced Dispatch: Basic one-to-many select group communications and
one-to-one communications with enhanced features (e.g., call set-up,
priority interrupt, and interconnection with the Public Switched
Network)

Transaction Processing: Provision of short-duration, packetized
alphanumeric data responses typical of current status-message systems
(e.g., pre-set encoded status entries indicating start/end route or
minimal data entries)

Facsimile: Wireless version of land-line service that provides text and
black and white imagery

Snapshot: Service with a higher resolution than facsimile that is
capable of gray-scale or color imaging non-alphanumeric text and used
primarily for the transmission of photographs (e.g., mug shots and
pictures of crime scenes or accidents)

Decision Support: A high-speed data service that provides for
interaction between mobile terminals and central data files enabling
on-line decision-making by field personnel (e.g., firefighting decisions
where volatile chemicals are involved)

Full Motion Video: Movie-type imaging (e.g., full motion frame rates of
at least 30 frames per second) that enables picture phone and color
video of individuals or locations as communicated over the wireline
system. Slow video provides high-resolution color images at modest frame
rates (e.g, one frame per second) and could be provided real-time or on
a store and forward basis (e.g., visual information of patient injuries
sent directly to trauma specialists).

Linking/Roaming: Similar to cellular offerings, services should be
transparent to the user across a variety of wireless networks including
PSTN, ISDN, and packet networks.

49\. We seek comment on which, if any, of the public safety agencies
will be interested in implementing the listed service features, and on
what other service features are likely to be needed by public safety
agencies. We ask commenters to discuss whether these features are widely
used now. We also request comment on what demands the introduction of
new service features will put on existing systems and infrastructures.
How will these services be integrated into existing systems? Are
additional allocations needed or can spectrum efficiency and sharing
provide the needed capacity? Will new systems have to be built to
accommodate them? To what extent can commercial providers meet demand?

50\. In addition, we seek general comment on the specific service
requirements, degree of use, and priority of the various classes of
public safety services. Do these needs vary based on the type of
geographic area (urban, suburban, or rural) served by the public safety
licensees, and if so, how? How do the communications needs incident to
the day-to-day operations of public safety licensees differ from those
associated with unforeseen occurrences? What factors affect the level of
differences?

2\. System Requirements

51\. We also seek comment on the performance requirements for the
systems and equipment (including infrastructure hardware and software
and mobile/portable terminals) used by public safety agencies for their
radio communications. For example, for many public safety agencies, a
critical element in their communications system designs is accommodation
of the peak demand that occurs during multiple emergencies. Thus, these
systems must have the capacity to handle not only routine traffic but
also the increased level of traffic associated with large-scale
emergencies. We believe that speed, reliability, capacity, coverage, and
range are key factors which contribute to the overall effectiveness of
public safety communications. We ask commenters to discuss these system
requirements as well as any other requirements necessary for effective
and efficient operations by public safety agencies. We also ask
commenters to discuss whether there are particular system requirements
so critical that the Commission should require them for all public
safety equipment. If so, what specifications, if any, for such equipment
should be included in our rules?

52\. We also note that for public safety agencies providing state and
local government services, the continued expansion of traditional radio
systems has resulted in spectrum crowding and hindered the deployment of
many advanced service features. The design of systems with service
features beyond voice will require network integration. By contrast, in
many instances, public safety communications continue to be
independently operated and based on analog FM radios. A major
shortcoming of public safety radio systems that are independently
operated is their inability to communicate with multiple entities; as a
result, such systems are not capable of network integration. We
recognize that there may be instances where single channel systems
continue to be desirable because of equipment costs, abundance of
channel availability, or low probability for multi-jurisdictional
communications. In those instances, we believe that a group of channels
may be designated for single-channel operations provided these channels
are shared and licensees tolerate some level of interference.

53\. We believe that economies of scale and improvement of effectiveness
of public safety communications are two of the advantages associated
with transitioning from independently operated single channel systems to
joint networks. Another advantage of the use of networks, whether they
are simple trunked systems or sophisticated satellites, is that they can
establish \"talk groups,\" which permit communication among a specific
group of radios. The talk group process limits user interaction only to
those set up by the network administrator. However, there are a number
of options for rapid modification of talk groups. For example, some
systems that allow over-the-air re-keying of radios could be linked
together in a single new talk group during an emergency. Where multiple
entities share the same system or network, communications during an
emergency is routine.

54\. In addition to talk groups, multiple site systems shared by several
agencies could be a means of significantly increasing the amount of
service available from a given number of channels. Increased
construction and operational costs may be disadvantages associated with
the implementation of multiple site systems because most public safety
agencies have certain geographical areas where coverage is required and
budget constraints limit implementation to only necessary services and
provide for gradual upgrade of existing systems. On the other hand, a
multi-site system with advanced service features could provide several
agencies with additional services and user conveniences. Furthermore,
cell-type architectures allow great flexibility in tailoring a system to
meet traffic requirements of varying conditions ranging from urban,
suburban, to rural. We note, however, that the greatest challenge with
the use of multi-site systems shared by various agencies may be system
administration. Various administrative arrangements may be applied to
mitigate the differing requirements among users. The benefits of
enhanced communications services at reasonable costs makes multi-agency
shared systems an important consideration in considering future system
requirements.

55\. We recognize, however, that no one communications package will meet
all the needs of each public safety agency. In an effort to mitigate
this problem, system gateways have been devised with limited success. We
request comment on whether public safety licensees, as a general matter,
should be required to utilize joint networks for their public safety
communications. We ask commenters to address the advantages and
disadvantages of independently operated systems and joint networks, both
commercial and non-commercial, including how their use affects the
delivery of services. We also ask commenters to discuss whether it is
essential for public safety agencies to operate in the context of a
larger system in order to increase feature availability, enhance
interoperability, reduce initial capital costs, and maintain independent
capability of public safety communications. We also ask commenters to
identify those circumstances under which operation of individual systems
would be more appropriate, and the role that system gateways could play
in enhancing interoperability.

C. Technology Issues

56\. We believe that a review of the technologies available to public
safety licensees (both currently and prospectively) is imperative to
accurately assess public safety communications needs and spectrum
requirements. In this connection, we further believe that only through
an understanding of available and emerging technologies and their impact
on operational and spectrum requirements of public safety licensees can
we move towards a regulatory environment which fosters effective and
efficient public safety communications. Given atmosphere of the scarcity
of spectrum, technologies must be analyzed to determine how public
safety agencies\' operational needs can be met in the most spectrally
efficient manner. Moreover, these operational and technical requirements
then determine the amount of spectrum needed as well as which frequency
bands would best accommodate these requirements. Our goal in this
proceeding, however, is not to dictate the technologies to be used by
public safety licensees, but, consistent with our actions in the other
Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio Services, to provide an environment in
which licensees have flexibility to choose from a range of technologies
to support their respective operational requirements.

57\. Over-the-air technologies have advanced rapidly over the past few
years. As recently as ten years ago, mobile two-way equipment using
analog Frequency Modulation (FM) in 25 kHz channels was considered
state-of-the-art. Today, manufacturers are producing equipment to
transmit at similar capacity levels but using only 5 kHz of bandwidth.
Moreover, digital techniques allow four or more channels in a 25 kHz
segment. Trunking technology permits hundreds of users to share a
limited number of channels without interference. We envision that
satellites may provide direct-to-mobile service in the not too distant
future. We request comment, in general, on the impact of new
technologies on the provision of new communications services and the
demand for spectrum.

58\. We note that there are at least four spectrally-efficient
technologies currently available for voice and data transmission \--
namely, Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA), Code Division Multiple
Access (CDMA), Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA), and an
assortment of narrowband technologies, including Amplitude Compandored
Single Sideband (ACSSB). The Commission has neither endorsed nor
selected any single standard based upon any one of these technologies.
They, and many other technologies, are all currently available for use
in the Public Safety Radio Services.

59\. TDMA is a technology that increases the number of communications
channels in a given spectrum segment by dividing each available channel
into multiple time slots. The TDMA system being used by cellular
licensees, for example, splits a 30 kilohertz 800 MHz channel into three
time slots or channels while the TDMA system being implemented by
wide-area Specialized Mobile Radio licensees splits a 25 kilohertz 800
MHz channel into six time slots. Furthermore, its digital nature offers
a higher level of security than conventional analog radios.

60\. CDMA employs spread spectrum modulation techniques and coding
schemes to permit many separate communications to share a single
wide-band communications channel. With CDMA each radio transmission is
uniquely coded and spread over a bandwidth much wider than the minimum
bandwidth necessary to transmit the traffic. The wider the bandwidth,
the greater the advantages of CDMA in terms of increasing capacity and
security and providing greater immunity to interference. This technology
also offers the advantage of transmissions being difficult to intercept
given its randomness and complexity. The CDMA system presently used by
cellular licensees has the potential to provide an average of seven to
ten times the capacity of existing analog systems.

61\. FDMA assigns frequencies from a specific pool of frequencies to
users either on a preassigned or an assigned demand basis. Current FDMA
equipment offers a 2-to-1 efficiency gain over today's analog
technology. Manufacturers, however, are hopeful that this efficiency can
be increased to at least 4-to-1.

62\. Narrowband equipment is currently being operated in the 150 and 220
MHz bands using ACSSB technology. Other narrowband technologies include
Real Zero Single Sideband and Linear Modulation. It is anticipated that
efficiency gains of up to five times more than that associated with 25
kHz analog FM can be realized using these technologies.

63\. We seek comment on how use of the four technologies described supra
would address the future spectrum and capacity needs of public safety
agencies. We also ask commenters to address additional technologies that
would improve the current state of public safety communications. We note
that the Technology Subcommittee of the PSWAC is charged with
responsibility for investigation of various technologies for public
safety communications. We ask commenters to discuss the most efficient
technologies available to meet the operational needs of public safety
licensees, including specific determinations of how much efficiency can
be gained through use of such technologies.

64\. In addition to the specific technologies discussed supra, we
believe that spectrum efficiency can be increased through greater
sharing among users combined (including but not limited to sharing
protocols) with strategic selection of antenna designs. For example, use
of a 120-degree sectored antenna system, where phased antenna arrays are
utilized for purposes of dividing the coverage area, would increase the
system capacity of an individual system by a factor of three. In
addition, such an approach would require construction of fewer towers.

65\. Another alternative for sharing spectrum more efficiently is the
effective use of trunking. We recognize that for many years certain
private land mobile and cellular systems have used trunking to increase
system capacity. We note, however, that the increase in spectrum
efficiency depends upon the number of channels trunked and the blocking
rate. For purposes of this analysis, we will assume that trunked systems
have a 2.7 efficiency advantage over non-trunked analog channels. In
addition, the trunking equipment available today permits users to
prioritize calls, a feature which would further increase spectrum
efficiency. We seek comment on whether strategic use of antenna designs
and trunking as a means of increasing spectrum capacity is feasible for
public safety operations. We ask commenters to discuss the extent to
which these and other similar technologies currently are being used by
public safety licensees. We also seek comment on the advantages and
disadvantages associated with these uses.

66\. The regulatory framework in which new technologies would be
implemented also must be considered. One regulatory approach would be to
require use of particular technologies by certain time periods. Another
approach would be to codify no specific technologies; and, thus, leave
the technology selection entirely to the users. We believe, as a general
matter, that allowing maximum flexibility in licensee selection of
equipment would be the best regulatory approach. We nonetheless
recognize that mandating a specific technology may be necessary in order
to promote an important regulatory goal, such as interoperability
between public safety agencies. We seek comment on the degree to which
our rules should specify particular technologies or capabilities. We
also ask commenters to discuss what regulatory goal, if any, would
warrant requiring use of particular technologies.

67\. Assuming that use of particular technologies is not mandated, we
seek comment on how our rules should be crafted to permit operational
flexibility while ensuring that particular elements, such as
interoperability, are present. We ask commenters to discuss alternative
regulatory approaches, including the operational factors (such as
locality, population or unique geographic features) which should be
considered in the regulatory approach we adopt. One alternative would be
to specify technologies for each authorized channel or bandwidth.
Another alternative would be to specify channel bandwidth and efficiency
standards and permit use of any technology satisfying such standards. An
advantage of this approach is that it allows a significant amount of
flexibility in the selection of technologies and spectrum used to
fulfill specific operational needs. In this connection, should we rely
on the expertise of certified frequency coordinators for tailoring
specific technologies to the needs of public safety agencies and the
communities which they serve? We ask commenters to discuss the amount of
discretion and responsibility afforded to frequency coordinators in this
context. We also seek comment on other means of providing public safety
agencies with the optimal amount of operational flexibility.

68\. In addition, we ask commenters to discuss whether the Commission
should specify technical standards for both receivers and transmitters.
Traditionally, the Commission has chosen only to specify emission
standards for transmitters on the premise that transmitters with
excessive emissions could interfere with other users of the spectrum. As
a result, licensees have had total discretion regarding the quality of
the receivers they use. NTIA notes that interference is actually a
function of transmitter and receiver performance and that spectrum
efficiency is enhanced whenever both are optimized. NTIA suggests that
adoption of receiver standards would facilitate sharing between users
and enhance performance. NTIA also states that the homogeneity of
systems practices within frequency bands not only would be desirable but
also would enhance the sharing potential. We seek comment on whether
receiver standards or overall system performance standards should be
adopted. Specifically, we ask commenters to discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of adopting such standards. In addition, assuming these
standards are adopted, we ask commenters to address what specific
standards would be appropriate and why.

D. Spectrum Allocation

1\. Overview of Spectrum Issues

69\. Due to historical, regulatory, and technological forces, the
spectrum now allocated to PSRS is highly fragmented. Consequently,
public safety licensees have experienced severe interoperability
problems, especially in connection with their operations during
emergencies and disasters. This fragmentation of spectrum also has
resulted in inefficient use of public safety spectrum and public safety
communications systems that are costly and cumbersome. Against this
backdrop, we request comment on ways to make more effective use of the
spectrum allocated to public safety services, as well as the spectrum
necessary to ensure that the current and future needs of the community
are met in a timely and cost-efficient manner.

70\. In determining spectrum requirements, several factors must be
considered. The service needs and technological developments are
discussed supra. We also have noted that the amount and location of the
required spectrum is directly related to the information transmitted,
the rate of transmission, the equipment utilized, the distances
involved, and the quality and dependability needed. Additional
information imposed on a radio signal increases the bandwidth of the
channel occupied by the transmitted signal. For example, one video
channel utilizing today\'s broadcast television transmission standards
occupies 6 MHz of spectrum. This same amount of spectrum could provide
480 channels (12.5 kHz each) for voice or data communications. The
location of the band within the radio spectrum is another important
factor. Mobile operations generally are feasible only on spectrum below
2.5 GHz, whereas fixed microwave operations are feasible at much higher
frequencies.

71\. Our goal in this proceeding is that public safety agencies have
adequate spectrum resources to ensure effective and reliable
communications. As NTIA has previously noted, however, the demand for
spectrum is usually not for spectrum per se but for increased capacity,
which ultimately translates into more spectrum if the same technology is
used. We note, however, that this may not be the result if users employ
different technologies. NTIA also has predicted that 50 MHz will be
required for new advanced private land mobile services \-- including
public safety uses \-- over the next ten years. We are aware that public
safety agencies have a wide range of existing and future needs. We seek
comment on the amount and type (e.g., VHF, UHF, or SHF bands) of
spectrum necessary to satisfy public safety spectrum needs for the next
fifteen years. Specifically, we ask commenters to identify the existing
and future spectrum needs of public safety agencies, including bandwidth
projections, spectrum placement recommendations, and any recommendations
for spectrum allocation plans (which identify current spectrum
assignments as well as recommendations for future allocations and a
timetable for implementation of new allocations). Commenters also should
specify amounts of spectrum necessary, the intended use of such
spectrum, why existing allocations cannot accommodate the intended use,
and any likely effects on other operations or entities of any particular
allocations proposed.

2\. Spectrum Allocation Options

72\. We recognize that there are a variety of regulatory approaches we
could use to address the problems of congested spectrum and fragmented
bands facing public safety agencies. These approaches include, but are
not limited to: (a) allocation of additional public safety spectrum; (b)
reallocation of spectrum currently assigned to Federal Government; (c)
requirement of system sharing; (d) use of spectrum-efficient systems;
(e) use of commercial wireless services; and (f) promotion of more
efficient use of the spectrum allocated for public safety use. We
request comment on the advantages and disadvantages associated with
these approaches, including the technical feasibility, economic
considerations, and impact on existing services. In addition, we ask
commenters to discuss any other means that could be used to increase the
capacity and capability of public safety communication systems. While we
recognize that the emergence of new technologies will create new
applications that could require additional spectrum, we also believe
that advanced technologies may help to alleviate some spectrum
congestion problems as well as increase capacity. We request commenters
to discuss the potential impact of new technologies on the spectrum
congestion and capacity problems now present in public safety
communications.

73\. Allocation of additional spectrum. Traditionally, the Commission
has addressed public safety agencies\' need for additional capacity by
allocating additional spectrum. One drawback of this approach is that
public safety spectrum is in different bands and, as a result,
interoperability can not be readily obtained. In addition, the
increasingly congested nature of spectrum below 1 GHz makes immediate
additional allocations very difficult. Thus, we tentatively conclude
that allocating additional public safety spectrum is not likely to
satisfy the current and emerging needs of public safety communications
systems. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We ask commenters
to discuss both the technical and administrative advantages and
disadvantages associated with adding to existing allocations,
particularly if these newly allocated frequencies are not contiguous to
existing public safety frequencies.

74\. Reallocation. In the spectrum designated for transfer to the
Commission, NTIA has identified nine frequency bands below 3 GHz having
the potential for new non-Federal mobile communications and
technologies, as well as other uses. We believe that some of these bands
may be suitable for public safety uses. The following chart describes
the current and future uses and scheduled availability of these
frequency bands.

FREQUENCY BAND

SCHEDULED AVAILABILITY

CURRENT AND FUTURE USES

1390-1400 MHz

1999

Federal operation at 14 sites will continue for 9 years.

1427-1432 MHz

1999

Federal operation at 14 sites will continue for 9 years.

1670-1675 MHz

1999

Non-Federal use of a limited number of sites could receive consideration
earlier.

1710-1755 MHz

2004

Under certain conditions, reallocation of the band in 1995 may be
possible for the 25 largest U.S. cities.

2300-2310 MHz

Prior to the transfer, the amateur service held secondary status to
government operations in this band. Although the Commission has not made
a primary allocation in this band, the amateur service continues to hold
secondary status.

2390-2400 MHz

Commission has allocated this band on a secondary basis for use by
unlicensed synchronous Data Personal Communications Services devices.

2400-2402 MHz

Principal users are industrial, scientific, and medical devices, the
amateur services, and unlicensed devices.

2402-2417 MHz

Commission has allocated this band on a primary basis to the amateur
services and to unlicensed devices and services

2417-2450 MHz

Principal users of this band are industrial, scientific, and medical
devices, the amateur services, and unlicensed devices.

75\. We also note that there are other bands which may be suitable for
public safety communications. For example, NTIA has proposed that public
safety spectrum needs for full motion video be satisfied by using
portions of the 4635-4685 MHz band. NTIA also has suggested that
portions of the VHF television band (174-216 MHz) that will possibly be
used for advanced television services be considered as potential
spectrum for land mobile uses. In addition, VHF channels presently
allocated for the Public Mobile Service may be lightly used or even
unused in some regions. We believe that this light use of frequencies
may result from the discontinuation of service by commercial providers
who are intended users of that spectrum. Also, there are other VHF
segments allocated for use by the Domestic Public Land Mobile Services,
including the 152.000-152.255 MHz, 152.495-152.855 MHz, and
157.755-158.155 MHz bands.

76\. Additionally, the 2110-2120 MHz band is presently allocated for
fixed and mobile use. We note that there are few incumbent users on
these frequencies. Thus, we believe that these incumbents could either
share spectrum with public safety agencies or be cleared at a relatively
low cost (e.g., \$25,000 per link or less). This band could support 800
simplex voice channels, or 400 repeater channels, or one television
channel and 160 simplex voice channels, or other combinations.

77\. Finally, in the International Telecommunication Union Region 2, the
335.4-399.9 MHz band is allocated for fixed and mobile stations. In the
United States, this band is currently limited to the military services.
It also is allocated on a primary basis to the mobile-satellite service,
limited to military operations. We understand that the 380-399.9 MHz
segment has been used by the North American Treaty Organization (NATO)
and that agreement between NATO/ARFA and the European Conference of
Postal and Telecommunications Administrations exists to allow certain
European countries to have access to the band for public safety
services. This low UHF segment, therefore, appears to be a good
candidate for reallocation for public safety uses. Its proximity to the
74 channels in the 450-470 MHz band that are currently available for
public safety communications may make this segment ideal for public
safety voice, data, and facsimile channels. We note, however, that these
frequencies are regulated by NTIA.

78\. We seek comment on the feasibility of using the spectrum identified
above either as additional spectrum or for reallocation of public safety
spectrum. Specifically, commenters should discuss: (a) how much spectrum
will be required for the various types of public safety agencies through
the year 2005, 2010, and 2015; (b) what are the highest, lowest, and
ideal frequency bands practicable for each type of public safety
operation; and (c) which of the frequencies currently allocated for
public safety communications are inappropriate for particular public
safety uses and why. We also ask commenters to discuss whether there are
other Federal bands that could or should be reallocated for public
safety communications.

79\. System sharing. Beyond implementation of advanced technologies,
there are sharing mechanisms whereby a particular frequency block can be
used by entities providing compatible services. Sharing may be
accomplished by geographic means, time of day, further band
segmentation, or other technical means. We request comment on the issues
involved in promoting greater sharing of public safety bands \-- for
both public safety agencies sharing with other public safety agencies
and public safety agencies sharing with other users. The latter will be
especially important if additional spectrum is eventually allocated to
public safety uses because incumbents will either have to share or move
to other frequency bands. We specifically request comment on technical
advances that may enhance sharing prospects.

80\. Spectrum-efficient systems. We also believe that spectrum-efficient
technologies and system designs will provide more users with access to
the public safety spectrum and encourage advanced applications to be
developed using existing spectrum resources. Congress\' embrace of this
premise is reflected in Section 104(d)(3)-(4) of the Telecommunications
Authorization Act of 1992, which requires the Secretary of Commerce,
through NTIA, to establish and implement a plan whereby Federal
Government mobile radio systems become more spectrum-efficient and
cost-effective. NTIA\'s and the Commission\'s \"refarming\" proceedings
promote more efficient use of existing private land mobile radio (PLMR)
spectrum allocations below 800 MHz. We request comment on additional
methods and technologies that could increase spectrum efficiency in
public safety communications. Specifically, what new technologies (e.g.,
CDMA,TDMA, FDMA, and ACSSB) could enhance efficiency, when will they be
available, and how significant would be the gains in efficiency?

81\. Options for efficient spectrum use. Notwithstanding the various
options described, supra, we believe that our promotion of more
efficient spectrum relief will provide an expeditious, but perhaps
limited, solution to the spectrum needs of public safety agencies. In
this connection, we seek comment on whether exclusivity or leasing of
excess public safety spectrum capacity would be a feasible means of
increasing efficiency in spectrum use. We also ask commenters to discuss
other ways in which the Commission can promote more efficient use of the
spectrum currently allocated for public safety wireless communications.

82\. Additionally, we direct specific comment to NTIA\'s proposal of a
unique regulatory option of Federal/non-Federal sharing designed to
enhance efficient spectrum use. NTIA relates that Federal, State, and
local land mobile radio systems are generally single channel analog FM
voice systems, owned and operated by single agencies to perform a single
well-defined mission. NTIA states that technology and the agency have
become entwined as part of a vertically-integrated radio communications
organization with little incentive to move to more efficient systems.
NTIA believes that this situation could be changed to provide public
safety entities with a set of incentives more likely to ensure that
public resources, both of public funds and spectrum itself, are directed
in more optimal manners.

83\. In this connection, NTIA previously has concluded that public
safety users should consider implementing shared Federal/non-Federal
multi-site trunked communications systems or wide-area systems using
cellular or personal communications services (PCS) technology for future
narrowband operations. NTIA suggests that such systems be viewed as an
alternative to allocating massive amounts of new spectrum. We note that
the implementation of multi-site trunked communications capability would
respond directly to the pressing demands for interoperability in public
safety communications. In a broader context, pursuit of NTIA\'s
suggestion, while potentially enhancing interoperability, would generate
a far-reaching change for Federal, State, and local public safety
agencies. In its March 1995 Report, NTIA notes the lack of an integrated
program for future spectrum sharing and argues that significant barriers
exist that impede frequency band sharing between Federal and non-Federal
users. In this connection, NTIA envisions that multi-site radio systems
shared among many different agencies, would replace the large number of
independent government radio systems that currently service Federal,
state, and local agencies. This recommendation is consistent with a
parallel proposal to modify the block allocation system to permit
additional flexibility and harness unused spectrum. According to NTIA,
the resulting greater technical flexibility would improve
manufacturers\' ability to develop the best standards for their products
to meet users needs.

84\. We believe that NTIA\'s proposal seeks to maintain independent
communications capability on the part of the user agencies, yet end the
fragmentation that has contributed to virtual non-existent
interoperability, stifled innovation, and confined competition. As a
result, we believe that, in theory, it would provide higher levels of
service and result in more efficient spectrum use. With the extreme
difficulties of obtaining public revenues for infrastructure costs, it
offers an opportunity for private participation in providing a wide
breadth of services. Moreover, it seeks to accommodate those agencies
with extensive requirements and expanding demands, as well as those not
located in highly congested areas and who do not seek the wide range of
services available.

85\. We seek comment on NTIA\'s recommendation, including how NTIA and
the Commission would administer this structure and what legislative
action would be necessary to bring about the creation of such systems.
Specifically, we seek comment on the range of elements, such as
equipment life cycles and financial incentives, that would create
sufficiently strong incentives for public safety agencies to
aggressively embrace such an initiative.

86\. Use of commercial wireless services. We believe that use of
commercial wireless services offers great promise in relief of spectrum
congestion and emergence of advanced services for public safety agencies
in a timely and cost-effective manner. We request comment on how the use
of commercial providers might affect the demand for exclusive or shared
public safety spectrum, including whether the effect will be uniform for
all public safety agencies and the impact on the amount of spectrum
necessary for specific public safety applications. In addition, we ask
commenters to discuss whether there are other tools which will increase
capacity while promoting interoperability.

E. Transition

87\. We believe that in order to address the deficiencies of public
safety communications, we must not only facilitate the development of
feature-rich, spectrally efficient communications systems but also
provide for a smooth transition from today\'s environment to public
safety communications employing advanced technologies. We further
believe that such a process will entail (1) greater use of commercial
services by public safety entities; (2) more efficient use of existing
spectrum; and (3) provision of additional spectrum for public safety
uses. We are mindful, however, that the process must provide sufficient
incentives and inducements for affected parties to be active
participants while not being overly ambitious and unrealistic. In this
connection, we believe that pursuit of any plan which focuses entirely
on substantial, new spectrum allocations for public safety uses would be
ill-advised given the current state of public safety communications. For
example, even if unlimited, clear spectrum were available for such an
allocation \-- and it is not \-- there is no evidence that the funding
necessary to support a migration of all existing public safety entities
to new frequencies is or will be readily available to public safety
agencies. Moreover, the regulatory proceedings necessary to accomplish
such spectrum allocations would take time, as well as the migration of
public safety and other users to new spectrum. Given these factors, we
tentatively conclude that a transition strategy that rests principally
on obtaining additional spectrum for public safety is unacceptable
because it effectively would ignore public safety agencies\' more
immediate spectrum needs. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion
and ask commenters to discuss the most reasonable plan for transition to
new technologies and services, including a transition timetable through
the year 2010, whether the transition would be different in urban and
rural areas, and whether there should be a date certain for the full
transition in the top markets.

88\. We believe that the underpinnings of an effective and reasonable
transition plan must recognize and account for the traditional
characteristics of the public safety community. First, public safety
activities are geared either solely or principally towards the
protection of life and property rather than commercial motives, such as
maximization of profits. Second, communications associated with the
performance of such activities often require service capabilities that
differ from those typically marketed to the general public (e.g.,
priority access, coverage, security). In fact, until relatively
recently, the number of commercial carriers capable of meeting public
safety entities\' specialized needs was arguably limited. Third, public
safety entities typically are publicly-funded, and thus face longer
planning and new system acquisition cycles than most large commercial
users. Public safety entities also must compete for operating and
capital funding with other entities responsible for other important
state and local government functions. We seek comment on whether and to
what extent these attributes continue to accurately characterize public
safety agencies. We also seek comment on other characteristics that are
relevant to our analysis, and how all such factors should affect our
strategic planning.

1\. Increased Use Of Commercial Services

89\. We believe that exploding public demand for spectrum for new
commercial uses makes it increasingly difficult to address public safety
communications needs as we have done in the past because the amount of
available additional spectrum will be limited. As a result, we
tentatively conclude that facilitating public safety agencies\' use of
commercial services, wherever feasible and possible, will necessarily be
a key component of our efforts to ensure that public safety agencies\'
spectrum needs are met.

90\. We also recognize, however, that public safety agencies have
constructed and operated stand-alone private wireless systems in the
past due, in part, to the lack of adequate commercial alternatives. As
mentioned supra, the number of commercial alternatives are increasing
rapidly. Moreover, the substantial spectrum allocations made by Congress
and this Commission during the 1990s for a variety of commercial uses
indicates the impending end of the era in which communications users,
including public safety agencies, could turn to only a handful of
service providers to meet their particular needs. Private companies are
investing in wide-area, highly sophisticated wireless communications
systems throughout the country, multiplying service options and lowering
prices for these services. These companies have strong economic
incentives to compete for new users, especially large users, and to
tailor service offerings to local conditions and needs. We note that
public safety entities often are among the largest telecommunications
users in their local communities. We also believe that our rules and
licensing procedures could be structured to provide public safety
agencies with additional incentives to move to commercial offerings. For
example, frequencies designated exclusively for public safety uses could
be restricted in terms of the types of uses permitted on such
frequencies. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion and
observations. We ask commenters to discuss the types of public safety
activities that could be performed using commercial systems with
sufficient reliability that lives or property would not be threatened.
We also solicit proposals for how to prioritize the communications
associated with these existing and emerging activities.

2\. Funding for Spectrum Migration

91\. As we have discussed supra, we believe that additional spectrum
allocations are likely to be a critical step in our efforts to address
the current deficiencies with public safety communications, but only one
aspect of a more comprehensive approach encompassing increased use of
sharing and spectrum-efficient technologies, wide use of commercial
services and allocation of additional spectrum. Assuming that migration
to newly allocated spectrum is based on the life cycle of present
equipment, we believe that the substantial financial requirements
inherent in such migration is a significant obstacle to its realization.
We further believe that the availability of resources to finance the
migration, including necessary new equipment, is tenuous at best because
public safety agencies\' ability to commit large initial sums of capital
investment are likely to be strained significantly.

92\. We seek comment on the degree to which the value of present public
safety spectrum can be used to underwrite public safety spectrum
consolidation. Under such an approach, as public safety users migrate
from existing systems, the vacant spectrum could be auctioned. The
auction proceeds then could be used to underwrite the migration of
incumbent public safety entities to new frequencies. With the important
caveat that statutory authority to use auction proceeds in this manner
would be required, we believe the value of present public safety
frequencies is a potentially important source of relocation funding. We
seek comment on the statutory amendments and associated regulatory
modifications that would be required to enable private sector demand for
additional spectrum to be used for this purpose. We also seek comment on
whether there are other methods of funding available for the transition.
Alternatively, auction winners could be required to pay the cost of
relocation of public safety incumbents, possibly with an auction price
discounted by the cost of relocation. We seek comment on this proposal
as well.

3\. Improving Public Safety Spectrum Administration

93\. We tentatively conclude that present spectrum allocation and
administration processes for public safety services are inefficient and
too lengthy. Currently, these processes require public safety entities
to predict future spectrum requirements, initiate equipment procurement
actions, obtain frequency coordination, file license applications, and
await processing of such applications. Public safety agencies often must
seek modification of the license grants or request waivers of the
Commission\'s rules in the wake of unforeseen emergencies. The
Commission\'s present authorization process requires a determination
that: (i) the applicant is eligible, (ii) the channels requested have
been properly coordinated, and (iii) the proposed system is in
conformance with applicable rules and regulations. Upon approval, the
information is added to the licensee data base and a license is granted
for a five-year term. We seek comment and suggestions on methods of
streamlining and improving these processes.

94\. We propose to require frequency coordination post-license grant for
public safety licensees rather than pre-license grant. Under this
proposal, we would grant to each eligible entity a license that is
subject to coordination. The frequency coordinator would be responsible
for maintaining an accurate data base accessible by the public. We
tentatively conclude that this would be an improvement upon our current
procedures because the licensing process will be streamlined. Thus,
public safety users will receive their authorizations more quickly. We
seek comment on this proposal and tentative conclusion. We ask
commenters to address what modifications to existing licensing processes
and regulations, including those relating to public safety frequency
coordination and the continuing need to coordinate border frequencies
with neighboring countries, would be required to implement this
proposal.

F. Competition in the Supply of Goods and Services

95\. We believe that another contributing factor to the deficiencies in
today\'s public safety communications is the lack of a vigorous
competitive market for the purchase of communications equipment and
services employed by public safety agencies. Subsequent to initial
procurement, competition is virtually non-existent; therefore,
maintenance, upgrades, and expansion are often limited to one provider.
Consequently, not only must agencies pay higher prices, but also
technological innovation and expanded product choice are inhibited.

96\. It is our understanding that the market for public safety land
mobile radio equipment is primarily confined to two suppliers, Motorola,
Inc. and Ericsson, Inc. Ericsson previously has noted that based on the
market shares of these two companies, the Herfindah-Hirschman Index
(HHI) for public safety land mobile radio equipment is estimated to be
over 5,700. The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission
Merger Guidelines promulgated in 1992, state that the degree of market
concentration is broadly characterized as unconcentrated when the HHI is
below 1,000, moderately concentrated when the HHI is between 1000 and
1800, and highly concentrated when the HHI is above 1800.

97\. We reiterate that the Commission\'s goal in this proceeding, as in
others, is to create a regulatory environment which fosters competition.
In the public safety context, we believe that competition will result
provided that we formulate policies which allow for a wide range of
services to be provided by both simple and complex technologies. We also
believe that competition will be present and thrive in those
circumstances where initial equipment purchase does not limit choice in
upgrade and expansion, innovation does not require an entirely new
system, and most importantly, manufacturers and service providers accept
the competitive environment. As a result, we tentatively conclude that
any rules adopted in this proceeding should be technology-neutral. We
seek comment on this tentative conclusion, and on whether adherence to
such a position is mutually exclusive with consideration of the
alternative of a single set of protocols or standards to foster, for
instance, interoperability in public safety communications. We also ask
commenters to address what measures, if any, must be taken in order to
ensure that our rules do not favor use of a particular technology over
another.

98\. We recognize that similar goals have been established for the
Association of Public Safety Communications Officers (APCO) Project 25.
Commenced in 1989, Project 25 seeks to increase radio spectrum
efficiency, enhance competition in the public safety equipment and
services market, and provide interoperability capability. Project 25
evolved from the Commission\'s 1989 decision not to adopt protocol
standards for communications equipment operating in the 800 MHz public
safety bands that foster spectrum efficiencies and interoperability in
GEN Docket. No. 88-441. APCO completed Project 25\'s first phase in
August 1995, which set protocol standards.

99\. We note that the record in Gen. Docket No. 88-441 concerning
adopting protocols for the 800 MHz public safety bands reflects several
positions. It was argued that any standard would be a product of
compromise, not creativity. Additionally, it was asserted that the lead
time to comply with the standards would divert effort away from
innovation, and that the technical improvements that evolved could not
be implemented without agreement to change the standard. It was asserted
that protocol standards would stifle future advanced telecommunications
systems in providing a higher form of interoperability, enhanced
competition, and the spectrum efficiencies needed to handle future
increased communications requirements.

100\. In addition, Ericsson raises competitive and other concerns
regarding Project 25. It believes that Project 25 will further restrict
competition in a market already concentrated, not contribute to spectrum
efficiency, and not move public safety communications closer to
interoperability. The Commission seeks comments on Project 25 that
addresses its goals and objectives, the status of these efforts, and the
issues raised by Ericsson.

101\. Beyond the efforts by APCO and others, we believe that it is our
responsibility to examine how best to enhance competition in the public
safety communications market, bring about interoperability, greater
spectrum efficiency, and overall, more effective communications. In our
1989 decision, we noted the drawbacks to standard setting in face of
projections of technical advances that would produce spectrum efficiency
and interoperability and our preference for allowing these forces to
evolve. We ask commenters to discuss how we can foster a more
competitive environment for the supply of goods and services related to
public safety communications while encouraging greater efficiency and
innovation.

V. CONCLUSION

102\. Throughout this Notice, we have emphasized two primary issues. The
first issue is the critical nature of public safety responsibilities to
the Nation\'s well being and the role of modern wireless communications
in ensuring that these duties are fulfilled effectively. The second
issue is that the fragmented nature of present public safety wireless
communications has a detrimental impact on present and future
capabilities. We believe that bringing about improved quality and
tangible access to expanded services is dependent largely on public
safety operating in a wider and more consistent environment. This
proceeding seeks to broaden the opportunity for public safety agencies
to obtain access to the benefits that accrue from the increased
competition and innovation that has emerged in telecommunications
generally while maintaining the independence, reliability, universal
service and security that are integral to public safety. We believe that
a regulatory structure can emerge that is more efficient, commits more
discretion to users, and facilitates access to a much broader range of
services.

VI\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

103\. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the proposals
suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A. Written
public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed
in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of
the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, but they must have a separate and
distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The
Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making,
including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.
§ 601 et seq. (1981).

B. Ex Parte Rules \-- Non-Restricted Proceeding

104\. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rule making
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the
Commission\'s rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, and
1.1206(a).

C. Comment Dates

105\. Pursuant to the applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419,
interested persons may file comments on or before September 20, 1996,
and reply comments on or before October 18, 1996. To file formally in
this proceeding, you must file an original and four copies of all
comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each
Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you should
file an original and nine copies. You should send your comments and
reply comments to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
Reference Center of the Federal Communications Commission, Room 239,
1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

E. Ordering Clause

106\. Authority for issuance of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is
contained in Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and 303(r).

F. Contact Person

107\. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Robert
McNamara at (202) 418-0680 (Private Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau).

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William F. Caton

Acting Secretary